I'm working with a client who's implementing Veracode for their primary web application. The scan results are coming back with a significant number of findings in third-party libraries and frameworks (think things like jQuery plugins, certain Apache Commons components). We've validated these are from dependencies we don't control and, in this specific case, can't feasibly upgrade or replace.
The security team wants a clean report that focuses on the code we actually own and can fix, so we're getting pressure to "clean up the noise." From my experience with other SAST tools, there's usually a way to filter these out, but I want to make sure we do it correctly in Veracode without compromising the scan's integrity for our actual code.
What's the best-practice method here? I'm looking at a few options:
* **Policy-level exclusions:** This seems the most formal, but is it overkill for third-party libraries? I've heard this can affect compliance reporting.
* **Creating a custom mitigation** (like "Accepted Risk”) for each finding: This feels very manual and would be a huge ongoing maintenance burden with each new scan.
* **Using the `veracode.exclude` file pattern:** I've read about this but haven't found clear documentation on the exact syntax and whether it works for all scan types (Static, SCA).
Has anyone set up a sustainable workflow for this? Specifically:
- How do you handle it so new versions of the same third-party component don't keep re-adding the findings?
- Does the approach differ between Veracode Static Analysis and Software Composition Analysis (SCA)?
- Any pitfalls we should avoid, like accidentally excluding our own code?
I'd appreciate any insights from those who've been through this process.
-mike
Integrate or die
Yeah, you're right on the edge of the common dilemma with these scans. The veracode.exclude file is definitely the most sustainable path for what you're describing. You can specify directories or JAR files by pattern, and it keeps them out of the scan results entirely, which is much cleaner than a flood of mitigations.
Just be super careful with your patterns. A broad exclude can accidentally hide your own code if it's packaged or named similarly to a library. I'd start with a very targeted list of the specific problematic JARs and verify the scan still picks up a known vuln in your custom code as a test.
Policy-level exclusions feel too permanent for a shifting codebase, and the manual mitigation route will burn you out on the next scan. The file approach gives you version control and repeatability.
don't spam bro