This is an extract from a real conversation with a colleague at one of my previous jobs. Even though their name is not mentioned here, I asked for their permission before publishing this:


I think we talked a bit when you were in your previous role about the way traditional app sec works here. Where it’s similar to how it’s been in my other experiences. What kind of stuff have you figured out about moving that into the whole CI/CD process? Anything cool or interesting yet?


The most important thing I know about application security, and you know that too - is that it will fail if software engineers are not interested. So if there is no buy-in from that side, another problem needs to be addressed first. If a software engineer is not interested in learning about bugs they may have in their code, it’s a problem of a different category. A culture problem.

And then, the next thing I learned is that I can be a security/pentest expert whatsoever and know everything about software vulnerabilities, but:

a) I am not the one who owns the risk - business does. And they are the party to make decisions on how to address it.

b) I don’t have access to the code repository, neither I have enough skills to fix the issue myself. Only the software developer can do that. So again. I can’t really tell I own the risk or its resolution


Do you ever do code reviews with people to look into security issues? I see that code reviews are a big part of a lot of App Sec programs, but I’m only familiar with them as a team mate building something with my team.


Of course, code reviews are an essential aspect of my daily work.

First of all, code reviews are costly. Companies can’t just spend their entire budgets on experts who can perform code reviews. Plus, those reviews take a lot of time which is also a very limited resource. That’s actually how DAST/SAST automation came into play: we don’t want those experts who review the code manually to spend their time on items that can be detected automatically. At the same time, SAST/DAST is also expensive and takes a long time. Not as long as a human review, but still. So that’s how tools like dependency checks and linting came into play.

So every code pipeline should have Lint (e.g. SonarQube)->Dependency check (.e.g Snyk) -> SAST (e.g. Veracode) -> DAST (Burp/OWASP ZAP/sqlmap/other tools) with just manual reviews for the most critical and risky projects

And there’s an important comment here that OWASP and some other large companies had a couple of years of research spent to see how effective security scanning tools are, with a verdict that if you have everything set up perfectly, you only get 4-10% findings. The rest is mostly human review, and again humans are all different. So that’s the expectation that we all should be aware of.


Wow, this is really insightful. So with these automated tools that’s where you can start hooking things into the SDLC. Like how my team hooked into SonarQube in dev and found a bunch of things to fix and measured our test coverage.


That’s why the entire CI/CD and consequential DevOps comes into play: we know that even if we invest A LOT, we still will have security issues in production. And the best thing we can do is ensure we can quickly react to any findings we have, get systems back online fast, and have patches applied in no time.

Yeah, the first thing I would be looking to have is what you described: SonarQube, test coverage and pull requests (code review) process

And every modern programming language will have a set of awesome linting tools. Even markdown does :)

…But still, application security is a matter of culture. Because what is security? The best definition I ever heard was ‘secure system is the system that behaves only in the manner it is expected to behave, and nothing else.’

So it’s not, e.g., enough to just have sonarqube. It’s about fixing everything as well. And not even waiting until you push code into the repository. You want your IDE to lint as much as it can (that’s the reason I am paying for Intellij IDEA Ultimate - it’s linters are the best in the industry, and it has Sonar integration)


So modern app sec is really just translating defense-in-depth principals to every step in the app dev process. Which makes sense but maybe wasn’t as easy before.


Well, this is a good point. Because it’s also important to mention that security controls are no longer developers’ responsibility in most cases. Usually, modern programming frameworks, or platforms, will take care of security controls. So I’d say application security is about knowing your framework and using it properly. If a developer has to implement security controls, usually it’s already all wrong.

So yeah, it’s about security architecture design now, and defense-in-depth is the major aspect of it. Together with threat modeling that considers the entire context of the app.

