Bind Vs. Bind-chroot
Hi,
On my public servers, I usually run BIND for DNS. I see CentOS offers a preconfigured (sort of) bind-chroot package. I wonder what’s the effective benefit of this vs. a “normal” BIND setup without chroot. On my Slackware servers, I have a rather Keep-It-Simple approach to all things security, e. g. run no unneed services, open only needed ports etc. but I don’t run the extra mile (and haven’t been bitten so far).
Any suggestions? (No flamefest please.)
Niki
—
Microlinux – Solutions informatiques durables
7, place de l’église – 30730 Montpezat Web : http://www.microlinux.fr Mail : info@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32
11 thoughts on - Bind Vs. Bind-chroot
bind went through a rocky stage where there were a LOT of security holes in it. by running it in a chroot, you limit its ability to be used as a hacking point of entry. recent versions of bind (basicially, 9 and newer) are much more secure, so this is less of a concern.
But make sure to have SELinux enabled if you do not run it chrooted.
I have mine running that way.
Le 13/04/2017
Le 13/04/2017
I don’t use SELinux because it gets in my way far more than it every actually protects me from anything.
I’m sure there are systems where it absolutely is necessary, but I don’t like to have stuff fail because I used mv instead of cp to install a certificate, for example.
For authoritative DNS I also do not use chroot but authoritative DNS is all those servers do, and I use zones signed externally via DNSSEC (no private keys on the server)
For basic authoritative server, I have the one magic setting needed in your configuration.
Otherwise it is working ‘out of the box’.
I need to do DNSSEC next; got to bother Mark Andrew over at ISC, did not get to sit down with him on this at IETF. So I don’t know what certs I
will need as yet. For my mailserver, I am using self-signed, and see my Apache setup, towards the end, how I create a set of certs:
http://medon.htt-consult.com/CentOS7-mailserver.html#Setting%20up%20Apache
I had some help on this from the OpenSSL list.
Something to consider, but I would do it on one of my internal systems.
Not a third party; why should I trust them? Unless they are providing a full DNS PKI service.
I meant DNSSEC signing is done externally to the authoritative DNS.
I do the signing myself. Point being if someone hacked my authoritative DNS server, they could not alter my zone files in a way DNSSEC enforcing resolvers would accept because the signing keys are not there.
Another alternative with at least same level of security, though not giving me any trouble I hear people sometimes have with SELinux is to run services in separate jails (or other containers) – with base system mounted inside jail read-only (I use FreeBSD jails – apologies for mentioning, but Linux experts here can suggest fair Linux equivalent).
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
bind-chroot is a subpackage and quite straight forward (yum install bind-chroot). No need to handle jails and there environment updates when the base system gets updated (we use rpms trigger scripts for that).
Correct, no real need for creating something special, bind-chroot has been around for years and just works. Before SELinux it was what we did. My last DNS server was Redsleeve 6 that I could not get SELinux working, so I just ran chroot. Now I have CentOS7-arm with SELinux so no chroot.