5 ms·
Their reputation is very much exaggerated. It came from the early 2000s where they were 'secure by default' simply for not having services enabled. They have d
by PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Their reputation is very much exaggerated. It came from the early 2000s where they were 'secure by default' simply for not having services enabled.
They have done a lot of good, but they primarily equate security with code quality which is very short-sighted.
- accrual 3y agoI think high quality code equates to better security, even though such code is not by itself a panacea for security. Here's a neat resource for OpenBSD's mitigations, some of which were/are novel, though it may not have been updated recently (2019): https://isopenbsdsecu.re/mitigations/ https://isopenbsdsecu.re/mitigations/
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoHigh quality code reduces instances of vulnerabilities, which is great. But code vulnerabilities are only one of the many factors in assessing security. To be considered a secure operating system, you need to have more mechanisms in place to protect against various threats, and the OBSD developers actively resist that. I'm familiar with their innovations and solutions, and I think they fall far short.
- lcall 3y agoHere is another list: https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html