SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Reviews

We did a PoC, but we did not go ahead with PingSafe. It is currently on a test cluster. It is not in production.

We were looking for a CSPM tool to monitor all of our AWS resources. We also wanted it to give us an alert in the case of a vulnerability. If, for example, a zero-day vulnerability is there, it should scan all of our tools.

We used agentless vulnerability scanning. It helped us to see all the vulnerabilities without deploying any third-party component in our system.

We used PingSafe's Offensive Security Engine. It helped us to identify all the CVEs. We could see what kind of CVEs were there and what severity level they had, such as normal or critical. It helped visualize all the severities.

PingSafe changed our security posture a lot. In one dashboard, we were able to see all the information. We could see which resources are vulnerable and which ones have critical bugs. It helped us with that.

PingSafe did not reduce our mean time to detect and mean time to remediate.

PingSafe helped with collaboration, but in my organization, developers are not directly involved with PingSafe. There was mainly the infrastructure component where we deployed agents and based on our particular role or access, they were able to send all the data to the PingSafe server. We were able to see all the reports and all the details in the UI.

We liked the search bar in PingSafe. It is a global search. We were able to get some insights from there.

The reporting feature is good. It is able to generate reports.

Its UI is very good, and it is easy to adapt. Any new person will be able to navigate, and within a week, he or she will be able to understand PingSafe.

We wanted it to provide us with something like Claroty Hub in AWS for lateral movement. For example, if an EC2 instance or a virtual machine is compromised in a public subnet based on a particular vulnerability, such as Log4j, we want it to not be able to reach some of our databases. This kind of feature is not supported in PingSafe.

If there is any virtual machine running on your public subnet, it is accessible outside your network. It is accessible via the Internet. If it has any Log4j or remote accessibility vulnerability, the attacker would be able to access the machine. From the private machine, the attacker can do NS Lookup and reach our DBs. It creates a channel for vulnerabilities. Such a feature is not present in PingSafe.

It is stable. We have not had any issues.

It is scalable.

They were helpful. They helped us with the configuration. They were available through the Zoom call. Initially, they also provided us with a demo of all the features. They showed us all the features that we could use.

The speed of their support was good. I would rate their support a 9 out of 10.

Positive

We are using Orca. We did a PoC with PingSafe, and there were some cost benefits. 

PingSafe is a SaaS solution. I was involved in its initial deployment. It took around three months.

We used their support. Its implementation requires at least two people.

Its pricing was a little less than other providers.

I would advise doing a PoC with all the similar tools and then making a decision based on the capabilities, features, and price. 

Overall, I would rate PingSafe a 9 out of 10.

We use the product across all of our entities for EDR, threat detection, and response methods.

We wanted a solution for protection. We had a number of entities with various EDR solutions. We wanted to centralize under one EDR solution, and we wanted one that was efficient and easy to manage with a small team.

The biggest thing for us was getting to a single platform. A single pane of glass has been nice. The ability to segment various sites out. The R-Back involved is super helpful for us as we are a multi-company organization. In general, the time has been greatly reduced for incidents.

The ease of use of the platform is very nice. The console provides excellent visibility into events that occur and, in general, the wide range of tools that are built into the agent itself.

My impression of the product's real-time detection and response capabilities is good. It definitely is a little bit different. It takes a little bit more time to learn than some of the other solutions that we have worked with in the past. Once you do understand it and once you're capable of running through the GUI and you understand what the logs and various windows they're trying to tell you, it's fairly straightforward.

The solution's automated remediation is good. I like that you can segment it into four options. You can choose to kill it at any time in the kill chain, so you can choose to quarantine it, you can choose to remediate, you can choose to roll back, you can choose to let it run. Being able to choose how far along you want those events to get is pretty nice.

The historical data record provided by the solution after an attack is decent. It gives you a flowchart of the attack. All along the processes you get good visibility and see all that were detected. Definitely, from a post-incident analysis perspective, it's very strong.

The solution has helped reduce our organization's mean time to detect by 20% to 30%. Given that extra 20% to 30%, it frees us up to focus on other items. 

The solution's impact on our organization's productivity is good. It provides robust whitelisting capabilities and improves our productivity. 

Agent releases need to be more stable before being pushed out. 

Bugs need to be disclosed quickly.

The reporting, and the logging visibility, are not there. It's very, very crude and simple. It needs to be drastically expanded. 

They need to expand their third-party integrations with SIM tools, and sites need to be given the option to expire at the end of the contract as well.

