Checkmarx One Reviews

The best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools.

The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information. There are some cases where you have to go directly to the Checkmarx database to get the information that you want. The default module that provides statistics is basic, and you need more elaborate information to do vulnerability management. The tool has a limited scope.

It is easy to scale, you just have to pay. There are about 100 developers and security people using this solution in my company. 

The contract that we have is not directly with Checkmarx. It's with an intermediary company in Argentina, and they give us support. They are not very fast in answering our questions. They have a kind of first level support, but for more technical stuff they go directly to Checkmarx.

As with other tools, if you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities. For instance, if you want to do some scanning to external dependencies of the software, you have to buy another tool provided by Checkmarx.

You have to pay for licenses for the number of projects that you want to scan and the number of users. I think you have to pay licenses for three features: the number of users, the projects, and I don't remember the other one.

We have two administrators who coordinate maintenance with the vendor.

My advice is that you need to estimate the right amount of licenses. That's very important because right now, our company needs more licenses, and that was not well estimated at the beginning. The other thing is to be clear about the features of this tool that you want or need.

I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten. 

When something happens in a test, then you need to know why. In many cases, you would have to run a scan and find all the problems, and then hand that off to development and have development go back and rewrite that code. If you had an issue with a particular aspect where you have a limited amount of personnel or knowledgeable personnel, based on the language that an application was written in, well, then you would need some type of assistance in order to rewrite that code in that particular language, with the limited knowledge that developer might have had. I assisted with that and helped with educating the developer on how to write that code. It was a two-pronged effort.

The number one use case would be a failed PEN test. Number two would be, "Hey, we have a waterfall DEV approach to our SDLC today. We want to become more agile around speed and quality of code." That would be the second. The third would be able to provide an appropriate availability of knowledge for training developers in secure coding.

Being able to have the breadth and depth of different kinds of support for different languages is excellent & many other solutions require you to compile the code prior to the scan, with CxSAST there is no need to compile code for a static analysis. If you didn't support a particular language that an application was written in, whether it was legacy code or a new agile code like Scala, JScript, PLSQL, or whatever, well, then you didn't get the business. If you were an organization that converted its SDLC from waterfall to agile, then you're going to need the ability to support multiple languages, even if they're not part of the company, thanks to that agility, that approach, that methodology. Supporting different languages was a high priority of the client.

The interactive application security testing, or IAST, where code scans are being ran on an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement.

There was limited support from different languages. It didn't support everything under the sun, so you would lose revenue since you didn't have support for Scala or some other language that your developer was fluent in. They needed to improve on language support. That is about it, really.

The dev team did everything that they said they were going to do. If they said they were going to hit a mark, they'd hit a mark. That release would come out. Typically, they would do four major releases a year, quarterly, with two-point releases in between, or based on any additional hotfixes that may be needed. In most cases, however, IAST was the part of the product that needed to be improved the most.

Codebashing is a really cool product from the aspect of teaching developers how to write secure code. However, it would be even cooler if you could not only point out and teach someone how to do it while also making the appropriate recommendation on how to rewrite the code itself, using machine learning or AI. Instead of you, the developer learning how to do it and then writing the code yourself, it'd be cooler if you could push a button, have it analyzed, scans the code, find the code, find the issue within the line of code, and then go ahead and automatically rewrite that code for you. Then, by repetition, it just teaches you through muscle memory how to do that as opposed to, "Hey, you've found this problem. This is where the problem's located, within this particular line of code." Right now, do you know how to rewrite Java? Well, if you're not familiar with how to do that, then go push on this button. Now, take this test and go through this exercise.” It doesn't make a recommendation. It's not like providing a script that fixes the problem. It's just teaching you on how to write the code in that form in that manner.

I’ve used the solution for about two or two and a half years. I worked directly with the company. However, I left about a year or a year and a half ago.

The SAST component was absolutely 100% stable. The SCA product is also very extremely stable. In fact, they leverage each other in a way that it complements the overall use. It gives the user a high-level view, a 10,000-foot view with the ability to see more under a magnifying glass if you think about it from high to low.

The other components, such as IAST and the Codebashing technology, and the developer education technology, it was all integrated with radio buttons and such. I never really had any customer or client, or anyone complains, or ever come to me and say, "Hey, look, the implementation that we completed last week, it's crashed on us," or anything that would show it to be less than stable.

Have there been instances specifically where a new customer came to us and didn't have something turned on? Yes. Is there an instance where a customer might have had something configured wrong based on frequency, scanning frequency, or the depth of how deep they need to scan within the lines of code? Yes. Those were all configuration modifications that were needed. However, it was a misconception thinking that maybe it was unstable, when in fact, just a few things needed to be tweaked.

With the largest installation scanning billions of lines of code each day, there are no known limitations of what the product can do, as long as the appropriate resources are allocated for the specific requirements. 

They have a customer success team and a customer success manager, and that's the liaison between the Development Team, Support Team, and the customer. That way, you're not sending an email to a black hole. It's not going to go into a queue where it goes to a black hole of 3,000 or 4,000 emails across the entire world. If that happened, you would have to sit there and wait for some type of response or appropriate time to hear from them. Instead, it goes to someone who's actually assigned to the account as a liaison to bring in the resources needed to help with whatever issue is on hand.

Positive

The deployment depended upon how complex the application was. If it was a very, very complex, customized application, then it would have to be instrumented by a DevOps professional that we provided. If it was a very simplistic or basic vanilla-type framework, as far as the application's concerned, then the customer could do it easily themselves.

There was no need for an integrator, reseller, or consultant. None of that was required or needed, or ever actually even requested. The only reason why any one of a particular stature would actually be part of the process was if they were under contract with that particular corporation or company. Otherwise, the organization provided the appropriate professional services, again, as a benefit to the customer to help ensure their success in using the technology.

Annually, the typical application scanning cost/setup would run anywhere from $75k to 150k, but that was dependent on the specific scanning requirements. 

There were no additional operating costs. There was a requirement or a request as a best practice for us to provide the appropriate professional services or implementation services to ensure that the product got off the ground by the time the licenses were purchased. 

I’d rate the solution eight out of ten based on ease of use, configuration, customer service, and response time. There are other products out there that are provided as a service where they will go, and you push a button, they collect the data, they review the data, yet there's no specific standard license agreement or SLA that says they're supposed to get back to you within a particular moment of time. Everything that Checkmarx does is instantaneous.

I am representing Checkmarx as a reseller. I work with both the cloud and on-premises versions. I have been working with Checkmarx for more than twelve years.

Checkmarx is a must-use product due to the increasing number of cyber-attacks nowadays. The product's quality and performance justify its pricing, making it a worthwhile investment.

Checkmarx offers many valuable features, including Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Software Composition Analysis (SCA), Infrastructure as Code (IAC), Supply Chain Security, and API Security.

The Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) feature should be better. The technical support service could also improve in terms of their response time.

I have been working with Checkmarx since the early days of Checkmarx, which is more than 12 years.

I would rate the stability of Checkmarx at nine out of ten.

Checkmarx is scalable, and I would rate its scalability at nine out of ten.

The customer service and support should be quicker from my point of view. I would rate them eight out of ten.

Positive

I have been working with Checkmarx for over 12 years without switching to a competitor due to Checkmarx being the best product in the market.

The initial setup is straightforward, especially with the cloud version where no deployment is needed. The on-premises version requires some time and depends on the customer's environment.

In typical circumstances, one senior engineer is enough for implementation, but in special cases, maybe two engineers are needed.

Checkmarx is cost-effective. It is a must-use product in today's cyber security environment.

The pricing is relatively expensive due to the product's quality and performance, but it is worth it.

I chose Checkmarx over competitors due to ethical considerations and its superior functionality.

Checkmarx is plug-and-play and the best product in the market at the moment, as evidenced by reports such as Gartner's.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Checkmarx is used to check the code from programmers and vulnerabilities in third-party software.

Checkmarx can be deployed on the cloud and on-premise. However, it depends on the version.

Checkmarx detected code sections that did not adhere to best practices. After being informed, the programmers were able to rectify some of the issues. Without Checkmarx, it is unlikely we would have identified these issues.

Utilizing the SCA module, I gained valuable insights into the vulnerabilities present in open-source Python libraries that individuals desire to use. As an information security consultant, I advise against employing Python libraries that contain known vulnerabilities. The SCA solution proved to be helpful in this regard.

The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the SCA module and the code-checking module. Additionally, the solutions are explanatory and helpful.

Checkmarx could improve the solution reports and false positives. The false positives could be reduced. For example, we have alerts that are tagged as vulnerabilities but when you drill down they are not. 

In a future release, the SCA module could have better documentation. It was difficult to know how to check the names of all the modules. It took me a lot of time and I needed help to be able to write the requirements file. More clarification would be helpful in the documentation, such as examples.

I have been using Checkmarx for approximately six months.

The stability is great.

I rate the stability of Checkmarx a ten out of ten.

The scalability of the solution is great. Everything I send to the solution is processed quickly.

We have five information security analysts and programmers using this solution.

We plan to increase our usage. We will install it on more networks.

I rate the scalability of Checkmarx a ten out of ten.

I found someone in the evening that logged in and answered my issues. They are responsive.

I rate the support of Checkmarx a ten out of ten.

Positive

We have one person for the maintenance of the solution but it is minimal and is not a full-time job.

I would advise others to ask for a demo of the solution and if it works well for their use case then purchase it.

I rate Checkmarx a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for our international customers.

The UI is user-friendly.

The Fast feature for static application security testing is the most valuable.

The plugins for the development environment have room for improvements such as for Android Studio and X code.

I have been using the solution for two months.

I give the stability a seven out of ten.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

The scalability is based on the number of licenses. We currently have five licenses.

The technical support is quick to respond.

Positive

I give the initial setup an eight out of ten. The deployment takes about ten minutes.

The implementation was completed by a consultant.

The solution is costly. I give the solution a six out of ten for price.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for SAST and DAST testing.

