Ask a quality engineer how they plan a release, and they’ll likely mention test cases, automation coverage, edge cases, maybe a traceability matrix.
Ask a security engineer about threat modeling, and you’ll hear terms like STRIDE, attack surfaces, or abuse cases.
Now ask them if they’ve ever sat down together to plan both at once.
The silence? That’s the gap.
We often treat testing and threat modeling as two separate activities, run by two separate teams, at two very different times. But what if they weren’t? What if test planning and threat modeling were part of the same conversation—starting early, and evolving together?
Let’s talk about why that matters, and how it can transform the way we build secure, resilient software.
Threat Modeling Is About Questions. So Is Testing.
At its core, threat modeling is just structured curiosity. What can go wrong? Who might try to break this? What do we depend on? What happens if that fails?
And really, isn’t that the same mindset behind good test planning?
•What if the user enters unexpected data?
•What if the network times out?
•What if two users try to access the same resource at once?
Both disciplines revolve around “what if” thinking. One is framed around code quality, the other around risk. But they’re both trying to uncover the unknowns before your customers (or attackers) do.
So why do we draw a line between them?
The Real Cost of Separation
When testing and threat modeling happen in silos, two things usually happen:
1.Security becomes an afterthought. By the time a threat model is created—if at all—the test plan is already baked. Teams scramble to bolt on security tests late in the cycle.
2.Test plans miss risk hotspots. Test cases are often written around user stories and requirements, not attack vectors or potential abuse paths. That’s how security regressions sneak in.
It’s like building a house, doing the walkthrough with the architect, and then asking the locksmith to assess the doors two weeks before move-in.
We need to bring these conversations together—earlier.
A Unified Workflow in Practice
Imagine this: You’re planning out a new feature. Instead of just starting with acceptance criteria and test cases, you bring in both your QE and security peers for a shared working session.
Here’s what you do:
•Step 1: Identify the assets. What are we trying to protect? User data? Access tokens? Payment details?
•Step 2: Walk through the flow. How is data moving? Where are the entry points? Any third-party integrations?
•Step 3: Brainstorm threats. What could go wrong? Think malicious input, broken authentication, timing attacks, etc.
•Step 4: Translate threats into test cases. For every threat, ask: Can we validate this in a test? Do we need a negative test, a fuzzing scenario, a permissions check?
•Step 5: Prioritize. Not everything needs a test on day one. Focus on high-impact areas first.
The result? A test plan that doesn’t just verify happy paths—it validates trust boundaries.
Real-World Wins
Teams that integrate threat modeling and test planning often notice a few game-changing shifts:
•Fewer missed vulnerabilities. Security edge cases are caught earlier—before pen testers or bug bounty researchers find them.
•Better test coverage. Tests are aligned with risk, not just functionality.
•More collaboration. Quality, security, and engineering speak a shared language of “what could go wrong” instead of pointing fingers later.
And perhaps most importantly: teams sleep better. Because their tests aren’t just green—they’re meaningful.
Make It a Habit, Not a Heroic Effort
This doesn’t have to be a heavyweight process. In fact, the best threat-model-meets-test-plan moments happen casually—during backlog grooming, or early design reviews.
A few tips to get started:
•Create a shared checklist. Something lightweight like: What are the trust boundaries? Any external inputs? Is there sensitive data involved?
•Use a whiteboard. Draw the flow, circle the risky spots, and brainstorm tests.
•Automate what you can. Link test cases to specific threats. Set up coverage dashboards that show risk areas, not just requirements.
•Don’t wait for the security team. Quality engineers can lead this just as much as security folks can. It’s about mindset, not job titles.
The Bottom Line
Threat modeling and test planning are both about thinking ahead. They both ask: Where could this go wrong—and how do we make sure it doesn’t?
When you bring them together, something powerful happens. Your test plans get sharper. Your threat models get more grounded. And your code gets more resilient—not just against bugs, but against the real threats waiting in the wild.
So the next time you’re planning a feature or drafting a test strategy, ask not just what the user will do—but what an attacker might try.
Because the best way to build secure software?
Start testing it before anyone writes a line of code.
Top comments (0)