*BSD News Article 92013


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!news.thenet.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!199.45.255.100!coop.net!pacifier!threadway!downsj
From: downsj@threadway.teeny.org (Jason Downs)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Stronghold and other binaries for OpenBSD 2.0
Date: 27 Mar 1997 02:54:16 GMT
Organization: teeny.org: Free Software for a Free Internet
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <5hcngo$oju$1@threadway.teeny.org>
References: <5hbjqi$20j@ocean.silcom.com> <3339D4C9.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.teeny.org
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc:27 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:37791 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2888

In article <3339D4C9.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>,
	"Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>David Carmean wrote:
>> OpenBSD was recommended because of the security stance "out of
>> the box".  My question is about binary application (read: commercial)
>
>Sigh.  That stance is getting a little old.

Yes, I can imagine why you'd feel that way.

>The OpenBSD people like to focus on this because it's one of the easiest
>areas to claim a general advantage without having to be too specific -
>how does one objectively measure "degrees of security", after all? You
>can't, really, you can only take someone's claims to that effect and
>either believe them or not - it's not an easy thing to verify.

We haven't ever had to wholesale replace an entire "stable" version
of our system because of inherent and global security holes, either.

-- 
Jason Downs
downsj@teeny.org  --> teeny.org: Free Software for a Free Internet <--
			     http://www.teeny.org/
	       Little.  Yellow.  Secure.  http://www.openbsd.org/