Security that works with your engineering process, not against it
Threatplane was built by engineers who understand that security reviews turning into multi-week gates kill momentum and frustrate teams. There's a better way.
The security gate is a symptom, not the problem
Most engineering teams don't have a security problem. They have a process problem. Security gets bolted on at the end, which is expensive, slow, and frustrating for everyone involved.
Features miss their window
Security sign-off arrives two weeks after the sprint closes. The fix makes it into the next release cycle, which slips the next feature, and so on. The backlog of half-reviewed work grows.
Late feedback means expensive rework
When an architectural risk surfaces after the code is written, the fix is rarely simple. You're not patching — you're redesigning. That's a week of work that nobody planned for.
Engineers route around the process
When the security review is slow and the feedback is unclear, teams start shipping without it. Not because they don't care — because the process isn't set up to work alongside them.
Security debt compounds silently
Each feature that ships without a proper security review adds to a pile that nobody is tracking. When someone finally looks at it properly, the backlog is enormous and the risks are tangled into the architecture.
What this actually costs
The delay is the obvious cost. But the compounding effects are worse. Engineers leave because the process is broken and nobody fixes it. Technical debt from rushed fixes piles up. When a real incident happens, the investigation traces back to a decision made eighteen months ago with no documentation.
Security done late is always more expensive than security done early. The maths on this is straightforward. The hard part is building a process that makes early security the default.
What changes with Threatplane
Security requirements get planned into the sprint before the code is written. Risks get identified early enough to do something about them.
Planned into sprints
Threat model systems before the work starts. Security requirements become sprint tickets, not last-minute blockers.
Fast feedback
Get security insights in hours, not weeks. Fast enough to act on during the current sprint.
Language engineers understand
Clear guidance without jargon. Outputs that map to real engineering decisions rather than abstract security requirements.
Documentation that stays current
Threat models defined alongside the architecture. When systems change, the documentation changes with them.
Common questions
Things engineering teams usually want to know before getting started.
A well-run session for a single feature or system typically takes two to three hours. We keep sessions focused and time-boxed. Broader architectural reviews may take a day. The output is actionable the same day.
No. Sessions are designed so engineers can contribute their architectural knowledge without needing a security background. We bring the security expertise. You bring the system knowledge. Both are needed.
Yes. Threat modelling sessions are designed to happen at the start of a feature or sprint cycle, so outputs feed directly into planning. Nothing needs to change in how you work — security just becomes one of the inputs.
Most security teams are stretched across many systems and can't review every feature in depth. Threatplane gives engineering teams a structured way to do initial assessments without needing the security team's time for every decision. It reduces demand on them while increasing coverage.
Absolutely. Threat modelling existing systems often uncovers more issues than greenfield work, because assumptions have been baked in over time. We regularly work with teams to assess systems that have been running for years.
A pen test checks what vulnerabilities exist right now. Threat modelling happens earlier — it looks at what could go wrong given how the system is designed, before the code is written or the feature ships. Both are useful. They work at different stages.