Microsoft Defender for Cloud Reviews

We use Microsoft Defender for Cloud as one of the sources for our Azure environment. We have a managed detection response solution, and we add data sources to it, like SOC, SIEM, and SOAR solutions. We also want to have data in our Azure cloud environment.

We deploy this solution in multiple regions like Europe and Oceania.

We have multiple solutions like our data analytics platform and our system development platform. Our web shops use it. Almost everything is in the cloud.

We have approximately 2,000 end users.

The solution is deployed on the Microsoft Azure cloud.

The solution helps our teams to be more aware of security and protects our environment.

Most importantly, it's an integrated solution. We also use Defender for Endpoint. For Office 365, we use Defender for Identity. 

We have integrated some of these products into our MDR solution. It's not a Microsoft Sentinel SOC, but we have a SOC/SIEM from a third party.

It's really easy to integrate because it's just an interface, a Microsoft Graph security API. We can collect all the data and forward it to our solution.

This solution is for detection and response, so it helps us prepare for potential threats. We have special teams for threat hunting the data.

We use this solution for extra security in our environment. We secured our Azure cloud environment with firewalls and application gateways, but we also want to have trust in our resource groups. That's an extra line of defense for our security.

We don't use the interface a lot because we use it as a data source for our MDR solution. The MDR solution is our main interface.

These solutions work natively together because we don't just use Microsoft products as a data source. We use all kinds of security products as data sources, like our firewalls, gateways, and event collections from Windows and Unix.

Threat protection is comprehensive and simple. We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft itself, but we also have CSP contracts with several parties, so we can easily get the licenses we need. It's very easy to install.

Sometimes it's very difficult to determine when I need Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a special resource group or a special kind of product.

In Defender for Endpoint, the software is capable of acting immediately if something occurs. If an attacker wants to encrypt the disc, for instance, we're able to react immediately. I don't know if Defender for Cloud has the same capabilities.

I have used this solution for about a year and a half.

At the moment, I think it's a very stable solution. We haven't had any problems with it.

It's scalable.

From Microsoft's perspective, it's fine. We don't have any issues at the moment.

I would rate technical support an eight out of ten. 

The initial setup is straightforward. It took 10 seconds.

We have a Cloud Security Provider, so I don't know how much time they spent on deployment.

The solution hasn't required any maintenance yet. We are trying to innovate each solution. It's an ongoing business process to innovate.

We haven't seen ROI yet, but we plan to. The first sign is safety first. Safety will cost money, so it shouldn't be too much.

Pricing is difficult because each license has its own metrics and cost.

We evaluated other options. We have a lot of other products like McAfee, but we are changing everything to Microsoft Defender.

We decided to switch because we want to have an overall standard that's enterprise-wide so that everything is easier to manage and the data it delivers is all the same. We wanted to have one view of everything.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten because we don't use all of the capabilities yet. At the moment, we still only use the data sources. I'm happy with it so far.

Instead of a single vendor security suite, I like having at least two so that they can challenge each other.

Microsoft Defender helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise, but we only prioritize our high-risk resources with Defender products.

It's difficult to say if the solution saved us time because we use it for our Azure cloud environment, so we're working in the cloud.

At the moment, we're not saving money. The solution costs our company money. It's like having insurance: It doesn't save costs, but it might save us costs if something happens. It's about risk.

It hasn't decreased our time to detect and respond yet, but it should be because we have our data source on Endpoint and in the cloud. It's an integrated solution. When we find something anywhere, we can act everywhere. We have more possibilities.

Defender for Cloud is a unified platform. Within that, you have Defender for virtual machines, Defender for Servers, Defender for App Services, and Defender for Containers. It is a centralized solution, which you can leverage to bring your security practices in place so centralized security auditing can be done. 

You can use it for approximately 90% to 95% of Azure workloads for infrastructure, platform as a service, or database as a service. You can use it for all these.

I am working for a service-based company. We provide Azure Cloud Services. We are a Gold-Certified partner from Microsoft in the GCC region. We are the only ones for whom Microsoft hands over their business. 

We mostly use it for public cloud, but it can also be used with hybrid cloud and on-premises. We also use private clouds with government entities.

We have had many customers where we deployed this solution. They are secured and guarded by this solution, so they are happy now.

It can be done as a multi-regional deployment.

It can be used to secure GCP, AWS, and your on-premise infrastructure. You need a security solution like Defender to secure any type of workload. Your workload may consist of infrastructure, platform, database, or anything in between those. Obviously, you want it to be secure from day one. When you start from anything on the cloud, you want it secured right away. If it is not secured, then you are at risk of a data breach. There are many security issues, which is why it is important to secure your application infrastructure from day one. This is 100% important.

Most customers have an on-premises ITSM solution. If they want P1 or P2 tickets to be initiated, then within Defender for Cloud, it will trigger the ticket or invoke the ITSM solution. Also, they can use SMS- or email-based ticketing. If they don't have anything, then they can utilize the dashboard provided by Defender for Cloud and get everything from one place.

