Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

We primarily used the solution as Endpoint Detection and protection (EDR, EPP) with secondary benefits of threats and vulnerability management, security incident response, automated query and real-time device monitoring, and with the capability of email security, identity management (DFI), and task automation (Power automate). We used respective licenses where required.

The solution was also used for an endpoint antivirus for workstations in a multi-OS environment, including Windows and Mac OS. We had file, device, and user trajectory monitoring for the security operations team.

The solution benefited the company via:

• OS-level/Tool compatibility for endpoints running Windows (since both are Microsoft products and Defender core files are included in Win10 or later delivery).
• Heuristic capability. Consistent usage of MDE indicates that the tools are continuously learning new prevention techniques by pulling real-time up-to-date cloud resources.

• Alert chaining. The solution makes security Incidents, events, and alerts less tedious from a Security Operation Center standpoint. This can result in false negatives or detriment for small to medium-scale firms running no or semi-automated threat response features.

The most valuable aspects of the solution include:

• Advanced hunting. The product offers flexibility, visibility, and automation capability using a user-friendly query language (KQL).
• Reporting. Clear and concisely plotted graphics show real-time data representation - which is valuable to upper management.

• Scalability/API. We are able to productively integrate with existing on-prem, hybrid, or cloud applications. 
• Great OOB features. The solution comes with SIEM-ingestion-ready features for extensive visibility, automation, and integration, including advanced hunting, threats and vulnerability management, embedded simulation for end-to-end testing, ransomware prevention (Controlled Folder Access), and Attack Surface Reduction (ASR) rules.

Improvements could be made via:

• Clicks. There's a poor user experience with lots of optimizable opportunities of user interface particularly on the newly improved portal (https://security.microsoft.com/). Features like device inventory continue to lack essential workstation drill-downs showing the entire device information with the least effort.

• De-centralized console features. Discrepancies with enabling core features at the click of a button within the MDE portal is mostly due to prerequisites that are tied to the functionality or partial enforcement requirements from other Microsoft tools (Group policy, Azure, Sentinel, SCCM, Intune). EDR in block mode requires Intune security baselines and tamper protection requires MAPS enabled. Web content filtering also has security baseline dependencies

• No single pane of glass. There are too many loose ends with tiny bits and pieces to enforce essential security policies compared to other EDR solutions within the same caliber. A typical example is having to create exclusions in different locations for entirely different functionalities, such as: automation folder exclusion, group policy exclusions (per tenant), Controlled Folder Access (ASR) Allowed application, and Attack Surface Reduction (ASR).

• Service Requests. Noncritical cases with MDE technical support teams tend to be queued for over a week before the first customer engagement. Most of these tickets also end up in the hands of temporary or contracted non-Microsoft employees who are scripted and offer little attention to unique incidents.

Suggested additional features that should be included in the next release include:

• Digestible interface/filter for crown-jewel capabilities like ASR, CFA and Exploit mitigation occurrences.
• Restoration of an always visible search bar from the previous console view (https://securitycenter.windows.com).
• A definitive action plan for Secure Score recommendations and deduplicate of controls.

We were using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint prior to its change of name from Defender ATP. We experienced a plethora of GA changes including, but not limited to, IOS/multiple OS support, device discovery, web content filtering, API updates, and continuous integrations with existing security tools.

Usually, the solution is used in relation to keys management. We implemented a program for it, for the lifecycle of the keys. We've also used it for certificate management.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

The stability is very good.

Technical support is good.

The solution is in good condition and offers good functionality.

There are likely some technical improvements or features that could be added, however, I cannot say, off the top of my head, what they would be.

I used the solution in relation to scoping a project. I was doing business analysis.

The solution was very stable.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support for Microsoft is very good.

The initial setup is not difficult or complex. It's very simple and straightforward. 

I do not know how much it costs per month. I cannot say how it compares against the rates of the competition.

We are a Microsoft Customer.

I'm not sure if I would recommend the solution to others. It depends on their requirements. It needs to fit a company's use cases.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

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

We use this solution for general antivirus protection.

We like that it has a free version available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We did not contact technical support.

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

The initial setup was straightforward. It was extremely simple.

We are using the free version.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint protection on my personal computer.

The solution has an easy-to-use interface, is always updated, and is user-friendly.

The solution could improve by providing more integration.

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

The solution is stable and secure.

I have found the scalability quite good.

The installation is simple.

