External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
We used Fortify for static code analysis, dynamic security testing, and both white box and black box testing. We applied these scanning methods to our business-critical applications such as Temenos (T-24), which was our core banking application.
Additionally, other business-critical applications like Murex and various applications in trade finance or treasury security services also rely on Fortify.
Our CSD team used multiple tools for different scenarios. When dealing with sophisticated threats or vulnerabilities, manual analysis was necessary alongside Fortify's machine-based analysis. So, in handling complicated vulnerabilities, we couldn't rely on just one tool. Multiple tools were required. One such tool was OS Zap Proxy. We integrated Zap Proxy with Fortify, and this integration proved quite useful. Instead of relying solely on Fortify's dashboard, we integrated it with other tools, which made more sense. The security analysts, up to the level of the CSO, wouldn't rely only on a single dashboard. They used multiple tools to detect and work on vulnerabilities across various platforms and products. Fortify seamlessly integrates all these aspects.
Temenos's (T-24) info basic is a separate programming interface, and such proprietary platforms and programming interfaces were not easily supported by the out-of-the-box versions of Fortify. Although Fortify already supports around 25 programming languages, during our evaluation, we found it lacking in terms of support.
So Fortify on Demand doesn't support all programming languages. Additionally, automating everything from the pipeline, which means the build will stop if any single vulnerability is found by their particular tool during the scan.
Fortify has been with our bank since its inception in 2008.
Fortify is very reliable and doesn't experience frequent crashes. It provides a stable and dependable tool for our needs.
It is a quite scalable product. We can start small with single instances and gradually scale up with multiple instances. This scalability aspect is similar to SonarQube as well.
When the scan load increases, we reach a threshold where we may need to purchase additional resources or adjust our pricing brackets. For instance, if I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket.
However, the cost we see initially is different and covers up to one million lines of code. Overall, it's quite manageable to handle the loads we encounter.
Whenever required, we have reached out to the technical support team. Our architecture team thoroughly evaluated Fortify along with our stakeholders. We always prioritize leveraging our existing applications from an inventory of over 340 applications, rather than opting for new ones.
When we onboarded Fortify in 2008, we had other choices for tools and products as well, but we didn't choose them. This decision was made by the cybersecurity defense team, who are the primary users of the product.
They were satisfied with Fortify, and we didn't require extensive support. However, whenever needed, we can rely on the support included with the license.
I am the architecture manager, and my team evaluated and onboarded Fortify based on reviews and evaluations from GQ, Peerspot, Gartner, and even Forrester.
During the setup process, we had concerns regarding the cost. From the CSD perspective, Fortify was not very cost-friendly. The CSD has a separate budget and reports directly to the CEO and CIO. We had to consider our budget limitations because we have been leveraging Fortify since the bank's inception in 2008. Although we have utilized it extensively, the cost appeared higher compared to SonarQube. Hence, we decided to go with SonarQube. However, I must say that Fortify offered a lot of value.
It was quite manageable to maintain. We have a dedicated team that supports Fortify in production. So, it was quite manageable.
We have a support team consisting of around five or six engineers, specifically CICD engineers from the platform support team. They handle the deployment and maintenance tasks.
For version upgrades, the team takes care of it as and when needed. Additionally, if there are any junior members required, they assist in the maintenance process. The primary user of Fortify is the CSD team.
We were on a subscription-based model. The subscription was expiring in December 2022, and we have decided not to renew it for this year.
We are already decommissioning Fortify and have already implemented SonarQube. We are currently using SonarQube Enterprise.
Fortify on Demand was utilized for a considerable period. However, we have now transitioned away from Fortify on Demand. It was primarily used by our CSD team, the cybersecurity defense team at the bank.
Initially, we performed penetration testing and vulnerability assessments within the Fortify platform. However, we have since implemented a DevSecOps pipeline in partnership with Red Hat. Currently, all testing, including penetration testing and vulnerability assessments, is automated within the pipeline. The pipeline runs on Tecton, enabled on the OpenShift site.
Therefore, any tool we use, be it Fortify or SonarQube, must be integrated into that pipeline. This approach has addressed most of the pain points we faced previously. Consequently, we are satisfied with SonarQube's performance now.
Fortify on Demand only offers static analysis and lacks dynamic security testing capabilities. However, if it's integrated into the pipeline, we can incorporate another tool for dynamic security testing. This was not possible with Fortify alone.
Additionally, Fortify has limited programming language support compared to SonarQube. The recent global launch of SonarQube in the GA version expanded its support for various programming platforms, such as CSM and .NET on the Java side, among others.
In our bank, we use T24 as our core banking system, which relies on a proprietary programming language called Infobasic. SonarQube also supports this language. When we place the code into the pipeline and perform builds, including the repository, we scan the entire codebase, including Infobasic code for the banking application. In summary, SonarQube offers broader programming language support. Previously, we only scanned other business-critical applications, but now we can scan our most critical banking application, T24, using SonarQube.
Fortify has excellent support for various programming languages. Each bank may have its own core banking applications with proprietary support for different programming languages. This makes Fortify particularly relevant and advantageous in those cases. This advantage may not be present in SonarQube.
Additionally, if a feature is not offered out of the box, Fortify allows customization, providing flexibility. Apart from dynamic security testing, Fortify is reliable for generating and distributing v-scan reports to multiple stakeholders, making it less of a hassle for the CAC team as most tasks are automated.
I would rate Fortify on Demand as an eight.
We use Fortify on Demand to look at dependency vulnerabilities and vulnerabilities in the source code. We are customers of Micro Focus.
We've found the depth of scanning that the product provides and the results we get are the most valuable features.
We need something that's going to be fully integrated with CIT processes from setting up a new microservice to scanning and managing other vulnerabilities. As of now, we don't have that which makes it a painful process.
I've been using this solution for three years.
The solution is stable.
The solution was implemented prior to my joining the company so I have no information regarding the initial setup.
We're changing our licensing model because we currently pay 1,000 euro per scan which is ridiculous. We're working on changing it to a flat rate.
Whether or not this solution will be useful depends on the maturity of your organization. If you understand what all the messages and the analysis mean, and you can usefully react to it then I think you should absolutely use it. If you're still working out these things, you should probably first go through some learning process and start with some simpler tooling that gives you some insights.
The challenge is always how to make things actionable and that is lacking to some extent. If, for example, there is something that depends on scans for vulnerability for all your dependencies and just pulls requests for you, Fortify doesn't action anything. It leaves all the actioning things to you so in a sense, it creates more work for the developers, but it doesn't help them to do the work.
We're not happy with the solution as a process because of the way it's internally implemented in the bank. On the other hand, the features are quite good so I would rate that aspect higher. On average, I rate this solution seven out of 10.