nelgin wrote to NixNet.NIX_LINUX <=-
At work I got a ticket escalated to me. Resolving an hostname to an A record stopped working.
Look me ages to figure this one out and to gut a long story short, Bind 9.16 (and maybe prior versions) hard limit the number of A record
results to 100. Someone decided it would be a good idea to make
additional A records to bring the number to 107.
It seems things were changed due to some sort of CVE that stops DNS returning those results unless you disable the check in the named.conf file.
I hate it when things change but nobody actually makes it obvious what
was changed...time I'll never get back.
Anyone else pissed off by Linux recently?
nelgin wrote to NixNet.NIX_LINUX <=-
At work I got a ticket escalated to me. Resolving an hostname to
an A record stopped working.
Look me ages to figure this one out and to gut a long story
short, Bind 9.16 (and maybe prior versions) hard limit the
number of A record results to 100. Someone decided it would be a
good idea to make additional A records to bring the number to
107.
It seems things were changed due to some sort of CVE that stops
DNS returning those results unless you disable the check in the named.conf file.
I hate it when things change but nobody actually makes it
obvious what was changed...time I'll never get back.
Anyone else pissed off by Linux recently?
Was this a "Linux" thing, or a <Distro-name> thing? I'm thinking it
may be a customized version/config that's causing that...
nelgin wrote to Gamgee <=-
At work I got a ticket escalated to me. Resolving an hostname to
an A record stopped working.
Look me ages to figure this one out and to gut a long story
short, Bind 9.16 (and maybe prior versions) hard limit the
number of A record results to 100. Someone decided it would be a
good idea to make additional A records to bring the number to
107.
It seems things were changed due to some sort of CVE that stops
DNS returning those results unless you disable the check in the named.conf file.
I hate it when things change but nobody actually makes it
obvious what was changed...time I'll never get back.
Anyone else pissed off by Linux recently?
Was this a "Linux" thing, or a <Distro-name> thing? I'm thinking it
may be a customized version/config that's causing that...
It's a bind thing, which runs on linux.
nelgin wrote to Gamgee <=-
It's a bind thing, which runs on linux.
Gamgee wrote to nelgin <=-
My bad, I thought you knew more about this...
Maybe it's time to update...
It's a bind thing, which runs on linux.This limit in bind was set by the ISC itself in all flavors of bind, whether for Linux, Windows, macOS, BSD, et al. So it's not just a "Linux thing".
It took me about 45 seconds to look this up.
He should being an IT professional. I mean, I didn't know about this and it took me less than a minute to ask Google about this.
It did because I told you this existed. Maybe if all you had was "dns stopped working" like I did, it would have taken a little bit longer.
I have not been frustrated lately, knock-on-wood, by linux specifically
but have run into some issues where the error message from software in general has been vague. Think "file not found" but no indication as to *which* file isn't found. :( In most languages I am familiar with,
that is one that is pretty easy to code for and give a proper
error message.
Yeah, we who do open source are not always great at writing proper
error messages. It's like, "naaaah I'll be fine, I'll just run it
through strace or gdb if it complains". We can do better and we should
:D. (It's not really those extra 2 lines of code that provide us the dopamine though, I have to admit...)
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,135 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 09:31:35 |
| Calls: | 14,549 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 186,453 |
| D/L today: |
16,997 files (5,511M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,569,703 |