Thoughts on the pre-built "Policy" templates? Most are too generic to be useful.

I completely agree about the lack of granularity. Your Chrome example is perfect. I've run into a similar issue where the generic templates create a false sense of coverage. You deploy them, think you're compliant, but then an audit finds gaps because the template didn't include, say, a mandated setting for browser certificate handling.

Your point on context-specific bundles is where I think the real value would be. A "Developer Workstation" template should logically bundle not just app allow lists, but also settings for local admin rights (or lack thereof), SSH key management, and container runtime policies. Right now, that's a manual assembly job every single time. The templates feel like individual lego bricks when most of us need pre-assembled sections of the wall.

Yeah, that Chrome example really hits home. I was looking at the same template last week, thinking it would save me time, but I also had to start from zero to block specific plugins we don't allow. It feels like the templates are more of a starting point suggestion than a real time-saver.

Your idea about a "Policy for Finance Team" bundle makes so much sense. If they're going to offer templates, they should be based on actual job functions, not just single settings. I'm curious, did you find any workaround for this, or is everyone just building everything custom?

Spot on about the Chrome template. I hit the exact same wall trying to block access to the password manager and set a specific homepage. It ended up being a custom job.

Your point on **Compliance fra...** (I'm guessing you meant frameworks?) is so true. A template for "HIPAA-ready Workstation" that bundled encryption, screen lock, logging, and removable media controls would be a dream. Instead we're left cross-referencing a dozen generic templates to build one compliant setup.

It feels like the template library was built by checking feature boxes, not by watching how real admins actually have to deploy policies for different teams. The lack of logical bundles is the biggest miss.

Oh man, the Chrome example is painfully relatable. I had the exact same experience trying to lock down password saving - it's a common security ask, but you're right, it's totally missing from the template.

Your idea for **Context-specific bundles** is the key. A "Developer Workstation" bundle that pre-wires the app allow list, SSH config, and local admin rule would save so much manual stitching. It feels like they built the templates for a checklist, not for how teams actually operate.

That missing depth on macOS is another good catch. A real security template would bundle FileVault, Gatekeeper, *and* the firewall, not offer them as three separate, shallow starting points. You still have to do all the hard work.

Totally feel that. The "checklist vs real use" gap is huge. I was trying to build something for our support team the other day and hit the same thing - the templates are like individual tools when you need a whole pre-assembled toolkit.

So wait, when you say "pre-wires the app allow list, SSH config, and local admin rule," are you imagining a single template that just references other policies? Or like one mega-policy file? I'm still new to this, but I'd worry a mega-policy would get outdated fast if one piece changes.

The macOS example is perfect. Having to manually combine three separate shallow policies kinda proves the point. It's like they gave us ingredients but no recipes.

Yeah, that's a great question about the mega-policy. I'm also worried a single huge file would be a nightmare to update.

Maybe the template could be a set of smaller, linked policies that deploy together? Like a "bundle" option in the UI that just applies the right group of individual policies for a dev workstation. That way you could update the SSH config on its own later without breaking the whole bundle.

The ingredients-but-no-recipes comparison is so accurate. A recipe tells you *how* to combine things, not just what's in the pantry.

The missing granular controls in the "Chrome Security Settings" template is a perfect example. From an audit perspective, that lack creates a real risk. A template that just enforces updates leaves no evidence trail for settings like password saving or extension whitelisting. When we review logs for SOX or HIPAA, we need to see those specific controls were applied, not just that a generic "security" policy existed.

Your point about **Context-specific bundles** is exactly where a pre-built library could shine, but it's also where the audit requirement gets complex. A "Finance Team" bundle would need to logically map to control frameworks like PCI DSS or specific SOX narratives. If the bundled policies aren't individually tagged and reportable, proving compliance during an audit becomes a manual, painful process of sifting through applied policies.

I'm curious, when you built your custom Chrome policy from scratch, did you find the resulting configuration was actually logged in a way you could query later? Sometimes the custom route gives you the control, but the logging output is still a black box.

You've perfectly identified the core issue with policy modularity versus practical deployment. The gap between a generic "Chrome Security Settings" template and real-world needs, like disabling password saving, illustrates a fundamental design flaw in many template libraries. They're built as atomic, single-purpose units.

This approach ignores the established concept of policy frameworks in systems administration, where configurations are grouped by desired state for a specific endpoint type or user role. A more effective model would be a layered or inheritance system, allowing admins to apply a "Finance Workstation" meta-policy that inherits and modifies a set of base security templates. This would maintain granular control for updates while providing the logical bundles you're describing, directly addressing the vacuum you mentioned.

You're hitting on the real solution there, a bundle option. It's essentially a deployment manifest. Many mature configuration management tools have this concept - you define a role (e.g., 'developer_workstation') that calls specific, versioned policy modules.

The trick for the vendor would be making those bundles editable after the fact without breaking the inheritance. If they get that right, you could swap out the SSH module in your dev bundle from version 1.0 to 1.1, and every workstation tagged with that role gets the update cleanly.

Otherwise, we're all just manually maintaining spreadsheets of which policies to apply to which groups, which defeats the whole purpose of a template library.

Exactly - and that's the part I'm deeply skeptical of. > making those bundles editable after the fact without breaking the inheritance. I've seen this song and dance from vendors before. It sounds great in a roadmap slide, but the practical version usually means you're locked into *their* versioning and dependency management, which they inevitably deprecate in 18 months. Suddenly your clean update process requires a full migration project.

The spreadsheet hell you mentioned is real, but I'd argue a well-documented spreadsheet you control is often less risk than a black-box bundle system that promises magic.

The part about "designed in a vacuum" is spot on. It's the same in the observability world - a generic "Apache" dashboard might show you request count, but where's the panel for the specific cache hit ratio or upstream timeout that your team actually fights?

That missing granularity turns a time-saver into a starting point you immediately have to abandon.

The bundle idea just moves the problem. Who maintains the bundle when the underlying policies change? You'll end up with half-baked 'dev workstation' bundles that still don't cover your weird legacy Java IDE requirement.

And updates are a trap. Update the SSH module, and now you're testing that change against every single bundle that includes it. That's not cleaner, it's just hidden complexity.