Microsoft Defender for Cloud Reviews

I have a highly specific use case for Azure Defender, so I don't think I've used most of its features. We primarily use it to secure Kubernetes clusters in other cloud environments. For example, I have Kubernetes in Amazon AWS, and we're trying out Azure Defender to protect those Kubernetes clusters.

We also use Defender to scan the image repositories held in Azure Container Repository or ACR. We use Defender plus Azure ARC and Windows Defender. All three products work in conjunction to give us some security insights into our cluster.

We haven't fully implemented Azure Defender yet. Right now, we're at the POC stage. However, if people have a genuine use case, they should see its value, especially because of its cross-cloud compatibility. I don't think any other tool provides the same cross-cloud compatibility as Azure Defender combined with Arc, so that's a significant selling point for this product.

The security scorecard is something I find helpful. It tells me what's missing and identifies new vulnerabilities inside my registries. Once I publish the image, the scorecards automatically update. I don't need to constantly run a security scan for my images because the scorecards are updated by Azure periodically. That makes my job easier.

I haven't been using Azure Defender for long. It's been around three months. 

Overall, Azure Defender's availability is excellent. However, the Kubernetes security is a new offering that is still under development, so the service's availability and support are not mature at this point and definitely need improvement.

I rate Defender's scalability about eight out of 10. If you compare Azure Defender to a similar product AWS offers, there isn't much difference in scalability. The solution is able to accommodate all your requirements. I don't think I have ever reached a point where the solution couldn't scale to meet my needs. 

I deduct two points because you incur more costs as you increase usage, so it's more expensive when you have lots of logs flowing into the system. That is why I rate it eight. Otherwise, I don't see any technical issues there.

Azure's system could be more on point like AWS support. For example, if I have an issue with AWS, I create a support ticket, then I get a call or a message. With Azure support, you raise a ticket, and somebody calls back depending on their availability and the priority, which might not align with your business priority. 

I can't talk about Microsoft support generally, but I can speak to my experience specifically with Azure Defender support. I would rate it five out of 10. Maybe it's because this is a product that Azure is still developing on the side. I don't think they have made Azure Defender for Kubernetes available to the general public yet, so that could be why their support is not up to par. I don't know the reason, but I haven't had a good experience with the support.

It is just a POC, so I don't have many endpoints. The whole setup took three days for around 10 endpoints. They have an agent-based security system. It's always complex because you need to deploy the agent to all endpoints which is a lot of work to get it set up. 

We have still have not decided to implement Azure Defender because we are also trying out other products in the same line. Once the RFP process is finished, we will know which one we'll implement.

Azure Defender is definitely pricey, but their competitors cost about the same. For example, a Palo Alto solution is the same price per endpoint, but the ground strikes cost a bit more than Azure Defender. Still, it's pricey for a company like ours. Maybe well-established organizations can afford it, but it might be too costly for a startup. They should try some open-source tools. That's how it is today.

Compared to other products, Azure Defender's main advantage is native integration with all Azure services. If your company uses Active Directory and builds everything on Azure, you get it as a complete package. There's no need to buy another tool and set it up in your cloud environment. 

Everything is built into Azure, and if we go for cross-cloud development with Azure Arc, we can use most of the features. While it's possible to deploy and convert third-party applications, it is difficult to maintain, whereas Azure deployments to the cloud are always easier. Also, Microsoft is a big company, so they always provide enough support, and we trust the Microsoft brand. 

I rate Azure Defender eight out of 10. If you're looking for standard Azure Defender services like cloud posture management or application security, these features are all highly mature. Defender also has newer capabilities that they recently introduced, such as endpoint security, cross-cloud integration with Azure Arc, and Kubernetes runtime security. 

These are all new services, so potential users need to think twice before buying into it solely for these features because I don't think the support is there to encourage customers to buy the product. I don't feel confident about Microsoft's support in these particular areas. I would exercise caution before buying Defender for these particular use cases. 

