I work for a service-based company where we develop solutions based on customer requirements. That server was currently put up.

I've also worked with product-based companies, developing software products for end-user requirements. That's my background, working broadly in telecom and healthcare.

This solution is for the client, and we do have internal customers who have been using this solution too.

Sonatype Lifecycle primarily has two main products:

1. Sonatype Nexus and
2. Sonatype Lifecycle.

Lifecycle is mainly used for firewall management. If any issues are detected during the build process, they will be flagged, and each port can be addressed based on firewall and code scanning reports.

Essentially, it streamlines the process, allowing us to easily identify code snippets that need attention and then act upon those findings.

It's heavily integrated within our organization due to our adherence to HIPAA regulations, which are critical for protecting health information. We ensure regulatory compliance is incorporated into both our code and the applications we develop.

• Detailed Violation Reports: The violation reports provided by Lifecycle are key, giving specific details on the types of violations and identifying the component within the application. Even with multiple components like web, app, and database tiers, each is evaluated separately through individual pipelines, and reports are provided for each.

• Version Tracking: Another important aspect is the version details, showing which version is causing issues. We follow a standard release naming convention (major, minor, patch), so we can easily see which version is problematic.

• Dependency Management: Additionally, we can address dependency-related information at a granular level, identifying component versions causing build blockages. This is a very helpful feature.

With Sonatype, I primarily work with the Nexus Repository. I like it the most because it can store many artifacts generated after applications are built. These artifacts can be retrieved at any time.

Another valuable aspect of Sonatype is that it combines Lifecycle with the repository. The Lifecycle component integrates into every stage of the release, starting from code checkout and throughout the build process. This integration gives us insights into the code's quality and overall health.

Additionally, Sonatype seamlessly integrates with other tools like GitLab, providing continuous integration, delivery, and deployment capabilities.

It offers comprehensive reports on each stage, facilitating static code analysis and improving our understanding of code quality. All these integrations help provide valuable feedback to developers and stakeholders.

Mitigates security vulnerabilities:

It primarily analyzes code and provides vulnerability check results through the IQ Server. This server takes the application configuration and details, then provides a dashboard showing the vulnerabilities as critical, low, or high.

This is based on the policies defined in Lifecycle. Besides the default policies, we have custom policies that can be defined. These features evaluate the code and present those reports in the dashboard.

While Sonatype Lifecycle effectively manages artifacts in Nexus Repository and performs code firewall checks based on rules, it has the potential to expand further.

I am looking forward to additional features similar to SonarQube, especially since licenses are often split per component. SonarType could integrate cloud-based capabilities, addressing the increasing shift towards cloud workloads. While there have been demos and discussions around this, significant progress on scanning and analyzing cloud images remains to be seen.

I am looking forward to Sonatype incorporating these enhancements, particularly in regard to cloud-based features. On-prem workloads are getting to the cloud workloads.

• I would like to see more cloud-related insights, such as logging capabilities for the images we use and image scanning information.
• Additionally, it would be beneficial to have insights into the stages of dependencies and ensure they comply with standards. If there are any violations in respect to CVSS reports,
• Integrating CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) report rules into the Lifecycle module to detect and report violations would be valuable. I am hoping to see these enhancements from Sonatype in the future.

On the security side, I think there's a lot of development needed. There are many security tools on the market, like open-source ones, that Sonatype doesn't integrate with.

I have experience with this product.

The stability of the product is very normal. If we don't bump it up with minor releases, and instead use the stable releases, there are no major issues. So far, the stability is perfectly fine.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

Earlier, licenses were specific to on-premise servers, but now, Sonatype is also available in the cloud, offering more flexibility. Now, we can bump it up if required. We can increase the number of user licenses as needed by contacting the Sonatype team.

We regularly evaluate our license usage and adjust based on our needs. For example, we initially had 100 licenses, but after analyzing usage patterns and integrating another team, we increased it to 200.

So, scalability is not an issue.

The support was good. However, getting the right resources for specific activities is a problem.

Once an issue is identified, we need to raise a user request, which might become a development request, leading to long wait times. This is where we experience delays and needs improvement.

Another tool that is equivalent to Sonatype is JFrog, but it does not have Lifecycle kind of features.

But, we can compare the Sonatype Nexus repository with JFrog Artifactory. We also have other options like Azure Artifacts in the cloud.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, with ten being easy.

