🏛 Library Architecture & Design Patterns Security Patterns
patterns / security

Security Patterns

Zero Trust, defense-in-depth, OAuth/OIDC flows, API gateway security patterns.

TOGAF ADM NIST CSF ISO 27001 AWS Well-Arch Google SRE AI-Native
💡
In Plain English

Security Patterns is a core discipline within Architecture & Design Patterns. It defines how technology systems should be designed, implemented, and governed to achieve reliable, secure, and maintainable outcomes that serve both technical teams and business stakeholders.

📈
Business Value

Applying Security Patterns standards reduces system failures, accelerates delivery, and provides the governance evidence required by enterprise clients, regulators like BSP, and certification bodies like ISO. Top technology companies (Google, Microsoft, Amazon) treat these standards as competitive differentiators, not compliance overhead.

📖 Detailed Explanation

Architecture patterns are proven, reusable solutions to recurring design problems. They represent the distilled experience of the software engineering community — what works, what doesn't, and under what conditions each solution is appropriate.

Industry Context: Patterns implemented across all major technology stacks. Cloud provider pattern libraries (AWS, Azure, GCP) extend foundational patterns to cloud-native contexts.

Relevance to Philippine Financial Services: Organizations operating under BSP supervision must demonstrate mature architecture & design patterns practices during technology examinations. The BSP Technology Supervision Group evaluates documentation quality, process maturity, and evidence of systematic practice — all of which are addressed by the standards in this section.

Alignment to Global Standards: The practices documented here are aligned to frameworks used by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and the world's leading consulting firms (McKinsey Digital, Deloitte Technology, Accenture Technology). They represent the current industry consensus on best practices rather than any single vendor's approach.

Engineering Perspective: For engineers, Security Patterns provides concrete patterns and anti-patterns that prevent common mistakes and accelerate development by providing proven solutions to recurring problems. Rather than rediscovering what doesn't work, teams can apply battle-tested approaches with known trade-offs.

Architecture Perspective: For architects, Security Patterns provides the design vocabulary, decision frameworks, and governance artifacts needed to make and communicate complex technical decisions clearly and consistently.

Business Perspective: For business stakeholders, Security Patterns provides assurance that technology investments are aligned to industry standards, reducing the risk of expensive rework, regulatory findings, and system failures that impact customers and revenue.

📈 Architecture Diagram

flowchart LR
    A["Security Patterns
Concept"] --> B["Principles
& Standards"]
    B --> C["Design
Decisions"]
    C --> D["Implementation
Patterns"]
    D --> E["Governance
Checkpoints"]
    E --> F["Validation
& Evidence"]
    F -.->|"Feedback Loop"| A
    style A fill:#1e293b,color:#f8fafc
    style F fill:#052e16,color:#4ade80

Lifecycle of Security Patterns: from concept through principles, design decisions, implementation patterns, governance checkpoints, and validation — with feedback loops for continuous improvement.

🌎 Real-World Examples

Google — BeyondCorp Zero Trust
Mountain View, USA · Enterprise Security Reference

Google eliminated VPN-based network perimeter trust. Every access request is evaluated on user identity, device health, and context — regardless of network location. BeyondCorp is the basis for Google Cloud IAP and the reference implementation for NIST SP 800-207 Zero Trust Architecture.

✓ Result: Zero VPN dependency across 100,000+ employees; access policy violations detected in real-time vs. weeks in traditional perimeter model

ING Bank — OPA Policy-as-Code
Amsterdam, Netherlands · Banking · 38 countries

ING's post-GDPR security overhaul uses OPA for all service-to-service API authorization. Policies are version-controlled in Git, reviewed in pull requests, and unit-tested in CI. FIDO2 hardware keys replaced SMS OTP for 53,000 employees — eliminating SIM swap attacks.

✓ Result: Phishing-based compromises down 99.7%; 4 consecutive DNB examinations with zero security findings

Stripe — HMAC Webhook Security
San Francisco, USA · Payments Infrastructure

Stripe's webhook delivery uses HMAC-SHA256 signatures verified by every consumer before processing. mTLS required for all enterprise integrations. API key scoping (RBAC + time-bound + geo-restricted) limits blast radius of any key compromise. Bug bounty pays $30,000+ for critical API vulnerabilities.

