CSI WatchDOG vs. ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier™ (RQ)

CSI Watchdog is a great tool when carrying out individual vetting or multiple vetting and can help trace and trace elements that have been placed on red alert, allowing organizations to work with individuals whose reputation is not questionable. However, making entries on its screen can be a daunting task, especially for new users. One needs to familiarise themselves with these tools before one gains some level of proficiency and competence.

Incentivized

Well-Suited Scenarios: Reporting to management where financial risk metrics are required. - Vulnerability prioritization when you need to rank issues by real exploit risk and financial/business impact. Less-Appropriate Scenarios: Fast-changing cloud environments where asset data needs updates too frequently for accurate models required all the time. - Incident investigation, as ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier™ (RQ) is not designed for real-time check

• Vetting individuals
• Choice to use multiple red lists
• Option to run batch vetting

Incentivized

• Provides scenario-based modeling to measure risk, which can be reduced through patches or new controls.
• Delivers technical-to-business reporting that supports remediation planning and financial budget planning.
• Ranks vulnerabilities by exploit risk and business impact
• Quantifies cyber risk in financial terms using vulnerability, threat, and asset data.

• The lack of template that can be used by novice users can be a huddle.
• I find it's UI a little basic, therefore improving on it would make it more competitive.

Incentivized

• Dashboards can be customized to offer more options, especially for technical teams that require deeper drill-downs and also more simpler and user-friendly.
• Processing large data files can be slow sometimes, especially during large builds or bulk updates.
• Risk modules sometimes need manual intervention for multi-client environments, which can be time-consuming.

I rate ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier™ (RQ) an 8 because it’s generally easy to use once the integrations are set up. The dashboards, risk scores, and financial impact metrics are very straightforward and help make quick decisions for executives. However, the initial configuration and model tuning can be a bit complex it's not a perfect 10 for me.

The only other product I have used is the System for Award Management (SAM), maintained by the US Government. Compared to this, CSI WatchDOG is much more reliable and has more options. I also believe the batch vetting/screening option in CSI WatchDOG gives it a definite edge over SAM.

Incentivized

ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier™ (RQ) stacked up better than RiskLens, better for our organization, is mainly because it integrates directly with our scanners, SIEM, and CMDB, allowing automatic, real-time risk monitoring. It also combines exploit intel, asset value, and vulnerability data more efficiently, giving us clearer technical priorities for the business impact. We chose ThreatConnect Risk Quantifier™ (RQ) because it provides faster, more actionable risk scoring with less manual modeling than RiskLens.

• We have been able to trace and track many red lists within a short period of time.
• Through CSI watchdog we are able to carry out batch vetting.

Incentivized

• Improved alignment between IT, security, and business teams because risk is measured in financial terms, not just technical terms.
• It gives leadership clear cost-based risk metrics, making it easier to justify security budgets and prioritize projects.
• Initial setup and data integration require time and more disruption to the existing setup
• Risk models sometimes need tuning, adding extra operational overhead.