Veracode Reviews

Veracode has both static application security testing as well as dynamic application security testing, also called Dynamic Analysis. Our primary use case was on the static analysis side, not on the dynamic, because we have an automated tool in the dynamic analysis scope. So our primary use was static analysis security testing.

Application security improved a lot because the teams got a list of all vulnerabilities, they analyzed them, and then they incorporated the fixes. It helped ensure that these kinds of issues would not happen when they wrote code in the future, because when the fix was applied, it was applied to all the vulnerabilities. That means our AppSec improved greatly once we started using Veracode.

It has SAST, DAST, as well as SCA—software composition analysis, which is used for finding vulnerabilities in third-party components. All these are in one tenant. Veracode provides a uniform view that enabled us to see the vulnerabilities of an application holistically. Our primary use case was the SAST. The DAST and SCA were not for our products. It definitely helped reduce risk exposure because, no matter how secure the code you write is, ultimately, you end up using third-party libraries. So finding vulnerabilities in the third-party libraries is also essential and this unified view gave us a holistic security profile of the application, rather than just our code or just the third-party code or only static or only dynamic. All these pieces are combined to give a unified view. It helped give a holistic picture of the security status of the application.

The most valuable feature, from a central tools team perspective, which is the team I am part of, being a DevSecOps person, is that it is SaaS hosted. That makes it very convenient to use. There is no initial time needed to set up an application. Scanning is a matter of minutes. You just log in, create an application profile, associate a security configuration, and that's about it. It takes 10 minutes to start. The lack of initial lead time or initial overhead to get going is the primary advantage. 

Also, because it's SaaS and hosted, we didn't have any infrastructure headache. We didn't have to think about capacity, the load, the scan times, the distribution of teams across various instances. All of this, the elasticity of it, is a major advantage.

There are two aspects to it. One is the infrastructure. The other one is the configuration. There are a lot of SaaS solutions where the infrastructure is taken care of, but the configuration of the application to start scanning takes some time to gain knowledge about it through research and study. That is not the case with Veracode. You don't have any extensive security profiles to consider. It's a two-pronged advantage.

Veracode also reports far fewer false positives with the static scanning. The scanner just goes through the code and analyzes all the security vulnerabilities. A lot of scanning tools in the market give you a lot of false positives. The false positive rate in Veracode is notably less. That was very helpful to the product teams as they could spend most of their time fixing real issues.

Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities and that is one of their USPs—unique selling propositions. They provide security consultations, and scheduling a consultation is very easy. Once a scan is completed, anybody who has a Veracode login can just click a button and have a security consultation with Veracode. That is very unique to Veracode. I have not seen this offered in other products. Even if it is offered, it is not as seamless and it takes some time to get security advice. But with Veracode, it's very seamless and easy to make happen.

Along those lines, this guidance enables developers to write secure code from the start. One of the advantages with Veracode is its ability to integrate the scanning with the DevOps pipeline as well as into the IDEs of the developers, like Eclipse or IntelliJ or Visual Studio. This type of guidance helps developers left-shift their secure-coding practices, which really helps in writing far better secured product.

Another unique selling point of Veracode is their eLearning platform, which is available with the cloud-hosted solution. It's integrated into the same URL. Developers log into the Veracode tenant, go through the eLearning Portal, and all the courses are there. The eLearning platform is really good and has helped developers improve their application security knowledge and incorporate it in their coding practices.

One of the things that Veracode follows very clearly is the assignment of a vulnerability to the CWE standard or the OWASP standard. Every vulnerability reported is tied to an open standard. It's not something proprietary to Veracode. But it makes it easy for the engineers and developers to find more information on the particular bug. The adherence to standards helps developers learn more about issues and how to fix them.

We use the Static Analysis Pipeline Scan as part of the CI pipeline in Jenkins or TeamCity or any of the code orchestrators that use scanning as part of the pipeline. There's nothing special about the pipeline scan. It's like our regular Veracode Static Analysis Scan. It's just that if it is part of the pipeline, you are scanning more frequently and finding flaws at an earlier point in time. The time to identify vulnerabilities is quicker.

Veracode with the integrated development environments that the developers use to write code, including Microsoft Visual Studio, Eclipse, IntelliJ IDEA, etc. It also integrates with project and portfolio management tools like JIRA and Rally. That way, once vulnerabilities are reported you can actually track them by exporting them to your project management tools, your Agile tools, or your Kanban boards. The more integrations a scanning tool has, the better it is because everything has to fit into the DevOps or DevSecOps pipeline. The more integrations it has with the continuous integration tools, the IDEs, and the product management tools, the better it is. It affects the adoption. If it is a standalone system the adoption won't be great. The integration helps with adoption because you don't need to scan manually. You set it up in the pipeline once and it just keeps scanning.

When it comes to the speed of the pipeline scan, one of the things we have found with Veracode is that it's very fast with Java-based applications but a bit slow with C/C++ based applications. So we have implemented the pipeline scan only for Java-based applications not for the C/C++ applications.

For C++ based languages, or languages where there is a platform dependency—for example, if I write C language code it is dependent on whether I'm executing that on Windows, or on Linux, or another platform—and with some of these platforms-specific languages, Veracode makes something called debug symbols that are introduced into the code. That gets cumbersome. They could improve that or possibly automate. If Veracode could quickly analyze the code and make file-line flags, that would be great. It is easy to do for Java, Python, and Pearl, but not so easy for C++. So when it comes to the debug symbols, guidance or automation could be improved.

Also, scan completion, as well scanning progress, is not reported accurately. Sometimes the scan says it will complete in two to three hours but it will take four or five hours. That is one of the areas where they can give a more accurate estimate.

I used to work for CA Technologies, which was acquired by Broadcom. Back in 2017, CA Technologies acquired Veracode, and that is when I started administering Veracode. Since it was a CA product, all product teams in various business units within CA were asked to adopt Veracode for their static analysis. My team is the central tools team and had the responsibility of enabling and deploying Veracode for all the product teams. So we used Veracode starting in 2017. I used it both in a DevSecOps lead role and as a Veracode admin and security admin.

It's quite stable because everything is in the cloud. I really don't need to worry about the stability at all or the frequency of the scans. It's all taken care of by the Veracode platform.

It is scalable. We had about 500 applications, out of which 200 were being scanned regularly. It was in the AWS infrastructure and it was quite scalable. The elasticity was all taken care of. We were scanning a huge set of enterprise products.

We had roughly 2,000 Veracode users. Generally they were developers but there were QA people, as well as the program managers because they needed to add the vulnerabilities and see the health of the product. We also had security champions to advise the product teams on their scanning and vulnerabilities. In addition, general security also accessed it to provide consultation on how to fix vulnerabilities. We were able to give privileges and access control based on each individual.

We stopped our use of Veracode on November 1st, 2020, about 30 days ago. But when we were using it for the three-and-a-half years, the usage was very extensive.

The customer support was two-pronged. One was the security consultation and that was top-notch. The security support helped teams understandable the vulnerabilities 

The regular customer support for issues was quite prompt and had good SLA turnarounds.

Veracode is one of the more expensive solutions in the market, but it is worth the expense because of the eLearning and the security consultations; everything is included in the license. It's a good return on investment because it improves the application security for all the different types of scans.

It reduced the cost of AppSec for our organization because otherwise we would have had to go through multiple vendors for application security. With Veracode, one solution fit all our needs. It reduced the AppSec cost by reducing the numbers of vendors. Typically, you would have different products for different types of scanning. For static analysis you might use one tool, and for dynamic another, and for third-party software composition analysis you might use another. And after using all those tools, you might still have to consult with another vendor. Veracode combines all this into a single solution.

I would estimate that it saved us $500,000 a year.

We have been using the Synopsys tool from Coverity for our static analysis.

Veracode is superior in terms of infrastructure because it is cloud-hosted. We don't have that with Coverity on-premise. We need to take care of capacity planning, infrastructure procurement. Also, with Coverity we have to invest some time to enable various checkers. The security profile configuration takes time compared to Veracode.

Coverity, on the other hand, is more robust and it works with the C programming languages.

We use it for dynamic scanning and Static Code Analysis as well as for Software Composition Analysis (SCA).

We do use this solution's support for cloud-native applications.

We are a startup with 350 employees. The AppSec program initially was focused and aligned with regulatory audit, and compliance. However, over the past two years, we have "shifted left" : integrating AppSec early in our SDLC process. Having this tool has fast-tracked our response times in terms of scanning the code for third-party library vulnerabilities. 

The SCA, which detects vulnerabilities in third-party and open source libraries, was something new for us and is very well done. It provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities. 

When we go from the dynamic scan to static scan to SCA, there is a huge change in the UI. This was not relayed to us when we were buying the product nor during the demo. They mentioned, "Yeah, this was an acquisition. The third-party library scanner was an acquisition from SourceClear."

You can see there is a huge difference in the user experience in terms of both the display as well as the usability of the product. That is one of our pet peeves: They are not normalizing the UI across the three product segments. We had numerous calls with them early on because we were new to the platform. The sales team is not aligned with the support team. The support team keeps telling us to use a different UI versus the one that the sales team showcased during the sales cycle.

There is much to be desired of UI and user experience. The UI is very slow. With every click, it just takes a lot of time for the pages to load. We have seen this consistently since getting this solution. The UI and UX are very disjointed. It is ironic that they claim themselves as agile AppSec tool, but their UI doesn't reflect that.

We had a couple of consulting calls, and perhaps it may be the engineers that we got, they were not really up to speed with our frameworks. They were very focused on .NET and Java, which are legacy frameworks for us. We don't use these at all in our code base. We are using the newer, modern web frameworks, like Django. They have very little coverage or knowledge base on these, especially on the mobile side.

There are a lot of faults with the Static Analysis Pipeline Scan tool. Their tool seems to be very good with legacy products, which are developed in .NET and Java frameworks, but there are false positives when it comes to using modern web frameworks, like Python and Django. The C++ code doesn't even scan. We have spent at least three weeks worth of time going back and forth because it won't support the use cases that we have.

We have been using Veracode for over a year now.

It hasn't gone down. Nobody has complained about the Pipeline Scan being broken. The couple of times that they have, it was more to do with our ineptitude than with the platform capabilities. Once we understood how the platform is working and the gotchas associated with it, we were able to have a workaround within its constraints.

For our use case, it is sufficient. It has been up and running for quite some time and we haven't had any downtime experience with it. We get proactive notifications from Veracode about any upcoming maintenance, batch schedules, and other things. They have been pretty good with that. 

There haven't been any issues with multiple users logging in and slowing it down. It has just been inherently slow. 

We clearly mentioned during our purchase cycle that we have C++ code, a Swift code from a US perspective, Python libraries, etc. We were given assurances that these were absolutely covered under the solution. However, when we started investigating through support tickets, they admitted that these were not supported. We have very limited support for C++ code scans and other things. That was a bummer from my perspective.

The support has been good. However, we work in an agile environment and our release cycles are literally every two weeks. Their response times have been very delayed, especially as we are in the Pacific Time Zone and they are in the Eastern Time Zone. 

They have a great support portal to do self-service. We have been pretty impressed with that, but we soon realized that anything you pick is 10 days to two weeks out. That has been a non-starter for us. We had to constantly escalate through our account team to get an engineer on the call, because we were in the middle of a release and needed to scan the product at the moment.

At this point, we are doing sandbox scanning. We have implemented it with our Jenkins CI/CD tool to really scan the code, upload, etc. It took awhile for us to figure it out because the support wasn't really helpful. We had to hack our way into getting through the documentation. Since the time they acquired SourceClear, they haven't really cleaned up or integrated the documentation well, and that may be one of the reasons. However, we were able to find the right combination of keys to make it work.

We were previously using WhiteHat Security. Their lack of customer service prompted us to switch. Every question that we asked was just going into a black hole. The only time that we got any response was when our account was up for renewal. We had a long discussion with them to get a rationale behind their lack of response, and that was the only time they listened. There was no follow-up. That is when we decided that this is not a partnership that we wanted to continue anymore.

Veracode has automated a lot of the manual stuff that we were doing in terms of scanning third-party libraries. With any given release, I was spending from eight to 10 hours manually scanning through all 3rd-party libraries for vulnerabilities. Now, it is all within the Pipeline. So, I am saving about 10 hours in a given month with it.

The initial setup was moderately complex. The onboarding of the tenant, single sign-on, and access control were easy, but when it came to the real work of integrating the Pipeline Scan and our ticketing system, that is broken at this point. I spend most of my time manually doing this, and if they could fix that portion, that would save me another two hours worth of my time with every release.

The deployment took two to three weeks.

Because this was a SaaS service, we just onboarded one team, then looked through some of the gotchas from login and access perspective. Once the pilot users were all cleared up for any potential issues, we then onboarded the rest of the team. We have a small team of 40 users from a development perspective.

It's pretty straightforward from an onboarding perspective because it is all SaaS. We just needed to whitelist some IPs from Veracode for scanning some of our code, which are not publicly available. Beyond that, everything was pretty straightforward.

The solution was implemented by an internal consultant and me.

The time savings has been tremendous. We saw ROI in the first six months.

It is very reasonably priced compared to what we were paying our previous vendor. For the same price, we are getting much more value and reducing our AppSec costs from 40 to 50 percent.

We bought the product for its expected benefits, in terms of all the bells and whistles that we saw during the sales cycle. When it came time to really implement it, that is where we have been having buyer's remorse.

We evaluated Micro Focus, Black Duck, SonarSource, and Coverity. We felt Micro Focus was the closest to really addressing all three of our needs, which is SAST, DAST, and the third-party software composition analysis. Micro Focus had the most complete execution from an implementation perspective, but it was very expensive for us. We went with Veracode because it was within our price point. 

We are getting huge value out of the dynamic scan and third-party library scanning. However, the initial euphoria has died down at this point, so we will be looking at additional tools to augment some of the solution's shortcomings.

It is good for third-party scanning and if your code base is all modern web frameworks. It is also great for the third-party analysis. However, the Software Composition Analysis is not good if you have C++ code or anything legacy, as it does not cover that. It also does not cover iOS code. It has a lot of constraints.

The solution’s policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is fine. We are using it for internal reporting, but we haven't really dug into the policy definitions and tweaking them. We are using its default policies.

As part of our validation and testing, we are able to catch vulnerable code early on. That has been helpful. Automating some of the process has been really helpful, at least from our team's effort perspective. The tool highlights the risk associated with vulnerabilities. That effort is very much automated with this tool.

I would rate this solution as a six out of 10. If you have legacy applications, the solution is great. Their SaaS scanning is geared towards that. If you have modern frameworks, the SaaS scanning and dynamic scanning don't provide much value. My advice to anybody looking at Veracode: Use them for third-party scanning. They are really good at that because of their SourceClear acquisition. For the rest of their products though, just keep looking.

We use Veracode for static analysis of source code as well as some dynamic analysis.

It's valuable to any business that has software developers or that is producing software that consumers use. You have to do some type of application security testing before allowing consumers to use software. Otherwise, it's risky. You could be publishing software with certain security defects, which would open up your company to the likelihood of a class action lawsuit.

I don't have any examples of how it improved the way our company functions. However, I did use a lot of the findings to put pressure on our vendors to try to improve their security postures.

Veracode has helped with developer security training and helped build developer security skills. Developers who get the tickets can go into it and take a look at the remediation advice. They have a lot of published documentation about different types of security issues, documentation that developers can freely get into and read.

The integration with JIRA helps developers see the issues and respond to them.

The most valuable features are that you can do static analysis and dynamic analysis on a scheduled basis and that you can push the findings into JIRA.

Static Analysis Pipeline Scan was able to find security defects in the software we were sending its way. For both Android and iOS that worked very well. It did have a lot of false positives though, but at least we knew it was working. The speed of the pipeline scan was completely reasonable. I don't have any complaints about the time it took.

The efficiency of Veracode is fine when it comes to creating secure software, but it tends to raise a lot of false positives. It will tell you about a lot of issues that might be hard for an attacker to actually manipulate. Because of that it's very difficult, sometimes, to sort through all of the findings and figure out what you actually ought to pay attention to. Maybe calling them false positives isn't entirely accurate. There were a lot of things that it would raise that were accurate, but we just didn't consider them terribly important to address because it would be very hard for an attacker to actually use them to do anything bad. I think it frustrated the engineers at times. 

Also, the policies you have, where you can tune the findings you get, don't allow you not to file tickets about certain findings. It will always report the findings, even if you know you're not that concerned about a library writing to a system log, for example. It will keep raising them, even though you may have a ticket about it. The integration will keep updating the ticket every time the scan runs.

We couldn't make it stop. We tried tuning the policies. We had several meetings with the Veracode team to get their feedback on how we could tune the policies to quiet some of these things down and nothing ever resulted in that. Ultimately we couldn't stop some of these alerts from coming out.

Even stranger, for some of the issues raised, such as the ones that were in the vendor code base, we would put the status in Veracode that we communicated this to the vendor, but then, the next time the scan was run, it would find the same issue. One time it would respect that update and the next time, afterwards, it wouldn't respect it and it would generate the issue again. It was really weird. It was reopening the issues, even though they should have been in a "closed" state.

Another significant area for improvement is that their scanning had a lot of problems over this last year. One of the biggest problems was at first it wasn't able to read packaged Go. When I say packaged Go, I mean packaged the way the Go programming language says you're supposed to package Go to deploy the software, when you're using multiple build modules together to make an app. That's a totally normal thing to do, but Veracode was not able to dig into the packages and the sub-modules and scan all the code. It could only scan top-level code.

Once they fixed that problem, which took them until August, we found that it kept reporting that there were no problems at all in our Go code base. That was even scarier because it would usually give all these false positives on our other repositories. I had the application security engineer write a bunch of known defects into some Go code and push it in there and scan it, and it didn't raise anything with any of that. They're advertising that they have a Go scanner, but it doesn't actually function. If our company was going to continue in business, I would have asked them for a refund on the license for the Go scanner at our next renewal, but since we're going out of business, I'm not renewing.

I would also love to see them make it easier to debug the JIRA integration. Right now, all of the logs that are generated from the JIRA integration are only visible to the Veracode engineering team. If you need to debug this integration, you have to have a live meeting with them while they watch the debug messages. It's utterly ridiculous. Their employees are really nice, and I appreciate that they would go through this trouble with me, but I think it's terrible that we have to bother them to do that.

I have been using Veracode for about a year.

It's highly stable.

It scaled fine. We didn't have any problems with it not being available or going down during our scans. We have used it 100 percent, meaning we've taken advantage of every license we bought.

Their support was really good. I would give them a B+ and maybe an A-. The only thing that's really taking support down is the product itself. You and the support team are fighting against the product. The people at Veracode were great though.

We didn't have a previous solution. 

The initial setup was pretty complex. We had to integrate it with our CI/CD pipeline. This required writing custom code. Once it was integrated there, we had to have the development team make some changes to how they pushed a release to a special branch so it would go to Veracode on a weekly basis. And once it started raising the issues, we had to work on that JIRA-Veracode integration, which was not straightforward at all and required a lot of debugging help from the Veracode engineering team. They provided that and that was great, but ideally it would show you the error messages so that you don't need their help.

