Topic starter
06/07/2026 9:43 am
TL;DR: Static scans produce 90 to 99 percent noise because they flag libraries and functions that never execute, while runtime inspection shows which code is actually live in production, according to Oligo Security. That shift turns compliance from assumption-based paperwork into evidence-based decision-making, especially where FedRAMP, PCI DSS 4.0, and SOC 2 depend on current execution context.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Oligo Security: “Proving Compliance at Runtime”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when compliance is based only on build-time scans?
A: Teams end up certifying theoretical exposure instead of actual execution.
Q: Why does runtime evidence matter for FedRAMP, PCI DSS 4.0, and SOC 2?
A: Because those frameworks depend on defensible proof that controls reflect current operating conditions.
Q: How can security teams tell whether a static vulnerability finding is actually relevant?
A: They should check whether the vulnerable library is loaded, whether the risky function is called, and whether runtime behaviour supports real exploitability.
Practitioner guidance
- Prioritise runtime evidence over static artefacts Use live execution data to decide which findings are actually in scope before feeding them into audit, remediation, or exception processes.
- Map evidence to framework-specific controls Tie non-execution, loaded library status, and anomalous behaviour to the exact compliance clauses your auditors will test, rather than presenting raw scan output.
- Reduce noisy findings with execution context Suppress theoretical vulnerabilities that never run in production and redirect engineering effort to code paths that are demonstrably active.
Bottom line: Static compliance artefacts are increasingly poor evidence because they describe build-time states rather than the code paths that are actually active in production.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
06/07/2026 9:59 am
Runtime evidence is becoming the decisive compliance control because build-time theory cannot prove present risk. Static inventories, SBOMs, and scan reports are useful only up to the moment the application changes or the runtime path diverges from what was packaged. Once execution becomes the evidentiary standard, compliance stops being an argument about what might be vulnerable and becomes a question of what is demonstrably live. The practitioner takeaway is that evidence quality now matters as much as policy coverage.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should organisations do when audit evidence is stale by the time review starts?
A: Move from document collection to continuous evidence capture. Runtime telemetry gives auditors fresh proof of current execution, reduces rework, and makes it easier to justify risk-based decisions when the environment has changed since the scan, ticket, or SBOM was produced.
👉 Read our full editorial: Runtime compliance evidence is replacing build-time theory