Skip to content

Tag: AppSec

Never stop learning -> To perform better

  • Spend time to dive into the development framework or security documentations that you are not familiar with.
  • Do it everyday consistently in an allocated time.
  • Understand the Framework hardening guideline. Study the framework security docs.

I just dedicate half an hour to  an hour every day to exercise   and to study a little bit, and I still get  my other work done. It’s a discipline, and  there’s no easy answer John. That’s the best. I think, unfortunately, you’re exactly correct. 

Jim Manico

Notes on “DevSecOps Worst Practice by Tanya Janca”

Jun 8, 2023
Presenter: Tanya Janca, CEO and Founder, We Hack Purple

Recently I watched a talk from Tanya Janca on DevSecOps worst practices. The talk is interesting because I have seen similar practices during the early adoption stage of DevSecOps processes and culture. If you find that your DevSecOps practices have plateaued, chances are that your program is practicing some of the bad practices.

Below is a list of bad practices mentioned by Tanya:

  1. Breaking Build on False positives
  2. Turning on a tool without testing
  3. Artificial Gates
  4. Missing Test Results (Results are not shared in a convenient location)
  5. Missing Runway Testing (Not testing the tools in the CI pipelines to see the job duration impact)
  6. Impossible SLAs
  7. Untrained Staffs
  8. Bug lost in Backlog
  9. No Positive Reinforcement
  10. Only worrying about your part (Not understanding whether another teams are facing any issues if you make the changes)
  11. Multiple Bug trackers (Bugs tracking are scattered in different dashboards)
  12. INSecure SDLC (Tools are not enough. We need more process and other activities like Threat Modelling)
  13. Overly Permissive CI/CD (Skipping a process to deploy to prod)
  14. Automation only in CI/CD
  15. Hiding Mistakes and errors

I will only highlight a few of these practices and share my thoughts.

Turning on a security tool without thorough testing

Testing a new tool for effectiveness is HARDER than we think. Usually POC on a vendor product has a limited timeframe (about one month plus). And you need to identify the teams that are suitable to test the products. If you chose the wrong team to test the product, you might jump into conclusion that this product is bad. Or if you test it on only subset of team, we still find it uncertain if the performance can be replicated to other teams who are using a different tech stack.

Tanya mentioned that one way we can do is buy perpetual license and trial it for about 6 months before deciding to purchase a larger contract. I think this is a good recommendation.

From vendor point of view, you should think about how you can let the security team try the important features of product and test it sufficiently so that they can make better conclusions.

Overly Permissive CI/CD

Tanya gave an example about how the development team can disable tests in order to deploy to production. If too much permission is given to the team, some might abuse the permissions to reach their goal.

In general, I think CI is a wild jungle where you can run any scripts or workflows. But the crucial thing is to restrict the permissions for deployment (CD). If we control the permissions better, we can stop people from abusing deployment rights.

Impossible SLAs

In some organizations, there are strict SLA requirements for deployment to production. For example, there can be a SLA that “NO CRITICAL or HIGH” issues in production.

This might be impossible to meet for some of the teams (Especially if they have legacy apps). Tanya recommends that Security team should consult other teams to see if this SLAs is feasible. Listen to see if the teams can fix the issues to meet the SLAs.

Crafting your AppSec Learning Methodology

Information Security is a broad field with many specialties such as Infrastructure Security, Cloud Security, Container Security. DevOps automation and Application Security (Source Code / Design level) etc. In real life context, an Application Security may need to focus on a few specialties since modern applications are using Cloud PaaS / IaaS and Containers.

Since there are so many specialties to learn, you may get overwhelmed by the knowledge and how to apply what you learn on the actual context. I read an interesting Div0 post on a cybersecurity career discussion panel on this topic:

Many aspiring cybersecurity practitioners say they are passionate about cybersecurity. But they have no work to show/prove their passion. Don’t just say you are passionate. Do it, show it!

There’s no shortage of aspiring cybersecurity practitioners who want to learn. However, there’s a lack of drive on how they can contribute to the organization. Continuous learning in a fast-moving industry like cybersecurity is important. However, you should also focus on how you can apply your skills (emphasis mine).

Cybersecurity is not just about technical skills. In fact, picking up technical skills is the easy bit. Shaping your attitude and mindset in how you deliver the promise your clients entrusted in you plays a much bigger role.

An essential characteristic to have in the industry is Grit — the passion and sustained persistence towards long-term achievement.

