Integrating tooling, triage, and remediation remains an ongoing challenge for modern software development. Since the software that companies rely on comes from so many different sources—custom code developed in house or by a third party, commercially, or open source—it poses vast challenges that are only compounded by the many different ways in which software is tested, especially when multiplied by the specific issues those tests return.
Organizations typically employ a variety of security testing tools throughout the software development life cycle (SDLC). Common tools for identifying software weaknesses include static, dynamic, and interactive analysis, as well as penetration testing for custom code, software composition analysis for open source components, and context-dependent testing in the form of manual code reviews and threat modeling.
These tools are each necessary and effective, but the result of all this testing is that organizations are faced with an enormous amount of data to sort through. Different teams may be running different testing tools, many of which rely on manual review to assess risk severity for prioritization effort. It is also necessary for many types of security testing data to be audited by a security engineer or developer, and any past audits of an application need to be merged with any new scans or branches. Without the ability to understand this previous audit context at scale, a developer’s time will be wasted by presenting previously suppressed issues to be fixed, taking up time that most developers don’t have to spare. As a result, vulnerabilities go unmitigated because there is no visibility into their location or remediation advice for fixing them once they’re found.
These challenges result in low-efficiency AppSec, which means you risk releasing poor-quality code to production. Faulty code in production leaves your organization open to attacks, including data mining and ransomware. Breaches in your software are not only expensive but lead to reputational damage—while customers understand that software risk is ubiquitous, they want to know that they can trust your organization. Customers want to know that they can trust vendors to be proactive about preventing exploits and to adhere to industry standards, including quality checks and security requirements for software going into production.
The siloed nature of security testing, and the abundance of data that is produced, means that most organizations struggle to determine their most impactful security activities. Because of this, they have difficulty enforcing standards for compliance and risk assessment across their applications, which makes it difficult to standardize secure software development practices.
These structural issues have historically contributed to the security gap between development and security teams that hinders collaboration of data, tools, and process. When you do not know the top vulnerabilities in your organization and lack a central system of record, it is nearly impossible to gain a global perspective of your business risk when it comes to software.