Slashdot Mirror
How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?
jammag writes: "Heartbleed has dealt a blow to the image of free and open source software. In the self-mythology of FOSS, bugs like Heartbleed aren't supposed to happen when the source code is freely available and being worked with daily. As Eric Raymond famously said, 'given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.' Many users of proprietary software, tired of FOSS's continual claims of superior security, welcome the idea that Heartbleed has punctured FOSS's pretensions. But is that what has happened?"
In the self-mythology of FOSS, bugs like Heartbleed aren't supposed to happen when the source code is freely available and being worked with daily.
False. Bugs can and do happen. However, what can also happen with open source software is that entities other than the group working on the project can find bugs. In this case, Google found the bug. If the source were not open, maybe it would have never been officially recognized and fixed.
That's fine with me.
Yes, we can trace the changelogs in the software & note who was checking the changes and missed them, but that all can be circumvented.
The fact is we don't know if Heartbleed was an honest mistake or not...we don't know who knew and when...we don't know alot
FOSS is nowhere in the conversation, btw...this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that this was Open Source project.
Private company's products have ridiculous security issues...comparing this to that is not helpful.
Thank you Dave Raggett
We're surrounded by tiny errors in the world. Heck, they're even built into our DNA. The vast majority of tiny little errors do no harm, and we don't notice them. We gloss over them, like a typo in a book. It's just that every once in a while, a tiny little error can occur that snowballs into something much greater. Like cancer. Or a massive, accidental security leak.
More eyeballs usually do make bugs more shallow, but only if the eyes know what to look for.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Nobody is going to discard OpenSSL due to this - the majority of people are patching systems and reminding people that security is important (a side benefit of this incident)
The next step will be when someone puts up the money for a proper code review of the OpenSSL codebase and fixes up any other issues that may exist.
It's reasonable to say that there are more people and organisations able to resolve this issue than if it were a closed source proprietary solution.
Many eyeballs may make bugs shallower, but those many eyeballs don't really exist. Source availability does not translate to many people examining that source. People, myself included, may like to build to install packages but that's it.
What we need are intelligent bots to constantly trawl source repositories looking for bugs. People just don't have the time any more.
I don't think anyone claims that open-source software won't ever have security issues. The claim is that the open-source model tends to find and correct the flaws more effectively than the closed-source model, and that the soundness of the resulting product tends to be better on average.
One case does not disprove that. The key words there are "tends" and "on average".
It's 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.
Anyone can view the source of an open source project, which means anyone can find vulnerabilities in it. Specifically, hackers wishing to exploit the software, as well as users withing to audit and fix the software. But, someone who knows what they're doing has to actually look at the source for that to matter; and this rarely happens.
Hackers must black-box closed source software to find exploits, which make it more difficult than finding them in open source software; the flip-side is that they can only by fixed by the few people who have the source. If the hacker doesn't disclose the exploit and the people with access to the code don't look for it, it goes unpatched forever.
Open source software does provide an advantage to both sides, hackers can find exploits more easily and users can fix them more easily; with closed source, you're at the mercy of the vendor to fix their code but, at the same time, it's more difficult for a hacker to find a vulnerability without access to the source.
Then, we consider how good fuzzing techniques have gotten and... well, as it becomes easier to find vulnerabilities in closed source software, open source starts to look better.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So, the "with many eyes all bugs are shallow" notion fails. There were not enough eyes on the OpenSSL library, which is why nobody discovered the bug.
Except that someone did discover the bug, when they were looking at the code because it was open source. And they did report it. And it did get fixed. Later than anyone would want of course. But it happened. Maybe the similar errors would and are being missed in the Windows and Mac implementations.
Q: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?
A: It doesn't. OSS is purported to be a *better* software development methodology. "Better" != "perfect". TFS is a troll.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
What hasn't been found in closed source software because it is too inconvenient to look?
I don't know, Microsoft got caught about being able to waltz through the password check with full spaces, which is slightly worse than forgetting to place a character limit back onto something. Admittedly the stakes are not the same, but you can check it, and enough do that it works.
It's safer in terms of checking for back doors, sloppy coding anyone can do.
If the bug was in some proprietary SSL stack, would we even have heard about it? Would it have even been fixed? Who knows. That's the WHOLE POINT...
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
This doesn't really change it, because think how a proprietary SSL library would've handled this. The vulnerability was found specifically because the source code was available and someone other than the owners went looking for problems. When was the last time you saw the source code for a piece of proprietary software available for anyone to look at? If it's available at all, it's under strict license terms that would've prevented anyone finding this vulnerability from saying anything to anyone about it. And the vendor, not wanting the PR problem that admitting to a problem would cause, would do exactly what they've done with so many other vulnerabilities in the past: sit on it and do nothing about it, to avoid giving anyone a hint that there's a problem. We'd still have been vulnerable, but we wouldn't know about it and wouldn't know we needed to do something to protect ourselves. Is that really more secure?