We had multiple use cases at my previous company. I changed companies during their implementation stages of this solution. From what I saw, the solution has a good use case for SIEM.

It helped improve my previous organization's security posture. Their previous solution was running separately in each region. That has now been centralized by moving to the cloud. This was a huge change for their operations because they used to have multiple vendors managing their SIEM. Now, that has been consolidated under a single vendor. This consolidation has improved response times.

We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard.

I felt that there was disconnection in terms of understanding the UI. The communication for moving from the old UI to the new UI could be improved. It was a bit awkward.

I have been using Azure Security Center for five to six years. I was using it as my previous organization up until six months ago.

The stability was good.

The solution was very much scalable.

Overall, there were around 150,000 users beginning to use it at the organization.

We didn't use technical support directly from Microsoft. We used the third-parties' support.

We were previously using multiple solutions that integrated with SAP. For example, one region would be running QRadar and another region would be using Symantec. Each region of the company was just running it in silo mode off their internal Exchange. As part of centralizing a global solution, we chose to go with Azure Security Center, because our on-prem solution was not really working for us. This is why we started using Azure Security Center.

The initial setup was easy; it was not complex.

The deployment took a month.

The transition went well. I didn't see any challenges.

The setup was done by a third-party vendor, Fujitsu, who was very good. There was also another vendor, Microland, who had good knowledge and helped us with building it.

Not too many people were needed for the transition between solutions. I am unsure of the number of people needed because multiple activities were being run during the process, e.g., SharePoint migration.

The solution helped out management a lot. It reduced about 50% of the time needed to spend on this after implementation.

The organization saved money by consolidating into one solution instead of two or three. 

Microsoft's licensing and pricing are sometimes complicated. If someone is new to Microsoft's licensing, they might have difficulty with it.

We might have looked at other competitors. However, Azure Security Center was attractive because of its licensing, which was packaged with the Office 365 licensing, as well as the fact that it is a single solution.

I liked the centralization that it offered. However, I am cautious about the licensing part because I am unsure how you would manage the solution if it wasn't bundled.

When we started, our team didn't make a clear roadmap, which slowed us down. I recommend that you clearly define your roadmap before getting started.

The solution is very good. I would rate it as eight out of 10.

We use Microsoft Defender for Cloud to manage our cloud security posture. We also use Container Protection, which provides additional security for our containerized workloads. This gives us the visibility we need to ensure that our cloud resources are secure.

We use Microsoft Defender for Cloud to natively support Azure Cloud.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud's ability to protect our hybrid environments is definitely critical because we are on the journey of transitioning from hybrid to the cloud. In order to do that, we need a platform that can help us through the transition.

The solution's unified portal is essential for managing and providing visibility across our hybrid and multi-cloud environments. Visibility is something that every security operation needs and it gives us leverage to improve our security posture. This is great.

The single pane of glass view is critical for our organization. This is because we previously used a different platform, so we are all familiar with its features and how to improve upon them. Our heavy investment in Microsoft products made Defender for Cloud a natural choice.

Our goal is to increase our secure score. As we take steps to mitigate risk, our secure score will increase, giving us the feeling that our cloud resources are secure.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud significantly improves security operations. Instead of having to look at multiple windows or portals, it provides a single pane of glass for the investigation and remediation of cloud resource risks.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud helps us proactively discover unknown threats and defend against known threats. It also helps us improve our security posture and defend our cloud resources. We do not normally have external Internet-facing resources, but when we do, Microsoft Defender for Cloud helps us meet compliance requirements.

DSPM is the most valuable feature. It integrates with standard frameworks, so we can easily see if there are any gaps in our compliance with NIST standards. This allows us to identify areas for improvement and ensure that we are meeting all applicable requirements.

I would like to have the ability to customize executive reporting.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Cloud for five months.

In the short time we have been using Microsoft Defender for Cloud it has been stable.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud is scalable, and we have not yet needed to scale it up.

