SEO

In article <619bcf8.0306241752.79cf2d88@posting.google.com> , walterbyrd wrote:
> I know openbsd is supposed to more secure than other OSS offerings.
> But I'm not sure why. What features are in openbsd that are not in
> linux or freebsd?

Well, for one thing that password encryption is done using blowfish and
not traditional DES which is (was?) used by default in almost all linux
distros (slackware and free/netBSD use MD5 which is far better than DES
but not as good as blowfish). So even if someone grabs your shadow,
chances are that they won't be able to decypher it (*IF* you use good
passwords!!!). This is the output on my athlon of john (passwd cracker):

Benchmarking: Traditional DES [64/64 BS MMX]... DONE
Many salts: 165478 c/s real, 259370 c/s virtual
Only one salt: 159228 c/s real, 217168 c/s virtual

Benchmarking: FreeBSD MD5 [32/32]... DONE
Raw: 1447 c/s real, 2065 c/s virtual

Benchmarking: OpenBSD Blowfish (x32) [32/32]... DONE
Raw: 93.0 c/s real, 121 c/s virtual

the higher the number, the more tries per second this cracker can
compute and the easier to hit a potential password. The differences are
huge.

Another thing, if you're interested in web server is that apache in
chrooted to /var/www on openbsd-3.2 and higher, so even if someone
exploits your apache, they'll be left (hopefully) under /var/www. The
worst the attacker can do is mess with your site.

Anyway this could go on and on but I believe you get the point... :-)

have fun

--
yourself

There are 10 types of people in the world.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.

And of course we shouldn't forget:

-> SYSTRACE (man systrace) on openbsd >= 3.2 .... ;-)
-> The ProPolice protected gcc (>=3.3)
-> W xor X

(for detailed information go to http://www.openbsd.org/33.html)


--
yourself

There are 10 types of people in the world.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.

yourself <stud1239@no.spam.di.uoa.gr> wrote:
> In article <619bcf8.0306241752.79cf2d88@posting.google.com> , walterbyrd wrote:
>> I know openbsd is supposed to more secure than other OSS offerings.
>> But I'm not sure why. What features are in openbsd that are not in
>> linux or freebsd?

As a long-time user of OpenBSD, I would say that OpenBSD is more secure
than other operating systems IF YOU DON'T USE X; otherwise the system
seems to have a backdoor that permits AMD64 systems to be compromised.

I am unable to run KDE on OpenBSD 4.3 after upgrading from 4.2.
FreeBSD is working much better for me where graphics are concerned.

In article <619bcf8.0306241752.79cf2d88@posting.google.com> , walterbyrd wrote:
> I know openbsd is supposed to more secure than other OSS offerings.
> But I'm not sure why. What features are in openbsd that are not in
> linux or freebsd?
Read the FAQ.

On 2008-06-06, YANSWBVCG <daf@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
> As a long-time user of OpenBSD, I would say that OpenBSD is more secure
> than other operating systems IF YOU DON'T USE X; otherwise the system
> seems to have a backdoor that permits AMD64 systems to be compromised.
Could you please show some proof to back up your statements?

> I am unable to run KDE on OpenBSD 4.3 after upgrading from 4.2.
What does this got to do with security? Not to mention that you propably
screwed up the upgrade.

--
bulibuta@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

Paul Irofti <bulibuta@faeroes.freeshell.org> wrote:
> In article <619bcf8.0306241752.79cf2d88@posting.google.com> , walterbyrd wrote:
>> I know openbsd is supposed to more secure than other OSS offerings.
>> But I'm not sure why. What features are in openbsd that are not in
>> linux or freebsd?
> Read the FAQ.
>
> On 2008-06-06, YANSWBVCG <daf@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
>> As a long-time user of OpenBSD, I would say that OpenBSD is more secure
>> than other operating systems IF YOU DON'T USE X; otherwise the system
>> seems to have a backdoor that permits AMD64 systems to be compromised.
> Could you please show some proof to back up your statements?
>
>> I am unable to run KDE on OpenBSD 4.3 after upgrading from 4.2.
> What does this got to do with security? Not to mention that you propably
> screwed up the upgrade.

Actually, it appears that the kde package for 4.3 references packages
that are not present in the OpenBSD package archive. I write this
because the reason I cannot run kde is that it will not install when
I run pkg_add. I am learning a lot about X as a result of not being able
to use kde. X is looking quite a bit more attractive at this point, even
if using it does seem to enable minor exploits in the OS.

