HCL AppScan Reviews

We use the product for Static Application Security Testing (SAST) and Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST). By integrating AppScan into our CI/CD pipelines, aligned with Agile methodologies, we ensure that security testing becomes an integral part of the software development lifecycle.

The product has valuable features for static and dynamic testing. It is one of the leaders in the market amongst SAST solutions.

They could add a software component analysis tool. Additionally, it could cater to the areas related to scanning container packages and images in the repository.

We have been using HCL AppScan for two to three years.

The product's cloud version is scalable. We manage the product for enterprise customers consisting of 250 to 500 employees.

We have experience working with multiple security testing tools, including Fortify, Vericode, and Checkmarx.

Vericode provides more efficient mobile application security testing features than other tools in this domain. Checkmarx is recognized for its market presence and technical capabilities.

The initial setup process is complex. The time taken depends on specific use cases and integration requirements. It might take ten days to a month to complete.

The product provides added value in the microservices-led architecture. It helps us reduce errors by integrating DevOps processes and IT pipelines in digitized times. It brings down maximum defects. It has improved the attack surface of applications in the post-deployment phase.

The product has premium pricing and could be more competitive.

I rate HCL AppScan a nine out of ten, specifically for SAST and DAST functionality. However, I would rate a seven out of ten for the areas related to API and mobile application security testing.

HCL AppScan is primarily used to improve application security. We are transitioning from DevOps to DevSecOps.

We are attempting to integrate these tools into our CICD pipeline in order to meet our business use cases. And if we notice that the tool is missing any business features or a feature, we will highlight them and work to have them fixed or implemented. That is how we go about it. We don't go for any generic features because that will be handled by the product team. We are here to identify our gaps and then have them implemented by the vendor team.

AppScan is only used for web scanning; we do not use it for anything else.

There are many features that are valuable. such as the APIs. API calls in AppScan, and similar to Burp Suite enterprise edition, which is also for API scans. I can trigger the scan ware API.

The HCL AppScan turnaround time for Burp Suite or any new feature request is pretty good, and that is why we are sticking with the HCL.

The dashboard, for AppScan or the Fortified fast tool, which we use needs to be improved. We always raise that as an announcement request because statistics gathering or management reports based on statistics are quite important. that is the only generic feature that we always request from the product team. The standard response is "Yes, it is in the pipeline, we will take a look." 

We would like to see all of the results in the same product. However, specific products for a specific test are available on the market. For example, you cannot upload the task report to the DAST report dashboard and instead request that the product team or vendor team create a sophisticated dashboard for that. Definitely, they will say "No, it is not possible because you have a DAST tool on the market. Go and purchase that. It will have your dashboard.  If you're a DevSecOps team, and you ask me I would like to see all of the reports uploaded and collaborated on the same dashboard of the particular product. This is the reason we are using an open-sourced vulnerable management tool.

We have been using HCL AppScan for almost four years.

We are not working with the most recent update, but with two versions earlier.

The HCL AppScan performance is both stable and reliable.

Burp Suite and HCL AppScan are both stable and reliable when compared to other products.

Scalability is a question that is determined by how you allocate your hardware. It is all about how you design your CICD program with HCL AppScan. 

Scalability is quite simple to implement or achieve. Again, this is entirely dependent on your business requirements. Generally, or in short, scalability is not an issue with HCL AppScan.

This solution is used daily.

We have contacted technical support when we need customization, and there are usually other bugs and day-to-day life hacks.

The support has improved since the transition from IBM to HCL AppScan.

We are working with tools that are all related to application security, such as Qualys, SAST, DAST, open-sourced software scan, and penetration test tools. 

Some of the penetration test tools we work with are Burp Suite, and OWASP Zap which is an open-source product.

The initial setup with most of the products, particularly the Burp Suite and the HCL AppScan, is straightforward. The only difference is that when it is customized to your specific requirements, that is when the key part comes into play. We have to engage the professional services of the product team, or the vendor team, which is where the headache begins. That is a common challenge shared by the all vendor team.

Deployment and installation of AppScan take approximately three hours, or less than that if you have all of the necessary prerequisites, hardware, a database, and everything is in place, then three hours is all you need.

We put our application into maintenance mode during the version upgrade.

We require one person for the administration of this product.

When customization is required, we have assistance from the vendor time.

Most of the HCL AppScan installations are customized. We use Pure Vanilla or a new malware product.

