Some teams still define software quality as “bug-free code” or “clean UI,” while others call it performance, portability, or maintainability. According to ISO 25000, quality includes all of those things, plus security. Yet, in real-world development cycles, security rarely gets treated that way: It lags behind the rest of the quality conversation, is handled by different teams, is stuck in various tools, and is often missing entirely from sprint boards.
Also Read: Zero Trust in the Cloud Era: Securing Hybrid and Multi-Cloud Environments
This divide reinforces the false belief that security is only a concern after a product ships. That mindset creates delays, increases costs, and exposes businesses to unnecessary risk. According to IBM’s 2024 Cost of a Data Breach Report, the global average cost of a breach has reached USD 4.88 million, nearly a quarter increase over the previous three years. Many security teams are finding themselves in a precarious situation. Simply put, they cannot keep pace with software development or the prominence of cyber threats. Meanwhile, attackers are moving faster.
Delays Are Built Into the Process
Sapio Research found that almost half (49%) of organizations experienced a cyberattack in the past year, yet only 39% of cyber decision-makers’ time is dedicated to enhancing and evaluating cyber readiness. This growing gap between detection and resolution presents increasing pressure on security teams to protect against rapidly evolving threats.
This gap is not about detection. It is about response. Security signals break away from the main development loop. Tools like SAST, DAST, SCA, and CSPM generate alerts, but they become noise without clear connections to the team’s testing and triage systems. Interpreting and prioritizing these alerts falls outside the team’s everyday workflows. Security is buried in spreadsheets and siloed dashboards, disconnected from day-to-day priorities.
Meanwhile, staffing shortages and high turnover make things worse. A recent ISACA report revealed that 57% of businesses say their cybersecurity teams are understaffed, with nearly the same number reporting burnout. When security is already under-resourced, it cannot afford to be isolated.
Improve the Signal Flow
Most teams are not short on alerts; they are short on clarity. Developers already know how to prioritize failed tests and track known bugs. Security findings should be treated the same way. Teams can respond faster when alerts are logged in the same systems, prioritized using the same criteria, and visible alongside other test failures.
This approach also helps address the reality that not all security findings are equally urgent. A reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) issue in a rarely used admin tool is not the same as an exposed credential in a public-facing API. Both matter, but the response should match the risk. Mature teams understand how to make those calls but need visibility and shared tools to do it effectively.
Much of today’s delay is organizational. Alerts get flagged but do not reach the teams who need to act. Instead of entering the test queue, they wait in static reports or require translation into backlog items. This creates unnecessary confusion and missed opportunities. The issue is not whether something can be patched quickly. It’s about knowing what should be patched now, what can wait, and how to make those decisions within the flow of work.
Unified platforms that connect security, quality, and testing data play a critical role here. When signals pass through the same systems teams already use, rather than being siloed in standalone tools or spreadsheets, prioritization becomes clearer, workflows stay intact, and response times improve without adding friction.
Read More on CIO Influence: AI-Augmented Risk Scoring in Shared Data Ecosystems
Integrate Security Like QA
Some organizations are already shifting their approach. They treat security as part of QA by embedding scans into the development pipeline and linking results to issue-tracking systems. Security tests run alongside functional ones, and the results appear in the same places. This does not guarantee an immediate fix, but it does ensure visibility.
Not every vulnerability will block a release. Some issues, like minor bugs, are manageable risks given current goals. Mature teams make tradeoffs, but they do so with complete visibility. These are not last-minute decisions based on limited information, they are deliberate choices made with all relevant data available.
This level of integration also reduces alert fatigue. Due to the sheer volume and the high rate of false positives, analysts can experience “alert fatigue,” leading to them ignoring or missing potentially genuine threats. Some studies have indicated that a large portion of alerts are never investigated. Integrating security into test workflows cuts through that noise and ensures attention is spent on what matters.
Make Security Part of the Process
Security should move with the product, not chase it from behind. This requires shared systems, workflows prioritizing actionable data, and schedules that account for more than feature readiness. Product teams are used to shipping with bugs when those issues are low-risk and well-understood. The same logic can apply to security.
This is not about aiming for perfect builds. It’s about building systems that support deliberate decision-making. When security data flows into the same tools and conversations used to manage quality, teams can act on it with the same urgency. Every day a known vulnerability remains unresolved is another day of exposure. Shortening that timeline does not require more alerts or manual work. It needs better alignment, shared visibility, and acting without breaking rhythm. When security is integrated, response times improve, blind spots shrink, and the product ships safer without slowing down.
