This paper by Ross Anderson of Cambridge poses a pretty solid arguement against open source, not that I agree with it, but its a good arguement: http://www.net-security.org/dl/articles/toulouse.pdf This article from news.com talks about how open source and closed source are equally secure: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-938124.html Next is a link to a list of papers presented at the Open source software conference: http://www.idei.asso.fr/Commun/Conferences/Internet/OSS2002/Divers/FramePapers2002.html As for specific studies with concrete numbers, I don't know of any. However, the papers at the 3rd link pose some pretty interesting theories, even though I have never gotten around to reading all of them. The one that might be of particular interest to you are the ones by Jennifer Kuan, which speaks about Open Source Quality, and Roger Needham which speaks about Security in Open Source. My $0.02 is pretty much in agreement with your "truisms". So no need to say it again. -- Eric Lubow Guardian Digital Inc. http://www.guardiandigital.com/ On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, dan tynan wrote: > > OK, I have a question, and I'm hoping some Open Source wonks out there can > answer it for me. > > First, a couple of truisms about open source software: > > 1. It suffers fewer flaws than proprietary software, thanks to the nature of > open source review. > > 2. When flaws are discovered in open source code, they're fixed faster, > thanks to open source review, etc etc. > > My question: Has anyone ever conducted any studies or surveys that bear out > these truisms? Do you know of any research that suggests open source > software is less flawed and fixed faster? > > If you do, please post the answer here or email me at > OpenSeeker2002@yahoo.com. > > Thanks. > > D.Wood ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe email security-discuss-request@linuxsecurity.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject of the message.