With the features, that they offer, and the support, they offer, AppScan pricing is on a higher level. 

They should reduce it slightly. But, in my opinion, it's not a big deal. If a tool is able to satisfy all your requirements, it doesn't matter, the cost is not a deciding factor.

There are no additional fees in addition to the licensing fee.

We looked into it and decided on two open-source vulnerable management products. We are currently conducting a proof-of-concept on those open source vulnerable management tools.

We are just looking into these open sources and experimenting with them. As a result, this is the first time we intend to incorporate this vulnerable management tool into our world.

We are looking for vulnerability management, purely for vulnerability management, that can collect reports from SAST, DAST, and other scan results and use them in the management dashboard.

Before you choose a tool, whether it is Burp Suite, AppScan, or any other tool, you must first construct your business requirements, or the business use case. And you must detail out all of the product's features, as well as map the features to the business use cases. If the product meets or exceeds the majority of the business use cases, then you only need to choose that product. Otherwise, you will end up customizing the product after you buy it, which will create issues in terms of engaging with the professional services of that specific vendor. Then there's the matter of time and money. 

Detail all of your business use cases, then map those use cases to the product feature list and choose the product.

We have a business relationship with AppScan, as customers, and some of our business partners have project outsourcing with IT companies, such as HCL, IBM, Dell, and Infosys.

I would rate HCL AppScan a nine out of ten.

It depends on the application, but it's generally a very user-friendly tool. Anyone can easily learn how to scan and boost their security.  

It's very accurate, although there might be a few false positives, but you can configure those out.

In future releases, I would like to see more aggressive reports. I would also like to see less false positives. 

There is room for improvement in pricing as well. 

Also, support for mobile apps would be better. Right now, we're only using it for web applications.

I've used AppScan for four years now.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

It is a scalable product. I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The customer service and support are very user-friendly. They'll send meetings whenever we need them, respecting our valuable time. They'll do their best to resolve our problems.

Positive

I used Fortify WebInspect in my previous company. They were more manual and time-consuming, and we often got more false positives. The result was very vast, and we needed to find everything and check over and over. We didn't find it very user-friendly.  

Fortify WebInspect was okay, but not as good. If we get the same result, it takes more time to understand the output and how to remediate it. It leaks more time. We need to reduce time nowadays and get things done.

AppScan is much faster and more reliable.  

We also used Burp Suite before, which was also user-friendly and allowed for manual testing. It's good for auto-mesh, but it takes longer and doesn't offer as much satisfactory results.

It is easy to implement and set up for users.

The pricing is good. We had two licenses, and we were offered good discounts. 

It's user-friendly and easy to install and analyze results. The solution also provides clear explanations and recommendations in the output, which is very helpful. I highly recommend it.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I use HCL AppScan in my company for application security scanning.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is good to run the scan faster. You can basically run the scan and take a break at work since the tool will compute the results, which makes the product quite intuitive. HCL AppScan doesn't require constant monitoring.

Maybe having some APIs could be helpful. If HCL AppScan is able to alert the clients over email once the scan is complete, it would be great. Right now, HCL AppScan doesn't let me know if the scanning part is finished or not, because of which I have to come back and check mostly. It would be helpful if the tool had some API gateway that would allow me to run some custom queries.

I have been using HCL AppScan for around four months. My company is a customer of HCL AppScan.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

Around 20 people in my company use HCL AppScan.

The solution's technical support is good. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup or installation of HCL AppScan is easy.

Maybe two or three hours are required to deploy, install, and configure the product.

About seven or eight engineers and architects may be required to deploy the product.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The price of HCL AppScan is okay, in my opinion. You just buy HCL AppScan and don't pay anything anymore, meaning it is just a one-time purchase.

Once we get the updates for HCL AppScan, another team in my company takes care of the installation of the new updates, which takes about half a day.

I would tell those who plan to use HCL AppScan that it is a helpful and beginner-friendly product.

I rate the overall product a ten out of ten.

I use the tool to find system information for penetration testing and ethical hacking.

The solution is easy to use. It is useful for finding basic information about systems.

The product has some technical limitations. Finding critical things with the solution is difficult because most organizations update their systems. We find the product vulnerabilities manually.

I have been using the solution for four years.

I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the scalability a five out of ten. The solution is not enough for our needs. We are testing more than 50 companies with the solution. The largest company has more than 10,000 employees. We are planning to increase the number of users of the solution.

