Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Operating Systems BSD

OpenBSD: Hackers Meet Soldiers 336

Posted by Hemos from the meeting-the-maker dept.
BSDForums writes "OpenBSD has a well-deserved reputation for fanatical security. Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it? Cameron Laird and George Peter Staplin investigate and talk to Theo de Raadt, the creator, overseer, and taskmaster of the OpenBSD project!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenBSD: Hackers Meet Soldiers More

OpenBSD: Hackers Meet Soldiers

Comments Filter:

  • Conspiracy Theories (Score:5, Funny)

    by Scoria ( 264473 ) <{slashmail} {at} {initialized.org}> on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:01PM (#5512993) Homepage
    Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it?

    Mulder, is that you?

  • I can see the connection (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:04PM (#5513017)
    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of fork-touting BSD daemons... they'd call it an army!

  • Smart ships? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by benst ( 531969 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:04PM (#5513026)
    Why not? They've tried it with Windows nt [gcn.com], which didn't work, so maybe there's more trust in open systems since then.

    • Re:Smart ships? (Score:5, Informative)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:59PM (#5513488)
      Why not? They've tried it with Windows nt, which didn't work, so maybe there's more trust in open systems since then.

      Unless OpenBSD has the magic ability to "do what the programmer meant, not what he wrote" when encountering a divide by zero, the Navy's application would have crashed in exactly the same way on OpenBSD too.

      If you want to criticize NT, fine, go ahead, but you don't have to make stuff up.
    • Contributions to BSD don't really help us as much because they can just be forked off into proprietary OS'es like Microsoft - which they will promptly use to put the reams to us with custom extensions. It would be much nicer if they went all GPL and nothing else.

      I think the real problem is this attitude that free software is morally and intellectually equivalent to "owned" software. IMHO, this is an intellectual fraud, it screwed SCO, it will screw Sun, and it will screw us too until we finally get it.

      • Re:Yeah, but GPL would be better (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jslag ( 21657 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @03:37PM (#5513814)
        Contributions to BSD don't really help us as much. . .

        Speak for yourself - those of us who run BSD on our production servers find contributions useful.

        If you pay a little attention to what the OpenBSD core team says and does, you'd realize that there is little-to-no danger that government funding will take the project in any directions but those stated in the project goals [openbsd.org].

      • Re:Yeah, but GPL would be better (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jtdubs ( 61885 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @04:21PM (#5514216)
        I love this kind of logic.

        "The BSD license let's people do too many things, some of which I don't like. Therefore, the BSD license is TOO free."

        "The GPL however, has just the right amount of freedom. It's still mostly free, without crossing the line of 'TOO free'. People can do what they want with it, as long as 'what they want' != 'what the FSF doesn't want'."

        I have no moral problem with the GPL. I just wish people would stop calling it "free", unless they are going to put a (TM) or something after it. If you wanted your software to be truly free, you wouldn't be putting a copyright on it that contains words like "except" and "however."

        Justin Dubs
      • How is it that Apache and XFree86 have not been forked off into proprietary products and promptly used to put the reams to you with custom extensions? Apache is perhaps the most successful open source project, and XFree86 is perhaps second. This is in part because they do not use the GPL, and are therefore free from its restrictions.

      • Contributions to BSD don't really help us as much because they can just be forked off into proprietary OS'es like Microsoft - which they will promptly use to put the reams to us with custom extensions. It would be much nicer if they went all GPL and nothing else.

        This is just the wooly-headed mindless nonsense that seems so prevalent amongst the stylish Slashdot crowd. Perhaps you could explain BSD licensed software is less useful than GPL'ed software. If you don't like using BSD licensed software,

    • People on ship said WinNT not problem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AHumbleOpinion ( 546848 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @03:46PM (#5513883) Homepage
      Why not? They've tried it with Windows nt [gcn.com], which didn't work, so maybe there's more trust in open systems since then.

      The news agency that originaly broke the story you cite later distanced themselves from it by calling it early speculation. My understanding is that a naive server app corrupted it's own database and naive client apps (the infamous "LAN consoles" that crashed) needed that database to function properly and to operate equipment. Rather than rely on the early speculation of *NIX advocates why not rely on someone who was on the ship and someone who wrote the software:

      http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2.h tml

      "Others insist that NT was not the culprit. According to Lieutenant Commander Roderick Fraser, who was the chief engineer on board the ship at the time of the incident, the fault was with certain applications that were developed by CAE Electronics in Leesburg, Va. As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy programs for CAE, admits, 'If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it should be in ours.' But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened if the navy had been using a production version of the CAE software, which he asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred."

