3 ms·
I never get that argument. I could download TrueCrypts source code, but that would take forever to read, if I could even read it all. So I'm basically taking
by joejohnson 15y ago
I never get that argument. I could download TrueCrypts source code, but that would take forever to read, if I could even read it all. So I'm basically taking the internet's consensus that someone has read the source and it does what it says it does. Is this a safer bet?
- derrida 15y agoYes, especially with encryption. "Many eyes make bugs shallow". And of course someone has read the source, someone wrote it. But the number of eyes on the code would be more than closed source.
- joejohnson 15y agoThat makes sense. Thanks.
- Ralith 15y agoWould you rather use a program vetted by a wide variety of unassociated security researchers, or one whose manufacturer merely insists it was very careful programming?
- petercooper 15y agoMy take on this is that if it's open source and lots of people are using it, malicious individuals will be scouring the source trying to find attack vectors which then, hopefully, would be more likely to become public than attack vectors in private software.