In this episode, we’re going to focus on a habit that separates mature security work from frantic security patching: defining security requirements early, while you still have choices. Beginners sometimes imagine security as a layer you add at the end, like putting a lock on a door after the building is already finished, but that approach almost always leads to expensive, awkward fixes and surprising gaps. Requirements are simply statements of what the system must do and what it must not do, and when you write them early, you turn security from an argument into an agreed set of expectations. The reason this matters is that security is full of tradeoffs, and tradeoffs are much easier to manage when the system is still flexible. If you wait until development is nearly done, the only options left are usually the most painful ones, like rewriting major parts of the design or accepting risk you didn’t intend to accept. Early requirements let you build security into the plan so it feels like part of the product, not a last-minute obstacle.
Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.
A useful starting point is to understand the difference between functional requirements and non-functional requirements, because security shows up in both. Functional requirements describe what the system does, like allowing users to create accounts, upload files, or submit payments. Non-functional requirements describe how well the system does those things, such as how fast it responds, how reliable it is, and how it protects information. Many security requirements are non-functional, like “data must be encrypted” or “access must be logged,” but some security requirements are functional too, like “users must be able to reset passwords securely” or “administrators must approve certain actions.” Beginners often miss the functional side, which leads to systems that technically have security controls but do not provide secure workflows people can actually use. When security is expressed only as non-functional constraints, it can feel like it fights usability, but when you also define secure functions, you create safer ways for people to accomplish real tasks. That is how you reduce workarounds and make the secure path the easy path.
Another key early requirement is scope, which means defining what the system is and what it is not. Without clear scope, teams tend to accidentally expand what the system does, which is called scope creep, and security risks expand with it. If your system is supposed to store customer contact details, but then someone decides to store sensitive identity documents as a convenience, your security requirements must change dramatically. If you are building a reporting dashboard, but then someone adds administrative controls without updating the threat thinking, you may expose powerful functions to the wrong users. Scope also includes where the system will run and who will use it, because a tool used only by internal staff has different risk than a tool exposed to the public internet. Defining scope early helps you decide which threats are realistic and which controls must be planned. It also prevents the common scenario where security teams discover late that the system is handling far more sensitive data than anyone admitted in the beginning.
When you define requirements early, you should tie them to assets and risks in plain language, because requirements are meant to guide decisions, not impress people. An asset could be customer data, system availability, transaction integrity, or administrative control of configuration. The risk could be unauthorized access, data leakage, fraud, or service disruption. Requirements translate those concerns into concrete expectations, such as “Only authorized roles can access customer records” or “All changes to access rights must be recorded and reviewable.” Notice how those statements are specific enough to test and discuss without dictating a particular product. That is important, because requirements should describe outcomes and constraints, not brand names. If you require secure outcomes, you can choose the best implementation later and you can adapt when technology changes. This approach also helps avoid confusion where different people assume different meanings for words like secure or private, because the requirement spells out what must actually happen.
A security requirement is only useful if it is measurable, meaning you can tell whether it is met. Vague statements like “the system must be secure” do not help because everyone can agree with them while imagining different things. Measurable does not mean you need complex math; it means you can define conditions. For example, you can say that sensitive data must be encrypted in storage and protected in transit, and you can verify that by inspection and testing. You can say that failed login attempts must be limited and monitored, and you can verify that through behavior under test and through logs. You can say that access to administrative functions must require stronger authentication, and you can verify that by trying to access those functions without the required step. When requirements are measurable, they become part of quality, like performance and reliability, instead of being an afterthought. That is one of the strongest reasons to define them early: they become normal acceptance criteria, not optional wishes.
Usability is where many security requirements either succeed or quietly fail, because humans are part of every system. If a security requirement makes normal work too painful, people will find workarounds, and those workarounds often defeat the control. This is why usability tradeoffs must be considered as part of requirements, not as a separate concern. For instance, requiring very frequent password changes might sound secure, but it can lead to predictable patterns, written-down passwords, or password reuse. Requiring constant reauthentication for low-risk actions might train users to click through prompts without thinking, reducing the value of reauthentication when it truly matters. A better approach is to define requirements that protect high-value actions more strongly and allow low-risk actions to remain smooth. That means you define requirements that are risk-based, such as requiring step-up verification only when changing sensitive settings or accessing highly sensitive data. This kind of requirement balances security with usability by matching friction to impact.
