When selecting a SAST tool, it’s important to understand the differences between traditional and modern approaches to meet specific business needs. Traditional SAST tools excel in comprehensive scans, which is essential for critical systems but may sacrifice developer experience. Conversely, modern SAST tools prioritize integration and usability, streamlining workflows in CI/CD pipelines. Organizations may find value in employing both types depending on their operational context, striking a balance between thorough vulnerability coverage and developer convenience.
Choosing the right SAST tool hinges on aligning the selection with specific business needs, rather than simply seeking the 'best' tool overall.
Traditional SAST tools offer comprehensive coverage, ideal for safety-critical systems, but often at the cost of a challenging developer experience.
'Neither traditional nor modern SAST approaches are inherently superior; the decision should align with the organization's unique requirements and circumstances.'
Finding a balance between developer experience and vulnerability coverage is crucial; in some cases, having both traditional and modern tools is beneficial.
Collection
[
|
...
]