DevSecOps in State and Local Governments: Technical Best Practices
In the labyrinthine world of government IT, where legacy systems date back to the era when floppy disks were cutting-edge technology and security protocols often involve physical locks on server room doors, a revolution is slowly but steadily taking place. DevSecOps—the integration of development, security, and operations—is emerging as not just a methodology but a survival strategy for state and local governments navigating the treacherous waters of digital transformation.
The reality of implementing DevSecOps in government environments is far more complex than simply installing new tools or reorganizing teams. It requires a fundamental shift in organizational culture, technical approaches, and compliance frameworks that have been entrenched for decades. What follows is a comprehensive examination of how state and local governments can implement DevSecOps effectively, drawing from real-world experiences, technical best practices, and the occasional cautionary tale that might induce both knowing nods and nervous laughter from government IT professionals.
The State of State IT: Why DevSecOps Matters Now
State and local government IT departments are often caught in a perfect storm of contradictory demands: accelerate digital service delivery while maintaining ironclad security, modernize legacy systems with shrinking budgets, and comply with a dizzying array of regulations that seem to multiply faster than server patches. The traditional waterfall development model, with security tacked on as an afterthought, is not merely inefficient—it's increasingly dangerous.
Consider Colorado's painful lesson during a recent system modernization effort. The state's collaborative internal and vendor software team invested two full years of development before conducting security scanning just prior to go-live. The result? More than 10,000 vulnerabilities detected at the eleventh hour. This real-world example underscores why embedding security from the start is not optional—it's essential.
As one Reddit commenter wryly observed about government's approach to agility and DevSecOps: "Governments for DevSecOps? Agility based streamlining of cooperation between dev, sec and ops? In my experience Governments are the last place to look for flexibility and value streamlining". This perception, while not universal, highlights the cultural challenges facing state and local governments attempting to implement DevSecOps.
Beyond Checkbox Compliance: The Technical Reality
The compliance landscape for state and local governments resembles a labyrinth designed by a particularly sadistic architect. FedRAMP, CJIS, NIST frameworks, state-specific regulations—the list grows annually, and each framework demands hundreds of security controls. Implementing these manually can consume years and millions of dollars.
A particularly revealing thread from Reddit highlights how compliance can become a checkbox exercise rather than a meaningful security improvement: "I spent the better part of a month stressing and trying to explain to compliance that we already had the functionality the auditors were asking for, but in the end the solution was just force-installing an unnecessary security-related app on all endpoints so that we could screenshot it running. Does it do anything to make our endpoints more secure? Nope. But does it make the auditors happy? You bet. I might as well have deployed a in-house 'dummy' app that said 'All systems secure' with a big green indicator on it 🟢. The auditors have no way to tell the difference".
This disconnect between compliance requirements and actual security efficacy represents one of the most significant challenges for state and local government IT departments. The technical reality is that being compliant doesn't necessarily mean being secure—a distinction that gets lost in the bureaucratic shuffle.
Technical Architecture: Building the Foundation for Government DevSecOps
A robust DevSecOps implementation for state and local governments begins with architecting systems that enable security integration throughout the development lifecycle. This starts with the deployment of a unified cloud architecture that can meet compliance requirements for frameworks such as FedRAMP, DoD SRG IL2, DFARS, and CJIS.
The technical foundation should include:
Unified Control Plane
State and local governments need a centralized platform that provides visibility across the entire application portfolio. This unified control plane should integrate with existing tools while offering a consolidated view of security posture, compliance status, and deployment readiness. The days of swivel-chair management across dozens of disconnected security tools must end.
A KPMG survey of nearly 300 federal, state, and local technical professionals revealed that 40% reported using 10+ tools in the development lifecycle. This tool sprawl "complicates the development process and requires teams to spend too much time managing the tools rather than delivering solutions". For resource-constrained state and local governments, this inefficiency is particularly problematic.
Automated Compliance Frameworks
The key to scaling compliance without scaling headcount lies in automation. Advanced DevSecOps implementations can deploy entire cloud architectures that meet compliance requirements in as little as an hour. This automation shouldn't just cover initial deployment but extend to continuous monitoring and remediation.
