Automated security testing in DevSecOps pipelines: Integrating AI-based

vulnerability discovery and compliance validation

Tim Abdiukov *

NTS Netzwerk Telekom Service AG.

World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 22(01), 2083-2093

Publication history: Received on 28 February 2024; revised on 27 April 2024; accepted on 29 April 2024

Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.22.1.1083

Abstract
Recently, the issue of cybersecurity threats has become significantly more complex and frequent, making classical
approaches to security inadequate for safeguarding modern and agile software environments. This paper explores the
role of automated security testing in DevSecOps pipelines, focusing on how artificial intelligence (AI) can be leveraged
to identify vulnerabilities and verify compliance. It describes the increasing necessity of automation due to the
constraints of manual testing, the issue of scalability with established tools, and the growth of the regulatory
environment. The significant elements, such as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Dynamic Application Security
Testing (DAST), and Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST), are evaluated, as well as automatic compliance
processes in line with GDPR, HIPAA, OWASP, and NIST requirements. The paper raises the idea that AI-based solutions
can not only increase the quality of threat intelligence and help avoid false positives but also facilitate proactive security.
Best practices in implementation, as well as challenges, including tool accuracy and integration friction, ethical issues,
and skill deficiencies, are also mentioned. The paper concludes with a discussion of future trends in AI-enhanced
DevSecOps, explainable security, policy-as-code, decentralized compliance models, and intelligent orchestration
platforms.

Keywords: DevSecOps; Automated Security Testing; AI-based Vulnerability Discovery; Compliance Validation; Static
Analysis (SAST); Dynamic Analysis (DAST); Interactive Testing (IAST)

1. Introduction
Software engineering has evolved from monolithic releases to fast, agile releases, which have transformed the concept
of incorporating security into the software development life cycle. The customary security practices, which in most
cases consisted of independent test stages at the late stages of the cycle, no longer suffice in contemporary software
pipelines. It is this security responsiveness lag that has given rise to DevSecOps, a practice and body of knowledge that
integrates security practices into DevOps processes without interruption. DevSecOps, as Hsu (2019) observes,
represents a shift-left strategy, with security checks incorporated further into the development life cycle and the
Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipeline.

1.1. Definition of DevSecOps

DevSecOps is a combination of Development, Security, and Operations that represents a way of thinking where security
is a shared responsibility throughout the entire IT life cycle (Jammeh, 2020). DevSecOps encourages the company to
establish a collaborative partnership between security teams and other teams through a shared security
implementation method, rather than relying on security teams as gatekeepers after deployment, as in traditional models
(Putra and Kabetta, 2022). It focuses on automated tests, secure code development, and continuous monitoring, and
security becomes a real-time issue instead of a post-implementation one.

Corresponding author: Tim Abdiukov.
Copyright © 2024 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0.
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 22(01), 2083-2093

Figure 1 Dev/Ops/Sec

1.2. Importance of Security in the Software Development Lifecycle

Inadequate security of modern digital infrastructures can have severe consequences, including data loss, service
disruptions, and regulatory fines (Bitra and Achanta, 2021). Due to the emergence of cloud-native applications and
microservices, the attack surface has undergone a tremendous expansion. In this era of rapid development and complex
deployments, it is no longer feasible to rely on manual methods to identify and address vulnerabilities. Rajapaksha et
al. (2023) explain that by applying security to every stage of development, one can decrease expenses on the fix of bugs
that turned out to be too late additionally to the fact that the security has to be implemented according to the more and
more strict rules of the law regarding data security like GDPR or HIPAA (Amaral et al., 2021).

1.3. Overview of Automated Security Testing

Automated security testing is a complex set of tools and activities that analyze code, configurations, and system behavior
to identify security issues without human intervention (Marandi, Bertia, and Silas, 2023). It combines Static Application
Security Testing (SAST), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), and Interactive Application Security Testing
(IAST), all of which provide diverse contexts diagrammatically for code defects and runtime patterns. Recently, testing
tools based on AI have emerged, which can learn the patterns of threats and forecast vulnerabilities in code with greater
precision (Thantharate and Anurag, 2023). Such tools are being integrated into CI/CD pipelines, enabling real-time
results to be sent back to developers and encouraging a secure-by-design mindset throughout the team (Abiola and
Olufemi, 2023). Automation is not only a question of speed; it is also about the possibility of scalability, reproducibility,
and consistency of the processes involved in security assessments. Companies that pursue DevSecOps and utilize
automated tests are likely to experience fewer security incidents, shorter remediation times, and improved audit
readiness (Jones, 2023).

