Tenable Nessus Reviews

The valuable feature for me is being able to ping the computers to do the automated scan and to come back and be able to see everything. That's definitely a huge plus, but then there's also the ease of reviewing the scores, identifying vulnerabilities, and getting the information on the vulnerabilities; the ability to review all that within one tool has been phenomenal. When we're reviewing those Nessus scores, the solution works well.

I think there's still some things that need to be ironed out to ensure that we can have a one-stop shop to do both ACAS, SCAP automated assessments in. We've been trying to do that and they say you can, the capability is integrated into the system. But in most instances, especially when you're dealing with some systems that are standalone or a network that we built ourselves, we find that some devices aren't pinged and the scans aren't done properly. That also comes down to the hardening of the systems where the password or the privileges weren't taken, so therefore it didn't do the scan properly. 

I've been using this solution for the past six or seven years. 

The solution is stable. We haven't run into any issues other than some passwords that don't take, but that's the way we set up the system. If it's set up properly and configured appropriately, there won't be any issues.

We could definitely make the adjustment to scale it left, right, up and down, depending on what we're using it for and we haven't run into any issues on that. It's pretty flexible.

The setup itself is pretty straightforward. Because these are standalone systems, there are some additional steps that the IT team needs to do, but they pretty much have it down to where they could install the tools pretty easily and have it running reasonably quickly. 

I would recommend making sure that the solution meets your needs for automated scans and the SCAP. If you're looking for a one-stop shop, I think it's a great tool for that. I would recommend some form of training if you don't have experience with this kind of solution. There's a bit of a learning curve involved in terms of configuring and using Nessus. 

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

While Nessus produces good software, I would like it to allow me to better utilize my homepage. The report structures should be more gradual and effective. Also, other components, such as certain vulnerabilities and Malware detection, should better reflect on the console or dashboard. Nessus does not make this available as there is no centralized dashboard. So too, I require a cloud-based Tenable product, not the one available, which is on-premises.

We have already entered an agreement with Nessus for Tenable.io., following contact I established with South Boston.

Once a person takes part in the demo offered by Tenable.io, we are talking about, more or less, VAS software. The VAS feature is absolutely nice. We have already addressed the coming roadmap with Nessus and it will not include these features. Consequently, perhaps Tenable.io will be the next step. Users such as ourselves will definitely be looking at a different application.

I have been using the solution for the past four years. 

Tenable Nessus is an absolutely stable and fantastic product. As a customer I would give it a 90 percent out of 100 rating.  This is because we have been really satisfied with its use over the past four years. The company and market standards are growing and the margin standard is going up.

Tenable Nessus is competitively slower than Tenable.io.

We are currently trying to procure Tenable.io from Nessus.

I would definitely recommend Tenable Nessus to those who are operating in small environments, with like-sized infrastructure.

When it comes to a big company we should look towards OpenView. Tenable Nessus is not feasible for a large company. For a team comprising 1,000 people, it would be too unstable. Instead, Tenable.io. would be the appropriate choice since it contains a completely different infra.

I rate Tenable Nessus as an eight out of ten. 

We usually use the solution for infrastructure level and web application scanning, although mostly for the former. This is what we are doing at present. We were using the web application portion of Tenable Nessus for several months before switching to Veracode. 

A valuable feature of the solution is that it is easy to understand. When it comes to running a scan, the scanning mechanism is also easy, and it is quite fast compared to Veracode and Qualys.

The solution should have a more in-depth level of scanning, with features to meet the developers. Other points that should be addressed involve the understanding of issues by the users and the need for improvising the reporting structure. The reports should also be more attractive and user-friendly.

This is how Tenable Nessus occasionally works when drawing up something on the field.

Additional features I wish to see addressed in the next release include customer support and ease of  understanding of vulnerabilities and how they can be fixed.

In contrast to Tenable Nessus, we have found Veracode to be more user-friendly, with a greater in-depth understanding of the details and how things can be fixed. Other points in its favor include study cases, customer support, training and e-learning. 

The solution is sort of down the mid range, so we are more happy with Veracode.

We have made use of Tenable Nessus over the past 12 months, and started doing so a couple of months before we got Veracode.

The solution is reliable and has good stability. 

We have been in the web, so we have not tried to expand the solution.

We feel the solution's technical support to be very bad.

While we do receive a response upon creating a ticket, it is not like that of Qualys or Veracode. That extensive support is not there.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We deployed under the release plan of 8.11.

