Technology

Google says open source software should be more secure • The Register

In conjunction with a White House meeting on Thursday at which technology companies discussed the security of open source software, Google proposed three initiatives to strengthen national cybersecurity.

The meeting was arranged last month by US national security adviser Jake Sullivan, amid the scramble to fix the Log4j vulnerabilities that occupied far too many people over the holidays. Sullivan asked invited firms – a group that included Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle – to share ideas on how the security of open source projects might be improved.

Google chief legal officer Kent Walker in a blog post said that just as the government and industry have worked to shore up shoddy legacy systems and software, the Log4j repair process – still ongoing – has demonstrated that open source software needs the same attention as critical infrastructure.

“For too long, the software community has taken comfort in the assumption that open source software is generally secure due to its transparency and the assumption that ‘many eyes’ were watching to detect and resolve problems,” said Walker. “But in fact, while some projects do have many eyes on them, others have few or none at all.”

Pointing out Google’s various efforts to be part of the solution, he outlined several possible public-private partnerships that were mentioned at the meeting:

To identify a list of critical open source projects
To establish baseline standards for security, maintenance, provenance, and testing
To set up a maintenance marketplace, to match volunteers to needy projects

Laudable ideas all, if not particularly radical, unexpected, or novel.

Knowing which open source projects have the widest reach is certainly important to understanding where bugs would have the widest impact. Google software engineers have already been thinking about defining “criticality” in the context of software, so that work is underway. In fact, there’s software to generate a criticality score for other software.

As for baseline standards, the Open Source Security Foundation is already on the case, and we already have frameworks like the Google-devised Supply chain Levels for Software Artifacts. So that too is a work in-progress.

Walker’s description of an organization to connect projects with volunteer helpers employed at companies sounds a lot like any of the several open source sustainability efforts, just without the specific monetary component of GitHub Sponsors or Patreon.

“Many leading companies and organizations don’t recognize how many parts of their critical infrastructure depend on open source,” said Walker. “That’s why it’s essential that we see more public and private investment in keeping that ecosystem healthy and secure.”

That’s what everyone keeps saying, though often without paying.

Power in a union

Mike Hanley, chief security officer at GitHub, also had something to say on the subject: “First, there must be a collective industry and community effort to secure the software supply chain,” he said in a blog post. “Second, we need to better support open source maintainers to make it easier for them to secure their projects.”

Katie Moussouris, founder of Luta Security, told The Register in a phone interview that Google, as part of what she described as the security one per cent, does a lot of good work on its own product security and on security related to the software ecosystem. But that work, she said, is purely voluntary.

“If the US government is concerned about securing open source, then it does need to get more serious in terms of providing support to the open source community that is not volunteer, charity work from the security one per cent like Google and Microsoft and other elite, large service providers that were invited to the White House today,” she explained.

Moussouris suggested we need to adopt a model that’s more like Universal Basic Income for the developer community, in part because it’s a challenge to identify which projects are critical and which are not.

“The open source community definitely needs some form of universal basic income, because there are projects that start out as hobbies by one individual, and predicting popularity becomes a very difficult thing,” she said.

These projects often exist without much attention until there’s a security vulnerability and people realize there’s only a single maintainer, she said. While the government should appreciate the contributions of large companies like Google and its peers, “it cannot rely on the volunteer charity, labor and donations of the security 1 per cent mega-corporations if it’s going to solve this problem,” she said.

Asked whether a software license that imposes financial support obligations on large users of open source projects might help, Moussouris wasn’t certain licensing was the ideal approach to make open source more sustainable and more secure. But she voiced support for shifting revenue from the haves to the have-nots as a general goal.

“If the idea is to drive more of those who are profiting from open source and more of those profit dollars towards those who are building open source – as in the maintainers, and those who are doing it for free, or for very little financial support – if the goal is to drive more of those open source-derived profits back into the hands of the maintainers, I’m all for it,” she said.

Moussouris added that getting money to open source maintainers can be complicated. It’s often not easy to identify who to pay or how to pay them. “You can’t just cut a check from the government to an individual person, and that’s true around the world,” she said.

Another issue not mentioned among Google’s proposals is the need for specific security skills in the bug fixing process. Moussouris pointed to the lack of root cause analysis with Log4j that allowed multiple variants to be developed that bypassed the initial fix. The Log4j developers, she said, didn’t understand the scope of the vulnerability that had been reported.

“That’s the problem that’s not gonna be solved by throwing more developers at [the problem] – these are different job roles,” she explained. “So that is a gap in what everyone is talking about here in terms of support.” ®

Source link

Global Affairs

Open Source Software (OSS) Supply Chain, Security Risks And Countermeasures

OSS Security Risks And Countermeasures

The software development landscape increasingly hinges on open source components, significantly aiding continuous integration, DevOps practices, and daily updates. Last year, Synopsys discovered that 97% of codebases in 2022 incorporated open source, with specific sectors like computer hardware, cybersecurity, energy, and the Internet of Things (IoT) reaching 100% OSS integration.

