Comparison¶
| Aspect | Known Vulnerability Scanning (SBOM/CVE/OSV) | SAST (Static Application Security Testing) | Why SAST is Stronger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Only detects publicly known vulnerabilities | Detects potential weaknesses in your own code | SAST finds issues before they become known vulnerabilities |
| Timing | Historical (only past, published flaws) | Proactive (finds issues during development) | Catches problems early in the development lifecycle |
| Zero-Day & Undisclosed Threats | No protection | Good protection | Can identify dangerous patterns even if never seen before |
| Custom & Business Logic Issues | Very limited | Excellent | Understands how your code actually works |
| Dependency Analysis | Strong (especially with good lockfiles) | Moderate to Strong | Vulnerability scanning wins here for deep dependency trees |
| False Sense of Security | High | Lower | SAST encourages better coding practices |
| Runtime Context Awareness | Limited | Limited (but can flag dangerous patterns) | Both have limitations; combine with runtime tools |
| Remediation Guidance | Often clear (upgrade package) | More educational (explains why it’s risky) | SAST improves long-term developer security skills |
| Coverage of Python-Specific Risks | Limited | Excellent | SAST catches eval(), exec(), unsafe deserialisation, permission issues, etc. |
| Supply Chain Attacks | Limited (only known malicious packages) | Strong (detects suspicious code patterns) | SAST can spot backdoors and logic bombs |
Summary Recommendation¶
Vulnerability scanning is essential but insufficient on its own. It tells you about known problems in your dependencies.
SAST scanning is more powerful for Python security because it analyses your actual source code and finds weaknesses that have not yet been turned into public vulnerabilities. And most weaknesses found with SAST testing will never ever be reported in a public database!
This layered approach provides significantly stronger protection than relying on vulnerability scanning alone.