Category: DevSecOps

  • Database Security: Best Practices for Keeping Data Safe

    Database Security: Best Practices for Keeping Data Safe

    Database security is of utmost importance to sectors including IT, banking, finance and ecommerce. Every other transaction is based on how secure their database is, as it holds every detail including usernames, passwords, customers’ credit card information and so on.

    The term “database security” denotes a series of measures initiated by the service provider to proactively protect the information and database management software from malicious threats, phishing attacks, DoS (denial-of-service) and malware. The security is achieved by using streamlined processes, automation, security tools and trained experts who work around the clock.

    Different Levels of Database Security

    There are different levels of securing your databases, including:

    • Data Level Security: The process of protecting the data itself from getting stolen or tampered with in the servers.
    • System Level Security: Protecting networking servers, hardware and other inbound/outbound communications from acting as a funnel to distribute malicious software.
    • User Level Security: A server is always attacked from a user level, which is why organizations rely on real-time protection software to monitor transactions and also restrict the user from visiting unauthorized websites or downloads from untrusted sources.

    Most Commonly Spotted Database Attacks

    These are the most common attacks triggered that threaten database security:

    • Buffer overflow vulnerability
    • DoS attacks
    • Privilege escalation
    • Weak authentication
    • SQL injection threats

    Best Practices for Database Protection

    Experts recommend following a checklist that includes some of the most widely used and trusted methods to ensure database security:

    Physical Security

    The first method is securing physical servers using digital locks, using CCTV cameras to monitor them continuously and preventing any unauthorized entry with the help of 24/7 security services.

    Establishing Firewall for Servers

    Every connection to the database can be set by default to deny all incoming traffic using a firewall. It will also block direct client access and allow only authorized applications. The firewall rules will be strictly monitored and maintained by system administrators (SAs) and database administrators (DBAs). They will also perform network scans and ISP scans to strengthen the server machines.

    Using a Trusted Database Software

    The database software can either be open source or a paid version supported by the vendor. The software will run only on active devices while inactive devices will be unplugged and default accounts that are no longer in use will be removed periodically. Timely security patches are applied.

    It’s also important to take a close look at your software vendor to determine if they’re keeping their code as secure as possible.

    Implementing Application Code

    The DBAs will ensure all configuration files and source codes are accessible only through authorized operating system accounts. Application code is regularly reviewed to ensure it is not vulnerable to SQL injection.

    Role of SAs and DBAs

    The role of DBAs and SAs are vital, as they play the role of strict administrators. Authorization is allowed only to select people and all of them will sign an NDA along with a background check.

    DBA staff will be allowed to use individual accounts and not shared accounts to access the server. They are required to create and maintain the strongest of passwords that meet the necessary security and safety guidelines.

    Change Management and Database Auditing

    Another security measure is to keep track of change management by logging all database activities. Every bit of login data will be maintained for at least one year for security audits, and any account that faces maximum failed login attempts will automatically be notified to the database administrator to take necessary steps.

    The Triangular Concept for Database Security

    • Confidentiality: Maintaining confidentiality is enforced through encryption by encrypting both data that is being transferred and data that is stored in the database in case it gets breached.
    • Integrity: A user access control system will be in place to ensure only authorized personnel are allowed access to the data and a log is maintained of everyone who gains access to it to ensure there are not data breaches caused by internal errors.
    • Availability: The data stored should be made available to both users and administrators, which is made by reducing downtime. Servers are periodically updated for maximum security while boosting business through continuous service.

    When a database administrator is aware of the most common threats and the different methodologies that they should implement to protect data, they can be rest assured that the data stored in servers are protected to the core. Besides, they should also practice best practices in backup and data recovery to safeguard themselves against ransomware.

    — Sophie Ross

  • DevSecOps: Helping Contain the Security Problems Containers Introduce

    DevSecOps: Helping Contain the Security Problems Containers Introduce

    The idea of building security into applications as they are developed versus bolting it on at the end always made sense but proved difficult to pull off in legacy environments. Monolithic software was too complex and the teams were disparate. But the arrival of containers 1) demands the need to attack the problem earlier because the attack surface changes so rapidly, and 2), thankfully, vastly simplifies the security process when DevSecOps principles are employed.

    The DevSecOps movement, which builds on DevOps by stirring in security, has been steadily building momentum as containers shoulder increasingly critical roles in larger organizations. Heck, DevSecOps even has its own manifesto.

    Although not all organizations adhere to the approach spelled out in the manifesto by DevSecOps.org (which says it was founded by “security practitioners dedicated to the science of how to incorporate security within agile and DevOps practices”), the core elements are the same: The goal is to shift left, as some people say, meaning start the process of securing applications earlier in the development process, improve communications, and repeatedly test along the way.

    Adding the Sec into DevOps

    Obviously, DevSecOps builds on DevOps, which is all about development and operations teams working more closely together to focus on the full life cycle of applications rather than one team focusing on the beginning of the cycle and the other on the end. DevOps is about breaking down boundaries of responsibility and modifying processes so the output is more resilient and code can iterate faster.

    DevSecOps is all that plus security. “DevSecOps requires changing mindsets, processes and technology,” Gartner says. “Security and risk management leaders must adhere to the collaborative, agile nature of DevOps to be seamless and transparent in the development process, making the Sec in DevSecOps silent.”

    The need to embrace the new approach is necessary because containers upend so many conventions.

    For example, in the DevOps world security tends to be viewed as a tech thing. “Are we encrypted?” “Yes.” “Great. We have secure connections. That’s all we need to do.”

    As containers become used for more mission-critical things, that approach is too limited because there are so many more moving parts.

    Before you might have had to worry about securing a few physical servers and a few dozen VMs supporting an application, and now that application requires you to secure 200 to 400 containers, spread across a couple dozen virtual machines in both AWS and Google Cloud. The amount of work has multiplied by 10. The older security methodologies just don’t scale.

    What’s more, there are more layers to worry about—your container runtime (Docker, RKT), your orchestrator (Kubernetes, OpenShift) and your build environment (Jenkins).

    And with containers we release things faster. It isn’t once per quarter or even every month. With containers and microservices architectures and continuous integration/continuous development, we are pushing new versions of software into production on a daily or weekly basis. Existing security practices can’t keep up.

    How Do You Do It?

    There are a number of ways to realize DevSecOps, but typically organizations aren’t going to fully integrate security personnel into DevOps groups, or require developers to become security experts or security experts to become developers. That’s what Gartner was getting at with keeping the Sec in DevSecOps silent.