While leveraging open source enhances efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and developer productivity, it inadvertently paves a path for threat actors seeking to exploit the software supply chain. Enterprises often lack visibility into their software contents due to complex involvement from multiple sources, raising concerns highlighted in VMware’s report last year. Issues include reliance on communities to patch vulnerabilities and associated security risks.

Raza Qadri, founder of Vibertron Technologies, emphasizes OSS’s pivotal role in critical infrastructure but underscores the shock experienced by developers and executives regarding their applications’ OSS contribution. Notably, Qadri cites that 95% of vulnerabilities surface in “transitive main dependencies,” indirectly added open source packages.

Qadri also acknowledges developers’ long-standing use of open source. However, recent years have witnessed heightened awareness, not just among developers but also among attackers. Malware attacks targeting the software supply chain have surged, as demonstrated in significant breaches like SolarWinds, Kaseya, and the Log4j exploit.

Log4j’s widespread use exemplifies the consolidation of risk linked to extensively employed components. This popular Java-based logging tool’s vulnerabilities showcase the systemic dependency on widely used software components, posing significant threats if exploited by attackers.

Moreover, injection of malware into repositories like GitHub, PyPI, and NPM has emerged as a growing threat. Cybercriminals generate malicious versions of popular code to deceive developers, exploiting vulnerabilities when components are downloaded, often without the developers’ knowledge.

Despite OSS’s security risks, its transparency and visibility compared to commercial software offer certain advantages. Qadri points out the swift response to Log4j vulnerabilities as an example, highlighting OSS’s collaborative nature.

Efforts to fortify software supply chain security are underway, buoyed by multi-vendor frameworks, vulnerability tracking tools, and cybersecurity products. However, additional steps, such as enforcing recalls for defective OSS components and implementing component-level firewalls akin to packet-level firewalls, are necessary to fortify defenses and mitigate malicious attacks.

Qadri underscores the need for a holistic approach involving software bills of materials (SBOMs) coupled with firewall-like capabilities to ensure a comprehensive understanding of software contents and preemptive measures against malicious threats.

As the software supply chain faces ongoing vulnerabilities and attacks, concerted efforts are imperative to bolster security measures, safeguard against threats, and fortify the foundational aspects of open source components.

We Can’t Thank You Enough For Your Support!

— By John Elf | Science, Technology & Business contributor VoiceOfEU.com Digital

— For more information: info@VoiceOfEU.com

— Anonymous news submissions: press@VoiceOfEU.com

Culture

Choco: Revolutionizing The FoodTech Industry With Innovation & Sustainability | EU20

By Clint Bailey

— In the rapidly evolving world of food technology, European startup Choco has emerged as a pioneering force. With its website, Choco.com, this Berlin-based company is transforming the way food industry professionals operate by leveraging innovative digital solutions. By linking restaurants, distributors, suppliers, and producers on a single platform, Choco is streamlining the supply chain process while promoting sustainability.

Let’s explore the journey of Choco.com and its impact on the overall foodtech industry.

Company: Choco Technologies GmbH
Website: www.Choco.com
Head Office: Berlin, Germany
Year Established: 2018
Founders: Choco was co-founded by Daniel Khachab, Julian Hammer, and Rogerio da Silva.
Industry: Choco operates in the foodtech industry, specifically focusing on digitizing the supply chain for the food industry.
Funding: Choco has secured significant funding rounds from investors, including Bessemer Venture Partners & Coatue Management.
Market Presence: Choco has a strong presence in several European cities, including Berlin, Paris, London & Barcelona.
Mission: Choco aims to revolutionize the food industry by leveraging technology to simplify supply chain management, promote sustainability, and reduce food waste.

Simplifying Supply Chain Management

One of the core focuses of Choco is to simplify supply chain management for food businesses. Traditionally, the procurement process in the food industry has been cumbersome and inefficient, with numerous intermediaries and manual processes. Choco’s digital platform replaces the traditional paper-based ordering system, allowing restaurants and suppliers to communicate and collaborate seamlessly.

Choco’s platform enables restaurants to place orders directly with suppliers, eliminating the need for phone calls, faxes, or emails. This not only saves time but also reduces the likelihood of errors and miscommunications.

By digitizing the ordering process, Choco improves transparency, making it easier for restaurants to compare prices, track deliveries, and manage inventory efficiently.

Streamlining Operations For Suppliers & Producers

Choco’s impact extends beyond restaurants. The platform also provides suppliers and producers with valuable tools to streamline their operations. By digitizing their product catalogs and integrating them into the Choco platform, suppliers can showcase their offerings to a wide network of potential buyers.

Suppliers benefit from increased visibility, enabling them to reach new customers and expand their market presence. Moreover, Choco’s platform helps suppliers manage their inventory, track orders, and plan deliveries effectively. These features enhance operational efficiency, reduce waste, and ultimately contribute to a more sustainable food system.

https://youtube.com/@choco233

YouTube Channel

Promoting Sustainability & Reducing Food Waste

Choco recognizes the critical importance of sustainability in the food industry. According to the United Nations, approximately one-third of the world’s food production goes to waste each year. By digitizing the supply chain and enabling more efficient ordering and inventory management, Choco actively works to combat this issue.

