Static Application Security Testing vs Dynamic 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 meets 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. Here's our take.

Static Application Security Testing

Nice Pick

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

Dynamic 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

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

The Verdict

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

The Bottom Line

Static Application Security Testing wins

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