Tenable Nessus Reviews

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.

We use it for vulnerability management. We have the latest version because we're using it in the cloud right now. I have a public cloud and a private cloud version.

When we do our scans, I'm able to give full reports of what's vulnerable per device. I could group them and say, "Hey, here's a vulnerability in the infrastructure. Here's all the host that needs to be addressed," by showing the report. When I give a report or a request for change, I would include the report so that they are undisputed. Instead of the sys admins giving the excuse of, "Hey, we don't have enough time," or, "We've already done it," or some other poor excuse, now I have a report behind it that says, "Hey, you're vulnerable with this. Here's the CVE, and here's the POC of the CVE," and then if I want to be a little bit more obnoxious, I provide them the POC that I ran with the proof that the POC is there, and then I'm able to say, "Hey, you need to patch this now."

My executives now are able to say, "Hey, you know what? The ISO gave you a directive to patch this with proof. Why haven't you done it?" Because now, as we know, all C-levels are ultimately responsible. If you have an ISO that is interfacing with sys admins saying, "Hey, here's a change that you need to patch it. Here's my proof that even has POC with proof and the report," then there is no benign, "Why haven't you done it?"

I like its ease of use. It has the script that is pre-built in it, and you just got to know which ones you're looking for.

The price could be more reasonable. I used the free Nessus version in my lab with which you can only scan 16 IP addresses. If I wanted to put it in the lab in my network at work, and I'm doing a test project that has over 30 nodes in it, I can't use the free version of Nessus to scan it because there are only 16 IP addresses. I can't get an accurate scan. The biggest thing with all the cybersecurity tools out there nowadays, especially in 2020, is that there's a rush to get a lot of skilled cybersecurity analysts out there. Some of these companies need to realize that a lot of us are working from home and doing proof of concepts, and some of them don't even offer trials, or you get a trial and it is only 16 IP addresses. I can't really do anything with it past 16. I'm either guessing or I'm doing double work to do my scans. Let's say there was a license for 50 users or 50 IP addresses. I would spend about 200 bucks for that license to accomplish my job. This is the biggest complaint I have as of right now with all cybersecurity tools, including Rapid7, out there, especially if I'm in a company that is trying to build its cybersecurity program. How am I going to tell my boss, who has no real budget of what he needs to build his cybersecurity program, to go spend over $100,000 for a tool he has never seen, whereas, it would pack the punch if I could say, "Let me spend 200 bucks for a 50 user IP address license of this product, do a proof of concept to scan 50 nodes, and provide the reason for why we need it." I've been a director, and now I'm an ISO. When I was a director, I had a budget for an IT department, so I know how budgets work. As an ISO, the only thing that's missing from my C-level is I don't have to deal with employees and budgets, but I have everything else. It's hard for me to build the program and say, "Hey, I need these tools." If I can't get a trial, I would scratch that off the list and find something else.

I'm trying to set up Tenable.io to do external PCI scans. The documentation says to put in your IP addresses or your external IP addresses. However, if the IP address is not routable, then it says that you have to use an internal agent to scan. This means that you set up a Nessus agent internally and scan, which makes sense. However, it doesn't work because when you use the plugin and tell it that it is a PCI external, it says, "You cannot use an internal agent to scan external." The documentation needs to be a little bit more clear about that. It needs to say if you're using the PCI external plugin, all IP addresses must be external and routable. It should tell the person who's setting it up, "Wait a minute. If you have an MPLS network and you're in a multi-tenant environment and the people who hold the network schema only provide you with the IP addresses just for your tenant, then you are not going to know what the actual true IP address that Tenable needs to do a PCI scan."

I've been working on Tenable.io to set up PCI scans for the last ten days. I have been going back and forth to the network thinking I need this or that only to find out that I'm teaching their team, "Hey, you know what, guys? I need you to look past your MPLS network. I need you to go to the edge's edge. Here's who you need to ask to give me the whitelist to allow here." I had the blurb that says the plugin for external PCI must be reachable, and you cannot use an internal agent. I could have cut a few days because I thought I had it, but then when I ran it, it said that you can't run it this way. I wasted a few hours in a day.

