Microsoft Defender XDR Reviews

We implement it on client endpoints and server endpoints. We also integrate it with Microsoft Entra ID for the identity part because the security part of Microsoft Defender is completely correlated to user activity.

Microsoft Defender XDR is important for the mitigation of threats, visibility of vulnerabilities, and identification of issues within the environment. It has been a leader in the market for consecutive years.

We have a single pane of glass for servers, endpoints, and mobile devices. It makes it very easy to identify which devices are at risk when you go to the vulnerability part. There are also recommendations. Especially for me, these recommendations are gold. You see exactly what you need. Microsoft Defender XDR is completely different from your antivirus solution. It detects based not only on signatures but also on the policies, so you are forced to harden your servers or client endpoints, which makes a much stronger solution.

Being a Microsoft solution, it integrates well with other Microsoft systems. The majority of the systems are Microsoft-based. This integration comes without the need to install a client on the local machine. It makes the life of the operators and whoever implements it way easier.

Microsoft has a range of Defender products. There is Defender XDR, Defender for Endpoint for clients and servers, and Defender for Office 365 which protects mailboxes, SharePoint, and OneDrive. Then you have Defender for Identity, which is integrated with Defender XDR. You also have Defender for Cloud Apps that is connected to Defender XDR. When integrated, you can get sources of threats, for example, from Defender for Identity connected directly on the endpoint. Defender for XDR protects the endpoint devices against ransomware and different threats. We need to see more holistically at all the Defender solutions instead of isolating them. There is an element of correlation of identity. For me, nowadays, it is much more important to protect the identity than the endpoint device itself because the majority of the vectors are coming from identity attacks. They are more than the viruses attacking the endpoints.

I do not have much experience with Linux as such. I am very focused on Microsoft solutions. I never focused on Linux, but I have worked with my peers, for example, on projects to enroll Linux devices. We needed to prepare simple scripts or puppet scripts to automate the process of pushing policies and automate the update of the antivirus. It is trickier. It is more complex to manage because of the nature of Linux itself. It is not as straightforward or integrated as Microsoft solutions, such as Microsoft Windows 11 or Windows Server, but Microsoft Defender still covers everything. There are some limitations regarding Linux servers and endpoints because you need to have the version of Linux that is supported by Defender, but at the same time, with whatever is supported, Microsoft Defender does the job. Linux and Windows operating systems work in different ways, and the way that antivirus interacts with the operating system is completely different. There is role-based access control in Windows. You have local administrators and domain administrators. On Azure, you define roles for users to access certain environments. On Linux, you have the root user, and as a core front operation system embedded in it, you do not have the least privileged access management solution. This comes with a price because you need to control much better to whom you give access. SSH keys, for example, are very important to be protected, which is a different protocol than the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). You need to protect Linux servers in different ways, which is very different from Windows. Defender or Defender XDR extends the protection, especially when you need to connect with Azure Ark, which is part of Microsoft services.

Microsoft Defender XDR has consolidated security solutions. Previously, you had an antivirus, and you had a different type of endpoint protection for servers, and then you had a web content filtering solution, which is part of Microsoft Defender XDR. It consolidates all the extra products that you require, but it does not give all the elements. It is not a firewall. It is not a web application firewall (WAF). It does not give you everything required as a security solution, but as an extended detection and response system, it gives a lot of leeway for you to meet your security objectives. If we compare it with other products, Defender XDR is much more complete than the competition.

The integration, visibility, vulnerability management, and device identification are valuable. You can automatically deploy the clients depending on how you are implementing the solution. 

The web filtering solution needs to be improved because currently, it is very simple. It is very important.

Integrations with Linux should be done in a better way. With the AI world and the security part, things are going to be much simpler and easier to set up, configure, deploy, and maintain. I am looking forward to new releases of Microsoft Defender XDR to have better integrations, but the web filtering solution is the main pain point.

I have been working with Microsoft Defender since it was released. It has been about four years. I started working with it when it was not even called Defender. It was Advanced Threat Protection. It then changed to Defender for Endpoints and then to Defender XDR.

I have not experienced many bugs or issues. Sometimes, you have delays in the response, but that is due to connectivity issues. It is a cloud-based solution, so you cannot expect to have a real-time response, but this can be improved by Microsoft. I know that they are trying to improve. I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability.

