Open source software is code that anyone can view, use or modify. It powers critical business systems, from development frameworks to data platforms, and is often seen as a flexible alternative to proprietary software. But is open source secure enough for your business?
The short answer is yes. Open source software can be secure if implemented with the right controls. While it offers transparency, customisation and cost savings, it also introduces security vulnerabilities, compliance risks and governance challenges if not properly managed.
This article explores how open source compares to proprietary software in terms of security, support and control. It also covers how to identify open source security risks, assess project maturity, and ensure that your organisation stays aligned with software compliance standards.
Open source software is built on publicly accessible source code that can be inspected, modified and redistributed by anyone. Unlike proprietary software, which restricts access to code and usage rights, open source is community-driven, transparent and adaptable to business needs.
In enterprise environments, open source offers both strategic flexibility and long-term cost efficiency, but only when implemented securely and in compliance with industry standards. Its rise across DevSecOps pipelines, cloud infrastructures and modern SaaS stacks reflects growing trust in open source software safety when properly governed.
Open source software operates under licensing models that grant users the right to use, change and share the software freely. These licences, such as MIT, Apache 2.0 or GPL, define how the code can be used and whether modifications must be shared publicly.
Key principles include:
Open source adoption is rapidly accelerating across private and public sectors, particularly in areas requiring agility and scalability. It is increasingly common in:
In these contexts, they use open source to speed up delivery, reduce vendor lock-in and increase architectural control. However, these benefits come with increased responsibility for security oversight, code vetting and continuous patching, risks that do not typically surface in proprietary software environments.
Here’s how open source compares to proprietary software: it offers greater control and cost-efficiency, but it also carries a higher burden of responsibility for ensuring software compliance and safeguarding against open source security risks.
Open source software can be secure in business-critical settings if it is actively maintained, properly vetted, and deployed with rigorous controls. Its transparency allows faster identification of bugs and vulnerabilities, but without structured oversight, that same openness can create risk.
Compared to proprietary software, open source offers more visibility into the codebase but requires internal processes to monitor updates, apply patches, and verify dependencies. Its safety depends on the strength of the contributor community, governance models, and the organisation’s own implementation practices.
Open source projects are often secured through collective responsibility. Thousands of developers and researchers may contribute to identifying and patching vulnerabilities. However, this decentralised model lacks formal accountability. Proprietary vendors, by contrast, offer contracted support and liability coverage, appealing to risk-averse industries.
Key distinctions:
In summary, open source software security relies on visibility and collaboration, whereas proprietary software security depends on centralised control and vendor support.
Several high-profile incidents have demonstrated that even widely used open source tools are vulnerable if left unmonitored. For example:
Despite these cases, open source projects with active contributors often patch faster than proprietary vendors. The issue is not the openness itself, but whether the organisation has a strategy in place to track, test and deploy those patches promptly.
Open source software safety depends less on the nature of the code and more on the practices used to maintain and monitor it over time.
Open source can be more secure than proprietary software in specific contexts, but only when paired with strong governance, regular patching, and active monitoring. The core difference lies not in the software itself, but in how responsibility for security is distributed.
Whereas proprietary vendors take on much of the security burden—via internal testing, patch cycles, and legal accountability—open source places the onus on the business to manage updates, verify dependencies, and ensure compliance.
Open source advantages:
Proprietary advantages:
Here’s how open source compares to proprietary software: open source offers more control but demands more internal resources, while proprietary software outsources security at the cost of flexibility.
Proprietary software vendors typically implement:
By contrast, open source security risks stem from:
The primary security risks in open source software stem from unvetted code, outdated dependencies, and poor maintenance practices. Unlike proprietary software, which centralises responsibility, open source burdens the user with due diligence and patching.
Understanding these risks is essential for mitigating vulnerabilities and ensuring long-term software compliance.
A significant risk in open source environments lies in the reuse of code across multiple packages and platforms. Many tools rely on third-party libraries, which may:
When libraries are updated at inconsistent rates across different projects, dependency drift also poses a risk. It can lead to:
Additionally, forked versions of popular tools may diverge from their original security standards if not carefully audited.
So, most open source security vulnerabilities originate from hidden or unmanaged dependencies, not from the core software itself.
Some open source tools become security liabilities over time due to:
These risks are magnified in environments where:
Open source software safety depends on governance as much as code quality. Projects without clear oversight, documentation, or maintenance pose a hidden risk to enterprise environments.
