We need to have a real conversation about the quality of guidance coming out of the security industry, especially as it tries to grapple with generative AI. I recently stumbled across OWASP's GenAI Security Project. It has a "top ten" list for generative AI risks. Some entries were so high-level and toothless that they might as well have said, "Using AI is risky." No actionable insight. No guidance developers can use. Just another checkbox list destined to get plastered on PowerPoints and shoved into policy decks.

Consider this: "LLM applications have the potential to reveal sensitive information, proprietary algorithms, or other confidential details through their output." Yes, and water is wet. If the only takeaway from your security list is "Be scared of AI," then you’re not helping engineers make better decisions; you’re just fear-mongering.

Meanwhile, I was testing Replit, one of the most popular GenAI-enabled coding platforms, to spin up a basic React + Postgres app. Out of curiosity, I asked it, "Are we encrypting passwords in the database?" Not only did it catch that passwords were stored in plain text, but it fixed the implementation using bcrypt, migrated existing users, updated endpoints, and verified it all in minutes. It understood what mattered and got the job done, with no fear-driven messaging and a clear, practical impact.

That’s the disconnect. On one side, you have AI tooling that’s starting to understand real-world engineering concerns and fix them. On the other, you have security guidance that reads like it was written by someone who’s never shipped a line of code.

Real-world tooling decisions are already reshaping the baseline for secure development, and the security industry’s inability to reflect this shift in its guidance is where the real gap lies.

Real-World Tools Are Already Setting a New Security Baseline

That brings me to something worth celebrating: Replit just released separate dev and prod environments. A huge step forward for vibe coding. But here's the kicker: no security list is talking about that. Where’s the guidance telling developers to separate secrets, use platform features properly, and avoid leaking sensitive data into live systems? Crickets.

This is basic stuff. And yet, it’s ignored in favor of buzzwords like injection, poisoning, and embedding, as if security needs to sound like a sci-fi thriller to be taken seriously. That kind of jargon isn't just unhelpful, it's harmful. It makes security feel abstract and theatrical, rather than something engineers can own and improve.

If we want developers to care about security, we need to meet them where they are. That means talking about real tools, real workflows, and real fixes. Bake security into the platform. Teach developers how to use what they already have. And for the love of all things sane, stop flooding them with performative risk lists that amount to "You could be hacked."

What Modern Security Practices Should Actually Look Like

This is why Crash Override exists. Because helping engineering teams actually see what’s happening in their builds and environments—deeply and automatically—is what drives real security improvements. With deep build inspection, we’re not just comparing code diffs. We’re tracking everything that influences the software, including third-party packages, build scripts, registry behaviors, and even beaconing. We show what changed, who changed it, and how it affects what’s running in prod.

This isn’t just a better way to catch issues; it's a more effective way to do so. It’s a fundamentally smarter way to approach engineering. It’s about giving teams the complete catalog and change ledger for their entire software stack, so they’re not stuck navigating a black box and can understand exactly how their software is built, deployed, and changed over time. It’s what Engineering Relationship Management is all about: restoring clarity, driving prioritization, and enabling smarter decisions from code to cloud.

Security isn’t a feeling to chase or a mood to capture; it’s a deliberate strategy rooted in understanding what exists, knowing how it’s changing, and giving engineers the context they need to take decisive action. That starts with a complete picture of the environment, trust in the tools they’re using, and the space to build secure software without the theatrics.