Office Manager at a legal firm with 1-10 employees
Real User
Top 20
2024-02-14T20:55:00Z
Feb 14, 2024
There are tags for security threats, but I only view them. I do not action anything. I just see what is happening. Sometimes, they are a little bit vague, and I am unsure what they mean, so I leave that to the IT experts. Overall, we are quite satisfied with their product and how it is working. I am kind of a middle person. I am not a tech person, so I do not really understand how it all works. It provides me comfort that somebody else is doing it because I do not understand it.
Covalence should provide a live view of the endpoint because the endpoint view in the portal is 5 to 15 minutes behind the actual status of the endpoint and its vulnerabilities. When it doesn't update with the actual status, it makes managing those things harder because sometimes something gets updated, and one of those vulnerabilities has gone away, but that doesn't appear in the ARO. The ARO information becomes outdated. There should be more alignment between the actual view, the endpoint view, and the ARO list. It also lacks email security, so you have to implement other things. They cover a lot but not everything.
Security Consultant at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Reseller
Top 20
2024-01-03T16:18:00Z
Jan 3, 2024
We meet with the Field Effect team every month, and I understand that one potential project they're considering is a patch remediation component within Field Effect. The ability to directly patch machines would be a significant improvement, though I recognize it's a substantial undertaking. I believe they're exploring the feasibility of this feature, and its inclusion in the Covalence tool would be transformative, streamlining workflows and reducing reliance on additional tools. I have a couple of suggestions for improvement. First, it would be great if we could remotely remove machines from the portal, either by uninstalling the agent remotely or completely deleting the machine entry. Currently, if a machine is upgraded, especially for our smaller clients who replace machines frequently, the old machine entry remains offline or otherwise inaccessible, cluttering the portal. Having a self-service option to remove these machines would be much more efficient than contacting support every time. In the AROs tab, if we encounter multiple duplicate recommendations, it would be helpful to be able to select and resolve or dismiss them all at once. This would save time and effort when dealing with repetitive tasks.
Field Effect Covalence could benefit from enhancing its packing slip process. When receiving multiple devices simultaneously, it can be challenging to initiate setup due to inadequate labeling on the packing slips, which often fails to clarify device-to-customer associations.
It would be incredibly valuable to have the Field Effect team handle some of the third-party application patching they're currently identifying. While it's fantastic that they're proactive in this area, the time commitment is significant. Integrating patching into their existing service offering would be a game-changer. I'd love to see a tool that aids sales discovery efforts when we engage new clients. Ideally, this internal tool would scan their network environment to identify potential risks and give us a comprehensive picture of their network infrastructure. This would be a huge asset in informing our sales strategies and showcasing our expertise.
I would like Covalence to implement patch management as well. It would be beneficial to add the ability to create groups for endpoint devices within the portal.
Vice President, Information Technology at a manufacturing company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-11-15T15:15:00Z
Nov 15, 2023
The area where they can make it better is by giving responses to the end-user. For example, when there is an alert to the administrator, I get it. I have to copy and paste everything to everyone, telling them, "Hey, your Zoom is out of date," or "Mac user, you have to update your iOS because there's a vulnerability." And then I have to follow up with them, and it's a real pain. Also, with the email alert system, when people have suspicious emails they forward them. The analysis comes back, and I have access to it. But what I want is that if someone who is not the administrator sends in a suspicious email, they should get the email back with the response from Covalence. Now, it keeps that information in the administrator portal. But I want to get out of the way. If someone reports something, the answer should go back to that person, not to me. In some cases, it requires an admin to execute software updates, but I would like them to know exactly what they need to do to be up-to-date and have a vulnerability-free endpoint.
Over the last four years, there have been so many improvements and additions that I honestly can't think of anything else, aside from more third-party integrations with other MSP tools.
Get strong security without the complexity. Covalence deploys in minutes to identify vulnerabilities and threats, and keep you safe from attacks with its revolutionary, holistic approach to cyber security.
There are tags for security threats, but I only view them. I do not action anything. I just see what is happening. Sometimes, they are a little bit vague, and I am unsure what they mean, so I leave that to the IT experts. Overall, we are quite satisfied with their product and how it is working. I am kind of a middle person. I am not a tech person, so I do not really understand how it all works. It provides me comfort that somebody else is doing it because I do not understand it.
Covalence should provide a live view of the endpoint because the endpoint view in the portal is 5 to 15 minutes behind the actual status of the endpoint and its vulnerabilities. When it doesn't update with the actual status, it makes managing those things harder because sometimes something gets updated, and one of those vulnerabilities has gone away, but that doesn't appear in the ARO. The ARO information becomes outdated. There should be more alignment between the actual view, the endpoint view, and the ARO list. It also lacks email security, so you have to implement other things. They cover a lot but not everything.
We meet with the Field Effect team every month, and I understand that one potential project they're considering is a patch remediation component within Field Effect. The ability to directly patch machines would be a significant improvement, though I recognize it's a substantial undertaking. I believe they're exploring the feasibility of this feature, and its inclusion in the Covalence tool would be transformative, streamlining workflows and reducing reliance on additional tools. I have a couple of suggestions for improvement. First, it would be great if we could remotely remove machines from the portal, either by uninstalling the agent remotely or completely deleting the machine entry. Currently, if a machine is upgraded, especially for our smaller clients who replace machines frequently, the old machine entry remains offline or otherwise inaccessible, cluttering the portal. Having a self-service option to remove these machines would be much more efficient than contacting support every time. In the AROs tab, if we encounter multiple duplicate recommendations, it would be helpful to be able to select and resolve or dismiss them all at once. This would save time and effort when dealing with repetitive tasks.
Field Effect Covalence could benefit from enhancing its packing slip process. When receiving multiple devices simultaneously, it can be challenging to initiate setup due to inadequate labeling on the packing slips, which often fails to clarify device-to-customer associations.
It would be incredibly valuable to have the Field Effect team handle some of the third-party application patching they're currently identifying. While it's fantastic that they're proactive in this area, the time commitment is significant. Integrating patching into their existing service offering would be a game-changer. I'd love to see a tool that aids sales discovery efforts when we engage new clients. Ideally, this internal tool would scan their network environment to identify potential risks and give us a comprehensive picture of their network infrastructure. This would be a huge asset in informing our sales strategies and showcasing our expertise.
I would like Covalence to implement patch management as well. It would be beneficial to add the ability to create groups for endpoint devices within the portal.
The area where they can make it better is by giving responses to the end-user. For example, when there is an alert to the administrator, I get it. I have to copy and paste everything to everyone, telling them, "Hey, your Zoom is out of date," or "Mac user, you have to update your iOS because there's a vulnerability." And then I have to follow up with them, and it's a real pain. Also, with the email alert system, when people have suspicious emails they forward them. The analysis comes back, and I have access to it. But what I want is that if someone who is not the administrator sends in a suspicious email, they should get the email back with the response from Covalence. Now, it keeps that information in the administrator portal. But I want to get out of the way. If someone reports something, the answer should go back to that person, not to me. In some cases, it requires an admin to execute software updates, but I would like them to know exactly what they need to do to be up-to-date and have a vulnerability-free endpoint.
The tagging of ARO closure has room for improvement. Covalence needs different categorizations for closing AROs.
Over the last four years, there have been so many improvements and additions that I honestly can't think of anything else, aside from more third-party integrations with other MSP tools.
The cost of the solution has room for improvement.