I think it's important to point out that OpenBSD is not more secure than others, it's just that it's not widely adopted so no one really does audit it.
OpenBSD has a use-after-free allowing local privilege escalation to root
51–60 of 170 posts
Re: OpenBSD has a use-after-free allowing local privilege escalation to root
#52Would Rust have made this issue impossible by construction? I know Linus has spoken about Rust's promises about memory safety not being equivalently applicable in the kernel domain, so I would be curious to hear any kernel developer's perspectives.
I’m not an OS programmer and have been dabbling with OpenBSD’s code for fun. But the fact is that Rust kinda lacks flexibility. Most of the OS is dedicated to building a beautiful lie for programs to run happily, and that’s where C shine. I shudder to think about the amount of work that it would take to convince the rust compiler that everything is all right. Most hardware interactions is “parse, don’t validate” whic…
In practice you don't convince Rust that everything is right. You let it prove that most of the code is right and you promise it (via unsafe) that the rest is. Ideally these unsafe blocks would be carefully documented, reviewed and ideally enclosed in small modules that makes correctness easier to ascertain.
Rust is no panacea, but in my experience it is far easier to write memory safe code when the risky bits are discouraged and explicitly highlighted rather than every line of code being a possible risk. Humans are pretty bad at reviewing 100 lines of boring looking code (especially if this is one of dozens of patches this week) but much better (although by no means excellent at) reviewing 5 2-line unsafe blocks amongst 90 other lines of code.
Re: OpenBSD has a use-after-free allowing local privilege escalation to root
#53One bug found is a testament to the great diligence and culture around security of OpenBSD. Especially if you take into account the amount of resources they have been able to achieve this with.
Re: OpenBSD has a use-after-free allowing local privilege escalation to root
#54Would Rust have made this issue impossible by construction? I know Linus has spoken about Rust's promises about memory safety not being equivalently applicable in the kernel domain, so I would be curious to hear any kernel developer's perspectives.
I’m not an OS programmer and have been dabbling with OpenBSD’s code for fun. But the fact is that Rust kinda lacks flexibility. Most of the OS is dedicated to building a beautiful lie for programs to run happily, and that’s where C shine. I shudder to think about the amount of work that it would take to convince the rust compiler that everything is all right. Most hardware interactions is “parse, don’t validate” whic…
I thought that parsing implied validation. Is this not the case?
Re: OpenBSD has a use-after-free allowing local privilege escalation to root
#55[dead]
Re: OpenBSD has a use-after-free allowing local privilege escalation to root
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to https://openai.com/index/patch-the-planet/ Linux: 24 LPEs, plus many additional vulnerabilities. OpenBSD: 1 LPE. FreeBSD: 7 LPEs, plus many additional vulnerabilities. Not sure what that says, though. Perhaps the models are more likely to find Linux issues because of the training.
It is quite possible that Linux is the bigger target so it gets more focus. Vulnerabilities there are generally considered more valuable and notable. It would be very difficult to use these numbers to get a meaningful "more secure" stance as there are tons of variables.
Linux also has a ton of extra functionality so I think you’d also have to do some adjustment for “as a user would I be at risk?” versus “can I be a user because it supports my needs?” Some of that would be unfavorable for many users (e.g. a Linux user who is exposed due to a network protocol or file system they’ll never use) but that’s certainly not true of every feature.
Re: OpenBSD has a use-after-free allowing local privilege escalation to root
#57Oh, hey , a local-user-to-root exploit on OpenBSD. Cool! Those are rare , but not unheard of , unless you're talking about Windows or Linux, where you don't hear much about this bug class, just since it's common-as-rainfall. Anyway... Does this mean OpenBSD is suddenly less interesting? Nope, it's still pretty much the best-understandable general-purpose OS, ready for your RiiR fork. So, still go for that! Burn a uni…
Now I've seen it all.
Re: OpenBSD has a use-after-free allowing local privilege escalation to root
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think of it more as their attention to quality in their code: Given the 'quality' of most code, especially under commercial pressure, it's no surprise that much more effective tools will find many more vulnerabilities. Did OpenBSDs quality approach work in this respect?
A local escalation in BSD is still apparently worth a front page post here, so that seems pretty good. I wonder why we don’t see more about local escalations in Windows. Of course, being closed source is a little bit of a barrier, but these tools can read assembly pretty well, right?
I’ve heard a couple people say that Microsoft has patched a record number of bugs internally this year so it might be the case that it’s simply more opaque because it’s initiated internally and doesn’t involve a public Git repo or a third-party researcher.
Re: OpenBSD has a use-after-free allowing local privilege escalation to root
#59One bug found is a testament to the great diligence and culture around security of OpenBSD. Especially if you take into account the amount of resources they have been able to achieve this with.
Exactly, the entire AI industry has been trying to create an AI powered security arm race. I am not necessarily blaming them.
Hard to know how much has been thrown into this but I would bet a lot.
So far I have been very surprised we haven't been flooded by those type of announcements. If you look you will always find something and OpenBSD is the top price.
Re: OpenBSD has a use-after-free allowing local privilege escalation to root
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to https://openai.com/index/patch-the-planet/ Linux: 24 LPEs, plus many additional vulnerabilities. OpenBSD: 1 LPE. FreeBSD: 7 LPEs, plus many additional vulnerabilities. Not sure what that says, though. Perhaps the models are more likely to find Linux issues because of the training.
It is quite possible that Linux is the bigger target so it gets more focus. Vulnerabilities there are generally considered more valuable and notable. It would be very difficult to use these numbers to get a meaningful "more secure" stance as there are tons of variables.
If this is just counting the kernel, than Linux is probably a bigger target both i terms of current code size and the amount of churn in the codebase as things change over time. Some of the LPEs might (I've not checked) be in modules that are not commonly loaded, which mitigates their overall significance somewhat.
In the less likely even that this is counting what laymen would call Linux or BSD, i.e. both the kernel and common libraries & tools, then Linux definitely has a wider attack surface. Though some of that surface is shared as some userland parts are common to both.
As with your assessment, I'd agree that these flat numbers without looking for further context don't really give enough for a one-is-more-or-less-secure statement.