

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) often feels like a heavy lift—difficult to implement and expensive to maintain. But done right, it can be a valuable tool in your security arsenal. In this issue, we’ll break down how to implement an effective DAST program that avoids common pitfalls and delivers results.
Skipping DAST altogether can leave gaps in your security program. Those gaps translate into low-hanging fruit for hackers and trivial bug bounty submissions. A well-executed DAST program can save your team time, energy, and headaches by catching these vulnerabilities before hackers and security researchers do.
Complex Configuration and Maintenance - DAST tools require a live application to scan, which means dealing with infrastructure quirks and setup headaches. Authentication flows, environments, and network configurations can all add layers of complexity that make getting started feel like climbing Everest.
False Positives and Negatives - DAST tools can sometimes feel like that friend who’s either overreacting or missing the point entirely. False positives waste your team’s time, while false negatives give you a false sense of security. Understanding what your tool excels at—and where it falls short—is key.
Integration Challenges - DAST tools don’t always play nice with your existing workflows. Without careful planning, they can feel like an obstacle rather than an enabler, especially for teams without a dedicated security engineer to guide the effort.
ZAP (Zed Attack Proxy) is a free and powerful tool with excellent documentation. It includes features for automating authentication flows and integrates well with CI/CD pipelines through pre-built Docker images and GitHub Actions.
Start with a single, critical application and automate scans in your CI/CD pipeline. By focusing on one use case, you can iron out the kinks and build a model for scaling to other applications.
Test tools in the same environment where they’ll run.
Run trial scans against your actual applications.
Thoroughly integrate with your existing tools before committing.
DAST tools aren’t silver bullets. They excel at some things (e.g. injection vulnerabilities) but struggle with others (e.g. authorization flaws). It’s your job to understand these gaps and plan accordingly.
Authorization Flaws: Most DAST tools aren’t aware of user roles and permissions. Advanced configuration can help, but it’s no substitute for complementary testing strategies.
Logic Flaws: DAST tools don’t understand the logic flows of your application. Even if they did, they generally lack the creativity of an experienced penetration tester.
