CI/CD Pipeline Security

Now pick what to compare Gato-X against.

Gato-X clear

Open a name for its full profile

GitLab Ultimate
Scored
GitLab · Freemium · 1 capabilities in this domain · 3.95 / 5
Compare →
GitHub Actions
Capabilities only
GitHub · Freemium · 5 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
zizmor
Capabilities only
zizmor Project · Open Source · 4 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
StepSecurity Secure Repo and Maintained Actions
Capabilities only
StepSecurity · Freemium · 3 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Chainguard Actions
Capabilities only
Chainguard · Commercial · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
StepSecurity Harden-Runner
Capabilities only
StepSecurity · Freemium · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
actionlint
Capabilities only
actionlint Project · Open Source · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
poutine
Capabilities only
BoostSecurity · Open Source · 2 capabilities in this domain
Compare →
Gato-X
Capabilities only
Gato-X Project · Open Source · 1 capabilities in this domain
selected
Legit Security
Capabilities only
Legit Security · Commercial · 1 capabilities in this domain
Compare →

In CI/CD Pipeline Security

GitLab Ultimate

GitLab · CI/CD Pipeline Security

Close ×

FreemiumCompany3.95 / 5

GitLab Ultimate combines source control, CI/CD and security scanning with merge request approval policies, scan execution policies and a vulnerability report, priced per user.

What it does12 capabilities · 11 at full coverage

11 of 12 at full coverage.

Security Gate OrchestrationFullCICD · level 3 · 3 providers
Container Image Vulnerability ScanningFullCONTAINER · level 2 · 20 providers
Software Composition Analysis★FullDEPS · level 1 · 23 providers
Vulnerability Aggregation & DeduplicationPartialEVM · level 2 · 11 providers
IaC Misconfiguration ScanningFullIAC · level 2 · 9 providers
Dynamic Application Security TestingFullVALIDATE · level 2 · 8 providers
Secret Push ProtectionFullSECRETS · level 2 · 4 providers
Secrets Detection in Source Code★FullSECRETS · level 1 · 15 providers
Workload Identity FederationFullSECRETS · level 3 · 16 providers
Branch Protection & Ruleset Enforcement★FullSCM · level 1 · 5 providers
Code Review EnforcementFullSCM · level 2 · 4 providers
Static Application Security TestingFullSAST · level 2 · 21 providers

What it proves70 controls across 14 frameworks

Satisfied through its capabilities, not claimed by the vendor.

SSDF 1.112 / 42PO.3.1 PO.4.1 PS.1.1 PW.4.4 PW.7.1 PW.7.2 PW.8.1 PW.8.2 PW.9.1 RV.1.1 RV.1.2 RV.2.1
SAMM 2.010 / 90I-DM-1-A I-SB-2-B I-SD-2-A I-SD-2-B O-EM-1-A O-EM-1-B V-ST-1-A V-ST-1-B V-ST-2-A V-ST-2-B
CSF 2.07 / 106GV.SC-07 ID.RA-01 PR.AA-01 PR.AA-03 PR.AA-04 PR.PS-01 PR.PS-06
ASVS 5.06 / 17V1 V13 V15 V3 V5 V9
DSOMM5 / 19IM-Development-and-Source-Control TV-Consolidation TV-Dynamic-Depth-Applications TV-Static-Depth-Applications TV-Static-Depth-Infrastructure
CNAS Top 104 / 10CNAS-1 CNAS-2 CNAS-5 CNAS-7
SP 800-204D4 / 11204D-CD-SECRETS 204D-CI-COMMIT 204D-CI-REPO 204D-ZT-IDENTITY
Scorecard4 / 20Branch-Protection Code-Review SAST Vulnerabilities
CI/CD Top 103 / 10CICD-SEC-1 CICD-SEC-2 CICD-SEC-6
CIS Controls3 / 18CIS 16 CIS 4 CIS 7
CRA3 / 41Annex I Part I (2)(a) Annex I Part I (2)(b) Annex I Part II (3)
OWASP Top 103 / 10A02:2025 A03:2025 A05:2025
S2C2F3 / 25SCA-1 SCA-2 UPD-3
SLSA 1.23 / 16Source L2 — Continuous immutable history Source L3 — Enforced technical controls Source L4 — Two-party review

