I like the ability to create custom security rules, which allows us to adapt the tool to our specific coding standards.
The setup process can be a bit complicated for new users, which might deter those who are not as tech-savvy.
It provides a way to automate some of the security checks in our CI/CD pipeline, saving us time and resources.
It effectively reduces false positives, which helps our team focus on real security issues rather than getting bogged down by alerts.
Sometimes the analysis can be slow, especially with larger codebases, which is frustrating during tight deadlines.
It helps us maintain a secure codebase without overwhelming developers with unnecessary alerts, which improves overall productivity.
The intent to provide precise analysis is commendable, and when it works, the insights are quite useful.
The tool sometimes lacks comprehensive documentation, which makes troubleshooting challenging.
It identifies specific vulnerabilities, but we often have to cross-verify with other tools to ensure nothing is missed.
I appreciate the intention behind CodeThreat to simplify secure coding, but I feel the execution lacks depth.
The user interface is not as intuitive as I hoped, and it often feels clunky, making it harder to navigate through findings.
While it aims to identify vulnerabilities, I find that it often misses critical issues that other tools catch, which can put our projects at risk.
The custom security rules feature is useful and allows some flexibility in tailoring the tool to our needs.
The precision in taint analysis sometimes leads to ambiguous results, creating confusion during remediation.
It helps in identifying some vulnerabilities but does not replace the need for manual reviews. It's an additional layer but not sufficient alone.
