Microsoft Defender for Cloud Reviews

It is our main solution for our Azure cloud infrastructure. We do about 1.1 million dollars in cloud spending every year. It's a quite big infrastructure and pretty much in our main system and we are planning on integrating with Microsoft Sentinel, which is going to be our SIM solution. Right now we don't use a Microsoft solution, however, Microsoft Sentinel is very complete and we're excited to dive into a POC. Right after I joined the company, that was one of the first things that I advised them to do and a couple of weeks later, we caught at least two big vulnerabilities that could have caused a catastrophic problem for our business. That's a true testament to the power of the tool.

The solution has improved how our organization functions. For example, the security score is the biggest improvement, as it's a compilation of all the results. That's where we have been doing established goals. When I joined the company and when we first implemented the product our secure score was about 35%. We are now sitting at 71%.

That gives us a clear direction as that's the most difficult issue. Azure is a complex solution. You have so many moving parts. If you say "I want to improve my security posture," it's hard to know where to start. That metric's going to give you an idea. You're going to take a look at your identity and access management strategy. You go there and you fix those issues.

Once that's done, you can take a look at your malware protection, so you see all the machines. You have the ability with this product. All of these actions compile percentages on a score and they drive up the score. That way, you know how good you're actually doing and how you can continue to progress.

We do a lot of mergers and acquisitions. One of the features that I like about the solution is it is both a hybrid cloud and also multi-cloud. We never know what company we're going to buy, and therefore we are ready to go. If they have GCP or AWS, we have support for that as well. It offers a single-panel blast across multiple clouds.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is visibility. You truly have visibility. That’s the first thing that you're going to have in the cloud.

The solution’s capabilities of assessment and real-time assessment is another big thing for us. In terms of remediation and capabilities, most of the time, I even have a quick fix, a quick button that I click and they're going to fix it for me, where they are going to provide me with everything that I need to do to fix that.

The main thing that I like about the tool is that Microsoft collects trillions of data points across their cloud and they leverage that threat intelligence to teach the machine learning AI-driven models to assess for security. We can even see across the cloud, and it’s so much better than going with a third-party product, where you don't have that advantage.

The solution has features that have helped improve our security posture. The security score is one of the biggest pluses. They do have a series of metrics that combine into a security posture score. Netsecure started giving me a good snapshot of where we are when it comes to security posture, and then we can drill down.

If you click on your secure score, you are going to be able to see why you have that calculated score. They have very good documentation surrounding how, for example, if you have 74%, why you do. You are going to be able to drill down and see where your weaknesses are and then you can address those items directly.

The compliance policy feature is great. They do offer support, such as PCIS. You have access and they can compare to your security posture and they can give you your score based on that, for example, how compliant you are with those tenders. That's another great aspect of the tool as well. That's all visual and on a dashboard.

The solution positively affected our end-user experience, however, not in any shape or even form that they can notice. They're getting all the benefits from it in the background. For example, security alerts are one of the main values about the users that I like. You have access to security alerts and those security alerts are giving you a real-time type of reading on how you are doing when it comes to threats. If there's something that can affect a user negatively, you have access to fix it before it becomes an issue. Therefore, while it has affected them positively, they never had to change anything that they're doing.

In the past, when you wanted to compile a list of resources that effected a vulnerability, it was kind of hard to do that. You had to use the graphic interface and write some queries for you to get that information from the Microsoft Graph API. Right now, with Microsoft Cloud Defender, they actually have that and you have access to that. Therefore, for me, it's pretty much a problem that has been solved. That was pretty much the only thing that I thought we could use. Then, yesterday, I saw that they included it. Therefore, as of now, I don't have any big issues with the product.

In the beginning, the score was shown using a points system. Now they made it into percentages, which is way better. It's hard to show you your C-level points. It required some explanation. For example, if you show them 2000 points, they're going to ask, "Okay, is this bad or good?" If you show them 75%, on the other hand, that they can understand. That's another thing that they made better as well.

Within this company, I've used the solution for about 10 months. I was also using the solution with my previous company for around a year and a half.

The product is pretty stable. The only thing that you've got to remember is that it takes some time. Some of the variabilities, for example, the remediation processes, when you apply them, it takes a bit. The remediation in order to count it has got to run the vulnerability assessment agent. Sometimes it takes a couple of hours for some resources. That said, it's pretty stable. I've never had any problems. It runs very well.

The scalability potential is one of the biggest aspects that I like, as it works with Microsoft, as an Azure back lane. As you add more subscriptions, all you have to do is just go and enable Azure Defender - in this case now, Azure Defender for all the consumer subscriptions that I have. That's it. It's free scale. It scales out very, very well. You don't have to do anything and you don't have to install anything on the Azure portal - it's already there. That said, you do have to deploy vulnerability agents, however, Azure does that for you due to the fact that the VMs are already being managed by Azure. You have all the security in place. It will deploy the agents and it's going to be seamless. You don't have any downtime either.

