Takes a boolean argument, or the special value "route". When true, the domain name received from the DHCP server will be used as DNS search domain over this link, similar to the effect of the Domains= setting. If set to "route", the domain name received from the DHCP server will be used for routing DNS queries only, but not for searching, similar to the effect of the Domains= setting when the argument is prefixed with "~". Defaults to false.

It is recommended to enable this option only on trusted networks, as setting this affects resolution of all host names, in particular of single-label names. It is generally safer to use the supplied domain only as routing domain, rather than as search domain, in order to not have it affect local resolution of single-label names.



A boolean or "resolve". When true, enables Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution on the link. When set to "resolve", only resolution is enabled, but not host registration and announcement. Defaults to true.

but LLMNR also resolves single-label names. Can anyone explain this?

Source: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.network.html as of systemd version 239.


There is a justification posted in 2015.

iiuc, the concern was that multi-level domain names (i.e. those with at least one dot) could be spoofed by controlling the search suffix. But for names with at least two levels glibc only uses the search list as a fallback.

Well, sure, being able to influence things at the beginning of the search logic is more problematic than influencing things at the end of the search logic, but i still think it's problematic, since it still allows you to insert "home.foobar.com" into a domain "foobar.com" that doesn't have "home.foobar.com" itself but only "www.bar.com"...

Sure, classic (non-DNSSEC) DNS is not ever going to be fully secure, but it I still believe we should default to the safer options, and allow the others.

Altering the search paths is inherently something that makes no sense on public networks, it only makes sense if you know your network well, and trust it to some level. Hence opt-in sounds like the better option to me.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.