Microsoft Defender XDR Reviews

I'm using the solution for security.

Previously, we weren't using anything and now we can configure privileged access and rules. We now operate in a more secure environment. 

It's great that it's a cloud solution. You don't need to worry about physical hardware.

You can configure the product very easily. It's simple to implement and easy to run.

The XDR platform provides unified identity and access management.

We only use it to cover Microsoft products; it works really well. 

365 Defender stops lateral movement of advanced attacks, like ransomware or business email compromise. It protects us from spam and ransomware. 

So far, we haven't had any attacks. It also allows us to adapt to evolving threats. 

We use the solution's multi-tenant management capabilities. It's easy to access and helps with investigating and responding to threats across tenants. 

With Microsoft, we get multiple services under one platform.

With Defender, we've been able to reduce costs. We've likely saved around 25% in costs so far. We've also been able to save time - around 10% to 20%.

You can customize the product based on your requirements - and everything is available under one platform.

The solution can improve the rules and privileges it offers. They need to be more transparent with changes. Often, changes come too rapidly.

I've been using the solution for seven months. 

The solution is a stable product. I'd rate it nine out of ten.

It's scalable. I'd rate the ability to scale nine out of ten. You can scale according to your needs. 

Support is very good. 

I also use SentinelOne and Splunk. Microsoft Defender is easy to implement and is user-friendly. Splunk, however, is not user-friendly.

The deployment is easy.

We have 20 to 30 people working on the solution. 

There isn't really any maintenance needed. 

The pricing is reasonable. It's cheaper than other options. 

I'm a Microsoft customer. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

I would recommend the solution to others.

We use Defender XDR to monitor our network. We use it for when we analyze email and check endpoints.  

XDR is our second solution. We have two. We have it in basic mode as an antivirus and as an XDR. We use the DLP in our company as well. We can look at threat intel for vulnerabilities, and we check to see if vulnerabilities are present within our environment. We do that through Defender. It's useful for threat hunting. 

We have it integrated with Sentinel and we manage our incidents from Sentinel. We can do a detailed analysis of what actually happened, and it gives us the ability to log in remotely on devices. For example, if you have a problem with your PC, one of my colleagues can take the file from the PC remotely. As long as you have permissions as an administrator you can do that. Otherwise, you can create an incident and escalate it to the right admin.

The file analysis is helpful. When we have phishing emails Microsoft itself can analyze the file in the sandbox and then give you a detailed report. It's helped us respond better and increased the security of our organization.

I like the attack graph of each incident. It's really handy, and there's a summary. For example, you can see what had happened with a timeline. And if you go to investigate, the evidence will be there, including the users and devices. Co-pilot is integrated there as well. With just one click, you have a summary of what to do and the next steps. For young analysts, it is quite helpful.

You can have security administrators or global administrators. You can set up different permission structures outside of Defender.

The solution's security extends or covers more than just Microsoft technologies. Linux machines can be used, for example. It is possible to install an agent for Linux so you can monitor also Linux machines.

Apart from having everything within the same console, you have alerts.

The attack disruption capabilities positively affect our security operations. We can integrate with third parties. If an email comes in with a file attached, Microsoft's intelligence would be able to tell if it's a phishing scam, and it can automate the deletion.

We do educate and train our users, however, it provides an extra security layer that catches suspect emails. It reduces the risk of users accidentally clicking on phishing emails. 

The solution adapts to evolving threats. It's a next-generation solution. The machine learning and AI are integrated. With the help of machine learning, it can block quite a bit of suspicious activity.

It offers multi-tenant capabilities. We have four different tenants, and for each, we have a different console, so I don't directly deal with multi-tenant capabilities; however, it is possible. 

We do use the solution with a variety of others. We haven't reduced the number of other products we use for security. However, it's quite handy. It blocks a lot of malicious attempts. Nothing really gets by it. The automatic incident response and protection have kept us very safe, even though we do have other backups there on offer as well. 

We've saved a lot of time with the automated detection. It reduces the time we need to respond and react. We've saved maybe 30% to 40% of the typical amount of time it would take, thanks to automation. For example, if there is, a phishing email goes to the XDR if we had to do an analysis and a report, that alone might take 20 minutes to an hour. Then, we have to remediate, delete and block. With automation, we can save those 20 minutes to an hour. The process is automatic, so we don't have to manually do it. Also, if you have a bunch of suspicious domains or IPs, it will take time to manually go through everything, one by one. However, we can automate the blocking process and save ourselves a lot of time. 

