If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
LOL. This report is actually an example of why open source is more secure. You have here multiple independent developers looking at the source and reporting bugs, and helping fix them. Would the same be possible with a ssl blob?
There's that, and if it's open source, used widely enough, and you screw up as badly as openSSL has, Theo will come and fork your project to fix all of it's brain damage.
So, can we put to bad the argument of "OSS is by nature more secure" argument now?
You need to learn three things about computer security:
1) Just because someone slapped a "secure" label on something doesn't mean it's secure - whether it's open-source or proprietary.
2) If security was a boolean it would always evaluate to false. "More secure" doesn't mean "100% secure". And nothing is 100% secure. The question is the price of a successful attack in terms of money (computing resources), time and effort. If it's too costly it'll almost never happen. And almost never is considered good enough.
3) Heartbleed is overrated. It's just a bug, one out of many, that got blown way out of proportion by journalists. No security expert has ever seriously believed SSL to be impenetrable. But when the alternative is using plain text for credentials and unencrypted streams for data, it's a no-brainer that SSL is better than nothing.
Looks like real time chat is biggest exploitable use of this against end users
I looked at these, it looks like most of these are denial of service attacks, but one permits forcing the use of weak keys in https traffic and another permits arbitrary code execution against a machine engaged in real time chats (DTLS seems to be used mostly for this sort of thing according to what I could quickly dig up).
If you don't do realtime chat and rely on GPG when you need strong encrption, this won't likely hurt you. I only trust https to keep my ISP and various wifi hotspots from logging copies of my work, I do NOT trust it against the NSA or even the FBI as it has too high a target profile.
Never bank online with any computer, never shop online except with prepaid credit cards whose entire balance is expendable. Don't bet your savings on being a better hacker than every last person out there who puts food on their table by black hatting!
A closed source project with as many developer as OpenSSL (ie, very small project), would never have ended up in as much machines as OpenSSL did, even if it was free. Mostly because it would be neither auditable nor accountable, in other word, in a sense, too insecure.
As such, it's quite difficult to reach a comparative conclusions when comparable non-OSS projects don't exist.
You being paid by Microsoft or by Apple?
Open source = auditible & accountable. You can always trace the path one has made an error, and nobody will deny it or play the blame game as happens most of the time in most multibillion corps.
- Oh, is that a security hole? I'm so sorry, must have been something the intern introduced. Wasn't my fault mr. chief executive.
- Is that so? Well, ok then. We'll sell it as a feature, not a bug.