Checkmarx Reviews

It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results.

Its pricing model can be improved. Sometimes, it is a little complex to understand its pricing model.

I have been using this solution for a couple of years.

It is pretty stable.

It has the capability to scale very easily. It is not a problem.

Their support is good. It has a good webpage with a lot of details.

It is very easy to set up. It takes a couple of days. It is not an issue.

It is not expensive, but sometimes, their pricing model or licensing model is not very clear. There are similar variables, such as projects or developers, and sometimes, it is a little bit confusing. 

I would absolutely recommend this solution. I would rate Checkmarx a nine out of 10.

We use the solution for scanning the code for security.

One of the most valuable features is it is flexible. 

The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps.

In an upcoming release, they could improve by adding support for more languages.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I have found the solution to be stable.

The scalability of the solution is good. We have approximately 4000 using the solution in my organization and they are mostly engineers.

The technical support we have experience was good but they could be faster.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Checkmarx a six out of ten.

We're selling their licenses and their technologies. We have on-premises and cloud deployments. Its deployment depends on the customer requirements. 

It is used for a range of requirements for DevSecOps. It has been deployed to ensure that the development cycle delivers clean and secure code that is vulnerability-free. It is there as a part of the whole compliance and security process.

The features and technologies are very good. The flexibility and the roadmap have also been very good. They're at the forefront of delivering the additional capabilities that are required with cloud delivery, etc. Their ability to deliver what customers require and when they require is very important. 

There is nothing particular that I don't like in this solution. It can have more integrations, but the integrations that we would like are in the roadmap anyway, and they just need to deliver the roadmap. What I like about the roadmap is that it is going where it needs to go. If I were to look at the roadmap, there is nothing that is jumping out there that says to me, "Yeah. I'd like something else on the roadmap." What they're looking to deliver is what I would expect and forecast them to deliver.

I have been using this solution for two years.

Our customers are completely comfortable with the scalability of the technologies. They can deploy them initially in a relatively straightforward manner and then grow them into their organization quite successfully. We primarily have large customers.

Our team works with them. Their sales engineering team as well as their pre-sales capabilities are very good. They're clear. They work, and they're available, which is good. It is somewhat unusual in this business.

It depends on different technologies, but it is reasonably quite straightforward.

Its price is fair. It is in or around the right spot. Ultimately, if the price is wrong, customers won't commit, but they do tend to commit. It is neither too cheap nor too expensive.

They're a very good company to work with, and that's a very important aspect of any technology these days. You could find very nice technologies, but if the company is not good to work with, it could be of no use. You'll not be able to get it deployed, and you'll not get assistance. You will get bad value for good technology. Checkmarx is a nice, pleasant, and relatively easy company to work with. You will get a good return, and you will get a good partnership and relationship working with them.

I would rate Checkmarx an eight out of ten.

We are using multiple solutions for application security, and Checkmarx is one of them. We are a client-centric organization, and we are also providing support to clients for application security. Sometimes, we have our own production, and then we scan the customer information and provide application security. For a few clients, it is deployed on the cloud, and for a few customers, it is on-premises.

The feature that I have found most valuable is that its number of false positives is less than the other security application platforms. Its ease of use is another good feature. It also supports most of the languages.

They can support the remaining languages that are currently not supported. They can also
create a different model that can identify zero-day attacks. They can work on different patterns to identify and detect zero-day vulnerability attacks.

It is stable, and it works.

It is scalable. Our clients are small, medium, and big enterprises. It is for all the categories.

Their support is good. I had discussions with them multiple times. We are getting proper support.

It is straightforward. It is not a big challenge. It doesn't take long.

I would rate Checkmarx a seven out of ten.

We're more evaluating the solution rather than using it right now. We're resellers and it's something we'd like to offer to our clients.

I am aware of Checkmarx's portfolio, however, we've been playing exclusively with the SAST and with the AppSec Awareness platform, they're Codebashing platform. It's been a very positive experience overall.

The value you can get out of the speedy production may be worth the price tag.

The reporting could be better on the product. The need to be much more customizable including being customizable for various roles.

The pricing can get a bit expensive, depending on the company's size.

We've been working with this solution for some time. I have personally been working with the product for the last three or four months.

We haven't really extensively worked with any other products.

The cost might seem steep, however, it really depends on, first the size and requirements of your company. There are companies for which the speed of developing new features and developing them securely, is more valuable than for other organizations. 

This goes not only for Checkmarx. It goes for any automated desktop security platform in general. I definitely see the cases when the Checkmarx license is a reasonable expense. It just may not be for everyone.

