prasadvara
Joined 1 month ago
Joined 1 month ago
Curious about what motivated you to pursue this approach.
Most of the code a team ships is third-party, and scanners flag hundreds of vulnerabilities in it. depproof tells you which few attackers are actually exploiting, so you fix those first. It runs inside your own environment, and your code never leaves.
We're a small, founder-led company looking for a part-time sales lead who has sold to security or engineering teams: running first conversations, shaping the pitch, and closing our first customers.
You may reach out to me at: prasadv at depproof.com
I think "quality" side depends on LOT of tuning you would need to keep in place. Quality might be good if you are dealing with single project, when you hare more than one repo to deal with, things need real attention and observed that quality goes down significantly.
As expected. I think consumers also need to push back on these practices, but the problem is, majority of consumers are tech savy but not privacy savy.
I think this is half true and depends on you are dealing with vetrans or new users. Once you are used, people just click as many as needed, but when user is new to the UI, every click becomes a question and resistance.
For the most part business care about, is this our core capability OR not?? If core, yes build is what preferred. If not, buy is preferred. Where few occasions they deviate from this due to, to be frank non-technical reasons.
In Software world, building is not the costly, maintaining it is - and this cycle of AI developed software is NOT proven yet. So, so far my understanding is nothing changed in that area.