ISC2 • CSSLP
The CSSLP validates that software professionals have the expertise to incorporate security practices—authentication, authorization, and auditing—into each phase of the software development lifecycle (SDLC). It is designed for software developers, engineers, architects, and security professionals with at least four years of SDLC experience.
Questions
841
Duration
180 minutes
Passing Score
700/1000
Difficulty
ProfessionalLast Updated
Mar 2026
The Certified Secure Software Lifecycle Professional (CSSLP) is an advanced, vendor-neutral credential issued by ISC2 that validates a practitioner's ability to embed security practices—including authentication, authorization, and auditing—throughout every phase of the software development lifecycle (SDLC). The certification covers eight tightly scoped domains ranging from foundational secure software concepts and requirements gathering through architecture, implementation, testing, deployment, and supply chain security, ensuring holders can address risk at every stage rather than bolting on security after the fact.
Accredited under ANSI/ISO/IEC Standard 17024 and approved under U.S. DoD Manual 8140.03, the CSSLP carries formal recognition in both the private sector and defense contracting environments. ISC2 regularly updates the exam through a Job Task Analysis (JTA) process, keeping the content aligned with current industry practice. The most recent exam outline places the heaviest emphasis on Secure Software Architecture and Design (15%), Secure Software Implementation (14%), and Secure Software Testing (14%), reflecting where the most consequential security decisions are made during development.
The CSSLP is intended for experienced software and security professionals who bear responsibility for security outcomes across the development lifecycle. Primary candidates include software architects, software engineers, application security specialists, security engineers, and software program managers who work directly in development organizations. Secondary audiences include quality assurance testers, penetration testers, software procurement analysts, project managers, security managers, and IT directors who oversee software delivery or vendor relationships.
Candidates typically have four or more years of hands-on SDLC experience and are already working in roles where they make or influence security design decisions. The certification is particularly well-suited for professionals transitioning from pure development into security-focused engineering roles, or for AppSec practitioners who want a globally recognized credential to formalize their expertise.
ISC2 requires a minimum of four years of cumulative, paid, full-time professional work experience in one or more of the eight CSSLP CBK domains. Candidates who hold a four-year degree in Computer Science, Information Technology, or a related field may substitute one year of that experience requirement, reducing the minimum to three years. There are no formal prerequisites requiring other certifications before sitting the exam.
Beyond the experience requirement, candidates are expected to have working familiarity with secure coding practices, threat modeling methodologies such as STRIDE or PASTA, cryptographic concepts, access control models, and at least one SDLC methodology (e.g., Agile, DevSecOps, waterfall). Professionals without the required experience at exam time can pass the exam and become an Associate of ISC2, with five years to accumulate the qualifying work experience before converting to full CSSLP status. All certified members must adhere to the ISC2 Code of Ethics.
The CSSLP exam consists of 125 multiple-choice questions delivered over a 180-minute (3-hour) time limit. All questions are multiple-choice in format; ISC2 does not currently publish information about unscored pretest items for this exam. The exam is administered through Pearson VUE testing centers worldwide as well as via online proctored delivery, giving candidates flexibility in how and where they test.
Scoring uses a scaled model with a maximum of 1,000 points; the passing score is 700. The exam fee is $599 USD. The certification must be maintained with 90 Continuing Professional Education (CPE) credits earned over a three-year cycle, plus an Annual Maintenance Fee (AMF) of $125 per year. The exam is accredited under ANSI/ISO/IEC 17024 standards.
According to ISC2's Cybersecurity Workforce Study, CSSLP-certified professionals earn an average of $147,375 annually in North America, $138,242 in Europe, and $115,803 globally. The certification qualifies holders for roles including software security architect, application security engineer, senior software engineer, security program manager, penetration tester, and CISO-track leadership positions. Foote Partners has ranked CSSLP among the top IT credentials that increased in pay premium, with certified professionals reporting earnings approximately 13% higher than non-certified peers in comparable roles.
Demand for CSSLP holders is driven by regulatory pressure (PCI DSS, HIPAA, FedRAMP), widespread adoption of DevSecOps practices, and the DoD's 8140 workforce framework, which lists CSSLP as an approved credential for cyberspace work roles. The certification differentiates candidates from those holding purely development-focused credentials by demonstrating security competence across the full lifecycle—making it particularly valuable in industries such as defense contracting, financial services, healthcare technology, and cloud-native software companies where secure-by-design is a contractual or compliance requirement.
