We use the scan and code scanning functionality. Those are the main ones. I just changed my role, so this company is using Veracode, but I've been using it for quite some time before joining this new company. It is currently only managing the source code review. We have other tools that we integrate as such as infrastructure as code, container security, cloud misconfiguration reviews, and others. So it's part of the overall security posture. I can't say that it's solely for our entire security posture because it just manages a subset of one of the security requirements, which is the source code review.

It has met the company's requirements. Nowadays, we are talking about AI code generation. The company is required to leverage the existing code scan to see whether it can support scanning the code that is generated from GenAI before pushing that code to the developers. The developer wouldn't know whether this code is secure or not. Usually, we do the static scan first, but now with a code generator, we want to ensure that it generates secure code.

It did the job. Just before production, we did a scan and ensured that there were no critical or high-criticality issues before going to production. I think that helps to sanitize the code without going into a peer review. We have an automatic scan that catches all these things first, so it's beneficial.

This is especially true for the library because most of these static code scans or software component analyses scan the third-party library that has a CVE or CVSS finding. But if it's a custom-built library that isn't known to the public, it's unclear whether there's a vulnerability or not. Currently, it lacks the ability to trigger on those. We probably have to use a different solution for that.

There should be a feature where we can actually scan code that has been generated by GenAI, such as ChatGPT or Copilot. When they generate this code, they should have some kind of third-party integration feature that can suggest to us, 'This code is clean' or 'this code is good to be used for the developer.' 

We are also looking at Black Duck. They introduced a new feature. We were testing on this secure code for AI, so they do have some tools that we are currently exploring to see whether they can do secure AI code.

Regarding remediation, based on my experience, the recommendation from Veracode on remediation is quite helpful. It gives valid reasoning, and the recommendation is fixed. 

The developers actually understand how to fix that. However, some of the recommendations, such as upgrading a certain library to version XYZ, sometimes don't go deeper because some of these libraries are not as simple as just changing the version to fix them. There are interdependencies with other third-party components. 

Sometimes, when the recommendation asks to upgrade the version to XYZ, when we actually upgrade it, there will be another issue with other things. We usually face difficulty with that one. Sometimes we take an exemption because we can't upgrade this without breaking certain things, so we decide to go for the risk exception.

I just changed my role, so this company is using Veracode, but I've been using it for quite some time before joining this new company.

The stability is acceptable overall.

I didn't get involved much with asking them questions. During the initial phase when we started integrating, they were very helpful, but after they deployed the license and everything, we haven't reached out to them to ask any other questions. It's gone into autopilot. Once you have the license, everything just continues as it is.

In my last company, they used Veracode, and then they transitioned to Snyk. The price point was the first priority we looked at. Secondly was the integration—whether it had deeper integration with our system, and was easy for our developers to enroll and use. After a trial of 12 months with Veracode, we decided to move to Snyk.

Previously, we did a comparison between Veracode, Synopsys (which is Black Duck), and Snyk. We did our own internal review. Veracode needs to shift to a more modern approach because it still feels traditional in its way of doing code scanning compared with others, such as Snyk. They still use a base app, although they have a web version as well, but the integration part could be more seamless. I'm comparing it side-by-side with Snyk, as I'm also a heavy user of Snyk. Those aspects can be improved.

The integrated IDE tool enables users to get instant feedback in real-time on the code itself, rather than waiting for it to go through the CI/CD pipeline and get the result. They can instantly review their code on demand, which is quite beneficial.

For my previous company, when they first adopted source code review, they went for the open-source option first. I always advocate for people to go with the open-source option to understand what the features are and how exactly the source code scanning looks. Once comfortable with it, or if certain features are needed, then look for the enterprise version. Sometimes for different companies, especially small businesses, they couldn't afford Veracode because of the steep price.

Regarding integration, apps such as Jira and Confluence are important. The main thing was that it's fully and deeply integrated with the user and the repository, like Confluence. Every time there's a report, we can immediately generate a ticket from Snyk to Jira. It helps the developer get notified about issues after the scan. Then they fix the issue, tag the ticket as resolved, and once it's marked as resolved, we will do the rescan.

