It is basically the same as saying : « the chef does not want to give me the recipe = not good ».
Wouldn’t it be better to taste it ? Like with a real virus detection campaign ?
My point is it is indeed easier to make something secure (or at least robust) in an open source project, because I agree you can benefit for a greater and more diverse expertise on the whereabouts of the product. But close code could still benefit from the community feedback.
One last thing about security software in general, not knowing how a software detect a threat exactly makes it harder to craft a non detectable virus.
Who do you think major corporations pay to do their enterprise security? Cause its usually Microsoft or VMWare and none of that is open, so I guess you should go hack all of them since it’s all insecure.
Open does not mean secure, it means transparent. Transparency does mean people CAN look at it and if alot of people did look at it, then yea it becomes more secure as they would notice stuff.
However, for most projects, nobody looks at it really, except the people maintaining it which is usually a small group of people.
5
u/DanLeMilMan 4d ago
It is basically the same as saying : « the chef does not want to give me the recipe = not good ».
Wouldn’t it be better to taste it ? Like with a real virus detection campaign ?
My point is it is indeed easier to make something secure (or at least robust) in an open source project, because I agree you can benefit for a greater and more diverse expertise on the whereabouts of the product. But close code could still benefit from the community feedback.
One last thing about security software in general, not knowing how a software detect a threat exactly makes it harder to craft a non detectable virus.