* Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-05 00:26]:
I'm one of the developers for NetBSD. From what I can see, on average, all
the BSDs are about the same when it comes to addressing vulnerabilities.
They're almost on par when it comes to preventative measures (but remember,
some
* Henning Brauer:
so if the BSDs are en par with preventive measures, why is OpenBSD (to
my knowledge) the only one shipping ProPolice, which prevented
basically any buffer overflow seen in the wild for some time now?
Why is OpenBSD the only one to have randomized library loading,
* Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-06 11:44]:
* Henning Brauer:
so if the BSDs are en par with preventive measures, why is OpenBSD (to
my knowledge) the only one shipping ProPolice, which prevented
basically any buffer overflow seen in the wild for some time now?
Why is
yes, it is. we can further dicuss that in private if you wish; however,
claiming OpenBSD is just more vocal about security is just far off
reality, and that had to be put in perspective.
The real question is not whether other BSDs or
other Unices are following OpenBSD's lead. I'd like
to
: Re: DARPA and the network
* Henning Brauer:
so if the BSDs are en par with preventive measures, why is OpenBSD (to
my knowledge) the only one shipping ProPolice, which prevented
basically any buffer overflow seen in the wild for some time now?
Why is OpenBSD the only one to have
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 12:04:14PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes, it is. we can further dicuss that in private if you wish; however,
claiming OpenBSD is just more vocal about security is just far off
reality, and that had to be put in perspective.
The real question is not whether
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 11:35:22 +0200, Henning Brauer said:
(Off-topic, but needs correcting...)
so if the BSDs are en par with preventive measures, why is OpenBSD (to
my knowledge) the only one shipping ProPolice, which prevented
basically any buffer overflow seen in the wild for some time
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-06 20:04]:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 11:35:22 +0200, Henning Brauer said:
(Off-topic, but needs correcting...)
well, then please correct correctly...
so if the BSDs are en par with preventive measures, why is OpenBSD (to
my knowledge) the only one
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real question is not whether other BSDs or other Unices are
following OpenBSD's lead.
At least one Linux distro ships with quite a few of the features
Henning mentions (exec-shield since FC2, FORTIFY_SOURCE - available
in FC3, FC4 built with
Since the modern military runs on networks, DARPA funds various
programs to make networks better and more secure. One of these
was CHATS. Here is the business case taken from the DARPA
budget justification:
--
The Composable High Assurance Trusted Systems (CHATS) program
is developing the
On Aug 4, 2005, at 8:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why did OpenBSD succeed in their rigorous audit process?
Michael, there is nothing 'rigorous' about OpenBSD's audit process.
If you substitute 'vigorous' or 'enthusiastic' we might agree with
you... but 'rigorous' it is not.
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:20:46 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If we want to prevent this, then we have to work as hard and
as smart as the many people who are tackling Islamist
terrorist cells.
A large number of the security initiatives we see are actually useless or
worse for security, and are
* Michael Dillon:
So why did OpenBSD succeed in their rigorous audit process?
Have they? The list at http://www.openbsd.org/security.html#37
continues to grow, and nowadays, it seems that only a fraction of
those issues have been discovered by the OpenBSD audit process.
Searching for
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
So why did OpenBSD succeed in their rigorous audit process?
Have they? The list at http://www.openbsd.org/security.html#37
continues to grow, and nowadays, it seems that only a fraction of
those issues have been discovered by the OpenBSD audit
14 matches
Mail list logo
