Veracode Reviews

We are using Veracode to shift development left. Therefore, we want to train our team of third-party vendors and improve our code security.

Veracode has been effective at preventing vulnerable code from entering production. I can easily enable the support team. Additionally, the reports are free. Although we are at the beginning of our journey, I can see that Veracode is capturing vulnerabilities.

The cooperation between the security team and the development team is improving, and our security team's visibility is increasing. As a result, we are achieving better and better results, and Veracode is helping to improve our security posture.

I am using Veracode's preconfigured policies because I find them useful and complex.

I am satisfied with Veracode's visibility into application status at every phase of development.

We can see that false positives are quite low, around five to ten percent.

We can add notes to any false positives during static analysis testing so that our developers can see the notes and avoid wasting time on them.

Veracode's reporting function and executive summary help us emphasize the security of our business-critical products to our business, which also helps us get sponsorship from our management to fix flaws and move forward.

Veracode helps our developers save 10 percent of their time by identifying security flaws early in the development process. This allows us to fix the flaws before they go into production, which is more efficient and cost-effective.

Veracode has helped us improve our security posture.

The admin ID can be downloaded into Visual Studio, for example, and developers can use that directive without having to type code. I think this is the best feature of Veracode.

The integration of static testing with our Azure DevOps CI pipeline was easy.

Veracode's support could be better. It is limited and slow.

The security labs integration has room for improvement. Currently, it is not possible to see the security labs training reports on the dashboard. These reports are only available separately in the security labs platform. I think that adding the dashboards for integration would be a good area of improvement.

I have been using Veracode for almost six months.

Veracode is stable.

Veracode is easy to scale.

Technical support needs to improve its response times and the details of its responses.

The deployment was somewhat complex because some of the documentation was outdated, which caused some problems. There was confusion about how to implement the static pipeline scan. It took some time to find the correct articles and speak with the support team to implement Veracode.

The deployment took a couple of hours and required one DevOps and one tech person.

Veracode is fairly priced.

Before selecting Veracode, we evaluated SonarQube and Codacy. We chose Veracode because of its comprehensiveness and its ability to provide us with a solution for each phase of the software development life cycle. Veracode offers both dynamic code analysis and static code analysis solutions. With Veracode, we were able to get everything we needed in one place, without having to sign contracts with multiple vendors.

I would rate Veracode eight out of ten.

We deployed Veracode in one location and have ten users.

I recommend Veracode based on the script language being used.

We used Veracode for code scanning and source composition analysis.

Veracode can block vulnerable code from going into production.

The SBOM is a good option for companies that are asked about their SBOM.

The SBOM helps manage our risk.

Generating SBOM reports is not difficult, but setting up the necessary infrastructure for analysis takes time.

The policy reporting is incredibly robust.

Veracode provides visibility into application status in every phase of development.

The source composition analysis had very good reporting.

Veracode's long scan time for vulnerable code can hinder productivity. There is room for improvement in this area.

Veracode produced a lot of false positives.

Veracode's ability to fix flaws is less sophisticated than that of its competitors. For example, Veracode's static analysis scanning workflow for flaws is not as highly developed as Checkmarx's or Snyk's. Veracode would often provide incorrect sources and fail to identify the source of malicious user input coming to the team.

The process of bundling binaries or code for scanning could be improved.

I trialed Veracode for two weeks. 

In our short trial period, we did experience some stability issues.

Veracode scales sufficiently.

I worked with Veracode's technical consultation staff and found the agent to be incredibly knowledgeable and sophisticated in their use of Veracode, as well as in vulnerable load patterns.

Positive

The deployment was complex.

Ten people were involved in the deployment.

We used the experience of engineers who had used Veracode in the past, as well as feedback from Veracode's engineers.

Veracode's pricing is competitive.

I believe Veracode would be willing to negotiate decent terms for organizations that are concerned about the pricing.

We also evaluated Checkmarx and Snyk, respectively. This puts them at a slight disadvantage in terms of identifying execution paths and their ability to comprehensively show how vulnerable code is executed in our solution.

I would rate Veracode six out of ten.

Once Veracode is fully configured, the maintenance should be relatively minimal.

Veracode's best advantages are detailed reporting for industries such as government work, or other industries that may require exceptionally detailed reports or secure security verifications. However, I would suggest that people look out for the accuracy of results and the usefulness of findings on a large scale. Additionally, Veracode has a difficult-to-navigate user interface.

Veracode helps us identify bugs and flaws in our code while operating it. We use the solution's static analysis feature to analyze code before running applications dynamic analysis that scans the app while it's running.

We typically run Veracode at the end of the development phase when we are ready to launch our software. We also scan for vulnerabilities after the software goes into production. It's the final phase of our development cycle.

Veracode has reduced the amount of time we spend manually investigating our code. It has also enabled us to identify and fix bugs earlier, so we don't need to release patches after a product is launched. 

The false positive rate is quite low, which is critical. If it had a high false positive rate, it would be difficult to trust this software. We can discover lots of errors and bugs manually, but this software enables us to clear any error or compliance issue with a low false positive rate. It's highly efficient in that sense. We can trust the process, so we spend less time investigating issues manually.

In one development cycle, Veracode usually saves us four or five hours of human work that goes into checking the code, finding errors, and fixing them manually. The remediation is also built into the software.

Veracode is easy to use even if you're not a security professional. I like the dynamic analysis feature, which offers a lot of cost savings when used in production. Veracode helps prevent vulnerable code from entering production, and it has a low false-positive rate, so it can reliably find real vulnerabilities. 

The software bill of materials feature has proven helpful in finding bugs and flaws that may cause problems in our product when we launch it. It has helped a lot to exponentially reduce the cost after the launch cycle. It is quite easy to create reports and perform a detailed analysis because much of the process is automated. It can fix most issues automatically.

The scanning could be a little faster. The process is around three or four minutes, but it would help if it could be further reduced.

I have used it for four months.

We haven't experienced any downtime since we started using it. It is highly stable. We haven't seen any server crashes from their side. 

Veracode can handle lots of processes, so I would say it is scalable.

I rate Veracode support eight out of 10. The response times are fast. If we have a problem, they respond within four or five hours. 

Positive

The setup process was straightforward, and the Veracode team guided us through the deployment, which took about four or five hours. It only takes one person to install the solution. It doesn't require any maintenance after deployment. 

Veracode has eliminated a lot of manual security processes that cost a lot of money and time. It has saved us lots of time and money for development.

The cost of scanning code is cheaper. It's typically $0.50 per line of code. However, it's expensive to run a high-level process that would normally require a human security expert.  For example, penetration testing costs about $1,000 per application for penetration testing. The cost of these features may be too high for smaller organizations. On the other hand, Veracode's interactive application security testing is fast and cheaper compared to other software. 

I rate Veracode nine out of 10. If anyone is considering Veracode, I suggest trying a demo beforehand so that you can see how it addresses the kind of problems your organization is facing and how it works with the programs you are creating. 

My company uses Veracode Static Analysis for scanning purposes and static analysis. I am a DevOps engineer configuring automation for multiple teams in our company using Veracode Static Analysis. Our company uses the product to identify vulnerabilities in third-party libraries that our teams use internally to secure our products before moving the product outside of our company. The aforementioned features of the solution are used mostly in our company. Most of the teams within my organization use Veracode's static analysis part. My company did not procure the license for Veracode Dynamic Analysis.

From the market, my company could identify some of the libraries that were outdated and had severe vulnerabilities. Our company wishes to secure its products before moving out for production, for which we find Veracode helpful. Our company sees value in Veracode Static Analysis.

The most valuable feature of the solution is Veracode's library, which supports the automation of Veracode's scanning process.

The major benefit of Veracode Static Analysis is that you can schedule a scan on demand. We found the delta approach in scanning to be super quick in terms of returning results in our company, even though we had to make uploads of certain things, but it would be longer if the size of the scanning part were huge, making it one of the drawbacks.

If Veracode develops a plugin for multiple orchestration tools, it will be easy for us to use the product in our company.

If you schedule two parallel scans under the same project, one of them will be a failure. It would be good if Veracode could provide two different site codes since if another code scan gets triggered while the scanning for one code is going on, the newly triggered code scan fails, stating that there is already a scanning process in progress. If Veracode can handle a newly triggered second code scan in their sequence instead of making it fail and take it up later or on a wait so that they can trigger it after the first code scan gets completed, then it would be a nice improvement. There is no queuing mechanism for scanning right now.

Module selection is manual. If somebody adds a new module, it is not detected automatically, and moreover, it ignores that module and moves forward. You have to go and include that module manually, so if it is made dynamic in the future, it will be nice.

I have been using Veracode Static Analysis for two years. Almost six years ago, I used Veracode Static Analysis for a year. In total, I have three years of experience with Veracode Static Analysis. My company procured the solution, so I am an end user.

It is a stable solution. The speed of the solution was good in the past, and they have worked constantly to improve the speed.

It is a scalable solution.

Though Veracode Static Analysis is primarily available in the USA, we scan our company from multiple locations. The solution may have a huge number of users, but our company supports 30 projects with the help of the solution, which includes scanning for 30 microservices. I am unsure of the actual numbers regarding the solution's use since it is handled by someone else in my company.

I contacted the solution's technical support during the automation part, and it went well, after which I never faced any issues.

My company used Code Insight, a very similar solution to Veracode Static Analysis, but not the same.

Code Insight scanned even first-party libraries, which includes what we used to develop in our company.

Code Insight's vulnerabilities in the database completely differed from Veracode Static Analysis, but I can't recollect where it differs. If both Veracode Static Analysis and Code Insight were the same, we would not have used both in our company, so there is a difference between them. Veracode wasn't of any support when it came to dynamic scans in the past, though Veracode has recently started to support it, which I haven't used yet. I don't see any drawbacks with Veracode, so I am satisfied with whatever Veracode offers.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

Depending on the number of users, my company makes payments toward the solution's licensing costs.

Veracode handles the maintenance part of the solution. Veracode's side may be down at times for maintenance.

I recommend Veracode Static Analysis to those planning to use it, but the scans should not be carried out daily since it can get too costly. I recommend not doing the frequent scans to save on the costs.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We use Veracode for static application security testing (SAST). We also use it for scan or software composition analysis (SCA) testing purposes. We mainly use it to triage the flaws or vulnerabilities that are found in our coding standards so that we can enforce secure coding practices at the developers' end. Because we are a part of the security team, we provide mitigation for the development team on all the SAST vulnerabilities that we come across.

We use it for static application security testing. It helps us with proactivity. Before the product or the application is deployed on the production environment, we have a DevSecOps pipeline that kicks in, and we are able to triage the flaws or vulnerabilities that Veracode shows based on our policies using the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP). Veracode definitely helps us to go through the vulnerabilities and fix them before they go into production so that bad actors cannot exploit them.

In terms of software composition analysis or SCA, we have come across several libraries and packages that were vulnerable and detected by Veracode. We work on getting the latest updates or packages so that we do not fall back on the security front.

When it comes to visibility, I am not sure whether it is through Veracode, but we have our pipelines built on Azure. We do get to see whenever a scan is kicked off and whether the Veracode check has passed. There is no direct visibility in Veracode apart from the dashboard, which does have information about what type of scan has been performed and whether it is a policy sandbox or just a testing sandbox.

Veracode has been fairly decent for fixing flaws. We have mainly been using it for SAST. For DAST, we have our AppScan from HCL, but Veracode is fairly decent for fixing flaws or trying to be proactive and ensuring all of our applications have been securely developed.

In terms of policies, it works fine. Our policies are mostly predefined. They were defined by our previous team. We look into the policies based on the scan dates.

From a developer's perspective, Veracode's greenlight feature on the IDE is helpful. It helps the developer to be more proactive in secure coding standards. Apart from that, static analysis scanning is definitely one of the top features of Veracode.

Recently, I came across a new workflow, which I had seen in Checkmarx, that shows how a vulnerability flows from the start point to the end point of a function. 

There can be a lot of improvement. It does not have a reporting structure for an OS-based vulnerability report, whereas its peers such as Fortify and Checkmarx have this ability. Checkmarx also provides a better visibility of the code flow.

Veracode is 75% or 80% accurate. At times, we do come across a lot of false-positive cases, but this is an issue with all security tools. Unfortunately, we do not see an option to set the policies because policies are predefined. Overall, when comparing it with its competitors, Checkmarx is better than Veracode in false-positive rate. Veracode's false-positive rate is decent. It is not too good and not too bad, but there is a lot of room for improvement. I personally found Checkmarx to be more accurate than Veracode. This false-positive rate has an effect on the security team because, for a false positive, a developer raises a ticket for us, and our job gets a little bit more hectic because we have more vulnerabilities to create rather than focusing on the positive ones. It is daunting when too many false positives are being reported by the development team for triaging purposes. However, in one of the calls related to their roadmap, I saw a feature where you can go through the code, and it provides you with some mitigation. 

I used Veracode at the beginning of my career from 2017 to 2019. I then switched my job, and my next company used Checkmarx, which is a competitor of Veracode. I changed my job again in 2021 and have been using Veracode in this company. Overall, I have close to three years of experience.

It is pretty stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability.

We are using the SaaS offering, so it is pretty scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability. 

Whenever there is a flaw that we cannot understand, we have something called Veracode consultation. We raise a ticket and follow up on the ticket. That is it. They are well-versed. The only challenge I face is that I am based out of Ireland. The time zone is a pretty big issue for us most of the time. Whenever we have a code support call, the majority of the time, it happens late at night. That is one of the reasons why we tend to skip the consultation calls. I would rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with Checkmarx in another job. I prefer Checkmarx over Veracode. Checkmarx provides a better visibility of the code flow. Veracode also has code flow, but it is in IDE, so you need to manually jump through the code and check the flow. It is easier for someone with experience, but someone new to the security domain will find it tough, especially when there is no clear picture of the workflow to know what is going on. This is a feature that I would like in Veracode.

It is a SaaS or cloud solution. It is definitely not on-prem. We sign in using a single sign-on.

I was not involved in its deployment. There is no maintenance as such. 

To those evaluating Veracode, I would say that unless you get hands-on experience, it is difficult to evaluate. So, I would advise getting hands-on experience with the tool. I would also advise checking out other solutions such as Fortify and Checkmarx.

Overall, I would rate Veracode a seven out of ten.

We utilize Veracode in three primary ways. The first is through Dynamic Scans, followed by Static Scans, and Software Composition Analysis Scans. I find this tool to be highly effective. We have various forms of support available. For instance, we can initiate our scans through the CI/CD pipeline or manually if needed. Additionally, we can create separate sandboxes for each of our code modules. Since development involves distinct code modules, each catering to different functionalities, we can conveniently set up corresponding sandboxes within Veracode. This allows us to scan any module whenever required, which is quite advantageous.

From a SAST perspective, Veracode can prevent vulnerable code from entering production by adhering to our manual checklist.

We haven't utilized the Software Bill of Materials; however, we have employed Software Composition Analysis. Whenever we scan a codebase, any third-party applications or libraries that have been incorporated into the code are automatically analyzed. Subsequently, a comprehensive report is generated. This report outlines the third-party libraries and applications that have been utilized in the codebase, along with their respective versions. Additionally, if any of these versions are found to have vulnerabilities, they are promptly detected.

Veracode is efficient. I have used various other tools such as DAST or SAST, and employing those tools usually takes between five and eight hours. In contrast, Veracode completes the task in two to three hours. For each scan, there is a consultation button available. Clicking on that button allows us to schedule a call with a Veracode support team member. During the call, they explain any issues, clarify why certain problems are false positives, and discuss the reasons behind issue detections. There's also a consolidation part and a support button, where we can raise tickets. I have found that their maximum response time to these tickets is within one day. Before starting the scan, Veracode offers a pre-scan functionality. This functionality performs connection and server checks in the pre-scan phase. It's similar to the SAST side of things for all the tools, where the code base is examined before initiating the SAST application to determine if it's sound. However, in Veracode's case, this is implemented in the DAST system. It checks whether the server is operational if the provided call scripts are correct, and if the provided login scripts are accurate. This pre-scan functionality doesn't run during the actual scan but rather at the very beginning to ensure that all prerequisites are met. Once everything is verified, then we can proceed to initiate the actual scan.

Using Veracode policy regulations, we can offer predefined rules. When setting up any application, we establish the application name and other necessary details. Following this, there is a section where we can input this information. Essentially, there exist predefined regulations which we can either directly utilize if they suit our needs, or adjust them based on the requirements of our project team. Therefore, we have a pre-existing set of rules and functionalities available.

We do have a dashboard in Veracode that offers visibility into the status of applications. There is a section where we can view the application names, and next to each name, there is a status report such as "The SAST has been completed" or "in progress," and the same goes for DAST.

After the scanning is completed, with other solutions from a DAST perspective, we would receive a report. If there are any false positives, we would have to identify them ourselves. However, with Veracode, one of their engineers or a support team member will verify the information, which helps to minimize the number of false positives.

Before using Veracode, we used to perform many tasks manually. We had a checklist for the SAST. We would go through each line of code, attempting to determine its compliance and level of security. Even with the DAST, we used to carry out this process manually. Completing the DAST scan took a considerable amount of time. For each module, we had to dedicate at least two to three days. However, since adopting Veracode, we can now not only perform this process for each module, but we can also initiate scans for all the modules simultaneously. As a result, we can obtain the results within a maximum of three to four hours. Time-saving for fixing flaws is one of the significant benefits that Veracode has provided us, helping reduce the time by almost 60 percent.

Regarding Software Composition Analysis, an exceptional feature is that during a SAST scan, SCA is seamlessly conducted in the background. Once we scan all modules and obtain SAST results, switching to the SCA section reveals the associated reports. This integrated approach eliminates the need for separate SAST and SCA scans, as is required by other tools.

The reporting feature is noteworthy. The reports are well-structured, providing comprehensive details for each vulnerability. Information about the vulnerability itself, its origin, the specific section of code it pertains to, and even the exact line of code involved are all included.

I've found that Veracode is not particularly suitable for Dynamic Application Security Testing. Unlike other tools equipped with their own crawlers, Veracode necessitates the use of a Selenium script for crawling. However, the tool's compatibility with all functions is limited, which can be frustrating. For instance, functions like upload, download, or those triggering new tabs are challenging to handle within the DAST section due to Selenium's inadequacies when used with Veracode.

In contrast to other tools where we can monitor requests and responses during a scan, Veracode lacks this capability. The scan initiates, and we must wait until completion to see the results. There's no opportunity to check if the right requests are being sent or if certain components are being excessively targeted. Once the scan starts, we're essentially locked in until it concludes, and only then can we access the results. Furthermore, even after the scan, we're only provided with a summary of scanned URLs and the number of requests made, without the specifics of the request or response contents.

I have been using Veracode for four months.

Veracode is stable, and we have not encountered any issues.

The cloud version of Veracode can scale according to the file size.

I have engaged in two different types of experiences with technical support. One involves the ticketing system, and the other involves consultation calls. The consultation calls revolved around static analysis. During these calls, we presented all the vulnerabilities we discovered. We conducted our analysis and demonstrated how Veracode identified certain vulnerabilities. However, we also explained instances where these were false positives due to specific reasons. During the call, they acknowledged these issues. They pointed out some of Veracode's limitations, highlighting that it solely scans the code and doesn't consider the framework side. This implies that they accept these limitations. Furthermore, they provided us with insights into how they plan to implement fixes in the future, which is quite beneficial.

Additionally, whenever we had inquiries or doubted Veracode's detection of false positives, they provided detailed explanations. They shared the specific Veracode setup and rules within the SAST side that led to the detection of certain vulnerabilities. They also explained that by incorporating certain mitigations at the code level, these vulnerabilities could be addressed. 

Regarding the ticketing system, for minor issues or questions, we would raise a ticket. They consistently responded within a maximum of one day, providing us with the necessary information.

Positive

Before transitioning to Veracode, the client had been utilizing a free community version tool. However, the count of false positives was exceedingly high with that specific tool. This prompted the client to seek a solution that could deliver superior results with fewer false positives. As a result, the decision was made to switch to Veracode.

I would rate Veracode a seven out of ten because the DAST has room for improvement.

The maintenance is completed by the Veracode team because we are using the cloud version.

For individuals seeking exclusively SAST and SCA capabilities, rather than DAST, Veracode stands out as the most suitable tool. However, if someone intends to utilize Veracode solely for DAST, I believe they should explore alternative tools. The effectiveness of Veracode's DAST functionality is limited, and using other tools might yield better results. Additionally, Veracode provides comprehensive training resources through its portal, including a list of documents and video tutorials. These resources are readily accessible and offer adequate guidance for initiating the use of Veracode.

We use Veracode to test for errors in the code in the applications we are building within our service pipelines.

Veracode assists in preventing vulnerable code from entering production. It is essential to ensure that our applications entering production are free from errors.

It has assisted our organization by providing a report that we can share with our developers, identifying vulnerabilities in their code. This enables them to address the issues before the code is put into production.

Ever since the implementation of Veracode, I have noticed that the processes for rectifying the issues in our pipelines have become much easier.

Veracode helps our developers save time. The solution has simplified the coding process for our developers.

I would rate Veracode's impact on our organization's overall security posture as nine out of ten. The solution has been beneficial to us daily, and we haven't encountered any issues with their solution so far.

The capability to identify vulnerable code is the most valuable feature of Veracode.

There are times when certain modules cannot be scanned automatically, requiring us to manually select these modules and initiate the scanning process on our side.

The vulnerability report has potential for improvement and should encompass more detailed information about the vulnerability, rather than solely identifying it.

I have been using Veracode for three years.

Veracode is stable.

I believe Veracode is scalable, but I am not certain.

I rate Veracode a seven out of ten.

I recommend Veracode. The solution only requires a one-time configuration into the pipeline and the testing is done automatically. 

Integrating Veracode with our pipelines is an easy process. We simply use VML files and the integration is done automatically for us.

We currently have approximately 55 microservices, composed of various teams. Altogether, there are about 170 people utilizing Veracode.

I recommend becoming as familiar as possible with Veracode before using it. Even watch online tutorials to ensure that the deployment goes as smoothly as possible.

We use Veracode for its code analysis features, which include static code analysis, dynamic code analysis, and checking for security flaws in our code. Mainly, we utilize Veracode for application security, making code security one of our primary use cases.

Since implementing Veracode, we have seen significant improvements in our code's security and the overall code development process. Veracode has been instrumental in enhancing our code security and streamlining the development workflow. In the past, we relied heavily on third-party applications that were not directly aligned with our codebase. However, now we can seamlessly integrate Veracode into our application process, saving a substantial amount of time. Veracode has not only improved our security setup but also enhanced the overall security of our organization.

Before implementing Veracode, the same process that used to take one hour now only takes 15 to 20 minutes.

Veracode's policy reporting for insurance compliance with industry standards and regulations is good. We can integrate numerous reports, and the positive reporting feature is also highly commendable.

Veracode provides visibility into the application's status at every phase of development.

Veracode works very well overall, and our security has been greatly improved, significantly impacting our ability to fix flaws.

The security process has been improved. Before using Veracode, we used to perform it manually. However, at that time, there was no application that could be integrated with the code. Now, with Veracode, we can directly integrate it with our code. As a result, security checks are being done automatically, saving us 30 to 40 percent of our time.

Veracode offers various security features. Veracode performs the analysis using three different methods: static analysis, dynamic analysis, and software composition analysis. These security features are the best, and the most valuable features.

Veracode's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production is commendable. However, we have encountered numerous cases of false positives that need improvement.

The technical support service has room for improvement. There are times when we rely on them, but we are not receiving an adequate response.

The stability has room for improvement.

I have been using Veracode for one and a half years.

Veracode is stable, but there is room for improvement.

Veracode is highly scalable. We have not had any issues with scalability. 

Before I joined my organization, they used a third-party application to check code. Since I joined, we have been using Veracode.

The initial setup was somewhat complex. The deployment took a couple of weeks because we needed to resolve numerous technical issues that we had to understand first. We had six people involved in the deployment.

Veracode's price is reasonable.

I would rate Veracode an eight out of ten. I recommend Veracode to others.

Veracode's false positives significantly impact our developers. When we encounter numerous false positive cases, we are required to conduct extensive reviews. How much it affects our developers depends on the number of false positive cases we are encountering and the significance of addressing them concerning the criticality of writing the code.

Veracode can save time in our DevSecOps process, but it may not significantly reduce costs.

Organizations that have security flaws in their code and seek to enhance their core security can consider Veracode as one of the best options for investment. Veracode is easy to implement and can effectively address the flaws in the code, provided that cost is not a significant concern.

Maintenance is required from time to time, specifically regarding false positives. We need to verify whether the system is functioning properly and communicate with the support team. The intervals for these checks occur after approximately 30 or 60 days, which we have selected, and we must strive to improve the system during these instances.

Veracode is deployed at two locations within our organization.

Veracode is part of our overall security program. We use it to scan our daily build pipelines and all our fielded releases. The primary features we use are static application security testing and software composition analysis.

We analyze third-party libraries for known vulnerabilities and taking action. Veracode is also part of our release procedure. We put the artifacts from the record and attach them to the release documentation to provide our customers with those documents if needed. 

Veracode has improved our product because we're gradually finding fewer and fewer issues through external security scanners or penetration testers. It plays an important role in the continuous integration quality assurance chain. We started using Veracode when it was supporting a 2017 standard. When the security standard changed to 2021, we received new issues. 

We adjusted the policy and no longer have any medium-priority issues in our scan results. It has increased the quality of our security while enabling us to pass the two historical standards and maintain compliance. We have analyzed and cleaned up several thousand issues since we started using Veracode. 

We use our internal policies for the WAF Security Standard, but it isn't an industry-wide policy. We do not use PCI DSS, etc., but it shouldn't be a problem to comply with that stuff. For example, PCI DSS isn't applicable to our case because we aren't managing any credit card data, working with medical devices, or doing anything involving the military. Some standards aren't applicable. 

Veracode offers visibility into vulnerabilities at every step of the pipeline. Every night, we build source code and mark everything that was merged during the day. We check those reports once weekly and correct some issues that were detected. For software composition analysis, it's even easier because every time the record updates, Veracode sends emails to the security team. It also makes me aware of some newer capabilities in software composition and analysis. 

It showed us a lot of flaws in various parts of our product and helped us visualize a lot of issues that we previously didn't know about. We had static code analysis, which is a bit different than Veracode. We were using a static code analyzer from Visual Studio, and it was mostly about development best practices. When we started using Veracode, we realized there were more problems that static analysis alone wasn't catching. It's an excellent tool for showing the vulnerabilities in your software. 

It helps us save time and effort for a portion of our production. For example, if  you're scheduling to release product improvements in the spring, you don't want to fix anything after it goes into production. From that perspective, fixing things before the code is released saves us time. It also protects our reputation because fewer issues enter production. 

It sometimes saves our customers some time because they don't need to perform their own secret analysis because we've already analyzed the product and can provide them with the results much faster. 

It's hard to say that any single feature is the most essential. There are many errors and vulnerabilities in software today in the standard libraries for different vendors because. We don't need to reinvent the wheel every time because we're using standard libraries, and it's important to know that your security isn't compromised because you use libraries with vulnerabilities. 

We use Veracode as a quality gate. We do not do continuous delivery or continuous deployment. We're releasing about twice a year, so we use it as a quality gate in this situation. We should analyze various types of patch software. From my observations, it has been an excellent tool so far. We also have an external penetration testing effort, and the testers have not found any issues, so that tells us that Veracode has been successful at preventing issues from entering production.

I use the software bill of materials. Our product consists of many systems and components and redundancies that must be processed manually. We are in contact with the Veracode guys, and I think the next release will have this software bill of materials added. It isn't a problem with Veracode. It's a problem with the way we upload and build sources. In the implementation stage, we want the results as fast as possible, and we've done it in a way when we upload. It can be optimized when we upload it to Veracode. 

Sometimes Veracode gives us results about small glitches in the necessary packages. For example, we recently found issues with Veracode's native libraries for .NET 6 that were fixed in the next versions of those libraries. But sometimes you do not know which version of the library particular components are using. 

The downside of that is that one day, the solution found some issues in that library for the necessary package we spent. Another day, it found the same issues with another library. It will clearly state that this is the same stuff you've already analyzed. This creates some additional work, but it isn't significant. However, sometimes you see the same issue for two or three days in a row.

In our project, we use a lot of limited packages that link to another library, and there may be issues in those reference libraries. For example, one library might be referenced by several Google packages. When it shows you a vulnerability in one library, you will not see the issues in all libraries. We've discussed the issue with the Veracode team, and they investigate a way to fix this. Hopefully, it will not be an issue. 

I have used Veracode for several years. I've led our product toward Veracode standard certification.

I rate Veracode support eight out of 10. We had to contact support several times in the early years about a licensing issue we faced. We had some false positives in the licensing report from Veracode, so we raised a ticket with the support team, and they resolved it relatively quickly. We have regular meetings with a dedicated representative from Veracode, but we also get help from our colleagues on staff. At the moment, I'm happy with their support. They provide us with the necessary level of quality.

Positive

We used SonarQ, but it's somewhat different because it's a pure static code analysis tool. Veracode has a stronger focus on web security, and we produce a web-facing product, so that's important to us. SonarQ is strictly a static code analysis tool. 

Veracode's setup was pretty straightforward, but there were a few challenges integrating it with our continuous integration system because there are lots of components. We wanted our source code scanned daily, so we had to change our build process. It's a bit tricky getting it to work with various parts of our solution. Our product is too complex, and there are lots of applications and flavors.

