Unverified60% confidenceTradeoffExact time
SAST analyzes source code or binaries without running the code, offering broad coverage but a high false-positive rate; DAST probes for vulnerabilities at runtime, offering high accuracy but limited coverage.
2
Sources
60%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
8/6/2026
First Seen
Sources
Web安全为何如此之难？开发者的困境与破局之道
Related Claims
UnverifiedTraditional static analyzers (SAST) typically only perform pattern matching and report suspected vulnerabilities, but have high false-positive rates and cannot confirm whether a vulnerability is actually triggerable in the current code context.76% similarUnverifiedTraditional static code analysis tools lack effective detection capabilities for malicious prompt injection instructions in metadata, documentation, and configuration files.71% similarUnverifiedA vulnerability report rich in context is far more valuable than CVE numbers output by scanners, because it explains why something breaks and how to fundamentally prevent it.70% similarUnverifiedLLM-based code auditing has difficulty performing precise state tracking across files and cross-function call chains, and cannot actually execute code to discover runtime vulnerabilities the way fuzz testing can.68% similarUnverified传统静态分析工具如Coverity和CodeQL在处理Firefox级别的代码库时面临路径爆炸问题，导致超时或大量误报68% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/693378API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/693378MCP
get_claim(id=693378)