From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 13 01:02:04 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41647D92; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 01:02:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonathon.s.wright@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vc0-x235.google.com (mail-vc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDEFB2B4D; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 01:02:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hz10so458235vcb.12 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=tQcz5CKSUKyeSrBUApKVdhQe5gTMx6OgOxgBqDNAA4I=; b=hLvUCAxEsryfgSzxWCQBSZK2OBUBEr+RclRyZmzxB+AhpAio+kecF/si92h8erEJ1k /+neiXNc9/+ILqKzCwUSUkvTPkXNAjys8TG+b/nPZujFGa3Wk+8jwi0TkQ2qJ11dj3nV Gg5bA78gdtjO1+dz0eo6NC7y2ccoe+wSpjnjnLL9HLOpD6AJEcvalC2LTxfw/svusps3 ewT5GNk7dl5YwSJ6D0MwBMtis/Nyqevgb+wz8Gstr1CboHhLTBhSqGd364ybkSHfo5Tj s4M/82T4mPlE3076YPYAa5gHaXgym+fhWlx5oEAtaMJ7JzaNod3bJFHfkvDgBC0EBiWt 2nnQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.145.132 with SMTP id d4mr9215368vcv.9.1379034122933; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.41.66 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:02:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20130912053559.GF68682@funkthat.com> <979901F9-5F25-4DF1-95A8-32473C55B25F@gmail.com> <52320144.2090807@freebsd.org> <201309130040.SAA28208@mail.lariat.net> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:02:02 -1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD Transient Memory problem? From: Jonathon Wright To: Kimmo Paasiala Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: "freebsd-security@freebsd.org" , Guy Helmer , Julian Elischer , John-Mark Gurney X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 01:02:04 -0000 I agree Kimmo, Its much like the certification of professionals. I had to get 4-5 certs just to keep my job, regardless if I knew how to do it or not. We even lost people who were fired because they could not get the certs, yet had been doing the job for a very long time. ...its a paper, nothing more to me. On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Jonathon Wright > wrote: > > Thanks Brett, > > > > That item just made it to the top of the argument list I'm formulating > > right now from everyone's input. =) > > That makes a very strong argument for the OS as "approved". > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Brett Glass wrote: > > > >> One other point of possible interest which points out how silly > >> this whole thing is. > >> > >> While the NIAP Web site does not list FreeBSD as a "compliant" > >> operating system product, it lists Juniper routers, which run an > >> embedded version of FreeBSD, as compliant. See > >> > >> https://www.niap-ccevs.org/**CCEVS_Products/pcl.cfm?tech_**name=Router< > https://www.niap-ccevs.org/CCEVS_Products/pcl.cfm?tech_name=Router> > >> > >> There may be other products which have "FreeBSD inside" on their > >> list as well. > >> > >> --Brett Glass > >> > >> > > Unfortunately that might just mean that the company behind Juniper has > payed enough money to get their product certified while basic FreeBSD > remains uncertified. All this certification business is corruption if > you ask me. > > > -Kimmo >