![Security Security](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/security_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![IT IT](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/it_64.png)
DNS Cache Poisoning Update 199
dhammabum writes "Todays SANS internet storm handler has put up an excellent update of the DNS poisoning vulnerability currently doing the rounds. The main points are that only Windows DNS servers are vulnerable (degrees of vulnerability depending on patch level), provided you are not running an ancient version of bind. Also bind4 and bind8 do not clean poisoned caches if they receive them from a poisoned Windows DNS server but bind9 does."
Informative Links: (Score:5, Informative)
In the interest of promoting discussion, there is a good definition of DNS poisoning here [wikipedia.org], and a longer explanation/rant regarding DNS poisoning here [cr.yp.to].
Re:Informative Links: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2, Informative)
djbdns is, and always has been, immune to cache poisoning.
It is also simpler, much easier to use and maintain, and so much more reliable than BIND or Windows DNS. It also has never had a buffer overflow or other security problem.
If you're running another DNS package, and *especially* BIND, go to the nearest mirror and ask yourself "Why am I putting my users at risk? Why am I using
Re:Informative Links: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Informative Links: (Score:5, Informative)
build-djbdns
dnscache-conf-fhs nobody nobody
ln -s
Granted, not super-simple, but certainly not hard.
Re:Informative Links: (Score:3, Interesting)
built-djbdns? Oh, that's right - it's not Free Software so Debian can't package it.
Something about configuring DNS. Maybe to run as "nobody", I presume. I guess we're setting up a cache directory in /etc? Something or another about localhost.
/var/what?
I'm not trying to slag on you, but those aren't exa
Re:Informative Links: (Score:4, Interesting)
That seems fairly reasonable. I don't think you're really protected from poisoning, unless "poisoning" only applies to certain kinds of DNS spoofing. Specifically, first note the exceptions to the djbdns security guarantee (emphasis mine):
Specifically, his forgery page points out that a spoofing attack based on the birthday paradox can still work... although probably tens of millions of packets are required. This page [securityfocus.com], which I think I got off slashdot before, uses the TCP sequence-number guessing tools to try to attack it. It's probably not quite as secure as djb estimates, but probably still in the millions. They don't seem to have actually run numbers for the randomized-port plus randomized-id, so it's unclear whether they actually attacked that thoroughly.
Re:Informative Links: (Score:5, Informative)
And I'm sorry, but bind9 isn't that complicated. I found djbdns to be much clunkier and difficult to set up. Like all of DJB's software, it relies on retarded configuration files and bizarre notation.
Don't get me wrong here; I'm a qmail admin myself and I love it, but I dislike it when people talk about his software like it was written by Moses and God and given to mankind for all of eternity. It may be pretty stable and secure, but it lacks common usability and many features of other, traditional DNS software.
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2)
Umm, no he doesn't always turn out to be right. My immediate experience with his stuff is daemontools. Nice package in a lot of ways, but the toolset forces far too many default choices that deviate away from common practice.
I found two big hangups that pushed me away from daemontools and over to start-stop-daemon. The first was that assigning logfiles by default deep within the daemontools subdirectory instead o
Re:Informative Links: (Score:5, Insightful)
so much more reliable than BIND
I have never, not once, ever had BIND fail. I doubt I'm the best DNS admin anywhere, so I imagine it works well for a lot of other people as well.
Why am I putting my users at risk?
Because my secondary DNS servers, provided by my registrar, are out of my control. I can't install rsync on them to support the functionality that Dan left out of djbdns.
If you're a DNS admin, don't waste your time with bugs from the 1990's.
I'll agree with that. Upgrade to the most recent version of BIND and get on with life. OpenBSD's support of that policy is a pretty strong endorsement.
Re:Informative Links: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a HUGE difference between BitKeeper and DJB's copyrighted software. DJB's software is distributed as source code without any "license". This means that you will always have the option of using, modifying and distributing patches for any released version. He can't suddenly take t
Re:Informative Links: (Score:4, Informative)
Which also means that you can't distribute anything but patches even if you wanted to. Forget about making it part of an OS base distribution, or using any his the proclaimed "better" code to improve any other projects. Basically, it's a proprietary product that happens to ship with source.
