We primarily use the solution for web applications and tests.
We primarily use the solution for web applications and tests.
It helped us much as it's a really good automated scanner with nice number of checks.
The solution is easy to use.
The initial setup is pretty straightforward and the deployment is quick.
The solution has good documentation.
The product is a good option for enterprise-level organizations.
The scanner could be better.
The out of bounds channel is missing and it makes it hard to nail down the vulnerabilities.
I hadn't been working with the solution for very long; I worked with it at my last company.
The first time we ran the module, it was okay, however, the next time we ran it, it almost crashed. For example, when I started the proxy, I tried to create some traffic from the application and nothing happened, but then, after that, everything began to hang. I'm not sure if this was an issue with a particular version or not. I'm not sure if it was some sort of bug.
Typically, if I have an issue, I contact my internal support team. They may directly contact technical support. However, I have not done so myself. Therefore, I can't speak to their responsiveness or knowledge levels.
I've used PortSwigger in the past, and it was a pretty good product as well.
The initial setup is not complex. It's pretty straightforward. You just have to download it to the Microsoft server and you're done.
The total deployment may take an hour, or, at maximum, two.
I handled the implementation myself.
We used Acunetix and Netsparker with Burp Suite.
We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.
I would recommend WebInspect to enterprise-level organizations. to use. For a smaller company, I'd recommend something more automated. WebInspect has far more manual work, however, it does have good documentation.
Overall, I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.