I am a partner of the vendor, and I can say that one of the clients with whom I am working has bought the licenses for Checkmarx One, and we are actually doing the security scans of their whole application base, code base, and everything.

Whatever solutions were provided by, or suggested by, Checkmarx One, we are going through them and implementing them. Some were valid and some were not applicable for us based on the scenario. That is the work experience I have working on Checkmarx One.

My experience with the initial setup of Checkmarx One is straightforward; it is not complex compared to other tools that I have tried.

Checkmarx One was deployed in a hybrid manner because they were scanning their production-based systems and then fixing the code base. It was hybrid, maybe on-premises with them, not completely on cloud.

My clients for Checkmarx One are usually enterprise-sized businesses. I have seen a return on investment from Checkmarx One.

In my opinion, if we are able to extract or show the report, and because everything is going towards agent tech and GenAI, it would be beneficial if it could get integrated with our code base and do the fix automatically.

It could suggest how the code base is written and automatically populate the source code with three different solution options to choose from. This would be really helpful.

I would rate the stability of this solution a nine on a scale of 1 to 10 where one is low stability and 10 is high.

I would rate the scalability of this solution an eight on a scale of 1 to 10, where one is low scalability and 10 is high scalability.

I would rate technical support a nine from 1 to 10, where one is low quality of their technical support and 10 is high quality.

I have seen a return on investment from Checkmarx One.

The price of Checkmarx One should be fine as of now.

I would rate this solution a nine overall, from 1 to 10, where one is the worst solution and 10 is the best solution.

I am representing Checkmarx as a reseller. I work with both the cloud and on-premises versions. I have been working with Checkmarx for more than twelve years.

Checkmarx is a must-use product due to the increasing number of cyber-attacks nowadays. The product's quality and performance justify its pricing, making it a worthwhile investment.

Checkmarx offers many valuable features, including Static Application Security Testing (SAST), Software Composition Analysis (SCA), Infrastructure as Code (IAC), Supply Chain Security, and API Security.

The Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) feature should be better. The technical support service could also improve in terms of their response time.

I have been working with Checkmarx since the early days of Checkmarx, which is more than 12 years.

I would rate the stability of Checkmarx at nine out of ten.

Checkmarx is scalable, and I would rate its scalability at nine out of ten.

The customer service and support should be quicker from my point of view. I would rate them eight out of ten.

Positive

I have been working with Checkmarx for over 12 years without switching to a competitor due to Checkmarx being the best product in the market.

The initial setup is straightforward, especially with the cloud version where no deployment is needed. The on-premises version requires some time and depends on the customer's environment.

In typical circumstances, one senior engineer is enough for implementation, but in special cases, maybe two engineers are needed.

Checkmarx is cost-effective. It is a must-use product in today's cyber security environment.

The pricing is relatively expensive due to the product's quality and performance, but it is worth it.

I chose Checkmarx over competitors due to ethical considerations and its superior functionality.

Checkmarx is plug-and-play and the best product in the market at the moment, as evidenced by reports such as Gartner's.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We have integrated Checkmarx into all the company's development pipelines. We use it to scan more than 4,000 repositories and around 25,000 pipelines. 

The integration is particularly useful as it works directly with several common SCM solutions in the market, such as GitHub and Bitbucket, and with CI/CD tools like Jenkins and GoCD. This allows us to register repositories quickly and scan code efficiently in our development process.

Checkmarx helps developers improve the maturity of their coding practices and brings a security mindset to development teams, product managers, and business areas. 

It aids in identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities early in the development cycle, enhancing the overall security posture of the organization.

The most valuable features of Checkmarx are its integration with multiple SCM solutions and CICD tools, its ability to scale according to user licenses, and the quick scanning process. Specifically, the Static Application Security Test (SAST) and Software Composition Analysis (SCA) are highly established and useful in identifying numerous vulnerabilities.

Checkmarx needs improvement in its Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and API security features. The DAST solution uses the OWASP Zap engine, which is less powerful compared to other market solutions like Fortify's WebInspect. 

Additionally, the API security solution does not provide comprehensive results, and the secret scanning feature also needs enhancement. Furthermore, the container security and infrastructure as code scanning features are not mature enough and require significant improvements.

