Snyk Reviews

It is a source composition analysis tool that we use to perform vulnerability scanning for those vulnerabilities within open source libraries.

This is a SaaS solution.

It has improved our vulnerability rating and reduced our vulnerabilities through the tool during the time that we've had it. It's definitely made us more aware, as we have removed scoping for existing vulnerabilities and platforms since we rolled it out up until now.

We were aware of problems that were there, but we weren't looking for them until we had Snyk. It is definitely showing us things that we should have been concerned about, and we have found a lot of value in resolving those things since we've discovered them.

It's reduced the amount of active vulnerabilities in our applications, providing both a more stable and secure environment for us in the libraries that we develop. It has highlighted a number of things we weren't aware of in our applications and the reduction of those is definitely a benefit and value-add to our applications.

The general source composition analysis is the key to the piece. That is the feature to check our open source libraries for vulnerabilities and the primary feature that we use the tool for.

It is extremely easy to use and very simple to catch on for every team that we train on it. We generally have our development teams leverage the tool themselves. It's extremely easy to teach them how to use it and get them to onboard it.

From a speed perspective, we use Git repository. It was very easy to integrate into that platform.

The solution’s ability to help developers find and fix vulnerabilities quickly is very good and convenient. It provides the ability to easily work the platform into our existing repositories and leverage our repository. It also pulls notifications as a means for notifying developers of vulnerabilities within the projects that are developing.

The solution’s vulnerability database is very comprehensive and accurate.

There are some new features that we would like to see added, e.g., more visibility into library usage for the code. Something along the lines where it's doing the identification of where vulnerabilities are used, etc. This would cause them to stand out in the market as a much different platform.

We have been using Snyk for about a year.

It is very stable.

We use existing staff to maintain and operationalize it.

It is extremely easy to scale and hooks into all of our application repositories without any issues. We use the product extensively in the projects that we are currently running. We are using the product at close to 100 percent.

Developer-adoption of the solution has been good. It is one of the better tools in our application security library from an adoption perspective and needs of use. It has the most positive feedback out of all our solutions.

There are probably 50 users who are security/developers and development-focused security professionals.

The only technical support that we have received has been through our account team, and it's been fantastic. I haven't actually had to open any tickets or anything using the tool. The only time we've ever needed assistance was to open up a ticket for single sign-on configuration. It was extremely quick. They had a very easy, fast response for how to deliver it.

We previously used Black Duck. We switched to Snyk because of its better false positive ratings along with its ease of use, integration, and deployment.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was just extremely easy to integrate into our repositories, get the code scanning working, and add our projects into the application.

The deployment was quick. We had our first application in it within minutes.

Implementation strategy: We hooked up our applications and integrated them into the tool. Then, we started to address vulnerabilities as we saw fit from a risk perspective.

We have seen ROI with Snyk. It has showed us a lot of things that we were not privy to before. This has opened our eyes to a lot of very important things, e.g., vulnerabilities.

The solution has reduced the amount of time it takes to fix problems. It has done a great job explaining what the problem is and how to resolve it with remediation. It gives you a lot of details about versioning and such for the library. It is definitely helpful there.

The time-to-value of the solution in our company was almost immediate.

It's inexpensive and easy to license. It comes in standard package sizing, which is straightforward. This information is publicly found on their website.

We focused our evaluation specifically on Black Duck and Snyk, plus Veracode as a larger product offering.

The Snyk platform does everything we've expected it to do. It works much better than some of the competitors we looked at during our assessment.

If you're looking for a source composition analysis tool or a tool to monitor your open source security, then it's a fantastic solution.

SAST and DAST are very important functions. We have alternative options for those though. I wouldn't say the solution’s lack of SAST and DAST hurts or affects us. It would be nice if these were a platform or offering that they did have.

We don't use the solution’s Container security feature at the moment, but we are planning on using it.

I would rate this solution as an eight or nine (out of 10).

The product's most valuable features are an open-source platform, remote functionality, and good pricing.

Snyk's API and UI features could work better in terms of speed. Additionally, they could optimize and provide better reports, including reports for security, technical, and developer level.

We have been using Snyk for two and a half years.

