Microsoft Defender for Cloud Reviews

We are using this solution to implement our CAS policy and it monitors compliance with the Security Center.

Also, we use it for thereat protection. It detects any threats and provides threat recommendations.

Azure Security Center should be more easily understood by a non-technical person. It's more about the security before getting into the product.

It needs to be simplified and made more user-friendly for a non-technical person.

In the next release, I would like to see a better dashboard and more integration with IT sales Management.

I have been using Azure Security Center for one year.

We are working with the latest version.

It's a stable solution.

Azure Security Center is scalable. We have ten users in our organization.

The technical support is very good.

The initial setup was straightforward, but you have to understand the product.

It took us 48 hours to deploy.

We have a team of two to maintain this solution. One is an architect and the other is a service engineer.

We did not use a vendor team to implement this solution. I did it myself.

We are using the free version of the Azure Security Center.

I plan to continue using this solution and I recommend it to others.

I would rate Azure Security Center a seven out of ten.

We use it to keep our Azure infrastructure up to date with the security best practices that Microsoft suggests. We also use it to have better visibility into changes in our databases.

It helps me know if a new virtual machine or an app gateway or a functional service has come online that doesn't have the best security practices enforced on them. The impact we've had is a better security posture being enforced throughout our Azure environment.

The solution has also simplified management of endpoints and servers and gives us visibility in a single pane of glass. And it's easy to identify security corrections in the environment.

It has helped save us SOC time and increased their efficiency. While we haven't measured by how much, we see it in their day-to-day activities. And it has likely improved our time to detection, but we just haven't had anything to detect.

The most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts.

We have also integrated Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Defender for Cloud with Microsoft Sentinel and the integration was easy.

In addition, it's good at helping us proactively discover unknowns and defend against threats.

I would like to see better automation when it comes to pushing out security features to the recommendations, and better documentation on the step-by-step procedures for enabling certain features.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Cloud on a day-to-day basis for about a year.

It's quite stable. We don't have many problems.

The scalability is very good.

We have 100 internal users and we are deployed across multiple sites. It's 100 percent cloud and our infrastructure handles API responses for our clients.

For the cloud infrastructure, their technical support is good.

Positive

In my previous company, I used the native portal, which is pretty much what Defender does, on AWS.

The intelligent threat hunting provided by Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Sentinel based on the alerts, incidents, and logs passed along by Microsoft Defender for Cloud is moderate.

The ability of Microsoft solutions to work natively together to deliver integrated protection as well as coordinated detection and responses across the environment is improving a lot, but it still has a ways to go.

Overall, if you are worried about security, you should have Microsoft Defender for Cloud. It's the minimum you should have.

The dashboard is very good. It gives our clients a lot of information and allows them to have a complete overview of the system. Everything is visible in one glance.

The solution is quite complex. A lot of the different policies that actually get applied don't pertain to every client. If you need to have something open for a client application to work, then you get dinged for having a port open or having an older version of TLS available. 

Even though the TLS is only allotted for a single application, single box, and everything else is completely up to date, it just gives us an inaccurate reporting of how secure the environment actually is.

The solution could use a bit more granularity.

I believe we've been using the solution for one and a half to two years at this point.

I haven't had any real problems with the solution's stability. I'm trying to think of any complaints that anybody may have had. It's always worked whenever we needed it to. I'd describe it as reliable.

The solution is actually easy to scale. You'd be surprised how many cloud solutions out there that aren't scalable. I don't even know why some are in the cloud. As far as this solution is concerned, I've taken it up to a higher medium-sized company. I've scaled as high as 4,500 users. I'm just not sure if it is infinitely scalable. I don't know if it would scale into the tens of thousands. 

In terms of increasing usage in the future, we'll use it as required. It all depends on the client for us. We're solely dependent on what they want and which solution they want to go with.

It's like with any vendor, it's hit and miss. Sometimes you get the new person, sometimes you get the person that's been there for five years. You have to go in asking exactly what you want and use probing questions, and if you work with them enough, you learn what the right answer is. However, you ask those same questions, anyway, upfront. It gives you a baseline at least of where their technical expertise is. Just because they're on the help desk doesn't mean that they know what they're doing.

We use Intune for a lot of the app security purposes with Office 365, and then once we actually get into the AD section, it's just that a lot of people are really getting Office Secure Scores right now.

I've had both complex and straightforward implementations. Some of them can be extremely complex. It's all just tailored to what the client wants. I have other setups where everything is very basic ad easy and all the client wants is some basic reporting and a few easy policies. 

If you utilize everything, then it might take a while for deployment, and also the implementation could be extended. It's all very client-specific.