Put another way, I could theoretically provide instructions for replacing Windows' HTML renderer with Gecko, but that doesn't mean that it's a Free (or even Open Source) system.
I understand your point, truly, but I just don't agree with it.
djbdns includes an AXFR server.
That doesn't do much for those who need IXFR.
Re:Informative Links: (Score:4, Insightful)
Two words: dynamic DNS.
There are a lot of little single-entry updates to some of our zones, and IXFR transmits only the changed entries to the slaves.
How come your zone files are so big, and how come you network is too slow to transfer entire zone files?
Reverse that: even though our zone files aren't terribly big, why would we want to transfer the whole thing each time? It's the difference between sending a patch file instead source tarball for every update. Isn't efficiency supposed to be a good thing, even when it's not absolutely necessary?
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2)
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2)
Terrible. Since the root nameservers don't answer recursive queries, you wouldn't be able to resolve anything.
Examples:
Note that in eac
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2)
This is absolutely correct, slashdot got this one wrong, DJBDNS has always been very secure, Windows NT DNS was insecure until SP4 went out and then they made the mistake of not making the security checks on by default.
A major security flaw was found in BIND as recently as 2002, if you are still using BIND 8.4.3 you are at risk and nee
Re:Informative Links: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this a poor implementation of the DNS spec, or is the DNS spec itself to blame for allowing such "poisoning" to occur?
In my experience, software issues occur for one of two reasons:
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2)
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2, Informative)
Or, do you mean that I send on some information like "I want foo.com and I once got it at 1.2.3.4 - is this right?" and the DNS responds with "well, I think 1.2.3.
Re:Informative Links: (Score:3, Informative)
If a DNS server returns a CNAME reco
Re:Informative Links: (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) "Broken" code:.....
(2) Bad communication / misuse of code:....
You left one out:
(0) Bad Design: The code does everything you intended it to do and the users are using it properly, but you didn't think of all the possible states in which the code could find itself and decide what to do about them.
This is often lumped in with (1), but shouldn't be IMHO. It's one reason I think that comments in code are valuable (as are formal design documents) since it forces the person, or people doing the design and coding to restate their intentions in at least a couple of different ways.
I have written and worked with well written specs and they tend to reduce the number of pure coding errors by leaving less to the imagination of the coder. Well written specs can still fail to account for all possibilities however and that's a good reason to have meaningful design discussions (rather than the formally mandated ones that people attend these days in body but not mind).
There are many people today who think of themselves as ace coders. The world would do well to have more people who are design experts who don't practice coding at all. The two disciplines complement one another well.
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2, Informative)
CC.
Re:Informative Links: (Score:4, Informative)
To sum up...
DNS Cache Poisoning: DNS Cache Poisoning is the process by which a DNS Server's cache is poisoned.
I'm not trying to flame. Are there more in depth explanations? Don't worry, I'm not planning on writing a DNS poison worm.
Crude and quite possibly befuddled answer (Score:2)
DJB makes a big point in his documentation for djbdns about this. I get the impression that
Re:Crude and quite possibly befuddled answer (Score:2)
Re:Crude and quite possibly befuddled answer (Score:2)
For example, I'd tell my DNS (correctly) that I'm suchandsuch.com. Then I'd lie to it and tell it that I'm also mandriva.com (Like anyone would use a stupid name like that). I'd then go to another machine on the internet and ask for something to resolve to suchandsuch.com, maybe emailing or http. When that machine looks up suchandsuch.com, apparently it'll see my devious lies about ma
Re:Crude and quite possibly befuddled answer (Score:2)
Let's say I'm pimping the Robomatic 3000 Orgasmatron. I own lameproducts.com and have an authoritative DNS server running for that domain. I can add an entry in my DNS config that says shopping.yahoo.com is really the IP address for lameproducts.com.
What I'm trying to understand is, how does luser@aohell.com pick up the poisoned entry for shopping.yahoo.com. How would lameproducts.com get into a user's DNS chain? To put it another way,
Re:Crude and quite possibly befuddled answer (Score:2)
It's all very muddy (Score:2)
But maybe that's why Windows and old BIND sites are susceptible. Maybe it ws
Re:It's all very muddy (Score:2, Informative)
what would it take to get aohell.com to ask lameproducts.com who shopping.yahoo.com is, and why would aohell.com even trust some unrelated site in the first place so that it could be tricked into asking?
