>So does all this mean Open Source Software is no better

>than closed source software when it comes to security

>vulnerabilities? No. Open Source Software certainly does

>have the potential to be more secure than its closed

>source counterpart.

>But make no mistake, simply being open source is no >guarantee of security.

The text quoted above is the main point of this article, but the title and the examples are somewhat misleading. I agree there is less peer-review than expected with OSS but, it remains _possible_ . This is essential to me. Moreover, OSS has proven to be more reactive to newly discovered flaws. I know there are outsanding bugs still to be fixed but it is all the more true with proprietary software (look at the reactivity of Sun...).

Sure, OSS is not the Almighty Messiah of computer security but I am convinced that it's better than closed-source in most cases. You, security experts, should be a little clearer on this point.

Yes, I know I may not have followed the link to this paper if the title had been somewhat more explicit ...

Anway, thank you for your site (though I find the layout too complex), I use it everyday.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/19/1374#1374