4 ms·
In the case of OpenSSL, Big Tech clearly neglected proper support until after the Heartbleed vulnerability. Prior to Heartbleed, the OpenSSL Software Foundation
by hgs3 2y ago
In the case of OpenSSL, Big Tech clearly neglected proper support until after the Heartbleed vulnerability. Prior to Heartbleed, the OpenSSL Software Foundation only received about $2K annually in donations and employed just one full-time employee [1]. Given the projects critical role in internet security, Big Techs neglect raises concerns about their quality assurance practices for less critical projects.
The OpenSSL Foundation is not exempt from criticism despite inadequate funding. Heartbleed was discovered by security researches using fuzz testing, but proactive fuzz testing should have been a standard practice from the start.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/tech-giants-chastened-by-heartbleed-finally-agree-to-fund-openssl/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/tech-...
- woodruffw 2y agoOpenSSL is not a great example, either before or after funding — it’s a notoriously poorly architected codebase with multiple layers of flawed abstractions. I meant things more like Chromium, WebKit, etc.: these have dozens to hundreds of professional top-bracket C and C++ developers working on them, and they still can’t avoid memory corruption bugs.