OpenBSD Foundation Announced

OpenBDSfan writes "KernelTrap is reporting on the creation of the OpenBSD Foundation, a Canadian not-for-profit corporation intended to support OpenBSD and related projects, including OpenSSH, OpenBGPD, OpenNTPD, and OpenCVS. The announcement explains, "the OpenBSD Foundation will initially concentrate on facilitating larger donations of equipment, funds, documentation and resources. Small scale donations should continue to be submitted through the existing mechanisms.""

Comments

Accounced?

[Shambhu]

s/check-it-out dept./spell-check-it dept./

Re:Accounced?

[howlingmadhowie]

i read 'asconced'. which reminded me of drinking a yard of ale at ocford university. though i can't imagine theo being against that.

Re:Accounced?

[jkrise]

s/check-it-out dept./spell-check-it dept./

Heh... actually, the spell-check-it dept. accounced they are absconscding, it seems they have abandondoned /. after spelling nazis attack them everyday!

Re:Accounced?

[ettlz]

Thankfully, nautral lagnuage has evolved enough redudnancy to provide for fairly reliable error corectiuon.

Re:Accounced?

[AliasTheRoot]

Godwined already...

Re:Accounced?

[fbjon]

I didn't even notice until the last word...

Re:Accounced?

[Mattintosh]

The brain has some kick-ass error correction built-in. That's why your statement can stay readable when condensed to this:

Thkfly, ntrl lngag hs evlvd engh rdndncy to prvd fr frly rlibl err crrctn.

Even better, it's compressed, and can be decompressed by using the error correction already present and running. Score!

Re:Accounced?

[ettlz]

OK, which joker modded me "Redundant"?

Re:Accounced?

[Lockejaw]

I don't know about you, but there's more decompression overhead here than I'd like to deal with.

Re:Accounced?

[quantum bit]

This is how I read what you posted:

Thankfully, neutral language has evolved enough redundancy to provide for frilly ribald error correction. Hmm, seems there's still some margin for error.

Re:Accounced?

[Mattintosh]

You have contextd deactivated. Fire it up and try again.

OpenCVS?

[QuantumG]

Yep, cause this license ain't free enough and, besides, we don't want anything that is better than CVS.

You're a codin' machine Theo, but I wish you could learn to play well with others.

Re:OpenCVS?

[timmarhy]

we already have something that's better then CVS, it's called SVN. all this bickering and duplicated effort does is help the bad guys win.

Re:OpenCVS?

[QuantumG]

Yep, I agree. It seems that the OpenBSD folks (not just Theo) think that SVN is too complicated to be secure. They want to stick with the "proven" CVS protocols and RCS file formats. And yeah, they always start from scratch because they've gotta make it BSD licensed.. and besides, it gives them a feeling of ownership.

This is a pretty common pattern. Complex == insecure to them. Which, to me, implies that secure == poverty. I like security as much as the next guy, but living in poverty because you're paranoid about security is not healthy.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Corporate Troll]

Complex == insecure to them. Which, to me, implies that secure == poverty.

No, you have your negation wrong.... If Complex == Insecure then !Complex = !Insecure, and thus Simple = Secure. The funny thing is: you cannot argue with that: simple is easier to audit and thus easier to audit. It really is that simple (Dah-dum!). Simple doesn't equate poverty, or a Lotus Elise is a poor-mans-car. (Having no radio, AC, etc...) Sorry for the "bad car analogy"(tm).

You also forget the target demographic for OpenBSD: this is not for your Desktop, nor even for your high-load server. You can use it for that, but the niche in which it lives is firewall, NAT, transparent bridging. Places where security matters more than anything else. Sure, a bit more complex to set up, you need to work more, but this is not your moms OS.

Re:OpenCVS?

[RAMMS EIN]

Actually, I believe there was a good reason to create OpenCVS. Lots of sites still use CVS, but development GNU CVS is a mess and has become effectively unmaintained (leaving several vulnerabilities open). OpenCVS is intended for those sites who, for whatever reason, wish to continue using CVS, but also want some degree of security.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Noryungi]

Just read up a little bit about OpenBSD, and you'll notice they are not afraid of complexity. Examples that come to mind are pf, OpenBGPD, W^X, etc.

Besides, choosing a stable and secure algorithm is not a bad idea. See this post for a valid example.

Finally, I can't help but notice that Subversion is available as an OpenBSD package, so quit your yakking already.

Sheesh, anti-OpenBSD trolls these days.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Corporate Troll]

simple is easier to audit and thus easier to audit.

Should be: simple is easier to audit and thus easier to secure.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Anonymous Coward]

CVS has the advantage that it is a fairly simple system compared to for example subversion, and it has also been stable for a long time. This means that it is much easier to audit and secure the code, compared to more complex tools. I have yet to see anyone claim the subversion is inherently more secure than CVS, or the securing subversion is somehow easier than securing CVS.

Re:OpenCVS?

[timmarhy]

it's not trolling when your point is valid - there's no need to recreate CVS, the license for CVS is perfectly fine and if you don't like CVS because of it's various problems, there's svn which is great.

the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself. which is ironic because openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.

Re:OpenCVS?

[QuantumG]

the niche in which it lives is firewall, NAT, transparent bridging So not a revision control server which sits behind a firewall and therefore doesn't need to be as secure?

Yeah, figured.

Re:OpenCVS?

[QuantumG]

Dude, we're just saying for them to not re-invent CVS. There's better systems available. Move on. All the time they spend rewriting CVS to be secure they could spend auditing SVN and help more users than just themselves.

All we're saying is that we should work together instead of fragmenting all the time.

Why is that a troll?

Re:OpenCVS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

What, please tell, is complex about W^X? (For those who don't know: executable pages are not writeable). I think you have no idea what you're talking about. And the moderators neither.

Re:OpenCVS?

[MaoTse]

CVS stays very much relevant to whole BSD community (not only OpenBSD).
It's because of the tradition, sure - and rather faint convicting force of some other version control system ...

Just look at the way CVSup http://www.cvsup.org/ is used.

These people just need a CVS software they would like to maintain for some time in the future.

Re:OpenCVS?

[nacturation]

No, you have your negation wrong.... If Complex == Insecure then !Complex = !Insecure, and thus Simple = Secure. Technically you should say the following, where "->" is the symbol for "implies":

If Complex -> Insecure, then:
!Insecure -> !Complex; and
Secure -> Simple

Otherwise your method of reasoning would go like this:

Square = Four-sided-figure
!Square = !Four-sided-figure

. . . which doesn't make sense because then you could say "and thus, a non-square rectangle isn't a four-sided figure".