Right now, we have about 7,000 users. It's quite a good number, however, we are growing. We're adding companies every month. We're adding tons of companies and plan to expand usage as we grow.

I've been working with Microsoft technical support for more than 15 years. We have really good support, always. We do have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft, which makes support very easy. If you have Azure, you probably have an enterprise type of support. Every single interaction that I have had with them was pleasant. They were very, very precise and effective. We've had no problems.

We never had a different cloud solution. For us, choosing this solution right off the bat was a no-brainer.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It comes with the free version. It's out-of-the-box and already enabled for users for the most part. It gives you just a little bit of visibility, so you have to go with the paid version and the cost is not that bad. 

It's pretty much diluted into your Azure bill. It is totally worth the price. You basically go to the portal and choose the option and just enable online subscriptions and give it some time so that it can gain visibility. After that, it's going to deploy the agents. It takes 24 to 48 hours. After that, you're going to have tons of visibility and data coming back. It's pretty straightforward, very simple to set up. For me to roll out was about an hour tops.

You do not need a big maintenance team. I'm an architect and I'm also a very hands-on type of engineer. In most cases, I would say it's good to have at least two people especially if you have a global infrastructure. That way, you can have people in different time zones, such as Europe central time, for example, and in US Eastern time. For most aspects you have auto-remediation and you have automation that you can implement, which is great. I would say that two people would be ideal to manage the solution, especially for the remediation process. With the remediation process, you can engage other people from other teams as you're going to have to talk to the operations guys to say, "Guys, you've got to fix this, this is a liability." Therefore, two people dedicated to Azure would do it. It doesn't need to be dedicated to security, to Defender in this case.

I was reading some studies that the ROI is 200%. It's really good, due to the risk prevention and threat remediation processes.

I like the licensing due to the fact that it's simple. In terms of pricing, there's a very good ROI. The ROI is pretty great, and everything is diluted into your overall Azure costs. It's not a product that you buy, it's a contract. If you want to stop using it, you can stop. It's an on-demand type of product. I like that as well. 

It's very cost-effective if you compare it to other products, especially if you want to combine other features from a licensing standpoint. You're going to spend a lot of money if you try to implement various other options.

We do have some security, other security that is still in place. For example, we work with CrowdStrike. We work with a team solution. We have another team solution, which is not an apples-to-apples comparison. What Azure center does is very specific. It's very large. For us to do the same thing with any other security solutions out there, would mean we're going to spend a lot of money. Azure does not have competition per se. You would have to onboard tons of other products to do the same thing that they do. It's also simpler than the other solutions. The orchestration features that you have access to are great. It doesn't make a lot of sense to combine several other solutions and try to protect all your resources.

I am just a customer and an end-user.

I'm using the latest version of the solution, which is now the Microsoft Cloud Defender. They just changed the name of the product. They combined Azure Security Center and Azure Defender into Microsoft Cloud Defender and that's the version that I'm using.

For now, we are cloud-only, however, we have plans to enroll our on-prem devices as well, including servers, especially through Azure Arc and we are also looking at Azure Sentinel. We are going to have a complete ecosystem, similar to a Microsoft XVR, truly for our Cloud environments.

I was working with Sentinel in the past with my previous company, however, I was not able to fully roll out the product. Here, we're planning on having a Microsoft partner that's going to help us to onboard our Azure infrastructure and Sentinel, however, we are going to be enrolling a POC first.

I would advise other potential users that they need this, absolutely. If they have Azure, they need this. It's going to give them the visibility and the remediation capabilities that they're looking for and it's going to make them aware of issues that they are not even seeing. 

If a company has resources exposed to the outside, chances are that people are trying to get in. I'm catching people every single day trying to get in. It's really amazing what you see when you have visibility. Businesses that bring this on really need to involve the team. It's got to be a team project. Everybody's got to be playing on the same team. That way, a company can make sure they have effective implementation.

I would say, a company has got to watch very carefully the recommendations and the security alerts, especially recommendations, which is pretty much what's going to drive the score up and increase the positive security posture.

The alerts are going to give them real-time insight, like a temperature reading on security, including what's happening, who's trying to get in, who reports or attacks you and weren't successful, and how many times did they try? What kind of accounts did they use? Recommendations are going to help you look for activity and the security alerts are going to help you with the reactivity. You can react to events that are happening, however, you can't remediate issues that haven't happened yet. 

Overall, I would rate the solution at a ten out of ten. I'm a big fan. It makes my life way easier and gives me some peace of mind so I can sleep at night better.

We had multiple use cases at my previous company. I changed companies during their implementation stages of this solution. From what I saw, the solution has a good use case for SIEM.

It helped improve my previous organization's security posture. Their previous solution was running separately in each region. That has now been centralized by moving to the cloud. This was a huge change for their operations because they used to have multiple vendors managing their SIEM. Now, that has been consolidated under a single vendor. This consolidation has improved response times.

We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard.

I felt that there was disconnection in terms of understanding the UI. The communication for moving from the old UI to the new UI could be improved. It was a bit awkward.