I rate the platform's stability an eight or nine out of ten. Sometimes, we encounter downtime issues, but it has quick recovery. It impacts our system and needs improvement for better outcomes during the development phase.

We have 20 to 50 Snyk users in the development team of our organization. It is a scalable product.

The technical support services are available quickly for developers. However, they should improve their speed of response for customers.

Neutral

I have used Checkmarx and some other open-source software.

The initial setup is neither difficult nor easy. However, it works slowly. It takes some weeks or months to complete the process.

The product has good pricing. 

I recommend Snyk to others and rate it a seven out of ten.

In my company, Snyk is useful because it provides container security and DAST.

Snyk is a strong security solution that helps customers analyze static code and improve their security and code in their main application.

DAST has shortcomings, and Snyk needs to improve and overcome such shortcomings.

I have experience with Snyk, and it is a new solution chosen by my company. I am a reseller of the solution.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

One security engineer uses Snyk in our company, but we don't use the tool for our own use cases, and we only deploy it for our customers.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

Our company previously used Micro Focus for three or four months. We have worked with Checkmark for more than two or three years.

We provide Snyk to our customers. It is a very strong solution.

I rate the initial setup a ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud since it is a SaaS solution and doesn't have an on-premises version.

The deployment process for Snyk takes like a week.

For the steps in Snyk's deployment, one has to buy a license and click on the deploy icon on Snyk's website, after which it syncs up with the system.

One person is required for deployment. Even if we talk about something like container security or DAST, only one person would be required for the deployment process.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing a three. It is a cheap solution.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it since it is easy to deploy and has strong features like machine learning and the ability to analyze static codes.

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

I am using Snyk for DevOps and security.

The most valuable features of Snyk are vulnerability scanning and automation. The automation the solution brings around vulnerability scanning is useful.

The solution could improve the reports. They have been working on improving the reports but more work could be done.

I have been using Snyk for a few months.

The stability of Snyk is good.

We have not had any challenges with the scalability of Snyk.

There are good resources to answer questions when we have issues.

I have not used a testing solution prior to Snyk.

The initial setup of Snyk was easy.

The price of the solution is expensive compared to other solutions.

I would recommend people use the free tier first before they purchase.

I rate Snyk a ten out of ten.

The solution is set up in a test lab for proof of concept on the ACIA component. Our client is proposing the solution in an RFP response that will include 3,000 users when awarded. 

The solution has great features and is quite stable. 

The log export function could be easier when shipping logs to other platforms such as Splunk. 

I have been using the solution for months.

The stability is quite good. 

The solution is scalable with no issues. 

I have not needed technical support. 

The initial setup is quite straightforward and took fifteen minutes. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

In our lab environment, the deployment strategy is to install and run with no complex operations. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use this product for security analysis. It enables us to analyze the development code and find the security vulnerabilities and best practices. We have around 20 developers testing this solution. I'm the senior DevOps and we are users of Snyk.

The solution is very easy to install. It provides clear information and is easy to follow. We get good feedback regarding code practices and how to fix security issues. Another benefit is that it has worked with containers for a long time and has a partnership with Docker. They have a lot of experience and good expertise in security.

I think they could improve the feature for automatic fixing of security breaches. If they had a Kubernetes coverage of vulnerabilities that would be helpful.

I've been using this solution for two months. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

The technical support is good. They are very helpful and also offered us a demo.  

The initial setup is not complicated, it's just configuring the connection, and connecting to the server.

We're using the open source version for now.

I think it's worthwhile to try this product and I rate it nine out of 10. 

I am a reseller. We provide solutions for our customers.

It's a good product. I haven't seen any weakness.

Snyk is a developer-friendly product.

Compatibility with other products would be great.

I have not contacted technical support.

Previously, I was working with Micro Focus Fortify.

The initial setup is easy.

We have also evaluated Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto.

We tried to partner up with Snyk, but we were not successful in gaining a partnership. We are not authorized Snyk resellers.

I would rate Snyk an eight out of ten.

We are using it to identify security weaknesses and vulnerabilities by performing dependency checks of the source code and Docker images used in our code. We also use it for open-source licensing compliance review. We need to keep an eye on what licenses are attached to the libraries or components that we have in use to ensure we don't have surprises in there.

We are using the standard plan, but we have the container scanning module as well in a hybrid deployment. The cloud solution is used for integration with the source code repository which, in our case, is GitHub. You can add whatever repository you want to be inspected by Snyk and it will identify and recommend solutions for your the identified issues. We are also using it as part of our CI/CD pipelines, in our case it is integrated with Jenkins. 

As the developers work they can run the checks and they can validate if their work meets our expectation or not. Then they can address the potential issues during development, rather than going through the whole process and then being pushed back and told, "Hey, you've got issues in here. This is an old component that is no longer supported," or "It's something that has a vulnerability." From that point of view, it's very valuable.

I'm not a developer, I'm an information security officer, but the false positive rate seems to be pretty good. Generally, when it picks up something, it's there. Snyk is not an antivirus. When it highlights something then there is a problem. Sometimes you can fix it, sometimes you cannot fix it. The good thing is that at least you are aware that there is a potential issue. If it's something serious, you can try to validate, but you can usually validate the issue against other databases by looking at a CVV. You've got enough information to identify if this is a real problem or not. In the vast majority of the cases, if you look at dependency, it's pretty straightforward. It matches the database that is being picked up, and you can have a look at more details.

Generally, security tools don't necessarily end up in increased productivity. What Snyk prevents is the wasting of time or productivity. If you're trying to go back and fix issues that are caused by potential vulnerabilities discovered by a pen test, trying to retrofit security can be quite painful. From that point of view, you may go a little bit slower because it's an extra step, but at the same time, you save time on the overall process and you're saving exposing the company to risks.

As a tool, Snyk allows us to identify areas where we need to improve, and this could be at the vulnerability level if there is a library that has a vulnerability. It also helps us with the licensing compliance, identifying if the new components that have been added to the code meet our company's open source compliance. In those ways it helps us as a company. The overall impact of Snyk depends on the way you use it. To me, it's the users, not Snyk, doing something.

We are a new company. We started roughly three years ago. But we knew security is a very important factor. We work with some very large companies out there. Privacy and security of their data is very important. Security was something that we knew we had to put in place from the beginning, as a way of demonstrating that we take things seriously. And we also satisfy the needs of our investors and clients when it comes to trusting us as a provider.

The dependency checks of the libraries are very valuable, but the licensing part is also very important because, with open source components, licensing can be all over the place. Our project is not an open source project, but we do use quite a lot of open source components and we want to make sure that we don't have surprises in there. That's something that we pay attention to.

The ease of use for developers is quite straightforward. They've got good documentation. It depends on the language that you use for development, but for what we have — Java, JavaScript, Python — it seems to be pretty straightforward.

It also has good integration with CI/CD pipelines. In the past we had it integrated with Concourse and now it's running on Jenkins, so it seems to be quite versatile.

They've recently launched their open source compliance. That's an area that is definitely of interest. The better the capability in that, the better it will be for everyone. There may be room to improve the level of information provided to the developers so they understand exactly why using, say, a GPL license is a potential issue for a company that is not intending to publish its code.

There is potential for improvement in expanding the languages they cover and in integrating with other solutions. SonarQube is something that I'm quite interested in, something that I want to bring into play. I know that Snyk integrates with it, but I don't know how well it integrates. I will have to see.

Generating reports and visibility through reports are definitely things they can do better.

We've been using Snyk for nearly two years.

Generally, the stability of Snyk is fine. From time to time the reporting bits, when you look at them on the cloud, can be a little bit sluggish when you start having quite a bit of information in there. But there have been no major outages when we couldn't use it. I don't know if the sluggishness is internet-related or it's something within Snyk. They are based in the United States and I don't know if the traffic across the pond is causing any of these issues.

It's not something that you constantly use all the time. When you want to commit something, it runs on a schedule. When you put something through the pipeline, it runs. But again, there have been no outages or issues with the stability.

We have had no issues with scalability. We haven't needed to do anything special to address that. So far, we have had no problems.

