Independent DIB implementation resource — not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Department of WarView the official DoW campaign ↗
Brilliant at the BasicsDIB Resource Center
IT-07IT SYSTEMSOFFICIAL INTENTEXPERT REVIEWED

Integrate Security Early in the Development Lifecycle

Security bolted on at the end is expensive and leaky. Building it in — threat modeling, secure coding standards, automated testing in the pipeline, dependency and secret scanning, and reviewed changes — catches weaknesses when they are cheap to fix. This applies whether you ship software products or just maintain scripts, pipelines, and cloud infrastructure-as-code.

AUTHOR inDirectIT EditorialREVIEW STATUS SME review completeUPDATED 2026-07-21SOURCE CHECKED 2026-07-19
EXPLAINER · 5 SCENES · ≈40 SEC · CAPTIONS, NO AUDIO

IT-07 in 40 seconds

The problem, the plain-words meaning, three key moves, and what “done” looks like.

Official intent

What the campaign asks for

Integrate security early in the development lifecycle so weaknesses are caught in the pipeline, not in production. The official source remains authoritative.

Read the official campaign ↗

Why it matters

A flaw found in design costs a fraction of the same flaw found in production after a breach. Wiring security checks into the development and deployment pipeline makes the secure path the default path, reduces the vulnerabilities you ship, and gives you evidence that changes were tested and reviewed.

Minimum / Strong / Advanced

1
Minimum

Code and infrastructure changes are peer-reviewed, and secrets are kept out of source control.

2
Strong

The pipeline runs automated static analysis, dependency (SCA), and secret scanning, and blocks on critical findings.

3
Advanced

Threat modeling, security testing, and signed, verified builds are standard; findings are tracked to closure and fed back into standards.

Implementation timeline

First 24 hours
  • Confirm no secrets are committed in source control
  • Verify changes require peer review before merge
Next 30 days
  • Add dependency (SCA) and secret scanning to the pipeline
  • Adopt a secure-coding standard for your primary language/stack
Next 60 days
  • Add static analysis (SAST) and fail the build on critical findings
  • Threat-model your most sensitive application or pipeline
By day 90
  • Track findings to closure with owners and dates
  • Verify build integrity (pinned dependencies, signed artifacts)

Implementation steps

  1. Require peer review for code and infrastructure-as-code changes, and keep secrets in a vault, not in repos.
  2. Add automated checks to the pipeline: static analysis, dependency/SCA scanning, and secret scanning.
  3. Adopt a secure-coding standard and threat-model the most sensitive components.
  4. Fail builds on critical findings so insecure changes cannot ship silently.
  5. Track findings to closure and feed recurring issues back into standards and training.

Validation

  • Attempt to commit a test secret — the pipeline should detect and block it.
  • Confirm a build with a known-critical dependency vulnerability fails as configured.
  • Review recent merges to verify each had a reviewer and passed the security gates.

Evidence to retain

Governance

Secure development standard and change-review policy

Configuration

Pipeline configuration showing SAST/SCA/secret-scanning gates

Operations

Findings backlog with owners and closure dates

Validation

Records of blocked builds and merge reviews

Common failure modes

What looks done but is not

Security scanning that runs but never blocks, secrets committed to repos and only rotated after a leak, and threat modeling done once for a slide and never again. A gate that always lets the build through is not a gate.

Framework mappings

Independent mappings are aids, not authoritative equivalence or compliance determinations.

FrameworkRequirementRelationshipConfidence
NIST SP 800-1713.13.2SupportingModerate
NIST SP 800-218 (SSDF)PW.7 / RV.1DirectHigh
CIS Controls v8.116.1DirectModerate