This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
What about version numbers? The first version was version 4, why? Where are version 5-7?
OK, its a "DNS software"... but what does BIND do? A little description would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.50.58 ( talk) 21:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
What about the bind10 project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compukid ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is djbdns singled out as an example of an alternative system? -- Karlkatzke 06:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"it was originally created by Paul Vixie in 1988." Not it wasn't. Check the history page. 1988 is just when Vixie took over maintainership.
I heard a perception that microsoft also use bind, okay not really bind but bind in a customized/extended form? Is this true or is their DNS a complete different implementation?
Removed the configuration file criticism. An application like Apache HTTPD does not check syntax at runtime either, if there is a syntax error it just aborts the start/restart. Someone with an ax-to-grind/agenda was trying to weasel this in. BIND 9 will abort a start/reload of the zone if the configuration files contain a syntax error. In both applications a manually-run syntax checker is included. Cowbert ( talk) 05:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how a list of security vulnerabilities that has affected BIND 9, adequately justifies this sentence. "it has not experienced a significantly better security history.". Yes we get that there have been many exploits, but nothing there justifies that sentence, unless you did the research yourself. 10:26 PM, 21 Setpmber 2008 (PDT)
Steve R
Rewrote that sentence to more accurately reflect the information given by the referenced site, removed unfounded conclusion that BIND9 "has not experienced a significantly better security history".
Alex G. (
talk) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at the ISC vulnerability matrix for BIND (BIND 9, although a complete rewrite, has not experienced a significantly better security history.) and I'd like to note that the ISC page itself does not draw the conclusion that BIND 9 security is not much better than previous versions. 10:26, 21 September 2008 (PDT)
In fact, both 'critical' vulnerabilities were for BIND 8, and many of the BIND 9 vulns are fairly specific as to the configuration of the server and context of the attack. Alex G. ( talk) 05:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Modified LDAP section and changed it to a more general commentary on zone storage mechanisms. This isn't an advertisement for a commercial product supporting LDAP storage. Fehrgo ( talk) 11:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed this sentence:
BIND 9 is a fairly large application that includes a large number of features that most DNS administrators probably will never use.
Clearly not a sentence worthy of being in an encyclopedia of any sort. "fairly large", "large number", "most [admins] probably will never use". Wow! Vague. Vague. Vague AND speculatory. Amazing!
contribs) 05:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The contents of the Geodns page were merged into BIND on 16 August 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I'd like to suggest rndc be merged into this page. It looks to me like rndc is part of bind, for example it is included as part of the bind9 debian package. All comments welcome. -- h2g2bob 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The trailing dot, is actually the standard way that DNS Works, and most browsers accept that format as well. The BIND Configuration file has origins and zones which controls what domain will be appended to it. Ex:
$ORIGIN wikipedia.org. www IN A 10.10.27.83
Is the correct way to configure the www.wikipedia.org entry, any administrator who puts www.wikipedia.org has just not read the manual. This makes sense really as otherwise you'd have to retype the parent domain constantly, you can explicitly override the origin by appending a period to it if you'd like.
While I'll admit that this is counter-intuitive to users not familiar with BIND, and that perhaps it seems backwards given that almost every other program that uses FQDN does not require the final period, this is in fact the standard (in fact without the final period, most borwsers will also search your local domains form something like www.microsoft.com.your.company.com.
I will also go so far as to admit that this is a Critism of BIND, if you'd like however some people do not like Wikipedia's default color schemes, the fact that the sky is blue, and the fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, I don't think that by itself merits it being included as Critism in there respective articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJrX10 ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
there is no information about geodns here, but there are links to Geodns in wiki. ` a5b ( talk) 18:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah this is not to smart, to bounce to a place where there is no information on the bounce... WTF is geodns? is it a plug in a patch, a religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.182.162 ( talk) 17:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I see the BIND expansion has just been re-altered back to "Berkeley Internet Name Daemon" in spite of what the most reliable sources state. Firstly we have a peer reviewed paper with the ... Domain expansion. We also have the package itself, which still uses that expansion, not least in the Administrator's Reference Manual. In my view there isn't really any debate about what the package is actually called. To counter that we have a number of informal and less authoritative web pages using the ... Daemon expansion.
The .. Daemon expansion is admittedly commonplace but there is no reason to suppose that it is anything other than in error. An error is still an error no matter no often it is repeated. It is easy to see how this error comes about, after all it follows the pattern of other daemon services - crond, inetd, syslogd etc where the "d" indicates the daemon nature of the process. However, in this instance we have very strong evidence against that, and that the terminal "d" is purely coincidence. The current treatment acknowledges both names but give preference to the incorrect form based on an unsourced "popular usage" argument as if that alone is enough to make it correct. Crispmuncher ( talk) 14:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
"Claims" to be so? In what way is BIND possibly *not* the primary IP name service in use in the world? In fact apart from limited proprietary systems (that don't scale), and others that require *help from BIND* in order to work - BIND is it. Puzzled by the fatuous opening statement. 110.174.169.36 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
Having looked over the article for the first time in several years, I see that all mentions of the severe security issues that BIND 9 has experienced have been scrubbed from the article - in favor of simply offering a bland 'issues are reported according to common practices'....While retaining mention of the same issues that BIND 4 and BIND 8 experienced. This leaves the impression that BIND 9 has _not_ experienced issues of similar severity. But that's not the reality. It's a disservice to the reader to leave the implication that BIND 9 has not experienced severe security issues as well. This really needs to be fixed. I'll look into it when I get a chance. Anastrophe ( talk) 16:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)