Slashdot Mirror


2014: The Year We Learned How Vulnerable Third-Party Code Libraries Are

jfruh writes Heartbleed, Shellshock, Poodle — all high-profile vulnerabilities in widely used libraries that rocked the software industry in 2014. Sadly, experts are now beginning to believe that these aren't the only bugs lurking out there in widely used open source code, just the ones that grabbed the most attention. It's beginning to look like one of the foundation concepts of open source — that with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow — is a myth. Of course, probably no one believes that all bugs are instantly shallow, no matter how open is the source, or that open source software is immune from bugs -- particularly ESR, coiner of the phrase.

4 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Re:But *are* there enough eyes? by antientropic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A long time ago, I saw Bertrand Meyer (the Eiffel guy) give a keynote at ICSE, where he pointed out that the "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" claim is unscientific, because it can't be falsified: if a bug is not found, people can always say that there were not enough eyeballs, so "Linus' Law" still holds.

  2. Re:not just many eyes by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The security of the open source model isn't really the problem or the answer here. The problem is homogeneity. A million different sites and applications rely on just a few libraries, so that when a bug hits one, it has massive impact on the entire internet.

    We also know that the answer isn't in rolling your own security. Very few people or organizations are likely to be able to securely implement their own version of TLS. Even the best packages of today didn't start out perfect, they had to iterate through several flaws to get to where they are today.

    So perhaps the better answer is in having more packages to choose from? Instead of picking just openssl by default, it would be better to have a broad array of choices. With a dozen packages on the market, that might mean 11 times out of 12 the bad guys wouldn't exploit our site. If the packages are interchangeable, we'd be better positioned to switch them quickly in case of emergency.

    --
    John
  3. Re:But *are* there enough eyes? by rapiddescent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    one of the issues is that there are indeed *more eyes* but they are incentivised to look for exploits and sell them to the bug-buyers rather than report or fix them. I did a hands up poll (buyer beware) at our local OWASP chapter and over half had sold a bug to such an organisation. pretty shocking.

    certainly, one of the first moderately important bugs I found, I was daft and got in touch with the software vendor and then faced legal action from them which luckily they saw sense and dropped. So many people nowadays just can't be bothered with that problem and can make a fast and low risk buck by selling the 0-day.

  4. Make that THREE other things by calidoscope · · Score: 4, Interesting

    3) Port to to multiple architectures (and OS's) to catch bugs not reported by the original build environment. This is one of the approaches OpenBSD uses to improve security and was quite common in the open source software world when ESR coined the phrase.

    The OpenBSD team found one very long lasting (30+ years) bug in the legacy BSD code when the Sparc64 build barfed.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.