GitGuardian Platform Reviews

We use GitGuardian Public Monitoring for code that is exposed in public.

GitGuardian Public Monitoring's detection capabilities are good. I'm still learning the ropes of using some search techniques. However, it's impressive how we can find information even if it's been deleted. That's helpful!

The more I use GitGuardian Public Monitoring, the easier it becomes to identify false positives. When I started this role less than a year ago, it was my first time working with code. It took some time to adjust. However, I'm now getting faster at reviewing alerts and determining the risk. I can often tell if something is a genuine threat or just someone testing something out. In those cases, I can quickly confirm with the developer whether it's an actual secret. Overall, my detection skills are improving. This helps me filter through alerts more efficiently. When the system was first implemented last May, we had a lot of data to sift through, and GitGuardian Public Monitoring has made that process much faster.

GitGuardian Public Monitoring helps us prioritize remediation tasks efficiently. It allows me to assign severity levels to detections. I can mark high-risk ones for immediate attention while leaving others in their triggered detection status. This way, I can easily filter detections later based on the assigned severity levels that are set by me or others to quickly find the ones I'm currently working on or those requiring the most critical attention.

The Public Monitoring Explore feature is a powerful tool. It allows me to create searches beyond our usual parameters. They even have a helpful cheat sheet available. I've found it very useful, uncovering surprising information that required further action. Overall, it's a valuable resource.

The Explore feature has been very helpful in uncovering potential issues that we can address immediately. These are issues that wouldn't have been identified through our regular alerts. In this way, Explore allows us to delve deeper and identify additional exposures and potential risks that we might otherwise miss.

I'm currently using GitGuardian Public Monitoring to detect secrets and identify any exposure to our company's intellectual property code. That's the extent of our use case for now. I'm aware that GitGuardian is planning to release additional features, such as public Postman monitoring, which I'm very interested in. I believe we'll be incorporating that functionality in the future. As for honey tokens, I haven't had a chance to use them yet, but I'm familiar with the concept. I think utilizing honey tokens could also be beneficial, potentially helping us gauge how quickly exposed secrets are exploited. We initiated a trial of GitGuardian Public Monitoring last May, which lasted for several months. While it generated a significant number of alerts initially, which could be overwhelming, we were able to identify valuable findings during the trial period that demonstrated the product's worth.

GitGuardian Public Monitoring improves our overall security visibility by eliminating blind spots. This helps us identify potential security risks that might otherwise go unnoticed for extended periods.

GitGuardian has been very effective in helping us monitor our developers' public activity. I'd like to spend more time exploring its capabilities and using it to its full potential. While I'm confident we're currently up-to-date, there are likely additional features I haven't discovered yet. However, I trust GitGuardian to notify us promptly of any new threats that emerge. Overall, I'm impressed with its ability to catch a wide range of issues.

Initially, users were unresponsive to our emails and questions, and they often became defensive. However, with increased interaction, I believe they're starting to understand that our primary goal is to comprehend and document the exposed information to help improve our meantime to remediation.

GitGuardian has been very effective in detecting and alerting us to security leaks quickly. It's identified issues that we likely wouldn't have caught ourselves, either because we lack the resources or simply weren't actively searching for them. This has been helpful because it allows us to address these leaks promptly.

The Explore function is valuable for finding specific things I'm looking for. I also appreciate that critical or high-priority issues are sent directly to my email. This ensures I'm notified even if I'm not actively checking the website.

I'm excited about the possibility of Public Postman scanning being integrated with GitGuardian in the future. Additionally, I'm interested in exploring the potential use of honeytokens, which seems like a compelling approach to lure and identify attackers.

I have been using GitGuardian Public Monitoring for less than one year.

I've never had any problems with GitGuardian's stability. The only issue I ran into was when our free trial expired. Until we renewed it, I couldn't access the product, which caused some delays with my follow-up tasks. It's important to note that this wasn't a problem with GitGuardian itself, but rather a limitation of the free trial. Overall, I've been very impressed with the stability of their product.

Right now, we're only considering using GitGuardian for public GitHub repositories. While it offers additional features, we don't have a current need for them. It's a powerful tool with capabilities we might explore in the future, but for now, our focus is on its basic functionalities.

The customer support has been very responsive to our requests and inquiries. They are very quick to take action, and I learn more about the product each time I reach out to them. They have been great to work with.

The technical support team is very responsive and thorough. Whenever I have a question, I simply email them. Even if I don't send it to the right person initially, they'll be sure to forward it to the appropriate support agent. When I receive a response, it's often more detailed than I expect. They explain not only how to solve my specific issue, but also provide additional information that helps me better understand and utilize the tool. This feedback allows me to learn a lot and improve my skills.

Positive

We have used other solutions to find secrets in the code. However, we did not have a specific tool to look for public exposure of our code.

We're still deploying GitGuardian. It's proving to be more complex than anticipated. I suspect this is due to internal processes rather than GitGuardian itself. When I tested it out, it was quite straightforward to get started. However, the onboarding process seems to involve a lot more bureaucracy.

We have half a dozen people involved in the deployment.

The implementation was completed in-house.

I would rate GitGuardian Public Monitoring nine out of ten.

Once deployed GitGuardian will only require minimal maintenance.

For organizations that don't prioritize secret detection, deploying honeytokens can be a wake-up call. They'll quickly see the importance of implementing secret detection measures.

