Static and dynamic testing are still often treated as separate or even competing approaches to application security. In many engineering teams, code-level testing with SAST and SCA is seen as sufficient coverage, with anything beyond that viewed as either redundant or at least out of engineering scope.

This assumption breaks down the instant applications are deployed. What matters to attackers is not what exists in the source code you shipped but what is reachable, misconfigured, or unintentionally exposed in the finished app at runtime. That gap between code intent and runtime behavior is where DAST becomes essential. Used together, SAST and DAST provide a far more accurate view of risk across the SDLC and can help teams focus on issues that actually affect running applications and APIs.

Key takeaways

• SAST is effective at identifying insecure patterns in code early but cannot account for runtime behavior or deployment context, which leads to noisy results.
• DAST tests running applications as attackers see them, which lets it confirm which issues are reachable and exploitable in practice.
• Combining SAST and DAST reduces noise by separating theoretical flaws from actual resulting vulnerabilities.
• On the Invicti Platform, proof-based DAST acts as a validation layer for SAST findings to help your teams prioritize and remediate the issues that most affect running applications and APIs.

What are SAST and DAST?

Before looking at how the two approaches work together, it is worth clarifying what each one is designed to do:

• Static application security testing (SAST) analyzes source code, bytecode, or binaries to identify potentially insecure patterns before the application is executed. It is typically used early in development and integrated into IDEs, pull requests, or CI pipelines.
• Dynamic application security testing (DAST) tests running applications and APIs by interacting with them via the same access points and interfaces that are available to real users and attackers. Instead of reasoning about what could go wrong in code, DAST observes how the application actually behaves at runtime.

In other words, SAST identifies potential issues that exist in source code, while DAST identifies vulnerabilities that exist in applications and APIs as deployed.

Why integrating SAST and DAST simply makes sense

SAST and DAST address different security failure points in modern applications. SAST helps developers avoid common mistakes as code is written and reviewed. DAST checks how that code behaves at runtime, which also includes things that only come into play after code leaves the repository, such as frameworks, dynamic dependencies, configuration, authentication flows, APIs, and infrastructure.

Relying on SAST alone falsely assumes that secure code always results in secure behavior in the finished app. In reality, many security issues stem from misconfigurations, unexpected data flows, access control gaps, or integration logic that static analysis cannot reliably model – or simply originate in third-party code that wasn’t part of the internal static testing.

By combining the two approaches, teams reduce blind spots. SAST casts a wide net early in your first-party code. DAST narrows those issues down to show which are actually reachable and worth fixing, and also finds runtime-specific vulnerabilities that don’t show up in code.

Where SAST and DAST each perform best

SAST and DAST are most effective when each is used for what it’s best at. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each approach is the key to effective integration.

SAST strengths and limitations

SAST is well-suited for early-stage development. It integrates directly into developer workflows and provides fast feedback on insecure coding patterns. It is effective at identifying issues such as unsafe functions, missing input validation, insecure deserialization, or hard-coded secrets before they reach production.

However, SAST operates without runtime context. It cannot reliably determine whether a reported issue is reachable, exploitable, or mitigated by surrounding logic or configuration. As applications grow more dynamic and modular, this often results in large volumes of findings that require manual triage or tuning out.

Additional limitations include dependence on language and framework support, lack of visibility into third-party services, and no insight into runtime configuration or deployment behavior.

DAST strengths and limitations

DAST focuses on probing what actually runs. By testing deployed applications and APIs, it identifies vulnerabilities that are reachable through real request paths and authentication states. This makes it effective at finding not only vulnerabilities originating in code flaws but also issues related to access control, misconfiguration, injection flaws, and API behavior.

Because DAST works against running systems, it is technology-agnostic and does not require access to source code. Advanced approaches can even validate findings with proof of exploitability to cut down on false positives and reduce the time spent on verification.

On the flip side, DAST does not inspect source code directly and usually cannot point to the exact line responsible for a flaw. It also requires applications to be deployed and reachable, and only tests components that are active during a scan. This is why it’s best used to complement rather than fully replace code-level testing.

Benefits of integrating SAST and DAST

The most obvious benefit of combining static and dynamic testing is that you get comprehensive testing coverage that neither approach alone can guarantee. With SAST, insecure code constructs can be flagged and fixed at any stage of development and deployment, including code that isn’t currently used – but only for code you have direct access to. DAST covers everything that is running during a scan and also finds runtime-specific issues, but it requires a runnable build before you can scan at all.

Just as importantly, when SAST and DAST are used together, and especially when they are correlated, findings from each become more actionable and informative. SAST primarily helps developers avoid introducing known classes of issues, while DAST confirms which issues survive into deployed environments and are exposed through real execution paths. This validation step significantly reduces noise because you then know to prioritize issues that can be exercised at runtime – no more blindly fixing “all criticals” without knowing which actually matter.

