Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Aug 2011 17:29 UTC, submitted by Dale Smoker
Permalink for comment 487998
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-09-15
I don't think so. OpenBSD is secure mostly because the code is audited, which is tedious, and they try to adhere to best practices of coding for an insecure languages.
IMO, redesigned for security means from the ground up.
It's the difference between a maximum-security prison and a fenced stockade with dogs and frequent prisoner checks.
In short, designed for security means it should be hard for you to accidentally create a security hole while still being completely functional.