Snyk Reviews

We have been considering Snyk in order to improve the security of our platform, in terms of Docker image security as well as software dependency security. Ultimately, we decided to roll out only the part related to software dependency security plus the licensing mechanism, allowing us to automate the management of licenses.

We have integrated Snyk in the testing phase, like in the testing environment. We are in the process of rolling the solution out across our entire platform, which we will be doing soon. The APIs have enabled us to do whatever we have needed, and the amount of effort for the integration on our end has been reasonable. The solution works well and should continue to work well after the full-scale roll-out.

We expect to get additional benefits in terms of validating our software security. 

The solution does its job to help developers find and fix vulnerabilities quickly. So, it is working well. 

• The platform's ease of use
• Good support from the customer success team 
• A transparent solution
• Functionally coherent and powerful

The overall goal is to have a high security platform delivered in an easy way. This is in terms of the effort that we have to put in as well as cost. From this perspective, Snyk looks like the most promising solution. So far, so good.

It is easy for developers to use. The documentation is clear as well as the APIs are good and easily readable. It's a good solution overall.

We would like to have upfront knowledge on how easy it should be to just pull in an upgraded dependency, e.g., even introduce full automation for dependencies supposed to have no impact on the business side of things. Therefore, we would like some output when you get the report with the dependencies. We want to get additional information on the expected impact of the business code that is using the dependency with the newer version. This probably won't be easy to add, but it would be helpful.

We have been using it for about three months.

So far, we have had no concerns regarding the solution's stability. We have had no downtime.

The scalability is okay.

When it comes to direct users who are managing it or doing the integration for Snyk, then there are a few developers from the team who own the solution.

The goal is to roll this out across all services and supported technologies. Once we finish our rollout phase, then we expect to have full adoption. Thanks to our internal integration, teams will just be seeing the updated dependencies whenever they are available. So, Snyk will be doing the hard magic behind the scenes for everyone.

The customer success team is a solid team. I liked their approach from the very beginning and after signing the contract. They kept things looking good, which is a good sign.

We haven't had an opportunity to validate some hard cases with the technical support yet.

We did not previously use another solution.

The initial setup was easy and nicely documented.

We have been managing the deployment with other initiatives that we are running. We haven't had major obstacles with the deployment so far.

For our implementation strategy, we first worked on the plan of, "How do you want to integrate it?" We investigated the best setup, then we just went to the implementation phase from the research phase.

One software engineer is enough for deployment and maintenance. We had to split the duties of this between several people, but one person is enough. 

Keep extracting knowledge from the Snyk team. They are very helpful during the process, so make sure to use them.

The more security that we have, the more confident we are. You never know when you will be actually attacked. Hopefully, this will not be validated anytime soon in reality. However, by doing our penetration tests, we are validating the system on a regular basis, which will also help improve our overall confidence in this area. 

It gives us peace of mind that there is nothing hidden that hasn't been taken care of. That is also important.

The solution has reduced the amount of time it takes to fix and find problems.

The pricing is reasonable.

For the Docker security feature use case, we decided to go with an open source solution (Trivy), because it is sufficient for our needs. Integration with Trivy was cheap and easy, which makes it cost-effective. Our current use case was simple enough that the existing open source tool was sufficient. Maybe there are use cases that are more advanced and sophisticated, where the open source solution would not be sufficient for an organization. In such cases, the benefits from the paid version would be worth the money. I think it boils down to the specific use case of a company.

We were not able to find a sufficient, elegant solution for the dependencies part of our use case. That is why we invested in our partnership with Snyk. After evaluating paid and open source solutions, Snyk was selected as the best tool.

I have heard from my team that it has a comprehensive database. Hopefully, it will work well during the production usage. Our hopes are high. So far, we haven't seen any downsides.

We have our internal processes for maintaining and updating dependencies in general. We will be incorporating any suggested updates coming from Snyk into our internal, already-existing process and platform, with some additional effort from our teams. Hopefully, there won't be any major additional effort. Hopefully, cases needing additional effort for issues will be rare.

We are using the SAST version of Snyk. Its complexity is reasonable.

I would rate it as an eight out of 10.

Snyk's major use case is to check our code for vulnerabilities that may exist in the dependencies or the security of the code. This allows developers to identify and address potential security issues that can be resolved.

Snyk offers two key advantages for organizations. Firstly, it allows all issues to be fixed in one centralized location, streamlining the process of addressing vulnerabilities. Secondly, Snyk categorizes the level of vulnerability into high, medium, and low, which helps organizations prioritize which issues to tackle first. This feature ensures that low-priority vulnerabilities are not addressed before high-priority ones.

One area where Snyk could improve is in providing developers with the line where the error occurs.

As of now, I have been using Snyk for two weeks. Also, I am using the latest version of the solution. So, my company is an end-user and customer of the solution.

I haven't faced any stability issues at all while using the solution. Stability-wise, it is a fine product. I rate its stability a nine out of ten.