  • I've been wanting to set up an OpenBSD installation on one of my boxes for a few months now but the task of installation looks rather daunting according to their FAQ. Can anyone here who runs openBSD or who has installed it a few times and has a grip on the process email me with some thoughts about exactly how rough it would be for a BSD n00b, like myself, to do his first installation.
    • Just get a grip on diskslices. You'll laugh at everything else. The installation is beautyfull.

    • Installing OpenBSD is extremely easy. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:22PM (#5513159)
      Ok, before I get started, let me say that OpenBSD developers and users have no patience for people who aren't willing to read documentation, since they pride themselves on it (even man pages) being extremely well written and kept up to date. If it's not, file a bug, and _IT WILL GET FIXED_ (of course if it's just _your_ problem, then don't file a bug regarding the project, file one in your own bugtracking system as something you need to work on).

      That said, the following FAQ explains the installation process far better than anyone writing you email ever will be able to, including a complete install process in grey, which has example responses in bold [for the most part]. If you can't get it from this, then you aren't reading, and it doesn't matter if someone writes you an email message with the same thing (written more poorly no doubt). If you can't read and follow instructions, then OpenBSD is not for you, and honestly - you shouldn't bother.

      Most people don't have this problem, but there are always some feeble minded folks who think that life is easier if they're spoonfed on IRC and the like. To such people: you aren't welcome. The answer to this attitude has already been given: don't ask questions that already have explicit, clear answers publically available.

      If you have a problem with the instructions (not enough detail supplied, typos, etc.) then please let the OpenBSD developers know about them in order that they may be corrected. If _you_ have a problem, in that you can't understand them, well... maybe it's _JUST YOUR PROBLEM_. It might be something that you need to work on. Of course, there is an opportunity for things to be unclear, and in such cases - again, submit a bug: "such and such statement regarding fdisk is unclear, suggest more detail on partitioning so that xyz is unabiguous"

      Now, if you -want- to install OpenBSD, go read:

      http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html
    • I know you'll probably get a thousand responses saying this, but OpenBSD is the easiest install I've ever done. So just jump in there an do it!

      Note: you will install it twice, because everyone fucks up there first install. everyone. period.
      • Note: you will install it twice, because everyone fucks up there first install. everyone. period.

        No, not everyone. My first OpenBSD install is still up and running as my home firewall, and has been fine since the day of install. Now my second OpenBSD install, that one went wrong[1] :-)

        [1] For some reason, I couldn't get pf working the way I wanted it to (I tried to duplicate my earlier ipf rules, but it didn't want to know)

    • Re:OpenBSD Installation (Score:3, Informative)

      by Edball ( 611096 )
      Like many people have said, its a really easy installation, well doccumented in the faq [openbsd.org]. The most intimidating part to a newbie would be partitioning the disk.

      The recommended method is creating individual partitions for /, swap, /usr, /home, /tmp, and /var. Deciding the appropriate sizes for each of these partitions when you have no experience is probably the hardest part - but there's plenty of recommendations online. Personally, I'd recommend 80MB for /, 300MB for swap, 500MB for /tmp, 1GB for /var and s

    • OK, I'd classify myself as still somewhat of a Linux newbie, but I have installed and run OpenBSD on a few boxes. Those were where it was easier to install OpenBSD than mess with some not-quite-cooperative hardware. The documentation looks intimidating but it is extremely complete and accurate. Probably the main hurdle is that if you are very familiar with DOS partition tables, OpenBSD does not think that way. Partition does not mean what you think it means. That said, its not that hard to bull your way thr

  • Theo de Raadt sounds foreign... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:09PM (#5513066)
    Lock him up! Or just save time and shoot him!
  • The BSD Daemon will protect us from the "evil do-ers" that Bush wants destroyed in Iraq
  • For some reason, "Hackers Meet Soldiers" reminds me of that scene from "Enemy of the State" where the techno-geeks from that government branch (CIA, if I remember correctly) were briefing the military guys about the mission, and the look on the military guys faces was something between annoyance and disrespect. The "Why am I here listening to these twits?" thought wouldn't be surprising.

    • Re:The headline... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by xtermz ( 234073 )
      Why is this modded up as interesting?

      Yea, movies mirror life exactly to a T.

