Slashdot Mirror
Defending Open Source Security
dpilgrim writes "DevX's A. Russell Jones as thrown down the gauntlet, questioning the security of Open Source software. I've picked up the gauntlet and
posted a response over on the O'Reilly Network. As previously
discussed on /. Jones' comments are too controversial to ignore."
Nice article!
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
.. one example of which is This will happen because the open source model, which lets anyone modify source code and sell or distribute the results, virtually guarantees that someone, somewhere, will insert malicious code into the source. Yes as we all know, *anyone* is free to modify the source code, and then sell or distribute it, and we're all such trusting souls. Only this morning I chmod +x'ed and executed a binary (as root) which I had earlier accepted from a kindly stranger. More FUD methinks..
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
The responder's best point is the last; if you trust software from some unknown project or company, who knows what you're getting. But trusting in major players, such as Apache, you can be at least as sure (if not more so) that you're getting good, stable, secure software as anything shipped from Redmond.
I fail to see how his logic works.
Because I can view the source code and change the source code, I can introduce a flaw. Yet it would be far less likely for a for-profit closed source project to be swayed by some sort of ulterior motive to include a flaw, because we have seen exactly how ethical and steadfast corporations are in this modern day and age.
It seems that he doesn't acknowledge that the aspect that makes open source secure is that it's hard to have a unified, systematic, malevolent agenda due to the extensive peer review inherit in the system. People who have different agendas or motives than you will be viewing your changes.
While his hypothesized scenario is certainly possible, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a bane.
Slashdot is feeding the troll. Just because the original article claims to be a balanced warning into OSS, a little research shows all his points to be wrong.
Just another journalist trying to make a story people - move along.
Let's see.. the most (un)likely way is that someone hacks a host server, mods the code and then updates the MD5 sums. Stupid. All major Open Source software know how to protect their codebases by holding offline checksums and isolated codebases. This is too unrealistic to happen these days, if you actually care about verifying what you just downloaded and are about to compile.
Instead, the security breach will be placed into the open source software from inside, by someone working on the project.
Laughable. Aboslutely ridiculous !! Can this not happen in closed source environments ? A disgruntled employee perhaps ? I'm sure the article writer would say "but there is quality control, peer review.." I suppose that never happens in Open Source.. I mean, how can we actually review the code when it's publicly available. Oh, that's right.. we can. Open Source peer review is brutal at the best of times !
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
So GNU/Linux source has been out for decades. Windows source has never been out except recently. Shall we do an exploits in the wild count? Note the in the wild part. It is a distinction that anti-virus researchers make as their are some pretty nasty computer virusses that have only been spotted in their labs, not on peoples pc's.
Every now and then some idiot is going to stand up and proclaim something really stupid. Instead of gently leading that person to proper care and attention in the form of a straight jacket and handfull of pills people print their ravings.
This guy is one of them. Opensource vs closed source means very little when it comes to security. Big holes can and have been found in both. What matters is how you respond to those holes. Opensource GNU/Linux is pretty fast. Closed source Microsoft is goddamn slow. So? MS is hardly the only closed source company. If someone ever post figures on the commercial unixes or OS's like symbian and shows the same terrible performance as MS then I will be impressed.
So far all the MS exploits prove is that they have some pretty sloppy working methods in redmond. Not that closed source itself is bad. If all closed source projects have the same track record as MS then it will be news. They don't.
HOWEVER, opensource has proven itself. Countless projects use it, linux kernel, gnu toolset, kde and gnome and all the other desktops, tron the os blueprint from japan, apache, mysql and postgress and the berkely databases, bsd even though it is dying and countless others.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
First off, Malicious hackers have day jobs.
Lots of times they are professional programmers that like to play "games" on the weekends and in the evening.
MS's source code is like a prostitute. It's gets around and around to whoever has the money to afford it. To say that it never fell into the hands of a "bad man" even thru legitamate means is foolish.
People spend months and months researching and setting up specific attacks. Sometimes the stakes are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars when it comes to corporate espinoge and trade secrets.
Now most hardcore hackers even if they do have access to the source code definately isn't going to advertise it on warez sites and post their findings on slashdot. Their time is worth money/fame/insane pride to them too.
This latest release of the windows source to warez-style groups is definately NOT the first or the last time the source code to your programs is aviable to people you don't trust.
In Open source:
The developers have the source. The crackers have the source. YOU have the source.
In Closed source:
The developers have the source. The crackers have at least partial access to the source. Your screwed.
It may be a subtle difference, but also think about this:
How many discruntled employees piss in their bosses coffee? Or at least spit? Or use stale water(If they are pussies)?
Now how many programmers are entirely "there"?
Do you want your application to be the pissing ground for angry employees? Can you tell?
No of course not, their have been plenty of cases of otherwise perfectly good programs having security holes and backdoors planted in them by programmers.
You think it's going to stop because Bill Gates says it isn't so?
and /., can you stop reporting this, it's basically one huge troll & it only encourages people like him.
btw Mr. Jones, the choice isn't open vs. closed, it's open vs. possibly leaked. yah. nice. please go away.
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
As previously discussed on /. Jones' comments are too controversial to ignore.
On the contrary, this type of comments are the ones you have to ignore. It is simply mindless, fact defying -1 troll.
I mean, when you see after a quick glance that author obviously did the research and ignored all the facts that didn't support his thesis, there's nothing you can tell him that will make him apologise, admit to mistake or sth like this.
When you see additional rhetorical manipulations (e.g. things that are insinuated but not stated straight, guilt by assosiation, or proof by analogy) you already know, that the point of the article was purposeful manipulation.
For some people operating systems, computer vendors, open vs close source, GPL vs BSD are religious matters and you don't want to get into discussing beliefs with religious fanatic.