The AI could be improved. As an analyst, I want to be able to interact more with AI. The AI simply sends summaries. I can't ask it, for example, if it has seen any suspicious activity with device two. I have to go and check device two for myself.

I've used the solution for 15 months so far.

The solution is quite stable. I'd rate stability eight out of ten.

We have 15 to 16 people using the solution in my organization. Then we have users on various Microsoft accounts. There may be 50 or more users in total. We have the solution spread across multiple locations. 

It's a scalable product.

I've had colleagues mention that they were very pleased with Microsoft's support. Once you open a ticket, the response you get is usually within an hour or two. 

Positive

I do use different solutions. Microsoft is very good compared to other market leaders. It's a leader itself. I've used CrowdStrike, for example, and I'm familiar with Zscaler. 

My understanding is it is quite easy to deploy the solution. Between deploying the agent and the initial installation, it may take one to two hours. Then, of course, you have to customize the product. However, as a SaaS product, it's very easy to deploy. I'm not sure if any ongoing maintenance is needed after deployment. 

I don't have visibility into the pricing. However, Defender is included in the price of a larger bundle. As a Microsoft customer, it's my understanding that users can access discounts. 

I'm a Microsoft customer. 

I'd advise new users to try a proof of concept. Before the solution is implemented, figuring out the grouping will be very important. You'll want to implement policies based on groups, so they need to make sense. For example, it would be easy to create a structure based on departments.

I'd recommend the solution to others. Microsoft is quite handy. You can get a full overview of your vulnerabilities, which makes investigations easy.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

The solution is primarily used for security response. We work with many government ministries that use Microsoft, Microsoft 365, or security tools like Azure XDR. This solution integrates with other products, helps with detection, and offers quick response times.

The threat-hunting and incident investigation capabilities are very strong. It can investigate and block phishing attacks and monitor them effectively. We can even do endpoint behavior analysis. 

The solution's XDR platform provides unified identity and access management for customers. If the customer is using a Microsoft Enterprise XDR solution, it does. We do have Microsoft Defender for Identity. It's part of the suite itself. Customers can have Defender for Endpoints, Defender for Identity, and Defender for Cloud. All these things combined form the XDR. The main use cases are around identity - to understand whether there is identity hacking, privilege escalation, or some malicious user in the environment. It helps us respond to those events very quickly.

From a coverage point of view, it's good. We are quite happy with it. If we have users with multiple devices, the solution provides comprehensive coverage.

While the solution does cover technology beyond Microsoft, it's strongest when monitoring the Microsoft Suite. We do have servers, and it can monitor them. They don't necessarily have to be Windows servers.

Defender XDR can stop advanced attacks, like ransomware or business email compromise. It depends on how the solution is configured. It does a lot of monitoring and helps the SOC team or the analysis team find issues. 

The solution has the ability to stop attacks and can adapt to evolving threats. It can ingest a lot of threat intel data, which actually gives us the latest information about how the threats are happening. It does a quick analysis of that. 

Some customers use Defender XDR's multi-tenant management capabilities. That said, most of the time, they might not need a multi-tenancy. In one or two cases, customers may have done it, but not very frequently. The multi-tenant management capabilities for investigating and responding to threats across tenants are pretty decent. It provides a very unified view. That's one of the core capabilities of Microsoft XDR - the unification of the view. In a security situation, I might have solutions in multiple places. However, our tenant will be protected, and we will receive alerts. It helps a lot with individual client monitoring. It will help me hunt other tenants as well. It makes it so we have a very cohesive environment. 

Defender XDR has enabled some of our customers to discontinue the use of other security products. However, it's not always based on capabilities. In Qatar, for example, it's a government mandate to use Microsoft as much as possible, so we move a lot of customers over exclusively to Microsoft in those cases. That doesn't mean the other product wasn't performing. It just means there is a heavy preference towards being solely on Microsoft. 

