ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Patch time for FreeBSD users as Zero-Day exploit is published

By | December 2, 2009, 6:08am PST

Summary: If you are a FreeBSD user then it’s patch time as a new exploit is published which gives attackers root access to machines. The flaw affects versions 8.0 and 7.1 of FreeBSD.

If you are a FreeBSD user then it’s patch time as a new exploit is published which gives attackers root access to machines.

The flaw affects versions 8.0 and 7.1 of FreeBSD.

The researcher, Kingcope, has posted an explanation of the flaw on the Full Disclosure mailing list:

The bug resides in the Run-Time Link-Editor (rtld). Normally rtld does not allow dangerous environment variables like LD_PRELOAD to be set when executing setugid binaries like “ping” or “su”. With a rather simple technique rtld can be tricked into accepting LD variables even on setugid binaries. See the attached exploit for details.

If that doesn’t make any sense to you (and I don’t blame you if it doesn’t), don’t worry, a patch has been published. Interestingly however, Colin Percival, the project’s security officer, felt that because of the severity of the flaw and the fact that exploit code exists, it was necessary to post the patch as soon as possible, without even publishing a security advisory:

“A short time ago a ‘local root’ exploit was posted to the full-disclosure mailing list; as the name suggests, this allows a local user to execute arbitrary code as root. Normally it is the policy of the FreeBSD Security Team to not publicly discuss security issues until an advisory is ready, but in this case since exploit code is already widely available I want to make a patch available ASAP. Due to the short timeline, it is possible that this patch will not be the final version which is provided when an advisory is sent out; it is even possible (although highly doubtful) that this patch does not fully fix the issue or introduces new issues — in short, use at your own risk (even more than usual).”

It’s also worth pointing out that this is a local exploit, not one that an attacker can exploit remotely.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

55
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Sorry, no
DeusExMachina 3rd Dec 2009
Open BSD is NOT a branch of FreeBSD. OpenBSD is a branch of NetBSD
1.0, by Theo de Raadt. and has NOTHING to do with FreeBSD.

Apple does not claim Darwin as a branch of OpenBSD, where did you
hear such nonsense? You are misinformed.

"And then, what ever Apple did with Darwin, only Apple knows. So
even if an exploit were found in Darwin, it likely wouldn't be in OS-X,
would most likely not be found in OpenBSD, and almost certainly
would not be found in FreeBSD."

Um, the exploit IS a FreeBSD exploit, so, far from "almost certainly not
[to] be found in FreeBSD," it is DEFINITELY to be found in FreeBSD.

But again, Darwin is not, nor ever was, based on OpenBSD.

FYI, OpenBSD was founded in 1995 by Theo de Raadt after he was
asked to resign as senior developer of the NetBSD team, earlier in
1994. It forked DIRECTLY from NetBSD 1.0.
Development of FreeBSD, on the other hand, began in 1993 as a fork
from 386BSD. Due to legal concerns surrounding the use of certain
code in the 386BSD release, the FreeBSD project reengineered code
from the 4.4BSDLite release from Berkeley, to assure that no AT&T
code remained in the OS.

Again, notice that at no point did either FreeBSD or OpenBSD fork
from one another. They were completely independent.
Not gonna happen.
See if you get that type of transparency and responsiveness from MS

Have you ever read a patch report from Microsoft? I doubt it.
0 Votes
+ -
Hey
DannyO_0x98 Updated - 2nd Dec 2009
Someone on ZDNet actually notices that FreeBSD exists and you have to
use the occasion to ding Microsoft?

Crime in Italy. If you want to work those OS Wars chops, here's the sound
byte: "FreeBSD-tards, that's why I use OpenBSD - Theophile."
Alternatively, "FreeBSD is dead, Jim," if you believe in the classics.

Since I'm the only user on my FreeBSD box, I'll defer action until the final
patch is published. That might be a good time to bump from 7.2 to 8.0.