We did it ourselves because we have sufficient expertise. We're still tuning up our build process and reports. They have comprehensive documentation. We had help from Veracode support, who answered our questions about integrating the solution with our software. It was mostly building and tuning a little to build our software in debug mode and deploy it back into our cloud.

We can measure our ROI in the amount of issues we discover and remedy. From a quality control perspective, a problem is more expensive if a customer reports it. If we take price into consideration, we've decreased the net cost of security because we're receiving fewer issues from our customers. You must also consider the reputational cost if the customer needs to implement the fix. 

If we find the issue after the fact, we need to provide our customers with the fix, and that may require some additional processes on the customer side. However, it's hard to calculate how much money it saved us.

We are not using the licensing much because we have a strict internal licensing policy. We mostly avoid GPL licenses and their flavors. Managing the licenses can be tricky. Sometimes you add a library and build some functionality around it, so it may cause some problems to remove it from its source. 

Cost is an issue at every stage because you need to evaluate what you're spending and what you expect from the project. You should use common sense and clearly understand the pros and cons. It's hard to say whether the solution is cheap or expensive because it depends on your company's needs. Some companies need Veracode for compliance requirements, and it doesn't matter how expensive it is. It's costly, but it's the best in the industry. You can get something that does the job but it's like a car. You might buy a clunker for a few hundred dollars or an Infiniti for a hundred thousand. 

We tried another solution before we started using Veracode. I believe it was HCLAppscan.

I rate Veracode eight out of 10. You should evaluate at least two vendors based on the company's needs. A host of issues need to be addressed, and it's a significant task. Veracode shows you many issues, but you must develop processes to address them. It was impressive when we first scanned our sources and found a thousand, but we had to develop compliance policies to deal with them. My advice is to not make the policies too strict. For example, you can start with high-priority issues. 

We have multiple verticals and products, and we use Veracode to perform static analysis on our hosted applications across all the platforms. We also perform static and software composition analysis on a couple of products.

Our offices are spread out across North America, South America, Europe, and Cyprus. We also have offices in Australia that use the solution. About 25 to 30 people use the solution regularly. 

Veracode has greatly improved the security posture of our applications because we can identify and mitigate vulnerabilities that we couldn't have without the solution. Veracode provides compliance reporting so we can identify issues without having to rely on complaints. Veracode has been extremely effective at fixing flaws in our applications. We have multiple applications across multiple verticals

Veracode or any other solution like it doesn't prevent anything. The product provides insight into the vulnerabilities, but it's up to the end-user to mitigate that and move it into production. If we fail to remedy the issue and move the code into production, it isn't Veracode's failure. We can't judge the product based on whether it could do that. The product is doing what it should be doing.

In addition to dynamic and static analysis, we can perform software composition analysis, which involves going into the various libraries to retrieve details about that. We see a few false positives in Veracode but not many. It's negligible. 

Veracode has saved our developers time by identifying and reporting flaws. The developers don't need to spend time checking the code by hand. It reduces the time spent on these tasks by about 10 to 20 percent. 

I believe the static analysis is Veracode's best and most valuable feature. Software composition analysis is a feature that most people don't use, and we don't use SCA for most of our applications. However, this is an essential feature because it provides insight into the third-party libraries we use.

We have some constraints interacting with Veracode self-support. I'm not talking about their technical support. I'm talking about self-support. We sometimes have a hard time communicating with them.

I have used Veracode for the last five or six years, but the company has used it for nearly 10. 

Veracode is a highly stable product.

I haven't had a scenario where we've had to scale it.

I rate Veracode technical support nine out of 10. They are excellent. When we have problems, they provide a solution every time. 

Positive

We had been using a third-party service for vulnerability checking. 

The deployment is a little complex. There is a small learning curve, but it isn't too difficult. The installation isn't hard, but we need to configure the dynamic analysis where it connects to a hosted application and performs checks. We have to configure the console and set a schedule. It takes a couple of hours to configure a new application.

We have been able to mitigate lots of flaws and vulnerabilities, so Veracode has had a positive effect on our products. It's hard for me to quantify. Our company has a large footprint across Asia, North America, South America, and Europe. 

Veracode is fairly priced. 

I rate Veracode eight out of 10. I would recommend Veracode to other users. However, I suggest doing a proof of concept before moving forward with any solution.