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/