The installation itself is quick, but the configuration takes longer, especially with custom policies. If you use the default policies, it's much faster.

The configuration needs to be tailored to the specific requirements of the team or application. Installation can be completed in three to four hours, but configuration may take a couple of days.

Deployment model: It is deployed both on the cloud and on-premises.

Deployment resources: It doesn't require many resources. One engineer and another person should be able to handle it, especially for the policies and other details. Installation and setup are not difficult.

However, ongoing maintenance is required, so an additional person might be helpful. Is the requirement solely for Sonatype, or do you have other tools to maintain as well?

I successfully set it up from scratch for my organization, conducted training sessions for the development team and leadership, and collaborated extensively with the Sonatype team for over eight years.

Steps for the deployment process:

1. First, we get the bundle. Once we receive the bundle, we will review the installation tips and identify the server for installation. The installation server is designed based on the environment, considering CPU, RAM, storage requirements, and database choice (Oracle or PostgreSQL). After all, the database is key.
2. We download the package bundle from the website, which includes the installation script and a configuration file. The configuration file defines the connection details to the database. This is usually handled by the admin ID.
3. The next step is to create roles for the development team and other relevant teams, assigning users to these roles. The most time-consuming part is defining the custom policies tailored to our organization's specific needs, as we have numerous applications running with different teams and product lines.
4. Once the policies are defined, we integrate Sonatype with the CI/CD pipeline. This allows us to run scans, generate reports, and start using the tool effectively.

In terms of Sonatype, it's definitely worth it. The software is valuable. However, I'm expecting more additional features and frequent releases, as major releases take a long time. I think the Sonatype development team should release updates with additional features more often.

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, with ten being expensive. The price is high.

It depends on the number of licenses. The price increases based on the fact bundle you are collecting. The number of licenses depends on the organization and how many we have.

My advice:

Sonatype Lifecycle has a lot of uses based on the user base. It's licensed based on support, not per user. So, if a team has 200 developers, I would recommend starting with a smaller number of licenses, like 50 or 75, and increasing it later if needed, rather than buying 200 licenses upfront. They can always compare and adjust based on their usage.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for libraries in our applications that need to be updated.

The solution is very easy to use.

Improvements are needed as per customer requirements.

I have been using Sonatype Lifecycle for one year.

The scalability is a ten out of ten.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We use Fortify SCA or SAST for scanning the source code, and we use Sonatype Nexus to scan libraries for any vulnerabilities. We get secure code and libraries by combining these two solutions. If we find any issues, we can fix them.

We use Fortify SAST to scan our code. It is used for the static code and not the running code. It finds vulnerabilities, and it finds bad practices. If you are using something that can be exploited in the code, it highlights that and gives you recommendations on that. It gives you ideas on how to fix that.

We have a more secure code because it is based on top security standards. Before we moved to Fortify SAST, we already had code running in production. When we moved to Fortify SAST, we had to rescan our code running in production. We got more and more vulnerabilities, which made people upset, but overall, our security was enhanced. It also enhanced the knowledge of our developers. Our developers are learning more. Many developers were frustrated in the beginning because there were many vulnerabilities, but as time went on, they liked its features. They find it straightforward now. They read about it, and they can fix their code easily. Without any back-and-forth communication, they can find the line, the recommendation, and what to do about it in one place. That is awesome.

Fortify Software Security Center gives a good overview of how the application is implemented, but it is not a 360-degree view. Sometimes we have false positives, and sometimes, it does not catch the design flows. It will mark something as vulnerable because it does not have the full picture. The highlighted code might be a part of another module, so it cannot see the full picture, but it is a very good tool. It is better than the ones we had before.

I have not yet used Fortify Software Security Center for managing and tracking risks associated with the open-source components used in our software project. We recently started to use Fortify SAST and are still exploring and discovering things. We usually do that through Sonatype Nexus, but I have seen it catching vulnerabilities. Some users have scanned the library by mistake, and I have seen it catching vulnerable code in the library. It points out why we wrote the code this way, and the code should have been that way. If there is a variable that has a sensitive name, such as a key, password, or something else, it catches that. After we have integrated it with Sonatype, we will have more exposure, but we are not yet at that stage.

I really like Fortify Software Security Center. We can scan the code and push the results. I can also see all the applications. I know the portfolio of the applications that we have. I can see all the information about the organizations, the code, and the developers in one spot. It is good for the management and also for the development teams. If their supervisors want to know the security status of their applications, they can go there straight away and check that information. It is very good in this aspect.

