Checkmarx One Reviews

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 Checkmarx for static analysis as part of our software development lifecycle. It is very important because it helps us identify the security flaws in the code at a very early stage. Ultimately, this helps in reducing costs.

The UI is very intuitive and simple to use. You don't need to know anything about the product before you being working with it.

The interface used to audit issues is also simple to use.

Compared to similar products, the code scanning time is fast.

Most the the static analysers come with pre-loaded rulesets. However, many times developers have to write their own custom rules. Writing custom rules in Checkmark is difficult because you need a different editor which is licensed separately. Besides not much training material is available on how to write the rules. 

We have been using Checkmarx for almost four years.

It is pretty stable and we have not had any issues. We have a monitoring team that monitors the health of our infrastructure and we are alerted to any problems.

We were able to scale easily and did not have any issues in doing so. At this team, we have between 70 and 80 applications that we are scanning with it.

We have contacted technical support a couple of times and the issues were addressed in a timely manner.

We have used other products and found that you have to spend considerable time fine-tuning the scanning engine. With Checkmarx, it is a lot less and I would say that this is one of the significant differences with this solution.

The maintenance in terms of running the scans and fine-tuning the scans is very low.

On the other hand, we have used other tools where writing custom rules is not so difficult to do.

Checkmarx is pretty straightforward and very easy to set up.

Our in-house team deployed and manages this product. I have one person who handles all of it, and the deployment can be completed within a day or two. As long as the infrastructure is ready, it can be done within a day.

Checkmarx helps us to find problems with source code at an early stage in the development, which saves us in terms of troubleshooting costs.

The interface used to create custom rules comes at an additional cost.

Checkmarx is probably one of the best static code analyzers available in the market at this point. It is very easy to deploy, use, and maintain. The amount of maintenance required is pretty low. It is absolutely a good tool that I can recommend.

Checkmarx has added a lot of functionality since we began using it. This includes OSA, the open-source scan, a training module, and run-time protection.

For static code analysis, we are only using Checkmarx and we plan to continue. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I am the founder and the chairman of an internationally certified cybersecurity research lab. I have a Ph.D. in cryptology and network security.

We are a strategic partner of Checkmarx. Our job is to help them develop solutions. Currently, we are developing some algorithms and strategic solutions for them. Checkmarx informs us about what is happening, in advance, before they launch a product. We are also one of their testers.

Aside from my occupation, I am an academic. Because of our status, we test products as well as their competition, for example, we45, AppScan, SonarQube, etc. I have to point out, from an academic and business point of view, there is a very serious competitive advantage to using Checkmarx. Even if there are multiple vulnerabilities in the source coding, Checkmarx is able to identify which lines need to be corrected and then proceeds to automatically remediate the situation. This is an outstanding advantage that none of the competition offers. 

The flexibility in regards to finding false-positives and false-negatives is amazing. Checkmarx can easily manage false-positives and negatives. You don't need to generate an additional platform if you would like to scan a mobile application from iOS or Android. With a single license, you are able to scan and test every platform. This is not possible with other competitive products. For instance, say you are using we45 — if you would like to scan an iOS application, you would have to generate an iOS platform first. With Checkmarx you don't need to do anything — take the source code, scan it and you're good to go. Last but not least, the incremental scanning capabilities are a mission-critical feature for developers. 

Also, the API and integrations are both very flexible.

Checkmarx is going to announce the cloud version very soon. Every product has something innovative at the moment. Presently, we are extremely satisfied and that's why Checkmarx has been the leader for the last few years, consecutively. This is the third year they have been recognized in the static code analysis world.

Micro-services need to be included in the next release; however, as a developer, I can assure you that micro-service methodology is going to be improved in the next version. Presently, they support micro-services, but the supporting methodology of the micro-services is not good enough at the moment.

I have been using Checkmarx for six years.

Checkmarx is stable. We investigate the stability of the competition as well. From my point of view, it is the best product on the market. It's relatively expensive, but it's the best product. Keep in mind, this is not my private comment. I respect the comments, results, and the statistics of Gartner and these are their findings.

Checkmarx has been selected as the front-runner by Gartner for the third year in a row — you bet it's scalable.

We give technical support in our territory; Checkmarx's technical support is also quite good. If you open a ticket with a question, they'll reply the same day.

The initial setup is not complex at all, it's straightforward and robust. If you decide to use Checkmarx, you'll be ready to go in one day.

If you wish to purchase Checkmarx, you should scan the same source code with a different product, compare them to their competition, and make a decision. This way, you can see the difference and understand the benefits of Checkmarx. Test and scan some lines of code in any programming language you wish, then do the same with a competitor. Checkmarx will produce far fewer false-positives compared to any other solution on the market. Other solutions will produce roughly 900 false-positives whereas Checkmarx will cut that number in half. I am not trying to sell this product to you, this is simply the reality of it.

From the technological side, I would give this solution a rating of ten. From a commercial aspect, because it's relatively expensive, I would give it a rating of eight. Overall, because I must choose one number between one and ten, I will give Checkmarx a rating of ten.

Day by day, they are improving this product. For example, one of the most important features missing was open sources, which they have now added. They were also missing code training facilities, but they have added those as well. They have a complimentary product now.

When I had an issue that was causing trouble in my code, I would upload it to Checkmarx to perform static code analysis. I would then study the reports.

Using this product improved the stability of my code that went into production.

The most valuable feature is the scanning.

The reports are very good because they include details on the code level, and make suggestions about how to fix the problems.

You can't use it in the continuous delivery pipeline because the scanning takes too much time. Better integration with the CD pipeline would be helpful.

It reports a lot of false positives so you have to discriminate and take ones that are rated at either a one or a two. The lower-rated problems need to be discarded.

I used Checkmarx for about six months at my previous place of employment. I stopped using it about six months ago.

We had perhaps 100 users at my previous job.

I was not in contact with technical support.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use Checkmarx for scanning our source code.

The most valuable feature is the simple user interface.

I would like to see the rate of false positives reduced.

Checkmarx needs support for more languages, including COBOL.

The stability is fine.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

This is a product that I recommend and I would rate it a seven 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.