Manual Security Audits vs Static Application Security Testing

Developers should learn manual security audits to enhance application security, especially for high-risk systems like financial or healthcare software, where automated scans may not catch logic flaws or business logic vulnerabilities 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 Audits

Nice Pick

Developers should learn manual security audits to enhance application security, especially for high-risk systems like financial or healthcare software, where automated scans may not catch logic flaws or business logic vulnerabilities

Pros

• It is essential during security-critical phases like pre-release reviews, compliance audits (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 Audits is a methodology while Static Application Security Testing is a tool. We picked Manual Security Audits based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Manual Security Audits wins

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