Microsoft Defender XDR Reviews

It is, of course, an antivirus tool. I work as a lead for a SOC team, and it's our job to monitor all the endpoints in our organization. We are looking for any unusual activity happening on the devices, and Defender monitors them.

If there are any changes or unusual activities, it triggers an alert. An analyst will pick up the alert from the Microsoft 365 Defender and go through the timeline to understand what triggered that alert and whether to categorize it as a security incident or not. Some of them turn out to be false positives, and some turn out to be true positives.

We use it for other tasks like IOC management. In the cyber world, different applications have different vulnerabilities. If an application is used in our organization, we make sure all the IOCs, whether hash values, malicious IP addresses, or malicious domains, are blocked in the Microsoft 365 Defender.

It has given us a very wide range of visibility over the endpoints and it's easy to manage. If I see a threat or an attack pattern emerging from a certain location, I can easily isolate those endpoints at a very quick pace. That has pretty significantly improved our proactive measures when it comes to security in the last three years.

Apart from that, it gives us an overall picture, and not just of the endpoints. It has identity and access management and an email security module as well. If there is anything related to phishing or spam emails, we can analyze that in the same portal. We don't have to rely on multiple portals. It's just a single pane of glass where everything is visible. It gives us a clear picture and our visibility has increased a lot.

Another thing I like about Defender is that if a threat is detected, it starts the investigation by itself, by running the scans on itself, trying to isolate the device, and determining which IP addresses or websites it is connecting to. It gives us a detailed picture. All we have to do is make sure all these are blocked. But the initial triage and investigation are pretty much done by Defender itself. That is one of the significant areas of improvement for us, which I definitely like about this product. Automation is one of the key features in Defender, which saves us a lot of time. Sometimes, we don't need manual intervention. It does its job automatically.

If an analyst would take 40 to 45 minutes just to understand what was going on with respect to the alerts that were coming in with the product we were using previously, 365 Defender has reduced that time by half, by 20 to 25 minutes. That is a pretty good improvement. When you're working in a cyber security environment, you need to be very quick to respond because, in a matter of minutes, you'll be firefighting. And that's not what you want.

Among the most valuable features are the alert timeline, the alert story, which is pretty detailed. It gives us complete insight into what exactly happened on the endpoint. It doesn't just say, "Malware detected." It tells us what caused that malware to be detected and how it was detected. It gives us a complete timeline from beginning to end. It gives us a pretty detailed overview of the timeline of the attack.

Another benefit is that Defender absolutely stops lateral movement or advanced attacks like ransomware. The MITRE ATT&CK framework is pre-integrated, and all the use cases or categories that have been defined in Microsoft Defender are based on that framework. Lateral movement is part of that. There are multiple cases of lateral movement available in Defender, and ransomware, of course, is one of them.

We also have threat analytics in the solution. If there is a zero-day attack, it gives us the information. As of now, we haven't seen any impact on our devices. If there is any impact, it shows us, and we can take action accordingly. Those aspects work pretty well.

The only problem I find is that the use cases are built-in. There is no template available that you can modify according to your organization's standards. What they give is very generic, the market standard, but that might not be applicable to every organization. For example, an organization might look into an alert in a different way, not in the way Microsoft provides. There is no way to modify a template according to your needs, and that is something that I really don't like.

Those kinds of alerts are generating too many false positives for us, creating additional overhead. For example, part of the identity and access management is called "impossible travel activity." It generates false positives for us but there is no way I can modify the rule they have given that causes alerts. I cannot use that template or create a new one using that template, which I then modify to fit my organization's standards.

When we raised the issue with Microsoft, they said, "It's a product feature. What you are requesting is a product enhancement. We can take your request, but we are not sure when it's going to happen."

I have been using Microsoft 365 Defender for almost three years.

I have not observed even one time that the tool has lagged or crashed.

It is pretty scalable and user-friendly. There are no issues with the scalability.

We have raised a few tickets for cases we needed assistance with. Their support is good. The response is good. Sometimes, the challenge is that an issue might be a high priority for us, but they might not consider it a high priority based on their understanding. Their severity levels vary compared to ours. That's fair, of course. It's not something I am complaining about. Overall, the response from their support is always positive.

Positive

We were using McAfee ePO, but we have completely stopped using it now that we have 365 Defender. Discontinuing McAfee has definitely reduced manual correlation. Most things are automated in the Defender portal, so if a high-severity alert comes in, an automated investigation is triggered. That is one of the key features.

