AppSec failures we keep repeating – and how to break the cycle

As security leaders, we have to resist the urge to treat each incident as a unique one-off occurrence. Many breaches rhyme. And, if we’re honest with ourselves, they tend to expose the same recurring weaknesses in how we manage application risk. Weaknesses we’ve seen before and often been warned about before.

Here are five security failure patterns that keep showing up, and what they keep teaching us (if we let ourselves be taught).

1. The Internet-facing asset no one was watching

In many recent breaches, the initial entry point wasn’t some deeply buried and walled-off system. It was an exposed application or API that no one realized was reachable from the internet – a shadow API, a forgotten staging environment, or a legacy service deployed years ago and never fully retired.

In these cases, the security failure goes far beyond having a vulnerability. Teams often have no real-time picture of which applications are exposed, who owns them, or whether anyone is responsible for them at all. When a breach hits, response starts with confusion and hours are spent on figuring out scope instead of containing damage.

This is where solid application security posture management earns its keep. A mature ASPM capability continuously maps application inventory, ownership, exposure, and risk posture. When an advisory drops or anomalous traffic appears, you already know which systems matter and you’re not discovering your attack surface mid-incident.

Too many post-breach timelines start with “we didn’t know this was exposed.” That’s not an exploit problem – it’s an inventory problem, and one we can actually solve.

2. The vulnerability that was “patched” but still exploitable

Here’s a recurring pattern that should bother every security leader: a vulnerability is found, a patch is applied, the compliance ticket is closed – and some time later, attackers still get through. The patch looked good and passed static testing, but it didn’t close the actual exploit path. Maybe the exposed endpoint was still reachable, or an input parameter could still be manipulated. The fix was incomplete in ways that static analysis never caught.

Static tools are valuable, but they only tell you what might be wrong in your code. They can’t show you how the application behaves after it’s deployed, under real conditions, against real inputs.

Dynamic application security testing addresses that gap by interacting with the running application the way an attacker would. After remediation, it can confirm whether all accessible exploit paths have actually been closed, not just whether the code changed to pass a test. Many high-profile web application breaches involved injection flaws, authentication bypasses, or business logic issues that were reachable in production long after teams believed they’d been addressed. A DAST program integrated into pre-release and post-patch validation may have flagged that exploitability and prevented the breach.

The problem in such cases isn’t the lack of testing, detection, or remediation, but rather the lack of validation.

3. API logic flaws that slipped through the cracks

Modern breaches increasingly exploit APIs more than traditional web forms. Attackers manipulate object references, abuse business logic, or chain API calls in ways developers never anticipated. These aren’t always classic vulnerabilities with CVE numbers attached. They’re behavioral weaknesses – flaws in how an application responds under specific, often adversarial sequences of requests.

Static analysis alone tends to miss this. Authorization logic and runtime API behavior often don’t surface clearly in code scanning. You need to observe how the application actually behaves when someone is pushing on it.

Dynamic testing, particularly when it simulates authenticated user behavior and deliberate abuse cases, can surface abnormal data access and improper authorization handling that static tools walk right past. In hindsight, recent breaches involving insecure direct object references (IDOR) and API authorization flaws weren’t mysteries but insecure runtime behaviors that could have been tested, caught, and fixed before production.

4. Severity inflation that masked real risk

Post-breach analysis regularly reveals organizations that were drowning in vulnerability backlogs (we’re talking thousands of findings) while missing the one that actually mattered and got exploited. When everything is labeled critical, nothing effectively is, and prioritization collapses under its own weight.

Attackers don’t sort your environment by CVSS score. They look for what’s reachable and exploitable. Security teams working from flat, decontextualized vulnerability lists are forced to make prioritization decisions without the information that matters most.

In this case, ASPM helps by correlating vulnerability data with exposure, business criticality, and application context. Which vulnerable applications are internet-facing? Which handle sensitive data? Which have known exploit paths and active user traffic? Combine that context with DAST validation and you can stop debating severity scores and start focusing attention on confirmed exploit paths in systems that actually matter.

Several recent breaches were traced to known vulnerabilities that had been sitting in backlogs, buried under thousands of other findings. The lesson here isn’t to scan more but to prioritize with better information.

5. Slow detection of active exploitation

In all too many incidents, exploitation wasn’t detected until data exfiltration was already underway. Attackers probed, tested payloads, and refined their inputs, sometimes over days or weeks, before triggering any alerts. By then, the window had closed.

The question is whether most organizations would recognize attacker behavior in their application layer if they saw it. Dynamic testing provides a controlled and proactive way to find out. When DAST regularly probes applications with injection attempts, malformed inputs, and authentication edge cases, it does more than find vulnerabilities – it gives security teams a clearer picture of what abnormal interaction actually looks like. In other words, it stress-tests detection and logging assumptions before an adversary does.

Organizations that use DAST findings to inform their monitoring strategies are better positioned to recognize real exploitation when it starts. That’s both a preventive benefit and detection readiness built through practice.

Visibility and validation: two recurring themes in breach reports

Step back from any recent breach and the same themes keep cropping up: unknown exposure, incomplete remediation, poor prioritization, runtime behaviors no one tested. None of them are uncontrollable variables or unsolvable problems. What they are is addressable gaps in visibility and validation.

I keep coming back to ASPM and DAST in this post because visibility and validation are precisely where those tools can help. ASPM provides a continuous, contextual picture of your application landscape: what exists, what’s exposed, and what carries the most risk. DAST provides runtime confirmation to tell you what’s actually exploitable, how the application behaves under pressure, and whether fixes hold up in production. 

Neither replaces sound engineering practices, threat modeling, or incident response planning, but together they do address some of the most consistent gaps seen in breach after breach.

A final reflection

Organizations that have been breached often fall back on the “advanced and sophisticated attackers” line. In reality, the most sobering part of reading breach reports isn’t the sophistication of the attackers but the familiarity of the gaps left and mistakes made. 

Sure, we can’t prevent every zero-day or predict every conceivable threat. What we can do, however, is reduce blind spots, validate more rigorously, and make sure that when vulnerabilities are identified, they’re confirmed, properly prioritized, and genuinely remediated – not just closed on a spreadsheet.

Breach autopsies are an exercise in pattern recognition, and many of the patterns have been consistent for years. The question is what we’re actually willing to change to avoid repeating others’ mistakes.

‍