Future features and ideas portal

  • 7 November 2019
  • 13 replies
  • 117 views
D-D-D-D-DropTheTable-Automox

I know it’s linked in a pinned thread (sorry @Nic) , but I wanted to shoot this out here to make sure ya’ll see it.


Automox keeps a board up-to-date with our new, upcoming, planned, and suggested feature ideas here: Feature Suggestion & Voting


Obviously you can submit ideas there, and add your vote to existing ones, but as an employee here I’m curious what ideas you’re most interested in and opinionated about.


Personally, I am most passionate about Dynamic Groups and the Device Compliance Report.


From my point of view, being able to populate groups based on a set of rules, and have new devices that come online automatically move to the appropriate group is a game changer. Especially for customers with a good amount of churn on devices in their environment (reimages, replacement hardware, etc.).


Any easy to use, group/policy filterable, compliance report is so helpful to admins having to report to management. You should be able to quickly pick a group or set of groups and see all the device compliance stats within. This should have a pretty summary with charts and a more detailed list below it that can be provided to my support team for remediation.


What are your big wants and needs?

This topic has been closed for comments

13 replies

bfrey

Anyway to have 2 options: (1) Upvote Only & (2) Upvote and Comment? I don’t need or want to explain my reason for supporting an idea every time. Most are self explanatory anyway, such as “Policy Cloning”, “Postpone Patching”, “Teams Notifications”, etc. I realize this may be a limitation on productboard’s side.

Nic-Automox
Userlevel 7

Pinging @Greg as he’s the one who manages the Product Board and might know the answer.

R
Badge

Seconded on the dynamic groups. Would be a really useful feature to have for organisation, along with nested grouping or allowing membership of multiple groups.


Groups aside, two of suggestions from the board I would love to see implemented are patch orchestration and command queue reporting.


Tbh it is disappointing to see that these suggestions have been around since July last year and are two of the most upvoted on the whole board and yet they still havnt made it to the planning stage yet. Also none of the submissions I have made via the board have made it to under consideration (this was some time ago now) or even been acknowledged in any way. They might not have been considered worthy to add by whoever moderates the board which is fine, but some form of acknowledgement of that would be nice.

Nic-Automox
Userlevel 7

Thanks for the feedback. We are working on keeping that product board more current. A lot of our engineering capacity for the last half of this year was around scaling as we grow, which is why we haven’t gotten to some of the feature suggestions yet. We do take them into account as we’re planning each quarter’s work though, and you should see us be able to pick up more of the community suggested ones in 2020.

ChrisW-Automox
Userlevel 4

I’ll second @Ryan: patch orchestration would be a massive win for my organization, especially for servers.


Local caching is going to be really important for us too, especially at remote sites with limited internet connectivity.


Another feature I’d like to see implemented is the RBAC Customization. I’d love to be able to more granularly configure user permissions.


Ideally, we would be able to configure user permissions dynamically based on a set of rules (similar to what @D-D-D-D-DropTheTable mentioned above). For example, User A gets access to all devices at Site 1, and User B gets access to all devices at Site 2.

Ariel-Automox

I’ll check on this, thanks for the feedback on that. Definitely want to make voting as easy as possible!

Nic-Automox
Userlevel 7

In the meantime @bfrey feel free to start a discussion on the community about any of the features you see on our product board, so that you can add some color and commentary to your use case that you’re looking to solve.

Ariel-Automox

It is in fact a limitation of productboard, however they have added it to their feature requests 🙂

bfrey

Awesome! I believe that will be valuable for all parties.

bfrey

You got it! 👍

R


  • Dynamic Groups - Auto assign to group based on machine name, OS, etc




  • Emailed patch report (failures) after a policy completes indicating which machines failed - Its great we are using Automox… though we/external auditors want to see proof it is being monitored deployment failures and ultimately queued up for remediation




  • Search/report for compliance based on CVE - Quickly search to understand exposure. Comes in handy when there is a malware celebrity of the month and SVP/CEO asks if we are protected




  • Device Cleanup - Sort by last connected and delete old devices at scale




  • Policy Cloning




  • Teams Integration - such as Patch Policy results posted to a channel. Perhaps weekly overall compliance post from a Bot?




  • SOD (segregation of duties) - Assign patch admins to manage specific Automox groups. Workstation Admin should not have the ability to manage the patches on servers.




  • Local Caching before deployment




  • Manual reboots - when issuing a reboot to a workstation, have it follow the end user notification process like the patch policy




  • The feature suggestion on the site is painful to use. Takes 5-10 minutes for the verification email to come through. Perhaps move it to the community?



Nic-Automox
Userlevel 7

We’re looking at moving to a higher tier of service with Product Board so that we can integrate it better into our other systems. This community platform doesn’t have a native feature request capability, although there are some plugins that add that. Hopefully we can make the feature suggestion process smoother.

J

Just reading through here there are so many things I’d love to see added.

Local caching would be fantastic to be able to pull down updates outside of business hours to not cause bandwidth issues during business hours, and being able to control user permissions would be ideal. Setting T1 to control patching on Workstation while allowing T2 members to deal with Servers.

Compliance based on CVE would be good too. The VP of IT is always asking about the big name malware of the month being patched. A simple report would be great.

Terms & ConditionsCookie settings