IT Central Station is now PeerSpot: Here's why

Veracode Room for Improvement

Stephen Pack - PeerSpot reviewer
Software development program leader at Vendavo

The ideal situation in terms of putting the results in front of the developers would be with Veracode integration into the developer environment (IDE). They do have a plugin, which we've used in the past, but we were not as positive about it. The pricing model was expensive and the results were not the same as the full solution analysis. It gives a differently scoped "just in time" analysis within the context of the IDE, so it didn't speak to the same problem space.

The best situation would be the one where the developers don't even need to log into the web portal, and the results from the scans would be delivered into their IDEs. It would be an asynchronous job, but if they could see the results right there, while they're working on the code, then they wouldn't need to go to a separate tool to look at the information to figure out what to do next.

The workflow today on the build side is optimal, so imagine that's still doing the same thing but then in the backend, whenever a developer has that project open in the browser, if they chose to, they could enable a view to see the most recent Veracode results of that module. That scan might be from last night or six hours ago or any other point, and that's fine. It would be the best possible situation to put the results and the actions right in front of the developer, in the tool that they're already using when they're touching the code.

The only other thing that we've found a reasonable workaround with is how to work with microservices in the context of Veracode. This was necessary because Veracode's licensing model and the interaction model are built around an idea of an application. When you're talking about a section of business logic that's being delivered by possibly dozens of microservices, there is some friction with Veracode in terms of how that application gets defined and how the scans occur and get reported on.

When we reached out to Veracode about this, I got a slide deck that provided us with different options of how they recommend proceeding in this context. It was helpful, and clearly a question they've considered and they had answers ready to go on. The ideas helped us and essentially reinforced what we were already thinking. It's getting the job done, but it still feels like a little bit of a square peg in a round hole and it could be a little smoother in terms of that interaction.

The problem boils down to how we fit the microservices architecture into the Veracode notion of an application. We need to be able to get a holistic view across the microservices, which is extremely challenging, especially when those microservices are owned by different teams who have different needs to see and respond to the scans. 

View full review »
KB
Sr. VP Engineering at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees

One thing I would strongly encourage Veracode to do, early on in the process—in the first 30 days—is to provide a strong professional services-type of engagement where they come to the table with the front solution engineers, and work with their customer's team and their codebase to show how the product can be integrated into GitHub or their own repository. They should guide them on best practices for getting the most out of Veracode, and demonstrate it with live scanning on the customer's code. It should be done in a regimented way with, say, a 30-minute call on a Tuesday, and a 30-minute call on a Friday.

I would ask Veracode to be a lot more engaged with the customer and set up live sessions where they force the customer to engage with Veracode's technical team. Veracode could show them a repo, how they should do things, this is what these results mean, here is a dashboard, here's the interpretation, here's where you find the results. And they should say, "If you don't understand something, here's how you contact customer support." A little bit more hand-holding would go a long way toward the adoption of Veracode's technology.

View full review »
MT
Software Architect at Alfresco Software

What could improve a lot is the user interface because it's quite dated. And in general, as we are heavy users of GitHub, the integration with the user interface of GitHub could be improved as well. 

There is also room for improvement in the reporting in conjunction with releases. Every time we release software to the outside world, we also need to provide an inventory of the libraries that we are using, with the current state of vulnerabilities, so that it is clear. And if we can't upgrade a library, we need to document a workaround and that we are not really touched by the vulnerability. For all of this reporting, the product could offer a little bit more in that direction. Otherwise, we just use information and we drop these reports manually.

Another problem we have is that, while it is integrated with single sign-on—we are using Okta—the user interface is not great. That's especially true for a permanent link of a report of a page. If you access it, it goes to the normal login page that has nothing that says "Log in with single sign-on," unlike other software as a service that we use. It's quite bothersome because it means that we have to go to the Okta dashboard, find the Veracode link, and log in through it. Only at that point can we go to the permanent link of the page we wanted to access.

Veracode has plenty of data. The problem is the information on the dashboards of Veracode, as the user interface is not great. It's not immediately usable. Most of the time, the best way to use it is to just create issues and put them in JIRA. It provides visibility into the SAST, DAST and SCA, but honestly, all the information then travels outside of the system and it goes to JIRA.

