For years, threat modeling and design reviews have been treated as one-off security checkboxes—something a handful of experts did manually before release. But regulators are changing the game. FFIEC and NCUA examiners now expect banks and credit unions to anticipate threats, document design decisions, and show evidence that security was built in from the start.
That’s a tall order for teams already stretched thin. Manual workshops and spreadsheets can’t keep up with complex architectures and fast release cycles. As a result, risk models fall out of date almost as soon as they’re created.
In this post, we explore what happens when threat modeling and security design reviews become automated and continuous—how that shift helps financial institutions meet NIST and FFIEC expectations, reduce rework, and turn compliance into an engine for resilience.
In Part 1 we explored how regulators are pushing financial institutions to move security upstream: examiners from the FFIEC and NCUA expect banks and credit unions to anticipate threats and document their design decisions. We also saw that threat modeling, when done properly, is a structured process for identifying potential attack paths and defining mitigations. NIST’s Secure Software Development Framework notes that organizations should use risk modeling methods such as threat modeling or attack surface mapping and that developers may need training or help from experts to create and analyze these models.
Yet most organizations still perform threat modeling by hand. Workshops led by a handful of experts produce diagrams and spreadsheets that are quickly outdated. As systems grow more complex and release cycles accelerate, manual modeling becomes a bottleneck.
DevArmor addresses this problem by automating two core practices—threat modeling and security design review—so that development teams can scale secure design without hiring an army of security architects.
Threat modeling and design reviews are no longer optional for financial institutions.
At the heart of DevArmor is an engine that ingests design and architecture diagrams, codebase and infrastructure configurations to generate a structured threat model. Following the four‑question framework popularized by OWASP (what are we working on, what can go wrong, what are we going to do about it and did we do a good job?), DevArmor identifies assets, trust boundaries and data flows and applies known attack patterns to reveal potential misuse cases. Instead of relying on a blank whiteboard session, the tool maps services and dependencies automatically, identify trust zones, data stores, and where external connections cross trust boundaries. The result is a prioritized list of risks and recommended controls, that can be used to prioritize security tasks or remediations. Automated analysis ensures that new features or integrations trigger a refresh of the model, so the threat landscape stays current as the system evolves, a practice aligned with OWASP’s call for continuous updates and with the NCUA’s requirement to update risk assessments when technologies or services change.
Threat modeling is only part of the battle; institutions also need to validate that their system designs follow security best practices and compliance frameworks. NIST SP 800‑64 emphasizes performing an architecture or design review to evaluate planned system designs and potential integrations with other systems . NIST SP 800‑160 further explains that well‑engineered systems can be inherently less vulnerable and more resilient. DevArmor’s design review module codifies these principles. It assesses each component and interaction against a library of design patterns derived from standards and frameworks, such as least‑privilege enforcement, proper segmentation, secure identity propagation and secure cloud configuration. By scanning architecture diagrams and configuration files, DevArmor flags deviations from these patterns—such as databases accessible from public subnets or unvalidated input crossing a trust boundary—and recommends remediation steps. Because the analysis is automated, design reviews become a repeatable part of the build process rather than a periodic, manual checkpoint.
One of the pain points highlighted in Part 1 is the need to update models and assessments as systems change. NIST SP 800‑64 advises revisiting risk assessment decisions whenever design or system changes occur, and the NCUA’s CORE+ requirements similarly call for maintaining a catalogue of vulnerabilities and updating risk assessments regularly. DevArmor integrates with development pipelines, such as issue tracking tools and source code management platforms, to detect when new services are added, when permissions change or when external APIs are introduced. The platform re‑runs its threat modeling and design review routines automatically, updating risk scores and control recommendations. This produces a living risk register and a history of design decisions that can be exported for auditors and examiners. Boards and supervisory committees receive dashboards that summarize inherent and residual risks, mapped to business processes and vendor relationships—evidence that management recognizes, assesses and mitigates information‑security risks in a continuous manner.
DevArmor platform re‑runs its threat modeling and design review routines automatically, this produces a living risk register and a history of design decisions that can be exported for auditors and examiners.
DevArmor is designed to speak the language of regulators. Its templates and reports are structured to mirror the categories and terminology used in the FFIEC’s Information Security booklet. For example, threat models are organized by assets and threats to highlight how institutions have used modeling techniques to understand the nature, frequency and sophistication of threats. Additionally, DevArmor maps identified threats to specific compliance requirements to help teams monitor compliance risk. Risk scores and recommended controls are mapped to examination domains, making it easy to show examiners how controls address identified risks. Design review findings reference NIST standards, reinforcing that architecture choices align with regulatory standards. Because the platform tracks updates over time, it provides the audit trail examiners look for when they ask whether risks have been revisited after system changes.
Credit unions and community banks often lack the budget to hire dedicated threat modeling teams. Manual design reviews can delay product launches and strain relationships between development and security. At DevArmor, we work with public FinServe companies, Big Four consulting firms, and fast-moving companies in regulated industries to scale their threat identification, threat modeling, and design risk management practices. Through this approach, DevArmor reduces the expertise barrier. Developers receive actionable insights without needing to become security specialists, and security teams can focus on high-value analysis instead of drawing diagrams.
The result is a scalable practice that supports agile development and reduces the likelihood of late‑stage rework. Automated tooling also frees up human resources to focus on other supervisory priorities, such as vendor due diligence and incident response, which the NCUA emphasized in its 2025 priorities.
Threat identification and design reviews are no longer optional for financial institutions. Regulators expect to see documented evidence that risks were considered at design time and that controls were chosen accordingly. DevArmor transforms these expectations into a continuous practice. By automating threat modeling, codifying secure design patterns and continuously updating risk assessments, the platform turns compliance requirements into an opportunity to build more resilient systems. In an era where cyber‑attacks are evolving and examiners are raising the bar, automating secure design is not just a convenience—it is a competitive advantage.
