Coming October 25: PeerSpot Awards will be announced! Learn more

Veracode Software Composition Analysis OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Veracode Software Composition Analysis is #5 ranked solution in top Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tools. PeerSpot users give Veracode Software Composition Analysis an average rating of 8.2 out of 10. Veracode Software Composition Analysis is most commonly compared to Black Duck: Veracode Software Composition Analysis vs Black Duck. Veracode Software Composition Analysis is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 69% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 23% of all views.
Veracode Software Composition Analysis Buyer's Guide

Download the Veracode Software Composition Analysis Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: September 2022

What is Veracode Software Composition Analysis?

Veracode Software Composition detects open source vulnerabilities in the software development process with higher accuracy. Veracode SCA reduces false positives by prioritizing vulnerabilities in the execution path of the application. Its proprietary database contains significantly more vulnerabilities than the NVD because it datamines pull requests, bug reports, and release notes. It also looks for vulnerabilities in dependencies several layers deep. Veracode SCA is part of a comprehensive DevSecOps solution that covers multiple assessment types, enables developers, and helps organizations achieve AppSec governance.

Veracode Software Composition Analysis was previously known as Veracode SCA, SourceClear.

Veracode Software Composition Analysis Customers

Blue Prism, Advantasure, Automation Anywhere, Cox Automotive

Veracode Software Composition Analysis Video

Veracode Software Composition Analysis Pricing Advice

What users are saying about Veracode Software Composition Analysis pricing:
  • "Compared to other similar products, the licensing and pricing are definitely competitive. If you see Checkmarx as the market leader, then we are talking about Veracode being a fraction of the cost. You also have to consider your hidden costs: you need a team to maintain it, a server, and resources. From that point of view, Veracode is great because the cost is really a fraction of many competitors."
  • "Compared to the typical software composition analysis solutions, Veracode is not so costly, although the static analysis part of it is a little costlier."
  • "It has good, fair licensing. If the price could depend on the scope of its scanning or the languages supported, then that would be better."
  • "It's too expensive for the European market. That is why, in a big bank with 400 applications, we are able to use it only for 10 of them. But the other solutions are also expensive, so it wasn't a differentiator."
  • "For enterprises, Veracode has done a fairly good job, but its pricing is not suitable for startups. The microservice distributed architecture for a startup is very small. I had to do a lot of discussions on the pricing initially. I previously worked in an enterprise organization where I used Veracode, and that's how I got to know about Veracode, but that was a big organization with more than a thousand employees. So, the cost is very different for them because the size of the application is different. Its pricing makes sense there, but when we try to onboard this solution for the startup ecosystem, pricing is not friendly. Because I knew the product and I knew its value, I onboarded it, but I don't think any other startup at our scale will onboard it."
  • Veracode Software Composition Analysis Reviews

    Filter by:
    Filter Reviews
    Industry
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Company Size
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Job Level
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Rating
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Considered
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Order by:
    Loading...
    • Date
    • Highest Rating
    • Lowest Rating
    • Review Length
    Search:
    Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
    Evan Gertis - PeerSpot reviewer
    Penetration Tester at NetFoundry
    Real User
    Top 20
    The scanning process helps to significantly improve our standards and best practices
    Pros and Cons
    • "The solution's ability to help create secure software is very valuable. We're a zero-trust networking company so we want to have the ability to say that we're practicing security seriously. Having something like Veracode allows us to have confidence when we're speaking to people about our product that we can back up what we're doing with a certification, with a reputable platform, and say, "This is what we're using to scan an application. Here's the number of vulnerabilities that are on an application. And here's the risk that we're accepting.""
    • "The JIRA integration automation aspect of it could be improved significantly. We want to have a way to create tickets that are going to allow people to work through those flaws that we're finding. We don't want people to feel like they're missing out on something or that they're not following directions in the right way."

    What is our primary use case?

    We use software composition analysis and static code analysis. We use a software composition analysis component to identify third-party vulnerabilities in our software. And then we use the static composition analysis to analyze flaws within our application on the front-end and the back-end.

    We also use Veracode for static composition and software composition analysis and static code analysis because we need a way to identify vulnerabilities and flaws in the application and relay that information to our developers.

    The manual penetration testing is not really used as much.

    Having a centralized view is probably one of the most important aspects of the platform. We need to have some way of looking at all the flaws and all the vulnerabilities in one centralized view. 

    Having this has improved our visibility into application status. It's very important because it's the way that we communicate flaws to our developers. And without it, we'd be missing out on an opportunity to explain what seems to be fixed and what needs to be managed.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Veracode helps us to reduce security debt. We're finding that issues like cross-site scripting injection, injection, and those sorts of vulnerabilities are getting addressed more quickly. And we don't really have to worry about where those are, whether that's being fixed or not because we can see them in the platform and we can see the score increase every time those get fixed.

    The solution's ability to help create secure software is very valuable. We're a zero-trust networking company so we want to have the ability to say that we're practicing security seriously. Having something like Veracode allows us to have confidence when we're speaking to people about our product that we can back up what we're doing with a certification, with a reputable platform, and say, "This is what we're using to scan an application. Here's the number of vulnerabilities that are on an application. And here's the risk that we're accepting."

    Using Veracode SCA helped increase productivity for our security and development teams. Every week we do a vulnerability report and we look at the flaws that were reported by Veracode. Our process essentially goes by meeting with developers, looking at the report, finding out which flaws are the most important ones to fix first. After we've done that, we set up a sprint and we have developers work out two to three of those tickets until they're complete. We've done that now for about six months. We increased our application score from a pretty low level all the way up to Veracode Level Three, so above 90. We don't have any high severity or high vulnerabilities and we don't have any mediums and applications anymore. Following that process is extremely helpful. We also utilize the Veracode dashboards as well. We use the Veracode dashboard to monitor our progress in triaging flaws. Then we want to make sure that things are actually getting fixed. And then we can count those metrics by looking at those dashboards.

    It has definitely improved our security posture and communication with developers. I think that now developers are taking our security seriously, whereas before it was something that was always important, but there was no real way of actually tracking what was getting done. Now that we have the tool that we can use to track what's getting done, we're making objectives and setting goals, and working towards this.

    What is most valuable?

    We use the screening process to help our security professionals and developers fix flaws in the code. It's probably the most utilized security tool that we have at our company.

    Scanning with Veracode SCA reduces scan times by a few seconds. It also helps to increase our fixed-rate by 14%.

    The scanning process helps to significantly improve our standards and best practices.

    The mitigation recommendations provided by the scanning engine of Veracode are important for developers to understand. They need to know how to fix things. So just giving them a blank vulnerability and saying, "this is the issue," doesn't really help. They need something that tells them how to fix the flaw and where to fix the flaw.

    Veracode helped us with certification and audit. We're working towards Veracode Level Four right now, we've achieved Veracode Level Three status, and we're looking forward to reaching the next certification level. The goal of that is to eventually have all of our third-party vulnerabilities and mitigate them so that we're in good standing and we don't have anything coming from a third-party library that could possibly compromise our application. Once we get to that fourth certification Veracode Level Four, that would be great.

    What needs improvement?

    The JIRA integration automation aspect of it could be improved significantly. We want to have a way to create tickets that are going to allow people to work through those flaws that we're finding. We don't want people to feel like they're missing out on something or that they're not following directions in the right way. And we have a process in place where there's a set of tickets and people can work on them. It just seems that people are more focused. They tend to pay attention to what they're doing and there's accountability. So having a more rigorous JIRA integration would be very helpful.

