Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management Reviews

I have been working on Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for the last four years. I used Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for multiple purposes, working in both infrastructure security and application security. The inventory was huge because the client I was working for is one of the biggest mining industries in the world, with an inventory count of almost 300,000 to 400,000 applications and more than 10,000 to 12,000 infrastructure assets. The infrastructure was quite large and very systematically organized.

I was working for a company whose client was this mining industry, so I am a third party to the end client.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is good enough to differentiate different kinds of assets, whether applications, computers, or servers. There are categories to differentiate all of them, making it easier to manage this kind of infrastructure.

One thing that I particularly liked about Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is that it has a very broad classification of different kinds of assets, which is very helpful to manage. The ticketing functionality that it has to manage all these kinds of infrastructure makes it easier to work on different kinds of problems that these large inventories face. It is mostly scalable and quite a good option.

The inventory count was really huge, and doing it manually or using other options would have been difficult. We considered ServiceNow at that time, which was a good option. However, having real-time scanning and all those things in one single solution makes Qualys always the best option. Getting different kinds of modules and inventory in one solution is good enough.

TruRisk scoring was enabled, and we had integrated ServiceNow with Qualys. All findings from Qualys used to go into ServiceNow, where we had our own scoring system. For example, if an asset is critical to the organization and has a risk scoring as critical but is also exposed to the internet, we would have two different kinds of risk scores. We did not consider directly using the Qualys TruRisk score but instead used custom scores of our own, which worked well enough.

I deployed a few Cloud Agents on both Linux and Windows machines for scanning purposes. It was a cloud-based SaaS solution.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management has been satisfactory to me as of now. However, if the user interface might be changed, that would be better.

I have been working on Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for the last four years.

ServiceNow was one solution that we were trying at that time, and it was a good option.

Earlier, we were four team members, and later on, mostly two to three of us used to be engaged in the kind of work that was needed on a regular basis. Otherwise, almost 70 to 80 percent of the time is saved using this solution.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is moderately good, while Rapid7 is slightly much better. However, if you are asking about multiple kinds of services and which vendor offers the best in terms of multiple services, Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is better in that regard. For accessibility, Rapid7 is better.

If companies implement it, it is always good. I am satisfied with the current offering.

My overall review rating for this solution is 8 out of 10.

I use Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for management, cycle life, analysis, cataloging, enumeration, classification, and remediation.

I am using Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for managing assets with Qualys and CMDB, along with business intelligence for classification and extraction for information classification. I analyze this data with TruRisk score to understand the impact on business and risk classification.

I use Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for looking at the network with a focus on Shadow IT. I examine network devices across the network using TruRisk score for criticality, classification, risk assessment, and cycle life in remediation.

I use Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for metrics to check the timeline for resolution of problems. With RSC and classification of IT and devices, this represents the best practice of business. I use the metrics for resolutions to prioritize risk score for remediation, mitigation, classification, and reporting to the CISO and the board members.

I manage the cycle life with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management to make the work easier in practice.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management has excellent resources for asset management, and the C-SAM module is complete and powerful. It manages assets and their roles on the network, access, and classification.

The solution provides analysis and criticality with TruRisk score for management and Shadow IT detection. It creates visualization in the network for the business.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management delivers positive impact through organization management visualization and control for statistics on cycle life and remediation and mitigation in application standards and business rules, such as PCI DSS, and other filters with the PC module and classification in Qualys patch for remediation cycle life.

In the best practice for categorizing assets with the C-SAM module in Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, I see potential for improvement with integration of other CMDB systems in creating a relationship with Qualys and other solutions. I would like to see improvements in the criticality score and TruRisk, along with KDS and those classifications for analyzing the real risk impact for business, and in the periodic checking of devices and networking.

I have been using Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for three years.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is stable.

The scalability of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is acceptable and working well.

There are no problems with the customer support of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management.

Positive

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is the principal solution I use currently. However, in other organizations, I have used other solutions based on different CISO perspectives and administrative cultures.

Regarding return on investment, I first look at the reality of the environment and the decrease in critical vulnerabilities with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, which equals a positive return on investment.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is a perfect tool at a nine out of ten rating. A perfect tool does not exist, but I rate it a nine for its recurring increase in capability and the increase in expertise among Qualys specialists. The more expert the team, the better the results.

I work more in the organization in the on-premises environment with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management. I do not have difficulty, but it requires more organization for successful results. I am using only integration with AWS and Azure.