The Microsoft XDR solution has helped some customers to reduce costs. One of the major cost reductions is on the resources side (not on the technology side). As a service provider, we can move to a much leaner team with the XDR setup than with a non-XDR setup. When you have different environments to monitor and different alerts coming in from different devices, then you need more people to do the monitoring and analysis. However, when you have a unified view of the environment, then you can reduce the team to a certain extent. We can do a 25% reduction on a team, which is a considerable reduction since resources are expensive. How much a company can save depends on the environment. If it's small, the reduction in cost may not be significant. It can be as low as 10% or as high as 25%, depending on the size of the environment. 

It's helped us save time. It's difficult to specify how much; however, it's likely up to 25% thanks to the reduction in the analysis needed. 

From a performance standpoint, improvements could be made. 

I've used the solution for one and a half years. 

I'd rate the stability eight or nine out of ten. If it's just a Microsoft environment, the reliability is very good. If it's a mixed environment, I'd rate the stability seven out of ten. 

The solution is highly scalable. 

Technical support is good. We have enterprise support and they are responsive.

Positive

I do not handle the initial setup process. The customer may deploy it across multiple locations. The size of the environment can vary from 100 users to 1,000.

There isn't really any heavy maintenance. You just have to renew the licenses. If it's a small environment, one person can handle that. If it's bigger, there may be two or three people. 

My understanding is that Microsoft is trying to change the pricing. However, right now, it's bundled together. If it could be decoupled a bit, it would help customers be able to afford the solution. 

We are service providers, and we resell Microsoft solutions. 

XDR is basically used for unification. It's more of a dashboard. When you have an XDR, you can monitor the entire environment. You can also see and take actions across the entire environment, which is actually a very big advantage when it comes to a particular software analyst's day-to-day job. They can be monitoring one screen. Typically, if an issue is found, a ticket needs to be made, and that's passed onto an engineer, but with XDR, a lot can be automated. It can help reduce costs related to manpower and make the process more efficient. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten and recommend it to others. Smaller companies may not need it; however, if a company is growing fast or is already sizable, it's a good option—especially if it is a mostly homogeneous Microsoft environment.

We're a small business. Defender XDR gives us a centralized security solution for monitoring our servers and some user PCs. We have around 30 machines, 10 of which are servers. 

Defender XDR saves the security team time by telling us what patches to apply. We also get preemptive notes about things that need to be done.

I like Defender XDR's reports and alerts. They give you updates about the latest hotfixes and zero-day vulnerabilities, which gives me all the information I need to maintain my servers. 

Defender's AI for identifying suspicious activity could be improved. Also, I do a lot of home updates. Maybe there is a way to set it up faster. For example, let's say that I want to automatically update seven computers, servers, etc. I wouldn't do it to a user, but maybe the server. I don't mind if the server restarts automatically.

I have used Defender XDR for a year.

Defender XDR is stable.

Defender is scalable. I haven't had any issues with that part.  

Microsoft support is good. I usually don't contact them directly. We have a support partner. If there's an issue, they can resolve it with Microsoft quickly.

We previously used Symantec antivirus. We're a small company, so switching wasn't a big deal. We switched because Symantec discontinued the solution we were using. They actually don't sell it anymore.

I wasn't involved in the decision to purchase Defender XDR. We are a small company, so we needed a vendor to support SMEs, and Microsoft caters to businesses of all sizes. We checked some other solutions but went with Defender because we're already on Azure, so the solutions complement each other.

Deploying Defender XDR was easy. Our external security guy handled most of the settings and onboarding, and our IT guy handled a few of the problematic cases. Most of the maintenance was automatic.

I don't know the exact pricing, but I believe Defender offered the best small business solution for the price.

I rate Microsoft Defender XDR nine out of 10. I don't have experience with other XDRs that I can compare it to, but I think Defender is an excellent solution. It's fairly easy to understand and navigate, and it's a good value.

We are using Microsoft Defender for Office 365 for identity and email security, safe links, etc.

It works as an antivirus, and it also works for any behavioral issues in a particular machine. It protects all the applications from any vulnerability. It works in both ways. It works for vulnerability management and also for the EDR part. Earlier, we had Qualys for vulnerability management, but Microsoft Defender takes care of both. It provides information about how vulnerable a machine is, and it also takes care of the antivirus and behavioral issues in a particular machine due to some threats or any unwanted applications installed.

