In today's technology landscape, there is an overwhelming abundance of frameworks, libraries, and plugins that promise to streamline development and reduce costs. Many businesses eagerly adopt these external codebases, hoping to accelerate their time to market. However, a significant number of developers overlook the hidden costs and risks associated with relying on these external solutions. One of the most critical considerations is security. Regardless of whether the code was written in-house or sourced externally, the responsibility for every line of code in a project ultimately falls on the organization. The consequences of a security breach are severe, whether the vulnerability lies in an external library or internal code. While external codebases may seem appealing, they often introduce a larger attack surface, making it easier for malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities. In contrast, internally developed code tends to be more focused and task-specific, which can significantly reduce security risks. Dependency on external codebases can create substantial risks throughout a project's lifecycle. Many libraries have their own dependencies, leading to complex dependency graphs that can complicate maintenance and increase vulnerability exposure. Even after thorough research to select an appropriate library, the landscape can change rapidly. A library that seemed suitable six months ago may no longer be actively maintained or may undergo significant changes that require ongoing integration work. This can lead to a cycle of dependency management that consumes valuable resources. Moreover, the notion that free libraries come without cost is misleading. Organizations must account for the time and effort spent on researching, evaluating, integrating, and maintaining these external codebases. When comparing the total cost of using an external library to developing a targeted internal solution, it often becomes evident that the latter is more cost-effective in the long run. In building BotBarrier, the team prioritized minimizing dependencies to only those essential functions that could not be developed in-house. This approach allows for greater control over the product and reduces the burden of managing unnecessary dependencies. By opting to create their own backend and frontend frameworks, the team limited their reliance on external libraries, using only three essential SDKs for specific functionalities. Ultimately, the goal is to maintain the flexibility to adapt and innovate without being tethered to the latest trends in technology. Organizations should strive to make informed decisions about their dependencies, focusing on what they can control and ensuring that their development efforts align with their business objectives. By doing so, they can safeguard their projects against the risks associated with external codebases while fostering a more secure and efficient development environment.