A debate has long raged over the security of open-source software versus proprietary software. Many argue that open-source software, which allows anyone to access and modify the underlying code, is more vulnerable to security threats. However, others contend that the collaborative nature of open-source development actually enhances security. So, which is it? Is open-source software a boon or a bane for security?
Open-source software certainly has its advantages. By allowing anyone to examine the code, security vulnerabilities can be identified and fixed more quickly. This is in contrast to closed-source software, where the source code is proprietary and only accessible to a select group of developers. In closed-source software, fixes must rely solely on the expertise of those developers, which may result in slower response times.
However, a 2022 study published at the 31st USENIX Security Symposium raised concerns about the potential for backdoors to be introduced into open-source software. These backdoors could go unnoticed for years, compromising the security of the software. This raises the question of whether the open nature of open-source software is a double-edged sword, offering both transparency and potential vulnerabilities.
The history of open-source software dates back to the 1950s, but it wasn’t until the early 1980s that software was considered copyrightable in the United States. This led to a shift in the availability of source code, with many vendors opting to keep their code closed. However, in recent years, there has been a growing acceptance of open-source software, even among major tech companies like Microsoft.
In fact, public-private collaboration on the security of open-source software has become increasingly common. The White House even held a summit on securing open-source software in 2022, prompted by the widespread exploitation of vulnerabilities in such software. The importance of open-source software in the technology ecosystem cannot be denied, leading to initiatives like bug bounty programs that incentivize the finding and fixing of vulnerabilities.
Despite the advantages of open-source software, closed-source software still has its own merits. Closed-source software companies have the ability to assign dedicated teams to address software issues promptly. On the other hand, open-source projects often rely on volunteer contributors to fix bugs, which can lead to delays in updates. However, the commercial success of some open-source companies allows them to employ individuals specifically tasked with fixing bugs.
In reality, the distinction between open-source and closed-source software is not always so clear-cut. Many closed-source projects rely on open-source software for foundational functionality. Additionally, some open-source companies actively contribute to open-source projects and maintain their own commercial software based on that code. This hybrid approach blurs the lines between the two models and can lead to security vulnerabilities regardless of whether the software is open or closed.
Open-source software also has the ability to catalyze the development of secure communication software. Projects like Proton and Signal, which prioritize privacy and security, have gained popularity due to their transparent code and solid reputations. These projects invite scrutiny from the security community, recognizing the far-reaching consequences of vulnerabilities in personal messaging and user identity protection.
Yet, closed-source software has also been found to have vulnerabilities that go undetected for years. One striking example is CVE-2019-0859, a use-after-free vulnerability that was discovered in ten years’ worth of Microsoft Windows operating systems. This demonstrates that even widely-used closed-source software is not immune to security flaws.
Ultimately, the security of software relies on the development process and the responsiveness of the host organization to the broader security community. Both open-source and closed-source software can be made secure through proper development practices and timely implementation of fixes. Organizations should focus on the reliability of these practices rather than basing their security posture solely on the type of software license.
In a hybrid software landscape where open- and closed-source components often coexist, the key is for organizations to be receptive to suggestions and contributions from the security community. By reinvesting in the security community and fostering a culture of collaboration, organizations can improve the overall security of their software. While perfect security may be unattainable, the reputation and expertise of software teams can go a long way in mitigating security risks.