Why shouldn't antivirus software be open source?

There are several reasons why antivirus programs do not need to be open source.

1. Antivirus tools used by the community do not update fast enough

Anti-virus programs require constant updates. Maintaining this relentless pace of vigilance and response through an open source project comes with a number of obstacles.

Open source anti-virus programs often rely on a signature database (a collection of virus characteristics) that is voluntarily contributed by the community. As a result, they tend to lag behind paid alternatives in implementing signature updates and virus definitions. For antivirus software to be truly effective, fixes must be deployed and updates deployed within just a few days before the virus spreads widely. Expecting a volunteer community to provide fixes and updates regularly and quickly is difficult.

In addition, open source development depends on the unpaid contributions of security experts and engineers. In fact, these professionals often demand high salaries at work, simply because this income is what they need to maintain a living. When the need to constantly monitor malware threats and keep up to date with definitions is balanced against the responsibilities of paid work, of course the work that helps them sustain a living will be Priority over volunteer work.

If the ongoing efforts of volunteers are sustained, who will foot the huge bill for intelligence gathering, regular signature updates and development methods? Without long-term economic support dedicated to this task, meeting critical protection requirements through an open model appears unreliable.

2. The disadvantages of making anti-virus software code public are greater than the advantages

The often cited advantage of open source software is that it allows anyone to review and modify the code. However, this transparency poses special challenges in the antivirus landscape.

By exposing core detection and removal mechanisms in the source code, malicious actors can get a close look at these defenses. Like all software, vulnerabilities inherently exist - whether the source code is open or closed. However, public access to the source code means cybercriminals can have greater insight into weaknesses before they are patched.

While open source doesn't create more vulnerabilities, it changes the security dynamic in a way that can hinder antivirus effectiveness. If the bug becomes widely known through public review, bad actors can quickly bypass protections. Even after a fix is ​​available, they may already have workarounds ready.

Additionally, a 2022 Cornell University study found that open source projects sometimes take nearly three weeks after disclosure to release patches - leaving more opportunities for attacks to be deployed in the future. that period of time. Additionally, contributions from volunteer communities will decline unpredictably over time, potentially leading to unaddressed risks, vulnerabilities or threats. Given the need for constant vigilance against viruses, making source code public may not offset the risks in this time-sensitive field.

3. It is difficult to maintain high quality code in a community-driven project

Maintaining optimal standards across millions of lines of code is a huge task, even for paid developer teams. In an open source environment, where contributions come from volunteers with varying abilities and priorities, ensuring excellence and adherence to best practices across the board is a real challenge.

Additional factors, such as how promptly vulnerabilities are found and patched, will shape the quality of a program's code over time. Likewise, algorithms and techniques must continually evolve to combat ever-advancing malware tactics. Maintaining this rapid development cycle in an open source model is quite difficult.

David Pac

Update 03 May 2024