Everyone is talking about securing the DevOps pipeline and shifting security left. AppSec tools such as SAST (Static Application Security Testing), DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing), and other solutions that address issues in proprietary software have become standard elements of the developer security toolkit. To understand where SAST fits alongside related approaches such as source code analysis and source code review tools, it is useful to compare how each method identifies vulnerabilities and supports secure development.
An AppSec strategy also needs to detect open source components with known vulnerabilities, and this is where SCA (Software Composition Analysis) tools play an important role. Both SAST and SCA tools are used for vulnerability management. However, each one works differently, covers a different range of vulnerabilities, and integrates into different stages of the software development lifecycle (SDLC).
There are many differences between SAST and SCA tools. SAST tools detect security vulnerabilities in proprietary code by scanning code while it is still in a static, non-running state. This allows developers to address issues before deployment.
SCA tools detect and track all open source components within an organization’s codebase, helping developers manage those components more effectively. Advanced SCA tools automate the full process of managing open source components. This includes component selection, alerting on security or compliance issues, and in some cases even blocking certain components from being used in code. They also provide comprehensive information about discovered open source vulnerabilities so that developers can resolve them more easily. SCA tools can be used throughout the SDLC, from development to post-production.
6 key differences between SAST and SCA
#1: Vulnerability detection
SAST tools scan an organization’s internally developed code for potential vulnerabilities based on a predefined set of rules. SCA tools track an organization’s open source components and determine whether any of them contain known vulnerabilities. When vulnerabilities are found, SCA tools provide detailed information to help developers resolve them quickly.
#2: Requirement for source code access
SAST tools are specifically focused on analyzing source files. In other words, they scan a product’s source code. By contrast, an SCA tool identifies all software components, including supporting libraries as well as both direct and indirect dependencies. This can be done without providing the SCA tool with access to the source code itself.
#3: SDLC integration
Both SAST and SCA tools can be integrated early in the development process, helping developers identify vulnerabilities as early as possible before they become more expensive and time-consuming to fix. Both types of tools integrate with CI servers and IDEs. SCA tools, however, provide end-to-end SDLC coverage all the way through post-deployment, including coverage for vulnerabilities that may be discovered years after release.
#4: False positives
Traditional SAST tools often generate a relatively high number of false positives. For many teams, false positives are one of the biggest barriers to SAST adoption, although Mend SAST is a notable exception. Modern SAST vendors are working to reduce noise and improve accuracy so that developers trust the results instead of ignoring them. SCA tools, in contrast, are not designed to discover new vulnerabilities. Their purpose is to identify open source components that are already associated with known vulnerabilities. Because the task is to accurately identify vulnerable open source components, the right SCA tool makes it far easier to achieve zero false positives.
#5: Timeframe
Running source code scans with traditional SAST tools is often time-consuming and can sometimes take many hours. By contrast, SCA tools typically complete scans within seconds, regardless of project size. Mend’s SAST technology accelerates the scanning process. It is 10 times faster than most SAST products and offers one of the fastest scanning capabilities of its kind. Speed is an important factor when evaluating leading SAST tools. Developers need scans that produce results quickly enough to fit into CI/CD pipelines without slowing down releases.
#6: Risk coverage
SAST tools can identify a wide range of potential code flaws, commonly referred to as CWEs. The most common CWEs are described in lists such as the OWASP Top 10 and the MITRE Top 25. All of these code flaws represent security risks. SCA tools, on the other hand, identify both security risks and license compliance risks associated with open source software.
SAST vs. SCA: The key to complete coverage
Comparing SAST and SCA is similar to comparing two fundamentally different categories of tools. Both help developers improve the security of their code. However, each one addresses different types of issues and does so in a very different way. Each tool works with a different set of challenges and relies on different technology. The most effective approach is to work with a vendor that understands these differences and offers solutions for both.
If there is interest in testing Mend SAST and Mend SCA free of charge, please leave your contact details below.