    The movement is all about building processes and inter-team communications and workflows, which is also how DevOps started before it become more of a delineated role/persona. Yes, developers will have to learn more about security. Yes, security team members will have to learn some particulars about containers. And, yes, workflows will need to morph.

    But the good news is that once experts from the various disciplines agree on what is important, many of the DevSecOps processes can be automated.

    When to Test

    Job one is figuring out where in the container development process code should be tested for security. The goal is to set up a series of gates developers have to go through to make the resultant code more secure. Typically—and most critically—it starts with scanning source code repositories.

    So, before an app is even built, the code the developers are writing is being checked. Are they referencing a package with known vulnerabilities, or pulling in a library that has a vulnerability or is open source and against company policy? This a workflow change that starts the security process much sooner than traditional approaches.

    The next check in the cycle typically comes when the container image is being built, say in Jenkins, the popular open source build environment. When the image is being pulled together, packaging the code up into a container and defining dependencies, a scan is done to ensure it is free of vulnerabilities and is configured to meet the best practices and policies defined by the organization.

    And finally, when the image is pushed to the registry, the image is scanned yet again before it can be put into production.

    All these checks are tied to your CI/CD pipeline and just become part of the developer’s build process. The scans themselves are automated.

    “The goal of CI is to provide rapid feedback on disparate code changes, allowing developers to correct errors as soon as possible by identifying functional defects introduced into the larger code base,” according to eSecurity Planet. “In this environment, integrated security testing is needed to provide developers a real-time threat assessment of all changes they’ve made, regardless of their operational success in the larger code base.  Without integrated security testing, there’s a risk of re-engineering solutions multiple times to address security threats detected long after functional solutions are accepted.  That wastes valuable time, money, energy and effort.”

    Gates = Slow?

    Developers traditionally have viewed security as a necessary evil. They would build something, get it in staging, test it and then right before it hits production, some security review would identify 10 things that need to be changed.

    Testing more often, earlier and using automated scans vastly reduces the chance there will be significant problems with the resulting application. So, while the idea of introducing testing gates into the development process might seem like something that would put off developers, the end result will more than make up for any inconvenience along the way. Instead of huge changes at the end, there are incremental fixes at different phases of development.

    Companies are adopting many of the DevSecOps practices today even if they aren’t calling it that. DevSecOps is, after all, more of a process and a way of working rather than a specific role. Those practices enable organizations to move faster and improve the quality of the services they deliver from a risk, security and compliance perspective.

    Of course, there is no such thing as 100 percent security, and vulnerabilities will still crop up and be exploited. But even here a DevSecOps culture can be a huge step forward for container environments.

    In legacy enterprise environments, when a vulnerability is found in something that is running live, the organization would identify it as critical and have a service level agreement that called for it to be patched in two weeks. The patch needs to be developed and the deployment planned, and probably includes some amount of infrastructure management and updating.

    With DevSecOps and container environments, you can make the change in development and push it out within a day.

    So, even as containers change the security calculus by introducing more and new things to worry about, with the adoption of DevSecOps best practices organizations should come out being more secure and fleet of foot.

    — Loris Degioanni

  • Dependency Based Build Promotes the Freedom to Program

    Dependency Based Build Promotes the Freedom to Program

    Whenever I want to be amazed, all I need to do is reflect on the fact that the continuing development of the Linux operating system is done essentially by a community of volunteers. That’s right! One of the most popular and important operating systems is updated and maintained through donated labor. Any programmer anywhere in the world can make a contribution to improve the Linux kernel.

    That such a herculean undertaking is done though volunteer labor is mind-boggling. What’s more amazing is that the software created has an extraordinarily high level of quality. Let’s face it, working on the Linux kernel is not something a kid in high school with a year’s worth of experience programming in C can do. But, any kid in high school can make a contribution to the Linux code base, provided the code passes muster. That it happens is almost magical, in a way. But it does, every day.

    What enables such freedom? To my thinking, it’s the concept of the the pull request.

    The Powerful Elegance of the Pull Request

    The pull request is a simple yet important part of the open source development process. A developer creates a feature branch off the Master branch of the Linux repository, then adds to or modifies the code in that feature branch. Of course, the developer writes tests that verify the new code works. Once the code is complete, the developer sends a pull request to the project, which is typically hosted on GitHub or another popular Git repository platform. The project maintainers, a group of people who have expert knowledge of the code base, review the pull request using tools that are baked into the Git repository platform. Each maintainer inspects the code and, if the code passes inspection, the reviewer votes to approve. If the code has shortcomings, the reviewer makes suggestions for improvement directly in the code using the Pull Request Commenting features, which are available in practically all the Git Repository Platforms including GitHub, GitLab and Bitbucket.

    It’s a simple yet powerful process and one that has changed the way enterprise-worthy software gets created. Any developer can implement an idea any way they want, as long as the implementation is compatible with the code base. It’s up to the developer to figure out how to do what they desire; nobody is dictating anything. The process is straightforward: Figure out how to make your contribution to the code. Make a feature branch. Do your work. Do a pull request. If your contribution is useful and the coded well, you’re in. If not, we’ll try to help you make it better.

    Bringing Git to Mainframe Development Using DBB

    The pull request is a compelling approach to making software—so much so that IBM has made it a central part of software development on the mainframe. And, its product, Dependency Based Build (DBB), streamlines the mainframe pull request process by reducing the work reviewers need to do in the code review process.  [su_pullquote align=”right”]A Dependency Based Build trial is available in the IBM Z Trial Program at zero cost, and with no installation required. The trial environment includes hands-on tutorials.[/su_pullquote]

    Git version control is supported by practically all the modern IDEs. For example, developers can configure Visual Studio Code, JetBrains products and Eclipse to work with remote Git repositories automatically. Once integrated, Git operates behind the scenes, allowing developers to work under version control without having to issue Git commands directly. IBM’s mainframe integrated development environment, IDz EE, provides Git integration as well. This is a big deal, as Git is now part of the mainframe ecosystem. The developer accustomed to using Git version control when working on a standalone x86 Java app now can move over to developing for a mainframe without having to learn a new source control management (SCM) system. But what’s even more impressive that Git is used as the SCM for more traditional mainframe artifacts; for example, COBOL source code.

