Low-Code platform security: How to protect citizen dev applications?

In an era of digital transformation, low-code platforms are revolutionizing the way business applications are developed, democratizing the software development process. While these tools offer unparalleled speed of deployment and flexibility, they also introduce new cybersecurity challenges. For organizations tapping the potential of business developers – employees without formal programming training – the issue of protecting the applications they develop is becoming a strategic priority. This article provides a comprehensive guide to threats and effective strategies for securing low-code environments, enabling organizations to reap the benefits of the no-code revolution while maintaining the highest security standards.

What are low-code platforms and how are they changing application development?

Low-code platforms are development environments that enable applications to be built with minimal use of traditional code, typically through graphical interfaces, drag-and-drop components and pre-built templates. The technology is fundamentally changing the paradigm of software development, shifting the burden from writing code to designing business processes and user interfaces. By 2025, more than 70% of new applications will be developed using low-code or no-code technology, underscoring the scale of this transformation.

A key change introduced by low-code platforms is the democratization of application development. Employees without specialized IT training, referred to as business developers, can design solutions that meet specific business needs on their own. This leads to a significant reduction in deployment time – low-code applications can be developed up to 10 times faster than using traditional programming methods. Organizations gain greater flexibility, the ability to respond quickly to market changes and optimize the costs associated with software development.

Low-code platforms, however, introduce new management and oversight challenges. Decentralization of the application development process, while beneficial from an innovation perspective, can lead to so-called “shadow IT” – uncontrolled development of IT solutions outside an organization’s standard processes and safeguards. This phenomenon, compounded by the ease of developing low-code applications, requires a redefinition of traditional IT security management procedures and the introduction of new quality and compliance control strategies.

It is worth noting that low-code platforms do not completely replace traditional programming, but rather complement the software development ecosystem. Complex, highly optimized functions still require specialized programming expertise, while less complex business applications can be effectively implemented by citizen developers. This hybrid reality requires a comprehensive approach to security, addressing both traditional threats and new risks specific to low-code environments.

Why is the security of low-code platforms crucial for organizations?

The security of low-code platforms is gaining strategic importance as more and more critical business processes are supported by applications developed in this environment. Unlike traditional software development, where development teams have well-established security expertise, low-code applications are often developed by business employees without specialized training in cybersecurity. This fundamental difference makes it necessary for organizations to introduce new approaches to IT risk management that take into account the specific risks associated with the democratization of application development.

The security importance of low-code platforms is increasing in proportion to the value of the data processed by the applications being developed. As citizen developers gain the ability to create solutions that handle personal, financial or commercial data, the potential consequences of security breaches become more serious. A single configuration error can lead to data leakage, breach of regulatory compliance or compromise of an organization’s other systems. Organizations face the challenge of balancing the flexibility offered by low-code platforms with rigorous security controls.

Effective security of the low-code environment also underpins stakeholder confidence. Customers, business partners and regulators expect all of an organization’s applications – regardless of how they were developed – to meet high security standards. Security breaches in low-code applications can lead to serious reputational, legal and financial consequences, just as with traditional IT systems. In some industries, such as finance and healthcare, these issues take on added importance due to stringent regulatory requirements.

It is worth noting that low-code platforms, despite their potential risks, can also contribute to improving the overall security of an organization’s IT environment. Centralizing development on certified platforms, with built-in security mechanisms and automated testing, can reduce the risks associated with manual coding. The key is to take a deliberate approach to choosing a platform, implementing security controls and educating citizen developers on the basics of secure application development.

What are the biggest security risks in applications developed by citizen developers?

Applications developed by citizen developers face specific security risks, mainly due to the limited technical knowledge of their developers. A lack of deep understanding of application security often leads to unknowingly implementing vulnerable solutions. Business developers may overlook subtle security implications associated with their design decisions, such as improper input validation or unsafe user session management. Low-code applications often contain basic security flaws that would be caught in a traditional software development process.

Inadequate quality control is another significant risk. Unlike formal development environments, where code reviews and dedicated security testing are a standard part of the application lifecycle, the process of developing low-code applications often skips these steps. Citizen developers focus mainly on functionality, treating security as a secondary aspect or assuming that the platform will automatically secure the solutions they create. This gap in the process leads to applications being deployed without proper security verification, increasing the likelihood of incidents.

A particularly dangerous phenomenon is so-called “shadow IT” – creating and deploying applications outside an organization’s official IT processes. Citizen developers, given easy-to-use tools, can create and release applications without the knowledge and oversight of security teams. These applications are often not subject to standard security procedures such as vulnerability scanning or identity management. What’s more, they may process sensitive business data without adequate safeguards or compliance with internal policies and regulatory requirements.

Integrations with external systems and data sources are another area of increased risk. Low-code platforms often offer off-the-shelf connectors to popular services and databases, making it easy to create complex, integrated applications. However, citizen developers may not fully understand the security implications of such integrations, leading to excessive permissions, mismanagement of credentials or inadequate data transfer security. A single misconfigured integration can become an entry point for attackers, allowing access to an organization’s broader ecosystem.

Key security threats in low-code applications – summary fiche

Insufficient security knowledge: Citizen developers often lack security expertise, which leads to unknowingly implementing vulnerable solutions
Lack of rigorous quality control: Low-code applications rarely pass formal security reviews and penetration tests
Shadow IT and uncontrolled deployments: Ease of application development promotes bypassing standard IT and security processes
Risky integrations: Improperly configuring connections to external systems and data sources increases the attack surface
Excessive authority: The tendency to give broader-than-necessary permissions to ensure functionality

How can improper configuration of permissions compromise the security of low-code applications?

Misconfiguration of permissions is one of the most serious security risks in the low-code ecosystem, leading to violations of the principle of least privilege. Citizen developers are often driven primarily by functionality, giving applications and users broader privileges than actually needed to avoid potential access problems. The result is applications that have access to much more data and functionality than their actual use cases require. This redundant configuration of permissions increases the potential damage in the event of a security breach – attackers gaining access to an application can use its extensive permissions to launch attacks on the organization’s other systems.

Particularly problematic are the low-code platform’s admin privileges, which are often unknowingly duplicated or granted without proper controls. Citizen developers, encountering difficulties configuring granular permissions, may choose the easiest solution – granting full administrative privileges, which dramatically compromises security. Unlike professional development teams, which typically strictly adhere to privilege management protocols, low-code application developers may underestimate the risks associated with this approach. More than 60% of security incidents in low-code environments involve misconfigured permissions or excessive access rights.

Another aspect of this risk is the lack of regular reviews and privilege updates. While traditional enterprise applications are subject to regular security audits, low-code applications often operate outside this cycle, especially if they are developed as departmental solutions. Permissions configured at the beginning of an application’s lifecycle can remain unchanged, even as user roles, business processes or IT infrastructure change. This static nature leads to the accumulation of redundant permissions over time, increasing the system’s vulnerability to security breaches and internal attacks.

Low-code platforms also introduce an additional layer of complexity in privilege management, as they often operate their own specific access control model separate from the organization’s central identity management systems. This duality can lead to inconsistencies in security policies and gaps in the user identity lifecycle management process. For example, the deletion of an employee’s account from the main HR system may not be automatically reflected in the low-code platform’s permissions, leaving active accounts and accesses in applications long after the employee has left the organization. This desynchronization poses a significant security risk, especially in larger organizations with an extensive IT ecosystem.

Why are data leaks a particular risk in the context of low-code platforms?

Low-code platforms create unique conditions conducive to data leakage, mainly due to the simplified model of application development. Citizen developers focus primarily on functionality and usability, often treating data security as a secondary aspect or assumed by default. This tendency leads to the creation of applications that collect and process data without adequate protection mechanisms, such as encryption, masking of sensitive information or export controls. Applications developed in low-code environments have a 30% higher probability of data breaches than applications developed by professional development teams.

Determining the proper classification of data is another challenge in low-code applications. Citizen developers often do not have a comprehensive knowledge of the organization’s information security policy or data protection regulations such as the RODO. As a result, they may unknowingly design applications that process personal, financial or commercial data without implementing the appropriate safeguards required for that category of information. For example, an application developed to manage marketing campaigns may collect customer contact information without considering the consent and retention requirements of RODO, exposing the organization to legal risk.

Particularly dangerous are uncontrolled data flows between low-code applications and the organization’s other systems or external services. Integrations created by citizen developers often do not take into account data transfer safeguards such as transmission encryption or integrity verification. What’s more, data can be copied and stored locally within low-code applications, creating unauthorized copies of sensitive information outside of the main secure repositories. This proliferation of data significantly increases the potential attack surface and makes it difficult to effectively manage the information lifecycle in accordance with organizational policies.

