Microsoft Defender XDR Reviews

We are using Microsoft Defender XDR for our endpoint, desktop, and laptop protection.

Microsoft Defender can extend its protection to the third-party applications we use, which is helpful.

Microsoft Defender XDR not only helps stop malware attacks but also offers advanced attack prevention features to safeguard against sophisticated threats.

Our environment is multi-tenant, and Microsoft Defender XDR offers seamless integration. Its ability to respond to threats across the multi-tenants is good.

It helps our security team by automating tasks, providing detailed reports, safeguarding our systems, and enabling historical analysis.

It has helped to reduce some of our costs by almost $10,000 per month.

Microsoft Defender XDR is easy to manage, saving our security team time.

Scanning, vulnerability reporting, and the dashboard are the most valuable features.

While the XDR platform offers valuable functionalities, it falls short of other solutions in its ability to deliver a cohesive identity experience. To address this limitation, integrating MDR as part of the XDR experience and incorporating the latest advancements into Microsoft Defender XDR are crucial steps.

I have been using Microsoft Defender XDR for over three years.

Microsoft Defender XDR is stable.

We can scale up with Microsoft Defender XDR with no problems.

We have a dedicated account manager who handles our support requests. We submit our requests through a ticketing system, and they respond promptly.

We also use CrowdStrike. Both have advanced capabilities and are easy to manage. We have them integrated with multiple tenants but for different products. 

The initial deployment was straightforward and took one to two days to complete.

While Microsoft Defender XDR carries a higher cost, its ease of use compared to Defender may justify the investment.

Although I would rate Microsoft Defender XDR eight out of ten, its visibility suffers when used with third-party applications and non-Azure cloud platforms.

While the implementation itself is straightforward, troubleshooting, log creation, and monitoring can be challenging. This solution may be suitable for Microsoft-centric environments, but its visibility suffers in scenarios with multiple third-party solutions or hybrid deployments.

It is a universal security tool across our organization, catering to staff members using standard laptops and PCs. Currently, we employ an in-house solution built upon a smaller product from a Finnish company.

Although it integrates with Microsoft AD, our solution remains somewhat proprietary as we've independently implemented and tailored it to our specific needs.

We do not leverage the multi-tenant management capabilities of the solution. In our scenario, we operate as a single organization, allowing us to utilize a straightforward, single-setup approach.

The identity protection offered by the solution has proven highly effective for us because we developed it in-house. Crafting it ourselves has allowed us to seamlessly integrate all of our specifications with the solution within a relatively short timeframe. 

The significance of using the identity and access management integrated into Microsoft 365 Defender cannot be overstated, as it is vital for the proper functioning of the product. While it is crucial, the available functionality might not be entirely sufficient. We have opted for our in-house solution to complement and address the additional requirements.

It empowers us to phase out the use of other security products.

Its most significant advantage lies in its affordability. Being an integral part of the Microsoft Stack, it comes with a cost-effective package. Especially for higher education, there's an appealing pricing structure.

The management features could be improved, particularly in terms of better integration with Intune, Microsoft's cloud-based management solution. Enhanced integration would contribute to a smoother user experience, and ease of use is a key aspect that could benefit from such improvements.

We have been using it for approximately four years.

It has demonstrated exceptional stability, with no concerns or complaints on my end.

It exhibits sufficient scalability for our specific needs.

We utilize extended support for Microsoft's stability, and the quality is excellent.

Positive

Within our network, we incorporate Cisco products, utilizing various security features and functionalities offered by Cisco. For instance, our firewalls are implemented using Cisco technologies. This adds diversity to our security landscape, as Microsoft alone may not cover all our security needs.

It has been implemented across various locations, spanning our three campuses and multiple departments. Maintenance is handled by a team of four people.

It didn't contribute to cost reduction. Our expenditure has maintained a consistent level, with little change over the years, aside from factors like inflation.

Using it has resulted in time savings for our security team. Currently, the team comprises approximately four individuals working with these technologies, equating to a total of four times thirty-seven hours per week.

It has consistently offered highly appealing academic pricing, with distinct rates for higher education and general educational purposes. This differential pricing is a significant factor and it influenced our choice to use Microsoft products.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

We use Microsoft Defender XDR in our multi-tenant environment comprising Windows, Linux, and the Cloud.

We have Microsoft Defender deployed in a hybrid environment across AWS, Azure, and GCP.

Microsoft Defender XDR provides unified identity and access management. The identity protection the solution provides is good. 

If we had to use a separate solution for identity and access management I believe the performance would be clunky.

Microsoft Defender XDR extends beyond just Microsoft technologies, encompassing a wider range of platforms and services. This broad coverage is a key strength of the solution.

Since implementing Microsoft Defender XDR, the centralized view and management console have been beneficial.

Microsoft Defender XDR limits the lateral movement of advanced attacks.

It integrated seamlessly into our SIEM environment so there are no disruptions to our security operations.

The ability to adapt to evolving threats is critical as the landscape is expanding daily.

The multi-tenant management capabilities for investigating and responding to threats across tenants are good.

We are enabled us to discontinue the use of other vulnerability management tools.

The reduction in the number of vulnerability management tools we use has helped reduce manual operations.

Microsoft Defender XDR has helped reduce our costs by ten percent.

Microsoft Defender XDR has helped save our security team between five and ten percent of their time.

The unified view of the threat landscape on a central dashboard is the most valuable feature.

The naming convention keeps changing and has room for improvement.

The licensing is a nightmare and has room for improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Defender XDR for three years.

Microsoft Defender XDR is stable.

Microsoft Defender XDR is a SaaS product so it is scalable.

The technical support is good.

Positive

We previously used VMware Carbon Black and switched to Microsoft Defender for the multi-cloud environment support.

The initial deployment is straightforward. We identify the critical assets and just deploy for those initially and then slowly roll out for the rest. Around five people were involved in the deployment.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We have seen a return on investment.

I would rate Microsoft Defender XDR a nine out of ten.

Our main use cases include securing critical university services and establishing a research tenant for researchers to store and manage their findings across both everyday machines and dedicated research spaces. It involves dealing with malware and managing server security through tags. Additionally, a significant portion of our work involves exploring and investigating emails using the Explorer tool. It is well-suited for addressing these scenarios and ensuring robust security measures.

It enables us to respond to incidents more swiftly, pinpointing root causes with greater speed. Retrieving emails is now a much smoother process compared to the previous method using Power Shell. With Explorer, it's a more straightforward and visually intuitive approach, eliminating the previous concerns associated with Query Drive and reducing any associated anxieties. It allowed us to phase out the use of other security products entirely. Initially, we managed this transition through SXM, and later migrated it to the online version of Defender. It has had a notable impact on the operations of our security team. We've had to reshape our procedures, particularly focusing on alerting. There has been a significant upskilling effort, shifting from the previous model where Cisco admins primarily dealt with alerts within SSC or through email.

The most valuable aspect is undoubtedly the exploration capability. Given that we are consistently engaged in exploration, constantly seeking reasons for message delivery issues and searching for malicious attachments, the Explorer feature stands out as the primary and most beneficial tool for our needs.

I'd like to see more integration with various components. While the ecosystem is quite impressive, there's a noticeable back-and-forth between the Defender console and the Exchange console. It would be beneficial to have a more seamless experience with everything consolidated in one place, particularly when dealing with aspects related to the Exchange console. Currently, we rely on a third-party service for the majority of our IAM needs. The data center extension of security coverage has proven to be highly significant for us. Given our extensive use of Linux and third-party applications, having the capability to monitor these aspects within the Defender console would be immensely valuable.

I have been using it for four years.

The stability is quite high. Despite various outages, we've experienced consistent reliability.

Scalability is indeed very impressive. We can deploy resources globally with just a few clicks, and the use of Terraform to create VMs adds a fast and efficient dimension to the process. In terms of end-users, if we focus on mail and overall usage, we currently have around 105,000 users of VMs. Specifically in Azure, we're nearing the 100,000 mark with more migrations in progress, making the average user count approximately 100,000.

Microsoft support has been performing well, promptly addressing any conflicts that arise. Our account manager is quick to respond and provides additional resources when needed. The frequent check-ins, with calls every hour, contribute to a positive experience. I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial deployment was quite straightforward.

The deployment process went smoothly, with check-ins and some policies to configure. Overall, it didn't feel cumbersome.

In the long term, there is potential for significant time savings for our security team. Although currently, many of us are investing time in upskilling and adapting to the new system, overall, I believe that as we become more familiar with it, there will be noticeable efficiency gains.

There has been a noticeable reduction in costs. We've managed to navigate it effectively through our enterprise agreement, and Microsoft's academic discounts have proven to be quite generous. The overall expense is significantly lower, approximately fifty percent less than what we would incur with a traditional enterprise license.

