Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
02/08/2026 11:27 am
TL;DR: Security debt now affects 82% of organisations, critical security debt affects 60%, and high-risk vulnerabilities are up 36%, according to Veracode’s 2026 State of Software Security report. The central shift is that audit readiness now depends on continuous pipeline controls, not last-minute evidence collection and manual review.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Veracode: Your Audit Prep Shouldn’t Take Months. Here’s How to Fix That
By the numbers:
- 82% of organizations now carry security debt
- 60% of organizations are affected by critical security debt
- High-risk vulnerabilities are up 36% in the same period
Questions worth separating out
Q: What breaks when audit prep is handled as a point-in-time exercise?
A: Point-in-time audit prep breaks when security evidence, remediation, and exception handling are assembled after code has already shipped.
Q: When should organisations prioritise continuous compliance over manual review cycles?
A: They should prioritise continuous compliance once application portfolios, release frequency, or AI-assisted development make manual review too slow to cover the work.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about audit readiness in software delivery?
A: They often mistake audit readiness for evidence collection, when the real requirement is ongoing control operation.
Practitioner guidance
- Embed security controls in the delivery pipeline Run SAST, SCA, and DAST automatically in the IDE and CI/CD path so findings are captured where code is created and changed, not after release.
- Centralise audit evidence generation Store scan results, remediation status, and policy exceptions in a single dashboard that auditors can verify without manual reconstruction.
- Measure developer adoption as a control metric Track scan usage, fix rates, exception volume, and time to remediation by team so governance can see whether security is being used or bypassed.
What's in the full article
Veracode's full post covers the operational detail this analysis intentionally leaves for the source:
- How the SHIFT LEFT 360° programme was structured across the software development lifecycle
- The insurance provider's evidence collection workflow and the specific audit process changes it used
- The customer story behind the 70% drop in findings and the R$2 million cost avoidance figure
- The way automated scanning, dashboards, and developer workflows were combined to support ISO 27001 compliance
👉 Read Veracode's analysis of continuous compliance and audit prep →
Audit prep and continuous compliance: what security teams must change?
Explore further
02/08/2026 12:43 pm
Continuous compliance is now a control architecture, not a reporting cadence. Once security debt accumulates, audit prep becomes evidence recovery rather than assurance. The article shows that the real failure is treating compliance as a quarterly event instead of a state produced by the delivery pipeline. For security leaders, the practical conclusion is that audit readiness must be designed into the control model, not layered on after release.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should teams prove compliance without slowing delivery?
A: Teams should prove compliance by automating scan execution, logging findings centrally, and making remediation visible in the same workflow developers already use. That keeps the audit trail intact while reducing manual review overhead. The key is to shift proof from periodic reporting to continuous telemetry that auditors can trust.
👉 Read our full editorial: Continuous compliance is replacing audit-season security fire drills
