• Chronographs@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          51
          ·
          1 year ago

          Security through obscurity doesn’t, work the vulnerabilities are still there. Also if the vulnerabilities are visible they’re also easier to close.

        • NAK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tell me you have never worked in IT security without telling me you never worked in IT security.

          To give you an actual answer, instead of pure Internet snark, the concept you’re proposing is called “security through obscurity” if you want to research it.

          The TL:DR of it is it doesn’t work. If it did, all software would be proprietary and things like viruses wouldn’t exist. The source code for Windows isn’t available, but Windows gets exploited constantly.

        • Revan343
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If it’s open source, anyone can poke around in the code and find vulnerabilities to exploit way easier patch

          FTFY. Open source software is more secure than closed source, not less

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, you can’t really make blanket statements like that at all.

            Open source doesn’t compromise security on its own and closed source is the same.

            Open source might be more secure but that’s only if people actually audit it properly and some closed source codes are audited more closely than some open source code.

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          More eyeballs are from people wanting those flaws fixed that wanting to exploit them.

          Proprietary source code has much fewer eyeballs, none of which you can verify belong to competent or trustworthy people.

        • Free Palestine 🇵🇸@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is this a serious question?

          This is the exact same ridiculous argument that proprietary software corporations make. It never made any sense, security through obscurity will never work. Linux is open-source used on ~80% of all web servers, in your logic these servers would all be vulnerable. It just doesn’t make any sense. Linux is also used in many embedded devices and Android is based on the Linux kernel. But Android (which is also entirely open source) has one of the best security models out there.

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the same bullshit line politicians and corporations use, it’s simply not true

        • sudneo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Vulnerabilities can and are usually found without code inspection. Fuzzing, reverse engineering, etc. At the same time, it is easier to find vulnerabilities having the code to check, but it is easier also for those who want to have them patched. That’s why we have tons of CVEs in Windows, iOS etc., and they don’t all come from the vendor… Depending on the ratio of eyeballs looking at something to fix and the ones looking at something to exploit, open source can be more secure compared to closed source.

    • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And 100% of it is dog shit. I have seen custom products from Accenture, Deloitte, and E&Y, and they were passable prototypes at best.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Accenture doesn’t make shit. They bring in expensive ass consultants with 25 years of experience (on paper), then they sell something basically off the shelf. What’s left of the budget goes to a subcontractor, who now has to glue the already purchased pieces together with spit and gum, now on a very tight timeline before the funding runs out and your tiny company gets the blame

        Haven’t worked directly with the others, but the Accenture story was the same everywhere