devopsy.kinsta.cloud

Category: DevSecOps

  • ReversingLabs: Increased Focus on Software Supply Chain Security

    ReversingLabs: Increased Focus on Software Supply Chain Security

    A global survey of 300 global executives, technology and security professionals found software containing vulnerabilities (82%) followed by secrets leaked through source code (55%), malicious code (52%) and suspicious code (46%) posed a serious risk to the business.

    Conducted by Dimensional Research on behalf of ReversingLabs, a provider of a platform for securing software supply chains, the survey found 87% of respondents detected significant risks in their software supply chain in the last year. Nearly three-quarters (74%) said legacy application security tools, including static application security testing (SAST) (54%), dynamic application security testing (DAST) (42%) and software composition analysis (SCA) (40%), are ineffective against threats to modern software supply chains.

    A full 88% said software supply chain security is an enterprise-wide risk, but only 60% said their software supply chain defenses were up to the task. Nearly two-thirds (65%), however, acknowledged their organization’s software supply chain security program wasn’t as mature as it should be. As a result, 80% are currently focused on improving security for the software supply chain, with 96% noting a more comprehensive approach to software supply chain security that detects more than vulnerabilities is needed.

    Overall, the survey found nearly all respondents (98%) recognized that software supply chain issues pose a significant business risk. Nearly 90% reported detecting security or other issues in their software supply chain in the last 12 months. Those issues stemmed from internally developed software (47%) as much as open source software (49%), followed by commercial software (30%), the survey finds.

    Tyson Whitten, vice president of global marketing for ReversingLabs, said the survey results make it clear that software supply chain issues extend well beyond open source software dependencies. Use of open source software has expanded greatly over the last decade, but security flaws in software are pervasive, he noted.

    In addition, many of these issues stemmed from software created by contractors and third-party companies, added Whitten. More than half of respondents worked for organizations that use contractors (67%) and third-party development companies (59%) and many organizations don’t have the tools required to review applications before they are deployed in a production environment.

    Software supply chain security has become a major issue in the wake of a series of high-profile breaches. The challenge is shortage of cybersecurity expertise available to secure those supply chains. Usually, someone on the DevOps team needs to emerge as a security champion for the good of the larger application development team. Unfortunately, most developers have had limited exposure to cybersecurity training, so it can take a significant amount of time for those champions to emerge.

    In the meantime, it’s less clear whether organizations will upgrade their DevOps environments to make them more secure, but it’s clear they will soon be held more accountable for application security. Governments around the world are currently drafting legislation that would impose penalties should it be determined an organization recklessly built and deployed software. Once that legislation is passed, it may only be a matter of time before the pressure on organizations to adopt DevSecOps workflows increases. The issue is determining how quickly to get in front of that issue before a potential legal quagmire ensues.

  • FIDO/WebAuthn Passkeys is Inevitable: Get on the Train ¦ IBM CEO Hates WFH

    FIDO/WebAuthn Passkeys is Inevitable: Get on the Train ¦ IBM CEO Hates WFH

    Welcome to The Long View—where we peruse the news of the week and strip it to the essentials. Let’s work out what really matters.

    This week: The Passkeys authentication standard gets a huge boost, and IBM’s Arvind Krishna wants workers back in the office. (more…)

  • How DevSecOps Addresses Supply Chain Security

    How DevSecOps Addresses Supply Chain Security

    “The absence of security in the initial stages of system engineering is the single most significant cybersecurity gap and risk in modern system development.” This quote from tech entrepreneur Linda Rawson is a good reminder for the current cybersecurity threat situation. With software supply chain attacks increasing in aggressiveness and sophistication, organizations need to understand that cybersecurity should no longer be an additional process, let alone an afterthought.

    Integrating security in the software development process provides a few other benefits, including better efficiency and customer satisfaction. However, its most notable benefit is addressing cybersecurity threats more effectively compared to the conventional ways of enabling software security.

    The Rise of DevSecOps

    DevSecOps is a fast-rising star in today’s search for effective cybersecurity solutions. The DevSecOps market is expected to be worth $23.63 billion in 2030, growing at a CAGR of 23.84% in the forecast period 2023-2030. Its value in 2022 was estimated at around $4.27 billion.