As a beginner, the interface is quite straightforward. People will not get confused. The technical report is professional and can be used by regulators. I can simply export it as a PDF and then share it with a regulator or any auditor for their review.

Regarding mobile code support, such as iOS, Kotlin, and others, the results were not really promising. For Java and C#, it's very good. They are pioneers in that. But for mobile development, if you're a mobile company that builds mobile apps and you have iOS, Objective-C, Swift, and Kotlin, that area needs to be polished.

I rate Veracode a seven out of ten.

We have used Veracode only for third-party libraries until now. We have automated that and have onboarded the Dev team to directly scan from their pipeline. We have integrated the CI/CD in that way. We try to see whether the third-party libraries they have been using are safe versions, and if not, we are able to guide them along. For static scan, we primarily use Fortify. With Veracode, I do not have much experience because Fortify is our main tool. 

We are the security personnel. We give proper guidance to the development team and use Veracode whenever scans are in queue or stuck, helping to provide clarity on findings. We have guided the development team with the tool so that, as security auditors, we do not have to do that. We have given guidance to the development team since every release needs code without vulnerable dependencies or vulnerable code. We have guided them in a way that they can access such tools, where they can see the report, and where vulnerable code is present.

Veracode's policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is satisfactory. Veracode provides visibility into application status at every phase of development.

Veracode has impacted our overall security posture because we are from a security background. Every week, we review the dashboards of open findings. We use both Veracode and Fortify findings, as we are using two separate tools - one for SAST and one for dependency-related issues. When we highlight these in our meetings every day, it gives us a picture of the timeline needed to fix the code. We are using that feature regularly, and it helps significantly.

The product could be improved in its reporting. The scanning process could be more streamlined as it has certain limitations when performing manual scans. It has some checks when the content is in ZIP format or other formats, which takes two or three more steps than Fortify does. From a technical point of view, I may not be the best person to answer that since I haven't used it regularly. Other than the scanning process, I think it is acceptable.

I have been using Veracode for a couple of years.

I would rate its stability as a six out of ten based on my personal opinion.

It is scalable. I do not face any issues with the product's scalability.

The technical support by Veracode is good because we have encountered problems before, and the team supported us effectively. For technical support, it deserves a rating of eight out of ten.

Positive

It is somewhat complex compared to Fortify. As a Fortify user for almost five years, I find Veracode complex, but others in my team who have used it for eight to nine years don't find such issues. When we were doing manual scans before CI/CD integration, it was easier.

It took approximately four to five months to onboard the solution because it was new to developers as well. There was a certain process to be followed to get access and integrate it into the CI/CD tools. We had to explain the report format to them, showing where they could find vulnerabilities and how they could fix the code, including finding safer versions of libraries and dependencies. This took almost half of 2023, and now in 2025, they do not need our help except for technical problems when there are numerous scans in the pipeline.

The pricing is reasonable compared to other tools.

I haven't used the Veracode Fix feature that produces AI-generated fixes. 

The fact that Veracode doesn't scan source code, only binary code, is not a concern because we have certain projects that work with this approach. The AI functionality could be innovative, though I haven't experienced it yet. Regarding the breadth of Veracode's end-to-end testing versus competing solutions, I would rate it as eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate Veracode a seven out of ten.

Static scanning is one component of Veracode. That feature we use heavily to scan all the custom code we write weekly. We use another component called software composition analysis to scan all of our open-source packages. These are the two primary use cases that we have for Veracode.

It flags any security flaws or bad practices. Veracode has its own database for many vulnerabilities identified on the SCA side. They use a tool called SourceClear, which validates vulnerabilities in any of these packages. The scanner itself is pretty good at identifying some of the flaws in either the code or the open-source packages.

Our organization is more secure than without Veracode. It has improved our security posture because we're running it. It's hard to gauge what that would be without it because we haven't had any security issues since I joined the company. 

Veracode is very good at ensuring compliance with industry standards. It has helped us fix flaws. We know what's there, and there's generally a decent explanation for fixing each flaw. It's a quicker time to market. It's easy to figure out the problem and solve it so that we don't have exposed vulnerabilities in the market. 

