The difference is negligible, given that the individual is an expert in their respective operating system. The proof is in the pudding... which ones are *easier* to configure initially, easier to maintain in the long run, and requires the least security patches? OpenBSD wins *hands_down* on the first requirement. The 2nd depends (again) on how competent a SysAdmin you are on the particular system. The 3rd is highly subjective... Linux probably requires more patching per system than most other OS's... Windows included. This is due to two primary influences...
1) The code is open, leading to much more peer review than found in proprietary systems, ala Solaris and Windows. 2) Is much more widespread in use than other unices, ala the *BSD's. That said, Solaris still requires much more patching than I'd ever put up with in a firewall. OpenBSD and NetBSD both require occassional patching, but this is usually not the type of code fix that leaves the system open to remote attack (as you've referred to). The BSD's are wonderful in that you can set them up and let them rock (excluding the occassional security audit). <overused cliche> Security is not a product, it's a process. </overused cliche> -J. At 07:28 PM 1/26/2002 +0100, DocValde wrote: >Hallo Enphourell Security, >am Samstag, 26. Januar 2002 um 10:27:50 schrieben Sie: > >ES> Which OS do you guys think would make the best firewall, OpenBSD or >Linux? > >What a question! My first thought was "The one you're most familiar >with!". But well, OpenBSD shouts to the world:"4 1/2 years without >remote vulnerability!". I think the difference minimizes when you are >a pro in Debian Linux, for example. Other thoughts? > >Doc. > >-- > >DocValde > >web: http://www.DocValde.net >eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
