The reporting feature needs improvement. It doesn't give you the expected results. It is quite difficult to get the specific reports needed, and it is not as intuitive as the rest of the platform.

I don't see any need for improvement; one of the really good things about iboss as a company is that they listen to customer feedback. I have suggested enhancements, and they are responsive, making changes for the better, and they do a lot of testing.

To improve iboss, although we haven't used it, we considered the VPN solution that comes with the highest tier licensing, which includes DLP and various other add-ons. We prefer using another product which automatically logs you back onto your network when turning on your PC. With iboss, the connection is manual, which doesn't meet our needs. Additionally, sizing can be tricky because, although the initial recommendations may seem adequate, actual usage may require more gateways than anticipated.

If they could implement an extra security layer preventing access to iboss from the open internet, it would be great. Our iboss subscription access should be more secure with an OTP or VPN etc. It is easy to gain access if, for example, hackers obtain my username and password.

Their support could also be better.

Additionally, having their own solution for deployment on user machines would be beneficial.

iboss excels on the networking side but lags slightly behind competitors like Zscaler and Netskope in terms of security feature parity. I'd like to see them accelerate development on the security side, particularly around data loss prevention. Using iboss for DLP instead of traditional endpoint solutions is preferable, but its current feature set requires some clunky workarounds. I'd also like to see better integration of DLP into the platform. Additionally, while it's improving, reporting can be slow at times. This is problematic when generating reports for executives who expect them immediately. I'd like to see further improvements in reporting speed and efficiency.

I have a couple of thoughts for improvement, but usually when I address them with my rep, they put it into the feature roadmaps because I've been with them for a while, and I typically see that feature get implemented. One thing I would like to see differently with their Zero Trust platform is that some of the AI aspects related to high-risk activities have more false positives. I would like to see the AI tuned a little more. They communicated that the AI is still learning, which I appreciate, but it probably could have been given more time before being released.

For zero trust implementation, we encountered complexity issues, especially with a large infrastructure company ExxonMobil. While iboss performed well, some competitors offered simpler implementation through a one-click agent download process. With data loss protection, iboss performed well in blocking unauthorized data exfiltrations, but there could be room for improvement in the zero trust implementation process.

Our biggest problem with their service was it did not recognize the device and filtering did not always work correctly.

We switched to another solution because of increased pricing for licensing and because of customer service. We also had a problem with a transition when we upgraded from one appliance of theirs to another, but their engineer lost a good deal of our data. We had to manually update the new appliance. We had multiple problems with getting the filtering to filter correctly which we escalated to their senior management of customer service. There was no real action in spite of them promising to look into the issues.

Our current vendor offers an Aware product, a self-harm bullying module included with their service. Such a feature did not accompany the iboss service. This is something we would definitely love to see from them if we ever go back to them.

A positive improvement would be to expand into more areas for product monitoring. You have an agent that resides on the endpoint. They are positioned in a way that allows them to log information directly from the endpoint that they couldn't get in the past. They could monitor the process trees and the event logs and help with the overall detection rates of the product. If the URL is bad, the process on the machine has been observed as bad. 

Fold that in with the risk intelligence they're getting from all of the different subscriptions they are a part of. Now, these security companies subscribe to things like emerging threats, databases, etc. You can fold all this intelligence to decide what's happening on an endpoint. I would love to see them start moving into that space. That would compete directly with Microsoft. Maybe that's why they haven't. Having that ability native within the solution would be great. The other area in which I would love to see improvement is more detailed descriptions of why they block websites.

Their on-premise hardware's network interface is capped at one gigabit, which is sort of a problem. If you stand a filter up where all traffic flows through that, according to them, in order to go above a gigabit, you have to have multiple devices, which in today's IT seems a little bit silly. They could easily put in an SFP port into their device that could accommodate 10 gigs or at least offer a box. It may come at a higher cost because it would have higher CPU and RAM, but they should at least offer a box that would be a single pane or a single device that we could put in the network allowing us to go above one gig. That would be the one thing I would say to them. They would probably come back saying that they have put everything into the cloud, which is a possibility, but it is a lot more work. I like the way we have our configuration set up currently, and I hesitate to go away from it because it has been so successful for us for such a long time. Offering an on-premise device that allows something above a gigabit connection would be one thing that I would ask them to provide. I hope they will do that in the future.

I have the same complaint about them that I have about other software companies. Sometimes when you call in support, you get someone who is just following a sheet. It feels like a runaround. You feel that you are running into that support wall. This 'runaround' can be bothersome, but once the sales rep is involved, the issue is usually quickly resolved.

We can integrate with a lot of cloud solutions but not as many as I would hope to. We have a lot of visibility into the major ones, such as Microsoft or Google solutions, but they still have a way to go in getting it integrated with other third-party applications and getting visibility into them.

I am currently doing a PoC of the zero trust aspect of it. Compared to other similar solutions, it is hard to get around each feature. It takes a while to get used to it. Configuring zero trust requires a lot of manual setup, whereas with other solutions, that comes prepackaged. If they can reach the other vendors' level in regards to setting it up, it would be good. That is something that I want to see improved.

Sometimes the agent stops working in iboss, and we have to reinstall the agent. This is a hiccup that iboss should improve.

The solution's pricing could be better.

The endpoint-type solution is an area that needs some improvement. They don't identify that they are a security risk. This is something that needs some work.

File integrity monitoring would be very advantageous as an additional feature.

I would like to see anything regarding the endpoint or the endpoint-base improved.

The solution could be stronger on the integration side and offer more cloud applications like G Suite or Oracle.

Sometimes, obviously there are bugs, but right now they are handling them faster or fast enough to make them count and prevent new threats. In addition, iboss is growing so fast that it is often hard for them to keep up with the challenges. 

SSL decryption: We had issues with learners using apps instead of using web browsers. This type of encryption is tough for any appliance in a BYOD environment.

The area I would like to see improvement in is the ability with in the reporter to navigate directly to the content the user is traversing. It is kind of there, but it's not perfect. Quite frequently, I receive links that lead me to pages with error messages such as, "An error occurred while processing your request. Reference #216.6e29d242.1516384232.1523647."