2. The Need for Automated Security Testing

Due to the increasing use of digital services and cloud-native applications by organizations, the threat surface has
become more complex and larger in scope. The longstanding practice of manual security testing, which might have been
applied at the latter stages of the software development lifecycle, has not been able to handle the magnitude, velocity,
and sophistication of emerging cyber threats. This has necessitated a strong need for the adoption of automated security
testing in the DevSecOps model to achieve continuous security and a quick response to security issues.

2.1. Rising Cybersecurity Threats

The threats of cyberattacks are more active, specific, and rampant today than in the past. Whether it is advanced
persistent threats (APTs) or attacks on a software supply chain, attackers have often employed a lack of visibility and a
slow security strategy (Samtani et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2023). These threats are further enhanced in agile development,
where code changes are common and the deployment cycle is reduced. Microservices, APIs, and containerization
technologies have experienced tremendous growth, contributing to an exponential increase in the attack surface.

2084
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 22(01), 2083-2093

According to Zhou et al. (2022), the rate of threat development has accelerated faster than manual observability, thus
requiring more scalable and intelligent measures, such as automated threat intelligence search and behavioral analytics.

2.2. Limitations of Manual Testing

Although manual testing can be utilised in some scenarios, it has certain intrinsic limitations in a contemporary software
environment. To begin with, it does not achieve the speed required to keep up with the continuous integration speed of
CI/CD pipelines (Putra and Kabetta, 2022). Second, it is prone to human mistakes and unpredictability, particularly in
settings where the iterations are common (Jammeh, 2020). Additionally, manual tests are not easily and effectively
scalable to test complex dependency graphs, third-party integrations, or zero-day vulnerabilities. Manual compliance
checks, as emphasized by Bitra and Achanta (2021), are also unable to keep pace with the rapidly changing regulatory
landscape, thereby creating legal and reputational risks. Abiola and Olufemi (2023) also remind us that security testing
can become a bottleneck, preventing prompt releases and weak deployments without automation.

Figure 2 Manual Testing

2.3. Benefits of Automation in Security Testing

Automated security testing presents several benefits compared to manual security testing. The first benefit is that it
enables constant scanning of vulnerabilities at any point in the software lifecycle, allowing for real-time feedback and
detection (Thantharate and Anurag, 2023). Second, automated testing is standardized and reproducible, which makes
it less prone to variances and more audit-friendly (Hsu, 2019). Third, automated tools can quickly scan large codebases
and identify both known vulnerabilities and those that emerge over time, thanks to the help of AI (Rajapaksha et al.,
2023; Ricol, 2022).

Additionally, compliance checkers enable the validation of compliance with standards such as OWASP, NIST, GDPR, and
HIPAA without compromising development speed (Amaral et al., 2021; Areo, 2021). These tools can also adapt to new
compliance regulations and shifts in regulatory language, thereby enhancing organizational resilience with the aid of
AI-powered automation (Mohammed, 2021). According to the findings presented by Marandi, Bertia, and Silas (2023),
the use of such automated tools in DevSecOps pipelines yields quantifiable improvements in security posture, shorter
release cycles, and enhanced cross-functional collaboration. Overall, automated testing is truly crucial in today's
software development, not only because it proves to be a valuable expedient for meeting speed, scalability, and
consistency requirements, but also due to the absolute need for security in a rapidly evolving world.

2085
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 22(01), 2083-2093

Figure 3 Automated testing

3. Key Components of Automated Security Testing

The key to automated security testing in DevSecOps settings lies in incorporating specialized tools and processes that
apply to both vulnerability identification and compliance assessment. These tools will form the foundation of a secure
software pipeline, enabling the identification of threats as early as possible, maintaining compliance with regulations,
and facilitating continuous assurance. Within the scope of integrated protection, organizations must ensure they have
interdependent layers of protection, utilizing static, dynamic, and interactive testing methods, as well as compliance-
oriented tools.

3.1. Vulnerability Discovery Tools

Automated security testing is all about identifying and reacting to vulnerabilities at the code and system levels within a
short timeframe. A variety of tools are deployed to this end, each with its specific capabilities and applications.

3.1.1. Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

Figure 4 SAST

The SAST tools scan source code, bytecode, or even binaries without running the application. They provide the best
results when it comes to detecting coding flaws, insecure functions, and potential logic errors at the earliest stages of

2086
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 22(01), 2083-2093

development. As put forward by Putra and Kabetta (2022) and Hsu (2019), the implementation of SAST into the CI/CD
pipeline enables developers to detect vulnerabilities in their code during development, making it quicker and more cost-
efficient to fix vulnerabilities. These types of tools usually have a rule-based engine or AI-boosted analyzer to enhance
the levels of detection and false positives (Rajapaksha et al., 2023).

3.1.2. Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

The way DAST tools work is by running the application and observing its execution patterns during execution, although
in a staging or QA environment, rather than in production. They can be proficient at identifying vulnerabilities, such as
SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and authentication problems, that may not have been apparent through static
analysis. The paper by Marandi, Bertia, and Silas (2023) demonstrates the importance of incorporating both DAST and
SAST to achieve comprehensive coverage, as runtime problems can often occur when an external input interacts with
the app.

Figure 5 Benefits of DAST testing for Application Security

3.1.3. Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST)

IAST combines these advantages by noticing application behavior during testing and still conserving context on the
actual code. IAST, according to Jammeh (2020), offers sharper and more operational results since it analyzes data
streams and code tracks in real-time. This minimizes the occurrence of false alarms and also increases the efficiency of
developers. Newer applications utilize IAST tools augmented with AI, which can trace vulnerabilities within numerous
services and dependencies in a more intelligent manner (Thantharate and Anurag, 2023).

3.2. Compliance Validation Tools

Security testing is not merely a technical process, but also involves enforcing laws, best practices, and accepted
standards to which software systems must comply. This is achieved through the automation of compliance validation
systems, which streamline checks and balances, enabling ongoing compliance with regulatory and industry mandates.

3.2.1. Regulatory Requirements (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA)

Automating the process of complying with regulations like GDPR and HIPAA in highly governed industries like finance
and healthcare is very important. According to Areo (2021) and Amaral et al. (2021), AI-based tools can be utilized to
verify compliance with data protection principles, consent mechanisms, and data retention policies within systems. For
example, Amaral (2022) describes the use of AI-based automation for privacy policy completeness checks. In contrast,
Chhetri et al. (2022) demonstrate that informed consent can be validated using semantically modeled tools that adhere
to the requirements set out in the GDPR. These automated checks save audit preparation time and help achieve
compliance, which keeps pace with changes in regulations.

2087
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 22(01), 2083-2093

3.2.2. Industry Standards (e.g., OWASP, NIST)

Regulations like OWASP Top Ten and NIST 800-53 are examples of security standards that have been defined as a way
to expose known risks and address them. Bitra and Achanta (2021) propose artifact models that incorporate these
standards into the DevSecOps cycles and ensure uniform assessment of deployment. Compliance validation software
can automatically identify gaps by these standards, generate remediation reports, and track progress over time. Multi-
modal tools utilizing machine learning can also better understand the causes of context-specific risks and prioritize
violations based on their potential effects (Mohammed, 2021; Ricol, 2022). Linked with automated compliance,
vulnerability scanning tools allow a DevSecOps pipeline to offer end-to-end protection at any given point in time. These
elements serve as the building blocks for the next chapters, which will focus on integrating AI, threat modeling, and risk
reduction strategies.

4. Integrating AI in Vulnerability Discovery

Software systems are becoming increasingly complex, and as a result, traditional rule-based security tools are struggling
to keep pace with the new security threats. To address this issue, organizations have adopted the use of artificial
intelligence (AI) to, among other things, detect vulnerabilities, identify threats, and enhance the accuracy of security
tests. Vulnerability discovery is one area of AI use that is particularly adept at automating discovery practices and also
enables predictive security verification; therefore, it is a fundamental aspect of current DevSecOps pipelines.

4.1. Role of AI in Identifying Vulnerabilities

Artificial intelligence has a radicalizing impact on the way vulnerabilities are detected, examined, and prioritized.
Evaluating historical data and known patterns of threats, AI-based tools can identify anomalies, draw conclusions about
risk based on subtle indicators in the code, and minimize human involvement in routine security procedures.

4.1.1. Machine Learning Algorithms

Machine learning (ML) algorithms can be trained with extensive datasets of known vulnerabilities to identify undesired
patterns that are indicative of insecure code, configuration errors, or behavior anomalies. Such models, as Rajapaksha
et al. (2023) elaborate, can be used to identify susceptible code areas through probabilistic-aided static analysis. At the
same time, Behfar (2023) explains how supervised learning algorithms are integrated into AI security tools on an
enterprise-wide scale to analyze commit histories, identify coding patterns associated with vulnerabilities, and detect
potential risks in real-time. These systems are also continually improved over time, as they are constantly fed new
vulnerability information and undergo feedback loops. Advanced scanning tools also utilize ML to match problems at
different layers of an application: at the source code, third-party libraries, APIs, and cloud infrastructure. Thantharate
and Anurag (2023) introduce GeneticSecOps, a system based on heuristics that adapts the test cases to be scanned and
the types of tests to be run as genetic algorithms evolve to maximize the efficiency of security scanning and exploit the
capability to find hitherto unknown weaknesses in security.

4.1.2. Natural Language Processing for Threat Intelligence

Natural Language Processing (NLP) has provided a new door in threat intelligence mining as it can be used to
automatically analyze unstructured languages like the CVE reports, hacker forums, and activity in the dark web. Ricol
(2022) states that NLP-powered tools can provide indicators of compromise, attack strategies, and vulnerabilities to
information enrichment databases, enriching them with context-based knowledge. Sun et al. (2023) present a survey of
the use of NLP to actively extract intelligence from open-source feeds, security advisories, and vulnerability disclosures,
enabling tools to highlight new threats before they reach systems. NLP is also helpful in deduplicating vulnerability
reports, thereby triaging them with higher accuracy and reducing noise for security teams. Gulraiz (n.d.) focuses on
methods of semantic analysis that correlate similar results across various security tools, thereby helping to reduce alert
fatigue.

4.2. Case Studies/Examples of AI in Action

The effectiveness of AI is growing as real-life instances of its implementation in vulnerability detection become more
prevalent. For example, GeneticSecOps by Thantharate and Anurag (2023) demonstrates the effectiveness of heuristic
learning models compared to the use of static scanners in dynamic environments. Rajapaksha et al. (2023) introduce
an AI-Back propagator to the static analysis tool, in which they identified high-to-moderate severity vulnerabilities that
exclusively commercial SAST tools cannot detect. Meanwhile, Amaral et al. (2021) outline the use of AI in privacy policy
analysis and the identification of compliance issues that would be difficult for rule-based engines to identify. Behfar

2088
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 22(01), 2083-2093

(2023) writes about a case where AI-driven vulnerability management software was successfully implemented,
reducing the mean time to detect (MTTD) and the mean time to remediate (MTTR) security incidents in an enterprise.

4.3. Advantages of AI-Driven Vulnerability Discovery

There are considerable benefits associated with introducing vulnerability discovery that involves the use of AI, as
opposed to conventional security testing toolkits. To begin with, AI enhances detection precision by reducing misleading
positives and continually optimizes detection models (ORicol, 2022). Second, it increases scalability because it allows
running constant analysis of millions of lines of code and large infrastructure. Third, it facilitates adaptive security by
reacting in close to real-time to changing threat vectors, which are determined with the help of threat intelligence
mining (Sun et al., 2023). In addition, AI relieves security teams of workloads because they no longer have to manually
carry out repetitive duties, with AI taking on alternative roles such as log correlation, alert triage, and code scanning.
This enables humans to concentrate on op level analysis and strategic decisions. According to Putra and Kabetta (2022),
DevSecOps teams can maintain the pace of DevOps while preserving security with the addition of AI. Essentially, AI
shifts the discovery of vulnerabilities from a reactive mode into a proactive, intelligent system that anticipates threats
and then enhances software resilience independently.

