For many years, application security was handled as two separate worlds. On one side, SAST analyzed the source code. On the other, DAST tested the running application. In modern CI/CD pipelines, treating these approaches independently is no longer sufficient. Real security requires a continuous chain that starts when code is written and continues when the application is running.

In this article, we will examine SAST and DAST integration not in theory, but through real pipeline workflows, automation logic, and code-heavy examples.

SAST and DAST Are Not Alternatives 🔍

SAST analyzes source code before the application is compiled. It detects issues such as SQL Injection risks, hardcoded secrets, and unsafe function usage. However, SAST cannot understand how the code actually behaves at runtime.

DAST, on the other hand, evaluates a running application. It tests endpoints, authentication flows, and runtime behavior. But it cannot see why the code behaves the way it does.

This is why SAST explains the "cause," while DAST reveals the "effect." A secure pipeline forces these two approaches to speak the same language.

Where Should Security Live in the CI/CD Pipeline? 🧩

Security should never be an afterthought added at the end of the pipeline. The most effective integration places SAST in the build phase and DAST in the post-deployment automated testing phase.

The moment code is pushed, SAST is triggered. When the application is deployed to a staging environment, DAST begins. This allows developers to see risks long before production.

This approach does not produce security by design — it produces security by default.

Example: SAST Integration with GitHub Actions 🛠️

The following example demonstrates a simple SAST integration using GitHub Actions. The goal is to ensure static analysis runs automatically on every code push.

name: SAST Scan

on:
  push:
    branches: [ "main", "develop" ]

jobs:
  sast:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v3

      - name: Run Static Analysis
        run: |
          docker run --rm \
          -v $(pwd):/src \
          sast-tool:latest \
          scan /src

What matters here is not the specific tool, but the fact that the scan is automatic and mandatory. If the scan fails, the build must fail as well.

Breaking the Pipeline with SAST Results 🚦

In real-world pipelines, not every finding should break the build. However, critical vulnerabilities must always stop the pipeline.

This logic is usually enforced using exit codes.

if [ "$CRITICAL_ISSUES" -gt 0 ]; then
  echo "Critical vulnerabilities detected"
  exit 1
fi

The goal is not to punish developers, but to guide them. The pipeline speaks, the developer listens.

DAST Integration: Real Attacks Against a Running Application 🌐

DAST integration differs from SAST because the application is already running. For this reason, DAST is typically triggered after deployment.

Below is a simple example of an automated DAST scan against an application deployed in a staging environment.

docker run --rm \
  -t dast-tool:latest \
  scan https://staging.example.com \
  --auth-token $DAST_TOKEN

During this scan, runtime vulnerabilities such as SQL Injection, XSS, and authentication bypass are tested. If an endpoint does not exist, DAST remains silent. This is exactly why it must work alongside SAST.

Correlating SAST and DAST Findings 🔗

The real power emerges when SAST and DAST outputs are correlated.

SAST flags a potential SQL Injection in an endpoint. DAST confirms that the same endpoint is actually exploitable. At this point, the false-positive discussion ends.

This correlation is typically performed using structured outputs such as JSON.

{
  "endpoint": "/api/user",
  "issue": "SQL Injection",
  "sast": true,
  "dast": true,
  "risk": "Confirmed"
}

This data is no longer just a finding — it is a proven risk.

Reducing Noise in the Pipeline 🎯

When SAST and DAST are first combined, they generate a large volume of findings. This is normal. Mature pipelines evolve over time using thresholds, suppressions, and risk scoring.

However, there is a critical line. Reducing noise does not mean ignoring risk. Every suppressed finding must be a conscious and documented decision.

Conclusion: Security Testing Is a Process, Not an Event 🧠

SAST alone is not enough. DAST alone is not enough either. But when they work together, security testing stops being a checklist and becomes a living system.

Real DevSecOps is not about adding security to the pipeline. It is about making security part of the pipeline itself.

Code does not lie. A running application does not either. If you listen to both, you hear the truth.