Veracode Reviews

We use it for security validation. As a company, we need to make sure that our code is secure. Not only do we need and want to do this for ourselves, but we also need to do it because of our security obligations to our clients.

It has been helping us capture security vulnerabilities that we would not catch otherwise.

When it comes to our ability to fix flaws, Veracode has given us more visibility into certain flaws that could show up, flaws that can be subtle and not seen in the code. For example, though it was not obvious, there was a case where a developer naively added the authentication into the code, which we're not supposed to do, obviously. It was not seen by our review process, and Veracode caught it and we were able to eliminate it.

It has also helped us to save time. The example, and where I see the most benefits of that, is in the Security Labs, where I have the developers training and constantly improving their security, and remembering their security techniques. That way, they are more proactive and make sure things are correct. They're faster because they're doing it in the first place.

Overall, in terms of our security posture, Veracode has made us more reliable. We're finding those flaws and our clients trust us more because of it.

And when considering whether it has reduced the cost of development, security, and operations for us, the short answer is no. But the long answer is yes. It clearly has added more procedures in place, which we needed to have, and that has definitely increased the cost of development. But in the long-term, how much have we saved from the intangible of a flaw not being exposed?

The Security Labs feature, in particular, is valuable, and I have been using the static code analysis as well.

I do have two pet peeves with the platform.

1. The user interface is slow as a dog; really slow. You go to any modern interface and it's a lot more snappy. Even though I understand a lot of what they're doing and why it might be slow, it is really slow. You click on something and it takes two to three seconds. That doesn't sound long, but it just feels super clunky.
2. There are many times when their product goes to check my code and it dies, and I don't know why. I've contacted support and they're not really helpful with this particular problem. I go to the logs and I look at what I can but I can't tell why the check process has essentially just died in the middle of checking.

Other than those two complaints, I still find it very strong and powerful.

In terms of additional features, the big one I would like to see is that, right now, I have to click through too many things to get to the triage report, which is the main thing I want to see for anything. I have to click through this one screen that doesn't give me any information and I really just want to get to the mitigation review screen quickly. Anything that would save me going through clicks and four or five different screens, because the interface is slow, would be fantastic. I want to get to that mitigation screen because the summary screens are not all that interesting to me. I need to know, "Is this mitigated? Is it not?" and get it checked off and reviewed.

I've been using Veracode for two years.

It has been a very stable product. I don't think the issues that we're having are related to its stability.

The scalability is "medium" because one of the things I've been having to do now is scale out more of the microservices by tier so that I can verify that the code is correct per tier. For me to scale up like that seems to be taking a lot of effort. I might be doing something wrong. Maybe it could be solved in a different way. But the scalability is average. On a scale of one to 10, I would put it at about five.

We do have plans to use more of Veracode. We are expanding into the SCA, where it is scanning the containers, and we've also just contracted with Veracode to do penetration testing.

The one time I had to use their technical support for the bug where a code check dies, I found them a little off-putting. They have never really fully answered the question. I got tired of asking because they didn't understand what I was saying.

During installation, their support was fantastic, a 10 out of 10. But in dealing with this one issue, I would give them a two.

Neutral

We haven't used another solution. Veracode is the first solution of this kind that we have worked with.

The initial deployment was pretty straightforward. We ran into some issues, but honestly, nothing out of the ordinary. I would definitely put it toward the easy side. I found the documentation to be appropriate.

The deployment time was days.

We are using Jenkins as our CI/CD. We're using Amazon Cloud K8 deployments.

We integrated it in two different ways. The original way was with AWS CodePipeline. For that, we used Veracode's Docker service. Once we had it hooked up and could send the file, that was pretty easy to use. The second way is we now actually use Jenkins for our code build. We do the same thing although we're going to change to the Jenkins plugin here shortly. But it was still the same, with the ability to use Docker to send the file to Veracode. Once we wrote it, it was really easy, which is why we did it that way on Jenkins. Through both of them, the implementations worked easily.

From the time of deployment, we saw the benefits within one to two months, which was fairly immediate.

There is maintenance required because, sometimes, the pipelines for our code review essentially stop. I have to go and check that, as I mentioned earlier. The second piece of maintenance is that if there are any flaws or false positives, you have to mitigate those results. We have two people involved in the maintenance.

I did the original Amazon CodePipeline implementation by myself and got it hooked up. As we went to more complex things, with Jenkins, that was done through an integrator DevOps team. On our side, it was just me involved.

I'm sure we have seen ROI, but I do not have a direct metric on it. There are a lot of intangibles in that. For example, what would be the cost of a particular flaw that we caught with Veracode, if it had gone live?

When I looked at the pricing, it was definitely a value. In terms of the service and what it's checking, the cost was very reasonable, particularly because we could have multiple code bases as part of a project.

Make sure that you're comparing apples to apples if you're concerned about the price of Veracode versus what you're reviewing. Some of the stuff that Veracode does and applies is not the same for other services. When I really compared apples to apples, I found Veracode to be rightly priced.

There were no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees, although we just signed up for a couple of other products.

We looked at other solutions but one of the big things that made a huge difference with Veracode had to do with pricing. Because we're moving more and more toward a microservices architecture, and we have about six code bases that make up our entire product, they made it clear that as long as something was a part of our product, it was the same price. That was amazing to us because competitors charged per code base. It was definitely a more economical solution and the one that made more sense, and is more in line, with our product. That really simplified the thought process for us and was a huge competitive advantage.

Veracode is a valuable tool to have in the toolbox to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. Veracode's false positive rate has been very good. It's reasonable. False positives take more time, but I have not noticed that time to be a significant burden. Its policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is adequate. 

In terms of having visibility into application status at every phase of deployment, Veracode doesn't provide that. It doesn't control the whole deployment cycle, so there's no way it can report on all of it.

The platform's interfaces look slightly antiquated but don't let that stop you from using it, because it has been a good solution for us.

The biggest lesson I have learned using it is that it's really nice to have these security checks in a single place in your code pipeline. We have multiple security companies at this point, but having the code review and product review security in one place helps us know that that part is "containerized." Having everything dealing with code review in one place is nice.

We are using it for two purposes. The first is to analyze the final binaries in our normal development cycle and the second is for auditing old software.

It's a SaaS solution.

Veracode is able to analyze the final software products. We compile the applications and it's an advantage for us because there are a lot of areas where we don't have the source code. In some companies, only internal development is taking place and they have the source code and everything else for the software. With those companies, there are other tools that we can use. But for use cases where our company buys a product with the source code, but only the final executables or the binaries, only Veracode is able to work on that type of tool. We are working in the financial sector for big bank banks and insurance companies. A lot of times, these types of companies don't have the source code for the applications, only the final applications. This is the biggest advantage of Veracode, that it's able to analyze these types of applications.

We use the scanning process to help our security professionals and developers fix flaws in the code and that helps speed up the development cycle. It helps to "shift-left" all of the security control to the earliest phase of the development cycle. It has sped up the development cycle significantly. An unexpected vulnerability can stop the development pipeline, at least for a little while, and we are able to avoid that.

It has also helped to increase our fix rate by almost 100 percent. In the past, if it turned out that we had vulnerabilities, we had no time to correct them. We went into production with them. Now, we are able to fix everything, 100 percent, in the development cycle.

In terms of best practices, we have the results from Veracode and then we have a Knowledge Base of the types of vulnerabilities and how they should be corrected by our developers.

Another benefit is that it has helped us with certification and audits. We have a lot of automated reports based on the scans and we can show them to the auditors. That has saved us a lot of money and work.

And Veracode SCA has helped to reduce the risk of a security breach because it finds vulnerabilities as early as possible. It has increased our security and development teams’ productivity because, with the automated scanning, we are able to scan much more than previously. It saves us at least one week per development cycle, if not more.

The recommendations from Veracode have improved our efforts in fixing potential vulnerabilities, and not just finding them. That's important for us because fixing is a very expensive process. If you can save time on that, it is a big help. And SCA’s automated, peer, and expert advice have definitely reduced remediation times, saving us at least a week per development cycle.

Overall, SCA has significantly lowered the risk of vulnerabilities. If we didn't identify them before production, and it turned out that there were vulnerabilities, there would be a big risk. We would have to go into production with them or stop the development pipeline. So it lowers the security risk significantly by doing early scanning. It has reduced our risk by at least 60 percent. It definitely helps create secure software. That is 100 percent important because we are working for financial companies.

