3 ms·
The point is "optional security is bad security" because when stuff doesn't work it gets turned off. So _nobody_ turns those things on. In OpenBSD all the miti
by ben_bai 10y ago
The point is "optional security is bad security" because when stuff doesn't work it gets turned off. So _nobody_ turns those things on.
In OpenBSD all the mitigations are enabled all the time, and with pledge beeing the responsibility of the coder, no extra effort needed from the sys admin.
- ryuuchin 10y agoI was just trying to make a point that OpenBSD is not always the best choice for all possible use cases to expand upon tptacek's post a little. In may be for someone uninformed or lazy but my argument is if you're willing to put in a little effort you can get a system which is arguably better from a security and defense in depth standpoint than OpenBSD. There are obvious benefits to both but I don't think that grsecurity is something which can be dismissed as easily as saying nobody uses it.