Secret detection is crucial for a security program aimed at application developers. Exposing secrets in code is akin to giving away your house keys.

I recommend evaluating GitGuardian Public Monitoring through a trial, similar to our experience. This was very helpful in understanding the system, developing workflows, and determining how we could best utilize it. Unfortunately, when I was assigned to work with it, I didn't receive any initial training. My manager simply informed me that we would be using the tool. While I was able to learn it independently, a demo or introduction from GitGuardian beforehand would have been beneficial. This would have allowed me to explore the functionalities before diving in and figuring things out on my own.

I recommend GitGuardian Public Monitoring to others.

We use GitGuardian to detect secrets that have inadvertently been committed to our source code. GitGuardian monitors every Git push and commits we make, and it analyzes the files, looking for things like access tokens, passwords, session ID cookies, etc. If that happens, GitGuardian raises a ticket in our internal ticketing system, and we remedy it. 

When we first deployed GitGuardian, we went back through all of the commits that we did over the course of the last five or six years that the company existed. It immediately found more than a hundred. We detected all sorts of secrets in those repositories. It had a pretty substantial impact from the first day. That was during our trial run, but now it's incorporated into our deployment pipelines. The impact is still there, and it's still tremendous. It's probably not as instantaneous or the same avalanche of detections that we saw on day one. That was impressive, but we don't get that anymore. It has been a constant trickle of tickets.

GitGuardian helps us prioritize remediation. You need to incorporate it into your existing processes, but GitGuardian provides you with the flexibility and the tools. For example, in our environment, we implement ticket creation through webhooks. We have some logic rules stating that our production repositories are a higher priority than our dev or sandbox repositories. Our developers commit all sorts of weird things to those. GitGuardian gives you the tools to do that, but it may not necessarily do that right out of the box when you first deploy it.

To have collaboration between our security and dev teams, you need to have a detection. Previously, we did not have a functional equivalent to GitGuardian in our environment, and it introduced that process, so we could begin having that conversation. The security team is more focused on remediating to ensure that API token or password is invalidated as soon as possible after it was committed. Developers are more focused on why the secret was committed and environment variables to store that particular secret. The collaboration exists in our company largely thanks to GitGuardian.

A webhook creates a ticket in our internal ticketing system, and the ticket goes to the security guys. They look through it. They make sure the secret is invalidated and start that conversation with the developer to say that they committed this, so please don't do that again. That's the end of the story. We don't use 100 percent of GitGuardian's functionality. We are a fairly small company, so we probably don't need all of that. This simple approach works pretty well for a company of our size.

GitGuardian has improved our security team's productivity if we measure it in security incidents per week, hour, etc. Now, we have a separate stream of secret detection tickets going into our system. It's much better to have those during the deployment phase instead of discovering them after a breach or down the road. 

It's hard to quantify the time saved. Finding a secret that was accidentally committed to a repo is like searching for a needle in a haystack.  And you don't even know if the needle is in that haystack. Now you have something like  X-ray vision that lets you see through that haystack and find right where the needle is. It unlocked a new angle on our application security process that did not exist. When a secret was accidentally committed to a repo, it could have been noticed by a security guy or another developer, or maybe not. 

The most valuable feature of GitGuardian is its core secret detection mechanism. It covers a broad range of technologies. The detection accuracy is extremely good. It correctly detects in about 99 percent of cases. Every false positive we've had wasn't an actual false positive. It was a case where a developer copied a sample code from somewhere, including a dummy password or session ID.  GitGuardian may trigger this, but I think that's a good thing because we know it's there, and it is alert.

GitGuardian had a really nice feature that allowed you to compare all the public GitHub repositories against your code base and see if your code leaked. They discontinued it for some reason about eight months ago, it was in preview and kinda exploratory phase, but for whatever reason, they chose not to move forward with it. 

That is unfortunate because it immediately detected a leak of our company code that one of our contractors committed. They leaked our intellectual property into one of their public reports. 

I have used GitGuardian for 14 or 15 months. 

I have never experienced a single instance of downtime, but I don't sit there 24/7. It's just a useful thing that is sitting in the corner humming and doing its thing. I have never noticed any outages.

We are a small company, and it performs beautifully for a company of our size, but I think it will also perform well for a company 20 times our size. If we're talking at the scale of a company the size of Google, then I don't know.

I rate GitGuardian support eight out of ten. 

Positive

We didn't have a secret detection solution because it's a fairly new area. However, we also use Snyk to supplement GitGuardian. It does things that GitGuardian doesn't do, like dependency detection and static code analysis. GitGuardian is also doing things that Snyk isn't, so the two complement each other nicely.

GitGuardian is a SaaS solution, and the integration process is pretty straightforward. It's similar to other things you integrate with our repository and version control systems. It doesn't require any maintenance. It adds new repositories automatically.

The purchasing process is convoluted compared to Snyk, the other tool we use. It's like night and day because you only need to punch in your credit card, and you're set. With GitGuardian, getting a quote took two or three weeks. We paid for it in December but have not settled that payment yet.

It's also worth mentioning that GitGuardian is unique because they have a free tier that we've been using for the first twelve months. It provides full functionality for smaller teams. We're a smaller company and have never changed in size, but we got to the point where we felt the service brought us value, and we wanted to pay for it. We also wanted an SLA for technical support and whatnot, so we switched to a paid plan. Without that, they had a super-generous, free tier, and I was immensely impressed with it.

