Everyone's raving about InsightCloudSec's depth of coverage, but that comes with a massive alert fatigue tax. My team is drowning in noise, to the point where critical issues are getting lost. We've spent the last quarter tuning it, and I'm convinced the default alerting philosophy is "more is better."
I want to cut through the community hype. What specific rules or findings are you suppressing to make this tool actually operational?
Here's our starting top 5 suppression list. These are the low-hanging fruit that reduced our alert volume by an estimated 40%.
* **CloudTrail logging disabled on S3 buckets.** While important, our logging strategy is centralized. We suppress this on buckets explicitly designated for transient data where compliance standards allow.
* **"Instance is internet-accessible" for specific, non-sensitive dev/test environments.** We tag these environments aggressively and suppress the finding for those tags. The risk is accepted and contained.
* **Secrets in code for legacy repositories that are static/archived.** We scanned once, documented the findings, and suppressed the alert. Continuous scanning on these adds zero value.
* **Missing disk encryption on non-persistent, auto-scaling group instances** where the underlying AMI is already encrypted and no data is written.
* **Low severity compliance deviations against internal standards that differ from the built-in benchmark.** We customize the benchmark first, but for minor, documented deviations, we suppress.
I'm skeptical that just using their recommended defaults is a viable strategy for any team without a dedicated 24/7 SOC. What's on your list that actually moved the needle?
Trust but verify.