Microsoft Defender for Cloud Reviews

We use Microsoft Defender for Cloud for our cloud security.

I like Defender's bidirectional sync. It's a behind-the-scenes feature, but it's very important. I like how it's integrated with and collaborates with other products by design. This is especially true between Sentinel, Security Center, and Defender.

The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative. This allows me to have more flexibility in the roles and responsibilities of my teams, the access to their tooling, and the ability to report accurately on the current threat posture. For example, if I have Sentinel and CloudApp, and someone closes an incident in CloudApp, it will also close in Sentinel. However, if I had CloudApp in Splunk, this would not be the case. This integration is what I like.

The documentation could be much clearer. I also think that Microsoft should stop rebranding everything constantly. I'm tired of every name changing every 90 days. It's ridiculous. I understand that they're coupling tools together but look at AIP. It has had over 14 names in the last five years. That's absurd. Microsoft needs to stop rebranding everything and stick with one brand. They can build them out from there.

I like the fact that the dashboards are integrated, but I don't like that the CloudApp is now mapped to the Security dashboard. I hate that. I should be able to map dashboards myself. Having one dashboard is great for some people, but I have people who do Endpoint Management and they don't do Incident Management. They're two different groups. I should be able to send them to different portals if I want to. They're not all working out of the same portal. I do like that the dashboards have the option to be put into one portal, the Security portal, but I don't like that now I have to figure out where Microsoft moved everything. I liked it better when they were separate, so I could isolate and assign groups to each tool. Now that they're putting all the portals together, it's more complicated. I like the idea of a single pane of glass, but I think they're adding too much change too quickly without explaining the main purpose or mission of each product. And they're not making a clear distinction between them. When we put them all in one portal, it just adds more confusion. For example, in CloudApps, I see incidents in the "Incidents" section, but in the new Security portal, incidents are not in the CloudApp section. People don't need to search for stuff. They knew how to do it before. Microsoft needs to stop changing things so often. I believe in change, but not every other month.

Defenders threat intelligence is useless, I think, because it didn't see SolarWinds coming. After SolarWinds, if we even mention their analytics and threat intelligence, it's just evidence that it doesn't exist. It didn't even see SolarWinds coming. The only value I see in their threat intelligence, from a marketing perspective, is that it allows me to leave logs in their native location and tell clients to leave them longer. So if they find something like SolarWinds later on, they can go back and look through older logs and find it again. After SolarWinds, I'm not impressed at all by anything Microsoft says about their multi-billion dollar login.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Cloud for over ten years since it was part of the Defender Suite.

We have not had any complaints from our clients about the stability of Microsoft Defender for Cloud.

I've questioned Microsoft's claims about the scalability of Defender for Cloud. I don't think their claims are accurate. I don't think we could scale Defender for Cloud to the level that Microsoft claims. Microsoft tells me that I could let my Log Analytics scale, but I think there must be a limit.

We have always had good experiences with the technical support through the portal.

Positive

The deployment is easy as long as we understand the licensing and what we are doing. The deployment was completed as a team.

Our clients complain about the cost of Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Microsoft needs to bring the cost down. What we're doing to their detriment is simply lowering the amount of log retention we're keeping, which is not what I want to do. Storage is so cheap in every other aspect of Azure except for Log Analytics, which makes it even more difficult to explain to clients why we're charging them so much for terabytes of storage. In comparison, data lakes and storage accounts store terabytes of data for much less cost.

I would rate Microsoft Defender for Cloud eight out of ten, mostly because of documentation and availability of information. The difference between the Azure Active Directory Premium P1 and P2 licenses lies not only in their capabilities but also in the amount of logging that is performed for each user. I need to know what is and is not being logged, and which security events are not being logged. I can't find a list of these events anywhere. What is the difference between a one-year retention license and a 180-day license? What additional logging is performed with the one-year license? Microsoft has mentioned that advanced auditing is occurring, but I don't know which events they are getting. I would like to see a list of all the events that are logged, from least to most. This list would probably look like a triangle, with a few items at the top and more and more items as we go down. I would like to see this list for both the AAD Premium P1 and P2 licenses. I can't get this list. My client has asked me what events we are not capturing, and my answer is that I don't know because I can't find it. Microsoft won't give me a list of the events that are logged, either. They can only reference the services that the events map to. I want to know the events. The uncertainty and doubt around this is a security feature. Microsoft is trying to make me buy the product because they know that if I get hacked, I could be liable for malpractice. But I'm not going to buy it without more details. I'm very upset that they didn't provide more information.