When we acquired GitGuardian, I compared it to GitHub Advanced Security, an additional premium subscription from GitHub that you can purchase on top of your existing one. It claims to do similar things to what GitGuardian does, but GitGuardian is far superior in terms of the types of secrets it can detect. 

I'm not sure if GitHub has caught up since then. I picked GitGuardian over GitHub Security because it had better functionality. Also, not all of our repositories are in GitHub. We also used Azure DevOps. GitHub Advanced Security sort of locks you down within that GitHub sandbox. With GitGuardian, we could scan both GitHub and Azure DevOps repositories and have identical functionality across the two. If we implement a policy in GitGuardian, we would know that it equally applies to secrets committed to both systems.

You also have the option of open-source solutions, but one of our core principles is to lean heavily toward solutions that are not self-hosted, whether it's in the cloud or on-premises. To have an open-source solution, you need to run it somewhere and maintain it. GitGuardian is a software as a service. You sign up and forget about it until your next detection. If a company wants to minimize administrative overhead, GitGuardian is a pretty much no-brainer.

I rate GitGuardian eight out of 10. Secret detection is critical to application security. You might assume that your developers have a security mindset. Many don't. Sometimes, it isn't even a mistake. They might not realize exactly what they are doing and the amount of damage that could occur because of what they commit to a repo. 

When you implement GitGuardian, there will be an influx of detections if you're developing any software that connects to anything with a database, third-party REST API, etc. I recommend looking through the initial list of detections and identifying the most susceptible projects or repositories. Also, look at the developers who produce the most detections. Those are the people who lack a security mindset. Identify the high-risk category of developers.

We utilize GitGuardian to scan for secrets within our codebase. Our implementation includes pre-receive and pre-commit hooks, dashboard scans, and CI/CD integration within GitLab.

Secret detection is pivotal for development security, ensuring no secrets exist in packages, libraries, dependencies, or code. Even with a locked-down application, explicit permissions could grant easy access to the environment and connected resources. GitGuardian serves as an essential tool for every development team.

GitGuardian aids in prioritizing remediation efforts by promptly notifying us of reported issues. This informs our approach; we prioritize valid reports over invalid ones or those that failed checks. Automation plays a significant role, swiftly addressing invalid reports and saving valuable time.

The solution aligns with our shift-left strategy, empowering developers with security responsibilities through pre-receive hooks that act as security controls. Developers can quickly identify secrets, enhancing security awareness at the development level.

GitGuardian significantly reduces manual work through automation, streamlining incident resolution processes and allowing proactive measures like permissions revocation. While not fully automated, leveraging automated solutions has notably increased productivity, enabling us to focus more on governance and essential tasks.

Our secret detection capabilities have improved dramatically with GitGuardian. Initially facing over 10,000 incidents, we reduced them to 2,700, marking a 60 to 70 percent increase in detection efficiency.

Validation features save considerable time by eliminating the need for manual verification, allowing us to focus on remediation. While accuracy varies based on use cases, we've encountered only a handful of false positives, with the false positive rate correlating strongly with the number of secrets present.

GitGuardian offers a range of features that align perfectly with our requirements. With internal policies in place to prevent secret exposure, especially concerning our code hosted on GitLab, GitGuardian's pre-receive hook stands out as a crucial feature. By activating this hook on the remotes, it effectively blocks commits from being pushed to the repository, ensuring that secrets never reach GitLab and remain protected from exposure.

The tool provides comprehensive coverage, including classic technologies such as SMTP credentials, along with Slack tokens and AWS secrets in our specific use case. Its ability to manage various types of secrets, including database connections, APIs, and RSA keys, streamlines our workflow by consolidating detection efforts. This consolidation saves us considerable time, eliminating the need for back-and-forth verification with the team. Once a valid issue is identified, we can promptly escalate it to the team for remediation

The GitGuardian hook and dashboard scanners are essential components that should seamlessly integrate to provide comprehensive security coverage. However, we've encountered instances where discrepancies arise, with the dashboard scan detecting issues not reflected on the hook. This inconsistency requires fine-tuning to ensure efficient detection and resolution, as we aim to avoid unnecessary time wastage.

Moreover, the historical scan feature could benefit from improvement. Occasionally, it fails to efficiently track changes in updated histories, leading to delays in data history updates. This can be frustrating, especially when the reported secret remains unchanged or changed in history. Addressing this issue is crucial to alleviate the burden on the team and streamline our workflow. We hope to see enhancements in this aspect from GitGuardian.

I have used GitGaurdian for two years.

Earlier, we had some challenges and problems with the dashboard crashing, but there have been many improvements since then. We haven't seen any crashes lately. 

The scalability depends on the deployment model. Our engineers understand how to deploy the solution directly. We have two environments: production and dev. We haven't seen any major hassles, and it doesn't impact the development workflow.

I rate GitGuardian support nine out of ten. GitGuardian support has been great. They respond fast. If something requires investigation, they also resolve the issue quickly. Recently, we had to upgrade because of a bug. They were happy to help us.

Positive

I used Trufflehog at a previous company. It's hard to compare the two. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I've used a couple of the other solutions, and GitGuardian stands out.

It was straightforward. We had deployed it on EKS with nodes for dashboard and other aspects of the app.

It was a joint effort. Their support engineers were very skillful and did provide all required help.

