3 ms·
If you don't personally write the software stack on your devices, at some point you have to trust a third party.
by parasubvert 2y ago
If you don't personally write the software stack on your devices, at some point you have to trust a third party.
- lispm 2y agoI would trust a company more if their random features sending data are opt-in. A non-advertized feature, which is not independently verified, which about image contents? I would be prefer independent verification of their claims.
- freedomben 2y agoAgreed, but surely you see a difference between an open source implementation that is out for audit by anyone, and a closed source implementation that is kept under lock & key? They could both be compromised intentionally or unintentionally, but IMHO one shows a lot more good faith than the other.
- bolognafairy 2y agoNo. That’s your bias as a nerd. There are countless well-publicised examples of ‘many eyeballs’ not being remotely as effective as nerds make it out to be.
- jrvieira 2y agocan you provide a relevant example for this context?
- dylan604 2y agoHow long did the log4j exist? https://www.csoonline.com/article/571797/the-apache-log4j-vulnerabilities-a-timeline.html https://www.csoonline.com/article/571797/the-apache-log4j-vu... What was the other package that had the mysterious .?
- timschmidt 2y agoAnd yet they were found. How many such exploits lurk unexamined in proprietary codebases?
- dylan604 2y agoyet you say this like Apple or Google or Microsoft has never released an update to address a security vuln
- timschmidt 2y agoApple[1], Google[2], and Microsoft[3] you say? You say this as if being shamed into patching the occasional vuln is equivalent to security best practices. Open code which can be independently audited is only a baseline for trustworthy code. A baseline none of those three meet. And one which by itself is insufficient to counter a reflections on trusting trust style attack. For that you need open code, diverse open build toolchains, and reproducible builds. None of which is being done by those three. Are you getting your ideas about security from the marketing department? 1: https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/03/hackers-can-extract-secret-encryption-keys-from-apples-mac-chips/ https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/03/hackers-can-extract... 2: https://www.wired.com/story/google-android-pixel-showcase-vulnerability/ https://www.wired.com/story/google-android-pixel-showcase-vu... 3: https://blog.morphisec.com/5-ntlm-vulnerabilities-unpatched-privilege-escalation-threats-in-microsoft https://blog.morphisec.com/5-ntlm-vulnerabilities-unpatched-...
- dylan604 2y agoGo ahead and put that cup of kool-aid down for a minute. There are so so many OSS packages out there that have never been audited? Why not? Because people have better things to do. How many packages have you audited? Personally, I don't have the skillz to do that. The people that do expect to be compensated for their efforts. That's why so many OSS packges have vulns that go unnoticed until after they are exploited, which is the same thing as closed source. OSS is not the panacea that everyone touts it to be.
- hn3er1q 2y agoThat was an entire body of research at the University of Minnesota and the “hypocrite commits” weren’t found until the authors pointed people to them. https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/30/22410164/linux-kernel-university-of-minnesota-banned-open-source https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/30/22410164/linux-kernel-uni...
- beeflet 2y agoThe developer-to-user trust required in the context of open-source software is substantially less than in proprietary software. this much is evident.