What is our primary use case?
We used InsightVM mainly for vulnerability management. I thought it was a pretty interesting application. I'm a fan of Rapid7's Metasploit, so when I saw InsightVM I was like, "Let's see what else they have." I liked it up until we experienced some issues relating to scans. If I wanted to do mitigation, I needed to wait until the next scan was available or ran so that I could get to see if any indentations were made.
While I was in there, if I was searching for a specific vulnerability, sometimes it was hard to find the specific ones. In the dashboard, it'll tell you the results from the scans, and it will also tell you the vulnerabilities and it will rank them for risk. I would have liked to have been able to click on the vulnerability and it would take me to another area that just has the vulnerability with all the hosts. It wouldn't let you do that. You had to come back out of that window and go into another window and search for it. Well, you wouldn't get the same results as the number of hosts. I had to work a little bit harder to find exactly what I needed.
Within our organization, there were two of us using it. Both of us were IT analysts. One was an IT analyst III (which was me), and the other one was the IT analyst manager.
How has it helped my organization?
I would say that it improved our visibility, but it left things open.
What is most valuable?
I liked the dashboard on it. I could customize my dashboard with different widgets and different heat maps. I liked that. That was a feature I liked. If your manager had a different dashboard that they liked, and you tried to go into a meeting and they say, "Well, I think your numbers are wrong because my dashboard says this" Well, you couldn't rapidly say, "Here's the default dashboard for this for risk." Whereas, with Tenable, you could go through a dashboard just for risks, and say, "Hey, let's switch to this dashboard so we're seeing the same numbers without customization."
What needs improvement?
They just need to fix it to make it more fluid. If it shows you vulnerabilities, I want to be able to click on the vulnerability and drill down into the vulnerability. If it's rating it as a 10 and it says it's got 30 hosts in it for this vulnerability, I want to click on that vulnerability and get a separate report that says, "Here's the vulnerability specific and here's the host involved." That way I could export it and say, "Hey, this vulnerability's out there, it matches a CVE number that is critical, that Microsoft, Cisco, whatever, has put a patch out there, and here guys, here's what it is and here's the proof. Here's your host that's vulnerable. Here's a change request, fix it, send me back the proof that you fixed it, then allow me to rerun a scan specific to that, on-demand, to say 'Yes, boss, we have mitigated it.'"
I want to be able to just drill down on the reports. If it showing me there's a vulnerability and there's a said number of nodes that's vulnerable to it, I want to be able to drill down and export that list without having to come back out of it, going into my assets, trying to find the name of the vulnerability, which doesn't match what the dashboard says. To me, that was backward.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have used this solution for one year.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
It was pretty stable. We didn't have any real hiccups, but it was stable. We didn't have any real hiccups there.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
As far as I know, it says it's scalable. I'm not sure if that company I used to work for had to scale it up or down.
How are customer service and technical support?
The tech support was very helpful. Actually, I knew a couple of them so it was very helpful.
I would give their tech support a rating of 10 — I knew them from using Metasploit and some other products. It was more of a, "Hey, I got this issue, how can you help me with it?" They'd point me and say, "Hey, check this out."
How was the initial setup?
I wasn't involved in the initial setup, so I can't comment on that.
What other advice do I have?
Do your proof of concepts if you can. Make sure you develop your risk strategy. That's important, because it's going to give you a risk number, it's going to give you critical: highs, mediums, but you need to understand what is the risk methodology that you're going to follow. Just because it says it's critical because of how many vulnerabilities you have, doesn't mean that you need to work on it right away.
For example, there was a vulnerability that had 2,000 nodes affected. It put it as a high-risk, whereby there was another vulnerability where there were only about 10 hosts affected — it put it at medium-risk. However, the high-risk one, because it had more nodes affected, did not have a POC associated with it. A novice person looking at it would say, "I need to work on these 1,000 vulnerabilities because it's a high-risk, and ignore the medium." Well, the medium one had an active POC on it. If you didn't have a person who understood how to read the report and what it's actually telling you, then you would say, "Hey, you know what, I'm going to use these, I'm going to cut my risk down because I got 1,000 nodes with this vulnerability and I'm going to put this chain out real quick and I'm going to reduce my risk real quick because of the numbers." Well, in my opinion, you didn't reduce your risk because you have 10 nodes out there with a vulnerability that's rated medium and it has a POC on it.
Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. I'm going to say that is because shame on Rapid7 for having such great applications, but then that little piece there that they know about hasn't been fixed. If I remember, if I go probably log back into the community, it's probably been asked a couple of times.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?