The client *doesn't* ask the lameproducts.com DNS server about shopping.yahoo.com, it asks about something in the lameproducts.com domain (typically, prompted by an image embedded in an HTML email). The lameproducts.com DNS server sends back the answer about the request for the system in the lameproducts
Re:It's all very muddy (Score:2)
luser has an un-patched DNS server at aohell.com. luser clicks some stupid spam mail which brings it to lameproducts.com. The DNS server at lameproducts.com gives a response which says, "Here is the IP address for lameproducts.com (authoratative). BTW, I am also known as shopping.yahoo.com (non-authoratative)." When luser then decides to see if shopping.yahoo.com has a better price on the Robomatic 3000 Orgasmatron, the un-patched DNS serve
At least I'm consistent (Score:2)
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2)
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2)
The funny thing about worms, viruses, etc. is that they don't have to be perfect and the measure of success is all in the eye of the beholder.
Also, most variants of viruses are just simple text changes performed by some poser who knows how to work a hex editor. Which reminds me of my early days with 'puters... It was a PDP
Simple explanation (Score:5, Informative)
When you want to lookup a site, you send a request to your DNS server, which then does the lookup and returns the results to you.
Say you need to know the address to www.yahoo.com. You ask the DNS server for it. It doesn't know, so it looks at what it does know. In the simplest case, it knows the address of the DNS server for *.com, so it asks him. He replies that he doesn't know either, but that he knows *.yahoo.com's DNS records are stored at x.x.x.x. So your DNS server goes and asks x.x.x.x. He does know where www.yahoo.com is, tells your DNS server, who then sends you back the address.
Typically, a DNS Server is running for a lot of users at once, so it improves speed by caching the results of these queries. So if you asked for www.yahoo.com again, your DNS server looks in the cache, finds that www.yahoo.com is in there, and gives you the answer right away. No need to look it up, time saved all around.
DNS Cache Poisoning is where an attacker tricks a DNS Server into caching incorrect information. This can happen by having a rogue server setup somewhere. So say the nameserver for www.badguy.com has records that say his name is also www.yahoo.com. When you lookup www.badguy.com, and get to that point, badguy.com says "hey, this is my address, and here's some other names that I'm known by: www.yahoo.com". Your DNS Server then stores all that info in his cache. Later you lookup www.yahoo.com and get back the address for www.badguy.com instead.
That's a slightly oversimplified way to explain it, but that's the gist of it. Somebody can trick your DNS server into giving back bad info. This is a critical security issue, because say they poison your cache and fool you into connecting to their server instead of, say, your bank's. They then give you a web page that looks just like your bank's does, you login as normal, and suddenly they have all your cash.
Many DNS servers are immune to this. How is simple: They don't cache stuff when badguy.com says he's also yahoo.com. They always go ask who yahoo.com is and only cache that more trustworthy answer.
However, the DNS system is setup as a hierarchy. Your DNS Server may not talk to root servers all the time, he might route all his queries through another, bigger DNS server. One of the bugs discovered here is that even if your DNS server is not vulnerable, the one just upstream of it might be, and that can propagate down to yours.
So there you go.
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2, Insightful)
To give the explanation of DNS poisoning in a slightly different way (based on what I know of BIND, DNS and from the SANS pages from earlier)....
I'll assume everyone's up on how a cache works. DNS poisoning is possible on DNS caches which aren't suitably paranoid about how data gets into the cache.
Basically, a server that is trying to poison a cache sends additional records with its answer, and those records are unrelated to the question.
So, you ask "What is the address of bogusserver.badguy.com?".
Re:Informative Links: (Score:2)
Well, what's worse is when you have the badguy.com nameserver respond:
and then in the additional records, you inform them that:
Now, the additional A record is not exactly unexpected, it's letting you know where that nameserver can be found - otherwise, you might have to keep chasing it around through multiple levels of queries, or even get into a loop which can't be resolved. However, the real problem is that a.gtld-servers.net is one
hooooly sweet crap! (Score:1)
(djbdns being the software written by the author of the "rant" above.)