The initial deployment took about two or three weeks and then we had to come back and tune it several times, so there were another two to three weeks of tuning. Altogether, it was about six weeks of effort on our part.

Initially, we had one person working on the deployment, and then I started working on it as well. Later, there were four of us working with Veracode during these calls to try to do the policy tuning and figure out if we could make it work better for everyone.

We had six people using the solution: four software engineers and two security engineers.

I'm not sure if we have seen ROI. We didn't have any high-severity security defects being raised by Veracode, and that's just a function of the development team members we had. It helped in protecting ourselves from potential class action lawsuits.

The pricing is really fair compared to a lot of other tools on the market.

It's not like a typical SaaS offering. Let's say you got SaaS software from G Suite. You're going to get Google Docs and Google Drive and Google Sheets, etc. It's going to be the same for everybody. But in Veracode, it's not. You buy a license for specific kinds of scanners. I had two licenses for static analysis scanners and one license for a dynamic analysis scanner. 

I chose Veracode over others because it supported the programming languages we're using. It had the best language support. A lot of the other solutions might have supported one of the languages we're using, but not all of them.

My advice would be to definitely have some code that has a lot of security defects embedded into it and to run it through the scanner to test it early on in the process, ideally during the evaluation process. If your company works in five programming languages, you would want to create some code in each of those languages, code that has a lot of security defects, and then run the scanner over it to just make sure it can catch the security vulnerabilities you need it to catch and that it's consistent with how it raises those vulnerabilities.

Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities but that doesn't enable developers to write secure code from the start. The way the product works is it scans code that has already been written and then raises issues about the security problems found in the code. That is the point at which the developer sees the issue and can look at the remediation advice Veracode gives, and the possible training. But it doesn't allow them to write secure code in the first place, unless they really remember everything. It does educate them about it, but it's usually after the fact.

The solution provides policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulation. While those features were not applicable to us, they were in there. I think they would be very useful for anyone working in a high-compliance industry.

It also provides visibility into application status across all testing types, including SAST, DAST, SCA, and manual penetration testing, in a centralized view. If you buy the SAST and DAST license, of course you'll see those scan results inside that view, but to see the pen testing that means you'd have to buy pen testing from them as well. Seeing those testing types in one view didn't really affect our AppSec. It's nice for the security team, but it's just not that important because they weren't in there everyday looking at it. Since we had the JIRA integration, the defects would flow into JIRA. The software engineers would take a look at it and categorize whether it was something they could fix or something that was in a vendor's library. The software engineers would prioritize the things that they could fix, and if it was in a vendor's library, I would batch those up and communicate them to the vendor.

Overall, I would grade Veracode as a "B" when it comes to its ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. It will find everything that's wrong, but it doesn't have enough tuning parameters to make it easier for organizations without compliance burdens to use it more effectively.

Overall, it's pretty solid. I would give it an eight out of 10.

The use case is that we have quite a few projects on GitHub. As we are a consulting company, some of these projects are open source and others are enterprise and private. We do security investigating for these projects. We scan the repository for both the static analysis—to find things that might be dangerous—and we use the Software Composition Analysis as well. We get notifications when we are using some open source library that has a known vulnerability and we have to upgrade it. We can plan accordingly.

We are using the software as a service.

It has improved the way our organization functions mostly because we can perfect the security issues on our products. That means our product managers can plan accordingly regarding when to fix something based on the severity, and plan fixes for specific releases. So, it has improved our internal process. It has also improved the image of the company from the outside, because they can see in the release notes of our products that we take security seriously, and that we are timely in the way that we address issues.

The solution has helped with developer security training because when we open a ticket with information coming from Veracode, it explains, for example, that some code path or patterns that we have used might be dangerous. That knowledge wasn't there before. That has really helped developers to improve in terms of awareness of security.

The feature that we use the most is the static analysis, by uploading the artifacts. We have two types of applications. They are either Java Server applications using Spring Boot or JavaScript frontend applications. We scan both using the static analysis. Before, we used to do the software composition on one side and the static analysis. For about a year now, we have had a proper security architect who's in charge of organizing the way that we scan for security. He suggested that we only use the static analysis because the software composition has been integrated. So in the reports, we can also see the version of the libraries that have vulnerabilities and that need to be upgraded.

It is good in terms of the efficiency of creating secure software.

My team only does cloud-native applications. Ultimately, the part that we are interested in, in testing, works fine.

There are some false positives, like any products that we have tried in this area, but slightly less. I would trust Veracode more than the others. For example, we had quite a few issues with Snyk which was much worse in terms of false positives, when we tested it for open source.

Also, the solution's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production is perfectly fine. It delivers, at least for the reports that we have been checking on Java and JavaScript. It has reported things that were helpful.

What could improve a lot is the user interface because it's quite dated. And in general, as we are heavy users of GitHub, the integration with the user interface of GitHub could be improved as well. 

There is also room for improvement in the reporting in conjunction with releases. Every time we release software to the outside world, we also need to provide an inventory of the libraries that we are using, with the current state of vulnerabilities, so that it is clear. And if we can't upgrade a library, we need to document a workaround and that we are not really touched by the vulnerability. For all of this reporting, the product could offer a little bit more in that direction. Otherwise, we just use information and we drop these reports manually.

Another problem we have is that, while it is integrated with single sign-on—we are using Okta—the user interface is not great. That's especially true for a permanent link of a report of a page. If you access it, it goes to the normal login page that has nothing that says "Log in with single sign-on," unlike other software as a service that we use. It's quite bothersome because it means that we have to go to the Okta dashboard, find the Veracode link, and log in through it. Only at that point can we go to the permanent link of the page we wanted to access.

Veracode has plenty of data. The problem is the information on the dashboards of Veracode, as the user interface is not great. It's not immediately usable. Most of the time, the best way to use it is to just create issues and put them in JIRA. It provides visibility into the SAST, DAST and SCA, but honestly, all the information then travels outside of the system and it goes to JIRA.

In the end, we are an enterprise software company and we have some products that are not as modern as others. So we are used to user interfaces that are not great. But if I were a startup, and only had products with a good user interface, I wouldn't use Veracode because the UI is very dated.

