One View to Rule Them All

Early Release: The following content is an early preview and should be considered a work in progress. Information may be missing or incomplete until the final release

Remember when keeping track of your applications was as simple as knowing where you put that one deployment script? Those days are gone, buried under layers of microservices, cloud infrastructure, and distributed architectures. Today’s software landscape looks more like a sprawling metropolis than a quiet neighborhood, and security teams are struggling to keep up with the pace of change and complexity.

We’ve finally reached a point where we have common languages and frameworks for describing applications and their components—thanks to advances like service meshes, container orchestration, Infrastructure as Code, and standardized APIs. But here’s the kicker: we’re still figuring out how to apply that same unified, systematic approach to understanding and managing the security issues plaguing those applications.

What seems like a straightforward problem at first glance actually reveals itself as a multi-headed hydra that requires serious strategic thinking, careful tool selection, and fundamental changes to how security teams operate. Let’s dive into why getting a complete view of application risk is significantly harder than it looks—and what we can actually do about it.

The Deceptively Simple Challenge

At first, creating a unified view of application security seems pretty straightforward. You’ve got your applications, you’ve got your security tools, so just connect the dots and correlate the data, right? Wrong.

The reality is that modern application security involves a complex web of decisions, technologies, and processes that all impact each other in ways that aren’t immediately obvious. When it comes to detecting and prioritizing vulnerabilities and threats, organizations typically find themselves juggling multiple tools, each with its own strengths, blind spots, and data formats.

Here are just some of the fundamental questions that security teams grapple with on a daily basis:

What type of scan engines should you use? The acronym soup is overwhelming and constantly evolving: SAST (Static Application Security Testing), DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing), SCA (Software Composition Analysis), IAST (Interactive Application Security Testing), and RASP (Runtime Application Self-Protection). Each serves a different purpose in the security ecosystem and provides different types of insights. SAST supports vulnerability detection by analyzing source code, bytecode, or binaries without requiring a running application, making it great for finding coding errors and logic flaws. DAST analyzes applications in their running state, simulating real-world attacks to uncover vulnerabilities from the outside in, which is crucial for understanding how applications behave under attack conditions.

Where in the software development lifecycle should you scan? Your options include the IDE (catching issues as developers write code), CI/CD pipelines (automated scanning during builds and deployments), through SCM integration (repository-based scanning that triggers on commits), or implementing all three approaches. Each has significant trade-offs in terms of speed, accuracy, developer experience, and the types of issues they can effectively detect.

How will you tie findings back to application context? This is where things get really messy and where most organizations struggle the most. You could have three different teams independently and manually evaluating three separate vulnerability reports without realizing they’re all related to the same underlying security issue. Without proper correlation and context mapping, you end up with duplicate work, inconsistent remediation efforts, conflicting priorities, and dangerous gaps in your security posture.

Who should have access to what security data? Security teams need comprehensive visibility for risk management and threat assessment, developers need actionable, contextual insights for effective remediation, operations teams need runtime security information for incident response, and leadership needs meaningful metrics for decision-making and resource allocation. Balancing these different needs while maintaining appropriate security boundaries and avoiding information overload is an ongoing challenge.

The Tool Sprawl Problem Gets Real

If the complexity of integration and correlation wasn’t challenging enough, there’s another beast lurking in the shadows: tool sprawl. The proliferation of security tools has become a significant problem in its own right, creating new categories of risk and operational overhead.

Modern organizations are drowning in security tools, and the problem is getting worse rather than better. Small organizations typically manage multiple security tools, medium-sized businesses juggle dozens, and large enterprises often deal with well over a hundred different security tools and platforms.

This isn’t just an organizational headache or a budget problem—it’s a genuine security liability. Traditional point solutions often lead to uncontrolled tool sprawl, creating unnecessary noise, alert fatigue, and making it extremely difficult to focus on genuinely high-priority threats.

Here’s what tool sprawl looks like in practice and why it matters:

Data silos: Each tool generates its own reports in its own proprietary format, using different terminologies, severity scales, and data structures. This makes correlation between tools nearly impossible without significant manual effort or custom integration work.

Alert fatigue: Security teams are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of alerts, many of which are false positives, duplicates, or low-priority issues that don’t require immediate attention. This creates a dangerous situation where real threats get lost in the noise.

Resource drain: Every tool requires specialized training, ongoing maintenance, licensing costs, and integration effort. Security teams spend more time managing tools than actually improving security.

Blind spots: Gaps between tools and inconsistent coverage create vulnerabilities that slip through the cracks. When tools don’t communicate effectively, issues that should be caught by one system might be missed entirely.

Inconsistent workflows: Different tools require different processes, approvals, and remediation workflows, making it difficult to establish consistent security practices across the organization.

The human cost is substantial as well. Security reviews and vulnerability assessments take significantly longer when teams have to gather information from multiple systems, correlate findings manually, and navigate different interfaces and reporting formats.

Enter Application Security Posture Management (ASPM)

The industry has been responding to this growing chaos with a new approach: Application Security Posture Management (ASPM). Gartner defined ASPM as “a solution that analyzes security signals across software development, deployment, and operation to improve visibility, better manage vulnerabilities, and enforce controls.”

