Veracode Reviews

We use it primarily for our application security concerns. We use the dynamic, static, and SCA scanning tools. We run our static scans after the code is compiled, and that gets uploaded automatically through our DevOps tool. We have installed an agent in one of our cloud servers that is behind a firewall to run the dynamic scan against the runtime. We run our SCA scans when we do the static scans, which is after compilation.

Prior to using Veracode, we hadn't really looked into security features or thought about security in the same way that we have since we started using Veracode. We were focused on what you hear about in the news, such as making sure that it is HTTPS secured. We hadn't really dug into the nitty gritty of application security and scanning our source code, running it against a runtime environment, and looking at the actual third-party solutions that we integrate or use in our code. Veracode has helped with our mindset as an organization to start thinking about things more securely by design rather than as a reactive measure. We're being more proactive with security.

Veracode's integration with our continuous integration solution is what I've found to be the most valuable feature. It is easy to connect the two and to run scans in an automated way without needing as much manual intervention.

We feel very confident about Veracode's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. Having the stamp of approval helps not only from a marketability standpoint but also from an overall good feeling within the organization that we're doing our part to help keep our code free from vulnerabilities.

This solution provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. It goes from compiling the code all the way to running it in production. It covers all major aspects of the SDLC. We run static scans and SCA scans early on in the process to make sure that we catch any code that is insecure by design. If we are able to catch it earlier on, before it's actually out in the production environment, it reduces costs. The dynamic scans are run further along in our QA process. That is, once we've deployed the code and have it in a runtime environment, we run weekly scans in a dynamic environment against the code runtime to make sure that there aren't any new vulnerabilities that got introduced. We are looking at doing manual penetration testing in 2023, where we would be using a spinoff of the code that was released to the customers to make sure that there aren't any holes through which a nefarious actor could get in and exploit what was built.

Veracode's false-positive rate is low. The few instances when it looked like there were false positives, the issues were found to be either true vulnerabilities or things that were that way by design. If a developer thought that there would be a ton of false positives when using the tool, it would then diminish the value of actually using the tool. Veracode touts itself as being a tool with the lowest false-positive rate in the market. It gives inherent confidence in the tool itself, and developers are more inclined to think that if it found something, it's pretty likely that it is not a false positive. They would then work to prove it wrong rather than discounting it without even looking into it.

We haven't really found many false positives with static analysis, and there hasn't been a significant impact on our time and cost related to tuning, leveraging data, and machine learning.

Continuous integration linking definitely saves a lot of time because it takes away the step where a developer needs to manually upload the code every time to do a scan. It can run in the background, and having the Visual Studio plugin includes it directly in the development environment. If developers do get assigned a bug that they need to fix, they can pull it right up in their development environment and not have to log in to the portal. It will all be right there.

I'm primarily the one who has been involved in DevSecOps, and Veracode has definitely reduced my time. If we had gone with a conglomeration of open-source tools, it would've taken me a ton more time. Whereas with Veracode, all the documentation is out there, and I'm able to integrate everything that I need from a usability standpoint. I don't have to learn a new tool every time I need to integrate a new security scanning option. It has helped me tremendously and has saved me a lot of time.

I do expect large applications with millions of lines of code to take a while, but it would be nice if there was a possibility to be able to have a baseline initial scan. I know that Veracode touts that there are Pipeline Scans that are supposed to take 90 seconds or less, and we've tried to do that ourselves with our ERP application. However, it actually times out after two hours of scanning.

If the static scan itself or another option to run a lower tier scan can be integrated earlier on into our SDLC, it would be great. Right now, it takes so long that we usually leave it till a bit later in the cycle, whereas if it ran faster, we could push it to the time when a developer will be checking in code. That would make us feel a lot more confident that we'd be able to catch things almost instantaneously.

I've been using Veracode for a little over a year now.

I haven't had any stability issues, bugs, or glitches.

The scalability is really good. I recently added to the solution some new applications that I learned about late in the game. There were probably 10 that I had to add in rapid succession and scan as well. It was very quick and painless.

Veracode's technical support is very responsive, and I've heard back within 24 hours regarding a couple of issues I've entered. We have actual consulting calls, which are a scheduled event, and I like the way they handle those as well. I have nothing but good things to say about them and give them a rating of ten out of ten.

Positive

I was involved with the initial setup of Veracode, and it was straightforward. We had a third-party vendor who was evaluating it, so a little bit of the setup was done. However, adding a new application to the tool is easy and self-explanatory. It doesn't take much time at all, and the documentation is out there if we need to look up anything.

We implemented it with the help of a third-party vendor. They had two people on their team who were working on the deployment along with me. My responsibilities included adding all of our software to the tool to run scans against it, integrating it with our DevOps solution, discussing the tool itself with internal stakeholders as to how they can use it and showing programmers how to use the tool from an internal adoption standpoint.

I know that Veracode is a semi-pricey solution. If you are serious about security, I would recommend that you use an open-source option to learn how the scanning process works and then look into Veracode if you want to really step up your game and have an all-in-one solution.

We evaluated a couple of open-source tools such as Snyk and SonarQube against Veracode with the help of a third-party vendor. We didn't use any of those and landed on Veracode because of the Veracode Verified seal. This, along with Veracode being the market leader, gave Veracode an edge over the others.

The main difference between Veracode and the solutions we evaluated is that Veracode is an all-in-one solution. Though an open-source solution would've been more cost-effective, we would've had to use a bunch of different tools. It would have required more knowledge to do the integration piece and would've taken a lot more time and effort. There would have been invisible costs associated with it just by the virtue of time. In comparison, Veracode's dynamic scan, static scan, and software composition analysis are all in one place.

My advice would be to look at the open source tools out there and see how far along you are in your security journey and what your needs are. If you're looking for the best in the market, Veracode is a great option, as far as paid solutions go, because it's a one-stop shop. If you have more time at your disposal and you don't mind integrating some solutions, then I'd recommend an open-source tool. However, if you have the resources, I would definitely recommend going for Veracode.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Veracode at nine.

We use Veracode for static code analysis of our applications in two main ways: reactively and proactively. For the reactive approach, we run automatic scans nightly after developers merge changes from feature branches into the release branch. Proactively, we use the Veracode Greenlight plugin, which checks for vulnerabilities when developers try to commit code, even on feature branches, only allowing commits after passing these checks.

I appreciate Veracode's SAST and SCA features, which help to find open-source vulnerabilities. I'd estimate it's about 98% accurate, though some false positives occasionally exist. Our team has been using it for a long time. 

We sometimes use the free access to the tool's application security consulting team. We reach out to them when we've tried to change our code based on its recommendations but still can't achieve 100% green status. They help us fix issues in real-time through screen sharing and development work.

We saw the tool's benefits long ago when we first implemented it. Security is a top priority for us when working for a bank. We recognized the solution as one of the best tools in the market and decided to integrate it into our pipeline. We set up quality checks in our pipelines so that any code with high or critical vulnerabilities can't even be deployed to the development environment. This proved helpful for our team. Now, we have a quality gate that checks the Veracode status before any code goes into production. If Veracode scanning shows no vulnerabilities, the code can only be deployed to production. We strictly follow this process and have made Veracode an integral part of our Software Development Life Cycle approach.

Veracode has also helped us save time, especially with its proactive approach. The Greenlight plugin works directly in our IDE and is particularly helpful.

The solution should include monthly guidelines, a calendar, or a newsletter highlighting the top vulnerabilities and how to resolve them using Veracode. Its  policies should be up-to-date with NIST standards and OWASP policies.

I think if it could be enhanced with AI capabilities similar to Copilot, it could be even more beneficial in guiding developers and catching potential issues early in the development process. The solution should also come up with docker images. 

I have been using the product for six years. 

The product's support is good. 

Positive

The solution's deployment is easy. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

We have some applications that connect to external providers or provide external services that users can access from the public internet. We are uploading these applications to Veracode to assess the security threats that our code may pose.

Veracode's analytical capabilities are very good, but I'm not sure if they have prevented security vulnerabilities from going into production in our case because we haven't been using them optimally. We're now working on integrating them into our development pipeline so that we can test applications before they're released. This will also allow us to familiarize ourselves with the sandboxes during development. I believe that if we start using Veracode correctly, it will be very beneficial in preventing security vulnerabilities from going live.

The main benefit of Veracode is the software composition analysis because it helped us identify that we were using some libraries with security flaws. This is important because the individual software components are owned by different smaller teams, and all of those teams contribute to one overall large application. Therefore, there is no single person who would be able to take care of all of the third-party libraries that we are using. Veracode analyzing the libraries that we use is therefore beneficial to us.

Veracode's policy reporting for insurance compliance depends on how our organization uses it. I'm not sure if we're using it to the best of our ability because, for example, I discovered that there is a central space where we can run analysis and sandboxes. Based on what the Veracode expert I spoke to told me, policies should be reported from the danger space, but in our organization, we're reporting them from the Prod CI sandbox. This doesn't seem to be a good solution because the overall application is displayed on the main page, which doesn't reflect what our compliance teams think about our applications. Besides that, I think it comes down to how we're using Veracode within our firm. Overall, I think it's great that the firm can configure certain policies to monitor applications, and the flaw report also enables us to see the flaws that need to be fixed to become compliant, which is a good feature. From Veracode's perspective, everything looks fine.

Over the past year, we discovered a severe security flaw in Lot 4j 1.2.15. We initially believed that this version had been replaced with a newer version that does not have the flaw, but our software composition analysis reports revealed that this is not the case. We still have a few binaries that depend on Lot 4j 1.2.15, which is vulnerable. The software composition analysis results prompted us to schedule a replacement with a new version, which is currently underway.

Veracode has helped us fix flaws effectively. Our security teams enforce monitoring and fix deadlines for reported flaws. If a reported flaw cannot be accepted as a false positive, we must fix it promptly to maintain a high success rate.

Veracode has improved our security posture and will continue to do so as we learn to use the solution more effectively.

I like the way the flaws are reported in the system. It is quite clearly visible where the flaw is coming from, and it is possible to upload the code to see exactly which line was identified as a security threat. I also like the software composition analysis that Veracode provides, because we can see third-party libraries that are used in our software and check if there are any known security flaws in those libraries.

There are many false positives, especially one particular type: reported hard-coded passwords in the code. We do not have hard-coded passwords in our code, but we are using third-party libraries that have variables with passwords in their names. For example, a variable might be named "passwordForCommonFixFile" or "passwordForSecurityStore." Veracode's keyword analysis probably assesses these variables as hard-coded passwords. This is problematic because the false positives are coming from third-party libraries, and we cannot easily check the flaws to see if they are false positives. To fix the problem, we have to compile the code, which we should not have to do. We are forced to accept the false positives because we know from the software and system design that there cannot be hard-coded passwords in the third-party libraries we are using. If the libraries were generic, then there would be no chance that they would have hard-coded passwords for the specific services that we are connecting to. To reschedule the scan, we have to go through some bureaucracy. 

Despite the presence of many false positives, we remain confident in Veracode. However, the impact on developer confidence is negative, as it leads to resistance to enforcing certain development processes, including the use of Veracode in the development pipeline. This is understandable, given the complexity of the process required to reschedule the flaw for a single false positive. This process requires approval from the system owner, a senior manager, and the cybersecurity team.

Veracode has increased the work time of our developers because of the false positives.

The area with the most room for improvement is the speed and responsiveness of the query, as it is usually very slow. I am not sure if there is a specific space allocated for us that can cause this, but when I open an application and want to click through multiple scans to see the differences, or if I want to do anything else, everything loads very slowly. This makes it much less user-friendly to play around with the GUI and explore the features.

I have been using Veracode for three months.

Veracode is stable but a bit slow.

I have only one experience with Veracode support, but it was very positive. I used the schedule consultation feature in the GUI, which was very useful. We had some questions about how to correctly upload a code, and I was able to schedule a call with a Veracode expert. The support person who helped me provided me with many insights, answered all of my questions, and even went beyond what I asked to explain how to use the feature and improve our process.

Positive

The initial deployment is complex because our system is huge, consisting of hundreds of different binaries. Dozens of teams contribute to the releases, and as a result, a large number of changes are deployed at the same time. This makes it very easy to break something, and there are many people involved in the process.

The deployment required a core team of five, with some additional people on hand to support if anything went wrong. The maximum time for deployment was one day.

I give Veracode a seven out of ten due to the slow speed and the false positives.

We only use Veracode for static analysis. We do not use the other features at all.

We have infrastructure deployed in multiple locations around the world. In my team, 50 people use Veracode. Across the entire organization, it is used by hundreds, if not thousands, of users.

I advise everyone to use Veracode in their development pipelines, so that scans can run very frequently, at least once during each nightly build. This will ensure that reports and flaws are addressed effectively. From my development perspective, I recommend against enforcing specific rules on using Veracode, giving deadlines to fix flaws, or introducing additional bureaucracy. This can worsen the developer experience and lead to developers finding ways to avoid having flaws reported, such as by decreasing the frequency of scans. In my opinion, the more processes and bureaucracy we add, the less useful Veracode will be. 

Every build running CI/CD on our applications, like Bamboo or Azure DevOps, will be scanned through Veracode SCA first. If its report for the build has a vulnerability or redundancy that is outdated or vulnerable, then that is our use case for our application. We have a lot of applications that need to automate these things, then get the report to the application team. Therefore, the security team needs to check these one by one.

We have a lot of people using Veracode, like the security team and DevOp. Also, the application team checks the Veracode result and updates it necessarily. Since it is integrated into our applications, there are a lot of users.

Our deployment model is on-prem. We deploy it as a JAR file inside our Cloud CMS.

We are using it to fix flaws in the code. Sometimes, we have reports that need to be checked. If it is a false positive, then we need to submit the false positive. However, if it is positive, then we need to fix it and perform a new scan to make sure the vulnerability has been fixed on the latest report.

After scanning, we receive report slides from Veracode. Their reports can help us to see the CVEs that we haven't even heard of and best practices that we can do, e.g., using logging properly, which is helpful. It helps us 50% of the time.

It has increased our security productivity by approximately 30%. It has reduced our development productivity by a bit less, since it sometimes breaks a lot of modules.

Veracode SCA helps us know about vulnerabilities before they go into our environment. This is one of its best benefits.

The most valuable feature is the security and vulnerability part of the solution. It shows medium to high vulnerabilities so we can find them, then upgrade our model before it is too late. It is useful because it automates security. Also, it makes things more efficient. So, there is no need for the security team to scan every time. The application team can update it whenever possible in development. Because we are using the Azure methodology, this helps us make sure that the application team can do it using the proper Azure method. For example, when we are using scrum, the application team can improve this Veracode scan on this scrum methodology. Therefore, if they were going to create a pull request, it would be detected. It would be scanned first before it goes to production or another environment, then they can fix it so we can do development more rapidly.

Our fix rate has increased by 15%. We know that we can update something now or put it in our roadmap to update later on in our application.

The mitigation recommendations are sometimes helpful. Sometimes, they are outdated. Sometimes, there are a lot of false positives inside Veracode. That is something that I already suggested to the Veracode team.

It could have better integration with our pipeline. If we could have better integration with our application pipeline, e.g., Jira, Bamboo, or Azure DevOps, then that will be very helpful. Right now, it is quite hard to integrate the solution into our existing pipeline.

If it has better integration with our DevOps pipeline, then we would use it more. However, at the moment, if the solution can be used for a new project, then we can integrate it. However, if that takes too long, we will integrate other things that are faster.

We have been using the solution for two years and a few months.

The biggest problem is with the false positives. However, it is quite stable for scanning compared to some other applications. That is why we are still using it.

At the moment, it is hard to implement on our pipeline. Therefore, we need better scalability, as it is quite hard to scale it to bigger projects because then the scanning will take a lot more time.

Their technical support is helpful. If we send a message to them, then they respond within the SLA. I would rate the customer service as eight out of 10.

Positive

While Veracode SCA may take some time to scan, it helps to reduce the number of scans that we need to do. Before, we needed to scan manually multiple times. Whereas, with SCA, we can just check one by one, then send it as a batch and scan it again. We used to scan 10 times or so. With this automated system, we now scan on average five or six times.

I know how hard it was for our DevOps to set it up.

The deployment process is different for each application. There are a lot of different things that we need to set for this solution. If we have a standardized system, not only using JAR but also other things, then that would be very helpful and make it easier for us to integrate. Currently, there is a lot of preparation that goes into setting up Veracode for integration with our existing applications.

Depending on the pipeline, it takes about five working days to deploy.

On our team, the solution has been very helpful. For more than two years, it has helped us get a lot of things on our application. It is easier for us to do fixes instead of just doing a pen test every time, then getting everyone to check it. 

It has good, fair licensing. If the price could depend on the scope of its scanning or the languages supported, then that would be better.

It is quite important to have fixed or static costs because it is easier for our financing.

Compared to other solutions, Veracode is more expensive but offers a lot for free.

We also evaluated SonarQube and Snyk in PoCs. We thought SonarQube and Veracode were good. 

We went with Veracode because its processes are very detailed and it supports a lot of languages. Though, compared to other solutions, it is difficult to integrate into the pipeline and can improve on its false positives.

Try all of the features. Make sure that you use the Veracode SCA with different languages since we can see differences between scanning Java, Node.js, or PHP.

For our site, we only use SAST and DAST for penetration testing. Also, the penetration testing for SCA is handled by another vendor since we have a different vendor for this usage. 

It helps indirectly with Webex.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

We are using it for two purposes. The first is to analyze the final binaries in our normal development cycle and the second is for auditing old software.

It's a SaaS solution.

Veracode is able to analyze the final software products. We compile the applications and it's an advantage for us because there are a lot of areas where we don't have the source code. In some companies, only internal development is taking place and they have the source code and everything else for the software. With those companies, there are other tools that we can use. But for use cases where our company buys a product with the source code, but only the final executables or the binaries, only Veracode is able to work on that type of tool. We are working in the financial sector for big bank banks and insurance companies. A lot of times, these types of companies don't have the source code for the applications, only the final applications. This is the biggest advantage of Veracode, that it's able to analyze these types of applications.

We use the scanning process to help our security professionals and developers fix flaws in the code and that helps speed up the development cycle. It helps to "shift-left" all of the security control to the earliest phase of the development cycle. It has sped up the development cycle significantly. An unexpected vulnerability can stop the development pipeline, at least for a little while, and we are able to avoid that.

It has also helped to increase our fix rate by almost 100 percent. In the past, if it turned out that we had vulnerabilities, we had no time to correct them. We went into production with them. Now, we are able to fix everything, 100 percent, in the development cycle.

In terms of best practices, we have the results from Veracode and then we have a Knowledge Base of the types of vulnerabilities and how they should be corrected by our developers.

Another benefit is that it has helped us with certification and audits. We have a lot of automated reports based on the scans and we can show them to the auditors. That has saved us a lot of money and work.

And Veracode SCA has helped to reduce the risk of a security breach because it finds vulnerabilities as early as possible. It has increased our security and development teams’ productivity because, with the automated scanning, we are able to scan much more than previously. It saves us at least one week per development cycle, if not more.

The recommendations from Veracode have improved our efforts in fixing potential vulnerabilities, and not just finding them. That's important for us because fixing is a very expensive process. If you can save time on that, it is a big help. And SCA’s automated, peer, and expert advice have definitely reduced remediation times, saving us at least a week per development cycle.

Overall, SCA has significantly lowered the risk of vulnerabilities. If we didn't identify them before production, and it turned out that there were vulnerabilities, there would be a big risk. We would have to go into production with them or stop the development pipeline. So it lowers the security risk significantly by doing early scanning. It has reduced our risk by at least 60 percent. It definitely helps create secure software. That is 100 percent important because we are working for financial companies.

It's good that it's cloud-based because we don't have to operate a new IT system for security scanning.

It provides a centralized view across all testing types, including SaaS, DAST, SCA, and manual penetration testing. We now have a central place with overall visibility.

In addition, the mitigation recommendations provided by the scanning engine are good. They are not all perfect, but they are good and usable.

There is room for improvement in the speed of the system. Sometimes, the servers are very busy and slow. Also, because we are located in Europe, it would be a big help if they had a European or national service, because of the regulations, not only because of the speed.

Also, the integration with SonarQube is very weak, so we had to implement a custom solution to extend it.

We have been using Veracode Software Composition Analysis for more than two years.

The stability is good. We haven't had any problems.

The scalability issue is a good question because it's not too fast, but it's scalable because it's cloud-based.

We use it for 10 critical applications.

Their technical support staff is skilled. We have been able to solve all of our problems with them. I wouldn't rate them a 10 because sometimes it's time-consuming to get the right guy to answer our questions. But we always get answers to our questions.

Positive

We used SonarQube because the developers liked it. We also used Checkmarx. We switched to Veracode SCA because of the binary scanning ability. Neither Checkmarx nor SonarQube is able to do that.

The initial setup was very easy. Because it's a cloud-based service, we were able to do it without the help of Veracode. We just read the recommendations and followed them. We had three guys involved, two developers and one security guy.

It took three months to implement. Our implementation strategy was to do a pilot and then everybody in the organization copied the reference implementation.

Our return on investment is due to saving a lot of development hours.

It's too expensive for the European market. That is why, in a big bank with 400 applications, we are able to use it for only 10 of them. But the other solutions are also expensive, so it wasn't a differentiator.

The static cost model is not that important. Veracode works on a subscription model, so we have to pay for it every year. 

We chose Veracode's Software Composition Analysis after we evaluated more than 10 products. Among those we evaluated were Checkmarx, Fortify, and SonarQube. The primary differentiator was the binary scanning use case.

Use Veracode for the special use case of binary scanning, because it is the best in this special use case.

Security Labs is very good as well. We are not using it day-to-day, but it's a good feature.

We use Veracode to scan our websites at the beginning of the development process. When we are ready to launch a new application on the website, we upload it to Veracode for scanning. Veracode finds any vulnerabilities in the code and returns the results to us. We must then resolve all of the vulnerabilities and mitigate any risks before we can publish the application. We have also set up recurring scans, so that any time we release a new version of the same application, Veracode will automatically scan it again to ensure that we have not missed any vulnerabilities. We have been using Veracode for six or seven of our websites.

Veracode's ability to prevent vulnerable code from entering production is comprehensive and effective.

Veracode has been very helpful as a preliminary step to launching our products to ensure that they are secure. It has also helped our developers learn the security checkpoints that we need to follow so that they can code with security in mind.

It provides visibility into the status of our applications at every phase of development throughout the software development lifecycle. We heavily use the Veracode Greenlight plugin for Visual Studio to scan and check our code as we write it. Veracode also helps us to develop our applications securely. We have configured our QA websites to be scanned by Veracode so that we do not push anything into production that is insecure.

I recently encountered a Veracode false positive, but we immediately mitigated it on our end. Veracode also filed the case and will include it in their code to mark it as a false positive. We took action after that.

False positives are rare. Veracode provides us with enough information about the issue, so we can usually identify them as we go through the report. We are also learning from the issues and from Veracode itself. If a false positive is reported, it is fine and does not have a significant impact on us.

Veracode has been incorporated into our process, which helps us fix flaws. Whenever we develop external websites, we consider the code, the scanning, and everything else involved. This ensures that we are prepared and have enough time to receive the scan results and fix any issues. We have essentially incorporated this into the lifecycle of our project, which I believe is very valuable.

We like the fact that all the issues are identified and that Veracode provides sufficient information on how to resolve them. This is very helpful if we need to troubleshoot problems ourselves, as we have plenty of information at our disposal. Additionally, we appreciate the option to request a consultation directly from the issue itself. Whenever there is a problem, there is a small button that says "Reach out to a consultant." We can then schedule a call with a consultant who can help us resolve the issue.

Veracode provides us with some usage metrics. These metrics are based on the number of times we use Veracode, which is tied to our static scans. We only use static scans when we make changes to our code, and we have a part of our pipeline that runs the Veracode scan whenever we make a change or deploy the code. However, we don't deploy code very often because we have 20-30 websites in our company and we don't dedicate a lot of time to each individual website. So, when we do make changes, we will run the scan because it's part of the pipeline, but this has been affecting our usage metrics. We're not sure why Veracode's usage metrics are designed this way, but maybe they can provide some insight. We use these metrics, but we're now thinking about getting different metrics from Veracode. I started looking into setting up some dashboards myself so that we can have our own dashboard and statistics, such as how many flaws we've resolved in the past six months or how many issues we've identified when we're deploying a new website. We're more interested in these types of statistics than in how many times we're using Veracode because fixing flaws is the value that we're getting out of Veracode. Maybe setting up a new dashboard would be helpful, but that's something that Veracode can provide clarity or insight on.

I have been using Veracode for four years.

Sometimes, the scans halt or drop for some reason, and we need to get help from Veracode to fix it. However, this is not a major issue.

I opened a support ticket to use Veracode's consultant feature. When the consultant called me, the consultation was very smooth and easy. He had already reviewed the flaw that I had mentioned, my description of the issue, and the issue itself. He was able to provide good insight and help me resolve the issue quickly. I have done this a few times before, and the consultants are always well-prepared and give me all the suggestions I need. They already have a lot of information on their website, but they also go above and beyond by providing additional information and specific instructions when I schedule a consultation call. They have been very helpful in the past.

Positive

The deployment was straightforward. Three people were involved in the deployment.

The implementation was completed in-house.

I would rate Veracode nine out of ten.

Veracode has a bit of a learning curve to get used to its different modules, such as our integrations, APIs, and our policies, as well as getting insights. However, my experience is that once everything is set up and scanned on the website, I really like the process of reviewing the flaws that Veracode lists and responding to the resolution steps that it provides. I also appreciate the ability to set up a consultation call and have the issue resolved. I think these are the steps that I really like, and they are helpful to me as a developer. Veracode helps me to learn about security considerations first and foremost, both while creating an app and after, and that has been a good experience for me.

Our primary uses are for reviews of our code and overall software environment, bug fixes, and detection of security flaws.  

We use the solution across multiple locations and regions, including Asia Pacific, EMEA, and North America. Our user base consists of 5200 individuals. 

The solution has given us real results when it comes to improving our overall security posture; it provides the best security and reports, indicates any flaws that may be present, and allows us to take steps to rectify them. The tool is now a part of our DevSecOps, and we truly rely on it.  

Regarding our ability to fix flaws, Veracode is very helpful; it provides a sense of confidence to our developers and a summary of reports that we can share with stakeholders such as our clients and senior management. The solution identifies security loopholes and gives us detailed feedback reports, allowing us to take action to remedy our security vulnerabilities. 

Veracode helped our developers save time; two or three development team members were previously dedicated to code security. By automating this task using the solution, those developers can reallocate their time to core software development, which is an excellent result. The time saved is in the region of 25%.   

Static Analysis' false positive rate positively affected time and costs related to tuning, leveraging data, and machine learning. Tuning data is essential as it gives us update optimization within our database, which is helpful for any organization. Veracode is the industry leader in being a one-stop shop security solution; it takes care of every aspect.  

The user interface is excellent, the code review process is quick and provides great analytics to understand our code better, and the SAST scan is high-speed.

Veracode is excellent at preventing vulnerable code from going into production; the scans are speedy and give us a detailed analysis of our code. 

We use the Software Bill of Materials feature; it's essential and advantageous. We can't do a bill of materials manually, so it's excellent that Veracode provides this. SBOM helps us manage our risks, as every company has software that needs to be run appropriately throughout the user and client base. It's necessary to have a security audit or security compliance in such applications, and Veracode enables this functionality so we can easily identify security flaws and take measurable action.

Creating a report using the SBOM feature is straightforward, and it's important to our organization because it provides a return on our investment. Previously, we sometimes required a third-party resource to create reports, but with Veracode, it's easier to take care of that on our end.  

The solution's policy reporting allows us to set our standards, group policies, and regulations, so ensuring code compliance is part of its analysis. Veracode notifies us if any flaws are detected, allowing us to take action to correct them.  

The solution provides visibility into application status at every development phase throughout the SDLC; we can use Veracode during the development, design, testing, and implementation phases. We can easily analyze our code before commencing large production deployments and fix any issues.   

Sometimes we get a lot of false positives even after configuring our policies, so that could be improved.

There is an issue where the UI occasionally breaks in between uses of the application, which can be improved. The UI could also be more catchy for the benefit of the less technical users. 

It would be good if the configuration of dynamic scanning could be less complex.

We've been using the solution for over three years. 

The solution is stable. It wasn't before, as different organizations required new group policies and configurations. The product has yet to mature fully but has developed enough to adopt a stable position in the market.

The solution is as scalable as required, but we must pay for that. 

The technical support is good; I rate them nine out of ten.

Positive

We previously used some open-source software, but our developers generally manually performed code-checking. Our requirement is for a solution that takes care of our software code and security throughout the SDLC. Following evaluation, we found Veracode more useful in terms of licensing, pricing, and features.

The initial setup was straightforward; it took seven to ten days, including gathering all requirements, overall deployment, and the final implementation. The deployment team consisted of four to five members. 

The product doesn't require any maintenance; operations and support are primarily handled by Veracode, as it's a fully managed service. 

We have seen an ROI with Veracode regarding time, money, and overall organization reports. Our ROI is in the region of 25-30%.

The solution reduced the cost of our DevSecOps by lowering the headcount for those previously dedicated to security throughout the SDLC. They can now spend more time improving their code base and focusing on development.  

The pricing and licensing are reasonable, and relatively straightforward, and different licensing and subscription models are available.

To someone considering Veracode but concerned about the price, it can be a challenge for small and mid-sized organizations, but it's a good choice for larger enterprises. If security is a primary concern for any organization, they should consider Veracode; they won't be disappointed.  

We evaluated GitLab, Micro Focus, and SonarQube. 

I rate the solution nine out of ten. 

Regarding the tool's false positive rate, the analysis is good but can be affected by data and code not supported by Veracode. In these cases, we can experience some challenges, but other than that, the false positive reporting is good. In cases of unsupported code, developer confidence can be affected, as we know there may be some flaws we can't control. If they are minor enough, we can ignore them.

I advise others considering the product to go with it if it fulfills their requirements. Veracode is a tested name in the market for application security and detecting flawed code. They should evaluate other options if they fit the needs better, but I highly recommend Veracode.

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.