> VM's give you no added security unless you are running them
> on hardware that has been designed for that purpose, such
> as IBM mainframes or the AS400. Probably some others
> I'm leaving out, but NOT x86 hardware.
> Just search for VM and security on the internets and see
> what comes up. Secur
> On 28 Sep 2015, at 04:23, Eric Furman wrote:
>
> And then he states; "For me, this is a very nice blend
> of security, manageability and convenience for my use-case."
> This statement clearly demonstrates that he believes his
> setup is secure. When, in fact, it is not.
> That's why the security
On 2015-09-27, Matt Hamilton wrote:
> I don’t feel putting forward an idea that you could run OpenBSD as a
> VM and have both is so unreasonable.
The thing is, you said this setup gives you the best of both worlds, but
don't mention that there's a downside. Also this was to someone new to
unix -
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015, at 09:34 PM, jungle Boogie wrote:
> On 27 September 2015 at 17:34, Eric Furman
> wrote:
> > Just search for VM and security on the internets and see
> > what comes up. Secure they are not.
>
>
> Where in the blog does Matt discuss 'secure' and/or 'security' outside
> of dis
On 2015-09-28 00:22, Matt Hamilton wrote:
>> On 27 Sep 2015, at 22:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>>
On 27 Sep 2015, at 22:38, Eric Furman wrote:
You really don't get it. Running OpenBSD in a VM gives you no
security benefits of OpenBSD. Your base security will be your
host, in
This is an interesting conversation. I have no IT background as well but I
found the openbsd community, operating system, logic, and culture to be
anally retentive about how one can maintain a "higher" level of privacy and
security compared to its counterparts, by default.
I figured it is appealin
@OP
In my experience most people who frequent this list are professional or
serious hobbyist who have chosen OpenBSD not because of the lack of the
experience with other OSs but rather because of their poor experiences
with other OSs including FreeBSD.
Comparing to FreeBSD, OpenBSD feels simpler,
On 27 September 2015 at 17:34, Eric Furman wrote:
> Just search for VM and security on the internets and see
> what comes up. Secure they are not.
Where in the blog does Matt discuss 'secure' and/or 'security' outside
of discussing freebsd binary updates system? It seems he's aware of
how insecu
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015, at 06:22 PM, Matt Hamilton wrote:
> > On 27 Sep 2015, at 22:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >
> >>> On 27 Sep 2015, at 22:38, Eric Furman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You really don't get it. Running OpenBSD in a VM gives you no
> >>> security benefits of OpenBSD. Your base security will
> On 27 Sep 2015, at 22:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
>>> On 27 Sep 2015, at 22:38, Eric Furman wrote:
>>>
>>> You really don't get it. Running OpenBSD in a VM gives you no
>>> security benefits of OpenBSD. Your base security will be your
>>> host, in this case FreeBSD. And on top of that you are
> > On 27 Sep 2015, at 22:38, Eric Furman wrote:
> >
> > You really don't get it. Running OpenBSD in a VM gives you no
> > security benefits of OpenBSD. Your base security will be your
> > host, in this case FreeBSD. And on top of that you are running
> > a very complex piece of software, the VM.
> On 27 Sep 2015, at 22:38, Eric Furman wrote:
>
> You really don't get it. Running OpenBSD in a VM gives you no
> security benefits of OpenBSD. Your base security will be your
> host, in this case FreeBSD. And on top of that you are running
> a very complex piece of software, the VM. Who knows wh
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015, at 01:11 PM, Matt Hamilton wrote:
> > On 27 Sep 2015, at 18:01, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >
> >> Quernus wrote:
> >>> On 27 Sep 2015, at 16:10, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >>>
> On 2015-09-27, Quernus wrote:
>
> I actually run OpenBSD in a VM on FreeBSD using bhy
Just bumping into this thread and I wonder are the following just
jokes, aren't they?
