Sonatype Lifecycle Reviews

We are using Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle within our company for scanning our products with the Jenkins pipeline.

The most important features of the Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle are the vulnerability reports.

Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle can improve the functionality. Some functionalities are missing from the UI that could be accessed using the API but they are not available. For example, seeing more than the 100 first reports or, seeing your comments when you process a waiver for a vulnerability or a violation. 

When you submit a waiver, you enter a comment, and when you need to access this comment, in the reports, you don't see it. This is a drawback.

I have been using Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle for a short time.

I would rate the stability of Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle a seven out of ten.

Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle 

We have approximately 200 users using Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle in my company using this solution. They are mostly developers and security personnel.

I rate the technical support from Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle a six out of ten.

I have not used another similar solution previously.

We have a team in our company that does the implementation of the Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle.

We might increase our usage of the solution in the future, or we might move to another solution because of the issues we have had with it.

I would recommend to others to test the functionalities of the Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle to see if it meets their use case needs.

I rate Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle an eight out of ten.

We use Nexus as a local repository of both JavaScript and Java components, and we're starting to look at Python. We also connected up to the Nexus Firewall, so that new components that are proxied are looked at to see if they have malicious components or if they are components without vulnerabilities. We're able to establish policies about whether we want to allow those or quarantine them. 

Our main use case for IQ Server is to scan software builds for components with existing vulnerabilities and malicious components. We're working to drive down our technical debt due to components with known issues, and it's been helpful. We're still expanding the program to different software languages. We started with Java and then extended the JavaScript. We want to extend to Python, but we're not quite there yet. We don't have too many Python users, so that's less of a priority.

It's been pretty good. I'm the one who has to un-quarantine things, but the false-positive rate is not too bad, or else I'd be doing that all day. From that point of view it's been good.

The solution enables us to manage and secure the component part of our software supply chain. That is done between the policies, their data, and configuring. You have to make sure everybody's actually pointing to the repo. We started talking about blocking public repos from within the networks, so that would force people to go through the solution, but we haven't quite gotten there yet. However, we have definitely have a lot of people going through the repo. We can see how many components are cached and how many are quarantined. We have definitely had 1,000 or more components quarantined during our use of the product. That's all technical debt we would have accrued if we hadn't been using it.

We really like the Nexus Firewall. There are increasing threats from npm, rogue components, and we've been able to leverage protection there. We also really like being able to know which of our apps has known vulnerabilities. 

Specifically features that have been good include

• the email notifications
• the API, which has been good to work with for reporting, because we have some downstream reporting requirements
• that it's been really user-friendly to work with.

Generally speaking, the configuration of all the tools is pretty good; the admin screens are good.

We have been able to use the API for some Excel-based reports to compare how many of our application deployments were covered by scans, and to do charts on that. That has been good and worked really well.

The default policies are also good. We deviated a little bit from those, but we have mostly used them, and they have been good. They provide us with the flexibility that we need and probably more flexibility than we need.

It has brought open source intelligence and policy enforcement across our SDLC. We have policies and SLAs that say, for example, critical findings have to be fixed within 90 days, and "high" findings have to be fixed within 120 days. That's tracked and reported on. We use the API to do some downstream reporting into some executive dashboards and when executives see red and orange they don't like it, and things get done. We've also made it part of our standards to say no components with existing vulnerabilities. Enforcing those standards is integrated into our software development life cycle.

Sonatype also blocks undesirable open source components. That is also done through policies that you can set, and configuration of the repo.

The integration is one sore spot, because when we first bought the tool they said JavaScript wasn't really part of the IDE integration, but it was on the roadmap. I followed up on that, and they said, "Oh, you can submit an idea on our idea site to have that added." The sales team said it was already in the pipeline, but it was actually not in the pipeline. 

Overall it's good, but it would be good for our JavaScript front-end developers to have that IDE integration for their libraries. Right now, they don't, and I'm told by my Sonatype support rep that I need to submit an idea, from which they will submit a feature request. I was told it was already in the pipeline, so that was one strike against sales. Everything else has been pretty good.

Also, when Nexus Firewall blocks a component, it doesn't really give us a message that tells us where to go; at least it doesn't in our setup. I have to tell all the users, "Here's the URL where you can go to look up why Firewall is blocking your stuff. And that is odd because when it finishes a scan, the scan results give you the URL. But when you get blocked by Firewall, it doesn't give you the URL where you can go look that up. You can definitely work around that, but it's a bit strange. It's almost like something they forgot to include.

I've been using Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle since October of 2019.

We've only had the server go down one time in about two years, so that's good.

The scalability is fine, as far as I can tell. We only have so many developers, and haven't really grown our development teams at all in the past few years. We have about 200 users of Sonatype who are either developers or application security or myself as senior architect. We haven't had problems with capacity, but we haven't had to scale it.

It does seem to scale okay for adding new software artifacts, because we continue to add more stuff to it.

Overall, tech support is good.

When submitting a support ticket, I've seen other vendors basically regurgitate what the tool is saying, instead of actually looking at what I'm trying to say. Sonatype has done a good job of at least saying, "Yeah, we looked at this pull request on this open source component, and this is where we're seeing something. I have even had to coordinate a discussion between an open source maintainer, Spring Pivotal, and Sonatype, to let them hash out who's right.

We used OWASP Dependency-Check. It's a good resource for security standards and, occasionally, free tools, and it was a good command-line checker. It matched heuristically, so it would find a lot of false positives. It got us started and gave us an idea of how much debt we had, so it was useful. It just required a lot of tuning to weed out false positives.

They have good documentation about how to configure things and get it set up, and it's easy to find what you're looking for, generally speaking. I found the setup to be pretty straightforward. I had to spearhead that effort, solo, and get it socialized out to all the teams. Most people seemed to be able to configure it pretty well without a lot of hand-holding. The rollout went really well.

We run it on our own Windows box. It's a little tricky to get it to run as a Windows service, but they have instructions for it and we finally figured out how to get that working. I think they intend for it to be run on Linux, but it's Java, so it runs on either. It's running fine on Windows.

