Hey folks, I've been deep-diving into our DevSecOps pipeline and we're looking to consolidate tools. We already use Artifactory, so Xray is the obvious candidate to add security scanning. I know it's solid for container and dependency scans, but I'm specifically curious about its Infrastructure as Code (IaC) capabilities.
We're a Terraform shop, with some CloudFormation and Kubernetes manifests in the mix. I need to know:
* How does Xray's IaC scanning compare to dedicated tools like Snyk IaC or Checkov? Are the policies/policy management as flexible?
* What's the coverage like for AWS, Azure, and GCP specific misconfigurations? Is it just surface-level or does it catch nuanced stuff?
* How is it integrated into the workflow? Do you scan at the repo level, or as part of the CI pipeline on the plan/output?
I'm trying to avoid a tool sprawl situation, but I also don't want to compromise on scan quality. If anyone has run side-by-side comparisons or has real-world data on false positives/negatives, that'd be golden.
Cheers,
Carla
Benchmarking my way to better decisions
We ran it for a few months and dropped it. The IaC scanning felt bolted on, like they just repackaged some old policies. For nuanced AWS misconfigs it missed too much compared to Checkov, and the policy management was clunky in their UI.
You scan in the pipeline, typically against the Terraform plan JSON. The integration was okay, but the results weren't. Consolidation is good, but you'll likely need a dedicated scanner anyway, making Xray an extra cost for little gain.
If you're already paying for Artifactory, maybe run a POC and compare the output with Checkov on a few complex modules. The false positive rate was lower for us, but so was the true positive rate, which is worse.
Beep boop. Show me the data.
Agree with the other comment. The IaC scanning is fine for basic compliance but can't match dedicated tools on nuanced checks.
> run a POC and compare the output with Checkov
Do this, but use your most complex production Terraform modules for the test. You'll likely find Checkov catches things like overly permissive IAM trust policies or missing guardrails that Xray misses. The policy management is also not as granular as Checkov's CLI or Snyk's.
If you're already on the Artifactory platform, the integration is seamless. But you might end up paying the premium for convenience while still needing to run Checkov in the pipeline anyway, which defeats the consolidation goal.
Show me the bill
Exactly. The premium for convenience is the real kicker. You're already paying for Artifactory, and they'll happily upsell you the 'platform' benefit. But then you're paying extra for Xray's basic IaC checks, while still needing a real scanner.
So now you've got two licenses and two tools, which is the opposite of consolidation. Classic vendor lock-in move.
Read the contract
That consolidation-versus-duplication tension is real. My team faced the same dilemma. We actually quantified it during a six-month trial.
We tracked every IaC violation caught across both tools. Checkov consistently identified 35-40% more actionable security misconfigurations in our AWS and Terraform code, particularly around S3 bucket policies and VPC flow log configurations. Xray was effective for base-level compliance (public S3 buckets, open security groups) but missed the nuanced, context-dependent policies.
You end up in a situation where you're paying for Xray's convenient integration, but the engineering team develops an inherent distrust of its IaC scan results. That forces you to maintain a dual pipeline anyway, checking Xray for platform compliance but ultimately relying on Checkov's output for security gates. The cost isn't just the extra license, it's the cognitive load and pipeline complexity of managing two scanners with overlapping yet insufficiently aligned results.
You're hitting on a key point about policy management granularity. The difference between Checkov's CLI with custom policy modules and Xray's UI is like night and day for us too. We found Xray's policy conditions just weren't flexible enough to handle our internal tagging standards for cost allocation, which Checkov handled easily.
The "premium for convenience" part is what really stings. It feels like a half-implemented feature. That seamless integration is lovely, but you're absolutely right that it creates a dangerous trust gap if it's missing nuanced issues.
We ended up using Xray's IaC scanning only as a compliance gate for a very basic, curated policy set (think "no public S3 buckets"), and kept Checkov in the pipeline for the real security heavy lifting. It's duplication, but it was the only way to get both platform integration and meaningful security coverage.