Lack of awareness about data storage and retention poses additional risks. Low-code applications may store data indefinitely by default, without regard to retention policies or regulations for deleting data after a specified period. This practice can lead to inadvertent violations of regulations such as the RODO, which requires clearly defined retention periods for personal data. For applications developed by citizen developers, which often operate outside of mainstream IT oversight, such violations can go undetected for long periods of time, increasing an organization’s exposure to legal and operational risks.

How to effectively secure authentication and communication in low-code applications?

Effectively securing authentication in low-code applications primarily requires integration with an organization’s central identity management systems, such as Active Directory, Azure AD or Okta. This approach eliminates the need to create and manage separate user databases for each application, significantly reducing the risk of mismanaged credentials. Single Sign-On (SSO) implementation allows users to use a single set of credentials for all applications, increasing both security and convenience. It is crucial for organizations to make sure that the low-code platform chosen offers native integration with the identity management systems in use, or supports standards such as SAML, OAuth or OpenID Connect.

Multi-level authentication (MFA) is another layer of protection, especially important for applications that process sensitive data. Mandatory use of MFA for low-code applications should be an organizational standard, regardless of who develops the application. Modern low-code platforms offer built-in MFA mechanisms or the ability to integrate with third-party multi-factor authentication solutions. Citizen developers should be educated on the importance of this protection and be given clear guidelines for its implementation, with no possibility of bypassing this protection, even at the application prototyping stage.

Secure communication between low-code applications and other systems requires consistent use of encryption in data transmission. All APIs and integration points should use HTTPS with current TLS standards, eliminating the possibility of data interception in transmission. Organizations should implement central TLS certificate management for all applications, including those developed on low-code platforms, ensuring that certificates are renewed regularly and that the latest cryptographic standards are used. For citizen developers, the process of configuring secure communications should be simplified as much as possible, preferably automated at the platform level.

Equally important is the protection of API tokens and keys used to integrate with external services. Citizen developers often store this sensitive data directly in application code or in unprotected configuration files, which poses a serious risk. Organizations should implement central key vaults (key vaults) integrated with low-code platforms to securely store and manage credentials without exposing them to disclosure. In addition, mechanisms for automatic rotation of keys and tokens should be implemented, minimizing the risks associated with long-term use of the same credentials.

Best practices for securing authentication and communication – summary fiche

Centralized identity management: Integration with corporate IAM systems eliminates identity silos and simplifies access management
Mandatory MFA: Multi-level authentication should be standard for all low-code applications that process sensitive data
Encryption in Transit: Consistent use of HTTPS/TLS for all APIs and integration points
Secure key management: Using key safes instead of hardcoding credentials in applications
Automatic credential rotation: Regular replacement of API keys and access tokens minimizes risk in case of leakage

What access control mechanisms should be implemented in low-code platforms?

Effective access control in low-code platforms should be based on the RBAC (Role-Based Access Control) model, which allows permissions to be assigned based on users’ business roles. This approach allows for standardization and simplification of access management, which is particularly important in an environment where applications are developed by citizen developers. Organizations should define a standard set of roles with precisely defined permissions tailored to different user profiles (e.g. operations staff, managers, administrators). This allows citizen developers to easily assign appropriate levels of access without having to design their own detailed permission schemes for each application.

Granular data access control is another key element in the security of low-code platforms. Mechanisms such as Row-Level Security (RLS) and Column-Level Security (CLS) enable fine-grained restriction of access to specific records and fields, based on user identity and access context. Low-code platforms should offer intuitive interfaces for configuring these protections, allowing citizen developers to implement the principle of least privilege without in-depth technical knowledge. For example, a department manager should automatically see only data about his or her employees, without the need to implement complex filtering logic in each application.

Environment segmentation and separation of tasks (segregation of duties) are important safeguards against abuse of privileges. Low-code platforms should allow clear separation of developer, administrative and user roles, preventing the accumulation of excessive privileges by individuals. It is particularly important to limit administrative access to platforms, which should be granted only to trained specialists. Equally important is the implementation of mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest, such as by automatically blocking the ability to grant oneself the authority to approve one’s own changes or financial operations.

Audibility and transparency of access are the cornerstones of effective control. Low-code platforms should provide detailed logging of all data and function access activities, allowing tracking of who accessed what information, when. These logs should be centralized and protected from unauthorized changes to ensure their integrity in the event of an audit or investigation after a security incident. Citizen developers should be aware that all their activities in applications are monitored and accountable, fostering responsible access management practices.

How to monitor and audit the security of applications developed by citizen developers?