We've been looking at SonarQube. We're looking into other options as we don't want exclusively to just offer Checkmarx to potential clients.

We looking for solutions more on the enterprise spectrum. Therefore, I would probably consider products such as Vericode. I would also consider the newer players, such as, for example, GitLab. 

We're resellers, however, we don't have an exclusive relationship with this company. We're looking at other products we can use and offer to our clients as well.

In our company, we do not have the Checkmarx solution running on production. We do have it, however, we only have a learning license, which is non-commercial.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at an eight. Overall, it's been a positive experience so far.

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 onboard clients with the solution. We install the product and do the first scan with them. We help developers with security and the best practices with their applications with this solution.

The most valued feature comes within the platform called Codebashing, it allows scanning code for security flaws. Our clients are able to learn from these scans and develop more secure code. The solution is easy to configure and user friendly as well. They also have support for a large variety of languages compared to other solutions and the product updates continuously.

I would like to see the DAST solution in the future. 

We have been using the solution for one year.

We had no issues and it has always worked at a top level of performance.

The solution is easy to intergate. It is plug and play and intergrates well with the pipeline and DevSecOps. Our main client is a big company and the solution works well.

The support is excellent.

The setup is very easy. There is a lot of information in the documents which makes the install not difficult at all.

The product saves you money by minimizing the time needed to figure out how to mitigate the problems by using such features such as The Best Fixed Location and the flow charts.

We evaluated Veracode before choosing Checkmarx.

Depending on the client, we could deploy the solution on the cloud or on-premise. I would recommend Checkmarx because you can learn from the scanning done. They have some of the best features which make the product wonderful. 

I rate Checkmarx a ten out of ten.

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 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.

We are using it for static security scanning and static security testing. We also use it for code dependency analysis. We use two of the solution's tools for each variable.

The support the solution offers is very good. When we were evaluating tools, they were extremely helpful. They're always available and they always respond back to any queries.

The solution is always updating to continuously add items that create a level of safety from vulnerabilities. It's one of the key features they provide that's an excellent selling point. They're always ahead of the game when it comes to finding any vulnerabilities within the database. I am able to be assured that when I am scanning my product those vulnerabilities are identified at very initial stages. It gives my development team more time to react.

The particular way the tool works for the scanning at the IDE level, is very expensive. It makes it very expensive to deploy this tool on to multiple different developers' machines. Right now, the way it scans, the request is raised to the IDE of the developer but then the actual scanning gets done in the centralized scan server. This increases the load on the scanning server and that will make it difficult to use Checkmarx at the developer end. That forces me to look for another solution for implementing at the developer IDE level. I would strongly recommend Checkmarx relook into their approach. 

From a technical point of view, it's better to integrate with other systems within my ecosystem. For example, when I'm connecting Checkmarx with my DevSecOps pipeline and then wiring Checkmarx with other security systems as well as the pipeline (and my defect management system), it provides the connectivity to some of the tools, but there are tools which are excluded. It would be nice if they were added to the solution itself, otherwise, it requires us to do custom development.

In terms of dashboarding, the solution could provide a little more flexibility in terms of creating more dashboards. It has some of its own dashboards that come out of the box. However, if I have to implement my own dashboards that are aligned to my organization's requirements, that dashboarding feature has limited capability right now. I would recommend much more flexibility in terms of dashboarding to help us customize more effectively.

Their licensing model is rigid and difficult to navigate.

I haven't been dealing with the solution for that long. We've only used it for one quarter - about three months.

Their licensing fees are rigid and this causes two main issues. One is a restriction in terms of scaling the product at an enterprise level. The number of licenses required for a sizable business is just too large. The solution forces a user to apply for the licenses not directly to the software and the software products are defined in a curious way. For that reason, I wouldn't say it's great at scaling.

So far, technical support at the initial level has been decent. We paid for their protection services, and, the protection tool is definitely very expensive. However, with the price tag comes more support and service. 

We'll have to see in the coming quarters once the protection services end if the support will continue to be at such a high level of attention.  

We were using IBM AppScan. Checkmarx is much better than that particular tool. It has more functionality and offers much more support to its users than IBM.

It took about two to three days to deploy a basic portion of the solution. However, it takes more time in terms of configuring and fine-tuning the product so that it's useable. I would say it took us about two to three weeks of configuring before we could start our initial scans.

We bought that separate service from Checkmarx to help us out in terms of deploying and configuring the products.

