Managing Application Security at Scale: Insights from Industry Leaders
Application security programs are increasingly driven by risk management, not just compliance — and scaling these efforts requires a systematic, metrics-driven approach.
Why This Study Was Conducted
Security Compass conducted a targeted study of large enterprises to understand which AppSec practices scale effectively.
-
28 large enterprises participated, 18 with revenues over $1B
-
Majority from financial services, but findings apply broadly
-
Aim: Identify which security activities are effective across large portfolios of applications
What’s Driving Application Security Today?
The key drivers for application security programs have shifted from compliance to proactive risk management.
Three Pressures Shaping AppSec:
| Pressure | Description |
|---|---|
| Speed of Development | Agile and DevOps demand faster releases without slowing down the business |
| Sophisticated Risk Management | Board-level scrutiny and enterprise-wide risk frameworks increase pressure |
| Cost Control | Especially in competitive industries like finance and manufacturing |
Top Motivators for AppSec Programs:
| Driver | Percentage |
|---|---|
| General Risk Management | 79% |
| Compliance | 2nd most common |
| Customer Demand | Especially among product/software vendors |
What Metrics Are Organizations Using?
Most companies still rely on the number of vulnerabilities found, despite its limitations.
| Metric | Adoption Rate |
|---|---|
| Number of vulnerabilities found | 75% |
| Compliance with policy/standards | 58% |
| Remediation time | 39% |
| Tool/training adoption | 32% |
| Financial metrics (ROI, cost impact) | Very rare |
Key Takeaway: Over-reliance on vulnerability count biases programs toward what scanners can detect, missing deeper threats.
Which AppSec Activities Scale Best?
Only a few secure development activities scale well across large organizations.
Most Scalable Activities:
| Activity | Avg. Adoption Score (1–5) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Application risk classification | 4.6 (Finance) | Broadly adopted across sectors |
| Threat/risk assessments | High | Often outside security-specific processes |
| Static analysis | ~3.5–4 | Scales better than manual reviews |
| Dynamic analysis | ~3 | Heavily used but slower than static analysis |
| Penetration testing | ~3 | Limited by time and cost |
| Secure coding guidelines | ~2.5 | Easier to scale once a standard is in place |
Least Scalable (but critical) Activities:
| Activity | Adoption Challenges |
|---|---|
| Threat modeling | Requires expertise, often inconsistent or incomplete |
| Manual code review | Time-intensive and lacks scalability |
| Secure QA testing | Depends on technical depth of QA team |
| RASP & IAST | Low adoption, but expected to grow |
| Fuzz testing | Niche use cases, mainly non-web protocols |
Common Gaps in Third-Party Risk Management
Most organizations apply shallow checks on third-party software security.
| Practice | Adoption |
|---|---|
| General security questionnaires (non-AppSec) | 92% |
| Requiring secure SDLC policy | 46% |
| Requiring SSAE 16 / SOC 2 / ISO 27001 | Common |
| Actual testing or code review of vendor software | 38% |
| Threat modeling or requirement validation | Rare |
Recommendation: Push vendors to adopt deeper standards like ISO/IEC 27034 or Microsoft SDL — not just ISO 27001.
Why “Shift Left” Still Has Gaps
Despite years of industry focus, shift-left activities like secure requirements and threat modeling are inconsistently applied.
-
Few companies align security requirements with test coverage
-
Traceability from threat modeling → requirements → test → validation is missing
-
Most rely solely on testing outcomes, not design-level controls
The 70/30 Problem in AppSec Testing
Even with advanced tools, 70% of potential risks go unaddressed due to limitations in detection and remediation.
| Risk Funnel Stage | Insight |
|---|---|
| Static/Dynamic tools coverage | ~54% of known vulnerabilities |
| Fix rate | ~46–54% of findings get fixed |
| Time to fix (critical) | Avg. 316 days (WhiteHat data) |
Conclusion: Relying solely on SAST/DAST and pen testing leaves major gaps in application security posture.
Three Key Takeaways for Security Leaders
To effectively manage application security at scale, focus on these strategic imperatives:
-
Adopt Better Metrics
-
Move beyond “vulnerabilities found”
-
Track remediation time, requirements coverage, and financial impact
-
-
Link Requirements to Testing
-
Use platforms like SD Elements or threat modeling tools
-
Ensure traceability from controls to validations
-
-
Hold Vendors to Higher Standards
-
Demand ISO/IEC 27034, Microsoft SDL, or equivalent
-
Don’t rely solely on general security certifications
-
Final Thoughts
Security Compass’s study makes it clear: scalable application security requires more than testing. It demands risk-driven strategy, measurable outcomes, and rigorous vendor expectations. By focusing on what actually scales — and improving what doesn’t — organizations can build stronger defenses into every layer of the SDLC.