✓ Result: $817B annual volume with zero webhook forgery attacks; industry reference for API security patterns

Target — Vendor Zero Trust
Minneapolis, USA · Retail · Post-breach transformation

After the 2013 breach (40M cards via HVAC vendor credentials), Target rebuilt with STRIDE threat modeling for every vendor integration, micro-segmentation isolating payment systems, and Zero Trust for all 1,800+ supplier connections. Now a Harvard Business School case study.

✓ Result: Zero PCI DSS findings in 9 consecutive post-transformation audits; vendor incidents down 87%

🌟 Core Principles

1
Intentional Design for Security Patterns

Every aspect of security patterns must be deliberately designed, not discovered after deployment. Document design decisions as ADRs with explicit rationale.

2
Consistency Across the Portfolio

Apply security patterns practices consistently across all systems. Inconsistent application creates governance blind spots and makes incident investigation unpredictable.

3
Alignment to Business Outcomes

Security Patterns practices must demonstrably contribute to business outcomes: reduced downtime, faster delivery, lower operational cost, or improved compliance posture.

4
Evidence-Based Quality Assessment

Quality of security patterns implementation must be measurable. Define specific metrics and collect evidence continuously — not only at audit or review time.

5
Continuous Evolution

Standards for security patterns evolve as technology and threat landscapes change. Schedule quarterly reviews of applicable standards and update practices accordingly.

⚙️ Implementation Steps

1

Current State Assessment

Document the current state of security patterns practice: what is implemented, what is missing, what is inconsistent across teams. Use the governance/scorecards section for a structured assessment framework.

2

Gap Analysis Against Standards

Compare current state against the standards in this section and applicable frameworks (Enterprise Integration Patterns — Hohpe & Woolf, Gang of Four Design Patterns). Prioritize gaps by business impact and remediation effort.

3

Design the Target State

Define the target security patterns state: which patterns will be adopted, which anti-patterns eliminated, which governance mechanisms introduced. Express as a time-bound roadmap.

4

Incremental Implementation

Implement security patterns improvements incrementally: pilot with one team or system, measure outcomes, refine the approach, then expand. Avoid big-bang transformations.

5

Validate and Iterate

Measure the impact of implemented changes against defined success criteria. Incorporate lessons learned into the practice standards. Contribute improvements back to this library.

✅ Governance Checkpoints

CheckpointOwnerGate CriteriaStatus
Current State DocumentedSolution ArchitectSecurity Patterns current state assessment completed and reviewedRequired
Gap Analysis ReviewedArchitecture Review BoardGap analysis reviewed and prioritization approvedRequired
Implementation Plan ApprovedEnterprise ArchitectTarget state and roadmap approved by ARBRequired
Quality Metrics DefinedSolution ArchitectMeasurable success criteria defined for security patterns improvementsRequired

◈ Recommended Patterns

✦ Reference Architecture Adoption

Start from an established reference architecture for security patterns rather than designing from scratch. Adapt to organizational context rather than rebuilding proven foundations.

✦ Pattern Library Contribution

When your team solves a recurring security patterns problem with a novel approach, document it as a pattern for the library. This compounds organizational knowledge over time.

✦ Fitness Function Testing

Encode security patterns standards as automated architectural fitness functions — tests that run in CI/CD and fail builds when standards are violated. This makes governance continuous rather than periodic.

⛔ Anti-Patterns to Avoid

⛔ Standards Theater

Documenting security patterns standards in architecture policies that no one reads and no one enforces. Standards without automated validation or governance gates are not operational standards.

⛔ Copy-Paste Architecture

Adopting another organization's security patterns patterns wholesale without adapting to organizational context, team capability, or regulatory environment. Always adapt; never just copy.

🤖 AI Augmentation Extensions

🤖 AI-Assisted Standards Review

LLM agents analyze design documents against security patterns standards, generating structured gap reports with cited evidence and suggested remediation approaches.

⚡ AI review accelerates governance but does not replace expert architectural judgment. Use as a first-pass filter before human review.
🤖 RAG Integration for Security Patterns

This section is optimized for vector ingestion into an AI-powered architecture assistant. Semantic search enables architects to retrieve relevant security patterns guidance through natural language queries.

⚡ Reindex the vector store whenever section content is updated to ensure retrieved guidance reflects current standards.

🔗 Related Sections

📚 References & Further Reading