SAST and DAST Tools: Still Essential Security Solutions in 2025

The demand for comprehensive application security testing has never been greater than it is today. As organizations accelerate digital transformation and move to cloud environments, the complexity of software—and the risks to applications—continue to grow. SAST and DAST tools both play important roles in today’s application security landscape. 

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tools analyze source code early in the development process to identify security flaws before deployment, while Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) tools simulate real-world attacks on running applications to uncover runtime vulnerabilities and misconfigurations. Together, SAST and DAST are complementary tools that enable security teams and developers to address application security threats before deploying applications to production environments. 

This guide will help organizations understand how SAST and DAST tools strengthen their security posture and ensure resilient applications in an ever-changing threat landscape.

SAST and DAST Tools: Foundations of Modern AppSec

SAST and DAST tools form the backbone of application security testing in today’s software development lifecycle (SDLC). Often referred to as “white-box” testing solutions, SAST tools examine source code, bytecode, and binaries for vulnerabilities without executing the application. SAST is used early in the SDLC, before the application is deployed. To do this, SAST tools require access to source code or compiled artifacts.

SAST tools excel at detecting several common types of vulnerabilities, including SQL injection (SQLi), cross-site scripting (XSS), Insecure APIs, buffer overflows, hard-coded credentials, insecure configurations, and code quality flaws early in development, enabling developers to remediate problems before they reach production. SAST tools integrate directly into integrated development environments (IDEs) and continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipelines to enforce “shift‑left” security by detecting coding errors before they reach the quality assurance (QA) testing stage.

 In contrast, DAST tools function as “black-box” testers by interacting with running applications to simulate real-world attacks to identify vulnerabilities, such as authentication issues, business logic flaws, misconfigurations, and vulnerabilities from system interactions. DAST doesn’t require access to source code, but it can only occur later in the SDLC, after the application has been built and deployed to a test or staging environment, because it requires a running application. 

The Strengths and Weaknesses of SAST and DAST Tools

SAST Strengths

Early detection: Identifies code-level vulnerabilities during development.

Code-centric feedback: Provides line-specific remediation guidance for developers.

Shift-left integration: Seamlessly integrates into IDEs and CI/CD pipelines for continuous testing.

Compliance support: Validates adherence to secure coding standards, including the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) Top 10 and Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT). Many SAST tools include pre-configured rules that correlate to important industry standards and regulations, such as the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

DAST Strengths 

Runtime validation: Detects vulnerabilities in running applications.

Attacker’s perspective: Simulates real-world attacks to uncover exploitable flaws.

Language-agnostic: Works across all programming languages and frameworks.

Environment testing: Verifies server configurations and third-party dependencies.

SAST Weaknesses

False positives: Static analysis may flag non-issues without runtime context.

Language dependency: Requires tooling tailored to specific programming languages.

Blind to runtime risks: Misses environment-specific and business flaws.

DAST Weaknesses

Limited code visibility: Cannot pinpoint root causes in source code.

Late-stage fixes: Vulnerabilities found post-deployment require more time and effort to remediate.

Resource-intensive: Requires testing environments and may slow deployment pipelines.

Use Cases and Cost Implications for SAST

SAST tools are used early in the SDLC, during coding and pre-build. SAST is used for codebase audits and to enforce secure coding best practices, resulting in higher quality code. SAST may involve costs related to licensing, setup, and integration into development workflows. Costs frequently scale with the number of users, codebase size, and integration complexity. SAST tools improve overall code quality and reduce technical debt by catching and resolving issues early in the development lifecycle.

Use Cases & Cost Implications for DAST

DAST is used for post-deployment testing, validating compliance for common regulations, and testing for runtime vulnerabilities. DAST tools may require dedicated infrastructure for runtime testing or disrupt existing testing environments. DAST tools pricing ranges widely, depending on pricing model and capabilities. DAST tools may require dedicated infrastructure for runtime testing or disrupt existing testing environments. Commercial DAST tools minimize false positives, helping security and development teams focus on the areas of real concern.

Common Limitations of Limitations of Automated Scans

One of the persistent challenges in application security testing is managing false positives— alerts on identified security vulnerabilities that turn out to be non-issues, resulting in wasted remediation effort and undue stress for developers. Conversely, SAST testing tools may also produce false negatives, missing real vulnerabilities—especially ones that are complex, deeply embedded, or only exploitable under specific conditions.