We previously used Prisma Cloud, but we switched to Microsoft Defender for Cloud due to internal business decisions. We have since merged with a company that also uses Microsoft Defender for Cloud. We want to leverage the licenses from the merged company and also cut costs in our security portfolio.

The implementation was completed in-house. The solution's maintenance is easy.

I give Microsoft Defender for Cloud an eight out of ten. We have not used all the modules yet.

The time to detection has remained relatively the same.

Our time to respond has remained the same because we previously used Prisma Cloud. Prisma Cloud is what we were using before, so we already have an established service level for handling incidents. We are remediating some of the configuration and cloud issues.

The primary users of the solution in our organization are the automation team and the software engineering team. We have also migrated some of our ERP systems to the solution.

I recommend Microsoft Defender for Cloud because it is a mature product that can meet most businesses' security requirements and budgets.

I use it for managing our customers' server vulnerability assessments for regular and SQL servers. I also use it to get a security score for the resources of our customers that are on Azure, as well as security posture management. 

We also have regulatory benchmarks to audit our customers' resources that are on Azure to check whether they're meeting regulatory standards like ISO 27000.

It has enabled our organization to have an organized approach to, and quick visibility, or a bird's-eye view, of the current security portion. The way the portal organizes things has allowed us to focus on the specific vulnerabilities and security gaps that have to be fixed quickly. It gives us flexibility on what we should be checking on.

Defender for Cloud has helped us reduce or close some of the key security gaps of our main assets on the cloud. It has also helped us comply with some of the regulatory compliance standards, like CIS and ISO 27000 because of its main features. And it has also helped us in terms of threat detection and vulnerability management.

Another benefit is that it has really helped detect some of the Zero-day-model threats. We've also been able to utilize the automation features to investigate and remediate some of the threats that have been discovered. It has improved the time it takes to remediate threats, mainly because of automation. The logic apps that we've been able to set in either Sentinel or Defender for Cloud are the main components that have really improved that efficiency, and the time needed for remediating threats.

The time to respond is near real time, if the logic apps are in use, because it's just a matter of putting the playbooks into action. This is something that we've tested and found is quite effective for remediation.

The solution has also saved us money over going with a standalone solution where you purchase licenses for servers for a whole year. Now, we pay only for the servers in use. With the subscription-based model for servers, you're only paying per hour and only when the server is being utilized.

The main feature is the security posture assessment through the security score. I find that to be very helpful because it gives us guidance on what needs to be secured and recommendations on how to secure the workloads that have been onboarded.

Another component, although I can't say it's specific to Defender for Cloud, is that the onboarding process is easy. I find that helpful compared with the competitors' solutions. Onboarding the resources into Defender for Cloud is quite easy.

Also, we have integrated Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Defender for Cloud with Microsoft Sentinel and the integration is actually just a click of a button. It's very easy. You just click to connect the data sources and Microsoft Sentinel. Having them work together is an advantage. I like the fact that the main threat notification console has moved to Security Center so that we don't have to go into each of these solutions. It's beneficial having the three solutions working together in terms of the investigations that we have been doing with them.

The threat intelligence is quite good at detecting multi-level threats. If, for example, you integrate Defender for Endpoint and 365 and Defender for Identity, the threat intelligence is able to grab these two signals and provide good insights into, and a good, positive view of the threats.

The solution's portal is very easy to use, but there's one key component that is missing when it comes to managing policies. For example, if I've onboarded my server and I need to specify antivirus policies, there's no option to do that on the portal. I will have to go to Intune to deploy them. That is one main aspect that is missing and it's worrisome.

Defender for Cloud, as a solution, allows you to manage and protect servers from vulnerabilities without using Defender for Servers. I find it a bit weird, if you are to manage the antivirus for servers on the portal, that you can't deploy the antivirus policies on the same portal. For instance, if you want to exclude a particular folder from an antivirus scan or if you want to disable the antivirus from the portal, you'll not ideally do it on the portal. That's a huge part that is currently missing.

Also, some thought has to be put into the issue of false positives. We've been seeing false positives that are related to Sentinel through the integration. We have been giving them this feedback, but I don't know if that is something that Microsoft is working on.

The time for detection is one of the things that we were also supposed to raise with the Microsoft team. There is a slight delay in terms of detection. That "immediate" factor isn't there. There's a need to improve the time to detection. When malware has been detected by Defender for Endpoint, we find that it takes approximately one to two minutes before the signal reaches Defender for Cloud. If that could be reduced to near-real-time, that would be helpful. That's one of the key areas that should be improved because we've done some simulations on that.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Cloud for three years.

It's quite stable. In my experience, there have been no issues with the stability.

Because we have Premium Support, the support is quite okay. We are able to get answers to most of the queries that we raise.

Positive

The initial setup is quite easy, especially if it's for non-servers. It's just a matter of enabling and disabling servers, using the Azure app.

And the solution doesn't require any maintenance on our side.

There are improvements that have to be made to the licensing. Currently, for servers, it has to be done by grouping the servers on a single subscription and that means that each server is subject to the same planning. We don't have an option whereby, if all those resources are in one subscription, we can have each of the individual servers subject to different planning.

There's no option for specifying that "Server A should be in Plan 1 and server B should be in Plan 2," because the servers are in the same subscription. That's something that can be fixed. 

Also, there needs to be a clear description by Microsoft for those customers who have Defender for Endpoint for Servers and Defender for Servers because now they don't know which subscription they should purchase.

I've used many solutions, but Defender for Cloud is in its own class. You can't compare it with third-party solutions because those solutions either have a third-party antivirus or they're not integrated in the same way as Defender for Cloud is. Because Defender for Cloud integrates multiple solutions within it, like Defender for Endpoint, other workloads, and the firewall manager, it stands on its own as a single solution that contains all these solutions. 

I use this solution in two different scenarios. The first is for the security and monitoring of Azure accounts. Another is for SIEM integration and the Azure Gateway WAF. Essentially, it's a one-stop solution where you can integrate all of the other Azure security products. This means that instead of maybe going to Firewall Manager, Azure Defender, or WAF, you can have all of them send statistics or logs to Azure Security Center, and you can do your analysis from there.

This product helps us with regulatory compliance.

With respect to improving our security posture, it helps us to understand where we are in terms of compliance. We can easily know when we are below the standard because of the scores it calculates.

It helps us with alerts. You're able to automatically channel these alerts to emails and get the team readily looking into the issue.

We don't need a distributed team looking at the various security solutions. Instead, they just look into Azure Security Center and then get everything from one place.

It also supports multiple cloud integration, where you can add other clouds like AWS and GCP. However, we don't use that feature. 

The most valuable feature is the help with regulatory compliance, as it gives us security scores and the CVE details.

Centralized management is another feature that is key for me.

This product has a lot of features but to get the best out of it, it requires a lot of insight into Azure itself. An example of this is customizing Azure Logic Apps to be able to send the right logs to Security Center.

The overview provides you with good information, but if you want more details, there is a lot more customization to do, which requires knowledge of the other supporting solutions. You can get the best out of it, but then you will also need to do a lot of work.

Improvements are needed with respect to how it integrates the subscriptions in various Azure accounts. You can have a lot of accounts, but you don't get detailed information. Specifically, it gives you overall score statistics, although it's not very intuitive, especially when you want to see information from individual subscriptions.

For example, if there are five subscriptions sending traffic to Azure Security Center, it gives you the summary of everything. If you want to narrow it down to one particular subscription and then get deep into the events, you really have to do some work. This is where they could improve.

In terms of narrowing things down, per account, it is not granular enough. In general, it gives you good summaries of what is happening everywhere, with consolidated views. You're able to get this information on your dashboard. But, if you wanted to narrow down per subscription, you don't want to have to jump into the subscriptions and then look at them one by one. Simply, we should be able to get more insights from within Azure Security Center. It's possible, but this is where it requires a lot more customization.

I have been using Azure Security Center for approximately two years.

In terms of stability and availability, Security Center is very good. It doesn't change. Because it's cloud-based, you don't actually have to manage infrastructure to get it up. If you are using the SIEM portion of it, it's what you are sending to it that will determine what you get out of it.

If you are using a hybrid solution from your own site then you have to make sure that your internet connection to the cloud is reliable. Your VPNs that are pushing data have to be stable, as well. Also, if you are using a third-party solution, you have to manage your keys well. But in terms of it being stable, I would say it's highly available and highly stable.

This solution is very scalable. You can integrate as many subscriptions as possible. They could be Azure subscriptions, AWS accounts, GCP, and other resources. Because it's cloud-based, I have not actually encountered any limits.

I know that with cloud providers when there are limits, you can request an increase, but in terms of how many, I have not seen any limitations so far. As such, I would say it's highly scalable.

We are using it a lot. For Azure, there are 20-plus subscriptions. We don't really use it for AWS accounts. Instead, we prefer to use AWS Security Hub on AWS, so we don't push AWS account data there. But for Azure, we used it for at least 20 subscriptions.

We have a distributed team. I have used it for the past two years in the company, and it's a huge organization. In the whole of the organization, Microsoft Azure is used as the main cloud. AWS was also used, but that was mostly for specific projects. In terms of the number of people using it, I estimate it is between 50 and 100.

Microsoft support is very good, although it may depend on the kind of support you have. We have enterprise-level support, so any time we needed assistance, there was a solution architect to work with us.

With the highest support level, we had sessions with Microsoft engineers and they were always ready to help. I don't know the other levels of support, but ours was quite good.

We began with the Security Center because it was for projects on Azure.

The initial setup is somewhat straightforward and of medium complexity. Especially when it comes to integrating subscriptions, I would not say that it's complex. At the same time, it is not as simple as just pressing the Next button several times. There are knowledge prerequisites before you can set it up fully and properly.

Setting this solution up was an ongoing project where we kept integrating subscription after subscription. If you know what you're doing, in a couple of days, or even a few minutes, you can get going.

If you need to build the knowledge as you go, it's something you could do in one day. You would integrate one subscription, and then start getting feedback. It's plug and play, in that sense.

The company has seen great returns on investment with this solution. In terms of security, you want to match the spending with how effective it is. Top management generally wants more reports. They want statistics and an analysis of what is happening. For example, reports need to say "We had this number of attempts on our systems."

As additional functionality, it's also able to support the business in terms of knowing and reporting the relevant statistics.

This solution is more cost-effective than some competing products. My understanding is that it is based on the number of integrations that you have, so if you have fewer subscriptions then you pay less for the service.

We did not evaluate anything else before choosing this product.

For example, we are now considering different products for SEIM integration. One of them is Palo Alto Prisma Cloud. However, the price is too expensive when compared to Azure. It is also a multi-cloud product, although, in the beginning, it didn't support AWS and GCP. It now has support for those cloud providers, as well as additional features that Azure doesn't have.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to start building knowledge about it. Go to the Microsoft documentation and learn about it. As much as they show all of its great functionalities, you really need knowledge of other supporting resources that work with Azure Security Center, because it is just like a hub. It's what you push into it and how you customize it that determines what you get.

This means that if you don't have knowledge of Firewall Manager and you just want to use Security Center, it becomes a problem for you. This is something that you need to know. So, I advise people to get a holistic knowledge of all of the supporting resources that work with Azure Security Center to be able to maximize its value.

If you are looking to build on Azure then I would recommend the Security Center, mainly because of the cost and you will immediately get all of the functionality that you need.

The biggest lesson that I learned from using this product is that you don't get the best value right out of the box. You need further customization and configuration. The capabilities are there but if you don't have a dedicated security team with good technical know-how, such as scripting skills, or being able to work with the Logic App, or maybe the basic functionalities of security, then when you want more in-depth details into your subscriptions, it will become a problem.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use the solution as a VPN and for endpoint security. 

I've seen benefits since implementing Microsoft Defender for Cloud. It's easy to manage for our large organization as an endpoint security solution. It integrates well with Office 365 and Windows 11, which is better than before. Patching, updates, and threat protection are all handled together now. Its AI features help predict threats. 

We've automated some processes, like batch updating and vulnerability detection, using AI. Our dashboard tracks every machine's IP and identifies vulnerable software. Using AI, we can gather this information and provide it to users. We also use chatbots to provide solution steps.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud is not compatible with Linux machines. 

I have been working with the product for three to four years. 

I rate the tool's stability a ten out of ten.

I rate Microsoft Defender for Cloud's scalability as nine out of ten. My company has more than 300 users. In our environment, we're using it on over 130,000 machines.

The solution's deployment process is not complex and is completed in 20 minutes. 

The solution helps to reduce costs by 20 percent. 

The solution is expensive, and I rate it a five to six out of ten. 

I would recommend the solution to others and rate it a nine out of ten. 

I work as a SOC manager. We use it for incident security, incident monitoring, threat analysis, and looking at remediation or suppression.

Most use cases that come from Microsoft are all automated. Even before any manual effort, the tool is designed in such a way that it just does the threat analysis. It gives us exactly what the incident alert is all about: 

• The priority
• The threat 
• The impact
• The risk
• How it can be mitigated. 

Those are the key features of this particular tool.

The solution has features that have definitely helped improve our security posture.

One important security feature is the incident alerts. Now, with all these cyberattacks, there are a lot of incident alerts that get triggered. It is very difficult to keep monitoring everything automatically, instead our organization is utilizing the automated use case that we get from Microsoft. That has helped bring down the manual work for a lot of things. The automation tool does the following (when human interaction is needed): 

• Identifies what kind of an alert is it. 
• Whether we have to dismiss it. 
• When we need to take any action so the team can do it appropriately. 

This is one of its key benefits.

It is easy to use based on my experience. If a newcomer comes in, it is just a matter of time to just learn it because it is not that difficult.

Most of the time, we are looking for more automation, e.g., looking to ensure that the real-time risk, threat, and impact are being identified by Microsoft. With the Signature Edition, there is an awareness of the real risks and threats. However, there are a lot of things where we need to go back to Microsoft, and say, "Are you noticing these kinds of alerts as well? Do we have any kind of solution for this?" This is where I find that Microsoft could be more proactive.

I have been using it for more than nine years.

We have not had issues with tool usage or any hiccups.

There are certain glitches, which are areas of improvement, thus we continuously keep working with Microsoft. Microsoft does acknowledge this, because it's a learning experience for Microsoft as well. They always expect feedback and improvements on their tools, as it is a collaboration effort between Microsoft and the client.

I work for an organization with more than 50,000 users. Under security alone, we have 5,000-plus users. On my team, we have around 400 people who are looking at it.

There are different roles in the company: project management, security operations (the red and blue teams), and pen testing. I lead a security operations center team, where we have L1, L2, L3, and L4 capabilities. All these come under the same umbrella of the security operations center, and they are all rolled up to the Chief Information Security Officer as part of security. 

An ongoing improvement for both Microsoft as well as for my organization: We need to work together. Sometimes, the solution doesn't work so we reach out to Microsoft Enterprise support for any help or assistance. If there is any feedback or improvement, then we work together, but they definitely have helped most of the time.

There are certain gray areas. We constantly work with Microsoft to notice whether there is something that only we, as a client, face. Or, if there are other clients who have the same kind of situation, issues, or scenarios where they need help. 

