Tenable Nessus Reviews

We usually use the solution for infrastructure level and web application scanning, although mostly for the former. This is what we are doing at present. We were using the web application portion of Tenable Nessus for several months before switching to Veracode. 

A valuable feature of the solution is that it is easy to understand. When it comes to running a scan, the scanning mechanism is also easy, and it is quite fast compared to Veracode and Qualys.

The solution should have a more in-depth level of scanning, with features to meet the developers. Other points that should be addressed involve the understanding of issues by the users and the need for improvising the reporting structure. The reports should also be more attractive and user-friendly.

This is how Tenable Nessus occasionally works when drawing up something on the field.

Additional features I wish to see addressed in the next release include customer support and ease of  understanding of vulnerabilities and how they can be fixed.

In contrast to Tenable Nessus, we have found Veracode to be more user-friendly, with a greater in-depth understanding of the details and how things can be fixed. Other points in its favor include study cases, customer support, training and e-learning. 

The solution is sort of down the mid range, so we are more happy with Veracode.

We have made use of Tenable Nessus over the past 12 months, and started doing so a couple of months before we got Veracode.

The solution is reliable and has good stability. 

We have been in the web, so we have not tried to expand the solution.

We feel the solution's technical support to be very bad.

While we do receive a response upon creating a ticket, it is not like that of Qualys or Veracode. That extensive support is not there.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We deployed under the release plan of 8.11.

We incurred a single cost for a perpetual license, although I cannot comment on the price as this is above my management level.

There are at least ten people in our organization making use of the solution. 

Tenable Nessus is an appropriate solution for a small scale company, one with budgeting constraints and no complexities within the organization. It not that user-friendly.

I would rate Tenable Nessus as a seven out of ten. 

We use Tenable Nessus when we are preparing our audit where we need to do an initial scan of our customers' platform to see if they have any critical issues.

The reports are pretty nice and easy to understand.

The price could be reduced.

I have been using Tenable Nessus for approximately 20 years, since the time that it was first released. 

This solution is stable. We do not have any issues with the stability of this solution.

It's a scalable product. We have approximately 300 companies.

I have yet to contact technical support. The users within my team are technical people, and if they have an issue, they can resolve it themselves using the knowledge base.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is very easy.

It takes less than 10 minutes to install.

I am the consultant.

We have a team of two to three to deploy and maintain this solution.

We have a subscription, the licensing fees are paid yearly, and I am using the latest version.

The pricing is fine, but it could be cheaper.

So far, I am quite pleased with this product and don't have any complaints. I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I have been using Tenable Nessus for my personal use. It works well.

I am using this solution for testing.

The most valuable features are that it's fast, it's easy to use, and it provides good reports.

The only thing that I don't like is KBs information. For example, if we scan our workstation and you go to the results report that Nessus provides, we are going to see a lot of KBs as remediation. But in most cases, the KBs are always superseded.

Also, we are not able to apply those because Microsoft has already released a new TB. 

Nessus is not doing a good job in updating its remediation section of the reports.

Remediation needs improvement. They are providing a lot of superseded KBs as remediation.

For example, when you share that with several team members or with one individual, and you ask them to work on this, they reply with Microsoft already has something new.

I have been using Tenable Nessus for approximately two years.

This solution is stable. I have not experienced any issues. It worked fine.

It's a scalable solution. I have not had any problems.

I am the only person using this solution.

Technical support is good. They provided information that is needed.

Previously, I was not using another solution. I use Nessus through a course that I was taking in the security field.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We did not use a vendor or vendor team to implement this solution.

I have evaluated one other solution, but because of my company policies. I can't share that information.

Tenable has Tenable.io, and I believe that they have the remediation updated, but Tenable Nessus Professional does not. I don't think that they will continue to keep it available in the market. They should probably decommission it.

Remediation is better in other tools than with Nessus.

For anyone who is interested in this solution, they should test the scan timing to see if it consumes a lot of time or not.

Research the remediation information to see if it is okay, or trust proof or not.

The reporting works well and it allows you to share. Also, support is important.

I would rate Tenable Nesuss an eight out of ten.

We use Tenable Nessus to provide service to our bank.

I use it to provide our main service related to our big management.

Other than providing information security to our clients, it is our information security provider, service provider — we manage it. Using Nessus, we are able to scan and locate any potential vulnerabilities that our clients may have and point them out to them.

I am not sure how many users we have using this solution, but we have more than 100,000 assets distributed between roughly 40 clients.

Tenable Nessus is cheap and flexible.

Currently, they don't have all of the features that I am looking for. I am looking for a technology that installs agents into the machines to perform complicated scanning. That's a good feature that I'm looking for.

Our issues are not all due to Tenable Nessus; we have more than one console that we administrate.

