Michael Weimer

Last week, Anthropic announced Claude Code Security, and if you’ve been online, you’ve likely already seen some strong reactions, including in the stock market, where cybersecurity stocks plummeted.

Some people are calling it a major shift in application security. 

Others are suggesting that tools like this could dramatically reduce the need for traditional security testing.

I don’t think either extreme is accurate.

It’s an interesting release. It’s worth paying attention to. But it’s not a replacement for how application security actually works in practice.

Let’s break it down together.

What Claude Code Security Actually Does

From what’s been shared publicly, Claude Code Security appears to focus primarily on static code analysis– scanning source code for vulnerabilities and insecure patterns.

Static analysis isn’t new. It’s been part of CI/CD pipelines for years.

Most mature engineering teams already use some combination of:

• SAST tools

• Dependency scanners

• Secret detection

• Basic injection and input validation checks

Claude could be faster. 

It may reason across large codebases more fluidly. 

It might provide better summaries or explanations.

That’s useful. But it’s still static analysis.

And static analysis is only one slice of application security.

Why This Doesn’t Replace Real Testing

Most of the meaningful findings we see in application security aren’t purely code-level issues.

They’re dynamic.

They show up in:

• Broken authorization flows

• Business logic edge cases

• Workflow abuse

• State manipulation

• Improper access control relationships

• Logging and monitoring gaps

These aren’t things you identify just by reading code.

They require interacting with the application the way a motivated attacker would: clicking through workflows, analyzing request/response pairs, understanding how data moves between users, and reasoning through how systems behave under stress.

That kind of analysis still requires a human who understands how applications break in the real world.

Claude, at least based on what’s been released so far, isn’t doing that level of dynamic reasoning across an entire application ecosystem.

Static Code Has Never Been the Full Story

One thing that stood out to me was how quickly some people interpreted this release as transformative for the entire security industry. (Others right-sized along the way, and I appreciate these fellow realists.)

Static code scanning has been an integral part of application security for the last 15+ years. It’s valuable. But in real penetration testing engagements, the highest-impact findings rarely live there.

If your source code is properly segmented and not publicly exposed, the more practical attack paths often start somewhere else:

• Identity misconfiguration

• Access control drift

• Privilege escalation through legitimate workflows

• Conditional access gaps

• Cloud misconfiguration

Application security is rarely just about a vulnerable function. It’s about how systems behave when someone intentionally tries to misuse them.

That’s harder to automate.

The AI Paradox

There was a comment I read online:

“If AI is generating more of the code, why does AI need to scan that same code for vulnerabilities?”

AI doesn’t produce certainty. It produces output. It will always return something. That doesn’t mean what it returns is comprehensive, or even correct.

In security, “it found something” isn’t the same as “it found everything that matters.”

Where Claude Could Be Helpful

I do think there’s a place for tools like this.

For teams that don’t already have mature scanning integrated into their pipelines, it could help surface issues earlier.

For open source projects, it may accelerate vulnerability identification.

As part of a layered security approach, it may reduce friction in early development stages.

Used thoughtfully, it’s another tool in your pocket.

We work with strong internal security teams all the time. Many of them already have scanners, monitoring tools, and automated checks in place.

What they ask us to do isn’t run a tool they don’t have.

They ask us to:

• Validate assumptions

• Look at the system from the outside

• Test how controls behave under pressure

• Identify gaps that automation misses

Tools surface patterns but still require experts to interpret these findings and remediate.

Context is where most real security failures happen.

My Take

Claude Code Security is interesting. It may improve how teams integrate security into development workflows.

But it doesn’t immediately replace:

• Dynamic application testing

• Threat modeling

• Architecture review

• Identity and access evaluation

• Independent validation

The acceleration of AI tooling and agents is exciting and will only get broader in its use.  More importantly, it’s important to note what AI can/cannot do and where it stands against current solutions that currently exist - and at what cost?

If anything, releases like this make it more important to understand what a tool is actually capable of and what’s just hype.

Questions about your security posture? Reach out to speak with a member of our team.