Every company has a budget to spend on security tools, so it depends on what you want to spend on security at each stage in their maturity walk. You can have a vulnerability in your code with a firewall in front, but you don't want an application exposing secrets. An attacker knows how to crawl your application and extract information. It depends on how much you want to prioritize the cleanness of your code from a secrets perspective. 

We looked at a few other products but primarily chose GitGuardian because of the price. It also has some advantages regarding dashboard maturity and the number of available integrations. We also like the auto-validation and the way the pre-commit hook works. It was also a lot easier to implement GitGuardian. 

I recommend open source for other things but not secrets detection. There's an inherent vulnerability to an open source solution that could leave your secrets exposed. 

I rate GitGuardian Internal Monitoring nine out of ten. Before deployment, it's crucial to thoroughly understand your environment. For users of public cloud services, ensuring compatibility with GitGuardian's features is essential to maximize benefits. While the SaaS solution offers simplicity, our air-gapped internal deployment had minor restrictions on available features. Despite this, we opted to continue with GitGuardian as it satisfied our core needs.

Understanding your environment and version control system is paramount. Determine your implementation approach, considering options like starting with dashboard scans rather than hooks, which I don't recommend initially. Beginning with dashboard scans on your version control system, such as GitHub, and conducting historical scans is advisable. As teams become more acquainted with the tool, gradual implementation of more advanced features like hooks can be considered.

Our developers use the GitGuardian platform to securely access and manage secrets within their repositories. This allows them to identify and address any potential security risks.

GitGuardian's detection capabilities are good.

The accuracy of detections and the false positive rate are good.

It has improved the abilities of our developers and security team.

The playbooks help to identify and prioritize security incidents.

GitGuardian helped us increase our secret detection rate.

GitGuardian helped to increase our security team's productivity. It allows us to find the secrets and their repository faster. As the security team is focusing on one app to audit it, we also look at the GitGuardian findings for that app, and that is easier than looking for the secrets manually.

The most valuable feature is the general incident reporting system. It provides informative data with good filtering and reporting options.

We'd like to request a new GitGuardian feature that automates user onboarding and access control for code repositories. Ideally, when a user contributes to a repository, they would be automatically added to GitGuardian and granted access to view that specific repository. This would eliminate the need for manual user creation and permission assignment within the platform.

I have been using the GitGuardian Platform for one and a half years.

The GitGuardian Platform is stable.

The GitGuardian Platform can deploy at scale.

The pricing for GitGuardian is fair.

I would rate the GitGuardian Platform eight out of ten.

Getting started with GitGuardian required some preliminary setup on our part. This involved configuring both our on-premise GitHub Enterprise server and the GitGuardian application itself, granting the application access to the enterprise server.

GitGuardian requires around two hours per week of maintenance. We have our scripts that add users to the tool as needed. So we have a script that looks at our GitHub server talks to that API, and uses the information from that to add users to GitGuardian. And we have to maintain those because sometimes just like with any code, we have to make sure that process is still working.

GitGuardian's onboarding process and customer success teams were helpful.

I recommend GitGuardian as an easy-to-use tool that tackles a major security risk often overlooked by companies. This platform can significantly improve your software development lifecycle.

While detecting hidden functionality within a security program for application development isn't the highest priority, it does hold some value. If resources allow, it's worth considering incorporating methods to identify such secrets.

Organizations considering the GitGuardian Platform should establish clear action points for employees who will be using the tool. This ensures everyone understands how to leverage GitGuardian effectively within their workflow.

We noticed a problem with developers putting secrets in their code, and we needed a solution for this. I had previously used GitGuardian in my own hobby projects, so I knew what it was all about. I was asked to look into alternatives to ensure we had considered every possibility, but we quickly found that GitGuardian was the right solution for our use case. The company has around 100 users. 

Using GitGuardian has made developers more aware of secrets. The senior leadership at the company is impressed with how well GitGuardian works. We've also heard some good comments about how snappy the website is. We do not have a shift-left culture at our company, but we are moving toward it, and GitGuardian definitely helps with this. 

GitGuardian has improved the collaboration between the security and dev teams. The developers have taken to the tool nicely and are using it efficiently. At the same time, it doesn't require any communication between the developers and the security team in terms of remediation because it's intuitive enough for the developers to know they need to fix an issue when they get an email notifying them about it. They also know how to fix it because GitGuardian shows that in the remediation steps.

The solution has greatly increased our secret detection rate. When we did it manually, it took about an hour to find 50. Now, we get around 250 in an hour, and they appear instantly when we sign in. It has improved the remediation time quite a bit. We're down to nine minutes now, which is a vast improvement compared to when it was a manual process.

GitGuardian has increased the security team's productivity by shifting the responsibility to the developers. We are almost never inside GitGuardian monitoring it. It's mostly when we need to do our weekly reporting. We generally leave it up to the developers to fix their code. That's just how the company works. 

I like GitGuardian's instant response. When you have an incident, it's reported immediately. The interface gives you a great overview of your current leaked secrets. It's easy to reduce the false positive rate because we can customize the detection rules to be as granular as we want. We can set up rules to say certain things should never be detected. We're happy with the false positive rate, but we notice a lot from our test certificates in our code. There is no clear way to define if a certificate is a test certificate apart from the name. I think it's a good thing that they have these false positives rather than false negatives.

We use some of the playbooks. They help us prioritize security incidents. We're only using a limited set at the moment, but the ones we use help us identify and prioritize security incidents. 

