Software Security Market Demand Research Report (2025 Edition)

Disclaimer: This report is based on research conducted within the domestic Chinese market. The findings, data, and conclusions reflect the specific circumstances and industry conditions in China as of 2025. It is intended solely for informational and reference purposes. Readers should exercise independent judgment and consider local differences when applying the insights herein.

Copyright Notice: © 2025 InsBug. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or commercial use of this report is prohibited. When citing or quoting any part of this report, please clearly indicate the source as “InsBug.”

Introduction

As software-driven enterprises continue to dominate the global business landscape, software security has evolved from an optional enhancement to a fundamental pillar of business continuity, regulatory compliance, and brand reputation. Vulnerabilities in consumer-facing applications or critical enterprise systems can result in massive economic losses, legal liabilities, and even threats to public safety.

In this context, companies are increasingly willing to invest in software security. However, practical challenges persist, including difficulties in selecting tools, high integration costs, persistently high false positive rates, and a shortage of skilled security professionals.

Meanwhile, regulatory policies such as the “Cybersecurity Law,” “Data Security Law,” and “Personal Information Protection Law” are imposing stricter compliance requirements, especially in industries like finance, manufacturing, energy, and healthcare. The rise of open-source software components and the rapid development of DevOps have further brought software supply chain security into the spotlight.

Although a variety of security tools exist — such as SAST, DAST, SCA, RASP, IAST, and Fuzz testing — their awareness, maturity of use, and real-world effectiveness vary significantly across enterprises. To deeply understand real-world demands, challenges, and expectations in software security, we launched the 2025 Domestic Software Security Market Demand Research. This report is based on survey responses from different industries, company sizes, and roles, aiming to bridge the gap between market supply and enterprise needs and to promote healthy growth in the software security industry.

1. Research Background

With the rapid rise of software-driven enterprises as a dominant global business model, software security issues have increasingly become a central concern for business operations. The definition of cybersecurity has evolved from early system-level security to a three-dimensional architecture encompassing code-level protection, runtime defense, and supply chain management.

Software security is no longer an optional feature but a key guarantee of regulatory compliance, business continuity, and brand trust. Whether for consumer-facing internet applications or enterprise-grade critical systems, any security breach could result in catastrophic economic losses, legal consequences, or even public safety threats.

Enterprises are demonstrating stronger willingness to invest in software security. However, the practical deployment of software security faces significant obstacles:

• Difficulty in tool selection
• High integration costs
• Persistently high false positive rates
• Severe shortage of professional security talents

These challenges hinder the popularization and practical effectiveness of software security capabilities.

Meanwhile, the regulatory landscape is tightening. Laws such as the “Cybersecurity Law,” “Data Security Law,” and “Personal Information Protection Law” clearly mandate enterprises to meet security competency standards. Particularly in critical industries such as finance, manufacturing, energy, and healthcare, there is an urgent need to elevate technical defenses to meet intensifying regulatory scrutiny.

Furthermore, the widespread adoption of open-source software components and the acceleration of DevOps practices have made software supply chain security a new hot topic in the cybersecurity sector. Traditional security tools are no longer sufficient to handle the risk challenges brought by rapid development and agile deployment.

Today, multiple types of security tools exist, including:

• SAST (Static Application Security Testing)
• DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing)
• SCA (Software Composition Analysis)
• RASP (Runtime Application Self-Protection)
• IAST (Interactive Application Security Testing)
• Fuzz Testing

These tools theoretically cover the development, testing, and operation phases of the software lifecycle. However, their awareness, maturity of application, and actual effectiveness vary greatly between enterprises, with systematic data support still lacking.

To comprehensively understand real enterprise needs, practical pain points, and expectations around software security, and to clarify structural gaps between supply and demand in the market, this 2025 Domestic Software Security Market Demand Research was initiated.

Through survey responses from companies of different industries, sizes, and roles, this research aims to provide a solid foundation for promoting healthier development in the software security industry.

