By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information.
ToolAccuracy of FindingsDetects Non-Pattern-Based Issues?Coverage of SAST FindingsSpeed of ScanningUsability & Dev Experience
DryRun SecurityVery high – caught multiple critical issues missed by othersYes – context-based analysis, logic flaws & SSRFBroad coverage of standard vulns, logic flaws, and extendableNear real-time PR feedback
Snyk CodeHigh on well-known patterns (SQLi, XSS), but misses other categoriesLimited – AI-based, focuses on recognized vulnerabilitiesGood coverage of standard vulns; may miss SSRF or advanced auth logic issuesFast, often near PR speedDecent GitHub integration, but rules are a black box
GitHub Advanced Security (CodeQL)Very high precision for known queries, low false positivesPartial – strong dataflow for known issues, needs custom queriesGood for SQLi and XSS but logic flaws require advanced CodeQL experience.Moderate to slow (GitHub Action based)Requires CodeQL expertise for custom logic
SemgrepMedium, but there is a good community for adding rulesPrimarily pattern-based with limited dataflowDecent coverage with the right rules, can still miss advanced logic or SSRFFast scansHas custom rules, but dev teams must maintain them
SonarQubeLow – misses serious issues in our testingLimited – mostly pattern-based, code quality orientedBasic coverage for standard vulns, many hotspots require manual reviewModerate, usually in CIDashboard-based approach, can pass “quality gate” despite real vulns
Vulnerability ClassSnyk (partial)GitHub (CodeQL) (partial)SemgrepSonarQubeDryRun Security
SQL Injection
*
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
SSRF
Auth Flaw / IDOR
User Enumeration
Hardcoded Token
ToolAccuracy of FindingsDetects Non-Pattern-Based Issues?Coverage of C# VulnerabilitiesScan SpeedDeveloper Experience
DryRun Security
Very high – caught all critical flaws missed by others
Yes – context-based analysis finds logic errors, auth flaws, etc.
Broad coverage of OWASP Top 10 vulns plus business logic issuesNear real-time (PR comment within seconds)Clear single PR comment with detailed insights; no config or custom scripts needed
Snyk CodeHigh on known patterns (SQLi, XSS), but misses logic/flow bugsLimited – focuses on recognizable vulnerability patterns
Good for standard vulns; may miss SSRF or auth logic issues 
Fast (integrates into PR checks)Decent GitHub integration, but rules are a black box (no easy customization)
GitHub Advanced Security (CodeQL)Low - missed everything except SQL InjectionMostly pattern-basedLow – only discovered SQL InjectionSlowest of all but finished in 1 minuteConcise annotation with a suggested fix and optional auto-remedation
SemgrepMedium – finds common issues with community rules, some missesPrimarily pattern-based, limited data flow analysis
Decent coverage with the right rules; misses advanced logic flaws 
Very fast (runs as lightweight CI)Custom rules possible, but require maintenance and security expertise
SonarQube
Low – missed serious issues in our testing
Mostly pattern-based (code quality focus)Basic coverage for known vulns; many issues flagged as “hotspots” require manual review Moderate (runs in CI/CD pipeline)Results in dashboard; risk of false sense of security if quality gate passes despite vulnerabilities
Vulnerability ClassSnyk CodeGitHub Advanced Security (CodeQL)SemgrepSonarQubeDryRun Security
SQL Injection (SQLi)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Auth Logic/IDOR
User Enumeration
Hardcoded Credentials
VulnerabilityDryRun SecuritySemgrepGitHub CodeQLSonarQubeSnyk Code
1. Remote Code Execution via Unsafe Deserialization
2. Code Injection via eval() Usage
3. SQL Injection in a Raw Database Query
4. Weak Encryption (AES ECB Mode)
5. Broken Access Control / Logic Flaw in Authentication
Total Found5/53/51/51/50/5
VulnerabilityDryRun SecuritySnykCodeQLSonarQubeSemgrep
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
(Hotspot)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
SQL Injection (SQLi)
IDOR / Broken Access Control
Invalid Token Validation Logic
Broken Email Verification Logic
DimensionWhy It Matters
Surface
Entry points & data sources highlight tainted flows early.
Language
Code idioms reveal hidden sinks and framework quirks.
Intent
What is the purpose of the code being changed/added?
Design
Robustness and resilience of changing code.
Environment
Libraries, build flags, and infra metadata flag, infrastructure (IaC) all give clues around the risks in changing code.
KPIPattern-Based SASTDryRun CSA
Mean Time to Regex
3–8 hrs per noisy finding set
Not required
Mean Time to Context
N/A
< 1 min
False-Positive Rate
50–85 %< 5 %
Logic-Flaw Detection
< 5 %
90%+
Severity
CriticalHigh
Location
utils/authorization.py :L118
utils/authorization.py :L49 & L82 & L164
Issue
JWT Algorithm Confusion Attack:
jwt.decode() selects the algorithm from unverified JWT headers.
Insecure OIDC Endpoint Communication:
urllib.request.urlopen called without explicit TLS/CA handling.
Impact
Complete auth bypass (switch RS256→HS256, forge tokens with public key as HMAC secret).
Susceptible to MITM if default SSL behavior is weakened or cert store compromised.
Remediation
Replace the dynamic algorithm selection with a fixed, expected algorithm list. Change line 118 from algorithms=[unverified_header.get('alg', 'RS256')] to algorithms=['RS256'] to only accept RS256 tokens. Add algorithm validation before token verification to ensure the header algorithm matches expected values.
Create a secure SSL context using ssl.create_default_context() with proper certificate verification. Configure explicit timeout values for all HTTP requests to prevent hanging connections. Add explicit SSL/TLS configuration by creating an HTTPSHandler with the secure SSL context. Implement proper error handling specifically for SSL certificate validation failures.
Key Insight
This vulnerability arises from trusting an unverified portion of the JWT to determine the verification method itself
This vulnerability stems from a lack of explicit secure communication practices, leaving the application reliant on potentially weak default behaviors.
AI in AppSec
July 8, 2025

