OpenBSD: Hackers Meet Soldiers

BSDForums writes "OpenBSD has a well-deserved reputation for fanatical security. Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it? Cameron Laird and George Peter Staplin investigate and talk to Theo de Raadt, the creator, overseer, and taskmaster of the OpenBSD project!"

Comments

Conspiracy Theories

[Scoria]

Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it?

Mulder, is that you?

Re:Conspiracy Theories

[joe_bruin]

from the article (emphasis mine):

So even if a cracker accesses the system, she'll be able to reach only the Apache root

the correct gender-neutral description in english is "he". by saying "she", the author is specifically writing about females (to the exclusion of males), and implying that a female cracker would only be able to reach the apache root (presumably a male hacker would be able to go further?).

Re:Conspiracy Theories

[cymen]

Where have you been living?
Probably outside of academia. Nobody has time for navel gazing beyond the lunatic fringe.

I can see the connection

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of fork-touting BSD daemons... they'd call it an army!

Smart ships?

[benst]

Why not? They've tried it with Windows nt, which didn't work, so maybe there's more trust in open systems since then.

Re:Smart ships?

[sql*kitten]

Why not? They've tried it with Windows nt, which didn't work, so maybe there's more trust in open systems since then.

Unless OpenBSD has the magic ability to "do what the programmer meant, not what he wrote" when encountering a divide by zero, the Navy's application would have crashed in exactly the same way on OpenBSD too.

If you want to criticize NT, fine, go ahead, but you don't have to make stuff up.

Re:Smart ships?

[Uwe Barschell]

OpenBSD has "the magic ability" to not let an application crash the OS.

This is actually a very simple thing to do. Any OS designed for minicomputer-class hardware (e.g. VAX, RISC or 386+ CPUs) will include this magic ability (including NT). Such OSes will only crash if there is a bug in the OS itself, or in code that is treated as part of the OS.

One of the flaws with UNIX and NT, as compared to systems like VMS (with four protection modes) and Multics (with up to sixty-four protection rings), is the existence of only two protection modes: User and Kernel. This means that code which requires elevated privileges must be given the same privileges as the kernel itself, since Kernel mode is the only alternative to User mode.

This problem of only two protection modes is deeper than the OS design, however. Most RISC CPUs provide only two modes (the x86 provides four rings; the VAX provided four modes), so in order for an OS to be portable to such architectures, it must be limited to two modes like UNIX. This is probably why NT, which was designed by the architect of the four-mode VMS system, itself only supports two modes (like UNIX).

Remember that UNIX was considered very buggy and unstable in the 1980s, where as VMS (which is a younger system) was seen as rock solid. This reflects the design advantages of VMS, in being tied to the VAX architecture, with its four protection modes and robust instruction set, but that reliance on the VAX architecture was also a major weakness: unlike UNIX, VMS could not be ported to most RISC architectures, or the 386, and so only runs on VAX and Alpha. Both of these architectures support the four modes it requires, but are now niche CPUs with declining user bases. This limited hardware support was the most important reason for the decline of VMS, where as the portability of UNIX and NT were very important factors in their success.

UNIX, BSD, Linux and Windows 2000/XP show that a system with only two protection modes can eventually become stable, through simplified design and/or extensive testing on supported hardware configurations over time, but there is always the risk that new hardware will introduce new device-driver bugs, which automatically become new kernel bugs, thereby reducing any of the OSes to an unstable disaster again. The broader the hardware support is, the likelier it is this will happen.

Re:Smart ships?

[Tailhook]

If Linux had been created back in the 8088 days, either today's Linux would be incompatible with its legacy apps, or its stability would be comparable to Win9x.

Linux, as we know it, could never have been created on an 8088. In fact, the minimum x86 processor necessary for Linux is the 386. Linux, like Unix, requires virtual memory, preferably page based, and memory protection.

Linus deliberately set out to create himself an OS that followed the Unix model. He was unhappy with the Unix-like x86 OS implementations of the time and created his own. He clearly had in mind that his system would do as Unix does, not just look like Unix. You can make DOS look like Unix if you install enough GNU utilities, but it is fundamentally not Unix.

In a very real sense the stability of Linux, as derived from Unix, is by design, not simply because the coders are somehow better. By design, Linux proper can not operate on an 8088, and for good reason.

Note: today there are derivatives of Linux that can operate without hardware support of virtual memory. One important example is uCLinux. On systems without memory protection or VM support in hardware, the kernel suffers the same vulnerabilities to failures in user-land code as would DOS. These appeal of these systems is that they provide the POSIX API on very limited VM-less platforms.

