Checkmarx vs. SonarQube vs. Trellix Enterprise Security Manager

If you are going with SAST process or want to improve overall security posture then go for it like integrating it with post deployment steps. If you are more concerned about proactive controls better choose other options such as pee-commit hooks and CI security. Also choose other tools for DAST and API scans.

Incentivized

Scenarios where SonarQube is well suited:

1. Large codebase: The tool's static analysis capabilities can help teams quickly identify and fix bugs, vulnerabilities, and code smells in large codebases.
2. Compliance and security: The tool can check the code against industry standards or regulations, such as OWASP and CWE, and identify any issues that need to be addressed.
3. Agile development: SonarQube can be integrated with CI/CD pipelines allowing teams to continuously monitor and improve code quality throughout the development process.
4. Teams using multiple languages: Teams that use multiple programming languages can benefit from using SonarQube, as the tool supports a wide range of languages and can be integrated with a variety of development tools.

Scenarios where SonarQube may be less appropriate:

1. Small codebase: Organizations with a small codebase may not see the full benefits of using SonarQube, as the tool's static analysis capabilities may be overkill for a smaller codebase.
2. Limited resources: Organizations with limited resources may find it difficult to set up and configure SonarQube, as the tool can be complex and may require specialized expertise.
3. Limited integration: Organizations that use development tools or IDEs that are not supported by SonarQube may find it difficult to integrate the tool into their existing development workflow.
4. Limited scalability: Large organizations with millions of lines of code may find SonarQube's performance and scalability to be an issue. It may take longer for the analysis to finish and the results may not be as accurate.

Incentivized

McAfee is a good solution if you're in a medium/large company and if you're looking for a solution that can be customized and expanded. I also recommend if you have the most common log sources on your environment, since McAfee supports the major log sources (but lack a lot of small vendors). In my opinion, I wouldn't recommend McAfee for small companies, since it's not that easy to manage and maintain.

Incentivized

• Supports a large number of languages
• Finds a large variety of potential risks

Incentivized

• Generating code quality report
• Calculates junit coverage of the codebase very efficiently and precisely
• Highlights the bugs and vulnerabilities in our codebase
• Informs the user of the improvements which can be done to the code to make it cleaner
• SonarQube also suggests remediation and resolution of the problems it highlights

Incentivized

• McAfee Enterprise Security Manager has a large library of pre-made correlations that reduces the amount of work needed to make it functional.
• This is a core McAfee product that is still getting support.
• It has a substantial amount of compatibility and integration with other products.

Incentivized

• DAST capability can be the one where it does not support native use case of using OTP based arch
• API Scanning is something that lacks a bit due to not much customizations
• Branch wise reports for SAST is not available

Incentivized

• It doesn't provide automatic pull request with fixes
• It doesn't provide insights about the libraries of the projects
• The administration management user interface could be simplified
• It doesn't provide an order to fix issues, like archives with more and frequent commits have top priority

Incentivized

• If there is a requirement to integrate into other vendor products i.e. (log sharing) then this was very cumbersome.
• Integration of vulnerability scanning that is available in other vendor products would be a good addition.
• When integrating all of Intel's products a third party consultancy is usually required, where other vendor products can be configured without this additional cost.

Incentivized

Checkmarx's usability is generally good, but it can be a bit complex for new users. The interface may take some time to get used to, especially for those unfamiliar with security tools. Once you become familiar with it, it’s effective and integrates well into development workflows.

Incentivized

It can improve in some user experience and usability parts, like the code view and the way we assign issues it's a bit hidden and not highlighted

Incentivized

We we easily able to integrate the SonarQube steps into our TFS process via the Microsoft Marektplace, we didn't have the need to call SonarQube support. We've used their online documentation and community forum if we ran into any issues.

Incentivized

Dealing with the McAfee support is a lottery. Sometimes you reach them and it's a really experienced engineer, but sometimes it's a person with no clue on the tool. We had few cases where our internal engineers knew more about the tool than the McAfee support. However, sometimes we get hold of some really good engineers that know the tool from inside out

Incentivized

Checkmarx is easier to integrate with development tools and gives quick feedback during coding, which is helpful for developers. Veracode is more focused on scanning and reporting for compliance, but it’s more complex to set up. We chose Checkmarx because it fits better into our development process, offering faster scans and more useful suggestions for fixing problems

Incentivized

SonarQube identifies significant more thing compared to the built-in suggestions in IntelliJ IDEA. The suggestions how to correct issues are also a lot better with SonarQube. IntelliJ IDEA provides great refactoring support to make it easy to refactor the code to solve issues. We use these tools together and they really complement each other.

Incentivized

McAfee Enterprise Security Manager is a better option than other security software because it's both inexpensive and extremely effective. Norton and other security software boast a high price tag but don't always back it up when it comes to performance. With McAfee Enterprise Security Manager, I know I'm getting a quality product for a fair price.

Incentivized

• Great diversity of vulnerabilities covered.
• Quicker scans
• They are feature rich compared to other tools I used in the past.
• Dashboards are not customizable enough.
• High number of false positives take up time and sometimes make our report look bad.

Incentivized

• Positive ROI from the standpoint of flagging several issues that would have otherwise likely been unaddressed and caused more time to be spent closer to launch
• Slightly positive ROI from time-saving perspective (it's an automated check which is nice, but depending on the issues it finds, can take developers time to investigate and resolve)

• It effectively blocks potential attacks from outside.
• It aids us in doing more effective root-cause analysis whenever an incident occurs, since it gives us enough details to understand what went wrong.

Incentivized