    Also, Git integration goes beyond developers working on source code; Git is used throughout the mainframe build process—which, by the way, can be controlled by Jenkins. And, Git is a foundational technology used by IBM DBB, a dependency control agent that works with Git to make sure that all files—source and dependencies—in the mainframe build process are current. Again, this is a big deal: Having all the moving parts in the mainframe deployment process, from programming to build to release, use Git as the common code repository allows z/OS mainframe components to be part of a platform-agnostic deployment process. Use of DBB overcomes a significant hurdle between the mainframe and distributed world.

    So, what does this have to do with the power of pull requests?

    Adding Pull Requests and Code Review to the Mainframe Experience

    The pull request review process is more than just “looking at code.” When you have a project that might have millions of lines of code, such as the Linux kernel, no developer is going to pore over each line of code. They’ll read the documentation, run the unit tests, look at the lines of code that have been added or removed and search for blatant problems and inefficiencies. Now, on a PC, compiling something such as the Linux kernel is straightforward—all the code is in the single repository. On mainframes, however, it’s a bit different: The code is more widely dispersed and dependency management can get tricky. DBB takes care of tracking dependency changes in various Git repositories, so when it comes time to do the pull request, the reviewer doesn’t have to waste time resolving dependency issues to get mainframe code to compile. DBB will take care of that. With regard to the pull request, reviewers can do what they are supposed to do: make sure the code works and the quality is such that it can all be merged back into a master branch.

    This might not seem like much, but anybody who has stayed up until 3 a.m. trying to resolve dependency issues understands the importance of having code that builds all the time, any time. This is the power that DBB brings to the table.

    The Freedom to Program

    Programming is a special vocation. It requires an unusual combination of art, science, creativity and engineering discipline. Also, it’s not a vocation that lends itself to well to prescription. Each programming project is special, requiring new ideas. And new ideas come about when developers are free to use their imagination to think differently. The pull request is one of the best ways to ensure developers have the freedom to program in way that produces useful, high-quality code. DBB extends the freedom to program to the mainframe community.

    History has shown that when a developer is given the freedom to code and a community in which to code, the result is great software. Just ask Linus Torvalds.

    — Bob Reselman

  • DevSecOps: Critical in Building the Bank of the Future

    DevSecOps: Critical in Building the Bank of the Future

    It is no secret that change in a large organization can be difficult. This is often true within banking, an industry that often has sought predictably instead of agility in software delivery. However, with the right tools, guidance and teams, creating a bank that can be both complaint and responsive may be more attainable than initially it may seem. For a digital bank of the future to emerge from a heritage of independent application, information security and operations departments, an organization should embrace new technologies that can unify these groups and improve the ability to respond to change more quickly.

    Read on to learn why the inclusion of information security within DevOps practices can play a key role in establishing a bank of the future, and why it is important.

    Digital-Only Banks Gaining Ground

    One of the shifts in the distribution of banking products is the movement from primarily branch-based banks to digital-only banks. In fact, Citizens Financial Group launched a digital-only bank in July of 2018 to appeal to a growing number of digital-first customers. JPMorgan Chase also has a new digital banking offering, Finn, aimed at millennial customers.

    While digital-only is meant to simplify the end user experience, it complicates security because it increases the number of attack vectors within the digital channel. In effect, bank security is judged not by how well physical transactions are protected within the branch (think bank notes and checks), but how well digital transactions are protected over the internet. This can require a commitment of applying security controls while also honoring agile delivery practices. In turn, this developmental agility can be more effective when it is part of a responsive organization—one that is willing to adapt and adjust quickly, often requiring institutional culture change to an organization that is more transparent, open and ultimately innovative.

    Incorporating Security from the Get-Go

    To be more responsive while at the same time hardening security, adapting to DevSecOps methods is becoming important in the journey to be a bank of the future. DevOps should never be only about the development (Dev) build and operations (Ops) implementation—it should have security in the middle (Sec). Information security should play an integrated role in the full life cycle of apps. DevSecOps can remove the isolation and boundaries that previously existed between the security team and the rest of the organization, and it brings security smack dab into the conversation, rather than as a part of a deployment checklist. With service level expectations from release cycles going faster—from months to weeks or even days—integrating and automated security into the delivery process can be even more critical. In a DevSecOps application methodology, digital bank initiatives would build security into every touch point from the very start.

    How is Information Security Evolving in Banking?

    Banking, like all other aspects of our lives, seems, to be  transitioning to a smartphone transaction. Deposit and savings accounts can now be fully opened and closed through the digital channel. Information is exchanged digitally and the process is often painless. Information security becomes even more critical to help make  information safe and secure from potential fraudsters.  So while these types of transactions are often expected by consumers, it is important to have proper security measures in place and that can be fully automated and throughout the development process.

    The Organizational Change to Embrace the Future of Banking

    The future of banking will not happen exclusively just by changing technology and tools. It can often be successful when it is adapting organizational change at the same pace as technology and Agile best practices, such as DevSecOps, can also be applied to cultural transitions. To prepare organizations to be successful, there should be clear commitment by leadership across applications, operations and information security; otherwise, the change may never be fully absorbed into the organization. The bank of the future will be more likely to be successful if it functions as part of an ecosystem of interdependent and more securely connected people, processes and technology to have the structural support in place to successfully engage.

    — Eric Marts

  • DevOps and the Dark Pools of Security Technical Debt

    DevOps and the Dark Pools of Security Technical Debt

    We live in a world of digital transformation where organizations across industries are embracing initiatives around automation, cloud deployments and containerization of applications—and for good reason. Enabling transformative technologies such as DevOps, for example, can deliver superior product differentiation, faster time to market for new applications and services and an improved overall customer experience. A win-win, right?

    Not so fast. Amidst the explosion of new technologies, tools and practices, many business leaders are jumping in head first without testing the security waters, so to speak.

    In their race to move fast, it’s all too common for organizations to quickly realize that they’ve landed in a deepening pool of security debt that hackers are eager to exploit. As evidenced by recent breaches resulting from misconfigured AWS security settings, leaked S3 buckets full of secrets, database security misconfigurations, ransomware and the growing interest in exploiting CI/CD tools for hijacking IT assets to mine cryptocurrency, attackers are increasingly targeting DevOps environments.

    Security and DevOps Teams Swimming in Different Pools

    When it comes to prioritizing efforts, devoting attention to the non-functional requirements of DevOps infrastructure security often takes a back seat to the more observable value that the output of these systems provide. This is where security technical debt is created.

