Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

We use it at home on some personal machines at home, and there are a few machines inside of the Enterprise that has it.

We use this solution for general antivirus protection.

We like that it has a free version available.

The frequency of the patching, and the frequency of the updates, are not included with the free version. 

The platform I used in the past would check every hour and deploy every two hours down to the client, every patch that came through. 

It was actively looking for updates, the latest threats, which is something that the Microsoft Defender product did not have in the free version.

The Enterprise version that we had, didn't have visibility. If somebody were to uninstall it or turn it off, I'd have trouble seeing that easily. There are tools that I can install, but from a reporting standpoint who has it on and off is included with the Enterprise package that you pay for, or it comes included with Office 365 Enterprise, but not in the free version.

We have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for two and a half years.

We are using the latest version. It is always up-to-date.

We had absolutely no issues with the stability of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. We did not experience any bugs or glitches.

It is pretty easy to scale. it was basically one click to agree that you wanted to use it.

We did not contact technical support.

Previously, we were using another solution and were forced to uninstall it to patch Windows. It was an annoyance to reinstall it.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was extremely simple.

We are using the free version.

When you are centrally managing it, you can't get there without a much more expensive Microsoft solution to control the rollout and to make sure that it is up-to-date.

We didn't research that, it was a stop-gap measure until we figured out what we're going to do in the long term.

We are looking into a product that gets into the EDR, XDR, the fully managed patching, and everything else, versus just the anti-virus that package includes.

I would rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and eight out of ten.

The area that I focus on the most is Endpoint Protection. We use Intune to build custom devices and configurations, to push out group policies, and do quite a bit with Azure Log Analytics.  

I'm writing a script from a multi-home deployment of the MMA Agent. The use case varies a lot, depending on the clients' needs. Our clients tend to be pretty big companies. The smallest client I have is about 600 people. Our biggest client is about 50,000.

DFE organizational security posture has been a positive experience. We're a Microsoft house. It works. Once it's deployed and once it's configured, it works and our clients tend to be happy with it. I haven't really experienced anyone who has been so unsatisfied with the platform that they wanted to go a couple of different directions, that has never happened to me.

It's Microsoft native. Microsoft is the corporate default, so it makes sense to use security platforms that are baked into the Microsoft platform. That's probably the most valuable aspect of it.

It has specific features that improve our customer's security posture. It makes the monitoring a lot easier and minimizes on-prem administration. A lot of the administrative stuff is all folded into Azure. It makes things easier.

The platform just makes things easier compared to on-prem or hybrid solutions because if you start working in an on-prem solution, most of the time it's going to be a battlefield. 

DFE affects the end-user experience when it's deployed. The more freedom a user has on the device, the more they're used to doing things their own way. By locking things down, by having device configurations, you disrupt the workflow. You need a lot of user education where you have to explain why you're doing these things. I'm a part of security. It's twofold, in that users have to get used to the new configurations. And the reason why we might take a little bit longer with pilot phases is that we have to identify how it'll affect the users and how the differences of different business units will be affected. Developers need a more open environment than other solutions.

Everything can always be improved. Improvements would depend on the client. 

Monitoring can always be better, onboarding can be a little bit faster, log collection could be easier, they could streamline the dashboard. They could maybe split it up into different workspaces and have the ability to segment groups a little bit more.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on and off for about three or four years. 

It's only the last two and a half years that it's been a big part of my job.

Microsoft has some creative accounting when they promise an SLA of 99.99%. But it is generally good. There's always going to be a problem with the cloud. If it works 99% of the time, that's great.

The frustrating thing is, you're not sure if there's a problem with your configuration or if the service itself is down because Microsoft tends to only report that the service is down much later than when you started experiencing things. So sometimes I have to jump onto a private forum or a Slack channel and ask other consultants if they experienced something similar. But when it works, it works. There's never going to be a cloud solution that has 100% uptime.

Scalability is fine. I mainly work with implementation, so I haven't really had to mess around with the scalability. I'm responsible for setting up security policies, and then if they want to do scalability, that's another team. I sit in security.

