Salt Security vs Tenable Nessus comparison

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

"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."

"The product's most valuable features are vulnerability and asset management. It can define the rules and validate the configuration."

"My advice for anybody who is considering Tenable Nessus is that it is easy to install, easy and straightforward to use, and not expensive."

"The most valuable feature of Tenable Nessus is the GUI and user-friendliness. Additionally, the environment is easy to work with."

"Tenable Nessus is one of the best vulnerability assessment tools, that I know."

"Nessus has more plugins/add-ons, tests, and templates than previous tools and it is faster and customizable using CLI/API features, offering enough resources for an interesting cost-benefit rating and fewer false-positive events per type of asset while helping us quickly produce a QuickWin report that guided vulnerability management actions and plans for the next three to five years using the same tool, investment, and team for all companies in the group."

"I have experience with it on my attack stations, and it's pretty good to optimize. Personally, I think Nessus is quite a good product."

"The most valuable feature of Tenable Nessus is the self-updating engine."

"If you are implementing it as part of an ongoing VA or retention operation, you should probably use Tenable."

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

"The integration part could be a bit extended."

"Remediation needs improvement. They are providing a lot of superseded KBs as remediation."

"Lacks some penetration testing-related services."

"The price could be more reasonable. I used the free Nessus version in my lab with which you can only scan 16 IP addresses."

"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."

"Vulnerability recommendations are outdated and not in line with industry standards."

"I have found it is sometimes difficult to control the Zoom meeting sessions. For example, it is difficult to know who is talking and when trying to mute everyone but the speaker you end up muting everyone. When using multiple screens it is laborious to find the control buttons, such as to start a session. Additionally, when a recording is done I have found it difficult to find them, there should be an easier way to retrieve them."

"You can scale Nessus to the extent that you can afford it. You need to have a license for every device you scan. As long as you can afford the increased costs, you won't have a problem scaling it."

"Tenable Nessus is not feasible for a large company."

"I rate the product's price seven or eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."

"The price is high for the solution. There are free tools with similar functionality available. The solution cost approximately $3,500."

"Its price is high for Libya. The companies here in Libya don't have the awareness of and a good budget for cybersecurity services. If you want them to go for a product, you need to provide something different. This differentiation is related to the price. They should give about 40% to 45% discount per person on the current cost."

"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."

"We have a subscription, the licensing fees are paid yearly, and I am using the latest version."

"The price of Tenable Nessus could improve, it is expensive."

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

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