Also, we're not using the pipeline scan. We upload using the Java API agent and do a standard scan. We don't use the pipeline scan because it only has output on the user interface and it gets lost. When we do it as part of our CI process, all the results are only available in the log of the CI. In our case we are using Travis, and it requires someone to go there and check things in the build logs. That's an area where the product could improve, because if this information was surfaced, say, in the checks of the code we test on GitHub—as happens with other static analysis tools that we use on our code that check for syntax errors and mapping—in that case, it would be much more usable. As it is, it is not enough.

The management of the false positives is better than in other tools, but still could improve in terms of usability, especially when working with multiple branches. Some of the issues that we had already marked as "To be ignored" because they were either false positives or just not applicable in our context come down, again, to the problem of the user interface. It should have been better thought out to make it easier for someone who is reviewing the list of the findings to mark the false positives easily. For example, there were some vulnerabilities mentioning parts of libraries that we weren't actually using, even if we were including them for different reasons, and in that case we just ignore those items.

We have reported all of these things to product management because we have direct contact with Veracode, and hopefully they are going to be fixed. Obviously, these are things that will improve the usability of the product and are really needed. I'm totally happy to help them and support them in going in the right direction, meaning the right direction from my perspective.

I have used Veracode for quite a long time now, about two years. I have been working here for three years. In my first year, the company was using a different product for security and then it standardized on Veracode because every department had its own before that. There was consolidation with Veracode.

The stability is good. What I have seen in the stats is that there is downtime of the service a little too often, but it's not something, as a service, where you really need that level of availability on. So I'm not really bothered by that.

We don't have to do anything to scale, because it's SaaS. 

We started with a smaller number of users and then we extended to full single sign-on.

The staff of Veracode is very good. They're very supportive. When the product doesn't report something that we need and is not delivering straight away, they always help us in trying to find a solution, including writing custom code to call the APIs.

From that point of view, Veracode is great. The product, much less so, but I believe that they have good people. They are promising and they listen so I hope they can improve.

We started with WhiteSource, but it didn't have some features like the static analysis, so it was an incomplete solution. And we were already using Veracode for the static analysis, so when Veracode bought SourceClear, we decided to switch.

The initial setup is easy and quite well documented. I was really impressed by the quality of the technical support. When I had problems, that the product wasn't good enough for me, they were always there to help and give suggestions.

Being a service, there wasn't really much of an implementation. It's not complex to use.

My job is mostly technical. I don't own a budget and I don't track numbers. But as the customers are really keen on having us checking security issues, I would definitely say that we have seen a return on investment.

Most of our customers tend, especially in the software composition analysis, to apply their own in-house tools to the artifacts that we share with them. Whenever we release a new version of software and Docker images, they upload it to their systems. Some of them have the internal equivalent of Veracode and they come back to us to say, "Hey, you haven't taken care of this vulnerability." So it is very important for us to be proactive on each set of release notes. We need to show the current status of the product: that we have fixed these vulnerabilities and that we still have some well-known vulnerabilities, but that there are workarounds that we document. In addition they can check the reports that we attach, the reports from Veracode, that show that the severity is not high, meaning they don't create a big risk.

It delivers because we haven't been thinking, "Okay, let's consider another product." We might see some savings so I think the pricing is right.

For open source projects we mostly tested Snyk, which works quite well with JavaScript but much less so with other technologies. But it has some bigger problems because Snyk considers each file inside a repository of GitHub as a separate project, so it was creating a lot of false positives. That made it basically unmanageable, so we gave up on using it.

We have also been using an open source project called the OWASP Dependency-Check that was doing a decent job of software composition analysis but it required a lot of effort in checking false positives. To be honest, it would have been a good solution only if we didn't have a budget for Veracode, but luckily we had the budget, so there was no point in using it.

Another one that we tried, mostly because it was a small company and we had the opportunity to speak directly with them to ask for some small changes, was a company called the Meterian. It doesn't do static analysis, but otherwise the software composition analysis and the library report were the best of the bunch. From my perspective, if we didn't have the need for static analysis, I would have chosen Meterian, mostly because the user interface is much more usable than Veracode's. Also, the findings were much better. We still use it on the open source project because they offer a free version for open source—which is another good thing about some of these products, where the findings are available to anyone. For a company like ours, where we have both open source and enterprise products, this is quite good. Unfortunately, with Veracode, if we scan the open source project, we cannot link the pages of Veracode with the findings because they are private. That's a problem. In the end, for the open source projects, we are still using Meterian because the quality is good.

My main issues with Veracode, in general, are mostly to do with the user interface of the web application and, sometimes, that some pages are inconsistent with each other. But the functionality underneath is there, which is the reason we stay with Veracode.

Usually, we open tickets now using the JIRA/GitHub integration and then we plan them. We decide when we want to fix them and we assign them to developers, mostly because there are some projects that are a little bit more on the legacy side. Changing the version of the library is not easy as in the newer projects, in terms of testing. So we do some planning. But in general, we open tickets and we plan them.

We also have it integrated in the pipelines, but that's really just to report. It's a little bit annoying that the pipeline might break because of security issues. It's good to know, but the fact that that interrupts development is not great. When we tried to put it as a part of the local build, it was too much. It was really getting in the way. The developers worried that they had to fix the security issues before releasing. Instead, we just started creating the issues and started doing proper planning. It is good to have visibility, but executing it all the time is just wrong, from our experience. You have to do it at the right time, and not all the time.

The solution integrates with developer tools, if you consider JIRA and GitHub as developer tools. We tried to use the IntelliJ plugin but it wasn't working straightaway and we gave up.

We haven't been using the container scanning of Veracode, mostly because we are using a different product at the moment to store our Docker images, something that already has some security scanning. So we haven't standardized. We still have to potentially explore the features of Veracode in that area. At the moment we are using Key from IBM Red Hat, and it is also software as a service. When you upload a Docker image there, after some time you also get a security scan, and that's where our customers are getting our images from. It's a private registry.

Overall, I would rate Veracode as a five out of 10, because the functionality is there, but to me, the usability of the user interface is very important and it's still not there.

We used it for initial discovery and analysis and for reviewing the product. We were doing a trial. We had uploaded code on the Veracode server for analysis.

We used the cloud service or the cloud website where you could interact and identify the artifacts that you wanted to be reviewed, analyzed, and reported on. There was a plugin that we used with some of our IDs. It probably was Greenlight.

It pointed out some areas to be improved that we were not aware of. That was very helpful because if you don't know that there is a problem, you can't fix it.

