[nmjohn]

> that every evil minded person can look through the source code, abuse it, before we were able to counter/fix etc it.

I think this is a worthy application of the phrase It's a feature, not a bug.

Closed source necessitates that the software hasn't been reviewed by independent programmers, only the authors.

Open source, while it doesn't necessitate that the software has been reviewed, it at least provides the potential for it.

[digital-rubber]

In my opinion, it's misleading to advertise your application/products as 'security guaranteed' because it's open source and _can_ be reviewed.

The fact that something is possible to review, doesn't imply it will actually happen. See recent example issues of software like OpenSSL, Bash etc.

Though personally i don't see any motivation that would make me believe the open or closed choice is the better. They both have risks and costs, which you need to weight and make your choice upon. And most important accept the risks of your choice (, which you can of course try to minimise and should).

Itypo do cheer for any software you can choose to run/host yourself on your own network/hardware. And not be relying on another party to run and/or host it for you. (Which brings the additional security issues you can't control, physical access etc).