Rapid7 InsightVM Reviews

InsightVM is mainly used for vulnerability management.

InsightVM's most valuable feature is risk scoring, a formula based on different vectors like the ease of exploitation and the availability of the machine. It can be customized according to the customer's needs - for example, if they have an asset that is more vulnerable, they can adjust the risk score according to their infrastructure. It also has a very robust dashboard system and good integration.

InsightVM could be improved by providing passive scanning as an option. They could also introduce license packages for fewer than 128 users for smaller organizations.

I've been using InsightVM for almost five years.

InsightVM is stable.

InsightVM has the option of implementing the scan engine separately, which helps with scalability.

InsightVM's technical support is very good.

Positive

InsightVM is easy to implement and deploy, even for small and medium businesses.

InsightVM's licensing starts at a minimum of 128 IPs and can scale up to over 1,000.

InsightVM is easy to use, has a well-defined dashboard, and can be customized according to your needs. You can also segregate your assets and define IP ranges. I would give InsightVM a rating of nine out of ten.

Their channel program and the process of their deal registration could be improved.

Some of our customers want to be completely cloud based, and Rapid7 doesn't offer this as an option. 

I have used this solution for one year. 

This solution is fairly stable.

This is a scalable solution suitable for large environments. 

We initially worked with Qualys and found that Qualys has a better reputation but it is expensive. Companies with bigger budgets and who would like a cloud solution, usually prefer Qualys. This is also because of the product maturity and the research they provide.

The challenge with Qualys is that they do not have any distributors in Pakistan. They do not have an on-premises product, which caters more towards the enterprise accounts in Pakistan. I prefer going with Rapid7 for this reason. Rapid7 have a good distribution network with good support and market presence. 

My advice is to explore many options and look at the integrations available. My personal experience is that only implementing vulnerability management doesn't solve all of the problems. We also needed evaluator integrations that provide preventative measures.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We use it for vulnerability scanning.

The feature that I have found most valuable is its dashboards.

There is room for improvement on its cloud side.

In the next release I would like to see better reporting.

I have been using Rapid7 InsightVM for seven years.

It is stable.

Rapid7 InsightVM is scalable.

In my company, it is just my team of less than five people using it.

It requires one engineer for deployment and maintenance of the solution.

We do not have plans to increase the usage of the solution in the future.

Their customer support is really bad. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would probably give it a 1.

The initial cloud setup was difficult. It took months even though we worked with their professional services.

We used a consultant to implement.

We had a good return, but it could be better.

We pay 100,000 yearly.

We are thinking about changing right now. We have always used Rapid7, but we are thinking about changing now.

My advice to anyone considering Rapid7 InsightVM is to look at the other vendors first.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Rapid7 InsightVM a 3.

We use a hybrid setup. Some dashboards and configurations are uploaded to the Cloud, and some of them are on-premises. The main engine is on-premises. We have about 12 customers and some of them are big companies. 

There are a few main features that we are very happy with. Using Rapid7, we can install a scan engine, we can do our VPN connections, and we can conduct internal scans of remote sites. We prefer the web application. It's smarter and more accurate from an application perspective.

The integration with other solutions like JIRA could be better. Perhaps there could be some additional updates in the next phase that could integrate with it, so then you can proceed with the VT much easier.

I've been using Rapid7 for about two years.

From a scalability standpoint, it's good because they give you around 100%. If you want to increase your asset counts, for example, they give you permission for 100% above the limit that you pay for.

Their support is very good. Technical support varies from person to person. Some cases have taken some time, but once it was escalated, everything was done well and the problem was solved. We've had some cases involving integration, remote sites, and some special configurations. They provided us with some support on all that.  

It's straightforward. Everything is like setting up Lego cubes. It doesn't take much time to deploy. The first deployment may take around an hour or two.

The license could be a little bit cheaper. For all these features, you would expect to pay a little bit lower but around the same general price. Licenses are paid yearly. For some customers, we pay two years at a time, but mostly it's yearly.

I would rate it nine out of 10.

We use this solution for our internal server for scanning. We can scan for vulnerabilities and locate them.

We also generate reports for the patching team. We assign tasks to the patching team.

It's a relevant management tool. 

It has some useful automation features. The report generating and the scanning are very helpful.

It would be very helpful to have integration. There are many plugins that can be used for tasks that would help the visibility and be able to locate the exact problem.

I would like to see more integration. 

I would also like to see more flexibility when scheduling the scans. We should be able to schedule scans when we want them to be scheduled. Currently, they have to be scheduled before a certain day of the week.

I have been using Rapid7 InsightVm for six months during my internship.

Rapid7 InsightVM is a stable product.

We have no issues with the scalability of this solution. We have a vulnerability management team of four who are using it, and in our organization, we have approximately 20 people, including management.

Technical support is good.

I have used Tenable Nessus previously for my personal projects. I used it for scanning for my projects in college.

I was not involved in the installation. It was already installed previously.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

I would recommend this solution to others, but more integration features would be more helpful.

I would rate Rapid7 InsightVM an eight out of ten.

We are using InsightVM for vulnerability management services. We use it for providing professional services to our customers, and we also use it for our internal use.

We do on-premises and cloud deployments.

I really love the new platform. It is really easy to understand, use, and deploy. 

Their support is very professional and good at troubleshooting issues.

It would be great to have a mobile application client. Currently, you have to use a mobile web browser on a device, but it is not similar to the desktop web browser in terms of user experience. It would be nice to have a mobile application to access the platform. 

It would be nice to have someone in the technical support team who speaks Italian. 

We have been in a partnership with Rapid7 for five years.