If you don't have this solution then you will be analyzing things with some sort of algorithm or writing some code, then your team will be monitoring emails or some kind of logs every day. When you have commissioned Defender, you have these things visible already on your dashboard. This gives the efficiency to the people to do their actual work rather than bothering about the email, sorting out the email, or looking at it through an ITSM solution, whey they have to look at the description and use cases. Efficiency increases with this optimized, ready-made solution since you don't need to invest in something externally. You can start using the dashboard and auditing capability provided from day one. Thus, you have fewer costs with a more optimized, easier-to-use solution, providing operational efficiency for your team.

Within a SOC team, you monitor tickets and emails, but you cannot automate them unless your company bought some solutions. In the case of Defender, a solution is already provided. You just need to extend it per your needs.

All of the features are valuable. When you are designing a solution, you are designing not only the infrastructure but designing the application solution and database. On top of that, you are designing the connectivity solution. Defender takes care of all kinds of security, starting from infrastructure to platform to database. All of them are useful, depending on the workload of different clients. 

I work at a service-based company. We use this for almost all our customers. Usually, it will be on your infrastructure, which is a virtual machine and needs an antivirus solution. Then, if you have a platform as a service, you would need OWASP 10 security. All of these are given.

When you commission Defender for Cloud, it provides a portal. The portal has auditing and tracing capabilities. If you want to secure your virtual machines, then you can enable the RDP port by default, if you don't have a security solution. Now, when you are using Defender for Cloud, you can access the machine on an ad-hoc basis through Defender for Server, where you are securing your application. Then, even if someone gets into your account, they still cannot enable RDP. 

The portal provides you with auditing and logging capabilities. Along with that, there is a machine learning algorithm. You can even have your own workbook, where you can write in Python, then you can bring it into Defender for Cloud where you can do the injection, verification, and blocking of IPs. 

It offers a ready-made solution. In addition, you can enable a customized workbook, which will secure your application. Therefore, you are provided a portal, customer facility, and in-built security from day one and can start using it.

Microsoft works day in, and day out to look for new vulnerabilities happening in the market, which cannot be resolved with human intervention. Every day, they keep searching for vulnerability signatures in the market, then adding those. They automatically get built into Defender for Cloud. For example, there are some vulnerabilities that have been going around. If you are on-premises, then you need to download the signatures out there, then your antivirus software should be capable enough to identify them. With the Microsoft platform, the signature is already provided from Microsoft, i.e., Datastore. This is by default enabled as soon as Microsoft figures it out. This is the first thing that it provides.

The solution could extend its capabilities to other cloud providers. Right now, if you want to monitor a virtual machine on another cloud, you can do that. However, this cannot be done with other cloud platform services. I hope once that is available then Defender for Cloud will be a unified solution for all cloud platform services.

I have been using it for more than three years.

The maintenance part is taken care of by Microsoft. The platform's responsibility lies with Microsoft, not with the customer.

Stability-wise, it is stable.

it can be extended to multiple regions as well as to on-premises.

When upgrading the solution, by default, no technical support is required. If it is required, it will then depend on your SLA, i.e., what kind of agreement you have. You may have an eContract, CSP, open agreement, or a normal one by default. Microsoft uses that SLA to deliver the solution at a particular time. 

I would rate the technical support as 6.5 out of 10. In general, you don't need to reach out to Microsoft's support.

Neutral

Before Defender for Cloud, the solution was on-premises or some kind of third-party managed solution that we bought from the Azure portal. This integration had issues because you needed to go through the VPN tunnel, look for your solution, raise a ticket, and then have your teams look at the logs and ticket. If you had some networking issues or a major security issue, your ticket would not be raised.

There have been a couple of customers who start on their own with their own tenants. Then, at a certain time, they figure out that something wrong has happened, e.g., a hacking issue or a security breach. They then come to us through Microsoft because their security appliances and security practices are not proper, asking us, "Can you please help us to secure them?" 

The first step is to start securing their virtual machine. So, you enable Defender for Cloud. From the first instance, all their workloads are automatically added and enabled by default. So, if a customer is not secured enough when they go for Defender for Cloud, then it will automatically enable all kinds of security practices for them. Anyone can enable it. You can have Defender as the front face security for your cloud. Because of this, all our clients are secure.

This is a cloud service. It is provided as a platform as a service. So, it is not infrastructure or something which you deploy. No configuration is required by default.

Azure Sentinel is a SIEM solution. Within the SIEM solution, you get logs. On top of that, you receive some kind of tracing. You then have your runbook. So, the integration is very easy. It is just click, click, and click. You can integrate it within five seconds. Azure Sentinel also takes care of Defender. This means that when you go into Azure Sentinel, you say, "I want Azure Sentinel to have whatever logs you have in Defender." Whatever workload is secure, you want to have the auditing part of that in Azure Sentinel, then you want to trigger or invoke something. Therefore, it just takes five to 10 seconds with three clicks, then it is enabled for you.

