For me, it's a privacy concern. Closed source means only one company is fixing vulnerabilities, whereas open source invites security researchers to find and fix issues quicker. Fewer security gaps == less privacy risk.
I've heard that argument before, but has that actually been demonstrated? Ability to look at the code (especially in the age of AI) means that security researchers aren't the only ones who can look for bugs. For example, look at the bugs like copyfail that AI has recently uncovered in the Linux kernel.
If an AI can find a vulnerability for a hacker, it will also find that vulnerability for a security researcher, so that point is moot.
There exists a danger that very good hackers will be able to find vulnerabilities by looking through the source code, but very good hackers find vulnerabilities without source code anyway.
Consider the following: Would you rather walk down a busy street hundreds of other people walking by, including police officers, good samaritans, and maybe people who want to do you harm, or would you rather walk down a dark ally with only four people in it?
You are grasping for straws. No one said open source is perfect. But it's just an obvious fact that open source is going to be easier to audit than closed source.
But isn't that their point? In the age of AI, maybe being "easier to audit" is as much a risk than an assurance? I'm not sure I agree, but it is interesting to mull over. Further, either way, your tone and response is not very charitable, to say the least. From the outside, you are the only one blustering and grasping here. Not everything needs to be so antagonistic maybe?
Reverse uno. The same AI can be used to fix the holes in the open source code. And a LOT more AI review by benevolent parties is gonna hit that open source code than the closed source.
Okay guys, I'm being downvoted for asking questions? Let's be real, OSS has not been proven to be more secure. If you think otherwise then please back it up, I'm okay with being proven wrong.