It has helped developers save time. We generally resolve all our flaws within seven to 20 business days after they are identified. Veracode is crucial to our shift-left strategy. We have automated scans, so we scan all our code every weekend. Today is one of those days, so it's usually the time when we come in, see there's a new problem, and immediately start working on it.

Static scanning and software composition analysis are very helpful. My colleagues and I don't need to be experts on all of those ancillary things, so we can focus more on the business deliverables.

They have a pretty good tool that allows me to run scans of my local integrated development environment. I can find a lot of those flaws a lot sooner than I would if I had to wait for these cloud-based scans. They've come out with some sort of automated fix feature. I haven't used it, but they gave us a demo of it, and that one looks promising. I don't know if it's ready for prime time yet. 

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.

We have used Veracode for about five years. 

Veracode's stability is 50-50. They deploy new versions of their engine. Recently, the new version identified flaws in the code that were six months to a year old.  

Veracode seems to scale pretty well. We scan 60 to 70 applications every weekend without any problems. 

I rate Veracode's support engineers eight and their frontline support four. Their engineers are typically good and helpful. If I open a tech support ticket, I usually get a Veracode engineer. Those guys are good. I would rate their other support people poorly. 

Neutral

Veracode is straightforward to deploy. It's a general automated dev ops strategy. It's a responsibility shared among 20 to 30 people.

Veracode is a decent value, depending on what you're trying to achieve. It's pretty good for security flaws.

I rate Veracode six out of 10. I would recommend Veracode to others. The scanner is best in class, but the rest, not so much. 

We are quite new to security systems. We have not adopted Veracode at the enterprise level. We are using the GitHub Advanced Security system. We were looking for static code analysis or software configuration analysis tools in the market. That is when we explored Veracode.

We want to centralize our security systems so that any repository that developers are using or creating in our organization follows the same set of standards. We want to have all the security checks and all the static code analysis done at the same level and with one client.

We have had challenges with security because developers come from different organizations and different backgrounds. They have different ways of coding. Based on their experience, they write the code, but there is a very high chance of having vulnerabilities in their code. The PR reviews used to take a lot of time for the reviewer. By implementing such a solution at the enterprise level, we assume that we will save a lot of time for developers and code reviewers because everything will be done by the tool. It will impact us a lot.

Veracode is quite good. It checks the security vulnerabilities in our packages. It discovers them very nicely, but it is not a tool for improving code quality. It does not provide very good static code analysis.

Veracode's policy reporting is fine for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations.

Veracode provides visibility into application status at every phase of development.

Veracode saves our developers' time. They are not doing manual PR reviews. It has saved about 20% of the time because we are still in the adoption phase.

We have a lot of confidential data of clients. We do not want our application to be exposed outside. We have configured a code quality gate, so before production itself, it blocks the PR deployment and allows it once all the security checks are passed.

Veracode is one of the tools that helps to verify external dependencies. Veracode helps a lot there.

One thing that I like about Veracode is that it is quite a good tool for dynamic application testing. It is a little bit better than DeepSource and SonarQube in terms of software composition analysis and dynamic application testing. 

When I was looking into it, my initial impression was that it has a good UI as compared to other competitors.

A negative issue I found is that it has a subscription-based model. 

If Veracode can provide static analysis in terms of how we can improve the code quality, it will be quite a good feature.

I have been using Veracode for 2 years.

It is quite stable.

We have not deployed it on our on-premise system, so it is quite scalable. There are no issues with that. I would rate it a 6 out of 10 for scalability.

We have not used their support extensively, but when we were choosing Veracode, I felt that they have a very good support system. The support they provided was good.

Neutral

I also work with SonarQube. I did not switch from SonarQube to Veracode. We are using a combination of both because SonarQube provides good code quality, but Veracode does not. Veracode provides very good dynamic application testing and software configuration analysis, but SonarQube does not. A combination of both is meeting our needs.

Configuring SonarQube at the cloud level based on our requirements is quite challenging. The support is based on the community. It is not something we consider as an enterprise-level tool, whereas this is not the case with Veracode. These things are better in Veracode.

I was not involved in its deployment. I am in the quality team. The DevSecOps team takes care of its deployment. That team has 8 to 10 people.

It does not require any maintenance. Everything is done automatically by the vendor.

Everything was done in-house.

It is too early for that, but Veracode will save us development effort and time. That will be the return on investment for us in the future. We will be able to measure its overall cost-effectiveness by comparing what we are paying for the service and how much developer time it is saving. 

We are still considering it at the enterprise level. It has a subscription-based model. We find its price a little high based on the features it provides. In addition to the standard licensing costs, there are no additional costs.

To someone who is looking at Veracode but is concerned about the price, I would recommend exploring it themselves. They might not need the same features that we need. They might be looking at some other aspects of security. I would recommend exploring it and doing a price evaluation based on their needs. 

We also explored DeepSource for some time, but we did not go for it. The functionality that DeepSource provides is somewhere between Veracode and SonarQube. Veracode was a little bit better, and that is why we went for Veracode.

We do not use the free access to Veracode's Application Security Consulting team, but we are planning to use it. We have not yet used the Veracode Fix feature that produces AI-generated fixes. It is a new feature.

The fact that Veracode does not scan source code, only binary code, does not concern us. We are using multiple tools. Veracode is one of them.

Overall, I would rate Veracode a 7 out of 10. We are still adopting Veracode. We have not gone through all the features that Veracode provides. Its rating would probably increase after a few months of use. I would recommend Veracode to others.

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. 

We used Veracode for code scanning and source composition analysis.

Veracode can block vulnerable code from going into production.

The SBOM is a good option for companies that are asked about their SBOM.

The SBOM helps manage our risk.

Generating SBOM reports is not difficult, but setting up the necessary infrastructure for analysis takes time.

The policy reporting is incredibly robust.

Veracode provides visibility into application status in every phase of development.

The source composition analysis had very good reporting.

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.

I trialed Veracode for two weeks. 

In our short trial period, we did experience some stability issues.

Veracode scales sufficiently.

I worked with Veracode's technical consultation staff and found the agent to be incredibly knowledgeable and sophisticated in their use of Veracode, as well as in vulnerable load patterns.

Positive

The deployment was complex.

Ten people were involved in the deployment.

We used the experience of engineers who had used Veracode in the past, as well as feedback from Veracode's engineers.

Veracode's pricing is competitive.

I believe Veracode would be willing to negotiate decent terms for organizations that are concerned about the pricing.

We also evaluated Checkmarx and Snyk, respectively. This puts them at a slight disadvantage in terms of identifying execution paths and their ability to comprehensively show how vulnerable code is executed in our solution.

I would rate Veracode six out of ten.

Once Veracode is fully configured, the maintenance should be relatively minimal.

Veracode's best advantages are detailed reporting for industries such as government work, or other industries that may require exceptionally detailed reports or secure security verifications. However, I would suggest that people look out for the accuracy of results and the usefulness of findings on a large scale. Additionally, Veracode has a difficult-to-navigate user interface.

It is a broad and integrated platform. It provides multiple test scenarios and has the ability to do CI/CD pipeline integration. It is used for application security and vulnerability assessment.

Veracode provides guidance to develop secure software. It is one of the valuable features.

On-premise implementation is not available.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

It is stable.

The tool is scalable.

The technical support is good.

Neutral

The product is deployed on the cloud. We have a multi-cloud environment.

The solution is expensive.

Veracode’s policy reporting for ensuring compliance with industry standards and regulations is good. The product's false-positive rate is low. If the tool is used effectively, vulnerable codes do not go into protection.

The SBOM feature helps identify risks in all third-party software. It is quite easy to create a report using the SBOM feature. It is an important feature. The solution provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. We have not integrated it.

Veracode has a good effect on our organization’s ability to fix flaws. Veracode has helped our developers save time. Veracode has a good impact on our organization’s overall security posture. The solution is probably not worth the money. The developers are more confident while fixing vulnerabilities due to the solution’s low false-positive rate.

