Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: clarification - reasons as to why commercial software *could* be better
From: "Brent J. Nordquist" <b-nordquist () bethel edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:40:25 -0600 (CST)
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gadi Evron <ge () egotistical reprehensible net> wrote:
point (3) - when one doesn't have the source code, one finds it more difficult, AGAIN, to a level, to find holes in the software.
OK, yes, "to a level". But:
NOT every kid in the world who *knows* how to read code, also knows how to even.. use a disassembler. If that takes some kids off the software's "back". it is a plus. Is it a major one? I think it is.
Sorry, I think in an Internet-connected world, it is not. Many people have pointed out that it only takes one person to find the flaw and create an exploit, which is published or leaks out. Then how many kiddiez or worm instances will there be at the gate, armed with it? I didn't save every message for this thread, so if you responded to Jeremiah, my apologies for missing it. But I think this is very significant: On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Jeremiah Cornelius <jeremiah () nur net> wrote:
Almost every one of the vulnerabilities that I reference were discovered by independent 3rd parties, with access only to derived binary objects. MS - with privileged access to sources - never discovered any of these flaws internally.
So if closed source (only object code made public) is really a "major" advantage (your word) for the home team with respect to security, why would the above be true? I think if Microsoft (or any other company) wants to claim credibly that closed source is a major security advantage, they need an order of magnitude more people reviewing their own code. (It would only be the combination of the two that would make a difference, and frankly that isn't even the most important thing in my view.) MS in particular stands out because they have billions in the bank... and they couldn't hire people as clever as the people outside their organization finding these vulns. without the source, if they really wanted to? Come on. -- Brent J. Nordquist <b-nordquist () bethel edu> N0BJN Other contact information: http://kepler.acns.bethel.edu/~bjn/contact.html * Fast pipe * Always on * Get out of the way - Tim Bray http://tinyurl.com/7sti _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux, (continued)
- Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux Jason Coombs (Nov 12)
- Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux Georgi Guninski (Nov 12)
- Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux Jeremiah Cornelius (Nov 12)
- Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux Gadi Evron (Nov 12)
- [Full-Disclosure] why commcerical software *could* be better [WAS: Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux] Gadi Evron (Nov 12)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] why commcerical software *could* be better [WAS: Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux] Jeremiah Cornelius (Nov 12)
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] why commcerical software *could* be better [WAS: Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux] vb (Nov 12)
- Re: why commcerical software *could* be better Gadi Evron (Nov 12)
- Re: why commcerical software *could* be better vb (Nov 12)
- clarification - reasons as to why commercial software *could* be better Gadi Evron (Nov 12)
- Re: clarification - reasons as to why commercial software *could* be better Brent J. Nordquist (Nov 13)
- Re: clarification - reasons as to why commercial software *could* be better vb (Nov 13)
- Re: why commcerical software *could* be better David Maynor (Nov 12)
- Re: why commcerical software *could* be better [WAS: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux] Georgi Guninski (Nov 12)
- Re: why commcerical software *could* be better Gadi Evron (Nov 12)
- Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux Charles E. Hill (Nov 12)
- Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux vb (Nov 13)
- Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux Luis Bruno (Nov 13)