ISOL Application Security Request For Proposal (RFP) Form ✓ Solved

ISOL Application Security: Request for Proposal (RFP) Form P

ISOL Application Security: Request for Proposal (RFP) Form Project Name: Project Sponsor: Dr. Richmond Ibe Project Group Names: Department: Organization: Contact Information: Phone: Date: Table of Contents Introduction Problem Statement Purpose Statement Scope Statement Impact assessment Budget/Financial Assessment High-Level Functional Requirements Business Benefits (Tangible and Intangible) Special Issues or Constraints Summary Conclusion References

Paper For Above Instructions

Project Overview

Project Name: ISOL Application Security RFP Initiative

Project Sponsor: Dr. Richmond Ibe

Project Group Names: ISOL Security Program Office; Application Development Team; IT Operations

Department: Information Security / Enterprise Applications

Organization: ISOL Corporation

Contact Information: security-rfp@isol.example.org

Phone: +1-555-0100

Date: 2025-12-02

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Problem Statement
  3. Purpose Statement
  4. Scope Statement
  5. Impact Assessment
  6. Budget / Financial Assessment
  7. High-Level Functional Requirements
  8. Business Benefits
  9. Special Issues or Constraints
  10. Summary Conclusion
  11. References

Introduction

This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits qualified vendors to provide comprehensive application security services for ISOL’s enterprise applications. The objective is to establish a mature, repeatable application security program that reduces risk, meets regulatory and standards-based requirements, and integrates secure engineering practices into the software development lifecycle (SDLC) (NIST, 2020; OWASP, 2021).

Problem Statement

ISOL’s current application portfolio has experienced inconsistent security testing, ad hoc remediation, and limited automation. Recent vulnerability findings and internal audits indicate elevated exposure to common web and API vulnerabilities, increasing risk of data breach, service disruption, and compliance violations (MITRE CWE, 2021; PCI SSC, 2018).

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this RFP is to select a vendor to deliver a full lifecycle application security program: threat modeling, static and dynamic testing (SAST/DAST), interactive application security testing (IAST), software composition analysis (SCA), penetration testing, developer training, and program governance. The selected vendor will help ISOL align to best practices such as OWASP, NIST SP 800-53, and ISO/IEC 27001 (OWASP, 2021; NIST, 2020; ISO/IEC 27001, 2013).

Scope Statement

Scope includes all web, mobile, and API-based applications maintained by ISOL for production and pre-production environments. Services requested:

  • Baseline security assessment of 30 applications.
  • Automated SAST/DAST and SCA tool deployment and tuning.
  • On-demand and scheduled penetration tests.
  • Threat modeling workshops for major applications.
  • Developer secure coding training and e-learning modules.
  • Integration with CI/CD pipelines for automated gating.
  • Monthly reporting, KPIs, and a 12-month roadmap for program maturity.

Excluded: infrastructure security hardening, third-party vendor remediation beyond advisory services, and legacy systems scheduled for decommissioning within 6 months.

Impact Assessment

Implementing a structured AppSec program will reduce exploitability and mean time to remediation (MTTR), decrease probability of breach, and improve regulatory posture (ENISA, 2019). Short-term impacts include resource allocation for remediation and tooling integration; long-term impacts are lower incident response costs and improved customer trust (Gartner, 2020).

Budget / Financial Assessment

Estimated initial investment: $350,000–$700,000, covering tooling licenses, professional services for assessments and integration, and initial training. Annual recurring costs: $200,000–$350,000 for subscriptions, managed testing, and continuous training. A cost-benefit comparison shows likely return on investment through reduced breach costs and compliance fines (CIS, 2021; SANS, 2019).

High-Level Functional Requirements

  1. Comprehensive SAST with enterprise scalability and accurate vulnerability prioritization (OWASP, 2021).
  2. DAST and IAST capabilities for runtime vulnerability detection and verification.
  3. Software Composition Analysis to detect open-source license and vulnerability risks (MITRE, 2021).
  4. Integration with major CI/CD tools (Jenkins, GitHub Actions, GitLab CI) and ticketing systems (JIRA).
  5. Automated pipelines that block builds for critical vulnerabilities, configurable by risk level.
  6. Professional penetration testing and remediation guidance aligned to OWASP testing guide.
  7. Developer training: role-based modules, measurable outcomes, and secure coding assessments.
  8. Executive dashboards with KPIs: time-to-fix, vulnerability density, coverage, and compliance status.

Business Benefits (Tangible and Intangible)

Tangible benefits: lower projected breach remediation costs, reduced audit and compliance penalties, and fewer production incidents (PCI SSC, 2018). Intangible benefits: improved customer trust, stronger brand reputation, and enhanced developer productivity through clearer security requirements and tools integrated into their workflow (McGraw, 2006; Gartner, 2020).

Special Issues or Constraints

  • Data sensitivity: testing must avoid exfiltration of production customer data; use sanitized test environments where feasible (NIST, 2020).
  • Legacy code: some monolithic applications may have limited testability; vendor must propose mitigations.
  • Regulatory constraints: must meet PCI DSS and data protection obligations in applicable jurisdictions (PCI SSC, 2018).
  • Integration limitations: limited access windows for production testing; vendor must coordinate schedules to minimize downtime.

Summary Conclusion

ISOL requires a partner to mature application security across the organization through tooling, services, and training. The scope balances immediate vulnerability reduction with sustainable program building, integrating into the SDLC and CI/CD pipelines to drive lasting security improvements. The preferred vendor will demonstrate proven tooling, domain expertise, clear KPIs, and ability to operate within ISOL’s operational and regulatory constraints (ENISA, 2019; SANS, 2019).

References

  • OWASP Foundation. (2021). OWASP Top Ten 2021. https://owasp.org/
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2020). NIST SP 800-53 Rev.5. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/
  • ISO/IEC. (2013). ISO/IEC 27001 Information security management. https://www.iso.org/isoiec-27001-information-security.html
  • MITRE. (2021). Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE). https://cwe.mitre.org/
  • PCI Security Standards Council. (2018). PCI DSS Documentation. https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/
  • SANS Institute. (2019). Application Security Resources. https://www.sans.org/
  • ENISA. (2019). Secure Software Development Lifecycle Guidelines. https://www.enisa.europa.eu/
  • CIS (Center for Internet Security). (2021). CIS Controls. https://www.cisecurity.org/
  • Gartner. (2020). Market Guide for Application Security Testing. https://www.gartner.com/
  • McGraw, G. (2006). Software Security: Building Security In. Addison-Wesley.

Related Assignments