I did the implementation of the solution.

The solution is free and comes with Windows.

I rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a ten out of ten.

I am a Taiwan sole company reseller. We sell commercial software to enterprise customers.

I use the Microsoft Defender for scanning the antivirus or some hacker tools.

We sell the Microsoft solution for enterprise customers. We recommend to customers that they can use Microsoft Defender Antivirus.

Microsoft Defender can block some viruses or malware. So, it can protect my files. It can save files on Office 365 OneDrive. I use encryption for some files, then I can recover them from OneDrive.

The central console needs improvement. Both McAfee and Symantec antivirus have dashboards. These integrate with a server and work on my antivirus or some other product. However, with Microsoft Defender, you use Microsoft Group Policy Object. Defender does not provide a central console. Therefore, if you implement Defender, then maybe use another tool for the central view.

I have been using Microsoft Defender Antivirus for more than two years.

In general, Defender Antivirus can work with my operating system. So, its performance is okay.

Defender can integrate with other Office 365 security products. 

We just search for knowledge from Google.

My company deploys Symantec antivirus. However, when we buy a laptop, it includes Windows 10, which has Defender antivirus installed. Therefore, we use both antivirus software, Symantec and Defender.

We did not deploy Microsoft Defender Antivirus. It simply came preloaded with Windows 10.

I would recommend using Group Policy Object to deploy this solution and enable some functions.

You just pay Windows 10 prices, then you have antivirus software. As a price comparison, Defender's costs are very low.

We sell the Microsoft 365 solution to customers. If a customer wants Windows 10 Defender, they can choose Defender ATP in Office 365.

I would rate this solution as a five or six out of 10.

We are using it for protection. We had a request from one of our customers, and we just started to implement it. We don't have any great idea about it. We are in the process of implementing it for the first time.

We are using its latest version. It is on-prem. The problem with going for a cloud version is that most of our customers prefer to work with on-prem solutions. So, we need all the features to be available on-prem as well as on the cloud.

We have just started to implement it. It is useful for protection from malware and ransomware. We are not exactly sure about zero-day, but we are trying to see if it will be effective for everyday antivirus purposes.

Auto recovery is the most important feature that we would need from this solution. For decryption, similar to Malwarebytes, there should be something to be able to recover the data up to the last normal status. Its ability to recover data to the last normal copy must not exceed 5 to 10 minutes.

We just started to use it.

We need to test its functionality in heavy environments.

Their support could be faster through the phone. The support through chat is very unuseful. It takes a lot of time and effort and but does not help in any way. We provide the first line of support to customers, so it is not a big issue for us.

We work on most of the protection products, such as Kaspersky, Malwarebytes. We normally use a lot of them. We had a request from one of our customers, so we started to implement Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.

Its initial setup is straightforward. The solution itself doesn't take more than 15 to 20 minutes, but the configuration duration depends on the environment, such as the number of policies, users, etc. It will vary according to the environment in which you are doing the implementation.

We implement it ourselves. Currently, we have only one customer of this solution.

Its price is fair. It has approximately the same price as the other products such as Kaspersky. It is much cheaper than Malwarebytes.

I would rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a seven out of 10.

We are one of the major drug stores in Germany. We are located in 13 European countries such as Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and Poland. I'm working here as an IT Administrator, and I'm focusing on software deployment and antivirus solutions.

Our use case is that we got to have antivirus. Cyber insurance forces us to have an antivirus solution that meets the requirements the insurance has. 

In terms of deployment, we're using Defender without ATP in the old world. For domain-joined clients and on the Intune-managed clients, we use Defender in combination with ATP. The on-prem clients are usually old-school domain-joined clients.

We have its latest version. We always try to be at the newest version.

In the old world, we have Defender in combination with SCCM. It's not as good as Security Center, but you have all the reporting stuff that tells you whether your clients are up-to-date or not. The ATP Security Center is the mercy dispense of antivirus solutions because it is so much more than just antivirus. Microsoft Security Center comes with the ATP license, and it provides a really compact but whole view of your tenant and the vulnerabilities in your tenant. I feel that my administration got more proactive than just reacting. I can see that my Office is not up-to-date, or a client is using the old version of Firefox or Adobe Reader. So, Security Center tells me all this, and I can proactively update these clients and have a look at the bad guys in my environment. That was the part that McAfee never showed. I could see my clients with old signature files or engines, but McAfee Orchestrator didn't show the actual vulnerability of the client, which is the great benefit of Microsoft Security Center.