Irrespective of whether your organization is a mid-sized company or a big company, Defender is pretty scalable and very easy to use. As a cloud solution, you don't have to worry about it crashing. The alert timeline is pretty detailed. It catches most of the threats out there. You don't have to worry too much if there is a new threat because Microsoft makes sure that it is already addressed by Defender. If something comes up, it will sound an alert.

If you are looking for a nice antivirus product that doesn't take up many of your endpoint resources—compared to other antivirus software on the market, some of which take huge resources from your machine—it comes built-in with Microsoft. You don't have to install anything.

It's a cloud deployment, so I don't think there is any maintenance required from our end, unless there is a policy change requested at the organization level.

The platform provides unified identity and access management. When I started using it three years ago, that was a separate product. It was under Azure Cloud App Security. Now, they have integrated into Microsoft 365 Defender. We can see identity and access management-related alerts in Defender. Identity protection is something we have not explored that much. Our main focus lies on the endpoint.

Still, it's good to have it in Defender itself because it comes as a complete package. Just because we are not actively using it doesn't mean it's bad. It gives us detailed information, but we are working on the endpoints, focused on the device side. But if a brute-force attack is happening, it comes from a specific device. We don't have to rely on multiple portals to get that information. Everything is available in a single window, because we have that user information. You also see user access to devices and check if there are any malware-related alerts on that device. And that information is in the same portal. Integrating identity and access management in the same portal is a pretty good feature rather than having a separate feature altogether.

The main use case has been for threat hunting, not in the sense of actively looking for the threat, but in terms of analyzing the ongoing process within clients' machines. I was looking into what kind of changes happen when you install any new software and it asks for so many permissions. I wanted to analyze the criticality of the permissions being asked and so on. Usually, when we install any software, we just click next, next, and next. We don't look at the details. So, my role was to check how it behaves within a system. For that reason, I used Microsoft Defender. 

I used the query language to do advanced threat hunting. I ran different queries to collect the data. The data was then brought into Power BI. We had data coming from different channels. So, we used Power BI to collect it at a single point.

My usage of it was on a very small scale. I am not aware of its overall impact on the organization, but it did help us a lot to know and achieve what we wanted to achieve. Without Microsoft 365 Defender, the detection for our use case would have been impossible.

It provided more visibility into threats, and it came with some of the default functions from Microsoft, which was an advantage. They had already defined different tables in advanced threat hunting, which was very helpful. I am not aware of other vendors providing that.

Its threat intelligence helped to prepare for potential threats before they hit and to take proactive steps. That was my target for that project. We were actively looking for vulnerabilities inside the software, and we wanted to detect the software supply chain aspect. That was a difficult task, but we wanted to be ahead before any attack happened. That's why we were using Microsoft 365 Defender.

It saved time. They had already defined different tables to identify different artifacts within the system, which saved about 50% of our time.

Within advanced threat hunting, the tables that have already been defined by Microsoft are helpful. In the advanced threat hunting tab, there were different tables, and one of the tables was related to device info, device alert, and device events. That was very helpful. Another feature that I liked but didn't have access to was deep analysis.

I liked its portal a lot. I am currently using a different vendor, and there is a big difference between them. Microsoft had a very good portal, and its user interface was good. Irrespective of where I was, with a click, I could see comprehensive details about something on the right side. The related information was always on the right side. So, I didn't have to jump over different tabs and functionalities. The information was always there on the right side, which is something I liked in Microsoft 365 Defender portal.

The documentation on their website is somewhat outdated and doesn't show properly. I wanted to try a query in Microsoft Defender 365. When I opened the related documentation from the security blog on the Microsoft website, the figures were not showing. It was difficult to understand the article without having the figures. The figures were there in the article, but they were not getting loaded, which made the article obsolete. They should refresh all their articles and see that the steps and figures aren't missing. They can also provide more documentation.

I used it just for four months in a previous company.

I never had any problems with it. It was always stable.

It's scalable. You can query each and every machine in the company.

I was working for a client, and that client had more than 50,000 people.

I never contacted them directly, but based on what I heard during the meetings, they seemed to be quite helpful and good.

I didn't use any other similar solution before Microsoft 365 Defender. That was the first time I used Microsoft 365 Defender. That was my first experience. Now, I'm using a different product, and I can see that Microsoft 365 Defender was much better than the current product.

Microsoft 365 Defender is very good for analyzing something. There are multiple types of data and multiple ways to utilize that data. With a single click, you can have all the related data for a particular topic. That's really good, and that is what I'm missing in the current product.

