I have used SonarQube as a community product for static application security testing as well as quality gate checking for the organization. Now I have retired the community edition of SonarQube and I am currently working with Checkmarx for a proper solution.

In my current license configuration, I have Codebashing, secret scanning, and SAST.

Codebashing is solely purposed for training our developers regarding the vulnerabilities we have, and it has seamless integration within Checkmarx. I am running a security champions program which leverages Codebashing platform itself.

Codebashing serves as a baseline for developers, though not many advanced techniques are available. In the tournament phases, it mostly resembles a Kahoot tournament, so having more CTF capabilities within the platform would be beneficial.

The statistics are really good for the developers after we deployed Codebashing. When people do not know anything regarding a vulnerability, they can gain a basic idea of what that vulnerability is and how they can mitigate things. There are some lacking vulnerabilities in Codebashing platform itself, making it both advantageous and disadvantageous.

The best features of Codebashing are the skill trees and the way I can impose trainings for the developers, which is highly effective.

It would be beneficial for Codebashing platform if we were able to quickly customize the questionnaires. Currently, we have to work with predefined questionnaires or utilize another language to create quizzes. I would prefer having a GUI for that aspect so I can provide tailor-made questionnaires for the developers, allowing me to utilize Codebashing platform entirely instead of depending on other solutions.

I have two years of experience with Checkmarx.

With Codebashing solution, we had a couple of complications, such as account configuration issues. Because we are currently in the initial stages, the support is really good, but we have to wait and see.

Positive

Initially, we had Contrast Security, and comparing with that, the coverage against the cost shows that Checkmarx is doing a good job.

Codebashing and Checkmarx SAST are really easy to set up; it is a matter of figuring out the SSO configuration from our end. The rest of the things are currently using the SaaS solution provided by Checkmarx, so the initial setup phase is straightforward.

Scanning the entire organization takes time, which was one of the challenges we faced during the initial phase. To overcome such issues, we had to write scripts as workarounds.

With Codebashing we can see a clear difference; the vulnerability fixing ratio became 160% per month, and the density counts started reducing after implementation.

Based on the coverage we receive when comparing it with the IAS tool and the options we receive, such as ID integrations and direct impact on pull push requests, the pricing is much lower than IAS.

I am not familiar with Codebashing updates frequency. We bought it through an agent. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 7.

We have been using the product for code-scanning purposes.

The platform is simple, easy to use, and easy to learn. It has comprehensive guidelines and a lot of documents and videos for an easy installation process. Apart from some default rules, it allows users to configure their own rules. Also, it is easy to configure as it has an extensive library for reference.

The product's pricing could be more flexible. At present, we have to buy an entire instance. Instead, they could introduce a pricing model based on specific requirements.

We have been using Codebashing for three to four years.

The platform has good stability.

Codebashing's cloud version might be more scalable than the on-premise version.

The initial setup process is easy. It takes little time to complete for new users as well. However, it might take time if the infrastructure still needs to be implemented.

Sometimes, Codebashing provides reports with false positives. Thus, I advise others not to rely on the reports and to do a thorough analysis. They may require to change a few configurations. Configuring your own rules is better than going for a default configuration.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

The solution mainly aims to identify false positives or flag any medium to high-risk outcomes, meaning it is mainly for source codes.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that its gamification UI is quite user-friendly to use, and it is also quite intuitive since it provides users with proper explanations while allowing one to opt for the obash option. Mapping is also quite accurate, which helps identify why the tool has flagged certain code or lines of code, making it helpful for users because sometimes you might be unable to detect the flaws on your own.

The tool can be a little more intuitive for the end users. It isn't a very friendly tool for beginners. In our company, we have to take training courses to learn how to use the platform. Introducing automation and making the tool a little more intuitive for businesses might be helpful.

In our company, we need to take care of the tool's regular updates since, often, the solution may be down. My company has a business administration unit team that is responsible for the updation of tools we use, and their processes can take a day or two to be completed, because of which we may lose out on some time when we may have required the tool to do a complete scan. It would be helpful if the update process can be made faster.

If I make use of the integration capabilities of Codebashing, then the plug-ins won't work as smoothly as it does in the application itself. Maybe the solution's plug-ins can be improved.

I have been using Codebashing for three years.

If I use Codebashing as a standalone tool, then I don't face any stability issues, but issues arise when I try to use its integration capabilities. If you want to integrate Codebashing with Jenkins or run automated scans, I face some issues with its integration part.

I think that the solution has a few plug-ins on different cloud platforms, making it a scalable product.

Between 50 to 100 people in my organization use the solution.

The solution's technical support is good. My company has been able to resolve issues related to the tool with the help of Codebashing's technical support team. I rate the technical support a seven or eight out of ten.

Positive

I have experience with AppScan and RiskSense. I was using AppScan to support DAST and RiskSense for getting results from SAST and DAST to generate reports. I was using different solutions for different reasons, but I think they provide different benefits to users. My company chose CheckMarx over AppScan since the former offers better source code scanning capabilities.

The installation phase of the tool is simple.

The tool's installation phase took around 45 minutes.

The tool's installation phase was carried out by a team of 17 people in my company who use Checkmarx.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

As a developer, though I am unaware of the cost of the solution, the product is expensive since I faced some trouble upgrading to Python for Codebashing.

The solution is easy to maintain.

I think Codebashing is a great tool to start with if you are just learning about application security. Codebashing has some good tutorials and a nice learning platform to learn about coding. Codebashing also has a more nice gamification UI, which is a good tool. Generally, I think it's quite a good tool for developers to get started and pick up skills.

I rate the overall solution an eight and a half to nine out of ten.