* Disclaimer: I manage one of those nine-figure security products you mention.
> will not catch everything in any way
This is why I'm unsure of the value. And to be clear, by "unsure of the value" I don't mean "unsure whether it has any value." It certainly has value. I'm just not sure how much, as, say, a dollar figure.
"No false positives" is fine marketing, but in practice you aren't replacing anyone's firewalls, endpoint agents, sandboxes, SIEMs, etc. All those false positives will still be there, along with many legitimate detections your system never sees.
If money were no object, then absolutely I'd buy. But given that money is usually a factor, that you're limited to detection, that you're only effective in scenarios where attackers touch your decoy systems, and that you're competing for dollars against products that detect more, detect it sooner, and often prevent it automatically, I don't know.
This is kind of a surprising pick for YC: a down-the-middle enterprise security play, the kind of company that usually gets funded by Battery because one of the cofounders successfully sold a portfolio company a couple iterations ago.
It's interesting to see what seems to be a pretty conventional bit of security technology (sandboxing malware and exploit code into virtual machines is the kernel of several 9-figure security products) get extra attention because of the YC pedigree. Or maybe TechCrunch just got this wrong? Either way: not complaining!