Not discrediting Open Source Software, but nothing is 100% safe.
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t use the term “open source”. I say free software because giving someone else control over your computing is unjust. The proprietor of the program has absolute control over how the program works and you can not change it or use alternative versions of it
Did you fabricate that CPU? Did you write that compiler? You gotta trust someone at some point. You can either trust someone because you give them money and it’s theoretically not in their interest to screw you (lol) or because they make an effort to be transparent and others (maybe you, maybe not) can verify their claims about what the software is.
IDK why, but this had me imagining someone adding malicious code to a project, but then also being highly proactive with commenting his additions for future developers.
“Here we steal the user’s identity and sell it on the black market for a tidy sum. Using these arguments…”
But eventually somebody will look and if they find something, they can just fork the code and remove anything malicious. Anyways, open source to me is not about security, but about the public “owning” the code. If code is public all can benefit from it and we don’t have to redo every single crappy little program until the end of time but can instead just use what is out there.
Especially if we are talking about software payed for by taxes. That stuff has to be out in the open (with exception for some high security stuff - I don’t expect them to open source the software used in a damn tank, a rocket or a fighter jet)- Yes, I do it occasionally
- You don’t need to. If it’s open source, it’s open to billions of people. It only takes one finding a problem and reporting it to the world
- There are many more benefits to open source: a. It future proofs the program (many old software can’t run on current setups without modifications). Open source makes sure you can compile a program with more recent tooling and dependencies rather than rely on existing binaries with ancient tooling or dependencies b. Remove reliance on developer for packaging. This means a developer may only produce binaries for Linux, but I can take it and compile it for MacOS or Windows or a completely different architecture like ARM c. It means I can contribute features to the program if it wasn’t the developer’s priority. I can even fork it if the developer didn’t want to merge it into their branch.
Regarding point 2. I get what you’re saying but I instantly thought of Heartbleed. Arguably one of the most used examples of open source in the world, but primarily maintained by one single guy and it took 2 years for someone to notice the flaw.
So believing something is „safe“ just because it is open source and „open to billions of people“ can be problematic.
Uhh… so? The NSA was sitting on the vulnerability for EternalBlue in Windows for over 5 years.
Dont understand what that has to do with the discussion so far. How is this relevant here?
No more or less relevant than heartbleed. Yes vulns exist in open source software, sometimes for a while. Being open source can lead to those vulns getting discovered and fixed quicker than with closed source.
And how does this negate my initial point that you shouldn’t trust in the security of something just because it is open source? I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
I have doubt about the Linux kernel being properly audited.
A little scary to contemplate since some of the code comes from the NSA
I’m pretty sure the code submitted by the NSA has had more people look over it than any other snippet in there.