    This double-digit growth is actually a bit conservative. Other forecasts showed higher CAGRs in the 30% range. This growth hints at the strong demand for DevSecOps solutions. Many organizations have started to acknowledge the benefits of implementing security validation methods early in the software development life cycle (SDLC) instead of doing them in bulk as a separate phase at the end of the development process.

    Many organizations are now convinced that they can benefit from shifting left or bringing security into the SDLC earlier. Tools and solutions like static code analysis (SCA), automated dynamic analysis, interactive application security testing (IAST) and source composition analysis address security weaknesses before an application is released to the market. This allows organizations to release apps faster and, because of the elimination of most bugs and vulnerabilities, provide considerably better user experiences.

    Vulnerabilities will never be completely eliminated, but they can be significantly reduced and more properly resolved while software is being developed if security validation is integrated in the development process. Some software defects and weaknesses tend to be more difficult to address through a separate security testing process, since it would entail a broader code tracing or review as opposed to quickly spotting the affected code when security validation is done alongside the development process.

    Addressing Software Supply Chain Attacks

    So, how does DevSecOps help prevent supply chain attacks? The key is in the visibility and control DevSecOps affords.

    DevSecOps requires vigilance of security issues throughout the software development process. Security is not relegated to a different team that doesn’t understand the specifics of a development project. As such, the team has broad visibility over security concerns. Because the DevSecOps team also has mastery of the code being developed, it is easy to trace the origin of vulnerabilities and implement the necessary corrections.

    DevSecOps is aided by automated tools that scan code for security issues and detect threats even before they manifest themselves as problems. These tools are used across all phases of the development process, from the time code bears basic features and functions to deployment and post-production.

    Static testing: Even before an application’s code is ready to run, it can be subjected to static testing to find vulnerabilities. Tools such as static application security testing (SAST) can analyze code and detect possible security problems.

    How does this address software supply chain attacks? Static testing can be overlaid on automated CI/CD pipelines to stop code that has security weaknesses from getting committed to the codebase.

    Dynamic testing: An automated dynamic analysis can be used for code that is already executable. This is done through dynamic application security testing (DAST) tools, which are capable of detecting vulnerabilities usually invisible to SAST but which are detectable once the code is running.

    How does this address software supply chain attacks? Organizations can implement automated black-box testing for apps in the CI/CD pipeline(s) to detect security flaws for apps that are already executable. This addresses the vulnerabilities that have not been detected by static testing while reducing the costs associated with the corresponding remediation.

    Interactive app testing: This is a combination of static and dynamic testing. It employs IAST tools which run static testing on available code and come up with bespoke dynamic tests for a specific app to identify issues more thoroughly.

    How does this address software supply chain attacks? Pure static and dynamic testing usually apply to earlier stages of the development process, whereas interactive testing addresses vulnerabilities that emerge in the later parts. By bringing IAST to the CI/CD pipeline, organizations achieve better security issue detection outcomes, which means the prevention of malicious code deployment.

    Supply chain analysis: This entails the use of tools that specifically examine the security of third-party libraries and dependencies. To be clear, this is not the only method for addressing software supply chain vulnerabilities. In this case, supply chain merely refers to the external libraries, dependencies and other components that do not originate from the development team.

    How does this address software supply chain attacks? Integrating software chain analysis tools in the CI/CD pipeline significantly reduces the adverse effects of vulnerabilities in dependencies and other components on a project’s codebase as well as on the development process itself.

    Security-as-Code

    One of the best practices developed in line with the integration of security in the software development process is the idea of implementing security-as-code. This means that security policies and measures such as testing and validation are turned into code whenever possible. In other words, the code itself already bears security mechanisms. Security testing runs automatically whenever code is committed. This ensures robust, consistent, highly scalable security that does not rely on external rules and mechanisms to prevent the introduction of anomalous code or malicious inputs.

    Security-as-code also means that the DevSecOps team can see how modifications to code and the underlying infrastructure are created. The team can map out the impact of code changes and identify the areas where security tests and regulations can be implemented to optimize processes and avoid unnecessary delays.

    Security-as-code is essentially the automation of security practices. It is not applicable in all instances, though, so it is still important to be knowledgeable about security testing methods that can be used in different stages of the development process.

    Securing the Software Supply Chain

    The SUNBURST incident and other similar high-profile attacks should serve as a warning for all organizations to ascertain the security of their software supply chain. DevSecOps is one of the best solutions right now. It does not guarantee the complete elimination of all threats, but it ensures that if threat actors succeed in getting around security controls, a breach won’t go unnoticed.

     

  • Codenotary Previews Secure SBOM Creation Service

    Codenotary Previews Secure SBOM Creation Service

    Codenotary today made available a preview of a centralized repository service for generating and storing software bills of materials (SBOMs) that makes it simpler to securely share them as necessary.

    Moshe Bar, Codenotary CEO, said SBOMCenter will make it easier for organizations to operationalize SBOMs that are being created with greater frequency as the need for increased focus on securing software supply chains grows.

    Currently available as a free trial, Codenotary’s SBOMCenter provides a way to create and store SBOMs in a way that ensures they have not been tampered with, noted Bar.

    Implementing SBOMs can be a cumbersome process that can require changes to existing software development and procurement practices. The SBOMCenter provides a service for accessing SBOMs that are continuously updated using an immutable open source database that supports multiple SBOM formats and a tool the company developed that automatically generates SBOMs by adding a single line of code. That approach should make it simpler to identify what software components are running in a production environment any time a new zero-day vulnerability is discovered.

    In a future update to SBOMCenter, the company said it plans to add vulnerability scanning, risk exposure scoring, alerts on newly discovered vulnerabilities and a policy enforcement engine that can be integrated with DevOps pipelines.

    Awareness of the need for SBOMs has increased dramatically since the Biden administration’s executive order made it clear that federal agencies would require them from any software provider starting next year. Many enterprise IT organizations are likely to follow suit as part of a larger effort to better secure software supply chains in the wake of a series of high-profile cybersecurity breaches.

    More recently, a National Cybersecurity Strategy paper published by the White House calls for increased liability for software developers that fail to exercise due cybersecurity diligence when building applications. It’s not clear if there will ever be a law on the books that would enable penalties to be applied, but the general mood is clearly shifting toward holding organizations that build software more accountable for cybersecurity issues that might arise.

    It’s not yet clear how far down the path organizations are toward operationalizing SBOMs. Gartner predicted that, by 2025, a full 60% of organizations will be employing SBOMs. In theory, those organizations should be able to prevent software with unverified components from being deployed in production environments and identify which applications currently running have significant flaws.

    On way or another, application providers will find themselves disclosing more about how their software is constructed. The issue now is finding a way to accomplish that goal in a way that respects intellectual property rights. As such, application providers need to find a secure way to share SBOMs with customers that will commit to making sure the contents of those SBOMs stay private. After all, a little cooperation from the coalition of the willing is likely to have a more positive impact than a law that is likely to be challenged.

  • Linux 6.3: What’s New ¦ AWS Layoffs are a Worry

    Linux 6.3: What’s New ¦ AWS Layoffs are a Worry

    Welcome to The Long View—where we peruse the news of the week and strip it to the essentials. Let’s work out what really matters.

    This week: A new Linux kernel drops and layoffs at Amazon Web Services point to trouble. (more…)

  • Cycode Adds ASOC Module to Streamline DevSecOps Workflows

    Cycode Adds ASOC Module to Streamline DevSecOps Workflows

    Cycode has added a module to its platform for mapping metadata and events using graph technology that makes it simpler for application development and cybersecurity to consolidate alerts generated by their DevSevOps tools.

    Lotem Guy, vice president of product for Cycode, said the Cycode Application Security Orchestration and Correlation (ASOC) module will automatically discover all the tools that make up a DevSecOps workflow without requiring any integration effort.

    That capability makes it simpler to aggregate results in a way that enables development teams and cybersecurity professionals to identify the most critical issues that need to be addressed before applications are deployed in production environments, he added.

    In effect, Cycode is now providing a method for bridging the historic divide between cybersecurity professionals and application development teams. More cybersecurity professionals are embedded within DevOps teams, but in the absence of a platform for aggregating alerts, they often encounter communications issues. ASOC provides an agentless approach to aggregating the data that DevSecOps teams need to prioritize remediation efforts, said Guy.

    While a lot of progress has been made in terms of adopting DevSecOps best practices, many organizations still struggle with securing their software supply chains. Most of the members of a DevOps team have limited cybersecurity expertise, so they need the help of a cybersecurity professional to determine what specific actions are required to remediate a vulnerability. Cybersecurity professionals, conversely, don’t have a lot of application development expertise and generally would prefer not to be overwhelmed by multiple DevOps tools generating alerts about the same potential application security issue.

    As the number of regulations specifically focused on application security steadily increase, it’s now just a question of time before every organization that builds software will need to embrace DevSecOps. The challenge is that while everyone involved generally agrees software should be more secure before it’s deployed, the security tools made available to DevOps teams vary widely. In fact, it’s not uncommon for DevOps teams to find themselves spending significant amounts of time sorting through multiple conflicting alerts.

    Nor is every alert that gets generated relevant—in some cases, a specific module that generated an alert might not find its way into the final application. In addition, many of the alerts generated also tend to lack context about severity. Application developers can’t devote all their time to fixing bugs, so choices will need to be made based on the actual risk to the application.

    Cycode is betting that, as DevSecOps continues to evolve, organizations will look for tools and platforms that make it simpler to make sense of the current level of application security chaos that tends to pervade IT organizations. In the meantime, cybersecurity professionals and application developers will need to learn to trust one another. Developers have too often viewed cybersecurity as an obstacle to deployment while cybersecurity teams have historically considered developers to be one of the primary causes of the breaches they are expected to clean up. The first step toward achieving that goal is, of course, to realize that neither is really the enemy of the other.

  • GitLab Survey Reveals DevSecOps Gains

    GitLab Survey Reveals DevSecOps Gains

    A global survey of 5,010 IT leaders, CISOs and developers published by GitLab this week found well over half (56%) of respondents are working for organizations that are using DevOps or DevSecOps practices. However, 72% of respondents said they are using a DevSecOps platform (36%) or are considering adopting one in the next year (36%).

    Overall, less than a third of survey respondents (30%) said they were “completely” responsible for application security, with 53% reporting they are part of a larger application security team. Well over a third (38%) of the 1,453 security professionals surveyed said they are part of a cross-functional team focused on security.

    License compliance checks and security capabilities for cloud-native or serverless tied for the top of the list of current priorities (19%), but shifting security left (29%) was the top focus for the coming year. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of security professionals said their organizations either shifted left or plan to in the next three years. Nearly as many (71%) said a quarter or more of all security vulnerabilities were discovered by developers.

    Top frustrations identified specifically by security professionals included testing happening too late in the development cycle (43%) and difficulty prioritizing vulnerability remediation (41%).

    Those frustrations might increase in the coming year, with 85% of security professionals reporting they either have the same or lower budget in 2023.

    On the plus side, nearly two-thirds of the 1,954 developers surveyed said they are either using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) algorithms in testing today or will be in the next three years. A full 62% said they used AI/ML to check code, while 53% use bots for testing and 36% use AI/ML for code review.

    Nevertheless, more than two-thirds of security professionals (67%) said they are concerned about the impact of AI/ML capabilities on their job, with 28% of them admitting they are “very” or “extremely” concerned. Of those respondents who expressed concern, 25% said they are worried about the potential for AI/ML to introduce errors that will make their job more difficult.

    David DeSanto, chief product officer at GitLab, said GitLab is also working to address those concerns by embedding a range of AI/ML capabilities into its platform to optimize DevSecOps workflows and, most recently, enhanced its GitLab Remote Development module to make it easier to centralize the maintenance and security of development environments.

    GitLab this week also announced it is partnering with Oracle to make it easier to use the GitLab continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD) platform to run AI and ML workloads on the Oracle cloud platforms. AI/ML is going to play a critical role in enabling organizations to build and deploy secure code without slowing down the pace of application development, said DeSanto. In fact, many organizations will soon be consolidating toolchains to enable them to achieve that goal, he added.

    The GitLab survey found 57% of security respondents said they use six or more tools, but many of those tools are legacy software composition analysis (SCA) tools that will be replaced as more responsibility for application security shifts left toward developers, noted DeSanto. Two-thirds of survey respondents (66%) reported they want to consolidate their toolchains this year.

    Collectively, the GitLab survey makes it clear that DevOps and DevSecOps practices and platforms continue to evolve rapidly. The challenge, as always, is keeping up with the pace of that change.

  • Report: Most IT Teams Can’t Fix Open Source Software Security

    Report: Most IT Teams Can’t Fix Open Source Software Security

    Lineaje, a provider of a platform for securing software supply chains, today published an analysis of 41,989 open source components embedded in the top 44 popular projects managed by the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). That analysis found more than a quarter (26%) of vulnerabilities are not patchable by the application development team that deployed them.

    In addition, the report found that 64% of the vulnerabilities analyzed have no patch as of yet. Overall, 68% of the vulnerabilities analyzed are due to dependencies created when an open source software project included a component or package developed by another open source project maintainer.

    Lineaje CEO Javed Hasan said that means that 90% of open source dependencies are transitive, in the sense that they are created when maintainers of a project included a vulnerable open source component created by another entity. Only 10% of the vulnerabilities discovered by Lineaje are the result of a dependency that an application development team could actually address on their own, he added.

    Overall, the report found a full 82% of components that are relied on to build open source software are inherently risky due to vulnerabilities, security issues, code quality or maintainability concerns. In addition, 5% of components failed a basic integrity check, with 3% having no known origin.

    Open source software is not created equal no matter what consortium is overseeing its development, noted Hasan. Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted method for validating the integrity of open source software, so application development teams should proceed with caution whenever employing open source software, he said.

    The challenge, of course, is that developers have been reusing open source software within applications for years now. It’s only in the recent wake of breaches involving open source software that organizations have been taking a harder look at how applications are developed.

    The Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF), an arm of the Linux Foundation, is now at the forefront of an effort to better secure open source software by focusing on 10 streams of investment that, in total, will require more than $150 million in funding to drive greater adoption of DevSecOps best practices among maintainers of open source software projects. The issue is that many of those projects are maintained by a small number of programmers that voluntarily contribute their time and effort to build components that others are free to use. Like any other developer, the amount of security expertise those individuals have is limited. The onus for making sure open source software is secure when deployed in a production environment belongs to the organization that deploys it.

    Hopefully, following a recent executive order issued by the Biden administration, the level of open source security will steadily improve in the months ahead—assuming, of course, the organizations that rely heavily on open source software make more substantive contributions to securing it. In the meantime, organizations can count on the fact that cybercriminals have taken note of the vulnerabilities in applications that can be traced back to flaws in a wide range of open source software.

  • Mobb Launches Community Edition of Automated Remediation Tool

    Mobb Launches Community Edition of Automated Remediation Tool

    Mobb today made available a free community edition of a namesake tool that creates fixes to open source vulnerabilities. The fixes are based on the results of code scanning by a static application security testing (SAST) tool.

    Fresh from raising $5.4 million in seed funding, Mobb CEO Eitan Worcel said the company developed a tool that creates validated patches based on the scan results of third-party SAST tools from Checkmarx, GitHub and Snyk. Initially, the tool is aimed at Java vulnerabilities.

    Worcel said that most vulnerabilities can be traced back to eight types of mistakes that developers routinely make. The company created a pattern for those common mistakes, along with patterns to fix them, called Mobb rules. That ability enables Mobb to accurately produce a code fix that both remediates the vulnerability and adheres to the correctness of the language to eliminate code defects. Mobb then makes available a patch to address those issues in a way that can be readily downloaded and applied by developers. Mobb does not automatically apply those fixes because most developers prefer to review them first, noted Worcel.

    The Mobb approach eliminates the need for IT teams to sort through SAST scans themselves, which can result in the discovery of thousands of vulnerabilities that might theoretically need to be fixed. Each vulnerability, at minimum, is going to require 30 minutes to fix, so the Mobb platform provides a better return on investment and reduces patch backlogs, added Worcel.

    For decades, application development teams have been attempting to find a way to remediate vulnerabilities as quickly as possible. With increased focus on adopting DevSecOps best practices to address those vulnerabilities, more organizations are now reviewing which types of vulnerabilities should have a higher remediation priority.

    Historically, one of the reasons for the wide divide between application development teams and cybersecurity professionals is that many of the vulnerabilities being discovered don’t actually impact applications running in production environments. Development teams then find themselves wasting time investigating vulnerabilities and, when they do determine a vulnerability is an issue, spending time developing a patch. The Mobb tool addresses that later issue by automatically creating the necessary patch, said Worcel.

    Many organizations just allocate junior developers to the task of remediating vulnerabilities, which Worcel noted frees up more experienced developers to focus on writing additional business logic.

    There will, of course, be vulnerabilities that the Mobb tool will not be able to address simply because there may not be enough affected applications to warrant pre-building a patch. Even with the most robust set of rules, it is improbable that an automated tool can, with 100% certainty, safely fix every issue. However, given the number of routine vulnerabilities present in applications, such as SQL injections, there’s plenty of opportunity to improve developer productivity by relying on patches that have already been developed.

