Firefox Vietnamese Language Pack Infected With Trojan 200
An anonymous reader writes "Wired.com is reporting that the Firefox browser has been unknowingly distributing a trojan with the Firefox Vietnamese language pack. Over 16,000 downloads of the pack occurred since being infected. This highlights a risk on relying on user-submitted Firefox extensions, or a lack of peer-review of the extensions, many of which receive frequent upgrades."
Although this shows that Open Source is also... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
How many refurburished ipods have had viruses on them/ How many sb thumb drives with custom controls and drivers have had viruses on them? How may times has MSFT released a service pack only to pull it a day or two later because 50% of the installs would fail horribly?
OSS has a far better track record on quality control. Even better OSS software knows exactly how many times it has been downloaded and releases the exact date at which the infection happened. That is information that is NEVER released by closed source companies.
OSS is far from perfect, but it has a much better track record than closed source software. And when it does fail, everything about the failure is spelled out in details so that particular failure is less likely to happen. Unlike closed companies whose own management don't even know what really happened.
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't too different from a hypothetical employee whose home computer is infected, and who is working from home and emails a module to his boss, who merges it into the final product. If his home computer was infected, and the standard virus scans missed it, then the final product could end up having Trojan code buried inside.
Would the company necessarily have caught the Trojan? Doubtful. They, too, would probably not have done a line-by-line review of each module update that is submitted.
So I'm not convinced this can be pointed to as a failing of the OSS development model per se. The only difference is that the OSS user contributor is perhaps less well-known (less trustworthy?) to the distributors than in a corporate setting. (But, again, this wasn't a problem of trust... this was a contributor machine being infected. And I assure you that corporate developers can and do get their machines infected.)
Nevertheless, this points to a breakdown in Mozilla's auditing practices. They should be very careful with any code they distribute. But these kinds of quality-control breakdowns occur in OSS projects and corporations, too. (One could tangentially argue that at least with OSS, breaches are likely to be publicized, whereas companies will frequently try to suppress information that points out a security breach.)
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that Firefox has quite a bit of QA done to it... but it's usefulness relies too much on extensions, which we don't that many assurances about.
MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
You ask how long it would take to find a virus slipped in to an OSS program? Interesting question. A little bit of Googling would show where major OSS projects were compromised and malicious code was discovered and cleaned within a rather short period of time. Of course - that's not quite a virus. One of the ELF infecting viruses made its rounds by being attached to a supposed exploit and being tossed out in to the community. That had a short run. Although I wouldn't quite classify this as a OSS example. The interesting thing here is that for an environment that you claim lacks quality control, there's something going on that's catching this stuff.
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A rebuttal (Score:1, Insightful)
2) It is being fixed rather quickly"
Yea, after 16,000+ downloads... doesn't seem quick enough to me.
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:2, Insightful)
Trojans and viruses on commercial CDs (Score:3, Insightful)
If they don't address the process that caused the problem, then start worrying.
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:1, Insightful)
The quoted statement above indicates there is some level quality control. Your statement above says in your experience the opposite of that is true. The opposite of "some" is "none", especially in light of the tone of your post.
Therefore, you have stated that there is no quality control in proprietary software.
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, that statement if false. The majority of OSS is half-finished, poorly-planned crap that is in perpetual beta. Of what remains, most does not come close, let alone rival, the software provided by proprietary vendors.
The truth is that, with a very few notable exceptions, OSS is generally crapware that gets abandoned once the project obtains an arbitrary level of usability and all the sexy code has been written. Just look at freshmeat or sourceforge to see the truth.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:1, Insightful)
This is the internet.
Its good QA not closed QA that's needed (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is most software companies don't do QA right.
It's fundamentally against the quarter by quarter business mindset that dominates most companies. QA doesn't produce anything. QA usually pushes back release dates. QA can be almost as resource intensive as engineering.
QA only pays off in the long term as a reputation for quality outside of the company, and then only if they are given the resources they need.
If: Your only willing to hire cheap staff to punch away at the GUI
If: QA doesn't have a say on whether bugs are fixed before release
If: QA doesn't have at least 80% of the product knowledge of the engineers
than a large QA team suffers immense diminishing returns and will likely cost more than they save over the long term.
Unfortunately most companies feel that throwing more cheap bodies at the issue will increase their quality (hint...it won't). At that point the OSS route of lots of eyes is way better.
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
On one side, the possibility of getting infected binaries are dropped in Debian. Things are signed, etc.
On the flip side, there is a much higher possibility of getting malicious code in the source code. Considering the number of possible code "contributions" and unverified source code changes (at upstream, at maintainer, etc.), the possibility of getting malicious code in one of the less known projects is higher than closed source. Then again, code insertions in very active projects may be less of a problem (see Linux for example).
The bottom line is, you can't check every possible line of code all the time. You can't find if( test > 0 ) vs. if( test >= 0 ) all the time. Open Source != better than closed source in this regard. It is just a different problem.
In closed source is - do you trust the provider? Do you trust the binaries?
In OSS - do you trust all the developers and contributors? Do you trust the code was reviewed properly?
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
That, and the language/OS elitism. A lot of abandoned projects in sourceforge are developed in an obscure scripting language and/or extension that requires very, VERY careful installation (i.e. wxPython - choose the wrong version and you'll end up in a support nightmare), or perhaps use a specific UI toolkit (perhaps even proprietary *cough cough* cinelerra *cough cough*) that keeps crashing and crashing. I remember when I tried to install GAIM in Windows. It sucked big time. You can't just design something as "cross-platform" if you don't do extensive testing on ALL operating systems, and that includes the Redmond Nightmare.
I believe that a lot of OSS developers program for selfish reasons - i.e. "I'm programming a tool that does what I want" instead of "I'm programming a tool that will help people who might not use my OS or won't share my personal tastes, therefore I need to think about them".
The lesson: It's not really the OS or the toolkit, or even the language used. It's the attitude of the developers that ruins projects.
Re:Downside of OSS (Score:4, Insightful)