SecurityVault
Request a demo
For application security

Give every finding
a path to resolution.

Bring scanner coverage, finding context and release policy into one workflow. Help engineering teams understand which issues need attention and why.

Request a demo Explore SAST
The AppSec investigationcode
From rule to developer action
Rule evidence
Application context
Developer handoff
Investigation context
01 / Inspect

Understand why the rule fired.

  • Source trace
  • Rule context

Bring the source location and supporting evidence into the same investigation.

Outnumbered by the code

What makes application security hard to scale?

01

Tool sprawl per repository

Every language needs different scanners, configured by hand, and a repository nobody configured is silently unscanned.

02

Findings developers argue away

A finding with a rule ID and no flow is easy to dismiss. Without the source-to-sink path, every ticket becomes a debate.

03

Gates teams route around

"No criticals" blocks a library nobody calls and passes a medium on the login route, so teams learn to bypass the gate.

An AppSec week

How does SecurityVault change an AppSec engineer's week?

Coverage
Point SecurityVault at a repository and the tool plan builds itself: the native engine, the baseline tools and the language-specific scanners in one scan. See the platform.
Code findings
Taint findings show source-to-sink evidence. Dependency reachability hints help teams investigate whether vulnerable code is used; static evidence does not prove runtime execution or exploitability. See SAST, SCA and SBOM and secrets detection.
Pull requests
Gates evaluate policy over the change, its reachability and its exposure, and fail closed. Results return as SARIF and annotated comments. See deployment gates.
Dynamic testing context
DAST findings are matched to SAST findings by route, and API security builds the API inventory from specifications and source routes.
Campaigns
Turn a findings filter into a remediation campaign, such as one vulnerable library across every repository, and track it to verified closure.
Your view in SecurityVault

What does the AppSec Engineering Home show?

Its question is direct: which code risks matter, and is scan coverage holding? Posture in scope covers code, cloud and the external attack surface.

Scan coverage gaps

Scan freshness shows which repositories have stale or missing results, next to findings broken down by owning team.

Top code risk stories

The ranked, correlated stories for code risk, each with its owner, SLA and next action.

Verification status

A remediation funnel and known-exploited vulnerabilities with reachability hints by repository, helping focus investigation. A KEV match does not mean your application has been exploited.

Findings that hold up in review

Why do developers stop arguing with AppSec findings?

From line to workload

The finding on a repository line is the same node as the vulnerable package in the image and the workload running it, so priority reflects production.

Fail closed, not open

A scan that times out or fails is a deny, not a pass. An outage is never mistaken for a clean result.

Evidence developers accept

Typed evidence, flows and replayable requests end the debate about whether a finding is real.

AppSec retains the disposition decision

False positive, accepted risk and true positive are human decisions with reason codes. AI remediation is opt-in per rule family and never closes a finding.

From one repository outwards

How do AppSec teams get started?

01

Bring the policy you want

Request a demo with one repository that has real history and the gate policy you wish you could enforce.

02

Choose the application under review

Choose the application under review from your source control and run the first scan with an automatic tool plan.

03

First pull-request gate

Turn on PR annotations and a fail-closed gate for one repository, then widen from there.

FAQ

Application security team questions

Can AppSec review findings across our application languages?
12 languages have native taint analysis, with interprocedural call graphs for several of them, and the per-language open-source tools are launched automatically beside it. See SAST.
Will the PR bot flood developers with comments?
No. PR scans supersede earlier runs on the same head, and comments go through a per-organisation rate limit with every attempt recorded, posted or not.
Can I write my own rules?
Yes. Custom rule packs use a typed schema, are validated strictly when loaded and can be tested before they are enabled.
How do threat models connect to findings?
A threat on a data-flow diagram links to scanner findings one at a time or in bulk by CWE, so a threat about injection points to the injection findings that make it real. See threat modeling.
Can I bring results from tools we already run?
Yes. SARIF imports, with file paths sanitised, plus 45 scanner adapters and imports from penetration-testing tools such as Burp Suite, all land in the same findings model.

SecurityVault for other roles: CISOs · Security engineers · Platform engineers · Developers · GRC and audit · SOC and IR. See every role.

Further reading: SAST taint analysis explained, reducing SAST noise without hiding real bugs and risk-based vulnerability management.

See it on your code

Put a real gate on one repository.

One repository, one policy and one pull request, with the decision record and the evidence behind it.

Request a demo View the platform