Veracode Reviews

Our primary objective when using Veracode was to ensure the security of website development and other application developments we were working on. We aimed to prevent any security breaches and also closely monitor any potential vulnerabilities that could arise from code deployment. Fortunately, we were successful in identifying and addressing these vulnerabilities. 

Although the responses were somewhat mixed, we managed to go two years without a single security breach, which was a significant achievement. In addition to monitoring security breaches, we utilized Veracode for continuous monitoring. The difference lies in the fact that once the code is deployed and access to the server is initiated, there is a high possibility of connecting to a different server or encountering interference from unauthorized individuals. This continuous monitoring allows us to observe each step of the server, including the IP addresses and protocols, and ensure their proper functioning. Veracode facilitated us in carrying out this monitoring effectively.

Veracode's ability to prevent vulnerable code from entering production is remarkable. We were once alerted that there was a possibility of a breach occurring. Despite spending hours pondering the issue, we were unable to determine how that possibility existed. After discussing with the support team, we eventually learned the cause. Therefore, in terms of detecting vulnerabilities, it was excellent. However, the problem arose from the fact that it was not well-customized for our organization. Consequently, there were multiple instances where flags were raised for our IP address or email, which we knew were not vulnerabilities. In such cases, we had to address them accordingly.

Veracode's reporting feature provides comprehensive insights into the security status of our code or application. These reports generated by Veracode offer visibility into vulnerabilities and different severity levels of threats that may be present. They also recommend remediation steps to address these issues without extensive code modifications. I find this reporting feature valuable. Additionally, Veracode regularly releases updates, sometimes multiple times a day, ensuring that we are consistently up to date. Although this requires my engineers to work extensively on integrating AWS services with our platform, it is one of the standout features of Veracode due to the recommendations and frequent updates it provides.

Veracode's policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is on the mark. Everything was proceeding as it should, with adherence to the established procedures, protocols, and reporting mechanisms by both the organization and the support team. At no point did we feel that the industry standards were compromised.

Veracode provides visibility into the application's status at every phase of development. Primarily, we were only conducting two types of tests. One was continuous integration, which keeps track of the entire application's deployment process. It detects any defects and ensures a smooth deployment. The other test we used to perform at certain times was manual integration. We would delve deeper and test additional aspects because we wanted to ensure with utmost precision that there were no vulnerabilities when deploying the application. Hence, we also had to manually utilize this program before deploying or pushing it to the code.

When conducting the cost-benefit analysis for Veracode after six months, we discovered that there were actually only two significant security breach possibilities. With the assistance of the solution, we were able to detect and resolve these breaches. The most significant advantage provided by the solution was the assurance that no breaches were occurring outside of the office. Any potential risks were either determined to be false alarms or promptly addressed. Therefore, the only actual breaches we encountered during the six-month period were two. However, we also gained a sense of security, which I consider to be a worthwhile trade-off for the cost.

Speaking specifically about the security department of our company, there was a notable reduction in costs after the introduction of Veracode. However, when considering the broader scope of all the development departments, we not only had to invest more time in each project but also had to hire additional resources. Consequently, when taking into account all the departments collectively, the overall expenses increased. However, focusing solely on the security development department, there was a substantial decrease in costs, approximately $7,000 per month.

The recommendations and frequent updates are the most valuable features of Veracode.

The false positive rates were quite high in our case. Prior to seeking a solution, we had already engaged in discussions with their support team, who also confirmed this issue. We had read a few reviews, which indicated the presence of false positives. However, in our specific situation, the number of false positives was substantial. There were instances when we logged in during the morning and encountered 30 or 40 raised flags. Resolving them sometimes occupied a significant portion of our day, often extending into the first half. Thus, in certain projects we undertook, the occurrence of false positives was considerably elevated. Despite being aware of this, we acknowledged that a majority of these flags were likely false. Nonetheless, due to the matter of security, we had to address them, resulting in a significant allocation of our time.

The false positive rate of the static analysis has impacted the time we spend on fine-tuning policies. We have had to allocate a considerable portion of the software team's time to address the significant number of false positives, resulting in substantial time investment. Additionally, some of our projects with clients have been delayed due to this issue. One particular project experienced a delay of approximately 25 days, with false positive cases accounting for an estimated 60 to 75 percent of the delay. The cost of the false positive rate is causing a slight disruption in the development process. Therefore, I believe this is the major area that needs improvement.

We initially deployed on the AWS cloud because AWS also offers us additional security benefits and most of our other solutions were already on AWS. However, I think Veracode could develop a self-contained cloud system, allowing them to deploy the solution on their own system. This would be beneficial for us as they could provide the data privacy we require. It would be great because each new update on the security process necessitates a slight change in the program.

The reporting features could be subcategorized if the bugs are categorized and subcategorized according to our requirements rather than the understanding of the security system. This would be beneficial because whenever we need to integrate or resolve a bug, it is crucial for us to identify the vulnerable parts of our code. This process requires additional time and effort. Moreover, it is often challenging for us to comprehend the specific changes the system expects from us.

I have been using Veracode for two years.

The stability of Veracode, in my opinion, was not very reliable considering the need to consider false positive readings. We had to invest a significant amount of time rectifying or addressing those inaccurate queries, which made it a less-than-ideal solution.

I believe the solution is scalable. I remember a time when we were working with four clients in total. Even though our agreement with Veracode was not to exceed three projects, we were able to manage that, and everything went smoothly. They were even able to implement registration. This probably occurred due to significant delays in one of our projects. I was able to onboard the next client, which means we were working with four clients at that time.

The technical support team is knowledgeable. In the initial stages, when our team lacked the technical capability to perform manual configurations on our own, they assisted us with that. Overall, the experience was satisfactory. Nothing extraordinary, but it was good.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward, although it did take us some time. Our team lacked the necessary technical capabilities since it was a new endeavor. Before Veracode, our company didn't have any other security measures in place. Since it was a new concept, our employees also had a technical knowledge gap, which required some time for learning. However, the deployment process, on the whole, wasn't overly technical. It was done in two or three stages. The first stage involved initial queue meetings to understand the configurations we were using for deploying the code. The subsequent meetings focused on understanding the features we desired, how they would be implemented, and accessed, and their frequencies. Following that, the tech team took over and handled the deployment for us.

Six engineers were involved in the deployment, although the entire working team comprised twenty-two people.

The implementation was completed in-house.

