AWS GuardDuty Reviews

It helps us detect brute-force attacks based on machine learning. It alerts the security team for possible attacks as well.

The product detects 100% brute force attacks using all legitimate testing methods. It gives the exact source IP of the attacks.

The product's most valuable feature is intrusion detection.

For the next release, they could provide IPS features as well.

We have been using AWS GuardDuty for more than three years.

I rate the product's scalability a ten out of ten. It is a fully managed service. We use it extensively as a mandatory prerequisite for each account we create.

If you have an enterprise plan, they will provide the best support for the entire infrastructure within 30 minutes. For other business plans, they provide limited services.

The initial setup is simple and can be completed in a few minutes. We only have to enable the toggle to use it. I rate the process ten out of ten.

The product generates an ROI in terms of testing and detecting attacks. It informs the possibility of attacks as well.

The platform is inexpensive; It costs approximately $50 a month. However, its pricing is subjective based on the company's requirements. It can go from $10 to $30 to a maximum of $50.

I rate AWS GuardDuty an eight out of ten. It is the best detection system for the applications hosted on AWS.

Most of the time, Amazon GuardDuty is used to collect additional network login requirements, so it's basically in the compliance setting, particularly if you need to collect additional logs, or you need additional protection for your infrastructure in the cloud. Those are the areas where you can utilize Amazon GuardDuty and have it assist with compliance, as it's one of the authorized services for compliance, and it's more than likely the tool to use. For the most part, my organization uses the solution for additional protection within the cloud and also to assist with any additional login capabilities that you can't get through the other services. Amazon GuardDuty fills those gaps and helps facilitate a lot of gaps that you have.

What I like most about Amazon GuardDuty is that you can monitor your AWS accounts across, but you don't have to pay the additional cost. You can get all your CloudTrail VPC flow logs and DNS logs all in one, and then you get the monitoring with that. A lot of times, if you had a separate tool on-premise, you would have to set up your DNS logs, so usually, Amazon GuardDuty helps with all your additional networking requirements, so I utilize it for continuous monitoring because you can't detect anything if you're not monitoring, and the solution fills that gap. If you don't do anything else first, you can deploy your firewall, and then you've got your Route 53 DNS and DNSSEC, but then Amazon GuardDuty fills that, and then you have audit requirements in AU that says, "Hey, what are your additional logs?", so you can just say, "Hey, we utilize Amazon GuardDuty." You're getting your CloudTrail, your VPC flow logs, and all your DNS logs, and those are your additional logs right there, so the solution meets a lot of requirements. Now, everything comes with a cost, but I also like that the solution also provides threat response and remediation. It's a pretty good product. I've just used it more for log analysis and that's where the value is at, the niche value. Once you do threat detection, it goes into a lot of other integrations you need to implement, so threat detection is only good as the integration, as the user that knows the tools itself, and the architecture and how it's all set up and the rules that you set within that.

Improvement-wise, Amazon GuardDuty should have an overall dashboard analytics function so we could see what's in the current environment, and then in addition to that, provide best practices and recommendations, particularly to provide some type of observability, and then figure out the login side of it, based on our current environment, in terms of what we're not monitoring and what we should monitor. The solution should also give us a sample code configuration to implement that added feature or feature request.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Amazon GuardDuty are more security analytics, reporting, and monitoring. They should provide recommendations and additional options that answer questions such as "Hey, what can we see in our environment?", "What should we implement within the environment?", What's recommended?"

We know that cost will always be associated with that, but Amazon GuardDuty should show us the increased costs or decreased costs if we implement it or don't implement it, and that would be a good feature request, particularly with all products within AWS, just for cloud products in general because there are times features are implemented, but once they're deployed, they don't tell you about costs that would be generated along with those features. After features are deployed, there should a summary of the costs that would be generated, and projected based on current usage, so they would give us the option to figure out how long we're going to use those features and the option to keep those on or turn those off. If more services were like that, a lot more people would use those on the cloud.

I've used Amazon GuardDuty for a year, and I've used it with other organizations as well.

Amazon GuardDuty has wonderful stability. My organization is currently using it in the production environment and it works really well. A lot of companies I know are using it, and I've been a third-party assessor before, and the companies I know implement the solution along with Cloud Trail and CloudWatch to get that observability, and then if you decide to do threat response and you want to tag an MSSP provider, all you have to do is link into Amazon GuardDuty, and that's it, you're done. The solution has its pros and cons.

Amazon GuardDuty is a scalable solution. My organization didn't have a problem with adding users. What's been challenging is doing it through infrastructure as code, but just regular added users should be straightforward and easy to do.

I haven't had to use technical support for Amazon GuardDuty yet. Maybe somebody else used it for integration help, for example, to just try to make another integration work with it, but that's about it. A lot of times it would be "Hey, I don't understand that portion of the integration", so you've got to contact support and the code was messed up because a lot of times, in one development or one product, if the codebase is changed and it's not connecting, it could be a coding issue. Eighty percent of the time, you're changing a code issue in a pipeline, a code data integration, or an issue with the API. Most of the time that's the issue.

My organization decided to go with Amazon GuardDuty because most of the infrastructure resides in AWS, so it was just a lot easier for compliance purposes to go with that to get the additional observability for the additional logs that are required.

How easy the initial setup for Amazon GuardDuty all depends on the architecture. If you're deploying this right out of the box, it's easy. A lot of times you want to implement your firewalls and more complex requirements going forward and it just depends on where you set it up in your architecture. It could be more complex if you're dealing with certain requirements, but more than likely, it's self-explanatory. Sometimes, depending on the integrations you're using with the solution, the integrations can be always complex because you're trying to implement Amazon GuardDuty logs to Qualys, for example. The complexities occur during integration and that's usually true for most products.

I had to implement Amazon GuardDuty with Qualys, and the integration was painful because Qualys didn't accept it, but Amazon was right for it, but then the other provider makes it more challenging. Utilizing and using infrastructure as code is a whole challenge itself as well, so if you do it just regular based, you'll think you're okay, and my current organization has that problem because my organization wants to implement infrastructure as code and that's great, but if you see that you're having problems with the modules, then you shouldn't use infrastructure as code, but if that's what my organization wants to do, I just let the DevOps team deal with that. As long as the solution is deployed and I can get observability of the environment, that's all that matters to me.

I don't have all the details in terms of licensing for Amazon GuardDuty, but my organization does have a license set up for it.

I use the latest and greatest version of Amazon GuardDuty that's available on the market.

The number of users of Amazon GuardDuty in my organization is between one to ten. Per my boss, it's a maximum of ten.

My advice to someone who wants to use the solution for the first time is that you've got to establish your use case. What are you going to use it for? Focus on that area, and then I would also implement a proof of concept to make sure that it's set up in your staging environment where you can do all your testing and get all your test results. Depending on what you can implement, make sure your integrations work, and the other tools you have you should also integrate with Amazon GuardDuty in your testing, so when you go to production with it, you would understand the ROI for using the tool.

A lot of times, you always want to have a centralized view of everything in your environment. What you don't want is when you have to go to this tool and then go to that tool, and it's just so much. You already have to do MFA just to get into it, and then once you're in, you'd want to see your whole environment and just get all your touchpoints, so integration is the key component to test within Amazon GuardDuty.

I would rate Amazon GuardDuty seven out of ten because some of the integrations may not work well with it, and depending on the integration that you're working with, the security tools have a lot of requirements to implement. Integration support should be a little bit easier, and it just depends on whether you're doing infrastructure as code versus doing just regular batch scripting, or a formation template. The solution has pros and cons.

My organization is a customer of Amazon GuardDuty.

We use AWS GuardDuty in our company to safeguard our deployment production.

One of the valuable features of the product is the protection of S3 data events, for which, if we use Lacework, then we have to turn it into CloudTrail and feed all the logs to Lacework, which are some steps done by default by AWS GuardDuty. Maybe I can take a step back since, in general, the ability of GuardDuty to natively look at AWS logs or functions and then give protection is something that we think is better than many others.

We currently find Lacework to be much better at detecting vulnerabilities than AWS GuardDuty. The engines of AWS GuardDuty have to be improved.

I have been using AWS GuardDuty for six months to a year. My company is a customer of the solution.

It's a pretty stable tool. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine or ten out of ten. I haven't seen it go down yet.

It is a highly scalable solution since it is a service by AWS. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

In my department, three to four people use the solution.

We haven't used the support often, so I don't have an opinion.

Our company uses Lacework and AWS GuardDuty, and we conducted a comparison to decommission one of the aforementioned products.

Looking at Lacework might be helpful since it provides many other protections or functionalities we have seen lacking in AWS GuardDuty.

The initial setup of the solution was pretty simple.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is a high price, and ten is a low price, I rate the pricing a four or five, which is somewhere in the middle. I provided the rating for AWS GuardDutya as four or five out of ten because the pricing would have seemed pretty good if it had more functionalities. Right now, the protection engine isn't that perfect in AWS GuardDuty.

Considering our evaluation process, we think its Lacework is better because of the protection engine it provides.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

Protect your accounts, data, and assets across diverse AWS computing environments, encompassing Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2), serverless operations, and container workloads, including those utilizing AWS Fargate.

AWS GuardDuty enhances organizational security by providing automated threat detection, easy integration with other AWS services, centralized monitoring of security findings, cost-effective security, and scalability. 

The product has automated protection powered by ML, which is now far more powerful than before. It uses ML in its detection algorithm, providing fast and quick results.

If someone attempts to attack our tools, especially through brute force attacks, we receive notifications. This applies even if such attempts originate from within our teams, engaging in malicious activities.

AWS GuardDuty's integration with other AWS services, such as email addresses and support IDs helps our team members to stay informed about the activities in the account and the necessary actions to take when it triggers an alert.

It has been instrumental in identifying issues, particularly instances where EC2 instances had their ports (e.g., 22 and 3389) exposed publicly. This has helped us stay vigilant against potential attacks, and the severity classification allows us to prioritize addressing critical issues.

AWS GuardDuty has introduced several new features, including malware protection and continuous monitoring.

There is currently no insightful dashboard for AWS GuardDuty. It would be helpful if they could provide a dashboard based on severity levels (high, medium, low) and offer insights account-wise.

I have been using the product for two years. 

I rate the product's stability a nine out of ten. 

GuardDuty's scalability is beneficial for organizations with dynamic and growing cloud environments. It can handle increased data volumes, adapt to changes in network traffic, and effectively analyze logs from various AWS sources. The service is designed to maintain its effectiveness as your AWS deployment scales up, making it suitable for both small and large organizations.

The technical support is good. If I create any ticket, they reach out to us through chat or call, and they are available for support within a few minutes. I think that's great support from the AWS team.

Positive

The tool's initial deployment is easy. Anyone can do it, and it can be accomplished with just one click.

80 percent of the customers are using AWS GuardDuty, and we recommend it due to its low cost, especially for small customers, ranging from five to ten dollars a month. In our policies, we enforce the usage of this service, making it a recommended practice for security.

The responsibility also lies with the customer. We obtain written confirmation from them, stating that if they choose not to use it, they accept responsibility for any potential attacks. In such cases, we refrain from enabling it, and any financial repercussions resulting from incidents are their own accountability.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. Within our organization policy, AWS GuardDuty is designated as a mandatory service. Its utilization proves beneficial in the event of an intrusion into the account or servers. With AWS GuardDuty in place, you can promptly identify a compromised server, account, or user, enabling us to take necessary actions.

Our primary use case was to monitor our assets and workloads for abnormal activity.

It kinda just gives us another layer of security. So it does provide some sort of comfort that we do have something that is monitoring for abnormal behavior. 

So it's different from just looking for known signatures. It looks at behaviors in the environment. So it's kinda like an alternative security vector, plus.

For me, the most valuable feature is the behavior analysis. It looks at security from a different perspective.

For me, I would say just the presentation of findings, like the dashboards and other stuff, could be improved a bit. So, the presentation of findings could be improved a bit.  

I have been using this solution for a year. 

I have never faced any issues. So, I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

We have seen an ROI. It has helped with some things.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I mainly use GuardDuty to check user responses, collect logs, and collect data on who logs in and out and their permission and authorization. 

Prior to using GuardDuty, we had multiple systems to collect data and put it in a centralized location so we could look into it. Now we don't need to do that anymore as GuardDuty does it for us.

The most valuable features are the single system for data collection and the alert mechanisms.

An improvement would be to have a mobile version where remote workers can log in and monitor and fix issues. In the next release, I'd like Amazon to add a pane to visualize all seven layers of security.

I've been using GuardDuty for two to three years.

GuardDuty's stability is really good - we never see outages or falls in networking or BPC connections.

GuardDuty is really scalable, which is helping us to upscale our environment to the cloud. I really appreciate the scalability measures that Amazon is providing to all its customers.

We've had enormous support from the Amazon support team.

Positive

Previously, I used GCT.

GuardDuty is set up through a one-touch system, so the process was simple.

We used the AWS team to do our workload, publishing, and so on, so it took about a quarter of the time it would have otherwise.

We use a pay-as-you-use license, which is competitively priced in the market.

I'd rate GuardDuty as nine out of ten.

It's a malware detection service. It's an intelligent malware and security event detection service from AWS.

The out-of-band malware detection from the EBS volumes. It's really cool. No agents or anything needed, it automatically finds and correlates based on malware.

Cost changes. It's very expensive. If you turn on every feature, it's more than most commercial vendors. For smaller orgs, that doesn't make sense.

I have been using it for two years now. It is an offering in the AWS. 

It is a stable product. 

My company have five to six admins using this solution. 

The initial setup was easy. It was a one-click deployment.

For smaller organizations, it is not expensive. 

If you have a large organization or already have similar tools, it might not be necessary. But for most, GuardDuty is the go-to.

For me, I still use GuardDuty. I see a lot of good correlations built up by AWS support.

Don't add all the features at once. Go step-by-step, or you'll end up with a very high cost and turn off the system.

It can get very expensive. If you turn on every feature, it can turn into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

AWS GuardDuty is a monitoring solution. The product helps us in threat monitoring. It notifies us of illegitimate users or any other cyber attack scenarios.

The solution is easy to use. It is very tightly integrated. The insights provided by the tool are very informative. It is easy to work on the alerts created by the tool. It gives us more details on different scenarios. The product is doing well compared to other solutions.

It would be great if the solution had some automation capabilities. It should provide auto-remediation and threat handling with automation.

I have been using the solution since 2019.

I rate the product’s stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten. The product is scalable, but it needs a manual intervention. More than 100 people are using the solution in our organization.

The support is always great. The support team is pretty quick. Once we raise a concern, the team jumps into a call and resolves the issues. It hardly takes 15 to 20 minutes.

The initial setup is very simple.

We deployed the solution ourselves. We do not need help from a third-party vendor.

I rate the pricing a seven out of ten. The price of the solution is exactly right. It is neither high nor low. It is a pay-as-you-go model. The more number of accounts we integrate, the more the price will increase.

The product is unique to AWS. I would recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.