I just used the online documentation and did it all myself. It took about three months to roll it out.

How do you prove that you've not gotten hacked because of the tool? We've definitely gotten better visibility into how we're using older components and when we need to migrate away from them. We're much better positioned now to keep things patched and if there's another Struts 2, armageddon-type vulnerability in a library we use, we'll be much quicker to get on it.

It's like any security tool. How do you know that the door lock paid for itself? You really don't know who would have knocked your door down. But once our developers get more used to the tool over time and we get the technical debt driven down, they will be more productive in terms of making sure the libraries are up to date.

In the meantime, when they're onboarding and trying to figure it out, it's going to slow them down a little bit, to get oriented. If they're dealing with a legacy of technical debt and there are a lot of things that have to be fixed, because nobody has updated an internet app in 10 years, it's not going to make them more productive. But if you're willing to pay down that technical debt, it's totally worth it, but it's hard to quantify. But if you consider keeping your apps up to date as productivity then it helps with productivity.

It's expensive, but you get what you pay for. There were no problems with the base license and how they do it. It was transparent. You don't have to worry. You can scan to your heart's delight. They're pretty much based on co-contributing developers, so if you have auditors or AppSec, that doesn't count against your total.

We're not using their Advanced Development Pack because it costs more money. That is a sore spot. We're not using the Infrastructure as Code Pack or the Advanced Legal Pack because there hasn't really been a lot of appetite to use the DLC mode. That's a criticism I have of Sonatype. I understand they want to get paid, everybody does, but they're adding new features to the product as add-on purchases, as opposed to just improving the product. You pay for a subscription to the product. If we had bought a permanent license and we weren't paying a subscription, I could see it working that way. But I don't like the fact that we pay a subscription but we're not getting these features because they want to charge more for these packs.

I have told them that. I have said, "I don't like this model. We're paying you guys a lot of money already. Why are we having to be quoted to pay even more?" Maybe our subscription only pays for the data and the support, and if so, that's fine, but they weren't very transparent. They're saying, "Hey, we're going to be developing new features and capabilities, but they're going to cost more." As far as vendors go they're a good vendor, but this is one thing that they started doing that I don't like.

I don't like the whole "pack" mentality they've got going now. "We're going to come up with cool new features, dangle them in front of you, and then say, 'Hey, we know you're already paying a bunch of money per year for a sub, but you're going to have to pay more if you want this.'" It rubs me the wrong way.

They only started coming out with these packs in the past year or so. I'll say, "I wish the product did this," and they'll say, "Oh, we're working on a pack to do that, but it'll cost money." I had to move mountains to get the money to pay for the base product. It's not cheap. I don't know if they think we've got a money printing machine hiding in the back, but we don't.

The solution's data quality is good. It's a lot better than what we had before, which was OWASP Dependency-Check. That was okay, but just okay. Sonatype seems to have higher fidelity, but there have been times when I've had to reach out and say, "Hey, is this a false positive? It seems a little off." Sonatype's data research team seems pretty good. It's good data, for sure, but they're also willing to accept feedback on it, and that's good too.

If we can't afford Sonatype in 2025, we might go back to OWASP.

We briefly used SourceClear. We didn't use it very long. It wasn't very good. It seemed that the quality of data wasn't as good. There were no IDE integrations and more false positives. It was totally cloud-based. I'm not sure if the guys who set it up configured it correctly, and that might not be their fault. But we had a lot of issues with it breaking builds and just not working correctly. The reliability and uptime wasn't good. But the biggest problem was probably that they charged per scan, as opposed to per app or per developer. You couldn't really scale to let your developers scan locally without worrying about blowing your budget. The whole licensing model for SourceClear was bad.

Make sure you know what packs you're getting with your buy. They also tried to sell some sort of training about how to customize policies, training that they didn't include in the original estimate. So make sure whether your quote includes packs or not and whether you need training for an administrator or whether they'll be able to self-serve from the documentation. It was like we were in the checkout line and then they asked, "Would you also like this training?" instead of including it in the original estimate. It's annoying. If that is part of the package, let us know how much it costs up front, in our estimate, and we'll decide. Don't try to bolt it on midway through the purchase process, which is what they did.

Depending on how old your code set is, brace yourself. You're going to have to figure out a way to report on the stuff. You're going to have to figure out a way to socialize the value, and you're going to have to constantly answer questions about, "How should I fix this?" My advice would be to make sure you have a champion who not only knows how to administer the tool, but who knows enough about software development to help provide guidance about how to remediate issues. I feel that if I didn't have both of those skill sets, this would have been a complete flop, just another tool rotting on the shelf.

When it comes to data quality, occasionally it helps us solve problems faster, but sometimes it creates confusion because their data team tries to monitor above and beyond the National Vulnerability Database. Occasionally you get conflicting messages between that and what Sonatype is saying. They're trying to go above and beyond and say things like, "Hey, the bulletin says it's version four or five, but we see it's in version three." But it can get a little confusing when the maintainers don't agree with Sonatype. It's not Sonatype's fault. They're trying to cover for the maintainers not being really thorough with their notifications. 

But when they come into conflict, it is confusing for the end-user because you're trying to figure out, "Well, what do I really need to do here?" But overall, most of it is really straightforward. The technology can be confusing, but that's software libraries and their features. All that stuff can be confusing, period. But that's not because of how it's communicated, rather it's because it's complicated technology. For example, the vulnerability might be talking about the second-tier cache and that's something I've never even heard of, so I have to go research it. But generally, their communication is effective.

We are in the education industry, but we are a developer-based company. We heavily use lots of public libraries. We use Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle mainly for protecting us from vulnerabilities and license copyright issues. We heavily depend on its database.

It's a hybrid. We have our on-premises instance for our internal security. With Sonatype itself, we use the cloud service, but we have a few modules on-premises, such as IQ Server and the report server. We have deployed those modules on AWS. As a company, we use cloud services 100 percent.

We have started rolling out to each of our feature teams and so far we have rolled it out to about 30 percent, but we can already see the benefit. It gives our teams easy visibility into the risk inside our code. "Risk" in this case can be copyright, more along the lines of compliance, and security itself, such as vulnerabilities.

