Micro Focus Fortify on Demand Reviews

Our clients use it for scanning their applications and evaluating their application security. It is mostly for getting the application security results in, and then they push the vulnerabilities to their development team on an issue tracker such as Jira.

I usually have the latest version unless I need to support something on an older version for a client. We're not really deploying any of these solutions except for kind of testing and replicating the situations that our clients get into.

Its ability to perform different types of scans, keep everything in one place, and track the triage process in Fortify SSC stands out.

It could have a little bit more streamlined installation procedure. Based on the things that I've done, it could also be a bit more automated. It is kind of taking a bunch of different scanners, and SSC is just kind of managing the results. The scanning doesn't really seem to be fully integrated into the SSC platform. More automation and any kind of integration in the SSC platform would definitely be good. There could be a way to initiate scans from SSC and more functionality on the server-side to initiate desk scans if it is not already available.

I have been using this solution for seven or eight months.

I've never seen any issues with stability or crashing, and it looks fine to me, but I don't run it long enough to see. If I was using it as a customer, it is always possible that I would see more issues.

Usually, I just run it against a single application. I don't know how it is if you are running it across a large enterprise.

Our clients are medium to large businesses. We have a lot of Fortune 500 companies, and scalability is very important to us. Our product is made to scale to hundreds of millions of findings from various tools. 

Most of what I've been doing with them is just getting help with being able to set up an environment and the license keys, and they've been pretty helpful. I haven't had many issues that required me to report a bug or a problem. I did deal with them maybe once for a tech problem, and they were very responsive. They seemed pretty good.

As compared to the other tools that I've worked with, it is probably in the middle range. It is definitely not the simplest one where you just run the installation, and it will be all done, but you also don't tend to run into too many problems that aren't easy to figure out during the install process. If you go from lowest to highest complexity, it would be right in the middle.

It seems like a good scanner than the other ones that we support, but there are some other products such as Prisma that seem more polished and have tighter integration with different types of scanners. Whether they've acquired different scanners or build them themselves, they do seem like a cohesive product, whereas Fortify seems a little bit more like a collection of several different products.

I would rate Micro Focus Fortify on Demand a seven out of ten.

We're implementing DevSecOps in Fortify only a part of the big picture. We are implementing the entire secure development lifecycle.

The solution saves us a lot of money. We're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation.

There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes.

The initial setup is a bit complex.

We could have more detailed documentation. They could offer some quick start or some extra guidance regarding the implementation.

I'd like to see more interactive application security And more IDE integration and integration with VS Code and Eclipse. I would like to see more features of this kind.

I've used this solution over the last 12 months at least.

The solution is stable. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. There aren't bugs or glitches.

We haven't tried to scale the solution just yet. As we didn't take the SaaS solution, scalability may be limited for us. I'm unsure. I can't really comment on that.

Currently, we have about 20 people on the development team.

Right now, we don't plan to increase usage.

The technical support is fine, however, it would be very helpful, especially during implementation, if there was more documentation and help surrounding setup.

We did not use a different solution previously. Before we had this solution, we were just evaluating other solutions and looking at the costs, and trying to bring in something newer, like an integrated automated secure stack, or something like that.

We found that the initial setup a bit complex. It's not exactly straightforward. For a newbie, there's a learning curve, and that can slow things down a bit.

Our deployment took about three to four months.

We only deployed in our company and we didn't use a consultant or integrator. We handled it completely in-house.

At this time, I don't have an answer on the return of investment. As far as I can see, it's necessary. If we got exposed or had a data leak it would cost the company dearly. With that in mind, while I can see there's an ROI, I can't provide an exact number.

We pay for licensing. We do pay an extra cost for implementing the infrastructure into the cloud. 

I've briefly looked at Kiuwan and compared it to this solution. We also looked at Veracode.

We're just a customer and we offer consulting services.

We are bringing up all the infrastructure inside GCP. It's not ready yet, and we're still implementing it. We're going to bring it up next week, probably, in terms of the infrastructure. We'll perform the SSC installation, install the controller and sensors.

The most important thing a company needs to do is to pay attention to the license calculation. They need to know how many licenses are going to be used. They need to understand the Micro Focus offer. That way, you won't be charged if you have surpassed the application limit. This is very important. That's something we faced in the past that caused a lot of problems. We needed to estimate the sizing correctly of the infrastructure. Doing that will bring value to the builds and deployments. Otherwise, you're going to spend a lot of time doing the scanning, and the developers will be very mad.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. It's the best on the market for me.

We create technology solutions for clients and on one project we were requested to use Fortify on Demand after the client had read a good report about it. They sent us the report and recommended its use.

In this case, we were using Java to program the client's solution and so we used Fortify on Demand alongside our Java development operations, for the purpose of improving the application's security.

The work we were doing for the client involved creating a billing system that they would use to manage payments and taxes for other companies in Chile. We've only used Fortify on Demand for this one client so far. 

Because Fortify on Demand was so new to us, we decided to go with the trial version first and figure out the costing at a later stage.

Fortify on Demand has helped us more easily ensure the security of our client's application, which works with sensitive information such as payments and taxation. Without it, we would have to spend much more time finding hidden weaknesses in our code.

One of the top features is the source code review for vulnerabilities. When we look at source code, it's hard to see where areas may be weak in terms of security, and Fortify on Demand's source code review helps with that.

Another reason I like Fortify on Demand is because our code often includes open source libraries, and it's important to know when the library is outdated or if it has any known vulnerabilities in it. This information is important to us when we're developing our solutions and Fortify on Demand informs us when it detects any vulnerable open source libraries.

During development, when our developer makes changes to their code, they typically use GitHub or GitLab to track those changes. However, proper integration between Fortify on Demand and GitHub and GitLab is not there yet. Improved integration would be very valuable to us.

Similarly, I would love to see some kind of tracing solution for use in stress testing. So when we stress the application on a certain page or on a certain platform, we would be able to see a complete stress test report which could quickly tell us about weak points or failures in the application. 

Further potential for improvement is that, when we deploy our Java WAR files for review in the QA area, we want to be able to create a report in Fortify on Demand right from within this deployment stage. So it might inspect or check the solution's Java WAR package directly and come up with a report in this crucial phase of QA. 

I have been using Fortify on Demand for about a month or so. 

Overall, we have not had any issues with stability, although we have not used it for very long.

We have had no problems with scalability in our current use case, which is only one client at the moment. As a cloud service, it has satisfied our requirements well and we haven't had any situations where scalability is an issue.

