About this program
Are security activities baked into the development lifecycle, or are they bolted on at the end? A focused maturity snapshot.
Risks addressed
- High Security review only at the very end u2014 costly rework
- High No threat modelling for high-risk features
- High Production hot-fixes bypass review entirely
Controls (6)
-
Documented secure SDLC policy
HighDocumented secure SDLC policy
How to test + evidence
Testing procedure: A short policy maps security activities to dev phases (design, code, test, deploy).
Evidence to collect: Policy document.
-
Threat modelling for high-risk changes
HighThreat modelling for high-risk changes
How to test + evidence
Testing procedure: New features with auth / data sensitivity have a recorded threat model.
Evidence to collect: Threat-model samples.
-
Security training for developers (annual)
MediumSecurity training for developers (annual)
How to test + evidence
Testing procedure: Annual secure-coding training tied to top OWASP categories.
Evidence to collect: Training records.
-
Code review gates security findings
HighCode review gates security findings
How to test + evidence
Testing procedure: PR review explicitly flags security-impacting changes; security team optional reviewer.
Evidence to collect: PR template + sample.
-
Production change requires approved PR + tests
CriticalProduction change requires approved PR + tests
How to test + evidence
Testing procedure: No direct prod commits; all changes go via the same review + CI gate.
Evidence to collect: Branch protection settings.
-
Bug-bounty or responsible-disclosure channel
MediumBug-bounty or responsible-disclosure channel
How to test + evidence
Testing procedure: security.txt / disclosure email published; intake workflow defined.
Evidence to collect: security.txt + intake log.