The external integration component has been provided. You have a ready-made appliance where you download the appliance and install it onto that particular machine, then it will start monitoring your virtual machine. This is easier on the Azure side to integrate. With on-premises, you need to download something called Agent. You download and execute that, then everything is connected. You just provide the security token already shown on your portal, then you integrate.

We have seen a 50% reduction in costs.

It is a ready-made solution that you just start using from the day one until whenever you want to use it, paying as you go. Or, you can do either a one-year or three-year RI.

Pricing depends on your workload size, but it is very cheap. If you're talking about virtual machines, it is $5 or something for each machine, which is minimal. If you go for some agent-based solution for every virtual machine, then you need to pay the same thing or more than that. For an on-premises solution like this, we were paying around $30 to $50 based on size. With Defender, Microsoft doesn't bother about the size. You pay based on the number of machines. So, if you have 10 virtual machines, and 10 virtual machines are being monitored, you are paying based on that rather than the size of the virtual machine. Thus, you are paying for the number of units rather than paying for the size of your units.

In case you want your own signatures in-built, you have the workbook where you can enable it to couple with your Defender solution. It will start analyzing your specific algorithm or signature. If there is data specific to your organization or your developer knows something that no one else knows, and you want to restrict that. So, you have a free hand to customize it and a standard way is already provided. Every day, you will get a security update by default. You don't need to bother doing it manually. This has already been given to you free of cost. There are no costs other than the Microsoft workload itself.

If you have the solution with Microsoft Azure, then you will not need to look at other products. For on-premises, we were also using F5.

When you are designing the solution, you should activate the solution from day one.

I would rate this solution as 8.5 out of 10.

We use the solution internally.

Azure Security Center works with Azure Defender. Azure Defender is used for identifying the vulnerabilities and loopholes inside our system that we can deploy on multiple layers either from the subscription level, the source level, or on the devices. You can connect multiple devices to this. That's not specific to only servers. You can connect with ER80 as well as SQL servers. Most of the services are covered within the Microsoft Defender.

We find two things inside the Azure Security Center to be quite valuable. One is the recommendations, and the second is the regulatory compliance. Both help to keep everything running smoothly. This will give you the security score as well. You can try to get the highest security score, which is 100%. You can get there just from the recommendations from Microsoft. Not all the recommendations will be applicable on the enrollment side.

Regulatory compliance is PCI compliance. There are multiple compliance options you can follow.

Azure Defender helps improve our security posture. You enable it for each and every server. It is a monthly-based subscription and about $15 per month per server. You can see right on there that the vulnerability is automatically run with the help of a Messages scanner. Messages is running behind Azure Defender. It automatically runs and scans, and that will show up on your portal. You do have to take any necessary steps to run recommendations. Either you can see if any energy port is open, for example, if RDP is open, it will realize, “Okay, just close RDP for outside work." These kinds of recommendations are very helpful from the Azure Security Center.

You have inventory on Azure Security Center, as well as Workbooks. You can create Workbooks. These are automatic playbooks where you can see the entire dashboard. If you prepare a monthly report, or a weekly report, it's better to create it in Azure Security Center instead of Workbooks with the help of JSON, or use drag and drop as an option. That will help you to keep updated more on things.

Inside Azure Security Center, with Workbooks, you can create your own workbooks according to your users. If you have a system update setting inside Azure, with the help of an automation account, if you click it, inside the system update Workbook, you can see all the systems which are taking updates. If that is updated, you can see whether the system is compliant with updates. All the reports are visible. You can see reports on the basis of subscriptions or on the basis of resources if you want.

Azure Security Center does not affect the end-user experience in any way. End users don't feel its presence in the organization.

The solution offers collaborative services. If you enable Azure Defender for servers or any services, basically, you can automatically subscribe for Azure Defender for Endpoints, which is easy.

You can install the EDR on each and every server. That will give you all of the process logs and what a user is doing. You can tell if a URL is open on your system, for example.

You can remediate with automation as well if you want to. That's for malware or any malicious files if they are present on the system. It will detect using the intelligence of the Defender Endpoint. You can take hybrid action on an alert, you can take a fully automated action, or you can take 100% manual action.

With Defender Endpoint, if you find out if one system is compromised, you can actually separate it from the network. If you have to deal with ransomware. If one system is affected by ransomware, you can remove the system from the network.

There is a security alert inside Defender that's per the recommendations and activities that happen inside your network. You will see security events there. If you do not have any other SIEM solution in your environment, you can leverage this. 

The team is already working on one of the latest features, which is having migration techniques right on the portal available. It's possible to use it now. That's one good new feature.

