We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Skybox Security Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management."The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pros →
"Security review is the most important feature, because it offers a single pane of glass to analyze multiple firewalls."
"The features that I have found most valuable with Skybox Security Suite, and this is because I work on the security side, are the firewall assurance, the change manager and the vulnerability control. These three features are the most impressive from Skybox Security."
"The solution offers very nice dashboards and they've recently added a very good Java-based web interface."
"Skybox deployment is simple, and it's very useful."
"instead of asking for firewall rules which may or may not be relevant, or could already be there, or could be over-permissioned, Skybox can be used to map out the resources that that application is going to use and provide the exact rules that an application would require to function correctly. If the traffic isn't able to flow for the application, if it's erring out, Skybox can be used to troubleshoot that and say, "All right, where is the traffic being stopped and why, and how do I fix that.""
"Skybox allows organizations to reprioritize the vulnerability they attempt to patch and mitigate, based on the contextual awareness of the network."
"The most valuable features of Skybox Security Suite are all the modules that are provided, such as vulnerability assessments and network, and firewall assessments."
"The product's most valuable feature is vulnerability management."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"The most recent update was not tested with all of the vendors before it was released, so some of the features are misbehaving."
"Modifications and the deletion of existing policies are currently unavailable."
"During implementation, we realised approximately 30 devices were not supported by the Skybox platform."
"It's expensive."
"The solution was quite technical. It would be easier to manage if the solution was more specific about aspects of the solution and provided more advisory around how to use it effectively. It would help users a lot if they were more clear about everything."
"The support could be improved."
"The price is costly, and I hope they can reduce the cost."
"There is room for improvement in the technical support."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is ranked 10th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 1 review while Skybox Security Suite is ranked 18th in Vulnerability Management with 34 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Skybox Security Suite is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) writes "Offers contextual prioritization and risk-based remediation of vulnerability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Skybox Security Suite writes "Efficient in vulnerability management, stable and easy to use ". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM and Brinqa, whereas Skybox Security Suite is most compared with AlgoSec, Tufin Orchestration Suite, FireMon Security Manager, Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Tenable Nessus.
We monitor all Risk-Based Vulnerability Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.