Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

LAMP Lights the OSS Security Way

Posted by Zonk on Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:27 AM
from the bashing-in-the-heads-of-bugs dept.
Security Programming Software IT Linux Technology Apache
Kevin Young wrote to mention a ZDNet article which goes into some detail on new results from a Department of Homeland security initiative. It's called the 'Open Source Hardening Project', and (funded to the tune of $1.24 Million) the goals of the initiative are to use a commercial tool for source code analysis to buck up the security base of many OSS projects. LAMP (the conglomeration of Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP/Perl/Python) was a 'winner' in the eyes of the project. From the article: "In the analysis, more than 17.5 million lines of code from 32 open-source projects were scanned. On average, 0.434 bugs per 1,000 lines of code were found, Coverity said. The LAMP stack, however, 'showed significantly better software quality," with an average of 0.29 defects per 1,000 lines of code, the technology company said.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

LAMP Lights the OSS Security Way 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Old news (Score:2, Informative)

    by Fnord666 (889225)
    This is old news [serverwatch.com]:

  • Maybe I've been reading too much politics lately.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Valdrax (32670) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @10:32AM (#14866490)
    Maybe I've been reading too much politics news lately, but I'm just waiting for Microsoft to come out with a statement that people capable of evaluating Perl, PHP, and Python are biased in favor LAMP solutions.

    I need to do something about my cynicism.

    • Re:Maybe I've been reading too much politics latel (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gbjbaanb (229885) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @10:38AM (#14866532)
      Well, once you read this snippet from the article, they'll have enough ammo:

      "There is one caveat: PHP, the popular programming language, is the only component in the LAMP stack that has a higher bug density than the baseline, Coverity said."

      I assume he means the baseline of 0.434 bugs/1000 lines, and that if they removed PHP from the LAMP stack, that average bug count would go down even further.

      • I assume he means the baseline of 0.434 bugs/1000 lines, and that if they removed PHP from the LAMP stack, that average bug count would go down even further.

        Spot on, as you can see on scan.coverity.com [coverity.com]:

        • PHP features 205 defects for 431,327locs, or 0.475 defects/kloc
        • Perl has 91 defects for 431,327locs, or 0.19 defects/kloc
        • Python is very slightly lower than perl (but with a noticeably smaller codebase) at 49 defects for 259,908locs or 0.189 defects/kloc
        • Apache-httpd features 32 defects in 127,817 locs, or 0.25 defect/klock
        MySQL isn't featured (Ruby is also a noticeable absent), but PostgreSQL stands at 296 defects for 815,748 locs, or 0.363 defects/kloc, and the lightweight SQLite has 16 defects for 60,722 locs or 0.263 defect/klock.

  • Fucking LAMP. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by autopr0n (534291) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @10:34AM (#14866499) Homepage Journal
    I'm so sick of everyone making their software depend on MySQL. If you're software is any good it should be able to run on more then one DB, at least Postgres.

    To me, MySQL is like the MS Access of the Open Source world.
    • I'd love it if database management systems were compatible enough to allow that. The trouble is, it seems only the most basic query syntax has been standardized. Several other aspects, such as table creation, column types, auto-increment variables, and stored procedures, have varying degrees of differences or support between the various databases such that in any sufficiently complex application you would need to write a separate copy of db interface code for every DBMS that you want to support.
      • Hey that why I say LAMP will never take the place of say Java/spring/hibernate/tomcat/jboss.

      • Re:Fucking LAMP. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Decaff (42676) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @02:49PM (#14869069)
        Several other aspects, such as table creation, column types, auto-increment variables, and stored procedures, have varying degrees of differences or support between the various databases such that in any sufficiently complex application you would need to write a separate copy of db interface code for every DBMS that you want to support.

        There are open (and closed) source products that have dealt with these issues for years. Modern ORMs products handle all of these matters, and automatically provide translation between portable query languages (such as JDOQL) and high-performance vendor-specific SQL depending on the database you deploy on.

        It is astonishing to see these matters still being discussed as if no solution exists!

