Performance v.s. Quality

Posted Nov 7, 2005 17:01 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559)
In reply to: Performance v.s. Quality by PaXTeam
Parent article: FreeBSD Project Launches FreeBSD 6.0

if you do not understand the security features of openbsd, you should not comment on them.

>> i've spent quite some years in computer security

yet you have never spent any time reviewing any of the information on openbsd in order to submit an informed post on the topic. i'm not saying that its featureset is not subject to criticism, but you aren't even doing that, you're just offering more hand-waving.

Performance v.s. Quality

Posted Nov 7, 2005 18:08 UTC (Mon) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616) [Link] (2 responses)

now where did you figure out that i "don't understand the security features of OpenBSD"? or that i "have never spent any time reviewing any of the information on OpenBSD"? did you read all that out of my post above? google up PaX one day then Mr. i-know-security-and-openbsd. sorry, i meant yahoo or whatever. once you do that and realize what it's been about for the past 5 years, you'll probably also understand why i can comment on their features (and have done so on numerous occasions, check bugtraq or undeadly.org).

also, you ditched my question so i'll ask it again: what is it exactly that allows a Linux or (say) NetBSD system to be compromised but doesn't allow it on OpenBSD? it's funny that you are asking me for submitting an informed post on OpenBSD security (not that this was the best forum for that, mind you), yet you fail do the same? you know what best describes you? your own words: your post is 100% content-free zealotry.

Performance v.s. Quality

Posted Nov 7, 2005 18:20 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (1 responses)

>> what is it exactly that allows a Linux or (say) NetBSD system to be
>> compromised but doesn't allow it on OpenBSD?

openbsd is not designed to fix netbsd or linux security issues.

i never said netbsd or linux were insecure, you like every other poster here seems to only understand the pepsi-challenge mentality, that one wins and the other loses.

where did i say openbsd closes linux security holes?

where did i say linux has glaring security holes?

Performance v.s. Quality

Posted Nov 8, 2005 17:29 UTC (Tue) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616) [Link]

you said: "i would offer that openbsd is generally considered the most secure open source OS". if it's 'the most secure', then by definition the others are not the most secure, or in plain english, they're less secure. i asked what that 'less secure' is exactly and i have yet to receive an informed post from you. and in case you don't understand the word 'secure', i'll offer a simple definition: security is about information flow control, i.e., i expect you to give specific examples where OpenBSD provides information flow controls where the others don't (and 'provides' implies that such controls are bugfree, non-exploitable, else said controls are just an exercise in vain), and i also expect you to prove that all controls the 'less secure' systems have are also present in in OpenBSD (so that you can in the end prove that OpenBSD security is indeed a true superset of all the others). your turn sir ;-).