Veracode Reviews

My company produces one of the most secure fabrics that you can find. Veracode is integrated into our development cycle through Jira. We do a full static analysis with Veracode and use Burp Suite to review the findings. The most common attack vector we find in Java code is SQL injection. When SQL injection shows up, you send a screenshot and a report to your executive team. They see the screenshot and say, "Oh, they're seeking injection here." 

This has now become a top priority. We're going to pause all these redundant features that we're making here and ensure our code is secure with no SQL injection vulnerabilities. Veracode finds everything, and the security engineers do the penetration test using the results. You provide a report showing where the issue is, and developers can fix it. We also use Veracode to train security engineers and teach them how to file reports.

My case is different from other individuals. I worked for a startup, so we had to find a way to capitalize on all the resources in Veracode. Larger organizations are not leveraging the built-in dashboard. That aspect is what people want to know about. They want to see how their money is being spent on security. The biggest problem with security is getting funding. None of these executives believe anything these users are saying until they can see the results.

They want that dashboard report. In less than three weeks, a junior security engineer can learn to create a dashboard easily that will allow the organization to stay on top of the most important things. They need to show the stakeholders that we're doing something here. They'll get the certification and see the dashboards. You now have something that's actually worth $2,000. With these other ones, who knows what you'll get. 

It allows us to provide a certificate showing stakeholders and potential customers the proof that we take security seriously. Everyone says that they're on top of their security and have all these things in place. In a sales call, we can immediately respond to any questions about our security posture by pointing them to a link showing that your company was among the few companies that completed the full certification process. Veracode has four levels of certification, and we are at level three, I believe. 

To my knowledge, Veracode is the only real devSecOps pipeline that captures every component of the software delivery cycle, from sandbox and staging to development and production. You need to go through those four phases and ensure the code is secure by the time it hits production. Veracode handles all those phases seamlessly and can be automated with Jenkins.

Veracode is highly efficient at fixing flaws. A single person can go through and do a penetration test after collecting the data from Veracode. Instead of telling developers where the issue is, they can show them in the code editor for the static analysis. They can assign tasks to the team using Jira, so developers almost never need to do that work. They actually almost never go back and fix any of these vulnerabilities. That's why I was my company's most hated and most loved man. I forced them to do it.

I like Veracode's API. You can put it into a simple bash script and run your own security testing from your MacBook in less than 15 minutes. Veracode's application security consulting team is very helpful. They're responsive and follow up quickly. 

Veracode would benefit greatly from more training resources. The videos are great, but I would like more hands-on training writing a script, validating a script with a unit test in a different language, etc. That's something that would be very valuable. 

We have used Veracode for more than four years.

Veracode is highly stable. It very rarely crashes. 

I rate Veracode support 10 out of 10. Their customer support is incredible. If I have any issues, I can immediately connect with their support team and have a real working solution within one week.

Deploying Veracode is easy. I had the best customer success manager at Veracode helping me. After deployment, Veracode requires little maintenance. 

Veracode is inexpensive and cost-effective. The licensing model is unambiguous. You know what you are getting. They also give you several seats for training. That's why it would benefit them to improve the training because more people could take advantage of it and use certifications. Some certifications for other products don't have much real value, but Veracode is a product many companies use, so it could help people get jobs.

If you're concerned about the cost, you should meet with a representative to talk about pricing. Veracode is flexible, and they're willing to let companies try the platform or test different features. They will work with companies to get to the point where they'll use it.

I used JFrog X-ray with homegrown scripts for testing the code. It was terrible. We chose Veracode because it is more scalable. We could run scans on any code, and it was reliable. Also, their documentation was up to date. With other software providers, you would find an issue in the documentation, and they would backtrack, saying, "Oh, no one's using that." 

Veracode immediately responds to the community. You have people in the community supporting each other and suggesting new features. Software providers say they're open to suggestions. Veracode will quickly get something from the community and immediately put it into development. JFrog has the same stuff as they did four years ago. They haven't changed anything. 

I rate Veracode 10 out of 10. Veracode is constantly changing and improving. 

I used Veracode in my previous company. My role was to assist the team in identifying the vulnerabilities in the reports. I identified those and diverted them. The software team was responsible for taking appropriate actions to fix those.

We used Veracode in our environment to have account verifications or transaction confirmations. Apart from that, we had event registration as well as membership confirmation.

Veracode provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. My role was to analyze the vulnerabilities and pass them on to the software team. The severity of a risk was provided by us, and the software team was responsible for mitigating that. It helped us a lot in mitigating the vulnerabilities. We were able to proactively react to anything malicious.

It helped with early vulnerability detection and automated security testing. These were two things for which I usually used to use Veracode.

The static analysis and the dynamic testing methodologies for security vulnerabilities helped us in our development process. It allowed our developers to address issues before they became complex or expensive to fix. That was one of the things that helped us a lot.

Veracode helped us with the Log4j vulnerability. At that time, we relied completely on Veracode.

Veracode helped our developers save time. Proactively fixing the vulnerabilities saved a lot of time. It saved 50% to 60% of the time. Fixing them after the sprint is over takes more resources and time and also costs us. Veracode saved time as well as the cost.

Veracode helped us with the shift-left security strategy, but we did not rely much on Veracode for that because we already had something for that. Veracode was good enough overall.

The scanning is most valuable. The scans given by Veracode are one of the key features that I like.

The integration with DevOps pipelines is seamless. 

The scans were sometimes not accurate in version 2022. There were some false positives in the vulnerability reports. We used to get false positives, and we were responsible for checking all of the alerts and determining whether they were true positives or false positives. They might have already improved it. If they have not, they can look into how to mitigate false positives.

I have used Veracode for almost two years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. The agents were deployed on about 2,000 machines. For administration, we had a SOC team. It was filler work for them, but we had a team of 13 people.

Dennis from Veracode helped us right from the deployment. If there was any critical task, he used to help us with that. We hardly had to reach out to their support for any issues.

I have used different solutions. I have used Darktrace. I have used CrowdStrike and Carbon Black. In my current company, I am using CrowdStrike.

When I was using Veracode, each agent needed to be deployed on each machine. I do not know what they are using now. CrowdStrike is a single platform with a single agent. You can deploy it on all the machines. That is one of the advantages. Moreover, I have become used to the GUI of CrowdStrike over the last year or so. I am more comfortable with CrowdStrike, but it depends on person to person. I would rate Veracode an eight and CrowdStrike a nine out of ten. I am a bit biased toward CrowdStrike because I am currently using it in my organization. I am not using Veracode here.

I was involved in its deployment. It was super easy. The support that was provided by them was fabulous.

There was a delay from our end. It took us almost 90 days to deploy it, which included approvals and other things.

We had a consultant from Veracode. His name was Dennis. We were satisfied with his job. 

I used it for two years in my last organization, and we saved a lot of costs. It was not related to the product; it was related to the risks that we used to get. On the technology side, it surely saved a lot.

They keep on working on their product. They keep on upgrading that. The threat landscape keeps on evolving, and there are new threats every day. The Veracode team helped us in mitigating and remediating them and guiding us with those particular threats. I would surely recommend Veracode. I even tried to recommend it over here, but I am not one responsible person for that decision over here.

They have recently introduced a feature called "Veracode Fix" that produces AI-generated fixes. I read about it somewhere. It does vulnerability identification and prioritization and some behavioral analysis. It does dynamic analysis of any malware or any abnormal or malicious behavior. It is evolving. One more thing that I read was pattern recognition. The AI algorithm that has been provided recognizes patterns. It can assist in recognizing patterns and trends in security data.

It has policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations, but we did not use that.

To those who want to use Veracode or any similar solution, I would advise being aware of their environment and security posture and seeing where it fits into their security posture. If they proactively work on the alerts provided by Veracode, they will surely save a lot of money, time, and resources. I would suggest working proactively on the alerts given by Veracode.

Overall, I would rate Veracode an eight out of ten.

We use Veracode for SAST and SCA. We are moving towards dynamic analysis as well. We use it now to scan our artifacts and reports, and very soon we are going to use the Veracode plugin for our IDE to have immediate results for security analysis purposes.

Before integrating Veracode, we were getting so many security vulnerabilities on higher branches. We integrated it to fix that. It prevents vulnerable code from going into production. We have fewer vulnerabilities and bugs.

We are getting the security vulnerability results on a day-to-day basis. Our pipeline is running every hour, and we are getting early feedback, giving us a shift-left approach. On a daily basis, we are able to rectify issues rather than find them in production or pre-production.

It provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. We have our initial feature branch, or low-level branch, and then we commit. The pipeline is running, so we will know about things immediately. This is quite valuable for us.

The SCA, agent-based analysis, is valuable. SAST and DAST take time, while this is quite fast. It gives the results very quickly. We have implemented it into our CI/CD pipeline.

Another aspect that is quite good is the policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations. Initially, we were using freeware tools, but we are quite impressed with how Veracode gives the most detailed and latest vulnerability and security information.

I have been using Veracode for almost a year.

It's a stable solution. There are no problems. The stability is a seven or eight out of 10.

We connected with Veracode's support a couple of times, and we got a different answer each time.

Neutral

We used to use Snyk and other tools. The switch to Veracode was an enterprise-level discussion, and I was not involved.

It took some time to see the benefits, around six to eight months.

Although Veracode doesn't scan source code, only binary code, I'm not concerned because we can scan the source code with an SCR tool.

Veracode hasn't yet helped our developers save time. Their development time has increased because, initially, we were only taking the security and vulnerability issues on the higher branches. Now it is on lower branches as well, so the development time has increased. In the local branches, if a report indicates something has not passed, we are not allowing them to merge their code into higher branches.

We have it deployed in a multi-cloud and hybrid environment. We are using AWS, Azure, and VMware vSphere.

Overall, I would recommend Veracode. It is quite helpful.

We were looking into compliance. I'm a consultant, and we're looking at it from the perspective of using Veracode to ensure that the organization we were consulting for was meeting its compliance expectations.

The solution has helped to improve the time to identify and remediate vulnerabilities that come from software - mostly through the static code analysis tool - as well as the ability to effectively communicate why the vulnerabilities are important.

The feature I've used the most is the static code analysis. It was incredibly easy to start using. As a new user, there wasn't a lot of lead time to understand the software work. It was also very easy to communicate the vulnerabilities that Veracode found to the engineering teams that needed to remediate the issues.

We have used the software bill of materials. This feature is good for helping us manage your supply chain, security, and licensing. That comes into play a lot when we are working with federal contracts where certain materials or processes are not allowed within contracts with the federal government. We would use that to ensure that the software itself is compliant. It is easy to create these reports using this feature.

The product’s policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is great. It took its own compliance quite seriously, which is something I always look for when dealing with the vendor. There are certain vendors out there that aren't as serious about their own security. I was comfortable with what the product was doing.

Veracode provides visibility into application status at every phase of development throughout your software development life cycle. It definitely improved the efficiency of it. One of the key things Veracode can do is it can rank the vulnerability defined based on the severity. That allowed us to hone in on what was the highest vulnerability and then work our way down. Therefore, it definitely improves the efficiency of those operations.

Veracode's false positive rate, as far as I remember from my experience, wasn't that bad. Usually, what it will do is it will identify a vulnerability, and then it will explain why the vulnerability is important, and then through those explanations, the engineers and I were able to see if something is an issue or if it is a false positive. When it comes to eliminating false positives, you're never going to have 100%. While it did introduce a little frustration, what did remediate that was the explanations that the software provided.

The false positive rate affected the time we spent on tuning these policies somewhat, however, it wasn't too bad. It wasn't anything to complain about.

For the clients I work with, it has a significant impact on improving the ability to identify and then fix flaws. The tool itself does offer strategies to remediate the efforts if, for whatever reason, the engineering team doesn't understand how best to approach them. Usually, they do, however, it is nice that they offer that service.

Veracode helped our developers save time. From my experience, what would normally take two days we're able to get done in an afternoon. That allows our team to work on more efficient work and more impactful work.

