SAST / DAST
Combine visibility into source-code security and running application behavior to identify weaknesses across the development lifecycle.
Static and dynamic testing answer different questions. Static analysis reads the source and can point at an exact line, but cannot know whether that line is reachable in production. Dynamic testing exercises the running application and only sees what is actually reachable, but cannot tell you where in the code the problem lives.
Used together they cover each other's blind spots. Used as a substitute for each other — or for expert testing — they produce confident-looking reports that miss the findings that matter most.
What is SAST / DAST?
SAST (static application security testing) analyzes source code for patterns that commonly lead to security weaknesses, while DAST (dynamic application security testing) examines how a running application responds to unexpected or hostile input. Findings from both are correlated rather than reported twice, and each reported issue is validated as real, reachable and worth fixing. Automated scanning is good at breadth, such as known vulnerable patterns, unsafe functions, outdated dependencies and missing configuration, but it cannot understand which users should reach which records or which workflow steps must happen in order, so scanning raises the floor rather than replacing expert testing.
Who needs it? Teams experiencing false-positive fatigue where scanner output is largely ignored as noise, teams where scanning runs but nobody can say what it actually covers, teams needing pre-release validation before a build reaches production, and teams working with a legacy codebase that has limited security history.
How TMG Security helps. TMG Security applies static analysis over source code and dynamic testing against the running application, correlates findings from both rather than reporting them twice, and validates that each issue is real, reachable and worth fixing. Tooling is selected per engagement; TMG Security does not name specific SAST or DAST products and does not present automated scanning as a replacement for expert testing.
What scanning is good at, and what it is not
Automated analysis is genuinely good at breadth: known vulnerable patterns, unsafe functions, outdated dependencies, missing configuration. It applies the same checks across an entire codebase without getting tired, which no human does.
What it cannot do is understand intent. A scanner does not know which users should be able to reach which records, which workflow steps must happen in order, or which field should never appear in a response. Those are the findings that tend to matter, and they need someone who understands the application.
So the honest position is that scanning raises the floor. It does not replace testing by a person, and any claim that it does should be treated with suspicion.
How this fits together.
Reads the source without running it. Precise about where an issue lives, blind to whether that path is reachable in production.
Exercises the running application. Grounded in real behaviour, but cannot point at the line of code responsible.
Focus areas
Tooling is selected per engagement. We do not name specific SAST or DAST products on this page, and we do not present automated scanning as a replacement for expert security testing.
How the two fit together
- 01CODEStatic analysis over the source, early and often.
- 02SASTFindings triaged — reachability and exploitability assessed, not just reported.
- 03BUILDDependency and artifact checks at build time.
- 04DEPLOYThe application deployed to an environment that can be tested safely.
- 05DASTDynamic testing against the running application.
- 06VALIDATEConfirm findings are real; discard what is not.
- 07REMEDIATEGuidance to the team, with enough context to act.
When Does Testing Need Both Perspectives?
Output your team can act on.
Which of these apply depends on engagement scope.
Weaknesses identified across the application in scope, with the reasoning behind each.
Reproduction detail so an engineer can confirm a finding rather than take it on trust.
What a finding means for this product, not a generic severity label.
Design-level issues that no single code change will resolve.
Practical direction, including where in the codebase or design the fix belongs.
An order of work that fits how your team actually plans.
Verification that addressed findings no longer reproduce, within the agreed retest scope.
Adjacent parts of the product surface.
How pricing and scope are determined
There is no published fixed price for SAST / DAST testing. Each engagement is scoped and priced individually based on factors such as the size of the codebase, the number of applications in scope, the testing depth agreed, and whether the engagement is a one-time assessment or an ongoing arrangement integrated into release cycles. These factors are discussed during scoping before a quote is provided.
Questions we get asked before an engagement.
SAST reads source code without running it — precise about location, but blind to whether a path is reachable. DAST exercises the running application — grounded in real behaviour, but unable to point at a line of code. They find overlapping but genuinely different sets of issues.
No, and we would be cautious of anyone suggesting otherwise. Scanners find known patterns; they do not understand your authorization rules or business logic, which is where the most serious findings usually are. Scanning raises the floor rather than replacing expert testing.
Tooling is agreed per engagement, and where you already have scanning in place we would rather improve its signal than add another product. The value is in triage and correlation, not in the scanner itself.
Raw scanner output is not a deliverable. Findings are triaged for reachability and real impact, and anything that does not survive that check does not reach your team as a security issue.
Timelines depend on the size of the codebase, the number of applications in scope, the testing depth agreed, and whether the engagement is a one-time assessment or an ongoing arrangement integrated into release cycles. These factors are discussed during scoping.
Explore SAST / DAST
Tell us what testing runs today and how much of its output gets acted on. The second number is usually the interesting one.