Software aging mirrors the way machinery degrades over time: security flaws become more likely as software matures. A fresh analysis from Veracode reveals that the initial scan of applications catches flaws in roughly one-third of projects, but as software stays in production, the likelihood of harboring at least one vulnerability climbs substantially. By the five-year mark, the proportion of apps with some flaw nears seventy percent, signaling a clear pattern: flaws accumulate if remediation is not prioritized early and consistently. The study underlines the importance of shifting remediation left in the software development lifecycle, so teams can minimize the risks that accumulate as code ages. This is not simply a matter of catching flaws once; it’s about reducing how many new flaws are introduced in the first place and preventing the drift that comes with time. In this article, we unpack the findings in depth, explore the mechanisms behind flaw accumulation, and lay out actionable steps for organizations to cut risk through early action, better tooling, and stronger governance.
Understanding the lifecycle of security flaws in software
The Veracode research provides a revealing timeline of how flaws appear and propagate as software ages in production environments. At the first independent assessment, about 32 percent of applications show defects. This initial figure, while significant, represents a baseline: a snapshot of flaws present in the codebase at the moment of the first scan. The real story, however, unfolds after deployment when the software continues to interact with evolving environments, third-party dependencies, and a broader set of users. By the time these applications have existed in production for five years, the landscape shifts dramatically: nearly 70 percent contain at least one active security flaw. This statistic is not merely a warning about the presence of bugs; it indicates a structural risk where accumulated vulnerabilities can converge, creating a compound threat that can be exploited in concert rather than in isolation.
A striking metaphor used in the report is the concept of a “honeymoon period” for application stability. After the initial checks, many apps enter a phase of relative steadiness, with almost 80 percent showing no new flaws for the first 18 months. This temporary lull creates an illusion of security and efficiency, allowing development teams to accelerate feature delivery and optimization. Yet, after this short-lived calm, the influx of new flaws begins to rise again. By the five-year point, roughly one in three newly introduced flaws appears within the software, illustrating how maintenance cycles, evolving dependencies, and delayed remediation accumulate risk. The trajectory worsens with time: by the time software reaches the ten-year horizon, there is a nine out of ten chance that the system will harbor at least one flaw. This data presents a compact but powerful message: early and ongoing attention to security is essential because the cost of aging software compounds dramatically as time passes.
Beyond the primary applications in commercial settings, the Veracode team broadened its scope to examine open-source code management on a large scale. They analyzed 30,000 open-source repositories publicly hosted on GitHub, a dataset that helps reveal how community-driven development practices influence security risk. A notable finding from this broader survey is that ten percent of these repositories had not recorded a commit for nearly six years. While this statistic does not automatically equate to a vulnerability, it signals potential stagnation, drift, or a slow pace of updates, all of which can leave projects exposed to known or newly disclosed flaws if not monitored and managed. The juxtaposition of industry-standard software in production with long-idle open-source components underscores the complexity of modern software supply chains. It underscores why teams cannot rely on a single source of truth for vulnerability management; instead, they must deploy software composition analysis and multi-source monitoring to keep pace with disclosures that occur across ecosystems and vendor advisories.
The data also highlights a critical implication for organizations relying heavily on third-party components. The report suggests adopting a software composition analysis (SCA) approach that draws on multiple sources of vulnerability data, not just the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Such a broadened perspective provides earlier warnings when vulnerabilities are disclosed and enables teams to enact safeguards more quickly—potentially before attackers can exploit exposed weaknesses. Engaging with SCA across diverse feeds helps ensure that vulnerability detection aligns with the realities of modern software supply chains, where components, libraries, and frameworks evolve rapidly and dynamically. Beyond technical tooling, the researchers emphasize the importance of organizational policy—establishing guidelines for how vulnerabilities are detected, triaged, and mitigated. Reducing third-party dependencies where possible and improving governance around dependency management are also highlighted as practical steps to lower the attack surface. All of these observations come together to form a holistic view of why security debt accumulates in aging software and how teams can decelerate or reverse that trend through disciplined practice and policy choices.
In sum, the lifecycle narrative presented by Veracode is both a warning and a call to action: flaws do not simply accumulate; they compound, particularly when remediation is deferred or fragmented across teams and tools. The data advocate for a proactive stance that blends early preventive measures with continuous monitoring, a robust SCA strategy, and governance that reinforces secure development as a core competency rather than a late-stage add-on. The implications for developers, security engineers, and organizational leadership are clear: invest in left-shifted security, align incentives to prioritize secure software from inception, and build a resilient software supply chain that can withstand the test of time. This section has laid out the empirical backbone of the issue; the following sections translate that backbone into concrete strategies and practices that teams can adopt today to counteract aging-related risk and to protect users and assets over the long term.