Re:Smart ships?

[Uwe Barschell]

This means that code which requires elevated privileges must be given the same privileges as the kernel itself, since Kernel mode is the only alternative to User mode.

Not really.

If you need to read from a device, a user account can be given access to a device entry. If you need access to a file, a user account can be given access to a file.

Do you understand what happens when you access the device entry? Your user-mode code, running under whichever account, makes a request to a kernel-mode device driver, which then controls the hardware. The device driver runs in kernel mode, with the same privileges as the kernel itself. On a system with more than two privilege levels, the device driver could run with more privileges than user code, but fewer than the kernel.

Then there is privlidge seperation. You can write a small, secure piece of code that runs as root, and invokes other, more complicated programs, with only the limited privlidges that program needs. Then there is systrace, which is simply a flexible, universal version of priv. sep., but nothing stopped you from doing the same before systrace came about.

There is also cylant, which has a purpose similiar to systrace, but go a bit of a different way about the same goal.

You are confusing software permissions (e.g. user access rights) with hardware privilege levels.

You VMSers really get on my nerves (yes, all 5 of you). Just because the kernel doesn't have the different levels of access built into it, does NOT mean that you are limited to two levels. It's just such a popular method because people are lazy... VMS would be just as vulnerable if admins got lazy and used only 2 of the privlidge modes.

This is fundamentally wrong. A hardware privilege level is not the same thing as a user account.

So, your claim that VMS and multics have better security

I did not claim this. I claimed that a system which offers more than two privilege levels allows device drivers to run with more limited privileges than the kernel, thereby allowing for a more robust architecture.

is like saying that MS-DOS can't be networked... Just because it isn't built-in doesn't make it impossible. In fact, I find Unix more secure because of the fact that privlidge seperation *is* seperate from the kernel. Then again, you can still be lazy and not make use of it.

Your comments dont make sense, and show that you dont understand difference between hardware privilege levels and user accounts. UNIX relies on hardware privilege levels, just like other OSes.

OpenBSD Installation

[djtrippin]

I've been wanting to set up an OpenBSD installation on one of my boxes for a few months now but the task of installation looks rather daunting according to their FAQ. Can anyone here who runs openBSD or who has installed it a few times and has a grip on the process email me with some thoughts about exactly how rough it would be for a BSD n00b, like myself, to do his first installation.

Re:OpenBSD Installation

[LogicFlow]

Just get a grip on diskslices. You'll laugh at everything else. The installation is beautyfull.

Re:OpenBSD Installation

[Edball]

Like many people have said, its a really easy installation, well doccumented in the faq. The most intimidating part to a newbie would be partitioning the disk.

The recommended method is creating individual partitions for /, swap, /usr, /home, /tmp, and /var. Deciding the appropriate sizes for each of these partitions when you have no experience is probably the hardest part - but there's plenty of recommendations online. Personally, I'd recommend 80MB for /, 300MB for swap, 500MB for /tmp, 1GB for /var and split the rest between /usr and /home (/home is where most of your personal files will be stored and /usr is where most packages are installed).

All of the comands are well doccumented during the install if you type 'help'. The only other thing that could cause some confusion to somebody new is that by default all drive input sizes are by hd sectors - Not Bytes. The simple way to avoid calculating everything is just append all partition sizes with a 'M'. This lets the system know that your number is in Megs, not sectors.

Hope that helps you out some.

Re:OpenBSD Secure?

[LogicFlow]

I think NetBSD falls more into that catagory.
I remember hearing a good explanation of there "roles".
This isn't exact, but close enough.
FreeBSD, a sportscar. Hauls ass.
NetBSD, a hummer (or a jeep). Can go anywhere.
OpenBSD, a tank. I'd feel safe in one.

Anyone know who originally explained it similar to this? I'd like the original quote.

Answer to your question ...

[SuperDuG]

Why is the US military paying ideology-driven foreign hackers?

In a nutshell, not everyone in the "government" is a complete idiot ... *gasp* ... and sometimes ... just sometimes these "agencies" come up with supporting something that is actually useful to them and what they're trying to do.

OpenBSD is designed with security in mind. The article goes into great lengths about OpenBSD and what they've managed to acheive.

Anyone who has read my comments knows that I'm pretty much a BSD cheerleader because when I start to work with servers I will always pick a BSD solution wherever possible.