    • Indeed. I wonder why people are not using SQLite [sqlite.org] where they need a fast and not _very, very_ large database (that's the case with most websites). And if there's a need for a big and reliable db -- PostgreSQL is the answer.
      • SQLite doesn't seem to be very fast. I know the SlimDevices people are having some trouble with it. They write SlimServer, an open-source Perl server that indexes music and drives the company's (excellent) Squeezebox players.

        The problem seems to happen when people have very large collections, greater than 10,000 tracks... updates become slow, and the whole system gets a little sluggish. Apparently, when using MySQL, the problem goes away completely... or at least until someone gets to 100k tracks or some

    • Re:Fucking LAMP. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @11:09AM (#14866761) Homepage
      I'm sick of DB makers ignoring standards and making their SQL not 100% SQL99 compliant.

      it's is pure bullcrap that MSSQL,Oracle,MySQL and PostgreSQL can not take the exact same complex query without having to rewrite it.

      That is one of the big problems. the fact that some of my queries will not go cross platform because of stupidities thrown in by Microsoft, MYSQL, and Oracle that cause pain and suffering like this.

      • That's nothing.

        As an undergraduate, I took a class taught on Oracle platform (it helps that the department got a hefty kickback from Oracle). I got sick for 2 weeks and studied out of a database text that was all about SQL '99. The prof smoked my grade for using SQL '99 syntax, despite, otherwise, getting the questions right.

          • Re:Fucking LAMP. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Khelder (34398) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @12:29PM (#14867548)
            Well, the GP didn't say what kind of undergraduate degree program he was in, so maybe it was on something very applied like "Database Administration" and you're right.

            But if he's getting a Computer Science degree (which seems to be the plurality of students on /.), then his courses should *not* be emphasizing how the syntax for database A is different from the syntax for database B. The courses should be about higher level concepts (maybe replication, or normalization).
        • If your DB is on the same host as your web/application server

          If you are relying on this type of architecture, where one machine does all the work, interoperability with seperate databases is probably not even needed.

          But if you're working with a project that needs replication and such, then you really can't rely on DB and web server being the same machine. Sometimes you have to sell your software as an installable product and make it work on multiple DB platforms. Sometimes you have to write to foreign data
    • The whole database concept is just fundamentally wrong.
      • What are you talking about? We ship appliances with postgres and they don't need vaccuming.

        • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by muhgcee (188154) *
          I work at a company that uses Postgres with one of our products. When there are a lot of INSERTs into the Postgres database, it needs to be vaccuumed or it slows to a crawl.
          • Vaccuuming is now a background process that you can leave running all the time.

            I think auto-vaccuume was added in version 8.

          • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)

            by dfetter (2035)
            I hope that "INSERT" is a typo, because it's just plain wrong. The only thing that needs vacuuming is dead tuples, and the only operations that create dead tuples are UPDATEs and DELETEs. Furthermore, pg_autovacuum has been integrated into the back-end since 8.0.

      • MySQL (Score:3, Insightful)

        by suso (153703) *
        I don't trust Oracle

        Honestly, I don't trust MySQL either. Every since they started going more commercial, there have been indications that eventually MySQL will be more closed up than open. But that's just speculation. So I've been slowly switching my stuff to use Postgresql. The only problem I have with postgresql is that it doesn't handle user administration as well. Other than that, its awesome.
  • Why not release the results of all the bugs? All those OSS projects will then have 0.00% bugs!

    • Re:don't waste that $$$! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Bazzalisk (869812) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @11:14AM (#14866797) Homepage
      Ah, but how many lines of code will it take to correct the bugs? and will those bugfixes themselves contain bugs?

      Interested minds couldn't care less.

    • Why not release the results of all the bugs? All those OSS projects will then have 0.00% bugs!

