SECURITY ATLAS / EVALUATION BRIEF GitLab SAST and dependency scanning Research reviewed: 2026-10-18 https://atlasofsecurity.com/landscape/vendors/gitlab-application-security/ THE ATLAS TAKE GitLab SAST and dependency scanning put security analysis inside the delivery pipeline, with results available through development and security workflows. Their tier boundaries differ: basic SAST availability must not be generalized to every analyzer or to dependency-scanning governance. Atlas analysis: this approach fits teams willing to treat CI configuration and runner health as part of the security control. A configured template is only the start. Verify that jobs actually run on the intended branches, resolve the real dependency graph, and preserve actionable results when a pipeline or scanner fails. SCOPE Confirm each analyzer and reporting feature against the deployed GitLab version and tier. Self-managed hosting changes operational responsibilities; it does not remove license requirements. Use review apps or staging for the dynamic-testing exercise. WORTH A LOOK WHEN GitLab-centered engineering organizations that can manage security scans as versioned pipeline configuration. THINK TWICE WHEN The team assumes every scanner and governance feature is available under the same subscription or without runner maintenance. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Choose supported ecosystems Check language and package-manager support against actual release artifacts. 2. Version the security configuration Review templates, job rules, runner images, and branch coverage with application owners. 3. Define failure semantics Decide how skipped, partial, and failed analyses affect merge approval and security reporting. OPERATING REALITY Runner capacity, templates, branch rules, private-package credentials, and vulnerability ownership need maintenance. Atlas analysis: changes to pipeline rules can silently remove security coverage. Track skipped and failed jobs separately from clean analysis, and rehearse how an owner receives a new finding before adding a hard release gate. COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Compare the required GitLab tier, security governance, and runner costs using representative pipeline usage. - Subscription tier and required governance features - CI runner capacity and scan frequency - Private dependency resolution and maintenance effort EVALUATION PLAN / PROPOSED TESTS, NOT COMPLETED RESULTS 1. Verify branch execution Acceptance evidence: Show a scan on a merge request and default branch, including job rules and analyzed revision. Owner: __________ Pass criterion: __________ Observed result: __________ Evidence location: __________ 2. Resolve a transitive dependency Acceptance evidence: Compare scan inventory with the actual lockfile and private registry output. Owner: __________ Pass criterion: __________ Observed result: __________ Evidence location: __________ 3. Test a failed analyzer Acceptance evidence: Break a lab scan prerequisite and verify that failure cannot masquerade as no vulnerabilities. Owner: __________ Pass criterion: __________ Observed result: __________ Evidence location: __________ QUESTIONS FOR THE VENDOR - Which standard SAST analyzers cover the repository on its current tier? - Does the project have Ultimate for dependency scanning and any required Advanced SAST or review views? - How are dynamic-test targets restricted to approved staging applications? EVIDENCE GAPS - No independent analyzer-accuracy or runner-performance measurement was performed. - Self-managed version, tier, and feature flags require confirmation against the deployed GitLab release. SOURCES GitLab SAST (Documentation) https://docs.gitlab.com/user/application_security/sast/ GitLab dependency scanning (Documentation) https://docs.gitlab.com/user/application_security/dependency_scanning/ Scan execution policies (Documentation) https://docs.gitlab.com/user/application_security/policies/scan_execution_policies/ Use synthetic fixtures in an authorized environment. Agree rollback and acceptance criteria before enforcement. Documentation research and Atlas analysis. Independent hands-on effectiveness, effort, and complete price remain unassessed.