In the end, we are an enterprise software company and we have some products that are not as modern as others. So we are used to user interfaces that are not great. But if I were a startup, and only had products with a good user interface, I wouldn't use Veracode because the UI is very dated.

Also, we're not using the pipeline scan. We upload using the Java API agent and do a standard scan. We don't use the pipeline scan because it only has output on the user interface and it gets lost. When we do it as part of our CI process, all the results are only available in the log of the CI. In our case we are using Travis, and it requires someone to go there and check things in the build logs. That's an area where the product could improve, because if this information was surfaced, say, in the checks of the code we test on GitHub—as happens with other static analysis tools that we use on our code that check for syntax errors and mapping—in that case, it would be much more usable. As it is, it is not enough.

The management of the false positives is better than in other tools, but still could improve in terms of usability, especially when working with multiple branches. Some of the issues that we had already marked as "To be ignored" because they were either false positives or just not applicable in our context come down, again, to the problem of the user interface. It should have been better thought out to make it easier for someone who is reviewing the list of the findings to mark the false positives easily. For example, there were some vulnerabilities mentioning parts of libraries that we weren't actually using, even if we were including them for different reasons, and in that case we just ignore those items.

We have reported all of these things to product management because we have direct contact with Veracode, and hopefully they are going to be fixed. Obviously, these are things that will improve the usability of the product and are really needed. I'm totally happy to help them and support them in going in the right direction, meaning the right direction from my perspective.

View full review »
Buyer's Guide
Veracode
July 2022
Learn what your peers think about Veracode. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: July 2022.
620,987 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Karen Meohas - PeerSpot reviewer
Information Assurance Manager at xMatters

Whenever there is a mitigation that is submitted through the platform, I'm the one who approves it. The feature that allows me to read which mitigation answer was submitted, and to approve it, requires me to use do so in different screens. That makes it a little bit more complicated because I have to read and then I have to go back and make sure it falls under the same number ID number. That part is a little bit complicated from my perspective, because that's what I use the most.

View full review »
SS
Head Of Information Security at a media company with 51-200 employees

The efficiency of Veracode is fine when it comes to creating secure software, but it tends to raise a lot of false positives. It will tell you about a lot of issues that might be hard for an attacker to actually manipulate. Because of that it's very difficult, sometimes, to sort through all of the findings and figure out what you actually ought to pay attention to. Maybe calling them false positives isn't entirely accurate. There were a lot of things that it would raise that were accurate, but we just didn't consider them terribly important to address because it would be very hard for an attacker to actually use them to do anything bad. I think it frustrated the engineers at times. 

Also, the policies you have, where you can tune the findings you get, don't allow you not to file tickets about certain findings. It will always report the findings, even if you know you're not that concerned about a library writing to a system log, for example. It will keep raising them, even though you may have a ticket about it. The integration will keep updating the ticket every time the scan runs.

We couldn't make it stop. We tried tuning the policies. We had several meetings with the Veracode team to get their feedback on how we could tune the policies to quiet some of these things down and nothing ever resulted in that. Ultimately we couldn't stop some of these alerts from coming out.

Even stranger, for some of the issues raised, such as the ones that were in the vendor code base, we would put the status in Veracode that we communicated this to the vendor, but then, the next time the scan was run, it would find the same issue. One time it would respect that update and the next time, afterwards, it wouldn't respect it and it would generate the issue again. It was really weird. It was reopening the issues, even though they should have been in a "closed" state.

Another significant area for improvement is that their scanning had a lot of problems over this last year. One of the biggest problems was at first it wasn't able to read packaged Go. When I say packaged Go, I mean packaged the way the Go programming language says you're supposed to package Go to deploy the software, when you're using multiple build modules together to make an app. That's a totally normal thing to do, but Veracode was not able to dig into the packages and the sub-modules and scan all the code. It could only scan top-level code.

Once they fixed that problem, which took them until August, we found that it kept reporting that there were no problems at all in our Go code base. That was even scarier because it would usually give all these false positives on our other repositories. I had the application security engineer write a bunch of known defects into some Go code and push it in there and scan it, and it didn't raise anything with any of that. They're advertising that they have a Go scanner, but it doesn't actually function. If our company was going to continue in business, I would have asked them for a refund on the license for the Go scanner at our next renewal, but since we're going out of business, I'm not renewing.

I would also love to see them make it easier to debug the JIRA integration. Right now, all of the logs that are generated from the JIRA integration are only visible to the Veracode engineering team. If you need to debug this integration, you have to have a live meeting with them while they watch the debug messages. It's utterly ridiculous. Their employees are really nice, and I appreciate that they would go through this trouble with me, but I think it's terrible that we have to bother them to do that.

View full review »
Srinivasa Rao Kuruba - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager, Information Technology at Broadcom Corporation

When it comes to the speed of the pipeline scan, one of the things we have found with Veracode is that it's very fast with Java-based applications but a bit slow with C/C++ based applications. So we have implemented the pipeline scan only for Java-based applications not for the C/C++ applications.

For C++ based languages, or languages where there is a platform dependency—for example, if I write C language code it is dependent on whether I'm executing that on Windows, or on Linux, or another platform—and with some of these platforms-specific languages, Veracode makes something called debug symbols that are introduced into the code. That gets cumbersome. They could improve that or possibly automate. If Veracode could quickly analyze the code and make file-line flags, that would be great. It is easy to do for Java, Python, and Pearl, but not so easy for C++. So when it comes to the debug symbols, guidance or automation could be improved.

Also, scan completion, as well scanning progress, is not reported accurately. Sometimes the scan says it will complete in two to three hours but it will take four or five hours. That is one of the areas where they can give a more accurate estimate.

View full review »
SM
Principal for the Application Security Program and Access Control at a engineering company with 10,001+ employees

When we go from the dynamic scan to static scan to SCA, there is a huge change in the UI. This was not relayed to us when we were buying the product nor during the demo. They mentioned, "Yeah, this was an acquisition. The third-party library scanner was an acquisition from SourceClear."

You can see there is a huge difference in the user experience in terms of both the display as well as the usability of the product. That is one of our pet peeves: They are not normalizing the UI across the three product segments. We had numerous calls with them early on because we were new to the platform. The sales team is not aligned with the support team. The support team keeps telling us to use a different UI versus the one that the sales team showcased during the sales cycle.

There is much to be desired of UI and user experience. The UI is very slow. With every click, it just takes a lot of time for the pages to load. We have seen this consistently since getting this solution. The UI and UX are very disjointed. It is ironic that they claim themselves as agile AppSec tool, but their UI doesn't reflect that.

We had a couple of consulting calls, and perhaps it may be the engineers that we got, they were not really up to speed with our frameworks. They were very focused on .NET and Java, which are legacy frameworks for us. We don't use these at all in our code base. We are using the newer, modern web frameworks, like Django. They have very little coverage or knowledge base on these, especially on the mobile side.

There are a lot of faults with the Static Analysis Pipeline Scan tool. Their tool seems to be very good with legacy products, which are developed in .NET and Java frameworks, but there are false positives when it comes to using modern web frameworks, like Python and Django. The C++ code doesn't even scan. We have spent at least three weeks worth of time going back and forth because it won't support the use cases that we have.

View full review »
Mauro Verderosa - PeerSpot reviewer
Cybersecurity Expert at PSYND

They should invest in mobile security.

View full review »
Deepak Naik - PeerSpot reviewer
Product Owner - DevOps at Digite

It is pretty efficient when creating secure software. For one or two particular applications, the dynamic code analysis can take too much time. Sometimes, it takes three days or more. That is where we find speed getting dragged. Apart from that, it is pretty efficient for us to get results and make our software secure.

If the dynamic scan is improved, then the speed might go up. That is somehow not happening. We have raised this concern. It might also help if they could time limit scans to 24 hours instead of letting them go for three days. Then, whatever results could be shared, even if the scan is not complete, that would definitely help us.

They could probably provide some plugins for the Visual Studio code.

