SAST vs. SCA: What's the Difference?

TL;DR

• Static application security testing (SAST) examines proprietary code for vulnerabilities before and during the development process.

• Software composition analysis (SCA) pinpoints vulnerabilities in open-source components during deployment.

• Both methods are crucial for comprehensive security testing, but they focus on different aspects of your application.

CI/CD Pipeline Security Best Practices [Cheat Sheet]

In this 13 page cheat sheet we'll cover best practices in the following areas of the CI/CD pipeline: Infrastructure security, code security, secrets management, access and authentication, monitoring and response

Download Cheat Sheet

What is static application security testing (SAST)?

SAST is a type of white-box testing leveraged before an application is deployed to analyze source code for security risks. By breaking down the code into different source components, SAST exposes potential vulnerabilities like SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and buffer overflows.

SAST tools analyze various static factors, such as design documents, specifications, and requirements, to assess the potential security vulnerabilities in an application. This detailed information helps development teams prioritize which code vulnerabilities to address first.

Examples of commonly used SAST tools include Cycode, Checkmarx, Fortify, and Aikido Security.

Advantages of SAST

• Shift-left security: SAST enables developers to identify and fix security issues early in the development cycle, reducing the possibility of large-scale security breaches and significantly strengthening an organization’s security posture. 

• Secure coding: Using SAST promotes secure coding practices and helps developers write more robust code. For example, a developer could be writing a function to handle user input. Without SAST, they might accidentally introduce a buffer overflow vulnerability by not properly validating the length of the input. However, a SAST tool would flag this as a potential security issue, prompting the developer to revise their code to include input validation checks. This helps prevent attackers from exploiting the vulnerability to execute malicious code.

• Compliance: Several industries are required to adhere to regulatory standards for software security, including PCI DSS, FedRAMP, FISMA, SOC 2, and HIPAA. With SAST, organizations can meet the mandated requirements at the source-code level. SAST also facilitates documentation and audit trails as proof of compliance. These processes both eliminate the risk of legal penalties and also foster customer trust.

• Contextual, prioritized results: One huge advantage of SAST? The testing method provides comprehensive feedback on all potential risks identified and their severity. This way, development teams can determine what to address first.

Limitations of SAST

Though SAST has many benefits, it has a few downsides too:

• Coverage gaps: SAST solutions can only detect vulnerabilities that exist in the code itself, which means there’s no complete coverage for external dependencies. Also, SAST doesn’t detect vulnerabilities in runtime applications. 

• Different SAST requests for every coding language: Organizations that use more than one code language will need a different instance of SAST for each language. Because each SAST instance requires different maintenance and configuration processes, operating costs may stack up.

• False positives: One major limitation of SAST solutions is that they are prone to false alarms. When scanning results return false positives, it can lead to alert fatigue.

• Requires access to source code: You may not have access to the application’s source code, and without source code, SAST won’t work well—or at all. 

DevOps Security Best Practices [Cheat Sheet]

In this 12 page cheat sheet we'll cover best practices in the following areas of DevOps: secure coding practices, infrastructure security, monitoring and response.

Download Cheat Sheet

Software composition analysis (SCA)

SCA identifies and manages security risks found in third-party software components, libraries, binary code, and dependencies used in the development of a software application.

In other words, software composition analysis identifies code that the development team didn’t create. SCA tools then create a comprehensive inventory of dependencies, scan them against known vulnerability databases, and alert developers to potential risks. SCA solutions also help track license compliance to ensure the legal usage of open-source components.

Next, an SCA tool generates a report highlighting vulnerabilities, license risks, and other issues, along with recommendations for remediation. The report and recommendations are integrated into the development workflow, allowing developers to address issues before deployment.

Some examples of popular SCA tools are Wiz, JFrog Xray, and Xygeni.

Advantages of SCA

• Efficiency: SCA tracks and identifies known vulnerabilities in open-source components quickly and efficiently—at the same time that development teams write code.

• Automation: Many SCA tools offer automated remediation options for identified vulnerabilities.

• Dependency management: SCA helps organizations manage their third-party dependencies, ensuring that they are using the latest versions and avoiding outdated or vulnerable components.

• License compliance: SCA can help track license compliance for open-source components, preventing legal issues and ensuring that the organization is using components in accordance with their licensing terms.

Limitations of SCA

Just like SAST, SCA has a few drawbacks:

• Ownership of risk: Components with flagged vulnerabilities can belong to different teams and projects, so when these risks are identified, it might be a challenge to determine who should take responsibility for fixing the security issue. This can lead to confusion and delays in addressing security issues, especially when teams are alerted to a large number of potential risks. 

• False positives: As mentioned above, SCA tools tend to generate long lists of potential risks, which may include irrelevant risks and false positives. Teams that review SCA results manually might waste extensive resources that could have been spent assessing real risks. 

• Technical debts: Technical debts are incurred when secure coding practices aren’t prioritized from the beginning of the software development lifecycle. Technical debts can also arise when libraries or open-source components that were formerly used are abandoned. If left unaddressed, these debts can lead to increased development costs, delayed project timelines, and security vulnerabilities.

• Coverage gaps: SCA tools require an up-to-date vulnerability database to be effective. Similarly, software composition analysis solutions may not be capable of identifying every third-party component in use nor every open-source project.

Key differences between SAST and SCA

Use cases for SAST and SCA

SAST

• For proprietary code analysis 

• To provide immediate feedback

• To identify general code weaknesses

• To identify the exact locations of vulnerabilities

SCA

• For policy enforcement (to prevent the use of dependencies with risks)

• For open-source management

• To identify vulnerabilities in third-party code by assessing databases

• To create a software bill of materials (SBOM)

Combining SAST and SCA

SAST and SCA can be used together to take a holistic approach to security testing:

• SAST and SCA can be integrated into CI/CD pipelines to allow for automated scanning whenever code is changed.

• Using SAST for code early on and SCA for dependencies later on provides comprehensive, reliable security.

• Combining reports and feedback from SAST and SCA findings can help create a unified overview of all application risks.

SAST and SCA approach application security testing quite differently: SAST provides a detailed view of the developer's code, while SCA focuses on the external dependencies used in the application. However the goal is the same: application security. Understanding these two approaches, organizations can make informed choices about whether to choose SCA, SAST, or both.

How does Wiz help?

Wiz's code security solution offers a comprehensive approach to protecting your applications from vulnerabilities. Through our Checkmarx integration, Wiz combines the power of SAST and SCA to provide all-around code security. 

Some key features and benefits of Wiz's code security solution includes:

• Advanced SAST integrations: Wiz's SAST engine is powered by Checkmarx, a leading provider of application security testing solutions. Checkmarx’s SAST capabilities enable us to detect a range of vulnerabilities, including SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and buffer overflows.

• Robust SCA capabilities: Wiz's SCA engine identifies and manages vulnerabilities in open-source components and libraries used in your applications. We maintain an up-to-date vulnerability database and provide actionable recommendations for remediation.

• SBOM visibility: Wiz generates comprehensive software bills of materials (SBOMs) without the need for additional agents. This provides complete transparency into all components within your software supply chain, enabling effective vulnerability management.

• Integration: Wiz seamlessly integrates with your existing development tools and processes, like CI/CD pipeline and GitHub, making it easy to incorporate code security into your daily routine.

• Continuous monitoring: Wiz provides continuous monitoring of your codebase, alerting you to new vulnerabilities as they are discovered.

• Remediation guidance: Our platform provides detailed guidance and recommendations for fixing identified vulnerabilities, helping you remediate issues quickly and efficiently.