Application Security Azure Reviews
Showing reviews of the top ranking products in Application Security, containing the term Azure
Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner: Azure
At the current pricing structure, I would tell people to do their research. If you have X amount of dollars to spend in the budget, and you're looking for a good solution, definitely consider Acunetix, but also consider other tools for similar features and functionalities where you may get a little bit more bang for your dollar, frankly, versus a tool that's still maturing as it's starting to take market share. Acunetix is a very intermediate tool. It's not an advanced DAST solution. It's still in its infancy. There's a lot of the solution to still build out, a lot of features to still work on, but it is definitely a tool that's worth looking into. Keep in mind, for that same price structure, you can get more established, more brand-name solutions.
The speed of the solution is about average. I use a lot of DAST solutions and I can't say that I'm blown away by the amount of time it takes to complete a security assessment, but I do like that it's not slow. It's not the fastest tool I've ever seen, but it's not the slowest tool I've ever seen, so it meets my expectations. It is a fast application but I'm not blown out of the water by it.
It definitely meets the benchmark. Like I said, it doesn't fall below expectations. When you're running Acunetix against a site, looking for security vulnerabilities, you're not blown away by the speed, but you're not sitting there for a day-and-a-half waiting for results or waiting for a scan to complete. It really depends on the size of the application and the granularity of that application. Acunetix performs just as expected. It's not a bad thing.
We have very large applications, so it could be less about the solution and more about the depth of our applications. A lot of our applications have special prerequisites that Acunetix just can't expect or predict. A lot of it is giving Acunetix the proper permissions and things of that nature to go in-depth with DAST scans. On average, depending on the application, it can take anywhere from six to eight hours.
We host Acunetix on our own environment. I don't think they have a SaaS solution yet. We host it in an in Azure environment where we put it on our own server - a dedicated server - specialized to doing DAST security scans - and we are happy. We're not unhappy with Acunetix, but we're not greatly excited that this is the best tool ever. But we are very impressed by some of the things that it has been doing. It's that middle ground. It's a good tool. I would definitely recommend it.
The remediation rate is based on the maturity of our development team. Acunetix doesn't provide a format that makes remediation easier. It does what every tool does and gives us the vulnerability, explains the vulnerability, and gives us some remediation guidelines or tips, but that's what everyone does. So it really depends on the workload of our development team, and what backlog they have or what their sprints look like going into the next cycle. It has very little to do with the tool and more to do with the capability and workload of the development teams.
Using it on a secondary basis, we have found some medium vulnerabilities but no critical vulnerabilities which required immediate remediation. What I do notice about Acunetix is that there's a lot of "white noise," a lot of "background noise," things that just don't apply. When filtering those out and removing the false-positives that don't apply to the actual application, we may find one cross-site scripting. That may be a medium vulnerability but not a high vulnerability because of business impact. There are different risk ratios that we apply to different findings, but we haven't found anything critical with Acunetix. It could just be that we don't have any critical vulnerabilities in that environment - although I don't think that's the case. In terms of DOM-based cross-site scripting vulnerabilities, it all depends on the application.
We don't have it deployed on any Linux server. It's on our Windows environment. We have it in Azure, in a cloud, so it's a Microsoft framework that we have Acunetix installed on top of.
All of our users of Acunetix are in development and security roles. The number of users is well into the hundreds. I administrate the tool, I set the roles and also manage users and user interface and interaction. We have a dedicated server team that does maintenance and deployment. If we need to deploy another instance of Acunetix, that is usually done by our server team. They handle all server infrastructure activities. I am the senior security engineer, so I handle all security-related activities.
We don't have plans to increase our usage of Acunetix. We may stop usage. Acunetix is raising the cost of licensing. It's 3.5 times what we were initially quoted. As a secondary solution, we're trying to figure out, is it worth the extra cost just to have it do some supplemental scans for us. We're still evaluating that.
Overall, Acunetix is definitely a seven out of ten. I like the product. It's doing a lot of what its competitors are doing. It's running great DAST scans and it has a rich database of vulnerabilities that it can report and it also provides a web component of its solution where you don't necessarily have to sign on to a physical server or a virtual device to interact. You can, but you can also contact Acunetix through a web interface, which is great. But the interface, in general, is still very simplistic, which may be a good or bad thing. The reporting could be a little bit better. When ending a scan I would like to see more graphical representations, maybe trends from scan to scan, of how the overall maturity is going of the application project that it's scanning or assessing. The reporting is okay. It does give you the option to do PDFs or CSVs. More reporting formats, like an Excel format, maybe an XML format, would be great.
Integration into other tools is very limited for Acunetix. While we're trying to incorporate a CI/CD process where we're integrating with JIRA and we're integrating with Jenkins and Chef, it becomes problematic. Other tools give you a high integration capability to connect into different solutions that you may already have, like JIRA. All findings that Acunetix happens to run across could be sent straight to JIRA. That would increase our remediation rate because it's very seldom that developers read PDFs of security vulnerabilities. One of the things that Qualys does is allow us to integrate into our JIRA environment, into our Jenkins environment, etc. We haven't seen the same capabilities with Acunetix.
Because of these things, I have to give it a seven. It's ultimately a great tool, a great scanner, and you can really rely on some of its findings once it's tuned.
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand: Azure
The initial setup of Checkmarx is straightforward. We did a bunch of things that shot ourselves in the foot that we weren't expecting. We were initially trying to put Checkmarx in the cloud. We were even putting Checkmarx into an Azure system until we found out that Azure, with the Microsoft SQL engine, does not support what Checkmarx requires.