This solution is definitely one of the more expensive tools. However, if I'm able to get value out of using it, I don't mind paying. 

They have protection services costs that are separate from the main license.

There are multiple components that are part of the product suite and there are different license costs for each of those components. Sometimes it can be a little difficult to understand. There are a lot of components an individual will need to buy to cover an organization's needs. It really should be more transparent and flexible. Their licensing model as of today is quite rigid. 

We're just a customer. We don't have a special relationship with the company.

I would definitely recommend Checkmarx, I find them much more feature-rich than other tools I've used in the past. 

I'd rate the solution 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 HPP 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.

Our primary use case for this solution is SAST, Static Application Security Testing.

Our static operation security has been able to identify more security issues since implementing this solution.

There are many good features like site integration, but the most valuable feature for us is the XL scan of source code. 

It would be really helpful if the level of confidence was included, with respect to identified issues. Some competitors have this feature, and it helps a lot to concentrate on the real findings.

In general, stability is good, although sometimes it crashes. We use this product daily, and I would rate the stability a four out of five.

The scalability is very good.

Technical support for this solution is very effective. Each time we have had questions, the answers they provided have been very clear and comprehensive.

Prior to this solution, we were using IBM Security AppScan. We had many, many issues with the application, along with complaints about the deployment time. The main reason we switched is that it was not updated, and it did not support certain technologies. For example, it did not support Visual Studio 2017, so we had to switch to a new solution.

The initial setup for this solution is straightforward.

It took less that one day to deploy.

We handled the implementation in-house.

We have not yet seen ROI.

We did evaluate other options.

If people are in need of static application security, then I would recommend this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My team uses this product extensively for application vulnerability assessment. This solution is for static application security testing and is used within our software development process.

As the software developers are creating solutions, they are able to identify vulnerabilities while the application is being written, rather than after the entire development is over.  

We were interested in having the raw source code scanned, so that was the primary requirement and that is where Checkmarx comes in. We do not need any precompiled libraries, or compiled source code, to be checked by the source code analysis solution.

We have a security team that uses this product to scan source code, rather than have the developers handle it. We do not have any developer licenses (i.e. the SDLC Edition). Instead, the security team identifies the vulnerabilities and shares the report with the development team.

The main benefit to using this solution is that we find vulnerabilities in our software before the development cycle is complete.

As an example, an application may contain three hundred thousand lines of code that was written over two or three months. Rather than having to examine the entire product for vulnerabilities, we are able to assess weaknesses and identify vulnerabilities in, say, five hundred or one thousand lines of code. This is really advantageous for us.

There are many features, but first is the fact that it is easy to use, and not complicated.

One of the cool features is that it identifies the development technology that we are using on its own, whether it is Java or .NET or otherwise, it identifies it by itself.

The most important aspect is that it shows us exactly, on which particular line, the vulnerability is.

The user interface is very intuitive and it offers help on the fly.

The reports are good, but they still need to be improved considering what the UI offers. For example, the UI will suggest the "best-fix location", whereas this information is not captured in the reports.

We have not observed any issues, such as the application crashing, with respect to the stability of this solution.

The solution is quite scalable. We are not using the SDLC edition, but with that version, the developers can use different plugins and initiate the scan from their own development environment.

There are three or four members in our security team who use this tool. At the current time, we are happy with this solution and do not plan to increase its usage to the point where we need a different license.

We have found the technical support to be good. Whenever anyone has an issue, we write directly to Checkmarx.com and they issue a support ID. Most of the time we receive a quick response.

We are currently based in India, and they have increased their team size in India with a couple of people providing support. It covers the Indian subcontinent as well. With this increase, our tickets are answered very quickly as compared to what we used to get.

I do not have recent, hands-on experience with this tool but, I have used it in the past and my team now uses it extensively. We did not use a tool previous to this one, and we plan to continue using this because we are getting good results.

We use this solution for static application security testing. For dynamic testing, we use the Netsparker solution.

The initial setup is pretty simple and straightforward, and it does not take more than fifteen minutes, maximum. The entire deployment was completed in not more than half an hour.

Not many people are required for deployment or maintenance. We have not done much since the original installation. When a new version comes in, any member of the security team can update the solution. In that way, a single person can maintain it. Within my team, it is a Senior Security Analyst who maintains this solution for us.

It is a very simple tool and we do not have a complex environment. It is installed on a standalone machine.

We do not have an integrated solution. This is a standalone solution that is used with the Security Gate. The installation was completed in-house, by our team only.

