Fedora does support DNSSEC from version 17 [1]. It requires the ubound resolver for the purpose. On the other hand NetworkManager does support dnsmasq as a local cache and resolver to allow for split DNS setup when using VPNs. dnsmasq does not support DNSSEC resolution. As I see it the DNSSEC and split DNS features are currently (in fedora 18) incompatible. It seems best to me to make NetworkManager support ubound in the same way as dnsmasq. This will allow for easy and secure client side DNS configuration. Another possible approach would be to implement DNSSEC in the OS resolver but I am assuming this has already been ruled out as an option. If anybody knows any background about this, that would be welcome. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DNSSEC_on_workstations
Yes. The DNSSEC support in Fedora is very... wobbly. Networkmanager definitely needs direct unbound support for features like split DNS. Upstream bug report: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=699810
This message is a reminder that Fedora 18 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 18. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '18'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 18's end of life. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 18 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 18's end of life. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Interesting, here they claim dnsmasq does support DNSSEC: http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html but man on fedora 20, still claims unsupported. Although now I see --proxy-dnssec is available, but that is not the same.
(In reply to Aleksandar Kostadinov from comment #3) > Interesting, here they claim dnsmasq does support DNSSEC: > http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html > > but man on fedora 20, still claims unsupported. Although now I see > --proxy-dnssec is available, but that is not the same. From my point of view the DNSSEC implementation is too big feature to rebase dnsmasq in F20 to the latest version. However the version in rawhide (2.71) is compiled with the DNSSEC support. Feel free to test it. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=517696 However I think we still want to use unbound as validating resolver rather than dnsmasq, as unbound comes with nice dynamic reconfiguration tool. Also the DNSSEC implementation got more testing.
Hi Aleksandar, there is a Fedora Change Page now for having a validating DNS resolver by default[1] and we plan to use Unbound for that for a couple of reasons, including the fact that Unbound can already run as a system service *and* be configured by NetworkManager. We have currently no reason to switch back to Dnsmasq and explore its configuration and DNSSEC capabilities. We already got a number of patches accepted upstream in Unbound and dnssec-trigger (which only works with unbound AFAIK). I would like to update the information to also include various issues with the local DNSSEC resolver configuration but for now there's the mailing list announcement[2] and bugzilla[3]. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/198690.html [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&classification=Fedora&component=dnssec-trigger&email1=psimerda&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=2438682&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced
Upstream recently accepted a first prototype of the unbound plugin (see attached upstream bug report).
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.