I would also add a vote for Synology. I've not used one myself but everyone else I know who has one doesn't have a bad word to say about them. I'd probably vote against QNAP just on the basis that they seem to be on the front page of The Register pretty often with another exploit. I think the latest was April this year. Particularly worrisome if you need yours open to the internet for anything you might want to do remotely.
I'd also give a vote for TrueNAS or similar and rolling your own. If you're going to be spending a lot on a branded solution rolling your own is a lot more viable. To use proper hardware (ECC, server motherboards, etc) and not just old cast off desktop stuff can get pretty expensive as Intel seems to be removing ECC from their cheaper cpus and forcing you into Xeons.
It's great to see a recommendation from someone who has used neither product and uses The Register (who are as bad as the Daily Mail when it comes to headlines) as an example of why to avoid another one (which incidentally has suffered from the same/similar security concerns).
If you are that bothered about security don't tie into a vendor who uses proprietary software or take the necessary steps in avoiding such issues, such as not using the 'cloud connect' software and secure access via a VPN.
FWIW I have used both Synology and QNAP and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either. DSM is more polished than QuTS/QTS however they both offer pretty much the same at sometimes significantly different price points for similar hardware.
Also TrueNAS isn't really the OS for a regular home NAS user, it's vastly more complex and can be quite overwhelming for someone who wants a plug and play NAS.
Finally, Intel for a custom NAS? What is this, 2017? AMD are far superior in almost every way for the types of CPUs that go into home NAS devices and the ones typically chosen will support ECC (AMD 1500B as an example).