Tenable Security Center Reviews

It's a management tool. We are more scalable with the Tenable.io product. They are a security vendor with more than one cloud level. Now there are multiple products in my area.

It adheres to advanced security standards. It's mostly geared towards on-premise solutions rather than cloud-based ones. Many enterprises create views solely for internal units and prefer using internal tools without relying on external ones. It is chosen for its comprehensive system-wide solution. It continuously updates its sources to maintain current solutions. Security and confidentiality are top priorities; they avoid external leaks of information. Despite the misconception that such tools are primarily for cloud environments, Tenable manages its systems internally. This makes it a highly valuable asset in the field of data centers and database security, leveraging its own data centers effectively.

They have their own servers and prioritize trust. They address every compliance concern and offer options for automated and manual assessments. Tenable Security Center supports a wide range of applications and servers, capable of comprehensive scanning and handling of vulnerabilities. It can scan against the CI benchmark and provides standard dashboards for general product monitoring and scanning.

They are not currently handling call flows properly. Some call flows are being deleted from the registry but still show as active. Support is also lacking in onboarding properly in this area. This issue causes confusion and reflects poorly on their service. 

I have been using Tenable Security Center since 2014.

The solution is stable.

It is scalable for management in the market, compared to other products.

The initial setup is not easy because everything is on-premise. We need to enable specific ports for the engineering product, which are critical for internal purposes and cannot be easily changed. This complexity remains confined to the client side, where applications may require reboots.

Another issue arises with scanning and agent communication. While some agents communicate effectively with the Security Center, delays occur when numerous users access the service simultaneously, impacting real-time updates.

Managing involves two scanners and one dedicated server, requiring a week for proper setup and two personnel to maintain the system effectively.

While some clients focus solely on developing large-scale software solutions, the industrial sector is vast. Industries such as manufacturing and green technologies prioritize systematic design, maintenance of accounts, blueprints, and business identities—all of which necessitate robust data security. The investment in securing their data is crucial, ensuring that sensitive information remains protected from potential threats. Monitoring and documenting activities through systems like gateway or dedicated servers help management stay informed about ongoing operations and potential risks.

For enterprise customers, it's acceptable. However, for smaller enterprises or businesses, the budget may be too restrictive to consider such extensive solutions. When proposing to small-scale industries, they often show disinterest even when we offer a POC or trial. This reluctance is primarily due to cost considerations, which larger enterprises can manage more easily.

Tenable supports integrations with tools like Jira and Symantec, which are relatively easy to implement. However, when it comes to other cloud services beyond AWS and Azure, such as Oracle, support is less robust. Personal or niche cloud platforms may not receive adequate support.

There's a significant distinction between agent-based and non-agent-based approaches in Tenable's solutions. Agent-based scanning requires installation akin to antivirus software on servers, whereas non-agent-based methods operate differently. This difference impacts reporting and usability, particularly evident in Google Cloud environments where agent-based scanning is mandated.

Accessing and managing Tenable is straightforward for administrators, but specialist knowledge may be necessary for certain configurations or troubleshooting. Small-scale businesses implementing Tenable Security Center may find it cost-prohibitive compared to Tenable.io for cloud solutions, which offers more affordable options and promotions.

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

We use Tenable.sc to conduct vulnerability scanning for our networks, and applications, and for the data protection we need in our environment. We are customers of Tenable and I'm the assistant manager of network security.

It provides us with clear visibility across our environment.

The best feature is the advanced scanning for the network.

I think the web application should be improved because it's not very functional.

We've been using this solution for almost three years. 

The solution is stable.

We haven't had the need to test scalability.

The technical support is not very good. We didn't get a good response when we contacted them. We had to go through all their documentation and get the information we needed from external sources. 

Negative

The initial setup is not difficult, it's just a matter of downloading which takes around 25 minutes and then uploading the plugins which takes several hours. I'm the only one in the company that uses this product.

The licensing costs are not expensive. I think we pay around $9,000 USD for an annual subscription. There are no additional expenses.

