They need to stop changing Vision One once a week. They're in a hurry to change things so badly and so fast that I can't find where stuff is half the time, which is a challenge sometimes. I've given one piece of feedback to their product guys. One thing that they're trying to make is a SIEM. It's a product where you input all the logs from your tools, and it creates additional insights into how things look. They've been kind of playing the "me too" game on that, even though that's not what I bought the product for. They have a new gateway where I can take my firewall of email logs and send it over there. In theory, it's supposed to do a more comprehensive evaluation of all my stuff to improve that risk index score. I'm not impressed with it, and I've told them as much. I feel if you're good at something, you should keep working on that and not try to be all the things to all the people. I bought a different email solution even though it would have been 10 times easier to just stay with their email solution because they aren't great at it. They are great at other things, but they're playing the "me too" game with some of their products. Their competitors do this, so they should be doing this, too. They need to pick a product and keep being good at that. If they're going to roll new things out, they should do it but do it right. They have a button to isolate an endpoint because it looks bad, but it doesn't usually work. I've had no chance to argue with the product guys to show them examples of how their button doesn't work. You think it does, but it doesn't work in a real environment. That can be a challenge sometimes. I can see in the data showing what is a false positive. But it doesn't save me time helping them figure out how to fix the problem in their engine. It can help me identify it as a false positive, but it doesn't apply that consistently. It will ignore the false positive for that device, but if they start detecting a false positive on Apple devices, I have eight thousand Apple devices and get 8,000 alerts. I can tell that specific false positive, but it doesn't learn from that particularly well. We use the executive dashboards, but I don't find them particularly useful. One is the ability to customize. That has gotten a little better, and it'll be better in the future. Most of what they have on there are data points that are generic and not particularly actionable. That's why it's called an executive dashboard. Executives want to see if we are secure, but it's hard for me to find out why our attack surface risk went down by x percentage. I don't know. It says that on the dashboard, but it doesn't give me specific details about why. I find it confuses my executives, and it's not useful for me because it doesn't give me things to work on. It will give me generic things on the executive dashboard like you have a thousand accounts with an old password. Those are big generic things, but I also can't tell it that our password policy is different from what your automatic detection model means, and I don't have a problem with that, so quit lowering my risk score. The risk score is useless. In theory, it's based on the random intelligence they're getting from their various customers. I'm in K-12 education, so they have a decent amount of K-12 customers, but it's a subset, and the baseline of what's common in K-12 education is not the same. There's not enough data to make that particularly clean or useful. Vision One is not custom, and that's part of my beef. That index score is based on whatever random report they're looking at from their data sources at any given moment in time. It's nice, but I'd rather have one that's based on your particular circumstances. Instead, it's saying that the number one attack threat surface for school districts is email phishing. It's too generic.
