What are the pros and cons of using static code analysis vs dynamic testing for SQL injection detection?

Detection of SQL injection vulnerabilities using Static Code Analysis or Dynamic Testing? > SCA probe detects vulnerabilities early makes it cheaper and faster than dynamic testing, DT detected the vulnerabilities during runtime. > SCA covers all possible execution paths, DT covers only runtime vulnerabilities. > Early Integration of SCA with SDLC fetch faster feedbacks for developers, whereas DT requires later integration. > SCA finds code issues hard to run/test, DT identifies vulnerabilities that occur during runtime. > SCA presents many false positives and force to review manually, DT has less false positives. > SCA can miss any runtime contexts or settings, while DT will catch misconfigurations.

In one project for a retail web application, we utilized static analysis tools to scan the entire codebase, which revealed several instances where user inputs were not properly sanitized. By addressing these vulnerabilities before deployment, we significantly reduced the risk of exploitation. However, it's important to note that while static analysis can cover the entire codebase and provide early feedback, it often generates false positives. For example, a misidentified line of code flagged as vulnerable required manual verification, highlighting the need for developers to understand the analysis results and prioritize them effectively.

Static code analysis is a great way to catch SQL injection vulnerabilities early, as it scans the codebase without execution. It’s fast, integrates easily into development pipelines, and offers detailed insights into potential issues. However, it can flag false positives, missing vulnerabilities that only appear at runtime. Static analysis also requires regular updates to stay effective against new attack vectors

Dynamic testing is highly effective at detecting SQL injection vulnerabilities in real-time environments. It simulates actual attacks during code execution, providing a realistic view of how your application behaves under threat. This method often uncovers issues missed by static analysis, especially in runtime environments. However, dynamic testing can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, with limited ability to trace the exact location of the vulnerability in the code. Additionally, it may overlook issues in parts of the application that are not actively executed during testing.

Dynamic testing plays a vital role in uncovering SQL injection vulnerabilities that static analysis may miss. During a recent engagement with a financial services application, we conducted dynamic testing by simulating various user inputs to interact with the application in real-time. This process enabled us to detect an SQL injection vulnerability that was only apparent when the application was running, specifically when certain parameters were manipulated. While dynamic testing effectively revealed this critical flaw, it also posed challenges, such as being resource-intensive and potentially disruptive to live environments. Balancing the benefits and drawbacks of dynamic testing is essential for an effective security strategy.