And if proprietary software is written so well that such vulnerabilities aren't as common, then why is it that the largest number of vulnerabilities are reported in proprietary software? And that despite more people being able to look for vulnerabilities in open-source software. In fact, being a professional software developer and knowing people working in the field, I'm fairly sure the average piece of proprietary software is of worse quality than the average open-source project. It's the inevitable effect of hiring the lowest-cost developers you can find combined with treating the fixing of bugs as a cost and prioritizing adding new features over fixing problems that nobody's complained about yet. And with nobody outside the company ever seeing the code, you're not going to be embarrassed or mocked for just how absolutely horrid that code is. The Daily WTF is based on reality, remember, and from personal experience I can tell you they aren't exaggerating. If anything, like Dilbert they're toning it down until it's semi-believable.
Closed source was always safer.
One word for you: Microsoft. Maybe two: Adobe.
Only if one buys that "security through obscurity" is a legitimate form of network safety. A decade's worth of Internet Explorer and ActiveX vulnerabilities would suggest you're wrong.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
PlUU-lease! Where is my "overrated" mods when I need them?
The NSA is why my hair has fallen out and my gut has gotten big. They're also behind the big mudslide in Washington. In fact, they are the boogeyman for EVERYTHING!
God you people get annoying.
1. Proprietary software could have a million bugs like this. You just wouldn't know it. They do not become less dangerous because they are proprietary, nor do security flaws become more dangerous because they are in open-source code.
2. Open-source software at least has the possibility of being looked at over and over. Proprietary code may be reviewed or not depending on the resources, interest, and monetization capability of that code. A possible review by all relevant coders in the world is always more review than by a limited team of programmers and analysts at one company.
3. The real problem with Heartbleed is the time that passed between code being written and a bug being discovered. That delay exacerbates the security problem. However, there will be some sort of statistical (probably Poissonian or normal) distribution of the time required to catch a bug since introduction into code. As with anything, there are outliers. Heartbleed with its serious and longstanding flaw must be considered an outlier unless shown otherwise. I have not seen evidence that this happens on a regular basis with any software, FOSS or otherwise.
I would appreciate it if future Slashdot discussions were let out through the upper orifice with some maturation period in the brain, rather than through the lower orifice after festering in the colon.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
There is plenty of evidence for the effectiveness of good code reviews, but most of it shows rapidly diminishing returns with the number of reviewers.
To me this is an argument *for* open source software. It *takes* LOTS of eyes to catch bugs, *because* there is diminishing returns by adding more code reviewers. It is only by having hundred or thousands of them that you can hope to catch those ones that would otherwise go unnoticed.
By the time you've had more than four or five people take a look, the difference in effectiveness from adding more barely even registers, unless one of the additional reviewers has some sort of unique perspective or expertise that makes them not like the others.
And one easy way to have a diverse group of code reviewers is to have a lot of them.
Given that almost every major FOSS system software project has had its share of security bugs, there is really very little evidence to support Raymond's claim at all.
Every piece of software of any reasonable size has security bugs. The fact that we know about them is because someone found them, which is exactly what is supposed to happen.
Gloat? About what? This only provides proof of the benefits of open source - a significant flaw was discovered, which is exactly the claimed advantage - the more eyes, the better.
Anyone who would claim that proprietary software is somehow more secure is making a huge leap - there are only a few eyes, if any, looking for unreported issues - so there may be even more serious issues which have existed for much longer, which only a few bad guys know about. If MS or anyone else thinks that their proprietary SSL implementation has no security breaches, let them put a guarantee with full financial liability behind that thought.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
How can you be a good chess player if you do not lose the odd game? So the opensource code got a strike against it, I am sure GNU/Opensource teams are coming back at this with a vengeance, developing better protection methods. Stuff like this will rally security teams. Sure, not all bugs/vulnerabilities can be caught, but the ones that are...will have the living s--t kicked out of it. Chalk it up to valuable experience. I am sure developers are whipping themsleves into a mea culpa frenzy. A bit of humility will go a long way to making something superior.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
Encryption is not security through obscurity. Encryption is security through rigorous openness and review.
"Security through obscurity is generally a pejorative term referring to a principle in security engineering, which attempts to use secrecy of design or implementation to provide security." The secret key in cryptography is neither design nor implementation.
Fixed within, 24 hours on 187 servers running open source openssl libraries, f and earlier versions.
I still do not have fixes for about 5 proprietary customer products, and there has been no word from 3 of them if they intend to fix them.
I have informed my customers that they should consider moving from the proprietary products IF they have the cash to do so.
I really do not see your point in asking the question.
You cannot design and build secure software to begin with.
You need to have the source code for the forseeable future now because of the world we live in.
Very very bad people are coming out of the pit and they want your infrastructure, your data and your intellectual property.
But above all, they want control of you.
Open Source can prevent a world like that from taking hold, but it cannot save a fool from his foolishness.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Sadly, straw men dominate this discussion. Thank you for seeing them for what they are.