5 ms·

Have you looked at the source of Linux kernel or Chromium? Can you really tell what is going there without spending years working with it? Most likely you canno

Have you looked at the source of Linux kernel or Chromium? Can you really tell what is going there without spending years working with it? Most likely you cannot. Moreover, as never ending stream of bugs indicates, neither engineers that work on the code can tell what the code does precisely. Open source is very nice for tinkering, less so for security assurance. For the latter sound architecture is essential, and one can understand that without having the source for all the components.

kgwxd 8y ago
The fact that a single person couldn't possibly fully understand a complex system is all the more reason to get more eyes on it. Besides, security is not the same as privacy, There's a huge difference between spotting where a network connection is being created, what data is sent and where to vs completely understanding an entire code base and spotting cleverly obfuscated code or low level bugs. With closed source, only employees get to see the code, their goals align with the company. Open source, anyone can see it and raise stink about things they don't like on behalf of all users. It only takes 1 person for all users to get the benefits. Granted, open source doesn't prevent all privacy issues, MS still does telemetry in OSS projects, sometimes not even allowing to opt-out, and they just ignore the countless complaints, and enough people still use it. Such is the state of the world I guess. But imagine one day MS decides to say they're no longer collecting telemetry but they've actually put in some cleaver code that looks like it does one thing but actually sends telemetry data. Getting caught doing that would be a way bigger PR issue that would, hopefully, cause far more users to completely stop trusting them, even if all their code was open source. I don't expect companies that want to stay in business for long would attempt such a thing.
- fpoling 8y ago
  There are literally thousands of eyes that look at kernel sources. Google even pays 1e5 usd if one finds exploitable bugs in their code. Yet security-related bugs stil pop up regularly. Even to prove things formally source is not that essential. One stil needs to know details how code is translated into the machine instructions. But then to show, for example, absence of code path that copies user location into network packet one may analize machine instructions.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
jl6 8y ago
Sound architecture and open source are both necessary. A good design convinces you it’s intended to do the right thing. Open source allows you to verify that it’s doing the right thing. True, code audits are rare. But open source software is at least in principle verifiable.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Open source only provides slightly more protection over closed source. The real issue is that if you're paranoid, there really is no way to verify that the device is doing what you want it to do: sure, maybe the OS is open source and you've verified that, but how do you know what you have on your device matches the source code (fun fact: the source code posted online for macOS and iOS differs from what's on the device, since Apple strips out references to unreleased products). Even if you're looking at the machine code itself pulled from the device, you have no guarantee that the processor is executing them faithfully.
  - jl6 8y ago
    Sure, so you also need open source hardware, reproducible builds, and a verifiable supply chain. You need openness and transparency end to end. Nobody’s achieved that to date, but that has got to be the goal.
LMYahooTFY 8y ago
This is, not so simply, wrong. Open software means that it can be audited by more than just the authors and/or owners. It's not about this philosophical discussion that "you" haven't gone through every line of code yourself. It's the difference between trusting one party of people who are keeping secrets from you, or trusting a diverse group of people who are not keeping secrets from you.
- scarface74 8y ago
  How well did that work for the HeartBleed bug that was part open source code for over a year and a half?
  - LMYahooTFY 8y ago
    Are you trolling...? It was discovered by two independent parties which otherwise would likely not have happened at all....? Did you read about Bullrun?

kgwxd 8y ago

The fact that a single person couldn't possibly fully understand a complex system is all the more reason to get more eyes on it. Besides, security is not the same as privacy, There's a huge difference between spotting where a network connection is being created, what data is sent and where to vs completely understanding an entire code base and spotting cleverly obfuscated code or low level bugs. With closed source, only employees get to see the code, their goals align with the company. Open source, anyone can see it and raise stink about things they don't like on behalf of all users. It only takes 1 person for all users to get the benefits. Granted, open source doesn't prevent all privacy issues, MS still does telemetry in OSS projects, sometimes not even allowing to opt-out, and they just ignore the countless complaints, and enough people still use it. Such is the state of the world I guess. But imagine one day MS decides to say they're no longer collecting telemetry but they've actually put in some cleaver code that looks like it does one thing but actually sends telemetry data. Getting caught doing that would be a way bigger PR issue that would, hopefully, cause far more users to completely stop trusting them, even if all their code was open source. I don't expect companies that want to stay in business for long would attempt such a thing.

fpoling 8y ago
There are literally thousands of eyes that look at kernel sources. Google even pays 1e5 usd if one finds exploitable bugs in their code. Yet security-related bugs stil pop up regularly. Even to prove things formally source is not that essential. One stil needs to know details how code is translated into the machine instructions. But then to show, for example, absence of code path that copies user location into network packet one may analize machine instructions.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jl6 8y ago

Sound architecture and open source are both necessary. A good design convinces you it’s intended to do the right thing. Open source allows you to verify that it’s doing the right thing. True, code audits are rare. But open source software is at least in principle verifiable.

saagarjha 8y ago
Open source only provides slightly more protection over closed source. The real issue is that if you're paranoid, there really is no way to verify that the device is doing what you want it to do: sure, maybe the OS is open source and you've verified that, but how do you know what you have on your device matches the source code (fun fact: the source code posted online for macOS and iOS differs from what's on the device, since Apple strips out references to unreleased products). Even if you're looking at the machine code itself pulled from the device, you have no guarantee that the processor is executing them faithfully.
- jl6 8y ago
  Sure, so you also need open source hardware, reproducible builds, and a verifiable supply chain. You need openness and transparency end to end. Nobody’s achieved that to date, but that has got to be the goal.

LMYahooTFY 8y ago

This is, not so simply, wrong. Open software means that it can be audited by more than just the authors and/or owners. It's not about this philosophical discussion that "you" haven't gone through every line of code yourself. It's the difference between trusting one party of people who are keeping secrets from you, or trusting a diverse group of people who are not keeping secrets from you.

scarface74 8y ago
How well did that work for the HeartBleed bug that was part open source code for over a year and a half?
- LMYahooTFY 8y ago
  Are you trolling...? It was discovered by two independent parties which otherwise would likely not have happened at all....? Did you read about Bullrun?