> In very simple terms, their approach to security is auditing to try and remove all bugs, but offering very little to protect against the case where there is a remote root hole, such as they have had in the past.
I'm not sure what is meant by "protect against the case where there is a remote root hole". Do you mean, to mitigate harm from existing holes? They secure things from top to bottom, but maybe you mean some kind of authorization issues? To proactively prevent holes? They do a lot of engineering around the latter (and around other attacks) - to the extent that many question the wisdom of solving 'problems' for which there is no proven exploit. And they have had very few remote holes - whatever the reason, there's not evidence that they fail to prevent them.
> I'm not sure what is meant by "protect against the case where there is a remote root hole".
I don't understand how this is ambiguous. I mean limit the damage that an attacker can do if they get root - this is something RHEL can do and OBSD pretty much refuses to.
> They secure things from top to bottom
Eh. Kind of. The devs are against security technologies that they think add too much complexity to their system regardless of benefits. That's why they don't have any kind of RBAC or MAC, just plain old DAC. You get root, you get everything - pledge and unveil won't help too much there.
It wasn't an attack, but a genuine question, for which I provided two possible interpretations. I was (am) interested in what you were saying.
> That's why they don't have any kind of RBAC or MAC, just plain old DAC. You get root, you get everything - pledge and unveil won't help too much there.
> It wasn't an attack, but a genuine question, for which I provided two possible interpretations. I was (am) interested in what you were saying.
No worries at all! I wasn't taking it as an attack and apologies if my response seemed combative. I just honestly didn't understand where the point of confusion was.
> Thanks for explaining.
My pleasure! If you're still interested in discussing, I am interested in the point you made that 'They secure things from top to bottom' - if I may ask, why do you think this is the case? It's not a statement I would ever make myself.
I'm not sure what is meant by "protect against the case where there is a remote root hole". Do you mean, to mitigate harm from existing holes? They secure things from top to bottom, but maybe you mean some kind of authorization issues? To proactively prevent holes? They do a lot of engineering around the latter (and around other attacks) - to the extent that many question the wisdom of solving 'problems' for which there is no proven exploit. And they have had very few remote holes - whatever the reason, there's not evidence that they fail to prevent them.