Secure Coding Checklist
A per-release checklist of secure coding requirements covering input validation, authentication, and safe handling of common vulnerability classes.
I. Overview
%%{init: { 'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': { 'edgeLabelBackground': '#fff' }}}%%
flowchart LR
A["Vulnerabilities found only\nlate, in production"] -- "Need to shift security\nleft in the SDLC" --> B["Formal Secure\nCoding Checklist"]
style A fill:#f9f9f9,stroke:#333,stroke-width:3px
style B fill:#e1f5fe,stroke:#01579b,stroke-width:3px
Definition: A Secure Coding Checklist is the standardized set of requirements developers verify before code is merged or released — covering input validation, output encoding, authentication and session handling, and safe use of database and file-system APIs.
Features:
( Ownership ) Maintained by the AppSec team and applied by engineering during development and code review.
( Why Needed ) Vulnerability classes like SQL injection, XSS (Cross-Site Scripting), and CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) are well understood and well documented, yet still ship into production when developers have no standard to check against.
( Concrete Gate ) Turns “know the OWASP Top 10” into a concrete, auditable per-release gate.
II. Structure & Process
sequenceDiagram
participant Dev as "Developer"
participant Reviewer as "Peer Reviewer"
participant SAST as "SAST Tool"
participant AppSec as "AppSec Team"
Dev->>Dev: "Implement feature against checklist requirements"
Dev->>SAST: "Run static analysis on commit"
SAST-->>Dev: "Flag checklist violations"
Dev->>Reviewer: "Submit pull request with checklist attached"
Reviewer->>Reviewer: "Verify unresolved items manually"
Reviewer->>AppSec: "Escalate unresolved high-severity items"
AppSec->>Dev: "Approve merge or request changes"
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Category | Weakness class covered, e.g. Input Validation, Authentication, Session Management, Output Encoding |
| Requirement | Specific, testable rule (e.g. “use parameterized queries, never string-concatenated SQL”) |
| Applies To | Language, framework, or component the rule targets |
| Verification Method | How compliance is confirmed — code review, SAST rule, or manual test |
| Severity if Violated | Impact rating used to decide whether a violation blocks release |
| Reference | Link to the underlying standard, e.g. OWASP ASVS (Application Security Verification Standard) control ID |
| Sign-off | Reviewer and date confirming the checklist was completed for the release |
The checklist is applied on every pull request and re-validated at release time; AppSec updates the requirement set quarterly as new weakness classes emerge.
III. Expected Benefits & Implications
A secure coding checklist’s value is not the checklist itself — it is the shared vocabulary it gives a reviewer to say “this needs a parameterized query” instead of relitigating the same argument on every pull request. Measure adoption by review-comment consistency and recurrence of the same finding class, not by checklist-completion rate, or the program optimizes for box-ticking instead of actual behavior change.
| Benefit | Where It Shows Up |
|---|---|
| Faster, more consistent code review | Reviewers cite a shared standard instead of individual judgment calls |
| Fewer repeat vulnerability classes | SAST and pentest trend reports show the same CWE recurring less often |
| Lighter AppSec review load | Only unresolved high-severity items need to be escalated, not every PR |
Related: Static Code Analysis Log, Web Application Vulnerability Tracker
Last updated 18 Aug 2026, 00:00 UTC.