Java Gotchas - Bitwise vs Boolean Operators
Java Gotchas - Bitwise vs Boolean Operators
> "Java Gotcha" - a common mistake pattern that is easy to accidentally implement.
A fairly simple Java Gotcha to accidentally fall into is: using a Bitwise operator instead of a Boolean Comparison operator.
e.g. a simple mistype can result in writing "&" when you really meant to write "&&".
A common heuristic we learn when reviewing code is:
> "&" or "|" when used in a conditional statement is probably not intended.
In this blog post, we will explore the heuristic and identify ways we can identify and fix this coding issue.
What's the Problem? Bitwise operations work fine with Booleans
Using Bitwise operators with Booleans is perfectly valid, so Java will not report a syntax error.
If I construct a JUnit Test to explore a truth table for both Bitwise OR (|) and Bitwise AND (&) then we will see that the outputs from the Bitwise operator match the truth table. Given this, we might think that the use of Bitwise operators is not an issue.
AND Truth Table
@Test
void bitwiseOperatorsAndTruthTable(){
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true & true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, true & false);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false & true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false & false);
}
The test passes, this is perfectly valid Java.
OR Truth Table
@Test
void bitwiseOperatorsOrTruthTable(){
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true | true);
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true | false);
Assertions.assertEquals(true, false | true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false | false);
}
This test also passes, why do we prefer "&&'and "||'?
Truth table images were created using the truth table tool from web.standfor.edu.
Issue: Short Circuit Operation
The real issue is the difference in behaviour between Bitwise (&, |) and Boolean (&&, ||) operators.
A Boolean operator is a short circuit operator and only evaluates as much as it needs to.
e.g.
if (args != null & args.length() > 23) {
System.out.println(args);
}
In the above code, both boolean conditions will evaluate, because the Bitwise operator has been used:
- args != null
- args.length() > 23
This leaves my code open to a NullPointerException if args is null because we will always perform the check for args.length, even when args is null because both boolean conditions have to be evaluated.
Boolean Operators Short Circuit Evaluation
When an && is used e.g.
if (args != null && args.length() > 23) {
System.out.println(args);
}
As soon as we know that args != null evaluates to false the condition expression evaluation stops.
We don't need to evaluate the right-hand side.
Whatever the outcome of the right-hand side condition, the final value of the Boolean expression will be false.
But this would never happen in production code
This is a pretty easy mistake to make and is not always picked up by Static Analysis tools.
I used the following Google Dork to see if I could find any public examples of this pattern:
filetype:java if "!=null & "
This search brought back some code from Android in the RootWindowContainer
isDocument = intent != null & intent.isDocument()
This is the type of code that might pass a code review because we often do use Bitwise operators in assignment statements to mask values. But in this instance, the outcome is the same as the if statement example above. If intent is ever null, then a NullPointerException will be thrown.
Very often we get away with this construct because we often code defensively and write redundant code. The check for != null may well be redundant in most use cases.
This is an error made by programmers in production code.
I don't know how current the results for the search are, but when I ran the search there were results back with code from: Google, Amazon, Apache... and me.
A recent pull request on one of my open source projects was to address exactly this error.
if(type!=null & type.trim().length()>0){
acceptMediaTypeDefinitionsList.add(type.trim());
}
How to Find This
When I checked my sample code in a few static analysers, none of them picked up this hidden self-destruct code.
As a team at Secure Code Warrior, we created and reviewed a fairly simple Sensei recipe that could pick this up.
Because Bitwise operators are perfectly valid, and often used in assignments we focussed on the use-case of if statements, and the use of Bitwise &, to find the problematic code.
search:
expression:
anyOf:
- in:
condition: {}
value:
caseSensitive: false
matches: ".* & .*"
This uses a regular expression to match " & " when it is used as a condition expression. e.g. in an if statement.
To fix it, we again relied on regular expressions. This time using the sed function in the QuickFix to globally replace the & in the expression with &&.
availableFixes:
- name: "Replace bitwise AND operator to logical AND operator"
actions:
- rewrite:
to: "{{#sed}}s/&/&&/g,{{{ . }}}{{/sed}}"
End Notes
This covers the most common misuse of a Bitwise operator, i.e. when a Boolean operator was actually intended.
