Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 16:14:33 -0600 From: blaine <blaine@denverweb.net> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com> Cc: "Gooderum, Mark" <mark@JUMPWEB.COM>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: nuking "unsafe" protocols (was Re: Upcoming rc.conf changes not loading certain currently loaded daemons) Message-ID: <39A59E49.E3EE1196@denverweb.net> References: <251BF6012D6B4A49A4109B1C3289A7B5BB78@purgatory.jumpweb.com> <39A59992.F42F03EC@denverweb.net> <20000824180051.D57333@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Fumerola wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 03:54:26PM -0600, blaine wrote: > > > Umm, why not just use openbsd if security is the primary concern? > > Because no operating system overcomes stupidity. True, but you have to do something insecure _on purpose_ .... out of the box, OpenBSD pretty tight, and you have to open services knowingly. FreeBSD is less secure as a default, and you have to work to close services down. I am sure that with little effort FreeBSD could be made more secure by default. In todays world, that is not really a bad thing. Perhaps an install option where you can choose the security model you want. Of course, the real difference between genius and stupidity is, Genius has it's limits. :-P Cheers, Blaine To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39A59E49.E3EE1196>