My recommendation is to stick with the data scanning tool and not worry about downloading the other features. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

Tenable.sc customers use when they need a complete in-house vulnerability management environment. It enables you to identify the applications and infrastructure within your organization, giving you greater control over your environment. Tenable.sc isn't on the cloud. Tenable.sc is deployed on a private cloud and used when regulations prevent keeping things on a public cloud. Two of my customers are using it currently. 

I like Tenable.sc's analytics and reporting. You can also configure your on-prem network monitors to talk to your Tenable.sc control panel.

I have used Tenable.sc for two years. 

The stability depends on your environment. It is typically stable, and I have not experienced any kind of issues. 

Tenable.sc is scalable, depending on your on-prem environment and how it is configured. You can scale as far as your configuration allows. 

I get the standard support that comes with all Tenable licenses. There isn't specialized support for Tenable.sc. It's decent.

Deploying Tenable.sc is highly complex because it's an on-prem solution, whereas Tenable.io is cloud-based, so you can go live as soon as you log in. Tenable.sc involves significant integration with other on-prem solutions, and the deployment takes about two to three weeks with the help of a system integrator

You need to set up your environment, including VMs or a physical server. If you have data centers spread across multiple sites and regions, you need to deploy a specific JPS at every location so the data can pass through the gateway and be captured in the central console on a private cloud or on-prem data center.

I rate Tenable.sc seven out of 10. I typically recommend Tenable.io instead, but Tenable.sc is an option if data regulations require you to use a private cloud or on-prem infrastructure. 

The reporting vulnerability is very helpful when you link it with the people who close it with the admin and support team, giving them the criticality to find how to close each item.  And it's up to date with all the vulnerabilities on the market thanks to prompt updates from the cloud.

In the next release, we would like to see the inclusion of external IPs and simplified reporting that's easier to deal with.

We have been using this solution for about two years.

The solution has been very stable up till now. I would give it nine or 10 out of 10 for scalability

For our size, it's scalable. It covers all the bank infrastructure and all that we have.

Two or three people from the security team manage the solution, but they extract it for the IT team to take action in different areas, including infrastructure and domain support. So 10 or more people assess the reports to fix the issues.

We are happy with the support from the Tenable side. But sometimes the vendor's people move between areas too often, causing occasional shortages on technical issues inside the country. When you raise tickets, the vendor sometimes takes some time to respond, but they are always helpful. 

Positive

Previously we used Rapid7, but we switched after comparing it with the solution because it had some additional features that we needed.

Overall, the initial setup was smooth and easy. Later we had to integrate it with other solutions in the system, but it didn't take long.

We had a consultant for two weeks at the beginning but in the end, we completed it, doing most of the work ourselves and gaining valuable experience. And, of course, we had to set up our systems inside the bank and the structure of the scope of the vulnerability, so that made it about a month.

Four people were involved in the deployment, two from the vendor and two from our team.

We're happy with the licensing cost and find it affordable.

We paid for three years, mostly for the finances and sourcing, but all features are inclusive.

I would rate our licensing cost as eight on a scale of one to ten.

I would give the product an overall rating of nine out of 10.

The product is a very good solution. I would advise potential users to look at other solutions. The product is our second solution, and we are happy that it meets our requirements.

I am using Tenable SC to detect vulnerabilities, and we are in the process of testing the solution.

The most valuable features of Tenable SC are the reports and the dashboards.

Tenable SC could improve by making the creation of the initial reports easier that correspond to our network.

I have been using Tenable SC for three months.

The stability of the solution is good. We have not had any problem.

We use the solution approximately 20 hours per week. We have three people that use the solution to do tests.

I have not used the support from Tenable SC.

I have used Nessus Professional previously. I prefer Tenable SC because it provides more information.

The setup of Tenable SC is easy.

We have a consultant in France that has helped us with the solution.

The price of Tenable SC is expensive, we pay approximately €70,000 for the license annually. We have to pay for each IP test. The cost of other solutions is far less, such as Nessus Professional, which is €3,000 annually.

This is a good solution for what I use it for. I would recommend it to others.

I rate Tenable SC a seven out of ten.

Tenable Security Center is aimed at IT environments. It can receive vulnerability information from Tenable OT and integrate it into a unified report covering both IT and OT environments.

