Rapid7 InsightVM Reviews

We mainly use it for vulnerability management, generating monthly reports to address and resolve vulnerabilities. The main use cases involve receiving alerts based on predefined settings by Rapid7, investigating these alerts to understand their causes, and performing fine-tuning activities.

The most valuable features of Rapid7 InsightVM for me are creating dynamic asset tags, generating reports, and deploying the agent. The agent scans assets every four hours, providing real-time data on any devices. Although there weren't any significant new features compared to our previous tool, having both SIEM and vulnerability management handled by one tool made things easier. We could gather logs from different devices and cloud sources, and perform detailed investigations without switching tools.

I haven't worked with the automation capabilities of InsightVM. For remediation prioritization, we check the vulnerability, search for solutions on open platforms, and work with different teams to apply patches after proper testing. Currently, we don’t have any AI or ASM projects assisted by InsightVM

I’d like to see Rapid7 InsightVM improve by adding a knowledge base similar to what Qualys offers. This would help us easily check and search for vulnerabilities using Rapid7 IDs associated with CVs or CVSS.

From a features perspective, everything was fine at the time, and the security features of Rapid7 InsightVM were effective.

I've been working with Rapid7 InsightVM since December.

Overall, I would recommend Rapid7 InsightVM to others. My advice would be to first understand your requirements and infrastructure before implementing the product. I would rate InsightVM as an eight.

The core domain use of the solution is verification, scanning, and finding out the vulnerabilities in real time.

The ease of deployment and configuration allows users to onboard quickly, aligning smoothly with various functionalities.

The data sheet is good in pricing and promises. The customers are very price-conscious. You have to satisfy technical requirements. This combo makes the product valuable and usable.

Two things are consistent. The rest of the things run fine. The technical side does not respond quickly. They take a lot of time. The priority should be to respond to the customer to serve the customer.

I have been using Rapid7 InsightVM for more than three years.

The solution’s stability is good. It keeps on running. There are no system complaints.

The solution’s scalability is linked to the new scope and the cost.

We are actively seeking alternatives. If you can offer a better solution, superior after-sales service, and overall better everything, we would like to explore what you have to offer.

The initial setup is not so complex. It is quickly deployable configurable and integrated with your existing setup.

The common process for Rapid7 InsightVM involves comparing it against their standard procedures to ensure compliance with the required licenses and resources. Users download the necessary files and initiate/reactivate licenses. Certain configurations are also set up. This process typically takes two to three days for the department, but we usually allocate a week for completion.

Our team feels enabled enough after completing the training session on Rapid7 InsightVM. We conduct our tests independently, and whenever we need support, we seek assistance directly from Rapid7. This process isn't overly complex or time-consuming. We ensure thorough preparation by gathering all necessary information, addressing internet concerns, and informing the customer. Once fully prepared, we proceed forward.

The solution’s pricing is good because the value proposition delivers a report box. It is not very costly.

Since the product is cloud-based, there's no maintenance. Whatever the information or the customization of the customer needs to be confirmed. The hardware needs maintenance.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

We used InsightVM mainly for vulnerability management. I thought it was a pretty interesting application. I'm a fan of Rapid7's Metasploit, so when I saw InsightVM I was like, "Let's see what else they have." I liked it up until we experienced some issues relating to scans. If I wanted to do mitigation, I needed to wait until the next scan was available or ran so that I could get to see if any indentations were made. 

While I was in there, if I was searching for a specific vulnerability, sometimes it was hard to find the specific ones. In the dashboard, it'll tell you the results from the scans, and it will also tell you the vulnerabilities and it will rank them for risk. I would have liked to have been able to click on the vulnerability and it would take me to another area that just has the vulnerability with all the hosts. It wouldn't let you do that. You had to come back out of that window and go into another window and search for it. Well, you wouldn't get the same results as the number of hosts. I had to work a little bit harder to find exactly what I needed.

Within our organization, there were two of us using it. Both of us were IT analysts. One was an IT analyst III (which was me), and the other one was the IT analyst manager.

I would say that it improved our visibility, but it left things open.

I liked the dashboard on it. I could customize my dashboard with different widgets and different heat maps. I liked that. That was a feature I liked. If your manager had a different dashboard that they liked, and you tried to go into a meeting and they say, "Well, I think your numbers are wrong because my dashboard says this" Well, you couldn't rapidly say, "Here's the default dashboard for this for risk." Whereas, with Tenable, you could go through a dashboard just for risks, and say, "Hey, let's switch to this dashboard so we're seeing the same numbers without customization."

