What needs improvement with PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional?

Integration is a big problem. Currently, it's more challenging to integrate Burp Suite into the CI/CD pipeline compared to SAP (which is open source with many plugins available). More technical knowledge is required for integration.

One area for improvement is the integrated browser, Chromium. Single Sign-On (SSO) methods like Microsoft authentication login sometimes fail and show errors. As a workaround, I have to use a different browser, such as Firefox, to log in and make Burp work. I suggest adding a static code analysis feature to Burp. A plugin developers could install in their Integrated Development Environments (IDEs), like Visual Studio, would be incredibly useful. It would allow developers to perform code scanning as they write code.

Reporting could be improved. If you use any AI feature, you can go out and take and provide more in-depth information.

The tool is very expensive.

You can have many false positives in Burp Suite. It depends on the scale of the penetration testing. If you have experience, you can quickly determine the false positive. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional lacks an authentication feature for handling certain applications. For example, consider applications that utilize authentication, where tokens typically expire after one hour. Burp does not automatically handle reauthentication in such scenarios. While it does offer a feature to set rules for automatically renewing authentication, it's specific to particular applications. However, the process for applications with token-based authentication has become more complicated. When running a web scanner, authentication may fail due to expired tokens after one hour, rendering the scanner unable to authenticate with the application.

Improvement should be done as per the requirements of customers.

The solution’s pricing could be improved.

If your application uses multi-factor authentication, registration management cannot be automated. There are also some session management issues we have found if we want to integrate it into the pipeline. There were also some authentication-related issues we found at the time. These issues were more specific to the enterprise edition. I have worked on a paid version of the standalone solution, which is best for manual penetration testing.

We have found that so many times, false positive bugs are there, and then we spend a lot of time basically separating them from real bugs. So that's the reason we are looking for some other tool. So we were in discussion with Acunetix. Therefore, the false positive rate is, like, something that we would like to improve. What we are looking for is if this false positive rate goes down because we were OWASP Zap tool users, which was free anyway. But there were a lot of false positives there, and we used to spend a lot of time, like, for security reasons, reproducing those bugs for the development team to fix it. So then we thought, okay, why not we go with the tool? Even if it is not very expensive. But still, every year, we have to renew the license. And we got this tool. Again, we found that in this tool also, even if it is less, there are still a lot of false positive bugs out there. So we again have to spend so much time. So we hired a security tester, who was basically using Acunetix in his previous company for almost three years, and then you said that in that scanning is very slow. The scanning is also slow. Like, sometimes the site scan takes eight hours, six to eight hours. Yeah. And whereas in Acunetix, it took three to four hours. And plus, there are no false positives. I'm not saying none but there's very little. But here, the rate sometimes is very high. These are the two features I think we would like to improve further.

From a security perspective, I have only found defects related to cookies. It would be good if the solution could give us more details about what exactly is defective, and it would be more helpful if it explored more to catch as many defects as possible, apart from cookie-related defects.

The Iran market does not have after-sales support. PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional needs to provide after-sales support.

Mitigating the issues and low confluence issues needs some improvement. Implementing demand with the ChatGPT under the web solution is an additional feature I would like to see in the next release.

Scanning APIs using PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional takes a lot of time.

I need the solution to be more user-friendly. The solution needs to be user-friendly.

It works for me. I don't see any missing features. The solution is not easy to set it up. You need a lot of knowledge. I'd like to see more documentation. They need to provide more videos and more information about the solution. The website isn't as helpful as it could be. They need to provide more information and maybe provide courses to help people get the most out of it. For smaller organizations, the solution is expensive.

It's already great. There isn't anything needed for improvement. The initial setup is a bit complex.

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional could improve the static code review. In an upcoming release, PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional can give some possible remedies for any issues it has discovered after a scan of an application. At this time it provides vulnerabilities, having the possible remedies would be a benefit. It would be useful for the developers, to fix the issue immediately.

Sometimes the solution can run a little slow. When we’re cracking passwords, we have issues with responsiveness.

In some cases, we got a few file postings while doing it by the automatic scan. If that could be better, that would be ideal. The scanner could just be updated a bit more. We'd like to have more integration potential across all versions of the product. The enterprise version seems to have better integration services than others.

The price could be better. The rest is fine.

BurpSuite has some issues regarding authentication with OAT tokens that need to be improved.

We wish that the Spider feature would appear in the same shape that it does in previous versions. I believe we have developmental tools such Accuratix. It would be nice if the report that was accepted upon scanning would highlight all the weaknesses from the perspective of my application.

The reporting needs to be improved; it is very bad. The dashboard feature or the front-end of the tool does not look good and is not very creative or user-friendly. It looks complicated when we log in to the tool. It looks boring and outdated.

Although it provides great writeup for the identified vulnerabilities but reporting needs to improve with various reporting templates based on standards like OWASP, SANS Top 25, etc. The tools needs to expand its scope for mobile application security testing, where native mobile apps can be tested and can provide interface to integrate with mobile device platform or mobile simulator's. Burp suite has great ability to integrate with Jenkins, Jira, Teamcity into CI/CD pipeline and should provide better ways of integration with other such similar platforms.

The pricing of the solution is quite high. It would be ideal for the customers if they could lower the costs involved in their subscription. We have new tools in R language programming platforms that are coming up. The solution needs to ensure its compatible with that language.

I am from Brazil. The currency exchange rate from a dollar to a Brazilian Real is quite steep. It is almost six to one. It would be good if it can be sold in the local currency, and its price is cheaper for us.

The interface for external clients needs improvement. Currently, the scanning is only available in the full version of Burp, and not in the Community version. I would like the scanning included for free also.

One thing that is not up to the mark in PortSwigger is web application testing. I found some issues with its performance and reporting. They should work on these and give us a better outcome.

A lot of our interns find it difficult to get used to PortSwigger Burp's environment. The environment should be improved a little bit. Once you get used to it, it's fine, but it should be more simplified for newcomers. This would save us from constantly having to brief our interns.

One downside of the solution would be their false positive checks. As with most automated security tools, there is still a high false positive issue. Hopefully they will be able to improve on that in the future. It would also be helpful if the solution had the capability of handling larger reports. Another area of improvement would be to have a customizable dashboard. It's currently restricted now to their own interface. If you want to utilize the other features available in their API documentation, then you have to write some code yourself. It would be great if their interface could be somewhat customizable.

The use of system memory is an area that can be improved because it uses a lot. They need to reduce the amount of system memory it uses.

One area that can be improved, when compared to alternative tools, is that they could provide different reporting options and in different formats like PDF or something like that. One more thing they can improve is that despite having a good architecture, it needs a lot of specification. So when you start a project, because it requires a high configuration, the instructor costs more than the project. So it's not cost efficient if it's a big project.

There is not much automation in the tool.

We've faced lots of challenges, including slowing down of the tool, and a lot of error messages, sometimes because of the interface. If we're running a huge number of scans regularly, I think that also slows down the tool so I'm not sure if it is good for lots of scans. I hope they will work on the amount of scans they can handle. There have been improvements in the interface and the reporting structure, but they need to do more. They have a long way to go. For now, if we use the interface directly, we need to use an integration with our web application. We're after value for money.

The interface for the automatic scan can be improved because it is easy for technical users, but the business users have trouble with it. There is documentation but the interface should be more user-friendly. There should be a heads up display like the one available in OWASP Zap. I think that it would be a very good addition.

The Burp Collaborator needs improvement. There also needs to be improved integration.

The solution isn't too stable. The fundamentals of it make it difficult to use. Sometimes it takes me to other applications that are being run. The scalability capabilities of the solution could be improved.

The biggest drawback is reporting. It's not so good. I can download reports, but they're not so informative. For example, they are providing very good information about vulnerabilities, but when you are scanning the whole pathway, we want to see information like percentages, how much is finishing, and how much it is not, etc. If the scan fails, they should tell us when or how it stopped, if it failed, why it has failed, and how to avoid something like this from happening again. They need something more in-depth and more technical. I would like to have some more features, which I can play around with. It's not so flexible.

The number of false positives needs to be reduced on the solution. I'm not sure whether some features need to be added because the product has a specific toolset, and if I do need some additional features, currently I get them in different security products. The solution, however, could better integrate with various other tools.

In the earlier versions what we saw was that the REST API was something that needed to be improved upon but I think that has come in the new edition when I was reading through the release offset available. There is a certain amount of lead time for the tickets to get resolved. The biggest improvement that I would like to see from PortSwigger is what many people see as a need in their security testing that coudl be priortized and developed as a feature which can be useful. For example, if they're able to take these kinds of requests, group them, prioritize and show this is how the correct code path is going to be in the future, this is what we're going to focus around in building in the next six months or so. That could be something that will be really valuable for testers to have.

The Auto Scanning features should be updated more frequently and should include the latest attack vectors. It would be really helpful if the issue details contained example recommendations on how to fix the issues identified, or perhaps point to external recommendations for reference.

I would like to see a more optimized solution, as it currently uses a lot of CPU power and memory. Sometimes, the application is blocking. The reporting also needs improvement. Specifically, if there is an issue that exists on many pages, then I do not want to see the same thing repeated many times throughout the report. Rather, it should be pointed out as a global error, and only shown the one time. In the next version, I would like an option to scan the environment where the application is installed. I would also like a better cryptographic study, with more controls.

The scanner and crawler need to be improved.

There is a lot to this product, and it would be good if when you purchase the tool, they can provide us with a more extensive user manual. This would help us to better understand the product, and we would not need to buy a separate book. In the next release, I want to see it more interactive and have more multitasking with some faster features. Sometimes scanning takes a long time, so they need to add more tricks to reduce the time spent in security testing.

The product is very good just the way it is; It has everything already well established and functions great. I can't see any way for this current version to be improved.