On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Jonathon Wright <jonathon.s.wri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Brett, > > That item just made it to the top of the argument list I'm formulating > right now from everyone's input. =) > That makes a very strong argument for the OS as "approved". > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Brett Glass <br...@lariat.org> wrote: > >> One other point of possible interest which points out how silly >> this whole thing is. >> >> While the NIAP Web site does not list FreeBSD as a "compliant" >> operating system product, it lists Juniper routers, which run an >> embedded version of FreeBSD, as compliant. See >> >> https://www.niap-ccevs.org/**CCEVS_Products/pcl.cfm?tech_**name=Router<https://www.niap-ccevs.org/CCEVS_Products/pcl.cfm?tech_name=Router> >> >> There may be other products which have "FreeBSD inside" on their >> list as well. >> >> --Brett Glass >> >>
Unfortunately that might just mean that the company behind Juniper has payed enough money to get their product certified while basic FreeBSD remains uncertified. All this certification business is corruption if you ask me. -Kimmo _______________________________________________ freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