It is quite challenging to calculate ROI. However, I can confidently state that over the course of two years, we did not experience a single security breach. Furthermore, we ensured that our solutions were free from any vulnerabilities when delivering them to our clients. As a result, we established a positive reputation with our clients, as evidenced by the certification from Veracode, confirming the absence of vulnerabilities in our overall feature or code deployment. In summary, we maintained a flawless record of zero security breaches. Despite the difficulty in conducting a cost-benefit analysis, it remains an essential task.

I believe the price is fair according to market standards. However, if we are anticipating a growth phase in the enterprise, it might be a bit costly for us. On the other hand, if we are currently making profits and aiming to stabilize ourselves while improving our solutions and working with our existing team, it suited us well during that period. We were focused on developing the final product, refining protocols, and enhancing overall product development processes for our brands. Therefore, I believe it was a good fit for us. However, organizations that are in a growth phase may want to consider other options, even if it means compromising slightly on the security aspect.

We previously evaluated other solutions. One of the primary reasons for choosing Veracode was the ability to configure it at a deeper level, which was not possible with the other solutions. Another advantage was that the other solutions did not offer a six-month trial period, unlike Veracode. We initially had a trial for six months, which was later extended to one and a half years. Therefore, pricing became the third factor. However, even at the end of the two-year subscription, we were unable to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis. This seems to be a common situation in the industry. Without experiencing a breach, it is difficult to assess the cost-effectiveness of a solution.

I give Veracode a nine out of ten. I believe that, in general, Veracode is a good product. False positives and these types of issues can be found in almost every security product out there. The best part was Veracode's technical team. They were proficient in their knowledge and there was never a moment of misunderstanding between our team and theirs. Overall, Veracode ensured that we did not encounter any ransomware or security breaches at any point in time.

Our DevSecOps team was involved in two stages of the entire process. The first stage was during the initial design phase of the specific application build. We had to determine when and where we wanted to manually interpret using the tool, as well as identify potential security breaches that required close monitoring. This was the initial step. Following that, our team proceeded with development, which typically progressed smoothly in collaboration with the client for a period of two to three weeks. As we approached the deployment phase, we would once again discuss with their team to determine specific points where DevSecOps would manually deploy the solution for testing purposes. Afterward, we would assess the solution from our end.

The false positive rate did not have a negative effect on the confidence of our development team. It was made very clear to us by Veracode's support team, as well as through other reviews and conversations with clients, that there would be a possibility of false positives being raised. We had to go through them because we cannot afford to miss out on any potential security breach.

I don't believe Veracode has helped us save time. Overall, if we consider the larger context, saving time was not a direct expectation communicated by Veracode. Their expectation was solely to prevent any security breaches. Regarding time-saving, I don't think Veracode has provided any assistance in that aspect.

At the end of the day, we were essentially thinking of transitioning to a new solution, primarily due to the high number of false positives we were receiving from Veracode, we conducted a cost-and-benefit analysis specifically for Veracode. We discovered that, overall, it prevented our solution from being breached for more than six clients. Considering our annual client turnover rate is approximately twelve to thirteen, Veracode played a significant role in addressing a substantial portion of our challenges.

I recommend negotiating with Veracode for a free trial period. We frequently engage in negotiations to secure a six-month trial. A trial will assist in comprehending the intricacies. While there are benefits, it is important to note that the time required for each project will naturally increase. It is crucial to understand how Veracode operates and determine if it aligns with the company's needs. However, regarding pricing, I am confident that Veracode delivers as requested.

Veracode functions solely within the development department, but within the department itself, we have a division based on the two types of clients we deal with. One type is primarily focused on development, while the other is focused on procuring or conducting quantitative analysis for the markets.

For general everyday maintenance, only two people are involved. However, for monthly maintenance, approximately six people from our end are involved, and I am unsure of the number of people from Veracode's end.

I would advise speaking with other clients like us who have already used Veracode. Prior to that, however, we need to understand what kind of security breaches are possible in our solution and determine how much of our money and time we want to allocate to addressing them. We should assess the importance of these breaches to us. Once we have this understanding, we can discuss with other clients how the overall process went and how much time it actually takes. The final step would be to directly contact their team and negotiate for a longer trial period. The best decision we made was to initiate a six-month trial with Veracode and then transition to full-time usage.

Our primary uses are for reviews of our code and overall software environment, bug fixes, and detection of security flaws.  

We use the solution across multiple locations and regions, including Asia Pacific, EMEA, and North America. Our user base consists of 5200 individuals. 

The solution has given us real results when it comes to improving our overall security posture; it provides the best security and reports, indicates any flaws that may be present, and allows us to take steps to rectify them. The tool is now a part of our DevSecOps, and we truly rely on it.  

Regarding our ability to fix flaws, Veracode is very helpful; it provides a sense of confidence to our developers and a summary of reports that we can share with stakeholders such as our clients and senior management. The solution identifies security loopholes and gives us detailed feedback reports, allowing us to take action to remedy our security vulnerabilities. 

Veracode helped our developers save time; two or three development team members were previously dedicated to code security. By automating this task using the solution, those developers can reallocate their time to core software development, which is an excellent result. The time saved is in the region of 25%.   

Static Analysis' false positive rate positively affected time and costs related to tuning, leveraging data, and machine learning. Tuning data is essential as it gives us update optimization within our database, which is helpful for any organization. Veracode is the industry leader in being a one-stop shop security solution; it takes care of every aspect.  

The user interface is excellent, the code review process is quick and provides great analytics to understand our code better, and the SAST scan is high-speed.

Veracode is excellent at preventing vulnerable code from going into production; the scans are speedy and give us a detailed analysis of our code. 

We use the Software Bill of Materials feature; it's essential and advantageous. We can't do a bill of materials manually, so it's excellent that Veracode provides this. SBOM helps us manage our risks, as every company has software that needs to be run appropriately throughout the user and client base. It's necessary to have a security audit or security compliance in such applications, and Veracode enables this functionality so we can easily identify security flaws and take measurable action.

Creating a report using the SBOM feature is straightforward, and it's important to our organization because it provides a return on our investment. Previously, we sometimes required a third-party resource to create reports, but with Veracode, it's easier to take care of that on our end.  

The solution's policy reporting allows us to set our standards, group policies, and regulations, so ensuring code compliance is part of its analysis. Veracode notifies us if any flaws are detected, allowing us to take action to correct them.  