For MIM, they are still improving things on Azure Security Center. There are a few flaws in backend technologies. If you do not have the correct access to the system, you cannot access the files and most of the reported resources.

For example, a general huge storage account, which is exposed for public access. If there are ten storage accounts available, you can see the names. You can identify, those storage accounts that are supposed to be accessed from the outside, maybe, due to some feature happening behind the scenes on a storage account, and these are supposed to be exempt from the portal. You shouldn't see them again and again and this should not affect your security score overall. However, they are not easily exempted from the portal. There's no way to exempt them properly.

You cannot create custom use cases. You can use what is already present on the Microsoft side in terms of security alerts. You can, however, customize whitelisting for alerts.

I've been using the solution for four years now. For one year, I have been working as an architect on Azure Security Center.

The stability is 99.9%. I never have seen any failure. Sometimes you find the service is slow. However, that could be related to an internet connection or something else. Every service has downtime. There is very, very minimal downtime here. I haven't faced any challenges in four years.

The scalability is very good. You don't need to put any extra agent or anything from your side. Everything is automated. It's the easiest security feature, which you can get from Microsoft.

For every project, an architect from the Microsoft side is assigned to the team. You can directly connect with them. You can also create a technical ticket. They will respond immediately. If the issue requires a certain level of severity, you will get a call directly. If it's not as serious and they email you, however, you do not respond to their email, they will call you. Otherwise, they will keep communicating via emails.

I'm in India. When I open a ticket, it may be assigned to the Indian parties and they take time to remediate your problems. If I am routed to the senior team of Microsoft, they won't take much time. They give you new solutions quickly. It's a good thing. 

We do use Azure Sentinel. I'm also familiar with Google Cloud Platform, GCP. It's a bit complex as the structure is not as good as Microsoft. Microsoft, from top-down, offers a management group, subscriptions, and tenants under one group. Inside that resource group, you will find resources. That is easy. On the other hand, inside GCP, there are folders inside folders. Then you can create multiple folders inside one folder. That makes things very complex. There are not too many security solutions available on GCP. I do not have too much experience with GCP, however, given the experience I have, according to that, GCP isn't as good.

You can handle many things on Azure with the UI. There's no need to go for the PowerShell if you don't know it. If you know PowerShell best, you can use it if you want to. If you want any report from the GCP, however, you'll have to first understand the shell scripting. It's hard to find projects due to the way GCP is laid out. There's too much complexity.

The solution is very easy to deploy. This is automatically installed on the Portal. There is no need to install anything on the Portal. There are just a few buttons inside the settings if you want to enable the Defender, et cetera. That will automatically install on all the servers. The agents are already present.

The solution takes six seconds to deploy. If you are on the Portal, you can do it in seconds. The first remediation will show within 30 minutes due to the fact that the scan takes time. The message takes a little bit of time to scan the entire infrastructure. That completely depends on how big a company's infrastructure is.

If there is another service, such as Azure Sentinel, you need to install agents on all the machines. If there is a Linux machine, you have to install the OMS agents. However, that's not the case over here.

One person can easily handle maintenance. A single person handles both Azure and Sentinel. Ours is a small environment. 

In terms of ROI for Azure Security Center, the solution offers basic security features, which Microsoft is providing. That's the main thing. There's no need to go and get any technical team to handle anything. If you know a little bit about the security, you just go and toggle the button and you install it on all the servers and services. With this product, you will start getting recommendations and security alerts. 

In contrast, if you go on any other products, you need a specialized team for security, especially. You need a complete specialized team for different services and for different actions. It's better to use Azure Security Center. There's no need to go and install anything and it's offering good security.

The licensing cost per server is $15 per month. This is the same for SQL which is also $15 per server. It covers the Defender licensing as well. According to my experience, it's a good deal.

I worked on all the Defenders, ten now, and, right now, we are more focused on Azure Defender, which is a part of the Azure Security Center on the Azure Portal. Defender is actually deployed on servers including other staff services, second path services, servers and community, and SQL databases. On each of these, you can deploy Defender.

This product is a Saas solution that is automatically updated from the Microsoft side. Any clients will not need to update manually.

If you have a hybrid cloud network or hybrid environment inside your organization, this solution will still work for you.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

When it comes to Microsoft, the education surrounding Azure services and training is very easily available online without having to make any calls. If you want to join their webinars, you can join. If you want to get any certification, it is almost free for everyone. For a student they offer the training at 50% or 40% of the cost, or if you work at a good company. I did not pay anything for any certification. I have eight certifications from Microsoft. 

Our use case for the solution is focused on cost management and security in a multi-cloud environment. We use it alongside solutions like SIEM tools and deploy it as part of a broader security strategy.

The platform has improved our security posture by providing comprehensive threat detection and response capabilities. It helps in managing security across various environments effectively. However, we occasionally encounter issues when on-site products conflict with this solution.