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
"Fact" #1 doesn't say anything about the relative security. Linux also continues to get better. It started better and has stayed better. Windows started from crap security and has gotten slightly better.
"Fact" #2 is (a) wrong, and (b) a non-argument. It is wrong because even as root it is not as easy to unintentionally screw things up as it is in Windows, which does so many things automatically without user knowledge so as to not "inconvenience" the user with "unimportant" details. It is certainly not less secure than Windows.
It is a non-argument because it basically says "If you use Linux insecurely, it will be insecure." It's like saying a car with a bunch of anti-theft devices is just as (or more) insecure as one with none because if you leave it running with the keys in it and doors open, someone could steal it.
"Fact" #3 has been tried and refuted many times. It is not secure because it is not as common. There's been a variety of analyses to prove this wrong. The obvious one is that Linux and Unix are used far more than Windows on servers, and yet server attacks are still more common on Windows.
At some point you have to check your "facts" before calling them facts.
Fact #3: Since Apache/linux run 66% of the webservers, you'd think that there would be many more exploits for Apache than for MS's competing product, based on your reasoning.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
> Now that the MS source for NT 4 and Win2k is "out there"
Which suggests the argument that even if your code isn't "Open Source" it may still be "open source", so even if source availability is a security handicap, the field may still be more level than closed source shops would like to think.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I realize I'm preaching to the choir, but here goes:
So far, major Linux distributions such as Debian and others have been able to discover and remedy attacks on their core source-code servers. The distributions point to the fact that they discovered and openly discussed these breaches as evidence that their security measures work. Call me paranoid, but such attacks, however well handled, serve to raise the question of whether other such attacks have been more successful (in other words, undiscovered).
And do closed-source companies that sell server software of any kind advertise when they themselves get breached? He raises the question of other undiscovered attacks, but he forgets to point out that Debian discussed its attack publicly because part of the open source model is "open". This same shit happens to closed source companies, they just don't tell anyone about it. The real question here isn't whether or not Debian was breached in undiscovered fashion. It's whether or not we'd even know if a closed organization was breached, and his question of the purity of the source code is even more pertinent to a closed organization than to an open one. That's what 'open' is all about.
Therefore, security problems for governments begin with knowing which distributions they can trust.
Security problems for governments exist because of negligence, for the most part. More below.
This (hopefully potential) problem isn't limited to open source software, but open source certainly has far fewer inherent barriers than commercial software. The easier it is to access the source code, alter it, and then recompile it for custom uses, the more likely that it will happen--and then you have no security. Any security checks performed on the software before the source is delivered are invalid.
Ok, he needs a lesson in reading comprehension, or he needs to hire a lawyer to interpret the GPL for him. Because as we all know, and love, the GPL requires that the source used to make the binary you have just distributed be made available to the person you gave it to. So let's say I fork RedHat and patch it with backdoors and crap. Then I sell it to, hmm, let's say the FBI, and they go to implement it. Since the FBI is well-known for security procedures (ha!), they decide they want to check the binary I gave them against the source I gave them. (Of course, I gave them the source without the patches) So they ask me what compiler I used, and what build tools I used, flags and so forth. I tell them. They compile the source I gave them and compare it to the binary, and I'm in trouble. I've committed copyright infringement, and we all know from years of FBI warnings what that means exactly. The simple fact is, he's trying to apply security policies that shouldn't be applied in an environment that requires the level of security he describes. What kind of FBI security policy would approve the use of open source without requiring it to be audited? Furthermore, what kind of government organization would purchase mission-critical software from a no-name company? Especially when there are a few reputable large companies available to give it to them.
He ignores the GPL quite blatantly here, and that is the government's insurance that the binary they run will be as secure as they can make it.
Open source software goes through rigorous security testing, but such testing serves only to test known outside threats. The fact that security holes continue to appear should be enough to deter governments from jumping on this bandwagon, but won't be. Worse though, I don't think that security testing can be made robust enough to protect against someone injecting dangerous code into the software from the inside--and inside, for open source, means anyone who cares to join the project or create their own distribution.
MOst of this paragraph is doubly true about closed source companies because they are closed. An open company is subject
Like what I said? You might like my music
It's like fighting a war where we simply re-win the same outpost over and over again, and never make progress. Why?
Because the damned fools think that they're making a valid arguement when they're simply spitting out the same FUD over and over. Now, if they were to refute previously made refutations, further arguement can be made.
However, that would require them to be able to find something to refute our arguements with. Esentially, "Your guns are too big, so we'll back down and make this point again later." Urg.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
and illustrated by one quote from the article:
To limit their vulnerability, governments can't afford to give everyone a choice, nor can they afford to provide access to the source code for their software.
This has been the age-old cry of dictators and despots everywhere: "We are restricting the rights and freedoms of the populace for their own good!"
And it has never turned out to be true.
This is too conservative.... it was in the 19th century that this became accepted. It's known as "Kerckhoff's Principle." From Wikipedia:
Okay, here's my take on the situation:
It's far easier for a hacker to write a worm if he has access to ALL the source code that powers the internet. He can exploit, say, Linux boxes that run Apache to spread a worm because he found a flaw in the source code.
Yes sure, the flaw will be patched within days, hours or even minutes, but the damage will be done, albeit limited.
A patch is usually made AFTER the exploit is found, not before. You'd have to have an amazing auditing system in place in order to make 100% secure code. In my opinion, writing 100% secure code is impossible.
Microsoft tries to hide behind closed source hoping that by keeping the code closed nobody can easily detect a flaw and exploit it. The major problem with that philosophy is that the damage will be devastating were the code to be leaked...
Open Source = limited damage
Closed Source = ticking timebomb
Yuioup