The solution provides visibility into application status at every development phase throughout the SDLC; we can use Veracode during the development, design, testing, and implementation phases. We can easily analyze our code before commencing large production deployments and fix any issues.   

Sometimes we get a lot of false positives even after configuring our policies, so that could be improved.

There is an issue where the UI occasionally breaks in between uses of the application, which can be improved. The UI could also be more catchy for the benefit of the less technical users. 

It would be good if the configuration of dynamic scanning could be less complex.

We've been using the solution for over three years. 

The solution is stable. It wasn't before, as different organizations required new group policies and configurations. The product has yet to mature fully but has developed enough to adopt a stable position in the market.

The solution is as scalable as required, but we must pay for that. 

The technical support is good; I rate them nine out of ten.

Positive

We previously used some open-source software, but our developers generally manually performed code-checking. Our requirement is for a solution that takes care of our software code and security throughout the SDLC. Following evaluation, we found Veracode more useful in terms of licensing, pricing, and features.

The initial setup was straightforward; it took seven to ten days, including gathering all requirements, overall deployment, and the final implementation. The deployment team consisted of four to five members. 

The product doesn't require any maintenance; operations and support are primarily handled by Veracode, as it's a fully managed service. 

We have seen an ROI with Veracode regarding time, money, and overall organization reports. Our ROI is in the region of 25-30%.

The solution reduced the cost of our DevSecOps by lowering the headcount for those previously dedicated to security throughout the SDLC. They can now spend more time improving their code base and focusing on development.  

The pricing and licensing are reasonable, and relatively straightforward, and different licensing and subscription models are available.

To someone considering Veracode but concerned about the price, it can be a challenge for small and mid-sized organizations, but it's a good choice for larger enterprises. If security is a primary concern for any organization, they should consider Veracode; they won't be disappointed.  

We evaluated GitLab, Micro Focus, and SonarQube. 

I rate the solution nine out of ten. 

Regarding the tool's false positive rate, the analysis is good but can be affected by data and code not supported by Veracode. In these cases, we can experience some challenges, but other than that, the false positive reporting is good. In cases of unsupported code, developer confidence can be affected, as we know there may be some flaws we can't control. If they are minor enough, we can ignore them.

I advise others considering the product to go with it if it fulfills their requirements. Veracode is a tested name in the market for application security and detecting flawed code. They should evaluate other options if they fit the needs better, but I highly recommend Veracode.

We use Veracode for static code analysis, dynamic code analysis, and software composition analysis. In our organization, we have a bunch of applications that are running on a monorepo or microservice level. We have to do SAST on those applications so that we have a code review done on a bit level. 

Going forward through the application pipeline, we do it on the dynamic level, as well, where we are scanning the public URLs of those applications to see what people can see externally. It's a type of out-to-in scanning in which we are analyzing the traffic that is sent out and even the traffic that is coming in, the response and request headers of the URLs, whenever someone is at a single URL. 

Finally, for the software composition, Veracode uses a third-party analysis tool in which it has the libraries and the functions that are being used at a source code level. They are open source or dependent files that are used for building that in-house application.

As a company, we have moved from using contractors and third-party consulting companies to creating our software through more of an in-house model. We are moving more into the DevOps realm with more of our own teams developing our software. Veracode fits that DevSecOps ideology. It is definitely helping us build more secure software than we previously had.

We have a bunch of applications into which we have integrated Veracode and we have seen that, in the final phase of production delivery, there are fewer vulnerabilities than we used to have.

And because Veracode has remediation and tracking within the platform, it becomes a good single pane of glass where the developers and the security professionals can operate and govern the flaws in the software. And they can take the necessary steps to remediate them.

In the metrics that we generate every month, we have seen the numbers go up with respect to remediation as well as the number of flaws that we catch. The word is spreading, and more and more application teams are using the static code analysis tool inside their pipelines. Overall, we are moving from reactive mode to proactive mode in remediating vulnerabilities through Veracode.

Veracode also helps our developers save time, in the big picture, compared to a situation without Veracode. Let's say there is an application on which no static analysis was done and the audit team says, "Hey, you don't have any static code analysis in your pipelines. You need to do something about that." They could scan the code that is already running in production and find flaws, but those flaws would take a lot more effort, time, and resources to mitigate compared to if they had been detected in a static analysis prior to the code going into production. In that way, it has definitely saved time. But if we are talking about short-term planning for sprints, it takes a little more time than usual because security is coming into the picture, as well. But overall, it helps save time.

Our security posture has gotten better since 2020. It takes time to do the integration of the platform and educate people about how to use Veracode, and then move on to remediating and validating things. But the journey that we had with Veracode has definitely helped us a lot, overall, with respect to bettering our security posture.

The static analysis is the most valuable aspect for us.

It also has the ability to block a build. In pipeline scanning, there is a configuration that can be set with respect to the security level of the flaw. If there is a high or a critical issue, there's a way the build can be failed and blocked before going into production. But the best case that I have found for blocking builds is in the staging area. You don't really want any blocking done on the production environment because there are business SLAs that the enterprise has to fulfill. The best case would be blocking the builds in the staging phase, the pre-production environment, so that everything is taken care of before it is pushed to production.

There are three integration points for Veracode. One is the IDE plugin. Whenever a developer is writing code on their IDE platform plugin for Veracode—whether IntelliJ or Visual Studio, et cetera—it tells them if that piece of code has any vulnerabilities and if there is a better way to write the code.

The next point is the pipeline integration in which, whenever a build is getting pushed from a standalone branch to the main branch, a scan is done on that commit to see if there are any vulnerabilities.

Finally, when the build is published with the whole module, it can do another scan, as well. These three scans have their own pros and cons. The policy scan, which is a build scan, does the scanning on an overall basis with regard to the different standards out there, like OS and Spin5. It scans the first-party and third-party code, which is the most holistic scan that there can be. But the point is that it scans at three different integration points or stages, so it helps developers to remediate their vulnerabilities before they have moved far in the pipeline. Shift-left is definitely possible through Veracode.

Veracode's false positive rate is a little toward the higher side. We understand that Veracode doesn't have the business context. I advocate that people look at their code, even though there is a vulnerability, to see exactly what it is. For example, a randomize function is being used to create an ID that is not being hashed. Veracode marks it as a false positive because it doesn't know if the ID is being used for cookie generation or some random ID in the log generator. We, as dev or sec people, have to go in there and analyze what the ID is being used for. But the false positive rate is definitely a little bit on the higher side.

