You've been living on such a principle? That sounds insane, why would something not be nefarious just because you can read the code?
The way I was "raised" by FOSS greybeards screaming at me through web forums, was that any software available on 3rd party websites anyone can upload anything to, will be filled with viruses and malware, and this was early 2000s. Surely people still advocate for this mindset today, when it's even more likely?
The free software license specifically gives the software an extra advantage in that changes to the software must be shared openly, if distributed as as binaries.
I think part of why this social engineering works so well is it takes advantage of that "many eyes" trust, where people are prone to delegating the responsibility of checking to the community and not do due diligence on themselves. I know I'm susceptible to it if I see a Github repo with more than 10k stars on it.
By now (imo), the entire web is gamed and no number can be trusted, I operate completely on a qualitative basis rather than quantitative, basically the only way I can get something out of the web. Ignore all and any numbers as any indication of anything.
It's not perfect, but surely it's easier to audit for malicious code than closed source.
Also, there is no shortage of volunteers looking out for code changes in established open source software. I think it's fair to exclude software that is very new and/or that has no users, which may be closer to equal footing with proprietary software.
Even for established proprietary software, you get volunteers watching out for changes in releases. Though, far less than open source, and more reserved for people who know reverse engineering.
> Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
[1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral...
I have not, but in case you missed it, this principle has been used by open source proponents for decades. I'm an open source developer myself, but always found it odd.
"Closed source software is inscrutable, impossible for me to fix, impossible for me to review the source" is absolutely a distinct statement from "it is impossible to hide malware in open-source software". I've literally never heard someone claim the latter.
(edit for coherency, thanks graemep)
No nobody said "exactly that". But many times I've seen people claiming to trust open source as it is safer and people can check and build themselves. Seen it too many times. But reality is different than what is claimed.
You didn't use the word "safe", you used the relative term "safer", and on average, it is harder to hide ill intent in open source software, there's a greater chance it will eventually be discovered. The blast radius is larger for open source (because the barrier to using it is lower), which increases the number of people impacted, but an increase in the number of people impacted also increases the chance of discovery and motivation to address it once discovered.
Fun fact, I've spent the last few days fretting over whether to add H2 to my FabricMC mod. The problem being that I don't know what class-loading shenanigans could possibly occur if I jar-in-jar include it: what happens if another mod has H2 jar-in-jar included? Will my mod only reference its own version of H2? What implications [if any] would that have? Or will the Fabric Loader pick one? What if another mod has H2 shaded instead? Will the classes clash differently? What if, instead of jar-in-jar including it, I shade and relocate it? Does H2 or JDBC rely on reflection or services that would render it non-functional?
All recommendations point to using/creating a mod specifically for that library and depending on it. As luck would have it, one already exists on Modrinth. Except... I'm then requiring anyone who trusts my mod to also install this other mod that I have no control over. I just looked at the source code and it looks fine, but that's if you trust that the published jars are the exact result of that source code: maybe there's something malicious in the Gradle Wrapper binary. This mod could at any time become malicious and how would I detect that?
Guess what? I asked around and was summarily told to stop worrying, that it's fine. We on this website need to realise that we're a minority: NO ONE is routinely (or even occasionally) scrutinising the source code of the stuff they install from third-party websites. I have never, not once, seen anyone hash a downloaded file to check that it matches what's on the website. At the very most, I've seen people find the Github repo, see that it has a lot of stars, and then assume it's safe.
"He reverse-engineered an actual attack. The project contained scripts that enabled code injection and crypto-wallet theft. His post (highly recommended):"
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/como-identifiquei-um-golpe-em...
"The execp package (version 0.0.1) is an infamous, malicious dependency frequently used in recent supply-chain attacks and job interview scams. Threat actors embed this 9-year-old package into seemingly innocent "technical assessments" or projects. When you run npm install, it quietly executes arbitrary shell commands in the background to compromise your machine."
Approximately nobody can read other people's code for intent or quality, let alone to surface malware meant to be hidden in it.
For almost everyone, the only hope is that somebody else validated the code you want to use before you choose to use it and successfully interfered with its distribution upon finding an issue. That's why the culture of automatic-updating package managers and bloated dependency graphs are so dangerous and why inserting delays into package managers can make such a difference in exposure to supply chain attacks for those that are intent to use them.
It's true that open source provides the transparency that makes any kind of third-party validation possible, but closed source benefits from commercial vendors staking their brand on what they release. It's a tradeoff, not a straightforward win for one side.
That's not a distinction that people really benefit from.
Approximately nobody can read other people's code for intent or quality
GitHub is not a curated software repository. It's essentially no different from some random stranger linking to some binaries on a forum. (There are communities that seem to have no concerns about running unknown binaries from strangers in forum threads, but I wouldn't recommend it.)
No is saying this. I think you have misunderstood the principles of open source. I'd rather be able to verify the code i am running, then it being locked down, propreitery.
I have the possibilty to audit FOSS. Cant do it for propreitery software
The catch is the eyeballs can also be used to generate exploits.
- Application.cmd or Launcher.cmd
- loader.exe or luajit.exe or another_name.exe
- random_name.cso or random_name.txt
- lua51.dll
the ethos of open source is that bugs and malicious code are more likely to be spotted.
we’re discussing this on hn right now strictly because the code is open, the abusive code was found because it is open.
abusive people will make abusive software. the problem lies in the fact that despite absolutely having the resources, microsoft won’t do anything about it, not in the fact that we can see the abuse.
the problem is microsoft, yet again.