Checkmarx One Reviews

We use Checkmarx for security vulnerability identification. We are using its latest version. We have a license to upgrade to the latest version. Whenever there is a new version, we update it to the latest version.

The identification of verification-related security vulnerabilities is really important and one of the key things. It also identifies vulnerabilities for any kind of third-party tool coming into the system or any third-party tools that you are using, which is very useful for avoiding random hacking.

We are trying to find out if there is a way to identify the run-time null values. I am analyzing different tools to check if there is any tool that supports run-time null value identification, but I don't think any of the tools in the market currently supports this feature. It would be helpful if Checkmarx can identify and throw an exception for a null value at the run time. It would make things a lot easier if there is a way for Checkmarx to identify nullable fields or hard-coded values in the code.

The accessibility for customized Checkmarx rules is currently limited and should be improved. In addition, it would be great if Checkmarx can do static code and dynamic code validation. It does a lot of security-related scanning, and it should also do static code and dynamic code validation. Currently, for security-related validation, we are using Checkmarx, and for static code and dynamic code validation, we are using some other tools. We are spending money on different tools. We can pay a little extra money and use Checkmarx for everything.

I have been using this solution for two years. 

Its stability is okay.

We don't directly deal with the Checkmarx technical team. There is a support group available for that, and they work with the Checkmarx team. When we have any issues, we directly call our internal team, and they call the Checkmarx team. They get back to us pretty quickly. The response is very quick. There is no problem.

The initial setup was easy. Our project was quite big, and it took a bit longer. It took almost six hours. We could not do it as CI/CD pipeline because the pipeline expects a response in a short span of time, which was a challenge for us. We are now doing the Checkmarx review manually. We first run the code analysis, and, after the code analysis is over, we go for the pipeline. This is an overhead for us. 

It would be helpful if they can improve the speed of the analysis rate. We also need to find out from our side if there is a way to increase the wait time of the CI/CD pipeline and modify the timeout limit. It would then take 30 minutes to one hour rather than five or six hours. We should be able to adjust the timeout time, change the CI/CD settings, and go ahead with the integrated process. Currently, we cannot have an integrated system, and we also have to move from one script to the next script manually.

Even though we run it manually, it captures most of the things. We decided to go with Checkmarx two years ago, and we are continuing with it. 

I would rate Checkmarx a seven out of ten. There are a few things that can be improved in this solution.

We primarily use the solution for static analysis.

The visibility the solution gives you is great. It really gives you the ability to see what the root issues in the code actually are. 

The setup is fairly easy. We didn't struggle with the process at all.

The solution isn't exactly user-friendly. They could make the user experience a bit better in future builds. 

They could work to improve the user interface. Right now, it really is lacking.

We've been using this solution for six months. It's been less than a year and not very long just yet.

The solution is very stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. The solution doesn't freeze and it's not likely to crash. We find it very reliable.

It's my understanding that the solution is scalable. A company that needs to expand can do so.

We have about 100 people that use it in the company.

The technical support is fine. We've always had good experiences. We're satisfied with the level of service we are provided.

We didn't previously use a different solution. We've only ever used this product.

The initial setup is easy and straightforward. It's not complex.

We don't have to handle any maintenance. It's my understanding that Checkmarx handles it.

The pricing is rather reasonable. It's not the most expensive on the market.

We're a customer. We use the solution in our organization.

I'm not sure of which version of the solution we're using.

Overall, I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We've had a pretty positive experience overall.

I am in charge of application security and Checkmarx is one of the products that I use in this capacity. We use this product for code scanning and static code analysis.

The user interface is modern and nice to use.

This product has very good reports.

Checkmarx integrates with a lot of different tools such as BitBucket and Jira.

There is good coverage for different languages.

I think that the configuration is a bit difficult and we required support from Checkmarx to complete it (there are a lot of manual, not documented configurations should be done, like direct changes in a Database for example).  This is the case, at least, if you are using the on-premises version. From my point of view, the configuration should be improved.

If it is a very large code base then we have a problem where we cannot scan it (if more then ~ 30 mb zip file provided - scan is crashes or takes a lot of time) . It seems to me that they have a problem with the number of code line scans.

