/g/ - Technology

install openbsd

[Make a Post]
[X]





Nanonymous No.8140 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>8152
File: 5480d5d6966cf4915a5aedecfa076774defa512b2389e36de1a321f571c8dad2.png (dl) (176.85 KiB)
OpenBSD 6.6 has been released! Now is the time to give it a shot, Nanons!

characterlimitcharacterlimitcharacterlimitcharacterlimitcharacterlimitcharacterlimitcharacterlimitcharacterlimit

Nanonymous No.8143 [D][U][F]
File: 5636316ea878443bbd007b94b758536930da78d6d5d1ddc815dd2de4349985e2.gif (dl) (69.36 KiB)
Don't forget you can sysupgrade from 6.5 now:
https://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/patches/6.5/common/012_sysupgrade.patch.sig

Nanonymous No.8146 [D][U][F] >>8147 >>8153
File: bcc8d67e4f315f2df29bbb61c5156fc763ce3b43cc2a15eca8acd92f0647ef04.jpg (dl) (59.64 KiB)
OpenBSD 6.6 has packaged all of the software I use except for transmission-remote-gtk.
Is there a spoonfeed guide for using this thing with GRUB? I can dual boot openbsd/gentoo to play around if so.

Nanonymous No.8147 [D]
>>8146
Why do you need transmission? Just use Aria2c...
>GRUB
Yes, read the FAQ on openbsd.org

Nanonymous No.8148 [D]
I think I'll be sticking with Gentoo.

Nanonymous No.8152 [D][U][F] >>8162
File: cd7a5f52cb35bd2e0bcb4f4bcfe4305bf6eb4a8737499047a21a683c97421004.jpg (dl) (264.99 KiB)
>>8140
>Now is the time to give it a shot, Nanons!
Is it? I see no particular reason to give it a shot (again, as I try to main it every few years before I get tired of how slow it is and how poor the hardware support remains and how much software remains unavailable for it). For my threat model, Linux, especially with the precautions I take, is good enough, and it actually runs on all of my hardware, unlike OpenBSD. And for someone concerned about targeted surveillance/attacks from well-funded state actors, neither Linux nor OpenBSD is adequate. Just like Linux, OpenBSD is full of 0days that state actors can burn if they really want you.

Add to that the fact that OpenBSD's vaunted security guarantees only apply to a base install, and that virtually nobody runs just a base install, and you end up with a very porous system. Theo's refusal to implement MAC in OpenBSD means that a misbehaving program like a TUI web browser that's been compromised can leak your SSH and PGP keys, or your Bitcoin wallet, or drop a malicious script into your X startup files. It's all security theatre.

Most of us would be better served by not only not installing OpenBSD, but by minimizing our computer use altogether. Most of us are just killing time with these devices. We'd be better off reading books, learning useful skills, or maybe even oiling up the hinges on the front door and actually engaging with real life for a while.

But, it's comfy in here, isn't it? It's comfy with our little hobbies, and our niche operating systems that almost nobody's ever heard of, and our seekrit .onion clubs. Maybe we can settle on OpenBSD after all, spend our time fiddling with its switches and knobs, and finally find ourselves

>Resting weary limbs at last on beds of asphodel.
>Surely, surely, slumber is more sweet than toil, the shore
>Than labour in the deep mid-ocean, wind and wave and oar;
>O, rest ye, brother mariners, we will not wander more.

Nanonymous No.8153 [D] >>8159 >>8160
>>8146
I kind of just wanted to spark conversation.
And because transmission has the least bad RPC and the best torrent implementation.
Guess I'm going to install openbsd this weekend.

Real question though, is the partitioning scheme any trouble? Should I just make a single partition for root and another for home on openbsd?

I have used openbsd before, had a good experience, but it was a quick install and look around on a virtual machine that I quickly purged.

Nanonymous No.8154 [D] >>8155
>a misbehaving program like a TUI web browser that's been compromised can leak your ssh and PGP keys, or your bitcoin wallet, or drop a malicious script into your X startup files. It's all security theatre.
A misbehaving TUI browser on OpenBSD cannot necessarily do any of that. Firefox and Chromium have both implemented strict pledge() policies.