    Buyer's Guide
    Veracode Software Composition Analysis
    September 2022
    Learn what your peers think about Veracode Software Composition Analysis. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2022.
    634,775 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using Veracode for over a year. 

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's a very stable product, and I think that the team at Veracode is constantly putting in more effort into trying to make it into a better platform. They take feedback seriously. They constantly improve the platform. They are working towards adding features that developers are requesting. So it's always changing, there's always something new being added to it, which is very good.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Large enterprises are probably following a very different practice from what we're following. I think that smaller organizations are going to have an easier time using something like Veracode because of the flexibility of the different API tools that they have available. An enterprise might have a more complicated time scaling it. The issue with that is that the enterprise is probably going to use a proxy and having to deal with the networking issues, it's going to become very difficult for that to scale. However, in a small company, those situations are mitigated pretty easily by getting two or three people together. So we move through those very fast, we're extremely agile. We're always forward moving. We're always rapidly developing. I think each company has its own specific way of handling scalability, it's always been easy just because we're a very collaborative team. We know how to work with each other and we're always receptive to each other's feedback. I can't really speak for other companies, but I can tell you that we find it pretty scalable. That's really just our culture though.

    I run all of the administration and I direct people in what needs to be done. So, that's about it. In total, about seven people are really using it.

    We are using it to its fullest extent. Even the manual penetration testing aspect of the platform is very useful. The manual penetration testing aspect of the platform is something that would be nice to incorporate because the cost is significantly less than other security companies. For example, InfoSec is about $3,000 more than Veracode, for any organization that wants an all-encompassing security platform. But what we get with Veracode is a platform that provides software composition analysis, static code analysis, Docker Container Scanning, manual penetration testing results, and dashboards that show the progress for moving through all of those issues. And that's probably the most important aspect of the platform.

    Once they introduced the prebuilt dashboards that really reduced the amount of friction with upper management. Typically, my mentor said that almost all issues in any business organization come down to personal relationships and opinions, so when Veracode introduced those dashboards, it removed the ability for people to give opinions about what was being done and what wasn't being done.

    We're driven by facts as people, so we can look at those metrics and say, "This is what's actually getting done." And there's no ambiguity. Then really that just removes all opinion from any sort of conversation.

    How are customer service and support?

    They monitor all of the conversations in the platform on the Veracode community. My rep is very responsive. He answers community questions. He votes up really important questions and the issues are getting answered quickly. That's the most important part because then the business, if we run into an issue on Monday and we spend two or three days trying to debug the issue, we haven't figured it out. You can go to a place and actually get an answer. Whereas some organizations try to use a tool that's custom made and they're going to run into an issue where it's intractable. It can't be solved. However, with Veracode, customer support has always been able to find some sort of solution. Anytime I've ever had a problem, it's always been resolved 100%. There's never been a time where it's gone unresolved. I can't say that about every tool.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Positive

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We used a combination of things. We use Sonar, Veracode, and JFrog Artifactory just give us a diverse picture of what vulnerabilities are in the application and how we can fix them. Veracode seems to always provide the best feedback. Other platforms really aren't at the same level, they provide reports and those reports are usually very static and they're not very informative. Whereas with Veracode, the platform is very interactive. You can tell that it was designed for users and Sonar is the same way. Sonar is very static. Even in Bitbucket, you can now scan your code with Snyk.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was pretty straightforward. The best way to handle it is to get the Java JAR file for the upload, use the terminal on any given laptop, like a Mac or a Linux, and create a small script that uploads a couple of JAR files up to the platform.

    Once that's complete, once you have a proof of concept that works with just a couple of lines, then the next step is to move that into a pipeline. Preferably something like Jenkins. Jenkins allows people to run scripts. You can just run Dash straight in a pipeline. Once you have that setup, you pull all that down into the Jenkins pipeline.

    Once that's done, you now have all of the binaries that need to be scanned, and you can set the pipeline to run a scan on a weekly cadence. If you want to take it a step further, you could actually move that into a build pipeline and really follow shift-left practices where you're moving the security aspect of the development cycle further up the pipeline. Flaws are being found before they go into production rather than after they're in production. So that would be my recommended approach for working through that problem.

    I went through and I actually added container scanning now, so in Veracode at this point, we're running software composition analysis, static code analysis, and on top of that Docker container scanning. So it's a pretty big product. The thing that would be more helpful is better Jira automation since that aspect keeps track of what's getting done. Then essentially you have a full pipeline setup that automates the generation of tickets, scanning, and just takes care of itself. It's a self-service security tool.

    The setup took around a week.

    What was our ROI?

    We have absolutely seen ROI. We have buy-in from upper management and developers. We have a lot of people who are very excited about what we're doing and we're working towards that.

    We've personally seen a major decrease in vulnerabilities and we've seen an increase in awareness for security. So people actually have conversations about security now, and they're taking it seriously. It's no longer an issue that gets swept under the rug. I think a lot of smaller organizations would benefit from having a tool that showed them what is being done, as opposed to someone just saying this is what we're doing if they can see the results that really improve. So, once we added that, we saw a decrease in vulnerabilities, we decreased our third-party vulnerabilities from a pretty significant level and attended the three down to single digits, which is huge for any organization.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    The thing that I'll go back to is when one of my mentors said to me "Evan, security is a critical aspect of any organization. People don't always believe in it. And the best way to sell it is to explain what could go wrong." So when we compare what could go wrong, having a third-party vulnerability, like a graph library, such as the one that Equifax used, which led to a $3 million lawsuit, and their reputation was destroyed. When you compare that to paying $8,000 for an application, it's a no-brainer. Once the reputation of an organization has been tarnished, that's it. The whole thing is completely over. Really everyone loses faith and once people lose trust, it's almost impossible to get people to believe in a vision.

    It's definitely worth it considering what could go wrong. The DevOps Mantra is to always be prepared for what could go wrong. Most things are going to go wrong.

    Having a static cost gives people confidence. And once people start using it, if the price changes, then that's going to be dependent on how much they're getting out of it.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I definitely looked at other security platforms, but Veracode seems to have the most performance.

    With Xray, essentially you upload your builds, once you've uploaded your build, you index it. And after you index it, it'll give you a security report. Now, the thing with that is you have to make a policy, you get a report, the report comes out as a PDF and the PDF doesn't really tell you how to fix it. It tells you the fixed version.

    The first path of that really was just creating a pipeline that ran a curl request over to Artifactory to generate that PDF. And then on Monday mornings, that was automated. So management can go in, look at that PDF and say, "Oh, okay, these are the things that are happening in our application." Whereas Veracode, is fully automated, it runs the full scan and then creates the tickets. So that's the contrast. 

    What other advice do I have?

    My advice would be to start with meeting with people from Veracode. Once you meet with the team from Veracode, the best way to handle that is to start asking questions and identifying the things that would be of value so that an organization doesn't start out by paying too much money. Then you're moving away from that being too scared of what the outcome is. I think once they go in and they have a meeting with people and they can actually discuss what they want to do, that's the first step towards planning out how the platform will be used.

    I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Private Cloud
    Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
    PeerSpot user
    Oleksandr Klymenko - PeerSpot reviewer
    Development Manager at a tech company with 5,001-10,000 employees
    Real User
    Significantly improves our productivity, helps us in complying with our security policy, and reports all necessary vulnerabilities
    Pros and Cons
    • "Considering that in my project, we are mostly using Software Composition Analysis as a part of Static Code Analysis, for me, the main part is reporting and highlighting necessary vulnerabilities. Veracode platform has a rather good database of different vulnerabilities in different libraries and different sources. So, finding vulnerabilities in third-party libraries is the main feature of Software Composition Analysis that we use. It is the most important feature for us."
    • "The results of agent-based software composition analysis are not connected to policy scanning. So, for me, the only thing that Veracode can improve in Software Composition Analysis is to connect it with the policy scan because, at present, it is a bit inconvenient for those in our organization who use agent-based Software Composition Analysis. In the end, they need to make a static scan with all those libraries in order to receive that report. If Veracode implemented a connection between agent-based static scan and static scanning itself, it would be great because it would lead to fewer operations in order to prepare release documentation and release reporting from Veracode. We recently had a conversation with Veracode about it."

    What is our primary use case?

    At this moment in time, in my project, we are mostly using Static Analysis from Veracode. We automated it and added it as a step to our daily pipeline. We also tried using the pipeline plugin from Veracode that gives an immediate evaluation of your code. We're also using agent-based Software Composition Analysis. I have not exactly used it in my project, but I participated in investigating it and setting it up.

    I know two flavors of doing Software Composition Analysis. The first one is a part of a daily static scan where you're uploading all your third-party libraries. The second one is by using agent-based, which gives more reporting capabilities but not doesn't affect policy scans, etc. We use both of them.

    We use Software Composition Analysis as a part of our daily build pipeline, so we use Jenkins Plugin from Veracode. Every night, we upload our sources to the Veracode platform. In the morning, we receive results of Static Code Analysis and Software Composition Analysis. 

    How has it helped my organization?

    We are able to receive results for vulnerabilities in other libraries. We can then react to it and fix our code and those dependencies.

    We do have a policy in regards to security. As a part of that policy, we cannot have very high-end issues. Usually, when you change third-party libraries, you need to do some level of regression testing. Our release cycle is long, and it could be half a year between releases or sometimes even more. By using Software Composition Analysis, we're checking our sources on a regular basis, and if needed, we change our libraries in our code, So, we are checking and mitigating any vulnerabilities if they are not applicable to our solution.

    We use static scanning. This is the main use of Veracode for us. We package our application every day and send it to Veracode. We receive static code analysis results and also the software composition analysis results every day because the first focus for us is on quality improvement. The security improvement is definitely static scanning. We do have a process for analyzing and mitigating results around this static scanning. So far, we have been able to comply with our internal policy. At this moment in time, we are at the stage of releasing our product, and according to our internal policy, certain important issues from 2017 had to be addressed and fixed.

    Veracode gives the possibility to find different vulnerabilities and flaws in code, and it also makes things relatively easy because everything is automated. Implementing such a high-quality tool like Veracode, immediately made us aware of a lot of issues, but the volume of issues that we had to address was really high. The support from top management made it easy to fix the issues that Veracode identified in the product that has a long history of more than 20 years. Without the support of higher management in organizing and defining a process of fixing those issues, it wouldn't have been possible to fix all those issues. We took the reports received from Veracode, planned our activities, reviewed everything, and started acting on it as a result. The new release that we have is according to our policy, which is an important thing for us.

    It definitely helps in reducing the risk of a security breach, which is rather important for us for providing our customers with a secure product. Among our customers, there are a lot of big companies that take security seriously. So, for us, it is really important. The fact that we have executive sponsorship shows that security is very important for our management. This initiative started because we're treating security really seriously.

    It is improving our productivity significantly. We just finished a big chunk of results processing, and we are still in the process of setting up our processes. When you're first doing that scan with Veracode, you receive a bunch of results and an overwhelming amount of flaws in your code. All those results need to be investigated. For some of them, it is sufficient to have mitigations, but some of them need to be fixed. We just finished those fixes, and there were a significant amount of security findings from Veracode.

    What is most valuable?

    Considering that in my project, we are mostly using Software Composition Analysis as a part of Static Code Analysis, for me, the main part is reporting and highlighting necessary vulnerabilities. Veracode platform has a rather good database of different vulnerabilities in different libraries and different sources. So, finding vulnerabilities in third-party libraries is the main feature of Software Composition Analysis that we use. It is the most important feature for us.

    What needs improvement?

    The results of agent-based software composition analysis are not connected to policy scanning. So, for me, the only thing that Veracode can improve in Software Composition Analysis is to connect it with the policy scan because, at present, it is a bit inconvenient for those in our organization who use agent-based Software Composition Analysis. In the end, they need to make a static scan with all those libraries in order to receive that report. If Veracode implemented a connection between agent-based static scan and static scanning itself, it would be great because it would lead to fewer operations in order to prepare release documentation and release reporting from Veracode. We recently had a conversation with Veracode about it.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I believe it has been about two years because Software Composition Analysis is a part of the policy scan, and our journey with Veracode has been for about two years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It is stable. I didn't feel that many problems with it. We did have a few glitches with the platform, but they were not that many. So, I can say that it is stable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    I can't say anything about the scalability of this solution because we are not bothered about keeping its infrastructure up and running. We use Veracode Cloud, and we are not supporting or deploying it. It is just a service for us, and we consider it as a service. We submit the information and receive reports back from that solution.

    In our project, every night, we are currently scanning our development branch and three versions of our releases. We have four applications, and I believe that from my team, at least 15 scans happen every night. We have a partnership with another company that provides a part of our functionality. They provide releases to us to embed in our solution. We also do the scanning for their part and inform them about the issues that we've found.

    We will increase the number of scanned versions because with each and every release, during the support period, we're supporting versions of our product, and we're also fixing the security stuff. We will be increasing the volume of scans, but it will come to a logical point. When a version is no longer supported, we will definitely remove it from Veracode. So, all in all, at any moment in time, I foresee four or maybe five versions to support multiplied by four applications. There is also a development branch for each application, so there will be around 20-25 automated scans per night.

    How are customer service and support?

    I am very pleased with the Veracode support because so far, there were no issues where they were not able to help us. Sometimes, in our questions to Veracode, we ask about the deep aspects of functionality, and so far, we've received answers for all those questions, and they were mostly good. I would rate them a nine out of 10 just because I didn't like some of their answers. Because of our approach of having each version as a separate sandbox in Veracode, we had questions about the consistency of results between different sandboxes, but then we realized that these are peculiarities of the platform. It is nothing serious or special. It was mostly related to our expectations from those algorithms, but it actually works perfectly. I can give a 10 for Veracode's support, but then they will have no growth to improve.

    How was the initial setup?

    It was pretty straightforward. The problem that we had was mostly about our solution's architecture because the solution itself is big and heterogeneous. Some parts or regions are using the Java platform, and some parts are in the .NET code. The main problem was to correctly build our solution for Veracode. This was the only challenge. Veracode provided us with good functionality with their Jenkins Plugin that made it possible for us to automate our daily development. So, the main problem for us was mostly related to properly building our solution and using it in Veracode. It was pretty straightforward. There was nothing complex, but it needed some work from our side.

