3 ms·

If the creators are on HN, curious to know what sets this apart from other threat intel services like IBM X-Force, ThreatConnect, VirusTotal, Carbon Black, etc.

by kolanos 10y ago

fragfester 10y ago
I'm Ryan, one of three devs that built FraudGuard.io. The answer is basically price. We do EVERYTHING ourselves and try to keep price extremely fair. We have plans that start at $10 /month and we also have a small free-for-life plan too. Thats the best answer. The secondary part is we want a simple way for any dev off the street to integrate with api.fraudguard.io in 5 minutes. Imagine you are a small company and you want to limit back office access to you CMS to only IPs outside of Germany. That takes just a couple minutes. Or you want to allow back office access to you CMS from everywhere but you want to decrease the session timeout to only 30 minutes if the originating IP is a tor node or public proxy, etc. We just got out of beta (literally last night) but so far thats the majority of use cases that we've seen so far.
- encoderer 10y ago
  Hey Ryan, I applaud the free tier and think it's important, but I'd caution that it can be awfully hard to make a business-sustaining revenue on $10/mo. I think it's smart to start low and compete on price, but I think there's value here, it's why there are larger competitors in the space, and if you can climb that value chain and raise prices along the way you will be better off for it. From a merchandising POV, you could consider moving up-market by building new more powerful features and giving them only to the $25 plan. Then, rename the plans to match who you expect to buy them. People identify with who they are more naturally than they do a number of requests per month. Also, congrats on shipping. Edit: Also, pre-fill the form with the visitors own IP -- or better yet just display the results?
  - fragfester 10y ago
    Ya this is really great info. Thanks for the feedback. We are still looking at pricing as this is only day one but we're on it. This one I'm moving up the list - I like the idea "better yet just display the results of visitors IP"
    - sasas 10y ago
      ipinfo.io do this well
edoceo 10y ago
And AbuseIPDB
- fragfester 10y ago
  So in the past we talked about this kind of integration. Our only concern would be user generated content. Our users can 100% trust that if an IP is in our system and logged as a level 5 risk level, that that the originating IP hacked one of our nodes and was caught in the process. Obviously we are concerned that a user that doesn't like (example IP) 4.2.2.1 for whatever reason might create 10 accounts and log this IP as malicious so we would need to tag it as user-generated before we turn it on. But we are considering it
rymsza 10y ago
How do you compare to gator.io?

If the creators are on HN, curious to know what sets this apart from other threat intel services like IBM X-Force, ThreatConnect, VirusTotal, Carbon Black, etc.

by kolanos 10y ago

If the creators are on HN, curious to know what sets this apart from other threat intel services like IBM X-Force, ThreatConnect, VirusTotal, Carbon Black, etc.

fragfester 10y ago

I'm Ryan, one of three devs that built FraudGuard.io. The answer is basically price. We do EVERYTHING ourselves and try to keep price extremely fair. We have plans that start at $10 /month and we also have a small free-for-life plan too. Thats the best answer. The secondary part is we want a simple way for any dev off the street to integrate with api.fraudguard.io in 5 minutes. Imagine you are a small company and you want to limit back office access to you CMS to only IPs outside of Germany. That takes just a couple minutes. Or you want to allow back office access to you CMS from everywhere but you want to decrease the session timeout to only 30 minutes if the originating IP is a tor node or public proxy, etc. We just got out of beta (literally last night) but so far thats the majority of use cases that we've seen so far.

encoderer 10y ago
Hey Ryan, I applaud the free tier and think it's important, but I'd caution that it can be awfully hard to make a business-sustaining revenue on $10/mo. I think it's smart to start low and compete on price, but I think there's value here, it's why there are larger competitors in the space, and if you can climb that value chain and raise prices along the way you will be better off for it. From a merchandising POV, you could consider moving up-market by building new more powerful features and giving them only to the $25 plan. Then, rename the plans to match who you expect to buy them. People identify with who they are more naturally than they do a number of requests per month. Also, congrats on shipping. Edit: Also, pre-fill the form with the visitors own IP -- or better yet just display the results?
- fragfester 10y ago
  Ya this is really great info. Thanks for the feedback. We are still looking at pricing as this is only day one but we're on it. This one I'm moving up the list - I like the idea "better yet just display the results of visitors IP"
  - sasas 10y ago
    ipinfo.io do this well

edoceo 10y ago

And AbuseIPDB

fragfester 10y ago
So in the past we talked about this kind of integration. Our only concern would be user generated content. Our users can 100% trust that if an IP is in our system and logged as a level 5 risk level, that that the originating IP hacked one of our nodes and was caught in the process. Obviously we are concerned that a user that doesn't like (example IP) 4.2.2.1 for whatever reason might create 10 accounts and log this IP as malicious so we would need to tag it as user-generated before we turn it on. But we are considering it

rymsza 10y ago

How do you compare to gator.io?