Veracode Reviews

I have manually worked in CI/CD pipelines without Veracode. We could get automatic reports after integrating Veracode plugins into the build tool. The pipeline has become much more automatic by integrating the solution.

The best feature of Veracode is that we can do static and dynamic scans. Veracode performs software composition analysis, and we can use the solution to download different reports like the summarized report. Veracode’s interface is good.

Veracode should include the feature to run multiple scales at a time.

I have been using Veracode for one year.

Veracode is a stable solution, except on one occasion when I faced some issues. I rate Veracode a nine out of ten for stability.

Veracode has good scalability. In our organization, Veracode is used only by our team, which consists of seven members.

We have used the JFrog XRAY tool for SCA (software composition analysis).

Veracode’s initial setup was easy and straightforward.

Implementing Veracode doesn't take much time. It takes only a few hours to implement the solution. Veracode was deployed by a team consisting of two to three members.

I am into DevOps, and we have integrated Veracode into our DevOps pipeline.

I would recommend Veracode to other users.

Overall, I rate Veracode a nine out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do have two pet peeves with the platform.

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

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

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

I've been using Veracode for two years.

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral

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

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

The deployment time was days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Veracode helps to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. They are providing remediation support. They provide a specific solution. If a code has any vulnerability, they provide the snippet of that code. They also provide recommendations. Their support team is very active. If you have any concerns related to the vulnerabilities, they schedule a call and resolve your issues. That is very good.

With Veracode, there are fewer false positives as compared to other tools. It provides genuine vulnerabilities. It is also user-friendly. They are not only sticking to SAST testing. They also have pen testing.

The visibility that Veracode provides is good. They provide a proper dashboard for everything. We have visibility into the application status at every phase of development - Static Analysis, Dynamic Analysis, Software Composition Analysis, and Manual Penetration Test. I am satisfied with it. We have not integrated it with our DevOps pipeline, but it has all the features for easy integration.

Veracode helps us to fix flaws. They provide very good recommendations. It is very easy for a developer to fix the flaws. They provide a specific solution.

Veracode has helped our developers save time. It has been very useful.

In my experience, Veracode is one of the most powerful tools available in the market from a security perspective. It is a market leader in source code analysis.

I am expecting some AI-related features in it. Also, if someone is using AI-generated code, Veracode should be able to detect that.

I have more than 12 years of experience working with Veracode. 

It is stable. There are no unplanned downtimes. If they are going to have downtime because of maintenance or any other reason, they communicate that to you a week before. They not only inform you by email. They also alert you through their portal.

Their support is good. I would rate them a ten out of ten. 

Positive

I work with almost all the tools available in the market. Its competitors are AppScan and Fortify. Synopsys is also there, and Checkmark is also there.

Veracode is the best tool as of now. That is because of the quality of the product and technical support. Veracode supports all the testing options.

Veracode is a leading tool in the market for code security. It is all about the source code review from a security perspective. It identifies the vulnerabilities in the source code. Apart from this, they also provide services for run-time code. If you have your application in production, it can also find vulnerabilities in that. They also support software composition. If your application is using a third-party library, they can identify the vulnerabilities in that.

It is straightforward. It is easy to deploy because it is a cloud-based service. It does not take long.

They are a mature company. They have already worked a lot on all the things. They keep on coming up with new features. Their R&D team is very good.

The ROI is in terms of time savings and security. If an attack happens because of a vulnerability, it costs a company and impacts its reputation. No one should be compromising on security.

As compared to others, it is a costly solution. It is overpriced, and many organizations with a limited budget cannot afford it. That is why they are going for other tools, but those tools are not that effective. Veracode is better in terms of quality. If you want good service, you have to pay for it.

I am working at a consultancy, and I did a PoC with five or six top tools in the market. I found Veracode to be the best in every aspect.

I am currently looking for some AI-powered tools. I am exploring the AI capabilities of various tools.