Looking at your question again, I’ll try to rephrase. It’s the combination of two:

  1. secure design that uses common security solutions and not reinventing the wheel (i.e., not implementing security controls from scratch but rely on well known frameworks/platforms)

  2. Using automation as much as possible to prevent [security] bugs from getting into code.

  3. Would be to ensure communication and collaboration

(sorry for the large texts, this is the passion and research of my life you just triggered ;) )


No apologies needed, this is all really great insight. You should give a talk about this at a conference.


haha, I appreciate this :) thank you for your kind words

I didn’t invent any of this, really. It’s what I keep hearing over and over at ‘Paul Security Weekly’ and ‘The Secure Developer’ podcasts (would totally recommend)


A lot of this is stuff I’ve already heard or was vaguely aware of, but you put all the pieces together really well. I am a big podcast fan, so I’ll check those out.

One of the things that always intimidates me with application security is that people say you need to have a development background or be really good at “code reviews,” and I’ve developed and I’ve done code reviews, but when you google to find more information, it sure seems vague and like everyone does those things differently. So I’m left wondering, when do you know if you’ve done enough development to understand what you need to, and what’s this person’s idea of a code review if everyone does them differently. Maybe just realizing that is the key haha


Excellent question :) I don’t think there’s really a way for someone to be a code review expert of sorts. Because it’s not enough to just understand vulnerabilities, but the central part of the problem is to provide the right solution for it. And that would depend on the specific language and framework used in a particular project.

So I’d say the only item here that makes sense is reviews performed by experienced developers in their space, and not by security people.

Are you a Java guy? I have a very simple but very arguable example :)

<p th:utext="'Hello, ' + ${name} + '!'"/>

(I also know this is very different from what security training has, but this is real life)


Looking at the code, it seems like it takes in a parameter name, and the desired output is to put a <p> tag on the HTML with “Hello, [Name]!” in it.

Okay, so the issue I’m seeing is just that it’s taking in any string and putting it into the page. so you need input sanitization


And that would be the 99% answer because this is what training tells us. it is entirely correct from a security perspective.

But in reality, first of all, input sanitization is almost impossible in this case.

And even if you figure out some perfect regex, it will slow down the application by a lot, it will be a huge performance problem - just like any regex. That’s what developers told me. And I tested it all, and they are right. This is a real-life example, and a typical Java legacy app would have 100s of these.

Now I want to add a comment of my own before giving my version of the solution. What I also learned is that most injection vulns consist of two parts:

---- input ----> [routine] ----> output ---->

So two conditions need to be met for a vulnerability to exist:

  1. Input needs to contain character sequences that are treated as control sequences by a downstream component, e.g. database, or a subprocess.

  2. And the output must contain the same chars that are interpreted as control sequences by the downstream component or system that receives that output.

The idea is that, e.g., during HTML rendering, like in the above case, the second condition would be for output to contain characters like <> so that they are rendered into control tags like <script>

And the problem here is the [routine] part above can have multiple inputs. E.g., it can be called by some other routine, some function, be inherited, etc. so it’s actually like this:

---- input ----> [routine] ----> output ----> 
        input 2 /    | input 3

So the lesson I learned looking for vulns resolution is that input validation is extremely hard to do right. And still, there is output encoding that actually will prevent an injection.

So the real-life solution here by a senior developer is just to use output encoding (escaping). Which is just by changing the view:


<p th:utext="'Hello, ' + ${name} + '!'"/>


<p th:text="'Hello, ' + ${name} + '!'"/>

Changing that tag from utext to text required knowledge of that specific thymeleaf framework on top of Spring

In the same way, SQL injection is prevented by using prepared statements that de-facto escape parameters.

Back to the XSS example, in real life, our company app had 800 of these. And developers were initially forced to filter input. And they failed after 1.5 years doing that.


Yeah, that’s wild - I know about escaping things and I know you can do it easily in like PHP and other formats. It’s crazy to think that every framework or tool is going to have a different approach, but I’m sure as you learn them you start to see patterns.


And you are absolutely right about patterns - the biggest one is ‘don’t disable a control that exists by default just because it’s not convenient’ :)

Usually, frameworks will have a secure solution available by default. That utext stuff in the example above takes time to find in docs.