The case for remediation early in the software development lifecycle
The Veracode findings reinforce a fundamental principle of cybersecurity in modern software engineering: the earlier flaws are addressed, the less costly and risky they become. Early remediation in the software development lifecycle (SDLC) is not simply a favorable practice; it is a strategic imperative that shapes the trajectory of a product’s security posture over its entire lifespan. When flaws are fixed promptly—during the design, development, and initial testing stages—teams can prevent a proliferation of vulnerabilities that would otherwise accumulate through iterative changes, feature additions, and integration with external components. Early fixes reduce the likelihood of regression, prevent the entrenchment of risky patterns in the codebase, and lower the likelihood of attacker discovery during later exploitation windows.
A key takeaway from the study is the duality of efforts required to reduce flaw introduction: first, lowering the probability that new flaws are introduced, and second, decreasing the total number of vulnerabilities that slip into production over time. This dual approach requires a combination of technical controls and cultural changes within development teams. Technical safeguards include secure coding practices, automated checks, and continuous security testing that runs as a standard part of the CI/CD pipeline. Cultural changes involve making security a shared responsibility, with developers, testers, and security professionals collaborating throughout the development process rather than operating in silos. The emphasis on secure coding practices beyond mere access controls underscores a broader shift toward proactive security engineering. In practical terms, organizations should embed security requirements into user stories, design reviews, and architecture decisions from the earliest stages of product development. This aligns with modern DevSecOps philosophy, where security considerations are integrated into every phase of software delivery rather than tacked on at the end.
Eng, the chief research officer at Veracode, underscores the actionable nature of the study’s insights. He notes that the research aims to provide developers with tools they can implement immediately to lower the likelihood of introducing flaws and to minimize the number of flaws that do appear. The emphasis is on translating findings into everyday development practices that reduce vulnerability surfaces. The report highlights that, in addition to robust access controls, secure coding practices are critical for cybersecurity in 2023 and beyond. This reflects a broader trend toward embedding security thinking into software engineering disciplines—from threat modeling and secure design principles to disciplined code reviews and automated testing protocols that prioritize security outcomes. The practical implications for teams include adopting secure coding standards, enforcing code quality gates that include security checks, and integrating automated scanning that alerts developers to vulnerabilities as soon as they write or modify code. The goal is to shift the security burden away from reactive firefighting to proactive prevention that becomes a natural part of the development workflow.
Operationally, early remediation requires a combination of process discipline, measurement, and feedback loops. Organizations should establish clear policies that define when and how vulnerabilities are detected, triaged, and remediated, with explicit ownership assigned to individuals or teams. These policies should be reinforced by automation that surfaces vulnerabilities within the development environment, guiding engineers toward timely fixes and acceptable risk levels. In addition to technical controls, these policies should encourage teams to reduce dependencies on fragile or unmaintained third-party components, as such dependencies often become the source of newly introduced flaws. The overarching aim is to create a security-aware development culture that treats risk as a mutable parameter rather than a fixed outcome. By doing so, teams are more likely to retain secure code quality in the face of evolving requirements, shifting technologies, and growing user bases. This section has explored the rationale for early remediation and the behavioral and organizational changes necessary to realize its benefits. The next section examines the concept of the “honeymoon period” in greater depth and explores why the apparent stability in early years is followed by a resurgence of security flaws as software ages.
Early remediation tactics and practical steps
-
Integrate security into the earliest design decisions by requiring threat modeling at the architecture stage.
-
Enforce secure coding standards and incorporate security checks into the CI/CD pipeline so developers receive immediate feedback on potential flaws.
-
Establish clear ownership and accountability for vulnerability remediation, with defined service-level objectives for both detection and correction.
-
Automate vulnerability scanning and ensure that results feed directly into development dashboards that inform prioritization.
-
Minimize third-party dependencies where possible and implement governance mechanisms for updating or replacing components.
-
Invest in developer security training to raise awareness of which vulnerabilities are most likely to be introduced and how to avoid common pitfalls.
-
Treat debt reduction as a measurable objective, budgeting time and resources for security debt alongside feature work.
