Top 10 revised code security best practices for developers

Updated August 2026: This article was originally published in August 2024 and has been comprehensively updated to reflect current code security practices, including securing AI-generated code, AI-assisted code review tooling, policy-as-code enforcement, and secrets scanning automation as of 2026.

Introduction

Code security is no longer something you bolt on at the end of a release cycle. In 2026, the teams shipping the most reliable software treat security as a continuous, integrated practice woven into every pull request, every sprint, and every deployment pipeline. The rise of AI coding assistants, increasingly sophisticated supply chain attacks, and stricter compliance requirements have all raised the bar for what “secure code” actually means.

A formal code review process remains the single highest-leverage practice for improving both quality and security. But the landscape has shifted. Developers are now reviewing code generated by LLMs alongside human-written code. Automated scanning has matured from noisy SAST tools into intelligent platforms that annotate PRs with actionable, context-aware remediation. And policy-as-code has moved from aspirational to table stakes for any team operating at scale.

This guide covers 10 revised code security best practices for developers and engineering leads, plus four additional sections addressing the challenges unique to 2026: securing AI-generated code, building security champions programs, enforcing policy-as-code in CI, and automating secrets scanning. Each practice includes implementation details, tooling recommendations, and real-world patterns you can adopt immediately.

Learn more about Code Security fundamentals here.

---

1. Small Pull Requests and Focused Purpose

Large pull requests are where vulnerabilities hide. When a PR touches 40 files across three features, reviewers skim rather than read. Research from Google’s engineering practices documentation consistently shows that review quality degrades sharply beyond 200-400 lines of changed code.

Why it matters for security

A focused PR lets reviewers build a mental model of what the code does. When a PR has a single purpose — one feature, one bug fix, one refactor — the reviewer can reason about edge cases, input validation, and authorization logic without context-switching between unrelated concerns.

Implementation details

• Scope each PR to a single logical change. A database migration, its corresponding model change, and the API endpoint that uses it can be one PR. But adding a new feature and refactoring an unrelated module should be separate.
• Use feature flags to merge incomplete features safely. This lets you ship small, reviewable increments without exposing half-built functionality to users.
• Set PR size guidelines in your team’s contributing docs. A soft limit of 300 lines of production code (excluding tests and generated files) is a reasonable starting point.
• Use stacked PRs for complex features. Tools like Graphite or git-based stacking workflows let you break a large feature into a chain of small, dependent PRs that can each be reviewed independently.

What good looks like

A PR titled “Add rate limiting to /api/auth/login” that touches the route handler, adds a rate limiter middleware, includes unit tests, and updates the API documentation. Nothing else.

---

2. Conducting Security Code Reviews

A security code review is distinct from a general code review. While a standard review focuses on correctness, readability, and maintainability, a security review specifically hunts for vulnerabilities: injection flaws, broken authentication, insecure deserialization, privilege escalation, and data exposure.

Implementation details

• Designate security-focused reviewers for changes touching authentication, authorization, cryptography, input parsing, file uploads, and database queries. These are your highest-risk code paths.
• Use a security review checklist. At minimum, cover: input validation, output encoding, authentication and session management, access control checks, error handling (no stack traces leaked), cryptographic correctness, and dependency safety.
• Leverage AI-assisted review tooling. Platforms like Cloudanix Code Security provide PR-level annotations with GenAI-powered remediation suggestions. Instead of a generic “possible SQL injection” warning, you get a specific fix suggestion with context about why the change is needed.
• Review security-critical changes synchronously when possible. For auth flows, payment logic, or data access layer changes, a live walkthrough catches issues that async review misses.

Real-world pattern

A fintech team requires that any PR modifying their transaction processing pipeline must be reviewed by at least one developer with a “security-reviewer” label in GitHub. Their CI pipeline enforces this via a CODEOWNERS file and branch protection rules, preventing merge until the security reviewer approves.

---

3. Adding Clear and Security-Relevant Comments

Comments are not just documentation — they are a security tool. When a developer writes a comment explaining why a particular sanitization approach was chosen, or why a seemingly redundant check exists, they create institutional knowledge that prevents future developers from accidentally removing a security control.

