Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM by Kenna Security, which was acquired by Cisco in June of 2021), is a vulnerability management platform featuring real-time cyber-risk analysis and predictive modeling based on intelligence feeds and global attack telemetries to provide accurate, reliable risk prioritization and protection.
N/A
Rapid7 InsightVM
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
InsightVM is presented as the next evolution of Nexpose, by Rapid7. This Insight cloud-based solution features everything included in Nexpose, such as Adaptive Security and the proprietary Real Risk score, and extends visibility into cloud and containerized infrastructure. InsightVM also offers advanced remediation, tracking, and reporting capabilities not included in Nexpose.
For user end devices this product has worked great for us. We have been able to find vulnerabilities/risks with certain software in bulk on devices and implement fixes for them very quickly. CVM has also provided us visabity on all our devices that we never had before and we can close gaps security wise a lot faster knowing now where problems are at
InsightVM is great for finding all devices on your network and where the misconfigurations exist. We all have to patch our systems and applications, but it can be difficult to keep track of which systems are up to date. This tool is very helpful in filling in this gap and helping you organize that information. It is easy to get a big picture view of how your organization is doing from a vulnerability perspective, and it is equally as easy to drill down and get specific details that you need. Prioritization is crucial when it comes to this space, because you can never address every vulnerability, so you need to make sure the highest priority items are being remediated. R7's tool excels in this area and highlights items you weren't even aware of.
From my experience of using this tool, sometimes it gives more false positives. A few times I had performed the scan on the same IP address using QualysGuard and Nexpose, but after comparing the scan results I had found that QualysGuard had provided more accurate vulnerability information.
CVM provides a very easy to understand and use interfaces. Dashboards and reporting are compiled nicely when risk meters are created. After initial setup of software cisco onboarding teams do an amazing job going over all areas of this software to provide best overall usability of the product. Against other tools setup and usability is at a higher standard
While I think it is a great tool and platform, I believe it (like all tools and solutions) is always evolving and the needs for clients are changing as the industry evolves and threats are upgraded. Cost is good, and support is helpful. Some things could be more granular and others could be easier to understand
I gave it a seven due to the functionality and general ease of use after the initial setup headaches, but compared to Qualys, Rapid7 Nexpose falls short on features and ease of use. Their support drags this rating down a point as well. I have gone weeks with no update on semi-critical issues and typically have to make call after call to get a semi-coherent response.
We run a flavor of multiple products and CVM enhances/complements those tools by pinpointing where the vulnerabilities are at on our network. Intune and Automox being products CVM works well with when its time to patch affected systems. Tenable we used prior to CVM and its product was too complex and clunky and always had issues with asset duplication. CVM simplified vulnerability scanning and made it a lot easier to manage compared to Tenable
Rapid7 InsightVM is a more professional tool than Nessus because historically, it was based on metasploit which is a powerful pentesting and exploiting tool. InsightVM covers more attacking scenarios and vulnerabilities than competitors and still a leader in this domain.cloud capability is also not available forNesuus and some other products. Rapid7 InsightVM is a way better as a pentesting tool in my opinion
After spending 2 years configuring, tuning, troubleshooting, and ultimately having nothing but regrets, we migrated away from the tool and accepted the loss.
Support had a variety of opinions, none of them consistent. No best practices. Lots of secret tricks known by support, none documented or shared until after problems are found.
Consulting services are available to come out and do a health check of your deployment, for a fee.