The effect of the false positive rate on developers' confidence in the solution depends on the maturity level of that particular application team with respect to learning Veracode. In the initial stages, obviously, when developers see that, whenever they're writing code or pushing a build, there are a bunch of vulnerabilities, it may affect their confidence. But a couple of months or a couple of quarters down the line, when those same developers have already used Veracode and have raised their maturity level from one to at least three, it doesn't really affect them because they know that they have to go in there and check the vulnerabilities for themselves to determine if it's a false positive or a real vulnerability.

It has definitely taken a little more time to validate the false positives, but I would say there are a lot of true positives, as well, which have been remediated and which have been mitigated for the betterment of the security posture. But it has definitely taken a little more time to mark or validate those positives. Hence, I definitely advocate that people shift a little more to the left. They should do ID and pipeline scanning before they hit policy scanning because, with ID and pipeline scanning, you scan small chunks of code. You remediate that code faster, before it goes to the whole package and there's a bunch that you have to deal with.

Also, container security is slowly becoming a prevalent part of the development realm. Veracode's SAST, DAST, and SCA are pretty good with respect to industry standards, but with regard to container security, they are in either beta or alpha testing. They need to get that particular feature up and running so that they take care of the container security part.

In addition, there is a new concept out there, the IAST, which is interactive assessment security testing. It is a little more proactive than SAST. So if Veracode can combine that feature with their current technology, they would definitely be a front-runner again for the next five to six years.

I've been using Veracode for the last three and a half years.

Once or twice a month there is maintenance on the Veracode side because they're updating some signature in their database or something else. I have seen maintenance coming up, but it's not an issue because the pipelines and integrations that we are running keep on running in the background. It's just the GUI that we are not able to access at that particular time.

It's pretty scalable if our enterprise has the licenses for scaling the applications. I haven't faced any issues with regard to scalability, apart from licensing, of course.

We have contacted Veracode's tech support a bunch of times. The only downside is the time needed to schedule a consultation call with the pro services team, keeping in mind that enterprises need to buy pro services licenses before they can use it.

When someone is scheduling a meeting with them, the issue type should be as precise as possible. In that way, they can rope in the exact SME for that particular topic, because in the development realm there are so many languages and so many types of issues out there. There are different personnel for each of those categories. So the more precise the details are for the meeting, the better the SME will be for that particular consultation.

Positive

We have only used Veracode, right from the start.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. They have a SaaS solution and there are a bunch of API integrations that made it pretty straightforward.

As for maintenance, all the upgrades and updates are done on Veracode's side. But there is a wrapper. When we are doing the integration, there is a package that we use to upload the files in Veracode. Sometimes there is a new release for that package and we have to update it in the GitLab repo. That's the only maintenance we need to do.

They have made it worth the price with the kind of discount and the kinds of modifications they made for us with regard to licensing. Previously, it was per profile. But they have adjusted according to our requirements because we are a big company and we handle a lot of applications. There's a tiered discount that they have provided us, so the cost is justified.

If someone looking at Veracode is concerned about the price, it depends on their requirements. I wouldn't really recommend Veracode for a small firm, because it might be a little pricey for them. But for a large organization, with more than 1,000 applications in the enterprise, there are tiered levels of pricing. Obviously, there are other cutting-edge solutions that have become available recently, but Veracode is something that a big organization should look at.

When it comes to managing risks, we use the remediation feature that Veracode has. Whenever there is a flaw, we do have tickets open up for it and the application owner or the developer goes through the vulnerabilities. There are times when the vulnerability is a false positive and you can mark it as such within the Veracode platform itself. And we, as security professionals, do the validation for whether the business justification is good or not. And we either have a source code review for the vulnerability or have an exception open up for the remediation step that the application or the owner is asking for. We do risks via the platform, as well as through the ticketing tool that we use.

We are also using SBOM (Software Bill of Materials) for inventing all the different kinds of modules and libraries that we are using for an application. Using the SBOM feature, you would have to leverage the API to get the inventory from the API calls that Veracode has. But in our organization, we use the GUI report generation more than the SBOM report because there is an executive summary in the GUI report with regard to first-party and third-party flaws. It also has the mitigation steps. SBOM would only give you the list of softwares, libraries, and versions that are being used. It is not as detailed as the GUI report that Veracode provides.

Things to consider when looking at Veracode include the different integration points where you want to integrate Veracode, how big your organization is, and how many applications you want to do security analysis on. If it's a big organization, Veracode is obviously a solution to evaluate, but for a small organization, below 500 apps, it might be a little pricey. Also, you will need a couple of Veracode champions on your team who know it inside out. You will need training provided by Veracode, so make sure that is included during the procurement stage. That will help you implement the tool within your organization faster and much more efficiently.

I would have given Veracode a nine out of 10 a couple of years back, but given the tools that are coming out on the market, and the scope of development, which is increasing, I would place it at eight.

We use it primarily for our application security concerns. We use the dynamic, static, and SCA scanning tools. We run our static scans after the code is compiled, and that gets uploaded automatically through our DevOps tool. We have installed an agent in one of our cloud servers that is behind a firewall to run the dynamic scan against the runtime. We run our SCA scans when we do the static scans, which is after compilation.

Prior to using Veracode, we hadn't really looked into security features or thought about security in the same way that we have since we started using Veracode. We were focused on what you hear about in the news, such as making sure that it is HTTPS secured. We hadn't really dug into the nitty gritty of application security and scanning our source code, running it against a runtime environment, and looking at the actual third-party solutions that we integrate or use in our code. Veracode has helped with our mindset as an organization to start thinking about things more securely by design rather than as a reactive measure. We're being more proactive with security.

Veracode's integration with our continuous integration solution is what I've found to be the most valuable feature. It is easy to connect the two and to run scans in an automated way without needing as much manual intervention.

We feel very confident about Veracode's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. Having the stamp of approval helps not only from a marketability standpoint but also from an overall good feeling within the organization that we're doing our part to help keep our code free from vulnerabilities.

This solution provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. It goes from compiling the code all the way to running it in production. It covers all major aspects of the SDLC. We run static scans and SCA scans early on in the process to make sure that we catch any code that is insecure by design. If we are able to catch it earlier on, before it's actually out in the production environment, it reduces costs. The dynamic scans are run further along in our QA process. That is, once we've deployed the code and have it in a runtime environment, we run weekly scans in a dynamic environment against the code runtime to make sure that there aren't any new vulnerabilities that got introduced. We are looking at doing manual penetration testing in 2023, where we would be using a spinoff of the code that was released to the customers to make sure that there aren't any holes through which a nefarious actor could get in and exploit what was built.