Combining SAST and DAST not only closes coverage gaps but also improves work efficiency. For engineering teams, it means less time spent debating theoretical risk and more time fixing problems that affect real users and systems. For security teams, it means clearer signals and fewer assumptions.

How SAST and DAST integration works in DevSecOps workflows

In daily practice, combining static and dynamic security testing is more about sequencing and feedback than running everything everywhere. SAST typically runs in IDEs, pull requests, or early CI stages to catch basic issues before they propagate. Once applications or APIs are deployed to test environments, DAST runs against a live system to identify runtime vulnerabilities.

When scanners are integrated into existing workflows, findings can flow into issue trackers with enough context for developers to act. When fixes are submitted, automated DAST retesting either confirms that the vulnerability is no longer present, thus closing the loop without manual verification, or keeps the issue open until the fix passes testing. 

This combined approach keeps the benefits of early feedback from SAST while also ensuring that runtime risk is continuously checked as applications evolve.

Best practices for combining SAST and DAST

The traditional division of labor has been to use SAST in development and then bring in DAST later, sometimes as late as QA and often run by a different team. Combining the two efficiently and accurately requires a more integrated approach:

• Incorporate SAST into dev toolchains from early stages.
• Integrate DAST into workflows to automatically scan runnable builds, including APIs where practical.
• Correlate SAST and DAST findings so that validated runtime issues are prioritized. 
• Centralize results to avoid duplicated work and conflicting signals.

It’s also important to set expectations for what each tool does and how static and dynamic results differ. This starts with basic awareness, like knowing that not every SAST finding needs immediate action and not every DAST finding stems from a code-level issue. Teams that understand these differences will make better prioritization decisions.

What this means in practice on the Invicti Platform

On the Invicti Platform, DAST provides the runtime perspective needed to validate findings from SAST and other connected AST tools. Invicti’s proof-based scanning confirms exploitability for many common vulnerabilities to help teams distinguish between potential issues and real problems in running applications.

Invicti integrates deeply with CI/CD pipelines and issue tracking systems so that DAST is not limited to a late-stage gate in QA or staging. By running DAST automatically against early runnable builds and feeding validated results directly into the same tools developers already use, runtime testing becomes part of the normal feedback loop rather than an external security checkpoint. This keeps DAST findings relevant to the code being worked on right now and prevents the common gap where runtime issues are only discovered long after the related changes have shipped.

This approach is especially important for API security, where static analysis alone provides very limited assurance. APIs often expose business logic, authorization decisions, and data flows that only exist at runtime and are shaped by configuration, authentication context, and integration behavior. Bringing DAST into the SDLC early is the only practical way to test APIs as they are actually consumed, including identifying broken object-level authorization, unexpected data exposure, and logic flaws that do not appear in code scans. By testing APIs dynamically as they evolve, teams can catch these issues before they become entrenched in production systems.

By focusing on runtime behavior and reachable attack paths, Invicti DAST acts as a fact-checker for code-level analysis and helps your teams prioritize issues that actually affect deployed systems.

Business outcomes of SAST-DAST integration

For engineering teams, application security work can sometimes feel like red tape disconnected from real-world outcomes, especially when it is framed primarily around compliance requirements or abstract risk scores. Combining SAST and DAST in the right way and integrating both into daily workflows brings direct and tangible benefits for the business as a whole:

• Faster and more predictable software delivery: Validated findings reduce time spent debating or re-testing issues, which means fewer security-related delays late in the release cycle.
• Lower remediation cost: Issues caught early with either SAST or DAST are cheaper to fix, while the runtime lens of DAST ensures that remediation efforts are first directed at problems that would actually affect the running system.
• Reduced operational risk: Runtime validation helps prevent security incidents caused by misconfigurations, exposed APIs, or unexpected behavior that code-level analysis alone cannot catch.
• Better use of engineering time: Fewer non-actionable tickets mean less context switching and less time spent chasing issues that do not translate into real exposure.
• Improved trust across teams: When security findings are consistently validated, developers, security teams, and leadership can make decisions based on shared evidence rather than assumptions.

Taken together, these outcomes show that application security is not a separate concern from delivery and reliability but directly influences how quickly teams can ship, how stable systems remain, and ultimately how confidently the organization can scale.

Conclusion: From code-level probables to runtime-validated confidence

SAST and DAST address different aspects of modern application development. SAST helps developers incorporate security considerations into code as it is written. DAST helps teams understand how that code will behave once it is deployed and exposed to real users, real data, and real attack paths.

Used together, they provide more complete coverage – but more importantly, they provide validation. SAST suggests what might go wrong, while DAST confirms what does go wrong in practice. That combination turns application security testing from a compliance exercise into a concrete feedback loop that engineering teams can trust.

To see how Invicti’s proof-based DAST can enhance your SAST workflows and strengthen your DevSecOps pipelines, schedule a demo today.

‍