Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
02/08/2026 9:42 am
TL;DR: Security testing is moving from point-in-time validation to continuous pipeline control as AI-assisted development, APIs, cloud expansion, and third-party dependencies widen attack surfaces, according to StackHawk. The real challenge is not finding more tools but aligning testing with modern identity, runtime, and supply-chain risk.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by StackHawk: Top Security Testing Strategies for Software Development
By the numbers:
- 20 minutes and it discovers complete API landscapes, take 20 minutes and it discovers complete API landscapes from source code repositories, including shadow APIs.
- StackHawk says developers find its remediation guidance useful over 80% of the time.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams decide between SAST and SCA?
A: Use SAST for code your organisation wrote and SCA for software it imported.
Q: Why do APIs and secrets create security testing gaps in modern DevSecOps pipelines?
A: APIs and secrets move with release velocity, which means they often exist before teams have complete governance around them.
Q: What do teams get wrong about automated pentesting?
A: They assume automated coverage is enough on its own.
Practitioner guidance
- Map testing methods to control objectives Assign SAST to pre-merge code defects, DAST to runtime API and authentication behaviour, IAST to exercised code paths, and SCA to dependency and licensing risk.
- Inventory every exposed API and shadow interface Build a living inventory from source repositories, gateways, and discovery scans so that undocumented APIs do not sit outside security testing coverage.
- Connect secret findings to rotation and offboarding workflows When security tests uncover exposed tokens, keys, or certificates, route them into credential revocation, rotation, and service-account ownership checks rather than treating them as standalone defects.
What's in the full article
StackHawk's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Developer-focused comparisons of SAST, DAST, IAST, and SCA implementation trade-offs
- Tool-specific guidance for API security testing in CI/CD pipelines
- Detailed examples of how the source vendor positions runtime testing and remediation workflows
- Practical selection advice for teams choosing a security testing approach
👉 Read StackHawk's guide to software security testing strategies →
Security testing and AI agents: are your controls keeping up?
Explore further
02/08/2026 12:36 pm
Continuous testing is becoming an identity control problem as much as a code quality problem. The article treats security testing as a software delivery discipline, but the practical issue is that API endpoints, secrets, service accounts, and CI/CD pipelines are now part of the access surface. When testing misses exposed credentials or shadow APIs, the failure is not only a vulnerability gap, it is a governance gap across human and non-human access. Practitioners should treat security testing as a control over who and what can reach production systems.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can organisations tell whether security testing is actually reducing risk?
A: Look for shorter time to fix, fewer repeat findings, and direct routing of issues into remediation workflows. Strong programmes also show that security tests are covering the systems with the highest blast radius, not just generating large volumes of findings. If release decisions change because of testing, the control is working.
👉 Read our full editorial: Security testing still fails where AI and cloud attack surfaces expand
