• Randelung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Had that discussion before. Was attacked because I use a f&os lib from GitHub instead of a paid and licensed one, the latter somehow meaning it’s error free. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t. Or at least their usage wasn’t.

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    20 hours ago

    This has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with liability.

    You can’t really sue an open source project using a proper license, they disclaim any liability or warranty, meaning the buck stops with you.

    If you hire a software development firm and pay for them to build software for you, you will have a different license, the software company can just repackage open source software into their own UI and branding, take the money and declare bankruptcy if their customers try to sue them.

    The customers are mostly happy, they get to tick the box that they have a support contract for the software and a company is liable if shit hits the fan. The software development company is happy, they get money for doing very little actual work.

    The open source project probably doesn’t know about the abuse of the license and thus mostly doesn’t care.

    • rmrf@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I’ve been in these meetings and you’re on the money. Insurance (the concept, not necessarily the product) is almost always the reason any time you see some stupid policy.

      When I was young and naive I thought the technologically correct way to do things was the best. In the business world that’s seldom the case, though.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      At one place I worked we couldn’t use eclipse licensed things because the license mentioned indemnification or something. I don’t really understand what that meant because I think some other licenses mentioned it too. Plus literally all of us used Eclipse IDE.

  • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 day ago

    My org told me “you can’t install open source software”

    Everyone uses Firefox

    I just want OpenShell

  • TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Honestly, a policy of “no free-of-charge software installed on workstations except FOSS” might improve security a bit and probably without doing all that much damage to the day-to-day workings of the company.

    For that matter, if my employer instituted a policy of “no software except FOSS”, my own particular job probably would be a surprisingly small adjustment. As long as they were willing to do the work to set up infrastructure and/or let us switch to FOSS alternatives that require third-party server providers as necessary. About all I can think of that’s installed on my work machine that’s proprietary is:

    • Zoom
    • A paid corporate VPN client
    • A random program that I use to authenticate to Kubernetes clusters in use where I work (so I can use Kubectl)
    • Chrome
    • The Client Management software my company uses (the software they use to remotely administrate the company-provided machines – force install shit without telling you, spy on you, nag people who have computers that aren’t actually used to return them, wipe your computer if you report it stolen, etc)
    • And, of course, bios, proprietary firmware blobs, etc

    Beyond that, I honestly can’t think specifically of anything else proprietary installed on my work machine. My personal computers have far less proprietary software installed than the above list.

    • Derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not related, but did you ever use k9s? Quite nifty CLI tool to control Kube, albeit not on a very advanced level, it helped me a lot to not get drowned in Kube commands.

  • VeryFrugal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    242
    ·
    2 days ago

    this is supposed to be more secure because it costs money

    It makes blaming someone really easy though and that’s all that matters in a corporate world.

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      142
      ·
      2 days ago

      This is legitimately it. The same reason corporations often pay for Linux (e.g. RHEL)—the people in charge want to be able to pick up a phone and harass someone until they fix their problem. They simply can’t fathom any alternative approach to managing dependencies.

      • InputZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        61
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not just pick up the phone and harass someone but to also have someone to press a lawsuit against if things go really wrong. With free software the liability typically ends at the user which means all they can do is fire the employee and eat the loss. Suppose now corporate paid for it, well now there is a contract and a party that can be sued.

        • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 day ago

          As if the Eulas don’t make it all arbitration?

          What software company allows liability for mistakes in a EULA?

          • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            Companies and individuals play by different rules.

            When a big company purchases software a team of people from both parties (whose entire job and career are based on doing this) negotiate with each other to decide exactly who is liable for what and to what degree.

            When you purchase software you agree to let the company fuck you over at their leisure because you literally do not have enough hours in the day to even read everything you agree to, let alone understand it, let alone argue with it. And even if you did you don’t have enough bargaining power to make a large company care.

        • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I hear that a lot but would that actually work? Sure, you will get a redhat level 1 support employee within the hour for a severity 1 ticket. But does the actual contract (which I don’t have access to) make any legally binding guarantees regarding the time-to-resolution? I seriously doubt it. Which is to say – your legal team will be SOL.

