Bind Configuration

Mon Dec 8 11:53:23 MST 2014

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 at twingeckos.com
> 
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Keith Smith
> <techlists at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

-- 
Keith Smith