Comment on Comitis Capital announces the acquisition of Threema
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks agoWell, again, taking an unpopular but valid point of view - how good it really is to have the source code for finding vulnerabilities? Is it really harder to hide an intentional backdoor in the source code in plain sight than it is in something that’s only distributed in binaries? I have no relevant experience, but I’ve listened to a lecture by someone from Kaspersky lab saying that.
Having commonly available source code is good for development and learning of functionality of something, but security flaws have that subgroup of backdoors.
PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
If open-source, a lot more eyes could be on it, and therefore the chances of intentionally implemented vulnerabilities, by Threema itself, would have a higher chance of being noticed before able to be exploited, by both hackers and Threema (partners).
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
On the source code. Absolutely the same amount of eyes on the binary.
Anyway, there’s a joke (by Linus Torvalds, I think, but maybe I am wrong) that most of the eyes that could look at the code are attached to hands typing the thing about “more eyes”.
Source code being available is obviously beneficial for learning how a program works as a whole, or participating in its development, obviously, but for finding things hidden I’m not sure.
PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Ah sorry, it seems I read over that part. Unless programmers have the exceptional skills and time required, to effectively reverse engineer these complex algorithms, nobody will bother to do so; especially when required after each update. On the contrary, if source code was available, the bar of entry is significantly lower and requires way less specialized skills. So save to say, most programmers won’t even bother inspecting a binary, unless there’s absolutely no other way around or have time to burn. Where as, if you’d open up the source, there would be a lot more, let’s say C programmers, able to inspect the algorithm. Really, have a look at what it requires to write binary code, let alone reverse engineering complicated code, that somebody else wrote.
I agree with Linus’ statement though: I rarely inspect source-code myself, but I find it more comforting knowing, package-maintainers for instance, could theoretically check the source before distribution. I stand by my opinion that it’s a bad look for a privacy- and security-oriented piece of software, to restrict non-“experts” from inspecting that, which should ensure that.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
Once again you are talking about programmers in general and not security researchers.
I have had a look. I’ve also done some solving of simple crackmes and such. I’m definitely not competent, but to find a security backdoor well-hidden you’ll have to examine behavior, which requires certain skills, and then you’ll have to look at the executable code, and then, of course, having the source is good, but less so if it’s deliberately made look like normal.
I think I’m mistaken on that attribution, OpenBSD’s Theo de Raadt is more likely to be the author.
Yes, I agree that it’s better when the source is present. But if you overvalue the effect, then it might be worse. Say, again, with Linux - plenty of people are using thousands of pieces of FOSS software, trusting that resulting thing far more than Windows. If we knew that the level of trust is absolutely the same, then one could say Linux is safer. But we know that people sometimes do with Linux all kinds of things they wouldn’t do with Windows, because they overvalue the effect of it being FOSS. It’s FOSS, but you still better not store 10 years of home video unencrypted on the laptop you are carrying around, things like that.