When people first hear “open source,” some imagine it means “open to attack.” In sectors like government, finance, and defence - where risk appetite is low - that perception can be hard to shift. Concerns often stem from a lack of understanding about how open source communities operate, combined with decades of marketing from proprietary vendors designed to sow doubt.
This wariness can be amplified by high-profile security incidents in the tech world, particularly when a critical open source component is found to have a flaw. While these incidents can seem like evidence against open source, the reality is more nuanced: how a project responds to risk, not whether its code is visible, determines its security strength.
Why the perception exists
The hesitation isn’t always based on technical reality - it’s often cultural and historical.
“There’s a perception that because open source doesn’t have the backing of a large corporation, there’s no single vendor to take responsibility if something goes wrong”, said Lee Rowlands, Senior Developer at PreviousNext and a member of Drupal’s Security Team.
“For some decision-makers, having that one accountable party feels safer, even if the technology itself is just as robust.”
Kurt Foster, CTO at Salsa Digital, sees similar patterns, especially in senior decision-making circles: “A lot of it comes down to risk perception. People may not realise that having more eyes on a security problem is often the best protection.”
Part of the story is competitive positioning. Proprietary vendors have also historically pushed fear, uncertainty, and doubt about open source. Kurt points out that many large software companies invest heavily in marketing against it - despite using open source extensively themselves.
“Open source is everywhere. Many proprietary vendors rely on it themselves, but if they didn’t actively discourage its use, far more organisations would adopt it.”
Historically, some open source projects were maintained by only one or two people, sometimes in their spare time, with no formal security process. The 2014 Heartbleed vulnerability in OpenSSL is often cited as an example - critical internet infrastructure depending on a project with extremely limited resources.
Today, most mature open source projects, including Drupal, have addressed that gap with dedicated teams and formal processes.
A global security operation
One of Drupal’s greatest strengths is its structured, transparent, and globally coordinated security process.
- Coordinated releases: Security advisories are published on a predictable cadence, helping site owners prepare and patch quickly.
- Clear reporting channels: Every Drupal project page includes a “Report a security vulnerability” link, guiding issues straight to the Drupal Security Team.
- Thousands of expert eyes: Vulnerabilities are often found by the community during penetration tests or audits and quickly resolved with fixes distributed worldwide.
The Drupal Security Team is made up of experienced volunteers from around the world, each taking triage shifts throughout the year. They work with module maintainers to review, fix, and release patches on a predictable weekly cadence - Wednesday in the U.S., Thursday in Australia.
Security advisories include a risk score, clear instructions for site maintainers, and mitigation advice if an update can’t be applied immediately. Issues are reported privately to avoid tipping off bad actors before a fix is ready, but once released, advisories and CVEs are published openly.
“There have been cases where proprietary systems released patches for vulnerabilities in decade-old software without ever informing customers. That lack of disclosure should be a real concern,” said Kurt.
Lee adds that transparency is a key differentiator.
“If you have questions about how something works, because the code is open source, you can read it and verify for yourself. If it’s proprietary, you just have to take the vendor’s word for it.”
Secure by design
Beyond responding to vulnerabilities, Drupal is engineered to help developers write secure code from the outset. Key built-in protections include:
- Form API with cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection
- Twig templating with output escaping on by default, reducing cross-site scripting (XSS) risks
- Database abstraction layer to prevent SQL injection attacks
- Robust input filtering for user-provided content
- Role-based access control for fine-grained permission management
“Drupal has gone out of its way to make the tooling for developers to write secure code by default,” said Lee.
“Output escaping is on by default, we’ve got CSRF protection in the form API, and robust role-based access control. It’s much harder to accidentally write insecure code.”
Security in action
Drupal’s flexibility means it can handle both high-security environments - like police, health, and justice agencies - and global public-facing sites serving millions. Its architecture allows infinite scaling without extra licence fees, and its integration options fit within complex ecosystems.
A practical advantage
For organisations evaluating CMS options, Drupal’s approach offers a rare combination: transparent processes, predictable updates, and built-in safeguards. Security is not left to chance or hidden behind closed doors - it’s a shared responsibility supported by a global network of contributors, maintainers, and site owners.
If your organisation needs security, scalability, and control without vendor lock-in, Drupal belongs on your RFP list.