In the future, I would like to see Checkmarx support a combination of dynamic and static code scanning (IAST)

I have been working with Checkmarx for about five months.

It works fine but if you have a file that is too big to scan then it takes a lot of time to run and sometimes crashes.

There is a problem with the memory, and scanning a large codebase should be done by dividing it into different files. For microservices with a small number of lines of code, it works well well. On the other hand, scanning a legacy solution such as a big monolith with millions of lines of code in it has been a problem. We need to make certain modifications to the files before we can upload them to the scan.

We have 80 users who are using Checkmarx.

They have very good technical support and we haven't had a problem with them. If you have a problem that you cannot handle on your own or you need to configure this product then you should have technical support.

The basic installation is easy for us but in our case, we had some additional configuration that had to be done to access our documents on the server. We were not able to complete it without help from Checkmarx because there are a lot of configuration options, and we had to make manual changes to the database as well. 

In summary, this is a good application that you can use to scan every code language. You can configure the scan because they provide the Checkmarx query language. These queries are very good and very flexible. It requires a knowledge of this language but you can reach and deal with it using most languages.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use Checkmarx for application security and tracking.

The most valuable feature is the application tracking reporting.

From the user's perspective, the interface is pretty good. It will point out the exact line of code when an issue is found.

It is good in terms of coverage for different languages.

It is updated automatically so there is less maintenance.

The cost per user is high and should be reduced. Five years ago, it was a user-based model, which was significantly better. It would be great if we could distribute the cost equally between projects.

I have been working with Checkmarx for about two years.

This is a stable product.

It is scalable in terms of being able to run multiple instances for different products. We have approximately 10 users, which is the size of our application security team.

I would like to increase our usage of this product, but it will ultimately depend on the company's strategy.

Given the stability of Checmarx, it doesn't require a lot of communication with technical support. That said, we have been in touch with them for non-technical issues and they have a good team with a lot of Russian speakers.

Prior to using Checkmarx, I used AppScan but the concept is completely different. With Checkmarx, you are working with source code, whereas as with AppScan, you are working with binaries. You can say that AppScan is more like a dynamic security scan and Checkmarx is more static.

These products are quite different in terms of how you do the testing. Checkmarx is better from both a performance perspective and reporting a lower number of false positives.

We did not have any trouble with the initial setup. Our deployment was done within a couple of hours. The easiest thing to do is create a virtual machine and deploy it.

Our in-house IT staff was responsible for the implementation.

The number of users and coverage for languages will have an impact on the cost of the license. We would like to deploy it for the whole company but it's a question of spending thousands of dollars. Investing $200,000 or $300,000 would be an upper management decision.

The educational component is additional and costs approximately $100 per month for each user. This is too high so we did not agree to the service.

Overall, we are very satisfied with Checkmarx and it is a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution to check our systems for any vulnerabilities in our applications. Currently, I'm working on a banking tool, which is aligned with the menu. Our system was created 30 years ago and still is running in the market and doing well. However, currently, there are so many changes happening. Any solution coming into the technology needs to have a security check to ensure everything is safe. 

The reporting on the solution is very good. The reports we get are very self-explanatory. They aren't complex or confusing. They will tell us if we are facing vulnerabilities and where. From the reporting, it's quite easy to find the problems and fix them.

The solution overall is very good at detecting and pinpointing vulnerabilities in the code.

The user interface is excellent. It's very user friendly.

The solution offers good training documentation so we know how to handle problems as they arise.

Honestly speaking, we do not have much experience in this tool yet as we just started using it a couple of months ago. I personally am still just diving into the data. It may be too early to tell if there are improvements that need to be made.

The tool is currently quite static in terms of finding security vulnerabilities. It would be great if it was more dynamic and we had even more tools at our disposal to keep us safe. It would help if there was more scanning or if the process was more automated.

I've only been using the solution for three months. It hasn't been too long yet. I'm new to the position. My organization, however, has been using the solution for quite a while.

We have different team members on the solution in the UK and India. It's only available to those directly involved in the security aspects of our company.

We have our own in-house team that manages a lot of issues that may come up on the solution. 

