https://www.openbsd.org/images/PinkPuffy.png
https://www.openbsd.org/images/puffy79.gif
Release song is "Diamond in the Rough" - Composed & produced by Bob Kitella.
https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#79
Apparel (t-shirts, so far): https://openbsdstore.com/
Shit happens, and choices still do matter. Even if it feels it should be simple, Linux has a way.
My experience has been that Openbsd is rock solid, so are its implementations of the relevant server daemons.
> Apparel (t-shirts, so far): https://openbsdstore.com/
Interesting.
In the image you linked (PinkPuffy.png), the cat's hat says "security." In the OpenBSD store, the cat's hat reads "POLICE" on several of the shirts.
https://nxdomain.no/~peter/time_for_opensmtpd.html
I tried using OpenSMTPD a long time ago, shortly after it came out, but things were not stable enough. I guess it is time to give it another go...
This is also the 60th release. Congrats team.
I’ve always wanted to use NetBSD for an application for an embedded system / IoT device but never had the pleasure (yet!).
I have to admit I am not entirely convinced about the merit of having slow cores on the cpu at all(big/little architecture). You don't want your tasks to be scheduled on them. And even for background tasks shouldn't it be better to have them complete faster for less power? To say nothing about what if they have different features. what happens when a process that wants to use cpu feature X(avx512?) gets scheduled on a cpu without X?
Openbsd took the quick and dirty shotgun approach here in disabling the slow cores. But is there even a good heuristic for scheduling jobs on them? The only thing I can think of is some sort complicated mechanism of putting manual tags in the executable or thread. A "this process is suitable for slow cores" sort of thing.
I was reading about this on on the lists, apparently a naive scheduler puts a process wherever and some new big/little systems have very slow little cores. This really hit recompiling code hard.
Anyone know what a "parking lock" is (and how it works)?
I couldn't find anything on the man pages about it.
Just the idea not to be able to recover after a power cut and work is hard to accept to be honest.
I have been recently considering running it on a minimal Alpine ZFS host but I am not sure how much I can optimize the display experience since I do not think OpenBSD support QXL/SPICE.
I would be curious if someone found a way...
Removed in 2014.
I'm using it as a daily driver since Debian adopted systemd and it works great. I use it wherever possible: home router, laptops, obsda.ms vm, workstation, thin clients, etc.
With every release OpenBSD becomes better. Fully recommended to take advantage of old hardware too, like a fanless thin client bought for cheap from surplus.
I really love the no-nonsense approach I can't find elsewhere.
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.
NetBSD seemed okay to but I've only used it a little bit. It actually set up X pretty well for the screen using some built in script with heuristics to determine font size from the screen metrics.
[deleted]
OpenBSD does a lot of things well, definitely punches above their weight. One underrated feature is their approach to releasing. No "When it's done" here. Like clockwork twice a year, they slow down, clean the shop, get their experiments in order and cook a release, a stable point in time. More projects could learn a thing or two from this.
[dead]
As someone who has run DNS and DHCP servers for over 30 years and continues to do so, this just feels like confirmation bias based on your personal anecdotes. If there's an issue, it's likely due to messy over-complicated distros. Alpine is no less solid than OpenBSD.
Is this an AI-generated comment
It was originally [flagged] and [dead]
FWIW my guess is you're right - this user looks like a bot based on this comment and their other one; I've noticed that somewhat-vacuous praise for a post is a bot tendency. Although it's also a human tendency, so maybe too soon to tell. What a world.
Job Snijders works closely with the artists each release, and runs the store.
Edit: oops, bad eyesight led my brain to believe "no way this is legible text" when in fact it is. Needed a screen magnifier to read it clearly. Though the other items have police in place of security.
It just takes time.
doas sysctl hw.smt=1But I couldn't find if they have a strict "no binary blob allowed" policy like OpenBSD.
- [0] https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/r4.3/user/troubleshooting/pci-tr...
If I had to pick a BSD, it would be FreeBSD anyway.
I know you've been an advocate for OSes and languages that are outside of the mainstream.
I finally got around to living in plan9...
My experiment, a social network for plan9 written in rc and some awk.
The video is kind of interesting.
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.
You really brushed that one off, uh? The ratio of linux devices to openbsd is quite literally a million to one. The ratio of tech companies invested in linux to companies invested in openbsd is roughly 50,000 to 1. The ratio of professional security researchers paid to find flaws in Linux vs OpenBSD is harder to quantify at the moment, but I think we can guess a trend here.
I can agree to a degree that OpenBSD takes security more seriously, and they have made very interesting design decisions to enforce their security model. But I entirely disagree that the number of "CVEs are facts" to back your opinion that it is superior.
I would be in favour to say that out of the box OpenBSD is more secure than Linux.
Also important to remember that diversity builds strength. Just as in biology, if all organisms are the same, they all succumb to the same virus.
I have a multi-layered firewall approach where some are Linux, some are OpenBSD, some are commercial. They'll all have bugs, but unlikely they all have the same bug.
Sent patches for two just in "find".
Openbsd, like all other projects, needs a large scale LLM powered bug squash effort.
My recent experience: https://blog.habets.se/2026/05/Everything-in-C-is-undefined-...
Their claim to fame ("only two remote holes in the default install in X number of years") is definitionally only valid for the default install in its default configuration which means: no httpd, no smtpd, no unbound, etc. etc. etc.
The default install isn't very useful, because it doesn't do a lot, and so "only two remote holes" or whatever isn't really saying much.
For example: there are still CVEs popping up: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-11148
Linux has more CVEs because it's orders of magnitude more popular. OpenBSD has appalling performance, and more or less nobody uses it, so there just isn't a large focus on auditing and fixing it.
It's a great research project, but I would not run it on my personal devices. Not because it's "insecure" but because the putative security benefits do not merit the shockingly poor performance.
[deleted]
https://www.cvedetails.com/version-list/49/70318/1/Apple-Mac...
These are the operative words. With OpenBSD, you get this out of the box and everything just works. With other operating systems, you have to do a lot of the legwork that's already been done for you with OpenBSD and make sure you didn't break things with your configuration.
The way forward is seL4[0][1].
e.g. Genode's Sculpt[0] already bridges the gap via running Linux in a VM.
Even though they already have native webbrowser and can build software natively, it wasn't always the case.
Long time ago I maintained a couple of obsd servers, and the cost in time of upgrades and the (occasional) security fixes was substantial.
I still maintain a couple of servers, but if it wasn't because Debian makes it easier by automating most of it, I don't think I could do it.
Yet I miss my time with obsd. I'm very interested in your experience.
Edit: it was 3.6-STABLE. Things have changed since then.
https://x.com/ortegaalfredo/status/2055362910415671459
When your super secure feature gets defeated by a symlink maybe it's not really time to consider it...
Sure, things are not better in the linux world but at least there's more eyes to fix issues there just because of the market share.
Running security-critical code as root is still a bad idea.
For my next trick I will demonstrate how to break into my own house to open the blinds by using my keys.
Security researcher theatrics will never not be funny.
You are root inside a sandbox. As root-in-the-sandbox, you create a symlink and this gives you the ability to escape the sandbox.
(Whether this is interesting or not depends on whether anyone actually tries to use the sandbox facility in such a way as to give root-in-the-sandbox privileges to untrusted people or code. I don't know enough about OpenBSD to answer that.)
I'm asking because i have not touched any BSD for over 2 decades...and I'm getting the itch to try some out...and was wondering if for server-type use cases (like you noted) whether OpenBSD is preferred over FreeBSD or the reverse, and why? Thanks in advance for any feedback you might provide!
NetBSD is small and simple. It's a lot like an old-school UNIX. It makes a decent platform for small services. I run bind and dhcpd on a NetBSD machine. The source code is very pleasant to read. It uses the pkgsrc software repository. It's my preferred platform for writing POSIX code.
OpenBSD still carries much of the general feel of NetBSD and can fill a similar niche on a network, but the security focus stands out in their documentation, subprojects (OpenSSH, LibreSSL, OpenNTPD, etc.), APIs (see pledge(8)), and policies. It makes for a great firewall. I'd say it also requires the most know-how.
All of them have excellent documentation (especially compared to Linux distros) and the base system is developed alongside the kernel, giving you a very consistent experience compared to Linux distros where everything is developed in isolation. If you write C, it's worth keeping a BSD system around just for the manpages and to make sure you're not letting Linuxisms creep into your codebase.
Just to clarify. It's not emulation in the sense it's slower or something. They call it compatibility layer, which is better, but also nobody knows what it means.
This is simplifying a bit, but it's essentially "Linux is just a kernel" so the interface is just Linux syscalls, so the FreeBSD kernel when executing a Linux binary simply answers like Linux (so it has those system calls). How this is used in practice is that on your file system you have Ubuntu/RedHat/... "installed" (so the files and the file hierarchy are lying there) and you either directly or in a FreeBSD jail execute things in there or the binary you have.
I don't know how well it works in the present but in the past that means you could simply download the Unreal Tournament 2004 multiplayer demo or Enemy Territory or other games and just play them as if you were running Linux, 3D acceleration and all, without VM without real emulating, just the kernel providing what a Linux kernel would provide.
Also "heavy" is very very relative and subjective. You can totally have a tiny FreeBSD and a huge OpenBSD and one could argue OpenBSD is "heavy" because it comes with three window managers, an HTTP server, a full blown SMTPD server, ACME client and a ton of stuff that eg a server install of Debian or Ubuntu doesn't come with. But also if you run eg. ZFS things are heavy of course. FreeBSD has however had a time when it tried to strip a lot of stuff from the default install and make stuff either optional or make things available through ports/packages only.
And also there are surprises to be had with such overviews: Eg. your Lenovo laptop likely will give you a more "out of the box" experience on OpenBSD compared to FreeBSD with things like simple wifi setup, sound often doing the right thing (work, come out the right place, etc.) compared to FreeBSD. Also with stuff like HTTPD with ACME being available in a simple way after install I'd say OpenBSD is easier than FreeBSD.
FreeBSD to me feels a bit more like "it can be everything you want it to be". Ports and packages can be complicated if you just start out, compared to OpenBSDs "just use packages" stance. On OpenBSD things in my experience are more of a "it works or doesn't" and when it works often out of the box and/or with docs, while on FreeBSD it's more like it throws some tools into your direction you can build stuff (poudriere, jails, a build system with many options). So it's really cool if you want flexibility but a bit more like you have to figure out if it's possible and how. But that might simply be because of the use cases I used it for.
That said all of them are real general purpose systems, unlike eg. some Linux distributions. So it's not like "OpenBSD is for routers" even though it often seems like it. There are time when the GPU support is better on OpenBSD than FreeBSD's. But also FreeBSD has official NVIDIA drivers, so it's all not that clear cut.
OpenBSD on the other hand is perfectly happy to leave oodles of performance on the table for security. They were the first OS to completely drop Hyperthreading support for example, years before spectre/meltdown.
So with these things in mind, FreeBSD is a lot more performant.
And, wow, do i miss the old X-window workstations...well, i should clarify that i LOVED those (I think they were Sparc?) workstations that ran Solaris or SunOS back in the day! Man, that takes me back some years...but i really loved those machines! :-)
We've run into instability issues with the newer Linux kernels (starting with 6.x, I think) and have had to stop upgrading.
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 fully featured as Linux, but there is a sense of understanding your system that is refreshing. A bit like if you're on vacation in a small and cute village where life is mundane and calming. At least that's how I feel with it. Mileage may vary.
A while ago I made some blog posts[1] diving into the source code of OpenBSD and FreeBSD (shameless self plug), but haven't had the time recently to write more.
Being able to understand the system, or at least being able to take a quick look when something doesn't work is very refreshing. Not to mention the outstanding man pages. Barely need to google things.
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.
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!
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.
That's why I used to run Slackware, and then foud Alpine to be the best - much better than Void or Arch IMO. Works well as a very minimal system, and I know everything very well because of it. It's an ideal approach IMO, the best of both worlds.
I wish I had an OpenBSD development laptop, but I don't have one right now.
I ran it on my personal laptop for several years when I had one, but having a work laptop for these past decades I don't have much use for a personal laptop. I would probably run it again on a nice portable when I retire. It would be nice to focus on being creative on such a machine. Coding and drawing mostly. I will continue to use Linux in my recording studio though.
For mailserver I think it is the best option. And for Gateway, PF is just wonderful.
But even on my laptops I enjoy it. It is rock solid, and I have pretty much no complaints.
And on my laptop, occasionally, to experience it in person.
[deleted]
I used OpenBSD to create the firewalls for our LAN parties when I was at school.
The first shellserver I ran, on an UltraSparc IIi was OpenBSD, gave out accounts to my friends.
And then I used it as a firewall, both professionally and personally, for many years. Until the first Turris Omnia was released, and now I have retired even Turris for pfSense, which is FreeBSD I believe.
But the PF firewall in OpenBSD was superior, definitely to the syntax of IPtables.
To me Linux was a great server OS, and OpenBSD was a great FW/Gateway OS.
WiFi is handled separately by a Ubiquiti UniFi system, but I don't trust Ubiquiti not to exfiltrate data after their underhanded attempt to turn telemetry on a few years ago. OpenBSD WiFI is somewhat mediocre, but it has improved in this release with experimental support for WiFi 6 after years of being stuck at 802.11n.
The closest you will get to the OpenBSD experience on Linux is with Alpine Linux.
This is a big one for me. I've run openBSD and Linux custom boxes as SoHo routers and I just cannot stand Linux firewalls, I've never liked them and IPTables is just terrible. Yes I know there are wrappers around it now but it's still the default everywhere and still used by lots of other software like Docker. I'm using OPNSense now which is FreeBSD based instead of completely rolling my own but I love that it is still BSD under the hood.
One differing opinion I will offer is that I find NixOS to be the Linux distro most in the openBSD spirit despite it being very different from a UX and config management perspective. Alpine is interesting, but it has its own security and compatibility issues, especially around MUSL libc which I have had cause many strange downstream issues over the years, I just hit one recently in JVM GC caused by its memory allocation implementation. I've stopped using alpine altogether because of them.
Work: I need a simple easy to use system that I can configure to meet third party compliance requirements without jumping through hoops. It really excels when you can mostly use the base system there, maybe couple services. For example it's so nice to just have a couple pledge/unveil lines for example in a Go service.
Also super nice for "set and forget" style stuff. For example "I just need a HTTPS server with acme and SFTP". That's something you get out of the box with no third party packages (so everything vetted, pledge/unveil for everything, maintenance just running syspatch and sysupgrade), which is really nice.
Personal: Private mail server, family website, a quick and dirty "watching streams together" service I set up to watch stuff with people not in the same place as I am. prosody to have XMPP for friends and family.
I would NOT use it for "people throw stuff at you" use cases (Linux and FreeBSD do a far better job there). But I absolutely love it for scenarios where you want very very low maintenance. For example that private email server. I don't have time to do big upgrade plans, or "hardening" systems or reinventing the wheel. I cannot afford to do privately what I do in a day job or consulting (setting up or maintaining really rather complicated infrastructure).
I have done that many years with Debian, but the Linux world sadly is a big complex and complicated mess. That's great, when I get paid to deal with it, but annoying otherwise.
And I don't mean that bashing wise. I use Linux, I like Linux, but somehow there is a huge drive to overengineering and then building hacks and weird workarounds that become normalized until it's a proper job. Without wanting to start a flame war, but the whole Docker, Containers, Kubernetes, Helm, Orchestrators, etc. story is a lot of reinventing the wheel and a static executable like a Go service in a container, so essentially coming with a whole Linux distribution even though one never thinks about it that way is just really absurd. That's what executables, processes, etc. were invented for.
And since I've lived through the story and as mentioned make a limit, I understand how that came to be, but it feels like the industry took a wrong turn because it was cool and exciting and then (nearly) everyone decided to use that hammer for everything one could imagine to be a nail. And then the next layer came and the next and the next. But all of them doing things differently. And suddenly to have a Postgres cluster you need Kubernetes, and Helm, but also need to know both PG config and the orchestrator's config, etc.
It's a mess and the OpenBSD people somehow knew that decades before I did.
It ran for over 8 years without downtime, but I’ve had repeated problems in the last year or so.
I used the default partitioning scheme, which makes /usr tiny, and /var huge, and since it is a router, did not install X11.
At some point, they made x11 mandatory for auto updates. This is dumb, because all the upgrade tool is doing is untarring a list of tarballs. So, I had to perform partition surgery from the upgrade ramdisk to make room for X11.
Now, they made some ASLR relinking scheme mandatory, which makes sense, except the relink directory is 1.5GB (larger than the entire rest of the distribution, and far larger than the parts I voluntarily installed!).
For some reason the relink output files go in /usr, which, by default, won’t hold it at upgrade. It really belongs in /var, because it is not immutable, and also, there’s room there! So, I had to repartition the router from a rescue environment again.
They also removed the ability for ntp to sync on machines without cmos clocks, and the alternate config options don’t seem to work. That’s a bit more niche, granted, but my router hw is reasonably common for openbsd use and has that property. You can make it work by using a second utility to force clock sync at boot.
I like that they keep things simple, but they also recently pulled out any semblance of power loss safety for their file system. I’ve had to serial console in a few times to run fsck, which isn’t really the behavior I want from the home router!
They don’t have any way to setup DDNS in the base install, so you have to use a port or pkg. The port I chose was EOL’ed by upstream (ISC), so I’ll probably need to switch to dnsmasq as a dhcp server / dns server, which is fine, but those services are a significant fraction of the attack surface of my router. DDNS seems like a pretty simple thing to implement, and would be really high value for router use cases. Without it, I’d have to assign static addresses to everything on the LAN, then edit DNS records.
I think all this stuff is fixable, but wish they’d take the niche of “rock solid secure infrastructure” a bit more seriously. This used to be a nice “set and forget” weekend project but now it requires attention every few release cycles.
7.8 barely managed to fit in my duct tape and bailing wire partition layout. I’m probably going to switch to freebsd on a box with faster NICs when I finally get a > 1GBit internet connection (hopefully in the next year or so).
If I upgrade to 7.9, I’ll have to give up on using the openbsd hypervisor, since, with the partition scheme that the installer chose, there will no longer be a partition large enough to hold the download sets and also the vm image.
This is particularly frustrating because the boot drive is under 50% full. I’d just do “one big partition”, but they warn against that for good reason - it complicates manual fs repair at boot.
Anyway, I really like the project. It would be nice if they did a “fix common papercuts” release, since I doubt many users are as patient as I am.
If you are looking to install it, either use fewer partitions, or way over provision storage (I was 10x over provisioned at install, and the stuff I use hasn’t grown more than 10-20%) and also make sure you choose much larger partition sizes than recommended. This will add under $100 to your hardware cost, even with the storage shortages.
My one complaint about OpenBSD would probably be lack of resizable partitions. You can expand them, but only if you have free contiguous space and most of the time one partition starts where the prior one ends. It's rarely a problem in practice, as only /home and /var and maybe /usr/local tend to be subject to any guesswork, but it can bite you from time to time as in your case.
The ER4 has 3 ports: 1 was for the uplink, one exposed the WAN connection to the rack, and then the 3rd port became a client inside of the network. I could shell into it from home (he's on the other side of the country) and operate from the residential network and also the server network simultaneously. Worked well enough for a few weeks to keep access around until we could engineer a better solution.
Configuring OpenBSD was really quite simple and rewarding. No insane linux network stack / netplan / cloud-init / bs ... just a few conf files.
obligatory pic: https://i.imgur.com/Mkf9ckc.jpeg
Race to idle is only clearly beneficial for tasks that have a clear start and end. If a background task is sustained, responds to unpredictable events, or does small amounts of work and wakes frequently, the CPU's boost logic won't solve your energy usage problem.
> To say nothing about what if they have different features. what happens when a process that wants to use cpu feature X(avx512?) gets scheduled on a cpu without X
This idea has been proposed in the past, but isn't actually used on x86-64 or ARM. E-cores have the same instruction set as P-cores, so there's no risk of running into an invalid CPU instruction.
Truly heterogeneous instruction sets may come back in the future, though. So be on your toes.
Wow, this is from 10-years ago.
- Kensington Expert Trackball (I lost the 2.4ghz dongle)
- JBL wireless earbuds/Audio Technica M40xs
- Nintendo Switch controller
Wireless Earbuds/Headphones are a legit use case. (Still use bluetooth with iPhone every day, sadly, still addicted to the convenience of AirPods ...)
But I've got decent wired headphones for my OpenBSD setup. bonus: never have to charge them. ;-)
Even more curious now: what do you use the Nintendo Switch controller for on your computer? Have you got it hooked up to play games on your PC? Or do you use it for robotics or other I/O?
EDIT: Running openBSD in a VM might get me the best of both world, with hardware support on host OS (linux/win) and the benefit of running OpenBSD.
E.g. I use the Seeed Studio XIAO nRF52840 for my BLE keyboard.
[deleted]
How is the battery life?
Sidenote, does anyone remember a "click here to become an international arms dealer" esque site as a protest of our encryption laws or did I make that up. I swear I heard that somewhere
Also, check out DragonflyBSD. It has a really nice filesystem and Dillon does good work
Passable yes, if you love it, but let's be realistic.
I love FreeBSD btw.
Same, it's particularly good for troubleshooting older hardware too since most bog standard x86 parts are well supported.
If I have a random ISA/PCI/AGP/PCIe card that OpenBSD can't see or properly initialize, it's probably an issue with the card.
But I don't really know what to use it for to get started. My desktop runs linux with steam for games. My AI server needs rocm drivers so ubuntu-server. My vps runs debian, maybe that one, but there is no DO image for BSD. Open for ideas..
I am a diehard FreeBSD fan and I used it on my laptop for 20+ years, and dualbooted it for windows only for gaming.
I tried my best to get gaming going, even running Arch in a jail, but it's not great for gaming purposes. I was even virtualizing OpenBSD to use PCI passthrough for better wifi...
Today I am using Arch Linux instead of my dual boot setup. Is it perfect? Nope, but at least I can play Age of Empires 2.
I still use FreeBSD on my servers, obviously. FreeBSD is great, but on the desktop, and especially on the laptop, there are some warts.
https://unixdigest.com/articles/the-main-differences-between...
The dom0 is based on Fedora and has the Fedora's policy for firmware blobs. See also: https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/latest/introduction/faq.html#wil...
(This site is extremely good and has fairly recent coverage, point-by-point, of all OpenBSD's mitigations. An important subtext to take to this is that OpenBSD has a reputation for introducing mitigations that exploit developers make fun of. Some of them are great, some of them less so.)
I've followed this discussion here and there over the years and it always goes like this:
1) everyone makes fun of the mitigations
2) many even outright assert they can easily defeat and exploit OpenBSD
3) nobody provides a working PoC when asked to demonstrate how insecure the OS is
And somewhere in the mix there's also you and your usual blabber, also without any substantial examples of how insecure and exploitable the OS is. Always.
So I'm looking forward to your careful explanation of how insecure the whole thing is and how easily it can be dismantled. Because I really want and need to know. Let's talk.
No they aren't, they're data. Your source shows the amount of Linux CVEs in 2024 are an order of magnitude higher than the amount of Linux CVEs in 2023. Does that mean Linux became way more insecure in 2024? You imply it does, but that's obviously not true. What happened is that Linux changed how they report CVEs [0].
Just like your source doesn't say anything useful about the difference in CVEs in Linux, it doesn't say anything about the difference in CVEs between Linux and OpenBSD.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
[0] https://www.suse.com/c/linux-kernel-cve-increase-suse-explai...
The OP stated they couldn’t find any data to compare the relative security of Linux vs. OpenBSD.
CVEs are independently, objectively verifiable and provable data. This is the dictionary definition of a verified “fact”. It’s not anyone’s opinion. You don’t have to like it or me.
Love you all.
On the wiki page you provided, the only thing that really stands out at the kernel level is KARL, which has a dubious utility: https://isopenbsdsecu.re/mitigations/karl/ It is not even up to date: strlcpy(3) and strlcat(3) were implemented in glibc 3 years ago.
The homepage of https://www.openbsd.org proudly states "Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!" if they didn't have the evidence to support the statement, the internet would have forced them to remove it by now. ;-)
Remote (exploitable) holes are the ones we all care about.
So even if Debian and OpenBSD ship the exact same web server, but Debian has it defaulted installed and on, but OpenBSD does not, then a remote exploit won't count against OpenBSD.
How many Linux services use seccomp? Or chroot, mount namespaces, or landlock? If they do at all, it's usually imposed externally by systemd or docker, in which case they usually run with overly broad permissions because there's no integration with the specific application code, thus the AF_ALG exploits in containers. On OpenBSD services continue to narrow their privileges after starting up so by the time an external request is serviced they have only minimal access to syscalls and the filesystem, often only read/write/send/recv syscalls, and if open is allowed only the specific files and directories needed to service requests. Typically even the network-facing daemon accepting TLS connections doesn't have access to the private key--you simply can't do that by running a vanilla service application in docker.
Does OpenBSD have bugs? Of course. The question is, which environment has more trustworthy backstops? The Linux kernel provides all the facilities, but they're not used effectively, for many reasons.
Anthropic did that for OpenBSD.
I'm saying you don't even need Mythos to find bugs in OpenBSD. GPT 5.5 is SO much better than humans at finding these things.
The fact that we don't even need Mythos, or $20k (I just pay $24/month and this was one of my MANY uses), to find bugs in OpenBSD shatters the dream that there exists any human who can write C properly with enough expertise, dedication, and time.
Bugs, or exploitable security vulnerabilities?
If the latter, have you reported them all?
As I said in the out of bounds null termination write patch, I don't believe it's exploitable. I would have gotten a CVE, website, and logo then (kidding!). But it was UB. And one-byte overflows have in the past been exploitable by better sploit authors than me.
In any case, I reported that since I felt it was clear that OpenBSD folks would obviously care about it, exploitable or not.
Confirming these findings take time, even though I found GPT to almost always be correct. I will NOT report upstream until I understand the bug. I ain't no slop reporter. As I said in the post OpenBSD (and all other code bases) need a larger effort. The Mythos/Glasswing effort focusing on actually exploitable ones may be a good method for getting them fixed, without overwhelming projects with patches, even when the patches are correct.
I did confirm at least one more UB, and did consider whether to report that OpenBSD `find` reads `status` via `WIFEXITED(status)` without checking `waitpid()` for errors. This is UB since `status` is uninitialized. (https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/ae684bfaed6cae797cd90e27...)
The reason is my previous experience with OpenBSD where the reply may be "<some standard> is wrong in this regard", and because they control their whole system, they don't care. E.g. in this case they may go "we build with GCC x.y.z exactly, and we know what actually happens in this controlled domain". This may be a bit unfair to them, but not by much.
GPT also flagged the extremely surprising behavior of running `cat -n file1 file2` if file1 doesn't end with a newline. And that `find /etc/passwd -execdir[…]` doesn't run the command. But maybe that's how they want it? I don't want to go through the whole thing for them to go "yeah we won't do that" again. So I think this project is for them. GPT is as available to them as it is to me.
Tangent: in running GPT against `cat` I learned that not only is `cat -n` not standardized, but it also behaves COMPLETELY differently than on Linux, if you provide more than one file.
Thats not really true. Comes with spamd, pf, httpd, OpenSMTPD and others. Its actually one of the open source unix-like systems that packs more functionality out of the box.
Great firewall and VPN server. You can setup wireguard with just ifconfig.
The default install is actually very useful, and includes a lot, like parent said. Having run OpenBSD in the past, I found the their versions of things were often superior, at least for small setups (and some of them for large installs as well.. probably : )
For personal devices I'm not sure why anyone would run a BSD in the first place
My understanding is that Netflix used to use FreeBSD to serve video, but I read somewhere they're no longer using it. Not sure how true that is.
Some game consoles like the Playstation run a modified FreeBSD as their OS.
With due mention to FreeBSD's jails, BSD's security image developed mostly from OpenBSD which is said to have gained its security focus due to NetBSD being so insecure that the NetBSD folks were able to hack into DeRaadt's forked OpenBSD.
Android's Bionic was based on or heavily influenced by OpenBSD's libc iirc, though.
These are words that when applied equally to Linux and OpenBSD, has Linux coming out ahead.
> With OpenBSD, you get this out of the box and everything just works.
With OpenBSD, out of the box you get a blank slate that really can't do anything, that you have to configure to do what you want, and currently can't be configured to be as secure as linux can be.
OpenBSD has a pretty long history of eg. limiting attacks through compile time mitigations while making them more usable for every day use compared to specialized "high security" Linux distributions. This can also be seen in patches of third party software (in the ports (packages) system) that often have patches so the code can live with these limitations.
One example of such a mitigation is W^X. Implemented in OpenBSD in 2003, copied later by Windows, Linux and the other BSDs (incl. macOS).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%5EX
More recently of course pledge and unveil were also added.
Also in 2003 OpenBSD was also the first mainstream (no research or test OS) that implemented strong ASLR that in 2005 was supported in Linux through third party patch sets.
For a list, see here:
https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html
Many things were later picked up by Linux distributions, kernel patchsets, compilers, etc.
OpenBSD didn't invent the concept behind W^X, and if you want to talk of 'copying', which I think is kind of silly personally, then PAX was first.
I'm familiar with the list of OpenBSD innovations, and in turn I would point you to https://https://isopenbsdsecu.re/ for a breakdown of their claims and marketing.
To this date OpenBSD doesn't have anything as simple as a proper ACL, let alone any type of MAC. They claim such systems are too complex, which is of course nonsense.
It's like I said - they focus a lot on preventing an attacker gaining access, but have little available to constrain attackers who DO get access.
This is partially true; there are numerous other things that are done for mitigation outside of this.
Sure, and I think they are mostly great, main problem being they just don't go far enough. Where's the namespace level isolation, ACL or MAC support? Is there a way to give a user append only ability for one file, while having write but not delete access to another, and delete to yet another? What's the maximum extent to which OpenBSD could have limited an attacker, had they been vulnerable to regreSSHion?
You can update from one OS version to the next with manly only one command.
The bug here actually involved the intersection of unveil and pledge. IIUC, it was more a pledge bug that accidentally allowed bypassing unveil checks.
I hear this excuse daily from developers who insist on running all their docker containers as root "because we have to".
If you're relying on a sandbox as your first line of defense you've already lost the war.
Ideally, sandboxes should be like Vegas - what happens in the sandbox stays in the sandbox.
(I'm just speaking hypothetically here, I'm not knowledgeable about OpenBSD or it's sandboxes)
Can you help figure out where does it say unveil does not really work when root is involved?
Here's what I can figure out: you need root to set up the environment just so. It's a don't-care. The end.
I will defend my "heaviness" argument, though. Sure, you can run OpenBSD on large hardware, but it's not going to be able to take advantage of it like FreeBSD can. Which makes sense if you think about it - FreeBSD optimizes for heavy workloads. Conversely, if you set up minimal installs, OpenBSD will be smaller. Again, that makes sense, since OpenBSD focuses on security over features (plus the only truly secure code is the code that doesn't exist). There's a lot of overlap in the middle, of course.
I wouldn't use OpenBSD for a NAS, and I wouldn't use FreeBSD for a diskless firewall. Not because they can't do those things - they just each have their strengths and weaknesses.
And, I mentioned NetBSD for embedded stuff...but really, i *think* its that NetBsd is simply installed on tons of different hardware....so not only embedded....i kinda remembered that about NetBSD.
But, its the other BSDs - in particular FreeBSD vs OpenBSD - that i always forget the differences...but got it now. Thanks!
openbsd = security
netbsd = portability
freebsd: performance, features, drivers, software compat - closest to linux in utility & usability though unlike linux in execution
openbsd: safety for exposed services
netbsd: portable across many cpu & hardware platforms - big-endian powerpc sun, hitachi sh3 jornada, etc, easiest to port to a new arch
But it's not a matter of surface area that makes openbsd solid, it's the priorities while writing that affects how every little thing has been written over time.
You can write 10 different versions of a function that all work and are all nominally perfectly free of security gaps.
Yet they will all still be 10 different levels of robust. Some versions will fail as soon as some assumption is violated, and some make fewer assumptions and remain safe even when varying amounts and forms of "that can't happen" happens.
It's not just cosmic ray bit flips either, or a hacker trying to do power glitch attacks or rowhammer etc, stuff that makes the hardware violate it's promises. But stuff like a different developer updating something 15 years later who is not the original and does not realize every single facet of how it works and just how the current implimentation covers all possible edge cases, and so doesn't realize how their change opened up an edge case that was covered before. With fragile code, the new code simply has the new security gap until someone discovers it the hard way. With robust code, it's more likely to still be safe. The edge case maybe makes it fail to function, but not in a way that anyone can use productively.
Not that freebsd is exactly swiss cheese. These are all relative. I would and do rely on freebsd any day.
NetBSD is, however, the gold standard for an OS that runs on just about anything. Their (maybe unofficial) slogan has been “Of course it runs NetBSD!”. Their logo has a flag in it because they “plant their flag” on so many platforms.
Very salient comment there! And, while not the only reason for me, but what you noted is sort of one reason that's triggering the itch in me to go back to playing with the BSDs. Don't get me wrong, I still do love fiddling around with some areas of linux once in a while....but then, there are other uses/areas where i just want a server to do its thing, and for my maintenance to be a little less (at least less than some linux distros require). So maybe i'm not the only one? :-)
No 32-bit sparc anymore (only UltraSPARC, aka sparc64).
No SunOS compatibility (despite Theo de Raadt inventing it for NetBSD, before being copied by other BSDs).
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=161435521906992&w=2
> Technically there's a niche flavour of 68k that still is supported because of a very dedicated man in Japan
luna88k, while related, is not 68k.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btwiiZw3B2s
Kenji Aoyama truly is aligned with the best of the hacker spirit. As for getting your hands on a luna88k, I have no clue. The only thing I managed to find was a broken one that sold for ~USD 750 at an online auction.
Another part of my nostalgia with those old workstations (besides the core OS) was the desktop environment, i think CDE or motif or something like that. Something about the look and feel of that DE i always thought was cool!
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...
Now, is LLM code in the hurd a good thing? No, absolutely not. Ignoring the licensing limbo of LLM output that still isn't settled , LLMs make pretty bad code often enough that I wouldn't trust it to work on something as niche and relatively undocumented as the hurd.
You can however have a full-fat desktop environment with xfce4 or gnome and applications like libreoffice, gimp, inkscape, audacity and so on if you wish. I've never tried KDE on top of OpenBSD base but I gather packages are in ports.
I think it is fair to say that the amd64 arch has good support. The i386 platform arch is on a 'best effort' basis these days which is understandable. I've never looked at the others.
I've already done this twice for this box. Its disk is half empty, and the used space is 75% compounding useless bloat:
- 50% of the used space are package sets I never asked for.
- The stuff I did ask for is somehow 2x larger than it needs to be, since they don't randomize binaries in place.
- If they'd actually follow their own filesystem hierarchy standards, and stop using /usr as a build target (very bad things will happen if a crash happens in the middle of that! Why are we making lots of small separate partitions again?!?) then I could just make /var big. Then I would not have to repartition yet again after they introduce /lib/lolz/3gib or whatever in 2027.
Alternatively, if they had a journalling filesystem or still supported soft updates, then I could have one big partition, which would solve it once and for all.
Anyway, I'd argue "take the lan offline, backup the router, repartition and restore" isn't a planned reasonable maintenance task for a router. The fact that its so obviously easily avoidable is really frustrating.
Alternatively, if they just had a "which sets to install?" config option for auto-update (like they do for the OS installer!) then I wouldn't have to do this.
So far that has worked for me.
Some people would also argue that using an 8 year old device as a critical path in your LAN is a risk in itself. Taking routers down to do upgrades is pretty common in the enterprise IT world.
Similarly, if fsck -y is frequently required, maybe just run that way all the time instead of failing to boot, or fix the root problem. I doubt many sers are taking block level backups for forensic repair in case they need to hand assemble inodes.
Anyway, I wish them well. I want a simple, correct and rock solid OS for this sort of use case. The three pillars of computer security are confidentiality, integrity and availability. Hopefully they’ll focus a bit more on the latter two things than they have recently.
For desktop use, I don't think I'll ever end up on OpenBSD. It might power my gateway router one day, but the cost/benefit analysis falls through on hardware like a laptop or gaming PC.
For others who cannot live without Bluetooth on their main machine, consider a USB Bluetooth adapter. see: https://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-5.1/ubt.4
All the pretty much the smallest and lightest I could find. So not fantastic, but good enough. For me, battery life is much lower on the list than "small and lightweight" and "works well with Linux".
Sure, but there are additional laws regarding cryptography, even in publicly available software.
"Rogue states" is a legal designation, we can both dislike it as much as we want but I doubt the US will change it's view
Less attack surface always equals less potential for bugs/flaws/exploits regardless of how good red teaming tools and workflows get.
Now obviously for other use cases Linux could be a much better option.
Though it's not clear to me now:
- why was this patched then?
- is the point about root that non-root wouldn't have access to passwd anyway?
If you're root inside the sandbox, you're root outside it. This exploit requires you to already be root.
So, yes, you need to have root on the box to set up this exploit.
I guess you just don't understand what unveil does.
Please be sure to let us know when your better, more secure replacement is ready.
The way that the BSDs differentiate cannot be reduced in this way, not least because there is a lot of what Justin C. Sherrill (of the DragonFly Digest) calls 'cross-pollination' amongst the BSDs.
A case in point:
Superficially, and erroneously, one might observe that OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD have nvi, and only DragonFlyBSD has nvi2. In fact there was a three-way fork of actual Bostic nvi, all of them making revisions and leaving the original behind, and then things got really complex with nvi2 taking from OpenBSD's nvi, and FreeBSD's nvi taking from nvi2; not even getting into the existence of nvi-m17n along the way and how there are nvis in base and nvis in ports. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48132452) One cannot divide the BSDs up into those that have nvi2 versus those that have nvi.
The split is complex in other areas, too.
You know even though I said the execution is unlike linux, in fact, there are many many details that are just like linux! What a freaking ignorant liar eh? There's like 100 things like that you could say. No wait, no way it's exactly 100. There's obviously some other number like 105 or 612 things like that. So superficial and wrong!
As a teen I had infinite time to compile Linux and debug stuff. Now I just want to spend time with family/outdoors and not be stuck in a windowless room negotiating with a black box. ;-P
http://miod.online.fr/software/openbsd/stories/m88k.html
One interesting bit of trivial is Luna-88k workstations were heavily used to implement CMU Mach (which would eventually be used by Apple).
>luna88k, while related, is not 68k
I misremembered it as being similar to the relationship between the 6502 and the 65C816
