At about the time of 11/21/2004 4:14 PM, William Ahern stated the following:

> Daniel Rudy <5n6o7.8d9c0r1u2d3y4.5s6p7a8m9@0e1m2a3i4l5.6p7a8c9b0e1l2l3.4i5
n6v7a8l9i0d1.2n3e4t5> 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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]