They could expand their integration with Kubernetes. They are trying to build out their third-party integrations. It does work well on Windows and Mac. 

I've used the product for three and a half years. 

Agent stability and communication with the console and agents going offline can be an issue. It can be time-consuming to coordinate and fix. However, the cloud console is very resilient. It's mostly the agent releases where we might have issues. CrowdStrike agents seem a little more stable. 

We have about 3,000 users using the solution.

Scaling is no issue. 

Technical support is hit or miss. We have worked with some good agents and some less knowledgeable. 

Positive

We have used different solutions, including the fact that we still CrowdStrike at a couple of companies. We are now moving more fully towards SentinelOne.

The simplicity and ease of use were big and where SentinelOne stands out. It's a set-and-forget policy. Based on what we saw in testing, it was the best option. 

In terms of telemetry data, we were all over the board.

The initial setup was a little more complex when we first started. However, they've smoothed a lot of their implementation out and so it's gotten easier over time. It took us a couple of weeks to a month to deploy. About 20 were involved in the deployment. We have 30 to 40 companies around the world and it's across every company and every department. 

The solution does require maintenance. You need to have agents up to date and cases closed properly. It does require you to be invested. 

We have witnessed ROI. It's comprehensive in its detection capabilities and has saved us from multiple attacks. We've likely saved 30% based on prevented attacks. 

The solution is relatively cheaper and is willing to work with companies on pricing. 

We are customers.

For those who believe they already have a continuous monitoring solution in place, I'd advise that SentinelOne knows its own product. They can provide that extra confidence that nothing gets missed. And if you see a high number of alerts, they're able to really help you discern those and get down to the ones that matter most.

The solution doesn't affect our ability to innovate one way or another. It doesn't hold us back.

I'd recommend the solution and advise running a POC in your environment. It's good to run against CRowdStrike. They are seriously contending against CrowdStrike.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

PingSafe was being used for cybersecurity and governance. The company where I used to work wanted to secure sensitive information or prevent any data leaks. It provided good protection.

I used it on a daily basis. If any alert came up, or any best practice needed to be followed, I used to look into the alerts and work on the issue so that it did not affect our systems.

PingSafe includes proof of exploitability in its evidence-based reporting. It helps to secure sensitive information saved in the cloud. It provides alerts in the case of any vulnerability. I felt secure when I was using PingSafe.

The alerts had severity levels, such as low, medium, and high. I used to give priority to the ones with a high severity level and then I used to handle the ones with medium or low severity.

Before PingSafe, it was a bit difficult to know all the vulnerabilities. There were some services in AWS, but we had to configure them and check them on a daily basis for any alerts. PingSafe was more reliable. Our InfoSec team used to inform us about any vulnerabilities and then we used to resolve them. PingSafe was more beneficial for our organization for security purposes.

PingSafe improved our security posture. I would rate it a nine out of ten for that.

PingSafe improved our mean time to detect. Its dashboards were helpful, and there was continuous improvement.

It used to guide me about an alert. There is something called an alert guide. I used to click on the alert guide, and I could read everything. I could read about the alert and how to resolve it. I used to love that feature.

Its interface was pretty good. It was very easy to use.

It was also good for compliance, but I was not handling that part. I only used to view the alerts and solve the issues. The other aspects were handled by my seniors.

I used to work on AWS. At times, I would generate a normal bug in my system, and then I would check PingSafe. The alert used to come after about three and a half hours. It used to take that long to generate the alert about the vulnerability in my system. If a hacker attacks a system and PingSafe takes three to four hours to generate an alert, it will not be beneficial for the company. It would be helpful if we get the alert in five to ten minutes.

Another issue was that when there was a new alert, I did not get an email or notification on my personal email. I had to log in and refresh the screen to check if any new alerts came. It would be beneficial if an email or a notification could be sent to a personal email or mobile number.

We had a few false positives. For example, for Amazon EBS volumes, PingSafe sometimes used to give an alert saying that an EBS volume was created in the East US region, whereas no EBS volume was created. It was a false alert. We discussed these false alerts with the PingSafe team and gave them feedback. We muted those alerts, but such a thing should not happen. However, the number of false positives reduced over time. Initially, if we had 10 false positives, then later on, we had only one or two.

They can enhance the dashboard and make it more user-friendly. They can also provide more information in the alerts about remediation.

I used PingSafe for almost 1.5 years.

It is stable. I would rate it a 9 out of 10 for stability.

It is scalable. I would rate it a 9 out of 10 for scalability.

