Veracode Reviews

I have helped other companies implement Veracode Static Analysis in their IT environment. In our company, we need to scan many .NET applications using Veracode, and we could scan our software since it is a SaaS solution, after which we process the reports to improve the product.

The most valuable features of the solution are its extensive reporting capabilities and user-friendly interface.

There are certain shortcomings in Veracode's static analysis engine. I would improve Veracode's static analysis engine to make it capable of identifying vulnerabilities with low false positives.

The product is good, and if improvements are required, then such improvements should not be significant enough. There may be a slight scope to improve the product's integration capabilities. The product can also consider improving its support of different .NET versions and other programming languages, like Java.

I have been using Veracode Static Analysis for three or four months.

Our company faced some issues with the tool, but the support team solved these issues quite quickly. The stability of the tool is high. Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. We can implement the tool in different DevOps environments and projects, because of which we can create groups of applications and apply different policies to application groups, making it an enterprise-level tool. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The solution's technical support helped us solve different problems related to Veracode, including some of its use cases. Veracode's support helped our company get around a problem and how to set up the scan rules correctly when we had some unexpected errors during the scanning process. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have experience with Snyk. I used Snyk a year ago. Snyk doesn't support the version of the .NET applications we use in our company, so we decided to move to Veracode.

The initial setup was easy since it is a SaaS solution and a well-documented product at the same time. In our company, we don't need to spin up a server to install something since we simply use the web interface and integrate the web interface with the DevOps environment.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is a hard setup and ten is an easy setup, I rate the initial setup phase an eight or nine.

The solution is deployed on the cloud. In our company, we use Microsoft Azure DevOps for our environment, but I don't know the environment in which Veracode gets used in our company. Veracode offers a web interface and API, so I don't know their cloud solutions.

The deployment is quite fast, but its overall quickness in terms of deployment depends on the number of applications you want to scan. If you want to scan one application, the deployment can be quickly done since we need to integrate Veracode into our DevOps environment.

The pricing of the product depends upon the number of codes or the number of applications.

I recommend those planning to use the solution check the system requirements and choose a solution that supports programming languages and .NET Framework versions that record scans.

I am not sure if it is one of the best solutions because I am not an expert in other solutions available in the market. Somehow, I personally feel it is one of the best tools in the market.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

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 web application scanning, and we've been using Vericode for our ethical hackers as well.

We have a dev, UAT, and staging environment. Veracode is included as a part of our DevSecOps in the staging environment. That means that when code is promoted to our staging environment, it automatically initiates a Veracode scan on our application.

The output and the recommendations given by Veracode are very useful. We are able to mitigate some of the vulnerabilities that the tool shows us. We are maintaining very clean applications with the help of the scanning we do with Veracode.

If any critical or high-risk vulnerabilities are detected in our code, we don't move it to production until we get a clean report. While we allow moderate and low-risk findings, we stop if it's critical or high. We do a scan on our staging whenever new code is promoted. Effectively, Veracode helps us to prevent moving the code to production if we detect any abnormalities.

Our application is an external-facing application and that means we have to proceed with the utmost caution when we promote code. Veracode has certainly been very helpful in giving us more accurate results and ensuring that our application does not have any vulnerabilities.

Veracode keeps developers aware of the possibility that issues will be identified. Once a vulnerability is detected, developers are careful to abide by the recommendations given by Veracode the next they are involved in new development. That's a positive regarding the solution. It helps improve the development process. We also share findings with the other development teams, so that they don't make the same mistake. We document the best practices so that the same flaws are not detected again. To that extent, our developers' time is optimally utilized.

Ours is a Java-based application and Veracode can detect vulnerabilities in both Angular, which is used for the UI, and also in the backend code, which includes APIs and microservices. That's one good aspect and something where other applications have a lower rating. Veracode gives us wholesome insights into the vulnerabilities in the application, both in the UI and in the backend.

Also, the false positive rate is good. I don't have any qualms about using Veracode.

The scanning on the UI portion of our applications is straightforward, but folks were having challenges with scans that involved microservices. They had to rope in an expert to have it sorted. In addition, one of my developers told me that they looked at the documentation that was given but still required the involvement of an expert to get the issue fixed. I would like the documentation to be a little more user-friendly.

Also, the turnaround times could be improved. From what I've heard, the scanning takes a bit of time to complete. If it could be completed a little more quickly, that would help.

We've been using it for five years.

There have been a couple of instances when the scan stopped or aborted and had to be manually triggered to complete. Other than that, there haven't been any challenges with Veracode

We used to have a tool called CAST, which determined code quality. It wasn't a security tool or scanner.

As an application manager, I certainly find Veracode very useful. It definitely improves the robustness of the application. It detects every single small or large flaw and helps us with the appropriate recommendations. I would go with Veracode unless there is a product that is equally capable but with a lower price.

Right now we have it on-prem but we are moving toward the cloud in the next six months or so. We've started that journey. I don't think there have been any difficulties in maintaining the pipeline. We've never had any challenges since we introduced Veracode as part of our DevSecOps pipeline.

For my application, it has definitely been a great tool. It ensures that your application is devoid of vulnerabilities. Go for it.

Because Veracode is more interactive than Secure Code Warrior, the big benefit for our organization will be that the developers will not just get the blue team excited, but they will learn to think like the red team, like an attacker. The interactive labs will help developers see that some of the red team attack methods aren't that hard to do, and that will bring them more security awareness. 

Because developers will see exactly how you do a certain type of red team attack or exploit, they will understand that it's important that they don't think, "Oh, this could never happen." And when they realize that some of the attack methods are not so hard to implement, they will secure the code base and fix the vulnerabilities that already exist.

For example, when I tried SQL injection labs, I learned new ways to make those, and that is extremely valuable for me because. If I'm working with a code base, I can know exactly how to mitigate SQL injection, because not all systems are using Hibernate. I've been on code reviews where I could actually point out things related to injection, which is something I wouldn't have been able to do without Veracode.

Another big benefit for our organization is that it is more interactive and fun, in a way, than Secure Code Warrior. Developers will engage and spend more time in Veracode.

It has had a good effect on my security posture because the labs are very informative with current information, showing you some of the things that could be done by attackers if your code is done incorrectly. I have retained more useful information in a fast manner.

And if we talk about scanning, we will see advantages there as well. For example, I'm working on a Java project and because Java is a high-level language, it's hard to make code errors. But if I worked with C or C++, the scanner tool would be very good. If you take the OWASP dependency checker, for example, it goes through all the third-party dependencies which are often where the trouble is in a Java project. However, I have heard that you can upload the necessary files and it will go through the third-party components as well and, in that case, it's very beneficial for the organization to have such a tool.

It can be very hard to make a good lab environment with a console with log windows and code bases. What I like about Veracode is that they managed to do that. It has a very responsive graphical user interface and has worked very well. I was very pleased with that.

I like the web interface of the interactive labs and the information there. It's very well done by those who developed it, and it works very well. It's very fun and you get to learn new things and think like an attacker. It's not like on TryHackMe, but the information I got from doing the labs here was information that I didn't have before. The quality of the information was really good.

When I started to use Veracode, there were a lot of policy documents and I actually have a habit of always reading those. I haven't made a list of all the regulations and policies and how well it complies with all the security regulations, but from what I could see, it is aligned with security regulations and certifications. And in the lab environment, they have divided things into different topics like OWASP top-10. That is very actual and follows the security guidelines that are commonly accepted by organizations today.

I would like to see more AI features. It's a current subject because with ChatGPT and other solutions being developed all the time, IT attacks will increase. I actually talked to the CEO of an IT security company in the United States because he ranked the top-10 IT security risks this year, and one of the biggest risks was new vulnerabilities or attacks would occur because of ChatGPT and similar services. To defend against those it's very important that the good guys use AI in ways that are good instead of bad.

I have been using Veracode for about two weeks. I recently got access to Veracode to test it. I've been spending a lot of time on it, working with it in the lab environment. I have also tried out the scanning tools for code bases, but I mostly have experience working with it in the lab environment.

I haven't used it for very long, but I have never experienced any problems with the stability.

We are an enterprise-size company and I know that our security employees are using Veracode and some of the developers as well, but I don't know to what extent developers are using it. It's pretty widely used across our organization.

I give their technical support a very high grade. I was in contact with them with an inquiry I had, and there was a very fast response time. They took my request and prioritized it. They were nice as well, and that's how you want support to be, although not every support team is like that.

Positive

I was previously working with Secure Code Warrior which is very different, but it's within the security field.

I've been using the security platform TryHackMe a lot, which also has a web console, but I wouldn't pay for the kind of console window that TryHackMe had. It has a lot of good aspects, so no disrespect to them; I learned a lot from it. But I understand how hard it is to create that and Veracode has managed to do so in a responsive way that works well. It's very impressive.

Scanning tools are a big safeguard for getting vulnerable code out of production. It's almost mandatory today to scan applications because there are so many attacks happening in the world right now, no matter which solution you use.

I was very pleased when I tried Veracode because I hadn't heard about it before, but it was much better than I thought.

We use Veracode to scan our products for code security. Our company also uses Veracode's data security module.

Veracode enables us to build a strong data security layer in our platforms. We can increase customer confidence in data security. Some PCI/HIPAA compliance issues were impossible to resolve without Veracode. I rate Veracode's compliance features a nine out of ten because it provides detailed reports after each scan about potential regulatory violations. 

The solution's static analysis streamlined our DevSecOps process, which previously involved a lot of manual work to trace code vulnerabilities. Veracode reduced our DevSecOps team's time on these tasks by around 20 to 30 percent while drastically improving code quality. 

In the past, we also performed a scan using third-party vendor partners that took days to complete. Veracode conducts a quick dynamic scan each time a new iteration of code is built and deployed into the environment. It gives us an immediate result. We can deploy our products much faster, and there are no delays or surprises after the product is built. We aren't wasting time from development to deployment.

Our overall security posture improved, but we've only been using Veracode in production for less than two months. We expect a massive improvement in the next six to eight months.

The false positive rate is typically less than five percent. False positives can affect how developers use a solution. If we see too many false positives, we might start ignoring alerts. Sometimes the developers lose confidence and may take the work lightly. It isn't an issue currently because the rate is under five percent. 

Dynamic scanning is the most useful feature.

Veracode's ease of use could be improved. I would also like to see more online videos and tutorials that could help us understand the product better. It would also be helpful if Veracode created a certification program for DevSecOps staff to learn about their product and get certified. This kind of training would raise the company's profile within the industry. 

We have used Veracode for about three months. We did a proof of concept for one month, and it has been in production for two. 

I rate Veracode a ten out of ten for stability. We haven't had any issues.

Veracode is scalable, but we haven't scaled it up. However, I expect it will work well when we do.

I rate Veracode support a nine out of ten. Their support system is excellent and highly engaged.

Positive

We tried some Indian solutions and used third-party scans for static analysis, but Veracode is the first time we have fully integrated an enterprise code security solution.

Veracode is a SaaS solution. Setting it up isn't simple, but it isn't too complex. We deployed Veracode with a three-person in-house team. Veracode requires a decent amount of maintenance. You must perform periodic validation checks on how the engine is performing. 

You have to compare the price to the potential cost of data security threats, which could devastate your reputation and revenue overall. We do not doubt that the investment is worth it. It's too early to calculate an ROI, but we anticipate a reduction in overall DevSecOps costs. 

Veracode is priced competitively for our market. 

We evaluated a few other vendor partners and decided to go with Veracode because of the various features they offered.

I rate Veracode a nine out of ten. If you plan to implement Veracode, your DevSecOps should adopt modularized-based code segregation for better visibility into how this ecosystem works. It's crucial to be clear about the solutions you are procuring. There are multiple options, and not everything will work for you. Understanding your requirements, what your customer needs, and what will work best for your product is essential. Purchase the solution most suitable for your product and your company. 

