And the chance of a Linux distro having a newer version of something important is unlikely unless a new distro was just released and picked the latest release of a particular software to standardize their package on for the lifetime of this new OS.
Either way -- FreeBSD will continue (or be capable of) getting updates to track upstream and your Linux distro will only be backporting security fixes.
In most cases what actually happens is that people use the main distribution repo for the 99% of packages which are stable and when you need something newer you add external apt/yum/etc. sources for those specific projects.
In the Ubuntu world, there's a huge ecosystem supporting this style where you upload source packages and they'll build and host the binary packages for you:
https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA
This approach gives you the speed, reliability and security benefits of binary packages with the currency of ports and, more importantly, allows you to opt-in only where you specifically know you need new features.
In many cases, the repos are maintained directly by the upstream project – see e.g. https://www.varnish-cache.org/installation/debian for what that process looks like.
In other cases, you have to decide whether you trust a particular developer. If not, you can choose to create your own version – which could be as simple as taking an source package, auditing it to whatever level you want, and signing it with your own trusted key.
Look, I ran servers using OpenBSD for years in the 90s and FreeBSD in the early 2000s. I respect the work which has gone into the ports system but the reason to use it is not security and advocacy based on limited understanding will not accomplish anything useful. If you want to praise ports, talk about how much easier it makes it to have the latest version of everything installed — and do your homework to be ready to explain how that's meaningfully better than e.g. a Debian user tracking the testing or unstable repositories.
Furthermore, third party repos not by upstream or trusted OS developers is a nightmare. I regularly spend time trying to find trustworthy 3rd party repos to get newer versions of developer tools into RHEL 5/6. Sometimes it's just random RPMs on an FTP or rpmfind.net style sites. Not trustworthy at all. And sometimes I can't even build the package myself because the tool refuses to build because the rest of the OS is too old.
Long term release Linux distros make life hell.
It sounds like you don't know how the Debian packaging system works regarding security. If you are installing from Debian repos (as opposed to third-party repos), then all binary packages go through the ftpmasters. The packages are checksummed, and the checksums are GPG-signed. Each package's maintainer or team handles building the binary from source. Of course, you can also download the source package yourself with a simple command, and then build it yourself. But if you don't trust the Debian maintainers to verify the integrity of the source packages they build, then you shouldn't be using Debian at all. This is no different than using a BSD. The ports tree could also be compromised.
Third-party repos are always a risk. That's one of the nice things about PPAs: their maintainers can use the same security mechanisms that the regular distro repos use, but with their own GPG keys. Again, if you don't trust the maintainer, I guess you should be building everything yourself. LFS gets old though, right?
And that's another good thing about Debian: almost anything you could want is already in Debian proper, so resorting to third-party repos or building manually is rarely necessary.
For long-term use, you can use testing or unstable or both, which are effectively rolling releases. There is also the backports repo for stable. And if you need to build a package yourself, between the Debian tools and checkinstall, it's not hard.
Debian and Ubuntu are the only distros I use, and for good reason. They solved most of these problems a long, long time ago. Compared to Windows or other Linux distros, it seems more like heaven than hell.
By the way, I'm no expert on BSDs--but do they even have any cryptographic signatures in the system at all, or is it just package checksums? Checksums by themselves don't prove anything; you need a way to sign the checksums to verify they haven't been altered. Relying on unsigned checksums is akin to security theater.