Speed Without Breach: Engineering the Controls for AI-Driven Software

As AI accelerates software delivery, unguarded use introduces avoidable risks; secrets exposure, broken auth, unsafe data access. Here’s how engineering leaders keep the speed and cut the risk.

By Yagmur Sahin, Head & VP of Engineering , originally published @ AI Times

AI code assistants are transforming how we build software, but uncontrolled adoption creates predictable security gaps. From secrets leaked in IDE prompts to authentication shortcuts that bypass security reviews, the tools meant to accelerate delivery can introduce vulnerabilities faster than traditional development ever did. This article maps those gaps and delivers a quarter-one playbook for engineering leaders who need to maintain velocity while building secure-by-default guardrails into AI-assisted workflows.

The New Reality Check

Picture this: Your team ships a Python FastAPI service. An AI assistant suggested a clean database helper. CI passed. The service went live. Three hours later, your security team flags it; the logs are streaming database connection strings to your aggregation platform. The AI-generated code used string formatting instead of parameterized queries, and the error handler dumped the full context.

This scenario plays out daily across the industry. AI assistants excel at generating functional code quickly, but they optimize for “make it work” rather than “make it secure.” When developers accept suggestions without scrutiny, productivity gains become security liabilities. The fundamental tension: AI tools remove friction from coding, but security requires friction; deliberate checkpoints that catch issues before they reach production.

The solution is not to ban AI tools or slow teams down. Instead, engineering leaders must architect control planes that make the secure path the fast path. This article provides actionable steps to close AI-amplified gaps without sacrificing velocity.

Where AI Creates Gaps in the SDLC

AI code generation accelerates both good and bad patterns. Understanding where vulnerabilities emerge helps leaders deploy targeted controls [Yao et al., 2024]. Here are the critical risk categories:

Secrets and Credentials

Developers paste code snippets into prompts for debugging or refactoring. If those snippets contain API keys, database passwords, or tokens, they’ve just exfiltrated credentials to a third-party service. AI-suggested scaffolding may hardcode secrets or use unsafe environment variable patterns that leak through logs or error messages [Meng et al., 2023].

Authentication and Authorization Mistakes

AI assistants often suggest permissive middleware configurations to “get it working first.” Missing authentication checks on API boundaries, overly broad CORS policies, and authorization logic that checks identity but not permissions create exploitable gaps. These issues bypass traditional code review because they look syntactically correct.

Database and Data-Flow Risks

Unparameterized queries remain a persistent vulnerability. AI-generated SQL concatenation or ORM misuse creates injection vectors. N+1 query patterns and missing indexes degrade performance, while improper data masking in responses leaks sensitive information to logs or clients. Studies show LLM-generated code produces vulnerable query patterns at higher rates than human-written code [Fang et al., 2024; Sandoval et al., 2024].

Supply Chain Drift

AI suggests imports and package versions that may introduce vulnerabilities or licensing violations. Without policy gates, teams unknowingly add unmaintained dependencies or libraries with known CVEs. Version pinning and SBOM generation become critical.

Prompt-Instruction Risks

“Make it work first” prompts encourage AI to skip input validation, error handling, and logging. The resulting code functions but lacks defensive programming. Quick fixes compound technical debt and security holes. Prompt-injection attacks can manipulate AI suggestions to bypass security controls [Chen et al., 2025; OWASP LLM Top 10, 2024].

Evaluation Gap

AI-introduced code branches often lack corresponding test coverage. Negative path testing—what happens with malformed input, missing headers, expired tokens—gets skipped. Attackers exploit these uncovered paths.

The core issue: AI tools amplify developer velocity uniformly across secure and insecure patterns. Without guardrails, bad practices scale as quickly as good ones [Perry et al., 2024].

Engineering Governance That Doesn’t Slow Teams

Effective governance balances control with autonomy. Heavy-handed policies kill velocity; absent policies create risk. The goal is lightweight, engineer-friendly controls that become second nature. The Map-Measure-Manage-Govern framework provides a practical structure for AI risk management [NIST AI RMF, 2024].

Approved Tooling and Data Boundaries

Maintain a vetted list of AI tools with clear data handling policies. Define what information must never leave the repository—private keys, customer PII, production credentials, internal network topology. Establish retention rules for prompt history and code suggestions.

Accountability Mapping

Assign code owners to services and create Security Champion networks within squads. Champions receive training on AI-specific risks and become the first line of review for AI-assisted changes. Rotate responsibility quarterly to spread expertise.

Decision Records

Augment pull request templates with AI-specific checkboxes: “Was this code AI-assisted? yes/no,” “Does this change touch authentication or data access? yes/no,” “What security considerations were evaluated?” Simple questions surface risks before merge.

Key Performance Indicators

Track vulnerability escape rate (issues found in production vs. pre-production), secret incidents per quarter, time-to-patch for AI-introduced vulnerabilities, and percentage of PRs with security-pattern diffs flagged. These metrics reveal where controls succeed or fail.

Here’s a step-by-step playbook for embedding security controls across your AI-assisted SDLC. These measures are vendor-neutral and adaptable to your existing toolchain.

Plan and Design Phase

Add an “AI usage” row to threat models. Ask: What changes if this component’s code was AI-assisted? Do we trust the AI’s security awareness for this boundary? Maintain reference architectures and blessed secure snippets—vetted patterns that AI tools can mimic. Pre-approved code reduces review burden.

Code and Review Phase

Install pre-commit hooks that run secret scanners (detect hardcoded credentials) and dependency policy checks (flag disallowed packages). Update PR templates to include the AI-assisted checkbox and security impact questions. Deploy diff-aware linters that specifically inspect authentication boundaries, authorization checks, and database query construction. These automated gates catch most issues before human review.

