4 ms·
Closed source somehow prevent most exploits to be found. I truly don't believe that open source would do more good than it would harm the general public.
by Thaxll 10y ago
Closed source somehow prevent most exploits to be found. I truly don't believe that open source would do more good than it would harm the general public.
- Cyph0n 10y agoI see this kind of statement often, but I've yet to see evidence supporting it. The kind of actors who even have the ability to execute this kind of exploit wouldn't easily be stopped by a closed source codebase. My theory is that the security of open source firmware would be equivalent to that of closed source firmware in the worst case.
- xarope 10y agoI agree. What OP is saying is akin to "if my lock is stronger, then the bad guys will go find another target". This never stops targeted attacks, APTs etc. If anything, it engenders a level of complacency, right up to when a breach occurs... (and of course, in the "good ol days" of hacking, being a more difficult target actually meant being a more prime target, since that's how repuations are built... oops!)
- jacquesm 10y agoOnly as long as the binaries can't be extracted from the device. Once that is possible there is no reason to put closed source above open source with respect to safety, open source at least has the (debatable) advantage of having a lot of people looking at it. Closed source but binaries available is the equivalent of security by obscurity. Another way to look at this: if you're into reverse engineering looking at the disassembled code is as good and in some cases even better than looking at the source because the source shows you the intent whereas the assembly shows you what is actually going on which might be subtly different, different enough to sometimes have a little edge.