OpenBSD Journal


Contributed by Dengue on from the Buzzword-Compliant dept.

Anonymous writes : "Wandered across this at the Daily Daemon News :
``2Cactus Development is a Phoenix-based Internet security firm operating in the open-source (i.e., Linux) arena. The company's cornerstone product, Secure BSD, is a comprehensive, kernel-based security solution currently being evaluated in pre-release form by a number of high profile companies and organizations. Secure BSD is tentatively scheduled for release in May 2000.'' "

Does anyone have any insight on what this development is about? And why does it seem like everyone addresses security by adding components to the architecture.

If the front door to your house was broken, would you address that by putting a wall in front of it? Or would you just fix the damn door?

(Comments are closed)

  1. By Jan J () on

    Hey, take it easy think about yer heart. =)

    Not everyone is so enlightened as us that uses OpenBSD. They think Micorsoft and then Linux and that is the way it has always been done. =)

    And whats wrong with putting up a small wall that anyone can jump over if your door i broken?

  2. By knomevol () on

    it is a kernel replacement for fbsd 3.4 & 4.0. cool, someone to pay to reconfigure a kernel. wow.

  3. By _azure () on

    Is security the next big thing?


  4. By Chris () on

    So they're going to replace the FreeBSD kernel? That's really helpful. What about all the userland holes? I dont think all these 'secure' BSD variants popping up are likely to do that much towards the security. OpenBSD is already established as a secure OS. Why not improve the hardware and software support of this instead of forking another incompatible distribution on the side?

    Convergence is the key to success here. I think all these brain-farting fools knowcking out new distros should concentrate on adding to an established base in the field they are looking at...In this case OpenBSD.

    Please note that I am not biased towards OpenBSD - It's just the best product to do the job at hand.


    1. By Jan J () on

      Hmm, anyone else thinking of Slackware, Debian, RedHat, Corel, SuSE, Trustix, and what else there is..

      I am happy I have found what works for me..

  5. By capy () on

    Another FreeBSD based "secure BSD distribution"?
    Its bad enough that everyone thinks it is a cool idea to create their own, "new" BSD-Distribution.
    But its even worse that their new toy is based on
    FreeBSD. Why dont they integrate their stuff into
    OpenBSD, which is already designed to be secure?
    OpenBSDs code wasnt audited just for fun.
    And by using FreeBSD they are limited to the
    intel architecture. I dont think FreeBSD is a bad
    OS, but in this case??
    I really dont understand it, sorry. ?:

  6. By Jason R. FInk () on

    I agree with the majority of posters that simply intergrating (or just plain USING) OpenBSD would make a lot more sense. I very low level example might be something I am trying to do, I wish to replace some network appliance systems running Linux with OpenBSD. Which would be easier, me trying to tighten down the security of the Linux systems (or any OS for that matter) or just install OpenBSD and keep up with it (which I might add is less work)?


Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]