We have seen ROI, but quantifying it in terms of the numbers is difficult. The biggest advantage we have seen is that we're able to develop and deliver secure solutions, in a faster time. We used to test our applications efficiently, and we still do, but there used to be a period of rework required. Now, that does not happen. We are able to identify the issues and address them while the development is in progress.

We have a subscription license that is on a yearly basis, and it's a pretty competitive solution. I don't know of any additional costs, beyond the standard licensing fees, for our version of the software.

In the case of the SDLC edition, which is a higher version, there may be some professional support that is required. Otherwise, any license that they provide is just an annual subscription fee.

We evaluated the Fortify Static Code Analyzer and IBM Security AppScan, but our evaluation was not fully completed. We were happy with what we were seeing with Checkmarx, so we did not go ahead with the others.

My advice to any software development team using a different set of tools is to look at Checkmarx. It's a very good product. It's a great product, in fact. Any organization spending money on a subscription license should not look at it as a cost, rather, it should be seen as an investment. The Checkmarx solution can act as a resource that can help the development team to secure their application delivery. Be it an internal application for their own use, or applications being written for their customers.

This solution tells us where, in our code, the "best-fix location" is. To put this into perspective, consider a particular piece of code where there are ten vulnerabilities detected. Perhaps it is an SQL injection vulnerability. This tool gives you specific locations and informs that if you fix the code in certain areas (e.g. in three specific locations) then the subsequent vulnerabilities will automatically be addressed. Therefore, you save on development effort because you do not need to fix all ten vulnerabilities specifically and independently.

I would rate this product a nine out of ten.

We use Checkmarx to review the source code for the external applications that we expose to the cloud or other servers on the internet.

We received two main benefits from Checkmarx:

1. Better Security
2. Saving Time

I recommend Checkmarx to be sure that your development has robust security. For your team management, Checkmarx has a very nice feature to check out manual staff in the process.

The most valuable features of Checkmarx are the Best Fix Location and the Payments option because you can save a lot of time trying to mitigate the configuration. Using these tools can save you a lot of time.

Checkmarx could probably do something to improve their license model. If you have a small company, or if you have a small team with just one or two applications, the entry-level price is too high for such a company. 

You can find all the solutions offered by Checkmarx through other solutions providers. That is why this type of company needs to be more flexible. 

In this space, you have a security code and also you have a quality code. It is totally different in terms of investment. In terms of functionality, there are a lot of differences between the various competing products. 

With Checkmarx, normally you need to use one tool for quality and you need to use another tool for security. I understand that Checkmarx is not in the parity space because it's totally different, but they could include some free features or recommendations too.

The problem with Checkmarx lies with the pricing and licensing, not the product itself. The product is very good.

Checkmarx is a good product, certainly stable.

The scalability is good. We haven't had any problems with it.

Our experience with technical support is good. They have a lot of expert staff on their customer service lines. We have had no problems with their technical support services.

We used Veracode for some time and it's also a good solution. Veracode fits better for small companies. It's more automatic.

Checkmarx is more complete and they have more features to support our development team and security team requirements.

In general, Checkmarx is a better solution, but it's more complicated, especially in terms of the price for a small company.

Our deployment of Checkmarx took a couple of days, at max, a week. 

The setup was a long time back, but I know that we did not use a reseller or consultant for the deployment.

We evaluated some products from a company in Spain. Checkmarx provided better functionality and options for us.

We have a small team. It is about four people in total. We do not require that many staff for the deployment and maintenance of Checkmarx.

We are testing the solution in a small local company. Our idea is to expand the use of it to our clients in the West.

In this space, you can have different points of view and if only you are looking for a solution to do a check in your auditory report, then you can choose anyone. 

If you really are worried about your business, i.e. about your development sites or development environments, Checkmarx is a great solution.

I would rate Checkmarx a nine out of ten because of the price, but technically for me, it is a 10. 

I would rate Checkmarx with a nine because it would be perfect at a more functional level, and could be better at providing these features for parity. 

If you research what Checkmarx is offering in their package distribution, you get exactly what they promise up front, so they are not lying.

Code scan. We performed periodic static code scans on copies of our Git repository to identify possible vulnerabilities.

Code consistency. It prompted our developers to fix code or document code they otherwise would not have done.

The consistency of code. Showed our team where they are inconsistent or where they have made simple omissions.

Dynamic testing. If it had that feature I would have liked to see more consideration of framework validations that we don't have to duplicate. These flags are false positives.

