"Shift-left" has become a rallying cry in application security: identify vulnerabilities early, empower developers to fix them, and save time and money. But in practice, shift-left isn’t always the golden ticket it’s made out to be.

Too often, well-intentioned AppSec programs end up sh*tting-left instead of shifting-left. Developers are bombarded with noisy tools, security teams are stretched thin, and the whole initiative falls apart. Sound familiar? If so, you’re not alone—but the good news is that you can fix it.

In this article, we’ll dig into why shift-left fails, share some sh*t-left horror stories, and (most importantly) show you how to make shift-left work for your team.

Why Shift-Left Fails

1. Alert Fatigue: Drowning in Noise

Many organizations start their shift-left journey by adopting tools like static application security testing (SAST) scanners. These tools promise to identify vulnerabilities earlier in the software development lifecycle (SDLC), giving teams a head start on fixing issues before they escalate. The problem? They often work too well—or rather, too loudly.

SAST tools are notorious for generating mountains of findings, many of which are:

• Irrelevant: Alerts for non-critical issues that don’t pose a real security threat.

• Low-Priority: Findings that may matter someday but aren’t pressing today.

• False Positives: Mistakes where the tool flags perfectly fine code as problematic.

To demonstrate this, we used a SAST tool to scan this code from PyGoat. It had found that this view (introduction/apis.py) is vulnerable to CSRF because of the exemption of the CSRF decorator in the beginning. What the tool failed to determine is the context as to why CSRF was exempt.

For example, this was a false positive by understanding the context as reported here:

The route is not directly exposed to the user and requires authentication. Additionally, the code checks for valid input and performs server-side logic, which mitigates CSRF risks. The csrf_exempt decorator is likely used to enable API functionality in a controlled manner.

@csrf_exempt
def ssrf_code_checker(request):
    if request.user.is_authenticated:
        if request.method == 'POST':
            python_code = request.POST['python_code']
            html_code = request.POST['html_code']
            if not (ssrf_code_converter(python_code)):
                return JsonResponse({"status": "error", "message": "Invalid code"})
            test_bench1 = ssrf_html_input_extractor(html_code)
            
            if (len(test_bench1) >4):
                return JsonResponse({'message':'too many inputs in Html\n Try again'},status = 400)
            test_bench2 = ['secret.txt']
            correct_output1 = [{"blog": "blog1-passed"}, {"blog": "blog2-passed"}, {"blog": "blog3-passed"}, {"blog": "blog4-passed"}]
            outputs = []
            for inputs in test_bench1:
                outputs.append(main.ssrf_lab(inputs))
            if outputs == correct_output1:
                outputs = []
            else:
                return JsonResponse({'message':'Testbench failed, Code is not working\n Try again'},status = 200)
            correct_output2 = [{"blog": "No blog found"}]
            for inputs in test_bench2:
                outputs.append(main.ssrf_lab(inputs))
            if outputs == correct_output2:
                return JsonResponse({'message':'Congratulation, you have written a secure code.', 'passed':1}, status = 200)
            
            return JsonResponse({'message':'Test bench passed but the code is not secure'}, status = 200,safe = False)
        else:
            return JsonResponse({'message':'method not allowed'},status = 405)
    else:
        return JsonResponse({'message':'UnAuthenticated User'},status = 401)

For developers, this is a recipe for frustration. Instead of seeing shift-left as a productivity booster, they see it as a time sink. Imagine starting your workday with a thousand unfiltered alerts, each requiring your attention, only to discover that the majority are either non-issues or irrelevant to your task. This is the essence of alert fatigue.

When developers stop trusting the tools to surface meaningful insights, they disengage entirely. Alerts go ignored, vulnerabilities slip through the cracks, and the very purpose of shift-left—catching issues early—gets undermined.

2. Developer Resistance: Bad UX for Devs

Shift-left initiatives often feel like they were designed by security teams for security teams, with little consideration for how developers actually work. Developers are already juggling tight deadlines, feature requests, and bug fixes. Adding security tools to their workflow can feel like just another burden—especially when those tools are clunky, unintuitive, or disruptive.

Here’s where the breakdown usually happens:

• Clunky Tools: Many security tools lack modern user experiences. Slow performance, poorly designed interfaces, and confusing outputs make them more of a hindrance than a help.

• Disrupted Workflows: If developers are forced to leave their familiar tools—like their integrated development environments (IDEs) or version control systems—to access security findings, they’re less likely to engage.

• Unclear Benefits: Developers often perceive security tools as something imposed on them without a clear "what’s in it for me" explanation. If they don’t see how the tools make their jobs easier or their code better, they won’t invest their time.

The worst-case scenario? Developers actively work around the tools to hit deadlines. They might suppress alerts, skip security checks, or sideline the tools altogether. This resistance isn’t born out of malice—it’s a natural reaction to poorly integrated systems that add more pain than value.

3. Misaligned Tools: SAST Isn’t Enough

SAST tools are often the go-to for shift-left programs, but they come with significant limitations. Originally designed as standalone tools for security teams, they struggle to adapt to the fast-paced, iterative world of modern development. Here’s where they fall short:

• Lack of Prioritization: SAST tools don’t always understand the context of the codebase. They flag everything that matches their ruleset, regardless of risk level or relevance to the current sprint.

• No Actionable Guidance: Developers are left with a laundry list of issues but little information on how to fix them. Without specific recommendations or examples, it’s easy for issues to get deprioritized or ignored. For example, there are over 40 ways to solve an SQL injection vulnerability as it depends on the language, framework and database being used.

• Context-Blindness: SAST tools often operate in isolation, analyzing code statically without understanding runtime behaviors, dependencies, or the broader application ecosystem. This leads to findings that might be technically correct but irrelevant in practice.

For shift-left to succeed, tools need to do more than just surface issues—they need to help developers understand, prioritize, and fix them. Unfortunately, SAST tools are often ill-equipped to provide this level of support, leaving developers to shoulder the burden.

4. Cultural Disconnect: Security vs. Development

At the heart of many shift-left failures is a cultural divide between security and development teams. While both groups ultimately want the same thing—secure, reliable software—they approach the problem from very different angles:

• Security Teams: Focused on identifying and mitigating risk, often emphasizing thoroughness and completeness over speed.

• Development Teams: Focused on delivering features quickly and efficiently, often working under tight deadlines and resource constraints.

This mismatch in priorities can lead to friction. Security teams may view developers as careless for ignoring vulnerabilities, while developers see security teams as obstacles to productivity. When shift-left programs are introduced without addressing these cultural divides, they often exacerbate existing tensions.

Examples of cultural disconnect include:

• Unrealistic Expectations: Security teams may expect developers to prioritize and fix every vulnerability flagged by their tools, regardless of severity or impact on delivery timelines.

• Poor Communication: Developers may not understand the rationale behind certain security requirements, while security teams may lack insight into the development process and its constraints.

• Siloed Workflows: Security and development teams often operate in isolation, with little collaboration or shared ownership of security outcomes.

To bridge this gap, organizations need to foster a culture of collaboration, where both teams see themselves as partners working toward a common goal. This means aligning on priorities, sharing knowledge, and building mutual trust and respect.

Sh*t-Left Horror Stories: What Not to Do

If you’ve worked in AppSec long enough, you’ve probably seen some classic sh*t-left scenarios. Here are a few examples to learn from:

• The Never-Ending Findings List: A company pushed its SAST scanner directly into the CI/CD pipeline. Every build produced thousands of alerts, overwhelming developers and slowing delivery. Eventually, they ignored the alerts entirely.

• The "Fix Everything" Mandate: Leadership demanded that all vulnerabilities flagged by the scanner be fixed immediately, regardless of their severity or relevance. Developers were stretched thin, deadlines slipped, and morale tanked.

• The Forgotten Feedback Loop: A shift-left program was rolled out with fanfare, but no one tracked its impact. Developers quietly abandoned the tools, and security teams didn’t realize until months later that vulnerabilities were still piling up in production.

The common thread in these stories? A lack of prioritization, alignment, and feedback. The result: a lot of wasted time and energy—and no real improvement in security.

How to Actually Shift-Left

So, how do you avoid sh*tting-left and start shifting-left? Here are some practical steps:

1. Empower Developers with Actionable Insights

The success of shift-left hinges on making life easier for developers, not harder. Developers don’t want—or have time—to sift through a mile-long list of vague findings. They need clear, prioritized guidance to fix vulnerabilities effectively.

This starts with triaging findings before they reach developers. Instead of inundating them with raw results, provide actionable recommendations tailored to their workflow. For example:

• Highlight vulnerabilities that pose the most significant risk to the application or business.

• Include detailed context, such as why the issue matters, how it could be exploited, and what the impact would be.

• Provide specific instructions or example fixes to guide developers toward resolution.

Integration is also key. Security tools should meet developers where they are. This means integrating directly into their IDEs, where they write and debug code, or their code review platforms, where fixes are scrutinized and approved. When developers can address vulnerabilities without jumping between tools or workflows, they’re more likely to embrace the process.

2. Leverage AI to Reduce Noise

One of the biggest hurdles in shift-left is noise—false positives, irrelevant alerts, and low-priority issues that drown out what really matters. Traditional tools like SAST scanners are notorious for generating more problems than they solve. This is where AI can be a game-changer.

