Recent studies show that developers dedicate more time writing and testing new code than they do maintaining and safeguarding the existing code. During the course of software development, security flaws frequently arise only after a programme has been put into use. The frustrating thing is that there are appropriate procedures and tools to find a lot of these security issues and bugs at an earlier stage.
How long does it take a developer to learn how to build working code? And how much money is spent on code security education? Or instruction on how to not code?
Not having the issue in the system and then attempting to find and halt an ongoing attack on it would be preferable, wouldn’t it?
The true cost of bugs
Even programmers can make errors. In this industry, software flaws are considered to be an unavoidable “cost of doing business.”
Having said that, attackers rely on unpatched bugs in code to survive. As we see through well-publicized incidents making the news every year, if they can uncover at least one fault in a system that can be exploited in the appropriate way (i.e., a software vulnerability), they may utilise that weakness to cause massive damage, potentially on the order of tens of millions of dollars.
Even less significant vulnerabilities can be quite expensive to address, especially if they are discovered much sooner in the SDLC as a result of a design mistake or an unclear security need.
Why is the current approach to software security falling short?
1 — Too much reliance on tech (and not enough on humans)
By scanning, detecting, and reducing software vulnerabilities, automation and cyber security solutions are intended to lighten the effort for developers and application security professionals. However:
- Although these technologies aid in cyber security efforts, research indicates that they can only find 45% of all vulnerabilities.
- They can also result in “false positives,” which can cause unneeded worry, delays, and rework, or, worse yet, “false negatives,” which can provide a very dangerous false sense of security.
2 — The DevSec disconnect
The term “DevSec disconnect” refers to a well-known dispute that frequently arises when security teams and development teams have divergent objectives for adding new features and fixing bugs.
Due to all this friction, 48% of developers inevitably send vulnerable code into production on a regular basis. Later in the development cycle, vulnerabilities are frequently not mitigated, or they wind up adding expenses, delays, and hazards later on. These are the results of short-term thinking; in the end, it would be preferable to address the issue at its root rather than devoting time and resources to locating bugs in the code at a later stage of the software development lifecycle.
3 — Monitoring your supply chain but not your own software
Another error is concentrating primarily on the security of the software supply chain and just fixing known flaws in already-available software products and packages that are documented in the renowned Common Vulnerabilities and Risks database or to National Vulnerability Database.
While dealing with vulnerabilities in dependencies, the operating system, or third-party components is crucial, this will not help us with security holes in your own code.
Similar to how OWASP Top 10 recognizes the need for monitoring possible attacks with firewalls or intrusion detection systems (IDS), incident response is a fine idea but only addresses the effects of cyber-attacks rather than their root cause.
The solution: make secure coding a team sport
Only as powerful as your weak point is your cyber security. Contrary to popular belief, computer programming is not an assembly line job and won’t be totally automated any time soon. Because computer programming is a form of craftsmanship, programmers are proactive problem solver, who have to make alot of decisions every day as they write code.
When it comes down to it, a developer’s skill level determines whether a piece of code is secure or not.
Best practices can be fostered and reinforced by processes, standards, and tools, but if a developer is unaware of a specific sort of bad practice, they are more likely to keep making the same error (and introducing the same type of vulnerability in the code) repeatedly.
6 tips for empowering secure coding
The number of recently found vulnerabilities is growing, and malicious cyber actors are continuously posing increasingly sophisticated threats. The majority of firms begin implementing a safe development lifecycle after an incident, but the earlier you begin, the better, is always the answer if you ask us when you should.
Because of this, even a few hours can make the difference between irreparable harm and a financial catastrophe when it comes to crucial vulnerabilities.
Here are our top suggestions for carrying it out:
1 — Shift left – expand security perspective to early phases of development
It is not sufficient to rely solely on DevSecOps-style security technology automation; you also need to accomplish genuine cultural change. In the SDLC, SAST, DAST, or penetration testing are on the right; move left to the start of the software development process for more thorough coverage.
2 – Utilize a secure development lifecycle strategy.
For example, MS SDL or OWASP SAMM will give you a foundation for your procedures and serve as a suitable place to begin your cybersecurity project.
3 – Cover every aspect of your IT ecosystem.
The cybersecurity of your company is seriously threatened by third-party vulnerabilities, but it’s also possible that your own developers are breaking the programme. You must have the ability to find and fix vulnerabilities in on-site, cloud-based, and third-party environments.
4 – Move from reaction to prevention in step four.
Your coding standards should include defensive programming principles. You require robustness. Paranoia is the key to effective security, after all.
5 — Mindset is more important than technology
Firewalls and IDSs only address the effects of previously existing vulnerabilities; they do not prevent hackers from accessing your programme in the first place. Focus on the creators’ mindset and personal responsibility to address the issue at its core.
6 — Invest in secure code training
Look for an offer comprehensive coverage of secure coding standards, vulnerability databases, and well-known major software weakness types. It should also cover a wide range of programming languages. A major bonus for getting developers up to speed quickly and closing the annoying knowing-doing gap is hands-on lab exercises in their natural contexts.
Developers from Fortune 500 businesses all over the world can receive training in proactive and efficient secure coding through Cydrill’s blended learning journey.
Cydrill offers a fresh and efficient method for learning how to code securely by fusing instructor-led training, e-learning, hands-on labs, and gamification.
