Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD does not have ASLR

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sergio View Post
    This is simply hilarious... It can only come from one person: The BSD troll (Pawlerson, kraftman, endman, BSDSucksDicks, etc, etc). Loser.
    What's so hilarious about this? It is known fact freebsd does not have ASLR, so I wouldn't expect security from other bsd either. What's hilarious is your an only and insane argument: aka Pawlerson, kraftman, endman, startman etc.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
      It seems you still didn't take your medicine. Sergio (aka: VimUser, kebbabert, Thomas Abthorpe, Eitan Adler, Shunsuke Akiyama, Monthadar Al Jaberi etc, etc)...
      Sure, because I am the one creating endless accounts for the sole purpose of trolling... Linux? Oh, wait...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
        What's so hilarious about this? It is known fact freebsd does not have ASLR, so I wouldn't expect security from other bsd either.
        It is also a known fact that in Puppy Linux you are logged in as root by default. Following your logic we have to conclude that this is the case for all other distros. We also have to conclude that any distro is user-friendly because Mint is, that any distro is source based because Gentoo is, that no distro uses systemd because Slackware doesn't, that any distro is commercial because RHEL is, and so on.

        You know why it is so easy to spot your alter egos and connect them to you (or whichever of those accounts was the original one)? Because they all have the same poor English, the same style of argumentation, the same poor logic and reasoning.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Vim_User
          It is also a known fact that in Puppy Linux you are logged in as root by default. Following your logic we have to conclude that this is the case for all other distros. We also have to conclude that any distro is user-friendly because Mint is, that any distro is source based because Gentoo is, that no distro uses systemd because Slackware doesn't, that any distro is commercial because RHEL is, and so on.
          The fact is that other BSDs also do not have modern security features that can deal with today’s security problems. The only reason why there are very little publicity in BSD security break ins is because there aren’t much installations out there (almost none). Thus learning how to be hack BSD is a waste of time expect to show BSD zealots that BSDs are inherently insecure.

          OpenBSD are fools because they believe that the right way to make a secure OS is to write one that is clean and bug-free with no security mechanisms like NX, SELinux and AppArmor. The problem is no usable code can be bug-free and their meaning of clean code is ambigious if there’s a security hole and someone exploits it, BAM!!! the box is owned. In Linux if there’s a security hole and someone exploit it, Selinux or AppArmor will prevent the exploit from working.

          NetBSD’s atitude to implementing ASLR in such a way that you have to do paxctl +A on every damn binary is funny at best. Also, in terms of rootkit detection, rkhunter is incompatible with NetBSD. The only thing you can install as an outdated version of chkrootkit which is shit because the updated version of chkrootkit can be defeated by many rootkits.

          There’s absolutely nothing in DragonflyBSD.

          On top of all this, BSD code is only checked, audited and patched by a handful of people with questionable sanity while Linux code is check, audited and patched by many including companies and real security experts. Also, much of the security implementations that do make it through to BSD (like pf etc.) are far less flexibe then their Linux counterparts.

          Originally posted by Vim_User
          You know why it is so easy to spot your alter egos and connect them to you (or whichever of those accounts was the original one)? Because they all have the same poor English, the same style of argumentation, the same poor logic and reasoning.
          I think it has come to the point that this argument has been used by nearly all BSD trolls that one can’t take the argument seriously. Many people have bad english so your argument fails even further.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by beetreetime View Post
            The fact is that other BSDs also do not have modern security features that can deal with todayís security problems. The only reason why there are very little publicity in BSD security break ins is because there arenít much installations out there (almost none). Thus learning how to be hack BSD is a waste of time expect to show BSD zealots that BSDs are inherently insecure.

            OpenBSD are fools because they believe that the right way to make a secure OS is to write one that is clean and bug-free with no security mechanisms like NX, SELinux and AppArmor. The problem is no usable code can be bug-free and their meaning of clean code is ambigious if thereís a security hole and someone exploits it, BAM!!! the box is owned. In Linux if thereís a security hole and someone exploit it, Selinux or AppArmor will prevent the exploit from working.

            NetBSDís atitude to implementing ASLR in such a way that you have to do paxctl +A on every damn binary is funny at best. Also, in terms of rootkit detection, rkhunter is incompatible with NetBSD. The only thing you can install as an outdated version of chkrootkit which is shit because the updated version of chkrootkit can be defeated by many rootkits.

            Thereís absolutely nothing in DragonflyBSD.

            On top of all this, BSD code is only checked, audited and patched by a handful of people with questionable sanity while Linux code is check, audited and patched by many including companies and real security experts. Also, much of the security implementations that do make it through to BSD (like pf etc.) are far less flexibe then their Linux counterparts.



            I think it has come to the point that this argument has been used by nearly all BSD trolls that one canít take the argument seriously. Many people have bad english so your argument fails even further.
            I'm pretty sure you have no fucking idea about what you are saying... You know nothing about how an OS fucking works; all things you say are just plain stupid.

            Nevertheless, take a look at http://www.trustedbsd.org, although I'm pretty sure you won't understand shit.

            Comment


            • #21
              There are three possible interpretations of the situation:
              1: The distro couldn't take legitimate criticism;
              2: They were hairtrigger and mistook the poster for a troll;
              3: The poster was rightly banned as a troll or someone who refused to spend one minute on a Google search; or
              4: The poster is lying about the forum.

              Searching Google for "freeBSD ASLR" immediately points out (on the first page):
              https://forums.freebsd.org/viewtopic.php?&t=31651
              http://0xfeedface.org/blog/lattera/2...-aslr-progress
              https://github.com/opntr/freebsd-pat...mization.patch
              https://www.soldierx.com/news/Automa...Nightly-Builds
              http://www.haibane.org/node/11

              Some of these are from after the date of the post in question, but many are from later.
              Which indicates that the poster did not search for information.
              This is taken as a sign of trolls throughout the open source community (possible exceptions: Scientific Linux mailing list, Ubuntu and Puppy Linux forums).
              Additionally, the wording used here strongly implies a very offensive phrasing at the FreeBSD forums.

              Apart from that, the first link is a thread on the FreeBSD forums on exactly the same subject, with a greatly different outcome. I cannot see any way for the poster to be telling the truth about what happened while having not been taken for a troll.

              Comment

              Working...
              X