mailing list archives
Re: Newbie: RedHat 8 or OpenBSD??
From: Ash <ashcrow () phreaker net>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 02:57:23 -0500
On Friday 01 November 2002 09:16 pm, Vince Hillier wrote:
A box is only as secure as it's maintainer makes it. BSD claims we're most
secure out of the box. They forget to mention that they run less services
out of the box.
That is a really good point which I should have made. Thanks for pointing that
As for auditing, almost evertything goes under an audit at one point or
another, so why do we have security issues? Because people audit the code,
and what do people make? That's right, mistakes.
Agreed, but I belive it does help to have people look over the code looking
for both security issues and stability issues.
As for what you should use, you shouldn't have to ask people this, you
should choose what you like and you are most comfortable with.
This is another good point, but I think it only goes so far. I wouldn't
recomend someone use WuFTPd beacuse they are comfortable with it, it's just
had such a bad history compared to other FTPd services. But I do agree on the
grounds that if you install OpenBSD (or anything for that matter) and really
do not know what your doing your probably going to end up with a box that has
This nonsense that X OS is more secure then X is crap. If you go ahead and
install all kinds of services on a OpenBSD box, and never update them, then
your OpenBSD box is no more secure then a house with no dorrs/windows. Same
with Linux. If you disable all the services but the ones needed to
function, your box is pretty secure as long as you maintain it.
I agree to this as well, but I do belive OpenBSD and NetBSD have a better 'by
default' setup than Red Hat because of bleeding edge/unpatched sources and
more default services ..... but since an admin is going to maintain a system
anyways it does become a mute point.