Only three users are using the solution in my company. Even though there are around fifteen developers in my company, since the solution is still in the integration stage, many developers can't use it yet. So, once the seniors get accustomed to Snyk, then the juniors will follow.

From a scalability standpoint, I haven't explored the solution yet.

I haven't faced any issues that I can take to them. So, all the documents Snyk provides have solutions to the potential issues one could face. I did not need to use the internet to check for the resolutions to my issues with the solution.

I have used SonarQube previously. We still use SonarQube and might migrate to Snyk completely in the future. Also, we may even consider using both parallelly.

SonarQube notifies us of the error. It also mentions the line where that error is and gives the exact line of code along with the line number. While it doesn't give any solution, it does give an alternate solution. So, it will just show what can be removed, where the vulnerabilities are, and what needs to be changed.

In Snyk, it notifies its user what an old version is and how to take it to another stable version. It also notifies its users about the vulnerabilities in a version before suggesting a new version that doesn't have such vulnerabilities.

Integration in Snyk was easier since, during SonarQube's integration process in our company, we always faced technical issues during its setup or while trying to operate it. Snyk is a very user-friendly tool, giving it a huge plus point.

SonarQube detects in a code if any line is commented or any variable is defined but not used. Snyk, on the other hand, doesn't detect such details but detects vulnerabilities on a higher level.

The deployment model for the solution is a cloud-based one.

Regarding Snyk's deployment, we have integrated everything with Jenkins so that the deployment happens automatically. Also, in Jenkins itself, we have integrated Snyk. The deployment process for Snyk took less than an hour. Once a person goes through the documents provided by Snyk, the deployment process becomes easy. The deployment process in my company was carried out without needing any help from external sources.

Presently, my company uses an open-source version of the solution. The solution's pricing can be considered quite reasonable owing to the features they offer. There are no extra costs attached to the solution because there is no need for extra hardware or other software since it has been integrated with the Jenkins CICD automation pipeline, and the dashboard gives everything in one place.

Upon reviewing Snyk's operations, I found it helpful, although not entirely comprehensive. Specifically, it provides valuable information regarding the status of vulnerabilities and the details of dependencies used in our projects. The solution also can identify issues that could be resolved manually or through alternative means. Snyk gives all the required information, while SonarQube doesn't. In SonarQube, data is presented in a different format that is required to be reviewed by us on a line-by-line basis. One of Snyk's strengths was its ability to consolidate all identified issues into a single location.

Currently, our company has not utilized any expensive solutions. So, we opted for SonarQube's open-source version. In the future, if the need arises, we may consider purchasing a solution. However, as this is for a proof-of-concept (POC), I am currently exploring trial or open-source versions, which are free of cost. If a solution is successfully integrated into our projects and our developers become familiar, we may consider purchasing a particular solution. For now, we are focusing on finding a solution that meets our needs for the POC without incurring any unnecessary expenses.

I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it. Overall, I rate the solution a seven and a half out of ten. To be more specific, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Snyk acts as an SCA and also as a SAST. It's like a mix and match.

Our deployment is more of a hybrid deployment. It is 70% cloud and 30% on-prem. The majority of Snyk is a cloud-based solution, but we do have instances where we have it on-prem for various reasons.

The advantage of Snyk is that Snyk automatically creates a pull request for all the findings that match or are classified according to the policy that we create. So, once we review the PR within Snyk and we approve the PR, Snyk auto-fixes the issue, which is quite interesting and which isn't there in any other product out there. So, Snyk is a step ahead in this particular area. In the development phase, there are lots of dependencies from one module to another, and if it has to be a manual fix, it takes forever for developers to fix it. We do utilize both functionalities. Sometimes, I get the developers to look at the issues and get them manually fixed, and sometimes, based on the criticality and severity of the finding, I just approve the PR, and Snyk automatically fixes it. I don't need to worry about the dependencies.

All such tools should definitely improve the signatures in their database. Snyk is pretty new to the industry. They have a pretty good knowledge base, but Veracode is on top because Veracode has been in this business for a pretty long time. They do have a pretty large database of all the findings, and the way that the correlation engine works is superb. Snyk is also pretty good, but it is not as good as Veracode in terms of maintaining a large space of all the historical data of vulnerabilities.

I have been using this solution for about two years. 

It is easily scalable, and it is pretty easy to integrate and manage. However, the tuning is what requires a lot of attention. Snyk, Veracode, Netsparker, or any other similar solution definitely needs somebody to tune it to work properly. Tuning is a little bit tricky, but that's the nature of such solutions.

I had to work with them initially during the integration phase. Their support was okay. It was not that good, but it was also not that bad. There is room for improvement because the support works based on the categories of requests. Along with the categories, if they have an option for the sensitivity or the urgency of issues, it would be really helpful for users.

It was pretty easy. 

It is pretty expensive. It is not a cheap product.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

We use the product to scan our code for any vulnerable dependencies we might have. We depend on open source libraries and need to make sure they're secure. If not, we need to highlight the areas and replace them, update them quickly. A secondary, minor use case is to also look at licensing and make sure that we're not using open source licenses we should not be using. Those are our two use cases.

What is valuable about Snyk is its simplicity, and that's the main selling point. It's understandably also very cheap because you don't need as much account management resources to manage the relationship with the customer and that's a benefit. I also like that it's self-service, with extremely easy integration. You don't need to speak to anybody to get you off and running and they have loads of integrations with source control and cloud CI systems. They are a relatively new product so they might not have a bigger library than competitors, but it's a good product overall.

They do however have the option to install Snyk on-prem, but it is much more expensive.

The product could be improved by including other types of security scanning (e.g. SAST or DAST), which is important. It would also help to include the static analysis specifically to the open-source scanning so we could get an idea of whether a particular library is vulnerable and recognise if we're actually using the vulnerable part of it or not, they do have runtime analysis, but it is a hassle to set up.

It would be the same issue in terms of the inclusion of additional features. I think static analysis is really important. A second additional feature would be to add tags to projects, identifying an important project or assigning a project to a particular team. Custom tags would be helpful.

I've been using the product for less than a year. It's an SaaS solution, online, so we're always using the latest version. 

It's a very stable product, they are clear when a specific feature is in beta.

We have hundreds of source code repositories, and Snyk scans them in minutes (it just looks at package management files to identify the dependency tree), Snyk uses the same infrastructure to scan for all customers on the cloud which gives it lots of scalability opportunities compared to some other vendors where the software is installed on-prem or on a dedicated instance which makes the software pricy and limited (this dedicated instance will be idle most of the time, and the customer needs to pay for it).

The technical support is very good. 

Some of our products are deployed on the private cloud behind firewalls, Snyk has tools to carry out security scanning from our private repositories. 

For anyone thinking of using the product, I would suggest using cloud and SaaS providers. Generally, they are easy to work with and there's no hassle of having to talk to salespeople and arrange demos, etc. Self-service SaaS products are a good way to go when it's appropriate.

I would rate this product a nine out of 10.

I am using Snyk for DevOps and security.

The most valuable features of Snyk are vulnerability scanning and automation. The automation the solution brings around vulnerability scanning is useful.

The solution could improve the reports. They have been working on improving the reports but more work could be done.

I have been using Snyk for a few months.

The stability of Snyk is good.

We have not had any challenges with the scalability of Snyk.

There are good resources to answer questions when we have issues.

I have not used a testing solution prior to Snyk.

The initial setup of Snyk was easy.

The price of the solution is expensive compared to other solutions.

I would recommend people use the free tier first before they purchase.

I rate Snyk a ten out of ten.

We use Snyk to check vulnerabilities and rectify potential leaks in GitHub.

The tool's initial use is complex. 

I have been working with the product for three to four months. 

I rate the product an eight out of ten. 

Snyk is a code analysis tool. It is a vulnerability finding tool. We use it for those purposes. We use this tool to detect issues particular to users.

Snyk is configured on our local ID environment. So our team and many other teams use it to do a scan before they deploy anything in the production.

There are many valuable features. For example, the way the scanning feature works. The integration is cool because I can integrate it and I don't need to wait until the CACD, I can plug it in to our local ID, and there I can do the scanning. That is the part I like best.

Feature wise, I like it so far. Maybe a little bit early to call, but feature wise, I'm okay with it. It may be a little bit expensive, but otherwise, it is a good tool.

I don't have any complaints. Thankfully, I had help in the decision-making and the initial integration. After that, the actual development and ops teams are using it. So if they are facing issues or they have any concerns, I'm not sure about that.

Basically the licensing costs are a little bit expensive.

I have been using Snyk for a year.

It is a stable solution.

In our organization I would say more than 50 and less than a hundred are regularly using Snyk.

Tech support is good. They are reliable and available. Some of the teams are using Snyk and they are not complaining about support. The support is better and they are available whenever we need. We can reach out to them for help.

The initial setup was neither complex nor easy, I would say it was okay.

It took a few weeks.

A few people helped us with the initial setup.

Our experience with them was that they're really good.

Snyk is a security analysis tool. We have other tools, some dynamic security analytics tools, and other tools set up, and we wanted to compare which one we should use. We have Contrast, Coverity, and Snyk, and now we are planning to keep one. That was the main reason I had downloaded the code from your site and from many other sites. In the end we are planning to keep Snyk.

Snyk is good. I like to use it. I like to use Snyk over Contrast.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Snyk an eight.

There is no complaint here. 

The solution is set up in a test lab for proof of concept on the ACIA component. Our client is proposing the solution in an RFP response that will include 3,000 users when awarded. 

The solution has great features and is quite stable. 

The log export function could be easier when shipping logs to other platforms such as Splunk. 

I have been using the solution for months.

The stability is quite good. 

The solution is scalable with no issues. 

I have not needed technical support. 

The initial setup is quite straightforward and took fifteen minutes. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

In our lab environment, the deployment strategy is to install and run with no complex operations. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.