i use it and its secure
OpenBSD 7.9
131–140 of 314 posts
Re: OpenBSD 7.9
#132Anyone here using OpenBSD? If so, for what purpose? I’ve always wanted to use NetBSD for an application for an embedded system / IoT device but never had the pleasure (yet!).
[deleted]
Re: OpenBSD 7.9
#133With all the security issues constantly being uncovered in other Operating Systems - which will only accelerate with Ai - it’s time everyone considers OpenBSD. Their decades-long security-focus is second to none. We have fully converted from Ubuntu/Debian to OpenBSD. No looking back.
Is OpenBSD actually more secure than Linux? I have not been able to find any data to support this—only some vague opinions.
The Data:
Compare the number of CVE vulnerability trends over time between Linux: https://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/33 and OpenBSD: https://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/97
It's not even close! It's nearly two orders of magnitude higher for Linux. This isn't anecdotal or “vague opinion” CVEs are facts.
You can ask the follow-up question: Why is that?
And there are many reasons. It could just be that Linux having more users/eyes means more bugs are surfaced ... But you need to dig deeper to understand why OpenBSD is so much more secure, the core team of OpenBSD proactively reviews the security of other OSes and when they learn something, they rapidly implement the feature/fix in OpenBSD.
Again, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_features Many of the proactive security features OpenBSD has are not implemented by other OSes. And in the case of kernel-level Crypto, they won't ever be because US export restrictions.
Re: OpenBSD 7.9
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you care about security, why not consider Qubes OS? Related discussion: https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/qubesos-vs-openbsd-security/790...
Qubes OS uses the Linux kernel. Without wanting to start a flame-war and with all respect to Linux, it’s not even close. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_features
You misunderstand the Qubes' approach to security. You isolate your workflows into separate VMs, so that security of a single VM doesn't matter. For example, my secrets are stored in a dedicated offline VM. All kernel bugs in it are just not exploitable. I open my online banking in a dedicated VM, in which nothing else is ever opened. Which attack vector do you think can be used against that?
Re: OpenBSD 7.9
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use it on my personal laptop, essentially because I like how slim and simple it is. Packaging is simple, kernel development and upgrade is simple, etc. Also the kernel code itself is written in a style I like, it's to the point, no useless abstractions, no fuss. I prefer it even amongst other BSDs I tried (netbsd and free*lbsd/dragonfly). It just feels nice to be able to understand most of your system. It's not as…
> I like how slim and simple it is. I ran OpenBSD on my laptop 22 years ago. Back then, a full GUI environment with terminal, web browser, editor: 28MiB of memory for the whole operating system and user environment!
About 10 years ago we moved offices, and I was over checking out the new internet circuit and cabling in the office. The circuit was up, and I hadn't brought anything with me to connect to the network, but we had already moved some boxes of old stuff over.
I found a 10+ year old Dell Pentium III laptop in one of the boxes, installed OpenBSD to do some simple connectivity testing, and ended up with a full workstation install and using it for network monitoring and some other random stuff. It stayed in the network/server closet until we moved out of that building just a few years ago.
Re: OpenBSD 7.9
#136Anyone here using OpenBSD? If so, for what purpose? I’ve always wanted to use NetBSD for an application for an embedded system / IoT device but never had the pleasure (yet!).
I use it on my personal laptop, essentially because I like how slim and simple it is. Packaging is simple, kernel development and upgrade is simple, etc. Also the kernel code itself is written in a style I like, it's to the point, no useless abstractions, no fuss. I prefer it even amongst other BSDs I tried (netbsd and free*lbsd/dragonfly). It just feels nice to be able to understand most of your system. It's not as…
I used to run it on a laptop too, but the battery life was shorter and the laptop ran noticeably hotter than under Linux, so I eventually switched back.
That said, OpenBSD feels unusually coherent (ej. check wifi connection from terminal). The whole system has a level of consistency that's hard to find elsewhere, also between other BSDs.
For pet servers, it usually fits perfect.
Re: OpenBSD 7.9
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Qubes OS uses the Linux kernel. Without wanting to start a flame-war and with all respect to Linux, it’s not even close. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBSD_security_features
The “kernel” in Qubes is arguably Xen rather than Linux, and that’s where the security boundaries are supposed to be defined rather than within VMs that may be running any OS. VM compartmentalization as a security mechanism is hard to compare to a more conventional Unix like OpenBSD.
It's not just Xen, it also relies on the hardware-assisted virtualization (VT-d), which is virtually unbreakable compared to anything else. Most Xen vulnerabilities do not even affect Qubes: https://www.qubes-os.org/security/xsa/#statistics
Re: OpenBSD 7.9
#138> Enabled IPv6 autoconf (SLAAC) by default.
Sweet! I’m just about to replace pfsense with openbsd on my router. Smoothly setting up ipv6 is a bit of a headscratcher atm, mainly because i’ve never had to understand it before.
Re: OpenBSD 7.9
#139I wonder why they didn‘t spend 20 minutes to make that web page work better with smartphones.
Re: OpenBSD 7.9
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I'm aware of FSFLA and Linux Libre, but Hurd is not ready yet and it's being worked on with LLM's (something really anti-GNU, as it's propietary SAAS). https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2026-03/msg00100... In the end Hyperbola BSD will be more free than OpenBSD and the former GNU maintainers themselves...
I don't really see the LLM use as anti-GNU. It would be no different if the code was written in a proprietary IDE with fancy code completion. GNU doesn't restrict contributors to using exclusively free software for their contributions (if they did, they likely wouldn't have gotten very far considering how much work apple did on GCC). As long as the license is free and GPL compatible, it isn't inherently non-GNU (thou…
A local LLM with GPL compatible input and with options to properly tag the source with a full backtracking of the code? Maybe, but that's not what's happening, but massive license laundering.