It's not more secure: it's just potentially easier to review for security. The lifecycle of software and quality of review determine the trustworthiness of soft

It's not more secure: it's just potentially easier to review for security. The lifecycle of software and quality of review determine the trustworthiness of software. I wrote about it in detail a while back. Roryokane was nice enough to host a cleaned up version here: https://gist.github.com/roryokane/d02addfa9329c579f15daef5b4ebae2f https://gist.github.com/roryokane/d02addfa9329c579f15daef5b4... I talked about the review that went into high-assurance, secure, closed-source products back in the 1980's and 1990's. Most FOSS can't touch those products in trustworthiness. Here's a link to that: https://lobste.rs/s/8luxjy/security_software_distribution_models https://lobste.rs/s/8luxjy/security_software_distribution_mo... There's links to examples of such designs in my reply to monocasa earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19873368 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19873368 Alex Gaynor gave me my favorite paper illustrating how OSS != security using fuzzing numbers from Linux kernel. It gets probably more contributions and eyeballs than about any project. I'll let you look at the results: https://events.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Syzbot-and-the-Tale-of-Thousand-Kernel-Bugs-Dmitry-Vyukov-Google.pdf https://events.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/1...