Fortify on Demand Reviews

I analyzed more than 20 applications implemented in BIT Brainery University. The static analysis has to be done every release before putting it in production.

Even though it was our final choice, it has saved us a lot of time as we focus primarily on programming rather than tool operational work. We did not need third-party consultants.

We shared the easy to use dashboard with our programmers and involved outsourcers for a quick issues fix. 

It lacks of some important features that the competitors have, such as Software Composition Analysis, full dead code detection, and Agile Alliance's Best Practices and Technical Debt.

Fortify on Demand is primarily used in DevSecOps in a banking environment.

Fortify on Demand could be improved with support in Russia.

I've been working with Fortify on Demand for two years.

Fortify on Demand is stable.

Fortify on Demand can be scaled very easily.

Deployment takes between four to six months.

We use an in-house team.

Fortify on Demand is affordable, and its licensing comes with a year of support.

I would give Fortify on Demand a rating of nine out of ten.

We recommend this product to our customers. We act as vendors and resellers. This is actually one of the solutions we often recommend to our customers most often. Usually, this is the best choice for banking and financial institutions. It is deployed by their development team in-house. They use it to manage and test product lifecycles.  

We actually find all of the product's features valuable. But at this point, we are trying to upsell by adding additional components like RAFT (Re-usable Automation Framework for Testing) to the test cycle.  

Strictly in terms of this product, I think it is a top-notch solution and I think the technology is still the best on the market. What might be improved is maybe just look at the pricing. It is a bit confusing compared to other products that we also sell.  

Whatever innovation they can come up with would be an excellent addition if it adds useful functionality. The only thing I can think of that they might add is something like features you can find in Codebashing that they have not yet implemented. I don't know if it has all of those features. If not, it would be useful for something like that to be added.  

We have been suggesting the product since before the merger with Hewlett Packard.  

This is a very stable product.  

This product is scalable. Most of our customers are enterprise customers. I can point out three off the top of my head. If the product can scale to the enterprise level, it makes sense that it is quite scalable.  

The technical support is actually a problem that needs to be addressed. Since the acquisition and merger with Hewlett Packard, it has been really hard to know who the technical or salesperson to talk to. Micro Focus has a whole lot of solutions that are of value in our region, but it seems that they are not doing a proper job of coordination of knowledge. There is a huge knowledge gap from the Micro Focus team in the way they support businesses. We were hoping that the transition was the thing that affected the lack of better support. But by now we should be able to point to who the person is that is in charge and the person to talk to when it comes to the various products. I really don't know anybody in charge of the technical team to help us properly with issues.  

I think the initial setup for the on-demand product is straightforward. The product installed on-premises is somewhat complex. For this reason, it is better that the on-premises version is installed with the help of integrators or consultants. 

I would definitely recommend Micro Focus Fortify any day for clients who are looking for a good security solution.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Micro Focus Fortify on Demand as a nine out of ten.  

My primary use case is to help the teams in development. It helps us scan.

First, you don't have very high requirement and we could do it quickly and efficiently. Second, it was easy for us to install the reading bot facing challenges and such, while doing that installation. Third, when we were doing the scan, it was self intuitive and we were able to scan faster while we had two challenges in the other two solutions that we were using. In terms of finding out where to configure, what are the next steps to configure what we are missing and those kind of areas.

Usually what happens, because we were part of the COE, we had to find those faster and go through old ECs and deliver the results to the short duration income. So, that's where it helped us, it helped us setting up that environment quickly on a laptop, do the scan and come back.

The features I found most valuable is that it is very configurable. The installation was also very easy. 

Yeah, some of the technologies and framework for libraries were not available at that point of time. For example, if it was in the back end, at that point in time we had to look at other tools. There were some analytical compliances so when we had more tools, it took all the technologies frameworks that Fortify was having. We required this because we were widely working with different clients for the different varieties of technology and domains. There were some regulated compliances, which were not there, but these were the factors because of which we had to use some instances of other tools as well.

I do not remember any issues with stability. Of course, it is common that if there is some misconfiguration, it can lead to crashes and the site of the code can crash. But, this is something we have learned to tweak and estimate the length of code before the site of the application. Then, we can consider which technology could be configured, what technology should be excluded, and then scan to optimize some of the related issues.

In terms of the scalability of the solution, we did not have a centralized server connecting to multiple clients. We did not have scalablility issues due to our small-scale use.

We had a good tech support experience.

It was very straightforward in comparison to other solutions that we had used in the past.

The licensing was good because the licenses have the heavy centralized server. It connects to the other PTs, or even if it connects to the old EC servers. We had to put it within an old EC, in order for the licensing to be available at all scales.Then, you had to open multiple ports in that scenario that was not possible. But, you can do it at the application level, which is faster. You can buy a license, do a scan at that level, as well as scale up. So we also had multiple requests in terms of helping a client before they start in terms of doing something easy so that you do not require a complete license to be purchased.

We were using many other tools like TechAbility, IBM AppScan and I think these were the predominant ones.

Today's security has become so complex that you cannot lean completely dependent on one tool. What I have learned is that you should have multiple tools. Now, with different areas coming into space, all of these tools have to co-exist. To make the right choice of a tool is really important. A solution must have ease-of-use. If it becomes too difficult for installing, configuring, learning the scan, then the add option becomes a challenge.

We are architecting applications for e-commerce websites similar to Amazon. Everything is running on the cloud, and Micro Focus Fortify on Demand is totally integrated with our solution at this point in time.

Almost all the features are good. This solution has simplified designing and architecting for our solutions. We were early adopters of microservices.

Their documentation is good. You don't need to put in much effort in setting it up and learning stuff from scratch and start using it. The learning curve is not too much.

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.

I have been using this solution for three years.

We have not come across anything major. We have been using it for quite a while, and we are happy with it. 

Scalability is good. Our customer bases are not that huge. Bigger enterprises may have trouble in scaling it, but for our load of work, it is working fine.

We have more than ten users. We are a very small startup, and we don't have too many people. 

Till now, we have not raised any tickets. If we are stuck with something, we just google and find out. We use their documentation, which is good enough. That's why we didn't raise any technical queries or things like that.

It was good. I don't think we struggled that much.

We implemented it ourselves. We have two people to maintain this solution.

We didn't evaluate any other solution. I was trying to find out which solution should I use, and I just saw good reviews of this solution. This was the first solution that we tried out, and we liked it. We started with a trial, and it was doing good. Our necessities were met, so we didn't try to figure out any other competitive tool in the market. 

You can choose this product for sure with a lot of confidence. It entirely depends on how you are exploring the stuff and trying to integrate it. Designing has to be good. It has all the features, but exploring the features and using it as per your need is important. It is not that features are not there. You just need to explore them and know how to use them. 

I would rate Micro Focus Fortify on Demand an eight out of ten. It is a good product. However, it needs improvements from the security aspect and from the aspect of integrations with other popular tools in the market.

We are using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand because in the beginning we were using the on-premise version and it was very limited. We thought we could do everything wanted with the on-premise solution. However, it was not easy to use. 

We are testing the Micro Focus Fortify on Demand solution to improve security.

We are using the on-premise version of this solution for the static code for developers. For the dynamic code, we're using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand.

There is not only one specific feature that we find valuable. The idea is to integrate the solution in DevSecOps which we were able to do. We were working with a different solution called SolarCloud previously and it was limited. We are trying to find the right level of security for our needs.

I have been using Micro Focus Fortify on Demand for approximately eight months.

The support is good. Their support is in the Netherlands, sometimes it takes some time for the time zone difference between Latin America and the Netherlands but overall the support is good.

The implementation of Micro Focus Fortify on Demand was simple, since it is on the cloud everything is automatic. They give you an account and that is all, you use the product.

The premise solution is more rentable. However, it is asking for a lot of effort in the implementation, administration, and integration in the pipeline. It takes time until the company comes to the right level to be able to manage this product. Even with the right partners in Latin America that work with us, it took some time.

We had partners in Latin America that help us integrate the implementation of the Micro Focus Fortify on Demand.

The solution is expensive and the price could be reduced.

My advice to others is if you choose Micro Focus Fortify on Demand, it's very simple to use. If they choose the on-premise version for the static code, they will need a person to manage it to be sure that it's integrated with all the pipelines that they developed. 

I rate Micro Focus Fortify on Demand a seven out of ten.

What is most useful is how you can have related features upgraded on the tools. The tools themselves have details for the code as well, where the issues have been flagged, and all the vulnerabilities are there, in one place.

The solution has some problems with latency. Sometimes it takes a while to respond. This issue should be addressed.

They should improve the data path where the issue has been flagged. They can improve the flow module details. If you can understand from the data flow or data path what is happening, you can better understand what the issue is.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is okay in terms of scalability. I'm still not really familiar with the tool, and I'm still learning from it. So far, I think it has a good ability to scale.

Technical support is okay. They have a platform that you can create tickets on. Once you raise a ticket, support is quick to help you. 

If they wanted to improve technical support they could offer meetings with the developer or security team.

It's a cloud-based solution, so there was no installation involved.

We use the cloud deployment model of the solution.

Whether or not you decide to implement the solution depends on the use case. It depends on if the user has a big application or multiple lines of code which need to be scanned. New users need to do POC so they can investigate if this tool fits in their company or their enterprise before they begin implementation. Everyone should do a comparison before implementing or doing the rollout of any security tool.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

Both editions of the product have their advantages, and they complement each other.

Since we adopted HP Fortify, our organization has added more divisions that focus on penetration testing.

HP Fortify already covers the need for security testing and is easy to use for new users. The only thing that comes to mind regarding room for improvement are the security vulnerability updates.

My company has been using this solution for about one year.

I have not encountered any deployment, stability or scalability issues. I haven't had any complaints about technical issues from our client, either.

I have not yet contacted customer service or technical support.

I do know of some software that have similarities, but I’ve never used any of them before.

Most of our clients use straightforward implementation; we recommend straightforward implementation because of the simplicity of the architecture and usage. For example, installing using the best practices for each product.

We implemented it for our customer.

HP Fortify is perfect for any company that creates their own applications or uses vendor-developed ones; it’s great for QA and development phases.

HP Fortify is easy to use and offers lots of integration options; those options allow us to have more diverse implementations that fit the requirements.