With specialists, I do not have concerns regarding price with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management. For me, it is only a matter of organization and the architecture implementation. My experience with Qualys is excellent. I would rate Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management a nine on a scale of one to ten.

My current use cases for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management involve hunting for software that is end of sale or end of life. I also use it to identify where prohibited software is installed on a device. For example, I identify if software that shouldn't be on an endpoint exists. That includes the vulnerabilities associated with certain software.

Improve software inventory capabilities

What I appreciate most about Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is the inventory feature, where I can look up assets, software, applications, open ports, and similar items because it's very useful. For example, with assets, I can see all the devices that have the protection installed and access one of these endpoints to see all the information about it. On the software side, I can see a list of all software installed on all my platforms, referring to all my endpoints that have the client installed.

The comprehensive approach that Qualys offers is beneficial because it includes the TruRisk score, which summarizes all vectors influencing the risk of an asset. For example, it highlights exploitations for certain vulnerabilities and provides all the links if they are available or public. Furthermore, the integrated Threat Intelligence platform within the interface allows me to see if there's a trend for certain vulnerabilities and check if I have that vulnerability on my platform.

One downside of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is that I would prefer to see a more interactive dashboard. For example, when I see unknown software in the inventory and try to get a list of assets with certain software, I have to go inside the software menu. If I could have something more interactive that doesn't require going inside multiple categories, it would help. Also, I think the filters should accept three or more queries together to get broader results. However, this could also be an issue stemming from my knowledge or lack thereof.

I have been using Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management in this company for at least one to two years, but the implementation has been around for three years.

I have experienced a couple of instances with lagging, but nothing substantial that impacts reporting. There may be some delays on the dashboard, but nothing affects the functionality of reporting vulnerabilities from the endpoint.

The scalability of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is significant because you can deploy it across physical endpoints, cloud enviroments and VDI using a configuration file. If someone uses Windows Server, they could use a GPO to deploy it. There are many options. I've seen large platforms with numerous endpoints and vulnerabilities, and that makes me think they have an impressive capability for handling large volumes, which is very scalable in my opinion.

I haven't contacted Qualys technical support or customer support because we have a team that possesses extensive information and they reach directly to the vendor.

Positive

In the past, I used some open-source solutions at another company, but I don't remember the name. I recalled using them occasionally, but they didn't have this kind of reach. The same principle applies; you install a client on the endpoint, and it reports to the server.

I find the initial deployment of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management overall easy, especially with support from the vendor and personnel who understand how to handle the integration and permissions with the firewall to allow traffic.

The initial deployment took around a month or possibly less to fully deploy Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for the first time, though I wasn't present during the implementation.

I don't have access to the pricing information, but I understand that Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is expensive compared to other brands or vendors, although the price is worth it.

I have the most experience with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, VMDR, and CSAM, as well as CA. Besides VMDR, I also used the Threat Intelligence model extensively.

Regarding the CMDB Sync feature, I learned about it just a couple of weeks ago. Although we don't have the implementation, we would find it useful to share information from Qualys, such as vulnerabilities and all devices, and track the person in charge of a certain device by creating a ticket.

The TruRisk score is a very useful feature, as it summarizes all the factors influencing the importance of a vulnerability concerning an asset or an endpoint. It helps with the prioritization of remediation.

We have both the passive sensor and the cloud agent. We use the cloud agent by installing it on the devices, while the passive sensor allows us to detect devices that don't have the protection and can't have the protection, for example, the networking devices.

We don't manage maintenance for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management as it depends on the vendor because they sometimes deploy updates and upgrades, but nothing is required on our end.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 7.

I primarily use it for a small, single-site, multi-source setup with multi-WAN inputs. I have a main fiber connection and a couple of failovers while managing different networks across different segments.

I really enjoy the flexibility of the interface setup configuration for my network VLANs, which makes it very easy to configure. When I'm doing multi-inputs with internet providers coming in, it's very easy to manage and set up with very little effort.

The technical support is super responsive; I generally get a response within an hour, two hours, or three hours. I've only had to contact them maybe two or three times for very minor issues, but there's no issue there. I think it's very responsive.

I think the one thing Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management can do better is the package management and the updating process. Knowing that you can't update any of the packages until you've done the actual operating system update can be a bit confusing. Beyond that, I don't have any major issues. There are generally some user interface updates and tweaks here and there, but that's a lower priority in my opinion.

I've been using it for about eight years in my career.

For stability, I would give it a 10; I have no issues there.

Scalability works well; I would say it's probably going to be a nine.