The product has had a positive experience on the overall security posture of our organization. It has definitely improved it. Hands down, it is easy to say that the solution has had a positive impact on the security posture of the organizations I consulted for.

Veracode reduces the cost of dev backups. That said, it's hard to put a number on it. It reduces the dev set time and the work they do can then be allocated effectively to other items. 

It would be ideal if it was able to demonstrate higher levels of cybersecurity certifications like becoming FedRAMP compliant or working in those areas. That way we could use it on higher level contracts. That would be a good business opportunity for the solution.

I've used the solution for two years. 

I've never run into any stability issues. I haven't heard of anyone else running into any either. 

The solution is highly scalable. We did run quite large programs through Veracode, and we also ran quite small programs through it too, and we didn't encounter any issues in either case.

I've never needed to contact technical support. 

I cannot recall working with other solutions. I do have experience with a more traditional way of looking at code and identifying errors. That's where this product came in with the ability to just automatically catch those errors.

I was not involved in the deployment of the solution. It doesn't require any more than ordinary maintenance. That's not a big concern. 

I have witnessed an ROI while using the solution. It positively impacts our team's ability to get their job done, which reduces strain on employees and therefore reduces employee turnover, which, given the severity of the skill set that we look for, is incredibly impactful for us.

It does pay for itself given the pricing structure. Of course, the pricing structure changes based on the sales deal, et cetera. It definitely had a positive impact on the organizations we used it with. Financially, it does make a solid business case for itself.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

Potential new users should ensure that they take into account the amount of time their teams are spending on dev setups and consider what other work those people could be doing that might be more meaningful - rather than physically looking through code. Veracode has the ability to improve a team's operations as well as an employee's efficiency with doing complex work. Companies definitely need to consider how efficient their team is and consider what this tool could do to improve that.

We used Veracode for code scanning and source composition analysis.

Veracode can block vulnerable code from going into production.

The SBOM is a good option for companies that are asked about their SBOM.

The SBOM helps manage our risk.

Generating SBOM reports is not difficult, but setting up the necessary infrastructure for analysis takes time.

The policy reporting is incredibly robust.

Veracode provides visibility into application status in every phase of development.

The source composition analysis had very good reporting.

Veracode's long scan time for vulnerable code can hinder productivity. There is room for improvement in this area.

Veracode produced a lot of false positives.

Veracode's ability to fix flaws is less sophisticated than that of its competitors. For example, Veracode's static analysis scanning workflow for flaws is not as highly developed as Checkmarx's or Snyk's. Veracode would often provide incorrect sources and fail to identify the source of malicious user input coming to the team.

The process of bundling binaries or code for scanning could be improved.

I trialed Veracode for two weeks. 

In our short trial period, we did experience some stability issues.

Veracode scales sufficiently.

I worked with Veracode's technical consultation staff and found the agent to be incredibly knowledgeable and sophisticated in their use of Veracode, as well as in vulnerable load patterns.

Positive

The deployment was complex.

Ten people were involved in the deployment.

We used the experience of engineers who had used Veracode in the past, as well as feedback from Veracode's engineers.

Veracode's pricing is competitive.

I believe Veracode would be willing to negotiate decent terms for organizations that are concerned about the pricing.

We also evaluated Checkmarx and Snyk, respectively. This puts them at a slight disadvantage in terms of identifying execution paths and their ability to comprehensively show how vulnerable code is executed in our solution.

I would rate Veracode six out of ten.

Once Veracode is fully configured, the maintenance should be relatively minimal.

Veracode's best advantages are detailed reporting for industries such as government work, or other industries that may require exceptionally detailed reports or secure security verifications. However, I would suggest that people look out for the accuracy of results and the usefulness of findings on a large scale. Additionally, Veracode has a difficult-to-navigate user interface.

We use Veracode for static application security testing (SAST). We also use it for scan or software composition analysis (SCA) testing purposes. We mainly use it to triage the flaws or vulnerabilities that are found in our coding standards so that we can enforce secure coding practices at the developers' end. Because we are a part of the security team, we provide mitigation for the development team on all the SAST vulnerabilities that we come across.

