I'm weighing the pros and cons of building our own Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) system versus purchasing a commercial one. We currently utilize Semgrep for Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Snyk for Software Composition Analysis (SCA), and have a separate container scanner integrated into a common Jira project. While we have all the data we need, some team members believe we can develop our own correlation logic using Jira automation and add layers of prioritization and scoring.
On the flip side, others argue that this self-built solution will become obsolete over time. The concern is that we'll struggle to maintain it as scanning tools evolve and that no one will take ownership of it down the line. I'm looking for insights from anyone who's opted for the DIY route—what are the real drawbacks, and how does it compare to investing in established platforms like Checkmarx One or Cycode?
5 Answers
One big thing you miss with a DIY approach is the threat intelligence layer that many vendor platforms offer. Commercial solutions pull in current exploit data to dynamically update risk scores, while your home-built system only calculates risk at scan time and that data becomes static fast.
We built what you're describing about two years ago with Jira integration and custom scoring. It was great for about eight months until Snyk changed their API response. After a while, it started generating worthless output. We ended up buying an ASPM platform six months later. Surprisingly, the costs were similar, but the maintenance burden was a whole different story!
Yeah, the cost of bad output is often underestimated until it actually happens.
If your main need is correlation with priority logic, then DIY could make sense temporarily. But you have to be wary of maintenance pitfalls—schema changes, authentication issues, and various edge cases can pile up. Before long, your simple scoring layer might need to evolve into a fully-fledged product no one wants to manage. I usually recommend building only for very narrow scopes if you're okay with it staying that way. The moment expectations broaden, the value of buying starts to shine through.
Scope creep is exactly how our previous internal tools became unmanageable!
I've been down this path before, and the maintenance burden is definitely real. We initially developed custom correlation scripts thinking it would be easy, but within a few months, no one wanted to touch the code when vulnerabilities started getting misclassified. The real kicker is when a scanner changes its output format or a tool updates its severity ratings—suddenly, your whole scoring system can be thrown off. I ended up managing the transition to a proper ASPM platform, and while it was a hefty initial cost, the time saved on maintenance made it worth it. Plus, having support when something breaks instead of being stuck on-call for a custom solution is a huge relief.
Exactly! The initial build is often manageable, but the long-term degradation and maintenance are what usually bite you. It's easy for the next team to struggle with something they didn’t design.
Do you have enough hours in your dev team to build and maintain a security tool with the same capabilities as what's available on the market? If you do, why not channel those hours into improving your core product instead? That's really the heart of the build vs. buy debate: Are you using your resources to truly benefit the business?
Good point, but what happens when that DIY solution breaks after a late-night update? Who's on the hook then?
This is spot on. Even if you prioritize environment weighting, without real-time exploit data, you'll miss the actual risk picture.