Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:10:08 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD derivatives Message-ID: <933DCFF2293A4ED344379171@paul-schmehls-powerbook59.local> In-Reply-To: <20070603043301.28d9bef2@localhost> References: <4661FAC9.9010806@transpacific.net> <20070602201740.202e768a.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <46621503.5030303@freebsd.org> <20070603043301.28d9bef2@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==========F1130D425763CA9E2D97========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --On June 3, 2007 4:33:01 AM +0200 Jona Joachim <jaj@hcl-club.lu> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:10:27 -0700 > Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Bill Moran wrote: >> > OpenBSD puts security higher on its list of project goals and >> > motivating factors than any other OS I know. >> >> I disagree. I'd say that OpenBSD and FreeBSD put security in exactly >> the same place -- at the top of the list. > > Sorry but I have to disagree here. > FreeBSD ships with closed source software including following drivers: > ath, nve, oltr, rr232x, hptmv. > Closed source software implies potential insecurity. If security is at > the top of the list then I see a clear contradiction here. > Sorry, but that's an incredibly naive statement. *All* software implies=20 potential insecurity. It's the nature of software. If it were untrue, there would be no security patches for open source=20 software. Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ --==========F1130D425763CA9E2D97==========--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?933DCFF2293A4ED344379171>