We use it for static application security testing. It helps us with proactivity. Before the product or the application is deployed on the production environment, we have a DevSecOps pipeline that kicks in, and we are able to triage the flaws or vulnerabilities that Veracode shows based on our policies using the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP). Veracode definitely helps us to go through the vulnerabilities and fix them before they go into production so that bad actors cannot exploit them.

In terms of software composition analysis or SCA, we have come across several libraries and packages that were vulnerable and detected by Veracode. We work on getting the latest updates or packages so that we do not fall back on the security front.

When it comes to visibility, I am not sure whether it is through Veracode, but we have our pipelines built on Azure. We do get to see whenever a scan is kicked off and whether the Veracode check has passed. There is no direct visibility in Veracode apart from the dashboard, which does have information about what type of scan has been performed and whether it is a policy sandbox or just a testing sandbox.

Veracode has been fairly decent for fixing flaws. We have mainly been using it for SAST. For DAST, we have our AppScan from HCL, but Veracode is fairly decent for fixing flaws or trying to be proactive and ensuring all of our applications have been securely developed.

In terms of policies, it works fine. Our policies are mostly predefined. They were defined by our previous team. We look into the policies based on the scan dates.

From a developer's perspective, Veracode's greenlight feature on the IDE is helpful. It helps the developer to be more proactive in secure coding standards. Apart from that, static analysis scanning is definitely one of the top features of Veracode.

Recently, I came across a new workflow, which I had seen in Checkmarx, that shows how a vulnerability flows from the start point to the end point of a function. 

There can be a lot of improvement. It does not have a reporting structure for an OS-based vulnerability report, whereas its peers such as Fortify and Checkmarx have this ability. Checkmarx also provides a better visibility of the code flow.

Veracode is 75% or 80% accurate. At times, we do come across a lot of false-positive cases, but this is an issue with all security tools. Unfortunately, we do not see an option to set the policies because policies are predefined. Overall, when comparing it with its competitors, Checkmarx is better than Veracode in false-positive rate. Veracode's false-positive rate is decent. It is not too good and not too bad, but there is a lot of room for improvement. I personally found Checkmarx to be more accurate than Veracode. This false-positive rate has an effect on the security team because, for a false positive, a developer raises a ticket for us, and our job gets a little bit more hectic because we have more vulnerabilities to create rather than focusing on the positive ones. It is daunting when too many false positives are being reported by the development team for triaging purposes. However, in one of the calls related to their roadmap, I saw a feature where you can go through the code, and it provides you with some mitigation. 

I used Veracode at the beginning of my career from 2017 to 2019. I then switched my job, and my next company used Checkmarx, which is a competitor of Veracode. I changed my job again in 2021 and have been using Veracode in this company. Overall, I have close to three years of experience.

It is pretty stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability.

We are using the SaaS offering, so it is pretty scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability. 

Whenever there is a flaw that we cannot understand, we have something called Veracode consultation. We raise a ticket and follow up on the ticket. That is it. They are well-versed. The only challenge I face is that I am based out of Ireland. The time zone is a pretty big issue for us most of the time. Whenever we have a code support call, the majority of the time, it happens late at night. That is one of the reasons why we tend to skip the consultation calls. I would rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with Checkmarx in another job. I prefer Checkmarx over Veracode. Checkmarx provides a better visibility of the code flow. Veracode also has code flow, but it is in IDE, so you need to manually jump through the code and check the flow. It is easier for someone with experience, but someone new to the security domain will find it tough, especially when there is no clear picture of the workflow to know what is going on. This is a feature that I would like in Veracode.

It is a SaaS or cloud solution. It is definitely not on-prem. We sign in using a single sign-on.

I was not involved in its deployment. There is no maintenance as such. 

To those evaluating Veracode, I would say that unless you get hands-on experience, it is difficult to evaluate. So, I would advise getting hands-on experience with the tool. I would also advise checking out other solutions such as Fortify and Checkmarx.

Overall, I would rate Veracode a seven out of ten.

We use Veracode to test for errors in the code in the applications we are building within our service pipelines.

