No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (4th)
OpenText Core Application S...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
64
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (11th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Defensics Protocol Fuzzing is designed for Fuzz Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 15.1%, down 23.3% compared to last year.
OpenText Core Application Security, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 3.4% mindshare, down 3.9% since last year.
Fuzz Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing15.1%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional34.9%
GitLab31.1%
Other18.900000000000006%
Fuzz Testing Tools
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.4%
SonarQube10.6%
Checkmarx One7.0%
Other79.0%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Senior Technical Lead at HCL Technologies
Product security tests for switches and router sections
Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install. What I see in the documentation isn't that. Even if something doesn't malfunction, sometimes it is hard to install and execute. The product needs video documentation. This would help a lot more.
Himanshu_Tyagi - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Cybersecurity at TBO
Supports secure development pipelines and improves issue detection but limits internal visibility and needs broader dashboard integration
If you have an internal team and you want your internal team to validate false positives, basically to determine whether it's a valid issue or an invalid issue, then I wouldn't recommend it much. That was the only reason we migrated from Fortify on Demand to another solution. Fortify has another tool which is Fortify WebInspect. On Demand is the outsourcing solution, and WebInspect you can use with your in-house team, which is basically the product developed by the Fortify team. For automated scanning, Fortify helps a lot. Regarding the visibility for the internal team, everyone is moving toward the DevSecOps side, and Fortify team has made good progress that you can integrate into your CICD pipeline. One thing I would highlight is if Fortify can focus more on the centralized dashboard of the tools because nowadays, tools such as SentinelOne also exist for identifying security issues, but they have a centralized dashboard that merges their cloud solution and application security side solution together. If you have one tool that works for different solutions, it helps a lot. They are doing good, but they should invest more on the AI side as well because AI security is evolving these days. On the cloud side, they have already made good progress, but I believe they should explore the new area related to AI security as well.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"ROI was 100%. Since there are no product suites available that provide the level of testing available with Codenomicon, the development, quality and security assurance departments know that the investment was correct."
"Simple and straightforward GUI."
"The stability of this product is great; we tested it under multiple constraints and even on cloud services it is absolutely stable."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent; it will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure, and because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"The best features with Fortify on Demand include having analysis for any product based on analysis points."
"If somebody wants to shift left or integrate security early on in the CI/CD pipeline from a DevOps standpoint, this is probably one of the best tools available."
"The licensing was good."
"The solution saves us a lot of money, and we're trying to reduce exposure and costs related to remediation."
"I would definitely recommend Micro Focus Fortify any day for clients who are looking for a good security solution."
"Fortify on Demand's best feature is that there's no need to install and configure it locally since it's on the cloud."
"The most valuable features are the server, scanning, and it has helped identify issues with the security analysis."
"The static code analyzers are the most valuable features of this solution."
 

Cons

"It requires understanding the Defensics protocol."
"You can't implement proprietary ciphering algorithms, nor can you modify protocol models if you need to test customized public protocols."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"I would advise others not to use Fortify, but rather get something like Veracode or Checkmarx."
"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."
"Takes up a lot of resources which can slow things down."
"The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to."
"Reporting could be improved. It would nice to export to an Excel sheet or another spreadsheet."
"Technical support is 6/10. I find the Internet to be more helpful at times than their own tech support in finding answers."
"They could provide features for artificial intelligence similar to other vendors."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"It's a yearly contract, but I don't remember the dollar amount."
"The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced."
"The price is fair compared to that of other solutions."
"Fortify on Demand is more expensive than Burpsuite. I rate its pricing a nine out of ten."
"I'd rate it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."
"Despite being on the higher end in terms of cost, the biggest value lies in its abilities, including robust features, seamless integration, and high-quality findings."
"We make an annual purchase of the licenses we need."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
916,582 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise46
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
Areas for improvement should be contextualized post the OpenText acquisition, but back when I was working with Micro Focus, they focused heavily on enterprise-centric solutions. Now, after the acqu...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
For OpenText Core Application Security, I currently support a couple of my clients who are using Fortify on Demand for their web application, CRM, and sales platform. Many good features of Fortify ...
What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
I use Fortify on Demand for monitoring up to a certain extent; it provides monitoring and helps analyze and identify issues that could propagate in the application. When used in conjunction with Ar...
 

Also Known As

Codenomicon Defensics
Micro Focus Fortify on Demand
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
SAP, Aaron's, British Gas, FICO, Cox Automative, Callcredit Information Group, Vital and more.