Overall, I rate the tool a six out of ten.

We are a software company providing software to paper manufacturing organizations, and we have an extensive ERP product along with many add-on products.

With the need to increase security awareness and vulnerabilities, we decided that we needed to scan our software, so that was how we started using Veracode.

We found Veracode eye-opening because we had many third-party libraries in our application, and we found vulnerabilities and had to upgrade those libraries or seek alternatives.

Our use cases for Veracode were to make our software more secure and provide a better competitive advantage over our competitors by telling our clients that we have secure software.

What we found most valuable in Veracode is the ability to do automatic scans of our software. We've incorporated the solution into our SDLC process, so we take our builds before they get released and put them through scans to ensure any new vulnerabilities haven't occurred.

We found Veracode good at preventing vulnerable code from going into production.

We also use the Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) as we run many applications through Veracode. We use SBOM to discover all the different vulnerabilities and what that stack looks like.

We also found Veracode very good in helping us manage risks, such as supply chain, licensing, and security. The solution allows us to see where the risks are and if updates are available and identify how to remediate our software quickly.

Our company also found it moderately easy to use Veracode when creating a report via the Software Bill of Materials. There may be a bit of a learning curve, but once users have done it, they'll run the same report.

As for policy reporting in Veracode to ensure compliance with industry standards and regulations, we have not used the solution that way. Instead, we rely on the different statuses to achieve the levels we want to achieve and be able to use that on marketing material.

Veracode offers visibility into the application status at every development phase throughout the software development life cycle, but we have not implemented that. That feature is built into the development tool, so developers will get alerts as they code, but we plan to do that in the coming year.

We found a moderate false positive rate in Veracode. There were a few false positives. Veracode can identify vulnerabilities, which we found nice. We could flag false positives on Veracode so they don't continue to pop up and hunt them down, and the solution will ignore those in the future.

The false positive rate in Veracode doesn't affect developer confidence in the solution when fixing vulnerabilities because we realized that our application is huge. False positives will happen in large applications just because of the different ways of implementation and features. No toolset can handle all those different features and interactions, so we can't say they relate to vulnerability.

Veracode dramatically impacted our company's ability to have security awareness and achieve a level of confidence that we can put out to the marketplace.

We also saw how Veracode affected our company's overall security posture, explicitly being able to put the solution into automatic scanning mode, then through our SDLC cycles, and achieve a Veracode-verified status. We can use that as a marketing advantage and say that we've achieved Veracode-verified status with one of the leading vendors of security scanning software. We've reached a level of status with them, and we continually scan our software so our clients can be confident that our software has been scanned for security files before implementing a new software release.

An area for improvement in Veracode is the time that it takes to scan large projects, as that makes it difficult to fit into our CI/CD pipelines.

One of our app scans times out after two hours, which requires uploading and scanning that particular application manually. Still, there's no visibility into the CI system with the vulnerabilities found. My company cannot incorporate that into the automatic cycle and has to scan manually, so Veracode could improve on that.

I've been using Veracode for about two years.

Veracode is very stable. I have no concerns with its stability.

Veracode is very scalable from the perspective of ERP applications, though we aren't sure if other clients have applications larger than ours. For reference, we have five million lines of code in our application.

I've contacted the Veracode technical support team and found the support responsive. The team also got back to me quickly. I didn't find any issues with Veracode support.

I would rate technical support as eight, just because you still need to do manual scans, as Veracode still has not addressed that issue.

Positive

We used a product called Mend.io, formerly WhiteSource, before Veracode to look at vulnerabilities.

I was part of the initial deployment of Veracode, and it was straightforward because Veracode had excellent training programs and onboarding procedures. The Veracode team also helped along the way and was very supportive in answering questions and keeping my team plugged into any new offerings.

We implemented Veracode in-house with only three people involved.

I found Veracode very expensive, though I'm not the person paying for it. I was surprised to find out how much the subscription costs and that the executive board approved it, but it was a no-brainer because now my company has better security scans.

