SAST Tool Selection and Configuration
SAST Tool Selection and Configuration
Choosing appropriate SAST tools requires evaluating multiple factors beyond just vulnerability detection capabilities. Language coverage must match your technology stack, including frameworks and libraries. Integration capabilities determine how smoothly tools fit into your existing pipeline. Reporting features affect how effectively teams can understand and act on findings. Performance characteristics impact pipeline execution time and resource consumption.
Commercial SAST tools like Checkmarx, Fortify, and Veracode offer comprehensive language support and sophisticated analysis engines. These tools typically provide better accuracy and fewer false positives than open-source alternatives but require significant licensing investments. Enterprise features include centralized management, compliance reporting, and professional support. However, their complexity can require dedicated personnel for configuration and maintenance.
Open-source SAST tools provide cost-effective security scanning for many organizations. Tools like Semgrep, Bandit (Python), ESLint security plugins (JavaScript), and SpotBugs (Java) offer quality scanning for specific languages. While individual tools may have limited scope, combining multiple open-source scanners can provide comprehensive coverage. The open-source community actively maintains rule sets for emerging vulnerabilities.
# Custom SAST rule example using Semgrep
# File: custom-rules/sql-injection.yml
rules:
- id: custom-sql-injection
patterns:
- pattern-either:
# String concatenation in SQL
- pattern: |
$QUERY = "..." + $INPUT + "..."
$RESULT = $SQL.execute($QUERY, ...)
# String formatting in SQL
- pattern: |
$QUERY = $STR.format(..., $INPUT, ...)
$RESULT = $SQL.execute($QUERY, ...)
# F-string with user input
- pattern: |
$QUERY = f"SELECT ... {$INPUT} ..."
$RESULT = $SQL.execute($QUERY, ...)
message: "Potential SQL injection vulnerability. Use parameterized queries instead."
languages: [python]
severity: ERROR
metadata:
cwe: CWE-89
owasp: A03:2021
references:
- https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/SQL_Injection
fix-regex:
regex: '(.*)\+ (\w+) \+(.*)'
replacement: '\1%s\3", \2'