Veracode Reviews

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 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.

We use Veracode for product testing.

We exclusively utilize Veracode for a product used in our consulting services, which we provide on a licensing basis.

We deploy Veracode in the cloud and can utilize any cloud provider, including Google Cloud, Azure, and AWS.

Veracode's ability to prevent vulnerable code from entering production is both effective and thorough.

The SBOM feature is straightforward, making it easy to create reports. The SBOM feature is crucial to our organization because we can utilize the report to effectively present a product to customers, demonstrating its viability and security. 

Veracode has helped us improve our secure coding practices, which, in turn, has boosted our confidence in selling our products.

We were able to experience all of Veracode's benefits for our organization within the first year.

Veracode helps to provide visibility into the application's status at every phase of development. This helps us ensure that our code is secure from the start, saving us time that would otherwise be spent sorting through bugs at the end. 

Veracode's false positives are beneficial for our developers as they assist in organizing and understanding the implications of these false positives.

Veracode has helped our organization address flaws by identifying our mistakes. The initial usage of the solution was challenging due to the large number of code lines that needed to be read, but it became easier over time.

I find all the features valuable, especially dynamic scanning, static scanning, and software composition analysis.

When we engaged Veracode to conduct the manual penetration testing, they were extremely slow in completing the task and delivering the report, causing a delay of two to three weeks for us. The duration of the manual penetration testing process needs to be improved.

The cost of the solution can be reduced.

I have been using Veracode for two and a half years.

Veracode is a stable solution.

Veracode is scalable. Veracode is used by around four people in our organization.

The technical support response time is slow. 

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. Veracode is a virtual platform, so all we need to do is upload the code, and it will be ready to use. The deployment was carried out by one of our senior product managers.

The implementation was completed in-house.

Veracode's pricing is on the higher end, but it is acceptable.

We evaluated multiple solutions, including BlackBox, three years ago. However, Veracode was the only solution that had all the features and also had a proper certification system in place. The other solutions did not provide a comprehensive suite. For instance, they offered static scanning but lacked dynamic scanning, whereas Veracode provided both, along with a training module.

I give Veracode an eight out of ten. The solution is comprehensive, albeit a bit costly.

We have not observed any impact on our policy reporting and compliance with industry standards and regulations since we started using Veracode.

The false positive rate is slightly high, but we are able to manage it. The false positive rate of the static analysis has not affected the time we spend on the tuning process.

Veracode has not affected our developers' time significantly, as the response rates for certain tasks have been slightly slower.

I recommend conducting a cost analysis and rate of return evaluation to determine whether the solution is worthwhile. I highly recommend using Veracode for complex products, but it may not be as valuable for simpler ones.

Veracode does not require any maintenance.

I have learned that it is necessary to plan our strategy for the product and security prior to using Veracode.

I worked as a security tester for a service-based Indian IT company. I had the admin right on the application where I used to provide access to other developers so they could execute unit-level tests directly from their console. There are many types of security testing activities, such as false positive analysis or looking into the code from a secure point of view, getting the mitigations done, and then retesting the applications.

We initially had more than 15,000 vulnerabilities. Veracode helped us to regulate all the teams. I gave the consult level access and a basic level of access to developers. My manager and I trained the developers in secure coding practices.

DevSecOps is a process that helps improve security in software development. From a DevSec perspective, it is a great way to improve security in software development. However, from a DAST perspective, it is not as good because the results cannot be easily integrated into the CI/CD pipeline. Integration with Jenkins is seamless. It didn't make much of a difference for us, but it could be different for other applications of the latest technology. Veracode has the feature of issue creation in the Jira portal itself. For example, if we're scanning an application and Veracode reports 15 issues after the security scan is complete, the solution will automatically create Jira tasks related to security, which can be assigned to the appropriate developers. Veracode is good from that perspective, but it needs more evolution. The solution needs moderation because if by some chance a big module or issue pops up, we could get 10,000 issues. That would be a real complication from the Jira point of view.

When it comes to false positives, I used Veracode for two-and-a-half years and it has been fine and fair.

When our developers find a false positive it doesn't make much of a difference. They are just happy knowing what is wrong and right. Developers know how to code, but they don't know secure coding. We are generally there to guide them and most of the time, I used to do the false positive analysis by myself and not leave it to the developers. The developers would get a refined and concrete number of vulnerabilities to quickly work on. In some cases, the developers also find issues that we missed because we have to work on multiple applications at once.

I don't believe there's any cost related to the machine-learning side of Veracode, but it takes a lot of time because SaaS issues are those that couldn't be resolved by a junior or intermediate-level developer generally. Most of the time, these issues are resolved by people with five-plus years of experience because there are security issues. To understand the security complications, we need to have some knowledge of the architecture and design levels of the application. If we don't have design-level information, it's difficult to correct. Without a senior-level developer to guide us, it can cost us a lot. The senior resources getting deployed could be used elsewhere for more development activities. However, the mitigation is provided by Veracode and the detailed report is very good.

Veracode has helped fix flaws affecting our organization by making the applications a lot more secure.

We use a code review-based tool, so the unique aspect of Veracode is that it is really good for legacy or old technologies. It can scan old databases and old code written 20 years back.

Depending on the technology we are working with, the solution's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production whether it is Java-based code or ASP.net, the efficient number of identification codes is the best in the market for legacy technologies. I would use Fortify or Checkmarx to test accordingly using the latest code.

The best feature I like about Veracode is the ability to give low-level access to accounts. The identity access management system is really good and we can even integrate it with the ID. For example, if we're coding in Eclipse or something similar we can push the code from the ID directly into Veracode's backend to have its security tested. It is cloud-hosted and the downtime is very minimal. We could check the results anywhere, anytime. This makes the platform's independence very good. 

The solution provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. We can see and make adjustments accordingly at each level.

Veracode is a great solution for old applications. I would only recommend Veracode for older applications.

One of the most important areas that need improvement for Veracode is its DAST. Veracode's DAST engines are primitive. They need to work on that. It needs to be their number one priority.

The number of vulnerabilities and quality of the latest technology when compared to other scan engines such as Fortify and Checkmarx is not as good.

Veracode has multiple sides when it comes to dynamic testing. They offer software composition analysis, dynamic scans, and static scans. However, I would not recommend Veracode for dynamic testing because it wasn't able to scan many of our applications properly. Some of the other solutions were really efficient and proactively reported a lot of vulnerabilities. The Veracode scanner was not able to properly scan the applications because of authentication issues and login issues. HP Web Inspect and Microfocus Web Inspect allow us to make scripts by ourselves, which will then enable the scanner to scan the website in a more proper and systematic way. There were a lot of complications with Veracode's dynamic point of view, and a negligible amount of vulnerabilities were reported. On the other hand, when I tried Next Parker or Micro Focus Web Inspect, things were really good.

If we have to scan the latest code, for example, if we have written a piece of code in Angular or Node.js, we can't consider the solution because it is not as good as other solutions using newer code.

I have been using Veracode for two and a half years.

Veracode is stable, but every now and then something breaks. From a stability standpoint, I would give the solution a seven out of ten.

Veracode is scalable. I give the scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical support is really slow. Their availability is sparse. It sometimes takes two months to have a resolution.

Negative

I started my career with Veracode, a DAST review tool. I worked there for two-and-a-half years.

The solution is not deployed on our systems. It is cloud-based and only requires logging on.

The requirements for the code determine whether Veracode is the best option or not. If the code is 15 to 20 years old, and it is very important, then Veracode is the best option. If the code is very new, then I wouldn't want to spend any money on the solution. It all depends on the requirements.

There is a fee to scale up the solution, which I consider expensive.

We did POCs and collaborated with Fortify, Veracode, and Checkmarx to see who gives the best results for all the applications. Veracode gave the best results, so we chose them for our organization.

I give the solution a six out of ten.

Veracode has not directly helped our developers save time. There was no interaction between the Veracode team and us, so it was minimal whenever some issues such as false positives are reported by the solution. There were some issues with the Veracode engines a few times that required customer support to resolve.

I used to go to Veracode's website and log in. It was updated automatically, and I could access it from multiple devices. I'm not sure which cloud they were using, but it was managed by Veracode.

We have around 18 people using Veracode and two of them are administrators.

Veracode is accessed via a website on the internet. Their backend team takes care of any maintenance that is needed.

We use Veracode to find any vulnerabilities and for risk management.

There are multiple ways to use Veracode. We can use Veracode directly in our ID environment, and we can use it in the UI environment in our platform. We can integrate it with GitHub or GitLab. We can also install SourceClear as an agent.

It helps to reduce the application risk rate. It checks for any vulnerabilities or CVE IDs against its database. If any vulnerabilities are present, it gives suggestions, remediations, and fixes. They have recently started with Veracode Fix, so the auto-fix capability is there for your code.

Previously, it was very difficult to find vulnerabilities and scan threats. It is a primary need to maintain the security of our code. Veracode is a good option. It provides all kinds of features for developers.

Veracode checks for vulnerabilities in the static code, third-party libraries, and infrastructure. If there are any vulnerabilities in your static code, it will provide them. It can also auto-fix them with Veracode Fix. For Web APIs, there is a solution called DAST Essentials. It came out recently, but it is a very good solution.

It has been a year since I have been using Veracode, and it has been very helpful. It gave me the vulnerabilities present in my code, such as SQL injection, and the fixes for them. It gives good suggestions to improve the score of our code base. It gives a lot of things.

I started using Veracode Fix about one month back. It can automatically fix whatever vulnerabilities are present in the code. In GitHub, it shows the line numbers that it has fixed. It also provides a reason to fix them. It also gives a report based on your policies. If any high-severity vulnerability was there, it tells you how it was fixed. Everything is given in detail in the reports. It is very good.

Veracode's policy reporting is good for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations. I would rate it an eight out of ten for that.

Veracode provides visibility into application status at every phase of development, but the option of infrastructure and deployment security is not there in Veracode. They have probably started working on that.

We use third-party libraries, and it suggests using only the safest versions. It gives suggestions on vulnerabilities that are present and how to fix them. It is very good. It makes our code secure.

Veracode saves 10% to 20% time of developers. 

I like its integration with GitHub. I like using it from GitHub. I can use the GitHub URL and find out the vulnerabilities. It maps everything for you. It gives suggestions and remediations.

They should provide infrastructure management. They have not included any infrastructure security. Kubernetes images are also not there.

Their scanning engine is sometimes a little bit slow. They can improve the scan time.

I have been using Veracode for more than one year.

It is stable. I would rate it an 8 out of 10 for stability.

It is scalable. We have 5 projects. In every team, 2-3 people are using Veracode. We have a dashboard, and through that dashboard, we log in to our account. We are also using a GitHub wrapper.

We have a sprint of 2 weeks, so every 2 weeks, we deploy code. We have a team of 10 people, and at a time, at least 5 people are involved in the deployment.

They have an Application Security Consultation team. Veracode support is also there. We can email them for any issues, and we can also connect with the ACS team through a Zoom meeting.

Their documentation is also very good. In the case of any issues, we follow the documentation.

Neutral

I have previously worked with SonarQube. The decision to switch to Veracode was taken by our management.

Veracode is better than SonarQube. In SonarQube, you need to give individual code, and then it fetches the details. With Veracode, you can get details about your entire application. Veracode Fix is also there to auto-fix the code. For web applications also, so many things are there with Veracode.

It is a very good product. Veracode Fix is also there. It gives very good solutions about the code and its reusability and fixes. It has been there for the last 17 years. Without such a solution, it is very difficult to find vulnerabilities and manage fixes. 

I would recommend using Veracode. It has good features. It scans your source code and your third-party libraries. There are a lot of new products in the market, but Veracode is good.

Overall, I would rate Veracode an 8 out of 10.

We are quite new to security systems. We have not adopted Veracode at the enterprise level. We are using the GitHub Advanced Security system. We were looking for static code analysis or software configuration analysis tools in the market. That is when we explored Veracode.

We want to centralize our security systems so that any repository that developers are using or creating in our organization follows the same set of standards. We want to have all the security checks and all the static code analysis done at the same level and with one client.

We have had challenges with security because developers come from different organizations and different backgrounds. They have different ways of coding. Based on their experience, they write the code, but there is a very high chance of having vulnerabilities in their code. The PR reviews used to take a lot of time for the reviewer. By implementing such a solution at the enterprise level, we assume that we will save a lot of time for developers and code reviewers because everything will be done by the tool. It will impact us a lot.

Veracode is quite good. It checks the security vulnerabilities in our packages. It discovers them very nicely, but it is not a tool for improving code quality. It does not provide very good static code analysis.

Veracode's policy reporting is fine for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations.

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

Veracode saves our developers' time. They are not doing manual PR reviews. It has saved about 20% of the time because we are still in the adoption phase.

We have a lot of confidential data of clients. We do not want our application to be exposed outside. We have configured a code quality gate, so before production itself, it blocks the PR deployment and allows it once all the security checks are passed.

Veracode is one of the tools that helps to verify external dependencies. Veracode helps a lot there.

One thing that I like about Veracode is that it is quite a good tool for dynamic application testing. It is a little bit better than DeepSource and SonarQube in terms of software composition analysis and dynamic application testing. 

