Veracode Reviews

The SAST feature is the most valuable aspect of the solution.

The stability has been quite good overall. The performance is reliable. 

The scalability on offer is good. I don't see any constraints.

From a usability standpoint and the way it can be integrated into the pipelines, etc., it's very good.

It's comprehensive from a feature standpoint. 

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

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

I joined this company very recently. Therefore, I've only used the solution for a few months. However, this company has used Veracode for at least the last two to three years. They've had it for a while.

The stability overall is quite reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is very good.

The solution can scale well. If a company is considering expanding, it should be able to do so without issue.

We do have a limited amount of users on the solution right now.

I've never had a need, up to this point, to reach out to technical support. I haven't really come across any technical issues during my short tenure with the product. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. I don't have any insights I could share. 

We have a few team members that specialize in the solution.

Our team handles the maintenance of the solution.

I don't have enough information to be able to comment on the cost of licensing the product. That's more of a sales question. I don't handle any aspect of that part of the solution.

We are customers and end-users. We don't really have a business relationship with Veracode.

I'm more from the performance testing side of things. I've just added the security testing to my list of responsibilities recently.

We're using a mix of deployment models. We use both on-premises and cloud deployments. 

It's a good tool. I've done some comparisons with both SAST and DAST. It gives us this end-to-end sort of feature that we appreciate. Therefore, rather than you doing SAST with one tool and DAST with another tool, I prefer going with Veracode, which offers both. 

You can learn both static and dynamic scans with a single tool. You could effectively negotiate a price and do that. If you got some simple apps, from a CAC standpoint, I'd recommend folks to use Veracode.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. 

We use this solution for Digital Health.

This solution has helped us in developing a secured product.

Veracode is fantastic! All of the features are valuable.

My experience with Veracode across the board every time, in all products, the technology, the product, the service, and the salespeople are fabulous. They are engaging.

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

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

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

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

I have several years of experience working with Veracode.

When we used this solution a year ago, we used the most current version.

It's a stable solution. I would rate stability a ten out of ten.

It's a scalable product. My rating out of ten would be a ten, scalability-wise.

We have a software development manager and three other people who are using it.

Technical support is phenomenal. They are fabulous and very responsive, it's amazing.

Previously, I did not use another solution. Because I knew Veracode for many years, my approach with the company was that it was a startup and we need to do it securely. This is s why we went with Veracode.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was extremely easy and took only a few hours to deploy.

We have a team in-house to implement this solution.

The pricing for qualified startups such as Neo4j could be improved.

It allows startups to develop a secure product, but it takes time for startups to get money for the products. 

Veracode could provide the services, at a significantly lower price during that period with a condition that the moment that it becomes production, Veracode has to be paid.

If they would change that, it would be phenomenal for the entire industry and for them.

Licensing cost is on a yearly basis and there are no additional costs, the pricing is straightforward.

At the time that we used this solution, we were a startup, the software may not have been that complex. It's not like Oracle.

My advice to others who are interested in using this solution is to pay attention to the full instructions.

I would rate Veracode Developer Training a ten out of ten.

We use the Static Analysis, Dynamic Analysis, and SCA, the software composition analysis.

The Static Analysis has identified flaws.

From a developer point of view, it has really helped me to know about many security best practices that I need to follow.

There are also security specialists, although it's not my area, who work on strategy to mitigate flaws. It classifies things into three levels: high, medium, and low, the latter being the ones that you can live with. It tells you which are very critical and you need to fix. That helps management to determine the strategy of what to fix next.

When you reach a level of security in your application and you get verification from Veracode that your app is secure, that helps in selling products. Mitigating flaws and being sure that your product is secure is going to give you higher credibility with clients and better performance.

In our use case, some of our products have dependencies in separate apps. Before going into production, each dependency has its own sandbox to help us identify the vulnerabilities in that certain dependency. Then there is the software composition analysis, the SCA, that helps us scan all the vulnerabilities when those modules are integrated with each other. Before deploying the whole app into production, we fix the flaws and increase the score. We have a whole company policy that some high-level security experts put in place. Before we move on to the next level of scanning we need to get to a certain score. That has really helped us. Each time, they make the analysis a little harder, to dive deeper into the code and go through different scenarios to find more flaws. That has really helped us have the minimum required number of issues and security flaws, when we go into production.

The most valuable features are the application analyses: 

• Static Analysis
• Dynamic Analysis
• SCA, the software composition analysis, to scan all the models together. 

These are the three features we've mostly been using.

It is easy to use for us developers. It supports so many languages: C#, .NET Core, .NET Framework, and it even scans some of our JavaScript. You just need the extension to upload the files and the reports are generated with so much detail. 

You can detect which line is causing the issue and it gives you some insights about, for example, if you have a dependency problem in your inputs or some known vulnerabilities. It even gives you an article so that you can read about it and know how to mitigate it in some cases. Sometimes there are well-known flaws in third-parties and you should upgrade to another version to resolve your issues. Veracode guides you.

I haven't tried any other platforms, but from what I have seen, it is really fast. You just upload the files, which is easy to do, and you can follow the scanning progress on the platform. Once it's done you get an email and you just access the platform. I don't know what other tools are like, but for me, Veracode is user-friendly.

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

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

I've used Veracode since October, 2018.

The solution we are using is stable. So far, it seems to be really practical.

In our company, other products are using it, not just our product. So it's surely being used by other developers. There is also management between the applications. Each team has its own hierarchy in the company and the organizational levels are handled well in the solution. We have an upper manager and the administrator of the app. And each product has its own dashboards and its own access rights, so I cannot see the results of other people.

There was a time when we needed support from them. We organized a call because the license the company had included the possibility to have a support call with one of the Veracode guys, when we first started using it. They were very helpful, showing us how to use it. They provided support on how to integrate the extension. We had a one hour call with them and they were really helpful.

They also asked for some feedback. It feels really good to have that community working together. We feel engaged with the whole Veracode community.

I've participated in some of the online courses, which helped. There are some levels that the team should have. You follow some courses, you get to level one, and then you move on to the next level. Each level of certification was really useful to learn about some of the flaws and some of the vulnerabilities that we could face. They give you some great use cases and how to remedy things in C# and many different languages. The online course also shows you how a developer can make some mistakes in his code, and how those mistakes can be used to bypass app security. By knowing that, you can avoid doing it in the future.

There were also some events organized recently—security labs—and they were also useful. There were tasks and I even had to work on them outside of work, but they were really helpful and a challenge.

The training also helped us to identify the existing vulnerabilities in our code and some of the third-parties that we are using that have vulnerabilities in them. We know we need to upgrade them.

My advice is that you should follow the training, initially. It was really helpful, even at the first level. Then, go on and read all the detailed documentation online. There are even some video tutorials which are really helpful. These are the steps that I followed.

There is a section on the supported frameworks. Veracode supports a wide variety of languages, but it would be good to check that before diving into the analysis and why it's not detecting your code.

I have been really satisfied with the areas of Veracode that I have had a chance to work with.

Veracode has both static application security testing as well as dynamic application security testing, also called Dynamic Analysis. Our primary use case was on the static analysis side, not on the dynamic, because we have an automated tool in the dynamic analysis scope. So our primary use was static analysis security testing.

Application security improved a lot because the teams got a list of all vulnerabilities, they analyzed them, and then they incorporated the fixes. It helped ensure that these kinds of issues would not happen when they wrote code in the future, because when the fix was applied, it was applied to all the vulnerabilities. That means our AppSec improved greatly once we started using Veracode.

It has SAST, DAST, as well as SCA—software composition analysis, which is used for finding vulnerabilities in third-party components. All these are in one tenant. Veracode provides a uniform view that enabled us to see the vulnerabilities of an application holistically. Our primary use case was the SAST. The DAST and SCA were not for our products. It definitely helped reduce risk exposure because, no matter how secure the code you write is, ultimately, you end up using third-party libraries. So finding vulnerabilities in the third-party libraries is also essential and this unified view gave us a holistic security profile of the application, rather than just our code or just the third-party code or only static or only dynamic. All these pieces are combined to give a unified view. It helped give a holistic picture of the security status of the application.

The most valuable feature, from a central tools team perspective, which is the team I am part of, being a DevSecOps person, is that it is SaaS hosted. That makes it very convenient to use. There is no initial time needed to set up an application. Scanning is a matter of minutes. You just log in, create an application profile, associate a security configuration, and that's about it. It takes 10 minutes to start. The lack of initial lead time or initial overhead to get going is the primary advantage. 

Also, because it's SaaS and hosted, we didn't have any infrastructure headache. We didn't have to think about capacity, the load, the scan times, the distribution of teams across various instances. All of this, the elasticity of it, is a major advantage.

There are two aspects to it. One is the infrastructure. The other one is the configuration. There are a lot of SaaS solutions where the infrastructure is taken care of, but the configuration of the application to start scanning takes some time to gain knowledge about it through research and study. That is not the case with Veracode. You don't have any extensive security profiles to consider. It's a two-pronged advantage.

Veracode also reports far fewer false positives with the static scanning. The scanner just goes through the code and analyzes all the security vulnerabilities. A lot of scanning tools in the market give you a lot of false positives. The false positive rate in Veracode is notably less. That was very helpful to the product teams as they could spend most of their time fixing real issues.

Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities and that is one of their USPs—unique selling propositions. They provide security consultations, and scheduling a consultation is very easy. Once a scan is completed, anybody who has a Veracode login can just click a button and have a security consultation with Veracode. That is very unique to Veracode. I have not seen this offered in other products. Even if it is offered, it is not as seamless and it takes some time to get security advice. But with Veracode, it's very seamless and easy to make happen.

Along those lines, this guidance enables developers to write secure code from the start. One of the advantages with Veracode is its ability to integrate the scanning with the DevOps pipeline as well as into the IDEs of the developers, like Eclipse or IntelliJ or Visual Studio. This type of guidance helps developers left-shift their secure-coding practices, which really helps in writing far better secured product.

Another unique selling point of Veracode is their eLearning platform, which is available with the cloud-hosted solution. It's integrated into the same URL. Developers log into the Veracode tenant, go through the eLearning Portal, and all the courses are there. The eLearning platform is really good and has helped developers improve their application security knowledge and incorporate it in their coding practices.

One of the things that Veracode follows very clearly is the assignment of a vulnerability to the CWE standard or the OWASP standard. Every vulnerability reported is tied to an open standard. It's not something proprietary to Veracode. But it makes it easy for the engineers and developers to find more information on the particular bug. The adherence to standards helps developers learn more about issues and how to fix them.

We use the Static Analysis Pipeline Scan as part of the CI pipeline in Jenkins or TeamCity or any of the code orchestrators that use scanning as part of the pipeline. There's nothing special about the pipeline scan. It's like our regular Veracode Static Analysis Scan. It's just that if it is part of the pipeline, you are scanning more frequently and finding flaws at an earlier point in time. The time to identify vulnerabilities is quicker.

Veracode with the integrated development environments that the developers use to write code, including Microsoft Visual Studio, Eclipse, IntelliJ IDEA, etc. It also integrates with project and portfolio management tools like JIRA and Rally. That way, once vulnerabilities are reported you can actually track them by exporting them to your project management tools, your Agile tools, or your Kanban boards. The more integrations a scanning tool has, the better it is because everything has to fit into the DevOps or DevSecOps pipeline. The more integrations it has with the continuous integration tools, the IDEs, and the product management tools, the better it is. It affects the adoption. If it is a standalone system the adoption won't be great. The integration helps with adoption because you don't need to scan manually. You set it up in the pipeline once and it just keeps scanning.

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

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

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

I used to work for CA Technologies, which was acquired by Broadcom. Back in 2017, CA Technologies acquired Veracode, and that is when I started administering Veracode. Since it was a CA product, all product teams in various business units within CA were asked to adopt Veracode for their static analysis. My team is the central tools team and had the responsibility of enabling and deploying Veracode for all the product teams. So we used Veracode starting in 2017. I used it both in a DevSecOps lead role and as a Veracode admin and security admin.

It's quite stable because everything is in the cloud. I really don't need to worry about the stability at all or the frequency of the scans. It's all taken care of by the Veracode platform.

It is scalable. We had about 500 applications, out of which 200 were being scanned regularly. It was in the AWS infrastructure and it was quite scalable. The elasticity was all taken care of. We were scanning a huge set of enterprise products.

We had roughly 2,000 Veracode users. Generally they were developers but there were QA people, as well as the program managers because they needed to add the vulnerabilities and see the health of the product. We also had security champions to advise the product teams on their scanning and vulnerabilities. In addition, general security also accessed it to provide consultation on how to fix vulnerabilities. We were able to give privileges and access control based on each individual.

We stopped our use of Veracode on November 1st, 2020, about 30 days ago. But when we were using it for the three-and-a-half years, the usage was very extensive.

The customer support was two-pronged. One was the security consultation and that was top-notch. The security support helped teams understandable the vulnerabilities 

The regular customer support for issues was quite prompt and had good SLA turnarounds.

Veracode is one of the more expensive solutions in the market, but it is worth the expense because of the eLearning and the security consultations; everything is included in the license. It's a good return on investment because it improves the application security for all the different types of scans.

It reduced the cost of AppSec for our organization because otherwise we would have had to go through multiple vendors for application security. With Veracode, one solution fit all our needs. It reduced the AppSec cost by reducing the numbers of vendors. Typically, you would have different products for different types of scanning. For static analysis you might use one tool, and for dynamic another, and for third-party software composition analysis you might use another. And after using all those tools, you might still have to consult with another vendor. Veracode combines all this into a single solution.

I would estimate that it saved us $500,000 a year.

We have been using the Synopsys tool from Coverity for our static analysis.

Veracode is superior in terms of infrastructure because it is cloud-hosted. We don't have that with Coverity on-premise. We need to take care of capacity planning, infrastructure procurement. Also, with Coverity we have to invest some time to enable various checkers. The security profile configuration takes time compared to Veracode.

Coverity, on the other hand, is more robust and it works with the C programming languages.

We use it for dynamic scanning and Static Code Analysis as well as for Software Composition Analysis (SCA).

We do use this solution's support for cloud-native applications.

We are a startup with 350 employees. The AppSec program initially was focused and aligned with regulatory audit, and compliance. However, over the past two years, we have "shifted left" : integrating AppSec early in our SDLC process. Having this tool has fast-tracked our response times in terms of scanning the code for third-party library vulnerabilities. 

The SCA, which detects vulnerabilities in third-party and open source libraries, was something new for us and is very well done. It provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities. 

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

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

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

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

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

We have been using Veracode for over a year now.

It hasn't gone down. Nobody has complained about the Pipeline Scan being broken. The couple of times that they have, it was more to do with our ineptitude than with the platform capabilities. Once we understood how the platform is working and the gotchas associated with it, we were able to have a workaround within its constraints.

For our use case, it is sufficient. It has been up and running for quite some time and we haven't had any downtime experience with it. We get proactive notifications from Veracode about any upcoming maintenance, batch schedules, and other things. They have been pretty good with that. 

There haven't been any issues with multiple users logging in and slowing it down. It has just been inherently slow. 

We clearly mentioned during our purchase cycle that we have C++ code, a Swift code from a US perspective, Python libraries, etc. We were given assurances that these were absolutely covered under the solution. However, when we started investigating through support tickets, they admitted that these were not supported. We have very limited support for C++ code scans and other things. That was a bummer from my perspective.

The support has been good. However, we work in an agile environment and our release cycles are literally every two weeks. Their response times have been very delayed, especially as we are in the Pacific Time Zone and they are in the Eastern Time Zone. 

They have a great support portal to do self-service. We have been pretty impressed with that, but we soon realized that anything you pick is 10 days to two weeks out. That has been a non-starter for us. We had to constantly escalate through our account team to get an engineer on the call, because we were in the middle of a release and needed to scan the product at the moment.

At this point, we are doing sandbox scanning. We have implemented it with our Jenkins CI/CD tool to really scan the code, upload, etc. It took awhile for us to figure it out because the support wasn't really helpful. We had to hack our way into getting through the documentation. Since the time they acquired SourceClear, they haven't really cleaned up or integrated the documentation well, and that may be one of the reasons. However, we were able to find the right combination of keys to make it work.

We were previously using WhiteHat Security. Their lack of customer service prompted us to switch. Every question that we asked was just going into a black hole. The only time that we got any response was when our account was up for renewal. We had a long discussion with them to get a rationale behind their lack of response, and that was the only time they listened. There was no follow-up. That is when we decided that this is not a partnership that we wanted to continue anymore.

Veracode has automated a lot of the manual stuff that we were doing in terms of scanning third-party libraries. With any given release, I was spending from eight to 10 hours manually scanning through all 3rd-party libraries for vulnerabilities. Now, it is all within the Pipeline. So, I am saving about 10 hours in a given month with it.

The initial setup was moderately complex. The onboarding of the tenant, single sign-on, and access control were easy, but when it came to the real work of integrating the Pipeline Scan and our ticketing system, that is broken at this point. I spend most of my time manually doing this, and if they could fix that portion, that would save me another two hours worth of my time with every release.

The deployment took two to three weeks.

Because this was a SaaS service, we just onboarded one team, then looked through some of the gotchas from login and access perspective. Once the pilot users were all cleared up for any potential issues, we then onboarded the rest of the team. We have a small team of 40 users from a development perspective.

It's pretty straightforward from an onboarding perspective because it is all SaaS. We just needed to whitelist some IPs from Veracode for scanning some of our code, which are not publicly available. Beyond that, everything was pretty straightforward.

The solution was implemented by an internal consultant and me.

The time savings has been tremendous. We saw ROI in the first six months.

It is very reasonably priced compared to what we were paying our previous vendor. For the same price, we are getting much more value and reducing our AppSec costs from 40 to 50 percent.

We bought the product for its expected benefits, in terms of all the bells and whistles that we saw during the sales cycle. When it came time to really implement it, that is where we have been having buyer's remorse.

We evaluated Micro Focus, Black Duck, SonarSource, and Coverity. We felt Micro Focus was the closest to really addressing all three of our needs, which is SAST, DAST, and the third-party software composition analysis. Micro Focus had the most complete execution from an implementation perspective, but it was very expensive for us. We went with Veracode because it was within our price point. 

We are getting huge value out of the dynamic scan and third-party library scanning. However, the initial euphoria has died down at this point, so we will be looking at additional tools to augment some of the solution's shortcomings.

It is good for third-party scanning and if your code base is all modern web frameworks. It is also great for the third-party analysis. However, the Software Composition Analysis is not good if you have C++ code or anything legacy, as it does not cover that. It also does not cover iOS code. It has a lot of constraints.

The solution’s policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is fine. We are using it for internal reporting, but we haven't really dug into the policy definitions and tweaking them. We are using its default policies.

As part of our validation and testing, we are able to catch vulnerable code early on. That has been helpful. Automating some of the process has been really helpful, at least from our team's effort perspective. The tool highlights the risk associated with vulnerabilities. That effort is very much automated with this tool.

I would rate this solution as a six out of 10. If you have legacy applications, the solution is great. Their SaaS scanning is geared towards that. If you have modern frameworks, the SaaS scanning and dynamic scanning don't provide much value. My advice to anybody looking at Veracode: Use them for third-party scanning. They are really good at that because of their SourceClear acquisition. For the rest of their products though, just keep looking.

We use Veracode for static analysis of source code as well as some dynamic analysis.

It's valuable to any business that has software developers or that is producing software that consumers use. You have to do some type of application security testing before allowing consumers to use software. Otherwise, it's risky. You could be publishing software with certain security defects, which would open up your company to the likelihood of a class action lawsuit.

I don't have any examples of how it improved the way our company functions. However, I did use a lot of the findings to put pressure on our vendors to try to improve their security postures.

Veracode has helped with developer security training and helped build developer security skills. Developers who get the tickets can go into it and take a look at the remediation advice. They have a lot of published documentation about different types of security issues, documentation that developers can freely get into and read.

The integration with JIRA helps developers see the issues and respond to them.

The most valuable features are that you can do static analysis and dynamic analysis on a scheduled basis and that you can push the findings into JIRA.

Static Analysis Pipeline Scan was able to find security defects in the software we were sending its way. For both Android and iOS that worked very well. It did have a lot of false positives though, but at least we knew it was working. The speed of the pipeline scan was completely reasonable. I don't have any complaints about the time it took.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been using Veracode for about a year.

It's highly stable.

It scaled fine. We didn't have any problems with it not being available or going down during our scans. We have used it 100 percent, meaning we've taken advantage of every license we bought.

Their support was really good. I would give them a B+ and maybe an A-. The only thing that's really taking support down is the product itself. You and the support team are fighting against the product. The people at Veracode were great though.

We didn't have a previous solution. 

The initial setup was pretty complex. We had to integrate it with our CI/CD pipeline. This required writing custom code. Once it was integrated there, we had to have the development team make some changes to how they pushed a release to a special branch so it would go to Veracode on a weekly basis. And once it started raising the issues, we had to work on that JIRA-Veracode integration, which was not straightforward at all and required a lot of debugging help from the Veracode engineering team. They provided that and that was great, but ideally it would show you the error messages so that you don't need their help.

The initial deployment took about two or three weeks and then we had to come back and tune it several times, so there were another two to three weeks of tuning. Altogether, it was about six weeks of effort on our part.

Initially, we had one person working on the deployment, and then I started working on it as well. Later, there were four of us working with Veracode during these calls to try to do the policy tuning and figure out if we could make it work better for everyone.

We had six people using the solution: four software engineers and two security engineers.

I'm not sure if we have seen ROI. We didn't have any high-severity security defects being raised by Veracode, and that's just a function of the development team members we had. It helped in protecting ourselves from potential class action lawsuits.

The pricing is really fair compared to a lot of other tools on the market.

It's not like a typical SaaS offering. Let's say you got SaaS software from G Suite. You're going to get Google Docs and Google Drive and Google Sheets, etc. It's going to be the same for everybody. But in Veracode, it's not. You buy a license for specific kinds of scanners. I had two licenses for static analysis scanners and one license for a dynamic analysis scanner. 

I chose Veracode over others because it supported the programming languages we're using. It had the best language support. A lot of the other solutions might have supported one of the languages we're using, but not all of them.

My advice would be to definitely have some code that has a lot of security defects embedded into it and to run it through the scanner to test it early on in the process, ideally during the evaluation process. If your company works in five programming languages, you would want to create some code in each of those languages, code that has a lot of security defects, and then run the scanner over it to just make sure it can catch the security vulnerabilities you need it to catch and that it's consistent with how it raises those vulnerabilities.

Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities but that doesn't enable developers to write secure code from the start. The way the product works is it scans code that has already been written and then raises issues about the security problems found in the code. That is the point at which the developer sees the issue and can look at the remediation advice Veracode gives, and the possible training. But it doesn't allow them to write secure code in the first place, unless they really remember everything. It does educate them about it, but it's usually after the fact.

The solution provides policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulation. While those features were not applicable to us, they were in there. I think they would be very useful for anyone working in a high-compliance industry.

It also provides visibility into application status across all testing types, including SAST, DAST, SCA, and manual penetration testing, in a centralized view. If you buy the SAST and DAST license, of course you'll see those scan results inside that view, but to see the pen testing that means you'd have to buy pen testing from them as well. Seeing those testing types in one view didn't really affect our AppSec. It's nice for the security team, but it's just not that important because they weren't in there everyday looking at it. Since we had the JIRA integration, the defects would flow into JIRA. The software engineers would take a look at it and categorize whether it was something they could fix or something that was in a vendor's library. The software engineers would prioritize the things that they could fix, and if it was in a vendor's library, I would batch those up and communicate them to the vendor.

Overall, I would grade Veracode as a "B" when it comes to its ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. It will find everything that's wrong, but it doesn't have enough tuning parameters to make it easier for organizations without compliance burdens to use it more effectively.

Overall, it's pretty solid. I would give it an eight out of 10.

The use case is that we have quite a few projects on GitHub. As we are a consulting company, some of these projects are open source and others are enterprise and private. We do security investigating for these projects. We scan the repository for both the static analysis—to find things that might be dangerous—and we use the Software Composition Analysis as well. We get notifications when we are using some open source library that has a known vulnerability and we have to upgrade it. We can plan accordingly.

We are using the software as a service.

It has improved the way our organization functions mostly because we can perfect the security issues on our products. That means our product managers can plan accordingly regarding when to fix something based on the severity, and plan fixes for specific releases. So, it has improved our internal process. It has also improved the image of the company from the outside, because they can see in the release notes of our products that we take security seriously, and that we are timely in the way that we address issues.

The solution has helped with developer security training because when we open a ticket with information coming from Veracode, it explains, for example, that some code path or patterns that we have used might be dangerous. That knowledge wasn't there before. That has really helped developers to improve in terms of awareness of security.

The feature that we use the most is the static analysis, by uploading the artifacts. We have two types of applications. They are either Java Server applications using Spring Boot or JavaScript frontend applications. We scan both using the static analysis. Before, we used to do the software composition on one side and the static analysis. For about a year now, we have had a proper security architect who's in charge of organizing the way that we scan for security. He suggested that we only use the static analysis because the software composition has been integrated. So in the reports, we can also see the version of the libraries that have vulnerabilities and that need to be upgraded.

It is good in terms of the efficiency of creating secure software.

My team only does cloud-native applications. Ultimately, the part that we are interested in, in testing, works fine.

There are some false positives, like any products that we have tried in this area, but slightly less. I would trust Veracode more than the others. For example, we had quite a few issues with Snyk which was much worse in terms of false positives, when we tested it for open source.

Also, the solution's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production is perfectly fine. It delivers, at least for the reports that we have been checking on Java and JavaScript. It has reported things that were helpful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have used Veracode for quite a long time now, about two years. I have been working here for three years. In my first year, the company was using a different product for security and then it standardized on Veracode because every department had its own before that. There was consolidation with Veracode.

The stability is good. What I have seen in the stats is that there is downtime of the service a little too often, but it's not something, as a service, where you really need that level of availability on. So I'm not really bothered by that.

We don't have to do anything to scale, because it's SaaS. 

We started with a smaller number of users and then we extended to full single sign-on.

The staff of Veracode is very good. They're very supportive. When the product doesn't report something that we need and is not delivering straight away, they always help us in trying to find a solution, including writing custom code to call the APIs.

From that point of view, Veracode is great. The product, much less so, but I believe that they have good people. They are promising and they listen so I hope they can improve.

We started with WhiteSource, but it didn't have some features like the static analysis, so it was an incomplete solution. And we were already using Veracode for the static analysis, so when Veracode bought SourceClear, we decided to switch.

The initial setup is easy and quite well documented. I was really impressed by the quality of the technical support. When I had problems, that the product wasn't good enough for me, they were always there to help and give suggestions.

Being a service, there wasn't really much of an implementation. It's not complex to use.

My job is mostly technical. I don't own a budget and I don't track numbers. But as the customers are really keen on having us checking security issues, I would definitely say that we have seen a return on investment.

Most of our customers tend, especially in the software composition analysis, to apply their own in-house tools to the artifacts that we share with them. Whenever we release a new version of software and Docker images, they upload it to their systems. Some of them have the internal equivalent of Veracode and they come back to us to say, "Hey, you haven't taken care of this vulnerability." So it is very important for us to be proactive on each set of release notes. We need to show the current status of the product: that we have fixed these vulnerabilities and that we still have some well-known vulnerabilities, but that there are workarounds that we document. In addition they can check the reports that we attach, the reports from Veracode, that show that the severity is not high, meaning they don't create a big risk.

It delivers because we haven't been thinking, "Okay, let's consider another product." We might see some savings so I think the pricing is right.

For open source projects we mostly tested Snyk, which works quite well with JavaScript but much less so with other technologies. But it has some bigger problems because Snyk considers each file inside a repository of GitHub as a separate project, so it was creating a lot of false positives. That made it basically unmanageable, so we gave up on using it.

We have also been using an open source project called the OWASP Dependency-Check that was doing a decent job of software composition analysis but it required a lot of effort in checking false positives. To be honest, it would have been a good solution only if we didn't have a budget for Veracode, but luckily we had the budget, so there was no point in using it.

Another one that we tried, mostly because it was a small company and we had the opportunity to speak directly with them to ask for some small changes, was a company called the Meterian. It doesn't do static analysis, but otherwise the software composition analysis and the library report were the best of the bunch. From my perspective, if we didn't have the need for static analysis, I would have chosen Meterian, mostly because the user interface is much more usable than Veracode's. Also, the findings were much better. We still use it on the open source project because they offer a free version for open source—which is another good thing about some of these products, where the findings are available to anyone. For a company like ours, where we have both open source and enterprise products, this is quite good. Unfortunately, with Veracode, if we scan the open source project, we cannot link the pages of Veracode with the findings because they are private. That's a problem. In the end, for the open source projects, we are still using Meterian because the quality is good.

My main issues with Veracode, in general, are mostly to do with the user interface of the web application and, sometimes, that some pages are inconsistent with each other. But the functionality underneath is there, which is the reason we stay with Veracode.

Usually, we open tickets now using the JIRA/GitHub integration and then we plan them. We decide when we want to fix them and we assign them to developers, mostly because there are some projects that are a little bit more on the legacy side. Changing the version of the library is not easy as in the newer projects, in terms of testing. So we do some planning. But in general, we open tickets and we plan them.

We also have it integrated in the pipelines, but that's really just to report. It's a little bit annoying that the pipeline might break because of security issues. It's good to know, but the fact that that interrupts development is not great. When we tried to put it as a part of the local build, it was too much. It was really getting in the way. The developers worried that they had to fix the security issues before releasing. Instead, we just started creating the issues and started doing proper planning. It is good to have visibility, but executing it all the time is just wrong, from our experience. You have to do it at the right time, and not all the time.

The solution integrates with developer tools, if you consider JIRA and GitHub as developer tools. We tried to use the IntelliJ plugin but it wasn't working straightaway and we gave up.

We haven't been using the container scanning of Veracode, mostly because we are using a different product at the moment to store our Docker images, something that already has some security scanning. So we haven't standardized. We still have to potentially explore the features of Veracode in that area. At the moment we are using Key from IBM Red Hat, and it is also software as a service. When you upload a Docker image there, after some time you also get a security scan, and that's where our customers are getting our images from. It's a private registry.

Overall, I would rate Veracode as a five out of 10, because the functionality is there, but to me, the usability of the user interface is very important and it's still not there.

We use it to scan our web applications before we publish them to see if there are any security vulnerabilities. We use it for static analysis and dynamic analysis.

Veracode has helped immensely with developer security training and in building developer security skills. Before we implemented it, we would find a lot more vulnerabilities in our applications. Now, with Veracode, the developers have started doing a lot more secure coding and they have much better coding practices.

It has also helped our organization to review code quicker, about 50 percent quicker, and to deploy more secure code.

And when it comes to the solution's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production, so far, I haven't seen any instances in which we've had false negatives. So it's pretty effective at that.

Among the most valuable features are the ability to 

• submit the software and get automated scan results from it
• collaborate with developers through the portal while looking at the code
• create compliance reports.

Otherwise, we would have to do working sessions with developers and pull together all the different findings and then probably manage it in a separate mechanism like Excel. And to have to go through source code manually would be quite time intensive and tedious.

The solution also provides you with some guidance as well as best practices around how vulnerabilities should be fixed. It points you in that direction and gives the developers educational cues.

In addition, the policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is pretty comprehensive, especially around PCI. If you do the static analysis, the dynamic analysis, and then a manual penetration test, it aggregates all of these results into one report. And then they create a PCI-specific report around it which helps to illustrate how the application adheres to different standards.

The solution also integrates with developer tools such as Visual Studio and Eclipse.

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

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

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

I have been using Veracode for about two years.

There have been no issues with the stability. We haven't had any outages or any unavailability of the system, so far.

We have about 40 developers but we use this product per project rather than per developer. All our projects will pass through this product. At any given time we have about 10 to 12 projects going on. Outside of developers, it's just the five security team members who also use Veracode.

Any increase of usage will be based on the business and if there are more software projects. Whenever there are additional software projects, we will then increase our usage.

Their technical support is good, but we haven't really had to use it much, so far.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward but, depending on the type of applications or the types of code that you're using, the setup requirements may be a little different. It takes a little getting used to, based on the environment in which you're working.

For example, for Visual studio, it might have specific requirements that are needed to package an application for scanning, whereas an Angular application would have different requirements. For me, as a non-developer, the issue would be around understanding those different requirements for each development environment.

Our deployment didn't take long; it took a couple of days. There were three people involved in, including a developer, someone setting it up, and a code reviewer. By "setting it up" I mean putting in the applications, saying what the application does—providing the business rules of the application.

We didn't have a specific strategy for deploying it. The software is pretty straightforward, once you have the application bundles to be scanned. There's not a whole lot to do after the packaging.

Maintenance-wise, it doesn't take much because it's SaaS. We don't really do much on our end.

We did it in-house with Veracode. Working with Veracode for the deployment was pretty easy, pretty straightforward.

We've seen ROI in that we've cut down on the number of penetration tests we've been doing by about 50 percent, and also because of the stage at which the vulnerabilities are found, before they get into production. That means the risk has also been reduced.

It has reduced the cost of application security for our organization, but more than it has reduced the cost, it provides better software assurance.

In addition to the standard licensing fees there's a support cost and an implementation cost at the beginning.

This year I looked at other vendors in the market, including Synopsys, Contrast, and Checkmarx. What I didn't like about them is that their licensing models are based on how many developers you have. That wasn't a good fit for me. In addition, Checkmarx didn't have a SaaS solution.

If you are doing pipeline-based implementation, it would be more complex than the way that I'm doing this, but I didn't see any real challenges that would be tool-specific or vendor-specific, with implementation.

Your development model will really determine what the best fit is for you in terms of licensing, because of the project-based licensing. If you do a few projects, that's more attractive. If you have a large number of developers, that would also make the product a little more attractive. But if you have maybe one or two developers doing many projects, then you might look more towards software that has a developer-centric model.

We don't use the Static Analysis Pipeline Scan because of the build process that our  developers use. They don't really have an automated build pipeline in which they push the code to production. Also, with the false positive rate, it's a bit tricky when you implement that into the pipeline, as it might stop a developer from pushing code out to test. We use it more like a gate. The developers submit the code to us and then we scan it and review it with them.

The biggest lesson I've learned from using Veracode is that you need to manage it with the developers, so that you speak through the findings with them. It's not just a tool that you throw down their throats.

Overall, I would rate it at seven out of 10. Ideally, I would prefer a product that had the interactive testing, as well as the ability to scan a little faster.

We have three use cases. We have the dynamic scans that we use to scan the production, public-facing URLs. We also use the static scan where we work with the Dev team and scan the code base for the web application and the mobile application on both iOS and Android. Our third use case is manual penetration tests, which my team manages. We do annual manual penetration tests.

It's deployed to our platform infrastructure, which is in a public cloud.

We have some major clients using Veracode. It saves us time when it comes to doing annual pen tests. When we say we're using Veracode and they are also using Veracode, we don't have to run the test twice. They accept what we have because they know the framework is going to be the same.

A pen test can take a month; it really depends on the number of flaws that are found. So when we don't have to run a pen test twice it saves a lot of time. It not only saves time for my team, but for other teams as well, because when we run a third-party pen test for clients, I not only need to have my team coordinating it, but it requires documentation and it requires my technical support to be involved. So it saves a lot of time for a number of teams.

The report content is very good because the reports are structured in a way that they explain the scope of the scan and what the policy is. A report shows, right at the beginning, if we have passed the scan for the policy or not. That's very helpful when sharing that report externally. It's something that we didn't have before and having that now is extremely useful because it avoids a lot of back and forth with clients. If we share a report and there is no further explanation necessary on how the scan works and what we're doing to fix the flaws, it saves additional manual work that would otherwise be needed to update that information. With Veracode, we can do it automatically, just by pulling a report from the dashboard. In addition, whatever they have on the reports meets industry expectations.

Veracode provides visibility into application status across all testing types, including SAST, DAST, SCA, and manual penetration testing, in a centralized view. I manage the team, I'm not involved in the daily operations. But as a manager, it's extremely helpful, because I just log in to my Veracode instance and, on the homepage, it shows the status of all the scans. If I want more information about something, it's one click. From a managerial perspective, it's extremely helpful. The centralized view helps reduce risk exposure. If there is something wrong with a scan, if a scan doesn't run or a scan is not complete, I know about it from the main dashboard.

In addition, the solution integrates with developer tools. That creates more efficiency in the workflows because they don't need to duplicate work.

Overall, its ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production is very good. We recently onboarded a new application into the static scan and we had almost 1,000 flaws in the first scan. We were able to mitigate all of them in less than three months. The result was amazing, enabling us to find everything that could potentially create a problem for us.

All of its features are valuable to us. We are ISO certified and we also do annual SOC 2 audits. We deal with personal, identifiable information and we host confidential information from our clients. Our use of Veracode is based on our clients' requirements and on ISO requirements. It is something that we have in place to comply with what is required. In that context, the manual penetration test is a requirement from all our clients and we do it once a year.

In terms of secure development, the SAST scan is very useful because we are able to identify security flaws in the code base itself, for the application. The dynamic scanning is mostly used to make sure that whatever is deployed to production is secure.

Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities. This doesn't enable developers to write secure code from the start, but Veracode provides guidance through security consultants. We can book consultations in case developers cannot fix a specific flaw, and they guide us through the process based on the CWE.

The efficiency of the solution when it comes to creating secure software is good. For us, it works well. Their dashboard is really good, overall. In my opinion, it's one of the best in the market, and I say that because we have used other service providers.

Its policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is very helpful. We can create our own policy, based on our internal risk management guidelines, and run the scans against our own customized policy. That way we can set expectations to fix flaws based on our internal timeline, and we can issue reports based on that. We usually share those reports with clients. That's very useful.

They are also always updating the types of threats and that's very useful.

In addition, they provide analytics on how we're doing in terms of fixing flaws and mitigating issues.

All of the services that Veracode provides are necessary for the type and the level of security and confidentiality that we need.

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

I have been using Veracode for a year.

The stability is good. We have never had problems.

We will be using more of our products in Veracode starting in January. We added one more application into the dynamic scan and we added a couple more manual penetration tests to our projects. Once you understand how it works, it's very easy to deploy to different applications.

In terms of increasing our usage of the solution, we probably won't for the next couple of years, but we never know. It really depends on the requirements that we have from clients and the requirements of the standards and the regulations. Now, we are covering most of the applications and use cases that we need. We are doing 100 percent of the code base. We are doing dynamic scans on all the URLs in production, and the manual pen tasks are also covering all the applications.

We are doubling the ACV with Veracode for 2021, and that's a lot. After that, we're going to be good for the next couple of years, unless there is something new and the Dev team needs to use some other feature that I'm not aware of at this point.

For the dynamic scans I have a couple of people from the technical support team and one person from operations. For static scans, I have my entire iOS and Android team because, depending on the type of flaw, the ticket is given to different developers. I have about 20 to 25 Veracode users.

Their technical support is usually very quick. They usually get back to us in less than 24 hours. We had a problem recently and it was the first time that we had a problem with Veracode support. We didn't get an outcome for three weeks and it created a major problem, but they usually get back to us in 24 hours.

Their Knowledge Base, their help site, is very useful. Most of the time we can find the information that we are looking for there. Sometimes we consult with their support team, but we can usually find information in their help site.

We were using WhiteHat. We switched because the dashboard was very bad and there were no analytics. The UI was also very bad, so it was not easy to manage it. Also, most of our big clients were using Veracode and asking us to migrate to Veracode. It was a combination of things.

The setup was straightforward. It takes some time in the beginning to onboard, but our onboarding process was easy from the moment that we actually connected the Dev team with Veracode. It's normal to have a certain degree of difficulty in the beginning but we didn't have any major problems.

Our deployment took between a month and 45 days.

We migrated from another vendor, so we first picked the services that we needed and the type. We started with the same scans that we had with the other vendor, and then we divided the work between the different teams. We had to have the iOS team onboard and the Android team onboard. I presented the new tool to them and created the accounts and, after that, we had parallel projects to onboard the different scans. It was definitely easier because I had different teams taking care of each one of the scans, meaning I could do everything in parallel.

For the dynamic scans we had one person involved from the technical support team. It was super-straightforward and super-easy to do. It took us a couple of hours to do it. The static scan takes a little bit more time because you have to prepare the packages. But we already had the packages ready because we migrated from another vendor. It took us some time to adjust the scans, but the actual work of uploading the packages took less than a week.

There is no direct ROI. There is a cost of security, overall. It saves a lot of time and it allows us to have the certifications and comply with the clients' requirements, but it's very hard to have a direct ROI. It's a cost for compliance and security that is worth it.

Veracode is expensive. Some of its products are expensive. I don't think it's way more expensive than its competitors. The dynamic is definitely worth it, as I think it's cheaper than the competitors. The static scan is a little bit more expensive, around 20 percent more expensive. The manual pen test is more expensive, but it is an expensive service because it's a manual pen test and we also do retests. I don't think it is way more expensive than the competitors, but it's about 15 to 20 percent more expensive.

There is also a fee for the support package, which I think is extremely expensive. We used to have the premium support and we didn't use most of it, so we're downgrading to the basic support, and even the basic support is expensive.

We evaluated BitSight. The main advantage of Veracode was the UI, the dashboard. It's very easy to use and to manage.

I can give advice to other managers. If they are willing to properly manage, but they don't have the time or the bandwidth to actually operate, it's a very good tool. It's easy to get access to information and it's easy to understand what's going on with your application without much of a burden. You don't have to waste a lot of time trying to understand a complicated report. Everything is accessible. And the amount of information that Veracode gives based on the flaws is very straightforward and makes it easy for the Dev team to fix them.

I would rate it at eight out of 10. The tool itself is a very good tool. The way they work to update the flaws and the findings is very effective. But the support is a little bit expensive and it could be a little bit better. And there are few things that could be updated in the UI, but overall it's a very good tool.

We use Veracode primarily for three purposes:

1. Static Analysis, which is integrated into our CI/CD pipeline, using APIs. 
2. Every release gets certified for a static code analysis and dynamic code analysis. There is a UAT server, where it gets deployed with the latest release, then we perform the dynamic code scanning on that particular URL.
3. Software Composition Analysis: We use this periodically to understand the software composition from an open source licensing and open source component vulnerability perspective.

For the issues that are being reported by Veracode, normally we collect those issues, and at least once a quarter, we have an awareness session with the developer. We then explain that what is the vulnerable pattern that has been caught and how to avoid it in the future, so they will not introduce it in the first place.

The main benefit of Veracode is it can give you a report in various formats, e.g., PCI compliant. That is very helpful for us. It gives our customers confidence because they trust Veracode. When we submit a report generated by Veracode, they accept it. We have seen in the past that this has helped us during the pre-sales cycle, and from that aspect, it is pretty powerful.

The centralized view of different testing types helps reduce our risk exposure. The development teams have the freedom to choose their own libraries and languages. What happens is sometimes developers feel like a particular library is okay to use, then they will start using it, developing some functionality around it. However, as per our mandate, for every new repository that gets added and scanned, a report gets published. Based on that report, we decide if we can continue. In the past, we have found, by mistake, some developers have used copyleft licenses, which are a bit risky to use. We immediately replace these with more permissive, open-source licenses, so we are safe in the end. 

The static code analysis, which is integrated into the CI/CD environment, is a valuable feature. We get quick results of what has gone into the environment in terms of any vulnerability in the code and for the Eclipse plugins of Veracode. This is one of the more valuable features because a developer can get a sense at the line level if there are any issues. 

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

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

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

Five years.

It is pretty stable with no issues.

If they need to scale back-end infrastructure to make the scan faster, then they should do it. Apart from that, there are no issues to mention.

One person can just start a scan. In our case, the DevOps team does it. They configure it once, then do it. However, the cycle takes time, depending on the codebase size, to look at an issue, identify if there are true positives, and then work on it. It is one person's almost full-time job.

I have a team of around six security professionals team who work on Veracode and use the tool. Two of them are team leads, two of them are senior developers, one is a DevOps engineer, and another one is a junior developer.

We normally create a ticket for Veracode support, then they respond back within 24 hours. Our experience with them is generally very positive.

Normally, the report that we get is self-explanatory, but sometimes there are false positives or some issues that we don't understand. For those, we schedule a consultation call, where they then come on a call and provide guidance on how to fix them. That is pretty cool.

Before Veracode, we had a manual process where we hired white hat hackers. They used to do all the scanning, then submit a report. That process was pretty lengthy. It sometimes could go on for three to six months. Nowadays, for static code scanning, we are doing it on regular basis. Since there are not many issues reported, we can fix them on the fly. For dynamic code analysis, it still takes a week's time because the scanning itself takes three days sometimes. Then, once the scanning is done, we check if there is an issue, fix it, and then start the scan. That is a week-long process, but the rest is pretty under control.

At the time that we set it up, it was quite complex. Now, they have made it pretty simple to use and a brief process. However, we felt the process was quite complicated when we did it. For example, when we initiated the static scan for the JavaScript, we needed a lot of instrumentation. That specific instrumentation that needs to be done at the JavaScript layer. Now, they can accept the bundle as it is and still identify the issue at the line number level. So, that is an enhancement.

They have done some improvements on the triage screen where you can look at all the issues. You can perform various actions over there, like mitigations or adding comments. They have simplified that interface a bit and made it a little faster. Earlier, we used to take quite a time for the check-in and check-out operations. However, now, it is quite fast. If we had to redeploy it from scratch, it would take around 30 minutes.

To start a static code scanning, do an upload, and start a scan, it hardly takes 10 minutes.

We do the setup and implementation ourselves.

Veracode has definitely helped us close deals with the software being compliant to our customers' various standards. 

Before we had Veracode, customers might have demanded some scanned compliance reports, which we didn't have. Because of that, we might have lost some customers during the pre-sales cycle. That cost is huge compared to what we are paying for Veracode.

It has saved our developers' time from six months to two weeks.

If I compare the pricing with other software tools, then it is quite competitive. Whatever the price is, they have always given us a good discount.

We also used Contrast Security for real-time scanning on an experimental basis. If that is successful, we will probably roll that out. Contrast Security is very focused on run time scanning. Veracode also has some kind of module for this that we have not explored. However, the Contrast Security tool was suggested to us by one of our customers. We have not compared Veracode and Contrast Security yet.

The other tool which we use is Burp Suite for performing some manual verification. This is apart from what Veracode is not able to. Our customers are also reporting some vulnerabilities because they have their own scans. To verify those types of issues, we use Burp Suite. Burp Suite is pretty handy when you want to quickly do some penetration testing and verify some vulnerabilities. It is definitely a unique tool, and I don't think there is this kind of module with Veracode.

I'm pretty confident about Veracode's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production when I'm using it.

When you use Veracode, instead of using it as a manual tool, you should integrate it into your CI/CD pipeline. This way, every build is certified. Then, if there is an issue, you will know about it earlier in the development cycle, not later. Because as the time passes, it becomes more difficult to fix that issue.

With Veracode's support for cloud-native applications, there are some components of our application (which are cloud-native), that we treat in the same way as regular software, e.g., the source code and dynamic URLs. We don't have a model where we can do the real-time scanning. This is something which is currently in talks for maintaining the security of the distributed application. Hopefully, that should get implemented in about two months' time.

The reports that they share have been pretty informative, but someone has to go through them and read them quickly. In the early days, they might have offered some kind of training plan, but we did not opt for that.

Veracode has a plugin which we use, and it works with developer tools.

While there are false positive, there aren't much (around 10 percent). We normally farm these to the Veracode team, who act accordingly. Our developers still report 90% valid issues, and this is satisfactory for us.

Biggest lesson learnt: Security should not be an afterthought. 

I would rate this solution as an eight out of 10. I took off points due to the extra time that it takes to do the dynamic scan.

We focus on these two use cases: 

1. Our first use case is for Static Analysis (SAST). The purpose of it is to scan our code for any vulnerabilities and security breaches. Then, we get some other reports from the tool, pointing us to the problematic line of code, showing us what is the vulnerability, and giving us suggestions on how to fix or mitigate them.
2. The second use case is for the Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tool, which is scanning our open sources and third-party libraries that we consumed. They scan and check on the internal database (or whatever depository tool it is using), then they return back a report saying our open sources, the versions, and what are the exposures of using those versions. For any vulnerability, it suggests the minimum upgrades to do in order to move to another more secure version.

Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities. It enables developers to write secure code from the start by pointing them to the problematic line of code, and saying, "This function/method has security vulnerabilities," then suggests alternatives to fix it. Then, we adopt their suggestions of the tool. By implementing it in the right way, we can fix the issue. For example, if the tool has found a method where it copied one piece of memory into another piece of memory in the code. The tool points to problematic methods with the vulnerability and provides ways to code it more securely.  By adopting their suggestions, we are fixing this vulnerability.

Once you run the tool and realize that it is not secure to use a certain method or function, then you fix it. Next time that you want to add new code, you don't want to repeat that mistake. So, you're already adopting the original suggestion, then writing more security code.

If we continued to scan and fix issues, which is an ongoing battle because every day as there are new vulnerabilities, we are on the safe side.

It is faster to adopt and use because it's a SaaS software. As a service tool, we didn't have to deal with any installation emails. We also didn't have to download packages, upgrade, or maintain their on-prem machine, which is usually the case for on-prem solutions. This is a critical point that we needed to consider when adopting the right tool. So, SaaS was a deal breaker for us. 

I don't have any complaints about the policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations. It is good and a mandatory part of our process.

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

About six months.

The technical support was good. Even with the time zones changes, they took the examples that we provided about how our call works and investigated them. When they didn't get an answer initially, they contacted someone else to assist. Overall, our experience was good.

The turnaround time and response times are good. We always got a response, even if they said, "It will take a while, as we are still investigating." One day after always, we always got a response, even if it was, "We need time to investigate." 

I would differentiate between the initial response time for our needs and the resolution time for the issue. The representative themselves respond pretty quickly to our needs. We exchange phone calls with them or email, and they responded quickly. Some of the issues that we experienced were due to our specific code languages and packages that didn't work smoothly with the tool. For those, the representative had to approach the Veracode R&D team. It took more time to involve R&D, but we eventually got a resolution from them after a few days.

To get into the solution, it took some tries to understand the structure of our repository and the code that we were using to write dependencies, etc. So, it took a bit of time, but then in the end, the solution was easy to connect.

It took about a month until we completed integration of Veracode tools into our own systems. Eventually, the tools needs to scan our code that resides on our machines in our on-prem environment. The integration of Veracode on the cloud with the on-prem repository and our processes took time. We worked with the Israeli representative of Veracode to help us. However, it was about a month overall until we stabilize it.

An Israeli sales representative for Veracode came to our office and worked very closely with us. They escorted us through the process of doing the PoC, examining the results and tools, and how to use them. We found it straightforward. There were some hiccups and some problems in the beginning, but not something significant in the general overview. It was easy and fast to adopt.

Our customers demand that we provide secure software. Veracode is giving us the mandate of claiming that our code is more secure because we are using an external third-party, neutral tool to examine our code and expose vulnerabilities. By fixing them, Veracode takes some of the responsibility, which is kind of a diploma that we can wave when we are negotiating with our customers.

We compared it with other tools as part of our proof of concept to adopt the right tool. Eventually, we selected Veracode because the tool provided us the easiest, fastest solution for our two use cases.

When we did the PoC to compare it with other tools, before we decided to adopt Veracode, one of the benefits that we saw is its reports are more focused on real issues. Other scanning tools that we tried, they produced much bigger reports with hundreds of vulnerabilities. That is too many vulnerabilities, so you cannot manage them nor decide where to focus. Using Veracode helps us focus where we need to.

We have used a Checkmarx tool, which is a competitor of Veracode. We have also examined Micro Focus Fortify and some other monitoring tools, which gave us a partial solution, had only static code analysis, or had only the open sources for composition part. We wanted one tool which does everything; we found Veracode all-encompassing.

The solution is efficient when creating secure software. Though, it depends on how you adopt the tool and how frequently you're running it. As long as you keep it as part of your routine and frequently run the tool, you will catch vulnerabilities closer to real-time. Eventually, you will improve the security of your software.

We haven't seen a lot of false positives. However, the tool points us to vulnerabilities to fix, which because of our behavior or software, we don't necessarily need to fix because we have other protections.

We are not using it for cloud software. Our solution is only on-prem.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of 10.

We use it to scan our biggest applications, our bread and butter. We've got a lot of developers using it in our organization, and we've got quite a few applications using it as well.

The solution has helped with developer security training and has helped build developer security skills. It has definitely opened their eyes and made them more aware of things they should look for. I try to get my developers to go to the Veracode seminars if there are new things to learn or if Veracode has made an improvement or they're going to announce something new. They have participated in those quite often, a few every month.

One of the features they have is Software Composition Analysis. When organizations use third-party, open source libraries with their application development, because they're open source they quite often have a lot of bugs. There are always patches coming out for those open source applications. You really have to stay on your toes and keep up with any third-party libraries that might be integrated into your application. Veracode's Software Composition Analysis scans those libraries and we find that very valuable.

We like their Dynamic Analysis as well. They changed the engine of the Dynamic Analysis and it does a better job. It scans better.

We use the solution’s Static Analysis Pipeline Scan. It's really good for assessing security flaws in the pipeline. Sometimes my developers have a hard time understanding the results, but those are only certain, known developers in my organization. I typically direct them to support, especially if I cannot answer the question, because I have full confidence in that process. 

The speed of the static scan is good. Our bread and butter application, which is our largest application, is bulky, and it's taking four hours. That's our baseline to compare the Static Analysis Pipeline and its efficiency. If that's only taking four hours, I have no doubt about our other applications and the solution's static analysis efficiency.

The solution’s policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is really good as well. We're a state agency and we always look to be NIST compliant. We're always looking at the OWASP and CWE-IDs, and Veracode does a really good job there. I've used it often in trying to get my point across to the developers, telling them how bad a vulnerability might be or how vulnerable the application is, based on a vulnerability we may be finding. 

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

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

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

I believe the company got Veracode at the end of 2012. However, my association with Veracode has only been since about the end of 2014. So we had it for a couple of years before I got my hands on it and then I gradually started to use it and implement it to the point where it's at right now. Early 2016 is when I began administering it. I do other tasks, so it's not my full-time job. Veracode is just one of many hats that I wear. Nobody else administers it with me in our company.

Veracode support is really good. I get a lot of help from them. I've been on a few calls with my developers and they're very competent engineers. If they don't have the answers, they'll get back to you.

I feel that management would not approve it if we were not getting our money's worth out of it. We have definitely seen ROI from Veracode.

Going forward, though, what may bring that into question is our transition to the cloud. We're not getting any benefit from those applications in the cloud. I think that should be addressed sooner rather than later.  We're moving to the cloud more, and for our applications in the cloud we usually only go with FedRAMP-certified cloud vendors. So we're not actually even scanning those applications in the cloud with Veracode. Not all our applications are there, but close to 30 percent of them are there now.

And they have to address not being compatible with certain platforms that we use. That has to be addressed because the ROI question may be coming up sooner rather than later.

The solution is very pricey.

The product is very good, very reliable, and they've made a lot of improvements to the dashboards and the reports. They've made the product easy to use. There used to be a lot of things that you had to search for and maneuver to dig deep down for them, but you don't have to do that anymore. Many of the things are now at your fingertips, including performance reports. Those things are easy to get to. 

We use the Veracode SAST solution to scan the Java, Node.js, and Python microservices as part of our CI/CD pipeline, wherein we are using our CI/CD server as Bamboo, Jenkins, and GitLab CI/CD. 

We have teams for both our cloud pipeline and on-prem pipeline, and both teams use this solution. We are using Veracode to constantly run the internal application source code and ensure the code's security hygiene.

Before, the pentesting was happening at later part of the SDLC. Now, we have been getting early feedback about insights from Veracode, including traction around the application security aspects. Developers keep coming to us and asking the questions. Vericode has built a bridge between the development and security teams, which is something really helpful in an organization.

Veracode has helped us build security training in our clients' organizations.

The solution’s policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is very helpful. We use Veracode to scan for vulnerabilities. This help us comply with regulatory standards for the European region. While the policy scanning takes time, it is very good from a compliance point of view.

There are quite a few features that are very reliable, like the newly launched Veracode Pipelines Scan, which is pretty awesome. It supports the synchronous pipeline pretty well. We been using it out of the Jira plugin, and that is fantastic. 

We are using the Veracode APIs to build the Splunk dashboards, which is something very nice, as we are able to showcase the application security hygiene to our stakeholders and leadership. 

We have been using Veracode Greenlight for the IDE scanning. 

Veracode has good documentation, integrations, and tools, so it has been a very good solution. 

Veracode is pretty good about providing recommendations, remedies, and guidelines on issues that are occurring.

It is an excellent solution. It finds a good number of the securities used, providing good coverage across the languages that we require at our client site.

We have been using the solution’s Static Analysis Pipeline Scan, which is excellent. When we started, it took more time because we were doing asynchronous scans. However, in the last six months, Veracode has come with the Pipeline Scan, which supports synchronous scans. It has been helping us out a lot. Now, we don't worry when the pentesting report comes in. By using Veracode, the code is secure, and there are no issues that will stop the release later on in the SDLC. 

The speed of the Pipeline Scan is very nice. It takes less than 10 minutes. This is very good, because our policy scans used to take hours.

Veracode is good in terms of giving feedback.

We would like to see fewer false positives. 

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

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

We have been using the solution for a year and a half.

The stability is good, except every month it needs maintenance. So far, we haven't had an outage during UK working hours, e.g., where we are unable access the platform. There were some issues out-of-the-box, but now it's pretty much fine.

More than 100 people are using the Veracode solution in our organization. Mostly, the guys who use Veracode are developers, QA engineers, product owners, Scrum Masters, and some data scientists.

We have a three-person team of security guys who maintain the entire service. The security guys have automation skills and can write the code. We are one squad in a company out of 21 squads. We are a security who helps other development teams with Veracode as part of their DevSecOps.

We have adapted Veracode across three line of our client's business. In the future, we may expand Veracode into more lines of business. 

The technical support sometimes takes 48 hours to get back to us. Some of the support staff are not that great. There is no extra support on Slack channel nor is there a chat. Instead, we just have to wait for an email. They gave us a mobile number, which sometimes doesn't work. Then, if it does, it takes time. The technical support is something that needs to be improved.

Veracode's application security team is very helpful. If we are not getting the answers that we need, this team will come and assist us. For example, we had a call with their application security team who helped us determine best practices. They are good and very professional. 

Their account team is helpful and knowledgeable.

We use the solution’s support for cloud-native applications, like AWS Lambda. We have a cloud pipeline, where some of our microservices functions are getting developed there. Less than five of our squad use this service.

Because of my consulting background, I have used other solutions prior to the use of Veracode. However, Veracode was the first solution implemented of its type. Before Veracode, developers didn't know how they could develop secure software. After Veracode was implemented, developers knew when they wrote code that they could scan it in their IDEs. Also, while pushing a deployment, they can get feedback from the Pipeline Scan.

The initial setup is straightforward. It took us three months to deploy the entire solution across all the squad at our site via Pipeline Scan as well as have the squads adopt it. If you are familiar with security, you can be up and running with the solution in a week's time.

Our implementation strategy was to give the Greenlight ID plugin to all the developers and enable the microservices. Then, we wanted to let the non-human account use the new unlimited account and all the source code. This has helped us in last year and a half, as we have over 150 microservices being scanned by the Veracode platform.

Customer support was amazing during the evaluation phase.

The ROI seems good so far. The client is happy with what they invested in Veracode. Having our developers now think about security is also helping us out.

The solution has reduced the cost of AppSec a little bit for our organization through the automation of pentesting.

We have seen a 30 percent reduction in pentesting. Using Veracode, we can do faster releases.

Veracode's price is high. I would like them to better optimize their pricing. 

Veracode's price is a little higher than other tools. However, they are the market leader.

Micro Focus Fortify doesn't have good APIs. Instead, they are relying on CLI. Whereas, Veracode is more API and DevSecOps friendly. Veracode's scanning time is better than Fortify's. 

It is an excellent solution. I would recommend adopting it. If you come from a security background, Veracode is an easy solution. If you don't come from a security background, the adoption of Veracode will take a bit of time.

Veracode has been integrated with our IDEs. It has been also integrated with our DevOps CI/CD server, which is Bamboo, Jenkins, or GitLab CI/CD. It is all pretty neat and clean. 

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

We're required to make sure we have no high or very high security issues in our code. Veracode is a code reviewer to prevent hacking and other bad things from happening.

The way it helps our company is that the code is secure. It also helps with our customers because I believe they can request a copy of the report. It lets them know that we're doing the best we can to provide secure software.

The solution has helped build my security skills as a developer. Now, as I proceed forward, I know what to look for when coding items. I'll be coding a little bit more defensively from what I've learned, from all the errors that it has found. Some of the stuff I wasn't even aware of. I also became aware of things that Veracode verified, but I really couldn't fix.

The policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is excellent. It identified most of the issues that our penetration testers look for and gave me a way to look at the line numbers of the code that needed fixing, and that was a huge help. It also gave me samples of code for what was going wrong and it enabled my supervisors and me to go through the whole project and fix 99 percent of the issues we had.

It provides visibility into application status across all testing types in a centralized view. The report is very good at showing that. We are not allowed to install anything until it passes the Veracode test. We have to fix all errors before we can install our software. It absolutely helps reduce risk exposure for our software.

I haven't come across any false positives.

The reporting being highly accurate is pretty cool. I use another product and I was always looking for answers as to what line, which part of the code, was wrong, and what to do about it. Veracode seems to have a solid database to look things up and a website to look things up. We've had very few issues that we have actually had to contact Veracode about.

It does give some guidance, up to a point, for fixing vulnerabilities. It does a pretty good job of that. We went from a bunch of errors to a handful that I needed help with, and that was mostly because they provided some good information for us to look at. If I had been using this product a long time ago, I would have been able to anticipate a lot of things that Veracode discovered. The product I'm working on is about 12 years old and this was the first time we ran scans on it using Veracode. It identified quite a few issues. If you're starting a new project, it would be a good place to start. Once you get used to what people like penetration testers are looking for, this is a good tool to prevent having a pen test come back bad.

The Static Analysis Pipeline Scan is very good. It found everything that we needed to fix.

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

We have been using Veracode for about three months.

The stability seems pretty good. There was only one instance where the site was down.

I don't think Veracode has any problems with scalability. My company is very big. There are about 1,000 of us, all developers, using the solution. It's being used throughout the company for all our products.

I would give their technical support five stars out of five. They were on point and they helped us identify resolutions for some of our issues that we couldn't figure out.

We used Fortify. I was not involved in the decision to switch.

I don't really know about the pricing, but I'd say it's worth whatever Veracode is charging, because the solution is that good. It's just a good product, overall.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Veracode is that there isn't an answer for everything. But when an area needs to be mitigated the mitigation process is fairly easy.

It's pretty efficient, but in my case it took a long time to upload my information. It was a very big project, so I was not surprised that it took a long time, but it was mostly because of the internet around here. It would take a long time to upload the DLL and run the static analysis. It would take about two hours, but again, it's a large project.

Overall, it does a very good job of preventing vulnerable code from going into production. It identified issues that were not detected in penetration tests and allowed us to lock them down.

We are using Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), Static Application Security Testing (SAST), and Static Component Analysis (SCA). We use different types of scanning across numerous applications. We also use Greenlight IDE integration. We are scanning external web applications, internal web applications, and mobile applications with various types/combinations of scanning. We use this both to improve our application security as well as achieve compliance with various compliance bodies that require code scanning.

Veracode's cloud-based approach, coupled with the appliance that lets us use Veracode to scan internal-only web applications, has provided a seamless, always-up-to-date application security scanning solution.  

Our Veracode license includes a "people component" that allows developers to request an in-person session to be scheduled to review a defect. This has helped our application security personnel pool to free up time for other pursuits. I'm not sure if this is included in all licenses or is an add-on.

Being cloud-based is a huge plus. All of our scans are always using up-to-date scan signatures and rules, and there is nothing for us to maintain.  Veracode has been spot-on with notifying about planned downtimes for maintenance and upgrades.  In my years of using the product, unplanned downtimes have been minimal (in fact I can't remember one.)

The API integration that allows integration with other tools, such as defect trackers and automated build tools, is also a benefit. We also like the integrated, available "in-person" support sessions to review and ask questions on discovered defects.

We've had one occasion where a sub-product upgrade required action on our part faster than we initially understood it needed to happen.  This ended up being relatively minor.  

One feature I would like would be more selectivity in email alerts. While I like getting these, I would like to be able to be more granular in which ones I receive. 

Separately, I find the results console somewhat confusing.  When you are running multiple scan types for the same application, I've sometimes found it difficult to sort out where issues came from when I need that information.

We have been using Veracode for over four years.

Our solution is highly stable with minimal downtimes.  (In fact I don't recall the last time there was an unplanned Veracode cloud outage that impacted us.)  We previously had occasional issues with the scan appliance model, but the relatively recent switch to the ISM model has been much more stable.

Given that is is cloud based, coupled with their newer app-based internal scan model, we are pleased with the scalability and have not experienced any issues with scale.

As mentioned in prior comments, Veracode is simply put our best vendor in terms of relationship, value-add, and customer service/technical support. We get responsive answers from support, and their support resources clearly understand the product, and issues are resolved quickly.

Yes. We used a legacy, heavyweight dynamic scanning product. It would produce hundreds of pages of (mostly) false positives that were nearly impossible to digest and tune. We also didn't have a static scanning product. Moving to Veracode gave us much higher quality dynamic scanning with very few false positives (in part due to their model of human-assisted tuning, provided by them) and a robust static scanning solution.

The setup was easy and straight forward. We had some issues with API calls from our build automation tools, but this was related to networking issues in reaching the Veracode servers on the Internet, not the Veracode product itself.

We implemented with all in-house resources.

We achieve greatly improved security, earlier detection of security defects in the lifecycle, and as well as neatly meeting compliance requirements.

For the value we get out of it, coupled with the live defect review sessions, we find it an effective value for the money. We are a larger organization.

Checkmarx and SonarQube.

Of all the tools vendors I have relationships with, Veracode is simply our best vendor in terms of partnership, value add, and support responsiveness. 

This was intended to scan all of our custom development efforts to ensure a certain level of (secure) code quality. Right now the scope of that effort is limited to web exposed systems but with maturity, we hope to increase that scope.

The Veracode platform probably hasn't improved our organization overall, although through no fault of theirs. Veracode is just one more tool that generates work for our developers.

The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries.

I think for us the biggest improvement would be to have an indicator when there's something wrong with a scan. For instance, we have CI scans that run automatically, and sometimes the files don't get upload and/or processed by Veracode. Now, there's a static scan that hasn't been completed, which blocks all future scans. The only way we know this is an issue is going into the Web UI, check each application, and look for stalled scans. This is time-consuming and frustrating.

I have been using Veracode for three years.

Veracode is a cornerstone of our Development Security Operations Program, particularly scanning automation and remediation tracking.

We've been able to monitor the release cycle and verify our Security Standards are met by setting policy and ensuring scans are taking place. If a scan fails to meet our standard the build breaks and the flaws are remediated before releasing to Stage and ultimately Production -  where the potential impact is much more costly. 

We have discovered opportunities to make our code even better thanks to Veracode!

Veracode has improved our Application Security program by providing numerous integrations and tools to take our AppSec/DevSecOps to the next level. 

Integrations into our developer's IDE (Greenlight) and the DevOps Pipeline SAST / SourceClear Integrations has particularly increased our time to market and confidence.

In many ways, Veracode has increased productivity, helped build and improve security and development departmental relationships as well as enabling developers to consider and care about application security. 

Greenlight - Developers can test their code before they commit. They are able to privately scan their code and correct any mistakes before it is committed into the build and scanned with the other components.

SAST - During a build process, we have integrated the Veracode Static Scanning (SAST) component which provides an excellent first glance at the code moving through environments.

SCA /SourceClear - Veracode SCA / Source Clear has given us excellent visibility into potential vulnerabilities found in third-party components, packages, frameworks, and libraries.

Improve Mobile Application Dynamic Scanning DAST - .ipa and .apk. Right now I have to jailbreak an iPhone and Root an Android to intercept and fuzz requests with a Burp Suite Proxy.

That is a very time-consuming process and there are lots of dependencies. It would be very helpful if we can upload and .ipa or .apk into a Veracode simulator, provide credentials and run a Dynamic scan accordingly. Fuzzing functionality on API resources, HTTP Methods, and Parameters would also be very useful in testing our Web and API Application Firewalls, response pages, and other WAAF actions.

I have been using Veracode for about two years now.

It seems to be very stable, no problems thus far.

It has lots of growth potential, lots of room for improvement.

Exceptional!

Previously used Burp Suite, OWASP Zed Attack Proxy, Python scripts / Powershell and Batch, Retire.JS, Vulners, and Wappalyzer browser plugins.

The initial setup very straightforward and integrations were up and running in a matter of days after purchase.

Implementation was in-house (Deployment, Automation Engineers, Myself)

Unknown - productivity and time are measurable, possibly as much as 20%. Improvement in cross departmental relations is priceless!

We also evaluated WhiteHat Security.

Our primary use cases are for comprehensive security assessment using static analysis, dynamic analysis, source code composition, and manual penetration tests. We also use it for security training for developers.                         

Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process.                                                        

Source code composition analysis for vulnerabilities and license compliance is the most valuable feature.                                                                                                 

It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects.  

I have been using Veracode for one year.

We also evaluated Synopsys.

We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes.

Technically there is nothing wrong with Veracode. The only issue that we have here is uploading the code, the process of actually uploading and getting our results back. All of that is a little cumbersome. 

Technically there is nothing wrong with Veracode. The only issue that we have is uploading the code, the process of actually uploading and getting our results back. All of that is a little cumbersome. 

One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications. So we would like to see a kind of a graphical representation of the problem areas. I would like to know which file is the biggest source of issues for me so that I can focus on resolving the issue, as a project manager. With how it is now, I am able to do this but I have to take out the whole PDF file and extract it. It takes up a lot of my time. I would like to see better strategic reporting. It would be great to get better graphical reporting.

Stability is very good and there were no issues. I will give it five stars.

It's very good; really very good. I would strongly recommend that. Technically I would be expecting a double concept for Veracode. I would still say this is one of the best products ever on that website. I don't have any issues with the scalability. 

I had no technical issues at all.

The initial setup can be a little complex for people or for organizations that don't have technical skills. Another small thing is that you need to have one person who's fluent and technically knowledgeable to help during the upload process. But otherwise, it's pretty much straightforward. It's not an issue, it's perfect.

I would strongly recommend doing an internal analysis first, before setting it across to Veracode to proceed and to use it more as a final verification point. My point is that Veracode is very good, and I would strongly recommend it. I have seen other solutions on the market and that's why I say: don't waste your time on other products, just get Veracode.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten because of the reporting issues I mentioned that I would like to see improved.

I have used this solution in multiple projects for vulnerability testing and finding security leaks within the code.

We were embracing Veracode as a process in our DevSecOps, although I have not personally used this solution for the past eight months.

This is not a very elaborate application. I think that the suggestions are between thirty-five and eighty percent accurate, with most cases being about seventy-five percent. Some of them are references where you have to go and determine whether they are direct threats, or not.

At the point in time when we were using this solution, we had older coders and the way Veracode tests for vulnerabilities may have been affected by the code style. I found that there were far too many warnings and some false positives. Of course, this comes with every product, and there are multiple tools that are used.

Ideally, I would like better reporting that gives me a more concise and accurate description of what my pain points are, and how to get to them.

In the context of a dev or UIT environment, I'll say that it is fairly stable. However, I would not be able to give ratings for stability in a production environment because I have no experience with it.

Technical support was good and I was very happy with them.

We did not have that many issues to start with. They conducted training, and there was an architect that was working directly with me to answer everything. He was fairly knowledgeable. In the beginning, when we wanted to understand the product, he gave us great pointers. He provided very nice documentation that we followed and we were able to establish with the infrastructure team.

I have used multiple tools similar to Veracode that integrate with the IDE.

The initial setup was straightforward. What I recall is that it was not really difficult and we had optimal support. They also provided us with documentation to help set up integration with tools such as Jenkins.

When it comes to DevSecOps, in the industry it is still under adoption. With the advent of the cloud and code being there, or on other public platforms, many people have embraced it or are in the process doing so. 

My advice for anybody interested in implementing this solution is to be really careful when choosing your tools. Be very proactive and up-front on the requirements of your systems, because no tool is perfect. You need to find the best fit for each particular use case. I would do a thorough analysis.

As a solution architect, I do small POCs and run initiatives on products to find out various aspects. For example, the technical feasibility of the product is an important aspect. Other important ones are usability, testing, and implementation. Normally, I select at least three products and do a comparative analysis based on the POC. After this, I recommend a particular solution.

I would recommend Veracode. There are plusses and minuses to this solution, but given the chance to use it again I would definitely do so. Every product has its own flaws, but for my use case, it did fit very well.

I would rate this solution an eight and a half out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is application security.

The most valuable feature comes from the fact that it is cloud-based, and I can scale up without having to worry about any other infrastructure needs.

This solution does a good job, but it is limited to only a few technologies. I would like to see expanded coverage for supporting more platforms, frameworks, and languages.

Specifically, I would like to see support for mobile frameworks like Xaramin and React JS, as well as extended support for iOS applications.

This solution is quite scalable.

We have approximately fifty users, but we definitely have plans to add more.

I have used their technical support and they are quite good.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

This solution is on the pricey side. They have just streamlined the licensing and they have a number of flexible options available, so overall it is quite good, albeit pricey.

We evaluated other options, but we chose Veracode.

My advice for anybody who is interested in implementing this solution is to ensure that your technology is actually supported because the coverage is quite patchy. It is possible that if you use a framework or a language that Veracode does not support then it will give quite poor results.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for static and dynamic analysis along with the source gear for the third party dependency (not IDM). 

We were looking into actually moving towards IDM, but that's the extent of my knowledge. They are licensed as two separate products. They're part of the same platform, but they are licensed separately.

We have Veracode, Veracode Developer Training, Veracode Software Composition Analysis, and SourceClear. SourceClear and SCA are pretty much the same. They just support different languages. Veracode as a whole, the top option, is the one that includes everything.

We are using the Veracode tools to expose the engineers to the security vulnerabilities that were introduced with the new features, i.e. a lot faster or sooner in the development life cycle. We rely on this set of tools to automatically scan our artifacts when they are moving to different environments. 

We got it to the point that when we were promoting the artifacts from desktop to the server environment, we already had the scans completed. We knew the vulnerabilities that we were introducing with the new features ahead of time, i.e. before the QA department was finding them. That was the main reason we decided to use Veracode or to use tools for static analysis and dynamic analysis.

With Veracode, it's not about features for us. It is about the pricing model that they offer. To be honest, with their vulnerability database, the total amount of false positives that we're getting is very low. 

That's the main reason we use Veracode over anybody else. New Veracode features could include a very big database of actual vulnerabilities to be better than other products.

Veracode owns SourceClear. They bought them in 2017 or 2018, and they still are not fully integrated with the actual Veracode dashboards. Right now, you have to use two separate tools from the same company. One for the static analysis and dynamic analysis, then the second one for the third-party dependency. 

That is an area that they need to improve the service. Veracode needs to bring the second tool in already to the dashboard so that we don't have to use two separate logins. We don't want two different sets of jobs that we have to upload into two different places, etc. Veracode also needs better integration of their tools to each other.

Veracode should make it easier to navigate between the solutions that they offer, i.e. between dynamic, static, and the source code analysis. The SCA feature is on the website. Veracode should integrate SourceClear with the company product line finally after two years. I would love to see that. 

Veracode did not previously support Python 3. They just released the support for Python 3. Keeping updates coming quicker would be the main thing that I would love to see, i.e. to have all these solutions better integrated.

We have been using Veracode as a solution for almost two years.

It's a very stable solution.

Scalability is the main issue with Veracode. For my company, the outlier is out there, but when it comes to scalability, we had issues with automatically scanning springboard artifacts. If you scan the artifacts, they want the artifacts to be packaged in a specific way. This is very well documented on the website but it's not the way we're doing business. 

The workaround was taking the build that was getting put together by Jenkins and moved through the environment. We had to make a separate one, packaged differently just for the tools to work. For the scans to work, if that makes sense. Maybe we are just weird in the way we package our artifacts but maybe many are having the same issue.

We have about 200 engineers that have user roles in the solution. There are different roles. We have security administrators. We have team leads. We have managers. Their roles are all very well put together. Each team has a manager that has access to more features than the rest of his team. They can create things, delete things, compared to the regular guys that can only see the reports. It's very well structured, from that standpoint.

Theoretically, everything is integrated with Jenkins, so the staff depends from one application to another, i.e. three people or eight people from our side. From their end, in our pricing model, we have access directly to an account manager. They have a team of engineers that usually help us if we encounter any issues. It's very extensive in use. We have about 80 services and applications going through using the scanning solutions that Veracode has and we are scaling up.

The solution's technical support is absolutely fantastic and very fast. Veracode has very fast resolution and response times. Usually, when we have an issue, it's only a few hours before we get an answer from them.

Another time, the Veracode integration wasn't working and in about 3 days we came up with a solution to our problem. At the high level, the beginning of the conversation with Veracode tech support is pretty fast. It's only a few hours. 

Coming up with a solution takes two to three days at the most with Veracode. We pay a lot of money for that. You get what you pay for.

We never did use other products. The reason we started looking into IBM and WhiteSource was because of the hiccups or the speed bumps we were encountering with our springboard artifacts. We were in the process of evaluating other products and I think it's still a valid option. I wouldn't advertise it, but we were in the process of changing from Veracode just because of that one particular issue.

We had to build our artifacts differently than before just to scan them, i.e. instead of scanning the ones we were publishing. It's not a big deal overall, but it would be nice for the solution to work out of the box with everything that's out there. Instead, many companies are changing the way they're doing business just for this small little step in the delivery process.

I was not involved with the initial setup. When we were uploading new applications to their solutions it was very straightforward. Their documentation is really good and very detailed.

In the worst case scenario, if the implementation engineer just runs through the material, you can go on the website for resources. The way they have everything documented is very good. Veracode is very well documented.

I do not have any information on ROI. We became better from an engineering standpoint, but I don't know if we saved a ton of money in the process.

They just changed their pricing model two weeks ago. They went from a per-app license to a per-megabyte license. I know that the dynamic scan was $500 per app. Static analysis was about $4500 yearly. The license is only for the number of users, it doesn't matter what data you put in there. That was the old model. I do not know how the new model works. 

We are in negotiations with Veracode. The old model was about $500 for dynamic analysis and about $4500 for the static analysis, per app or service, per year.

Veracode offers a lot of other license options that you can put on top of what we just discussed, but I don't think we ever looked into any of those. The way we implemented it was very straightforward. You have your app and you pay this much for both dynamic and static licensing. That's all we cared about per year. 

We looked at IBM before we decided to go with Veracode. I've seen the documentation that our director of information security put together. 

We looked at six different solutions before we went with Veracode. Another company does their pricing model based on lines of code. WhiteSource was one other option we evaluated.

We did review a few of them. IBM App Scan and WhiteSource were definitely on the list. I don't remember the rest of them.

If the springboard issue doesn't hold them back and the pricing model stays the same as the one that we have right now for this year with them, it's a good deal. Veracode is pretty straightforward to use and the support is really good. We don't have a lot of complaints about that. 