AI-powered tools are designed to work smarter, not harder. They excel at:

• Detecting False Positives: By analyzing vulnerabilities in the context of the application, AI can filter out issues that don’t pose a real threat, reducing noise significantly.

• Prioritizing Findings: AI can assess vulnerabilities based on risk factors like exploitability, business impact, and exposure to sensitive data, ensuring that the most critical issues are addressed first.

• Suggesting Fixes: Some AI tools can even provide developers with suggested code fixes or best practices, cutting down the time it takes to resolve vulnerabilities.

This isn’t just about efficiency; it’s about restoring trust. Developers are more likely to engage with security tools if they know the alerts they receive are accurate and actionable. AI helps create that trust by ensuring developers aren’t wasting their time on phantom issues.

3. Align Processes with Developer Workflows

Shift-left isn’t just a change in tools—it’s a shift in how security integrates into the development lifecycle. To succeed, it’s critical to align security processes with existing developer workflows. If security feels like an external imposition, it will be ignored. If it feels like a natural extension of the development process, it will thrive.

Here’s how to align processes effectively:

• CI/CD Integration: Integrate security checks into the continuous integration/continuous delivery pipeline. This ensures vulnerabilities are flagged early in the build process, but it’s crucial to do this intelligently—don’t block builds for low-priority issues. Additionally, you'll need a way to suppress false-positives.

• Version Control Systems: Embed security tools into platforms like GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket to make identifying and fixing vulnerabilities part of the code review process.

• Pre-Commit Checks: Add lightweight security checks before code is even committed. These checks should focus on quick wins, like identifying hardcoded secrets or basic misconfigurations.

By embedding security into these workflows, it becomes less of a separate task and more of a seamless part of how developers work. This minimizes resistance and maximizes adoption.

4. Foster a Culture of Collaboration

Technology is only part of the equation. The most effective shift-left programs are those where AppSec and development teams work together as partners. Collaboration bridges the gap between two groups that often have conflicting priorities—speed versus security—and aligns them toward a common goal.

To foster a culture of collaboration:

• Regular Communication: Schedule regular check-ins between AppSec and development teams to discuss goals, challenges, and progress.

• Shared Goals: Align metrics across teams. For example, both groups could aim to reduce vulnerabilities in production or improve time-to-fix for critical issues.

• Mutual Education: Teach developers the basics of secure coding, and educate security teams on the realities of software development. When each side understands the other’s perspective, collaboration becomes easier.

• Recognition and Incentives: Acknowledge developers who go above and beyond in addressing security issues. Gamifying security, like leaderboards for the most vulnerabilities fixed, can also motivate teams.

Building this culture takes time, but it’s the foundation for a sustainable shift-left strategy.

5. Measure Success and Iterate

You can’t improve what you don’t measure. Tracking the right metrics is essential to understanding whether your shift-left program is working—and where it needs adjustment. Here are some metrics to consider:

• Time-to-Fix: How long does it take to resolve vulnerabilities after they’re identified? A decreasing trend here indicates improved efficiency.

• Vulnerabilities in Production: Are fewer issues making it to production? This is a key indicator of shift-left success.

• Developer Satisfaction: Conduct surveys or gather informal feedback to understand how developers feel about the tools and processes. Happy developers are more likely to adopt security practices.

• False Positive Rate: A high false positive rate can erode trust. Monitor and aim to reduce this over time.

Use these metrics not only to evaluate success but to refine your program. No shift-left initiative is perfect out of the gate. By iterating based on data and feedback, you can ensure continuous improvement.

The Role of AI in Shift-Left Success

AI is a game-changer for shift-left. Traditional tools like SAST scanners often fail because they lack context and generate too many false positives. AI, on the other hand, can analyze code in context, prioritize issues based on business impact, and even automate parts of the remediation process.

For example, Corgea’s AI-powered platform cuts through the noise by identifying false positives, prioritizing vulnerabilities, and providing developers with targeted fixes. By integrating seamlessly into developer workflows, it ensures that shift-left doesn’t feel like a chore—it feels like an upgrade.

Closing Thoughts: Don’t Sh*t-Left—Shift-Left

Shift-left is more than a buzzword—it’s a powerful approach to modern AppSec. But like any tool or strategy, it’s only as good as its implementation. By avoiding the common pitfalls and focusing on developer empowerment, process alignment, and smart tooling, you can turn shift-left from a pipe dream into a success story.

So, the next time you’re planning your AppSec strategy, remember: don’t sh*t-left—shift-left. With the right approach, you can catch vulnerabilities early, empower your developers, and build stronger, more secure applications.