But thanks for your helpful comments. :-)

YANSWBVCG <daf@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:

> Actually, it appears that the kde package for 4.3 references packages
> that are not present in the OpenBSD package archive. I write this
> because the reason I cannot run kde is that it will not install when
> I run pkg_add. I am learning a lot about X as a result of not being able
> to use kde. X is looking quite a bit more attractive at this point, even
> if using it does seem to enable minor exploits in the OS.

You say that X is looking quite a bit more attractive at this point.
From this I am tentatively inferring that you think KDE and X are in no
way related, and that they are separate Graphics frameworks? In
actuality, KDE runs on top of X, so I am not sure I understand the
above. What would make X more attractive to you not using KDE, since you
are using X regardless of whether or not you can run KDE?
--
Aaron Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> | Jabber: arcfide@jabber.org
``Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else.'' - Frederic Bastiat

In article <slrng4rh3m.426.bulibuta@faeroes.freeshell.org>,
Paul Irofti <bulibuta@faeroes.freeshell.org> wrote:
>On 2008-06-06, YANSWBVCG <daf@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
>> As a long-time user of OpenBSD, I would say that OpenBSD is more secure
>> than other operating systems IF YOU DON'T USE X; otherwise the system
>> seems to have a backdoor that permits AMD64 systems to be compromised.
>Could you please show some proof to back up your statements?

Ignore Dave, this is conspiracy-theory material.

Aaron Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> wrote:
> YANSWBVCG <daf@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Actually, it appears that the kde package for 4.3 references packages
>> that are not present in the OpenBSD package archive. I write this
>> because the reason I cannot run kde is that it will not install when
>> I run pkg_add. I am learning a lot about X as a result of not being able
>> to use kde. X is looking quite a bit more attractive at this point, even
>> if using it does seem to enable minor exploits in the OS.
>
> You say that X is looking quite a bit more attractive at this point.
> From this I am tentatively inferring that you think KDE and X are in no
> way related, and that they are separate Graphics frameworks? In
> actuality, KDE runs on top of X, so I am not sure I understand the
> above. What would make X more attractive to you not using KDE, since you
> are using X regardless of whether or not you can run KDE?

The kde desktop is more convenient for me than the stock X fvwm, and
Konqueror is WAY handier than Firefox (mainly because I like to run with
Javascript only selectively enabler for certain websites). However,
yesterday I started getting more familiar with fvwm, and I look forward
to customizing it. I also am beginning to appreciate the simplicity of
OpenBSD vs the complexity of FreeBSD. The difference set me back a bit
the first couple of times I ran 'ps -ax' on FreeBSD and again when
a power outage crashed FreeBSD and it rebooted, fixing things.

Marc Espie <espie@lain.home> wrote:
> In article <slrng4rh3m.426.bulibuta@faeroes.freeshell.org>,
> Paul Irofti <bulibuta@faeroes.freeshell.org> wrote:
>>On 2008-06-06, YANSWBVCG <daf@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
>>> As a long-time user of OpenBSD, I would say that OpenBSD is more secure
>>> than other operating systems IF YOU DON'T USE X; otherwise the system
>>> seems to have a backdoor that permits AMD64 systems to be compromised.
>>Could you please show some proof to back up your statements?
>
> Ignore Dave, this is conspiracy-theory material.

Hi Mark! Nice to hear from you. Have you had any luck getting Maxima and
wxMaxima to run in 64-bit mode? I have set up FreeBSD 7.0 to run those
programs and they work well on FreeBSD. Makes easy checking the Maxima code
that proves Einstein's version of General Relativity creates a logical
inconsistancy when it assumes torsion = 0 with non-zero curvature.
See all the details in papers 93 ff at aias.us.

In article <_YWdneKNVOeDVNLVnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
YANSWBVCG <daf@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
>Marc Espie <espie@lain.home> wrote:
>> In article <slrng4rh3m.426.bulibuta@faeroes.freeshell.org>,
>> Paul Irofti <bulibuta@faeroes.freeshell.org> wrote:
>>>On 2008-06-06, YANSWBVCG <daf@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> As a long-time user of OpenBSD, I would say that OpenBSD is more secure
>>>> than other operating systems IF YOU DON'T USE X; otherwise the system
>>>> seems to have a backdoor that permits AMD64 systems to be compromised.
>>>Could you please show some proof to back up your statements?
>>
>> Ignore Dave, this is conspiracy-theory material.
>
>Hi Mark! Nice to hear from you. Have you had any luck getting Maxima and
>wxMaxima to run in 64-bit mode?

A working common-lisp, like Embedded Common Lisp, is the best bet for
those programs, long-term.