You are correct. It would be more accurate to say 'remote attack' with an up-to-date stable release. The point could be scaled back to say that FreeBSD has unde

You are correct. It would be more accurate to say 'remote attack' with an up-to-date stable release. The point could be scaled back to say that FreeBSD has undergone extensive peer-review and security auditing to the point that the stable branches have not seen a remotely exploitable security vulnerability in a long time. That said, FreeBSD doesn't excuse sysadmins from not being vigilant with monitoring advisories and keeping their systems up to date. Nor does it prevent vulnerabilities being introduced through installed userland software or other applications. One benefit would be that with patches and ports, you can patch any vulnerability in a service without being forced to upgrade to a new version that might have incompatibilities with your system or that might introduce performance degradation. You see this all the time with PHP, sysadmins run binary upgrades on the packages because of a security vulnerability, only for the website to spit out a bunch of warnings about functions that have been deprecated in the new version.