3 ms·

So the NSA can see Windows source code, but Windows users can't? And users are supposed to feel secure about this? Why?

by drcube 13y ago

Sanddancer 13y ago
More than just the NSA. This shrill hyperbole that permeates the free software world is counterproductive to getting things fixed.
- drcube 13y ago
  Okay, who? And why should I trust them? How do I know they didn't sign an NDA promising to keep any security vulnerabilities secret?
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  Drcube: How do I know that open source developers aren't contractors out to put backdoors in? At some point you have to trust someone, and I doubt with all the eyes on windows, both within and without, that any extant backdoor would have remained hidden until now. There are quite a few people who do reverse engineer windows without a license, and would be shouting it from the rooftops if they found a backdoor.
  - drcube 13y ago
    > At some point you have to trust someone, and I doubt with all the eyes on windows, both within and without, that any extant backdoor would have remained hidden until now. Right, but A) I like to choose who I trust. Get a second opinion. Verify a few things myself, if I feel I'm up to the task. I get none of these options with Windows. B) If you doubt, with all the eyes on Windows, that a backdoor would have persisted, why do you act as if more eyes is not better? Or, perhaps more importantly, a greater variety of eyes? Microsoft gets to pick who studies their code, and may or may not prevent them from revealing vulnerabilities and bugs anyway. Popular open source projects may get actively hostile researchers studying their code specifically to shout any bugs they find from the rooftops. Or they may get the world's foremost expert in some aspect of their code to study it for fun. And nobody can stop them from revealing anything the find. If MS giving a few hand-picked organizations their source code under strict terms, who may or may not be allowed to report what they find honestly, is good, why wouldn't fully open software be better? Nobody is saying that giving governments and a few organizations a look at the Windows source isn't better than having it completely locked down. But it just doesn't go far enough.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >How do I know that open source developers aren't contractors out to put backdoors in? You don't. That's why the source is open.

So the NSA can see Windows source code, but Windows users can't? And users are supposed to feel secure about this? Why?

by drcube 13y ago

So the NSA can see Windows source code, but Windows users can't? And users are supposed to feel secure about this? Why?

More than just the NSA. This shrill hyperbole that permeates the free software world is counterproductive to getting things fixed.

drcube 13y ago
Okay, who? And why should I trust them? How do I know they didn't sign an NDA promising to keep any security vulnerabilities secret?
Sanddancer 13y ago
Drcube: How do I know that open source developers aren't contractors out to put backdoors in? At some point you have to trust someone, and I doubt with all the eyes on windows, both within and without, that any extant backdoor would have remained hidden until now. There are quite a few people who do reverse engineer windows without a license, and would be shouting it from the rooftops if they found a backdoor.
- drcube 13y ago
  > At some point you have to trust someone, and I doubt with all the eyes on windows, both within and without, that any extant backdoor would have remained hidden until now. Right, but A) I like to choose who I trust. Get a second opinion. Verify a few things myself, if I feel I'm up to the task. I get none of these options with Windows. B) If you doubt, with all the eyes on Windows, that a backdoor would have persisted, why do you act as if more eyes is not better? Or, perhaps more importantly, a greater variety of eyes? Microsoft gets to pick who studies their code, and may or may not prevent them from revealing vulnerabilities and bugs anyway. Popular open source projects may get actively hostile researchers studying their code specifically to shout any bugs they find from the rooftops. Or they may get the world's foremost expert in some aspect of their code to study it for fun. And nobody can stop them from revealing anything the find. If MS giving a few hand-picked organizations their source code under strict terms, who may or may not be allowed to report what they find honestly, is good, why wouldn't fully open software be better? Nobody is saying that giving governments and a few organizations a look at the Windows source isn't better than having it completely locked down. But it just doesn't go far enough.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >How do I know that open source developers aren't contractors out to put backdoors in? You don't. That's why the source is open.