The technical support is super responsive; I generally get a response within an hour, two hours, or three hours. I've only had to contact them maybe two or three times for very minor issues. I think it's very responsive.

Positive

I've used Unifi primarily in the last couple of years, probably three years now, at a separate site. It's nice, but it's not nearly as configurable. Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management software's ability to do VPN, both with regard to Tailscale and OpenVPN, is really very easy to use, whereas Unifi is not ideal. Their security is open by default versus Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, which is closed, which is always going to be preferable.

For an entirely new site, the initial deployment would take some time to configure and set up. If you're coming from an existing setup or configuration, you effectively export the configuration, upload it, and make some minor updates. Even with the booting environments, it's easy in that if you make a mistake, you can go back or revert to an existing experience. It might take some time, but it's not overly complicated. I would say it requires minimal effort, especially if there's a plan in place ahead of what the structure will be.

One person can do this type of deployment, but you're going to need to be testing. Honestly, it's not nearly as complicated as a larger, more legacy offering, so I think it's very easy.

I'm not entirely sure about the pricing; I don't know.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management does require some maintenance on my end, such as manual updates in terms of releases. Checking those out, doing some testing, and confirming it looks good in a non-prod environment is not that complicated. Even again, if you do the boot states, it's easy to manage. They come out about every 12 months, and I know that's one thing against Netgate—that they're a little bit slower on development—but honestly, that's probably preferable because it's not constantly updating. My review rating for this product is 9.

We use it to gain complete visibility into our assets and monitor our security posture.

Our overall experience has been very good. It gives us a 360-degree view of our assets. It gives us the complete data such as the types of services running or applications installed. If an asset or software is end-of-life or end-of-support, it provides the status related to that. Apart from that, we get to know the ports and services that are running.

Previously, I did not have visibility over the complete inventory. Qualys CSAM gives me the complete inventory with the number of assets connected to the network. Based on the cloud agents that were deployed and remote scans, we can see the whole inventory in a single module. The CSAM module allows us to track the end-of-life or end-of-support status of the software on our assets. We get to know in advance that particular software is going to be end-of-life or end-of-support. Such a feature helps us to take action proactively.

It gives visibility into the domains or subdomains managed by my organization. I can track those very effectively. I can even perform lightweight scans which are completely managed or controlled by Qualys, unlike remote scans that are performed by the end user. It gives visibility into the vulnerabilities related to applications or assets on a real-time basis because these scans are performed once a day on a daily basis. With one click, the EASM module provides the domain names related to my organization. Qualys directly performs the scan and if any applications or assets are not in my CMDB because I missed updating the details, it highlights them, so I have complete visibility over my publicly exposed assets or applications.

It is able to discover different kinds of assets, such as web servers, DB servers, or application servers. It can identify network devices. I even have visibility over the devices managed by ISPs, and I am able to take action appropriately.

Asset tagging is one of the main features of the CSAM module. While creating asset tags or after creating asset tags, we can set the asset criticality. Based on the vulnerabilities identified in the assets, Qualys provides a detection or TruRisk scoring.

TruRisk scoring helps prioritize vulnerabilities and assets. This prioritization is very helpful for me. In an infrastructure with 300,000 assets, we might see millions of vulnerabilities in the assets. We need to prioritize vulnerability remediation because we cannot focus on remediating all the vulnerabilities at the same time. We can start with the assets that are critical in our organization. TruRisk scoring helps with that.

It makes us more secure and also helps us with our KPIs or KRI. We have had zero attacks since we enabled all the features in Qualys CSAM.

It fetches the asset details based on remote scans or the cloud agents that are deployed. With passive sensors, I am able to see the rogue assets that are passing through a particular switch wherever passive sensors are deployed. I can see what other assets are connected to the network. One of my goals is to identify the assets that are missing with the cloud agents so that I can get the cloud agents deployed and get them added to my asset inventory. Network devices obviously cannot be installed with the cloud agents, but at least I have visibility that these are the network devices, or these are the endpoints, or these are the servers, whereas rogue assets are a threat to the organization. They may even compromise other assets in the network, so with these passive sensors, I am getting complete visibility.

Even IoT devices can be scanned through these passive sensors. The passive sensors can read the configuration of the devices passing through a particular switch. Previously, I used to perform remote scans on IoT devices. This effort of performing the remote scan is minimized because these passive sensors are able to find the vulnerabilities related to any of the IoT devices by reading their configuration. This is another feature that is helping me as part of our operations.

