SAST and SCA: find weaknesses in your code and the dependencies you inherit
Updated on
SAST examines source code for security weaknesses without running the application. SCA inventories open source components and identifies known vulnerabilities and license risks. Loonar designs and implements both checks in delivery pipelines, trains teams and sustains prioritization based on application context, component reachability and evidence of potential exploitation.
In short
- Inspect your code and external components.
- Check context before blocking delivery.
- Keep inventories and decisions traceable.
How do you know you need code and dependency analysis?
Alerts nobody trusts
False positives consume remediation capacity and undermine confidence in scanning. Without documented triage and rules matched to the application language, teams start ignoring notifications. Meaningful weaknesses become harder to spot among findings that repeatedly lead to no useful action.
Hidden transitive dependencies
A chosen library can introduce components that developers never selected directly. Without a resolved inventory of transitive dependencies, teams cannot reliably identify the software included in an application or assess how a newly disclosed vulnerability affects a deployed version.
Conflicting license obligations
Open source components can carry obligations that conflict with the intended distribution or use of a product. Without an approved policy and review of ambiguous cases, routine upgrades create legal uncertainty and force rework late in the release process.
Remediation that stalls
Confirmed findings remain open because ownership is unclear, an upgrade path is missing or tests cannot validate a change. Time passes without an explicit decision. Poor follow-through turns a technical obstacle into persistent exposure for the application and its users.
How does it work?
Language-aware SAST
Configure rules around application languages and development patterns. Triage distinguishes confirmed weaknesses from unsupported alerts, preserves the reasoning behind decisions and revisits suppressions when the code or operating context changes.
Direct and transitive SCA
Inventory declared and transitive dependencies using resolution files and identifiable versions. Map components to known vulnerability advisories and record limitations when the actual composition cannot be established with sufficient confidence.
Reachability analysis
Investigate whether application paths reach the vulnerable function in a dependency. This context supports prioritization but does not replace exposure assessment or establish safety when runtime behavior remains insufficiently understood.
License policies
Classify licenses against business-approved criteria and route ambiguous obligations for legal review. Pipelines enforce agreed warnings or blocks, with traceable exceptions and reassessment when component use or distribution changes.
Suggested fixes and automated pull requests
Propose patches and dependency upgrades through pull requests while retaining human review and tests. Automation creates a remediation path; it does not prove functional compatibility or remove security validation requirements.
Reports and SBOM
Organize component inventories and analysis evidence by release. Reports support audit preparation and vulnerability response without presenting a software bill of materials as standalone proof of application security or compliance.
How does Loonar deliver?
Portfolio assessment
Loonar identifies languages, repositories, dependencies and review practices. The assessment considers remediation capacity and audit needs, selecting representative applications and establishing a starting point that teams can verify and maintain.
Policy design
Define SAST rules, risk criteria and license policies with engineering, security and business owners. Include responsibilities, exception handling and a review path for components with insufficient information for a confident assessment.
Implementation and integrations
Connect analysis to code reviews and pipelines using permissions appropriate to the scope. Validate inventories, tune noisy rules and test enforcement before extending coverage to additional repositories and application teams.
Triage and remediation training
Train teams to interpret data flows, transitive dependencies and license alerts. Exercises using actual findings show how to document decisions, validate suggestions and escalate questions that require specialist investigation.
Operations and continuous improvement
Track remediation, false positives and dependency changes. Review policies, exceptions and coverage with owners, retaining release evidence and adjusting checks as the product, architecture or software distribution model changes.
Which technology does Loonar use to deliver it?
What results do we measure?
- False positives per scan
- Tracks alerts classified as false positives through documented triage.
- Critical vulnerability remediation time
- Measures the interval between confirmation and validated remediation of critical weaknesses.
- Percentage of repositories covered
- Shows the share of in-scope repositories with active analysis and reviewed results.
- Blocked license violations
- Records occurrences blocked by the approved license policy.
How do SAST and SCA compare with DAST and IAST?
Each technique observes a different layer, so results need to be interpreted together.
| Aspect | SAST | SCA | DAST | IAST |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finds | Unsafe code patterns | Vulnerable components and licenses | Externally observable weaknesses | Weaknesses in executed flows |
| Runs | Without running the application | During component resolution | Against a running application | During instrumented tests |
| Limitations | Rules and context | Inventory and advisory quality | Incomplete code coverage | Depends on tested paths |
| Requires | Analyzable code | Dependency information | Accessible test environment | Compatible instrumentation |
Where do we apply it?
Financial services
Transactional applications combine proprietary code with libraries that follow different update schedules. SAST and SCA distinguish application weaknesses from risks introduced by components. Documented triage and release evidence support remediation and audit decisions, while runtime testing and other security assessments address risks these techniques cannot observe on their own.
Healthcare
Systems handling patient data need visibility into components and careful coordination of remediation. Dependency inventories and source analysis help teams plan upgrades around operational constraints. Regression testing and approval from service owners protect clinical workflows while security findings are addressed, without assuming that a clean scan proves the system is safe.
SaaS
Teams shipping continuously need to detect new dependencies and license changes before distribution. Pull request checks and release-linked evidence make those decisions visible. Reachability analysis helps organize remediation work, while uncertain results remain explicit rather than being treated as proof that a vulnerable component cannot affect the application.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between SAST and SCA?
SAST examines application source code without running it to identify patterns that may indicate security weaknesses. SCA identifies external components, their versions, known vulnerabilities and licenses. These are different perspectives: a vulnerable library may exist even when SAST reports no findings. Equally, keeping dependencies current does not eliminate weaknesses introduced by the team's own application code or design decisions.
Do I need both?
For applications built with external libraries, the two approaches address distinct risks and usually complement each other. Scope depends on languages, architecture and access to source and inventories. Loonar designs the appropriate combination, implements integrations, trains triage teams and sustains tuning. Neither technique replaces runtime tests, architectural assessment or monitoring of the deployed application and its operating environment.
How can false positives be reduced?
Match rules to the application's languages and patterns, validate reported data flows and document why each finding was classified. Suppressions need a defined scope and review rather than permanent approval. Start with representative applications and track triage outcomes. The goal is reliable feedback, not hiding difficult findings or making dashboards look better by artificially reducing the number of alerts.
What is reachability analysis?
Reachability analysis examines paths through which application code could reach the vulnerable part of a component. It adds context to published severity and supports prioritization. Dynamic loading, configuration and analysis limitations can still leave paths unseen. A negative or inconclusive result is not proof of safety and should be considered alongside exposure, runtime evidence and the impact of potential exploitation.
Do SAST and SCA help meet PCI DSS and other standards?
These checks can support secure development, vulnerability management and assessment evidence within the applicable scope. They do not guarantee compliance or replace requirement interpretation and validation by qualified owners. Reports should document coverage, limitations, decisions and remediation. Organizations must also maintain the other processes and controls required for their environment rather than treating a scanning report as a compliance certificate.
Shall we design the next version of your operation?
Tell us the challenge. One conversation with a specialist gives you a clear path, even if it isn't time to buy yet.