Effective security monitoring of low-code applications requires the centralization of logs and security events within an enterprise SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) system. Low-code platforms should be configured to transmit logs of authentication, data access and administrative activities to a central repository, enabling a holistic view of the security status of the IT environment. Such integration allows the use of advanced analytical mechanisms to detect anomalies and potential security incidents, such as unusual access patterns or privilege escalation attempts. It is crucial for organizations to make sure that the low-code platform they choose offers the right APIs or connectors for integration with existing monitoring solutions.

Regular security audits of applications developed by citizen developers should be a standard part of the lifecycle of these solutions. Organizations should implement a formal security review process before deploying applications to a production environment, including verification of privilege configurations, authentication mechanisms and integration with external systems. Such audits can be conducted by a dedicated security team or using automated security analysis tools integrated into a low-code platform. The key is that this process should not be seen as an obstacle, but as an added value, helping citizen developers create more secure applications.

Automated vulnerability scanning is a necessary complement to manual audits, especially in environments with a large number of low-code applications. Organizations should implement DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) and SAST (Static Application Security Testing) solutions tailored to the specifics of low-code platforms, enabling regular application scans for known vulnerabilities. The ideal solution should be integrated into the platform’s CI/CD pipeline, automatically blocking the deployment of applications containing critical vulnerabilities. It is crucial for citizen developers to receive accessible reports of scan results, with specific guidance on how to fix identified issues.

Proactive detection of “shadow IT” in the context of low-code applications is also an important part of monitoring. Organizations should implement discovery mechanisms for unregistered applications, such as scanning network traffic, analyzing access logs or monitoring API usage. This allows the identification of unauthorized low-code applications that may pose a security risk. Instead of penalizing the developers of such applications, organizations should seek to “legalize” them by incorporating them into official security management processes, thereby preserving the benefits of citizen developer innovation while ensuring adequate security.

How do you ensure that low-code applications comply with regulatory requirements and security standards?

Ensuring regulatory compliance of low-code applications requires the implementation of Compliance Lifecycle Management mechanisms integrated into the application development process. Organizations should develop a catalog of compliance requirements for different types of applications, based on regulations such as RODO, PCI DSS or sector-specific standards (e.g., for finance or healthcare). These requirements should be presented in the form of accessible checklists, enabling citizen developers to independently verify the compliance of their applications. It is also crucial to implement automatic compliance validation mechanisms that can identify potential regulatory violations even before the application is deployed into the production environment.

Special attention should be paid to data protection in low-code applications, which is the foundation of RODO compliance. Organizations should equip low-code platforms with mechanisms to easily implement key data protection principles, such as data minimization, processing purpose limitation or defining retention periods. Citizen developers should have access to predefined templates and patterns for collecting data processing consents, mechanisms for handling data access requests or information deletion processes. Ideally, the solution allows for centrally managed data protection policies that are automatically enforced across all low-code applications in the organization.

Documentation and evidence of compliance are an important aspect of regulatory risk management. Low-code platforms should automatically generate technical documentation of the application, including the data model, information flows, access controls and security mechanisms. Such automatic documentation is particularly important in a citizen developer environment, where traditional documentation processes may be bypassed due to lack of time or technical expertise. In addition, platforms should enable easy generation of compliance and audit reports that can be presented to regulators or auditors as evidence of implementation of required security controls.

Managing regulatory changes is an ongoing challenge, especially in a dynamic low-code application environment. Organizations should implement a process to regularly review and update compliance requirements in response to changing regulations. It is equally important to provide mechanisms to quickly identify applications that require updates due to regulatory changes and to effectively communicate those changes to citizen developers. Ideally, some aspects of compliance can be implemented centrally at the platform level, minimizing the need for manual updates to each individual application.

Key elements of ensuring regulatory compliance – summary fiche

Predefined compliance templates: Ready-made templates and regulatory-compliant components that can be easily used by citizen developers
Automated requirements validation: Mechanisms that verify application compliance with regulatory requirements at the design and implementation stages
Central policy management: Ability to define and enforce data protection and security policies at the platform level
Automatic documentation: Generate technical documentation and proof of compliance without additional burden on citizen developers
Adapting to regulatory changes: Mechanisms to quickly identify and update applications in response to new regulatory requirements

What are the best practices for encryption and data protection in low-code applications?

