Software development is a complex process, involving multiple stages, from design and coding to testing and deployment. Two critical testing phases that ensure the strength and reliability of a product are Quality Assurance (QA) and Security Testing. While both are essential, they focus on different aspects of software functionality and risk. The question of whether these two should be integrated, or handled separately, often sparks debate, particularly in security-conscious industries. Below, we’ll explore the distinct roles of QA and Security Testing, their differences, and the pros and cons of combining or separating these efforts.

What is Quality Assurance (QA)?

Quality Assurance (QA) is a systematic approach to ensuring that software meets the functional and non-functional requirements specified during the design phase. The primary focus of QA is on ensuring that the software works as intended, is user-friendly, and performs efficiently under expected workloads.

QA Use Cases:

• Functional Testing: Verifies whether the software functions correctly according to the specified requirements.
• Unit Testing: Focuses on testing individual components or units of the code.
• Performance Testing: Ensures the application performs optimally under various load conditions.
• Usability Testing: Ensures a good user experience and that the interface is intuitive.
• Regression Testing: Ensures that new code changes do not break existing functionality.

‍

What is Security Testing?

Security Testing, on the other hand, focuses exclusively on identifying potential vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and weaknesses in the software that could be exploited by malicious actors. Security testing involves evaluating the resilience of the application against various forms of attack.

Security Testing Use Cases:

• Vulnerability Assessment: Identifying weaknesses such as insecure coding practices, outdated dependencies, or insufficient access controls.
• Penetration Testing: Simulating attacks to find exploitable vulnerabilities.
• Static and Dynamic Analysis: Automated testing to identify security issues within the code and during runtime.
• Compliance Testing: Ensuring the application meets relevant security standards (e.g., GDPR, PCI-DSS).
• Threat Modeling: Anticipating potential attack vectors and mitigating them.

‍

Differences Between QA and Security Testing

While both QA and Security Testing are essential for releasing high-quality software, their objectives differ substantially.

The core distinction between QA and Security Testing lies in their approach and focus. QA is aimed at ensuring that software is built correctly according to functional and performance requirements, while security testing ensures that the software is protected against malicious actors. Both are preventive in nature, but address different aspects of software risk: QA is about avoiding functional bugs and performance issues, while security testing is about avoiding security vulnerabilities that could lead to loss of data, funds, or reputation.

This differentiation is important because a piece of software can pass all QA tests and still be riddled with security vulnerabilities. Conversely, software can be highly secure yet still fail to function properly from a user’s perspective. Thus, these two testing types are complementary, but fundamentally distinct in their purposes and outcomes.

‍

Should QA and Security Testing Go Together?

This is where the debate intensifies. Some organizations and cybersecurity teams argue for a combined approach, while others believe the two should be separated. Let’s explore both viewpoints.

Argument for Separation:

1. Different Skill Sets: Security engineers possess a deep understanding of attack vectors, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. In contrast, QA teams are more adept at functional testing, user experience, and ensuring software adheres to business logic. Expecting a security engineer to perform QA tasks — or vice versa — could dilute expertise and lead to inefficiencies.

2. Division of Responsibilities: Security teams should focus on finding vulnerabilities and hardening the system against attacks. They should not be bogged down with functional or performance bugs, which are typically the responsibility of QA engineers or developers. If security engineers are tasked with both QA and security testing, they may not have the bandwidth to focus deeply on either.

3. Early QA Helps Security: A thoroughly QA’d codebase can reduce the number of false positives during security testing. Functional bugs may obscure real vulnerabilities or create unnecessary noise during a security assessment. By separating QA and security testing, the security team can receive a product that has already been rigorously tested for functionality and performance, allowing them to focus exclusively on security.

Argument for Integration:

1. Holistic Testing: Some organizations prefer a holistic approach where both functional and security issues are addressed simultaneously. This can reduce testing redundancy and shorten time-to-market by integrating security testing into the QA pipeline. By identifying both QA and security issues in a unified test cycle, teams can streamline the bug-fixing process.

2. Earlier Detection of Security Issues: Security vulnerabilities can sometimes masquerade as functional issues. For example, improper input validation might not only cause a functional bug, but also expose a security risk like SQL injection. By conducting QA and security testing together, such issues can be caught earlier in the development cycle.

3. Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD): In environments that use CI/CD pipelines, security testing tools can be incorporated alongside QA tools for continuous assessment. This integration supports automated testing processes that cover both functionality and security without compromising either.