Veracode's false-positive rate is low. The few instances when it looked like there were false positives, the issues were found to be either true vulnerabilities or things that were that way by design. If a developer thought that there would be a ton of false positives when using the tool, it would then diminish the value of actually using the tool. Veracode touts itself as being a tool with the lowest false-positive rate in the market. It gives inherent confidence in the tool itself, and developers are more inclined to think that if it found something, it's pretty likely that it is not a false positive. They would then work to prove it wrong rather than discounting it without even looking into it.

We haven't really found many false positives with static analysis, and there hasn't been a significant impact on our time and cost related to tuning, leveraging data, and machine learning.

Continuous integration linking definitely saves a lot of time because it takes away the step where a developer needs to manually upload the code every time to do a scan. It can run in the background, and having the Visual Studio plugin includes it directly in the development environment. If developers do get assigned a bug that they need to fix, they can pull it right up in their development environment and not have to log in to the portal. It will all be right there.

I'm primarily the one who has been involved in DevSecOps, and Veracode has definitely reduced my time. If we had gone with a conglomeration of open-source tools, it would've taken me a ton more time. Whereas with Veracode, all the documentation is out there, and I'm able to integrate everything that I need from a usability standpoint. I don't have to learn a new tool every time I need to integrate a new security scanning option. It has helped me tremendously and has saved me a lot of time.

I do expect large applications with millions of lines of code to take a while, but it would be nice if there was a possibility to be able to have a baseline initial scan. I know that Veracode touts that there are Pipeline Scans that are supposed to take 90 seconds or less, and we've tried to do that ourselves with our ERP application. However, it actually times out after two hours of scanning.

If the static scan itself or another option to run a lower tier scan can be integrated earlier on into our SDLC, it would be great. Right now, it takes so long that we usually leave it till a bit later in the cycle, whereas if it ran faster, we could push it to the time when a developer will be checking in code. That would make us feel a lot more confident that we'd be able to catch things almost instantaneously.

I've been using Veracode for a little over a year now.

I haven't had any stability issues, bugs, or glitches.

The scalability is really good. I recently added to the solution some new applications that I learned about late in the game. There were probably 10 that I had to add in rapid succession and scan as well. It was very quick and painless.

Veracode's technical support is very responsive, and I've heard back within 24 hours regarding a couple of issues I've entered. We have actual consulting calls, which are a scheduled event, and I like the way they handle those as well. I have nothing but good things to say about them and give them a rating of ten out of ten.

Positive

I was involved with the initial setup of Veracode, and it was straightforward. We had a third-party vendor who was evaluating it, so a little bit of the setup was done. However, adding a new application to the tool is easy and self-explanatory. It doesn't take much time at all, and the documentation is out there if we need to look up anything.

We implemented it with the help of a third-party vendor. They had two people on their team who were working on the deployment along with me. My responsibilities included adding all of our software to the tool to run scans against it, integrating it with our DevOps solution, discussing the tool itself with internal stakeholders as to how they can use it and showing programmers how to use the tool from an internal adoption standpoint.

I know that Veracode is a semi-pricey solution. If you are serious about security, I would recommend that you use an open-source option to learn how the scanning process works and then look into Veracode if you want to really step up your game and have an all-in-one solution.

We evaluated a couple of open-source tools such as Snyk and SonarQube against Veracode with the help of a third-party vendor. We didn't use any of those and landed on Veracode because of the Veracode Verified seal. This, along with Veracode being the market leader, gave Veracode an edge over the others.

The main difference between Veracode and the solutions we evaluated is that Veracode is an all-in-one solution. Though an open-source solution would've been more cost-effective, we would've had to use a bunch of different tools. It would have required more knowledge to do the integration piece and would've taken a lot more time and effort. There would have been invisible costs associated with it just by the virtue of time. In comparison, Veracode's dynamic scan, static scan, and software composition analysis are all in one place.

My advice would be to look at the open source tools out there and see how far along you are in your security journey and what your needs are. If you're looking for the best in the market, Veracode is a great option, as far as paid solutions go, because it's a one-stop shop. If you have more time at your disposal and you don't mind integrating some solutions, then I'd recommend an open-source tool. However, if you have the resources, I would definitely recommend going for Veracode.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Veracode at nine.

We use Veracode for dynamic, static, and software composition scanning. Veracode is a SaaS solution.

Veracode has exposed many flaws, and the Security Labs have helped train the team to understand security and fix flaws. You don't know what you don't know. They've shown us what we don't know so we can identify and fix our security issues.

Veracode effectively prevented vulnerable code from going into production. I have a hard time validating that assumption, but I think it's good at that. It seems like it does a lot in terms of compliance with industry standards and regulations. 

We've requested some features for fine-tuning the ability to craft the policy and what can break a build. It was disappointing that they didn't add that. However, we've used the policy features and were able to report on it, so we were pleased with that. It can create custom dashboards and see which applications are breaking a policy. We get a lot of metrics on those scans. 

We have Veracode built into our software delivery pipeline. Automation was our objective when we started evaluating Veracode. We have a high degree of automation in our regular scanning. Every day we do software composition scanning and static analysis, and we do weekly scans using aerodynamic analysis.

The automation features have saved us tons of time because we don't have to worry about whether it is getting done. Tackling security requires a massive time investment. The value we get from it is that our apps are more secure.
Veracode has raised our leadership's security awareness. This tool has generated more conversations around security and ways we can protect our software.

Veracode Security Labs are fantastic. My team loves getting the hands-on experience of putting in a flaw and fixing it. It's interactive. We've gotten decent support from the sales and software engineers, so the initial support was excellent. They scheduled a consultation call to dive deep and discuss why we see these findings and codes. That was incredibly helpful.

Veracode's static and software composition scanning has been most beneficial for us. We already use a competing product for dynamic scanning. 

Their platform is not consistent. It needs a lot of user experience updates. It's slow performing, and they log you out of the system every 15 minutes, so using the platform is challenging from a developer's perspective because you always have to log in.

I've been harping on it for the last two years. They try to compensate for that by building a relationship with staff. We keep asking questions we wouldn't have to ask if they had a better user interface. They would save their staff time and save us a lot of hassle. 