Good old Wikipedia has the details.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Ohreally_factor]

It works either way. And if you're auditing it twice, that might be more secure.

Re:OpenCVS?

[nacturation]

Dude, we're just saying for them to not re-invent CVS. There's better systems available. Move on. All the time they spend rewriting CVS to be secure they could spend auditing SVN and help more users than just themselves. Or you could stop telling people what they should or shouldn't do in their spare time. If someone has a passion for writing really great CVS software, what's it to you?

Re:OpenCVS?

[zyche]

What people seems to forget is that even if CVS usage is replaced with something else (like for example SVN) it doesn't make all the old CVS repositories go away. So, 20 years into the future (when we have flying cars which runs on water) you sit there (on your levitating chair) and wants to extract some files from an old CVS repo you found in the company's archive. No problem, except that GNU CVS isn't available on SuperDuper Windows Extra Deluxe 2027, due to the fact that code base and build system is such a mess that no one manages to make packages for Cygwin anymore (that and the fact that Microsoft (Operating Systems Division) does not any longer permit that GPLed software is used on its products.

Ok, I'm exaggerating, but the point is that there is no fault in having a clean and maintainable code base for the future - even if it's only used for handling legacy projects.

Besides, who are we to tell these people how to use their spare time? If anyone want to re-implement Unix in Brainf*ck, then let them.

Re:OpenCVS?

[timmarhy]

We aren't "telling" them what to do, we are pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that a better CVS already exists.

hell it might save them wasting their spare time, get the point?

Re:OpenCVS?

[Corporate Troll]

You do realise that their revision control server is accessible from the outside world over the internet, don't you? It probably sits behind a firewall, but the CVS ports must still be open.

Re:OpenCVS?

[kestasjk]

To be fair openssl and openssh are far more widely used than CVS. Also although in my opinion it's a waste of effort to rewrite GPL software under the BSD license that's the developer's choice, they can develop whatever they want. If they dislike the GPL code or the GPL license enough to want to rewrite it that's their business.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Corporate Troll]

Logical terminology! So We Meet Again, My old Arch Nemesis. ;-)

That's for clearing that up, you are of course 100% right.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Hal_Porter]

Logical terminology is a bit like the Master in Doctor Who. Despite being burned/flamed to death attempting some evil scheme on numerous occasions, he always appears in later episodes unharmed.

Re:OpenCVS?

[CastrTroy]

Ok, maybe OpenBSD isn't aimed at the desktop, but apparently PC-BSD is.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Dramacrat]

That's my main concern, here. What kind of Stalinesque wet dream do they harbour, trying to tell people what to work on in their free time or what to develop?

Re:OpenCVS?

[QuantumG]

Then you use the CVS-to-SVN migration tool.

I tell ya one thing though.. all those pig-headed people who are reluctant to upgrade their CVS servers already are even less likely to do it if OpenCVS is a success.

Re:OpenCVS?

[umonkey]

"Here's one good reason the OpenBSD project will NEVER consider using stock subversion. While subversion's license is BSDish, Subversion depends on the Apache portable runtime, which has the same unacceptable license as Apache 2." -- from this post at undeadly.org.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Corporate Troll]

Yes? Which is based on FreeBSD and not OpenBSD. FreeBSD which is also used by many people on the desktop (I did a while ago, but that laptop died, unrelated to FreeBSD of course ;-) ). They are really only related by their name and their license. OpenBSD is a fork of NetBSD, which came from 386BSD which also forked into FreeBSD. Let's say OpenBSD and PC-BSD are something like cousins.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Anonymous Coward]

The strange (and perhaps depressing to you) thing is, Theo not only started his own flavour of BSD, but it is a great OS. Respected by people who know what they're talking about. When someone achieves something worthwhile, is there any point to whining how said person might not 'get along well with others'? It seems very small and pathetic. In a perfect world, this deserves a (+5 Insightful)

Re:OpenCVS?

[QuietLagoon]

the license for CVS is perfectly fine

Perhaps for your purposes. However, the CVS license it not consistent with the goals and philosophies of OpenBSD. So they created OpenCVS with a license that is appropriate.

the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself.

Do you have a link pointing to his quote on that?

openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.

OpenSSL is not Theo's "baby".

OpenSSH's security, while not perfect, has been excellent. Your unsubstantiated attribution of "huge security holes" to it seems to be intended as little more than a troll, since you did not provide any citations.

Re:OpenCVS?

[TheRaven64]

OpenBSD has a long history with CVS. It was the first open source project to run a public CVS server; previously all open source projects had run a private CVS server that only a few people could access, and published snapshots as tarballs.

They have a lot of revision history in their CVS repository, and feel it's important to maintain this due to the way in which their auditing process works. They might switch to something else at some point, but for now CVS is the best way they have of ensuring compatibility with CVS.

Currently, they use GNU CVS, but there have been a number of security problems with it in the recent past. Part of this comes from the fact that, when it was written, GNU projects used the private-CVS-public-snapshots development model, so only trusted people got access to the CVS server anyway. After fixing a few security holes in GNU CVS, the team decided that the code was in such a state that doing a full audit and getting it up to the standard required by OpenBSD would be more effort than writing a replacement, so they decided to replace it instead. So far, they have OpenRCS, which is a drop-in replacement for GNU RCS (on which CVS is built). Now they are working on the CVS component, and seem to be making good progress.

It's really not hard to understand. Considering the code quality of the rest of OpenBSD, I'd be more inclined to use their version than the GNU one if I needed CVS. Take a look at the recent BIND vulnerability that affected every platform except OpenBSD for an example.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Ed Avis]

I feel the OpenBSD guys are right. In general, a simpler system is less likely to have bugs (and hence security holes) than a more complex one. Indeed the first rule of programming is 'keep it simple'. CVS is an old program, having started life as a collection of shell scripts around RCS and then been gradually borged into a C program. CVS development hasn't exactly been rapid in the past few years and it is barely being maintained (look at the CVS site on Savannah).

CVS has had plenty of security holes and still does (like this one I found recently). In many ways it's a classic example of the kind of crusty traditional Unix program that the OpenBSD people have done such a good job securing, rewriting and replacing over the past decade.