      Obviously you havent worked in the US gov't before. The military has many IT people who are competent and advocates of "geek stuff".

      Lots of top brass now recognize IT as a key part of warfighting. Watch the news when they give the tours of the command centers in Doha, Kuwait and you will see commanders sitting behind terminals.

      So .. your perception that military types look down on geeks is totally flawed

  • M$ (Score:5, Funny)

    by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:11PM (#5513082) Homepage Journal
    The proactive security approach that OpenBSD has used for years is now trickling down into other systems, as big players, including Microsoft, recognize the importance of secure coding.

    In other news, Microsoft announces a new patent on security measures...

  • Answer to your question ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <<kt.celce> <ta> <eb>> on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:13PM (#5513092) Homepage Journal
    Why is the US military paying ideology-driven foreign hackers?

    In a nutshell, not everyone in the "government" is a complete idiot ... *gasp* ... and sometimes ... just sometimes these "agencies" come up with supporting something that is actually useful to them and what they're trying to do.

    OpenBSD is designed with security in mind. The article goes into great lengths about OpenBSD and what they've managed to acheive.

    Anyone who has read my comments knows that I'm pretty much a BSD cheerleader because when I start to work with servers I will always pick a BSD solution wherever possible.

    For many reasons there is a level of obscurity (try explaining to a "1337 h4x0r" what a "wheel" is ...) which also goes along with that there is some differences in the file structure as well (slackware doesn't count).

    Plus theres the stability, I know linunx is stable, but the BSD stability is tested for stability and there isn't any "new exciting" features plugged in and not tested (okay at least in OpenBSD ... NetBSD does NOT count for this argument *grin*)

    And my absolute favorite NO MORE THAN YOU NEED is installed!!! Something that I have also been arguing over in the SuSE disucssion ...

    So what do we have, Simple, Stable, and Secure ... KISSS!!

    Go DARPA, I've got tuition to pay so I can't buy an OpenBSD CD Set this semester :-(, but I did pay income taxes (so I guess I did kinda fund OpenBSD!!!)

    • In a nutshell, not everyone in the "government" is a complete idiot ... *gasp* ... and sometimes ... just sometimes these "agencies"
      come up with supporting something that is actually useful to them and what they're trying to do.

      Like the Internet.

    • A world with OpenBSD is much safer than a world OpenBSD.
      This holds even more if you do not use OpenBSD.
      (Like cars are much safer in a world with crash dummies;)
    • OpenBSD was created through voluntary association. People supported the OpenBSD project because they wanted to support it, not because they had to. Why have we gone and ruined a perfect example of what liberty can accomplish? Why force consumers to support a product instead of leaving the choice with the consumer? If OpenBSD is truly a superior product then it will continue to thrive without the "help" (coercion) of government. If OpenBSD loses support, it is not because of a lack of coercion!

      Now that Open
      • Why have we gone and ruined a perfect example of what liberty can accomplish? Why force consumers to support a product instead of leaving the choice with the consumer?

        The government is not "forcing" anyone to use anything, they are subsidizing the development of something because it is A: beneficial to society and B: cheaper for the government to spur this development than to buy and attempt to secure copies of windows.

        If OpenBSD is truly a superior product then it will continue to thrive without the "
      • LOL
        Now that OpenBSD has been subsidised by the US government, what can we expect? Strings attached.
        That does not sound like Theo.

  • Least there shouldn't be any back door (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:13PM (#5513093) Homepage
    I mean the US military is funding it. Commercial software I might be a bit wary of. Least with Open Source other people can vet the code to make sure there isn't any backdoors. You get the best of both worlds so all in all I'm up for this

    Rus

  • Answers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ErikRed1488 ( 193622 ) <erikdred1488@netscape.net> on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:16PM (#5513116) Journal
    Why is the U.S. military funding it?
    My guess would be that the military will either take OpenBSD, combine it with some code from the NSA, and make a really secure OS, or take some code from it and add it to an OS they already use.

    What do you get out of it?
    It's Free Software so we get to see the source code that's being developed as part of the project. We get to tweak that code, make it better, port it to another system, etc.

    I think it's pretty cool the US Gov. is partially funding OpenBSD. I guess it's no different that government grants to universities for medical research and such.

    • Re:Answers (Score:3, Informative)

      by xtermz ( 234073 )
      My guess would be that the military will either take OpenBSD, combine it with some code from the NSA, and make a really secure OS, or take some code from it and add it to an OS they already use.