It helps us manage vulnerabilities. If there are any vulnerabilities in a machine due to a lack of patches or end-of-life software installed on the machine, it gives us the report. After seeing the report, we can fix those vulnerabilities by uninstalling the vulnerable applications or by patching them.

It takes care of the antivirus part. The signatures are constantly getting updated related to new viruses. It covers any identity-related issues or device-specific issues. It covers the MITRE framework. If any threat or risk is present in our environment, it takes care of that and then tells us that these are the issues that we need to work on. After we get the alerts, we do the investigation and remediation.

It provides unified identity and access management. You can create role-based access. You can create policies based on different risk levels. You can also trigger password resets. There are a lot of capabilities that are built in. You can also create conditional access (CA) policies. If any vulnerable application is installed on a device, you do not want that device to be connected to your network, you can create conditional access policies. It will first check whether the integrity of the device is as per your organization's requirements. If it is compliant, then only that device will be allowed to connect to your network. The same goes for identity. If MFA is enabled in your environment, the users will be allowed to connect only if their accounts have MFA enabled. Otherwise, the access is blocked. You can automate such things.

It is important that identity and access management are included in Microsoft Defender rather than needing an additional solution. Nowadays, you see a lot of phishing emails and unsecure links being forwarded to user accounts. In Microsoft Defender, we have secure links and safe links. Once enabled, if any malicious link is sent to a user account, when the user clicks on a link, it immediately checks whether it is safe to access. If it is found to be malicious, it is immediately blocked. If a user mistakenly clicks on a link, the risk state is changed automatically in the web portal. If you have a conditional policy in place, the access is blocked for that user. Even if the attackers have access, they will not be able to do anything. In today's scenario, it is pretty important to have these in place.

As of now, the integration part is pretty limited to Microsoft products. However, by using Sentinel, which is a SIEM solution, you can integrate other products.

It stops the lateral movement of advanced attacks like ransomware or business email compromise. You can create lateral movement policies, and you also can create high-risk users or high-risk devices. You can have customized policies for them. You can create different policies, and the alerts triggered from those devices or users are put into high severity so that you can take immediate action.

You get the telemetry of any attack observed by Microsoft Defender. You can see everything from the starting point till the remediation steps automatically taken by Microsoft Defender. The investigations can be found easily. They are pretty detailed. Everything is there in the portal.

It has the ability to adapt to evolving threats. Threat intelligence is embedded in the portal itself for new threats, technologies, ransomware, or malware. All the latest threats are automatically handled by Microsoft Defender. Remediation is also automatically available.

It saves time. There is automatic remediation, and there are playbooks that you can configure. You can automate the remediation steps that you have already tried on a particular machine. If you want to suppress some of the alerts, you can create suppression rules so that your team does not spend time investigating them. Playbooks, automatic remediation, and suppression of similar alerts save a lot of time.

Vulnerability management is valuable. We had a different product for vulnerability management. We were using Qualys for that, but after we got Microsoft Defender, we also got the vulnerability management part. It is embedded in the portal itself. We do not have to look into another solution or tool. We did not have to install any additional sensor which reduces the overhead and does not affect the machine's capability. With the same sensor, we get the vulnerability report and threat report. We also get to know any risks and issues related to malware and other things.

The portal is quite user-friendly. There is integration with Office, Intune, and other products from the same portal. From there, we can see which policies are installed on a particular machine. We also can manage devices, groups, and tagging. For a different set of teams or departments, we can create different device groups. Based on the teams and their work portfolio, we can create different policies. It is quite handy, whereas with the Qualys solution, the portal was quite cluttered. To find a particular option, we had to look at many options, whereas Microsoft Defender is quite user-friendly.

We are also getting all the reports by using the same sensor. It is light on the machines as well. It consumes less resources than other solutions available in the market.

It is evolving. We are seeing new advancements and integrations. They have integrated Copilot, so going forward, we can take the AI advantage. It will be quite easy for us to run any queries. These are the advantages that I see in Microsoft Defender in comparison to others.

The patching capability should be there. Patching is something that you cannot do even though you see the vulnerabilities present in your environment. For patching, you have to depend on another solution.