    Often times it’s a shortcut in establishing a process around managing security configurations, which is the first step on the path to an “event.” Other times it’s aligning personal development processes to corporate IT security standards.

    No matter what the first step in the chain is, the accumulation of unaddressed issues, incomplete process and failure to attend and improve security posture is how companies and groups find themselves in security quicksand.

    How deep and how wide is the security debt pool for DevOps and digital transformation initiatives?  Numerous studies show that most organizations simply don’t know what their level of exposure is, but there is concern about the unmet need of consistent security posture. We know this because security and compliance consistently rank among the top three barriers for DevOps and cloud initiatives year over year as evidenced in Puppet’s “State of DevOps Report” and RightScale’s “State of Cloud Report.”

    According to the “CyberArk Global Advanced Threat Landscape Report 2018,” fewer than half of DevOps respondents said DevOps and security teams are well-integrated, and 41 percent said security teams are only brought in at the end of the development cycle. These two departments are clearly working in different silos.

    IT security professionals and developers often have different areas of responsibility and focus on the DevOps adoption path. Owing to variable technical capabilities and operational silos, roles and responsibilities can get confusing, and the resulting work may or may not get done—leaving technical debt.

    While DevOps teams typically take ownership over application testing, QA and remediation for security flaws in software, there remains a significant “gray area” that isn’t wholly within the DevOps pipeline flow. For example, managing the security “of the pipeline” and adherence to the corporate standards for login ins/2FA and privileged account management, management of access control to secrets and rotation for shared sensitive corporate assets such as databases can impact other teams. Who builds and maintains these core controls for which the business needs to attest regarding the security of these systems when service level responsibility or operational controls are outside the DevOps team’s controls?

    It’s around these gaps that security responsibilities and operational roles get murky, and the debt pools deepen while issues remain unaddressed. The security maturity of various DevOps tools and open source projects vary widely. Missing security features as well as misconfigurations are to blame for numerous security events at many organizations with new stack components at work.

    As Cyberark Labs research has shown, DevOps pipelines can be starting points for lateral movement to other IT systems, so designs of isolation and containment are often aspirational rather than the actual achieved outcome. And for DevOps teams under tight deadlines, there are only so many hours in the day, and only so many additional items that can be added to the burndown list before something has to push and isn’t addressed in any given release.

    Breaking Down the Silos to Stay Afloat

    When these issues hit a breaking point, we see one of two outcomes: security gets involved too late and “puts the brakes on,” or the team makes a premature push to production of a transformative initiative resulting in a security event when the security process simply isn’t ready.

    When integrated and working toward common KPIs and goals, security can provide the extra bandwidth, focus and expertise to avert issues when they are brought into the process in a consultative role early, so called “shifting left.” Security needs to be built into development pipeline processes, and as we’ve seen with breaches of late, security needs to be a “feature” of the pipeline itself, which is the new attack surface cited above.

    Likewise, security teams must embrace new ways of working in the “fast-flow” of modern software engineering. They need to leave behind alarmism and “all or nothing” mental models, which were the security modi operandi of prior eras.

    Business level visibility to KPIs of success in integrating DevSecOps across the organization is often the missing link.  Whether it is red teaming the DevOps pipeline to raise awareness of the latent issues, or measuring security feature delivery success, measurement creates shared values of burning down security tech debt. Whether it is the most common security events by incident (eg. github hardcoded passwords) or the lead time to security feature delivery by the team, accountability insure attention to security success.

    In the end, it’s critical that DevOps teams work with security to ensure that speed, velocity and resiliency aren’t sacrificed for security. Every company’s fortune rises with the new value being created by digital transformation, but it can also fall with the reputational damage of a breach. Organizations need consistently aligned security and risk postures across all these new tools and technologies to reduce the pernicious pools of technical security debt.

    — Elizabeth Lawler

  • DevOps Chat: DevSecOps with ShiftLeft CTO Chetan Conikee

    DevOps Chat: DevSecOps with ShiftLeft CTO Chetan Conikee

    Security in the DevOps process has gotten a lot of attention lately, as companies grapple with ways to include security further up the application development process. The industry is still very much a nascent space, as players remain engaged in the security-versus-speed conversation—one always is sacrificed for the other. ShiftLeft, however, doesn’t believe that’s the case.

    In this DevOps Chat, Chetan Conikee, CTO of ShiftLeft, discusses his company’s approach to DevSecOps and how it can help keep the security department from being the “department of ‘no.’”

    As usual, the streaming audio is immediately below, followed by the transcript of our conversation.

    Alan Shimel: Hey, everyone it’s Alan Shimel and I’m here for another DevOps Chat – DevSecOps related. I’m joined by Chetan Conikee, a CTO and cofounder of ShiftLeft. Chetan, I hope I didn’t mess your name up too bad.

    Chetan Conikee: Absolutely not, you did a great job. Thank you Alan, appreciate it.

    Shimel: Thank you. So Chetan, as I mentioned you’re the cofounder CTO of ShiftLeft – we’re going to talk a little bit more about ShiftLeft later in the show – but I wanted to start off talking about what is really one of the hottest topics in our world today and that is this whole whether you want to call it DevSecOps or DevOps and Security or Security Shifting Left – hence the name – talk to AppSec, some other people do – you know what about in your world? Are you seeing this kind of emphasis like never before on what some are calling DevSecOps?

    Conikee: Absolutely. Great question, Alan. Let me first start with the term shift left because it has two definite representations; one is a word and the other is a noun. Formerly ShiftLeft started as a way of doing things; meaning taking a practice and moving towards the left in order to reduce what they call as the meantime to repair. And that something could be testing or perhaps measurement of security as well.

    So when we adopted that name or changed the word to a noun we wanted to take this seriously; meaning how can we effectively build a product that can measure the security posture of another product at the left, informed from the right as well because often DevOps is nothing but a pipeline – an affective pipeline that is operating both at automation and high velocity. DevOps is all about taking code, building, packaging and thereafter deploying into your production ecosystem.

    But it doesn’t just end at deploying: it ends at measuring and feeding back how to optimize your systems thereafter. Often security does not fit well into this high velocity motion because most of the security products today are legacy or antiquated. These technologies like static analysis, dynamic analysis or perhaps a web application firewall finds it hard to fit into this streamline DevOps biplane. And I use that term emphasis with heart simply because these tools are producing outcomes and these outcomes are nothing but logs, information, alerts and all of this is sent back to humans in silos. And it is upon the human to figure out how to correlate this information and take affirmative action.