The whole bundle of the product, which is similar to other Microsoft products, is valuable. Ten years ago, you had third-party stuff for different things. You had one solution for email archiving and another third-party one for something else. Nowadays, Microsoft Office covers all the stuff that was formerly covered by third-party solutions. It is the same with antivirus. The functionality is just basic. You have the scanning, and then you also have a kind of cloud-based protection and reporting about your environment. With Microsoft Security Center, you have a complete overview of your environment. You know the software inventory, and you have security recommendations. You can not only see that the antivirus is up to date; you can also see where are the vulnerabilities in your system. Microsoft Security Center tells you where you have old, deprecated software and what kind of CVEs are addressed. It's really cool stuff.

We encountered some misbehavior between Microsoft Office Suite and Defender. We had issues of old macros being blocked and some stuff going around the usage of Win32 APIs. There is some improvement between the Office products and Defender, and there is a bunch of stuff that you can configure in your antivirus solutions, but you have several baselines, such as security baselines for Edge, security baselines for Defender, and security baselines for MDM. You have configuration profiles as well. So, there a lot of parts where we can configure our antivirus solution, and we're getting conflicting configurations. This is the major part with which we're struggling in this solution. We are having calls and calls with Microsoft for getting rid of all configuration conflicts that we have. That's really the part that needs to be improved. 

It would be cool to have just one interface or only one or two locations where you configure the stuff. Currently, they have three locations where you can configure your antivirus. Three locations are too much, and there is too much conflict. It is not a one-to-one configuration. There are some configuration settings that you can only do in SCCM. You don't find them in MDM. So, it's not always one-to-one. 

The last point of improvement is related to the quality of service that Microsoft provides. The quality of service that Microsoft provides should be improved.

We have been using Defender for two years. Two years ago, we migrated from McAfee Endpoint Protection to Defender Antivirus. This migration process took us one year to migrate all systems. So, we're now totally on Microsoft Defender on all workstations and servers.

Scalability and deployment always depend on how many of your clients are online. There is no problem with the scalability and deployments of servers because they are online 24/7, but client management is different than server management. We are located in 13 countries, and we have about 9,000 clients. Of course, they are not always online because of which you're always struggling with your client management. 

If you open a call with Microsoft, you're in God's hands. Some of their engineers are top-notch and some are not. We have some strange calls going on for weeks and months, and nothing is happening. There are always the same questions. The quality of service that Microsoft provides should be improved.

We migrated from McAfee Endpoint Protection to Defender Antivirus. I worked with ePolicy Orchestrator from McAfee for almost 20 years. The user interface of McAfee was fine, but the hassle began with Windows 10. Updating McAfee and the endpoint security stuff was always a hassle. We had to update all the McAfee stuff before having a feature update, so we were always in this hassle of the update process of either McAfee or Windows. Defender is a seamless solution for Windows. 

Microsoft has done a lot to improve Defender. There are not so many differences between basic scanners. If you look at the Gartner studies, Defender has really improved a lot. It came out one or one and a half years before we started to migrate our clients to Intune MDM solution, and within this migration to MDM managed clients, we also established advanced threat protection (ATP) with Defender. It met our requirements perfectly, and we did penetration testing for the solution, and it turned out to be perfect. 

The deployment process is okay. Of course, you always struggle at several points, but overall, the deployment is fine for Defender.

We evaluated a lot of different scanners, such as Passkey. McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator now comes with the option to integrate within Microsoft Security Center, but McAfee came up with its solution a little bit too late. 

In the on-prem world, we are using Microsoft Defender in combination with the endpoint manager to SCCM, and it is fine. I really prefer the interface of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, but it doesn't have as many benefits as Microsoft Defender in combination with SCCM.

In terms of the end-user experience, end-users don't like to be bothered with the virus scan. A virus scan is always annoying for the end-user. An end-user cannot actually configure the antivirus and only gets a notification if something is wrong or some malware is found. That's it. There is not really an end-user experience.

The performance of the client is fine with Defender. We are not encountering many performance issues or any serious issues with Defender. When we turned over to Defender, some of the applications that were functioning absolutely flawlessly with McAfee started to have serious performance issues. So, we had to define an exclusion list for some of the processes or applications, but there are always some applications that needed exclusions for McAfee or Defender.