For many reasons there is a level of obscurity (try explaining to a "1337 h4x0r" what a "wheel" is ...) which also goes along with that there is some differences in the file structure as well (slackware doesn't count).

Plus theres the stability, I know linunx is stable, but the BSD stability is tested for stability and there isn't any "new exciting" features plugged in and not tested (okay at least in OpenBSD ... NetBSD does NOT count for this argument *grin*)

And my absolute favorite NO MORE THAN YOU NEED is installed!!! Something that I have also been arguing over in the SuSE disucssion ...

So what do we have, Simple, Stable, and Secure ... KISSS!!

Go DARPA, I've got tuition to pay so I can't buy an OpenBSD CD Set this semester :-(, but I did pay income taxes (so I guess I did kinda fund OpenBSD!!!)

Re:Answer to your question ...

[imnoteddy]

In a nutshell, not everyone in the "government" is a complete idiot ... *gasp* ... and sometimes ... just sometimes these "agencies"
come up with supporting something that is actually useful to them and what they're trying to do.

Like the Internet.

Re:Answer to your question ...

[Bishop]

I run Debian, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD. Debian is not even close to the simplicity of OpenBSD. In particular Debian suffers from a lack of a true default (complete) install. OpenBSD's default install is "everything you want in a *nix and nothing more." FreeBSD has a few more nice to have features. By comparision Debian is quite complex. Debian's philosophy of choice, choice, and more choice has its place (and is the reason I use it). However a side effect is that the Debian team won't come out and package up a default system that is well integrated and contains the basic unix tools and servers. OpenBSD has a smaller footprint then Debian for the same basic functionality because OpenBSD does not have all the support files Debian needs to seemlessly work with any of the 56 mailservers packaged in debs.

All three systems are equally easy to administer due to ports and apt-get. I do find that Debian is easier to keep current as apt-get/dpkg does a better job of upgradeing from one version to the next. Some admin basic admin tasks are easier under OpenBSD/FreeBSD as there is just less cruff to deal with. I prefer *BSD on my servers as I can "install and forget." I prefer Debian/testing on my workstations as it combines a good mix of current software and stability.

If you like Gentoo (which I also use) switch to FreeBSD. The packages in FreeBSD ports are better then Gentoo's ebuilds. FreeBSD aims for stability. Gentoo has a tendancy to apply too many bleeding edge patches. FreeBSD does have a completely different way of manageing the source, so it will take some getting used to.

Least there shouldn't be any back door

[rf0]

I mean the US military is funding it. Commercial software I might be a bit wary of. Least with Open Source other people can vet the code to make sure there isn't any backdoors. You get the best of both worlds so all in all I'm up for this

Rus

Re:Least there shouldn't be any back door

[debrain]

Least with Open Source other people can vet the code to make sure there isn't any backdoors.

Not strictly true - the single point of failure is the compiler. If the Intel or gcc compiler has a smart 'exploit', (1) they can backdoor specific or general programs without an exploit in source, and (2) this exploit can self-propagate in the compiler, as the backdoor compiler compiles the new compiler, so once written the source for the self-propagating compiler exploit can be deleted. Donald Knuth did this with gcc(?), iirc.

Just FYI. ;)

Re:Least there shouldn't be any back door

[coyul]

Way offtopic here now, but it was Ken Thompson, not Donald Knuth. Here's the discussion in question: Reflections on Trusting Trust.

Also a summary entry in the Jargon File, for those who don't want to read the paper: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/back-do or.html

Answers

[ErikRed1488]

Why is the U.S. military funding it?
My guess would be that the military will either take OpenBSD, combine it with some code from the NSA, and make a really secure OS, or take some code from it and add it to an OS they already use.

What do you get out of it?
It's Free Software so we get to see the source code that's being developed as part of the project. We get to tweak that code, make it better, port it to another system, etc.

I think it's pretty cool the US Gov. is partially funding OpenBSD. I guess it's no different that government grants to universities for medical research and such.

Re:Answers

[xtermz]

My guess would be that the military will either take OpenBSD, combine it with some code from the NSA, and make a really secure OS, or take some code from it and add it to an OS they already use.

And my guess is that they will simply use OpenBSD out of the box, thus incorporating whatever developments are made by the gov't funded OpenBSD programmers.

I need to choose my words wisely here, but the govt isnt the big spender it used to be, at least in terms of developing their own solutions. Especially in the military, there has been a big move to use COTS based components whenever applicable. Command and control systems are running off of NT systems nowadays.