I have been using Azure Security Center for five to six years. I was using it as my previous organization up until six months ago.

The stability was good.

The solution was very much scalable.

Overall, there were around 150,000 users beginning to use it at the organization.

We didn't use technical support directly from Microsoft. We used the third-parties' support.

We were previously using multiple solutions that integrated with SAP. For example, one region would be running QRadar and another region would be using Symantec. Each region of the company was just running it in silo mode off their internal Exchange. As part of centralizing a global solution, we chose to go with Azure Security Center, because our on-prem solution was not really working for us. This is why we started using Azure Security Center.

The initial setup was easy; it was not complex.

The deployment took a month.

The transition went well. I didn't see any challenges.

The setup was done by a third-party vendor, Fujitsu, who was very good. There was also another vendor, Microland, who had good knowledge and helped us with building it.

Not too many people were needed for the transition between solutions. I am unsure of the number of people needed because multiple activities were being run during the process, e.g., SharePoint migration.

The solution helped out management a lot. It reduced about 50% of the time needed to spend on this after implementation.

The organization saved money by consolidating into one solution instead of two or three. 

Microsoft's licensing and pricing are sometimes complicated. If someone is new to Microsoft's licensing, they might have difficulty with it.

We might have looked at other competitors. However, Azure Security Center was attractive because of its licensing, which was packaged with the Office 365 licensing, as well as the fact that it is a single solution.

I liked the centralization that it offered. However, I am cautious about the licensing part because I am unsure how you would manage the solution if it wasn't bundled.

When we started, our team didn't make a clear roadmap, which slowed us down. I recommend that you clearly define your roadmap before getting started.

The solution is very good. I would rate it as eight out of 10.

I work as a SOC manager. We use it for incident security, incident monitoring, threat analysis, and looking at remediation or suppression.

Most use cases that come from Microsoft are all automated. Even before any manual effort, the tool is designed in such a way that it just does the threat analysis. It gives us exactly what the incident alert is all about: 

• The priority
• The threat 
• The impact
• The risk
• How it can be mitigated. 

Those are the key features of this particular tool.

The solution has features that have definitely helped improve our security posture.

One important security feature is the incident alerts. Now, with all these cyberattacks, there are a lot of incident alerts that get triggered. It is very difficult to keep monitoring everything automatically, instead our organization is utilizing the automated use case that we get from Microsoft. That has helped bring down the manual work for a lot of things. The automation tool does the following (when human interaction is needed): 

• Identifies what kind of an alert is it. 
• Whether we have to dismiss it. 
• When we need to take any action so the team can do it appropriately. 

This is one of its key benefits.

It is easy to use based on my experience. If a newcomer comes in, it is just a matter of time to just learn it because it is not that difficult.

Most of the time, we are looking for more automation, e.g., looking to ensure that the real-time risk, threat, and impact are being identified by Microsoft. With the Signature Edition, there is an awareness of the real risks and threats. However, there are a lot of things where we need to go back to Microsoft, and say, "Are you noticing these kinds of alerts as well? Do we have any kind of solution for this?" This is where I find that Microsoft could be more proactive.

I have been using it for more than nine years.

We have not had issues with tool usage or any hiccups.

There are certain glitches, which are areas of improvement, thus we continuously keep working with Microsoft. Microsoft does acknowledge this, because it's a learning experience for Microsoft as well. They always expect feedback and improvements on their tools, as it is a collaboration effort between Microsoft and the client.

I work for an organization with more than 50,000 users. Under security alone, we have 5,000-plus users. On my team, we have around 400 people who are looking at it.

There are different roles in the company: project management, security operations (the red and blue teams), and pen testing. I lead a security operations center team, where we have L1, L2, L3, and L4 capabilities. All these come under the same umbrella of the security operations center, and they are all rolled up to the Chief Information Security Officer as part of security. 

An ongoing improvement for both Microsoft as well as for my organization: We need to work together. Sometimes, the solution doesn't work so we reach out to Microsoft Enterprise support for any help or assistance. If there is any feedback or improvement, then we work together, but they definitely have helped most of the time.

There are certain gray areas. We constantly work with Microsoft to notice whether there is something that only we, as a client, face. Or, if there are other clients who have the same kind of situation, issues, or scenarios where they need help. 

I would rate Azure Security Center anywhere between five to six out of 10. Most of the time, when we log into the support, we don't get a chance to interact with Microsoft employees directly, except having it go to outsource employees of Microsoft. The initial interaction has not been that great because outsourced companies cannot provide the kind of quality or technical expertise that we look for. We have a technical manager from Microsoft, but they are kind of average unless we make noise and ask them to escalate. We then can get the right people and the right solution, but it definitely takes time.

We use Microsoft Defender and Splunk. We primarily went with Azure Security Center because of client requirements.

The initial setup is pretty easy and straightforward. 

To deploy just Azure Security Center, it took three to four hours. However, there are a lot of things that it depends on.

Different clients have different requirements. If the client says, "We are using Azure Security Center. We want to use Microsoft technology or products." We will go with that. There are clients who are using Cisco products as well. 