Effective data protection in low-code applications requires the implementation of a multi-layered approach to encryption, covering stored, processed and transmitted data. The foundation is data encryption at rest, which should be enabled by default for all databases and file stores used by the low-code platform. Organizations should implement transparent database encryption (TDE) and file encryption at the operating system or file system level. It is critical to ensure that these mechanisms are enabled by default and do not require additional configuration by citizen developers, eliminating the risk of this security feature being overlooked. Equally important is the implementation of secure encryption key management mechanisms, using dedicated Hardware Security Module (HSM) or Key Management Service (KMS) solutions.

Protecting sensitive data also requires implementing advanced techniques such as tokenization and data masking. Tokenization, which involves replacing sensitive data with tokens with no semantic value, is particularly important when handling financial data or personal information. Low-code platforms should offer ready-made components for easy implementation of such mechanisms, abstracting the technical complexity from citizen developers. Equally important is data masking, which allows hiding some information from unauthorized users (e.g., displaying only the last four digits of a credit card number). Solutions that allow dynamic data masking depending on the user’s role or business context are particularly valuable.

Data lifecycle management is a key component of comprehensive information protection. Low-code platforms should allow easy implementation of data retention policies, automatic cleaning of outdated information and data copy management. Citizen developers should have access to ready-made templates for implementing processes such as the “right to be forgotten” required by RODO or periodic archiving and anonymization of historical data. Particularly valuable are solutions that allow data lifecycle policies to be centrally defined at the platform level, which are then automatically enforced across all applications, regardless of citizen developers’ knowledge or intentions.

Secure management of test and development data is an often overlooked but important aspect of information protection. Citizen developers often copy production data into test environments, exposing sensitive information to increased risk. Organizations should implement mechanisms to automatically anonymize and pseudonymize data used in non-production environments. Low-code platforms should offer functions for generating synthetic test data sets that retain the statistical characteristics of real data, but do not contain sensitive information. It is equally important to ensure that development and test environments are subject to the same stringent access controls as production environments, even if they contain only anonymized data.

How to effectively train and build security awareness among citizen developers?

Effective security training for citizen developers should focus on the practical aspects of secure application development, avoiding an excess of theory and technical details. Training programs should be tailored to the specific low-code platforms used in the organization, presenting specific security mechanisms and best practices in the context of real use cases. Particularly effective are interactive workshops, where participants can implement security features themselves in test applications and then observe how these safeguards counter simulated attacks. This form of “experiential” learning significantly increases understanding and memory of key security concepts.

A security resource center is an essential complement to formal training, providing citizen developers with constant access to up-to-date knowledge and guidance. Organizations should create a dedicated repository containing guides, checklists, design patterns and examples of implementing secure solutions, tailored to the specifics of the low-code platforms used. Particularly valuable are cookbook-type resources outlining step-by-step implementations of common security functions, such as authentication, session management and input validation. An ideal resource center should be regularly updated, address the latest threats and be integrated with the low-code platform, allowing immediate access to the information needed in the context of the task at hand.

A security mentoring program can significantly accelerate competence building among citizen developers. It involves assigning security experts as mentors to teams or individual developers of low-code applications. Mentors are available for consultations, project reviews and assistance with security issues. This model provides personalized support and knowledge transfer, tailored to the specific challenges citizen developers face. This is particularly effective in organizations where security teams are seen as “gatekeepers” blocking innovation – mentoring changes this dynamic, positioning security experts as partners in the application development process.

Gamification and competitive elements can significantly increase engagement in building a safety culture. Organizations can implement point systems, badges and rankings for implementing good security practices in low-code applications. For example, citizen developers can receive points for passing a security audit flawlessly, implementing additional security features or sharing knowledge with others. Equally effective are “capture the flag” competitions, where participants are tasked with finding and fixing intentionally introduced security vulnerabilities in sample applications. This approach not only builds knowledge, but also changes the perception of security from a “necessary evil” to an interesting challenge, an integral part of the application development process.

Effective security awareness building – summary fiche

Practical training: Focus on practical security aspects specific to low-code platforms, with minimal theoretical considerations
Dedicated knowledge resources: a library of patterns, examples and checklists tailored to the needs of citizen developers
Mentoring program: Personalized support from security experts acting as mentors, not controllers
Gamification of learning: Using elements of competition and rewards to increase engagement in safe manufacturing practices
Positive motivation: rewarding good practices instead of punishing mistakes, building a culture of shared responsibility for safety

How to organize a comprehensive security testing process for low-code applications?