Veracode assists in preventing vulnerable code from entering production. It is essential to ensure that our applications entering production are free from errors.

It has assisted our organization by providing a report that we can share with our developers, identifying vulnerabilities in their code. This enables them to address the issues before the code is put into production.

Ever since the implementation of Veracode, I have noticed that the processes for rectifying the issues in our pipelines have become much easier.

Veracode helps our developers save time. The solution has simplified the coding process for our developers.

I would rate Veracode's impact on our organization's overall security posture as nine out of ten. The solution has been beneficial to us daily, and we haven't encountered any issues with their solution so far.

The capability to identify vulnerable code is the most valuable feature of Veracode.

There are times when certain modules cannot be scanned automatically, requiring us to manually select these modules and initiate the scanning process on our side.

The vulnerability report has potential for improvement and should encompass more detailed information about the vulnerability, rather than solely identifying it.

I have been using Veracode for three years.

Veracode is stable.

I believe Veracode is scalable, but I am not certain.

I rate Veracode a seven out of ten.

I recommend Veracode. The solution only requires a one-time configuration into the pipeline and the testing is done automatically. 

Integrating Veracode with our pipelines is an easy process. We simply use VML files and the integration is done automatically for us.

We currently have approximately 55 microservices, composed of various teams. Altogether, there are about 170 people utilizing Veracode.

I recommend becoming as familiar as possible with Veracode before using it. Even watch online tutorials to ensure that the deployment goes as smoothly as possible.

Veracode is part of our overall security program. We use it to scan our daily build pipelines and all our fielded releases. The primary features we use are static application security testing and software composition analysis.

We analyze third-party libraries for known vulnerabilities and taking action. Veracode is also part of our release procedure. We put the artifacts from the record and attach them to the release documentation to provide our customers with those documents if needed. 

Veracode has improved our product because we're gradually finding fewer and fewer issues through external security scanners or penetration testers. It plays an important role in the continuous integration quality assurance chain. We started using Veracode when it was supporting a 2017 standard. When the security standard changed to 2021, we received new issues. 

We adjusted the policy and no longer have any medium-priority issues in our scan results. It has increased the quality of our security while enabling us to pass the two historical standards and maintain compliance. We have analyzed and cleaned up several thousand issues since we started using Veracode. 

We use our internal policies for the WAF Security Standard, but it isn't an industry-wide policy. We do not use PCI DSS, etc., but it shouldn't be a problem to comply with that stuff. For example, PCI DSS isn't applicable to our case because we aren't managing any credit card data, working with medical devices, or doing anything involving the military. Some standards aren't applicable. 

Veracode offers visibility into vulnerabilities at every step of the pipeline. Every night, we build source code and mark everything that was merged during the day. We check those reports once weekly and correct some issues that were detected. For software composition analysis, it's even easier because every time the record updates, Veracode sends emails to the security team. It also makes me aware of some newer capabilities in software composition and analysis. 

It showed us a lot of flaws in various parts of our product and helped us visualize a lot of issues that we previously didn't know about. We had static code analysis, which is a bit different than Veracode. We were using a static code analyzer from Visual Studio, and it was mostly about development best practices. When we started using Veracode, we realized there were more problems that static analysis alone wasn't catching. It's an excellent tool for showing the vulnerabilities in your software. 

It helps us save time and effort for a portion of our production. For example, if  you're scheduling to release product improvements in the spring, you don't want to fix anything after it goes into production. From that perspective, fixing things before the code is released saves us time. It also protects our reputation because fewer issues enter production. 

It sometimes saves our customers some time because they don't need to perform their own secret analysis because we've already analyzed the product and can provide them with the results much faster. 

It's hard to say that any single feature is the most essential. There are many errors and vulnerabilities in software today in the standard libraries for different vendors because. We don't need to reinvent the wheel every time because we're using standard libraries, and it's important to know that your security isn't compromised because you use libraries with vulnerabilities. 