I have been using this solution for 10 to 15 years.

I use this solution on a regular basis at my current company. I used it at my previous company as well.

This solution is quite stable.

The professional version is not very scalable. It's not really scalable considering the number of assets and clients that I have.

Many of our clients would like to switch to a better solution.

The technical support is great. We have called them a few times and they have always helped us.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. Within a week we had set up all of the infrastructure and were ready to deploy.

We primarily use the solution for vulnerability management. We also use it during our IP scans.

The VPR scores are the solution's most valuable aspects.

The plug-in text information is quite useful.

The solution can scale well.

We've found the solution to be quite stable.

It wasn't very clear how the scripts are running the scans. There's information about the script but it's not straightforward. The script information for each of the plugins should be available, but it doesn't give us straightforward direct information about how it was executed. That needs to be more clear.

We find that the solution causes several issues due to the fact that it runs even before it calculates, the asset in prevention. 

I can't think of any features that are lacking.

I've been using the solution for one to two years at this point.

It's stable. I don't have any major complaints. It doesn't have bugs. It isn't affected by glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze on us. It's reliable.

We have about 100 direct users who are logging onto the solution on a daily basis.

We don't plan on increasing usage at this time.

We have been able to scale it in the past, however, and a company that needs to expand it should not face too many issues doing so.

We've worked with technical support in the past, and we've found them to be quite efficient. They are knowledgable and responsive.

We previously used McAfee and switched over completely at the end of May.

We had some help with the initial setup. We were able to use our vendor's expertise and have them walk us through any issues we had.

However, we completely handle the maintenance now that is it up and running. We have admins who deal with any upkeep.

The vendor assisted us in the initial implementation.

I don't have any information when it comes to the cost of the solution. It's not part of my job to deal with billing or payments, so I don't have any visibility on the cost structure.

We are simply customers. We don't have a business relationship with Tenable.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I would definitely recommend this solution. It's the best that I've used so far.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate it at an eight overall.

We are a company that provides cloud migration services. We help companies to migrate to the public cloud. When our customers want to migrate applications, they're worried about the security aspect in the cloud. So we are trying to see how the application security that is on-premises can be migrated to the cloud.

We don't have any particular solution, we are working with a few options. The customer selects what best suits their needs. If we have a program, we work with that.

It's not specific to what we are working with.

We have done code scanning for a long period because as a company, we do DevOps as part of our development life cycle. We like scanning the ports and security as well as application-level security.

Some of our customers are operating on the cloud as well as on-premises.

We would like to have the option of using the solution for the cloud as well as on-premises with the same license at the same time. That would be very helpful.

We have used this solution for three or four projects in the last two years.

We are always working with the latest version.

The stability varies on the version that you are using. 

We have not had any problems with stability with what we are using. It's been stable and we have never been faced with any stability issues.

We have used this for an enterprise cloud application, which is much smaller with hundreds of users. It's pretty scalable. We have not had any challenges so far. 

I don't know the limits of scalability because we haven't trialed it fully. But for the enterprise application that we use, we didn't find any issue with scalability.

We have contacted technical support, once or twice when we have had issues with respect to some plugin related clarification. 

There are times where the solution doesn't work out of the box, and we have to install some plugins. We needed some assistance with this.

They are good, but the response resolution takes a bit of time. It would say that it's still within an acceptable response time. Within a few hours, they will get back to you with a solution.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

When we use the scales we find it to be easy.

In our experience a complete deployment and start-up, it takes only a few hours.

In some cases, we deploy on-premises because the customer is still evaluating the readiness to go to the cloud. 

A few of our customers are already on the cloud, and others are migrating. We have deployed on both models.

With my experience, I would definitely recommend it. This is the only tool we have used recently.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for servers, domain controllers, application servers, Oracle servers, SQL servers, as well as network devices, like routers. For PCs that are used for services such as credit cards and ATMs, we usually do a vulnerability assessment, including Windows Servers, Linux servers, SQL servers, and database servers. We scan everything except basic PCs because it would require a lot of time to check all those reports. Our system administrators use another solution to check regular PCs for Windows and MS updates.

We're checking things every month. We created a schedule and it checks automatically. From time to time, we'll use it to check things if something unusual has happened. For example, if a stranger was on a computer, we'll check if is there a vulnerability there. 

We also use it to prepare reports when the agency asks for them.

One thing that is important for us is that when the regulation agency is asking for something. we can send them reports from Nessus and they're very satisfied. If they're satisfied, and they don't have any problem or additional requests, that's most important.

In the past, before we implemented Nessus, we used several products that were doing vulnerability assessments for different machines. For instance, we were using an antivirus/anti-malware and end-point security application for vulnerability assessments for Windows machines. We were using free tools for vulnerability checking for Linux machines. And we were \using Qualys' free version for external IP addresses, because Qualys allows you to check something like three IP addresses for free. I created a report for our regulation agency by combining three or four reports. I spent two weeks making that report. Now, I can create that report in one day. Nessus provides me reports within two to three hours for all our Windows machines. For Linux machines, it's half an hour; for the network, it takes about one hour. So in one day, I have everything ready for the agency. 

Similarly, for my upper management, it's my responsibility to provide security reports on a monthly basis about viruses, malware, attacks, etc. Now, it is easier for me to prepare that kind of report. The reports are also more lavish than before. In the past, I had to prepare tables and sheets by myself. Now, everything is prepared for me. If I want to play around with reports I can export to Excel and I can filter the report. Nessus makes everything easier than it was before.

Nessus gives me a good preview of vulnerabilities and good suggestions for remediation. It's easy to find a description of a given vulnerability and solutions for it.

One area that has room for improvement is the reporting. I'm preparing reports for Windows and Linux machines, etc. Currently, I'm collecting three or four reports and turning them into one report. I don't know if it is possible to combine all of them in one report, but that would be helpful. If the scans which I have already prepared could be used to combine the results into one report, it would save me additional work.

Also, when a new machine is brought into the domain, when it's first connected by the system administrator, it would be good to have some kind of automatic, basic vulnerability scan. Of course, I would have to enter my credentials if I wanted something additional, but it would be useful if, the first time, if that basic process happened. Otherwise, it can be problematic for me when, for example, a new Oracle Database is brought on. I may only be notified after 10 days that it has been connected and only then can I do a vulnerability assessment and I may find a lot of vulnerabilities. It would be better to know that before they put it into production. It would be great to have something automatically recognize a new server, a new PC, and do a basic vulnerability assessment.

I have been using Nessus for about half a year.

We haven't any problems so far.

A few days ago, I was scanning a range, three or subnets, the whole domain. That was something like 1,000 IP addresses. The first time I did it, things were a little bit slow. I was thinking that it was stuck or blocked. But I left it overnight and checked it in the morning. Everything had finished, correctly, after three or four hours. 

That was the only case where I had any issue but it was a problem because I was a little bit lazy. Instead of creating multiple jobs, I put everything together. I didn't know for sure which IP addresses in which segments were being used. That's the reason I wanted Nessus to scan them. I didn't want to check with the system administrator regarding IP addresses because every time I get such information, I usually find IP addresses with computers that the system administrator didn't tell me about. This way, I was sure to get a full vulnerability assessment. And I found two or three computers which had not been updated for two or three months. That was very important for me to find out.

In May, the guys from Alem Systems came to my office and we finished everything for the installation. They showed me how to configure it, how to add new assets, how to check networks, Linux machines, Windows machines, etc.

We bought a one-year license. We are now preparing a new budget for next year and, given our experience with Nessus, we plan to continue with it for next year. We are satisfied with it. It's the best option for small banks. For us, here in Bosnia, a small bank would have about 150 to 250 employees, with 20 to 30 branches throughout the country. The biggest bank here has more than 2,000 and maybe as many as 3,000 employees.

I didn't have a lot of experience with this type of product. I heard and knew that vulnerability assessment is most important. We paid a company to do a pen-test in our bank. That was the first time I heard about vulnerability assessment and about Nessus, Qualys, and Guardium. At that moment, I started to think about it and to search for the best option for us.

In the past, it was tricky to find money for this kind of application. But recently, a new director started with our company. He understands what security actually means and that it's important for a bank. He gave me a bigger budget.

I started, one year ago, checking all products on the market for vulnerability checking and scanning. The first option was Qualys because everybody here, my colleagues, were saying that Qualys is the best. But there were two problems with Qualys for me. First, there is no on-premise version, only a cloud version. And the second issue was the price. The first issue, that Qualys is only connected to the cloud, was most important because I must prepare documents for our regulation agency in banking. With Qualys in the cloud, I would have to prepare risk assessments, etc., and that would be a lot of work for me. And then I would have to wait for that agency's approval, which could take some three months. Finally, when I started thinking, "Okay, I'll go that route and will prepare everything," when I asked about the price of Qualys here in Bosnia, I realized it was too much for us because we are a small bank.

I also checked an IBM solution, Guardium, because there are a lot of companies working with IBM here. It's easier to find solutions for IBM. The reason I didn't go with Guardium was its price.

After that, I started checking other products. Nessus was one of the options. I had a friend working for Alem Systems and spoke with him over a coffee. We spoke about solutions and he said, "Why don't you use Nessus? Nessus is good." He explained everything to me, and he showed me a demo and how it works in a particular company. I said, "Okay, if Nessus is good enough for me, who will sell it to me?" He said, "I will do that."

We are a small bank. I don't need to take care of 100 or 200 servers or many switches and routers and PCs. Nessus is easy to configure and it's easy to add additional searching and scanning for new assets, like a new router. I had seen Qualys at conferences, but I hadn't used it myself. A presenter showed how it worked, but I didn't have hands-on experience. My friend showed me Nessus and he gave me an idea of how to work with it. When I first used it by myself — I created a scheduled job for a server — when I got the report, I realized that it was easy for me, and that was great. Maybe Qualys has better graphics, but I didn't have experience with it. Nessus, now, is perfect.

Finally, I decided that the price was good enough for me and for my bosses. So I finally found a solution after six months.

I didn't need it to be something complicated, to have some NASA-level product. I needed it to work properly and simply, to show me what I need to do. I had to be able to explain to my system administrators what they should do. When I get a report I explain it and give it to my system administrators to solve the problem.

If I were to speak to someone who works with IBM Guardium they would probably tell me, "Ah, Nessus is too simple for me. Guardium is better." But I can recommend Nessus to anyone who wants a good product for a "small amount of money." It's the best buy.

When I speak with my colleagues we usually share our experiences. I know that some of my colleagues are thinking about Nessus for next year because they don't have any solution, but they need one, according to regulations. When I explain how it works they usually say that they will check into it. Probably, in Bosnia, there will be two more banks using Nessus in the next year.

Alem, as a company, is very friendly and that's most important. They come to our office to explain things. They spent three or four hours here with me, explaining everything about Nessus. They suggested a free trial. It's important to have that kind of support. I know that if I need something, I can ask them without any problems, at any time.

Overall, Nessus is working well.

It is used for vulnerability management. We used Nessus to scan our machines to see how they were vulnerable, for patches or security. The CVE numbers is what we looked at, the security vulnerability, and tried to figure out what we were vulnerable to.

We monitored Windows Servers, Windows workstations, Linux servers, firewalls, switches, VMware equipment, and Cisco UCS hardware through the application.

We were a lot less vulnerable after implementing the changes that the application recommended.

The solution helped limit our company's cyber exposure by pointing out every single vulnerability we had and showing us how to fix them. By following the application's directions, we were less vulnerable to attackers. By implementing what the application told us to implement, we were able to fix the holes in our network and prevent any attackers from coming in.

The most valuable feature is how it scanned and detected through its database to let us know exactly what fixes we needed to put in place for the vulnerabilities. It detects and it also gives you the way to fix it.

The product's VPR did a great job in prioritizing and giving the highs versus the mediums; it did a great job providing the different ratings and priorities.  

The Nessus predictive prioritization feature is very nice, the way it displays. The interface could look better, but it has everything it needs. It could do a better grouping of the workstations and run a better schedule. But it was sufficient in what it provided.

There is room, overall, for improvement in the way it groups the workstations and the way it detects, when the vulnerability is scanned. Even when we would run a new scan, if it was an already existing vulnerability, it wouldn't put a new date on it.

I used Nessus for about three years.

It was very stable. We didn't have any outages or downtime during its use.

The scalability was very good. We were able to deploy it into multiple remote sites using the scanners. You can deploy separate scanner VMs into remote locations where you don't have access. They have Tenable.io in the cloud, which allows you to do all that.

I used it in a very large environment. Just in my sector, we had about 5,000 workstations along with about 150 servers. So it was a pretty sizable environment. The company was using it for a much bigger purpose. It had between about 50,000 and 100,000 workstations and about 10,000 servers.

In my environment we had about seven users logging into it. The company as a whole had about 150 users. They were security engineers, security administrators, system administrators, and system engineers. For maintenance of Nessus, there was only a team of about 15 people.

I rarely had to call technical support. There was one time when we were troubleshooting a VMware scan. They got on and were helpful, but they weren't able to provide a solution quickly enough. I would give them a three out of five.

I found the setup to be simple. The interface was very intuitive. It was simple yet functional.

Without Nessus, we would have had a lot more vulnerabilities which would have opened the doors to potential attacks. And attacks would have cost the company a lot more money.

Know that it's only a detection tool and that it has limitations as a detection tool, but the deployment can be pretty scalable.

The solution didn't reduce the number of critical and high vulnerabilities we needed to patch first. It tells you what the critical vulnerabilities are that you need to patch, but it didn't reduce anything. It doesn't patch it for you.

I would give Nessus a seven out of ten, as it doesn't automatically resolve the vulnerabilities. There are tools out there that give you an option: "Hey, do you want me to patch that vulnerability?" You just hit "yes" and it automatically does it. Nessus doesn't do that. And, as I said, the grouping could be a little bit better.