Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

We use it for endpoint security.

When looking at the ecosystem as a whole, security-wise, Microsoft provides a complete solution with the E5 Security suite. Microsoft has a big advantage because Defender knows how to interact with the CASB and all the other security components that you have. Overall, that makes the management of the environment much easier. It's easier to understand what's going on, to become aware of risks, and to take action.

• Defender has very little impact on the end-user.
• The agent works quite well with a minimal impact on the client and server.
• It's very easy to deploy it.

We did a trial of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for about three months, and now we are in the process of rolling it out.

We have about 4,300 users of Defender and it took two days to have it fully deployed. With Cortex it took some time. With Cortex, we had some 500 clients that we had to investigate because for some reason they did not get the agent immediately and we had to do some tweaking to get it to all the end-users.

We used consultants for the deployment of both Cortex and Defender.

We gave Palo Alto Cortex XDR a try and we are now in the process of removing it and going to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. I have experience with both of them.

Cortex has quite good management capabilities that give IT organizations quite a good picture of attempted cyber attacks. It has good investigation capabilities, out-of-the-box, in case there is an event that you'd like to investigate. It's quite convenient. Microsoft has those capabilities as well, but you need a bit more training on the product to get the basic information that you can get out-of-the-box with Cortex.

The onboarding process with Defender is much easier. In two days we were able to deploy it to our whole organization. Cortex is much more cumbersome. But the onboarding process is not the issue. A more important difference is that once you have security risks that you would like to mitigate, Cortex more easily gives you information regarding the threats. Microsoft gives you exactly the same information, but you have to know how to dig a bit more and do some manual steps that, with Cortex, are more straightforward.

The main issue that we had with Cortex, and the reason we decided to roll back and go to Defender, is that Cortex has a horrible impact on the performance of the system. For an enterprise-level organization, it kills the system. Users were complaining that when moving between emails in Outlook it would take a lot of time, creating a lot of delays and timeouts. Web browsing and every action on their computers took much more time than usual with Cortex.

I would rate Defender a nine out of 10, while Cortex XDR is a five 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 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for protection, asset onboarding, and service onboarding. We primarily focus on Microsoft-based endpoints. Specifically, we look for processes to determine if malware, viruses, or adware have been installed.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint helps prioritize threats across our enterprise. The solution notifies us of new vulnerabilities, including those that have been published, exploited, or are being exploited, and it provides some visibility into these threats.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint has a significant impact on reducing the number of affected machines. I personally write custom detection rules to analyze the environment and look for specific patterns, such as ransomware. Although some of the pre-built detection rules in Azure on GitHub are useful, they are not as flexible in terms of use cases. Therefore, it makes sense to write custom rules instead of importing the pre-built ones.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint helps automate routine tasks and helps automate the finding of high-value alerts.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint improved our security posture and operations by automating some of the mundane tasks, such as analyzing alerts. This allows us to focus on incidents that were created from specific individual alerts.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint saved us time in terms of operational and C- CERT security. It reduced the amount of time we spend analyzing what happened on a particular endpoint, which processes were started, and which ones were suspicious. For example, it helped us to quickly identify suspicious installation protocols.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint reduced our time to detect and respond by 25 percent.

Endpoint's most valuable feature is deep analysis. It provides a lot more in-depth findings. However, it only analyzes portable files with the .exe and .drl extensions. It does not analyze other file extensions. Additionally, it does not provide all the necessary information about the file's memory usage or size. I have to download the file to my computer to do further analysis. Therefore, the size of the application that the deep analysis analyzes is the only other red flag I can think of.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint does not provide much flexibility in terms of threats. It only looks at what is currently in the environment. It does not provide flexibility like threat modeling, where we can provide our own threat model within the environment. This would allow Defender to provide us with feedback on threat intelligence that is tailored to our organization's needs and threat landscape.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint's deep analysis shows that it works well with Microsoft's standard applications. However, it does not function as intended when used with Unix or Linux distributions. Therefore, it would be beneficial to improve support for other systems.

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

In terms of resources, I believe the solution is more resource-intensive because I can initiate multiple automated investigations, which will likely take a day or two to complete.

Our organization has thousands of people using the solution.

I give Microsoft Defender for Endpoint an eight out of ten.