They just need to fix it to make it more fluid. If it shows you vulnerabilities, I want to be able to click on the vulnerability and drill down into the vulnerability. If it's rating it as a 10 and it says it's got 30 hosts in it for this vulnerability, I want to click on that vulnerability and get a separate report that says, "Here's the vulnerability specific and here's the host involved." That way I could export it and say, "Hey, this vulnerability's out there, it matches a CVE number that is critical, that Microsoft, Cisco, whatever, has put a patch out there, and here guys, here's what it is and here's the proof. Here's your host that's vulnerable. Here's a change request, fix it, send me back the proof that you fixed it, then allow me to rerun a scan specific to that, on-demand, to say 'Yes, boss, we have mitigated it.'"

I want to be able to just drill down on the reports. If it showing me there's a vulnerability and there's a said number of nodes that's vulnerable to it, I want to be able to drill down and export that list without having to come back out of it, going into my assets, trying to find the name of the vulnerability, which doesn't match what the dashboard says. To me, that was backward.

I have used this solution for one year.

It was pretty stable. We didn't have any real hiccups, but it was stable. We didn't have any real hiccups there.

As far as I know, it says it's scalable. I'm not sure if that company I used to work for had to scale it up or down.

The tech support was very helpful. Actually, I knew a couple of them so it was very helpful.

I would give their tech support a rating of 10 — I knew them from using Metasploit and some other products. It was more of a, "Hey, I got this issue, how can you help me with it?" They'd point me and say, "Hey, check this out."

I wasn't involved in the initial setup, so I can't comment on that.

Do your proof of concepts if you can. Make sure you develop your risk strategy. That's important, because it's going to give you a risk number, it's going to give you critical: highs, mediums, but you need to understand what is the risk methodology that you're going to follow. Just because it says it's critical because of how many vulnerabilities you have, doesn't mean that you need to work on it right away.

For example, there was a vulnerability that had 2,000 nodes affected. It put it as a high-risk, whereby there was another vulnerability where there were only about 10 hosts affected — it put it at medium-risk. However, the high-risk one, because it had more nodes affected, did not have a POC associated with it. A novice person looking at it would say, "I need to work on these 1,000 vulnerabilities because it's a high-risk, and ignore the medium." Well, the medium one had an active POC on it. If you didn't have a person who understood how to read the report and what it's actually telling you, then you would say, "Hey, you know what, I'm going to use these, I'm going to cut my risk down because I got 1,000 nodes with this vulnerability and I'm going to put this chain out real quick and I'm going to reduce my risk real quick because of the numbers." Well, in my opinion, you didn't reduce your risk because you have 10 nodes out there with a vulnerability that's rated medium and it has a POC on it.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. I'm going to say that is because shame on Rapid7 for having such great applications, but then that little piece there that they know about hasn't been fixed. If I remember, if I go probably log back into the community, it's probably been asked a couple of times.

The primary use case of this solution is for critical business applications for the web. We have also implemented it to identify when we are changing and an older system like the application client-server, the server two, the network equipment like switch routers, and security solutions.

The most valuable feature for us is the different types of reporting it provides. For example, the compliance reporting, compliance with the international standard in which we are certified and compliant. This is important for us to escalate the dashboard to our top management.

We need to scan and identify the different RPGs, the critical ones and the major ones that can generate risk or a measure of risk. We generate the reporting from the system and relay the report to our internal developers. We have our internal developers in the bank.

This solution integrates with another module in Metasploit, that doesn't exist in the other solutions. It is subscribed to on our roadmap, but we chose to implement both Nexppose and AppSpider.

This solution is stable. It's a good solution.

This solution is scalable.

It takes two people to manage this solution and to be the backup for the succession plan. Our manager has access and performs audits.

Technical support is good and responsive.

In this current company, they were using Qualys and I convinced the management to change to Rapid 7.

After every event, we are required to automize with information control tools like Sandbox, IPS, and vulnerability management. All of those security tools need to be implemented and automized.

That is not the case with Rapid 7. It can be automized and we are dependant on ourselves. We can perform in having this solution customized with the confines of our text.

The initial setup was not complex and it was easy to implement.

It took a week to prepare and install the virtual machine, and to implement the solution it took one month.

Our Regulatory requires that all banks must implement all security solutions on-premises, not on the cloud because they are worried that the data will be compromised and available on different data centers around the world.

