Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
01/08/2026 10:51 pm
TL;DR: SAST catches code-level issues early and DAST validates runtime behaviour, but both miss business logic vulnerabilities and authorization flaws, which remain widespread across tested applications, according to Gecko Security. The shift is toward contextual analysis that understands application intent, not just patterns or deployed responses.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Gecko Security: SAST vs DAST and the business logic vulnerability gap
By the numbers:
- AI-generated code introduces security flaws in 45% of cases, overwhelming traditional scanning.
Questions worth separating out
Q: What breaks when SAST and DAST are used without context-aware testing?
A: Teams end up validating syntax and runtime behaviour while still missing whether the application actually enforces the right access decision.
Q: Why do business logic vulnerabilities create problems for IAM and AppSec teams?
A: Because they sit at the boundary between code and authorisation policy.
Q: How can security teams know if contextual AppSec is working?
A: They should measure the share of findings that are reachable in production, the time from detection to owner assignment, and the percentage of backlog items that are closed without repeated re-triage.
Practitioner guidance
- Map authorization checks to business-critical workflows Identify where the application grants access to records, actions, or administrative functions, then trace those decisions back to the expected identity and privilege model.
- Use SAST for syntax, then add context-aware validation for intent Keep SAST in development for injection flaws and obvious coding errors, but add analysis that can reason over architecture diagrams, API contracts, and design documents for authorization review.
- Prioritise DAST on exposed runtime paths with identity significance Reserve runtime testing for the flows where authentication, session state, or privilege transitions materially change access outcomes.
What's in the full article
Gecko Security's full article covers the implementation detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- A deeper walkthrough of SAST and DAST workflows across development, staging, and production
- The comparison table that breaks down false positives, speed, and deployment dependencies
- Examples of IAST, RASP, and SCA in the application security testing stack
- Gecko Security's explanation of semantic code analysis and context ingestion for authorization review
👉 Read Gecko Security's analysis of SAST, DAST, and business logic vulnerabilities →
Business logic vulnerabilities: are your SAST and DAST controls enough?
Explore further
01/08/2026 10:58 pm
Business logic vulnerability management is becoming an identity governance problem. When an application incorrectly authorises a user, token, or service call, the failure is not only in code analysis but in the governance of access decisions. That makes application testing relevant to IAM, PAM, and access policy teams, not just AppSec teams. The practical conclusion is that identity-aware validation must become part of security testing strategy.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations replace DAST with semantic static analysis?
A: No. DAST still has value for confirming deployed behaviour, misconfigurations, and reachable runtime issues. The practical model is layered: SAST for syntax, DAST for exploitability, and contextual analysis for intent and authorisation correctness. Each answers a different question, and removing one leaves a blind spot.
👉 Read our full editorial: Business logic flaws are exposing the limits of SAST and DAST
