Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Growing Open Source Use Heightens Enterprise Security Risks
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
lythic
50%
50%
lythic,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/28/2015 | 11:53:13 AM
Re: Frankenstein
Sure, but on an active project gaping security holes will actually get fixed, which is not what we see happening at Microsoft, Sony and many others who refuse to patch things until it becomes a PR issue. When windows had a bug, the rest of us are helpless to do anything about it. When open source had a bug, you fix it and release your patch. Done. Even if your patch isn't included in the new version, you can still use your patch and make it available for others.
lythic
50%
50%
lythic,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/28/2015 | 11:45:25 AM
Re: Open source and security
Open source means that anyone can do the testing, anyone can review the code. If there's not a large and dedicated community with sufficient expertise backing the project, then you can vet, fix, modify and test it yourself.
lythic
50%
50%
lythic,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/28/2015 | 11:42:39 AM
Re: Frankenstein
Actually there are several, Google and Facebook's bug bounty programs include open source projects and then there's several independent ones such as bug bounty. Open source tools are the backbone of the internet. Apache projects, for example, are used and supported by almost every major tech company. This means most will test the tool internally before release and many have people on staff who are dedicated to that project. Patches can be reviewed by anyone and there are active discussion forums on bugs and feature requests. Apache projects are often of higher quality than commercial solutions because they are products of collaboration between several of the top tech companies. Apache Hadoop for example, was developed at yahoo, is now supported by two support companies - Hortonworks and Cloudera, and has contributiors from Intel, Facebook, Twitter, VMWare, Microsoft and LinkedIn. The patch behind heartbleed however, was written by one guy who had one person review it. Having open source is only a benefit if people actually read it.
Jon M. Kelley
50%
50%
Jon M. Kelley,
User Rank: Moderator
1/27/2015 | 9:32:19 AM
In House Developed SW gets no eyes!
I keep seeing discussions about commercial versus open source software, but the bigger hole in delivered special purpose software is the stuff added "in house".  Once delivered, this software typically gets "no eyes" and no patches until it is proven to be successfully attacked or unusable.  Some very large corporations have a habit of assembling a product for in house use, then once accepted by the end user's management, the developers are dispersed to other tasks, and there is no maintenance planned. 

 Too often specialized software developed for government ends the same way:  no follow on after delivery.  The developers were paid to build the product, and the contract ended.  With no plans for paid maintenance, the product gets used until it does something poorly enough to inconvenience upper management.  
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/26/2015 | 9:42:13 PM
Re: WhiteSource proves that open source is safe if used responsibly
re: "It is easier to see vulnerabilities with many eyes in open source and take action on it as a community than waiting Microsoft release a fix for it."

One might think, but research does not support this proposition.  Rather, research demonstrates that the law of diminishing returns is at play when it comes to open-source security review: that there is a maximum number of meaningfully "useful" reviewers, typically between two and four.  See, e.g., Robert L. Glass, Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/26/2015 | 9:36:44 PM
Re: Frankenstein
The other issue is that many of the big boys -- Microsoft, Google, etc. -- have bug bounty programs.  No such program exists for open source.

Maybe it doesn't need to (after all, Apple typically offers nothing or next to nothing), in terms of hard cash, but certainly some greater incentive would be of great help.  After all, most contributors to open source prefer to stick to features because features are often more interesting and fun.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
1/26/2015 | 4:38:06 PM
Re: blast from the past
Agree. As I mentioned in my other post, there is no hard link between open source and security but there are advantages and disadvantages when it comes to using open source and dealing with security. If you use open source and you are no paying for support then you need to be very carefully getting all the patches in place on time, nobody else will do it for you, and this increase risk level in my view.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
1/26/2015 | 4:31:57 PM
Re: Frankenstein
I agree with this too. At the same time we know hackers have advantage too when the see vulnerabilities in open source, it is easier to attack open source code base.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
1/26/2015 | 4:29:52 PM
Re: WhiteSource proves that open source is safe if used responsibly
I would agree with them. It is easier to see vulnerabilities with many eyes in open source and take action on it as a community than waiting Microsoft release a fix for it.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
1/26/2015 | 4:26:26 PM
Open source and security
 

I would like to make a point that there is no an hard link between open source and security. Some open source systems are quite secure some are not. The same goes with the closed system, Windows is a closed system and that is where we see security issues more than other systems. 
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Concerns over supply chain vulnerabilities and attack visibility drove some significant changes in enterprise cybersecurity strategies over the past year. Dark Reading's 2021 Strategic Security Survey showed that many organizations are staying the course regarding the use of a mix of attack prevention and threat detection technologies and practices for dealing with cyber threats.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-42258
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-22
BQE BillQuick Web Suite 2018 through 2021 before 22.0.9.1 allows SQL injection for unauthenticated remote code execution, as exploited in the wild in October 2021 for ransomware installation. SQL injection can, for example, use the txtID (aka username) parameter. Successful exploitation can include ...
CVE-2020-28968
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-22
Draytek VigorAP 1000C contains a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the RADIUS Setting - RADIUS Server Configuration module. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload in the username input field.
CVE-2020-28969
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-22
Aplioxio PDF ShapingUp 5.0.0.139 contains a buffer overflow which allows attackers to cause a denial of service (DoS) via a crafted PDF file.
CVE-2020-36485
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-22
Portable Ltd Playable v9.18 was discovered to contain an arbitrary file upload vulnerability in the filename parameter of the upload module. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted JPEG file.
CVE-2020-36486
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-22
Swift File Transfer Mobile v1.1.2 and below was discovered to contain a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability via the 'path' parameter of the 'list' and 'download' exception-handling.