That sounds like an excuse. The real reason is probably that it's hard to make a viable business out of developing open source.

1) Pulls you in with a catchy title, that at first glance seems like a dunk on Cal.com (whatever that is).

2) Takes the "we understand your pain" approach to empathize w/ Cal.com, so you feel like you're on the good vibes side.

3) Provides a genuine response to the actual problem Cal.com is dealing with. Something you can't dismiss out of hand.

4) But in the end of the day, the response aligns perfectly with the product they're promoting (a click away to the homepage!)

This mix of genuine ideas and marketing is quite potent. Not saying this is all bad or anything, just found it a bit funny. The mixed-up-ness is the point!

Security through obscurity is only problematic if that is the only, or a primary, layer of defense. As an incremental layer of deterrence or delay, it is an absolutely valid tactic, with its primary function being imposing higher costs on the attacker.

As such if, as people are postulating post-Mythos, security comes down to which side spends more tokens, it is an even more valid strategy to impose asymmetric costs on the attacker.

"With enough AI-balls (heheh) all bugs are shallow."

From a security perspective, the basic calculus of open versus closed comes down to which you expect to be case for your project: the attention donated by the community outweighs the attention (lowered by openness) invested by attackers, or, the attention from your internal processes outweighs the attention costs (increased by obscurity) on attackers. The only change is that the attention from AI is multifold more effective than from humans, otherwise the calculus is the same.

Cal.com is going closed source - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47780456

Cybersecurity looks like proof of work now - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47769089

This article is effectively an announcement that cal.com is riddled with vulnerabilities, which should be easy to find in an archive of their code.

-if code is open source or closed source, AI bots can still look for exploits

-so we need to use AI to develop a checklist program regardless to check for currently known and unknown exploits given our current state of AI tools

-we have to just keep running AI tools looking for more security issues as AI models become more powerful, which empowers AI bots attacking but also then AI bots to defensively find exploits and mitigate them

-so it's an ongoing effort to work on

I understand the logic of closing the source to prevent AI bot scans of the code but also fundamentally people won't trust your closed source code because it could contain harmful code, thus forcing it to be open source

Edit: Another thing that comes to mind is people are often dunking here on "vibe coding" however can't we just develop "standards / tools" to "harden" vibe coded software and also help guide well for decisions related to architecture of the program, and so on?

This feels like the core of the article, but it doesn’t prove the need for open source.

One of which I am experiencing right now is somebody just copying my repo, not crediting me, didn't even try to change the README. It's pretty discouraging.

The other is security reasons, the premise that volunteers will report vulnerabilities really matter if you are big enough for small portion of people to dedicate themselves, for the most part people take open source tool use it and then forget about it, they only want stuff fixed.

Lastly, open source development kinda sucks so far. I'v been working on a few different tools and the amount of trolling and just bad faith actors I had to deal with is exhausting. On top of that there is a constant stream of people just demanding stuff to be fixed quickly.

Making the assumption that the same amount of money needed to attack a critical vulnerability is also required to find and fix it.

Lets say we have a project with 100 modules, and it costs us $100 000 to check these modules for vulnerabilities. What is stopping an attacker from spending the same amount of money to scan, lets say 10 modules but this time with 10x the number of tokens per module than the defender had when hardening the software?

Open Source was always open to "many eyes" in theory exposing itself to zero-day vulnerabilities. But the "many eyes" go for the good and the bad actors.

As far as I am concerned... Way to go Cal.com, and a good reminder to never use your services.

Some things just can't be truly secure as well, ddos protection is mostly a guessing/preventive game, exposing your firewall config/scripts will make you more vulnerable than NOT.

If your codebase isn't exposed, attackers are constrained by the network and other external restrictions which greatly reduce the number of possible trials, even with a swarm of residential proxies, it's not the same at all from inspecting a codebase in depth with thousand of agents and all models.

- it’s not open vs closed anymore, it’s more like bug finding going a few devs poking around to basically infinite parallel scanners

- so now you don’t get a couple of thoughtful reports, you get a many edge cases and half-real junk. fixing capacity didn’t change though

- closing the repo doesn’t really save you, it just switches from white-box to black-box… and that’s getting pretty damn good anyway

real problem is: vuln discovery scaled, patching didn’t. now everything is a backlog game

Cal.com folks are getting a red team for free, wouldn't that further convince them their closed source software is strong enough?

Isn't Strix's business companies paying for scans regardless of whether the software scanned is open source or closed?

Cal.com is going closed source

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47780456

Laughable and hilarious. Extremely short sighted. I can show code generated by Claude Opus 4.6 at the highest compute intensity that lacks even basic checks in input validation that was clearly provided in the spec.

There's no point in arguing with crypto and AI bros. They are the same tribe. AI crowd however might learn their lessons sooner because the universe isn't forgiving or flexible.

Note: I use AI code generators all the time but I take them as very very dumb transpilers no matter how expensive their input/output pricing it and I learned that hard way.

PS: Edit to fix typos.

I'm disappointed to hear this especially since I don't think the rationale makes sense, from what I understand of the security landscape, and it also makes me a little more skeptical of cal.com in general.

use battle-tested frameworks such as Rails, Django then you won't make rookie security mistakes.

There is zero incentive or reason for content creators to let AI slurp their content for free and distribute it and get all the money from it.

Everything new will be licensed and if AI companies want access to it, they will need to pay for it, just like we will.

I see this trope a lot in security discussions. “Obscurity isn’t security” or “since you can’t protect against X you may as well do Y”.

This is a harmful trope, which discourages perfectly good protections. Sure, closing source is not a perfect protection, but it is a defense against a large band of attacks.

