The same 10 software vulnerabilities have caused more security breaches in the last 20+ years than any others. And yet, many businesses still opt for post-breach, post-event remediation; muddling through the human and business ramifications of it all. But now a new research study points to a new, human-led direction. 

‍The following discusses insights derived from a study conducted by Secure Code Warrior with Evans Data Corp titled ‘Shifting from reaction to prevention: The changing face of application security’ (2021) exploring developers attitudes towards secure coding, secure code practices, and security operations. Download the whitepaper here.

‍‍In the soon-to-be-released study, developers and development  managers were asked about the activities they associate with secure coding. The top three responses were:

• Using scanning tools on deployed applications.
• Manually reviewing code for vulnerabilities.
• The active and ongoing practice of writing software that is protected from vulnerabilities. 
  ‍

So what is this telling us? Two of the top three responses are still focused on reactive approaches, the first dependent on tooling (scanners), and second on the developer (i.e. human) performing manual checks – in both cases after the code is written. Vulnerabilities detected using these methods have to be kicked back to the development team for rework with knock-on effects on project timelines and project costs. 

At the same time, two of the three activities nominated rely on the human element – a pointer to growing perceptions of security as a human issue. But of all the activities nominated, the most telling is No. 3, which identifies the human factor in writing software that is protected from vulnerabilities in the first place.  This highlights a shift to starting left – a proactive and preventive approach that bakes security into software right from the start of the software development lifecycle. 

Reactive can equal EXPENSIVE

According to an IBM study*, it is thirty times more expensive to fix vulnerabilities in post-release code than if they were found and remediated at the beginning. That’s a powerful incentive for a new proactive and a more human approach to defense of software security that equips developers to code more securely, right from the start. 

This is what you could call a human-led defense. But to get developers to start caring about security, it has to become part of the way they think and code every day. This is a  call for new approaches to training that are hyper-relevant to developers’ everyday work and inspire them to want to learn – neither of which can be said of current training models.

To create a proactive security culture, new training is needed that:

• makes secure coding a positive and engaging experience for developers as they increase their software security skills 
• encourages developers to view their daily coding tasks through a security mindset 
• makes secure coding intrinsic to their daily workflow
  

When these threads come together, vulnerabilities are prevented from occurring in the first place, allowing teams to ship quality code faster, with confidence. The good news is that a Learning Platform already exists that 'starts left' in the software development process – one that is already empowering developers with the skills and tools to create quality code from the very start.
‍‍

‍

‍

‍

*IBM Software Group; Minimizing Code Defects to Improve Software Quality and Lower Development Costs
https://docplayer.net/11413245-Minimizing-code-defects-to-improve-software-quality-and-lower-development-costs.html