5. Enhancing Compliance Validation with AI

In such highly regulated industries, software development should not only be safe but also adhere to the strict, complex,
and constantly evolving regulations. To ensure compliance with laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as well as standards like WASP and NIST,
thorough documentation, testing, and validation are necessary. Historically, this procedure has been error-prone and
labor-intensive; however, the application of AI in compliance validation is changing the way companies fulfill these
requirements. AI-powered tools provide continuous compliance in real-time, policy verification, and regulatory
flexibility, making them essential elements of the contemporary DevSecOps continuum.

5.1. Automating Compliance Checks

The application behavior and data handling process ensure that compliance checks are conducted manually through
documentation, which may exceed regulatory requirements. This approach is time-consuming and can delay releases,
and may also be vulnerable to human error. This is overcome through AI automation, which enables constant, rule-
driven validation, such as against compliance checklists. Another solution offered by Amaral et al. (2021) is based on an
automation framework powered by AI to verify the comprehensiveness of privacy policies and identify gaps in GDPR
compliance, marking violations based on textual materials. Similarly, Chhetri et al. (2022) describe a semantic model-
based tool that automates the verification of informed consent by GDPR requirements. The tool relies on the use of
ontologies and reasoning engines to ensure that data gathering and user interactions are conducted by the posted
privacy policies. Automation of these validations simplifies compliance throughout the development cycle as opposed
to at the end of the cycle. Furthermore, Areo (2021) illustrates how medical institutions can utilize automated
compliance to monitor the flow of information and control access to information by HIPAA requirements. Such tools not
only minimize the amount of manual work done but also help to leave an audit trail, which is useful during external
inspections and as part of the legal review.

5.2. Continuous Monitoring and Reporting

The ability of AI to facilitate real-time monitoring significantly contributes to ensuring compliance. In contrast to the
static nature of compliance checks, AI-based systems can continuously track an application's behavior, network usage,
and user interaction. Mohammed (2021) emphasizes that AI algorithms are used to monitor abnormalities in system
activity that can indicate a violation of compliance, including data leakage, unauthorized access by unauthorized parties,
and undecrypted sensitive information. When used in conjunction with automated reporting, these systems can inform
compliance officers and DevSecOps teams in real-time when a rule is breached. This will minimize the time it takes to
detect a problem and remediate it, leading to a proactive compliance posture. Other sophisticated applications
automatically write audit records, which match system behavior against regulatory compliance and provide examples
of actual compliance. The systems can be incorporated into risk management systems in enterprise environments by
measuring the impact of non-compliance and proposing mitigation courses of action. Bitra and Achanta (2021) also
revealed that with this kind of intelligence, organizations can now prioritize compliance activities based on the exposure
to the law and operational risk.

2089
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 22(01), 2083-2093

5.3. AI's Role in Adapting to Changing Regulations

Among the most significant regulatory compliance issues are the periodic changes in standards and legal requirements.
Natural language processing (NLP) and knowledge representation are functions of AI that are especially well-suited to
address this issue. Andrea Tang (2019) poses the question regarding the potential AI training systems' capacity to
interpret evolving regulatory texts and update their internal compliance rules as such interpretations change, thus
remaining relevant without requiring human intervention to reprogram them. For example, in Amaral et al. (2021), the
authors explain that their system integrates a machine-readable interpretation of GDPR articles, enabling it to evaluate
new privacy functionality automatically. All adaptations are based on AI, reducing downtime and compliance lag to
ensure that the software remains compliant and changes in external requirements do not break it.

Additionally, Ullah et al. (2013) provide a framework for automated cloud compliance, which continuously evolves
according to changes in established standards, dynamically adding new rule sets to its testing and reporting logic. This
is particularly necessary in cloud-native and SaaS systems, where the deployment architecture and data jurisdiction
tend to change frequently and are often highly volatile and complex. Briefly, in addition to the current adherence, AI
offers the versatility that regulatory resilience requires, enabling organizations to remain compliant in a rapidly
changing environment of laws and standards.

