3 ms·
The ones who would benefit from it being open sourced are the passengers and plots. Your excuse is mitigatiable, release it picewise, starting with the customer
by jakeogh 7y ago
The ones who would benefit from it being open sourced are the passengers and plots. Your excuse is mitigatiable, release it picewise, starting with the customer facing code to trusted outside groups.
Ultimately your argument applies to all life or death code, even code we put inside our bodies, which as you mentioned, is also highly specific and specalized.
Because the bar is higher there should be less review is a contradiction.
APT (often not a State) conversations are pointless where plausible deniability is ignored as a desirable property.
- irundebian 7y agoOpen-source obviously doesn't imply security as it can be seen by security-critical open source software like openssl which repeatedly showed that it contained very critical bugs for a long time without anybody noticing it. No one really would benefit from open sourcing it without being able to (security) test it in realistic scenarios. Obviously security researchers would profit in discovering bugs which may have no relevance in reality, to increase their fame.
- jakeogh 7y agoBecause the bar is higher there should be less review is a contradiction. There are always bugs in software, some people depend on keeping them secret.