Automated attack surface mapping has improved risk visibility but still needs better guidanceI believe CyCognito could improve by lowering the false positive rate. When false positives occur with CyCognito, we experience frustrating delays in customer support. Standard support tickets for complaints often take too long to resolve. Additionally, the remediation workflow guidance is sometimes criticized for lacking clear step-by-step instructions on fixing vulnerabilities, requiring manual engineering research. Adding specific code fixes or configuration lines could prevent teams from manually figuring out corrections. Moreover, the tool is somewhat expensive, particularly for small to medium businesses such as ours, pushing smaller IT teams to utilize lower-cost or open-source alternatives. Ideally, a pricing tier favorable to these smaller organizations would be beneficial. I also suggest a consumption-based model based on testing frequency rather than total asset count to enhance platform accessibility. CyCognito also lacks native compliance questionnaire management and vendor scorecard tracking, which could improve overall utility. Finally, while it maps third-party parameters, it cannot fully address lateral movement paths as some other scanners can, requiring reliance on external API integration.
