For application security teams
who own product security inside engineering

An application security platform built around the AppSec team

Application security teams sit inside engineering, not next to it. The work spans authenticated web app testing, SAST and SCA in the pipeline, triage of vendor and bug bounty submissions, support for external pentests, and the quarterly reporting that leadership and risk both ask for. Most teams end up running this programme across five or six tools that do not share a findings database, a CVSS model, or a remediation workflow. The cost is not just tooling; it is the hours every week spent reconciling spreadsheets and stitching evidence together by hand.

SecPortal gives AppSec teams a single workspace for authenticated DAST, SAST, SCA, pentest findings, and remediation tracking. Findings carry CVSS scores from the moment they are opened, OWASP mapping is built in, engineering teams can see the work assigned to them through a read-only portal view, and AI assists the reporting work that sits on top. Whether you are a two-person AppSec function inside a Series B product company or a dedicated team supporting multiple engineering organisations, the platform scales without adding administrative overhead.

Application security capabilities in one workspace

How AppSec teams run the programme inside SecPortal

AppSec is most effective when the team owns one operational picture. SecPortal supports the full programme rather than a single phase of it.

From open finding to verified close, with engineering in the loop

Closing findings is the part of the AppSec programme that drives risk reduction. SecPortal runs a single remediation flow that engineering teams can actually work against.

1. 1Open the finding with severity, CVSS vector, evidence, and remediation guidance. The 300 plus templates produce concrete fix advice on day one.
2. 2Assign an owner inside engineering and set an SLA window by severity. Critical and high findings get tighter windows; lower severity items can be deferred or accepted with a written reason.
3. 3Engineers update fix status, attach pull request links or evidence, and ask clarifying questions inside the portal. No email chains, no version drift.
4. 4Run a retest, attach the result to the same finding record, and close it or move it back to open with regression notes captured in the same place.

Where to start

Most AppSec teams adopt the platform in three phases: bring authenticated DAST under the same workspace as findings management, layer in SAST and SCA from the Git provider, then consolidate external pentest deliverables and quarterly reporting into the same record. The relevant capability and workflow pages explain each phase in detail.

• Authenticated testing behind the login screen is covered in the web application testing use case and the authenticated scanning feature page.
• SAST and SCA across your repositories are covered in the DevSecOps scanning use case and the code scanning feature page, with deeper context in the SAST vs SCA guide.
• OWASP coverage and framework mapping live on the OWASP framework page, with the verification standard underneath it on the OWASP ASVS framework page, the programme-level maturity model on the OWASP SAMM framework page, and related material in the OWASP Top 10 explainer and the web application pentest checklist.
• Findings deduplication, prioritisation, and remediation tracking are covered in the remediation tracking use case, findings deduplication guide, and vulnerability prioritisation framework.
• Onboarding new applications, services, and repositories into the programme with a documented baseline (threat model, code scan, baseline DAST, owner mapping, intake evidence) is covered in the new application security onboarding workflow, which sits in front of the steady-state DevSecOps cadence.

SecPortal is built for AppSec teams that want one platform for the whole programme: live findings, authenticated DAST, SAST, SCA, pentest results, remediation tracking, and the reporting on top. Engineering teams get a clearer signal, leadership gets faster reports, and the AppSec team gets back the hours that used to disappear into spreadsheet reconciliation.

If your scaling lever is distributing AppSec ownership into product teams via a security champions programme, the dedicated security champions program guide covers selection, role design, RBAC scoping, training curriculum, finding handoff, and the audit-evidence pack so the central function reads the programme state on the same record the champion operates from.

If your function is closer to platform security or pipeline security than product security, the sister page SecPortal for DevSecOps teams covers how the same workspace supports CI scanning, scheduled DAST, attack surface monitoring, and the operating model that makes security testing continuous rather than release-blocking.

If your function is a cross-cutting product security organisation that sits between engineering, AppSec, vulnerability management, and incident response with PSIRT-style intake on top, the SecPortal for product security teams page covers the security review intake, security champion portal, and PSIRT lifecycle that sit alongside the AppSec workflow.

If your scope is the cloud-hosted application surface, the application code that produced it, and the perimeter of the cloud estate together, the SecPortal for cloud security teams page covers authenticated DAST against cloud-hosted apps, SAST and SCA from the Git provider, external scanning across the verified cloud-hosted hostnames, and the credential and scheduling model that the cloud security programme runs on.

If your evaluation is between self-hosting an open source findings hub and running a managed AppSec delivery platform, the SecPortal vs DefectDojo comparison walks through the operational footprint, the scanning model, and the multi-tenant client model side by side.

If your evaluation is against an enterprise application security platform that bundles SAST, DAST, and SCA into a long-running programme, the SecPortal vs Veracode comparison covers where a programme model fits and where a scoped engagement model fits, with a side-by-side breakdown of pricing posture, scope, deliverables, and client portal coverage.

If your evaluation is between an Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) aggregation layer above an existing AppSec scanner stack and a delivery workspace that scans, records findings, generates reports, and ships through a branded portal on its own, the SecPortal vs ArmorCode comparison walks through the difference between an aggregation layer that derives value from ingested scanner output and a workspace that owns the engagement record, with a side-by-side on scanning coverage, finding ownership, deliverables, and the buyer assumptions each shape is built for.

If the ASPM you are evaluating is anchored on the SCM with native scanning across secrets, SAST, SCA, IaC, and containers rather than on connector-based aggregation, the SecPortal vs Cycode comparison covers the code-graph ASPM shape. It explains where a code-graph aggregation layer rooted in the SCM gives you value, where it stops short of a delivery workspace, and how to think about the choice when the AppSec team also runs scoped engagements, external attack surface work, and stakeholder-facing reporting on the same platform.