Not discrediting Open Source Software, but nothing is 100% safe.
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
1675 points (93.0% liked)
Memes
45734 readers
588 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Luckily there are people who do know, and we verify things for our own security and for the community as part of keeping Open Source projects healthy.
Open source software is safe because somebody knows how to audit it.
And to a large extent, there is automatic software that can audit things like dependencies. This software is also largely open source because hey, nobody's perfect. But this only works when your source is available.
Except when people pull off shit like Heartbleed.
See my comment below for more of my thoughts on why I think heartbleed was an overwhelming success.
And you help make my point because openssl is a dependency which is easily discovered by software like dependabot and renovate. So when the next heartbleed happens, we can spread the fixes even more quickly.
Enterprise software inventory can unfortunately be quite chaotic, and understanding the exposure to this kind of vulnerability can take weeks if not longer.
It's safe because there's always a loud nerd who will make sure everyone knows if it sucks. They will make it their life mission
Will that nerd be heard or be buried under the scrutiny?
I'll listen to them because I love OSS drama. But you're right that they may just get passed over at large
Also because those people who can audit it don't have a financial incentive to hide any flaws they find
My very obvious rebuttal: Shellshock was introduced into bash in 1989, and found in 2014. It was incredibly trivial to exploit and if you had shell, you had root perms, which is insane.
env x='() { :;}; echo vulnerable' bash -c "echo this is a test"
Though one of the major issues is that people get comfortable with that idea and assume for every open source project there is some other good Samaritan auditing it
I would argue that even in that scenario it's still better to have the source available than have it closed.
If nobody has bothered to audit it then the number of people affected by any flaws will likely be minimal anyway. And you can be proactive and audit it yourself or hire someone to before using it in anything critical.
If nobody can audit it that's a whole different situation though. You pretty much have to assume it is compromised in that case because you have no way of knowing.
Oh definitely, I fully agree. It's just a lot of people need to stop approaching open source with an immediate inherent level of trust that they wouldn't normally give to closed source. It's only really safer once you know it's been audited.
Have you seen the dependency trees of projects in npm? I really doubt most packages are audited on a regular basis.