Our primary use case solution is for code scanning.

It has made our organization more efficient with our whole code scan/deployment process for our software applications.

The most valuable features are:

• Ease of use
• Dashboard
• Interface
• Report

I have not had an issue with stability of the product.

There have been no issues with scalability that I am aware of.

I have not needed the use of technical support.

Previously, we considered: Veracode, SonarQube, Fortify and IBM Security AppScan.

I was not involved in the initial setup of the solution.

One should consider:

• Visual studio
• Report generation
• If the solution can be on-prem
• Pricing

It is an expensive solution.

Be cautious of the one-year subscription date. Once it expires, your price will go up.

I have used it for source code scanning of security vulnerabilities. It seems to be a good tool. It gives the proper code flow of vulnerabilities and the number of occurrences.

We have scanned various applications with it. It works fine, although we need to check manually for false positive issues. 

After scanning, it shows in-depth code of where actual vulnerabilities are, which helps us to analyze them.

It provides us with quite a handful of false positive issues. If Checkmarx could reduce this number, it would be a great tool to use.

It is very easy to insert the tool in the SDLC because there are a wide variety of ways to access the source-code, initiate scans, and review the results. The projects need not care about getting a tool, accessing the tool, and it is cheaper using it.

The most valuable feature for me is the Jenkins Plugin. We usually take a copy of the normal build job for Checkmarx so that:

1. we have all of the source code we need for the build, normal and generated source code;
2. we need only one technical user for scanning the projects (SVN access and Git access need to change the passwords every 90 days).

I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time).

Updating and debugging of queries is not very convenient.

In our last update to version 8.5.0, we had a problem with DB migration but,  overall, I must say it has been stable.

Regarding scalability, we have only one scan engine and our licence allows only two scans at the same time.

I would rate the technical support seven out of 10. When you first create a ticket you sometimes get questions that you wouldn't expect from first-level support.

None. I started with this product.

The initial setup was decribed very well and it was straightforward. We had only two small problems: implementing the SSL certificate, and getting access for LDAP users.

We got a special offer for a 30% reduction for three years, after our first year.

I think for a real source-code scanning tool, you have to add a lot of money for Open Source Analysis, and AppSec Coach (160 Euro per user per year).

I didn’t evaluate this or other solutions, but my team leader had experience with HPE Fortify and he said it is much more expensive, and the service even worse.

Before implementing the product I would evaluate if it is really necessary to scan so many different languages and frameworks. If not, I think there must be a cheaper solution for scanning Java-only applications (which are 90% of our applications).

• Put the vulnerability details area on the right side of the application or it may be changeable
• Save and reset screen configuration

Vulnerability details part.

• Vulnerability details: Reduce false positive results and improve it by providing more details how I can resolve the vulnerability.
• Implementing a blackout time for any user or teams: Needs improvement. I need to place limits for some users or teams within a specific time frame. For example, between 02:00 to 06:00. They can't start any scanning during that time, even if they have scanner privileges.

In the latest version, the session logout doesn't work properly.

We have two engine licenses, but we can't scan two projects at the same time.

I would give technical support a rating of 9/10.

We were using Fortify. Its software capability was limited in terms of mobile code scanning.

The initial setup was very easy.

We don't have any specific advice about these issues.

We evaluated Fortify and AppScan.

I don't like the latest license update. I can't set a limit for the reviewer account.

After a proper on-boarding, we can set up proper reports of code vulnerability and/or misconfiguration to developers.

Security can be part of the SDLC and reduce the cost of vulnerability remediation. Also, we got faster remediation time for high and critical vulnerability.

Valuable features include:

• Both automatic and manual code review (CxQL).
• The languages covered by the solution.

Integration into the SDLC (i.e. support for last version of SonarQube) could be added.

We had to lock the number of CPUs used to not crash the Checkmarx Audit.

We haven’t had scalability issues yet.

Professional service is really good. Support is too formal. Quickly answering it is not supported instead of developing a hot fix.

We didn’t really have a previous solution but Checkmarx was the best match for .NET support and scan without resolving the dependencies.

Setup was straightforward, but quickly you need complex fine tuning.

Include PS or deployment assistance in order not to miss true positive vulnerabilities. Really powerful tool, but it must be configured to match your application.

Ask to meet another customer with the same needs or the same kind of organization, to learn from their experience.

Now we have information about which specific sections have to be fixed. We can now remove the issue from most of the sections.

The solution communicates where to fix the issue for the purpose of less iterations.

