Got an idea for how to improve Secfix?

Share it with us, and upvote other users' ideas.

Provide secure development trainings

Some of our customers and prospects are increasingly asking whether our engineers have completed secure coding training. This topic is becoming more relevant for companies, especially in the context of security frameworks and customer security requirements. To help address these requests, it would be very valuable if Secfix could provide a secure coding training directly within the Secfix platform. Ideally, this training would be targeted at developers and aligned with relevant security best practices and frameworks (e.g., ISO 27002). Having such training available in the platform would help us demonstrate that our engineers are trained in secure development practices and make it easier to meet security expectations from customers and prospects.

Andreas Offermann About 9 hours ago

💡

Feature Request

Under Review

Frameworks export needs Owner + Due Date (CSV/Excel) or Customizable fields to export

Right now, when we export the frameworks report, we only see the control details and status. We can’t see who owns the control or when it’s due. Since people tend to ignore email reminders, we often have to follow up manually — and without that information in the export, it’s hard to get a clean overview of what needs attention and who to chase. It would be great if you could extend the current export to include additional columns for Owner and Due date / Expiry date, so we can easily filter and manage follow-ups in Excel - even comments. Please update the frameworks export (CSV/Excel) to include at least: Control ID, Control Title, Status, Owner, and Due Date/Expiry Date. This would make weekly follow-ups and audit prep much easier for us. Or even better, to have the export customizable to whichever fields you need.

Yevheniia Hovorova 22 days ago

💡

Feature Request

Open

Expand Vendors to include Partners and other third parties

Problem The current Vendors section is limited in scope and suggests that only software vendors should be listed. In practice, organizations work with different types of third parties, such as: infrastructure providers, partners involved in collaborative development, customers participating in joint projects. These entities are currently not clearly represented in the Vendors section, although they are relevant from a risk and compliance perspective. Proposed solution Rename Vendors to Vendors & Partners, or extend the section to explicitly support different third-party types (e.g. vendor, partner, customer, infrastructure provider). Benefits More accurate representation of third-party relationships Better coverage of non-software and collaborative partners Improved clarity and usability for customers

Frank Tiex About 1 month ago

💡

Feature Request

Open

Extend Asset Classification to Include Availability and Integrity

The current asset and information classification system is based solely on confidentiality. There is no classification of assets with respect to their availability and integrity requirements. Why This Is a Problem Relying only on confidentiality results in an incomplete protection needs assessment. Assets with high availability or integrity requirements may not receive adequate protection, which can negatively impact: the effectiveness of implemented security controls, risk identification and prioritization, alignment with ISO/IEC 27001 requirements. -> causing a nonconformity during the audit Proposed Feature Extend the asset classification framework to include availability and integrity dimensions, in addition to confidentiality. For each asset, users should be able to define protection needs across all three CIA dimensions.

Poul L. About 2 months ago

💡

Feature Request