SAST Proof of Concept
A structured approach to conducting a SAST proof of concept, including codebase selection, ground truth creation, evaluation criteria, and decision-making methodology.
Primary question: How should organizations structure a SAST proof of concept to make an informed procurement decision?
Direct answer
A SAST proof of concept is a limited-duration evaluation that tests candidate tools against representative codebases with known ground truth, measuring detection accuracy, integration quality, analyst experience, and total cost of ownership to support an informed procurement decision.
A SAST proof of concept should be a structured, time-limited evaluation that tests candidate tools against the organization's own representative codebases. The evaluation should include ground truth datasets with known vulnerabilities, measurable criteria for accuracy and quality, integration testing with existing CI/CD pipelines, and assessment of the analyst experience. The goal is to generate empirical evidence that supports a procurement decision.
Effective PoCs use a combination of seeded vulnerabilities (deliberately introduced for testing) and real vulnerabilities discovered in actual codebases. This dual approach provides both controlled measurement of detection rates and realistic assessment of the tool's performance against actual development patterns.
Definitions
Proof of concept (PoC)
A time-limited, structured evaluation of a SAST tool against representative codebases and workflows, designed to generate empirical evidence about the tool's suitability for the organization.
Ground truth
A known set of vulnerabilities (both genuine and false positives) embedded in or identified within representative codebases, used as a reference for measuring SAST detection accuracy.
Seeded vulnerability
A deliberately introduced vulnerability in a codebase, used during SAST evaluation to measure detection rates and assess the tool's ability to find known issues.
The engineering problem
Organizations may run PoCs without clear criteria, ground truth, or measurable outcomes, resulting in inconclusive evaluations that do not support procurement decisions.
PoCs may test only against small or unrepresentative codebases, failing to reveal integration challenges or performance issues that would emerge at production scale.
PoC results may be influenced by vendor support during the evaluation period, which may not be available after procurement.
Security controls
Each control inspects a different artifact and produces evidence for an engineering decision.
Defined evaluation criteria
Clear criteria- Artifact
- A documented set of evaluation criteria with assigned weights, covering detection accuracy, coverage, integration, analyst experience, and total cost of ownership.
- Risk
- Evaluating SAST tools against undefined or inconsistent criteria, making it impossible to compare results objectively.
- Output
- Defined evaluation criteria with clear scoring methodology.
Evidence:
Ground truth dataset
Known vulnerabilities- Artifact
- A ground truth dataset of known vulnerabilities (both genuine and false positives) in representative codebases, used as a reference for measuring detection accuracy.
- Risk
- Inability to measure detection accuracy without a known reference.
- Output
- Ground truth dataset with documented vulnerabilities for accuracy measurement.
Evidence:
Representative codebase selection
Real-world testing- Artifact
- A set of codebases that reflect the organization's typical development practices, technology stack, coding patterns, and architectural style.
- Risk
- Evaluating SAST tools against codebases that do not represent the organization's actual development practices.
- Output
- Representative codebases for realistic SAST evaluation.
Evidence:
Independent assessment
Vendor-independent evaluation- Artifact
- A PoC assessment conducted independently of vendor influence, with results documented and scored objectively.
- Risk
- Vendor influence during the PoC period creating a biased or incomplete assessment.
- Output
- Independent assessment with objective results and scoring.
Evidence:
Verification workflow
- Define evaluation criteria and assign weights based on organizational priorities.
- Select representative codebases that reflect the organization's actual development practices.
- Create ground truth datasets with known vulnerabilities (both genuine and false positives).
- Seed additional vulnerabilities into codebases for controlled testing.
- Run each candidate SAST tool against the codebases.
- Measure detection accuracy against ground truth.
- Assess integration with existing CI/CD pipelines and security workflows.
- Evaluate analyst experience, remediation guidance quality, and reporting.
- Score each tool against defined criteria and document findings.
- Make a procurement decision based on empirical evidence.
DerScanner · Enterprise
Relationship to DerScanner
DerScanner provides SAST analysis with coverage of multiple programming languages and frameworks, on-premises deployment options, and CI/CD integration via command-line interaction.
DerScanner provides static analysis with coverage of multiple programming languages and frameworks, on-premises deployment options, and CI/CD integration via command-line interaction. [derscanner-sast]
Limits of verification
- PoC results are time-limited and may not reflect long-term operational performance, including tool degradation, tuning requirements, or integration issues that emerge over time.
- Ground truth datasets may not cover all vulnerability classes, frameworks, and code patterns present in production codebases.
- Vendor support during the PoC period may not be available after procurement, potentially affecting the post-procurement experience.
Related knowledge
How to Evaluate SAST Tools
The broader methodology for evaluating SAST tools
Relationship: related-toSAST Evaluation Criteria
Key criteria for evaluating SAST tools
Relationship: related-toMulti-SAST Strategy
Using multiple SAST tools in a security workflow
Relationship: related-toApplication Security Assurance
Building layered application security assurance
Relationship: related-toCanonical terms used: SAST proof of concept; Proof of concept; Ground truth; Seeded vulnerability.
Evidence and references
- DerScanner SAST documentationDerScanner SAST analyzes supported source and binary formats, configuration files, and reporting and comparison of analysis results, with command-line interaction with CI systems and SSDLC integration.
derscanner-sast
SAST evaluation