The BPR prioritizes vulnerabilities. The ARCs and compliance reports are very helpful in complying with regulations and standards.

The valauble feature is compliance reporting system.

It does not natively support industrial protocols needed for OT environments. The reporting system is very powerful, though it could be more user-friendly for creating custom reports.

I have been using Tenable Security Center as a partner for five years.

It's very stable.

I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten.

We cater the solution to medium and enterprise. We haven't seen issues with scalability.

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

Deployment takes probably a couple of days. it can either be done for one person.

It requires the installation of its tools and console server, which can be either virtual or physical. You need to activate the licenses and update the tool for the latest plugins. Typical deployments may involve multiple scanners linked to the main console, depending on the customer's network. Additionally, customers might need to deploy agents which require a separate Center manager machine. While, there is a lot to set up, it can be done within a couple of days.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten.

It's very affordable.

Continuous monitoring is essential because new vulnerabilities are discovered every day, and even existing vulnerabilities can evolve. As new malware emerges, a vulnerability that seemed minor today might become critical tomorrow. The malware, and malicious activities are constantly changing. 

We cannot rely solely on the hardware or servers required to run Tenable Security Center because it is an on-premise solution.

It provides essential tools for vulnerability management and operates on-premises. This allows customers with requirements or audio restrictions to run Security Center on their premises. Additionally, the reporting system is highly advanced, and the compliance dashboards are extremely useful for meeting regulatory requirements. For example, banks and financial institutions prefer Security Center due to its robust reporting capabilities and on-premises operation.

I advise them to look into Tenable Security Center instead because it not only provides vulnerability management but also include other modules of Tenable, such as Tenable Identity, Tenable Cloud, etc. This allows for a single pane of view for the entire company, covering more than vulnerabilities and offering a comprehensive.

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

We primarily use the solution for vulnerability scanning across the network . 

A few months back, I conducted a Deployment on Tenable SecurityCenter for a Reputed  Private Bank. Also I had to teach the Usage and features and then show them how the scan things work and how results can help analyze and report. also helped developing some use case like Scheduling scan and email that to specific users for mitigation, Generating Alert for particular level of vulnerability etc.

Tenable has come a long way than we found earlier, Asset Criticality Report and Predictive Prioritization helps us finding the most critical loophols in minutes, Security Engineers can now focus more on Remediation. Less of false positive eases our vulnerability program and saved time.

In Tenable SecurityCenter, the Risk-based approach for Prioritizing vulnerability is something that is unique to any vulnerability management platform. Compared to Qualys and Rapid7, Tenable VPR is a special thing that those products don't have. The security over the CVSS and V1 and V2 with the VPR feature help an organization reveal the exact risk of any asset. There might be thousands of vulnerabilities, however, the most impactful vulnerabilities are listed and prioritized in the VPR. 

As tenable SecurityCenter is powered by popular Nessus technology, It is really easy to set up.

The solution is stable and considered as the most solid vulnerability management platform in the industry. 

Tenable.sc provides a wide range of dashboards which makes it easy to grasp the vulnerability profile of the organization. These dashboards allow us to view vulnerabilities in different categories in a simple to understand format. The upgrade to Tenable.sc+ has improved on this as well. Regularity of plugin updates are also exceptional. The speed at which tenable has pushed plugin updates and overall platform updates is great. Also the automatic update capability makes maintenance very simplified. Easy to use User interface. For someone who is not familiar with Tenable.sc, the interface is not difficult to follow along and the documentation makes it very simple for anyone

The solution has a very nice Asset discovery feature that gives you gives you unified visibility of your entire attack surface, As It leverages Nessus Sensors, a mix of active scanners, agents, passive network monitoring, and CMDB integrations to maximize scan coverage across your infrastructure to reduce vulnerability blind spots. This mix of data sensor types helps you track and assess both known and unknown assets and their vulnerabilities

The solution is a bit on the expensive site. In a country like  Bangladesh, most of the customers don't have a budget that could afford Tenable SecurityCenter. They'd rather go for Qualys and Nexpose, which cost less. The licensing policy is something they can improve. 

Support could be faster.

I've used the solution for last 5 years now. 

