SAST Tool Selection — Enterprise Audit Table
Scope: Evaluation of a Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tool for enterprise and regulated CI/CD environments.
| # | Control Area | Audit Question | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Governance | Does the tool support policy-based enforcement (block / warn / report-only)? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 2 | Governance | Can policies be defined per application, team, or environment? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 3 | Governance | Are security policies versioned and auditable? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 4 | Governance | Can rules be customized (severity, scope, exclusions)? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 5 | CI/CD Integration | Does the tool integrate natively with enterprise CI/CD platforms? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 6 | CI/CD Integration | Can scans run automatically on PRs / merges / pipelines? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 7 | CI/CD Integration | Can the pipeline be blocked based on policy conditions? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 8 | CI/CD Integration | Are results accessible via API or export (JSON, CSV, etc.)? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 9 | Developer Experience | Are findings clearly mapped to source code locations? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 10 | Developer Experience | Is remediation guidance provided for findings? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 11 | Developer Experience | Can false positives be suppressed with justification? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 12 | Accuracy | Is the detection logic explainable (not black-box only)? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 13 | Accuracy | Is the false positive rate acceptable on real codebases? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 14 | Coverage | Does the tool cover all production languages in scope? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 15 | Coverage | Are rule sets actively maintained and updated? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 16 | Performance | Are scan times compatible with CI/CD execution constraints? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 17 | Performance | Does the tool scale across many repositories / teams? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 18 | Reporting | Does the tool provide historical trends and vulnerability aging? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 19 | Reporting | Can reports be generated for audit purposes (not dashboards only)? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 20 | Evidence | Are findings timestamped and attributable to a pipeline run? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 21 | Evidence | Can evidence be retained according to defined retention policies? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 22 | Compliance | Does the tool map findings to CWE / OWASP Top 10? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 23 | Compliance | Can outputs support ISO 27001 / SOC 2 / DORA / NIS2 audits? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 24 | Operations | Is centralized administration supported? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 25 | Operations | Is operational overhead acceptable at enterprise scale? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 26 | Vendor | Is there a clear support and update roadmap? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 27 | Strategy | Can the tool evolve from visibility-only to enforced control? | ☐ | ☐ |
| 28 | Strategy | Does the tool fit into the organization’s secure SDLC model? | ☐ | ☐ |
Audit Outcome Summary (Optional)
| Decision Area | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Governance readiness | ☐ Pass ☐ Conditional ☐ Fail |
| CI/CD suitability | ☐ Pass ☐ Conditional ☐ Fail |
| Developer adoption risk | ☐ Low ☐ Medium ☐ High |
| Audit readiness | ☐ Adequate ☐ Partial ☐ Insufficient |
| Overall decision | ☐ Approved ☐ Approved with conditions ☐ Rejected |
Auditor Guidance
A SAST tool should not be approved for enterprise CI/CD if:
- policies cannot be enforced automatically,
- results cannot be exported as audit evidence,
- or developers systematically bypass the tool.
FAQ – Audit Readiness Focus
Q1. How do auditors evaluate SAST controls?
Auditors assess consistency, enforcement, traceability, and evidence—not just vulnerability counts.
Q2. What SAST evidence is typically requested during audits?
Pipeline execution logs, policy configurations, approval records, suppression justifications, and historical scan results.
Q3. Is manual SAST execution acceptable for audits?
Manual scans are weak controls. Auditors expect automated, enforced execution within CI/CD pipelines.
