Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 11:27:18 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Wireless interface Message-ID: <d6244985-8b67-21b3-bf40-884312746035@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20190127013705.3e8cd5f3.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <CAPu-kW-0u=Eoj8NtASnD_WDnsosj_WcTEh=Zhby1DnBV3d2rdg@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR04MB04954E8E691D98C40B68607780940@MWHPR04MB0495.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20190126213957.adfeb61c.freebsd@edvax.de> <5C4CE8B8.4030608@gmail.com> <20190127013705.3e8cd5f3.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27/01/2019 00:37, Polytropon wrote: > This is not a sarcastic question. I'm really asking > myself (and you) why FreeBSD could_not_ be considered > to be available to the public_without_ containing > backdoors, spyware, or malware. Actually, the project is struggling with a lack of information about its userbase. If you're trying to make decisions about the lifecycle of support for a particular device it certainly helps to have an idea about how many people are using it. The recent exercise in deprecating support for a number of NICs that were limited to 100Mb/s being a case in point. As for whether stock FreeBSD contains backdoors or spyware -- I'm pretty sure it doesn't, but there are no absolute guarantees. You can boot it up on a network and do some forensics on the network traffic it generates and pretty well assure yourself it isn't "calling home". You can scan the drives for the signatures of known malware and you can do a line-by-line check of the source code to try and find backdoors. None of these measures will /prove/ that such things dont exist, but they will provide reasonable practical assurance of the security and integrity of the system which is probably good enough for most users. Cheers, Matthew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d6244985-8b67-21b3-bf40-884312746035>