Checkmarx One Reviews

One use case is when a development team finishes, or even in the middle of, development. They run Checkmarx, which shows potential vulnerabilities. If they don't understand something, they consult with me. 

I explain what Checkmarx is highlighting, why it's "shouting" as we say, the specific vulnerability, and the problem it found in the code. Then, together, we explore the code and decide if it's a valid issue requiring a fix. 

We also discuss how to fix it, or if it's a false positive because, in their environment, the problem either cannot exist or doesn't exist in the way they use their software.

We also have another use case. When a software company, like an integration company, does a project for us, we request them to run their code through Checkmarx. If they don't have their own tool, we run it on our Checkmarx and provide them with the report. We request, or rather insist, that they fix most, if not all, of the problems Checkmarx finds. 

These might be issues they didn't consider, but we put it in the contract that they have to submit their software to a "code check," meaning they can use Checkmarx or another approved tool. If they don't have a tool or refuse, then it's okay. The key is to have it in the contract and signed. 

Otherwise, fixing the software later becomes difficult, especially when the project is nearing completion. That's why we do it when the integration begins, so there's still time to address the issues. If you wait until the very end, it's too late.

The solution improved the efficiency of our code security reviews. It helps tremendously because it finds hundreds of potential problems sometimes. When the development teams fix them, or even some of them, it significantly enhances the security of the software. 

For example, we had a project, an outsourced one, that provided code written in PHP and included dozens of open-source utilities, libraries, and the like. Their server-side code was in PHP, and their client-side was in JavaScript. Both sides also used many libraries and utilities.

When we ran Checkmarx, it found numerous problems in both their code and the third-party software, including hundreds of high- and medium-severity issues in the PHP code. I didn't dig into the specifics; I just said, "Look, it found hundreds of high and medium problems. You need to reduce them. Before testing starts, you need to provide us the code again, and we'll run it again."

They started fixing it, and while I didn't follow up on the specific fixes, perhaps they removed some libraries. As long as the number of high and medium problems in the Checkmarx report decreased, it meant they were making progress. They hadn't finished yet, though.

After they fixed about half of the problems, we allowed them to start integration. However, they still need to fix the remaining issues, and hopefully, they will.

The most valuable feature is that Checkmarx specifies the exact line of code where it finds the problem. They show it in the report, the exact line or two lines. They also show where the problem starts and where it's used. 

Even if it's used later in routines or messages during the computation, they show both sides. For example, they show the user input and where it's being used, even if it's saved in a different file. 

They follow the code, the function code, the method code, and all the calls until it's used because they have all the code mapped. So, they show where it starts, where it's being used, and they say it hasn't been checked all the way. They prove it, not just say it, by showing exactly where the issue is. 

Even if you don't know the software, like third-party software you want to fix or modify, you know where to start looking in the code.

As for the UI, it's okay. You give it the code, it runs, and it's pretty good.

There's one thing Checkmarx can maybe fix, actually two things.

First, when we first ran it on a big project, there wasn't enough memory on the computer. It originally ran with eight gigabytes, and now it runs with 32. The software stopped at some point, and while I don't think it said it ran out of memory, it just said "stopped" and something else. 

We had to go to the logs and send them to the integrator, and eventually, they found a memory issue in the logs and recommended increasing the memory. We doubled it once, and it didn't seem enough. We doubled it again, and it helped.

So, even if the software reaches capacity on the computer, even though it writes it in the logs, it should also give an indication in the GUI to the person running it, saying "not enough memory" or "not enough disk space."

Another problem is that when it's scanning and it has an internal problem, for example, it cannot check something, or an internal bug or internal problem, it's being found in the logs, but there's no indication to the user. Now, this is good for them because the user runs it, gets a report, everything's fine.

But in a way, it's not good for them because the user doesn't know there's a problem since they don't check the logs. Because mostly, only the manager looks at the logs and only if there's a problem being reported. You run a process, get a report, but in the logs, there might be an indication that it couldn't check several files or understand something. There's a problem, an internal problem that can be fixed, but nobody knows about it because we don't look at the code. The user doesn't look at the logs; only the business manager does, but they don't know because the user doesn't report it, because the user doesn't know.

So, my suggestion for them is this: if they have problems, they should say, 'Here is the report,' but also indicate to the user somewhere, perhaps in the GUI, not necessarily in the report itself, 'We found 100 problems while looking at your code. Please provide us the logs so we can try to fix those.' Then they can ask if the user has any problems. This way, users would know to send them their logs, and they could improve their software, meaning fix the problems.

Now, they may not want to do this because they'll get flooded with millions of responses and millions of problems from all over the world. They would have to fix them, and people might get angry, asking why they provided a report when there were hidden problems. People might say, 'How come you gave me a report with seven or eight problems when analyzing it, there were internal problems with your code? So it's not a perfect report.'"

So, these internal issues are logged but not communicated to the user through the Checkmarx interface (GUI) or report.