The honeymoon period, aging software, and the late-stage risk cycle
A provocative aspect of Veracode’s analysis is the observed moderation in flaw emergence during an initial stability window—the so-called honeymoon period. For roughly the first 18 months after deployment, around 80 percent of applications show no new flaws, creating a deceptive sense of security. This quiet interval lulls teams into believing their security posture is robust and largely unchanging. However, this period is followed by a notable shift: the rate of newly introduced flaws begins to climb, eventually reaching about 35 percent by the five-year mark. The trajectory illustrates a classic risk pattern in software systems: early stability does not guarantee long-term resilience. As codebases evolve, as teams change, and as dependencies are updated or replaced, a fresh wave of vulnerabilities can emerge if vigilance offsets are not maintained. The ten-year milestone represents a particularly stark warning: there is a 90 percent probability that software will harbor at least one flaw. This crescendo underscores the necessity of continuous improvement and persistent scanning that extends beyond initial release cycles.
Understanding why this late-stage acceleration occurs requires delving into several contributing factors that tend to accumulate over time. First, software that remains in production often experiences feature additions and architectural drift that introduce new interaction pathways and edge cases. Second, teams may experience personnel turnover, leading to knowledge gaps about design decisions and security considerations made earlier in the lifecycle. Third, external dependencies—ranging from libraries to cloud services—continue to evolve, and without disciplined dependency management, updated or deprecated components can introduce new vulnerabilities or leave others exposed longer than desirable. Finally, the environment in which software operates changes continually; new platforms, devices, and threat landscapes can reveal weaknesses that were previously dormant. Altogether, these dynamics explain why aging software becomes more attractive to attackers and why risk management must adapt to a longer time horizon.
The implications for security governance are clear. Organizations must implement enduring processes for vulnerability discovery, triage, and remediation that remain active across the software’s lifetime. This includes sustained investments in tooling that monitor both code changes and external dependencies, as well as the establishment of policies that require ongoing architectural and security reviews as new features are added or as the technology stack shifts. The data also invite reflection on the value and timing of refactoring efforts specifically aimed at security uplift—an action that may be expensive in the short term but can avert substantial risk in later years. In the broader context of software supply chains, aging software interacts with a web of components that may themselves age or become obsolete; thus, maintaining a forward-looking posture about updates, replacements, and modernization becomes essential to preserving resilience over time. The takeaways from this section are practical: age-aware risk management requires continuous investment, disciplined change control, and a proactive stance toward both internal code and external dependencies. The next section broadens the lens to examine the role of open-source repositories and how their governance models influence security in the broader ecosystem.
The aging curve in practical terms
-
Expect a period of apparent security stability followed by a resurgence of vulnerabilities as codebases evolve.
-
Prioritize ongoing risk assessment that spans the full lifecycle, not just initial release.
-
Invest in continuous architecture and dependency reviews to catch drift before it translates into exposure.
-
Reinforce the value of security in the developer culture so that improvements are sustained across teams and years.
-
Recognize that aging software interacts with a dynamic threat landscape; proactive adaptation is necessary.
-
Maintain visible metrics and dashboards that track both technical debt and security debt over time.
Open-source, software composition analysis, and the global dependency challenge
The Veracode report’s open-source analysis offers a revealing snapshot of how community-driven development practices intersect with security risk. The examination of 30,000 publicly hosted repositories on GitHub spotlights a critical reality: a meaningful portion of open-source projects experience long intervals without code changes. Specifically, about 10 percent of repositories had not seen a commit for almost six years. While not every stale repo carries a vulnerability, the pattern signals potential drift, outdated dependencies, and a lack of ongoing maintenance, all of which can translate into real-world security risks for downstream users who rely on these components. In modern software ecosystems, where applications are composed from a mosaic of libraries, frameworks, and services, the security health of a product is inseparable from the health of its dependencies. A long-standing stagnation period in underlying components increases the odds that vulnerability disclosures in those components will affect downstream software, sometimes with little warning.
To address this challenge, the report advocates for implementing software composition analysis (SCA) that aggregates vulnerability information from multiple sources beyond a single database. A multi-source SCA approach provides earlier and more comprehensive visibility into newly disclosed flaws, enabling teams to implement safeguards promptly. This approach helps create a resilient defense by ensuring that vulnerability management is not reliant on a single feed or data source, which could miss disclosures or delays in updates. The idea is to gain a holistic view of the software supply chain, including the latest advisories, patch cycles, and deprecation timelines for open-source components. Such a strategy requires organizational discipline: teams must harmonize SCA outputs with vulnerability management processes, establish clear governance over component lifecycle, and ensure that security teams and developers collaborate around dependency decisions.
