AI's not going to kill open source code security
Cal.com considers AGPL a license to drill, but not everyone feels that way
Source code reveals how software works, helping security teams identify vulnerabilities, exposed secrets, and unsafe logic before attackers can exploit them.
Search across headline titles and summaries.
Background for this topic.
Source code is the human-readable text programmers write in a language such as Python, Java, or C before it is compiled or interpreted into a running program. It defines the program’s logic, data handling, and interactions with operating systems, networks, and other services. Source code may include application code, scripts, and configuration that controls software behavior.
In security, exposed or improperly protected repositories can disclose credentials, private keys, internal endpoints, or details that help attackers find exploitable flaws. Vulnerabilities may also enter through unsafe coding patterns, outdated dependencies, or malicious changes to code and build pipelines. Defenses include least-privilege repository access, secret scanning, peer review, static analysis, dependency and software-composition checks, and integrity controls for releases. Preserving commit history and build provenance helps investigators determine what changed and whether delivered software matches reviewed source.
Cal.com considers AGPL a license to drill, but not everyone feels that way
Cal.com considers AGPL a license to drill, but not everyone feels that way Opinion Cal.com has closed its commercial codebase, abandoning years of AGPL-3.0 licensing in a move that has alarmed the developer community that helped build it and sent ripples through the broader open source world.…
A lesson in how not to respond to vulnerability reports UPDATED Vibe-coding platform Lovable is pooh-poohing a researcher’s finding that anyone could open a free account on the service and read other users' sensitive info, including credentials, chat history, and source code. However, the company’s story keeps changing: First it attributed the publicly exposed info to "intentional behavior" and "unclear documentation," then threw bug-bounty service HackerOne under the bus.…