The solution architect usually designs it, taking into consideration the initial setup guide, playbook, and documentation. 

We don't use consultants for the deployment.

It has global licensing. It comes with multiple licenses since there are around 50,000 people (in our organization) who look at it.

For organizations who have an on-prem environment and are planning to move to a cloud-based solution, Azure Security Center is definitely one of the best tools that they can use. Year-over-year, I can see a lot of differences and improvements that Microsoft has definitely implemented, in terms of risk analysis, threat impact, and risk impact.

Most of the time, for any action that is performed within an organization or environment, if there is a risk or threat analysis, it is the security operation center who gets to know about it. The end user doesn't get affected at any cost unless there is a ransomware or cyberattack.

I wouldn't say that this is the only tool or product that has helped us out. There are a lot of technologies that Microsoft has come up with, which all together have made a difference. From a score of one to 10 for overall security, I would rate Azure Security Center somewhere between a seven to eight. This is not the only tool that my team depends on. There are other tools, but in terms of threat analysis and threat impact, this particular tool has definitely helped us.

We use a lot of Microsoft technologies, not only Azure Security Center. Apart from Azure Security Center, we use the playbook. We are also moving forward with Azure IoT Central and Log Analytics, which is a SIEM tool. So, I have Azure Security Center, Azure Advanced Threat Protection, Windows Defender, Log Analytics, and Azure IoT Central. 

Using Azure Security Center, there are a lot of things that get automated. So, I am not dependent completely on Azure Security Center. It is a collaboration of different tools and technologies to achieve the end result. That is why I am saying seven to eight out of 10, because I am not dependent on a particular tool. It is also one of the tools that is definitely helpful for checking risk analysis, but there are other tools as well.

I would rate Azure Security Center as seven to eight of 10. If you talk about Microsoft products, I would rate it anywhere between eight to nine out of 10.

We use it to manage the overall compliance of our products.

It helps you to identify the gaps in your solution and remediate them. It produces a compliance checklist against known standards such as ISO 27001, HIPAA, iTrust, etc.

Customizing some of the compliance requirements based on individual needs seems like the biggest area of improvement. There should be an option to turn specific controls on and off based on how your solution is configured.

I have been using this solution for five or six years. We have been working with it pretty much since it came out.

It is a great product. The new security features that emerge in Microsoft products can sometimes be difficult to track. It automatically flags when you don't have what you probably should have.

It is very scalable. We are a small organization with less than 10 people, and at least half of those people are in the solution at any given point in time.

Microsoft's tech support is decent. I would rate them a four out of five. We're currently dealing with a ticket mostly on the billing side, and it has been open for over a month, so I'm not going to give them a stellar rating. I feel they should have figured this out a long time ago, but they've resolved technical issues relatively quickly.

It was very easy. It was there by default. It basically turned itself on, and then they gave you a default thing. 

In terms of maintenance, typically, there is one person in there, probably per week, looking at the compliance and things that they can do to improve the bar.

It was included with the product. We looked at other solutions, but this was the most comprehensive and cost-effective one.

I would rate Azure Security Center a nine out of 10.

I use this solution in two different scenarios. The first is for the security and monitoring of Azure accounts. Another is for SIEM integration and the Azure Gateway WAF. Essentially, it's a one-stop solution where you can integrate all of the other Azure security products. This means that instead of maybe going to Firewall Manager, Azure Defender, or WAF, you can have all of them send statistics or logs to Azure Security Center, and you can do your analysis from there.

This product helps us with regulatory compliance.

With respect to improving our security posture, it helps us to understand where we are in terms of compliance. We can easily know when we are below the standard because of the scores it calculates.

It helps us with alerts. You're able to automatically channel these alerts to emails and get the team readily looking into the issue.

We don't need a distributed team looking at the various security solutions. Instead, they just look into Azure Security Center and then get everything from one place.

It also supports multiple cloud integration, where you can add other clouds like AWS and GCP. However, we don't use that feature. 

The most valuable feature is the help with regulatory compliance, as it gives us security scores and the CVE details.

Centralized management is another feature that is key for me.

This product has a lot of features but to get the best out of it, it requires a lot of insight into Azure itself. An example of this is customizing Azure Logic Apps to be able to send the right logs to Security Center.

The overview provides you with good information, but if you want more details, there is a lot more customization to do, which requires knowledge of the other supporting solutions. You can get the best out of it, but then you will also need to do a lot of work.

Improvements are needed with respect to how it integrates the subscriptions in various Azure accounts. You can have a lot of accounts, but you don't get detailed information. Specifically, it gives you overall score statistics, although it's not very intuitive, especially when you want to see information from individual subscriptions.

For example, if there are five subscriptions sending traffic to Azure Security Center, it gives you the summary of everything. If you want to narrow it down to one particular subscription and then get deep into the events, you really have to do some work. This is where they could improve.

