Microsoft Defender for Cloud Reviews

We are using the tool for checking for vulnerabilities over my website for my own personal purpose and within my corporate role. This is also a tool that we have deployed. In terms of usage, it's much more related to reporting and vulnerability management rather than setting up from an organizational perspective.

From an efficiency perspective, it has helped with reporting and the self-service availability of security postures.

The most valuable feature for me is the variety of APIs available. Additionally, the suggestions I get from Defender for security levels and recommendations on how to upgrade my security level are very appreciated.

I recommend that they extend the scope for legacy infra assets.

I have been working with it for more than a year now.

I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

There are no complaints about scalability, and I rate it an eight out of ten.

I rate customer support a nine out of ten. The support team was very responsive to queries.

Rating the setup, I would give it a six out of ten. The setup process took about two to three days due to waiting on support replies.

I had a support team to help with some of the setup aspects, and they were very responsive.

It's difficult to say because the volume of vulnerabilities and threats has increased, making it tough to compare efficiency between usage before and after implementation.

I don't have visibility into the specific costs, but it seems to be a significant concern for our organization. Every time we consider expanding usage, we carefully evaluate the necessity due to cost concerns.

I am familiar with Dataiku and Databricks, and we use SailPoint in conjunction.

Users must first understand the list of assets they have and whether there is out-of-the-box connectivity with them.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We have deployed Microsoft Defender for Cloud to identify vulnerabilities across various log sources for our client.

We implemented Defender to improve the security posture of our client's landscape.

The single pane of glass that Microsoft offers is highly crucial for several reasons. First, aggregating multiple log sources into a single pane of glass is not achievable without Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Second, we also interact with other cloud environments.

We use Defender's free CSPM functionality for the Microsoft Cloud security benchmark. The benchmark recommendations show all the vulnerabilities that help us to create a remediation plan and to take action.

It is a necessity for us that the free CSPM functionality provides multi-cloud monitoring and posture management because most of our workloads are spread across multi-clouds.

The comprehensive range of workloads protected by Defender for Cloud is sufficient for our needs, as it encompasses all essential security pillars.

We have enabled Defender for Cloud's native support for GCP. A key requirement for us before selecting Defender for Cloud was that it supported other clouds.

Defender for Cloud has aided in reducing the number of vulnerabilities and expediting the resolution process, thanks to its helpful suggestions. Consequently, we have achieved remarkable time savings of approximately 30 to 40 percent each week in comprehending and addressing vulnerabilities.

By integrating Defender for Cloud with the firewall and Defender for Endpoints, we have gained comprehensive security insights through these Microsoft integrations. This unified approach provides a single pane of glass for viewing all security information, eliminating the need to navigate between multiple portals.

Defender for Cloud has improved our security posture.

The unified monitoring has saved us around 30 percent of our time.

Defender for Cloud has increased our security team's efficiency by 30 percent.

Defender for Cloud is a plug-and-play solution that provides continuous posture management once enabled.

The multi-cloud capability is an important feature of Microsoft Defender for Cloud.

The remediation process could be improved. I have seen that Google has a similar Security Center, where they not only identify vulnerabilities but also provide the steps to fix them. If Microsoft Defender for Cloud could provide remediation steps for all vulnerabilities, it would be a significant enhancement. Currently, only some vulnerabilities have remediation steps available.

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

Microsoft Defender for Cloud is stable. We have not encountered any downtime.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud is scalable.

The technical support is good. We can raise tickets without any issues.

Positive

We previously utilized Google's Security Center. However, we transitioned to Microsoft Defender for Cloud following the client's preference for a native solution, as they are a Microsoft-centric organization. Additionally, Microsoft Defender for Cloud's multi-cloud capabilities, including its ability to integrate information from Google Cloud, were compelling factors in our decision.

We have achieved a return on investment in terms of time and efficiency, which translates to monetary savings. For instance, we have gained 30 percent more efficiency in remediation tasks. This means that what previously took ten days can now be completed in seven days, saving us time and, consequently, money.

I am not involved much with the pricing but the bundle offering is good.

We considered Prisma Cloud before ultimately selecting Microsoft Defender for Cloud. The fact that Defender for Cloud was a native solution for our client significantly simplified the integration process.

I would rate Microsoft Defender for Cloud nine out of ten.

We have Microsoft Defender for Cloud deployed across 2,000 locations and over 3,000 endpoints.

No maintenance is required from our end.

We are a managed service provider. We use Microsoft Defender for Cloud to provide services to our customers.

Defender for Cloud provides a complete DevOps security package for cloud services. Defender covers a broad range of workloads. It helps us prioritize because it identifies critical alerts that we work to resolve. 

Microsoft Defender for Cloud has enhanced our security process by providing insights and critical alerts. We use it on our own managed platform. It has helped us gain some insights and realize areas for improvement. We have worked to resolve the issues highlighted by the alerts, improving our overall security posture.

While we are satisfied with Defender for Cloud's features, an AI enhancement could potentially provide better advice and adapt more effectively to our environment.

I have been using Defender for Cloud for about three or four months.

I haven't observed any outages with Microsoft Defender for Cloud. The stability is excellent.

The scalability of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is very good. I haven't experienced any issues.

I rate Microsoft support eight out of 10. Technical support is generally satisfactory, though call response times can occasionally be slow.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward and easy.

We acted as the integrator, being a managed service provider. We haven't yet developed a strategy for implementing it in other companies.

