OpenText Static Application Security Testing Reviews

Fortify SAST performs static code analysis, which means it reviews the source code or compiled binary code without executing the application. This helps in identifying vulnerabilities, coding errors, and security issues within the codebase.
Fortify SAST supports a wide range of programming languages, including popular ones like Java, C/C++, C#, Python, and more. This broad language support makes it suitable for various development environments.

It comes with a comprehensive set of security rules and patterns to identify vulnerabilities, including issues related to OWASP Top Ten, CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration), and other industry standards

Fortify integrates with various development environments and tools, such as IDEs (Integrated Development Environments) and CI/CD pipelines. This allows developers to scan code seamlessly.

The generation of false positives should be reduced. Although it provides mechanisms to help reduce false positives, ensuring that the reported vulnerabilities are genuine security concerns.

I have been using Fortify Static Code Analyzer for a few years. 

It is a stable solution but the stability of Fortify SAST can depend on the hardware and network infrastructure it's running on. Make sure your infrastructure meets the system requirements recommended by Micro Focus.

Properly train your development and security teams on how to use Fortify SAST effectively. Knowledgeable users are more likely to obtain stable and accurate results.

It is scalable, can handle large codebases, and is suitable for projects of varying sizes, from small applications to complex enterprise-level software.

The technical support team is decent. 

Setting up Fortify Static Application Security Testing (SAST) involves several steps to ensure that the tool is correctly configured and integrated into your development workflow say for instance Installation, License Activation, User Access and Permissions, Integration with Development Environment, Project Configuration, Custom Rules and Policies, etc.

The initial setup is very easy, have used the enterprise version and a standalone version. The enterprise version definitely takes an ample amount of time to deploy because it needs to have a server along with other logistics in place along with a proper RBAC. The enterprise version would take an ample amount of time, but the standard version is just a few clicks.

A team of four to five people is required for the maintenance and frequent updates are required to keep all the signatures up to date. 

I would rate the setup a nine out of ten. 

Fortify SAST is a valuable tool for organizations committed to ensuring the security of their software applications. It helps prevent security vulnerabilities from making their way into production code, reducing the risk of data breaches and other security incidents. However, the effectiveness of Fortify SAST depends on proper configuration, rule selection, and integration into the development process.

I would rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

I make use of this solution every day in my current position. I have experience in its installation and troubleshooting and always ensure I am up to date with their latest releases. 

We use this solution to run and scan SQL code. 

I like the Fortify taxonomy as it provides us with a list of all of the vulnerabilities found. Fortify release updated rule packs quarterly, with accompanying documentation, that lets us know what new features are being released. The GUI is really easy to navigate through and is very user-friendly.

The troubleshooting capabilities of this solution could be improved. This would reduce the number of cases that users have to submit. CyberRes is a partner I rely on as a first resource if I can't find the answer I need in documentation on Google. The information directly from Fortify is limited.

I have been using this solution for seven years. 

This is a stable solution. When I first started using Fortify, my desktop at work did not having enough RAM. It would take me 10 to 12 hours to do a scan.

There is an installation guide that I've used many times. First, you need to make sure that your server has the right operating system, version, amount of space, and the correct version of Java installed. You also need to ensure you have the right version of specific databases. This will ensure that the backend is compatible with Oracle, MySQL, SQL Server and Postgres. 

The installation is very easy because it is self-explanatory. Updates are also easy to manage once rule packs are released.

The licensing is expensive and is in the 50K range.

This is an excellent product and but is not for the faint at heart. You will need to be willing to learn and take the time to get to grips with how it works. I like it compared to some of the other static codes that I've used in the past.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We use Fortify Static Code Analyzer to analyze our code for security vulnerabilities. It helps us identify and address potential issues, ensuring our software is secure.

Fortify Static Code Analyzer's most valuable features are its ability to provide best practices for fixing code and its examples and capabilities to address security problems in the code. It effectively identifies security vulnerabilities by analyzing the code and offering insights on improving it.

