How to Strengthen Security in AI-Driven Software Engineering

AI-driven software development has created a fundamental shift in how teams build and ship code. 

From GitHub Copilot to custom LLM agents, artificial intelligence is now embedded across the development lifecycle, accelerating everything from function creation to test generation and even full application builds. 

But that acceleration comes with tradeoffs.

Code is being suggested—and accepted—without clear visibility into where it came from, what it introduces, or how it aligns with existing architecture. Hardcoded secrets, insecure configurations, and outdated dependencies aren’t edge cases. They’re becoming routine.

To stay ahead, teams need a way to continuously identify material changes, enforce security controls early, and adapt policies as AI becomes more embedded in the software lifecycle. Application security posture management (ASPM) is one of the key approaches emerging to meet that challenge, helping security scale alongside development without slowing it down.

We’re starting to see that shift take shape. Security reviews are moving upstream, guardrails are being wired into the tools developers already use, and adding visibility into code, configuration, and dependencies is becoming a must-have.

What is AI-driven software engineering?

AI-driven software engineering is changing how software gets planned, built, tested, and maintained. It’s fueled by tools that go beyond basic automation, like LLMs, generative AI, and natural language interfaces, that actively participate in the development process.

These tools do more than streamline tasks. They influence design decisions, coding patterns, and test coverage. Developers now write prompts instead of functions, receive code suggestions in real time, and generate tests from natural language descriptions. Models trained on billions of public code examples are shaping how modern applications come together.

This dynamic creates a new kind of developer/AI relationship. AI models suggest code, recommend configurations, and shape architectural choices as the work happens. Each accepted suggestion alters the codebase and its risk profile, often in subtle but impactful ways.

The shift reaches across the SDLC:

• In planning: LLMs can translate user stories into tasks or specs.
• In development: AI can generate functions, classes, and full modules from natural language prompts.
• In testing: Models can auto-generate unit tests, prioritize coverage, and flag risky areas based on past issues.
• In debugging: Suggestions help pinpoint likely sources of failure or refactor buggy logic based on similar patterns.
• In maintenance: AI can analyze bug reports, review support tickets, and suggest improvements.
  

Efficiency is rising, but so is complexity. Developers move faster, but it’s harder to track how changes were introduced or what patterns underlie the new code. When suggestions come from unclear sources, tracing risk back to its origin becomes a challenge in itself.

Related Content: Risk Detection at the Design Phase

Explore how shifting left goes beyond early scanning, starting with adding visibility into what’s changing and why, before code is even written.

Security challenges in AI-driven software development

AI-driven software development has opened the door to faster release cycles, but also to risks that surface earlier, spread faster, and often go undetected until it’s too late.

One of the biggest shifts is how code is being introduced. 

Developers are copying and pasting model-suggested functions into production code, often without knowing where the logic came from or whether it introduces vulnerabilities. Suggestions may contain outdated libraries, weak defaults, or hardcoded secrets. 

The risk isn’t theoretical. A Stanford study found that developers using AI assistants were significantly more likely to introduce vulnerable code, especially for injection-based attacks like SQLi.

Speed also means volume. More code is being written, tested, and deployed, making it harder for security teams to review every change or trace how a risk entered the system. 

Static scans, diff reviews, and ad hoc checklists aren’t built to handle this scale. That gap has given rise to what many teams are calling Shadow AI: the use of AI tooling without formal approval, oversight, or secure usage practices.

Some common risk factors emerging across AI-driven development include:

• Hardcoded credentials: Secrets, API keys, and other sensitive credentials are included directly in the code, often as a result of AI attempting to cut corners when creating new features.
• Outdated dependencies: AI will suggest outdated libraries to overcome specific challenges without vetting that they’re up to date and still supported. This happens because they were common in the model’s training data.
• Overly permissive configurations: A major issue for IaC and container setups, where AI-generated YAML or JSON lacks proper constraints.
• License conflicts: AI will leverage code snippets that resemble open-source code with incompatible licenses without proper attribution.
  Low-quality test coverage: AI-generated tests can miss key edge cases or business logic in favor of checking all the boxes in a test.

