Invicti vs. Salt Security API Protection Platform

Netsparker is very thorough but can take a very long time to scan a web application. It can also take a long time to learn and configure. Its thoroughness is a very good part of the product but if the application does [not] need this thoroughness it is probably a waste of time to run Netsparker on the website.

Incentivized

Salt is highly recommended for anyone who wants to discover, monitor and protect their APIs against various types of attacks. Salt should not be used as a SIEM.

• NetSparker has excellent customer service. When our team had to learn to use it for the first time, we had to communicate directly with NetSparker consultants.
• NetSparker is very user-friendly. It's UI is organized and keeps all the different scans we have set-up in a very clean visual.
• Netsparker has a selection of workflows and integration tools that make it useful for keeping all of my teammates on the same page.

Incentivized

• PII identification in API traffic.
• Divergence between API traffic and documentation (swagger files).
• Potential attacks with information to take counter measures.

• Netsparker Cloud is expensive and restricts the number of website URLs that you are allowed to scan. This restricts us from scanning all of the websites that we create and only allows us to scan a small subset of number of the website we produce.
• Netsparker is difficult to configure and I often need to open a ticket with support to figure out how to use the product. I have been vulnerability testing websites for over 10 years and I still don't think I really know how to use Netsparker.
• Netsparker can take a very long time to complete a scan due to the number of items it can scan for. Be certain to reduce the technologies that your scan will be looking at. Also, expect a large website to possibly take over two days to complete. Not something you really want to have happen on a developer checking on some source code.

Incentivized

• The platform could have more options for exporting detailed data from attackers' dashboards.
• The Attackers dashboard could also have more options of filters in order to support the investigations of the attack.
• The OAS analysis could present a more detailed view of the found issues.

NetSparker support is amazing. When first introducing this software to the team, there was a lot of communication going on between Netsparker consultants and our team. They have answered our questions very efficiently and have had consultants come to our department for training. They are open to suggestions for improvements and enhancements as well.

Incentivized

I currently use OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite Professional and Veracode Dynamic Scan. ZAP is very easy to use and the web developers use it regularly. Burp Suite is very customizable as is Netsparker but usually take much less time to scan a website. Both of these tools are programmable and allow me to add special items to a scan when I need it. They are also much better documented. Veracode also has a static code analysis tool that we use much more often then the dynamic analysis tool but we do use both parts of Veracode.

Incentivized

We tried controls offered by the IaaS providers but these were hard to manage and did not provide the visibility we wanted. We also protected APIs with a normal WAF but this was only helpful for assets we knew about and API attacks were not caught by the WAF.

• NetSparker has saved the team a lot of time since the scans quicker than our older software.
• NetSparker has been costing the company a lot compared to previous security software.
• Netsparker has helped improved our overall business objectives by finding an efficient and collaborative way to run scans on our systems.

Incentivized

• Salt Security API Protection Platform has provided detailed information that is helping us to identify and investigate attacks in our environment