AI wrote the bug. AI missed the bug. DryRun Security found it.

When an AI Code Assistant Reviewed Its Own Work and Missed a Critical MCP Server JWT Time-bomb

Intro: The Audit That Looked Perfect—Until It Wasn’t

An off-the-shelf AI code assistant combed through our MCP server codebase, produced a neat large report, and stamped the project “enterprise-grade secure.” Moments later, the DryRun Security analysis engine flagged two vulnerabilities—one a complete authentication bypass. If you’re betting prod uptime on generic AI code review, keep reading.

Executive Summary

This briefing compares an AI-driven security review from a major AI leader of the DryRun Security Insights MCP application with the results from DryRun Security. The AI review tool produced an impressively detailed analysis yet missed two high-severity issues in JWT verification and OIDC endpoint communication. The miss underscores the danger of over-relying on generic AI for security-critical reviews and highlights the need for specialized tooling like DryRun Security.

Main Themes & Key Findings

  1. Leading AI coding agent Capabilities

    • Requested an in-depth inspection of all project artifacts.
    • Correctly summarized:
      • Application behavior (AI-powered security analysis for code repositories).
      • Technology stack (Python 3.12+, FastMCP, Starlette, uvicorn, etc.).
      • Data stores & integrations (AWS S3, Pinecone, DynamoDB, OIDC, JWKS).
      • Security architecture (JWT validation, secret management, audit logging, multi-stage Docker builds).
    • Concluded that the app “demonstrates enterprise-grade security practices.”

  2. Critical AI Blind Spots

    • Claimed “comprehensive token validation and signature verification.”
    • Missed two vulnerabilities rated Critical and High by DryRun Security despite their subtlety and having “passed human review.”

{{table9}}

Why Generic AI Review Stumbles Here

Recent research from UTSA shows LLM-generated code is prone to nuanced security slips that also evade the same models in review mode. The models lack executable context and can’t reason about attacker creativity at the token-level. 

The case study vividly demonstrates that while AI code review tools can perform extensive structural and functional analysis, they currently fall short in identifying complex, subtle, and context-dependent security vulnerabilities, particularly those introduced by AI-generated code. 

The missed JWT algorithm confusion and insecure OIDC communication flaws were "catastrophic" and highlight a critical gap in AI's current security assessment capabilities. This reinforces the indispensable role of specialized, advanced security analysis tools, like DryRun Security, to provide a robust defense against sophisticated threats that can bypass both AI and human review. 

Reliance on AI for security-critical code requires extreme caution and continued human oversight augmented by advanced, targeted security tooling.

How DryRun Security Closed the Gap

The DryRun Security analysis engine pairs advanced inspection with context-aware attack simulations that are a strong fit for MCP server security paths:

  • Detects header-controlled algorithm switches.
  • Flags network calls that bypass strict TLS.
  • Maps findings to exploit likelihood, not just pattern matching.

The result: actionable alerts on critical issues before the commit hits main.

Ready to See What Your AI Missed?

Book a 30-minute demo and watch DryRun Security expose the gaps your code assistant leaves behind—no repo migration, no configuration gymnastics.

Protect your MCP server. Trust, but verify with DryRun Security!