Back when they were running on Legacy systems, yea, alot of applications were made "in house". But you would be surprised if you were to walk through a modern military facitlity or a government agency the amount of x86 based hardware laying around.

Security?

[gillbates]

Adobe and Network Security Technologies, Inc., use OpenBSD, although many of them keep their choice private for security reasons.

Kind of like how Microsoft keeps its code private for security reasons too....

If BSD really is as secure as it has been touted, why keep your choice private "for security reasons"? Sorry, I don't mean to flame, but this statement has done more to hurt BSD than help it.

Re:Security?

[sacherjj]

Regardless of how secure your OS is, why help those trying to hack in? Attacks are going to be different for Windows boxes, OSx, Linux, BSD, etc. The more work you have to do to start getting in, the more trail you will leave be and the harder it will be in general to accomplish.

Re:Security?

[Tumbleweed]

>If BSD really is as secure as it has been touted, why keep your choice private "for security reasons"?

Security through obscurity should never be one's ONLY line of defense, but as anyone truly into security knows, it IS a good idea to have it as a PART of one's defense. There's absolutely NO reason, other than OS evangelism, to advertise what kind of security you have. It's not the business of businesses to worry about helping advertise their choice of OS or security technology.

Re:Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

no. This just shows that companies that are security conscious, take EVERY possible measure to protect their network. So - if these security conscious companies are taking the steps to protect themselves at this length by not disclosing their OS, or blanking banner messages to not identify OS type, software type or version information - then MAYBE that just goes to show that the people that take this whole security aspect seriously - also run oBSD.

This is NOTHING alike MS keeping code private. It's like going into a fight and telling your opponent that your left ribs are sore ... WHY detail your possible weakness, just so your opponent can take advantage of a known vulnerability??

makes sense? yaw? Whoever +4'd your comment should be shot. "hurts bsd" ... if anything, your comment weeds out non thinkers like yourself, from a very good product.

StatiK76

Re:Security?

[jazman_777]

Security through obscurity should never be one's ONLY line of defense, but as anyone truly into security knows, it IS a good idea to have it as a PART of one's defense. There's absolutely NO reason, other than OS evangelism, to advertise what kind of security you have. It's not the business of businesses to worry about helping advertise their choice of OS or security technology.

I'd add that obscurity only helps when _all other pieces_ of security are in place. That is, it's a bit of icing.

Re:Security?

[241comp]

Because "Security Through Obscurity" is the only method of security asside from a mathematically proven source which has a possibility of 100% success. I'm not saying it makes a good defense alone but coupled with the correct software it is excellent. Take this example:

1. You have OpenBSD which one can assume has a finite number of attacks which could be used against it as it is a finite system. Therefore, if there is a security flaw it WILL be found in finite time.

2. You have OpenBSD but no-one knows you do. They have to assume that you could have 1 of any number (a number which is constantly growing) of systems. These systems have a constantly growing number of possible attacks. In order for one to attempt every possible attack they have to attack faster than operating systems (all of them) are being developed. This is not really feasible which means that if there is a security flaw it MAY be found in finite time (it may NOT).

Now, would you rather have a system in which a flaw WILL be found or one in which a flaw MAY be found?

Re:Security?

[reinard]

Heh.

I guess it's no longer an issue now that they decided to "keep their choice [of OpenBSD] private for security reasons".

Btw, there is a difference between not making your OS very easily detectable and not letting anybody see the source so they could check it.

Any security expert will tell you that obscurity is not a good model for security, BUT it is a helpful first barrier. Just look how well it's working for MS. There are probably hundreds of bad bugs in their code, but very very few people will be able to exploit them (THE UNKNOWN ONES), because you can't just download the code look through it and find a bug and attack. I'm definitely not agreeing with this model, but something like making your machines unable to be OS-fingerprinted IS a useful security measure that will at least make things more difficult for the attacker, even though it could be considered as 'ADDITIONAL security through obscurity'.

Installing OpenBSD is extremely easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, before I get started, let me say that OpenBSD developers and users have no patience for people who aren't willing to read documentation, since they pride themselves on it (even man pages) being extremely well written and kept up to date. If it's not, file a bug, and _IT WILL GET FIXED_ (of course if it's just _your_ problem, then don't file a bug regarding the project, file one in your own bugtracking system as something you need to work on).

That said, the following FAQ explains the installation process far better than anyone writing you email ever will be able to, including a complete install process in grey, which has example responses in bold [for the most part]. If you can't get it from this, then you aren't reading, and it doesn't matter if someone writes you an email message with the same thing (written more poorly no doubt). If you can't read and follow instructions, then OpenBSD is not for you, and honestly - you shouldn't bother.

