Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

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.

The solution can be used on everything. It can be used on the cloud. You can also use it for on-premises devices, from servers to laptops. It's a pretty good solution to manage devices and servers.

Usually, our clients have an on-premises infrastructure and they want to start working in the cloud, especially in Azure. We use Microsoft Defender to manage on-premises devices from Azure. Especially over the last two years, a lot of companies have wanted to focus more on their own business and that's why they have us manage their IT security.

The main goal of using Defender for our clients is to do vulnerability scanning and to be aware of any possible security breaches in their infrastructure.

Microsoft Defender is totally integrated with Microsoft 365 Azure. For example, years ago a software company that was working on-premises with Microsoft products came to us. They asked us to help them connect to Azure because with Azure, they could, of course, run their core business, but it would also help them create more value in the market. Microsoft Defender is the best way to manage on-premises devices, but also devices on the cloud.

It also helps us to prioritize threats.

In addition, the solution gives us a single dashboard that we can customize. When our security operators start their day, they look at the dashboard information. If there is a big issue, they automatically get the information. They can send an email to the team involved. The dashboard helps the security team, day-to-day, to ensure everything is secure for the client. The dashboard is really important.

And overall, the solution has saved us 50 percent of our time. It also saves us money because it prevents ransomware and web application attacks every day. Currently, with the war in Ukraine, because I work in Europe, hackers are trying to hack into enterprises, and that's another reason it's really important to have this kind of solution.

It may be saving us 30 percent, in terms of money, because once you have the system in place, you can avoid a lot of attacks and keep secret information away from hackers. When we talk about security, we're also talking about the reputation of the company. Using this kind of solution helps our clients not to lose money through a loss of reputation.

In terms of time to respond, someone who is working every day on the security operation team, can respond correctly within five minutes, to be conservative, to a problem they receive from the scanning done by Defender. It has decreased that time by about 20 percent, although keep in mind that I am a security architect and not part of the operations team.

The scanning part is one of the most valuable features with the automation of vulnerability scanning. That's why we use Defender. It gives us a lot of information on how to improve security.

There are some competitive products on the market, but the best is Microsoft Defender because it's very easy to integrate. That's one reason a lot of clients want Microsoft Defender.

It's also very easy to implement compared to other solutions.

Regarding other Microsoft solutions, about half of our clients take Sentinel, while 90 percent take Defender. They are very easy to integrate. That's one of the reasons, for me, that Microsoft is the best on the market. And in reviews about the best tools on the market, everybody agrees that Sentinel is the best on the market in the security area. When you work with Sentinel, it's easy to work with the Microsoft suite of products. It's easy to integrate every product from Microsoft.

We also use Microsoft Defender for Cloud's bidirectional sync capabilities. For security, they allow us to get all the information we need on time.

After scanning, there are false positives so sometimes you need to manage the results.

Also, we would like to see more tools for managing on-premises security. A lot of companies have their own on-premises infrastructure and want to move to the cloud. Sometimes, we have the tools, like Defender, to manage security in the cloud, but because we are so focused on the cloud, we forget the fact that we need to be sure about the security of the on-premises environment, specifically Active Directory. I know it's tricky, but I'd like to see them add some tools for a really good dashboard to introduce the fact that we also need to be careful about on-premises.

A lot of companies have their Active Directory on an on-premises physical server. When they start the journey of moving to the cloud, especially to Azure, they use Microsoft Defender to do device management, especially servers and computers. But to improve security monitoring it would help if we could monitor on-premises, especially identity. Usually, when hackers hack into an environment, they use tools to get the identity of a person. If we had tools to integrate with Defender, it would help improve security.

I have been working with Microsoft Defender for two years.

It's a stable solution.

It's also a scalable solution.

About 90 percent of our clients have deployments in multiple locations because they are usually multi-national, and that's why it sometimes takes more time to do the implementation.

The technical support of Microsoft is good.

Positive

I have always used Microsoft solutions.

The deployment is straightforward. The amount of time it takes depends on the configuration the client wants, but it's easy enough to deploy. 

If we need to implement it for a client with 2,000 devices, it takes more time. Just the implementation, for me, takes 20 minutes, but after that we have to implement configuration on the cloud, and that is totally different.

If it's a big company, it could take three months, because we have to do discovery. We have a lot of clients that use customized containers and customized Linux servers, and that's where we have to be sure we do the implementation the right way.

Usually, when working with clients and proposing different solutions, they prefer to work with Microsoft Defender because it is integrated. And when you talk about the price, it's really perfect, compared to other advanced threat-scanning products on the market. Overall, 90 percent choose Microsoft Defender because it's great and very easy to put in place. You don't need to install an extra service or do a big design. You pay for the licenses and that's it.

If you're considering working with Microsoft Defender, the first thing you need to do is an inventory of the infrastructure. We need to know what the client has: how many Windows Servers, how many Linux servers, and how much content. And then you need to know what you want to do with the devices. Some devices are not supported anymore. We need to know which devices the client wants to be covered by Defender.