In terms of narrowing things down, per account, it is not granular enough. In general, it gives you good summaries of what is happening everywhere, with consolidated views. You're able to get this information on your dashboard. But, if you wanted to narrow down per subscription, you don't want to have to jump into the subscriptions and then look at them one by one. Simply, we should be able to get more insights from within Azure Security Center. It's possible, but this is where it requires a lot more customization.

I have been using Azure Security Center for approximately two years.

In terms of stability and availability, Security Center is very good. It doesn't change. Because it's cloud-based, you don't actually have to manage infrastructure to get it up. If you are using the SIEM portion of it, it's what you are sending to it that will determine what you get out of it.

If you are using a hybrid solution from your own site then you have to make sure that your internet connection to the cloud is reliable. Your VPNs that are pushing data have to be stable, as well. Also, if you are using a third-party solution, you have to manage your keys well. But in terms of it being stable, I would say it's highly available and highly stable.

This solution is very scalable. You can integrate as many subscriptions as possible. They could be Azure subscriptions, AWS accounts, GCP, and other resources. Because it's cloud-based, I have not actually encountered any limits.

I know that with cloud providers when there are limits, you can request an increase, but in terms of how many, I have not seen any limitations so far. As such, I would say it's highly scalable.

We are using it a lot. For Azure, there are 20-plus subscriptions. We don't really use it for AWS accounts. Instead, we prefer to use AWS Security Hub on AWS, so we don't push AWS account data there. But for Azure, we used it for at least 20 subscriptions.

We have a distributed team. I have used it for the past two years in the company, and it's a huge organization. In the whole of the organization, Microsoft Azure is used as the main cloud. AWS was also used, but that was mostly for specific projects. In terms of the number of people using it, I estimate it is between 50 and 100.

Microsoft support is very good, although it may depend on the kind of support you have. We have enterprise-level support, so any time we needed assistance, there was a solution architect to work with us.

With the highest support level, we had sessions with Microsoft engineers and they were always ready to help. I don't know the other levels of support, but ours was quite good.

We began with the Security Center because it was for projects on Azure.

The initial setup is somewhat straightforward and of medium complexity. Especially when it comes to integrating subscriptions, I would not say that it's complex. At the same time, it is not as simple as just pressing the Next button several times. There are knowledge prerequisites before you can set it up fully and properly.

Setting this solution up was an ongoing project where we kept integrating subscription after subscription. If you know what you're doing, in a couple of days, or even a few minutes, you can get going.

If you need to build the knowledge as you go, it's something you could do in one day. You would integrate one subscription, and then start getting feedback. It's plug and play, in that sense.

The company has seen great returns on investment with this solution. In terms of security, you want to match the spending with how effective it is. Top management generally wants more reports. They want statistics and an analysis of what is happening. For example, reports need to say "We had this number of attempts on our systems."

As additional functionality, it's also able to support the business in terms of knowing and reporting the relevant statistics.

This solution is more cost-effective than some competing products. My understanding is that it is based on the number of integrations that you have, so if you have fewer subscriptions then you pay less for the service.

We did not evaluate anything else before choosing this product.

For example, we are now considering different products for SEIM integration. One of them is Palo Alto Prisma Cloud. However, the price is too expensive when compared to Azure. It is also a multi-cloud product, although, in the beginning, it didn't support AWS and GCP. It now has support for those cloud providers, as well as additional features that Azure doesn't have.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to start building knowledge about it. Go to the Microsoft documentation and learn about it. As much as they show all of its great functionalities, you really need knowledge of other supporting resources that work with Azure Security Center, because it is just like a hub. It's what you push into it and how you customize it that determines what you get.

This means that if you don't have knowledge of Firewall Manager and you just want to use Security Center, it becomes a problem for you. This is something that you need to know. So, I advise people to get a holistic knowledge of all of the supporting resources that work with Azure Security Center to be able to maximize its value.

If you are looking to build on Azure then I would recommend the Security Center, mainly because of the cost and you will immediately get all of the functionality that you need.

The biggest lesson that I learned from using this product is that you don't get the best value right out of the box. You need further customization and configuration. The capabilities are there but if you don't have a dedicated security team with good technical know-how, such as scripting skills, or being able to work with the Logic App, or maybe the basic functionalities of security, then when you want more in-depth details into your subscriptions, it will become a problem.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are working for a major client in the UK. So, we are moving all the products of clients from their on-premises environment to the cloud. One of the biggest challenges we face, “Once the infrastructure is created in the cloud, how can we make sure that the infrastructure is secure enough?” For that purpose, we are using Azure Security Center, which gives us all the security loopholes and vulnerabilities for our infrastructure. That has been helpful for us.

We use the Azure Security Center to scan the entire infrastructure from a security point of view. It gives us all the vulnerabilities, observations, etc. It reports most of the critical issues.

From an organization or security audit point of view, there are few tools available in the market. The output or score of Azure Security Center has really helped the organization from a business point of view by showing that we are secure enough with all our data, networks, or infrastructure in Azure. This helps the organization from a business point of view to promote the score, e.g., we are secure enough because this is our score in Azure Security Center.

