The myths and realities of open source software security

The debate around open source security has intensified over recent years. Many consider open source software (OSS) safer due to its transparency, while others point to recent security breaches as evidence of its vulnerabilities. But is OSS genuinely safer than proprietary code? The answer is nuanced and depends on a balance between open source's strengths, such as community involvement, and the practical challenges of maintenance.

Advantages

One of the primary arguments in favor of open source security is transparency. Because OSS is publicly available, it’s open to scrutiny by developers, researchers, and ethical hackers. This large community can examine the code for vulnerabilities, assess its quality, and propose improvements. Projects like Linux, Kubernetes, and Apache exemplify the power of large communities in finding and fixing security flaws.Transparency theoretically means that security vulnerabilities are spotted and resolved more quickly. However, this outcome is not guaranteed. While popular projects benefit from robust community oversight, lesser-known OSS projects may lack adequate scrutiny. In cases where the community is small or unengaged, security issues can go unnoticed for extended periods. The recent Log4j vulnerability, which remained undetected for years, serves as a stark reminder that open access does not necessarily mean immediate identification of security flaws.

Open source often enables faster responses to security threats. Once a vulnerability is reported, anyone in the community can propose a fix, and popular OSS projects typically have processes for quickly integrating these patches. For example, when vulnerabilities were discovered in OpenSSL, software that powers much of the world’s secure web traffic, the open-source community mobilized to develop, test, and release fixes. The collaborative nature of OSS allows for agile response to threats, assuming active project maintenance.

Challenges

Open source communities often lack dedicated funding, especially in smaller projects. Unlike commercial software companies that invest in quality control and security testing, open source projects rely on a volunteer workforce that might not be consistent or comprehensive. Funding issues can impact the quality of security practices and resources available for long-term maintenance.

The OpenSSL Heartbleed vulnerability revealed how underfunding could lead to security issues even in critical software. Although OpenSSL is a backbone of secure communication, it operated with a minimal budget and workforce before Heartbleed garnered attention. Since then, initiatives like the Core Infrastructure Initiative have attempted to provide more funding for crucial open-source projects, but the issue remains widespread.

Open source software's transparency also means it’s open to malicious actors. Bad actors can access the same code as ethical developers, and they may look for ways to exploit it. While proprietary software can also be reverse-engineered, OSS code is easier for threat actors to analyze. Attackers may identify and exploit vulnerabilities before they’re patched. Supply chain attacks have become more prevalent in open source software. Threat actors target dependencies and libraries, inserting malicious code that affects downstream applications. Given that most applications today rely heavily on open source libraries, this risk is significant. Projects like the Open Source Security Foundation are working to address this issue, yet it remains an important consideration.

Managing dependencies securely requires rigorous tracking and regular updating. Tools like GitHub Dependabot or Snyk can help automate some of this work by flagging outdated or vulnerable dependencies, but responsibility ultimately lies with the development teams to apply patches and monitor dependencies actively.

Secure open source

Choose open-source projects with active communities, robust documentation, and frequent updates. Projects with a dedicated following and institutional support are likely to be more secure. Look for indicators like response times for pull requests, frequency of commits, and how the project handles security vulnerabilities.

Tools like automated scanners, static analysis tools, and Software Composition Analysis tools can help identify vulnerabilities in dependencies. Many open-source projects are available for this purpose, including some provided by major platforms like GitHub. Implementing these tools as part of your DevSecOps pipeline helps reduce risk and improve visibility.

Conclusion

In a best case scenario, open source software can be safer due to its transparency, community involvement, and rapid response capabilities. However, this safety depends heavily on the size and dedication of the community supporting each project and the practices of those using the software. For popular, well-maintained projects, OSS can offer high security standards. Ultimately, the decision to use open-source software should be based on a security risk assessment. By following best practices, monitoring dependencies, and choosing reputable projects, organizations can harness the power of open source securely.