I haven't worked with support. I generally don't use Microsoft Support.

We were Microsoft partners last year. We're gold partners where we won security partners of the year, so we have an account manager. If it really hits the fan, then I would just talk to him. 

I've been an IaaS specialist since I began my career. I've done Apple MDM solutions and I've done Google Workspace, but when it comes to actual IaaS, I can't really compare. Because we're a Microsoft house, we generally don't use third parties or competitors.

The complexity of the setup depends on the environment. If it's Greenfield, it's super easy. I've been doing this for two to three years now. Most of the time it's easy. The larger companies have more complex networks and systems. The smaller the company, the easier it is to deploy.

The beginning of the project, like scoping, implementation, the entire process, or just the actual deployment depends on the size of the company. For smaller companies, we'll push some policies out. We'll do a week or two of a pilot phase where we identify different stakeholders and different business units. We collect feedback from them, keep an eye out on the audit logs and if that goes well, then we go into phase two, which takes another week or two where we slowly push out, if it's an accounting department with 60 people, then we'll do batches of 20. We'll have a pilot group of five and then we'll push it out to 20 people at a time.

The project managers worry about the licenses. I get my scope, I know the limitations I have to work with, and then I just make a solution based on that. I'm a very technical consultant and I don't really care about licenses, that doesn't really have anything to do with me.

My advice would be to start small, don't start a project thinking that it's the best solution, and bowl it out straight away. Take your time. Don't think that you'll be able to incorporate the platform within a month, although that would depend on the size of your business. Take your time, there's no rush, be patient. Because there will always be some problems.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

It is an antivirus. It is like any other antivirus, except it comes with Windows and you don't need to install anything extra.

People will ask you, "My system does not have an antivirus," because it is so hidden and subtle. You don't feel like you have an antivirus. Many users will wonder and come to you, saying, "I don't have an antivirus installed. Is that company policy? Do we need to get it from outside and install it?" So, we have to tell them, "No, there is an antivirus. It is there."

It is so seamless that people don't even feel or see it. It is just protecting everybody. If you are some kind of techie or have some experience with Windows Operating System, only then do you know that this thing is already built-in. If you go into the Task Manager, you can find the antivirus using up a lot of memory and a bit of CPU power, then you will understand that is the antivirus doing this. Normally, many people don't realize this.

It is already integrated with Windows 10, so you don't need to worry about that. 

It is a basic firewall with some additional anti-exploit measures and parental controls already built in.

It is using a large space in your memory all the time. While an antivirus will use some of your memory, if they could reduce the load of the antivirus to some extent that would be good.

We started using it when they started bundling it with Windows 10, which has been around three or four years.

It is very stable.

You do not need to worry about maintenance. It is automatically updated. Sometimes it will show you a red marker to do a system scan. People normally kind of ignore that, but I suggest people do a system scan from time to time. Now, what happens is just a bubble icon showing a red cross sign, but that may not be enough. It should give a pop-up window to remind people to scan the system once a month or quarter. It should be built-in scanning, without asking anybody, once per month or quarter.

It is scalable.

There is no need to get an additional solution because it comes bundled with Windows. 

We are protecting around 60 to 70 endpoints in India. In the entire company, there may be around 400 to 500.

We have used other antiviruses, like McAfee and Avira Antivirus.

The same thing can be viewed as a pro and a con:

Pro: It is more than silent; you do not even realize that it is an antivirus. Any other antivirus third-party will nag you with pop ups for any small threats. They want to show that they are doing something because you pay them money. They are funny, colorful pop-ups, whatever color they use is like an advertisement for them, e.g., "They are doing it wrong, and we pointed it out." Windows Defender does not do that. In a way, this is good for the people who know the threat sender. They do not really need to be nagged by the antivirus every time you open a site or click on a file.

Con: For normal people who do not know anything about the security side, some pop ups should be there. Some pop-ups call people's attention that you are doing it the wrong way. For example, "This is potentially wrong. Don't visit this site. Don't potentially open this link, file, or attachment." This is missing in Windows Defender.

