Veracode Reviews

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'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. 

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.