False positives need improvement in the future. Fortify's vulnerability remediation guidance helps improve code security, but I think they need to improve the focus of the solution, as it still

Contains many bugs and needs a thorough review.

I have been using Fortify Static Code Analyzer for the past three months.

For stability, I would rate it as an eight out of ten. The stability has been reliable since using this solution, and I haven't encountered any issues.

I would rate the scalability of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as seven out of ten. It is easy to scale, but on-premises cases require scaling the server to deploy it.

About ten to twenty users in my company are using Fortify Static Code Analyzer once a month. We do not plan to increase its usage in the future.

I don't work with the support directly, and I have only seen the results of their intervention, which are satisfactory.

Positive

Before using the Fortify Static Code Analyzer, I used Sonar. We switched because Fortify was better at fixing issues. We didn't evaluate other vendors and went straight with Fortify.

It took about fifteen minutes to deploy Fortify. I would rate the initial setup of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as eight out of ten, as it was relatively easy to set up. 

I rate the pricing of Fortify Static Code Analyzer as a seven out of ten since it is a bit expensive.

For someone considering Fortify Static Code Analyzer, I'd recommend checking other options like Checkmarx, as it might be a better fit depending on their use case. 

Overall, I would rate the product a five out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is to analyze the security of our software applications during the development cycle. We use it to identify vulnerabilities and potential security issues before deploying the applications into production. Our environment comprises various software development projects, ranging from web applications to internal tools.

The solution has significantly improved our organization's security posture by helping us identify and address vulnerabilities early in development. It has reduced the risk of security breaches and helped us build more secure software products. However, upgrading the solution has been challenging due to database compatibility issues.

The most valuable features include its ability to detect vulnerabilities accurately and its integration with our CI/CD pipeline. These features enable us to automate security testing and quickly identify issues, allowing us to fix them before deployment.

The product could be improved by upgrading and compatibility with databases such as MySQL. Streamlining the upgrade process and enhancing compatibility would make it easier for us to keep our security tools up-to-date.

Enhancing integration with ticket management systems like Jira in the next release would facilitate issue tracking and resolution.

We have been using Fortify Static Code Analyzer for approximately eight years.

The solution has been stable overall, with minimal disruptions to our development process.

The product has good scalability, allowing us to analyze code across various projects and scale as our development needs grow.

There is room for improvement in the technical support services in terms of responsiveness and proactive assistance.

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward for basic installation and configuration. However, we encountered complexities during the upgrade process, particularly database compatibility issues.

While it's challenging to quantify the exact ROI, the solution has helped us prevent potential security breaches and mitigate risks, which ultimately contributes to our organization's overall ROI.

The setup costs and pricing for Fortify may vary depending on the organization's needs and requirements.

We did evaluate other options before choosing this solution. However, Fortify stood out due to its comprehensive feature set and reputation in the industry.

Fortify Static Code Analyzer has been a valuable tool for our organization's security efforts. However, organizations should be prepared to invest time and resources in managing and upgrading the solution to maximize its effectiveness.

We use the tool for web-based applications. 

Integrating the Fortify Static Code Analyzer into our software development lifecycle was straightforward. It highlights important information beyond just syntax errors. It identifies issues like password credentials and access keys embedded in the code.

I have integrated the solution with GitLab, Jira, and ITSM. 

The product shows false positives for Python applications. 

I haven't customized many rules, but some customizations that have been applied have been particularly useful in our pipeline. For instance, if our application is found to be very vulnerable, we don't proceed with deployment. We utilize static analysis, and the pipeline is halted until the vulnerabilities are addressed. Similarly, I've applied this approach in Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Checkmark SCA to stop the execution pipeline for highly vulnerable applications.

I utilize validation in the code to manage false positives in the results. In this case, the application helps identify false positives, and I spend extra time validating them. 

I would recommend Fortify Static Code Analyzer for .NET applications and not for Python ones. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

Fortify Static Code Analyzer is used for scanning the container image, such as Kubernetes or Docker, and its main role is to do the static security analysis.

