I support free and open source software (FOSS) like VLC, Qbittorrent, LibreOffice, Gimp...

But why do people say that it's as secure or more secure than closed source software?

From what I understand, closed source software don't disclose their code.

If you want to see the source code of Photoshop, you actually need to work for Adobe. Otherwise, you need to be some kind of freaking retro-engineering expert.

But open source has their code available to the entire world on websites like Github or Gitlab.

Isn't that actually also helping hackers?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago*

Exploits in a lot of closed source software are from really stupid/simple things they’d get ridiculed for if the code were open.

In other words, I think being open creates “pressure” for code to be presentable and auditable. That, and there’s tons of opportunity and incentive for dysfunction with closed source stuff, like sitting on known exploits.

…That being said, it isn’t universal. Is a lone hero dev maintaining some open library going to be more effective at security coverage than a huge commercial team? Probably not.

Does the software for nuclear bomb security need to be public? Probably not.

  • source