Veracode Reviews

We use Veracode for static application security testing, dynamic testing, and software composition analysis. My company's engineering team has about 50 people who use Veracode across multiple product lines. 

The main benefit of Veracode is that we can deliver better, more secure software. Our customers also trust Veracode. When we share the Veracode report, they see that we have gone through all the due diligence.

Veracode aligns with SOC, ISO, and other types of certifications. It helps with compliance that Veracode has all these reporting formats. The solution provides visibility at every stage of development. We have automated almost everything through integration with Jenkins. As soon as the developer commits, it triggers the static scan for the main branches. We don't need to trigger the scan manually or do a follow-up to see if it's done scanning. 

The solution saves time by reporting issues and recommendations that help developers fix the reported vulnerabilities faster. I estimate that it improved developer productivity by about 10 percent.

Veracode has good support for microservices, and I also like the sandbox environment. For example, when introducing a new component, we can scan it in a sandbox environment. It will not impact the main environment. When our team fixes it, they. can push it to the production environment when the results are acceptable. 

The solution effectively prevents vulnerabilities from entering production. We've drastically reduced our third-party VAPT-reported issues. Before Veracode, the third-party VAPT analysis reported hundreds of issues per application. Now it's down to about 20, and Veracode can address most of them.

The interface is one thing I find a little challenging. Veracode's interface feels a little outdated compared to other solutions, and it could be modernized. I'm mostly happy with the features, but Veracode could add Docker image scanning. 

I have used Veracode for about six years.

Veracode seems stable. I don't recall facing any issues. 

Veracode is scalable.

I rate Veracode support eight out of 10. They are quite good at responding to issues. 

Positive

We tried AppScan and Snyk.  From an integration perspective, Snyk is a little better integrated with our pipelines and ticketing system. 

I can't recall the deployment well, but I think it was straightforward. Veracode requires no maintenance after deployment. 

I have not calculated the return on investment, but I think it's at least 200 percent. 

We aren't paying the listed price. We get some discounts, but we get a lot of value from it regardless of what we're paying. We look at the overall cost of what we would spend without a tool like Veracode. The longer you delay fixing security vulnerabilities, the more it will cost you during the later stages. By integrating it into the development cycle earlier, it helps to keep total costs lower.

We evaluated multiple scanning solutions before choosing Veracode, and we perform a mandatory comparative analysis annually. Veracode's scanning engine is more innovative and provides a more detailed analysis relative to Snyk and AppScan. It performs much better in terms of the number of issues discovered. 

I rate Veracode 10 out of 10. When implementing Veracode, you need to develop a workflow or a process. It becomes easier if you have that in place. For example, you can create a workflow where you scan inside the sandbox and approve those fixes before moving to production. 

Also, you should have separate people for raising issues, remediation, and approval. That way, you will have some control over which issues are mitigated and for what reason. That process flow has to be set up properly. Another aspect of successful implementation is automation. Your team needs to invest time in automating and embedding scanning in your pipelines. 

Our primary objective when using Veracode was to ensure the security of website development and other application developments we were working on. We aimed to prevent any security breaches and also closely monitor any potential vulnerabilities that could arise from code deployment. Fortunately, we were successful in identifying and addressing these vulnerabilities. 

Although the responses were somewhat mixed, we managed to go two years without a single security breach, which was a significant achievement. In addition to monitoring security breaches, we utilized Veracode for continuous monitoring. The difference lies in the fact that once the code is deployed and access to the server is initiated, there is a high possibility of connecting to a different server or encountering interference from unauthorized individuals. This continuous monitoring allows us to observe each step of the server, including the IP addresses and protocols, and ensure their proper functioning. Veracode facilitated us in carrying out this monitoring effectively.

Veracode's ability to prevent vulnerable code from entering production is remarkable. We were once alerted that there was a possibility of a breach occurring. Despite spending hours pondering the issue, we were unable to determine how that possibility existed. After discussing with the support team, we eventually learned the cause. Therefore, in terms of detecting vulnerabilities, it was excellent. However, the problem arose from the fact that it was not well-customized for our organization. Consequently, there were multiple instances where flags were raised for our IP address or email, which we knew were not vulnerabilities. In such cases, we had to address them accordingly.

Veracode's reporting feature provides comprehensive insights into the security status of our code or application. These reports generated by Veracode offer visibility into vulnerabilities and different severity levels of threats that may be present. They also recommend remediation steps to address these issues without extensive code modifications. I find this reporting feature valuable. Additionally, Veracode regularly releases updates, sometimes multiple times a day, ensuring that we are consistently up to date. Although this requires my engineers to work extensively on integrating AWS services with our platform, it is one of the standout features of Veracode due to the recommendations and frequent updates it provides.

Veracode's policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is on the mark. Everything was proceeding as it should, with adherence to the established procedures, protocols, and reporting mechanisms by both the organization and the support team. At no point did we feel that the industry standards were compromised.

Veracode provides visibility into the application's status at every phase of development. Primarily, we were only conducting two types of tests. One was continuous integration, which keeps track of the entire application's deployment process. It detects any defects and ensures a smooth deployment. The other test we used to perform at certain times was manual integration. We would delve deeper and test additional aspects because we wanted to ensure with utmost precision that there were no vulnerabilities when deploying the application. Hence, we also had to manually utilize this program before deploying or pushing it to the code.

When conducting the cost-benefit analysis for Veracode after six months, we discovered that there were actually only two significant security breach possibilities. With the assistance of the solution, we were able to detect and resolve these breaches. The most significant advantage provided by the solution was the assurance that no breaches were occurring outside of the office. Any potential risks were either determined to be false alarms or promptly addressed. Therefore, the only actual breaches we encountered during the six-month period were two. However, we also gained a sense of security, which I consider to be a worthwhile trade-off for the cost.

Speaking specifically about the security department of our company, there was a notable reduction in costs after the introduction of Veracode. However, when considering the broader scope of all the development departments, we not only had to invest more time in each project but also had to hire additional resources. Consequently, when taking into account all the departments collectively, the overall expenses increased. However, focusing solely on the security development department, there was a substantial decrease in costs, approximately $7,000 per month.

The recommendations and frequent updates are the most valuable features of Veracode.

The false positive rates were quite high in our case. Prior to seeking a solution, we had already engaged in discussions with their support team, who also confirmed this issue. We had read a few reviews, which indicated the presence of false positives. However, in our specific situation, the number of false positives was substantial. There were instances when we logged in during the morning and encountered 30 or 40 raised flags. Resolving them sometimes occupied a significant portion of our day, often extending into the first half. Thus, in certain projects we undertook, the occurrence of false positives was considerably elevated. Despite being aware of this, we acknowledged that a majority of these flags were likely false. Nonetheless, due to the matter of security, we had to address them, resulting in a significant allocation of our time.

The false positive rate of the static analysis has impacted the time we spend on fine-tuning policies. We have had to allocate a considerable portion of the software team's time to address the significant number of false positives, resulting in substantial time investment. Additionally, some of our projects with clients have been delayed due to this issue. One particular project experienced a delay of approximately 25 days, with false positive cases accounting for an estimated 60 to 75 percent of the delay. The cost of the false positive rate is causing a slight disruption in the development process. Therefore, I believe this is the major area that needs improvement.

We initially deployed on the AWS cloud because AWS also offers us additional security benefits and most of our other solutions were already on AWS. However, I think Veracode could develop a self-contained cloud system, allowing them to deploy the solution on their own system. This would be beneficial for us as they could provide the data privacy we require. It would be great because each new update on the security process necessitates a slight change in the program.

The reporting features could be subcategorized if the bugs are categorized and subcategorized according to our requirements rather than the understanding of the security system. This would be beneficial because whenever we need to integrate or resolve a bug, it is crucial for us to identify the vulnerable parts of our code. This process requires additional time and effort. Moreover, it is often challenging for us to comprehend the specific changes the system expects from us.

I have been using Veracode for two years.

The stability of Veracode, in my opinion, was not very reliable considering the need to consider false positive readings. We had to invest a significant amount of time rectifying or addressing those inaccurate queries, which made it a less-than-ideal solution.

I believe the solution is scalable. I remember a time when we were working with four clients in total. Even though our agreement with Veracode was not to exceed three projects, we were able to manage that, and everything went smoothly. They were even able to implement registration. This probably occurred due to significant delays in one of our projects. I was able to onboard the next client, which means we were working with four clients at that time.

The technical support team is knowledgeable. In the initial stages, when our team lacked the technical capability to perform manual configurations on our own, they assisted us with that. Overall, the experience was satisfactory. Nothing extraordinary, but it was good.

Positive

The initial setup was fairly straightforward, although it did take us some time. Our team lacked the necessary technical capabilities since it was a new endeavor. Before Veracode, our company didn't have any other security measures in place. Since it was a new concept, our employees also had a technical knowledge gap, which required some time for learning. However, the deployment process, on the whole, wasn't overly technical. It was done in two or three stages. The first stage involved initial queue meetings to understand the configurations we were using for deploying the code. The subsequent meetings focused on understanding the features we desired, how they would be implemented, and accessed, and their frequencies. Following that, the tech team took over and handled the deployment for us.

Six engineers were involved in the deployment, although the entire working team comprised twenty-two people.

The implementation was completed in-house.

It is quite challenging to calculate ROI. However, I can confidently state that over the course of two years, we did not experience a single security breach. Furthermore, we ensured that our solutions were free from any vulnerabilities when delivering them to our clients. As a result, we established a positive reputation with our clients, as evidenced by the certification from Veracode, confirming the absence of vulnerabilities in our overall feature or code deployment. In summary, we maintained a flawless record of zero security breaches. Despite the difficulty in conducting a cost-benefit analysis, it remains an essential task.

I believe the price is fair according to market standards. However, if we are anticipating a growth phase in the enterprise, it might be a bit costly for us. On the other hand, if we are currently making profits and aiming to stabilize ourselves while improving our solutions and working with our existing team, it suited us well during that period. We were focused on developing the final product, refining protocols, and enhancing overall product development processes for our brands. Therefore, I believe it was a good fit for us. However, organizations that are in a growth phase may want to consider other options, even if it means compromising slightly on the security aspect.

We previously evaluated other solutions. One of the primary reasons for choosing Veracode was the ability to configure it at a deeper level, which was not possible with the other solutions. Another advantage was that the other solutions did not offer a six-month trial period, unlike Veracode. We initially had a trial for six months, which was later extended to one and a half years. Therefore, pricing became the third factor. However, even at the end of the two-year subscription, we were unable to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis. This seems to be a common situation in the industry. Without experiencing a breach, it is difficult to assess the cost-effectiveness of a solution.

I give Veracode a nine out of ten. I believe that, in general, Veracode is a good product. False positives and these types of issues can be found in almost every security product out there. The best part was Veracode's technical team. They were proficient in their knowledge and there was never a moment of misunderstanding between our team and theirs. Overall, Veracode ensured that we did not encounter any ransomware or security breaches at any point in time.

Our DevSecOps team was involved in two stages of the entire process. The first stage was during the initial design phase of the specific application build. We had to determine when and where we wanted to manually interpret using the tool, as well as identify potential security breaches that required close monitoring. This was the initial step. Following that, our team proceeded with development, which typically progressed smoothly in collaboration with the client for a period of two to three weeks. As we approached the deployment phase, we would once again discuss with their team to determine specific points where DevSecOps would manually deploy the solution for testing purposes. Afterward, we would assess the solution from our end.

The false positive rate did not have a negative effect on the confidence of our development team. It was made very clear to us by Veracode's support team, as well as through other reviews and conversations with clients, that there would be a possibility of false positives being raised. We had to go through them because we cannot afford to miss out on any potential security breach.

I don't believe Veracode has helped us save time. Overall, if we consider the larger context, saving time was not a direct expectation communicated by Veracode. Their expectation was solely to prevent any security breaches. Regarding time-saving, I don't think Veracode has provided any assistance in that aspect.

At the end of the day, we were essentially thinking of transitioning to a new solution, primarily due to the high number of false positives we were receiving from Veracode, we conducted a cost-and-benefit analysis specifically for Veracode. We discovered that, overall, it prevented our solution from being breached for more than six clients. Considering our annual client turnover rate is approximately twelve to thirteen, Veracode played a significant role in addressing a substantial portion of our challenges.

I recommend negotiating with Veracode for a free trial period. We frequently engage in negotiations to secure a six-month trial. A trial will assist in comprehending the intricacies. While there are benefits, it is important to note that the time required for each project will naturally increase. It is crucial to understand how Veracode operates and determine if it aligns with the company's needs. However, regarding pricing, I am confident that Veracode delivers as requested.

Veracode functions solely within the development department, but within the department itself, we have a division based on the two types of clients we deal with. One type is primarily focused on development, while the other is focused on procuring or conducting quantitative analysis for the markets.

For general everyday maintenance, only two people are involved. However, for monthly maintenance, approximately six people from our end are involved, and I am unsure of the number of people from Veracode's end.

I would advise speaking with other clients like us who have already used Veracode. Prior to that, however, we need to understand what kind of security breaches are possible in our solution and determine how much of our money and time we want to allocate to addressing them. We should assess the importance of these breaches to us. Once we have this understanding, we can discuss with other clients how the overall process went and how much time it actually takes. The final step would be to directly contact their team and negotiate for a longer trial period. The best decision we made was to initiate a six-month trial with Veracode and then transition to full-time usage.

We use Veracode for static code analysis, dynamic code analysis, and software composition analysis. In our organization, we have a bunch of applications that are running on a monorepo or microservice level. We have to do SAST on those applications so that we have a code review done on a bit level. 

Going forward through the application pipeline, we do it on the dynamic level, as well, where we are scanning the public URLs of those applications to see what people can see externally. It's a type of out-to-in scanning in which we are analyzing the traffic that is sent out and even the traffic that is coming in, the response and request headers of the URLs, whenever someone is at a single URL. 

Finally, for the software composition, Veracode uses a third-party analysis tool in which it has the libraries and the functions that are being used at a source code level. They are open source or dependent files that are used for building that in-house application.

As a company, we have moved from using contractors and third-party consulting companies to creating our software through more of an in-house model. We are moving more into the DevOps realm with more of our own teams developing our software. Veracode fits that DevSecOps ideology. It is definitely helping us build more secure software than we previously had.

We have a bunch of applications into which we have integrated Veracode and we have seen that, in the final phase of production delivery, there are fewer vulnerabilities than we used to have.

And because Veracode has remediation and tracking within the platform, it becomes a good single pane of glass where the developers and the security professionals can operate and govern the flaws in the software. And they can take the necessary steps to remediate them.

In the metrics that we generate every month, we have seen the numbers go up with respect to remediation as well as the number of flaws that we catch. The word is spreading, and more and more application teams are using the static code analysis tool inside their pipelines. Overall, we are moving from reactive mode to proactive mode in remediating vulnerabilities through Veracode.

Veracode also helps our developers save time, in the big picture, compared to a situation without Veracode. Let's say there is an application on which no static analysis was done and the audit team says, "Hey, you don't have any static code analysis in your pipelines. You need to do something about that." They could scan the code that is already running in production and find flaws, but those flaws would take a lot more effort, time, and resources to mitigate compared to if they had been detected in a static analysis prior to the code going into production. In that way, it has definitely saved time. But if we are talking about short-term planning for sprints, it takes a little more time than usual because security is coming into the picture, as well. But overall, it helps save time.

Our security posture has gotten better since 2020. It takes time to do the integration of the platform and educate people about how to use Veracode, and then move on to remediating and validating things. But the journey that we had with Veracode has definitely helped us a lot, overall, with respect to bettering our security posture.

The static analysis is the most valuable aspect for us.

It also has the ability to block a build. In pipeline scanning, there is a configuration that can be set with respect to the security level of the flaw. If there is a high or a critical issue, there's a way the build can be failed and blocked before going into production. But the best case that I have found for blocking builds is in the staging area. You don't really want any blocking done on the production environment because there are business SLAs that the enterprise has to fulfill. The best case would be blocking the builds in the staging phase, the pre-production environment, so that everything is taken care of before it is pushed to production.

There are three integration points for Veracode. One is the IDE plugin. Whenever a developer is writing code on their IDE platform plugin for Veracode—whether IntelliJ or Visual Studio, et cetera—it tells them if that piece of code has any vulnerabilities and if there is a better way to write the code.

The next point is the pipeline integration in which, whenever a build is getting pushed from a standalone branch to the main branch, a scan is done on that commit to see if there are any vulnerabilities.

Finally, when the build is published with the whole module, it can do another scan, as well. These three scans have their own pros and cons. The policy scan, which is a build scan, does the scanning on an overall basis with regard to the different standards out there, like OS and Spin5. It scans the first-party and third-party code, which is the most holistic scan that there can be. But the point is that it scans at three different integration points or stages, so it helps developers to remediate their vulnerabilities before they have moved far in the pipeline. Shift-left is definitely possible through Veracode.

Veracode's false positive rate is a little toward the higher side. We understand that Veracode doesn't have the business context. I advocate that people look at their code, even though there is a vulnerability, to see exactly what it is. For example, a randomize function is being used to create an ID that is not being hashed. Veracode marks it as a false positive because it doesn't know if the ID is being used for cookie generation or some random ID in the log generator. We, as dev or sec people, have to go in there and analyze what the ID is being used for. But the false positive rate is definitely a little bit on the higher side.

The effect of the false positive rate on developers' confidence in the solution depends on the maturity level of that particular application team with respect to learning Veracode. In the initial stages, obviously, when developers see that, whenever they're writing code or pushing a build, there are a bunch of vulnerabilities, it may affect their confidence. But a couple of months or a couple of quarters down the line, when those same developers have already used Veracode and have raised their maturity level from one to at least three, it doesn't really affect them because they know that they have to go in there and check the vulnerabilities for themselves to determine if it's a false positive or a real vulnerability.

It has definitely taken a little more time to validate the false positives, but I would say there are a lot of true positives, as well, which have been remediated and which have been mitigated for the betterment of the security posture. But it has definitely taken a little more time to mark or validate those positives. Hence, I definitely advocate that people shift a little more to the left. They should do ID and pipeline scanning before they hit policy scanning because, with ID and pipeline scanning, you scan small chunks of code. You remediate that code faster, before it goes to the whole package and there's a bunch that you have to deal with.

Also, container security is slowly becoming a prevalent part of the development realm. Veracode's SAST, DAST, and SCA are pretty good with respect to industry standards, but with regard to container security, they are in either beta or alpha testing. They need to get that particular feature up and running so that they take care of the container security part.

In addition, there is a new concept out there, the IAST, which is interactive assessment security testing. It is a little more proactive than SAST. So if Veracode can combine that feature with their current technology, they would definitely be a front-runner again for the next five to six years.

I've been using Veracode for the last three and a half years.

Once or twice a month there is maintenance on the Veracode side because they're updating some signature in their database or something else. I have seen maintenance coming up, but it's not an issue because the pipelines and integrations that we are running keep on running in the background. It's just the GUI that we are not able to access at that particular time.

It's pretty scalable if our enterprise has the licenses for scaling the applications. I haven't faced any issues with regard to scalability, apart from licensing, of course.

We have contacted Veracode's tech support a bunch of times. The only downside is the time needed to schedule a consultation call with the pro services team, keeping in mind that enterprises need to buy pro services licenses before they can use it.

When someone is scheduling a meeting with them, the issue type should be as precise as possible. In that way, they can rope in the exact SME for that particular topic, because in the development realm there are so many languages and so many types of issues out there. There are different personnel for each of those categories. So the more precise the details are for the meeting, the better the SME will be for that particular consultation.

Positive

We have only used Veracode, right from the start.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. They have a SaaS solution and there are a bunch of API integrations that made it pretty straightforward.

As for maintenance, all the upgrades and updates are done on Veracode's side. But there is a wrapper. When we are doing the integration, there is a package that we use to upload the files in Veracode. Sometimes there is a new release for that package and we have to update it in the GitLab repo. That's the only maintenance we need to do.

They have made it worth the price with the kind of discount and the kinds of modifications they made for us with regard to licensing. Previously, it was per profile. But they have adjusted according to our requirements because we are a big company and we handle a lot of applications. There's a tiered discount that they have provided us, so the cost is justified.

If someone looking at Veracode is concerned about the price, it depends on their requirements. I wouldn't really recommend Veracode for a small firm, because it might be a little pricey for them. But for a large organization, with more than 1,000 applications in the enterprise, there are tiered levels of pricing. Obviously, there are other cutting-edge solutions that have become available recently, but Veracode is something that a big organization should look at.

When it comes to managing risks, we use the remediation feature that Veracode has. Whenever there is a flaw, we do have tickets open up for it and the application owner or the developer goes through the vulnerabilities. There are times when the vulnerability is a false positive and you can mark it as such within the Veracode platform itself. And we, as security professionals, do the validation for whether the business justification is good or not. And we either have a source code review for the vulnerability or have an exception open up for the remediation step that the application or the owner is asking for. We do risks via the platform, as well as through the ticketing tool that we use.

We are also using SBOM (Software Bill of Materials) for inventing all the different kinds of modules and libraries that we are using for an application. Using the SBOM feature, you would have to leverage the API to get the inventory from the API calls that Veracode has. But in our organization, we use the GUI report generation more than the SBOM report because there is an executive summary in the GUI report with regard to first-party and third-party flaws. It also has the mitigation steps. SBOM would only give you the list of softwares, libraries, and versions that are being used. It is not as detailed as the GUI report that Veracode provides.

Things to consider when looking at Veracode include the different integration points where you want to integrate Veracode, how big your organization is, and how many applications you want to do security analysis on. If it's a big organization, Veracode is obviously a solution to evaluate, but for a small organization, below 500 apps, it might be a little pricey. Also, you will need a couple of Veracode champions on your team who know it inside out. You will need training provided by Veracode, so make sure that is included during the procurement stage. That will help you implement the tool within your organization faster and much more efficiently.

I would have given Veracode a nine out of 10 a couple of years back, but given the tools that are coming out on the market, and the scope of development, which is increasing, I would place it at eight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have been using Veracode Greenlight for the IDE scanning. 

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

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

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

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

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

Veracode is good in terms of giving feedback.

We would like to see fewer false positives. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their account team is helpful and knowledgeable.

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

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

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

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

Customer support was amazing during the evaluation phase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We use Veracode for static and dynamic application security testing (SAST and DAST) on our web applications to ensure there are no vulnerabilities.

So, my use case for Veracode is pretty much for DAST and SAST protection. I'm a pen tester and DevSecOps engineer. I evaluate the vulnerabilities and mark them as false positives if needed. I also manually exploit them. If we're unable to understand something, we raise a ticket to the Veracode team and get consultancy from them.   

So we are developing an application named Euro Car Parts, Car Parts 4 Less. It is an application which consists of multiple car parts and vehicle parts and everything. We are dependent on Veracode for that application, so it is quite helpful. 

As threats are increasing day by day. There are new vulnerabilities that come up these days, and applications get compromised. Veracode quite helps us with the latest security configurations, OWASP standards, and SAST standards. So it is really helping us and improving our security posture with each upgrade, each scan.

It's robustness is the main benefit to the organization. As it gets upgraded with time, it also improves the coverage – security configuration coverages and vulnerability coverages. It also updates itself with the latest known vulnerabilities that are uploaded to the NVD, OWASP, or other databases. So it gets upgraded itself with that. And so with each upgrade, it gets better and better.

The solution offers the ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production.

It provides us with a report containing multiple remediations and mitigations for each vulnerability. For example, if it finds a cross-site scripting vulnerability, it will also include references like CWE and CVE records, instructions on how to fix it, and the specific line of code or module where the vulnerability is present. This helps us fix the issues accordingly.

I'm a penetration tester and DevSecOps engineer. I evaluate the findings, mark false positives, and manually exploit vulnerabilities if they exist. If we need further clarification, we raise a ticket with the Veracode team and get consultancy from them.

We are a software development team. If we find a vulnerability, I exploit it and come back with the best possible mitigation, and the dev team fixes it. If we use Veracode Fix, it might use third-party implementations or make changes we aren't aware of. We need to be very aware of what our application is using internally. It should be known to us.

As per my experience, the solution's policy reporting ensures compliance with industry standards. It comes with multiple features. I get the most out of it, and it's good.

The solution provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. Like static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition, and manual penetration tests - throughout the SDLC

We have a pipeline that I maintain. I use the Veracode API account and have integrated it with AWS and our Jenkins pipeline. We use Snyk for SCA and Veracode for SAST scanning. 