We use Veracode as a quality gate. We do not do continuous delivery or continuous deployment. We're releasing about twice a year, so we use it as a quality gate in this situation. We should analyze various types of patch software. From my observations, it has been an excellent tool so far. We also have an external penetration testing effort, and the testers have not found any issues, so that tells us that Veracode has been successful at preventing issues from entering production.

I use the software bill of materials. Our product consists of many systems and components and redundancies that must be processed manually. We are in contact with the Veracode guys, and I think the next release will have this software bill of materials added. It isn't a problem with Veracode. It's a problem with the way we upload and build sources. In the implementation stage, we want the results as fast as possible, and we've done it in a way when we upload. It can be optimized when we upload it to Veracode. 

Sometimes Veracode gives us results about small glitches in the necessary packages. For example, we recently found issues with Veracode's native libraries for .NET 6 that were fixed in the next versions of those libraries. But sometimes you do not know which version of the library particular components are using. 

The downside of that is that one day, the solution found some issues in that library for the necessary package we spent. Another day, it found the same issues with another library. It will clearly state that this is the same stuff you've already analyzed. This creates some additional work, but it isn't significant. However, sometimes you see the same issue for two or three days in a row.

In our project, we use a lot of limited packages that link to another library, and there may be issues in those reference libraries. For example, one library might be referenced by several Google packages. When it shows you a vulnerability in one library, you will not see the issues in all libraries. We've discussed the issue with the Veracode team, and they investigate a way to fix this. Hopefully, it will not be an issue. 

I have used Veracode for several years. I've led our product toward Veracode standard certification.

I rate Veracode support eight out of 10. We had to contact support several times in the early years about a licensing issue we faced. We had some false positives in the licensing report from Veracode, so we raised a ticket with the support team, and they resolved it relatively quickly. We have regular meetings with a dedicated representative from Veracode, but we also get help from our colleagues on staff. At the moment, I'm happy with their support. They provide us with the necessary level of quality.

Positive

We used SonarQ, but it's somewhat different because it's a pure static code analysis tool. Veracode has a stronger focus on web security, and we produce a web-facing product, so that's important to us. SonarQ is strictly a static code analysis tool. 

Veracode's setup was pretty straightforward, but there were a few challenges integrating it with our continuous integration system because there are lots of components. We wanted our source code scanned daily, so we had to change our build process. It's a bit tricky getting it to work with various parts of our solution. Our product is too complex, and there are lots of applications and flavors.

We did it ourselves because we have sufficient expertise. We're still tuning up our build process and reports. They have comprehensive documentation. We had help from Veracode support, who answered our questions about integrating the solution with our software. It was mostly building and tuning a little to build our software in debug mode and deploy it back into our cloud.

We can measure our ROI in the amount of issues we discover and remedy. From a quality control perspective, a problem is more expensive if a customer reports it. If we take price into consideration, we've decreased the net cost of security because we're receiving fewer issues from our customers. You must also consider the reputational cost if the customer needs to implement the fix. 

If we find the issue after the fact, we need to provide our customers with the fix, and that may require some additional processes on the customer side. However, it's hard to calculate how much money it saved us.

We are not using the licensing much because we have a strict internal licensing policy. We mostly avoid GPL licenses and their flavors. Managing the licenses can be tricky. Sometimes you add a library and build some functionality around it, so it may cause some problems to remove it from its source. 

Cost is an issue at every stage because you need to evaluate what you're spending and what you expect from the project. You should use common sense and clearly understand the pros and cons. It's hard to say whether the solution is cheap or expensive because it depends on your company's needs. Some companies need Veracode for compliance requirements, and it doesn't matter how expensive it is. It's costly, but it's the best in the industry. You can get something that does the job but it's like a car. You might buy a clunker for a few hundred dollars or an Infiniti for a hundred thousand. 

We tried another solution before we started using Veracode. I believe it was HCLAppscan.

I rate Veracode eight out of 10. You should evaluate at least two vendors based on the company's needs. A host of issues need to be addressed, and it's a significant task. Veracode shows you many issues, but you must develop processes to address them. It was impressive when we first scanned our sources and found a thousand, but we had to develop compliance policies to deal with them. My advice is to not make the policies too strict. For example, you can start with high-priority issues.