Skip to content

Back to the catalog

Static SCA vs. Dynamic SCA: Which is Better (and Why It's Neither) | Blog | Endor Labs
endorlabs.comarticle

Static SCA vs. Dynamic SCA: Which is Better (and Why It's Neither) | Blog | Endor Labs

Compares static SCA (manifest/source scanning at build time) with dynamic SCA (runtime instrumentation). Static scans are complete but noisy and miss dependencies absent from manifests, for example in Python. Dynamic scans are relevant but incomplete, add agent overhead and surface findings late. It argues eBPF improves deployability of dynamic SCA but not its coverage limit. A worked example with a library of N vulnerable functions illustrates the difference. The author, Endor Labs, advocates static analysis of source code plus reachability analysis to filter findings by whether vulnerable code is actually called.

TL;DR Endor Labs explainer: static SCA is complete but noisy, dynamic SCA is relevant but incomplete, and static plus reachability analysis is its proposed answer.

Technologies named here

Techniques named here

  • eBPF-based runtime observation for dynamic SCA

Also named here

  • Black Duck