There are other situations where this could crop up e.g. the assignment example, but when writing recipes we have to attempt to avoid false-positive identification, otherwise recipes will be ignored or turned off. We build recipes to match the most common occurrences. As Sensei evolves, we may well add additional specificity into the search functionality to cover more matching conditions.
In its current form, this recipe would identify many of the live use-cases, and most importantly, the one that was reported in my project.
NOTE: A fair few code warriors contributed to this example and recipe review - Charlie Eriksen, Matthieu Calie, Robin Claerhaut, Brysen Ackx, Nathan Desmet, Downey Robersscheuten. Thanks for your help.
---
You can install Sensei from within IntelliJ using "Preferences \ Plugins" (Mac) or "Settings \ Plugins" (Windows) then just search for "sensei secure code"
We have a lot of source code and recipes for these blog posts (including this one) in the `sensei-blog-examples` repository in the Secure Code Warrior GitHub account.
https://github.com/securecodewarrior/sensei-blog-examples
In this blog post we take a look at a common Java coding mistake (using a bitwise operator instead of a conditional operator), the error it makes our code vulnerable to, and how we can use Sensei to fix and detect the issue.
Alan Richardson has more than twenty years of professional IT experience, working as a developer and at every level of the testing hierarchy from Tester through to Head of Testing. Head of Developer Relations at Secure Code Warrior, he works directly with teams, to improve the development of quality secure code. Alan is the author of four books including “Dear Evil Tester”, and “Java For Testers”. Alan has also created online training courses to help people learn Technical Web Testing and Selenium WebDriver with Java. Alan posts his writing and training videos on SeleniumSimplified.com, EvilTester.com, JavaForTesters.com, and CompendiumDev.co.uk.
Secure Code Warrior is here for your organization to help you secure code across the entire software development lifecycle and create a culture in which cybersecurity is top of mind. Whether you’re an AppSec Manager, Developer, CISO, or anyone involved in security, we can help your organization reduce risks associated with insecure code.
Book a demo
Alan Richardson has more than twenty years of professional IT experience, working as a developer and at every level of the testing hierarchy from Tester through to Head of Testing. Head of Developer Relations at Secure Code Warrior, he works directly with teams, to improve the development of quality secure code. Alan is the author of four books including “Dear Evil Tester”, and “Java For Testers”. Alan has also created online training courses to help people learn Technical Web Testing and Selenium WebDriver with Java. Alan posts his writing and training videos on SeleniumSimplified.com, EvilTester.com, JavaForTesters.com, and CompendiumDev.co.uk.
Java Gotchas - Bitwise vs Boolean Operators
> "Java Gotcha" - a common mistake pattern that is easy to accidentally implement.
A fairly simple Java Gotcha to accidentally fall into is: using a Bitwise operator instead of a Boolean Comparison operator.
e.g. a simple mistype can result in writing "&" when you really meant to write "&&".
A common heuristic we learn when reviewing code is:
> "&" or "|" when used in a conditional statement is probably not intended.
In this blog post, we will explore the heuristic and identify ways we can identify and fix this coding issue.
What's the Problem? Bitwise operations work fine with Booleans
Using Bitwise operators with Booleans is perfectly valid, so Java will not report a syntax error.
If I construct a JUnit Test to explore a truth table for both Bitwise OR (|) and Bitwise AND (&) then we will see that the outputs from the Bitwise operator match the truth table. Given this, we might think that the use of Bitwise operators is not an issue.
AND Truth Table
@Test
void bitwiseOperatorsAndTruthTable(){
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true & true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, true & false);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false & true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false & false);
}
The test passes, this is perfectly valid Java.
OR Truth Table
@Test
void bitwiseOperatorsOrTruthTable(){
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true | true);
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true | false);
Assertions.assertEquals(true, false | true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false | false);
}
This test also passes, why do we prefer "&&'and "||'?
Truth table images were created using the truth table tool from web.standfor.edu.
Issue: Short Circuit Operation
The real issue is the difference in behaviour between Bitwise (&, |) and Boolean (&&, ||) operators.
A Boolean operator is a short circuit operator and only evaluates as much as it needs to.
e.g.
if (args != null & args.length() > 23) {
System.out.println(args);
}
In the above code, both boolean conditions will evaluate, because the Bitwise operator has been used:
- args != null
- args.length() > 23
This leaves my code open to a NullPointerException if args is null because we will always perform the check for args.length, even when args is null because both boolean conditions have to be evaluated.