          They also won’t take responsibility for any fuckup on your part if you install a bad driver or deviate from the admin guides in anyway (which is why Legal says for a minor issue you can’t apply a patch from StackExchange, you must raise a ticket and wait 3 business days for RedHat to tell you to apply the patch from StackExchange).
          Getting phished definitely falls in this category BTW. Vendors may or may not help you but they certainly won’t accept any liability.

          It’s still a good enough safety net to have for corporations with no trustworthy in-house expertise as vendors do have an incentive to keep their customers happy and most will help to the best of their abilities (which often isn’t as much as one might think…), but it’s hardly a legal panacea. If you need guarantees against catastrophic financial losses, that is what insurance is for.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      2 days ago

      The greentext reminds me of this FAQ entry: https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/faq.html#faq-vendor

      A.9.17 As one of our existing software vendors, can you just fill in this questionnaire for us?

      We periodically receive requests like this, from organisations which have apparently sent out a form letter to everyone listed in their big spreadsheet of ‘software vendors’ requiring them all to answer some long list of questions […]

      We don’t make a habit of responding in full to these questionnaires, because we are not a software vendor.

      A software vendor is a company to which you are paying lots of money in return for some software. They know who you are, and they know you’re paying them money; so they have an incentive to fill in your forms and questionnaires […] because they want to keep being paid.

      […]

      If you work for an organisation which you think might be at risk of making this mistake, we urge you to reorganise your list of software suppliers so that it clearly distinguishes paid vendors who know about you from free software developers who don’t have any idea who you are. Then, only send out these mass mailings to the former.

      • Laser@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        I read only part of the URL and thought this was about puzzles. Never knew the guy made Putty as well

  • psmgx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s not more secure, it’s so they can offload blame and have people to sue if/when something ugly happens. Liability control, essentially.

    We had to pay for fucking Docker container licenses at my last job because we needed an escalation to the vendor in case our SMEs couldnt handle things (they could), and so we had a vendor to blame if something out of our control happened. And that happened: we sued Mirantis when shit broke.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Hey PS: search engines do return a result for a suit against that company so potential self-doxxing territory (but maybe you’re open in your comment history IDK)

      (Don’t have a PACER login so couldn’t tell what was up with the suit that came back when I checked this morn, also could’ve been an unrelated suit)

  • Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    There is an entire sub-industry and probably thousands of jobs being propped up by this stupid way of thinking about software. I can’t be mad at it because it pays the bills for a few of my friends…

      • wer2@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 day ago

        At one point my company made us buy Eclipse from a vendor because free software was not allowed. It had no tweaks or support, just out of date Eclipse that I had to wait for purchasing to get

        • arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Whenever I hear about shit like this I wonder if I should just start a company and package free software lol. Could like donate a bunch of the profit to the actual projects.

          • fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            12 hours ago

            The issue here is you’d be selling it to morons who, when shit inevitably happens, would sue your pants off. So that means having lawyers that can protect you, probably on staff. Not sure it’s worth it. You’d need to do the maths I guess

            • Gutek8134@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Now I wonder if one could pull a scam by selling some packaged software and closing the company the next month, simultaneously announcing End of Support

      • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        I could really see companies just fork open source and give it a tweak like UI or new switches…

        They should not be able to do that if it comes under non commercial licence

  • DickFiasco@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    1 day ago

    Worked for a company that had a similar policy against free software, but simultaneously encouraged employees to use open-source software to save money. I don’t think upper management was talking to the IT department.

  • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 day ago

    Don’t forget your new 32 character/symbol/number/nordic rune passwords that will need to be changed every 17 days.

    • AllHailTheSheep@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 day ago

      I hate sites that make me constantly change passwords. it’s been shown time and time again that making users change passwords often decreases security by a pretty large factor, and yet a lot of sites still do it

      • MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        Our workplace did that. You had to change every month and you weren’t allowed to just add a digit. It meant that people started writing their passwords on post-its stuck to the monitor.

        Mind you, back in the 90s your password was the same as your username. It was very handy, because if someone went home leaving a document locked, you could just log in and unlock it. Our first “proper” IT professional was horrified.

        • [object Object]@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          Could be because OWASP now actively recommends against periodic password changes.

          Ensure credential rotation when a password leak occurs, at the time of compromise identification or when authenticator technology changes. Avoid requiring periodic password changes; instead, encourage users to pick strong passwords and enable Multifactor Authentication Cheat Sheet (MFA). According to NIST guidelines, verifiers should not mandate arbitrary password changes (e.g., periodically).

    • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      And don’t forget required 2-factor authentication, in an age where that becomes 1-factor authentication as soon as someone has your phone, because both factors are accessible there!

      2FA is utterly worthless in the age of smartphones, and whenever my employer tries to implement it, I refuse and tell them that, if they want me to do 2FA, they can either provide me with a work phone, or they can give me a USB key that is just going to sit in my desk drawer.

        • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Hence why I tell my employers that I’m good with h That option (see the last bit of the comment to which you replied) the problem is that this method of 2FA is not implemented commonly, and so most systems I’ve encountered bug out when trying to set it up.

      • A Wild Mimic appears!@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        which still requires someone to swipe the phone and the owner not recognizing it long enough to do a remote wipe. I am not someone who hangs on the smartphone 8 hours per day, and even i would realize my phone is gone within 15 - 30 minutes, giving an attacker a pretty small time window to act.

        e: and they have to break into the phone as well - if it’s updated, that might buy more than enough time

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    My last boss got rid of the pfSense routers because “open source is not secure”. I argued that pfSense has been vetted over and over and over again. Nope. “Everyone can see the source code.” That’s the fucking point!

    TBF, pfSense isn’t the fastest routing, but at our small company is was more than sufficient.

    • MehBlah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 day ago

      For a small to medium sized business pfsense is the only solution that makes sense. The only requirement is that you have a actual sysadmin on staff and not a vendor jockey.

        • MehBlah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Sure, I’ve tried it but honestly there wasn’t much difference. I use pfsense because its what I started with. I imagine if you started with opnsense it would be the same thing. I use pfsense+ licensing for all the routers at work and that makes the higher ups happy that its has commercial support if needed.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Tried that for awhile at home, just didn’t seem as robust. Also, you can get Netgate hardware if the company doesn’t want a 10-yo Dell running the edge.

          • MehBlah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Bought some of the higher end negate routers for work. 1u rack mount. Five locations all linked with fail over tunnels. I run our filter and monitoring on them as well . Pfblockng works great for general purpose filtering. When you filter porn you really need a lot of ram. The intel boards they have are a little finicky on the type of SFP you can install but other than that they work great.

          • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I’ve had opnsense running for 7 years without a single issue. It might be the most reliable part of my whole setup.

  • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    My previous employer was bought by a huge company. I liked it in the small company, because I had freedom to do what was needed without much questions, and I was trusted to make the relevant decisions and purchases. Kind of a “Costs be damned, get it done in a reasonable amount of time” kind of arrangement.

    When we came under the big corpo, we got an email instructing us to list all the software we used/needed, so that it could be added to the whitelist that big corpo worked with. Anything not in the whitelist simply couldn’t run.

    I gave them the list, but spoke to my on-shore It guy that out in the field we often needed to install something that we didn’t need before on short notice, and waiting for a ticket to be resolved for an administrative matter had the potential to stop production.

    They found it easier just to make an exception for my work PC. I just had to promise not to VPN in to the office while running “weird” stuff, otherwise the higher ups would get upset.

    That’s fine. I had my own VPN for only the stuff I needed anyway. I VPNed into offshore production systems on a daily basis. I needed to VPN I to the office once or twice. Plus in my book, the “main” VPN client is what I consider weird software. My shit was basically a wrapper around openvpn.

    EDIT: To be fair, the huge corpo employer wasn’t unreasonable. It was just so large with so many employees that strct security implementations were needed for IT to have some sort of control. I was technically also IT, but I only dealt with field equipment, so that IT could focus on “normal” stuff. They trusted me to handle my end, they handled theirs, and we usually cooperated fairly well when our systems “met”.

    • underscores@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      “we need this NOW”

      > Package I install is immediately black listed by IT, I submit a high priority ticket and I don’t hear from them for days, maybe weeks

      Like what the fuck can I do

      • apftwb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        “Yes, but does one of the existing whitelisted executables fulfill the same function?”

        • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          “Have you tried using MS Excel instead?”

          *Looks at industrial robotics with a proprietary TPU that needs a firmware update.*

          “Yes”

  • radix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 days ago

    “If you’re not paying for the product, then you are the product.”

    The phrase has its uses, but shit like this is what happens when it’s taken to the extreme.