In terms of new features, it doesn't require new features. It is a tool that has been out there for years. It is used in the cybersecurity community. It has got the CV database in it, and there are other plugins that you could pass through. It has got APIs you can attach to it. They can just improve the database and continue adding to the database and the plugins to make sure those don't have false positives. If you're a restaurant and you focus on fried chicken, you have no business doing hamburgers.

I've been using Nessus for about eight years.

Internally, it is stable. Externally also, from what I've seen, it is stable. The only problem that I've had with it was if you have a network and internet blip, you get disconnected, but that happens with anything. Right now, I would say that a lot of cloud companies are having problems because COVID has got a lot of people working from home remotely in VPN. This is the biggest problem we have. You went from 35 people using VPN to over 2,000 people using VPN. You're trying to go to a cloud that wasn't set up for VPN, or you don't have the necessary routes or bandwidth to it. The average person is going to say, "This cloud application sucks." It doesn't really suck. It means that you don't have enough bandwidth in your infrastructure.

We haven't had to scale it yet. We haven't scaled internal Nessus because we have our own version of it. I'm not sure how many IP addresses we're feeding, but I know we only have one server. I looked at the processes, and it's only doing 50% of the process.

We have 13 people who are capable or licensed to use it, which would be all of our risk management information, information security, and risk management office, but I would say only half or about six of us are actually using it daily.

I've used the tech support a couple of times. I would say they are very good because they were able to say, "Hey, let's stop the chatting. Let's get on a Webex, and we will Webex you and ask the questions directly." They were able to get to the engineers on the Webex at the same time, and within 30 minutes, they solved our problem. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

If I was installing Nessus just by itself, it is straightforward simply because I've done it before. If you're setting up Nessus from the cloud version, there's a little bit more to it because, for one, it's in the cloud version, and you got to open up ports for your network. You got network people who get all scary because they don't understand what you're doing. Other than that, once you get it set up, then it is pretty much straightforward.

Nowadays, your vulnerability applications are going to be kind of pricey because lots of them, including Rapid7, are based upon a base price, but then they add in the nodes. That's where they get you. If you're a big network, obviously, you need to scan everything. Therefore, it's going to be costly.

The risk and insurance money associated with having ransomware on my networks is going to cost me more money, time, and marketing than the price of the tool. That's why I'm speaking only as an information security officer to security operations. This is the tool that is there in my toolbox to say whether we vulnerable or not. At this point, I don't care about how much it costs my company to have it because if I wasn't able to report it and we got ransomware, then who cares? I'm probably going to be out of business because it happened. That's why I don't care about the price. I have it, and I could use it effectively and do my report. At the end of the day, even if we get ransomware, as long as I reported it, followed my protocol, and put in the change, irrespective of whether it was ignored or denied, I did my job.

The advice would be definitely doing your proof of concept because that's what you're going to need for your buy-in for your upper management because it is going to cost some money. I would do a hybrid version, where your own Nessus is internal, and then you have your cloud. If you lose connection to the internet, you could still run an internal Nessus scan to save the scan and then input the scan into Tenable.sc. Do your proof of concepts, get your reports, and use your proof of concepts when you do your presentation to upper management to purchase. If you use your own nodes and your own network as your proof of concept, it gives them an eye view of, "Hey, we're vulnerable because of this, and here's the tool that did it." To me, that was a better selling point because it was real. It wasn't the demo data. Once you have purchased it and get it all set up, use it continuously, meaning include your scanned reports with your change control. This way, it shuts all the administrators who have been there over 20 years and say, "Hey, I don't want to patch right now because it takes the network down." Yes, it's going to take the network down. However, the longer you wait, the more vulnerable you are because if I'm doing change requests every week, and I'm calling on more and more risk and you start to find the same nodes in the same reports, then somebody up high is going to say to the network administrator guy to fix it.

I would rate Tenable Nessus a ten out of ten right now. If you had asked me last year, Rapid7 would have been the same and on top, but now that I've been using Tenable and I'm comparing the jobs that I'm doing right now, Tenable is cut and clear to what the report is saying. My favorite report is the VPR report. Instead of just looking at CVS numbers, it has a VPR report that ranks, whereas, in Rapid7, it's just focused on CVS. It is CVS version 2 or 3, which kind of gets confusing. For example, in Tenable, I can run a scheduled scan and have my report, but let's say, for instance, I did patching in the middle before my scheduled scan. I could kick off a new scan specifically for that vulnerability and get a report, whereas, in Rapid7, you could not easily do that. Therefore, you were stuck waiting for the scan to go again and to see if your mitigation efforts fixed it.