Boolean Operators Short Circuit Evaluation
When an && is used e.g.
if (args != null && args.length() > 23) {
System.out.println(args);
}
As soon as we know that args != null evaluates to false the condition expression evaluation stops.
We don't need to evaluate the right-hand side.
Whatever the outcome of the right-hand side condition, the final value of the Boolean expression will be false.
But this would never happen in production code
This is a pretty easy mistake to make and is not always picked up by Static Analysis tools.
I used the following Google Dork to see if I could find any public examples of this pattern:
filetype:java if "!=null & "
This search brought back some code from Android in the RootWindowContainer
isDocument = intent != null & intent.isDocument()
This is the type of code that might pass a code review because we often do use Bitwise operators in assignment statements to mask values. But in this instance, the outcome is the same as the if statement example above. If intent is ever null, then a NullPointerException will be thrown.
Very often we get away with this construct because we often code defensively and write redundant code. The check for != null may well be redundant in most use cases.
This is an error made by programmers in production code.
I don't know how current the results for the search are, but when I ran the search there were results back with code from: Google, Amazon, Apache... and me.
A recent pull request on one of my open source projects was to address exactly this error.
if(type!=null & type.trim().length()>0){
acceptMediaTypeDefinitionsList.add(type.trim());
}
How to Find This
When I checked my sample code in a few static analysers, none of them picked up this hidden self-destruct code.
As a team at Secure Code Warrior, we created and reviewed a fairly simple Sensei recipe that could pick this up.
Because Bitwise operators are perfectly valid, and often used in assignments we focussed on the use-case of if statements, and the use of Bitwise &, to find the problematic code.
search:
expression:
anyOf:
- in:
condition: {}
value:
caseSensitive: false
matches: ".* & .*"
This uses a regular expression to match " & " when it is used as a condition expression. e.g. in an if statement.
To fix it, we again relied on regular expressions. This time using the sed function in the QuickFix to globally replace the & in the expression with &&.
availableFixes:
- name: "Replace bitwise AND operator to logical AND operator"
actions:
- rewrite:
to: "{{#sed}}s/&/&&/g,{{{ . }}}{{/sed}}"
End Notes
This covers the most common misuse of a Bitwise operator, i.e. when a Boolean operator was actually intended.
There are other situations where this could crop up e.g. the assignment example, but when writing recipes we have to attempt to avoid false-positive identification, otherwise recipes will be ignored or turned off. We build recipes to match the most common occurrences. As Sensei evolves, we may well add additional specificity into the search functionality to cover more matching conditions.
In its current form, this recipe would identify many of the live use-cases, and most importantly, the one that was reported in my project.
NOTE: A fair few code warriors contributed to this example and recipe review - Charlie Eriksen, Matthieu Calie, Robin Claerhaut, Brysen Ackx, Nathan Desmet, Downey Robersscheuten. Thanks for your help.
---
You can install Sensei from within IntelliJ using "Preferences \ Plugins" (Mac) or "Settings \ Plugins" (Windows) then just search for "sensei secure code"
We have a lot of source code and recipes for these blog posts (including this one) in the `sensei-blog-examples` repository in the Secure Code Warrior GitHub account.
https://github.com/securecodewarrior/sensei-blog-examples
Java Gotchas - Bitwise vs Boolean Operators
> "Java Gotcha" - a common mistake pattern that is easy to accidentally implement.
A fairly simple Java Gotcha to accidentally fall into is: using a Bitwise operator instead of a Boolean Comparison operator.
e.g. a simple mistype can result in writing "&" when you really meant to write "&&".
A common heuristic we learn when reviewing code is:
> "&" or "|" when used in a conditional statement is probably not intended.
In this blog post, we will explore the heuristic and identify ways we can identify and fix this coding issue.
What's the Problem? Bitwise operations work fine with Booleans
Using Bitwise operators with Booleans is perfectly valid, so Java will not report a syntax error.
If I construct a JUnit Test to explore a truth table for both Bitwise OR (|) and Bitwise AND (&) then we will see that the outputs from the Bitwise operator match the truth table. Given this, we might think that the use of Bitwise operators is not an issue.