Implementation details

• Comment on security-critical decisions. If you chose a specific hashing algorithm, explain why. If you added an input length check, note what attack it prevents.
• Document trust boundaries. Where does user input enter the system? Where does data cross from trusted to untrusted contexts? These transitions deserve explicit comments.
• Explain non-obvious validation logic. A regex that validates email format or a check that prevents path traversal should include a comment explaining the threat model.
• Use TODO comments for known security debt. Mark areas where you know a stronger control is needed but cannot implement it in the current PR. Tag them with a security label so they are easy to find and prioritize.

Example

# SECURITY: Rate limit check must happen before authentication attempt
# to prevent credential stuffing attacks. The limiter uses IP + username
# as the composite key to avoid blocking legitimate users behind NAT.
if not rate_limiter.allow(f"{client_ip}:{username}"):
    raise TooManyRequestsError()

This comment prevents a future developer from moving the rate limiter below the auth check “for cleaner code flow” without understanding the security implications.

---

4. Test and Trust (Including Security Testing)

Code that is not tested is code you cannot trust. This applies doubly to security-relevant behavior. Unit tests verify that your input validation actually rejects malicious input. Integration tests verify that your auth middleware actually blocks unauthorized requests. Without these tests, you are relying on hope.

Implementation details

• Write negative test cases for every security control. If you have an authorization check, write a test that passes invalid credentials and verifies rejection. If you sanitize HTML, write a test with an XSS payload and verify it is neutralized.
• Use property-based testing for parsers and validators. Tools like Hypothesis (Python), fast-check (TypeScript), or QuickCheck (Haskell) generate thousands of random inputs to find edge cases your manual tests miss.
• Include security-focused integration tests. Test that your API returns 401 for unauthenticated requests, 403 for unauthorized requests, and that sensitive data is not leaked in error responses.
• Fuzz your input handling code. Modern fuzzers like AFL++, libFuzzer, or language-specific options can find memory safety issues, parsing bugs, and crash-inducing inputs that manual testing never would.

Tooling

• DAST scanners (ZAP, Burp Suite) for running security tests against deployed applications
• Security-focused test frameworks (OWASP Testing Guide patterns, custom security test suites)
• Contract testing to verify that API boundaries enforce expected security constraints

---

5. Running Test Suites on Proposed Code

Every pull request should trigger a full test suite run before merge is permitted. This is non-negotiable. Running tests on proposed code catches regressions immediately, before they reach main and before they reach production.

Implementation details

• Configure CI to run tests on every PR. GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Bitbucket Pipelines — whichever platform you use, the pipeline should be triggered on PR creation and every subsequent push.
• Include security tests in your CI suite. Unit tests, integration tests, and any security-specific tests (like those verifying auth behavior) should all run on every PR.
• Fail the build on test failures. Do not allow merge with failing tests. No exceptions, no “we’ll fix it later” merges.
• Track test coverage for security-critical paths. While 100% coverage is not a meaningful goal overall, your auth, authorization, and data validation code paths should have near-complete coverage.
• Run tests in parallel to keep feedback loops fast. Slow CI pipelines encourage developers to skip waiting for results. Keep your PR feedback cycle under 10 minutes.

Real-world pattern

A SaaS team configured their CI pipeline to run three stages on every PR: unit tests (2 minutes), integration tests (4 minutes), and security scans (3 minutes). All three must pass before the merge button is enabled. They also added a “test-impact analysis” step that identifies which tests are relevant to the changed files, running the full suite nightly but only affected tests on each PR push.

---

6. Automated Code Scanning (SAST, SCA, Secrets, IaC)

Automated scanning is your first line of defense. Modern code security platforms go far beyond the noisy SAST tools of the past. They combine multiple scanning techniques — static analysis, software composition analysis, secrets detection, and infrastructure-as-code scanning — into a unified experience that surfaces findings directly in your pull requests.

The four pillars of automated scanning

SAST (Static Application Security Testing): Analyzes your source code for vulnerabilities without executing it. Catches injection flaws, insecure cryptographic usage, hardcoded credentials, and logic errors. Modern SAST tools understand data flow across functions and files, reducing false positives significantly compared to pattern-matching approaches.

SCA (Software Composition Analysis): Scans your dependency tree for known vulnerabilities. With the average application containing 80%+ open-source code, SCA is essential. It identifies vulnerable packages, license compliance issues, and outdated dependencies with known CVEs.

