Evolution of secure development lifecycles and maturity models in the context of hosted solutions

Organizations creating software commonly utilize software development lifecycles (SDLCs) to structure development activities. Secure development lifecycles (SDLs) integrate into SDLCs, adding security or compliance activities. They are widely used and have been published by industry leaders and in literature. These SDLs, however, were mostly designed before or while cloud services and other hosted solutions became popular. Such offerings widen the provider's responsibilities, as they not only deliver software but operate and decommission it as well. SDLs, however, do not always account for this change. Security maturity models (SMMs) help to assess SDLs and identify improvements by introducing a baseline to compare against. Multiple of these models were created after the advent of hosted solutions and are more recent than commonly referenced SDLs. Recent SMMs and SDLs may therefore support hosted solutions better than older proposals do. This paper compares a set of current and historic SDLs and SMMs in order to review their support for hosted solutions, including how support has changed over time. Security, privacy, and support for small or agile organizations are considered, as all are relevant to hosted solutions. The SDLs analyzed include Microsoft's SDL, McGraw's Touchpoints, the Cisco's SDL, and Stackpole and Oksendahl's SDL2. The SMMs reviewed are OWASP's Software Assurance Maturity Model 2 and DevSecOps Maturity Model. To assess the support for hosted solutions, the security and privacy activities foreseen in each SDLC phase are compared, before organizational compatibility, activity relevance, and efficiency are assessed. The paper further demonstrates how organizations may select and adjust a suitable proposal. The analyzed proposals are found to not sufficiently support hosted solutions: Important SDLC phases, such as solution retirement, are not always sufficiently supported. Agile practices, such as working in sprints, and small organizations are often not sufficiently considered as well. Efficiency is found to vary based on the application context. A clear improvement trend from before the proliferation of hosted solutions cannot be identified. Future work is therefore found to be required.