As for moving to Subversion - plenty of people are happy with CVS; it has its limitations, but what it does, it does well. The project has a lot of infrastructure built round CVS and if the development process ain't broke, why fix it?

Re:OpenCVS?

[TheRaven64]

The reason OpenBSD didn't do this is that the CVS-to-SVN migration tool does (did?) not properly migrate all of the history information. I suspect this is a very hard problem, given the semantic differences between CVS and SVN. If it's solved, then there becomes much less of a need for OpenCVS, but until then some people would rather use a maintained and audited version of CVS than an unmaintained insecure one.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Noryungi]

the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself. which is ironic because openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.

Except, of course, you have no fscking idea what you are talking about, since OpenSSL is not developed, or related to, OpenBSD and Theo de Raadt in any way.

As far as OpenSSH security holes are concerned, please excuse me while I laugh. Most of these vulnerabilities are either denial of service, or someone who messed up with their OpenSSH implementation. A lot of people think they can improve on a perfectly good product by adding security holes in it.

As far as OpenCVS is concerned, they explain their rationale quite clearly:

The OpenCVS project was started after discussions regarding the latest GNU CVS vulnerabilities that came out. Although CVS is widely used, its development has been mostly stagnant in the last years and many security issues have popped up, both in the implementation and in the mechanisms.

Now, let me ask you: what part of "development has been mostly stagnant in the last years and many security issues have popped up" don't you understand?

Allow me to finish by adding this: read up a little bit before you start trolling. But that would be a waste of a perfectly good troll, right? Sheesh. Go back under your bridge, little troll.

Re:OpenCVS?

[TheRaven64]

APR is a fairly complicated project, but a lot of that comes from the 'portable' part. It would probably be relatively simple to write a non-portable version for OpenBSD. This would allow SVN to be used on OpenBSD without the dependency on Apache 2.0 code.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is one more thing to nitpick about.

Complex == Insecure
!Complex = !Insecure
Simple = Secure

I interpret this as "Complex" equals "Insecure", "!Complex" is assigned the value of "!Insecure", and "Simple" is assigned the value of "Secure". The second clause is wrong, because assignment requires an lvalue. So...

Complex == Insecure
!Complex == !Insecure
Simple = Secure

...which means "Simple is Secure, no proof", which is what you seemed to imply. :)

Re:OpenCVS?

[ir]

I don't know about the OpenBSD guys, but in my experience, Subversion is a total piece of crap. Even worse than CVS.

Re:OpenCVS?

[MrNaz]

Given that OpenBSD is a fork of a fork of the parent of FreeBSD, it's more like OpenBSD is FreeBSD's nit picking, purist pain in the ass nephew while FreeBSD is the sagely, less idealistic uncle. I guess that makes NetBSD is the slut Aunty for running on everyone's hardware.

Re:OpenCVS?

[k8to]

If I needed to run a world-facing CVS implementation, yes. The original CVS and current gnu CVS do not impress me from design to implementation. When I needed to set up CVS for remote developer access, I required developers to go through a signup process which involved setting up an SSH key for each, by which they accessed CVS. I had every faith that CVS was a leaky, dangerous server, easily exploited, and we were a moderate target.

However, I must echo the sentiments above. CVS is problematic partially because its design is so old it stems from an age when internet security was not on the radar. But its age comes with all kinds of other problems too. That anyone who needs a secure publically-accessible versioning control system would seek to reimplement CVS instead of cooperating with one of the healthy active growing version control systems...

Hmm, I guess I will not take the cheap shot.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Corporate Troll]

True... However, pointing out that PC-BSD is for the desktop is like pointing out that Ubuntu Linux is for the desktop when the discussion is about Freesco....

Re:OpenCVS?

[QuantumG]

Dude, RMS made a whole movement of zealots and encouraged the creation of billions of lines of code.. doesn't change the fact that he's a smelly hippie.

You seem to think that me saying Theo doesn't get along with others is somehow belittling his work.. it isn't.

It's belittling his ability to get along with others.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Antique Geekmeister]

I've worked with CVS. It's limitations are why OpenBSD exists: Theo de Raadt was kicked off of the CVS commit list for NetBSD, with excellent cause, andn this left him unable to gracefully publish his own fork for others to review or integrate.

Almost every other major source control system would have allowed him to maintain his own fork and publish it, keeping his software synced with or development integrated with the main source tree: Bitkeeper, git, Subversion, Perforce, etc. CVS fails this task pretty seriously.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Anonymous Coward]

But SVN sucks. Linus said so.

Re:OpenCVS?

[RazzleDazzle]

And you forget the most important reason for them to write OpenCVS. Each developer works on whatever project or program that he or she wants to. Theo and others might encourage others onto certain projects but he does not dictate programmer XYZ needs to work on program ABC. They do what interests them and what is useful for them. Now, if it happens that your needs/desires matches up with 1 or more programmers' desires then you are in luck and likely good things will happen on what it is you're interested in. Fortunately for those of us that are interested in having an overall secure OS, we're in luck as all or more of the OpenBSD developers also have security as a key design and implementation goal in all of their programming for the OS.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Anonymous Coward]

The second clause is wrong, because assignment requires an lvalue

WTF? You do realise that not everything in the world is written in a (C-like syntax) programming language, right? Or are you going to bitch at me for forgetting the colons that go with my question marks?

Re:OpenCVS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, OpenBSD is a fork of NetBSD...
Both NetBSD & FreeBSD forked from 386BSD.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Dr. Smoove]

Flamebait? This AC speaks truth. Sick of seeing all the Ubuntu fanboys talking shit on here.

Re:OpenCVS?

['nother poster]

No, your telling them what to spend their time on. It is their right to reinvent the wheel if they want. You never know, maybe they will make a better one. Then again, maybe not.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Anonymous Coward]

is this nerdtalk?

Re:OpenCVS?

[Anonymous Coward]

all this bickering and duplicated effort does is help the bad guys win.
I always knew SVN was the evil twin!

Re:OpenCVS?

[cromar]

I am reimplementing Unix in Brainfuck, you insensitive clod!

Re:OpenCVS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Subversion isn't a better cvs. It doesn't use the same formats as cvs.

Migrating the cvs repos and users over to subversion would be a pain.

Check out the slides from a presentation Ray Lai gave on OpenCVS:
http://www.openbsd.org/papers/bsdcan07-cvs/

Re:OpenCVS?