We had approximately 15 to 20 users in our organization. We had multiple departments, but all the applications were deployed only on AWS.

I never used their support in 1.5 years. A different team interacted with them.

I have only used PingSafe.

It was deployed on the cloud and on-premises. Its initial setup was not complex. It was easy to understand.

Its deployment took a few days.

2-3 people were involved in its deployment.

It saved resources. There were 20% to 30% savings.

It is cheap.

I would recommend PingSafe to others. Overall, I would rate PingSafe a 9 out of 10.

We use it to monitor Azure and AWS accounts. We also use it to monitor the GitHub account for any data leakage and misconfigurations and also to have proactive configuration checks.

We were looking for a CNAPP solution that could provide details about cloud misconfigurations, compliance, and any risks. PingSafe provides that. The feature of offensive security has been very helpful for us.

We only use agentless scanning. We have not installed agents anywhere. It collects data and provides information.

We use PingSafe's Offensive Security Engine. The analytics features of PingSafe are something that other providers do not provide. They have scanning on the port base and simulation of attacks. It is a very helpful feature to proactively resolve issues. It handles verifying actual exploit paths and prioritizing breach potential very well.

The proactive approach and offensive security have helped us to fix things in advance before they can be exploited.

We were able to realize its benefits immediately. As soon as you configure it, it does its job. It takes a day to configure it and discover the assets. It is easily deployable, and it immediately starts providing inputs.

PingSafe helped reduce the number of false positives. It also helps with our SOC monitoring. The alerts are reduced, and we are in compliance.

We get details about how much we are compliant with different frameworks. It helps us to evaluate the risk posture as well. We use the reports to evaluate our risk posture.

The proactive approach and advanced fixes reduce the number of false positives, but it is difficult to know if PingSafe has reduced our mean time to detect. PingSafe has definitely reduced our mean time to remediate.

PingSafe has not had an effect on the collaboration among various teams because, in our environment, everything is done by IT, but we have visibility across all the domains. We can work together if needed, but it is not yet applicable to our organization.

The offensive security where they do a fix is valuable. They go to a misconfiguration and provide detailed alerts on what could be there. They also provide a remediation feature where if we give the permission, they can also go and fix the issue.

They also support private clouds to a certain extent. It is pretty easy and customizable.

PingSafe's interface is pretty easy and comfortable. They keep on improvising it. When you are configuring, it is pretty easy.

It is a very secluded solution. It works only as CNAPP. It does not bring much threat intel from the outside world. All it does is scan. If it can also correlate things, it will be better. It can discover the threats from the outside world. It can discover the threats or vulnerabilities happening across those assets. If it can bring that in and evaluate, it will be good.

We have been using PingSafe for a year.

It is stable. We have not observed any issues.

We have not increased our assets, so it is difficult to say anything about the scalability part.

I never had to contact their support.

We were not using a similar solution previously.

It was pretty easy. It was very straightforward. They had many things available. We got the scripts on Azure, AWS, and GitHub, so the installation was pretty easy. It took a couple of hours.

It is a cloud solution. It does not require any maintenance.

We implemented it on our own. Only one person was required from our side.

Their support was not required. They offered to help. They assigned a customer success manager, but it was easy to deploy, so we did not require much help from their side.

Its pricing is okay. It is in line with what other providers were providing. It is not cheap. It is not expensive.

We evaluated 2 more products. One was Zscaler, and the other one was Wiz. Offensive security and support for the private cloud were the reasons for going for PingSafe.

I would advise evaluating PingSafe based on the use cases. You should know what is required and how PingSafe can support that. If PingSafe is able to fulfill your cases, it will be good. A thorough evaluation and mapping of the organization's objective should be done before buying PingSafe.

I would rate PingSafe an 8 out of 10. It is good.

I am working with AWS. I'm a junior cloud engineer and on the client side, we use this software for security. We use this just for scanning all across the AWS environment for any bug, vulnerability, or high risk security issues, and we have to resolve these issues. The solution offers us low to critical alerts and our work depends on these alerts. If it is a critical alert, we have to resolve things as soon as possible. 

The scanning is very good. We have an AWS environment and we can scan our whole account very quickly. Once the alerts get analyzed, we can automatically start removing issues. 

It's easy to use. It comes with preconfigured settings. I haven't had to really change anything for months. 

We have used evidence-based reporting. We're able to give reports on AWS, for example, how many data centers are used, et cetera. We can collect all of the information from PingSafe and share all kinds of data which we can share with the database team for analysis. 

