WebProNews

Tag: open-source

  • Why You Should Consider Using Software Composition Analysis (SCA) for Open-Source Software

    Why You Should Consider Using Software Composition Analysis (SCA) for Open-Source Software

    The use of open-source software (OSS) has become commonplace in the modern software development landscape. A recent study by Deloitte found that 96% of surveyed organizations are using OSS, and that number is only increasing.

    Despite the widespread adoption of OSS, many organizations are still hesitant to use it due to concerns about security and license compliance. These concerns are not unfounded; without proper management, OSS can introduce vulnerabilities and licensing risks into your codebase.

    Software composition analysis (SCA) is a tool that can help you mitigate these risks by identifying the OSS components in your code and providing information about their security vulnerabilities and licensing restrictions. Moreover, there are many advanced tools like Mend SCA that drastically simplify software composition analysis by automating it. In this article, we’ll discuss what SCA is, how it works, and why you should consider using it for your OSS management needs.

    Why Use Open-Source Software?

    Before we dive into SCA, it’s worth taking a step back to discuss the benefits of using OSS in the first place.

    There are a number of reasons why OSS has become so popular in recent years. Firstly, it can help organizations save time and money. Developing software from scratch is a costly and time-consuming endeavor; by leveraging existing open-source components, organizations can get up and running more quickly and affordably.

    In addition, OSS provides access to a wealth of talent and expertise. Open-source projects are typically developed by communities of developers from all over the world. This allows organizations to tap into a vast pool of skill and knowledge that they wouldn’t have otherwise had access to.

    What Are The Challenges of Using Open-Source Software?

    While OSS provides many benefits, it also introduces some risks that need to be managed.

    The first risk is security-related. When you use open-source components, you’re effectively incorporating code from third-party developers into your own application. This can introduce vulnerabilities if the third-party code contains security holes that are exploited by attackers.

    The second risk is related to licensing. Many open-source licenses have strict conditions that must be met in order for the code to be used. For example, some licenses require that modifications to the code be made available under the same license. If these conditions are not met, organizations can be in violation of the license and subject to legal penalties.

    These risks can be mitigated with proper management of your OSS components. One tool that can help with this is software composition analysis (SCA).

    What Is Software Composition Analysis?

    Software composition analysis (SCA) is a tool that helps you manage the open-source components in your codebase. SCA primarily operates by scanning your code and identifying the OSS components that it contains.

    For each component, SCA provides information about its security vulnerabilities and licensing restrictions. This information can be used to help you assess and mitigate the risks associated with using the component.

    Using SCA For Identifying Open-Source Code

    One of the main benefits of using SCA is that it can help you identify the OSS components in your codebase. This is important because it allows you to track the dependencies in your code and keep tabs on which components need to be updated.

    It can also be helpful for compliance purposes. If you’re required to comply with a license such as the GNU General Public License (GPL), you need to make sure that all of the OSS components in your code are licensed under that same license. SCA can help you verify that this is the case by identifying all of the OSS components in your code and providing information about their licenses.

    Another benefit of using SCA is that it can help you identify security vulnerabilities in the OSS components that you’re using. This is important because it allows you to take steps to mitigate these vulnerabilities before they can be exploited by attackers.

    For example, suppose you’re using a component that has a known security vulnerability. SCA would identify this vulnerability and provide information about it, such as the severity of the vulnerability and how it can be exploited. This information can be used to determine whether or not the vulnerable component should be updated or replaced.

    Conclusion

    Software composition analysis is a tool that can be used to manage the open-source components in your codebase. SCA works by scanning your code and identifying the OSS components that it contains. For each component, SCA provides information about its security vulnerabilities and licensing restrictions. This information can be used to help you assess and mitigate the risks associated with using the component.

  • AWS Is Becoming a Better Open-Source Player

    AWS Is Becoming a Better Open-Source Player

    AWS is beginning to earn a reputation for being a better open-source player as the company looks to address its customers’ needs.

    AWS is the leading cloud platform, with companies and government agencies around the world relying on its services. Since much of the internet runs on open-source software, it stands to reason that cloud platforms and open-source would go hand-in-hand. In that climate, AWS is quietly earning a reputation for itself as a solid open-source player, even if it’s not quite as active as other tech companies.