The thing is, security is a major concern for us. We cannot exactly contact their team about a lot of things as we do have process guidelines and we need to follow these processes if we run into issues. If we have problems, we have an expert that can sit right next to us and figure out a solution. This helps us better manage the tool and the security surrounding it, rather than, for example, calling up the company and having a random help desk technician try and assist us.

For our purposes, the initial set up was not complex. It was fairly easy to plug the solution into our build processes and pipelines. We haven't had any issues with configurations or anything like that. It's been very straightforward.

The deployment is very fast and only takes about 15 minutes or so.

We manage the solution ourselves. However, if I personally want to access it, I do need to contact specific team members. Only specific individuals have access. It's not accessible to everyone in the organization. 

A specific team in our organization handled the initial setup and holds the license for the product.

I've looked at SonarQube. The basic difference between the two solutions is that Checkmarx is a bit more intelligent and can detect vulnerabilities better and faster than SonarQube. SonarQube is more focused on code and style formatting or code complexity. It depends on the priorities of the organization, as each has its own unique benefits.

I don't recall the exact version of the solution we are using.

I would recommend the solution. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

The primary use case is for a white-box penetration testing security. When we work with source code, it's a tool to help us conduct a deep analysis on a source code level. 

We push the zip file with source code to our own stent with the solution and receive a report. Also, we work with the interface to find the vulnerabilities we may have.

The most popular projects for us are the mobile application security assessment. We propose this option to our customers to check source code for iOS and Android mobile applications.

The most valuable features are the easy to understand interface, and it 's very user-friendly. We spend some time tuning to start scanning a new project, which is only a few clicks. A few simple tunes for custom rules and we can start our scan.

We can do the work quickly and we don't need to compile the source code because Checkmarx does the work without compiling the project.

The scanning is very quick. It's about 20,000 lines per hour, which is a good speed for scanning.

Checkmarx has tried to build a deeper analysis using IAST and SAST. They have a code version for developers. It would be good if they improve the combination of the two solutions. 

Both are good, but ISAT (Interactive Application Security Testing) is in progress and doesn't support the full spectrum of languages. A combination of the two solutions would achieve good results.

We have received some feedback from our customers who are receiving a large number of false positives. I believe that they can improve their engine to reduce false positives. It's better for reducing false positives when you use a compilation.

There are several levels and they are mapped to the different languages and some customers want to check when the developers will pass the training. There should be a questionnaire for the team lead to check the employees and how well they understand the material and the training. 

Also, they will want to add their own content to this solution.

I would like to see some improvements in technology to reduce false positives. This is only relevant to some use cases, not all. For example, there are several false positives for some languages, but it works in C#.

I have been using this solution since 2015.

This solution is stable and we have not had bugs or glitches. If it is set up according to the instructions, there will be no negative feedback from the customers.

The platform has regular updates.

This solution is scalable, but it depends on the package you have purchased as some do not allow you to expand. 

They have a great support team, and they can help you tune a solution. For our country, it is very important that they have Russian speaking support engineers and to have a quick response.

Also, they have a very good knowledge base. The resources are public on the Checkmarx website and they have good instructions and regulations on how you should tune the solution. It shows you where you can download the plug-ins, how to do it, and explains how they should be integrated.

We have some experience with AppScan and with SonarQube. We started with a trial and felt that Checkmarx was the best.

The initial setup is pretty simple, it's no problem to start using Checkmarx. It's a very good approach if you compare it with competitors.

It only takes a few hours to tune your Checkmarx solution. You may need more time for deeper integration when it comes to DLC integration, for example, when using plug-in build management, such as Jenkins. 

If you are scanning and you have the source code then you are good to start scanning in a few hours. Three to four hours is required for tasks done in source code.

We have one or two engineers who can work with the solution.

For some of our customers have more than 100 developers and a DevOps team.

This solution is expensive.

The customized package allows you to buy additional users at any time.

You could advise the vendor that you are in need of some more resources, and they can send you a trial license which lets you pay later. In the meantime, you can start working with the trial license.

They have subscriptions for licenses, but this is confidential information and I cannot share the price as per our non-disclosure agreement.

If you purchase a typical package then it is clear licensing with no hidden payments. You can add integration services for Checkmarx if you needed to, but it's optional.

The hardware is on the customer site. It could be virtual, or a physical server, or even cloud-based. You can choose what you want to use and there are still no hidden fees. Licensing and policy are clear.

We are resellers but we are also users of this product when we need to check source code because our main business activity is security assessments, not reselling.

We have many customers who have purchased this solution from our company. One of them is Softcell, a Ukrainian company.

With our approach, we need to find a way to reduce false positives. We don't have great resources to do this work long-term, and we need quick results. There are some projects that have a lot of false positives but we can reduce them by tuning during the scanning. 

Some of our customers like the Codebashing model. It's an additional model for learning for security practice for developers. They ask for additional tests to this model and want to receive the functionality to check the knowledge.

When you receive your product, you should start with testing and understand how it works according to your environment. This includes the language and what framework to choose because it is not a simple solution. You should understand that you should tune it.

The most effective approach is to implement SAST into the SDLC, (software development life cycle).

You should regularly check your source code, and check your security before every release. For infrastructure, security testing is not enough. There are several applications and static source code security is a must.

You should choose Checkmarx SAST for security checks and try to optimize it's build management or source code repository.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use that we have for Checkmarx is the evaluation of source code vulnerabilities.

We use Git to connect to Checkmarx. We don't use GitHub. We use our own self-hosted Git. We're just using generic Git. One of the biggest thorns in our side is managing that aspect of it. It wouldn't matter if it was GitHub or Bitbucket or any of the other tools that you can use to connect Git to Checkmarx. The issue is the same. 

The tool is good at telling us what repository we're connected to, but it is horrible in telling us what branch we're connected to.

I haven't been monitoring how well our projects have been at reducing vulnerabilities. Checkmarx is one that you have to actively follow, and my position doesn't require that I do that. I set up the tool, and then I let other people use it.

I'm the system administrator of the tool rather than an active user of it. This product has room for improvement in administration.

Adding users is kind of a pain. We need a more automated way of adding users. User administration for the IDs can be improved, they can make it a more automated feature set so that you can add users more quickly and easily. 

Most tools that I'm dealing with today have a mechanism where people can self-enroll.

I'm more of the admin as opposed to a user of Checkmarx. Overall, the ability to find vulnerabilities in the code is better than the tool that we were using before.

One of the biggest heartaches that we have is that all of our Windows servers are on an automated upgrade. Whenever Windows upgrades, we lose the order of the ciphers and it brings down the Checkmarx webpage. 

Our company policy is that we upgrade our servers at a minimum of once a month, if not more. It's a hassle to keep up on that. The ciphers are such a pain to manage.

To set up a cipher connection, there's a tool out there called IIS Crypto. We just run that tool to set the best practices. It forces us to reboot the server. We haven't figured out how to automate the whole thing yet. 

There have been some Windows updates that haven't triggered this issue where the ciphers get messed up. The only thing we're running is TLS2. At that higher level, everything is just a pain.

All of our servers are built out through code. In other words, we use Ansible and Jenkins to automatically create machines. Everything is virtual these days. It's either virtual in-house or virtual in the cloud. 

The issue with Checkmarx is the next pain point, i.e. their installation procedure is GUI-based. They've got a command line for upgrades. I haven't seen the command line for the initial install.

My last statement on Checkmarx is Windows would not be my choice for any kind of server implementation. I'm not a Windows fan at all. Every other tool in our company is Linux-based and our target systems are Linux as well.

I don't have the experience and the knowledge of working on a Windows system compared to my Linux knowledge. Checkmarx being Windows only is a hindrance as well.

Another problem is: why can't I choose PostgreSQL? I would like to have an additional feature added to the product to support either PostgreSQL or MySQL. Those are the two free databases that are enterprise-ready.

Checkmarx is a stable product, especially based on the number of updates that we receive. Every time we get a new update or a hotfix, I'm very much in the loop on getting that information. Compared to some other products, it doesn't have the churn that others do, i.e. in the number of updates and patches that we have to apply to it.

We're licensed for 100 users. Primarily we use Checkmarx for developers, managers, architects, and maybe some of the design folk, but not QA. This would solely be in the realm of development and architecture. 

There is no plan for us to increase our usage of Checkmarx. We're trying to get as many scans as possible. One of the issues that we have is the concept of an incremental scan. The more of the incremental that you do, the slower the service becomes.

