The teams that win in modern AppSec are not the ones who find the most reachable paths, but the ones who can prove what is actually exploitable.
This means we have been winning a surprising number of head-to-head evaluations recently. Some of those wins are against the old guard of SAST that everyone already expects to struggle in modern codebases. But what has really stood out is how often we are winning against the new wave of AI-Native SAST tools. These are smart teams building interesting technology. So why does DryRun Security consistently come out ahead?
The answer is exploitability.
Exploitability is the next evolution of accuracy for code security. Everyone in the SCA world talks about reachability. While valuable, reachability alone only answers one question: is the code path possible to hit or is the function even used? Exploitability answers a much more important one: could an attacker actually misuse this behavior in the real world? Reachability is an empty threat. Exploitability holds the real risk of impact.
A recent customer gave us a perfect example. They ran a comparison between DryRun Security and another AI native SAST tool.
The competitor returned an SSRF finding that DryRun did not.
Naturally, that raised eyebrows. So we sat down with the customer and walked through the code together. And here is what we found: the pattern for SSRF was present, but the necessary conditions to turn it into an exploitable issue were missing.
It looked risky, but it could never actually trigger. It was like seeing smoke from a fog machine and assuming the building was on fire.
Just to be sure, we added the missing pieces to make it a real SSRF. Once the vulnerability became genuinely exploitable, DryRun Security picked it up immediately.
This is the point. The false positive problem does not get solved by de-duping. It does not get solved by clever scoring games or color-coded severity systems that make you feel informed but never reduce the noise. Cough, ASPM, cough. Those are approaches born from tooling that cannot actually verify intent or behavior. They are trying to manage the symptom instead of curing the disease.
The future of AppSec is verification first. It is understanding how the application behaves, what the code intends to do, and whether an issue is realistically exploitable in the context of your system. If a finding cannot survive that kind of scrutiny, it should never hit a developer’s screen in the first place. AppSec teams lose credibility when they slow down development to investigate these smoke signals.
DryRun Security is not perfect. Nobody in security is. But we do something that sets us apart. We set a high threshold for our exploitability agent to greenlight a finding. Under that threshold, the issue gets bounced.
Right now our verification and exploitability subagents throw out 90 to 95 percent of potential findings before they ever make it to you.
That is not marketing polish. That is the real percentage of noise we eliminate because the issues are not truly exploitable.
And here is the impact:
- When developers see a DryRun Security result, they have good reason to trust it.
- When AppSec teams review findings, they are not fighting a security ghost.
- When security leaders look at trends, they are not drowning in false positives that never mattered.
You finally escape the classic whack-a-mole lifestyle that SAST has forced on teams for a decade.
Exploitability is the advantage. It is why DryRun Security keeps winning. It is why teams adopt us after comparing us directly to the tools they assumed were the new standard. It is why developers actually use us.
Because accuracy is not about finding the most issues. It is about finding the issues that matter.
If you want to see this in action on your own codebase, grab 15 minutes with one of our AppSec experts. We will show you what exploitability looks like in real life, and you will understand instantly why this changes everything.
Let’s go.
