HCL AppScan Reviews

I used the solution to find vulnerabilities in our website and system. I did some regular checkups.

The UI was very intuitive. It was very easy to understand. It was very easy to scan the websites, see the results, and deliver them to higher management.

It would have been better if we could use it on our desktop. A desktop version should be added.

I had used the solution for one month.

The tool was very stable. I rate the tool’s stability a seven or eight out of ten. Very few people were using the tool in our organization. The stability could have been affected if there were more users.

We had a few users.

We have used solutions like Acunetix. HCL was better. The UI was pretty good. It was intuitive, easy to understand, and reliable.

The installation was easy for me. It took a few hours. A senior employee helped me deploy the tool. The solution was deployed on the cloud.

The tool was expensive. We paid a monthly license fee. There were no additional costs associated with the product.

Someone who wants to use the solution must know why they need the solution. It is quite expensive. We must not spend much on something we do not need. If we have a need and can afford the solution, HCL is a good solution. It is very easy to understand. It has a lot of features. The reporting system is good. Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

We use the solution to test our web applications and services.

The security and the dashboard are the most valuable features.

The pricing has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for eight years.

I give the stability a seven out of ten.

I give the scalability an eight out of ten.

The support is fine.

Neutral

I give the initial setup a seven out of ten. The implementation took a few weeks.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We have seen around a 50 percent return on investment.

HCL AppScan is expensive.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

I recommend the solution to others.

We have around 4,000 end users.

I have a set project, and I'm writing an application for monitoring server status, and I tried several times to scan it with AppScan in order to understand if there are vulnerabilities in my code.

The dynamic scan, the DAST tool, dynamic applications scanning and testing tool, is great.

It was easy to set up.

It's a stable solution.

The product is easy to scale. 

The solution is affordable and reasonably priced.

The performance could be better. Sometimes it doesn't work so well. There's a tool for connecting the cloud with the application server. Sometimes it doesn't work really well.

I have not come across any missing features. 

I've been using the solution for six months. It's been less than a year so far. 

The solution has been stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

So far, we've found the solution can scale well.

I've reached out to support in the past. They are pretty good, however, they are also working from India, and I'm in Italy. There is a delay of course when I open a ticket. We have to wait a bit due to the time shift.

We did not previously use a different solution. This was our first. 

The initial setup is pretty simple and straightforward. It's not an overly complex or difficult process. 

It took about one day to deploy the solution.

I handled the initial setup on my own. I did not ask for help from any consultants or integrators. 

I actually pay for tokens. Any time that I want to perform scanning, I have to pay for another token. It's pretty good for me, this system, as it's really, really nice when I need it. I just need to pay for it, and that's it.

We are end-users.

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten.

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.

I use it for my customers. 

Improvement can be done as per customer requirements.

I have been using HCL AppScan for some time. 

The technical support is good. 

Positive

The initial setup took one to two days. 

The solution is cheap. 

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

HCL AppScan efficiently scans through the website and identifies vulnerabilities for AWS. It is reducing tools day by day, making it more efficient. 

HCL AppScan generates false results. Sometimes, it incorrectly identifies requests as vulnerable when they are not vulnerable. In the ADSL feature managed, the primary objective is to identify application security vulnerabilities. However, sometimes AppScan wrongly flags something as a vulnerability when it's not present, which we call a false positive.

I have been using HCL AppScan for nine years.

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

The solution is scalable if required.

Customer support is helpful. 

Positive

There is a licensing partner. Sometimes, it is required to install a server. I must remove that license and then eject a new one on a different server. It becomes a bit harder for beginners if they do not have enough experience to install Zoho software.

Deployment takes around an hour, and one person can do it.

I rate the initial setup a six and a half out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The tool is not cost-efficient. Considering the type of service with encryption security scanning from HCL AppScan, it drives up the cost unnecessarily. It is fairly priced.

There are some very cost-effective solutions out there. They are also very efficient for systems scanning.

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

I use the tool to scan the web interface.

Compared to other tools only AppScan supports special language.

The solution needs to improve in some areas. The tool needs to add more languages. It also needs to improve its speed.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution has dedicated and good tech support. We can open a ticket and we get information within two hours. Once we open a ticket we get validation or confirmation of our problem. When we get to the specialist, we will get more information.

Positive

I would rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

I mainly use AppScan for vulnerability scanning and database bridging.

AppScan is too complicated and should be made more user-friendly.

I've been using HCL AppScan for three to four years.

AppScan is stable.

AppScan is scalable.

HCL's technical support is ok, but it could be faster and more responsive.

The initial setup was complex and took about a day and a half.

I would rate AppScan four out of ten.