What it stops13 techniques · 8 risks

13 techniques countered, 11 of them common

Cloud Misconfiguration ExploitationVery Common
Exploit Public-Facing ApplicationT1190Very Common
Exploitation of Known Vulnerable ComponentVery Common
Injection ExploitationVery Common
Leaked Secret AbuseVery Common
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In FilesT1552.001Very Common
Valid Accounts: Cloud AccountsT1078.004Very Common
Compromise Software Dependencies and Development ToolsT1195.001Common
Data from Information Repositories: Code RepositoriesT1213.003Common
Steal Application Access TokenT1528Common
Unauthorized Commit InjectionCommon
Long-Con Maintainer Social EngineeringRare
SLSA threat B: Unauthorized change during authoring and reviewSLSA-B

8 risks reduced

Leaked credential enables unauthorized accessCritical
Exploitable flaw in first-party application codeHigh
Exploitable issues in running applications remain undiscoveredHigh
Exploitable vulnerabilities in container base imagesHigh
Insecure infrastructure configuration is deployedHigh
Known vulnerability in a reachable dependency is exploitedHigh
Pipeline secrets exfiltrated from runners or logsHigh
Unreviewed or forged code reaches a releaseHigh

Where it runs7 phases · 2 ways to deploy

Capabilities per lifecycle phase

Code7
Build6
Test2
Release2
Deploy1
Operate1
Monitor2

How it is delivered

SaaSSelf-hosted

What it unlocks17 activities · reaches level 5

Program activities its capabilities support, reaching level 5. Supporting an activity is not completing it.

Level 1

MFA and default branch protectionLow effort
Run SAST on critical repositoriesLow effort
Scan container imagesLow effort
Scan dependencies for known vulnerabilities and licensesLow effort
Scan infrastructure codeLow effort
Scan repositories and history for secretsLow effort

Level 2

Aggregate findings and route to ownersMedium effort
Block misconfigurations in pull requestsLow effort
Centralize secrets and enable push protectionMedium effort
Organization rulesets with required reviews and code ownersLow effort
Run DAST against ephemeral environmentsMedium effort
Scan every pull request and block new high-confidence issuesLow effort

Level 3

Enforce policy as code in pipelines and clustersMedium effort
Protected release and deployment environmentsLow effort
Replace static CI credentials with OIDC federationMedium effort

Level 4

Two-party review with phishing-resistant MFA and source provenanceMedium effort

Level 5

Secretless workload identity everywhereHigh effort

How it holds up11 criteria scored · 5 strengths · 5 limitations

Scored 0 to 5 against the evaluation criteria

Coverage from pre-commit to runtime4.3
Language, framework and ecosystem breadth4.0
Context-driven prioritization3.6
CI/CD and developer workflow integration4.5
APIs and extensibility4.3
Actionable remediation guidance3.8
Accuracy and noise3.9
Governance and compliance reporting4.4
AI capability maturity and AI security coverage3.7
Total cost and licensing fit3.2
Operational effort and skills required4.0

Strengths

Findings land in the merge request in the same tool as the code the pipeline and the registry
One agreement covers static analysis composition analysis secrets containers and dynamic testing
Security policies and required approvals are enforced by the platform rather than by convention
Advanced SAST is cross-file and tracks a vulnerability across commits rather than re-reporting it
Self-hosted and software-as-a-service are both first-class

Limitations

Scanner depth is behind the specialists in every individual category which is the price of breadth
Priced per user rather than per contributing developer so non-developers are billed too
Ultimate moved to quote-only pricing which removed the published figure buyers used to plan with
No reachability or exposure ranking for static analysis findings
Worth nothing unless you host your source on GitLab

Best for

Organizations already on GitLab who want to stop integrating six tools
Teams who value one vulnerability queue over the best engine in each category

Differentiators

One platform from commit to deployment
Security policy enforced at the merge request
Breadth of scanner types under a single agreement

Organization size it suits

Organizations already hosting source and CI on GitLab, from mid-size upward

What it costs4 tiers · Per user subscription · free tier

LicensingPer user subscription

Priced peruser per month or year

BillingSubscription

Scales withNamed or licensed users

FreeFreeuser/month · MonthlyNo vulnerability management · No security dashboards or policies · No custom rulesets
UltimateContact salesuser/month · Monthly
Premium$29user/month · Monthly
Planning estimateestimate$1,200user/year · Annual

Total cost

Bundles such as Microsoft 365 E5 spread cost across many products; value depends on actually deploying the included capabilities.

What it takes to runStaffing, standing it up, and what it promises

Compliance reporting

Compliance frameworks and adherence reportingSecurity policies and merge request approval rulesVulnerability report and security dashboards

What it works with3 standards

Standards and formats

CODEOWNERSOpenID ConnectStatic Analysis Results Interchange Format

What else to look at

No alternative, competitor or family sibling is modeled for it.

What backs this up

No measurement, incident or pipeline using it.

Gantry 7.1.0 · OFF.12 · OFF.13