by John Linkous <\/p>\n
It seems like such a short time ago: the massive and pervasive Heart Bleed vulnerability, triggered by a flaw in the OpenSSL open source software product, left massive swaths of confidential information including user names and passwords of public web services, and private encryption keys accessible to anyone with a browser and the knowledge of how to exploit the flaw. Of course, OpenSSLs Heart Bleed vulnerability is not the only flaw that has recently been discovered in open source software. Right on the heels of Heart Bleed, vulnerabilities within two popular packages for identity management, OAuth and OpenID, were discovered potentially leading to compromise across a Whos Who of web properties: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, LinkedIn, PayPal, and many more. <\/p>\n
All of these recently discovered flaws within open source software platforms have many people asking the question: Is open source software really safe? After all, these are products, packages and tools that are often developed in a highly decentralized manner, with contributors from around the globe who generally are tied together as volunteers. There is no HR process for open source projects contributors (other than perhaps an evaluation of programming skills): what if an open source developer moonlights as a carder, and inserts malicious code or a backdoor into an open source library? All the source code is available for anyone to see: what prevents a malicious attacker from scanning the code for vulnerabilities, and writing tools to exploit them? Most open source packages are developed on a volunteer basis: what if the package maintainers simply decide not to patch their vulnerabilities, with no way to force them to do so? <\/p>\n
All of these questions have been raised in recent weeks across industry media, blogs and tweets, in response to these discovered flaws. Its made for great FUD and commentary fodder, but how legitimate are these concerns? <\/p>\n
Fortunately, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of the insecurity of open source software are greatly exaggerated. First, a short bit of history. Ill be the first to admit: I was not always a fan of open source. My first experiences with open source software were in the mid-90s, with early distributions of Linux and its associated packages. Linux, of course, does not mean the same thing as open source. But the reality is that most peoples first introduction to open source (including mine) was through that operating system or other open source BSD-based operating systems such as OpenBSD and NetBSD, which host thousands of open source projects through efficient package management systems. Back then, open source was trying to mark its territory, and its most vocal advocates were folks like Richard Stallman and Eric S. Raymond who ranted seemingly endlessly about the evils of commercial software, and how code should be free (as in freedom of speech, not necessarily as in free beer). <\/p>\n
Failing to use the correct terminology to an open source acolyte, such as referring to the operating system as Linux rather than GNU\/Linux, could get you neck-deep in flame war on Usenet or IRC that might go on for days and no amount of mea culpa would grant you quarter. In those heady days, it was a full-blown technology holy war, and you were either all-in with open source by contributing something to a package (code, QA and test, documentation, etc.) and more importantly eschewing commercial software, or you were the enemy. While those tactics ultimately helped open source in some ways, the libertarian philosophical bent and all-or-nothing approach alienated a lot of people who might have otherwise embraced open source a lot sooner. For me, it was a frustrating time and place for learning about open source. <\/p>\n
Fortunately, along came some vendors who worked out the kinks, and I started to come around to appreciating the open source way. First was Red Hat, who established the first successful model for legitimizing open source with a real corporate face and a cohesive distribution of Linux. Other vendors followed suit, with distributions such as SuSe, Caldera and Debian improving on how open source packages worked with each other within the ecosystem of an operating system that was itself open source. Fast-forward to today, and open source is ubiquitous in the corporate world, standing equally alongside commercial software. Linux distributions such as Ubuntu provide a user experience that rivals any other OS. <\/p>\n
Apple has adopted a variant of BSD, itself an open source operating system with thousands of open source packages, as the foundation of its OSX. Open source packages deliver countless foundation technology services to the enterprise, from name resolution (bind and OpenDNS), to databases (MySQL, PostGRES, Hadoop, and others), reporting (Jasper), and business operations such as customer relationship management (SugarCRM). And of course, open source owns the lions share of web application servers and http platforms (Apache http server, Apache Tomcat, and JBOSS). Even Microsoft, once vilified as the antithesis of the open source community by some of its more vocal members, is now recognizing that it needs to work with open source and is making efforts at improving open source package integration under new CEO Satya Nadella. <\/p>\n
So, lets take a moment and talk about some of the concerns related to open source, and why theyre generally illegitimate: <\/p>\n
What about the people who write the code? While its true that most open source packages are developed on a volunteer basis, its also true that most open source project founders and managers are passionate about their projects, and want to see them succeed. They actually control who can and cannot contribute to packages, and often will select people they personally know and trust as contributors. Many projects have very democratic approaches to development, and rely on extensive peer review to ensure that their fellow developers are developing quality code. This collegial model is something that commercial development firms often try to emulate, because they understand that it can result in better quality code. From a personality perspective, while its true that the occasional nutter is discovered in the open source community (such as Hans Reiser), the quantity pales in comparison to bad behavior coming out of commercial Silicon Valley companies (RadiumOne and GitHub being only the two most recent examples). <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n