The solution is verry stable. That said, some customers complain about the results and how they are shown. Compared to Nessus, if a customer gets used to using Nessus, and then comes into Tenable SecurityCenter, then the compliance results are an area where they might find a difference. In Nessus, the compliance results are shown in past and failed. In Tenable.sc, it's shown in medium and high. This could be more clear. 

Tenable can be scaled easily, just to add additional IP's on the licensing and that's it.

I haven't really dealt much with technical support. In the initial stage, however, when I started deploying Tenable SecurityCenter, I faced a bit of a challenge implementing the Nessus Network Monitor. I figured it out, and now I don't have issues. 

Support is top-notch, however, in terms of response times, they are slow, and they need to be faster. 

Positive

I have also worked with Qualys for a long time.

In our country, People are yet not comfortable adopting SaaS/cloud based solutions also,there are some government jurisdictions that require data to be within the country and an on-prem solution is always needed for the organization. Other solutions, Qualys and Rapid7, are mainly cloud designed. Tenable SecurityCenter is the only solution that can be fully on-prem for small to mid Enterprises. 

Also, Tenable is better for compliance requirements in terms of regulations around vulnerability management. it has reporting on compliance with pre-defined checks, metrics and proactive alerts on violations for industry standards like CERT, NIST, DISA STIG, DHS CDM, FISMA, PCI DSS etc. and regulatory mandates. while it comes to other solutions i dint find the compliance feature as good as Tenable 

The initial setup is simple. It's not complex at all. 

You can go with the installer for Tenable SecurityCenter, which has an installer file for Linux and Unix platforms only. talking about the Nessus scanners, It can be deployed anywhere, including on Windows machines or Linux. There is not much of a challenge to it.

The time it takes to deploy varies. For example, what is the implementation size? How many IPs, and what are the sites? Those things change the timing. If it's a stand-alone setup, it can take around one to two hours to deploy. If you are also talking about onboarding the IPs, and scanning all those IPs, it can take a working day to complete.

The legecy container security is already in it's EOL, if it gets added to Tenable Security Center, users can take full toll of on prem container scanning.

Its cost depends on the Number of Assets. The licensing is per year. 

i had also worked and evaluated Qualys.

We sell Tenable.

I'm using something around version five. I have installed the demo version of it in my Docker.

The product really stands out in comparison to the competition. However, the price tag is a bit on the higher.

I would advise new users to scan all assets and grab the results and set up all security postures and do stats for mitigating those attacks which are critical. For the first time, I would recommend they go for the critical and high vulnerabilities first in order to mitigate effectively very early on. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use the product to scan threats and conduct risk assessments for NCA. 

Tenable Security Center scans networks and gives reports. 

The solution is expensive. 

I haven't contacted the support team yet. 

Tenable Security Center's deployment is easy. 

The tool costs around 15,000 Saudi riyals monthly. 

I rate Tenable Security Center a five out of ten. 

We use the product as a security tool for VMs and web applications.

The product could be user-friendly, and they could enhance the web application's security features.

We have been using Tenable Security Center for a year.

It is a stable product. Our customers utilize just one security center due to the scope of the budget. It doesn't have any adverse effect on the business.

Tenable Security Center on the cloud side is preferred in larger enterprises, but Nexpose might be a suitable option in smaller organizations. The POC implementation for the banking sector is lengthy. I prefer cloud-based scanning for its ease and scalability.

The tickets are passed quickly. Their support manager works proactively in scheduling meetings and solving the issues with the team. They provide the best support care for the customers.

We used Netsparker and Nexpose before. We switched to Tenable SC for better pricing and efficient scanning features. Additionally, it provides features for data security and cloud usage for clients who want to avoid sending information through the cloud.

The initial setup process is simple. If the customers do not have scanners, we can complete it quickly within an hour.

Tenable SC helps us save about 20% of the price compared to Nexpose, which involves buying three different licenses.

The product helps with web application security. I advise others to use Tenable IO and NAS, especially in regions with specific data protection regulations like GDPR and PDPA.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

We use it to scan both our workstations and servers for vulnerabilities. This includes vulnerabilities related to software, operating systems, and package vulnerabilities. It helps us gain an overview of our organization's security status, which in turn guides our patching strategies and decision-making. 

We use agents for scanning and authenticated logins, but we do not utilize the scanner part that performs web scanning.

We've got better insights into our vulnerabilities and weaknesses. This has led us to a better situation where we have better control. Our ability to manage the situation has improved. 

Previously, we lacked a good overview, but now we possess detailed reports. We generate these reports internally and disseminate them to other responsible teams. Now, we have made it a part of our daily workflow and it helps us monitor vulnerabilities and related matters. It aids us in pinpointing weaknesses and facilitates more effective updates. If something slips, it becomes visible.

However, this is a significant feature, although it could potentially offer even more assistance. 

The scanning part, the agent part – that's the valuable aspect. The agent and plugin components function reasonably well. But setting up scans, those tasks are working decently. 

There are some logical elements that require consideration to understand their functionality, but they perform their function. 

Certain aspects require effort. The solution's built-in reporting components are somewhat clumsy. So, this is an area of improvement. 

Therefore, we export data and integrate it with our other reporting tools - the Elastic Stack, also known as Elasticsearch. We find it more comfortable to generate reports from Elasticsearch because we're well-versed in creating those dashboards there. It's more convenient for us to extract and integrate information in the same manner.

We've been in discussions with Tenable regarding a specific enhancement. It is a concept known as VPR, which stands for Vulnerability Priority Rating. This is related to the CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) value, which rates vulnerabilities on a scale from one to ten. However, the CVSS alone doesn't accurately determine the severity of a vulnerability; it doesn't indicate how exploitable it is. The VPR takes into account additional factors, such as how widely the vulnerability is being exploited in the wild and the volume of reports from affected sites. 

And if we want to have it on our dashboard, this is something that doesn't work well for us in that sense. We cannot extract it from the Tenable system; we're restricted to using Tenable's own dashboard and reports. However, there's certainly some logic or rationale behind it. It's not directly tied to the CVSS, but rather some other factors. So, it's not a one-to-one correlation with the CVSS, although CVSS is a metric commonly employed in various other systems for assessing vulnerabilities. 

Aligning these metrics and incorporating an additional feature indicating the early harmfulness of a vulnerability is lacking. We're hopeful that the CVSS framework is undergoing changes. I've heard that version four, while not specifically linked to Tenable, is likely to introduce more meaningful values. These values won't be solely focused on severity but also on the level of exploitability. For instance, if exploiting a vulnerability requires local access and specific conditions, it might not merit a higher score like ten; it could be lower due to limited feasibility. Thus, certain developments could be anticipated in this regard. Tenable is also working on its own approach, known as CPR (Cyber Exposure Priority), but this feature is not exportable, unfortunately.

In future releases, I would like to see a feature that provides insight into the actual degree of harm associated with certain vulnerabilities. Ideally, I'd want this information to be exportable to align it with other vulnerabilities. It's possible that I might have the same CVSS value from another source, not necessarily Tenable. We're not using Tenable IO for container security, where we have a separate collection of CVs for containers. However, it's challenging to compare them directly due to the differing numbers and systems. If we could implement this VPR concept for other CVs as well, we could customize it to better suit our needs.

We've been using this solution for close to five years. We probably use the latest version.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. Occasionally, there are some maintenance tasks that might cause a slight uptick in activity, but we have monitoring mechanisms in place. Fortunately, it hasn't experienced any major breakdowns. 

Sometimes we encounter issues with resources, like logs populating hard drives, which require manual or semi-manual cleanup. Overall, it maintains a relatively stable performance level. I would rate it at around an eight out of ten in terms of stability.

It is hard to tell because the size of our organization is not very big. Our license covers a range of assets, from 500 to 1000 assets, which we monitor. From their perspective, this falls within a very low scale. 

So, we haven't encountered any scalability issues. Our scale is relatively small; we're not dealing with tens of thousands of assets.

The Security Center is actively scanning every day, targeting different resources with varying scanning frequencies. It operates on a daily basis, generating reports intermittently – some on a daily basis and others weekly. The usage is consistent and spans almost around the clock. 

Certain tasks are scheduled during nighttime, while others are executed during the day. Essentially, there's a continuous level of activity distributed over time to avoid creating spikes in network usage. 

We use it to its maximum potential but ensure it doesn't overly strain our network resources. There was a problem. When initially setting it up, we needed to be cautious. There's the potential to generate substantial network noise, especially if the agent and scanner tasks are simultaneously active. We had to significantly scale it down and task the settings from their defaults. Perhaps it's partly due to our network's capacity, but we encountered initial challenges in managing the traffic.

It is not super good and could do some improvements. I've had interactions with different parties, and while it's not exceptional, we were able to resolve issues with some effort. 

We encountered certain challenges. Initially, the local distributor downplayed the situation, claiming that upgrading to a new version would instantly resolve the issue. However, it wasn't that simple. It took time to resolve the matter. I had expected better support, especially since we had informed them in advance about the downgrade we were planning. I had hoped for proactive support detailing what to expect and what actions to take. Instead, we received assurances that everything would work seamlessly after the version change, which didn't prove to be accurate.

There was a miscommunication or misunderstanding in that regard. It was quite frustrating at the time.

Neutral

The initial setup is somewhere in the middle. It's not very easy. Assistance is needed, especially when dealing with version changes. For instance, when we transitioned from Tenable Plus to the regular Tenable, there were complexities in changing the licensing. It was not so easy to change. 

It might even lean a bit toward the difficult side, so I would rate my experience maybe a three out of ten, where ten is easy and one is difficult. 

We had the support of a third party. We had to use the help of our reseller and also find an engineer from Tenable. 

In certain cases, such as upgrades or downgrades, the documentation isn't always well-defined. You might encounter challenges that require external guidance. For instance, we faced a two-week period of difficulty this year due to a change we were making. It might not be an annual occurrence, but when significant changes are made, it can be far from a straightforward upgrade. Putting new versions in place doesn't guarantee seamless operation; there can be quite a bit of hassle around it.

This wasn't the initial deployment. This occurred when we were switching back from Tenable Plus to regular Tenable at the beginning of this year. It took us around two weeks to ensure that everything was properly transitioned. It's important to note that this was not a continuous two weeks; it involved time periods over the span of around two weeks. This change involved a transition to a simplified licensing structure. We opted to revert to Tenable without the Plus version, as it fulfilled our requirements and was also more cost-effective, approximately a quarter less. This process took place during that time, and it was a hassle.

Only one person was involved in the deployment. We don't have a big team.  We have a dedicated engineer who oversees this service. He took the lead in managing the deployment. He also engaged with relevant contacts internally and externally, including the local distributor and partners, but overall, it was primarily handled by this one engineer.

For maintenance, the same engineer who handled the deployment also manages the ongoing maintenance.

We purchase the solution through a local distributor, but we also directly communicate with representatives at Tenable. So, we acquire the license from their distributor, but we are direct users as well.

I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten, where ten is expensive.

The pricing might deter some companies from adopting this solution, especially in our region, which includes countries like Estonia and neighboring Eastern European nations. For us, the cost is a significant consideration, and we often face challenges when budgeting for it each year.

There's on-premise hosting, which incurs some costs, but it's not a major factor. Additionally, we have an engineer providing support, but that's a shared responsibility across multiple tasks. So, licensing is the primary cost driver, and there aren't any other major expenses.

There are positives and negatives, but despite looking at other options, we haven't found anything better suited for us. So, we continue to use it and have plans to keep using it in the near future.

I would suggest running a proof of concept to evaluate the product's suitability. Test it on a smaller scale over a period of one to two months to see how it works. 

It's essential to assess whether the solution aligns with the organization's specific needs. Our approach involves using agent-based scanning, but this varies based on individual requirements.

Be aware of the network "noise" it might produce. Default scanning intensity might be too much and you might need to alter it in order to prevent network problems (DoS yourself).

My advice would be to give it a trial run before committing. It's hard to tell if it fits without firsthand experience. Additionally, the fact that Nessus, the scanning component of the security center, has been around for decades and even had open-source iterations in the early 2000s provides some confidence in its longevity and reliability. However, for newcomers, I would recommend testing it out on a smaller scale before making a decision.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.