No, but it does allow one to fix any security vulnerabilities in the codebase themselves if need be. It's way easier than patching a binary, especially if you're patching a binary in a locked-down ecosystem like Windows, which is tricky because of all the various roadblocks (TrustedInstaller, win sxs, XDR systems blocking the activity as suspicious etc). Besides, patching a system binary in a system like Windows is a bad idea in the first place, as you'd break updates (unless you remember to replace the binary prior to updating). Just ask any sysadmin who's had to deal with security teams nagging them about curl being out of date in Windows...
Also, in this age of LLMs, opensource means you can scan a codebase for vulnerabilities yourself. And whilst you can of course scan binaries for vulnerabilities, it's much more easier and effective to scan source code instead. So patching vulnerabilities in source is no longer outside the real of mortals.
So overall I'd say opensource wins the security argument.
No, but it does allow one to fix any security vulnerabilities in the codebase themselves if need be. It's way easier than patching a binary, especially if you're patching a binary in a locked-down ecosystem like Windows, which is tricky because of all the various roadblocks (TrustedInstaller, win sxs, XDR systems blocking the activity as suspicious etc). Besides, patching a system binary in a system like Windows is a bad idea in the first place, as you'd break updates (unless you remember to replace the binary prior to updating). Just ask any sysadmin who's had to deal with security teams nagging them about curl being out of date in Windows...
Also, in this age of LLMs, opensource means you can scan a codebase for vulnerabilities yourself. And whilst you can of course scan binaries for vulnerabilities, it's much more easier and effective to scan source code instead. So patching vulnerabilities in source is no longer outside the real of mortals.
So overall I'd say opensource wins the security argument.