[Just Some Guy]

they are not afraid of complexity. Examples that come to mind are pf

I don't know about the backend, but pf's frontend is a study in elegant simplicity. Seriously, it's just about as clean as such a potentially complicated system can be made. If it's underlying code really is complex, then I'd say that they made the tradeoff of keeping the frontend simple because that's what most people will see and shifting the tricky bits to the hidden backend where the experts can hover over it.

Re:OpenCVS?

[chriscappuccio]

when opencvs was started, subversion was not ready to replace it

and the drive to keep it going was partially fueled by the desire to have a home grown system that the developers understand, can easily modify, and that is completely compatible with the current cvs tree

Re:OpenCVS?

[j-pimp]

Yep, I agree. It seems that the OpenBSD folks (not just Theo) think that SVN is too complicated to be secure. They want to stick with the "proven" CVS protocols and RCS file formats. And yeah, they always start from scratch because they've gotta make it BSD licensed.. and besides, it gives them a feeling of ownership.

This is a pretty common pattern. Complex == insecure to them. Which, to me, implies that secure == poverty. I like security as much as the next guy, but living in poverty because you're paranoid about security is not healthy.

CVS is ok if you don't go moving and renaming files. Due to the nature of OpenBSD, that does not happen very often. Granted, I think OpenSVN would be a much better use of there efforts in terms of it benefiting the rest of us, but they are free to do as they want.

You are right that Theo and friends take the simplicity a bit too far and functionality does suffer. However, OpenBSD does have its niche in my world. If I wanted to use an old machine to act as a firewall or a box with SSH access to the world, I would chose OpenBSD over anything else. As soon as I needed to "get stuff done" I'd switch to linux or FreeBSD though.

Re:OpenCVS?

[junglee_iitk]

Do you know where can I download OpenRCS? Google doesn't seem to help too much.

Sorry, I am a newbie :)

Re:OpenCVS?

[cstdenis]

They don't always start over. The BSD projects share a lot of code with each other. If by start over you mean not use GPL code, thats just because they want to use a truly free license, not a restrictive one that tries to pretend its free.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Bananenrepublik]

So why don't they fix the cvs-to-svn tool? The gcc guys did just that before switching from CVS to SVN. Once you're out of the land of CVS' RCS-inherited braindeadness, it's easy to switch the VC tool.

Re:OpenCVS?

[zyche]

What in the world are you talking about?! The OpenBSD tree was originally created from source that was downloaded as source tar balls (in some way or the other) from NetBSD since no project before OpenBSD allowed anonymous access to their development tree! The NetBSD CVS server was not publically available. CVS (and atleast Subversion) requires that you have access (and sufficient permissions) to the revision system server to be able to create a branch. Thus, it wouldn't had matter what revision system software they were using.

Re:OpenCVS?

[dadragon]

It's pretty complex on hardware that doesn't have support for it in its MMU.

Re:OpenCVS?

[TheRaven64]

The sources are in src/usr.bin/rcs in the CVS repository. Just check it out and run make (might need to be a BSD make, not a GNU make). Or install a recent version of OpenBSD.

Re:OpenCVS?

[Hucko]

If you need to ask, you shouldn't be here...

Re:OpenCVS?

[junglee_iitk]

Thanks!

It seems I cannot compile it on linux :(

Re:OpenCVS?

[k8to]

Most modern version control tools allow *more graceful* development on a *seperate system*. The idea is not to create a branch on a central server, but elsewhere.

That said, subversion does not support this type of thing, although the other tools do to a larger or smaller degree. (Perforce very much smaller; git, bitkeeper very much larger.)

It's a kind of silly observation though since essentially none of those tools were available at the time.

Interesting

[ilovegeorgebush]

I wonder what Theo will say about all this? 9 times out of 10 he tends to scorn things, so I wonder if he'll embrace this with open arms, or just shun it like he does most things.

Either way i'm happy. At least there's even more support for open source software and anything non-windows related.

Re:Interesting

[NicM]

> I wonder what Theo will say about all this? 9 times out of 10 he tends to scorn things,
> so I wonder if he'll embrace this with open arms, or just shun it like he does most things.

This is an official OpenBSD effort, all of the directors are OpenBSD developers. I'm sure
Theo was pretty central to setting it up, he is unlikely to shun it.

Re:Interesting

[Noryungi]

Given the fact that it was stated by Bob Beck, a member of the OpenBSD programming teams, I think he will be OK with it.

Besides, the OpenBSD Foundation stated very clearly that it will focus on large donations (of funds, hardware, etc) and that small donations should be sent directly to OpenBSD through the usual channels. RTFA and all that.

I do think Theo will be A-OK with that.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Theo DOES support it. From the OpenBSD misc archives, earlier today:

Theo de Raadt
to misc

There have been a few questions as to whether I endorse the OpenBSD
Foundation.

That question comes up because the OpenBSD Foundation is not the same
as OpenBSD. The Foundation is a parallel entity which builds a new
way for funding the project; making it easier for companies and other
organizations (or even individuals who can benefit from a receipt) to
help ensure more even funding for the project.

Of course I endorse it. It there is a large donation being made to
the project, the Foundation is the way to do it.

I just cannot be personally involved in the Foundation myself as a
board member since I will (in the eyes of Revenue Canada) perhaps
sometimes be benefiting from it, since so much of the infrastructure
resides at my house.

Re:Was this typed

[iminplaya]

Don't mind me. I leave out whole words.

Should read: I believe you need all five fingers to make the thing work, right?

Re:So does this mean we'll finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of the fact that they now have an organisation to handle large-scale donations, the OpenBSD project is still dependent on sale of cds to fund its' development (IE to pay its' programmers).

You might want to persue other alternatives which are not only more featureful, but are financially stable enough that not only are they solvent enough to provide you with downloadable iso images, but they can even mail you dvds free of charge!

Mind you, if you still insist on using code written by people incapable of holding a real job, there's always yubuntu linux; I understand they also provide free ISO images as well...

Did anyone notice the spelling error?

[Cyberllama]

OpenNTPD I'm pretty sure they meant "OpecCTPD".

NOT a mispelling.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

'Accounced' is an openBSD style announcement - one that can be held accountable

Re:NOT a mispelling.

[RuBLed]

well hmmm.. like.. "Yay we're almost #1 in google rankings for accounced!" and given the reputation of the site, the word and definition would be retrieved from the internet by alien lifeforms thus coming to earth saying, "Accouncing Peace to all Toons..."

