Cut Security Costs by Building It Into Your Software from Day One

Software teams often try to fit security requirements into the later stages of development, rushing to nail down product requirements and push out code, only to hit a bottleneck later. Writing functional software is critical—no doubt about that—but ignoring security until the end of a project triggers expensive redesigns, delays, and non-negotiable critical fixes. Let’s face it: security isn’t optional, but it’s job zero or job one for most organizations. With cyber threats on the rise, addressing security from the start isn’t just nice to have—it’s a must-have. This article dives into practical, proven approaches to reduce security costs during software development.

Most of the time, during the initial stage of a project, software engineers focus on ambiguous product requirements and how to turn them into technical outcomes. One of the last things that comes to mind is security considerations, resulting in security being an afterthought. Redesigning a software system can significantly impact the total project effort, according to recent studies on software development rework. For example, an analysis [1] indicates that rework, including security-related fixes, often accounts for 20–40% of all effort on software projects, with medium-sized businesses losing around $4.7 million annually due to these inefficiencies. Sometimes, feature redesigns can be tolerated and deferred to the next release, but security considerations are non-negotiable since they are job zero for most organizations. If a security finding arises later in the product development phase, it must be fixed before production release. Since security is a critical requirement, it is better to address security requirements from the initial design phase rather than trying to make security work after the software is built. Such changes may require modifications to Authentication (AuthN) and Authorization (AuthZ) mechanisms, potentially altering core system functionalities and causing major rework.

Just like considering security requirements late in development, engaging security teams late in the process is a common mistake. Most of the time, security practitioners have unique perspectives on how the system should behave, based on their expertise. At the same time, software teams have their own views. Often, both sets of opinions are valid, leading to conflicts that require finding a middle ground through trade-off decisions. These decisions shape how software engineers design and write code. If this discussion and alignment occur early in software development, they will prevent significant redesign, code refactoring, test rewriting, and integration issues. Even though most organizations have centralized security teams, not embedded within software teams, it is beneficial to include them early and keep them in the loop at each stage of software development. This ensures they provide continuous feedback throughout the process, rather than only at the project’s end. It also fosters a sense of teamwork, aligning security and software teams toward a shared goal.

During every software release, a set of security activities is performed to continuously assess security risks or address audit and review comments. These processes can become repetitive, and automating them is more efficient. Setting up automation may take time initially, but once established, it significantly reduces rework and clarifies expectations with the security team for future releases. If the security team needs changes to the automation, they can request them in advance. The reduced rework time for development teams and review time for security teams can be redirected to other projects, boosting overall efficiency. Additionally, automation is less error-prone than manual security verification and can be shared with other teams, reducing their workload.

When working with the security team, the software team must engage with diverse skill sets, as security engineering responsibilities are broad. For example, you may collaborate with security practitioners specializing in application security, offensive security, program management, or risk assessment. Engaging each of them and explaining problems in ways they understand is a highly underrated skill. Effective storytelling tailored to their expertise minimizes miscommunication and enhances the outcomes of audits or engagements. This reduces extensive back-and-forth communication and prevents escalations.

Here’s how to put the strategies into practice with clear, actionable steps:

\

1. Design and Document: From day one, map out your system’s data flow. Draw a diagram showing entry points (e.g., APIs), exit points (e.g., file transfers), and data stores. Highlight sensitive data handling, like encryption for user credentials, and flag privileged operations, such as admin access. Then, run a threat modeling session using a framework like STRIDE (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege)[5]. For example, ask: “Could an attacker escalate privileges through this API?” This helps you spot risks early, before a security counterpart steps in.

   \

2. Engage: Invite your security counterpart to design reviews or set up recurring check-ins to review designs, code, or test plans. If their schedule is tight, prioritize critical components, like authentication flows, for review. Keep a shared document with the system architecture, security requirements, and updates. This reduces miscommunication and lets security folks review offline at their own pace.

   \

3. Empower Your Team: Train a developer on your team—or yourself—to be a security champion. This person reviews code and designs daily with a security lens, catching issues like unvalidated inputs before they escalate. As part of the team, they understand the codebase intimately, serving as a bridge to the security team.

   \

4. Automate and Optimize: If you’re manually running security tools, invest a day or two to automate them in your CI/CD pipeline. For example, pick a widely available and approved static code analysis or dependency scanning tool and integrate it into your software ecosystem. Most importantly, tune the tools to minimize false positives by tweaking rules to ignore low-risk issues. This saves hours going through noise.

A recent research "Cost Benefit Analysis of Incorporating Security and Evaluation ofIts Effects on Various Phases of Agile Software Development"[6] reveals that addressing security vulnerabilities during the requirements phase costs $100–$200 per defect, compared to $1,000–$10,000 in testing or up to $100,000 post-release, a 10–100 times cost escalation for late fixes. Through early threat modeling, development teams identified risks, reducing mitigation costs by 50–70%. Developer training decreased vulnerabilities by 30–40%, and static analysis tools caught 60–80% of issues before testing. These practices lowered overall development costs by 20–30% and reduced security-related expenses by 30–50% across the software lifecycle, demonstrating that integrating security early significantly cuts costs and improves software quality.

Typically, software teams view security teams as blockers just before production release, when it’s often too late, leading to costly redesigns, rework, and delays. But it doesn’t have to be this way. By addressing security requirements from the start, aligning with security teams early, automating repetitive tasks, and communicating clearly through tailored storytelling, software teams can slash security costs while building robust, secure systems efficiently. These approaches also scale effectively as products and teams grow. They prevent major redesigns, minimize back-and-forth, and free up time for both software and security teams to focus on other projects. It’s about making security job zero from the start, fostering teamwork, and setting clear expectations. Start now—you’ll spend less time on security fixes and have more to build the next cool thing.

1. Code Climate. (n.d.). Rework costs millions: The hidden cost of software development. https://codeclimate.com/blog/rework-costs-millions
2. Consortium for Information & Software Quality. (2022, December 7). Software quality issues in the US cost an estimated $2.41 trillion in 2022 [Press release]. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/software-quality-issues-in-the-us-cost-an-estimated-2-41-trillion-in-2022--301695684.html
3. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2022, February). Secure software development framework (SSDF) version 1.1: Recommendations for mitigating the risk of software vulnerabilities (NIST Special Publication 800-218). https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-218.pdf
4. UpGuard. (2024, October 31). The cost of a data breach in 2024. https://www.upguard.com/blog/cost-of-data-breach
5. OWASP. (n.d.). Threat modeling process. https://owasp.org/www-community/ThreatModelingProcess
6. M. A. Akbar, S. Mahmood, M. Shafiq, and M. T. Baldassarre, "Software Security Cost Reduction by Implementing Security Early," Security and Communication Networks, vol. 2021, Article ID 7837153, 2021. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2021/7837153

:::tip The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and not their employers.

:::

\