[CentOS] Bind Firewall Rules

Robert Moskowitz rgm at htt-consult.com
Thu Jul 24 15:33:56 UTC 2008

Bill Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008, Lanny Marcus wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:27 PM, John Hinton <webmaster at ew3d.com> wrote:
>>> OK, so does anybody have a good firewall rule solution for what we're
>>> supposed to be doing with bind these days? Obviously port 53 is no longer
>>> enough.
>> Consider  using djbdns instead of BIND. It sounds like an excellent alternative
>> to BIND.
> We have been using djbdns for years on a variety of Linux platforms and
> FreeBSD, largely because (a) security, (b) performance, and (c) ease of
> use.  Not everybody likes Dan Bernstein, but I figure he's somewhat of a
> curmudgeon who designs good software.
I know Dan personally, and think I was there during some of the big 
blowups (well the ones I was there for were big...). He definitely 
had/has a problem with 'the in crowd', and decided to put his money 
where his mouth was. I think most have benefited from this. Including 
the 'in crowd'.

But I also know Vixie etal quite well and I stay with BIND.

Each to their own machinzations, IMNSHO.
> As for not having it supported on CentOS, I really don't care about that as
> the majority of the server software we use is built under the OpenPKG.org
> portable packaging system, independent of the underlying OS vendor's
> packaging system.
> Bill

More information about the CentOS mailing list