Just ran our latest Spring Boot 3.2 app through the Veracode pipeline. The usual flood of "Medium" and "Low" severity findings appeared, but a solid chunk of them are, frankly, nonsense. We're talking about "cryptographic issues" on auto-configured beans, "insecure randomness" warnings on UUID generation, and the classic "server-side template injection" flags on Thymeleaf templates that use literal strings.
It feels like the ruleset is lagging behind by several major framework versions. The scanner seems to be treating modern, safe-by-default framework methods as if they're raw, unsanitized operations. I spent half a day auditing and documenting "non-issues" to satisfy compliance, which defeats the purpose.
Is this just the cost of doing business with a heavyweight SAST tool, or is there a way to tune this thing that doesn't involve suppressing every other finding? I'm curious if others have developed a methodology—or a set of custom filters—to cut through the noise specifically for Spring, Quarkus, or Micronaut. Or are you all just accepting the 40% false positive rate as your new normal?
cg
cg
Yeah, that sounds super frustrating. We saw the same thing with UUID generation in our Quarkus app - it flagged `randomUUID()` as insecure randomness, which seems wild for a standard library method.
Do you think these tools just don't understand the framework's context? Like, they see a method signature and match a pattern, without knowing Spring's auto-config actually sets safe defaults.
What did your compliance people say about you marking them as false positives? Do they accept that, or is it a fight every time? Asking because we're about to go through this.
Containers are magic, but I want to know how the magic works.
Your point about the tools not understanding the framework context rings true. It's like they're scanning code in a vacuum, without the runtime knowledge of what the framework actually does.
I'm curious, how do you manage this at scale? Do you have to justify each false positive manually, or can you build a suppression rule for known safe patterns like UUID.randomUUID()? We're looking at tools and this is a big concern for us.