SAST vs DAST | CyberNcrypt

Regardless of how well developers adhere to the most recent secure coding guidelines and how good their intentions are, production code will almost always contain at least one security flaw. Developers are only human, so something must give when attempting to balance the large and growing list of potential software vulnerabilities with the increasing pressure for faster release cycles.

As with the majority of other aspects of software development, the solution is to use test automation to identify the vulnerabilities in your source code and overall application security, which malicious actors will invariably find and exploit.

What Is SAST?

Static application security testing (SAST) is a type of white-box testing. A SAST tool examines your source code and its dependencies (frameworks and libraries). During the scan, the tool employs a predefined set of rules to detect and mark issues and vulnerabilities. SAST tools integrate easily into a CI/CD pipeline. This means that the scanning process can begin as soon as a team member commits code to a source code repository like GIT.

What Is DAST?

SAST’s opposite approach is used in dynamic security testing (DAST). Unlike SAST tools, which rely on white-box testing, DAST employs a black-box approach, which assumes testers have no knowledge of the inner workings of the software being tested and must rely on the available inputs and outputs. Dynamic black-box testing is required. This is due to the fact that as an application runs, the number of inputs and outputs changes, as does the data it consumes or releases. DAST tools, as a result, require that you have a working version of an app available for testing.

How do SAST and DAST differ?

Many businesses are unsure about the advantages and disadvantages of using SAST vs. DAST. However, SAST and DAST are two distinct testing approaches with distinct advantages. They detect various types of vulnerabilities and are most effective at various stages of the software development life cycle. SAST should be run frequently and early on against all files containing source code. DAST should be performed on a running application in a production-like environment. As a result, incorporating both SAST and DAST into your application security testing program is the best approach.

The following are some key distinctions between SAST and DAST:

SAST	DAST
White box security testing – The tester has full access to the framework, design, and implementation. The application is thoroughly tested from the ground up. The developer approach is represented by this type of testing.	Black box security testing – The tester is unfamiliar with the technologies or frameworks on which the application is built. From the outside in, the application is tested. The hacker approach is represented by this type of testing.
Source code is required – SAST does not necessitate the deployment of an application. Without running the application, it analyses the source code or binary.	A running application is required – DAST does not necessitate the use of source code or binaries. It performs analysis by running the application.
Cannot identify run-time and environmental issues – Because the tool only scans static code, it cannot detect run-time vulnerabilities.	Can detect run-time and environmental issues – Because the tool performs dynamic analysis on an application, it can detect run-time vulnerabilities.
Identifies vulnerabilities earlier in the SDLC process – When the code is deemed feature-complete, the scan can begin.	Discovers vulnerabilities near the end of the SDLC – After the development cycle is complete, vulnerabilities can be discovered.