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.

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?
HackerOne Drops Mobile Voting App Vendor Voatz
Dark Reading Staff 3/30/2020
Limited-Time Free Offers to Secure the Enterprise Amid COVID-19
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  3/31/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11558
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-05
An issue was discovered in libgpac.a in GPAC 0.8.0, as demonstrated by MP4Box. audio_sample_entry_Read in isomedia/box_code_base.c does not properly decide when to make gf_isom_box_del calls. This leads to various use-after-free outcomes involving mdia_Read, gf_isom_delete_movie, and gf_isom_parse_m...
CVE-2020-11547
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-05
PRTG Network Monitor before 20.1.57.1745 allows remote unauthenticated attackers to obtain information about probes running or the server itself (CPU usage, memory, Windows version, and internal statistics) via an HTTP request, as demonstrated by type=probes to login.htm or index.htm.
CVE-2020-11548
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-05
The Search Meter plugin through 2.13.2 for WordPress allows user input introduced in the search bar to be any formula. The attacker could achieve remote code execution via CSV injection if a wp-admin/index.php?page=search-meter Export is performed.
CVE-2020-11542
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-04
3xLOGIC Infinias eIDC32 2.213 devices with Web 1.107 allow Authentication Bypass via CMD.HTM?CMD= because authentication depends on the client side's interpretation of the <KEY>MYKEY</KEY> substring.
CVE-2020-11533
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-04
Ivanti Workspace Control before 10.4.30.0, when SCCM integration is enabled, allows local users to obtain sensitive information (keying material).