      And my guess is that they will simply use OpenBSD out of the box, thus incorporating whatever developments are made by the gov't funded OpenBSD programmers.

      I need to choose my words wisely here, but the govt isnt the big spender it used to be, at least in terms of developing their own solutions. Especially in the

  • Security? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:19PM (#5513140) Homepage Journal
    Adobe and Network Security Technologies, Inc., use OpenBSD, although many of them keep their choice private for security reasons.

    Kind of like how Microsoft keeps its code private for security reasons too....

    If BSD really is as secure as it has been touted, why keep your choice private "for security reasons"? Sorry, I don't mean to flame, but this statement has done more to hurt BSD than help it.

    • Re:Security? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sacherjj ( 7595 )
      Regardless of how secure your OS is, why help those trying to hack in? Attacks are going to be different for Windows boxes, OSx, Linux, BSD, etc. The more work you have to do to start getting in, the more trail you will leave be and the harder it will be in general to accomplish.

    • Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:30PM (#5513237)

      >If BSD really is as secure as it has been touted, why keep your choice private "for security reasons"?

      Security through obscurity should never be one's ONLY line of defense, but as anyone truly into security knows, it IS a good idea to have it as a PART of one's defense. There's absolutely NO reason, other than OS evangelism, to advertise what kind of security you have. It's not the business of businesses to worry about helping advertise their choice of OS or security technology.

      • Re:Security? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jazman_777 ( 44742 )
        Security through obscurity should never be one's ONLY line of defense, but as anyone truly into security knows, it IS a good idea to have it as a PART of one's defense. There's absolutely NO reason, other than OS evangelism, to advertise what kind of security you have. It's not the business of businesses to worry about helping advertise their choice of OS or security technology.

        I'd add that obscurity only helps when _all other pieces_ of security are in place. That is, it's a bit of icing.

    • Re:Security? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      no. This just shows that companies that are security conscious, take EVERY possible measure to protect their network. So - if these security conscious companies are taking the steps to protect themselves at this length by not disclosing their OS, or blanking banner messages to not identify OS type, software type or version information - then MAYBE that just goes to show that the people that take this whole security aspect seriously - also run oBSD.

      This is NOTHING alike MS keeping code private. It's like

    • Re:Security? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 241comp ( 535228 )
      Because "Security Through Obscurity" is the only method of security asside from a mathematically proven source which has a possibility of 100% success. I'm not saying it makes a good defense alone but coupled with the correct software it is excellent. Take this example:

      1. You have OpenBSD which one can assume has a finite number of attacks which could be used against it as it is a finite system. Therefore, if there is a security flaw it WILL be found in finite time.

      2. You have OpenBSD but no-one knows
    • Kind of like how Microsoft keeps its code private for security reasons too....

      Nothing at all like it, unless you're counting cases where Microsoft choses not to run their own code, but that's keeping the knowledge of which code Microsoft is running private rather than keeping the code itself private.

      It's more like banks not heavily advertising what brand of safe they use.

      Methinks it helps BSD more when those "in the know" quietly use one of them instead of blandishing their choice.

    • Re:Security? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by reinard ( 105934 )
      Heh.

      I guess it's no longer an issue now that they decided to "keep their choice [of OpenBSD] private for security reasons".

      Btw, there is a difference between not making your OS very easily detectable and not letting anybody see the source so they could check it.

      Any security expert will tell you that obscurity is not a good model for security, BUT it is a helpful first barrier. Just look how well it's working for MS. There are probably hundreds of bad bugs in their code, but very very few people will be a
    • Part of security is making it difficult for an attacker to comprimize a system. So why advertise your OS? You're just making it easier for the attacker, as they immediately know what exploits to run.

  • RedHat DII COE [ot] (Score:3, Interesting)

    by llouver ( 579855 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:22PM (#5513165)
    For those of you interested in this topic, you should also be aware of RedHat's DII COE (Common Operating Environment) kernel available at DISA. The kernel is available at http://diicoe.disa.mil/coe/kpc/linuxpc.html [disa.mil]

    The creation of DII COE kernel for RedHat implies that there may be some pressure to accept GNOME as a valid component of the Joint Technical Architecture (JTA).

    In other words, the military bureaucracy is beginning to accept the fact that linux is part of the modern computing landscape. (Watching the wheels of military technology turn is like watching grass grow)
  • There is no possible way OpenBSD can be that secure and stable without stolen key Sco OpenServer source code.