The initial setup is not difficult. I rate the ease of setup a seven out of ten.

It took us five minutes to install the solution. We need four engineers to maintain the solution.

I rate the solution’s pricing a five out of ten.

I am using the latest version of the solution. We usually perform ethical hacking using Burp Suite. The solution will be more advanced if it can be developed using ChatGPT. I would recommend the solution to others because it is the most famous web scanner. Overall, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

The tool should improve its output. Scanning is not a challenge anymore since there are many such tools available in the market. The product needs to focus on how its output is being used by end users. It should be also more user-friendly. One of the major challenges is in the tool's integration with applications that need to be scanned. Sometimes, the scanning is not proper. 

I have been working with the solution for more than five years. 

I would rate the tool's stability a seven out of ten. The product's stability is fine if you have admin access. However, you may face issues during intense scanning. 

The product's technical support is not good. 

Neutral

The solution is easy to install. I would rate the product's setup between six to seven out of ten. The deployment time depends on the applications that need to be scanned. We have a development and operations team to take care of the product's maintenance. 

We did  the product's deployment in-house. 

I would rate the product's pricing a nine out of ten. The product's pricing is expensive compared to the features that they offer. 

I would rate the product a three out of ten. We use the solution only for quarterly scanning. There are better tools in the market at the same price. These tools can integrate more with applications. The tool's providers don't invest in making a good product. Hence, it is better to use a different tool. 

We primarily use the solution for static scans as well as dynamic scans to check for vulnerabilities. 

The scanning is quite good. It's good for helping us seek out vulnerabilities and fixing hot spots. 

The pricing is fine. 

It's on a managed cloud, and that makes it very easy. It's straightforward to use.

The solution has been stable, and we haven't really had downtime. 

It's stable. 

Technical support is helpful.

I do not have any notes for improvements. 

They should have a better UI for dashboards. It would be nice to have visualizations such as pie charts. This would help administrators and be more of a value-add. 

I've been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. We haven't had any downtime. I'd rate it eight out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

I'm not directly working to scale the solution. I don't know how well it extends. 

We have many people in our organization on the product. 

I've contacted technical support in the past. We have dedicated Slack channels, and we can easily open tickets with them for troubleshooting. They are fast and knowledgeable. 

Positive

I also use SonarQube. We also use SonarQube for code quality.

We did not previously use any other solution.

We do not have to manage the setup. It is a managed cloud offering. There is no implementation process. We just need to upload the applications. It doesn't take any time at all. Everything is automatic. 

The cost is okay. It's not overly expensive. 

We do not have to continuously pay for a license. 

I'm not sure of the exact version I'm using. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. It's pretty straightforward to use, and we like that it is a managed cloud. 

This is a primarily application security testing solution.

SAST is the only feature that works using the on-prem version. It's becoming very difficult for us to integrate it with the other SecOps solutions. It is a very good solution but only when using the standard version.

We have experienced challenges when trying to integrate this solution with other products. When you compare it with the other SecOps products, the quality of the output is too low. It is not a new-age product. It is very outdated.

The weaknesses of this solution include integration ability, the interface and the quality of the output. It lacks a lot of features if you compare it with Fortify, Veracode or Coverity. It is not possible to integrate with the CI/CD pipeline as cloud-native functionalities are not supported. 

We have been using this solution for one year. 

This is a stable solution. 

This solution is not scalable due to its inability to integrate with other solutions. 

Initially, we had a lot of hiccups and we logged a lot of cases with them. The support we received was okay.

Neutral

We are evaluating other options like Fortify and Checkmarx. We have worked with Fortify before. The advantage of this solution over HCL is its cloud setup. It is a solution that integrates well with other products. It also provides less false positives. Our main use case is that it should easily integrate with the CI/CD pipeline. The second requirements is that it should be easily integrate with the developer environment. These were the two main things which HCL AppScan does not provide.

The initial setup is not straightforward. It involved a couple of tweaks and changes within the environment itself. A couple of reinstallations were also required for us to get it working. It was not a click-and-run kind of a product.

Pricing was the main reason that we went ahead with this solution as they were the lowest in the market.

Overall performance of this solution is not terrible but it does not offer new age features. If you want to integrate with other solutions or complete testing in the cloud, this is not the right solution. I would advise others considering this solution to complete a proper proof of concept or to run a pilot before implementing it.

I would rate this solution a three out of ten.