Fortify SAST has helped in the remediation of potential vulnerabilities by using accurate and reliable results. I like that they use standards such as OWASP Top 10 or SANS Top 25. They are very good at this. When it finds any vulnerabilities, it shows you by the rank. You can filter by so many standards. It gives you a description of the vulnerability as well as recommendations on how to fix it. It also gives you some references if you want to read more. It is very good.

Fortify SAST has helped a lot to enable developers to build secure code from the start. We have many developers. They have the development skills, but they do not have security skills. Now, there is something that tells them how to write the code properly. For instance, they use a function, and then they get the recommendation to use another function. They do not know the other function. They go ahead and use it, and the code still runs as before, but it is safer. With time, people avoid these issues. It is like a spelling checker. You get recommendations while writing the code.

Fortify and Sonatype solutions help to maintain compliance with applicable regulations. Fortify SAST is built on top of very high standards such as OWASP Top 10, SANS Top 25, PCI DSS, etc. These are very repeatable security standards. It includes over a thousand vulnerability categories. It covers a lot of vulnerabilities.

Fortify SAST helps us reduce our risk exposure on applications through the discovery of vulnerabilities and weaknesses. They have something called rulepacks that are the guidelines. There are rulepacks for different languages. They are the security standards that the code will follow. These rulepacks are updated frequently by the Fortify team themselves, and we just have to feed them into Fortify Software Security Center so that it has updated information about vulnerabilities, and it can discover more. The more you discover and fix, the more secure and resilient code you will have.

Fortify SAST provides real-time feedback on security issues. When you scan, you get the results instantly. Sometimes, for certain code languages, it takes a little more time to scan, which can be frustrating, but it provides real-time feedback. You get a small description, and you also have the details. There is one tab for recommendations, and there is also a tab for references.

We recently had this activity where we wanted to integrate the tool with a pipeline. We are using Azure DevOps, and we managed to integrate that. It was straightforward. You get a plugin or an extension, and the code is pushed and scanned, and you get the results. It is straightforward. I can see it functional for such deployments. We are ready for the cloud and automation, but we are still in the testing phase.

Fortify SAST has helped free up our staff for other projects or tasks. Because it is very informative and clear, we have a lot fewer issues for which people come back to us. They come back to us if they think it is a false positive or if they need a waiver because they cannot fix it due to some limitations, but in the majority of cases, they can control and learn, and they can do it on their own. It helped us a lot in this aspect, but I do not have the metrics. We have been using it only for a few months, and we have a shortage of people. It has saved the communication time that we were spending on emails and reporting. We now have less of that. We all go to one place. Instead of sending me an email or having a phone call, developers now go to Fortify Software Security Center and put in what they think. For example, they will say that it is a false positive because of this and that. They will send it to me, and I will go to Fortify Software Security Center. I will read it and review it, and if I find it okay, I will give the go-ahead to get rid of it. Otherwise, we would need more discussion. It improves communication big time for me.

I like Fortify Software Security Center or Fortify SSC. This tool is installed on each developer's machine, but Fortify Software Security Center combines everything. We can meet there as security professionals and developers. The developers scan their code and publish the results there. We can then look at them from a security perspective and see whether they fixed the issues. We can agree on whether something is a false positive and make decisions. I like Fortify Software Security Center. It was not the way we had before. We used to have another tool, and it did not have this feature. I also like the fact that it supports many languages. It supports more than 30 languages. It covers a lot of what we do. Its configuration is a little bit tricky, but after you configure it, it is intuitive.

I also like the integration capability. It can integrate with many IDEs, such as IntelliJ, Eclipse, VS Code, etc. It integrates with all the main ones. It also can integrate with Nexus. It can integrate with Secure Code and Azure DevOps. This is really good to have something that can work with many vendors. It gives you versatility and flexibility.

We have integrated it with Azure DevOps for the pipeline, and we have integrated it with Secure Code. It is not a major integration. We have a plan to integrate it with Sonatype. I like to have everything in one place. All the integrations happen in the IDEs. We have people using Eclipse, IntelliJ, Visual Studio, VS Code, etc. We have integrated it with all the IDEs that we have here. The integration with IDEs was straightforward. You just install the plugin, add it to the IDE, and add your configuration. For Azure DevOps, we needed to add the binary, and it took a day or two because people were not familiar with it. For Secure Code, it was straightforward again. It is not hard to integrate. Its integration is easy.

One downside to it is that it is costly. I can see it only for enterprises. I cannot see it for small businesses or for individual use.

The configuration part is a little bit tricky. There is a learning curve there because it has multiple components. If someone has used another type of scanner, they would not think of the configuration intuitively. The configuration part can be better. Installation is straightforward, but the configuration can be better. It can be improved.

There is a learning curve. Before we started using this tool, I did a lot of sessions with the vendors themselves to give an overview to the people. I also did a small documentation on how to install it because there are many components here and there. You need to understand how everything is put together. They can integrate it or make it a simpler process.

During the short experience that we have had with it, we have noticed that some of the languages such as JavaScript and TypeScript consume high resources. They take a longer time to scan. Memory consumption is also very high for those languages. We are working with Fortify to find ways to optimize the scan. I noticed this with these types of languages. By nature, they take time.

It can be tricky if you want to exclude some files from scanning. For instance, if you do not want to scan and push testing files to Fortify Software Security Center, that is tricky with some IDEs, such as IntelliJ. We found that there is an Exclude feature that is not working. We reported that to them for future fixing. It needs some work on the plugins to make them consistent across IDEs and make them easier.

For integration with IDEs, they have so many plugins. For example, they have something called security analysis, and they have something called remediation. As a user, I would love to have them as one. Why should we have two plugins in the same IDE? Just give me one plugin that I can hook to the tool and use it. This is one thing. Some of the features in these plugins also need more testing. They are not consistent across all the IDEs. From what I saw, there are different options in these tools. For example, if you install it with IntelliJ, it will be different from VS Code. Some options are different, or one tool has more options than others. They can invest more in making them consistent.

We are a big company. We have different organizations. For our organization, we started using this solution this year, but other organizations have been using it for two years.

From what I have seen so far, it is very stable. It is a browser-based solution. You just log in to the website and see all your applications. From your machine, you can just push, and it will be published there. You click a scan, and your results will be in Fortify Software Security Center. It is straightforward and easy to use.

It is being used at multiple locations and in multiple buildings. The security requirements are very high in our environment, so not everything will work as you expect it because not everything is open. We struggle a bit, but it is required. We have around 60 people who use Fortify SAST.

We have not tested it yet, but they have something called ScanCentral. Currently, developers scan the code on their machines, and then they push it to Fortify Software Security Center. ScanCentral is a feature that we will start to experiment with soon where we offload the scan to a server. It will not utilize developers' resources. It will just initiate a scan, and it will use another system to scan. I have heard that you can have many of them implemented. I have not experienced it yet, but it seems like a cool feature to free the resources for developers because they need to deploy, compile, and fix. If it frees up their resources, it will be good.

I am very satisfied with their support. They are very nice people, and they are very helpful. I would rate their support a ten out of ten.

We were using IBM Appscan. We switched because of limitations and support. We found that developers were able to tweak it and play with it. They could play with the results. Its support had also ended, and it supported fewer languages. There were multiple reasons, and this is why we had to switch to something else.

I needed their help with the setup. It was mainly because our environment is a little bit strict. It is not the easiest environment to work in. It is not only applicable to Fortify; it is applicable to many other vendors, but with their help and support, it was doable. We have a very restricted environment. If you read a document and follow it, it should work, but because of our environment, we need to open this or that. We had access issues at the beginning, but once we resolved them, it was fine.

It took weeks because of the access issues that we had. We had to reach out to the vendor and ask them why it is behaving this way.

In terms of maintenance, we need to update rulepacks. We need to take care of the licenses. In the beginning, we used licenses from a neighbor until we got ours. We need to take care of the routine activities related to licensing and patching. If we find any vulnerability with the tool itself, we need to do patching. It is like any other tool.

We had people from the cloud team. We had people from the administration team. We had people from the database team. Overall, we had four or five people involved but not always together. When you configure the database, you will be with the database team. When you configure the cloud, you will be with the cloud team.

It is too early to say whether we have seen an ROI, but we have had a great communication and learning experience.

Identifying vulnerabilities using Fortify SAST early in the development lifecycle saves costs versus discovering vulnerabilities later in the software development lifecycle (SDLC). If you discover a vulnerability early, it is helpful. For instance, if you are writing Java code and you know that there is a limitation or vulnerability in that version of Java, it helps to plan your journey of development earlier. You get to know that your server does not support this version of Java. It helps you make decisions earlier in the process. Time is money. The earlier you handle things, the better it is.

There is a licensing fee, and if you bring them to the company and you want them to do the installation and the implementation in the beginning, there is a separate cost. Similarly, if you want consultation or training, there is a separate cost.

I see it as suitable only for enterprises. I do not see it suitable for a small business or individual use. In the future, if they have other versions for smaller organizations or individuals who want to install it on their machines and use it, it would be good.

To someone whose company is still using manual methods to find vulnerabilities, I would say that when you automate it, you control it. You give more power to people, especially from a security point of view.

I would recommend Fortify SAST if you have money and multiple teams. It is useful for multiple teams, but for a small company with one team of two to three people, I would not recommend it. If you have a big community with many organizations and many development teams, it is worth it.

Overall, I would rate Fortify SAST an eight out of ten.

We use Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Sonatype in conjunction with Azure DevOps to view all code processes, from scheduling to deployment in production. This is typically included in the build. Therefore, when a colleague performs a build, all scans are automatically done, and they can see the results through the Fortify and Sonatype web portals.

Fortify Static Code Analyzer enables developers to identify and fix broken references within the code. We sought to understand how to write secure code by design.

Finding vulnerabilities using Fortify SAST is not difficult.

Fortify SAST helps our remediation of potential vulnerabilities with accurate and reliable results. While this practice does not allow our developers to build secure code from the outset, as they are currently notified of issues only after the initial build, it does facilitate the creation of secure code before deployment to the customer environment and production.

Fortify SAST has been instrumental in our growth. As a result, I now have a team that consistently writes more secure code without relying on scans. By addressing the same issues repeatedly, we learn to write code correctly the first time, fostering a culture of knowledge sharing. This is facilitated by our weekly meetings where the team discusses key issues and collaborates on solutions.

I can use the dashboard and portal to see our compliance in real-time and address any compliance issues before they become a problem.

The Fortify SAST portal helps me identify vulnerabilities and weaknesses to reduce our risk exposure.

Real-time feedback isn't necessary for us because we receive scan results once a week or on demand. However, the feedback has been incredibly valuable. I can perform a scan and immediately see our current situation. This allows me to quickly assess if our coding practices are effective or if we need to stop and address any issues before they become bigger problems.

Fortify SAST has helped free up around 20 percent of our employees' time to work on other projects.

Fortify SAST's ability to identify vulnerabilities early in the development lifecycle has helped us save significant costs equalling around 40 percent as well as time, as it allows us to catch issues before they reach production. Before using Fortify SAST, we could only identify problems manually, which often resulted in code being deployed with vulnerabilities.

Integrating Fortify SAST is simple and takes around two hours.

The reference provided for each issue is extremely helpful. It allows our team to understand the rationale behind resolving the issue and the specific type of security problem we are facing. This information is crucial for improving our security skills and coding practices. The ability to review and approve each scan before deploying to production is vital. This ensures that our product is free of bugs and complies with our security policies.

The price can be improved.

I have been using Fortify Static Code Analyzer for two years.

I would rate the stability of Fortify SAST ten out of ten.

Fortify SAST perfectly fits our organization's size.

The technical support is good.

The initial deployment is straightforward. The integration is part of our DevSecOps process and it is completely transparent.

Whether or not the Fortify SAST deployment is done separately will affect its complexity.

The deployment takes about one week and involves ten people.

Although I am not responsible for the budget, Fortify SAST is expensive.

I would rate Fortify Static Code Analyzer a nine out of ten.

Currently, we don't utilize Secure Center. Instead, we have a dedicated server that collects scan data. Fortify scans are conducted on the server hosting DevOps, which then transmits the results to the Fortify server. Due to our organization's size, Secure Center implementation is not currently necessary.

Organizations that are still relying on manual methods to identify vulnerabilities should consider transitioning to SAST for improved efficiency and professionalism.

We have Fortify SAST deployed in one department and we have 14 users.

Fortify SAST's reliance on Java necessitates maintenance due to our predominant use of Microsoft technologies.

I recommend implementing Fortify SAST for enhanced security, as a SAST solution is crucial to ensuring comprehensive security.