Veracode Reviews

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.

We use Veracode for application scanning.

Veracode is able to prevent vulnerable code from going into production.

Veracode has helped us to identify the vulnerable code in our applications before we put them into production.

The solution allows us to ensure compliance with standards and regulations.

Veracode provides visibility into the application status at every phase of development which makes it easier for our DevSecOps to do their jobs.

I give a nine out of ten for Veracode's ability to identify false positives. The false positive rate has increased our developer's confidence.

Veracode has enhanced our capability to address flaws by identifying bugs that may not have been detected through static analysis data.

Veracode has had a positive impact on our organization by providing us with greater insight into our data.

Veracode helps our developers save approximately ten percent of their time by detecting code issues and enabling them to promptly fix bugs before releasing the information into production.

Veracode helps secure our private data which improves our overall security posture.

Being able to scan our applications and identify all codes and defects is an extremely valuable feature.

Scanning large amounts of code can be a time-consuming process and there is scope for improvement.

I have been using the solution for nine months.

Veracode is stable.

Veracode is scalable. We have between 300 to 500 users.

The technical support is responsive.

Positive

We previously used some open source solutions and the management teams decided to switch over to Veracode.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have Veracode deployed in multiple locations.

Maintenance is only required when updating the solution.

You should evaluate multiple solutions, but I suggest considering Veracode if it aligns with the organization's requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We evaluated GitLab, Micro Focus, and SonarQube. 

I rate the solution nine out of ten. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have any concerns about scalability.

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

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

Negative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We use it to scan third-party libraries to check for vulnerabilities.

Our company relies on Veracode to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. 

And it reduces post-deployment bug fixes. Before Veracode, the application was deployed to the production server and there would be a lot of bugs and issues. Once we implemented the Veracode scan, the full deployment issues were drastically reduced. In a month we do 10 releases and we used to get five or six post-deployment issues. Now, we barely get one or two.

Veracode has also significantly saved us time, around 30 to 40 percent, and we can concentrate on new features instead of fixing the old ones.

We use the full code analysis and the recommendations from the Veracode report.

One concern is that scans take a long time to run. We scan at the end of the day because we know it will take a lot of time. We leave it to run and the report will be generated by the next day when we arrive. The scanning time could be reduced.

I have been using Veracode for the last three months.

It's very stable. I've never seen any downtime with Veracode.

We use it on-prem, so I'm not sure whether it can be scaled. It's just one endpoint that multiple people access.

We have two scanning stages. The first one uses SonarQube, which only does code analysis. It doesn't scan third-party libraries that we use in our code. Veracode is the second level of check. We work on a banking project. The bank trusts Veracode and they recommended Veracode to scan our products.

The initial deployment was pretty straightforward. It's on-prem so there was no deployment strategy to follow. It took one to two days to deploy and check everything. A team of three to four people worked on the deployment. It depends on the project's complexity as well. As a DevOps engineer, I support a lot of projects within our organization, and the deployment varies from project to project.

In my department, we handle six to eight projects and each one needs a Veracode scan before deployment. As a company, we have multiple locations and departments but only the DevOps team of eight people has access.

The way we work with Veracode is that we have integrated it with Jenkins. We upload the artifacts to the server, trigger the Jenkins job, and the Veracode scan is generated. We have set everything from the Jenkins pipeline. The scan is automated using Jenkins, which means there is no need for maintenance. If there are new steps implemented in the pipeline, there might be some overhead, but it doesn't need any maintenance. We just set the port and everything works fine.

Other than the scanning time, I would give it a solid eight out of 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have been using Veracode for four years.

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

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

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

The team that did it had about six engineers involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On-premise implementation is not available.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

It is stable.

The tool is scalable.

The technical support is good.

Neutral

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

The solution is expensive.

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

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

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

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