Snyk Reviews

I used it for the security analysis and code vulnerability part. We were also interested in integrating with the pipeline scan and code scan.

The code scans on the source code itself were valuable.

It's very easy to use. It's very fast. 

It was good, but we had a few limitations with it. We were mostly using containerized applications. We were using Microsoft Docker images. It was reporting some vulnerabilities, but we were not able to figure out the fix for them. It was reporting some vulnerabilities in the Docker images given by Microsoft, which were out of our control. That was the only limitation. Otherwise, it was good.

I used it two months ago for a period of two weeks.

Its stability was good during that two-week period.

We didn't do extensive tests on it.

We contacted them for support. They were responsive, and they responded quickly.

We were using Veracode, but with Veracode, we found some limitations. It was not able to scan the source code the way Snyk does. That's a limitation, and Veracode is not that capable even for container applications. From the capability perspective, it was not as good as Snyk.

It's very easy to use. It's very quick. I'd rate it a nine out of ten in terms of the ease of the setup.

Cost-wise, it's similar to Veracode, but I don't know the exact cost. 

I'd recommend the code quality scan, which is helpful for the upfront feedback for developers. It's a very good feature. The container scans are also good, but only for Microsoft images, there are some limitations. If I were to start looking for a vulnerability solution, I'd definitely go with Snyk. It's quick and easy to use.

Overall, I'd rate Snyk a nine out of ten.

At a high level, Fugue extends and augments compliant reporting capabilities provided by major cloud suppliers. It enhances the visibility, again, from a compliance standpoint, into cloud-based or multi-cloud-based environments.

The solution offers good flexibility in customization. From a compliance and visibility reporting perspective, the fact that it can be applicable for multi-cloud environments is very helpful. It's not a single cloud supplier. It's most of them. The fact that it provides visibility, compliance-related visibility, that is not readily available by cloud suppliers themselves, is its most valuable aspect. It's the additional set of compliance reporting and compliance visibility features that Fugue provides that is what makes it so very useful.

The initial setup is simple and straightforward. 

I can't comment if there are missing features at this time. For the last six to eight months I didn't work with Fugue. I don't have an up-to-date product roadmap to comment on what is or is not available, what they do or do not provide. I would need to review their current roadmap to be able to accurately comment on what is or is not available.

Fugue capabilities are not well understood on the market. If there was one thing they could improve, it would be to basically explain in simple terms to market what it is they do. Right now, understanding what they do requires substantial experience and expertise. It wasn't a challenge for me to identify this area, however, I'm the exception. Generally speaking, there is not sufficient understanding in the broad market of what Fugue does. This is the area they need to focus on.

The general input I have is that there is an opportunity for them to better align with other similar tools and better align with similar capabilities that cloud suppliers deliver natively. What happens is they extend and augment capabilities that cloud suppliers offer. There is additional integrational and operational benefits that can be realized in how they extend and how they position themselves as compared to what cloud suppliers deliver.

I've used the solution for some time. It's likely been more than a year. There were a couple of specific projects which were two months long in terms of duration. I'd work with it on and off for those.

There was no issue with scaling at the time I was deploying it. I did not have a chance to work with it at a really industrial scale, such as an enterprise scale. It was a fairly limited deployment, a fairly limited project. I did not see any issues with the scalability of the architecture or the environment itself.

I worked with their professional services organization. I did not have a chance to go to support, so I cannot comment on the efficiency or effectiveness of the support organization. I didn't interact with them.

The setup was actually fairly simple and they can start delivering value in a very short time. That said, t business value is a subjective thing. The business value itself is something that they need to explain. It's not self-evident.

There were no issues related to the setup. It's a cloud-native solution. It's available nearly instantaneously. Being able to interpret the results and being able to consume the value that they provide and understand the value that they provide, however, needs to be better explained to the market.

The Fugue solution can be handled by a relatively small team - so long as they understand it.

