Description

A focused course, tailored for you

Product Security Engineering for Platform Teams

Name: Product Security Engineering for Platform Teams
Price: 199 USD
Availability: InStock

How to turn threat models and security requirements into artefacts product engineers actually ship.

Security findings that never leave the backlog are not a product problem. They are a translation problem. This course teaches the translation.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

Staff and senior product security engineers at platform companies face a structural friction that no tool solves: the security assessment produces findings, and the product team produces sprints. The two calendars do not align, and the vocabulary does not map. Threat model outputs are written for security reviewers, not for engineers who need a bounded, testable requirement. Security acceptance criteria, when they exist at all, are written in control language that product managers cannot size or prioritise. The result is a backlog that grows and a release schedule that does not wait for it. The findings that do ship are the ones where a security engineer translated them personally, held a working session, wrote the requirement in engineering terms, and pushed through review. That process does not scale and it burns out the people doing it.

What you walk away with

Write threat model outputs as sprint-ready engineering requirements, not as control-language findings.
Build a security acceptance criteria template that product managers can size and prioritise without a security engineer in the room.
Run a 90-minute secure design review that produces three actionable artefacts by the end of the session.
Build a security backlog triage method that ties findings to release risk, so the product team knows which ones block the release and which ones do not.
Produce a one-page security brief that an engineering lead can forward to their team without translation.
Create a repeatable handoff protocol that removes the security engineer as a bottleneck for every product team after the initial setup.

The 12 modules

Module 1. The Translation Gap

Why security findings do not move from assessment reports into sprint tickets. This module maps the structural friction between threat model outputs and engineering backlogs, names the three places where the handoff breaks down, and establishes the core skill this course teaches: writing security requirements in engineering terms. Includes a before/after comparison of a real finding rewritten from control language to an engineering requirement with clear acceptance criteria.

Module 2. Threat Modelling for Actionable Output

How to run a STRIDE or PASTA session so the output is already in the shape a product engineer can work with. This module covers scoping the session to a single feature boundary, writing findings as user-story-shaped requirements rather than vulnerability categories, and assigning severity in terms of release risk rather than CVSS. Includes a session agenda template and a findings-capture worksheet.

Module 3. Security Acceptance Criteria That Product Managers Can Size

How to write security acceptance criteria that fit inside a sprint without a security engineer present to explain them. Covers the three components of a testable security criterion: the condition, the artefact, and the verification step. Includes a worked example across authentication, data handling, and third-party integration scenarios. The module ends with a criteria template that maps to standard ticketing fields.

Module 4. The 90-Minute Secure Design Review

A step-by-step agenda for a secure design review that produces three specific artefacts by the end of the session: a threat surface summary, a prioritised findings list in engineering terms, and a set of signed-off acceptance criteria. Covers how to run the session with engineers who have not seen the design before, how to handle scope creep, and how to close the session with clear ownership for each finding. Includes a facilitator guide and a participant worksheet.

Module 5. Security Backlog Triage

How to assess a security backlog and assign each finding to one of three buckets: blocks this release, deferred with documented risk, or closed with rationale. Covers how to build the triage matrix, how to write the risk-deferral note that a product manager can present to their engineering lead, and how to track deferred findings so they surface at the right point in the next release cycle. Includes a triage worksheet and a deferral-note template.

Module 6. Writing the One-Page Security Brief

How to produce a one-page document an engineering lead can forward without explanation. The brief covers the threat surface, the three findings that matter to the release, and the acceptance criteria for each. This module covers structure, language register, and the one mistake most security briefs make: explaining the threat model instead of stating what the team needs to build. Includes a brief template and three worked examples.

Module 7. Security Requirements in Agile and Kanban Contexts

How to fit security requirements into sprint planning, story refinement, and kanban review cycles without becoming a gate that blocks delivery. Covers how to write security epics and sub-tasks in Jira and Linear, how to handle the scenario where a security requirement arrives after sprint planning has closed, and how to track security coverage across a quarter without a separate tracking system. Includes a ticket-writing guide and a coverage dashboard template.

Module 8. Third-Party and Supply Chain Security Requirements

How to write security requirements for software components, APIs, and third-party integrations that product teams are selecting and integrating. Covers the intake questionnaire, the minimum acceptable evidence set for a new integration, and how to write a supplier security requirement that maps to the product team's acceptance criteria. Includes a supplier intake template and a minimum-evidence checklist aligned to SLSA and SSDF principles.

Module 9. Scaling Without Becoming a Bottleneck

How to set up a repeatable security review process that does not require a security engineer in every session after the first cycle. Covers building a security champion programme inside product teams, writing a review checklist that a senior engineer can run independently, and defining the escalation criteria that bring the security team back in. Includes a security champion onboarding guide and a self-service review checklist.

Module 10. Vulnerability Coordination Across Product Teams

How to manage the inbound vulnerability pipeline, from bug bounty and researcher reports through internal scanning, and translate each finding into a product-team task without losing context or urgency. Covers triage, severity mapping, the notification workflow, and how to write the vulnerability brief that goes to the product team without exposing internal scanner output. Includes a vulnerability intake template and a product-team notification guide.

Module 11. Measuring Security Programme Effectiveness

How to report security coverage and programme health to engineering leadership in terms they use rather than terms the security team uses. Covers three metrics that matter to a product organisation: time-to-ticket for security findings, percentage of releases with a completed secure design review, and open-finding age by product team. Includes a metrics dashboard template and a quarterly report structure.

Module 12. The Implementation Playbook

A consolidation of every template, checklist, and worksheet into a single working document for a platform security engineering role. Covers adapting each artefact to the team structure and review cadence, introducing the process to product teams unfamiliar with structured security review, and measuring whether the handoff improves over the first 90 days. The reference document for the first implementation cycle.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

Threat model findings that sit in the backlog for three sprints map to modules 1, 2, and 5.

Product managers who cannot size or prioritise security requirements map to modules 3, 6, and 7.

Being the single bottleneck for every product team's security review maps to modules 4, 9, and 12.

Third-party integrations that bypass the security intake process map to module 8 and the supplier intake template.

What you get with this course

12 written modules covering the full arc from secure design review to product-team handoff
Threat model findings worksheet and secure design review facilitator guide
Security acceptance criteria template mapped to standard ticketing fields
One-page security brief template with three worked examples
Security backlog triage matrix and risk-deferral note template
Supplier security intake questionnaire and minimum-evidence checklist
Security champion onboarding guide and self-service review checklist
Metrics dashboard template and quarterly report structure
Hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Course access and implementation playbook provisioned within 24 hours of purchase

Modules are self-paced; most engineers complete the full course in two to three weeks alongside their regular workload

The secure design review template can be used in the first week; the full handoff protocol takes 30 to 60 days to embed across a product team

Before and after

Before

Threat model outputs are written in control language. Product teams acknowledge the findings and park them in the backlog. Releases ship without the security work done. The security engineer follows up manually, explains the finding again, and writes a ticket. The same finding surfaces in the next assessment.

After

Secure design reviews produce sprint-ready tickets with acceptance criteria the product team can size. Security findings move from assessment to release without the security engineer becoming a bottleneck. The backlog shrinks. Deferred findings have documented rationale and a scheduled revisit date.

What happens if you do not address this

Security backlogs that do not clear are not just a compliance problem. They are a signal that the security programme is not integrated into the delivery process. At some point, a finding that sat in the backlog becomes the root cause of an incident, and the post-mortem asks why it was not actioned. The cost of building the translation skill now is one course and a few weeks of implementation. The cost of not building it is measured in incident response, customer notification, and the next performance review.

Who it is for

Staff or Senior Product Security Engineer at a mid-to-large SaaS or platform company. Accountable for threat modelling, secure design review, security requirements, and vulnerability programme coordination across multiple product teams. Has strong technical depth in security but is frustrated that the quality of the security output does not determine whether it gets actioned. Wants a repeatable method for getting security requirements out of assessment reports and into sprint-ready tickets, without becoming a bottleneck for every product team.

Who this is NOT for. Penetration testers whose job ends at the report. Application security engineers who are embedded directly inside a single product team and do not need to coordinate across multiple teams. Security managers whose role is governance, not engineering.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. Approximately 8 to 10 hours of reading across 12 modules. Each module includes a template or worksheet that can be used immediately. The implementation playbook is a standalone working document.

Why $199 is the right number

Generic application security training covers vulnerability classes and attack techniques, not the organisational handoff problem. Consulting engagements can build a custom process but cost ten to fifty times more and produce documentation that is hard to maintain internally. This course teaches the skill directly to the person who needs to use it.

FAQ

Is this relevant if my company already has a threat modelling process?

Yes. The course focuses on the handoff from assessment to engineering action, not on the assessment methodology itself. Most existing processes produce good threat models; the gap is translating the output into sprint-ready artefacts. The templates and worksheets in this course are designed to slot into an existing review process.

Does this cover specific frameworks like STRIDE, PASTA, or OWASP ASVS?

Modules 2 and 3 reference STRIDE and OWASP ASVS as illustrative examples. The course is framework-agnostic; the translation skill applies regardless of which threat modelling methodology the team uses.

How is this different from a secure SDLC training?

Secure SDLC training typically covers the full development lifecycle from a governance perspective. This course focuses on one specific skill: writing security requirements in a form that product engineers can action without a security engineer present. It is narrower and more immediately applicable.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.