Re: Why is BSD more secure?
From:Date: 05/23/02
- Next message: Peter: "Am I being hacked?"
- Previous message: : "Re: The best GUI for ipchains and/or iptables?"
- In reply to: svek: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Next in thread: Christopher Browne: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Reply: Christopher Browne: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 23 May 2002 12:58:34 GMT
On 22 May 2002 11:49:35 GMT, svek wrote:
> Jem Berkes <jb2002_padding_@pc9.org> wrote in
> news:Xns9215F3936DC18jbdontusepc9org@205.200.16.73:
>
>
> > I admit, the "Five years without a remote hole in the default install!"
> > is really impressive and I even have trouble believing it.
>
> but they did have a remote hole discovered a while ago...
But you don't have any more details?
> I could make a linux distribution guaranteed to be more secure than openBSD
> ever could be, though then it wouldn't run a single service.
I'm not arguing that you could make a linux distribution more secure, or
more secure than openbsd default install. Maybe even more secure than most
openbsd installs, even the hardened ones. But how can you state to be able
to make linux more secure than openbsd will _ever_ be?
- Eirik
-- New and exciting signature!
- Next message: Peter: "Am I being hacked?"
- Previous message: : "Re: The best GUI for ipchains and/or iptables?"
- In reply to: svek: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Next in thread: Christopher Browne: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Reply: Christopher Browne: "Re: Why is BSD more secure?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|