Businesses can evaluate the security of open source tools by assessing project activity, code quality, contributor credibility, and alignment with internal compliance requirements. The goal is to identify not only whether the software works but also whether it can be trusted long-term in a regulated environment.
Unlike proprietary software, where vendors provide guarantees and support, open source evaluation requires internal due diligence.
Use the following framework to evaluate open source tools before adoption:
Here’s how to evaluate open source risk: prioritise maturity, community engagement, and transparency in tracking and resolving security issues.
In enterprise contexts, open source tools should undergo structured security audits before production deployment. Best practices include:
For regulated sectors (e.g. finance, healthcare), open source tools must be assessed on technical merit and their ability to support ongoing software compliance obligations.
Businesses using open source software must address compliance in three key areas: licensing obligations, data protection laws, and internal security standards. Unlike proprietary software, which often includes bundled legal coverage, open source use requires proactive governance to avoid regulatory or legal exposure.
These responsibilities vary depending on how and where the software is deployed, and whether it handles sensitive or regulated data.
Open source tools are governed by a wide range of licences, such as MIT, Apache 2.0, and GPL, each with its own conditions for usage, distribution, and modification. Key compliance risks include:
To remain compliant:
When open source tools are used in environments involving sensitive data, they must comply with data protection regulations such as:
Additionally, businesses often need to meet cybersecurity standards such as:
To ensure compliance when using open source:
To implement open source software securely, teams must combine technical due diligence with policy-driven governance. While open source provides flexibility and innovation at scale, it introduces security responsibilities that must be owned by the adopting organisation and not deferred to external vendors.
A secure implementation framework should address selection, integration, monitoring, and long-term maintenance.
Integrating open source securely into development workflows requires more than choosing trusted repositories. Teams should embed security checks throughout the software lifecycle:
Best practices for governance, patching, and vendor selection
Security and compliance do not end at deployment. Ongoing governance ensures that open source tools remain secure and fit for purpose. Best practices include:
When choosing open source over proprietary software, evaluate:
Open source software safety improves dramatically when paired with structured governance, continuous monitoring, and team-level accountability.
Deciding whether open-source software aligns with your security strategy involves balancing flexibility with responsibility. Open source can be a secure and scalable choice, but only if your organisation is prepared to manage updates, monitor vulnerabilities, and ensure ongoing compliance.
This decision depends on your internal capabilities, regulatory obligations and risk tolerance.
Use the following criteria to assess strategic fit:
Open source is a strong strategic choice for security-conscious businesses if they have the governance structures and technical capacity to support it responsibly.
To validate open source adoption in high-stakes environments, follow this structured approach:
This approach ensures that open source software is secure and strategically aligned with your business objectives and regulatory context.
Open source software can be a secure, scalable, and cost-effective solution when managed with discipline and clarity. Its success in business environments depends not just on the quality of the code but also on how well your teams govern updates, evaluate risks, and meet compliance obligations.
Open source is viable for security-conscious organisations with the right internal processes, but can also be a strategic advantage.
Need help evaluating or implementing open source securely? At Imaginary Cloud, we help businesses adopt open source with confidence, combining expert engineering, compliance-first design, and proven DevSecOps practices. Contact us today to discuss how we can support your next secure software project.
Open source software can be more secure than proprietary software if it is actively maintained and implemented with strong governance. Its transparency allows rapid discovery of security vulnerabilities, but unlike proprietary software, which has vendors handling security controls, open source requires internal processes to manage risk. Security depends more on practices than on the model.
The choice depends on your business needs, risk appetite, and compliance obligations. Open source offers flexibility, lower cost, and transparency, but requires internal responsibility for updates and support. Proprietary software includes vendor accountability and formal SLAs but may involve licensing constraints and higher long-term costs. Evaluate based on security, integration, and support requirements.
No, open source is not inherently more insecure. Security vulnerabilities exist in both open source and proprietary software. The key difference is how risks are managed. Open source security risks arise when code is outdated, unverified, or poorly governed, not because the model is less secure by design.
Yes, open source can be trustworthy when projects are actively maintained, have strong community oversight, and are implemented with clear internal policies. Trustworthiness depends on transparency, contributor credibility, and your organisation’s ability to monitor and manage the software lifecycle effectively.
.webp)
Content writer with a big curiosity about the impact of technology on society. Always surrounded by books and music.
People who read this post, also found these interesting:
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