Defender for Cloud provides an invaluable return on investment by preventing potential security breaches. The peace of mind it offers is difficult to quantify.

Pricing is a consideration, but we strive to keep costs low by enabling only necessary services.

We evaluated other products but focused on adopting a more cloud-native approach with Microsoft's platform.

I rate Microsoft Defender for Cloud nine out of 10. It's progressing well, although perfection takes time.

The primary use case for Microsoft Defender for Cloud in our organization is investigating breach or security incidents.

Defender for Cloud has improved our security posture by 20 to 30 percent. With everybody moving to hybrid, it's challenging to maintain a good security posture with so many people working from home. I'm impressed with the solution's coordinated detection and responses across devices, identities, apps, emails, data, and cloud workloads. That's why we're considering using Defender in more areas and integrating it more.

I find Microsoft Defender for Cloud's KQL very flexible and powerful. It's really easy to search through with KQL queries to find the security breaches and incidents and to track down the breach itself. Microsoft Defender for Cloud presents a prioritized list of remediation for security issues, giving us a starting point to begin locking things down and tightening security.

I can't think of anything that needs improvement. It's a pretty good product.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Cloud for the last year.

Defender's stability has been flawless for us. I haven't noticed any issues.

It's great. It seems perfectly scalable.

I would rate Microsoft customer service and technical support 10 out of 10. They seem quick to respond and get us the answers we need, taking a hands-off approach to helping us integrate.

Positive

I previously used other antivirus products like Kaspersky. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is preferred because it offers cloud ability and is a more trusted partner in the industry.

We used a consultant for the implementation, and the experience was good. No complaints.

Our return on investment is seen through increased productivity. I'm able to get more done with less time.

I evaluated other antivirus products like Kaspersky before switching.

I would rate Microsoft Defender for Cloud a ten. Having this solution alleviates the need to worry about other antivirus products, offering a one-stop solution.

For example, the customer wants to restrict USB connections or any output device, or they want to verify any link they open before opening it in their real environment. Mostly, they replace the current security tool they are using, such as Kaspersky, with Defender for Cloud because it integrates well with Office 365.

The biggest advantage is it centralizes management. Customers do not have to manage different vendor products. They feel confident using Microsoft because of the long-recognized technology and detailed technical documentation available online.

The valuable features include the ability to manage devices and the fact that Defender can replace other security tools like SCCM. Since they use Office 365, they need tools that work better in their organization, such as M365 Defender for Cloud.

There are challenges with the licensing policies, which are quite complicated. The documentation is difficult to understand and resellers need proper training to support customers effectively. Microsoft should provide better training for resellers.

I have been working with Defender for Cloud for more than five years.

It is quite stable. It doesn’t have significant stability issues. I would rate it an eight for stability.

I am not the one using it directly yet I haven't heard any complaints, so I would rate it a five.

Working with Microsoft technical support can be challenging. The problem-solving process can be delayed, and not all issues get resolved promptly. If there are ten tickets, maybe only five or six get resolved satisfactorily.

Neutral

Customers are replacing security tools like Kaspersky, Symantec, or Broadcom to use Defender for Cloud because it integrates seamlessly with Office 365.

The initial setup is not very easy yet it is manageable. It is not too difficult for those familiar with the product. It is a medium-complexity setup.

The implementation should be handled by the reseller. Resellers need proper training from Microsoft as the documentation is complicated.

In Vietnam, the cost structure makes it expensive. The licensing is priced publicly on the Microsoft website and it adds up based on the number of users.

The cost is expensive for the Vietnamese market. It is publicly available on the Microsoft website, and the pricing depends on the number of users.

Organizations should ensure resellers are well-trained to support the new technologies. Proper documentation and support are crucial.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

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. 

My role is more on the FinOps side. My customers use it.

In specific contexts like finance or healthcare area, there are regulations requiring compliance. At this stage, we need to be able to prove we have state-of-the-art endpoint protection and the ability to show that all these tools are up-to-date with the latest updates and identified threats. This is very useful for my customers to be able to prove compliance.

Mainly, the ability to identify threats using signatures, analyze threat behavior, and integrate with other cloud services, specifically Azure Log Analytics and other logging projects. These are the features I like. 

Customers generally find it satisfactory for their needs. Most organizations struggle with the ability to handle this type of product. Sometimes, it's a lack of knowledge or expertise on Microsoft Defender, which leads to issues with certain tasks. That can be a bit difficult to figure out.

Most customer teams need more training on this type of product.

Due to the lack of expertise or hands-on experience with the product, it's sometimes difficult to determine whether the issue lies with Microsoft Defender or another related project. In the cloud, everything is tightly connected, making it challenging to pinpoint which part is failing. So, the lack of a deep understanding of the product leads to some difficulties.

In future releases, I would like to see integration of artificial intelligence to ease the administrative burden would help a lot, especially when it comes to deploying the product to fit specific contexts, architectures, or infrastructures. That would fill the gap caused by the lack of expertise or knowledge.

There are some promises that Microsoft has made, but I'm not aware if they've been fully implemented.

I have been using it for three years. 

I worked with Cybereason and other standard antivirus programs, but nothing as full-fledged as Microsoft Defender.

Overall, I would rate the solution as eight out of ten.

My recommendation heavily depends on the context, the customer's IT landscape, the maturity of the team working there, and many other factors that need to be taken into account when selecting a product. 

Microsoft Defender by itself is a good choice, but ultimately, the best option depends on the specific context.

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.