The product's most valuable features offer the latest threat detection and response capabilities. These features are crucial for our SMB customers, especially given the high inflation in Turkey, which impacts cost considerations.

The product's advanced analytics and reporting features could be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Cloud for about three to four years.

The product performs reliably across various environments.

The platform's scalability is excellent. It is well-suited for both small and large organizations.

The support team is responsive and offers valuable assistance.

Positive

The initial setup can vary in complexity depending on the existing environment and the number of users. It's relatively straightforward for smaller setups, but larger deployments can be more complex.

We handle the deployment and integration ourselves.

The solution's ROI is positive, given its comprehensive security features and integration capabilities, which justify the investment.

The product's pricing policy is generally favorable.

We evaluated other options, but Microsoft Defender for Cloud was chosen for its strong integration with other Microsoft products and comprehensive feature set.

The solution is robust, but staying updated with the latest features and best practices is crucial to maximize its benefits.

Overall, I rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use Defender for network security.

Defender for Cloud is easy to use and enables us to automate routine security tasks. We save a few hours each week. Defender's single dashboard helps us centrally manage security operations and detect threats faster.

Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats. We use multiple solutions in the Microsoft security suite, including Sentinel and Defender for Endpoint. They integrate smoothly to offer coordinated detection and response. 

Sentinel ingests data from our entire environment, allowing us to manage everything from one place. We don't need to go to multiple places to find information. Sentinel's capabilities are quite comprehensive.

Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management. 

I have used Defender for Cloud for two years. 

I rate Microsoft Defender an eight out of ten for stability. It's highly stable.

Microsoft Defender is scalable. 

I rate Microsoft support an eight out of ten. It isn't too bad. 

Positive

Setting up Microsoft Defender is straightforward. It took us around a month to get it fully deployed. Most of the implementation consisted of onboarding. It doesn't require much maintenance after deployment because it's a cloud solution.  

I don't think we've saved more money than we've spent. Defender is expensive, but we might see a return in the long run. 

I rate Microsoft Defender a three out of ten for affordability. The price could be a little lower. 

I rate Microsoft Defender for Cloud an eight out of ten. Getting all your security solutions from a single vendor makes things easier to manage. However, the Microsoft security suite is quite expensive.

There were many use cases. We were monitoring auto IT applications and creating internal processes to understand which ones were going to be allowed and which were going to be blocked. We created the policies internally. 

It's an IT tool to monitor employees' usage on the internet and of web apps. We created policies so that, for example, when employees reached certain websites, like games, they would be blocked. We created a message for the email that they would receive, and there were links for whom to contact if they needed to override it. We created all the processes behind it.

From a security perspective, it reduced the amount of risk for employees, contractors, and users who might try to go to dangerous sites, as we blocked them. It helped us to identify dangerous sites so that we could make decisions on blocking them or not.

The effect on time to detection using Microsoft Defender for Cloud was very positive. The policies we created were providing information as threats arrived. When someone clicked on a website or on a link that was dangerous, it detected that and our team was able to control the situation right away. It was very highly effective because they got a live notification as soon as it happened. It improved things very positively.

It also had a positive effect on time to respond. As soon as an alert was received or something potentially dangerous happened, a process behind the scenes that we created helped them to react immediately.

The first valuable feature was the fact that it gave us a list of everything that users were surfing on the web. Having the list, we could make decisions about those sites. 

Second, it tried to categorize the apps, from riskier to less risky, with a behind-the-scenes algorithm. Even though we didn't use that, it was a starting point for our first review of the applications. We started with the riskiest ones and decided whether each one should be blocked or not. The fact that it provided a risk rating was very valuable. 

And it's very easy to use. Those are the top three.

Six months to a year ago, which was the last time I used the solution, the algorithm that was designed to define whether or not a site is dangerous or not needed to be improved. It didn't have enough variables to make the decision. 

Another thing that could be improved was that they could recommend processes on how to react to alerts, or recommend best practices based on how other organizations do things if they receive an alert about XYZ. 

Also, the complexity in the amount of information for this process could be reduced to facilitate those of us who are implementing and using the system, and guide us as to exactly what is needed.

I used Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a year and a half.

The stability was very high. We never had any issues with it.

With Microsoft products, you can keep adding more information if needed. For the purposes of the tool, it covers everything.

We never used their technical support.

We didn't replace anything with this solution. It was something we added to what was already in place. Our threat department continued to use all the products that it had been using. This one was additional and brought more alerts.

The initial setup was straightforward because the platform was already in place. It comes with the system and you just activate it.

The first phase was creating all of the policies. Then we did a total review of the more than 10,000 apps and we started categorizing them in a different way than the tool does. It was a challenge because what the tool recommended was different from what we wanted to implement. We created our own policies.

We used a security consultant to help us, but that was for the processes we put in place, not for the tool, per se. It was along the lines of, "Okay, when we receive this, what do we do?" They helped us create policies and told us what the best practices are; everything that the tool doesn't give you.

It's very expensive in terms of the need to maintain it actively. You need a group of people in the organization to do the job because if the tool is sending information, a bunch of alerts on policies that we created, and nobody is reviewing it, it is doing nothing. Once you create policies, you have to have a very established group that, based on the design of all of the policies, will follow a process to take action on each of them. Some of them were very complex and some of them were very simple. Some of them were automated and others were escalated, depending on the danger. So it can be very complex, depending on how you implement it in your organization.

The tool doesn't solve the problem, it just gives you the information so that you can solve the problem. Solving the problem takes a lot of resources, a lot of time and, it turns out, money. So it's expensive.

I don't think it saves time because it discovers things that would never have been discovered in any other way.

We have a managed detection and response solution, a type of SOC/SIEM/SOAR product, and we are adding data sources to our solution. We want to have data for our Azure cloud environment as well, so we use Microsoft Defender for Cloud as one of the sources for our Azure environment.

We use it as an extra way to gain trust for our environment. We have purposely secured the total Azure cloud environment with firewalls, application gateways, et cetera, but we also want to have trust in our resource groups. That's an extra line of defense we have for our security.

It helps our teams to have more security awareness because, first of all, they have to think about setting up Defender for Cloud, and the cost of Defender for Cloud is borne by those teams. So they are more aware of protecting their own environments.

It also helps automate routine tasks and the finding of high-value alerts because the alerts sit in the data source itself. It's easier to prioritize alerts.

The main advantage is the detection and response. Threat intelligence helps you prepare for potential threats before they hit. If something is there, we will detect it. And there are special teams threat-hunting through the data.

We have our data sources everywhere, on endpoints and in the cloud. When we find something anywhere, we can act everywhere, because it's an integrated solution. It gives us more possibilities to take action automatically.

We like the security aspect. Most importantly, it's an integrated solution. We not only have Defender for Cloud, but we also have Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Office 365, and Defender for Identity. It's an integrated, holistic solution. In our MDR solution, it's not a Microsoft Sentinel SOC, rather we have a third-party SOC/SIEM and they also do threat hunting for us.

It's really easy to integrate these products. It's just an interface, the Microsoft Graph Security API. We can collect all the data and forward it to our solution. We don't only use Microsoft products as a data source, but all kinds of security products. We have data about our firewalls, our gateways, and our event collections from Windows, but also from Unix.

Sometimes, it's very difficult to determine when I need Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a special resource group or certain kinds of products. That's not an issue directly with the product, though.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Cloud for less than a year.

It's a very stable solution. I haven't heard of any problems.

It is a scalable solution.

We use it across multiple regions including Europe and Oceania. We have multiple solutions for our data analysis and system development platforms. Our web shops are using it. It's used for almost everything in the cloud. We have about 2,000 endpoints.

Microsoft's technical support is fine. We don't have any issues with it.

Positive

We have a lot of other products, like McAfee, but we are changing everything to Microsoft Defender. We are switching because, enterprise-wide, we want to have one standard for everything to make everything easier to manage. And we want all the data it delivers to be the same. We want one view of the truth for everything.

It's very easy to deploy. That is the least of any problems. It's just a simple yes or no in the cloud. It took 10 seconds.

We have an Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft but we also have a Cloud Service Provider contract with several parties so we can easily get the licenses we need. It's very easy to install. It's almost by default.

The solution itself doesn't require maintenance in the traditional way, but everything we're doing with it is about innovation. We are trying to innovate each platform, and each solution. Innovation is an ongoing business process.

It hasn't saved us money, as it's a cost to our company, but we're safe. It's the same as insurance: If there are no burglars then you don't need it. So it doesn't save costs but it might save you costs if something happens. Safety will cost money, but it shouldn't be too much.

The pricing is very difficult because every type of Defender for Cloud has its own metrics and pricing. If you have a Cloud for Key Vault, the pricing is different than it is for storage. Every type has its own pricing list and rules.

We don't use the full capabilities of Defender for Cloud so I don't know if it is the same as Defender for Endpoint. That solution is autonomous and acts on incidents immediately, based on playbooks for a type of incident behavior. Defender for Endpoint is capable of acting immediately when an attacker wants to encrypt a disk, for instance. I don't know if Defender for Cloud has the same capabilities, but it should.

In the discussion about going with a best-of-breed strategy or a single vendor's security suite, we have a mix. My thought is that I would like to have at least two big vendors, rather than one for everything. That way they can challenge each other.

Overall, I'm happy with Defender for Cloud. We're just at the beginning of using it but we want to extend our own solutions with Defender for Cloud as much as possible.

We typically use Azure Defender for securing our infrastructure-based virtual machines and database solutions on the Azure subscription. We've integrated a couple of the Defender agents into our on-premise servers too.

Azure Defender has improved our overall security posture. In particular, Defender's exploit protection mechanism protects our servers from unseen threats like process memory attacks, hash theft, or any direct script-based attacks.