I have been working with Checkmarx for about two years.

Checkmarx scales very well according to the user licenses. The solution supports concurrent scans based on the number of committers, which is a significant improvement over the previous CXSAST solution that only supported a limited number of simultaneous scans. 

The scans are quick, but the time taken can vary based on the amount of code and the frequency of scans.

The technical support from the vendor is generally good, rated at about 8.5 out of ten. Checkmarx utilizes partners as integrators who offer enterprise support, including a dedicated technical account manager. The support from Checkmarx's team has improved, offering a four-hour SLA and 24/7 availability.

The initial setup is simple and quick due to its SaaS nature. It involves setting up the tenant, registering applications, and integrating with the company's SSO. The integration with CI/CD tools takes a bit more time and effort.

The implementation is typically done with the help of a partner who acts as an integrator and offers enterprise support. This includes the allocation of a dedicated professional as a technical account manager or customer success manager.

Checkmarx provides a good return on investment by preventing breaches and vulnerabilities that could be much more costly. It adds significant value by improving the security practices and mindset across the development lifecycle.

Checkmarx is not a cheap solution. For around 250 users or committers, the cost is approximately $500,000. However, the investment is justified considering the potential costs of security breaches and the benefits of improved security practices.

To achieve better results, consider performing both native integration in the SCM tool and integration using the CI/CD solution. This helps gain visibility into the deployment stages and ensures comprehensive code scanning. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use the tool for testing purposes. 

The tool's valuable features include integrating GPT and Copilot. Additionally, the UI web representation is very user-friendly, making navigation easy. GPT has made several improvements to my security code.

I can't create a business case with multiple-factor authentication.

I have been working with the product for two years. 

While support handles tickets and resolves specific issues, such as business cases, it can be frustrating waiting for responses. They often take a lot of time to address cases or provide resolutions.

Neutral

Checkmarx One's deployment is easy. When we deployed it for a new client, it took around a month to complete. This involved setting up all parameters and sub-administrators. Additionally, finalizing the project involved several tasks, such as scanning with all security gates.

We can get a return in six months. 

The tool's pricing is fine. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution to validate the source code and do SAST and security analysis. Checkmarx dynamics code analysis improved our software security posture by showcasing vulnerabilities within the code and identifying or providing recommendations on how to improve.

The solution's user interface could be improved because it seems outdated. The solution should integrate with AI and machine learning.

I have been using Checkmarx for three to four months.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Checkmarx is a scalable solution. Around 200 users are using the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support is good and responsive.

Positive

The solution’s deployment might take 10 to 15 minutes.

Before choosing Checkmarx, we evaluated SonarQube. We chose Checkmarx because SonarQube does not show the security analysis.

We integrate Checkmarx into our software development cycle using GitLab's CI/CD pipeline. Checkmark has been the most helpful for us in the development stage. The solution's incremental scanning feature has impacted our development speed.

The solution's vulnerability detection is around 80% to 90% accurate. I would recommend Checkmarx to other users because it is one of the good tools for doing security analysis and security identification within the source code.

Overall, I rate Checkmarx a nine out of ten.

Whenever a web application needs to be moved into production, a static code analysis or source code review must be done. The analyst runs several tools on the web application and collects details. Completing a source code review for a particular application will take around five working days.

Since we moved to Checkmarx, it has reduced the time significantly. Usually, we get the report within a day. It lists all the critical vulnerabilities and provides remediation. We provide suggestions to the customers and the project owners to fix the loopholes immediately so that we can move to production. Sometimes, the life cycle is reduced from five days to one day.

Static code reviews are small projects. Previously, with a team of four analysts, we did two project reviews every month. Since we started using the solution, we could do four projects every week with the same team.

It is very easy for the analyst to have everything in a consolidated single pane of glass. Previously, they ran multiple tools. They used one tool for source code analysis and another for static code review. Then, I manually verified each result. Since we moved to Checkmarx, it has been very easy for the analyst.

The tool gives us a shareable report that can be easily shared with management once the product is done. The solution’s performance and the consolidated information it provides are valuable. The platform is completely on the cloud. There are no scalability or connectivity issues. The platform is stable. It can be accessed from anywhere.

We used open-source tools before. We had to deploy the tools in the customers' environment to establish the connection between the tools and their product application. Since Checkmarx is a SaaS-based platform, we need only the forward connection from Checkmarx to the tool. The tool handles everything else. We just need a single firewall rule to be enabled on the platform to establish the connection.

The deployment is very simple. We need just one rule to forward the web application to Checkmarx. The scanning engine is very good. Compared to the solutions we used previously, Checkmarx has reduced our workload by almost 75%. The tool has greatly reduced the time and effort our analysts need to do their tasks. It's very useful if we need to perform a short-term project. It is greatly helpful in fixing loopholes and vulnerabilities swiftly.

We can run only one project at a time. We haven't tested multiple projects at the same time. Currently, not all the projects are visible under one pane. We handle one-time projects. As a manager, I do not have the overall visibility of all projects simultaneously. I have already raised a support ticket requesting the ability to manage all projects from a single pane. There may be an option for it. However, I am not aware of it. The solution must provide more integration with different platforms.

I have been using the solution for three months.

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten.

The tool is scalable since it is a cloud-based solution. We have served over 100 customers.

The setup is straightforward. Our analysts had a training for half a day. They were able to use the product form the next day. We just need to purchase a license. Since it is a SaaS-based solution, no additional deployment is required. We only need to enable the firewall rule.

The solution helps us push the application into production much sooner than anticipated. If we have a web application that needs to go live, traditionally, it takes 15 days to a month to push it into production after all the security checks. If the other teams can patch the vulnerabilities as soon as we suggest them, Checkmarx can help us push the product into production within a week. It's very easy to rescan.

If someone has too many applications, they can directly integrate Checkmarx into the CI/CD pipeline. We got the license and are running the solution for our customers. We do not charge our customers for the solution. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

One use case is when a development team finishes, or even in the middle of, development. They run Checkmarx, which shows potential vulnerabilities. If they don't understand something, they consult with me. 

I explain what Checkmarx is highlighting, why it's "shouting" as we say, the specific vulnerability, and the problem it found in the code. Then, together, we explore the code and decide if it's a valid issue requiring a fix. 

We also discuss how to fix it, or if it's a false positive because, in their environment, the problem either cannot exist or doesn't exist in the way they use their software.

We also have another use case. When a software company, like an integration company, does a project for us, we request them to run their code through Checkmarx. If they don't have their own tool, we run it on our Checkmarx and provide them with the report. We request, or rather insist, that they fix most, if not all, of the problems Checkmarx finds. 

These might be issues they didn't consider, but we put it in the contract that they have to submit their software to a "code check," meaning they can use Checkmarx or another approved tool. If they don't have a tool or refuse, then it's okay. The key is to have it in the contract and signed. 

Otherwise, fixing the software later becomes difficult, especially when the project is nearing completion. That's why we do it when the integration begins, so there's still time to address the issues. If you wait until the very end, it's too late.

The solution improved the efficiency of our code security reviews. It helps tremendously because it finds hundreds of potential problems sometimes. When the development teams fix them, or even some of them, it significantly enhances the security of the software. 

For example, we had a project, an outsourced one, that provided code written in PHP and included dozens of open-source utilities, libraries, and the like. Their server-side code was in PHP, and their client-side was in JavaScript. Both sides also used many libraries and utilities.

When we ran Checkmarx, it found numerous problems in both their code and the third-party software, including hundreds of high- and medium-severity issues in the PHP code. I didn't dig into the specifics; I just said, "Look, it found hundreds of high and medium problems. You need to reduce them. Before testing starts, you need to provide us the code again, and we'll run it again."

They started fixing it, and while I didn't follow up on the specific fixes, perhaps they removed some libraries. As long as the number of high and medium problems in the Checkmarx report decreased, it meant they were making progress. They hadn't finished yet, though.

After they fixed about half of the problems, we allowed them to start integration. However, they still need to fix the remaining issues, and hopefully, they will.

The most valuable feature is that Checkmarx specifies the exact line of code where it finds the problem. They show it in the report, the exact line or two lines. They also show where the problem starts and where it's used. 

Even if it's used later in routines or messages during the computation, they show both sides. For example, they show the user input and where it's being used, even if it's saved in a different file. 

They follow the code, the function code, the method code, and all the calls until it's used because they have all the code mapped. So, they show where it starts, where it's being used, and they say it hasn't been checked all the way. They prove it, not just say it, by showing exactly where the issue is. 

Even if you don't know the software, like third-party software you want to fix or modify, you know where to start looking in the code.

As for the UI, it's okay. You give it the code, it runs, and it's pretty good.

There's one thing Checkmarx can maybe fix, actually two things.

First, when we first ran it on a big project, there wasn't enough memory on the computer. It originally ran with eight gigabytes, and now it runs with 32. The software stopped at some point, and while I don't think it said it ran out of memory, it just said "stopped" and something else. 

We had to go to the logs and send them to the integrator, and eventually, they found a memory issue in the logs and recommended increasing the memory. We doubled it once, and it didn't seem enough. We doubled it again, and it helped.

So, even if the software reaches capacity on the computer, even though it writes it in the logs, it should also give an indication in the GUI to the person running it, saying "not enough memory" or "not enough disk space."

Another problem is that when it's scanning and it has an internal problem, for example, it cannot check something, or an internal bug or internal problem, it's being found in the logs, but there's no indication to the user. Now, this is good for them because the user runs it, gets a report, everything's fine.

But in a way, it's not good for them because the user doesn't know there's a problem since they don't check the logs. Because mostly, only the manager looks at the logs and only if there's a problem being reported. You run a process, get a report, but in the logs, there might be an indication that it couldn't check several files or understand something. There's a problem, an internal problem that can be fixed, but nobody knows about it because we don't look at the code. The user doesn't look at the logs; only the business manager does, but they don't know because the user doesn't report it, because the user doesn't know.

So, my suggestion for them is this: if they have problems, they should say, 'Here is the report,' but also indicate to the user somewhere, perhaps in the GUI, not necessarily in the report itself, 'We found 100 problems while looking at your code. Please provide us the logs so we can try to fix those.' Then they can ask if the user has any problems. This way, users would know to send them their logs, and they could improve their software, meaning fix the problems.

Now, they may not want to do this because they'll get flooded with millions of responses and millions of problems from all over the world. They would have to fix them, and people might get angry, asking why they provided a report when there were hidden problems. People might say, 'How come you gave me a report with seven or eight problems when analyzing it, there were internal problems with your code? So it's not a perfect report.'"

So, these internal issues are logged but not communicated to the user through the Checkmarx interface (GUI) or report.

The solution also has a few false positives. So, if they had an easier way for users to send an email directly, instead of just opening a ticket. Because when we open a ticket, they want all the logs and everything, and it becomes a hassle.

Perhaps they could implement an easier system where users can send a snippet of the code, along with an explanation of why they believe it's a false positive, referencing the specific report. 

This way, Checkmarx could analyze the information and the development team could potentially fix the product in those areas. It wouldn't require them to necessarily respond to the user, but I'm not sure if that's feasible for most companies. 

I have been using it for one year. 

If you have enough memory, it's scalable. You need a lot of memory for it to be scalable. 

Once you have enough memory, it is stable and scalable, and there are one or two parameters you can modify to make it even more scalable. Scalability is relatively fine.

For the scanning option, the default is to use only one main language, but you can request multiple languages. It's scalable.

Nowadays, nearly all the developers, when they finish development, either they or the team leader runs it, and they have to fix the problems.

The customer service and support are okay because the thing is, we spoke with the integrator, so we didn't reach Checkmarx tech support.

Positive

The setup was done by an integration company. 

I would definitely recommend it. It's an excellent solution.  

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten because there is always room for improvement. 

Checkmarx could perhaps give more examples of solutions in the reports. It's very good, but sometimes the solutions they give are not necessarily relevant to the code or how it's written. 

So, Checkmarx should give more examples of solutions. Although, it's not that bad because they give a few, one or two. And if you want more, you can look online. But it would help if they could refine it and give additional options for solutions.