Veracode Software Composition Analysis Room for Improvement

AB
Reviewer64985
Principle Consultant at a tech services company with 11-50 employees

Most of our time is spent configuring the SAST and SCA tools. I would consider that one of the weak points of the product. Otherwise, once the product is set up on the computer, it is fairly fast.

Like many tools, Veracode has a good number of false positives. However, there are no tools at this point in the market that they can understand the scope of an application. For example, if I have an application with only internal APIs and no UI, Veracode can detect that. It might detect that the HTML bodies of the requests are not sanitized, so it would then be prone to cross-site injections and SQL injections. But, in reality, that is a false positive. It will be almost impossible for a tool to understand the scope unless we start using machine learning and AI. So, it's inevitable at this point that there are false positives. Obviously, that doesn't make the developers happy, but I don't think there is another way around this, but it is not just because of Veracode. It's just the nature of the problem, which cannot be solved with current technologies. 

Once we explain to the developers why there are false positives, they understand. In Veracode, embedded features (where there are false positives) can be flagged as such. So, next time that they run the same scan, the same "vulnerability" will be still flagged as a false positive. Therefore, it's not that bad from that point of view.

Veracode has a few shortcomings in terms of how they handle certain components of the UI. For example, in the case of the false positive, it would be highly desirable if the false positive don't show up again on the UI, instead still showing up for any subsequent scan as a false positive. There is a little bit of cluttering that could be avoided. However, that is not necessarily a shortcoming of the product. I think it's more of a shortcoming of the UI. It's just the way it's visualized. However, going forward, I personally don't want to see any more vulnerabilities that I already flagged as a false positive.

It does take some time to understand the way the product works and be able to configure it properly. Veracode is aware of that. Because the SCA tools are actually a company that they acquired, SourceClear, the SCA tool and SAST tool are not completely integrated at this point. You are still dealing with two separate products, which can cause some headaches. I did have a conversation with the Veracode development team not too long ago where I voiced my concerns. They acknowledged that they're working on this and are aware of it. Developers have limited amounts of time dedicated to learning how to use a tool. So, they need quite a bit of help, especially when we're talking about this type of integration between the SAST and SCA. I would really like to see better integration between the SAST and SCA.

View full review »
CG
reviewer1258986
Enterprise Architect, VP at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees

There is a concept called false positives where things might come up as a potential issue but they really are not. In our case specifically, we might get a false positive when a potential vulnerability is discovered through Veracode analysis, but the way that the application is built makes it so what appears to be a vulnerability is not really an issue. Stated a different way, even though there might be something that prevents that particular event from ever happening, the product does not correctly detect the safeguards or the impossibility of the issue arising.  

When a false positive gets reported by the Composition Analysis, it results in more work for you to do than you should have to. There is a lot of information to go through and so some of it is due to those false positives. You either have to do work to eliminate the false positives being identified, or you have to look at the alert and determine that it is harmless.  

As far as what might be added in future releases, more artificial intelligence capabilities would be desirable. I do not know if they have it now. Maybe one example could be to make more focused suggestions or give more information in the reports to locate the cause of the issues. It should be something that improves results over time so that people do not have to do as much work to understand the details.  

View full review »
Nagaraj Sheshachalam
Lead Cyber Security Engineer at Ecolab Inc.

The scanning could be improved, because some scans take a bit of time. 

Many developers have commented on the packaging. It is quite different compared to other tools, so the packaging of codes could be changed. They should make it more uniform.

On the reporting, there should be an option like sending reports to groups or task ID.

View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Veracode Software Composition Analysis. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2021.
502,499 professionals have used our research since 2012.
DavidJellison
Senior Director, Quality Engineering at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Three areas that we continue to struggle with are

  1. Identifying and flagging false positives that reappear in other locations, where a rule that can catch other occurrences such that we don't have to repeat the override each time would help in productivity, and 
  2. Improving sorting through findings reports to filter by only what is critically relevant will help developers focus on issues,
  3. Add enterprise aggregate reporting, showing teams grouped in business units with trends per team and at the group level that can be sent by email as a digest with drill-in back to the dashboard.
View full review »
HJ
Hemanth Jayakumar
Sr Director at a non-profit with 51-200 employees

The cost of the solution is a little bit expensive. Expensive in the sense that there was a hundred percent increase in cost from last year to this year, which is certainly not justified. 

The solution needs to be more flexible. It needs to work with clients more effectively. 

Right now, the licensing model is based on the number of applications as opposed to being flexible and based on the number of developers or based on some other parameters. This constrains our company in terms of defining what an application is and doing the scans. We have an application with multiple deposit rates, but Veracode has a hard time recognizing the different components sitting in different depositories as one application. 

The solution is pretty similar to others. There wasn't anything that was so startlingly different it would make us want to stay.

View full review »
AldrineEinsteen
Enterprise Architect at a computer software company with 1-10 employees

The licensing model could be improved. 

If they can provide an automatic upload model, that would be really good. Right now we have to upload the NK bucket hosting to get through the analysis. That is kind of cumbersome.

The documentation is poor and the technical support isn't helpful.

View full review »
AC
reviewer1276710
Associate Consultant at a comms service provider with 201-500 employees

A high number of false positives are reported and this should be reduced.

View full review »
RN
reviewer1370412
Senior Technical Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

It takes a while to get a response to the software composition analysis. It is within an acceptable range but it could still be improved.

In the future, I would like to see the RASP capability built-in.

View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Veracode Software Composition Analysis. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2021.
502,499 professionals have used our research since 2012.