We incurred a single cost for a perpetual license, although I cannot comment on the price as this is above my management level.

There are at least ten people in our organization making use of the solution. 

Tenable Nessus is an appropriate solution for a small scale company, one with budgeting constraints and no complexities within the organization. It not that user-friendly.

I would rate Tenable Nessus as a seven out of ten. 

We use Tenable Nessus when we are preparing our audit where we need to do an initial scan of our customers' platform to see if they have any critical issues.

The reports are pretty nice and easy to understand.

The price could be reduced.

I have been using Tenable Nessus for approximately 20 years, since the time that it was first released. 

This solution is stable. We do not have any issues with the stability of this solution.

It's a scalable product. We have approximately 300 companies.

I have yet to contact technical support. The users within my team are technical people, and if they have an issue, they can resolve it themselves using the knowledge base.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is very easy.

It takes less than 10 minutes to install.

I am the consultant.

We have a team of two to three to deploy and maintain this solution.

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

The pricing is fine, but it could be cheaper.

So far, I am quite pleased with this product and don't have any complaints. I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I have been using Tenable Nessus for my personal use. It works well.

I am using this solution for testing.

The most valuable features are that it's fast, it's easy to use, and it provides good reports.

The only thing that I don't like is KBs information. For example, if we scan our workstation and you go to the results report that Nessus provides, we are going to see a lot of KBs as remediation. But in most cases, the KBs are always superseded.

Also, we are not able to apply those because Microsoft has already released a new TB. 

Nessus is not doing a good job in updating its remediation section of the reports.

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

For example, when you share that with several team members or with one individual, and you ask them to work on this, they reply with Microsoft already has something new.

I have been using Tenable Nessus for approximately two years.

This solution is stable. I have not experienced any issues. It worked fine.

It's a scalable solution. I have not had any problems.

I am the only person using this solution.

Technical support is good. They provided information that is needed.

Previously, I was not using another solution. I use Nessus through a course that I was taking in the security field.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We did not use a vendor or vendor team to implement this solution.

I have evaluated one other solution, but because of my company policies. I can't share that information.

Tenable has Tenable.io, and I believe that they have the remediation updated, but Tenable Nessus Professional does not. I don't think that they will continue to keep it available in the market. They should probably decommission it.

Remediation is better in other tools than with Nessus.

For anyone who is interested in this solution, they should test the scan timing to see if it consumes a lot of time or not.

Research the remediation information to see if it is okay, or trust proof or not.

The reporting works well and it allows you to share. Also, support is important.

I would rate Tenable Nesuss an eight out of ten.

We use it for servers, domain controllers, application servers, Oracle servers, SQL servers, as well as network devices, like routers. For PCs that are used for services such as credit cards and ATMs, we usually do a vulnerability assessment, including Windows Servers, Linux servers, SQL servers, and database servers. We scan everything except basic PCs because it would require a lot of time to check all those reports. Our system administrators use another solution to check regular PCs for Windows and MS updates.

We're checking things every month. We created a schedule and it checks automatically. From time to time, we'll use it to check things if something unusual has happened. For example, if a stranger was on a computer, we'll check if is there a vulnerability there. 

We also use it to prepare reports when the agency asks for them.

One thing that is important for us is that when the regulation agency is asking for something. we can send them reports from Nessus and they're very satisfied. If they're satisfied, and they don't have any problem or additional requests, that's most important.

In the past, before we implemented Nessus, we used several products that were doing vulnerability assessments for different machines. For instance, we were using an antivirus/anti-malware and end-point security application for vulnerability assessments for Windows machines. We were using free tools for vulnerability checking for Linux machines. And we were \using Qualys' free version for external IP addresses, because Qualys allows you to check something like three IP addresses for free. I created a report for our regulation agency by combining three or four reports. I spent two weeks making that report. Now, I can create that report in one day. Nessus provides me reports within two to three hours for all our Windows machines. For Linux machines, it's half an hour; for the network, it takes about one hour. So in one day, I have everything ready for the agency. 

Similarly, for my upper management, it's my responsibility to provide security reports on a monthly basis about viruses, malware, attacks, etc. Now, it is easier for me to prepare that kind of report. The reports are also more lavish than before. In the past, I had to prepare tables and sheets by myself. Now, everything is prepared for me. If I want to play around with reports I can export to Excel and I can filter the report. Nessus makes everything easier than it was before.

Nessus gives me a good preview of vulnerabilities and good suggestions for remediation. It's easy to find a description of a given vulnerability and solutions for it.