Choco’s platform facilitates data-driven decision-making for restaurants, suppliers, and producers. By analyzing purchasing patterns & demand, Choco helps businesses optimize their inventory levels, reducing overstocking and minimizing food waste. Additionally, Choco supports local sourcing, enabling businesses to connect with nearby suppliers & promote sustainable, community-based practices.

Expanding Reach & Impact

Since its founding in 2018, Choco has experienced rapid growth and expansion. The startup has successfully secured significant funding rounds, allowing it to scale its operations and establish a strong presence across Europe and other global markets. Today, Choco’s platform is used by thousands of restaurants and suppliers, revolutionizing the way they operate.

Choco’s impact extends beyond operational efficiency or sustainability. By connecting restaurants, suppliers & producers on a single platform, Choco fosters collaboration & encourages the exchange of ideas. This collaborative approach strengthens the overall foodtech ecosystem and creates a supportive community of like-minded aiming to drive positive change within the industry.

Future Of FoodTech

Choco’s rise to prominence in the foodtech industry exemplifies the reach of sustainability, innovation, and community. Through its user-friendly platform, Choco simplifies supply chain management, streamlines operations for restaurants & suppliers, and actively promotes sustainable practices. By harnessing the potential of digital, Choco is disrupting the future of the food industry, making it more efficient and transparent.

As Choco continues to expand its impact and reach, its transformative influence on the foodtech sector is set to inspiring, grow other startups, and established players to embrace technology for a better and more sustainable food system.

We Can’t Thank You Enough For Your Support!

— Compiled by Clint Bailey | Team ‘Voice of EU’
— For More Info. & News Submissions: info@VoiceOfEU.com
— For Anonymous News Submissions: press@VoiceOfEU.com

Current

The Implications Of Controlling High-Level Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI)

Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI)

By Clint Bailey | ‘Voice of EU’

The notion of artificial intelligence surpassing humanity has long been a topic of discussion, and recent advancements in programs have reignited concerns. But can we truly control super-intelligence? A closer examination by scientists reveals that the answer is highly unlikely.

Unraveling The Challenge:

Controlling a super-intelligence that surpasses human comprehension necessitates the ability to simulate and analyze its behavior. However, if we are unable to comprehend it, creating such a simulation becomes an impossible task. This lack of understanding hinders our ability to establish rules, such as “cause no harm to humans,” as we cannot anticipate the scenarios that an AI might generate.

The Complexity Of Super-Intelligence:

Super-intelligence presents a distinct challenge compared to conventional robot ethics. Its multifaceted nature allows it to mobilize diverse resources, potentially pursuing objectives that are incomprehensible and uncontrollable to humans. This fundamental disparity further complicates the task of governing and setting limits on super-intelligent systems.

Drawing Insights From The Halting Problem:

Alan Turing’s halting problem, introduced in 1936, provides insights into the limitations of predicting program outcomes. While we can determine halting behavior for specific programs, there is no universal method capable of evaluating every potential program ever written. In the realm of artificial super-intelligence, which could theoretically store all possible computer programs in its memory simultaneously, the challenge of containment intensifies.

The Uncontainable Dilemma:

When attempting to prevent super-intelligence from causing harm, the unpredictability of outcomes poses a significant challenge. Determining whether a program will reach a conclusion or continue indefinitely becomes mathematically impossible for all scenarios. This renders traditional containment algorithms unusable and raises concerns about the reliability of teaching AI ethics to prevent catastrophic consequences.

The Limitation Conundrum:

An alternative approach suggested by some is to limit the capabilities of super-intelligence, such as restricting its access to certain parts of the internet or networks. However, this raises questions about the purpose of creating super-intelligence if its potential is artificially curtailed. The argument arises: if we do not intend to use it to tackle challenges beyond human capabilities, why create it in the first place?

READ: ALL ABOUT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Urgent Reflection – The Direction Of Artificial Intelligence:

As we push forward with artificial intelligence, we must confront the possibility of a super-intelligence beyond our control. Its incomprehensibility makes it difficult to discern its arrival, emphasizing the need for critical introspection regarding the path we are treading. Prominent figures in the tech industry, such as Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak, have even called for a pause in AI experiments to evaluate safety and potential risks to society.

The potential consequences of controlling high-level artificial super-intelligence are far-reaching and demand meticulous consideration. As we strive for progress, we must strike a balance between pushing the boundaries of technology and ensuring responsible development. Only through thorough exploration and understanding can we ensure that AI systems benefit humanity while effectively managing their risks.

We Can’t Thank You Enough For Your Support!

— By Clint Bailey, Team ‘THE VOICE OF EU‘

— For Information: Info@VoiceOfEU.com

— For Anonymous News Submissions: Press@VoiceOfEU.com