Most people don't have this problem, but there are always some feeble minded folks who think that life is easier if they're spoonfed on IRC and the like. To such people: you aren't welcome. The answer to this attitude has already been given: don't ask questions that already have explicit, clear answers publically available.

If you have a problem with the instructions (not enough detail supplied, typos, etc.) then please let the OpenBSD developers know about them in order that they may be corrected. If _you_ have a problem, in that you can't understand them, well... maybe it's _JUST YOUR PROBLEM_. It might be something that you need to work on. Of course, there is an opportunity for things to be unclear, and in such cases - again, submit a bug: "such and such statement regarding fdisk is unclear, suggest more detail on partitioning so that xyz is unabiguous"

Now, if you -want- to install OpenBSD, go read:

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html

Re:Installing OpenBSD is extremely easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with OpenBSD folks responding (or ignoring) questions they don't want to answer.

This has to do with common questions, being answer _already_ and people not taking the time to read the answers.

Does it make sense to repeat oneself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, just because the question was asked again? No, it does not - this is why FAQ's came about, LONG AGO - in the time before OpenBSD (or Linux) there were still FAQ's.

The idea was, you could tell someone: read the FAQ here, and they would, and you wouldn't have to reanswer the same goddamn question 1000 times. OpenBSD has an excellent FAQ, and excellent man pages. They provide answers to commonly asked questions, any OpenBSD person will tell you to go read those sources and try them out. If they don't work for you, submit a bug report explaining why they don't work (install dies on xyz hardware for xyz apparent reason - help!). Someone will try to help you.

Asking people to email you a personal answer to a question, already answered is not welcome, because the answer is already provided, and people have likely told you where to look and to try that out first.

This has nothing to do with superiority or even OpenBSD itself, this is extremely basic learning skills, and if you don't have them - go away. Any OpenBSD 'folks' (well, developers) will likely tell you that as well, you are wasting their time.

Section 4 of the FAQ as linked in the original response is extremely clear and well written. It has a walkthrough of examples showing exactly what you can type to install a machine. Suggesting that someone go read that first, I think saves a lot of time for everyone.

RedHat DII COE [ot]

[llouver]

For those of you interested in this topic, you should also be aware of RedHat's DII COE (Common Operating Environment) kernel available at DISA. The kernel is available at http://diicoe.disa.mil/coe/kpc/linuxpc.html

The creation of DII COE kernel for RedHat implies that there may be some pressure to accept GNOME as a valid component of the Joint Technical Architecture (JTA).

In other words, the military bureaucracy is beginning to accept the fact that linux is part of the modern computing landscape. (Watching the wheels of military technology turn is like watching grass grow)

Stop stealing idea's from SCO

[Billly Gates]

There is no possible way OpenBSD can be that secure and stable without stolen key Sco OpenServer source code.

No and ifs or buts. Its not like this technology is well known or taught.

After all, everyone knows that sco is the most stable, secure, and scalable unix ever made. All the great unix's borrow code from sco. There is no way Sun could of made solaris scalable without the ultra secure and scalable Xenix code. Just ask David Bois. Shesh.

Re:Stop stealing idea's from SCO

[jc42]

Hey, you need a smiley. The folks here are often humor-impaired, and would't recognize irony if it whumped them upside the head. You're most likely to just get a "troll" rating unless you make it obvious that you're writing with tongue in cheek.

This article is disappointing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to harp on more publicity for OpenBSD, but this piece was a real letdown. One quote from Theo in the whole thing?! (note, I do not consider quoting terms such as "unix semantics" or "setuid program" to be substantive -real- quotes).

Maybe this will be useful to those who have never heard of OpenBSD, or are unfamiliar with its improvements for the past two years (only propolice incorporation is something more recent) - but for anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of the project, this is just not good journalism. Here you have an opportunity to have Theo answer your questions, and really get down to the meet behind the scenes, how the DARPA funding came about - how they approached him, whether there were any conditions to the work, if OpenBSD could use more of this funding, etc. But no, nothing, one quote - no new insight.

This might serve OK as an advocacy piece, and hopefully it will. But if you have two people "talk[ing] to Theo de Raadt" you would hope that they would have some more to talk about.