Fortify Static Code Analyzer tells us if there are any security leaks or not. If there are, then it's notifying us and does not allow us to pass the DevOps pipeline. If it is finds everything's perfect, as per our given guidelines, then it is allowing us to go ahead and start it, and we are able to deploy it. 

Fortify Static Code Analyzer is a good solution, but sometimes we receive false positives. If they could reduce the number of false positives it would be good.

The solution could be more user-friendly. You have the CLI for business people sometimes, we are not able to give a good overview. Generally, the business people you choose would want to see the dashboard.

I have used Fortify Static Code Analyzer within the last 12 months.

The stability of Fortify Static Code Analyzer.

Fortify Static Code Analyzer is scalable. However, they could improve. The time it takes to scale could improve. 

We have 30,000 employees in my company and 20 percent of the company is using the solution.

I rate the support for Fortify Static Code Analyzer a four out of five.

We have a team that did the implementation of the solution.

The price of Fortify Static Code Analyzer could be reduced.

We are looking for a different solution.

My advice for others is to look for other solutions before you choose  Fortify Static Code Analyzer.

I rate Fortify Static Code Analyzer an eight out of ten.

We usually run the product through the pipelines through GitLab, CICD, or Jenkins pipelines. I'm currently experimenting with AWS CodePipeline right now with integrating those types of tools into the pipeline.

We write software, and therefore, the most valuable aspect for us is basically the code analysis part. It's mostly used for the software that we actually write and we use it to identify whatever it is that we're looking for, whether it's the bugs or the technical data and so forth.

The setup is pretty easy.

The solution is pretty stable.

We use several other tools. We also use SonarQube. If one tool does not meet our requirements, I kind of implement another. We actually use SonarQube and Fortify together as the tools that we use to do the static code and dynamic testing, and also for security. You combine various tools in a pipeline to verify the code. Basically, it's not necessarily a standalone solution. You need to work with others to get what you need. 

It comes with a hefty licensing fee. We get around it by leveraging SonarQube, which is free. We're trying to get plugins now for SonarQube to match what Fortify could do. It would be ideal if it also had some sort of open-source version we could use.

I've been dealing with the solution for maybe almost two years or so.

The stability is good. I'm not running into anything that gives me a problem as far as my pipelines are concerned. I'm okay with it. I haven't really dug into a deep dive with it, however, for what I use it for, is sufficient, and I get the results that I'm looking for. 

I haven't really dealt with technical support. Anything that I can't solve, I can Google. Then there's also the exchange code area. Usually, you find your answers if somebody has run into something, or if I run into something. If I can't find any answers, I would of course reach out to support, however, so far, that hasn't been necessary.

We also use SonarQube in tandem with this product. SonarQube is primarily a static code analyzer, and then Fortify was made more for the security side. With the new plugins that go into SonarQube, it's trying to catch up with Fortify. I have the same from the opposite side, asFortify has a different use case that we use it for.

SonarQube is trying to be just as efficient as Fortify with what Fortify can do, via the extensions that you can put in. However, when you get that extension that matches Fortify, it's kind of like SonarQube becomes more of a paid product at that point, however, even then, it's not near the price point that Fortify is.

Everything is basically straightforward with the setups. Most of the static code is actually done by SonarQube, however, we run it through Fortify afterward. However, due to the large license fee, we need to find workarounds like this.

The licensing is extremely expensive.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. I can't recall the exact version number off-hand. 

I deal with the dev-ops engineers. We usually go for items that are cost-effective. If you've got the money for the license, then it's definitely a good solution to have. We have it at a higher level platform, however, I only use it at a certain level for our development environment. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. It's a great product, however, it's a bit expensive. 

I work for a company that implements these solutions for customers. So, we've got it everywhere. I've done implementations that are very simple and are developer workstation-based or security analyst desktop-based. We also have implementations all the way up through their big kahuna, which is decentralized and automated scanning.

Its flexibility is most valuable. It is such a flexible tool. It can be implemented in a number of ways. It can do anything you want it to do. It can be fully automated within a DevOps pipeline. It can also be used in an ad hoc, special test case scenario and anywhere in between.