When we sent a question about the product to their support team, we had to wait a while but they did send us a response eventually. I think that they could work on reacting faster to support questions.

We have also tried SonarQube, but Fortify on Demand appealed to us more due to their source code review with emphasis on open source vulnerabilities. Fortify seems stronger in that aspect and we like to use many open source libraries in our work. 

The setup is easy and it only takes about 30 minutes to perform a basic code review in Java when dealing with WAR files.

It can get more complicated when you want to fine-tune the reporting interface to give only the details that you want to see. This is because the initial configuration depends on other variables like the scope of the review, the client's preferences, the technician's preferences, and other factors.

When it comes to launching Fortify on Demand and connecting it to our codebase, it's quite easy. Getting quick reviews done on WAR files is a relatively simple procedure.

Our company implements Fortify on Demand ourselves on behalf of our client. When the client requests any changes, we then implement it for them.

We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price.

In our case, we are constrained by the client's budget, but others might find that the price is not too bad. It all depends on the budget.

For us, Fortify on Demand is a good quality product that I can recommend for a few reasons, including:

• Very useful source code review and vulnerability detection.
  

• Clear and easy-to-read test results and reports.
  

• Good integration with other platforms during development.
  

I would rate Fortify on Demand a nine out of ten.

All in-house developed code or a third-party developed code on our behalf is scanned via Fortify on Demand. Any results for unsecure code, vulnerabilities, or issues are passed back to the development teams for remediation.

Secure code is an important part of our day-to-day development activities. So, having code out there gives us some reasonable assurance that it is not vulnerable or open to attack. It certainly makes our overall risk posture better.

Being able to reduce risk overall is a very valuable feature for us.

They have a release coming out, which is full of new features. Based on their roadmap, there's nothing that I would suggest for them to put in it that they haven't already suggested. However, I am a customer, so I always think the pricing is something that could be improved. I am working with them on that, and they're very flexible. They work with their customers and kind of tailor the product to the customer's needs. So far, I am very happy with what they're able to provide. Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but that would be about it.

It is a very stable product. They are constantly updating and keeping it up to date. There are no issues.

It is extremely scalable and flexible. We scan very small applications from our in-house innovations team and all the way up to millions of lines of code from our e-commerce teams. We currently have about 50 users, but the number varies. Some development teams are fairly small, and some are fairly large.

Technical support is very good. I've never had an issue that we couldn't resolve. If we have a scan running and we need it to finish sooner, they will allocate extra resources to it if we identify. We've had very good results with their tech support.

This is the first solution that was implemented. I inherited this from somebody else. We are a government organization, so we have to do an RFP next year to renew. We'll see how it goes.

The basic scanning is not very complex. When you get into more detailed scanning such as APIs, the level of complexity is moderate. However, when you are scanning that type of application, you usually have teams available that know what to do and what the configuration needs to be. We did our first scan within two days.

It was implemented in-house. We have in-house expertise. Our strategy was basically just to stand it up and use the default settings initially with a pilot. We planned to do some pilot scans and get a good feel for the product, and then adjust accordingly on an ongoing basis.

I managed it for two years single-handedly. As we expand and add more and more applications, we are adding extra hands. If we're looking at an FTE, equivalency is probably 0.5 to 0.75 people to manage it.

Looking for a return on investment on security is a little challenging. Some CIOs might argue one way or another. Some look at it as a cost, and some look at it as cost avoidance. I'm a security professional, and I look at it as cost avoidance. So, we're avoiding breaches, people being able to manipulate the code or cause any issues, and downtime. I always look at the positives of the product. If we eliminate any of the security risks or attack factors on these products before they go live, we're doing due diligence in making sure that the product stays up and running, especially for something like e-commerce.

Their subscriptions could use a little bit of a reworking, but I am very happy with what they're able to provide.

We plan to keep using this solution. Every year, we seem to have more and more code, and they add more and more features such as third-party library assessments, etc. Open source has become a big thing as companies try and save money, but with open source comes additional risk. This solution helps us mitigate the risk of those open-source components. So, we're using this more and more as we move forward.

The important part of this is automation. There are lots of automation options for this tool. Initially, trying to do it manually was a great start, but we kind of got lost a little bit along the way of implementing it. We should have done more automation right from the beginning, made it our standard, and created the policies. Sometimes, you put the cart before the horse. The tool does a great job, and you get lost in the results. It does provide good results and good information, but I think it's very important to have those policies and procedures in place right up front with this product. It will save you a lot of time in the end.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that even if you have the best people, there are always vulnerabilities and things that will surprise you.

I would rate Micro Focus Fortify on Demand a nine out of ten.

We use Micro Focus Fortify on Demand to access web applications and more.

Reporting could be improved. It would nice to export to an Excel sheet or another spreadsheet. At the moment, my only option is a PDF.

Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is tailored towards more web application APIs, and I would like to see mobile applications added to the next release.

We've been using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand for almost two years.

Focus Fortify on Demand is a stable solution.

Focus Fortify on Demand is a scalable solution. 

The setup and installation were straightforward. 

On a scale from one to ten, I'll give it an eight.

We use it for statistical analysis for Java applications that are used in the collection process of a bank. It is also used for an internal web page. The tellers use this web page in the branches to make money transactions, such as withdrawals, deposits, etc.

The most valuable feature is the capacity to be able to check vulnerabilities during the development process. The development team can check whether the code they are using is vulnerable to some type of attack or there is some type of vulnerability so that they can mitigate it. It helps us in achieving a more secure approach towards internal applications.

It is an intuitive solution. It gives all the information that a developer needs to remediate a vulnerability in the coding process. It also gives you some examples of how to remediate a vulnerability in different programming languages. This solution is pretty much what we were searching for.

It natively supports only a few languages. They can include support for more native languages. The response time from the support team can also be improved. 

They can maybe include video tutorials explaining the remediation process. The remediation process is sometimes not that clear. It would be helpful to have videos. Sometimes, the solution that the tool gives in the GUI is not straightforward to understand for the developer. At present, for any such issues, you have to create a ticket for the support team and request help from the support team.

I have been using this solution for two or three months.

It has been pretty stable.

It is scalable, but we haven't scaled it much. Currently, we have ten users, but it is capable of taking many more users.

Their support is good, but sometimes, they take a bit longer. For high severity incidents, they should properly identify the team that has to be engaged to solve an issue. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

The initial setup was pretty much straightforward. It was quite easy to implement. 

It is quite intuitive, and the training model that they have helps the development team in using it easily. The deployment process took only about two weeks.