View full review »
KE
Cybersecurity Executive at a computer software company with 51-200 employees

Because we're so early in our implementation, we have had minimal feedback in terms of room for improvement. We have seen some minor things within the interface itself that we would love to see some improvements on.

One of those is scheduling, which can be a little difficult. For instance, if you set up recurring scheduled scans and a developer comes in and says, "Hey, I have this critical release that happened outside of our normal release patterns and they want you to scan it," we actually have to change our schedule configuration and that means we lose the recurring scheduling settings we had. We have to change that over to a one-time scan. It would be lovely if we could run ad hoc scans without changing our recurring schedule. That can be a little painful because it happens a lot, unfortunately. I think that will change, so I don't want to knock them completely. Right now, we run a manual configuration setup, but once we integrate this via API into our CI/CD life cycle, that issue should go away.

View full review »
RL
Security Architect at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees

It's pretty efficient, but sometimes the static analysis is prone to a lot of false positives. But that's how it is with most static analysis tools. In some cases, they might have other mechanisms which would deal with a particular vulnerability, but it wouldn't be captured in the code. I would estimate the false positive rate at about 20 percent.

Upon review, the developers understand the solution. But when they get the initial list of findings, it can be a bit daunting to them if it's not managed appropriately.

Also, the static analysis can sometimes take a little while. The time that it takes to do a scan should be improved. There are times when we need a quick turnaround but it will take a little while. We might have something scanning and not get a result until the following day. It's not too critical, but it does increase the delay. Most of the time, when developers submit their code, because of the way that we use it, it's because in their minds they're ready to have that code deployed into production. But the security testing, especially with the feedback, introduces additional time into the project, especially if a security fix is needed.

View full review »
AS
DevSecOps Consultant at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees

We would like to see fewer false positives. 

Sometimes, I get feedback from a developer saying, "They are scanning a Python code, but getting feedback around Java code." While the remediation and guidelines are there, improvement is still required, e.g., you won't get the exact guidelines, but you can get some sort of a high-level insights.

Veracode has a little bit of noise. Sometimes you will get a lot of issues, which you just need to triage. While the solution is excellent, it does come with a little bit of noise.

View full review »
YT
R&D Director at a computer software company with 201-500 employees

We tried to create an automatic scanning process for Veracode and integrate it into our billing process, but it was easier to adopt it to repositories based on GIT. Until now, our source control repository was Azure DevOps Server (Microsoft TFS) to managing our resources. This was not something that they supported. It took us some sessions together before we successfully implemented it.

View full review »
HB
Software Engineer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees

I would like to see them provide more content in the developer training section. This field is really changing each day and there are flaws that are detected each day. Some sort of regular updates to the learning would help. 

I would also like to see more integration with other frameworks. There were some .NET Core versions that weren't supported back when we started, but now they're providing more support for it.

View full review »
DM
IT Cybersecurity Analyst at a educational organization with 11-50 employees

If Veracode was more diversified, as far as the number of platforms and the number of applications it could do in our favor, we would be using it even more. But there are a number of platforms it doesn't support. For example, I know they support C+, .NET, and Java, but there are certain platforms they don't support and that was disappointing.

They have a pretty unique process to get guidance. It's not like you send them an email. You could do that, but if you want to set up a consultation call, you have to go to the website and give them a certain amount of detail so that they can study the problem and the detail and be ready to meet with you. It's not as simple as doing an email. You have to go to their website and you have to click on the "consultation" button and pick a time to talk with an engineer. Sometimes an engineer is not available for quite a while. You have to wait at least a couple of days before you can meet. Having to wait for two days is not that efficient. You should be able to set it up within 24 hours.

And regarding announcements from Veracode, I've tried to get them to let my developers know directly, and I'm not sure if that's happening. I want to tell Veracode to make sure that happens. I don't want them to send an announcement to me and then I have to disseminate that information to my developers. I want it to go directly to them. They've got the developers' names and emails in their database so those announcements should go directly to them.

View full review »
Daniel Krivda - PeerSpot reviewer
DevOps Engineer at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees

Third-party library scanning would be very useful to have. When I was researching this a year ago, there was not a third-party library scan available. This would be a nice feature to have because we are now running through some assessments and finding out which tool can do it since this information needs to be captured. Since Veracode is a security solution, this should be related.

