Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

The most valuable feature is its ability to effectively detect threats. It has the EDR feature, endpoint detection and response, and that is very good.

The management console is something that can be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for about two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

The initial setup is quite simple because it is built into the operating system.

Microsoft Defender has more granular capabilities because of the native operating system that it is built into. It is better integrated into the operating system because both the product and the OS are from Microsoft. That is an advantage.

It's an XDR (Extended Detection and Response) system.

It's an enterprise solution that provides a centralized console and it supports all the platforms that we use, including Windows, Linux, Mac, iOS, and Android. Microsoft Defender is embedded in Windows and is a basic anti-virus, but Defender for Endpoint is an enterprise-grade XDR system.

Microsoft should improve support for third-party platforms, because not all functionality is available for all of them. It's a good product, but they should just extend the functionality for all platforms.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for about three months.

It's quite stable. Sometimes it can overload the CPU of endpoints, but Microsoft provides ways to solve this problem.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is scalable. It's the ground-level service for other Microsoft security services. Microsoft provides a full range of security services and you have the ability to extend it anytime and in a simple way. You can scale the range of security services by just buying the license and implementing some extra service.

We have close to 200 users in our organization, but we plan to deploy this product to the whole company, with a total of nearly 800 people.

We have not had to contact Microsoft's technical support because we get support from our partner.

When it comes to the initial setup, Microsoft is very strong in that area and it is very simple. That's why we use it in our company. Some products are hard to deploy. Another solution was declined because it was not possible to roll it out in a bigger company.

We don't have a dedicated person to maintain the solution. Two people share the role. One is a Layer-1 specialist who maintains a daily routine, and the other is a Layer-2 engineer.

We started to install this product for ourselves, but Microsoft proposed some different kinds of programs in which an integrator helps key customers deploy services and products. We accepted the proposition and we are happy we did so because the partner was very professional with very deep experience with the product.

Microsoft has different plans for buying this product. The price depends on the configuration of the full set of products that you buy and on the licensing program in your contract. Microsoft provides a flexible licensing program and you can choose what you want.

The pros of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint are that it's simple to deploy and has all the required functionality. The drawback is that it lacks some functionality for other platforms, such as Linux.

I would recommend implementing this solution together with a certified partner. That will help to avoid a lot of mistakes and save you money, because licensing is a big part of the project.

The product is useful for projects, finding tech, and finding firewall actions on computers. 

There's no impact on other applications. Most other solutions have more of a possibility of an impact on other applications and due to that, you must make some special configurations to those other applications. The Microsoft Defender impact is very small.

The intelligence mechanisms are good.

The initial setup is easy.

We have found the technical support to be helpful.

The detection of viruses could be a little bit better.

We've used the solution for maybe two years.

Our company is only a small company. We only have 10 people who use the solution. However, we have clients who have a lot of users. 

We likely will increase usage in the future. 

We've been in touch with technical support. Their level of support is fine and they are very fast. We are satisfied with their level of service. 

We had some problem and, after four hours, we had new signatures for the environment by our customers for more than a thousand clients so that we can protect and improve the new setup. It was a very quick turnaround.

The initial setup is not difficult. It's simple. We have just rolled it out to 6,000 clients which have been, by far, more than other customers we've had so far. We have deployed a Microsoft configuration.

In the environment, we needed one or two days to deploy it. In smaller environments, you only need two hours of work.

It can be done by technical personnel in-house. If they have good knowledge of Microsoft environments, and how to use Microsoft tools, then it's easy.

It's always good if you know how to use OutShare. With OutShare, you can make many things extremely effective and extremely easy.

It is possible to handle it in-house if you have a knowledgeable team. We implement the solution for our clients. 

Clients need to pay a yearly licensing fee.

This is an on-premise solution where all connections have a cloud connection.

I would recommend the solution to other companies. I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. 

We call the solution MDATP - Microsoft Defender Advanced Persistent Threat Protection. At the same time, we're using it more from an EDR point of view, as an Endpoint Detection Response. It can detect any threats, malware, or processor, which are illegitimate and being executed by the end-users or malicious actors. When it sees this, it detects and reports to us. 

Not only that, at the same time, it's detection, prevention, and response. Mostly what we were working on is detection. When I refer to detection, I mean that it can, with pinpoint accuracy, detect something and expose the threat. It can also map those threats with a MITRE, which is one of the great things that I love about it, on top of the accuracy and the threat description it provides.

There are a few different use cases. We return with a query language, which is provided by Microsoft. We are able to create some threat hunting queries. We can pinpoint, accurately detect, and run pain testing. When there’s a threat or issue, I am able to find it and track it with great accuracy in MDATP. MDATP is able to tell me that, for example, in my organization, if there was a guy who was doing pain testing, which is black listed, and if there was an attempt to exploit something or install some malicious code or try to hack into the system. I am able to find this and pinpoint its occurrence. Not only that, I’m able to map them onto a MITRE framework and tell which stage of the attack it was, where the attacker came from, et cetera. I can see if it was something that was planned in the organization. 

I can both detect internally and externally. I have full faith that the MDATP will detect behaviors and warn us of issues.

When you go to do a deep-dive or investigation as a SOC analyst or any security analyst, it gives three structures or processes, as well as the execution that it performs. I am able to perform a very deep-level investigation with MDATP - more than I can with any other tool.

It did increase our security posture. While we had an antivirus before, it would only detect or prevent certain types of attacks. However, based on that capability, you cannot respond to the threat directly. For example, if there was ransomware on a system, the antivirus will be able to identify, detect, and mitigate it. However, at the same time, even if the antivirus detects that and tries to prevent it, you need to contain that machine, or you need to isolate that machine from the network. You don't want that machine to be talking to anybody in the network. Antivirus solutions can’t exactly do that.

With respect to prevention, it has an auto-remediation feature, which is a good feature that I love with respect to prevention. It does auto-remediation as well as manual remediation, which is pretty good.

With respect to response, we were able to contain, block, and respond to threats faster with MDATP. When we analyze the incidents or the threats it gives us a very good view of everything.

With this product, before containing or responding, we get the information and can see what exactly is happening and when that malicious file was installed. After that, we have an event timeline. The visibility is not that much when you only have an antivirus. Now, we see the full picture. When we adopted this tool, we got the detect, prevent, and response functionalities. Overall, our security posture looks much better and our attack surfaces are limited. Endpoints are also most vulnerable today and we can efficiently protect them now. Since we have reduced the attack surface our security posture has improved dramatically. On top of that, we have the capability to respond and to go deeper on a forensic level.

The product doesn’t affect our end-users. I do not see any major issues. There are exceptions where approvals may be necessary. However, the user acceptance is good. This is something that organizations pre-plan and there is nothing the user really has to worry about or act on.

Defender’s GUI can be optimized. The console needs to be more refined. After you have been using it for some time, you get used to it, and it is manageable. However, it should be a little bit more refined.

They should come up with pre-built inner workflows. I would really like to see this. There need to be workflows with respect to notifications, remediations, or any actions that people want to take. They should come up with predefined or prebuilt hunting capabilities. Right now, we have to manually write queries. I would prefer if they could come up with something more automated.

This is with respect to a SOC analyst perspective. Other users, other administrators, other different roles might have different issues. For me, there are no major concerns. It is a good tool, out of the box.

I've used the solution for about a year and a half, and have also done training on it.

The stability is good. It's a stable platform. I don't see any issues right now. However, I did see something in the past. I can't quite remember the exact situation. It's resolved and right now there are no issues. 

The solution is highly scalable.

You can onboard as many end systems as you want. If you bring more, for example, 100 users or 100 endpoints, you can integrate them with no issue. It's not a problem with MDATP.

We have somewhere around 2,000 to 3,000 users who are using it. We have an endpoint team and they manage the antiviruses and security tools and all those things. We manage the product partially from a policies perspective, and the endpoint team manages the platform and maintenance of it, including any upgrades, as necessary.

I've dealt with technical support in the past. It's good, not excellent. That said, it's okay.

Before using this solution, the company mostly dealt with antivirus solutions.

We moved to this solution to strengthen and report, detect and prevent, et cetera, which antivirus solutions don't offer. We wanted forensics and capabilities that were missing. Antiviruses simply cannot protect you from advanced persistent threats, and they cannot protect you from ransomware and they don't respond to things faster. Response capabilities were something that was missing. Basically, we just needed more.

I'm usually not part of the entire setup, however, I do manage it. We have to do certain policies within our organization. However, from what I've seen, it's not a complex setup. It is pretty straightforward.

In terms of how long the deployment takes, I don't remember the length of time. If you have a CCM centralized, you can push the policies within hours. 

The licensing is something that management decides on. I don't deal with the pricing or licensing.

We didn't really evaluate other options. We provided support for one of our clients, and it was a decision they made. 

We're a consulting company. We are not partners with Microsoft.

We use the solution as a SaaS.

I'd advise other companies to use this solution. It's an ideal choice, however, I'm not sure about the pricing. Maybe it's on the higher end of other competitors' pricing. That said, if you have an opportunity to use it, it will solve a lot of problems with respect to pain point detecting and doing investigations. At the same time, with Microsoft, if 80% of your organization is using Windows systems, it's going to be compatible. Specifically, with its platform, Microsoft understands what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, if the money is not a concern, or the budget is not a concern, opt for this. At the same time, as a generic statement, if not this solution, go for an EDR tool that suits your organization's needs best.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten simply due to the fact that I have not fully optimized it. 

Our use cases, and the way we deploy it, depend on the different situations we encounter.

There may be a company that is already using the Endpoint Protection solution and we have to do a migration.

Another scenario is that a company may be migrating away from another endpoint threat protection solution.

And there are some companies that are already using SCCM, and we may have to go through one of two scenarios. One is to co-manage with what they call Microsoft Endpoint Manager and Configuration Manager. If they are already using SCCM, and only SCCM, we will typically have to go through a process where we integrate SCCM into Endpoint Manager and then they'll usually bring some endpoints into Intune and they'll do a PLC. They have to Azure AD-join or register a device into that so it can be managed through Intune. They may even co-manage it for a while until they fully onboard into Intune only. A lot of people are looking to get away from co-management and managing through Endpoint Manager. But there are some prerequisites to accomplish that.

The endgame for most companies is they want to manage things from Intune only. There are different paths to get there, depending on what they already have in place.

Overall, Defender for Endpoint has created a better security posture, particularly in these COVID times where no one is on-premises anymore and they're working remotely.

More than anything, what I find most valuable is the holistic integration with all Defender products and MCAS. You can not deploy this in a vacuum. It's like most Microsoft technology. If you want to do a Zero Trust model and framework, you have to deploy things in a holistic solution.

Among the new features I like is that you can ingest your Defender events directly into your SIEM/SOAR product, particularly Azure Sentinel, although not a lot of people are using that and you don't have to be using it. You can ingest them into any SIEM/SOAR product directly.

There are features that have helped improve a company's security posture, now that remote work has come into play. Microsoft had to come up with a solution because identity is the new security plan. The largest attack surface is going to be your endpoints, so you have to be able to control your endpoints. There is malware that can collect IDs and it doesn't have to be from privileged accounts, it could be from any account. Once they get in, then they can start looking around to see if there are any security holes, move laterally, and get a hold of a privileged account. And if they get a hold of a privileged then they can just turn off all your security controls and get to your data and you've got a ransomware attack. With Defender for Endpoint, it's the combination. Every one of the features in it is equally important, but the most important thing is integrating it with the other Defender products, to create a holistic solution.

The best feature is the fact that for certain mobiles you can control your corporate profiles versus your personal profiles. That is amazingly important. Apple just supported the separation of corporate and personal profiles, whereas Android has been doing that for quite some time. You are better off as an organization, when it comes to BYOD—because Apple just now started supporting separation of corporate and personal profiles—to start with the version that supports that feature. If you go below that level, you don't get that feature, and it makes it very difficult to separate corporate and personal profiles. Because Android supports that, if an Android phone is lost or stolen, I can wipe out all the corporate-related information from that phone and not touch the personal side. I can separate the apps and I can separate the ability to cut and paste between apps. I can cut the ability from sharing files between apps between the personal and corporate profiles. From a data loss prevention standpoint, I can completely segment corporate apps and data from personal apps and data.

Another feature is that it is now supported across multiple platforms, where it was regulated at one time for just Microsoft-supported operating systems. That development is very important.

There are a few caveats, things we have run into. It's not easy to create special allowances for certain groups of users. It can be a little heavy-handed in some areas where Microsoft has decided to lock a feature out, meaning they make it hard to make an exception. I'll give you two examples. One company we work with needed to use about 20 different thumb drives for about 20 users. To make that exception for them was very difficult. In fact, you can't really make an exception. But what you can do is allow them to use it and, while it will still alert, you can actually suppress those alerts. Another example was where a group needed to be able to go in and manipulate their PC ERP settings. To make an exception for them was also a difficult process. A lot of people have suggested that Microsoft should not, by default, make it so difficult by locking your ability to make exceptions.

Another issue is that when you implement this it is not a single solution in and of itself. You have to implement what are called security baselines for each platform. But Microsoft does not have security baselines, other than for its own products. That means that when you want to do a security baseline for say, iOS or Android, you have to depend on other security organizations' recommendations and set the security controls to create those security baselines for other platforms. You would typically use CIS. But when it comes to iOS, it's a real pain. iOS requires you to create a security baseline for every version of iOS. Android does not.

I've been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint since it first came out. They bundled it into M365 licenses, particularly E5 licenses or the equivalent, around 2019.

Like every other security product out there, the stability of Defender for Endpoint is a work in progress. The solution is trying to address a tough problem and anybody will tell you that cyber security is not a fair fight. It's just incredibly hard to defend against the bad actors. Everybody is scurrying right now to come up with different ways to stop the problem and it's just not there yet.

In terms of scalability, we have run into organizations that are very large and that have said it doesn't scale well. I'm part of MISA, the Microsoft Intelligence Security Association, and we did a review of all their products and they all had scaling problems, including SIEM/SOAR, MCAS, Endpoint Manager, et cetera.

There are two "fronts" for anybody who is using a SIEM/SOAR: one is how fast they can ingest, and the other one is how fast they can make decisions. You want to do this in real-time, or near real-time.

The ingestion problem is that you're ingesting a bunch of stuff from everywhere: from the network, from identity, from all your services, and your apps. It's a crazy amount of data. Some organizations are doing on the order of 5 billion events daily. How do you ingest all that in a timely manner and correlate it? You have to do it in a distributed way. There will be a top-level SIEM/SOAR and several underneath it that are collecting data for a particular location or a set of users. You trim that down and eventually ingest stuff to the top so that you can see things from the holistic viewpoint. Or you decentralize it, where office A and all its users have their own, and office B has its own, and you don't necessarily roll it up into a single, corporate-wide solution.

There are products out there that are addressing this by not storing the events directly onto disk, but into flash drives, so they're super-fast. They never put it on a disk and save it. You can have the option of saving it to disk for long-term retention. But the immediate ingestion of events is happening through flash drives. It sits in fast memory, never gets written to disks, and that's how they're speeding things up. And there are AI/ML engines pulling that stuff in and they can act much faster.

In addition, some AI/ML engines are more mature than others. There is a lot of work being done on that front. When it comes to Endpoint Manager there are a bunch of events coming from a ton of endpoints. It's no different than ingesting events from a thousand database servers. Or they could be from your whole application reference architectures, and your data analytics reference architectures. Everybody sees the problem coming, the problem of big data. That's what we are really talking about. There is a whole lot of stuff coming in and we have to make sense of it, figure out what's relevant, have a scoring system and prioritization system to make decisions fast. For example, the bad guys are able to get into your systems and, within 20 minutes, they've already done an assessment. Usually, if you're lucky, you can respond to that in 30 minutes. And if you're a huge enterprise, you may not even be able to respond that fast.

That's the reason everybody says it's not a fair fight. We don't have the tools right now to react fast enough.

As for how extensively it's being used by our clients, anyone who is going to use it plans to use it as a one-stop solution. They won't be using multiple solutions and they will roll it out to every endpoint. It makes perfect sense to do so because you don't want to have multiple products and require your staff to have knowledge of multiple products.

For big corporations, it takes a little while to get there. It's something that has been evolving for 30 years now. Organizations want to settle on a standard desktop and want to be able to do configuration control that allows them to control the apps and the usability from a security standpoint. It used to be, "Let's make it easily usable." But now the industry is flipping that over to, "It has to be secure." The vendors have finally come to the point where the balance between usability and security is leveling out.

I've used multiple solutions in the past. We switched based on our customers' requests. Some do it for solution architecture reasons and some of them do it for enterprise.

The enterprise customers say, "Oh, we know we need Endpoint Manager, but we need to align a solution with our business requirements first. Before you even select a solution we are going to look at our business requirements, then do a bake-off possibly, and then select a solution." Or they'll just look at industry ratings of the solutions and say, "Oh, this is the best one," not knowing that those ratings don't necessarily look at every new solution out there. There are so many. We are a VAR and we resell hundreds of security and regulatory compliance products. Usually, unless they bring us in at the early stages of the process, our clients have already picked a solution.

The initial setup is very complex. To me, it's one of the more complex solutions because it touches so much. I have to know every platform and every platform version, when I create security baselines. As I mentioned, certain versions of iOS don't support the separation of corporate and personal profiles, and then you run into the scenario where they're already using some other endpoint protection and they want to migrate it to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

Or there is the scenario where they are using SCCM and to then use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint you should really require Endpoint Manager, meaning that you have to transition to that. And as I noted, making exceptions is hard. 

And when you integrate it across all the Defender products, and are managing a project like that, you have to get to a point where they're ready to be integrated, which is an issue of timing. So it's one of the more complicated things to roll out, compared to Defender for Identity. Defender for Office 365 is pretty large too, but Endpoint is the hardest of the three.

It even touches identity, because there are Azure Active Directory conditional access policies, and those are connected with Endpoint Manager. You've literally got to look at what policies and what setup within Endpoint Manager can apply to different versions of iOS. You have to dissect so that if you're going to do BYOD, for example, and allow a version of iOS from some early version and up, you have to understand that there may be some options that you can use with one version that you can't with others. It's much easier to do with Android than it is with iOS.

When you start heading down that path, it's a maturation process. You have to roll things out in phases. It's a very complicated product. Like with SIEM/SOAR products, when you start getting events, you could be flooded with them. You have to learn to tune it, so that you can differentiate the trees from the forest. You have to correlate things and automate your responses. That type of tuning process is a long process one to get the clutter out.

A product like Sentinel is pretty cool because it has predetermined workbooks, and predetermined manual and automated responses. It has playlists. They are making it very much easier to trim that clutter and to get to the nitty-gritty, and they have done so with Defender for Endpoint.

The deployment time, with fine-tuning, depends on the size of the organization. If it's a small or medium business, it could take three months to deploy and tune, and it could take longer; up to six months. It depends on many factors that I've mentioned, such as if they're migrating, or if they have an integration between SCCM and Intune. It also depends on the expertise level of the organization, its maturation level, and skill sets. All of that comes into play.

It also depends on their starting point in terms of some of the prerequisite services. You don't generally roll out Defender for Endpoint until you've got identity governance and protection. That's the first thing you do because everything is dependent upon that. After that, the prerequisite is rolling out Endpoint Manager, and then Defender for Endpoint. If it's a hybrid situation, you may roll out Defender for Identity so you can cover your Active Directory controllers and provide threat protection for them, although you can do all the "Defenders" in parallel; you just have to time them correctly so that when you integrate them together they're ready to go.

For large organizations, it could take a year or two. For example, if there are half a million endpoint devices—and that's possible if you have an organization with 200,000 employees and contractors, and each has a laptop and a mobile—it can take some time.

In terms of an implementation strategy, I have developed work-breakdown structures for just about every Azure service and almost every Azure M365 service. They look at working with them holistically, but they are broken down into each individual service and mention the other services within the work-breakdown schedule, and how you integrate them. The first thing I do is a current-state assessment and that gives me an indication of the readiness for deployment. The next steps are plan, design, deploy, manage, secure. There are strict sets of security controls and I have to gather every single one of those per platform. It's quite a long process. It follows the saying, "If you fail to plan you plan to fail."

As for staff required to maintain Defender for Endpoint, once you get it set up and tuned it's not too bad. It depends on the size of the organization again. If a business has 100 people, one person can do it easily. If there are a few thousand people, you may need two or three people. It often depends on your getting all the features rolled out. In IT it often happens that we roll stuff out and we always intend to get to that other piece but we just never get the time to do it. Many organizations are going to a lean staff and bringing in consultants to help roll things out. For us, as a contractor, it's great. Our business is booming.

Most organizations that we have come to want to replace their current endpoint protection solution for Defender. A reason many of them do that is that they aren't pleased with whatever they have. They may not know what features are relevant and just don't know how to roll them out. They realize, "Oh, I bought M365/E5 licenses, and Defender comes with them already. Why not use it?" 

Most people don't realize M365/E5 licenses are an amazing deal. They think "Oh, it's expensive," and I'll ask, "Compared to what?" If you don't have it you will have to buy licenses for multiple products to fill the same security space that you would have gotten with the Microsoft product. Go figure out how much it costs you per product, per user, and then come back and tell me how things add up financially.

If our client brings us into the process at the right time, we evaluate products for them, since we're evaluating products constantly. That's part of what we do. We have to know, through a deep-dive, the pros and cons of each. We are constantly being updated by our vendors about how they're addressing a particular security area.

Is Defender for Endpoint the best product out there? No, it's not. I can think of several others that are pretty amazing. It's still a product that's evolving, but it does a really good job for the most part. It does the best job when it is integrated with the whole Microsoft holistic solution. If you look at Microsoft's site, you will see what capabilities Microsoft has. They will show you how these products integrate and work together to give you a holistic solution to develop a Zero Trust model framework.

And while it's not the best solution overall, some of the pieces are. There are several areas where Microsoft is good or better than most, and then there are some weaknesses when you do Zero Trust. They don't have a secure web gateway product. Their MCAS or CASB product leaves a little bit to be desired. There are other solutions, in those two components of a Zero Trust model, that do a much better job. Zscaler probably has the bulk of the business but I'm a big fan of Netskope. There is Crowdstrike, and Forcepoint may be making some inroads because they just developed a new anti-malware technology. But none of them are going to be perfect because malware is a hard problem to solve.

There is also a new product I just reviewed for M365 Security that is pretty amazing on paper. Although I haven't actually kicked the tires on it yet, it looks really good and it's from one of the fastest-growing companies out there.

Think of it like this: If you don't buy E5 licenses or the equivalent with M365, you don't get Defender for Office 365. People don't realize that product is a kind of a split product. It's a multi-function product. It has some DLP pieces that work with MIP and it has some pieces that work with the Office 365 outlying suite. It's a little bit of a funky product.

But one of the things it has is a part of your Exchange Online protection. Without it, you don't get the features like anti-spam, anti-virus, safe links, and safe attachments. That combination addresses what is called a combined attack. You get an attachment and the attachment may have a link in it, or you get an email that has a link in it. They all look legitimate. If someone clicks on it, it takes them to a malware site, and bam! You just downloaded it into your computer and now endpoint protection comes into play.

Eighty percent of malware is still spread via email today. That's how they attack you. They're trying to penetrate your apps and they're even trying to penetrate your M365 online apps. This product works inline and they've already proven that, even with Defender for Office 365, there are still malicious messages getting through. The bad actors figure out how. They actually buy the product and figure out where its weaknesses are and they attack it. Because it's such a popular product it's the one they're going to target. It has the biggest attack surface. They've been attacking the weaknesses of M365, particularly the Exchange Online protection and all the weaknesses in Defender for Office 365. They've just been clobbering it. We're having a lot of people say to us, "Do a security assessment on our M365". All I can tell them is that it's not their problem as much as it's the product's problem right now.

Microsoft is trying to address things as fast as it can, but it's going to take months to get there. But here is another product you can add on that can help you fill those flaws. What this other company has done is that they've said, "We'll fix those flaws for you and we'll make it an easy process to do so." Usually, the circumstances in which you need an email security gateway is when you don't have an E5 license. But now they're even attacking that. And when that happens you have to change the MX record. With this new product that I've read about, you don't have to do that. It just supplements the weakness of M365, not only in Exchange Online protection but throughout all the other apps, like Sharepoint, Teams, and OneDrive. That's pretty impressive. And it works with all those products easily, without change in administration or training. It installs in minutes. I was floored when I saw that.

The organizations I have worked with that are using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint are mostly small- and medium-sized businesses. Our larger customers are generally not using it.

There was a service built within our organization, a service that is very much hooked in with CrowdStrike. If you've ever seen the CrowdStrike products, you'll understand why. They are pretty impressive products. They do some things that help them see malicious activity in near real-time. Can they react to it in near real-time? No. But like everybody, they are trying to find a way to be able to react faster. They just bought a company called Humio, which is a SIEM/SOAR product I referred to earlier that does not store events directly to disk, so it can act on things much faster.

Used alone, I would rate Defender for Endpoint a seven out of 10. When integrated with other Microsoft products, I would give it an eight. It really depends on other pieces of the solution for Zero trust to work properly. It won't work well if you deploy it by itself. If you're going to use Defender for Endpoint, you should also use Defender for Identity, Defender for Office 365, and the full gamut, including MCAS and MIP, and then you will need your SIEM/SOAR. It's a long journey. And you had better have done your identity very well. If you haven't, it won't really matter what you throw in place, once they breach your identity plane. That's the most important one. I can put every possible safeguard in place, but if someone gets the keys to the kingdom, I might as well just turn them off.

We use the most up-to-date version. 

Our primary use case is for basic EDRs for simple interfaces.

In terms of improvement, they update the platform it seems quite a bit. Every month something is in a new spot or something changed somewhere. There should be less of that.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for a couple of months. 

It seems stable.

It's pretty easy to scale.

A handful of people with each in charge of different areas are involved in the maintenance of the solution. It's people in system admin.

I have dealt with tech support a couple of times. They're usually pretty responsive. The first person might not know what the deal is, but they usually are able to get us to the right person, get a resolution for us, and answer our questions pretty quickly.

We used CrowdStrike but we switched to Microsoft because of the price. It's cheaper. There were other major differences. 

The initial setup was pretty complex in the way the various tools integrate. Trying to figure out permissions and getting access to certain things is complex. 

Global admin uses the tool, but then you have to get additional roles for the data loss stuff.

Make sure you read the documentation and understand what else is required before you get started.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

I don't think that another tool is doing anything better, or this one doesn't. It's just about using it and seeing where to find the stuff.

We use a package of Microsoft security products, including Defender for Endpoint, 365 Defender, Sentinel, and Defender for Identity. You can integrate them with a few clicks. They work together natively, and Sentinel provides advanced monitoring, so you know everything happening in your environment.

It's essential to have one space where you can manage all these solutions together because security can be complicated. It makes it that much more complex to have to navigate to a different portal for identity, email, etc. It's crucial to have a single place to manage all your security operations, so you don't have to move around. 

We started with endpoint protection, where you install an agent on your client with a sensor already built in. Once you have that agent installed, the endpoint can report to the Microsoft security portal. You'll be able to see the device onboarded on the portal using some scripts, and you can monitor most of the vulnerabilities. You can also detect, respond and remedy security vulnerabilities from the portal.

We added email protection by setting policies that will analyze our email. It analyzes our links and attachments to see if there's malware attached. We move ahead to use Defender for Office 365. We also moved forward with Defender for Cloud, and the solution for our workloads, like VM, our network security group, etc. There is another one called Defender for Identity that lets us manage our on-premises and cloud identity from a single portal.

Many of our users are on older operating systems and browsers with vulnerabilities that harm the environment. An attacker can take advantage of those old browsers to access the infrastructure. Defender for Endpoint lets us identify those browsers with vulnerabilities and resolve the issues. We can also find processes that we didn't initiate and stop them right away.

Defender helps us prioritize threats from the security portal. It shows us the dangers that matter the most to our own organization and which threats we should address first to achieve the most significant improvement in our security posture. 

We can manage Defender for Endpoint and Defender for 365 from the same integrated security portal, and it's user-friendly. Microsoft is much more user-friendly than Sophos. 

Microsoft covers every aspect of security and the global challenges we face. The biggest threat today is identity and access management. If someone has access to your identity, they can access much of your technology. They have solid solutions for identity, email, and cloud. I don't think there's anything Microsoft left out. Microsoft has your security environment protected. 

Sentinel enables you to ingest data from your entire ecosystem from on-premise to the cloud. It has single sign-on technology, so you can use your account from your on-prem to sign on to the cloud and vice versa. A user doesn't have to remember a lot of passwords.

Sentinel's data ingestion is essential. Security tasks can be tedious. It's great to have technology that lets you integrate all your data from different sources. You can also incorporate data from other clouds, not just Azure. You can have data from Azure and on-premise. 

So far, Sentinel is one of the most comprehensive SIEMs I've seen. They have even added this XDR. Sentinel doesn't just do SIEM and SOAR. It also covers XDR. The automation is there, so you don't have to do much work. The automation helps you look at the activities behind all this data and correlate them to see the relationships. It gives you information at a glance to see if there is a relationship between these various data sources. 

Defender saves us time. A task takes typically three days and could be accomplished in one day using Microsoft technology. With an on-premise network, you need to switch between portals on all your network devices, but you can achieve that from one portal. You can set policies that will block traffic to your infrastructure, so it saves time. The advanced threat protection using AI has also reduced our detection time. 

We've also saved money. We previously managed the technologies on-premise, so we had to maintain the solutions ourselves. We spend less using Microsoft cloud technology because we don't need to pay for those extra features. We only need to pay for operational expenses. 

We don't have to go to the affected devices when we see a security vulnerability from the portal. We can respond to those issues and resolve them using an endpoint management solution, like Intune. When we resolve a security issue, it takes a week to see the score, but we see the results immediately.

I like the security score that you can see from the portal. You can see the list of the vulnerabilities, and the security score tells you how well your organization is managing those vulnerabilities. It's a strong feature that helps improve your security operations.

Another helpful feature is the recommendations. The portal will guide you on how you can resolve those issues from your own endpoint. This feature is great if you don't have that kind of experience. It will help you understand the technology better and improve your security posture. 

Defender provides useful alerts and groups them. It sends an alert to your portal if it detects any malicious activity, and you can group multiple alerts to form an incident. 

I would like to see Sentinel better integrated with the rest of the security technology within one portal. 

I've been using Defender for more than a year.

I rate Microsoft support seven out of ten. I had some cases a while back and told an agent my issue. When I called the next day, I had to explain everything again to a different person, so I found it annoying to repeat myself all over. 

It would be helpful if they had some coordination between their support, so we don't have to repeat ourselves. They should be able to transfer your details from one agent to another. 

We previously used Sophos.

Defender doesn't cost that much. When you use Microsoft technology, you can start with the free version and see how much the technology helps your organization solve security problems before you use the subscription. They also do this pay-as-you-go model, so you only pay when you use it. 

I rate Defender for Endpoint nine out of ten. It's great. I don't have anything negative to say about those technologies. They are serving their purpose.

We're using the solution on our endpoints.

The functionality is very important to us. 

The cloud provisioning is great. 

It's a Microsoft product, therefore, it's easier to deploy this product than other options. It's very important for us to have a simple way to deploy new PCs when we buy the new PCs. We don't want that deployment to be a burden. The easy deployment feature is very helpful.

At the moment we are currently testing it. We are not major users of the product, and therefore we have no idea of what it can and can't do just yet.

At this time we don't have any recommendations concerning the Windows product interface.

It would be helpful if they offered video tutorial guides. 

I've used the solution for three or four months.

We are testing it right now and we didn't get into the production state just yet. Therefore, it's hard to gauge the capabilities in terms of stability. So far, however, it has been stable.

The scalability is okay. 

Support is always okay. I've always had a positive experience dealing with support. 

The deployment is seamless and super simple. It's not complex at all, and that's the main selling point for us. 

We did negotiate on the pricing, however, I can't speak to the exact costs involved. 

We did not really compare this solution to other options. The advantage is that this solution is available on mobile devices, and we needed something that covered everything, from desktops and laptops to mobile. Therefore, we didn't really consider anything else. 

We are Microsoft customers. We don't have a special relationship with the organization. 

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

It's a good product overall. I would rate it an eight out of ten.