In terms of the implementation strategy, it started with a kickoff meeting with the provider who offered the solution. We involved the development team, security information team, and infrastructure team from the beginning. They all knew what can be done with the solution and what role they are going to play in the implementation process, which helped a lot to achieve a pretty short implementation time.

It is cost-effective.

It is a great solution. It is cost-effective for a secure development process. If an enterprise wants to adopt the DevOps process, Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is a great starting point. 

I would rate Micro Focus Fortify on Demand a nine out of ten.

We are architecting applications for e-commerce websites similar to Amazon. Everything is running on the cloud, and Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is totally integrated with our solution at this point in time.

Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices.

Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much.

In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication.

They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful.

I have been using this solution for three years.

We have not come across anything major. We have been using it for quite a while, and we are happy with it. 

Scalability is good. Our customer bases are not that huge. Bigger enterprises may have trouble in scaling it, but for our load of work, it is working fine.

We have more than ten users. We are a very small startup, and we don't have too many people. 

Till now, we have not raised any tickets. If we are stuck with something, we just google and find out. We use their documentation, which is good enough. That's why we didn't raise any technical queries or things like that.

It was good. I don't think we struggled that much.

We implemented it ourselves. We have two people to maintain this solution.

We didn't evaluate any other solution. I was trying to find out which solution should I use, and I just saw good reviews of this solution. This was the first solution that we tried out, and we liked it. We started with a trial, and it was doing good. Our necessities were met, so we didn't try to figure out any other competitive tool in the market. 

You can choose this product for sure with a lot of confidence. It entirely depends on how you are exploring the stuff and trying to integrate it. Designing has to be good. It has all the features, but exploring the features and using it as per your need is important. It is not that features are not there. You just need to explore them and know how to use them. 

I would rate Micro Focus Fortify on Demand an eight out of ten. It is a good product. However, it needs improvements from the security aspect and from the aspect of integrations with other popular tools in the market.

We use Micro Focus Fortify on Demand to check the vulnerabilities of developments that we perform.

The feature that I find the most useful is being able to just see the vulnerabilities online while checking the code and then checking suggestions for fixing them.

The thing that could be improved is reducing the cost of usage and including some of the most pricey features, such as dynamic analysis and that sort of functionality, which makes the difference between different types of tools.

I have been using this product for four years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. However, it poses a challenge in terms of pricing and licensing.

I haven't contacted their support, but I know that a team was in touch with Fortify technical support because they do get to have a lot of questions about migrating the software, licensing, and other stuff. They contact the support quite often. I know that they get responses, not always the ones they would like, but they do get a response from them.

I have used SonarQube but not at the same level. It has some functionalities that are related to security. It does not go as deep as Micro Focus Fortify on Demand. 

We have evaluated other tools that are competitors of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, but we still decided to keep Micro Focus Fortify on Demand.

I wasn't responsible for setting it up. 

We have a team that works with the product. All development teams work with this team to accomplish the goals. Everything was set up by this team, and afterward, the development team just has to look at the reports and vulnerabilities so that they can run scans.

It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved. 

Before using it, evaluate other possibilities because it's quite expensive if you don't have the need to use it. For example, replace it with SonarQube or another competitor's tool that may not do quite the same thing, but it is enough for what you want for your objectives. It could be a cheaper way to get to those goals.

I would rate Micro Focus Fortify on Demand a seven out of ten. Improvement in pricing would be the biggest thing that would improve the scoring.

We are using Fortify on Demand as a static code analyzer. As it scans each application, it checks each line of code. When we are developing mobile applications there might be some kind of security vulnerability. One example is a check to see if information that is being transferred is not encrypted because this would be vulnerable to hackers who are trying to break into the system. We also look at whether were are using the network transport layer security.

Our overall goal at this time is to protect our mobile app because it is one of the ways that hackers can break into the system. 

Fortify on Demand is easy to use and the reporting is good.

As for the static code analysis functionality, it is doing the job that it is supposed to do. 

This solution cannot do dynamic application security testing. It needs to be able to simulate a situation where a hacker is trying to break into the system.

The vulnerability analysis does not always provide guidelines for what the developer should do in order to correct the problem, which means that the code has to be manually inspected and understood. Adding more information to provide a better analysis would be an improvement.

This solution would benefit from having more customization available for the reports. 

We have been evaluating Fortify on Demand for close to a year.

Fortify on Demand has been stable from what I have seen. We have not had any problem with the reports, and we have not seen any instability or glitches.

In our trial, there are seven or eight applications that are relying on this solution. Different departments in our company have their own technology centers in different locations, and I am not aware of what the other departments are doing.

I have not interacted with the Fortify on Demand technical support team directly. Our own infrastructure support is the group that would deal with them. My team only communicates with our internal support.

We did not use another solution prior to starting our evaluation that includes Fortify on Demand. People were relying on some open-source static code analyzers. However, I don't think that it was very reliable.

My understanding is the this is not a difficult solution to manage and maintain.

Our server infrastructure team handles the deployment and maintenance of this solution. They update it regularly as patches or new versions are released. They look into all of the tools that we use and perform the installation, as well as manage them.

We are currently using WebInspect but it does not satisfy all of our requirements. We are continuing to research other tools from other vendors, including open-source technologies. We have not fully decided yet. Before deciding on any product or vendor, we have to look at the whole cost of procuring the product license, as well as the recurring cost.

Fortify on Demand is a product that I recommend but the suitability of this solution depends on exactly what the requirements are. Every product has a unique feature as well as limitations with respect to what it can and can not do. What it comes down to is how the application is built, as well as the technology stack. The licensing costs are also something that needs to be considered.

Overall, it is a very good tool and it works well for what it is designed for. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I have been using this solution to gain some perspective from different architectures for the security team. I do not use it every day. I do have an overview and it is integrated with our development platform.

I do work for our governance team, so whenever a project is coming I will review products. I need to connect with the project managers for testing them, and these tests include the vulnerability assessment along with other security efforts. One of the things that I suggest is using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand.

The primary use case is core scanning for different vulnerabilities, based on standards. It beings with an architect who designs a model on a security-risk advisor platform. Then you have an idea of what the obstacles are. Once the code is scanned according to standards, you figure out where the gaps are. The team then suggests what needs to be done to the code to fix the vulnerabilities. The process repeats after the code is fixed until all of the vulnerabilities have been eliminated.

When you take all of these things together, it is Security by design.

The most valuable feature is that it connects with your development platforms, such as Microsoft Information Server and Jira. When a vulnerability is found then it is classified as a bug and sent to IT.

