AnonymousSign in
Start from a neutral baseline and add what matters to you. Criteria are labeled by source — the platform baseline is architecture-neutral; buyer-contributed criteria are shown separately.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
Publicly-exposed storage is one of the most common and damaging cloud misconfigurations; ask for a real detection-latency figure, since a slow detection window leaves real exposure time even with the capability present.
Content-aware risk prioritization (a public bucket full of sensitive data is far worse than an empty public bucket) is materially more useful than configuration-only scanning; ask for a real scale figure (e.g., TB/objects scanned) from a customer reference.
Automated remediation for clearly unsafe configurations (with appropriate guardrails/approval for ambiguous cases) closes the exposure window faster than alert-only detection requiring manual triage of every finding.
Configuration scanning alone misses data exfiltration via legitimate but compromised credentials; ongoing behavioral monitoring of actual access patterns is a distinct and necessary complementary capability.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Provider-default encryption isn't always sufficient for regulated data; ask specifically whether the platform distinguishes and enforces customer-managed key requirements, not just a binary 'encrypted: yes/no' check.
Ask for an explicit per-provider, per-storage-type coverage breakdown rather than accepting a general 'cloud storage security' claim, since real coverage is often uneven across the full range of storage services in use.
Look for transparent, predictable scaling economics; a vendor unable to project cost at meaningfully larger storage footprint creates real budget risk for a growing cloud environment.
Strong answers describe a fast, specific forensic reconstruction capability with a real turnaround-time figure — this is the highest-stakes use case (a confirmed exposure), not just preventive configuration monitoring.
Native compliance-evidence generation is materially more valuable than raw configuration logs requiring manual compilation for every audit cycle.
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from a real-time configuration dashboard — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
Look for genuine integration into a unified data-risk view; a standalone cloud-storage dashboard disconnected from the broader DSPM picture creates real reconciliation burden.
Not all public storage is a mistake — a vendor with no way to distinguish intentional public assets (e.g., a public website's static assets) from genuine misconfigurations creates real alert fatigue.
A complete storage-exposure map is a meaningful target in its own right — role-based access control over the tool's own findings is an often-overlooked consideration.
Strong answers give a concrete, customer-validated timeline for a realistic existing-estate scenario (not a small greenfield deployment), and are honest about the customer-side effort required.