At the earliest stage of the build, the SAST scan runs along with the JS and PHP files. It provides us with reports, which are then handed over to the other tools we depend on. If I validate the report or check the Veracode dashboard and find vulnerabilities, I mark them as false positives or existing issues.

We work on multiple projects, but the one I'm handling these days only uses Veracode for SAST. It's been about one and a half years since I've been working with Veracode and this project. It is quite impressive. 

There are some things Veracode cannot find, like code obfuscations inside the code and some insecure randoms. Sometimes, it misses those flaws. But overall, if I compare it with other tools, it is better. I will definitely recommend others to use this tool.

We run the scan before each deployment. If the dev team builds a new module or something, we scan it along with all the files. If we find anything, we get it fixed. That's how it works.

Veracode is quite important to the organization's shift-left security strategy because we make a scan for each deployment. Sometimes, if I think we need to perform a shift-left, I just make a scan before deployment and check for any misconfiguration or vulnerability in the code.

Before deployment, we upload our JavaScript and PHP files to Veracode for static analysis. It returns a report with multiple vulnerabilities or security misconfigurations. We then correct them to ensure they don't exist on our production server.

The key point of Veracode is that it's an all-in-one solution. It has all the logs, features, and reports in one place. Compared to other tools where you need to access different platforms and modules to check results and scan reports, Veracode provides everything in a centralized location. That's what I like about Veracode.

There is room for improvement in Veracode's plugin, its API plugin. I think that API or we need to install some Java .jar file for that. This is the main challenge I have faced because it gets very hectic while integrating it with our pipelines. But it is working fine now. It is not a very big deal, but this area should be improved.

I have been one and a half years, like, 15 to 16 months.

It is a stable solution. The stability is good, so I would rate it a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable product. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

Each time I raise a ticket regarding something, they are very quick about the responses and get connected instantly, like, right after one day. They reply very fast.

So, the customer service and support are good. Last month, I had a call with two consultants regarding some vulnerabilities. There were some issues where code was reported as a cross-site scripting, but that was from a library we were using. I tried to exploit them manually, but it didn't reflect any cross-site scripting issues. They came back with the solution real quick. They just wanted us to remove an attribute we had used inside. We got that removed, and it got fixed. It is working fine now. So, no issues. It is quite fast. I don't have any complaints.

Positive

Earlier, I used tools like Snyk, Fortify, and Checkmarx. Each tool has its own pros and cons. 

Veracode is a bit slow compared to Snyk and other tools in the market. 

But the best thing about Veracode is that you can get everything in one place. You don't need to switch between different domains, tabs, or profiles. 

Everything you want is on the same spot, on the same page. So, it is very easy to compare and check things out.

There's no different approach because every tool runs a scan, gets back to us with reports, and we validate them. We get the mitigation, check the responses, and check the actual line of code or security misconfiguration that needs fixing. The approach remains the same. I will try to exploit it manually, determine if it is a false positive or an existing issue. Then we give a green flag, and it moves ahead to deployment.

The deployment is complex. There are multiple things we need to check before getting our application to deploy.

So, the setup's complexity could be improved or simplified, in my opinion.

The scan doesn't take that much time to complete. You just need to sync it with your application and the scan. You just need to make the configuration and use the API into AWS or Jenkins pipeline. So, it will take five to six hours to integrate, not more than that. But with the tests, to make sure that it is working fine with the deployment and all, it takes one day.

The solution doesn't require any maintenance; at least I didn't face anything. I just wait for the upgrade. It gets upgraded with the latest known vulnerabilities, and it gets better and improved. 

There are three teams on board: the dev team, another dev team, and the QA team. It consists of about eighteen people.

It saves us around 30% of the time.  It is worth the investment because security must be the first step when developing an application. You use someone's data, especially if you work with e-commerce, banking, health, or welfare applications. You need to be very aware and secure about it. 

Each user's data must be protected, and their privacy should not be compromised. So, it is very important to maintain the security configurations and ensure there are no vulnerabilities. I believe it is worth the investment.

It works quite well as per market standards. The other tools also charge the same, whether it's SAST or other security tools. They are quite similar.

I would recommend others to use it because it is very robust and has everything in one place. You don't need to move to any different apps or domains, or different platforms to get things done. You will get the mitigation, you will get the vulnerabilities, you will get everything at one place on the dashboard. So I will definitely recommend it. 

It is not as fast as Snyk, but it is scalable, and it has more coverage, I think, compared to Snyk because it gets back to us with vulnerabilities that Snyk cannot find. So, I will recommend it to my friends. 

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

In my previous company, we had a healthcare app. We used Veracode to run a spontaneous static analysis as well as dynamic analysis, to resolve our vulnerabilities. We were releasing versions every month. Each month we were looking at the results of Veracode and fixing the problems.

It helps fix a lot of flaws and bugs. As a developer, you look at things with a different perspective with the Veracode results. You can see that certain things can be implemented in another way, how they can be more secure. As a result, it helps improve your level of understanding and decrease the number of production issues.