Secrets Detection: Scans for accidentally committed credentials, API keys, tokens, and private keys. A single committed AWS key can compromise your entire cloud infrastructure within minutes.

IaC Scanning: Analyzes your Terraform, CloudFormation, Kubernetes manifests, and Dockerfiles for misconfigurations. Catches publicly exposed S3 buckets, overly permissive IAM roles, and missing encryption before deployment.

Implementation with Cloudanix

Cloudanix Code Security integrates all four scanning pillars into a single platform. It connects directly to your GitHub, Bitbucket, or GitLab repositories and provides:

• PR-level annotations with specific, actionable findings directly in your pull request interface
• GenAI-powered remediation suggestions that explain the vulnerability and provide a fix you can apply immediately
• CI quality gates that block merges when critical or high-severity vulnerabilities are detected
• Dashboard visibility across all repositories, showing vulnerability trends, mean time to remediation, and coverage gaps

Tips for execution

• Start with secrets scanning and SCA — they have the highest signal-to-noise ratio and catch the most immediately exploitable issues.
• Tune your SAST rules over time. Start strict, then suppress confirmed false positives rather than starting permissive and tightening.
• Run IaC scanning on every infrastructure change, not just periodically.

---

7. Reviewing Code and Pull Requests (Human Review)

Automated tools catch known vulnerability patterns. Humans catch logic errors, business logic flaws, and novel attack vectors that no scanner has a rule for. Human review and automated scanning are complementary — you need both.

Implementation details

• Require at least one reviewer for every PR. Use branch protection rules to enforce this. For security-critical paths, require two reviewers including one with security expertise.
• Rotate reviewers to spread knowledge. If only one person ever reviews the auth module, you have a single point of failure for security knowledge.
• Review the tests, not just the implementation. A PR with insufficient test coverage for security-relevant behavior should be sent back for additional tests before approval.
• Use a structured review approach. Start with understanding the PR’s purpose (read the description), then examine the tests to understand expected behavior, then review the implementation against those expectations.
• Provide actionable feedback. Instead of “this looks insecure,” explain what the vulnerability is, how it could be exploited, and suggest a specific fix. This teaches the author and improves the team’s security literacy over time.

When to involve security experts

Not every PR needs a security expert reviewer. Focus their time on changes that:

• Modify authentication or authorization logic
• Handle sensitive data (PII, financial data, health records)
• Introduce new external integrations or API endpoints
• Change cryptographic implementations
• Modify infrastructure or deployment configurations

---

8. Limiting Time for Code Reviews

Review fatigue is real. Studies on code inspection effectiveness show that reviewers find fewer defects per line after reviewing for more than 60 minutes continuously or reviewing more than 400 lines at once. For security reviews, where concentration is paramount, these limits are even more important.

Implementation details

• Set a maximum PR size guideline. 200-400 lines of changed production code is the sweet spot for thorough review.
• Allocate dedicated, uninterrupted time for reviews. Context-switching between development work and review work degrades quality in both directions.
• Use a “review budget” approach. If a PR is over your size limit, ask the author to split it. If splitting is not practical, review it in multiple focused sessions rather than one long pass.
• Track review turnaround time. PRs sitting in review for days accumulate merge conflicts and block the author. Aim for initial review within 24 hours and final resolution within 48 hours.
• Automate what can be automated. Formatting, linting, type checking, and basic security scanning should all happen before a human reviewer sees the PR. This frees human reviewers to focus on logic, architecture, and security rather than style issues.

Real-world pattern

A platform engineering team implemented a “review SLA” with three tiers: critical security fixes (reviewed within 4 hours), standard PRs (reviewed within 24 hours), and refactoring PRs (reviewed within 48 hours). They tracked adherence as a team metric and found that explicit expectations eliminated the “PR graveyard” problem where changes sat unreviewed for a week.

---

9. Threat Modeling

Threat modeling is the practice of systematically identifying what can go wrong with your application’s security before writing code. It shifts security thinking from reactive (finding and fixing vulnerabilities) to proactive (preventing vulnerabilities by design).