OpenCVS?

[egrinake]

The OpenCVS project seems kind of pointless to me. I can't imagine any new projects would use CVS, with so many better options out there (Subversion, Bazaar, etc), and if existing projects are worried about the security of CVS they would probably be better off converting to one of these other systems as well.

The OpenCVS developers are of course free to do whatever they want, but I'd think their talents would be better spent on something more useful than a CVS rewrite (or fork, or whatever).

Re:WTF

[Antarius]

I was accounced once. It's on my permanent record.

Another time I accounced my neighbours dog for barking while I was trying to sleep. I used a teaspoon. It was fun.

Accounced

[LittleImp]

Slashdot is according to Google already the Nr. 2 Source for accouncing!

Re:So does this mean we'll finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just download the cdboot ISO and install from ftp. christ.

Netcraft confirms it!

[Glowing Fish]

BSD is ACCOUNCED!

Re:The communism is not dead

[JamesRose]

Most governments are actually pretty good systems, and in theory they work, the reason countries got ruined by communism was corruption, a less corrupt system would have succeeded, and I think we'll soon find countries like Afganistan abusing democracy to become a theocracy and it'll be just as bad.

Re:too bad *BSD is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

Link to netcraft or it didn't happen!

Accountable, but...

[CarpetShark]

'Accounced' is an openBSD style announcement - one that can be held accountable

Yes, that's great. But... does it actually have drivers for modern hardware? ;)

Re:Accountable, but...

[TheRaven64]

OpenBSD hardware support is generally very good, with one exception; 3D graphics. There is no DRI port to OpenBSD yet, and it's not a priority for any of the developers. Everything else works pretty well. If you've got a modern PowerPC Mac, for example, you're likely to find it better supported with OpenBSD than any other operating system short of OS X.

Re:Accountable, but...

[epee1221]

If you've got a modern PowerPC Mac, for example, you're likely to find it better supported with OpenBSD than any other operating system short of OS X.

This has certainly been my experience. There are a few issues I had in Linux that I never got around to trying on OpenBSD, but I can definitely say the only OS that supports more of my hardware than OpenBSD is OS X. Actually, at the time I installed, I chose OpenBSD because it was the only BSD with support for USB 2.0.

Re:Accountable, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"OpenBSD hardware support is generally very good, with one exception; 3D graphics."

OBSD's focus is not a multimedia desktop. Routers, bridges and wireless access points don't need 3D.

Re:The communism is not dead

[nagora]

my country used to be in its shadow and now it is ruined.

I very much doubt that. I suspect that what your country was in the shadow of was Stalinism. Just because the nice American man said you were living under communism doesn't mean anything as Americans generally can not tell the difference between Communism, Stalinism, and Socialism (and assume they're all Stalinism).

Communism, like capitalism, is based on a model of the world which only works if everyone acts in exactly the way the inventor of the model thought they should. Neither work in reality; both need socialist elements to prevent them turning into a nightmare for all but the top 500 or so people in a country.

TWW

When spell-naziing, don't ever forghet

[wiredog]

Greenrd's Law.

You are VERY confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no bad guys, and there is no contest to be won or lost. Why do so many slashtards try to push their irrational FUD on to open source projects? If you want to win something then go compete at something. The OpenBSD team is just making an OS they like because they like it. There's no way to lose at that.

not-for-profit? Off-topic, but..

[Tolkien]

Article says "non-profit", summary says "not-for-profit". Geez OpenBSDfan, what's wrong with the term "non-profit" ?

"Not-for-profit" only started being used when Americans started hating the French for not joining them at the beginning of the war with Iraq, for the exact same reason people starting renaming everything "freedom", like "freedom fries" et al. During that period at the beginning of the war, all I could think about was the Statue de la Liberté. Think about it.

It's nothing personal, I'm just venting because the term "not-for-profit" gets on my nerves, it's longer, awkward, and it came into being because of patriotic bigots who wanted to remove all things French with the mot du jour (freedom).
Disclaimer: I'm French Canadian, which may explain why I hate the unnecessary change, because it has unfortunately crossed the borders and begun getting used by some Canadians.

Theo vs !Theo

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, though. Given the facts that it was started by someone other than Theo, will be run by someone other than Theo and will accept donations from people who aren't Theo I think we can safely expect fireworks somewhere down the line ;)

The Race for funds begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is great. Now it should be easier to see just how well the three *bsd camps are doing. FreeBSD has a list of donors on it's foundation web site. Heck, you can get listed for a $1-$19 donation. Sounds like they took a page from the OpenBSD folks, who would list donors on their web site and printed your name in the instructions with the CD for each release until there got to be too many. Now it is just on the web.

But look at the overhead! NetBSD listed $10k in donations for 2006 and $2k in legal fees, while FreeBSD listed $87k in donations and $54k in payroll expenses. What! Does it take a full time person to collect $150k in donations in 6 months?

On the other hand, OpenBSD prides itself in being run by volunteers, so I think it should have lower overhead. We will see, how the three compare in getting the dollars. My money is going to OpenBSD.

Re:Good news!

[Anonymous Coward]

I also had a similar experience with Mr. de Raadt in Australia, not at a conference, but deep in a deserted diamond mine. I gave him the blossom of the Rhizanthella slateri for something.. he mentioned a cure for cancer or his wife's dying wish or something, I'm not sure, I wasn't really listening.

Re:The communism is not dead

[coder111]

The reason Soviet-Socialist-Planned-Economy (they were NOT communist) countries got ruined by corruption was because that system had no resistance to corruption whatsoever. It was too easy to steal from companies, collective farms, factories, etc because they all belonged to the government, so nobody really cared. Stealing from government was not considered a bad thing by the people.

And the leading caste- Communist Party only wanted good living for themselves, didn't care about much else.

Democracy is also flawed system, but it kind of worked until corporations and corporation controlled media weren't that much powerful. I'm not sure we can say it still works as it supposed to now. It works in some countries, but these are few.

The real challenge is designing a system that works with ignorant people, greedy/powerful corporations and stupid/corrupt politicians. I spent quite enough time thinking about it, and came up with nothing. If you have any ideas on the subject, I'd be very interested to hear them. The closest I came up with was educating people, restricting corporations, restricting mass media/marketing, very strict laws on monopolies to preserve free market and special controls on government officials. But this approach would require some very heavy handed government to be implemented.