I find that reading interviews are far more enlightening than summary tripe such as this, because you're not just presented with a set of facts, but you get to hear information that goes beyond just the answers to questions. Often times, you then learn about things beyond the scope of the story, upcoming developments, sore spots. Say even a mention of how unfathomable it is that Sun has been holding back documentation to OpenBSD, given how many other private, public and governmental organizations (e.g. DARPA) that make no pretenses about support the opensource community are providing support to OpenBSD, whereas Sun is totally going against their own doctrine and ignoring OpenBSD developer requests (not even _offering_ an NDA as Linux et al have been presented with).

If this were a paper for a class or a personal site, fine no problem, what can a student or hobbiest do? But if you are in a position to provide journalism, it's really sad to see that power completely wasted in such a way.

Oh well, at least it can be added to the "OpenBSD is secure, free and neat, you should buy a CD" article pile, oh, I forgot to mention - continually overlooked. I guess there can never be too many of those, but it's sure starting to feel that way.

And -TWO- people wrote this article. Goddamn, two people, no brain.

OpenBSD isn't the only one ...

[jstockdale]

Although OpenBSD has recently gotten a reputition for being ubersecure, and thus this article about how it has been getting funds from DARPA, it is by no means unique. It seems that this perception of OBSD has come from its ability to do encrypted swap, and encryption in most faculties; however, it blatently neglects disk based security.

I'd like to point out that DARPA is also funding the FreeBSD project, specifically enabling the development of FBSD 5.0's geom/gbde functions, which enable a fully modular disk access system, and transparent drive encryption. Really cool features, and it looks like once the code gets a stronger review from the crypto community it should really open up the possibilites for securing FBSD.

Re:OpenBSD isn't the only one ...

[kryps]

And DARPA is also funding Reiserfs v4 development.

-- kryps

Re:OpenBSD isn't the only one ...

[edhall]

DARPA funding for BSD goes way back -- long before OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD existed. One of the most important instances was DARPA's funding of the development of BSD's TCP/IP network stack back in the mid-1980's. This made BSD the first system in wide deployment that supported TCP/IP. It's hard to overestimate the affect that this has had on Unix and the Internet since then.

-Ed

Hybrid vigor

[dsplat]

Fortunately, it's open source. We can learn from it and take the lessons with us to other code. While there are a lot of people getting mileage out of the amount of malware out there that attacks Windows, one of the reasons there is so much of it is that it is absolutely no challenge to find Windows machines on the net because of their sheer number. And many of them are poorly secured because Windows is the OS that is shipped on machines that are sold to people who have neither the knowledge to secure a computer nor the time to learn how.

There are several efforts to improve the security of Linux and *BSD. In the end, I think they'll benefit us all. Bruce Schneier talks about the window of exposure in his book Secrets and Lies. Efforts to improve the security of open source OSs have several benefits in reducing that window.

Some bugs will be fixed before they are ever exploited. A security vulnerability is still a vulnerability. But the damage is much less in this case.

Some bugs will be fixed faster after they are first exploited. Again, this reduces the damage that is done.

But in the long run, a greater benefit is the number of people who acquire some knowledge of how to analyze and test for security vulnerabilities and how to fix them. That is going to be greatest in open source. It provides the opportunity for competent programmers to wear the white hats.

Inform SCO

[gokulpod]

Quick, someone call up that SCO lawyer. Tell them that OpenBSD has got recognition from DARPA for security. I am sure they will file a claim of $1 billion against them too. The next day, the U.S. army will "accidently" test a MOAB on SCO hearquarters.

We will no longer need to worry about the lawsuit they filed against IBM.

Thin Gruel Indeed

[divide overflow]

BSDForums writes "OpenBSD has a well-deserved reputation for fanatical security. Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it? Cameron Laird and George Peter Staplin investigate and talk to Theo de Raadt, the creator, overseer, and taskmaster of the OpenBSD project!"

OpenBSD has a reputation for very good security. I wouldn't consider the quest for strong security "fanatical" any more than I would consider the quest for a bug-free operating system "fanatical."

Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it?

The U.S. military is funding it because it makes sense to do so. Anyone who looks at OpenBSD's record for security and stability, the fact that it is free to use and modify in any way you desire, and doesn't consider it as a potentially cheap and useful platform for security applications...well, they aren't thinking clearly.

What do you get out of it?

I find it makes a great platform for firewalls and terminal servers, among other things. Ones that are reliable, very secure, with no software cost and lot of online support information.

Cameron Laird and George Peter Staplin investigate and talk to Theo de Raadt, the creator, overseer, and taskmaster of the OpenBSD project!"

