DevSecOps is a buzzword that is the center of conversations among executives and security leaders today. As with many technological endeavors, there are a lot of myths and misconceptions surrounding the process of integrating security into every phase of the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC).
The software delivery pipeline has long been a point of contention between the DevOps and security teams. DevOps teams have traditionally seen security teams as a hurdle with overly cautious risk mitigation strategies. On the other hand, security teams consider accelerated software releases a threat to regulatory, security, and governance teams. Many companies have attempted to balance the two by installing security and compliance controls earlier in the development phase.
Although this restricted DevSecOps strategy does enhance the software’s quality and delivery, it doesn’t completely fix the issue. Enterprises with a forward-thinking mindset have learned that shifting compliance and security to the left is insufficient; they also need to shift them everywhere.
Businesses can secure software through the whole software supply chain, enhance the developer experience, and expedite safer delivery by integrating compliance and security processes into end-to-end automation. To do this, businesses must dispel the following DevSecOps myths that are holding them back from making the shift:
Myth #1 – Compliance and Security are a Single Point in the Software Delivery Pipeline
Continuous security and compliance throughout the pipeline are the key to their effectiveness. Businesses that approach security and compliance as events often have to take entire development teams away for extended periods to meet audit obligations. This strategy significantly increases the degree of compliance at a company. Security teams spend more time going back and resolving problems if security isn’t built in from the start, adding no productive value to the enterprise.
Myth #2: Increasing The Number of Tools Will Help with Security and Compliance Issues
While tools can undoubtedly aid in security and compliance, a single solution rarely addresses a complex issue. More individuals are often required to operate the tools and interpret the results. The results must next be analyzed by development managers, who must subsequently prioritize tasks for developers. While having more tools can be beneficial, it can also lead to complexity. By providing a holistic view of an organization’s security and risk posture, finding an all-inclusive solution—rather than a collection of tools—will be more efficient and reduce the likelihood of failure.
Myth #3: Teaching Developers Security and Compliance Skills Will Help to Keep Them Compliant
The developers want to innovate, not decode regulatory frameworks or run tests. Developers should be concerned about but expecting development teams to handle security in addition to their job description is an excellent way to stifle innovation and breed resentment.
Myth #4: The Problem Will Be Solved by Including Security Specialists in DevOps Teams
To enable developers to innovate, having a dedicated security specialist inside the development silo can be helpful. This strategy may disrupt developers and widen the gap between the two teams.
Myth #5: Adopting DevSecOps is Sufficient
To break down the walls between the development and security teams, more is required than simply revamping the software delivery pipeline. It’s also necessary to rebuild the organization’s culture. Security must be everyone’s top priority, but all teams must also focus on creativity and productivity.
Security Through an End-To-End Software Delivery Solution
Businesses can integrate security into every step of the pipeline by using an end-to-end software delivery solution to shift security everywhere. The days of monthly security checks that hinder progress and productivity will no longer work. Advanced DevSecOps enforces the use of authorized components while enabling automated compliance and security testing.
End-to-end automation reduces the risk of human error, leading to the introduction of security issues, and if something does fail, it makes it easier to identify and rectify the problem before compromised code is sent. Access controls are automated to regulate who may make changes and ensure that no one unintentionally modifies essential components.
For more such updates follow us on Google News ITsecuritywire News