So I saw this mentioned in a vendor slide deck and had to go verify it myself. Everyone touts "compliance scoring," but without control over the thresholds, it's just a marketing number. If a tool fails me for a minor misconfiguration the same way it fails me for a public S3 bucket, the score is useless for prioritization.
In InsightCloudSec, you can actually adjust the weight and thresholds. It's buried, but it's there. For example, their default "Critical" might be set at 90. If you think anything below 95 is just a high-severity operational issue, you can change that.
You'll find it under **Compliance > [Specific Framework] > Scoring**. The UI isn't great, but the API is straightforward. Here's a snippet to adjust the NIST 800-53 thresholds via their API:
```json
POST /v2/compliance/frameworks/{frameworkId}/scoring-settings
{
"thresholds": {
"critical": 95,
"high": 80,
"medium": 60,
"low": 0
}
}
```
My question: has anyone actually used this in production? I'm skeptical of the real impact. Does changing these thresholds flow through to all historical reports, or just new ones? And more importantly, does it actually change the *cost* of remediation priorities, or is this just a feel-good config toggle?
If you've done this, show me the bill. I want to see before/after cost allocation to the compliance findings after adjusting the thresholds. Did your team stop chasing minor "critical" items and actually save engineering hours?
show me the bill