Assessing Development Practices

Your software development lifecycle (SDLC) fundamentally shapes security testing integration. Waterfall development with distinct phases naturally accommodates SAST during coding and DAST during testing phases. Agile methodologies benefit from continuous security feedback, making IAST attractive for its integration with existing test execution. DevOps practices demand tools that operate at deployment velocity—incremental SAST for rapid builds, containerized DAST for ephemeral environments, or IAST for continuous security monitoring.

Code commit frequency affects tool performance requirements. Teams committing hundreds of times daily need fast incremental analysis to avoid bottlenecks. Full SAST scans taking hours become impractical, pushing organizations toward optimized configurations or IAST's test-time analysis. Less frequent commits allow more comprehensive analysis but might miss the immediate feedback that prevents vulnerability accumulation.

Testing maturity directly impacts IAST effectiveness. Organizations with comprehensive automated test suites gain maximum value from IAST, as security analysis piggybacks on existing test coverage. Limited testing means limited IAST coverage, potentially missing critical vulnerabilities. SAST provides consistent coverage regardless of test quality, while DAST can systematically probe applications independently. Honest assessment of testing practices guides realistic expectations for each tool.