It has a good return on investment, especially since we are used to paying for antivirus. Now, it is part of the Windows purchase.

You don't need to worry about the renewal and purchase of antivirus products. It is bundled with Windows 10, so you don't need to worry about separately purchasing any antiviruses. 

Whenever you purchase an antivirus, there are so many factors to consider, such as, weighing, doing a comparison, studying everything, and analyzing the cost-benefit factors. You don't need to consider any of this with Windows Defender because it all comes with it. So, you don't need to worry about it.

With Windows Defender, Microsoft is protecting their own operating system from hackers, viruses, malware, etc. It is better to use Windows Defender over other third-party providers. Microsoft knows what best is for the solutions.

If your computers or users are limited and you are not worried about using your computers for a lot of other browsing purposes or a lot of communication from the public, then you can depend on Microsoft Defender as your only solution. However, when your company is a lot more public facing, then you get a lot of mail from the public and must interact with the public. Also, if you must connect your computer to other computers not in your company, then I would suggest going for either a top-of-the line antivirus solution or third-party solutions. Totally depending on Microsoft Defender is not going to work for a company who is facing a lot of public interactions with their computer system.

I would rate it as an eight out of 10.

It is the end defense against anything coming into our computers and through other channels, e.g., we have some other measures. A lot of our users use Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, so all our servers are locked down. The solution handles what nothing else finds along the way. It is a standard endpoint for computers, servers, and tablets.

What the user doesn't see or experience, the user is happy with. Every time our other services go in and put a stop pop-up in front of what they are doing when they want to visit a website, but the browser says, "No," or they are trying to download a link and then says, "Oh, no. This is dangerous," that upsets users because they can't do what they want to do. As long as we don't get any of that, then users are happy. If users don't feel it or know about it, then they are happy. Everything else will make them unhappy.

Our end users expect to be protected and that everything works. When IT doesn't work as they expect, then they get unhappy in some form. We kind of forced this solution upon them, so they don't have a choice. As long as it doesn't meddle with their normal work, they are fine. For example, when GDPR hit us in May of 2018, that was upsetting because they now had to do some of their work a little differently. So, they don't like GDPR because it interferes with their normal workflow. Normally, users come to me if they have issues with anything. However, if everything works as expected, they are happy. In addition, they expect that they are protected.

When you have something fail and you have three or four different vendors where the fail might be located, everyone just says, "Well, it's awful." Then, you have to go and find out where the fault is. That is really annoying and can cost the business money. For that reason, if I can have one single point of contact when I have a problem to help me out, and say, "Let's find the solution." That is much better instead of having me contact multiple companies to track errors down.

The protection will always need improvement:

• From a technical standpoint, I would like better artificial intelligence on how it does its stuff in the background. It will always be behind. However, at some point, it would be nice if it could get better. It is not bad, but it could always be better.
• From an audit point of view, our auditors would like to have more reports on how things are used, if things go wrong, and how they went wrong. For example, if something got a warning, "Why?" So, we would like more versatility for tracing and reporting. That would improve the product, as long as the user interface doesn't get bogged down.

I have been using the current solution since 2014.

We haven't had any issues. I haven't had any bad experiences. I expect it to work, and it works. It is just there. For example, when you have Word or the whole Office package, as long as it works, people are happy. You just have it, and you don't have to say, "Oh, this version is really..." It is just Microsoft. For most users, Microsoft is Windows, Defender, and the Office package. As long as you just use that, then people will say, "Okay, we're just basically using Windows." They don't care about one thing or another, as long as IT works.

As long as things are slowly upgraded, it works, and we don't have any issues, then I am happy.

I let my outsource company handle scalability. I only get involved if there are issues.

We have 50-plus servers with around 125 to 150 endpoints.

Our consultancy has a deal with Microsoft where they can get access to Microsoft directly. We are part of that deal. When we have issues that need some type of Microsoft input, we can get it. However, I will let the consultancy do that. I wouldn't do that myself.

We use different email solutions and web solutions to handle incoming and outgoing traffic. However, we have not previously used another endpoint protection solution.

