|
Home > Archive > Unix Programming > November 2004 > Re: A discussion of Linux and BSD - about scaliability, consistency,
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: A discussion of Linux and BSD - about scaliability, consistency,
|
|
| Daniel Rudy 2004-11-23, 8:27 am |
| At about the time of 11/21/2004 4:14 PM, William Ahern stated the following:
> Daniel Rudy <5n6o7.8d9c0r1u2d3y4.5s6p7a8m9@0e1m2a3i4l5.6p7a8c9b0e1l2l3.4i5n6v7a8l9i0d1.2n3e4t5> wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't think OpenBSD is compliant. Unfortunately, I believe compliance is
> more a function of the number of acronyms supported, not proven security.
> They want a million + 1 ways to create ACL's. Whether a hacker can subvert
> them is another story entirely.
If it's not compliant, then it has to be close. It's a shame really.
OpenBSD is a work of art to a security specialist.
> Fortunately, OpenBSD is the opposite. OpenBSD, like NetBSD, is primiarly
> concerned with correctness of code and design, even if that means fine
> tuning 30 year old code and systems. OpenBSD's emphasis happens to create a
> robust system with regards to intrusion protection, be that code,
> applications or processes.
Which is why it's widely reguarded as the most secure operating system
that you can get. It *SHOULD* be NSA certified. How many OpenBSD
systems have been cracked that you have heard about? None, as far as I
can remember. Yes, they've had security vulnerabilities, but they are
few and far between.
--
Daniel Rudy
Email address has been encoded to reduce spam.
Remove all numbers, then remove invalid, email, no, and spam to reply.
|
|
|
|
|