RESPONSE: Syhunt Hybrid already detects the Fastjson, Spring4Shell & Log4Shell RCE vulnerabilities Learn more

Syhunt as Alternative to Tenable.io WAS

This document compares key functionality and scan capabilities of two industry-leading products: Syhunt Hybrid and Tenable.io WAS. The comparison is of particular interest for those undecided between the two products and for those seeking for an alternative to Tenable.io WAS.

Background

Both Syhunt and Tenable are long-time established security assesment companies. Syhunt was founded in 2003, as a web application security focused company, while Tenable, creator of the Nessus technology, was founded in 2002 with a more broad focus. In 2008, Syhunt went beyond the DAST market and added its first SAST capabilities (Syhunt Code), which has been expanding heavily since then, and in 2019, added mobile application security testing (Syhunt Mobile). Tenable in comparison released its DAST offering (Tenable.io WAS) in 2017. Syhunt's OAST capabilities (Syhunt Signal), unveiled in 2020, integrate with Syhunt's SAST and Syhunt's SAST-in-DAST capabilities (2021) to provide hybrid-augmented security analysis.

Comparison

The table below offers a closer look at the different testing methodologies and features of Syhunt Hybrid and Tenable.io WAS and why Syhunt can best suit the application security needs of an organization.

FeatureSyhunt Hybrid Platinum PlusTenable.io WAS
DeliveryOn-PremisesCloud-Based
Number of Target WebsitesSingle, Wildcard and Unlimited TargetsRestricted to 5 (min) to 15 (max) FQDNs
Custom +15 offering available
Detect Mobile Vulnerabilities iOS & Android
Gray-Box Vulnerability Testing HAST (Hybrid-Augmented Analysis), SAST-in-DAST
Black-Box Vulnerability Testing DAST & OAST (Syhunt Signal) DAST
White-Box Vulnerability Testing SAST, MAST & FAST
PCI Vulnerability Scanning
PCI Vulnerability Report (Requires separate product)
Version Control Systems Integration (GIT, Azure Repos, GitHub, etc)
Continuous Scanning & Integration (GitLab, Jenkins, etc)
Issue Tracker Integration (Jira, GitHub, etc)
Tech Support Included
Vulnerability Assessment Features
Modern Framework Support (HTML5, JavaScript, AJAX, etc)
Advanced Authentication (Web Forms, Client-side Certificates, Basic Auth, etc)
Safe Scanning
Manual Crawling
Known Vulnerability Detection
Unknown Vulnerability Detection
High Detection Accuracy
Web Services Scanning (WSDL, REST etc) SAST-based
Vulnerability Reporting
Full Detailed Scan Report
Compliance Reports (CWE/SANS, and more)
OWASP Top 10 Report
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) for Severity CVSS3 CVSS3
Trend Graphs
Integrations
Security Dashboard GitLab Ultimate (On-Premise & Cloud-Based) Tenable.sc (On-Premise)
WAF Virtual Patching Big IP ASM, Imperva, ModSecurity
Version Control Systems Integration (GIT, Azure Repos, GitHub, etc)
Issue Tracker Integration (Jira, GitHub, etc)
Continuous Integration GitLab
Jenkins Pipeline
Integration APIs CLI, REST API & Lua API REST API only
PowerShell Integration
Other Functionality
Advanced Pen Testing Tools Syhunt Chrome Extension
Syhunt Sandcat
Syhunt Huntpad
Firefox Integration
Tenable.io Chrome Extension

DAST Accuracy & Crawling Coverage Comparison with Tenable Tools

Tenable.io, according to offical documentation, is powered by the Nessus technology: the Nessus WAS technology has been compared to Syhunt in 2012 by the independent WAVSEP project (results are available below). According to the WAVSEP project, between 2018 and 2014, Tenable declined to participate the benchmark project. As of 2021, independent accuracy comparison between Syhunt and Tenable.io WAS is still not available in the security community.

VulnerabilitySyhunt DynamicTenable Nessus WASTenable.io WAS
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Detection100%Declined to participate (2018-2014)
66% (in 2012)
N/A
SQL Injection100%Declined to participate (2018-2014)
85% (in 2012)
N/A
LFI/Path Traversal100%Declined to participate (2018-2014)
8% (in 2012)
N/A
Unvalidated Redirect100%Declined to participate (2018-2014)N/A
Crawling Coverage (WIVET)94%Declined to participateN/A

For more details. see Scanner Comparison.