    In a writeup for TechRepublic, Matt Asay makes the case that AWS has made some major improvements in its open-source approach, especially since the days when it had the reputation of trying to convince the industry it was contributing more than it was. As an example, Asay cites AWS engineer Divij Vaidya’s tweet about becoming one of the top 10 contributors to the Apache Kafka project just three months into his new role.

    In response to Asay’s article, tech journalist Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols tweeted his agreement.

    While AWS is currently the market leader, Microsoft has been gaining ground. In addition to the advantage the Redmond company has as a result of its ecosystem of operating systems and desktop software, Microsoft is also one of the leading contributors to open source projects.

    AWS clearly has a newfound appreciation for the benefits that come with contributing to open source projects, especially in the context of helping to tailor its services to its customers’ needs.

  • Microsoft Denies It Is Banning Commercial Open-Source Apps, Many Remain Unconvinced

    Microsoft Denies It Is Banning Commercial Open-Source Apps, Many Remain Unconvinced

    Microsoft has clarified its stance on open-source software (OSS), saying it is not banning commercial OSS apps from the Microsoft Store.

    Microsoft started a firestorm on Twitter when it updated its terms of use for the Microsoft Store. The new rules, which go into effect July 16, prohibit commercial OSS apps, with the following clause:

    Not attempt to profit from open-source or other software that is otherwise generally available for free, nor be priced irrationally high relative to the features and functionality provided by your product.

    Needless to say, the new terms did not go over well with many developers. Despite the reputation Linux and OSS have for being entirely free, there are many commercial projects based on free and open-source software (FOSS), and there is no prohibition preventing a developer from charging for an open-source app. In addition, Microsoft’s rules would essentially make it impossible for FOSS to engage in charitable fundraising via the Microsoft Store.

    After Twitter users pointed out the change of terms Giorgio Sardo, General Manager Apps, Partners, Store @ Microsoft, tweeted that Microsoft’s goal was not to stop the distribution of OSS, but merely to cut down on misleading listings.

    Despite the clarification, some users and developers are taking a wait-and-see approach to make sure Microsoft properly details its stand.

    Still others see a pattern in Microsoft’s behavior, one that is antithetical to FOSS. Bradley M. Kuhn, Policy Fellow & Hacker-in-Residence at the Software Freedom Conservancy highlights what many see as a concerted effort by Microsoft to undermine FOSS.

    Kuhn provided the follow statement to WPN:

    This is not the first time Microsoft has rolled out Draconian policies in their app store terms. In 2011, when they first launched the product (under the name “Windows Marketplace”), Microsoft banned an entire class of FOSS licenses, called the “copyleft” licenses (such as the General Public License, GPL). These copyleft licenses had been a target of attack by Microsoft for decades, and Microsoft many times and in many venues pushed the FOSS community to abandon copyleft licenses in favor of non-copyleft ones that allow companies to turn FOSS into proprietary software later. The community pushed back against Microsoft’s copyleft ban, and eventually Microsoft pulled back the term. Microsoft knew well that copyleft advocates would strongly object; they simply tried out their preferred Draconian policy to see if they could “get away with it”. When they couldn’t, they updated the policy and feigned magnanimity, saying they’d “listened” to the community.

    Similarly here, they promulgated a policy they knew was antithetical to the FOSS community, are now publicly saying they’re “listening”. We expect they’ll roll out something slightly less onerous and claim they’ve “listened”. Microsoft literally claims they “love Open Source”, and we know well that they created an entire Open Source Program Office (OSPO), which hired many folks who understand well why policies like this are problematic. Did Microsoft even consult their own experts? If so, why didn’t these experts tell the Microsoft Store team these rules were antithetical to FOSS? (And, if these internal experts told the Microsoft Store team the full details and history of this issue, why did Microsoft ignore their own internal experts?

    The fact is, Microsoft hasn’t changed their tune at all; they’re putting a friendly veneer on their long term strategy to coopt Open Source to their own proprietary ends.

    Only time will tell what Microsoft’s intentions are, but the company obviously has a long way to go to gain the trust of a community it has long been seen as an enemy of.