It is absolutely stable.

It is scalable. We have 40 customers who are using this solution.

Their technical support is great, but it would be nice to have someone in the technical support team who speaks Italian. 

We speak Italian with Safeguy. So, sometimes, Safeguy's technical teams also help us.

Its initial setup is easy and quick. We are typically able to deploy it in a couple of hours.

We have 15 certified and dedicated engineers to handle its deployment and maintenance.

In some cases, we procure the licenses. In some cases, the customers directly buy the license from Rapid7.

I would rate Rapid7 InsightVM a nine out of 10.

I primarily using Rapid7 for vulnerability assessment and reporting.

At this point, we are not happy with Rapid7.

The reporting is very bad when you compare it with other vulnerability assessment tools.

This product is for basic vulnerability assessments, only, and is lacking in features such as compliance, assessment, assets, inventory, and batch management.

I have been using Rapid7 InsightVM for five years.

I would say that the scalability is 50-50. It does not offer much in terms of being able to scale. We have approximately 3,000 users.

I have been in contact with technical support and they are not bad.

Comparing the price with the value that we receive, I am not happy with it.

We are currently looking to replace Rapid7 with another product.

Currently, we are working with Tenable Nessus and Qualys.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

We used InsightVM mainly for vulnerability management. I thought it was a pretty interesting application. I'm a fan of Rapid7's Metasploit, so when I saw InsightVM I was like, "Let's see what else they have." I liked it up until we experienced some issues relating to scans. If I wanted to do mitigation, I needed to wait until the next scan was available or ran so that I could get to see if any indentations were made. 

While I was in there, if I was searching for a specific vulnerability, sometimes it was hard to find the specific ones. In the dashboard, it'll tell you the results from the scans, and it will also tell you the vulnerabilities and it will rank them for risk. I would have liked to have been able to click on the vulnerability and it would take me to another area that just has the vulnerability with all the hosts. It wouldn't let you do that. You had to come back out of that window and go into another window and search for it. Well, you wouldn't get the same results as the number of hosts. I had to work a little bit harder to find exactly what I needed.

Within our organization, there were two of us using it. Both of us were IT analysts. One was an IT analyst III (which was me), and the other one was the IT analyst manager.

I would say that it improved our visibility, but it left things open.

I liked the dashboard on it. I could customize my dashboard with different widgets and different heat maps. I liked that. That was a feature I liked. If your manager had a different dashboard that they liked, and you tried to go into a meeting and they say, "Well, I think your numbers are wrong because my dashboard says this" Well, you couldn't rapidly say, "Here's the default dashboard for this for risk." Whereas, with Tenable, you could go through a dashboard just for risks, and say, "Hey, let's switch to this dashboard so we're seeing the same numbers without customization."

They just need to fix it to make it more fluid. If it shows you vulnerabilities, I want to be able to click on the vulnerability and drill down into the vulnerability. If it's rating it as a 10 and it says it's got 30 hosts in it for this vulnerability, I want to click on that vulnerability and get a separate report that says, "Here's the vulnerability specific and here's the host involved." That way I could export it and say, "Hey, this vulnerability's out there, it matches a CVE number that is critical, that Microsoft, Cisco, whatever, has put a patch out there, and here guys, here's what it is and here's the proof. Here's your host that's vulnerable. Here's a change request, fix it, send me back the proof that you fixed it, then allow me to rerun a scan specific to that, on-demand, to say 'Yes, boss, we have mitigated it.'"

I want to be able to just drill down on the reports. If it showing me there's a vulnerability and there's a said number of nodes that's vulnerable to it, I want to be able to drill down and export that list without having to come back out of it, going into my assets, trying to find the name of the vulnerability, which doesn't match what the dashboard says. To me, that was backward.

I have used this solution for one year.

It was pretty stable. We didn't have any real hiccups, but it was stable. We didn't have any real hiccups there.

As far as I know, it says it's scalable. I'm not sure if that company I used to work for had to scale it up or down.

The tech support was very helpful. Actually, I knew a couple of them so it was very helpful.

I would give their tech support a rating of 10 — I knew them from using Metasploit and some other products. It was more of a, "Hey, I got this issue, how can you help me with it?" They'd point me and say, "Hey, check this out."

I wasn't involved in the initial setup, so I can't comment on that.

Do your proof of concepts if you can. Make sure you develop your risk strategy. That's important, because it's going to give you a risk number, it's going to give you critical: highs, mediums, but you need to understand what is the risk methodology that you're going to follow. Just because it says it's critical because of how many vulnerabilities you have, doesn't mean that you need to work on it right away.

For example, there was a vulnerability that had 2,000 nodes affected. It put it as a high-risk, whereby there was another vulnerability where there were only about 10 hosts affected — it put it at medium-risk. However, the high-risk one, because it had more nodes affected, did not have a POC associated with it. A novice person looking at it would say, "I need to work on these 1,000 vulnerabilities because it's a high-risk, and ignore the medium." Well, the medium one had an active POC on it. If you didn't have a person who understood how to read the report and what it's actually telling you, then you would say, "Hey, you know what, I'm going to use these, I'm going to cut my risk down because I got 1,000 nodes with this vulnerability and I'm going to put this chain out real quick and I'm going to reduce my risk real quick because of the numbers." Well, in my opinion, you didn't reduce your risk because you have 10 nodes out there with a vulnerability that's rated medium and it has a POC on it.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. I'm going to say that is because shame on Rapid7 for having such great applications, but then that little piece there that they know about hasn't been fixed. If I remember, if I go probably log back into the community, it's probably been asked a couple of times.