Hey everyone, I'm a junior DevOps engineer at a small finance startup. We're currently building out our CI/CD pipeline (GitHub Actions) and need to implement a Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tool. The big thing is we're gearing up for PCI DSS compliance, so we need something that's both effective and can help us meet those requirements.
We're a Python and Go shop, containerized with Docker, and eventually moving to Kubernetes. I've been researching and Semgrep keeps coming up because of its speed and the fact it's free/open-source for the basics. But I'm worried about the compliance reporting side of things.
From a practical standpoint, I'm trying to figure out:
1. Can Semgrep realistically cover the PCI DSS requirements for SAST (like requirement 6.5)? We need to demonstrate to auditors that we're scanning for specific vulnerabilities (injection flaws, etc.).
2. How do you integrate it into a CI/CD pipeline in a way that fails the build on critical issues but also generates a decent report? I saw the `--sarif` output option, which seems promising for GitHub.
Here's a super basic example of what I'm tinkering with in a GitHub Actions workflow:
```yaml
name: Semgrep SAST
on: [push]
jobs:
semgrep:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3
- name: Run Semgrep
uses: returntocorp/semgrep-action@v1
with:
config: p/ci
output: results.sarif
severity: ERROR
- name: Upload SARIF results
uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@v2
with:
sarif_file: results.sarif
```
Does this approach actually hold up for a compliance audit? Or are we better off looking at a paid Semgrep Enterprise plan or another tool like Snyk Code/Checkmarx from the start? I'm especially curious about the "p/ci" rule set—does it map well to PCI DSS concerns?
Also, any common pitfalls when rolling this out? Like, does it play nicely with monorepos or generate a lot of false positives that we'd need to triage manually?
Thanks for any insights! Still learning the ropes of the security side of DevOps.
Learning by breaking
I'm a marketing engineer at a 20-person fintech startup. We use Python and Go for our backend services, run on Kubernetes, and I had to get our SAST sorted for SOC 2 and PCI DSS. We run Semgrep in production on our CI pipeline.
**Pricing & Upkeep Cost**: Semgrep OSS is free, obviously. The Pro tier for teams is around $5k/year for 25 seats, last I checked. The hidden cost is the time to write custom rules for your own internal libraries. We spent about 15-20 hours initially.
**PCI DSS Reporting**: For requirement 6.5, you need audit trails. Semgrep's `--sarif` output works and we ingest it into DefectDojo for tracking. We had to write about 10 custom rules to cover all PCI-specific issues our auditor wanted, which Semgrep allowed.
**CI/CD Integration**: The speed is its best feature. In our GitHub Actions, a full scan of our Python/Go repos takes under 90 seconds. The `--strict` flag fails the build, which we use for high/critical severity findings. The main limitation is dependency scanning; you'll need a separate tool (like Trivy) for that.
**Auditor Acceptance**: This was the biggest question. We provided the SARIF reports alongside a mapping document linking each rule to a PCI requirement. The auditor accepted it. I would not rely solely on the default rules; you must curate them and document your process.
If you're a small startup and your team can handle writing a few dozen custom rules, I'd recommend Semgrep Pro. If you have zero AppSec bandwidth and need a vendor to handle everything for the audit, you should look at a paid platform like Snyk. Tell us your budget and if you have a dedicated security person.
Your workflow snippet is a solid starting point. For PCI DSS reporting, you'll need to archive the SARIF output as a workflow artifact. Here's the addition we use:
```yaml
- name: Upload SARIF report
uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4
with:
name: semgrep-sarif-report
path: semgrep.sarif
```
This gives you a persistent artifact for auditors. On the point of failing builds, be careful with rule severity mapping. Not all Semgrep `ERROR` findings are critical vulnerabilities. We created a custom configuration file to tag which rule IDs constitute a true build break for PCI.
Semgrep can absolutely cover PCI 6.5. The speed and OSS nature are good for your scale. The SARIF output is what matters, and you can pipe it into something like DefectDojo for the audit trail.
Your example workflow needs a critical addition: rule exclusions. The default rule sets will flag a ton of stuff that isn't relevant. You'll waste cycles chasing false positives. Start with the PCI-focused rules (there's a `pci-dss` rule pack) and build your config from there.
On failing the build, don't just fail on all `ERROR` findings. You need to curate a list of critical rule IDs that map directly to PCI requirements (e.g., SQL injection, command injection) and fail only on those. Everything else should be `WARNING` and tracked separately. This keeps your pipeline from becoming a constant source of noise.
Integration is not a project, it's a lifestyle.
Hold up, you're glossing over the biggest time sink. Starting with the `pci-dss` rule pack is fine, but then you have to *validate* every single rule against your actual code. That's hours of work per rule to confirm if it's a true positive or a noisy false alarm specific to your frameworks.
And "pipe it into something like DefectDojo" is a massive hand-wave. Setting up and maintaining that pipeline for proper audit trails is another half-time job. The auditor doesn't just want a SARIF file, they want the whole chain of custody documented.
Show me the data.