Subject: wildcards again [Re: Avoiding collisions - desirability & possibility thereof (was Re: dictionary attack on nameservers) ]

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:31:06 +0200

Alex Bligh <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> H.example.alex.org.uk.  494     IN      MX      10 target.example.com.
> 
> No mention of:
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> H.example.alex.org.uk.  360     IN      TXT     "HASH"
> 
> Or are you saying that's changed in DNSSEC?

No, I'm saying that these observations suggest the nameserver implementation
used to serve the zone is not protocol conformant (with or without wcard-
clarify). They also stumble over a QNAME like 'foo.*.example.alex.org.uk'.

-Peter

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>