A TECHNICAL COMPARISON FOR MODERN APPLICATION SECURITY TEAMS
Dynamic application security testing is only valuable when findings reflect real, exploitable risk. As applications shift toward APIs, microservices, and CI/CD-driven delivery, traditional crawl-based scanners struggle to provide a reliable signal.
This page provides a technical comparison between Bright (STAR) and Invicti, focusing on validation depth, coverage of modern attack paths, and operational impact on engineering teams.
How the Two Approaches Differ at a Technical Level
Invicti is a traditional DAST platform that relies on crawl-based scanning and heuristic validation techniques. While it attempts to reduce false positives through confirmation logic, testing remains largely constrained to reachable, crawlable surfaces.
Bright STAR performs runtime, exploit-based testing, validating vulnerabilities only when they are confirmed through real execution paths. This enables deeper visibility into APIs, logic flaws, and non-crawlable attack surfaces.
This difference in testing model has a direct impact on signal quality, remediation confidence, and CI/CD velocity.
Scan Execution Model
Accuracy & Signal Quality
Coverage of Modern Application Risks
Remediation & Validation
Developer Workflow Impact
CI/CD Integration
Scan Execution Model
Accuracy & Signal Quality
Coverage of Modern Application Risks
Remediation & Validation
Developer Workflow Impact
CI/CD Integration
Operational Outcomes
When Teams Choose Bright Over Invicti
Organizations typically adopt Bright when they require:
Verified, exploitable findings only
Strong API and business logic coverage
Faster feedback inside CI/CD
Reduced dependency on crawlability
Higher confidence in remediation outcomes
Summary
Invicti improves upon legacy DAST by reducing false positives through heuristic confirmation. Bright STAR goes further by validating vulnerabilities through real runtime exploitation, providing higher confidence, broader coverage, and a cleaner signal for modern application architectures.
Book a Demo
See how Bright validates real risk inside your CI/CD pipeline and eliminates false positives before they reach developers.
Our clients:
Learn more
Understand the technical differences behind modern AppSec approaches. See how runtime validation changes accuracy, coverage, and remediation. Go deeper into STAR, MCP, and real CI/CD security enforcement.
The Future of DAST: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Alternatives
Application security is a moving target. New frameworks, faster releases, and API-first designs change the attack surface every quarter.
Learn More
SAST vs DAST vs IAST: Choosing the Right Approach for Application Security
Threats are growing faster than release cycles. Modern teams face a crowded toolbox and real deadlines.
Learn More
The Importance of Finding Vulnerabilities with Application Security in Pre-Production
In today’s digital-first world, organizations are under constant pressure to deliver software faster while maintaining high security standards.
Learn More
