Veracode Reviews

We use Veracode for static analysis of source code as well as some dynamic analysis.

It's valuable to any business that has software developers or that is producing software that consumers use. You have to do some type of application security testing before allowing consumers to use software. Otherwise, it's risky. You could be publishing software with certain security defects, which would open up your company to the likelihood of a class action lawsuit.

I don't have any examples of how it improved the way our company functions. However, I did use a lot of the findings to put pressure on our vendors to try to improve their security postures.

Veracode has helped with developer security training and helped build developer security skills. Developers who get the tickets can go into it and take a look at the remediation advice. They have a lot of published documentation about different types of security issues, documentation that developers can freely get into and read.

The integration with JIRA helps developers see the issues and respond to them.

The most valuable features are that you can do static analysis and dynamic analysis on a scheduled basis and that you can push the findings into JIRA.

Static Analysis Pipeline Scan was able to find security defects in the software we were sending its way. For both Android and iOS that worked very well. It did have a lot of false positives though, but at least we knew it was working. The speed of the pipeline scan was completely reasonable. I don't have any complaints about the time it took.

The efficiency of Veracode is fine when it comes to creating secure software, but it tends to raise a lot of false positives. It will tell you about a lot of issues that might be hard for an attacker to actually manipulate. Because of that it's very difficult, sometimes, to sort through all of the findings and figure out what you actually ought to pay attention to. Maybe calling them false positives isn't entirely accurate. There were a lot of things that it would raise that were accurate, but we just didn't consider them terribly important to address because it would be very hard for an attacker to actually use them to do anything bad. I think it frustrated the engineers at times. 

Also, the policies you have, where you can tune the findings you get, don't allow you not to file tickets about certain findings. It will always report the findings, even if you know you're not that concerned about a library writing to a system log, for example. It will keep raising them, even though you may have a ticket about it. The integration will keep updating the ticket every time the scan runs.

We couldn't make it stop. We tried tuning the policies. We had several meetings with the Veracode team to get their feedback on how we could tune the policies to quiet some of these things down and nothing ever resulted in that. Ultimately we couldn't stop some of these alerts from coming out.

Even stranger, for some of the issues raised, such as the ones that were in the vendor code base, we would put the status in Veracode that we communicated this to the vendor, but then, the next time the scan was run, it would find the same issue. One time it would respect that update and the next time, afterwards, it wouldn't respect it and it would generate the issue again. It was really weird. It was reopening the issues, even though they should have been in a "closed" state.

Another significant area for improvement is that their scanning had a lot of problems over this last year. One of the biggest problems was at first it wasn't able to read packaged Go. When I say packaged Go, I mean packaged the way the Go programming language says you're supposed to package Go to deploy the software, when you're using multiple build modules together to make an app. That's a totally normal thing to do, but Veracode was not able to dig into the packages and the sub-modules and scan all the code. It could only scan top-level code.

Once they fixed that problem, which took them until August, we found that it kept reporting that there were no problems at all in our Go code base. That was even scarier because it would usually give all these false positives on our other repositories. I had the application security engineer write a bunch of known defects into some Go code and push it in there and scan it, and it didn't raise anything with any of that. They're advertising that they have a Go scanner, but it doesn't actually function. If our company was going to continue in business, I would have asked them for a refund on the license for the Go scanner at our next renewal, but since we're going out of business, I'm not renewing.

I would also love to see them make it easier to debug the JIRA integration. Right now, all of the logs that are generated from the JIRA integration are only visible to the Veracode engineering team. If you need to debug this integration, you have to have a live meeting with them while they watch the debug messages. It's utterly ridiculous. Their employees are really nice, and I appreciate that they would go through this trouble with me, but I think it's terrible that we have to bother them to do that.

I have been using Veracode for about a year.

It's highly stable.

It scaled fine. We didn't have any problems with it not being available or going down during our scans. We have used it 100 percent, meaning we've taken advantage of every license we bought.

Their support was really good. I would give them a B+ and maybe an A-. The only thing that's really taking support down is the product itself. You and the support team are fighting against the product. The people at Veracode were great though.

We didn't have a previous solution. 

The initial setup was pretty complex. We had to integrate it with our CI/CD pipeline. This required writing custom code. Once it was integrated there, we had to have the development team make some changes to how they pushed a release to a special branch so it would go to Veracode on a weekly basis. And once it started raising the issues, we had to work on that JIRA-Veracode integration, which was not straightforward at all and required a lot of debugging help from the Veracode engineering team. They provided that and that was great, but ideally it would show you the error messages so that you don't need their help.

The initial deployment took about two or three weeks and then we had to come back and tune it several times, so there were another two to three weeks of tuning. Altogether, it was about six weeks of effort on our part.

Initially, we had one person working on the deployment, and then I started working on it as well. Later, there were four of us working with Veracode during these calls to try to do the policy tuning and figure out if we could make it work better for everyone.

We had six people using the solution: four software engineers and two security engineers.

I'm not sure if we have seen ROI. We didn't have any high-severity security defects being raised by Veracode, and that's just a function of the development team members we had. It helped in protecting ourselves from potential class action lawsuits.

The pricing is really fair compared to a lot of other tools on the market.

It's not like a typical SaaS offering. Let's say you got SaaS software from G Suite. You're going to get Google Docs and Google Drive and Google Sheets, etc. It's going to be the same for everybody. But in Veracode, it's not. You buy a license for specific kinds of scanners. I had two licenses for static analysis scanners and one license for a dynamic analysis scanner. 

I chose Veracode over others because it supported the programming languages we're using. It had the best language support. A lot of the other solutions might have supported one of the languages we're using, but not all of them.

My advice would be to definitely have some code that has a lot of security defects embedded into it and to run it through the scanner to test it early on in the process, ideally during the evaluation process. If your company works in five programming languages, you would want to create some code in each of those languages, code that has a lot of security defects, and then run the scanner over it to just make sure it can catch the security vulnerabilities you need it to catch and that it's consistent with how it raises those vulnerabilities.

Veracode provides guidance for fixing vulnerabilities but that doesn't enable developers to write secure code from the start. The way the product works is it scans code that has already been written and then raises issues about the security problems found in the code. That is the point at which the developer sees the issue and can look at the remediation advice Veracode gives, and the possible training. But it doesn't allow them to write secure code in the first place, unless they really remember everything. It does educate them about it, but it's usually after the fact.

The solution provides policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulation. While those features were not applicable to us, they were in there. I think they would be very useful for anyone working in a high-compliance industry.

It also provides visibility into application status across all testing types, including SAST, DAST, SCA, and manual penetration testing, in a centralized view. If you buy the SAST and DAST license, of course you'll see those scan results inside that view, but to see the pen testing that means you'd have to buy pen testing from them as well. Seeing those testing types in one view didn't really affect our AppSec. It's nice for the security team, but it's just not that important because they weren't in there everyday looking at it. Since we had the JIRA integration, the defects would flow into JIRA. The software engineers would take a look at it and categorize whether it was something they could fix or something that was in a vendor's library. The software engineers would prioritize the things that they could fix, and if it was in a vendor's library, I would batch those up and communicate them to the vendor.

Overall, I would grade Veracode as a "B" when it comes to its ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. It will find everything that's wrong, but it doesn't have enough tuning parameters to make it easier for organizations without compliance burdens to use it more effectively.

Overall, it's pretty solid. I would give it an eight out of 10.

We used it for initial discovery and analysis and for reviewing the product. We were doing a trial. We had uploaded code on the Veracode server for analysis.

We used the cloud service or the cloud website where you could interact and identify the artifacts that you wanted to be reviewed, analyzed, and reported on. There was a plugin that we used with some of our IDs. It probably was Greenlight.

It pointed out some areas to be improved that we were not aware of. That was very helpful because if you don't know that there is a problem, you can't fix it.

The analysis of the vulnerabilities and the results are the most valuable features.

It can have more APIs and capabilities to handle other things well. We were doing a trial for it. There were two things that I looked at: one was uploading some Java-related content and the other was uploading database SQL files and having the review done on the quarterback. 

The Java portion of it worked fine, and it was pretty seamless, but the database portion was not. We uploaded some files to use for vulnerabilities, and the tell-all portion of it was pretty easy. We uploaded a war file and Java files, and we got the reports back on these. They were pretty clear to understand. We did the same thing for the database portion for the most part. However, the content wasn't getting uploaded in a predictable fashion, and it was slow and hard to get done. We had to do it over and over. After it indicated that the content was uploaded, there were no results. There were zero search findings. It was possibly a user error, something that we didn't do correctly, but they had acknowledged that it was something they were currently enhancing. This is something that could be made easier if they haven't already done that. I don't know how many releases they've had in that timeframe. I haven't looked at it since then. It was a trial period.

It seemed fairly stable other than the database portion where the SQL files didn't seem to get uploaded.

I didn't think there would be any concerns. We didn't exercise that. We didn't, in other words, try to upload gazillion artifacts and files. We just uploaded a few just to see how they handle it. It seemed fairly robust.

There were about ten Java and database developers who were using this solution. We were all collectively reviewing it and getting feedback on it.

We didn't use their technical support.

There was no other solution.

I wasn't that involved in the setup. I was basically a reviewer after it was all done.

I don't think there was any in-house work. I think it was just all on their server. We didn't have any equipment or any software per se other than just downloading a plugin or IDE, which essentially did the same sort of code analysis.

Its cost for what we needed it for was too high. It wasn't too high for other companies and it was competitively priced, but for us, it just didn't fit. We did plan to use it and increase the usage. In the end, it may have been abandoned because of the cost, but I'm not a hundred percent sure. So, even though we had planned on using it more and more, because of the cost and the business conditions of things, we didn't have the opportunity to really use it more.

There were a few other solutions we had looked at, but they didn't seem to be as robust. They also didn't have good reviews. That's why we chose this solution.

It is a robust software service for security analysis. It seemed to be pretty full-featured. We didn't exercise every single thing. Just a few of the features didn't seem to be up to snuff for our needs.

I would rate Veracode Manual Penetration Testing an eight out of ten.

We use Veracode to ensure that the software we are building is secure.

The most valuable feature is the dynamic application security testing.

It takes a while to get a response to the software composition analysis. It is within an acceptable range but it could still be improved.

In the future, I would like to see the RASP capability built-in.

We have been using Veracode SCA for three months.

SCA is pretty stable.

Scalability doesn't really apply to a software composition analysis tool.

The technical support is pretty good. When I requested help they contacted me within an hour. I don't have any issues with them.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

In summary, I think that this is a good tool and I recommend it for helping with security in software development.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This was intended to scan all of our custom development efforts to ensure a certain level of (secure) code quality. Right now the scope of that effort is limited to web exposed systems but with maturity, we hope to increase that scope.

The Veracode platform probably hasn't improved our organization overall, although through no fault of theirs. Veracode is just one more tool that generates work for our developers.

The source composition analysis component is great because it gives our developers some comfort in using new libraries.

I think for us the biggest improvement would be to have an indicator when there's something wrong with a scan. For instance, we have CI scans that run automatically, and sometimes the files don't get upload and/or processed by Veracode. Now, there's a static scan that hasn't been completed, which blocks all future scans. The only way we know this is an issue is going into the Web UI, check each application, and look for stalled scans. This is time-consuming and frustrating.

I have been using Veracode for three years.

Our primary use cases are for comprehensive security assessment using static analysis, dynamic analysis, source code composition, and manual penetration tests. We also use it for security training for developers.                         

Veracode is a valuable tool in our secure SDLC process.                                                        

Source code composition analysis for vulnerabilities and license compliance is the most valuable feature.                                                                                                 

It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects.  

I have been using Veracode for one year.

We also evaluated Synopsys.

We primarily use the solution for article scanning.

The article scanning is excellent. 

The composition analysis and common CBEs attached to it are quite good.

The solution offers a lot of really great analysis. There's lots of good data support.

The licensing model could be improved. 

If they can provide an automatic upload model, that would be really good. Right now we have to upload the NK bucket hosting to get through the analysis. That is kind of cumbersome.

The documentation is poor and the technical support isn't helpful.

We've been using the solution for three or four years.

We don't plan on increasing usage. We are a product company. We have three products that are built. All of them go through this solution. We are not a services company. 

We have about 80 people on the solution currently. They are all developers.

We did previously reach out to technical support. When we had to set up all of the automation, we contacted them for assistance. Their documentation is awful and their response time wasn't ideal.

The initial setup was not complex. It was pretty straightforward. However, the integration and automation of the CI cloud was a nightmare. 

Deployment varies. sometimes it takes three months. Sometimes it only takes one hour. The average is one hour, but we have experienced much, much longer deployment times.

I have no idea what the licensing costs on the solution are. Our IT team handles the details.

We were part of the initiation when the company started. They introduced it and we began using the solution. We're just a customer.

For those companies hoping to automate the solution, I would not recommend it. It's too difficult for those heavily dependant on automation. However, for those companies who want to manually use it, I can recommend the solution. In those cases, it's easy to use even if you won't build it as a part of your automation test tools or on any internet server.

I'd rate them eight out of ten. I'd rate them higher, but they have bad automation and terrible documentation. Other than that, they are very good.

I am a consultant and SourceClear is one of the solutions that I use to provide services.

This solution is used by people who want to verify the security of their own applications.

The most valuable feature is the efficiency of the tool in finding vulnerabilities.

A high number of false positives are reported and this should be reduced.

I have been using SourceClear for about a year and a half.

This is a stable solution.

We have no complaints about scalability. We have between 200 and 300 clients.

We have not been in touch with Veracode's technical support.

We have also used Checkmarx, where you can train the tool for false positives and ultimately reduce them.

The initial setup is a little bit complex.

It would be better to have some assistance when implementing this solution.

Overall, SourceClear is working fine for us and our main complaint is in regard to the high number of false positives. Nonetheless, I would recommend Checkmarx over SourceClear.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We used it for performing security checks. We have many Java applications and Android applications. Essentially it was used for checking the security validations for compliance purposes.

Technically there is nothing wrong with Veracode. The only issue that we have here is uploading the code, the process of actually uploading and getting our results back. All of that is a little cumbersome. 

Technically there is nothing wrong with Veracode. The only issue that we have is uploading the code, the process of actually uploading and getting our results back. All of that is a little cumbersome. 

One of the things that we have from a reporting point of view, is that we would love to see a graphical report. If you look through a report for something that has come back from Veracode, it takes a whole lot of time to just go through all the pages of the code to figure out exactly what it says. We know certain areas don’t have the greatest security features but those are usually minor and we don’t want to see those types of notifications. So we would like to see a kind of a graphical representation of the problem areas. I would like to know which file is the biggest source of issues for me so that I can focus on resolving the issue, as a project manager. With how it is now, I am able to do this but I have to take out the whole PDF file and extract it. It takes up a lot of my time. I would like to see better strategic reporting. It would be great to get better graphical reporting.

Stability is very good and there were no issues. I will give it five stars.

It's very good; really very good. I would strongly recommend that. Technically I would be expecting a double concept for Veracode. I would still say this is one of the best products ever on that website. I don't have any issues with the scalability. 

I had no technical issues at all.

The initial setup can be a little complex for people or for organizations that don't have technical skills. Another small thing is that you need to have one person who's fluent and technically knowledgeable to help during the upload process. But otherwise, it's pretty much straightforward. It's not an issue, it's perfect.

I would strongly recommend doing an internal analysis first, before setting it across to Veracode to proceed and to use it more as a final verification point. My point is that Veracode is very good, and I would strongly recommend it. I have seen other solutions on the market and that's why I say: don't waste your time on other products, just get Veracode.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten because of the reporting issues I mentioned that I would like to see improved.