Feature Requests

Submitted by: Irving Rios Request: Irving has requested an enhancement to our Azure Inspector to support alerting on unprotected Azure Virtual Machines shown in the Microsoft Business Continuity Center (BCC). This would allow partners to monitor and act on VMs not currently protected by Azure Backup or related continuity tools. Context & Justification: As more MSPs adopt Azure and migrate customer workloads to Azure VMs, ensuring business continuity coverage is becoming a critical governance and compliance concern. Currently, the BCC view in Azure highlights a count of “unprotected” resources, including VMs, which are not currently covered under recovery or backup policies. Exposing this data through Liongard and enabling alerting would: Help partners immediately identify and remediate unprotected VMs Strengthen their compliance and continuity posture Offer another key use case for Liongard’s value in Azure environments Screenshot from Partner: Recommendation: Explore integration with the Business Continuity Center data (or Recovery Services Vaults) to capture: Count of unprotected Azure VMs Names and resource groups of unprotected VMs (if accessible via API) Status of backup/recovery policy assignments This data could then support both a metric and alert, possibly tied to a CIS-aligned control.

Example: Active Directory - User Accounts with Brute Force Attempts: Guest, Bad Login Attempts: 260In the comments tab, Partner would like more details on where these attempts are coming from like ip address where these attempts are made. Where is this data getting pulling from. Also, when was this alert captured wiether it's old or new.

We have two poorly defined alerts with a different naming convention for the same thing, which is confusing. The difference between the two is just the number of days that the device/endpoint has not checked in.

As a partner it would be helpful to be able to edit the Body/Comments of a Liongard created Alert, rather then having to clone the rule.If Liongard were to update or change the original Alert that was cloned then the cloned Alert would not take these changes. So, less overhead.Partner finds it extremely valuable to be able to tailor the Body/Comments to thier own standards and process, especially being able to include link to their documentation on how to resolve.

Public idea: https://ideas.liongard.com/ideas/RPM-I-1484It would be great to get notified of issues that LG is having with inspectors if we have that inspector enabled. This way we are aware and do not need to open tickets or can take appropriate action on the client side. Not knowing there is an issue with LG makes it very difficult to count on LG to be our tool to alert us.