0 Votes
+ -
I concur
El Condor 2nd Dec 2009
This article has nothing to do with MS. I was a bit astonished at first, reading about an eploit for FreeBSD but then I remembered all those other devices in the home now intuned to the computer. Washer/Dryer combos, The old fridge, microwave, and yes your top 'o tha line "Intrusion Detection Devices" (huh burglar alarm)
0 Votes
+ -
You're absolutely right...
Hallowed are the Ori 2nd Dec 2009
... because Microsoft usually releases security patches BEFORE an exploit is available, not afterwards.

0 Votes
+ -
Really?
Wintel BSOD 2nd Dec 2009
lol...

That's pretty funny.
0 Votes
+ -
Can't get that kind of response from linux either
Loverock Davidson 2nd Dec 2009
and this is why I always recommend the BSD's for any type of unix environment.
0 Votes
+ -
well, of course not
Mitch 74 2nd Dec 2009
On most Linux systems, rtld is provided through GNU glibc's rtld implementation - which doesn't have the bug.

Now, why is this patch so open? As said in the article, it's because an exploit was in-the-wild, and the security problem has been openly discussed - so time was of the essence.

You don't really believe that Linux (it's a KERNEL, not an OS) developers don't do the same in that situation, do you? Or is it GNU you want to bash?
The best part is that the FreeBSD was aware of this issue and a patch was made immediately. They didn't deny it, didn't try to cover it up, the acknowledged it. If this was linux the fanboys would be denying it existed and blame it on some 3rd party application. Another thing if it was linux, you would have to recompile the whole system and waste days on a patch that should only require minutes to install. This is why FreeBSD is superior to linux in every way. It feels and acts like an operating system as a whole, not just a bunch of patches taped together ready to fall off at any time. It also has a panel of people that work on it and decides what goes in and what stays out instead of just one dictator.

FreeBSD: The power to serve!

For your reading pleasure:
http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php

And my personal favorite on why BSD is superior to linux:
http://fbsdvslin.mortencb.cx/index2.php
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks keeping things in check Lovehog!
D T Schmitz 2nd Dec 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Here's what you don't have Windows Folks: Source Code
D T Schmitz Updated - 2nd Dec 2009
Until MS changes their ways you'll be sucking wind through a big straw every time something needs fixing. They'll get to it when they see fit.

Transparency: 0

Enjoy your new service pack: Windows 7.

P.S. Someone else is on the same wavelength:

"When you dance with the devil, you wait for the song to stop."

http://www.serverwatch.com/eur/article.php/3850401/FreeBSD-Shines-While-Apple-Fails.htm
0 Votes
+ -
Source Code? Who cares...
Narg 2nd Dec 2009
Who care's about the source code. MS knows their systems forward and backwards. They do not panic when problems are found. Instead they work like professionals and fix it as quickly and effeciently as possible. THEN they test it ad-nausium before release, which doesn't happen a lot in the Linux world, where patches are usually followed with even more patches to fix the fixes.
0 Votes
+ -
AAAAAAMMMMMEEENNN....but shhhhh
TheBottomLineIsAllThatMatters 2nd Dec 2009
the real geek thinks the general populace cares...you know like the goof at the bar with blond bomb-shell, everyone around knows that's not going to happen, but hey it's great entertainment and we admire the courage - somewhat.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Amen x2
Cylon Centurion 2nd Dec 2009
NT
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
FreeBSD is not Linux
macgroover 2nd Dec 2009
NT
0 Votes
+ -
By no means does MSFT perform all this highly professional due diligence you describe. On the contrary: their code base has become such a hopeless hairball, they don't understand their own code anymore. They haven't for years.

Just to make things worse, they now outsource much of the work to India, to programmers who were never involved in the original Windows NT or 2000 development in the first place.

So no, they do not "work like professionals", and yes, they have released patches that were followed by a patch to the patch -- just as you accuse Linux of doing.

