OpenBSD 3.5 Reviewed

eeg3 writes "NewsForge has a review of OpenBSD 3.5. It encompasses a fair amount of information, more specifically it details security, cryptography, installation, and new features." While not afraid to point out OpenBSD's shortcomings as a desktop OS, it's still a good tour of possibly the most secure OS. NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSDN.

Comments

Question

[NanoGator]

Every time there's a story about a vulnerability in something Microsoft related, there's a ton of modded up comments to the tune of "people should use Linux and related stuff to be more secure." But if security's such a BFD, why isn't BSD more popular around here?

Re:Question

[black mariah]

Because you can't like BSD and spooge all over the GPL at the same time.

Re:Question

[Nasarius]

Linux is totally appropriate for a secure desktop system. OpenBSD is for insanely secure servers. The BSDs tend to lack the hardware support of Linux too and other things that just make Linux nicer for desktops.

Re:Question

[NanoGator]

"Linux is totally appropriate for a secure desktop system."

Well I don't know how to write this so it doesn't sound trollish. For that, I apologize in advance.

Is what you're saying that a little less security is okay if it's more usable? If so, why isn't Windows given a little more credit?

Re:Question

[Nasarius]

Windows isn't given more credit because it's crap. To put it in perspective, if Windows is a 1 in terms of security, Linux is a 10 and OpenBSD is a 12.
See dh003i's post.

Re:Question

[Creepy Crawler]

---Is what you're saying that a little less security is okay if it's more usable? If so, why isn't Windows given a little more credit?

Hmmmm, interesting question. Let me present you problems that Ive not found Windows to handle.

1: Allowing graphical interface but NOT allowing 3D graphic card operations used (Simple with X, deny access to DRI)

2: Allowing programs from remote TRUSTED computers to have their graphical output displayed locally. (X was made for this exact purpose)

3: Making user accounts with almost no permission to the local computer (remote mounted directory trees)

4: The ability of an extremly fine grained system security model (NSA patches, now in the 2.6 kernel)

5: Being able to fix terminal (as in bad) errors within your servers woithout having to rely on external help (Domain Admin accts either locked out or scrambled in Win2k3- no known way to harvest other than full reinstall)

6: Does not need a desktop environment to run. Just instead open the Xserver and have onload the program needed for work.

7: Can be done on a Xterminal or bare-bones PC with network connection. I know of no Windows OS that this can be said for.

Im sure there's more... but Oh well ;)

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

"The BSDs tend to lack the hardware support of Linux too and other things that just make Linux
nicer for desktops."

Let me think of how to put this in a nice way...

BZZZZZZZZT! Try again. BSD usually the hardware before Linux has it, off the top of my head I can think of USB2 and FireWire.

Happy trolling!

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

> But if security's such a BFD, why isn't BSD more
> popular around here?

Because for many (most?) in the Linux community
it's not about correctness or quality of the OS,
it's about licensing (GPL), bringing down the evil
empire (Microsoft), and revolution (down with Cap-
italism).

Re:Question

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Windows isn't given more credit because it's crap. To put it in perspective, if Windows is a 1 in terms of security, Linux is a 10 and OpenBSD is a 12.
"

A lot of Linux users out there are kidding themselves. Arugably, Linux is more secure than Windows. However, most of the Windows vulnerabilities we've seen lately were actually vulnerabilitys on apps running on top of Windows, i.e. I.E.. (Yes, I know it's part of the OS, but that's not to say that Mozilla or Opera couldn't have been developed to be dangerous. Hence the 'more' in my secure commment earlier.) Install and run an insecure app on Linux, then you're just about as vulnerable to outside attack. Not as vulnerable given Linux's excellent permissions system, but it's still more than enough to do damage.

My point is not to say that Windows should be held in a better light, but rather to say that more secure is not secure. You still have to install updates, you still have to watch what you run on it, and you still need to back up/protect your data. If you're already doing that, then usability is of greater interest, and for a lot of people, Linux still has catching up to do.

Ng's got a point. The security reason for people to switch to Microsoft is not the 1 vs. 10 reason it's made out to be here. (at least when talking about personal use, I wouldn't say the same if we were talking about deploying corporate workstations.)

Re:Question

[curious.corn]

UNIX security model is much more easy to grasp and implement than whatever MS kludged together in the various pro versions of their environment. There's no such thing as chroot/jail in windows isn't it? I'm perfectly aware that an XP registry is rife with cryptic and mulply overridden account policy keys that only a specialized enterprise admin might make something out of it (that's probably why SPs often FSCK up deployed servers...). When a security hole exposes a 'nobody' or 'www' jailed server I can patch it in no time being 100% shure the only service involved is the one I'm working on; sometimes I go to the point of duplicating shared libs (openssl) for the various servers... Windows is unsafe because of sloppy code and also because it has a byzantine security model.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you can have a very simplistic deployment that uses a Jail to serve pron pics, and Linux/BSD works very well at that.

However, in enterprise deployments, the "byzantine security model" blows away the Unix equivalents, in terms of pure, needed, functionality.

We're talking about a crowd that still uses NFS, which hasn't even the concept of passwords! It's like super-intelligent space aliens attempting to communicate with cavemen. No wonder they can't understand and think their "Good-um Head-Smash Bone" is superior to a finely tuned alien weapon. Someday, you'll evolve, and until then keep spewing your fud.

Re:Question

[Creepy Crawler]

Very valid questions.. But Im a consultant.

