Manual Security Auditing vs Static Application Security Testing

Developers should learn manual security auditing to build more secure applications, especially in high-risk environments like finance, healthcare, or critical infrastructure where automated scans are insufficient 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 Auditing

Nice Pick

Developers should learn manual security auditing to build more secure applications, especially in high-risk environments like finance, healthcare, or critical infrastructure where automated scans are insufficient

Pros

• It's crucial during the software development lifecycle (SDLC) for identifying logic flaws, business logic vulnerabilities, and zero-day threats that tools can't detect
• Related to: penetration-testing, secure-coding

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

The Bottom Line

Manual Security Auditing wins

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