    The strategy for Veracode implementation was pretty straightforward. From the very beginning, we stuck to the idea that it should be automated because all modern DevOps practices and approaches, such as Infrastructure as a Code, are widely used in our company. So, from the very beginning, we decided that it should be coded, and it should be stored in source control and uploaded. Veracode became a part of our process of everyday deployment, and it was a part of our strategy to make it a part of our life and use it as much as we can.

    The number of people involved depended on the stage. At the initial stage, when we were evaluating it, there were somewhere around six or seven people who were making the decision of buying Veracode and other stuff. We have different companies and products inside our organization, and each and every product team is responsible for implementing it. We were the pioneers in using the solution from Veracode, and later on, it spread out to other projects. Now, we're acquiring additional licenses and so on. We planned everything with the help of the developer team. We follow the agile approach in our development, so everything was planned. User stories were created, and we just acted on them.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I participated in the review of tools. We reviewed not only Veracode. There were also other candidates for our main tool for static scan and software composition analysis. So, I have been involved in all activities around Veracode from the very beginning. What I liked about Veracode is that it is not just one product. It is a big ecosystem. It even has integration with Visual Studio, etc. First of all, we took a look at the scope of scanning. We compared the results of scanning and the functionality. Veracode had really great reporting functionality. In the end, we came up with the conclusion that Veracode fits best to our needs, and I believe we were right.

    What other advice do I have?

    My advice would be to adopt Veracode to serve your processes. I believe that the processes inside the company shouldn't be changed significantly with the introduction of new tools. Definitely, for each and every new tool, you need to build some process around usage in terms of administration and control. Veracode has a relatively big ecosystem of tools, which is a big advantage, and my advice would be to check all those tools and see how they can fit into your process, and how they can improve them. There are a lot of options and a lot of tools provided by Veracode that can fit each and every process. Whether you are using a waterfall process or DevOps practices in your organization, with Veracode, you can add necessary steps to your process without making significant changes in the processes that you have.

    We take security seriously, and Veracode is not the only thing that we have for security. We do manual penetration testing to security test our applications. We also have some dynamic scanning. We follow some practices while engineering and architecting our solutions. At each and every step, we are trying to cover our solution with the necessary security testing activities or security design principles. Veracode is a big part of our security, but it is not the only one. We are fixing all issues, especially those that are non-compliant with our policy.

    We don't use any connections with Software Composition Analysis. It is a separate product in the ecosystem that makes it possible for you to deeply scan your third-party libraries. This is the only way we use it. 

    In terms of Veracode SCA reducing our overall scan times, I believe that it is not applicable at this point. In the case of agent-based scanning, the situation that we recently had has shown that you cannot fully substitute Software Composition Analysis from a static scan with agent-based. That's because, in the end, documents that you provide together with the release are the policy scan results generated by static scan. You can reduce the amount of time for your scanning, but in the end, you need at least one scan where you will figure out all third-party states as a part of the policy scan report. You cannot use only agent-based Software Composition Analysis because they are two separate sources of information. We can use Software Composition Analysis and then somehow merge results from two sources in one document for it, which is inconvenient. We are having nightly builds for Veracode, and it doesn't matter to us whether it takes more than 30 minutes or less than 30 minutes. We haven't measured the time, but with the approach that we have set in our company, we can leave it for longer time periods, and after nightly build, everything is okay for us. So, Jenkins just does its job of uploading, and no one monitors it. We are just monitoring that the jobs are stable and results are available. Considering that we're doing it at night, it is not that important for us for how long it runs.

    It hasn't exactly increased our fix rate because it is not about our code. It is about the third-party code. We definitely have to mitigate, and sometimes, we have to change libraries to a newer version, so it somehow affects our fix rate, but mostly, the static scan affects our fix rate because it shows flaws in our code. So, I don't see any significant improvement with Veracode Software Composition Analysis in terms of our fix rate. I don't see a direct relationship between Veracode Software Composition Analysis and our fix rate, whereas Static Analysis works and gives us the necessary results and plans for fixing and doing our next steps in security.

    It has not yet helped our company with certification and audits. We haven't yet shared those green results with our customers, and we didn't have any certifications the last time.

    I would rate Veracode Software Composition Analysis a nine out of 10.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Other
    Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
    PeerSpot user
    Buyer's Guide
    Veracode Software Composition Analysis
    September 2022
    Learn what your peers think about Veracode Software Composition Analysis. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2022.
    634,775 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Principle Consultant at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
    Consultant
    Top 10
    Provides extensive guidance for writing secure code and pointing to vulnerable open source libraries
    Pros and Cons
    • "Within SCA, there is an extremely valuable feature called vulnerable methods. It is able to determine within a vulnerable library which methods are vulnerable. That is very valuable, because in the vast majority of cases where a library is vulnerable, none of the vulnerable methods are actually used by the code. So, if we want to prioritize the way open source libraries are updated when a library is found vulnerable, then we want to prioritize the libraries which have vulnerable methods used within the code."
    • "Veracode has a few shortcomings in terms of how they handle certain components of the UI. For example, in the case of the false positive, it would be highly desirable if the false positive don't show up again on the UI, instead still showing up for any subsequent scan as a false positive. There is a little bit of cluttering that could be avoided."

    What is our primary use case?

    Software Composition Analysis (SCA) is used to detect vulnerabilities in open source libraries, which are used by our customers for their own product. 

    We are a consulting company who provides consulting services to clients. We don't buy the software for our own internal use. However, we advise customers about which solutions will fit their environment.

    Most of our clients use SCA for cloud applications. 

    How has it helped my organization?

    For application security, the SCA product from Veracode is a good solution. It has a good balance. Altogether, the balance between the outcome of the tool, the speed of the tool, and its cost make it a good choice. 

    One of the reasons why we recommend Veracode because it is very important in that SAST and SCA tools, independently from the vendor, should work seamlessly within the build pipeline. Veracode does a good job in this respect.

    In this day and age, all software is developed using a large amount of open source libraries. It is kind of unavoidable. Any product application has a lot of embedded libraries. In our experience, many times customers don't realize that it is not just a code that can be vulnerable, but also an open source library that they may take for granted. In many ways, this has been a learning experience for the customers to understand that there are other components to open source libraries, and that SCA is an invaluable tool to address those issues.

    What is most valuable?

    SCA provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities. It provides extensive guidance for both writing secure code and pointing to vulnerable open source libraries are being used.

    From the time it takes for the solution to detect a vulnerability, both in the source code and the open source library, it is efficient. 

    Within SCA, there is an extremely valuable feature called vulnerable methods. It is able to determine within a vulnerable library which methods are vulnerable. That is very valuable, because in the vast majority of cases where a library is vulnerable, none of the vulnerable methods are actually used by the code. So, if we want to prioritize the way open source libraries are updated when a library is found vulnerable, then we want to prioritize the libraries which have vulnerable methods used within the code. 

    The Static Analysis Pipeline Scan is faster than the traditional scan that Veracode has. All Veracode products are fast. I have no complaints. On average, a piece of code for a customer takes 15 to 20 minutes to build versus the Static Analysis Pipeline Scan of Veracode that takes three or four minutes. So, that is 20 to 30 percent of the total time, which is fairly fast.

    What needs improvement?

    Most of our time is spent configuring the SAST and SCA tools. I would consider that one of the weak points of the product. Otherwise, once the product is set up on the computer, it is fairly fast.

    Like many tools, Veracode has a good number of false positives. However, there are no tools at this point in the market that they can understand the scope of an application. For example, if I have an application with only internal APIs and no UI, Veracode can detect that. It might detect that the HTML bodies of the requests are not sanitized, so it would then be prone to cross-site injections and SQL injections. But, in reality, that is a false positive. It will be almost impossible for a tool to understand the scope unless we start using machine learning and AI. So, it's inevitable at this point that there are false positives. Obviously, that doesn't make the developers happy, but I don't think there is another way around this, but it is not just because of Veracode. It's just the nature of the problem, which cannot be solved with current technologies. 

    Once we explain to the developers why there are false positives, they understand. In Veracode, embedded features (where there are false positives) can be flagged as such. So, next time that they run the same scan, the same "vulnerability" will be still flagged as a false positive. Therefore, it's not that bad from that point of view.

    Veracode has a few shortcomings in terms of how they handle certain components of the UI. For example, in the case of the false positive, it would be highly desirable if the false positive don't show up again on the UI, instead still showing up for any subsequent scan as a false positive. There is a little bit of cluttering that could be avoided. However, that is not necessarily a shortcoming of the product. I think it's more of a shortcoming of the UI. It's just the way it's visualized. However, going forward, I personally don't want to see any more vulnerabilities that I already flagged as a false positive.

    It does take some time to understand the way the product works and be able to configure it properly. Veracode is aware of that. Because the SCA tools are actually a company that they acquired, SourceClear, the SCA tool and SAST tool are not completely integrated at this point. You are still dealing with two separate products, which can cause some headaches. I did have a conversation with the Veracode development team not too long ago where I voiced my concerns. They acknowledged that they're working on this and are aware of it. Developers have limited amounts of time dedicated to learning how to use a tool. So, they need quite a bit of help, especially when we're talking about this type of integration between the SAST and SCA. I would really like to see better integration between the SAST and SCA.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using it for almost a year.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It is stable. One of the selling points is that it is a cloud solution. The maintenance is more about integrating Veracode into the pipeline. There is a first-time effort, then you can pretty much reproduce the same pipeline code for all the development teams. At that point, once everything runs in the pipeline, I think the maintenance is minimal.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We have deployed the solution to FinTech or technology medium-sized companies with more than 100 employees.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Their technical support is less than stellar. They have essentially two tiers: the technical support and the consulting support. With the consulting support, you have the opportunity to talk to people who have intimate knowledge of the product, but this usually takes a bit of effort so customers still like to go through the initial technical support that is less than stellar. We rarely get an answer from the technical support. They seem a lot more like they are the first line of defense or help. But, in reality, they are not very helpful. Until we get to the second level, we can't accomplish anything. This is another complaint that I have brought up to Veracode.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    One of the reasons why we decided on Veracode is because they have an integrated solution of SAST and SCA within the same platform. Instead of relying upon two different, separate products, the attraction of using a Veracode was that we could use one platform to cover SAST and SCA. 

    How was the initial setup?

    The SAST tool is pretty straightforward; there is very little complexity. The pipeline works very well. The SCA tool is more complex to set up, and it doesn't integrate very well with the SAST tool. At the end of the day, you have essentially two separate products with two separate setups. Also, you have two different reports because the report integration is not quite there. However, I'm hopeful that they are going to fix that soon. They acquired SourceClear less than two years ago, so they are still going through growing pains of integrating these two products.

    The setting up of the pipeline is fairly straightforward. It works a lot of the main languages, like Java, Python, etc. We have deployed it across several development teams. Once we create a pipeline and hand the code to the developers, they have been able to make a little adjustment here or there, then it worked.

    What about the implementation team?

    For both SCA and SAST tools, including documentation, providing the code, writing the code for the pipeline, and giving some training to the developers, a deployment can take us close to two weeks. 

    Deploying automated process tools, like Veracode, Qualys, and Checkmarx, does take more effort than uploading the code manually each time.

    What was our ROI?

    As long as developers use the tool and Veracode consistently, that can reduce the cost of penetration testing.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Checkmarx is a very good solution and probably a better solution than Veracode, but it costs four times as much as Veracode. You need an entire team to maintain Checkmarx. You also need on-premise servers. So, it is a solution more for an enterprise customer. If you have a small- to medium-sized company, Checkmarx is very hard to use, because it takes so many resources. From this point of view, I would certainly recommend for now, Veracode for small- to medium-sized businesses. 

    Compared to other similar products, the licensing and pricing are definitely competitive. If you see Checkmarx as the market leader, then we are talking about Veracode being a fraction of the cost. You also have to consider your hidden costs: you need a team to maintain it, a server, and resources. From that point of view, Veracode is great because the cost is really a fraction of many competitors. 

    Veracode provides a very good balance between a working solution and cost.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    There are other products in the market. However, some of those products are extremely expensive or require a larger team to support them. Often, they have to be installed on-prem. Veracode is a bit more appealing for our organizations who don't have larger AppSec teams or where budget is a constraint. In this respect, SCA is a good solution.

    We have been using Checkmarx for years, but mainly for their on-prem solution. They do have an offering in the cloud, but we haven't done any side-by-side tests in respect to speed. We did do a side-by-side comparison between Veracode and Checkmarx two or three years ago from a technical ability standpoint. At that time, Checkmarx came in a bit ahead of Veracode.

    Checkmarx is more complex to set up because it is on-prem with multiple servers as well as there are a lot of things going up. If you have a larger budget and team, look into Checkmarx because it is a market leader. However, when it comes to a price, I would choose Veracode for a smaller company, not a large enterprise. 

    Another consideration for Checkmarx, as an on-prem solution, is that you are pretty much ascertained that your code doesn't leave your company. With companies like Veracode, even if they are saying that you only upload the binary code, that's not quite true. The binary code can be reverse-engineered and the source code can be essentially reconstructed. For example, Veracode would not be suitable for a government agency or a government consultancy. 

    For DAST, our customers like to use Qualys Web Application Scanning. There are very few players out there that can test APIs, but Qualys is one of them. 

    Another promising solution that allows for testing APIs is Wallarm. We have done a couple of PoCs with them.

    We tested Black Duck a few years ago, but they only had a SCA solution. They didn't have a SAST solution. I think they do now have a SAST solution because they acquired another company, Fujita.

    What other advice do I have?

    I don't think that Veracode has helped developers with security training, but it helps developers have a reality check on the code that they write and their open source library. That is the best value that developers can get from the product. 

    Veracode products can be run as part of the development pipeline. That is also valuable.

    It integrates with tools like GitHub or Jenkins. At a high level, it does integrate with most of the pipeline of tools. It would be a showstopper if the incorporation of security was not in the developer workflows. We are past a time when developers or software engineers run a SCA or DAST scan on the code, then hand it off to the development team. What works instead is to inject a security tool in a development pipeline, which is why it is absolutely paramount and important that tools, like Veracode, be a part of the build pipeline.

    We limited the user to SAST and SCA. We haven't used any of the penetration testing, especially for the DAST solution that they have. For that, they are behind the curve, meaning that there are other products in the market that are being established. In my opinion, they don't have a viable product for DAST, because I believe they are not even testing APIs. So, it's not mature enough. We also have never used their pen testing because that is one of the services that we provide.

    At this point, Veracode is one of the best solutions available, though it's not perfect by any means, but you have to work with whatever you have.

    I will give the solution a seven (out of 10). When they integrate the SCA and SAST portions more tightly together, I could probably bump it up to an eight. Also, if they make improvements to the UI and the support, they can get a better rating. However, at this point, I would still pick Veracode for a company who doesn't have a million dollar plus budget.

    Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
    PeerSpot user
    Vice President QE Practice at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    Helps us continuously reduce security debt, year over year, but remediation activities need some work
    Pros and Cons
    • "We have to look at it from the perspectives of how important it is to fix something and when it should be prioritized for fixing. The JSON output from the agent-based scans gives us the CVS core, and that makes things much easier."
    • "Veracode doesn't really help you so much when it comes to fixing things. It is able to find our vulnerabilities but the remediation activities it does provide are not a straight out-of-the-box kind of model. We need to work on remediation and not completely rely on Veracode."

    What is our primary use case?

    When code is being developed by our developers, the testing team runs through the static code application scanning and takes a look at how it is working out.

    How has it helped my organization?

    There are multiple code check-ins happening. When check-ins occur, we want to make sure that anything that needs to be tested, whether in that particular unit, or whether in the end-to-end functionality, is scanned and that the code is certified as usable. That's the first step we do, and it's a very important one. The scanning process helps our security team and developers fix flaws in the code and increases our fix rate.

    Veracode SCA also reduces scan times because it scans incrementally. There is an initial baseline when the code is being created, but it does any additional delta check-ins fast and gets us the information.

    We have been able to handle the overall code review process faster, because of Veracode's static code analysis. For example, we were able to onboard around 120 applications in seven to 10 months.

    Another benefit is that it helps reduce security debt. It becomes much easier to run through the overall code. We have predominantly used it for shift-left, testing code much earlier from a security standpoint. Compared to when we started versus now, we have done a phenomenal job. Year on year, our security debt has been continuously decreasing by 10 to 12 percent.

    Veracode takes the burden out of manual code reviews, helping to create secure software. The Greenlight feature helps the developer, at his desktop, before his code is even checked in. He gets a good understanding of how things look from a security standpoint, meaning how secure his code is. It will mitigate a lot of basic vulnerabilities at the start. And then, during the source code analysis, once it has been checked in, we have seen a 30 to 40 percent reduction in dynamic vulnerability identification because of the static code analysis that precedes it. Our vulnerabilities are at the dynamic standpoint. It's one of our most important requirements because we want to make sure that we provide a secure product and services. It's of paramount importance.

    And as an educated guess, it has increased security and development teams' productivity by 7 to 9 percent, and that's a month-on-month increase.

    What is most valuable?

    The main feature we have been using is the software composition analysis, which provides us with a scoring system in terms of version 3 of the CVS. A lot of vulnerabilities are typically detected, but, at the end of the day, we also want to check how well they are being targeted, based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring system. Not every vulnerability is high-severity, because some of them do have fixes. That particular feature is helpful for us.

    It gives you JSON output. When you do agent-based scans, at any point in time, there are multiple check-ins of the code. We have to look at it from the perspectives of how important it is to fix something and when it should be prioritized for fixing. The JSON output from the agent-based scans gives us the CVS core, and that makes things much easier. It's available on the new version of the Veracode SCA agent.

    It also has a decent support system for audits. From that perspective, they did a very good job.

    What needs improvement?

    The mitigation recommendations are the standard ones, but if there are specific activities that come into the picture, Veracode should provide more remediation solutions. Since all of our team members are pretty good at what they do, they're able to do a good job with the information they get. But if somebody had to start off from the ground floor, they might need some help to understand things.

    Veracode doesn't really help you so much when it comes to fixing things. It is able to find our vulnerabilities but the remediation activities it does provide are not a straight out-of-the-box kind of model. We need to work on remediation and not completely rely on Veracode.

    Also, there are certain third-party libraries that might be called up by the code and that might have vulnerabilities. I haven't seen that Veracode is able to deal with that aspect. 

    Another area for improvement is when the code's logic might have certain flaws that can result in a security vulnerability. Veracode doesn't handle that as well. Improvement in those areas would help us determine things much faster.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using Veracode Software Composition Analysis for about five years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's pretty robust.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The scalability is very good. 

    Our users are developers and security testers, predominantly. The number of people using it depends on the project. Sometimes we have 10 people on it and at other times we might have only five.

    The teams that work on it take care of maintenance, so we do not need any additional team to do that. We also have a center of excellence that takes care of things.

    How are customer service and support?

    The solution's technical support is good.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Positive

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We did not have a previous solution.

    How was the initial setup?

    The process of setting it up was fast and easy. Integrating it into our ecosystem was much faster than expected. That was one of the biggest ways it improved our ability to get the code analysis done. 

    The reason why it was straightforward is that everybody knows how it has to be set up. All the developers and the testers are well-educated, from a Veracode standpoint, because they have experience with it from the past. It was not a new tool on the block.

    What was our ROI?

    The cost has been an important aspect for us, but we have run with the additional cost of the overall code analysis. One of the major reasons is that developers get a better understanding of where their code stands before a security tester gets into the picture. The cost-benefit for us is that, rather than having to build up a whole security testing team, developers get security insights earlier in the development lifecycle. After that, we can introduce the testers to get things finished, and that reduces the manpower cost.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    Compared to the typical software composition analysis solutions, Veracode is not so costly, although the static analysis part of it is a little costlier. It depends upon the ecosystem you are using, whether your application is a web application or a custom, non-web application. It can support all of them. The pricing depends where you are at with your overall security strategy.

    If you have multiple applications and you want to scale it at an enterprise level, this is a good tool. But a very small shop might not want to go with it because there are a bunch of alternatives that work well. Again, it depends upon where you are at on your overall software AppSec journey.

    What other advice do I have?

    In terms of security breaches, the static code analysis is what we use to try to ensure that an application is free of vulnerabilities. But when you deploy it in the environment, there are multiple aspects that might contribute to a breach. It could be either due to the infrastructure or another application or even through endpoint network solutions. So, we cannot completely rely on Veracode to prevent security breaches but it can reduce them.

    Veracode SCA reviews the code and allows us to provide overall information in terms of vulnerabilities. It does a pretty decent job. We are used to Veracode, having used it for a long time. Compared to when we started, all the developers are comparatively more confident and happy with it.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Amazon Web Services (AWS)
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Fiorina Liberta - PeerSpot reviewer
    Principal SRE Engineer at AIA Singapore
    Real User
    Top 20
    We use it to fix flaws in the code
    Pros and Cons
    • "The most valuable feature is the security and vulnerability parts of the solution. It shows medium to high vulnerabilities so we can find them, then upgrade our model before it is too late. It is useful because it automates security. Also, it makes things more efficient. So, there is no need for the security team to scan every time. The application team can update it whenever possible in development."
    • "It could have better integration with our pipeline. If we could have better integration with our application pipeline, e.g., Jira, Bamboo, or Azure DevOps, then that will be very helpful. Right now, it is quite hard to integrate the solution into our existing pipeline."

    What is our primary use case?

    Every build running CI/CD on our applications, like Bamboo or Azure DevOps, will be scanned through Veracode SCA first. If its report for the build has a vulnerability or redundancy that is outdated or vulnerable, then that is our use case for our application. We have a lot of applications that need to automate these things, then get the report to the application team. Therefore, the security team needs to check these one by one.

