Unverified50% confidenceFactExact time
Traditional 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.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/11/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedSAST 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.76% similarUnverifiedTraditional static code analysis tools lack effective detection capabilities for malicious prompt injection instructions in metadata, documentation, and configuration files.72% 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% similarVerifiedThe false positive rates of traditional static analysis tools and vulnerability scanners are typically between 30% and 70%.67% similarUnverifiedCurrent content moderation systems largely rely on keyword-, pattern-, and classifier-based methods, which struggle to understand code intent and result in false positives based on surface-level feature matching.66% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/995941API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/995941MCP
get_claim(id=995941)