They may have talked to Theo, but they sure didn't *quote* him much. The article was very thin on information. In my opinion it hardly merited a /. posting.

OpenBSD In USA?

[debrain]

I seem to recall that OpenBSD was developed exclusively outside the USA because of export restrictions on crypto. Now it is being funded by DARPA? I am little confused on the matter, but thought that it was an interesting enough point to post.

Re:OpenBSD security on Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

Search usenet archives - there has been an effort at some point, and since BSD is higher in the foodchain of licenses than GPL, you don't need to worry about that (BSD can become GPL, whereas GPL cannot become BSD). Just don't pull a MicroBSD copyright screw over (i.e. don't search and replace, actually append your changes, don't change other people's and you'll be fine).

The -point- for doing something like that, instead of simply improving OpenBSD with its own license, is completely beyond me. Does there need to be a GPL'd debian released OpenBSD? Answer that question first. I see absolutely no reason to give something that is already active and has an open source license, a simple copy, with a more restrictive license (GPL is more restrictive than BSD, MIT or PD licensing).

If you just want to do porting efforts, a lot has been done already - their ftpd has been ported, systrace (google for niels provos) is being ported to some linux platform [it's already on several others since OpenBSD], propolice is currently not integrated into other projects to the same level that it is in OpenBSD, but OpenWall Linux (www.openwall.com) has some similar protections, though not quite as full blown. I don't know about pf being ported anywhere, but it's a best-of-class product right now (only thing currently lacking is a non-kludgey [or at least well documented] way of doing stateful failover).

Port all you want - they strive to keep their code as FREE as possible.

Re:Yeah, but GPL would be better

[jslag]

Contributions to BSD don't really help us as much. . .

Speak for yourself - those of us who run BSD on our production servers find contributions useful.

If you pay a little attention to what the OpenBSD core team says and does, you'd realize that there is little-to-no danger that government funding will take the project in any directions but those stated in the project goals.

How about let Americans work on it, gov't?

[frankjr]

The government won't let us distribute our own crypto freely, but they fund foreigners to make cryptography, to distribute to the whole world?

People on ship said WinNT not problem

[AHumbleOpinion]

Why not? They've tried it with Windows nt [gcn.com], which didn't work, so maybe there's more trust in open systems since then.

The news agency that originaly broke the story you cite later distanced themselves from it by calling it early speculation. My understanding is that a naive server app corrupted it's own database and naive client apps (the infamous "LAN consoles" that crashed) needed that database to function properly and to operate equipment. Rather than rely on the early speculation of *NIX advocates why not rely on someone who was on the ship and someone who wrote the software:

http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2.h tml

"Others insist that NT was not the culprit. According to Lieutenant Commander Roderick Fraser, who was the chief engineer on board the ship at the time of the incident, the fault was with certain applications that were developed by CAE Electronics in Leesburg, Va. As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy programs for CAE, admits, 'If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it should be in ours.' But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened if the navy had been using a production version of the CAE software, which he asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred."

Re:I want to try OpenBSD but...

[Cirvam]

Stolen from a slashdot post I saw long ago:

If you want x86, then just download it from the OpenBSD ftp site.

wget -r ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.0/i386/ Makes it easy.

Once thats done...

cd ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD

then...

mkisofs -v -r -l -L -T -J -V "OpenBSD-3.0" -A "OpenBSD v3.0-Release, Custom ISO, 17-03-2002." -b 3.0/i386/cdrom30.fs -c boot.catalog -o openbsd-i386-3.0.iso -x openbsd-i386-3.0.iso .

Burn that ISO!

Re:OpenBSD Secure?

[La Temperanza]

Also, OpenBSD still uses our trusty old friend gcc 2.95. While it certainly remains the best choice for secure & stable programs, the performance increases in code built with 3.x are nothing to scoff at.

Re:Yeah, but GPL would be better

[jtdubs]

I love this kind of logic.

"The BSD license let's people do too many things, some of which I don't like. Therefore, the BSD license is TOO free."

"The GPL however, has just the right amount of freedom. It's still mostly free, without crossing the line of 'TOO free'. People can do what they want with it, as long as 'what they want' != 'what the FSF doesn't want'."

I have no moral problem with the GPL. I just wish people would stop calling it "free", unless they are going to put a (TM) or something after it. If you wanted your software to be truly free, you wouldn't be putting a copyright on it that contains words like "except" and "however."