This solution would be improved if the code-quality perspective were added to it, on top of the security aspect. It would rate performance and other things. This is one of the reasons that people are interested in SonarQube. This would make it a more complete and unique platform that would be a great player in the industry.

We have been using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand over the past four years.

This is a very stable solution. Once it is deployed there are not a lot of challenges.

This platform is very much scalable in terms of integrating with other solutions.

We have about 600 developers, but I think that we have between 300 and 400 who using Fortify on Demand.

I have not been in touch with technical support from the vendor.

Our technical support team is comprised of three people. Two of them help to demonstrate the product and instruct people on how it works. The other one is connected to the development team and can help with troubleshooting issues.

We also use WebInspect, SonarQube, and other security tools in addition to this solution. The use of particular tools depends on the project and the project manager that I speak with.

Prior to working with Fortify on Demand, we worked using the code analysis capability in Microsoft Visual Studio. That is where you have things like the recommended best practices for .NET. It flags what lools like bugs.

The initial setup was quite simple.

I performed the deployment a couple of times on different platforms and it did not take much effort to set up. I also did the integration with other platforms like Microsoft Information Server and it was quite easy. You just need to know the platform that you are integrating into.

When it came time to deploy, I just had to run through the documentation on the vendor's web site. I spent one day reading it and one the second day, I did my integration. It took about eight hours that day, and I had challenges but they came from the platform that I was integrating into, like Microsoft Information Server. There were things to be done, such as converting XML files. The next day I was able to fix the problems, so in total it took me between nine and twelve hours to integrate it.

The second time that I deployed this solution it took me not more than two or three hours to repeat all of these same steps.

I had one person from Fortify to assist me with the deployment and integration with Microsoft Information Server. We also had some peers working with us. For example, I had the global head of security assurance working with me. Between us, we got everything working.

We did not evaluate other vendors beyond the solutions that we are using.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to first get buy-in from the entire organization about adopting a culture of Security by design. Fortify on Demand can scan your code, but you need to have plans in place for what needs to be done when problems are identified. It may mean that things will have to change with regards to how code is being written. It may also require integration with other platforms. You can't just start scanning without first understanding what the security architecture is. You need to understand the vulnerabilities and all of the standards, as well. Essentially, I would recommend a security design overhaul.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We recommend this product to our customers. We act as vendors and resellers. This is actually one of the solutions we often recommend to our customers most often. Usually, this is the best choice for banking and financial institutions. It is deployed by their development team in-house. They use it to manage and test product lifecycles.  

We actually find all of the product's features valuable. But at this point, we are trying to upsell by adding additional components like RAFT (Re-usable Automation Framework for Testing) to the test cycle.  

Strictly in terms of this product, I think it is a top-notch solution and I think the technology is still the best on the market. What might be improved is maybe just look at the pricing. It is a bit confusing compared to other products that we also sell.  

Whatever innovation they can come up with would be an excellent addition if it adds useful functionality. The only thing I can think of that they might add is something like features you can find in Codebashing that they have not yet implemented. I don't know if it has all of those features. If not, it would be useful for something like that to be added.  

We have been suggesting the product since before the merger with Hewlett Packard.  

This is a very stable product.  

This product is scalable. Most of our customers are enterprise customers. I can point out three off the top of my head. If the product can scale to the enterprise level, it makes sense that it is quite scalable.  

The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to. Micro Focus has a whole lot of solutions that are of value in our region, but it seems that they are not doing a proper job of coordination of knowledge. There is a huge knowledge gap from the Micro Focus team in the way they support businesses. We were hoping that the transition was the thing that affected the lack of better support. But by now we should be able to point to who the person is that is in charge and the person to talk to when it comes to the various products. I really don't know anybody in charge of the technical team to help us properly with issues.  

I think the initial setup for the on-demand product is straightforward. The product installed on-premises is somewhat complex. For this reason, it is better that the on-premises version is installed with the help of integrators or consultants. 

I would definitely recommend Micro Focus Fortify any day for clients who are looking for a good security solution.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Micro Focus Fortify on Demand as a nine out of ten.  

What is most useful is how you can have related features upgraded on the tools. The tools themselves have details for the code as well, where the issues have been flagged, and all the vulnerabilities are there, in one place.

The solution has some problems with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed.

They should improve the data path where the issue has been flagged. They can improve the flow module details. If you can understand from the data flow or data path what is happening, you can better understand what the issue is.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is okay in terms of scalability. I'm still not really familiar with the tool, and I'm still learning from it. So far, I think it has a good ability to scale.

Technical support is okay. They have a platform that you can create tickets on. Once you raise a ticket, support is quick to help you. 

If they wanted to improve technical support they could offer meetings with the developer or security team.

It's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved.

We use the cloud deployment model of the solution.

Whether or not you decide to implement the solution depends on the use case. It depends on if the user has a big application or multiple lines of code which need to be scanned. New users need to do POC so they can investigate if this tool fits in their company or their enterprise before they begin implementation. Everyone should do a comparison before implementing or doing the rollout of any security tool.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is static code analysis.

This solution has helped us to improve our security processes.

The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution.

The reporting capabilities need improvement, as there are some features that we would like to have but are not available at the moment. It needs a better configuration and more options for reports.

The solution is working, so I would say that its stability is fine.

We have approximately twenty users who perform code scanning. They are developers and security experts. We do plan to increase our usage of this solution in the future.

Technical support for this solution is fine.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

It took approximately two hours to deploy, and because it is a cloud-based solution it does not require anybody for maintenance.

We handled the implementation in-house.

All I can say is that it is reducing security issues.

We evaluated Veracode before choosing this solution.

This solution works, so I suggest using it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Fortify on Demand to test our e-commerce website. We do static codes testing before it goes live.

Before we migrate a new code to our production website, it is scanned with Fortify and all security vulnerabilities are identified. Then we try to remediate them so we don't expose ourselves.

I've been involved in deciding what's right or wrong. I've been involved in deciding on the product early on, and then if we should go on-premise or in the cloud, if we should build it into part of the software development life cycle or if we should do it on demand before we go to production. I've been involved in a lot of that. I've been involved in working with the development team to decide what is a vulnerability and what is not, and which vulnerabilities we need to take to heart, regardless if we understand what it is that we should ignore, and regardless of the fact that we think it's highly critical.

The product, in general, is meant to scan the website and identify any vulnerabilities: a known vulnerability across that script and SQL injection or other vulnerabilities from OWASP top 10, etc. That is what we're using this for.

The solution scans our code and provides us with a dashboard of all the vulnerabilities and the criticality of the vulnerabilities. It is very useful that they provide right then and there all the information about the vulnerability, including possible fixes, as well as some additional documentation and links to the authoritative sources of why this is an issue and what's the correct way to deal with it. 

Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. And they try to look at it saying, "Okay. From a pure standards perspective, this is a critical vulnerability for you." Which in reality, if you would really try to exploit it, you'd see that we actually did cross a little something around it, and the vulnerability is not there. So they would expect to have a certain type of a formatting requirement around a specific field to avoid being able to put in special characters. They would assume that because we don't have that, it's a vulnerability. But in reality, you actually do have a custom function that has been defined somewhere else in the code and these fields are subject to that function. I don't carry along with that in the same way as the application really does. That's something that we found that needs improvement.

We're actually going to transfer from them, and the main reason is that there is nobody home. We could have tickets open with them for months trying to escalate and have them remediate certain false positives as I described. We have had no success bringing this product to a level that we feel there's not too much noise. It gives you specifically what you need. You could take it at face value and run with it.

We're going to switch to Checkmarx. We're in the middle of the deployment.

Stability is good. The product works.

Scalability is irrelevant to us because it's in the cloud. For the past few years, we've been using it in the cloud, so it's a common scanner. It's not handling transactions. It's not a firewall or an antivirus that you have doing real-time transactions. It looks at the code and the volume of code we migrate. We write a lot of code every week, but it's still within reason. We're not talking about thousands of developers sending code at the same time. So I don't think that scalability was much in our conversation.

The product is being used by the e-commerce application development team, and we have senior developers who are responsible to scan and evaluate security concerns that come out of the product. We also have a lead security person and a development team who are responsible to oversee this and ensure that the issues are being addressed.

Deployment and maintenance, are not really applicable because it was somebody at DNH working with the company, setting it up. We did not put it into part of the platform of real-time migration, such that the code automatically goes there, marks it, and allows it to go to production or not. We didn't go that route, so it really didn't need too many people to be involved in the deployment.

The technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we don't see eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse.

Our website is complex, so the setup is also complex. By definition, we expected it to be complex, and Checkmarx should also be complex because of the culture, habits, and complexity of our custom-developed website. Our website is not an off-the-shelf product, so there's a lot of complexity that comes with it by nature. But that's okay.

The initial deployment goal was to scan every bit and byte of code on the production e-commerce site. That was the plan. We started rolling this out and then we started sending tests. We went back and forth on whether we should make it in-line automatic that we scan sales, in a way that it would not allow the code to move further, or if we should do it off to the side, such that the application development life cycle continues to run separately, while somebody is scanning it making sure we dissolve all the issues. So we tried both routes. There are benefits to each, and it's definitely safer to do it in-line. Again, the culture, habits, and technology's use mean that it is not always best to do it in-line because it could become too complicated and break too many things. So we actually switched that. There is a person that does that. It's not built into the migration system by default. Somebody is scanning it and then moves to the next one.

We worked with them and they helped us deploy. We tried a few different versions. We tried on-premise, and then we went to the cloud. Fortify on Demand is the cloud-based version, which we're using now.

Our experience with their developer team was good. But now, over time, the company went from a partner to a disconnected environment. Overall, the experience started out with a back and forth and an active relationship but over time, they became very disconnected.

It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount.

I don't remember if we evaluated anybody else. I think Fortify was recommended through a consultant. Some years ago, there were not so many vendors at a time playing in this arena. There's not so many today for static analysis, but I don't think that we really evaluated any others.

I would advise others not to use Fortify, but rather get something like Veracode or Checkmarx. The most important thing is not the functionality of the product. The most important thing is the knowledge, support, and availability of the team of security specialists as a vendor, that you have somebody to work with and talk to. Everybody's website is different, and if you try to use the product out of the box the way they built it and you have nobody to talk to to figure out how to tweak your application or the product to reduce the noise and the false positives, it becomes literally useless. So I would not advise anybody to go to Fortify based on the fact that they really don't have a very forthcoming support team and availability.

Could be the other options would provide professional services, but that's not the point. The point is that if you want to pick up the phone and send them an email, open a ticket saying that, "This is a false positive," somebody should get back to you. So I don't think that Fortify's a viable option still these days based on the fact of where they sit and how they operate.

I would rate the product a four out of ten. It works. The reason why I give it a four is because of the limitations of the product to understand the dynamics of our website and the number of things that are not working smoothly due to the fact that our website is complex.

My primary use case is to help the teams in development. It helps us scan.

First, you don't have very high requirement and we could do it quickly and efficiently. Second, it was easy for us to install the reading bot facing challenges and such, while doing that installation. Third, when we were doing the scan, it was self intuitive and we were able to scan faster while we had two challenges in the other two solutions that we were using. In terms of finding out where to configure, what are the next steps to configure what we are missing and those kind of areas.

Usually what happens, because we were part of the COE, we had to find those faster and go through old ECs and deliver the results to the short duration income. So, that's where it helped us, it helped us setting up that environment quickly on a laptop, do the scan and come back.

The features I found most valuable is that it is very configurable. The installation was also very easy. 

Yeah, some of the technologies and framework for libraries were not available at that point of time. For example, if it was in the back end, at that point in time we had to look at other tools. There were some analytical compliances so when we had more tools, it took all the technologies frameworks that Fortify was having. We required this because we were widely working with different clients for the different varieties of technology and domains. There were some regulated compliances, which were not there, but these were the factors because of which we had to use some instances of other tools as well.

I do not remember any issues with stability. Of course, it is common that if there is some misconfiguration, it can lead to crashes and the site of the code can crash. But, this is something we have learned to tweak and estimate the length of code before the site of the application. Then, we can consider which technology could be configured, what technology should be excluded, and then scan to optimize some of the related issues.

In terms of the scalability of the solution, we did not have a centralized server connecting to multiple clients. We did not have scalablility issues due to our small-scale use.

We had a good tech support experience.

It was very straightforward in comparison to other solutions that we had used in the past.

The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server. It connects to the other PTs, or even if it connects to the old EC servers. We had to put it within an old EC, in order for the licensing to be available at all scales.Then, you had to open multiple ports in that scenario that was not possible. But, you can do it at the application level, which is faster. You can buy a license, do a scan at that level, as well as scale up. So we also had multiple requests in terms of helping a client before they start in terms of doing something easy so that you do not require a complete license to be purchased.

We were using many other tools like TechAbility, IBM AppScan and I think these were the predominant ones.

Today's security has become so complex that you cannot lean completely dependent on one tool. What I have learned is that you should have multiple tools. Now, with different areas coming into space, all of these tools have to co-exist. To make the right choice of a tool is really important. A solution must have ease-of-use. If it becomes too difficult for installing, configuring, learning the scan, then the add option becomes a challenge.

We previously used it for static and dynamic scans, but now we use it only for dynamic scans.

We have close to 85 products in-house, so we run a lot of scans.

We are using lost programming languages, because we have a lot of product development going on because we have a product-based company. Fortify helps us to stay updated with the newest languages and versions coming out. We can run our scans on a timely basis.

We can run our scans properly on it. It improves future security scans.

Sometimes when we run a full scan, we have a bunch of issues in the code. We should not have any issues.

We would like a reduction in the time frame of scans. It takes us three to five days to run a scan now. We would like that reduced to under three days.

There are no stability issues. Though, we would like the scans to run faster.

We have no scaling issues.

Tech support has been a great help. They always respond to us in a timely manner.

Whenever we contact support, they assist us in running our scans.

We did not have another solution before. We tried other solutions, but they were not as good as Fortify.

I was not involved in the initial implementation.

The pricing is expensive.

Currently, Checkmarx offers us a graphically, revised run.

We use it for externally exposed applications that we want to scan before releasing them to production. As you can imagine, it's important to make sure they're secure and that we will not be exposed. For internal apps, we use other static code scanning, primarily SonarQube. But Fortify on Demand is for externally exposed applications.

Because of the kind of products we deal with, and the kind of customers we have, we have really specific security requirements and practices we need to follow, specifically applying to our SDLC. Our SDLC dictates that we have security scanning, and that improves our code quality. Thankfully, we have never had any kind of serious security flaw or any kind of deviation of the process. We can certainly account for that because of the security tools and analysis that we have prior to moving code to production.

One of the valuable features is the ability to submit your code and have it run in the background. Then, if something comes up that is more specific, you have the security analyst who can jump in and help, if needed. I think that's really useful.

It's still a little bit too complex for regular developers. It takes a little bit more time than usual. I know static code scan is not the main focus of the tool, but the overall time span to scan the code, and even to set up the code scanning, is a bit overwhelming for regular developers. That's one of the reasons we don't use it throughout the company and for all our applications, only for the ones we judge to be most important.

Also, if you have a continuous integration in place, for example, and you want it to run along with your build and you want it to be fast, you're not going to get it. It adds to your development time. 

And it's too expensive to afford to run it for every application all the time. That's certainly something that requires improvement.

I haven't really encountered any issues with stability.

No issues with scalability. It has been able to handle all our workload so far.

Our experience with tech support has been good. We haven't needed support that much but whatever we needed we were able to find on their website. There were a couple of things regarding the licensing and payment that we had to get some help with. But it was quick and easy.

We didn't have a previous solution. We researched a couple of the tools, but we ended up using Fortify because of the comprehensive scans they have, and mainly because they are focused on the kind of apps that we have and the kind of requirements we have. They are able to cover most of the standards and practices that we need to adhere to.

The initial setup was straightforward. We had onsite training from HPE to help set up the local environment and first scans, and that was helpful.

The subscription model, on a per-scan basis, is a bit expensive. That's another reason we are not using it for all the apps. That subscription model is probably something that needs improvement.

We looked at CheckMarkx and SonarQube Enterprise. As I said, we are currently using SonarQube for other apps, but we use the open-source version. We tried to use the Enterprise version but it didn't cover all the aspects that we needed it to cover.

Understand what you want to get out of it and be sure to fully understand what you will be paying per scan if you go for the subscription model. As I said, having to scan hundreds or thousands of apps using that subscription model and doing that several times a week, or several times a day, may increase your costs. That might be something that you need to look at.

I rate it at nine out of 10. It's not a 10 because of the cost model, it's a bit pricey, and the slowness, it could be a little bit faster. I understand the reasons why but you just need to be aware before you start using it that the local scan won't be as fast as the static code scan.

I analyzed more than 20 applications implemented in BIT Brainery University. The static analysis has to be done every release before putting it in production.

Even though it was our final choice, it has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work. We did not need third-party consultants.

We shared the easy to use dashboard with our programmers and involved outsourcers for a quick issues fix. 

It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt.

When choosing a software security product, we expect the product not only has the ability to find exploits, but also has educational and instructional capabilities related to exploits. This makes both the security auditor's job easier and helps the software developer to improve himself and write safer code. Here we have seen that the Micro Focus family has exactly what we want. For this reason, we chose Micro Focus software security products. In addition, the quality of the support and updating services ensures that we gain confidence in their products.

In large software development teams, the most important issue related to software and application security is to identify vulnerabilities and weaknesses quickly and accurately, then to gather those findings on a common platform so  they can be distributed and tracked by teams and developers. 

Micro Focus WebInspect and Fortify code analysis tools are fully integrated with SSC portals and can instantly register to error tracking systems, like TFS and JIRA. This facilitates error and vulnerability management and makes the "Secure Software Development Lifecycle" work well.

The most important feature of the product is to follow today's technology fast, updated rules and algorithms (of the product). It also allows for more efficient and custom integration by allowing customized enhancements through the API support offered through the SSC portal.

Though it is generally close to perfection, the biggest deficiency is the integration with bug tracker systems. It might be better if the configuration screen presented for accessing the bug tracking systems could provide some flexibility. Since there are different templates on TFS in particular (CMMI, Agile etc.), the configuration for different templates can also be customized with the flexibility to be provided here.

The HP FoD effort allowed my client to utilize this service anytime their internal IT team was overwhelmed with workloads. FoD gives them an option to utilize the additional HP Services when they are overwhelmed with other IT Security needs across the company.

• The ability to utilize the Client Portal, which provided my clients with a view of the project status, vulnerabilities and needed remediation steps in real-time
• I don’t know of any other On-Demand enterprise solution like this one where we can load the details and within a few days, receive the results of intrusion attacks, and work with HP Security Experts when needed for clarification
• The process was easy to follow and we were supported by 24/7 by TAM personnel to help with any fire drills. This was helpful many times when I needed a quick answer late at night or early in the morning

• I believe that sales packages should be posted for single applications, and packages of multiple applications. For example, we have one-time a package for single applications, and 12 month unlimited use for static and a package for static & dynamic testing. It would be nice to see packages posted for a single application, and groups of three, five, or 10 applications. More than 10 applications would need to be custom pricing like you have today.
• I would like it to be easier to understand, and have better packaged reporting capabilities. For most of the reporting I needed, I exported to Excel and then had to produce more visually accepted reports for Executive Clients. With Rapid7 I utilized its reporting capabilities to deliver Client Reports within just a few minutes of checking the data. I believe that HP’s FoD Clients could sell more services to clients if HP put more effort into delivering visually pleasing reporting capabilities.

Because the product is based on HP’s Fortify Platform, the product is great.

I can’t answer this question appropriately yet as I only utilized the service for one application so far.

Customer Service:

10/10 - Christine Bobba, Gerald and the whole TAM Team were very supportive. Stuart Ward does a great job running his TAM Team focused on customer service.

Technical Support:

Jason Powell was really support from a technical perspective. He was able to quickly gather the details we needed to resolve security issues with the code or set up.

I’ve used Rapid7 and Qualys Security Solutions in Managed Service Environments for previous clients. Both are really good solutions, but I’ve not utilized any other On-Demand Solution.

I switched because my client uses HP as its core product set. I needed to use Fortify and the FoD Solution allowed me to be up and running within a few short days.

Super easy deployment and usage of the scanning capabilities. The setup was straightforward, and the ability to enter data and start the correct scan was intuitive.

We did not charge for the product, we charged for our PMO Services to run the product.

We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000.

I would suggest, and I have, that companies should utilize the 12 month unlimited test package.

I searched online and FoD allowed me the best opportunity for success due to my client’s timeline.

The security of our consumer-facing web sites is better.

The quality of application security testing reduces risk and gives very few false positives.

New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions. DevOps requires very fast turnaround and I’m not sure HPE Fortify on Demand can do that, although they have a new product in beta for that.

We did not have stability issues.

We did not have scalability issues.

Technical support is very good.

We didn’t have a previous solution.

Setup was not complex, although given our size it was a challenge.

Drive a hard bargain.

We evaluated IBM and Veracode.

Go with the SaaS product.

Security of our applications is a huge concern for everyone now. Using quality products like HPE’s Fortify helped us minimize issues raised by the clients. Therefore, customer satisfaction in terms of the security was high.

We identified a lot of security vulnerability much earlier in the development and could fix this well before the product was rolled out to a huge number of clients.

The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there. Also, the comments added on each issue were getting lost on multiple iterations of scans, which could be fixed.

Technical support is very good. We had a few issues in the initial setup and the HPE team’s support was commendable.

I did not previously use a different solution.

Initial setup was complex; we ran into lot of memory issues. The Visual Studio plugin was not responsive, either.

An in-house team implemented it. Don’t use the Visual Studio plugin, unless your solution is really small. Otherwise, use the command line setup.

It’s a tool used at the enterprise level; hence, I did not have a chance to explore other options.

Security defects are captured early in the lifecycle and fixed quicker. Usage of Fortify has made developers more aware about security vulnerabilities and their consequences, as well as various secure programming practices.

• Scan wizard: for configuring large scans
• Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing
• CLI: to integrate the tool into CI/CD

.NET code scanning is still dependent on building the code base before running any scan. Also, it's dependent on an IDE such as Visual Studio.

More conventional reporting formats need to be provided.

Also, a provision should be available to generate customized reports.

For code bases heavy on JavaScript, the static scan takes a long time (as long as two days). Even then, the scan crashes at times. Increasing system memory doesn't seem to improve the situation (tried with 16/32 GB system memory).

It requires a high-end system with 8/16/32 GB RAM for stable performance.

I haven't reached out to HP Support so far.

I did not previously use any product for static application security.

Initial setup is quite easy.

Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand).

Before choosing this product, we evaluated Veracode and Checkmarx (among licensed), and FindBugs and Yasca (among free).

If you are already using HPE tools and services such as ALM, then Fortify is a good option, as it provides out-of-the-box support for these. Scanning capability-wise, the tool is decent enough, and is also easy to use. However, it generates a large number of false positives after a scan, which can be tedious to verify manually.

Both editions of the product have their advantages, and they complement each other.

Since we adopted HP Fortify, our organization has added more divisions that focus on penetration testing.

HP Fortify already covers the need for security testing and is easy to use for new users. The only thing that comes to mind regarding room for improvement are the security vulnerability updates.

My company has been using this solution for about one year.

I have not encountered any deployment, stability or scalability issues. I haven't had any complaints about technical issues from our client, either.

I have not yet contacted customer service or technical support.

I do know of some software that have similarities, but I’ve never used any of them before.

Most of our clients use straightforward implementation; we recommend straightforward implementation because of the simplicity of the architecture and usage. For example, installing using the best practices for each product.

We implemented it for our customer.

HP Fortify is perfect for any company that creates their own applications or uses vendor-developed ones; it’s great for QA and development phases.

HP Fortify is easy to use and offers lots of integration options; those options allow us to have more diverse implementations that fit the requirements.

The static code analyzer provides views from a security perspective and it is easy to use compared to others.

We use it to evaluate security from the code and provide results from a security perspective as opposed to a developer’s perspective.

Reports can be better visually with graphics such as charts included. Charts (pie, bar, some graph) could show the percentage of the vulnerability categories identified, as opposed to listing them all in a table. At a higher level, it would be nice to aggregate the analysis.

I have used it for 3.5 years.

I did not encounter any deployment issues. It was fairly simple and easy to install/deploy.

Technical support is 6/10. I find the Internet to be more helpful at times than their own tech support in finding answers.

Initial setup was easy and intuitive: just specify the license path and install the product.

We implemented it in-house.

Quality vs quantity: You pay more for a higher-quality product and meets your needs, compared to others that might be cheaper, but you have to crawl to get what you are looking for.

While I did evaluate others, it depends on the budget.

It is a good product to choose for SCA and cloud deployment. If you choose SSC, don’t always look at the price, as the other products might not conduct the same analysis as HP Fortify does. Not all products are created equal.

The solution simply identifies any security flaws that any of our applications might have.

This identification provides us an advantage in that the service itself works to stay abreast and knowledgeable about emerging threats. Rather than have a security team dedicated to that effort, we don’t have to deal with that in a time consuming, direct manner. We don't need to have these skills in-house.

I find that while it does find a lot of legitimate threats, it tends to have a lot of false positives, and there are more false positives than I would like to see. It flags threats that sometimes are not, and when we have to investigate that it takes time. If they could improve the intelligence then I think it could really help the system function more efficiently. The dynamic time scan takes about seven days, and this could be a bit quicker. We like to incorporate the scan into every build cycle and if we have to wait for a seven day business cycle it has to go into our scheduling. If that could be improved there would be a lot of happy people.

It predates my employment; I’m certain we signed up in 2013 – roughly three years ago.

We have had no issues with the deployment.

I would say it’s fairly stable. It’s a web application so of course there are browser hiccups but I would give it a high score for stability. Once in a while there is a page refresh, but nothing major.

We have four applications and we’ve been able to get them all in there, I don’t see it having a limit.

Customer service has been good once we get attention, which comes back to the false positive issue.

Sometimes the results need clarifications. They could be a bit more responsive as once we get someone the interactions have been good and helpful.

This was our first foray into a hosted service.

The deployment was super easy as the interface is straightforward. It was almost too easy.

If you haven’t run any formal scan be prepared for it to come back and be a bit scary.

It's saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on security consultancy work rather than tool operational work.

Also, the features SAST, DAST, Dashboard/Reports, Fortify on Demand Portal and Vulnerability Tracking, have all helped with our work.

Finally, it's reduced operational costs as we minimized security incidents and ensured all vulnerabilities are remediated during the development lifecycle.

The results it provides are more than 95% accurate, helping us to focus on the right things first.

Our new software procurement process benefited as well as we use this as a central control to provide security assurance and evaluate the quality of our deliverables.

Its ease-of-use has influenced developer behavior and enabled them to follow security principles.

It would be useful if they could integrate secure design reviews, security user stories in Fortify on Demand Portal, and also look for possible options to get just one view of risks for given services (Covering Application, Infrastructure, Pen. Test, etc.).

I’ve used it since 2010.

We've had no issues with deployment.

It’s a very stable product. We've had no issues with instability.

It’s scaled for our needs. We've had no issues with un-scalability.

Customer service is excellent.

The technical support is very good.

We've used various other tools, including the Fortify on-premise solution. We chose Fortify on Demand as it is cost effective, scalable, easy to deploy, and helps us to manage our vulnerabilities centrally.

The initial setup was very easy and straightforward. We were able to roll out this service to all our business units.

We performed the installation in-house.

There is no setup cost as it is an on-demand solution. However, if there is any firewall change required for an internal application, we would need to raise that from our end.

We considered SonarQube, MSFox, and CodeInspect.

Fully utilize this product and its feature as it covers almost everything required for software security assurance.

It enforces source-code scanning, finding vulnerabilities in source code.

We're able to find vulnerabilities and weaknesses actually posting to site. We can get to these issues in our staging areas for active data and for verifying user vulnerabilities. It helps the development cycle in that we don't need other people involved in the scans. We're doing pre-scans and then getting other teams involved.

There are a lot of false positives and there's not a good way to manage them. They appear after every scan, and it would be nice to have them marked out so that we don't see them.

We've had no issues with deployment.

Stability could use a little improvement as we've had some issues. It runs out of memory sometimes and uses a lot of resources. Sometimes the scans don't work.

For code scans, company size doesn't really matter so much as the size of the code. It works well with the code scans we're running. Our lines of code aren't as huge as other applications we build, and it doesn't support every type of our applications, which are primarily .NET and HPE apps.

Technical support isn't top-notch, but it's not bad. It's just average. They take a while to resolve issues.

The initial setup was pretty easy and straightforward.

Find the solution that works best for your environment, using the group concept to try them all. Then determine which is best for you.

It's one of the leaders in the application security space. I've used Fortify since 2007, and I think the most valuable feature is its ability to address the source code scanning and dynamic scanning in a known, correlated way. I think the best way to address application security is to have multiple types of scanning and a unified view for the customer.

It's forced the incorporation of security in the development process. That's really the biggest benefit for us.

It could use better integration with the incident management processor. This would allow us to understand the vulnerabilities that arise in the software and how they're linked to the incident management center.

The deployment has not had issues.

It is a quite stable solution.

It's quite scalable and addresses a huge volume.

It's good, but could be better to align with other main vendors, such as IBM.

It's not straightforward, but it's not complex either. It could also be improved.

I'm very familiar with IBM and Barracuda and others. I always know HP's competition, but I feel most comfortable with HP.

My advice would be to look not only at the software, but also at the processor and the people who will be using the software. You should buy not just the software, but also the services to train people to use it.

• It's On-Demand, and cloud-based which is well suited to occasional and price-conscious use.
• Fast turn-around allows for easy integration into the development process without any major impact on development efforts.

It has added a very quick turnaround for security code reviews which allowed us to integrate this (formerly missing) function into the overall development and testing lifecycle.

It needs to support more languages.

I've used it for three months.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Excellent – from the PoC through setup and implementation; we received timely and knowledgeable support whenever we need it.

We tried to do it by hand (which was very time consuming and error-prone) and some tools built-in to Visual Studio (which was not widely accepted by individuals).

We had some issue with logins and account setups, but received excellent support.

We implemented it ourselves with the help of HP.

Don’t know since the project got cancelled.

Take advantage of the free trial and conduct a meaningful PoC. Get a buy-in from upper management early and co-ordinate with all stakeholders (e.g. developers, testing and/or QA groups).

I was able to quickly pass compliance with HIPAA.
Correlated static and dynamic results with detailed priority guidance.
Accurate results, tailored to each application.
All results manually reviewed by application security experts .
Central testing program management for all applications.

HP Fortify on Demand provides an independent review of third-party applications, allowing organizations to test software before purchasing, and also allowing software vendors to demonstrate the security of their software. Third-party vendors can upload the source code and/or provide a URL, review the results, and then publish a report back to their customer.

This service compels commercial vendors to take action to proactively fix vulnerabilities, while allowing them to remain in control of their applications. Security professionals can demand that high-priority problems be addressed and verified during the procurement or upgrade process, prior to acceptance. HP Fortify on Demand serves as an independent third-party solution to conduct unbiased analysis of applications and provide a detailed tamper-proof report back to the security team.

You are going to like the new detailed reporting. It can correlate the results from different forms of testing and prioritize them by severity to present the truest representation of application risk.

1 year

It was very easy to install and deploy.

No.

No. Scalable infrastructure allows for fast turnaround times and it has no limitations based on lines of code, megabytes, or anything else.

Good

Good

I currently use other solutions. We gave HP Fortify on Demand a try and we are very happy with the results.

Yes. Very easy.

We tried the free version first and then we acquired the software the product website.

Keep in mind that the calculation for return on investment and, therefore the definition, can be modified to suit the situation. It all depends on what you include as returns and costs. The definition of the term in the broadest sense just attempts to measure the profitability of an investment and, as such, there is no one "right" calculation. But, I have to say the client is very satisfied.

Try the free version first.

I am already using other software. We wanted to try it and it works like a charm.

Trust me, you want to be able to do automated and manual testing on a web application that is live.