We are using it from a security point of view. If there is a threat or vulnerability, the solution will immediately scan, report, or alert us to those issues.

We are using most of the good services in Azure:

• The load balancing options
• Firewall
• Application Gateway
• Azure AD. 

I value Azure Security Center the most from a security point of view. Everybody is concerned about moving data or infrastructure to the cloud. This solution proves that we are secure enough for that infrastructure, which is why I really value the Azure Security Center. We are secure in our infrastructure.

This is a platform as a service provided by Azure. We don't need to install or maintain Azure Security Center. It is a ready-made service available in Azure. This is one of the main things that we like. If you look at similar tools, we have to install, maintain, and update services. Whereas, Azure Security Center manages what we are using. This is a good feature that has helped us a lot.

From a business point of view, the only drawback is that Azure or Microsoft need to come up with flexible pricing/licensing. Then, I would rate it 10 out of 10.

We have been using it in production for the last three years. I have been part of the cloud migration team for Azure Cloud for the last two years.

We started using Azure Cloud from the initial version. Every week or month, there are updates in Azure. For the last three years, we have been using the latest version.

Whenever we increase the number of our resources, Azure Security Center easily copes with it. Since this is a ready-made service, it will automatically scale.

We are working with around 100 to 150 major clients in the UK. Each client has 200 to 500 users.

From an overall infrastructure point of view, we have a five member team.

We are getting adequate support and documentation from Microsoft. We are a Premium customer of Microsoft, so we are getting support in terms of documentation and manual support.

We were using this service from the onset.

This is a PaaS service. It is a ready-made service available in Azure Cloud. It is very easy to use and set up because you are using the platform. We don't want to maintain this service from our end. 

There are different models when it comes to the cloud:

• Infrastructure as a service
• Platform as a service
• Software as a service.

We are using sort of a hybrid, both infrastructure as a service and platform as a service. 

We are using our own team for the deployment.

We consume or subscribe to the service. Azure takes care of the maintenance and deployment, and we don't need to worry about it.

We are securing our customers' infrastructure using Azure Security Center. That internally helps their overall organization meet their goal/score on security.

So far, the feedback from the customer and our team have been really positive. We are very happy and getting return on investment from this product.

Its pricing is a little bit high in terms of Azure Security Center, but the good thing is that we don't need to maintain and deploy it. So, while the pricing is high, it is native to Azure which is why we prefer using this tool.

One of the main challenges that we have been facing with Azure Security Center is the cost. The costs are really a complex calculation, e.g., to calculate the monthly costs. Azure is calculating on an hourly basis for use of the resource. Because of this, we found it really complex to promote what will be our costs for the next couple of months. I think if Azure could reduce the complex calculation and come up with straightforward cost mapping that would be very useful from a product point of view.

Other than Azure Security Center, we did not find a single tool which could analyze all our infrastructure or resources in Azure Cloud.

We were mainly looking for products or tools native to Azure. The other tools that we evaluated were not native to Azure. Azure Security Center is natively attached to Azure. Because other tools were not natively supporting Azure, then we would have to maintain and deploy them separately.

So far, we have received very positive feedback from the team and customers. Because it is a single tool where we list all the problems or vulnerabilities, we are happy as a team. The customer is also happy.

End users are not interacting with Azure Security Center. This is a back-end service that evaluates security.

There are no other good tools in Azure, other than Azure Security Center, which will evaluate and alert you to security vulnerabilities and threats. So, if somebody is really concerned about the security of their infrastructure in Azure, I suggest you use Azure Security Center. The features that it provides from a security point of view are amazing.

I would rate the product as a seven or eight (out of 10) because it is really helping us to improve our security standards.

Typically, when we have a scenario where a client wants to migrate their resources to Azure, they might migrate their IaaS platforms, such as virtual machines; they might migrate their applications or their databases; they could also migrate into Kubernetes services. There are a variety of projects. I work for many types of customers where all these different scenarios are involved, including applications, app services, database as a service, IaaS by default, and Kubernetes.

With a project that I recently completed for one of our customers, the requirement was around their bidding application on-prem, utilizing different cognitive services and AI modules on Azure. They wanted to containerize this entire application with AKS, Azure Kubernetes Services. They did so, and Security Center was integrated with this entire AKS system. What Security Center provided us with was a solution for how we could better secure this entire environment. It provided some recommendations on pod security and how the pods do not need to communicate with each other. It recommended isolating these pods for better security, so that even if a certain user got access to a pod, or a certain threat was detected for one of the pods, we wouldn't have to worry about the entire system being compromised. By implementing the recommendation, if a pod is compromised, only that pod is affected and can be destroyed anytime by the AKS system.

Another recommendation was for enabling some edge layer WAF services, by leveraging a Microsoft out-of-the-box solution like Front Door. Security Center said, "Okay, now that the application is being accessed over the public internet, it is not as secure as it could be." An edge solution, like an application delivery controller such as a WAF or a CDN service was another option. It could be anything that sits at the edge and manages the traffic so that only authorized access is allowed within the network. Security Center recommended Front Door, or we could leverage other solutions like Cloudflare, or a vendor-specific solution like F5. We could then make sure that any Layer 7 security is handled at the edge and doesn't affect the application inside. SSL offloading is taken care of at the edge. Any region-specific blocking is also taken care of at the edge. If an application is only accessed in the U.S., we can block locations at scale with this solution. That is how Security Center provided us with some recommendations for better securing the environment.

Another way that Security Center can help is that it can benchmark the infrastructure in terms of compliance. Compliance-based infrastructure is one of the norms nowadays. If an application is health-based or it's a Fintech-based application, certain standards like HIPAA, NIST, or PCI need to be followed by default. Auditors or compliance teams used to run through a manual checklist to make sure that the environment was secure. But with Security Center, we can do it via an automated layer, introducing regulatory compliance policies. Security Center performs scanning of the entire environment, in regard to the policies, in real time. Using the example of the bidding system, it's a Fintech environment and, while having NIST is not mandatory, we could enable a benchmark run-through, to make sure the infrastructure is NIST-compliant.

With Security Center, we applied policies that align with these types of compliance. Security Center takes these policies and runs through the infrastructure to see what the gaps are and provides us with a report on what is compliant on the infrastructure and what is non-compliant. We can fix those non-compliant parts.

For any type of service, I would recommend the go-to solution for security on Azure is Security Center. The advantage is, firstly, is that it has seamless integration with any of the services I mentioned, on Azure, such as IaaS platforms, virtual machines, applications, or databases, because it's an in-house product from Microsoft within the Azure ecosystem. It has seamless integration with their Log Analytics workspaces, and it also provides some insights into what can be a better solution when it comes to securing their environment.

When it comes to improving the security posture, whenever we have a small project for a customer where they want to migrate their resources into Azure, once the resources are migrated, such as the ones I noted above, we go ahead and integrate Security Center in various ways. One of those ways is to use an agent that can be installed on virtual machines so that we can extensively monitor security alerts or threats that happen on the device. 

But for platforms as a service, we can't have an agent installed, so it integrates with the Log Analytics workspace. For any PaaS services, or a database as a service, or data lakes, we take their Log Analytics workspace and integrate it with Security Center. Once we have integrated it, Security Center discovers the resources, determines what the different configurations are, and provides us with some recommendations for the best practices that Microsoft suggests.

For example, if the Security Center agent is installed on a virtual machine and it scans the environment and identifies that the access to this VM is public and also doesn't have any MFA, it will recommend that blocking public access is one of the best practices to make sure that only safe access is allowed. Along with that, it can also provide us with some insights about enabling MFA solutions that can provide an additional security layer. Those are examples of things that Security Center can recommend for providing a more secure infrastructure

There is a slight gap between the real-time monitoring and real-time alerts. While Security Center has the ability to detect sophisticated attacks or understand potential threats, I feel that if the response time could be improved, that would be a good sign.

In addition, when it provides recommendations, those recommendations have a standard structure. But not all the recommendations work for a given environment. For example, if a customer is already using a third-party MFA solution, Microsoft doesn't understand that, because Microsoft looks into its own MFA and, if not, it will provide a recommendation like, "MFA is suggested as a way to improve." But there are already some great solutions out there like Okta or Duo, multi-factor authentication services. If a customer is already using Okta as an SSO in its entire environment, they will want to continue with it. But Security Center doesn't understand that and keeps making recommendations. It would help if it let us resolve a recommendation, even if it is not implemented.

Security Center provides what it calls secure score. This secure score is dependent on the recommendations. It tells you that if you resolve this recommendation, your secure score will be improved. In the case where a client is already using MFA, but the particular recommendation is not resolved, there is no improvement in the secure score. There is a huge mismatch in terms of recommendations and the alignment of secure score. MFA is just one small example, but there are many recommendations that depend on the client environment. There is room for improvement here and it would help a lot.

I'm a network and security architect for a Microsoft Gold partner. I have been extensively using Azure for five years and have been involved in multiple security and network projects. I have been using Security Center, specifically, for more than three years on Azure, applying recommendations and working on integrations with other services, etc.

The performance is pretty crisp. Because it is a platform service, we don't have to worry about the availability or response time. It's all managed via Microsoft. The performance is good for now, but it can be improved. It could be more real-time. There are many things that Security Center does in the background, so that may make the response time a bit slow. If we apply certain policies, it will run through the entire environment and give us a report after about 30 to 45 minutes. That layer could be improved.

This is a platform service and Microsoft has scalability under its control. It can scale to all of Azure.

As a Microsoft Gold partner, most of the time we work directly with the engineering team or with the Microsoft sales team. Because we are working day-in and day-out with Security Center, we are well aware of its issues, capabilities, features, and the depth of its tools. The basic, level-one or level-two support team just follow a standard. 

But there has been a huge improvement in terms of Microsoft support and they provide some really good support for Security Center.

The initial setup is very straightforward. There's nothing complex about it.