What I can tell others looking into Veracode but concerned about its price is that the price or cost is justified. After all, you can tell potential clients that your software is better than competitor software because you're scanning it and Veracode-verified.

The verification levels of Veracode are essential because you can use Veracode to start climbing up the ladder to say that your software's even more secure than anybody else because it achieved this level of verification.

In terms of Veracode reducing the cost of DevSecOps in our company, we find that tough to determine because we never had a real concentration on DevSecOps before Veracode. It was forced on us by the fact that the industry was becoming more vulnerable, so now we are experiencing an increase in price in DevSecOps because we're paying attention to it now. We used to skate by and weren't affected by vulnerabilities. Still, because the industry had more vulnerabilities, our customers asked if we were scanning our software, so we had to find a solution and add DevSecOps to address industry needs.

I did a Gartner search on the top three solutions and looked at their reviews, and Veracode came out to be the leader, so I just went with the leader from a partner perspective.

My company has a hybrid Veracode deployment. It's a cloud-based solution, so it's tied to the company's automatic build cycles, where you can access and do scans through the cloud.

Veracode doesn't require maintenance. The only maintenance my company performs is fixing vulnerabilities found by Veracode.

Overall, my rating for Veracode is seven out of ten.

I advise others looking to evaluate Veracode to utilize the presales marketing side first. For example, my company was able to utilize Veracode in a presales environment and do the scans to find out how vulnerable my company's software is and compare Veracode with the previous tool, WhiteSource. My company found additional vulnerabilities and was able to do that before signing the contract. It may be best to do a test run of Veracode to find out what the tool is all about and how it looks to your company.

We utilize Veracode in three primary ways. The first is through Dynamic Scans, followed by Static Scans, and Software Composition Analysis Scans. I find this tool to be highly effective. We have various forms of support available. For instance, we can initiate our scans through the CI/CD pipeline or manually if needed. Additionally, we can create separate sandboxes for each of our code modules. Since development involves distinct code modules, each catering to different functionalities, we can conveniently set up corresponding sandboxes within Veracode. This allows us to scan any module whenever required, which is quite advantageous.

From a SAST perspective, Veracode can prevent vulnerable code from entering production by adhering to our manual checklist.

We haven't utilized the Software Bill of Materials; however, we have employed Software Composition Analysis. Whenever we scan a codebase, any third-party applications or libraries that have been incorporated into the code are automatically analyzed. Subsequently, a comprehensive report is generated. This report outlines the third-party libraries and applications that have been utilized in the codebase, along with their respective versions. Additionally, if any of these versions are found to have vulnerabilities, they are promptly detected.

Veracode is efficient. I have used various other tools such as DAST or SAST, and employing those tools usually takes between five and eight hours. In contrast, Veracode completes the task in two to three hours. For each scan, there is a consultation button available. Clicking on that button allows us to schedule a call with a Veracode support team member. During the call, they explain any issues, clarify why certain problems are false positives, and discuss the reasons behind issue detections. There's also a consolidation part and a support button, where we can raise tickets. I have found that their maximum response time to these tickets is within one day. Before starting the scan, Veracode offers a pre-scan functionality. This functionality performs connection and server checks in the pre-scan phase. It's similar to the SAST side of things for all the tools, where the code base is examined before initiating the SAST application to determine if it's sound. However, in Veracode's case, this is implemented in the DAST system. It checks whether the server is operational if the provided call scripts are correct, and if the provided login scripts are accurate. This pre-scan functionality doesn't run during the actual scan but rather at the very beginning to ensure that all prerequisites are met. Once everything is verified, then we can proceed to initiate the actual scan.

Using Veracode policy regulations, we can offer predefined rules. When setting up any application, we establish the application name and other necessary details. Following this, there is a section where we can input this information. Essentially, there exist predefined regulations which we can either directly utilize if they suit our needs, or adjust them based on the requirements of our project team. Therefore, we have a pre-existing set of rules and functionalities available.

We do have a dashboard in Veracode that offers visibility into the status of applications. There is a section where we can view the application names, and next to each name, there is a status report such as "The SAST has been completed" or "in progress," and the same goes for DAST.

