4 ms·

Tbh. I doubt that it makes a huge difference. Some of the best/easiest ways for someone with experience to find vulnerabilities is to throw automatic analysis

Tbh. I doubt that it makes a huge difference. Some of the best/easiest ways for someone with experience to find vulnerabilities is to throw automatic analysis tools at it. Many of which do work on binaries/disassembly, too. Don't forget that in many cases it's not too hard to disassemble binaries. Sure having the source can make it easier, but then things being open source also means that non evil actors might look at you code and help you find/fix problems before they become big. Which I believe somewhat balances it out. (for larger/widely used projects). Like imagine log4j becoming known because of multiple supper wide spread attacks happening all over the internet, instead of getting known and then fixed and then mass attacks happened because updates take so long. And the log4j vulnerability is totally discoverable without source code. Idk. who found it but I wouldn't be surprised if someone ran into a non-security bug triggered by it and was, hey, wait a moment. Even if it didn't happen like that, it totally could have(1). Closed source would not have helped at all. At best it would delayed it and then made the effects worse due to coordinated wide spread attacks before there is a fix/mitigations.

lucideer 5y ago
The log4j incident is an excellent example. A fix to a closed-source vuln of a similar nature would've taken months, compared to ~5 days (if we include the 2nd CVE fixed in 2.16) for an open community response to an open source issue.
- netwo233gur 5y ago
  I don't know how you can say this... a closed source vuln of this severity would be patched almost immediately. See: any vuln of this severity on iOS or Windows. On the contrary, log4j incident is an excellent example of how relying on open source for security completely failed. This vuln existed for years, all while being open to security researchers to find it. They didn't. Instead, there is evidence that black hats found the vuln first (perhaps because log4j is open source?).
  - fragmede 5y ago
    There's no clear winner between open and closed source, but that's just wrong. Vendors have and will continue to bury (under threat of violation of the CFAA or civil lawsuit) vulnerabilities to prevent hackers from disclosing said vulnerability, rather than fix them. That's also why Google's Project Zero gives a hard 90-day deadline to vendors for patching found vulnerabilities, and they got a lot of flack early on for disclosure.
  - jrm4 5y ago
    I literally have not heard a more naive statement on this site, ever. If you work in IT, please educate yourself on this. I'm serious.
    - netwo233gur 5y ago
      I'm a senior security engineer at a FAANG. You're completely oblivious to the state of security today you think anything in my comment was naive. Please, let's continue this back-and-forth of condescension. It's really productive. /s
      - jrm4 5y ago
        Apologies for the tone, but the content of my point 100% stands. For what its worth, I have dear friends at multiple FAANGS who I'd die for -- who nonetheless strongly appear to have a wildly overinflated sense of their own cybersec, in a big picture "missing the Black Swans" sort of way -- if the past is any indicator. Maybe it's not, maybe you guys have drastically improved things. What makes me strongly doubt it is that we still haven't seen substantial liability or other consequences for bad or negligent actors in this space.
        lucideer 5y ago
        > maybe you guys have drastically improved things. FAANG security is just like everywhere else: mixed. There are mixed levels of knowledge & experience, and mixed views: i.e. even though there's a lot of consensus on high-level tenets and frameworks, like e.g. Google's Beyondcorp stuff (along with some certain security 101 stuff that's been discussed for the past 138 years), you'll always get engineers who don't like X or Y. Just like anywhere else. Nothing is a continuum.
bravetraveler 5y ago
I'm not sure if this is a reply to my original poor phrasing where I mistakenly said 'all' instead of 'so many'. I'm sure even that may be a bit generous. We're in niches of niches, here. It seems the places where the manual digging occurs most are with devices where nobody has even thought or bothered to use such tools. The vulns the people find are often incredibly laughable; unauthenticated actions leading to a clever path to higher privileges.

lucideer 5y ago

The log4j incident is an excellent example. A fix to a closed-source vuln of a similar nature would've taken months, compared to ~5 days (if we include the 2nd CVE fixed in 2.16) for an open community response to an open source issue.

netwo233gur 5y ago
I don't know how you can say this... a closed source vuln of this severity would be patched almost immediately. See: any vuln of this severity on iOS or Windows. On the contrary, log4j incident is an excellent example of how relying on open source for security completely failed. This vuln existed for years, all while being open to security researchers to find it. They didn't. Instead, there is evidence that black hats found the vuln first (perhaps because log4j is open source?).
- fragmede 5y ago
  There's no clear winner between open and closed source, but that's just wrong. Vendors have and will continue to bury (under threat of violation of the CFAA or civil lawsuit) vulnerabilities to prevent hackers from disclosing said vulnerability, rather than fix them. That's also why Google's Project Zero gives a hard 90-day deadline to vendors for patching found vulnerabilities, and they got a lot of flack early on for disclosure.
- jrm4 5y ago
  I literally have not heard a more naive statement on this site, ever. If you work in IT, please educate yourself on this. I'm serious.
  - netwo233gur 5y ago
    I'm a senior security engineer at a FAANG. You're completely oblivious to the state of security today you think anything in my comment was naive. Please, let's continue this back-and-forth of condescension. It's really productive. /s
    - jrm4 5y ago
      Apologies for the tone, but the content of my point 100% stands. For what its worth, I have dear friends at multiple FAANGS who I'd die for -- who nonetheless strongly appear to have a wildly overinflated sense of their own cybersec, in a big picture "missing the Black Swans" sort of way -- if the past is any indicator. Maybe it's not, maybe you guys have drastically improved things. What makes me strongly doubt it is that we still haven't seen substantial liability or other consequences for bad or negligent actors in this space.
      - lucideer 5y ago
        > maybe you guys have drastically improved things. FAANG security is just like everywhere else: mixed. There are mixed levels of knowledge & experience, and mixed views: i.e. even though there's a lot of consensus on high-level tenets and frameworks, like e.g. Google's Beyondcorp stuff (along with some certain security 101 stuff that's been discussed for the past 138 years), you'll always get engineers who don't like X or Y. Just like anywhere else. Nothing is a continuum.

bravetraveler 5y ago

I'm not sure if this is a reply to my original poor phrasing where I mistakenly said 'all' instead of 'so many'. I'm sure even that may be a bit generous. We're in niches of niches, here. It seems the places where the manual digging occurs most are with devices where nobody has even thought or bothered to use such tools. The vulns the people find are often incredibly laughable; unauthenticated actions leading to a clever path to higher privileges.