I don't know how the pricing model is going to change the actual price of the application. On a per license basis, Veracode has a very lucrative way of doing business. I don't think a big company that has a lot of services and applications would enjoy paying upwards of $200,000 per year to scan all their code. 

Prospective customers should look at how the pricing model affects them, especially if they are in the microservice type of architecture or if they are moving towards something like that.

I would rate Veracode an eight out of ten just based on the experience that we had the past two years. The reason it's not ten is because of the ways these tools integrate. 

That rating is at risk of becoming a seven now with the pricing model changing. Veracode is probably not going to be that attractive anymore compared to other competitors. We knew other competitors were more expensive. The reason that we didn't go with them was that Veracode was very straightforward.

We use Veracode to scan custom-developed code for flaws.

• The volume of unmitigated flaws in our applications has been substantially reduced.
• In terms of AppSec best practices, the team at Veracode has provided industry benchmarks against which we are measuring our improvement.
• Our customers have benefited from the added security assurance of our applications, although they may not know it.

The identification of flaws.

We would like to see improvement in reporting, in particular, end dates on mitigations.

The solution is very stable.

It has handled all the expansion we have required from it.

Technical support is highly competent.

It was already implemented when I joined the organization. However, we have expanded greatly.

We are about to enter discussions for renewal. I have heard there may be some changes to pricing. I will reserve judgment until the discussions are complete.

I would recommend it. It covers all our custom-developed applications and will expand as new applications and services are added.

We have 50-plus users of Veracode. Their roles include InfoSec, developers, development managers, QA, and configuration management. In terms of deployment and maintenance, we have four people in configuration management and InfoSec.

We use it for static checking.

We are a state agency, we're not a private-sector company. What we're able to do is take our main web-based application, which is not only for internal use but which the citizens of Ohio also use, and we can run this application, and others as well, through Veracode to ensure that we've done our job, our due diligence.

We print out a report, we see the rating of the vulnerabilities that have been found: "critical" and "high", "moderate" and "low." We've been able to go from having critical vulnerabilities to where we're now into the more moderate range. We've shown improvement through the years. We can provide that information to our superiors, and to people who come in and audit us, to show that we've made progress on scanning.

When we find a vulnerability, we do pass it on to our developers and they've been able to go in and adjust the code so that the vulnerability is no longer there. The goal, of course, is that these findings will help them as they develop new code so that these vulnerabilities are not a part of the next application. We run a follow-up scan to make sure the vulnerability has been cleared.

The benefit, at this point, has been more internal than for our customers. Obviously we don't want them to have a problem so that they could then, theoretically, actually see the benefit. We try to be proactive.

• Having the option of static scanning. Most tools of this type are centered around dynamic scanning. Having a static scan is very important.
• Utilizing the software as a service. We do the scanning of the compiled code ourselves but it's on their servers, which is a plus.
• Technical support is available if needed and that is advantageous.
• Having online education and training is also advantageous. 

I attended a meeting of one of the security organizations I am associated with. At the meeting were security professionals from several major retail companies. The topic of discussion happened to be application development security. When the question was asked concerning what tools are being used, many of these major retail companies said they are using Veracode. However, they were quick to comment that the product is too expensive and that there are too many false positives which take too much time to remediate.

The stability is very good. They haven't had too many updates or upgrades. They did a major upgrade several years ago but it came out just fine. It has been a really good product.

I'd call us a "mid-range" agency, so it's not like we have a ton of applications that we're changing and updating. It's good for us, but I can't really answer how scalable it is because we're not really big.

I don't believe that the team has had any problem going on to the website, downloading the static code, or running scans. They do it quite often without any issue and are able to read the report and rectify whatever vulnerability has been discovered. There has not been a problem walking through those steps. It's been pretty straightforward. And if our team has any problems, we've got access to someone that we can schedule a call with to work out the issues.

We haven't had to call tech support too often, but when we have had to call them, support has been good in terms of resolution time.

I was involved, on a cursory level, with the setup. Our implementation strategy was to focus on our main web-based application. The way that they developed the application here was under one static set of code, so we could scan this code and, in essence, be able to check the vulnerability of most of the applications from the different business in our agency.

We did not use an integrator or a third-party. We did it with the help of Veracode.

We are a state agency, so we're not for profit. I tell everybody we don't make money, we spend money. To frame it in the context of the public sector, I think we are giving our citizens peace of mind. When they come in to write a permit, and we send them to a service that collects payment, that jumping-off point is secure and safe. It would be more in those terms, rather than the bottom line.

In the public sector, return on investment is not a term that is easily understood because we do not invest. But total cost of ownership is something that we can put our arms around. When we think about potential data breaches, Veracode has certainly helped us. When you think about the cost of the product and that I have one person, not ten people, running this tool, the total cost of ownership is low. I have no devices or servers, I didn't have to do any of that here onsite. It's all in the cloud. The total cost of ownership, given the services they provide, is very low, in my opinion.

We're always looking to save the taxpayers' money. I used to tell my vendors, sharpen those pencils and make the tip laser-sharp. When it can be, I want it to be less expensive, but you get what you pay for too. Vendors need to be fair and I think Veracode has been fair.

We use their SaaS solution and it's just an annual subscription.

The state of Ohio decided to bring AppScan in and that's an IBM tool. IBM became a major vendor in the state of Ohio. But what happened is that AppScan does not offer static code vulnerability checking; dynamic is something they do offer, but it's not as complete and comprehensive as a static scan is. Even the state has gone away from AppScan, but we were looking at it, we were starting to get set up for it. But evidently, other agencies haven't found it to be as useful. So we're not going that direction, we're staying with Veracode. 

There would have been cost savings associated with going with AppScan but we decided, because the state was not going that way, that we were not going that way either.

I would absolutely recommend Veracode. I've suggested to one of the larger agencies that they implement the solution and that they come to see what we've experienced and how we use the tool.

I really like Veracode. That is one of the reasons that we brought them onboard ten years ago. Of course, they were new back then. The different aspects of the offerings that Veracode provides to their customers are somewhat unique and, right now, I couldn't ask another thing from them.

We have approximately 30 Java developers and four or five testers. There are also project managers using it. We have one person who manages running of the scans and that person might have one or two other people to help.

We haven't really been utilizing it to its full potential. We probably utilize it once or twice per quarter. We are planning to increase the capacity that we've purchased. However, we're getting ready to elect a new governor in Ohio. With that election, things will change, according to his or her desires. Right now, we're in a holding pattern waiting for November to come and go.

In terms of integrating the solution into our existing software development lifecycle, because we started so long ago - before the software development lifecycle was fully implemented - we were doing Veracode testing just because it was a good idea. Then we actually developed a lifecycle. We got into scrums and it just naturally worked its way in, so when we actually hired a testing group, Veracode was already a part of the process.

We use it for security scanning of SaaS and mobile software that we develop: one server-side and two mobile applications. Most customers require SAST and DAST scanning in order to purchase.

It gives us more confidence in the application security of the products we scan. We use it as part of our AppSec best practices. 

It has an easy-to-use interface.

We would like a way to mark entire modules as "safe." The lack of this feature hasn't stopped us previously, it just makes our task more tedious at times. That kind of feature would save us time.

We have never had any problems with the solution.

It has always worked for us, we haven't found any issues. There have been no problems with scanning small and large objects.

Technical support is excellent. It meets our needs.

We had no previous solution. Our choice of Veracode was due to Veracode being a customer and requiring that we use their tool to scan our solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. As it's a SaaS solution, it took no time to set up. But because I didn't take training, I spent a bit of time figuring out the product. No implementation (or strategy for implementation) was required, beyond some simple configuration settings.

No issues, the pricing seems reasonable.

We evaluated no other products for SAST when we started using Veracode. 

Be aware that the first run will find a lot of issues, many of which are not real issues; it will take time to understand that. Don't change object names as that will confuse it. Make sure you get development buy-in early.

We're looking to expand its use within the development organization and are looking into another license. Currently, we have four users of the solution, myself (security) and developers. The four of us also maintain it.

Static application security testing, which is the primary use case. 

There were different web applications which were scanned using this tool.

Veracode scans provide a higher number of false positives. Also, the overall reporting structure is complicated, and it's difficult to understand the report.

Veracode provides faster scans compared to other static analysis security testing tools.

Veracode should provide support to more software languages, like ABAP.

• Scanning web-facing applications for potential security weaknesses.
• Helping to document the introduction of technical debt in our code bases.

• It gives feedback to developers on the effectiveness of their secure coding practices.  
• It has almost completely eliminated the presence of SQLi vulnerabilities.

• Multiple languages and framework support: We can use one tool for our SAST needs.
• Developers report liking the IDE integration provided by this tool.

• More timely support for newer languages and framework versions.  
• Integration with Slack is another request from our developers.
  

I use Veracode to run scans on .NET applications, web applications and Windows/fat form applications. I also use it to make deployments in three-tier environments: the application server tier, web server tier and the database tier.

• Veracode has improved our penetration testing process. 

• We use Veracode static analysis during development to eliminate vulnerability issues.

• I have found the user interface extremely helpful in prioritizing issues.

• It allows me to prioritize the work to help resolve an issue.

They should improve on the static scanning time.

We are planning on introducing a static code analysis tool to support a DevOps effort in our environment. The objective of the solution is to allow the team to identify vulnerabilities in the source code and improve the hygiene of the developed code before deployment.

This is currently still under evaluation, and it is pending review and assessment against other static code analysis solutions.

The solution provides the capability for the application teams to track remediation and the handling of identified vulnerabilities. The system provides workflow capabilities for the application teams to send the completed scans to the security teams for their review. In addition, the security team can track the remediation and risk acceptance statistics.

The solution currently does not support Dynamic Application Security Testing which is an important facet of application security testing. In addition, the current version of the application does not support testing for API.

Application security scanning.

It has helped us identify all the applications flaws, especially with so many open source licenses available to the developers. With this product, it allows you to plug in all those gaps where you may open up the backdoors. This tool has helped us everyday with our goal to plug in all those gaps.

We help make changes from the initial NAS that we sign up with the vendors and any third party who might be involved in our telephone activities. They have to ensure that phone is a standby application and security tool, plus we also make the changes in the workflow for any application. Before it is deployed into operations, it has to have a security certificate which proves that it has a Veracode application security certification on it and all the flaws that have been identified have been removed.

It has several components in that help you identify abilities in the core. It also provides security of different Shadow IT activities in our environment, especially around application development and website hosting.

They are already working on, but we are looking forward to seeing it. We would like the consolidation of all the different modules. This would help, so then we would be able to see analytics and results on one screen, like a single pane of glass. 

Once your report has been generated, you need to review the report with consultation team, especially if it is too detailed on the development side or regarding the language. Then, you need some professional help from their end to help you understand whatever has been identified. Scheduling consultation takes a longer time. So, if you are running multiple reports at the same time, then you need to schedule a multiple consultation times with one of their developers. There are few developers on their end who work can work with your developers, and their schedules are very tight. Therefore, you have the report ready if you want a consultation, then it sometimes takes more than three to four days to arrange a meeting. I feel to wait four days to get a consultation and understand the report around the whatever has been identified is a bottleneck. 

We have not seen any major downtime.

I would rate their technical support as a nine out of 10.

The tech support has been very much on the forefront of contacting customers. They help us by making sure all the processes have been outlined and are being followed. They regularly look with us at the whole platform process. Therefore, they have been quite helpful.

They have an account manager for personal relations between the customer and their technical people. This person takes care of bringing them the right person to address any issues that we have.

Two years back, Veracode was having issues. It was taking a long time to start the application, and we worked with their technical support. They also have been constantly improving the platform.

We did not previously use another solution.

It was a bit complex initially when we started, because we had not been previously exposed to any such tool.

It is a SaaS tool. So, towards the end, we did not have to install anything. We just needed an account for the platform to upload the build. There was an initial issue, because people were not previously exposed to this type of process, and it was something new that they were being asked to do.

It has helped us reduce our overall time to remedy any validity, which can be found after being rolled out and put into production. Though, I cannot give you the number. It is always better to safeguard the environment rather than being hacked or have production downtime. In three years, we have not had any breaches or we seen any reduction in Shadow IT.

It is pricey. There is a lot of value in the product, but it is a costly tool.

The customer should demand better turnaround times for the money that they are paying, especially around the reporting and standing up processes that we need to go through. It needs much more technical information on the platform with a tool that can help with information or have 24/7 support available, then it will be worth the price that we are paying, because right now, we don't have many options. There are not may companies who are in the market for Veracode, who want this type of in-depth analysis and examination. That is why customers, with the money that they are paying, have room for improvement in the scope of the Veracode product. 

I recommend going for a one-year licensing with CA, because currently they are the leaders in this field with more features and a much better turn around time with a cheaper position, but there are a lot of new companies coming up in the market and they are building up their platforms. I suggest just not to get tied up with a long-term commitment, because I have seen with Black Duck that they are almost one-third of the price of the big platforms. Once there are the same features and functionality (or lot better performance) available in the market, people are going to migrate away from this platform. The market is changing so fast, and with the Black Duck acquisition, it is also expected that we may get a solution with a much faster platform with much better service at a cheaper price.

We did a PoC with Black Duck.

I would rate the product as an eight out of 10 for recommend it to colleagues.

I would rate the overall product as a seven out of 10.

We are Veracode partners/distributors in Quito, Ecuador. 

At this moment, I am reviewing the solution. 

It helps me to detect vulnerabilities.

I use the SAST feature the most.

All areas of the solution could use some improvement.

SAST. We have not yet integrated it into our software development lifecycle as it doesn't have the feature that enables us to integrate it with our repository.

It helps in achieving secure programming. Veracode provides us with industry best practices according to OWASP, CERT, and SANS. Our customers get the security of bug-free code and assurance regarding the application.

Scanning of .war and .jar.

Raw file scans and dynamic scans would be an improvement, instead of dealing with code binaries.

No stability issues yet.

No scalability issues yet.

We used SonarQube but to improve security in SAST we choose this.

Setup is straightforward.

The pricing is good for static code analysis.

Checkmarx, SonarQube.

Implement this solution if you see WAF and SOC in your future.

SAST vulnerability scanning. Veracode is embedded in our release pipeline.

It improved our security posture. In terms of cost savings relating to code fixes since implementing Veracode, I'm not sure there are any. How do you quantify reputational damage from a security breach? However, they have provided AppSec best practices and guidance to our security and development teams through our support agreement, weekly meetings, and annual review.

Because it is a SaaS offering, I do not have to support the infrastructure.

Some important languages are not supported.

No issues with stability.

We have encountered occasional issues with scalability.

Tech support is excellent.

The initial setup was extremely straightforward.

Negotiate for the best deal.

Fortify, App Scanner, Checkmarx.

Make sure the supported  languages align with your developers.

C++ financial application acting as hub for my academic accounting system.

Application, which my institution partially owns, was analyzed after just having compiled the code. This happens seldom in academic software.

It does software composition analysis, discovering open source software weaknesses.

I can have quick results by just uploading compiled components. It gives me an idea about the most important vulnerabilities and fast remediation tips.

• Dynamic analysis of on-premises applications using the Veracode proxy module.
• Static analysis of applications, on which I share property with third-parties.

• Management of false positives
• Agile best practices: Violation detection.
• Support for more programming languages, like SQL.
• Support for more frameworks for Java: .NET, Python, PHP, C, and C++.

It never crashes, as far as I know.

Since it is a SaaS solution, the performance is fine.

CA still has some difficulties integrating the Veracode team in their support services.

I used SonarQube. It lacks of real enterprise-wide security detection. I continue to use Fortify and AppScan, while I am using Veracode.

Setup is really simple, just use Jenkins, JIRA, Visual Studio, and Eclipse connectors for on-premise. The rest is online.

Since we are based in the UK, the original Veracode Team (not CA) was helping us directly during the setup, then trained us.

Given the following:

• Effectiveness of automatic detection of defects, taking into account bad fixes. 
• Effort to find and correct a defect during automatic detection.
• Effort to find and correct a defect during post release. 
• Effectiveness of testing. 
  

ROI expressed as project savings is 2.4% of the project cost.

Costs are reasonable. No special infrastructure is required and the license model is good.

I evaluated Kiuwan, Coverity, and Klocwork

I wish Veracode support had more SDLC integration tools.

Interestingly enough, Veracode has evolved over time. Their chief designer has been a leader in security for many years and his insights into applications, and what we now consider DevOps, has been very helpful for the industry. The insights into how we now have a mobile workforce, and that the end-point is what you carry in your hand - and the protection of those apps and web pages - are imperative because the coding in our information has moved out. Quite honestly, the people have become the firewall. 

The products that Veracode has developed help me to manage that, scan that, know when something is going wrong, and I don't have to have a team of developers behind me that keep up with all the latest threats because the subscription service they provide for me does that.

Veracode helps me in several implementations over a couple of industry sectors in a number of ways.

My coding, especially the code we develop, has a number of faults per line and that costs me money and time to fix those, into the lifecycle. Veracode enables me to provide better code, faster, so my time to market is less.

The security means my total cost of ownership goes down significantly over a period of time. The more code I write, the better I organize that, the less my expense is in maintaining that code.

As we move to more of a mobile space, much of the code was developed on desktops, mobile laptops, and things. Mobile apps run differently and they have a different runtime. Chris Wysopal and I have talked several times over the past few years about how to address that. I'm not sure that there is a good answer yet, because it is so complex. But I'm pretty sure with Chris' track record that they are going to come up with a very good way to do that in the near future.

There are always a few bumps going into any new implementation because nobody has the same environment. We are in heterogeneous environments.

But I couldn't point out any one significant problem that comes to mind, because the bumps that we have found have been addressed and corrected pretty quickly.

Scalability is almost infinite in this because the cloud-based solution allows me to expand. The companies I work for are generally in the 10 billion-plus range, but with thousands of developers we have never really had anything on the capacity planning or the performance of the products.

Their technical support is the best in the business. These folks have been around, like I have, for many, many years so they have grown up with the industry. Not only are they developers, they have been practitioners before. Their chief designers, their coders - although many of them change - the key people who started this are still there, and you'll know them by first name; pick up the phone and they can help you with what you need.

Any previous solutions would have been more than 10 years ago, and I don't remember why we switched. It's like the car you drive or the shoes you like to wear: Once they work - and it has worked in multiple sectors - there is no reason to change.

When selecting a vendor, the important criteria are relationships and support. When I pick up the phone and I get a Sam King or a Bob Brennan on the line, things happen.

It is a pretty easy implementation. As you know, with anything like this, which is very human-oriented, change is people, not necessarily the products themselves. The services they provide and the training and some of the "hand-holding", if you will, have always helped make this the bright, shiny object for the coders, so its implementation has always been pretty smooth for me.

On the rating scale is there anything above 10? If there are no ones and tens, it would be the closest to 10. They have always been supportive. We have had to change, do course corrections during implementations, or particular types of coding. I have just never had a problem. My loyalty to the product has been primarily due to the service and the expedience in which they solve any problems we have.

It has helped us be more secure, and it has helped us put a package together for our customers that will take into consideration training, all the way down to the coding level.

For us, it's the partnership. We have always been very strong partners with Veracode. They provide excellent training to our sales team, so we are able to work with our customers to show them the value of secure code training.

More integration into the specific application; an open API would be good. Aside from that, I think they do a really good job in terms of the features they have. 

Veracode has always been a very stable product for us, a very stable product for our customers, and it has been a very stable relationship as well.

We have customers of every size from several hundred to several hundred thousand. The product works well, regardless of the size of the company we are working with.

We have had customers - and it has been our own experience as well - tell us that the support is second to none. They are very quick to respond, very quick to answer questions in a really knowledgeable way.

We've had no comments from our customers other than that it is an easy setup.

When it comes to secure coding, Veracode is the only one we really considered.

For us, whenever we are selecting a partner, vendors to work with who are going to be working with our customers, we have to make sure that they align regarding customer support philosophy, and that is the reason we selected to work with Veracode.

I would definitely rate Veracode a 10 out of 10, based on our customer feedback. Whenever we know the relationship is going well between Veracode and our customers, it reflects very well on us.

It has given us visibility into the applications we have that are participating in the application security program.

For me, at the program manager level, I'm not a developer. What I do is run applications through a security program. What's important for me, from Veracode, is the all-in-one metrics location. I can see where everything is across the entire portfolio of applications I have in this program, and I can report out on it. That is one of the more important pieces for me, at the compliance level.

Speed. When we scan binary, when we perform binary analysis, it could go faster. That has a lot to do with the essence of scanning binary code, it takes a little bit longer. Certain aspects, depending on what type of code it is, take a little long, especially legacy code. In our case, we have quite a bit of older code. It takes some time to get through.

As a SaaS product, you have certain expectations for it to be stable. It is a very mature platform so we haven't had any issues with its performance.

It absolutely scales out. Our program is pretty small, but the eventual goal is complete application portfolio coverage. I have no expectation that we are going to have any issues with scaling.

Technical support is great. The folks that I have interacted with, from services all the way through to the pen-testers have been great. They are on par with anybody else out there. In some cases, specifically for applications, they are probably a lot better than most.

I have done a lot of product comparisons in my time, in information security. A lot of them are modules of a product, there is no single pane of glass. When I talk about metrics, I want to see everything in a single pane of glass, I want to see all of my results in one location. A lot of the other application security products out there can't do that yet. They are getting there but Veracode has already been able to do that for years. Veracode can run multiple types of tests and you can see all the results in one area.

When selecting a vendor the most important criteria are 

• scalability
• reliability of results - we want to see results-oriented success.

Setup is very straightforward. Since everything is SaaS, everything is uploaded to the cloud. It's very simple to do. There is no setup on the back-end, initially. Once we start getting a little more sophisticated with integrations we are going to be just fine. Currently, we are early in the program so everything is done manually. So there is no setup. Everything is just done in the cloud.

I give Veracode a solid nine out of 10 because it is a full-featured product. It is not just something that they are selling to you and then leaving you to figure out how to use it. They actually help you every single step of the way and they want to show you how to do it. 

Their testers, their application security consultants, really help you and help educate the developers. They walk you through every step of the way.

It has allowed us to scale and find vulnerabilities much faster than previous manual tools. It has allowed us to educate developers on it to use the consultation calls.

The most valuable feature is the remediation consulting that they give. I feel like any vendor can identify the flaws but fixing the flaws is what is most important. Being able to have those consultation calls, schedule them in the platform, and have that discussion with an applications expert, that process scales well and that is what has allowed a lot more reduction of risk to happen.

I would like to see more technical support for some of the connectors, some more detailed diagrams or run-books on how to install some of the stuff; more hand-holding in the sense of understanding our environment.

They cover a lot of languages already and it doesn't make sense for them to cover legacy languages but I know there is a need for covering legacy languages.

My biggest need, the kind of feature I would want, is more on the technical support side.

In the early years, it was a little less stable but I know they have switched to more of an Agile CI/CD methodology and I have seen a lot more stability since they moved to that methodology.

One of the best things they offer is the scalability. The fact that you can work with it through the cloud means that if you have unintegrated business units, you don't have to worry about having a solution on-prem and having the network connection; you don't have to worry about giving up source code, you are just sending your binary files for most of the applications. So it scales much faster.

The technical support is good. I like the fact that you can email Veracode support. You get a very fast response, usually within the same day. 

If you don't have an SPM, Solution Program Manager, to escalate issues after that - you don't have to escalate a lot of issues, but if you do and you don't have feature - that is where they seem to fall down a little bit. So they need help with their level-2 and level-3 support. They do very well at level-1 and then you need to escalate, sometimes. That is where they need to improve a little bit.

At a previous company, we were using HPE Fortify. We couldn't scale because it was an on-prem solution. Therefore, after five years, we decided to break out of the mold and use a SaaS solution. We were comfortable at the time doing so because we weren't sending source code, for the most part. As soon as we went to a cloud solution we scaled dramatically.

What I look for in a vendor is 70 percent a technical match with the features and benefits we need and for the remaining 30 percent, I look at the culture of the company because, for me, it is a relationship. I want to have a partnership and I want it to feel like a win-win. If they feel like it is a short-term decision, get in get out, I want to know that. I want to be able to talk to them at any time and add service enhancements, feature enhancements, those kinds of things. It's a 70-30 split for me.

The implementation is straightforward in the sense that there are a lot of APIs to integrate, and they have a lot of connectors that do that for you.

HPE Fortify, Checkmarx, IBM AppScan. It really was between HPE Fortify, most of the time, and Veracode. I typically like Veracode because it is a SaaS solution. You have other providers now that do the same SaaS but then it goes back to the relationship and the partnership. I feel that I have that with Veracode.

I would give Veracode a nine out of 10 because it scales incredibly well, they have very qualified people working there who are able to clearly articulate what the problems are when they are talking in a remediation or consultation call. They are very knowledgeable, they are not condescending when they talk to a developer. The tool is very easy to consume. It's not like looking at a menu with 20 pages at a restaurant, it's very simple to digest. They have a lot of API connectors, they cover a lot of languages and it just scales. You can't beat that. Finally, the relationship is great with them.

Dynamic and static code analysis.

It has given us insight into the actual flaws that are out there, and the speed at which they're getting mitigated. Now, we're starting to see quantitative metrics to show the overall risk with code vulnerabilities. It has been very helpful in that it has exposed an area that we weren't digging into as much as we should have, before.

The developers' awareness of the security weaknesses within their code has also improved. They aren't just mitigating these issues, they are realizing these are, in fact, issues that have to be dealt with.

We are just starting to integrate Veracode into our software development lifecycle. We are reaching out to a few of our developers to begin project Greenlight. Specifically, right now what we're doing is integrating the static code analysis scans into our change approval. If you want to put a new piece of code live, you have to have a clean Veracode scan, whether it be through mitigation approval or through actually resolving issues. We've integrated it as part of our CAB process, and we're going to take that a step further and integrate it into the actual IDE for the developers.

In terms of security best practices and guidance to our dev teams, Veracode has been fantastic. The one thing we really liked about Veracode when we got it - and I think some other providers are doing it now - was the consultation calls; that our developers are able to schedule them on their own, instead of going to a "gatekeeper." They upload their code, they have questions, they schedule it, they speak with someone on the other side who is an expert, they can speak developer-to-developers. That is really good stuff.

Regarding our customers, I don't know if they have benefited per se, other than getting better, more secure applications. I don't know that our customers are necessarily looking for the most secure application, but it is something that I'm sure is on their mind, and they want to know that we're doing it. I would call it a tangential or unseen benefit. It is probably not in the top-10 things that they're looking for when they use one of our apps or our website. They are just assuming that a company such as ours is going to make sure that we have the appropriate security controls in place. So the way they benefit is that, hopefully, we're meeting that expectation, but I don't know that our customers are specifically looking for that as a decisive factor for using our websites or apps.

The reporting and mitigation features which allow our people to work on their own.

The only areas that I'm concerned with are some of the newer code libraries, things that we're starting to see people dabble with. They move quickly enough to get them into the Analysis Engine, so I wouldn't even say it is a complaint. It is probably the only thing I worry about: Occasionally hitting something that is built in some other obscure development model, where we either can't scan it or can't scan it very well.

I would also like to see some improvement in the speed. That is really the only complaint, but in all reality we have a massive Java application that needs to be scanned. Our developers are saying, "It takes 72 hours to scan it." That is probably the nature of the beast, and I'm actually pretty accepting of that timeframe, but since it's a complaint that I get, faster is always better. I don't necessarily think that the speed is bad as it is, just that faster would be better.

One to three years.

I don't think that we are even beginning to push the envelope of what the system is capable of. We haven't had any problems. I'd say we are probably on the lower end of usage, not only the number of scans but regarding the number of applications. I haven't seen any issues, but I also wouldn't expect to hit issues, given where we are.

The support team itself, or security program manager and a few others, have been fantastic. Most of the time, they're willing to move and work faster than we are actually capable of. They have been spot on in helping us get this thing rolling.

They are fantastic. They get the highest rating.

We used HP WebInspect, which is now under the Fortify umbrella. HP WebInspect was just terrible. Had we used the on-demand cloud piece - which is why I perhaps have to pull my comment back - maybe we would have had a different experience. But we had a WebInspect instance on a single server that was inside of our own data center. It was very, very kludgy, very slow, didn't work very well. We were hitting the required specs for it but we'd have a dynamic website scan, which should not have taken very long, taking a week. It not only should have been very close to the scanning engine, but had its own dedicated route for pieces that live in the cloud. It was bad, and it was slow, and their reporting was terrible. There was no real support for it. It was just very bad.

It was very easy. The cloud instance got turned on, we had a support rep dedicated to us to help us get up and running. It couldn't have been easier.

I can't think of any cost savings related to code fixes since implementing Veracode. We are mostly focused on using it for application security, which is a hard thing to quantify unless you have a major breach.

I think the pricing is in line with the rest of the tools. I think you get what you pay for. It is certainly not inexpensive, but the value proposition is there. There are certainly cheaper tools, but I don't think we'd be getting the support that we get with those, and that is what separates this product from the others.

Regarding licensing, pay very close attention to what applications you're going to need to do dynamic scanning for, versus static. Right now, the way the licensing is set up, if you don't have any static elements for a website, you can certainly avoid some costs by doing more dynamic licenses. You need to pay very close attention to that, because if you find out later that you have static code elements - like Java scripts, etc. - that you want to have scanned statically, having the two licenses bundled together will actually save you money. 

You really need to understand how your application is going to be delivered and not think of it just as, "This is a website and this is a mobile app," or "This is a website and this is a fat client." Often, with new frameworks, you have websites - especially with Java specifically, which is not even a new framework - running Java, but you also have things running in a local Java sandbox on the machine, or on a Java virtual machine. You really want to understand how that application is being delivered to the end-user, and not just think of it as applications on a box and websites.

My advice is what I mentioned in the pricing/licensing section above, you really need to understand what it is you are looking to do.

Also, take into account a data sensitivity for the applications. It's not "one policy fits all." I really like that Veracode allows me to set up specific policies that I can apply to applications. Understand which are your critical apps that deal with critical, very sensitive data, and then apply a more rigorous scan model to them, versus internal applications that perhaps don't deal with as much PII, with as much sensitive information, and aren't available to the outside world. Those might have a lower risk footprint. Understand that, so when your developers go in there you are not treating every single thing like it is a public-facing, client-data-gathering, credit-card-processing web app. That way your developers can prioritize what they need to work on, so that you are delivering the right metrics to your leadership.

You really need to understand that strategy going in, because the tool is not going to help you determine that. The tool is only going to help you scan.

The only reason I don't rate it a nine or a 10 out of 10 is because we haven't hit those scalability roadblocks yet. I know we might have some challenges in the future, but I would say eight out of 10 is an incredibly good score for a product like this. If you were just asking me about the support and the people behind it, I would rate that a nine or a 10. If you bundle it all together it's an eight.

I recommend Veracode to colleagues all the time.

Provides static code analysis of the customers' applications from all industries. It includes any type of code and scripts, but mostly Java, .Net, C++, and C# environments.

The solution is a specialist in SAST that you can rely on. Code scanning is fast with current, updated algorithms.

Provides consistent evaluation and results without huge fluctuations in false positives or negatives. 

It should include more informational, low level, vulnerability summaries and groupings. Large related groups of low level vulnerabilities may amount to a design flaw or another avenue for attack.

Application development and secure code development.

We do automated scanning, so we use it as part of our development cycle. We do both automated security scanning as well as our own automated testing. We run the two in parallel and treat both outputs of, let's say, a sales functionality test. A security vulnerability is just a defect that needs to be resolved before we release the product.

We do an automated upload to the Veracode platform for all of our applications - we have about 35 applications. For all of them, it's automatically done, pre-configured, pre-compiled, based on scripts that we worked out with Veracode. And then on a scheduled basis, the upload and scanning is done, in some cases, twice a month. In some of our applications, two to three times a week, we just constantly scan and look for exposures, and continue to feed that back to the development team and make sure that they don't release product that's not ready for market.

We have found that our developers have become a lot more knowledgeable about how to develop secure code, and that was very important to us. We also became more knowledgeable about vulnerabilities in the market, which are the most critical to address. You could say it helped us to apply the right investment in the right place.

In terms of best practices and guidance, we do quarterly reviews with Veracode, where they're analyzing our information alongside of us and providing feedback to our executive team to suggest strategic changes in certain approaches. We've also done benchmarks with them, where we've compared our maturity model to the industry's model, as far as security practices go and best practices for security and such. In some cases, we've made adjustments to improve, and in some cases we are confident we're ahead.

Regarding our customers, for one, they can move to market faster, we can move to production faster. Also, we discuss our security program and the software development life cycle with them in pre-sales discussions, post-sales discussions, implementation approaches. What it does is, it gives them the confidence to move ahead in a more direct fashion, with one less headache for them to worry about.

• The static scanning of the software is very important to us.
• The ability to set policy profiles that are specific to us. 
• The software composition analysis, to give us reports on known vulnerabilities from our third-party components.

It's really hard to criticize something that has become somewhat seamless for us. If they wanted to expand their capabilities into other areas of security, that would be fine. They're a very knowledgeable group of people. We do meetings with them on a pretty regular basis. We gain insights from their perspectives.

To me, if they just broadened their footprint into the areas that their feet feel comfortable going into, we'd have no problem pursuing that.

No issues with stability.

None.

Tech support is very effective. We can do online requests for read-outs with their tech support - but the more common support would be for security advisory, when we're looking at certain vulnerabilities that we're struggling with how to remediate. We can get online with one of their security engineers, and they provide advice to us some best practices on making the code changes to secure the system. They do a very good job of that.

Prior to working with Veracode, we used a self-applied application. That is, we had the solution on-premise, but just could never quite get the routine approach that we've developed with Veracode. The program management features that Veracode offers to help us get our program up and going, along with the low false-positive rates that their solution provides - versus what we had done in the past - gave us some immediate traction. I think that we were able to make progress in the first five or six months working with Veracode, that we had not made in four or five years with previous approaches.

It was a dynamic scanning solution but, again, it was on-premise. Veracode is a cloud-based platform, where they manage all the back-end, and they do a lot of analysis during the scans, and they do a lot of post-scan reconciliation, where the other solution was a good solution, but all of that work fell upon us to do for ourselves. Our focus is on developing features and functions for our application, and running an application security platform in-house is just not practical, just not our core competency.

It was straightforward. We went from signing a deal on December 30th, to performing that first scan on January 5th, to completing that scan and starting to remediate issues on about January 15th. And that is one of the fastest wrap-ups of any technology that I've been associated with.

By implementing Veracode in our development process, what we've done is cost avoidance, not necessarily savings. By getting ahead of it, and releasing product to the market that's more secure, we have very few, if any, reported issues by our customers. So we don't have to go and do a maintenance repair of those. That's an avoidance of cost. 

It's a pretty accepted standard that if you release a vulnerability or a flaw into the market, it's going to cost you 10 times more to address it after the fact than if you prevent it. I'd say that that, plus the automation of the scanning, has also reduced the amount of capacity or full time equivalence we have to apply to repair and scan.

As I said, we have 35 applications, and instead of having 35 different people preparing their packages for upload and scan, it's automated. We don't have to spend money doing that as well. 

So avoiding the cost of releasing vulnerabilities into the market that get caught by customers and reported back, is a big one; and then, reducing the investment of performing the continual scans.

We're very comfortable with their model. We think they're a good value.

We worked very closely with Veracode on understanding their license model, understanding what comprises the fee and what does not. With their assistance in design, we decomposed our application in a way where we are scanning a very significant amount of code without wasting their capacity and generating redundant reported issues. You scan in profiles, per se. And we work with them, in their offices, to design the most effective approach.

So the advice I would have for customers is, you can get up and live fast, but work closely with Veracode to refine the method you use for scanning and the way you compile the applications. There's a concept called entry-point scanning, and that's probably not used well by the rest of their customers. We see our licensing as a good value because we leverage it heavily. I'd say many customers might not quite go to that level. But that's their choice.

I'd rather not give out competitor names.

But the method we were using in the past was what is called dynamic scanning, or DAST. That required we have an environment that was up and running with the application, and then we could proceed to scan. You can see that if we have 35 applications, that means we've got 35 environments running our application internally, just for scanning purposes. That's a lot of hardware, whereas this methodology uses static scanning, where we upload the compiled code and we don't invest any hardware in doing that. The scanning capability not only does the scanning but contains the application code for us. There are a lot of complexities with trying to do a dynamic scan on-premise, versus a static scan on a platform.

You almost can't compare the two. False-positive rate in the dynamic scanning was very high - 30 percent, maybe - and the false-positive rate for the static scanning is very low - maybe two to four percent. That is a significant value, because you don't have to spend a lot of time sorting through reported issues to determine if they're valid or not. We're pretty well assured that as we start investigating one, it's more than likely valid. We don't have that doubt entering in.

It was a different approach. Two concepts: 

1. That it is a cloud-based solution, which is very valuable to us, we don't need that hardware running our scans and hosting the environment to be scanned.
2. The technology, the static scanning versus dynamic scanning produces a much better result, a more accurate result.

We recommend Veracode to colleagues all the time.

I'd give the advice of not getting hung up on trying to compare the static scanning to the dynamic scanning, that's number one. Don't even compare them. If you're doing neither, do statics first. It'll get the majority of your exposures addressed. Then you come in, in a second round, and do dynamic. Dynamic really becomes more of a confirmation of security.

The other piece of advice I'd give is to "follow the directions." Make sure they understand how they're supposed to compile code. Take the advice of the program management team with their code, and follow their lead, and you'll come out in a very good position very quickly.

I'd give Veracode a 10 out of 10 because the rate at which we gained control of our security posture, from a development perspective, was fast. There is a lack of wasted time on our developer organization in chasing down erroneously reported vulnerabilities. The erroneous reported vulnerabilities is very low, and that means that our developer time is very effective as we investigate a reported issue. As I said, it's 96, 98 percent probability it is real. So our developers gain confidence and don't second-guess the results. 

The level of detail that we are provided for a given vulnerability - the data path that it follows, the precision with which the justification is provided - is very high. Again, you're highly confident in the result. You are provided a tremendous amount of detail about the vulnerability it found. And the rate at which you can ramp up and be productive is very fast.

Certifying the application security of my SAS-based application code base.

It allows us to prove our security levels to vendors, and additionally helps us with our HIPAA security policies. Also, CA Veracode has provided AppSec best practices and guidance to our teams. Finally, it makes the IT Governance process of the sales cycle easier.

Static and dynamic scans of the code. It is part of our release cycle.

Mitigation review isn't always super easy.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

It is excellent.

Straightforward to set up, but the configuration of the rules engine is difficult and complicated.

It helps us get over the line for security when contracting with customers, and any help reducing security vulnerabilities is a big help to us.

Pricing/licensing is complicated.

Do your research, make sure you implement the tools you need.

I am very likely to recommend Veracode to a colleague.

We test each major release of our software using Veracode static and dynamic testing. We also do manual penetration testing annually.

Ensures our code and system are 100% compliant. In terms of APPSec best practices and guidance to our team, the Knowledgebase available on the Veracode system is a great resource for our developers.

For our customers, the added security assurance is a requirement.

• Ad-hoc scanning during the development cycle
• Reports for audits

In terms of integrating Veracode into our existing software development lifecycle, there are regular milestones in the SDLC to perform Veracode scans.

• Entering comments for internal tracking
• Entering a priority
• Reports that show the above

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Excellent.

We did use a previous solution. It didn't satisfy our needs technically, and the customer service and its cost were not satisfactory.

Easy.

We don't do a detailed enough analysis to reflect on any cost savings relating to code fixes made since we implemented Veracode.

Negotiate some, but their prices are reasonable.

HPE Fortify.

Have them guide you through your first scan - make sure to add hours to your initial contract for that.

I am very likely to recommend Veracode to colleagues.

Scanning for code security vulnerabilities within our company's products.

Made our company aware of any potential code security vulnerabilities. Also, customers can use our products knowing they are verified by top organizations as safe.

Informing me of application security vulnerabilities. Bamboo build-automation with Veracode API calls are used.

• The user interface could be more sleek.
• Some scanning requirements aren't flexible.
• Some features take some time for new users to understand (like what exactly "modules" are).

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Great.

Somewhat straightforward. There was a little confusion about "missing modules" that are third-party files that we couldn't upload because we don't actually have them. That really confused us, but the technical support resolved the confusion.

I can't report on any cost savings relating to code fixes since implementing Veracode in our development process, but it makes us feel more confident about our code, which is awesome.

We are satisfied.

None. We might look into Checkmarx.

I am very likely to recommend Veracode to colleagues. Veracode is great.

We use it to assess or do security inspections of our software that we produce or assemble. We have a very large portfolio of software across our enterprise. The Veracode system is a platform that scales with the dynamics of our organization. We have people that are in many locations, in the US and abroad. The fact that the Veracode platform is essentially a cloud-based platform, that makes it scalable.

We are able to create business policies, and the Veracode system allows us to enforce those policies. That's at the very high level.

We're looking at improving the overall security quality of our software. We use it as a platform to help enable that process. Veracode, in and of itself, is doing nothing but inspecting software. But, there are many other practices that are essential to onboard and embed into our development lifecycle. Veracode is simply the platform that lets us see how well the software is being engineered. Based on some of the findings, we make improvements in areas that need education.

It can't be boiled down to the one or two most important things. It's not Veracode by itself that's doing all of the stuff, there are a lot of tertiary activities that go into building better software. The Veracode system is used to help us validate the security quality of what we're producing. It helps us zero in on some of the things that we can do better. But that means we have to provide education to our developers and architects.

In some cases we use their APIs; they're not as rich as I would like. We have added Greenlight to the IDEs, where the Greenlight tool is compatible.

In terms of cost savings relating to code fixes since implementing Veracode, it would be difficult for me to give you some specifics. I'm not exposed to the cost of the iterations. Development teams have a budget for the year. There are features planned, there are releases planned. There are many other functions responsible for planning the releases. My job is to provide application security tools, so that they can incorporate the security practices that our company expects us all to adhere to. We know, anecdotally, that the time to write software, or scripts... You should write them securely, as opposed to having some additional testing development activities, and several other iterations downstream, because that would mean we're paying three, four, or five times for our resources to accomplish what they could perform correctly the first time, out of the gate.

In that sense, the Veracode system, since we've been using it, has helped us identify and code correct over 34,000 security weaknesses. That means there are 34,000 weaknesses and vulnerabilities that never made it into production. It's hard to quantify, if any of those had been exploited, what would have been the real cost to catch them. The only thing I could do is speculate on cost right now. But we do know that it's far better to embed security upstream in the development lifecycle, and produce software correctly the first time, rather than retroactively adding security remediations to the iterations that produce software for service packs and patch releases. Those are unplanned events and there are certainly costs associated with those unplanned events. But I don't have a number I could throw out there and tell you what it is.

I don't really look at Veracode as providing any best practices. It may have some educational aid embedded in the platform. I think the Veracode database of remediation guidance is somewhat vanilla. It's not contextual. I frankly don't rely on it to provide the kind of guidance developers need contextually. So, we augment education aids and remediation guidance with humans, security analysts. We also have other third-party solutions that really provide more contextual remediation guidance unique to the situations, as developers are trying to address them. We don't anticipate what their system is going to identify. But, based on what the system identifies, I would say it's 50/50, whether or not the scripted, plain vanilla, embedded guidance is really the right approach. It may or may not be, and I would say it's probably 50% accurate, but it's very vanilla.

In terms of benefits to our clients from using Veracode, that's like asking me: Am I really happy that my car stops when I press the brakes. I think most people would expect cars to have brakes, and the brakes to work. No more, no less. Software, to me, it's probably in the same wheelhouse, that people use software without thinking, "Is it really secure?" It's assumed, frankly. So I'm not so sure our customers consciously think about security as a benefit, unless they are breached or compromised. It's one of those things that's difficult to track, in terms of how customers are benefiting. We just know that through our efforts we're delivering high-quality software.

Maybe customers that are being independently assessed by third-party assessors - when those assessors have to do security inspections of the technologies that may be consumed by those institutions - if our software is deployed on-prem, we tend to believe that our software will have fewer weaknesses and vulnerabilities identified than, say, other technologies that are consumed on-prem. Only then, might it become apparent to the customer that they're working with a supplier of software that provides higher quality, relative to other suppliers.

The Static and Dynamic Analysis capabilities are very valuable to us. 

They've improved the speed of the inspection process.

I'd never want the inspection process to become something that's suspect. False positives would diminish confidence in the results; if we don't continue to focus on reducing false positives... that is number one.

The on-platform reporting needs to be opened up much more. We'd like to be able to look at the inspection data from a trending perspective in a much more open manner. I need to be able to sort and filter much more flexibly than I can today. I don't have the on-platform flexibility to sort and filter inspection data, and that's not good.

Another thing I need is continued support for the new languages today that are popular. Most of them are scripting languages more so than real, fourth-generation, commercial grade stuff; we're evolving. Most applications are using so much open-source that, quite frankly, it would be great to see Veracode, or anybody else, extend their platform to where they are able to help secure open-source platforms or repositories. Currently, I have to have another supplier in my tool chain and that means I have to extract data from different tool repositories to see one holistic picture of security quality, risks, and vulnerabilities. It would be great if I could see it all in one place, but I have to harvest the information from Veracode, harvest information from Rapid7, harvest information from Sonatype, just so that I can get a good, round perspective of where my first-party and third-party code, and the components in the dependent libraries, are in terms of weaknesses, risks, and vulnerabilities. That's a burdensome activity. 

If Veracode spent more time providing more plug-ins to other competitors' environments, or provided very open APIs so we could harvest data, bring it into one lens so that we can look at the security inspection data through one set of dashboards, it would provide a lot more value from a governance perspective. 

I hold Veracode in high regard. It's a good organization to work with, and it's a very conscientious organization. I'm always a recommender of the solution set.

To certify that we have valid code, and that the developers are working with valid structures and writing good code.

The coding standards in our development group have improved. When we scan our code - at the end of a build cycle we'll go through and scan our code - from those scans we've learned the patterns and techniques to make our code more secure. An example would be SQL injection. We have mitigated all the SQL injection in our applications.

That is now part of our software development life cycle, to do a static scan before we release to our client base. We mitigate what we have to.

I'm not aware of any cost savings relating to code fixes since implementing Veracode in our development process.

In terms of Veracode providing application security best practices and guidance to our development teams, once we scan the software and we have to go through a mitigation process, we make sure we implement that in the base standards. Once we mitigate a problem, we implement it back into the base to make sure the developers who are still developing code are not going to have the same issues that we just mitigated.

For our customers, they know that we go through another level of application security with our application, one our competitors don't use. They know our code meets a standard and that we implement the standard and the structures. That we have mitigated gives them a little bit of peace of mind that our code is valid, and that it's not going to hurt their infrastructure. 

We just use the static scan, it's all we got into as of now. We're happy with that, it seems to work very well for us.

Going through the mitigation is probably the hardest thing to do and that's still an ongoing process. If there is a code issue to mitigate, it sometimes takes a little bit longer than what you would think. It might not be anything that they're doing. It's just their engine is changing and our code is changing so we have two things moving. We get a good score one time, scan it again on a new release and the score drops because the engine is picking up more things. I don't know if they could do anything about that. It's just one of those things you might just have to live with.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability, we're good there.

They're very good. Anything that we've brought up to them, they've responded to us very quickly.

We used the built-in solution inside of Microsoft Visual Studio, and we switched because Veracode had more cohesive scanning abilities and found a lot more issues with our code, when we first scanned it.

It was pretty straightforward.

We get good value out of what we have right now.

We had a couple of products that we looked at, but went with Veracode.

I am highly likely to recommend Veracode to colleagues.

Make sure, once you scan and find issues with your code, that the developers know how to remediate those issues so they don't go through them again.

It's going to take some time to get through your first set of scans and mitigations. To fix your code is not straightforward. But once you do that and implement it back through your whole development cycle, they identify the issues and it's very easy to fix them, once you know and have gone through it once.

Security scanning.

It has caught lots of flaws that could have been exploited, like SQL injection flaws. It has also improved developer engagement with information security.

In terms of application security best practices and guidance to our teams, their engineering staff is really excellent. They provide our developers with suggestions and they take those to heart. They've learned from the recommended remediation strategies provided by the Veracode security engineers. That makes all of their future code better.

As for our customers, it lowers the risk for people visiting our site.

Catching coding flaws before they go live.

Regarding integrating Veracode into our software development lifecycle, we started out with it being used only as a web interface, and now developers are starting to use it right in their IDE on the desktop.

It's a pretty dynamic product. It's changing all the time and improving.

The scanning is a little slow, but other than that it's fine. It's usually when the binaries get up into the multi-hundred-megabyte size.

We haven't encountered any scalability issues with Veracode so far.

They're awesome. Their timeliness is acceptable, but their expertise is phenomenal.

Veracode is the first professional solution I've used. It was in place when I got to the company.

We just use it as a cloud service for third-party developers.

In terms of cost savings relating to code fixes since implementing Veracode in our development process, I can't really give hard numbers.

I'm not the pricing guy.

Licensing is pretty flexible. It's a little bit weird, it's by the size of the binary, which is a strange way to license a product. So far they've been pretty flexible about it.

I recommend it all the time.

It's an important aspect of a complete security program. Not necessarily this product, but source code, fraud detection.

I'd give it an eight out of 10 because it's pretty straightforward, but you still have to mostly wrap it with organizational policies that encourages its use. It's not a product - and I don't think it's really a product category - that sells itself to the end-user. They see benefits, but they do have to be convinced to use it.

Security scanning of the applications, of software that my company built.

We have a large developer base at our company ranging in a variety of skills sets. Some are very security aware, others really don't have the knowledge. What Veracode provides is really good feedback on what vulnerabilities were found in their code: examples, definitions, ways to mitigate. One of the huge benefits we've seen is just a bigger security awareness within our development staff.

Further, with the tools that Veracode provides, they're actually able to comprehend what the vulnerability was and then resolve it. So a lot of knowledge has been grown as a result, around security, with our developers.

Veracode provides application security best practices and guides our security and development teams because most of the time, in the issues that it opens, it has lots of links and details in there. There are also regular emails and newsletters and they send out about trends. So, there's a fair amount of communication and there are also a lot of details within the issues that they find. There's always plenty of material that they link to in issues. They do a really good job of providing a lot of communication and detailed documentation around our application security tools.

Our customers have benefited in the fact that know that we put security right in front, as a priority. It's not an afterthought. They're a lot more aware that we're security conscientious, instead of just, "The software works, here you go."

We also have reports. Some of our customers have asked for various types of reporting and security related stuff. Now, we're also able to give them these reports, essentially from Veracode's scans of our software. So, we have a lot more documentation about it. Instead of answering one-off questionnaires from our clients, we actually have a canned report we can provide. Again, all this material, we didn't have a year ago. We were just ad hoc answering things and hoping that they didn't question it anymore, and we really didn't have any good evidence. They were just taking us at our word.

The most important one is the static scanning analysis, and the reason is that it can tell us vulnerability in that code, right before we go ahead and push something to production or provide something to a client.

We pair that with dynamic scanning, which actually hits our Web applications, to try to detect any well-known Web application vulnerabilities as well. It's really just a way for us to stay ahead of it and provide some assurances and security with the software that we deliver.

Also, Veracode has a nice API that they provide to allow for custom things to be built, or automation. We actually have integrated Veracode into our software development cycle using their API. We actually are able to automatically, every time a new build of a software is completed, submit that application, kick off a scan, and we get results in a much more automated fashion. So the API is a huge thing that we use from Veracode, in addition to those two types of scans.

In terms of integrating Veracode into our existing software development life cycle, we heavily use JIRA today for bug tracking issues, time management, and the like, for our development team. When those scans kick, Veracode integrates back into our JIRA and actually open tickets with the appropriate development teams. We can use that as a measurement of vulnerabilities opened, closed; we can tie them to releases. So, we get a whole lot more statistical information about security in our software products. That's really what we use in measuring there, the integration back to JIRA in issues found.

From a technical standpoint, I'm pretty happy with everything. The one thing I'd like to be able to do is schedule dynamic scans. Today we're kicking those off manually, but I believe that it's something have on their roadmap.

Other than that, I don't really get too involved in the cost sides of things that's in my job, I'm more of a technical focus, but I have heard from my manager and a couple other people that the solution is quite expensive. So that is possibly one factor that could turn somebody away from Veracode. But, like I said, I really don't know much more about that. Technically, I'm very impressed and happy with what they've had to offer.

I have not run into one issue with stability with it. I'm throwing stuff at it all day and I can't think of one time where I've had an issue with submitting a scan or getting a scan to complete. It's been pretty flawless.

The one thing we hit was some licensing limitation. Again, it went back to cost, I believe. We had to go back and change our licensing model with Veracode to be able to scan all the things that we wanted to. I think there was some confusion up front with their licensing or cost. 

Like I said, that's really the only area that I've heard some gripes about, but I'm far removed. I'm not sure if it was scalability or a licensing mishap, but we did have some issues early on, with the amount of things that we wanted to scan and what their limits were for us. But ever since whatever was straightened out there, I have not had an issue of scalability.

Initially, I had some questions back and forth and I was able to get everything resolved, mostly via email. Overall, I thought the response time was good, the answers were concise and accurate. Within 24 hours I was getting a response via email from their support. For what I needed to set up, I really thought their support was great and really sharp.

I don't work with the support that often, now that things are established. But to get off the ground running, they were extremely helpful.

We had never done anything like this in the past. This was the solution that we chose. We didn't really evaluate anything else. I know that my boss has been a fan of some CA products in the past and really recommended this one. I did some digging on it, from a technical standpoint, and I said I believed it would be able to scan all our stuff, support our platforms, the languages that we write our applications in, so that's how we landed on Veracode.

Without the API, it would have been extremely complex. It would have been very painful because it would have been a very manual process of submitting applications. 

I am fortunate enough that I have a pretty strong development background, so I do a lot of coding myself. For the person without development experience, using the API would have been very difficult. Where I work, we're a little unique in that sense.

But the rest of it, it's a cloud-based solution. I'm kicking off all my stuff over to Veracode and it's running in their environments and producing results. There's not a whole lot of setup besides that. It's not a big cost on an any infrastructure that we have to run or support. So, pretty painless really.

I wish I had some numbers - this is really not my area. I would assume that it's got to be a fair amount of cost savings, only because we're touching things earlier. We didn't have anything before. I don't have good stats to provide except for the fact that now we have something in our process, where before we didn't. Before, security things were only being addressed if somebody actually found something or, even worse, if a customer found something. We don't have a lot of historical data but it's got to be substantial.

I believe, from a technical standpoint, it's paying off for the rest of the organization. I think ethically it's the right thing to do. Educating our staff - I don't really know how you measure that in a dollar amount - but our developers are getting education and are becoming more aware of security in their software. Me being a technical guy, those two things are huge, and the dollars don't add up enough. I'm not sure how you would measure it.

It probably pays off more over time as well. We're still only a year into it. So we're still learning a lot ourselves.

If you're licensing, and you're looking at licensing models, you might want to ask Veracode about their microservice, depending on the company. If you are a microservice architecture, I would suggest asking them about their microservice pricing. I would suggest that you evaluate that with your code and their other licensing model, which is like a lump sum in size of artifacts, and just make sure that you price that out with them, because there might be some tradeoffs that can be made in price.

There were some, but we didn't get serious about them because they didn't have everything that we wanted.

I would advise that you figure out a way to integrate it into your software development lifecycle in a way that it's not intrusive to your developers. That was really something that I set out to do. I didn't want my developers to have to go into their code, and kick off scans, and upload their code. So, I would really suggest looking at your integrations, your JIRA, your Jenkins, all of your add-ons, and hopefully that fits into the SDLC process, and then automating via their API.

Essentially, what we were able to achieve is, my developers still live within JIRA and the issues get opened from Veracode into JIRA and they work on things that way. They can remediate it, kick it that way, and if they need to they can log into Veracode. But I'd suggest making the SDLC process integrated as much as you can to make it something that developers aren't having to spend a lot of time doing every day.

Overall, I would give Veracode a nine out of 10, just because nothing is perfect. But it does everything for us and it was so painless. I speak very highly of it for those reasons.

I would highly recommend CA Veracode. Every engineer that I've dealt with has been really sharp. The review process they have is really good and the knowledge they have has been tremendous. I really recommend working with them.

The primary use is as a static analysis tool. But we also use Greenlight and dynamic, and we're currently having a manual penetration test.

Firstly, it prevents me from putting out software that has security vulnerabilities, which is a big thing and can be one of the most important things. 

Also, we just finished a vendor due diligence with a very large company that wants to do business with us, and one of their security questions was "Do you do static analysis?" I was able to just send a very professionally done report. They know Veracode and they said, "Okay, great. This is terrific." 

That very reason is why, three years ago when I first got to this company, I said, "We have to get hooked up with Veracode right away, so it's not like an afterthought." Because I'd been in a situation where you do it after the fact and you end up with 3,000 errors, medium to critical errors.

It helps us put out better software more quickly, and gives me the piece of mind that we've done everything we can to prevent any security exploits.

It's something that our customers don't think about, and the benefit would be that as long as there are no data breaches, there's no hacking within our system, they get a non-functional benefit. We work with pharmacies and they just expect that the system is secure. I would view that as a benefit to them - maybe something that they don't think about - but nonetheless, it's there. 

Certainly it eases integration into our workflow. Veracode is part of our Jenkins build, so whenever we build our software, Jenkins will automatically submit the code bundle over to Veracode, which automatically kicks off the static analysis. It sends an email when it's done, and we look at the report.

Once it's set up - and it's pretty easy to set up - it pretty much just works and I don't really have to think about it, outside of whenever I get my emails to look at the reports.

It was a very easy integration that we did within the first week of going live with the software.

So ease of use, ease of integration.

The Web portal, at times, is not necessarily intuitive. I can get around when I want to but there are times when I have to email my account manager on: "Hey, where do I find this report?" Or "How do I do this?" They always respond with, "Here's how you do it." But that points to a somewhat non-intuitive portal. 

With that said, I hate when companies redo their portals all the time. So it's kind of a catch-22, but that would be my only critique.

It's always been pretty rock solid. 

No scalability issues that I'm aware of. 

Exceptional.

Veracode was really my first introduction to static code analysis. The way I came across it in my previous company was, they were going through security due diligence and we didn't have any code analysis software. The company, a very large health plan, said, "Here are three that we recommend." Veracode happened to have been one of them, along with HPE and another company, maybe it was IBM, I don't know. We took a look at all of them and we made a decision to go with Veracode.

It was easy. It's very straightforward. There's nothing complicated about it.

I haven't really thought about cost savings related to code fixes, since we implemented Veracode, other than: It's always easier and much cheaper to catch errors and fix them before you go to production, versus catching them while in production. Just like it's much easier to fix things before production, as opposed to having somebody hack your system and to find out that you have a cross-site script error.

But again, I've never quantified it in terms of whether it's saved me money. 

Just off the cuff, the cost of the license is small in comparison to the value it brings. I don't have to buy the software myself, I don't have to have specially trained security professionals that monitor this stuff. But I haven't really broken it down to quantify it into dollars, as such.

I think it's a great value. It's at a price point that a small company like mine can afford to use versus, if it was too exorbitant, I wouldn't be able to use this product.

About licensing, just go ahead and get them.

Get a license at the beginning of a project. Don't wait until the end, because you want to use the product throughout the entire software development lifecycle, not just at the end. You could be surprised, and not in a positive way, with all the vulnerabilities there are in your code.

When I was at the last company, I looked at HPE (now Micro Focus) Fortify vs Veracode and maybe IBM had a product, but they were overly complex and overly expensive. I remember talking to our Veracode account rep, who also was my account rep originally here at Focus Script, and she did a fabulous job of explaining it, doing a demo, showing how easy it was to use, and that's what sold me. Again, it was recommended from a very large health plan as one of the more reputable systems out there.

