Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Defensics Protocol Fuzzing vs OpenText Core Application Security comparison

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
6.7
Number of Reviews
62
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (14th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (12th)
 

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 18.3%, down 21.0% compared to last year.
OpenText Core Application Security, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 3.2% mindshare, down 4.6% since last year.
Fuzz Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Defensics Protocol Fuzzing18.3%
PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional32.7%
GitLab26.7%
Other22.299999999999997%
Fuzz Testing Tools
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Core Application Security3.2%
SonarQube16.9%
Checkmarx One9.9%
Other70.0%
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

"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... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"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."
"The solution is very fast."
"The user interface is good."
"It improves future security scans."
"The best features with Fortify on Demand include having analysis for any product based on analysis points."
"It has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"While using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand we have been very happy with the results and findings."
"The licensing was good."
 

Cons

"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."
".NET code scanning is still dependent on building the code base before running any scan. Also, it's dependent on an IDE such as Visual Studio."
"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."
"There's a bit of a learning curve. Our development team is struggling with following the rules and following the new processes."
"Fortify on Demand needs to improve its pricing."
"The product has a lot of false positives."
"Micro Focus Fortify on Demand could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly."
"The Visual Studio plugin seems to hang when a scan is run on big projects. I would expect some improvements there."
"There is room for improvement in the integration process."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is a bit expensive."
"If I exceed one million lines of code, there might be an extra cost or a change in the pricing bracket."
"We are still using the trial version at this point but I can already see from the trial version alone that it is a good product. For others, I would say that Fortify on Demand might look expensive at the beginning, but it is very powerful and so you shouldn't be put off by the price."
"The pricing can be improved because it is complex when compared to the competition."
"We used the one-time application, Security Scan Dynamic. I believe the original fee was $8,000."
"There are different costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand depending on the assessments you want to use. There is only a standard license needed to use the solution."
"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."
"The pricing model it's based on how many applications you wish to scan."
"It is not more expensive than other solutions, but the pricing is competitive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
882,479 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise44
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
It helps deploy and track changes easily as per time-to-time market upgrades.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
In comparison with other tools, they're competitive. It is not more expensive than other solutions, but their pricing is competitive. The licenses for Fortify On Demand are generally bought in unit...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Fortify on Demand?
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. T...
 

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.