When you go in and you look at the last result: it's your baseline or your full scan, followed by applying each incremental. The more of the incrementals that you have, the slower Checkmarx gets.

They've come up with a recommendation for users to do one full scan a week and maybe six incremental scans. This needs to be worked on to get the performance better on this particular tool.

Checkmarx can scale up very easily. Anything that can be automated can be scaled. If I can automate it, I can scale it. Under the hood, it does the management of the scan engines well.

We have some large code bases, that according to the Checkmarx internal people, based on the number of lines of code, everything is 100% optimized hardware-wise. The fastest that the scan should take is 13 hours. That's a full scan, an incremental is a little different.

The problem with Checkmarx from that standpoint is, in our most active code base, we want it to be scanned frequently. At one point in time, it was taking up to 26 hours to do a single scan. We were scanning twice a week or four times a week. 

That same code base has two separate instances of itself. A long time ago they started as a common code base and then they split. Now, in essence, we have two products based on the same code base. We had to scan them twice a week.

The customer service on the phone so far with Checkmarx has been good. We've had more issues with other projects that have gone into the cloud than with this particular instance. 

It's mostly email until you scream enough with Checkmarx or you go through your salesperson. It's a little bit of a burden to get to them. 

For the most part, the people that I have dealt with know their stuff, and we haven't had any problems. It's been a challenge. We did try to do things that no one else had tried before according to them, and so we ended up having setbacks because of trying new things. 

The tool that we were using before was AppScan.

The initial setup of Checkmarx is straightforward. We did a bunch of things that shot ourselves in the foot that we weren't expecting. We were initially trying to put Checkmarx in the cloud. We were even putting Checkmarx into an Azure system until we found out that Azure, with the Microsoft SQL engine, does not support what Checkmarx requires. 

The Azure implementation of SQL does not allow the USE statement. Extremely odd. Maybe Microsoft figured out if you can't use USE, that means you have to have more databases and so they can charge more. Microsoft Oracle and IBM have been pulling that crap for years. They're making a lot of money.

It probably took us a couple of months to go through all of the issues, basically trying to find a home for SQL. We ended up creating a Microsoft SQL server in Amazon.

With Amazon's RDB, you can use Oracle, PostgreSQL, Sybase, Microsoft SQL, etc. as its RDB engines. Depending on whether you already have a license, or if you want to pay for the license when you set up the instance, you can do either. 

We had the license. We just created an instance in the Amazon cloud.

I've got 100 licenses for Checkmarx. As people come and go, it's a hassle to add and remove them. In this day and age, it's such a meaningless time-waster.

We were previously working with Azure. We switched because of their implementation of SQL Server. Checkmarx uses statements to move from database to database. Azure does not support that in its implementation at this time. 

Time will tell and Microsoft does improve their code over time.

From an administrative standpoint, I would rate Checkmarx with a five out of ten. From what my users are telling me, I'd give it an eight for the tool's ability to report on vulnerabilities in the user experience. 

I would rate Checkmarx with an eight on the user side and a five on the admin side.

Customers need to work with Checkmarx to scale the system for their needs, i.e. work with their recommendations. The best practices that they have there. 

They have this formula to calculate how many CPUs and how much memory you need. The memory requirements are huge. We've got 64 GB machines to scan them.

That's the low end of what they're recommending. Their processes do a lot of number crunching in memory. For a 4 million line code base, it's just going to consume a lot of time and a lot of resources. 

We are only using the source code scanner. We're not using the OSS scanner. We use Artifactory for our OSS repository, and Artifactory comes with its own built-in OSS scanner. We didn't need two OSS scanners.

We use the product for static code analysis, supply chain, and container security.

The product's most valuable feature is static code and supply chain effect analysis. It provides a lot of visibility.

The product's reporting feature could be better. The feature works well for developers, but reports generated to be shared with external parties are poor, it lacks the details one gets when viewing the results directly from the Checkmarx One platform.

We have been using Checkmarx's on-premise version for four years. We switched to the cloud version recently.

I rate the product's stability a nine or ten out of ten.

We have 40 Checkmarx users in our organization. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support team promptly addresses the issues.

The initial setup process is easy.

I rate Checkmarx an eight out of ten.