How could you forget this? Don't you remember the "Patch Tuesdays" that were followed with another patch during the week, before the next Tuesday? I remember.
0 Votes
+ -
Whoopdy freaking do...who cares...only geeks
TheBottomLineIsAllThatMatters 2nd Dec 2009
which I admit I'm one and like to look at code when I have time or just curious and I like that but out of a group of 10 - your lucky to get one. Which why I laugh my butt off at the people that throw that up...shows they have no grip on the business or general user community.
0 Votes
+ -
Looks skywards...
jeremychappell 2nd Dec 2009
Having the source code is useful, even if you can't read it. Why?
Because pretty much anything you want to do with the product
somebody (somewhere) will also want to do, and the source code
means they can (even if you can't) so it'll happen. With closed source
products you better hope your wishes for the system are common, and
the code's maintainer sees the merit of them.

Compare with Microsoft's "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea" -
you're not a PC (you're a person) and Windows 7 wasn't your idea.

Now sure, if you're an "ordinary" user with no special wants or needs
this might not seem like a big deal...
Could not understand a thing you said. Totally incoherent!
0 Votes
+ -
Source code is meaningless
Cylon Centurion 2nd Dec 2009
to about 90-95% of computer users out there.

Not all of us want to sit behind a PC reading lines of code. Life is too short for that.
Life is too short, but you are too young to have an appreciation for that.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Give it a rest
El Condor 2nd Dec 2009
Again, blasting MS has "NOTHING" do do with this article.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh, but you're wrong....
mgp3 Updated - 2nd Dec 2009
...blasting MS has "NOTHING" do do with this article.

Au contraire. In the teeny tiny minds of the ABMers, every article is an opportunity to bash MS. I mean, did you know Microsoft was responsible for World Wars I and II, not to mention Chernobyl, and 9/11? That's only a few of the things they can dream up in their small minds to use to bash Microsoft.

Funny, though. They spend so much time in the Microsoft blogs bashing Microsoft, yet you'd think that they'd actually try to discuss topics at hand in blogs that are not MS related. Can YOU say "obsession"? Sure you can.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
...you'd be changing the subject to Linux, just like you all have done many times before.

That 'puny' 1% desktop market really occupies a lot of space in your heads, now doesn't it... wink
0 Votes
+ -
Irrelevant for most
notsofast 2nd Dec 2009
Because 99% of the people using linux don't spend their time combing through source.

And i do enjoy 7. Blows *nix away for usability all day long. *nix is for servers, developers and some admins, not mainstream computing.

0 Votes
+ -
Haven't had one. Ever!
windozefreak 2nd Dec 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Well that's you
Wintel BSOD 3rd Dec 2009
Are you everybody?

lol...
0 Votes
+ -
setuid is at the core of this problem. It is
the single most stupid design decision in any *nix -
and unfortunately it exists in all *nix'es, BSDs, OSX
and Linux.

Is is necessitated by the fact that *nix operating
systems are born with inadequate and too coarse
grained permission structures.

In BSDs and Linux you cannot secure individual system
functions (unless you bolt something like apparmor on
top). So instead of securing system functions admins
use utilities which will invoke very privileged
instructions. And then they "setuid" those utilities
to execute with root privileges - regardless of
who invokes them.

Problem is

1) admins never has a central directory/repository
where they can exactly what rights a user possesses.
Instead the rights are buried inside executable code.

2) the utilities become the weak links. If the utility
experiences a buffer overflow or somehow is tricked
into loading malicious code (happened recently), that
malicious code will run with root privileges .
Game over.

setuid has been known to have these (and other)
problems for a long time. Unfortunately the Nix
heritage with coarse-grained me-us-everyone security
permissions which can only protect file system objects
is so inadequate that setuid is still needed.

Thank god that Windows has proper ACLs and that system
functions can be secured regardless of which object
is executing . In windows an executable can
never execute with higher privileges than the
executing user.
0 Votes
+ -
Points well taken but Linux has ACLs
D T Schmitz 2nd Dec 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Linux ACLs are bolted on to the top
honeymonster 2nd Dec 2009
They are not integrated into the OS. The result is
that all kinds of issues crop up, especially when
you use them on a network. And they still cannot
be used to protect system functions, can they?