I would rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint an eight out of 10.

We are using this product as part of our EDR solution, and we use it in conjunction with CrowdStrike. We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we deploy for our clients.

This product has features that improve our security posture including good vulnerability detection, maintaining endpoint devices, and unified management. The management feature allows us to manage all of our devices from a single location.

The advanced techniques used by Microsoft Defender are improving our user experience. Our users used to complain that they didn't need certain features, but this was because the legacy antivirus and other EDR solutions were hampering their usage. Nowadays, vulnerability detection is very effective and they are comfortable with the security, as well as the administration, giving them a better overall experience.

The most valuable feature is threat detection. We have been notified of viruses and threats of problems such as ransomware attacks.

The Cloud App Security features are useful.

We apply the DLP policies across a range of endpoints and it is very accurate when reporting vulnerabilities, including those in email attachments.

Microsoft Defender integrates well with Office 365.

Especially these days, with the COVID situation, this product helps us to better reach our users and solve problems. For example, we no longer need to ask them to bring in their laptop to check for and address issues. We can apply policy, automatically define rules, and remedy problems using the central management features. 

It would be helpful if they included XDR features, on top of the EDR functionality. It would improve the capabilities, as XDR solutions are doing better.

I have been working with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for almost a year, with the E5 licenses.

Stability-wise, it is responsive and I don't see any drawbacks. They have additional features that make it a little more robust.

Scalability-wise, considering the integration that they have, it's good. For example, it can be integrated with Azure Sentinel. We have two or three people who work with managing and deploying this product.

We deploy across Qatar and currently have about 68,000 endpoints protected with Defender. Our usage will increase based on the number of clients we have that buy the product. Ultimately, it depends on the licensing model.

Prior to working with Microsoft Defender, we used CrowdStrike and SentinelOne. We switched because these other products are standalone, and require that we install and maintain them manually. Microsoft Defender is unified and comes as part of Microsoft 365, which makes it easier to set up and manage.

The advantage that these other products have is the XDR features.

The initial setup is straightforward. We deploy this product using Microsoft Intune, which is very helpful. It took us one month to deploy approximately 5,000 users. We had a specific plan that we followed for the implementation. 

I completed the deployment.

This product offers cost-effective threat protection, which integrates with Office 365 and has unified endpoint management features.

We currently use the enterprise-level, E5 licensing scheme. It is a complete bundle that includes the Microsoft 365 products, the Zero Trust solution, and Microsoft Defender.

The E5 license is the one that I recommend because it comes with Cloud App Security, which is a good thing to have on top of Microsoft Defender. It means that you can monitor any threats, sign-in attempts, and other resources whether on the cloud or on-premises.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for antivirus. You can use it for malware and Zero Trust. Some people use it for fact-checking too. I can also use it with Intune, which is good. 

We deploy Microsoft Defender on all kinds of devices, including Microsoft, iOS, and Mac.

Auto-remediation: When the product sees malware, it resolves the issue immediately. This protects the machine.

I like the tamper protection. For example, if I buy a notebook with Windows 10 and put Microsoft Defender on it, then I can activate the tamper protection. This keeps people from entering the machine, encrypting it, and changing passwords.

Microsoft Defender is fully integrated with Azure Sentinel. In addition, GPO can be connected with Microsoft Defender and Azure AD.

It needs to improve the cybersecurity for lateral movements. For example, when a hacker tries to enter a machine, they try to get the password by doing a lateral movement. 

With Windows 10, version 18.0.3, I couldn't see the documentation to open the ports. If you don't open the ports, then the machine can't communicate with the console.

I like its stability a lot.

You push out all the devices that you want. There is no limitation beyond money and licenses.

In the past, I have used McAfee and Kaspersky. 

I only work with Microsoft products right now. It integrates well with other products. I also work with Microsoft Defender for Identity.

The deployment process is not difficult because Microsoft Defender comes with Windows 10. You just right click, then it connects you with Azure. 

There are other processes that can be connected, e.g., Microsoft Download Center.

I implement Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. It takes me one or two days to design Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. It is easy to do this, and the more you implement, the easier it gets over time.

Sometimes, when I change the configuration, I have to wait six to eight hours.

It is so expensive. It isn't cheaper than McAfee or other solutions.

I prefer Microsoft Defender for Endpoint instead of McAfee, Kaspersky, and other products.

I would rate this solution as 10 out of 10.