So with open source software more on my mind lately I was wondering - while I get the benefits of transparency and such, how safe is it? If the source code is available to all, isn’t it easier to breach for people (like the recent cookies hack)? If I’d have an open source password manager, would it be easier for people to get my passwords somehow than if I use something not open source? Do I just not understand how software works in general?

And what are other benefits that may be not so obvious to someone not so knowledgable about this?

Edit: thank you all for really insightful answers! Among other things I also learned just how much I don’t know :)

  • Koma52@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Neither closed or open software is safer than the other in my opinion. If someone wants to find a vulnerability they will find a vulnerability. The only advantage open source maybe has that it’s harder to hide vulnerabilities for years and it’s more obvious if they don’t fix it. But personally I wouldn’t use open source just for safety reasons.

    • TootSweet@latte.isnot.coffee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Wow. I couldn’t possibly be any more your opposite in this regard. I try very hard not to run proprietary software. For safety reasons. And when I do run proprietary software, I do my best to sandbox it. I don’t let my Nintendo Switch talk to my home network often. I hacked my robotic vacuum cleaner not to phone home. I do my (U.S.) taxes on stupid paper because there aren’t pure-FOSS options for filing electronically.

    • Jamie@jamie.moe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The software is as safe as it’s maintainers. The Linux kernel runs the majority of the world’s devices, open source software makes up just about every industry standard piece of software that runs the web. Linux tends to see a lot less major vulnerabilities than Windows, and fixes for those are released much faster because anyone can submit the fix, maybe even the person who found it in the first place.

    • cyberpunk007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the right answer. Basically nothing is secure. That’s the truth. There will always be a hole or a way to circumvent something. That said, a lot of open source software is very high quality and I use it where I can because it’s free and some conglomerate is not push ads or siphoning info from me.

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is no all or nothing question. Some things are obviously more secure than others. Locking your door with a key won’t guarantee that there will be no home invasion but having no lock at all will make it much easier for potential threats. And open source software has advantages in this regard.

    • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If someone wants to find a vulnerability they will find a vulnerability.

      only if there is a vulnerability. Which is possible but not necessary.

      The only advantage open source maybe has that it’s harder to hide vulnerabilities for years

      Vulnerabilitues should never be hidden but in stead eradicated. The true advantage of oss (regarding security) is that your implementations have to be secure. Security by obscurity is simply not an option

      and it’s more obvious if they don’t fix it.

      Security also means knowing about issues. When “they don’t fix it” in OSS, you at least (can) know about that, in closed source it is harder to be sure that the code is secure.