|
Other OS Any other OS such as Microsoft Windows, BeOS, Plan9, Syllable, and whatnot. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
The most secure OS
Hi,
from the point of view of security what is the most secure unix os ? |
|
|||
|
|
|||
why do u think it's the most secure os ?
|
|
|||
Most secure for what purpose? A common operating system or less obscure? General purpose or specific?
Personal desktop. Enterprise server. Military/government communications. For general purpose desktop, some might say Qubes which uses isolation built on Xen. But if Xen has a vulnerability, and it has, then your battleship could be sunk. sel4 is mathematically verified. Some secure operating systems are being built on it. You can run the NetBSD rump kernel on sel4. Last edited by gpatrick; 8th May 2019 at 09:13 PM. |
|
|||
Whonix+Qubes
|
|
||||
Quote:
http://9front.org/
__________________
Destruam et ædificabo |
|
|||
Those are interesting reads, thank you for the links. What I noticed is that there's a remark about OpenBSD not supporting Wayland. While it's true out of the box, if I'm not mistaken it might be possible with arcan to have such a setup. I did not use arcan-wayland on OpenBSD yet, but the development is promising and it looks to me there will be Wayland support on all the BSDs sooner or later.
And let me also add: https://why-openbsd.rocks/fact/ Last edited by bradley; 28th November 2020 at 02:24 AM. |
|
|||
Security is like a chain. The chain is as strong as the weakest link. Usually the weakest link is a human.
So you can have a super secure OS but if the users don't use their brain, things like this can happen: https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/1...ticated-fraud/
__________________
You don't need to be a genius to debug a pf.conf firewall ruleset, you just need the guts to run tcpdump |
|
||||
Quote:
Did you also read what he said about Linux and that he's a whonix contributor? Do you think that he might be biased and that he also Links to the other biased site you linked to. Both are very much agenda driven, the first is an "anonymous coward", the second is a "security researcher", who works on a project which uses VMs and Tor as a "security" solution. HardenedBSD even gets a mention, even though it has a few features OpenBSD lacks, but in turn lacks features that OpenBSD has - but doesn't get the same destructive treatment... that's quite telling. I've seen this kind of thing before and usually it's because there's a grudge involved, because they posted something on the OpenBSD mailing lists and got a roasting from Theo and some other developers - based on that alone, they then proceed to set up their own personal hate sites - relying on willing dupes and useful idiots re-post them at every given opportunity. |
|
||||
Do you mean https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html? I posted that link over at the MX Linux forums a while ago, it was fun
Isn't everyone? All of the points raised are clearly cited so I would be interested to read your repudiation of the technical issues. My original link also has a list of citations and sources at the bottom of this page. Quote:
The HardenedBSD devs have a nice comparison page: https://hardenedbsd.org/content/easy-feature-comparison Happy to be of service
__________________
Destruam et ædificabo |
|
||||
One of the "citations" was some chat on a forum posting...? Of all the citations, the only worthwhile ones are van sprundel and torvalds. The rest arent worth considering. Both sites are extremely biased deconstructions based on fallacies. I would be more interested in the repudiations of OpenBSD devs, but do you think many would be willing to waste their time on FUD sites?
|
|
|||
Most secure and nice for daily use is OpenBSD
Or other BSDs but less secure.
|
|
|||
The fact that certain flavors of the BSD family of operating-systems do things differently which may include but aren't abundantly clear. One of which is the configuration of a window manager like Xdm or light dm on top of which you would then place a Desktop environment like gnome or Xfce (my favorite) and then go in and place quite a bunch of arguments in your /etc/rc.conf file and that is where you could potentially introduce security vulnerabilities like the fact that the port(s) that your installing may no longer be maintained. I've been warned about this issue then I'll go back and either uninstall either entering the appropriate folder under ports and do a simple make deinstall or if I'm feeling lazy i'll just use pkg remove.
__________________
Kindly You Buddy, Chip EM:firedolphin8858@gmx.us |
|
|||
One that isn't connected to the internet..... like all other O/S.
__________________
Linux since 1999, & also a BSD user. |
|
||||
Quote:
You no longer do everything as root?
__________________
Sᴛᴀʏ ʜᴏᴏᴘʏ, ꜰʀᴏᴏᴅs, ᴀɴᴅ ᴋᴇᴇᴘ ɪᴛ ᴄᴏsᴍɪᴄ. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How is this secure ? | bsd007 | OpenBSD Security | 11 | 1st October 2018 05:21 PM |
Encrypted == secure? | passthejoe | OpenBSD Security | 13 | 9th November 2010 05:45 PM |
how to secure my ftp? | milo974 | OpenBSD Security | 3 | 4th August 2009 03:47 PM |
Is this secure? | Ungenious | OpenBSD Security | 4 | 30th November 2008 02:27 AM |
obsd 4.3 secure ssh use | milo974 | OpenBSD Security | 9 | 3rd July 2008 11:23 AM |