A lot of times, we want to work with Sentinel because it's the best on the market. But Sentinel is more tricky to put that in place. But when you advise a client on security, of course, you propose a lot of solutions, including Defender and Sentinel. You propose the best on the market to improve their security.

Usually, they go for Microsoft Defender, but for Sentinel, sometimes it takes time. They say to us, "We don't have the money right now, let's wait two years." On many of my projects, my clients have already worked in the cloud and they want to start working with Azure. That's why Microsoft Defender is a good tool to implement. There are times we advise the client about Sentinel but they already have a SIEM solution like Splunk.

Defender for Endpoint does not help us automate routine tasks right now because it's extra work. I know we could put that in place, but often, when we start working with a client in the cloud, we spend a lot of money on that. I know, in the day-to-day operations of the security teams of our clients, they have so much to do and it would be really good to implement automation. We propose it to our clients, but it's up to them to decide if they want to do it.

The threat intelligence can help prepare for potential threats before they hit, but this is also something we need to talk to the client about. Sometimes, it's not in our hands. We can propose things to the client, but they have to choose. So far, after proposing these kinds of things to clients, I haven't received their agreement. This part of the solution is really interesting, but it can also be expensive for some clients. It depends on their budget.

And in terms of using multiple vendors for security or a single-vendor security suite, in my current company, we generally advise our clients to have different vendors, but it depends on the client. I, myself, am not a risky guy. But a lot of our clients have Microsoft products, and we'll advise them to use Microsoft products. You don't want to go to war with your client.

Sometimes, they want to work with a lot of different products, but when you try to do that it can be really expensive because you need to work on the connections between them. I usually advise Microsoft because it's very easy and a lot of clients already have Windows Servers, et cetera. It really depends on each case. It depends on who is paying, who is asking, and what they want.

In the past, I needed two, three, or four apps to do my job. With Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, I have all the resources on one site. I can check what the threats are and if the computers need to be updated or if they reboot with various apps. It's very helpful for us. For example, I have colleagues who use different versions of a certain programming software. With this tool, I can check whether they need to update the app because an older version might have a lot of bugs. I can check which applications need to be updated or uninstalled.

I have a lot of alerts set up as well. For example, all our users are here in Mexico. If we get someone connecting in the UK or Venezuela or Colombia, we get an alert. I then know I need to change the password and use two-step authentication.

And I get a message when a new threat comes up or I need to do updates to different tools. This is helpful because threats are always working in innovative ways. These are very important messages for us.

Defender for Endpoint saves me a lot of time because I have all the alerts and information in one application. It also saves money because when you lose information due to an attack, you lose a lot of money on the reconfiguration of the sites or the information or on the recovery of a backup or a server. It's very important to have a tool like this. It saves a lot of money. The cost-benefit is very good.

It's a very complete application. I have all the controls in one site. I can track emails, attacks, and threats, and I can research information. I really like this configuration because I have all the information in place. It was very easy for me to configure it to show me all the things that I need in one dashboard for monitoring.

The visibility into threats is very good. I can track the threats very easily in this application. I have also used Trend Micro and it's more difficult to do with that solution. With Defender, I have all the information and I can follow all of the steps and do my job. It's really easy and very impressive.

I also use Microsoft Endpoint Manager to control all our laptops and cell phones. I take care of all those policies in that solution. In addition, I use Microsoft Azure and Microsoft Exchange, as well as Teams and SharePoint. I have integrated them all into one environment. All the solutions are integrated into one solution and that makes my job easier. Integrating them is really easy because you have one platform to configure all of them. In the role of the global manager, I can make all the changes in these solutions. And the process for connecting all these apps is very easy.

I have two different environments, two different types of accounts. I have accounts for administrators and corporate employees, but I also have accounts for students. I can't split these types of accounts. I need a separate configuration for both. I don't have access to the laptops or computers of the students, so I can't deactivate the alerts from the students' machines. I get a lot of alerts from their machines. I need to research how I can get alerts for only the administrative machines.

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

The stability of Defender for Endpoint is very good. I haven't had trouble with it.

The scalability is pretty good. It's easy to scale it.

I have different locations here in Mexico, with about 300 users here and two or three in the UK, depending on the travel schedule.

I have contact with a Microsoft partner here in Mexico as well as directly with Microsoft. If the partner doesn't have a solution, I can contact Microsoft support.

The support is very quick in communicating. Usually, with one mail or one call, the problem is resolved.

Positive

I used Trend Micro and Symantec in the past to research threats, like viruses and malware, but for me, Defender for Endpoint is the better solution. It's very easy to integrate all the tools and gives me a lot of information in one place. It's very easy to detect an attack or email threat.

I also get all the alerts on my cell phone. Because I have all the alerts, if one of my colleagues in the IT area makes a change, I have all the information. That makes it very easy to maintain.

