This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: Security

Top FOSS security vulnerabilities

By Bruce Byfield on December 13, 2007 (4:00:00 PM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Palamida, the San Francisco company that helps companies to audit their use of open source software, has released a list of what it calls "the top five most overlooked open source vulnerabilities." To this list, Palamida has added an additional five vulnerabilities exclusively for Linux.com.

The list is partly a promotion of Palamida's Vulnerability Reporting Solution, which recently added 431 security alerts based on National Vulnerability Database listings. However, the list is also designed to draw attention to the lax practices surrounding the use of open source software in business, according to Theresa Bui, co-founder and vice president of marketing at Palamida.

To be precise, the vulnerabilities on the list are based on Palamida's audits of its clients. These audits vary from scans of a few hundred megabytes of code to hundreds of gigabytes in a company's complete software infrastructure. The list summarizes the results of scanning 3-5 million lines of code, representing a minimum of 30% of the software that Palamida scanned for clients, and, more often, at least 50%.

"We collect information on the most popularly used open source projects and versions," Bui says. But, although Palamida's database lists some 884,000 projects and versions, it is unlikely to be complete.

"If there's a Venezuelan university student out there who has his own open source project, hosted by himself, we probably don't know about him, because the adoption of his project isn't very high," Bui says. "But does that mean that one of your developers couldn't find his way to his home page? Absolutely, they could. We try to make sure that we cover all of the major repositories and the commonly used open source projects, but certainly there's always going to be the one-off projects by individuals that are under the radar. As a company, you always have to be aware of that."

Still, Bui asserts that the list reflects how open source software is being used in business today. "Ten to one, you go into any company out there and do a scan on their code base, you're going to find one of these open source projects in there."

The top 10 vulnerabilities

Palamida provided Linux.com with a spreadsheet listing the software affected, what it does, the nature of the vulnerabilities, and the patches and updates that correct the problems. The applications affected include versions of Apache Geronimo and Apache Struts, JBoss Application Server, OpenSSH and Open SSL, and common libraries such as Libpng, LibTiff, and Zlib.

All these vulnerabilities have patches or later versions of the software, Bui stresses. The trouble is that many companies are not aware of the patches and updates -- nor, much of the time, even that they are using the software. Increasingly, the vulnerabilities are not in a company's infrastructure, or on users' desktops, but in the code that the companies are shipping.

Reasons for the vulnerabilities

Bui is quick to point out that the blame for these vulnerabilities is not free and open source software projects in themselves. "Open source projects are great at monitoring themselves," she says. "When they realize they need a patch, that patch can be literally up within hours. The responsibility lies with the user of open source to make sure that he is using it responsibly and in compliance with his company's policies and the project's license. So, to be honest, I don't see what open source projects could do better."

Melisa LaBancz-Bleasdale, Palamida's senior communications manager, says, "We're not trying to say that these projects are riddled with vulnerabilities. That's not the point. These projects have moved on and released much stronger versions. But if you're stuck seven versions ago, then you're running around with a security vulnerability in your organization needlessly."

The problem is that the easy accessibility of free software code via the Internet means that developers can "download it to their desktop, start coding around it, then check it into your source code management system -- all of that without fiscal, security, or legal oversight." And, if code is unknown, a company's security team doesn't know to monitor it for updates.

This problem is exacerbated by the tight production schedules of most development projects. "Engineering teams are under the gun to get product out the door," Bui says. "So why would they build from scratch a shopping cart when there are thousands of shopping cart widgets available for you on the Web to download?"

Another problem, LaBancz-Bleasdale suggests, is the sheer volume of code to audit in a large company, particularly if the audit is done manually.

However, perhaps the largest problem is that many companies are simply unaware of the need to keep abreast of vulnerability reports -- especially if they are used to dealing with proprietary software, whose business model often revolves around encouraging customers to upgrade.

"Big companies spend so much time tagging hardware assets," Bui says, "but they don't spend nearly enough time -- or any, sometimes -- having their software assets tagged. And it is much harder to sneak a giant computer into a company and plug it into the network than it is to download a third-party application and insert it into your source code management system, so that now it's behind your firewall."

For all these reasons, security alerts for free and open source software continue to be widely neglected. "The security team," Bui says, "is only as good as what the engineering team tells them they have. It really is a significant realization for a company to start with just the top vulnerabilities."

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Top FOSS security vulnerabilities

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Top FOSS security vulnerabilities

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 75.37.36.1] on December 13, 2007 04:50 PM
and the first thing they advise is to check your links. e.g.: http://www.linux.com/feature/TKTKTK

#

spreadsheet link is broken

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 12.169.163.241] on December 13, 2007 11:46 PM
---

#

intelectual property

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.122.165.196] on December 14, 2007 03:12 AM
I'm more of an advocate of open software (transparent) vs. free (that may or may not be open). In view of hollywood writers strike. I would like to prepose first that any discision not impose upon that use of open software or hardware. And simmilarly as a counterpoint recognize the value of property in a capatalistic world. That the efforts be made by affected parties to work together rather than insisting that one view exclude the other. There appears to be a reasonable effort to define ownership of information and to gain leagal grants to govern its use. Conversly there is information that can not be overtly governed or under the law has been emancipated. I would like to suggest the application of hyprid documents that allow other catagories. The two most obviouse would be one: to apply resticted material puplic availability. The other obvious mix is to qualify absolute use. To demonstrate I will use a modle of a whole work made of parts. That one part can be absolutly governed, while by either neccessity or intention that some other part is given degrees of freedom. The options become compleat freedom and conditional freedom. Conditional freedom mite be granted for one time use or context use. A person mite allow a cirtain qualified distributor of info. or a cirtain venue to distribute there material conditionaly and prefer that everyone not be allowed to distribute the same material.

#

Re: intelectual property

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 84.92.53.125] on December 14, 2007 07:37 PM
free (that may or may not be open)

FFS - don't even go there, Free as www.gnu.org OK?

#

conditional use

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.122.165.196] on December 14, 2007 03:25 AM
The idea of conditional use gives a person with absolute writes the ability to emancipate there information. It also alows parts of a work to be given away as a lost leader to advertize a restricted portion of work. It likewize allows a person to give conditional permition to its use. These are valid points as the nature of internet information that is compiled from a variety of souces may containe parts that the originator would prefer to exercise ownership writes. In the event that hardware or software can be effectivly use to enforce a proprietary scheme, it should also allow people the freedom not to use restrictive technowlegy and to use unrestricted technowledgy. I find it interesting that this discustion is about the difference that describes free as in "not costing any money" vs. freedom as in being able to know what is being done to you or what you are doing (to be conciouse of your actions).

#

Top FOSS security vulnerabilities

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 88.252.42.71] on December 14, 2007 07:26 PM

<a href="http://www.rizecity.com/" style="text-decoration: none">Youtube</a>

#

spreadsheet link is still broken

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 12.169.163.241] on December 14, 2007 08:14 PM
"The top 10 vulnerabilities
Palamida provided Linux.com with a spreadsheet listing.." <-- here

#

Top FOSS security vulnerabilities

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 218.214.194.113] on December 15, 2007 04:11 AM
Top Vuln de jour:
linux.com hacked
URL vandalized
admin cannot login to fix it.
p0wned!

#

Spreadsheet link fixed

Posted by: Lisa on December 15, 2007 02:47 PM
All fixed now. Thanks for your patience.

#

Top FOSS security vulnerabilities

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 12.75.113.5] on December 25, 2007 07:33 PM
To the intellectual property guy, if you want anyone to pay any attention to what you write, learn to use a spell checker.
Firefox has one built in, maybe it is time for you to switch.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya