Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

It is mainly utilized for telemetry collection and correlating specific behaviors or reactions to TTPs, IOCs, or indications of compromise. It is used for getting that level of detail. 

It is good for attack surface reduction, which is how you harden your endpoint so that they're less likely to be infiltrated or compromised if you have an operative in your environment. So, it's mainly used for reducing the opportunity for someone to compromise the system but also for rapid detection when that occurs.

Coming from an organization where the EDR wasn't strong, it has always been a case of basically searching through the information you already have and looking for something. It was basically trying to find the needle in a haystack. What the Defender platform does is that it reduces the size of the haystack, and it'll say that the needle is over here. Minutes matter, and it certainly zeros you in on the events that are concerning. It also simplifies the effort of trying to get some kind of correlation of behaviors or actions you see in the environment and confirming if something is benign or a threat.

Something that is unique to Microsoft is its licensing model. When you go out and you buy McAfee or Symantec, you know what you're getting out of the box, but with Microsoft, often, when you're looking to achieve a certain set of capabilities, those capabilities are spread across different products. You might try to do something you could do with CrowdStrike, but then find out that you also need to purchase Microsoft Defender for Identity or Microsoft Defender for Azure. You realize that when they talk about what they can offer within the Microsoft platform, it's really the suite of investments. So, sometimes, you may find yourself buying Defender for Endpoint thinking that it matches CrowdStrike, but then you find that Microsoft really needs to sell you something else. One plus one will equal three, but when you have a very concise platform, such as CrowdStrike, you know what you're going to get.

The other consideration is that because it's Windows native capability, your capabilities are largely influenced by what version of OS you're running. For a small-medium business, it is not a big deal, but at an enterprise scale, there are always Server 2000, Server 2003, Server 2008, Server 2012, Server 2016, Server 2019, and so on. So, you're talking about having six or seven different versions where your capabilities are not consistent between 2003 and 2019. It's like asking how robust was security in Windows 2000 versus Windows 2010. You'd say that they're not even the same OS from a security perspective, and that's crazy. When you buy CrowdStrike, you're deploying an agent, and so you get a fairly consistent set of capabilities that are agnostic to the OS version, whereas, with Microsoft, the capabilities are largely influenced by the OS version. For an enterprise, being up to date is a very big consideration to be successful with the platform. So, it forces your platform to not lag behind. You can't have the old server versions and expect that you've got a robust EDR. Defender shines on Server 2016 and higher, but if you were to do some type of penetration or red teaming exercise on a 2003 server, you'd be better off with CrowdStrike or pretty much anything else.

We've been piloting it for the last six months, and this is what we have selected to implement.

There are no scalability constraints because it's all in the cloud. It's a SaaS. So, they can take on more PCs than any Fortune 500 would even have. The only constraint is that in terms of scaling, the strength of the platform is highly influenced by the OS version. If you were largely using Windows XP and Server 2003, you would not want to choose Microsoft Defender as your suite.

It is fantastic, but sometimes, it could be challenging to navigate. If you buy something like a Carbon Black or a CrowdStrike, you normally have one sales rep and one sales engineer, and depending on the level of support you pay for, you may get premium or platinum support, which means you have a very concise escalation path. With Microsoft, there are 20 different account reps. There is a productivity suite guy. There is a security guy. There are so many different places, which can create some confusion at times, but there is no lack of resources. If you have an issue, there are so many Microsoft employees and reps who are engaged at the enterprise level that once you figure out who to speak to, you get traction pretty quick. So, in summary, because there are a lot more people, their support is really great, but sometimes, having a lot more people can also create confusion in terms of where to go.

It is easy. It is native. They're literally like checkboxes. There is really nothing to package and deploy. If you're at a current version, it is a policy. You just turn on the policy. You go through the setup of installing McAfee on your home computer with next, next, next, and finish, or Microsoft will say, "Hey, we noticed you don't have an AV. Do you want to enable Microsoft or Windows Defender?" You say yes, and you slide the box from off to on, and you're now protected. It is like that. It couldn't be easier. There are things like firewall rules and network considerations that have to happen, but from an enablement perspective, because it is native, it really reduces the burden of onboarding the platform.

We didn't go through a real comprehensive analysis when we made the selection. We did some light touching, but we really did not do some comprehensive analysis between Microsoft and CrowdStrike. 

At an enterprise level, a lot of the stuff is based on relationships. It's not like you're starting from a green field. You look at who is your strategic vendor and who is not. With Microsoft specifically, you always get bundle deals towards your renewals. It's always like if you buy more Office 365, we can give you a discount on Defender and things like that. If you don't have a relationship with CrowdStrike or someone else, it is hard for their rep to speak to your CEO or your CSO, but Microsoft does. They've already got standing monthly meetings with them. So, we've made a determination to go with Microsoft because:

1. The technology is compelling.
2. It is a strategic fit for us. 

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

We use it to protect our servers and endpoints, which include our employees' laptops and our own endpoint portal, where we see the single pane of glass reports. It is our first line of defense.

We have seen improvement in all our endpoint vulnerabilities, which is very crucial for us. If this had not been implemented, we would be in trouble because our endpoints would be unprotected. It has definitely improved the security posture of our organization.

Also, automated investigation, protection, and alerts have affected our security operations in a positive way. We get to see the vulnerabilities quicker, and we get to see the root cause analysis as well.

Defender for Endpoint has also eliminated having to look at multiple dashboards. The Endpoint portal is sufficient. It is easier for our security operations team to look at the vulnerabilities and reports and plan for remediation actions.

In addition, the moment the solution's threat intelligence provides a suspicious IP or a suspicious URL, we block it right away. We are more secure. It has helped our security operations detect things in advance and preempt any vulnerabilities.

We have seen productivity gains in terms of the mean time to resolve issues, on the order of 20 to 30 percent. We have the unified dashboarding and reporting, the investigation, and automated remediation. Saving 20 percent of our time translates to saving money.

The detection features are valuable, as is the fact that it is easier to port these logs into Sentinel. That is also useful for us. It is more comprehensive.

The visibility into threats that Defender for Endpoint provides us with is quite deep and mature. The threats that we find help us understand our vulnerabilities and remediate them if required.

Another very important point is that it prioritizes threats across our enterprise. This is important; the solution is the first line of defense. Defender for Endpoint is very crucial for our defense, considering that we all work remotely.

We also use Defender for Cloud, Purview, and Microsoft Sentinel; all of these are integrated and go into Sentinel. It was easy to integrate them because we are using Azure Cloud, and all of them are native to Azure Cloud. The connectors also make it easy. The fact that these solutions work natively together, providing coordinated detection and response, is very important to us. That is precisely why we got into Azure. This does provide us with a comprehensive view of the threats, incidents, alerts, investigations, and threat-hunting processes. Overall, it gives us multiple ways of securing things.

If the solution could be integrated more with Defender for Cloud, to be more unified, that would help. It is good now, but even more integration could be done with Defender for Cloud. We see two different portals. If Defender for Endpoint could be ported to the CSPM, Defender for Cloud, that would make things even easier for us.

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

We have never had any downtime or any other issues.

We have scaled up to 3,000 endpoints, and there is scope for it to be scaled more. When more employees join or more departments come in, we'll be scaling up.

Defender for Endpoint's technical support is fairly good. We haven't encountered many problems with them. We initially had some problems when we integrated Sentinel, but that was resolved internally.

Positive

We did not have another EDR solution. We started with Azure.

The deployment was straightforward because it's all native. We are integrating within the Azure environment, so it is easy.

This solution specifically would have taken a week or so to deploy, but it was part of our overall deployment along with the other Microsoft products. After a week, we started utilizing or pushing the data into our security operations.

We had multiple servers and laptops that were endpoints to be protected by Defender for Endpoint, almost 3,000 endpoints. We had to go one by one. Initially, we implemented 500, and eventually we built on top of that.

It doesn't require much maintenance unless we add more endpoints. That's when we need to push it. Otherwise, there is not much activity involved.

It was all done in-house and required three full-time resources.

We have easily seen 20 to 30 percent savings, year on year.

They would have definitely evaluated other solutions, but the clear preference for a native solution is what made this stand out.

A single-vendor security suite has its advantages in terms of ease of porting, ease of connecting to the SOC, and also dashboarding. For ease of use, a single vendor strategy is valuable. But cost-wise, if you go for multiple vendors, you may be able to negotiate the cost, but that approach makes things difficult to integrate.

It detects suspicious malware and credential access issues, and it even maps to the Mitre ATT&CK framework. It's a pretty good product. Try it out and implement it as soon as possible.

It's used to improve the security score for the whole system, even if it is the cloud or on-premises version.

The security is very useful.

Its stability is okay.

The solution can scale. 

Technical support has been great.

There's no setup process; a user simply needs to enable it to get started.

We'd like the stability to be better.

I've been using the solution for about two years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and the performance is good.

The product can scale if a company needs it to.

There's a big number of users on the solution in our company. It's likely more than 400 users. 

We've dealt with support in the past and found them to be very helpful. We're quite satisfied with the level of service. 

I'm also familiar with Trend Micro, which is similar. However, Defender is specific to Microsoft.

The company does use more than one solution as well. 

There's not really an installation process. A user simply needs to enable it. That's all.

We pay a yearly licensing fee.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to manage the firewall and provide endpoint security, such as antivirus protection, on the endpoint.

The visibility of threats is excellent. The most difficult aspect of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, especially for a small MSP, is the amount of information that needs to be filtered through. There is a lot that can be done in the portal, so it requires someone to spend a lot of time going through all the settings and making sure any issues are resolved. This is why we added Huntress to it, as it helps with the identification of other issues.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint helps prioritize threats across the enterprise. The great thing about the Defender portal is that if there is a new issue, it highlights the issue for us in the portal, enabling us to easily check the CVE report to see which devices are affected, and make the necessary changes.

The major advantage of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for us is that we receive a great deal of information. Initially, when we encountered the solution, the most difficult thing was that there was a lot more detail to go through, a lot more logs, and settings that we had to configure. However, once we had everything in place, as we are covering so many devices using the same solution, we were able to make a significant impact on our security.

The solution helps automate the high-value alerts to identify the devices that are at high risk of attack, but we still have to remediate ourselves.

We still enjoy jumping between Defender and Huntress' portals. Microsoft has removed the need for a large number of solutions as the Defender portal itself encompasses a great deal. This is both good and bad as they continue to add to the Defender portal. For a small team, it can be quite overwhelming to have to go through the one Defender portal. However, if the team was larger and we had more dedicated staff, it would be great as everything would be in one place.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's threat intelligence helps us prepare for potential threats before they occur and take proactive steps based on the CVE reports, which advise us which devices have higher threat issues.

Being aware of the issues is a good thing, and with solutions like Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, we may think everything is fine as long as the antivirus is installed. However, with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, we are given a lot of information and become more aware of the issues. This helps us strive to reach the 100 mark on the security score.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has saved time by preventing attacks from occurring, and I have been able to rely on it. In contrast, when we used Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, we installed it and then largely forgot about it, assuming it would take care of itself. Webroot rarely gave us any warnings, which may have been due to the product not knowing what to do or not having anything to alert us about. On the other hand, Defender is constantly active and provides us with updates about the endpoints. This may take up more time, as it is making us aware of a lot of other things.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is more expensive than Webroot Business Endpoint Protection. However, the value is there in terms of the product we are getting. The cost savings with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint come from being aware of the issues and taking steps to prevent them from occurring. The savings come from avoiding the issues.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoints has a quick response time when it detects a threat. From what I've seen, the system is quite fast. It's not instantaneous when changes are made in the portal and sent to the endpoint, but it is still quick.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is its ability to bring together all the data, providing more information than just antivirus hits. Additionally, it has a useful security score that is tied into the Defender platform, giving us a better understanding of what is happening at the endpoint.

Microsoft often changes the names of its products, the design of its portals, and what is included in them. This can be confusing for people who are not using them regularly. There is a lot of information to take in, and the portals tend to change quickly due to the fast-paced nature of the industry. This can be frustrating when something that was there one day is gone the next.

I would like to see when NDR solutions become more widespread in other regions. It would be amazing to observe how that progresses. It is something that we are considering, having Microsoft do part of the work using the dependent portal instead of having engineers from our own company do it. Therefore, I am eager to see where that goes.

The stability has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for over one year.

When testing to see if the antivirus solution is working properly with a lot of different events occurring on the device, we found that the Defender interface can become cluttered. The solution does not always give us a real-time view of what is happening, making it difficult to navigate the user interface. Therefore, there is potential for improvement in terms of stability.

We've deployed the solution in small environments and larger ones. So we haven't had any issues going between the two. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is scalable.

We have encountered two technical issues in the past. The support team was very competent, and when I contacted Microsoft support, they were extremely helpful.

Positive

We had previously used Webroot Business Endpoint Protection, Bitdefender GravityZone, CrowdStrike Falcon, and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is now included in our licenses, making it an easy addition for many of our clients since some of them already had the licenses that included the solution. Moreover, since many of us already use Microsoft products and portals daily, we were comfortable with Microsoft and the solution did not require a lot of retraining. Additionally, the price was another factor that made the solution attractive; CrowdStrike and the requirements associated with it are too costly for some of our clients.

The initial setup is not complex. It is more cumbersome than Huntress because it is not just an installer. We have a package that needs to be deployed to a few machines. We can run a script, or use a GPO package to distribute it. Although it is not as easy as some of the other smaller solutions, it is still quite simple. We can roll out a group policy. The deployment didn't take long at all. We had already set people up with licenses to access a Hive with Microsoft, so the deployment solution was straightforward. Most of our clients also have directories managed through Azure, which made the rollout easy.

The deployment process requiring engineering numbers or similar is very minimal as it can be done through a single group policy.

The implementations are completed in-house for our clients.

The licensing costs for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint are reasonable.

I give the solution an eight out of ten. When discussing Microsoft Defender with other engineers, we agree that it can be challenging to become accustomed to and comprehend the UI at first. Once we have a grasp on the UI, it is excellent; however, initially, it is difficult to learn.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is deployed in systems located in data centers and on-premises, providing a wide range of devices. Approximately two thousand endpoint devices are in use.

Since the solution is a Windows subsystem, it is not difficult to maintain. We utilize a management solution to run many of those updates regularly, ensuring that they are completed regularly.

No single solution or vendor has all the answers, and it can be risky to rely on just one source. If an attack occurs and we are only using one form of security, if it is breached, the attackers will have unfettered access. Therefore, I believe it is beneficial to have a multi-layered approach, utilizing multiple solutions and vendors with different technologies that can work together.

I suggest people do some Microsoft training regarding the Defender platform to become comfortable with it before deploying it to understand exactly what is necessary to make it work.

We use the solution for antivirus and firewall protection.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's visibility into threats is good. The solution helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has helped our organization by providing continuous protection across our organization without overloading our CPUs by running in the background. We realized the benefits of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint while we were comparing it with other solutions.

Microsoft security solutions help automate routine tasks and identify high-value alerts. I used to work as a System Administrator or Network Administrator, so I understand how useful it is for admins to have their routines automated. I am aware that the solution supports policies and ensures that it is very beneficial.

Automation has enabled the process to be automated, such as protecting certain roles or allowing digital transactions, etc.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's threat intelligence helps us prepare for potential threats before they hit and to take proactive steps.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint saves us time and money.

The solution has helped reduce our time for detection and response.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is easy to load and it runs quietly in the background, unlike other solutions.

The solution is reliable.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can use more advertising to promote their features.

I have been using the solution for five years.

The stability of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is good.

The solution is easily scalable. We have ten people using the solution currently.

I previously used, Symantec Endpoint Detection and Response, ESET Endpoint Security, and McAfee MVISION Endpoint Detection and Response before switching to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

The solution is deployed across our local network. 

I recommend the solution and it should not be removed from a person's computer.

The type of endpoint security solution that is used in an organization should be based on the environment.

In an enterprise setting, I use the product to protect workstations, and more recently servers, from all sorts of threats, including malware, viruses, trojans, etc.

Defender for Endpoint gives us greater visibility. Cybersecurity professionals always need that because what we don't see can get us into a lot of trouble. We also need visibility to be easily applied across platforms and with an improving ability to gather information from Linux or Mac-based end platforms. AWS and Google Cloud give better visibility, which we need from a security standpoint.

The other Microsoft security products we use are Defender for Cloud Apps, Defender for IoT, and Defender for Cloud.

The integration is pretty straightforward. It depends on a company's licensing and deployment team, and Microsoft makes it simple to integrate multiple solutions. It is easy to integrate into a test environment, though it depends on the infrastructure and networking team because they have to carry it out. Each company has different solutions; whether they are entirely cloud-based, on-prem, or hybrid, there's a lot of flexibility. Depending on the package, Microsoft is usually very helpful and available to assist with implementation and integration.

Coordinated detection and response between the solutions are essential. Depending on the company and its capabilities, it can sometimes be challenging to bring different tool sets to bear. For example, integrating endpoint protection, XDR, theme tools, CASB apps, and security from different companies can be very tricky. What Microsoft is doing in terms of easy integration makes their product an easy sell because it's critical to spend time doing the work of security rather than worrying about and dealing with integration. 

Threat protection is extensive; it covers most of the concerns we face as a company. I have limited experience with the IoT side, although I'll be working with that soon. Microsoft is thinking ahead and looking toward the future of protection, and I think they're on the right path. The comprehensive threat protection is there, and that results in a steep learning curve because an organization may have a whole bag of tools, some of which they may not use or need depending on the size of the enterprise. The extensiveness is impressive, and Microsoft is doing the right thing in attempting to cover all threat avenues. The necessary side effect of trying to cover every threat is not being the best in class at dealing with any one threat; more of a jack of all trades, master of none. It also increases the learning curve for analysts.  

The threat-hunting service is very useful for a security professional.

The ability to fine-tune specific policies to protect our enterprise is also advantageous.

The increasing deployment availability on different platforms and OSs is a good functionality.

Seamless integration with the Microsoft SIEM tool and other tools such as Splunk and Sentinel is excellent.

Defender for Endpoint provides good visibility into threats, and there is always room for improvement.  

The tool allows us to prioritize risk factors and fine-tune those based on our requirements as a company. That's extremely important because different companies face different threats from an enterprise point of view. Everyone is concerned about phishing, but only certain companies deal with personal health information, for example, and those dictate the security priority landscape. This functionality is one of the essential elements in an endpoint solution.

In Defender for Endpoint, we can create a certain alert logic to alert us on either high-value assets or individuals. With Sentinel integration, we can develop playbooks for the tool, which helps us gather the information for an investigation or automate a lot of threat intelligence searching. Endpoint has its standalone functionality in this respect; Microsoft does a good job providing sufficient threat hunting in each tool in case a customer only has one. Overall, the solution's threat-hunting and investigation resources are extensive.  

Eliminating multiple dashboards saves time. It may save between five and 30 seconds, but at the end of the day, if I've done eight investigations, that's minutes saved each month. That adds to hours of work saved by not having to deal with multiple dashboards.   

Our time to detect and respond decreased; even a few minutes saved by not searching through multiple dashboards helps. Threat intelligence also informs the end user if a website or link has a bad reputation. These features help reduce the time we spend investigating an incident or alert.  

My main issue with the tool is that there are too many menus. This causes a steep learning curve for those without training or unfamiliar with Defender for Endpoint. From an end-user perspective, the solution is there on the machine and does its job; it works seamlessly. However, as a security professional dealing with it behind the scenes, the learning curve can be steep, but not too steep. Still, it has taken some of my analysts up to a month to get familiar with the product.

Microsoft is slow to act on improving the threat intelligence elimination of false positives. They have a feed of indicators of compromise, which they are constantly updating, but some of the category intelligence is sometimes off base. Microsoft is working to improve that, but threat intelligence is vital; it's there, usable, and requires some fine-tuning and adjustment. That's good, although automated threat intelligence has room for improvement.

Threat intelligence is an area Microsoft needs to improve on; if a company only has Defender for Endpoint, that's their single point of truth regarding threats. Therefore, the tool must provide as much threat intelligence and automation as possible. Defender and Sentinel offer more options, but companies with only Defender need it to be improved.

A significant area for improvement is better integration with other tool sets in the industry. The solution integrates well with other Microsoft products, but only some environments have those products or the flexibility to adopt them. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint needs to integrate with different systems, for example, Cisco or other firewalls. Better integration with more cloud vendors would also be excellent, as not everyone will have Azure.

I've been using the solution for over 15 years. 

The solution is very stable, and that has improved with time. It used to be hard on the workstations, but we experienced those issues eight years ago. Microsoft always came out with a patch within a week or two, which would fix the problem. Nowadays, the tool is very stable; the only potential issue is if something happens on the cloud end, as the dashboards are cloud-based. That's something I've yet to personally experience, though.

The scalability is there, and there's always room for improvement. I need to incorporate more outliers, but the solution is easy enough to deploy that I can quickly onboard many workstations or servers. The product is an eight out of ten in terms of scalability.

Customer support responds rather quickly; it depends on the service level agreement, but they are pretty good about getting back to us and following up on any issues we may have. 

Positive

Most of the companies I've worked for used Defender for Endpoint. I have used different SIEM tools like Splunk and briefly used QRadar a long time ago.

I was involved in the deployment planning, but different teams did the actual deployment. I understand the deployment to be easy. 

In terms of maintenance, the solution requires updates from time to time, which are handled by the infrastructure team.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. 

The infrastructure team has bi-directional sync capabilities set up and running well. It's essential when it comes to having hybrid cloud solutions and cloud solutions from different vendors. Various systems need to have seamless communication and shared issue reporting.  

Microsoft is increasing its data connectors, which is very helpful for ingesting data from different feeds, though some elements aren't fully fleshed out yet. How much data needs to be digested depends on the enterprise; every SIEM tool has a price to pay for how much data is ingested. The simple answer is that Sentinel allows us to ingest a ton of data, and that's vital. If we can't see a threat, we can't detect it and protect against it.  

Sentinel enables us to investigate and respond to threats from one place, which is very important for us. This is an area Microsoft has improved because we used to have to go to three different portals for our security picture. Now, everything we need to find can be seen in one pane of glass in Sentinel, whether we are looking at alerts or incidents.  

The comprehensiveness of Sentinel's protection depends on an organization's security program's maturity and capacity to leverage the solution. There's room for growth, but Microsoft is making good strides in the machine learning and AI portion of its product. The setup and fine-tuning of the tool play a significant role in how smoothly SOAR operates and whether it fulfills an organization's specific requirements. The default playbook may not fit with needs precisely, and staff with knowledge of Kusto Query Language are necessary for fine-tuning. A certain level of expertise is required to leverage Sentinel's sort and machine learning capabilities fully. 

I don't know how much Sentinel costs as I don't see the bills, but the biggest standalone SIEM and SOAR competitor is Splunk. Splunk does a better job but is also much more expensive; people often complain about the cost. I can't compare the value and pricing of the two as I need to know precisely how much they cost. Splunk is supposed to have changed its pricing model to become more affordable recently, and I wonder if Microsoft did the same with Sentinel. However, because Sentinel integrates with other solutions an organization may already use if they're a Microsoft shop, it makes it worth the price.

When it comes to a best-of-breed versus a single vendor security suite, it depends on the people higher up in the organization and usually comes down to cost. Everyone wants the best of the best, but only some companies are capable or willing to pay for that because it can be costly. Microsoft is trying to provide a pricing model that encourages customers to use a suite that seamlessly integrates with Windows and server OSs and increases integration with Linux and Mac OSs. That can provide a better ROI than getting the best of the best but having limited visibility and integration with other tools and the network. Microsoft leverages the security suite model as its selling point, and it's working for them. 

I advise potential customers to read up on the community boards and look into their specific needs. Defender for Endpoint is a good competitor for those looking for an EDR solution, and for those looking for a complete security suite, it's one of the better choices. The tool is competitive, but there are other choices if a company wants the best. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is in the top three, only considering EDR, but for those looking for a line of products to protect their company and thereby make some savings, it's one of the premier choices.

We use it to protect computers or endpoints from any malicious software, malware, and other viruses. You have to use this one as part of your overall protection plan.

The deployment of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a no-brainer when it comes to Windows. When you provision a new laptop for your environment, it comes with it. We use Intune to be seen on the cloud for centralized management. There's actually a console where you can go in and manage it properly, and we use Intune to deliver the onboarding.

I like that it's easy to deploy because it already comes with Windows 10. Overall, it has all the features that we need. Easy to deploy, comes with updates, and comes with Windows updates. You don't have to really manage or update the signature.

Integration with third-party vendors could be better. It would be better if it integrates with other protection solutions or other products outside of Microsoft. Nowadays, anti-virus protection doesn't really have to be planned as overall protection for your environment in terms of security. There are really different avenues that bad actors can take to wreak havoc on your machine. 

We don't just use anti-virus. That's really like a traditional way of doing it. We have different kinds of protections. We have our advanced threat protection for email, and we have advanced threats analytics for domain controllers for servers. We use all those. 

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for three or four years.

It's very reliable and very dependable. I don't see any issues with it. In fact, it's the best product I have used because it's integrated with Windows 10. It doesn't eat up resources while running like other products. It's a really well-thought product.

It can scale as much as you want. It installs a very low footprint on your laptop, but the management is cloud-based.

Technical support is average. We call technical support very rarely for this particular product, but it's actually hit or miss with Microsoft. Sometimes you get a good person on the other line. Sometimes you get someone that's slow in providing support.

I've used many products in the past, and I liked this one because I can't really find that many issues with it. I used McAfee, Symantec, CrowdStrike, and different anti-malware and anti-virus programs, but this seems to be good.

We switched because we're Microsoft partners, and we're actually kind of biased about it. We also implement other products because some of our clients use them. It's very hard to convince them to go with another product. Sometimes because of the existing subscriptions, they are unable to make the switch.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We are a Microsoft partner and consultants. We implement these solutions.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint comes with Windows 10, and it's free. But for you to be able to manage it in the cloud and use the console, you need to have either an Office 365 E5 subscription or a Microsoft M365 subscription. You need to buy an extra license.

If you're looking for anti-virus software, use the one that comes with Windows 10, and save your money.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a ten.

We use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for our antivirus protection.

The visibility into threats that Defender for Endpoint provides is good because we are using all Microsoft products. 

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint assists us in prioritizing threats throughout our enterprise. This prioritization of threats is crucial for safeguarding end-user devices.

Sentinel allows us to gather data from our entire ecosystem, and the interface is highly impressive. Data ingestion is of utmost importance for our organization, especially concerning the security of our environment.

It allows us to comprehensively investigate threats and respond from a unified platform. This is of great significance to us, as Sentinel plays a pivotal role in our Security Operations Center.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint assists us in automating the prioritization of critical alerts. I am certified in cybersecurity. Recently, I have begun the process of renewing my certification as it is set to expire next year. I have been reading numerous articles regarding Sentinel, Defender for Cloud, Identity, and Endpoint applications, and there is a multitude of information available. Automation is now fully integrated, which holds significant importance for enterprise-level customers.

The solution assists in eliminating the necessity of using multiple dashboards, providing us with a single XDR dashboard integrated across various Microsoft products.

The threat intelligence assists us in preparing for potential threats before they occur, allowing us to take proactive measures to prevent them. The assessment mechanism analyzes and identifies threats, providing clear instructions before we proceed to the security parameters.

It has saved our clients time, mainly with their SOC operations. 

The antivirus is the most valuable feature.

There are alternative solutions that offer a greater range of dashboard insights when compared to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. The solution needs better integration with third-party vendors.

The analysis that identifies the threats and remedies them can be enhanced in a future release.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for almost four years.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is stable.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is scalable.

The quality of technical support is determined by the customer's priority levels: P1, P2, and P3. Overall, they are known to provide good support.

Sometimes, the support takes a while to respond, and their shifts change, so we have to begin again with the new person on the shift.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward for me. All Microsoft products are easy to configure and integrate data also. To properly utilize all the features the person integrating must understand the architecture code concept as well.

Before deployment, I consistently conduct a rapid assessment to comprehend the customer's infrastructure. Subsequently, I formulate a plan grounded in this information. Typically, we aim for minimal personnel involvement due to the centralized nature of cloud operations. Additionally, we can advocate for either GPO or CCM deployment software. Our approach entails utilizing a singular architect, one resource, and one SME for implementing and overseeing the infrastructure, aligning with the security prerequisites of the customer's locale. Continuous monitoring of the infrastructure is imperative, maintaining a 24/7 vigilance.

The implementation takes around three months to install and configure.

The pricing is competitive. The pay model is pay as we use.

For organizations that make use of all Microsoft solutions, the cost is lower, and the visibility is increased.

I rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint nine out of ten.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is indeed a commendable product. However, despite its implementation, we should consider the integration of other security products. This is due to the escalating variety of cyberattacks prevalent today. While Windows consistently issues patches to update its existing products, I propose the adoption of a dual-product approach within our infrastructure. This approach aims to preempt eleventh-hour security breaches. By juxtaposing and scrutinizing the attributes of different solutions, we can better comprehend their nuances, specifically at the feature level. The pivotal factor lies in how adeptly a solution identifies and mitigates potential threats. Therefore, I advocate for the incorporation of two distinct solutions within our infrastructure. This strategy is poised to yield heightened efficiency, effectively mitigating the risks of both security breaches and data breaches.