We're an MSP, so we have massive teams all over the place and I couldn't accurately say how many people it takes to maintain the solution. I know that, generally, you have one project manager and then you would have the main admin who was setting up the portal, but then you have other security personnel that goes in there and does the work on the different sections. It takes a couple of people, but I couldn't give you a hard number as to how many people a typical setup would need for maintenance.

I don't have any idea what the cost of the solution is. That aspect of the product is handled by a separate department.

We're a Microsoft partner.

The solution works for us, however, a client has its own needs and requirements. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use Azure Security Center in our own company, and we have also deployed it for one of our clients. Our biggest use case is the enforcement of regulatory compliance on our cloud.

Security Center has helped us really well in terms of regulatory compliance enforcement on our cloud. We were able to deploy the inbuilt policies, and we were also able to build our own initiatives and policies. There were certain things that we wanted to check to see if our VMs were compliant. We also wanted to ensure that our storage and databases are compliant, and Security Center helped us in doing that.

This product has features that have helped us improve our security posture because we have a large estate of servers or VMs in Azure, and with Security Center, we were able to find out that a lot of our VMs were not compliant. This would have caused us a lot of trouble if there was an audit in the near future. The issues that it flagged for us gave us the opportunity to fix the problems, which was really helpful. Essentially, it was a preventative measure that allowed us to identify and rectify issues before they got out of hand.

One way that this solution has helped to improve our organization is that we have a better view of the entire security status, including how compliant our systems are and whether there are any open issues that need our attention. There are also reports that we generate periodically, so everyone is aware of the overall status of the environment.

When we started out, our secure score was pretty low. We adopted some of the recommendations that Security Center set out and we were able to make good progress on improving it. It had been in the low thirties and is now in the upper eighties.

Our overall security posture has been enhanced. A lot of the time, our cloud is accessed by people in the organization and they keep spinning up virtual machines, creating resources. Often, there are ports that open or there are certain security issues that are not handled. Because there are so many people and so many new resources coming up, it is difficult to track all of them. With the help from Security Center, we are able to see exactly what has come up.

If there are new issues that arise, which could happen if someone has not followed the proper protocol before bringing up a VM or another network resource, we can see this because we have a better local view of exactly what is there in the environment. So in that regard, we can say that it has helped us improve our security posture.

Using this product does not affect the end-user in any major way. Its usage is mostly relevant to the backend, and of interest to administrators.

The most valuable features are regulatory compliance and security alerts. The security score is very helpful, as well. Together, these let us know the state of each subscription and whether there are any actions that we need to take. This functionality is pretty helpful in audits.

We would like to have better transparency as to how the security score is calculated because as it is now, it is difficult to understand. We showed it to a couple of our clients, and they had trouble understanding it and an explanation or breakdown is not readily available. The score includes different weightage for certain controls. For example, if there is a "Control A" and it has a weight of 10 then it would affect the score more than "Control B", which has a weight of five. Being able to see the weights that are assigned to each control would be an improvement.

We have been using Azure Security Center for between eight and nine months.

This is a pretty stable solution and we haven't run into any issues as of yet.

I don't think there should be problems with scalability. It supports more than a hundred subscriptions, with multiple thousands of resources. I expect that we will be fine in that regard.

There are between 10 to 15 users that are currently using the security center. We have only two to three administrators and the rest of them have a highly localized role. Some of them are working on the policies, whereas others take care of compliance issues. They try to remedy issues and also try to improve our security score.

Our client has data centers that are divided into various regions and various business units. They are onboarding new business owners every couple of months, so it is in the process of expansion. They want all of their business units to be onboarded.

I have not had the chance to speak with technical support from Microsoft but from what I have heard from my colleagues, they are pretty responsive and give you good information with respect to fixing issues.

We had another tool, Morpheus, which was a multi-cloud manager. We did some work on it but because it wasn't native to Azure, we didn't go any further with it.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We just had to enable it for our subscriptions.

Deployment does not take a long time. The maximum is 24 hours if you have a lot of subscriptions but otherwise, it's pretty quick.

We have several subscriptions so we initially started by deploying some for testing. When we were sure that we knew how to go about it, we deployed the remaining ones.

We completed the deployment in-house and two people were required.

There are two other people in charge of maintenance.

The cost of the license is based on the subscriptions that you have.

As we were on Azure, we didn't look to other vendors for similar solutions.

We use between 80% and 90% of the functionality within the solution. We don't use workbooks as of now but otherwise, we use pretty much everything.

There are a few options that are included but not enabled out of the box. One example of this is Azure Defender.

