Every vulnerability was written by a human.
So why is all your security downstream of that moment?
Think about how most security budgets are actually spent.
- Scanners that analyse code after it's written.
- Pentests that find vulnerabilities after they've shipped.
- WAFs that intercept attacks after the code is already live.
All of it operates after the damage is done.
And all of it creates a dynamic where the security team is permanently chasing the engineering team.
Poisoning the relationship with developers.
Slowing deployments.
And doing it all over again next sprint...
And the tools that were supposed to help?
One took six weeks to onboard. Another fires 170 alerts a day.
Your team spends their mornings closing false positives instead of doing real security work.
And with AI accelerating the rate of code production, your Appsec team cannot keep up.
Not only does AI produce more code, but it produces more logical vulnerabilities.
The type that SAST doesn't detect, and thus requires manual review.
Your AppSec team is stretched thin. Reactive by necessity, never proactive by design.
So, you might be following one of two horrible strategies right now:
- You either become the bottleneck and slow down engineering.
- Or you relax your security review and let logical flaws slip through into production.
And through all of it, the moment that actually creates the vulnerability — a developer writing a flawed line of code — receives almost no attention at all.
Your developers are a liability. Devsecurely turns them into your first line of defense.
Fixing a vulnerability before it ships costs 40× less than fixing it in production.
Source: NIST - Cost of Software Security Defects
Hands-On Exploitation Platform
Personalized
Program
Your developers choose the programming language and the framework they use daily.
Vulnerable
Playground
A vulnerable application with the chosen framework is deployed just for the developer.
Real-World
Risks
They learn about real world vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities we saw regularly during penetration tests.
Hands-On
Hacking
They exploit these vulnerabilities like a real hacker would, so that they understand the risks.
Security
Solutions
They learn how to fix these vulnerabilities, and implement the fix in the source code.
Continuous
Security
Their fix is deployed on the server, and their application becomes a little more secure each time.
Your Compliance Audit Trail, Built In
From day one, you have full visibility into your team's training, and a complete audit trail ready to produce at any moment. No chasing. No spreadsheets. No coordination overhead.
Invite your entire team in one click
Import your developer list and send invitations in a single action. Each developer self-onboards, chooses their stack, and gets a private vulnerable application deployed automatically.
A complete audit trail in one click
Every training action is timestamped and logged. Before an audit, during a regulatory review, when an enterprise client asks for proof, you produce a complete, signed PDF record in one click. Who trained, when, what they fixed.

Your Compliance File, Completed for You

Most training programs hand you a completion certificate and leave you to figure out the rest. Devsecurely goes further.
After the training, we compile the full documentation package your auditors actually need:
- Training scope document: a formal description of the program your team completed, the OWASP Top 10 vulnerability classes covered, and the methodology used
- Individual completion certificates: one per developer, timestamped, naming the specific training completed and the stack trained on
- Team completion summary: an aggregated report showing which developers completed training, when, and their verification scores
- Vulnerability coverage map: a document showing which OWASP categories were covered and how each was verified by the platform
- Auditor-ready formatting: the entire pack is structured to satisfy the documentation requirements of PCI-DSS, SOC 2, ISO 27001, and GDPR out of the box
A Developer's Blueprint to Workstation Security
A hardened application deployed from a compromised workstation is still a compromised application.

Securing a developer's machine isn't the same as securing a standard office laptop.
Developers have specific needs that generic IT security policies don't account for:
- Elevated permissions to run local servers and containers;
- Specialised tools like package managers, debuggers, and proxies;
- Direct access to production credentials, API keys, and SSH access to infrastructure.
Lock down those tools the wrong way and you don't get a secure developer. You get a developer who can't work.
This guide is written specifically for developer workstations. It shows how to harden the attack surface that generic IT policies ignore, without removing the permissions or tools your developers actually need to do their job.
Before/After Security Skills Assessment

A scenario-based assessment administered before and after the program, producing a measurable skills score per developer.
Quantifiable proof that the training worked. Available to early clients at no additional cost.
Who Built This

Imed Bounab
- ✓8+ Years in Penetration Testing
- ✓Advised CAC 40 Security Teams
- ✓Trained 40+ Development Teams
What I found, consistently, across hundreds of real application audits:
The difference between developers who write vulnerable code and those who write secure code isn't talent.
It's a way of thinking.
Developers who wrote secure code thought differently.
And that way of thinking can be taught.
That's what Devsecurely is built on.
And it's why I know this training works.
Not because I studied security from the outside.
But because I was the developer who didn't know what he didn't know, until it was too late.
Reasons Not To Subscribe
As attractive as this offer is, our marketing experts tell us that only about 20% percent of people visiting this page will initiate contact with us.
Although that's okay with us from a business standpoint, it still bothers me personally.
You see, I know how much the users of our program benefit from it.
I read their letters; I talk to them on the phone; I see them personally when I visit them;
And each year, they tell me that "this program got our developers to care about security, and to collaborate more closely with the security team".
Because of this, I just hate the thought of someone not getting our program due to some error or omission in our explanation.
That's why I held a special brainstorming session with a group of our people just to try and figure out why you might say "no" to our training program.
After several hours, our group could think of only five possible reasons:
That is exactly why the program starts with exploitation, not theory.
Developers see the vulnerability work, fix it themselves, and verify the result. It feels like engineering work, not mandatory compliance training.