The External Attack Surface Management (EASM) module, available within CSAM, is valuable. It helps track all the domains and subdomains related to our organization. It performs the discovery scans and provides the results of the domains or subdomains related to my organization. It also performs scans to identify any vulnerabilities, which helps to take proactive measures before those vulnerabilities are identified by any attacker.

The IoT or OT asset discovery feature is valuable. We can analyze the traffic that is passing through at the L2 switch level with the passive sensors. It provides information about any rogue asset connected to a switch or a network. We can see all the unmanaged or managed assets.

The ability to define a list of unauthorized software and create a rule to define software authorization is helpful. We have a diverse organization with a robust infrastructure of more than 300,000 assets. By creating unauthorized lists and rules in the Qualys CSAM module, I can block certain software from being used in the organization. When I create such a rule, I can see all the assets having unauthorized software installed. I can then immediately take action by blocking that asset or remotely uninstalling that particular software. Such actions can be taken directly from its interface when I have unauthorized software rules in place. This is an important and helpful feature for my organization.

The scanning function could be improved. Currently, in the EASM module, the scan frequency is limited to once daily, but allowing end users control over scan scheduling would be advantageous. Publicly exposed assets are very critical. If a remediation action is taken by the end-user or the auditor working on a vulnerability management program, that person must be given access to run the scan as and when required. This way they can immediately check whether that particular vulnerability is present or not.

Also, allowing more comprehensive scan configurations could be beneficial. The lightweight scan that it does is only based on the ports or services that are identified through the Discovery Scan. It would be helpful for the auditors to be able to run a more comprehensive scan.

Additionally, while downloadable asset information is available in the CSAM module, it lacks mapping of software to assets in a consolidated report format. For instance, if I want to download information about 100,000 assets along with the software mapped to those assets, this option is currently not available. If I download the SH details, it will have only the BIOS information, the serial number of the device, the hostname, the MAC address, and the IP address. Only these details are available. It does not give information about the software installed on those assets. The software mapping with assets is not given in a consolidated report. Enhancing this capability would elevate its usefulness.

I have been using the CSAM module for about four to five years. It was previously known as AssetView. We used AssetView for over 12 years and then shifted to using CSAM when it was introduced four to five years ago.

The platform is quite stable as it is able to handle data from various sources, such as cloud agents or the VMDR module. It has the EASM capability. It is pretty stable even though it holds a lot of data related to our assets or applications. I would rate it a ten out of ten for stability.

Scalability is impressive, supporting a myriad of features and substantial data from diverse modules. It offers a comprehensive view of asset management and is equipped to handle an extensive array of data efficiently.

Our organization has its presence in different geographical locations. We have about 300,000 assets installed with agents worldwide.

There are 50 to 60 people from the IT team and the information security team working with Qualys CSAM.

I am satisfied with their support. I would rate their customer support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I was using the AssetView module before migrating to Qualys CSAM. AssetView has very basic features. Other than the asset tagging feature, AssetView does not have other features available in Qualys CSAM, such as EOL detection and software version detection. 

Knowing the software version is very useful for me when any zero-day vulnerability is published. I can check the version of the software that is vulnerable to a zero-day CVE, and then with the Qualys CSAM module, I can see the assets that are using that particular vulnerable version. Without even performing the active scan, I can get visibility over the assets having vulnerable versions. I can then take the remediation action. This is the most important feature in the CSAM module as compared to AssetView. 

The initial setup was straightforward. Although I was not a part of the implementation team, I understand it did not take much time due to an efficient cloud agent deployment and network connectivity setup.

It does not require any maintenance from our side. There is almost zero-touch maintenance because it is a SaaS platform managed by Qualys itself. We might have to modify or create asset tags or dashboards. These are operational tasks that we might have to do on a regular basis. Other than that, no maintenance is required from our side.

The implementation involved a small team of about five to six members who collaborated with the Qualys vendor.

Though the solution is considered expensive, if bundled with other services such as VMDR or cloud agents, its value would significantly increase. It is currently a bit costly, but with bundling, it could become attractive to more customers.

I would highly recommend this solution to other users looking to enhance their asset inventory visibility. Asset inventory is the primary source of truth for any IT team or information security team. Qualys CSAM provides that visibility. With the integration of CMDB, you get even better visibility over the asset inventory. You also get EOL information about the assets and applications. These are the main reasons for recommending it. I am pretty happy with it.

I would rate Qualys CSAM a ten out of ten.