Defender is just one component because the organization also uses endpoint security solutions and firewalls. This product is not an endpoint solution. It usually operates at the server level, improving the posture of the Azure cloud environment. Our end-users never deal with Azure Defender. It's purely on the administrative level. The server administration team handles it, so the end-user has nothing to do with it.

Defender is a robust platform for dealing with many kinds of threats. We're protected from various threats, like viruses. Attacks can be easily minimized with this solution defending our infrastructure.

The entire Defender family requires a little bit of clarity. There is a lot of confusion in the market, especially on the end-user side but also on the consulting side. Microsoft has launched four or five Defender products, including Azure Defender, which Microsoft renamed Defender for Cloud. They also have Defender for Identity, Defender for Endpoints, and Defender ATP. It isn't very clear.

I would suggest building a single product that addresses endpoint server protection, attack surface, and everything else in one solution. That is the main disadvantage with the product. If we are incorporating some features, we end up in a situation where this solution is for the server, and that one is for the client, or this is for identity, and that is for our application. They're not bundling it. Commercially, we can charge for different licenses, but on the implementation side, it's tough to help our end-customer understand which product they're getting.

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

It's hard for me to talk about the stability of Defender because, in my experience, "stability" is not a word that is relevant to security. A security product is either good or bad. It protects me, or it doesn't. There is no middle ground.

If we are talking about crashes or other issues, I don't see any problems, and the scalability is fine. We can protect storage, key vaults, SQL servers, etc. Defender can protect eight or nine Azure services, and it all works fine, but it would be great if all Azure services could come under the umbrella of Azure Defender. 

For example, we use Defender to protect our SQL databases, but not all of our databases are Microsoft. I have to search for another security solution for the same database vertical because it's not a Microsoft database.

I am a solution designer and architect, and I incorporated Defender for Cloud into three different projects. The smallest had more than 200 virtual machines and 20 database servers plus a couple of Kubernetes and container environments. The largest is around 600 virtual machines on-premises and on Azure, and around 10 web applications, a couple of key vaults and databases, and some storage.

I have contacted Microsoft support, but I haven't opened any tickets for Defender so far. Generally speaking, Microsoft Azure support is quite good. 

The time needed for the initial deployment phase depends on the requirements, but generally, the deployment is quite fast because it's a cloud-native tool. They have just upgraded the Azure Security Center to add Defender.

When talking about cost versus value, you have to consider Defender in the context of Microsoft's cloud solutions as a whole. It's a cloud-native tool, so why is Microsoft charging so much? 

The features are good, but Microsoft created Azure, and they provide monitoring and backup solutions. It's also Microsoft's responsibility to offer security solutions, so why do they charge so much? Why isn't it incorporated into the old security center products? It should typically come with the security center. 

Defender for Cloud is pretty costly for a single line. It's incredibly high to pay monthly for security per server. The cost is considerable for an enterprise with 500-plus virtual machines, and the monthly bill can spike. 

If we're just dealing with servers and Azure infrastructure, then Defender for Cloud is the way to go. But if we want to cover endpoints, emails, and other entry-exit points, then we need to think about another solution

Symantec and a few other tools have end-to-end solutions that protect everything in a single console. You can't do that with Defender for Cloud. Depending on the client's requirements, Defender might not be the best option because it might not cover all the use cases that a client needs.

It's good for clients who are mainly or entirely dependent on Azure resources. If a client's infrastructure is more than 70 percent Azure, it's a good product because it has native control by Microsoft only. In other cases, it's a challenge. The product is good if you're working entirely within a Microsoft, like Windows Server, Azure services, or Office 365 services, but you run into a problem the moment you start going into macOS, iOS, Android, Linux, etc. 

The agent installed there for Defender works differently. But on the flip side, a competitor's product never addresses the spatial bias on Windows. Every product line is the same. Their agents behave the same way on Linux, macOS, iOS, Android, and Windows. That is the fundamental difference I see.

I rate Defender for Cloud eight out of ten. I would recommend it depending on your use case. It's a single solution that can address mixed infrastructure that includes on-premises, AWS, GCP, or Azure. Defender can provide security for all four.

We use it to keep our Azure infrastructure up to date with the security best practices that Microsoft suggests. We also use it to have better visibility into changes in our databases.

It helps me know if a new virtual machine or an app gateway or a functional service has come online that doesn't have the best security practices enforced on them. The impact we've had is a better security posture being enforced throughout our Azure environment.

The solution has also simplified management of endpoints and servers and gives us visibility in a single pane of glass. And it's easy to identify security corrections in the environment.

It has helped save us SOC time and increased their efficiency. While we haven't measured by how much, we see it in their day-to-day activities. And it has likely improved our time to detection, but we just haven't had anything to detect.

The most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts.

