Blog‎ > ‎

Heartbleed and code opacity

posted Apr 10, 2014, 5:47 PM by Frank Adrian
There is an old open source saying that "Many eyes make all bugs shallow". So what happened with the now infamous heartbleed bug? Supposedly, open source code is less prone to these kind of security breaches because so many eyes can look at it. In addition, open source is supposed to have better fix properties because fixes can be turned around and disseminated quickly. However, something happened with heartbleed.

One issue is that most eyes are shallow, not deep. If code is opaque (as is the case for Open SSL) than it doesn't matter how many eyes are on it - bugs can be hiding in the submerged depths where only the deepest eyes are likely to stumble upon them. And it is likely that the number of deep eyes looking at the code is still as small as is usual in any other software, closed or open.

The second issue is that the decentralized nature of open source movement actually harms as much as helps with dissemination. Commercial software, with its lists of registered users at least has a starting point to make issues known and patches distributed. Open source projects tend to have much more chaotic and imprecise means of the same. No one, commercial nor open source, can be sure that software will be patched - but at least commercial software has a starting point.

So, what can the open source community learn from this issue?

First, make sure that the code is written in the clearest possible way. Make sure that as many eyes can peer into its depths without obscuring murk. It may hurt performance, especially with ubiquitous software like Open SSL, but the alternative, as we have seen, sucks. An old wise man once said that "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." Although this is true, code that needs to be secure cannot afford any optimization - the code must be lucid enough to be easily understood and checked, lest hard-to-detect security defects sneak in. God knows you probably shouldn't be wrapping OS calls (the putative source of this defect).

Second, for code as ubiquitous and as important for security as this code is, independent review by people qualified to do so is vital. Most projects have only people related to the project reviewing the code. This is probably fine for the latest Zul Zebra Zaga game, or other kind of fart app, but not so good for a piece of code upon which most of the current internet's security rests.

Third, it is almost certain that the crucial parts of the Open SSL code, had it been written in a simple intelligible form would have been small enough to be formally verified. And, again, given the criticality of this code to secure operation of the internet, it should have been done.

Do all of these ideas have costs? Yes. But so do bugs that have as high an impact as heartbleed appears to. We've known how to not come a cropper when the stakes are high for at least the past thirty years. The fact that these kinds of issues are still arriving (and in such crucial code) is an embarrassment to the whole industry. 
Comments