      Many other studies and most programmers experiance shows that there is a high likelyhood of introducing a bug whenever you make a change to existing code, In fact on a per line of code written basis "fixes" are about the buggyist code you can write. So if you have .3 bugs per KSLOC (Kilo lines of code) in mature code like Apache orthe Linux kernal the new stuff that fixes a bug might have three times as many b

  • How can one ever count the defects/bugs per line?
    And why count them, and then not remove them?
    And one huge defect is better than more than one small ones?
    Sounds like a crappy research to me, time to RTFA.
    • Very Bad, and I have seen a US Defense - contracted software company (they even do helicopter systems) on their website extensively touting their 'lower defects per line of code (DLC)' methodology. Marketing.

  • http://scan.coverity.com/ - highest/lowest (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitaldc (879047) * on Tuesday March 07 2006, @10:42AM (#14866565)
    As part of the government-funded effort, Stanford and Coverity have built a system that does daily scans of the code contributed to popular open-source projects. The resulting database of bugs is accessible to developers, allowing them to get the details they need to fix the flaws, Coverity said.

    Just an FYI...AMANDA had the highest amount of bugs at 1.214 Defects / KLOC and OpenVPN the lowest at 0.100 Defects / KLOC.

    • YEAH RIGHT! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by suso (153703) * on Tuesday March 07 2006, @10:45AM (#14866587) Homepage Journal
      Also from the article: The lowest was the XMMS audio player, with 0.051 defects per 1,000 lines of code.

      Being someone who has used Amanda for many years and also XMMS, I find it hard to believe. Amanda has few problems (unless its the tape drive itself) and XMMS crashes sometimes when you just push a button in the "wrong way".

      I think there can be a big difference between actual number of bugs and the perceived number of bugs. This almost makes counts like this useless for actually comparing software.
      • I think it should be obvious this bug scanner only picks up on certain classes of "bugs". If they had an automated way of detecting all types of bugs, they would be rich beyond their wildest dreams. I imagine it picks up certain things like out of bound accesses, mallocs without frees, etc. It would make sense that Amanda would have more types of these operations going on than something like xmms.

  • I have to say, I'm suprised and impressed... a $1.2M grant to harden open source software? Thanks all seeing orwellian eyeball. I don't recall slashdot posting anything about the original grant but here's a link from the posted article to another about the funding [zdnetasia.com].

    The data is meant to help secure open-source software, which is increasingly used in critical systems, analysts said. Programmers working on the Linux operating system, Apache Web server, BIND Internet infrastructure software and Firefox browser, for example, will be able to fix security vulnerabilities flagged by the system before their code becomes part of a released application or operating system.

  • 0.00 defects per infinity lines of code (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee (775178) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @10:48AM (#14866612) Homepage
    If an automated system can detect bugs in code, why can't it fix them automatically too?

      • Is that considered a bug? From what I recall, it will compile fine; a bug checker should not list that as a bug. Now, I believe GCC will warn you "recommend parens around truth value" or something like that, which should be noticed by the programmer if it indeed wasn't supposed to be an assignment plus truth check but was meant to be a comparison. I don't think anything can detect logic errors like "if (bread_is_done_baking) { turn_oven_on() }" (instead of turn_oven_off())...

  • I noticed that on Coverity's demo page [coverity.com], there's no mention of MySQL. If they *do* scan MySQL for bugs, why not have it on the front page?

  • Test of Leaked Vista/IIS code (Score:5, Funny)

    by RealProgrammer (723725) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @11:01AM (#14866703) Homepage Journal
    Researchers at clandestine research labs in bases hidden deep in the Russian Alps have attempted to analyze portions of the leaked Internet Information Server (IIS) and Windows Vista code for similar flaws.

    The findings were remarkable. They found 4,669 flaws, but since they didn't have the source code it resulted in a divide-by-zero error when they calculated the statistics on their Excel spreadsheet. The error triggered an unheard-of lockup on their Windows XP desktop.

    On a positive note, recovering from the error alerted them to the presence of 43 strains of the MyDoom virus, 257 instances of Alexis spyware, and a bootleg copy of "Making of the Britney Spears Sonogram".