We use Microsoft Defender for Cloud as one of the sources for our Azure environment. We have a managed detection response solution, and we add data sources to it, like SOC, SIEM, and SOAR solutions. We also want to have data in our Azure cloud environment.

We deploy this solution in multiple regions like Europe and Oceania.

We have multiple solutions like our data analytics platform and our system development platform. Our web shops use it. Almost everything is in the cloud.

We have approximately 2,000 end users.

The solution is deployed on the Microsoft Azure cloud.

The solution helps our teams to be more aware of security and protects our environment.

Most importantly, it's an integrated solution. We also use Defender for Endpoint. For Office 365, we use Defender for Identity. 

We have integrated some of these products into our MDR solution. It's not a Microsoft Sentinel SOC, but we have a SOC/SIEM from a third party.

It's really easy to integrate because it's just an interface, a Microsoft Graph security API. We can collect all the data and forward it to our solution.

This solution is for detection and response, so it helps us prepare for potential threats. We have special teams for threat hunting the data.

We use this solution for extra security in our environment. We secured our Azure cloud environment with firewalls and application gateways, but we also want to have trust in our resource groups. That's an extra line of defense for our security.

We don't use the interface a lot because we use it as a data source for our MDR solution. The MDR solution is our main interface.

These solutions work natively together because we don't just use Microsoft products as a data source. We use all kinds of security products as data sources, like our firewalls, gateways, and event collections from Windows and Unix.

Threat protection is comprehensive and simple. We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft itself, but we also have CSP contracts with several parties, so we can easily get the licenses we need. It's very easy to install.

Sometimes it's very difficult to determine when I need Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a special resource group or a special kind of product.

In Defender for Endpoint, the software is capable of acting immediately if something occurs. If an attacker wants to encrypt the disc, for instance, we're able to react immediately. I don't know if Defender for Cloud has the same capabilities.

I have used this solution for about a year and a half.

At the moment, I think it's a very stable solution. We haven't had any problems with it.

It's scalable.

From Microsoft's perspective, it's fine. We don't have any issues at the moment.

I would rate technical support an eight out of ten. 

The initial setup is straightforward. It took 10 seconds.

We have a Cloud Security Provider, so I don't know how much time they spent on deployment.

The solution hasn't required any maintenance yet. We are trying to innovate each solution. It's an ongoing business process to innovate.

We haven't seen ROI yet, but we plan to. The first sign is safety first. Safety will cost money, so it shouldn't be too much.

Pricing is difficult because each license has its own metrics and cost.

We evaluated other options. We have a lot of other products like McAfee, but we are changing everything to Microsoft Defender.

We decided to switch because we want to have an overall standard that's enterprise-wide so that everything is easier to manage and the data it delivers is all the same. We wanted to have one view of everything.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten because we don't use all of the capabilities yet. At the moment, we still only use the data sources. I'm happy with it so far.

Instead of a single vendor security suite, I like having at least two so that they can challenge each other.

Microsoft Defender helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise, but we only prioritize our high-risk resources with Defender products.

It's difficult to say if the solution saved us time because we use it for our Azure cloud environment, so we're working in the cloud.

At the moment, we're not saving money. The solution costs our company money. It's like having insurance: It doesn't save costs, but it might save us costs if something happens. It's about risk.

It hasn't decreased our time to detect and respond yet, but it should be because we have our data source on Endpoint and in the cloud. It's an integrated solution. When we find something anywhere, we can act everywhere. We have more possibilities.

Our use case for the solution is focused on cost management and security in a multi-cloud environment. We use it alongside solutions like SIEM tools and deploy it as part of a broader security strategy.

The platform has improved our security posture by providing comprehensive threat detection and response capabilities. It helps in managing security across various environments effectively. However, we occasionally encounter issues when on-site products conflict with this solution.

The product's most valuable features offer the latest threat detection and response capabilities. These features are crucial for our SMB customers, especially given the high inflation in Turkey, which impacts cost considerations.

The product's advanced analytics and reporting features could be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Cloud for about three to four years.

The product performs reliably across various environments.

The platform's scalability is excellent. It is well-suited for both small and large organizations.

The support team is responsive and offers valuable assistance.

Positive

The initial setup can vary in complexity depending on the existing environment and the number of users. It's relatively straightforward for smaller setups, but larger deployments can be more complex.

We handle the deployment and integration ourselves.

The solution's ROI is positive, given its comprehensive security features and integration capabilities, which justify the investment.

The product's pricing policy is generally favorable.

We evaluated other options, but Microsoft Defender for Cloud was chosen for its strong integration with other Microsoft products and comprehensive feature set.

The solution is robust, but staying updated with the latest features and best practices is crucial to maximize its benefits.

Overall, I rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use Microsoft Defender to scan for vulnerabilities related to any container or server in the cloud environment in Azure. Microsoft Defender suggests recommendations and security alerts according to the default framework. We can also use other frameworks like ISO benchmarks to assess our infrastructure and get recommendations on what can be fixed.

The solution is deployed on a public cloud, and Azure is the cloud provider.

We use Microsoft Defender for Cloud to natively support Azure.

We are resellers. We customize the solution and sell it to clients.

The solution has improved our organization in terms of benchmarking. Our Secure Score has improved a lot, and we're compliant with particular benchmarks.

The single-pane-of-glass view gives us the Secure Score in a single dashboard. It shows us all of the collective resources we have, including what is on-premises and on the cloud. It's a single graphical representation and a unified view that we can customize according to the client. We can adjust the Secure Score dashboard to show whatever the client wants to see. It can show the Secure Score, security alerts, and compliance score. The compliance score shows how compliant the environment is.

Our current security posture is a combination of the benchmark plus Zero Trust. We have a set of policies in Zero Trust that covers all six layers of the cloud, like the identity network, infrastructure, applications, endpoint, and end data. It's structured to cover every aspect of the cloud using the customized policy in Microsoft Defender.

The solution has improved our Microsoft Security Score a lot. 

Microsoft Defender is set to scan the virtual machines, SQL databases, and private endpoints every 30 minutes. For some of them, we just clicked "quick fix" and it created a private endpoint instantly and showed that it was rectified. Those quick fixes were instantaneous.

For our response time, critical findings take approximately two days while medium findings take three to seven days.

The solution has increased our efficiency.

The security policy is the most valuable feature for us. We can go into the environment settings and attach any globally recognized framework like ISO or any benchmark. We can also use our customized benchmark, like Zero Trust, if we want to implement it.

We can deploy different net agents on the on-premises assets, and Defender will scan those on-premises resources and give us recommendations to fix them.

The solution gives us recommendations to enable a DDoS protection plan on our virtual network. Right now, the DDoS, enforcing MFA, and conditional access policies make our organization more secure.

It's a good tool for keeping multi-cloud infrastructure and cloud resources secure. It's a market leader right now.

Right now, the solution covers a limited set of resources. If taken into scope, it will improve more.

After getting a recommendation, it takes time for the solution to refresh properly to show that the problem has been eliminated. 

Sometimes we'll receive a recommendation, but the problem still won't be fixed. This could be due to end-of-life machines. If the solution isn't properly refreshed, we need to wait for two or three days to remove those recommendations. Sometimes we have to reach out to Microsoft to check why the problem hasn't been fixed after following the recommendations.

For example, after a recommendation about AML files, it didn't show that the fix had been applied even though it was. It took more than four days to show that the fix had been applied. 