    So in essence this is impeding velocity rather than accelerating velocity, which DevOps is all about acceleration. As a consequence security gets left behind in organizations.

    Shimel: Can I tell you – I’m sorry – that was one of the best ones I’ve ever seen – one of the best definitions I’ve ever heard.

    Conikee: Thank you. Appreciate it. So we take this seriously as well because what we are trying to do is convert that definition into automaton, meaning how can you measure security thereafter quantify threats to vulnerabilities because often vulnerabilities are measures on the left, threats are measured on the right, so how can a human comprehend both these vectors, associate them and then address and fix these issues, because security is a huge concern these days.

    Shimel: Yeah. Agreed. So Chetan this brings up something I wanted to spend some time talking about here today and that is it’s a – not a survey but a study that ShiftLeft’s done – I think you guys had a partner on it – why don’t you share a little bit with our audience kind of just laying the groundwork there.

    Conikee: Absolutely. Today we are announcing the industry’s first real world benchmark of what we call a continuous application security solution. And in order to conduct this benchmark test we partnered and collaborated with Cobalt which is a leading provider of integration testing. They have some of the world’s best penetration testers working for them.

    So in order to conduct this benchmark test we submitted two instances of an application – a vulnerable application. By vulnerable I mean it essentially contains a certain set of vulnerabilities in it which we often test against in order to measure the efficacy of our platform.

    In this test we took that application and we deployed two instances in production. One instance was unpredicted: the typical instance that represents these vulnerabilities and have no protection applied to it. Whereas the other instance was protected by ShiftLeft’s one-time agent.

    So the premise of this test was to essentially let these penetration testers conduct tests against these two applications and thereby come back with results. And both these results had a certain degree of focus. The results were to identify what vulnerabilities can be declared by these pen testers upon the application that is not protected by ShiftLeft and thereafter subject the same set of tests on the application protected by ShiftLeft and come back to let us know whether they could penetrate that application or not, or perhaps could exploit that application or not.

    So this was a 14-day exercise and we defined the scope for this exercise – meaning what we essentially did was identified the most vulnerable or relevant applications called and racked by OWASP top ten and thereafter opened these applications to the Cobalt pen testers.

    Now as they began this exercise and Cobalt had hired essentially three white-hat hacking experts to attack both these applications. Cobalt was able to find and exploit all the six vulnerabilities in the unprotected application which is a validation for the fact that this was a beta application, it had the vulnerabilities and these exercises were successful from the pen tester’s perspective.

    Now they took that same exercise and applied it to the application protected by ShiftLeft and the outcome was they were not able to exploit any of those scoped vulnerabilities that we had described in the application.

    So the proof point for this exercise was to make ensure that ShiftLeft took the onus of protecting the application from any existential breaches or exploits applied by both potential white hats or black hats in the real world.

    Shimel: Got it. So fascinating stuff here. Talk to me now – so how – and forgive me and forgive our audience – we may not be knowledgeable about ShiftLeft – how does ShiftLeft in your company – not as the noun or verb here – how does what you do at ShiftLeft play into this Chetan?

    Conikee: Absolutely. Great question Alan. ShiftLeft is the industy’s first convert solution that seamlessly integrates into DevOps pipeline and protects the application by identifying its attack surface without reacting to threats. And let me explain what I just described in a moment.

    Often security solutions that have been thriving over the past few decades are built to essentially identify and understand exiting threats and thereafter protect the application. And by that I mean often when a threat is applied or an exploit is applied on the application that threat is published in public databases like missed CBEDBs and NBDBs.

    Then after all of these instruments that protect the application are validating every request applied on this application informed of the threat landscape. Now often threats have a lifecycle, meaning an attack or attacks an application by identifying potential breach paths. Now after they attack it is titled as an unknown vulnerability and when it is discovered it becomes a zero day vulnerability and thereafter when it’s published in a database it becomes a known vulnerability.

    Now note that often organizations are exposed in that journey from unknown to zero day known because it’s yet to be published. And for all these instruments that are protecting applications there is yet to update its policies to thereby protect the application.

    So we at ShiftLeft have devised a convert solution that first of all understands the applications evolving at that service. Now in the world of DevOps we deploy application multiple times a day, a week or a month. Now as the application evolves to serve a company’s business needs the application’s attack surface is evolving as well. It’s either heading in a positive drift or a negative drift. Often more times it exists or traverses in the negative side because engineers are coding at high velocity and when they code they don’t take security as a function into consideration.

    As a consequence attackers can figure out more creative ways to exploit the evolving attack surface of the application.

    So ShiftLeft has devised a technique that automatically processes byte code into the CI portion of the CICD of DevOps and extracts what we call is the attack surface of the application. Now from the attack surface we extract a policy: the policy that defines how to protect the application in one time because we do not want to feed these alerts back to humans and ask humans to correlate and address and prioritize these vulnerabilities.

    So in the spirit of respecting the fast motion of DevOps we extract the security profile from this attack surface and bootstrap an agent that is instrumented with the running application.

    Now the job of the agent is to act like one-fold full-time employee. The agent has taken the onus of identifying what is a potential imminent threat that is applied on the application by a black hat hacker and thereby understand better this particular track that’s taking this application into an inadmissible state because often attackers want to first take the application into a state that they wish to take it to and thereafter either exfiltrate data from the application or perhaps install some malicious payload on the host.

    So the job of the agent is to identify and segregate malicious intent and thereafter prevent that particular intent from manifesting.

    Shimel: Now Chetan I sit here listening to you – and keep in mind I have 20 years – 18 years in the ______ site space and I remember writing articles and papers on when is a zero day a zero day, when is it less than a zero day, you know, this whole discussion around what we can do to make our applications less vulnerable.

    And what amazes me is – I think we all agree, right, application security – at least for the last three to five years, maybe more – has really been at the forefront of cybersecurity research and so forth. And it’s only now that we’re starting to see solutions like ShiftLeft which are kind of not the same old same old taking a different view to an old problem or a different solution to an old problem.

    And yet, you know, I just got back from Black Hat – I’m not sure if you were there – we hear about one breach after the next and they’re still spinning money out of ATM machines. Are we finally on the right track to you think? Are we making progress?

    Conikee: Great question Alan. I would say that we have begun to make progress. You know, there is a journey, we have to embark on this journey and that journey means taking a practice and embedding into our typical pipeline – a pipeline of how we build applications, deploy applications and protect applications.

