Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
18/08/2026 2:53 pm
TL;DR: Dynamic application security testing proves whether a vulnerability is exploitable in a running application, and Cycode's guide argues that this runtime confirmation matters more as AI agents ship code faster than manual review can keep up. The practical shift is toward continuous, CI/CD-embedded testing that complements SAST and SCA, because agentic development increases release volume and widens the gap between theoretical risk and real exposure.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Cycode: What Is DAST? Dynamic Application Security Testing in the Agentic Era
By the numbers:
- 80% of organisations report their AI agents have already performed actions beyond intended scope, according to SailPoint.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams implement DAST in CI/CD pipelines?
A: Start by making DAST part of the release workflow, not a separate review process.
Q: Why do runtime flaws still matter when SAST is already in place?
A: SAST shows where code may be risky, but it cannot prove that a flaw is exploitable in the deployed application.
Q: What do teams get wrong about API testing with DAST?
A: Teams often assume browser crawling is enough, but most modern attack surface now sits in APIs.
Practitioner guidance
- Embed DAST into release gates Run authenticated DAST scans on every merge or deployment path so exploitable runtime flaws block release before they reach production.
- Prioritise API coverage first Map REST, GraphQL, and other API endpoints before relying on browser crawling, because modern attack paths increasingly bypass the UI.
- Correlate runtime and code signals Link DAST findings with SAST, SCA, and asset inventory so duplicate or theoretical issues do not bury confirmed exploitation paths.
What's in the full article
Cycode's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Payload examples and scanner behaviours for SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, SSRF, and broken authentication cases.
- Configuration detail for authenticated scanning across CI/CD, staging, and API-first environments.
- Workflow guidance for correlating DAST with SAST, SCA, and issue tracking to reduce false positives.
- Limitations and tuning considerations for complex login flows, production scanning, and microservice architectures.
👉 Read Cycode's guide to DAST in the agentic era →
DAST in the agentic era: are your runtime checks keeping up?
Explore further
18/08/2026 3:36 pm
Runtime confirmation is the missing governance layer in fast-moving application programmes. Code scanning tells teams where flaws may exist, but DAST tells them whether the flaw is exploitable in the deployed environment. That distinction becomes more important as AI-assisted development increases release volume and reduces the time available for manual triage. Practitioners should treat runtime evidence as the deciding factor for release confidence.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do organisations decide which DAST findings matter most?
A: The best triage model starts with exploitability, then adds business context. Findings that affect authentication, session integrity, object-level authorisation, or externally exposed APIs should rise first because they can turn into real compromise. Lower-priority issues can wait if they are not reachable in production or are already covered by other controls.
👉 Read our full editorial: DAST in the agentic era: runtime testing still closes gaps
