On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 08:39:57AM -0600, Tony Abernethy wrote: > Alexey Vatchenko wrote: > > On 2008-01-18, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 06:24:16PM -0700, Clint Pachl wrote: > > >> If you want security, get rid of X. > > >> > > > Even if it's OpenBSD's X? The one that you need should you need to > > > build any ports (including if you follow current and need > > security fixes > > > to any ports)? > > > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=114738577123893&w=2 > > > > -- > > Alexey Vatchenko > > http://www.bsdua.org > > > Flames invited if I've got this wrong. > Include the X tarballs. > Answer NO to Do you intend to run X? > > Making X and no-X versions of everything has gotta be a pain. > The security problem with X is that the (blobby?) video > card has got better access to memory than the OS. >
I said nothing about running an x server on the box, just having a graphical browser installed. It will be run via ssh from a trusted access box (not the "entertainment" box). My little access box doesn't have much memory so can't run anything more than e.g. dillo. This isn't an issue unless the concensus here is that a large browser (e.g. Konqueror or Seamonkey) is the most secure. I'm only focusing on the choice of browser for the secure section of the setup. Browsing is the only thing where there is a choice of app which will affect the performance of my boxes. Everything else I do I can do just fine on my 486. Doug.