Now if only MS were so generous. ^_^
Re:hooooly sweet crap! (Score:2)
Same article, 2010. (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, water is wet.
Re:Same article, 2010. (Score:2)
Holy S*** Dude! You should warn people of possibly harmful humor. My chest still hurts from laughing.
Re:Same article, 2010. (Score:3, Funny)
Holy shit, I think my head just exploded.
Update on the Update (Score:5, Informative)
Ironically, that same update describes Comcast's nationwide problems that started last night (US Time) and says it was caused by an equipment upgrade and not related to the DNS Cache poisoning. BUT, the problem was not network connectivity, but the DHCP's DNS Servers became unavailable. Read more at DSLReports [dslreports.com] and (from first hand experience), the work-around was fairly easy which was to manually specify the DNS server, rather than use the DHCP'd one. Comcast says [comcast.net] it was resolved about two hours ago - scroll down to the bottom of the page.
Re:Update on the Update (Score:2)
I saw DNS failures clicking on an apple.slashdot.org link yesterday evening. It too me all of 2 minutes to switch my local dhcp-provided dns information over to an already-running djbdns dnscache sitting on my fileserver. I just recently switched away from using dnscache, hoping to simplify the home network, of course, as soon as I do it, my ISP hoses their DNS.
Re:Update on the Update (Score:2)
I can't find a ton of easily accessible information on the sf site. Does it only run on x86?
I use a WRT54GS for a firewall/router (lower power consumption). From the looks of things this does not run on that hardware?
Thanks.
Comcast hides constantly (Score:2)
Re:crapcast (Score:2)
Didn't know their DNS servers were so centralized.
Unfortunately Comcast is the only cable provider in town, and I had already become dissatisfied with local DSL offerings.
Wow! (Score:1, Funny)
Who knew? Truly, "stuff that matters".
How did I KNOW??!! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:How did I KNOW??!! (Score:1, Funny)
Windows doesn't have root, it has "Administrator". Therefore, Windows was at the Administrator of the whole thing.
Re:How did I KNOW??!! (Score:2)
dnsmasq is vulnerable too (Score:5, Informative)
Y'know, people keep telling me (Score:5, Insightful)
Or then telling me, when they find out I don't use it, that I've somehow forfeited the right to complain about it anymore; or trying to hold Microsoft blameless for their security holes because the people who run Microsoft software do so by "choice" so its the users own fault, and they are just hurting themselves.
But then I keep finding that despite not using Microsoft software, I get negatively impacted by it anyway. Because the Code Red slaves on the network are bombarding me with a constant light DOS looking for that index server or whatever. Because I get bombarded with email viruses and spam from zombie PCs which, while harmless to me, make my email account less useful. Because my DNS server is running Windows.
Lovely.
So, look at this. I am being materially negatively impacted by a company whose products I don't even buy. How, exactly, is the invisible hand of the market going to help with this?
Re:Y'know, people keep telling me (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to use a visible hand to get the invisible hand to work. Put together and win a class action suit, cost them lots of money. Then the price of Windows will go up, and fewer people will use it.
Get off the network (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Y'know, people keep telling me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Y'know, people keep telling me (Score:2, Funny)
Actually I am:
- Uptime for myrouter.home.ericzeller.com -
Now : 91 day(s), 13:18:11 running Linux 2.2.19pre13
One : 413 day(s), 06:14:44 running Linux 2.2.19pre13, ended Wed Jan 5 21:32:40 2005
Two : 377 day(s), 00:26:56 running Linux 2.2.19pre13, ended Sat Dec 14 13:26:46 2002
Three: 117 day(s), 04:39:46 running Linux 2.2.19pre13, ended Thu Oct 2 17:42:38 2003
Re:Y'know, people keep telling me (Score:4, Insightful)
The invisible hand of the market has never been any good at managing companies who damage their environment, wether it be pollution, overfishing, or zombie PCs spewing out packets. That's why we balance capitalism with rules and regulations.
Re:Y'know, people keep telling me (Score:2)
Used to. Now the rules and regs are used to help the greedy capitalists.
Re:Y'know, people keep telling me (Score:2)
Comcast Issues? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Comcast Issues? (Score:2)
Last night I was able to browse perfectly fine to all the sites in the server's cache, but I couldn't resolve new sites until I added a non-comcast DNS server to my server's resolv.conf file.