The resolutions should also be provided. For example, if the user faces any problem regarding an installation due to the internal security policies of their company, there should be a resolution offered.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

I would give technical support a rating of 8/10.

We switched solutions due to the client's requirements.

I faced a few issues in the installation due to my local policies. The customer support was very helpful.

We looked at other tools, such as HPE Security and ZAP solutions.

Go for it, if you want testing on the code level.

This product helps us to deliver good quality software.

• Performs security checks for SAP Fiori applications
• Helps us check vulnerabilities in our SAP Fiori application
• Easy to use and master
• One of the most important tools in our building process

I really would like to integrate it as a service along with the SAP HANA Cloud Platform. It will then be easy to use it directly as a service.

This improvement is needed in order to follow up the growth and of SAP cloud platform, it is a Platform as a service created by SAP, many services have been added to SAP HANA Cloud Platform, like GIT repository, Jenkins, Translation etc.

So, if it is possible to add the Checkmarx as a service in this platform, it will be easy to perform security check directly without using a dedicated server.

Maybe this issue is related to our configuration. When we have many applications to check, I need to wait a long time in the queue.

We did encounter scalability issues. Maybe this is related to the stability issue mentioned above.

We haven't used anything else. This is our first solution.

I don’t know how to set up the product.

We did not look at any other options.

It is a good tool. I recommend it in order to ensure software quality.

For manual code testing, Checkmarx has been very helpful discarding false positives, filtering and removing a lot of files that are not presenting any threat, as well as indicating the files or functions that should be focused upon.

Checkmarx acts as the first checkpoint during our consulting for apps that are looking for a security assessment or Penetration Testing. It is also a game changer, giving the customer's results from each finding in the Checkmarx results.

• The export feature and presentation of the results.
• The ability to track the vulnerabilities inside the code (origin and destination of weak variables or functions).

• A wide variety of modern programming languages are supported, including mobile languages).

The lack of ability to review compiled source code. It would then be able to compete with other scanning tools, such as Veracode.

Compiled code means that the code written is stored in binaries, for machine reading only. Tools like Veracode read only those binaries (compiled code).

Another way to have the code is “Source Code written only”, which is the only code format that Checkmarx accepts, a process where you don’t compile and everyone is able to read line by line the code.

When the workload contains so many source codes being scanned, and none of them present any progress, sometimes they seem to get stuck. There are also a considerable number of false positives (vulnerabilities that do not present a danger against the application or the user).

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

From both customer support and technical support, the response is very swift (less than a day) and the technical people are very skilled on the common issues concerning the management of the scanning tool, even with issues of server saturation and scanners stuck at a percentage.

I used to work mostly on checking the source code manually, and estimated the time of completion counting the lines of code to review. With Checkmarx that time was hugely reduced.

I also worked with Veracode, which I use for compiled code, but most of the customer’s applications have uncompiled code, so that is why I use Checkmarx more frequently.

The initial setup was complex. There is a curve of learning, and you also need technical knowledge on reviewing the results of Checkmarx’s work.

Checkmarx is not a cheap scanning tool, but none of the security tools are cheap. Checkmarx is a powerful scanning tool, and it’s essential to have one of these products to build a safe and stable application when it comes to inviting customers to use your online services.

We evaluated IBM AppScan and Veracode. Neither covers the needs of my clients, the way I work, and the programming languages that Checkmarx covers.

I recommend to have a live session with the marketing team, to have a demo and to track all your doubts before purchasing. Checkmarx is a powerful tool but you need to be sure what you are using, and what it is for. You could use just 20% of what the tool can do, and therefore waste your money. So either fully learn how to use it and evaluate if it’s the right scanning tool to have, or go for a better and cheaper option.

We have been using this product extensively for a lot of applications to identify as well as employ proper remediation which makes the application secure including information issues which might get neglected with a manual code review process.

Checkmarx pinpoints the vulnerability in the code and also presents the flow of malicious input across the application. It therefore makes it easier to identify these as well as fix them.

Checkmarx has the detailed description of all the vulnerabilities which it identifies after the source code scan. These descriptions are just a click away. Some of the descriptions were found to be missing or were not as elaborate as compared to other descriptions. Although, they could be found across various standard sources but it would save a lot of time for developers, if this was fixed.

We have not yet encountered any stability issues.

The solution provides high scalability. I am not sure about the limit of scans but it is sufficiently high. However, the issues which we faced were related to database backup. Unfortunately, Checkmarx doesn't do any automated backups which is quite inconvenient.

I would rate the technical support as average. We never had to communicate much with the technical team but based on my knowledge the response from their end was delayed.

I am not aware of any previous solutions.

The setup was straightforward.

It is a good product but a little overpriced.

I don't have much idea about other options since the organization had already purchased the product before I joined.

Better to look out for other products available in the market as well.

It moved our organization towards being agile vs. waterfall.

Scan reviews can occur during the development lifecycle.

The areas in which this product needs to improve are:

• C, C++, VB and T-SQL are not supported by this product. Although, C and C++ were advertised as being supported.
• There were issues in regards to the JSP parsing.
• Defect report generation takes multiple hours for large projects.
• The Jenkins plugin does not work for projects that are larger than 4 million lines of code.
• The Eclipse plugin does not work.
• The hardware requirements for the tool add to the substantial cost of the solution and thus, increase the total cost of ownership.

• There seems to be a decline in the support team's responsiveness as our contract nears its end.

• We felt like we were the extended quality organization for Checkmarx as they frequently released poor quality patches that broke the existing functionality. A lot of the organizational hours, almost 1 FTE per year since Checkmarx was implemented, were spent to allow regression testing of the product. The Checkmarx SME team at my company had to do this testing to ensure that we do not expose product flaws to our user community.

We did encounter stability issues. The different versions of this product provide inconsistent results when the same piece of code is scanned.

We did not encounter any scalability issues.

The support team is knowledgeable. However, we still have tickets open from 2014. There is a lot of follow up required to get closure on issues.

Previously, we were using a different solution. We were leveraging multiple tools since we have code in multiple languages. Checkmarx advertised that they provide support for C, C+++, Java, etc. It turned out that they aren’t able to scan C and C++ for us. Our reason to switch to Checkmarx didn’t work out for us.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The license has a vague language around P1 issues and the associated support. Make sure to review these in order to align them with your organizational policies.

I suggest using a trial term to run a gamut of scenarios that need to be leveraged before settling in with the Checkmarx solution.

We evaluated the Veracode option.

The product is not mature and ready for the enterprise usage yet. It is okay to use it when the support expectations are low and the code is in languages that require support only in Java and .NET.

The process of remediating software security vulnerabilities can now be performed (ongoing) as portions of the application are being built in advance of being compiled. Among other benefits, this reduces the cost to fix the problem(s) as the fix can occur earlier in the SDLC.

The ability to identify a vulnerability, the optimal place for remediation and the correct syntax is very valuable. This feature helps ensure that the software fix is comprehensive and effective. The CxSuite is easy to use and because it provides the correct coding syntax to address a vulnerability, it helps improve the secure coding skill set among developers. The product can scan precompiled (source) code, as well as compiled (binary) code, delivering effectiveness and efficiency throughout the SDLC.

The product can be improved by continuing to expand the application languages and frameworks that can be scanned for vulnerabilities. This includes expanded coverage for mobile applications as well as open-source development tools.

The Checkmarx CxSuite covers a wide range of programming languages including many of the most popular languages used by developers today. As matter of general improvement, expanding coverage to languages (emerging, legacy) and open source frameworks will increase the overall effectiveness of product.

*2017 Update. A number of leading Open Source Frameworks are now supported.

The product is stable.

The product scales well.

The technical support is high quality. The support team is well versed in how best to configure, implement and operate the product.

I did not previously use a different solution.

The initial set up is straightforward. The product requires a fairly simple computing environment for operation.

The product licensing offers the flexibility to cover a wide range of environments. The pricing is competitive and provides a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) for achieving application security.

We considered several other commercial-grade application security solutions. The Checkmarx solution offers an ideal combination of code coverage, functionality, usability and TCO.

The Checkmarx CxSuite product works well, delivers efficiency to the SDLC, and most important of all, it effectively improves application security.

It works!

During the trial period, we tried to build automated security development lifecycles with this product and with other products. We have achieved partial success with this.

The solution allows us to create custom rules for code checks. Without custom rules, the system couldn’t find anything serious in the custom code and libraries.

The main issue was the supported Windows OS for the installation. Windows is not appropriate for a big internet company’s infrastructure. Supporting a Windows machine, especially for this software, is inconvenient.

This product requires you to create your own rulesets. You have to do a lot of customization. The default rules do not work very well. In addition, it is impossible to analyze code with dynamic dependencies.

There were no problems with stability. The application was stable in our test cases.

There were no scalability issues, but keep in mind that our version can only scale on one server.

There is very good technical support. We have the support of two onsite engineers.