2. Research Objectives

This research project was initiated with the goal of systematically assessing the current demand landscape for software security among enterprise users, investigating tool usage patterns, identifying core pain points, and understanding future expectations. The objectives are fourfold:

1. Constructing an Enterprise Security Demand Structure

To reveal the differences in software security investments across industries and company sizes. The market is highly diverse — ranging from highly regulated sectors like finance and manufacturing to technology, education, and internet-based companies. By cross-analyzing industries and sizes, we aim to map security priorities and budget capacities, enabling vendors to target high-value customer segments with differentiated product strategies.

2. Analyzing the Awareness and Usage of Mainstream Software Security Tools

By assessing the usage frequencies, user feedback, and deployment patterns of typical tools such as SAST, DAST, SCA, and RASP, we seek to uncover the “awareness-to-usage gap” and identify conversion barriers that impede wider adoption. This will help guide product optimization.

3. Gathering User Expectations for Ideal Security Tools

Beyond what users “need,” we also focus on “why they need it,” digging deeper into the underlying drivers to inform the design of future tools that are better aligned with market expectations.

4. Evaluating Procurement Drivers and Price Sensitivities

By analyzing the factors different roles (developers, security engineers, operations, executives) prioritize in the procurement process, as well as budget and willingness-to-pay data, we aim to support vendors in formulating more precise sales and marketing strategies.

Ultimately, this research aspires to bridge the gap between technology and real-world enterprise practice, promoting the usability and adoption of security products, and fostering an industry ecosystem where security capabilities and business needs are deeply integrated.

3. Market Status and Industry Distribution

3.1 Differences in Security Investment Willingness

Survey results indicate that both industry type and company size directly influence how much importance and resources are assigned to software security.

For instance, financial companies, driven by regulatory demands, were exclusively large-scale organizations (over 500 employees) among respondents. Their security needs are highly concentrated and standards are stringent.

In manufacturing, 75% of respondents were from super-large enterprises, focusing on specialized needs such as supply chain security and industrial control system protection.

In contrast, the technology/software development sector exhibited a more scattered distribution: 25% startups, 50% SMEs, and 17% super-large companies. This highlights the layered demand structure within the tech industry — small and medium firms seek lightweight security capabilities (e.g., code auditing, API security), while a few large firms pursue advanced solutions like cloud security and zero trust architecture.

Overall, highly concentrated industries (e.g., finance, manufacturing) tend to invest heavily in professional security capabilities, whereas dispersed industries (e.g., technology) must balance a variety of needs across different scales.

3.2 Industry Differences in Security Importance Perception

When asked about “the importance of software security to business development,” different industries offered markedly different evaluations.

• In the technology/software sector, 83% of respondents deemed software security “extremely important.”
• In finance, 60% selected “extremely important,” significantly higher than other industries.

These sectors inherently handle sensitive user or customer data and face strict regulatory requirements (such as financial data protection and code security compliance), making software security a critical, non-negotiable focus.

Conversely, while all manufacturing respondents considered security at least “important,” only 25% rated it as “extremely important,” suggesting they view security more as a basic operational requirement rather than a strategic priority.

Thus, industry attributes heavily influence how companies perceive the role of software security: finance and tech sectors elevate it to a strategic level, while sectors like manufacturing and education, albeit aware, place relatively less emphasis.

3.3 Smaller Companies and Higher Perceived Security Importance

Interestingly, survey results showed that startups (<50 employees) place even greater subjective importance on software security — 100% of respondents in this group marked it as “extremely important.”

This may be because startups have low risk tolerance: a single security breach could cause irreparable damage. Therefore, they naturally emphasize basic protections more urgently.

In larger companies, the sense of urgency appears diluted:

• In super-large companies (>5000 employees), only 57% chose “extremely important,” with many opting for “important” instead.

As organizations mature and build internal security teams, the marginal sense of crisis tends to lessen.

Nevertheless, it is crucial to note that across all company sizes, no respondents considered software security “ordinary” or “unimportant”. Security has become a universally acknowledged necessity, with only differing degrees of prioritization.