Implementation details

• Conduct threat modeling during design, before implementation. The cheapest time to fix a security flaw is before the code is written.
• Use a structured methodology. STRIDE (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege) provides a systematic framework for identifying threat categories.
• Create data flow diagrams (DFDs) that show how data moves through your system, where trust boundaries exist, and where external entities interact with your application.
• Identify and prioritize threats. Not all threats warrant mitigation. Use risk scoring (likelihood × impact) to prioritize your security investments.
• Update threat models when architecture changes. A threat model is a living document. When you add a new microservice, external integration, or data store, revisit the model.

Practical approach for dev teams

You do not need a two-week threat modeling exercise. A lightweight approach works for most feature development:

1. Before sprint planning: Spend 30 minutes diagramming how the new feature handles data. Identify inputs, outputs, and trust boundaries.
2. Ask four questions: Who can access this? What happens with malformed input? What if a dependency fails? What data could leak?
3. Document the decisions: Record the threats identified and the mitigations chosen. Link this to the feature’s design document or epic.
4. Feed findings into acceptance criteria: “As a security requirement, the endpoint must reject requests without a valid JWT” becomes a testable acceptance criterion.

Learn more about threat modeling.

---

10. Staying Up-to-Date on Security Vulnerabilities

New vulnerabilities are disclosed daily. The Log4Shell incident demonstrated how a single library vulnerability can create an internet-wide emergency. Staying current on vulnerability disclosures for your technology stack is not optional — it is a core operational responsibility.

Implementation details

• Subscribe to security advisories for every language, framework, and major library in your stack. GitHub Security Advisories, NVD feeds, and language-specific advisory databases (RustSec, npm advisories, Python Safety DB) are essential sources.
• Enable automated dependency update PRs. Dependabot, Renovate, or your SCA platform can automatically create PRs when a vulnerable dependency has a patched version available.
• Establish a vulnerability response SLA. Critical CVEs affecting your production dependencies should be patched within 72 hours. High-severity issues within one sprint. Medium and low within one quarter.
• Conduct periodic dependency audits. Beyond automated scanning, periodically review your dependency tree for abandoned or unmaintained packages that may not receive security patches.
• Participate in the security community. Follow security researchers in your ecosystem, subscribe to relevant mailing lists, and attend security-focused meetups or conferences. Early awareness of emerging threats gives you a head start on mitigation.

Tooling

• Cloudanix SCA scanning continuously monitors your repositories and alerts you to newly disclosed vulnerabilities in your dependency tree, with prioritization based on reachability analysis
• NIST NVD and MITRE CVE databases for comprehensive vulnerability lookup
• GitHub Advisory Database for ecosystem-specific advisories
• EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) for understanding which CVEs are likely to be actively exploited

---

Securing AI-Generated Code

The widespread adoption of AI coding assistants — GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, Cursor, Amazon Q Developer, and others — has transformed how developers write code. In 2026, an estimated 40-70% of new code in many organizations involves some AI assistance. This creates new security challenges that traditional practices were not designed to address.

The risks of AI-generated code

• Subtle vulnerabilities: LLMs generate code that looks correct and passes basic tests but contains security flaws. Common patterns include using deprecated cryptographic functions, implementing authentication checks with timing side-channels, generating SQL queries without parameterization, or creating file handling code vulnerable to path traversal.
• Training data leakage: AI models trained on public code repositories may reproduce patterns from vulnerable code. They can suggest hardcoded credentials, example API keys, or insecure configurations from their training data.
• Context leakage from AI agents: Agentic coding tools that operate on your codebase can inadvertently send sensitive context — environment variables, internal API endpoints, proprietary business logic — to external LLM providers. This is an emerging data exfiltration vector.
• Over-trust in generated code: Developers may review AI-generated code less critically than human-written code, assuming the AI “knows what it’s doing.” This creates a dangerous review gap.

Implementation details

• Treat AI-generated code with the same (or greater) scrutiny as human-written code. Every piece of generated code must pass through the same review process, automated scanning, and testing requirements.
• Run all automated scanners on AI-generated code. SAST, SCA, and secrets detection are especially important because LLMs can introduce patterns that a human developer would recognize as unsafe.
• Establish AI coding policies. Define which tools are approved, what data can be shared with them, and what review requirements apply to AI-generated changes.
• Use the Cloudanix Coding Agent Firewall to protect against context exfiltration. It monitors AI coding agents in real-time, blocking attempts to send PII, secrets, API keys, or sensitive business logic to external services. Think of it as a network firewall for your AI coding tools.
• Audit AI tool configurations. Ensure context window settings, file access permissions, and network access for AI agents are configured with least privilege.

