5 ms·
This was posted in 2007, worth keeping in mind before jumping to conclusions.
by mfjordvald 15y ago
This was posted in 2007, worth keeping in mind before jumping to conclusions.
- crocowhile 15y agoWell, the main message still holds true though: if you need to make sure nobody can eavesdrop your communications, you'd better off with open source software.
- weego 15y agoAs long as you understand the code line by line and as an overall entity, otherwise you are no better off. Just because you can read the source doesn't mean you actually can.
- lucasjung 15y agoWith open source, the chances that somebody will catch a security flaw are generally much higher. It's not necessary for each individual user to understand the code as long as some people do.
- crocowhile 15y agoI am not the only human being on this planet, you know (And if I were I would not need skype anyway).
- vabole 15y agoEven if you can not read and understand the code you are still better off with the open source. Due to the fact that independent researchers or programmers unaffiliated with developers will be able to audit the code. While with the closed source software, the only information you have about the inner workings of the software is provided by the developing company.
- slavak 15y agoNot that that guarantees anything, of course... http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack If you need to _make sure_ nobody can eavesdrop on your communications, you better be ready to design and manufacture all hardware and software you're using yourself.
- crocowhile 15y agoI wouldn't be so extreme. It's reasonable to assume that a properly encrypted connection is secure form entry to exit. You would have to use proprietary tools only at the extremities then, which is actually quite feasible nowadays. anyway: after learning that not even Osama wasn't even encrypting his shit my view on security is slightly different.