AND Truth Table
@Test
void bitwiseOperatorsAndTruthTable(){
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true & true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, true & false);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false & true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false & false);
}
The test passes, this is perfectly valid Java.
OR Truth Table
@Test
void bitwiseOperatorsOrTruthTable(){
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true | true);
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true | false);
Assertions.assertEquals(true, false | true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false | false);
}
This test also passes, why do we prefer "&&'and "||'?
Truth table images were created using the truth table tool from web.standfor.edu.
Issue: Short Circuit Operation
The real issue is the difference in behaviour between Bitwise (&, |) and Boolean (&&, ||) operators.
A Boolean operator is a short circuit operator and only evaluates as much as it needs to.
e.g.
if (args != null & args.length() > 23) {
System.out.println(args);
}
In the above code, both boolean conditions will evaluate, because the Bitwise operator has been used:
- args != null
- args.length() > 23
This leaves my code open to a NullPointerException if args is null because we will always perform the check for args.length, even when args is null because both boolean conditions have to be evaluated.
Boolean Operators Short Circuit Evaluation
When an && is used e.g.
if (args != null && args.length() > 23) {
System.out.println(args);
}
As soon as we know that args != null evaluates to false the condition expression evaluation stops.
We don't need to evaluate the right-hand side.
Whatever the outcome of the right-hand side condition, the final value of the Boolean expression will be false.
But this would never happen in production code
This is a pretty easy mistake to make and is not always picked up by Static Analysis tools.
I used the following Google Dork to see if I could find any public examples of this pattern:
filetype:java if "!=null & "
This search brought back some code from Android in the RootWindowContainer
isDocument = intent != null & intent.isDocument()
This is the type of code that might pass a code review because we often do use Bitwise operators in assignment statements to mask values. But in this instance, the outcome is the same as the if statement example above. If intent is ever null, then a NullPointerException will be thrown.
Very often we get away with this construct because we often code defensively and write redundant code. The check for != null may well be redundant in most use cases.
This is an error made by programmers in production code.
I don't know how current the results for the search are, but when I ran the search there were results back with code from: Google, Amazon, Apache... and me.
A recent pull request on one of my open source projects was to address exactly this error.
if(type!=null & type.trim().length()>0){
acceptMediaTypeDefinitionsList.add(type.trim());
}
How to Find This
When I checked my sample code in a few static analysers, none of them picked up this hidden self-destruct code.
As a team at Secure Code Warrior, we created and reviewed a fairly simple Sensei recipe that could pick this up.
Because Bitwise operators are perfectly valid, and often used in assignments we focussed on the use-case of if statements, and the use of Bitwise &, to find the problematic code.
search:
expression:
anyOf:
- in:
condition: {}
value:
caseSensitive: false
matches: ".* & .*"
This uses a regular expression to match " & " when it is used as a condition expression. e.g. in an if statement.
To fix it, we again relied on regular expressions. This time using the sed function in the QuickFix to globally replace the & in the expression with &&.
availableFixes:
- name: "Replace bitwise AND operator to logical AND operator"
actions:
- rewrite:
to: "{{#sed}}s/&/&&/g,{{{ . }}}{{/sed}}"
End Notes
This covers the most common misuse of a Bitwise operator, i.e. when a Boolean operator was actually intended.
There are other situations where this could crop up e.g. the assignment example, but when writing recipes we have to attempt to avoid false-positive identification, otherwise recipes will be ignored or turned off. We build recipes to match the most common occurrences. As Sensei evolves, we may well add additional specificity into the search functionality to cover more matching conditions.
In its current form, this recipe would identify many of the live use-cases, and most importantly, the one that was reported in my project.
NOTE: A fair few code warriors contributed to this example and recipe review - Charlie Eriksen, Matthieu Calie, Robin Claerhaut, Brysen Ackx, Nathan Desmet, Downey Robersscheuten. Thanks for your help.
---
You can install Sensei from within IntelliJ using "Preferences \ Plugins" (Mac) or "Settings \ Plugins" (Windows) then just search for "sensei secure code"
We have a lot of source code and recipes for these blog posts (including this one) in the `sensei-blog-examples` repository in the Secure Code Warrior GitHub account.
https://github.com/securecodewarrior/sensei-blog-examples
Click on the link below and download the PDF of this resource.
