"Helped to decrease the overall false positive rate, but the authentication process has room for improvement"

We use the solution to detect any secret exposure.

The overall breadth of the solution is good. It's been able to detect most of the secrets that we have.

At the start, historical scanning was very useful because it was the first time we had done it. It allowed us to see how many secrets we had exposed. If we had only focused on current secrets, we would have missed all the secrets that had been committed in the past. So, initially, the historical scan was really useful.

It took us a while to get new patterns introduced into the pattern reporting process. If there is a way to automate this process so that we can include our own patterns in our repositories, that would be very useful.

I have been using GitGuardian Internal Monitoring for one and a half years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable, so we can create instances for each scan that we run. This means that we will never have any issues with load or performance. We have 100 end users the utilize the solution.

The technical support has been very helpful. The system is also pretty intuitive, so we haven't had to contact them very often.

We have seen a 10 percent return on investment. Resource-wise, creating a secret once it has been detected is a significant undertaking. Early detection has saved a lot of time, and I think there would be various penalties. Theoretically, if we continued to explore secrets, we could also save and compromise.

I compared the solution to a couple of other solutions, and I think it is very competitively priced.

I give GitGuardian Internal Monitoring a seven out of ten. The solution is really good, but the false positives that we had to work with lower the solution's overall score.