For Axonius, I would suggest supporting more ticketing platforms and enhancing API integration directly into the platform rather than just the connector. This would allow for better integration from different systems, possibly into workflows, which I think is currently lacking.
Regarding the improvement of Axonius, it goes halfway for both the tool and the user. If we set it up quickly from our end, and if the AD groups and all other groups assigned to tag the assets have been tagged correctly, Axonius could not show an error. But we are still sorting out our segregation for assets as well. However, Axonius can't pull out the exact reports, but there is a way around this, where we can use the built-in queries. For example, we have CentOS systems, and within CentOS, we have tagged assets with vulnerabilities, but these assets do not appear in Axonius. As an alternative, what we do for this is write a query to find the vulnerability of assets that are tagged within CentOS systems. I would say both the tool and the user must work together to get good results.
Axonius offers robust asset management, enhancing network visibility by consolidating data from various devices. It excels in automatic device categorization for up-to-date inventories, crucial for compliance and risk assessments. Key features include automated policy enforcement and comprehensive reporting tools, which streamline workflows and improve organizational productivity and security compliance. Integrations with other IT tools further enhance its efficiency.
Adding more detailed descriptions or YouTube videos about specific features would help improve the application.
For Axonius, I would suggest supporting more ticketing platforms and enhancing API integration directly into the platform rather than just the connector. This would allow for better integration from different systems, possibly into workflows, which I think is currently lacking.
Regarding the improvement of Axonius, it goes halfway for both the tool and the user. If we set it up quickly from our end, and if the AD groups and all other groups assigned to tag the assets have been tagged correctly, Axonius could not show an error. But we are still sorting out our segregation for assets as well. However, Axonius can't pull out the exact reports, but there is a way around this, where we can use the built-in queries. For example, we have CentOS systems, and within CentOS, we have tagged assets with vulnerabilities, but these assets do not appear in Axonius. As an alternative, what we do for this is write a query to find the vulnerability of assets that are tagged within CentOS systems. I would say both the tool and the user must work together to get good results.