The analysis of the vulnerabilities and the results are the most valuable features.

It can have more APIs and capabilities to handle other things well. We were doing a trial for it. There were two things that I looked at: one was uploading some Java-related content and the other was uploading database SQL files and having the review done on the quarterback. 

The Java portion of it worked fine, and it was pretty seamless, but the database portion was not. We uploaded some files to use for vulnerabilities, and the tell-all portion of it was pretty easy. We uploaded a war file and Java files, and we got the reports back on these. They were pretty clear to understand. We did the same thing for the database portion for the most part. However, the content wasn't getting uploaded in a predictable fashion, and it was slow and hard to get done. We had to do it over and over. After it indicated that the content was uploaded, there were no results. There were zero search findings. It was possibly a user error, something that we didn't do correctly, but they had acknowledged that it was something they were currently enhancing. This is something that could be made easier if they haven't already done that. I don't know how many releases they've had in that timeframe. I haven't looked at it since then. It was a trial period.

It seemed fairly stable other than the database portion where the SQL files didn't seem to get uploaded.

I didn't think there would be any concerns. We didn't exercise that. We didn't, in other words, try to upload gazillion artifacts and files. We just uploaded a few just to see how they handle it. It seemed fairly robust.

There were about ten Java and database developers who were using this solution. We were all collectively reviewing it and getting feedback on it.

We didn't use their technical support.

There was no other solution.

I wasn't that involved in the setup. I was basically a reviewer after it was all done.

I don't think there was any in-house work. I think it was just all on their server. We didn't have any equipment or any software per se other than just downloading a plugin or IDE, which essentially did the same sort of code analysis.

Its cost for what we needed it for was too high. It wasn't too high for other companies and it was competitively priced, but for us, it just didn't fit. We did plan to use it and increase the usage. In the end, it may have been abandoned because of the cost, but I'm not a hundred percent sure. So, even though we had planned on using it more and more, because of the cost and the business conditions of things, we didn't have the opportunity to really use it more.

There were a few other solutions we had looked at, but they didn't seem to be as robust. They also didn't have good reviews. That's why we chose this solution.

It is a robust software service for security analysis. It seemed to be pretty full-featured. We didn't exercise every single thing. Just a few of the features didn't seem to be up to snuff for our needs.

I would rate Veracode Manual Penetration Testing an eight out of ten.

We introduced SCA scanning to satisfy customer-requested open-source library scans as part of a contractional agreement. This led to expanding SCA scanning across our other applications to compliment SAST/DAST application scanning.

We knew we had a technical debt from not updating open-source libraries for years, and were not aware of the vulnerabilities in these libraries at the time. SCA scanning is now a first-class scan component of our current practices and included in our external security audits going forward.

Veracode SCA enables awareness of open-source library vulnerabilities and versions to upgrade and eliminate these problems. It links to SWE flaws and provides guidance on remediation.

The nature of discovering a vulnerability included in many places of the application code base makes initial findings look overwhelming. However, we found more the 80% of the time, simply updating the build project configuration to include new versions, rebuild, and rescan, resolved the vulnerability finding.

The remaining ~20% of findings required refactoring for deprecated methods or a shift in usage model to update to a newer version.

Multiple "Policy" profiles can be created to apply differently to different classifications of applications that include grace periods per severity. I find this a great way to manage team expectations and regulatory compliance on a per-scan and time-period cycle, leading to self-service compliance remediation.

The dependency graph visualization provides the ability to see nested dependencies within libraries for pinpointing vulnerabilities.

The Vulnerable Methods feature helps with sorting through those vulnerabilities that matter to my application codebase.

Three areas that we continue to struggle with are

1. Identifying and flagging false positives that reappear in other locations, where a rule that can catch other occurrences such that we don't have to repeat the override each time would help in productivity, and 
2. Improving sorting through findings reports to filter by only what is critically relevant will help developers focus on issues,
3. Add enterprise aggregate reporting, showing teams grouped in business units with trends per team and at the group level that can be sent by email as a digest with drill-in back to the dashboard.

We have been using SCA for one and a half years and SAST/DAST for two and a half years.

Scanning is reasonably consistent and reliable. Occasionally, a scan will fail or get stuck with a defect in the scanner or some unsupported implementation requiring escalation to Veracode to fix or work-around. 

Platform scan performance has improved over the years. Refrain from putting too much in your application package for scanning such that you keep a reasonably short scan time.

Veracode needs a more standard microservice pricing strategy such that optimizing SaaS solutions into microservices from monolith applications is not penalized. 

Technical support was difficult at times due to off-shore support that seemed to be reading from a script and not really understanding our issue. The time delays in response with the off-shore team and language concerns made resolving issues painful at times.

As we grew, we were assigned a local Security Program Manager as a point person for all escalations and that made all the difference. Our escalations are now taken seriously, with a consultation of the issue and swift resolution if warranted.

We previously use WhiteSource open-source scanning and switched to Veracode for consolidation of scanning tools with one vendor dashboard.

The initial setup for manual scan uploads is straightforward. Pipeline uploads can take some effort to get to work right. Setting up policy rules and charts for results is reasonably easy.

We implemented it through an in-house team. This a Quality Engineering Shared Service team with a part-time custodian that performs other roles, as well. We found the need to have a designated custodian per application scrum team to assure scans capability, and the scan frequency for that team is maintained, escalating any issue to the shared service team and/or Veracode directly, and for shepherding vulnerabilities through the backlog routinely.

We feel that security scanning is a necessary cost of doing business, especially with FedRAMP and other prescriptive certifications. The effort we put into scanning keeps our applications healthier with higher quality confidence.

When our scan pipelines work as intended, there is little human capital cost. If there are problems with the scan pipelines and/or scan results then this can become time-consuming to address.

The Veracode price model is based on application profiles, which is how you package your components for scanning. Veracode recently included SCA pricing and support pricing as a factor of the SAST scan count cost. When using microservices, you may need to negotiate pricing based on actual application counts where microservices are usually a portion of an application.

Synopsis and Checkmarx were explored for SAST/DAST scanning in 2017, prior to the use of SCA.

Veracode has evolved to be a good partner, overall, in working through our learning needs and problem escalations. There are layers of training and consultation available, as well as recurring support engagements if the enterprise scanning needs warrant it.

We use it to scan our web applications before we publish them to see if there are any security vulnerabilities. We use it for static analysis and dynamic analysis.