They claim to have the best false positive rate. It's hard to judge, but we've had several false positives, and the solution's inability to resolve them has been incredibly frustrating. The ability to schedule a consultation to talk through what's going on has been helpful. Still, I'd like to see the capability to act on false positives and resolve them in the application instead of us marking things as false positives. That's where they need to improve.

It has occupied my team's time because they're escalating the issue from support to engineering. They've been consulting my developers. They raise issues but don't spend time duplicating the issue. They close tickets saying it's not a problem or misunderstand what's being requested. They need to mature in that area a lot.

I've been using Veracode for about two years now.

I have some concerns about the leadership. This is only speculation, but I believe some leadership decisions have created a ton of turnover at Veracode. The solution was sold to another company, impacting us because we constantly get new contacts to work with, so we always have to ramp them up to speed. They're not necessarily as skilled as the prior contacts we've had. 

Is Veracode taking care of their staff? Are they keeping the people they need to support their customers? There have been months when I just had turnover fatigue from Veracode because we're constantly getting new contacts to work with. One thing that sets them apart is that we have a direct contact we can go to when we need an issue escalated or we need help understanding how something works.

I don't have any concerns about scalability.

I rate Veracode support two out of 10. When I raise issues, I expect support to bend over backward and be grateful that we're pointing out problems in their system. They should work to understand what we're talking about and reach out to us. 

I expect to meet with them, and I've never had a meeting with them to talk through issues. That's not how they work. Also, I feel like their staff isn't very skilled. They don't understand things and insult my developers. The support is terrible, but other Veracode staff has been exceptional. We always have to lean on our customer support contacts to determine why a ticket was closed. What's going on here? Can you escalate this? We're not getting any traction on that. 

Negative

I previously used Qualys. It had terrible support and wasn't supported well enough at the university. Also, Qualys is not a full-app security solution. It only did dynamic scanning and lacked the flexibility we needed.

Setting up Veracode takes some effort. Their web interface isn't too intuitive. It's also slow, which poses a challenge when setting it up. Veracode provided some help getting it running. 

We did it ourselves with help from Veracode. If I had to do it again, I would do it all ourselves, too, because we got the support we needed from Veracode and didn't require a consultant's extra expertise. Veracode was that expertise. 

After deployment, Veracode requires routine maintenance. Their platform is down sometimes. Our nightly builds occasionally get stuck, and we must reach out to them. There is scheduled maintenance and dealing with issues as they come. I don't know if you necessarily call that maintenance, but it's time-consuming.

It's hard to quantify ROI on security. It makes us feel better. We have all this scanning, and we're identifying where we are vulnerable. If it prevents exposure, it saves us millions of dollars. There's potentially a considerable ROI, but it's speculative at this point.

The cost has been a barrier to broader use here. I think my team is the only one at the university. Other folks might like to use it, but it's pretty pricey. You could see what else is in the market, but I hear that's the price for most solutions. You might not find a better deal in the market, or it might be an incomplete solution. For the level of interaction we get with Veracode staff, it's been pretty good.

Right now, we've had a little more interaction with Veracode staff because they want to sell to the rest of the university. So they've been willing to meet with us frequently, answer questions, and get on support for issues that get closed when they shouldn't be closed.

I rate Veracode seven out of 10 because I have a beef about their support. Their turnover is impacting us, and we have concerns about how they treat their staff. We love Security Labs. We like the dashboards and reporting. I feel like Veracode wants to see us succeed on their platform, which goes a long way. They want to help us meet the goals set when we started using this product. That's a value add they provide. They do a great job finding security flaws.

At the same time, we have issues with support, platform usability, and performance. If I met a prospective Veracode user, I would point out those issues but also mention our positive experience with the solution engineer and sales staff. They've been accommodating and always willing to work with us.

Veracode helps to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. They are providing remediation support. They provide a specific solution. If a code has any vulnerability, they provide the snippet of that code. They also provide recommendations. Their support team is very active. If you have any concerns related to the vulnerabilities, they schedule a call and resolve your issues. That is very good.

With Veracode, there are fewer false positives as compared to other tools. It provides genuine vulnerabilities. It is also user-friendly. They are not only sticking to SAST testing. They also have pen testing.

The visibility that Veracode provides is good. They provide a proper dashboard for everything. We have visibility into the application status at every phase of development - Static Analysis, Dynamic Analysis, Software Composition Analysis, and Manual Penetration Test. I am satisfied with it. We have not integrated it with our DevOps pipeline, but it has all the features for easy integration.

Veracode helps us to fix flaws. They provide very good recommendations. It is very easy for a developer to fix the flaws. They provide a specific solution.

Veracode has helped our developers save time. It has been very useful.

In my experience, Veracode is one of the most powerful tools available in the market from a security perspective. It is a market leader in source code analysis.

I am expecting some AI-related features in it. Also, if someone is using AI-generated code, Veracode should be able to detect that.

I have more than 12 years of experience working with Veracode. 

It is stable. There are no unplanned downtimes. If they are going to have downtime because of maintenance or any other reason, they communicate that to you a week before. They not only inform you by email. They also alert you through their portal.

Their support is good. I would rate them a ten out of ten. 

Positive

I work with almost all the tools available in the market. Its competitors are AppScan and Fortify. Synopsys is also there, and Checkmark is also there.

Veracode is the best tool as of now. That is because of the quality of the product and technical support. Veracode supports all the testing options.

Veracode is a leading tool in the market for code security. It is all about the source code review from a security perspective. It identifies the vulnerabilities in the source code. Apart from this, they also provide services for run-time code. If you have your application in production, it can also find vulnerabilities in that. They also support software composition. If your application is using a third-party library, they can identify the vulnerabilities in that.

It is straightforward. It is easy to deploy because it is a cloud-based service. It does not take long.

They are a mature company. They have already worked a lot on all the things. They keep on coming up with new features. Their R&D team is very good.

The ROI is in terms of time savings and security. If an attack happens because of a vulnerability, it costs a company and impacts its reputation. No one should be compromising on security.

As compared to others, it is a costly solution. It is overpriced, and many organizations with a limited budget cannot afford it. That is why they are going for other tools, but those tools are not that effective. Veracode is better in terms of quality. If you want good service, you have to pay for it.

I am working at a consultancy, and I did a PoC with five or six top tools in the market. I found Veracode to be the best in every aspect.