Think of ASPM as the conductor of your security orchestra. Instead of having each instrument (security tool) play its own tune in isolation, ASPM brings them together to create a harmonious, coordinated symphony. By consolidating insights from disparate security tools, ASPM helps teams identify, prioritize, and remediate the risks that matter most—without adding unnecessary complexity or slowing down development velocity.

ASPM represents a fundamental shift from tool-centric to outcome-centric security management. Rather than focusing on optimizing individual tools, ASPM focuses on optimizing the overall security posture and risk management process.

How ASPM Solves the Multi-Headed Problem

ASPM addresses each of our original challenges through systematic integration and intelligent correlation:

Tool Integration: Rather than forcing you to choose one tool over another or replace your existing security stack, ASPM acts as a unifying layer that sits above your current tools. For an ASPM solution to provide real value, it must be able to pull in data from diverse sources across development, deployment, and operations. This means your existing SAST, DAST, SCA, and other security tools can all feed into a single, unified dashboard without requiring you to abandon previous investments.

Context Correlation: ASPM acts as a holistic governance layer that centralizes findings from multiple sources, prioritizes risks based on actual business impact and exploitability, and automates workflows for efficient remediation. Instead of three different teams chasing the same vulnerability through different tools, you get one unified view that shows the real scope, impact, and relationships between security issues.

Lifecycle Coverage: ASPM focuses on managing and improving the security posture of applications throughout their entire lifecycle, from initial development through deployment, operation, and eventual retirement. Whether you’re scanning in the IDE during development, in CI/CD pipelines during builds, or in production during runtime, ASPM provides consistent visibility and correlation across all these different stages.

Risk Prioritization: Perhaps most importantly, ASPM reduces alert fatigue by intelligently filtering and prioritizing findings, highlights genuinely exploitable risks based on context and threat intelligence, and streamlines remediation workflows for both security and development teams. Instead of drowning in an undifferentiated sea of alerts, teams can focus on addressing issues that actually pose real risk to the organization.

Strategies for Building Complete Risk Understanding

So how should you approach building that elusive complete view of application risk? Here are some practical strategies that organizations have used successfully:

Start with Comprehensive Discovery: You can’t secure what you don’t know exists, and you can’t prioritize what you don’t understand. Begin by systematically cataloging all your applications, their components, dependencies, data flows, and business context. ASPM platforms can help by automatically identifying applications and their respective components, creating up-to-date and comprehensive software composition analysis (SCA) reports and software bill of materials (SBOM) documentation.

Implement Progressive Integration: Don’t try to solve everything at once or replace your entire security stack overnight. Start by integrating your highest-volume or most critical security tools into a centralized platform, focusing on the tools that generate the most actionable findings. SAST is most valuable for analyzing code you write internally, while SCA is effective for analyzing the open source software your organization leverages along with its complex dependency chains. Build integration capabilities incrementally from there.

Focus on Business Context: Not all vulnerabilities are created equal, and technical severity doesn’t always correlate with business risk. An ASPM solution should provide adequate context and metadata that helps teams understand how specific threats to applications actually affect business operations, customer data, or regulatory compliance. A critical vulnerability in an isolated development environment presents fundamentally different risks than the same technical issue in a customer-facing production system that processes sensitive data.

Automate Intelligently: ASPM should provide continuous visibility into security risks across application development, testing, and production environments, including emerging areas like AI-generated code and automated deployment pipelines. The goal is to reduce manual correlation work, eliminate routine decision-making, and let human experts focus on the complex judgments that actually require human expertise and business context.

Plan for Evolution: Your security program will continue to evolve, new threats will emerge, and your toolchain will change over time. Complete ASPM solutions should provide flexibility to integrate with both proprietary and third-party scanners, adapt to new security technologies, and scale with your organization’s growth. Build flexibility and extensibility into your approach from day one rather than locking yourself into rigid architectures.

Building Sustainable Security Operations

We’re living through a period of rapid change and increasing complexity in application security. The threats are real and growing—recent industry reports show significant increases in attackers exploiting vulnerabilities to gain initial access and cause security breaches. But the solutions and approaches for managing these challenges are also evolving rapidly.

The key insight is that we don’t need to choose between comprehensive security coverage and operational efficiency. Organizations are increasingly recognizing that they need to simplify their security operations to reduce complexity while improving overall effectiveness. A unified platform approach brings together application security, threat detection, threat intelligence, and automation capabilities for stronger, more streamlined security operations.

The future belongs to organizations that can see both the forest and the trees—that can manage individual vulnerabilities effectively while maintaining clear visibility into their overall risk posture and business impact. ASPM helps organizations corral the chaos by unifying security tasks into platforms that scale with development velocity, correlate results across different scanning tools and environments, and provide clear, actionable views of entire application ecosystems.

Getting there won’t happen overnight, and it requires sustained effort and strategic thinking. Start with understanding what applications and security tools you currently have, integrate capabilities gradually based on business priorities, prioritize security efforts based on actual business impact rather than just technical severity, and automate routine processes relentlessly to free up human experts for complex decision-making.

The goal isn’t perfection or eliminating all security risks—it’s making steady progress toward better visibility, more effective prioritization, and more efficient remediation processes. In a world where many organizations struggle with deciding what security issues to address first, having one unified view that actually helps teams make informed decisions represents significant progress.

That’s the kind of unified view worth building—and worth the effort it takes to get there.