Salt Security vs Tenable Nessus comparison

"Salt Security has positively impacted my organization and my client's organization by being able to stop cyberattacks and ensure that they have proper security over all their applications, giving them a sense of peace of mind that they have security over something that could ultimately take down the whole company if not mitigated properly."

"Salt Security gave me much better visibility into API risk, helping me identify exposed endpoints, misconfigured APIs, and sensitive data flowing through APIs that required additional controls, and it has become an important part of my API security program."

"It's really great. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. I haven't encountered any instability issues."

"Salt Security gives you visibility of all your APIs, identifies API security issues, and immediately alerts you of attacks."

"It provides multiple recommendations towards the remedy of vulnerabilities."

"Overall Zoom is a good solution."

"Tenable Nessus streamlines the process of scanning for our organization."

"The initial setup is very straightforward."

"Tenable integrates well with other solutions such as SIEM and batch management."

"The most valuable features of Tenable Nessus are the scanning option. Advanced scanning is highly useful. The offline config audits and application assessments are useful."

"You can then direct your team to create a report on the discovered vulnerabilities."

"Quick assessments, compliance scores, and results are provided without having to do agents."

"Regarding scalability, for users in smaller environments, it is not exactly the best."

"The setup cost was acceptable, but adding additional APIs was actually quite expensive."

"The integration part could be a bit extended."

"They have added a new Tenable Nessus Expert. That is their new product, which caters to the cloud and everything else. I am assuming that the new features and product enhancements are based on that tool set, but we haven't reviewed it yet."

"The reports should be improved in Tenable Nessus. For example, when you are auditing compliance with CIS standards. It provides very poor reports."

"The price could be more reasonable. I used the free Nessus version in my lab with which you can only scan 16 IP addresses. If I wanted to put it in the lab in my network at work, and I'm doing a test project that has over 30 nodes in it, I can't use the free version of Nessus to scan it because there are only 16 IP addresses. I can't get an accurate scan. The biggest thing with all the cybersecurity tools out there nowadays, especially in 2020, is that there's a rush to get a lot of skilled cybersecurity analysts out there. Some of these companies need to realize that a lot of us are working from home and doing proof of concepts, and some of them don't even offer trials, or you get a trial and it is only 16 IP addresses. I can't really do anything with it past 16. I'm either guessing or I'm doing double work to do my scans. Let's say there was a license for 50 users or 50 IP addresses. I would spend about 200 bucks for that license to accomplish my job. This is the biggest complaint I have as of right now with all cybersecurity tools, including Rapid7, out there, especially if I'm in a company that is trying to build its cybersecurity program. How am I going to tell my boss, who has no real budget of what he needs to build his cybersecurity program, to go spend over $100,000 for a tool he has never seen, whereas, it would pack the punch if I could say, "Let me spend 200 bucks for a 50 user IP address license of this product, do a proof of concept to scan 50 nodes, and provide the reason for why we need it." I've been a director, and now I'm an ISO. When I was a director, I had a budget for an IT department, so I know how budgets work. As an ISO, the only thing that's missing from my C-level is I don't have to deal with employees and budgets, but I have everything else. It's hard for me to build the program and say, "Hey, I need these tools." If I can't get a trial, I would scratch that off the list and find something else. I'm trying to set up Tenable.io to do external PCI scans. The documentation says to put in your IP addresses or your external IP addresses. However, if the IP address is not routable, then it says that you have to use an internal agent to scan. This means that you set up a Nessus agent internally and scan, which makes sense. However, it doesn't work because when you use the plugin and tell it that it is a PCI external, it says, "You cannot use an internal agent to scan external." The documentation needs to be a little bit more clear about that. It needs to say if you're using the PCI external plugin, all IP addresses must be external and routable. It should tell the person who's setting it up, "Wait a minute. If you have an MPLS network and you're in a multi-tenant environment and the people who hold the network schema only provide you with the IP addresses just for your tenant, then you are not going to know what the actual true IP address that Tenable needs to do a PCI scan." I've been working on Tenable.io to set up PCI scans for the last ten days. I have been going back and forth to the network thinking I need this or that only to find out that I'm teaching their team, "Hey, you know what, guys? I need you to look past your MPLS network. I need you to go to the edge's edge. Here's who you need to ask to give me the whitelist to allow here." I had the blurb that says the plugin for external PCI must be reachable, and you cannot use an internal agent. I could have cut a few days because I thought I had it, but then when I ran it, it said that you can't run it this way. I wasted a few hours in a day. In terms of new features, it doesn't require new features. It is a tool that has been out there for years. It is used in the cybersecurity community. It has got the CV database in it, and there are other plugins that you could pass through. It has got APIs you can attach to it. They can just improve the database and continue adding to the database and the plugins to make sure those don't have false positives. If you're a restaurant and you focus on fried chicken, you have no business doing hamburgers."

"We have had some false positives in the past, which we hope can improve in the future."

"I think the reporting templates could be improved with Tenable Nessus."

"Tenable Nessus could improve the reporting."

"The interface is a little bit clunky, and the reporting is not marvelous. There should be better integration of reporting between instances. Currently, the instance stands alone, and it produces a report. Being able to amalgamate those reports with another instance will be useful."

"One area that has room for improvement is the reporting. I'm preparing reports for Windows and Linux machines, etc. Currently, I'm collecting three or four reports and turning them into one report. I don't know if it is possible to combine all of them in one report, but that would be helpful."

"The price of Tenable Nessus is too expensive for each service center."

"While Tenable Nessus is a good enterprise solution, the high price would likely make it prohibitive to smaller organizations."

"When comparing the price of Tenable Nessus to other similar solutions, such as Acunetix, Tenable Nessus is not as expensive. It is averagely priced in the market. We pay for the solution annually."

"It has a fair cost and very good cost-benefit ratio."

"The pricing is much more manageable versus other products."

"Nessus Manager is not an expensive product. It has its limitations, but the pricing reflects that. We have a yearly subscription."

"The price of Tenable Nessus is much more competitive versus other solutions on the market."

"This solution is affordable."