What we deliver
We build security controls into the development lifecycle without stalling the roadmap. That includes static and dynamic code analysis, automated checks of infrastructure definitions, dependency analysis, secret detection and approval criteria in the continuous integration and delivery pipelines. The focus is to surface risk at the right time, before production, with contextual feedback to product teams and prioritization of what really matters.
The problem it solves
Squads that only find vulnerabilities too late, a pile of security items with no prioritization, no objective criteria in the pipelines and no visibility into risk across the development lifecycle.
Heads of engineering, platform leaders and security teams that need to integrate security into the development lifecycle without creating arbitrary bottlenecks.
When product teams have no visibility into security during development, when the vulnerability backlog grows out of control or when the organization needs continuous compliance with evidence.
Scope of work
Deliverables
How the work happens, in practice
Which checks go into the pipeline
Static code analysis (SAST), dependency and license analysis (SCA), dynamic testing against the running application (DAST), secret detection in commits, infrastructure as code verification (for example, open buckets in Terraform) and container image scanning. Each one catches a different class of problem: SAST finds insecure patterns in the code, SCA finds libraries with known CVEs and DAST finds flaws that only appear at runtime, such as incorrect configurations. None covers everything on its own, and none replaces manual testing of business logic and access control.
Criteria that do not block the team
Gates that block every build on any alert are turned off within a short time. The way forward is to start with what is serious and provable, such as exposed secrets and critical vulnerabilities with known exploitation, measure the false positives, tune the rules and only then tighten the approval criteria. A good design uses warning mode before blocking, handles only what was introduced in the change under review and allows exceptions with a justification and an expiry date. Feedback should appear in the pull request, where the developer already is, with clear guidance on how to fix it.
Supply chain references
NIST SSDF (SP 800-218) describes secure software development practices; OWASP SAMM measures the maturity of the software security program; SLSA defines build supply chain integrity levels, with verifiable provenance of artifacts; the SBOM lists the components of a piece of software, in formats such as CycloneDX and SPDX. Signing artifacts, pinning dependency versions and protecting CI/CD pipeline credentials are also part of it. These references help turn loose tools into a program that can be explained to customers and auditors.
What sets us apart
- Integration that never blocks your squads without a good reason
- Thresholds adjustable by severity and context
- Focus on useful feedback, not on alert volume
Methodology
Mapping of pipelines and tools
Configuration of analyses and criteria
Integration with the backlog and the workflow
Fine-tuning and false positive reduction
Follow-up and continuous improvement
Highlights
Frequently asked questions
Ready to move forward?
Tell us about your context and challenges. We reply with a clear proposal.