    We have a lot of people using Veracode, like the security team and DevOp. Also, the application team checks the Veracode result and updates it necessarily. Since it is integrated into our applications, there are a lot of users.

    Our deployment model is on-prem. We deploy it as a JAR file inside our Cloud CMS.

    How has it helped my organization?

    We are using it to fix flaws in the code. Sometimes, we have reports that need to be checked. If it is a false positive, then we need to submit the false positive. However, if it is positive, then we need to fix it and perform a new scan to make sure the vulnerability has been fixed on the latest report.

    After scanning, we receive report slides from Veracode. Their reports can help us to see the CVEs that we haven't even heard of and best practices that we can do, e.g., using logging properly, which is helpful. It helps us 50% of the time.

    It has increased our security productivity by approximately 30%. It has reduced our development productivity by a bit less, since it sometimes breaks a lot of modules.

    Veracode SCA helps us know about vulnerabilities before they go into our environment. This is one of its best benefits.

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable feature is the security and vulnerability part of the solution. It shows medium to high vulnerabilities so we can find them, then upgrade our model before it is too late. It is useful because it automates security. Also, it makes things more efficient. So, there is no need for the security team to scan every time. The application team can update it whenever possible in development. Because we are using the Azure methodology, this helps us make sure that the application team can do it using the proper Azure method. For example, when we are using scrum, the application team can improve this Veracode scan on this scrum methodology. Therefore, if they were going to create a pull request, it would be detected. It would be scanned first before it goes to production or another environment, then they can fix it so we can do development more rapidly.

    Our fix rate has increased by 15%. We know that we can update something now or put it in our roadmap to update later on in our application.

    What needs improvement?

    The mitigation recommendations are sometimes helpful. Sometimes, they are outdated. Sometimes, there are a lot of false positives inside Veracode. That is something that I already suggested to the Veracode team.

    It could have better integration with our pipeline. If we could have better integration with our application pipeline, e.g., Jira, Bamboo, or Azure DevOps, then that will be very helpful. Right now, it is quite hard to integrate the solution into our existing pipeline.

    If it has better integration with our DevOps pipeline, then we would use it more. However, at the moment, if the solution can be used for a new project, then we can integrate it. However, if that takes too long, we will integrate other things that are faster.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using the solution for two years and a few months.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The biggest problem is with the false positives. However, it is quite stable for scanning compared to some other applications. That is why we are still using it.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    At the moment, it is hard to implement on our pipeline. Therefore, we need better scalability, as it is quite hard to scale it to bigger projects because then the scanning will take a lot more time.

    How are customer service and support?

    Their technical support is helpful. If we send a message to them, then they respond within the SLA. I would rate the customer service as eight out of 10.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Positive

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    While Veracode SCA may take some time to scan, it helps to reduce the number of scans that we need to do. Before, we needed to scan manually multiple times. Whereas, with SCA, we can just check one by one, then send it as a batch and scan it again. We used to scan 10 times or so. With this automated system, we now scan on average five or six times.

    How was the initial setup?

    I know how hard it was for our DevOps to set it up.

    The deployment process is different for each application. There are a lot of different things that we need to set for this solution. If we have a standardized system, not only using JAR but also other things, then that would be very helpful and make it easier for us to integrate. Currently, there is a lot of preparation that goes into setting up Veracode for integration with our existing applications.

    Depending on the pipeline, it takes about five working days to deploy.

    What was our ROI?

    On our team, the solution has been very helpful. For more than two years, it has helped us get a lot of things on our application. It is easier for us to do fixes instead of just doing a pen test every time, then getting everyone to check it. 

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    It has good, fair licensing. If the price could depend on the scope of its scanning or the languages supported, then that would be better.

    It is quite important to have fixed or static costs because it is easier for our financing.

    Compared to other solutions, Veracode is more expensive but offers a lot for free.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We also evaluated SonarQube and Snyk in PoCs. We thought SonarQube and Veracode were good. 

    We went with Veracode because its processes are very detailed and it supports a lot of languages. Though, compared to other solutions, it is difficult to integrate into the pipeline and can improve on its false positives.

    What other advice do I have?

    Try all of the features. Make sure that you use the Veracode SCA with different languages since we can see differences between scanning Java, Node.js, or PHP.

    For our site, we only use SAST and DAST for penetration testing. Also, the penetration testing for SCA is handled by another vendor since we have a different vendor for this usage. 

    It helps indirectly with Webex.

    I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Jagusztin Laszlo - PeerSpot reviewer
    Chief Technology Architect at Alerant Zrt.
    Real User
    Top 10
    Excels when it comes to binary scanning and has helped us significantly increase development speed
    Pros and Cons
    • "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."
    • "There is room for improvement in the speed of the system. Sometimes, the servers are very busy and slow... Also, the integration with SonarQube is very weak, so we had to implement a custom solution to extend it."

    What is our primary use case?

    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.

    How has it helped my organization?

    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.

    What is most valuable?

    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.

    What needs improvement?

    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.

    For how long have I used the solution?

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

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    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.

    How are customer service and support?

    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.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Positive

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    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.

    How was the initial setup?

    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.

    What was our ROI?

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

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    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. 

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    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.

    What other advice do I have?

    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.

    Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor. The reviewer's company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
    PeerSpot user
    Nagaraj Sheshachalam - PeerSpot reviewer
    Lead Cyber Security engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Top 5Leaderboard
    Flexible solution with an easy way to run a scan
    Pros and Cons
    • "There have been a lot of benefits gained from Veracode. Compared to other tools, Veracode has good flexibility with an easy way to run a scan. We get in-depth details on how to fix things and go through the process. They provide good process documents, community, and consultation for any issues that occur during the use of Veracode."
    • "The scanning could be improved, because some scans take a bit of time."

    What is our primary use case?

    In India, we have a digital development center. I'm from the security team. There are teams who develop all the applications for security features and coding security analysis. We use the Veracode Static Analysis for all projects and applications within our organization.

    How has it helped my organization?

    All the top vulnerabilities are detected. This makes sure all our applications are up-to-date on market threats, which are occurring. It gives a good workaround process for the developers to secure their code and ensure all our applications are secure. Up-to-date vulnerabilities are detected. It detects the vulnerabilities in the market on time. We keep running the scan over regular intervals, which ensures that we are secure.

    Veracode has helped with developer security training and building developer security skills. I had never used Veracode previously. The training portals really helped teach me how to run the scan, know the Veracode processes, what processes should be followed, and what Veracode is all about. The training has really helped everyone.

    Veracode covers most policy scans of most of the top vulnerabilities, like mobile. It pretty much covers all the policies per our compliance guidelines.

    We give the developer a specific SLA period to fix each severity part of the vulnerabilities. So, they have a certain time limit to fix it. They are very comfortable in receiving these threats and working on fixing them. 

    We are very much confident in the SCA scanning mechanism. If things are going fine, we can push it into production. On scale from one to five, I can give it a four and a half.

    What is most valuable?

    There have been a lot of benefits gained from Veracode. Compared to other tools, Veracode has good flexibility with an easy way to run a scan. We get in-depth details on how to fix things and go through the process. They provide good process documents, community, and consultation for any issues that occur during the use of Veracode.

    SCA enables developers to write secure code from the start. During the development process, we run the scan. If any threats or vulnerabilities occur, we make sure to fix them, then rerun the scan. Then, we move to production. We have all the applications of our organization on Veracode using CI for our pipeline.