6. Best Practices for Implementing Automated Security Testing in devsecops

To successfully adopt automated security testing in DevSecOps, it is not enough to choose the proper toolset; it is also
necessary to build a thoughtful integration plan, invest in human resources, and foster a culture of continuous
improvement and collaboration. Security evolves into a collective responsibility between the development and
operations teams; organizations must embrace best practices to ensure that automation is realized to its full potential
without introducing friction or risks. According to recent research and examples of implementation, the following
practices are necessary to achieve efficient DevSecOps security automation.

6.1. Integrating Tools Seamlessly within CI/CD Pipelines

Security testing tools are also intended to be thoroughly integrated into the CI/CD pipeline, which enables constant and
automated scanning at every step of software delivery to prevent bottlenecks or tool fragmentation. Marandi, Bertia,
and Silas (2023) also emphasize that automation of the process must start at the point when code is committed to the
version control and the SAST tools analyze the code, identifying the known defects. When staging or deploying, it is best
that DAST and IAST tools run in parallel to confirm runtime conduct and input vetting. According to Jammeh (2020),
integration points must be well-defined and built to provide developers with real-time feedback, ensuring that when a
problem occurs within a system, it can be flagged and fixed in a short period. These tools must be integrated with
ticketing systems (e.g., Jira), version control systems (e.g., Git), and container registries (e.g., Docker Hub), creating an
integrated system of security. According to Thantharate and Anurag (2023), it is also advisable to utilize AI-enhanced
orchestration to prioritize vulnerabilities that pose a significant risk in the pipeline and automate remediation scripts
whenever possible.

6.2. Training and Upskilling Teams on New Technologies

The implementation of automated security testing tools without training teams to effectively utilize them often leads to
a lack of usage or resistance. According to Lorona (2023), who writes about Agile DevSecOps in the DoD, learning is the
key to resolving operational friction. Staff who must deal with vulnerability reports, those capable of setting up security
tuning, and design engineers who focus on secure coding require training. Instead, security teams will need to be trained
to set up and utilize automated tools, as well as evaluate the insights generated by artificial intelligence. Abiola and
Olufemi (2023) promote cross-functional workshops and role-based learning places to enhance confidence and
competence across departments. According to Rajapaksha et al. (2023), the implementation of explainable AI measures,
i.e., model interpretability and contextual annotations, enables developers to understand why a particular problem was
reported, thereby increasing the trust in automated tools. Such a human-AI collaboration increases adoption and
accelerates remediation cycles.

6.3. Regularly Updating and Maintaining Security Tools

Automated tools can be as useful as update cycles and configuration hygiene. The lack of regular updates can mean
either that scanning tools will fail to detect a new threat as it arises, or that it will show a false positive because the rules
are too old to recognize an updated form of it. Bitra and Achanta (2021) remind us that updates to the tools should be
tied to new vulnerability reports, industry regulations, and compliance models in use. Periodic updates are required for

2090
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 22(01), 2083-2093

security plugins, vulnerability databases, and machine learning models. Static vulnerability list-based tools should also
be integrated with real-time threat intelligence feed tools, as described by Sun et al. (2023).

Additionally, according to Thantharate and Anurag (2023), it is advisable to periodically reevaluate AI models to
mitigate bias, drift, and/or misclassification as the application under consideration evolves. Furthermore, handling of
tools should extend beyond simply taking care of the tool to include monitoring its performance, i.e., checking that time
scan, system drain, and completeness of detection are within acceptable limits. The combination of telemetry and any
feedback loop allows security leads to modify a scanning approach and focus on high-risk locations.

7. Challenges and Considerations

The benefits of automated security testing in DevSecOps pipelines vary and have significant value; however, this trend
is not without its issues. Technically, tools such as SAST and DAST can be associated with false positives, incomplete
structure coverage, and inconvenience in accommodating shifting application architectural issues, which tend to cause
developer exhaustion and inefficiency. Although the goal of AI-enhanced technologies is to increase precision, they can
also cause additional problems, including model bias, low levels of generalizability, and explainability, which can
degrade user trust. The incorporation of these tools into legacy or hybrid environments also makes the situation more
challenging because they are incompatible with older systems and do not support containers well enough, or have a
fragmented infrastructure. Therefore, it is challenging to streamline them and operationalize the policy.

In addition to the technical issues they pose, there are major privacy, compliance, and organizational concerns.
Technologies that handle sensitive data must comply with frameworks such as GDPR and HIPAA; however, opaque,
black-box models struggle to address audit and accountability requirements. Another area of ethical concern is fairness,
bias, and transparency in automated decisions. One of the biggest barriers is organizational resistance, which can cause
development teams to view security tools as an obstacle and may prevent security teams from receiving proper training
on how to use the tools effectively. This gap cannot be closed without cross-functional collaboration, upskilling, and a
culture shift, where everyone shares the same responsibility. Avoiding such obstacles is one key to unlocking the full
potential of automated and AI-based security testing in today's software pipelines.

8. Future Directions and Emerging Trends

With DevSecOps still in its formative years, the path to the future of automated security testing is now being outlined
by the combination of the latest technologies and active approaches to address present-day shortcomings and
strengthen systems. Recent developments include the integration of context-aware artificial intelligence and
Explainable AI (XAI) to enhance detection accuracy and build trust by providing a high level of transparent and
interpretable insight. A new breed of hybrid models, which combine static and runtime analysis, is becoming
increasingly popular, especially in the area of analyzing complex vulnerabilities, such as those of zero-day and supply
chain varieties. At the same time, the development of the move toward the so-called Shift-Left 2.0 aims to facilitate the
integration of AI-based threat modeling and AI-based compliance checks earlier in the lifecycle, allowing threats to be
addressed before code is written. Security-as-Code (SaC) and Policy-as-Code (PaC) also promise to transform
governance, as versioned, executable policies become part of the CI/CD process, and can be dynamically detailed
through the ability to refer to executable policies even before they are even fully specified, and enforcement can be
adaptive through the use of systems such as Open Policy Agent. Federated learning and synthetic data are types of
privacy-preserving testing models that mitigate challenges related to data protection and contribute to collaborative
threat intelligence. In the future, intelligent orchestration platforms will utilize observability data and AI to perform
autonomous remediation workflows and provide real-time security posture analysis.. Experimental initiatives, such as
Security Chaos Engineering, aim to test pipeline resilience in realistic conditions during simulated attacks. In sum, these
innovations will indicate the future of automated security in DevSecOps as being smarter, more intelligent, proactive,
and adaptive, with a focus on being regulation-compliant by design.

9. Conclusion
The concept of automated security testing is now at the heart of the DevSecOps paradigm, which helps provide scalable
and consistent identification of vulnerabilities at early stages, delivered by tools such as SAST, DAST, and IAST, fully
integrated into the CI/CD pipeline. Artificial intelligence contributes powerful enhancements to the ability by allowing
for the intelligent identification of threats, changing vulnerability prioritization, and adapting to new regulatory
requirements in real-time. Although it is advantageous, implementation has troublesome challenges, including false
positives, non-transparency in AI decision-making, incompatibility with legacy systems, and team resistance to non-

2091
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 22(01), 2083-2093

expert automation. To overcome such challenges, it is necessary not only to understand but also to undergo training
and move towards explainable, privacy-aware AI models. As data threats become more advanced and compliance
regulations become stricter, the future of secure software delivery is linked to the smooth interaction of intelligent
automation, proactive threat modeling, and continuous compliance establishment, which aligns organizations with an
increased resiliency threshold in an increasingly complex and challenging environment to manage.