Especially with an enterprise license, the transition is relatively low-risk. If you're currently using the old-school Defender SCCM, moving to the new system is not a challenging shift. It's worth picking a few machines, testing them out, and seeing if it suits your preferences. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

Almost every use case is about security layers for messaging in Teams and for email. It especially used for phishing filters, spam filters, and composite authentication, as well as Zero-day advanced protection, and for protection within already received emails. Clients are also looking for link protection in Teams and in SharePoint.

The solution has improved the remediation steps we take for each threat. That has been the biggest impact on our organization because we need fewer human resources to deal with a bigger attack surface.

And for routine tasks and alerts on issues of high importance, the automation that the system provides has helped greatly. You can set up customized alerts and categorize trends to see a quick overview. As a result, our security officers can focus on the really important tasks, without noisy alerts. Previously, there was a procedure with a rule that was sending all emails that resulted from the SPF and DMARC controls failing to the phishing mailbox. Our security officers had to review every email and accept or decline. Now, using the automation tools within the Microsoft 365 Defender, they don't need to do that. They can check that the tool is working fine from time to time, but they don't need to do that task on a daily basis. It gives them a lot of time to do more important and creative stuff.

In addition, especially when it comes to Zero-day attacks, the solution's threat intelligence helps prepare you for potential threats before they hit. It identifies, for example, attachments containing something malicious and remediates by blocking additional delivery to other users. For example, an email may only be delivered to three users instead of 100 users. Even if somebody didn't open the email, the Zero-day attack protection has removed the email from their mailbox. This is a great remediation step for protecting that attack surface. Then I can observe how the tool is dealing with the attack instead of trying to figure out how to approach it, what to do, who I should contact, et cetera.

It also saves me time every day. It was taking me really long to review the message headers to identify what happened. It could take an hour or even more if it was a really complicated case. I needed to check the headers, the content, the links, the attachment. Using Microsoft 365 Defender, I can see in Explorer at a glance, or by clicking through one or two tabs, what is happening. It gives me a lot more time to do more interesting work and to close other cases. Instead of an hour, it takes five or 10 minutes now.

It's a lifesaver for me and keeps my clients from being threatened and attacked every day. It's not about the money, it's about the information. Attackers can use information to make money.

I can check the overviews and see trends where somebody wants to use some kind of open gate to gather my information. But the solution does the work on my behalf, so I don't need to observe the environment, traffic, and user behavior. And we don't have to invest a lot of money on repetitive training for users. Training is also good, but I don't need to invest so much money and effort in that process, and that results in savings.

For me, the email protection features are the most useful because I focus on that area.

I also really like the integration with the entire Microsoft 365 service because it's not really common to have a tool that is integrated well with Teams, SharePoint, and Exchange. 

Another feature I like is that inside Explorer I can perform an investigation to check, for example, if any accounts have been breached or accessed by a malicious actor. I can also check the source of emails from which we are receiving something that was not expected by us, such as 

• XML attachments 
• meeting invitations with the malicious links
• JavaScript. 

And I really like that the tool checks attachments within the hash so that we can investigate who received the malicious file and where.

There is also one dashboard that shows us the status of many controls at once and the details I can get. Sometimes I'm on a call with somebody from the security team who is asking why we received something or how we can better protect our environment. I can even show them the analysis of a particular Excel file and a macro inside that file. That is something I really like. It gives me a lot of information and I can respond very quickly to a particular case.

It gives a great overview of many areas, such as files, emails, chats, and links. Even with the apps, it gives you a great overview. In one place you can see where you should look into things more deeply and get knowledge of the details, instead of browsing the details and looking for something that might be of interest.

And, of course, it helps prioritize threats across the enterprise. The solution identifies threats and categorizes them. I can assess which category is more important for me and react accordingly. This categorization is really important because it gives something like an SLA for each case. You always have limited resources to deal with cases. For example, in one of the companies which I support, over half of the email traffic is filtered by Microsoft 365 Defender's tools as malicious traffic, amounting to about 5,000 emails a day. I can use the tool to see an overall view of the threats, instead of just going through each one, one by one. It gives a great overview and the ability to see trends for a day or a month and I can adjust my focus according to the trends.

With Defender on end-user devices, we have the ability to monitor them without the need to have them connected to the same network. People are working from home and sometimes they are working on their own devices. We can use conditional access policies to ask them to provide the minimum security standards. That gives us a lot of peace of mind when using Microsoft Defender. We can create rules that look for users who are uploading malicious content to Teams, SharePoint, Android, et cetera.

There should be better information for experts on features in the solution. What I see when reading about features in Microsoft 365 Defender is that it is always general information.