At our Android development company, Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management safeguards our development environment and digital assets, including sensitive codebases, APIs, databases, and cloud-based infrastructure. By continuously monitoring these assets, Qualys helps us detect vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and potential malware, protecting both our proprietary technology and client projects from threats like ransomware and malicious activity. Furthermore, it ensures compliance with industry standards through real-time insights and automated security patches, fostering trust between us and our valued customers.

Qualys Cybersecurity Asset Management offers comprehensive features to cover our entire attack surface. Its cloud-based platform provides full compliance management, ensuring infrastructures align with databases and standards. Cloud storage enables easy data retrieval and recovery. Additionally, it utilizes AI-powered features to monitor and manage security patches, enhancing overall security posture.

Qualys Cybersecurity Asset Management utilizes advanced deep neural networks and AI to identify previously undiscovered assets and threats, crucial to our company's security. We discovered an additional 120 assets with Qualys CSAM.

It has significantly enhanced our company's security by providing real-time visibility into all access points across our development ecosystems, improving vulnerability detection and risk management. This allows us to address security gaps quickly before they escalate into critical threats. The automated discovery of misconfigurations ensures continuous compliance with industry and government standards, reducing manual efforts and freeing our team to focus on innovation. This comprehensive approach has fortified our infrastructure, protecting sensitive code, client data, and cloud management from cyberattacks. Consequently, we have faced fewer security threats, allowing us to focus on other areas for improvement within the company.

The Asset Management helps us identify all risk factors, including vulnerabilities and malicious attacks, along with various other aspects of asset management.

This advanced cloud system utilizes APIs to connect and retrieve data, while passive sensors track the code bases of our applications.

Passive sensors hinder the real-time identification of potential risks, as they transmit real-time data and additional information with a delay. However, the system's speed, combined with AI, deep learning, and robotic process automation, enables efficient risk identification despite this limitation.

The most valuable feature is the real-time visibility Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management provides into all assets across our development and operational environments. As an app development company dealing with multiple platforms, servers, APIs, and mobile data, each becomes a significant target for cyber threats. 

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management ensures a comprehensive inventory of all assets, regardless of their distribution. This allows us to detect vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and outdated systems before they become security issues. The automated vulnerability scanning and patch management features, with automatic risk identification and remediation, are also invaluable. By reducing manual intervention, these features increase efficiency and allow our team to focus on other priorities.

There are a few areas Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management can improve. First, the UI needs improvement as it can become overwhelming after prolonged use. A more intuitive design with simplified navigation would be beneficial for all team members, especially beginners. 

Second, the reporting feature could offer more customizable templates and easier-to-digest visualizations. This would help in creating targeted reports for different stakeholders, such as technical teams and executives. 

Lastly, integration capabilities with third-party tools and platforms should be expanded. While some integrations are supported, more options like CI/CD pipelines, which are integral for app deployment, would be advantageous.

I have been using Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for one year.

I would rate the stability of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management ten out of ten.

Once we needed to contact their customer support, we received timely assistance. The support team was knowledgeable and offered a variety of quick resolution options. They also provided extensive documentation and access to community forums, allowing us to find solutions independently.

Positive

I previously evaluated Nessus, but while it offers effective vulnerability scanning, it lacked the comprehensive asset management and continuous monitoring capabilities necessary for expanding our application management system. We needed a solution that provided deeper visibility into our digital assets, including cloud infrastructure and mobile applications. 

Qualys offered a more integrated approach by combining vulnerability management, compliance checks, and real-time inventory in a single platform, simplifying processes, improving collaboration between development and security teams, and offering greater scalability.

The initial setup was smooth and easy to follow, aided by guidance from the Qualys team.

The deployment took three to four hours.

The implementation was performed with assistance from the Qualys team, who helped with platform configuration and integration into existing systems.

Our return on investment includes a significant reduction in security incidents, decreasing potential costs related to data breaches, system downtime, and compliance fines. This was achieved through streamlined vulnerability management, which reduced labor costs by approximately $109,000 annually. Additionally, enhanced client and company trust led to approximately $99,000 in new contracts. These improvements to our security infrastructure contributed to overall business growth of approximately 150 percent over the past year.

The pricing for Qualys Cybersecurity Asset Management is reasonable, with an annual subscription costing around $1,000 per year or a monthly subscription starting at approximately $72 per month, depending on the specific package and features included.

I would rate Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management eight out of ten.

We use Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management in six locations across the country.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management does not require any maintenance.

