Hi Austin, Bind and mail are new to me. I can do the LAMP part. I've looked at webmin and would like to stay away from it. I think webmin is a great resource, however I really want to do this from the command line. Between the docs, Google, YouTube, and you guys so graciously helping me, I should be able to learn this at the command line. Thank! Keith On 2014-12-08 12:09, JD Austin wrote: > If all of this is new to you install webmin (but don't allow it > outside of your firewall):http://www.webmin.com/ [1] > > -- JD Austin > Voice: 480.269.4335 (480 2MY Geek) > jd@twingeckos.com > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Keith Smith > wrote: > >> Sorry guys.  I should have given more info. >> >> I'm a LAMP developer.  I am increasingly doing more sys admin >> stuff.  I home office.  I have a Cox business account that allows >> me to run a server.  I bought a Dell i5 / 8GB RAM for this >> project.  I have never configured BIND or any email server. It is >> my goal to do so.  One LAMP+Dind+Mail server in my home office. >> >> I installed CentOS 7 on the Dell and am hoping to use this project >> to learn how to mange a server from top to bottom. I have no problem >> configuring a LAMP server.  It is Bind and >> Postfix+Dovecott+Spamassassin+MySql that I need help with. >> >> I figure by running my own server I will learn a lot and round out >> my skills. >> >> So that is my project...... >> >> Thank you so much for your help!!  I'm sure I will have lots of >> questions along the way. >> >> Keith >> >> On 2014-12-08 10:40, der.hans wrote: >> >> Am 08. Dez, 2014 schwätzte Michael Butash so: >> >> moin moin, >> >> On 12/07/2014 10:42 PM, der.hans wrote: >> Am 07. Dez, 2014 schwätzte Michael Butash so: >> >> You'll want to allow tcp/53 if doing any sort of public dns - >> anything greater than 1500 bytes (ie most domain-keys//spf records), >> and also any >> >> True, if you're doing those things, you might have large dns >> payloads and >> need tcp. If you think they cause problems rather than fixing them, >> then >> ... > "Normal" use of these yes, but imho better just to leave it be > serviced anyways, especially if any sort of provider for others. > > Yeah, I suppose I pre-optimized and presumed this would be home, non > 3rd > party use for Keith. > >> anomaly mitigation gear (the things that keep 400gb DDoS at bay) >> use that to >> >> What would anomaly mitigation gear be doing to cause large dns >> payloads? >> That's a serious question as I don't even know what anomaly >> mitigation >> gear is. > It's not a large payload issue, it's a method of them validating who > is a script opening a raw udp socket to spew junk, etc vs. a "real" > RFC-compliant client by sending that truncate bit back to the client, > making them request via tcp, and thus doing something more than legit > aiming a cannon. > > Hmm, this isn't making sense to me. Are you saying a client makes a > request to your dns service and you force the client over to tcp > lookups? > If so, does that cause the rest of the recursive lookup to other > servers > to be tcp as well? > >> Having worked for one of those large hosting companies that gets >> those 300gb ddos attacks you read about (not to mention being >> responsible for dealing with them), you need something to do >> mitigate botnet blasts automagically, > > Most of our protocols could use some updates. > >> and luckily some smart people figure out protocol challenge >> behavioral hacks to do that.  I remember back in 2003 needing to >> open firewalls to allow tcp for our dns just for that alone when >> ddos became vogue among warring customers, but became more common at >> various other businesses to have to address allowing tcp as well for >> spf and others. >> >> It also broke some remote providers that blocked tcp/53 as well for >> some reason when our devices couldn't "validate" them, adding them >> to a drop list vs. whitelisting them as "valid" clients. > > Did those remote providers block tcp/53 for client or just for server > ( > only incoming syn blocks )? > >> Not that big a deal running a server at your house, and never using >> dkim/spf. I think most default cisco asa firewall configs still >> filter udp dns protocol traffic by default over 512 too. >> >> figure our if you're real or not. Blocking tcp for dns is not a >> good idea as a whole, it's just RFC-compliant behavior things >> expect. >> >> As I recall, the RFC only specifies tcp for large payloads. Don't >> allow >> them and tcp isn't necessary. > Less is more I suppose when talking firewalls, just know when you > *do* need things like tcp-based dns. > > Yeah, good thing for Keith that you're pointing out that a service > provider probably has to leave tcp/53 exposed, especially when using > newer > dns record 'features'. > > ciao, > > der.hans > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss [2] > > -- > Keith Smith > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss [2] > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://www.webmin.com/ > [2] http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss -- Keith Smith --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss