AI projects like DeepSeek-R1 and its open-source counterpart Open R1 highlight a crucial design choice: using closed datasets versus open data. DeepSeek-R1 is a breakthrough reasoning model that was released with open model weights but a closed training dataset and pipeline. The details of how DeepSeek curated its data and trained R1 remain proprietary, leaving the community unable to fully inspect or reproduce the model’s creation (DeepSeek Security, Privacy, and Governance: Hidden Risks in Open-Source AI | by Theori Security Assessment | Feb, 2025 | Theori BLOG) (Open-R1: a fully open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1). In response, the Open R1 initiative was launched to openly rebuild DeepSeek-R1’s training pipeline and data, aiming for full transparency and reproducibility (Open-R1: a fully open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1). This contrast provides a lens to examine the security implications of closed vs. open data. Below, we delve into the security risks posed by closed datasets, the advantages of open data for safeguarding AI, and how an open-data approach aligns with “security by design” best practices.

Security Risks of Closed Data

Using a closed dataset (as DeepSeek did) can introduce hidden vulnerabilities that undermine a model’s security and trustworthiness. Key risks include:

  • Data Poisoning and Tampering: In a closed-data regime, the training corpus could be deliberately corrupted without outsiders knowing. Malicious samples or “backdoor” triggers might be injected into the data to manipulate the model’s behavior. Because the dataset isn’t public, such tampering can go undetected – the source of a poisoned data point is untraceable when data provenance is opaque (What is Data Poisoning? Types & Best Practices). The model may quietly learn exploitable behaviors (e.g. always outputting a certain phrase when a secret trigger appears) that only become apparent after deployment, when it’s too late to easily mitigate. This lack of transparency creates a fertile ground for data poisoning attacks that degrade model reliability or insert hidden backdoors.
  • Lack of Independent Security Auditing: Closed datasets eliminate the possibility of third-party review. External security researchers, auditors, or the open-source community cannot examine the training data for red flags. This lack of independent auditing is a serious security drawback – it’s akin to publishing a cryptographic algorithm without letting anyone inspect it for flaws. In the case of DeepSeek-R1, the model weights were open but “its making is somewhat opaque” due to the undisclosed data (DeepSeek Security, Privacy, and Governance: Hidden Risks in Open-Source AI | by Theori Security Assessment | Feb, 2025 | Theori BLOG). That opacity means the AI supply chain isn’t fully vetted; there could be sensitive personal data, policy-violating content, or subtle vulnerabilities in the training set that only an outside perspective might catch. Without independent scrutiny, users must blindly trust the vendor on data integrity, which is counter to core security principles.

In summary, closed training data creates a “black box” of potential problems. Data poisoning attacks can hide with no one the wiser, data lineage is lost, biases fester out of view, and the broader security community is locked out from helping fortify the model. These risks underscore why security professionals often warn against security-by-obscurity. When critical parts of an AI’s development are kept secret, we simply cannot be sure of its safety.

Advantages of Open Data for Security

Opening up the training data and process – as done in Open R1 – flips these problems into strengths. An open-data approach offers several security advantages that make AI models more robust and trustworthy:

  • Broader Scrutiny and Peer Review: By making datasets public, projects enable the collective “eyes” of the community to examine and test the data. This many-eyes principle means vulnerabilities or anomalies are spotted faster and by a more diverse set of experts. In an open project like Open R1, researchers worldwide can inspect the reasoning datasets and even the exact examples the model trains on. If anything looks out of the ordinary – say a suspiciously crafted prompt or an over-representation of a single source – it can be flagged and investigated immediately. Indeed, with DeepSeek-R1’s model out in the open, “the open-source community is actively probing R1, which is good for uncovering issues” and understanding its behaviors (DeepSeek Security, Privacy, and Governance: Hidden Risks in Open-Source AI | by Theori Security Assessment | Feb, 2025 | Theori BLOG). Open data invites constant peer review, acting as an ongoing security audit that no single team, however skilled, could match behind closed doors.
  • Faster Vulnerability Detection and Patching: Open datasets allow independent security testing that leads to rapid discovery of weaknesses. When the training data is public, red-teamers and safety researchers can craft attacks or adversarial inputs informed by knowledge of the data, then share their findings openly. Any vulnerabilities – such as a trigger phrase that causes the model to produce harmful output – come to light much sooner than if the data were secret. This transparency accelerates the fix cycle: the community or the maintainers can swiftly remove or adjust problematic data and retrain the model, or add filters to mitigate the vulnerability. In contrast to a closed model (where issues might be hidden or downplayed), an open model’s issues are out in the open, which creates pressure to address them promptly. We’ve seen that openness enables faster innovation and community-driven improvements to the model (DeepSeek Security, Privacy, and Governance: Hidden Risks in Open-Source AI | by Theori Security Assessment | Feb, 2025 | Theori BLOG). In practice, this means security holes get plugged by whoever finds them first, rather than waiting for a vendor patch. The result is a model that’s continuously hardened by many contributors.
  • Adversarial Robustness Through Transparency: Paradoxically, revealing the training data can make a model more resilient to adversarial attacks in the long run. It follows the security axiom that a system should remain secure even when its design is public knowledge. When data and training methods are open, defenders can anticipate how an attacker might try to exploit the model’s knowledge, and then reinforce those weak points. For example, knowing exactly what data a model was trained on helps researchers generate targeted adversarial examples to test it. They can then augment the open dataset with challenging or rare scenarios, making the model learn to handle them. The open approach also encourages the creation of specialized “safety datasets” and adversarial benchmarks by the community (SafetyPrompts: a Systematic Review of Open Datasets for Evaluating and Improving Large Language Model Safety). These are collections of tough test cases (such as prompts that elicit harmful or biased outputs) that anyone can run against the model. By evaluating on these open adversarial sets, developers can gauge the model’s weak spots and retrain it on improved data. Over time, this cycle produces models far more robust to attacks or manipulations than one trained in isolation. In short, transparency forces the model to stand on its merits, fostering stronger defenses since it can’t rely on “security through obscurity.”
  • Improved Trust and User Confidence: From a security standpoint, open data doesn’t just improve the model internally – it also boosts external trust. Users and organizations are more likely to trust an AI system if they know its training process is transparent and peer-reviewed. Trust is a security feature: a transparent model is less likely to harbor hidden spyware-like behaviors, giving stakeholders confidence to deploy it. As one open-security review notes, “transparency is a cornerstone of security assurance because it helps establish trust and confidence in the technology” (Why transparency is critical to your open source project’s security | Opensource.com). In the context of Open R1, the completely open reproduction of DeepSeek’s model means any developer can verify how it was built and test it themselves. This openness acts as a public proof of integrity – a maliciously trained model simply wouldn’t survive the intense scrutiny of the open-source community. Thus, openness turns security into a collaborative effort and yields an AI that earns trust by design.

In sum, open datasets transform security from a reactive guesswork game into a proactive, community-driven process. Problems are found and fixed faster, and the model becomes hardened against threats that would lurk unchecked in a closed setting. Open R1’s philosophy exemplifies this: by throwing open the training pipeline and data, it invites everyone to help ensure the resulting model is as secure, unbiased, and reliable as possible.

Security by Design: How Open Data Aligns with Best Practices

Building AI systems on open data isn’t just a philosophical choice – it aligns with core security-by-design principles. Security by design means baking in security measures and transparency from the ground up, rather than as afterthoughts. An open-data approach naturally supports this in several ways:

  • Transparent Data Sourcing: A security-first mindset requires knowing exactly what goes into your model. Open data practices enforce rigorous documentation of data sources, collection methods, and cleaning steps. Every piece of the training set can be traced back to its origin, which is critical for trust and compliance. This mirrors established best practices in supply-chain security: you maintain a bill of materials for your AI. Open R1, for example, is explicitly focused on “reconstruct[ing] DeepSeek-R1’s data and training pipeline” openly and validating its claims (Open-R1: a fully open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1). By doing so, it provides full transparency in how the data was obtained and used, leaving no dark corners. This level of openness means no unknown inputs are influencing the model’s behavior – a fundamentally more secure stance than hoping nothing harmful was in the secret sauce. If an issue later arises (say the model outputs some copyrighted text verbatim), developers can quickly refer to the transparent data record to understand why, rather than guess at hidden data. In other words, open data gives you auditability and control over the training pipeline, satisfying a key security principle of traceability.
  • Continuous Peer Review and Community Oversight: Open-data projects treat security as an ongoing process, not a one-time certification. By making the data public, they invite continuous peer review from independent researchers, domain experts, and even hobbyists. This constant scrutiny acts like a distributed security audit 24/7. Any potential issue in the dataset – be it a harmful meme, a biased trivia, or a suspicious annotation – can be noticed and brought up by someone in the community. Such feedback loops are exactly how robust open-source software is built, and they apply equally to data. As one industry expert notes, cross-team and community collaboration are keys to meeting evolving security standards, and public transparency lets organizations “identify potential threats and vulnerabilities” quickly via security reports (Why transparency is critical to your open source project’s security | Opensource.com). In practice, an open dataset means if a contributor or user discovers a flaw or vulnerability, they can report it openly (or even submit a fix in the form of improved data), and the whole community benefits. This stands in contrast to closed data, where only the original team might quietly handle (or overlook) the issue. Continuous peer review ensures that the dataset’s integrity improves over time, and no single point of failure (or ignorance) compromises security.
  • Independent Verification of Integrity: Openness allows any third party to verify that the dataset and model training have not been compromised. Independent teams can attempt to reproduce the model from the released data – as the Open R1 team is doing to DeepSeek – to see if they obtain the same results, thereby confirming there were no hidden tricks. This reproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific integrity and provides a powerful security check: if a model is truly open, multiple parties should be able to build it and get the same aligned behavior. Any divergence could indicate that something is amiss (e.g. the published data was incomplete or had undetected corruption). Additionally, with open data, one can employ tools to scan the entire corpus for malware, copyrighted material, or other red flags, and publicly share those scan results. Such independent audits greatly increase confidence that the training data is what it purports to be and has not been tampered with. By contrast, a closed dataset cannot be independently verified – one must trust the provider’s word that it’s clean and unaltered. Open data flips that dynamic to “don’t trust, verify.” Every stakeholder has the means to validate dataset integrity, which is a hallmark of secure system design.

In essence, designing AI with open data is about preventative security. It forces clear accounting of data (reducing the chance of accidental insecure data slipping in), enables continuous scrutiny (catching issues early, before they cause damage), and allows anyone to double-check the foundation on which the model is built. These practices echo the broader “security by design” mantra seen in software engineering, where transparency and verification at each step yield a more secure final product. By aligning AI development with these principles, projects like Open R1 ensure that security isn’t an afterthought, but rather a core feature of the model’s DNA.

Conclusion

Open R1 and DeepSeek-R1 illustrate two diverging approaches to data transparency in AI – and the stark security implications that result. Closed data, as in DeepSeek’s original release, may offer short-term control or competitive advantage, but it comes at the cost of hidden risks: potential data poisoning, unknown biases, and an inability for the community to audit or improve the model’s safety. In contrast, open data projects like Open R1 demonstrate that transparency leads to stronger security. By subjecting the training data and process to public scrutiny, they enable faster discovery of vulnerabilities, collective hardening against attacks, and greater trust through verifiability. The open approach aligns seamlessly with security best practices, turning the model’s development into a collaborative effort where integrity is constantly checked and reinforced.

As AI systems play ever larger roles in society, the security of these models is paramount. The lesson from Open R1 vs. DeepSeek is clear: openness is not just about academic ideals or “being nice” – it’s a practical security strategy. Transparency is security. Embracing open datasets and open pipelines means building AI that can be trusted because it’s been tested and vetted in the open, by many eyes, from day one. Going forward, initiatives that prioritize open data will likely be more resilient and secure, whereas closed-data models must grapple with the shadows and unknowns they’ve created. In the realm of AI security, sunlight truly is the best disinfectant – and open data provides the sunshine.

Sources:

  1. Theori Blog – DeepSeek Security, Privacy, and Governance: Hidden Risks in Open-Source AI (DeepSeek Security, Privacy, and Governance: Hidden Risks in Open-Source AI | by Theori Security Assessment | Feb, 2025 | Theori BLOG) (DeepSeek Security, Privacy, and Governance: Hidden Risks in Open-Source AI | by Theori Security Assessment | Feb, 2025 | Theori BLOG)
  2. Hugging Face – Open-R1 project announcement (Open-R1: a fully open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1) (Open-R1: a fully open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1)
  3. MIT News – Transparency often lacking in AI training data (Data Provenance) (Study: Transparency is often lacking in datasets used to train large language models | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (Study: Transparency is often lacking in datasets used to train large language models | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
  4. SentinelOne – What is Data Poisoning? (What is Data Poisoning? Types & Best Practices)
  5. OpenSource.com – Why transparency is critical to open source security (Why transparency is critical to your open source project’s security | Opensource.com) (Why transparency is critical to your open source project’s security | Opensource.com)
  6. Theori Blog – Open vs Proprietary model components in DeepSeek R1 (DeepSeek Security, Privacy, and Governance: Hidden Risks in Open-Source AI | by Theori Security Assessment | Feb, 2025 | Theori BLOG) (DeepSeek Security, Privacy, and Governance: Hidden Risks in Open-Source AI | by Theori Security Assessment | Feb, 2025 | Theori BLOG)
  7. arXiv (SafetyPrompts) – Open datasets for LLM safety (community-driven safety datasets)

Back to Resource Center