User interfaces tend to not honor ACLs. And this
goes deep into many applications. And even if they
do, ACLs appear parallel to the usual me-us-
everyone *nix access rights.
0 Votes
+ -
nt
0 Votes
+ -
And then we have UAC 'bolted' on top
Wintel BSOD Updated - 2nd Dec 2009
And then he complains about AppArmor?

So he really has no argument when it comes to security other than spreading FUD around.
do you?

User Account Control is actually integrated
with the operating system. The integrity
levels (on which UAC is based) leverage the
existing capabilities of the Windows OS to have
a security token - complete with ACLs -
assigned to each process .

You see, a Windows process always had
the capability to execute with a more limited
set of permissions than those of the launching
user. UAC ties nicely into this.

While UAC was introduced later, it was
introduced on an architecture which was already
extensible. When UAC denies an operation it is
not some new code bolted on, it is simply the
existing code checking the security token and
denying access like it has always done.

Now compare to apparmor which was
bolted on after the fact. Indeed it
required a whole new set of hooks to be
compiled in.

Linus himself wasn't too fond of the idea
because it also is a great way for
rootkits to take complete control of a system
while providing easy hooks to mask itself from
results. Instead of code within the kernel
doing the actual security checks, the hooks
calls out to external code, yielding
high-risk interception points. Windows has no
such stupid hooks.

Apparmor breaks any idea of good design.
Instead of a layered design where you have a
deterministic code path through the most
critical parts of the system you now have
introduced calls back out. There's no way of
assessing what the called code can/will do.
Even if it is not malicious it may contain
critical vulns.

And that's the difference: UAC is integrated
with a declarative and transparent
security system where the capabilities is all
but evident. Apparmor is an opaque "trust me"
band-aid on an insufficient architecture which
was never designed with granular security in
mind.
0 Votes
+ -
I know in Vista, it bothers the end user so much
Wintel BSOD Updated - 3rd Dec 2009
...that many of 'em turn it off. Regardless of biased, Micro$oft-paid studies to the contrary.

You see, a Windows process always had
the capability to execute with a more limited
set of permissions than those of the launching
user. UAC ties nicely into this.


"Always had"? Oh really? You mean those weak-a$$ user accounts they had in XP, Win2000 and before? The kind where you can't download anything or do anything unless you logged out and logged back in as an admin? The kind of setup where the majority of home systems had people logging in as their admins by default?

Wow, some capability... lol...

While UAC was introduced later, it was
introduced on an architecture which was already
extensible.


Well if it was so "already extensible", why wasn't it introduced back in 1995-2000?

Don't tell me it was too complicated, they didn't know how to... shocked

When UAC denies an operation it is
not some new code bolted on, it is simply the
existing code checking the security token and
denying access like it has always done.


It's a bolt-on band-aid tool they put on there because XP was an open sieve attracting malware and the like, so they had to do something short of switching to a new kernel and a new file system.

They wasted three years on Longhorn and had to come up with something idiotic for the end user to have to contend with. I consider UAC to be about as big an add-on as Ready-Boost, only not as easily removable. wink

Now compare to apparmor which was
bolted on after the fact. Indeed it
required a whole new set of hooks to be
compiled in.


So?

Linus himself wasn't too fond of the idea
because it also is a great way for
rootkits to take complete control of a system
while providing easy hooks to mask itself from
results. Instead of code within the kernel
doing the actual security checks, the hooks
calls out to external code, yielding
high-risk interception points. Windows has no
such stupid hooks.


Oh and so 'we're' speaking for Linus now are 'we'? Is that it?

And so what documented evidence do you have to show that this scenario you have described has actually occurred?

And how are you defining external code vs. internal code in this context? It's seems to me even UAC, bolted on after the fact, is now a part of the code. The difference is in the intent and why it was placed there to begin with.

Apparmor breaks any idea of good design.
Instead of a layered design where you have a
deterministic code path through the most
critical parts of the system you now have
introduced calls back out. There's no way of
assessing what the called code can/will do.
Even if it is not malicious it may contain
critical vulns.


That means absolutely nothing. Again, show me where this is supposed to be an issue.

