When to use SAST versus an LLM security scanner

Enterprise security teams are encouraged to use deterministic static application security testing and AI-based code review as complementary tools rather than substitutes. SAST is presented as the practical baseline for scanning every commit because it offers low, predictable costs, consistent results, reproducible audit evidence, and reliable detection of pattern-based flaws such as injection vulnerabilities, exposed secrets, and insecure cryptography. LLM-based reviews can be more costly and variable between runs, making them less suitable as the sole continuous scanner, but they can interpret surrounding context from code, documentation, and project requirements to identify business-logic issues such as missing authorization or ownership checks. AI can also help validate suspected vulnerabilities by generating tests or exploits, potentially reducing false positives. The recommended approach is to run SAST continuously while applying LLM review selectively, often at merge-request time, to provide reasoning-heavy analysis; GitLab positions its Advanced SAST and Security Review Flow as tools supporting this combined model.

Use this post, company, and trend context to find content marketing opportunities, perform competitive analysis, or address product feature gaps via the Plushcap MCP server or the Plushcap API.