GitGuardian encompasses many secrets that companies might have, but we are a Microsoft-only organization, so there are some limitations there in terms of their honey tokens. I'd like for it to not be limited to Amazon-based tokens. It would be nice to see a broader set of providers that you could pick from. 

The company has only been using GitGuardian for a couple of months now, but I have used it for many years.

I rate GitGuardian nine out of ten for stability. 

I rate GitGuardian ten out of ten for scalability.

I rate GitGuardian support ten out of ten. We had some issues with GitGuardian failing to detect some secrets. We contacted support. They resolved the problem swiftly and kept us informed throughout the process. They started the process of creating a new detection, and it's a new feature that they're working on. 

Positive

I previously used some open-source solutions, but they were not quite on par with GitGuardian. An open-source solution is only as good as the developers maintaining it. The developers maintaining it are not paid to maintain it, unlike those who are paid to keep a commercial solution updated. The paid solutions are way better.

GitGuardian is a SaaS platform, so you don't need to deploy it. It's just a matter of onboarding users. It doesn't require any maintenance on our side. 

We have only used GitGuardian for four months, so it's hard to calculate a return. However, it will save us a lot of headaches with the new EU regulations in the long run. 

When we're talking about security, there is no price that is too high to keep a company safe.

I rate GitGuardian nine out of ten. A secrets detection program is one of the most critical things in application development. It's easy enough to implement GitGuardian, so you don't need to test it, but you can always go with a trial because you need to know if this is the right solution for you. It's so easy to get started with GitGuardian that you don't need to go through all the bureaucracy.

We are using GitGuardian Internal Monitoring on our GitHub Enterprise repositories to make sure that our developers are not introducing any secrets into the code. Those secrets could be things like database passwords, connection strings, or AWS credentials. We use it when they commit code to our GitHub internal repositories.

We want to make sure that none of our secrets get committed and GitGuardian is doing a great job identifying them. It has the ability to scan our repositories and identify older commits that have secrets, meaning in code that was committed even four or five years ago, and that has gone unnoticed until we implemented GitGuardian.

Most of our dev teams have a GitGuardian CLI installed on their local machines. Even before a commit gets to GitHub, the CLI identifies secrets within the code and doesn't allow the commit to go ahead. That drastically reduced the number of secrets being committed.

We use Azure DevOps for our CICD and GitGuardian helps support a shift-left strategy. There is all the pipeline-related code that is checked into the repositories and secrets tend to creep into that code, such as RAML files and environment secrets. GitGuardian helps us identify those secrets when they are committed. Not all our dev teams are using GitGuardian's CLI—we are trying to get them to adopt it 100 percent, but we're not there yet—and there are occasions where someone is testing out a pipeline and, by mistake, they don't declare the secrets properly in the code that is being checked into Azure. We get notified and, immediately, the teams work to remove those secrets.

Historically, in our organization, people have been committing AWS secrets, such as access IDs and secret code into our GitHub repositories, because they were testing out something. It could be that they were doing a PoC, and not implementing a full-blown secrets manager where they store and pull the secrets from. After implementing GitGuardian, we were notified of these secrets immediately. And even though they were doing PoCs, we were able to get them revoked immediately, which means removing the secrets from AWS as well as the code and issuing new secrets.

We were also able to help the teams to use AWS Secrets Manager or the Vault to store their secrets. GitGuardian actually provides sample code snippets, which are pretty decent, for pulling secrets from AWS Secrets Manager or Vault.

In addition, the solution has increased our secrets detection rate by almost 100 percent. Pretty much any secret that gets committed is identified and the team is notified. We have almost 100 percent coverage and that is pretty robust.

When it comes to our security team's productivity, because our processes are being monitored by GitGuardian, we don't have to run any scripts or scans or out-of-the-box solutions. We don't worry about secrets being leaked or introduced into our repositories. We rely on the product to keep us aware of our secrets management in our repositories and that enables our security team to focus on other security-related tasks. They don't have to spend a lot of time worrying about how to detect issues and, instead, depend on GitGuardian. They have confidence in the ability of the product to identify the types of secrets that our people are committing. They are definitely being flagged.

Now, we may be spending a couple of hours and a week addressing incidents that come up or addressing the old ones that are still being tracked for remediation. We had around 500 secrets management incidents when we fully implemented GitGuardian. We are now down to 20 or 30, which are old but still need remediation. Those old secrets have been revoked, but they are still sitting in our GitHub history. We need to reach out to GitHub support to get those taken out, replace those repositories, and run garbage collection on them.

And because identification of the secrets being introduced is almost instant, the pull request doesn't go through, and Slack alerts are immediately sent out. As a result, the mean time to remediation is within a day, if not even sooner. These secrets are mainly dummy secrets that people are using for testing code. But we don't want even those to be introduced. The idea is to have teams use secrets management services like AWS Secrets Manager or Vault from the get-go. We are close to 90 percent utilization of AWS Secrets Manager or Vault to store secrets because of GitGuardian Internal Monitoring.

We mainly depend on its ability to identify secrets and we also use the entire workflow of secrets management. That means we're able not only to identify secrets, but we can reach out to the owners of those repositories by opening up an incident ticket within GitGuardian. It actually creates an incident ticket for us. We can now go end-to-end after a secret has been identified, to track down who owns the repository and who is responsible for cleaning it up. We can also monitor what actions they are taking, such as revoking the secrets and ultimately closing out an incident, making sure that commit no longer has any secrets.

We tested out the secret identification using thousands of samples and some of them were purely false positives. GitGuardian was able to identify 85 to 90 percent of the false positives. We are fairly confident when we see a secret reported. Of course, we always verify them before we chase down teams to fix them.

We have defined our teams and their members so the teams are typically associated with the repositories on GitHub. Whenever a secret is identified, those team members are immediately notified by GitGuardian via an email and a Slack message, thanks to integration with Slack. In addition, the application security team also gets the information in the Slack message and we can keep track of the remediation efforts.

I would like to see more fine-grained access controls when tickets are assigned for incidents. I would like the ability to provide more controls to the team leads or the product managers so that they can drive what we, the AppSec team, are doing. They should have the ability to close out tickets and we would review them. 

Right now, we cannot give them that control because if they close out a ticket, we won't have the visibility into them unless we build something with the APIs that GitGuardian provides. 

The UI has matured quite a bit since we started using it, and they have introduced new features, such as the teams feature. That was introduced three or four months ago. We put in the requests for such features. There are a few more requests that we think would make the product even better, and one of them is that fine-grained access control so that we have additional roles we can assign to other teams. That would help things to be more of a self-service model.

I have been using GitGuardian Internal Monitoring for almost two years.

Very rarely does GitGuardian go down or the monitoring fail or we have issues with the APIs. It's available 95 percent of the time. There have been a few times when we were notified that the service would be down because of maintenance. Like with any product, there are maintenance windows, which are not a problem. But I don't recall more than one or two instances of the internal monitoring not being available when we expected it to be.

We have a lot of repositories and we have not had a problem with GitGuardian monitoring all of them and doing what it is supposed to do. Deploying it at scale is pretty much seamless. You don't have to do anything special once you have onboarded it. GitGuardian has the ability to scan all the repositories in your GitHub Enterprise account, if that is what you choose to do. 

There are no performance issues. We have around 800 or 900 active repositories and 400 that are archived. We have quite a big code base to cover but there are no additional tasks needed to scale it as your number of repositories increases.

We have contacted their support about a few enhancements. In addition, we came across a couple of UI bugs where the stylesheet didn't render properly and the information we were looking for was overlapped by some other UI elements. But they were very quick fixes. 

We also had some rate-limiting issues with the APIs and they were fixed early on in our engagement.

They are very responsive and have a fairly quick turnaround time. We have developed quite a good rapport, not only with the customer support team but with their support engineers as well. 

Initially, we had calls once a month and now we have calls about once a quarter. They get on a call with us to find out if we have any pain points or new feature requests.

Positive

To start using GitGuardian there is some groundwork that needs to be done. You start off with a few repositories and do a trial to get an understanding of how the UI works. You have to give permissions to GitGuardian to access your internal depositories and then organize the repositories around team structure. Those are the housekeeping tasks that need to be done to onboard with GitGuardian.

Initially, to get the program up and running, we relied on GigGuardian's playbooks quite a bit, and we do refer to them whenever the need arises. When you're starting off with GitGuardian and secrets management, GitGuardian lays out the basics of why it is a bad idea to have your secrets committed to internal or external repositories and the dangers associated with that practice. They outline baby steps to start taking control of secrets being committed. 

They also give you good guidelines on how to use ggshield, which is their CLI product, as well as the web UI, and how to organize your teams and repositories around GitGuardian. 

For AppSec teams, playbooks give you the ability to control what the repository owners are capable of through permissions. For example, you don't want all team members to have permission to repress incidents that are identified. We'd rather have them as collaborators or viewers. They can view the incident and fix it, while the AppSec team can actually suppress the incident and use the functionalities of the management console within GitGuardian. All these features are part of its playbooks. They're a good resource.

The playbooks helped us to understand how the product works and what we needed. They helped my team to implement GitGuardian in the most effective manner, such as how to use the product better to manage workflows.

In terms of maintenance of GitGuardian, there is none required on our side.

We looked at a few other solutions before we started to work with GitGuardian and what we found was that it provides the best solution for secrets management. We have a few other products that we use within our systems, products that also provide secrets management, but they don't come anywhere close to GitGuardian's ability to detect secrets, track them, and ultimately, get rid of them. GitGuardian is the leader in this space. Many times, what we identify in GitGuardian is not identified by those products.

I would tell a security colleague, using an open-source secrets detection solution at another company, to take a good look at GitGuardian. It definitely helps not only manage secrets but also the entire workflow around secrets management, from detection to remediation. It helps put best practices in place. It would save them quite a bit of time, rather than using an open-source solution. Open source is okay for some features, but you don't have all the tools you need for full-blown secrets management in the organization. That's what you get when you use GitGuardian.

Secrets detection is as important, if not more important, to a security program as having a firewall and a vulnerability management program. Your secrets are the easiest way for bad actors to access your environment, without doing any work at all. You need to lock down what type of information is being committed to both your open-source and internal repositories to ensure that no secrets are being committed. And if you have any secrets that were committed in the past, you need to identify them and make sure they are removed and, if possible, reach out to the organization, like GitHub, and work with their support teams to clean up the history as much as possible. Secrets committed in your repositories are keys to your organization's infrastructure.

We have been retraining our teams to not commit even false or dummy secrets into the repository. It's fine for them to do a test but we don't want to have to deal with false positives. Getting distracted by even 10 percent of false positives is not fun. Rebasing the commits is a pain. That retraining, to not use even dummy secrets, has worked for us to reduce the number of secrets being committed.

