Application & Code Security

Secure Software in the Age of AI-Driven Attacks

We assess your application security, embed automated checks into your CI/CD pipeline and close gaps before AI-driven attackers can exploit them.

Request a security workshop

Close the gap before it becomes an incident

The time from a published vulnerability to a working exploit keeps shrinking: AI-driven tools analyse advisories, patch diffs and dependency trees faster than manual patch processes can respond and they do so automatically against many targets at once. As a result, a security sign-off at release time is no longer enough: every new library vulnerability also affects software that has already shipped. evoila assesses both your application and your development process along OWASP standards, combines static and dynamic analysis with manual testing, and anchors the results as binding quality gates in your pipeline. You identify vulnerabilities before attackers find them.

Business benefits

  • Lower cost of remediation: Findings in the build instead of in production, no emergency release, no incident handling.
  • Short response time to new vulnerabilities: Scheduled scans report CVEs affecting software that has already shipped, not only at the next release.
  • Shorter release cycles: Automated security checks replace manual approval loops ahead of go-live.
  • Transparency across the software supply chain: Every dependency is continuously checked against known CVEs, including transitive ones.
  • Audit-ready evidence: Documented test coverage and findings history for audits and regulatory requirements.
  • Relief for development teams: Security becomes part of the toolchain instead of an extra task at the end of the sprint.

A single unpatched dependency can turn a routine release into an incident response.

Without continuous checks, that risk sits silently in production until someone else finds it first.

The Challenge

AI-driven attackers move faster than your patch cycle

On top of the shrinking exploit window, requirements from NIS2, the Cyber Resilience Act and sector rules such as BaFin, KRITIS and TISAX now demand evidence across the entire software lifecycle, not just at release.

AI shortens exploit timelines

The gap between a published advisory and a working exploit used to be weeks. AI-driven tools now close that gap to hours.

Automated attacks target everyone

Automated scans probe whatever is reachable, not specific company names. Company size offers no protection once a vulnerable version is exposed.

Late testing arrives too late

Testing shortly before go-live catches a snapshot, not an ongoing risk. Findings land in the backlog while the next critical CVE arrives without notice.

Evidence duties keep expanding

NIS2, the Cyber Resilience Act and sector rules demand lifecycle-wide proof. A one-time sign-off no longer satisfies auditors or regulators.

The good news: closing this gap does not require a rebuild.

It requires the right checks, running at the right cadence, already built into the pipeline you have.

Our Solution

Security built into your pipeline, not bolted on afterwards

evoila treats application security as a property of your development process, not a check at the end. We use the same tools and procedures we run to secure our own software products, so nothing we recommend is untested in our own operations.

Security workshop

We take stock of architecture, development process, toolchain and release path together, and benchmark maturity against OWASP SAMM and ASVS.

• Maturity benchmarked against OWASP standards
• Technical and organisational risks identified
•Joint session, no black-box audit

Code, dependency and runtime analysis

We combine static code analysis, dependency reconciliation against public CVE databases, dynamic testing and manual review, each finding rated and given a remediation proposal.

• Every dependency checked against known CVEs
• Static, dynamic and manual coverage combined
• Risk rating and fix proposal per finding

Action plan and pipeline design

Results become a prioritised action plan: test stages, quality gate thresholds and CI/CD implementation support until your team owns the checks.

• Thresholds defined for every quality gate
• Implementation supported until your team owns it
• Prioritised, not a generic checklist

Documentation and audit readiness

We review and harden your existing documentation so you can demonstrate evidence obligations to customers and regulators on demand.

• Documentation hardened for real audits
• Evidence obligations demonstrably covered
• Ready before the auditor asks

Technical-Deep-Dive

Static, dynamic and manual testing, staggered by risk

We combine established industry-standard tools with current testing methods. The toolchain is open and transparent. You can reproduce every result and continue running the checks independently once the project ends

Static code analysis (SAST) as a quality gate

Static analysis examines source code without executing it, finding insecure patterns such as missing input validation or hard-coded credentials. What matters is the gate, not the report: a build that exceeds defined thresholds for new findings is not promoted.

Dependency and CVE analysis

OWASP Dependency-Check reconciles every included library, including transitive dependencies, against the NVD and CVE databases. This inventory is what lets you answer “does this affect us?” in minutes when a new advisory appears.

Testing cadence matched to risk

• On every commit: fast SAST and dependency checks, gate-enforced
• Nightly or weekly: full scans, including already-shipped versions
• Before releases and periodically: dynamic security testing
• Continuously in operation: metrics and alerting on unusual patterns

Dynamic security testing (DAST)

OWASP ZAP tests the running application from an attacker’s perspective, following OWASP testing methodology, and finds what static analysis cannot: authentication, session handling and configuration flaws.

Manual testing, test planning and documentation

A test plan maps security requirements to concrete test cases, maintained across releases, with manual smoke and regression testing documented in audit-ready form.

Technical Advantages

Findings surface in the build, not in production

Security in the build, not production

SAST and dependency gates in Jenkins stop vulnerable code before merge.

Fast response after release

Scheduled rescans catch CVEs in shipped versions with alerting, not accidental discovery.

Continuous supply chain visibility

Automated CVE reconciliation across all dependencies, transitive included.

Static, dynamic and manual coverage

Automation scales the standard cases; manual testing finds logic and authorisation flaws no scanner detects.

Measurable code quality over time

SonarQube metrics track your security level per team and repository.

Audit-ready documentation

Test plan, coverage and findings history, ready for auditors and customers.

Why evoila

We run what we recommend

evoila secures its own platforms and applications with the same tools and practices proposed to customers. Recommendations come from our own operations, including the pitfalls only visible in practice.

We use what we recommend

Security and delivery from a single source

Vendor-independent tool selection

Your team stays capable without us

Technologies & Partners

The stack we use to secure our own software

Analysis and testing
OWASP Dependency-Check, OWASP ZAP, SonarQube, manual testing to ISTQB

Automation and operations
Jenkins (CI/CD), Prometheus (metrics), Grafana (visualisation and alerting)

Quality management
Test planning, test maintenance, audit-ready documentation, manual smoke and regression testing

These are examples from our own applications. The exact toolchain depends on your project requirements.

Entry Points

Your first 30 days with us

Discovery session

Understand your development landscape, security challenges and compliance requirements.

Application security assessment

Review development practices, CI/CD pipelines and selected applications.

Security concept document

Risks, opportunities and a prioritised roadmap, management-ready.

Joint review

Align on target maturity and define next steps.

Find the gap before an attacker does

Every day without continuous checks is a day your dependencies age unnoticed.

Start with an assessment

Talk to our application security lead

Get a straight answer on your biggest exposure, no sales pitch required.

Alexander Schmidt

Alexander Schmidt

Solution Area Sales

FAQs

Commonly asked questions about Application & Code Security

Modern AI systems analyse code bases and security patches very quickly, shortening the time from a published vulnerability to a usable exploit. Anyone who patches only weeks after an advisory loses a window that used to be considered sufficient.

Yes. Automated scans look for reachable systems with known vulnerabilities, not for particular company names. Company size offers no protection — what matters is whether an exploitable version is reachable and how fast you can patch.

For critical vulnerabilities reachable from the internet, days are the benchmark, not weeks. Hours will be the benchmark in the future. The prerequisite is knowing which applications use the affected library — that is what an automated dependency inventory delivers.

Static analysis (SAST) examines source code without executing it and finds insecure patterns early in the build. Dynamic analysis (DAST) tests the running application and uncovers configuration, authorisation and runtime issues. The two approaches complement each other — neither replaces the other.

Dependency-Check identifies known, published vulnerabilities in included libraries — that is the most important foundation. What it does not cover are flaws in your own code, misconfigurations and gaps that have not yet been published. That is why we combine it with SAST, dynamic testing and manual reviews

As a rule of thumb: annually, plus after every significant architecture or functional change. Between tests, automated checks in the pipeline provide ongoing protection. Isolated tests without continuous analysis deliver nothing more than a snapshot.

Set up correctly, hardly at all: fast checks run on every commit, resource-intensive scans run on a schedule or only on release branches. What matters are sensible thresholds — gates should block genuine new risks, not historical legacy issues.