Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
RE: Firewall Throughput
From: Aaron Turner <aturner () vicinity com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Robert Purdy wrote:
Do yourself a favour and stay ignorant of the development methodology that goes on "behind the scenes" with Linux. What are they now, 2.4.pre34-test83, and still making major architectural changes inside it. That's *insane*. Sure, Solaris is stable, but you can't strap it down as securely as you can BSD, plus you get source code for BSD.Thats great, I can get the source code for BSD.... well I know I have 2 months and $16,000 dollars to loose in down time while I pour over BSD code to make sure its safe to use. Don't get me wrong; I am an avid fan of the GNU project and of Linux, (I run it at home as my firewall), but the idea of "source code being available" as an argument dosen't sit with me.
Not to split hairs, but Free/Open/NetBSD aren't part of the GNU or Linux projects. They are licensed under the BSD Lic which has simularties and major differences with the GPL.
Purely because business' don't have the time or capital to pay someone to got over the code and check it.
At least you have the option should you find the time/$$$.
I know 15-25yo males with a lot of spare time do, and they find holes. Whats to say the 18yo Joe hasn't found a hole in the BSD code and its exploiting it left right and center? (There is a flip side to the argument for this that there could be a hole in CP or PIX that is unreported)
One should point out that the BSD derivatives and especially OpenBSD have shown themselves to have *far* fewer exploits than commercial OSes like Solaris or NT. OpenBSD hasn't had a published remote root exploit in like 3 years- even though the code is freely available. The reason for this is becuase the OpenBSD team *does* a security audit for all their code- they're actually quite religous about it. You might be able to argue their methodology, but you can't argue the results.
At least with closed code its going to take something more than a script kiddie or someone with time on thier hands to break it.
Also with closed source code you're locked into the ability of the vendor to provide a fix which often takes weeks or months. Open source code from what I see tends to be fixed much quicker than commercial software. However, in general, from the "non-scientific" reasearch I've seen done by sites like SecurityFocus there is little truth that either closed source or open source generates more secure code. Both of them *in general* seem to have roughly the same. There are of course exceptions like OpenBSD and MacOS.
I dunno, maybe I am off the beaten track, but I certainly prefer someone to shout at when things turn to custard. And strangly enough so do the people that pay my fees.
Well shouting at some tech support guy who probably doesn't know how to write a line of code him/herself may feel really good (I've done it myself) the reality is that it doesn't really help me any. I'd much rather have the email address of the author and find out what's going on (nicely). My experiance has been that they are very eager to help and generally more capable then their commercial counterparts. My opinion is that neither open or closed generates more secure code inheriently. That only happens by doing security centric code reviews, ala OpenBSD. OSes like Linux, Solaris, and NT all have shown that they tend to have a lot of security holes. However, open source seems to have an advantage when it comes to fixing them since you're not held hostage by the vendor to fix it. (A friend of mine fixed the recent wu-ftpd exploit a few months ago before the wu-ftpd team did.) Regards, Aaron PS. Actually I love Linux and use it all the time for just about everything, but I've got to admit that OpenBSD is the most secure OS out there, hands down. -- Aaron Turner aturner () vicinity com 650.237.0300 x252 Security Engineer Vicinity Corp. Cell: 408-314-9874 http://www.vicinity.com _______________________________________________ Firewall-wizards mailing list Firewall-wizards () nfr net http://www.nfr.net/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- RE: Firewall Throughput, (continued)
- RE: Firewall Throughput Darren Mackay (Sep 12)
- Re: Firewall Throughput Patrick Darden (Sep 12)
- Re: Firewall Throughput Darren Reed (Sep 12)
- Re: Firewall Throughput Patrick Darden (Sep 12)
- Re: Firewall Throughput Darren Reed (Sep 13)
- Vague Negative Blah Patrick Darden (Sep 14)
- Re: Firewall Throughput Ryan Russell (Sep 14)
- RE: Firewall Throughput JVBrown (Sep 13)
- RE: Firewall Throughput Robert Purdy (Sep 13)
- Re: Firewall Throughput Darren Reed (Sep 13)
- RE: Firewall Throughput Aaron Turner (Sep 14)
- RE: Firewall Throughput Robert Purdy (Sep 16)
- RE: Firewall Throughput Chris Cappuccio (Sep 14)
- Re: Firewall Throughput Christopher Nielsen (Sep 13)
- Re: Firewall Throughput Patrick Darden (Sep 14)
- Plan9 (was Re: Firewall Throughput) Christopher Nielsen (Sep 16)
- Re: Firewall Throughput Carson Gaspar (Sep 12)
- Re: Firewall Throughput Andy Smith (Sep 12)
- Re: Firewall Throughput Patrick Darden (Sep 06)