We had the help of an integrator to implement this solution. There were three engineers to help. One was for Nexpose and two for Appsider.

This solution is expensive, but it's fine for us as we have an open budget for security solutions. Protection and having the system secured is more important.

Rapid 7 is a leading solution that has been implemented in many companies.

In Nexpose you have the console and the app assistant for Rapid 7. The design can be implemented in all of the segments of the network to scan, perform the scale of the scan, perform the reporting, generate the reports, and send it to the central console.

I would suggest that customers acquire this solution.

In addition to management, we are subscribed to the security dispense team and the company emergency dispense team. We always receive the bulletins, so we are always aware of the vulnerabilities.

I appreciate this solution. All of the features that are included are enough for me.

This is an excellent solution and I would rate it a ten out of ten.

We'll use Rapid7 InsightVM for on-premises scanning and the virtual machine option for cloud-based environments.

It is a good tool for comprehensive risk management, including prioritization and remediation.

It is a great endpoint agent. It gives you reliable information about that infrastructure and offers strong accuracy for risk management. However, unlike other management tools that have improved precision testing, InsightVM requires an additional purchase for full access to some of its advanced features.

Other solutions, like Cisco, have strengths, but Rapid7 InsightVM has some solid features, such as the RapidServer Active Response, the ability to create endpoint agents, and a live dashboard. However, the main concern is the system's reliability. For instance, during a scan on an Ubuntu machine, the system mistakenly identified the OS as Windows. This kind of inaccuracy is problematic.

I have been using Rapid7 InsightVM for a year. 

The response takes some time.

Neutral

Rapid7 is a bit expensive.

Tenable has 20% lower pricing and includes built-in web application testing, which gives it an advantage over Rapid7 InsightVM.

I recommend Tennable for small and Rapid for big enterprises.

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

I don't use this solution directly because I'm not a security admin, but my use case is checking servers against it to see what our patching penetration looks like and whether there are any vulnerabilities that need to be cleared up. We are customers of Insight VM.

One of the great features is reporting where you know exactly what the solution has found, and you're also provided with a resolution to any problem. It's great. I also like the fact that it can go through and scan not just the Windows server but also all the Linux boxes. The same applies to Unix boxes which provide a full report regarding vulnerabilities that need to be rectified or packages that need to be applied. 

There are some issues with how it scans patches. Sometimes one patch will have been superseded by another but it won't see that, because one little key hasn't changed. 

I've been using this solution for several years. 

It's a scanning system, so of course there are resource issues. That said, it's a stable solution. 

Scalability is good; it has supported all of our servers from Windows to Linux, and does it rather well. 

I recommend reviewing the documentation and studying the built-in reports because they are a valuable resource. It's a great product that reports everything that's wrong with a system, providing detailed and high-level reports. 

I rate the solution nine out of 10. 

We implemented it to scan all the assets. In terms of deployment, in my previous organization, it was deployed on-prem, but in my current organization, it is on the cloud.

The assessment is most valuable.

Their customer support should be improved, and the effectiveness of scans also needs to be improved.

I am an implementor. I have been working with this product from time to time. I started working with it around 2016 for a project. After that, we implemented it in 2019 for another project. Currently, I am not using it, but it is being used in the organization.

Its stability is fine.

Its scalability is okay. We have approximately 3,000 members. Every asset gets scanned. So, indirectly or directly, everyone is using this product.

We plan to keep using this tool. We don't want to get into another scanning tool right now. It has been selected as an enterprise tool, and we aren't going to move to another tool. Any new employees would get added to this tool.

Their support could be better. I would rate them a three out of five.

We were using Qualys. We switched because of the organization's standard.

It is not complex. I would rate it a three out of five in terms of the ease of the setup.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for vulnerability management. We perform scanning and security patching in selected network zones utilizing it.

The solution's most valuable features are the simplicity of use, identifying vulnerable assets, and the ability to create remediation projects.

They should integrate the solution with multiple products along with ServiceNow.

We have been using the solution for two or three months.

I rate the solution's stability as an eight.

We have a few tens of users of the solution. They include IT specialists, engineers, and administrators. We can easily install scan engines in different zones of our network. But, we face difficulties pairing the scan engines to the management console. 

I rate the solution's scalability as an eight.

The vendor team helps us install the solution.

The solution's pricing depends on the number of users per month as per our contract. We have a limit of scanning around 4000 appliances. It covers a sufficient scope regarding our requirements.

The solution works well. I recommend it to others and rate it as an eight.