    So this is a beginning but a great beginning. But what has enabled this beginning is inspiration. You know often we learn from other systems and what I’m sensing is security is learning from DevOps. DevOps is all about automation, meaning before Amazon – the advent of Amazon or any public cloud like Azure or GC there was – the notion of provisioning a host took more than one step: we had to write a multitude of scripts in order to provision a simple physical appliance.

    And with the advent of companies like Chef Puppet and the public cloud they created this concept called this cloud formation; meaning how do you provision a virtual appliance in a matter of seconds and make it predictable thereafter? Because there is a system of record of your provisioning script and its evolution thereafter – that is one part. The other part is the predictability: how can you assess that particular script and understand its posture? Posture from a resource consumption perspective and resource provisioning perspective?

    Now if you take these two same principals to the antiquated world of security – and I use the term antiquated because in the past security was all about reacting to threats and alerts and then we had to deal with how to prioritize alerts because alerts can contain mixes of true positives, false negatives, false positives, et cetera. So how can we steal a page from the book of DevOps? How can we automate security? Meaning you’re creating code, from this code how can we automatically extract its security posture?

    Because in the world of security we are assessing code with three particular filters – or what they call SOSAs, sanitizers and syncs – SOSAs are where consumers interact with our application; sanitizers are where we are validating that input; and syncs are all communication points outbound from an application perspective.

    Often attackers are attempting to create new syncs after they successfully exploit the application. So how can we extract this particular fabric or script and thereafter take a security function into consideration?

    So this is our goal at ShiftLeft and we are hoping that this becomes a norm and other companies like us are adopting the same principal as well.

    Shimel: We can hope can’t we? But it’s interesting. You know I – what’s interesting Chetan is no developer raises their hand and says, “I want to develop insecure code.” No ops person says, “Boy, I want us to be the victim of a breach or have a security incident.” Nor does any security person say, “I hate the rest of the IT team so much that I hope they get hacked.” Right? None of this is true.

    But yet we have problems – and some of it granted is not just from a technology or toolset perspective, a lot of it frankly is cultural, right, as I’m sure you’ll agree as well. You know, and any time we could use tools that help foster culture, that help foster greater communication and teamwork – I mean I think we all benefit from it, right?

    And I hear a little bit with ShiftLeft, you know, this is something that I think is a byproduct if you will of your solution, is that true?

    Conikee: Absolutely. Well said, Alan. For the most part security should be an enabler rather than a department of no.

    Shimel: You’ve got it.

    Conikee: And security should – there should be a common lingua franca between various departments: meaning security, engineering, quality assurance and operations should speak the same language. The language should be comprehensible so that it becomes actionable.

    Shimel: Amen. Amen. You know, Chetan when we first started I think I mentioned to you the time goes so darn quickly.

    Conikee: Absolutely.

    Shimel: We’ve blown past our 15 minutes onto 20 here so we may have to call it an end but for people who may be interested in the recent study you did with Cobalt – and my friend Carolyn Long is a VP at Cobalt and she is one of the smartest people I know in security – where can they get more information?

    Conikee: Absolutely. Please visit blog.shifleft.io and on our blog we have a recently trending article that gives you the necessary detail about this exercise. And at the end of the article is the published benchmark’s test for those that want to delve into the detail – which I highly recommend – and thereafter visit www.shiftleft.io and – or contact us; we are happy to onboard your application and thereafter protect your application as well.

    Shimel: Fantastic. Chetan Conikee CTO co-founder ShiftLeft. Thanks for being our guest in this episode of DevOps chat and continued success with ShiftLeft – your success is all of our success.

    Conikee: Thank you Alan. Pleasure, and thank you for hosting us.

    Shimel: Okay. This is Alan Shimel for DevOps Chat. You’ve just listened to another DevOps Chat. Have a great day and see you soon everyone.

    — Alan Shimel

  • WhiteHat Security Looks to AI to Advance DevSecOps

    WhiteHat Security Looks to AI to Advance DevSecOps

    WhiteHat Security is now embedding artificial intelligence (AI) into the application security review services it provides, as part of an effort to advance adoption of DevSecOps processes.

    Joseph Feiman, chief strategy officer for WhiteHat Security, said the biggest resistance factor to DevSecOps has been the amount of time it takes to test applications for vulnerabilities. By injecting machine learning into that process via a suite of WhiteHat Sentinel Dynamic tools, which are being made accessible as a software-as-a-service (SaaS) application, developers will be more inclined to conduct security reviews as part of an integrated DevSecOps process, he said.

    The AI engine identifies vulnerability patterns in a code-based data lake of 95 million identified vulnerabilities that WhiteHat Security has identified via its dynamic application testing service (DAST). WhiteHat Sentinel Dynamic identifies known vulnerabilities in seconds, Feiman said, and any anomalies indicative of potential unknown vulnerabilities are then reviewed by human WhiteHat Security cybersecurity experts.

    Feiman said DevSecOps is going through a period of disillusionment because security reviews of code are taking too long. AI technologies represent an opportunity to reignite interest in DevSecOps by giving developers more control over an application security review process that no longer slows down development.

    In addition, WhiteHat Sentinel Dynamic enables developers to learn about their potential mistakes without necessarily requiring them to disclose them to the entire DevOps team. Any humiliation a developer might experience is avoided when the developer conducts the security review prior to committing code. IT security teams are still in charge of creating the policies that need to be implemented, but processes associated with implementing those policies make a decidedly shift left to the developer, he said.

    Feiman noted that the rise of AI within DevSecOps processes may help alleviate some of the current chronic shortage of cybersecurity expertise. There will always be a need for human cybersecurity researchers to train AI models what to look for as new vulnerabilities are discovered. But algorithms never take a day off or decide to abruptly quit because they suddenly got a better offer.

    It may take a while for IT organizations to completely trust AI engines to scan code for vulnerabilities. But currently many applications are not being reviewed at all because any time set aside to conduct that reviews is being eaten up by an application development process that has fallen behind schedule. Too many developers would still prefer to take a chance on a breach than be reprimanded for delivering code late, especially when there’s a chance to address vulnerabilities that might get discovered in the next scheduled release of a patch. WhiteHat Security is making the case for eliminating much of that risk by making it feasible for developers to quietly address vulnerabilities long before an application is deployed in a production environment.

    There’s no doubt that AI soon will be employed to automate large swaths of cybersecurity. But it may turn out that the most effective place to apply AI from a cybersecurity perspective early in the DevOps process as possible.