It is ultra-scalable. I would rate it a ten out of ten for scalability. 

I love Microsoft, but due to its growth, the overall support quality has decreased a lot. My recent experience with support was not that good. For the Defender part, it was not that bad. I would rate their support a six out of ten. Their response time and knowledge could be better.

Neutral

I work with Trend Micro. I work with Kaspersky. Trend Micro has its own cloud-based solution similar to Microsoft Defender XDR, but it is not the same. It has some problems. It is not as effective as Microsoft Defender XDR. Especially whenever it comes to vulnerabilities and recommendations, Microsoft Defender XDR is amazing because of its integration with Microsoft operating systems. Microsoft is much ahead of the competition.

I would never touch Kaspersky again. It is not because it is a bad product. It has been a very good product for several years, but because of the Russia and Ukraine war, it has become a prohibitive product at least in Malta to use. A lot of customers moved from Kaspersky immediately to different products. The majority of them went to Microsoft Defender XDR, especially because it also comes integrated with some products. Microsoft is bundling its own products, and Microsoft Defender XDR is very attractive to implement as a cloud solution. It is a no-brainer for the customer. That is where Microsoft has an advantage over Trend Micro, Kaspersky, and other vendors.

With Cloud servers, it is easy and very straightforward. You can almost do it automated, but in a hybrid environment, you have the element of the on-prem servers, which becomes a little bit more complex. You also have the element of Azure that simplifies the deployment process.

It can be difficult to deploy in the beginning because you need to consider different products and elements, but the deployment is the simplest part of the onboarding process. The configuration process is much more difficult, especially because on servers, you need to deploy group policy objects (GPOs) and set all the policy options to protect from the vulnerabilities. You need to configure the antivirus to protect from exploits. There are so many features and configuration possibilities that it becomes more complex to implement on server endpoints. On the client side, it is easy, especially when you implement Defender through Intune, which is the mobile device management solution of Microsoft. With a platform like Intune, it becomes easy because you have policies that assist you already out of the box, such as security baseline policies. With Intune, it is much easier to set a policy. It is way less complex to implement. When you have a hybrid environment with endpoints joined on a local active directory, the complexity increases because you need to deploy GPOs as well if you do not have Intune involved. It is complex to implement.

The deployment takes a few weeks, but it also depends on the size of the customer. If you have just Windows 11 client endpoints, it is easier to implement. Client endpoints are easy to implement because you do not need to test that much. You configure the policies. The policies are all known because of our experience. When it comes to servers, it depends on the server's workload. It depends on what type of service you have installed on the server side. If it is the IIS web server, you need to test certain policies that can block that service. You cannot simply go and implement the best practices of the policies because then you are going to make the server unusable. You are going to generate downtime, which is not ideal and also not the objective, so you need to be very knowledgeable on the infrastructure side and the security side of all applications. You need to study. You need to create a test environment and start implementing server by server. You require details, and it is complex to implement because of this reason.

I am currently doing an implementation for a company with 300 people, and it would take around two months to implement because of the number of servers and endpoints. You need to go into each and every device and analyze the environment. It takes a while. In smaller companies, it is very quick. Within a week or two, you can manage to implement it.

In terms of maintenance, there is no maintenance of the product, but there is maintenance of the environment. Microsoft releases frequent recommendations, and they detect new vulnerabilities very frequently, which requires constant maintenance of policies.

I usually allocate two people. There is one person more focused on the client endpoints, and the other one is more focused on the servers because of his expertise. We split the roles and responsibilities within the team.

It has not saved us costs, but we have invested in a proper solution. We have a better return on investment. We now have better visibility. We are investing in a product that gives what we need instead of a product that does not fulfill our requirements and our customers' requirements.

As a service provider, it is very hard to calculate an ROI. For customers, it is more of a return on value rather than a return on investment. If you have not been under any threat after implementing the solution, it provides the value you need. This is my point of view on security because there is no perfect solution, but there is a solution that works better than the others where you have much more control. With Microsoft Defender XDR, in my experience, we have managed to give that to our customers. Our customers are satisfied with the product, and none of them have replaced or changed Microsoft Defender XDR.

