A security architecture review is a systematic assessment of an environment’s design, configuration, and controls to evaluate whether they meet security requirements and can withstand realistic threats.
At some point, if you lean toward product or infrastructure security, you’ll inevitably find yourself doing a review like this. When I did my first one, I didn’t have a mentor or a “how-to” guide. Turns out, there’s no perfect way to do it — it really depends on how you see things, how well you can think like an attacker, and how effectively you can help the team defend.
So Why Would You Need a Security Review?
The answer’s simple — just because something works doesn’t mean it’s safe.
In the real world, most companies focus on launching fast rather than taking extra time to get security on-boarded. It usually hits them later — when auditors show up asking for documents, controls, and mitigation. That’s when fixing things becomes expensive and messy.
That’s exactly where a security architecture review comes in — to catch those issues early.
But keep in mind, a security architecture review is not the same as a compliance or privacy review.
Some companies take this seriously from day one — but honestly, most still don’t think it’s worth the effort… until it is.
When Should You Do a Security Review?
Simple — it comes down to two key moments:
- Whenever a new product or infrastructure component is introduced
- Whenever there’s a major (or even significant minor) change in the existing environment
That’s it. Every other case usually falls under one of these two.
Who conducts a Security Architecture Review?
Typically, a Security Architect plays a crucial role in integrating security into a given architecture; however, in many organizations, a Security Engineer may also take on this responsibility, especially when the team is relatively new and striving to implement changes. Engaging closely with the development team or any group requesting a review is essential, as effective communication is key and fosters a quicker learning process.
How do you do a Security review as a Security Engineer?
As a security engineer, here are some keys things you should look for or start with when doing a security review:
Establishing the Scope — The Map Before the Mission
One of the most critical steps in any security review is establishing the scope.
Scope isn’t just about identifying what the environment is — it’s also about defining what outcome you want to achieve.
Think of it like this: when you’re given a task, you don’t just ask “What do I need to do?” — you also ask “What should the end result look like?” The same logic applies in security. Scoping is about understanding not just what you’re reviewing, but why you’re reviewing it and what a successful review should deliver.
If I’m handed an environment for a security architecture review, the first step is always to map the scope:
- What services are involved?
- Are these services internal or external?
- What are the key assets — servers, APIs, cloud resources, data stores?
- Which parts are in-scope vs. out-of-scope?
- And finally, what’s the intended outcome — a risk assessment, a design validation, a compliance report, or a threat model?
Without clear scope and expected outcomes, a security review quickly turns into guesswork. This phase also includes gathering documentation of the services involved and a lot of googling (well, you will do this at every stage,though)
With scope, it becomes a focused assessment that saves time, reduces confusion, and delivers results that actually matter.
Threat Model or Risk Assessment
Once you’ve defined the scope, the next step is threat modeling — figuring out what could go wrong within that environment.
This doesn’t have to be a full-blown STRIDE exercise; even a basic model where you identify assets, potential attackers, entry points, and impact is enough.
Threat modeling helps you prioritize what really matters before diving into control reviews or detailed design checks. Threat modeling drives your outcome checklist. It helps you risks by following methodologies like STRIDE:
- What can go wrong?
- Who can attack this?
- How can they do it?
- What’s the impact if they succeed?
In my case — as a security engineer — a thorough threat model and risk assessment are usually enough to cover most reviews.
But there are scenarios where the review naturally extends into design validation — especially when architecture or third-party integrations are involved.
For example, I once reviewed a third-party service integration with our cloud environment. Technically, we could have achieved the same functionality natively within our own cloud setup. Doing it in-house would have given us far better visibility, control over logs, and monitoring of data flows — compared to relying on the external service.
As a security engineer, it’s important not just to find risks but also to recommend smarter design choices early in the process. When you walk into a review with a few well-thought-out pointers or alternative approaches, it doesn’t just make your analysis stronger — it sparks healthier technical discussions and leads to better collective learning across the team.
Okay, now you’ve gathered all the required information for the review, or you’re in a conversation where you understand the system, flows, and environment and you know the risks. At this stage, you need something to map security against — what I mean is, there has to be some kind of “Outcomes” or “Must-haves.”
This is where your outcome definition comes in. Now, Depending on the phase of review this outcome can vary- like in design phase – you can’t have code review or dependency risk mapped but below are some key pointers that you can use based on the security architecture review phase which an environment must have.
Below are the key Core Outcomes I usually look for during a security architecture review:
- Authentication & Authorization Design:
Based on the environment, it’s important to check how authN and authZ are defined. Is it RBAC or ABAC? Is least privilege enforced? Is MFA in place? These are high-level points and can vary depending on your setup — a quick Google or AI assist can help you tailor this to your environment. - Data Classification & Protection Controls:
Is data encrypted in transit (HTTPS) and at rest? What kind of data is it — sensitive, PII, or public? Map how it’s handled at each step. - Secret Management:
Where are secrets stored? Are rotation policies enforced? Is access logged and audited? - Dependency Risk:
Look for third-party or supply chain risks. If a dependency is controlled by a vendor, how do they manage patching and vulnerabilities? - Code Reviews:
Usually happens later in the development cycle. Use your corporate SAST tool, but I’d also recommend running one or two open-source scanners. Sometimes an external tool catches things your corporate one misses — especially for niche languages. - Infrastructure Security:
Includes server, network, and cloud hardening. Check firewall configurations, VPC segmentation, secure deployment practices, and patch management. - Logging & Monitoring Plan:
What gets logged, where does it go, and is masking needed? Is data flowing into a SIEM for analysis? - Security Guardrails Alignment:
Not the same as infrastructure Security— this is about aligning the overall environment with your organization’s internal security policies and best practices – Some examples include code or deployment guardrails, AI/ML-specific security controls, IAM and resource policies, and AWS Config rules — all at a fairly high level.
What sets this apart from infrastructure security is the focus on proactive and preventive measures rather than reactive fixes.
What Happens After the Review?
Once you’ve completed your findings, document them clearly with risks, severity, and recommendations. Prioritize issues based on impact and likelihood — not just technical difficulty. You can do that in the ticketing format and have a document written for anyone to look at.
A good security review doesn’t just highlight problems; it helps teams understand why they matter and how to fix them.
At the end of the day, your goal isn’t to block releases — it’s to make sure what goes live can stand on its own against real threats.