And that's the difference: UAC is integrated
with a declarative and transparent
security system where the capabilities is all
but evident.


Garbage. That's nothing more than a sales pitch to tell us all how good it's supposed to be. If it was as really as good as you say, Vista wouldn't have needed so many security patches over the last three years.

Apparmor is an opaque "trust me"
band-aid on an insufficient architecture which
was never designed with granular security in
mind.


If you have proof that it doesn't work, then please show us. Never mind the opaque pseudo-analysis you've given here.
0 Votes
+ -
Ha! Off topic INDEED!
mgp3 2nd Dec 2009
If you want to see "off topic", look at the first talkback on this very thread.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Good catch
honeymonster 2nd Dec 2009
How ironic indeed. Thanks for illuminating the
double standards!
0 Votes
+ -
Except...
WarhavenSC 2nd Dec 2009
In windows an executable can never execute with higher privileges than the executing user.

Excepting a buffer overflow attack on a Windows service which would elevate your privileges to Local System for any arbitrary code or program you should then choose to execute, of course.
0 Votes
+ -
Just curious as the underpinnings are BSD based?
0 Votes
+ -
Hard to Say
mejohnsn 2nd Dec 2009
Mac OS X is based on Darwin, which in turn is partially based on FreeBSD.

So it will take a little work to figure out whether or not this exploit applies to Darwin as well.
0 Votes
+ -
Um, no
DeusExMachina 2nd Dec 2009
OSX is NOT, nor has it EVER been based on freeBSD. You are gravely
mistaken.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually ...
mheartwood 3rd Dec 2009
OS-X is definitely based on Darwin. Even Apple doesn't deny that. Darwin is a branch of OpenBSD. OpenBSD is a branch of FreeBSD.

However, the split between OpenBSD and FreeBSD occurred a very long time ago. This exploit didn't appear until well after that split. In fact, this exploit didn't appear in earlier versions (i.e. FreeBSD 6.2) of FreeBSD so it's a very new exploit.

The split between Darwin and OpenBSD was also quite extreme and so even if such an exploit were found in either today, it would likely not appear in the other.

And then, what ever Apple did with Darwin, only Apple knows. So even if an exploit were found in Darwin, it likely wouldn't be in OS-X, would most likely not be found in OpenBSD, and almost certainly would not be found in FreeBSD. These cousins are now far to distant from each other to catch each other's exploits.
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry, no
DeusExMachina 3rd Dec 2009
Open BSD is NOT a branch of FreeBSD. OpenBSD is a branch of NetBSD
1.0, by Theo de Raadt. and has NOTHING to do with FreeBSD.

Apple does not claim Darwin as a branch of OpenBSD, where did you
hear such nonsense? You are misinformed.

"And then, what ever Apple did with Darwin, only Apple knows. So
even if an exploit were found in Darwin, it likely wouldn't be in OS-X,
would most likely not be found in OpenBSD, and almost certainly
would not be found in FreeBSD."

Um, the exploit IS a FreeBSD exploit, so, far from "almost certainly not
[to] be found in FreeBSD," it is DEFINITELY to be found in FreeBSD.

But again, Darwin is not, nor ever was, based on OpenBSD.

FYI, OpenBSD was founded in 1995 by Theo de Raadt after he was
asked to resign as senior developer of the NetBSD team, earlier in
1994. It forked DIRECTLY from NetBSD 1.0.
Development of FreeBSD, on the other hand, began in 1993 as a fork
from 386BSD. Due to legal concerns surrounding the use of certain
code in the 386BSD release, the FreeBSD project reengineered code
from the 4.4BSDLite release from Berkeley, to assure that no AT&T
code remained in the OS.

