Ancestors

Toot

Written by chesheer on 2024-12-23 at 15:42

Man, this article from 2001 called "Why OpenBSD will never be as secure as Linux" surely didn't age well (https://seifried.org/security/os/20011107-openbsd-linux.html):

"As you can see there is a large selection of security software Linux, ranging from simple items like the Openwall kernel patch to very configurable security suites like PitBull LX.

These solutions are simply not available for OpenBSD, so if you have needs beyond the basic User/Group/Other filesystem restrictions for example you are basically out of luck. Restricting access to port 80 for example, while easily achieved in Linux with NSA SELinux or PitBull LX is basically impossible in OpenBSD. Protecting binary software can be done in Linux with a variety of tools, doing so in OpenBSD is very difficult (there is little you can do).

Even with some of the most secure source code in the world OpenBSD will not be capable of providing the same levels of security and trust that a Linux system with the appropriate software (i.e. NSA SELinux or PitBull) can. For a system to be both secure and trusted you need both secure code and additional items that provide Mandatory Access Controls, RBAC, Type enforcement and so on. This is why OpenBSD will never be as secure as Linux."

[#]OpenBSD

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chesheer@bsd.cafe

Descendants

Written by ben on 2024-12-23 at 17:44

@chesheer The author does seem to have written another article from the opposite point of view at the same time, so I'm not sure I'd take it at face value as being their true opinion https://seifried.org/security/os/20011107-linux-openbsd.html perhaps best to see both articles as being opposing devils-advocate type arguments.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from benjamineskola@hachyderm.io

Written by chesheer on 2024-12-23 at 18:16

@benjamineskola Yeah, definitely. No bashing the author, he really spoke facts back then, at least in this particular quote.

Nice experiment to wage flame from both sides, by the way.

Anyway, times have changed.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chesheer@bsd.cafe

Written by Kevin Karhan :verified: on 2024-12-23 at 19:57

@chesheer yeah, I'd see this as classic #Disinfo given metrics like #CVE|s and actual #exploits and #malware in the wild.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kkarhan@infosec.space

Written by Antranig Vartanian :freebsd: on 2024-12-24 at 16:26

@chesheer Ironically, the counterpoint article still stands true.

I mean, let's be honest, Linux never took security seriously. You'd think that they took performance seriously, until you realize that FreeBSD has been kicking its ass for decades.

Linux is the definition of “Jack of all trades, Master of none”.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from antranigv@sigin.fo

Written by chesheer on 2024-12-24 at 17:32

@antranigv Yep, also one of the best examples of "among several alternative technologies mediocre or worst always wins".

Linux definitely isn't the worst one (there are Windows and MacOS, at least). But we also have Solaris dead (killed) and BSDs as second class citizens backporting important code from Linux.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chesheer@bsd.cafe