CONSOLE pointed out hardcoded secrets we had forgotten in the code, flagged outdated libraries, and highlighted insecure patterns that had slipped through.

At first, it felt a bit daunting — seeing vulnerabilities in a project you’ve been building for months. However, it then evolved into something empowering. “From the reports, we stopped making the same mistakes,” the team says. “Slowly, safer coding became part of how we work.”

Our next step is to integrate CONSOLE even more deeply into our workflow by connecting it with our private GitLab instance through git hooks. That way, every update will automatically be checked, keeping SafeAmea secure as it grows. 

Like many fast-evolving platforms, PROCESIO, a Ringhel solution, recognised the need to move beyond basic secure coding practices and embrace a systematic, automated approach to vulnerability scanning, dependency management, and endpoint protection.

By joining the CONSOLE project, we took a proactive step: embedding cybersecurity directly into our software development lifecycle. This was not about compliance—it was about building a culture of security by design. By embedding static and dynamic analysis, dependency scanning, insider monitoring, and endpoint protection into everyday workflows, we created a cohesive security shield. This proactive approach not only protects PROCESIO but also serves as a blueprint for other companies developing automation and orchestration platforms.

As we scaled rapidly, security was often overshadowed by the need for speed. Like many startups, we focused on delivery, shipping features, deploying services, and expanding coverage, while assuming we were too small to be a real target. 

CONSOLE made the difference, allowing us to integrate security into our workflows without disrupting productivity by combining code analysis, threat detection, and training in one place.

The early testing of CONSOLE at plugpoint revealed just how much was missing from our previous security posture. We had no code scanning in CI/CD, no visibility into dependency risks, no monitoring on field devices, and no central ownership of security processes.