Veracode has helped immensely with developer security training and in building developer security skills. Before we implemented it, we would find a lot more vulnerabilities in our applications. Now, with Veracode, the developers have started doing a lot more secure coding and they have much better coding practices.

It has also helped our organization to review code quicker, about 50 percent quicker, and to deploy more secure code.

And when it comes to the solution's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production, so far, I haven't seen any instances in which we've had false negatives. So it's pretty effective at that.

Among the most valuable features are the ability to 

• submit the software and get automated scan results from it
• collaborate with developers through the portal while looking at the code
• create compliance reports.

Otherwise, we would have to do working sessions with developers and pull together all the different findings and then probably manage it in a separate mechanism like Excel. And to have to go through source code manually would be quite time intensive and tedious.

The solution also provides you with some guidance as well as best practices around how vulnerabilities should be fixed. It points you in that direction and gives the developers educational cues.

In addition, the policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is pretty comprehensive, especially around PCI. If you do the static analysis, the dynamic analysis, and then a manual penetration test, it aggregates all of these results into one report. And then they create a PCI-specific report around it which helps to illustrate how the application adheres to different standards.

The solution also integrates with developer tools such as Visual Studio and Eclipse.

It's pretty efficient, but sometimes the static analysis is prone to a lot of false positives. But that's how it is with most static analysis tools. In some cases, they might have other mechanisms which would deal with a particular vulnerability, but it wouldn't be captured in the code. I would estimate the false positive rate at about 20 percent.

Upon review, the developers understand the solution. But when they get the initial list of findings, it can be a bit daunting to them if it's not managed appropriately.

Also, the static analysis can sometimes take a little while. The time that it takes to do a scan should be improved. There are times when we need a quick turnaround but it will take a little while. We might have something scanning and not get a result until the following day. It's not too critical, but it does increase the delay. Most of the time, when developers submit their code, because of the way that we use it, it's because in their minds they're ready to have that code deployed into production. But the security testing, especially with the feedback, introduces additional time into the project, especially if a security fix is needed.

I have been using Veracode for about two years.

There have been no issues with the stability. We haven't had any outages or any unavailability of the system, so far.

We have about 40 developers but we use this product per project rather than per developer. All our projects will pass through this product. At any given time we have about 10 to 12 projects going on. Outside of developers, it's just the five security team members who also use Veracode.

Any increase of usage will be based on the business and if there are more software projects. Whenever there are additional software projects, we will then increase our usage.

Their technical support is good, but we haven't really had to use it much, so far.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward but, depending on the type of applications or the types of code that you're using, the setup requirements may be a little different. It takes a little getting used to, based on the environment in which you're working.

For example, for Visual studio, it might have specific requirements that are needed to package an application for scanning, whereas an Angular application would have different requirements. For me, as a non-developer, the issue would be around understanding those different requirements for each development environment.

Our deployment didn't take long; it took a couple of days. There were three people involved in, including a developer, someone setting it up, and a code reviewer. By "setting it up" I mean putting in the applications, saying what the application does—providing the business rules of the application.

We didn't have a specific strategy for deploying it. The software is pretty straightforward, once you have the application bundles to be scanned. There's not a whole lot to do after the packaging.

Maintenance-wise, it doesn't take much because it's SaaS. We don't really do much on our end.

We did it in-house with Veracode. Working with Veracode for the deployment was pretty easy, pretty straightforward.

We've seen ROI in that we've cut down on the number of penetration tests we've been doing by about 50 percent, and also because of the stage at which the vulnerabilities are found, before they get into production. That means the risk has also been reduced.

It has reduced the cost of application security for our organization, but more than it has reduced the cost, it provides better software assurance.

In addition to the standard licensing fees there's a support cost and an implementation cost at the beginning.

This year I looked at other vendors in the market, including Synopsys, Contrast, and Checkmarx. What I didn't like about them is that their licensing models are based on how many developers you have. That wasn't a good fit for me. In addition, Checkmarx didn't have a SaaS solution.

If you are doing pipeline-based implementation, it would be more complex than the way that I'm doing this, but I didn't see any real challenges that would be tool-specific or vendor-specific, with implementation.

Your development model will really determine what the best fit is for you in terms of licensing, because of the project-based licensing. If you do a few projects, that's more attractive. If you have a large number of developers, that would also make the product a little more attractive. But if you have maybe one or two developers doing many projects, then you might look more towards software that has a developer-centric model.

We don't use the Static Analysis Pipeline Scan because of the build process that our  developers use. They don't really have an automated build pipeline in which they push the code to production. Also, with the false positive rate, it's a bit tricky when you implement that into the pipeline, as it might stop a developer from pushing code out to test. We use it more like a gate. The developers submit the code to us and then we scan it and review it with them.

The biggest lesson I've learned from using Veracode is that you need to manage it with the developers, so that you speak through the findings with them. It's not just a tool that you throw down their throats.

Overall, I would rate it at seven out of 10. Ideally, I would prefer a product that had the interactive testing, as well as the ability to scan a little faster.

We have three use cases. We have the dynamic scans that we use to scan the production, public-facing URLs. We also use the static scan where we work with the Dev team and scan the code base for the web application and the mobile application on both iOS and Android. Our third use case is manual penetration tests, which my team manages. We do annual manual penetration tests.

It's deployed to our platform infrastructure, which is in a public cloud.

We have some major clients using Veracode. It saves us time when it comes to doing annual pen tests. When we say we're using Veracode and they are also using Veracode, we don't have to run the test twice. They accept what we have because they know the framework is going to be the same.

A pen test can take a month; it really depends on the number of flaws that are found. So when we don't have to run a pen test twice it saves a lot of time. It not only saves time for my team, but for other teams as well, because when we run a third-party pen test for clients, I not only need to have my team coordinating it, but it requires documentation and it requires my technical support to be involved. So it saves a lot of time for a number of teams.

The report content is very good because the reports are structured in a way that they explain the scope of the scan and what the policy is. A report shows, right at the beginning, if we have passed the scan for the policy or not. That's very helpful when sharing that report externally. It's something that we didn't have before and having that now is extremely useful because it avoids a lot of back and forth with clients. If we share a report and there is no further explanation necessary on how the scan works and what we're doing to fix the flaws, it saves additional manual work that would otherwise be needed to update that information. With Veracode, we can do it automatically, just by pulling a report from the dashboard. In addition, whatever they have on the reports meets industry expectations.

