Skip to main content
Comply Defense
Category: Supply Chain Risk Management

Open Source Software Risk

Also known as: OSS Risk, Open Source Risk, OSS Security Risk
Simply put

Open Source Software Risk refers to the potential for security problems, vulnerabilities, or other exposures that come from using freely available, publicly developed software components in a system. Because the underlying code is openly accessible, weaknesses can sometimes be found and exploited more readily by malicious actors, though open source is not inherently more or less secure than proprietary software. Managing this risk generally involves tools and practices that check components for known vulnerabilities and help secure the broader software supply chain.

Formal definition

Open Source Software Risk denotes the aggregate security, and supply chain exposure introduced by incorporating open source software (OSS) components into an information system. Because OSS source code is publicly available, vulnerabilities may in some cases be discovered and exploited more easily, while conversely they may also be identified and patched by the community; available evidence characterizes OSS as generally no more or less secure than other software as a baseline proposition. Managing this risk typically employs software composition analysis (SCA) and related open source security tooling and practices to inventory components, identify known vulnerabilities, ensure compliance, and secure the software supply chain. Note that this entry describes the general concept and does not address specific control mappings, federal or DoD acquisition requirements, or CUI-handling obligations, which readers should verify against current authoritative guidance; the cited sources are vendor and general references rather than governing standards.

Why it matters

Open source software components are embedded throughout modern information systems, often deep within dependency chains that developers and system owners may not fully inventory. This creates a distinct governance challenge: an organization can inherit security exposure from code it did not write and does not directly control. The publicly available nature of OSS source code means that vulnerabilities can, in some cases, be discovered and exploited more readily by malicious actors, though it is important to recognize that open source is generally no more or less secure than proprietary software as a baseline proposition. The same openness that can accelerate exploitation can also enable the broader community to identify and patch weaknesses.

For organizations operating in regulated environments, the practical significance of OSS risk lies in the need to know what components are in use and whether they carry known vulnerabilities. Without a reliable inventory of open source components and their versions, an organization cannot make defensible statements about its exposure or respond effectively when a new vulnerability is disclosed. This is fundamentally a software supply chain concern: risk enters through the components that are integrated rather than through a single monolithic product.

Readers should note that this entry describes the general concept of OSS risk and does not address specific control mappings, federal or DoD acquisition requirements, or Controlled Unclassified Information handling obligations. Those requirements are governed by authoritative sources that must be consulted directly, and the concept described here should not be treated as a substitute for verifying applicable contractual, regulatory, or agency-specific obligations against current official guidance.

Who it's relevant to

Information System Security Managers and Security Engineers
Personnel responsible for the security posture of a system need to understand which open source components are present and whether they carry known vulnerabilities. Software composition analysis and related practices support the inventory and vulnerability identification activities that inform risk decisions, though these tools should be treated as one input rather than a complete assurance measure.
Software Developers and Development Teams
Teams that build systems on open source components introduce OSS risk directly through the dependencies they select. Maintaining an accurate component inventory and monitoring for newly disclosed vulnerabilities helps developers respond when weaknesses in upstream projects become known.
Compliance Officers and Auditors
Those evaluating an organization's software supply chain practices may examine whether open source components are inventoried and assessed for known vulnerabilities. Note that this entry does not map OSS risk management to specific control frameworks or acquisition requirements; auditors should confirm the applicable governing standards and any CUI-related obligations against current authoritative sources.
Government Contractors and Acquisition Personnel
Organizations delivering software to federal or defense customers may face obligations relating to software supply chain security. Because the sources underlying this entry are vendor and general references rather than governing standards, contractors should verify specific federal or DoD requirements and contractual terms against current authoritative guidance rather than inferring obligations from the general concept described here.

Inside OSS Risk

Software Supply Chain Exposure
Open source software risk includes the exposure introduced when components, libraries, and dependencies of unknown or unverified provenance are incorporated into a system. This is generally addressed within supply chain risk management practices, which for federal systems draw on guidance such as NIST SP 800-161; readers should verify the applicable revision and any agency-specific tailoring.
Vulnerability and Patch Management
Open source components may contain known or newly disclosed vulnerabilities, and risk arises from the organization's ability (or inability) to identify, track, and remediate them. This maps to control families addressing flaw remediation and system maintenance in a control baseline such as NIST SP 800-53, subject to the applicable revision and any tailoring for the system's impact level.
Licensing and Provenance
Risk includes uncertainty about the license terms, authorship, and integrity of open source code, which can affect both legal use and confidence in the component's trustworthiness. Licensing implications are generally a legal and contractual matter that practitioners must confirm against current authoritative sources and counsel.
Component Inventory and Transparency
Effective management of open source risk generally relies on maintaining visibility into what components are present, often through a software bill of materials. The specific requirements, formats, and applicability can vary by agency and program and should be verified against current federal guidance.
Maintenance and Sustainment Status
Open source projects vary in how actively they are maintained; abandoned or unmaintained components can introduce risk because vulnerabilities may go unaddressed. Assessing sustainment is generally part of evaluating a component's ongoing suitability, though criteria may differ by organization.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about OSS Risk.

