We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Skybox Security Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management."The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pros →
"The ability to appropriately prioritize vulnerabilities inside the environment, and then to have visibility into the traffic and rule sets of an organization, are two of the top capabilities that I recommend. Skybox is the only one that does both of those in a single platform."
"Skybox allows organizations to reprioritize the vulnerability they attempt to patch and mitigate, based on the contextual awareness of the network."
"Overall, the tool has helped us reduce risks. If any step is missing, it's easier for my team or engineers to identify it. The tool provides accurate recommendations based on the data. Its integration is easy, and I have integrated it with Fortinet firewalls."
"Key features for us include the firewall change audit every week. Also, being able to track firewall ACL usage, so that we can produce semiannual reports on ACL usage and shadowed and redundant rules on the firewall."
"It's given us more visibility in terms of what are the kinds of configurations that are on these devices, and how many of these are stale rules. So it's helped greatly in terms of cleaning up of rules, for sure. And it has definitely given us a more secure way of backing up the configuration on these devices."
"I am impressed with the tool's change management, firewall and network assurance."
"The most valuable features are the rule compliance and the OS vulnerability checks."
"The solution's simplicity of use is its most valuable feature."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"It's expensive."
"The initial setup with Skybox Security is hard. You need one or two strong security engineers on your team."
"The vendor's support is terrible."
"If anything could be improved it would be staying on top of the collector scripts, but I understand that's a very tough challenge."
"The price is costly, and I hope they can reduce the cost."
"The solution needs improvement in firewall configuration checks. I would also like to see more configuration checks for Forcepoint and for other non-supported firewalls."
"The solution needs to add more automation and orchestration capabilities. Those features would make the solution much stronger."
"There is room for improvement in pricing. It would be better, especially if a customer bought all four modules."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is ranked 10th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 1 review while Skybox Security Suite is ranked 18th in Vulnerability Management with 34 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Skybox Security Suite is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) writes "Offers contextual prioritization and risk-based remediation of vulnerability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Skybox Security Suite writes "Efficient in vulnerability management, stable and easy to use ". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM and Brinqa, whereas Skybox Security Suite is most compared with AlgoSec, Tufin Orchestration Suite, FireMon Security Manager, Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Tenable Nessus.
We monitor all Risk-Based Vulnerability Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.