What needs improvement with Veracode Static Analysis?

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.

The usability isn't good in Veracode. Sometimes, it will show a problem, but it's difficult to go into their tool and figure out where it is. You primarily use a web browser to access their system. It requires a lot of clicks. The static analysis is a separate part of their system from the SCA, so that's a bit difficult. They haven't fully integrated that. It's difficult for the consumer.

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

They should provide infrastructure management. They have not included any infrastructure security. Kubernetes images are also not there. Their scanning engine is sometimes a little bit slow. They can improve the scan time.

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.

Veracode should provide more flexibility in its pricing and licensing modules so that it could be more affordable for all types of projects and not only for very active mission-critical projects. With the solution's security audit feature, an enterprise should be able to cover all of its applications with the desktops. Veracode is simply too expensive for that. If you know about the price of a web application, and if you multiply it by 1,000, the return on investment doesn't work. It's okay for one or two projects running very fast, but it doesn't work for all the legacies. So, it's a huge amount of money. There should be some lighter tool that allows you to do some audit scanned one time. Only ten percent of the applications are actively developed. About 90% of the other applications have no projects or budgets, but we are still vulnerable. It is too much if you buy it for all of that.

The scanning takes a lot of time to complete. Veracode offers comprehensive visibility into application security throughout the development lifecycle. However, due to cost constraints, we are not currently utilizing all available analysis types. I would like Veracode to introduce infrastructure as code scanning. Instead of relying on emails, it would be beneficial if Veracode offered a built-in tool for logging and managing issue tickets. Veracode sometimes performs maintenance without notifying clients in advance, which can cause disruption.

Veracode would benefit greatly from more training resources. The videos are great, but I would like more hands-on training writing a script, validating a script with a unit test in a different language, etc. That's something that would be very valuable.

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

The GUI requires significant simplification, as its current complexity creates a steep learning curve for new users. I would like Veracode to introduce more sophisticated AI features.

The scans were sometimes not accurate in version 2022. There were some false positives in the vulnerability reports. We used to get false positives, and we were responsible for checking all of the alerts and determining whether they were true positives or false positives. They might have already improved it. If they have not, they can look into how to mitigate false positives.

I would like Veracode to add more language support. To use the Veracode extensions, we need to create a file in a folder and name it "prevention and filters." It would be more user-friendly if Veracode could automate this process by creating the file automatically when the Greenlight extension is installed. Additionally, a pop-up tool for security could be shown to guide users through the process making it more user-friendly.

False positives are a problem. Sometimes the flow paths are not accurate and don't represent real attack vectors, but this happens with every application that performs static analysis of the code. But it's under control. The number of false positives is not so high that it is unmanageable on our side. Once they are identified, you can mark them as false positives, and they can be accepted by the security project lead. After that, life goes on, and those will no longer be reported. The problem is the time that you spend analyzing a flow to be sure that it is a false positive. Every problem that is reported as a security vulnerability has to be treated with maximum care by the developers. It is good, in the end, when it's a false positive instead of having a real vulnerability. Because we are working on a huge application with lots of dependent sub-projects, there are 9 to 20 data paths. We have to check all of the vectors from all of these paths. If we decide that an attack vector might be susceptible to that attack, we start fixing it. But for the others, the attack vector is not relevant. There is always room for improvement in any product; it's not something related specifically to Veracode. But in the case of Veracode, maybe they could improve the scanner to reduce the number of false positive events so that they remain only with the valid data paths that represent real attack vectors. We understand that this is quite hard to determine by just scanning the code. Also, the UI of Veracode could be improved to permit better visualization of the issues and the grouping of the issues, with better filtering.

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.

It would be ideal if it was able to demonstrate higher levels of cybersecurity certifications like becoming FedRAMP compliant or working in those areas. That way we could use it on higher level contracts. That would be a good business opportunity for the solution.

