Being honest with myself about this one. We rebranded to risk based vulnerability management, RBVM, about a year ago. New scoring, new dashboards, new language in every deck. Looking back, we are patching roughly the same things in roughly the same order we were before. Just with better looking justification attached now.

Which either means our old prioritization was already directionally fine, or it means we relabeled the old model instead of actually building a new one, and I do not know which. For anyone further along than us, did RBVM actually change what gets fixed first and how fast, measurably, or did it mostly just change how the program gets talked about? A real answer please, not the version that goes in a case study.

Same experience here. The rebrand mattered more for audit and vendor conversations than it did for actual patch order. I do not think that is necessarily a failure though, having a defensible answer has real value even without changing outcomes.

For us it did change outcomes, but only because we paired the rebrand with actually ripping out CVSS as the primary sort key. If you keep CVSS as the default sort and just add RBVM language on top, nothing structurally changes.

Patch order actually changed for us once we moved our default queue sort away from raw CVSS toward the risk score built into Nucleus. Lower severity KEV listed findings started jumping ahead of higher severity ones with no exploit. Making that switch is what turned RBVM from a label into an actual behavior change for us.

seeing more vendors position "guardian agent" style approaches, where an agent monitors and constrains other agents dynamically, against traditional static guardrails baked into the prompt or model layer. curious what people with actual production experience think about this tradeoff rather than what the marketing pages claim. static guardrails are predictable and auditable but brittle against novel behavior nobody wrote a rule for.
a guardian agent approach can theoretically adapt to new behavior, but it introduces its own attack surface and adds a layer of complexity that could fail in ways that are harder to reason about during an incident. has anyone run both in production long enough to have an actual opinion, rather than just a vendor's pitch deck?

We're reviewing data security platforms and Varonis is obviously on the list, but I don’t want to default to it just because it’s the name everyone knows.

Our environment is pretty SaaS-heavy, with a lot of unstructured docs and shared data rather than neatly structured database fields. Classification accuracy is a big priority for us. I also don’t want to bring in another tool that has the security team spending half their time sorting through false positives.

For anyone who’s evaluated Varonis competitors recently, what else made your shortlist? And once you actually got into the POC, what separated the stronger options from the rest?

I am trying to distinguish meaningful capability changes from AI terminology.

Traditional AppSec can already scan code, dependencies, secrets, CI/CD, and infrastructure. The Agentic AppSec pitch is that a system can combine those signals with application context, identify the risks that are exploitable and business-relevant, help create and validate fixes, and use remediation lessons to improve prevention during future AI-assisted coding.

For teams that have evaluated this, did it materially improve outcomes or mainly automate pieces of an existing process?

Hello, I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask but I can't help but wonder why my pc made an outbound connection to whatever IP last night and need help figuring out if this is a normal event.

The only other info I could provide is that MsMpEng.exe was let through the firewall 1 second before lsass.exe, and the information I've gotten about the IP is that it's associated with CloudFlare.

The Windows Filtering Platform has permitted a connection.

Application Information:
Process ID: 2376
Application Name: \device\harddiskvolume3\windows\system32\lsass.exe

Network Information:
Direction: Outbound
Source Address: (redacted)
Source Port: (redacted)
Destination Address: 2606:4700::6812:15d5
Destination Port: 80
Protocol: 6
Interface Index: 17

Filter Information:
Filter Origin: Unknown
Filter Run-Time ID: 82371
Layer Name: Connect
Layer Run-Time ID: 50

Remote User ID: NULL SID
Remote Machine ID: NULL SID

just concluded a 60 day trial POV on the same M365 tenant all three on top of Defender for a 500 seat finance shop. we're doing this only because of vendor email compromise and clean BEC slipping through our current gateway. there's alot at stake so we need to get this right.

results so far are as follows. Abnormal caught the most payloadless BEC and had the lowest false positive rate of the three and Checkpoint was close, is cheaper for our size and can run inline with real attachment sandboxing while still protecting internal mail, which Abnormal does over API only. Sublime was very good at detection and far more configurable, only problem is it wants an engineer to run it. none of them is a clean win. For anyone who picked either of these in the last year, which would you recommend?