WAsn't someone paid to not disclose a SAMBA bug quite a while ago?
Also remember that Google is working with the CIA (more likely with other organizations too), Microsoft with NSA (likely with other orgs too), OpenBSD is and has been compromised for a decade too. All of this is virtually impossible to fix because it's either closed source or those who injected bad code certainly made sure it's not easily discoverable, and IMHO Linux is compromised too because it amounts for like 50% of all servers and common sense implies that the USA government couldn't possibly leave Linux alone since it's the 500 pounds gorilla in the server market.
In short, de facto, no matter how bad it sounds, the current state of security is a joke, and btw I'm sure Window$ has even more (much more!) CIA/NSA/FBI back-doors spying crap.
Since in windows the code doesn't have to hide (since window$ is closed source) such code might even have a dedicated API, i.e. the "Windows Spying API", just kidding..
You do know that Microsoft customers can request access to the Windows source-code for security audits, don't you? This is kind of a necessity, give that Windows is occasionally used in security-critical places.
Originally Posted by cl333r
Not saying that deliberate backdoors aren't there, but they are probably well-hidden in non-apparent places (like the header and random padding of encrypted packets). This kind of stuff is almost impossible to detect without forehand knowledge.
You do know that Microsoft can (and will) give them the stripped version of code without the security back-doors, don't you?
What point is there to audit parts of windows source code when you still get a binary shipped which could have been compiled using a 'edited' source code?
Originally Posted by BlackStar
As for the BSD stuff, it seems that the letter was legit:
but of course that doesn't necessarily mean that Gregory Perry is telling the truth. Time will tell.
Brad is pretty well known for digging at/digging holes in SELinux at this point. It's amusing, despite the security implications.
Originally Posted by linux5850
Well there goes another opensource myth. So much for "more eyes lead to more secure code" argument.
This is certainly true.
Originally Posted by cl333r
Most firms however will audit the code provided by microsoft and audit a decompiled version using HexRays Decompiler or some other in house tool. No serious audit can be done without looking at disassembled machine code. HexRays does produce almost readable psuedo c code. Obviously for bytecode languages like .net or java decompiling can be much more user readable.
Also Debian SSL vulnerable keys went unnoticed for 2 years: http://wiki.debian.org/SSLkeys
Originally Posted by Smorg
It's still applying. With OpenBSD we can audit its code and prove/discard this claim. When such claims were done with Windows no one can verify if it's true or not.
Originally Posted by deanjo
Tags for this Thread