I would advise fostering security awareness through regular review and updates to security policies and protocols. Staying informed about other platforms is important, but Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is a fit for our company due to its reasonable cost, scalability, stability, and excellent integration and deployment features.

The asset management part is very simple and essential. When examining vulnerabilities on assets, having information about those assets is crucial. It is very difficult to see remediation options without knowing details about the asset, such as whether the operating system is end of life. The detections are excellent at finding Windows 11, Windows 10, and Windows Server, but they are not very effective with other systems. While you can have a CMDB, Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management was particularly effective because the information was available exactly where needed. This enables automation and quick access to necessary answers.

One of the significant challenges Qualys is discovery, which I know Microsoft excels at. I can't recall how well Qualys performs this function; it seems I might be missing some details. However, if there's one key aspect to focus on, it's discovery—the ability to identify assets that you are not aware of, even when you can see they are present. Understanding what those assets are is crucial.

With Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, it was very difficult to extract detections from the system. The features within Qualys are limited to what they have developed. Sometimes a complete overview is needed to push to a Power BI dashboard, Splunk, ServiceNow, or other platforms. The export process is incredibly challenging. We needed a developer to write a hundred-line Python script that would loop over certain assets due to export limitations.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management could improve its integration capabilities. While it generates substantial data, correlating it with other data sources can be challenging. The export process is difficult, and pre-built integrations with other tools could be enhanced for better process implementation.

As a consultant, my usage varied depending on the client, but I worked with it for approximately two years. I changed companies three months ago, and at my current workplace, we are not using Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management.

It is stable.

The solution is highly scalable, almost limitless. Being a cloud solution, it simply requires pointing to IPs for scanning.

The alternative solution I used was Tenable. I used to prefer Tenable, thinking of Qualys as the underdog. However, after working more with Qualys, I’ve come to appreciate it more. It's not because it’s more powerful or because it doesn’t have any issues or better features, but because it is more transparent.

Tenable is very easy to use, but it doesn’t provide a clear understanding of its inner workings. In contrast, Qualys can be more complex to use due to its numerous settings and the need for additional training, but at least it gives you a clearer idea of what it does. Comparing the two is challenging. Tenable is more powerful, but whether that power is necessary depends on your specific needs. I acknowledge that Tenable is more expensive, as it requires purchasing additional modules. Overall, Qualys is a great option.

I haven't been a part of the deployment. I've only been part of existing setups because I came in as a consultant for companies that already had it set up.

Learning it was quite straightforward due to the availability of free training materials, which Tenable does not offer as their training is very expensive. The learning curve was manageable as all necessary materials were provided to learn the required functionality.

At one client, there was an entire team dedicated to vulnerability management and Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management maintenance. While I focused on vulnerability management, implementing results, creating processes, and organizational implementation, they handled the tool maintenance. Based on this experience, I would estimate it requires significant maintenance, though my role was different from the maintenance team.

We are currently using a cheaper solution, and I sometimes get the feeling that our solution is less stable. When things go wrong and you don't get the expected results, it becomes very difficult to figure out why or what happened. I believe that the stability and reliability of Qualys offer great value for the money.

I don’t know the exact pricing. From what I understand, Qualys is a bit cheaper than Tenable but more expensive than some other solutions available. Overall, I think it’s one of the best options out there, although it is on the pricier side. Nevertheless, I believe its pricing is fair given the value it provides.

The vulnerability management aspect differs from penetration testing, which focuses on configurations rather than vulnerabilities. From a hacker's perspective, 'living off the land' involves exploiting existing configurations without utilizing vulnerabilities. This might include users having inappropriate access to files and folders, violating least privilege principles. Vulnerability scanners can detect CVEs but struggle with identifying misconfigurations or IT hygiene issues, which attackers can exploit.

Regarding CMDB and CSAM, they serve different purposes. External attack surface management focuses on domains and URLs owned by a company, while CSAM handles internal asset management. The EASM module can be valuable independently.

I would rate Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management an eight out of ten.

We're using EASM, though our implementation isn't optimal. We're currently working with Qualys to reconfigure it because we're seeing too many assets on the attack surface, more assets than we actually have.

For example, EASM indicates we have 700,000 assets on our attack surface. We know this isn't accurate because we only have 22,000 assets in total. There's a configuration problem creating too much noise, and we're working with Qualys to get that sorted to filter out the noise and focus on the real data.

We use this feature to convert already deployed Qualys Cloud Agents into passive sensors that detect assets connected to the network in real time. I don't have a way to measure its effectiveness. I have it enabled but cannot determine its value. This might be valuable feedback for Qualys regarding how clients can measure the value they're getting from this feature.

The TruRisk score helps me prioritize vulnerabilities and assets. The TruRisk score allows us to show where we have our highest risk. When an asset has a very high TruRisk score, it's easy to demonstrate to partners that an asset needs immediate remediation. However, when a TruRisk score is moderate or low and has vulnerabilities on the attack surface, it appears healthier than it is. Our partners might delay addressing these assets due to the lower score, despite their presence on the attack surface making them more vulnerable.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management enables us to identify end-of-life and end-of-support software.

The stability has decreased significantly on the product in the last couple of months. It takes considerable time to log into the product, and sometimes access is denied. Screens take long to load and occasionally crash. The product stability has notably declined over the last two months, and the performance to fulfill a page request is very slow compared to its previous performance.

Neutral

We primarily use it to collect asset information. Our primary value from it is in collecting on-premises assets, as well as the ability to tag those assets with custom tags. We are also using the external attack surface management portion a little bit. We have not fully operationalized it yet, but it looks intriguing.

Additionally, we are leveraging Qualys CSAM's capability to detect software and applications, as well as to identify unauthorized and authorized software in the environment.

From an inventory point of view, Qualys CSAM gets everything very well. We augment that with Qualys TotalCloud, so we get better insights into our cloud platform, but for our internal data centers, this is our source of truth for asset information.

Our favorite features are the tagging and the ability to quickly find assets in the portal. 

Additionally, I do like the fact that Qualys CSAM is integrated with the rest of our vulnerability scanning utilities. We use the full suite from Qualys. The fact that it is integrated makes it very easy to understand. It shares tagging information with VMDR. That is very nice.

Qualys CSAM has discovered assets not previously covered by our vulnerability management program. Primarily, if we have assets without vulnerabilities, they become less visible, but Qualys CSAM alerts us to them because they have IP addresses and are attached to our network. It could discover everything from printers to servers to endpoints. It could discover UPSs, network devices, and across all operating systems. It discovers our security badge readers and digital signage. We have to feed that the IP address ranges, but beyond that, it finds everything in our internal network.

We were able to realize its benefits within the first quarter of installing it. We did have to take some time to learn it and understand how to operationally leverage what it was telling us, but it was very quick.

In addition to vulnerabilities, Qualys CSAM helps identify other risk factors to a degree. For instance, we can see if servers or assets have incorrect naming standards. We have our network segmented into development model, test, and production, and we have server naming standards that identify which management they should be in. If a production server has the naming standard of a development model server, we can find that. That is one area we have used it for.

We are not fully using TruRisk, but we are using the Qualys detection score that is central to our corporate risk prioritization approach. It has completely replaced our homegrown one.

Some areas that would be helpful are more comprehensive tagging and the ability to set up better dynamic rules. 

Also, in the area of software categorization, having only three categories (approved, unapproved, unknown) is limiting. We would prefer more options, such as 'approved only for pilot' or 'approved for this line of business,' allowing for better granularity in categorizing software.

They do not yet have a built-in integration with the service management tool that we use. We do not use ServiceNow. We use a different one. We are using a product called Symphony Summit.

We started using it probably about a year and a half ago. It became operational around mid-2023.

We have encountered very little instability. I have subscribed to their update notifications, and I love getting the release notes because there is always something new in there that is exciting. They are constantly adding capabilities. I love that. It is a bit challenging to keep up at times, but if you want to maximize the value of the tool, you have to stay on top of release notes. As far as stability goes, there is almost nothing. Overall, there are almost no issues. If there are any issues, they usually affect the entire pod. It is not specific to CSAM.

With roughly 10,000 assets under management. We have not encountered any issues with scalability at all.

I have not personally contacted technical support, but I know we get a very good response. We have an excellent technical company who will escalate and support us. We have had a pretty good experience with technical support.

Positive

I used to have some involvement with a CMDB product from BMC called ADDM. It was similar to Qualys CSAM, but due to a lack of organizational appetite to support it, it was replaced. That is the closest thing to Qualys CSAM that I have ever played with.

It is a cloud solution. We do have cloud agents that reside on our endpoints or assets. I do like the fact that Qualys CSAM uses the same agent on the assets as all the other Qualys products. That was a big plus over other things that we looked at.  They required another agent to be installed.