There are some policies that we're not able to use due to some business justifications. For instance, the storage account should be private, but it's public because a third party is interacting with that storage account and we can't limit the public access because there is no whitelisting available in terms of IPs.

I have used this solution for three years.

It's scalable, but it's an additional cost to increase the scalability.

I would rate the technical support a seven out of ten. They respond quickly and give us detailed information.

Neutral

We have also used CSPMs and other tools, but there were some limitations there. Defender gives us more customization in terms of frameworks, which is why we chose it.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took one day. We used two full-time team members for deployment. 

We deployed the solution in-house and designed the architecture.

This solution saved us money.

There are two different plans. We're using the secure basic plan, but we have used the end security plan as well. There are additional costs, but it gives us more functionalities compared to the basic plan. It provides threat detection and integration capabilities. We have not enabled that due to the cost, but it's a possibility.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. Using this solution gave us confidence.

I work on micro-segmentation for my master's thesis, and I was looking for ways to implement micro-segmentation using Defender. I work on the assumption that small businesses can't implement expensive virtualization solutions, so I'm looking for alternatives to implement micro-segmentation for their network security.

I use the latest version of the solution.

It's a test deployment. I created the entire network. It's more like a laboratory setup.

The solution does what I want it to do. If you're already on Microsoft, this solution comes bundled with it. It's seamlessly integrated, and it improves security because I can determine who can access what applications and who or what my applications communicate with. It improves the transparency and visibility of the traffic in and out of the network of each workload on my system.

The benefits were realized almost immediately.

Compared to other products, it hasn't helped save SOC time or increase efficiency. I'm focused on micro-segmentation, so compared to other products, it wasn't built for that, but it can be adapted to it.

I'm not sure that the effect on my overall time for detection can be measured, but for non-threats, it's almost effective. The notification system is effective too. It lets me know as soon as there's a problem.

I use this solution to natively support Azure. It works seamlessly on the Azure platform because it's a Microsoft app. Its setup is similar, so if you already have a Microsoft account, it just flows into it.

It's very important to me that the solution has the ability to protect hybrid and multi-cloud environments. 

I'm looking to implement the solution in SMEs that might use different environments. Most SMEs don't have the resources to own their infrastructure entirely, so I can't really predict what environment they will be used in, therefore, I need a solution that is flexible enough to work in multiple environments, both online and offline. The only limiting factor is that I can not this solution use on platforms that aren't Microsoft.

The single pane of glass view is very important for me. It's great to be able to see everything at once and go where I need to very quickly. It's also easy to use if you've used any Microsoft product before. It allows me to see everything I want at a glance. I didn't think it was important until I started to use it, and then I realized how convenient it was.

For micro-segmentation, the unified portal has had an effect on my cloud security posture, but it's a lot of work because I have to configure the rules individually. It's difficult to compare this solution to a product like NSX or any other specialized micro-segmentation product, but because I'm trying to get a solution for small businesses that have about 10 PCs or 10 systems at the most.

It effectively defends against known threats. It also updates regularly, so the threat signatures are updated regularly, but I don't know how often the database is updated on Microsoft, so I can't really quantify its effectiveness against either zero-day threats or new threats.

I've only tried it on Azure cloud and it's effective. I've only used it on a single-cloud structure.

Right now, I'm setting rules for incoming and outgoing traffic for different applications.

From my own perspective, they just need a product that is tailored to micro-segmentation so I can configure rules for multiple systems at once and manage it. Instead of having to set up individual rules for individual applications, there should be a system that can allow me to set up multiple rules at once and can automatically update the rules as the infrastructure changes.

The solution is stable.

In general, the scalability is good. It wasn't built for my use case, which is micro-segmentation. If I had 100 systems, it would be a lot of work for me.

I have not had to call or get in touch with them, but there's a lot of documentation online. I've found a lot of what I need without having to contact anyone.

The documentation is excellent. There's a lot from Microsoft and other providers. I think it's a fairly popular system.

It was straightforward. I was the only person that deployed and tested the solution.