Does using open source software mean an organization cannot meet federal or DoD compliance requirements?
No. Open source software is not inherently prohibited under FISMA, the RMF, or DoD policy, and it should not be treated as automatically noncompliant or less secure than proprietary software. Federal policy has generally recognized open source software as a legitimate category of commercial or commercially available software, subject to the same risk management, supply chain, and control obligations that apply to other software. The relevant question is not whether software is open source, but whether the organization can identify, assess, and manage the associated risks under its applicable control baseline. Confirm the treatment of open source software against your agency's current policy and acquisition guidance, because agency-specific interpretations may differ.
Is open source software risk simply a matter of scanning for known vulnerabilities?
No. Vulnerability scanning addresses only one dimension of open source software risk. A vulnerability scan or software composition analysis may identify known flaws tied to catalogued identifiers, but open source risk in most implementations also encompasses provenance and integrity of components, maintenance and end-of-life status of a project, licensing obligations, transitive dependencies, and the potential for maliciously introduced code. Equating a clean scan with acceptable risk conflates a point-in-time assessment activity with ongoing risk management. Organizations generally need to address these concerns through supply chain risk management and continuous monitoring practices, not scanning alone, and should verify the specific expectations in their governing guidance.
How should open source components be documented within a system's authorization package?
Open source components are generally documented as part of the system's software inventory and supporting artifacts, which in many implementations are captured in or referenced by the System Security Plan and associated supply chain documentation. Many organizations rely on a software bill of materials (SBOM) to enumerate components, including transitive dependencies, so that provenance and known-vulnerability status can be tracked over time. The precise documentation format, level of detail, and where these artifacts reside within an authorization package can vary by agency and by the applicable control baseline and revision. Confirm the required artifacts against your authorizing official's expectations and current official guidance, as this entry does not cover agency-specific package formats.
What role does an SBOM play in managing open source software risk?
A software bill of materials generally supports open source risk management by providing visibility into the components, including open source and transitive dependencies, that make up a system or product. This visibility can help organizations respond more quickly when a newly disclosed vulnerability affects a widely used component, and can support supply chain risk assessment and continuous monitoring activities. An SBOM is an inventory aid rather than a control in itself; producing one does not by itself remediate vulnerabilities or satisfy authorization requirements. SBOM expectations and formats are evolving, so readers should verify current requirements and any applicable federal guidance against authoritative sources rather than assuming a single fixed standard.
How should an organization handle open source components that are no longer maintained or have reached end of life?
Unmaintained or end-of-life open source components generally warrant heightened scrutiny because security fixes may no longer be issued, which can leave known vulnerabilities unresolved. Organizations typically address this through their risk management process by evaluating options such as migrating to a supported alternative, isolating or compensating for the component with additional controls, or formally documenting and accepting residual risk where permitted. Any decision to continue using an unsupported component should be reflected in the system's risk documentation and reviewed during continuous monitoring, since an Authority to Operate is time-bound and subject to reassessment. Specific remediation timelines and acceptance authority depend on agency policy, which the reader should confirm.
Does a FedRAMP authorization for a cloud service confirm that its embedded open source components meet DoD requirements?
Not necessarily. A FedRAMP authorization reflects an assessment and authorization decision under the FedRAMP program and does not automatically satisfy DoD-specific requirements, which may impose additional conditions depending on the impact level and the type of information involved. The presence of open source components within an authorized cloud service is generally addressed through the provider's own supply chain and continuous monitoring practices, but consuming organizations remain responsible for understanding inherited controls and any customer responsibilities. Assessment is not the same as authorization, and authorization by one program does not transfer wholesale to another. Verify applicability against current DoD and FedRAMP guidance and your authorizing official's determinations.

Common misconceptions

Open source software is inherently less secure (or inherently more secure) than proprietary software.
Neither generalization holds as a rule. Security depends on factors such as the specific component, its maintenance status, how it is configured, and how vulnerabilities are managed. The relevant question is whether the risk associated with a given component is understood and managed within the system's authorization and continuous monitoring processes, not whether the code is open or closed.
Using open source components that are widely adopted or previously assessed means the risk is already accepted and no further action is needed.
Assessment is not the same as authorization, and prior use elsewhere does not transfer risk acceptance to a new system or environment. Each system's authorizing official evaluates risk in context, and an Authority to Operate is time-bound and subject to continuous monitoring rather than permanent. Newly disclosed vulnerabilities can change a component's risk posture at any time.
Meeting a compliance requirement to inventory open source components means the software is secure.
Compliance is not equivalent to security. Producing an inventory or satisfying a documentation requirement demonstrates a process step, but it does not by itself remediate vulnerabilities, confirm provenance, or ensure ongoing maintenance. Practitioners should treat inventory as an input to risk management, not as evidence that risk has been eliminated.

Best practices

Maintain a current inventory of open source components and their dependencies so that affected systems can be identified quickly when a new vulnerability is disclosed; confirm any required inventory format or software bill of materials expectations against current agency guidance.
Integrate open source vulnerability tracking into the system's continuous monitoring and flaw remediation processes rather than treating it as a one-time review, recognizing that an ATO is time-bound and subject to ongoing risk assessment.
Evaluate the provenance, integrity, and maintenance status of components before adoption, and reassess periodically to detect components that have become unmaintained.
Confirm license terms and legal use with appropriate counsel, treating licensing as a legal and contractual matter distinct from technical security controls.
Align open source risk activities with the applicable supply chain and control frameworks (such as NIST SP 800-161 and the control baseline in NIST SP 800-53), verifying the applicable revision and any tailoring for the system's impact level.
Document open source risk decisions so they can be reviewed by the authorizing official as part of the system's authorization, and verify specific requirements against current official sources before relying on them.