I service mainly Small Business Owners with IT advice, equipment, installation, and integration of said equipment.

When a business owner says they're having a problem with a User on a Linux desktop playing 3d games on work computers, I respond with the correct way to deal with it. I do not lecture how good/bad the owner is handling business, or other "moral" concerns.

And yes, it doesnt stop Flash games, or other nuisance games.. Just stopping 3d based hardware acceleration stops a large class of games. But that part is just that.. A PART in stopping game playing.

And if I had a business with more than 2 people (I have a hired worker-on call mostly), as long as the said work is done, I'd not have a problem letting a salaried worker either play games or go home. As long as they're not breaking any laws (no matter how asanine some are) I really dont mind.

Case in point. Im pretty leinant. Some small buisiness owners I do work for arent.

Re:Question

[Foolhardy]

UNIX security model is much more easy to grasp and implement than whatever MS kludged together in the various pro versions of their environment.

I don't find the NT security model to be hard to understand; what don't you understand? It hasn't changed much since the first version.

There's no such thing as chroot/jail in windows isn't it?

Yes, they are called sessions. Each session has a set of symbolic links in the Object Manager that connect devices to a session's namespace. The Object Manager is like Linux's VFS. Change/delete those links and win32 can't get to the devices they point to. For example, if you changed the C:->\Device\HarddiskVolume1 link to point to \Device\HarddiskVolume1\MyDir, processes in that session cannot access files outside of \MyDir.

I'm perfectly aware that an XP registry is rife with cryptic and mulply overridden account policy keys that only a specialized enterprise admin might make something out of it (that's probably why SPs often FSCK up deployed servers...).

Are you saying that group policies are cryptic, despite the paragraphs per entry in the description tab? Here is how policy overriding works. Group policies applied from the domain always replace local settings; they would be useless without this. Computer policies override user policies in a single GPO object when a conflict exists. When you connect GPO objects to an orginizational object you get to pick what order the GPOs are applied in. When in doubt, lookup the "Effective Policy" in Local Security Policy. Policies overwrite each other; redundant entries are not created.
Personally, I haven't had any problems with service packs.

When a security hole exposes a 'nobody' or 'www' jailed server I can patch it in no time being 100% shure the only service involved is the one I'm working on; sometimes I go to the point of duplicating shared libs (openssl) for the various servers... Windows is unsafe because of sloppy code and also because it has a byzantine security model.

If I had an unprivledged local service breached on a NT machine, the only thing I would worry about is local exploits, same as on a UNIX. You can duplicate libraries if you want, but that's a bit pointless.
The security model is just different, not bad.

different solutions for different problems

[dh003i]

If you are running a server, and security is extremely important, there is nothing better than OpenBSD. Period, end of discussion. Banks and financial institutions should not be using Windows, Linux, or even FreeBSD servers: they should be using OpenBSD servers. Likewise for any website online trafficking in sensitive financial information and private information.

For websites that don't deal in such sensitive information, OS' that are less secure are acceptable, such as FreeBSD and various Linux' suitable for servers (Slackware, Debian, Gentoo).

For Desktop users, security isn't as paramount. However, it is still important, especially if you store any sensitive information on your computer. Some people store their private financial information on their computers. This is why Windows creates problems. Other Windows security problems are just obvious: the plethora of virus', exploits, worms, etc etc etc. These are areas where Linux is better (if not misconfigured so as to be insecure). The reason for Linux and not OpenBSD is because computer's are not an end in themselves. They exist to do certain functions; many of the daily things which people want to do on their computers just aren't possible to do on OpenBSD, or are a real pain, but are possible to do in Linux.

Stating people should use Windows, MacOS, Linux, or xBSD is over-general. Do you know precisely what every users' needs/desires are? No. Then how can you possibly say what OS they should use? The answer is you can't.

Of course, I haven't really responded to your question "if security's such a BFD, why isn't BSD more popular around here?" The answer is that security isn't considered paramount, above all else. If you wanted to be completely secure with your computer, you could unplug it from the internet and never plug it back in, and lock it up in a vault-room, with finger-print protection. People here probably consider other things important as well...

Re:different solutions for different problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you are completely wrong. OpenBSD's performance is on par with netbsd, linux and freebsd 4 (freebsd 5 is still noticably slower than the others), benchmark it for yourself.

And openbsd is more secure than another OS doing the same job, wether it be serving webpages or whatever. Apart from code audits, theres stuff like removal of most setuid root apps, priviledge seperation in everything from syslogd to tcpdump, W^X, propolice, non-executable stack and heap, malloc and mmap randomization, stricter malloc/free checking than shit like glibc, strlcpy/strlcat and friends that glibc are too dense to add, swap encryption, and I am probably forgetting stuff.

To sum up, you are a moron, don't spew bullshit without learning the facts.

Re:Newbie trouble with OpenBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

This problem can be avoided by just not going to any pages which end in ".php". That way you can ensure that the pages were crafted by professional programmers and nobody will try to exploit your uber-secure OpenBSD Javascript debugger.

Re:Most Secure OS?

[swamp boy]

Could you provide examples of "real operating systems designed to be secure from the ground up"? I'd like to know.

Re:Most Secure OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you call something "the most secure OS" when there is still a concept of a root user that has access to the entire system?

How can you secure, and be sure something is secure if the system can deny you from making sure it is so? Isn't that sort of a catch 22?