Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
Re: Expert Says Linux a 'Threat' to US National Security
Posted by: Gene J. Koprowski 2004-04-09 11:48:57
See Full Story
Listening to some Linux critics, you might think that the open-source operating system is more of a threat to U.S. national security than a gaggle of Islamic jihadis lugging rocket-propelled grenade launchers around Fallujah, or mad Pakistani nuclear scientists selling secrets to rogue states. At yesterday's Net-Centric Operations Industry Forum in McLean, Virginia, near Washington D.C., the CEO of Green Hills Software, Dan O'Dowd, generated national publicity when he opined that the "proliferation of the Linux open-source operating systems poses a serious and urgent security threat."
Re: Expert Says Linux a 'Threat' to US National Security
Posted by: flet 2004-04-16 01:32:23 In reply to: Gene J. Koprowski
What a pathetic article. I mean, so blatant misinformation, call it FUD if you like, has nothing to do with expertise. Do people really think anyone can stuff any piece of code in Linux or in another FOSS project, for the sole reason it's "open-source" ? And what about being hired by a software company (say Microsoft) and pouring malicious code in their close-code software ? It's probably much harder to put malicious code under sun light in an open source code base, than to tinker with hidden, close-source features.
Re: Expert Says Linux a 'Threat' to US National Security
Posted by: chadcoffman 2004-04-12 08:51:23 In reply to: Gene J. Koprowski
I appreciate Mr. Koprowski's coverage of this issue as FUD shouldn't dominate such a topic of discussion, but instead facts and information. While I am a supporter and believer in both Linux and Windows, I think that both have security issues that need to be addressed. The issue, as I see it though, is not about open or closed source, but about the business model of the respective vendors and software creators. Any software is a product of the quality of its design and the ability of its developers to control the process of its development. It seems that when it comes to open source, the discussion should be about how new software components and improvements are adopted and not about who is contributing them. Let a terrorist give us his best ideas – a good software engineer / programmer, a sound development process, and good review process should expose any holes before they make it to prime time.
I think it's a bit of a discredit to the many skilled Software Engineers who develop our software to say that they aren't assessing new components and implementing them with care and caution. It's also a bit irresponsible to defend their use and implementaiton of new components without knowing exactly what they are doing. Open source provides a much more comprehensive ability to examine what is going on and assess whether the development model is in fact responsible enough for our needs. A closed source project has a company's reputation and financial well-being behind software it buys. Any entity buying software should be able to insure for it's user base that the software is of the highest quality. If you can’t get either of this from a vendor, open source or not, I think it’s in your best interest to look elsewhere.
Time and again, Trusted Solaris and the BSD operating systems, including Apple's Darwin come up on security expert's lists as the most secure software. Solaris is closed source and Darwin and the BSDs are open source. The reasons are objective, quantifiable and sound. I think rather than discussing open and closed source, we should be asking how it is that Linux and Windows are being chosen for critical applications over these more proven operating systems. Let’s make this debate one that will truly benefit computer science and the FUD of the moment.
And as an aside, perhaps we can again ask why applications are still being created in C and other procedural languages that are both less secure and less easy to maintain/refactor. Once we get secure operating systems, let’s not forget that Object-oriented languages, that utilize virtual machines such as the JVM and .Net environments, are much more transparent and secure to run the applications that users interact with.
I think it's a bit of a discredit to the many skilled Software Engineers who develop our software to say that they aren't assessing new components and implementing them with care and caution. It's also a bit irresponsible to defend their use and implementaiton of new components without knowing exactly what they are doing. Open source provides a much more comprehensive ability to examine what is going on and assess whether the development model is in fact responsible enough for our needs. A closed source project has a company's reputation and financial well-being behind software it buys. Any entity buying software should be able to insure for it's user base that the software is of the highest quality. If you can’t get either of this from a vendor, open source or not, I think it’s in your best interest to look elsewhere.
Time and again, Trusted Solaris and the BSD operating systems, including Apple's Darwin come up on security expert's lists as the most secure software. Solaris is closed source and Darwin and the BSDs are open source. The reasons are objective, quantifiable and sound. I think rather than discussing open and closed source, we should be asking how it is that Linux and Windows are being chosen for critical applications over these more proven operating systems. Let’s make this debate one that will truly benefit computer science and the FUD of the moment.
And as an aside, perhaps we can again ask why applications are still being created in C and other procedural languages that are both less secure and less easy to maintain/refactor. Once we get secure operating systems, let’s not forget that Object-oriented languages, that utilize virtual machines such as the JVM and .Net environments, are much more transparent and secure to run the applications that users interact with.
Re: Expert Says Linux a 'Threat' to US National Security
Posted by: tonybaldwin 2004-04-10 08:07:43 In reply to: Gene J. Koprowski
DoD is a moron. He clearly knows nothing about OSS.
Re: Expert Says Linux a 'Threat' to US National Security
Posted by: amanraheja 2004-04-12 08:15:34 In reply to: tonybaldwin
Surprise that this is from an EXPERT !!! Or he has been mistakenly called an expert. If he had known anything about OSS, he would be more confident with what's in the plan!
This is a mis-leading article to people who are just getting to know linux!
This is a mis-leading article to people who are just getting to know linux!