‍

Other Considerations

Early Security Integration in the SDLC

While separating QA and security testing has benefits, it’s critical to recognize that some security aspects must be addressed long before the testing phase begins. Compliance requirements, like GDPR, cannot be simply “tested” at the end — they must be scoped and designed into the software from the very start. Mature software companies employ not only in-house security engineers but also security architects and compliance engineers. These experts work during the initial design phase to ensure that the project is secure at an architectural level and adheres to security regulations. Compliance engineers, in particular, ensure that requirements like GDPR are baked into the design rather than checked off later in the development process.

This early involvement is essential to setting security testing up for success. By laying the groundwork early, security engineers can later focus on testing and verifying that these design decisions were implemented correctly, rather than scrambling to address fundamental issues.

Security Testing in Stages

Another way to embed security more thoroughly into the SDLC is to integrate security testing across different development phases. Rather than waiting for a complete product, security engineers can assess smaller deliverables, such as Minimum Viable Products (MVPs) or individual features. Each stage can be treated as a checkpoint where vulnerabilities are identified and addressed before the software is fully complete. This phased approach ensures that security issues are caught earlier, when they’re easier to fix, reducing the risk of major vulnerabilities going unnoticed until the final stages of development.

Feedback Loop Between QA and Security Testing

In a scenario where QA and security testing are handled separately, a clear feedback loop is necessary to ensure smooth collaboration. QA teams need to deliver a stable, well-tested product to the security team, minimizing the risk of functional bugs interfering with security assessments. However, if the security team identifies issues — whether they are functional or security-related — there must be a mechanism for this information to flow back to the QA team. For example, if a security vulnerability is linked to poor error handling or improper input validation, these can be flagged for functional fixes in addition to security remediation. This feedback loop ensures that both teams are aligned in their efforts, ultimately leading to a more secure and stable product.

‍

Why Separating QA from Security Testing Is The Better Choice

While the arguments for integrating QA and security testing are compelling, Resonance believes in separation. Here’s why:

• Specialization Matters: Security is an inherently complex and evolving field. Security engineers need to stay ahead of the latest threats, which requires focus and specialization. Expecting them to perform routine QA tasks would dilute their ability to focus on critical security vulnerabilities that could have catastrophic consequences, such as data breaches or loss of customer trust.
• Clear Responsibility Boundaries: The code should be thoroughly unit-tested and validated through QA by either the development team or a dedicated QA team before it reaches the security team. This ensures that the security engineers are working on a stable, functional codebase where they can focus exclusively on identifying and mitigating potential security risks.
• Efficient Resource Allocation: QA teams are better equipped to handle the iterative functional testing process, including regression and performance testing. Security engineers should come in afterward to ensure that the now-functional application is also secure. If security engineers find a functional bug, it should be reported, but the focus of the security team should remain on securing the system rather than verifying functional correctness.

‍

Conclusion

While Quality Assurance and Security Testing are both essential components of software development, they serve different purposes. QA ensures that software functions as expected and meets user needs, while Security Testing focuses on protecting the software from malicious exploitation. These two testing methods require distinct expertise and tools, and while there is a case for integrating them, separating the responsibilities may lead to better outcomes.

However, security considerations should be woven throughout the entire development process, not just addressed at the testing phase. From early compliance scoping and security architecture to phased security testing during development, embedding security early can improve outcomes and reduce risks. In fast-paced environments, a well-defined separation allows QA teams to focus on product functionality and user experience, while security engineers can dive deep into identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities. This dual-pronged approach can lead to more secure and reliable software overall.

References

Gupta, Adarsh. “Role of QA in Cyber Security.” Testvox, Testvox, 15 Feb. 2023, testvox.com/role-of-qa-in-cyber-security/.

Sharma, Itesh. “Qa Best Practices for Software Testing.” TatvaSoft, TatvaSoft Software Development Company, 2023, www.tatvasoft.com/outsourcing/2021/07/quality-assurance-best-practices.html.

Tawde, Swati. “Security Testing.” EDUCBA, EDUCBA, 9 June 2023, www.educba.com/security-testing/.

About the Author

Grace Dees is the Cybersecurity Business Analyst at Resonance Security. She specializes in the intersection of traditional and Web3 security by bridging the gap between technology and business objectives to deliver impactful solutions aligned with client needs.