Look for people who understand the team’s software, processes, and culture, and who can communicate well across development and security. The role may be filled by developers, QA staff, architects, or product managers. Strong candidates show interest in cybersecurity, participate in security-related work, and can help others adopt secure development habits.
What makes a good security champion in day-to-day delivery?
A security champion is most useful when they can translate security into the team’s normal delivery rhythm. That means they understand how the product is built, where change tends to introduce risk, and how the team actually makes decisions. A strong champion is not just enthusiastic about security; they are credible with peers, comfortable asking awkward questions early, and able to spot when a shortcut would create avoidable exposure. OWASP’s guidance on the OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 is useful where teams also need to think about machine access and credentials, but the core selection test remains whether the person can influence the team’s normal work.
Teams often overvalue formal security knowledge and undervalue practical influence. In practice, many security programmes first fail at the handoff between security intent and product delivery, not because the candidate lacked technical vocabulary.
How the role works across engineering, QA, and product
The best security champions are usually embedded contributors rather than central security specialists. They do not replace application security staff, and they are not expected to be the only person who understands risk. Their value comes from local context: they know which features are time-critical, which dependencies are brittle, and which controls are likely to be bypassed if they feel unrealistic. That context helps them raise issues early, before design decisions harden into expensive rework.
Selection should therefore focus on evidence of practical collaboration. A good candidate will already be the person others consult on tricky implementation questions, release risk, or quality concerns. They can explain security trade-offs without turning every conversation into a policy debate. They also need enough standing in the team to be heard when they recommend a safer path. In smaller teams, that may be a senior developer or architect. In larger teams, it may be a QA lead or product manager who has broad visibility across changes and dependencies.
Useful signals include:
- They can describe the team’s workflow and where security checks fit without slowing delivery unnecessarily.
- They show curiosity about threats, failure modes, and how attackers might abuse the product or process.
- They can communicate clearly with both technical and non-technical colleagues.
- They have enough time and organisational support to act on issues, not just notice them.
The role works best when the champion is close enough to the work to influence decisions and close enough to security to know when to escalate. Where that balance is missing, the role often becomes symbolic rather than effective.
Where security champion selection goes wrong, and what to do instead
Tighter selection often improves credibility, but it also increases the risk of creating a bottleneck if one person becomes the only security contact for the team. Organisations need to balance influence against over-reliance, especially when delivery pressure is high and the same person is already carrying other responsibilities.
One common mistake is choosing the most security-aware person even if they have little influence in the team. Another is choosing a respected manager who lacks day-to-day technical or workflow visibility. Both choices can weaken the role: the first cannot drive adoption, and the second may not see the real control gaps. The strongest candidates sit where communication, trust, and practical judgement meet.
There is also a difference between enthusiasm and durability. A champion who enjoys security but cannot sustain the role over time will struggle once the first wave of training and improvements is complete. Organisations should treat the appointment as a working role, not a badge. That means checking whether the person has time, whether their manager supports the commitment, and whether the team will let them influence design and release decisions when security matters arise.
For a blog post, the practical test is simple: choose someone who can improve the team’s security habits without becoming a gatekeeper. If the role depends on heroics or constant escalation, the selection has probably been wrong from the start.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
MITRE ATT&CK address the attack and risk surface, while CIS Controls v8 and NIST CSF 2.0 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| CIS Controls v8 | 14 — Security Awareness and Skills Training | Security champions are a practical awareness multiplier inside delivery teams. |
| 6 — Access Control Management | Champions often reinforce secure handling of access paths and privileged change. | |
| Recommendation — Use a champion to reinforce secure development habits and spot recurring training gaps. Use champions to challenge unsafe access decisions before they reach production. | ||
| NIST CSF 2.0 | GV.RM-01 — Risk Management Strategy | Champion selection affects how security risk is represented in teams. |
| PR.AT-01 — Awareness and Training | The role supports peer security awareness and local enablement. | |
| Recommendation — Assign champions where they can surface team risk decisions early and consistently. Train champions to translate security expectations into team-specific practice. | ||
| MITRE ATT&CK | T1580 — Cloud Service Dashboard | Champions help teams notice abuse of administrative and management surfaces. |
| Recommendation — Map team exposures to common attack paths and review how they could be abused. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Select for influence, workflow knowledge, and communication ability before you select for security depth. The right champion is the person most likely to change how the team works, not the person who can quote the most controls.
What to verify: Confirm that the candidate has time, managerial backing, and enough trust inside the team to raise issues early. If they cannot influence design, backlog, or release decisions, the role will be decorative rather than operational.
Common mistake: Do not turn the champion into a single point of failure. The role should amplify secure habits across the team, not centralise every security question in one person.
Practitioner takeaway: The best security champion is usually a respected delivery person with enough context to notice risk early and enough credibility to shift team behaviour.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- What should organisations look for when comparing hybrid security platforms?
- What should organisations look for when evaluating AI agent security controls?
- What should organisations look for in identity security vendor support models?
- What should organisations look for beyond a security certification badge?
Deepen Your Knowledge
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on September 9, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
