Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday May 16 2020, @09:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the vet-your-libraries dept.

Nine in ten biz applications harbor out-of-date, unsupported, insecure open-source code, study shows:

Ninety-one per cent of commercial applications include outdated or abandoned open source components, underscoring the potential vulnerability of organizations using untended code, according to a software review.

Synopsys, a California-based design automation biz, conducted an audit of 1,253 commercial codebases in 17 industries for its 2020 Open Source Security and Risk Analysis report.

It found that almost all (99 per cent) of the codebases examined have at least one open source component and that 70 per cent of the code overall is open source. That's about twice as much as the company's 2015 report, which found only 36 per cent of audited code was open source.

Good news then, open source code has become more important to organizations, but its risks have followed, exemplified by vulnerabilities like the 2014 Heartbleed memory disclosure bug and Apache Struts flaws identified in 2017 and 2018.

Ninety-one percent of the audited applications had components that are either four years out of date or have exhibited no active development for two years. In 2019 – the time-period covered by the 2020 report – the percentage of codebases containing vulnerable components rose to 75 per cent, up from 60 per cent in 2018.

The percentage of applications afflicted with high-risk flaws reached 49 per cent in 2019, up from 40 per cent in 2018.

[Ed Note - The company that produced this report, Synopsis, is a vendor in this space and is not a disinterested party.]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Booga1 on Saturday May 16 2020, @11:16AM (5 children)

    by Booga1 (6333) on Saturday May 16 2020, @11:16AM (#994954)

    if your banking website is secured using an open-source MD5 hash function, then you have bigger problems

    Your point is even more relevant than some might think. MD5 hashes are MD5 hashes, regardless of whether the code making them is open source, new, closed source, old, secretly done on the back end server, whatever.
    The problem isn't whether it's maintained or open source. Yet, their "report" is going to call it a "security problem" because it's old or some nonsense. But wait! We've got a solution to sell you so come on down and buy our awesome sauce and keep those nasty hackers at bay!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 16 2020, @02:21PM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday May 16 2020, @02:21PM (#994994)

    At a certain level of corporate management, the managers don't know anything but how to manage - and a purchased "solution" with a guarantee sticker on the contract is an end to that particular problem, in their minds - which is all that matters to them.

    If you haven't paid for it, there's nobody to blame when it goes wrong.

    --
    My karma ran over your dogma.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by acid andy on Saturday May 16 2020, @03:01PM (2 children)

      by acid andy (1683) on Saturday May 16 2020, @03:01PM (#995004) Homepage Journal

      Sounds like FOSS could go out of fashion with these types then. Or rather, that's what vendors like Synopsis are probably hoping will happen.

      --
      Where did that thought come from? And that one? What about this one? Woah, man...
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 16 2020, @09:35PM (1 child)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday May 16 2020, @09:35PM (#995147)

        FOSS is a pretty hard sell at bigger companies, ours is accepting it grudgingly because we grow by acquisition and all of the best and brightest acquisitions are full of open source. We still get periodic spasms of reporting requirements from the legal department, they ask for something they think they want (like a list of ALL OSS packages in the product with their license terms), I produce a vague sketch of what that will look like for them (our latest product comes with Ubuntu 18.04 - they were proposing a decomposition of every license in every piece of it...), they backpedal and decide they're happy with a list of "just the big stuff..."

        --
        My karma ran over your dogma.
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 17 2020, @05:54AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 17 2020, @05:54AM (#995267)

          Our legal department checks the entirety of the software that even touches our product or the machines it is made on. Because most licenses used anymore are standardized, you just have to look at it once to decide whether you like the terms or not. Then use the publicly available tools to track your database for changes. Packages and auditing systems make doing that a snap. Everyone's headaches have gone away since we formalized the process. For 95% of software, they don't even have to ask because our internal documentation already covers the Dos/Don'ts of a particular license and the system notices the addition automatically. Of course it is more work up front, but it drastically reduced the time it takes now, lowered various expenses and even increased productivity. We literally make money thanks to doing so.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 16 2020, @06:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 16 2020, @06:52PM (#995100)

    Where I work (I do not speak for them, btw). They are smart enough to know that. They *do* take it into consideration.

    But lets say the thing narfs itself up. Who will fix it? It is abandoned. So now you have to dedicate someone to reverse engineer the open source code. That takes time and money. At least the code is 'easier' to read because it is open.

    Old stuff that has not been updated may have known exploits to the 'black hat' community but not the 'white hat'. Is a worry for these groups that review this.

    You want to look at as a risk cost benefit. Not as a 'open source rulz, closed source droolz' PoV.

    Something like a MD5 hash collision will probably be decently obvious. Most of the attacks I have seen are 'bunch of garbage' plus the text to change. So you would probably see it.