Secure Code Warrior is here for your organization to help you secure code across the entire software development lifecycle and create a culture in which cybersecurity is top of mind. Whether you’re an AppSec Manager, Developer, CISO, or anyone involved in security, we can help your organization reduce risks associated with insecure code.
View reportBook a demo
Alan Richardson has more than twenty years of professional IT experience, working as a developer and at every level of the testing hierarchy from Tester through to Head of Testing. Head of Developer Relations at Secure Code Warrior, he works directly with teams, to improve the development of quality secure code. Alan is the author of four books including “Dear Evil Tester”, and “Java For Testers”. Alan has also created online training courses to help people learn Technical Web Testing and Selenium WebDriver with Java. Alan posts his writing and training videos on SeleniumSimplified.com, EvilTester.com, JavaForTesters.com, and CompendiumDev.co.uk.
Java Gotchas - Bitwise vs Boolean Operators
> "Java Gotcha" - a common mistake pattern that is easy to accidentally implement.
A fairly simple Java Gotcha to accidentally fall into is: using a Bitwise operator instead of a Boolean Comparison operator.
e.g. a simple mistype can result in writing "&" when you really meant to write "&&".
A common heuristic we learn when reviewing code is:
> "&" or "|" when used in a conditional statement is probably not intended.
In this blog post, we will explore the heuristic and identify ways we can identify and fix this coding issue.
What's the Problem? Bitwise operations work fine with Booleans
Using Bitwise operators with Booleans is perfectly valid, so Java will not report a syntax error.
If I construct a JUnit Test to explore a truth table for both Bitwise OR (|) and Bitwise AND (&) then we will see that the outputs from the Bitwise operator match the truth table. Given this, we might think that the use of Bitwise operators is not an issue.
AND Truth Table
@Test
void bitwiseOperatorsAndTruthTable(){
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true & true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, true & false);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false & true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false & false);
}
The test passes, this is perfectly valid Java.
OR Truth Table
@Test
void bitwiseOperatorsOrTruthTable(){
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true | true);
Assertions.assertEquals(true, true | false);
Assertions.assertEquals(true, false | true);
Assertions.assertEquals(false, false | false);
}
This test also passes, why do we prefer "&&'and "||'?
Truth table images were created using the truth table tool from web.standfor.edu.
Issue: Short Circuit Operation
The real issue is the difference in behaviour between Bitwise (&, |) and Boolean (&&, ||) operators.
A Boolean operator is a short circuit operator and only evaluates as much as it needs to.
e.g.
if (args != null & args.length() > 23) {
System.out.println(args);
}
In the above code, both boolean conditions will evaluate, because the Bitwise operator has been used:
- args != null
- args.length() > 23
This leaves my code open to a NullPointerException if args is null because we will always perform the check for args.length, even when args is null because both boolean conditions have to be evaluated.
Boolean Operators Short Circuit Evaluation
When an && is used e.g.
if (args != null && args.length() > 23) {
System.out.println(args);
}
As soon as we know that args != null evaluates to false the condition expression evaluation stops.
We don't need to evaluate the right-hand side.
Whatever the outcome of the right-hand side condition, the final value of the Boolean expression will be false.
But this would never happen in production code
This is a pretty easy mistake to make and is not always picked up by Static Analysis tools.
I used the following Google Dork to see if I could find any public examples of this pattern:
filetype:java if "!=null & "
This search brought back some code from Android in the RootWindowContainer
isDocument = intent != null & intent.isDocument()
This is the type of code that might pass a code review because we often do use Bitwise operators in assignment statements to mask values. But in this instance, the outcome is the same as the if statement example above. If intent is ever null, then a NullPointerException will be thrown.
Very often we get away with this construct because we often code defensively and write redundant code. The check for != null may well be redundant in most use cases.
This is an error made by programmers in production code.
I don't know how current the results for the search are, but when I ran the search there were results back with code from: Google, Amazon, Apache... and me.
A recent pull request on one of my open source projects was to address exactly this error.
if(type!=null & type.trim().length()>0){
acceptMediaTypeDefinitionsList.add(type.trim());
}
How to Find This
When I checked my sample code in a few static analysers, none of them picked up this hidden self-destruct code.