There is the cost of the license, and there is the cost of implementation services. Only by enabling a license for your user, all the features are not going to be enabled and the policies are not going to be configured. It does not work like this. You need specialized people to implement, monitor, and maintain the systems. It comes as a package.

I would rate Microsoft Defender XDR a seven out of ten for pricing. It is costly, especially on the cloud part. There is also Defender for Cloud, which is part of Microsoft Defender XDR. It is 15 dollars per server per month. It is worth it, but it can be costly. It depends on the company's size. That is the big issue.

If you have a company with ten employees and ten servers because you have your own infrastructure hosted within virtual machines, you need to protect ten client endpoints. It is cheap if you get a business premium license. It costs around 17 euros per user. To protect the servers, you need to pay an extra 14 euros per server per month. For ten servers, it is 140 euros per month. Per year, it is around 1600 euros. Small companies or companies with a small budget would not go for it because they do not want to invest in IT. They do not see this value. In my opinion, big companies can justify this cost.

In the countryside of Malta, it is tricky to sell the solution. I have to give them all the advantages. I always have a test environment, so I show them how it works, how the automated detection works, how it behaves, and how it acts on the threats. I give them an overview, and they get amazed. When it comes to the pricing, they get a little bit scared, but ultimately, they go because they see value in it. Everything depends on the value that a product gives and how you sell a product as a solution provider. An XDR solution provides value because it protects your assets. Your data is your major asset. If you do not have it protected, you can get hacked or have a ransomware attack. Companies are now starting to understand the importance of it, and they are starting to invest more. It is still a long way for us to have the mindset where they say that it does not matter how much it costs, we need to invest in security.

I would recommend Microsoft Defender XDR. It is the best solution in the market.

For me, Microsoft Defender brought a career change. It made me go deeper into the security products. Previously, I was more of an infrastructure guy. I was more focused on on-prem and Windows servers, but then I moved away from infrastructure. I work for a data center company, and I am a presales solutions architect designing solutions for financial companies, banks, and gaming companies or companies with online casinos.

A lot of people did not like Microsoft Defender because Microsoft was not known as a security company, but Microsoft has been investing billions of dollars every year in security, and now, they provide cutting-edge technology, especially with AI.

I have been following Microsoft, and I go to Microsoft events. There is a new product called Security Copilot that is going to be completely connected to Defender XDR. It will give much faster feedback and response to threats by issuing reports. Today, a security analyst takes four to five hours to prepare a report. With Microsoft Security Copilot and Defender, it is going to change massively. Within five to ten minutes, you can prepare a report with the Security Copilot solution. It is going to be released very soon, and I am looking forward to it.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Defender XDR a ten out of ten.

Defender XDR is a solution that protects your enterprise systems and devices.

Defender XDR has helped a lot in terms of capturing all kinds of activities happening on the endpoints where it is. If you want to know what happened at a point in time, you can go to the history and search everything. This helps you investigate exactly what happened if you have a security breach. It doesn't take much time, but I don't have anything to compare it to because Defender is the only XDR we've used. 

Defender XDR has a feature called the timeline that lets you track all activities. It helps a lot with investigations. Microsoft has many identity management features and products that complement each other.

It covers the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of non-Microsoft solutions, but it will not help you to do the remediation. You need another third-party tool to do the remediation. 

Defender protects against advanced attacks like ransomware or email phishing. The protection Defender provides is excellent. It's a great product for preventing attacks and reducing risks for organizations. 

There are a few technical issues with Defender XDR that can be improved. Sometimes, the endpoint devices are not reporting properly to the Defender 365 portal. When you're getting all the information from the Microsoft portal, the devices are sometimes not in sync. We have hundreds of endpoint devices, some needing to be onboarded again. 

I have used Defender XDR for three years.

I rate Microsoft support nine out of ten. It's excellent. 

Positive

We did a POC for a McAfee product. There weren't many differences, but Microsoft Defender was included with our E5 license. The major difference is that we saved money by not purchasing another product. 

Defender XDR is a cloud-based solution. You can access it and see all the information you need inside the Microsoft portal. 

Defender XDR is not expensive. It's average compared to other products. 

I can get Defender bundled with the E5 package. We had considered replacing it, but after evaluating some competing products, we decided there was no significant difference between the third-party products and Defender. 