From the legal and security perspectives, we have a huge concern about what we use in our product and our platform. Before using Sonatype we had a huge business risk. Since bringing in Sonatype, we have visibility for both the legal and security teams. It enables us to maintain the quality from the third-party libraries.

We follow the CI/CD methodology and Sonatype's impact is really huge because we are able to meet our continuous integration in the DevOps pipeline. The speed of that flow is noticeable. The impact is on both development and operations, together. The integration with the CI/CD pipeline is easy.

From the integration perspective, it is easy to use, out-of-the-box. The GUI is not complex.

I mainly use two modules, the report server and IQ Server. The value I get from IQ Server is that I get information on real business risks. Is something compliant, are we using the proper license?

With IQ Server we are currently running the default policy. We started deploying six months back and our main objectives were identifying any bad licenses in our library or product, and whether we are using any critically vulnerable assets. We have stuck with the default policies and they are giving us huge visibility and, as a result, we are putting a lot of effort into remediation.

In terms of the data quality and the database they have for open source, I'm impressed. For our requirements, the data we get seems to be updated well when it comes to license-type and vulnerabilities.

The solution also blocks undesirable open source components from entering our development lifecycle. We use it for controlling third-party libraries.

Nexus Lifecycle is multiple products. One drawback I've noticed is that there are some differences in the features between the products within Lifecycle. They need to maintain the same structure, but there are some slight differences.

Other than that, the tool is very user-friendly and gives the right reports to the right teams.

We have been using Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle for about the last six months.

Until now, we haven't faced any challenges on the stability front. If there's a challenge, if something is down, we definitely get a direct alert. We are happy with the stability part. Both the software and the infrastructure are good.

There are two aspects to the solution's scalability. The infrastructure scalability is the first part, and that is good. The second part is the developer and the licensing front. When we started the program, we had 60 developers but we now have double that number. There's flexibility on both the infra and the licensing. That is good, as of now.

When it comes to cultural adoption, when we put something new in the DevOps pipeline, the positive side is that we have a dedicated professional support team and there is a dedicated person. I'm on the security side, I'm not a developer. So the challenge for me is that when I go to the developers, they have a different language. That support person is always there to support me and I'm very happy with that support and the way they handle us as a customer. I can go to the development team or the department and say that, "If we need any support, let me know." I know that dedicated support person will be there for us. That's very much appreciated. That model is actually helping me to push our development teams to get into this new integration. The support model, with a dedicated person, is very useful.

We have frequent meetings with the person who manages the team, and our dedicated support person from Sonatype. If there's a new update it's like we have permanent support. They help us to update.

I would rate their support at nine out of 10.

We were using Sonatype open source, the repository server, for a long time, as a free edition and as a PoC. That's why we picked Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle. 

Before that, we were using a different solution for a period of time. We jumped to Sonatype from our previous solution because it had a limitation on the modules. If I go for a multiple module integration, there is additional cost, whereas with Sonatype, they bundle licenses. There's no limitation. I can go for any number of integrations. That's the reason we switched to Sonatype.

The initial setup was triggered from a template in the cloud, so it was easily set up.

With this implementation, the challenge is awareness. We have 14 development teams, but when we started the program there were 10. The number of development teams continues to increase and they use different tools and techniques in the CI/CD. From my side, in security, the idea is to make them aware. This would be the same whether the product was Sonatype or something else. Making them aware has been a very big challenge for me, to onboard them and make the product effective.

So the initial, technical deployment is easy, but to make it effective, we have had to bring that awareness into focus and do repeated training.

The initial deployment took one or two days, taking into account the infrastructure requirements in AWS. But that's not the issue. We deployed the server, but if nobody's using it there's no value from it. The value comes from being able to integrate all the developers. The dedicated support person was very useful in helping me create that awareness and value from it.

We use a lot of tools in our CI/CD, so the initial month was more of a feasibility test and proof of concept which was validated with multiple scenarios. Then we started onboarding teams, one per month. We work with the Agile methodology in two-week sprints. Each team picked the integration per its own Agile sprint timeline, based on the product owner's priorities. Within the two-week sprint for a given team, we are able to do a full integration for that team. But within those two weeks, if you look at the real effort, it would be a maximum of about two days, including troubleshooting. We have covered 30 to 40 percent of our teams so far. Within the next three to four months we may be able to complete the process and cover 100 percent.

When I started with Sonatype six months back, I knew that I wanted to do 10 integrations. When I started integrating with a development team, and getting them more usability, I understood the reality was not 10, it was actually 100. When I ran with another vendor, even though I started with a small price, when I looked at the total cost of ownership or the return on investment, it was totally different. With Sonatype there is definitely a return on investment in the number of integrations and the personal support. In that sense, there has been a lot of value. 

In addition, the bundled licensing is a huge difference and provides flexibility. We are not limited by the number of integrations, like in other products. We have flexibility and scalability. For us, the return of investment or value is huge, when it comes to the licensing model.

Cost is a drawback. It's somewhat costly.

As part of the procurement process in Alef, we have to do a minimum three-product evaluation. We evaluated Sonatype, a different solution, and there were two more in the pipeline. Based on that evaluation, technical and other, Sonatype came into the picture. 

The competing solution was actually cheaper, no doubt, but when we looked at the overall picture, the total cost of ownership after one year of integration, we understood it would be less with Sonatype, even though the initial price was less with the other products.

If you're going to be scaling and growing quickly, in a way you cannot predict, the Sonatype licensing model and feature set are definitely good.

Look at the scenario of the total cost after one year, not the initial stage. When we looked into the initial stage costs, there were vendors that cost less. But when you come to the integrations and real scenarios, that bill goes up. We had to clearly evaluate, not only the initial moment, but one year or two years down the line and consider the total cost of ownership.

Also, be sure to properly utilize the engineer allocated to your site to help support the developers.

We have a few applications that we're developing that use several different languages. The first ones we did were Python and Yum Repository applications. Recently we've started scanning C and C++ applications that use Conan Package Manager. We will soon start doing node applications with NPM. Our use case is that we primarily rely on the IQ server to ensure we don't have open source dependencies in our applications that have security vulnerabilities, and to ensure that they're not using licenses our general counsel wants us to avoid using.

When I started to install the Nexus products and started to integrate them into our development cycle, it helped us construct or fill out our development process, in general. The build stages are a good template for us to help establish a structure that we could build our whole continuous integration and development process around. Now our git repos are tagged for different build stages that align with the Nexus Lifecycle build stages.

Going to the Nexus product encouraged me to look for a package manager solution for our C and C++ development. My customer success engineer, Derek, recommended that we go to one that Sonatype was considering integrating with the product, which was called Conan Package Manager. I started doing research with Conan and realized how beneficial it would be for our C and C++ development cycle. Transitioning to that has really changed our whole C and C++ development. It was because we needed to have Nexus scanning for our C applications and I needed Conan to do that.

It's because of Conan that we've reduced our build timelines from weeks because we have so many architectures that we build for. After we figured out how to use it, we can build everything with only a couple of commands. Now, it's a really integrated process for our C and C++ applications, from development to the build pipelines to the IQ scanning, and the Nexus Repository manager repositories that we're using for building and packaging. It's been a fun process.

In terms of the data quality, everything has been really good for our Python and our Yum repositories. I know that they are still building their capability for the Conan repositories, the C dependencies. Right now, what Derek has told me, is that Conan application are analyzed with what they call Low Quality Assessment, or LQA. Essentially, any package that has identified vulnerabilities will show up, otherwise, there's not much information on the package. So scanning for Conan is not as good as Python right now, but I know they're working on higher quality data for Conan packages.

Comparing LQA in Conan to something like the higher quality data available in Python repositories does show a difference. For example, Nexus IQ identified a vulnerability in a Python package that we don't use, but it's a transitive dependency in four packages that we do use. We discovered the root vulnerability causing the problem in our four packages with the higher quality data, but we may not have been to do that as easily with a vulnerability identified in multiple C packages without the higher quality data. I'm not sure.

Nexus will block undesirable open source components from entering our development life cycle. We've agreed on the governance of our policies for blocking builds automatically and we've set a date, for example, to start failing builds automatically on July 15.

It integrates very well with our existing DevOps tools. The Azure DevOps Nexus IQ plugin was really easy. All we did was go to our DevOps portal, go to the add-ins, and then search the list for Nexus. We just clicked on it and it installed in DevOps. There are a couple of help pages on Sonatype's webpage, and I send those to the developers, they add the IQ plugin to the build pipeline and it just works. It's really nice also because the IQ plugin for DevOps gets updated before I can even go check on it. They've released two updates since we installed it. Every time I hear from Derek that they've updated the IQ plugin, I go to the IQ plugin page on our DevOps server, and it's already been updated. It's totally seamless for us.

It has brought open-source intelligence and policy enforcement across our software development life cycle for almost all of our applications. We're still integrating it with all of our applications, but it definitely has brought the kind of intelligence that we needed.

Part of our use case is that we use Azure DevOps, so we have continuous integration, continuous deployment pipelines in Azure DevOps. The Nexus plugin for DevOps allows us to just include the IQ scan as part of the pipeline deployment. It's very seamless for our users. They don't even have to think about it until they have a violation. IQ informs them or stops the build, and the developers have to resolve it. 

The default policies were very good for us. We're using all of the default ones except for setting the warning and the stop features at different build stages. It definitely provides the flexibility we need.

We're not at the point in our deployment of the software to where we're doing automated git pulls and where it will automatically resolve vulnerabilities by downloading new packages. We haven't done that, but the integration with our Azure DevOps pipeline has been very seamless. I don't know of any developers that are using the integration with visual studio IDE.

The thing that they're already addressing is high-quality data for the Conan dependencies. They're very responsive to user needs. We're one of the first organizations to use Conan, so I identified a discrepancy in how they were scanning the dependencies, and they added the functionality within four weeks or so. The team is incredible. I can't think of any other ways that it could improve it.

When Conan support was first added to Nexus IQ, it would only scan one file type for dependencies. We don't use that specific method in Conan, but rather, another acceptable method for declaring dependencies that IQ wasn't scanning. I think the Sonatype developers  didn't even know about it because they learning Conan as much as we were. I informed them of the other file type for declaring dependencies and they quickly added the functionality.

I started installing it at the beginning of this year.

I've never had any problems with it, so it's been very stable.

I don't know about the scalability yet because we are small and we don't have that many applications or packages yet. I haven't had to scale it. I designed, from the beginning, the storage architecture of my Repository Manager to be scalable because I knew a lot of the large data will sit there. I designed that upfront to be scalable to other storage volumes or even other servers. I know there are features for having multiple IQ servers or Repository manager servers and load balancing or having automatic failover and things, but I haven't done those things yet.

Technical support has been great. I've never had any problems. When I do have an issue, sometimes I'll email Derek or I talk to him about it during our weekly meetings. He'll send off an email or a chat right away and get an answer back quickly about a resolution or resolution timeline.

We weren't doing automated vulnerability scans or license scanning. We were pulling straight from the public repositories so everybody had local caches of varying packages, which was different from the repositories of packages on our build servers. It was like the Wild West, but the Nexus products have helped us consolidate our repositories.

The primary reason why our senior director of product management decided he wanted to do this was that we develop sensitive software and need to ensure we don't have vulnerabilities from third party open source packages. We needed an automated way to do scanning instead of having the developers look at a list of their packages and compare them to a list of new vulnerabilities themselves. That would've been a nightmare. That central repository management was a secondary reason, but it was also important.

As important as vulnerability scanning, the licensing was essential to us too because around the time we were evaluating the Nexus product, there was a large company that was getting sued for violating open source GPL-2 license requirements. We wanted to avoid problems like that. Those are the two primary reasons.

The initial setup was easy. We're hosting on-prem and I put Nexus IQ on a VM I created according to Sonatype's recommended specs. It was really easy to install and it's really easy to update. The only thing that took a little longer to do was settings up HTTPS. It was my own fault because I had typos in configuration files that I'd overlooked. Following their instructions makes installation and upgrading really straightforward.

I did the IQ server and the repository manager server at the same time, and it took around less than a day for both of them.

When I first installed the two servers, I followed their recommended system requirements guidelines. In hindsight, because we are so small and we don't yet have that many applications, I probably could have started with IQ and Repository manager as containers. That would be okay for smaller companies that might be restricted on what resources they have available for hosting the servers. They could probably do containers in the beginning and then expand if they needed to later.

The deployment was given to me as a project. I didn't have an implementation strategy when I started building the servers, but Derek and I created implementation strategies as we went, after I installed the servers.

Initially after installing IQ and I putting some Python applications into, we had all of our policies set to warn and not fail builds automatically because we hadn't decided our governance process. That was part of the implementation strategy that we had to figure out. We had to decide a time to roll out our test applications and test groups. Derek was really instrumental in helping me see it in stages. We would test with the Python applications and then move on to other types of repositories and other types of applications for a broader adoption strategy.

Since the developers weren't doing really thorough vulnerability assessments in the past, I can only estimate how many hours it's saved and allowed them to continue developing the applications.

For example, if one of our pipeline applications has 15 dependencies and a developer had to look for vulnerabilities in that list of 15 dependencies, it could take a half-hour every day for one application. If they're developing six applications at once, then it could be a couple of hours a day per developer. It would quickly get out of hand.

I don't know anything about the pricing. I know that our license is the most encompassing one you can get. It includes the IQ server (Lifecyle, Firewall) and the Repository Manager Pro. Firewall is really useful for us to keep an eye on our proxy repositories for vulnerabilities. That's another layer of helping us make sure that we don't have vulnerable products. The expense is justifiable because of the potential to save a company a lot of money in lawsuits and risks from having vulnerable packages in their applications.

I don't have any reason to rate it less than 10 out of ten. It's been really solid, really helpful, and it will pay off hugely as we continue to expand.

We have it implemented and integrated into our CI/CD pipeline, for when we do builds. Every time we do a build, Jenkins reaches out and kicks off a scan from the IQ Server.

We use it to automate open source governance and minimize risk. All of our third-party libraries, everything, comes through our Nexus, which is what the IQ Server and Jenkins are hooked into. Everything being developed for our big application comes through that tool.

We have Nexus Firewall on, but it's only on for the highest level of vulnerabilities. We have the firewall sitting in front to make sure we don't let anything real bad into the system.

Our environment is your standard, three-tiered environment. We have the developers develop in their Dev and Test environments, and as the code moves through each environment — Test and a QA environment — it goes through a build process. We build each time we deploy.

We're addressing anything that is a nine and above. If it's a 10, we don't let it into our system; the firewall server stops it. If we have nines we'll let it in, but I'll tag the developers and they'll have to do a little triage to figure out if the problem that is being reported is something we utilize in our system — if it's something that affects us — and if it's not, we flag it as such and let it go. We either waive it or I'll acknowledge it depending on how much it's used throughout the system and how many different components are being built with that bad library.

It really hasn't an improved way we function, but it's helped us to get the developers to start thinking about the security posture that we want to have, going forward, with applications that we develop in-house. It's helping to educate the developers who don't think about these things when they're throwing code together.

It has also brought open source intelligence and policy enforcement across our software development life cycle. That's what we're moving to. We're not 100 percent there, but that's the goal. It's getting the developers to actually think about the third-party libraries they're pulling into the system and to think of them in a different light, in terms of the security aspects of them. I was a developer for 20 years before I got into security. As a developer, you don't always think about the security aspect of things. You're looking for a library that does X, Y, and Z. Lifecycle helps keep that security issue front and center, because as you're bringing it into the system, or as you're doing the build, it's breaking a build or it's doing other things.

It's helping to block undesirable open source components from entering our development lifecycle at least once or twice with every round of releases or library upgrades.

It has also improved the time that it takes to release secure apps to market, although we haven't put a number on that. 

And we have seen an increase in developer productivity because the tool allows them to go out and look for the libraries that aren't affected, or that don't have all the negatives in them. The component piece and the IQ Server aspect has saved time. Without this solution in place, the developers wouldn't care. If this tool wasn't in their face, making them care, a lot would slip by. This is our way to make sure we're watching the gate. Without it, we would be in a much worse spot in terms of exposure, risk, and data exfiltration.

The component piece, where you can analyze the component, is the most valuable. You can pull the component up and you can look at what versions are bad, what versions are clean, and what versions haven't been reported on yet. You can make decisions based off of that, in terms of where you want to go. I like that it puts all that information right there in a window for you.

The default policies are a good start. Within our environment, I tweaked each level to have its own policy, just because of the control it gives us. It provides us with the flexibility we need.

The data quality is pretty good. I have not had any major problems. It helps us solve problems faster.

It integrates well with the existing DevOps tools. We plugged it right in. It was an "after-the-fact" thing that we added into our pipeline and it integrated quite easily. We use Jenkins and it was a nice fit with that. We don't have it creating tickets yet, so we don't have it integrated with a ticketing system, but it is integrated with our Jenkins platform.

One thing that it is lacking, one thing I don't like, is that when you label something or add a status to it, you do it as an overall function, but you can't go back and isolate a library that you want to call out individually and remove a status from it. It's still lacking some functionality-type things for controlling labels and statuses. I'd like to be able to apply it across all of my apps, but then turn it off for one, and I can't do that. I have to go to all 100 apps and do it individually in order to get something on each one, and I don't like that. I should be able to add it as a group and remove it as a single.

Everything else has been really good.

I have been using Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle for a year and a half, going on two years.

The stability is good. There have been no problems that I'm aware of.

It's handling a lot of code but if we wanted to roll out more servers and do more build outs, I wouldn't think that it would involve much more than just adding a few servers. So the scalability should be good.

It is being fully utilized in our build process — where our applications are built and deployed. Where we're lacking use is getting the developers to get it plugged into their Eclipse environments and actually using it on a more regular basis. That's where the struggle has been. That's not the tool, that's more an issue with our developer management side. The adoption is just not happening at the pace it should, because of a whole multitude of other things that are going on right now in our company.

The only other thing we might eventually want to do is get it hooked into a ticketing system where it could create tickets if there are libraries that are bad. Outside of that, it's pretty much integrated into our pipeline as far as we're going to integrate it.

Their tech support is pretty good. I only know of one or two instances where the gentleman in our company who does the upgrades had a question, and they were answered and resolved quite quickly.

We did not have a previous solution.

As I was moving into my security role, the pipeline team was already looking at something and it played nice with Nexus. It was an extra add-on piece or something like that. They were the ones who actually introduced it. I liked it and pushed it along.

The initial setup was straightforward and easy. I didn't set it up but I know there weren't any problems. It took less than a day and it took one person to deploy it. We had one person, at that time, setting up the servers. 

Sonatype came in and did a little demo for us and, while they were here, we got the information set up. It was really easy. We didn't have any major issues that I'm aware of.

In terms of maintenance, we just went through a library upgrade and that was done by one person. It took about a day. We have one person who knows the administrative aspect of it at our company. He works on the pipeline team. I'm on the security aspects and the security policies.

Overall, we have over 50 people using it across our organization. They are developers, architects, managers, and in security.

I'm not sure it's saving us anything. I don't have a way to gauge that as far as return on investment goes.

The return on investment for us is that we have the process in place that has our security aspects tied into it. That's more the type of return on investment we were looking for, and it is doing that. We're still in the early stages.

I'm not familiar with the pricing in detail, but I believe it was pretty reasonably priced, compared to the market.

The biggest thing we've learned from using it is that, from a development point of view, we just never realized what types of badness are in those third-party libraries that we pull in and use. It has been an eye-opener as to just how bad they can be.

As far as Lifecycle's integration into developer tooling like IDEs, Git Repos, etc., I don't set that up. But I have not heard of any problems from our guys, from the team that set that stuff up.

I like the tool overall and would rate it at about nine out of 10. There are a few UI-type things that I don't like, that I would like to work a different way. But overall, the tool is good.

We use it to scan applications for open source libraries and to find libraries with a clean version for developers. If one version is vulnerable, they can switch to another version which is clean.

Our situation is that we are running it as a pilot. Hopefully, this year we will be moving the environment into production. Delays happened due to some of our workforce being allocated to different organizations, and then we had the pandemic.

It's deployed on-premise, on a virtual host.

We can automate the pipeline of CI/CD. For example, if a publication uses an open source library and it's vulnerable, then the security team will mark it in the Lifecycle suite and it can go through the pipeline without manual interaction by the developer.

I'm not a security guy but I have sat with the security team. Once you set the policies, you wont need to change them. The policies wouldn't change that frequently. It covers the needs that we have.

Using the solution we have been able to clean our environment, providing more protection for our applications. We have a more hygienic environment than before. Before using Lifecycle we were almost blind to whatever we had and didn't look into the vulnerabilities within open source libraries. Now we do.

It has helped to increase our productivity a lot, especially with Nexus Repository Manager. It is way more agile. There is no comparison between our productivity before and now.

In terms of the accuracy of the data from Sonatype, at first the teams were challenging whatever the solution provided, but they then verified with the vendor of the open source libraries or via the related community, and they realized that the data from Sonatype is something that is done carefully. It's accurate and valid data. We are now introducing a security layer for open source. Before, there was no security on open source and they did whatever they wanted but that is no longer the case. They have to fix things before deploying them. It helps them resolve issues. It works most of the time, but sometimes there are challenges for the developer in solving them.

We also use the solution to automate open source governance and minimize risk with policies. Some of our developers, although not all of them, have their own Jenkins installed and they set rules and policies. They have integrated Jenkins with Lifecycle and, whenever they push into production, it verifies they are not violating any policies. Once everything is smooth, it goes into production. We haven't formalized that process yet.

It's a great tool. We have it connected live to the Sonatype database. Whenever there is a new vulnerability, it's discovered. We have early detection of any vulnerability in our open source library. The scanning capability is its most valuable feature, discovering vulnerable open source libraries.

The reporting capability is good but I wish it was better. I sent the request to support and they raised it as an enhancement within the system. An example is filtering by version. If I have a framework that is used in all applications, but version 1 is used in 50 percent of them and version 2 in 25 percent, they will show as different libraries with different usage. But in reality, they're all using one framework.

This is my second year using Sonatype Nexus Lifecycle.

It's very stable. I don't recall ever seeing problems. The main concern would be data-disk corruption, but I haven't seen it, even though the server, due to patching, has been rebooted multiple times.

When it comes to scalability, there's a limitation in terms of high-availability. Sonatype recommends you go with high-availability. However, you have to have an Active-Passive solution and we don't use a separate installation for each organization. I know there are ways you can install multiple instances for each organization and proxy between them. Because we are a single organization that uses one installation, we have to set it to Active-Passive and manually switch the Passive on and off.

My experience with their technical support has been good, overall.

The problem for us is that we work in a different time zone than they do and the workdays are different. We don't work on Friday and Saturday. If we send them something on Sunday, we don't hear until on Monday. If it is urgent they get back to us.

We used OWASP Dependency-Check, but for only about five months. It needs maintenance. You have to maintain the database library manually, and install it on the developers' workstations. There are a lot of drawbacks with that solution.

If we depend on OWASP Dependency-Check, it is a public vulnerability tool and it is not a good database, to be honest. If you have a library where one version is marked as vulnerable and you go to the community, the owner of the library says all versions are vulnerable. You would not see the vulnerability reflected regarding the versions. You would see it on one version and the others would be marked as clean. The team at Sonatype is doing a good job of maintaining this information very well.

We were working with Repository Manager and the security team switched to a Nexus server to reduce the effort and eliminate duplication. We now also have one, unified solution to cover all the possibilities.

The installation is straightforward in terms of the application itself. However, with our setup, with our environment and the restrictions we have, we had to do a lot of things. But that work was from our side, not from the application's side. 

We did the installation within about two to three days. I was part of our support team at that time. Later on, I added enhancements on-the-go, such as certification. If I were to do the installation now, I would do it within an hour. It is the configuration that you have to get to know. Once you know it, that's it. When it's new to you, you have to take the time to read the documentation to understand what's going on and do things right.

I only worked with the support from Sonatype and I was the only person in our organization involved in the installation. I am also the only one who runs this part of our environment, in terms of maintenance.

We expect to see ROI once we're using it fully in production.

Lifecycle, to the best of my recollection, had the best pricing compared with other solutions.

We ran into too many debates and there was this culture of "security is not mine" and someone else should have to deal with it. After using the solution, they realized this is not the case. Security vulnerabilities had to be addressed. I was a developer and I understood their complaints, but security is important and you have to go with it. The tool is there to automate and simplify your work and you should utilize it. It has been a very good experience.

We are introducing Lifecycle and developers will be aware, with the IDE plugin, from the beginning, whether whatever libraries they are using are vulnerable or not. There should be no delays if they work with it from the beginning.

It is used, or should be used, by all of our 120 developers. But in a group developing a given application, not everyone would commit to it and scan the application. One would do the scanning. But, overall, all of them should be directly or indirectly using it or depending on it.

When we move it to production we will need to do a recertification of the users and find out who is not using it, who would use it, and who is shifting to other organizations. Then we will decide on the number.

During the development, if there are new libraries that need to be used, then we scan them first to see if they are secure or valid. If there is a threat, can we avoid it or use alternatives. Also, before each release, it is mandatory for us to scan the code before we go to release it.   

It was installed at the beginning of the year, so I think we are using the latest version.

We rely on the default policies because we are new to the system. We haven't adjusted any policies and are sticking with whatever policies were shipped to us. We are mostly focused on policies 9 and 10 for the highest threat levels. These are the ones which we are focusing right now. We don't want to make any modifications or adjustments in terms of 9 or 10. Mostly, it will be the security officer's decision if we need to update the policies. I'm the manager of the development team and my developers usually will not make any changes in terms of policies.

It provides a very detailed analysis of our library. Then, when some of the scans identify a licensing issue, we look at them and know if we have the license. It sort of scans everything. Without this tool, I don't think that there's even a capability to go through all these libraries, because some of the libraries were introduced by contractors and a developer who no longer works here anymore. When Nexus comes in with its scans, it reports on licensing or other vulnerabilities. This is easier to do instead of asking around.

The most valuable feature is the scanning part, then the report part, as it is quite easy to read. The report part is very important to us because that is how we communicate to our security officer and the security committee. Therefore, we need to have a complete report that we can generate and pass onto them for review.

The solution’s data quality has been pretty accurate. The ones that we are focusing on now are 9 and 10. Once we adjust and scan them again, they are no longer deemed to be the same threat level, which is good. If I replaced the library with a safer one, they still complain that that's not good. So far, we're pretty happy with the quality.

One thing that I would like to give feedback on is to scan the binary code. It's very difficult to find. It's under organization and policies where there are action buttons that are not very obvious. I think for people who are using it and are not integrated into it, it is not easy to find the button to load the binary and do the scan. This is if there is no existing, continuous integration process, which I believe most people have, but some users don't have this at the moment. This is the most important function of the Nexus IQ, so I expect it should be right on the dashboard where you can apply your binary and do a quick scan. Right now, it's hidden inside organization and policies. If you select the organization, then you can see in the top corner that there is a manual action which you can approve. There are multiple steps to reach that important function that we need. When we were initially looking at the dashboard, we looked for it and couldn't find it. So, we called our coworker who set up the server and they told us it's not on the dashboard. This comes down to usability. 

There is another usability thing in the reports section. When the PDF gets generated, it is different from the web version. There are some components from some areas which only reside inside the PDF version. When I generate the PDF for my boss to review, she comes back with a question that I didn't even see. I see on the reporting page whatever the PDF will be generating. The PDF is actually generating more information than the web version. That caught me off guard because she forwarded this to the security officer, who is asking, "Why is this? Or, why is that?" But, she has no idea. I didn't have anything handy because I saw the PDF version, which should be same as what I see on the web. This is a bit misrepresented. I would like these versions to speak together and be consistent. Printing a PDF report should generally reflect whatever you have on the page.

We have been using it for two or three months now.

It is stable.

Users of the solution include our security officer, our application architect, and me. I manage all of the development and the developers who work on upgrading libraries.

Not many people are needed to maintain this solution. We need two or three people. One person is from our service support where the Sonatype Server is deployed and managed. Another person is the application architect who reviews the libraries.

Scalability is not applicable to us at the moment.

The solution is pretty much involved in every release that we have. So, it's quite frequently being used. We don't have current plans to increase usage. We are working on our continuous integration process. Once that's done, then there will be a need to increase usage.

I haven't opened a support ticket yet.

We did not have another solution that we previously used before Sonatype.

We had one job file we used a long time ago (it was over 10 years ago). At that time, we had purchased a license, but nobody has really used it for a really long time.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup.

This was all done by our service support.

This solution has increased developer productivity by 20 percent. They know the version that they need to use. It is a lot easier.

We are still in the process of automating our deployment.

In terms of the developing the IDE, I don't see a big need because we are mostly focusing on enhancing existing projects. We mostly will be focusing on addressing existing issues and vulnerabilities. For a developer to use a new library all the time, this is not a high priority. Right now, we are working on continuous integration continuous deployment solutions. Then, we will integrate the Sonatype Scanner as part of the build, testing, and release.

I would give it an eight (out of 10). Right now, it is sufficient for us to identify our vulnerabilities. It is quite easy to use and not too much trouble.

Our use case for Nexus is to monitor all of our dependencies and the main thing we're using it for is tracking vulnerabilities listed against those.

It gives alerts for new vulnerabilities before our clients do, so we have time to review them, audit them, and determine how we need to proceed with resolving the issues before we get any client communication.

Before we had this in place, we had a much more reactive approach to CVE listings.   Since integrating this, and as we've refined our process over the past eight months or a year, we have moved to a proactive approach allowing auditing and decisions on mitigation before any incoming client submissions.

In addition, it has brought open-source intelligence and policy enforcement across our software development lifecycle. As a component of the lifecycle, it gives us more controls in place. As far as bringing in dependencies goes, we're able to see what a dependency is introducing, from a security and licensing perspective, before we publish a release to the public. So within the build stage, if we pull in a new dependency, Nexus will very quickly tell us whether it has issues or not. And we catch it. It scans in the build stages; we have it checking our staging where we're doing our regression; and it's also monitoring our released branches and letting us know if issues are found in our releases. It really does hit all stages of that lifecycle.

I like the JIRA integration, as well as the email notifications. They allow me to see things more in real-time without having to monitor the application directly. So as new items come in, it will generate a JIRA task and it will send me an email, so I know to go in and have a look at what is being alerted.

The policy engine is really cool. It allows you to set different types of policy violations, things such as the age of the component and the quality: Is it something that's being maintained? Those are all really great in helping get ahead of problems before they arise. You might otherwise end up with a library that's end-of-life and is not going to get any more fixes. This can really help you to try to get ahead of things, before you end up in a situation where you're refactoring code to remove a library. The policy engine absolutely provides the flexibility we need. We are rolling with the default policy, for the most part. We use the default policy and added on and adjusted it a little bit. But, out-of-the-box, the default policy is pretty good.

The data quality is good. The vulnerabilities are very detailed and include links to get in and review the actual postings from the reporters. There have been relatively few that I would consider false positives, which is cool. I haven't played with the licensing aspect that much, so I don't have any comment on the licensing data. One of the cool things about the data that's available within the application is that you can choose your vulnerable library and you can pull up the component information and see which versions of that library are available, that don't have any listed vulnerabilities. I've found myself using that a lot this week as we are preparing for a new library upgrade push.

The data quality definitely helps us to solve problems faster. I can pull up a library and see, "Okay, these versions are non-vulnerable," and raise my upgrade task. The most valuable part of the data quality is that it really helps me fit this into our risk management or our vulnerability management policy. It helps me determine: 

• Are we affected by this and how bad is it? 
• How quickly do we need to fix this? Or are we not affected?
• Is there any way to leverage it? 

Using that data quality to perform targeted, manual testing in order to verify that something isn't a direct issue and that we can designate for upgrade for the next release means that we don't have to do any interim releases.

As for automating open-source governance and minimizing risk, it does so in the sense of auditing vulnerabilities, thus far. It's still something of a reactive approach within the tool itself, but it comes in early enough in the lifecycle that it does provide those aspects.

The biggest thing that I have run into, which there are ways around, is being able to easily access the auditing data from a third-party tool; being able to pull all of that into one place in a cohesive manner where you can report off of that. We've had a little bit of a challenge with that. There are a number of things available to work with, to help with that in the tool, but we just haven't explored them yet.

We're going on our second year using the solution.

I've never had any stability issues with the application. I haven't performed any of the upgrades, but we've never had any downtime and we've never had any issues with notifications or an inability to access the information we need.

The technical support is fantastic. I reached out with a suspected false negative and had a response within hours, and within the next day they had determined that, yes, it was a false negative and, that same day, the notification came in when they had resolved the issue. So within less than 48 hours of reporting a false negative, I had a full turnaround and the result returned in the tool.

Before IQ server we used an open-source solution called OWASP Dependency-Check. We wanted something a little more plug-and-play, something a little more intuitive to configure and automate.

For the initial deployment, it was in place within a couple of days of starting the trial.

We did have an implementation strategy sketched out as far as requirements for success during the PoC go. The requirements were that it would easily integrate into our pipeline, so that it was very automated and hands-off. Part of the implementation strategy was that we expected to use Jenkins, which is our main build-management tool.

In terms of the integrations of the solution into developer tooling like IDEs, Git repos, etc., I wasn't really part of the team that was doing the integration into the pipeline, but I did work with the team. We didn't have any problems integrating it. And from what I did see, it looks like a very simple integration, just adding it straight into Jenkins. It integrated quite quickly into the environment.

At this point we haven't configured it to do any blocking or build-blocking just yet. But that's something we'll be reviewing, now that we have a good process.

We have absolutely seen ROI with Sonatype. The more proactive approach is definitely a return on investment. It significantly lowers the turnaround for responding to incoming issues. It also empowered our support staff to be able to pass along audit results without having to loop in the security team directly. There is a much lower overhead involved when doing it that way.

Also, the ability to better manage our vulnerability management by getting the detailed information from the scan results or the listings, and being able to audit them thoroughly and test them really helps with development resources in our case. We do not have to cram in a bunch of upgrades just for the sake of upgrading if we're constrained elsewhere. It really helps prioritize dev resources.

I don't know if it has directly saved time in releasing secure apps to market. It has definitely made everything more efficient, but unless things are critical and can definitely be leveraged, we don't necessarily delay a release.

The upgrade processes are definitely a quicker turnaround because it allows us to actually target versions that are not vulnerable. But it is hard to quantify whether, in the grand scheme of things, our developers are more productive as developers.

We looked at things like Black Duck, White Source, and White Hat.

The biggest issue, and this is why we went with Nexus, is that there were more results and there were far fewer false positives than in the other tools.

Take some time configuring your notifications and your JIRA integration properly, along with the policy tweaks. As you integrate and as you first deploy the tool, don't block any builds until you start to catch up on any issues that may be there. Really spend some time with that policy review and make sure it encompasses and aligns with your vulnerability management policy appropriately.

It is incorporated in all of our software branches, and we keep our most recent end-of-life branch active in it just to monitor for critical issues, so we can notify the community to upgrade. We may also add our new mobile application to it.

Nexus Lifecycle is definitely a nine out of 10. I would say 10 if it were a little easier to get the audit information out. Again, there are ways around that so I am not taking off much for that. It's a solid nine. The results are amazing. The quality of the data coming back is great. The audit interface is easy to use.