Tenable.io vs Veracode

• Setup of the internal scanner was fairly simple and straight forward.
• An update came out for the internal scanner that allows you to add an Internal Certificate Authority for lookup.
• Has automated reporting to keep executives and compliance departments informed.
• Internal scanner can be configured to auto-update itself.
• "Recast Rules" allows your organization to redefine a vulnerabilities' classification, if it is not applicable or your disagree.
• External PCI scans allow you to remediate before submitting to Tenable.io for review.
• Tenable.io staff was very patient and helpful. They provided some limited guidance with remediation.
• Internal and External scans can be automated. schedule for the automated scans is very granular.

Read full review

• The pipeline scan is a very fast way to scan code and inform developers if a new flaw is introduced by their pull requests.
• Upload & Scan provides an in-depth analysis of the codebase, which features like reporting being made easy.
• SCA Scans help us not only identify the vulnerabilities but also in helping fix them and in identifying if our application is using that part of the vulnerable library or not.
• Veracode is very easy to integrate into the CI/CD pipelines (especially Jenkins)

Read full review

• Have to switch between interfaces to access certain functionality
• Scan speeds/resource utilization at times
• Executive level reporting could do with some improvements

Read full review

• There is an initial overhead on generating the binary artefacts for scanning. The binaries need to be loaded with debug symbols for Veracode to be able to trace the defect back to the file and line number. This is relatively easy for modern programming languages (e.g. Java) with latest build tools (e.g. maven/gradle) but can be quite challenging for languages which are platform specific (C/C++) and have dated build systems (e.g. make).
• Entry Point Selection. After the binaries are uploaded for scanning, the Veracode platform analyses them (pre-scan) and provides a list of 'modules' to be selected for scanning. Only the points of entry of program execution need to be selected here, based on the application architecture. The 3rd party modules on which your code is dependent on need to be uploaded but not selected as entry points for execution. This typically needs some fine-tuning and teams take some iterations to optimise. This would need the product architect inputs which teams generally do not understand, as they treat scanning in general as a DevSecOps responsibility and only after scanning, the developers/architects pitch in. For Veracode, their inputs are needed even during the scanning, for the first few scans at least.
• This is a both a pro and con. Veracode does not give any option to customise the scanning rules or tweak what it is scanning for. This makes for a much simpler setup but also gives no scope for creating an application-specific scanning profile. For instance, if I do not want Veracode to look for SQL injection for whatever reason, or if I want Veracode to only look for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, I cannot configure.
• Long scan times, specifically for C/C++ based product/app scans. Some of the scans for enterprise scale product in C/C++ used to take quite many hours, and at times a couple of days. There have been improvements in this during the course of our 3 years of usage but in general, scans take a long time to complete.

Read full review

• Since this is a requirement for our PCI compliance and the cost is relatively low, the ROI isn't really something we need to think too much about, Tenable's pricing is fair and affordable.

Read full review

• As I already stated, the cost per application is very high which makes the use of Veracode too expensive for many of out applications.
• The analysis report is accepted by our clients as a proper SSAT report.
• Most of out competition does not perform any type of SSAT on the applications they create. This is something we offer and be the only one out there doing this type of testing.

Read full review