Initial deployment took a day, but the initial configuration rule setting took a while because it was my first time using the system.

The first step was to set up the cloud, install some test applications that I needed to protect, and then configure rules for traffic between the applications, and then between the application and external networks.

The solution doesn't really require any maintenance. It's fairly automatic. Once it's up and running, it pretty much works.

The cost is fair. There aren't any costs in addition to the standard licensing fee.

I didn't evaluate other options because I use this solution for thesis research. I researched which solution was the most used cloud and picked Azure.

I would rate this solution six out of ten. 

As a perimeter defense system, I would rate the solution a seven. As a micro-segmentation system or application, I would rate it a four.

As a perimeter defense solution, it's excellent. As a micro-segmentation product, it's not so great, especially if you have a lot of systems. It's not the product's fault because I don't think that's what it was built for.

There were many use cases. We were monitoring auto IT applications and creating internal processes to understand which ones were going to be allowed and which were going to be blocked. We created the policies internally. 

It's an IT tool to monitor employees' usage on the internet and of web apps. We created policies so that, for example, when employees reached certain websites, like games, they would be blocked. We created a message for the email that they would receive, and there were links for whom to contact if they needed to override it. We created all the processes behind it.

From a security perspective, it reduced the amount of risk for employees, contractors, and users who might try to go to dangerous sites, as we blocked them. It helped us to identify dangerous sites so that we could make decisions on blocking them or not.

The effect on time to detection using Microsoft Defender for Cloud was very positive. The policies we created were providing information as threats arrived. When someone clicked on a website or on a link that was dangerous, it detected that and our team was able to control the situation right away. It was very highly effective because they got a live notification as soon as it happened. It improved things very positively.

It also had a positive effect on time to respond. As soon as an alert was received or something potentially dangerous happened, a process behind the scenes that we created helped them to react immediately.

The first valuable feature was the fact that it gave us a list of everything that users were surfing on the web. Having the list, we could make decisions about those sites. 

Second, it tried to categorize the apps, from riskier to less risky, with a behind-the-scenes algorithm. Even though we didn't use that, it was a starting point for our first review of the applications. We started with the riskiest ones and decided whether each one should be blocked or not. The fact that it provided a risk rating was very valuable. 

And it's very easy to use. Those are the top three.

Six months to a year ago, which was the last time I used the solution, the algorithm that was designed to define whether or not a site is dangerous or not needed to be improved. It didn't have enough variables to make the decision. 

Another thing that could be improved was that they could recommend processes on how to react to alerts, or recommend best practices based on how other organizations do things if they receive an alert about XYZ. 

Also, the complexity in the amount of information for this process could be reduced to facilitate those of us who are implementing and using the system, and guide us as to exactly what is needed.

I used Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a year and a half.

The stability was very high. We never had any issues with it.

With Microsoft products, you can keep adding more information if needed. For the purposes of the tool, it covers everything.

We never used their technical support.

We didn't replace anything with this solution. It was something we added to what was already in place. Our threat department continued to use all the products that it had been using. This one was additional and brought more alerts.

The initial setup was straightforward because the platform was already in place. It comes with the system and you just activate it.

The first phase was creating all of the policies. Then we did a total review of the more than 10,000 apps and we started categorizing them in a different way than the tool does. It was a challenge because what the tool recommended was different from what we wanted to implement. We created our own policies.

We used a security consultant to help us, but that was for the processes we put in place, not for the tool, per se. It was along the lines of, "Okay, when we receive this, what do we do?" They helped us create policies and told us what the best practices are; everything that the tool doesn't give you.

It's very expensive in terms of the need to maintain it actively. You need a group of people in the organization to do the job because if the tool is sending information, a bunch of alerts on policies that we created, and nobody is reviewing it, it is doing nothing. Once you create policies, you have to have a very established group that, based on the design of all of the policies, will follow a process to take action on each of them. Some of them were very complex and some of them were very simple. Some of them were automated and others were escalated, depending on the danger. So it can be very complex, depending on how you implement it in your organization.

