Veracode Reviews

I'm the manager of DevOps and cloud architecture.

This product has given us the ability to investigate and understand the black zones in our system. 

Veracode can emulate the most sophisticated attack and create unique or specific use cases around automatic penetration testing. It gives us the ability to investigate any sensitivities to vulnerabilities that we may have.

Security can always be improved. I'd like to know how we can better prevent intrusions to our systems and create risk analysis use cases and understand them. What is the level of risk for what we want to do? How can we understand the process better? I'd like to have a better overview of what's going on. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable.

There are three layers of technical support and we have used all of them over time. We are happy with the service they provide. 

It's important to understand your environment and know the specific use cases for your organization. Creating good orchestration application metrics is very important.

I rate this product eight out of 10.

We use both the static and the dynamic scanning. What we do is run the code through the scanner once we make any modifications. And periodically, we also run the dynamic to connect several applications. We use Veracode to check for specific vulnerabilities such as cross-site scripting. When we are checking for those vulnerabilities, we take a portion of code that is going to be generated and we run the scanner.

We work a lot with open sources. Using the Static Analysis, the Dynamic Analysis, and the scan module, we can control everything we do via Veracode. Moreover, because all our applications are security applications, keeping a high security standard is really important.

The visibility into application status across all testing types in a single dashboard is helpful because, even if you are running different types of scans, you have everything in one place. You have a unique dashboard to control all the applications, and that is good.

Overall, we've never had any problem with vulnerable code going into production. It's quite a solid tool. We have a really good feeling with this solution.

The most valuable feature is actually the support provided by Veracode. Once you start to use the platform, you can mount the IDE plugin for your script. The advantage is that you can run the scan and check what the problem is and you can fix it yourself. Support could be used to address something that could go beyond your skills. If you use Veracode Greenlight, you have a small pop-up that you can use to interact directly with the team and you can ask a consultant to advise how an issue can be fixed. One of the good things about the Greenlight plugin is that it is very simple. There are several guides that tell you how to install it. It's a matter of one or two minutes and you are ready to go.

Once you check something, they provide links, not manually, it's all automated. When you want to check into a vulnerability you click and open the website where there is a description. If this is not enough of an answer, you can ask directly by scheduling an appointment with a Veracode guy.

Another feature of Veracode is that they provide e-learning, but the e-learning is not basic, rather it is quite advanced. They don't teach you how to develop in Java, Python, PHP or C#, but they instruct you about the best practices that should be adopted for secure code developing and how to prevent improper management of some component of the code that could lead to a vulnerability. The e-learning that Veracode provides is an extremely good tool. And as far as I know, there are no other competitors that offer it.

The best stuff is the training: this enables your team to adopt the same programming approach, although these people have a different background or joined the projects in a different phase. Doing that, they can take the training and be aligned so that they all write code in a good way.

We also use the Static Analysis Pipeline Scan and it's quite good. They provide several of the most common templates for pipelines. You see the process, while you program, right up until you package an application, and that the platform is able to detect things that are a blocking point. Before deploying to the production, you already know what is doing. And the speed of the Pipeline Scan is quite good.

Another good feature is the policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations. We test compliance for medical devices, for GDPR, and for payment methods. These are all good. If you are not correctly prepared on one of these sets of regulations, you know that Veracode is going to take care of it using pre-prepared templates. But we can also customize our own policy if we are facing a unique use case. Even if it's not really common, we can take a regulation and build it the way we want it to look.

In addition, you can check everything from the dashboard. Veracode provides a web portal that is connected with your account and through that you can check the status of all the deployments that were run. And suppose you also have an application that is quite complex. You can deploy and upload it through the portal. When it is ready, you receive a notification from the portal that the job has been done and that you can check the results. When you go to the dashboard, you have the OWASP vulnerabilities. There is a really simple graphic with the colors showing how many vulnerabilities have been found and how much these vulnerabilities are repeated in your code. It also tells you the potential effect, if it is a backdoor data breach, for example, etc. It also suggests what you can do to remediate. It might suggest modifying code or changing the status of some part of the development, or updating a third-party.

