Manual Security Testing vs Static Application Security Testing

Developers should learn manual security testing to enhance application security by finding subtle vulnerabilities like business logic errors, authentication bypasses, or session management issues that automated scanners often overlook 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 Testing

Nice Pick

Developers should learn manual security testing to enhance application security by finding subtle vulnerabilities like business logic errors, authentication bypasses, or session management issues that automated scanners often overlook

Pros

• It is crucial in high-risk environments such as financial systems, healthcare applications, or critical infrastructure, where thorough security validation is required before deployment
• Related to: owasp-top-10, 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. Manual Security Testing is a methodology while Static Application Security Testing is a tool. We picked Manual Security Testing based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Manual Security Testing wins

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