Nanonymous No.8155 [D] >>8161
>>8154
Firefox and Chromium are not TUI web browsers. I specified TUI web browsers out of a sense of fairness. Firefox and Chromium are both so heavy, so complex, and so full of holes that pledge can't save them. I also seriously doubt that pledge calls have been implemented in the OpenBSD versions of Firefox and Chromium to the extent that all of the relevant calls are covered, though if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to know.

Also, unlike TUI web browsers, GUI web browsers require running X and OpenBSD slurped up a ton of unaudited DRI/DRM code for X that's full of vulns waiting to be discovered.

Nanonymous No.8159 [D]
>>8153
Nothing really wrong with partitioning your drive only for / and /home for a personal install, but I might add at least a modest swap partition. I tend to like having a /var and /tmp partitions for no particular reason, though.

Nanonymous No.8160 [D]
>>8153
Auto partitioning is good by default. There's no need to mess with it, you'll just complicate things for yourself. OpenBSD instalation and use is simple: choose the sets you want, leave it for 5 minutes. Come back, login, read the man pages if you have any question and done.

Nanonymous No.8161 [D] >>8186
>>8155
>Firefox and Chromium are both so heavy, so complex, and so full of holes that pledge can't save them.
Why can't pledge save them? Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Those browser also use unveil() now, and I'm also confident that Links utilizes pledge() and unveil().

Nanonymous No.8162 [D]
>>8152
>Most of us are just killing time with these devices.
>learning useful skills
>But, it's comfy in here
We need appropriate networking even if it is just pseudonymous. We're eventually looking at mini Y2K scenarios with race riots and major food shortages. A solar flare can fuck up everything. A disaster like Negrocane Katrina can strike again. Even some nutjub or actor can attack critical points of infrastructure and we lose all our power and communication. All that time society's been spending on consumption and distraction through networking/internet is all for naught. Most of the population doesn't have adequate rations or even a decent way to communicate in such a scenario. You will have spent years maintaining your niche piece of shit system that will do nothing when it matters. What a hobby.

I think we need a secure way of networking while avoiding bait and traps. It may sadly have to be physical op-security since we are higher priorities on watch/blacklists.
Shitposting is just posting shit.
The rest is mental masturbation.

Nanonymous No.8163 [D][U][F]
File: 05fbacd21baa642871072c24219d5f74ac525bcd4418805e0f28e49b602ef140.jpg (dl) (75.18 KiB)
Noice!
I like their regular releases.

Nanonymous No.8170 [D]
Haters? Hate.
Nanochan /g/? OpenBSD.
Hotel? Trivago.


You guys do really like OpenBSD though holy shit.

Nanonymous No.8171 [D]
OpenBSD 6.6? On the image in OP it's shown as 66, no decimal.

More like 666. Official OS of the Satanists?

Nanonymous No.8186 [D][U][F] >>8192
File: 4dbcb08b868d86b30d1743398f833aa2b5a1869c1d9d95b5de5f095eb235bac5.png (dl) (1.40 MiB)
>>8161
About a month ago, there was talk on the OpenBSD mailing list about some pledge related patches for Firefox, but I don't think they're currently being shipped. I looked at the patches OpenBSD currently uses for Firefox, and there were no references to pledge or unveil in them. Their Chromium patches do contain a handful of unveil and related calls.

Firefox contains over 12,000,000 lines of code. Chromium is also huge. Does a handful of pledge calls really mitigate all of the problems lurking in that much code? I doubt it.

Nanonymous No.8188 [D][U][F] >>8191 >>8195
File: 43e0a1099e880d678544f9da5c836ab7198f2c47fc9d8a8f35d8d76f22e505d2.jpg (dl) (801.63 KiB)
I can't get this piece of shit to write its EFI bootloader to my ESP.
I can't get my ESP on disklabel after the install either. If I were to do that it would make openbsd's boundary overlap a partition between it and the ESP.
BIOS mode boot doesn't work either.

Nanonymous No.8191 [D] >>8199
>>8188
What exactly are you doing? Did the install process fail? What message it shows? Did you do anything different for the install? Try auto install and see if it works. If it does, then the problem is you and not the system.

Nanonymous No.8192 [D] >>8204
>>8186
>Does a handful of pledge calls really mitigate all of the problems lurking in that much code? I doubt it.
Why? Especially for the security threats you mentioned as examples, proper use of unveil() will very likely prevent your ssh and pgp keys from being leaked, your bitcoin wallet from being leaked, and prevent any mailicious scripts from being implanted anywhere outside the scope of what filesystem paths unveil() has permitted.