As a team at Secure Code Warrior, we created and reviewed a fairly simple Sensei recipe that could pick this up.
Because Bitwise operators are perfectly valid, and often used in assignments we focussed on the use-case of if statements, and the use of Bitwise &, to find the problematic code.
search:
expression:
anyOf:
- in:
condition: {}
value:
caseSensitive: false
matches: ".* & .*"
This uses a regular expression to match " & " when it is used as a condition expression. e.g. in an if statement.
To fix it, we again relied on regular expressions. This time using the sed function in the QuickFix to globally replace the & in the expression with &&.
availableFixes:
- name: "Replace bitwise AND operator to logical AND operator"
actions:
- rewrite:
to: "{{#sed}}s/&/&&/g,{{{ . }}}{{/sed}}"
End Notes
This covers the most common misuse of a Bitwise operator, i.e. when a Boolean operator was actually intended.
There are other situations where this could crop up e.g. the assignment example, but when writing recipes we have to attempt to avoid false-positive identification, otherwise recipes will be ignored or turned off. We build recipes to match the most common occurrences. As Sensei evolves, we may well add additional specificity into the search functionality to cover more matching conditions.
In its current form, this recipe would identify many of the live use-cases, and most importantly, the one that was reported in my project.
NOTE: A fair few code warriors contributed to this example and recipe review - Charlie Eriksen, Matthieu Calie, Robin Claerhaut, Brysen Ackx, Nathan Desmet, Downey Robersscheuten. Thanks for your help.
---
You can install Sensei from within IntelliJ using "Preferences \ Plugins" (Mac) or "Settings \ Plugins" (Windows) then just search for "sensei secure code"
We have a lot of source code and recipes for these blog posts (including this one) in the `sensei-blog-examples` repository in the Secure Code Warrior GitHub account.
https://github.com/securecodewarrior/sensei-blog-examples
Table of contents
Alan Richardson has more than twenty years of professional IT experience, working as a developer and at every level of the testing hierarchy from Tester through to Head of Testing. Head of Developer Relations at Secure Code Warrior, he works directly with teams, to improve the development of quality secure code. Alan is the author of four books including “Dear Evil Tester”, and “Java For Testers”. Alan has also created online training courses to help people learn Technical Web Testing and Selenium WebDriver with Java. Alan posts his writing and training videos on SeleniumSimplified.com, EvilTester.com, JavaForTesters.com, and CompendiumDev.co.uk.
Secure Code Warrior is here for your organization to help you secure code across the entire software development lifecycle and create a culture in which cybersecurity is top of mind. Whether you’re an AppSec Manager, Developer, CISO, or anyone involved in security, we can help your organization reduce risks associated with insecure code.
Book a demoDownloadResources to get you started
Professional Services - Accelerate with expertise
Secure Code Warrior’s Program Strategy Services (PSS) team helps you build, enhance, and optimize your secure coding program. Whether you're starting fresh or refining your approach, our experts provide tailored guidance.
Secure code training topics & content
Our industry-leading content is always evolving to fit the ever changing software development landscape with your role in mind. Topics covering everything from AI to XQuery Injection, offered for a variety of roles from Architects and Engineers to Product Managers and QA. Get a sneak peak of what our content catalog has to offer by topic and role.
Quests: Industry leading learning to keep developers ahead of the game mitigating risk.
Quests is a learning platform that helps developers mitigate software security risks by enhancing their secure coding skills. With curated learning paths, hands-on challenges, and interactive activities, it empowers developers to identify and prevent vulnerabilities.
Resources to get you started
Is Vibe Coding Going to Turn Your Codebase Into a Frat Party?
Vibe coding is like a college frat party, and AI is the centerpiece of all the festivities, the keg. It’s a lot of fun to let loose, get creative, and see where your imagination can take you, but after a few keg stands, drinking (or, using AI) in moderation is undoubtedly the safer long-term solution.
The Decade of the Defenders: Secure Code Warrior Turns Ten
Secure Code Warrior's founding team has stayed together, steering the ship through every lesson, triumph, and setback for an entire decade. We’re scaling up and ready to face our next chapter, SCW 2.0, as the leaders in developer risk management.
Developer-driven coding.
Securely.
Contact us today and make software security an intrinsic part of your development process.