Other than that, there are still limitations in creating device groups. You can create tags, but these tags are based on limited options. There are only a few categories based on which you can create a tag or device group. If there are other conditions that you want to put, such as creating a group based on the application installed on a particular machine, you cannot do that. There are some shortcomings. Also, if you want to whitelist a particular application for a set of groups, you cannot do that. We had an incident where we wanted to whitelist a particular application that was getting blocked by Microsoft Defender, but we were not able to create those groups. We were not able to whitelist the application for some of the devices. We had to whitelist it for the whole environment, which we did not want to do.

It only has pre-built dashboards. You cannot create customized dashboards. They have a set of dashboards, but they are not customizable.

We can create reports using KQL, but it is hard to create customized reports using KQL. You get a CSV, but you need to use Power BI or another reporting product to create the report. The other products available in the market give you customized dashboards, customized reporting, and customized workflows. This is pending in Microsoft Defender.

I have been working with this solution for 1.5 years.

It is a Microsoft product. It is similar to any other Microsoft product in terms of stability. They do change the name and other functionalities, but it is pretty much similar to any other Microsoft product.

It is pretty scalable. It does not stop you anywhere.

I am working in an MNC. We have more than 6,000 people.

It depends upon the license that you have. They have a different set of licenses based on which you get support. It depends on the support packages you have purchased.

It is very easy to raise a request. They have a portal. From there, you can create a ticket by email or by chat. The response is based on the support package that you have. If you have premium support, you can get a response in minutes. 

In my previous organization, I worked with Palo Alto XDR. In this organization, we had McAfee, which is a signature-based solution. Microsoft Defender is more advanced than McAfee. It is EDR-based, whereas McAfree was signature-based. It was based on the signatures related to a particular threat or virus. It was handling threat prevention, but behavioral analysis and other functionalities that you see in EDRs were not there. We wanted to move to a behavioral-based antivirus solution. That is why we opted for Microsoft Defender.

Microsoft Defender also enabled us to discontinue the Qualys solution. It has many capabilities related to vulnerability management. They are available out of the box, but patching is something that is missing. For patching, you need to use Intune, whereas, in Qualys, you can also do patching, so patching is something that is missing in Microsoft Defender. However, Microsoft Defender is very good for the assessment of vulnerabilities.

You also get visibility of the devices that are still not onboarded to Microsoft Defender. You have something called Device Discovery in Microsoft Defender. Once enabled, you can get details of all the machines that still do not have Defender, whereas, in Qualys, you have to create customized or scheduled scans of your network. They then run on a periodic basis, but that is not the case with Microsoft Defender. It is on a real-time basis. The Microsoft Defender client continuously does the scanning, and you get visibility into all the machines on your network that still do not have Microsoft Defender onboarded. However, you cannot do patching with Microsoft Defender.

Microsoft Defender can save costs. Qualys is pretty expensive. Microsoft Defender does vulnerability management out of the box, so if you do not want to do patching and you have another solution for patching, you can save costs. It also has out-of-the-box functionality for identity protection.

It is deployed on a public cloud. If you do not have people in your team who know about this product, Microsoft can give you a vendor to help with deployment, creating the policies, etc.

Overall, it is pretty straightforward because Microsoft Defender is enabled on all Windows machines. All you need to do is to activate the sensor that is already installed. The installation process is not much, but if you want somebody to help you, Microsoft can help you with a list of vendors at a particular location. The vendor can help you with configuring the policies and activating different licenses.

Documentation is available on the Microsoft portal to help you create policies and go forward as per your environment.

We took help from somebody for implementation.

It does not require a lot of people because it is a cloud solution and the sensor is already available in the machine itself. It does not require a lot of manpower to get started with Microsoft Defender and do a migration. However, it also depends on how big your organization is. If it is an MNC with a presence in multiple countries, you might need at least one person per region. If any hands-on support is required on a client machine, you can do troubleshooting remotely or provide on-site support. If you have only one site, you do not need much manpower. A single person can do it.

Its maintenance is similar to any other solution. If you are changing any policy, you have to test them before putting them into production. Apart from that, it does not require anything. The Defender updates are automatically available. You can push them through your patching solution. Its maintenance is not hard.