In addition, we had a number of brown bag sessions with our dev teams over the course of several months, where we would demo what secrets we found on GitHub repositories and how GitGuardian is helping us identify them. The idea was to make them more aware that this tool is monitoring all the repositories and every commit is being scanned. But the goal was to ensure that secrets don't even get to the point of being committed. And when someone mistakenly commits a secret, they immediately inform us. Dev teams are now trained not to do it, but if something happens by mistake, they are immediately on top of it to revoke it themselves and inform us. We have everything recorded on GitGuardian, but proactive action is being taken.

We use the solution to detect any secret exposure.

The overall breadth of the solution is good. It's been able to detect most of the secrets that we have.

The accuracy of the solution is generally good, but we have had a number of false positives. For example, sometimes we would commit a test secret, and it would not follow the action of a secret. This is because the secret contained a prefix that is commonly used in passwords, such as "password". We have been able to take action to suppress these false positives moving forward.

The solution helps to quickly prioritize remediation. When we go back to the historical scan, it can tell us not only what vulnerabilities were exposed, but also the general risk level of each vulnerability. This allows us to prioritize remediation efforts and focus on the more critical vulnerabilities first.

The solution helped to decrease the overall false positive rate. We have been able to decrease the number of false positives by about seven percent. When we receive alerts now, they are usually general alerts. We do not receive alerts that are specific to a door without the pull being put in place when we investigate.

The solution increased our secret detection rate by around 80 percent.

We detected a security issue, and we were able to fix it in the system within half a day. This was possible because we reduced the number of follow-up steps required. The solution saved our security team about 25 percent of their time. This means that we probably removed about a week's worth of incident management work. This is a significant improvement in security, and it saved our team a lot of time.

The solution also helped reduce our mean time to remediation.

At the start, historical scanning was very useful because it was the first time we had done it. It allowed us to see how many secrets we had exposed. If we had only focused on current secrets, we would have missed all the secrets that had been committed in the past. So, initially, the historical scan was really useful.

Presently, we find the pre-commit hooks more useful. These hooks allow us to set up a local development environment where we can scan for secrets before we commit them to the repository. This saved us a lot of time.

It took us a while to get new patterns introduced into the pattern reporting process. If there is a way to automate this process so that we can include our own patterns in our repositories, that would be very useful.

The authentication process could be improved. A single sign-on system would be very helpful.

I have been using GitGuardian Internal Monitoring for one and a half years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable, so we can create instances for each scan that we run. This means that we will never have any issues with load or performance. We have 100 end users the utilize the solution.

The technical support has been very helpful. The system is also pretty intuitive, so we haven't had to contact them very often.

Positive

We have seen a 10 percent return on investment. Resource-wise, creating a secret once it has been detected is a significant undertaking. Early detection has saved a lot of time, and I think there would be various penalties. Theoretically, if we continued to explore secrets, we could also save and compromise.

I compared the solution to a couple of other solutions, and I think it is very competitively priced.

I give GitGuardian Internal Monitoring a seven out of ten. The solution is really good, but the false positives that we had to work with lower the solution's overall score.

When we first started using the solution, we had to address some areas quickly. We had pushed through some public-facing features because we wanted to start working in the open. However, this prompted us to realize that we weren't quite ready to do that. So we had to make all of our clusters private again, or as private as possible. The thought of working in the open had to be reviewed at the start.

The solution does not require maintenance. It is used extensively and is part of our security check pipeline. It is included as part of the pipeline in any repository that is created. It is also included in the repository itself. Each project is included as a pre-commit process. Additionally, it is included in our deployment pipeline because it is well integrated into our productivity tools. 

Secret detection is a very important part of a security program for application development. It gives us the confidence to commit our work to a shared environment, especially if we want to make it public. Secret detection helps to ensure that confidential information is not exposed.

For those using an open-source tool, I would suggest pointing out what sort of support they might need. If they're comfortable using it on their own, then that's fine. But if they need support, it would be helpful to have a support package available.

People should do a proof of concept first because the way it will be configured for them might be different. I don't know if we can figure it out for sales for another organization. So, having a proof of concept to fully understand how it will work best for them is useful.

We procured it as a secrets and code detection solution. We have code bases, some of which are 10-years-old. We needed a way to comb through all of the Git histories to see if any developers had committed secrets to our code in the past as well as catch any new secrets that developers may accidentally commit in the future.

We are using GitGuardian Internal Monitoring.

Without GitGuardian, we wouldn't be doing real-time detection of secrets. It would be something that we did periodically. Maybe quarterly or semi-annually, we would review our code for secrets. This means that the mean time to detection would be much longer. GitGuardian reduces our mean time to detect substantially. In addition, we would be finding out about secrets much further away from the time that they were introduced into the code base. We would be chasing people down to give us information about things that they did weeks or months ago. This would drastically reduce the effectiveness of us being able to triage and remediate the leaked secrets.

We don't have to do a periodic review to see if there are any secrets in our code bases. I would estimate, if we were to do that on a quarterly basis, we would be spending an entire week per quarter on it that we don't have to spend now. Therefore, it saves us a week every quarter in pure effort.