Usage, in our case, will depend on the number of developers that we have. So unless Snyk develops additional features, something more we can use, and we expand because of those capabilities, I don't see a massive increase in our user base. It's a development-orientated solution with a small number of people, from management, who generally keep an eye on the reports, from a compliance point of view. It all depends on our company. The only impact that will come from Snyk is if it comes out with new features that we would like to implement.

We had some chats with technical support at the beginning. They seemed to be pretty responsive. Generally, you communicate with them on a support chat-group. If you need more, you can have Zoom sessions. But we only speak with them now if one of the devs finds something that doesn't look right. We haven't spoken to them in a long time.

Snyk replaced some potential candidates. We had some people looking at maybe using CoreOS Clair and there were some discussions about what we could use to scan our repository. But we didn't have anything officially in place. In fact, Snyk was one of the first solutions that I put in place as a paid solution for the security of our code.

Security is something that is quite important for us. We take security seriously and it's something that we baked in from the early stages. We try to shift it as far left as possible. Snyk is a result of our organization's approach towards security, rather than vice-versa. It's playing its role alongside our security needs.

In our organization, I ask that things be done and people are doing them, so I wasn't directly involved in the setup. But the installation seemed to be quite straightforward. I don't get pushback from the dev community. My background is more infrastructure, I'm not a developer, so I can't comment how easy it is to bring everything together. But when I worked with my devs, when we migrated from Concourse to Jenkins, it wasn't such a huge undertaking and it didn't cause us too many headaches.

In terms of developer adoption, they have to use it because we asked them to use it. And once it's part of the pipeline; everything that they push through the pipeline goes through Snyk. It was a company decision to go that way.

The initial rollout took about one week. Most of the stuff was already in place. We just migrated from one pipeline provider to another. It was quite straightforward.

We have a bit of a hybrid approach. Some of it was in the cloud, and we haven't touched that. The integration of the container bit, the CLI integration is done on our cloud and it's something we maintain. We tried to use Snyk's recommendations. It has an API that you can call use to run some scans, but their full-feature recommended solution is to use the CLI, using your own instance of Snyk. So we have a container that's running Snyk, and whenever we run the scans we just call on that.

The deployment involved one or two people internally. When it was just GitHub, it was me and one developer. And when it came to infrastructure, it was me with an infra guy. It depends on the level of expertise that you have in-house and how comfortable people are with similar solutions. At the end of the day, to roll up a container image and pull that into your pipeline is quite straightforward. It's not difficult.

We don't do that much maintenance on Snyk. It's integrated. It's running in the background. We only touch it when we need to touch it. It's not like we need dedicated resources for that.

Between 50 and 70 people are using Snyk at a given time in our organization. Most of them are developers. We might have some QAs who look at something.

It hits ROI for us very well in a couple of areas that we want to address: to ensure that we don't have surprises when it comes to vulnerabilities on our dependencies — libraries and images. And from a compliance point of view, we don't want to be in a situation where we're forced to publish code because someone has decided to use libraries that would force us to either publish everything under GPL or put us in a situation where licenses are not compatible and we would have to redo part of the code.

The ROI is one of those things that is difficult to quantify. It's not something where you can say how much money you have saved. But looking at overall cost versus the benefit, it's worth the money.

Time-to-value is a difficult topic because the way that I see it, Snyk is a preventative measure. It's similar to insurance. How much money are you prepared to spend to address a potential risk? By having a solution like Snyk in place, you prevent your company from being an easy target and being exposed. It's not something you can easily quantify, but Snyk falls under the cost of doing business. You want to have something in there because the overall cost and the overall problems will be a lot greater.

Pricing and licensing of Snyk is okay. Their model is based on the number of committers of your source code, which can be a little bit false at times. It can be false because we have some QAs and some BAs, for example, who sometimes go in and add comments. They're not writing code, but they're flagged as committers of the code. That can cause some misunderstanding but we discussed this Snyk and explained the situation. They were quite okay with that. So although the number of people they see in Snyk is slightly higher, they're not holding us with our backs to the wall, saying, "Hey, you're over your license."

The only cost is whatever you run on your cloud. If you deploy the CLI integration and you run Snyk you need to take into account the cost, but it's not huge.