Its initial setup was fairly easy. It takes a little bit of time to get things fully operational and standardized, but Qualys CSAM was easy to install and get up and running. We had to sit back and think about how we best wanted to represent the tagging. That took some time. We are still playing with that. The biggest challenge has been coming up with the best way for us to represent the assets and software discovered by Qualys CSAM.

We had to consider the best way to represent tagging in our system and ensure everything was standardized, but the setup process itself was straightforward.

It did not take us long to fully deploy it. It took less than a week because we already had the cloud agents installed for VMDR. We or our account manager flipped the switch to turn the license on, and we started collecting data right away.

The deployment of Qualys CSAM was a one-person job. We had an additional person for backup reasons, but the job primarily required only one person.

Its maintenance is being taken care of by Qualys. The software tagging is manual, so we have to go in and manually say that product XYZ is no longer approved. That is the only maintenance we do on that platform. It is just whether or not the software is approved or not.

The pricing is fair. I would love to see the price come down a little bit, but we do get a lot of value out of it. We are squeezing every ounce of value we can out of the tool.

Like every product, there are nuances. You have to understand that there are different categories of software. When it detects software, it puts it into various categories. It took us a little while to understand their taxonomy for the software side, so my advice would be to spend a little time understanding that.

We have had good luck with the API. To automate things, we are leveraging their CSAM API, and it is working fine, but there is a little bit of a learning curve. In terms of the core product, you turn it on and it just starts. If you have VMDR already in place, it starts to collect data for you right away, within minutes.

I would rate Qualys CSAM a nine out of ten. If they had a connector for the service management tool that we use, it would be a ten.

I use it primarily with tagging, asset counts, and groups that we can put them in, and we also use it to tell if a device has been merged and seen in Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, so that's beneficial for us too.

I use it primarily with tagging, asset counts, and groups that we can put them in, and we also use it to tell if a device has been merged and seen in Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, so that's beneficial for us too.

I think Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management could provide more capabilities for us to be able to manually merge a device if we know that it's the correct device. We appreciate that, but the GUI is a bit cumbersome. I know they redesigned it, but we don't really have any ability for cloud agents to see a history of logins and a history of scans. I would love a history; the activity log is problematic. It just takes so long to actually get in there and do some work. In general, I use Splunk for capabilities that I just can't seem to get out of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management. They pull in Qualys information and I have all these capabilities of searching, filtering, and other features that just for instance, all the scan data, they pulled into Splunk. Now I know the scan, the time, the option profile, all that good information, but I couldn't do that inside Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management. I would much rather have it in Qualys than have to pump it over to Splunk, so we use Splunk quite a bit for our vulnerabilities and reopenings and other concerns.

For room for improvement, I would like to see more capabilities to be able to manually merge devices, a history of logins and scans, the activity log could be improved, support ticket priority, and sorting and filtering of the columns. The activity log is terrible. Additionally, we're trying to get authentication completed, but I'm having a difficult time authenticating Linux to a domain, so I'll probably be contacting my TAM or support.

I have been using it for five years, the whole time I've been here.

I haven't seen any lagging, crashing, downtime, or any sort of instability; we watch the notifications, so for the most part, we haven't really had any major outages other than when we tried to renew and we didn't get the renewal in, which cut off certain modules that we couldn't get into. That was the only major issue.

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is fine for scalability because we're at maybe 17,000 assets, so there is no issue there.

I have contacted the technical support or customer support. It was terrible for a while, but now it's better because we actually get answers back pretty quickly. I don't like that we can't increase the priority of a ticket; we can't escalate it unless we escalate it to our TAM, but that's kind of a pain in itself as well.

If I were to put the support on a scale from 1 to 10, I would give them an 80%, something like that, which is about an eight.

Positive

I did not use anything before Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management.

The initial deployment of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management was set up when I came online, so I have no experience with setting up a Qualys environment from the start.

I do not have a favorite feature.

I do not know if Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management identifies all other risk factors for our assets in addition to vulnerabilities.

We don't use CMDB Sync, which is a feature that they have.

As far as I know, it covers all of our domains regarding External Attack Surface Management.

We haven't actually gone to TruRisk yet; we're kind of in the middle of getting that set up. We're probably just beginning in many ways.

We used passive sensors a couple of times, but we just couldn't get them placed where we needed to get them placed. They were giving us all kinds of incorrect IPs, so we stopped.

I don't think it was difficult at all when I first started using Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management.

I'm still somewhat learning about it, but I do remember how long it took me to fully understand the interface and all the intricacies.

There's no maintenance on Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, as far as I know, other than our own.

I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.