4 ms·
cherrypicked examples mean little for arguements either. The WMF exploit was in windows for more than 15 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_v
by throwaway2048 13y ago
cherrypicked examples mean little for arguements either. The WMF exploit was in windows for more than 15 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability
- DanBC 13y agoSSL is a security sensitive bit of code. That's the kind of thing that needs to be kept safe, and it's the kind of thing that people claim is kept safe my open source's many eyes. The argument I'm making is not that Windows is secure (because it isn't), but that Open Source isn't necessarily secure just because it's open source.
- belorn 13y agoNo one has argued that open source is secure just because its open source. Open source is however possible to independent verify if it is secure. Closed source is not possible to verify as secure and must be taken solely on the word of the company who made it.
- kkangaroo 13y agoThere are a lot or security holes regularly surfacing in all kinds of software. We don't even have the post mortem of the kernel.org compromise , as one example. Even some Debian servers got hacked. Open source helps but lets not pretend it's a panacea.
- the_af 13y agoIt's not all or nothing. Open source is better than close source for security auditing purposes, but of course open source alone is not enough, nor is it impervious to security flaws. It's just better than the alternative.