The tool doesn't solve the problem, it just gives you the information so that you can solve the problem. Solving the problem takes a lot of resources, a lot of time and, it turns out, money. So it's expensive.

I don't think it saves time because it discovers things that would never have been discovered in any other way.

We have a managed detection and response solution, a type of SOC/SIEM/SOAR product, and we are adding data sources to our solution. We want to have data for our Azure cloud environment as well, so we use Microsoft Defender for Cloud as one of the sources for our Azure environment.

We use it as an extra way to gain trust for our environment. We have purposely secured the total Azure cloud environment with firewalls, application gateways, et cetera, but we also want to have trust in our resource groups. That's an extra line of defense we have for our security.

It helps our teams to have more security awareness because, first of all, they have to think about setting up Defender for Cloud, and the cost of Defender for Cloud is borne by those teams. So they are more aware of protecting their own environments.

It also helps automate routine tasks and the finding of high-value alerts because the alerts sit in the data source itself. It's easier to prioritize alerts.

The main advantage is the detection and response. Threat intelligence helps you prepare for potential threats before they hit. If something is there, we will detect it. And there are special teams threat-hunting through the data.

We have our data sources everywhere, on endpoints and in the cloud. When we find something anywhere, we can act everywhere, because it's an integrated solution. It gives us more possibilities to take action automatically.

We like the security aspect. Most importantly, it's an integrated solution. We not only have Defender for Cloud, but we also have Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Office 365, and Defender for Identity. It's an integrated, holistic solution. In our MDR solution, it's not a Microsoft Sentinel SOC, rather we have a third-party SOC/SIEM and they also do threat hunting for us.

It's really easy to integrate these products. It's just an interface, the Microsoft Graph Security API. We can collect all the data and forward it to our solution. We don't only use Microsoft products as a data source, but all kinds of security products. We have data about our firewalls, our gateways, and our event collections from Windows, but also from Unix.

Sometimes, it's very difficult to determine when I need Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a special resource group or certain kinds of products. That's not an issue directly with the product, though.

I have been using Microsoft Defender for Cloud for less than a year.

It's a very stable solution. I haven't heard of any problems.

It is a scalable solution.

We use it across multiple regions including Europe and Oceania. We have multiple solutions for our data analysis and system development platforms. Our web shops are using it. It's used for almost everything in the cloud. We have about 2,000 endpoints.

Microsoft's technical support is fine. We don't have any issues with it.

Positive

We have a lot of other products, like McAfee, but we are changing everything to Microsoft Defender. We are switching because, enterprise-wide, we want to have one standard for everything to make everything easier to manage. And we want all the data it delivers to be the same. We want one view of the truth for everything.

It's very easy to deploy. That is the least of any problems. It's just a simple yes or no in the cloud. It took 10 seconds.

We have an Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft but we also have a Cloud Service Provider contract with several parties so we can easily get the licenses we need. It's very easy to install. It's almost by default.

The solution itself doesn't require maintenance in the traditional way, but everything we're doing with it is about innovation. We are trying to innovate each platform, and each solution. Innovation is an ongoing business process.

It hasn't saved us money, as it's a cost to our company, but we're safe. It's the same as insurance: If there are no burglars then you don't need it. So it doesn't save costs but it might save you costs if something happens. Safety will cost money, but it shouldn't be too much.

The pricing is very difficult because every type of Defender for Cloud has its own metrics and pricing. If you have a Cloud for Key Vault, the pricing is different than it is for storage. Every type has its own pricing list and rules.

We don't use the full capabilities of Defender for Cloud so I don't know if it is the same as Defender for Endpoint. That solution is autonomous and acts on incidents immediately, based on playbooks for a type of incident behavior. Defender for Endpoint is capable of acting immediately when an attacker wants to encrypt a disk, for instance. I don't know if Defender for Cloud has the same capabilities, but it should.

In the discussion about going with a best-of-breed strategy or a single vendor's security suite, we have a mix. My thought is that I would like to have at least two big vendors, rather than one for everything. That way they can challenge each other.