It's good that it's cloud-based because we don't have to operate a new IT system for security scanning.

It provides a centralized view across all testing types, including SaaS, DAST, SCA, and manual penetration testing. We now have a central place with overall visibility.

In addition, the mitigation recommendations provided by the scanning engine are good. They are not all perfect, but they are good and usable.

There is room for improvement in the speed of the system. Sometimes, the servers are very busy and slow. Also, because we are located in Europe, it would be a big help if they had a European or national service, because of the regulations, not only because of the speed.

Also, the integration with SonarQube is very weak, so we had to implement a custom solution to extend it.

We have been using Veracode Software Composition Analysis for more than two years.

The stability is good. We haven't had any problems.

The scalability issue is a good question because it's not too fast, but it's scalable because it's cloud-based.

We use it for 10 critical applications.

Their technical support staff is skilled. We have been able to solve all of our problems with them. I wouldn't rate them a 10 because sometimes it's time-consuming to get the right guy to answer our questions. But we always get answers to our questions.

Positive

We used SonarQube because the developers liked it. We also used Checkmarx. We switched to Veracode SCA because of the binary scanning ability. Neither Checkmarx nor SonarQube is able to do that.

The initial setup was very easy. Because it's a cloud-based service, we were able to do it without the help of Veracode. We just read the recommendations and followed them. We had three guys involved, two developers and one security guy.

It took three months to implement. Our implementation strategy was to do a pilot and then everybody in the organization copied the reference implementation.

Our return on investment is due to saving a lot of development hours.

It's too expensive for the European market. That is why, in a big bank with 400 applications, we are able to use it for only 10 of them. But the other solutions are also expensive, so it wasn't a differentiator.

The static cost model is not that important. Veracode works on a subscription model, so we have to pay for it every year. 

We chose Veracode's Software Composition Analysis after we evaluated more than 10 products. Among those we evaluated were Checkmarx, Fortify, and SonarQube. The primary differentiator was the binary scanning use case.

Use Veracode for the special use case of binary scanning, because it is the best in this special use case.

Security Labs is very good as well. We are not using it day-to-day, but it's a good feature.

We use the solution for identifying bugs before deployment in the software-side cycle process.

It can be integrated with our CL and CDProp pipeline, and it can be used with multiple integrations in our Visual Studio Code editor. That's the main use case.

We've saved a lot of time since using Veracode. We've also been able to cut down on costs since we require a lot of penetration tests for testing our software. Veracode helps us drastically reduce these costs. We've cut our costs down by 40%.

The solution provides us with a feature that we can directly use with static and dynamic analysis. With static analysis, we can use it while the app is not running, and with dynamic analysis, we can scan our application while it is running. It provides efficiency and also saves a lot of time for penetration testing and bug testing.

The capabilities of the analysis of the code base can help us effectively detect potential vulnerabilities. This is the most valuable feature we found. It can be integrated with multiple code editors, and it can also be integrated with various CI/CD pipelines.

The dynamic analytics is efficient. It helps us identify bugs while the app is running. We find that this ability is way better than its competitor.

Our impression of the solution's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production is positive. Prior to Veracode, we used to deploy our apps, and it used to be an expensive process to fix the bugs and all the potential vulnerabilities after deployment. Now, we have access to AI. It has AI tools, which have been trained with a lot of data sets. It helps us to detect bugs and fix them.

We use the free access to VeriCloud's application security consulting team. The consulting team has helped us a lot, and we've had positive experiences with the vendors. It is efficient and very fast. It takes less than two or three days, and they always respond positively. They are really fast at solving our problems. It's important for us to have access to an application security consulting team at no extra cost.

We use Veracode's AI-generated fixes. They make fewer errors and are very accurate. We've had a very positive experience. They've saved approximately seven hours of debugging and error finding versus the manual penetration testing process. 

The solution's policy reporting for insurance compliance with industry standards and regulations is very helpful. It's fast as well. The team helps us at every step of the product life cycle. They provide us with very useful visibility into things like static analysis, composition analysis, and manual penetration. It significantly helps us to reduce the time that we have to manually fix the bugs, and it also provides us with an efficient solution for future cases via past analysis through its data algorithm. We've saved six to eight hours compared to manual fixing.

Veracode has had a positive impact on our organization's ability to fix flaws compared to the prior. It has reduced our costs and time, and it has also provided us with multiple security functions. That, and it's made our application a lot more secure. It really helps our devs free up time due to less debugging needed on their part.

The solution has helped us a lot with our overall security posture. Many security features were fixed prior to release, and we've been able to reduce manpower and employee count. We've reduced teams from six or seven people to two or three. 

The integration capabilities with our existing development tools are very good. The integration process was easy. It has stable APIs.

The solution does take a bit more time when we use it for multiple processes. When we use it for a single process, it takes up less time. The cost also goes up when we use it for multiple processes. 

I have been using the solution for six months.

The solution is very stable. We haven't come across any bugs. 

Our security team of three uses the solution. 

It's great for scaling. We can use it on multiple projects which involve multiple security flows.

Technical support has been very fast and efficient. The team helps us at every phase of the development cycle. 

Positive

We did not use a different solution. Previously, we relied on manual testing. 

We deployed the solution in about three months. We had a team of eight working on the implementation. During the process, I was in charge of, IT was in charge of security, and the AI algorithm.

We don't require any maintenance.

Even after six months, we've seen an ROI. In terms of resources, it's great for cost-cutting. It also generally cuts costs by 40%.

The pricing is moderate for particular processes. However, if we take an entire process in general, it can be costly. It's more economical to use it for single purposes instead of generalizing processes. 

Thanks to its algorithm, Veracode is an on-demand service that can be very cost-effective. With so many features, we no longer require many people to test.  

If they are worried about pricing, people should try out their demo feature, which is available online. That way, they can demo and evaluate how it would work for them. If it works for their team and product, they may find it can optimize their processes. Of course, it depends on the use case. 

I'd advise colleagues considering Veracode to evaluate the specific requirements for their application and do an in-depth analysis. I would recommend it as a product.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

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 are a software company providing software to paper manufacturing organizations, and we have an extensive ERP product along with many add-on products.

With the need to increase security awareness and vulnerabilities, we decided that we needed to scan our software, so that was how we started using Veracode.

We found Veracode eye-opening because we had many third-party libraries in our application, and we found vulnerabilities and had to upgrade those libraries or seek alternatives.

Our use cases for Veracode were to make our software more secure and provide a better competitive advantage over our competitors by telling our clients that we have secure software.

What we found most valuable in Veracode is the ability to do automatic scans of our software. We've incorporated the solution into our SDLC process, so we take our builds before they get released and put them through scans to ensure any new vulnerabilities haven't occurred.

We found Veracode good at preventing vulnerable code from going into production.

We also use the Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) as we run many applications through Veracode. We use SBOM to discover all the different vulnerabilities and what that stack looks like.

We also found Veracode very good in helping us manage risks, such as supply chain, licensing, and security. The solution allows us to see where the risks are and if updates are available and identify how to remediate our software quickly.

Our company also found it moderately easy to use Veracode when creating a report via the Software Bill of Materials. There may be a bit of a learning curve, but once users have done it, they'll run the same report.

As for policy reporting in Veracode to ensure compliance with industry standards and regulations, we have not used the solution that way. Instead, we rely on the different statuses to achieve the levels we want to achieve and be able to use that on marketing material.

Veracode offers visibility into the application status at every development phase throughout the software development life cycle, but we have not implemented that. That feature is built into the development tool, so developers will get alerts as they code, but we plan to do that in the coming year.

We found a moderate false positive rate in Veracode. There were a few false positives. Veracode can identify vulnerabilities, which we found nice. We could flag false positives on Veracode so they don't continue to pop up and hunt them down, and the solution will ignore those in the future.

The false positive rate in Veracode doesn't affect developer confidence in the solution when fixing vulnerabilities because we realized that our application is huge. False positives will happen in large applications just because of the different ways of implementation and features. No toolset can handle all those different features and interactions, so we can't say they relate to vulnerability.

Veracode dramatically impacted our company's ability to have security awareness and achieve a level of confidence that we can put out to the marketplace.

We also saw how Veracode affected our company's overall security posture, explicitly being able to put the solution into automatic scanning mode, then through our SDLC cycles, and achieve a Veracode-verified status. We can use that as a marketing advantage and say that we've achieved Veracode-verified status with one of the leading vendors of security scanning software. We've reached a level of status with them, and we continually scan our software so our clients can be confident that our software has been scanned for security files before implementing a new software release.

An area for improvement in Veracode is the time that it takes to scan large projects, as that makes it difficult to fit into our CI/CD pipelines.

One of our app scans times out after two hours, which requires uploading and scanning that particular application manually. Still, there's no visibility into the CI system with the vulnerabilities found. My company cannot incorporate that into the automatic cycle and has to scan manually, so Veracode could improve on that.

I've been using Veracode for about two years.

Veracode is very stable. I have no concerns with its stability.

Veracode is very scalable from the perspective of ERP applications, though we aren't sure if other clients have applications larger than ours. For reference, we have five million lines of code in our application.

I've contacted the Veracode technical support team and found the support responsive. The team also got back to me quickly. I didn't find any issues with Veracode support.

I would rate technical support as eight, just because you still need to do manual scans, as Veracode still has not addressed that issue.

Positive

We used a product called Mend.io, formerly WhiteSource, before Veracode to look at vulnerabilities.

I was part of the initial deployment of Veracode, and it was straightforward because Veracode had excellent training programs and onboarding procedures. The Veracode team also helped along the way and was very supportive in answering questions and keeping my team plugged into any new offerings.

We implemented Veracode in-house with only three people involved.

I found Veracode very expensive, though I'm not the person paying for it. I was surprised to find out how much the subscription costs and that the executive board approved it, but it was a no-brainer because now my company has better security scans.

What I can tell others looking into Veracode but concerned about its price is that the price or cost is justified. After all, you can tell potential clients that your software is better than competitor software because you're scanning it and Veracode-verified.

The verification levels of Veracode are essential because you can use Veracode to start climbing up the ladder to say that your software's even more secure than anybody else because it achieved this level of verification.

In terms of Veracode reducing the cost of DevSecOps in our company, we find that tough to determine because we never had a real concentration on DevSecOps before Veracode. It was forced on us by the fact that the industry was becoming more vulnerable, so now we are experiencing an increase in price in DevSecOps because we're paying attention to it now. We used to skate by and weren't affected by vulnerabilities. Still, because the industry had more vulnerabilities, our customers asked if we were scanning our software, so we had to find a solution and add DevSecOps to address industry needs.

I did a Gartner search on the top three solutions and looked at their reviews, and Veracode came out to be the leader, so I just went with the leader from a partner perspective.

My company has a hybrid Veracode deployment. It's a cloud-based solution, so it's tied to the company's automatic build cycles, where you can access and do scans through the cloud.

Veracode doesn't require maintenance. The only maintenance my company performs is fixing vulnerabilities found by Veracode.

Overall, my rating for Veracode is seven out of ten.

I advise others looking to evaluate Veracode to utilize the presales marketing side first. For example, my company was able to utilize Veracode in a presales environment and do the scans to find out how vulnerable my company's software is and compare Veracode with the previous tool, WhiteSource. My company found additional vulnerabilities and was able to do that before signing the contract. It may be best to do a test run of Veracode to find out what the tool is all about and how it looks to your company.

We use Veracode for static code analysis scans for our clients.

Veracode is deployed both on the cloud and on-premises.

Veracode helps prevent vulnerable code from being deployed into production by identifying problematic code. It enables us to send a report to the application developer, allowing them to address the vulnerabilities based on their criticality level. The developers are given six months to address medium-level issues and three months for critical ones. If the criteria are not mapped with the higher critical alerts present in those applications, we can enforce the build field and proceed without deploying it into production.

Veracode has helped improve our customers' organizations through the scanning taskbar, which identifies vulnerabilities in code. We have worked with ten clients, all of whom used Veracode to identify vulnerable code early in the development stage and resolve the issues. Additionally, Veracode offers Greenlight ID, which developers can integrate into their development process, providing clarity during the development phase. Veracode can also generate reports that developers can resolve, facilitating the quick resolution of security concerns.

The policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards is excellent. The report helps us maintain our compliance.

It offers visibility into the application's status at every phase of development, including static analysis, dynamic analysis, composition analysis, and manual penetration testing throughout the Software Development Life Cycle.

Visibility aids the DevSecOps process by offering a clear framework for all involved departments, including the steps for handling severities.

Veracode assists our clients in addressing flaws by simplifying the process. The security team can review the code, approve or reject it, and developers can utilize the reports to promptly rectify the flaws.

It assists developers in saving approximately 20 percent of their time, primarily in the static part, as they no longer need to review all the code. Regarding the dynamic part, Veracode scans all the URLs, eliminating the necessity for developers to use additional tools. For third-party dependencies, developers depend on the reports and the Greenlight ID plug-in to streamline their workflow and save time.

Our clients depend on Veracode to improve their security stance.  

The CI/CD integration is the most valuable feature of Veracode. This feature is not present in other solutions.

The analytics dashboard is not user-friendly and can be improved to assist us with the application size and enable modifications, whether for static or dynamic scans. This is currently missing in Veracode.

Veracode needs to improve its integration with other tools.

We have requested an enhancement for Veracode because it does not support scanning the static and dynamic elements of code created by MuleSoft. Furthermore, it does not support these aspects for the new generation of applications and we have to use other tools.

I have been using Veracode for over seven years.

If there is an issue, I am unable to access all the logs due to insufficient permissions, which causes delays.

Veracode is scalable. To increase the scale, we simply need to increase the number of licenses.

The technical support team's response time is inadequate. Typically, they fail to provide assistance beyond the initial call due to the limited knowledge and inability of the first-level support to resolve issues effectively. I have been dealing with a single issue for three weeks without any resolution.

Neutral

The vendor handles the deployment, and we simply need to install the ISM agents on our network. The deployment time depends on the size of the application. Large applications may take up to five days to scan, but on average, it takes one or two days.

The pricing depends on the functionality each client desires. For example, one of our clients only wishes to scan two applications, so they pay for that specific service in addition to our organization's third-party access to their system.

I give Veracode an eight out of ten.

20 to 30 percent of the false positive rates are vulnerabilities. Sometimes, almost 50 percent of the reports are false positives, which affects the time spent on tuning policies.

The false positives increase the amount of time our developers need to spend investigating the reports. 

Veracode offers static analysis, dynamic analysis, and composition analysis all in one place.

We are a team of five individuals who assist in deploying and managing Veracode, along with handling other tasks.

Our client base varies depending on their budgets, but we serve a large number of organizations in the financial industry.

I recommend Veracode. The solution is on par with the others, and organizations can read the reviews and run some tests before making a purchase.

Veracode is our primary tool for identifying and resolving security flaws in our web-based applications. When I started at Advantasure, I worked on a claims product, using the tool to remedy coding issues and identify high-risk security flaws. I did that for a while before transitioning to a role as an application security engineer. In this job, I don't fix any security flaws. I help operate the environment. 

We have integrated Veracode with Jenkins so that we can automate building and scanning code. Jenkins uploads the build to Veracode for static and SCA scanning. 

I'm working remotely through a VPN. When I log into Veracode, I check the various applications out to ensure everything's running. If we have any issues, I report them to the appropriate teams. 

We are in the health insurance industry, so compliance with security and privacy regulations is essential. Veracode is the industry standard. We use Veracode when we do internal audits and that sort of thing. You won't be in business for long if you don't have an industry-standard static security tool.

I have only worked at this company for two years, so I can't comment on what it was like before I joined, but Veracode does a good overall job of interfacing with us and giving us advice about areas we can improve. The company has used Veracode for a while, so it's not about improving per se. It's about maintaining and learning to use the tool better or making better use of dynamic scans. Our security doesn't depend on one feature. We're implementing multiple features, such as static and dynamic scans. 

Their policies are relatively helpful for compliance. The policy configuration tool works well. We try to use one policy to cover all our applications. Once we've configured the policy correctly, it does an excellent job of applying that to each application and ensuring compliance. Veracode provides good visibility, and the reports are integrated, so we get insight into each type of scan.

Veracode's false positive rate is decent overall. The biggest challenge isn't a C or C++ call, but it's tricky to follow the data flows when using a web interface. You get a few false positives every once in a while. 

I always tell our developers to verify all false positives because Veracode cannot follow your code flow. It's up to the developer to follow the code flow and check whether it's a false positive. The initial report is an excellent place to start. I don't think the false positives affect developer confidence. I never hear anybody complain about false positives.