--Coder

Re:The communism is not dead

[siddesu]

Yawn ... FoSS isn't about denial of private property, nor is it about distribution of wealth. It is about distributing certain source code under a certain license.

That's the way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations! That's the way to go. This should have done long time ago. Nobody wants to donate/contribute to individuals. Good luck and best wishes. - Sagara

Re:The communism is not dead

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not aware of any country where communistic ideas "got twisted" in the sense of turning a communist state into a totalitarian one.

In fact they were twisted from the very beginning in my country. It reflected the level of understanding of the ideology.

... you made a generalization without basis and which showed a gross lack of understanding of the legal framework involved or the history of the subject. Additionally, you did it on a forum where any normal person would know that such remarks would provoke people.

If you didn't moderated it you can only guess why. Anyway, how is it provoking the right people into thinking in the right direction trolling? Isn't it trolling only from the POV of those who have a different opinion? If that was a real situation years ago I would have been killed or jailed for my words. The moderators here are lowering my score and of course I don't care now, but what if I got my salary from a foundation ruled by the board the moderator is a member of? Will I ever speak against the system again?

Now ppl should get a better sense where we are heading.

k-lisper

not-for-profit vs. non-profit

[zenyu]

not-for-profit was being used long before the US invaded Iraq the first time. Each State in the USA and each Country has it's own laws and names for non-profits. Some even have both not-for-profits and non-profits and there is a slight difference between the two. "non-profit" is a good generic term, but if you are going by what is actually filed, it may be one or the other.

Re:CIS TOOL 1.x MULTIPLATFORM SECURITY TEST BSD FO

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello windbag. All you need to do is point me at the OpenBSD version of the tool. I don't see it on their web site. I do see FreeBSD, but they aren't the same. Seems to me you are challenging someone to test something there isn't a test tool for. Sort of like telling a woman that if her penis isn't longer than yours she can't REALLY be smarter than you.

OpenBSD Logo

[Santana]

I'm sure there are enough OpenBSD stories to open an OpenBSD section with the respective OpenBSD logo Puffy instead of FreeBSD's Beastie

Canadian - It's got piracy written all over it!

[VorlonFog]

Don't they realize that by establishing a Canadian foundation, they're aligning themselves with the greatest piracy threat against the MAFIAA members' intellectual property? Everyone knows OSS is all about piracy and cracking, and basing it in Canada increases that threat!

Re:Canadian - It's got piracy written all over it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome, we're a threat now! With our weapons of mass disruption, we're going to hack you guys into the ground! Watch out, we're pointing our reverse engineers your way!

Re:CIS TOOL 1.x MULTIPLATFORM SECURITY TEST BSD FO

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL! Clearly, yet ANOTHER case of *NIX having LESS SOFTWARES AVAILABLE FOR IT, vs. Windows NT-based OS... nobody wants to develop for something nobody uses (apparently, because that is what this is telling me):

"Hello windbag. All you need to do is point me at the OpenBSD version of the tool. I don't see it on their web site." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26, @10:44AM (#19996529)

Windbag? Funny - aren't I the one with clear facts above in challenges I issued to the entire *NIX variant community here on this site & elsewhere:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=254685&cid=199 85487
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240571&cid= 19630923
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 31141
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240501&c id=19630965
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241957&cid= 19662703
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241913&cid= 19662485
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238993&cid =19578849
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19690705
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19691091
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 22485
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=244821&cid= 19736881
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=245695&cid= 19761821
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=246583&c id=19779437
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=252367&c id=19946243

LASTLY, & MOST IMPORANTLY, THIS ONE (where LINUX penguins suggest testing vs. a BSD variant no less):

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

LOL, & ALL I GET HERE IS YET ANOTHER "EVASION/SPINMASTER B.S." EXCUSE OF "My little used OS doesn't even HAVE a test I can run on it, because no one develops for it!"... rotflmao!

I also provided backing photo proofs of my score:

http://img.techpowerup.org/070618/APK14SecurityPoi ntsCISToolResult84735.jpg

AND METHODS FOR WINDOWS USERS TO GET THE SAME SCORE for online security ratings as well:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=fe3 a450dc9f3055920edd0fcea17b27b&p=375355#post375355

Each time in the list of 18 url's or so, above?

I issued a CLEAR CHALLENGE, with backing facts, (and how to get my score no less for Windows folks to use) to the *NIX community here to outdo my score on a multiplatform test for online security??

ABOVE ALL ELSE - You are the one tossing names.

Forbes sucks, so don't listen to what they say.

[Anonymous Coward]

Forbes is an unreliable source. It's highly biased, and just downright stupid. I've read some of their articles, and it blows my mind that they can call that stuff journalism. Probably not across the board, but still...

Re:Forbes sucks, so don't listen to what they say.

[RockoTDF]

That and they are a financial magazine and not a tech one....one article I read they said there were only 3 different kinds of BSD!

Not tax deductable!

[Ritchie70]

From their Donations page:

We are not a registered charity, in the sense that we do not issue tax deductible receipts. The reporting overhead (accounting and legal costs) to operate a registered charity in Canada is prohibitive without a sizable revenue stream. Currently, this would divert a great deal of resources that could be better utilized in helping build good free software. We do issue receipts (not tax deductable) for all donations.

If it's so stinking hard to do in Canada, maybe they should have done it in the US. You know, where there are a lot more people and large companies who might like a tax deduction for their donation?

If my mom can run a non-profit 501(c)(3) in the US and get all the paperwork done, anyone should be able to. But these BSD folks never seem to manage it.

Re:Not tax deductable!

[shking]

Will never happen, thanks to US crypto laws & software patents.

Re:Not tax deductable!

[Secret Rabbit]

Your mom ignoring potential legal consequences by not having a lawyer, etc. and (probably) submitting incorrect (b/c your tax system is FAR more complex than the Canadian one) tax forms, etc but not getting caught, doesn't mean that it is easier to run a charity in the US. It just means that doing things in certain ways PROPERLY is complicated and costly in Canada and getting away with things in the US is easier.

You've also completely missed the point. That being that having a registered charity "would divert a great deal of resources that could be better utilized in helping build good free software." So, get your head out of your ass. They ARE doing this to maximize the money going to OSS.

Think you can manage to grasp that?

Re:Not tax deductable!

[Anonymous Coward]

And to add to that... if you think it can be done better in the US... well, have at it!

There's nothing the OpenBSD project or Foundation can do (or would want to do) about an entity developed independently that makes contributions to the project. And perhaps it would bring in more money.

