Dr. Ceren Küpeli
Legal counsel at SecureCodingHub. Advises organizations on cybercrime response, digital evidence, and reputational risk — with a focus on AI-enabled offenses, cyber fraud, and online victimization. Background spans cyber criminology research, digital forensics, and legal advisory. Bilingual: Turkish, English.
Dr. Ceren Küpeli is legal counsel at SecureCodingHub, working at the intersection of law, cyber criminology, and digital forensics. She advises companies on managing cyber risk, responding to incidents, and structuring defensible approaches to digital evidence within legal and regulatory frameworks. Her practice emphasizes AI-enabled anonymous offenses, cyber fraud schemes, and complex cases of online victimization.
Her work covers end-to-end cyber incident advisory: from the identification and preservation of digital evidence through legal strategy development and coordination with forensic teams. She works closely with corporate clients, in-house legal departments, and external stakeholders to translate technical findings into legally actionable positions — particularly in disputes, internal investigations, and reputational risk scenarios.
Alongside her advisory work, Ceren's academic background in cyber criminology focuses on offender behavior, digital trace analysis, and detection mechanisms. That dual perspective shapes the questions she addresses in practice: what qualifies as admissible and persuasive digital evidence, how AI tools are reshaping offender anonymity, and where existing legal frameworks fall short against evolving cyber threats. At SecureCodingHub she writes on cybercrime law for engineering teams, the legal anatomy of incident response, evidence preservation across CI/CD environments, and the regulatory landscape developers should know about.
Her published work is grounded in real legal exposure rather than abstract framework summaries. Posts under her byline cover what counts as a defensible chain of custody when CI/CD logs are the primary evidence, how secure coding training programs intersect with PCI DSS 12.6 obligations and EU Cyber Resilience Act conformity assessments, where regulator expectations now diverge from operational security maturity, and the documentation practices that determine whether a company can credibly demonstrate due diligence after an incident.
Ceren also tracks the emerging legal challenges around AI-generated code: who is responsible when a vulnerability is introduced by an AI assistant, how courts and regulators are interpreting developer duty of care in mixed human/AI authorship, and what governance signals reduce a company's legal exposure when AI tools are part of the software supply chain. That research feeds directly into SecureCodingHub coverage of secure coding training under EU CRA, NIS2, and PCI DSS 4.0.1 — frameworks where the legal exposure now extends well beyond the security team.
Areas of Expertise
Editorial Approach
SecureCodingHub authors write under their own bylines because application security content is only as trustworthy as the practitioner behind it. Every published post is attributed to a single author, links back to this profile, and is reviewed by at least one other team member before publication. Authors do not ghost-write or use AI-generated drafts as final copy — assistants are used to accelerate research and outline structure, never to fabricate practitioner experience.
Editorial standards across the site are deliberately narrow. Posts focus on application security topics where the author has hands-on experience: code-level vulnerability classes, secure SDLC adoption, security tooling tradeoffs, compliance frameworks the team has worked under, and developer training program design. We avoid commenting on news events, geopolitical security stories, or vendor categories outside the SecureCodingHub team's direct work history. When external research is cited — academic papers, OWASP guidance, CVE writeups, vendor benchmarks — sources are linked inline so readers can verify claims rather than relying on the post alone.
Posts are revised when the underlying landscape changes — OWASP Top 10 lineage updates, PCI DSS revisions, breaking CVEs in widely-used libraries, EU Cyber Resilience Act implementing acts — rather than left static after publication. Update dates appear in article metadata and structured data so readers and search engines can tell at a glance whether the guidance reflects current practice. If a post needs a correction, the change is noted at the bottom of the article and propagated to any cross-referenced posts in the catalog.
Reader feedback shapes the catalog. If you spot a technical error, an outdated reference, a missing edge case, or a confusing diagram in any post by Dr., please write to editorial@securecodinghub.com — corrections are reviewed within a week. For sales or partnership questions, the relevant contact paths are on the contact page.