I am currently looking for some AI-powered tools. I am exploring the AI capabilities of various tools.

Overall, I would rate Veracode a nine out of ten. With AI capabilities, it would be a ten.

We use Veracode mainly for legacy software audits.

The most valuable feature of Veracode is the binary scan feature for auditing, which allows us to audit the software without the source code. Veracode's most valuable feature is the verified vulnerability database, and we can do a full software audit at our company, including all of the systems.

Veracode should provide more flexibility in its pricing and licensing modules so that it could be more affordable for all types of projects and not only for very active mission-critical projects.

With the solution's security audit feature, an enterprise should be able to cover all of its applications with the desktops. Veracode is simply too expensive for that. If you know about the price of a web application, and if you multiply it by 1,000, the return on investment doesn't work. It's okay for one or two projects running very fast, but it doesn't work for all the legacies. So, it's a huge amount of money.

There should be some lighter tool that allows you to do some audit scanned one time. Only ten percent of the applications are actively developed. About 90% of the other applications have no projects or budgets, but we are still vulnerable. It is too much if you buy it for all of that.

I have been using Veracode for three years.

Veracode is a completely stable solution, and we had no problems with its stability. The solution was a bit slow, but it was stable.

We didn’t face any issues with the solution’s scalability.

We know only one person from Veracode, and he supported us when we had issues, and he was able to solve everything.

Positive

We have previously used Checkmarx. Veracode's pricing is cheaper than Checkmarx, and it has some unique features like binary scan. In Hungary, Checkmarx is installed more than Veracode.

The solution’s initial setup was very easy. Only one or two people are needed for the initial setup of the solution.

Veracode is a very expensive product.

Veracode can list a lot of vulnerabilities, but processing all of them is a time- and resource-intensive process. I think Veracode has no innovative features because a lot of other software can do that. In our opinion, innovative features are a commodity with Veracode, but they are doing a good job.

The solution's ability to provide visibility into application status at every phase of development is valuable. It can be faster, but it can also slow down because our backlog may be much longer. There will be a lot of vulnerabilities or false positives that have to be processed. So, it is not black and white, but it is safer. Veracode has helped our developers save time.

Veracode has had a very low impact on our organization’s overall security posture because it is a very expensive product. An enterprise with 1,000 applications uses the solution for one or two applications. Veracode does not need any maintenance because it's cloud-based.

Veracode is very important to our organization’s shift-left security strategy when we have a project with enough sources to provide the license. I use Veracode’s cloud version. The return on investment with Veracode is good for one or two mission-critical projects running in the company. For other things, users should use open-source solutions or much cheaper products like SonarQube that are not as good as Veracode.

The fact that Veracode scans only binary code and doesn't scan source code concerns me sometimes. Sometimes, we have to do some source repository audits. We cannot use Veracode for source repository audits because it scans only binary code. I would recommend Veracode to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use Veracode to scan server applications, and we also use it for SCA functionality and to scan pipelines of our other projects.

The quality of our code is much better now with structured utils meant for improving various topics related to security. Those are being applied consistently to various modules of the application. It enforces a type of structure and code changes to support future transformation.

False positives are a problem. Sometimes the flow paths are not accurate and don't represent real attack vectors, but this happens with every application that performs static analysis of the code. But it's under control. The number of false positives is not so high that it is unmanageable on our side. Once they are identified, you can mark them as false positives, and they can be accepted by the security project lead. After that, life goes on, and those will no longer be reported.

The problem is the time that you spend analyzing a flow to be sure that it is a false positive. Every problem that is reported as a security vulnerability has to be treated with maximum care by the developers. It is good, in the end, when it's a false positive instead of having a real vulnerability.

Because we are working on a huge application with lots of dependent sub-projects, there are 9 to 20 data paths. We have to check all of the vectors from all of these paths. If we decide that an attack vector might be susceptible to that attack, we start fixing it. But for the others, the attack vector is not relevant.

There is always room for improvement in any product; it's not something related specifically to Veracode. But in the case of Veracode, maybe they could improve the scanner to reduce the number of false positive events so that they remain only with the valid data paths that represent real attack vectors. We understand that this is quite hard to determine by just scanning the code.

Also, the UI of Veracode could be improved to permit better visualization of the issues and the grouping of the issues, with better filtering.

We have been using Veracode for four years.

We have seen delays in results on the order of hours, but there haven't been any crashes of their scanner. The solution is quite reliable, and all of the results from the scanning can be easily tracked in terms of time frame. You can see how your scanning has evolved, and there are no deviations due to a bug in the scanner.

For small and medium-sized projects, it's quite scalable. You can use the sandbox scanner they provide, and it is fine. But for large applications, it is not scalable. We do manual uploads, and this is not scalable.

We haven't called their support because we know how to interpret the results provided by their platform and how to mitigate the vulnerabilities that they have reported.

However, we have exchanged several emails to discuss some technical details of the solution that we applied it to, and everything was straightforward. There are no complaints from my side regarding what they said. Everything went smoothly and quickly.

Positive

We have used certain plugins from Teamscale, which is also a static code analyzer, and it integrates with various plugins in Sonar. We have also used OWASP for static composition analysis, and we are still using the third-party application scanning from OWASP as a Maven plugin. We have also evaluated Black Duck.

Veracode was the first choice for doing static application security testing. It was ranked first a couple of times in the last few years, so it was a natural choice to go with the top product. Also, SAP has a partnership with Veracode for the application that they are selling. It was a win for us, SAP, and for Veracode.

It took us one day to get ready to use the solution. We built the image and copied it during the night to several machines. The following day, we were ready to put it into the container registry in Azure, and then it could be used. We had a huge procedure and scripting. It was not simple.

The team that did it had about six engineers involved.

It is an expensive solution, but it's the best solution available on the market. If you want something at the top, you have to pay a bit more than the average.

Regarding extra expenses, it depends on what you want to buy. They have certain bundles that provide support via a hotline system with customer service. They can provide you access to certain security laboratories. You can opt for several licenses to educate more developers to be responsible for the security of your applications. All of these change the initial cost.

Of course, if you add more things, you can benefit from a better price. It depends on your negotiation skills and the number of licenses you want to buy.

The price can vary from year to year, and prices usually go up. Maintenance for the servers that do the scanning takes money, as do CPU, power, and memory. And there are the reports that are kept in the history for checking and for ISO certification. Those costs build up during a year.

