What needs improvement with iboss?

iboss could be improved by making the dashboard more user-friendly, providing more detailed real-time alerts, and improving troubleshooting tools. Better integration with SIEM platforms and other security tools could also help the team investigate incidents faster. Additionally, improving log analysis and reducing false positive alerts would help the security team focus on genuine threats. These improvements would make daily operations more efficient and improve the user experience. I would suggest improvements in iboss specifically around automation and integration with other security tools. For example, automatic troubleshooting recommendations could help engineers identify the root cause faster. A more customizable dashboard, clear alerts, and better reporting would also help the team monitor security events more efficiently. Regular updates and improved technical documentation would make troubleshooting easier. These improvements could help reduce manual efforts and improve operational efficiency. iboss could be improved further by providing better integration with SAM and SOAR platforms, more detailed analytics, and faster incident investigations. Improving scalability and reducing latency for users in different geographical locations would also be beneficial. Additionally, better troubleshooting guidance and more customizable reports could help IT teams resolve issues faster. These improvements could enhance the user experience and make security operations more efficient.

I think iboss could be improved by emphasizing the modular function even more during sales presentations and demonstrations. The modular function is mentioned as part of the sales pitch for the device, but I believe it is a really big standout feature, as well as the licensing structure and the performance of each individual module. I would prioritize highlighting the modular function itself and then the strength of each of the modules. Regarding user experience and graphical user interface, I found them to be pretty self-explanatory and easy to set up, comparable to any other firewall or device I have set up before. The easiest device I have set up was the Barracuda line of products. However, iboss functionality is better. If comparing it to a Barracuda interface, I would suggest modeling the Barracuda interface for iboss.

I think iboss could be improved by making reporting and dashboard customization more flexible, and simplifying troubleshooting policy issues. Some advanced policy configurations have a learning curve for new administrators.

The problem our organization had is that iboss failed for the Mac devices. It is not able to give a successful agent for the Mac agents. That is where in 2025, we had to migrate to the Palo Alto-based platform. If your use case is for just Windows laptops,you can consider this platform as an option One issue is the data center resiliency part. In India especially, they are not tied up with the Tier 1 ISPs like Tata or Airtel; they were having Tier 2 ISPs and encountered many issues reaching few major sites that my organization depends on, and they were having problems that they could not fix quickly. They also lack a mechanism to route that traffic within their data center; rather, they ask customers to make a pac file change to route it to Singapore explicitly. It would be better if they route from their backend , i mean even if I send it to India DC, they should be able to route it internally to make that work; however, they fail to do that and ask the customer to route it in the pac file. Another suggestion is that in China, they do not have the proper setup; they used to have numerous problems with slowness and lack of premium circuits in China as well. That leads to multiple sites working slowly with latency-related issues. So the main issue is the ISP-related problems that need to be solved.

iboss can increase security in cyberspace. I have heard they are doing DDoS filtering, but I am not certain if they are implementing it correctly. These kinds of features would definitely help their network enhance functionality, not just the proxying capability, but with DDoS, malware inspection, file inspection, and everything combined. If they want to add these features, that would be excellent.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.