APIs represent critical business assets that cannot afford to remain insecure. Unfortunately, traditional security technologies are inadequate for comprehensive API security. Is there a solution to the problem? This analysis explores a comprehensive solution.

Organizations typically use several traditional technologies for API security:

• DAST (dynamic application security testing)

• SAST (static application security testing)

• WAF/WAAP (web application firewall/web application and API protection)

SAST analyzes application code during the Programming or Build lifecycle phases, not during Test or Operation phases. This means SAST analyzes applications that are not yet "real"—not running or executing functions or exposing security flaws at runtime. Consequently, SAST findings lack sufficient accuracy and are prone to guesswork, false positives, and false negatives.

DAST is a "black box" technology. It tests an application by launching simulated attacks, analyzing application responses to those attacks, and drawing conclusions about vulnerability exposure. As a black box solution, DAST cannot see inside the application even when it detects a vulnerability. Without insight into application code, composition, and architecture, DAST struggles to identify vulnerability origins, limiting its accuracy and comprehensiveness.

WAF/WAAP analyzes network traffic to and from applications but lacks visibility into application internals. It cannot see the origin and cause of application actions (such as API invocations), only their results—the network traffic generated. This limited visibility reduces the accuracy of API detection and analysis, causing excessive false positives and negatives.

Runtime Application/API Security provides a breakthrough solution to these traditional security limitations. It secures applications during execution—when they are actively running and performing their functions. Runtime represents the only operational mode where application logic and vulnerabilities are fully executed and exposed. Therefore, only running applications enable the most accurate observability into application/API behavior and security flaws, thus enabling the most accurate security controls.

Runtime security enables a 4-step API security process:

Step 1. API Detection

Runtime Application/API Security observes APIs at the moment of execution by applications or microservices. It captures all API parameters, transferred data, running services, and endpoints. Unlike SAST, DAST, and WAF/WAAP—which rely on limited observability and guesswork—Runtime Security provides complete API visibility with no blind spots.

Step 2. Passive Vulnerability Analysis of the Detected API

After detecting APIs in Step 1, Runtime Security conducts Passive analysis. This is a pattern-based, rule-based analysis, grounded in API security knowledge from the global security community.

Step 3. Active Vulnerability Analysis of the Detected API

Once Passive Analysis is over, yet another – Active Analysis – step can take place. It is either: 1) integrated targeted DAST, or 2) third-party DAST or penetration testing services. Active analysis uses targeted attacks against detected APIs. Since the endpoint location is known from Step 1 and potential vulnerabilities identified in Step 2, DAST can launch precise attacks (such as SQL injection) without application crawling. Step 3 confirms or refutes the rule-based findings from Step 2.

Step 4. Architectural Context

Effective vulnerability remediation requires understanding the architectural context: which runtime entities (applications, APIs, Kubernetes images, libraries) were active during vulnerability detection, their interdependencies, and communication patterns. While traditional AppSec tools (SAST, DAST, WAF/WAAP) provide little architectural insight, Runtime Application/API Security captures this complete context, enabling DevSecOps teams to remediate issues rapidly.

Together, these four steps significantly enhance vulnerability analysis accuracy through: precise API detection (Step 1), dual-layer vulnerability validation (Steps 2 and 3), and comprehensive architectural context (Step 4).

Unlike intermittent scanners (SAST, DAST) that leave gaps in security analysis between scans, Runtime Application/API security is always active: it continuously monitors all APIs, never leaving them unobserved or unprotected.

‍