The IaC scanning has been good. It's very interesting. 

When I create a stack for any services in AWS, I can scan everything in a robust environment. This enables me to understand the level of protection.

PingSafe can also scan code and provide alerts of there are vulnerabilities.

It's helped us reduce the number of false positives. I've been on the project for 6 months, and it was only until 3 or 4 months in that I received a false alert. Out of 20 alerts coming in, maybe only one or two are wrong. 

The mean time to detect has been reduced. We check PingSafe every day for a project happening 24/7. We check it frequently to ensure issues are being addressed quickly. We try to be consistent, however, the alerts don't come in at a certain time. They come in at varying times; we just work to keep on top of them.

We've had a glitch in PingSafe where it has fed us false positives in the past.

Sometimes, it takes a few hours to detect a misconfiguration. It would be ideal if that happened faster. Detections should happen in minutes, not hours. 

I've been using the solution for 6 months.

I have not noticed any lagging or crashing. The stability seems to be good. 

We have dealt with support in the past. They were helpful.

Neutral

We did not previously use a different product.

We had senior members of the team manage the installation since they had expertise. I'm not sure how long the process itself took. 

I don't have any visibility on the pricing. 

I'd rate the solution 8 out of 10. 

There are a lot of options. It's a good idea to have a team member arrange on at least a quarterly basis, a review so that new team members can get up to speed on the product and everyone stays on the same page. This will help new team members understand the product. 

We have AWS for most of our infrastructure, however, we don't have a dedicated security team. There are a lot of potential vulnerabilities which we are concerned about. We use PingSafe for security. For example, if there are open ports or incorrect configurations, we would get alerted and could fix them.

They have dedicated cloud-based configurations, which are quite helpful. 

The product works well with AWS. It can help us manage AWS security. If there are any groups or details that are incorrect or unsafe, or even misconfigured, it helps protect us. 

The product offers ISE scanning, which basically scans all activities for issues. 

We can pick up on pre-production issues. It's very helpful. They've helped us by providing a lot of CI/CD tools. Everything gets scanned so that we can get a sign-off before a deployment.

The ease of use is very good. I'd rate the ease of use 8 out of 10. They have nice UI and templates and the docmentation is very helpful. It's very thorough. 

They also have a good support system for users. If something is not working, they have a good SLA, and within a day or so, they will reach out and help you with whatever you need. 

The agentless vulnerability scanning is great.

If a protocol is not being properly followed, we'll be alerted. This helps us react faster to any production issues. 

We do use the offensive security engine. It's good for verifying exploit paths and prioritizing items. We have recently started using this. It allows us to see which endpoints, for example, are publically accessible, or what code repositories have vulnerabilities in terms of libraries we are using that may be outdated. For example, if we've noted our NGINX server is very publically exposed we can change things. 

The benefits of the product were felt almost immediately as it allowed us to handle issues in the pre-production phase. We didn't have to make anything live before finding issues. Within an hour, we'd begin to see issues, and within 4 to 6 hours, we'd have a full survey of security vulnerabilities. We also get regular notifications when the system sees something is off. Based on the information we receive, we're able to react and fix things very quickly.

We're able to see both high and low-priority issues so that we can accurately prioritize what to do first. That helps us manage bandwidth in terms of resources. 

PingSafe has helped us reduce the amount of false positives we see. We've reduced false positives by around one-third. 

Our mean time to detect has been reduced, as well as our mean time to respond. We used to rely on a third-party provider to find issues, and now we can do it in-house. This means we no longer have to sync our AWS information on a daily basis. Now, we have a direct integration with PingSafe. We used to have a delay of 36 to 48 hours before we would recognize if there were any vulnerabilities. On top of that, there was a reaction time delay of 4 to 6 hours, meaning issues wouldn't be dealt with until maybe 50 or so hours after the vulnerability was detected. We've reduced all of this down to maybe 8 to 10 hours.

The collaboration between cloud security, application developers, and AppSec teams has been better. It's mostly been positive for us. 

They could improve on their UI.  Sometimes it's not clear where to look when seeking information. Support often can direct us by giving us the correct link to what we are looking for. 

I'd like to see better onboarding documentation. If we want to be able to integrate something new, such as new assets, it can be difficult. 

I've used the solution for more than 2 years now. We started using it around December 2021 or January 2022. 

I haven't faced any lagging or crashing. 

For our use case, it has been scalable. 

The support they provide is good. They give you very detailed information and documentation which they have created internally. They are very informative. They've even shared their own internal documentation in terms of AWS issues or questions. 

They are quick to respond, You can rely on them. 

Positive

We did use a different solution, however, it didn't offer direct AWS integration. Due to this, we had to wait up to 48 hours for information on vulnerability issues. We were already having security issues in that timeframe, so we needed something that could help us detect faster. 

The initial deployment was easy. However, having more initial onboarding documentation would have been better. However, we've created some internal docs that have helped us with our use case. How long it takes to deploy depends on the use case, however, we were able to have it up in 12 to 14 hours. We had 2 people working on the deployment. 

PingSafe did offer some assistance with the setup.

I'm not sure of the exact pricing. However, my understanding is that it is very economical. 

We did explore Crowd Strike at some point. Crowd Strike was a very big platform and we were not sure how much support we'd get. We wanted to make sure we had priority support.

I'd rate the solution 9 out of 10. The usability is very good. Both their new and mature products are good in terms of their overall usability.

We have a wide array of applications. It extends beyond mere container and threat management; in fact, we extensively utilize it across all facets of our cloud data management. It offers comprehensive security for our entire infrastructure, encompassing containers, Kubernetes, cloud services, and more. Its scalability is particularly beneficial for our operations.

We receive Slack alerts for any vulnerable resources within our inventory. These alerts indicate if a particular resource is vulnerable and requires attention, ensuring timely action for remediation. Additionally, critical events are promptly communicated to us, enhancing our overall security posture.

Furthermore, we are provided with compliance metrics, allowing us to gauge our level of adherence to regulatory standards and guidelines.

Cloud Native Security's automation features have revolutionized our approach to cloud-native security, making it a standout solution in the market. With its seamless automation capabilities and timely alert notifications, Cloud Native Security ensures that we stay ahead of potential vulnerabilities, providing peace of mind in our dynamic cloud environment.

One of Cloud Native Security's greatest strengths lies in its ability to streamline compliance management. While specific controls are not directly provided, Cloud Native Security's automated assessment of our cloud and server infrastructure empowers us to maintain compliance effortlessly. The platform offers comprehensive insights into our compliance status, allowing us to identify areas for improvement and scale up our operations with confidence.

During our initial implementation, Cloud Native Security proved invaluable in tackling the challenges posed by our extensive resource inventory. By providing a detailed breakdown of resource utilization and associated vulnerabilities, Cloud Native Security enabled us to take proactive measures to enhance our security posture. The intuitive dashboard interface offers granular control and simplifies decision-making, sparing us the burden of manual inspections.

Cloud Native Security's automated auditing feature sets it apart, offering a comprehensive overview of our cloud resources with minimal effort. The asset inventory feature provides detailed insights into resource usage, ensuring that no stone is left unturned in our quest for security and compliance excellence. While there may be a slight learning curve initially, Cloud Native Security's user-friendly interface makes navigation a breeze over time.

The evidence-based reporting functionality of Cloud Native Security is a game-changer, allowing us to prioritize and address critical security issues efficiently. While occasional false positives may occur, Cloud Native Security's continuous improvement efforts ensure that such instances are minimal and swiftly addressed. Integration with our existing security infrastructure further enhances its capabilities, providing a holistic approach to our security strategy.

Overall, Cloud Native Security has been instrumental in fortifying our risk posture and facilitating our growth trajectory. With a significant reduction in mean time to detect issues and improved visibility for our development teams through DevSecOps integration, Cloud Native Security has truly become an indispensable asset in our security arsenal.

While we do encounter occasional false positives, we appreciate Cloud Native Security's efforts to address this issue.

In terms of improvement, we believe there's room for enhancing the comprehensiveness of their rule sets. Specifically, if we have unique requirements for our cloud security and need to establish custom rule sets, we require more comprehensive options than currently available. While Cloud Native Security has provided a feature for this purpose, its implementation is currently challenging. We see this as an area for improvement where Cloud Native Security could refine its offerings to better meet the diverse needs of its users.

I've been using the solution for 1.5 years. 

We have not found any glitches or suffered any downtime. 

Currently, we have approximately three platform engineers actively utilizing the solution.

The solution demonstrates excellent scalability and offers considerable flexibility.

Technical support is good. They help us out on certain details. We can submit tickets in order to get assistance. 

Positive

Previously, we didn't employ a different solution; instead, we relied on various open-source tools. While these tools weren't direct competitors, their functionalities didn't fully align with what we needed. Since adopting this solution, we've witnessed significant improvements in scaling our security measures effectively.

The initial onboarding process for Cloud Native Security resources presented some challenges, albeit manageable ones. However, the deployment itself was remarkably swift, typically taking only 15 to 20 minutes. Incorporating Cloud Native Security into our original deployment was crucial for establishing permissions effectively. To manage power demand efficiently, we required running scripts consistently.

As a Software as a Service (SaaS) solution, deployment to multiple locations wasn't necessary. Cloud Native Security is hosted on their cloud platform, eliminating concerns about maintenance or internal management on our end. We can rely on the provider for seamless operation without the need for internal intervention.

The pricing is fair, as it is determined by the resources we utilize. We have the flexibility to adjust our resource usage according to our needs.

Prior to implementing this solution, we didn't assess any other options.

Currently, the market offers numerous products for cloud-native security. Despite the abundance of choices, we received excellent guidance with this solution. The support provided was invaluable, demonstrating their strength in customer success.

As end users, we don't maintain a direct relationship with the company.

I highly recommend this solution to fellow users.

In terms of rating, I would give the solution a solid 9 out of 10.

Our Cloud Native Security use cases depend on the type of SQL server we use. Currently, we need to check all cloud-based configurations directly. Cloud Native Security helps us identify SQL configurations on our local PCs.

Cloud Native Security has improved our cloud security monitoring processes. We can now capture all issues and misconfigurations in real-time, allowing us to respond quickly.

It streamlined compliance management for our organization. They schedule a meeting with us every month to discuss any requirements on our end, such as updating the Cloud Native Security version. For example, one time they informed us that we needed to update to Cloud Native Security version four. We inquired with their customer support team, who were very approachable and requested them to implement the cloud version of Cloud Native Security version four into our Cloud Native Security dashboard. They implemented it within five to six days. We were happy to adopt the enhanced security controls of Cloud Native Security version four. The customer success team and the customer-facing teams were very helpful and provided us with the best solution. This is why we chose Cloud Native Security. They are a well-established CSPM company in India with a proven track record of assisting businesses with compliance requirements. By onboarding Cloud Native Security, we gained a cloud-based configuration management system for our workloads.

It's easy to use.

Our cloud security issues are already automated using a common subscription ticketing tool to capture them. Reports are then sent to both the internal DevOps team to identify potential false positives and the business team to assess if resolving the issue aligns with business requirements.

Cloud Native Security's event-based evidence reporting should include proof of exploitability. This would allow users to easily identify misconfigured areas in the graph and click on a provided link to conveniently be redirected to the cloud service provider management console page for more details.

Cloud Native Security's offensive security engine proved valuable recently. When an endpoint was mistakenly exposed, it automatically captured the unauthorized request in the cloud and sent an alert to our email address. This notification allowed us to take swift action and restrict access to the URL on our network.

The AI helps us handle the hundreds of audits each year helping to enhance our security posture.

Cloud Native Security's access to the IIM role in the cloud formation template significantly reduces false positives, thereby maximizing the number of true positives.

Cloud Native Security helps us improve our risk posture, failover capabilities, and compliance levels.

Cloud Native Security reduces our MTTD. We are alerted within seconds on the dashboard and email of the detection.

To assess our MTTR, we need to consult with the DevOps team and conduct an impact analysis. If the impact analysis reveals no disruption to the production application within the AWS network architecture, we can proceed with remediation immediately. However, if the analysis identifies a potential impact, obtaining management approval will add to the resolution timeframe.

Cloud Native Security improves collaboration between our cloud security application developers and AppSec teams. It's particularly helpful for AppSec because we can leverage cloud security controls directly from Cloud Native Security. This also allows us to mitigate cloud misconfigurations.

Cloud Native Security's most valuable features include cloud misconfiguration detection and remediation, compliance monitoring, a robust authentication security engine, and cloud threat detection and response capabilities.

In addition to our telecom and Slack channels, it would be helpful to receive Cloud Native Security security notifications in Microsoft Teams. 

I have been using Cloud Native Security for six months.

Cloud Native Security is stable.

The scalability of Cloud Native Security is good.

The technical support is the best. They can integrate our suggestions for security control into Cloud Native Security within three days.

Positive

The deployment took one week. The deployment was completed by one person from our team along with a tech team from Cloud Native Security.

Cloud Native Security is priced reasonably for our workload.

I would rate Cloud Native Security ten out of ten.

We have a large number of users of Cloud Native Security in our organization.

I recommend Cloud Native Security to others.