Overall, I would rate Veracode a nine out of ten. With AI capabilities, it would be a ten.

We use the solution for identifying bugs before deployment in the software-side cycle process.

It can be integrated with our CL and CDProp pipeline, and it can be used with multiple integrations in our Visual Studio Code editor. That's the main use case.

We've saved a lot of time since using Veracode. We've also been able to cut down on costs since we require a lot of penetration tests for testing our software. Veracode helps us drastically reduce these costs. We've cut our costs down by 40%.

The solution provides us with a feature that we can directly use with static and dynamic analysis. With static analysis, we can use it while the app is not running, and with dynamic analysis, we can scan our application while it is running. It provides efficiency and also saves a lot of time for penetration testing and bug testing.

The capabilities of the analysis of the code base can help us effectively detect potential vulnerabilities. This is the most valuable feature we found. It can be integrated with multiple code editors, and it can also be integrated with various CI/CD pipelines.

The dynamic analytics is efficient. It helps us identify bugs while the app is running. We find that this ability is way better than its competitor.

Our impression of the solution's ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production is positive. Prior to Veracode, we used to deploy our apps, and it used to be an expensive process to fix the bugs and all the potential vulnerabilities after deployment. Now, we have access to AI. It has AI tools, which have been trained with a lot of data sets. It helps us to detect bugs and fix them.

We use the free access to VeriCloud's application security consulting team. The consulting team has helped us a lot, and we've had positive experiences with the vendors. It is efficient and very fast. It takes less than two or three days, and they always respond positively. They are really fast at solving our problems. It's important for us to have access to an application security consulting team at no extra cost.

We use Veracode's AI-generated fixes. They make fewer errors and are very accurate. We've had a very positive experience. They've saved approximately seven hours of debugging and error finding versus the manual penetration testing process. 

The solution's policy reporting for insurance compliance with industry standards and regulations is very helpful. It's fast as well. The team helps us at every step of the product life cycle. They provide us with very useful visibility into things like static analysis, composition analysis, and manual penetration. It significantly helps us to reduce the time that we have to manually fix the bugs, and it also provides us with an efficient solution for future cases via past analysis through its data algorithm. We've saved six to eight hours compared to manual fixing.

Veracode has had a positive impact on our organization's ability to fix flaws compared to the prior. It has reduced our costs and time, and it has also provided us with multiple security functions. That, and it's made our application a lot more secure. It really helps our devs free up time due to less debugging needed on their part.

The solution has helped us a lot with our overall security posture. Many security features were fixed prior to release, and we've been able to reduce manpower and employee count. We've reduced teams from six or seven people to two or three. 

The integration capabilities with our existing development tools are very good. The integration process was easy. It has stable APIs.

The solution does take a bit more time when we use it for multiple processes. When we use it for a single process, it takes up less time. The cost also goes up when we use it for multiple processes. 

I have been using the solution for six months.

The solution is very stable. We haven't come across any bugs. 

Our security team of three uses the solution. 

It's great for scaling. We can use it on multiple projects which involve multiple security flows.

Technical support has been very fast and efficient. The team helps us at every phase of the development cycle. 

Positive

We did not use a different solution. Previously, we relied on manual testing. 

We deployed the solution in about three months. We had a team of eight working on the implementation. During the process, I was in charge of, IT was in charge of security, and the AI algorithm.

We don't require any maintenance.

Even after six months, we've seen an ROI. In terms of resources, it's great for cost-cutting. It also generally cuts costs by 40%.

The pricing is moderate for particular processes. However, if we take an entire process in general, it can be costly. It's more economical to use it for single purposes instead of generalizing processes. 

Thanks to its algorithm, Veracode is an on-demand service that can be very cost-effective. With so many features, we no longer require many people to test.  

If they are worried about pricing, people should try out their demo feature, which is available online. That way, they can demo and evaluate how it would work for them. If it works for their team and product, they may find it can optimize their processes. Of course, it depends on the use case. 

