Regarding point 2. I get what you’re saying but I instantly thought of Heartbleed. Arguably one of the most used examples of open source in the world, but primarily maintained by one single guy and it took 2 years for someone to notice the flaw.

[–] DrJenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uhh... so? The NSA was sitting on the vulnerability for EternalBlue in Windows for over 5 years.

[–] ArrogantAnalyst@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Dont understand what that has to do with the discussion so far. How is this relevant here?

[–] DrJenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No more or less relevant than heartbleed. Yes vulns exist in open source software, sometimes for a while. Being open source can lead to those vulns getting discovered and fixed quicker than with closed source.

[–] ArrogantAnalyst@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And how does this negate my initial point that you shouldn’t trust in the security of something just because it is open source? I think you misunderstood what I was saying.