And if you have people on different projects, there is also a role management feature, so you can select, for example, that people who are working on a given project can only see that project. If you are running something with different levels of classifications, for example, if you have an external consultant, it does not affect the confidentiality of the system. When people are collaborating, not all people are at the same level of an NDA. It is good that each person can see only their part implementing Need-To-Know.

It also integrates with developer tools. We use IntelliJ and Eclipse, among others.

They should invest in mobile security.

I have been using Veracode since 2017.

We have never faced a problem or any downtime.

We haven't perceived any issue when it comes to scalability. But it's true that if you have more tenants, the response of the scanners is going to get released quicker.

I would rate Veracode's technical support at nine out of 10. They would probably deserve a 10 but it is not as quick as it should be. They need to increase the support workforce. The support people are well-prepared, but it can sometimes take one or two days to get the right guy to do support.

The previous solution that we were working with was mainly focused on the quality of the coding. We are happy with Veracode because it's focused on security.

The initial setup is very simple. The Veracode guy who accompanied us made it appear really straightforward.

It's a SaaS solution so once it's prepared on the Veracode side, to deploy onsite may take up to a couple of hours to get everything prepared, mainly due to the configuration, for a simple implementation. Overall, setting up the product is quite straightforward. 

In terms of managing the code, it's quite simple for us because we are all technical guys. Once we saw it working, it was really easy to manage. We have three people who use the solution and they are all developers.

The Veracode team is replying fast and the proved a strong expertise in every challenge.

We could save some money having an on-premise solution, but the fact that this is a SaaS means we can be sure that it's updated. It's outsourced. In terms of cost, I don't see a big advantage, but in terms of operations there is because we don't have to take care of it. We know that if, somewhere else in the world, somebody detects a vulnerability, a few minutes later we will already have a patch. This is extremely important for us. Nobody in our company has to touch anything to get this.

If we had to designate one or two people to take care of maintenance of an application, at some moment one of them might not be updating things. With Veracode, we know that we don't have to worry. We just have to focus on our development. We don't consider maintenance at all because it's all managed.

The pricing is quite standard. It's not cheaper, it's not more expensive.

We looked at other vendors but we selected Veracode because it had a top rating in industry reviews. For us, that was like a warranty.

We were skeptical about running scans with a cloud-based solution, but then we saw the benefits. Everything is up to date without us having to lift a finger. We know we don't have to take care of maintenance. 

Also, if you work in the domain of medical devices, payment methods, or other things that are related to privacy, Veracode provides all these modules. This is a big advantage.

Sometimes the scans are not done quickly, but the solutions that it provides are really good. The quality is high, but the analysis is not done extremely quickly.

False positives are not a main problem. The platform does try to overprotect but, of course, a system like this can only understand the syntax and not the semantics. So it's overprotective when there is a doubt. Sometimes, we ignore some of the advice received.

In my previous organization, we used to use Veracode throughout all verticals. It is a cloud-based platform, and you need to upload the code for static analysis. The code has to be uploaded as per the compilation guide provided by Veracode. So, for different languages, you have to combine the code as per the instructions in the guide.

We used to own and manage the platform. We also used to manage the users. If there was a particular project team that needed to use Veracode to do their code scan, they used to approach us. We used to create the user accounts for them so that user accounts were limited to just the code. We also used to guide and train them on how to upload the code on Veracode, how to combine the code, and how to initiate the scan. After the scan is completed, we used to tell them and guide them about how to treat the vulnerabilities in that code, how to fix and mitigate them, and what's the next process. Apart from that, we used to create a project team to build their CI/CD pipeline, where we used to create DevSecOps automation.

It is a cloud-based platform, so every organization or every security team in the organization is concerned about uploading their code because ultimately the code is intellectual property. The most useful thing about Veracode is that if you want to upload the code, they accept only byte code. They do not accept the plain source code as an input. The code is converted into binary code, and it is uploaded to Veracode. So, it is quite secure. It also has the automation feature where you can integrate security during the initial stages of your software development life cycle.

Veracode provides integration with multiple tools and platforms, such as Visual Studio, Java, and Eclipse. Developers can integrate with those tools by using Jenkins. The security consultation or the support that they provide is also really good.

Its user management is also good. You can restrict the users for a particular application so that only certain developers will be able to see the code that has been scanned. 