Nanonymous No.8195 [D]
>>8188
If all else fails, use rEFInd.

Nanonymous No.8199 [D] >>8200
>>8191
installed to a partition with automatic disklabel. Everything went fine, but it wasn't writing its bootloader to my ESP. I copied it manually and it worked though.

Nanonymous No.8200 [D]
>>8199
Good it worked.
>Everything went fine, but it wasn't writing its bootloader to my ESP.
That's strange, though. If you can, create a temporary email through Tor (cock.li works fine) and send a bug report on misc@openbsd.org or bugs@openbsd.org

Nanonymous No.8204 [D][U][F] >>8210 >>8216
File: 116808557a5a3e18d16ab96bd57d57b813559bbe5fb77774dcff12c604aa9801.jpg (dl) (46.27 KiB)
>>8192
>proper use of unveil()
unveil isn't currently being used at all in Firefox as shipped in OpenBSD. Is it being used properly in Chromium? I don't know. Neither do you. You're not posting code examples and explaining them; you're hand-waving.
>will very likely prevent
"Very likely?" In this context, security against a given attack isn't probabilistic. I don't want to hear about "very likely." I want you to demonstrate how the use of pledge/unveil/etc prevents exploits. You can't.

Nanonymous No.8210 [D] >>8226 >>9480
>>8204
Nanon, you would be better off getting that info from the horse's mouth by bitching on ports@. But chances are they'll just tell you to read the patches in the ports tree and consult one of the many papers about pledge/unveil that OpenBSD developers have given at numerous conferences in the past couple years. The best you'll get here is a tl;dr which you already (correctly) say isn't good enough.
FWIW Firefox and Chromium aren't secure even with pledge, even with Javashit disabled, just don't install them.
I know for a fact that lynx on OpenBSD is pledged half to death though. It tells the kernel to deny filesystem access to it right away. Look in ports/www/lynx/patches/patch-src_LYMain_c.

Nanonymous No.8216 [D]
>>8204
Read the manual pages, fag

Nanonymous No.8226 [D] >>8235
>>8210
>Nanon, you would be better off getting that info from the horse's mouth by bitching on ports@
I don't care, though. And the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm just pointing out that people hand-waving about the supposed security of Firefox and Chromium on OpenBSD have provided no evidence for their claims and, in all likelihood, have no fucking idea what they're talking about.

Nanonymous No.8227 [D] >>8237
Did they finally make a version that can emulate linux or anything besides bsd for that matter?

Nanonymous No.8235 [D]
>>8226
https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20160107075227
Eat shit and die.

Nanonymous No.8237 [D]
>>8227
they removed that ages ago because it was considered insecure. if you absolutely need bloated modern linux software just install gentoo.

Nanonymous No.8238 [D][U][F]
File: 78cb441b16a84f901592a8d71af1cb43f7609c68f8f3ab4b7cd7627de011800e.jpg (dl) (87.36 KiB)
Anything we don't like you don't get but you're totally free to do whatever you want on BSD! Freedom, yeah!

Nanonymous No.8279 [D]
this is a false link. don't open it. openBSD 6.6 has not been released.

Nanonymous No.8283 [D]
wtf is going on here. why is clearnet address not updated, but tor is? yikes

Nanonymous No.8284 [D]
sloppy job. not gonna lie.

Nanonymous No.8323 [D] >>8332
how to install it?

Nanonymous No.8332 [D]
>>8323
Follow the FAQ:
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html

Nanonymous No.8353 [D][U][F] >>8364 >>8512
File: a4cbf16935b901f4d8fee623c51abd50f161bcbf9323ab000a24b62b61974995.png (dl) (250.66 KiB)
thank you friends

Nanonymous No.8354 [D] >>8361 >>8493
okay fuck i installed furryfox because paleshit isnt on the repos, then i installed noscript, and when i clicked the noscript button the webextension version has a pozzed bloated interface that you don't even know what each button does until you hover it and get a tooltip.
the palemoon version has a dropdown menu with text and icons as an interface, it's infinitely superior.
what the fuck is wrong with pozware devs today?

