Indian President Advises Open Source Approach 257
geo_2677 writes "The Indian President Dr. A Kalam has advised defense scientists to go for open-source software for software security, rather than be stuck with insecure proprietary software. Being a scientist himself, he surely knows what's good for his country." Speaking at the Indian Navy's Weapons and Electronic System Engineering Establishment, Kalam argued: "Open source codes can easily introduce the users to build security algorithms in the system without the dependence of proprietary platforms", though continues: "We should take maximum care to ensure that our solution is unique to protect our own defence security solutions implemented on open platforms." We previously reported on Richard Stallman's meeting with Dr. Kalam earlier this year.
Now if only... (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately I doubt this will heavily impact any nations/businesses tech policies outside of India. But at least it's a step in the right direction
Score one for the Good Guys! (Score:5, Interesting)
What really shocks me is why so many countries are still using MS at all in their gov't infrastructure. I've always wondered about the following scenario. (Note: Tinfoil hat required.)
MS is closed-source and rife with a constant stream of what are effectively root exploits being stumbled upon. What if some agency wanted to cozy up to MS and carefully craft backdoors and such, inject them into the OS and have them released into the world? Windows is so ubiquitous that your task has now become that much easier.
Furthermore only the random stumbling of a security researcher/hacker has a chance of discovering it. Probability == low in most cases. In which case "Oops, release patch (add new backdoor)".
Then there's the less nefarious scenario - an agency just sitting on little-known accidental root exploits and keeping them in their classified root kit.
Either way it strikes me that linux in particular (and open source in general) would give sovereign nations some peace of mind. Not bulletproof, but having a global community reviewing the source and tracking exploits openly would sure seem to me to be a better way to safeguard my country's secrets than relying on a huge foreign company with a crappy track record for security.
(You can now remove your tinfoil hats. No, wait, NEVER remove your tinfoil hat...)
A scientist who is in politics? (Score:1, Interesting)
uh, Einstein. Uh oh, this can't be good - I certainly hope they both share the same views about *not* using WMD...
How is this going to help? (Score:3, Interesting)
How exactly does open-source code make for a more secure government? It would seem to me that giving the source-code to your encryption away, that you are practically begging others to learn how to hack it. At least proprietary software has a tiny measure of defense. It would also spread your possible leak-sources from the responsibility of one entity, the corporation that made it, to pretty much the entire world.
I believe, in the interests of National Defense, it would be best to have any sort of security source code until very tight lock and key.
Am I wrong here? Can someone tell me why?
Doesn't sound very good (Score:3, Interesting)
Either the paper's "Special Correspondent" took poor notes from Dr. Kalam's speech or Dr. Kalam doesn't know WTF he's talking about. Or maybe there's a language problem...
Roll-your-own security algorithms are a very bad idea, as most of us know. Get a professional to do it. Don't design your own ultra-secure AES alternative based on an "introduction" gained from looking at open-source code.
"Ensure a unique solution... to protect security" sounds like a euphemism for "security through obscurity" if I've ever heard one.
Re:Score one for the Good Guys! (Score:4, Interesting)
"If you think there isn't "an agency just sitting on little-known accidental root exploits and keeping them in their classified root kit" for most (if not all) of the *nixs out there you are dreaming."
Definitely, but Open Source *nixs are far less likely to harbor them than any closed source OS, *nix or otherwise. Agreed? If not, let's discuss.
Re:Maybe... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Could someone explain... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll paraphrase from a Times of India article --
"...India will now have a Christian Prime Minister to go with a Muslim President (a widow and a bachelor to boot). The bastion of democracy, religious freedom and human rights -- the mostly white Christian United States, to paraphrase the description of India by western correspondents -- is set to elect its 44th President -- another Christian white male."
As an Indian in the US, I kinda find that ironic
Re:I think.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Respect for logic? (Score:2, Interesting)
Newton was brilliant yes.
He also was:
Stared at the sun once for an extended period, lost most of his sight.
Wrote bizarre raving religious tracts
Was an antisocial asshole
An Alchemist
Now the point is that skill in science means nothing when it comes to statecraft. The anti-social part is a big part of this. A major part of a politicians job is getting people to do what you want them to do. Being right is only half the battle. Additionally, scientists are not so hard to corrupt. You can get a prestigious professor to flack for just about any lobby if you pay him enough why should a president be so pure?
Re:Could someone explain... (Score:2, Interesting)
This structure requires a Head of State with very limited powers - such as dissolving Parliament for fresh elections when the Prime Minister calls for it or when the P.M. has lost the confidence of Parliament e.g. losing a buget vote.
The Head of State may be a constitutional monarch e.g. the UK or Sweden, or a person who stands in for the monarch e.g the Governor General of Canada. In the case of a Republic a President is elected or appointed (normally by Parliament) who is usually some repected figure who can stand above politics and maintain the constitution e.g. Germay, Italy and India.
The situation in the US is gemerally regarded as a form of elective monarchy, i.e. the people elect (or in the case Bush - didn't elect) a President who acts as absolute Monarch with some limited checks and balances from Congress and the Senate.
Well there we are Constitutional Theory 101