Selection of a Framework for Secure Software Development

OWASP SAMM, BSIMM, Microsoft SDL, NIST SSDF and ISO/IEC 27034 (and so on) can be considered frameworks, standards, methodologies, etc., that focus on ensuring secure development throughout the software lifecycle. They provide structured approaches to assessing, managing, and improving security practices during development. However, despite their obvious benefits, integrating a secure software development framework into the entire lifecycle is challenging – anyone who has even attempted this would surely agree.

During such an endeavor, selecting the right framework is critical and requires careful evaluation of the organization’s specific needs, existing processes, available resources, and other variables, which can be a complex and time-consuming process.

What Do They Have in Common?

The mentioned frameworks have several common features that make them effective tools for ensuring software security.

Integration of Security Throughout the Software Development Lifecycle: Integrating security into every phase of the software development lifecycle is a key aspect of all these frameworks. They emphasize incorporating security measures into all stages of the development lifecycle, typically including planning, design, development, testing, deployment, and maintenance.

Flexibility (Adaptability): Flexibility is another important feature of these frameworks. They are designed to be relatively flexible and adaptable to different organizational sizes and various development methodologies (waterfall, agile, etc.). This flexibility allows organizations to integrate security measures without needing major changes to their existing processes (though in some practices—especially those with accumulated “technical debt”—this may be more of an illusion).

Focus on Improving Security Practices: Focusing on the continuous improvement of security practices is another crucial aspect. All the mentioned frameworks support ongoing improvement of security practices. They provide tools and methods for assessing current security measures, identifying gaps, and setting priorities for improvements. This iterative approach helps organizations gradually increase the level of security of their software.

Support for Education: Another key feature of these frameworks is the emphasis on the importance of educating employees about software security, which helps raise awareness of security threats and best practices. This is crucial for building a strong security culture within the organization.

Compliance with Standards and Regulations: Compliance with standards and regulations is important for all these frameworks. Whether directly or indirectly, they support adherence to both internal and external standards and regulations, which is particularly important for organizations in regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government. They help ensure that security measures comply with relevant legislative requirements.

Evaluation and Measurement of Security Measures’ Effectiveness: Another common feature is the provision of tools and methods for evaluating and measuring the effectiveness of security measures. This includes using metrics, scorecards, and audits to monitor the improvement of security practices. They adopt a risk-oriented approach to software security, meaning that the identification, assessment, and management of risks are key components of the security processes. This enables organizations to better understand and manage the security risks associated with their software applications.

Support for Modern Development Practices and Technologies: Supporting modern development practices and technologies—such as automation, containers, microservices, etc.—is another important feature of these frameworks. This allows organizations to integrate security measures into rapidly evolving development environments and technologies.

These common features show that while each of these frameworks has its specific characteristics and focus, they all share fundamental principles and approaches to ensuring robust software security. By integrating these frameworks into their processes, organizations can effectively manage security risks and ensure that their applications are secure and compliant with relevant standards and regulations.

Disadvantages and Their Solutions

It is important to emphasize that both the disadvantages and advantages of each framework, including approaches to them, are very individual and can vary according to the experiences of specific specialists and the specific needs of an organization.

Each of the frameworks for ensuring secure software development, such as OWASP SAMM, BSIMM, Microsoft SDL, NIST SSDF, and ISO/IEC 27034, has common disadvantages that can affect their implementation and effectiveness in different organizations. These disadvantages include the complexity of implementation, cost, the need for adaptation to specific organizational needs, and sometimes the generality of some guidelines.

Complexity of Implementation: The implementation of these frameworks can be complex, especially for organizations with limited resources or insufficient experience in software security. This problem can be addressed by starting with small, well-defined steps and gradually expanding the implementation. Breaking the implementation into phases and using an agile approach can help better manage time demands. External consultants or various forms of training can also help simplify the process and provide the necessary expertise.

Cost: Implementation can be costly, particularly for smaller organizations with limited budgets for such security initiatives. Organizations can begin with a limited scope of implementation and gradually expand it according to available resources. Using open-source tools and community resources can reduce costs. Cost optimization using existing resources and gradual implementation can also help manage the financial burden.

Adaptation to Specific Needs: For security frameworks to be effective, they must be tailored to the specific needs and risks of the organization, which can be challenging in terms of planning and execution. Organizations can use templates and tools provided by the community or the specific framework to adapt to their needs. Regular reviews and adjustments can ensure that the model remains relevant. Adapting benchmarking results and combining internal assessments with external ones can help fine-tune the implementation.

Generality of Guidelines: Some frameworks can be too general and do not provide specific guidelines or tools for implementation, which can be a challenge for organizations seeking specific solutions. In such cases, organizations can utilize specific examples and scenarios available within the documentation and adapt them to their needs. Further specific guidance can be obtained through consultations or training. Breaking down the framework into smaller, manageable parts and their gradual implementation can reduce complexity.