In general, for maintenance, the team is relatively small, however, the level of understanding that the team needs to possess, to have, in order to effectively use it, is quite high.

I don't have direct visibility and the pricing, from what I understand, is negotiable. It's not an effective area for me to comment on.

Considering that they deliver a unique set of capabilities, the money that they charge is likely worth it. That said, one needs to understand the value to fully appreciate it.

We are consultants. We don't have any alliance or partnership relationship. It's similar to the relationship with other technology suppliers that we have in the same space.

I'd advise others to definitely try it out. 

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

We are using Snyk to find the vulnerabilities inside dependencies. It is one of the best tool in the market for this. 

It is pretty easy and straightforward to use because integration won't take more than 15 minutes to be honest. After that, developers don't have to do anything. Snyk automatically monitors their projects. All they need to do is wait and see if any vulnerabilities have been reported, and if yes, how to fix those vulnerability. 

So far, Snyk has given us really good results because it is fully automated. We don't have to scan projects every time to find vulnerabilities, as it already stores the dependencies that we are using. It monitors 24/7 to find out if there are any issues that have been reported out on the Internet.

Whenever Snyk reports to us about a vulnerability, it always reports to us the whole issue in detail:

• What is the issue.
• What is the fix.
• What version we should use.

E.g., if upgrading to a new version may break an application, developers can easily understand the references and details that we receive from Snyk regarding what could break if we upgrade the version.

The solution allows our developers to spend less time securing applications, increasing their productivity. As soon as there is a fix available, developers don't have to look into what was affected. They can easily upgrade their dependencies using Snyk's recommendation. After that, all they need is to test their application to determine if the new upgrade is breaking their application. Therefore, they are completely relaxed on the security side. 

Snyk is playing a big role in our security tooling. There were a couple of breaches in the past, which used vulnerability dependencies. If they had been using Snyk and had visibility into what vulnerabilities they had in their dependencies, they could have easily patched it and saved themselves from their breaches.

So far, we have really good feedback from our developers. They enjoy using it. When they receive a notification that they have a vulnerability in their project, they find that they like using Snyk as they have a very easy way to fix an issue. They don't have to spend time on the issue and can also fix it. This is the first time I have seen in my career that developers like a security tool.

I'm the only person who is currently maintaining everything for Snyk. We don't need more resources to maintain Snyk or work full-time on it. The solution has Slack integration, which is a good feature. We have a public channel where we are reporting all our vulnerabilities. This provides visibility for our developers. They can see vulnerabilities in their projects and fix them on their own without the help of security.

Snyk integrations and notifications with Slack are the most valuable feature because they are really handy. By monitoring dependencies, if there is a vulnerability reported, Snyk will fire off a Slack message to us. With that Slack message, we can create a request just from the notifications which we receive on Slack. It's like having visibility in a general channel and also flexibility to fix that issue with a few clicks.

The solution’s vulnerability database is always accurate since the chances of getting a false positive is very rare. It only reports the vulnerabilities which have already been reported publicly.

The solution’s Container security feature allows developers to own security for the applications and the containers they run in in the cloud. Without using Snyk, developers might be not aware if they are creating a vulnerability in their Docker images. While using Snyk, they have at least a layer of protection where they can be notified by a Snyk if there is a vulnerability in the Docker images or communities.

If the Snyk had a SAST or DAST solution, then we could have easily gone with just one vendor rather than buying more tools from other vendors. It would save us time, not having to maintain relationships with other vendors. We would just need to manage with one vendor. From a profitability standpoint, we will always choose the vendor who gives us multiple services. Though, we went ahead with Snyk because it was a strong tool.

Snyk needs to support more languages. It's not supporting all our languages, e.g., Sift packages for our iOS applications. They don't support that but are working to build it for us. They are also missing some plugins for IDEs, which is the application that we are using for developers to code.

There are a couple of feature request that I have asked from Snyk. For example, I would like Snyk to create a Jira ticket from Slack notifications. We already have Snyk creating a pull request from Slack notifications, so I asked if we could create a Jira ticket as well so we can track the vulnerability.

I started working with at my company eight months ago and Snyk was already in place. As for my own experience, I was using this solution before I joined the company, so I was familiar with the tool and how it works.

They were a couple of issues which happened because Snyk lacked some documentation on the integration side. Snyk is lacking a lot of documentation, and I would like to see them improve this. This is where we struggle a bit. For example, if something breaks, we can't figure out how to fix that issue. It may be a very simple thing, but because we don't have the proper documentation around an issue, it takes us a bit longer.

So far, we have onboarded all our developers to Snyk, and it's still running fine. However, they could improve it. For example, if I create a bulk request for more than 15 or 20 vulnerabilities, then it takes a bit longer than it should in terms of time.

Including security, the total developers that we have on Snyk is almost 50 at this time. We are pushing more to the developers and would like to have 200 developers in the coming month or two.

The people with whom I'm connected are really good. If I have issues, they will quickly jump on a call and I will start troubleshooting with them over the call. The people with whom I'm talking are very technical.

Before using Snyk, we didn't have visibility into how many dependencies we were using or importing into our projects. Snyk gives us how many third-party libraries we are using and what version they are running on. Also, it let us know if there are any vulnerabilities in those libraries when we are writing our code. Because of the potential impact, we have to ensure that there aren't any vulnerabilities in these libraries (since we have no visibility) when we are importing. 

The initial setup was straightforward. Onboarding projects didn't take me too long. It was pretty straightforward and easy to integrate with event/packet cloud and import all our projects from there. Then, it was easy to generate the organizational ID and API key, then add it to the Snyk plug-in that we are using in our build pipeline.

Snyk was already onboard when I joined. Deployment of my 23 projects took me an hour. 

The solution has reduced the amount of time it takes to find problems by three or four hours per day. 

The solution has reduced the amount of time by at least two to three hours a day to fix problems because the documentation which we receive is very helpful. This also depends on a couple of factors, such as, how big a project or library is.

Developer productivity has increased a lot. Considering all the projects about security vulnerabilities, we are saving at least six to seven hours a day.

It saves a lot of my time and the developers' time. Also, because everything is super simple and straightforward in one place, it is really convenient for the security team to keep an eye on vulnerabilities in their projects.

Having this type of tool for a security team is really helpful. In my previous role, we didn't have this type of tool for our team. We struggled a lot with how we could enhance our visibility or see our projects: what dependencies they were using and if we could monitor those dependencies for any vulnerabilities. Without the tool, we could be attacked by some random vulnerability which we were not even aware of. Thus, I strongly recommend having this type of tool for a security team.

This is integrated with our CI/CD.

For Containers, we are still not fully rolled out and working around it. 

I would rate this solution as a seven (out of 10).

It is a source composition analysis tool that we use to perform vulnerability scanning for those vulnerabilities within open source libraries.

This is a SaaS solution.

It has improved our vulnerability rating and reduced our vulnerabilities through the tool during the time that we've had it. It's definitely made us more aware, as we have removed scoping for existing vulnerabilities and platforms since we rolled it out up until now.

We were aware of problems that were there, but we weren't looking for them until we had Snyk. It is definitely showing us things that we should have been concerned about, and we have found a lot of value in resolving those things since we've discovered them.

It's reduced the amount of active vulnerabilities in our applications, providing both a more stable and secure environment for us in the libraries that we develop. It has highlighted a number of things we weren't aware of in our applications and the reduction of those is definitely a benefit and value-add to our applications.

The general source composition analysis is the key to the piece. That is the feature to check our open source libraries for vulnerabilities and the primary feature that we use the tool for.

It is extremely easy to use and very simple to catch on for every team that we train on it. We generally have our development teams leverage the tool themselves. It's extremely easy to teach them how to use it and get them to onboard it.

From a speed perspective, we use Git repository. It was very easy to integrate into that platform.

The solution’s ability to help developers find and fix vulnerabilities quickly is very good and convenient. It provides the ability to easily work the platform into our existing repositories and leverage our repository. It also pulls notifications as a means for notifying developers of vulnerabilities within the projects that are developing.

The solution’s vulnerability database is very comprehensive and accurate.

There are some new features that we would like to see added, e.g., more visibility into library usage for the code. Something along the lines where it's doing the identification of where vulnerabilities are used, etc. This would cause them to stand out in the market as a much different platform.

We have been using Snyk for about a year.

It is very stable.

We use existing staff to maintain and operationalize it.

It is extremely easy to scale and hooks into all of our application repositories without any issues. We use the product extensively in the projects that we are currently running. We are using the product at close to 100 percent.

Developer-adoption of the solution has been good. It is one of the better tools in our application security library from an adoption perspective and needs of use. It has the most positive feedback out of all our solutions.

There are probably 50 users who are security/developers and development-focused security professionals.

The only technical support that we have received has been through our account team, and it's been fantastic. I haven't actually had to open any tickets or anything using the tool. The only time we've ever needed assistance was to open up a ticket for single sign-on configuration. It was extremely quick. They had a very easy, fast response for how to deliver it.

We previously used Black Duck. We switched to Snyk because of its better false positive ratings along with its ease of use, integration, and deployment.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was just extremely easy to integrate into our repositories, get the code scanning working, and add our projects into the application.

The deployment was quick. We had our first application in it within minutes.

Implementation strategy: We hooked up our applications and integrated them into the tool. Then, we started to address vulnerabilities as we saw fit from a risk perspective.

We have seen ROI with Snyk. It has showed us a lot of things that we were not privy to before. This has opened our eyes to a lot of very important things, e.g., vulnerabilities.

The solution has reduced the amount of time it takes to fix problems. It has done a great job explaining what the problem is and how to resolve it with remediation. It gives you a lot of details about versioning and such for the library. It is definitely helpful there.

The time-to-value of the solution in our company was almost immediate.

It's inexpensive and easy to license. It comes in standard package sizing, which is straightforward. This information is publicly found on their website.

We focused our evaluation specifically on Black Duck and Snyk, plus Veracode as a larger product offering.

The Snyk platform does everything we've expected it to do. It works much better than some of the competitors we looked at during our assessment.

If you're looking for a source composition analysis tool or a tool to monitor your open source security, then it's a fantastic solution.

SAST and DAST are very important functions. We have alternative options for those though. I wouldn't say the solution’s lack of SAST and DAST hurts or affects us. It would be nice if these were a platform or offering that they did have.

We don't use the solution’s Container security feature at the moment, but we are planning on using it.

I would rate this solution as an eight or nine (out of 10).

I use Snyk to review my code. 

Snyk helps me pinpoint security errors in my code. 

Sometimes we have problems upgrading a library because it's too old. The only thing we can do is use another library. 

It is easy to scale Snyk once you install it, but it depends on your cloud service provider. Everything will scale smoothly if you have the correct cloud server settings. 

I rate Snyk support eight out of 10. 

Positive

Setting up Snyk is relatively complex if you're working with multiple developers who use different IDEs. It can be complicated if, for example, one developer uses Visual Studio and another developer uses a different editor. 

Snyk is cloud-based. We use Bamboo for CI/CD, and we had problems integrating Snyk with it. Ultimately, we got the two solutions to work together, but it was difficult.

I rate Snyk three out of 10 for affordability. The price is relatively high, but it's worth it. 

I rate Snyk seven out of 10. 

Snyk's major use case is to check our code for vulnerabilities that may exist in the dependencies or the security of the code. This allows developers to identify and address potential security issues that can be resolved.

Snyk offers two key advantages for organizations. Firstly, it allows all issues to be fixed in one centralized location, streamlining the process of addressing vulnerabilities. Secondly, Snyk categorizes the level of vulnerability into high, medium, and low, which helps organizations prioritize which issues to tackle first. This feature ensures that low-priority vulnerabilities are not addressed before high-priority ones.

One area where Snyk could improve is in providing developers with the line where the error occurs.

As of now, I have been using Snyk for two weeks. Also, I am using the latest version of the solution. So, my company is an end-user and customer of the solution.

I haven't faced any stability issues at all while using the solution. Stability-wise, it is a fine product. I rate its stability a nine out of ten.

Only three users are using the solution in my company. Even though there are around fifteen developers in my company, since the solution is still in the integration stage, many developers can't use it yet. So, once the seniors get accustomed to Snyk, then the juniors will follow.

From a scalability standpoint, I haven't explored the solution yet.

I haven't faced any issues that I can take to them. So, all the documents Snyk provides have solutions to the potential issues one could face. I did not need to use the internet to check for the resolutions to my issues with the solution.

I have used SonarQube previously. We still use SonarQube and might migrate to Snyk completely in the future. Also, we may even consider using both parallelly.

SonarQube notifies us of the error. It also mentions the line where that error is and gives the exact line of code along with the line number. While it doesn't give any solution, it does give an alternate solution. So, it will just show what can be removed, where the vulnerabilities are, and what needs to be changed.

In Snyk, it notifies its user what an old version is and how to take it to another stable version. It also notifies its users about the vulnerabilities in a version before suggesting a new version that doesn't have such vulnerabilities.

Integration in Snyk was easier since, during SonarQube's integration process in our company, we always faced technical issues during its setup or while trying to operate it. Snyk is a very user-friendly tool, giving it a huge plus point.

SonarQube detects in a code if any line is commented or any variable is defined but not used. Snyk, on the other hand, doesn't detect such details but detects vulnerabilities on a higher level.

The deployment model for the solution is a cloud-based one.

Regarding Snyk's deployment, we have integrated everything with Jenkins so that the deployment happens automatically. Also, in Jenkins itself, we have integrated Snyk. The deployment process for Snyk took less than an hour. Once a person goes through the documents provided by Snyk, the deployment process becomes easy. The deployment process in my company was carried out without needing any help from external sources.

Presently, my company uses an open-source version of the solution. The solution's pricing can be considered quite reasonable owing to the features they offer. There are no extra costs attached to the solution because there is no need for extra hardware or other software since it has been integrated with the Jenkins CICD automation pipeline, and the dashboard gives everything in one place.

Upon reviewing Snyk's operations, I found it helpful, although not entirely comprehensive. Specifically, it provides valuable information regarding the status of vulnerabilities and the details of dependencies used in our projects. The solution also can identify issues that could be resolved manually or through alternative means. Snyk gives all the required information, while SonarQube doesn't. In SonarQube, data is presented in a different format that is required to be reviewed by us on a line-by-line basis. One of Snyk's strengths was its ability to consolidate all identified issues into a single location.

Currently, our company has not utilized any expensive solutions. So, we opted for SonarQube's open-source version. In the future, if the need arises, we may consider purchasing a solution. However, as this is for a proof-of-concept (POC), I am currently exploring trial or open-source versions, which are free of cost. If a solution is successfully integrated into our projects and our developers become familiar, we may consider purchasing a particular solution. For now, we are focusing on finding a solution that meets our needs for the POC without incurring any unnecessary expenses.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it. Overall, I rate the solution a seven and a half out of ten. To be more specific, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Snyk is used to manage open-source risks in security and licenses.

The most valuable feature of Snyk is the software composition analysis.

The reporting mechanism of Snyk could improve. The reporting mechanism is available only on the higher level of license. Adjusting the policy of the current setup of recording this report is something that can improve. For instance, if you have a certain license, you receive a rating, and the rating of this license remains the same for any use case. No matter if you are using it internally or using it externally, you cannot make the adjustment to your use case. It will always alert as a risky license. The areas of licenses in the reporting and adjustments can be improved.

Having bolting scans into a single solution can be useful, maybe snippet capabilities of reading the actual scan rather than reading the manifest can be very useful.

I have been using Snyk for several years.

The stability of Snyk is good.

Snyk is highly scalable. The only thing running on the customer side is a command-line interface(CLI). The entire results are been presented on a software as a service-based platform. It doesn't matter if I'm running 10 or 10,000 systems. It's scalable because Snyk has a supportive system, which is not the customer's system, it's Snyk's system.

I have not used the support from Snyk. However,  customers are sharing their experiences, and they have said the support is good.

The initial setup of Snyk needs their assistance and support. It's not a Windows application that you click next, but it's not rocket science. The implementation typically takes a few days to complete.

The company that purchases Snyk typically does the implementation. There are only a few people needed for the deployment of the solution.

Snyk allows developers and development managers to identify open-source vulnerabilities in every stage. As a result, the fix is much cheaper than identifying something on production. It's up to 100 times less expensive. If you fix a few bugs at an early stage, you cover all the license fees for the annual subscription of Snyk. There is a high return on investment potential.

The license model is based on the number of contributing developers. Snyk is expensive, for a startup company will most likely use the community edition, while larger companies will buy the licensed version. The price of Snyk is more than other SLA tools.

I rate Snyk an eight out of ten.

We use it to do software composition analysis. It analyzes the third-party libraries that we bring into our own code. It keeps up if there is a vulnerability in something that we've incorporated, then tells us if that has happened. We can then track that and take appropriate action, like updating that library or putting a patch in place to mitigate it. 

They have also added some additional products that we use: One of which is container security. That product is one that analyzes our microservices containers and provides them with a security assessment, so we are essentially following best practices.

From the software composition analysis perspective, it first makes sure that we understand what is happening from a third-party perspective for the particular product that we use. This is very difficult when you are building software and incorporating dependencies from other libraries, because those dependencies have dependencies and that chain of dependencies can go pretty deep. There could be a vulnerability in something that is seven layers deep, and it would be very difficult to understand that is even affecting us. Therefore, Snyk provides fantastic visibility to know, "Yes, we have a problem. Here is where it ultimately comes from." It may not be with what we're incorporating, but something much deeper than that.

The second thing that is critical in some cases, and Snyk provides as a value, is their guidance. Somewhere along the chain it figures the vulnerabilities out, then Snyk provides an update. So, what you need to do is go update to the latest version of that library, which is easy. However, sometimes it's not that easy, then Snyk has great guidance where you could go to manually patch it yourself, and they've made that a pretty seamless process. You can run a command with this new tooling, and it will go fix the underlying vulnerability for you. That is unusual. I have not seen that in other products.

It has improved the overall security of our applications by removing vulnerabilities and things that we are incorporating into our product. It ultimately identifies vulnerabilities in our product as well. It helps us when we do other types of testing of our applications, as we're not finding issues by something we had incorporated. Therefore, it reduces the vulnerabilities in our application.

For a developer, the ease of use is probably an eight out of 10. It is pretty easy to use. There is some documentation to familiarize themselves with the solution, because there are definitely steps that they have to take and understand. However, they are not hard and documented pretty well.

We have integrated Snyk into our SDE. We have a CI/CD pipeline that builds software, so it's part of that process that we will automatically run. We use Jenkins as our pipeline build tool, and that's what we have integrated. It is pretty straightforward. Snyk has a plugin that works out-of-the-box with Jenkins which makes it very easy to install.

Snyk's vulnerability database is excellent, in terms of comprehensiveness and accuracy. I would rate it a nine or 10 (out of 10). They have a proprietary database that is very useful. They are also very open to adding additional packages that we use, which might be not widely used across their customer base.

Snyk's ability to help developers find and fix vulnerabilities quickly is pretty good. From a one to 10, it is probably a six or seven. The reason is because they make it very clear how to take the steps, but it's not necessarily in front of the developers. For instance, my role here is security, so I go and look at it all the time to see what is happening. The developer is checking code, then their analysis runs in the pipeline and they have moved on. Therefore, the developers don't necessarily get real-time feedback and take action until someone else reviews it, like me, to know if there is a problem that they need to go address.

Snyk does a good job finding applications, but that is not in front of the developers. We are still spending time to make it a priority for them. So, it's not really saving time, e.g., the developers are catching something before it goes into Snyk's pipeline.

A criticism I would have of the product is it's very hierarchical. I would rate the container security feature as a seven or eight (out of 10). It lists projects. So, if you have a number of microservices in an enterprise, then you could have pages of findings. Developers will then spend zero time going through the pages of reports to figure out, "Is there something I need to fix?" While it may make sense to list all the projects and issues in these very long lists for completeness, Snyk could do a better job of bubbling up and grouping items, e.g., a higher level dashboard that draws attention to things that are new, the highest priority things, or things trending in the wrong direction. That would make it a lot easier. They don't quite have that yet in container security.

One area that I would love to see more coverage of is .NET. We primarily use JavaScript and TypeScript, and Snyk does a great job with those. One of the things that we are doing as a microservices developer is we want to be able to develop in any language that our developers want, which is a unique problem for a tool like this because they specialize. As we grow, we see interest in Python, and while Snyk has some Python coverage that is pretty good, it is not as mature. For other languages, while it's present, it is also not very mature yet. This is an area for improvement because there was a very straightforward way that they integrated everything for Node.js. However, as other languages like Rust and .NET gain popularity, we may just have one very critical service in 200 that uses something else, and I would like to see this same level of attestation across them.

Since about 2016.

The stability is very good. We have not run into issues that have been large-scale outages. It is not a real-time solution. So, even if we had an outage of a day, it wouldn't really affect the way we operate. It is an asynchronous thing behind the scenes.

It requires about 200 hours a year of time to maintain it. By maintain it, I mean just go in, use the reports, validate them, and kind of manage them. There is a resource cost to us to operationalize it, but it's about 200 hours.

It is very capable at what it does. It has a pretty good completeness of vision and its execution is good.

There are certain tools which Snyk has that developers can use. Those have a very low level of adoption. It was adopted into our pipeline, so we get things there and report them back to development. However, development largely has not adopted it themselves. We have push the findings to them.

Most of the users are a mix between security and operational folks as well as some development managers. Unfortunately, the developers themselves don't necessarily adopt Snyk on their own. Therefore, it's really more those who are running the pipeline, like our operations team, my security team, and the managers who are receiving the reports if there's something in Snyk or there is actually an issue.

We are using all the products they provide today. We use it for everything that we develop, so I don't know that there is a whole lot more that we can use unless they provide a further offering.

Snyk's technical support is middle of the road. I would rate it a six (out of 10). They are friendly and try to be helpful. Some of the times that I have actually had to reach out to them, it takes a lot of back and forth to get issues understood and resolved. They do try, but it can be a lengthy process.

We started using this solution at this company when the company was started, so it's the only thing we have ever used.

In the past, I have used Veracode, WhiteHat Security, and Black Duck by Synopsys for some of their features.

The initial setup was straightforward. Snyk was brought in at a time when there were less than five employees, and they set it up that day. We just needed one person to deploy it, and it took them a day. It was easy and so straightforward that it didn't require a project.

If I didn't see ROI, I would move somewhere else. I would probably go to a cheaper solution, but Snyk is definitely above that compliance level of value. It is really proactive, and that's where I would rather be from a security program perspective. So, I do get the value out of it.

Snyk finds problems that we may not have ever found otherwise, so it is a significant benefit for us. It reduced the amount of time by an FTE, which is about 2000 hours a year that we would spend in doing what Snyk does with its tool.

Over the course of a year, Snyk has reduced the amount of time it takes to fix problems by approximately 100 hours in our enterprise. It makes it very clear what the fix is. They provide very good remediation advice. 

The total time to value will depend on the company who implements it. For us, it was pretty short, probably two to three months. While it was very easy to set up, it takes a little while to really appreciate how its findings need to be addressed within the company. It forces you to develop some processes and feedback loops that you may not have had there before. So, it took us 90 days to fully appreciate the value and start remediating findings that were initially discovered.

With Snyk, you get what you pay for. It is not a cheap solution, but you get a comprehensiveness and level of coverage that is very good. The dollars in the security budget only go so far. If I can maximize my value and be able to have some funds left over for other initiatives, I want to do that. That is what drives me to continue to say, "What's out there in the market? Snyk's expensive, but it's good. Is there something as good, but more affordable?" Ultimately, I find we could go cheaper, but we would lose the completeness of vision or scope. I am not willing to do that because Snyk does provide a pretty important benefit for us.

Snyk is a premium-priced product, so it's kind of expensive. The big con that I find frustrating is when a company charges extra for single sign-on (SSO) into their SaaS app. Snyk is one of the few that I'm willing to pay that add-on charge, but generally I disqualify products that charge an extra fee to do integrated authentication to our identity provider, like Okta or some other SSO. That is a big negative. We had to pay extra for that. That little annoyance aside, it is expensive. You get a lot out of it, but you're paying for that premium.

I have not seen much in the way of false positives from Snyk. I have used a lot of software analysis tools and some are pretty bad, but Snyk is fantastic. I struggle to remember a time where Snyk found an issue that wasn't a true issue. It may have been very thorny to understand and resolve, but I have always found it to be accurate.

I have looked at other solutions, but Snyk continues to win out in evaluations. I also looked at WhiteHat Security and Black Duck by Synopsys. 

We do use a product with WhiteHat Security, which is now owned by NTT Data, for SAST, DAST and manual pentesting. I have also used other independent contractors for some of that. I was looking at Synopsys and a separate product called Coverity for SAST in addition to what we use with Snyk. Separate from that, we do use SAST and DAST in interactive and mobile testing.

Snyk doesn't do SAST or DAST; they do software composition analysis. These are really separate offerings that don't really cross over. I would not go to Snyk for SAST and DAST, so I wouldn't make any competitive changes with my other vendors that are providing that solution.

There are a few other vendors who provide overlapping coverage for container security. However, for software composition analysis, we only use Snyk, so the solution is very important for us.

If you're going to be doing any sort of software development that involves open source software, like many people do, many people have a blind spot or don't have a tool like this to even understand the risk that they take by pulling in an open source. It's not to say open source is bad, it just has a new threat surface that you have to monitor. We get a lot of benefit out of monitoring it, so I think ultimately we see problems others don't and have the opportunity to fix them. Therefore, there is a good chance that we will have fewer issues, like unauthorized data access, where they are sort of significant events because we have the visibility and the means to rectify them.

Snyk's actionable advice about container vulnerabilities is pretty good. I would rate it a six (out of 10). It's a newer offering for them, so it doesn't have the completeness of vision that their software composition analysis has, but it still appears to be accurate. It's a different type of product. They haven't packaged it to be very actionable, e.g., just do this one thing or here is the next step to fix this. It is a bit more abstract and has an explainer to it. You have to sort of distill that into what you need to do, but it still seems accurate. It is a little bit more to wrap your head around than how easy they have made the software composition product.

If you are looking for a software composition analysis product that provides remediation advice and you can't act on the details it's going to give you, you might be just as good dealing with a little bit less full featured product. However, if you want to be proactive as well as have the capability and technical resources that can move on the recommendations that Snyk makes, then you can realize a significant value out of this product. Thus, if you are at the level of maturity that can appreciate what this product can provide, it is a great value.

I would rate this solution a nine (out of 10).