Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Dept. of Defense Creates Its Own Sourceforge

Posted by Soulskill on from the sharing-their-toys dept.

mjasay writes "The US Department of Defense, which has been flirting with open source for years as a way to improve software quality and cut costs, has finally burst the dam on Defense-related open-source adoption with Forge.mil, an open-source code repository based on Sourceforge. Though it currently only holds three projects and is limited to DoD personnel for security reasons, all code is publicly viewable and will almost certainly lead to other agencies participating on the site or creating their own. Open source has clearly come a long way. Years ago studies declared open source a security risk. Now, one of the most security-conscious organizations on the planet is looking to open source to provide better security than proprietary alternatives."

8 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. ~obscurity = security? by rlseaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Denigrating the concept of security through obscurity is not the same as claiming the inverse holds. This should be an interesting experiment in whether subjecting code to an early phase of public hazing reduces security holes and risks of all sorts.

    1. Re:~obscurity = security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have an unusual definition of security. Let me tell you a few ways that having an obscured login name does not make you secure:

      Insecure server or service: By virtue of running a machine connected to the internet with an open port attached to a program, you are opening a potential security risk.

      If you can't find and login then obscurity does equal security

      You presume that login credentials and IP addresses are "unfindable". Warrants, interrogation, torture, greased palms, all of these things can easily circumvent the fact that one does not know information about your machine _right now_.

      Obscurity always sucks. There are plenty of easy ways to provide security without having to rely on the fact that a second party does not know easily found information.

    2. Re:~obscurity = security? by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK, you missed the entire point of the maxim "Security != Obscurity".

      It is a truism. The point is this: any secrets will eventually be leaked, whether you know it or not. Things that are easy to change, such as keys and passwords, are relatively low risk. Things that are very difficult to change, such as algorithms, are very high risk.

      If you count on the fact that your crypto algorithm or operating system is secure because its obscure, then when its leaked you will be facing a catastrophic disaster. Instead of losing the data on one communication or one server, you face a organization wide vulerability, and compromise of past communications.

      The extra security gained from keeping the algorithms secret pales in comparison to the disaster of having them be weak.
      Getting as many eyes on this type of code as possible is the best way to mitigate risk.

      After that, you still keep as much secret as possible.

    3. Re:~obscurity = security? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing the point. Good processes are hard to come up with. Pick a good process that has some well-defined unknown, something that you need to keep safe, and you're assured that no one will break your security. Pick a bad process, and someone may tell you.

      If you keep your process a secret, on the other hand, you have a host of unknowns - unknowns you do not know - that may provide someone access to your system. The point is, relying on a variety of ill-defined unknowns is inferior to relying on a single, well-defined unknown.

    4. Re:~obscurity = security? by mazarin5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point of it is that things like "Oh don't worry, nobody would think to look at /admin.pl so there's no point in putting a password on it" is not a good idea. Of course something has to be unknown or inaccessible for good security - that's not the same thing as claiming your system is secure when you're just hoping somebody doesn't notice a gaping flaw.

      There's nothing wrong with obscurity in a secure system, but obscurity alone is not genuine security.

      --
      Fnord.
  2. Huh? by RDW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it's 'limited to DoD personnel for security reasons' in what sense is it 'Open'?

  3. I hope this is a fishing site by yorkshiredale · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clicked through the site a little to the 'PKI Online Training' section, and I'm informed that I must :

    1. enable flash

    2. enable cookies

    3. enable javascript

    4. disable pop-up blocking

    I desperately hope this is a scam, since the alternative possibility is just frightening

    --
    The opinions expressed here are those of this individual, and may not reflect the policy or practice of the collective
  4. Re:forgemil.com? by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But wait, there's more!

    DefenseLink is a DoD site that lists all DoD sites. Forge.mil(.com) is not on that list. Of course, it could be bureaucracy acting slow.

    Second, WHOIS contact connects to an individual at collab.net, another sourceforge-like site. Were this a government site, I would think they would have it registered to a position in a department, or at least a c/o address for a military/goverment institution, not an individual.

    Just to be sure, popping the given address into Google Maps returns what looks like a residential area.

    So this is either a horribly managed project (not surprising for the government), or some weird scam of sorts.