Tenable Security Center Reviews

I am using Tenable SC for vulnerability management and for the dashboards.

The most valuable features in Tenable SC are scanning and analysis.

Tenable SC can improve by making it easier to create complicated reports and have more effectiveness in the remediation area for comparison between the scans.

I have used Tenable SC within the past 12 months.

Tenable SC is stable.

Tenable SC support has been very helpful.

The setup of Tenable SC is easy.

I rate Tenable SC an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is for vulnerability assessment of our internal network.

The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution. The reporting isn't so good but I use scans the most. The reporting needs a lot of work on the template. 

There should be an easier way to build your own type of reports because the data is there but it is quite painful to get what I want from it. I prefer Tenable SC to other solutions.

We have been using Tenable SC for a little more than two years. 

Stability and scalability are good. The administrators use it. We have three regular users. 

We have contacted their customer support and they were fine.

We didn't have any issues with the initial setup. 

We pay around 60,000 on a yearly basis. 

Nessus is for a single company and tenable SC is for when you've got multiple repositories. SC is the same as Nessus, except it's got central logging. It's the same thing. For large widespread companies, you use SC, if you're a small to medium-sized company, you use Nessus.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten because of the reporting. It needs improvement. 

We had a requirement to connect multiple branches into one console. We installed Nessus at multiple locations and then connected Nessus. We did the service scan and got the report on the central site with Tenable SC.

Previously, we were using Nessus, which required a lot of manual work in terms of reporting. We do a lot of customization, and Tenable SC has been very helpful. Reporting is just a click away in Tenable SC, whereas it used to take a long time to create a similar report and customize it in Nessus. 

Tenable SC is good for reporting and alerting. The filtering feature is also very valuable.

Its integration with multiple vendors is quite good. It can be integrated with SIEM solutions and PAM solutions such as Thycotic, which is very helpful.

There is not much room for improvement. However, there should be a guide that describes the step-by-step procedures for doing tasks. Otherwise, training is required from a senior guy to a junior guy.

Our usage is the same. Currently, no increment is required in terms of the license.

They are good.

We used to use Rapid7, but there were too many false positives. So, we switched to Nessus, but in Nessus, we faced the challenge of reporting. Nessus required a lot of manual work in terms of reporting. Tenable SC has been quite helpful for reporting. 

It is not straightforward. When you do integrations, it turns into a complex solution, but this complexity is required. If security is a priority, then complexity will be there for enterprise security.

It didn't take a long time. In one month, we were able to configure and run the reports. Everything was done within a month. We were in desperate need of such a solution, and this solution came. We already knew about integrations from the white papers and documents available on the Tenable website. They were very helpful. So, doing integration was not an issue. We did it without much effort. 

I was heading this project as a project manager.

It is a much better solution than other competitors. It provides almost everything that is required in terms of vulnerability management. If you are looking for overall enterprise security in terms of integrations and vulnerability management, you should go for Tenable SC or Tenable SCCV.

I would rate Tenable SC a nine out of ten. 

I'm a pre-sales engineer and we are resellers of Tenable.

This solution is very customizable compared to everything else I've seen on the market, so you can easily customize it to suit your needs. There are a lot of templates you can use and you can install it pretty quickly so in one hour you can have your scanner up and running.

I think the company should redo their web page because the way things are now there are a lot of things you can't do. For example, if you want to filter something on the solution and have it filter down to all of your widgets, you can't do it, you have to go from one widget to the other. It takes some time if you have a big customer dashboard that's using some data. I think that the integration with a solution like Jira could be a little bit better for when you create tickets based on your vulnerability.

I know they are working on additional features related to the integration with the patch management like Qualys has, which is really amazing. This is the future and I know they're working on it. 

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

Usually the solution is stable but it can be a little bit tricky which I think depends on the kind of BME and the sizing used. I'd say it was 80%, 85% stable.

The solution is very scalable, it's one of the most scalable solutions that I've used so far, compared to Rapid7 and Qualys, it's very scalable. You can use it pretty much with anything, even if you start with 1000 IPs and scale up from 1000 to 10,000.

Technical support is very efficient and they escalate the tickets when you have a big issue. When you open a ticket, they respond within the hour and they're pretty quick to find the issue. If you have a bigger issue, you can set up a Zoom call with them and that's very helpful. 

I've used Rapid7 in the past and I've also used Qualys a little as well. I work with customers, so I go with whatever they want to use. 

The initial setup is very straightforward and quick. 

I would definitely recommend the solution but I would tell people that it requires dedicated staff. You need to have someone looking at what's going on when you scan and you need somebody to go through all the results, otherwise it just sits there.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.