The biggest challenge isn't Veracode; it's getting our developers to be compliant. Our organization is undergoing some changes, and we must remind the developers to do their jobs. As an application security engineer, I struggle to get developers to do these tasks because they don't want to do them. At the end of the day, the false positive rate doesn't affect developer productivity.

Veracode doesn't really help developers save time because we're already a mature organization. Their support team has helped us optimize our scan configuration significantly. Regarding the regular developers' goals, we have existing documentation and hold meetings with them. They do support consultations when developers have an issue. 

I like Veracode's static scanning and SCA. We use three static scans, software composition analysis, and dynamic scans. We haven't used dynamic scanning as much, but we're trying to integrate that into our environment more. 

For the most part, we've had good luck with the static scans as well as the software composition analysis scans. Veracode does a decent job of catching most vulnerabilities from making it into production, but it doesn't catch everything.

I have a few pet peeves and minor areas of irritation. Their customer success team does an excellent job, but getting their internal engineering team to do things isn't easy. They seem to lack a focus on maintaining the solution and improving it in the next generation. 

It's a common problem in the industry. Software developers are always thinking about the next big thing but lose sight of what's happening right now. If you have an idea for a feature request, you must submit it to be voted on by the Veracode community. I don't like this. No one will look at it unless enough people vote for it. 

Another issue we have concerns entry points. You must select the entry points for a static scan of your stuff. However, you can fix this by having templates in  Jenkins. Things can sometimes change, confusing Veracode. I want to lock those entry points in. Eventually, our DevOps team will create templates for everything. If I want a new template, I need to submit it to the community and get my peers to vote on it. It's a waste of time. 

I have used Veracode for two years.

I've been impressed with Veracode's stability. The solution doesn't go down often. The dynamic scans went down the other day, but that was a problem with the infrastructure, and AWS rarely has outages. Overall, it's dependable. 

We haven't had any scalability issues with our current scan volume, but we're a medium-usage client. We have more than 30 static scans and 12 to 15 dynamic scans and don't seem to have issues with performance. 

I rate Veracode support 7.5 out of 10. Overall, our technical support is decent.  You have to find someone who works well with you. My biggest challenge is dynamic scanning and getting up to speed on that. You must find out who's good and stick with them as much as you can. 

Neutral

Our ROI comes mainly in the form of compliance. We get a star rating when we're automated, and we need to maintain that. We currently have a fairly high rating, so it's not so much about gaining stars. We need to avoid losing them. By maintaining our high rating, we can also gain more clients. 

Veracode is expensive, but other solutions cost as much, if not more. For example, Rapid7's dynamic scan tool was at least as expensive as Veracode, and Rapid7 wasn't willing to negotiate. We are a reasonably large user. 

It's a fair price. If you're worried about getting your money's worth, you could ask Veracode for a trial license and compare it to other tools in terms of pricing versus features. That's how I would do it. It's crucial to do your homework. At this point, we're somewhat locked in and won't change unless we find something significantly cheaper or better. 

The company looked at other options, and we try to do one-stop shopping when possible. We looked at other tools like Rapid7 but decided against doing a proof of concept because it doesn't offer static analysis. I don't think they could do software composition without static analysis. 

We could use Rapid7 for dynamic scans, but then we would have issues with report integration. One of the primary reasons we use Veracode today is that they have solid support. They typically respond to almost any ticket within 24 hours. Veracode also does an excellent job of integrating its various tools for static scanning, dynamic scanning, etc. 

At the end of the day, we stay with Veracode primarily because of the solution's integration. Our license is up this year, and we currently have no plans to seek out another vendor. We may consider switching next year.

I rate Veracode seven out of 10. Before you evaluate Veracode or any other solution, you need to sit down with other specialists and decision-makers to develop some criteria. See if Veracode will give you a free trial license, and start testing it out. You can also check Gartner. 

I have implemented Veracode for both static and dynamic analysis to minimize errors in my application and avoid the need for manual reviews. This enables us to create a risk-free application in the code. Additionally, I utilize external libraries and licensing to accelerate the process of identifying vulnerabilities in my software development. This helps me and the development team to provide comprehensive information about the code.

Veracode's capability to prevent the deployment of vulnerable code is impressive. It allows for quick detection of defects during the development cycle, leading to faster release of improved code, and ultimately ensuring that our product is free of vulnerabilities. This feature is a great advantage for our organization.

SBOM is beneficial as it enables us to verify software licensing through static scanning. This helps ensure that the product we provide in the market is compliant with industry standards and user needs. In my opinion, this is a fantastic feature.

Creating a report is easy when using a sample template that we can relate to. If we know what kind of data we want to include and how we want it to be presented, the process of creating a report can be completed quickly.

The main advantage of using Veracode is the assurance that we are developing stable, secure, and fast solutions that are free of risks. This provides us with a clear picture of our progress toward our goals. Veracode helps our developers by providing remedial action and reports in various formats, ranging from summary to detailed. This allows us to customize our reports and share visually appealing reports with the team.

Having visibility into the status of our applications at every phase of development throughout the software development cycle enhances our DevOps productivity and ensures a stable solution.

The false positive rate is valuable. The benefit is that the false positive results provide our developers with a clear understanding of their proficiency level in development. However, the drawback is that during fast penetration or testing, they may receive alerts that can cause frustration. Additionally, if they perform another test, the previous alert may not appear again, making it difficult to address the issue. Overall, I believe that false positives can boost our developers' confidence in their abilities to a certain degree.

The false positives identified through static analysis have been beneficial in saving us time. Due to our use of advanced tools and record-keeping practices, we have been able to streamline processes such as data importing, which may have otherwise required local or manual methods. This has resulted in significant cost and time savings for our team. With the ability to work remotely using tools like Veracode, we are able to provide effective reporting and management for all software applications.

Veracode has been a time-saver for our developers by enabling those with different programming languages and skills to collaborate and develop stable solutions together. As a result, we are able to save some time.

Our overall security posture has been positively impacted by Veracode. We are confident that our solutions are highly secure for our clients and stakeholders. With Veracode's assistance, we ensure that our applications and software are free from bad code and other vulnerabilities. By troubleshooting alerts, we prevent abnormal codes from reaching production, creating stable and secure solutions. Veracode helps ensure social sustainability during the UAT process before we release the final product to consumers, resulting in a highly secure end product. Veracode has enabled us to offer a stable and trusted solution that fosters transparency between our company and the end-users, supporting their needs and activities.

Veracode reduced the cost of our DevSecOps by allowing us to use a single tool that can be operated by a small team of developers. We saved around $1,500 USD using Veracode.

I believe that testing code early on is always beneficial, and using UI saves time by detecting issues in the flow before the release cycle through verification scanning. Additionally, I appreciate the integration provided by Veracode that seamlessly integrates with our CI/CD tools and allows us to integrate with IPA as well. Overall, I'm impressed with the integration and user interface.

Veracode can be slow at times and has room for improvement, which may cause delays in our products and prolonged static scans. However, we can run these scans in the background to minimize disruptions. Static scanning can be a slow process that requires some time.

The cost and scalability also have room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for three years.

Veracode has no downtime and is highly stable.

The scalability is neutral because it lacks some integration. We have 12 end-users within our software and engineering departments.

The technical support is responsive and helps us resolve our issues quickly.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. I deployed the solution myself.

The implementation was completed in-house.

Veracode assists us in increasing our sales by allowing us to redirect the funds that would have been used to pay our ex-pats to troubleshoot errors or issues with vulnerable code. Consequently, we are experiencing a higher return on investment, and our company has generated over 55 percent return on investment since implementing Veracode.

The pricing for Veracode is high, making it difficult for beginners to afford. Whether or not Veracode is a viable option may depend on the specific needs and use cases of the user, as it may not be affordable for small businesses.

Veracode is costly, which makes it unsuitable for small organizations. However, if an organization has the budget for the solution, it is worth investing in.

I give the solution a seven out of ten.

I believe that it is a wise decision to test our code to ensure its security. Utilizing Veracode is a beneficial practice as it examines our code and provides recommendations on areas that require improvement. This ultimately results in a stable solution. However, I advise using Veracode only if the business has the budget for it, as it can be expensive. Any organization that chooses to use Veracode, can be confident in the quality of its solution but must be prepared for the associated costs.