If Microsoft could go deeper into details for the experts about how to use the tools, usage of it would be more familiar and it would be easier to use. Right now, I need to spend a lot of time using Defender to check the possibilities and how to connect them together to see things better. If I could read a more detailed article about it and see some use cases and how some threats are remediated, that would be great. Maybe I'm not looking deep enough or maybe there is some room for them to improve in this area.

And I would really like to see new features.

I'm a Microsoft 365 consultant and have been using Microsoft 365 Defender for about three or four years.

It is really stable.

Sometimes, when there is a problem with the Microsoft infrastructure, for example, in India, then it can be hard because it's not just that somebody may have a problem. It's not about only one business unit but all of Europe. But it's not that problematic for us because usually this kind of situation is very limited and the fix is delivered really quickly.

It is a scalable solution. I haven't had any problems with the scalability of Defender.

We have the solution deployed in 38 countries. People are connected to their local networks and they use the updates from Intune and SCCM.

I haven't had any situation in which I had to ask for support for Defender. 

But for Microsoft 365, overall, when we contact the exact, dedicated team, it's really good. But before that, when a ticket goes through the first and second lines of support, sometimes it's too repetitive. The first line asks the same things as the second line. I know that it's required because Microsoft is a huge company and it has a lot of customers, so some kind of triage is needed. But when an issue is well-known and there is already a solution or a workaround, the sharing of this knowledge should be better.

Neutral

I used regular filters on the email server, running on Linux, with some type of anti-exploit solution that checked for threats inside the files. I filtered the DMARC and SPF with regular controls. That was a nightmare and I'm really happy to now use Microsoft 365 Defender.

I don't deal much with the pricing aspect, but the companies I am supporting use an E5 license for Microsoft 365 because they want to include all the features and it's cheaper for them to use E5 than SE3.

Maybe the solution should be cheaper because I have heard that the licensing is pretty expensive. I can imagine why: The knowledge is expensive and the tests and infrastructure are expensive as well.

From time to time there is maintenance in reviewing the rules so that we can focus on how to use it better. But that's not "maintenance" in the standard meaning that you need to check if the processes are working properly. For example, our security department uses phishing attack simulations to check if users are aware of how the tool behaves when we receive a phishing attack and what actions are taken to remediate that attack.

When trying to decide between a best-of-breed strategy versus a single vendor for security, it depends on the approach, resources, and of course, money. You can have a single vendor and extensively use the solution and really invest time and effort into better understanding how it works. Or you can buy a few solutions but understand each of them less, because it's not possible to have deep knowledge of how every solution works. For me, it's better to use only Microsoft 365 Defender instead of having additional security providers. I can then go deeper into the details and ask the vendor to implement a feature that is useful, and that probably will not only be useful for me. We can build it together instead of blaming each about who should do better work.

My advice is to go deeper into the details to understand how remediation is utilized inside the solution. Notice that Microsoft 365 Defender is using data collected from every tenant that is using the solution, not only mine. If a company's controls have been attacked, the tool can already protect me because I'm not on the first line of fire. It's great to understand this fact and understand the idea behind it and what the benefits are.

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.

Microsoft Defender is used for email protection. 

Microsoft Defender helps stop advanced attacks. We use PII disclosure, we track sensitive data in emails, ransomware, and phishing emails.

Microsoft Defender has saved us costs. 

Microsoft Defender has helped save us investigation time.

Microsoft Defender is slow to adapt to evolving threats.

I was using Microsoft Defender for one and a half years until a month ago when I switched to a different team.

Microsoft Defender is stable. 

Microsoft Defender is scalable.

I previously used Rapid7 InsightIDR for Security Information Event Management and Extended Detection and Response. While InsightIDR offered a user-friendly dashboard for managing detected incidents, its limitation of creating only around 25 custom rules restricted our ability to identify emerging threats. With the ever-evolving threat landscape, I believe a solution with a more adaptable defense system, like Microsoft Defender, is necessary to keep up with the pace of new incidents.

Microsoft Defender was straightforward to set up. It came with a lot of useful documentation to help.

The deployment took almost two months. 

Microsoft Defender falls within a mid-tier price range compared to other security solutions.

I would rate Microsoft Defender eight out of ten.

Microsoft Defender is well-documented and we can find answers to our questions from the user community.

I recommend Microsoft Defender for organizations that are already using other Microsoft products. Since they're likely within the same ecosystem, integrating Defender for antivirus protection should be a smooth process.

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.