There is also a tradeoff between security and performance, and it shows up early in design choices. Some controls add overhead, like additional checks, logging, encryption operations, or validation steps. If performance requirements are very tight, teams may be tempted to weaken security to hit speed targets. Early requirement work helps prevent that by forcing a conversation about acceptable latency, acceptable complexity, and acceptable risk. For example, you might decide that encryption and logging are non-negotiable, and that performance targets must account for them. Or you might decide that certain expensive checks can be limited to high-risk endpoints, while basic endpoints use lighter validation. The point is not to eliminate tradeoffs; the point is to make them explicit while you still have room to design. When you capture these decisions as requirements, you reduce surprise later when someone discovers that security controls “slow things down,” because that impact was planned and accepted.
Another early tradeoff involves operational complexity, because security controls must be maintained over time. A control that is too complex to run correctly can create hidden risk, such as misconfiguration, inconsistent enforcement, or alert fatigue. This is why requirements should consider who will operate the system and what their capabilities are. If a small team must support a system, requirements that demand extremely granular manual review of every event may not be realistic. Instead, you might require automated detection with clear escalation paths and a manageable set of alerts. Similarly, if the environment has legacy constraints, requirements might include compensating controls that are realistic to implement, like segmentation and monitoring, rather than demanding features the legacy system cannot support. Early requirements are a way to align security goals with the organization’s capacity, so the resulting security posture is sustainable rather than idealized. Sustainability is a security property, because a control that gets turned off after three months might as well not exist.
Requirements should also address integrity and change control, because many serious incidents come from unauthorized or unintended changes. Early requirements can specify that certain types of changes require approval, that changes must be traceable to an identity, and that there must be a way to roll back. For beginners, it is helpful to think of this as protecting the system against both attackers and accidents. If an attacker gains access, you want to limit how much they can change without being detected. If a developer makes a mistake, you want to catch it quickly and recover. Requirements can also define separation between environments, such as keeping testing separate from production, because blending them creates risk that test data leaks or that untested changes hit live users. Again, the point is not to prescribe a specific toolchain; it is to define outcomes that can be validated. When these requirements exist early, the architecture and processes can be designed to satisfy them naturally.
Privacy and data handling requirements are another category that must be defined early because they shape how the system stores and moves information. If you decide late that certain data must not be stored, you may discover the system was built around storing it. If you decide late that data must be retained for a certain period and then deleted, you may discover you have no reliable deletion mechanism. Requirements can specify what data is collected, why it is collected, how long it is kept, who can access it, and how access is logged. These requirements protect users and reduce organizational risk, but they also support security investigations, because logging and retention can be crucial during incident response. Beginners should recognize that data decisions are security decisions, because the easiest way to avoid leaking data is to not collect it in the first place. Early requirements keep the data footprint intentional, not accidental.
A well-defined set of requirements also supports security testing, because you cannot test what you did not define. If you have requirements for authentication, authorization, logging, and data protection, then you can design tests to confirm those behaviors. This is important because many security failures come from assumptions that were never verified. Someone assumes logs exist, but they do not. Someone assumes access is restricted, but a hidden path allows bypass. Someone assumes sensitive data is protected, but it leaks through an edge case. Requirements allow you to create checks that catch these problems before release, and they allow you to retest after changes. For beginners, it helps to see that security testing is not just “try to hack it,” it is also “verify the system meets its promised security behaviors.” Early requirements are the promises, and testing is the proof.
It is also worth noting that requirements are a communication tool between groups that often talk past each other. Business stakeholders care about user experience and outcomes. Developers care about feasibility and timelines. Security teams care about risk and controls. Operations teams care about stability and maintainability. If you write requirements in plain language, measurable terms, and tie them to business impact, you create a shared reference that reduces conflict. Instead of arguing about whether a control is annoying, you can discuss whether it is necessary for protecting a specific asset and whether there is a more usable way to achieve the same outcome. Instead of blaming teams for late surprises, you can point to requirements that were missed and fix the process. This is one of the quiet benefits of early requirements: they reduce drama and increase clarity. When everyone knows what must be true, the conversation becomes about how to achieve it, not whether it matters.
To bring this home, defining security requirements early is about deciding what you will protect, how strong the protection must be, and what tradeoffs you are willing to accept to make the system usable and sustainable. Functional security requirements ensure the system provides secure workflows, not just security restrictions. Non-functional security requirements ensure the system protects confidentiality, integrity, and availability as a built-in quality measure. Usability tradeoffs ensure security does not push people into unsafe workarounds, and performance and operational tradeoffs ensure controls can run reliably over time. If you do this work early, you avoid bolting security on at the end, when it is expensive and conflict-filled. You also create a system that is easier to test, easier to operate, and more resilient under attack and under normal change. For SecurityX learners, this is a core skill: translating risk into clear expectations, early enough that design can meet them gracefully, rather than late enough that you are forced into compromises you never intended.