6 ms·
Since OpenBSD can be backdoored[1] with the same ease that the Linux kernel could be backdoored, I have no idea why all the fuss. Debian is pretty thorough in N
by atmosx 11y ago
Since OpenBSD can be backdoored[1] with the same ease that the Linux kernel could be backdoored, I have no idea why all the fuss. Debian is pretty thorough in NOT including proprietary software if that's what we're talking about.
As far as I'm concerned, it's good to have options and the OpenBSD developers have created software that I use daily (OpenSMTPd, SSH, PF, etc.) and for that, I'm thankful!
ps. I know that developing IPSEC backdoors is not easy by any means. But the subsequent Theo De Raadt answer, was that he can't tell if there are backdoors or not. That was my point.
[1] https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462&w=2
- aortega 11y ago>can be backdoored[1] with the same ease No, no with the same ease. Every OpenBSD commit is throughly reviewed, and there is only a bunch of commiters. Compared with linux, with thousands of commiters and tons of code added every day, OBSD is way more difficult to backdoor.
- notaplumber 11y agoNo loadable kernel modules for OpenBSD either.
- tptacek 11y agoNot having a formal kernel module system does not actually mean the kernel is secure. Exploits to create module loading systems out of kernel vulnerabilities are approximately as old as stack overflow exploits.
- notaplumber 11y agoNX enforced kernel W^X, SMEP/SMAP, always-on stack protector and a limited attack surface (..say, from pledge(2)), only serve to make such theoretical attacks impractical against OpenBSD.
- tptacek 11y agoNo. Those are useful countermeasures, but kernel exploits for OpenBSD are neither theoretical nor impractical.
- JoachimSchipper 11y agoEven as an OpenBSD fan, I'm not sure why tptacek was downvoted here. W^X etc. make it harder to write an exploit, but sufficiently-bad bugs can still yield arbitrary code execution. (Or confused-deputy problems allowing escalation to root, etc.; there's more than one way to pwn a box.) And - architecturally - OpenBSD's kernel isn't that different from Linux, both being UNIX-style kernels; to the extent that OpenBSD's kernel has better security than Linux, it's mostly because OpenBSD tends to have fewer (and, sometimes, better-considered) features. (There's an interesting argument to be had about Linux+grsecurity vs. OpenBSD - focusing on having some cutting-edge parts vs. solid engineering throughout - but that's not the argument we're having.)
- PhantomGremlin 11y agoI'm not sure why tptacek was downvoted here Maybe because his comment had the tone of: "For this, I have found a truly wonderful proof, but the margin is too small to contain it."
- tptacek 11y agoDo you need a "truly wonderful proof" for "the mainstream OS OpenBSD has not managed to render kernel vulnerabilities unexploitable, or to rid itself of those vulnerabilities entirely"? Because: that's an extraordinary claim for an OpenBSD supporter to make.
- PhantomGremlin 11y agoI was not responding to "the mainstream OS OpenBSD ...". Let's go back to your remark, which preceded his: kernel exploits for OpenBSD are neither theoretical nor impractical. You put that out there as a bare, standalone statement. No elaboration, no proof. Your comment might be true, but I would have liked to see some more "meat" in it. Some supporting evidence, some inkling of a truly wonderful proof.
- gonzo 11y ago> Every OpenBSD commit is throughly reviewed, [...] You should observe that this didn't happen here. Sam Leffler found that bug, fixed it, and sent OpenBSD the patch while bringing the "fast IPSec"stack to FreeBSD. OpenBSD silently patched it. The whole thing only came to light years later, when the accusations were made.
- MustardTiger 11y ago>Since OpenBSD can be backdoored[1] And you link to that not happening? Seems a bit silly.