Anitian's approach demonstrates this possibility: "In an hour, Anitian can deploy an entire cloud architecture that meets (or exceeds) compliance requirements for frameworks such as FedRAMP, DoD SRG IL2, DFARS, CJIS, and more. Our platform automates everything, to remove guess work or human error".
Security as Code
Security policies, compliance requirements, and infrastructure hardening must be codified rather than existing as abstract documents or manual checklists. By implementing security as code, state and local governments can ensure consistent application of security controls and rapid remediation of vulnerabilities.
This approach directly addresses a common failure mode seen in government IT projects, where security is treated as a gate at the end of development rather than a continuous process throughout. The state of Colorado's experience with 10,000 vulnerabilities discovered just before deployment illustrates the danger of delaying security integration.
Pipeline Engineering: The Heart of Government DevSecOps
The continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline is where the rubber meets the road for DevSecOps in state and local governments. A well-engineered pipeline integrates security scanning, compliance verification, and automated testing at every stage.
Vulnerability Management Integration
Automated scanning for vulnerabilities must occur at multiple points in the pipeline:
Pre-commit scanning of developer code
Repository-level scanning during pull requests
Build-time scanning of containers and dependencies
Runtime scanning of deployed applications
Each layer of scanning should be tuned to balance speed with thoroughness. Early pipeline scans can be quicker with fewer false positives, while later scans can be more comprehensive.
Compliance Verification Gates
For state and local governments, compliance verification cannot be an afterthought. Pipeline gates should verify compliance with relevant frameworks before allowing code to progress to the next environment. These gates should generate auditable artifacts that demonstrate compliance to auditors without manual intervention.
The Security Compass report on U.S. Government Agencies highlights that "while many agencies feel their teams manage to meet evolving compliance regulations (87%), the tasks needed to do so require time that could be more valuable if used elsewhere". Automation of compliance verification addresses this efficiency challenge.
Artifact Management and Chain of Custody
The software supply chain represents a significant vulnerability for state and local governments. A secure artifact management system that maintains a cryptographically verifiable chain of custody for all software components is essential.
This becomes particularly important in the context of SBOMs (Software Bills of Materials), which are increasingly required for government systems. The pipeline must be able to generate, validate, and store SBOMs for all applications.
Cultural and Organizational Transformation: The Human Element
The technical challenges of implementing DevSecOps in state and local governments are substantial, but the human challenges often prove even more formidable. Cultural resistance, organizational silos, and skills gaps can derail even the most sophisticated technical implementations.
Breaking Down the Audit-Security Divide
One of the most pernicious problems in government IT is the adversarial relationship between security teams and audit/compliance teams. As one Reddit commenter noted: "Compliance is outdated, and the whole auditing process is broken. It pushes sysadmins to focus on appeasing the auditors rather than actually coming up with good security solutions".
The solution requires reframing the relationship between security and compliance. Security teams need to engage with auditors early and often, educating them on how modern cloud and containerized architectures work. Simultaneously, security professionals need to understand that auditors are operating within frameworks that may not have caught up to current technology.
A telling anecdote from Reddit illustrates this disconnect: "I walk them through and show them all the physical safeguards in place. Then they asked where the physical server is that stores the fingerprint data. Told them it could be on any of these compute blades in the VM cluster. Apparently that was a red flag. Then asked where the data was stored. I pointed at the SAN and told them that it's stored on several drives across the SAN, and I couldn't even begin to tell them where each block of data would be at any moment of any day. That was a red flag #2 because they didn't even have a checkbox for either of those common scenarios".
Executive Sponsorship and Governance
DevSecOps initiatives in state and local governments require strong executive sponsorship. The recent resignation of the co-head of the Defense Department's Enterprise DevSecOps initiative, who cited "lack of support from senior leadership" as his primary reason, underscores this necessity.
Rajive Mathur, former CIO of the Social Security Administration, emphasized "the need to get executive-level buy-in across the Social Security Administration to support developers getting what they need to build software faster and more efficiently". This executive buy-in must translate into concrete resources, clear governance, and protection from bureaucratic interference.
From Theory to Practice: Real-World Implementation Strategies
Moving beyond generalities, let's examine specific technical implementations that have proven successful in state and local government contexts.
Platform One and Software Factories
The Department of Defense has led the way with its "software factories" like Kessel Run, BESPIN, and SpaceCamp, along with platforms like Platform One. These initiatives provide valuable blueprints for state and local governments.
