DevSecOps for a release path your team can verify.
Know how a change gets from a repository into production, who can approve it and which checks can stop it. We assess the agreed delivery path, implement prioritized controls and hand over the evidence and operating instructions.
DevSecOps puts security controls into the way software is built and released. This engagement covers agreed repositories, build jobs, artifacts and deployment permissions, with implemented changes and evidence of their behavior.
Best for
Product teams with missing, inconsistent or bypassable release checks
An existing engineering team that needs a bounded implementation partner
Consider another approach
A provider handover requiring access recovery and ongoing development
Continuous functional testing or a separately scoped penetration test
Start with the path that carries the release risk
Choose a representative repository and release path. Record who can change code, modify checks, approve a release and deploy an artifact. AI-assisted development makes this ownership worth defining explicitly; the same controls apply to changes written by people. Running infrastructure belongs with Cloud Security. Moving workloads to a new environment belongs with Cloud Migration. Permissions inside an AI application belong with AI Security.
Implement checks the team can operate
Select controls from the system’s actual risks. Each adopted check needs an owner, a useful failure message and a documented response. A tool installation alone is not the deliverable.
Repository and release access
Review role scope, protected changes, approval routes and how automation receives deployment authority.
Dependencies and secrets
Select static application security testing (SAST), dependency analysis (SCA), secret, container and infrastructure-as-code checks for the actual stack. Triage findings and document bounded exceptions.
Build and artifact evidence
Record the source revision, build configuration and artifact used for an agreed release. Scope provenance or verification work to the actual platform.
Deployment and recovery
Define environment separation, release conditions and the supported rollback path. Test the agreed steps in an appropriate environment.
Illustrative acceptance: a blocked release stays blocked
In an isolated test branch, a harmless fixture triggers an agreed release rule. The check fails and the deployment remains blocked. After correction, the same path completes as expected. The record names the commit, workflow version, environment, expected and observed results, and limitations. This is an illustrative acceptance exercise, not a customer result or proof that all vulnerabilities are absent.
Assess, implement and review changes
Scope and quote each phase before work starts. You can use the assessment with your own team or commission the agreed implementation.
Assessment
Receive the delivery inventory, confirmed findings, coverage gaps and a prioritized control backlog.
Implementation and retest
Receive agreed workflow and configuration changes, verification records, an exception process and handover instructions.
Continued review
Agree the repositories, review cadence, change limits and response responsibilities separately. This does not establish 24/7 coverage or an uptime SLA.
Bring the environment and the people who can approve changes
We need the repository and CI scope, deployment targets, existing checks, known issues, a suitable test environment and a named reviewer. Read access and production changes are separate permissions. Platform support is confirmed during scoping. Where supported, short-lived deployment credentials through OIDC can reduce dependence on stored long-lived cloud keys; their trust conditions still need review.
Keep the work, and choose the depth you need
Your repository holds the agreed changes and operating instructions. Specialist involvement, including Souhail Mssassi’s security experience, is defined per engagement; his earlier employers’ work remains his own track record. If the immediate task is one eligible dependency family, review the existing bounded dependency upgrade. Its prerequisites and terms remain unchanged. Our Trust Center explains delivery responsibilities and service levels.
// proof
Delivery controls in existing engineering work
Polity documents service-specific CI gates, release automation and CI/CD hardening. It demonstrates that published engineering scope, not a certification or a promise of the same outcome for another system.
▸These are selected projects, not our full portfolio. We have shipped 100+ products since 2018.
Questions before you start
It improves the agreed delivery controls. An adversarial assessment of an application or infrastructure has a different scope and is commissioned separately. The general QA offer does not become a comprehensive penetration test.
Yes. We agree who changes configuration, reviews findings and accepts the work. Your team keeps ownership of the repositories and deployment environment.
We review your platform, access and deployment targets before committing to a scope. The proposal identifies the systems and controls included.
We investigate the finding and record the decision. Exceptions need a reason, an owner and a review or expiry date; silently disabling a check is not the operating model.
Yes, if it contains a representative delivery path. Shared runners, credentials and deployment dependencies still need to be identified so the boundary is clear.
Describe your build platform, deployment environment and the release risk you want to address. A short, non-sensitive outline is enough for the first conversation.