Every organization has different requirements. In my previous organization, we opted for Palo Alto even though we had Defender and CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike is also a best-in-class solution, but we opted for Palo Alto because it was giving something that was a requirement. In that organization, we also wanted to do some management. We wanted to run some scripts through our XDR solution. CrowdStrike had some limitations. We also wanted to do a console login for a particular machine. CrowdStrike gave that functionality, but it was pretty limited, whereas, in Palo Alto, it was limitless. We could straightaway see the files present on a machine by using the console view. We could run a different set of queries. It did not matter whether we were running a PowerShell script, a Python script, or any other language script because the compiler was embedded in the sensor. Palo Alto met the needs of that company. For the use cases, it was the best fit.

In my current organization, the use cases are different. We only wanted an EDR solution. Also, because most of the products in our environment are from Microsoft, the integration with them was pretty easy. That is why we opted for Microsoft Defender. An organization should look at its use cases and then decide on an EDR/XDR solution.

Comparing Microsoft Defender's EDR capabilities with other solutions, I would recommend going for another solution available in the market. I would rate it a 6 out of 10 because there are a lot of things that are available in other solutions, such as doing a remote of a particular machine and running other language scripts. Other solutions are also better in terms of the isolation of a particular device, removal from the isolation, and granularity of security control. I am not comparing it with others for vulnerability management because Palo Alto or CrowdStrike do not do that. If there are any vulnerabilities and you want to fix them, you have to do all the work.

We use Microsoft Defender XDR to secure all data transfers between the company network, databases, and user devices. It also protects against malware, ransomware, and other security threats.

Microsoft Defender XDR provides unified identity and access management.

Microsoft Defender XDR can extend beyond to cover more than just Microsoft technology.

The most beneficial aspect of Microsoft Defender XDR is the integration with Office 365.

We can realize the benefits of Microsoft Defender XDR anywhere from two weeks to three months, depending on the organization.

Microsoft Defender XDR stops the lateral movement of advanced attacks.

When a user exhibits suspicious activity, Defender XDR and Microsoft Sentinel work together to provide real-time protection and automation for prevention. This includes threats like insecure connections, lateral movement by malware, and unauthorized email sending. While Microsoft Defender XDR is a powerful solution on its own, combining it with Microsoft Sentinel and automation creates an even more robust defense.

Microsoft Defender XDR helps to discontinue other third-party solutions in our environment.

The cost savings potential of Microsoft Defender XDR depends on the size of an organization and the specific licensing chosen.

Microsoft Defender XDR streamlines security team workflows by offering a unified console for investigation, blocking, and mitigation.

The integration between all the Defender products is the most valuable feature.

The management and automation of the cloud apps have room for improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Defender XDR for 3 years.

Microsoft Defender XDR is stable.

The scalability of Microsoft Defender XDR depends on your organization's network for on-premises deployments, but it offers excellent scalability for cloud deployments.

Scaling Microsoft Defender XDR on-premises can lead to network and access control list problems, as well as VPN restrictions.

Microsoft Defender XDR boasts a straightforward setup process. This ease of use stems from its integration with existing Microsoft products. Once we have the appropriate license, we can be up and running quickly. Extensive documentation is available, and Defender XDR enjoys broad industry compatibility. Many other security solutions readily integrate with Defender XDR, opening their products to its robust security features.

The deployment time depends on each environment and can take anywhere from a couple of days to one month.

The number of people required for deployment also depends on the environment and varies between two to eight people.

The price we see for Microsoft Defender XDR is typically the discounted rate we offer to our customers. However, when we bundle Defender XDR with other Microsoft products, the overall bundle price may differ. Despite any initial price considerations, Defender XDR offers excellent value. It's important to compare similar products to make a fair assessment. For organizations already using Microsoft products, which applies to roughly 90 percent of our customers, Defender XDR is easy to set up. Unlike some third-party security solutions, Defender XDR integrates seamlessly with our existing Microsoft environment, eliminating the need for complex identity management configurations and development efforts.

While the standalone price of Defender XDR might seem high, its value becomes clear when considering the ease of implementation and smooth integration with our existing Microsoft infrastructure, especially when bundled with other Microsoft products.

I would rate Microsoft Defender XDR nine out of ten.

Between one and two people are required for maintenance which is conducted twice a month to roadmap Microsoft and check new features.

I recommend thoroughly reading the documentation. Additionally, if there are opportunities to attend Microsoft events, such as a partner workshop focused on Defender, these would be valuable resources. By participating in these activities, you can gain a deeper understanding of what needs to be done within your environment to successfully implement Microsoft Defender XDR.

I work at a SOC, and we use Microsoft XDR to provide 24/7 monitoring for our clients. We use it to monitor all types of incidents, including attacks on endpoints and email-related threats. It's integrated with other Microsoft solutions.

I like how Microsoft XDR and the other Microsoft products are integrated into a single unified security stack covering identity access management, endpoint protection, email, cloud applications, etc. The Kubernetes security feature hasn't been released yet, but we're looking forward to that. I'm just focusing on that because it will be a game-changer.

The integrated identity and access management is helpful because sometimes you don't have the information you need inside XDR, so you can go to Entra for more details.

XDR can stop advanced attacks like ransomware and BEC attacks. It also has an AI-assisted automated feature that cuts off access to persistent attacks. This feature disrupts the attack by disabling user access. A person needs to analyze if the response is correct and reject or approve. 

Through integration with Microsoft Lighthouse, we can manage multiple tenants on one screen, and prioritize which areas of the environment to address first. Sometimes, one tenant may be inaccessible to you. It will show an error, but then it will start working again automatically. 

Because of the training model, Defender XDR's automatic response sometimes blocks legitimate users and activities. Also, the UI sometimes responds slowly. 

I've been working with Defender XDR for the last six months.

I rate Defender XDR 8 out of 10 for stability. 

Defender XDR is scalable. 

We had a problem once getting a feature to work correctly after an update. We contacted Microsoft, and it took about 2 or 3 days to resolve.

I previously used QRadar and Splunk

Deployment is easy. It requires some maintenance on the Microsoft side. 

I rate Defender XDR 9 out of 10. I would recommend Defender. It's easier to use than other products I've worked with, such as Splunk and QRadar.

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

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

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

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

I have been working with it for three years.

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

The summarization of emails is a valuable feature. I get more than 1000 emails a day. It is hard to read them all. Summarization makes it a lot easier. The solution also provides transcription features.

It doesn't work in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint consistently. We find it full of bugs. It doesn't work properly. The tool gives inconsistent answers and crashes a lot. I spoke with the Microsoft team regarding these issues. The person I spoke to said that our expectation was too high and that we should have expected that it would only operate at 70% accuracy, which was a bit of a shock.

I have been using the solution for four years.

We use most of E3 and E5. We're using 92% of the catalog. Everything runs in the cloud. In the past six months, there have been incidents where the cloud has had some issues. We've escalated them to Microsoft and have had a conversation about stability.

The tool is scalable.

The support is decent. It could be better in certain circumstances. Overall, it's acceptable for what we need it for.

We were using a Symantec tool before. We stopped using it because we were exiting a relationship with the Symantec tools. We chose Microsoft Defender for Office 365 because we had a relationship with Microsoft, and it did similar things to what we used the Symantec tool for. It was an easy choice.

The initial setup was complex. It doesn't work. Semantic Index takes 48 hours. Getting people to onboard is not as simple as turning it on and making it work.

We have to ensure that we are teaching people about these tools, their value, and the use cases to determine whether they will use them. If we turn it on and somebody is not trained to use the tool, they will abandon it. It's still not functioning properly. It's a bit of a risk for Microsoft to push out a tool that's not ready yet.

We did the implementation ourselves. We have a large enough internal team.

The solution is too expensive. Each license costs us $30.

Google is an alternative. The comparison is based on market share, penetration, usefulness of tools, and cost. Microsoft has the lead. It's embedded. We use it as a productivity suite for our company. Excel, Word, and PowerPoint are tools that people use on a daily basis.

The tool provides a little bit of unified identity and access management. It's not the most important thing for us. Security is a multi-layered strategy, and Defender is one aspect.

The product is one of the many tools we deploy to ensure that the lateral movement of advanced attacks does not occur. If it were the only tool we had, I wouldn't be as confident in saying that we have the proper levels of security, but it is one of the multiple tools we have. So, lateral movement is almost impossible.

The solution might be able to adapt to evolving threats in a smaller shop. However, it is not so in our organization.

We run a bank. We are testing out Copilot. We're about to roll it out to several thousand users. The tool hasn't yet helped improve things in our organization, but it has the potential. Copilot is new. It's difficult to determine the ROI and its value. It's hard to tell. We do get some value out of the product.

Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

It offers high stability.

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

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

Neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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