Slashdot Mirror
Security of Open vs. Closed Source Software
morhoj writes "Cambridge University researcher Ross Anderson just released a paper concluding that open source and closed source software are equally secure. Can't find a copy of the paper online yet, but I thought this would make for an interesting morning conversation. You may not agree with him, but anyone who's on the BugTraq List can tell you that open source software isn't as bug free as we would all like to think." I found Anderson's paper, so read it for yourself. There are some other interesting papers being presented at the conference as well.
The trade-offs:
Pros:
Closed-source: No one can see your code, thus eliminating obvious exploits (buffer overflows, race conditioning, etc.) from being quickly jumped on. Less chance that an external developer will accidentally or intentionally misuse some of your libraries or otherwise write in exploitable code.
Open-source: Everyone can see your code, thus allowing a multitude of additional glass-box testers to help patch things more quickly to adapt around problems a project leader may/may not see. Quick turnaround on patching of code.
Cons:
Closed-source: Limited field of testers; slower turnaround on bug/exploit fixes when even reported (can go on unreported for months, or even when reported, may be ignored or shelved indefinitely).
Open-source: Since everyone can see your code, some black-hat punk is invariably going to find some exploit and blast your distributions for it. Also, QA is nigh impossible to timely enforce when 100's of developers submit patches, sometimes anonymously.
Opinion: Both may seem to be even; however, the timeliness of a fix can make all the difference in security, and waiting days vs. weeks or months for a patch can make or break an information-driven business. Also, even if an open-source project is patched with an exploit ingrained, there will still be a quick turnaround on patching it, as there is for any bug. IANA genius, but at least from a business standpoint, it would seem that quick and usually-reliable beats slow but usually-guaranteed.
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
One fundamental difference is that it's perfectly reasonable for a Linux distro to lock down everything by default, so that you've got to make some changes before it's usable for much of anything. (You could play solitaire if the distro included a program...) If you bought Linux, you should know or learn a bit about administering.
Windows, OTOH, starts with the assumption that a complete idiot will be installing it. If networking is crippled by default, it will probably remain crippled until the user returns the computer because it "won't do X". And it makes the almost-reasonable assumption that with an idiot setting it up and using it, the box won't contain anything worth a good cracker's time. And these assumptions are almost OK; the problem is that (1) when the box is used for something serious, it's hard for even a professional administrator to keep up with all the changes needed to make a system secure, (2) they've made the home system default so wide open that serious crackers can take over hundreds of them at a time and use them in assaults on important targets, and (3) MS is so sloppy that everything is a lot more exposed than they intended...