Test Phase

Run SAST and DAST scans plus secret scanning on all PRs touching AI-assisted code. Mandate security unit tests for input validation (test malformed payloads), permission checks (verify deny-by-default), and query parameterization (ensure no string concatenation). These tests act as living documentation of security requirements.

Build and Release Phase

Generate Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) for every build. Enforce policy-as-code to block disallowed licenses and versions with known vulnerabilities. Sign artifacts, pin base images, and ensure reproducible builds. These controls prevent supply chain attacks and drift [CISA SBOM, 2024].

Deploy and Operate Phase

Configure services with least privilege IAM roles and short-lived tokens. Implement automated credential rotation. Deploy runtime guards: web application firewalls, database query policies that reject suspicious patterns, rate limiters, and egress filters. Build observability dashboards tracking authentication failures, token usage anomalies, and risky query signatures. Real-time monitoring catches issues that static analysis misses.

PR Security Checks for AI-Assisted Code

Use this 10-point checklist for every pull request involving AI-generated or AI-modified code:

No secrets in diff; scanners report clean
All database queries use parameterization (no string concatenation)
Authorization enforced at service boundaries; deny-by-default policy applied
Input validation present and sanitized appropriately
Cryptographic operations use safe defaults, no custom crypto implementations
Error messages and logs don’t leak sensitive data (tokens, PII, internal paths)
Dependencies pass policy checks; SBOM updated
Negative-path tests present (malformed input, expired tokens, missing headers)
Infrastructure permissions follow least-privilege principle
Reviewer confirms: ‘AI-assisted code verified for security implications’

Figure 1: AI-Assisted SDLC with Control Points: A simple left-to-right workflow diagram showing Plan → Code → Test → Build → Deploy → Operate stages, with small lock icons at each stage indicating control points. Each lock represents automated security checks and manual reviews embedded into the development pipeline.

Not every decision should be delegated to automation. Certain judgment calls require human expertise and organizational context that AI cannot replicate.

Threat modeling remains fundamentally human. Architects must evaluate system boundaries, trust assumptions, and attack vectors with business context in mind. Similarly, authorization boundaries—deciding who can do what—require deep understanding of roles, workflows, and compliance requirements. AI cannot make these determinations.

Incident post-mortems demand human investigation. When AI-introduced code causes a security event, engineers must trace root cause, evaluate organizational gaps, and adjust processes. Trade-off decisions between velocity and risk, technical debt and new features, or short-term patches and long-term fixes require leadership judgment.

Implement a Security Champions model where responsibility rotates across team members. Hold monthly micro-clinics where Champions share recent AI-introduced defects discovered and remediated. This peer learning builds collective expertise and surfaces patterns tools miss [Karamcheti et al., 2024].

A platform team building a user management microservice used an AI assistant to generate helper functions for role assignments. The AI suggested a permission check that validated user identity but skipped role-based authorization. Any authenticated user could modify any other user’s permissions.

The vulnerability was caught by three layers: First, the updated PR template prompted the developer to check “Does this change touch authentication or data access?” This triggered a Security Champion review. Second, the pre-commit secret scanner passed, but the diff-aware linter flagged the missing authorization boundary. Third, required security unit tests for permission enforcement were absent, blocking the merge.

Total time to identify and fix: 45 minutes during code review. Estimated cost if shipped to production: a P1 security incident requiring emergency patches, customer notifications, and approximately 40 hours of engineering toil across security, ops, and development teams. The control plane worked exactly as designed—catching dangerous patterns before they escaped.

Don’t wait for a perfect plan. Start with these high-impact actions you can implement immediately:

Approve an AI tool list and document data boundaries (what must never be pasted into prompts)
Update PR templates to include AI-assisted checkbox and security impact questions
Enable secret scanning on all repositories (pre-commit and CI)
Turn on SBOM generation and dependency policy gates in your build pipeline
Schedule a two-hour AI security red-team review of your top five services
Identify two Security Champions per squad and schedule their first monthly clinic
Create a shared document of blessed secure code patterns for common operations

AI code assistants are force multipliers—they accelerate whatever patterns developers use. Without guardrails, they amplify insecure shortcuts as readily as best practices. The engineering leader’s responsibility is to architect systems where secure choices are also the path of least resistance.

This means embedding controls directly into workflows: pre-commit hooks that catch secrets before they’re committed, PR templates that surface security considerations, automated tests that enforce defensive patterns, and runtime guards that detect anomalies. When these controls operate transparently, developers maintain velocity while risk decreases.

The organizations that thrive with AI-assisted development will be those that recognize a fundamental truth: speed and security are not opposing forces. With the right engineering controls, they reinforce each other. Start building those controls today.

“AI should accelerate secure patterns—not invent new insecure ones.”

Data You Must Never Paste into Prompts

Private keys, API tokens, database passwords, or any production credentials
Customer personally identifiable information (PII) including names, emails, addresses
Production URLs containing embedded secrets or sensitive path information
Internal network topology, IP addresses, or infrastructure configuration details
Unreleased product designs, proprietary algorithms, or trade secrets
Security vulnerability details or penetration test results

About Author

AndyC

Andy Curtis is an award-winning security consultant, researcher and public speaker. He has been working in the computer security industry since the early 1990s, having been employed by state and federal government, leading healthcare and banking providers across three continents. He has given talks about computer security for some of the world’s largest companies, worked with law enforcement agencies on investigations into hacking groups, and is a regular voice on TV and radio explaining IT security threats.

See author's posts