I rate Microsoft Defender XDR eight out of ten. I think there is room for improvement in terms of its coverage of non-Microsoft technologies. 

We use Microsoft Defender XDR to protect our endpoints, computers, mobile devices, and emails.

In part, Microsoft Defender XDR provides unified identity and access management.

Microsoft Defender XDR can protect 98 percent of devices.

With Microsoft Defender XDR we can now manage all of our non-critical computers from one console. The management level and implementation level are easy. Microsoft Defender XDR is also cost-effective.

We have been using Microsoft solutions for over 25 years so it didn't take much convincing to start using Microsoft Defender XDR.

Microsoft Defender XDR has enabled us to discontinue the use of Kaspersky in our safe computers.

Being able to reduce the number of solutions used has been helpful to our security team's operations. The discontinued use of other security products has reduced manual correlation. Using Microsoft has a lot of advantages, especially in management. The reduction in manual correlation is important for our organization.

Microsoft Defender XDR saves our security team around three hours a day.

The most valuable features are spam filtering, attachment filtering, and antivirus protection.

Microsoft Defender XDR is not a full-fledged EDR or XDR. Any true XDR should be more powerful than what Microsoft is currently providing. For some public-facing companies, computers, and endpoint computers, we need additional security from CrowdStrike or other third-party XDR.

Microsoft Defender XDR does not stop 100 percent of the lateral movement or advanced attacks. Our machines use both Microsoft Defender XDR and Crowdstrike and we have had instances where attacks were missed by Microsoft Defender XDR but caught by Crowdstrike.

I have been using Microsoft Defender XDR for four years.

Microsoft Defender XDR is stable.

Microsoft Defender XDR is scalable.

We previously used Kaspersky, Norton, and CrowdStrike. We switched to Microsoft Defender XDR because of its streamlined management capabilities.

The initial deployment was straightforward. We pushed Microsoft Defender XDR remotely across our system consisting of 300 computers. We are a team of seven people and each of us was involved in the deployment process.

The implementation was done in-house.

Microsoft Defender XDR is expensive.

We did not evaluate other security solutions because I have extensive knowledge of most products, their strengths and weaknesses, and their overall capabilities. Additionally, considering all our products are on Microsoft 365, a cloud-based platform, and we already utilize its various components like mail, documents, and more, integrating Microsoft Defender for threat detection and management was a natural choice due to existing ecosystem compatibility and streamlined administration.

I would rate Microsoft Defender XDR an eight out of ten.

Microsoft Defender XDR is deployed across multiple locations and departments.

Minimal maintenance is required for patching.

We use Microsoft Defender XDR for antivirus, threat intelligence, and email blocking.

Microsoft Defender's XDR platform provides unified identity and access management. It has improved significantly, although other products remain slightly ahead. I would rate it among the top four or five XDR platforms I've used, and Microsoft is continuously enhancing its capabilities. Overall, it's a fairly good solution.

Consolidating identity and access management under one umbrella within Defender 365 offers significant advantages. This unified approach simplifies control and visibility, eliminating the need to navigate through different screens from multiple vendors. With everything centralized, we gain a comprehensive overview of all IAM activities and can easily access specific details through subcategories. The main page provides a clear starting point, highlighting key information and granting quick access to deeper levels of detail when needed.

While Microsoft Defender can effectively impede the lateral movement of advanced ransomware, it cannot guarantee complete protection. No system is perfect, and vulnerabilities will always exist.

Defender's ability to stop attacks includes its adaptability to evolving threats. Microsoft has been steadily improving Defender over the past few years, and they continue to do so. Several updates in recent months have changed Defender's functionality, making it more effective. While technology advances and tools like Defender improve, the skills of hackers and their tools also evolve. This necessitates continuous improvement to keep pace.

Adaptability to evolving threats is crucial. A static system is vulnerable to attack. Its unchanging vulnerabilities can be readily identified and exploited, allowing unauthorized access and manipulation. Constant improvement is necessary to maintain security.

While we have reduced our reliance on other products, we haven't eliminated them at this time. We are actively reducing our use of other products as we progress. Once we have completed the configuration and setup process for Defender XDR, we can then fully transition to using it as our primary product.

Defender XDR has saved our security team approximately two hours per day. Automation is improving steadily, allowing us to automate audit file processing and scheduling. This provides us with continuous insight into our environment. The main page offers a high-level overview of current activity, enabling us to quickly identify any anomalies. Our security team can then address these anomalies promptly.

The threat intelligence is excellent. Email collaboration is very good. Device protection is useful. Overall, 90 percent of Microsoft Defender XDR is used weekly, primarily for email collaboration.

Advanced attacks could use an improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Defender XDR for almost four years.

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

Microsoft Defender XDR is scalable and we are planning to increase the usage.

The Microsoft technical support I used in the past was quite good. They were typically responsive and efficient, providing solutions quickly. However, I haven't needed their assistance in the last year, so I can't offer an updated assessment.

Our past experience includes Sophos, Check Point, and ESET. We briefly utilized SentinelOne as well, but ultimately opted for Microsoft Defender XDR. We had Defender included in our purchases but it wasn't being utilized fully until I fine-tuned and set it up to work more efficiently.

I would rate Microsoft Defender XDR an eight out of ten.

We require three people for maintenance.

We have Microsoft Defender XDR deployed across multiple locations, roles, and teams.

Before implementing Microsoft Defender XDR, ensure that all the features will be utilized otherwise it is more cost-effective to go with a smaller package that includes only the features needed by the organization.

We use 365 Defender with Outlook, Teams, and SharePoint. Our organization extensively uses these products as do the clients we serve. Our goal is to secure those email, SharePoint, and Teams environments.

Our Microsoft security solution has helped eliminate having to look at multiple dashboards. For a wholesale view over the entire infrastructure, Sentinel is the place to go. But M365 Defender alone only covers 30 to 40 percent of the infrastructure.

We have saved a lot of time compared to having to do tasks with other tools. With Microsoft, it's easier for us to manage and handle them. It saves us about 40 percent of the time it would have taken us. That includes the automating of detection and response.

The most valuable feature is the DLP because that's where we can have an added data protection layer and extend it not just to emails but to the documents that users are working on. We can make sure that sensitive data is tagged and flagged if unauthorized parties are using it.

The information that the solution provides is pretty clear because I have an overall picture from the compliance dashboard, which is now called the Azure Purview Compliance dashboard or manager. It has all the information, including the DLP information, sensitive data being shared, threat protection, and attacks. All of that is on a single dashboard where I see what the state of security is.

We use the entire suite of Purview features, including Sentinel, Defender for Cloud Apps, Defender for Endpoint, and even new features like Microsoft Defender for DevOps. Sentinel is the out-of-the-box SIEM tool that should definitely be used for more visibility on the M365 side. Of course, we have the compliance dashboard, but Sentinel acts as the single point of contact for visibility into all devices. That way we can see, if there are any threats or vulnerabilities, what the dependent resources are. Sentinel helps give us that bigger picture. We also use Defender for Identity and Defender for Cloud, with different features for the different aspects within the cloud, such as various servers and DNS, et cetera.

With its different connectors, Sentinel enables us to collect data from our entire ecosystem. All the logs are injected into a workspace in Sentinel where Sentinel can analyze them. If we unlock the Microsoft threat intelligence program, which is part of Sentinel, we can investigate threats and respond holistically from one.

Integrating these products is pretty simple. Microsoft Sentinel integrates really fast. Obviously, it's from the same stack so it's easy for us to integrate with just the click of a button. The connectors then help us integrate these services.

If we have all these products in use, we can achieve a 90 to 95 percent security maturity model, without requiring any other vendors' solutions to protect resources.

There are two areas where I feel there is no Microsoft solution. One is vulnerability management, where Microsoft is partnered with Qualys. The other is a penetration testing tool on the preventive side. That would be more for an ad hoc request and not for everyday functions. Apart from these, all the other areas can be covered with Microsoft solutions.

There is definitely scope for improvement in the automation area. Because the solution is a SaaS platform, we don't have the overall ability to automate stuff. By integrating Microsoft 365 Defender with Sentinel, we can definitely automate things. We can leverage playbooks, and execute Terraform scripts. But directly automating tasks in the 365 Defender is something we have to do with PowerShell, which is then connected to Exchange Online. There is no direct way to go ahead because it's a SaaS platform. But if you integrate it with Sentinel, where all the alerts are created and action needs to be taken, it is pretty comfortable for automation.

