Continuous Security vs Waterfall Security

Developers should adopt Continuous Security to reduce security risks, comply with regulations, and build more resilient applications by catching vulnerabilities before they reach production meets developers should learn about waterfall security when working in industries with critical infrastructure, such as energy, manufacturing, or transportation, where securing operational technology networks is paramount. Here's our take.

Continuous Security

Nice Pick

Developers should adopt Continuous Security to reduce security risks, comply with regulations, and build more resilient applications by catching vulnerabilities before they reach production

Pros

• It is essential for modern cloud-native, microservices-based applications where rapid deployments require automated security controls, and for industries like finance or healthcare with strict compliance needs
• Related to: devsecops, ci-cd

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Waterfall Security

Developers should learn about Waterfall Security when working in industries with critical infrastructure, such as energy, manufacturing, or transportation, where securing operational technology networks is paramount

Pros

• It is used to implement air-gapped or semi-air-gapped security architectures, ensuring that sensitive OT data can be shared with IT systems for analytics without risking reverse attacks
• Related to: industrial-control-systems, operational-technology-security

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Continuous Security is a methodology while Waterfall Security is a tool. We picked Continuous Security based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Continuous Security wins

Based on overall popularity. Continuous Security is more widely used, but Waterfall Security excels in its own space.