But of course, you won't do this, because you were just trolling, weren't you?

Re:Not tax deductable!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom ignoring potential legal consequences by not having a lawyer, etc. and (probably) submitting incorrect (b/c your tax system is FAR more complex than the Canadian one) tax forms, etc but not getting caught,

Jeezus.. just stop right there.. if a grand total for both attorney and accountant is too much for the setup than that's just pathetic. In addition, you apparently know jack shit about non-profits in the U.S. so I'd encourage you to shut the fuck up as to stop embarrassing yourself.

Re:Not tax deductable!

[Ritchie70]

Well, first-off, my mom's 501(c)(3) has a board of directors which has on and off included attorneys and CPAs, and they have all been OK with the paperwork being done. There's lots of info on the web, and it's just forms to fill out. At least in the US, a few a year, and not that many. My personal taxes, as far as I can tell, are way harder, and I do them every year without any real problems.

I continue to not accept the assertion that not being able to accept tax-deductible contributions somehow improves their ability to FUND and FACILITATE the building of good free software. As far as I'm concerned, this is a fact: there are many companies that will match an employee's charitable contribution - but it has to be a legal, charitable, deductible contribution. So if I decide I want to give $250 to the foundation, they get $250. If they had tax deductible status, they would get $500.

To me, the lack of deductability for something that, by all rights, SHOULD be deductible, makes it seem shady and suspect. You expect me to make a check out to Theo and mail it to him? That's just nuts, I'm not doing that.

My head isn't in my ass - we just don't agree. So maybe you could pry your own far enough out to agree that disagreeing doesn't require getting insulting?

Think you can manage to grasp that?

Re:CIS TOOL 1.x MULTIPLATFORM SECURITY TEST BSD FO

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, yet another "downward moderation" by the EXTREMELY "Pro *NIX" crowd @ /., ROTFLMAO!

(Is this the BEST you have, mods & those with mod points? You're just "Vasserot the armless ambidextrian" @ this point, & thanks for helping me PROVE yet another point in favor of Win32 OS in fact, vs. *NIX variants! Read on...)

Apparently, this "down mod" (big deal, I have @ least 20 more that show me modded up here on these forums no less) IS really "all you have"...

AND, still, nobody from the *NIX world who always say:

"Windows is LESS SECURE THAN (insert *NIX variant here)"

Can surpass my score on this multiplatform test of ONLINE SECURITY, by THE CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY (especially the Linux/SELinux family which always RAN vs. my challenge above, & suggested BSD variants instead!)

Hilarious... lol, & the fact BSD variants are BINARY (or, configuration/setup init files) INCOMPATIBLE (good design? lol, not!)

APK

P.S.=> Also, TOO BAD your *NIX variants (from the BSD family code tree) are so "forked up" that OpenBSD apparently does not even RUN the FreeBSD version of this test... seems that Win32 wares like mine here:

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/389/foowhatev ermakesgooglehappy.html

Run across ALL Win32 OS variants, with no problems & NO NEED for porting or major rebuilds/recompiles either... &, lol, *NIX folks wonder WHY Windows NT-based OS' are the MOST USED on the planet with the most wares available! ROTFLMAO...

Above all?

Thanks for proving a point of mine here, in that this downward moderation (of my parent post) is the BEST YOU HAVE, vs. my score & photo thereof with roadmap guide for Windows users to secure themselves easily in 12 steps to a point that exceeds *NIX types period!

(I mean, well, otherwise, how could I have had 18x++ now, where *NIX folks say "Windows is less secure(able) than (insert *NIX variant here)" - none of them when confronted in a multiplatform test challenge exceeded my score?)

ALL despite the near constant diatribe rant of:

"Windows is less secure than (insert *NIX variant here)"

(Ah, lol, & yes - that's "too bad" that there is not an OpenBSD port of CIS Tool though, which imo, is PROOF that most *NIX's (except Linux imo) get almost NO development apparently & that OpenBSD users can't even run FreeBSD code no less - this is BAD period!)

There IS no doubt about it, that THIS binaries/config incompatibilities between *NIX variants is what helped to "KILL" UNIX out there, because, imo @ least?

Guys - today? We should have ALL been running some form of NIX, but, instead are MOSTLY running Win32 based OS (& of them, mostly the excellent Windows NT-based ancestry tree today).

(& this is what stopped/stalled *NIX dominant usage imo, & that allowed Windows NT-based OS to "take over", or does the world's computers in over 90%++ percentages NOT run some variation of Win32 based OS today, & for decades now?).

Face it fellas - & that is all you HAVE is your "mod points" @ this point!

(Which I could personally give a hoot about (and, it ain't much to give a hoot over, vs. facts I pointed out with proofs to my score on this multiplatform security test vs. your lack of them AND lack of a port of this ware as well as BINARY (or setup/config files) INCOMPATIBILITIES BETWEEN BSD VARIANTS (this is GOOD DESIGN? LOL, not!), which more *NIX heads helped me prove my points in, lol))... apk

Is Theo Involved?

[nurb432]

If so, you can pretty much forget about it making a difference.

While i respect him greatly for his technical abilities, as a marketing guy he sucks wind. His political views get in the way every time. ( and his abrasive personality does not help much either )

Re:Is Theo Involved?

[Ambidisastrous]

Nope, the article lists 3 directors of the foundation and Theo isn't one of them. I expect this foundation to mostly leave Theo alone to do his thing, while independently drumming up bigger donations for OpenBSD projects.

I remember a Slash article a few months ago discussing how Theo was super broke, at that discussion led to how OpenBSD's financial problems would be much more tractable if they'd just set up a foundation people or businesses could donate to. So, apparently other OpenBSD devs thought the same thing, and did it. This is good news.

Re:Is Theo Involved?

[nurb432]

I wasnt able to read the article, but that sounds like its a workable plan, and yes i agree its good news.