    We use the Static Analysis Pipeline Scan, and it provides a good benefit for our developers. Previously, we didn't have any of these kinds of tools within the organization. We were using a code quality tool, but Veracode also gives us code quality. It also detects the vulnerabilities within the application, which makes sure the quality of the application is treated well. Therefore, I can give it a rating of four and a half out of five.

    What needs improvement?

    The scanning could be improved, because some scans take a bit of time. 

    Many developers have commented on the packaging. It is quite different compared to other tools, so the packaging of codes could be changed. They should make it more uniform.

    On the reporting, there should be an option like sending reports to groups or task ID.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using Veracode for one year within our organization.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The stability is good; there is nothing unstable about it.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    SCA scales well. 

    Most of the users are developers, about 90 percent. 100 to 150 employees are using Veracode as of now.

    We have more than 30 applications. Some use it on a daily basis, then others use it on a biweekly or monthly basis.

    We do have plans to increase usage. All our developers across our organization, across the globe, will start implementing Veracode within all their platforms or applications that they are developing very soon.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    We receive guidance for fixing vulnerabilities in case something is new to us, or we are stuck from there. We can very easily get consultation through calls and emails, which gets things easily clarified. That means we get things done quickly.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We were using SonarQube previously, but just as a code quality tool.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was somewhere between straightforward and complex. I am not a developer, so I would not know how to package these codes and send them in for a scan. What I prefer is if there could be some mechanism where if I am a layman, then I just need to run a scan of the application. After that, there should be some option where I can get the project details. Instead of doing the packaging or some changes in the uploading part, this change would really help anybody who had to run the scan.

    We have multiple applications developed at our organization, but it didn't take much time to deploy the solution to each. If a new application comes into picture in our organization, we provide access, so they can start running the scan in one or two days.

    What was our ROI?

    SCA reduced the cost of AppSec for our organization, because of things like stability.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    It scans quickly versus other tools, like Qualys, Burp Suite, SonarQube, and Nexus. 

    What other advice do I have?

    I can be confident about more of our applications in production. We can be more confident against many kinds of external threats. The lesson learnt is about being proactive, which is a good thing in security.

    Veracode integrates with our developer tool 95 percent of the time. It is supported very well because developers get to know why the security features are really important in any organization or application along with what they develop. They get to know the market standards of what the security threats are and how to fix them, making sure the coding or the applications are secure enough to move to production. However, with MuleSoft, it does not support most of the API parts.

    We use cloud-based applications and take support from the community.

    At the moment, we are only using SCA and Static Analysis, which we have been very satisfied with. However, we are not using their DAST or pen testing. 

    In our organization, we concentrate on high-end and medium alerts, but we really don't bother much with false positives.

    I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).

    Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
    PeerSpot user
    Muhammed Shabreen - PeerSpot reviewer
    CTO at RIZEK
    Real User
    Top 20
    Does good analysis and increases our security level, but needs to be improved from the usability and pricing perspective
    Pros and Cons
    • "It is a good product for creating secure software. The static code analysis is pretty good and useful."
    • "From the usability perspective, it is not up to date with the latest trends. It looks very old. Tools such as Datadog, New Relic, or infrastructure security tools, such as AWS Cloud, seem very user-friendly. They are completely web-based, and you can navigate through them pretty quickly, whereas Veracode is very rigid. It is like an old-school enterprise application. It does the job, but they need to invest a little more on the usability front."

    What is our primary use case?

    We use it for code analysis to see if there are any vulnerabilities in the code. I'm heading a startup for this, and I have a development team of about 14 people. They upload the codebase to Veracode, run an analysis, and take the results. If there are any vulnerabilities, they fix them.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It reduces security vulnerabilities and increases our security level. It has been helpful in reducing our security debt.

    Having a centralized view for our developers and security professionals is very important. If there is anything in the cloud or infrastructure, we need to know proactively. Otherwise, we wouldn't know when there is a security compromise. So, we have to be prepared so that if something happens, we know where to go and stop it. It is not always about fixing and making your code zero percent vulnerable. That doesn't happen generally, but you need to know the areas where something can go wrong. If those areas are your critical systems or critical data security parts, you can act accordingly and quickly.

    The centralized view has improved the visibility into the status of our application code. This visibility is very important because we need to know the condition or status of our codebase.

    Scanning with the solution has increased our fix rate, but I don't have the metrics. It has also helped to increase the productivity of our security and development teams.

    What is most valuable?

    It is a good product for creating secure software. The static code analysis is pretty good and useful. The mitigation recommendations provided by the scanning engine are also pretty good.

    What needs improvement?

    From the usability perspective, it is not up to date with the latest trends. It looks very old. Tools such as Datadog, New Relic, or infrastructure security tools, such as AWS Cloud, seem very user-friendly. They are completely web-based, and you can navigate through them pretty quickly, whereas Veracode is very rigid. It is like an old-school enterprise application. It does the job, but they need to invest a little more on the usability front.

    From the pricing perspective, it is not very convenient for startup organizations. They should have options to onboard it for the startup ecosystem quickly and affordably.

    There should also be strengthening of the developer community.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using this solution for almost a year.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    I didn't find any errors. It is available and stable. I didn't have any issues with it.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Its flexibility is very less. It is a very rigid application. Currently, we have six users of this solution in our organization.

    How are customer service and support?

    I interacted with them once. They were very good. They were very friendly and supportive. I would rate them a seven out of ten.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Neutral

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We didn't use a different solution previously. The company started just a year ago. 

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    For enterprises, Veracode has done a fairly good job, but its pricing is not suitable for startups. The microservice distributed architecture for a startup is very small. I had to do a lot of discussions on the pricing initially. I previously worked in an enterprise organization where I used Veracode, and that's how I got to know about Veracode, but that was a big organization with more than a thousand employees. So, the cost is very different for them because the size of the application is different. Its pricing makes sense there, but when we try to onboard this solution for the startup ecosystem, pricing is not friendly. Because I knew the product and I knew its value, I onboarded it, but I don't think any other startup at our scale will onboard it. 

    Its pricing should be based on the size of the application or organization. For a startup organization, they can provide credit-based pricing. They don't need to reduce the price. AWS, Google, and other vendors do the same where they don't reduce the price, but they give credits. I have been in the industry for 15 years, and I have seen that people don't like to change technologies for many reasons. For the first year or the first 18 months, customers can explore the product completely free. If the first year is free and you are onboarded, you would stay with it if it does the job. If the product is doing its job and adding security value, there is no reason to change it in the second year, and you are also ready to pay because, in the first year, you have tested that it is working fine. A company that has used it for the first year would definitely need it in the second year because they keep adding code to the codebase. Another option is that, like Cloudflare, they provide a very slashed rate. Cloudflare onboards everyone at a very cheap price, but when you start exploring the actual use cases, they start adding. 

    What other advice do I have?

    It is a good product, and you should consider it, but it can be elevated more for startup culture. It should be more pricing-friendly and user-friendly. There should also be strengthening of the developer community.

    We are only doing code analysis with it. For manual penetration testing, we have to contact an entity.

    It hasn't reduced our scan time. It also hasn't helped our organization with certification and audits. We're a small startup, and at this time, we don't have audits, etc. We might do that later. 

    I would rate this product a six out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Amazon Web Services (AWS)
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user