Nanonymous No.8355 [D]
>>8354
>durr durr durr
I have a degree in Computer Science and I understand enough to know that if you have superior intellect you must memorize the icon and associate it with a text.
Dumb kids these days can't even understand how to click an Icon. Pathetic!

Nanonymous No.8361 [D] >>8365
>>8354
use uMatrix, it's infinetely superior
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/
https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix

Nanonymous No.8364 [D]
>>8353
Cool! Welcome to OpenBSD.
btw, try "xsetroot -solid black" on your ~/.xsession

Nanonymous No.8365 [D] >>8366
>>8361
>infinetely
I believe you mean "unlimitedly".

Nanonymous No.8366 [D]
>>8365
i actually meant "infinitely" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infinitely as in an infinite amount of times better

Nanonymous No.8370 [D]
>doas sysupgrade

so easy.I love openBSD. thanks OP. thanks openBSD team.

Nanonymous No.8434 [D][U][F] >>8435 >>8436 >>8454
File: 94f563023159f77989622d85a2f54818e744f632aac6c8d2b04718a76c2164e0.jpg (dl) (260.91 KiB)
Hey guys while watching anime on OpenBSD with mpv I found that sndio's resampling is pretty poor. The manpage itself actually says it.
If you add these 2 lines to your mpv.conf, you'll need libsox installed, but it does very high quality resampling.


audio-swresample-o=resampler=soxr,precision=33,dither_method=f_weighted,osr=48000,osf=s16 # Resamples with the high quality sox library and gives it some good settings.
audio-format=s16

Nanonymous No.8435 [D][U][F]
File: 8aee03d2e10b3e62de0623f05782362d0e450dc0afcd8d35901bd277d52e26ef.mp3 (dl) (12.90 MiB)
>>8434
Also I forgot to mention that mpv defaults to sdl audio when playing stuff on OpenBSD, which causes audio latency issues, so you'll have to set your audio output to sndio which mpv does support but won't default to because it's "experimental" (haven't had trouble with it however).

Nanonymous No.8436 [D] >>8447
>>8434
It doesn't work, can you provide more info?

Nanonymous No.8447 [D] >>8448
>>8436
The package is actually called libsoxr on openbsd, I got it as a dep from sox which I also use separately.
If it's not that, what error do you get?

Nanonymous No.8448 [D]
>>8447
I get an error from MPV

Nanonymous No.8454 [D] >>8492
>>8434
Interesting. Never noticed the resampling quality, because I use a shitty headphone, but thanks for sharing.
I also use these others configs on ~/.config/mpv/mpv.conf in case other anons find useful:

ao=sndio
audio-device=sndio
audio-channels=stereo
audio-format=s16
audio-samplerate=44100
msg-level=all=status,ao/sndio=no,ffmpeg/demuxer=no
osc=no
volume=50
sigmoid-upscaling=yes
correct-downscaling=yes
sws-scaler=lanczos
scale=ewa_lanczossharp
cscale=ewa_lanczossharp
dscale=ewa_lanczossharp
script-opts=ytdl_hook-exclude='%.mkv$|%.mp4$|%.webm$|%.avi$|%.wmv$|%.3gp$'
user-agent="Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0"


And on /etc/rc.conf

sndiod_flags="-r 44100 -b 882 -z 441 -e s16 -v 127 -m play"

And /etc/mixerctl.conf

outputs.master=255,255


I control the volume using "9/0" keys in mpv.

Nanonymous No.8469 [D] >>8484
Does anyone know if OpenBSD 6.6 with enabled by default support for a bunch of AMD graphics cards if they support the thinkpad method of using external graphics cards? If so OpenBSD is about to be my OS for all of my systems.

Nanonymous No.8471 [D] >>8475
I read something about the tor browser port breaking on 6.6. Disappointing.

Nanonymous No.8475 [D]
>>8471
Sadly the case presently. Hopefully whatever is causing the issue is resolved. Web browsers are such a gigantic pain. Thankfully surf exists.

Nanonymous No.8483 [D] >>8484
One of the things that sticks about OpenBSD is that FreeCAD is not available. I love OpenBSD so much but sadly I am stuck with Linux for a few things still. It feels like I am moving from Windows XP all over again.

