From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 29 23:17:09 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A211065679 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:17:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from corky1951@comcast.net) Received: from QMTA14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.27.212]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A01C8FC21 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:17:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from OMTA12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.44]) by QMTA14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id PA4s1d0060x6nqcAEBH9RA; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:17:09 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([98.203.142.76]) by OMTA12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id PBH71d00D1f6R9u8YBH8VK; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:17:09 +0000 Received: by comcast.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:17:06 -0800 Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:17:05 -0800 From: Charlie Kester To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20091229231705.GE25393@comcast.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org References: <541b7a870912150733m4bc34148j98790a6142d4521c@mail.gmail.com> <20091223103226.GC26235@guilt.hydra> <20091223235651.GA31167@guilt.hydra> <87oclhzvz4.fsf@kobe.laptop> <20091229203901.GD25393@comcast.net> <20091229225123.GB6542@guilt.hydra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091229225123.GB6542@guilt.hydra> X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5.20 X-Composer: VIM 7.2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: why BSDs got no love (and why security gets no love) X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:17:09 -0000 On Tue 29 Dec 2009 at 14:51:23 PST Chad Perrin wrote: >On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:39:01PM -0800, Charlie Kester wrote: >> >> One question, however. Are we prepared to back up the claim that the >> "sexy" bits of PC-BSD are the least secure? Your argument depends on >> that claim, since it's also implied in your description of development >> team's priorities. > >Define "we". As I'm not a core developer for FreeBSD, nor anyone in a >position of official representation of either the OS development project >or the Foundation, my statements in the article should not be taken as >necessarily indicative of anyone's opinions but my own. I said "we" rather than "you" because I agree with your argument. :) > >The claim about the "sexy" bits of PC-BSD is based on my experience with >tarted-up GUIs and "feature-rich" software. It is intended as a >generalization rather than a categorical statement of absolute truth. > >All stuffy pedantry of mine aside, though, if you want to expand on >your concerns, I'd be happy to read about them. I was wondering if anyone has done a study of reported security holes and if that data supports the assertion that the "sexy" GUI stuff PC-BSD adds was more likely to be involved than the base OS. But even if there hasn't been any such study, I think it would be worthwhile to flesh out your assertion with a few examples of the kind of security problems that arise when the "sexy" stuff is used. As I said above, I think the argument stands or falls on our ability to defend this point.