Coverity Reviews

We have been working on a POC for this solution. It is an on-prem solution and we have 50 internal users. 

This solution is easy to use. 

The level of vulnerability that this solution covers could be improved compared to other open source tools. The UI could also be improved. We also cannot directly report the vulnerability. We need to add filters to projects and only then can we download reports. 

I have been using this solution for three months. 

This is a stable solution. 

The pricing is very reasonable compared to other platforms. It is based on a three year license. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

Our company has 500 developers and engineers who the solution for C/C++ core static analysis. One engineer handles all ongoing maintenance. 

The solution effectively identifies bugs in code. 

The solution is a bit complex to use in comparison to other products that have many plugins.

More features could be included for finding bugs and analyzing code. For example, more information could be included to explain errors such as memory leaks. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Technical support is helpful and responsive. 

I rate support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

I have not used another solution. 

I would recommend the solution if it includes more features. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

My primary use case is performing static application security testing on various code bases, including Java, PHP, and HTML. I use it to create review reports of assets and categorize the issues based on severity.

The product has been beneficial in logging functionality, allowing me to categorize vulnerabilities based on severity. This aids in providing updated reports on subsequent scans.

The product could be enhanced by providing video troubleshooting guides, making issue resolution more accessible. Troubleshooting without visual guides can be time-consuming.

I have been using Coverity for about two to three months, between June 2023 and August 2023.

There were occasional issues with lag during the initial setup and scans, especially in a cloud environment.

Due to the subscription-based model, I had to contact customer service, mainly to add new users. Response times varied, sometimes taking more than a week.

Neutral

I had experience with SonarQube as an alternative. Coverity excelled in code scanning because it did not require installation prerequisites. Its reports are also clear and informational. It provides us with a better idea of troubleshooting vulnerabilities.

The initial setup was elaborate and somewhat complicated. The information from the Synopsys website was more than enough. First-time users will struggle with many tools, packages, and libraries. Deployment took 30 minutes to complete. Two to three resources were involved in the process.

An integrator helped with the tool's deployment. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use the solution for SaaS support.

The most valuable feature is the security advisor. It also provides a very detailed report.

Triage history has many bugs and needs to be improved. There could be a subsection. The solution could provide a graphical representation like other tools.

We have OS 2021, which is not the latest one. It should be updated regularly.

I have been using Coverity for almost a year.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

Our organization has 20-30 users using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

Technical support has expert hours and is available anytime. Also, we don't need to raise a ticket now because we have direct support from Coverity.

Positive

We are exploring Black Duck, which has more precise things. Coverity has a clear view. The report is very much clear rather than confusing like other tools. It also has a PDF option, and it gives precise information.

The initial setup is simple.

The solution has higher pricing. The price should be based on the user count. Suppose there is a ten-user license per pack. However, this could be adjusted to five users if needed.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to scan the static code and identify vulnerabilities. We can verify the rules and scripting during various applications' implementation processes.

The solution has a low false positive rate compared to other vendors. Also, it can scan complex codes. In addition, it has the best features for trial analysis, integration, and language support.

Sometimes, vulnerabilities are not identified even after setting up the automated scanning rules. They should include a feature combining automated scanning tools with manual code reviews for better output.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. We can quickly scan around 100 DLS using it. I rate its scalability a nine.

I interact with the solution's technical support team in terms of tuning the tool and improvements. They acknowledge the emails and respond to them quickly.

Positive

The solution integrates well with different tools. Thus, its setup process is relatively straightforward.

The solution is affordable. I rate its pricing a six out of ten.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it a ten.

We primarily use the solution for quality purposes. We also use it for security. That's one subset of quality. However, it's used for more dynamic behavior, such as memory leaks, et cetera. 

They have a good memory-related box and a static order analysis that's very good, especially around leaks.

We were very comfortable with the initial setup.

It is stable.

The cost is very high.

They don't have SonarQube compatibility with the dashboard, which is a big negative. They were actually arrogant for not providing it. We wanted to see all the problems in a single SonarQube dashboard, and we can't do that. They need SonarQube integration. They claim that they have SonarQube integration, yet it is not there.

We'd like it to be faster.

The solution could always use a bit more security. 

I've been using the solution for around 12 years. 

I consider the solution very stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

That said, when we are doing security analysis on bigger projects, it can be slow. 

To scale, you need more hardware. That way it is scalable. That said, it is already handling quite a big amount. We have a specific problem when analyzing security in a big project. It can get slow. 

I'd rate it four out of five in its ability to scale. 

We have around 200 people using the solution currently. 30 to 40 use it on a daily basis. 

We do not have plans to increase usage based on the cost. We're actually looking for an alternative.

Support is not so good. They're too slow. In contrast, Clockwork has very good support.

Neutral

We've used Clockwork before. However, it has the same issues as this product. They're more for C# and C++.

The solution was very simple to set up. The frontend, backend, and UI are very good and easy to navigate.

I'd rate the initial setup process a four out of five in terms of how easy it was.

It is an expensive solution. 

Their sales team is very arrogant. 

I don't like their licensing mechanism. Everything is on very unfriendly terms. 

There are other tools you can use that are free and open-source. 

In a collaborative environment, they are very tricky. When it comes to looking at the bugs on a web interface, they try to block them. When you discuss it with them, they are quite unfriendly. Once you got stuck into the tool, they know that it's hard to leave due to the history. When you get into a tool, you need the history since the history needs to be built up, and therefore, over time, you have a dependency on the tool.