In 2014, we upgraded from Windows 7. It was a completely new deployment of everything. Every server, every endpoint, and even the old laptops and desktops were upgraded. So, it wasn't just Defender. Microsoft Defender wasn't really the issue, as it worked. We had a lot of other IT that was annoying, but I don't remember that we had any struggles with Defender.

Microsoft Defender is always running. It is doing its job, so it is fine. I don't have any issues with the way it was implemented or how we are running it. We have been upgrading IT throughout the years, but there have been no issues.

We had a migration deadline set by our mother company. We had to stop using Windows 7 and server 2003 by 15th of June, and we started in April. So, it was done in just under two months right before June 1st.

We are part of the aircraft industry. We have been going downhill for some time, and now we are sort of going up again. At the time of purchase, we simply bought the outsourcing with the solution, meaning we would get this many machines and servers using these services. They kind of supplied everything.

We outsourced the deployment to another company at that point in time, who put up all the consultants and stuff. Before that, we had everything internally and on-premises. At that point, we moved it out still on-premises, but not in our own house. So, we built a separate system, then moved users over.

We didn't have Microsoft in to specifically help us.

The administration of this solution is outsourced. We use a consultancy who has 50-plus employees/consultants. They take care of nearly all services: Defender, Teams, SQL, etc. I then only have to talk to one or two people who are specialized in what needs to be done.

I have been very happy with our current IT services provider. We have had them for about a year. They took over from the old consultancy who installed our IT in 2014. Our current consultancy took over in 2020 because I wasn't so happy with the old guys.

It provides peace of mind with really good pricing. It won't be upsetting my budgets or anything like that.

Our outsourcer handled the decision that we were to use Defender, Remote Desktop Services, etc. They just said, "If you choose us, this will be your solution." It came as a package. Unfortunately, that company was bought by another IT services company, who bogged everything up. The service went downhill and stuff didn't get upgraded. So, we switched to another Danish supplier with whom we currently are happy.

Go for it. It is a standard solution. If you use Windows, you might as well go for Defender. With this solution, you have your normal dependencies within Microsoft. This means that you don't have to talk to another company; you talk directly to Microsoft. Some people might go for something else, and that is fine too. However, depending on how big your company is, if you are a small or medium business, you may want to have as many eggs in one basket to have fewer points of contacts.

It is a good endpoint. All the administration is handed over to our outsource partner. So far, it has been good. We have been using it for years, so it is the de facto standard for us right now.

As far as I know, its capabilities are okay. It is up there with the rest of them. Sometimes, this is what Gartner says is the best, the next best, the 10th best, etc. That will always change. As long as we don't get hit, we are fine. If we get hit, then there are questions around what we can expect from it, what we can get out of it, what help did we get, etc., but I would let my outsource partner deal with that. Directly, I don't have my hands on it.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of 10.

We use it for endpoint detection and response.

The agent is installed on the endpoint, on the laptop or desktop, but it's a SaaS solution.

One feature that has proven beneficial is the Threat and Vulnerability Management module of Defender for Endpoint, which provides information on the vulnerability of all the endpoints. We don't have to run active scans via network scanners. It is built-in. That has proven to be helpful, although we're still in the early phases. We have identified vulnerabilities that were in our organization for too long and nobody knew about those machines and the vulnerabilities on them. From a vulnerability remediation point of view, it has been quite helpful to us.

One of the features which differentiates it from other EDR providers is the Automated Investigation and Response, which reduces the workload of SOC analysts or engineers. They don't have to manually investigate each and every alert on the endpoint, since it does so automatically. And you can automate the investigation part.

In addition, there are several features that have helped to improve our security posture at the prevention level, such as the attack surface reduction controls and the exploit prevention control. The attack surface reduction comes with the solution, out-of-the-box. There is Application Control as well, which is kind of difficult to implement, but once you are through the pain of designing and implementing it, it is one of the very good features to have. These tools are some of the things that are missing from other vendors' products, as I have worked with McAfee, Symantec and Carbon Black.