The solution also has a few false positives. So, if they had an easier way for users to send an email directly, instead of just opening a ticket. Because when we open a ticket, they want all the logs and everything, and it becomes a hassle.

Perhaps they could implement an easier system where users can send a snippet of the code, along with an explanation of why they believe it's a false positive, referencing the specific report. 

This way, Checkmarx could analyze the information and the development team could potentially fix the product in those areas. It wouldn't require them to necessarily respond to the user, but I'm not sure if that's feasible for most companies. 

I have been using it for one year. 

If you have enough memory, it's scalable. You need a lot of memory for it to be scalable. 

Once you have enough memory, it is stable and scalable, and there are one or two parameters you can modify to make it even more scalable. Scalability is relatively fine.

For the scanning option, the default is to use only one main language, but you can request multiple languages. It's scalable.

Nowadays, nearly all the developers, when they finish development, either they or the team leader runs it, and they have to fix the problems.

The customer service and support are okay because the thing is, we spoke with the integrator, so we didn't reach Checkmarx tech support.

Positive

The setup was done by an integration company. 

I would definitely recommend it. It's an excellent solution.  

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten because there is always room for improvement. 

Checkmarx could perhaps give more examples of solutions in the reports. It's very good, but sometimes the solutions they give are not necessarily relevant to the code or how it's written. 

So, Checkmarx should give more examples of solutions. Although, it's not that bad because they give a few, one or two. And if you want more, you can look online. But it would help if they could refine it and give additional options for solutions.

We mainly use this solution for static comprehension testing.

We use it for non-functional insight because it's a security vulnerability scanner. We can use Checkmarx for scanning anytime on our code base. We integrated that as part of our build-a-pipeline, and it helps us detect early. We have piloted in few applications for the shift of testing. From a metric perspective, I am unsure how we benefited from the quantifiable data, but we did benefit.

The administration in Checkmarx is very good. You can create specific teams which give you access to specific projects.

The benefits could be improved. We are a banking company, so we focus on security. We use Checkmarx for multiple applications, and IAST is an interactive application security testing that Checkmarx claims; however, we have not explored it yet.

We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level. We want an option to group several projects and view them at a business level. Additional features could include a comprehensive dashboard and secret scanning capabilities.

We have been using this solution for four years. It is deployed on-premises.

I rate the stability a six out of ten. We've had some stability issues, which may have been because of how we deployed the solution. When multiple scans are running in multiple applications, it closes down. This also happens where there is a large code base. After it runs for about 35 minutes, it abruptly closes. We have been discussing this issue with the Checkmarx team for it to be fixed.

I rate the scalability a six out of ten, and we have 100 staff engineers using this solution.

Our Checkmarx team interacts with their technical support.

I've used Veracode, and there isn't a big difference between both solutions.

I rate the initial setup a seven out of ten. When we integrated it, we built a pipeline, which was done by a separate DevOps team. Checkmarx is installed at the enterprise level, and we have a Checkmarx Dev team that runs the solution.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. I would recommend going for a piloting approach. With Checkmarx, you have different presets and can determine the security vulnerability standard. Also, check the stability before proceeding with the adoption.

Our main uses of this solution are to ensure our required compliance policies are met, and that we are applying best practice.

This solution helps to remediate the compliance requirements we have. 

The product also increases the quality of the code the developers are able to implement. 

The main advantage of this solution is its centralized reporting functionality, which lets us track issues, then see and report on the priorities via a web portal.

We would like to be able to run scans from our local system, rather than having to always connect to the product server, which is a longer process.

We have been using this solution for two years.

The stability of this solution depends on the size of application to be scanned, as larger files result in lower performance levels.

This solution is not very easily scalable, and seems to lack the capability to manage a high volume of applications.

The technical support team for this solution are very supportive and skilled. They also define SLA's for their customers.

We found the initial setup of this solution to be okay, but it is very reliant on server capacity.

We would recommend that organizations considering this solution think about the size of the project involved, as this product works best with very small-scale applications.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It is used for scanning for some other purposes. We needed Checkmarx to figure out some OS top ten issues in the codec.

The only thing I like is that Checkmarx does not need to compile. That's a good feature.

Checkmarx is not good because it has too many false positive issues. The software does not understand the code very well. It does not handle the process very well and misunderstands the logic, resulting in too many false positives. As per my experience, more than 80% of the issues are false positives, and it takes too much time to figure out which ones are true and which ones are false positives. 

Therefore, this is one of the areas of improvement for Checkmarx. It requires in-depth knowledge of the coding. 

I have been using Checkmarx for more than a year. We are using the latest version. 

I would rate it as four because the scanning engine can crash sometimes.

I would rate scalability a three out of ten. 

The technical support is not good because they charge an extra fee. If we pay them on a call basis, they will charge extra. We can only give them emails; if we have a problem, it takes over half a year to fix the issue. They're just too slow.

Neutral

The deployment is easy, but it may take around half an hour or even more because the software is huge. Also, good hardware performance is required, such as big memory and disk space.

It requires a lot of disk space and good hardware performance, and the speed is slow.

The deployment is pretty tough to do by myself.

It's expensive. I would give it a four out of ten.

We just calculated the speed of Checkmarx; it is around 40 lines of code per second. It's too slow, so we now use a Chinese software called XCheck, which is much better. It can scan around 2,000 or 5,000 lines per second, depending on the code complexity. XCheck is a product of a Chinese company called Tencent.

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

We use the solution on a developing project. Before we bring the code to production, we have to ensure its quality, and we use this solution. 

It's easy to use. The configuration is easy. 

It has all the features we need. 

We haven't had any issues with the solution so far. It is not missing any features. 

It takes too much time to check the code. The validation process needs to be sped up. 

There have been some configuration issues. We sometimes have failures. 

I've been using the solution for two and a half years at this point. 

We've had to deal with errors. When we blacklist or whitelist, we do have some issues. There are a few configuration issues. I'd rate the stability seven out of ten. It could be improved. 

I can't speak to the scalability. I don't deal with scaling. The usage is limited. We aren't attempting to expand it. We only do two to three processes at the same time. 

Technical support is okay. We are mostly happy with the help we get. We can directly connect with them.

Neutral

I'm also using SonarQube.

I did not handle the deployment directly. We have a team that manages the tool. I'm not aware of how many people are needed to maintain and deploy the solution. 

I don't deal with the pricing directly. I don't know the exact cost. 

I'm a customer and end-user.

I would recommend the solution to other users. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We primarily use Checkmarx for assessing vulnerabilities in applications.

What I like best about Checkmarx is that it has fewer false positives than other products, giving you better results.

One area for improvement in Checkmarx is pricing, as it's more expensive than other products.

I've used Checkmarx for four to five years.

Regarding Checkmarx stability, it's an eight out of ten.

Checkmarx is a scalable tool and much better scalability-wise than other products I used. I'm rating its scalability as eight out of ten.

We never had to contact the Checkmarx technical support team.

I was not involved in the initial setup for Checkmarx.

Checkmarx is comparatively costlier than other products, which is why some of the customers feel reluctant to go for it, though performance-wise, Checkmarx can compete with other products.

My company is in the service business, so it provides services to customers. For example, the customer uses SonarQube, so my company uses the same tool to execute vulnerability assessments.

I've worked on Checkmarx, NetSuite, Acunetix, and other application security tools used by customers.

My rating for Checkmarx is eight out of ten because it's a good product, and its only con is the cost, which is high for some customers.

I recommend Checkmarx to others because of its performance. The tool has better intelligent outcomes, and Checkmarx has better automation internally.

My company is a Checkmarx customer.

The best thing about Checkmarx is the amount of vulnerabilities that it can find compared to other free tools.

The statistics module has a function that allows you to show some statistics, but I think it's limited. Maybe it needs more information. There are some cases where you have to go directly to the Checkmarx database to get the information that you want. The default module that provides statistics is basic, and you need more elaborate information to do vulnerability management. The tool has a limited scope.

It is easy to scale, you just have to pay. There are about 100 developers and security people using this solution in my company. 

The contract that we have is not directly with Checkmarx. It's with an intermediary company in Argentina, and they give us support. They are not very fast in answering our questions. They have a kind of first level support, but for more technical stuff they go directly to Checkmarx.

As with other tools, if you want more, you have to pay more. You have to pay for additional modules or functionalities. For instance, if you want to do some scanning to external dependencies of the software, you have to buy another tool provided by Checkmarx.

You have to pay for licenses for the number of projects that you want to scan and the number of users. I think you have to pay licenses for three features: the number of users, the projects, and I don't remember the other one.

We have two administrators who coordinate maintenance with the vendor.

My advice is that you need to estimate the right amount of licenses. That's very important because right now, our company needs more licenses, and that was not well estimated at the beginning. The other thing is to be clear about the features of this tool that you want or need.

I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten. 

We use Checkmarx as a code analysis tool.

We have always used some kind of code analysis tool and Checkmarx has been working for us at this time. We like the tool.

The most valuable feature of Checkmarx are the automation and information that it provides in the reports.

I am using Checkmarx for approximately two years.

The stability of Checkmarx could improve. We're having issues with it, but we don't want to upgrade to the newest version until we make sure that the issues we're having now aren't present in the newer version.

The scan reliability sometimes is impacted and we sometimes have to restart the services to allow scans out of the queue.

Checkmarx needs to be more scalable for large enterprise companies.

I have used the support from Checkmarx.

I rate the support from Checkmarx a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I was previously using Fortify but they were antiquated. They were not updating the solution on a regular basis.

The initial setup of Checkmarx is straightforward. The implementation of Checkmarx does not take long because we have a process for it.

We have four people that maintain Checkmarx in our company. We have professional services but I did most of the deployment myself.

My advice to others is that Checkmarx is good compared to the other tools. However, they are all comparable, it depends on what languages they want to scan. Overall, Checkmarx is a decent solution. It would be a good idea to test other solutions.

I rate Checkmarx