Hi Klaus,
With dnssec-policy you can specify the salt length, not a specific salt.
You can still use dnssec-signzone -3 to manually set a salt.
Best regards,
Matthijs
On 9/30/24 22:38, Klaus Darilion via bind-users wrote:
Hello!
With "auto-dnssec maintain;" I was used to specify the NSEC3 s
Please scratch the below line previous post.
Upon detail look, they have Multi-Master support, but not with
DNSSEC support.
On 9/30/24 4:00 PM, Terik Erik Ashfolk wrote:
I think i've seen another project Seen few other project also doing
similar
--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listin
Hi Mark. THANK YOU.
sorry for delayed response.
I understood some of your response better after Matthijs also
mentioned your mail-post.
I need to look into DNSSEC activity flow again, i'm sure there are
changes since my last works on these, 5 years back.
Main domain is "example.com"
┌
Hi Matthijs. THANK YOU.
This "MUSIC" tool is indeed appears to be most suitable assisting
addon tool for BIND to support MULTI-SIGNER MODEL-2 (aka MULTI
MASTER/PRIMAR)Y DNS NAME SERVER, at this moment.
I think i've seen another project Seen few other project also doing
similar
I regret, i d
Hi Matthew. THANKS.
For HA (High-Availability), my 3 providers/nameservers will always
stay online.
you are right, i'm applying high change rate in zone.
Ofcourse, now i dont have many users.
Project is in early/development stage.
But, project is geared to have many users, thus why i mentioned
Hello!
With "auto-dnssec maintain;" I was used to specify the NSEC3 salt with 'rndc
signing -nsec3param'. Today I used the "dnssec-policy" and I failed to specify
the salt manually. Are there any tricks/workarounds to manually specify the
NSEC3 salt?
I know that actually the salt should be "-"
I've noticed TreeMemTotal seems to be ever-increasing, while TreeMemMax and
HeapMemMax remain at 0. I didn't find any related fixes in the newer versions
of 9.18, 9.20, or 9.21.
Just started keeping track of stats via the JSON API. Running BIND 9.18.28 on
Ubuntu 22.04.
HeapMemTotal and HeapMem
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 11:13 AM Terik Erik Ashfolk
wrote:
>
> But 1024 or 2048 bit RSA key-pairs are considered weak.
>
Those are considered weak for _encryption_ because of the risk of future
decryption of secrets. The window for someone to brute force your keys and
fake signatures with a lim
8 matches
Mail list logo