One area for improvement is that, because it comes out-of-the-box, it does not interact well with many applications we have developed in-house. There is no way to exclude them because it interacts with everything on the endpoint. One of the issues is lagging: the in-house-developed applications suffer from this and they become slow. For a big enterprise, it is important that they include a feature so that we can exclude these applications.

Another area where it could be improved is that, while it collects a lot of data, it misses some data, which is important, such as the hardware version of the endpoint and the AV signature version. I think this improvement is in the Microsoft pipeline already but it is not in the solution yet.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for around one and a half years.

It has been quite stable up until now. It does not break. Microsoft is developing on it quite frequently and more and more features are coming in, but overall it is quite stable. It does not break that often.

As we have moved away from Microsoft Defender Antivirus and to the EDR solution, we have seen very few issues so far that users have faced with this. There have been very occasional performance issues for some users, but they have been very rare.

Scalability is one thing which, I think, Microsoft is working on, because it is not yet very scalable. What it provides out-of-the-box is all it has. Any big organization needs customization, but the customization of it and running customized things on top of it are areas where it is lagging. That something Microsoft needs to work on. Examples include running custom playbooks or customizing the events which it is collecting.

We are protecting 100,000 endpoints with this solution. We may increase usage, but there is no plan for that as of yet.

Microsoft technical support is good.

Before Microsoft Defender for Endpoint we had Carbon Black. But when I came onboard, Defender for Endpoint had already been chosen.

The setup process is not very complex, but it is also not very straightforward. It depends what solutions you have. If you have everything set up, which is usually the case for big organizations, then it is pretty smooth. But if there are some things that are not set up properly in the organization, like certain parts of the infra or the cloud onboarding, then it becomes cumbersome, not the installation part, but in setting up the backend which it needs.

Our implementation strategy was that we started with a few pilot machines, to onboard Defender for Endpoint. We noticed that we had around 70 to 80 percent failures. It was a learning phase and we identified the root cause of those failures. There are some settings in Defender AV that need tweaking when you want to onboard Defender for Endpoint. We struggled to tweak those settings, but once that was done, it went pretty smoothly for the next couple of pilots. Then we encountered another roadblock which was related to an OS version dependency.

Overall, it took us about one month to onboard the solution, but we are weak in infra.

We had our consultant from Microsoft for the implementation. The engagement went on for three to four months. But one thing we noticed from this project was that it did not need a consultant. It was not that difficult to do. Maybe we did not get an expert consultant because, for solving issues, he also took time.

In addition to doing onboarding, we wanted our third-party integrations, but that was something they could not do because they were Microsoft. We had to do that ourselves. Over that three or four months, we realized that we didn't need them.

Microsoft consultancy is good and bad. If you get good consultants, they are really good. But sometimes you get consultants who are not expert enough in their domains and you don't get enough from them.

We have not seen ROI yet, but we are hopeful that in the future it will provide that.

One of the differences between other solutions I have used and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is that the latter is not yet enterprise-ready to the same extent that the other vendors are. Other vendors provide a lot of customization when it comes to integration, which every big organization requires. No big organization depends on one particular tool. Defender lacks that at this point.

Defender for Endpoint is marketed as an endpoint detection and response tool, but for others who are looking at onboarding it, they should take it as a holistic tool that provides AV, EDR, and vulnerability management all in one. However, it does not provide very good integration with third parties.

We are a consulting company and we use this product for endpoint protection across the company, as well as for our clients.

Windows Defender makes it easy to streamline the updates so we don't really worry about managing it.

The patch management is very easy, as it can be done automatically or added to a schedule. This will update all of the virus signatures.

We have a hook from our on-premises application to the cloud services for advanced threat protection, so the management is in the cloud. Centralized management allows us to schedule malware scans.

When you hook it up to the cloud's advanced threat protection, it gives you more than protection from ransomware. It covers different types of malware and allows you to see what malicious software is being executed on the machine.

The product allows you to manage your machine through it, similarly to the way SCCM does.

I would like to see better integration with their other security products to give better visibility from a higher level. Integrating with email, Azure, identity management, and other security applications, putting them all together, would be very good.

The first level of technical support is not very useful and it sometimes takes time to escalate to somebody more knowledgeable.

We have been using Microsoft Windows Defender for years.

This product is pretty stable.

We have had no issues with scalability. We deploy it anywhere from a small environment with a hundred users, to a large environment with 15,000 to 20,000 endpoints. The majority of our clients are small to medium-sized, with 3,000 to 4,000 users in the mid-range.

I would rate Microsoft's technical support an eight out of ten. At the first level, the support is very limited. You have to escalate it to the more senior team to get good value.

Some of our clients have used different products from vendors such as Symantec and McAfee, and they were not happy with them. We steered them towards Windows Defender and they switched because of the ATP hook to the cloud.

With other products, you have a management console, so you have to push the signature updates. We still do that now, but it's all in the cloud.

Both Symantec and McAfee come at an additional charge because they are not included in the operating system.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

We are using the version that is included with Windows 10. If you don't purchase the advanced threat protection then there is no additional charge.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Windows Defender is to purchase the ATP, which is in addition to the version that comes with Windows 10. This will allow you to really get the benefits and manage your organization's endpoints as a whole. This requires a presence in the Microsoft environment, such as a subscription to Office 365 or Azure.

I think that people should explore Windows Defender before looking at third-party products. While they are not a pioneer in anti-malware and anti-virus software, they are attacking it and they have a good budget. The advanced threat protection has a large cloud presence in Azure that we can take advantage of, and they update their product frequently. As soon as there is a new threat, they act on it right away.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to protect my computer when downloading files. Whether it's documents from my email or web browser, this is the first thing I use the solution for. It also provides protection against ransomware. Additionally, the monthly report indicates the number of infected files that were blocked during that month.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint provides excellent visibility into known threats, thanks to their comprehensive database of malware information. 

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise according to our needs. We focus on protecting against malware first, followed by email protection, and URLs.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has helped protect our organization against malware.

The ransomware and malware protection is the most valuable feature.

When there is a significant amount of malware, I believe that Microsoft Defender for Endpoint may not be as effective as other firewall solutions. I tested Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and found that it allowed me to download files infected with malware from certain sites, and its protection did not work as expected in that aspect of my work. I suspect this is because I use a GRAPH file with a password, and the solution only detects a file when it's related to clean files or open files. It doesn't seem to recognize encrypted log files that require a password for access.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint does not assist in automating routine tasks or identifying high-value alerts. Therefore, we had to turn to other solutions like Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. Additionally, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint lacks the capability to upload a list of IPs for blocking.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is effective for validating work, but not ideal for investigations. As a result, our experts have to dedicate more time when investigating threats using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint compared to other solutions.

The zero-day detection, as well as the sandboxing for unknown malware and URL detection, needs to be improved. These settings were not functional when we tested the solution.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for one year.

I give the stability an eight out of ten.

I give the scalability a ten out of ten.

The deployment is straightforward.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is more affordable compared to some other endpoint solutions.

We evaluated Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Fortinet. We found that Microsoft Defender for Endpoint was easier to deploy and offered a better price.

I would rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a seven out of ten. The solution is stable, easy to deploy, and scalable. However, threat detection could use some improvement.

Our organization is a cybersecurity company, and after using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for one year, we found that it lacked features such as endpoint detection and response. Additionally, it was weak in certain areas, like detecting a set of malware and providing email protection. As a result, we started exploring other solutions, even though they may be more costly.

We use this product for our endpoint detection and all the remediation.

The solution provides good security features. The key valuable feature for me is that you can view it in the central console.

I'd like to see more integration in the next release and the solution should be file protected.

I've been using this solution for five years.

The solution is scalable. 

I'd like to see a quicker response time from the company's technical support. 

The initial setup was straightforward. It didn't take long and was part of the deployment of our endpoints, and part of the integration. We currently have around 3,000 users and no plans to expand. We have four people involved with maintenance. 

I recommend this solution and rate it eight out of 10.