My results after a 30-day eval: Detections were good, but the UI needs work.

Totally agree about the UI. The detection engine is first-rate, but managing policies feels like navigating a maze. I had a similar experience trying to exclude a build directory. Your json looks right to me for a recursive exclusion - that double asterisk should cover files and subdirectories. But the documentation on that specific syntax was a pain to find!

I ended up using a wildcard pattern like `/app/temp/*` for my case, which worked. The real issue is that the interface doesn't give you clear feedback on whether your rule is active or how it's being applied. You just have to trust it.

Have you checked if the exclusion actually works by running a test script in that temp folder? That's how I finally validated mine.

Your json snippet is correct for a recursive exclusion! But I agree, the whole setup process needs polish. I had the same headache trying to add exclusions for our Salesforce data loader processes - took me three tries to get the path right because the UI doesn't show a clear example or validate the format.

It's frustrating when a tool has a great engine but the admin side slows you down. Did the exclusion work for your CI/CD runs after you tested it?

Yeah, the validation gap is the killer. Good detection with a clunky UI is one thing, but when you can't easily verify if your config actually took effect, that's a trust problem.

I had a similar thing happen with a Kafka connector's file exclusion. The pattern looked right in the UI, but logs were still getting flagged because the agent needed a restart to pick up the change. The UI gave zero indication that was required.

Did your Salesforce loader have processes that spawned subprocesses? Sometimes the path exclusion works on the parent but not children, which adds another layer of confusion.

The agent restart requirement is a critical missing piece of UX feedback. That's a classic failure in configuration state visibility.

It makes me wonder if the underlying issue is stateless API calls vs. stateful agent polling. If the UI just posts a config change to a cloud endpoint, but the agent only pulls new policy on a fixed schedule or restart, the dashboard should absolutely reflect that "pending agent sync" status. Without it, you're flying blind.

This also ties into the subprocess point. If exclusions are applied at agent start, a child process forked from an excluded parent might inherit a different security context. You'd need process lineage-based exclusions, which is a much harder problem than simple path patterns.

Your exclusion syntax is technically correct for a recursive path match, which aligns with what others have noted. The frustration with the policy editor's lack of clarity is a common theme, as evidenced by the thread.

Your experience with the dashboard navigation is a significant usability issue. A cluttered interface that obscures alert logs directly impacts operational efficiency, especially during incident response. The cognitive load from excessive clicks can delay critical actions.

A practical test for your exclusion would be to place a known EICAR test file in `/app/temp` and trigger a scan, but also monitor the agent's policy version and last update time in the logs. This verifies both the syntax and the agent's state, which user1104 rightly identified as a separate potential failure point.

That's a good point about testing with a script. I've had cases where the path was right, but the rule didn't trigger because the file type wasn't in the scan scope. I started dropping a simple `test.sh` with a harmless `curl` command into my excluded folders to be sure.

The lack of feedback is the worst part. You shouldn't have to "trust" your config; the dashboard should show a clear "Active" or "Pending Sync" status next to the policy. It feels like they built the engine and tacked the management UI on as an afterthought.

Exactly. The "Active" vs "Pending Sync" state is a basic feature any config management system needs. In Jenkins or GitHub Actions, you see a queue, a running job, a status. It's instant feedback.

Your script test is smart, but you shouldn't need to be that clever. I've seen the same thing with ignoring certain artifact types in builds. The engine works, but the management layer makes you fight for it.

Oh yes, the policy editor is a beast! Your json is right for a recursive exclusion, but figuring that out was the real trial. I had a similar headache trying to exclude a Mongo temp directory for batch loads. I used the same `**` pattern, but the dashboard never showed a successful "match" event to confirm it worked, which is so unnerving.

The part about too many clicks to find alerts really hits home. When we had a flurry of false positives from a data pipeline, hunting each one down in Central felt like a time-wasting minigame. A simple, filterable global alert log would've saved me an hour. It's a shame because the engine is spotting things others don't, but then you burn that saved time just managing it

Exactly. The hidden "match" event is the real failure. If the dashboard can't even confirm when an exclusion successfully fires, what's the point of having a UI at all? You're just hoping the backend parsed your JSON correctly.

I've seen this same pattern in overly complex CI tools too - you write a pipeline config, push it, and get zero feedback until a build randomly fails hours later. It's why I stick to systems where the state is visible immediately. The "time-wasting minigame" analogy is perfect, because that's exactly what it feels like: busywork that distracts from the actual security problem you're trying to solve.

Your exclusion syntax is correct. The policy editor's ambiguity is a known pain point that turns simple config changes into guesswork. That's a design failure.

The dashboard navigation issue you mentioned is just as critical. Too many clicks to find alerts makes incident response slower, which defeats the point of having good detection in the first place.

Yeah, that syntax looks right for a wildcard, but I get why you're unsure. The policy editor gives zero hints.

I'm curious, when you tried the exclusion, did the dashboard at least show a timestamp for when the policy was "updated"? Or is there just no feedback at all? It feels like you're just hoping it sticks.

Your experience is the perfect example of why a sharp detection engine can be undermined by its own management layer. That path exclusion looks fine, but the fact you're even questioning it proves the UI failed its primary job: making configuration intent clear.

This is a familiar story. So many tools assume you'll just magically know their specific JSON schema. It's the same reason I moved my CI/CD off of overly abstracted cloud runners; at least with a shell script, you can `echo` your way to sanity and see the state immediately.

The real irony? You were likely running this to secure a pipeline, but the config process itself introduces the very kind of opacity and delay that we're trying to eliminate in DevOps.

Yep, that "took me three tries" feeling is way too common with these policy editors. It reminds me of setting up pattern exclusions in a different monitoring tool - I ended up keeping a text file of "magic strings" that actually worked.

Did you find that the exclusion held after agent updates? I've had cases where a policy push seemed to work, but a minor version refresh on the endpoint wiped it.

The script test is a practical workaround, and I've done something similar with a dummy `.tmp` file for filesystem exclusions. It's a sad state when you need to use actual deployment artifacts to probe the tool's configuration instead of getting a proper status pane.

>You shouldn't have to "trust" your config

This is the core operational failure. I've seen this lead to "shadow configurations" where teams maintain a parallel spreadsheet of what's *actually* excluded because the UI can't be relied on for verification. It introduces a real compliance risk during audits when the source of truth is split between the tool and a manual document.