An effective low-code application security testing process should integrate automated scanning with expert security reviews. Organizations should implement automated SAST (Static Application Security Testing) and DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) tools tailored to the specifics of the low-code platforms in use. It is crucial that these tools are integrated into the CI/CD pipeline, enabling automatic testing of each change before it is deployed into the production environment. For citizen developers, it is particularly important to receive accessible reports of test results, with specific guidance on how to fix identified problems, without having to interpret the technical details of the findings.

Security reviews conducted by experts are a necessary complement to automated testing, allowing the identification of complex security issues, such as business logic errors or inappropriate access control models. Organizations should implement varying levels of reviews, depending on the criticality of the application and the type of data being processed. For example, low-risk applications may only undergo automated scans, while critical applications require an in-depth, manual review by the security team. It is important to develop a standard process for conducting and documenting such reviews, ensuring that the results are repeatable and comparable across applications.

Penetration testing is the highest level of security verification, especially important for critical applications or those that process sensitive data. Organizations should commission regular penetration tests of low-code applications, conducted by qualified specialists who simulate real attacks on systems. In the context of low-code platforms, it is particularly important to test not only the applications themselves, but also the security features of the entire platform, including the separation between applications of different departments or the effectiveness of built-in security mechanisms. The results of penetration testing should be used not only to fix specific vulnerabilities, but also to identify systemic weaknesses in the application development process and improve training for citizen developers.

Security testing should not be viewed as a single point in the application development process, but as a continuous activity spanning the entire lifecycle. Organizations should implement “shift left security” practices, integrating security aspects from the design stage of low-code applications. Equally important is continuous security monitoring of production applications, supplemented by regular retesting in response to changes in the application, platform or emerging threats. Particularly valuable is the implementation of mechanisms for automatic monitoring of vulnerabilities in components used by the low-code platform, enabling the rapid identification of applications requiring updates when vulnerabilities in libraries or dependencies are detected.

What security criteria should be considered when choosing a low-code platform?

The selection of a secure low-code platform should begin with an analysis of the built-in security mechanisms that form the foundation for protecting the applications being developed. It is crucial that the platform offers a comprehensive set of security “by design” (security by design), including automatic protection against the most popular threats, such as the OWASP Top 10. When evaluating a platform, verify that it offers automatic input validation, protection against XSS and CSRF attacks, secure session management and built-in encryption of sensitive data. Equally important is that the platform enforces secure practices, such as automatically encrypting data transmission or blocking the implementation of unsafe patterns, regardless of the knowledge or intent of citizen developers.

Integration capabilities with corporate security systems are the second key aspect of the evaluation. The platform should offer native connectors to the identity management systems used in the organization, enabling unified access and authentication management. Equally important is the ability to integrate with SIEM, DLP or PAM systems, providing consistent security monitoring and privileged privilege management. Organizations should be particularly wary of platforms that require maintaining separate user bases or creating custom integrations with existing security infrastructure, as this can lead to security gaps and inconsistencies.

The transparency and maturity of the platform provider’s security processes are another important factor. Organizations should assess whether the vendor publishes regular security reports, openly reports on detected vulnerabilities and provides prompt security updates. It is worth verifying whether the platform has independent security certifications (e.g. ISO 27001, SOC 2) and whether the vendor conducts regular penetration tests and security audits of its solution. It is equally important to verify that the vendor offers dedicated resources to support the secure use of the platform, such as security guides, training or checklists for administrators and developers.

Flexibility in the deployment model can be critical for organizations with stringent security or regulatory requirements. Some industries or regions may require data to be stored locally or in specific geographic locations. In such cases, it is important whether the platform offers on-premises, private cloud or hybrid deployment options, while maintaining full functionality and security mechanisms. Organizations should also assess whether the platform allows granular control over the location of data storage and provides transparency into data flows, especially in the context of applications that integrate with external services.

Key security criteria for low-code platforms – summary fiche

Built-in security mechanisms: Automatic protection against popular threats, enforcing safe practices, default data encryption
Security infrastructure integrations: Native connectors to IAM, SIEM, DLP and other components of the corporate security ecosystem
Transparency of security processes: Regular audits, certifications, rapid remediation of vulnerabilities, open communication about incidents
Deployment flexibility: On-premises, private cloud or hybrid cloud hosting options that comply with regulatory requirements
Advanced security features: Enclave capabilities for custom code, SAST/DAST scanners, secure CI/CD mechanisms

How do you secure integrations with external systems and APIs?