One area that has room for improvement is the reporting. I'm preparing reports for Windows and Linux machines, etc. Currently, I'm collecting three or four reports and turning them into one report. I don't know if it is possible to combine all of them in one report, but that would be helpful. If the scans which I have already prepared could be used to combine the results into one report, it would save me additional work.

Also, when a new machine is brought into the domain, when it's first connected by the system administrator, it would be good to have some kind of automatic, basic vulnerability scan. Of course, I would have to enter my credentials if I wanted something additional, but it would be useful if, the first time, if that basic process happened. Otherwise, it can be problematic for me when, for example, a new Oracle Database is brought on. I may only be notified after 10 days that it has been connected and only then can I do a vulnerability assessment and I may find a lot of vulnerabilities. It would be better to know that before they put it into production. It would be great to have something automatically recognize a new server, a new PC, and do a basic vulnerability assessment.

I have been using Nessus for about half a year.

We haven't any problems so far.

A few days ago, I was scanning a range, three or subnets, the whole domain. That was something like 1,000 IP addresses. The first time I did it, things were a little bit slow. I was thinking that it was stuck or blocked. But I left it overnight and checked it in the morning. Everything had finished, correctly, after three or four hours. 

That was the only case where I had any issue but it was a problem because I was a little bit lazy. Instead of creating multiple jobs, I put everything together. I didn't know for sure which IP addresses in which segments were being used. That's the reason I wanted Nessus to scan them. I didn't want to check with the system administrator regarding IP addresses because every time I get such information, I usually find IP addresses with computers that the system administrator didn't tell me about. This way, I was sure to get a full vulnerability assessment. And I found two or three computers which had not been updated for two or three months. That was very important for me to find out.

In May, the guys from Alem Systems came to my office and we finished everything for the installation. They showed me how to configure it, how to add new assets, how to check networks, Linux machines, Windows machines, etc.

We bought a one-year license. We are now preparing a new budget for next year and, given our experience with Nessus, we plan to continue with it for next year. We are satisfied with it. It's the best option for small banks. For us, here in Bosnia, a small bank would have about 150 to 250 employees, with 20 to 30 branches throughout the country. The biggest bank here has more than 2,000 and maybe as many as 3,000 employees.

I didn't have a lot of experience with this type of product. I heard and knew that vulnerability assessment is most important. We paid a company to do a pen-test in our bank. That was the first time I heard about vulnerability assessment and about Nessus, Qualys, and Guardium. At that moment, I started to think about it and to search for the best option for us.

In the past, it was tricky to find money for this kind of application. But recently, a new director started with our company. He understands what security actually means and that it's important for a bank. He gave me a bigger budget.

I started, one year ago, checking all products on the market for vulnerability checking and scanning. The first option was Qualys because everybody here, my colleagues, were saying that Qualys is the best. But there were two problems with Qualys for me. First, there is no on-premise version, only a cloud version. And the second issue was the price. The first issue, that Qualys is only connected to the cloud, was most important because I must prepare documents for our regulation agency in banking. With Qualys in the cloud, I would have to prepare risk assessments, etc., and that would be a lot of work for me. And then I would have to wait for that agency's approval, which could take some three months. Finally, when I started thinking, "Okay, I'll go that route and will prepare everything," when I asked about the price of Qualys here in Bosnia, I realized it was too much for us because we are a small bank.

I also checked an IBM solution, Guardium, because there are a lot of companies working with IBM here. It's easier to find solutions for IBM. The reason I didn't go with Guardium was its price.

After that, I started checking other products. Nessus was one of the options. I had a friend working for Alem Systems and spoke with him over a coffee. We spoke about solutions and he said, "Why don't you use Nessus? Nessus is good." He explained everything to me, and he showed me a demo and how it works in a particular company. I said, "Okay, if Nessus is good enough for me, who will sell it to me?" He said, "I will do that."

We are a small bank. I don't need to take care of 100 or 200 servers or many switches and routers and PCs. Nessus is easy to configure and it's easy to add additional searching and scanning for new assets, like a new router. I had seen Qualys at conferences, but I hadn't used it myself. A presenter showed how it worked, but I didn't have hands-on experience. My friend showed me Nessus and he gave me an idea of how to work with it. When I first used it by myself — I created a scheduled job for a server — when I got the report, I realized that it was easy for me, and that was great. Maybe Qualys has better graphics, but I didn't have experience with it. Nessus, now, is perfect.

Finally, I decided that the price was good enough for me and for my bosses. So I finally found a solution after six months.

I didn't need it to be something complicated, to have some NASA-level product. I needed it to work properly and simply, to show me what I need to do. I had to be able to explain to my system administrators what they should do. When I get a report I explain it and give it to my system administrators to solve the problem.

If I were to speak to someone who works with IBM Guardium they would probably tell me, "Ah, Nessus is too simple for me. Guardium is better." But I can recommend Nessus to anyone who wants a good product for a "small amount of money." It's the best buy.

When I speak with my colleagues we usually share our experiences. I know that some of my colleagues are thinking about Nessus for next year because they don't have any solution, but they need one, according to regulations. When I explain how it works they usually say that they will check into it. Probably, in Bosnia, there will be two more banks using Nessus in the next year.

Alem, as a company, is very friendly and that's most important. They come to our office to explain things. They spent three or four hours here with me, explaining everything about Nessus. They suggested a free trial. It's important to have that kind of support. I know that if I need something, I can ask them without any problems, at any time.

Overall, Nessus is working well.

It is used for vulnerability management. We used Nessus to scan our machines to see how they were vulnerable, for patches or security. The CVE numbers is what we looked at, the security vulnerability, and tried to figure out what we were vulnerable to.

We monitored Windows Servers, Windows workstations, Linux servers, firewalls, switches, VMware equipment, and Cisco UCS hardware through the application.

We were a lot less vulnerable after implementing the changes that the application recommended.

The solution helped limit our company's cyber exposure by pointing out every single vulnerability we had and showing us how to fix them. By following the application's directions, we were less vulnerable to attackers. By implementing what the application told us to implement, we were able to fix the holes in our network and prevent any attackers from coming in.

The most valuable feature is how it scanned and detected through its database to let us know exactly what fixes we needed to put in place for the vulnerabilities. It detects and it also gives you the way to fix it.

The product's VPR did a great job in prioritizing and giving the highs versus the mediums; it did a great job providing the different ratings and priorities.  

The Nessus predictive prioritization feature is very nice, the way it displays. The interface could look better, but it has everything it needs. It could do a better grouping of the workstations and run a better schedule. But it was sufficient in what it provided.

There is room, overall, for improvement in the way it groups the workstations and the way it detects, when the vulnerability is scanned. Even when we would run a new scan, if it was an already existing vulnerability, it wouldn't put a new date on it.

I used Nessus for about three years.

It was very stable. We didn't have any outages or downtime during its use.

The scalability was very good. We were able to deploy it into multiple remote sites using the scanners. You can deploy separate scanner VMs into remote locations where you don't have access. They have Tenable.io in the cloud, which allows you to do all that.

I used it in a very large environment. Just in my sector, we had about 5,000 workstations along with about 150 servers. So it was a pretty sizable environment. The company was using it for a much bigger purpose. It had between about 50,000 and 100,000 workstations and about 10,000 servers.

In my environment we had about seven users logging into it. The company as a whole had about 150 users. They were security engineers, security administrators, system administrators, and system engineers. For maintenance of Nessus, there was only a team of about 15 people.

I rarely had to call technical support. There was one time when we were troubleshooting a VMware scan. They got on and were helpful, but they weren't able to provide a solution quickly enough. I would give them a three out of five.

I found the setup to be simple. The interface was very intuitive. It was simple yet functional.

Without Nessus, we would have had a lot more vulnerabilities which would have opened the doors to potential attacks. And attacks would have cost the company a lot more money.

Know that it's only a detection tool and that it has limitations as a detection tool, but the deployment can be pretty scalable.

The solution didn't reduce the number of critical and high vulnerabilities we needed to patch first. It tells you what the critical vulnerabilities are that you need to patch, but it didn't reduce anything. It doesn't patch it for you.

I would give Nessus a seven out of ten, as it doesn't automatically resolve the vulnerabilities. There are tools out there that give you an option: "Hey, do you want me to patch that vulnerability?" You just hit "yes" and it automatically does it. Nessus doesn't do that. And, as I said, the grouping could be a little bit better.

We use it for internal and external vulnerability scans.

Instead of just looking at high, medium or low risk for vulnerabilities, and having to remediate all of them, we can remediate in a more effective manner. We have limited resources for remediation work and we want to spend our time on the most critical issues.

It helps us focus resources on the vulnerabilities that are most likely to be exploited. It gives a higher VPR number where the things are more likely to be exploited, instead of just using the pure severity rating as a way to prioritize and decide to remediate.

The most valuable feature is the breadth of vulnerabilities that it finds. It's able to find across a lot of different platforms and operating systems. It's also able to combine local testing with network-based testing.

When it comes to vulnerability prioritization, Tenable's predictive features are off to a great start. It's definitely giving us more data to help prioritize, instead of just relying on straight CVSS. The vulnerability priority rating has been accurate and is helping us prioritize effectively, based on risk or based on the likelihood of being exploited. Based on what they say, and comparing it to what we are seeing with malware exploits, their predictions are lining up with what we are seeing being exploited.

There is room for improvement in finishing the transition to the cloud. We'd like to see them keep on improving the Tenable.io product, so that we can migrate to it entirely, instead of having to keep the Tenable.sc on-prem product.

There is also room for improvement in some of the reporting and the role-based access. They have a pretty defined roadmap. They know where the gaps are, but it's a totally different product and so there's a lot of work that they have to do to get it to match.

I have been using Nessus for three years at my current company. 

We monitor Windows, Linux, Mac, workstations, servers, and cloud resources.

It's very stable. We haven't had any issues. There has been no database corruption or anything like that. All we've had to do to the main Security Center is give it more disk space to save more data. That's it.

The scalability is okay. We would definitely run into issues if we wanted to save a longer history of the data. It would be terabytes and terabytes of data. But in terms of at least keeping all the data for all the assets that we have, it's good. We're good enough with the retention. It meets our requirements.

The issues would be storage and being able to search across it. If we needed to save five years of scan history, it would be operationally difficult to use all the data that would be saved. But it's not problematic to look at the current data or trends for the past six months. Stuff like that is fine.

We're at about 20,000 hosts and it's pretty stable. I don't think we're going to do a big increase.

Tenable's technical support is good, except for things that involve some of the custom development work that we've done using their API. Early on, that was problematic, but they've gotten better and released more API documentation and sample code, and that was fine.

It was nothing that was wrong with the product itself, but tech support is more designed for normal user interactions with the product, not doing development against the API. The problem with my code was because some documentation wasn't clear or there wasn't a sample for how to do this. That's where it was a little bit tougher. The normal, user function stuff was totally fine. It was really the developer-focused side.

We were on Rapid7. We switched because of scalability and performance.

We were looking for a solution that could handle and scan our volume of assets. It wasn't working with our previous solution. Nessus has scalability. Being able to scan in time and actually being able to report on that data were things we couldn't do with our old solution.

Also, the level of visibility that Tenable provides is much better than Rapid7 because we're able to actually see all of the data that was collected and we're able to scan for vulnerabilities and config issues and pull all the data together. We were having real trouble with that before.

The initial setup was straightforward. We were easily able to set up scan policies, asset groups, scan schedules, and start collecting data very quickly.

It wasn't complicated to define what we wanted to scan. It wasn't complicated to set up the credentialed scans, or to set up the different credentials for the different policies and different types of machines. Everything that that goes into building a scan policy was straightforward and we were able to get all of our assets scanned pretty quickly. Within 45 days of buying, we had good data and had done multiple scans already with all of our assets.

Our implementation strategy was that we wanted to set up credentialed scans for all of our machines as quickly as possible. We were working towards that and trying to get the coverage in Tenable as soon as possible.

We did it ourselves.

We are fulfilling our goals and able to deliver on the requirements that we have. It's hard for security to be a real ROI. We need to do vulnerability scanning, we need to know where the issues are and we need to be able to fix them. It is doing that.

Our licensing is on a yearly basis but we did a three-year deal. It is a fixed cost to cover a certain number of hosts or assets. There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees.

Leverage authenticated scans if you can. That reduces the number of false positives compared to just network-based scanning. Leverage the Tenable Agents if you can, as well, because that will help reduce the scan time and make it easier to get data from machines that are all over your network.

The solution isn't really helping to reduce our exposure over time because there are always new vulnerabilities coming out. It's helping us keep track of what's out there better.

The next part is going to be convincing external auditors that VPR is a reasonable way to actually prioritize, in terms of whatever our policy statements say for what we fix and how quickly; to get that to line up. A lot of people are still in the, "You must patch criticals with this number of days, highs with this number of days." We want to be able to turn that into a more risk-based approach but haven't really been able to do that.

The users of the solution in our organization are really just the people on our security team, so the number is under ten people. They're really just using it to look at the vulnerabilities, analyze the vulnerabilities, and figure out where our risks are and what should get patched. For deployment and maintenance of the solution we have a quarter of an FTE.