What to watch for in review

When reviewing AI-generated code, pay special attention to:

• Input validation and sanitization (LLMs often generate overly permissive patterns)
• Authentication and authorization logic (subtle bypasses are common)
• Cryptographic operations (outdated algorithms, weak key sizes)
• Error handling (AI-generated code may expose internal details in error messages)
• Hardcoded values that look like real credentials or endpoints

---

Security Champions Programs

A security champions program embeds security-aware developers within each engineering squad. Rather than relying solely on a centralized security team that becomes a bottleneck, this model distributes security responsibility across the organization while maintaining coordination through a community of practice.

Why it works

Most security teams are outnumbered by developers 100:1 or more. A security team of five cannot meaningfully review the output of 500 developers. But five security champions — one per squad — can review security-critical changes within their team’s context, answer security questions in real-time, and escalate novel concerns to the central security team.

Implementation details

• Identify one security champion per squad or team. Look for developers who show interest in security, ask questions about edge cases, and write thorough tests. Security enthusiasm matters more than existing expertise.
• Invest in their growth. Provide training (SANS courses, OWASP resources, internal workshops), conference attendance, and dedicated time for security learning. Budget 10-20% of their time for security activities.
• Define clear responsibilities. Champions should: review security-relevant PRs within their team, maintain team-specific threat models, triage and remediate security scanner findings, and serve as the liaison to the central security team.
• Create a community of practice. Regular meetings (biweekly works well) where champions share findings, discuss emerging threats, and align on standards. This cross-pollinates security knowledge across the organization.
• Recognize and reward the role. Security champion should be a valued career development opportunity, not unpaid extra work. Reflect it in performance reviews, titles, and compensation.

Measuring success

Track metrics like: mean time to remediation for scanner findings within each squad, number of security issues caught in review (before reaching production), and developer security survey results measuring confidence and knowledge.

---

Policy-as-Code for PRs

Policy-as-code takes your security standards out of wikis and slide decks and encodes them as executable rules that run in your CI pipeline. Instead of hoping developers remember the policy, you enforce it automatically on every pull request.

What you can enforce

• Dependency policies: Block PRs that introduce dependencies with known critical CVEs, or packages below a minimum version threshold
• Code patterns: Reject use of banned functions (eval, innerHTML, exec), require parameterized queries for database access, enforce encryption for data at rest
• Review requirements: Require security team approval for changes to auth modules, enforce minimum reviewer count based on file paths
• Secret prevention: Block commits containing patterns matching API keys, tokens, or credentials
• Container security: Require non-root users in Dockerfiles, pin base image versions, scan images for vulnerabilities

Implementation details

• Define policies in code, stored alongside your application. Use Open Policy Agent (OPA) with Rego, or platform-specific policy engines. Policies should be version-controlled and go through their own review process.
• Integrate with CI quality gates. Cloudanix Code Security provides CI quality gates that enforce your security standards automatically. When a PR violates a policy, the gate blocks the merge and provides a clear explanation of what needs to change.
• Start with a small set of high-value policies. Begin with secrets detection, critical CVE blocking, and banned function detection. Add policies incrementally as the team adapts.
• Provide escape hatches with audit trails. Sometimes a policy violation has a legitimate exception. Allow overrides with required justification that gets logged and reviewed by the security team.
• Use policy-as-code for IaC too. Terraform plans, Kubernetes manifests, and CloudFormation templates should be validated against security policies before apply.

Example: GitHub Actions quality gate

- name: Cloudanix Security Gate
  uses: cloudanix/code-security-action@v2
  with:
    fail-on: critical,high
    scan-types: sast,sca,secrets,iac
    annotate-pr: true

This step blocks the PR if any critical or high-severity finding is detected across all four scanning types, and annotates the PR with inline comments showing exactly where the issues are.

---

Secrets Scanning and Prevention

Accidentally committed secrets remain one of the most common and most exploitable security failures. A 2025 industry report found that the average enterprise codebase contains 5-10 exposed secrets across its repositories, with some organizations harboring hundreds. Automated secrets scanning at multiple stages of the development workflow is essential.