An area for improvement I found in Veracode is the connectivity because currently, my company uses a plugin for the dev-ops cloud-based connectivity. A pretty helpful feature would be if Veracode gives a direct code for connecting to the Oracle server directly and authenticating it via a unique server. Currently, my organization has to find a roundabout for that and then needs to build a separate pipeline and then connect that pipeline for Veracode to start.

Veracode's long scan time for vulnerable code can hinder productivity. There is room for improvement in this area. Veracode produced a lot of false positives. Veracode's ability to fix flaws is less sophisticated than that of its competitors. For example, Veracode's static analysis scanning workflow for flaws is not as highly developed as Checkmarx's or Snyk's. Veracode would often provide incorrect sources and fail to identify the source of malicious user input coming to the team. The process of bundling binaries or code for scanning could be improved.

One concern is that scans take a long time to run. We scan at the end of the day because we know it will take a lot of time. We leave it to run and the report will be generated by the next day when we arrive. The scanning time could be reduced.

The scanning could be a little faster. The process is around three or four minutes, but it would help if it could be further reduced.

One area for improvement is the navigation in the UI. For junior developers or newcomers to the team, it can be confusing. The UI doesn't clearly bundle together certain elements associated with a scan. While running a scan, there are various aspects linked to it, but in the UI, they appear separate. It would be beneficial if they could redesign the UI to make it more intuitive for users. In future releases, I would like to see some features. For example, there's a library we use as a third-party library. Sometimes, Veracode indicates that we can't use a particular tool because it has a lot of vulnerabilities in the code. It would be nice if Veracode's scan could show an alternative library to use instead of the one flagged as problematic So instead of us having to go back and research, trying to figure out what other tool we can use as an alternative, if Veracode could provide those recommendations within the tool itself, it would be nice.

If Veracode develops a plugin for multiple orchestration tools, it will be easy for us to use the product in our company. If you schedule two parallel scans under the same project, one of them will be a failure. It would be good if Veracode could provide two different site codes since if another code scan gets triggered while the scanning for one code is going on, the newly triggered code scan fails, stating that there is already a scanning process in progress. If Veracode can handle a newly triggered second code scan in their sequence instead of making it fail and take it up later or on a wait so that they can trigger it after the first code scan gets completed, then it would be a nice improvement. There is no queuing mechanism for scanning right now. Module selection is manual. If somebody adds a new module, it is not detected automatically, and moreover, it ignores that module and moves forward. You have to go and include that module manually, so if it is made dynamic in the future, it will be nice.

There are certain shortcomings in Veracode's static analysis engine. I would improve Veracode's static analysis engine to make it capable of identifying vulnerabilities with low false positives. The product is good, and if improvements are required, then such improvements should not be significant enough. There may be a slight scope to improve the product's integration capabilities. The product can also consider improving its support of different .NET versions and other programming languages, like Java.

Veracode Static Analysis can improve the false positive. There are always improvements that can be done to the false positive rate. There are some things that get flagged that are not an issue. However, it is not a huge concern.

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

I would like to see improvement on the analytics side, and in integrations with different tools. Also, the dynamic scanning takes time.

In terms of improvement, I don't have any valuable input. The application works fine and I don't have any negative feedback. Maybe pipeline scanner can be improved to support some additional language packages.

This solution has a clear interface, but there are times when you go to the menu of a scan, you have to open another page for the project, or if you need to link, you also have to link your scan to a specific project. Some people find it difficult to understand those different screens and menus. When you want to retrieve specific information about the projects that are linked to your scan, it's not easy. Those pages need to be redesigned. I also don't understand Veracode workspaces. Other people also find that feature difficult to understand. Those are the features that Veracode needs to redesign.

There are few languages that take time for scanning. It covers the majority of languages from C to Scala, but it doesn't support certain languages and the newer versions of certain languages. For example, it doesn't support SAP and new JavaScript frameworks such as Node.js and React JS. They can include support for these. If you go to their website, you can see the list of languages that are currently supported. The false-positive rates are also something they can work on.