Integration of security controls, tools, and processes throughout your software development life cycle to catch vulnerabilities early.
Engineering teams wanting to shift security left without slowing down deployment velocity.
2–4 weeks
$3,500
Final scope depends on system count, complexity, compliance target, and access readiness. Pricing is presented as a starting estimate, not a guaranteed quote.
Secure SDLC guidance is for engineering teams that want proportionate security checks in delivery without turning every pull request into a manual gate. It is useful after a vulnerability, before an enterprise launch, or when a customer questionnaire asks how software risk is managed.
The work suits teams with a functioning pipeline but inconsistent review, testing, dependency, secret, or release practices. It can also help a growing organization move from informal security knowledge to repeatable checks.
The review maps the current development path from ticket and design through branch, build, test, release, and operational feedback. Controls are judged by where they provide useful signal and who can act on that signal, not by how many tools are installed.
Recommendations can cover code review prompts, dependency and secret checks, static or dynamic testing, environment separation, artifact handling, change approval, vulnerability intake, and exception management. Each control is matched to team size, stack, release rhythm, and risk.
Guidance includes practical acceptance criteria and ownership. A finding should tell a developer what to change, a platform owner what to configure, and a security owner what evidence to retain.
The engagement does not operate the pipeline indefinitely or promise that a tool detects every defect. Client teams implement and maintain controls; Vyer.Net helps choose, sequence, and verify a workable design.
A two-to-four-week engagement covers pipeline and repository review, owner sessions, control design, prioritization, and a handoff plan. The scope depends on languages, repositories, environments, and existing tooling.
You receive a delivery model that makes security expectations visible without creating an unowned pile of alerts.
Secure delivery practices reinforce focused architecture and development reviews:
The goal is proportionate feedback at the point where it is cheapest to act. Clear checks, thresholds, owners, and exception paths can reduce late surprises without requiring every change to follow the same heavy process.
Tool choice follows the workflow, risk, stack, and team capacity. The review identifies the control objective first, then considers existing capabilities and only recommends additional tooling where it produces usable signal.
The deliverables include developer security training guidelines and review prompts. Live training or a larger curriculum can be scoped when it is the right way to help the team apply the controls.
Each recommended control includes an owner, expected signal, and practical verification such as a test result, review record, pipeline output, or exception record. That evidence can support internal reporting and customer conversations.