Modern applications and digital products go through more validation than ever before. Code reviews are a standard part of development, automated security checks are often integrated into deployment pipelines, and both functional and security testing are now common parts of the release process.

And yet, products that pass these checks still end up compromised.

The issue is not necessarily that security testing is missing or that development teams ignore security. More often, the problem is that security is still viewed too narrowly. The focus remains on the application or an individual feature, while real attack paths only become visible when the environment is viewed as a whole.

An application may have a secure authentication flow while still exposing excessive information through API responses. It may pass internal security checks while deployment settings expose debug information or internal paths. It may implement proper input validation while relying on integrations or services that unintentionally create additional attack paths.

This is where the difference between code security and product security becomes clear.

One of the patterns regularly seen during testing involves APIs that technically behave correctly but return more information than necessary. An endpoint provides legitimate data for a request, but also exposes internal identifiers, object relationships, or details about how services are connected. From a development perspective, the response is correct. From an attacker’s perspective, it becomes a system mapping tool.

A similar issue appears in authentication flows. Passwords are validated correctly, tokens are handled properly, and sessions behave as expected. But when multiple endpoints are combined, unintended paths begin to appear. One endpoint confirms whether a user exists, another allows excessive authentication attempts, while a third reveals additional account context. Individually, these behaviors may appear acceptable. Together, they form a practical attack path.

Configuration and infrastructure make the situation even more complex. During testing, it is common to see applications with no major issues in the code itself, while the deployment environment exposes internal information, environment variables, references to other services, or unnecessarily exposed administrative functionality.

These issues are not always caused by development mistakes. The problem is that product security does not end with the code.

In practice, AresISEC often sees applications that pass internal security reviews but still expose attack paths that only become visible when the application, its configuration, infrastructure, and usage patterns are evaluated together.

This is why product security is becoming much broader than application testing alone. The shift is increasingly reflected in regulatory requirements as well.

The Cyber Resilience Act gradually introduces security obligations for software and products with digital elements across the European Union. Most requirements will become applicable by the end of 2027, while obligations related to reporting actively exploited vulnerabilities and incidents will apply earlier. The regulation requires a structured approach to product security across the entire lifecycle, including vulnerability management, security updates, documentation, and risk assessment.

For organizations developing or maintaining digital products, security will no longer be only a technical or development concern, but also a regulatory obligation with potentially significant financial penalties. This changes how product security is viewed. Security is no longer just about validating individual components. It becomes a question of how the entire product behaves in a real environment under real conditions.

The key point is not that development teams fail to perform security testing. Most mature teams already do. The issue is that no single type of testing covers every perspective.

Real product security begins when the system is evaluated as a complete environment.

Sources:
European Union – Cyber Resilience Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/2847)

OWASP – Web Security Testing Guide

OWASP – Top 10 Web Application Security Risks

NIST – Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment (SP 800-115)