Application Security

Open Source v. Closed Source: What's More Secure?

0%
100%

In the wake of Shellshock and Heartbleed, has the glow of open-source application security dimmed?

Comment  | 
Print  | 
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
10/21/2014 | 11:07:40 AM
Re: Devil's Advocate
Agreed, sometimes when something is implemented that cannot increase security posture you need to go back to the framework and make changes to the baseline. This may be off topic from Open Source vs Closed Source, but DoS is the same way. Its still very prevalent due to the way hardware handles packets. A needed functionality, so changes need to be made to the overall hardware handling. However, I do think that more hands involved in the rearchitecture would be optimal. 
Lucamp
50%
50%
Lucamp,
User Rank: Strategist
10/21/2014 | 5:29:54 AM
Open source
From my persective, open source is more secure and more people work on it that in close code. However, the types of vulnerabilites that open source is exposed is different that in close code. Also the quality of open source projeects is higher that in close code from my experience (Two Big Companies). 
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
10/20/2014 | 1:46:59 PM
Re: Devil's Advocate
Good point. That also depends of the architecture of the system, you can not make Java any more secure regardless of how many developers you put on it. A new way of thinking and architecture is needed for that.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
10/20/2014 | 1:44:47 PM
Agree with the video
 

I think video is taking right approach tough, no need to differentiate open source from closed source when it comes to security, both will have vulnerabilities and they requires us to do ongoing monitoring and analysis to catch those vulnerabilities before they heard us.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
10/20/2014 | 1:42:17 PM
Open source
Open source may reveal more information in its structure but at the same time it may also be an environment that vulnerabilities are found and mitigated early enough since more than one set of eyes are looking at it.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
10/20/2014 | 11:16:26 AM
Devil's Advocate
I agree very much with this ideology of closed versus open source. But to be the devil's advocate, wouldn't the same reason provided "more people being able to see the source code" also provide for a more adept security model. In theory, the more eyes that look at the code the greater the exposure to expanding on that code beneficially. This includes not only security but app development. Linux and Linux derivatives are very much based on this methodology. What reasoning then is it assumed that more exposure to the code will result in a detrimental outcome over a beneficial one?
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Security Technologies to Watch in 2017
Emerging tools and services promise to make a difference this year. Are they on your company's list?
Flash Poll
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
The transition from DevOps to SecDevOps is combining with the move toward cloud computing to create new challenges - and new opportunities - for the information security team. Download this report, to learn about the new best practices for secure application development.
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-7445
Published: 2015-10-15
The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) subsystem in the Linux kernel through 4.x mishandles requests for Graphics Execution Manager (GEM) objects, which allows context-dependent attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via an application that processes graphics data, as demonstrated b...

CVE-2015-4948
Published: 2015-10-15
netstat in IBM AIX 5.3, 6.1, and 7.1 and VIOS 2.2.x, when a fibre channel adapter is used, allows local users to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2015-5660
Published: 2015-10-15
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in eXtplorer before 2.1.8 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that execute PHP code.

CVE-2015-6003
Published: 2015-10-15
Directory traversal vulnerability in QNAP QTS before 4.1.4 build 0910 and 4.2.x before 4.2.0 RC2 build 0910, when AFP is enabled, allows remote attackers to read or write to arbitrary files by leveraging access to an OS X (1) user or (2) guest account.

CVE-2015-6333
Published: 2015-10-15
Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) 1.1j allows local users to gain privileges via vectors involving addition of an SSH key, aka Bug ID CSCuw46076.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In past years, security researchers have discovered ways to hack cars, medical devices, automated teller machines, and many other targets. Dark Reading Executive Editor Kelly Jackson Higgins hosts researcher Samy Kamkar and Levi Gundert, vice president of threat intelligence at Recorded Future, to discuss some of 2016's most unusual and creative hacks by white hats, and what these new vulnerabilities might mean for the coming year.