So, had a discussion with a professor today, arguing that closed source is more secure than open source...

So, had a discussion with a professor today, arguing that closed source is more secure than open source. Told him that many security libraries are open source, like openssl and openssh, but he thinks that you need to pay more for a closed source software to be secure. How retarded is he?

Attached: 1526613312229.jpg (1080x1349, 189K)

>he thinks that you need to pay more for a closed source software to be secure
How is he wrong? Of course you will have to pay more if you want secure closed source

I'm sure you're faithfully retelling their side of the argument and didn't just come to Jow Forums to have user pat you on the back for showing up somebody.

100% Full Retard

Attached: 1469CF5E-F05B-47C7-B366-F7080AA08270.jpg (1200x904, 179K)

>closed source placebo
nice.meme

Very, he must be a winfag.
Closed source isn't more secure, just look at winblowz.

Open source doesn't necessarily mean secure either

It means it gets fixed alot faster that microshaft would.

You're moving goalposts

No, i'm stating a fact.

He's staight up full retard.

Once they are discovered though.
There have been critical security bugs in wiedly popular FOSS software which have gone unnoticed for 10+ years.

Agree with your professor, because he decides your grade.

open source software cannot apply security by obscurity, like many closed source programs do.
The closed source vs opensource crypto algorithms has been solved decades ago.
If your crypto algorithm needs to stay closed source to achieve a certain level of security, then it's a bad algorithm.
Even the U.S. has been one of the first adopters of that philosophy

This is really simple. Security by obscurity only allows validation via audit. But are those trustworthy? Unlike physical products, like machines, cars and similar, there are hardly if any laws that provide reasonable protection for the public. Policy is still too slow to catch up.

Therefore, you, as an individual, can only protect yourself by checking security software on your own or let trusted people or communities do it. This is the way of science and logic. It's quite odd that your professor argues in favor of obscured software. Maybe he was trying to nudge you towards getting a better understanding of why open source security software is superior?

fucking cuck.

> closed source is more secure
> look at windows
> look at intel
> look at x86

>If your crypto algorithm needs to stay closed source to achieve a certain level of security, then it's a bad algorithm
this

>having that shitty proffs
Go look for a better school. Good teachers teach thinking not an opinion.

If he wasn't a retard he wouldn't be a professor.

Attached: 20180516_130103.jpg (4032x3024, 3.93M)

>I'm sure you're faithfully retelling their side of the argument and didn't just come to Jow Forums to have user pat you on the back for showing up somebody.
This.

>There have been critical security bugs in wiedly popular FOSS software which have gone unnoticed for 10+ years.
The same is true for proprietary software, like the DNS bug that has existed in Windows since Windows 7 or the whole meltdown/spectre thing that's existed since Pentium 4.