No maintenance is required from our end.

I believe a best-of-breed solution is better because it eliminates some of the limitations of applications that do not provide solid stability in terms of detection time, response time, and eradication. This is because a best-of-breed solution is designed to be the best in its class at each of these tasks. As a result, it can identify threats more quickly, respond to them more effectively, and eradicate them more completely.

When evaluating the solution, we must understand how our environment is structured. Is it a hybrid environment? Does it have Unix, Linux, or Microsoft distributions? And within those distributions, do we plan to purchase multiple enterprise systems to cater to each individual distribution?

I am using Defender for one of my customers. 

We use Defender with Sentinel, so we can see everything from one dashboard. You can also use the 365 security portal to manage all your Microsoft solutions, but Sentinel covers the entire estate. It has automation features, but I am not the one who configured that. A separate team does that for the customer. 

Defender helps us be more proactive about security with suggestions on how to improve. It provides a Microsoft security score for 365 and Azure, both of which are helpful. 

Defender saved us time. I believe it saved the customer some money, but I could not provide exact figures.

Defender's analytics are much better than CrowdStrike's. It has the ability to intelligently learn and respond to threats. We conducted a simulated ransomware attack to test it, and Defender detected it faster than CrowdStrike. 

My customer is also happy with Defender's interface. It helps them prioritize threats across their environment. We also use Sentinel and Defender for Cloud. I also tested a VM deployed with Defender that reports back to the 365 portal. It's easy to integrate Microsoft security solutions. All of the solutions work in concert, and they're synchronized. I have no problems with integration and can see the entire landscape. The protection is comprehensive. I'm impressed. I have no complaints about the product.

The bidirectional sync with Defender for Cloud is crucial. If I check the other side of the signal, I can update the source of the alerts. It's vital to have a bidirectional connection for analysis and feedback. 

The documentation could be better. When they update their manuals, sometimes they refer to products by their old names, so it is a little confusing. For example, the documentation might still say "Advanced Threat Protection" instead of Defender for Endpoint. 

I have used Defender for Endpoint for three months. 

I rate Defender a nine out of ten for stability. 

Defender scales well. 

I rate Microsoft's support a nine out of ten. They were impressive. Microsoft has excellent support engineers.

Positive

I previously worked with CrowdStrike Falcon. Defender is more effective because it identifies more threats than Falcon.

I rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a nine out of ten. If someone asked me whether a best-in-breed or single-vendor strategy was better, I would say there's no right or wrong answer. It's better to use one vendor from an integration perspective because it's easier to set up. 

A single-vendor approach also simplifies support. For example, if you use CrowdStrike, you might be using Splunk as your SIEM. When you open a ticket with CrowdStrike, they will only be able to answer questions about their own products. 

We use it for security purposes. It provides important security for some critical systems, such as network devices.

For securing access, USB security helps us block our USB ports and that ensures that users do not plug USB drives into their computers.

In addition, our efficiency in the way we handle our processes has been improved because the solution automates routine tasks and helps find high-value alerts.

It has also saved us a good amount of time, something like 15 percent, while decreasing our time to detect and our time to respond, each, by 5 percent.

It automatically detects intrusion and malware.

It's also easy to use. The interface is user-friendly and the navigation is 
not difficult. It is very easy to move from one hyperlink to another, to move from one solution within the platform to another solution.

And in terms of categorizing the info and the actions that need to be done, it helps you to prioritize threats. That is very important.

The time it takes to restore the application could be improved. It has a lot of dependencies. It's not like the Microsoft security that comes with the OS. Updating through the command prompt, most of the time, it takes some time to download some of these dependencies. They need to make the download of the dependencies more efficient.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for more than five years.

The stability is okay.

It is scalable. We use it for multiple departments, teams, and locations. We have over 5,000 users.

I would rate Microsoft's technical support at seven out of 10, because of the time it takes them to respond. But when they finally respond, they give us complete attention and things are resolved within the SLA.

Neutral

Before Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, we were using McAfee.

We constantly get updates from Microsoft that are light and they don't really affect us while we're working. The updates have been very helpful.

I would recommend Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

Our server is on Azure, so we get alerts on Microsoft Defender. If it's an endpoint alert, we investigate the endpoint based on the type of endpoint it is, whether it's a computer or a phone, et cetera. We then figure out what kind of file was downloaded, if it was bad or good, based on the hash file. 

We also use Microsoft Defender for Office 365 for email, where we get alerts based on phishing emails, spam, and we investigate them. We also do Sentinel queries, with KQL (Kusto Query Language).

Automation has had a positive impact. When we have a lot of false-positive alerts, we are able to set up a condition in Microsoft Defender where it will automatically close that as false. I don't create those conditions, that's something our security engineer does, but it makes my job easier.

Also, threat intelligence helps against potential threats before they hit. You can actually block and delete the emails from MDE whenever you detect them, or when they report, "Hey, this is a phishing email or spam email." It's also able to block and detect a bad or phishing URL. It has decreased our time to respond because if it detects a URL, we're able to automatically block and delete it before a user even sees their mailbox the next morning. It's very fast in detecting and we like that.

As a SOC, it has saved us time, on the order of 60 percent of our time.

The Microsoft Sentinel part is the most valuable when you have to search for the malicious folder or file the user downloaded. We use it to ingest data from our entire ecosystem and that is very important if we have to go back 30 days and investigate cases, and we need more details. It's able to ingest that much data. That's pretty important.

Sentinel also enables us to respond holistically from one place and that's good for my job. It makes it easy.

Also, the visibility into threats that the solution provides is pretty awesome. I had never actually seen this type of technology before. It was the first time I had exposure to the cloud. This is something that makes me think, "Wow, okay. If I had my own organization, I would probably get this too." It stops the threat before an employee gets phished or something gets downloaded to their computer. Even if it gets downloaded to the computer, it doesn't spread to the other networks, because Defender will automatically block it.

Another thing that is pretty awesome is that our Microsoft security products work natively together and deliver coordinated detection and response throughout our environment. As a SOC person, it makes my job very easy.

When it comes to the comprehensiveness of the threat protection from these products, so far I have seen how it's able to pick up the smallest script that is hidden in any type of malicious file. It's so good. And it gives you all the details: what kind of script was run, what kind of hash file, and what type of command was run. I'm pretty happy with it.

If there were more template queries in the library, that would make it much easier. They could have basic things, like, "Where's the IP for this user?" or, "What file was downloaded from this user?" If there were more of those basic queries that would help. I haven't seen basic ones, but there are a lot of advanced queries, where people need to know the KQL language to understand them. I'm still learning so that's why I'm providing that feedback.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for almost a year.

The stability has been really good so far. I haven't seen it go down or have an issue where it didn't work. 

We have had some integration issues when something breaks, but that's just occasional. So far, it's good.

We have it deployed across various departments. The IT users have more privileged settings.

When I started with this company we used Splunk before we switched to Sentinel. We switched because Sentinel seems way faster.

I wasn't involved in the setup of the solution, but when it comes to maintenance, we have security engineers who maintain our alerts, in case there are false positive alerts coming in.

Work on Sentinel. It has a lot of power versus the Microsoft Defender solution.

We are using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint with advanced threat production. Microsoft's enterprise mobility and security suite fulfills a large number of security strategy requirements for our organization. We are going to use this solution for identity production and for endpoint security.

It's a hybrid setup. The advanced threat protection only comes from the cloud intelligence engine. That's something of a new experience for us, but the rest of the components will be on-prem. We are using Microsoft's cloud. 

The whole suite of security enhancement doesn't just include Microsoft Defender. It also covers many of the features that come with the Windows Enterprise version. With this option, we are actually upgrading to the Enterprise version as well and unlocking those security features which are not available in Windows Professional. Microsoft Defender is a whole suite, which is simply not comparable with a usual anti-virus, anti-malware product.

In terms of the architecture of the management infrastructure, we found that other technologies are more simple. Microsoft Defender could be simpler too. Plus, Microsoft's philosophy is that they leverage the technology they have already built in Windows or any other services within Windows. So, it is good from that standpoint, but it also becomes a bit cumbersome when it comes to the dependency. Having dependency on many things can be a weakness sometimes because you add up more points of failure to the services. Whereas the other vendors are doing the limited thing, and that's why they're not comparable in prices, but their solutions basically aren't dependent on Microsoft's other services or anything else. They're more dependent on their agent. With Microsoft, it is not just the agent. It is the operating systems that aren't working well. The technology won't give you the desired output.

So, that's something that Microsoft may need to improve: making services more independent wherever possible. That's something of their philosophy. When they build something on their OS layer, they add on technologies, and then there's something for the ISV. That's their strategy, but we keep arguing with them that they have to compare the dependence as other vendors are doing.

From the Microsoft end, the design working depends on the health of other services and other components of the operating system. Whereas if you compare it with the Symantec technology, just the agent health has to be there. That's the case with McAfee as well. They build up their products on developed agents only.

We did the POC around 18 months ago, and then we consolidated our findings. As per the organization procedure, we proposed to the committee and then got the recommendation to move on with the pilot and decide the future roadmap.

Microsoft Defender is just one part of the advanced risk protection and advanced malware protection functionality that comes with the Microsoft product. It came with a lot of security, advisories, reviews, and consultancy during the last couple of years. There was a stack of 15-20 requirements that we had to fulfill, like mobile device management and identity protection. We found that Windows Defender meets most of our requirements.

We have had good experience with tech support so far.

We have a direct support agreement with Microsoft. One of the major reasons for moving from the current endpoint security is the support. The quality is not up to the mark. That's something incomparable with the kind of support Microsoft provides.

I would give Microsoft's support a 5 out of 5.

In terms of the technical aspect, I'm the lead of the area, which actually takes care of endpoint management, and we have been using Symantec products for that purpose. We have evaluated Microsoft Defender and Microsoft security products, and we are going to switch over to that product. We found that  because the endpoint devices are based on Microsoft Windows devices and Windows Defender is integrated with the foundation and the core layer, it makes it more integrated and more agile in terms of responding to any security threats or changes or development, whereas compared to the other vendors who develop anything on top of that platform, they're always lagging behind.

Symantec support is very pathetic. They are very methodical. They're very slow. We seldom find them providing solutions to any incident or issue in a reasonable time. It can take from days to weeks. In the case of Microsoft, their resolution time is reasonably faster than Symantec. Even in the case of VMware and Redhead, Microsoft stands on top of all those vendors.

I wouldn't say the setup is easier than other solutions but it's not bad. It's almost equivalent to what we have been using currently, but the strength comes in what it does and how it secures that part. The setup is similar to the other competitors. For Symantec, we use their endpoint manager deployment and then a deployment across the sites and branches.

We are doing deployment with Microsoft's tech support. But for the implementations and rollout of technologies, we have seldom used Microsoft. We have our own technical team who are trained and who keep on updating on their skills, and we continue to inject new resources to the team as well. When a new technology comes in, then we do a combo, whereby the in-house team actually learns with the local authorized partner.

Microsoft Defender is not comparable to a single endpoint security product, like Trend Micro, Symantec, or McAfee. Because of that, the price is higher than others because it is doing more than what the others are doing.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

We were using the basic endpoint from Sophos without Intercept X and the EDR model, and currently, we are in the selection process of a new platform that has EDR embedded. We are using Microsoft Defender Antivirus for the time being till we get the new platform.

It is easy to use because it is already pre-installed in Windows 10. We don't have to do anything to configure it. You can also configure the firewall by using a group policy so that it can be easily adopted in an environment.

Microsoft Defender in the basic form is not very useful for managing the security environment. The free version is not capable of covering the needs of centralized management, EDR, and behavioral analysis. If you don't have the commercial version, you can't have centralized management and set up the policies and other things. Each client is a standalone installation, which is not useful for security in an enterprise model.

I have been using this solution for six months.

Currently, we have about 2,000 users.

I didn't use support for this solution.

It was already pre-installed in Windows 10.

It is free. It is included in Windows 10.

We are using Microsoft Defender only for the time being. We will switch to another endpoint platform that can offer us more advanced features, centralized management, and EDR. We have not chosen the solution at the moment, but we might go for Bitdefender. It is one of the products that we have evaluated, and it can be suitable for our environment. It has some use cases that are really in the same line as our requirements.

I would recommend this solution only for small home environments. It is not for enterprise environments unless you buy the commercial version.

I would rate Microsoft Defender Antivirus a seven out of ten.