I did not use Microsoft Defender for Cloud, but I saw the cloud part for monitoring cloud applications. It was nice, and it had some added functionalities. For example, application risk scoring was very good. It shows what data has been considered to give a particular risk score, which is useful for a new learner like me. It was helpful to know the criteria for scoring. They also included so many applications. There were more than 24,000 cloud applications inside their catalog. That's a really good catalog.

To a security colleague who says it’s better to go with a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor’s security suite, I would agree that multiple vendors are better than a single vendor because every vendor has different capabilities. It's always better to use the best products from different vendors than to use all the products from the same vendor.

I would rate Microsoft 365 Defender a nine out of ten. 

Defender XDR is a solution that protects your enterprise systems and devices.

Defender XDR has helped a lot in terms of capturing all kinds of activities happening on the endpoints where it is. If you want to know what happened at a point in time, you can go to the history and search everything. This helps you investigate exactly what happened if you have a security breach. It doesn't take much time, but I don't have anything to compare it to because Defender is the only XDR we've used. 

Defender XDR has a feature called the timeline that lets you track all activities. It helps a lot with investigations. Microsoft has many identity management features and products that complement each other.

It covers the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of non-Microsoft solutions, but it will not help you to do the remediation. You need another third-party tool to do the remediation. 

Defender protects against advanced attacks like ransomware or email phishing. The protection Defender provides is excellent. It's a great product for preventing attacks and reducing risks for organizations. 

There are a few technical issues with Defender XDR that can be improved. Sometimes, the endpoint devices are not reporting properly to the Defender 365 portal. When you're getting all the information from the Microsoft portal, the devices are sometimes not in sync. We have hundreds of endpoint devices, some needing to be onboarded again. 

I have used Defender XDR for three years.

I rate Microsoft support nine out of ten. It's excellent. 

Positive

We did a POC for a McAfee product. There weren't many differences, but Microsoft Defender was included with our E5 license. The major difference is that we saved money by not purchasing another product. 

Defender XDR is a cloud-based solution. You can access it and see all the information you need inside the Microsoft portal. 

Defender XDR is not expensive. It's average compared to other products. 

I can get Defender bundled with the E5 package. We had considered replacing it, but after evaluating some competing products, we decided there was no significant difference between the third-party products and Defender. 

I rate Microsoft Defender XDR eight out of ten. I think there is room for improvement in terms of its coverage of non-Microsoft technologies. 

We are yet to use Microsoft Defender XDR for ourselves as we are yet to procure the product.

Vulnerability assessment and just-in-time access are some valuable features of Defender for server plans. Additionally, the threat detection at the OS level is a very good feature of Defender.

Microsoft could improve on threat hunting and build more on threat detection and handling. The cybersecurity and cloud security posture features are a bit lesser than standard security products.

We have not yet used Microsoft Defender XDR as we are yet to procure the product.

I was working with CrowdStrike before Microsoft Defender XDR. CrowdStrike has advantages in terms of threat hunting.

We are doing it for the first time, so I have nothing to compare in terms of ROI.

The pricing is a little high, however, it is on par with other competitive tools in the market.

I have not evaluated other XDR solutions besides CrowdStrike.

I would recommend Microsoft Defender XDR to others as long as they are aligned with Microsoft products, cloud, or on-prem, especially if they are using Microsoft Windows architecture. I would rate Microsoft Defender XDR six out of ten overall.

The product replaced Sophos, a third-party product we used, helping us save money equal to its yearly subscription. The product saves us time. We do not have to interfere. It just keeps running.

Considering we haven't encountered any technical problems since we started using it. It is working as intended. It has great stability.

I don't know if that is Defender's feature, but more active monitoring for data breaches would be beneficial. There could be a way to proactively monitor unusual activity versus just depending on viruses and malware. If the traffic seems unusual, it could detect anomalies and update us. It would help us stop malware attacks ahead of time.

I have been using Microsoft Defender XDR since 2015.

We never encountered stability issues.

Whenever we add a license, it automatically sets the account for a new user.

The initial setup process was fine and similar to Office 365. We had to get our email server lifted externally from the premises to the cloud. It is easy to use once all applications are deployed.

Microsoft Defender XDR is already included in our Office 365 licensing. It is better because we're saving money by using it.

The product was included with the Office 365 licensing that we had. So, we decided to try it out. Before that, we were using Sophos.

I haven't run into that particular instance where the security features have extended beyond Microsoft technologies. The only products we use outside of Microsoft are proprietary lockdown applications, and it's not really an issue there.

