Mend.io Reviews

We use WhiteSource mainly to:

1. Detect and automate vulnerability remediation. We started to research solutions since our dev teams are unable to meet sprint deadlines and keep track of product security. Most of our code scans are automated and integrated within our pipeline, which integrates with our CI server. With some, we run them manually using an agent. We recently started using the repository integration with Github, too, pre-build.
2. License reporting and attribution reports. We use attribution reports and due diligence reports to asses risks associated with open-source licenses.

WhiteSource is very easy to run and use. It reduced significantly the time our developers used to spend on issues in open-source libraries. We used a free tool before and the number of alerts was too high to handle.

We recently implemented WhiteSource on our Github account.

It provides our developers with better visibility into open source libraries within their code environment, which helps the company in ensuring dev adoption.

When it comes to open-source licenses, it really simplified reporting as it provides an inventory list in a simple report. Before WhiteSource it was almost impossible, mostly due to transitive dependencies.

The most valuable features for us are:

1. Fix suggestions. Our dev team uses the fix suggestions feature to quickly find the best path for remediation. Before that you would have to research online for fixes, and most of the time it’s not that straightforward.
2. Trace analysis. Trace analysis enables our team to get the fix, including a clear path to the vulnerable method. This saves quite some time.
3. Open-source inventory reports. These reports are easy to manage and provide a clear view of our open-source assets. There’s also an option to create policies around that.

The changes that we would like to see are mostly usability issues.

The UI can be slow once in a while, and we're not sure if it's because of the amount of data we have, or it is just a slow product, but it would be nice if it could be improved.

The UI is also too crowded. I believe that less information, or a different data summary, can be more readable. I know this is something they’re currently working on, but not sure where it stands. 

Reporting could be easier, as it does not export filtered-down lists. It would be really valuable to add the ability to customize options in the reports.

We have been using WhiteSource for one and a half years.

Stable.

Didn't have any problems related to scale so far.

No

I can easily generate reports and get a quick overview of my status.

Yes, Snyk

We started using WhiteSource mainly to scan dependencies and detect open-source licenses, copyright information, and vulnerabilities.

We’ve managed to establish an integration with our CICD pipelines and use pretty much all of the automation that is offered, including automated policies.

We were able to integrate the product naturally into our development process and it provided results really fast. You can easily use the unified agent and connect your CICD tools. It scans all of your source code quickly and it took us just a few minutes to run. The REST API is really good as well.

In the past, running similar tools or trying to get feedback on our open-source state was almost impossible.

Our primary goal was to get the license reports, but now we have a full end-to-end process that automates all license management, open-source license approval, rejection, ticket assignment, and more.

Our use case focuses on licenses, so the most valuable feature would probably be the license reports and policies, which is why we reached out in the first place.

The reporting capability gives us the option to generate an open-source license report in a single click, which gets all copyright and license information, including dependencies.

We use the Policies feature to approve or reject automatically open-source licenses, according to preset company policy.

With respect to ticketing, we use the JIRA integration to assign a problematic open-source library. It opens a ticket on our end and it is assigned automatically to the right owner. It saves a lot of hassle and simplifies the process internally.

It would be nice to have a better way to realize its full potential and translate it within the UI or during onboarding.

We have been using WhiteSource for six months.

Given the different solutions in that space, WhiteSource was the best solution for our needs. We’ve found it was able to manage all dependencies, automate alerts, and provide us with easy and quick license reports, attribution and copyright information.

I believe we’re still in a stage where we’re trying to gain all the benefits of the solution and understand what features can be maximized.

The product is simple on one hand as it's so easy to use, run and get insights from, but on the other hand, it offers so much that it’s hard to fully grasp all its capabilities.

I’m not sure I have the best knowledge so far to recommend features and capabilities since this is very new to us. Currently, we’re happy to have something that addresses our needs.

To prevent shipping commercial or GPL libraries, we scan our repositories.

Scanning/collecting third-party libraries and classifying license types. In this way we ensure our third-party software policy is followed and that we’re not using “forbidden” libraries.

Better ACL and more role definitions. This product could be used by large organisations but it definitely needs a better role/action model.

Right now (in my understanding) there are roles for WhiteSource Admin and Members and Product Admins and Members.

Here are some suggestions:

• When you create a new product “A” (for example)  then automatically create the user groups A-Admin, A-Members, A-Alerts and A-Approvers. In that way you just need to assign users.
• Have a new role “Product Status Updates”,  because I don’t want all product admins to receive the status or to have all who get the status as product admins.
• Have a new role “WhiteSource Status Updates” - I want to have different groups to be admins or to receive a status report.
• Have a new role “Audit” to receive audits.

One to three years.

No issues, it's working really well.

No issues so far.

Eight out of 10. Always responsive.

We were using editors or Wiki to keep that information, but obviously it was not updated.

It wasn’t too complex because you have different options for integrating your repositories, from a simple directory scan to a complex plug-in. We decided to begin with the simplest one and adopt new integrations step by step.

Pricing / licensing model changed during last year so I don’t have an opinion here yet.

I evaluated Black Duck.

It’s important to define guidelines and best practices regarding how to use the product internally; who defines what? Who accesses what? 

Best way to integrate my GitHub repo, my Maven project, etc.

Our primary use is to find all the third-party libraries and open source libraries which are hidden in the software, such that no third-party libraries are forgotten.

1. To get an overview of all these third-party components.
2. To get some information from WhiteSource about which licenses are behind the third-party tool, and what implications these might have for us.

We find licenses together with WhiteSource which are associated with a certain library, then we get a classification of the license. This is with respect to criticality and vulnerability, so we could take action and improve some things, or replace a third-party library which seems to be too risky for us to use on legal grounds. Then, we can take some measures to improve things, replace a library, or update a library which was too old or showed severe bugs, etc.

Several dashboards. The licenses dashboard, which gives me an overview of all the licenses used in our software. For example, right at the moment, there are several hundreds of licenses used. The licenses dashboard and release management dashboard along with reports (like risk, vulnerabilities, high severity, bug alerts, etc.).

Every product has room for improvement, including WhiteSource. The stability of the product is web-based. We are obliged to use the Internet Explorer, and from time-to-time I get messages which tells me that I do not have the rights to use WhiteSource, which is obviously wrong. I also suggested it to WhiteSource, and they told me that WhiteSource only works reliably for Firefox and Chrome. This has some room for improvement for me. Make the product available in a very stable way for other web browsers. 

From time to time, the dashboards don't display the full content that I expect. It seems that licenses are not shown nor are products are shown in full detail. I am just missing things at times. This might be due to the Internet Explorer issue, and if I am not using the right web browser, then maybe it does not work correctly. 

From time-to-time, it seems in Internet Explorer, which we use here in our company, the product is not stable in all cases. I get wrong error messages, and it seems that WhiteSource does not display all the contents that should be there. 

It is good enough. We can live with it in this situation. Though maybe it would be much better if we used Chrome or Firefox.

The picture that I have of it is that it is not yet a fully 100% stable software. This is the impression that I have. It is not 100% stable and reliable, but it is good enough that we can work with it.

We have only six software projects included right now. Altogether, we have several hundred third-party open source components. With this amount of objects displayed in the dashboards, it is working pretty well. I cannot say anything which goes beyond that amount. 

From time-to-time, I have the impression that if it is a long list (e.g., if I have several hundreds of entries in a list), that this list might somehow get a little bit difficult to handle with the scroll bar in finding things. This could be improved, in regards to handling a lot of data. It seems a little bit limited.

We have tech calls with WhiteSource on a regular basis, about every four weeks. 

The customer success manager, who is responsible for us, works with us pretty well. Every several weeks, we have a phone call, then we try to move one step forward to improve things, and so on. 

The overall support that we receive is pretty good. 

We did not use anything before WhiteSource. 

It was not that easy, but easy enough to go ahead. 

From time-to-time, we get some hints from the support on how to work with it. The dashboard is pretty good, so one can easily find things that they are looking for. However, the topic search, it is very complex and complicated to get a qualified picture of all these licenses. I know that there are online resources for us which we can take into account, but taking everything together, it still remains quite complicated for us to work with it.

Up until now, we were convinced that the return of investment was not really the case. However, we will see if maybe we get enough benefit out of the tool that we can argue internally that it is really worth using it.

When using WhiteSource, you cannot really be sure what the ROI is. It is an indication, a hint, that maybe you should look at these licenses or those licenses. However, maybe it has not found everything. Nobody can guarantee that we now have the complete picture. It is maybe an improved picture on all this third-party open-source stuff, but maybe it is also not the complete picture.

We are paying a lot of money to use WhiteSource. In our company, it is not easy to argue that it is worth the price. 

We did evaluate another tool along with WhiteSource, but we decided to take WhiteSource. There was this other tool, Black Duck, but we decided to work with WhiteSource.

However, we have not fully evaluated this tool. It seemed too complicated for us, so at a certain point, we just decided to work with WhiteSource further on.

I recommend using WhiteSource to other companies if they are in a similar situation that we are. If they are having real problems in dealing with all these open source licenses, then it is a good approach to use WhiteSource and get a handle of the whole topic. 

I do recommend it.

To my knowledge, we are using the latest, SaaS, version. 

The solution boasts a broad range of features and covers much of what an ideal SCA tool should. It covers the containers. One can create his teams and, should he encounter an issue, send an alert to the team's DL. 

I am quite happy with WhiteSource. It is very good and provides many things, including extensive reports involving vulnerabilities. 

I am not clear if WhiteSource provides on-premises service. I know that its competitors provide on-premises and SaaS-based services for the same licensing fee and model, but I am not sure if this applies to WhiteSource, as well. I believe it does not. 

It is preferable to use on-cloud services, although on-premises one should equally be an option, if I would prefer to not go for SaaS-based hosting. The licensing model should be the same for the different options. 

The initial setup could be simplified. 

I have been using WhiteSource for more than a year. 

The solution is very stable. 

It is a preferequisite that the solution is scalable, as it is SaaS-based. 

I have not had experience with customer support. 

The initial setup was of an intermediate complexity. It was neither complex, nor straightforward. It could have been easier. Understandably, it involved a certain amount of configuration. 

I cannot comment on billing, as this was handled by other departments in my previous organization. 

As we were using an SaaS-based service, the solution must be scalable, although my understanding is that this is based on the licensing model one is using. 

The reason I logged into the IT Central Station web site is because I was looking for crisp documentation so that I may compare WhiteSource with Black Duck. I did not find what I was looking for. All I found was a conglomerate of user experiences, not the research reports I was searching for.

I am currently using both of these products.

I rate Whitesource as an eight out of ten. 

We use WhiteSource mainly to automate open source vulnerability detection and remediation, as well as for license compliance.

I’m less on the side of the license but mainly use the service to get control over vulnerabilities, detect the ones that affect us and remediate accordingly.

We integrate WhiteSource to our pipeline via CI server integration and now started using the GitHub integration too. We also run an agent in specific use cases.

WhiteSource improved our team’s ability to deal with vulnerabilities in a timely manner. Most of the time the alerts pile up and no one wants to deal with it, but the process now is much more simplified and convenient. It is still a task, but the service reduces the time spent on it significantly. It is very easy to use and the research decreased to almost none.

The GitHub integration provides us with the option to prevent security issues related to our open source libraries pre-build. It helped our teams discover vulnerabilities before usage, and fix issues within our existing environment and workflow.

The policy automation on effective vulnerabilities feature had a major impact on how we address open source vulnerabilities since it focuses on effective vulnerabilities and directs you to the specific methods. Other services will give a much larger list to remediate. I believe it cuts around 80% of alerts.

With the fix suggestions feature, not only do you get the specific trace back to where the vulnerability is within your code, but you also get fix suggestions. It sounds simple but I haven’t seen this capability with any other solution. This saves quite some time.

There are more small things within the UI that focus on giving the quickest remediation path, and I believe this is the WhiteSource’s strongest area.

The UI is not that friendly and you need to learn how to navigate easily. It also doesn’t run as smoothly as I would want or expect, and I believe it requires some improvements. That said, the Success team is very attentive and does reply and answer related matters quite fast.

Currently, effective vulnerabilities are only available in two languages, which is great, but I would be very happy to see more languages. It does cover most of our libraries, but we do have other languages in use. More coverage on that aspect would be helpful.

I have been using WhiteSource for one and a half years.

We evaluated a few tools before moving forward with WhiteSource, and I have used other free tools as well. Comparing WhiteSource to others, some are stronger in terms of stability and UI performance, but don’t provide as much value as WhiteSource (by far).

On the results side, the databases are updated regularly and the results are very accurate. We requested some libraries for review here and there, but nothing major. 99.9% of the time we have accurate and proactive data.

We started off slowly with WhiteSource and never experienced any issues around this topic.

That said, I’m not sure if it plays a part in the UI issues.

Technical support is the best I’ve ever worked with.

They really take seriously customers' requests (and we sent over quite a few), and always reach out to help us make the most out of the platform.

I have never received a late reply, and the CS has a really good relationship with the team.

We didn't use anything before, only manually.

The initial setup was quick and easy. The CS team and the documentation were very helpful. We kicked off in a few days and the integration went smoothly.

We’ve evaluated Snyk, also used their free version and free dependency checkers.

I use the solution for free and open source scanning. 

The solution lacks the code snippet part. I plan to raise this issue with those at WhiteSource.

I have been using WhiteSource for more than a year. 

The solution is scalable. 

The solution is stable. 

The technical support is good, although not the best. It could be more customer friendly. 

The initial setup was straightforward.

Installation took no more than five minutes. 

CI/CD integration required the use of a consultant. 

We did not require much technical team for this. The team consists of four people. 

The solution involves a yearly licensing fee. 

There were only two products at this point in time which we evaluated, the solution being one of these. We plan to reevaluate its use. 

The solution is only cloud-based, not on-premises. 

It is user-friendly. 

There are around 50 people currently using it in our organization. 

I rate WhiteSource as an eight out of ten. 

The license management of WhiteSource was at a good level. As compared to other tools that I have used, its functionality for the licenses for the code libraries was quite good. Its UI was also fine.

We have ended our relationship with WhiteSource. We were using an agent that we built in the pipeline so that you can scan the projects during build time. But unfortunately, that agent didn't work at all. We have more than 500 projects, and it doubled or tripled the build time. For other projects, we had the failure of the builds without any known reason. It was not usable at all. We spent maybe one year working on the issues to try to make it work, but it didn't in the end. 

We should be able to integrate it with ID and Shift Left so that the developers are able to see the scan results without waiting for the build to fail.

I have used this solution for one year. 

I wouldn't call it stable because we could not build it into the pipeline, and it caused failures.

They were quite responsive, but in the end, they couldn't help with anything to make it work. For any feature requests that we had on our side, they always claimed that they were part of the roadmap, but after that, nothing happened.

It was quite straightforward. It was intended to be done on the DevOps side. It was nothing special. It didn't work after the setup. It caused build failures.

I would rate WhiteSource a three out of ten considering the fact that we couldn't use it while we were paying for it. It had good features, but we couldn't use it.