On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Yehuda Katz <yeh...@ymkatz.net> wrote: > 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 that is best known for > security. Indeed OpenBSD has a specific focus on security (which has been > studied, as has the relationship between the BSDs), 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.
Go ahead and believe the marketing/hype (“best known”) about OpenBSD if you like. the simple fact is, if security issues are found in any of the BSDs, the fixes for them quickly propagate between all of them. In the end, OpenBSD is no more ‘secure’ than FreeBSD or NetBSD. Jim
_______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