When I was looking into it, my initial impression was that it has a good UI as compared to other competitors.

A negative issue I found is that it has a subscription-based model. 

If Veracode can provide static analysis in terms of how we can improve the code quality, it will be quite a good feature.

I have been using Veracode for 2 years.

It is quite stable.

We have not deployed it on our on-premise system, so it is quite scalable. There are no issues with that. I would rate it a 6 out of 10 for scalability.

We have not used their support extensively, but when we were choosing Veracode, I felt that they have a very good support system. The support they provided was good.

Neutral

I also work with SonarQube. I did not switch from SonarQube to Veracode. We are using a combination of both because SonarQube provides good code quality, but Veracode does not. Veracode provides very good dynamic application testing and software configuration analysis, but SonarQube does not. A combination of both is meeting our needs.

Configuring SonarQube at the cloud level based on our requirements is quite challenging. The support is based on the community. It is not something we consider as an enterprise-level tool, whereas this is not the case with Veracode. These things are better in Veracode.

I was not involved in its deployment. I am in the quality team. The DevSecOps team takes care of its deployment. That team has 8 to 10 people.

It does not require any maintenance. Everything is done automatically by the vendor.

Everything was done in-house.

It is too early for that, but Veracode will save us development effort and time. That will be the return on investment for us in the future. We will be able to measure its overall cost-effectiveness by comparing what we are paying for the service and how much developer time it is saving. 

We are still considering it at the enterprise level. It has a subscription-based model. We find its price a little high based on the features it provides. In addition to the standard licensing costs, there are no additional costs.

To someone who is looking at Veracode but is concerned about the price, I would recommend exploring it themselves. They might not need the same features that we need. They might be looking at some other aspects of security. I would recommend exploring it and doing a price evaluation based on their needs. 

We also explored DeepSource for some time, but we did not go for it. The functionality that DeepSource provides is somewhere between Veracode and SonarQube. Veracode was a little bit better, and that is why we went for Veracode.

We do not use the free access to Veracode's Application Security Consulting team, but we are planning to use it. We have not yet used the Veracode Fix feature that produces AI-generated fixes. It is a new feature.

The fact that Veracode does not scan source code, only binary code, does not concern us. We are using multiple tools. Veracode is one of them.

Overall, I would rate Veracode a 7 out of 10. We are still adopting Veracode. We have not gone through all the features that Veracode provides. Its rating would probably increase after a few months of use. I would recommend Veracode to others.

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 utilize Veracode in three primary ways. The first is through Dynamic Scans, followed by Static Scans, and Software Composition Analysis Scans. I find this tool to be highly effective. We have various forms of support available. For instance, we can initiate our scans through the CI/CD pipeline or manually if needed. Additionally, we can create separate sandboxes for each of our code modules. Since development involves distinct code modules, each catering to different functionalities, we can conveniently set up corresponding sandboxes within Veracode. This allows us to scan any module whenever required, which is quite advantageous.

From a SAST perspective, Veracode can prevent vulnerable code from entering production by adhering to our manual checklist.

We haven't utilized the Software Bill of Materials; however, we have employed Software Composition Analysis. Whenever we scan a codebase, any third-party applications or libraries that have been incorporated into the code are automatically analyzed. Subsequently, a comprehensive report is generated. This report outlines the third-party libraries and applications that have been utilized in the codebase, along with their respective versions. Additionally, if any of these versions are found to have vulnerabilities, they are promptly detected.

Veracode is efficient. I have used various other tools such as DAST or SAST, and employing those tools usually takes between five and eight hours. In contrast, Veracode completes the task in two to three hours. For each scan, there is a consultation button available. Clicking on that button allows us to schedule a call with a Veracode support team member. During the call, they explain any issues, clarify why certain problems are false positives, and discuss the reasons behind issue detections. There's also a consolidation part and a support button, where we can raise tickets. I have found that their maximum response time to these tickets is within one day. Before starting the scan, Veracode offers a pre-scan functionality. This functionality performs connection and server checks in the pre-scan phase. It's similar to the SAST side of things for all the tools, where the code base is examined before initiating the SAST application to determine if it's sound. However, in Veracode's case, this is implemented in the DAST system. It checks whether the server is operational if the provided call scripts are correct, and if the provided login scripts are accurate. This pre-scan functionality doesn't run during the actual scan but rather at the very beginning to ensure that all prerequisites are met. Once everything is verified, then we can proceed to initiate the actual scan.

