On 23-May-99 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>> The OpenBSD team does a lot wrt auditing of the complete sourcetree, but
>> then the question is: is this valid concern or is this pure paranoia.
>> OpenBSD does a lot of valid changes but borders (and sometimes crosses
>> that border) on paranoia, wrt code.
>
> Given the number of postings to BUGTRAQ about array overflows and stack
> smashing, I think it's relevant to ask whether it possible to be *too*
> paranoid here. Personally, I think what the OpenBSD folks are doing is
> very important.
Paranoia/security and freedom of use are opposites on the balance of use.
If you make so much security restrictions to a system it's bound to make it
less enjoyable where it concerns freedom.
>> A lot of the security tools can be get from the ports, but the true
>> security of a system lies in the eye of the admin. I have known admins
>> whom I would never trust mission critical security systems to.
>
> "The true security of a system" depends on the operating system itself,
> the applications, *and* the admin. You can be a very good and security
> conscious admin - but it won't help you much if the operating system is
> Windows 98.
Correct there Steinaur, I left those other two out. But then the admin most
certainly knows that he has to replace that Win98 box with FreeBSD ;)
---
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmodai(at)wxs.nl
The FreeBSD Programmer's Documentation Project
Network/Security Specialist <http://home.wxs.nl/~asmodai>
*BSD: Accept no limitations...
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