We are using other tools along with this solution.

The setup was simple. It mostly involved clicking the “Next” button in the Windows installer.

The pricing was not very good. This is just a framework which shouldn’t cost so much.

The product comes with very strange licensing options. They don’t let you exclude workplace licenses, which are useless for building automated systems.

Checkmarx saves us a lot of time. We were using HPE Security Fortify to scan code for security vulnerabilities, but it can scan only after a successful compile. If the code has dependencies or build errors, the scan fails. With Checkmarx, pre-compile scanning is seamless. This allows us to scan more code.

The most valuable feature is that Checkmarx scans code for security vulnerabilities without needing to compile first.

Checkmarx reports many false positives that we need to manually segregate and mark “Not exploitable”.

We encountered stability issues when scanning large code blocks. It consumes a lot of memory, and at times, Checkmarx services freeze and don’t work properly.

I don’t know of any scalability issues.

Just four words for the technical support team: “Checkmarx team is awesome”.

Before Checkmarx, we used HPE Security Fortify and IBM AppScan. We also tried several open-source scanning tools.

Overall, the initial setup is easy. Checkmarx provides an installer binary and we just need go through the wizard for an express installation. If we need an advanced configuration, we contact the Checkmarx support team.

I believe pricing is better compared to other commercial tools.

Yes, we compared Checkmarx features and benefits with IBM AppScan and HPE Security Fortify.

Personally, I recommend Checkmarx for static analysis.

As an InfoSec consulting company, we come across major challenging projects. Checkmarx has made life easy and my team is best at using it. It reduces manual efforts in using test cases against any vulnerability found during source code reviews. Apart from OWASP Top Ten, Checkmarx is quite intelligent to find the latest vulnerability and report it.

Some valuable features of this product are:

• Very comprehensive scanning
• Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution
• Incremental scanning
• Supports all major languages

Licensing models and Swift language support are the aspects in which this product needs to improve. Swift is a new language, in which major customers require support for lower prices.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

I have never used technical support, so can't comment. We ourselves are expert at it.

We have used no other product.

The setup process was simple.

It is the right price for quality delivery.

We did not evaluate other options, before choosing this product.

Go for it.

Cx gives you the ability to push SAST down much lower in the SDLC process. With the use of multiple IDE plugins and the ability to do "incremental" scanning, a scan of your latest code does not bog down your machine as it is offloaded.

It allows for SAST scanning of uncompiled code. Further, it natively integrates with all key repos formats (Git, TFS, SVN, Perforce, etc).

Meta data is always needed. More tutorials/videos for developers to fix their vulnerabilities is nice. Although the API is useful, I would like to see more functionality added.

I've had to restart services/bounce the VM on two rare occasions.

It scales very easy.

Customer Service:

Customer service is good. Engineers have been quick to get back to me regarding issues and custom work that I have performed.

Technical Support:

Technical support is very knowledgeable.

Initial setup couldn't be any easier. Cx has good documentation on environment requirements. As long as you meet those, the installation process takes maybe 30 minutes for an initial setup; perhaps a bit longer if you're adding multiple engines.

An in-house team implemented it.

Everything is negotiable. Checkmarx approached our dealings in good faith and clearly wanted to be around for awhile. It is much more inexpensive than some alternatives.

Before choosing, we also evaluated Fortify, IBM Appscan, Veracode, etc.

It provides us with code analysis.

It helps with vulnerability scanning of codes to prevent vulnerability of our applications.

I've used it for one year.

No issues encountered.

Straight forward. Easy to follow steps. 

I worked for an IT security firm and it was quite easy to setup the product for demo purposes virtually and even physically on the client premises

It was straightforward, as it has easy to follow steps. 

I worked for an IT security firm and it was quite easy to setup the product for demo purposes virtually and even physically on the client premises.

The license is fairly costly but worth the investment.

They're all as valuable as each other.

We have used this product to verify the dev department's code in order to minimize security holes.

It needs better role management.

I've used it for three years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

It's very good.

It's very good.

This is the only solution I have used.

Very straightforward.

I implemented it myself.

Licensing is expensive per X amount of lines in the code.

No other options were evaluated.

It provides a graphical view of any vulnerabilities.

I have used it as a consultant.

It could be improved with more reporting of false positives and the understanding of file references.

I've used it for one year.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

One needs to be sure on the number of LOC that will be run and also the size of the code.

8/10.

8/10.

I have used Armorize codesecure.

It's a straightforward deployment, and it learns with time.

I implement it.