Re: Weird "Host not found" error

From: Travis H. (travis+)
Date: Sun Jan 21 2007 - 19:43:04 EST

  • Next message: Travis H.: "Re: Blacklist and address based on "User unknown""

    On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 12:45:56AM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote:
    > It's a bug. And nameservers DO respond from the right IP,

    Most do, no question there.

    > the ones that don't

    Ah, so some don't, after all!

    > really don't work anymore, their responses are blocked by stateful
    > firewalls, and should be ignored by security minded resolvers (despite
    > the RFC).

    I agree that it's trivia, that those servers can be ignored,
    and tolerating this behavior is bad for security. But it could
    cause problems like this if one resolver is behind a stateful
    firewall and one isn't.

    > > I assume this has to do with the way recv(2) and send(2) were
    > > implemented in the socket API, but my OS states that recv(2) is
    > > normally used only on a connected socket.
    >
    > No, it has to do with UDP applications that were not written with
    > multi-homed hosts in mind and don't bind to each interface separately.

    Same thing as I was getting at; the fact that UDP is not connected
    means that you can't send a reply out to the original request from
    the same socket because UDP doesn't assume a request/reply, so it
    doesn't hold any state around that you could use to assure the same
    IP.

    -- 
    ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.''
    -- Albert Einstein -><- <URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/>
    
    



  • Next message: Travis H.: "Re: Blacklist and address based on "User unknown""





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD