One of the biggest cybersecurity risks involvesĀ vulnerabilities in the application layer. After all, the best firewall is useless if the web application itself is vulnerable. Many companies have worked to mitigate these risks by investing in theirĀ AppSec programs. According to a recent whitepaper written by ESG (commissioned by Synopsys), 71% of companies surveyed now use AppSec tools for more than half of their software projects. Notably, over two-thirds of companies already use 11 or more automated application security testing (AST) tools, such as SAST, DAST, IAST, fuzz testingĀ and container scanning solutions.
This is due, at least in part, to the fact that tool manufacturers have now made their products “DevOps-ready” and support suitable integrations with CI/CD pipelines. This makes it tempting to simply let AppSec scanners run in the pipelines, but that can introduce otherĀ problems.
Problems with AppSec in CI/CD Pipelines
Too many results: Developers can be inundated with findings, yet only a small percentage are likely to pose such a high risk that they need to be fixed immediately. But the prioritization guidelines are often formulated in separate documents and areĀ ambiguous.
Development pipelines are slowed down: Build pipelines often run at frequent intervals;Ā every second to every minute. Scans with AppSec tools may take several minutes or even hours.
Manual AppSec activities are left out:Ā Not all AppSec activities can be automated, such as architecture risk analyses, threat models and penetration tests. Nevertheless, these are an essential part of the AppSec strategy.
Intelligent pipelines (i.e., intelligent, purpose-optimized automation and orchestration of the various AppSec tools and activities)Ā are ideal for overcoming this challenge. Combined with the consolidation of scan results, a new category of solutions has emerged here, which GartnerĀ dubbed application security orchestration and correlation,Ā or ASOC for short, in 2019.
How Pipelines Become Intelligent
The “intelligence” lies in deciding which tools need to run at what time and what to do based on the results. So instead of scanning the entire codebase with AppSec tools at every commit, it dynamically decides which scanner needs to run and to what extent. This decision can take into account various parametersĀ such as the scope of the actual code change, the risk profile of the applicationĀ or the development stage of the software.
The risk profile of the application should also be considered. Web applications that are accessible from the internet and process sensitive dataĀ pose a greater security risk than an internal tool for generating documentation. Such risk profiles usually emerge from prior architectural risk analyses and threat models.
Furthermore, the scope of AppSec testing should be appropriate to the development stage of the application. Individual commits of a feature branch should be checked mainly by static code analysis for passwords and API tokens contained in the codeĀ and compliance with coding guidelines, such as SEI CERT, to support rapid development. Later on, during the merge request into the main branch, more extensive scans should be added, including deeper data flow analyses, which then detect cross-site scripting or SQL injection attacks. A longer runtime can be accepted hereĀ since such merge requests usually have to be approved according to the dual control principle.
Code Security Policies
The core ofĀ intelligent pipelines lies inĀ individual guidelines or policies. These define when specific AppSec activities areĀ executed. Additionally, these policies describe how to proceed with the combined results (e.g., whether the code may be integrated into the master branch or the web application may go live).
The policies are described in a configuration file; this is policy–as-code. Just as with other as-code methods, this enables or improves uniqueness, reproducibility and automation. Simple policies can be created according to the “If this, then that” principle. For example, a software composition analysis (SCA) scan can be triggered when either the project file changes (package.json, go.mod, pom.xml, etc.) or new files or directories are added, but not when only existing source code files are changed.
Conclusion
Whether with or without orchestration tools, anyone who wants to make their software more secure must inevitably consider which AppSec activities make sense at what time. In other words: The right scan at the right time. Furthermore, it should be determined how to proceed with the results before ordering or even automating a scan. To do this, you need to understand what the greatest risks are and howĀ to protect the software from those risks.
Intelligent pipelines help to implement and, above all, automate an AppSec strategy. A corresponding strategy is a prerequisite. But even (or especially) without a clear strategy, it makes sense to look at the architecture of an intelligent pipeline, as this both encourages collaboration between development, AppSecĀ and DevOps teamsĀ and raises the right questions that lead to a successful AppSec strategy.
