Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Dec 2010 23:55 UTC, submitted by Oliver
OpenBSD Okay, this is potentially very big news that really needs all the exposure it can get. OpenBSD's Theo de Raadt has received an email in which it was revealed to him that ten years ago, the FBI paid several open source developers to implement hidden backdoors in OpenBSD's IPSEC stack. De Raadt decided to publish the email for all to see, so that the code in question can be reviewed. Insane stuff.
Thread beginning with comment 453690
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

How about being a little less hostile?

Many companies do as little as possible but there are also those that do an average job and those that do an excellent job. Blanket statement FAIL.

Security Companies DO have financial incentives to audit their code as it would be highly embarrassing and financially damaging if things like this were to be found.

The "Real" difference between closed source is that number and variety of people that can look at the code increasing coverage against poor coding or just plain human error (in the code and in checking the code).

However, there is not real statistical way to accurately quantify security verification. Are 3 less intelligent/fastidious code checkers in an OSS project than 1 very fastidious/Intelligent code checker better?

The fact that OSS is more secure is still only a (probable) hypothesis. NOT 100% proven theory.

I would say that it is likely that the low hanging security bugs are more likely to be caught in OSS that closed source, but the really tricky stuff in critical software is probably a much more level playing field.

Edited 2010-12-15 14:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:

There is zero hostility on my part; I'm merely stating a fact. google_ninja is trolling - with support from MollyC. No surprise though. They are as mad as a certain french windmill.

EDIT: Corporate Capitalism results in companies only having one incentive: Maximum profit. This means they will do as little as necessary and cannot be relied on for anything remotely connected to infrastructure and security. They are good at making refrigerators, but that's it really. Anything more than that requires laws that diminishes profits unless the companies take on certain tasks. Or put differently: Companies have zero incentive to audit their code.

Edited 2010-12-15 19:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1