Additionally, automated security tools may not fully assess all aspects of an application or environment. For example, some tools may not have the functionality to effectively test single-page applications (SPAs) and systems with dynamic content or custom protocols. Some vulnerabilities are simply too complex or context-specific to be detected by automated security testing tools alone. 

Another problem is that automated security scanning tools primarily detect vulnerabilities that are already documented in a database. These tools rarely identify zero-day threats or novel attack vectors that have not yet been cataloged. A related issue is the transient nature of application security testing tools that only capture the state of the system at the moment they are run. Any vulnerabilities introduced after the scan will go undetected until the next scan, leaving potential exposure to malicious attacks. As beneficial as SAST and DAST tools are in application security, these two testing tools are not enough to provide comprehensive coverage.. 

The Role of Human-Led Testing

Human-led testing, such as penetration testing (pen tests) and Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST), becomes vitally important in scenarios where automated tools alone cannot address complex security risks, compliance requirements, or dynamic attack vectors. Pen testing is a simulated cyberattack, where the pen tester has the same tools, processes, and techniques as a malicious actor, then uses them to find weaknesses in a system and demonstrate the business impacts of those weaknesses.

IAST is a tool that combines SAST and DAST to test applications for vulnerabilities. It tracks application behavior while tests are running using sensor modules, then sending alerts when a vulnerability is detected. Similar to DAST, however, IAST is programming-language dependent, so it may require a code change to function (or it may not function at all). 

Together, SAST, DAST, pen testing, and IAST can create a holistic approach towards application security, which is integrated into DevSecOps processes and tools. This powerful combination is part of a unified AppSec strategy that delivers continuous security coverage across the SDLC and supports compliance goals without unduly disrupting developer velocity. However, the increasing complexity of software and the software supply chain necessitate a more unified and comprehensive approach: Application Security Posture Management (ASPM).

AI, Automation, and Unified Security Platforms

The future of SAST and DAST tools lies in greater automation, insights surfaced by artificial intelligence (AI), and unified security platforms. In 2025, application security solutions increasingly combine SAST, DAST, Software Composition Analysis (SCA), and IAST into integrated platforms, offering end-to-end visibility across the entire application stack. 

In these platforms, AI and machine learning (ML) improve vulnerability detection, automate triage, and predict exploitability, allowing security teams to focus on the vulnerabilities that pose the greatest real risk. Automated remediation suggestions and self-healing capabilities are increasingly available, reducing mean time to resolution (MTTR) in the event of an incident. 

In addition, cloud-native deployment, scalability, and support for modern architectures—such as microservices, containers, and serverless architectures—require more powerful and flexible application security testing tools. By consolidating application security testing into a unified platform, an ASPM, organizations can address these emerging risks and, at the same time, streamline operations, reduce costs, and maintain a proactive security posture in the face of increasingly sophisticated threats.

How to Choose the Best SAST Tool

Choosing a Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tool is about more than just scanning code—it’s about finding a solution that aligns with your organization’s workflows, compliance needs, and approach to security testing. At OX Security, we recognize that effective SAST must go beyond detecting potential security issues in the application source code. It must deliver high-confidence, actionable results that fit naturally into modern development environments.

Unlike traditional tools that operate in silos, OX Security integrates SAST as part of a unified ASPM platform, correlating findings across your repositories, CI/CD pipelines, runtime environments, and cloud infrastructure. This unified view allows teams to see not only where vulnerabilities exist but whether they are exploitable and impactful in the context of your specific environment. While most tools merely flag issues, OX clarifies which ones matter—backed by evidence from the codebase and deployment context.

OX’s SAST analysis occurs pre-deployment, delivering precise insights into risky patterns, misconfigurations, and compliance gaps early in the development process. This approach supports true shift-left security without interrupting developer flow.

Our testing method supports over 100 languages and frameworks, with direct integration into developer workflows through Git-based scanning, and CI/CD hooks. The OX platform allows teams to prioritize findings based on exploitability and business impact, reducing noise and streamlining triage. 

By choosing OX Security, organizations gain an application security tool that helps security teams and developers focus on the 5% of risks that matter. Whether you’re focused on reducing false positives, improving time to remediation, or maintaining compliance, OX delivers a smarter, more contextualized approach to security testing—built for modern pipelines, agile teams, and real-world threats.