Security Scanning
Systematic detection of vulnerabilities in code, dependencies, and runtime environments using automated and manual testing techniques.
Classification
- ComplexityMedium
- Impact areaTechnical
- Decision typeArchitectural
- Organizational maturityIntermediate
Technical context
Principles & goals
Use cases & scenarios
Compromises
- Overreliance on tools without human validation.
- Unaddressed findings lead to false security posture.
- Lack of integration creates scattered results and duplicate work.
- Shift-left: run scans in the pull request workflow.
- Establish triage process to reduce false positives.
- Integrate results into central dashboards and ticketing systems.
I/O & resources
- Source code or artifacts (binaries, container images)
- Access rights to test or staging environments
- Dependency lists and build manifests
- Prioritized vulnerability list with CVSS/severity
- Reports, tickets and audit evidence
- Suggested fixes and remediation guides
Description
Security scanning is a systematic approach to automated and manual testing of software and infrastructure for vulnerabilities. It combines static, dynamic and dependency analyses to detect risks early. It is integrated into CI/CD pipelines and operations to prevent regressions and meet compliance requirements.
✔Benefits
- Early identification of vulnerabilities reduces exploit risk.
- Automated scans scale with CI/CD and minimize manual effort.
- Supports compliance and evidence for audits.
✖Limitations
- Automated tools produce false positives and require review.
- Not all attack vectors can be covered automatically.
- Performance and time costs for extensive DAST suites.
Trade-offs
Metrics
- Time to Detect
Average time between introduction of a vulnerability and its detection.
- Find rate / scan coverage
Portion of codebase or artifacts covered by scans.
- False positive rate
Share of reported findings that prove to be non-actionable.
Examples & implementations
SAST integration with SonarQube
Use of SonarQube for static analysis in the pull request workflow.
DAST with OWASP ZAP against staging
Automated dynamic scans of staging environments with ZAP in CI.
Dependency scanning via Dependabot
Automatic pull requests for outdated or insecure libraries.
Implementation steps
Analyze existing risks and select appropriate scan types (SAST/DAST/SCA).
Integrate chosen tools into CI/CD with defined policy and break conditions.
Set up reporting, ticket creation and SLAs for remediation.
Continuous monitoring, tuning of signatures and review processes.
⚠️ Technical debt & bottlenecks
Technical debt
- Outdated scan rules and signatures need regular updates.
- Heterogeneous tool landscape without central management creates overhead.
- No automated remediation pipeline for common findings.
Known bottlenecks
Misuse examples
- No review: teams rely solely on tool output.
- Scans only in production, losing early detection.
- No prioritization: all findings are treated equally.
Typical traps
- High false positive rate without clear triage process.
- Missing authentication for DAST leads to incomplete results.
- Overloading CI with long scans without time limits.
Required skills
Architectural drivers
Constraints
- • Network access to staging/prod required for DAST
- • License and privacy requirements for third-party scans
- • Resource limits in pipelines restrict parallel scans