There are a number of other solutions out there that you can use. We looked at Black Duck from Synopsys and CoreOS Clair for containers. I had a bit of a look at WhiteSource. Because we're using open source software, a lot of our devs like the open source ethos. They had different suggestions so we looked at a number of potential use case scenarios. These days, for example, GitHub also allows you to scan your reports for dependencies and vulnerabilities. AWS also has the ability to scan your base images. You can validate different things at different stages. But the main one for moving the security to the left is Snyk.

In terms of the comprehensiveness and accuracy of Snyk's vulnerability database, I looked at that in the past. When I picked Snyk as a solution and was looking at Black Duck and other companies, I knew Snyk had its own database and was doing quite a lot of research in that area. To me it seems to be quite good compared to other solutions, like GitHub or Amazon. I get more out of Snyk. Snyk picks up more, highlights more, than other solutions I've seen.

Both Black Duck and WhiteSource are more established companies but they're probably more expensive. I haven't looked at the overall costs, but as you throw more into them they tend to be more expensive. Snyk meets our requirements.

If your company develops software, and if you are an open source consumer, you need to have something in place. Do your research and find the best solution. For us, Snyk worked. I am involved in a security working group with my counterparts at our investors. We discussed what we're doing and what we are using and I discussed Snyk there. I discussed it with a couple of companies in particular and shared ideas and I recommended that they have a look at Snyk. Snyk is open source. You can take it for a ride and see if you like it. Once you're happy with it, you can move forward.

The biggest lesson I've learned from using Snyk is that it brings in a little bit of discipline in terms of what people can and cannot use. It also highlights the importance of security. It also adds a little bit of structure by surfacing potential issues. That's one of the most important factors. And having something like Snyk means you can validate and you can demonstrate, when meeting your clients and your investors, that you are meeting security needs and concerns.

In terms of the time it takes for developers to find fixed vulnerabilities, it depends on the type of issue. In some cases, for example, if there is an upgrade and there is a new version of the library, Snyk does make recommendations. If Snyk can do something for you it will do it. It can automatically generate a pull request so you can do a library upgrade. If there is something quite straightforward regarding licensing, they'll highlight that for you. But other issues are a little bit more complex. If it's a container image, for example, and there's no immediate image upgrade, maybe you want to do something like upgrade a library within the image. Some things are quite straightforward, and if Snyk can, it recommends it, and it's pretty easy, pretty straightforward. For other situations it will say you can manually upgrade this, but you'll have to do that process on your own.

Snyk's actionable advice when it comes to container vulnerabilities is aligned with the rest of the solution. We were one of the early users of containers. We have had Snyk in place for nearly two years, so when we started, containers were something very new for them. It's definitely better than other solutions which are free. Can it be better? Yes. As always, things can always be improved, but it's more or less on par with what we have on the regular dependency checks that we have on normal libraries as part of the source code.

If you look purely at the source code, we can do it with a SaaS application. You link your GitHub or your code repository with Snyk and, as you commit code, Snyk scans and reports. For containers, we tend to use the integration part of the CI/CD pipeline as well. All the images are passed through and we're using CLI commands to run this. This requires a little bit of extra setup, but once you put it in place it tends to be quite straightforward and doesn't require any additional work. As for allowing developers to own security for the applications and the containers they run in in the cloud, to be honest with you, in a lot of cases, their main focus is on developing the app. The scanning is more on the infra side. When it comes to containers and streamlining the application installation, that usually falls on the infra. They stay on top of that task. We have it integrated and we keep an eye out in case something has been plugged up. I just ask them to make sure it's addressed as soon as possible.

We're using Qualys to do external scans and external assessments. We also do penetration testing. But at the end of the day, you have to look at what you want from a tool. Maybe there are other solutions out there that claim to do a lot more. I'm sure that there are other vendors that can potentially give you a more integrated and better view, but they come with additional costs and additional complications. It all depends on what you want to do and how you want to achieve that. For us, the purpose of Snyk was to look at the vulnerabilities in the code or Docker container images, and to address the licensing aspect. 