In addition to deploying SCA tools, the report emphasizes configuring organizational policies that govern vulnerability detection and management. These policies should define who is responsible for triage, what constitutes an actionable vulnerability, and how remediation plans align with business priorities and risk tolerance. A key practice is reducing third-party dependencies where feasible, not merely to minimize risk, but to simplify the software landscape and accelerate safe updates when new vulnerabilities are disclosed. Another important dimension is the investment in automated, repeatable processes that can scale with large codebases and complex supply chains. Automation aids in consistent remediation, faster patching, and more reliable risk reporting, all of which are essential for organizations that rely heavily on open-source components. The broader implication for the industry is clear: as software grows more interconnected, security cannot be achieved by isolated teams or ad hoc checks. It requires a systemic, data-driven approach to dependency management and a culture that treats updates and patching as ongoing operational priorities rather than periodic chores.
This section underscores how the interplay between open-source governance and security tooling shapes risk across software ecosystems. It reinforces the necessity of integrating SCA into the core development workflow and of aligning policy, tooling, and culture to manage a rapidly evolving landscape of dependencies. The next section delves into practical recommendations for security teams and developers, focusing on balancing technical debt, automation, and training to build lasting resilience against aging-related risk and to accelerate secure delivery.
Practical takeaways for open-source and dependency management
-
Implement a multi-source SCA framework to maximize coverage of disclosures and updates.
-
Integrate SCA alerts into the development workflow so teams can respond during coding and testing phases.
-
Establish governance for component lifecycles, including patching cadence, deprecation plans, and replacement strategies.
-
Prioritize automated remediation workflows and risk-based prioritization to manage large dependency graphs efficiently.
-
Encourage ongoing maintenance of open-source projects and avoid prolonged stagnation that can propagate risk downstream.
-
Invest in developer education to improve understanding of how dependencies influence security across the stack.
Organizational policy, governance, and the pursuit of security debt reduction
To translate the Veracode findings into durable security outcomes, organizations must embed security into policy and governance structures. The report argues for treating technical debt and security debt as dual facets of risk that must be addressed with similar urgency and resources. Security debt—the accumulation of vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and insecure design decisions—can grow quietly, especially when teams operate under delivery pressures or when security is treated as a separate, later-stage concern. By adopting policies that require proactive vulnerability detection and management, organizations can reduce the pace at which security debt accrues, thereby lowering long-term risk. The emphasis on automation reflects the practical need to scale security practices in environments where teams deploy rapidly across multiple services, platforms, and languages. Automated testing, scanning, and remediation workflows help ensure consistency and reduce the likelihood that human error allows vulnerabilities to slip through.
Beyond automation, the report highlights the importance of developer security training. Equipping engineers with knowledge about which vulnerabilities tend to be introduced, how they manifest, and how to avoid introducing them in the first place can dramatically reduce the incidence of security debt. Training should be ongoing and aligned with real-world threat models and recent vulnerability trends. When developers understand the security implications of their design decisions, they can make choices that minimize risk at the source, in design and in code. Governance mechanisms should also promote better management of third-party dependencies, guiding teams to minimize risk by adopting safer patterns, updating libraries promptly, and using lighter-weight or more secure alternatives where possible. The goal is to fuse security into the fabric of software development, making secure outcomes a natural byproduct of everyday engineering practice rather than a separate initiative that teams undertake only before release.
This section has outlined how policy, governance, automation, and training can transform vulnerability management from a reactive discipline to a proactive and scalable capability. In the next section, we translate these principles into concrete, actionable recommendations for teams seeking to reduce security debt early and continuously, and to align security outcomes with business priorities in a world of rapid software evolution.
Concrete governance and programmatic steps
-
Create a formal security debt ledger that tracks vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and insecure patterns over time.
-
Align security debt remediation with product roadmaps so that risk reduction does not become an afterthought.
-
Invest in automation that integrates with CI/CD to detect and remediate vulnerabilities as part of normal development cycles.
-
Prioritize developer training programs that reflect the contemporary threat landscape and common code-quality pitfalls.
-
Establish clear policies for dependency management, including regular audits, patching cadences, and deprecation plans.
