01 · Scope
Scope and boundary
We agree the systems, environments, data types, review period, and exclusions in writing before any evidence is collected, with a stated reason for each exclusion.
DSE Cybersecurity · Technical security assessment
Map which security gates are enforced — and where evidence is missing.
A point-in-time review of the secure-development and application security controls in your delivery pipeline: which gates are genuinely enforced before release, which are a dashboard nobody reads, and who owns a failing check. We work from the evidence you can produce and hand you a roadmap a named owner can execute. Vendor-neutral by design.
For engineering and security leaders who own the pipeline. Advisory and readiness work. Not a penetration test, not a code audit for hire, not a certification.
Named methodology
Review the controls, not the logo.
The Secure SDLC and AppSec Program Review Method follows DSE's bounded-evidence assessment method: a bounded evidence request, focused interviews, a business-context severity rating, and a roadmap with named owners. The lane-specific layer maps the secure-development controls that matter across the lifecycle: branch and release gates, secret handling, dependency and build integrity, code-review discipline, and who owns a failing check, organized against the voluntary NIST Secure Software Development Framework.
02 · Evidence
Bounded evidence request
A defined request for client-provided exports, screenshots, screen shares, and documents. We do not request administrator credentials and we do not run automated scans.
03 · Interviews
Focused interviews
Short, targeted conversations with the people who own the controls, to test how the design actually operates rather than how a diagram says it should.
04 · Rating
Business-context severity
We rate each observed gap by likelihood and business impact, and record evidence strength alongside it. Severity is a business-context rating, not a vulnerability score, and the method is explained in the report.
05 · Findings
Evidence-linked findings
Each finding states what we observed, why it matters, the supporting evidence, the recommended action, and a named accountable owner.
06 · Roadmap
Roadmap with named owners
Immediate actions and a sequenced roadmap that balances risk reduction, dependencies, effort, and cost, with named owners and an executive readout for engineering and security leadership.
Typical timebox: 3 to 5 weeks after kickoff and timely evidence access. Larger, multi-environment, or high-complexity engagements are scoped separately. Fees are scoped after the diagnostic and confirmed in writing before work begins.
Evidence reviewed
What we review, and what we do not touch.
We assess client-provided pipeline and branch-protection configuration exports, secure-development and code-review policy documents, dependency and build evidence you already produce, secret-handling documentation, and release-gate records, supplemented by screen shares of the pipeline in practice.
We do not request administrator credentials, we do not connect tooling to your repositories or pipelines, and we do not run automated scans. We do not perform penetration testing; where application penetration testing is needed, we help scope the requirement and select a provider you contract directly.
Deliverables
Named artifacts. Not a slide deck.
01
Secure-development control map
The controls in your delivery lifecycle mapped against the practices in the NIST Secure Software Development Framework, with the evidence produced for each.
02
Pipeline gate findings register
Every branch, review, and release gate reviewed for whether it is genuinely enforced, with a business-context severity, an accountable owner, and a target date.
03
Secret-handling review
How secrets are stored, injected, rotated, and kept out of source, with the exposures that matter flagged for remediation.
04
Dependency and build-integrity read
Whether dependency and build evidence is produced, reviewed, and acted on before release, rather than logged and ignored.
05
Ownership and escalation model
A design for who owns a failing check and how an exception is approved, so a red gate stops meaning nothing.
06
Prioritized AppSec roadmap
Immediate actions and a sequenced roadmap balancing risk reduction, dependencies, effort, and cost, with an executive readout.
Sample output
A control scorecard leaders can act on.
Synthetic sample — not client data. It contains no client information and is not a finding about any organization.
The sample table scrolls horizontally on smaller screens. Keyboard users can focus the labeled table region and use horizontal navigation.
| Control area | Observed evidence | Severity | Recommended move |
|---|---|---|---|
| Release gates | A required security check can be bypassed by a self-approval on the release branch. | High | Remove self-approval on protected branches, require an independent reviewer. |
| Secret handling | Secrets are injected at build time, but two long-lived tokens are stored in a plaintext config file. | High | Move the tokens to a managed secret, rotate them, and add a pre-commit check. |
| Dependency evidence | Dependency findings are produced each build but no owner reviews them before release. | Moderate | Assign a review owner and a release-blocking threshold for critical findings. |
Final ratings depend on the pipeline, the evidence, and the agreed method. We do not convert findings into a purported certification score.
Frameworks referenced
Framework structure, no vendor claims.
We organize the review against the NIST Secure Software Development Framework and NIST CSF 2.0. These frameworks shape how we describe outcomes; they do not make this an audit, and we name no source-control, pipeline, or scanning vendor as a capability claim.
How the work is delivered
Accountable delivery, disclosed clearly.
DSE delivers through documented in-house expertise and qualified specialists from our expert network, selected for the technologies and risks in scope. DSE remains accountable for scope, quality, integration, and outcomes. Where specialist or partner delivery is involved, we disclose that role clearly.
Accountable owner: DSE delivery leadership.
Clear boundaries
Program review, not assurance.
This is a point-in-time assessment of the secure-development pipeline, controls, and evidence in the agreed scope. It is not legal advice, not an audit, not a certification, and not an attestation. It does not guarantee compliance or any enforcement or examination outcome. It does not make your organization secure and does not prevent, detect, or reduce the likelihood of any security incident; it documents risk against a defined scope at a point in time. DSE does not operate a 24/7 security operations center, does not provide continuous monitoring or managed detection and response, does not perform live incident response or digital forensics and incident response (DFIR), does not run penetration tests, and does not resell licenses. Where you need any of those, we help you scope the requirement and select a provider you contract directly. Remediation implementation is performed only where it is separately scoped in writing. Counsel, auditors, and assessors retain their respective roles.