Using Veracode, it was very interesting to see the difference when I compared things over a three-month timeline. During the initial three months, when I started using Veracode, I found the percentage rate of flaws was around 60 to 70 percent in the entire file we were uploading. After using Veracode over the next three months, our score decreased to a 30 to 40 percent flaw rate. We were able to do our quarterly development in a very secure way.

For example, we recently encountered a flaw that might be exploited. We implemented a function to store passwords that were encrypted. That functionality was written in a pretty vulnerable manner. By looking at the code, we could see, "Okay, this might be exploited." But when Veracode pointed out multiple times, "This might be vulnerable," and "This might be vulnerable," it helped us improve our developer standards. It gave us a brief idea of how this particular code implementation could be improved.

There is also a feature called Veracode Pipeline Scan which provides instantaneous feedback. That was a major addition to our process and has worked out very well. Developers get instant feedback about their flaws, making them easy to fix while in pre-production. That is one of the major boosts that we have implemented. It enables our developers to fix things in parallel, and that has saved time, about 20 to 25 percent, and resulted in better coding. As a security guy, I can see the differences between the initial processes and the processes we have six to eight months after implementing Veracode Pipeline Scan and Veracode in general. 

Overall, it has reduced the time that we used to spend working manually to pinpoint the issues that we found. Veracode makes it an automated process. Also, we can use it in parallel. If Veracode is the main "hub," we can have "sub-hubs" such as static analysis and Veracode Pipeline Scans. Both can be done simultaneously, reducing the manpower required by a lot, and providing correct results. And it has improved our understanding of the different kinds of flaws and vulnerabilities that are in the report. Veracode, as a tool, has made things better.

In terms of security posture, when I had just joined my previous organization, there was a meeting about client feedback. Initially, their comments were that things were not very stable. They said it was easy to steal data. After using Veracode, and as our developers adapted the tool and developed secure code, the client's feedback was that things were pretty stable and good. At first, the feedback was very ruthless. We were not up to security standards. But once we started using Veracode, it became the main pillar of our security. We overcame certain challenges and the client feedback was pretty good.

It yields around 90 percent accurate results. It pinpoints the errors. Its accuracy is very interesting. It also elaborates on flaws, meaning it provides you with details about what is valid or not and how something can be fixed.

Another valuable feature is in the dynamic analysis, which provides information on which libraries are outdated so that we can improve them and get them up to date. We found a lot of outdated libraries in use in our organization. As a result, it has improved our stability. The software composition analysis keeps you updated on each kind of data it reports on, including libraries and third-party DLLs.

There is a sandbox limit of 10 so any company using Veracode needs to plan for only having those 10 sandboxes. If they increased that to 25 or 30, the scan time would decrease and the results should be more effective.

There is also a size limit of 100 MB so we cannot upload files that are larger than that. That could be improved. 

Also, the duration of the scan is a bit too long.

I used Veracode in my previous company but recently changed to a new company. Overall, I have used it for around 1.5 years.

Its stability is fine. On a scale of one to 10, I would give it a seven for stability.

It's a scalable solution.

We have it implemented in two offices, the main office in the US and a single office in India. There are only 10 to 12 people using it in our organization, meaning in India. I am not aware of how many users there are in the US.

Their support team needs to respond in less time. It takes a lot of time for them to respond. When we reach out, we are waiting, most of the time, for two or three weeks to get a reply from them. That is the one major piece of feedback I have for Veracode.

Their technical support is very good, except for the response time. When we are stuck with something technical, they explain how to use it in multiple ways. They are supportive and that is pretty good.

Neutral

We were using a couple of other tools along with Veracode. One was SonarQube and the other was Acunetix.

The false positive rate is pretty low. When I started using Veracode, there were a lot of false positives, but that number became notably smaller. There are some false positives because new types of flaws are generated for each new version.

Initially, in general, whenever you see any kind of false positives or true negatives, it reduces your confidence. But whenever the reports are generated by Veracode, as developers we can understand that they show certain patterns of what might be a false positive. So we get an idea that this kind of a flaw might be a false positive while this kind might not be a false positive. We get clarity about the reports sent by Veracode. At a certain point, we might be sure that we can explain all the false positive data to management so that they can look into them and understand: If this kind of data or this kind of code flaw comes up, it is a false positive. We can easily associate these scenarios with false positives because they are normal and common.

During the initial phase, false positives affect our time because we can't deduce any conclusions. Static analysis is the kind of process in which you will encounter false positives in certain cases. But after a couple of implementations of machine learning, the results should be pretty accurate and the false positives should decrease.

Preventive maintenance is critical. Per my experience with Veracode, there are certain maintenance issues, but they are the normal types of things.

I would highly recommend Veracode, but initially, don't do a deep dive into the tool. Take a couple of licenses to start adapting to the tool and work out how it works and whether it's suitable for your development processes and developers, and get their feedback. I highly recommend it because it's a real time-saver, provides stability, and improves your organization's productivity.

We use Veracode for application scanning.

Veracode is able to prevent vulnerable code from going into production.

Veracode has helped us to identify the vulnerable code in our applications before we put them into production.

The solution allows us to ensure compliance with standards and regulations.

Veracode provides visibility into the application status at every phase of development which makes it easier for our DevSecOps to do their jobs.

I give a nine out of ten for Veracode's ability to identify false positives. The false positive rate has increased our developer's confidence.

Veracode has enhanced our capability to address flaws by identifying bugs that may not have been detected through static analysis data.

Veracode has had a positive impact on our organization by providing us with greater insight into our data.

Veracode helps our developers save approximately ten percent of their time by detecting code issues and enabling them to promptly fix bugs before releasing the information into production.

Veracode helps secure our private data which improves our overall security posture.

Being able to scan our applications and identify all codes and defects is an extremely valuable feature.

Scanning large amounts of code can be a time-consuming process and there is scope for improvement.

I have been using the solution for nine months.

Veracode is stable.

Veracode is scalable. We have between 300 to 500 users.

The technical support is responsive.

Positive

We previously used some open source solutions and the management teams decided to switch over to Veracode.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have Veracode deployed in multiple locations.

Maintenance is only required when updating the solution.

You should evaluate multiple solutions, but I suggest considering Veracode if it aligns with the organization's requirements.

We're a blockchain-focused company specializing in data, visualization of finance applications. So our main motivation was to use the solution for the defense of finance applications. 

We use it for security and the integrity of data. It helps us with the dynamic analysis of code to help prevent potential exploits. We are able to check for vulnerabilities before and after our products have been published. It's a very secure and reliable solution. 

It's helped us with organizational success by increasing our security success. It's helping us to optimize performance and enhance efficiency. The user experience has been very good. It's helped us to streamline our CI/CD pipeline. It's also helped provide our team with actionable insights. It helps us deliver a robust, efficient, high-performance product.

It's good at identifying security issues. It can pinpoint issues very effectively. 

The solution helps us build and maintain trust between users and partners.

It's specifically designed to be customizable. We can maintain robust and secure code.

We can easily identify vulnerabilities. Many others, like Microsoft, aren't able to catch certain vulnerabilities. This is much more effective.

I use a variety of features in the solution. Many can be integrated with various software tools. There are good scanning capabilities and data analysis features as well. 

We use the software bill of materials feature. It helps us manage our risks. We've seen dramatic changes in our risk posture. The detection of security incidents has increased.  We also have noted a faster time to market for our features by 40%. 

The compliance reporting has been very good. It's very easy. We can do it within a couple of hours. It helps us stay in compliance with standards and regulations. 

The visibility and transparency we get through static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition, analysis, and manual penetration testing through our SDRC are excellent.

The false positive rate is very low. Using this platform, we spend way less time performing investigations. It helps improve our employee's confidence rate in managing the static analysis. We're saving about 50% of our time now that we have fewer false positives.

We are able to efficiently fix flaws. We've mitigated potential vulnerabilities by 50% and reduced incidents by 30%.

It's helped us save time. Most tasks are done with much less time needed.

After implementing the solution, we've seen a much better security posture. The security incidents and associated costs have lowered substantially. 

I'd reduced the cost of DevSecOps in our company by 40% to 50%.

There are various areas that could be improved, including better integration. 

The false positives can be lowered. 

The interface is too complex. The UI needs to be improved. They need to make the learning curve lower. They should include more guidance in terms of usage.

The cost is high for smaller organizations. 

I've been using the solution for six weeks.

It's a very stable solution. I'd rate the stability eight out of ten.

We have not had any issues with scaling. It has a good amount of scalability for enterprises. It appropriately accommodates growing code. 

The technical support is good. They have helped us a lot and their technicians are very knowledgeable. They are responsive and adaptable to our specific needs. They are committed to maintaining high standards. 

Positive

I used to use Fortify before using Veracode. 

Veracode is more mature in its scanning features. It also has better security. It's very easy to use and has good cloud elements. The SaaS model is better as well. It has bigger advantages for a smaller company looking for a more straightforward deployment. The framework and programming language are far better in Veracode compared to Fortify.

The deployment, if it's straightforward, takes around three to four hours. We had two to three people setting up the solution. You would not need more than that. The deployment was pretty straightforward and easy. The implementation process was exceptionally positive. 

They do have dedicated professionals who demonstrate a deep understanding of unique challenges. 

We have witnessed an ROI. We've noted a reduction in incidents, for example, and our company has witnessed a 20% growth in the time we have used it.

There is no maintenance required.  

The pricing is okay for us, however, it can be high for others. it can cost more than $1000 per application which can be a lot for smaller companies. However, it is cheaper than Fortify. While it could be cheaper, it is worth the price. 

I'm a customer.

While the pricing is high, it can improve a company's ROI.

It excels in providing robust vulnerability testing. It's great for app or web development, among other uses. Users need to make the most out of the product by taking advantage of their service and support.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.