Veracode Reviews

We use it for security validation. As a company, we need to make sure that our code is secure. Not only do we need and want to do this for ourselves, but we also need to do it because of our security obligations to our clients.

It has been helping us capture security vulnerabilities that we would not catch otherwise.

When it comes to our ability to fix flaws, Veracode has given us more visibility into certain flaws that could show up, flaws that can be subtle and not seen in the code. For example, though it was not obvious, there was a case where a developer naively added the authentication into the code, which we're not supposed to do, obviously. It was not seen by our review process, and Veracode caught it and we were able to eliminate it.

It has also helped us to save time. The example, and where I see the most benefits of that, is in the Security Labs, where I have the developers training and constantly improving their security, and remembering their security techniques. That way, they are more proactive and make sure things are correct. They're faster because they're doing it in the first place.

Overall, in terms of our security posture, Veracode has made us more reliable. We're finding those flaws and our clients trust us more because of it.

And when considering whether it has reduced the cost of development, security, and operations for us, the short answer is no. But the long answer is yes. It clearly has added more procedures in place, which we needed to have, and that has definitely increased the cost of development. But in the long-term, how much have we saved from the intangible of a flaw not being exposed?

The Security Labs feature, in particular, is valuable, and I have been using the static code analysis as well.

I do have two pet peeves with the platform.

1. The user interface is slow as a dog; really slow. You go to any modern interface and it's a lot more snappy. Even though I understand a lot of what they're doing and why it might be slow, it is really slow. You click on something and it takes two to three seconds. That doesn't sound long, but it just feels super clunky.
2. There are many times when their product goes to check my code and it dies, and I don't know why. I've contacted support and they're not really helpful with this particular problem. I go to the logs and I look at what I can but I can't tell why the check process has essentially just died in the middle of checking.

Other than those two complaints, I still find it very strong and powerful.

In terms of additional features, the big one I would like to see is that, right now, I have to click through too many things to get to the triage report, which is the main thing I want to see for anything. I have to click through this one screen that doesn't give me any information and I really just want to get to the mitigation review screen quickly. Anything that would save me going through clicks and four or five different screens, because the interface is slow, would be fantastic. I want to get to that mitigation screen because the summary screens are not all that interesting to me. I need to know, "Is this mitigated? Is it not?" and get it checked off and reviewed.

I've been using Veracode for two years.

It has been a very stable product. I don't think the issues that we're having are related to its stability.

The scalability is "medium" because one of the things I've been having to do now is scale out more of the microservices by tier so that I can verify that the code is correct per tier. For me to scale up like that seems to be taking a lot of effort. I might be doing something wrong. Maybe it could be solved in a different way. But the scalability is average. On a scale of one to 10, I would put it at about five.

We do have plans to use more of Veracode. We are expanding into the SCA, where it is scanning the containers, and we've also just contracted with Veracode to do penetration testing.

The one time I had to use their technical support for the bug where a code check dies, I found them a little off-putting. They have never really fully answered the question. I got tired of asking because they didn't understand what I was saying.

During installation, their support was fantastic, a 10 out of 10. But in dealing with this one issue, I would give them a two.

We haven't used another solution. Veracode is the first solution of this kind that we have worked with.

The initial deployment was pretty straightforward. We ran into some issues, but honestly, nothing out of the ordinary. I would definitely put it toward the easy side. I found the documentation to be appropriate.

The deployment time was days.

We are using Jenkins as our CI/CD. We're using Amazon Cloud K8 deployments.

We integrated it in two different ways. The original way was with AWS CodePipeline. For that, we used Veracode's Docker service. Once we had it hooked up and could send the file, that was pretty easy to use. The second way is we now actually use Jenkins for our code build. We do the same thing although we're going to change to the Jenkins plugin here shortly. But it was still the same, with the ability to use Docker to send the file to Veracode. Once we wrote it, it was really easy, which is why we did it that way on Jenkins. Through both of them, the implementations worked easily.

From the time of deployment, we saw the benefits within one to two months, which was fairly immediate.

There is maintenance required because, sometimes, the pipelines for our code review essentially stop. I have to go and check that, as I mentioned earlier. The second piece of maintenance is that if there are any flaws or false positives, you have to mitigate those results. We have two people involved in the maintenance.

I did the original Amazon CodePipeline implementation by myself and got it hooked up. As we went to more complex things, with Jenkins, that was done through an integrator DevOps team. On our side, it was just me involved.

I'm sure we have seen ROI, but I do not have a direct metric on it. There are a lot of intangibles in that. For example, what would be the cost of a particular flaw that we caught with Veracode, if it had gone live?

When I looked at the pricing, it was definitely a value. In terms of the service and what it's checking, the cost was very reasonable, particularly because we could have multiple code bases as part of a project.

Make sure that you're comparing apples to apples if you're concerned about the price of Veracode versus what you're reviewing. Some of the stuff that Veracode does and applies is not the same for other services. When I really compared apples to apples, I found Veracode to be rightly priced.

There were no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees, although we just signed up for a couple of other products.

We looked at other solutions but one of the big things that made a huge difference with Veracode had to do with pricing. Because we're moving more and more toward a microservices architecture, and we have about six code bases that make up our entire product, they made it clear that as long as something was a part of our product, it was the same price. That was amazing to us because competitors charged per code base. It was definitely a more economical solution and the one that made more sense, and is more in line, with our product. That really simplified the thought process for us and was a huge competitive advantage.

Veracode is a valuable tool to have in the toolbox to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. Veracode's false positive rate has been very good. It's reasonable. False positives take more time, but I have not noticed that time to be a significant burden. Its policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is adequate. 

In terms of having visibility into application status at every phase of deployment, Veracode doesn't provide that. It doesn't control the whole deployment cycle, so there's no way it can report on all of it.

The platform's interfaces look slightly antiquated but don't let that stop you from using it, because it has been a good solution for us.

The biggest lesson I have learned using it is that it's really nice to have these security checks in a single place in your code pipeline. We have multiple security companies at this point, but having the code review and product review security in one place helps us know that that part is "containerized." Having everything dealing with code review in one place is nice.

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.

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. 

When we develop an application with source code built on Java, JavaScript, and mobile technologies such as Android and iOS, we ensure that the source code is free from security vulnerabilities before sending it to production. To achieve this, we package our source code and scan it using Veracode. This scanning process is our primary use case.

We set up pipelines for this purpose, and the warehouse operates on a cloud provider. To make the Veracode API calls for support, we utilize Veracode API libraries which use the URL that is hosted on the cloud. We then initiate a scan on our source code, which goes through different stages, including scan, upload, rescan, validation, and finally, we obtain the results.

Veracode provides visibility into the status of applications at every phase of development to a certain extent. Veracode scan reports present a comprehensive view of planned releases that are scheduled to go live in the coming days. To keep the team informed, we run a scheduled deployment, sending email notifications twice a week for each application. This alerts the team to any issues that may need fixing. However, it's worth noting that the system is not fully integrated into the pipeline and notifications. Nevertheless, Veracode offers an API. This interface allows us to obtain the XML result file, and subsequently, I can extract and analyze the values from the XML. Once the scan is complete, Veracode API will fetch the XML report and store it in my workspace within the pipeline. From there, I can execute an XML parser function to obtain the application status results.

Veracode has been helpful in reducing our developers' time by around fifty percent. For an application to meet internet safety standards, the code must achieve the VL4 level in Veracode. According to Veracode reports, our developers can focus more on resolving the issues rather than trying to identify them.

The most valuable feature is the seamless automation of Veracode via the pipeline, in comparison to other solutions like Fortify SSC, which are complex to integrate through the pipeline. Although there is a lot of coding involved in writing each end, Veracode breaks the process down into multiple steps. We first package our source code and upload it, after which a pre-scan is conducted. If the pre-scan identifies any files that don't conform to the Veracode format, it will display a warning or prompt us to correct the issues before proceeding. This allows us to have programmable control; in fact, we can program Veracode so that after the upload is completed, it automatically scans the files to check if they are all in Veracode format.

For example, my ZIP file contains a hundred files. Out of these, ninety files meet Veracode's criteria, while ten files are incorrect. I can instruct Veracode, through pipeline automation, not to wait for manual action and continue with the scan or upload the scan results. Veracode can automatically proceed with the selected files in this scenario. All of this can be controlled programmatically. Furthermore, once the scan report is generated, it becomes available in the workspace, and we can send an email with this report as an attachment. This type of report is referred to as a detailed Veracode report and can be customized. Typically, we prefer the customized report, while some developers may also opt for XML reports. The ability to manage this sequence of steps in the Veracode scan is programmable and can be handled accordingly.

Veracode's false positives have room for improvement. For example, if there is an applicant named ABC in Veracode. I have uploaded my Java file, which contains a hundred lines of code. I suspect that the ninetieth line includes a hard-coded password. Thus, during the scan, it will identify the presence of a hard-coded password on the ninetieth line and suggest how to mitigate and resolve this issue. In the next scan, I added fifty more lines of support and fixed the password-related problem. However, the line containing the password is no longer at the ninetieth position; it has moved to the hundredth line. Despite these changes, the next scan still detects the password flaw. Even though I encrypted the password and added the required string, the issue continues to be flagged. This constant flagging of the issue, even after resolving it, is one of the major drawbacks. To overcome this problem, we decided to create another application. This action was taken to prevent the recurrence of such issues. In the future, when I have a release in the coming months, I cannot keep encountering this problem repeatedly, as it still flags the issue as long as the code is in a different line. We have spoken to the vendor several times about this issue and scheduled a work order consultation call, but we did not receive a response.

In order to achieve software consolidation and analysis reports for Android applications, we need to utilize a third-party utility called SourceClear along with Veracode scanning. This complicates the market and has room for improvement. 

When scanning a file that is over one gigabyte in size, there is a high chance that Veracode will continue scanning. When we initially encountered this issue and investigated it, we raised a ticket. As a result, a Database Lock occurred, causing Veracode to become stuck.

I have been using Veracode for almost four years.

I would rate the stability at seven out of ten, considering the false positive issues we are experiencing.

Veracode is scalable.

I am not entirely satisfied with the technical support because I believe we have been waiting to send our code to production and waiting for an update from the vendor to resolve the issue. When we raise a support case, there is no response, and even after it happens two or three times, I don't know if they read the details of the issue when a ticket is raised. If someone has already attended to the same call, they will not attend again; instead, a new person handles it. Consequently, we have to explain everything all over again to the new person. We are aware that they know they don't have a solution for this problem. However, by the time we explain it to the new person, they ask the same questions again. Each consultation lasts 40 to 45 minutes, and we are billed for them, but we spend most of the time repeating what the issue is.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. Even the pipeline setup is easy because there is an API, so we don't need instructions. Veracode is hosted in the cloud, so we need to set up a firewall to connect to it via proxy. The deployment took a few weeks because we had to figure out how to perform the scanning from the pipeline, enable the scan, and upload the scans for each Veracode API. Additionally, we had to seek assistance from HR to implement all the steps, which took some time.

I give Veracode a six out of ten.

We cannot simply create one policy and claim it is compliant unless all my issues are thoroughly flagged based on that compliance and the complaint. As technology improves and we move forward, bugs and certain issues may arise, and we may not always know the solutions or the severity level of their impact. Considering this perspective, Veracode is acceptable. I will illustrate this with another tool, Fortify SSC. Suppose there are newly added licenses or rules for software compliance in their security scanning tool. In Veracode, if I wish to update the new compliance tools or checks that the algorithms run against it, I must obtain approval from the architect. This approach has its advantages. However, in the case of the tool I am currently working on, Fortify SSC, there is something called a 'rule pack' for each language. I have the option to keep the existing version of the rules or upgrade to the latest rule pack. This feature works as a toggle option in Veracode.

Tuning policies is essentially the application of specific policies. When we deploy a policy, it affects all our scans and issues. The new policies applied are divided by Veracode and, when implemented, impact all the applications. Therefore, most of the time, when we apply a new policy, there is a chance that if there are three flaws, we can assume there are thirteen million flaws in my current scan. If a policy is applied, there are definitely ten to fifteen additional issues in the new scan after implementing the updated policy. Thus, there is always an increase in the number of flaws when there is a new policy update.

There are certain flaws. For example, I am releasing a package into production, and I conducted a Veracode scan against the source code, which is stored in the bin bucket. So, even if I fix the issue on my own, the same issue will be flagged again due to the change in client number. This is a significant problem because we cannot explain to the higher management that the report contains the password, and we have already taken measures to mitigate the issue. We cannot claim that this issue has already been fixed, as it continues to resurface. It is a Veracode issue, not one originating from us, but it becomes complicated when higher management sees a report indicating the same issue from the previous month. We don't know what to do. One of the ways we addressed the issue was by reducing the number of times the same issue occurs. For instance, in my previous work at a bank, we had applications specific to each country, like one for Singapore, one for Malaysia, and so on for most Southeast Asian countries. Although our master bank application was the main source, we created individual applications for each country in Veracode. As a result, the number of false positives or issues that were previously mitigated or closed and kept reappearing from month to month was reduced, but they were not completely eliminated. By switching to a different application for each country the false positives were reduced by around seventy percent.

Our organization was approached to adopt Snyk; however, it is a startup solution, and the bank prefers something that is well-established. Currently, we are using Fortify SSC. 

We have a five-person IT team that is responsible for all the DevOps tasks, including Veracode.

Compared to Fortify SSC, which has a complicated setup requiring three installations, Veracode is easier because the app is hosted in the cloud. All we need is a support license, and they will create a project for us. We can create a firewall proxy, and the API pipeline is already in place. To create a scan for another application, we simply copy and paste the code and change the application's name. 

We use Veracode for static code analysis scans for our clients.

Veracode is deployed both on the cloud and on-premises.

Veracode helps prevent vulnerable code from being deployed into production by identifying problematic code. It enables us to send a report to the application developer, allowing them to address the vulnerabilities based on their criticality level. The developers are given six months to address medium-level issues and three months for critical ones. If the criteria are not mapped with the higher critical alerts present in those applications, we can enforce the build field and proceed without deploying it into production.

Veracode has helped improve our customers' organizations through the scanning taskbar, which identifies vulnerabilities in code. We have worked with ten clients, all of whom used Veracode to identify vulnerable code early in the development stage and resolve the issues. Additionally, Veracode offers Greenlight ID, which developers can integrate into their development process, providing clarity during the development phase. Veracode can also generate reports that developers can resolve, facilitating the quick resolution of security concerns.

The policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards is excellent. The report helps us maintain our compliance.

It offers visibility into the application's status at every phase of development, including static analysis, dynamic analysis, composition analysis, and manual penetration testing throughout the Software Development Life Cycle.

Visibility aids the DevSecOps process by offering a clear framework for all involved departments, including the steps for handling severities.

Veracode assists our clients in addressing flaws by simplifying the process. The security team can review the code, approve or reject it, and developers can utilize the reports to promptly rectify the flaws.

It assists developers in saving approximately 20 percent of their time, primarily in the static part, as they no longer need to review all the code. Regarding the dynamic part, Veracode scans all the URLs, eliminating the necessity for developers to use additional tools. For third-party dependencies, developers depend on the reports and the Greenlight ID plug-in to streamline their workflow and save time.

Our clients depend on Veracode to improve their security stance.  

The CI/CD integration is the most valuable feature of Veracode. This feature is not present in other solutions.

The analytics dashboard is not user-friendly and can be improved to assist us with the application size and enable modifications, whether for static or dynamic scans. This is currently missing in Veracode.

Veracode needs to improve its integration with other tools.

We have requested an enhancement for Veracode because it does not support scanning the static and dynamic elements of code created by MuleSoft. Furthermore, it does not support these aspects for the new generation of applications and we have to use other tools.

I have been using Veracode for over seven years.

If there is an issue, I am unable to access all the logs due to insufficient permissions, which causes delays.

Veracode is scalable. To increase the scale, we simply need to increase the number of licenses.

The technical support team's response time is inadequate. Typically, they fail to provide assistance beyond the initial call due to the limited knowledge and inability of the first-level support to resolve issues effectively. I have been dealing with a single issue for three weeks without any resolution.

Neutral

The vendor handles the deployment, and we simply need to install the ISM agents on our network. The deployment time depends on the size of the application. Large applications may take up to five days to scan, but on average, it takes one or two days.

The pricing depends on the functionality each client desires. For example, one of our clients only wishes to scan two applications, so they pay for that specific service in addition to our organization's third-party access to their system.

I give Veracode an eight out of ten.

20 to 30 percent of the false positive rates are vulnerabilities. Sometimes, almost 50 percent of the reports are false positives, which affects the time spent on tuning policies.

The false positives increase the amount of time our developers need to spend investigating the reports. 

Veracode offers static analysis, dynamic analysis, and composition analysis all in one place.

We are a team of five individuals who assist in deploying and managing Veracode, along with handling other tasks.

Our client base varies depending on their budgets, but we serve a large number of organizations in the financial industry.

I recommend Veracode. The solution is on par with the others, and organizations can read the reviews and run some tests before making a purchase.

The main purpose of Veracode is to deliver secure code on time. We use it to test our application security, at the implementation stage to make sure that code is secure. We do static and dynamic testing, as well as penetration testing with Veracode. We also use it for security threat detection for our enterprise applications.

It empowers our developers to fix security issues and achieve desired outcomes. It's a very secure cloud platform and helps us monitor our web sources for any attack. We have been able to completely secure our enterprise software, which is on the cloud, with the solution. Overall, we have been able to reduce the risk factors for our enterprise software. Also, determining security threats to our application happens faster now with the help of Veracode. The benchmarking capabilities against industry standards and the compliance help us a lot.

Veracode also provides a lot of programming language support and different frameworks are available, which enables us to get things into production much more efficiently. Our SDLC has become much smoother and more secure with Veracode.

And it has definitely helped our developers save time. It helps them with future references because, if they write code one time with errors that Veracode finds, the next time they use that as a reference and don't repeat the mistake. In that way, in the continuous development process, a lot of time is saved. It saves us about 20 percent of our time.

We are able to create more applications now, and code more, while worrying less about errors while coding. Worrying about fixing the flaws in an application is completely taken care of by Veracode, so we are able to focus more on creating new code and developing new applications. Veracode has been a great platform for that particular purpose.

We have also found more security vulnerabilities in our code, which has helped us produce much better applications for our end-users. Most of the time, vulnerabilities go unnoticed by humans. Veracode helps us pinpoint the exact vulnerability, what it affects, and it helps us correct it for future reference.

One cool feature is the static code scan, which is very good. 

Also, the dashboards and the threat insights it provides are very good. The dashboards are intuitive and pretty straightforward, but also pretty detailed.

We get good, actionable insights at each stage, including static, dynamic, and penetration analysis, and it reduces overhead for us. 

It also has compliance monitoring and reporting capabilities that I like very much. The compliance reporting is a great feature because there are a lot of different frameworks and channels, and each unique channel has its individual compliance monitoring and policies. Veracode helps us prepare for all the different challenges.

The false positive rate is a gray area. The number of false positives could be reduced a lot. For each good result, we are getting somewhere around 15 to 20 false positives. We expect false positives, but if that ratio could be reduced to a single-digit number for the false positives, that would be much more helpful.

We are spending some manual effort and time on this because it happens sometimes, when we first scan code, that it says there is no threat. And the second time we scan it, it says there is a threat. Those kinds of positive responses make us do double work. If that was better, it would greatly improve our overall efficiency.

Apart from the false positives, I would like to see more plugins and integrations to make Veracode much more user-friendly for developers and users. Any IDE plugins would make our work faster.

My experience with Veracode has been over 12 to 14 months.

Overall, because it is a cloud platform, stability is not a concern. It's quite stable. To be strict about things, the UI can be very slow. There is downtime now then, and I understand why it happens, but I would appreciate it if that happened less.

We are not going to scale it right now. We have about 18 developers and five or six administrators using the solution, and I don't expect that will change for now. But you can purchase more licenses. It's definitely scalable in that sense.

We have it in a single location only and it is used across three or four development teams in our office.

Veracode support is very knowledgeable and very prompt. The Veracode community is also available, which is very good.

Positive

It's only deployed on the cloud. Although I was not a part of the initial deployment, I know for a fact that the deployment can take a long time.

As for maintenance, there are software updates, but apart from downloading the software updates, there isn't any other maintenance required on our side. It's a cloud platform so it self-maintains.

Our ROI is that we have seen a tremendous increase in the overall security of our enterprise software. It has helped us engage better with our clients and our retention rate has increased about 7 percent. We can't pinpoint that directly to using Veracode, but since we started using it we have seen this retention increase.

The pricing is fair. We are planning to renew for the next year.

It's definitely value for money. I would tell someone who is looking at Veracode not to be concerned about the pricing because the value that they will get, for this price, in the market, is very good when it comes to their long-term plans.

If a proof of concept is possible, I would ask you to try it out first to get a sense of what Veracode is before investing. But investing in this tool is very much needed. With security threats, for long-term purposes, the code-level threat detection and code-level error detection are very much needed by any organization.

We primarily use Veracode for static code analysis.

Veracode detects vulnerabilities. The most essential part is Veracode's PCI compliance policies. We need to make sure our code is compliant. Veracode's policy reporting features are effective at ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations. The policy has changed here, but that functionality works quite well. It provides visibility to application status at every development stage. 

The solution helped us find and fix flaws. It ultimately saves us some time, but we still spend a long time sorting through the false positives. Every report generates a number of issues, some of which are valid. Others are mitigated by application design or network devices. Veracode improved our security overall. There is no doubt about that. 

The CSA vulnerability scanning is useful. 

The dynamic scanning feature appears to be working, however, 90%-95% of all vulnerabilities could be easily detected by any web browser.

When it comes to dynamic scanning Veracode needs to improve its functionality.

They claim that we can do this, but it doesn't work when we're scanning the applications in real time.  

Static code analysis generates too many false positives, so it takes a lot of time to review them all. The security and development teams need to work together to mitigate the false positives. It doesn't affect the developers' confidence in the solution. It still works, but it takes time. It has a significant impact on the process. 

I have been using Veracode for five or six years.

I rate Veracode support a seven out of ten. We have weekly meetings with the support representatives to discuss any issues with the tool. It's pretty good.

Neutral

I rate Veracode a five out of ten.