Checkmarx has helped us deliver more secure products. We are able to do static code analysis with the tool before shipping our code to production. When the integration is in the pipeline, this tool gives us early notifications on code fixes.

Checkmarx gives you an overview of all security aspects of the codes and shows what code aspects you need to be looking into.

 I would like to see the tool’s pricing improved.

I have been working with the solution for three years. At present, I am using the latest version.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Around 50 developers in our organization are using it.

The solution was easy to setup since it had proper documentation.

The solution’s deployment was done by in-house members.

We got good ROI with the use of the solution. We have seen returns on PCI and other security aspects.

I would rate the solution’s pricing an eight out of ten. The tool’s pricing is higher than others and it is for the license alone.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten since it fulfills most of the requirements. I recommend this tool to anyone who is willing to give it a try.

We primarily use Checkmarx for assessing vulnerabilities in applications.

What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results.

One area for improvement in Checkmarx is pricing, as it's more expensive than other products.

I've used Checkmarx for four to five years.

Regarding Checkmarx stability, it's an eight out of ten.

Checkmarx is a scalable tool and much better scalability-wise than other products I used. I'm rating its scalability as eight out of ten.

We never had to contact the Checkmarx technical support team.

I was not involved in the initial setup for Checkmarx.

Checkmarx is comparatively costlier than other products, which is why some of the customers feel reluctant to go for it, though performance-wise, Checkmarx can compete with other products.

My company is in the service business, so it provides services to customers. For example, the customer uses SonarQube, so my company uses the same tool to execute vulnerability assessments.

I've worked on Checkmarx, NetSuite, Acunetix, and other application security tools used by customers.

My rating for Checkmarx is eight out of ten because it's a good product, and its only con is the cost, which is high for some customers.

I recommend Checkmarx to others because of its performance. The tool has better intelligent outcomes, and Checkmarx has better automation internally.

My company is a Checkmarx customer.

We use Checkmarx as a code analysis tool.

We have always used some kind of code analysis tool and Checkmarx has been working for us at this time. We like the tool.

The most valuable feature of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports.

I am using Checkmarx for approximately two years.

The stability of Checkmarx could improve. We're having issues with it, but we don't want to upgrade to the newest version until we make sure that the issues we're having now aren't present in the newer version.

The scan reliability sometimes is impacted and we sometimes have to restart the services to allow scans out of the queue.

Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies.

I have used the support from Checkmarx.

I rate the support from Checkmarx a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I was previously using Fortify but they were antiquated. They were not updating the solution on a regular basis.

The initial setup of Checkmarx is straightforward. The implementation of Checkmarx does not take long because we have a process for it.

We have four people that maintain Checkmarx in our company. We have professional services but I did most of the deployment myself.

My advice to others is that Checkmarx is good compared to the other tools. However, they are all comparable, it depends on what languages they want to scan. Overall, Checkmarx is a decent solution. It would be a good idea to test other solutions.

I rate Checkmarx

The main thing we find valuable about Checkmarx is the ease of use. It's easy to initiate scans and triage defects.

As the solution becomes more complex and feature rich, it takes more time to debug and resolve problems. Feature-wise, we have no complaints, but Checkmarx becomes harder to maintain as the product becomes more complex. When I talk to support, it takes them longer to fix the problem than it used to.

We've been using Checkmarx for five years now.

Checkmarx is stable. 

Checkmarx is scalable. We can add more engines without a problem.

Deploying Checkmarx isn't straightforward. It is a little complex, so it requires somebody well-versed in DevOps and Linux administration or Windows administration to do the setup.

We've seen a good return.

Checkmarx costs us around $132,000 annually.

We evaluated CAST, Fortify, and HCL AppScan, but the deciding factor was Checkmarx's ease of use. 

I rate Checkmarx eight out of 10. It's secure, easy to use, and Checkmarx regularly updates their rule sets. I'm happy with the main features of the product, but some of the additional features didn't work for us in the beginning, like scanning at the source code repository level, reporting, etc. There was a lot of back and forth before it started working, so that's why I deducted two points.

My advice for future Checkmarx users is to plan the initial deployment well. You will have to choose the right system configuration: CPUs, RAM, disk space, and backup policy. If you plan ahead, you won't have any issues trying to debug or when the size increases. 

We mainly use Checkmarx for accreditation, checking for vulnerabilities, and identifying areas in the code to fix some of the NIST 800 security controls.

The most valuable feature is that it actually identifies the different criteria you can set to meet whatever standards you're trying to get your system accredited for. It's also pretty intuitive and has a lot of good dashboards and metrics.

Checkmarx could be improved with more integration with third-party software.

I've been using Checkmarx for about six months.

We've had no issues with Checkmarx's stability.

I thought Checkmarx was pretty scalable.

My experience with Checkmarx's technical support has been very positive.

Positive

I found the setup pretty straightforward, though it took several days because the system engineers had to go through some different configuration settings to get it done.

We worked with Checkmarx when we ran into issues, and they were pretty responsive.

Checkmarx isn't accredited by the US government for DOD networks, so we've been forced to remove it from the network. I'd rate Checkmarx as seven out of ten.