    No and ifs or buts. Its not like this technology is well known or taught.

    After all, everyone knows that sco is the most stable, secure, and scalable unix ever made. All the great unix's borrow code from sco. There is no way Sun could of made solaris scalable without the ultra secure and scalable Xenix code. Just ask David Bois. Shesh.

    • Hey, you need a smiley. The folks here are often humor-impaired, and would't recognize irony if it whumped them upside the head. You're most likely to just get a "troll" rating unless you make it obvious that you're writing with tongue in cheek.

  • This article is disappointing. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:30PM (#5513239)
    Not to harp on more publicity for OpenBSD, but this piece was a real letdown. One quote from Theo in the whole thing?! (note, I do not consider quoting terms such as "unix semantics" or "setuid program" to be substantive -real- quotes).

    Maybe this will be useful to those who have never heard of OpenBSD, or are unfamiliar with its improvements for the past two years (only propolice incorporation is something more recent) - but for anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of the project, this is just not good journalism. Here you have an opportunity to have Theo answer your questions, and really get down to the meet behind the scenes, how the DARPA funding came about - how they approached him, whether there were any conditions to the work, if OpenBSD could use more of this funding, etc. But no, nothing, one quote - no new insight.

    This might serve OK as an advocacy piece, and hopefully it will. But if you have two people "talk[ing] to Theo de Raadt" you would hope that they would have some more to talk about.

    I find that reading interviews are far more enlightening than summary tripe such as this, because you're not just presented with a set of facts, but you get to hear information that goes beyond just the answers to questions. Often times, you then learn about things beyond the scope of the story, upcoming developments, sore spots. Say even a mention of how unfathomable it is that Sun has been holding back documentation to OpenBSD, given how many other private, public and governmental organizations (e.g. DARPA) that make no pretenses about support the opensource community are providing support to OpenBSD, whereas Sun is totally going against their own doctrine and ignoring OpenBSD developer requests (not even _offering_ an NDA as Linux et al have been presented with).

    If this were a paper for a class or a personal site, fine no problem, what can a student or hobbiest do? But if you are in a position to provide journalism, it's really sad to see that power completely wasted in such a way.

    Oh well, at least it can be added to the "OpenBSD is secure, free and neat, you should buy a CD" article pile, oh, I forgot to mention - continually overlooked. I guess there can never be too many of those, but it's sure starting to feel that way.

    And -TWO- people wrote this article. Goddamn, two people, no brain.

  • OpenBSD isn't the only one ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jstockdale ( 258118 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:30PM (#5513242) Homepage Journal
    Although OpenBSD has recently gotten a reputition for being ubersecure, and thus this article about how it has been getting funds from DARPA, it is by no means unique. It seems that this perception of OBSD has come from its ability to do encrypted swap, and encryption in most faculties; however, it blatently neglects disk based security.

    I'd like to point out that DARPA is also funding the FreeBSD project, specifically enabling the development of FBSD 5.0's geom/gbde functions, which enable a fully modular disk access system, and transparent drive encryption. Really cool features, and it looks like once the code gets a stronger review from the crypto community it should really open up the possibilites for securing FBSD.
  • It would seem to me, that for 'enterprise' level government work (i.e. defense related software) that stability would be more of a requirement than speed, portability or feature-set.

    You don't want your tank software blue-screening in the middle of a fight. "Hold on guys, don't fire at me for a second, I need to reboot my tank."

    Alot of UNIX vendors have realized this, and they know that if they make products that the gov'ment likes that contains the features that they need, then they will continue to sell

  • Hybrid vigor (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dsplat ( 73054 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:36PM (#5513295)
    Fortunately, it's open source. We can learn from it and take the lessons with us to other code. While there are a lot of people getting mileage out of the amount of malware out there that attacks Windows, one of the reasons there is so much of it is that it is absolutely no challenge to find Windows machines on the net because of their sheer number. And many of them are poorly secured because Windows is the OS that is shipped on machines that are sold to people who have neither the knowledge to secure a computer nor the time to learn how.

    There are several efforts to improve the security of Linux and *BSD. In the end, I think they'll benefit us all. Bruce Schneier [counterpane.com] talks about the window of exposure [counterpane.com] in his book Secrets and Lies [counterpane.com]. Efforts to improve the security of open source OSs have several benefits in reducing that window.