Some companies go with individual solutions for every single part. For example, they use Clair to scan just the containers and something else to scan just the code. They have linting tools and other things. We're not just using Snyk. For example, we also have linting tools for code quality. This is not something that Snyk is doing. We're trying to use what is suitable for us.

Snyk is a security software offering. It helps us identify vulnerabilities or potential weaknesses in the third-party software that we use at our company. 

The solution is meant to give you visibility into open source licensing issues, which you may not necessarily be aware off, such as the way you ingest libraries into your application code for third-party dependencies. There is visibility into anything that could be potentially exploited. 

It provides good reporting and monitoring tools which enable me to keep track of the vulnerabilities found now and/or discovered in the future. It is pretty proactive about telling me what/when something might need mitigation.

Their strength is really about empowering a very heterogeneous software environment, which is very developer-focused and where developers can easily get feedback. If you integrate their offering into the software development life cycle (SDLC), you can get pretty good coverage from a consumer perspective into the libraries that you're using.

It's a good suite of tools tailored and focused towards developers. It ensures their code is safe in regards to their usage of third-party libraries, e.g., libraries not owned or controlled, then incorporated into the product from open sources.

It is meant to be a less intrusive type of solution. It is easy to integrate and doesn't require a lot of effort. It's more a part of the CI/CD pipelines, which doesn't necessarily interfere with developers other than if there are actions/remediations to be taken. From a development impact, it's very lightweight and minimal. 

It is not noticeable for most engineers since it's part of the pipeline. If no new findings are reported, then it goes through without any signals or noise. If there were findings, these are usually legitimate findings and can be configured in such a way that they can be blocked/stopped in your pipelines or be more informational. The user has all the knobs and screws to turn and tweak it towards their use case because there may be areas where security is more critical than in other parts of the company, like development projects. 

We exclusively use their SDE tools. Our CI/CD environments are powered by source code control systems like GitLab and GitHub. BitPocket has also been integrated to some extent. There are CI/CD pipelines where we pull in Snyk as part of the pipeline, jobs, Jenkins environment, etc.

It is a fairly developer-focused product. There are pretty good support and help pages which come with the developer tools, like plugins and modules, which integrate seamlessly into continuous integration, continuous deployment pipelines. E.g., as you build your software, you may update your dependencies along with it. Packages that it supports include CI/CD toolchains, build tools, various platforms, and software/programming languages.

It is one of the best product out there to help developers find and fix vulnerabilities quickly. When we talk about the third-party software vulnerability piece and potentially security issues, it takes the load off the user or developer. They even provide automitigation strategies and an auto-fix feature, which seem to have been adopted pretty well. 

Their focus is really towards developer-friendly integrations, like plug and play. They understand the ecosystem. They listen to developers. It has been a good experience so far with them.

There were some feature requests that we have sent their way in the context of specific needs on containers, like container support and scanning support. 

There are some more language-specific behaviors on their toolchains that we'd like to see some improvements on. The support is more established on some than others. There are some parts that could be fixed around the auto-fix and automitigation tool. They don't always work based on the language used.

I would like them to mature the tech. I am involved with Java and Gradle, and in this context, there are some opportunities to make the tools more robust.

The reporting could be more responsive when working with the tools. I would like to see reports sliced and diced into different dimensions. The reporting also doesn't always fully report.

Scanning on their site, to some extent, is less reliable than running a quick CLI.

We have been engaging with Snyk for close to a year.

I have not encountered any instabilities at this point. 

We have seen cases where tools didn't find or recognize certain dependencies. These are known issues, to some extent, due to the complexity in the language or stack that you using. There are some certain circumstances where the tool isn't actually finding what it's supposed to be finding, then it could be misleading. 

As a SaaS offering, it's been fairly stable.

We have an on-prem type of broker setup, which seems to be a fairly stable. I'm not aware of any particular outages with it. 

We have no concerns regarding scalability. We operate at scale. Their approach is pretty lightweight for integrating tools locally.

We are not fully rolled out across the company; parts of the company are using it more than others. There are some best practices that we still have to establish across our development teams so it feels consistent across our scalable processes. 