The software factory model combines standardized tooling, consistent processes, and cross-functional teams to enable rapid, secure software delivery. By adopting and adapting this model, state and local governments can achieve similar benefits without reinventing the wheel.
Modernizing Legacy Applications
While discussions about DevSecOps often focus on greenfield development, the reality for most state and local governments is that the majority of their applications are legacy systems. As Nick Sinai, former U.S. Deputy CTO, points out: "Too often, these conversations about agile and DevSecOps focus on brand new apps, rather than modernizing or evolving existing systems. Most of the apps and systems in the federal government—really in any large enterprise—are called 'legacy apps,' having been originally built some time ago, using traditional waterfall development".
The technical approach to bringing legacy systems into the DevSecOps fold includes:
Implementing API layers around legacy systems
Containerizing components where possible
Applying infrastructure as code to previously manual environments
Introducing automated testing gradually, focusing on high-risk areas first
Establishing monitoring and observability for systems that may have operated in the dark
DevSecOps Readiness Assessment
Kendra Charbonneau, Lead Engineer and Enterprise Agile Transformation Coach for the US Air Force Business Enterprise Systems, developed a readiness analysis framework that state and local governments would be wise to adopt. Her assessment found that "except for the newly created BESPIN, all of the other BES groups were in an early stage of moving to agile. Many had technical debt or lacked the training and tooling necessary".
A similar assessment for state and local government applications would likely reveal comparable challenges. The technical readiness assessment should evaluate:
Current security integration points
Test automation coverage
Deployment frequency and lead time
Mean time to recovery from failures
Change failure rate
Compliance automation maturity
Security-Specific Technical Implementations
While DevSecOps encompasses the entire software delivery lifecycle, security deserves special attention in the government context.
Zero Trust Architecture Integration
State and local governments are increasingly adopting Zero Trust principles, which align perfectly with DevSecOps practices. The technical implementation should include:
Identity-based authentication for all services and users
Microsegmentation of network environments
Least-privilege access controls
Continuous validation and monitoring
Encryption of data in transit and at rest
Continuous Security Monitoring
Traditional periodic assessment models are wholly inadequate for modern threats. State and local governments must implement continuous security monitoring that provides real-time visibility into their security posture.
This monitoring should integrate with the CI/CD pipeline to automatically remediate known vulnerabilities and alert security teams to novel threats that require human intervention.
Incident Response Automation
When security incidents occur, the speed of response is critical. Automated incident response playbooks, integrated with the DevSecOps toolchain, can dramatically reduce mean time to detection and mean time to remediation.
These playbooks should be regularly tested through tabletop exercises and simulated incidents to ensure they work as expected in a crisis.
The Budget Reality: Doing More with Less
State and local governments perpetually face budget constraints more severe than their federal counterparts. According to the Security Compass research, "budget constraints were cited as the biggest roadblock to meeting these goals, with over half (57%) of respondents noting that monetary issues inhibited their DevSecOps initiatives".
The technical strategy must account for this reality. Fortunately, well-implemented DevSecOps can actually reduce costs over time through:
Reduced rework due to early detection of security issues
Decreased manual compliance effort through automation
Lower incident response costs through improved prevention
Faster time to market for citizen-facing services
More efficient use of expensive security talent
Learning from Failures: Real-World Cautionary Tales
The path to DevSecOps maturity is littered with failures that provide valuable lessons. One of the most instructive comes from Colorado's experience discovering 10,000 vulnerabilities just before go-live, as mentioned earlier.
This failure illuminates several critical lessons:
Security cannot be an afterthought or a final gate
Vulnerability scanning must occur continuously throughout development
Technical debt accumulates exponentially when security is deferred
The cost of remediation increases dramatically the later vulnerabilities are discovered
Another revealing case comes from a Reddit thread where a sysadmin recounts: "we installed an IDS that's not even enabled to check the 'do you have an ids / ips' checkbox...". This exemplifies the checkbox compliance mentality that DevSecOps aims to eliminate.
Measuring Success: Beyond Compliance Checkboxes
Traditional metrics for IT success in government often focus on project completion, budget adherence, and audit findings. For DevSecOps, these metrics are necessary but insufficient. State and local governments should implement a more comprehensive set of technical metrics:
Lead Time for Changes
How long does it take from code commit to production deployment? This metric directly measures the efficiency of the delivery pipeline.
Deployment Frequency
How often can the team deploy changes to production safely? Higher frequency indicates greater pipeline maturity and confidence.
Mean Time to Restore
When failures occur, how quickly can services be restored? This measures both technical resilience and operational readiness.
Change Failure Rate
What percentage of changes result in degraded service or require remediation? This measures the quality of testing and the effectiveness of security controls.
Security Debt Reduction
Is the backlog of known vulnerabilities growing or shrinking? This indicates whether the security posture is improving over time.
Automated Compliance Coverage
What percentage of compliance requirements are verified automatically versus manually? This measures compliance efficiency.
Building Institutional Knowledge and Capacity
One of the persistent challenges for state and local governments is the retention of technical talent. The DevSecOps approach can help by creating comprehensive automation and documentation that captures institutional knowledge.
Infrastructure as code, configuration as code, and pipeline as code all serve to codify previously tacit knowledge. This reduces dependency on specific individuals and creates a foundation for continuous improvement.
Training and certification programs are also essential. The Department of Defense's approach to DevSecOps includes extensive training materials that state and local governments can adapt for their own use.
Finding the Right Tools for Government Environments
The tooling landscape for DevSecOps is vast and constantly evolving. State and local governments face the additional challenge of selecting tools that meet their specific compliance requirements and budget constraints.
Several principles should guide tool selection:
Prefer tools with FedRAMP authorization where possible
Evaluate integration capabilities with existing systems
Consider total cost of ownership, not just acquisition costs
Assess the tool's ability to generate auditable compliance artifacts
Evaluate the vendor's track record with government customers
Partnering with Vendors: Beyond the Sales Pitch
Vendors play a crucial role in the DevSecOps ecosystem, but government entities must approach vendor relationships strategically.
As the KPMG report notes, "Government developers spend more time creating low code and configuration than traditional coding. Instead, they collaborate with vendors to complete the solution development process". This collaboration must be carefully managed to ensure security is not compromised.
Technical requirements for vendors should include:
Demonstrated experience with relevant compliance frameworks
Ability to integrate with the government's existing security tools
Commitment to security throughout their own development process
Transparent vulnerability disclosure and patching processes
Support for modern deployment models including containers and cloud
The Future of Government DevSecOps
As state and local governments continue to evolve their DevSecOps practices, several emerging trends will shape the field:
AI and Machine Learning Integration
AI-powered security tools are increasingly capable of detecting patterns that indicate potential vulnerabilities or attacks. These tools will become essential components of the DevSecOps toolkit, helping resource-constrained government teams focus their attention where it matters most.
Policy as Code
The next frontier beyond infrastructure as code is policy as code—the codification of organizational policies, regulatory requirements, and security standards in a machine-readable format. This approach enables automated verification of compliance across environments.
Cross-Boundary Collaboration
State and local governments are increasingly sharing resources, tools, and knowledge to advance their DevSecOps capabilities. These collaborative efforts reduce duplication of effort and allow smaller governments to benefit from the advances of larger ones.
The technical challenges of implementing DevSecOps in state and local governments are substantial but surmountable. By focusing on automation, cultural change, and continuous improvement, government IT teams can deliver more secure, compliant systems while increasing delivery speed.
As one Reddit commenter wisely noted about compliance: "Being compliant is not something to be proud of.. It's like being proud of brushing your teeth.. Just basic hygiene". DevSecOps provides a path beyond basic hygiene to truly resilient, efficient government IT systems that serve citizens while protecting their data.
The journey may be challenging, but as Colorado learned after discovering those 10,000 vulnerabilities, the alternative is far worse. By embracing DevSecOps principles and practices, state and local governments can navigate the complex intersection of security, compliance, and digital transformation—and perhaps even make their IT departments places where talented professionals want to work.
After all, as another Reddit commenter observed about moving from private to public sector: "Anyone go from Private to Public (Government Contracting, Not direct GS) and still made good money (150k+) and be able to learn new skills/roles?". With DevSecOps implementation done right, the answer can increasingly be "yes"—making government IT not just more secure and efficient, but also a more rewarding place to build a technical career.
The technical path forward is clear. What remains is the will to follow it.