Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature
-
@Pete-S said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
So the correct answer to the OPs question is "No, there is no evidence that suggests open source is more or less secure by nature".
It's the opposite. All logic, common sense, industry observation and the example you gave all show the opposite.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Closed source can be secure, but it always is at a security disadvantage as closed source is inherently harder to secure than open source.
Just arguments and no proof yet again
-
@Pete-S said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Then windows is have much more lines of code in it. Install a minimal base system and compare.
Not a minimal base system... the whole OS. Windows is around 5GB. Fedora is around 250GB. Are you not reading the examples?
-
@Pete-S said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Closed source can be secure, but it always is at a security disadvantage as closed source is inherently harder to secure than open source.
Just arguments and no proof yet again
No, we provided the proofs. Just because the closed source camp withholds the proof that you decide we need doesn't change the facts. It only supports them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Pete-S said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Closed source can be secure, but it always is at a security disadvantage as closed source is inherently harder to secure than open source.
Just arguments and no proof yet again
No, we provided the proofs. Just because the closed source camp withholds the proof that you decide we need doesn't change the facts. It only supports them.
That's a sad argument and false. You have provided zero proof, because there are none.
Just show us just one simple peer reviewed research paper that shows us that open source is more secure by nature.
PS. And I'm the open source camp btw.
-
Here's the basics....
The only side that demands a certain style of proof, is the same side that refuses to provide it - using the withholding of their chosen proof as foundation for the claim that there isn't any proof and therefore their stated "they are the same" stands until such time as they provide whatever proof they claim is required.
In the real world, we don't need that proof. All evidence, all common sense, all honest evaluation points 100% to open source being the better license for security.
There can be no "proof" in code for reasons anyone that knows anything about IT or software would know and would never need explained - because no code can be developed the same in both for comparison. We can only use logic and common sense to show what is fact, and then check that observation shows these factors to play out as expected, which Pete provided dramatic evidence to support, as an example.
There's so much proof it's no longer worth discussing. Trying to claim that there isn't overwhelming proof is absurd. The whole point is that closed source can't be trusted because it's using obscurity not only against malicious actors, but against its own clients!
-
@Pete-S said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
That's a sad argument and false. You have provided zero proof, because there are none.
YOU provided proof yourself!
-
@Pete-S said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Just show us just one simple peer reviewed research paper that shows us that open source is more secure by nature.
Show us one that isn't sponsored by a vendor or VAR that says closed source can approach open source in security.
-
The problem here is that the argument isn't something that peer review is going to tackle, because the question is akin to asking why the sky is blue. Open source is so obviously the more secure process, that's no one would understand what needs to be explained.
It's like asking for a peer review as to why locking your door is more secure than leaving it ajar. People would be flabbergasted if you asked them such a thing. As I'm shocked now.
The question is actually that you want a peer reviewed research paper showing that taking security seriously and providing mechanisms to encourage security both technically and through human/business/peer/market pressure rather than using obscurity to hide mistakes and remove pressure to be secure is more secure?
Literally the big difference between the two is "one is about promoting security, and one is about undermining it." That's what we are actually discussing.
-
Here's another great way to look at it...
The desire for a peer reviewed article to prove the point is telling. When it comes to security, you want peer review.
But that's the point of open source: peer review.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
Here's another great way to look at it...
The desire for a peer reviewed article to prove the point is telling. When it comes to security, you want peer review.
But that's the point of open source: peer review.
Just write secure code, problem solved.
-
I did find a peer reviewed paper, but it was written by Microsoft and peer reviewed by a university that they fund. And it just said that they didn't have any means by which to evaluate the two because there's no viable metric.
"In conclusion, open source does not pose any significant barriers to secu-
rity, but rather reinforces sound security practices by involving many people
that expose bugs quickly, and offers side-effects that provide customers and the
community with concrete examples of reusable, secure, and working code."However, they also came to this utterly garbage conclusion that only Microsoft could come to: "...many security attacks are independent of the source code, so neither open source or proprietary software is less secure."
So let me get this straight, Microsoft's employee claims that since many attacks come through other vectors, that code security is irrelevant anyway? That's literally what they said in the paper. So their claim is that something like the Solarwinds event is irrelevant since, for example, ransomware is common in other arenas.
-
The underlying issue is that Microsoft (or any closed source software company) aren't motivated to make their software securely, because it cost a ton of money to do that.
And instead of writing secure software, they pay for "peer reviews" saying that nothing can be secure because of other random reasons. . . .
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
I did find a peer reviewed paper, but it was written by Microsoft and peer reviewed by a university that they fund. And it just said that they didn't have any means by which to evaluate the two because there's no viable metric.
"In conclusion, open source does not pose any significant barriers to secu-
rity, but rather reinforces sound security practices by involving many people
that expose bugs quickly, and offers side-effects that provide customers and the
community with concrete examples of reusable, secure, and working code."However, they also came to this utterly garbage conclusion that only Microsoft could come to: "...many security attacks are independent of the source code, so neither open source or proprietary software is less secure."
So let me get this straight, Microsoft's employee claims that since many attacks come through other vectors, that code security is irrelevant anyway? That's literally what they said in the paper. So their claim is that something like the Solarwinds event is irrelevant since, for example, ransomware is common in other arenas.
LOL - yup, that's what I read
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
I did find a peer reviewed paper, but it was written by Microsoft and peer reviewed by a university that they fund. And it just said that they didn't have any means by which to evaluate the two because there's no viable metric.
"In conclusion, open source does not pose any significant barriers to secu-
rity, but rather reinforces sound security practices by involving many people
that expose bugs quickly, and offers side-effects that provide customers and the
community with concrete examples of reusable, secure, and working code."However, they also came to this utterly garbage conclusion that only Microsoft could come to: "...many security attacks are independent of the source code, so neither open source or proprietary software is less secure."
So let me get this straight, Microsoft's employee claims that since many attacks come through other vectors, that code security is irrelevant anyway? That's literally what they said in the paper. So their claim is that something like the Solarwinds event is irrelevant since, for example, ransomware is common in other arenas.
LOL - yup, that's what I read
Haha, it was definitely not a good thesis. It had some good points, but got lost and focused almost entirely on anything but the topic and by the end, was so distracted, that they no longer even considered the topic.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
I did find a peer reviewed paper, but it was written by Microsoft and peer reviewed by a university that they fund. And it just said that they didn't have any means by which to evaluate the two because there's no viable metric.
"In conclusion, open source does not pose any significant barriers to secu-
rity, but rather reinforces sound security practices by involving many people
that expose bugs quickly, and offers side-effects that provide customers and the
community with concrete examples of reusable, secure, and working code."However, they also came to this utterly garbage conclusion that only Microsoft could come to: "...many security attacks are independent of the source code, so neither open source or proprietary software is less secure."
So let me get this straight, Microsoft's employee claims that since many attacks come through other vectors, that code security is irrelevant anyway? That's literally what they said in the paper. So their claim is that something like the Solarwinds event is irrelevant since, for example, ransomware is common in other arenas.
LOL - yup, that's what I read
Haha, it was definitely not a good thesis. It had some good points, but got lost and focused almost entirely on anything but the topic and by the end, was so distracted, that they no longer even considered the topic.
Oh - I was only replying to your post.. not the whole paper
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
I did find a peer reviewed paper, but it was written by Microsoft and peer reviewed by a university that they fund. And it just said that they didn't have any means by which to evaluate the two because there's no viable metric.
"In conclusion, open source does not pose any significant barriers to secu-
rity, but rather reinforces sound security practices by involving many people
that expose bugs quickly, and offers side-effects that provide customers and the
community with concrete examples of reusable, secure, and working code."However, they also came to this utterly garbage conclusion that only Microsoft could come to: "...many security attacks are independent of the source code, so neither open source or proprietary software is less secure."
So let me get this straight, Microsoft's employee claims that since many attacks come through other vectors, that code security is irrelevant anyway? That's literally what they said in the paper. So their claim is that something like the Solarwinds event is irrelevant since, for example, ransomware is common in other arenas.
LOL - yup, that's what I read
Haha, it was definitely not a good thesis. It had some good points, but got lost and focused almost entirely on anything but the topic and by the end, was so distracted, that they no longer even considered the topic.