5 sample questions with correct answers and explanations. Start a practice session to test yourself across all 841 questions.
1. A threat modeling workshop uses Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) with STRIDE methodology. The team identifies a trust boundary between a web application and its backend database. Which STRIDE threats are most relevant when data crosses this trust boundary? (Select two!)
Multiple correct answersExplanation
Trust boundaries are critical points where STRIDE threats concentrate. Spoofing (authentication threat) is relevant because the application must authenticate to the database across the boundary. Tampering (integrity threat) applies to data crossing the boundary as it could be modified in transit. While repudiation, information disclosure, and denial of service are valid STRIDE threats, they are less specific to the trust boundary crossing between application and database. Trust boundary analysis focuses on threats that manifest specifically at the boundary transition point.
2. A security operations team implements NIST SP 800-88 data sanitization procedures for decommissioning solid-state drives containing encryption keys for customer data. The team wants the fastest method that makes recovery infeasible with state-of-the-art laboratory techniques. Which sanitization method should they use? (Select one!)
Explanation
Cryptographic erase sanitizes encryption keys rather than data itself, rendering encrypted data unrecoverable. This is the fastest purge method for encrypted SSDs and meets the requirement that recovery be infeasible with state-of-the-art lab techniques. Clear only protects against simple recovery. Destroy is effective but not the fastest. Degaussing does not work on solid-state drives that use flash memory, only magnetic media.
3. A software quality team conducts a Fagan code inspection following formal procedures. During the inspection meeting, the Reader paraphrases code and inspectors identify multiple critical security defects. The team begins discussing potential fixes. Which Fagan inspection principle is being violated? (Select one!)
Explanation
A fundamental Fagan inspection principle is that the inspection meeting purpose is to find defects, not to fix them. Attempting to fix defects during inspection wastes reviewer time and reduces defect detection effectiveness. Fixes are addressed in the separate Rework phase. Individual preparation before the meeting is required but not being violated in this scenario. The moderator should NOT be the author to maintain objectivity. Fagan inspections should occur early in development, not waiting for testing. The six formal phases are Planning, Overview, Preparation, Inspection Meeting, Rework, and Follow-up.
4. Contoso's software team is building a web application and needs to establish the verification level for OWASP ASVS compliance. The application handles sensitive personal and financial data but is not a life-safety or critical infrastructure system. Which OWASP ASVS level is most appropriate, and what percentage of requirements does it cover? (Select one!)
Explanation
OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS) Level 2 is the standard verification level recommended for most applications that handle sensitive data, including personal and financial information. It covers approximately 50% of the ASVS requirements and represents a balanced approach between security assurance and implementation effort. Level 1 provides low assurance at approximately 20% of requirements and is designed primarily for applications that can be validated through penetration testing alone. Level 3 provides the highest assurance for critical applications such as military, health and safety, or critical infrastructure systems requiring comprehensive verification. Since the application handles sensitive data but is not life-safety critical, Level 2 provides the appropriate balance of security assurance.
5. A mobile banking application architect evaluates federated identity protocols for single sign-on capability with third-party financial services. The solution must provide authentication with proof of user identity, not just authorization. The protocol must support modern REST APIs and mobile platforms with lightweight token formats. Which protocol combination meets these requirements? (Select one!)
Explanation
OpenID Connect (OIDC) is the correct solution because it is built on top of OAuth 2.0 and adds authentication capabilities via ID Tokens (JWT format) while OAuth 2.0 handles authorization. This critical distinction is frequently tested: OAuth 2.0 is authorization-only and does not authenticate users. OIDC was specifically designed for modern web and mobile applications, uses lightweight REST/JSON, and provides the authentication layer missing from OAuth 2.0. OAuth 2.0 alone cannot provide authentication regardless of token format. SAML 2.0 uses XML-based tokens and has poor mobile support compared to OIDC. While OAuth 2.0 uses JWTs for access tokens, these tokens authorize access but do not authenticate identity. The ID Token provided by OIDC is what proves authentication.
One-time access to this exam