In a wide discipline like cybersecurity, it is important to collaborate and bounce ideas with fellow practitioners — that’s how you push the boundary.

The mad rush to get all the fancy certifications is not healthy. There’s no point being certified but you still can’t get a complete grasp on security controls or even the fundamentals. Focus on building up your skillset, not the alphabets behind your name.

Often Application Security new joiners have to learn development skills on their own projects if they are not joining from development background. They may be pentesters, sysadmin, DevOps engineers or career changers coming from another field. Each of them have their own unique perspectives.

You need to understand development but…

If you see in many Application Security job descriptions, many companies require development background. This requirement ensures that you can empathize with the development team that you will be working closely with.

Be careful not to become too developer-like because you will lose independent assessment since you are too close to the development team. For example, some developer tells you that this SQL injection is not a risk since the string values come from hardcoded config file. If you get too close to dev team, you might accept the risk without pointing out additional caution.

However, from another independent perspective, this means that SQL injection can happen if a rogue developer / QA / devops change the config file to a SQLi payload. The long-term solution is actually to use parameterized query and prepared statement even though the values are hardcoded. However if you get too close to dev team, you will start to feel their pain and deadlines if the feature is not released on time. So you might not even suggest the team to pick a more secure approach. Or you might ask the team to add this suggestion to backlog. It remains to be seen whether the safer approach will be adopted since there is always another new feature to complete.

Security Champions might also struggle to give independent assessment especially since they are part of the dev team. Moreover, many of them are developers or QA and have deadline and user stories to complete as well. Therefore Security Champions cannot do it alone and need pairing with the internal Security SME to give a balanced assessment.

On the other hand, you are too far from the development team, you will start suggesting crazy security activities from some PDFs or slides that will never gain any traction with the development team. Many good ideas sound great in powerpoint slides but difficult to gain traction in practice because real world has more decision-making factors in which security is just one of them. You need to at least understand some of these major factors such as business risk appetite, ROI, regulatory requirements etc.

Not enough to learn Development

To understand Application Security in depth, the newbies have to pick up coding and software development concepts such as MVC etc. on their side projects or on the job. It will take time and requires a lot of experimentation, readings, note-taking and questioning.

You shouldn’t just learn coding like watching a Udemy course on Web Development or Mobile Development. After all, your job also consist of the security aspects of delivery. Most of the development courses will not mention Application security topics. This means that you need to create your own contexts to apply every topics that you have watched on Application Security.

An example of I apply newly learned security knowledge to coding

Recently, I attended an online webinar on building secure React applications. This is an informative talk with hands-on examples that I recommend people to watch.

My first thought is to find the React code that I wrote on my own.

import React from 'react';

const Option = (props) => {
    return (
                onClick={(e) => {

export default Option;

Previously, my understanding was that ReactJS is secure by default library and XSS is difficult to achieve unless developer use dangerouslySetInnerHTML. But from the video, I updated my understanding of ReactJS and recognized more XSS attack surface.

Then I tried to modify my React component code to create the XSS vulnerability. Imagine the developer thinks that getting the name from props is safe to use in href.

import React from 'react';

const Option = (props) => {
    return (
            <a href={}>Click for more info</a>
                onClick={(e) => {

export default Option;

But if the attacker include JavaScript url, then there is a stored XSS issue.

From now, when I look at ReactJS code, I will also include such checks in my code review methodology. Or when I am looking at ReactJS app, I will be more awareness of more things to look out for such as href and src tags etc.

What do Security Folks think about DAST?

Note that this a collection of tweets about DAST (excluding any specific company pitch). In general, it seems like many companies are unable to utilize the potential of DAST yet because of limitations in most of DAST tools. This opens up opportunity for people to create new DAST tool to overcome current problems.


  • Many AppSec folks are struggling to get any real value out of commercial DAST tools. Many problems include tools being unable to record Authentication properly and test coverage issues.
  • OWASP ZAP and Burp Enterprise Scanner are popular tools used in DAST automation in DevSecOps pipeline.
  • Some AppSec folks are proxying their QA stage to ZAP or Burp in order to improve test coverage of DAST scan.
  • DAST biggest issue in modern apps is not exactly ‘testing’ or even ‘detecting’ vulns, but crawling the same website to identify to the attack surface.” ~ Jeremiah Grossman
  • OWASP Attack Surface Mapper tries to use SAST to pre-seed attack surface for DAST scan.

Interesting Tweets about DAST