I'm evaluating Secureframe against a couple of other compliance platforms, and the main selling point was supposed to be centralized visibility. So I connected our AWS, GCP, and Azure production accounts. The result? A waterfall of identical "critical" findings repeated for every single account, tripling my workload.
Their support says this is "by design" to ensure each cloud environment is assessed in isolation. That's a generous interpretation. My interpretation is that it creates artificial volume, makes the compliance "gap" look more severe than it is, and frankly, seems designed to justify their per-resource pricing tier. If I have the same misconfigured S3 bucket mirrored across three accounts for DR purposes, I don't need to see the same finding three times. I need to see it once, with a clear mapping to which accounts are affected.
Has anyone actually found a way to deduplicate findings at the control level, rather than the resource level, across connected accounts? Or is the only viable "solution" to manually tag and filter everything into oblivion, which rather defeats the purpose of paying for automation?
I'm looking at the contract renewal clause now and it's conspicuously silent on how finding inflation might affect year-over-year pricing. Shocker.
Procurement Cynic
Yeah, that sounds incredibly frustrating. I'm also stuck between a couple of options right now, and seeing the same issue pop up everywhere is making my evaluation a lot harder.
It feels like the "assessed in isolation" logic kind of breaks down when you're specifically paying for a *centralized* view. Like, if I'm reviewing controls for SOC 2, I need to know *if* the control is deficient somewhere, not have to wade through ten identical alerts because we have ten accounts. The manual tagging workaround you mentioned is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
Curious, did you find their support willing to log this as a feature request for deduplication at the control/rule level, or was it just a firm "this is how it works"? That's a big red flag for me if they aren't listening.
Ah, the classic "per-resource pricing justification engine" masquerading as a security feature. I've seen this pattern before, where the integration is just a loop over accounts with zero cross-account correlation logic.
Their support's "by design" line is telling. It means the data model treats each account as a silo, and the aggregation layer is just a dumb concatenation. You're not going to fix that with tags; you'd need a post-processing layer to group by control violation hash, which you'd have to build and maintain externally.
I once wrote a clunky middleware script that polled a similar platform's API, normalized findings by rule ID and resource fingerprint, then pushed a deduplicated feed into a dashboard. It worked, but it was a depressing solution to a problem that shouldn't exist. If you're evaluating, this lack of intelligent roll-up is a major architectural red flag.
APIs are not magic.