    One way or another, the process by which patches are prioritized, developed and then applied has long been a source of DevOps frustration. Anything that streamlines that process will go a long way toward improving the overall state of application security at a time when cybercriminals are becoming more adept at exploiting vulnerabilities wherever they may be found.

  • How Application Developer Turnover is Shaping Security

    How Application Developer Turnover is Shaping Security

    Observing the developer job market for the past two years reveals a surprising truth that has a profound impact on technology organizations. In the “new normal” of hybrid work, life moves fast and there’s no sign of slowing down. Since 2021, we’ve witnessed all-time record demand for software engineering developers. The emergence of privately held large and medium technology startups, fueled by a fear of missing out (FOMO) driven venture capital market, created vast growth opportunities for software engineer developers in particular. From developing and deploying new applications to scaling your business through multi-cloud environments, cloud and cloud-native companies are everywhere. Not only are cloud and cloud-native companies receiving enormous funding rounds, but worldwide spending on public cloud services is forecasted to grow 20.7% to a total of $591.8 billion in 2023.

    This dramatic cloud growth is primarily driven by the warp speed developers are operating. Thanks to developers, every company is now a digital company and every industry is reaping the benefits of a cloud presence. A retail organization can now build and deploy an application for the holiday shopping season within hours, and workforces can access applications from their kitchen, local coffee shop, or halfway across the world.

    However, as with any new, widely adopted technology, cybercriminals look to target and exploit organizations in their early cloud days as they begin to grasp and understand the technology.

    It was reported earlier this year that the recent exposure of roughly a terabyte of Pentagon emails was likely due to a cloud configuration error. Cloud attacks are on the rise, and there is a major disconnect about who is responsible for keeping the organization safe. Developers who are told to build with speed don’t want their applications slowed down or user experience to be altered by security protocols. Still, accelerating application velocity has security teams caught between remaining responsive to application teams and securing an increasingly complex cloud environment. A major problem is bubbling up, and if security and developers teams cannot come together, the result can leave organizations vulnerable.

    Developers and Turnover

    In a recent survey, 75% of respondents reported a higher-than-usual turnover rate in DevOps. Similar to the well-documented cybersecurity talent shortage, multiple workplace stressors appear to be taking a toll on developers. The same survey reported that 38% of enterprises deploy code to production or release to end users every day, with 17% deploying multiple times a day. To put this into perspective, just two decades ago, developers were shipping limited updates one to two times a year.

    Given the pressure to deliver new code every day, combined with security teams’ pressure to ensure that code is secure, it’s no surprise that we’re witnessing higher-than-normal developer attrition. Instead of pointing fingers at developers for unsecure code, security teams need to create tools and training that do not impede their number one priority: Shipping new code. We’re in a developer-friendly job market and organizations cannot afford to lose top talent because they are overburdening them with security tasks. Developers will find greener pastures.

    Shifting Left

    By now, everyone in the industry has heard of shifting security left—the practice of moving security to the earliest possible point in the development process to ensure code is secure and limit timely and costly remediation. In practice, this means bringing security to where the developers operate so vulnerabilities and misconfigurations are caught early when they are easy to fix.

    This approach has brought about a deeper level of engagement between application developers and security teams, especially in the design phase. However, while developers might now be embracing tools and processes that help them code secure applications, there’s still a limit to how much shift left responsibility they can and want to handle.

    Path Forward

    Shifting security left is certainly a recommended starting point, but simply equipping developers with DevSecOps tools isn’t a winning approach. Developers must be trained and have the desire to effectively use the tools. Like the old saying, give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. The same holds when shifting security left.

    To ensure developers and security teams understand their security responsibilities within the organization, consider implementing the following:

    1. Define a clear shift left strategy with developers and security teams
    2. Provision the necessary security tools that effectively protect the organization but don’t create roadblocks for developers. Additionally, more tools don’t necessarily mean more security, so be strategic.
    3. Train developers to be more mindful of cybersecurity issues. Most developers haven’t had formal cybersecurity training, so it’s up to organizations to make sure that particular skills gap is closed

    DevSecOps is as much about changing culture and approaches as it is about acquiring new tools. Developers will, unfortunately, come and go, but it should never be because security teams are overburdening them.