Thank god DNS is as open as it is, I just added a uri.edu DNS server from some old documentation from an old job and things started workin
Re:Comcast Issues? (Score:2)
Last night... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Last night... (Score:1)
Silver lining (Score:2)
It was like being on a ten lane freeway all by myself - everything was fast!
Only question now is does Comcast fire their CTO who recommended using Windows-based servers or do we get to see a repeat meltdown somewhere down the road?
Re:Silver lining (Score:2)
Re:Last night... (Score:2)
Comcast DNS issues coincidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the Internet storm-in-a-teacup dept... (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
"On Windows 2000 SP3 and above, the DNS server DOES protect against DNS cache pollution by default. The registry key to protect against the poisoning is not necessary: the value is TRUE if the registry key does not exist"
In other words, many or most 2000 installations should be secure against pollution if their admins posess the slightest clue.
"Windows DNS --> forwarding to BIND4 or BIND8. Windows DNS server assumes that BIND scrubs out the poisoning attempt. BIND4 and BIND8 do NOT appear to scrub the attack. Windows DNS trusts the data and the Windows DNS cache will become poisoned."
So much for "only affects MS servers" although the article does mention, and plays down ("ancient versions") the bind4/8 vulnerabilities.
I'm left wondering how many admins have their dns servers in forwarding mode, and how many of those are forwarding to bind4/8 servers? Very few, I'd think.
It's important to note, from what I've understood of it so far, that this exploit only affects the "MS server forwarding it's requests to a bind4/8 server" scenario which I would think, would be a pretty negligible number of DNS servers?!
Another interesting thing that caught my eye, was "On Windows 2000, you should manage the DNS cache protection security setting through the DNS Management Console. On Windows 2000 below SP3, the "Secure cache against pollution" is not the default so you should enable it using the DNS Management Console.
An admin who didn't already do this is dumb beyond belief, hardly a MS problem! Blaming it on MS is akin to blaming Ford if you forget to lock the door on your car. If you're a DNS admin and didn't think to check your configuration for this very old vulnerability it's time you hung up your admin hat!
For the record, I'm no more a fan of Windows than I am of *nix - but how much you wanna bet this post'll raise 80% MS bashing comments, 10% "funny" comments, and maybe 10% useful DNS Admin comments?
Re:From the Internet storm-in-a-teacup dept... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, It'd be like blaming Ford if they sold all cars without oil in them and had, on page 545 of the 2000 page manual, directions to add oil before use.
Sure, they tell you and it is documented, but you shouldn't have the server install insecurely by default. The default should be secure, and then you need to enable the services you need. Less user friendly, more secure - that is why it isn't adopted by MS. They made a conscious decision to make it insecure (but easier to use). That is why MS bashing is justified.
Re:From the Internet storm-in-a-teacup dept... (Score:2, Informative)
WRT DNS poisoning, Windows DNS servers have been secure by default since Windows 2000 SP3. The only vulnerability exists if they are getting already poisoned data from a vulnerable server (BIND4/8) used as a forwarder.
Re:From the Internet storm-in-a-teacup dept... (Score:2)
So, for all MS OSs prior to 2000 SP3, do you think they were secure? Do you think that 2000 SP3 would have been secured if people hadn't complained loudly and often?
Re:From the Internet storm-in-a-teacup dept... (Score:1)
Think again.
You don't seem to be understanding the terminology. It isn't talking about situations where MS DNS will "forward to" BIND4/8. You receive DNS information from a "forward". Many/most ISPs run BIND and
Re:From the Internet storm-in-a-teacup dept... (Score:2)
More at fault though is the total parnoia about back-compatability that seems to actually be hurting everybody, Windows
Re:From the Internet storm-in-a-teacup dept... (Score:2)
It sounds like bind9 removes the data that can poison Windows DNS, yet bind8 and earlier will pass it through. I don't understand why these earlier ones pass the data yet don't get "poisoned" themselves, but I really don't know how DNS works.
In any case I stand by my original statement that a network of only older Windows machines would be vulnerable, and
Re:From the Internet storm-in-a-teacup dept... (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, no clue needed. Win2k DNS server has since SP3 made this the default setting. Win2003 DNS server also makes this the default setting.
