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

Synopsys Defensics vs w3af comparison

 

Categories and Ranking

Synopsys Defensics
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Fuzz Testing Tools (5th)
w3af
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (45th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Synopsys Defensics and w3af aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Synopsys Defensics is designed for Fuzz Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 20.5%, up 12.0% compared to last year.
w3af, on the other hand, focuses on Application Security Tools, holds 0.1% mindshare, down 0.1% since last year.
Fuzz Testing Tools
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

it_user586716 - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical support provided protocol-specific documentation to prove that some positives were not false.
A security assurance engineer was able to perform due diligence across all network-facing protocols. My prior organization designed, developed and deployed a Network Attached Storage (NAS) appliance. A key part of the company wide security assurance program for all products, is to perform penetration testing against all network facing IP ports. For the web, SSL and RESTful APIs, there are very good COTS and open source tools to perform Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) testing. Unfortunately for NAS protocols like SMB, NFS, CIFS, and iSCSI, I researched and found that Codenomicon Defensics was the only viable source to satisfy our DAST requirements. Through the use of Selenium for automated web testing, it was easily found out that Codenomicon Defensics could be integrated into our Continuous Integration / Continuous Deployment (CI / CD) Agile processes, specific to automated testing. Also, like many of the other application security testing products, Defensics incorporates automatic update support and works on Windows, MacOS and Linux desktops.
OS
It's buggy and seems to try to do too many things, but having this on a USB drive has been valuable.
I tried to install this on numerous systems and eventually, with help, I got it running. It needs far too many dependencies installed and there's too much messing about to be of much use. Once running, it's buggy and begs the question can it be relied upon? Even within Kali it reports website time-outs, yet Zap or Burp are able to do a successful scan. I wanted this to work so much and be able to use it as an additional check of my results but have now binned it.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fuzz Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Healthcare Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

Defensics, Codenomicon Defensics
No data available
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coriant, CERT-FI, Next Generation Networks
Information Not Available