Again, notice that at no point did either FreeBSD or OpenBSD fork
from one another. They were completely independent.
0 Votes
+ -
Should be interesting
jakenhauser23 2nd Dec 2009
As a Mac user I have been waiting to see if this issue will affect OS X. As I understand it the Darwin kernel in based on FreeBSD, but there are also reports that the OS X Kernel is actually a Hybrid Kernel developed by Apple from FreeBSD. Apple has been mum at this point, but I have been checking some apple sites to see if there will be any information or a patch disclosed. I would imagine there is a patch forth coming.
Apple has been mum at this point

That probably means OS X is immune. Every time
there has been an issue with OS X, Apple is very
quick to admit it.

/sarcasm
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Probably true, but who knows
jakenhauser23 2nd Dec 2009
I hope you're right. I am assuming that OS X is immune, but you know
what happens when you assume!!
0 Votes
+ -
Again with your useless, misinformed posts
DeusExMachina Updated - 2nd Dec 2009
If you had something useful or informative to say, you would have told
the OP that OSX is not based on the freeBSD kernel. But you wouldn't
know that, because you don't know what you are talking about.

I don't know why people insist on perpetuating this myth that OS X is
based on the freeBSD kernel. The kernel at the heart of OSX is XNU,
based on Mach, with some BSD components. While it's true that a lot
of the userland command line tools in OS X are taken directly from
FreeBSD, this has nothing to do with the kernel space. Once you jump
over the system call barrier, XNU is a very different animal.

Nor does XNU use Mach as a microkernel. Xnu is a essentially a
monolithic kernel. The Mach code takes care of inter-process
communication, virtual memory, preemptive multi-tasking, etc.. The
BSD codebase of XNU handles user ids, file permissions, TCP/IP stack,
sockets, filesystems.

But please try to respond to this post so you can highlight your
ignorance of OSX (and OSes in general) even more.
0 Votes
+ -
Insulting
jakenhauser23 3rd Dec 2009
That's because it is, it even shows the BSD kernel loaded in in activity monitor. I also said that the kernel is a hybrid. Look at the Apple support sites for Darwin which is the base for OS X and they all say that the kernel is based on Mach and FreeBSD.
"This fully-conformant UNIX operating system?built on Mach 3.0 and FreeBSD 5"


http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/%5C%22http://www.opensource.apple.com%5C%22


Straight from Apples Developer Website, maybe you should get your facts straight instead of insulting people.

0 Votes
+ -
Aww, widdle feelings hurt?
Wintel BSOD 3rd Dec 2009
He didn't deny OS X didn't have components that were based on FreeBSD, but you make it sound like a total clone of it.

It's all a matter of degree...

Now if you believe that vulnerability affects OS X, then please share that with us. K? You'd be doing the Apple fanboys a big favor.
0 Votes
+ -
Damned right it is
DeusExMachina Updated - 3rd Dec 2009
Am I concerned about insulting trolls like NZ? Not in the slightest. He
has nothing useful to contribute to the discussion, and simply trolls
the board for mac posts so he can post garbage.
Now as to your misinformed rejoinder. There is a significant difference
between claiming that OSX is based on the FreeBSD microkernel, and
stating that is uses parts of the code base. The FreeBSD microkernel is
NOT part of OSX. The OSX kernel is not a microkernel, it is a
macrokernel based on Mach, NOT FreeBSD. It has FreeBSD
components bolted on to provide functions not originally present in
Mach. Neither is implemented as a microkernel.
All one needs to know to know that OSX is NOT based on FreeBSD is
that it is POSIX compliant. FreeBSD is not. AGAIN XNU does NOT use a
freeBSD microkernel. Period.
What OSX DOES do is utilize FreeBSD's virtual file system, network
stack and components of its userspace. THIS IS NOT THE FREEBSD
MICROKERNEL!!!

"it even shows the BSD kernel loaded in in activity monitor. "

Oh really? Please post the line from activity monitor where it shows
the FreeBSD microkernel running.

"Straight from Apples Developer Website, maybe you should get your
facts straight instead of insulting people."

Maybe you should try to understand what it says in the sites you cite
before calling people out.

P.S. I have no idea why you chose to post the second link, a page to
various mailing lists. What was your point?

P.P.S. Many different OSes have code based originally in FreeBSD,
including Linux. Are you claiming that Linux is based on FreeBSD?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix