Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

We use Microsoft Defender Antivirus to scan for malicious payloads that may come in files, emails, a USB drive, or another type of external drive. It helps us to identify any malicious load that could compromise the security of any of our systems.

We are in a decentralized environment. We have multiple offices but they are not connected physically. The offices are directly managed from the internet.

We have a mixed environment with Linux and Windows machines.

We operate in the educational sector.

We have not fully considered how this product affects our overall security posture, although this is because we have not yet explored all of the features. Once we have all of our offices connected, it is something that we will be looking into. At this point, it does not affect all of our machines. On a scale from one to five, I would rate our security posture a four.

The most valuable feature is ransomware protection, which can detect malicious activity from IPs or a malicious payload in DLLs, or other things that can corrupt the system.

The performance is good. Usually, end-users complain that whenever background or real-time scanning is done, the effects are felt as there is a slowdown in the system. This is not the case with Microsoft Defender.

The file scanning has room for improvement. Many people use macros within their files, so there should be a mechanism that helps us to scan them for malicious payloads.

If there is a Word file then it is able to scan it, but if there is a malicious payload within its signature then it will not be detected. Deep packet scanning must be used to improve the overall product.

We have been using Microsoft Defender Antivirus since we upgraded to Windows 10 from Windows 8.

This is a stable product. We have been using the standard version for a long time and it hasn't negatively affected our environment. Generally speaking, it is reliable.

Microsoft is actively working on this product and I think that it is becoming more scalable, day by day. For example, prior to Windows 10, there was no ransomware support. Now, it comes with Windows 20S2 and Windows 20H1.

With our decentralized environment, I don't know the exact number of users or devices that we have. However, I can say that there are more than 500 devices being protected by this solution.

Most of the machines in our environment are in areas that don't have internet access. This is because they are stationed in remote areas of the country. This means that we need to use USB drives to update the machines manually. Given the number of devices and that the management is done manually at this time, it is pretty painful for our IT people.

We have not purchased support for this product, although, for most products, we usually do have it. To this point, it hasn't been required.

When we were running older operating systems including Windows XP and Windows Vista, we had a Symantec Endpoint solution. We had that for a long time but we opted out. After that, we used McAfee and other antivirus products. However, since Windows 10 was released, and with Microsoft Defender included by default, we felt that it was the solution for us.

As I recall, we stopped using McAfee and Symantec once we moved to Windows 8.

This product came pre-installed with Windows 10 on the machines that we procured from the vendor. It is straightforward and easy to configure, as well. Once Windows is installed, setting up the antivirus and scheduling scans just involves clicking the Next button several times. It is pretty easy for anyone and if the user is non-technical, we guide them through the process.

It takes a maximum of 10 to 15 minutes to install and configure on a PC. Whenever a new configuration is required, you need to configure it on each individual machine that you have. This is why we are investigating a centralization solution. It will help us out in applying things on a global level. For example, we can apply settings based on what is in Active Directory or other policies.

One person, in-house, is all that is required to set it up.

There is not much maintenance required, as our environment is pretty standard. Also, all of the updates come from the Microsoft update center and they are automatically installed on the machines.

It is difficult to determine ROI at this point. Once all of our PCs are joined together, we will have a better idea.

As we operate in the educational sector, we are eligible for an educational discount.

We are currently looking into other solutions that will give us centralized control over Microsoft Defender. However, we are still strictly in the research phase.

Once we decide on a product and a solution is proposed, it is a long process that involves budgetary considerations. Once a PoC is completed, the budget constraints are considered, and this is part of a very long chain of processes that take place before final adoption.

Since we started using this product, we have not had any breaches. When we were using the products by McAfee and Symantec, there were issues with viruses and malicious payloads. Now, it is better because we haven't had any major issues with the systems.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to let the IT staff manage it, and not allow end-users to configure it or modify their own settings.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We used it as an EPP and EDR solution. 

Microsoft Defender made the work quite easy because we didn't have to rely on multiple tools, and we could look at one thing. It had a specific endpoint-level reporting standard as well where you can see the vulnerable threats and the outdated versions. It was very convenient.

We had certain compliance and usage issues. For example, our company wanted to go with CIS, but we didn't have a proper way of measuring whether the endpoints have the right standards in place or whether they were compliant with CIS. Microsoft Defender was like a one-stop for most things because it gave us the vulnerability and patching scores so that our vulnerability management teams can focus on covering up the vulnerabilities and the patching team can check the vulnerable versions and deploy the right versions. It had multiple advantages for us in terms of patching, vulnerability management, adhering to security standards, and EDR and AV capabilities. 

Microsoft Defender was pretty interesting in terms of visibility. When we compare the solution that we had before with Microsoft Defender, there is almost a night and day difference. Microsoft Defender is pretty advanced with the threats. We used to run, simulate, and see whether we were prone to the latest vulnerabilities. It was a pretty good solution in our experience.

It definitely saved us a lot of time. I don't have the metrics, but because it was a one-stop place, we didn't have to navigate through all the controls and go from one place to another to look for different reports for each section. We had one tool that could do everything in one place. It would have definitely saved us nearly one-fifth or 20% of the time. It would have also saved money because you rely on one single tool for multiple things. When you go with the premium suite, you get other tools as well. There is definitely a cost-saving aspect.

It came in a suite. There were multiple other products that were included with it as well in the premium suite. Another factor was that you don't have to invest in two products, and you can get both components, the EPP and the EDR, in one. You can also do simple vulnerability management, CIS hardening, and things like that from Microsoft Defender. Those were the main reasons for considering it back then.

I haven't used the product in nearly eight months. I use it on my device, but I haven't used it at an administrative level. Previously, with Microsoft Defender, we used to have certain problems with the Mac machines, but later on, they came up with various ways so that we could use the MDM solution to do the job. They provided pretty good support. Their engineers came and tried to figure out the solution.

I'm not too sure of its current capabilities, but I'm pretty sure they are doing a good job on Windows and Mac. However, I'm not sure whether they covered Linux. If I remember correctly, Microsoft Defender didn't have anything proper on Linux back then, but if they have improved it from that aspect, it would already be ticking all the boxes.

I have used Microsoft Defender for eight months to one year in my previous organization.

In comparison to the other solutions that I've had experience with, Microsoft Defender was very good.

It was definitely scalable. In my previous organization, we enrolled more than 20,000 endpoints.

It was pretty good. At that time, Microsoft Defender was very new. When they released it for Mac, that's when we got hold of them. There was a time when their support engineers learned certain things from me about it, and I also did learn something from them. It was a win-win situation for both of us.

I would rate their support a seven out of them. The level of support depends on the complexity of the issue. If an issue is small, anyone can solve it, and it wouldn't take much time, but when you run into a complex problem, you need proper people coming in quickly and giving you some support after looking into the issue. Ideally, if they are very well-trained at all levels, that would be good.

Neutral

We had other products for antivirus and EDR. We removed those two products and replaced them with Microsoft Defender. They both were pretty good solutions in the market back then. One of them is a pretty good solution even now.

We found Microsoft Defender pretty good when we did the PoC as compared to the rest of the tools. Some of the solutions were only antivirus, and some of them were only EDR, whereas this particular tool had a lot of features built into it. So, one agent could do many things. Another reason for going for this solution was that the company I used to work with was a bit biased toward Microsoft. They were a Microsoft customer, and they were comfortable with Microsoft. 

The reliability of support was one of the reasons why we chose Microsoft. When it comes to tools, there are always requirements related to budget, level of support, and other things. When you go for a PoC and look at the demo, you might think a product is stable, but when you run into a problem, the support could be weak. In such instances, what's the use of the product if you don't have good support or if they take at least two to three days to solve a small issue?

I handled the Mac machine part of it. Initially, setting up policies and getting all the configuration profiles in place was a bit of a challenge because they didn't have proper documentation at first. During the PoC, there were not many documents or support articles, but when we were in the deployment phase, they had everything, even specific to particular MDMs, which made it very smooth. We ran into a couple of small problems, but that's pretty common in every deployment. Other than that, it was pretty smooth. 

From Microsoft's side, there is a pretty good deployment strategy in place, but different companies have different objectives and different ways of working. There are situations where certain users and groups might need something specific but other users or groups don't. There could be multiple groups of users with different expectations. So, it is pretty straightforward, but like with any security tool, there could be internal user-level challenges. However, for a company that does not have a very complex environment, it should be a piece of cake. It should be pretty easy.

In terms of our implementation strategy, we first targeted the least impacted devices because we didn't want high-end or critical users complaining about having issues. So, we selected the low-priority users and implemented it for them, and then we tested it out. After that, we implemented it for users with higher priorities. We gradually moved based on the severity.

In terms of maintenance, agent updates are required, which we scheduled automatically. It didn't seem to need much attention. If the product is in a non-complex environment, it won't have many issues, but in a complex environment, there will be some because of VLAN restrictions, network connectivity limitations, etc. We also had issues where agents were not communicating, but it was not because of an issue with the tool. It was mainly because of the complexity of the environment in terms of networking and architecture.

Microsoft Defender decreased our time to detect and time to respond. However, we didn't completely rely on one solution. We had other means as well. We used to have another EDR solution as well, and we used to run both together.

I would definitely agree with a security colleague who says that it’s better to go with a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor’s security suite. For example, if you are a one-vendor customer, the day the vendor gets hit with zero-day or any huge attack, none of your tools or software would work. Your data and other things are also at risk. So, having multiple vendors is good because you'll be covered by different products. 

Microsoft Defender's threat intelligence helps to prepare for potential threats before they hit and take practice steps, but there was another team that was using the threat intelligence and reporting capabilities to see whether the organization was ready. In my previous organization, we had overall IT support, which was then divided into nearly 20 different teams. We had one team specifically to do one specific job. 

For prioritization of threats, if I'm not wrong, Microsoft Defender gives you a severity value. I haven't been in the admin part for long, but it gives you a severity value. Based on that, you can prioritize your threats.

I would rate Microsoft Defender an eight out of ten. 

We use it for security purposes. It provides important security for some critical systems, such as network devices.

For securing access, USB security helps us block our USB ports and that ensures that users do not plug USB drives into their computers.

In addition, our efficiency in the way we handle our processes has been improved because the solution automates routine tasks and helps find high-value alerts.

It has also saved us a good amount of time, something like 15 percent, while decreasing our time to detect and our time to respond, each, by 5 percent.

It automatically detects intrusion and malware.

It's also easy to use. The interface is user-friendly and the navigation is 
not difficult. It is very easy to move from one hyperlink to another, to move from one solution within the platform to another solution.

And in terms of categorizing the info and the actions that need to be done, it helps you to prioritize threats. That is very important.

The time it takes to restore the application could be improved. It has a lot of dependencies. It's not like the Microsoft security that comes with the OS. Updating through the command prompt, most of the time, it takes some time to download some of these dependencies. They need to make the download of the dependencies more efficient.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for more than five years.

The stability is okay.

It is scalable. We use it for multiple departments, teams, and locations. We have over 5,000 users.

I would rate Microsoft's technical support at seven out of 10, because of the time it takes them to respond. But when they finally respond, they give us complete attention and things are resolved within the SLA.

Neutral

Before Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, we were using McAfee.

We constantly get updates from Microsoft that are light and they don't really affect us while we're working. The updates have been very helpful.

I would recommend Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

It's an antivirus product, so its main use is to protect us.

This is a really good product, it's user-friendly and offers us safety and security. 

The technical support could be improved. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. 

In terms of scalability, we went from 10 pilot machines to 35,000 devices.

The technical support isn't too bad but their responsiveness needs to be improved. I'd say it's their biggest issue. 

The initial setup is very easy, probably one of the easiest onboarding processes I've done. Implementation was done in-house and takes a few minutes per device; click it and go. I deal with anything related to antivirus patching and encryption and we have four cyber analysts that look after whatever comes out of ATP or Defender for Endpoint. 

My advice would be to plan carefully and make sure you take notice of what's coming out because it pushes out a lot of very useful information. It's a matter of having sufficient staff because the amount of information it gives you is phenomenal. If a company doesn't have sufficient resources then any other antivirus might work, but this thing produces so much useful information that if you're implementing this solution it's worthwhile having the staff to deal with it. 

I rate this product 10 out of 10. 

We have a dedicated team that handles all security-related aspects of the solution, however, my understanding is that the solution helps guard the endpoints in our organization. 

Along with security, there are certain IT policies in terms of accessibility of different sites, which are there in the organization. With everything put together, there haven't been any instances where I have seen any kind of issues such as malware or other malicious event getting through on my laptop. From that perspective, everything is fine. 

The patch updates and version updates are very good. Those happen on an automated basis whenever I'm connecting to the organization network, either through LAN or through the VPN. I never have to worry about anything being out-of-date.

The solution scales well.

I have found the stability to be good.

From a general user perspective, I don't see any further improvements needed. 

The price, in general, could always be a little bit cheaper.

I've used the solution for two years or so. It's not much more than that.

The stability of the product is good. I have not dealt with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is good. It's reliable. 

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it can.

We have 1,000 to 2,000 people on the solution currently.

I've never directly dealt with technical support for issues related to Defender. Many years ago I had reached out to Microsoft support for an issue related to Visio, a different product.

The initial setup is straightforward. There are certain automatic patches as well that keep on updating and those automatically install.

I don't recall how long the product took to deploy. When any new laptop or anything is assigned in an organization, all these things are installed prior to coming to us. Therefore, I wasn't actually a part of the installation process. 

We have a few contractors working with the in-house team. There may be around five to ten people. Any maintenance that is needed would be done by them.

The pricing could be lower. That said, I cannot speak to the exact costs involved as I do not directly deal with that aspect of the product. I'm unsure if the company is set up with a monthly or yearly subscription package. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. I've been very pleased with how it has worked for me over the last two years. 

I would recommend the solution to others, however, I'm just a passive end-users and not as technically involved as those deploying the solution in our company. However, from my perspective, there has never been an issue on my machine with malware and therefore it seems to be doing what it's designed to do.

We combine Microsoft Defender with Advanced Threat Protection to manage, isolate, and scan our laptops and workstations for security threats. We have a dashboard that is embedded into Office 365 and it allows us to remotely scan for viruses and malware, so we don’t have to have the laptop present.

Using this product helps with device inventory. This is not an inventory solution, but it helps you take count of how many workstations you have, as well as what software is installed on each of them. It is important because any software installed on a workstation may be vulnerable to parts of the internet.

Microsoft Defender has features that have helped to add layers to our security posture. The most important of these features is visibility and the provision of detailed alerts. It correlates the data and using this information, I can identify a threat and see if any other workstation in the environment has been affected by it.

Using this product has not negatively affected our user experience. It is just like using Windows 10.

The GUI is very nice.

The reporting capabilities are fantastic.

In the future, I would like to have the ability to patch using this product. Specifically, in an enterprise environment, it would be very good if you could patch the workstations remotely.

The alerting is something that needs to be improved. Alerts need to be sent immediately because as it is now, you see some of them without delay and others arrive perhaps 30 minutes later, and it leaves important gaps in terms of information gathering.

I have been working with Microsoft Defender Antivirus since it first came out, at least seven or eight years ago.

With respect to the stability of the product line, Microsoft has many products that do almost the same thing. The question becomes which one you want to use. This is a good product but at the same time, after a while, you don't know if it is the next one that Microsoft is going to stop releasing because of other products that practically do the same thing.

Microsoft Defender is very scalable and there is a lot of room to expand and add extra layers. We have 2,500 endpoints and we plan to expand; however, we are thinking about using the Microsoft Endpoint Manager in place of it.

Once the decision is made to stay with this product or instead adopt Endpoint Manager, we will expand to cover 6,000 endpoints.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

Prior to Microsoft Defender, we tried quite a few different products from vendors such as Kaspersky and McAfee. One of the major reasons that we adopted Defender is because of the advantage that Microsoft owns the platform, Windows 10. As they have developed the operating system, it is believed that they understand how to guard it much better against a third party. An attacker has to learn a lot about Windows 10.

Another reason we selected Defender is the frequency of updates. Every other time that Windows is updated, Defender is updated. Again, this is because it is owned by Microsoft and exists on its platform.

We also use Microsoft ATP and we are currently looking at Microsoft Endpoint Manager.

The initial setup is straightforward. Basically, once you have the competency with the product, it is straightforward and there are no surprises. It is not rocket science.

This product is built into the Windows 10 image that we install. As you roll out Windows 10, it is already set up and pre-configured, so there is no additional work required.

We saw a return on our investment within the first two years.

If I quantify the effort used for the setup and compare it with the pricing of the previous solution, value for the money was realized during the second year.

We have an enterprise agreement so from my perspective, this is a product that ships with Windows and it is not priced standalone. It comes together with the other Microsoft products that we buy.

When we evaluated Kaspersky and McAfee, we found the scalability was better for Microsoft. You can do in-place upgrades of the endpoints with Defender but for the others, you would have to re-install the upgraded agents on the workstation. This takes a lot of time and it is not productive.

We are currently evaluating Microsoft Endpoint Manager by comparing the differences between it and Microsoft Defender. This is being done in advance of expanding our usage.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to first analyze their critical assets to have an understanding of what they are. Then, decide if they want a scalable solution. New threats are coming in every month and the way this is going, Microsoft is learning lessons from networks that have been compromised. With this information, they give updates and patches to everybody. In support of this product, you have to consider the patching, consider the visibility that it gives, and then consider the critical assets it is protecting.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

This product is our antivirus for Windows 10 machines, Windows Server 2016, and in our Azure environment. In addition to this, we have a project for an oil company that is implemented in Azure, and we had to migrate the majority of their systems to that platform. Once the migration was complete, we configured Windows Defender as its antivirus.

It is very simple to use and easy to scan systems.

This product is flexible, and it is very easy to get updates from the Microsoft website.

We are using the firewall features.

The central management console should be improved because it provides limited options to configure Windows Defender. It should provide a lot of options and features, in the same way, that Symantec does, or the Kaspersky Central Management Console does. Essentially, we should have a central management console on Azure that can be used to manage Windows Defender on all of our machines.

This is a very stable solution and we plan to continue using it.

The company that I implemented this for has approximately 2,000 staff and 1,000 virtual machines on Azure. 

I have not been in contact with Microsoft support. Rather, I have learned by using the materials that are provided online.

We were originally using a product from Symantec before we switched to using Windows Defender. After that, we adopted the Microsoft solution for Azure.

I have configured Windows Defender for different locations by using Group Policy Settings and each time, it took between five and ten minutes, based on the guidelines.

I configured it personally by downloading and reading materials that I found on the Microsoft website.

This is an expensive product and licensing for all Microsoft products is a big issue. However, Volume Licensing and Educational Licensing are good options to decrease the cost.

In general, Windows Defender is a good feature for the Windows Operating System.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response). I started working with Microsoft when Defender was an anti-malware product. Over time, it evolved into an EDR solution.

Microsoft Defender helps investigate and monitor security alerts effectively. The EDR collects all the information from the device and matches it with an attack database. If it finds a match, it alerts, and then an investigator can trace back to find the root cause of what happened. This is very helpful for investigation purposes.

The valuable feature of Microsoft Defender is its ability to collect all the information from the device and match it with the attack database to alert if something matches. Investigators can trace back to find the root cause.

I have not thought about areas needing improvement, however, it seems there are challenges associated with IP addresses at times.

I began using Microsoft Defender since its beginning as an EDR solution and worked on it for a long time, even before it was known as Microsoft Defender when it was just an anti-malware product.

There are no stability issues. It is stable.

Scalability is good.

Many security products are used, including Trend Micro, Microsoft, Cisco, and Oracle. I worked with Microsoft for around ten years, focusing on Microsoft Windows Defender.

The initial setup is pretty easy to use.

I don't have any information on the pricing, setup cost, or licensing.

Microsoft Defender is integrated into Windows systems and is a pretty good product. It is something I would recommend to others.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.