freebsd stable - Jun 2016 - unbound and ntp issuse

Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw at zxy.spb.ru> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:34:18PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw at zxy.spb.ru> writes:
>> 
>> > Default install with local_unbound and ntpd can't be
functional with
>> > incorrect date/time in BIOS:
>> >
>> > Unbound requred correct time for DNSSEC check and refuseing
queries
>> > ("Jul 1 20:17:29 yellowrat unbound: [3444:0] info: failed to
prime
>> > trust anchor -- DNSKEY rrset is not secure . DNSKEY IN")
>> >
>> > ntpd don't have any numeric IP of ntp servers in ntp.conf --
only
>> > symbolic names like 0.freebsd.pool.ntp.org, as result -- can't
>> > resolve (see above, about DNSKEY).
>> 
>> I can't see how this would happen. DNSSEC doesn't seem to be
required in
>> a regular install as far as I can see. Certainly I don't have any
>
> I don't know reasson for enforcing DNSSEC in regular install.
> I am just select `local_unbound` at setup time and enter `127.0.0.1` as
> nameserver address.
That's not enough to configure unbound as a fully recursive DNS
server. If your system gets its address through DHCP, it is probably
getting DNS server addresses as well, and would work fine *without* your
configuring any of the DNS state.
>> problem on any of my systems, and I've never configured an anchor
on the
>> internal systems.
>> 
>> > IMHO, ntp.conf need to include some numeric IP of public ntp
servers.
>> 
>> Ouch; that's a terrible idea, for several different reasons.
>
> What else?
All the normal reasons that hard-coding IP addresses is a bad idea; they
can change, you're encouraging a lot of people to use the same ones, etc.

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:33:02AM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw at zxy.spb.ru> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:34:18PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> >
> >> Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw at zxy.spb.ru> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Default install with local_unbound and ntpd can't be
functional with
> >> > incorrect date/time in BIOS:
> >> >
> >> > Unbound requred correct time for DNSSEC check and refuseing
queries
> >> > ("Jul 1 20:17:29 yellowrat unbound: [3444:0] info:
failed to prime
> >> > trust anchor -- DNSKEY rrset is not secure . DNSKEY IN")
> >> >
> >> > ntpd don't have any numeric IP of ntp servers in ntp.conf
-- only
> >> > symbolic names like 0.freebsd.pool.ntp.org, as result --
can't
> >> > resolve (see above, about DNSKEY).
> >> 
> >> I can't see how this would happen. DNSSEC doesn't seem to
be required in
> >> a regular install as far as I can see. Certainly I don't have
any
> >
> > I don't know reasson for enforcing DNSSEC in regular install.
> > I am just select `local_unbound` at setup time and enter `127.0.0.1`
as
> > nameserver address.
> 
> That's not enough to configure unbound as a fully recursive DNS
> server.
What I am missing?
Need to fix unbound setup scripts? bsdinstall scripts?
As I see unbound setup scripts detects 127.0.0.1 in resolv.conf and
configured unbound as fully recursive DNS server.
> If your system gets its address through DHCP, it is probably
> getting DNS server addresses as well, and would work fine *without* your
> configuring any of the DNS state.
I am have static address and don't getting DNS server address.
> >> problem on any of my systems, and I've never configured an
anchor on the
> >> internal systems.
> >> 
> >> > IMHO, ntp.conf need to include some numeric IP of public ntp
servers.
> >> 
> >> Ouch; that's a terrible idea, for several different reasons.
> >
> > What else?
> 
> All the normal reasons that hard-coding IP addresses is a bad idea; they
> can change, you're encouraging a lot of people to use the same ones,
etc.
And how to resolve this issuse:

- default install with unbound as recursive DNS server (by default
  enforcing DNSSEC)
- ntp time synchronisation
- stale CMOS time (2008 year)