Date: 20 Sep 2000 10:00:02 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: Laurence Berland <stuyman@confusion.net>, Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com>, clefevre@citeweb.net, Akbar <Akbar@Aptitude.com.sg>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: wats so special about freeBSD? Message-ID: <xzpitrrze65.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: "Crist J . Clark"'s message of "Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:12:42 -0700" References: <89731E9AF92BD411869200D0B71BB4DC0FC297@ASERVER> <200009191942.e8JJgMc03338@gits.dyndns.org> <20000920001652.U66839@jade.chc-chimes.com> <39C83CC6.9BCD1F32@confusion.net> <20000919221242.O367@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Crist J . Clark" <cjclark@reflexnet.net> writes: > No, you are not. You partially answered your own question. OpenBSD is > considered more secure because, > > (a) "They have done the big code audit." (You got that one.) > (b) They ship a secure default. > > Not FreeBSD, nor any other open source OS I am aware of, has done > (a). FreeBSD sacrifices (b) for having some stuff work "out of the > box." FreeBSD has done a lot more of (a) than you might think, and guess what, Our People found some holes Their People hadn't spotted. So a code audit is better than no code audit, but it's not a silver bullet. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpitrrze65.fsf>