Manual Security Analysis vs Static Application Security Testing

Developers should learn and use Manual Security Analysis when building or maintaining high-risk applications, such as financial systems, healthcare software, or critical infrastructure, where security is paramount 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.

Manual Security Analysis

Nice Pick

Developers should learn and use Manual Security Analysis when building or maintaining high-risk applications, such as financial systems, healthcare software, or critical infrastructure, where security is paramount

Pros

• It is essential during security audits, compliance checks (e
• Related to: penetration-testing, code-review

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. Manual Security Analysis is a methodology while Static Application Security Testing is a tool. We picked Manual Security Analysis based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Manual Security Analysis wins

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