To summarize:

• Objective investment capacity correlates positively with company size.
• Subjective urgency may inversely correlate, with smaller companies feeling a sharper immediate need for security.

4. Current Adoption of Software Security Tools

4.1 Awareness vs. Usage Gap

Survey results revealed a significant gap between the awareness and actual usage of mainstream software security tools. Among the commonly recognized tools:

• SAST (Static Application Security Testing) enjoys the highest awareness (70%) and usage (61%) rates, reflecting its established position as a standard tool for code security testing.
• SCA (Software Composition Analysis) and DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) have moderate recognition levels (52% and 65% respectively), but their actual usage lags behind significantly, with only 39% of enterprises deploying them.

This “awareness-to-usage” gap suggests that while enterprises are familiar with these tools in concept, many remain hesitant to implement them. Contributing factors may include:

• Cost considerations
• Technical compatibility challenges
• Lack of clear understanding of the tools’ real value

For example, while some companies use SCA tools, many do not fully grasp their operating principles. Even among those aware of SCA, only 39% have translated awareness into actual adoption, highlighting the need for stronger product education and value communication.

4.2 A Significant Portion Still Lacks Any Tools

Alarmingly, 30% of surveyed enterprises reported that they had not deployed any mainstream security tools at all.

Among these “blank slate” companies:

• 43% lacked awareness of key security tools altogether (e.g., they had never heard of fuzz testing).
• 29% were aware of some tools but had not implemented them, often citing budget constraints or technical integration difficulties.

This underscores a major opportunity for vendors: there remains a large group of potential first-time users who could be converted through basic education, simpler entry-level products, and affordability-focused solutions.

4.3 Tool Usage Patterns Linked to Company Attributes

The degree of institutionalization in security testing varies significantly with company size:

• Super-large enterprises (>5000 employees): 71% had established regular, periodic security testing procedures.
• SMEs (small and medium enterprises): Only 29% conducted regular testing, while 43% resorted to ad hoc testing “as needed.”

This pattern is logical: large organizations face greater compliance pressure and have more mature processes, while smaller organizations often operate reactively due to limited resources.

Industry-specific differences also emerged:

• Financial sector firms prioritize application scanning and vulnerability detection tools to meet compliance requirements.
• Internet and tech companies are more willing to experiment with emerging technologies like IAST and RASP to enhance security during the development phase.

Summary:

• SAST tools have achieved the highest market penetration.
• Tools like SCA and DAST still require stronger promotion and education.
• Companies that have not deployed any tools present a vital market expansion opportunity.

5. Major Security Challenges and Industry/Scale Variations

5.1 Varied Pain Points Across Industries

When asked about their primary software security challenges, respondents revealed significant variation depending on the industry.

• Financial sector: 100% of respondents highlighted regulatory compliance pressure as their top challenge. Given strict requirements around data privacy and transactional security, adapting to evolving regulatory demands is a primary concern.
• Technology/software companies: 58% reported “high false positive rates” and “lack of intelligent real-time protection” as major issues, while 33% mentioned risks associated with open-source components. The fast-paced development environment in tech means precise vulnerability detection and real-time defenses are critical.
• Manufacturing: 75% of respondents cited “lack of effective solutions or guidance,” and 50% pointed to risks from open-source components and inadequate asset inventory. Traditional manufacturing firms transitioning to digital operations often lack systematic security capabilities, facing both knowledge and asset visibility gaps.

Other industries such as government and healthcare had limited sample sizes and thus showed less clear patterns, though compliance and technology risks were recurrent themes.

Summary:

• Regulatory compliance dominates concerns in highly regulated sectors like finance.
• Technical risk management is the priority for tech firms.
• Manufacturing faces a capability-building challenge, needing structured guidance and asset management.

