Unverified50% confidenceOpinionExact time
Traditional SAST tools have long been plagued by two problems: high false-positive rates and findings that are disconnected from business risk.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/26/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedThe drawback of SAST is that rules cannot cover risks that depend on business semantics, and its ability to track context across functions and files is limited, making it prone to producing large numbers of false positives.73% similarUnverifiedOver-reliance on feature comparison tables is a common pitfall in SaaS tool selection; behind identical checkmarks on a feature table, the underlying technical implementation and actual experience may differ vastly.69% similarUnverifiedError analysis involves systematically attributing root causes after Evals expose problems, including reasons such as insufficient retrieval recall, context window overflow, incorrect tool-call formatting, or the boundaries of the model's reasoning capability.67% similarUnverifiedSelf-hosted scraping tools are highly dependent on external sites, and their functionality is affected once a source becomes unavailable — a common problem with this type of tool.67% similarUnverifiedIn fields such as reverse engineering, security auditing, and privacy forensics, which demand extremely high accuracy and have high verification costs, directly treating the model as an authoritative analysis source is dangerous.66% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1099964API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1099964MCP
get_claim(id=1099964)