While each framework has its unique characteristics and focus, they share common principles and approaches to ensuring robust software security. By addressing the common disadvantages through phased implementation, cost management, tailored adaptation, and seeking specific guidance, organizations can effectively manage security risks and ensure their applications are secure and compliant with relevant standards and regulations. Integrating these frameworks into their processes can significantly enhance the security posture of their software development lifecycle.

Specific Disadvantages of Individual Frameworks

BSIMM heavily relies on comparison with other organizations, which can be disadvantageous for companies with different needs. It provides a current view of security practices, which may be less flexible for rapidly changing environments. Adapting benchmarking results to the specific needs and context of the organization can also help. Organizations can also conduct their own internal assessments and combine them with external benchmarks. Regular updates and reviews of security practices can help keep up with rapidly changing threats. Implementing continuous improvement and adaptation to new technologies and threats can increase flexibility.

Microsoft SDL is oriented towards Microsoft technologies, which can limit its usability for other technology stacks. Organizations can adapt SDL principles to be usable for other technology stacks. Finding analogous tools and methodologies in other environments can help overcome this limitation. Using DevSecOps principles can integrate security practices into rapid development cycles.

NIST SSDF can be too general and not provide specific implementation guidelines. Organizations can use specific examples and scenarios from practice available within NIST documentation and adapt them to their needs. Further specific guidance can be obtained through consultations or education. Breaking down the framework into smaller, manageable parts and their gradual implementation can reduce complexity.

ISO/IEC 27034 can be too general and not provide specific guidelines for specific needs. Moreover, it generally requires other ISO/IEC standards to be already implemented (this is due to the interconnected nature of various ISO/IEC standards), which adds another layer of complexity. Implementing the standard in smaller steps and focusing on the most important areas can reduce complexity and costs. Using external consultants and education can speed up and simplify the process. Organizations can map their existing processes to the ISO/IEC 27034 requirements and identify gaps. Regular reviews and adjustments can ensure the standard remains relevant and effective. Adapting general guidelines to the specific needs of the organization can increase efficiency. Finding specific examples and case studies can help implement practical measures.

OWASP SAMM is a very suitable framework for ensuring secure software development. Its high level of abstraction can be both a challenge and an advantage, as it provides the necessary flexibility for various organizations. Thanks to the active community, support for open-source tools, and the availability of template examples, OWASP SAMM becomes a practical and effective tool for improving security practices throughout the software development lifecycle. Its user-oriented approach ensures that the needs of framework users are taken into account, increasing its effectiveness and usability. (Proof of this approach is, for example, a study conducted with OWASP SAMM within a large e-commerce enterprise that focused on supporting security champions in the organization.)

Addressing these disadvantages requires careful planning, continuous reviews, and adapting frameworks to the specific needs and context of the organization. Effective use of available resources, tools, and support can significantly contribute to successful implementation and maintaining a robust security strategy.

Each framework offers various benefits and tools that can help organizations improve their security practices. From the considerations mentioned above, several questions can be identified that organizations should ask themselves when choosing a framework for secure software development.

The questions listed below are written in a more relaxed style, and their exact formulation will depend on the specific needs and context of the organization. However, they can serve as valuable inspiration and motivation for thinking about the key aspects of selecting a framework for secure software development:

Important Aspects for Ensuring Secure Software Development

Integration of security throughout the software development lifecycle
Flexibility (adaptability)
Focus on improving security practices
Support for education
Compliance with standards and regulations
Evaluation and measurement of the effectiveness of security measures
Support for modern development practices and technologies
Etc.

Let’s Ask Ourselves the Following Questions (and Add More as Needed)

What are our organization’s specific security needs?
- Are there particular threats or vulnerabilities we need to address?
- What are our compliance requirements?
What is the size and complexity of our organization?
- How many people will be involved in implementing and maintaining the framework?
- How complex are our software development processes?
What resources do we have available for implementing a security framework?
- What is our budget for security initiatives?
- Do we have the necessary expertise in-house, or will we need external consultants?
What are our current software development practices?
- Are we using a specific development methodology (e.g., Agile, Waterfall)?
- What tools and technologies are we currently using?
How flexible does the framework need to be to fit our environment?
- Can the framework be adapted to our specific processes and technologies?
- Does the framework support continuous improvement and adaptation to new threats?
What level of detail and guidance do we need from the framework?
- Do we need specific implementation guidelines, or can we work with a more general approach?
- How prescriptive versus flexible should the framework be?
What is our timeline for implementing the framework?
- Are we looking for a quick implementation, or can we afford a more gradual approach?
- What milestones and phases will be involved in the implementation?
How do we plan to measure the effectiveness of our security practices?
- What metrics and tools will we use to assess security?
- How will we ensure that we stay up-to-date with evolving threats?
What are the experiences and recommendations of other organizations similar to ours?
- Can we leverage case studies or benchmarks from other companies in our industry?
- Are there community resources or user groups we can join for support?
How will the chosen framework integrate with our existing processes and tools?
- What changes will be needed to incorporate the framework into our current workflows?
- How will we manage the transition and training for our teams?
Etc.

By considering these questions, organizations can make a more informed decision when selecting a framework for secure software development, ensuring it aligns with their specific needs and capabilities.