It would be a shame to see OBSD die out.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Re:CIS TOOL 1.x MULTIPLATFORM SECURITY TEST BSD FO

[goarilla]

how can a specific OS test be compared with tests for other OS'es
they have created multiple tests for various platforms but that's not the point
on your pic, i see PART 1 Service Packs and hotfixes, again this is something windows specific after that
we go on and see registry permissions and file and registry auditing again this is mostly windows only
the rest do seem to be platform independant ... file perms, etc
but still you'll have to substract at least 12000 points from that score to be somewhat viable in comparison

but let's not get over our heads, most server based os'es can be hardened a lot whether it's NT based or Unix based.
and i must thank you for the 12 simple steps link since i'm about to reinstall and secure my sister's xp machine
the point with me is and yes i've surfed technet a lot ... group policy does seem a lot more complicated to me than Unix's albeit simple user-group-world file permissions

another important thing you're forgetting is that you ABSOLUTELY seem to thrust cisecurity.org
this is a bad idea since you're putting your faith into this one particular security group
to a lot of slashdotters this practice is viewed as stupid and that site is nothing other than yet another overzealous, we are the holy grail of security, security group with a public site
those sites are everywhere on the net

Do it, do it, do it!

[Azuma Hazuki]

I don't use OpenBSD at home (as mentioned, its niche is in firewalls and routers), but I think it's one of the most underrated and well-designed OSes in the history of modern computing. Theo de Raadt, abrasive as he is, is something like a thinner, paranoid RMS who showers once in a while, and I say that with only the best intentions. Like RMS, he may be hard to get along with, but he's nearly always right. Theo, if you're reading this, good luck!

Re:WHY ARE YOU USING BEASTIE LOGO?

[Anonymous Coward]

The logo has been part of BSD since before BSD 4.4.

a disadvantage of foundations

[wikinerd]

Organisations that handle lots of money tend to attract people who look for a job or opportunities for personal gain and have no interest in its original mission. Considering that the founding members will sometime retire or leave, how can a foundation ensure that its original culture and focus on its mission will pass on to all new members within generations? I always regarded this as a disadvantage of formal organisations. I am not saying this specifically for OpenBSD (which I highly respect), but I am just raising a point for discussion.

Re:CIS TOOL 1.x MULTIPLATFORM SECURITY TEST BSD FO

[Anonymous Coward]

"how can a specific OS test be compared with tests for other OS'es" - by goarilla (908067) on Thursday July 26, @01:46PM (#19999525)

There is analogs to most ANYTHING in the *NIX world & Windows NT-based OS world, even as far as config/init loaders files to read from! This is simply because there IS truly, very little ORIGINAL & UNIQUE THOUGHT in today's OS' imo... they are biting off the style of those before them - Linux does massively off UNIX, & NT based ones do off both Win9x shell code & VMS + Os/2 before it, for example!

They all have files that keep state in other words.

(In NIX's? Check the etc tree/subtree -> /etc & IF these are not tested on the *NIX variant tests of CIS Tool (vs. Windows' registry hive security (complete with limitable ACL's no less, internally & @ the filesystem level in RW & userlevel rights))

I would be SURPRISED, as far as the *NIX based test goes, if it does NOT test this for a security test level of access!

- but, w/ out SELinux applied to say, LINUX?

I know it's NOT going to even be close as a security comparison between Windows NT-based OS & their multi-level access to files layered security (AND Linux for instance)

Thus, @ the suggestion of users of Linux?? I came to THIS thread, for BSD folks (often whom tout their OS as "the security shit"), & found they have NO VERSION OF THIS TEST FOR OpenBSD (time to write their coders, I would I suppose, if I used OpenBSD, & especially since a FreeBSD port of this program exists (java driven, thus, multi-platform possible)).

"file perms, etc" - by goarilla (908067) on Thursday July 26, @01:46PM (#19999525)

SELinux, for Linux @ least (as a *NIX variant example, again) would be THE way for this... it IS doable.

"but let's not get over our heads, most server based os'es can be hardened a lot whether it's NT based or Unix based." - by goarilla (908067) on Thursday July 26, @01:46PM (#19999525)

Agreed, as I have stated before in this thread, on THAT account... I would like to see how HIGH the *NIX users can score on this test is all, now especially BSD users (FreeBSD)...

"and i must thank you for the 12 simple steps link since i'm about to reinstall and secure my sister's xp machine" - by goarilla (908067) on Thursday July 26, @01:46PM (#19999525)

Your welcome, & it's a learning experience for many folks, even myself putting that together... it just works!

Enjoy it, it's PUBLIC CONSUMPTION... and as easy as I could make it @ least.

& it's "the why" of WHY I put it out, especially in today's malware/attack ridden online world... Just for many others to have the same score possible on this test that I do, on Win32 NT-based OS', & to lol, to make them more secure imo, than are *NIX setups! ... & see, this test, good as it is? Does NOT check for other things you can do/use for even more security (NAT or TRUE stateful packet inspecting hardware firewalls, software firewalls, port filtering, & more like HOSTS files usage etc.) & I can prove it makes 2-3 small errors on the NT-based test too!

I am truly just curious to see a screenshot of the *NIX based test really, be it Linux, Solaris, BSD, etc. but especially SELinux users (addon to the std. OS) & FreeBSD ones vs. my score on it using Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully hotfix patched.

And, yes - *NIX's of all types see upgrades/updates & patches, JUST LIKE WIN32 ONES DO!

"the point with me is and yes i've surfed technet a lot ... group policy does seem a lot more complicated to me than Unix's albeit simple user-group-world file permissions" - by goarilla (908067) on Thursday July 26, @01:46PM (#19999525)

BUT, it's a HELL OF A LOT STRONGER too, than *NIX std. permissions to files (matches more the RW attribs possible on Win32 if you ask me @ best by way of comparison to that AND ACL level protections)... Again - SEL

Re:The communism is not dead

[goarilla]

true there is no such thing as a good/perfect system. hybrids are the way to go

Re:CIS TOOL 1.x MULTIPLATFORM SECURITY TEST BSD FO

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sensor's show that the object's hull is made of SOLID neutronium: A single StarShip cannot combat it!" quote Mr. Spock, Star Trek original series, episode title: "The Doomsday Machine"

All I have to say about that (& the type of online security my methods give to Windows NT-based OS users (of the most modern varieties thereof in 2000/XP/Server 2003 & VISTA even)... vs. your use of profanities/namecalling etc. et al!

(Null & void, against actual results, which I post in both photographic PROOF form, w/ an easily followed 12-step set of methods, for achieving the highest possible score there is (and, still being able to go online etc.) on a multiplatform security test that runs on most ANY *NIX variant, & Win32 NT-based OS)...

Plus, of course, the fact YOUR OS of CHOICE, has less wares being developed for it, than most others do (even of the BSD variant pack, such as FreeBSD &/or MacOS X).

APK