  • LA - fine M - okay P - ah so many varieties! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dareth (47614) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @11:08AM (#14866755)
    The LAMP stack when broken down consists of:
    Linux & Apache - rock solid stable releases.
    MySql - Okay, getting better with each release.

    P - This is the kicker. Perl, Python, PHP, and more so lately even that R one Ruby & Rails.
    We are living in interesting times when we have so much choice... much like the Chinese curse. I do not see as how you can evaluate all of these platforms together in a general fashion. Where is the skew or bias in this study?

    Someone on IRC recently was critical of a small website I put together in 2000. It was written in plain html, using frames *gasp*. Many people today do not realize how far web development has come since then.

  • Did the article say what kinds of things the automated tool flagged as bugs?

  • Security is not a feature, security is design (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Device666 (901563) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @11:15AM (#14866808)
    Security is not a feature, security is design. This ultimely means that security should provide good default values, knowledge about how to prevent buffer underruns/overruns and most importantly knowledge how to use a system. This means that security only will need tools to help a system architect and developer to confront him with his limits of his human brain and have a well documented yet very simple concise system and low speed development cycles.

    Open source is great because of the many eyes, knowledge sharing and having nothing to do with corporate tradeoffs (the users have the largest voice. But it stinks in the fact that any noob can make programs which are badly designed and are a serious risk to security, however someone may learn faster form the mindsharing in the open source world. To have a well concise system so much more is needed than just some bugfixes. OSS is just a proof that closed source coorporate software is not good with security, but it isn't proof of sound security.

    Most interesting is OpenBSD with it's oustanding default values, it's very own high profile malloc which prevents coders for lot of buffer underrunes/overruns, outperforming other malloc implementations. It has a very high quality of manpages and if you want to do something then you have to RTFM. That's what security should be, other than some less known bugs. I would even suggest that it would be better in the name of security that people would use program derivation (which is a very concise way to do formal verification). PIE and all other solutions maybe look practical, but they don't solve the lacking attention for "secure by design".
  • "The company did not give details on the scope of the flaws it found." After all that work reviewing a rather massive amount of code, are they not going to publish detailed results, or at least contact developers? They have their data for the study now. WTF?
  • "LAMP Lights the Way"?! Was Slashdot acquired by C|Net?

    For the love of all that's holy, please drop the hackish high-school-newsletter headlines.
  • Do we have any metrics to compare this to Commercial software quality? I know thats a bit hard to answer, but I'm curious what this same tool has found when used on commercial code.

    Maybe someone works for a company that used the tool on their code? Or some results have been published somewhere?

  • bug reports? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Janek Kozicki (722688) on Tuesday March 07 2006, @12:23PM (#14867487) Journal
    17500000 lines of code, 0.434 bugs per 1000 lines, that makes 17500*0.434=7595 bugs, so where are the bugreports?

    • Re:Solaris (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And it won't be long before Linux-zealots will start preemptively bashing Solaris to distract form the screaming shortcomings of their toy-OS. In fact, it will start in t 0.
    • If you were really pro open source, rather than anti-Microsoft, you'd probably not care.

      Seriously, the "at least it's not Microsoft" argument shouldn't impress anybody. The desire to put out a superior product, period, should be motivation enough to undertake something along these lines.
        • What I mean is, why live for such comparisons? Does it have to be about beating Microsoft, or using them as a bar to jump over?

          Even if it is, would you consider this an objective metric? Everybody knows that the kloc is, at best, an informal estimate of effort. Perhaps the Microsoft code does in 5 lines what the Open Source code does in 150. There are no bugs in those 5 lines, but 5 in the 150. The 150 line implementation implements an algorithm that runs in poly time, but the 5 lines run in exponentia
    • First of all, just because people desperately need a stupid acronym for everything, they call pretty much any non java unix web development "LAMP". So there's nothing wrong with testing other free unixes, webservers, databases and languages. Second, a couple of the OpenBSD developers work at coverity. They have tested openbsd and fixed the issues found. It just isn't cool enough for the people who use acronyms like "LAMP" to care about.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.