During staff training, we've been using Intune to detect phishing attempts. It hasn't detected anything in that aspect. However, it has the ability to check for malicious attacks preemptively.

I rate it a ten out of ten.

We primarily use it for endpoint security. Specifically, it serves as our solution for antivirus detection, malware detection, and related aspects focused on safeguarding individual devices. 

Its single-pane interface is a time-saving feature, as it eliminates the need to check different locations which is excellent for efficiency. It allows us to phase out the use of other security products. For example, we previously ran Sophos on-premises. However, upon transitioning to Microsoft 365 and leveraging the included Defender, we discontinued the use of Sophos. This shift not only streamlined our security approach with a unified solution but also contributed to cost savings, as everything is encompassed within the same license—a concept that aligns with the efficiency of a single-pane interface.

The most valuable aspect is that it comes included with the licensing, which is excellent. It provides a single pane of glass within the 365 admin interface, streamlining our experience by consolidating information in one place and eliminating the need to navigate through multiple interfaces.

It would be highly beneficial if CoPilot could identify anomalies within the network and notify the IT team. For instance, if a user typically accesses around a hundred megabytes of data daily from familiar files and locations but suddenly diverges to an uncommon destination, uploading ten gigabytes of data to an unfamiliar website, that would be a significant anomaly. Pausing such activity and alerting the IT team for a human assessment would be a valuable feature to ensure security.

I have been working with it for three years.

No stability issues noted, and there haven't been any concerns regarding false positives. Overall, the experience has been positive.

Scalability is straightforward; no issues are encountered. We predominantly use Windows 10, and so far, I haven't observed any issues. Some of us have transitioned to Windows 11, and it appears to function well.

We haven't contacted their tech support, which I consider a positive indicator.

In terms of ROI, our expectation is to gain a comprehensive analytical perspective by upgrading to E5, activating Sentinel, and deploying other products like Entra. This move aims to provide a more extensive understanding of user activities, login details, and other relevant metrics. Currently on a three-year Microsoft term set to end on April 1st, we've inquired with our vendor about transitioning from E3 to E5 immediately.

In our security solution evaluation, we considered Trend Micro and Sophos, focusing more on Sophos due to its cloud version. However, challenges in patching the on-premises Sophos led us to choose Microsoft Defender. The simplicity, inclusion in our package and regular patching made Defender more attractive. Additionally, our decision was influenced by community adoption, as no other law enforcement agencies in Canada were using Trend Micro. Defender's seamless integration and zero additional cost aligned with our strategy of opting for solutions without extra expenses.

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We implemented Defender two and a half years ago, utilizing it in a passive mode with only the sensor active for data collection and basic EDR results. Although it has been running on all devices, we are currently in the process of making the final transition from the existing setup to fully leverage Defender as our EDR solution.

We utilize analytics on both iOS and Android platforms, and it holds significant importance for us. Compliance with mandates, often stemming from executive orders, requires meeting specific contract requirements. In response, we employ analytics to implement and maintain controls consistently across various device types. The capability to adapt to emerging threats is of utmost importance to us. We lack the time and resources to constantly learn about new indicators and threat actors. We expect that the threat intelligence from Microsoft and other providers seamlessly integrates into the system, enabling automatic updates based on the current global threat landscape. The unified single pane of glass is a significant benefit. It consolidates everything into one interface, eliminating the need to navigate through multiple portals for information.

The greatest value lies in integration, I believe. The ability to integrate and observe a more cohesive narrative across the products is crucial.

There are still some components, such as vulnerability management within the vendor product, where improved integration would be beneficial. Currently, it's not visible in the same interface, requiring us to search elsewhere to access that information. While it has streamlined data collection and retrieval, there's still room for improvement in terms of user-friendliness for certain individuals. While the ultimate goal is to enhance security, there's room for improvement in terms of pricing.

We are currently in the migration process from Sophos to Microsoft Defender.

It offers high stability.

The backend infrastructure and structure in place seem to be easily scalable to meet our requirements.

Customer service and technical support vary. Opening support cases for different components within the security stack or Microsoft entity often reveals that first-level support is lacking. It typically takes two or three weeks to get an escalation, and by then, the issue may have resolved itself. Escalations are challenging, as first-level support struggles to comprehend the problem, leading to repetitive discussions. I would rate it four out of ten.

Neutral

We transitioned from Sophos to Microsoft Defender primarily due to cost reduction and the elimination of duplicated technologies.

The initial setup used to be complex, but now it's much more streamlined.

We follow a phased approach for deployment, beginning with a proof of concept pilot. However, our main deployment cycle revolves around Defender, facilitated via Intune, where all devices are managed. Building the package and incorporating scripts into Intune is the key process for the sequential implementation, which has evolved over time. Maintenance involves keeping pace with changes, not just patching. Microsoft has significantly improved patch cycle management, but dealing with the constant stream of changes they introduce remains a challenge.

It proved to be effective in cost savings. Our return on investment is tied to the existing investment in the current SKU. We anticipate not only recouping the dollars spent but also gaining the advantage of a unified interface, a single pane of glass. This consolidation allows us to streamline our operations, saving valuable time and effectively reclaiming productivity that would otherwise be spent navigating between different platforms on a daily basis.

When seeking a security suite, even with an E5 enterprise license, additional purchases are still necessary. The license cost for a year is approximately forty-four thousand, and this annual saving is a significant factor in our decision to switch.

In the past, we explored alternatives such as Carbon Black and Cylance, particularly for their machine learning and AI components, which were quite innovative at that time, approximately three years ago. However, our approach has evolved, and we've shifted significantly towards the Microsoft Stack. The decision is influenced by our existing environment, where we can readily assess the capabilities available within Microsoft.

The critical aspect is comprehending your existing setup. During our migration, we opt for a like-for-like transition instead of going for something entirely new, as the latter could be disruptive to some processes. Defender offers extensive capabilities, but understanding where to begin is crucial to avoiding disruption. Start with a like-for-like migration and plan the subsequent ramp-up to align with its capabilities. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

I'm a deployment engineer for Microsoft products, and we work with multiple SMEs. Customers adopting Microsoft products want the same features they had in their third-party solutions. We look at their requirements and the types of features they need. We determine the security mechanism that best addresses their vulnerabilities. We might suggest Defender for Identity,  Defender for Endpoint, 365 Defender, and Defender for Cloud Apps. In addition to those security solutions, we offer device management. We provide everything.

Defender improves our security operations. I've had chances to collaborate with our SOC team. Our customers face many random attacks they don't know how to prevent, and the SOC team handles them remotely. The security engineers can investigate the incident or use the information from the customer's environment to offer a recommendation. If the customer doesn't have the detection mechanism, we can recommend a product or find a solution for them. 

The solution can help customers save money because we can bundle it with all the other Microsoft solutions, like email and Defender for endpoint, identity, and cloud apps. Most of our customers use Windows 10 devices and Microsoft Active Directory, so everything is on the same page. Defender can save time by automating investigation and response. We don't need to spend much time because it'll automatically take action in many cases. 

The best feature is threat hunting. There are a lot of other features I like, such as the alert mechanism. The chain alert mechanism has a huge impact. It combines all the alerts into one incident and automatically correlates them with AI. 

Defender has integrated identity access management, and you can add DLP features through a separate solution called Microsoft Purview. Within the cloud, we can create access policies based on each user's risk. It's integrated with Azure AD and on-prem Active Directory, so all the user identities can be managed in a single portal.

We use the multi-tenant management capability, so we can cover customers that have multiple regions. We can easily investigate across tenants based on severity. For high-priority alerts, we start from scratch and ignore what's happening on the endpoints or emails. We isolate the device and ensure that nothing will be released from it. Next, we check this device and some more details.

There is no common area where we can manage all the policies for the EDR, third-party solutions, devices, servers, Windows, Mac, etc., but it's on the roadmap, and we were waiting for that feature. 

I have used 365 Defender for about four years.

365 Defender is stable. There is no downtime. Still, Microsoft is constantly rolling out features, so there are sometimes bugs after new releases. Our customer experience team is collaborating with Microsoft and sharing feedback with them. 

365 Defender is scalable 

I rate Microsoft support nine out of 10. The support depends on the product and the customer's issues. 

Positive

I work with customers coming to Microsoft from other third-party products, so I try to understand what the product does and suggest a solution. The names are different, but all the technology is the same.

Deploying Microsoft Defender isn't complex if you have experience. The deployment depends on the number of users, apps, and the client's requirements. If the client wants to implement XDR, it takes about a month to achieve full functionality.  Endpoint protection takes around five to ten days. It's a cloud product, so it doesn't require any maintenance. 

Defender XDR is agentless, so you don't need to install an agent anywhere. It's a cost-effective option.

I rate Microsoft 365 Defender nine out of 10. We recommend it to our customers.