Think of the entire field of potential vulnerability probes attackers have. Closing the source closes many of them off, likely most of them.

A pen-tester model with implementation will be loads more effective than one with only a black box. And that will give cal.com time to run the pen testing model on the source and address the vulns , hopefully before they are exploited.

I tested this myself, first using black box model attacks, secondly using the source code. The model with the source found and exploited the vulns instantly . The model without failed.

The lesson is: obscurity is not security ALONE, but it is a component of security.

I read this as:

"We figured no one was looking so we just shipped unsafe garbage for years. We never once did an internal audit, never once paid a hacker to try to exploit our product, never thought we'd get caught with our substandard products."

If a guy in his basement with $200 dollars can ruin your company then you were trading on vapor the entire time. I'm sorry you had to find out this way.

It's entirely possible this CEO sincerely believes this, but that means you as a potential customer should stay away: now you know that the CEO of this company has no idea how technology works even at an executive level and/or that he doesn't consult his experts before making decisions.

My concern is mostly financial. Most people would be in a better position to monetize my software than I am... Using AI to obfuscate the origin while appropriating all the key innovations. I wouldn't get any credit.

Also, I'm not really interested in humans anymore. I have human fatigue.

is anyone else seeing this / fixed this problem ?

In order to build trust, they open source their product. I forked it, removed the blocks from the freemium feature in 15 minutes using Claude Code. Never published the code to anyone else, just used it myself

Unfortunately, I think it isn’t going to be tenable for systems to be fully open sourced going forward.

AI generated bullshit PRs are clearly the bigger issue in the OSS space.

Shame

The future is sharing, you may not believe because your income is tied to being clever. Long term we are all more clever because of the sharing, and your contribution sometimes does not add to your personal success. Asking a company or its individuals to forego their success will not make them add more to our future. But they will add to our future nonetheless, because they all feel like we all do, that adding is what we are all meant to do.

But... playing devil's advocate, if AI makes it very easy to find exploits without the source code, wouldn't it be doubly effective finding them with the source code as well? And why is the dichotomy posed by this blog post "open source with AI reviews by everyone" vs "closed source but only the bad guys use AI"? What if the scenario was: closed source and the authors/security team use every AI tool at their disposal to find bugs? What do the community's eyeballs add to this equation, assuming (big if) AI review of exploits is such a force multiplier?

Before any knee-jerk reactions: big fan of open source, I'm not arguing this will kill it, I don't have the faintest idea what Cal.com is and I think a world without FOSS would be a tragedy, I run linux and most of my software on my personal PC (other than games) is FOSS.

Which works if you assume that AI can find 100% of your bugs.

It can't. So this is a complete waste of your time and will hide actual bugs behind a layer of confidence _and_ obscurity.

You're going to actually have to sit down and figure out how to provide real security in your product while earning profits. This is called "work." I understand Silicon Valley would like to earn money and not work. I am eager for these people to get their comeuppance.

Well ...

Open Source as such will never "die", but we only need to look at what happened in, say, the last 5 or 10 years. Private entities with a commercial interest, have been flexing their muscles. Microsoft - also known as Microslop these days - with Github is probably the most famous example still, but you can see other examples. One that annoys me personally is Shopify's recent influence - rubygems.org is basically just shopifygems.org now. See: https://blog.rubygems.org/2026/04/15/rubygems-org-has-a-publ...

"Contributors from both the RubyGems client team and Shopify are already working with us on making native gems a better experience for the Ruby community. "

There is a lot more I could add to this (see my complaint about how rubygems.org hijacks gems past the 100.000 download barrier; this was why I retired from using rubygems.org, and then the year afterwards ruby core purged numerous developers. The handwriting is soooooo clear that shopify flexed their muscles here).

I think we need to make open source development more accessible to everyone, not just corporations throwing their money to gain influence and leverage. I don't have a great idea to make this model work; economic incentives kind of have to be there too, I get that part, and I am not sure which models could work. But right now we really have a big problem. We can also see this with age sniffing (age verification - see the article that pointed at Meta at orchestrating influence and lobbyism) and many more changes. Something has to change. Hopefully some people cleverer than me can come up with models that are actually sustainable, even if it may not necessarily be a "fund an open source developer for a year". There could be a more wide-spread "achieve xyz" or some other lower finance effort - but again, I don't have a good suggestion here. Hopfully something improves here though, because I am getting really tired of private interests constantly sabotaging and ruining the whole ecosystem while claiming they do "improve" an ecosystem. We have the old "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." going again. Opposite day, every day.

I wrote some very nice expressive text for our deployment guide. My project manager took the guide and had Gemini break it down into plain boring bullet points. AI and the pundits can gf themselves in their journey to kill human expression.

Here is what I wrote in the guide:

"Post Deploy Responsibility

If you made it this far, say “Wow I really did it and it was so easy!”

Did you say it? Good. Now you are entirely responsible for any issues or bugs that may arise from the newly deployed code. Don’t go anywhere until the deploy has finished (usually takes a few minutes). While an issue or bug may not leave you directly at fault, you are responsible for coordinating any rollbacks or remediations that may be needed until the next deploy."

Here is what the product manager slopped it into:

"- Post deploy responsibility

  - You are responsible for performing QA upon deployment 

  - You are responsible for any issues or bugs that may arise from newly deployed code 

  - You are responsible for coordinating any rollbacks or remediations that may be needed until the next deploy"

going closed source does not mean we are not fighting fire with fire

we are using a handful of internal AI vulnerability scanners for months now

being open source simply reduces risk by 5x to 10x according to several security researchers we are working with https://cal.com/blog/continuous-ai-pentesting-vulnerability-...