SAST vs. DAST vs. IAST: Understanding the Differences and Importance of Application Security Testing

Reading time: 5 min read
Raj Vardhman
Written by
Raj Vardhman

Updated · Jul 31, 2023

Raj Vardhman
Chief Strategist, Techjury | Project Engineer, WP-Stack | Joined January 2023 | Twitter LinkedIn
Raj Vardhman

Raj Vardhman is a tech expert and the Chief Tech Strategist at TechJury.net, where he leads the rese... | See full bio

April Grace Asgapo
Edited by
April Grace Asgapo

Editor

April Grace Asgapo
Joined June 2023 | LinkedIn
April Grace Asgapo

April is a proficient content writer with a knack for research and communication. With a keen eye fo... | See full bio

Techjury is supported by its audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more.

In today's rapidly evolving digital landscape, the ever-growing complexity of cyber threats poses significant challenges for organizations. To safeguard their systems and data, ensuring robust application security has become a top priority.

Within the realm of application security, three popular approaches to consider are SAST (Static Application Security Testing), DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing), and IAST (Interactive Application Security Testing).

In this article, learn about the details of these methodologies, explore their differences, and understand the significance of implementing them.

Key Takeaways:

  • SAST, DAST, and IAST are different approaches to application security testing.
  • SAST analyzes the application’s source code or binary to identify vulnerabilities.
  • DAST involves testing an application while it is running to identify vulnerabilities and security weaknesses.
  • IAST combines elements of both SAST and DAST by instrumenting the application to provide real-time security analysis.
  • Implementing SAST, DAST, and IAST is crucial for application security, covering static, dynamic, and interactive vulnerabilities throughout development and deployment.

What are SAST, DAST, and IAST?

Application security testing involves ensuring the robustness and integrity of software applications.

It involves an evaluation of applications to identify vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and potential security risks.

Organizations can proactively address these issues and protect their systems from malicious attacks by conducting thorough security testing.

SAST, DAST, and IAST

SAST, DAST, and IAST are designed to complement each other and provide different perspectives on assessing application security.

Below, these three processes are explained in depth. 

Static Application Security Testing (SAST)

SAST is a white-box testing technique that analyzes an application's source code, bytecode, or binary without executing it. It scans the code line by line, seeking potential vulnerabilities and security flaws.

SAST tools search for common coding mistakes, such as butter overflows, SQL injection vulnerabilities, and insecure cryptography.

The process of SAST is as follows:

SAST Process

By identifying these issues early in the software development lifecycle, SAST helps developers address them promptly, reducing the risk of security breaches.

These are the advantages and disadvantages of SAST:

Advantages

Disadvantages

Early vulnerability detection

Limited to detecting static vulnerabilities

Integration into the software development process

High false favorable rates requiring manual verification

Ability to identify complex security issues

May miss exposures arising from system behavior or configurations

Provides insights into code quality, and maintainability

 

SAST also allows for a comprehensive analysis of applications to reduce the risk of security breaches.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

DAST is a black-box testing methodology that assesses the security of an application in a running state.

It stimulates real-world attack scenarios by sending malicious inputs and monitoring the application’s responses.

DAST tools evaluate the application’s exposed interfaces, such as web services and APIs, to identify vulnerabilities like cross-site scripting (XSS), injection attacks, and insecure direct object references.

The life cycle of DAST is presented below: 

Life Cycle of DAST

While there may be many advantages to the use of DAST, it can also have its own disadvantages. Here are some of them:

Advantages

Disadvantages

Evaluates the application as it runs, capturing real-time vulnerabilities

Limited to testing the exposed parts of an application

Provides a realistic view of potential attack vectors

It may produce false negatives if particular vulnerabilities require specific conditions to manifest

Requires minimal access to the application’s internal workings

Lacks visibility into source code or deeper architectural issues

Offers an effective way to validate security measures in production

 

DAST is a crucial testing methodology that examines an application's operational state, mimicking real-world attacks to identify vulnerabilities within exposed interfaces, ensuring a comprehensive security assessment.

Aside from SAST and DAST, IAST is another valuable method in application security.

Interactive Application Security Testing (IAST)

IAST combines the strength of both SAST and DAST methodologies, offering a hybrid approach to application security testing.

It leverages instrumentation within the application to provide real-time feedback during its execution.

IAST tools monitor the application’s runtime behavior, data flow, and execution paths, enabling the detection of vulnerabilities that may arise due to specific runtime conditions or user interactions.

These are its advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Real-time detection of vulnerabilities during application execution

Requires instrumenting the application, which may impact performance

Accurate identification of vulnerabilities and reduce false positives

May have limited support for particular programming languages or frameworks

Provides deep visibility into application behavior and security flaws

Relies on proper configuration and coverage to ensure comprehensive testing

Suitable for use in both pre-production and production environments

 

IAST’s combination of SAST and DAST utilizes functionalities that allow for the detection of vulnerabilities in applications arising from runtime conditions or user interactions.

In the next section, you’ll see their differences and understand how each methodology brings a perspective to application security testing.

Differences Between SAST, DAST, and IAST

Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of the differences between SAST, DAST, and IAST:

Methodology

Testing approach

Time of testing

Type of vulnerabilities detected

SAST

Static

Early

Static vulnerabilities

DAST

Dynamic

Runtime

Exposed interface vulnerabilities

IAST

Hybrid

Runtime

Runtime and interaction-based vulnerabilities

It is crucial to recognize the significance of implementing these methodologies and their benefits in protecting users and securing devices.

Importance of Implementing SAST, DAST, and IAST

Implementing a combination of SAST, DAST, and IAST methodology provides a multi-layered approach to application security testing, offering comprehensive coverage and reducing the risk of potential security breaches.

SAST helps identify vulnerabilities during the development phase, DAST examines the application’s exposed interfaces, and IAST provides real-time insights into run-time vulnerabilities.

Together, they significantly enhance the security posture of applications, safeguarding user data and protecting against potential threats.

Furthermore, combining the three strengthens the overall security posture of applications by addressing vulnerabilities from multiple angles.

This strategy ensures that vulnerabilities are detected at various stages of the software development lifecycle, leaving minimal room for oversight.

In a nutshell:

Implementing a combination of SAST, DAST, and IAST methodologies provides a comprehensive and multi-layered approach to application security testing.

Bottom Line

Understanding the differences and benefits of SAST, DAST, and IAST is vital for implementing a robust application security testing strategy.

By combining these three, organizations can identify vulnerabilities at different stages of the software development lifecycle and effectively reduce security risks.

Incorporating SAST, DAST, and IAST into the application development and testing processes is essential for organizations that build secure and reliable software solutions.

FAQs.


How frequently should application security testing be performed?

The testing frequency depends on factors such as the complexity of the application, the level of criticality, and the rate of change. However, it is recommended to conduct regular security testing as part of a security strategy.

Are SAST, DAST, and IAST mutually exclusive?

No, these methodologies are not mutually exclusive. Combining SAST, DAST, and IAST can provide more accurate results, covering broader vulnerabilities.

Can SAST, DAST, and IAST replace manual code review?

While automated testing methodologies like SAST, DAST, and IAST can significantly enhance the efficiency of vulnerability, they should not be considered a complete replacement for manual code review.

SHARE:

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
Leave your comment

Your email address will not be published.