Wall Street Journal: The encryption flaw that punctured the heart of the Internet this week underscores a weakness in Internet security: A good chunk of it is managed by four European coders and a former military consultant in Maryland.

To answer some of the astonished comments I made yesterday, the lack of contributors to the project is baffling. So: the whole Internet relied on 10 volunteers and 1 employee and nobody helped them?

I guess this sort of comes back to one of the essential question in Free Software: how do you get the users to fund it? For some kind of software, this can be difficult; but in the case of OpenSSL I would have thought this to be an easy thing, since so many banks and web companies intensively rely on it.

But apparently, they didn’t care at all if this major piece of security they were using was able to keep up with security standards or not. Considering the number of people involved with the project, I don't see how it can put enough scrutiny and efforts to make sure it follows the best security review.

(Now, I have to wonder if the WSJ piece is actually correct in the way it counts the contributors to the project, because it's fairly possible that lots of companies making use of OpenSSL actually had security experts and developers in-house test the code and send patches and bug reports upstream; a bit like Google and that other security firm did when they found out about Heartbleed…)

According to Brett Simmons, That pretty much wraps it up for C.

The whole heartbleed bugs also reminds me that OpenSSL is also an example of bad idea when it comes to licensing issues.