The Azure implementation of SQL does not allow the USE statement. Extremely odd. Maybe Microsoft figured out if you can't use USE, that means you have to have more databases and so they can charge more. Microsoft Oracle and IBM have been pulling that crap for years. They're making a lot of money.
It probably took us a couple of months to go through all of the issues, basically trying to find a home for SQL. We ended up creating a Microsoft SQL server in Amazon.
Since we are using the community version, we have had some issues. For example, we have had some difficulties with the Single Sign-On (SSO) login. We tried to integrate with our Azure ID to have access to login, but it doesn't always update. We have to search for more forums, or in other communities for technical IT.
The documentation is not clear and it needs to be updated. As it is the community version we don't have team support and rely on the documentation that is available. We are creating more disciplines to do peer reviews on SonarQube. There is time spent on creating the tools but not the documentation that is needed for support.
It takes time to configure and create profiles. We need to improvise the way we introduce new tools.
We have only integrated the source code, but there are things that are not being utilized because it is product-driven and there needs to be more path and delivery.
Since we are now certified, we are utilizing more and we are creating an environment for security. We need more emphasis on the security side.
Support needs to improve with their response time.
There is a lack of local partners/vendors in our region and we are having difficulties finding vendors looking for another partner.
In the next release, I would like to see some automation scripts. At times by default, you have to configure some of the rules in the detection. You need some parameters to be set that define the source code, such as those required to eliminate a false positive.
They advance their product without addressing security or internal codes.
The rate of false positives, where it reports issues that are not really issues, can be improved.
Scanning of vulnerabilities on open-source projects is not particularly useful as it is.
I would like to see better integration with Azure DevOps in the next release of this solution.
Fortify Application Defender: Azure
The biggest complaint that I have heard concerns additional platform support because right now, it only supports applications that are written in .NET and Java. They need better support for applications written in Python or more advanced web service-type implementations. Better support for other architectures is critical.
Technical support needs to be improved.
It would be helpful to include agent deployment as part of the Azure DevOps marketplace. This would make it really easy for customers to get this plugin and install it within their application centers.
Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle: Azure
We use Azure DevOps as our application lifecycle management tool. It doesn't integrate with that as well as it does with other tools at the moment, but I think there's work being done to address that. In terms of IDEs, it integrates well. We would like to integrate it into our Azure cloud deployment but the integration with Azure Active Directory isn't quite as slick as we would like it to be. We have to do some workarounds for that at the moment.
Also, the ability of the solution to recognize more of the .NET components would be helpful for us.
When I started to install the Nexus products and started to integrate them into our development cycle, it helped us construct or fill out our development process, in general. The build stages are a good template for us to help establish a structure that we could build our whole continuous integration and development process around. Now our git repos are tagged for different build stages that align with the Nexus Lifecycle build stages.
Going to the Nexus product encouraged me to look for a package manager solution for our C and C++ development. My customer success engineer, Derek, recommended that we go to one that Sonatype was considering integrating with the product, which was called Conan Package Manager. I started doing research with Conan and realized how beneficial it would be for our C and C++ development cycle. Transitioning to that has really changed our whole C and C++ development. It was because we needed to have Nexus scanning for our C applications and I needed Conan to do that.
It's because of Conan that we've reduced our build timelines from weeks because we have so many architectures that we build for. After we figured out how to use it, we can build everything with only a couple of commands. Now, it's a really integrated process for our C and C++ applications, from development to the build pipelines to the IQ scanning, and the Nexus Repository manager repositories that we're using for building and packaging. It's been a fun process.
In terms of the data quality, everything has been really good for our Python and our Yum repositories. I know that they are still building their capability for the Conan repositories, the C dependencies. Right now, what Derek has told me, is that Conan application are analyzed with what they call Low Quality Assessment, or LQA. Essentially, any package that has identified vulnerabilities will show up, otherwise, there's not much information on the package. So scanning for Conan is not as good as Python right now, but I know they're working on higher quality data for Conan packages.
Comparing LQA in Conan to something like the higher quality data available in Python repositories does show a difference. For example, Nexus IQ identified a vulnerability in a Python package that we don't use, but it's a transitive dependency in four packages that we do use. We discovered the root vulnerability causing the problem in our four packages with the higher quality data, but we may not have been to do that as easily with a vulnerability identified in multiple C packages without the higher quality data. I'm not sure.
Nexus will block undesirable open source components from entering our development life cycle. We've agreed on the governance of our policies for blocking builds automatically and we've set a date, for example, to start failing builds automatically on July 15.
It integrates very well with our existing DevOps tools. The Azure DevOps Nexus IQ plugin was really easy. All we did was go to our DevOps portal, go to the add-ins, and then search the list for Nexus. We just clicked on it and it installed in DevOps. There are a couple of help pages on Sonatype's webpage, and I send those to the developers, they add the IQ plugin to the build pipeline and it just works. It's really nice also because the IQ plugin for DevOps gets updated before I can even go check on it. They've released two updates since we installed it. Every time I hear from Derek that they've updated the IQ plugin, I go to the IQ plugin page on our DevOps server, and it's already been updated. It's totally seamless for us.
It has brought open-source intelligence and policy enforcement across our software development life cycle for almost all of our applications. We're still integrating it with all of our applications, but it definitely has brought the kind of intelligence that we needed.
CAST Highlight: Azure
CAST Highlight is easy to use and has a good dashboard.
This solution integrates well with Azure DevOps and you can import the dashboard into that environment.