For example, we have to manually upload the application that we are scanning because it's quite big, and it takes one day to be scanned. That means their scanner runs for a day on this application, and then we get the results back. That means our application is heavily consuming resources of that cloud server. Those resources are no longer paid for directly by us. We delegate this job to Veracode to do it for us, and we pay for it. But we free up our servers locally and can do other jobs with them.

We aren't trying to reduce our costs. We are trying to improve the security and quality to be sure that we and our customers don't have security issues. At the end of the day, security is the most important part. With every new release and with every new year, we allocate more and more to these operations, to improve our overall security.

Not every such application is able to prevent everything from going to production, but several issues can be spotted via the scanning of the code and resolved, and they are valid. There are many others that can be detected with additional tooling from OWASP, Sonar, et cetera.

We are not using the SBOM functionality from Veracode. We use another tool to create the software bill of materials. That solution is also able to scan Docker images, and it also provides details about what is inside the layers of the Docker image file.

In terms of visibility into application status at every phase of development, it depends on how able you are to scan your application. For large applications, you have to do manual uploads, which is the case for us. We don't do manual uploads on every build, but we trigger it at certain times when we want to create releases for customers. That helps with our accuracy, but it doesn't represent the exact moment when there is a problem in the application. We still have to analyze the commits and history, track things, and match them with the new flaws that have been found in the latest report.

Veracode doesn't save us time. We have to spend a lot of time fixing security issues, especially those that impact lots of dependencies, dependent code, and sub-projects. But in the end, we can sleep well at night knowing that we have closed a possible security leak within the code, which is better for everybody. Even if there is no real problem at that moment and you don't see any probability of that vulnerability appearing in production, it is better to take some time to fix it, and then you feel better.

It has provided what we were looking for in such an application, meaning static application security testing functionality. That was what we were interested in.

It is a broad and integrated platform. It provides multiple test scenarios and has the ability to do CI/CD pipeline integration. It is used for application security and vulnerability assessment.

Veracode provides guidance to develop secure software. It is one of the valuable features.

On-premise implementation is not available.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

It is stable.

The tool is scalable.

The technical support is good.

Neutral

The product is deployed on the cloud. We have a multi-cloud environment.

The solution is expensive.

Veracode’s policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is good. The product's false-positive rate is low. If the tool is used effectively, vulnerable codes do not go into protection.

The SBOM feature helps identify risks in all third-party software. It is quite easy to create a report using the SBOM feature. It is an important feature. The solution provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. We have not integrated it.

Veracode has a good effect on our organization’s ability to fix flaws. Veracode has helped our developers save time. Veracode has a good impact on our organization’s overall security posture. The solution is probably not worth the money. The developers are more confident while fixing vulnerabilities due to the solution’s low false-positive rate.

Overall, I rate the tool a six out of ten.

We use it for security, to analyze our code.

It changes the DevSecOps process because we find flaws much earlier in the development life cycle, and we also spot third-party software that we don't allow on developers' machines.

It's bringing clarity to the flaws that we can mitigate, and that's the main purpose. We can have a brisk conversation about the flaws. Not all flaws need to be fixed because there might be other protection measures implemented.

Veracode has increased our level of security to the highest possible standard, so we have been able to be ISO certified and meet Microsoft compliance. We have met many industrial standards from a compliance perspective by having this high level of security and trust in our application. That applies to our platform as well, because the dynamic analysis has opened up vulnerabilities in the platform.

We are using three of the features. Static analysis, dynamic analysis, and the code composition for third parties. We also use their Security Labs for training.

Veracode does a great job of preventing vulnerable code from going into production, and its policy reporting for compliance is also very good. It meets our needs.

And if you use it correctly and bring early feedback into the developers' environment, it provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. But if you only use it as an analysis after the product has been built, then you don't have the whole life cycle. So it really depends on how you integrate Veracode. For us, it gives full insights.

There might be room for improvement in the in-app guidance and the tips and tricks for the developer about how to progress. We would like more insight into the development environment, where they would get guidance on how to avoid flaws.

I have been using Veracode for the last three years.

We use SonarCloud, which does a different type of analysis on the static code but not on the compiled code. It's a different way of detecting security flaws.

I was involved in the deployment of the solution all the way through, from purchase to acquisition and deployment. It involved a lot of new learning. But we had a very good implementation consultant from Veracode assigned to us who made it pretty simple for us. I don't think we could have done it ourselves.

We did a proof-of-value exercise, which included educating two senior developers. The total implementation time was about two months. We focused on one area of our application and got the scanning process up and running and stable. Then we started applying it to more applications.

We only used two people from our organization to complete the work. Then we educated all the developers about using the extension with the EDI. We then found a person who would be responsible on each delivery team who ensures that their application is maintained within our policy level. Each team is responsible for keeping their application within those standards.

We got help directly from Veracode. I would rate their help at eight or nine out of 10. They helped us implement it into our pipelines, daily processes, and software. And they helped us understand how to mitigate the flaws and how to open up consultation hours if there was something we disagreed with, such as false positives. They gave us very good onboarding and implementation.

From a commercial perspective, the impact that the Veracode certification has had on our ability to sell to large enterprises is non-debatable. The return on investment has been met, for sure. It took six months and occurred when we had finished implementing and got the certification.

We haven't really done any price checks on the competitors.

We purchased a Security Labs license to keep our developers trained in new security practices.

Every development company is different. If someone is looking at Veracode but concerned about the price, it probably depends on their technology stack. There are pros and cons for every decision. As a happy customer, I can say that the service level that I have received from Veracode has been high and understandable every time That also counts a lot. And it's not about the software; it's about how we actually utilize the software best.

We had three or four other candidates from the reports that we evaluated from a user review site, but we ended up deciding to use Veracode because it had the best price and match for our technology stack.

At that time, Veracode's advantage was predominantly because it was SaaS-based software, and the implementation team was very supportive in making sure that we got it properly integrated into our processes.

The false-positive rate is constantly maturing. It's very much based on how many respond back. It's learning based on the false positives. My team thinks that it's better to have a false positive many times than miss a real one. The effect on developer confidence in the solution when fixing vulnerabilities is that it sometimes leads to frustration because they find that it's slowing them down, but the way that the engine is constantly maturing means it is becoming better and better.

I don't think any security or quality analysis tool brings speed. But it increases the quality, both from a risk/security and reliability perspective. But if you're looking at productivity, none of these tools bring productivity. They mitigate risk. It has not made our development process faster.