Private messaging apps like SnapChat and WhatsApp aren’t as private as you might think.
SnapChat settled with the Federal Trade Commission earlier this month over a complaint that its privacy claims were misleading, as reported by USA Today, and last week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation published a report listing the company as the least privacy-friendly tech outfit it reviewed, including Comcast, Facebook, and Google. Last year, WhatsApp faced privacy complaints from the Canadian and Dutch governments, and like Snapchat, its security has been an issue as well.
In the first of this series on Docker security, I wrote "containers do not contain." In this second article, I'll cover why and what we're doing about it.
Docker, Red Hat, and the open source community are working together to make Docker more secure. When I look at security containers, I am looking to protect the host from the processes within the container, and I'm also looking to protect containers from each other. With Docker we are using the layered security approach, which is "the practice of combining multiple mitigating security controls to protect resources and data."
Basically, we want to put in as many security barriers as possible to prevent a break out. If a privileged process can break out of one containment mechanism, we want to block them with the next. With Docker, we want to take advantage of as many security mechanisms of Linux as possible.
Luckily, with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7, we get a plethora of security features.
But open source tends to be something of an agglomeration of programmers -- some brilliant, some boneheaded -- around a core developer or two. I think it just might be possible to influence the small group of programmers at the core of each open source project to create a culture that develops secure code. In fact, in some ways it might even be easier to do with open source projects because they, for the most part, don't face the arbitrary deadlines of the commercial world.
Open source technologies are "more secure" than software that is developed in a proprietary way, Red Hat's JBoss middleware business unit general manager, Mike Piech, said in a meeting with journalists.
On the one hand, open source software code is freely available, which means that hackers will see how to hack it. But, on the other, there is also a vast community of people working to maintain open source software security.
Commonwealth and state/territory government funded public company, Healthdirect Australia, has used open source software to build an identity and access management (IAM) solution.
The IAM solution allows users to have one identity across all of its websites and applications. For example, users can sign in using their Facebook, LinkedIn or Gmail account.
While the open source approach to software development has proven its value over and over again, the idea of opening up the code for security features to anyone with eyeballs still creates anxiety in some circles. Such worries are ill-founded, though.
One concern about opening up security code to anyone is that anyone will include the NSA, which has a habit of discovering vulnerabilities and sitting on them so it can exploit them at a later time. Such discoveries shouldn't be a cause of concern, argued Phil Zimmermann, creator of PGP, the encryption scheme Yahoo and Google will be using for their webmail.
The logic is understandable - how can a software with source code that can easily be viewed, accessed and changed have even a modicum of security?
Open source software is safer than many believe.
But with organizations around the globe deploying open source solutions in even some of the most mission-critical and security-sensitive environments, there is clearly something unaccounted for by that logic. According to a November 28 2013 Financial News article, some of the world's largest banks and exchanges, including Deutsche Bank and the New York Stock Exchange, have been active in open source projects and are operating their infrastructure on Linux, Apache and similar systems.