Secure integrations with external systems and APIs require first and foremost the implementation of the principle of least privilege when configuring accesses. Citizen developers often tend to grant overly broad privileges to ensure uninterrupted application operation. Organizations should develop standard sets of permissions for different types of integration, precisely defining the minimum necessary scope of access. Low-code platforms should enforce these standards and block excessive permissions, even if explicitly defined by the developer. It is particularly important to audit and review integration permissions on a regular basis, with an emphasis on identifying and correcting instances that exceed the principle of least privilege.

Secure credential management is the cornerstone of integration protection. Organizations should implement central key vaults (key vaults) integrated into low-code platforms, eliminating the practice of storing API keys, tokens or passwords directly in application code. Platforms should automatically route credentials to the vaults, not allowing citizen developers to code them directly in applications. It is equally important to implement procedures for regular credential rotation, ideally automated at the platform level. For integration with external services, consider implementing the OAuth protocol using short-lived tokens instead of long-term API keys or static credentials.

Validation and sanitization of data transferred between systems is a key element in protecting against injection or data exfiltration attacks. Low-code platforms should offer built-in mechanisms to automatically validate input and output data for all integration points, without requiring citizen developers to manually implement these protections. Particularly important is deep validation of the structure and content of JSON/XML data, verification of data types, and filtering of potentially unsafe characters and constructs. Equally important is limiting the amount of data sent through integrations to the minimum necessary, eliminating the risk of accidental disclosure of sensitive information.

Monitoring and auditing integration are essential components of comprehensive protection. Organizations should implement mechanisms to log all API calls, both outbound and inbound, including time, user identity, functions used and status of operations. These logs should be centralized and integrated with corporate SIEM systems, enabling the detection of anomalies and potential security incidents, such as unusual access patterns or suspicious data exports. Of particular value are solutions that can automatically analyze communication patterns and alert on deviations from the established baseline, which may indicate compromised integration credentials or unauthorized access attempts.

How to effectively manage security incidents in a low-code environment?

Effective security incident management in a low-code environment requires first and foremost the integration of these applications with the organization’s central security monitoring system. Low-code platforms should be configured to send security logs, alerts and events to the corporate SIEM, providing a holistic view of the security status of the entire IT ecosystem. This integration should include not only platform-level logs, but also events from individual applications, such as unusual access patterns, data manipulation attempts or suspicious administrative activities. It is critical for security teams to have the full context of an incident, including information about the application, users, data and potential impact on the organization.

A clearly defined incident response process should take into account the specifics of the low-code environment, defining the roles and responsibilities of both the security team and citizen developers. The process should include detailed instructions for categorizing and prioritizing incidents, notifying stakeholders, containing and neutralizing threats, and restoring normal application operation. It is particularly important to define who has the authority to decide to temporarily shut down the application in the event of critical threats. Since low-code applications are often developed and managed by business departments, the process must clearly define the collaboration between the incident response team and the business owners of the application.

Automated threat containment and neutralization tools are an important part of a low-code incident response strategy. Organizations should implement mechanisms for quick action, such as automatically blocking suspicious IP addresses, temporarily suspending compromised user accounts or isolating compromised applications. Particularly valuable are solutions to selectively limit application functionality rather than disabling it altogether, such as by temporarily blocking data export functions or integration with external systems while maintaining basic information viewing capabilities. This approach minimizes the impact of an incident on the continuity of business operations, while allowing the threat to be effectively contained.

The process of learning after an incident (post-incident learning) is crucial to the long-term security improvement of a low-code environment. Each significant incident should be analyzed in detail to identify root causes, security vulnerabilities or process inadequacies that contributed to the incident. Conclusions from such analyses should be translated into concrete actions, such as updating training for citizen developers, improving automated security controls or modifying application oversight procedures. Particularly valuable is the creation of anonymized case studies based on real incidents, which can serve as educational material that builds awareness of potential threats and effective protection methods.

Effective security incident management – summary fiche

Centralize monitoring: Integrate all low-code applications with the corporate SIEM for a holistic view of security
Clear response procedures: Precise definition of roles, responsibilities and decision-making processes for incidents
Automation of threat neutralization: Rapid response mechanisms such as blocking suspicious sources or isolating compromised applications
Lessons learned process: Systematic analysis of the causes of incidents and implementation of improvements in processes, technology and training
Communication and coordination: Effective channels of cooperation between the security team, business owners and citizen developers

What are the key elements of a long-term security strategy for low-code platforms?

