Apple to Attend White House Meeting to Discuss Security Risks of Open-Source Software

Apple will be among several U.S. tech giants to attend a meeting at the White House today to discuss cybersecurity and possible security threats posed by open-source software, Reuters reports.

apple logo us flag smooth
The meeting will be held by U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and will focus on "concerns around the security of open-source software and how it can be improved." The meeting was prompted by concerns around a security vulnerability found in open-source software Log4j.

The vulnerability, which posed a threat to organizations that use Log4j around the world, allowed hackers to control a system and remotely execute malicious code.

According to Sullivan, open-source software such as Log4j presents a "key national security concern" as it is often used and maintained by volunteers. Google, IBM, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle are also expected to attend the meeting.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Top Rated Comments

AngerDanger Avatar
18 months ago
"We're not secure in how much money open-sourced software makes us."
Score: 66 Votes (Like | Disagree)
AngerDanger Avatar
18 months ago

I'm waiting for all the rabbit open-source fans to tell us open-source is much safer than closed-source.
The worst part is that because they're so cute, it's hard to evaluate their arguments objectively.



Attachment Image
Score: 52 Votes (Like | Disagree)
bbeagle Avatar
18 months ago
I'm waiting for all the rabbid open-source fans to tell us open-source is much safer than closed-source.

It's not that simple. open-source CAN be safer, it can also be less safe. In open-source, the exact code is out there for anyone to look at. This means anyone could see any flaws and fix them. It also means that anyone could see any flaws and exploit them.

In closed-source, you can't see the code. It's a much different process to exploit the code. Much harder. There are also less people who have access to the code to fix any flaws. So, flaws will stick around longer.

It's not simple.
Score: 48 Votes (Like | Disagree)
jdb8167 Avatar
18 months ago

The issue is more that there are a certain amount of core libs that everyone has in their builds. I think now its the Wild West because its no one person/ orgs job to check any of these libs or certify them.

We are leaving for too many core components to be looked after by people for free with no incentive to make sure everything is ok.
There is always an XKCD cartoon…

Dependency ('https://xkcd.com/2347/')



Attachment Image
Score: 47 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Kuckuckstein Avatar
18 months ago
The entire Linux community is open source, and yet this is a much more secure platform than Windows has been. And Mac OS and their browsers have heavily benefited from the give and take between Unix and Linux (macOS building on a Unix rather than Linux kernel )

I am almost certain that there have been more security faults in proprietary systems than well maintained open source projects, because the drive behind open source is a more idealistic than the industries “quick to market / milk them all”

With that being said, especially when it comes to web development and the package repositories I see there, I am more doubtful and careful with using and relying on them. I feel it often moves too fast and the community has a different background than e.g. hardcore Linux developers.
Score: 38 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Tres Avatar
18 months ago

I'm waiting for all the rabbit open-source fans to tell us open-source is much safer than closed-source.

It's not that simple. open-source CAN be safer, it can also be less safe. In open-source, the exact code is out there for anyone to look. This means anyone could see any flaws and fix them. It also means that anyone could see any flaws and exploit them.

In closed-source, you can't see the code. It's a much different process to exploit the code. Much harder. There are also less people who have access to the code to fix any flaws. So, flaws will stick around longer.

It's not simple.
Not a rabid open sores fan at all (except back in my teenage years when I went through a rebellious Linux phase ugh), but obscurity does not imply security.
Score: 34 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Popular Stories

google drive for desktop1

Google to Roll Out New 'Drive for Desktop' App in the Coming Weeks, Replacing Backup & Sync and Drive File Stream Clients

Tuesday July 13, 2021 1:18 am PDT by
Earlier this year, Google announced that it planned to unify its Drive File Stream and Backup and Sync apps into a single Google Drive for desktop app. The company now says the new sync client will roll out "in the coming weeks" and has released additional information about what users can expect from the transition. To recap, there are currently two desktop sync solutions for using Google...