    Some bugs will be fixed before they are ever exploited. A security vulnerability is still a vulnerability. But the damage is much less in this case.

    Some bugs will be fixed faster after they are first exploited. Again, this reduces the damage that is done.

    But in the long run, a greater benefit is the number of people who acquire some knowledge of how to analyze and test for security vulnerabilities and how to fix them. That is going to be greatest in open source. It provides the opportunity for competent programmers to wear the white hats.

  • Inform SCO (Score:3, Funny)

    by gokulpod ( 558749 ) <gpoduval@@@hotmail...com> on Friday March 14, 2003 @02:43PM (#5513362) Homepage
    Quick, someone call up that SCO lawyer. Tell them that OpenBSD has got recognition from DARPA for security. I am sure they will file a claim of $1 billion against them too. The next day, the U.S. army will "accidently" test a MOAB [msnbc.com] on SCO hearquarters.

    We will no longer need to worry about the lawsuit they filed against IBM.

  • Thin Gruel Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by divide overflow ( 599608 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @03:26PM (#5513731)
    BSDForums writes "OpenBSD has a well-deserved reputation for fanatical security. Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it? Cameron Laird and George Peter Staplin investigate and talk to Theo de Raadt, the creator, overseer, and taskmaster of the OpenBSD project!"

    OpenBSD has a reputation for very good security. I wouldn't consider the quest for strong security "fanatical" any more than I would consider the quest for a bug-free operating system "fanatical."

    Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it?

    The U.S. military is funding it because it makes sense to do so. Anyone who looks at OpenBSD's record for security and stability, the fact that it is free to use and modify in any way you desire, and doesn't consider it as a potentially cheap and useful platform for security applications...well, they aren't thinking clearly.

    What do you get out of it?

    I find it makes a great platform for firewalls and terminal servers, among other things. Ones that are reliable, very secure, with no software cost and lot of online support information.

    Cameron Laird and George Peter Staplin investigate and talk to Theo de Raadt, the creator, overseer, and taskmaster of the OpenBSD project!"

    They may have talked to Theo, but they sure didn't *quote* him much. The article was very thin on information. In my opinion it hardly merited a /. posting.

  • OpenBSD In USA? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by debrain ( 29228 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @03:33PM (#5513783) Journal
    I seem to recall that OpenBSD was developed exclusively outside the USA because of export restrictions on crypto. Now it is being funded by DARPA? I am little confused on the matter, but thought that it was an interesting enough point to post.

  • How about let Americans work on it, gov't? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by frankjr ( 591955 ) on Friday March 14, 2003 @03:40PM (#5513833) Journal
    The government won't let us distribute our own crypto freely, but they fund foreigners to make cryptography, to distribute to the whole world?

  • Isn't it ironic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Black Copter Control ( 464012 ) <samuel-local@bcgre e n . com> on Friday March 14, 2003 @07:23PM (#5515834) Homepage Journal
    (hey.. Alanis is Canadian too).

    If I remember correctly, OpenBSD development was based in Canada (in part) because encryption code was considered a munition and thus the US government refused to allow it's export (while it was allowed from Canada).

    Now the military (who were probably the source of these rules) are paying for the continued development of a technology that the forced out of the country on security grounds.

    Convoluted enough for you???

  • Hacker Soldiers (Score:2, Interesting)

    by two_socks ( 516862 )
    Why is the U.S. military funding it? What do you get out of it?

    Because they want the most secure operating system available. I may get my ass shot at a lot less. Or, maybe, terrorist hackers won't be able to figure out when my flight home is leaving Kuwait City International Airport.

    I'm in the Army National Guard. It used to be my full time job. Now I'm a "weekend warrior".

    I used to administer NT boxes for the Army among other job duties. It gave me the heebie-jeebies! I am a helluva lot more comf

  • Theo's Hardware (Score:4, Funny)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Saturday March 15, 2003 @06:32AM (#5518594) Journal
    In the article there is a link to Theo's personal site. He lists his hardware there, and the amazing thing is that he doesn't have a single machine capable of more than 200MHz.

    I find it amazing in these days of 3.6GHz machines needed to run bleeding edge games and gimmicky OS's and everyone and their mothers going gooey over the latest GHz jump in analy embedded mobile devices that OpenBSD's chief developer uses computers that actually fit his needs. It is comforting to know that the SECURE processing and dissemination of digital information can be done efficiently without the large, bright, rounded, colourful buttons and Windows found in most other OS's.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close