> Otherwise it stays off, reducing attack surface and human exposure to
> electro-smog (especially important if you have pregnant women or small
> children in proximity to access point)
> In what way? If you me
> On 27 Sep 2015, at 18:35, Quartz mailto:qua...@sneakertech.com>> wrote:
>
>> In what way? If you mean the hypervisor does not provide adequate
separation
>> between VMs then that is not really an issue as I control the host and all
>> VMs. If any are compromised then I have bigger issues.
>
> The
In what way? If you mean the hypervisor does not provide adequate separation
between VMs then that is not really an issue as I control the host and all
VMs. If any are compromised then I have bigger issues.
The most secure system should be the host, not the guest. A super secure
guest inside a
At this point, the FreeBSD camp would point out that they have ZFS
for infinite flexibility in building multi-terabyte storage pools,
That said, both modern SSDs and multi-terabyte spinning
platters are handled quite well, thank you, by FFS2 on OpenBSD
As an aside, people sometimes confuse ZF
> On 27 Sep 2015, at 18:01, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
>> Quernus wrote:
>>> On 27 Sep 2015, at 16:10, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>>
On 2015-09-27, Quernus wrote:
I actually run OpenBSD in a VM on FreeBSD using bhyve which gives me the
>> best
of both worlds.
>>>
>>> This has an i
>Yup. Alas, utopia doesn't exist. We all have to make compromises
>and prioritise our requirements and trade offs. For me, this is a very
>nice blend of security, manageability and convenience for my use-case.
>YMMV.
Perhaps you threw out the security when you mixed it all together.
Face it -- yo
> Quernus wrote:
>> On 27 Sep 2015, at 16:10, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-09-27, Quernus wrote:
>>>
>>> I actually run OpenBSD in a VM on FreeBSD using bhyve which gives me the
>best
>>> of both worlds.
>>
>> This has an impact on security, of course.
>
>In what way? If you mean the h
I have found in the
archives that in general you can recommend OpenBSD to anyone without
any background to start tinkering with. So, there might be no benefit
of a learning curve of FreeBSD --> OpenBSD, as I, may have wrongly
guessed?
OpenBSD is about as easy to pick up as any other *nix, so lo
In what way? If you mean the hypervisor does not provide adequate separation
between VMs then that is not really an issue as I control the host and all
VMs. If any are compromised then I have bigger issues.
-Matt
â
Matt Hamilton
Quernus
m...@quernus.co.uk
+44 117 325 3025
64 Easton Business Cen
On 27 Sep 2015, at 12:27, Adam wrote:
> I have no background in IT security and operating systems other than
> Windows (I hated it less than Ubuntu, actually). I have found in the
> archives that in general you can recommend OpenBSD to anyone without
> any background to start tinkering with. So,
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 03:27:46 -0700, Adam wrote:
What I'd like is a secure wireless router and a file server (for my
mobile devices in the first place, really). Many suggested the PC
Engines APU board here. Check. Can it handle both roles, router and file
server, or, is it a good idea to hav
On 2015-09-27, Quernus wrote:
>
> I actually run OpenBSD in a VM on FreeBSD using bhyve which gives me the best
> of both worlds.
This has an impact on security, of course.
I've used both FreeBSD and OpenBSD for the best part of two decades. I'd say
that OpenBSD is definitely the simpler of the two in terms of configuration.
Much simpler and purer I'd say.
Both will be capable for what you are looking for. Although I'd say OpenBSD is
slightly lighter on resources and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/27/15 12:27, Adam wrote:
> Asking this on the OpenBSD list gives it a tone:
>
> I have no background in IT security and operating systems other
> than Windows (I hated it less than Ubuntu, actually). I have found
> in the archives that in genera
Asking this on the OpenBSD list gives it a tone:
I have no background in IT security and operating systems other than Windows (I
hated it less than Ubuntu, actually). I have found in the archives that in
general you can recommend OpenBSD to anyone without any background to start
tinkering with.
28 matches
Mail list logo