Justin Dubs

Re:Yeah, but GPL would be better

[Uwe Barschell]

How is it that Apache and XFree86 have not been forked off into proprietary products and promptly used to put the reams to you with custom extensions? Apache is perhaps the most successful open source project, and XFree86 is perhaps second. This is in part because they do not use the GPL, and are therefore free from its restrictions.

I know you're trolling, but.....

[styrotech]

Way to go Theo. I hope you realize you're indirectly assisting the U.S. military in perpetuatating American hegemony around the globe while killing thousands of innocents. Oh, but you live in Canada, I guess you don't have to worry about that...

Way to go DARPA, I hope you realise that you are funding foreigners to indirectly assist Terrorists by making their systems harder to crack by US intelligence agencies.

Sound ridiculous? I hope so.

Or: Way to go Theo, I hope you realise that you are indirectly assisting civil rights and human rights groups by making their systems harder to crack by corrupt dictatorships.

Re:one thing

[Tony-A]

Openbsd is about qualtiy. It has les bugs, which equal less possible exploits, but security is not their objective. Hell, they only recently got a basic acl and added stack protection, stuff that has been available for *ages*

Oh, and theo's stubborn incorrect opinion that users don't need security models. This is wrong, as we need stuff like rsbac or grsecurity to bring *nix security up to a powerfull level.

With OpenBSD not implementing such a basic ideaology, They might suceed as a hobbiest OS, but never as a *secure* os.

Partially correct, but my impression is that if you want Multics, then use Multics.

Regarding OpenBSD and it security models or lack thereof. Theo's opinion matters. Yours does not. Mine does not. They are responsible to themselves for their own definition of what OpenBSD should be. ONLY. They happen to be nice enough to share the fruits of their labors, but that is their decision not our right.

as a hobbiest OS
Yep, but that's one hell of a hobby. It strikes me as what paranoid professionals use on their own private systems when they like to sleep peacefully at night.

Isn't it ironic

[Black Copter Control]

(hey.. Alanis is Canadian too).

If I remember correctly, OpenBSD development was based in Canada (in part) because encryption code was considered a munition and thus the US government refused to allow it's export (while it was allowed from Canada).

Now the military (who were probably the source of these rules) are paying for the continued development of a technology that the forced out of the country on security grounds.

Convoluted enough for you???

Re:OpenBSD Secure?

[evilviper]

NetBSD may support more platforms, but OpenBSD covers the most popular ones.

The vehicle analogy is more than somewhat flawed. You mention weapons, but the truth is that all are stationary systems, that can be attacked by anyone, and can't move out of the way. They do not wear down after tons of successful attacks, but rather are either broken with one, or remain perfectly intact at full strength. I could go on, but there's not much point.

As for the logo, I'm pretty sure the blowfish comes from the widespread use of Blowfish encryption in OpenBSD. The master.passwd uses blowfish by default, OpenSSH uses blowfish as one of the top cipher choices, blowfish is used to encrypt the swap partition (if encryption is chosen), etc.

If the OpenBSD team thought they were making a tank, they just might have used a logo of a FREAKING TANK.

Hacker Soldiers

[two_socks]

Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it?

Because they want the most secure operating system available. I may get my ass shot at a lot less. Or, maybe, terrorist hackers won't be able to figure out when my flight home is leaving Kuwait City International Airport.

I'm in the Army National Guard. It used to be my full time job. Now I'm a "weekend warrior".

I used to administer NT boxes for the Army among other job duties. It gave me the heebie-jeebies! I am a helluva lot more comfortable with military secrets residing somewhere else.

Before someone trots out the "you're just a weekend warrior" pony - after I left the guard full time, I was deployed to Kuwait for six months of middle-east summertime bliss. I was there for September 11. And, yes, I really did fly home out of KCIA, and I was damned glad the time we flew out was kept secret, even from us. And if the only computer that info ever lives on is an OpenBSD box, I'll sleep better at night. And so will my wife, parents, etc.

Theo's Hardware

[theolein]

In the article there is a link to Theo's personal site. He lists his hardware there, and the amazing thing is that he doesn't have a single machine capable of more than 200MHz.

I find it amazing in these days of 3.6GHz machines needed to run bleeding edge games and gimmicky OS's and everyone and their mothers going gooey over the latest GHz jump in analy embedded mobile devices that OpenBSD's chief developer uses computers that actually fit his needs. It is comforting to know that the SECURE processing and dissemination of digital information can be done efficiently without the large, bright, rounded, colourful buttons and Windows found in most other OS's.