Michael BrazdaIs it time to rethink how we view Open Source in terms of security?
We’ve all heard it: open source is more secure because “many eyes” review the code. But is that true in 2026?
Proprietary software usually faces heavy scrutiny with dedicated security teams, formal audits, pentests, compliance, and corporate accountability. Bugs get fixed with real resources and vendor support behind them.
Open source powers the internet (Linux, XZ Utils, Log4j, etc.). Transparency helps when maintainers are active. But too many critical projects rest on a handful of volunteers — often just one overworked person. Burnout is common. Maintenance lags. Supply-chain attacks love those gaps.
Recent wake-up calls:
XZ Utils backdoor (CVE-2024-3094): A sophisticated multi-year attack by “Jia Tan” who built trust and slipped in an SSH backdoor. Luck (Andres Freund spotting it) saved us.
Log4Shell and ongoing dependency issues show how one vulnerable library can expose millions.
2025-2026 reports highlight exploding vuln counts, fast exploits, and rising attacks via compromised maintainers and AI-generated code.
Neither side is perfect — SolarWinds proved proprietary can fail too. But the “many eyes” story ignores maintainer fatigue and single points of failure.
Better path:
Support maintainers (sponsors, bounties)
Scan dependencies, use SBOMs, auto-updates
Defense-in-depth always
Question what you pull in
Open source drives innovation.
But security isn’t automatic — it needs vigilance and resources. Worth the trade-offs, or time to rethink volunteer-run critical infrastructure?