I know the areas that they are trying to improve on. They've been getting feedback for several years. There are two main points. The first thing is keeping current with static code languages. I know it is difficult because code languages pop up all the time or there are new variants, but it is something that Fortify needs to put a better focus on. They need to keep current with their language support.

The second thing is a philosophical issue, and I don't know if they'll ever change it. They've done a decent job of putting tools in place to mitigate things, but static code analysis is inherently noisy. If you just take a tool out of the box and run a scan, you're going to get a lot of results back, and not all of those results are interesting or important, which is different for every organization. Currently, we get four to five errors on the side of tagging, and it notifies you of every tiny inconsistency. If the tool sees something that it doesn't know, it flags, which becomes work that has to be done afterward. Clients don't typically like it. There has got to be a way of prioritizing. There are a ton of filter options within Fortify, but the problem is that you've got to go through the crazy noisy scan once before you know which filters you need to put in place to get to the interesting stuff.

I keep hearing from their product team that they're working on a way to do container or docker scanning. That's a huge market mover. A lot of people are interested in that right now, and it is relevant. That is definitely something that I'd love to see in the next version or two.

I have been using this solution for ten years.

It is fairly stable. I haven't experienced any real catastrophic or fundamental flaws with it since version 19.10. This was the last one that had a real major flaw that needed hotfixes quickly.

It is super scalable. That's definitely a bright spot.

With a solution like this, the number of users varies so much. We typically try to build a program with a client where there is a small team operating the tool. They typically just automate it and plug it into their DevOps pipeline, but the entire development organization consumes the results and does the work. There is the infrastructure management side to keep the solution updated and make sure the infrastructure is running, and then there are security analysts who are tweaking the filters, writing custom rules, and doing this kind of stuff to further advance the program using the tool.

I started working with Fortify in 2011. In the last couple of years, we've branched out and started exploring other solutions, mostly because of our customers' requests. However, we're still not seeing the same level of advancement and ability with some of the other solutions.

We've gone down the route of evaluating Checkmarx and implementing Checkmarx with a few of our clients. It went okay, but it is not stellar. We're right in the midst of evaluating and onboarding the Synopsys toolset. I will have more input on that in about a month or so.

It can be very simple. It could be simple as a desktop installation or just a VM install. It could also be complicated if you're going for their full distributed scanning model, which is their scan central.

It has a couple of license models. The one that we use most frequently is called their flexible deployment. We use this one because it is flexible and based on the number of code-contributing developers in the organization. 

It includes almost everything in the Fortify suite for one developer price. It gives access to not just the secure code analyzer (SCA) but also to FSC, the secure code. It gives us accessibility to scan central, which is the decentralized scanning farm. It also gives us access to the software security center, which is the vulnerability management platform.

I would advise others to definitely do their homework in planning. It is not something where you just open the box and go. There needs to be some foresight, some planning, and a lot of input from various stakeholders. You got to talk to your infrastructure team and make sure that you have suitable hardware for this in order for it to perform at its peak.

I would rate Fortify Static Code Analyzer an eight out of ten.

The solution has been quite stable over the years.

We've found the documentation to be very good.

When there are issues, there is a lot of explanation about what they are and how to solve problems. Communication is very clear. 

The pricing is a bit high. 

We have not enough for really sharing between with editor. Therefore, we have to use an older version of a product.

We've used the solution for 12 or so years at this point. It's been well over a decade. We've used it for quite a while.

The stability of the solution is pretty good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's pretty reliable. 

Technical support is good. When we put in requests, we get feedback and results. Older requests get treated with priority, and newer requests go into a queue. 

The pricing of the solution is a bit high. It would be nice if it was more competitive.

While we do want to continue to use the product, we want to negotiate with Microsoft about the licensing. in the meantime, we will likely evaluate a few other options.

We're just an end-user and a customer. We don't have a business relationship with Fortify.

We are not using the latest version of the solution right now. We're waiting for the Fortify version with PCI DSS 4.0.

I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten.