Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Static Application Security Testing

Developers should use DAST during the testing phase of the software development lifecycle to identify runtime security vulnerabilities that static analysis might miss, such as injection flaws, broken authentication, and sensitive data exposure meets developers should use sast to proactively identify and fix security vulnerabilities during the development phase, reducing the cost and risk of late-stage remediation. Here's our take.

Dynamic Application Security Testing

Nice Pick

Developers should use DAST during the testing phase of the software development lifecycle to identify runtime security vulnerabilities that static analysis might miss, such as injection flaws, broken authentication, and sensitive data exposure

Pros

• It is particularly valuable for web applications and APIs exposed to the internet, as it helps ensure compliance with security standards like OWASP Top 10 and PCI-DSS before deployment
• Related to: static-application-security-testing, penetration-testing

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Static Application Security Testing

Developers should use SAST to proactively identify and fix security vulnerabilities during the development phase, reducing the cost and risk of late-stage remediation

Pros

• It is essential for compliance with security standards (e
• Related to: dynamic-application-security-testing, software-security

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Dynamic Application Security Testing is a methodology while Static Application Security Testing is a tool. We picked Dynamic Application Security Testing based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Dynamic Application Security Testing wins

Based on overall popularity. Dynamic Application Security Testing is more widely used, but Static Application Security Testing excels in its own space.