BSD more secure? was: Re: 10 top myths of debian
Le Sam 2 mars 2013 4:44, Miles Fidelman a écrit :
> Yaro Kasear wrote:
>
>> I don't know if Debian's the most SECURE distribution. It doesn't
>> really have a "hardened profile" or anything like what Gentoo offers.
>> (Gentoo isn't a prime example of a secure Linux system, I more point
>> to the concept of having a "hardened" base available, whihc Debian
>> doesn't really offer.) Debian's known for being incredibly STABLE and
>> high quality, and embraces FOSS standards pretty well.
>>
>> But unless Debian is bundling an alternate base system built around
>> stuff like Tomoyo, GrSecurity, PaX, or SELinux and starts loading up
>> their packages with hardened patchsets I wouldn't boast about it being a
>> "security-focused" distro.
>>
>>
>> The backports are an excellent thing. And the Debian security team
>> does an excellent job. Lets just be realistic and a little more honest
>> and say Debian is "one of the most secure" but I can't call it "THE most
>> secure" unless the system can go hardened readily.
>>
>
> Good point. And when you start talking security to the point of serious
> testing and configuration control, I believe there are very few
> distributions that are on the DoD approved product list.
>
> On the BSD side, OpenBSD (despite the name), focuses on security, and
> has a pretty good reputation for being pretty secure.
>
> Miles Fidelman
I'm a newbie about kernels, but I have read (and maybe misunderstood)
which stated the bsd kernel was more secure. So, if you use the kfreebsd
kernel on a Debian, is it closer to that hardened security?
It is a real question, sorry for the OT, but I am just taking the occasion
to learn a bit about differences between those kernels.
Reply to: