Managed ISPM

The decision to price per identity, when the product seems to be tenant-focused, is one I don't quite understand. I understand it from a business perspective, but I don't understand the philosophy that managing policies for a tenant with 100 users is somehow 100X more difficult to manage than a tenant with 1 user. I would love to understand the logic or the level of overhead that more users create for a system that ensures best practices are deployed and stay deployed.

MSP's manage customer tenants over GDAP and there are some Huntress Managed CA policies that should allow exclusion of our Microsoft Partner tenant. For example, deployment of the "[HUNTRESS] Restrict Azure Portal Management" policy blocks the partner from accessing the Entra Admin center page over GDAP, with error "Your sign-in was successful but you don't have permission to access this resource". This would be solved by excluding the partner tenant ID.

ISPM is available only for M3656 tenant but there are already tool for that. Bring us an GW ISPM please !

A column showing the Low/Medium/High values for the Impact values, similar to the existing "Severity" column. You must go into each Control to see those values.

ISPM will actively monitor, deploy and remediate settings for Microsoft Teams. This includes features such as Meeting security controls, Anonymous participant controls and application restrictions.

It would be great to be able to set exclusions. It's really annoying to sign in on the teams mobile app all the time :(

The detection should check if there is another policy present that does exactly that on the email sending domains. We use the CIPP Standard "Default Malware Filter Policy" to push a new default policy to all our Clients automatically (which includes a sender). Therefore the Security Control should be set as compliant or there should be a way to enforce it via Huntress.

Rolling out the Huntress Managed CAPs to our client base in learning mode. Some tenants are not setup with Entra P1, thus cannot have the CAPs applied. Can we get the option to filter out tenants that are ineligible for CAPs. Currently our Managed CAPS dashboard shows that ~75 tenants have a policy in REPORT mode, and ~10 tenants are missing a policy. Whilst this is 100% true, its also misleading, as those tenants CANNOT have a policy.

There is no option to Accept Risk for the security control labelled "Block Exchange Forwarding". In our case, we are seeing two transport rules that forward emails externally. This is expected behavior (its not ideal, but its necessary).

ISPM can see the existing conditional access policies in my tenant but it does not look like it has the ability to review them and mark them as compliant. Current I have a block legacy authentication policy and a require MFA policy but ISPM is marking these as noncompliant because they are not Huntress conditional access policies. It would be nice to either mark these as compliant manually or if ISPM could just review them and mark them as compliant automatically without me having to create another conditional access policy in my tenant.