Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
03/06/2026 7:27 pm
TL;DR: SAST and DAST are complementary application testing methods, with SAST finding issues in code before deployment and DAST testing live applications for runtime flaws such as session management, injection, and authentication issues, according to Entro Security. The broader lesson is that no single test covers both development-time and runtime risk, so governance has to match the stage being assessed.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Entro Security: Static and Dynamic Application Testing (SAST vs DAST)
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams combine SAST and DAST in a modern application pipeline?
A: Use SAST early to find insecure code patterns before release, then use DAST against the deployed application to validate runtime behaviour.
Q: Why do runtime security issues often survive static code review?
A: Because some weaknesses depend on configuration, authentication flow, session state, or service interaction that only exists once the application is running.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about SAST and DAST coverage?
A: They often treat the tools as substitutes rather than complementary controls.
Practitioner guidance
- Map each test to a lifecycle stage Use SAST to catch insecure code before deployment and DAST to validate live behaviour after release.
- Prioritise runtime checks for identity-heavy pathways Focus DAST on login flows, session handling, APIs, and service-to-service interactions where configuration and authentication issues often appear only in production-like conditions.
- Tune for false positives and false negatives separately Treat static findings and dynamic findings as different evidence types.
What's in the full article
Entro Security's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- A side-by-side explanation of when static analysis belongs in CI/CD and when runtime validation belongs in deployed testing.
- Specific examples of the kinds of flaws each method is more likely to find, including session and authentication issues.
- The article's own investment considerations for teams deciding whether to expand static testing, dynamic testing, or both.
- A practical framing of why overlap, false positives, and false negatives change the value of each testing method.
👉 Read Entro Security's blog on SAST vs DAST and application security coverage →
SAST vs DAST: what IAM and security teams should take away?
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services →
03/06/2026 7:30 pm
Static and dynamic testing expose a governance problem, not a tooling preference. SAST and DAST are both necessary because they answer different questions about application risk, but neither should be treated as a universal control. The real decision is whether the organisation understands where a flaw becomes observable and actionable. Practitioners should treat coverage as a lifecycle issue, not a product choice.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which is why runtime and governance controls must be paired rather than treated as substitutes.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations prioritise static testing or runtime testing first?
A: Prioritise based on where the risk appears first. If the main issue is insecure logic and code quality, start with static testing. If the main concern is deployed behaviour, APIs, or authentication flow, runtime testing deserves earlier attention. Mature programmes eventually need both to avoid false confidence.
👉 Read our full editorial: SAST vs DAST shows why application security needs both lenses
