If all of this is new to you install webmin (but don't allow it outside of
your firewall):
http://www.webmin.com/
-- JD Austin
Voice: 480.269.4335 (480 2MY Geek)
jd@twingeckos.com
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Keith Smith <
techlists@phpcoderusa.com>
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
>>
>
> --
> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------
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
(text/plain)