We have also integrated Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Defender for Cloud with Microsoft Sentinel and the integration was easy.

In addition, it's good at helping us proactively discover unknowns and defend against threats.

I would like to see better automation when it comes to pushing out security features to the recommendations, and better documentation on the step-by-step procedures for enabling certain features.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Cloud on a day-to-day basis for about a year.

It's quite stable. We don't have many problems.

The scalability is very good.

We have 100 internal users and we are deployed across multiple sites. It's 100 percent cloud and our infrastructure handles API responses for our clients.

For the cloud infrastructure, their technical support is good.

Positive

In my previous company, I used the native portal, which is pretty much what Defender does, on AWS.

The intelligent threat hunting provided by Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Sentinel based on the alerts, incidents, and logs passed along by Microsoft Defender for Cloud is moderate.

The ability of Microsoft solutions to work natively together to deliver integrated protection as well as coordinated detection and responses across the environment is improving a lot, but it still has a ways to go.

Overall, if you are worried about security, you should have Microsoft Defender for Cloud. It's the minimum you should have.

I have a highly specific use case for Azure Defender, so I don't think I've used most of its features. We primarily use it to secure Kubernetes clusters in other cloud environments. For example, I have Kubernetes in Amazon AWS, and we're trying out Azure Defender to protect those Kubernetes clusters.

We also use Defender to scan the image repositories held in Azure Container Repository or ACR. We use Defender plus Azure ARC and Windows Defender. All three products work in conjunction to give us some security insights into our cluster.

We haven't fully implemented Azure Defender yet. Right now, we're at the POC stage. However, if people have a genuine use case, they should see its value, especially because of its cross-cloud compatibility. I don't think any other tool provides the same cross-cloud compatibility as Azure Defender combined with Arc, so that's a significant selling point for this product.

The security scorecard is something I find helpful. It tells me what's missing and identifies new vulnerabilities inside my registries. Once I publish the image, the scorecards automatically update. I don't need to constantly run a security scan for my images because the scorecards are updated by Azure periodically. That makes my job easier.

I haven't been using Azure Defender for long. It's been around three months. 

Overall, Azure Defender's availability is excellent. However, the Kubernetes security is a new offering that is still under development, so the service's availability and support are not mature at this point and definitely need improvement.

I rate Defender's scalability about eight out of 10. If you compare Azure Defender to a similar product AWS offers, there isn't much difference in scalability. The solution is able to accommodate all your requirements. I don't think I have ever reached a point where the solution couldn't scale to meet my needs. 

I deduct two points because you incur more costs as you increase usage, so it's more expensive when you have lots of logs flowing into the system. That is why I rate it eight. Otherwise, I don't see any technical issues there.

Azure's system could be more on point like AWS support. For example, if I have an issue with AWS, I create a support ticket, then I get a call or a message. With Azure support, you raise a ticket, and somebody calls back depending on their availability and the priority, which might not align with your business priority. 

I can't talk about Microsoft support generally, but I can speak to my experience specifically with Azure Defender support. I would rate it five out of 10. Maybe it's because this is a product that Azure is still developing on the side. I don't think they have made Azure Defender for Kubernetes available to the general public yet, so that could be why their support is not up to par. I don't know the reason, but I haven't had a good experience with the support.

It is just a POC, so I don't have many endpoints. The whole setup took three days for around 10 endpoints. They have an agent-based security system. It's always complex because you need to deploy the agent to all endpoints which is a lot of work to get it set up. 

We have still have not decided to implement Azure Defender because we are also trying out other products in the same line. Once the RFP process is finished, we will know which one we'll implement.

Azure Defender is definitely pricey, but their competitors cost about the same. For example, a Palo Alto solution is the same price per endpoint, but the ground strikes cost a bit more than Azure Defender. Still, it's pricey for a company like ours. Maybe well-established organizations can afford it, but it might be too costly for a startup. They should try some open-source tools. That's how it is today.

Compared to other products, Azure Defender's main advantage is native integration with all Azure services. If your company uses Active Directory and builds everything on Azure, you get it as a complete package. There's no need to buy another tool and set it up in your cloud environment. 

Everything is built into Azure, and if we go for cross-cloud development with Azure Arc, we can use most of the features. While it's possible to deploy and convert third-party applications, it is difficult to maintain, whereas Azure deployments to the cloud are always easier. Also, Microsoft is a big company, so they always provide enough support, and we trust the Microsoft brand. 

I rate Azure Defender eight out of 10. If you're looking for standard Azure Defender services like cloud posture management or application security, these features are all highly mature. Defender also has newer capabilities that they recently introduced, such as endpoint security, cross-cloud integration with Azure Arc, and Kubernetes runtime security. 

These are all new services, so potential users need to think twice before buying into it solely for these features because I don't think the support is there to encourage customers to buy the product. I don't feel confident about Microsoft's support in these particular areas. I would exercise caution before buying Defender for these particular use cases.