Saturday, August 9, 2008

Open source is not more secure by default

This week a rather interesting announcement was made in light of the Black Hat security conference. Some researcher claimed to be able to bypass all of Windows Vista enhanced security features through Internet Explorer by using Active-X, Java or .NET. They also claimed that Microsoft couldn't do anything to fix it, because it abused core architectural assumptions made by Microsoft.

This is pretty disturbing, but I'm waiting for an official Microsoft response. I recall something similar in the past and then Microsoft was able to patch it up. I just can't for the life of me remember what that was, so maybe I'm just imagining things.

This message also spurred some interesting discussions on forums around the world. A lot of people are expressing their "expert" opinion on the matter. And on public forums everyone is a die-hard kernel developer of course. The most interesting discussion that came up again was the notion that open source is more secure, because everyone can look at the source and fix bugs.

I've always found this idea to be naive. First of all, just because everyone can look at the code, doesn't mean everyone will. I'm a programmer, but I never look at any of the source code provided by open source applications, unless I want to see how they implemented a certain feature so I can use it too somewhere. But sure, there are bound to be enthusiasts who will review the code. And they will find an occasional bug, but will they find all the security bugs? Of course not, why should they? Are they all software security experts? No. I think these "extra reviewers" are more likely to find typos then actual security bugs. I'd rather put my faith on static analysis tools to detect common errors and security researchers that try to break an application then a hobbyist security "guru".

I think the strength of open source lies in the fact that everyone interested can pitch in, but not because every user is a security reviewer.

Post a Comment