CA Veracode provides application security (AppSec) best practices and guidance to our teams in a couple ways. First of all, they have an e-learning module that has courses that we have required our developers to take. That's a best practice.

Secondly, when we do have errors, Veracode is always available, their consultants, to help us either mitigate the error, or provide technical assistance on pointing exactly where the problem is and how we could probably fix it. I'm always amazed at how knowledgeable they are. 

They also have what's called a Software Composition Analysis that can point out errors and fixes for third-party software frameworks, which is very nice. The list goes on... And again, having received, early on, education from them on how best to integrate this in the workflow, those are areas where we've relied on best practices from Veracode.

I'm in healthcare, and it's very important - and I'm sure in other industries just as well - but the stakes are very high. If we get hacked, if there's a data breach, it could put us out of business. It's a very good price point for a small company to have these kinds of capabilities, something we can afford for our application.

I am very likely to recommend it to colleagues. As I mentioned, I brought it to this company, and I've already recommended and provided references to a few other companies over the last couple of years.

We test two mission-critical web applications (C# Web forms).

We used to revise code with free tools (like VCG) but they are not even in the same universe. Veracode static analysis allows us to pinpoint issues - from a simple hard-coded test password, to more serious issues - and saves us lot of time. For example, it raises a flag about a problematic third-party DLL before development invests time heavy using it.

Also, from the very relevant results and issues that were pinpointed by Veracode, I can say that our customer security was greatly enhanced by its use.

It is great to have such insight into code without having to upload the source code at all. It saves a lot of NDA paperwork. The Visual Studio plugin allows the developer to seamlessly upload the code and get results as he works, with no manual upload. The code review function is great. It allows you to find flaws in source code, but the source code never leaves your workstation, it is all client side, no NDA needed.

It can take time to find options if you don’t use the interface a lot. At some point, a bit of interface restyling may help (but not now, now that I've learned it).

No, we did not detect a single glitch or fault in a year. We once had a periodic maintenance activity on the Veracode platform during a deadline, but it was clearly announced in advance, so we just went around it and had no issues.

No, you don’t have such concerns on Veracode. The process is really "launch and forget" (and wait for results).

The team that assists us with it is just great, especially considering there is a language barrier for some of our employees. Veracode did its best to get those employees in the loop with the chance to attend the meeting, as well with the aid of written English.

VCG (Visual Code Grepper) but I am not even going to compare them. VCG is as good as they come, but Veracode is a different breed. An application went through VCG and we were pretty confident. Then, Veracode results just blew us out of our shoes.

I manage the Veracode suite for my company, and I was personally walked through the various steps. Once I was up and running, we had another two-hour session to explain to us how a proper Veracode assessment should be planned (developers, code reviewers). As a result, I believe we have not only a pretty solid code review process up and running, but this was all provided to us at no additional cost.

What we felt is that the Veracode guys want to enjoy and use their solution first. They are not pushing to get consultancy time if that can be avoided. If you need consultancy time you can have it and the prices are convenient. We did not. All the help came at no additional cost.

It is difficult to assert, but it helps a lot with maintaining compliance with our main customers, and helps us to pinpoint some specific issues. The cost of not having Veracode would be pretty high for us.

The licensing and prices were upfront and clear. They stand behind everything that is said during the commercial phase and during the onboarding phase. Even the most irrelevant "that can be done" was delivered, no matter how important the request was.

The licensing is fair, it is time-limited (e.g. one year) but there is a size cap for every app. If your applications are big (due third-party libraries, for example) you should discuss this beforehand and explore suitable agreements.

Competitors were evaluated but seemed, at once, too bloated or not relevant to all our specific requests. We were not interested in buying a product (such as a standalone program) rather we were interested in getting a tool for creating a process, and Veracode is that.

In terms of integrating Veracode into our existing software development lifecycle, as our two existing applications are quite mature, and not changed often, we have not taken steps to have Jenkins or another CI tool that would allow us to get the full power from the Veracode environment. We look forward doing it, starting with the next app that gets developed from scratch.

CA Veracode provided AppSec best practices and guidance to our security and development team during the kickoff phase. They offered assistance on specific code issues that were hard to fix, and guidance on preparing a credible set of rules for Veracode policy, all this at no additional cost.

As Veracode licensing is generally time-related, I suggest you start the subscription once everything is ready for consumption, assign a specific person to it and declaring it mandatory at the policy level. Losing two months of great value because the devs are too busy, or because they think they don’t need it, or they fear the results, or because no one is taking charge of the Veracode process, is really a pity. Once the clock starts ticking, try to take advantage as much as you can.

I would recommend Veracode to anyone involved in high-risk environments.

Application security management.

We've been able to provide reports to our clients that show applications are either flaw-free, or in the process of being remediated, and give them timely status updates on how those flaw remediations are going on.

Our customers have benefited by being able to have a little bit more assurance from us, from a trusted authority, that our code is properly flaw-free and remediated.

The most important features, I would say, are the scanning abilities and the remediation abilities within the product. Scanning because, obviously, we want to make sure that our application code is flaw-free. And the remediation tools are helpful to the developers to help them track and manage their flaws.

We have been able to integrate Veracode through many of the IDEs that our developers use, using the Veracode APIs, or they've been actually been doing this manually as part of their SDLC.

Reporting. Some of the reporting features of Veracode do need improvement. They do not have the most robust access to data. That would be a bit more beneficial to a lot of our clients as well as our actual in-house staff. I've been talking to our program management at Veracode about that, and that is actually on their radar to have that improved, I think actually this year.

That would probably be the biggest area, access to more granular data that we could pull and use on a regular basis. Better dashboards. That kind of information.

It's stable, absolutely. They do regular maintenance schedules. Aside from that, I can't really think of a time where it has not been a stable product or unavailable. 

No issues with scalability.

We engage their support teams quite often actually. Part of our licensing package is a good number of hours per month for our development teams to work with their support teams at Veracode, to help solve remediation issues, troubleshoot some of the flaws that they encounter or can't understand. Their support teams have been able to work with our development teams very well.

We were not using a previous vendor prior to this. We've used other vendors like Nessus for pen testing. We still use those. Veracode was just more of an addition.

The setup has been more of a phase-in approach, and it's been gradual. It's been kind of a "trial-by-fire" setup with a lot of our development teams because most of our development teams aren't used to doing this. So, it's been a trial, I guess more so on our side, to get the adoption going on. It's just part of training our team to actually know there's something they need to do on a regular basis.

Regarding any cost savings relating to code fixes since we implemented Veracode in our development process, I can't say I have that information off the top of my head.

Just do your research. Make sure you're getting the best price on this. It can be expensive to do this, so I would just make sure that you're getting the proper number of licenses. Do your analysis. Make sure you know exactly what it is you need, going in. Then just see if it can work. Try and make sure you get the best price possible.

I was not part of the evaluation team on this, unfortunately. But I believe the other options were evaluated as well, but I don't have access to that information.

In terms of Veracode providing AppSec (application security best practices) and guidance to our teams, they've been able to adapt their scanning and remediation in their SDLC, which is something we did not have really before. It's been a little bit of "not the best honeymoon" so far, doing this with our developers, but they've started coming along here in the past year and a half.

The advice I'd give is look around, make sure it's the right fit for you. Make sure that the tools they offer are a good fit for your organization. And make sure this is something that you really feel would be good for your company. If you aren't currently doing this kind of analysis on your code, I would take a strong look at whether this is something that you really should be doing. It's a different world out there right now.

I would recommend Veracode very highly, especially since the program management staff that I work with from Veracode are some of the best people that I've worked with in this industry.

Static code scan.

We have used the results of scans to train our people and make them more sensitive to security issues during development, although we haven't done any specific integration of Veracode into our software development cycle. Engineers are better trained, so we hope to see increased compliance with our security guidelines.

We do incorporate the suggested course of action from the Veracode report (AppSec best practices and guidance) in our best practices.

Also, our customers benefit from the fact that the application is more secure.

We use the results of the scan to identify vulnerabilities in the product.

Calypso (our application) is large and the results take up to two months. Further, we also have to package Calypso in a special manner to meet size guidelines.

No issues with stability.

Because our application is large, it takes a long time to upload and scan.

Based on limited usage, we are satisfied.

We did not have a previous solution. We picked this product because our partner (SAP) uses it.

Straightforward.

There are no directly measurable cost savings. We see security improvement as a key part of our product development.

When asked, we let our customers and partners know that we use Veracode and that we are happy with it.

Static code analysis for internally developed critical systems.

When we expanded our definition of critical systems to include an internal application to be scanned by Veracode, we had initial scans that produced hundreds of vulnerabilities. We expected this, based on how the code was treated previously, but the Veracode platform allowed us to streamline our identification of these items and develop a game plan to quickly address them. This has also lead to better overall code quality for the team, by pointing out some dated practices that needed updating.

We have required that our critical systems pass a Veracode scan prior to code being deployed into production. We also have included a step in the development stage to run specific code through a Veracode Sandbox to encourage better code quality, early on in the development lifecycle.

Veracode has helped us meet the requirements of our yearly external audits and has improved code quality, leading to less down time and less buggy code that users will encounter.

• Code analysis tool to help identify code issues before entered into production.
• Vulnerability Management and mitigation recommendations help with resolution of issues found, prior to deployment to production.
• Developer Sandboxes help move scanning earlier within the SDLC.
• The platform itself has a lot of AppSec best practices information, especially in the mitigation recommendation process. They have also offered cybersecurity e-learning for our team. 

The only notable problem we have had is that when new versions of Swift have come out, we have found Veracode tends to be a bit behind in updates to support the new language changes.

Also the Greenlight product that integrates into the IDE is not available for PHP, which is our primary language.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

We have rarely needed to use tech support, and when we have it has performed as expected.

Straightforward. Just add the applications in the portal and start scanning.

We don’t have the metrics to track specific dollars, but Veracode has saved us the cost of hundreds of employee hours by streamlining our vulnerability discovery process in legacy code, and by improving the quality of code released into production. 

As we support our organization's customer-facing digital channels by writing higher quality code, we have reduced the amount of bugs or downtime a user experiences using our systems. This saves in employee time and also increases engagement with our digital channels.

Pricing seems fair for what is offered, and licensing has been no problem. All developers are able to get the access they need.

Yes, but too long ago to remember which ones.

I would definitely recommend CA Veracode.

Just make sure you define a process for your developers prior to implementing the technology.

We use it for a lot of things and they're all primary: SAST, DAST, and Greenlight.

By using this product, we can point out not only any potentially insecure coding, but how to fix it. It's a requirement, a legal requirement. So we benefit by not breaking regulatory law.

SAST, DAST, and Greenlight are the most important features because today it's important for our regulatory compliance law to keep our product coding relatively secure.

For our rapid, secure DevOps cycle, we have integration of the Vericode API into our build tool, and Greenlight into our IDE.

I think they are doing pretty well. It would help if there were a training module that would explain how to more effectively integrate the SAST product into the build tool, Jenkins or Bamboo. I think that's a real good idea.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability, other than making sure that our people know how to use it.

Excellent.

Never. I've been using it for 20 years. I tried others, like HPE's and IBM's, when I was with Visa, but this is the best.

I think it's simple, but sometimes it would help to have more training for developers to help them set it up.

I can't give you exact numbers, but it's a lot cheaper to do it sooner rather than later.

Pricing is worth the value. 

They didn't have products before this one. This one pre-dated them.

I recommend CA Veracode all the time. I am a public speaker, frequently on the speaker circuit, and I recommend it all the time. There are really three solutions at the top of the industry ratings, and Veracode is the best, in my opinion.

We are a good customer and we had been for a long time. I actually am a bit of an evangelist for them when I'm doing public speaking.

Dynamic and static scanning.

We're being much more security conscious whenever we're writing code, and we're trying to make sure it's giving us a benchmark, and to make sure we meet that, on a release cycle.

In terms of AppSec best practices, it has made everybody more conscious about what they're trying to accomplish, because they know at the end of the release cycle we're going to be running scans. They basically need to make sure they adhere to all the rules.

Our customers have benefited from the added application security we offer because they're more confident that our software isn't going to expose their organizations to any risk.

The ability to run scans. It's a critical piece of why we use the platform. We use it to get our scan results and see where our software is vulnerable or not vulnerable.

It's part of our SDLC now.

The user interface can sometimes be a little challenging to work with, and they seem to be changing their algorithm on what is an issue. I understand why they do it, but sometimes it causes more work on our end.

No issues with stability.

Not that I know of.

I have not contacted tech support.

It seemed straightforward. I didn't actually do the work, but from what I was told, it seemed like it was fairly easy to get going.

I cannot give numbers on any cost savings related to code fixes since implementing CA Veracode in our development process.

It's worth the value.

We did evaluate other options, but I can't remember who we looked at.

I would be highly likely to recommend working with CA Veracode to colleagues. 

I rate it an eight out of 10. It's a good product - I can't say that it's lighting my world on fire - but it does what it needs to do.

Just be prepared that it's going to take effort from all aspects of the business to be able to utilize and achieve the goal that you're looking to achieve with the product.

To have a third-party analyze our code and make recommendations from a security perspective.

We do not pass our release without performing a static and a dynamic scan, and mitigating the flaws identified.

In terms of how our customers have benefited from the added application security of our applications, they are aware of our development process and it makes them comfortable that we have implemented industry best practices.

All the features provided by Veracode are valuable.

We use Ruby on Rails and we still don't have any support for that from Veracode.

The static scans on Java lack microservices architecture scanning. We have developed an in-house pattern for this and the scans can't take care of it as a single entity.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

The support is good but has room for improvement. Issues don't get acknowledged quickly, repeated updating is required.

The cost savings are the efforts that it would take to do this at a stretch if this was not implemented early on in our development cycle.

I think licensing needs to be changed or updated so that it works with adjustments. Pricing is expensive compared to the amount of scanning we perform.

WhiteHat.

We have made process changes and improvements, although Veracode is not tightly integrated into our CI/CD platform yet.

I am very likely to recommend to colleauges that they work with CA Veracode.

Static analysis.

It has allowed us to integrate with it through automated processes, which saves us a lot of time and effort.

Also, our customers benefited from the added application security assurance of our software, as they’ve been able to identify OWASP top-10 application vulnerabilities without a manual tester.

Static analysis scanning engine, because we need to do static analysis; that’s why we bought the product.

• Better APIs
• Reporting that I can easily query through the APIs
• Preferably, a license model that I can predict

It would save us time when integrating with the APIs. Difficult APIs are annoying to work with and we have to trial/error our way through the integrations. The more straightforward and friendly they are, the less we have to trial/error.

No issues with stability.

Aside from the licensing, no issues with scalability.

Good.

IBM Security App Scan. In looking at Veracode vs IBM Security App Scan, I switched because of the CI/CD offerings of Veracode.

The APIs are a bit nonsensical, but otherwise straightforward.

It has not really resulted in any cost savings related to code fixes.

The worst part about the product is that it does not scale at all. Also, microservices apps will cost you a fortune.

IBM, Coverity.

Regarding measures taken to integrate Veracode into our existing software development lifecycle, we have 100% API integration. We use the Jenkins plugin as a last resort, but we are moving away from that.

The AppSec best practices and guidance to our security and development teams are manifested in the static analysis it provides.

In terms of advice to others looking into implementing this project, I would say don’t use the UI, and do what you can to have license conversations up front.

It depends on the use case and budget, but I would recommend CA Veracode to colleagues.

Scalability and its optimization of security inspections. At the end of the day, I like the fact that it is all prim. It does not require a lot of support on our side. We get the benefit of security inspections and it scales with our community, which is global. 

It has the ability to scale, and the fact that it doesn't produce a lot of false positives.

Number one, I need analytics, analytics, and more analytics. It is all about risk based management and better decision support, that is why. 

It is rock solid, we have used it now for seven years.

On a scale of one to 10, I would give it an eight. 

We had no previous solution. We didn't know we needed to invest in Veracode. It worked out that way through our evaluation process that it was the right solution for us.

I never give 10s. I would give it a nine. It does nearly everything, but penetration testing. It covers such a broad breadth of our portfolio. In our business, we have applications written in so many different languages. Finding something that can consistently scan and not generate false positives across the paradigm or the whole ecosystem of languages, that is impressive. It is speed of inspection, the accurateness of the inspection outcomes, and frankly, it has fairly good business analytics embedded on the platforms. So, it does a lot more for us than not.

Software security, static code scanning.

It has performed very well.

The benefits are quick discovery and understanding of software vulnerabilities that we are putting in our own code. By discovering them quickly enough, we can triage them and determine the best ways to remediate them and prevent them from happening in the future.

It helps us gain confidence that the applications we're putting out in the hands of millions and millions of people have that industrial-strength quality to them; that we don't need to worry about as much as we used to. 

• Completeness, comprehensiveness
• speed
• ease of use

We have such a wide variety of users for Veracode, including security champions, development leads, developers themselves, that the ease of use is really quite important, because we don't assume anything about what those people might already know, or need to know. It just makes it very useful for anyone who has to engage with it.

I'd like to see an improved component of it work in a DevOps world, where the scanning speed does not impede progress along the AppSec pipeline.

Three to five years.

Stability has been great. I've never seen any downtime, in four years.

We went from 50 applications in 2015, we're now up to over 400. There seems to be no limit on how quickly it can scale and operate.

They're outstanding. Best in class. Absolutely. They bend over backwards to help us. We'll come up with questions and within minutes, we'll get answers. It's amazing. It's truly amazing.

It was very straightforward. Veracode was very helpful, hand-holding - anything that we needed - they were right there and made it very simple.

We had been evaluating various different types of source-code scanners. It was a fundamental element of the program and we knew we had to have the best one that would meet a wide variety of applications: development, apps, as well as a wide variety of geographic dispersion of the people writing these apps. 

We had IBM, we had Fortify, we had PMD, and there was one other scanner at the time that we were evaluating. Veracode came out on top, in almost every category.

By using a cloud-based scanner, we really had no issues with where the developers are geographically located. So we didn't really have setup problems at all. It just kind of happened, and scales fairly naturally, organically.

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor are

• reliability
• customer service.

Take advantage of all of the help that Veracode provides, for implementation, operations, and maintenance, because they absolutely know what they're doing.

The primary use case is application security and application security testing, specifically static and dynamic analysis, and software composition analysis. It has performed excellently.

The benefits are the fact that it identifies our vulnerabilities, and it has improved us by allowing us to pull everything to the left in agreement with our SDLC and with our developers, and have them not only get buy-in because they can run sandbox scans that allow them not to generate metrics, but also run policy scans where we identify what the policy is and what is acceptable. So, it has helped us secure our company and our applications.

1. The ability on static scans to be able to do sandbox scans which do not generate metrics.
2. Gives us every vulnerability that has been identified, so there is no human intervention. Therefore, we can actually look and prioritize our own vulnerabilities as opposed to having someone else try to get in between.

I would love to be able to do a dynamic sandbox scan. I think that that would allow us to really get a lot more buy-in from the software development teams. We would be able to scan our applications, identify the vulnerabilities, not generate metrics, which would allow the teams to address the vulnerabilities earlier in the cycle, and then have cleaner scans later on.

Also, I would maybe like to see a better report engine.

It is extremely stable.

So far, extremely scalable.

We do have ongoing technical support. We use them more as a backstop. My team handles most of the calls and issues that any of the developers might have. 

CA support has excellent time frames. They are knowledgeable and get back to you with an actual solution, which is always a plus.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

1. It is SaaS, so we did not have to install anything locally.
2. We were able to give our privileged users better roles because it is role-based, and to do multi-factor authentication. All we have to do, once we set up our trust relationship, we have single sign-on and we white-listed everything. So, it is everything that we wanted from a security point of view, and it is easy to roll out.

PoC is in progress.

• Application testing
• False positives challenges
• Wide range of platforms and technology assessments

It needs to reach the level of Checkmarx's and Fortify Software's capabilities and service levels, or may further loosen the market share.

No.

No.

Customer Service:

A three out of 10.

Technical Support:

A two out of 10.