This is a discussion on Re: Setting up chroot on Solaris 9 with BIND 9 -t switch - DNS ; Hi men, I was doing a jail for my dns server (named), but have 1 big problem, my jail dont function. I read a lot papers about this, but ever when i can access with my named user to the ...
I was doing a jail for my dns server (named), but have 1 big problem,
my jail dont function.
I read a lot papers about this, but ever when i can access with my
named user to the jail, this user can see the wide system , in other
words dont see the jail.
i need a procedure of how can i do a jail using solaris 9, and how can
test this jail do its job.
The service without jail is perfect.
BIND 9.3 downloaded from www.blastwave.org
To test the jail, i set a bash shell to the user asigned to named jail.
more thx if is necessary,
Rich Parkin wrote:
> Thank you!
> I found a resource at brandonhutchinson.com that gave me the
information I =3D
> needed on how to set it up. Apparently aside from the BIND
> zone, and PID files themselves, the only thing that had to live in my
> was the timezone file. If there's anything else, I haven't come
across it =3D
4/9/2004 3:21:45 PM >>>
> Rich Parkin
> > Hello, all!
> > I am in the process of rebuilding our DNS servers with Solaris 9
> > BIND 9 and have BIND working (installed in /usr/local). I'm trying
> > keep things as simple as I can so others can support it, but secure
> > enough for ISP production. I would like to set up a chroot
> > using the -t switch. I've looked for documentation on doing this
> > haven't found much so far.
> > I have built a BIND 9 implementation on Solaris before, but my
> > at setting up chroot with the available documentation at the time
> > work (I'm not terribly skilled with Solaris yet). Can anyone point
> > at a resource? I've looked at the Secure BIND Template, but it
> > cover use of the -t switch.
> > Does the chroot environment have to be set up basically the same
> > whether or not you use the -t switch? Can anyone explain in
> > detail what the -t switch actually does? Any reason why I
> > the -t switch and try to set up a traditional chroot instead?
> The '-t' allows named to do the chroot() stuff itself, but after
> su much of the hassle with chroot(1) is not needed.=3D20
> I guess you can say they are mutually exclusive.
> > Richard Parkin
> > System Administrator
> > CCNA
> > Data Center Operations
> > LDMI Telecommunications
> Peter H=3DE5kanson =3D20
> IPSec Sverige ( At Gothenburg Riverside )
> Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam
> remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx.