â„–38937[Quote]
up
â„–39067[Quote]
Jails exist on FreeBSD you dumdum
â„–39069[Quote]
>>39067retardGOD im talking about openbsd
â„–39084[Quote]
>>38877 (OP)It's not secure.
â„–39099[Quote]
>>39069Well, that's the thing. Less features = less surface to attack. If you want virtualization, don't use OpenBSD, use FreeBSD.
â„–39103[Quote]
>>39099This is stupid. Everything can be exploited, and yo don't have precautions such as MAC
â„–39121[Quote]
>>39099>Less features = less surface to attackThis minimalism in the base system just moves the attack surface to third-party software.
Given the fact there's no MAC capability in OpenBSD this just makes it a less secure Linux because any exploits in the software you run can molest your entire machine
â„–39138[Quote]
>>39137not saying this is necessarily a bad thing however it shouldn't be advertised as minimal = secure by some users
â„–39139[Quote]
>>39137Why does xhe look like a frog croaking?
â„–39181[Quote]
>>39121OpenBSD uses pledge(2) and unveil(2) for process isolation, also it has native DHCP and packet filtering
â„–39183[Quote]
>>39181for the base system and a littlr amount of 3rd party software*
and of course you need these in the source code already and unveil lacks functionality when compared to MACs
â„–39382[Quote]
Evendoe nobaldi used MAC on linux