I would gauge the technical support as pretty good from our interactions. We are in a licensed partnership, so the response and support that we're getting is part of our license. For quick resolutions, we have standing channels, like Slack, where we can easily get a hold of somebody who can jump in and provide some feedback. The ticketing support system is for medium to long-term requests. It's been pretty good in terms of responsiveness and their ability to support in a very reasonable time frame. Responding in less than a few hours is common in regards surfacing issues and obtaining proactive support with someone who can chime in and provide potential resolution strategies.

The product is tailored towards developers. It has a good implementation and support team who provide quick resolution on support issues. Their support listens to feedback. We engage with them, and they listen to developers' needs. They have also been pretty good in terms of turning things around. Even though we hadn't done a major request with them, they're very supportive, open, and transparent in terms of what makes sense and is reasonable, like shared priorities and roadmaps.

We have been struggling a bit with the GitLab setup, but that's more of a custom solution problem.

Their licensing model is fairly robust and scalable for our needs. I believe we have reached a reasonable agreement on the licensing to enable hundreds of developers to participate in this product offering. The solution is very tailored towards developers and its licensing model works well for us.

It addresses a lot of needs, especially in growing organizations. The more developers, the more heterogeneous your environment will look, as well as needing more tools to help you scale security practices. In this regard, it seems to be a very promising, scalable solution.

We have been utilizing the solution’s container security feature. It is not at full scale, though. We are engaging Snyk on container integrations.

I would rate it an eight (out of 10).

We are using Snyk for two main reasons: 

1. Licensing. For every open source package that we're using, we have licensing attributions and requirements. We are using Snyk to track all of that and make sure we're using the licenses for different open source packages that we have in a compliant fashion. This is just to make sure the licensed user is correct. 
2. Vulnerabilities. Snyk will report on all the vulnerabilities present in all our different packages. This is also something we'll use to change a package, ask the desk to fix the vulnerability, or even just block a release if they are trying to publish code with too many vulnerabilities.

I am using the latest SaaS version.

Our whole process of deploying code uses Snyk either as a gateway or just to report on different build entities. 

The solution's ability to help developers find and fix vulnerabilities quickly is a great help, depending on how you implement it at your company. The more you empower your developers to fix their stuff, the less policies you will have to implement. It's a really nice feeling and just a paradigm shift. In our company, we had to create the habit of being proactive and fixing your own stuff. Once the solution starts going, it eases a lot of management on the security team side.

Snyk's actionable advice about container vulnerabilities is good. For the Container tool, they'll provide a recommendation about what you can do to fix your Docker, such as change to a slimmer version of the base image. A lot of stuff is coming out for this tool. It's good and getting better.

The solution’s Container security feature allows developers to own security for the applications and the containers they run in in the cloud. That is its aim. Since we are letting the developers do all these things, they are owning the security more. As long as the habit is there to keep your stuff up-to-date, Snyk won't have any effect on productivity. However, it will have a lot of effect on security team management. We put some guardrails on what cannot be deployed. After that, we don't have to check as much as we used to because the team will just update their stuff and try to aim for lower severities.

Our overall security has improved. We are running fewer severities and vulnerabilities in our packages. We fixed a lot of the vulnerabilities that we didn't know were there. Some of them were however hard to exploit, mitigating the risks for us, e.g., being on a firewalled server or unreachable application code. Though I don't recall finding something where we said, "This is really bad. We need to fix it ASAP."

I find many of the features valuable: 

• The capacity for your DevOps workers to easily see the vulnerabilities which are impacting the code that they are writing. This is a big plus. 
• It has a lot of integration that you can use even from an IDE perspective and up to the deployment. It's nice to get a snapshot of what's wrong with the build, more than it is just broken and you don't know why. 
• It has a few nice features for us to manage the tool, e.g., it can be integrated. There are some nice integrations with containers. It was just announced that they have a partnership with Docker, and this is also nice. 

The baseline features like this are nice. 

It is easy to use as a developer. There are integrations that will directly scan your code from your IDE. You can also use a CLI. I can just write one command, then it will just scan your old project and tell you where you have problems. We also managed to integrate it into our build pipeline so it can easily be integrated using the CLI or API directly, if you have some more custom use cases. The modularity of it is really easy to use.

