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 (8th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (7th)
 

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 16.1%, down 22.4% compared to last year.
OpenText Core Application Security, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 3.5% mindshare, down 3.6% since last year.
Fuzz Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing16.1%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional35.2%
GitLab30.2%
Other18.5%
Fuzz Testing Tools
Application Security Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.5%
SonarQube10.2%
Checkmarx One6.8%
Other79.5%
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."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"The stability of this product is great; we tested it under multiple constraints and even on cloud services it is absolutely stable."
"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 product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"Simple and straightforward GUI."
"It is valuable in improving our overall security posture by catching significant errors."
"Audit workbench: for on-the-fly defect auditing."
"The most valuable features are the server, scanning, and it has helped identify issues with the security analysis."
"Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions."
"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."
"The SAST feature is the most valuable."
"The implementation of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand was simple, since it is on the cloud everything is automatic."
"It is an extremely robust, scalable, and stable solution."
 

Cons

"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"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 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."
"New technologies and DevOps could be improved. Fortify on Demand can be slow (slower than other vendors) to support new technologies or new software versions."
"Primarily for a complex, advanced website, they don't really understand some of the functionalities. So for instance, they could tell us that there is a vulnerability because somebody could possibly do something, but they don't really understand the code to realize that we actually negate that vulnerability through some other mechanism in the program. In addition, the technical support is just not there. We have open tickets. They don't respond. Even if they respond, we're not seeing eye to eye. As the company got sold and bought, the support got worse."
"Integration to CI/CD pipelines could be improved. The reporting format could be more user friendly so that it is easy to read."
"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."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the reports. They could benefit from being more user-friendly and intuitive."
"In terms of communication, they can integrate a few more third-party tools. It would be great if we can have more options for microservice communication. They can also improve the securability a bit more because security is one of the biggest aspects these days when you are using the cloud. Some more security features would be really helpful."
"Micro Focus support is slow, and they should improve that."
"The product has a lot of false positives."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"Buying a license would be feasible for regular use. For intermittent use, the cloud-based option can be used (Fortify on Demand)."
"Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support."
"It is quite expensive. Pricing and the licensing model could be improved."
"The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server."
"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."
"We make an annual purchase of the licenses we need."
"Fortify on Demand is moderately priced, but its pricing could be more flexible."
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
921,338 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

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