Since we keep coming back to FreeBSD as it pertains to security: 3) FreeBSD is very mature, and very well reviewed. I've looked into >> FreeBSD to my personal satisfaction. OpenBSD may be abrasive as a >> community at times, but their work product is pretty impressive in terms of >> being clean and funcitonal. I was very happy with how they handled that >> whole IPSec fiasco in 2011. I've been following pfSense for a while now, >> and I've used it off and on for years. I'm very satisfied by the quality >> and oversight of the coding. But by all means dig as long as your >> curiosity holds out. you can never be "100% sure" of the security of any >> software, but "sufficiently sure" is absolutely worth looking into. >> > FreeBSD is not the distribution in the BSD family<http://www.freebsdworld.gr/freebsd/bsd-family-tree.html>that is best known for security<http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/introduction.html#idp75150000>. Indeed OpenBSD has a specific focus on security (which<http://www.openbsd.net/papers/crypt-paper.pdf> has <http://www.benzedrine.cx/pf-paper.html> been<http://openbsd.md5.com.ar/papers/eurobsdcon2009/otto-malloc.pdf> studied <http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/79177/milkorwine.pdf>, as has the relationship between the BSDs<http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~offutt/rsrch/papers/srs-bsd.pdf>), but FreeBSD focuses on being more inclusive of a variety of hardware at a cost of not being 100% open source. That is a tradeoff, but it does not mean that FreeBSD is not secure, it just means ... well I have not found a study about that yet.
- Y
_______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