5.2 Company Size Influences Challenge Priorities

Security challenges also vary depending on company size:

Super-large enterprises (>5000 employees):

• 71% cited “lack of effective solutions or guidance” as a major challenge.
• 57% mentioned difficulties with comprehensive asset inventory.
• The complexity of organizational structure and IT systems makes it hard for super-large enterprises to rely on one-size-fits-all solutions. Customized strategies and thorough asset management become essential.

Startups (<50 employees):

• 67% simultaneously faced “high false positive rates,” “insufficient asset inventory,” and “lack of intelligent real-time protection.”
• Startups often struggle due to limited resources and technical capabilities, making it hard to deploy sophisticated security tools or maintain comprehensive protection.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (51–500 employees):

• 43% reported “difficulty integrating security tools” and “lack of external security service support.”
• SMEs have started investing in security but often lack professional personnel or a mature ecosystem to support full integration.

Large enterprises (501–5000 employees):

• Their challenges were more fragmented without a single dominant issue, reflecting varying maturity levels across different departments and business units.

Summary:

• Super-large organizations need customized solutions and effective asset management.
• Startups need affordable, easy-to-use, reliable security tools.
• SMEs need better integration support and accessible third-party services.
• Large enterprises show mixed challenges depending on internal variability.

5.3 Core Pain Points: False Positives, Asset Management, Integration

Across all respondents, the most prevalent challenges were:

• High false positive rates (48%)
• Lack of comprehensive software asset inventory (48%)
• Lack of intelligent real-time protection (35%)
• Regulatory compliance pressure (30%)

“High false positive rates” were repeatedly cited across industries and company sizes, indicating it is the top barrier in current security practices. Excessive false positives waste security team resources and lower response efficiency to genuine threats.

Moreover, growing IT complexity has left many enterprises without a clear inventory of their software applications and components, creating blind spots and hidden risks.

Enterprises also expressed dissatisfaction with existing protection measures, feeling that they cannot respond intelligently or rapidly to evolving threats.

Implication for the market: The most urgent market needs are:

• Reducing false positives
• Enhancing software asset management
• Strengthening intelligent, real-time threat detection and response capabilities

Different industries and company sizes have specific nuances, but these core pain points are consistent across the board.

6. Functional and Performance Expectations for Ideal Tools

6.1 Most Desired Features: Low False Positives, Easy Deployment, Clear Reports

When asked about the characteristics of an ideal security tool, users demonstrated clear preferences. The top three desired features were all related to usability and accuracy:

• Clear and actionable reports and recommendations (65%)
• Low false positive rates (61%)
• Ease of deployment and maintenance (61%)

This illustrates that users’ main frustrations revolve around lowering the operational burden and minimizing noise. On one hand, they hope security tools can offer intuitive, easy-to-understand scanning results and remediation guidance to enable rapid action. On the other hand, they urgently need tools that report fewer false alarms to avoid wasting time on non-existent threats.

Notably, traditional performance indicators such as “low false negative rates” (57%) and “multi-language framework support” (52%) were ranked slightly lower. This suggests that the market focus is shifting from pure detection “quantity” to detection “quality” and user experience improvements.

6.2 Intelligent Detection Must Deliver Practical Value

Interestingly, only 39% of respondents chose “intelligent real-time detection and protection” as a desired feature. Despite AI and intelligent technologies being popular topics, users generally adopt a cautious attitude toward these capabilities unless they demonstrate clear, reliable benefits.

Rather than seeking flashy “black box” AI features, users prioritize:

• Lowering false positives
• Producing clear and interpretable results
• Enhancing operational efficiency

Thus, the value of AI lies in helping improve accuracy, precision, and decision support — aligning with the previously highlighted demands for clear reports and low false positives. Intelligent functions must translate into tangible, practical enhancements rather than mere marketing gimmicks.

6.3 Functional Demand Differences by Industry and Role

While overall trends were consistent, subtle differences emerged across industries and user roles:

• Integration into CI/CD pipelines was a strong demand among medium-to-large technology enterprises and security leaders:
• 83% of mid-sized to large companies reported “very strong need.”
• 100% of senior security executives (CSO, CISO) considered CI/CD integration “extremely necessary.”

This reflects the pressure in fast-paced development environments to embed security seamlessly into development workflows.

• Developers primarily valued ease of use.
• Security teams emphasized vulnerability detection depth and development process impact.
• Operations teams cared about compatibility with existing systems.

These differences imply that security product design should balance multiple dimensions: providing strong detection for security professionals, low-friction usability for developers, and smooth integration for operations teams.

6.4 Layered Needs and Improvement Directions

In summary, the ideal security tool should embody a combination of “precision, usability, and integration.” Specifically:

• Minimize false positives and false negatives to ensure reliable scan results.
• Generate clear, actionable reports including risk prioritization and remediation guidance.
• Simplify deployment and maintenance, seamlessly integrating into CI/CD workflows.
• Support multiple programming languages and emerging frameworks, such as Go and Rust.
• Incorporate intelligent analysis (e.g., discovering logic vulnerabilities through contextual analysis) where it meaningfully enhances accuracy.

It is important to recognize that different organizations will weigh these needs differently:

• Highly regulated organizations may prioritize ultra-low false negative rates and advanced intelligent detection.
• SMEs might prefer easy-to-deploy, cost-effective solutions.

Therefore, offering modular functionalities or tiered service packages could better cater to the diverse needs of enterprises at various maturity levels.

7. Procurement Drivers and Price Sensitivity

7.1 Different Roles Focus on Different Procurement Factors

The survey revealed that different job roles within organizations prioritize distinct factors when evaluating and purchasing security tools:

Security engineers primarily care about two aspects:

• The impact of the tool on the development process (69%)
• The detection capabilities of the tool (62%)
• Security engineers are concerned about whether the introduction of new tools will slow down development workflows and whether the tools can accurately uncover real vulnerabilities.

Developers unanimously emphasized ease of use, with 100% of developer respondents selecting “tool usability” as their top concern.

• Developers prefer security tools that are simple, intuitive, and minimally disruptive to their existing work patterns.

Operations engineers focused on:

• Vendor brand reputation (100%)
• Ongoing technical support (100%)
• For operations teams, stability and reliable post-sales service are paramount to maintaining system continuity.

Executive decision-makers (CSO, CISO, CTO) displayed sensitivity toward:

• Procurement cost (50%)
• Process impact (50%)
• Executives need to balance security investments with broader business objectives, focusing on cost-effectiveness and minimizing disruptions to organizational efficiency.

Implication: Sales and pre-sales strategies must be tailored to different audiences:

• Highlight detection depth and process compatibility when addressing security teams.
• Emphasize usability and workflow integration for developers.
• Stress brand reliability and service capabilities when engaging operations teams.
• Prepare clear ROI (return on investment) arguments for executive-level stakeholders.

7.2 Budget Stratification by Company Size

The survey asked companies to estimate their acceptable annual budget range for high-quality security tools. Results showed clear stratification based on company size:

Startups (<50 employees):

• 67% could only afford annual investments below ¥50,000.
• Very few startups indicated a willingness to spend ¥300,000–¥500,000.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (51–500 employees):

• 43% preferred the ¥50,000–¥150,000 range.
• About 28% indicated readiness to invest more (¥150,000+).

Large enterprises (501–5000 employees):

• Budget preferences were diverse, reflecting internal departmental variances.
• Some large departments operated with limited budgets despite overall company scale.

Super-large enterprises (>5000 employees):

• 29% were willing to invest ¥500,000–¥1,500,000.
• 14% were open to budgets exceeding ¥1,000,000.

Summary: Super-large enterprises possess the strongest payment capacity, driven by their expansive operations and high risk exposure. Startups and small companies need more affordable, entry-level solutions, while mid-sized enterprises represent a mixed market with potential for both basic and premium offerings.

7.3 Industry Attributes and Role Responsibilities Influence Willingness to Pay

• Finance and technology sectors demonstrated higher payment willingness:
• In finance, 20% of respondents accepted ¥300,000–¥500,000, and another 20% accepted ¥500,000–¥1,000,000, although 40% remained at the lowest budget tier.
• In technology/software sectors, 25% were comfortable with ¥50,000–¥150,000 budgets, and 17% could stretch to ¥300,000–¥500,000.

This bifurcation likely reflects the variance between large, well-funded organizations and smaller, cost-sensitive firms within the same industry.

• Manufacturing and government sectors showed comparatively lower budget tendencies, though limited sample sizes may affect the precision of this observation.

From a role perspective:

• Security leaders/engineers demonstrated broader budget flexibility, with 23% willing to spend ¥300,000–¥500,000 and 8% willing to spend more.
• Executive decision-makers also exhibited a willingness to approve higher investments, provided clear business value is demonstrated.
• Developers and operations personnel showed little inclination toward high-cost tools, often constrained by limited influence over security budgets.

Conclusion: High-risk industries (finance), tech-intensive sectors, and security-specific roles are the key drivers of premium product purchases. Vendors should target these groups for high-end offerings while providing affordable, scaled-down versions for smaller organizations to ensure full market coverage.

8. Future Trends for Software Security Products

8.1 Intelligence and Full-Process Security Will Lead the Future

Looking ahead, surveyed respondents believe that software security products will evolve significantly in two major directions: intelligence-driven capabilities and full-process lifecycle coverage.

• 83% of respondents from the technology sector emphasized the need for security tools to embed protection throughout the software development lifecycle — from coding, building, deploying, to running.
• This indicates that DevSecOps principles will increasingly take root, demanding security solutions that seamlessly integrate into every development phase and enable continuous security “shift-left.”
• 65% of users hope that future security tools will provide automated remediation recommendations, not just vulnerability identification.
• 61% of users continue to stress the need for low false positive rates and deployment convenience.

Even while envisioning future advancements, users reaffirmed that accuracy and usability remain perpetual priorities. Any new technological innovations must ultimately enhance precision and operational simplicity.

Conclusion: Software security products are expected to evolve along three dimensions:

• Intelligence (AI-driven detection and decision support)
• Integration (full lifecycle protection)
• Simplification (ease of deployment, use, and maintenance)

8.2 Three Major Technological Evolution Directions

Based on the survey insights, we foresee three major directions for the future evolution of software security technologies:

1. AI-Driven Precision Detection

AI and large language models will play a crucial role in enhancing the precision and efficiency of vulnerability detection. Key advancements will include:

• Reducing false positives via AI-based vulnerability validation and prioritization.
• Conducting semantic analysis to identify logic flaws beyond traditional rule-based detection.

Future tools may embed AI copilots to automatically:

• Validate scan results
• Rank vulnerabilities by risk level
• Generate proof-of-concept exploits for critical vulnerabilities

This will lead to fewer, but more accurate, findings, significantly easing the burden on security teams.

2. Cloud-Native and Supply Chain Security

With the widespread adoption of containers, microservices, and serverless architectures, security tools must adapt to dynamic, cloud-native environments.

Key capabilities users expect include:

• Kubernetes and serverless security scanning
• Lightweight deployment models that support elastic scaling
• Component provenance verification via SBOM (Software Bill of Materials) tracking

Especially for manufacturing companies (75% expressed concern), securing the software supply chain against open-source poisoning and dependency risks has become critical.

3. Integrated Platforms and Automated Response

Security tools will evolve from standalone scanners to comprehensive platforms offering:

• Layered security capabilities (e.g., container scanning, API security, vulnerability management)
• Real-time threat intelligence integration
• Automated patching and remediation pipelines

83% of users hope that future tools can autonomously:

• Identify risks
• Suggest fixes
• Validate remediations

This vision supports building an automated security operations loop, reducing human workload and accelerating response times.

8.3 Improvement Recommendations

Based on the research findings, vendors should prioritize the following improvements:

Dramatically Reduce False Positives:

• Implement AI-assisted validation and correlation.
• Apply heuristic rules and contextual analysis to filter out noise.

Enhance Report Quality:

• Provide clear risk descriptions, impact assessments, and actionable remediation steps.
• Prioritize vulnerabilities by risk severity.
• Support report exports and management-friendly summaries.

Optimize Usability and Integration:

• Deliver containerized or SaaS options for easy deployment.
• Ensure lightweight scanning with minimal system impact.
• Offer friendly UIs and streamlined workflows.
• Integrate seamlessly into CI/CD pipelines and developer IDEs.

Expand Technical Coverage:

• Support emerging programming languages and frameworks.
• Strengthen cloud-native (e.g., Kubernetes) and serverless environment security.
• Provide comprehensive supply chain risk management, including open-source component analysis and license compliance checks.

Leverage AI for Practical Gains:

• Use AI to cluster duplicate vulnerabilities, deduplicate reports, and link weak signals to infer hidden threats.
• Offer contextualized risk intelligence rather than generic “AI detections.”

Provide Customization and Training Services:

• Offer tailored rule sets and detection modules for specialized industries.
• Build strong customer success teams to assist with onboarding, training, and best practices.
• Introduce tiered service models to cater to varying enterprise maturity levels.

Prove ROI Transparently:

• Quantify improvements achieved by the tool, such as reduced vulnerabilities and prevented breaches.
• Help security teams communicate value to executive leadership.

In summary: Enterprises are moving beyond “whether to adopt security” toward “how well security works.” They expect smarter, easier-to-use, and more reliable solutions. Vendors that address pain points like false positives, poor integration, and lack of actionable insights — while anticipating future needs around AI, DevSecOps, and supply chain security — will be best positioned to lead the next era of software security.

9. Conclusion

This report, based on in-depth analysis of survey results across various industries and company sizes in China’s domestic market, comprehensively outlines the current emphasis on software security, the adoption patterns of existing security tools, major pain points faced by enterprises, and future expectations for security products.

Key findings include:

1. Industry and Size-Based Variations in Security Investment:

• Highly regulated sectors like finance and technology industries treat software security as a strategic priority.
• SMEs and startups emphasize lightweight, cost-effective solutions, while manufacturing and other traditional industries maintain a more foundational focus on security.

2. Tool Usage Patterns:

• SAST tools enjoy the highest market penetration.
• Tools such as SCA and DAST still have significant room for wider adoption.
• Alarmingly, about 30% of enterprises have not yet deployed any software security tools.

3. Common Security Challenges:

• High false positive rates, poor software asset visibility, and lack of intelligent real-time defenses are prevalent issues.
• Prioritization of these challenges varies depending on industry and company scale.

4. Expectations for Ideal Security Tools:

• Users prioritize clear, actionable reports, low false positive rates, and ease of deployment.
• Simplicity and precision have become more important than pure detection coverage.

5. Procurement Dynamics:

• Different roles (developers, security engineers, operations, executives) prioritize different procurement factors.
• Larger enterprises demonstrate stronger payment capabilities, particularly in finance and technology sectors.

6. Future Development Directions:

• Intelligent, integrated, and simplified security products will dominate.
• AI-driven precision detection, cloud-native and supply chain security enhancements, and end-to-end automation will be key technological trends.

Based on these insights, the report recommends that security vendors:

• Focus on reducing false positives and enhancing detection accuracy.
• Improve report clarity and usability.
• Strengthen tool integration into CI/CD pipelines and cloud environments.
• Expand technical coverage to support emerging technologies.
• Incorporate AI in a practical, utility-driven manner.
• Offer modular product options and flexible pricing to accommodate different customer needs.
• Clearly demonstrate ROI to support enterprise purchasing decisions.

Final Thought: The software security market in China is at a pivotal transformation point. Enterprises are increasingly demanding not just security solutions, but effective, efficient, and easy-to-use security solutions. Vendors that align closely with user needs, stay ahead of technological evolution, and bridge the gap between security practices and business value will emerge as leaders in the next phase of the software security era.