upvote

points

by Arubis3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby wahern3 hours ago|
next
[-]
According to https://openai.com/index/patch-the-planet/

Linux: 24 LPEs, plus many additional vulnerabilities.

OpenBSD: 1 LPE.

FreeBSD: 7 LPEs, plus many additional vulnerabilities.

Not sure what that says, though. Perhaps the models are more likely to find Linux issues because of the training.

reply
upvoteby dcrazy3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Or Linux development is significantly more active.
reply
upvoteby ori_b3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This is an external audit. Why would Linux activity make a difference here? Are you theorizing that the churn causes bugs?
reply
upvoteby asveikau2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Are you theorizing that the churn causes bugs?

Seems to be the case.

How many times do you see a bug investigation and it's determined when the bug was introduced?

Do you ever look at the diff that introduced it to understand what was going on in the project at the time? Often, it's in service to a new feature. Sometimes the original change is questionable when you consider you traded it for a severe bug.

reply
upvoteby tosti3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
When more code is written, more bugs are written.

Or, if the act of debugging is removing the bugs from software, then the act of programming is to put the bugs in the software.

reply
upvoteby gnoack57 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes, "en-bugging" :)
reply
upvoteby dwroberts2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Linux is a much larger project receiving changes to tons of systems from lots of different sources. The combined behaviour of those things working together is massively harder to understand and test.

Copyfail being introduced by an optimization made to some random crypto module is a good example of this.

reply
upvoteby throw-qqqqq3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The Linux kernel is generally much larger than OpenBSD which is quite minimal.

But I do agree with you - not directly related to activity.

reply
upvoteby dcrazy3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
As another commenter said, number of bugs increases with lines of code changed.
reply
upvoteby _flux3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I wonder how many of the Linux the LPEs are related to drivers, which I understand there are more of..
reply
upvoteby kevincox2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It is quite possible that Linux is the bigger target so it gets more focus. Vulnerabilities there are generally considered more valuable and notable. It would be very difficult to use these numbers to get a meaningful "more secure" stance as there are tons of variables.
reply
upvoteby t-31 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
From a quick search, Linux kernel is ~40 million loc, freebsd ~9 million, openbsd ~3 million. Number of bugs compared to lines of code leaves FreeBSD looking worse than Linux.
reply
upvoteby acdha2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Linux also has a ton of extra functionality so I think you’d also have to do some adjustment for “as a user would I be at risk?” versus “can I be a user because it supports my needs?” Some of that would be unfavorable for many users (e.g. a Linux user who is exposed due to a network protocol or file system they’ll never use) but that’s certainly not true of every feature.
reply
upvoteby hulitu1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Linux also has a ton of bloat. Configuring your own kernel has become an exercise in frustration because documentation is worse "There is no help for this kernel option" and a lot of things are enabled "by default".
reply
upvoteby dspillett1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If this is just counting the kernel, than Linux is probably a bigger target both i terms of current code size and the amount of churn in the codebase as things change over time. Some of the LPEs might (I've not checked) be in modules that are not commonly loaded, which mitigates their overall significance somewhat.

In the less likely even that this is counting what laymen would call Linux or BSD, i.e. both the kernel and common libraries & tools, then Linux definitely has a wider attack surface. Though some of that surface is shared as some userland parts are common to both.

As with your assessment, I'd agree that these flat numbers without looking for further context don't really give enough for a one-is-more-or-less-secure statement.

reply
upvoteby ectospheno3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The commit logs over the last few months have highlighted when an issue was found by a program. They usually name the submitter and the tool.
reply
upvoteby mmooss3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I think of it more as their attention to quality in their code:

Given the 'quality' of most code, especially under commercial pressure, it's no surprise that much more effective tools will find many more vulnerabilities. Did OpenBSDs quality approach work in this respect?

reply
upvoteby bee_rider2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
A local escalation in BSD is still apparently worth a front page post here, so that seems pretty good.

I wonder why we don’t see more about local escalations in Windows. Of course, being closed source is a little bit of a barrier, but these tools can read assembly pretty well, right?

reply
upvoteby acdha2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I’ve heard a couple people say that Microsoft has patched a record number of bugs internally this year so it might be the case that it’s simply more opaque because it’s initiated internally and doesn’t involve a public Git repo or a third-party researcher.
reply
upvoteby JCattheATM3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> OpenBSD's security stance being the stuff of legend,

More so their marketing.

reply
upvoteby throwaway274482 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
What does openbsd marketing look like?
reply
upvoteby c221 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Mostly Comic Sans.
reply
upvoteby JCattheATM1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Pretty sure you're familiar with their claims.
reply
upvoteby throwaway2744850 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not actually, because I'm damn sure I've never seen a piece of openbsd marketing in my life. All i know is that they're oriented around security and are notorious about rejecting patches.
reply