An effective long-term security strategy for low-code platforms must be based on a multi-level governance model that balances the need for control with the flexibility and innovation offered by citizen development. A key element is the implementation of so-called “guardrails” – safeguards and constraints built into the platform that automatically enforce compliance with security policies without overly interfering with the application development process. Equally important is the establishment of a multi-level surveillance system, with varying degrees of control depending on the criticality of the application and the type of data processed. This approach allows strict procedures for high-risk applications, while allowing more leeway for less critical solutions.

Building an ecosystem of reusable secure components is a fundamental part of a “security by design” strategy in a low-code environment. Organizations should invest in creating libraries of predefined secure components that implement security best practices and can be easily used by citizen developers. For example, instead of allowing the creation of custom login forms, it makes sense to provide a ready-made secure authentication component that is integrated with the corporate identity management system. This approach shifts the responsibility for implementing complex security mechanisms from individual developers to central architecture and security teams, while standardizing and simplifying the process of developing secure applications.

Automating risk management throughout the lifecycle of low-code applications is another key component of the strategy. Organizations should implement automated risk assessment mechanisms that analyze applications for potential risks at every stage of their development – from initial design to deployment to end-of-life. These systems should automatically categorize applications by risk level, which determines the application of appropriate security controls and oversight processes. Especially valuable are solutions that can dynamically adjust the risk level based on changes in the application, detected vulnerabilities or the evolution of the threat landscape, automatically initiating additional security controls when the risk exceeds an acceptable level.

Iterative improvement of security strategies based on measurable metrics is the foundation for long-term effectiveness. Organizations should define a comprehensive set of security KPIs for a low-code environment, including both lagging indicators (e.g., number of incidents, time to detect and neutralize them) and leading indicators (e.g., percentage of applications passing automated security testing, adoption rate of secure components). This data should be systematically analyzed to identify trends, patterns and areas for improvement. It is equally important to compare internal indicators with industry benchmarks to assess the effectiveness of the security strategy in a broader context and identify potential gaps that need to be addressed.

What is the direction of security development in low-code platforms?

The future of low-code platform security is moving toward an increasingly deep integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning mechanisms. Advanced AI algorithms will automatically analyze applications created by citizen developers, identifying potential security risks and suggesting specific improvements. Unlike traditional static code analyzers, AI-based solutions will be able to understand the business context of an application, identify unusual data access patterns or detect subtle gaps in business logic. Particularly promising are systems that not only detect problems, but also automatically propose or implement solutions, freeing citizen developers from the need for security expertise.

The growing importance of the “shift left security” approach is leading to security integration at every stage of the low-code application lifecycle. Future platforms will offer security verification mechanisms right from the application design stage, not allowing the implementation of unsafe patterns or configurations. Instead of relying on final security tests, platforms will offer continuous, real-time security guidance and feedback, much like today’s IDEs prompt developers as they write code. This evolution requires a fundamental change in the architecture of low-code platforms, with a shift from a model where security is an “add-on” to an approach where it is an integral, unmissable part of every step of the application development process.

Adaptive security mechanisms that dynamically adjust the level of control to the changing threat landscape will become standard in future low-code platforms. Instead of static security policies, systems will analyze global threat data in real time, automatically tightening security requirements for specific functions or data types in response to emerging attack trends. For example, the platform can automatically strengthen authentication requirements for all applications that process financial data in response to an observed increase in attacks on such systems. This dynamic approach strikes a balance between security and usability, tailoring the level of controls to the real risk, rather than applying one-size-fits-all, often overly restrictive safeguards.

Advanced security orchestration mechanisms will be an integral part of future low-code ecosystems, providing consistent security management across complex, heterogeneous environments. As organizations deploy multiple low-code platforms, often from different vendors, the ability to centrally manage security policies, monitor compliance and respond to incidents in a unified manner becomes critical. Future solutions will offer advanced APIs and connectors for deep integration with enterprise security management systems, providing a unified level of protection regardless of the platform used. This orchestration will also extend to traditionally developed applications, creating a cohesive security ecosystem that includes both low-code solutions and conventionally programmed systems.

Trends in the development of low-code platform security – summary fiche

Proactive risk identification: Systems that predict potential risks before they materialize, based on predictive analytics
AI-driven security: Advanced algorithms that automatically detect and fix security issues in the context of the specific application
Continuous security feedback: Immediate security guidance at every stage of application development, instead of final testing
Adaptive protection mechanisms: Dynamically adjust security controls in response to the evolving threat landscape
Security Orchestration: Centralized policy management and security monitoring in heterogeneous multi-platform environments