These issues show up repeatedly and they can quickly scale out of control with every accepted AI suggestion.

Related Content: Pros and Cons of the Different ASPM Approaches
Learn how different approaches to ASPM can help teams detect and prioritize application risks introduced through AI-assisted development.

How AI is used in software testing and QA

AI is becoming an integral part of how teams test and secure software. From automated test generation to red teaming LLMs, the role of AI in QA continues to expand, improving efficiency, coverage, and speed. But it’s not without tradeoffs.

Let’s break down where AI is gaining traction in testing and what it means for security teams.

AI-generated test cases

One of the most visible use cases is generating test cases based on code changes or requirements. 

Tools use natural language processing (NLP) to turn user stories into executable test scripts, often within seconds. This shortens the gap between what a feature is meant to do and how it’s validated.

Some tools go further, analyzing code structure, change history, and known defects to create test cases that target risky areas, like boundary conditions, input validation, or poorly tested modules.

This approach is especially useful in fast-moving environments where manually writing tests for every change is unrealistic.

Test optimization and prioritization

Rather than running full test suites on every commit, AI can help teams focus on what matters most. 

By analyzing historical defect patterns, commit metadata, and code churn, AI models can flag the tests that are most likely to catch new issues.

This means fewer redundant runs and faster feedback cycles without sacrificing coverage in high-risk areas.

In some tools, these insights are integrated directly into CI pipelines, making risk-based testing a default part of the workflow.

Self-healing automation

Automated tests often break when the UI changes or when internal logic is updated. AI-based testing frameworks are now addressing this by identifying what changed and automatically adapting the test logic.

These self-healing scripts reduce the time QA teams spend fixing brittle tests, helping to maintain test reliability in fast-moving codebases.

AI-powered security testing

AI is also reshaping how security testing gets done. 

Here are a few key areas where it’s gaining ground:

• AI-augmented SAST/DAST: Static and dynamic analysis tools enhanced with AI can detect more complex vulnerability patterns while filtering out noise. Instead of relying on signature-based scans alone, these tools apply contextual analysis to reduce false positives.
• AI-driven fuzz testing: Traditional fuzzing relies on random inputs to break applications. AI-driven fuzzers, by contrast, generate more intelligent, targeted input sequences based on how the application behaves. This increases the odds of uncovering deep memory or logic flaws, especially in compiled binaries, protocols, and APIs.
• Automated penetration testing: Some tools now simulate attacker behavior using reinforcement learning or scripted AI agents. These platforms adjust strategies in real time based on how the system responds, probing for misconfigurations, injection points, or exploitable logic.

Red teaming AI systems

As more teams adopt LLMs and AI-powered development tools, red teaming those models has become a critical form of security testing.

AI red teaming involves crafting adversarial prompts, probing models for unsafe behavior, and stress-testing guardrails under real-world conditions. This includes looking for:

• Prompt injection vulnerabilities
• Accidental data leakage from prior inputs
• Bypasses for model restrictions
• Hallucinated or toxic outputs
  

Some companies are developing internal tooling for this. Others use open-source options or frameworks like Microsoft’s PyRIT to automate and scale red teaming as part of model validation and release cycles.

Know the limits

While AI testing expands coverage and efficiency, it doesn’t replace human oversight. Models still struggle with logic-heavy test paths, nuanced business rules, and unpredictable user behavior. 

Overreliance on automated coverage can lead to missed gaps and a false sense of confidence.

The most effective teams pair AI tools with human review, treating AI as a speed multiplier, not a replacement for expertise.

Related Content: What is Application Risk Management

See how application risk is tracked, prioritized, and measured in modern SDLC environments.

Building guardrails for AI-driven code generation

As AI becomes a core part of software development, security teams are rethinking how they manage risk. Traditional processes, like ad hoc reviews or post-deploy scans, aren’t enough when AI-generated code is being accepted and merged at scale.

To keep pace, organizations are building layered guardrails that combine policy, automation, and human oversight to reduce risk without slowing teams down.

Start with governance that developers can work with

The first layer is policy. Not a PDF tucked into a wiki, but clear, actionable guidance built into the way teams work.

Some orgs are adopting a Bring Your Own AI (BYOAI) approach. Instead of banning tools, they approve and secure the ones developers already use. This helps bring Shadow AI out into the open, while setting expectations around what’s allowed.

Strong governance doesn’t just tell developers what not to do. It defines things like:

• Which tools are approved. For example, GitHub Copilot for Enterprise.
• What kinds of data can and can’t be shared with models
• How AI-generated code should be reviewed, tagged, or gated
• Who’s accountable for merging or shipping code written with AI assistance
  

The most effective policies focus on enablement, not control, and are supported with training, clear ownership, and ongoing review.

Enforce security in the pipeline

Policy alone won’t catch risky code in flight. That’s where automation comes in.

Teams are wiring security gates directly into CI pipelines to validate every change, whether it came from a human or an AI. These controls help flag:

• Known vulnerabilities in suggested code
• Hardcoded secrets or misconfigurations
• Unapproved dependencies or license conflicts
  Deviations from org-wide coding standards
  

Tools like CodeScene and open frameworks like Guardrails AI or NVIDIA NeMo provide ways to build filters that analyze both prompt inputs and model outputs, detecting toxic content, blocking insecure patterns, and preventing sensitive data from leaking upstream.

In some cases, guardrails act as intermediaries, scanning prompts before they reach the model, and validating output before it reaches the IDE.

Related Content: AI-Generated Code Security

Take a deeper look at the risks behind AI-suggested code, and how teams are securing the review process to prevent unsafe changes from merging.

Keep humans in the loop

Even the best guardrails won’t catch everything. That’s why human review is still the final and most important line of defense.

When AI generates a significant block of code or configuration, some teams now require that pull request to be flagged for deeper review. 

While the end goal is approval, the more important issue is context:

• Does the code make sense? 
• Is it maintainable? 
• Could it behave differently in production?

Some AI frameworks now support built-in interrupt points, forcing a pause until a human signs off. These workflows reinforce ownership and help teams learn from what the AI is doing well (or not so well) over time.

Embedding human-in-the-loop (HITL) practices into development strengthens trust, reduces mistakes, and helps teams stay in control of what gets shipped, all without disrupting velocity.

As these workflows evolve, many teams are looking for more integrated ways to manage application risk, bringing visibility, policy enforcement, and developer guardrails into a single, unified process.

Shift security left without losing control

AI is rewriting how software gets built. 

• Code is moving faster
• Models are shaping architecture
• Development teams are adopting AI tools long before security teams can weigh in

Outputs are up, but so is complexity, creating more opportunities for risk to slip through unnoticed.

Teams can’t solve this with point-in-time scanning or reactive reviews. What’s needed is continuous visibility into what’s changing combined with guardrails that catch risky behavior as it happens, not after it ships.

Application security posture management solves these challenges by mapping your software architecture in real time, detecting material changes, and embedding human-in-the-loop controls into the SDLC. With ASPM, your teams stay ahead of risk without slowing delivery.

AI-driven development isn’t going away. But with the right controls in place, you can ship fast and stay secure.

Book a demo to see how Apiiro helps you identify material changes, enforce security policies, and prevent risk—before code hits production.

Frequently asked questions

What are the top security risks of AI-driven software development?

Hardcoded secrets, outdated dependencies, license violations, and misconfigurations are common risks, often introduced through unchecked AI-generated code.

How can teams balance innovation and control with AI-driven tools?

By embedding guardrails early in the SDLC and approving tools developers already use, teams can move fast without sacrificing security.

Does AI-driven software testing replace human testers?

No. AI helps scale coverage and automate repetitive tasks, but human reviewers are still essential for business logic, context, and edge cases.

What’s the role of explainability in securing AI-generated code?

Explainability makes it possible to validate AI-generated output, trace risk back to its source, and maintain trust in the development process.

How do organizations enforce governance in AI-assisted development?

By combining clear policy, pipeline automation, and human-in-the-loop workflows that track, review, and validate AI-generated changes in real time.