Choosing between DAST and SAST: Finding the right fit for your security needs
No matter how closely programmers adhere to the most recent secure coding standards or how well they intend, some production code will almost always include at least one security flaw. Organizations face the critical challenge of ensuring the robustness of their applications against potential threats.
Two prominent methodologies for achieving this are Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and Static Application Security Testing (SAST).
Determining which approach suits your organization involves careful consideration of various factors that span development processes, security maturity, resource allocation, compliance requirements, and risk levels.
Let’s look at them one-by-one:
Development process
The choice between SAST and DAST often hinges on the development methodology adopted by an organization.
If your firm follows a traditional Waterfall development process, where code is written and tested in a sequential manner, SAST could be the preferred option. SAST is seamlessly integrated into the development cycle, analyzing source code or binaries as developers write code.
On the other hand, if your organization embraces an Agile development methodology, where continuous integration and deployment are key, DAST might be more suitable. DAST is typically conducted after the software is deployed, simulating real-world attacks on the running application.
Security maturity level
Consider the maturity of your organization's security practices.
If you have a well-established security program and a clearly defined Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC), SAST may be advantageous. It integrates seamlessly with development tools, such as Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) and Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipelines.
This allows developers to receive security feedback in real-time as they work on the code.
Conversely, DAST is not typically integrated with development tools and is often employed in organizations with a less mature security posture.
DAST tools such as Beagle Security can help you if you specifically want a DAST tool to be integrated into your CI/CD pipeline. You can learn more about how to integrate DAST into your pipeline here.
Resources
Resource considerations are vital when choosing between SAST and DAST.
DAST typically requires more resources as it involves the simulation of actual application attacks and execution of the program in a test environment.
In contrast, SAST uses fewer resources since it analyzes an application's source code or binaries without executing the application.
Organizations with resource constraints may need to carefully weigh this factor when deciding on their preferred security testing methodology.
Compliance
Compliance with security regulations is a crucial aspect for many organizations, especially those handling sensitive data.
Both SAST and DAST can contribute to meeting regulatory requirements such as PCI DSS or HIPAA.
It's essential to evaluate the specific compliance needs of your organization and choose a testing methodology that aligns with those requirements.
Risk level
The risk associated with the application is a significant consideration. If your application handles sensitive data or is deemed high-risk for your organization, employing both SAST and DAST might be necessary.
Each methodology brings its strengths and weaknesses to the table, and a combination of both ensures a more comprehensive approach to identifying and mitigating potential security vulnerabilities.
Ease of implementation
When it comes to implementation, DAST often holds an advantage in terms of simplicity. DAST is generally easier to set up and execute compared to its counterpart, SAST.
This ease of implementation makes DAST a more accessible option for organizations looking to quickly integrate security testing into their existing processes.
The straightforward nature of DAST means that it can be readily adopted, even by teams without extensive security expertise, contributing to a more streamlined and efficient security testing workflow.
Language and framework agnosticism
Another critical consideration is the compatibility of the testing methodology with the diverse technologies employed in application development.
DAST shines in this regard as it is inherently language and framework agnostic. Regardless of the programming language or development framework used, DAST can be applied to test the security of the deployed application.
This versatility is especially valuable in modern, polyglot development environments where applications may be composed of multiple languages and frameworks.
On the other hand, SAST can encounter challenges related to dependencies, making it more sensitive to the specific languages and frameworks employed in the application.
DAST's flexibility in this aspect enhances its applicability in complex, multi-language development landscapes, providing a more universal solution for organizations with diverse technology stacks.
Wrapping up
In conclusion, the choice between DAST and SAST is not a binary decision but rather a nuanced one that depends on the unique characteristics of your organization.
The most effective strategy often involves using both methodologies in a complementary manner.
This "hybrid" approach allows for a more thorough examination of the application's security posture, combining the strengths of SAST's early detection in the development process with DAST's real-world simulation capabilities post-deployment.
It is critical to recognize that putting either one into practice has its challenges and that applying either DAST or SAST requires careful consideration.
If you want to know more about DAST vs SAST and how you can effectively combine them to achieve the best results, you can read the DAST vs SAST article on the Beagle Security blog.