Implementation generally doesn't take a huge amount of time. Because Security Center is a service, the agents need to be installed on a virtual machine or servers. If it's an IaaS application or platform services, the log analytics need to be integrated. In an environment with about 30 or 50 servers, we could run the script and complete the onboarding of the servers into Security Center within a day, and the same is true for platform services.

But it's not just about onboarding it because Security Center also provides some recommendations, and we work on those.

I lead a team of four people who work specifically on Security Center. There are other sections of Azure Security that they work on, such as Azure Sentinel, Azure ADP, Microsoft 365 security and compliance for our portals. But for these four people, about 25 to 30 percent of their roles involves managing Security Center.

The return on investment is pretty great in terms of the feature set that Security Center provides. There are so many solutions out there that can do similar things, but at the same time, they do not have such seamless integration with other services on Azure. The return of investment is in the ease of management and the great visibility.

Pricing and licensing is a standard process. It's not as complicated as other Microsoft licensing solutions. Security Center charges $15 per resource for any workload that you onboard into it. They charge per VM or per data-base server or per application. It's not like Microsoft 365 licensing, where there are levels like E3 and E5. Security Center is pretty straightforward. With Security Center, there are no other fees in addition to the standard licensing fees.

We have other, third-party vendor solutions, but Security Center provides that seamless integration, along with some insights that other platform services do not. There aren't a lot of other vendors out there that can integrate with Azure platform services. It's the only solution that we recommend.

Other solutions include Qualys, Rapid7, Tenable, and Nessus. As system integrators, we generally recommend Security Center. But if a client has already made a huge investment in Tenable or Qualys, they will want to continue with that. If a client does switch, they will see the advantages of all the integrations and services that can all work together. They will have a single plane of control.

The seamless integration is one of the key benefits. It integrates well with the whole Azure ecosystem. A second advantage is not having to worry if Security Center will be able to scale. A third advantage is that it is an all-in-one service. You don't have to have multiple services for threat protection, for endpoint protection, for recommendations, and for compliance. This is one tool that can do a lot.

In terms of the cons of Security Center, there are a lot of things. Vulnerability management is available, but vulnerability assessment is not available within Security Center. That is a huge gap. As of now, Security Center relies on third-party tools in this area and we have to integrate it with them. There is also the lack of custom recommendations for the environment. That is a feature that would be helpful.

When it comes to endpoint solutions, Microsoft ATP is available, but some of our clients already have a solution such as CrowdStrike.

My advice is to go with Security Center. It's a really good tool and provides some good recommendations for the environment. Other tools can provide recommendations, but then we have to do them manually. Security Center does them automatically. That's one of the advantages that stands out compared to other tools. For anyone who asks, "Why Security Center?" I would tell them that if all their resources are being deployed, or all their applications are being hosted on Azure, this is the only solution, the best solution, out there.

I don't think there is much effect on end-user experience here, because whenever you talk about Security Center, the agents or tools are applicable to the underlying infrastructure rather than the end-user. For example, an application is hosted on a server or, for platform services, it's being integrated with these services. While a user is accessing these applications, Security Center just scans the data to understand what the incoming traffic is like. It provides intelligence reports such as where the traffic is coming from and what kind of data is being accessed for the end-user. Apart from that, it doesn't affect anything for the end-user.

Our primary use case is for cloud endpoint IoT security and overall cybersecurity implementations. We handle aspects from presales, installation, post-sales, and ongoing consulting to optimize customer security.

Implementing Microsoft Defender for Cloud has helped our organization in terms of providing robust cloud workload protection with minimal false positives. It also allows us to integrate with other tools like Splunk for observability and Qualys for vulnerability assessments, ensuring comprehensive security for our clients.

Some of the most valuable features of Microsoft Defender for Cloud include its effectiveness in threat detection through unsupervised machine learning, CTI, and advanced sandboxing. These features have consistently minimized false positives. The rich history of signature-based technology from Microsoft also adds to its reliability.

Integration into other third-party products, particularly those from tier three vendors like ManageEngine and Hexcode, has proven difficult. While there is ample documentation from Microsoft, the company needs to improve on making their integrations less challenging.

I have been working with Microsoft products for six to seven years.

We used to resell CyberX before it was acquired. The switch was made to enhance our security offerings with more comprehensive solutions.

The initial setup of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is manageable. Our team handles the presales, installation, and post-sales, ensuring the customer achieves a level of compliance with their security and regulatory needs.

We perform the presales, installation, and post-sales for clients. For compliance and consultancy, a dedicated consulting team works with the customers.

The pricing of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is very expensive. Although it is overpriced, many of our enterprise customers have a Microsoft ELA, making it the solution of choice.

Our customers also use products like CrowdStrike, Cyber Reason, TrendMicro, and AllGuard. Many are on Microsoft Azure, while some also use OCI and AWS.

The primary piece of advice would be to improve third-party integrations, especially with products from tier-three vendors. This would make the overall solution more versatile and easier to manage for diverse customer needs.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.