So, zero action is required by Windows DNS admins, unless for some reason they are running Win2k pre-SP3, or NT4. Even with these older versions of the OS, a single setting change secures the box from DNS poisoning.
Re:From the Internet storm-in-a-teacup dept... (Score:2)
So, zero action is required by Windows DNS admins, unless for some reason they are running Win2k pre-SP3, or NT4. Even with these older versions of the OS, a single setting change secures the box from DNS poisoning.
Except, as has been pointed out in TFA [sans.org], when you forward to another DNS server. In that case, Windows ignores your security settings and believes everything it hears from the server it's forwarding to. BIND 4 and 8 pass poisoned entries to servers that forward to them. Since Windows ignores
Re:From the Internet storm-in-a-teacup dept... (Score:2)
In other words, many or most 2000 installations should be secure against pollution if their admins posess the slightest clue.
You've forgotten an important point, here. Windows DNS servers implicitly trust any servers they forward to, regardless of the "secure cache from pollution" setting. That's not good. Also, until this little brouhaha got enough attention from ISC, MS's KB articles were inaccurate and misleading.
You're also wrong about BIND. BIND 4/8 aren't vulnerable to DNS cache poisoning. Th
Comcast, last night all DNS servers down (Score:1, Funny)
1: Netstat hung process
2: Mail hung
3: Finder reboot wouldn't load menu bar
Nothing worked until I actually changed my network settings, then everything cleared up. I jumped on my 56k and chatted with Comcast after waiting almost a hour.
I simply said "What happened, something big?"
Comcast: "Yes we know, all our DNS servers are down"
http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/ [mac.com]
Re:Comcast, last night all DNS servers down (Score:3, Interesting)
It has a habit of just shitting out every time my dhcp lease expires, rather than refreshing it and moving on with life, so I figured that was it, or perhaps dnsmasq (which I use to proxy for my lan) got fubared.
Eventually I just plugged my cablemodem into a windows box, since they "just work" without fighting a bunch of resolv.conf or
Re:Comcast, last night all DNS servers down (Score:3)
There is no such thing as a "good upstream DNS server". There are authoritative DNS servers and there are DNS caches (also called resolvers). The root DNS servers are authoritative only. You cannot use them to resolve DNS queries.
If you want to resolve queries you need to run a DNS cache, use your ISP's, or use one somewhere else that someone left open. Run
Re:Comcast, last night all DNS servers down (Score:2, Interesting)
True, but some are more "reliable" than others.
If you want to resolve queries you need to run a DNS cache, use your ISP's,
First part, yes. Second part, don't rely on your ISP alone, specially if he's giving you a DNS address via DHCP. At the first sign of shit, hardwire a more reliable one.
Re:Comcast, last night all DNS servers down (Score:2)
DNS poisoning? (Score:3, Funny)
What DNS poisoning?
Isn't this www.NerdsMeetingExcitingGirlsOnLine.org?
link with explanations (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.securityfocus.com/guest/17905 [securityfocus.com]
Additional Bind 9 security (Score:3, Informative)
Bind 4? (Score:2)
Re:Bind 4? (Score:2)
Windows is insecure by default. Also that option isn't obvious at all.
There are other reasons I won't use Windows DNS but this doesn't help...
DJB is laughing this up I'm sure (Score:2)
When will the world learn to stop using BIND?
Because of the Word from Upstairs. (Score:2)
Re:DJB is laughing this up I'm sure (Score:2)
When there is a better GPL replacement.
Windows... let's lock 'em out. (Score:2)
Djbdns - immune to DNS cache poisoning (Score:2, Informative)
Previous /. THREAD [slashdot.org]
Djbdns [cr.yp.to] site with a ton of good information
I like it.
bo
Is this affecting anyone's hardware routers?? (Score:2)
I have both a Charter cable modem and SBC DSL coming into my house, and the Hotbrick load-balances both connections and shares them to my PCs.
I started encountering an odd problem the other night where it seemed like after I initiated a file download, subsequent
what is a daypass then? (Score:1)
Re:What does this mean for EPCglobal? (Score:2)
You mean objects are falling down realistically and occasionally get stuck in the walls?
Re:You can.. (Score:2)
edit