Using Veracode policy regulations, we can offer predefined rules. When setting up any application, we establish the application name and other necessary details. Following this, there is a section where we can input this information. Essentially, there exist predefined regulations which we can either directly utilize if they suit our needs, or adjust them based on the requirements of our project team. Therefore, we have a pre-existing set of rules and functionalities available.

We do have a dashboard in Veracode that offers visibility into the status of applications. There is a section where we can view the application names, and next to each name, there is a status report such as "The SAST has been completed" or "in progress," and the same goes for DAST.

After the scanning is completed, with other solutions from a DAST perspective, we would receive a report. If there are any false positives, we would have to identify them ourselves. However, with Veracode, one of their engineers or a support team member will verify the information, which helps to minimize the number of false positives.

Before using Veracode, we used to perform many tasks manually. We had a checklist for the SAST. We would go through each line of code, attempting to determine its compliance and level of security. Even with the DAST, we used to carry out this process manually. Completing the DAST scan took a considerable amount of time. For each module, we had to dedicate at least two to three days. However, since adopting Veracode, we can now not only perform this process for each module, but we can also initiate scans for all the modules simultaneously. As a result, we can obtain the results within a maximum of three to four hours. Time-saving for fixing flaws is one of the significant benefits that Veracode has provided us, helping reduce the time by almost 60 percent.

Regarding Software Composition Analysis, an exceptional feature is that during a SAST scan, SCA is seamlessly conducted in the background. Once we scan all modules and obtain SAST results, switching to the SCA section reveals the associated reports. This integrated approach eliminates the need for separate SAST and SCA scans, as is required by other tools.

The reporting feature is noteworthy. The reports are well-structured, providing comprehensive details for each vulnerability. Information about the vulnerability itself, its origin, the specific section of code it pertains to, and even the exact line of code involved are all included.

I've found that Veracode is not particularly suitable for Dynamic Application Security Testing. Unlike other tools equipped with their own crawlers, Veracode necessitates the use of a Selenium script for crawling. However, the tool's compatibility with all functions is limited, which can be frustrating. For instance, functions like upload, download, or those triggering new tabs are challenging to handle within the DAST section due to Selenium's inadequacies when used with Veracode.

In contrast to other tools where we can monitor requests and responses during a scan, Veracode lacks this capability. The scan initiates, and we must wait until completion to see the results. There's no opportunity to check if the right requests are being sent or if certain components are being excessively targeted. Once the scan starts, we're essentially locked in until it concludes, and only then can we access the results. Furthermore, even after the scan, we're only provided with a summary of scanned URLs and the number of requests made, without the specifics of the request or response contents.

I have been using Veracode for four months.

Veracode is stable, and we have not encountered any issues.

The cloud version of Veracode can scale according to the file size.

I have engaged in two different types of experiences with technical support. One involves the ticketing system, and the other involves consultation calls. The consultation calls revolved around static analysis. During these calls, we presented all the vulnerabilities we discovered. We conducted our analysis and demonstrated how Veracode identified certain vulnerabilities. However, we also explained instances where these were false positives due to specific reasons. During the call, they acknowledged these issues. They pointed out some of Veracode's limitations, highlighting that it solely scans the code and doesn't consider the framework side. This implies that they accept these limitations. Furthermore, they provided us with insights into how they plan to implement fixes in the future, which is quite beneficial.

Additionally, whenever we had inquiries or doubted Veracode's detection of false positives, they provided detailed explanations. They shared the specific Veracode setup and rules within the SAST side that led to the detection of certain vulnerabilities. They also explained that by incorporating certain mitigations at the code level, these vulnerabilities could be addressed. 

Regarding the ticketing system, for minor issues or questions, we would raise a ticket. They consistently responded within a maximum of one day, providing us with the necessary information.

Positive

Before transitioning to Veracode, the client had been utilizing a free community version tool. However, the count of false positives was exceedingly high with that specific tool. This prompted the client to seek a solution that could deliver superior results with fewer false positives. As a result, the decision was made to switch to Veracode.

I would rate Veracode a seven out of ten because the DAST has room for improvement.

The maintenance is completed by the Veracode team because we are using the cloud version.

For individuals seeking exclusively SAST and SCA capabilities, rather than DAST, Veracode stands out as the most suitable tool. However, if someone intends to utilize Veracode solely for DAST, I believe they should explore alternative tools. The effectiveness of Veracode's DAST functionality is limited, and using other tools might yield better results. Additionally, Veracode provides comprehensive training resources through its portal, including a list of documents and video tutorials. These resources are readily accessible and offer adequate guidance for initiating the use of Veracode.