You should also maximize Veracode's benefit by working closely with the tech support team. We don't use many of the features we have procured. Setting up an ongoing review mechanism with Veracode technical support is critical to better understand the product and ensure you get the maximum return for your investment. These are some points that company leaders need to discuss with their DevSecOps and DevOps teams.

I am a software engineer, and one of my clients needed Veracode for security requirements. We needed to send the code through some security tools to see if there are breaches or malicious code that could attack the company. In this case, the client used Veracode to scan third-party libraries from our application. Veracode was running on a private cloud using Azure. 

Veracode helped us prevent possible security breaches. The team can anticipate and correct issues earlier instead of waiting for someone to find the issue or discover it when your application is attacked. 

The report is good because it has lots of security information. It isn't related to the code itself, like the line of the code or the connected library that contains an issue. It's sometimes difficult to figure out how to solve that.

Veracode saves time in the development process because we can anticipate security issues in an application. On the other hand, from a software development perspective, it could be a technical increase in depth. After we develop a feature in the application and run Veracode, we might find some security issues we need to fix. 

For example, we spent a month building a feature on an application, but during this month, Veracode found a security issue in the third-party library we were using and reported it. If we had found the issue mid-development, we would need to rebuild the solution. Sometimes, it might increase the technical depth of the application because this type of security flaw was not found previously in our daily work. 

Veracode creates a list of issues. You can go through them one by one and click through to a new window with all the information about the issue discovered.

We waste a lot of time figuring out which results are false positives, and it has affected our trust in the tool. After we've spent time training and setting up the tool correctly, we need to scan our code and remove all the false positives. Finally, it's good enough to identify our security issues.

We get some false positives with JavaScript languages like React, TypeScript, and Angular. The problem is rooted in the build process of JavaScript, not the code we are using. This is something we spend lots of time trying to resolve. When we point to a specific library and review that on the code, we can see it is a part of the build that isn't going into production. It's only a part of the build because JavaScript has a different build process. 

This hasn't happened in .NET or C# because we use can all the libraries used when coding. In JavaScript, it's tough, and we spend tons of time trying to find the issue. However, it's not a problem because it's a pre-compiled language. This isn't unique to Veracode. Black Duck does the same thing.

Maybe Veracode could automatically detect the language type first and improve the way it scans JavaScript to reduce the false positive rate for this specific language. Also, in the reporting area, it could connect to the source code Veracode uses for the third-party library.

When Veracode finds security issues, it creates a report with the number and description of the issues. Sometimes, we are not able to connect that issue with the third-party library containing the code and applications the developers are building. The relationship between the flaw in the code and the third-party library could be more apparent because developers may not realize that the root cause is the library, not the code itself. 

The compliance features are good, but it's pretty picky in terms of what it considers a security issue. I and the other developers struggle to understand what is flagged as a security vulnerability. If you can see a security issue in there, you can see all the documentation, but it's difficult to relate that to the code to determine why the issue happened. It could be clearer how to find the issue in the structure of the code. 

I'm not using Veracode anymore, but I used it for eight months in the last year. 

Veracode is stable overall. When we start the process on the Veracode side, the report generates in less than a minute, and we can see the issues. I don't have any problems with stability.

I used a tool called Black Duck when I worked for another company two years ago. The client chose to use Veracode. It wasn't my option. 

We put Veracode in our pipeline, so the process runs automatically during development. It isn't something we can run manually. There are scripts that run when we start. There isn't any maintenance on the developer side. A designated team takes care of all this.

I don't think we've seen a return on this, but it's hard to calculate because you have to estimate the value of a breach that hasn't happened. This is the main benefit of using this tool. I don't know how to measure that.

I rate Veracode eight out of 10. It can help you improve your security by identifying and preventing issues faster. At the same time, you should know that using Veracode will lengthen the development process because the team needs to check and correct issues. It could increase your development costs. 