Veracode provides visibility into application status across all testing types, including SAST, DAST, SCA, and manual penetration testing, in a centralized view. I manage the team, I'm not involved in the daily operations. But as a manager, it's extremely helpful, because I just log in to my Veracode instance and, on the homepage, it shows the status of all the scans. If I want more information about something, it's one click. From a managerial perspective, it's extremely helpful. The centralized view helps reduce risk exposure. If there is something wrong with a scan, if a scan doesn't run or a scan is not complete, I know about it from the main dashboard.

In addition, the solution integrates with developer tools. That creates more efficiency in the workflows because they don't need to duplicate work.

Overall, its ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production is very good. We recently onboarded a new application into the static scan and we had almost 1,000 flaws in the first scan. We were able to mitigate all of them in less than three months. The result was amazing, enabling us to find everything that could potentially create a problem for us.

All of its features are valuable to us. We are ISO certified and we also do annual SOC 2 audits. We deal with personal, identifiable information and we host confidential information from our clients. Our use of Veracode is based on our clients' requirements and on ISO requirements. It is something that we have in place to comply with what is required. In that context, the manual penetration test is a requirement from all our clients and we do it once a year.

In terms of secure development, the SAST scan is very useful because we are able to identify security flaws in the code base itself, for the application. The dynamic scanning is mostly used to make sure that whatever is deployed to production is secure.

Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities. This doesn't enable developers to write secure code from the start, but Veracode provides guidance through security consultants. We can book consultations in case developers cannot fix a specific flaw, and they guide us through the process based on the CWE.

The efficiency of the solution when it comes to creating secure software is good. For us, it works well. Their dashboard is really good, overall. In my opinion, it's one of the best in the market, and I say that because we have used other service providers.

Its policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is very helpful. We can create our own policy, based on our internal risk management guidelines, and run the scans against our own customized policy. That way we can set expectations to fix flaws based on our internal timeline, and we can issue reports based on that. We usually share those reports with clients. That's very useful.

They are also always updating the types of threats and that's very useful.

In addition, they provide analytics on how we're doing in terms of fixing flaws and mitigating issues.

All of the services that Veracode provides are necessary for the type and the level of security and confidentiality that we need.

Whenever there is a mitigation that is submitted through the platform, I'm the one who approves it. The feature that allows me to read which mitigation answer was submitted, and to approve it, requires me to use do so in different screens. That makes it a little bit more complicated because I have to read and then I have to go back and make sure it falls under the same number ID number. That part is a little bit complicated from my perspective, because that's what I use the most.

I have been using Veracode for a year.

The stability is good. We have never had problems.

We will be using more of our products in Veracode starting in January. We added one more application into the dynamic scan and we added a couple more manual penetration tests to our projects. Once you understand how it works, it's very easy to deploy to different applications.

In terms of increasing our usage of the solution, we probably won't for the next couple of years, but we never know. It really depends on the requirements that we have from clients and the requirements of the standards and the regulations. Now, we are covering most of the applications and use cases that we need. We are doing 100 percent of the code base. We are doing dynamic scans on all the URLs in production, and the manual pen tasks are also covering all the applications.

We are doubling the ACV with Veracode for 2021, and that's a lot. After that, we're going to be good for the next couple of years, unless there is something new and the Dev team needs to use some other feature that I'm not aware of at this point.

For the dynamic scans I have a couple of people from the technical support team and one person from operations. For static scans, I have my entire iOS and Android team because, depending on the type of flaw, the ticket is given to different developers. I have about 20 to 25 Veracode users.

Their technical support is usually very quick. They usually get back to us in less than 24 hours. We had a problem recently and it was the first time that we had a problem with Veracode support. We didn't get an outcome for three weeks and it created a major problem, but they usually get back to us in 24 hours.

Their Knowledge Base, their help site, is very useful. Most of the time we can find the information that we are looking for there. Sometimes we consult with their support team, but we can usually find information in their help site.

We were using WhiteHat. We switched because the dashboard was very bad and there were no analytics. The UI was also very bad, so it was not easy to manage it. Also, most of our big clients were using Veracode and asking us to migrate to Veracode. It was a combination of things.

The setup was straightforward. It takes some time in the beginning to onboard, but our onboarding process was easy from the moment that we actually connected the Dev team with Veracode. It's normal to have a certain degree of difficulty in the beginning but we didn't have any major problems.

Our deployment took between a month and 45 days.

We migrated from another vendor, so we first picked the services that we needed and the type. We started with the same scans that we had with the other vendor, and then we divided the work between the different teams. We had to have the iOS team onboard and the Android team onboard. I presented the new tool to them and created the accounts and, after that, we had parallel projects to onboard the different scans. It was definitely easier because I had different teams taking care of each one of the scans, meaning I could do everything in parallel.

For the dynamic scans we had one person involved from the technical support team. It was super-straightforward and super-easy to do. It took us a couple of hours to do it. The static scan takes a little bit more time because you have to prepare the packages. But we already had the packages ready because we migrated from another vendor. It took us some time to adjust the scans, but the actual work of uploading the packages took less than a week.

There is no direct ROI. There is a cost of security, overall. It saves a lot of time and it allows us to have the certifications and comply with the clients' requirements, but it's very hard to have a direct ROI. It's a cost for compliance and security that is worth it.

Veracode is expensive. Some of its products are expensive. I don't think it's way more expensive than its competitors. The dynamic is definitely worth it, as I think it's cheaper than the competitors. The static scan is a little bit more expensive, around 20 percent more expensive. The manual pen test is more expensive, but it is an expensive service because it's a manual pen test and we also do retests. I don't think it is way more expensive than the competitors, but it's about 15 to 20 percent more expensive.

There is also a fee for the support package, which I think is extremely expensive. We used to have the premium support and we didn't use most of it, so we're downgrading to the basic support, and even the basic support is expensive.

We evaluated BitSight. The main advantage of Veracode was the UI, the dashboard. It's very easy to use and to manage.

I can give advice to other managers. If they are willing to properly manage, but they don't have the time or the bandwidth to actually operate, it's a very good tool. It's easy to get access to information and it's easy to understand what's going on with your application without much of a burden. You don't have to waste a lot of time trying to understand a complicated report. Everything is accessible. And the amount of information that Veracode gives based on the flaws is very straightforward and makes it easy for the Dev team to fix them.

I would rate it at eight out of 10. The tool itself is a very good tool. The way they work to update the flaws and the findings is very effective. But the support is a little bit expensive and it could be a little bit better. And there are few things that could be updated in the UI, but overall it's a very good tool.