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

[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

[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

[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.)

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: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.