References
[1] Hsu, T. H. C. (2019). Practical security automation and testing: tools and techniques for automated security
scanning and testing in DevSecOps. Packt Publishing Ltd.
[2] Thantharate, P., and Anurag, T. (2023, September). GeneticSecOps: harnessing heuristic genetic algorithms for
automated security testing and vulnerability detection in DevSecOps. In 2023, the 6th International Conference
on Contemporary Computing and Informatics (IC3I) (Vol. 6, pp. 2271–2278). IEEE.
[3] Marandi, M., Bertia, A., and Silas, S. (2023, July). Implementing and automating security scanning in a DevSecOps
CI/CD pipeline. In 2023 World Conference on Communication and Computing (WCONF) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
[4] Jammeh, B. (2020). DevSecOps: Security expertise is a key to automated testing in the CI/CD
pipeline. Bournemouth University.
[5] Putra, A. M., and Kabetta, H. (2022, October). Implementation of DevSecOps by integrating static and dynamic
security testing in CI/CD pipelines. In 2022 IEEE International Conference of Computer Science and Information
Technology (ICOSNIKOM) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
[6] Abiola, O. B., and Olufemi, O. G. (2023). An enhanced CICD pipeline: A DevSecOps approach. International Journal
of Computer Applications, 184(48), 8–13.
[7] Lorona, N. (2023). Strategies Employed by Project Managers when Adopting Agile DevSecOps to Manage
Software Development in the DoD (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado Technical University).
[8] Jones, A. J. (2023). Quantitative Exploratory Investigation into the Barriers to Adopting DevSecOps Methodology
for Security Operations Centers (Doctoral dissertation, Capitol Technology University).
[9] Bitra, P., and Achanta, C. S. (2021). Development and Evaluation of an Artefact Model to Support Security
Compliance for DevSecOps.
[10] Rajapaksha, S., Senanayake, J., Kalutarage, H., and Al-Kadri, M. O. (2023, September). Enhancing security
assurance in software development: AI-based vulnerable code detection with static analysis. In European
Symposium on Research in Computer Security (pp. 341–356). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
[11] Behfar, S. K. (2023). Development strategy and management of AI-based vulnerability detection applications in
an enterprise software environment. ECIS 2023 Research-in-Progress Papers, 29.
[12] Ricol, J. (2022). AI for Secure Software Development: Identifying and Fixing Vulnerabilities with Machine
Learning.
[13] Gulraiz, A. Semantic Analysis for Deduplication of Security Findings in DevOps Security Tool Reports.
[14] Samtani, S., Abate, M., Benjamin, V., and Li, W. (2019). Cybersecurity as an industry: A cyber threat intelligence
perspective. In The Palgrave Handbook of International Cybercrime and Cyberdeviance (pp. 1-20). Palgrave
Macmillan, Cham.
[15] Sun, N., Ding, M., Jiang, J., Xu, W., Mo, X., Tai, Y., and Zhang, J. (2023). Cyber threat intelligence mining for proactive
cybersecurity defense: A survey and new perspectives. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 25(3),
1748-1774.
[16] Zhou, Y., Tang, Y., Yi, M., Xi, C., and Lu, H. (2022). CTI view: APT threat intelligence analysis system. Security and
Communication Networks, 2022(1), 9875199.
[17] Areo, G. (2021). Automating Compliance in Healthcare IT: Essential Tools and Techniques.
[18] Amaral, O., Abualhaija, S., Torre, D., Sabetzadeh, M., and Briand, L. C. (2021). AI-enabled automation for
completeness checking of privacy policies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 48(11), 4647–4674.
[19] Andrea Tang, F. I. P. (2019). Making AI GDPR Compliant.

2092
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 22(01), 2083-2093

[20] Ullah, K. W., Ahmed, A. S., and Ylitalo, J. (2013, July). Towards building an automated security compliance tool for
the cloud. In 2013, 12th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and
Communications (pp. 1587–1593). IEEE.
[21] Chhetri, T. R., Kurteva, A., DeLong, R. J., Hilscher, R., Korte, K., and Fensel, A. (2022). Data protection by design
tool for automated GDPR compliance verification based on semantically modeled informed
consent. Sensors, 22(7), 2763.
[22] Mohammed, A. (2021). AI in Cybersecurity: Enhancing Audits and Compliance Automation. Available at
SSRN, 5066097.
[23] Benedikt Dollinger (August 10, 2022). 5 key skills for becoming a DevSecOps engineer. https://www.xalt.de/5-
key-skills-for-devsecops/
[24] laakshmikanth135 (August 3, 2023). Manual Testing Vs Automated Testing and Its Advantages.
https://www.techtrainees.com/manual-testing-vs-automated-testing-and-its-advantages/
[25] Ann Chesbrough (May 10, 2019). Benefits of DAST Testing for Application Security.
https://www.breachlock.com/resources/blog/benefits-of-dast-testing-for-application-security/
[26] Sergey Vasiliev (April 19, 2022). SAST in Secure SDLC: 3 reasons to integrate it in a DevSecOps pipeline.
https://pvs-studio.com/en/blog/posts/0937/

2093