Maintenance-wise, one thing that we do is keep up to date on policies and compliance. Microsoft provides a lot of out-of-the-box compliance initiatives, and sometimes they can go out of date and are replaced. We have to make sure that the new ones are correctly enabled and that the older ones are no longer active. Essentially, we want to disregard the old policies and ensure that the new ones are enforced.

The biggest lesson that I have learned is to keep an eye on your resource usage in Azure, because if it's a large environment with a lot of users then you might not know who opens the door to the outside. Using Security Center lets you keep track of what's going on in your environment.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are consultants and we have customers using Azure Defender for the protection of their businesses. Many of our customers are in the financial industry.

The most valuable features are ransomware protection and access controls. The solution has helped us secure some folders on our systems from unauthorized modifications. 

This solution has been very useful for securing core funds and preventing them from being hijacked by any application or spyware for our banking customers. People can be susceptible to scams easily because they are not aware of the current threat trends. We are able to scan for threats which have helped us limit the risks in the future.

The solution could improve by being more intuitive and easier to use requiring less technical knowledge.

In a future release, the solution could improve by providing more automation and clarity in the autoanalysis. When we provide our customers with a Microsoft solution for security, Microsoft has to go beyond the basic expectations to impress the customers.

I have been using Azure Defender for approximately one year.

The solution is very stable.

Azure Defender is scalable. We have not found any issue.

The technical support has been responsive. However, we need to be connected to the right level of support. For example, if you are a customer or if you purchased this solution as part of a certification, your level of satisfaction for support will depend on the provider you purchased it from. Microsoft will not be the one doing support for you. If you do not have premier support with Microsoft, as a cloud provider, you will have to support your customers when they are in need. Without Microsoft's premier support you only have break-fix support and if there is a major issue you will not have the help to understand what is happening, or how to prevent it from happening in the future.

The implementation can be difficult if there is not any prior training. There is a lot of elements that have to be understood.

We have an advisor that provides us with information to help us control and configure the solution. Additionally, they have assisted us with automation.

The price of the solution is good for the features we receive and there is an additional cost for Microsoft premier support. However, some of my potential customers have found it to be expensive and have gone on to choose another solution. Additionally, if the customer does not take the full package from Azure Defender it makes it difficult for us to manage the solution for them.

I rate Azure Defender an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is to monitor infrastructure. I'm a senior security architect and we are customers of Azure Security Center. 

The most valuable feature for me are the compliance policies.

I think that the documentation and implementation guides could be improved. It would make the implementation process easier.

I've been using this solution for a couple of years. 

This solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, we have a couple of hundred people using it. 

The technical support is fine. 

The initial setup was reasonably straightforward. Implementation took a couple of months and was carried out internally. It required four or five staff, including engineers, managers and admins.

The licensing costs are included and wrapped up in a suite of other products that we are also using. 

I would recommend this product. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

The most valuable features of this solution are the vulnerability assessments and the glossary of compliance.

As an analyst, there is no way to configure or create a playbook to automate the process of flagging suspicious domains. Azure Defender does not have this capability and that is one of the features that is very crucial. 

When we receive an alert on suspicious domains, we have to do it manually. We go to VirusTotal, or AlienVault to confirm. It would be useful to have it done automatically.

I have been using Azure Defender for three months.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution. We have not had any issues.

We have not paid for Azure technical support. We have not contacted technical support.

We have not worked with any other solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy, very easy.

Azure Defender is a bit pricey. The price could be lower.

We are also researching Darktrace. We wanted to see the capabilities that it offers. 

Azure Defender and Azure Resource Manager are all a part of Microsoft Azure. We use all of them.

This solution has the best security center, security manager dashboard that I have ever seen. I would recommend using this solution. It has everything in one place, and it's easy to configure and easy to deploy.

I would rate Azure Defender an eight out of ten.

It takes very little effort to integrate it. It also gives very good visibility into what exactly is happening.

From a compliance standpoint, they can include some more metrics and some specific compliances such as GDPR.

I have been using Azure Security Center for one and a half years.

We have seen a few big downtimes in Azure where Office 365 was disconnected. I do see challenges in terms of stability, not just for Azure Security Center but also for Azure.

Microsoft being a big provider, Azure Security Center is quite scalable. 

Microsoft's community support and technical support is very good. They are very quick in their response and very thorough. 

In my previous organization, I have used Palo Alto. It is a pretty cool vendor-agnostic tool.

The initial setup is straightforward. It takes a few hours.

We implemented it ourselves. We have ten members to deploy and manage it, and they all are admins. We use it monthly or weekly for reports, and we also monitor it for alerts.

We are using the latest version, and it is a part of Azure. We keep on updating to the latest version.

I would highly recommend this solution. I would rate Azure Security Center an eight out of ten.