Mora Gozani

Mora Gozani

January 23, 2025

The Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) is the process that underpins how software is built and maintained, but its inherent complexity introduces significant risks that often go unnoticed. While organizations often fixate on securing their infrastructure, the SDLC harbors its own set of threats that arise when developer identities, tool misconfigurations, and code vulnerabilities intersect.

  • Developer identities encompass both human and machine actors — including internal developers, external contractors, service accounts, and applications. These identities carry varying levels of access and responsibility, and when over privileged or poorly managed, they can expose the SDLC to significant risks.
  • Misconfigurations refer to weaknesses in the tools that form the backbone of software development — such as Source Code Management platforms, CI/CD pipelines, and Artifact Repositories. Gaps like overly permissive branch rules or insecure repository settings can create opportunities for attackers to exploit.
  • Vulnerabilities in code include issues in both proprietary and open-source software. Whether it’s hardcoded secrets, unpatched dependencies, or flaws introduced by third-party libraries, these weaknesses can serve as entry points for malicious actors.

When these elements converge in unintended ways, they create toxic interactions — intersections of risks that amplify threats in ways traditional security measures struggle to address. These interactions are no longer hypothetical; they’re the reality of modern SDLC risks.

This concept was the focus of my recent article published in SC Media, where I explored the systemic nature of these risks:

“The problem is that traditional 'toxic combination' thinking in the cloud security world often focuses narrowly on standalone misconfigurations. But, misconfigurations are just one piece of the puzzle; when combined with access controls, developer entitlements, developer activity, and code vulnerabilities, they create a larger, more complex threat within the SDLC.”

This larger, interconnected nature of risks requires a shift in thinking—one that BlueFlag Security is pioneering with an identity-first approach.

What Are Toxic Interactions?

Toxic interactions occur when multiple issues overlap to create conditions that attackers can exploit. For example, an over privileged service account (identity) could exploit a misconfigured repository (tool) to deploy unreviewed code containing a critical vulnerability (code). Addressing these risks requires recognizing their interplay rather than viewing them in isolation.

Examples of Toxic Interactions

At BlueFlag Security, we’ve identified five common toxic interactions that organizations must address:

  1. The “Ghost in the Machine” Combo: An inactive developer identity with excessive permissions and unrestricted access to repositories becomes an ideal target for credential theft and exploitation. Attackers leveraging these credentials can introduce malicious changes without detection, often leaving organizations blind to the breach until it’s too late.
  2. The “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” Combo: A developer bypasses branch protection rules and exhibits suspicious behavior, such as committing large code dumps or modifying sensitive files. These activities often mask attempts to inject malicious code into critical parts of the software, posing significant downstream risks.
  3. The “False Approver” Combo: Pull requests from unknown sources get approved by users with no prior commit history. This scenario allows attackers to infiltrate the codebase, slipping in harmful changes under the guise of legitimate contributions, often unnoticed during routine reviews.
  4. The “Open Door” Combo: Overly permissive repository access paired with approvals from unverified users creates a backdoor for exploitation. This combination leaves sensitive repositories vulnerable to tampering, theft, or unauthorized deployments.
  5. The “Insider Threat” Combo: An insider bypasses branch protection rules and engages in suspicious commit patterns, signaling potential attempts to compromise the codebase. This is particularly challenging to detect, as insiders often have legitimate access and can obscure malicious intent within regular workflows.

Why Traditional Security Falls Short

Security tools often operate in silos, focusing on individual aspects—most commonly scanning code, and to a lesser degree, monitoring access or enforcing configurations. While effective in their domains, these tools miss the intersections where toxic interactions thrive.

For instance, a vulnerability scanner might detect an unpatched dependency, but without context on who has access to exploit that vulnerability or how the repository’s configuration facilitates access, the risk remains unresolved.

Securing the SDLC with BlueFlag Security

At BlueFlag, we address these challenges with an identity-first approach to SDLC security. Our platform recognizes the interconnected nature of developer identities, misconfigured tools, and vulnerable code, and provides a unified solution to prevent toxic interactions. Here’s how:

  • Identity Governance: By enforcing least-privilege access, removing excessive permissions, deactivating stale identities, and monitoring for risky behaviors, we ensure that human and machine identities operate securely within their scope. Guided and automated remediation options make it easy to address threats quickly.
  • Pipeline Security Posture Management: We secure configurations across tools critical to the SDLC, including Source Code Management platforms, CI/CD pipelines, and Artifact Repositories. Policies like branch protection rules, secure builds, and continuous monitoring for missing controls are enforced to reduce risks.
  • Code Governance: BlueFlag scans proprietary and open-source code to detect vulnerabilities, hardcoded secrets, and misconfigurations in infrastructure-as-code. This ensures that risks in the codebase are identified and remediated before they impact production.

Building Resilience Against Toxic Interactions

Toxic interactions are more than isolated incidents—they’re systemic risks that emerge from the overlapping weaknesses within the SDLC. By focusing on the interplay of these risks, BlueFlag Security bridges the gaps that traditional tools leave behind.

Our identity-first platform offers preventive measures, rapid detection, and guided or automated remediation to address toxic interactions at every stage of the SDLC. The result is a secure, resilient development environment where innovation can thrive without compromise.

This blog is just the beginning. In the coming weeks, I’ll explore each of the five toxic interactions in detail, peeling back the layers to uncover how they work and sharing practical approaches to prevent them. Stay tuned for a series that dives deep into building a secure SDLC, one step at a time.

This blog is just the beginning. In the coming weeks, I’ll explore each of the five toxic interactions in detail, peeling back the layers to uncover how they work and sharing practical approaches to prevent them. Stay tuned for a series that dives deep into building a secure SDLC, one step at a time.

Explore Further

Visit our resources page here to see a visual representation of our five toxic interaction combinations. You can also read my full article in Security Magazine here.

Discover how BlueFlag Security can protect your SDLC from toxic interactions. Schedule a demo today and build a foundation of secure, innovative development.

SDLC
Software
Security