How can you make your continuous integration process flexible for changing security requirements?

Adopt parameterized security configurations, integrate security tools into CI pipelines, and regularly update security policies to align with evolving requirements

Typical security focus during continuous integration is around automated SAST(static code scans), SCA(software component/application analysis) and DAST (Dynamic application scanning). These focus on vulnerabilities within the code being written, code being reused (such as external libraries and frameworks, log4j is well known) and running application vulnerabilities that can be explored by hackers. Allowing sast,dast, and sca is the bare minimum security posture that can be added toward continuous integration. This can be further improved by adding infrastructure security and compliance validation as part of continuous integration

Automated Security Scans: Implement automated security scans within the CI process, enabling quick detection of vulnerabilities and ensuring security checks are an integral part of each build. Dynamic Configuration: Utilize parameterized and dynamically configurable CI pipelines, allowing security-related settings to be easily adjusted without requiring major changes to the pipeline structure. Continuous Learning: Stay informed about evolving security standards and integrate new security measures into the CI process iteratively, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and adaptability to changing security requirements.

Tools like SonarQube offer robust static code analysis, identifying vulnerabilities early in development. Dynamic scanning tools complement this by testing running applications for real-time security issues. Container image scanning, facilitated by tools like Trivy, is essential for ensuring the security of Docker containers. Integrating these tools into the CI process ensures a thorough security posture, crucial for maintaining software integrity and trust. This approach aligns with the evolving landscape of software security, where proactive measures are key to safeguarding against emerging threats.

Dependency scanners are able to be configured to scan the dependancies used by each project and comparing them to known CVE's. Tools like Snyk help by proposing upgrades to the next version that has patched any known CVE. However, it's worth nothing that an integrated regression Suite needs to be applied when patching dependencies.

Two perspectives here 1. Security as code - when infrastructure is codified, security has to be baked in. Consider provisioning a database on cloud, there are at least 10+ security concerns that need to be taken care including execution zone, authentication, authorisation, secure access protocol, security at rest, port configuration, etc. these cannot be afterthought and have to be baked in day 0. 2. Security validation as code - many organisations really do a great job of 1 above. It is security validation which is more reactive than proactive. This is where capabilities such as cloud formation guard, checkov, cfn-nag etc provide a way to codify security validation that can be plugged into CI pipelines.

Implementing security as code is a proactive approach that integrates security directly into the development process, making it an integral part of the software lifecycle rather than an afterthought. This method ensures consistent security standards, facilitates automated compliance checks, and reduces the risk of human error. To achieve this, one should: Integrate security tools like static and dynamic code analyzers into the CI/CD pipeline. Use Infrastructure as Code (IaC) to manage and review security configurations. Employ automated compliance as code tools for continuous monitoring. Foster a culture of security awareness and training within development teams.

Kudos to contributors. Adding my 2 cents to all good advices. Start product/application development with security embedded into design and architecture. Why? Often, we, developers, are rushing to design and code just to make something working. Then adding the security, high availability, privacy, and other popular buzzwords. And this approach, often makes the product/app working inefficiently, code is looking awkward. Adding security people to the design team from day one of the development makes only good in the long term. Yes, it takes a bit longer to see the first code working. But it takes less if the security is added on top of ready product/app.

Repeating parts of what I have already covered above: Security validation as code - many organisations really do a great job ‘security as code’ as part of larger infrastructure as code play. It is security validation which is more reactive than proactive. This is where capabilities such as cloud formation guard, checkov, cfn-nag etc provide a way to codify security validation that can be plugged into CI pipelines.

Configure CI/CD Tools: Set up your continuous integration (CI) tool (like Jenkins, CircleCI) to trigger security scans after every build. Automate Security Testing: Automate both static and dynamic security testing within the CI pipeline. Container Image Scanning: Implement container image scanning before deployment to identify vulnerabilities. Review and Act on Findings: Ensure findings are reviewed and remediated promptly. Continuous Monitoring: Continuously monitor for new vulnerabilities and update the CI pipeline accordingly. Educate Teams: Train development teams on security best practices to maintain awareness and compliance.

It is really advisable for security and applications teams to collaborate through devops. Few examples: Security teams can help collaborate and build the right applications patterns implementing which can lead to faster security reviews Security teams can help codify ‘security as code’ as part of hardened IaC and ‘Security validation as Code’. Refer earlier sections for both. Security teams can also provide contextual help through common codified patterns around SAST and DAST issues. Common SCA issues can also be avoided by configuring the right policies within artifact repository and ensuring vulnerable libraries and framework versions cannot be used by application teams

Review Access Controls: Periodically review and update access controls and permissions to ensure only authorized personnel can alter the CI process or access sensitive information. Regular Audits: Schedule regular audits of the CI process to check for compliance with established best practices and identify potential security vulnerabilities.

Effective collaboration and communication with your team involve: Regular meetings for updates and feedback. Utilizing collaborative tools like Slack or Microsoft Teams. Encouraging open dialogue and active listening. Documenting key decisions and action items. Emphasizing clear, concise, and respectful communication.

Culture in Security is big. It's important that all members of the team understand that they need to implement security at each stage from design, build, review and test. By having difficult conversations and building up a culture of calling out issues, the team will be able to help themselves uplift the security of the solution being designed.

The only other thing remaining in the mind set change that security and application teams need to work in silos. Devsecops is the common collaboration platform for both.

Sometimes, security is perceived by developers and by users as an "obstacle" or an "extra barrier" in use of the product. When security is designed net well or added into the product at the late stages of the development, it might feel like that. Well designed and well embedded security feels like a smooth flow. It gives the user a positive feeling that his/her data is protected well at no cost of cumbersome interface/process. In addition to security experts I would recommend to involve into the project the human engineering expert (UX/HF) at very early stages.

In my experience, it matters how those requirements are changing, and if there is a pattern to them. They may also not follow a security pattern. For example, if you are in a sustainment program, and you know you will only have a certain level of increments left to fix however many bugs, then figuring out which bugs the customer cares the most about will be the most important. Perhaps the most important thing I can add is: it won’t make sense. More often than not, you will receive advice that doesn’t work, doesn’t apply, etc. do what you think is best and trust your gut. As long as you can reasonably believe that you are informed, then you will be fine.