What do you use today instead of Ubserve (https://ubserve.com) (a competitor, a spreadsheet, doing it by hand)? Compared with that, what would make Ubserve better or worse for you, and what would keep you on your current option? Also say the maximum you would pay per month in USD (0 if nothing).

Johnny Olsonneutral

Currently, I handle security checks manually, running through a release checklist that includes authentication tests and secret checks. I also do a quick review of database rules before deploying. If Ubserve can reliably find issues I might miss, especially around exposed keys or database rules with Supabase, that would be a significant improvement. The "pay only if you find issues" model is intriguing, but I'd need to see the pricing for the full audit features, as our budget is tight and most of my draw goes back into the company. I'd be willing to pay up to $50 per month if it proves effective.

Simulated interest: 60/100

Jan Kirlinneutral

Right now, I'm manually checking security, mostly with free online scanners and my handwritten notes. I'm a bit skeptical of automated solutions missing nuance, so a tool that could integrate with my workflow and provide clear, actionable fixes for things like exposed keys or missing RLS would be great. The idea of paying only if issues are found is appealing, but I'd need to see a tangible ROI. I'd be willing to pay up to $20 per month, but that would really depend on the effectiveness and how much time it actually saves me.

Simulated interest: 40/100

Laureen Daimerneutral

Currently, we rely on Snyk, Dependabot, and GitHub's secret scanning within our CI pipeline. We also perform periodic manual checks of our public application surface. The promise of Ubserve scanning our URL directly and identifying issues like exposed keys or weak auth is appealing, especially the claim of AI-generated fixes ready to paste. However, the pricing isn't clear; it says 'Pay only if you find issues,' but I don't see a specific monthly subscription cost or how that pay-per-issue model works. Without that clarity, it's hard to determine a maximum monthly cost. Our budget is limited, so we'd need to see a clear value proposition over our existing, mostly free, tools.

Simulated interest: 30/100

Bhudev Ahujaneutral

Currently, my junior developers and I manually review access controls, keys, and deployment settings for each client project. It's time-consuming but we haven't found a dedicated tool that integrates well with our workflow. Ubserve's promise of automated scanning for exposed keys and misconfigurations is interesting. If it genuinely finds issues that we've missed and provides clear, actionable fixes, it could save us significant time and reduce risk. However, I'd be concerned about false positives and whether it can adapt to the specific nuances of each client's setup. The "pay only if you find issues" model is a good starting point, but I'd need to see detailed pricing beyond that for a full audit. For now, I'm not willing to pay a monthly subscription.

Simulated interest: 30/100

Armande Dupuyneutral

Currently, I rely entirely on manual checks for security. This involves meticulously going through login flows, storage permissions, and ensuring no credentials are left exposed. It's a time-consuming process given our small team. Ubserve's promise of an automated scan that identifies these issues before launch is appealing, especially the idea of AI agents simulating real attacks. This would save significant effort and potentially catch things I might miss. However, I'm concerned about the depth of the scan and whether it truly understands the nuances of our specific AI customer-support app. The pricing isn't immediately clear regarding the scope of the 'full audit' versus the 'free scan,' but 'Pay only if you find issues' is a good starting point. I would be willing to pay up to $75 per month for a comprehensive solution that provides peace of mind.

Simulated interest: 70/100

Rafael Marvinneutral

Currently, I'm doing manual checks and writing custom scripts to audit Supabase RLS and OpenAI API integrations. It's time-consuming. Ubserve's promise of automated scanning for exposed keys and broken auth is appealing. The 'pay only if you find issues' model is interesting, but I'd need to see the depth of the Supabase audit and how well it integrates with my workflow. Specifically, how does it handle custom middleware and complex auth flows? If it truly automates the grunt work and catches subtle issues I might miss, it could be worth it. I'd be willing to pay up to $75 per month for this, assuming the ROI in time saved and risk mitigated is clear.

Simulated interest: 60/100

Margaret Toypositive

Currently, we're managing our security checks manually. This involves meticulously comparing QA notes against known risks and using a detailed spreadsheet to track potential issues before each deployment. It's a time-consuming but essential part of our process. What Ubserve offers, particularly the automated scanning and AI-generated fixes, sounds incredibly efficient. The promise of finding security issues before they become public problems is very appealing, especially given the unpredictable nature of AI features we're developing. However, the description mentions 'pay only if you find issues,' but doesn't specify the cost basis or what constitutes finding an issue versus a full audit. Without clear pricing details, it's hard to commit. If the cost is reasonable and the scans are accurate, I'd be interested, perhaps up to $50 per month for the basic scanning functionality.

Simulated interest: 75/100

Chase Maasneutral

Currently, we run Aikido Security in our CI pipeline and supplement that with periodic manual reviews of our live app. The primary benefit of Ubserve appears to be its AI-driven approach to finding issues and providing AI-generated fixes, which could streamline our process. However, I'm unclear on the depth of its integration with our specific stack or how it compares to our existing CI tooling. The pricing model isn't explicitly detailed beyond a subscription basis, making it hard to estimate a monthly cost. I would be willing to pay up to $100 per month, but this is contingent on understanding the full scope of its capabilities and its actual impact compared to what we already do.

Simulated interest: 50/100

Zofia Grzegorczykneutral

Right now, I rely on a mix of free online checks, what users tell me, and just trying things myself. It's not ideal, but it fits my budget. The idea of an AI agent scanning my app like a real attacker is appealing, especially since I just brought on a contractor and want to ensure we're building securely. What I'd need to see is how well it catches actual issues specific to Bubble and Postgres, and if the AI-generated fixes are truly useful. If it’s as straightforward as pasting a URL and getting actionable insights, that’s a huge plus. I'd be willing to pay up to $30 per month, but only if it genuinely finds significant issues I would have missed. The 'pay only if you find issues' part is very attractive.

Simulated interest: 70/100

Pablo Quigleyneutral

My current approach involves manual checks and code reviews, often leveraging a custom checklist for database permissions and ad hoc scans for exposed keys. It's thorough but time-consuming. Ubserve's automated scanning for exposed keys, broken auth, and RLS sounds like a significant time-saver, especially with AI-generated fixes. The main concern would be the depth of its scans – does it catch the subtle misconfigurations that slip through standard checks? I'd need to understand its pricing structure better; the "Pay only if you find issues" is intriguing, but I'd need clarity on what constitutes an "issue" versus a minor flag. I would be willing to pay up to $100 per month, provided the value is clearly demonstrated and the pricing is transparent.

Simulated interest: 60/100