For me, the pricing is very good, but for management it's very expensive. Other solutions are less expensive. But when I present all the information and all the reports they say, "Well, it's expensive, but the cost-benefit is very good."

If you have all the information, and you are clear about what solutions your business needs, and Microsoft has all that information, the change is very easy. It's a very good solution.

I have tried so many antiviruses personally, but this one is integrated with the operating system. That's one of the main reasons for considering this.

The main benefits are compliance and protection from threats.

It helps us to avoid disruption in the business. It helps us see if other solutions are causing any slowness to our end-user machines. We can see if there are any service availability issues. Operations-wise, it helps us a lot to maintain the uptime of our business.

It helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise, which is very important and one of our priorities.

We have the Defender for cloud applications. It's very easy to integrate. It's straightforward. These solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across our environment, which is very important for us.

We did extensive testing of its functionality, and it's very effective. It covers almost all the new, unknown, and known threats. 

It helps automate routine tasks and the finding of high-value alerts, which is helpful for incident response and SLAs. It has saved us 50% of the time to respond to the incident.

It helps us to be proactive. It can detect unknown threats and alerts us. We're able to identify any malicious sign-ins or logins. 

It has decreased our time to detect and respond. Previously, we were doing it manually. It took one hour to two hours to detect and respond. Now, it takes us minutes.

It has very good detection and protection capabilities. They have a new feature for ransomware protection. 

It doesn't cause the slowness of the system, which is one of the reasons why I like it.

There is complexity in accessing the dashboard. Microsoft security suite has a different URL per service or per application. If there was one single place of information, that would help.

They should bring back the feature of a dedicated proxy device for communication to the cloud. As of now, all the agents are required to send the logs directly to the cloud. There should be a solution where you can put a proxy and all the logs are consolidated, like a forwarder.

I've been using it for about five years.

It's very stable.

It's very scalable. We have deployed it only to 250 endpoints for now. It's not enterprise-wide. We have plans to increase its usage.

I haven't encountered many issues so far. Their support is good. I would rate them an 8 out of 10.

Positive

We used another solution. The switch over to this solution was a management decision.

We have a hybrid deployment with the Microsoft Azure cloud. The initial setup was complex. There were some issues because a lot of prerequisites needed to be accomplished. It took us about three months.

We had a staged approach. We first onboarded non-critical assets and then moved to critical assets.

It takes time to realize the benefits from the time of deployment. It took us about two years.

We had around five people for deployment. Some of them were testers, and some of them were admins for the configuration and deployment of agents.

It requires maintenance. We have cloud administrators and desktop support for endpoints.

We did look into other solutions. We have criteria for evaluation. The features that stood out were their reputation and innovation.

I would recommend Microsoft Defender. They are a leader, and they have many deployment use cases. However, it also depends on the requirements of a company. There is no one-size-fits-all. Each company has its own unique requirements.

I would rate it an 8 out of 10.

It is our endpoint protection solution as a part of the full Defender Suite that we use. We use it for every one of our devices, including Macs and Windows.

Each endpoint is with Intune, and then the management is done out of Azure.

It takes automated actions. If a device is found to have a virus, it will automatically remove it, isolate the device, and then notify us to follow up. That way, things are less critical when we get to them. It will stop the spread. We're a worldwide company with very few people on the security staff. It allows us to remove the risk in an immediate fashion without the staff having to jump on it, which just takes time.

It helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise. We have limited resources to deal with the threats. So, this prioritization is critical to us.

We use more than just Defender for Endpoint. We use Defender for Identity, Defender for Office 365, and Cloud App security. We use the whole 365 Defender suite. It is easy to integrate these products. The challenge is having all the features in your environment and obviously making it work within your environment because of your different applications and business processes, but all these solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across our environment. This is critical for us because we have limited resources. So, allowing the machines to talk to each other and not having to jump from place to place just makes life a lot easier.

We use Microsoft Defender for Cloud for the hybrid cloud environment. We are not multi-cloud at this point. We use it to identify weaknesses within our environment, both prem and off-prem so that we can prioritize. We do not use Sentinel at this time.

For the most part, it gives me what I need in one spot. I do have to drill down into other dashboards for more defined reports. We go into the Intune dashboard for compliance and things like that.

Its threat intelligence helps prepare us for potential threats before they hit and take proactive steps. We use the secure score to help identify what we need to do to protect against things as they come up. It lets us know about any ransomware out there so we can jump right on those and do protections. We also use it for the compliance piece against NIST, PCI, and things of that nature.

It saves time. If I didn't have the integrated pieces of Microsoft Defender, to do the same amount and be on top of things, I would probably need two FTEs.

It has absolutely decreased our time to detect and time to respond.

The best thing I like about it is its interaction with the other Defender products. It provides the ability to push telemetry up. It gives me endpoint visibility and allows me to take automated actions. 

It is excellent in terms of visibility into threats. It is very comprehensive in terms of threat detection, and it keeps on getting better. They are consistently adding new features.

They're in the process of pulling more things together. They can continue with the integrations and provide a better way of seeing the impact of security changes, especially on the endpoint side. Before we actually flip the switch, we should be able to see the impact of security changes on the business or business applications. It would prevent breaking any business applications.

In its current rendition, I have been using it for two years.

Its stability is very good.

Its scalability is very good. It definitely scales easily.

Their support is okay. We get support through Insight, which is also our CSP. They're better. I would rate them a five out of ten.

Neutral

On the endpoint side, I've used Sophos and Symantec. We switched because of the integration between all different securities.

The deployment was relatively easy, but when you get into turning on the switches, things can get complicated because it has a lot of different features. Overall, it was easy.

We did it in-house. We had two security systems engineers doing it. 

We have seen a return on investment, but it is hard to give metrics. It has definitely allowed us to maintain a small team and increase our security posture. 

If you're on Microsoft products, and you've bought into what they're doing with Teams Voice and Office, then adding in the security piece is just a slight bump. You go with the E5 licensing, which saves you a lot of money.

With the bundling that Microsoft does, we have saved money. Buying individual point products would've cost us a lot more money than one integrated solution that also capitalizes on Teams Voice and things of that nature. Given our size, buying individual products would have easily cost us a million dollars.

We've looked at other solutions. We've looked at CrowdStrike. We've looked at Symantec. We went for Microsoft because of the full integration. The breadth of the products and the pricing were the main reasons.

I would advise following those secure scores and watching out as you start to communicate with your user base because you're going to impact applications.

To a security colleague who says that it is better to go with a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor’s security suite, my response would be that you got to measure trying to do the integration because with security, to me, bringing that integration together is the key thing. You need to know how quickly you are going to be able to move from your detection to your mitigation. Are you going to turn on things on the firewalls or can you go right to the devices and isolation? The best of the breed is great, but trying to get them all to work together becomes very complex.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We use it as an antivirus and EDR solution. We also use it for vulnerability scanning and threat hunting.

It is cloud-based. We have a cloud-first strategy when it comes to our organization.

We are a very small, lightweight start-up organization who has only been around for a couple of years. We have 17 endpoints. 

We have it deployed on our endpoints and virtual servers. We have a few Windows Servers 2019, and we have onboarded those both onto Defender for Endpoint as well. Those servers are not managed by MDM because they are Server 2019, but we have onboarded them so they are being managed by Defender for Endpoint as well.

This solution definitely increases our security posture. When you are reviewing your existing fleet or endpoints and based on the configuration that you put out of your Defender for Endpoint, you then receive a security score from Microsoft. Depending on what rules you have configured, what policies you have deployed, and what attack surface reduction rules that you have set up and deployed, it is almost gamifying information security in the sense that you are always trying to achieve a higher score. The more hardening you perform on your endpoints, the better score you receive. This generally tends to give you a better peace of mind, but also makes you secure at the same time.

I like the fact that it is baked into the Microsoft platform. 

Since we have deployed it, we have been really impressed with the way that everything just stitches together really well. You can access all your security data and telemetry from a single pane of glass on the Microsoft Security admin console. You can access all your endpoints, see how your antivirus is running, and get all your vulnerability scans and reports. In the software inventories, you can review your known vulnerabilities and understand whether those are zero days or if there are active threats out in the wild. Essentially, you don't need to jump into different admin consoles. You have everything built into Windows Defender Security Center, which we find really useful.

If you consider our organization, we are a fairly Mac-heavy organization. At the moment, around 80% of our fleet are Mac OSs. We made a conscious decision to roll out Defender for Endpoint against all our endpoints, whether it is Windows or Mac OS. However, one thing that we have noticed is that there is definitely no parity on the platform between the two operating systems. When you are configuring, deploying, and onboarding machines, you can get very granular with your security configuration when you are deploying it to a Windows's endpoint. For Mac OS, it is a lot more straightforward. You don't have the ability to apply as much configuration as you would on Windows. That is definitely something that has room for improvement. 

I am also not sure how well the EDR functionality works on the Mac OS platform. It just provides an antivirus and the full EDR capability is not there on a Mac OS. 

The web filtering needs a little bit of work. We are actually in the market at the moment for a third-party web filter or cloud secure web gateway to try and plug that hole since it is a bit of a pain point for us. I don't think we will use the baked in version from Defender for Endpoint.

On the Mac OS platform, there is no parity between Windows and Mac OS. The solution is very feature-rich and very well-integrated into Windows, and I guess baked into Windows 10 and Windows 11. Whereas, on the Mac OS platform, there is still some work there to give it a more feature-reach platform.

I have been using it for about a year.

With Windows, we have been very happy. We have had no issues or problems whatsoever. We had one issue on the Mac OS platform when an update to Mac OS was deployed. It wasn't a major update, like Monterey. It was a point update. So I think it might have been 12.2.1 where the Defender icon was starting to display across, which means I found a threat or it's not working properly. We had that across a handful of machines. I did a bunch of Google searches and sort of realized this was happening to a lot of other organizations, so it was probably a false positive.

I contacted Microsoft support who confirmed that it was just a visual glitch. I guess Apple is well-known for this. When they do push out their updates, they attempt to break the occasional third-party system. That was the only issue that we have encountered, which was more a visual glitch than an actual threat.

It is pretty much zero-touch because the definitions sort of update themselves. The application updates itself because it is deployed through Microsoft Intune. Therefore, the maintenance is pretty straightforward.

It is very scalable. Because it is cloud-based, it is elastic in its nature. You can onboard machines en masse. Whether you are onboarding 15 machines or 1500 machines, it is very straightforward.

As we scale up, this is now our AV and EDR of choice. Every new machine will be rolled out or onboarded to Defender for Endpoint. We will be sticking with it in the long-term. We have also the logs and telemetry from Defender for Endpoint being ingested into our MDRC platform.

The technical support is very good. Wherever I have worked with them, we have always been enterprise customers. Whenever I have raised a ticket for support, you generally receive a phone call anywhere from 10 minutes to three hours after raising your ticket. Even if it is not a P1, but a P2 or P3 ticket or just a request for information that you have generated in the form of a ticket, they will respond back to you quickly.

They have good levels of escalation. So, if their first line support is unable to help, they can quickly escalate to the second or third line. I have never really had any problems with Microsoft support. That is across Defender for Endpoint and Microsoft Endpoint Manager as well as for the productivity throughout Office 365 and Azure Active Directory.

I would rate them as eight out of 10.

Positive

We currently have an MSP in place, which is a managed service provider, who manages all our IT support, service desk, and desktop support functions. They had already purchased an antivirus subscription for the organization when I joined the organization, and it was a fairly basic one. Our biggest problem was that it does not have any SIEM integration. 

When we decided to go down the route of having a SOC or MDR service, we couldn't ingest the logs from the antivirus platform into their SIEM. That is when the hunt started for a new AV service.

I wouldn't say the user impact has changed on top of the AV product that we had before.

The initial setup was very straightforward. Microsoft, as an organization, is quite well-incentivized to get you to use their own products. There are hoards of material out there via their social media channel, through their own documentation, or the Microsoft Learn platform. There are reams and reams of user guides for you to go through, all of which are fairly straightforward. They are regularly updated as well.

It is all cloud-delivered so there isn't any on-premise infrastructure that I need to maintain, patch, or configure. It is literally all configured in the cloud. So, it was a very easy setup process for me.

It took days to get a proof of concept together on a handful of machines. Over the next few weeks, once we got the go ahead and thought, "You know what? We are going to go with this." It was just a matter of weeks and that was more down to team availability. We needed to sit down and offboard the existing AV, which we weren't particularly happy with, then onboard Defender for Endpoint. So, we tied that project with our MDM rollout. Therefore, while we were deploying our MDM solution and enrolling the device, we were onboarding the machine to Defender for Endpoint as well.

I actually set it all up myself. I am the only technical person at the organization. I have worked with Microsoft quite extensively in the past, and I have used their fast track consultancy services in other organizations that I have worked with as well. Therefore, I am quite confident and familiar with Microsoft technologies. 

We then signed up with an MDR supplier who does managed detection and response. Essentially, that is a team of cybersecurity experts who connect to our infrastructure and all the data telemetry from our endpoints feed up to their platform. If they see any threats, anomalies, or events, they will then jump in, reviewing and remediating as required.

We had a consultancy session with one of their Microsoft consultants around a month ago, where they reviewed the setup that I configured. They put in two or three recommendations to harden the setup a little bit more, but they were overall pretty happy with it. Thus, if I can do it, then it can't be that difficult.

There is less overhead in terms of having the system administrator or information security manager jumping around different systems and trying to actively keep a handle on our security posture across the organization. Instead, everything is right in front of me.

One of the first things that I did when I came onboard in the organization was scrapping our reseller agreement. I registered us as a not-for-profit with Microsoft, and we now get subsidized licensing at effectively half price. It just sort of makes sense for us. Now, we buy our licenses directly from Microsoft rather than our formal license reseller.

Even if you are not registered as a not-for-profit, the offering that they have is definitely worth consideration. This is in the sense that the E5 stack just gives you so many benefits. You get your entire productivity suite through Microsoft 365 apps. You get all your security and identity protection. You get the Defender for Endpoint and Defender for Identity. You get the cloud access security broker as well. You get Azure Active Directory Premium P2, which gives you so many good things that you can configure and deploy. You don't have to configure them on day one, but you have access to so many different tools that will protect your data, security, endpoints, and identities that you could build out a security strategy 18 months long, and slowly work your way through it, based on what you have available to you through your license.

You can purchase some add-ons, like Microsoft Threat Expert team. I have not read too much into that, but my understanding is that comes at an additional cost. Since we have a dedicated MDR and SOC sitting on top of our Defender for Endpoint, it is not something that applies to us anyway.

We are E5 customers. Essentially, we have the flagship license. We looked at a lot of different organizations and vendors for our antivirus needs. We spoke to the usual suspects: CrowdStrike, Sophos, and Darktrace. 

Because we also have a Gartner subscription, we reached out to our Gartner analyst, and said to them, "Look, we have the E5 license and know that Microsoft doesn't have the greatest reputation when it comes to their antivirus products, but we understand they have come on a lot over the last few years. This is the direction that we proceed. We want to deploy Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. We then want to layer an external managed detection response service on top of it that will essentially provide 24/7/365 monitoring for alerts and anomalies." Gartner advised us that it has improved to the point where they are now considered one of the leaders on their magic quadrant, so we should be absolutely fine with it. 

Originally, Microsoft wasn't in mind for us at all. We sort of had our heart set on CrowdStrike because we were really impressed with them. We got quite deep into advanced discussions with them and Darktrace as well.

The deciding factor for going with Microsoft was the budget. We were already paying for the E5 licensing. So, we were allowed to use Defender without any extra costs. We could just enable and configure it. We thought that we would use the budget left over to purchase a dedicated MDR service who would maintain an overall ability for all the endpoints to connect with it. We could also expand that to our Google Cloud Platform as well as our AWS and Azure Cloud environments. We could also extend that service onto our physical appliances, e.g., the logs from our on-premise firewalls, security appliances, and routers.

We felt that in terms of scaling up to get to the security posture that we needed, this might be a better solution for us. Whereas, CrowdStrike and Darktrace, at the time, were more focused on the endpoints. For example, if there was some suspicious behavior happening on our Azure Active Directory and our CEO's user account was under a brute-force attack, then CrowdStrike wouldn't necessarily pick up on such an attack because they are more focused on the endpoint rather than the cloud instances. Thus, we thought Microsoft gave us better coverage overall as well as the fact that we were already licensed for it.

It just made sense for us to go down that direction. We just felt we would have a more well-rounded approach if we went with Defender for Endpoint supported by the MDR service, who would then provide monitoring over all our cloud instances, endpoints, and on-premise infrastructure and appliances.

One of the main benefits is cost. Being an E5 subscriber, we are essentially already paying for Defender for Endpoint. However, it wasn't on our initial list of antivirus solutions when we were going out to market. We really felt that we were going to go for a managed service, such as CrowdStrike or Darktrace. When we decided to go for Defender for Endpoint, we created a cost savings. So, it was easier for us to prove the business case to our senior management.

A good antivirus is something that sort of happily sits in the background and just pretty much does its job until it is needed. It is just sitting there constantly watching and monitoring. Then, if it does need to intervene or remediate against the threat, that is when you know, "My antivirus is happily working." We haven't had many incidents to deal with. To be honest, we have had a couple of false positives. 

Definitely shortlist them in your list when you are out looking for a new vendor. What tends to happen with a lot of IT professionals is that they overlook the Microsoft offering because of the reputation that Microsoft Defender has had in the past, when it came to its consumer version. However, they have spent the last few years completely revamping their security stack. I think it offers a really well-rounded, holistic approach to cybersecurity now. They are definitely worth considering next to CrowdStrike, Sophos, and Darktrace.

A lot of organizations are probably like, "Oh, no, we don't want to get Microsoft. We don't want to get Defender. We want to get an established name," but I think Microsoft has put a lot of effort, budget, and development time into their security stack. It is a great suite. 

As their Azure platform grows, they leverage that to power and drive their Defender for Endpoint. A lot of the protections that they deploy are cloud-delivered platforms. So, they are picking up telemetry from millions of different signals and endpoints. They have so much data and can see trends really quickly.

I would rate them as eight out of 10.

Microsoft Defender that you get by default on Windows is an unmanaged solution. It detects, but it is conventional EDR in the sense that it can detect malicious code on the machine, but it is not good from an enterprise point of view because you can't see what is being detected. The difference between Defender and Defender ATP is that you get what's called the execution chain, which is its classic use case. 

When I try to open an attachment to an email, Defender tells me that this is malicious, but when you are in an enterprise and you do receive an alert that the file is malicious, the problem usually for the analyst is that they don't know what the person clicked on. They know there was a malicious file but was it an attachment? Was it something on the USB stick? Did they download it from the internet? That's not clear. Defender ATP gives you the execution chain. In this particular example, you can see that it was outlook.exe that launched the suspicious file which then launched or tried to download various components. You can see the whole execution tree because very often, the initial thing you get is a dropper, which then downloads subsequent components, and very often, the subsequent components get missed.

It essentially gives you visibility into the execution chain. So, you are better able to do a risk assessment. For instance, if something came from Outlook, then you know that you need to go and look in exchange or look in the mail system. If the trigger came from winword.exe, then you know that it was a document, and the person had opened a document from the email. You might see Internet Explorer, when it was still there, spawn PowerShell or a command shell, which is unusual, or you might see calc.exe open a command shell. All of this detection is invaluable for identifying whether something is suspicious or not. Your EDR might not detect any of this, but ATP would see this suspicious sequence of opening and flag it. So, essentially it is the visibility and the ability to detect unusual behavior that conventional EDR would not necessarily do for you.

Its version is usually up to date. It is a cloud solution. 

Its visibility is the most useful part of it, and it also increases the effectiveness of your response. You spend less time asking the users the standard question of what did they click on. To which, they usually say that they didn't click on anything. You can go in ATP, and you can see that they opened an email and then clicked on a link, and the link is this. There is no hiding this. Users do lie.

You can detect threats that are not necessarily known because of a behavior. If you have Internet Explorer opening a command shell, that is not normal. That does not happen unless there is some kind of malicious activity. It is also very good for visibility into what PowerShell scripts do. PowerShell is a double-edged sword. It is very powerful, but in a lot of cases, there is no visibility on what it is doing. With ATP, we generally have that ability.

I like the process visibility. This ability to visualize how something was executed is valuable, and the fact that Defender ATP is also linked to the threat intelligence that they have is also valuable. So, even if you have something that doesn't have a conventional signature, the fact that you get this strange execution means that you can detect things that are normally not visible.

The other feature that I like in Defender is that because it is up in the cloud, when you're trying to do any kind of managed service, it is fairly easy to set up if you're just within one tenant, but there are a lot of things wrong with the way Microsoft does it as compared to other products like Palo Alto Cortex, SentinelOne, or CrowdStrike.

The catch with ATP is you have to have the right Microsoft license. The licensing of ATP is linked to the licensing of Office 365. You have to have an E3 or an E5 license. If you have a small office license, it is not possible for you.

Another challenge is that it is not a multi-tenant solution. Microsoft's tenant is a licensed tenant. I'm an MSSP. So, I have multiple customers. In Microsoft's world, that means that I can't just buy an E5 license and give that out to all my customers. That won't work because all of the customer data resides within a single tenant in Microsoft's world. Other products—such as SentinelOne, Palo Alto Cortex, CrowdStrike, et cetera—are multi-tenant. So, I can have it at the top of the pyramid for my analyst to look into it and see all the customers, but each customer's data is separate. If the customer wants to look at what we see, they would only see their data, whereas in the Microsoft world, if I've got multiple customers connected to the same Microsoft tenant, they would see everybody else's data, which is a privacy problem in Europe. It is not possible to share the data, and it is a breach of privacy. So, the licensing and the privacy aspect makes it problematic in some situations.

It is also very complicated. If you decide to outsource your monitoring through an MSSP, the model for allowing the MSSP to connect to your Defender cloud is very complicated. In Office 365, it is relatively simple, but because of the way it has been done in Defender—because Defender is not part of the same cloud—it is a mess. It is possible, and it is workable, but it is probably one of the most complicated integrations we do.

It is still clunky as compared to products like Cisco AMP, SentinelOne, and CrowdStrike. Microsoft took the Defender product, and they bolted on the extra features, but you can see that there are different development teams working on it. Some features are well integrated, and some features are not. They keep on improving it, and it is better than it was. It is better than an unmanaged solution, but it is far from perfect.

I have been using it for about two years. I've got a couple of customers today with it.

Its stability is lesser than some of the competition. I've seen machines having a blue screen. I've seen machines block, but it is usually a problem related to the lack of resources. I wouldn't deploy it on a machine with less than 16 gigs of memory. All the issues that we had on the laptops were essentially related to memory because it does all the analysis in memory, and it eats a lot of memory to do that. So, stability is more a function of making sure that your endpoint farm has what's available. If you've got less than 16 gigs, I would not recommend it. You need to either change your endpoints or consider using another solution because although it'll work, it can be very slow.

It is like Microsoft Office. Its scalability is good, but I don't know how manageable it would be on a big scale. The biggest deployment I've worked on was about 5,000 endpoints, and it seemed to be okay.

It is Microsoft support. It can be very good, and it can be very bad. It depends on who you get on the phone. I would rate them a five out of ten.

Neutral

It is very simple. You can deploy it through the normal tools that you use, such as SCCM. The deployment for it is linked back to your tenant. 

We use it as a headless install. It is pushed out onto all the machines. Our normal rollout process rolls out about 50 to 100 machines in no time. They can pull the agents from the internet, or they can pull the agents internally, deploy them, and turn them on. For an antivirus, it is quite quick.

In terms of maintenance, it is pretty much like other Microsoft solutions. If you are able to do the auto-update functions, that's good. The downside to it is that it is fairly heavy on network traffic. On one of the large deployments, we found we had problems with the internet gateway because the console and all the telemetry and everything else is in the cloud. It was problematic.

It runs in the background. It is like any other antivirus solution. Sometimes, it needs tuning. An example would be that we have developers who do a lot of source code compiling. They might have tens of thousands of files that get touched or accessed when they do a compile. We have to make sure that those particular file types and certain directories are not scanned on read when they're opened. Otherwise, what normally might take an hour to compile can take more than 12 hours. That's not a problem specific to Defender. It is a problem in general, but it is fairly easy to create profiles to say that for those particular groups of machines or those particular groups of users, these file directories are exceptions to the scanning.

The licensing fee is a function of your Office 365 license. The feature set you get is a function of the license as well. There is probably an E2 version, an E3 version, and an E5 version. There are several versions, and not all features are the same. So, you might want to check what features you're expecting because you might get shocked. If you only have an E3 license, the capability isn't the same.

You have to look at the total cost of ownership (TCO) because the license component is only one aspect of the block. So, if your internal IT teams know well about IBM cloud solutions, then Defender is very easy because there is nothing new. What hurts the projects is integration. It is a hidden cost because it is beyond licensing. It can be problematic if you don't have some of the other integration tools from Microsoft. So, if you don't have the package deployment platforms and all the cloud equivalents, then there is a lot of manual work involved.

The other aspect that comes into the cost is that there is an option to store. You can make the agents report a lot more information, but if you increase the storage, then you increase your Azure storage costs, which can be painfully expensive. You typically have about 7 to 30 days of basic detection data included, but if you want to keep a more detailed log so that your IT guys can go back and figure out what was going on, it would increase your storage requirements, and that can get expensive. I know customers who turned on some of the features to increase the detection rate, and they got a huge bill from Microsoft.

A weakness, as well as an advantage, of Defender is that it is always on the cloud. There is no on-prem. You deploy additional agents into the customer infrastructure, but the console and the feedback are through the cloud.

Customers often say that Microsoft has included it in their license. So, it is license-cost neutral, but just because it is included in the license and appears to be cheap, it isn't necessarily a good reason for doing it. It isn't equivalent to other EDR or XDR solutions, but to an extent, you get what you pay for. ATP is a work in progress. To me, it is not a complete product.

Customers also go for it because it gives them visibility, and it means it is one less system to manage. They have the license for it, and they just want everything in the same ecosystem. There isn't much that we can do about that. As an MSSP, we're agnostic from a technology point of view. If the customer says, "This is what we want to do," we'll take it over.

I would advise asking yourself:

• What do your endpoints consist of?
• Which operating systems, such as Windows, Linux, iOS, or Android, will you have to support? The functionality that you get depends on your license.
• What is it that you're trying to achieve by taking Defender? 
• Are there more capable XDR-type solutions out there? 

If I was comparing them, from most effective to least effective or least integrated, I would put SentinelOne, Palo Alto Cortex, Cybereason, Microsoft Defender, and Cisco AMP.

If you want to get into the advantages of XDR solutions, which is about the detection capability coupled with artificial intelligence (AI) and data leaking, then it may not be the solution that you want. If you also want to be able to do threat intelligence, it is not the solution for you. That's because essentially the threat intelligence features are not there. You can get some threat intelligence from Azure, Microsoft Sentinel, etc, but it is not in the product like with Palo Alto Cortex, SentinelOne, or Cybereason.

I'd give it a cautious six out of ten.

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.

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.

It is a comprehensive monitoring solution for all user activities and their associated details within our tenant. All data flows seamlessly through Sentinel, streamlining the process and ensuring thorough oversight of our environment.

It enhances our security posture. It seamlessly integrates with all our systems, particularly across our Microsoft infrastructure. It offers insights into threats, furnishing information about potential security risks within our environment. It effectively sets up alerts to notify us of any suspicious or unusual activities. The prioritization of threats holds significant importance. It concentrates on the most crucial threats rather than overwhelming us with all potential risks. It excels at organizing and highlighting those critical threats, providing a level of efficiency beyond what I've observed elsewhere. It has proven to be a cost-effective solution, saving both time and money, as the adage goes—time is money. Specifically, it has significantly reduced our time to detect and respond to incidents. Its real-time threat detection and blocking capabilities contribute to these improvements.

The most valuable aspect lies in its automation capabilities, particularly within security automation. It contributes to more efficient time management for us and it provides an efficient way to keep track of user actions and maintain a secure and well-monitored system.

In terms of improvements for their technical support, a focus on enhancing response times could be beneficial.

I have been using it for approximately five years.

The stability is excellent and I've never encountered any issues; it has consistently performed well.

The scalability is impressive, especially since we use it in the cloud. It works seamlessly without any issues.

Microsoft's technical support is commendable. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.