In the modern Australian enterprise, API security is a critical concern that must be clearly defined and accounted for, because it is now a cornerstone of digital risk management.
APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) enable seamless interaction between applications and services, forming the backbone of cloud platforms, mobile apps, and third-party integrations.
Yet, the same APIs that empower innovation also represent high-risk entry points for cybercriminals. With 60% of organisations globally experiencing API-related data breaches in the last two years, the stakes for robust API security have never been higher.
The challenges of managing API ecosystems are profound. Digital transformation, cloud adoption, and third-party services have not only expanded the number of APIs but also increased the complexity of governing them.
For Australian companies — especially those regulated under frameworks like APRA’s CPS 234 or the SOCI Act — ensuring API security is both a compliance and operational necessity.
Amid the indubitable advantage of APPIs and the unarguable growth in API complexity, the question persists: Who within the organisation is ultimately responsible for API security?
Why Clear Ownership Matters
One of the greatest risks in any team is the ambiguity of responsibility. If everyone owns API security, then effectively no one does. This lack of clarity can result in serious security gaps, as vital aspects may be overlooked or deferred, leading to potential breaches. Without assigning clear accountability, enterprises risk being reactive rather than proactive in their security posture.
Inadequate ownership of API security introduces a critical weakness. When responsibility is not clearly assigned, vital security activities often fall through the cracks. This ambiguity can lead to delayed incident responses, compliance failures, and costly breaches — issues that no enterprise can afford in today’s volatile digital environment.
In fact, 95% of companies report difficulties managing API-related incidents due to unclear roles and responsibilities.
A key reason for this ambiguity is the distributed nature of API management. APIs often cut across multiple departments, including product teams, DevOps, security, and IT infrastructure. As a result, some organisations attempt to distribute API security responsibilities across various teams. While this collaborative approach has merits, it also introduces risks — if everyone owns API security, no one truly does.
Without a dedicated owner, APIs may be released with vulnerabilities or misconfigurations, creating shadow APIs — unauthorised endpoints that evade detection.
API Governance: A Natural Starting Point to an API Security Journey
API security is often discussed as part of a broader API governance initiative.
Many Australian enterprises, driven by digital transformation and cloud migration, are building API-first infrastructures, which increases both the volume of APIs and the complexity of managing them. As these enterprises scale, API governance efforts tend to address issues like standardisation, lifecycle management, and security. However, governance alone cannot be responsible for API security — it requires dedicated ownership.
Governance frameworks can serve as a starting point for API security, but governance cannot address the nuanced and dynamic threats that APIs face. In Australian enterprises APIs drive everything from banking transactions to customer onboarding processes. For example, open APIs in the financial sector allow third-party fintech providers to offer innovative services, but introduce new security risks.
API governance traditionally focuses on standardisation, documentation, and lifecycle management — not on active threat detection or incident response. As API ecosystems expand, governance frameworks need to evolve to encompass security postures, ensuring APIs are both compliant and resilient against attacks. Such governance only represents a natural starting point and will require constant execution and evolution. APIs traverse both the “Shift Left” approach of constant API testing before being deployed into production as well as the “Secure Right” approach of run-time API posture management, protection and threat hunting.
Possible Owners of API Security
API security accountability can vary depending on an enterprise’s size and structure, but here are some common candidates for ownership:
Chief Information Security Officer (CISO):
Given that API security falls under the umbrella of cybersecurity, the CISO is often seen as a natural owner. The CISO is responsible for protecting the entire digital ecosystem, including APIs, and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements such as APRA and SOCI. In large enterprises, the CISO is the most common owner of API security. The CPS 234 framework from APRA mandates that CISOs ensure not only compliance but also resilience against cyber threats. CISOs are responsible for policies governing access control, encryption, and monitoring of API traffic to detect anomalies and prevent breaches.
Head of API or Cloud Engineering:
Engineering teams are a natural choice for ownership of API security since they design, deploy, and maintain APIs. These teams adopt shift-left strategies, where security checks are integrated early in the development process. Australian companies with complex cloud infrastructures, such as those in telecommunications or healthcare, rely heavily on engineers to implement security-by-design principles.