Also, I would like to see it be a lot less policy driven. On the M365 side, there are a lot of policies that we need to enable to achieve a certain task. There is no direct solution; rather, there are a lot of workarounds.

I understand that Microsoft is dealing with a lot of tools at once and having a direct solution is not viable. But I would hope that Microsoft can improve that side of it.

I have been using Microsoft 365 Defender for more than five years.

It's a pretty stable solution and in terms of the SLAs it is pretty good. When it comes to applying policies and the standard documentation that Microsoft provides, everything works according to that. I would rate the stability a nine out of 10.

It surely is a scalable solution, being a service that Microsoft offers.

The technical support is not great. I have been working with these Microsoft products for quite some time, and I have raised issues and contacted them. Every support case I have raised has needed escalation. From my experience, the first-line support team doesn't have anything other than out-of-the-box solutions. Everything with that level of support is pretty standard, SOP-driven, and documentation driven. That is nice, but only to a certain point. When we are talking about the SOP that a level-one engineer does, that's when the support is very poor.

Negative

We previously had on-prem solutions. For Exchange and for endpoints, we used to have McAfee, but that was more than five years ago. Previously, Defender for M365 used to be ATP, Advanced Threat Protection, and that's when we started using it.

Previously, we had many things on-prem, such as Exchange Servers, SharePoint, and database servers. But as Microsoft drove toward cloud-native solutions and moved Exchange, SharePoint, and Dynamics 365 online, moving to M365 was a part of the move.

There is no straightforward solution with Microsoft. There are definitely a few restrictions and limitations. We should go ahead and call that out and there were definitely challenges.

The major challenge was moving the mailboxes from on-prem Exchange to Exchange Online. That was not straightforward because the goal was not to lose any emails, and that certain format-related issues be taken care of.

We followed a waterfall method with a proper plan of action. We performed a PoC first, to make sure that the test users were migrated successfully. Once that was done, we did a proper plan in terms of department hierarchy for migrating our departments and detailed a plan of action in case there were any failures. We then did a proper pilot where we chose about 25 mailboxes for migration, and then we went ahead and migrated everyone. 

One of the reasons it took six months was there were only five of us involved.

Because it is a SaaS service, Microsoft promises three nines of uptime. There is no maintenance on our side.

We are seeing a return on investment compared to the same types of solutions that we used to have five years ago. We would have spent more than what we are spending right now. It's not just about the licensing, it's also about the team that manages it and the operations side of it. But compared to how things were, the return on investment has been positive.

I doubt that we are saving money with this solution because all the features are only available with a Microsoft 365 E5 license, which is the highest. And that doesn't come cheap because it's on a per-user basis. If there are 1,000 users, you are investing a lot.

The pricing model of Sentinel is entirely different from any other standalone SIEM tool. Other tools work on a licensing model with a fixed price based on the different modules that are enabled. Sentinel is not a fixed price. It depends on how much data is injected into it. With Microsoft, if there are 100 GB per month, it's about $2.30 per GB, or around $2,000 on a monthly basis. Compared to a fixed licensing cost, where organizations know that there is a certain budget they need to put aside for the license, on the Microsoft side, we really can't anticipate the cost.

The pricing of Microsoft 365 Defender is definitely on the costly side, but with the features and services that Microsoft provides, such as the seamless integration of all the Defender tools, while the price is on the higher side, there is no alternative.

My advice would be to try out Microsoft and compare it with other vendors. If your vision for Microsoft includes needing customizations and a lot of use cases, I don't think Microsoft M365 would support that. Where Microsoft shines is the seamless integration and dealing with less configuration management. But at the same time, organizations are adopting other solutions, such as Linux, and they want customization and that is not possible on the Microsoft side.

Microsoft 365 Defender helps prioritize threats to the enterprise, but not alone. Rather, it is through combining it with other Defender products like Defender for Cloud Apps and Defender for Endpoint. All these, in combination, can provide really good security, visibility, and threat protection against any vulnerabilities or threats. But with just M365, our hands are tied with the scope, which is limited to emails, Teams, and SharePoint.