The multi-layer approach

• Layer 1: Pre-commit hooks — Catch secrets before they ever enter git history. Tools like git-secrets, detect-secrets, or Gitleaks run locally and reject commits containing credential patterns. This is the fastest feedback loop.
• Layer 2: CI pipeline scanning — Scan every PR for secrets as part of your automated testing pipeline. This catches secrets that slip past pre-commit hooks (developer disabled the hook, using a different machine, etc.).
• Layer 3: Repository-wide scanning — Periodically scan your entire codebase and git history for secrets that may have been committed in the past. Historical secrets in git history are just as exploitable as current ones.
• Layer 4: Runtime monitoring — Monitor for leaked credentials being used in the wild. Services like GitHub’s secret scanning partner program notify you when a committed secret matching a known provider pattern is detected.

Implementation details

• Deploy pre-commit hooks across all developer machines. Use a tool like pre-commit framework to manage hooks consistently. Include patterns for 2000+ credential types: AWS keys, GCP service accounts, Stripe keys, JWT secrets, database connection strings, and more.
• Integrate secrets scanning into CI. Cloudanix scans every PR for secrets as part of its code security analysis, catching patterns that local tools may miss.
• Establish a secret rotation procedure. When a secret is detected in code, the response is not just removing it — the secret is compromised and must be rotated immediately. Document this procedure before you need it.
• Use environment variables and secrets managers. HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, or similar solutions should be the standard for all credential access. No secrets in code, ever.
• Scan non-code files too. Configuration files, documentation, Jupyter notebooks, and IaC templates frequently contain secrets. Ensure your scanning covers these file types.

What a secrets finding looks like

When Cloudanix detects a secret in a PR, it annotates the specific line with:

• The type of secret detected (AWS access key, GitHub token, private key, etc.)
• The severity level and whether the secret appears to be active
• Remediation guidance: rotate the credential, add it to your secrets manager, and update references to use environment variables

---

Bringing It Together: A Modern Code Security Workflow

These practices do not exist in isolation. The strongest code security posture combines them into an integrated workflow:

1. Design phase: Threat model the feature, identify security requirements, document trust boundaries
2. Development: Write security tests alongside code, use clear security-relevant comments, follow small PR discipline
3. Pre-commit: Local secrets scanning and linting catch obvious issues before push
4. Pull request: Automated scanning (SAST, SCA, secrets, IaC) runs immediately, AI-assisted review generates remediation suggestions, policy-as-code gates enforce standards
5. Human review: Security champions and peers review for logic flaws, business logic vulnerabilities, and novel issues that automated tools miss
6. Post-merge: Continuous monitoring for newly disclosed vulnerabilities in your dependency tree, runtime security monitoring

Cloudanix Code Security supports this workflow end-to-end, integrating with GitHub, Bitbucket, and GitLab to provide scanning, PR annotations, quality gates, and GenAI-powered remediation at every stage. Combined with the Coding Agent Firewall for AI-assisted development security, it provides comprehensive code security coverage for modern development teams.

---

Conclusion

Building secure code in 2026 requires more than awareness — it requires systems. The 10 practices outlined in this guide, combined with the additional practices for AI code security, security champions, policy-as-code, and secrets scanning, create a defense-in-depth approach where multiple layers catch what others miss.

The most important shift is from individual responsibility to systemic enforcement. Relying on developers to remember security best practices does not scale. Encoding those practices into automated pipelines, CI quality gates, and team structures ensures consistent security outcomes regardless of individual awareness on any given day.

Start where you are. If you have no automated scanning, start there. If you have scanning but no human review process, add that next. If you are using AI coding assistants without guardrails, prioritize the Coding Agent Firewall and scanning integration. Each layer you add reduces your attack surface and makes your team more resilient.

Security is a continuous practice, not a destination. Stay current, stay collaborative, and build systems that make insecure code harder to ship than secure code.

---

People Also Read

• Source Code Security Best Practices
• From Chaos to Control: Understand the 3 Pillars of Secure Coding Standards
• How to go about building a SAST plan for your company?
• Announcing Cloudanix Code Security
• Top 5 Metrics to Consider For Your Shift Left Strategy
• Transitioning from DevOps to DevSecOps
• Code Security Best Practices for DevSecOps Teams in 2026