Close Menu
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Subscribe
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
Home - Articles - Injecting Security Into DevOps
Articles

Injecting Security Into DevOps

Brian A. McHenryBy Brian A. McHenryOctober 31, 2016Updated:July 4, 20244 Mins Read
Share LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Copy Link Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link
Quick AI Summary
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiGrokPerplexityDeepSeekCopilot

DevOps is now being met by the OpsDev movement, which some say is just NetOps with SDN thrown in. But what of our old friend, security? SecDevOps (or is it DevSecOps) just doesn’t roll off the tongue like any of the aforementioned movements in automation and infrastructure-as-code. The cynic in me feels like this digital transformation is once again trying to bolt security on after the fact, having learned nothing from 20 years shoehorning security into physical data centers. Dashboard visualizations and python scripts will no more save us than blinky lights in a rack, but integrating security policy and controls into DevOps process has great potential in finally having security built-in from the start.

In previous columns, I’ve written about security being the missing link in Software Defined Networking (SDN) and security service chaining. Each of these articles explored the possibilities of applying more adaptive security controls which are able to react more dynamically to changing threats. While programmable, API-driven security policy sounds promising, there’s the distinct problem that change controls are already the single biggest problem for security in traditional infrastructure. In many organizations, the process for feeding vulnerability findings back into actionable security policy are already lacking. In many cases, the security infrastructure has available APIs which are left unused.

How will SecDevOps bridge these gaps in both process and policy?

Embracing SecDevOps as a component of a larger DevOps culture and philosophy enables us to seek out tools and skills that would leverage existing API opportunities and drive decisions toward a more fully-integrated approach to SDN. These new skills and tools may even be an extension of existing practices. For example, many infosec organizations employ taps and bypass switches to gain visibility with minimum disruption to the network infrastructure. SDN further enables this same practice and behavior, and SecDevOps would help automate and orchestrate any needed changes in the security service chains. The security service chains can be neatly defined based on multiple criteria, of which one basic example could be source IP reputation and geolocation. Static rules that allow or deny based 5-tuple access control lists (ACLs), defined by source IP and port, destination IP and port, and protocol are complex, brittle, and lacking in specificity. Imagine instead being able to define the depth of security inspection based on who the user is, where in the world they are coming from, and the reputation of that endpoint.

The latter approach is truly risk-oriented, applying more and deeper security controls and countermeasures based on what is known about the context of the connection. However, this benefit is just the tip of the SecDevOps iceberg. Digging deeper, there are opportunities such as those described by Dinis Cruz in his (evolving) book SecDevOps Risk Workflow. In the book and his excellent OWASP talk, digs deeper into how we might scan and feed found vulnerabilities back into the development and AppSec processes we already have in place. The difference from existing processes is that automation and orchestration reduce errors and time it takes to integrate that feedback.

Cloud and virtualization have enabled us to treat the entire infrastructure as a fungible asset. If something breaks down or fails due to a change, don’t troubleshoot, just nuke-and-pave from the last working template. That same fungible nature of these new software-defined infrastructures can enable us to continuously test and improve our security posture by defining new paths and policies based on risk and emerging threats, and quickly falling back in the instance of a false positive or other misstep in the deployment of new security controls and countermeasures. We will need to develop and acquire new skills to take full advantage of these opportunities presented by SecDevOps. The good news is that an organization has already embraced (or begun to embrace) DevOps will have people ready and willing to share their experiences in transitioning to a new and more dynamic way of managing the infrastructure.

Brian_McHenry
Brian A. McHenry

As a Senior Security Solutions Architect at F5 Networks, Brian McHenry focuses on web application and network security. McHenry acts as a liaison between customers and F5 product teams, providing a hands-on, real-world perspective. He is a regular contributor on InformationSecurityBuzz.com, a co-founder of BSidesNYC, and a speaker at AppSecUSA, BC Aware Day, GoSec Montreal, and the Central Ohio Infosec Summit, among others. Prior to joining F5 in 2008, McHenry, a self-described IT generalist, held leadership positions within a variety of technology organizations, ranging from startups to major financial services firms.

  • Brian A. McHenry
    The WAF Is Not Enough
  • Brian A. McHenry
    Access Management, With A Side Order Of Identity
  • Brian A. McHenry
    The Internet of Thingbots
  • Brian A. McHenry
    Black Hat USA 2017: Bigger and Better (?)

The opinions expressed in this post belong to the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Information Security Buzz.

Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link

Related Posts

AppSec is dead, long live AI security

April 29, 20265 Mins Read

Managing App Access on Frontline Devices in an Always-On World

March 9, 20264 Mins Read

OWASP Top 10 2025: New Enemies, Old Foes, and an Approach to Vulnerability Remediation That Must Evolve

January 22, 20265 Mins Read
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar

No se ha podido establecer conexión. Error 429

 
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar
Black ISB Logo

Information Security Buzz is an independent resource that provides the experts’ comments, analysis, and opinion on the latest Cybersecurity news and topics

X (Twitter) LinkedIn Facebook RSS

Working With Us

  • About Us
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Write For Us

  • How To Contribute

The Pages

  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • AI Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Copyright Notice

Information Security Buzz and all its contents are copyright © 2014-2025. All rights reserved. All third-party trademarks are recognized.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}