Their reporting model is really good. For each customer, they provide a program manager. Every quarter, they have their reviews about how much it has scanned. They also ensure that the tool has been used efficiently. 

There are few languages that take time for scanning. It covers the majority of languages from C to Scala, but it doesn't support certain languages and the newer versions of certain languages. For example, it doesn't support SAP and new JavaScript frameworks such as Node.js and React JS. They can include support for these. If you go to their website, you can see the list of languages that are currently supported.

The false-positive rates are also something they can work on.

I have been using Veracode for the last four years.

From my perspective, it is really good. It is one of the best SaaS solutions that I have come across. Veracode is also a leader in Gartner Quadrant.

It is pretty good in terms of scalability. There are many users of this solution. There are also many customers of Veracode. We had around 1,000 plus users.

The support that Veracode provides is really fabulous. They are very responsive. They provide you with a thorough analysis. If you have any questions or doubts, they help to clear them in a very simple manner.

I've used Checkmarx and HPE Fortify. Now, I am using Micro Focus. As compared to Veracode, Checkmarx takes input as plain text. It takes the code as it is and does not compile the code. This is the main difference between Checkmarx and Veracode. Checkmarx also has an on-prem solution, but Veracode does not have an on-prem solution. 

There is also a major difference in the cost and licensing model. Veracode's license model is quite complex. Comparatively, Checkmarx's license model is straightforward. You can upload any amount of code. For example, it could be 1 Gig or 2 Gig. They charge based on the number of applications, but Veracode's licensing model is pretty different. They charge based on the amount of code that has been analyzed.

It is pretty much straightforward. It is a cloud-based solution. So, creating a user in Veracode is pretty much easy. It involves just a few clicks. Uploading the code is also pretty much easy. It is user-friendly and developer-friendly.

When I used to maintain this for 1,000 developers, two or three people were enough to maintain it.

Veracode is costly. They have different license models for different customers. What we had was based on the amount of code that has been analyzed. The license that we had was capped to a certain amount, for example, 5 Gig. There would be an extra charge for anything above 5 Gig.

Veracode is well-suited for modern programming languages. Veracode is not for scanning large legacy applications with a huge codebase. It also doesn't support some unique languages such as SAP. This could be a challenge for certain people. 

More organizations are taking the left shift approach for application security and trying to integrate security early into their software development life cycle. Veracode is good for such automation.

I would rate Veracode Static Analysis a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for Digital Health.

This solution has helped us in developing a secured product.

Veracode is fantastic! All of the features are valuable.

My experience with Veracode across the board every time, in all products, the technology, the product, the service, and the salespeople are fabulous. They are engaging.

I would suggest charging the developer for training, as it's not very expensive.

Only charge for developer training because it's a service you give now and they may need to be technical support. 

It costs them money to do that, but with the technology, an incremental user is negligible incremental costs, which doesn't really cost them. That's software economics.

I would like to see them only charge for developer training for the qualified startups and start charging for the licensing once the product goes into production, and available.

I have several years of experience working with Veracode.

When we used this solution a year ago, we used the most current version.

It's a stable solution. I would rate stability a ten out of ten.

It's a scalable product. My rating out of ten would be a ten, scalability-wise.

We have a software development manager and three other people who are using it.

Technical support is phenomenal. They are fabulous and very responsive, it's amazing.

Previously, I did not use another solution. Because I knew Veracode for many years, my approach with the company was that it was a startup and we need to do it securely. This is s why we went with Veracode.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was extremely easy and took only a few hours to deploy.

We have a team in-house to implement this solution.

The pricing for qualified startups such as Neo4j could be improved.

It allows startups to develop a secure product, but it takes time for startups to get money for the products. 

Veracode could provide the services, at a significantly lower price during that period with a condition that the moment that it becomes production, Veracode has to be paid.

If they would change that, it would be phenomenal for the entire industry and for them.

Licensing cost is on a yearly basis and there are no additional costs, the pricing is straightforward.

At the time that we used this solution, we were a startup, the software may not have been that complex. It's not like Oracle.

My advice to others who are interested in using this solution is to pay attention to the full instructions.

I would rate Veracode Developer Training a ten out of ten.

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.