Our clients use Tenable Nessus to find vulnerabilities in websites and infrastructure.

The most valuable feature of Tenable Nessus is website scanning.

The solution could improve security updates.

I have been using Tenable Nessus for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

I rate the stability of Tenable Nessus a seven out of ten.

I am the only one using this solution.

I rate the scalability of Tenable Nessus a seven out of ten.

I rate the support of Tenable Nessus a six out of ten.

Neutral

The setup is easy. We use the deployment manual and followed the steps.

I rate the initial setup of Tenable Nessus a nine out of ten.

The price is high for the solution. There are free tools with similar functionality available. The solution cost approximately $3,500.

I rate the price of Tenable Nessus a six out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Tenable Nessus a seven out of ten.

I evaluated, set up, and implemented Tenable Nessus for a client. They had four firewalls, about 500 endpoints, two servers, and one database server.

I like the fact that it was not expensive. I like that it's user-friendly.

It would be better if they had application-level support for mobile devices. They don't have anything to scan mobile devices. Tenable Nessus doesn't have a mobile application vulnerability assessment. I also have issues with the false positive rates. The product has limited features.

I have been using Tenable Nessus for about six months.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give stability a seven.

The initial setup is straightforward. We can deploy this solution within a week.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give the initial setup a seven.

We implemented this solution. 

Tenable Nessus is affordable. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give pricing a ten.

I would tell potential users that Tenable Nessus is suitable for device security.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Tenable Nessus a seven.

I am using Tenable Nessus to know where the vulnerabilities are on my website.

The most valuable feature of Tenable Nessus is the dashboard. They are convenient to use.

Tenable Nessus could improve the price.

I have been using Tenable Nessus for approximately two months.

The stability of Tenable Nessus is good.

We have approximately three people using this solution in my organization. The users are managers and engineers. 

The support from Tenable Nessus is okay. However, they are sometimes slow and can take days to respond. Additionally, I would like to be able to ask them more technical questions than I am able to.

The initial setup of Tenable Nessus is simple. It took us approximately one hour to do the process.

We did the initial setup of the solution in-house.

The price of Tenable Nessus could improve, it is expensive.

I rate Tenable Nessus an eight out of ten.

We use Nessus for vulnerability assessment. Three or four engineers at my company are using it currently.

Nessus is effortless to integrate.

The reporting could be improved. The reporting in Rapid7 is much better.

Nessus performs well.

Nessus is scalable.

I'm happy with Tenable's technical support. 

Nessus is easy to set up, and it only takes about two hours to deploy. 

I rate Tenable Nessus nine out of 10. Nessus isn't suitable for everyone. It depends on the case. If you need reporting for the COs and stuff, Rapid7 is better. However, if you are implementing it as part of an ongoing VA or retention operation, you should probably use Tenable.

The scanning capabilities are most valuable when compared to Nessus.

I think the reporting templates could be improved with Tenable Nessus.

I have been working with Tenable Nessus for the past year.

Tenable Nessus is scalable.

Technical support always replies back on Mondays and it depends on the open support cases.

The setup is straightforward. It takes about five to ten minutes to deploy and it is easy.

I would rate Tenable Nessus an eight on a scale of one to ten.

We're using Tenable Nessus to manage vulnerabilities.

What I like most about Tenable Nessus is its vulnerability scanning feature.

A room for improvement which I see in Tenable Nessus is the inventory management function.

I've been working with Tenable Nessus for two years now.

I'm satisfied with the stability of Tenable Nessus.

We have not tried to scale up Tenable Nessus. The number of users we have when we started using it is still the same.

Technical support for this solution was good. They were responsive.

The initial setup for this solution was easy.

We implemented Tenable Nessus through a vendor team, and the process took one month to complete. They were good.

This solution is affordable. We pay a standard fee. We pay for the license yearly.

I work with different products, e.g. firewalls, PAM technology, antivirus, WAF, and proxy. I'm handling information security in the government, not as a consultant. I deal with government procedures.

We deployed this solution on hardware, on VM.

We have 10 users of Tenable Nessus, and they are a mix of engineers and managers.

I'm scoring Tenable Nessus a ten out of ten.