    — Mike Vizard

  • DevSecOps: Where DevOps and Security Meet

    DevSecOps: Where DevOps and Security Meet

    Catching up with three IT leaders on the role of security in the changing world of DevOps

    The DevOps methodology as a software and engineering culture goes back nearly 10 years—Patrick Debois coined the term when he named a Belgian software conference “devopsdays.” Since then, the movement has taken on a mind of its own, turning into the go-to strategy for enterprises the world over aiming to accelerate their development timelines and deliver better products faster.

    In the shifts and changes that have happened over the last decade, one has been the idea of “DevSecOps,” or the intersection where security practices and DevOps transformations meet. Recently, at the DevOps Enterprise Summit 2018 (DOES18) event in London, several key players in the DevOps world sat down to take a deep dive into the world of DevSecOps. In the following article, we’ll review some of the key points discussed by Ilkka Turunen, head of Solutions Architecture at Sonatype; Zane Lackey, founder of Signal Sciences; and Margo Cronin, senior solution architect for Amazon Web Services during our panel discussion at DOES18.

    The first point of the discussion centered around the role of security in DevOps, and how the name “DevSecOps” should never make you think security is secondary.

    “I’ve never been crazy about the term DevSecOps, because it’s like ‘Sec’ is an afterthought,” said Turunen. “You know, we were squeezing it in between Dev and Ops, the last kid that got on the bus, and we’re like, go on, just sit in there. For all of us, security is the first priority, the top job—’job zero,’ we sometimes call it. And therefore, for DevOps, it actually understands that security is key, and is the first thing that you do.”

    Turunen pointed to recent changes brought on by GDPR that have made privacy one of the pillars of software development, and how this has brought about further emphasis on security in DevOps transformations. In this new world of GDPR regulations, it’s not limited to just data portability and data breech notifications, but truly goes into “privacy by design.” As such, security is paramount.

    Later, the conversation turned to the idea of how one can create a culture where everyone thinks of themselves as a security practitioner, a seemingly necessary step to having foolproof security practices. The answer lies in creating an organization where security is part of the fundamental culture—a similar cultural change as to what happened around testing.

    “So if you think about testing 10 years ago, it was literally people running from test execution plans, and gradually they changed from that to becoming writers of tests, people that write the automatic-execution, help people, help the floor become more efficient at testing for themselves,” said Turunen. “Teaching them unit testing, all these other frameworks. So I feel like we’re at the brink of a similar kind of change. I think it’s a mixture of both incentives and psychology, and just changing roles.”

    Lackey puts it even more simply—that good engineering just goes hand in hand with good security.

    “The best way I’ve ever seen, like the highest performing organizations view it, is security is a subset of good engineering. In the way that resiliency is, reliability is, quality is, performance is, is a subset of good engineering,” said Lackey.

    Finally, the conversation turned to the role of public cloud service providers and how they can help uplift security for software organizations. For Cronin, the idea of machine learning holds a lot of promise for increasing security.

    “You now have services that can scan your landscape and say do you know these large files contain client identifying data, do you know you have keys there?” said Cronin. “And then you have services where you can then change that behavior automatically. But I think that’s where we’re going to see cloud service providers become a lot more active. You know, using machine learning to harden your production landscape before you actually even go to the security operators.”

    While the world of DevOps is constantly evolving, growth in highly regulated and compliance-oriented industries—coupled with increased global concern over data privacy—have put increased emphasis on incorporating security throughout the software pipeline. To learn more about how these DevOps experts view DevSecOps, and how they are making security a bigger focus in their organizations, you can watch the entire discussion on DevOps TV.

    Bonus: You can also watch Cronin’s DOES18 presentation on “Security Automation at Scale” and Lackey’s presentation on “How You Can Use DevOps to Make You More Secure.”

    And be sure to join us next time at DevOps Enterprise Summit Las Vegas, Oct. 22-24, 2018!

    — Alan Shimel

  • Defend Against Phishing Attacks with EV Certificates

    Defend Against Phishing Attacks with EV Certificates

    One of the most important elements of fishing is choosing the right lure or bait. The same is true when it comes to the malicious digital version—phishing. A phishing attack requires good bait to be effective. Organizations can defend against phishing attacks and help protect customers by using EV certificates to verify the authenticity of the website.

    Phishing Attack Targets

    Phishing attacks are designed to fool a victim into believing the phisher is a specific, trusted party for the purpose of stealing credentials, accessing sensitive data or propagating malware. The foundation of phishing depends on the ability to create a false identity that the target audience will believe is the real thing.

    The most common targets for phishing attacks are online businesses—specifically, online businesses where customers generally conduct financial transactions or share sensitive data. Businesses of all sizes from small “mom and pop” shops to large enterprises are viable targets for phishing. Businesses in pretty much every industry are potential targets for phishing attacks, but the most high-profile phishing attacks typically focus on banks, credit unions, investment websites, ecommerce retailers and other similar businesses.

    Creating a Credible Counterfeit

    Due to the way the web is designed and the nature of HTML code, it is trivially easy to counterfeit a website. A simple “screen scrape” is all that’s required most of the time. You can right-click and save most images, or just link to the original images and code from the site being spoofed.

    Voilà! The content inside the browser’s display window for a counterfeit phishing site can—and usually does—look identical to the content on the actual site. It actually helps maintain the façade of authenticity to leave legitimate links on the counterfeit site as well and only changing or redirecting a couple key elements.

    Avoiding Phishing with EV Certificates

    That’s where an EV certificate comes in handy. The attacker can scrape, download, stream or link to most—if not all—of the elements that are within the confines of the HTML window. However, there is no way for the attacker to re-create or spoof the green address bar of a website with an EV certificate. Because the EV certificate indicator is outside of the HTML window in the browser interface itself, it can’t be spoofed or counterfeited.

    Websites that have an EV certificate give users a clear and simple way to determine if the website is legitimate or a counterfeit. It’s a good idea for organizations to give customers the tools they need to recognize and avoid a phishing attack. In the absence of an EV certificate, people don’t have that same opportunity.