I would rate Azure Security Center anywhere between five to six out of 10. Most of the time, when we log into the support, we don't get a chance to interact with Microsoft employees directly, except having it go to outsource employees of Microsoft. The initial interaction has not been that great because outsourced companies cannot provide the kind of quality or technical expertise that we look for. We have a technical manager from Microsoft, but they are kind of average unless we make noise and ask them to escalate. We then can get the right people and the right solution, but it definitely takes time.

We use Microsoft Defender and Splunk. We primarily went with Azure Security Center because of client requirements.

The initial setup is pretty easy and straightforward. 

To deploy just Azure Security Center, it took three to four hours. However, there are a lot of things that it depends on.

Different clients have different requirements. If the client says, "We are using Azure Security Center. We want to use Microsoft technology or products." We will go with that. There are clients who are using Cisco products as well. 

The solution architect usually designs it, taking into consideration the initial setup guide, playbook, and documentation. 

We don't use consultants for the deployment.

It has global licensing. It comes with multiple licenses since there are around 50,000 people (in our organization) who look at it.

For organizations who have an on-prem environment and are planning to move to a cloud-based solution, Azure Security Center is definitely one of the best tools that they can use. Year-over-year, I can see a lot of differences and improvements that Microsoft has definitely implemented, in terms of risk analysis, threat impact, and risk impact.

Most of the time, for any action that is performed within an organization or environment, if there is a risk or threat analysis, it is the security operation center who gets to know about it. The end user doesn't get affected at any cost unless there is a ransomware or cyberattack.

I wouldn't say that this is the only tool or product that has helped us out. There are a lot of technologies that Microsoft has come up with, which all together have made a difference. From a score of one to 10 for overall security, I would rate Azure Security Center somewhere between a seven to eight. This is not the only tool that my team depends on. There are other tools, but in terms of threat analysis and threat impact, this particular tool has definitely helped us.

We use a lot of Microsoft technologies, not only Azure Security Center. Apart from Azure Security Center, we use the playbook. We are also moving forward with Azure IoT Central and Log Analytics, which is a SIEM tool. So, I have Azure Security Center, Azure Advanced Threat Protection, Windows Defender, Log Analytics, and Azure IoT Central. 

Using Azure Security Center, there are a lot of things that get automated. So, I am not dependent completely on Azure Security Center. It is a collaboration of different tools and technologies to achieve the end result. That is why I am saying seven to eight out of 10, because I am not dependent on a particular tool. It is also one of the tools that is definitely helpful for checking risk analysis, but there are other tools as well.

I would rate Azure Security Center as seven to eight of 10. If you talk about Microsoft products, I would rate it anywhere between eight to nine out of 10.

Mostly, it's related to the vulnerability management.

Earlier, we used to do the vulnerability assessment manually, scheduling it based on our timeline, maybe every six months or once a year. Now, it helps us a lot because we can get the vulnerabilities updated and get recommendations.

The MDVM part is very good. While we were doing the POC, Microsoft Defender was using Qualys for the vulnerability. Now, they have switched to their own MDVM, which is Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management.

The vulnerabilities are duplicated many times. If it reports that the findings are around 30 or 40, or let's say, 100, it is not the exact number as it is possible that there are multiple findings which are duplicated in nature, and actually, the number is only 62 or 67. 

Another issue after Microsoft Defender upgraded and left Qualys is that whenever the load for the report data is too high, we cannot export the report in one go, so we have to do it in batches.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The quality of the MDVM feature, one of the keys which we are getting, is many times duplicated with the same IDs.

I have contacted Microsoft for the quality issue, and they are working with us.

Positive

I did work with something similar, however, not in the same organization. In my earlier organization, I was working with Check Point and Tenable.

The pricing is good. It is license-based, and we are not utilizing all of the features, like API and other functionalities, so the cost is not that high.

I would definitely recommend Microsoft Defender for Cloud, provided they make some improvements in the MDVM part.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.