I would recommend that they keep working on the integrations. For Azure DevOps, the integration is great. I am not sure what the integration possibilities are for the Google platform or AWS, but I would suggest every other platform should have this easy and great integration. It takes a lot of time for companies, so this feature is a big plus.

View full review »
David Jellison - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director, Quality Engineering at Everbridge

I think the biggest room for improvement is around known or accepted vulnerabilities that, when we re-scan, we want those things to be recognized as already accepted, as an exception. Sometimes they show up as something new and we have to go back and re-accept that as an accepted exception in order to bring our numbers back into compliance. I think if they could improve the operations around accepted vulnerabilities, we would see improvements in our productivity.

I would also like to see more executive reporting. Having a good snapshot of how well we're tracking, where each of the teams that own the applications, how they're doing, and where their gaps are would be good. Currently, the reporting is geared towards tracking current vulnerabilities. Even though they have trending, the trending doesn't necessarily evaluate the teams and how well they're doing. I would also like to be more oriented towards teams.

Overall, I would give Veracode a nine out of 10.

View full review »
Christian Camerlengo - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Programmer/Analyst at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

The triage indicator was kind of hard to find. It's a very small arrow and I had no idea it was there.

View full review »
Ajit Matthew - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Partner IT and Information Security at TheMathCompany

The training lab is not very user-friendly and takes a long time to set up. This is an area that should be improved because we've not used it as much as we should have.

View full review »
VV
Senior Project Manager at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees

The reports on offer are too verbose. They might want to consider t restructuring their reports to better give a very good summary or overview in the first five or so pages and then go ahead and drill into the details of each and every vulnerability beyond that.

The documentation could be improved. They could, for example, provide more details in terms of how to fix issues related to sign-ups. There isn't enough detailed information out there to assist users.

View full review »
Chris Sawyer - PeerSpot reviewer
Full Stack Engineer at TCDRS

I've seen slightly better static analysis tools from other companies when it comes to speed and ease of use.

Also, with the dynamic tool, sometimes a scan gets stuck and it can be hard to get a hold of the right person in a timely manner to find out why it got stuck and to get it unstuck, or to create a new one.

Overall, speed and customer support could be improved.

View full review »
RR
Founder & CEO at a healthcare company with 1-10 employees

I would suggest charging the developer for training, as it's not very expensive.

Only charge for developer training because it's a service you give now and they may need to be technical support. 

It costs them money to do that, but with the technology, an incremental user is negligible incremental costs, which doesn't really cost them. That's software economics.

I would like to see them only charge for developer training for the qualified startups and start charging for the licensing once the product goes into production, and available.

View full review »
Nachu Subramanian - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation Practice Leader at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

The solution has issues with scanning. It tries to decode the binaries that we are trying to scan. It decodes the binaries and then scans for the code. It scans for vulnerabilities but the code doesn't. They really need two different ways of scanning; one for static analysis and one for dynamic analysis, and they shouldn't decode the binaries for doing the security scanning. It's a challenge for us and doesn't work too well. 

As an additional feature I'd like to see third party vulnerability scanning as well as any container image scanning, interactive application security testing and IAS testing. Those are some of the features that Veracode needs to improve. Aside from that, the API integration is very challenging to integrate with the different tools. I think Veracode can do better in those areas.

View full review »
RO
IT security architect at a consumer goods company with 10,001+ employees

The solution could improve the Dynamic Analysis Security Testing(DAST).

There could be better support for different languages. It is very difficult in some languages to prepare the solution for the static analysis and this procedure is really hard for a pipeline, such as GitHub. They should make it easy to scan projects for any language like they do in other vendors, such as Checkmarx.

We have found there are a lot of false positives and the severity rating we have been receiving has been different compared to other vendor's solutions. For example, in Veracode, we receive a rating of low but in others solutions, we receive a rating of high when doing the glitch analysis.

View full review »
Buyer's Guide
Veracode
July 2022
Learn what your peers think about Veracode. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: July 2022.
620,987 professionals have used our research since 2012.