-
Use measurable metrics to monitor progress in reducing security debt and to demonstrate ROI to leadership.
-
Foster a culture of shared responsibility for security across engineering, product management, and security teams.
Practical recommendations for teams: turning insights into action
The Veracode study offers a roadmap for teams that want to curb the growth of security flaws as software ages. A central recommendation is to tackle technical debt and security debt as early as possible, ideally during initial development cycles and reinforced throughout maintenance and feature updates. The approach requires balancing rapid delivery with prudent risk management, ensuring that speed does not come at the expense of security. Teams should prioritize automation and developer security training to equip engineers with the skills and tools necessary to identify, understand, and mitigate vulnerabilities before they become entrenched in the codebase. The aim is to minimize the intervals between vulnerability discovery and remediation, and to decrease the likelihood that new vulnerabilities are introduced in future changes.
A practical way to implement these recommendations is to embed security into the continuous delivery pipeline. This includes integrating secure coding standards into code reviews, adding security-specific test cases to automated test suites, and ensuring that any anomaly in the system triggers immediate inspection and remediation. Collaboration between security professionals and developers should be normal, not exceptional, with shared dashboards and collaborative workflows that keep risk visible to all stakeholders. Reducing third-party dependencies where possible and maintaining a disciplined approach to dependency lifecycles is another actionable step. This helps keep the software supply chain lean, easier to patch, and less prone to cascading failures when a vulnerability is disclosed. The report also implies a broader, strategic shift: organizations should cultivate security as an ongoing capability rather than a periodic project. This includes regular training updates to reflect evolving threats, ongoing investments in tooling, and governance processes that scale with the product portfolio.
For teams looking to implement the insights immediately, here are practical steps to begin transforming security outcomes:
-
Start with a security health check of your most critical applications, measuring the rate of new flaws introduced in recent development cycles.
-
Integrate secure coding practice into daily development tasks, with automated checks that respond in real time to security concerns.
-
Establish a vulnerability detection and remediation policy with explicit ownership, timelines, and escalation paths.
-
Deploy a multi-source SCA strategy to monitor dependencies and surface disclosures promptly.
-
Create a maintenance schedule that prioritizes updating or replacing dangerous dependencies and deprecating stale components.
-
Invest in ongoing security training for developers, focusing on the most likely vulnerability categories and remediation techniques.
-
Build dashboards that quantify security debt and progress in reducing it, linking these indicators to business outcomes like risk reduction and system resilience.
The next section brings together the practical implications for developers, security professionals, and organizational leadership, emphasizing how to align day-to-day actions with the broader goal of secure, sustainable software delivery.
How teams can operationalize the findings
-
Embed security into the design and planning stages rather than adding it post hoc.
-
Use automation to maintain consistent security checks across the development lifecycle.
-
Prioritize early remediation to minimize the growth of vulnerability debt over time.
-
Expand the use of SCA to cover all critical supply chain components, not just a subset of libraries.
-
Implement governance that ensures timely patching, dependency management, and risk-based decision-making.
-
Invest in training that empowers developers to recognize and fix common vulnerability patterns during coding.
-
Track and report on risk metrics that matter to the business, including time-to-remediate, number of active flaws, and dependency health.
Conclusion
The Veracode study paints a compelling portrait of how security flaws accumulate as software ages and how early, disciplined remediation can dramatically alter that trajectory. The data show that a substantial share of flaws emerge after years in production, underscoring the importance of left-shifted security practices, continuous monitoring, and proactive vulnerability management. What starts as a relatively manageable set of issues at first scan evolves into a broader risk landscape as software ages, driven by architectural drift, dependency evolution, and environmental changes. The findings emphasize that secure coding, automation, and governance are not optional add-ons but essential pillars of durable software security.
For organizations, the path forward is clear: embed security into the core of development processes, adopt comprehensive SCA that spans multiple data sources, and treat vulnerability remediation as a continuous operational discipline rather than a periodic project. By building a culture that prioritizes security debt reduction, and by arming development teams with the right tools and training, companies can reduce the velocity of flaw accumulation, shorten remediation cycles, and achieve more resilient software in the long run. The practical steps outlined in this article—ranging from early design decisions and automated testing to robust governance and ongoing developer education—offer a concrete blueprint for turning Veracode’s insights into measurable improvements. In a landscape where software components and threat vectors evolve rapidly, sustained investment in secure development practices is the most reliable defense against the aging of security risk.