Their API is well-documented. It's not too bad to integrate and for creating some custom use cases. It is getting extended going forward, so it's getting easier to use. If we have issues, we can contact them and they'll see if they can change some stuff around. It is doing well.

Most of the solution's vulnerability database is really accurate and up-to-date. It has a large database. We do have some missing licenses issues, especially with non-SPDX compliant one, but we expect this to be fixed soon. However, on the development side, I rarely have had any issues with it. It's pretty granular and you can see each package that you're using along with specific versions. They also provide some nice upgrade paths. If you want to fix some vulnerabilities, they can provide a minor or major patch where you can fix a few of them.

• More visibility on the package lifecycle because we are scanning our application at different point (DevOps, Security, QA, Pipeline, Production Env) and all those steps get mixed together in the UI. Therefore, it's hard to see the lifecycle of your package.

• Docker base image support was missing (Distroless) but support is increasing.

• UI taking some time to load. We have a lot of projects in the tool.

Snyk is responsive and they work to fix the pain points we have.

For two years.

The stability is good. I don't recall ever having issues with the application being unreachable or down.

Scalability has some issues because we have a lot of code and its use is mandatory. Therefore, it can be slow at times, especially because there are a lot of projects and reporting. Some UI improvements could help with this. 

From a scan time perspective, everything is pretty fast.

All our developers and the security team use it. There are probably around 100 people using it whose roles are mainly developers, along with a few security analysts and architects.

We have good communication with Snyk. They make us feel like a valued customer and provide us with a Customer Success Manager and training for our teams.

I haven't contacted technical support. One of my teammates did contact them and was pleased with the results. 

We were previously using another vendor for vulnerability management. We decided to use Snyk in parallel to handle licence reporting. One issue that we had with our previous vendor was that we were promised features that were never delivered. It also had some quirks that weren't fitting our needs. Since we already had Snyk, and it could do vulnerability reporting, we decided to keep Snyk for the two use cases.

I wasn't part of the initial setup. It was done by another team. From what I heard, it wasn't too much of a hassle to set up. Though, my team hasn't been 100 percent satisfied with how it was set up by us, as we could do so much more with the tool..

We have seen ROI from a security perspective.

The solution has reduced the amount of time it takes to find and fix problems, especially to fix them. Without Snyk, we had no visibility on open source package vulnerabilities. We started from not seeing anything to fixing them. Since we had to wait for an incident or fortuitous discovery before, it has been a good improvement.

At first, we were using it only for scanning the images that were getting sent to production. Then, we added the entire workload running on our clusters. This increased our vulnerabilities because there were duplicates, but also gave more visibility.

The more you put into learning the tool, the better results you will get. Even if it's easy to use, you do need to create the habit of using it with your DevOps. Once it's integrated, it will be a lot easier. You'll see quickly the issues that you can fix when you're writing your code and don't have to wait until the end of QA to be denied.

I don't see anything Snyk can report as a false positive because the vulnerability database is there and the vulnerable code in the package. It just depends on how you invoke the code. Unless they start scanning the code, they cannot know. From that perspective, false positives are pretty low, almost non-existent.

Our developers are spending more time working on Snyk issues than before, mainly because they were not aware of things that they needed to fix. The process is easy to fix something, so it neither increases nor decreases our developer productivity.

It does require a bit of time, especially when creating the habit of using the tool, but the investment is worth it. It enables developers to own security. If you can get the developers to own security, you are reducing a lot of weight off of your security team. Then, you don't need to have such a big security team because the solution offloads a lot of work.

Get the developers on your side. We managed to make it mandatory, but this won't happen everywhere. If a developer takes a solution to heart in a project and really wants to use it, it'll go well. Otherwise, if you keep fighting against them, then it will be a hassle.

If Snyk offered a SAST/DAST solution, we would be interested in testing it out. We have good experience with the platform and we could consolidate our efforts with them. We are not super satisfied with our current SAST implementation.

What I want for the future is to get more proactive adoption instead of adopting because it is mandatory. Adoption will grow, especially if Snyk have other features coming in. We enjoy the product.

I would rate the solution as a 9 (out of 10).