4 ms·

>The idea that software is inherently safer because it's released under an open-source license is overly simplistic in the extreme. Well, no. No it isn't. A hi

>The idea that software is inherently safer because it's released under an open-source license is overly simplistic in the extreme. Well, no. No it isn't. A higher possibility of more people seeing the code translates into a higher probability of bugs getting fixed. Of course, there's no guarantees, but more eyes means more chances of bugs getting caught. And that means safer.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"Of course, there's no guarantees, but more eyes means more chances of bugs getting caught. And that means safer." That doesn't. It means potential to be safer if all kinds of things line up. Vast majority of FOSS code is crap like any other code. More eyes didn't change that. What's needed is design/implementation work, qualified review, time, and trustworthiness of reviewers & distribution. http://pastebin.com/pjc0cueA http://pastebin.com/pjc0cueA
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  Fair enough. But I would, and indeed, do, argue that potentially safer is better than not potentially safer.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    In this order: provably safer is better than potentially safer; potentially safer is better than no potential. And still, as I showed, open or closed source at consumer level has little to do with the potential. It's amount of trusted development and/or review of source then distribution of that. Illustrated where greater than means more trustworthy, reliable, and/or effective: 1. Rigorously designed & reviewed open-source is greater than... 2. Rigorously designed & reviewed closed-source is greater than... 3. Typical, open-source is greater than... 4. Typical, closed-source is greater than... 5. Cloud infrastructure based on Concurrent DOS written in a MOL-360 language.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      I... Completely agree. I honestly have no idea why we're arguing at this point.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Just took some discussion to clarify our views that's all. Glad we reached an agreement. :)

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"Of course, there's no guarantees, but more eyes means more chances of bugs getting caught. And that means safer." That doesn't. It means potential to be safer if all kinds of things line up. Vast majority of FOSS code is crap like any other code. More eyes didn't change that. What's needed is design/implementation work, qualified review, time, and trustworthiness of reviewers & distribution. http://pastebin.com/pjc0cueA http://pastebin.com/pjc0cueA

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Fair enough. But I would, and indeed, do, argue that potentially safer is better than not potentially safer.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  In this order: provably safer is better than potentially safer; potentially safer is better than no potential. And still, as I showed, open or closed source at consumer level has little to do with the potential. It's amount of trusted development and/or review of source then distribution of that. Illustrated where greater than means more trustworthy, reliable, and/or effective: 1. Rigorously designed & reviewed open-source is greater than... 2. Rigorously designed & reviewed closed-source is greater than... 3. Typical, open-source is greater than... 4. Typical, closed-source is greater than... 5. Cloud infrastructure based on Concurrent DOS written in a MOL-360 language.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    I... Completely agree. I honestly have no idea why we're arguing at this point.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Just took some discussion to clarify our views that's all. Glad we reached an agreement. :)