Nanonymous No.8484 [D] >>8486
>>8469
Probably works, but I don't know exactly. Be aware that not all AMD GPUs is supported by amdgpu driver. Arguably the best supported GPU on OpenBSD is Radeon HD 6450.
>>8483
Not a issue of OpenBSD. Maybe try to ask FreeCAD maintainers if they can maintain a openbsd port...

Nanonymous No.8485 [D][U][F] >>8496
File: 878485ced1f627417bee19c59a5471f74ce403aab857d2dad748a7c6597fba8c.png (dl) (94.22 KiB)
OpenBSD is such a piece of shit.

Nanonymous No.8486 [D]
>>8484
Yeah, you are right on that. I will see if there is anything they can do. I know FreeBSD has an up to date port.

Nanonymous No.8492 [D]
>>8454
Assign these commands to keyboard shortcuts to change volume:
mixerctl set outputs.master=+2,+2
mixerctl set outputs.master=-2,-2
>44100 samplerate
Don't do that, most PC soundcards don't have a clock capable of 44100 refresh rate, leading to an unknown resampling method being done at the hardware to get it to 48000, which is generally poor. stick to 48000

Nanonymous No.8493 [D] >>8495 >>8500
>>8354
Unfortunately, the Pale Moon devs are autistic furries.
https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86

Nanonymous No.8495 [D]
>>8493
well that gave me cancer

Nanonymous No.8496 [D]
>>8485
>OpenFBI
kek

Nanonymous No.8500 [D] >>8502
>>8493
>Farewell, petulant children.
God, I love OpenBSD contributors.

Nanonymous No.8502 [D] >>8550
>>8500
>You flipped out with your cease & decease against a work in progress port of a person who was actually trying to cooperate with you.
>cease & decease

Nanonymous No.8504 [D] >>8505 >>8506 >>8508 >>8509
this update fucked up my the automatic security check. It's completely fucked. Have to re-install everything. Build file system all over again. Amazing.

Nanonymous No.8505 [D] >>8509 >>8574
>>8504
I very much want to see the good in OpenBSD, but it's shit like this that keeps me away. I would rather put up with the supposed complexity of Linux and stay on Gentoo than put up with the non functionality of BSD.

Nanonymous No.8506 [D]
>>8504
>automatic security check
Gay

Nanonymous No.8508 [D]
>>8504
What does your security check include?

Nanonymous No.8509 [D]
>>8504
>>8505

Fact: These people are Israeli shills

Nanonymous No.8512 [D] >>8537
>>8353
browser plz?

Nanonymous No.8527 [D][U][F]
File: a2af42f1ae7bd7ed6148166e1abc4a406a23f4dc2fcadcca006796840df70182.jpg (dl) (15.85 KiB)
Fact: You're a homosexual.

Nanonymous No.8537 [D] >>8562
>>8512
w3m

Nanonymous No.8550 [D][U][F] >>8551
File: eb3825e8d590c4cbc562d6f425a4480a3e71137fac34724ba0871e42cbb3b8d2.jpg (dl) (28.19 KiB)
>>8502
This pretty much illustrates that whole exchange...

Nanonymous No.8551 [D][U][F] >>8552
File: 36fec91e52ae9d85d79bffdb52b8f167864b732cfc70edfa1a509e23dfb8b6fb.png (dl) (51.86 KiB)
>>8550
You should know better...

Nanonymous No.8552 [D] >>8553
>>8551
That picture is genuinely horrifying

Nanonymous No.8553 [D][U][F]
File: c4fc50c1313b302b30d0653bbdd0ebdc9ec909a11ebb39161dc8460971d1cca7.png (dl) (4.29 MiB)
>>8552
Mission Accomplished

Nanonymous No.8560 [D]
thank you

Nanonymous No.8562 [D]
>>8537
thank you

Nanonymous No.8574 [D] >>8577
>>8505
It really is non functional for general purposes. Even a bare bone install has trouble installing the most basic packages.
I really do like the file structure of it though, it's simply organized. But software compatibility on openBSD is 50-50, even if it's on the repository, it have trouble installing dependancies.Is netBSD something to consider? or firefly?

Nanonymous No.8577 [D] >>8578 >>8579 >>8582 >>8583
>>8574
Seriously what software are you installing that gives you all so many issues? I love OpenBSD but I'll be honest when I have issues with it. I have never had any issues with the stability of installed packages or installing any package. NetBSD is a neat project that I have a lot of love for and if DragonFlyBSD's Hammer2 gets ported over to Net then it will probably get ported to OpenBSD sometime too. DragonflyBSD is pretty cool too.