    Maximize the Value of the EV Certificate

    Aside from helping customers steer clear of spoofed sites and phishing attacks, a recent survey highlights the fact that people have more confidence and trust in websites that are validated with an EV certificate. To get the most value out of the investment in an EV certificate, though—and ensure that users benefit from it as well—you need to follow a few simple tips:

    • Use green address bars consistently on all customer-facing pages on the site.
    • For companies operating with multiple brand names, use the brand names on certificates that match the brands of those sites.
    • Proactively communicate to customers that your site has green address bars and what to look for (including images of what to expect in popular browsers)
      • Include this message on appropriate portions of the website.
      • Include this message in outbound communications such as newsletters and security bulletins.

    By communicating with customers what to expect when they visit your websites and what to look for to verify that the website is legitimate, and then universally using EV certificates that are consistent with the brand of the website for all public-facing sites, you can help customers recognize and avoid spoofed versions of your website(s).

    — Tony Bradley

  • GDPR and Data Leakage: How Semantic Graphing Can Help

    GDPR and Data Leakage: How Semantic Graphing Can Help

    Many of the hallmarks of modern application development that drive efficiencies in the software development life cycle (agile, CI/CD, microservices, cloud infrastructure, open source libraries and third-party APIs) also create significant data leakage risks. Meanwhile, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which took effect May 25, creates a need to protect more types of data than ever before and comes with the strongest penalties for non-compliance: €20 million or up to 4 percent of a company’s global revenue.

    Preventing Data Leakage Getting More Difficult

    There are three primary reasons why data leakage has become more challenging for developers: complexity, speed and external services.

    Applications themselves have become more complex as organizations adopt microservices architectures. While this enables developers to be more efficient, it also often leads to more siloed views of the application while the data flows become more complex. For example, how many organizations understand  every entry point, exit point and handling of variables across every microservice in their broader application? And, organizations that adopt open source to increase efficiency by not having to reinvent non-differentiating code often fail to comprehensively understand the third-party code in depth. This makes understanding data flows even more difficult.

    The increasing pace of releases exacerbates complexity issues. Many organizations now release monthly, weekly or even daily. With less time to focus on anything beyond meeting feature deadlines, mapping data flows often becomes an afterthought. Furthermore, even if an organization is able to thoroughly map their data flows for any given point in time, the rate of change makes it impossible to stay on top.

    As organizations adopt third-party services for key functions such as code repositories, logging, databases and analytics, the consequences of leaking data become severe. For example, Uber leaked AWS credentials into GitHub, from which bad actors were able to initiate an attack that lead to 57 million records being compromised—simply by logging in.

    Why GDPR is Different

    GDPR is a significant expansion of previous data protection regulations in a number of ways. Unlike the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) in the United States, GDPR applies globally and across industries. Any company that holds or processes data on an EU resident is subject to the regulation. Cloud-based software is inherently more global, and many U.S. or Asian-based organizations have users that are EU residents.

    GDPR expands the definition of what needs to be protected in a big way. HIPAA and PCI DSS formalized rules around protecting healthcare and credit card data. However, GDPR expands data that must be protected to include anything that can be used to identify a person—anything from a name, a photo, an email address, bank details, posts on social networking websites, medical information or a computer IP address.

    And GDPR has real teeth. Companies can be fined up to 4 percent of their annual global revenue or €20 million for major breaches and 2 percent of their global revenue for minor breaches. Given the global nature of modern cloud applications, the potential impact of GDPR is far-reaching.

    Traditional Approaches to Preventing Data Leakages

    Traditional approaches to preventing data leakage have been focused primarily on acting as a proxy between the application and the rest of the world. In such a position, the proxy can attempt to filter data and look for patterns. These approaches are outside-in. They do not attempt to understand the application itself; rather, they inspect traffic flowing from the application without context.

    First, let’s clarify that despite the similar sounding name, preventing data leakage is not the same as data loss prevention (DLP). Traditional DLP vendors such as Vontu (now Symantec) and cloud access security brokers (CASBs) are solving a different problem. They are an IT-centric solution to preventing malicious or accidental data breaches that are typically driven by end-users moving documents via email or file sharing. These tools aren’t designed to prevent the applications themselves leaking data and they are of little use to developers.

    The more application-specific attempts to identify data leakage have been via web application firewalls (WAFs). As proxies, WAFs often employ pattern matching techniques such as looking for 16-digit numbers on the assumption it may be a payment card, keyword matching, fingerprinting and other statistical content analysis techniques. In practice, these methods are ineffective because they create far too many false positives. Furthermore, encryption is problematic in that the WAF either can’t inspect the data or a man in the middle decryption must be set up, which is computationally expensive and can add latency. Latency may not matter for traditional DLP solutions monitoring email, but it’s vitally important to developers managing cloud applications.

    One traditional method for identifying data leakage that does take and inside-out approach is taint tracking, which evaluates pre-existing binaries. In reality, taint tracking is impractical because of excessive performance costs and numerous false positives due to taint proliferation (transitively from application to web framework to kernel).

    Taint and information-flow analysis approaches track the flow of data through the program, assuming that the data originated from untrusted sources. Sources are where such data flows enter the program, and sinks are where they leave the program.

    Several publications define sinks informally as “data that leaves the system,” which is too imprecise to train a machine-learning based classifier; such classifiers are only as good as their training data.

    Dynamic taint tracking by plain instrumented emulation is extremely expensive and tend to slow systems. Such a slowdown is unacceptable in practice and significantly hinders the adoption of dynamic taint tracking systems for everyday use. Such taint proliferation can substantially impair the performance of the running system.

    Mapping Data Flows with Semantic Graphing

    To truly prevent data leakage, you must first map data flows. You must understand the building blocks of the application, including its security DNA. However, the difficulty comes from balancing comprehensiveness with speed. Simply put, to account for all possible leakages in a rapidly evolving application you must automate.

    Semantic graphing is based on a simple observation: There are many different graph representations of code, and patterns in code often can be expressed as patterns in these graphs. It is a graph of graphs that, for the first time, enables automatically creating profiles that understand the context of an application. Semantic graphing is language-neutral intermediary representation designed for code querying, which focuses on what the program is designed to do, what it is not supposed to do and how it functions. Because semantic graphing identifies which variables are sensitive and how they flow across each microservice, it then becomes possible to visually represent data paths and identity leakage/violations.

    In this instance, we seek to understand data flows and prevent leakages. However, the ability to understand an application’s context in code is fundamentally the foundation for DevSecOps. AppSec remains manual primarily because humans must apply the application’s context either through configuring rulesets or wading through false positives, both of which are impossible tasks. Beyond just data leakage, semantic graphing has the potential to deliver security at the speed of DevOps.

    — Chetan Conikee