I'd rate the product a three out of five in terms of affordability.

We're a customer.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

We are using Coverity for Android, cluster programs, and infotainment.

Coverity's setup takes a long time. Coverity gives advisory and deviation features, which are some of the parts I liked.

SCM integration is very poor in Coverity. The IDR file is not portable. After the analysis, it generates an IDR file. It cannot be ported from the machine since it is machine specific. Also, the component mapping has to be done manually. We cannot upload in one shot through automation or an Excel sheet. That is also a drawback.

In terms of the additional features that the solution should possess, I would say that it should have very good and sound features for Android-related stuff and embedded features should be supported. Also, infotainment programs for people who are using HMI should be supported very well.

I have been using Coverity for more than one year. In my company, we use the tool. Also, we go to the vendor for support. I am using Coverity 2022.

Speaking about stability, I would say that product-wise, there is no such complaint. There are no alarming complaints. However, some minor things we have to fix, use and tune it. With the newer versions, the only problem is if any new version or any new tool or new plugin comes to our infotainment program, then even with vendor support, we won't get a solution since maybe the tool is not supported or because there is something else that has to be looked into. We are facing problems due to such cases. Otherwise, it's fine, so it is good enough for an existing tool and program.

The product is scalable if provided if the tool is supported well, and if new features are incorporated parallelly, then definitely it's scalable.

To speak exactly about the number of users is difficult, but above 300 people in my company use the solution.

There are four or five members out there who manage Coverity's administration from a project point of view.

My opinion on support depends on what kind of support my company has adopted. I need to check. I don't know what company support they have provided. If they have taken golden support, support will come like that. In that way, I don't want to comment on that.

Initially, I worked with Klocwork in my previous company.

Regarding Klocwork, if you can provide me with its information, then we would definitely like to explore it.

Initial setup for the infotainment program is not easy. This is because the template, specifically code template files, have to be generated, and that itself takes time since they talk to the vendor and they get the template files. We are using the same template file for most of the programs. It is not fixed that this program has to use this template file, so it is not like that. since it has to be fine-tuned.

For a few programs, like cluster programs, it takes only half a day or a day to get the setup done since everything is ready. But for infotainment, it sometimes takes three to four days, and issues keep coming in for the new enablement. Hence, it may take even three weeks to one month sometimes.

Coverity’s price is on the higher side. It should be lower. It's definitely priced on the higher side, and in that sense, I will definitely give a big alert stating that it is on the higher side of the price.

I am the administrator and I use this solution to do the calibrating and security scanning of the code in my bank. We are trying to find any vulnerabilities in our code and we are integrating the process with our DevOps.

The most valuable feature is the ability to find vulnerabilities in our code.

I would like to see integration with popular IDEs, such as Eclipse. If Coverity were available as a plugin then developers could use it to find security issues while they are coding because right now, as we are using Coverity, it is a reactive way of finding vulnerabilities. We need to find these kinds of problems during the coding phase, rather than waiting for the code to be analyzed after it is written.

I have been working with Coverity for about eight months.

Coverity is quite stable and we haven’t had any issues or any downtime.

We did not have to scale drastically on any of our applications, so it would be difficult for me to judge how scalable it is. Because of the price, we only purchased 20 licenses. We do plan on scaling the number of users and increasing our usage.

The technical support is quite responsive and most of the time, we received a response really quickly. We have not had any timeline-related issues with them.

We did not use another solution before Coverty, although in my previous company, I used Veracode.

We also use SonarQube for code analysis.

Compared to SonarQube, Coverity finds more vulnerabilities. SonarQube is stronger on core quality, such as duplicate lines of code, but the security issues are found by Coverity.

SonarQube is available as a plugin for development environments such as Eclipse, which allows us to find vulnerabilities proactively.

SonarQube was easier to deploy and I did not require assistance from the vendor for installation or configuration.

We found that during installation and configuration, it takes pipelines for continuous integration and continuous deployment. It was a bit challenging because the necessary base integration was not easy to configure.

It took us slightly over a week to deploy, whereas, with SonarQube, we were able to complete it in less than a day. It was due to complexities in Coverity that it took us more than a week. The complexities were related to missing API features and hooks.

I had assistance from the vendor, Synopsys, during the deployment.

Coverity is quite expensive. Generally, for security scanning products, the pricing is very expensive. Some solutions have pricing that is based on the number of millions of lines of code, but Coverity is priced based on the number of users.

I believe that pricing based on the number of lines of codes is cheaper than billing on a per-user basis. If we have 400 or 500 developers and each needs a license then it will be cheaper to have a solution where the cost depends on the size of the code.

We also purchased Black Duck Binary Analysis and the Black Duck Hub from Synopsys.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to try to best capture security issues while the code is being written, rather than waiting until it is compiling. It’s easier and much more cost-effective to find vulnerabilities at the earlier, code-writing stage.

The other thing to keep in mind is that you should not rely on one approach to code security. You need to make sure that binary security is also in place, which is not done using Coverity. Any company that wants to secure its environment will need multiple levels of security scanning, and only one of these is handled by Coverity. The second one, binary scanning, can be done by using Black Duck or Veracode. This continues onto other security concerns, such as network scanning.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.