If we did not have GitGuardian, our mean time to detection would be much longer. We would have a substantial amount of risk that a set of credentials or a secret was being used maliciously. Every quarter, there was a security incident that came from the risk of these credentials living in our code bases. That might be another week worth of effort that our security team would have to deal with. Since we are catching things immediately, that risk is inherent in our environment and we don't have to worry about a security incident happening. The chances are much lower. We take a week of pure effort to review secrets that went away. Then, there is a week of dealing with security incidents that come from the secrets living in our code bases.

The solution efficiently supports our shift-left strategy.

The secrets detection and alerting is the most important feature. We get alerted almost immediately after someone commits a secret. It has been very accurate, allowing us to jump on it right away, then figure out if we have something substantial that has been leaked or whether it is something that we don't have to worry about. This general main feature of the app is great.

Recently, they added a feature that checks the validity of leaked secrets. It will actually reach out and see if the secret that leaked was valid or not. I have found, over the past couple months, this to be a super useful feature. We can go through a lot of the secrets in our code base, which have been detected, and dismiss them if we know that they are invalid secrets that can't be used anyway. This saves us a bunch of time, which is why this has been a really neat feature that has been useful.

I have found that I have been very satisfied with the breadth of the solution's detection capabilities. I don't think it has missed anything. The false positive rate has been very low. Every single time something is detected, it is something that we should look at. It does a very good job of detecting things that we should look at and make a decision on. We don't waste a lot of time chasing down false positives. This means that we feel safe because we don't have valid credentials sitting in our code repositories. If any of our code was breached or any of our developer work stations were compromised or stolen, no one would be able to get valid API credentials out of the Git repositories on those workstations.

The solution helps to quickly prioritize remediation because it allows us to tell which keys are valid versus which ones are invalid. We prioritize the valid ones first. It also lets us sort by detection type, e.g., what kind of secret is it detecting. There are ones that we would obviously prioritize over others, like SSH keys or AWS credentials, versus less sensitive credentials that aren't as concerning. I think it does a great job of helping us prioritize.

GitGuardian provides a feedback form feature that we utilize heavily. When a secret is detected, our process is to generate a feedback form link in GitGuardian, then provide that to the developer. The developer will give us contextual information about the secret, then we can take action. They have also recently released a feature, which we haven't started using yet, called automated playbooks where you can set it up to automatically create that feedback form. Then, it will be emailed to the developer so they get automatically notified that they introduce a secret with a feedback form to fill out. I suspect this will improve our developer's ability to resolve the secrets faster.

Six months ago, I would have said improving the ability to automatically get feedback from a developer so we wouldn't need to take action when reaching out, but that has been addressed.

They could give a developer access to a dashboard for their team's repositories that just shows their repository secrets. I think more could be exposed to developers.

I have been using the solution for 15 months.

I haven't noticed any downtime nor had any issues accessing it. So far, stability and reliability have been excellent.

GitGuardian does not require any maintenance on our side.

So far, I haven't hit any scalability issues at all.

We have three security engineers who are actively using the service. We also have about 80 developers who are indirectly using the service through the feedback forms.

So far, the support has been great. The only issues that we initially had were with the initial SSO integrations, and they were pretty responsive with that. I think the support has been great, though we haven't needed it much.

I would rate them as nine out of 10. They respond to me almost immediately every time that I have a question, which has been great. I haven't experienced any delays or not had an issue solved.

Positive

The solution has increased our secrets-detection rate. Previously, we only detected secrets when someone saw them, which was rare. Especially since a large portion of our secrets are in the Git history, not in the current state of the repository, we were only made aware of 10% of the secrets before. Now, we are probably in the 90 percentile.

There was a ramp up period. When we set it up and linked it up, we had to review all the initial findings and process them. That took a significant amount of time.

We just weren't doing this before we had GitGuardian. It has enabled us to do something that we weren't able to do before. If we were doing it manually, then we might have spent 200 hours doing this manually over the past year. So, we just wouldn't do it if we didn't have something like GitGuardian.

The solution has significantly reduced our mean time to remediation, by three or four months. We wouldn't know about it until we did our quarterly or semi-annual review for secrets and scan for secrets.

We have seen a return on investment. The amount of time that we would have spent manually doing this definitely outpaces the cost of GitGuardian. It is saving us about $35,000 a year, so I would say the ROI is about $20,000 a year.

If you were to run a proof of concept with GitGuardian and see all of the things that it detects, then you would probably be very surprised. You can tell very quickly what the return on investment will be and how much risk a tool like this can mitigate.

We evaluated TruffleHog, but we liked GitGuardian better.

My advice would be to talk with them about your needs. There are different use cases between security personnel working with GitGuardian versus developer personnel working with GitGuardian.

Secrets being used to access resources is probably one of the most common ways to be involved in a high profile breach these days. If you are not detecting secrets in code, then every developer's machine is a security breach waiting to happen. A developer in your org is going to leave their laptop at a coffee shop one of these days. If they have the code base checked out, and there are valid secrets in that code base, then it is only a matter of time before they get used to accessing resources that they are unauthorized to access. 

This is one of the higher priority things right now because developers are way more likely to commit secrets than I would have ever expected.

We haven't adopted any of the GitGuardian's shield functionalities. We just haven't taken the time to roll that out to all our developers. They have the functionality there, and it works great, but we haven't been able to prioritize the rollout on our end.

Security engineering is using the solution pretty extensively. We are not making use of a lot of the shift-left features. We would like to roll them out over the course of the coming year.

I have been super happy with it. I would rate this solution as nine out of 10. I am just leaving room for building out more features for looping in developers.