Chief Information Officer (CIO):
As the executive responsible for overall IT strategy, the CIO may also take the lead on API security, particularly if APIs are central to business operations.
The CIO’s focus on aligning technology with business goals makes them a natural fit for API security ownership in API-driven businesses. For example, banks that depend on APIs to deliver real-time services need a CIO-led approach to ensure APIs meet both business and security objectives.
Shared Responsibility Across Teams:
In more complex organisations, API security may involve multiple teams, each taking ownership of specific areas like API testing, monitoring, or incident response.
Highly distributed organisations may opt for a shared ownership model, with multiple teams taking responsibility for different aspects of API security. For instance, DevOps may handle API configuration, while the Security Operations Centre (SOC) monitors traffic and incident response. However, without strong governance and clear handoffs, shared models risk miscommunication and missed vulnerabilities.
Regulatory Drivers: APRA and SOCI
Globally, we have seen trends for specific regulatory compliance around API security. FSince 2021, the FFIEC in the US, Monetary Authority of Singapore, Bangko Sentral in the Philippines have all announced updates explicitly calling out APIs as a separate attack surface in regulatory guidelines.
In Australia, regulatory frameworks such as APRA’s CPS 234 and the SOCI Act play a pivotal role in shaping API security practices. These regulations impose strict requirements for data protection, service resilience, and threat mitigation. Non-compliance can result in significant penalties and reputational damage. For industries such as banking, energy, and telecommunications, meeting these regulatory demands means prioritising API security at every stage—from design to deployment.
The SOCI Act extends these obligations to critical infrastructure providers, requiring them to secure not only internal systems but also any third-party APIs that interact with their platforms. For APRA-regulated entities, compliance requires continuous monitoring and reporting, reinforcing the need for dedicated API security leadership.
The Evolution of API Security Responsibility
API security efforts often start with understanding the organisation’s API inventory, but as enterprises mature, API security becomes a cross-functional responsibility. Different parts of the business begin to play critical roles in maintaining API security:
Application Security Teams:
These teams are responsible for API security testing, ensuring APIs are secure before being deployed. They play a significant role in the early stages of an API’s lifecycle. These teams focus on API vulnerability assessments and ensure that APIs are tested rigorously before deployment. Yet, only 52% of enterprises conduct regular API security testing, leaving significant security gaps.
Security Operations Center (SOC) & Incident Response Teams:
Once APIs are live, SOC and incident response teams monitor API traffic for anomalies or potential attacks. They are integral in responding quickly to threats and mitigating risks.
Enterprise Architects:
As APIs increasingly drive core business functions, enterprise architects become concerned with how APIs interact, the data they expose, and the overall API flow. They help ensure APIs are built within a secure and well-governed architecture.
The Generative AI Challenge: A New Threat Vector
The proliferation of generative AI tools presents a new layer of risk for API security, especially regarding data exfiltration. These tools often rely on third-party APIs to access and process enterprise data, and without proper oversight, sensitive information can be inadvertently exposed or leaked.
Organisations must expand their API security policies to account for these tools, applying stricter access controls, continuous monitoring, and robust encryption to ensure data shared through AI-driven APIs is secure.
Conclusion: Clear Accountability and a Multifaceted Approach
API security can no longer be an afterthought in the modern enterprise, especially in Australia, where regulatory frameworks and digital transformation efforts intersect. A clear delineation of ownership — whether it falls to the CISO, the Head of API Engineering, or is shared across multiple teams — is essential for a robust security strategy.
However, API security is also a multifaceted program. As enterprises mature in their approach, the number of stakeholders and responsible owners naturally expands, reflecting the complexity of the API ecosystem. Application security teams, SOC, incident response, and enterprise architects all play critical roles as the security needs evolve.
By taking proactive steps to define ownership and involve key stakeholders across the business, enterprises can better safeguard their APIs and the data they protect, while staying ahead of emerging risks like generative AI tools.
About Traceable
Traceable is the industry’s leading API Security company that helps organisations achieve API protection in a cloud-first, API-driven world. With an API Data Lake at the core of the platform, Traceable is the only intelligent and context-aware solution that powers complete API security – security posture management, threat protection and threat management across the entire Software Development Lifecycle – enabling organisations to minimise risk and maximise the value that APIs bring to their customers.
