开源真的会提高安全性吗?

G. McGraw
{"title":"开源真的会提高安全性吗?","authors":"G. McGraw","doi":"10.1109/SECPRI.2000.848478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I am using the term openish source as a reaction to the fact that the OSI has hijacked the term open source and the natural definition most people likely intuit does not apply. The term I am using is ridiculous. I chose an intentionally ridiculous term to emphasize the silly nature of common arguments for making open source mean something it does not mean to most people. The openish source community claims that the movement towards providing free, source-code available programs will result in more secure software. This claim appears to be based on several fallacies briefly presented: the Microsoft fallacy; the Java fallacy; and the many-eyeballs fallacy.","PeriodicalId":373624,"journal":{"name":"Proceeding 2000 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. S&P 2000","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Will openish source really improve security?\",\"authors\":\"G. McGraw\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SECPRI.2000.848478\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I am using the term openish source as a reaction to the fact that the OSI has hijacked the term open source and the natural definition most people likely intuit does not apply. The term I am using is ridiculous. I chose an intentionally ridiculous term to emphasize the silly nature of common arguments for making open source mean something it does not mean to most people. The openish source community claims that the movement towards providing free, source-code available programs will result in more secure software. This claim appears to be based on several fallacies briefly presented: the Microsoft fallacy; the Java fallacy; and the many-eyeballs fallacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":373624,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceeding 2000 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. S&P 2000\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceeding 2000 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. S&P 2000\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SECPRI.2000.848478\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceeding 2000 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. S&P 2000","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SECPRI.2000.848478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

我使用“开源”一词是对OSI劫持了“开源”一词这一事实的一种反应,而大多数人可能直觉上认为这个词并不适用。我用的这个词很荒谬。我故意选择了一个荒谬的术语,以强调让开源意味着某些对大多数人来说并不意味着的东西的常见争论的愚蠢本质。开源社区声称,提供免费的、可用的源代码程序的运动将导致更安全的软件。这种说法似乎是基于以下几个谬误:微软谬误;Java谬误;还有多眼球谬论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Will openish source really improve security?
I am using the term openish source as a reaction to the fact that the OSI has hijacked the term open source and the natural definition most people likely intuit does not apply. The term I am using is ridiculous. I chose an intentionally ridiculous term to emphasize the silly nature of common arguments for making open source mean something it does not mean to most people. The openish source community claims that the movement towards providing free, source-code available programs will result in more secure software. This claim appears to be based on several fallacies briefly presented: the Microsoft fallacy; the Java fallacy; and the many-eyeballs fallacy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信