The security environment for large language models (LLMs) varies significantly depending on whether they’re open-source or closed-source. Each approach comes with distinct security implications that organizations must carefully consider when adopting AI technology.
Transparency vs. Opacity: The Fundamental Difference
Open-source LLMs provide complete visibility into their codebase, allowing security researchers, engineers, and the broader community to examine how the model works. This transparency enables thorough security audits and vulnerability assessments. Anyone can review the code, identify potential security flaws, and even propose fixes.
Closed-source LLMs, conversely, operate behind proprietary barriers. Their inner workings remain confidential, with access limited to the developing organization. While this approach protects intellectual property, it creates an inherent “black box” that outside security experts cannot fully evaluate. Users must trust the vendor’s security practices without the ability to independently verify them.
Vulnerability Management Approaches
Open-Source Models
When vulnerabilities are discovered in open-source LLMs, the response typically follows a community-driven process:
- Security researchers identify and document the vulnerability
- The issue is publicly disclosed through established channels
- The community collaboratively develops patches or mitigations
- Updates are distributed to all users, who can implement them based on their own timeline
This approach leverages collective expertise but may create temporary exposure during the window between discovery and patching. However, the transparency often means faster identification of issues and more eyes examining potential problems.
Closed-Source Models
Proprietary LLM providers handle vulnerabilities differently:
- Internal security teams or contracted researchers discover issues
- Vulnerabilities are addressed privately before public disclosure
- Patches are deployed centrally across the service
- Users benefit from fixes without needing to take action themselves
This centralized approach can enable faster remediation across all instances of the model, though it depends entirely on the provider’s security capabilities and responsiveness.
Data Protection Considerations
Data security represents a critical concern for organizations implementing LLMs. The two approaches offer different protections:
Open-source models can be deployed within an organization’s existing security perimeter. This allows complete data sovereignty, as information doesn’t need to leave the corporate network. Organizations with strict compliance requirements or handling sensitive data often prefer this approach, as it prevents exposing proprietary information to third parties.
Closed-source models typically operate as API services, requiring data transmission to the provider’s infrastructure. While reputable providers implement robust encryption and access controls, this architecture inevitably involves sharing data with external systems. Organizations must carefully review service agreements to understand how their data is protected, stored, and potentially used for model improvement.
Supply Chain Security Risks
The supply chain—everything involved in developing, distributing, and maintaining an LLM—presents distinct security challenges based on the source model.
Open-source LLMs face risks through their dependencies and distribution channels. Malicious actors might attempt to introduce backdoors through seemingly legitimate contributions or compromise popular repositories. Organizations must implement rigorous verification processes when incorporating open-source components.
Closed-source LLMs consolidate supply chain responsibility with the provider, simplifying oversight for users but creating potential single points of failure. If a provider’s systems are compromised, all customers could be affected simultaneously. Users have limited visibility into providers’ security practices throughout their development pipeline.
Neither approach is inherently more secure—each presents different security tradeoffs that organizations must evaluate based on their specific requirements, resources, and risk tolerance. Understanding these fundamental differences enables more informed decisions when selecting and implementing LLM technology.
***
JLytics’ mission is to empower CEOs, founders and business executives to leverage the power of data in their everyday lives so that they can focus on what they do best: lead.