I'd advise colleagues considering Veracode to evaluate the specific requirements for their application and do an in-depth analysis. I would recommend it as a product.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

We use it for security, to analyze our code.

It changes the DevSecOps process because we find flaws much earlier in the development life cycle, and we also spot third-party software that we don't allow on developers' machines.

It's bringing clarity to the flaws that we can mitigate, and that's the main purpose. We can have a brisk conversation about the flaws. Not all flaws need to be fixed because there might be other protection measures implemented.

Veracode has increased our level of security to the highest possible standard, so we have been able to be ISO certified and meet Microsoft compliance. We have met many industrial standards from a compliance perspective by having this high level of security and trust in our application. That applies to our platform as well, because the dynamic analysis has opened up vulnerabilities in the platform.

We are using three of the features. Static analysis, dynamic analysis, and the code composition for third parties. We also use their Security Labs for training.

Veracode does a great job of preventing vulnerable code from going into production, and its policy reporting for compliance is also very good. It meets our needs.

And if you use it correctly and bring early feedback into the developers' environment, it provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. But if you only use it as an analysis after the product has been built, then you don't have the whole life cycle. So it really depends on how you integrate Veracode. For us, it gives full insights.

There might be room for improvement in the in-app guidance and the tips and tricks for the developer about how to progress. We would like more insight into the development environment, where they would get guidance on how to avoid flaws.

I have been using Veracode for the last three years.

We use SonarCloud, which does a different type of analysis on the static code but not on the compiled code. It's a different way of detecting security flaws.

I was involved in the deployment of the solution all the way through, from purchase to acquisition and deployment. It involved a lot of new learning. But we had a very good implementation consultant from Veracode assigned to us who made it pretty simple for us. I don't think we could have done it ourselves.

We did a proof-of-value exercise, which included educating two senior developers. The total implementation time was about two months. We focused on one area of our application and got the scanning process up and running and stable. Then we started applying it to more applications.

We only used two people from our organization to complete the work. Then we educated all the developers about using the extension with the EDI. We then found a person who would be responsible on each delivery team who ensures that their application is maintained within our policy level. Each team is responsible for keeping their application within those standards.

We got help directly from Veracode. I would rate their help at eight or nine out of 10. They helped us implement it into our pipelines, daily processes, and software. And they helped us understand how to mitigate the flaws and how to open up consultation hours if there was something we disagreed with, such as false positives. They gave us very good onboarding and implementation.

From a commercial perspective, the impact that the Veracode certification has had on our ability to sell to large enterprises is non-debatable. The return on investment has been met, for sure. It took six months and occurred when we had finished implementing and got the certification.

We haven't really done any price checks on the competitors.

We purchased a Security Labs license to keep our developers trained in new security practices.

Every development company is different. If someone is looking at Veracode but concerned about the price, it probably depends on their technology stack. There are pros and cons for every decision. As a happy customer, I can say that the service level that I have received from Veracode has been high and understandable every time That also counts a lot. And it's not about the software; it's about how we actually utilize the software best.

We had three or four other candidates from the reports that we evaluated from a user review site, but we ended up deciding to use Veracode because it had the best price and match for our technology stack.

At that time, Veracode's advantage was predominantly because it was SaaS-based software, and the implementation team was very supportive in making sure that we got it properly integrated into our processes.

The false-positive rate is constantly maturing. It's very much based on how many respond back. It's learning based on the false positives. My team thinks that it's better to have a false positive many times than miss a real one. The effect on developer confidence in the solution when fixing vulnerabilities is that it sometimes leads to frustration because they find that it's slowing them down, but the way that the engine is constantly maturing means it is becoming better and better.

I don't think any security or quality analysis tool brings speed. But it increases the quality, both from a risk/security and reliability perspective. But if you're looking at productivity, none of these tools bring productivity. They mitigate risk. It has not made our development process faster.