Overall, I'm happy with Defender for Cloud. We're just at the beginning of using it but we want to extend our own solutions with Defender for Cloud as much as possible.

I have a highly specific use case for Azure Defender, so I don't think I've used most of its features. We primarily use it to secure Kubernetes clusters in other cloud environments. For example, I have Kubernetes in Amazon AWS, and we're trying out Azure Defender to protect those Kubernetes clusters.

We also use Defender to scan the image repositories held in Azure Container Repository or ACR. We use Defender plus Azure ARC and Windows Defender. All three products work in conjunction to give us some security insights into our cluster.

We haven't fully implemented Azure Defender yet. Right now, we're at the POC stage. However, if people have a genuine use case, they should see its value, especially because of its cross-cloud compatibility. I don't think any other tool provides the same cross-cloud compatibility as Azure Defender combined with Arc, so that's a significant selling point for this product.

The security scorecard is something I find helpful. It tells me what's missing and identifies new vulnerabilities inside my registries. Once I publish the image, the scorecards automatically update. I don't need to constantly run a security scan for my images because the scorecards are updated by Azure periodically. That makes my job easier.

I haven't been using Azure Defender for long. It's been around three months. 

Overall, Azure Defender's availability is excellent. However, the Kubernetes security is a new offering that is still under development, so the service's availability and support are not mature at this point and definitely need improvement.

I rate Defender's scalability about eight out of 10. If you compare Azure Defender to a similar product AWS offers, there isn't much difference in scalability. The solution is able to accommodate all your requirements. I don't think I have ever reached a point where the solution couldn't scale to meet my needs. 

I deduct two points because you incur more costs as you increase usage, so it's more expensive when you have lots of logs flowing into the system. That is why I rate it eight. Otherwise, I don't see any technical issues there.

Azure's system could be more on point like AWS support. For example, if I have an issue with AWS, I create a support ticket, then I get a call or a message. With Azure support, you raise a ticket, and somebody calls back depending on their availability and the priority, which might not align with your business priority. 

I can't talk about Microsoft support generally, but I can speak to my experience specifically with Azure Defender support. I would rate it five out of 10. Maybe it's because this is a product that Azure is still developing on the side. I don't think they have made Azure Defender for Kubernetes available to the general public yet, so that could be why their support is not up to par. I don't know the reason, but I haven't had a good experience with the support.

It is just a POC, so I don't have many endpoints. The whole setup took three days for around 10 endpoints. They have an agent-based security system. It's always complex because you need to deploy the agent to all endpoints which is a lot of work to get it set up. 

We have still have not decided to implement Azure Defender because we are also trying out other products in the same line. Once the RFP process is finished, we will know which one we'll implement.

Azure Defender is definitely pricey, but their competitors cost about the same. For example, a Palo Alto solution is the same price per endpoint, but the ground strikes cost a bit more than Azure Defender. Still, it's pricey for a company like ours. Maybe well-established organizations can afford it, but it might be too costly for a startup. They should try some open-source tools. That's how it is today.

Compared to other products, Azure Defender's main advantage is native integration with all Azure services. If your company uses Active Directory and builds everything on Azure, you get it as a complete package. There's no need to buy another tool and set it up in your cloud environment. 

Everything is built into Azure, and if we go for cross-cloud development with Azure Arc, we can use most of the features. While it's possible to deploy and convert third-party applications, it is difficult to maintain, whereas Azure deployments to the cloud are always easier. Also, Microsoft is a big company, so they always provide enough support, and we trust the Microsoft brand. 

I rate Azure Defender eight out of 10. If you're looking for standard Azure Defender services like cloud posture management or application security, these features are all highly mature. Defender also has newer capabilities that they recently introduced, such as endpoint security, cross-cloud integration with Azure Arc, and Kubernetes runtime security. 

These are all new services, so potential users need to think twice before buying into it solely for these features because I don't think the support is there to encourage customers to buy the product. I don't feel confident about Microsoft's support in these particular areas. I would exercise caution before buying Defender for these particular use cases.