Nanonymous No.8578 [D]
>>8577
>Hammer2 gets ported over to Net then it will probably get ported to OpenBSD sometime too.
The OpenBSD devs seem to not really care about interesting filesystems.

Nanonymous No.8579 [D]
>>8577
They do care but it is not top priority as the current file system does work fine. I know some fans of OpenBSD believe that the file system should not handle such things and yes in a perfect world I agree but this is certainly not a perfect world. From what I have repeatedly seen is that the developers do understand this but they lack the people with the skill and dedication to do it. Hammer2 while far less complex than ZFS is still pretty cumbersome. For now I have a stripped down Ubuntu Server to handle my NAS and backups.

Nanonymous No.8582 [D] >>8621
>>8577
This. I have only had issues with packages when on -current. Never on -stable.
Also:
>my "security check"
>my
It's your script. If something broke, you have the responsibility to fix it, not openbsd.

Nanonymous No.8583 [D] >>8600
>>8577
All seriousness.I do not troll on nanochan.This place deserves all respect. Above I spewed out vague problems above.It may be related to hardware issues after all.
I have several different laptops. All refirbished junk. I have installed openBSD successfulling on all of them. I have burned 6.5 to disk, and I have upgraded to 6.6 successfully on all.
However when it comes to installing certain software, I have noticed behavior issues.Specifically Tor. Installing a Tor relay never has caused me problems,

>doas pkg_add tor

But when I tried installing tor-browser pkg, there was different behavior on some laptops. Such as, missing libraries/dependencies. Which I found very strange.
openBSD as abrowser works perfectly fine, I'm still trying to figure out why it's so unorthodox between different computers,even when the config files have been build all the same.

Nanonymous No.8584 [D]
>8583
Maybe it is part of the update, I don't know, but I want to solve it. I'll never give up.

Nanonymous No.8600 [D] >>8631 >>9023
>>8583
TBB is not as maintained as Firefox or Chromium. I suggest you ask on ports@openbsd.org if the package is really working or not.
I personally use Links 2 on openbsd, so I don't know the state of TBB port. You can also try pointing normal Firefox to port 9050, even though it will not offer as much privacy.

If you have any issue with openbsd, please try to solve it first before saying the system is shit. Yes, OpenBSD is not perfect, but for the most part it's a user fault and the devs fault. You can always ask for help here on nanochan or on misc@openbsd.org mailing list.

Nanonymous No.8621 [D] >>8631 >>9039
>>8582
>Never on -stable.
It may have changed since the last time I looked, but aren't -stable packages not updated after the release (that's only done for -current)?

Nanonymous No.8631 [D] >>9039
>>8600
<and the devs fault.
>and not the devs fault.
Fix.
>>8621
Correct.

Nanonymous No.9023 [D] >>9028 >>9032
>>8600

Hey nanon could you help me out a bit with links? I'm using links 1 on openbsd.

Under network options,

Can you give me an example of how you typed the host:port? I'd like to stop using Tor browser and hop on the links train!

Nanonymous No.9028 [D] >>9032
>>9023
My config files are here anon:
https://nanochanqwrwtmamtnhkfwbbcducc4i62ciss4byo6f3an5qdkhjngid.onion/g/4669.html#post6035

And here:
https://nanochanqwrwtmamtnhkfwbbcducc4i62ciss4byo6f3an5qdkhjngid.onion/g/4669.html#post6590

Nanonymous No.9032 [D] >>9045
>>9023
>>9028
Using links 1 with Tor is not advisable.

http://nanochanqwrwtmamtnhkfwbbcducc4i62ciss4byo6f3an5qdkhjngid.onion/g/9030.html

Nanonymous No.9039 [D] >>9045
>>8621
>>8631
Incorrect. A few months ago, amd64, i386 and arm64 started getting binary package updates on -stable.

Nanonymous No.9045 [D] >>9048 >>9050
>>9032
Already answered on the thread. Stpo spamming your bullshit.
>>9039
Do you have source? Didn't heard about that. If it's true, then this is great news. We need updated packages on openbsd.

Nanonymous No.9048 [D] >>9049
>>9045
It's hardly bullshit. Using Links 1 without your specific firewall configuration is unsafe. Also your configuration only applies to openbsd.

Nanonymous No.9049 [D]
>>9048
>Links 1 without your specific firewall configuration is unsafe.
The vulnerability is from 09/15/2019. The packages in 6.6 and -current have been fixed and there's no vulnerability anymore.
Thanks for posting this, I didn't knew Links had this vulnerability. But using this to scare people way from using Links *is* retarded and bullshit.
>Also your configuration only applies to openbsd.
You can do the same thing on any system, including Windows if you want to. Also, only pf firewall rules are openbsd-specific. Everything else is easily done on other unix-based system, such as pointing resolv.conf to localhost and pointing Tor DNSPort to 53.

Nanonymous No.9050 [D] >>9051
>>9045
>Do you have source?
https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20190814112133
https://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article;sid=20190826064109
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq10.html#Patches

Nanonymous No.9051 [D]
>>9050
That's nice. Thanks.

Nanonymous No.9180 [D] >>9478
There are so few users of OpenBSD I wonder if revealing you just installed it might deanonymize you.

Nanonymous No.9470 [D] >>9477
There are people all over the world using openBSD. Just look at the mirrors available.

Noticed some packages missing in the index for 6.6 on amd64

>torbutton-2.0.7.tgz
>tor-launcher-0.2.16.6.tgz
>https-everywhere-2018.8.22.tgz
>tb-noscript-10.1.9.6.tgz
>tb-browser-8.0.2p0.tgz

These are displayed in the 6.5 index for 6.5 amd64.

Is there a reason for this?

Nanonymous No.9477 [D] >>9488
>>9470
There may be people all over the world using OpenBSD, but there are fewer than those who use FreeBSD, and even fewer than those who use GNU/Linux. How many people do you think installed Debian today? Comparatively, how many people do you think installed OpenBSD today?

Nanonymous No.9478 [D]
>>9180
There's the possibility (s)he said so, but actually did not. Would that be sending those looking, down the wrong tracks?

Nanonymous No.9480 [D] >>9486
>>8210
>Firefox and Chromium aren't secure even with pledge, even with Javashit disabled, just don't install them.
That applies to everything on OpenBSD. Only the base system is audited and fixed, everything else you just run it and pray. Every other modern OS has ways to sandbox untrusted code.

Nanonymous No.9486 [D] >>9537
>>9480
This makes it an excellent system for deploying new security focused software, with no other unneeded services running.

Nanonymous No.9488 [D]
>>9477
openBSD is 79 on top 100 distros, on distrowatch. I'd say quite a few people download it.

>Popularity (hits per day): 12 months: 78 (149), 6 months: 79 (151), 3 months: 71 (171), 4 weeks: 73 (189), 1 week: 68

maybe half a dozen people. It could be enough t deanonymize you.

<what will you do?

Nanonymous No.9537 [D] >>9584
>>9486
>This makes it an excellent system for deploying new security focused software, with no other unneeded services running.
All systems are secure if you only run trusted code on them. Being the most secure OS for doing nothing is basically what OpenBSD is and that's not as useful in the real world as people are fooled into thinking.

Nanonymous No.9584 [D] >>9585
>>9537
>All systems are secure if you only run trusted code on them.
I trust the carefully engineered OpenBSD base system more than I would trust the default install of any Linux distribution, which tends to be a mish-mash of random programs.
>Being the most secure OS for doing nothing is basically what OpenBSD is and that's not as useful in the real world as people are fooled into thinking.
Suppose you want to deploy a system for a single purpose with a limited attack surface, OpenBSD is the ideal system.

Nanonymous No.9585 [D] >>9592
>>9584
then what the fuck is the point of 'trying out' openbsd if the only safe option is a base install and not daily use? when i want to 'try out' an os, i want to do normal things like browse the web.

Nanonymous No.9592 [D] >>9595
>>9585
It's still more secure than any unix-like system to this date, even if you install other software from packages.

Nanonymous No.9595 [D] >>9601
>>9592
>It's still more secure than any unix-like system to this date, even if you install other software from packages.
Only if that software itself is secure. Otherwise you're better off with a modern OS which can do sandboxing and access control.

Nanonymous No.9601 [D]
>>9595
A lot of the software in the ports tree have had pledge and unveil implemented for filesystem and system call sandboxing.