Oh - I was only replying to your post.. not the whole paper
Oh, I read the entire 22 page article. It wasn't all bad, but it was clear that no one with an understanding of the topic was involved because it basically had a tiny amount about the topic, and a huge amount lost talking about unrelated things like social engineering and investment dollars rather than the licensing.
But it was suggestive that they spent most of the paper trying to come up with excuses for why closed source was still acceptable even though all evidence and logic pointed to the contrary by trying to show that what matters is something else. And that's true, the source licensing is not the biggest factor... but it's the factor being discussed. They definitely resorted to misdirection to try to downplay a conclusion that they were aware of.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
I did find a peer reviewed paper, but it was written by Microsoft and peer reviewed by a university that they fund. And it just said that they didn't have any means by which to evaluate the two because there's no viable metric.
"In conclusion, open source does not pose any significant barriers to secu-
rity, but rather reinforces sound security practices by involving many people
that expose bugs quickly, and offers side-effects that provide customers and the
community with concrete examples of reusable, secure, and working code."However, they also came to this utterly garbage conclusion that only Microsoft could come to: "...many security attacks are independent of the source code, so neither open source or proprietary software is less secure."
So let me get this straight, Microsoft's employee claims that since many attacks come through other vectors, that code security is irrelevant anyway? That's literally what they said in the paper. So their claim is that something like the Solarwinds event is irrelevant since, for example, ransomware is common in other arenas.
LOL - yup, that's what I read
Haha, it was definitely not a good thesis. It had some good points, but got lost and focused almost entirely on anything but the topic and by the end, was so distracted, that they no longer even considered the topic.
Oh - I was only replying to your post.. not the whole paper
Oh, I read the entire 22 page article. It wasn't all bad, but it was clear that no one with an understanding of the topic was involved because it basically had a tiny amount about the topic, and a huge amount lost talking about unrelated things like social engineering and investment dollars rather than the licensing.
But it was suggestive that they spent most of the paper trying to come up with excuses for why closed source was still acceptable even though all evidence and logic pointed to the contrary by trying to show that what matters is something else. And that's true, the source licensing is not the biggest factor... but it's the factor being discussed. They definitely resorted to misdirection to try to downplay a conclusion that they were aware of.
What a min - where did licensing come into this conversation? I thought we were talking about security of code open source vs closed source?
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
I did find a peer reviewed paper, but it was written by Microsoft and peer reviewed by a university that they fund. And it just said that they didn't have any means by which to evaluate the two because there's no viable metric.
"In conclusion, open source does not pose any significant barriers to secu-
rity, but rather reinforces sound security practices by involving many people
that expose bugs quickly, and offers side-effects that provide customers and the
community with concrete examples of reusable, secure, and working code."However, they also came to this utterly garbage conclusion that only Microsoft could come to: "...many security attacks are independent of the source code, so neither open source or proprietary software is less secure."
So let me get this straight, Microsoft's employee claims that since many attacks come through other vectors, that code security is irrelevant anyway? That's literally what they said in the paper. So their claim is that something like the Solarwinds event is irrelevant since, for example, ransomware is common in other arenas.
LOL - yup, that's what I read
Haha, it was definitely not a good thesis. It had some good points, but got lost and focused almost entirely on anything but the topic and by the end, was so distracted, that they no longer even considered the topic.
Oh - I was only replying to your post.. not the whole paper
Oh, I read the entire 22 page article. It wasn't all bad, but it was clear that no one with an understanding of the topic was involved because it basically had a tiny amount about the topic, and a huge amount lost talking about unrelated things like social engineering and investment dollars rather than the licensing.
But it was suggestive that they spent most of the paper trying to come up with excuses for why closed source was still acceptable even though all evidence and logic pointed to the contrary by trying to show that what matters is something else. And that's true, the source licensing is not the biggest factor... but it's the factor being discussed. They definitely resorted to misdirection to try to downplay a conclusion that they were aware of.
What a min - where did licensing come into this conversation? I thought we were talking about security of code open source vs closed source?
OH - the type of license applied to the source.. nevermind - I get it.
But wait - open vs closed isn't the biggest factor for security in code? then what is?
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
But wait - open vs closed isn't the biggest factor for security in code? then what is?
The quality of the code being written.
