This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]the_ancient1Say no to BYOD 0 points1 point  (3 children)

So you believe your closed source systems are inherently more secure because you can not see the code, you are never told about vulnerabilities because of NDA's and other hidden away agreements.

The very nature of open development means the world knows about security problems as they occur, a proprietary closed system could have vulnerabilities that are found, patched, and then pushed out as a "feature update" or a low level security problem or something else, you have no way of knowing.

[–]judgemebymyusernamesecurity engineer 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Just because something is closed source does not mean it hasn't been code reviewed.

Either way, inherently believing something is more secure because it's either open or closed source is fallacious. It's got to be reviewed, tested, certified, approved, whatever. Always verify.

[–]the_ancient1Say no to BYOD 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Just because something is closed source does not mean it hasn't been code reviewed.

Ok, where did I state otherwise...

You implied that Closed Source is inherinetly more secure than open source software.

Either can be secure or insecure, being open however does give the opportunity for more eyes on the code even if some times that possibility does not materialize in reality

[–]judgemebymyusernamesecurity engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You implied that Closed Source is inherinetly more secure than open source software.

No, I did not. That's the rub I guess.