After the scanning is completed, with other solutions from a DAST perspective, we would receive a report. If there are any false positives, we would have to identify them ourselves. However, with Veracode, one of their engineers or a support team member will verify the information, which helps to minimize the number of false positives.

Before using Veracode, we used to perform many tasks manually. We had a checklist for the SAST. We would go through each line of code, attempting to determine its compliance and level of security. Even with the DAST, we used to carry out this process manually. Completing the DAST scan took a considerable amount of time. For each module, we had to dedicate at least two to three days. However, since adopting Veracode, we can now not only perform this process for each module, but we can also initiate scans for all the modules simultaneously. As a result, we can obtain the results within a maximum of three to four hours. Time-saving for fixing flaws is one of the significant benefits that Veracode has provided us, helping reduce the time by almost 60 percent.

Regarding Software Composition Analysis, an exceptional feature is that during a SAST scan, SCA is seamlessly conducted in the background. Once we scan all modules and obtain SAST results, switching to the SCA section reveals the associated reports. This integrated approach eliminates the need for separate SAST and SCA scans, as is required by other tools.

The reporting feature is noteworthy. The reports are well-structured, providing comprehensive details for each vulnerability. Information about the vulnerability itself, its origin, the specific section of code it pertains to, and even the exact line of code involved are all included.

I've found that Veracode is not particularly suitable for Dynamic Application Security Testing. Unlike other tools equipped with their own crawlers, Veracode necessitates the use of a Selenium script for crawling. However, the tool's compatibility with all functions is limited, which can be frustrating. For instance, functions like upload, download, or those triggering new tabs are challenging to handle within the DAST section due to Selenium's inadequacies when used with Veracode.

In contrast to other tools where we can monitor requests and responses during a scan, Veracode lacks this capability. The scan initiates, and we must wait until completion to see the results. There's no opportunity to check if the right requests are being sent or if certain components are being excessively targeted. Once the scan starts, we're essentially locked in until it concludes, and only then can we access the results. Furthermore, even after the scan, we're only provided with a summary of scanned URLs and the number of requests made, without the specifics of the request or response contents.

I have been using Veracode for four months.

Veracode is stable, and we have not encountered any issues.

The cloud version of Veracode can scale according to the file size.

I have engaged in two different types of experiences with technical support. One involves the ticketing system, and the other involves consultation calls. The consultation calls revolved around static analysis. During these calls, we presented all the vulnerabilities we discovered. We conducted our analysis and demonstrated how Veracode identified certain vulnerabilities. However, we also explained instances where these were false positives due to specific reasons. During the call, they acknowledged these issues. They pointed out some of Veracode's limitations, highlighting that it solely scans the code and doesn't consider the framework side. This implies that they accept these limitations. Furthermore, they provided us with insights into how they plan to implement fixes in the future, which is quite beneficial.

Additionally, whenever we had inquiries or doubted Veracode's detection of false positives, they provided detailed explanations. They shared the specific Veracode setup and rules within the SAST side that led to the detection of certain vulnerabilities. They also explained that by incorporating certain mitigations at the code level, these vulnerabilities could be addressed. 

Regarding the ticketing system, for minor issues or questions, we would raise a ticket. They consistently responded within a maximum of one day, providing us with the necessary information.

Positive

Before transitioning to Veracode, the client had been utilizing a free community version tool. However, the count of false positives was exceedingly high with that specific tool. This prompted the client to seek a solution that could deliver superior results with fewer false positives. As a result, the decision was made to switch to Veracode.

I would rate Veracode a seven out of ten because the DAST has room for improvement.

The maintenance is completed by the Veracode team because we are using the cloud version.

For individuals seeking exclusively SAST and SCA capabilities, rather than DAST, Veracode stands out as the most suitable tool. However, if someone intends to utilize Veracode solely for DAST, I believe they should explore alternative tools. The effectiveness of Veracode's DAST functionality is limited, and using other tools might yield better results. Additionally, Veracode provides comprehensive training resources through its portal, including a list of documents and video tutorials. These resources are readily accessible and offer adequate guidance for initiating the use of Veracode.