Using Veracode has challenged us to be more conscious of security. Sometimes, developers just want to build code. This tool allows you to check if the code or libraries are secure enough to add. 

The most valuable features of Veracode Static Analysis are its ability to work with GitLab and GitHub so that you can do the reviews and force the code.

I have been using Veracode Static Analysis for approximately five years.

The stability of Veracode Static Analysis is good.

I rate the stability of Veracode Static Analysis a nine out of ten.

We have approximately 900 people using the solution.

The solution is scalable, but there is a high cost attached to it.

I use SonarQube with Veracode Static Analysis.

The initial setup of Veracode Static Analysis was reasonably quick.

We did the deployment of the solution in-house.

The price of Veracode Static Analysis could improve.

Sometimes the model that Veracode pushes forward for you to use isn't beneficial. I advise companies to use SonarQube and Veracode together because we use SonarQube for all the individual developers to scan and do their checks and tasks before they do a full peer review to make sure that they have it clean and it's understood. We then use Veracode Static Analysis for repository control because you need fewer licenses. Veracode Static Analysis is expensive and this is why we split the two solutions.

There are extra costs per developer and it can get expensive quickly. They charge approximately $25 a month for each developer that uses it.

I rate the price of Veracode Static Analysis an eight out of ten.

I would advise people to use Veracode Static Analysis in the final levels of deployment. For example, when you used another tooling, such as SonarQube to do the initial tasks with the developers, then for peer reviews it is best to use Veracode Static Analysis for making sure that your repositories are controlled and managed properly.

I would always advise people to deploy at least two tools, one at a lower level to do the peer-to-peer that is cheaper, such as SonarQube because close to being free. Then use something, such as Veracode for the repository control and the management control of your data cubes.

No solution is a hundred percent perfect. I wouldn't rate any solution a 10 because they've all got faults. SonarQube might pick something up that Veracode Static Analysis doesn't and vice versa.

I rate Veracode Static Analysis a seven out of ten.

We're using Veracode Static Analysis for scanning security vulnerabilities.

Once the image is built in the container, we send it to Veracode Static Analysis for static analysis assessment, and the tool scans it. The tool then provides us with information on vulnerabilities in our code and the third parties, then provides recommendations on how to solve vulnerabilities, and that's helpful.

What I found most valuable in Veracode Static Analysis is that it categorizes security vulnerabilities. My company is mainly worried about security vulnerabilities, so it's beneficial that the tool identifies security-related vulnerabilities.

Veracode Static Analysis lacks penetration testing, so that's a concern. The tool is also unable to scan when it's a C or C++ model, so that's another area for improvement.

I've used Veracode Static Analysis for one and a half years, and I'm still using the tool.

I didn't find any stability issues with Veracode Static Analysis. It's a stable tool.

Veracode Static Analysis is a scalable solution. My company has between one hundred fifty to two hundred microservices, yet the tool can scan cost-efficiently without issues.

Veracode Static Analysis has good support. There's a channel where my team communicates with support, raises tickets, then support will give you a call, though there were a few times when support struggled on specific cases.

The IT team set up Veracode Static Analysis, but it's a bit complex.

We deployed Veracode Static Analysis in-house.

We have not reached the point where we see ROI from Veracode Static Analysis because we're still assessing it, but there are so many vulnerabilities. If we fix some of the high-priority vulnerabilities not reported by the customer, and zero them out or reduce them, then we see value from the tool. Those high-priority vulnerabilities are less than manageable because they have multiple levels or layers.

To my knowledge, licensing for Veracode Static Analysis is paid yearly by my company.

We compared Veracode Static Analysis with other vendors, including SonarQube, and went with Veracode because it had more value than others.

Twenty-five to thirty people from the development and QA teams use Veracode Static Analysis, but my company is still learning the best way to reduce the load. There's no plan to increase the tool's usage for now.

Based on my initial analysis, I'd recommend Veracode Static Analysis to anyone looking into implementing it, as it's a good tool.

My rating for Veracode Static Analysis is eight out of ten.