We can't 100 percent automate things, but we can automate about 80 percent of our tasks. It has made life easier. But, at the same time, if a scenario is not something that repeats, performing an activity automatically would reduce the time spent, but not by that much. We have automated a few areas for things that occur on a regular basis, but at the same time, we come across situations now and again that we think about automating, but we also think about the effort that we would have to put into doing so. Will it be a recurring solution or not?

There are also some advancements that Microsoft has launched to automate threat surface reduction, some features that we could try to help us analyze steps to be taken before an attack happens, but nothing that I have tried yet.

Hypothetically, when looking at whether a single vendor or a best-of-breed strategy is best, being an architect the last couple of years, what I've seen is that having a multi-vendor system is definitely a good approach rather than going with a single vendor solution. Even though Microsoft has all these tools, we can't achieve 100 percent security. There are the areas for improvement that I mentioned, where Microsoft doesn't have a single solution, like pen testing and vulnerability management. My suggestion is always to go with a multi-vendor solution. Microsoft might reach a level where, at a certain point, they will have 100 percent coverage, but my approach would still be multi-vendor.

Our primary use case for Microsoft Defender XDR is to serve as our email security solution, offering file protection, scanning, alerts, and incident management. It is a part of every Microsoft 365 deployment we do.

The integration of Microsoft products simplifies management, reporting, and investigations. It offers capabilities that other solutions don't offer.

The feature I find most valuable is Defender for Endpoint. It's because endpoint management is my primary focus, and this feature integrates well with my other skills.

The licensing process needs improvement and clarification, as it is currently difficult to understand which features are licensed to which users.

I've been using Microsoft Defender XDR for about ten years since it was known as Office 365 Advanced Threat Protection.

I have no concerns about the stability of Microsoft Defender XDR.

We are only a small organization, and our operations don't even challenge Microsoft Defender XDR's capabilities.

The customer service and support have been good. Whenever it is needed, they are fast to respond.

Positive

We used various solutions over the years, but since then, we've been using the Defender variants.

The initial deployment was straightforward.

We implemented Microsoft Defender XDR ourselves in-house.

There are no issues with pricing, but sometimes, the clarity in licensing is a concern. I still need to verify what's included with each license occasionally.

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

We use Microsoft Defender XDR for our Microsoft 365 email service.

It helps protect us against ransomware. We were a victim of a malware attack in 2018 before implementation.

Email protection is the most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender XDR.

The price has room for improvement. The price should be adjustable by region.

I have been using Microsoft Defender XDR for almost 5 years.

Microsoft Defender XDR is stable.

Microsoft Defender XDR is scalable.

The technical support is good.

Positive

Microsoft Defender XDR is priced high.

I would rate Microsoft Defender XDR 8 out of 10.

No maintenance is required from our end because it updates with the OS.

We typically use Defender's default settings and are implementing MITRE ATT&CK use cases on Microsoft Defender this year. We do manual threat hunting and check to see if there is a trending attack. We have the latest IOCs and sweep across the organization looking for them. 

When implementing Defender, we usually use its advanced hunting features to determine particular techniques used across the whole environment. We use multiple Microsoft security products, including Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Cloud Apps, Sentinel, email and collaboration, data loss prevention, and Microsoft Purview.

Defender XDR enables us to prioritize threats according to the algorithm or our custom rules. We can prioritize threats and have the option to automate the response. For instance, let's say we are facing a sticky key hijack. When you press shift several times at the login screen, you can open the command prompt of that particular host. That is a vulnerability of Microsoft Windows. When this happens, we can automate a priority alert and also isolate that endpoint from the network immediately. 

The solution reduces our remediation time by enabling our security analyst to respond quickly, make some automations, and edit the rules to detect any potential threats. The extent to which the solution reduces the remediation time depends on the analyst's skill. If the security analyst is good, Defender XDR will help them.

XDR saves money if you are using Microsoft products. XDR is more inclined toward Active Directory, a Microsoft product. No other XDR can integrate with Active Directory so seamlessly and use it to its fullest potential. Microsoft also offers multiple sub-products. If we purchased third-party solutions for email, endpoint, XDR, cloud applications, etc., and managed them on a single platform, it would be more expensive than Microsoft solutions. When we do a cost-benefit analysis, Microsoft Defender XDR offers a better value. 

I like Defender XDR's automation capabilities. XDR isn't automated by default, but you can automate it to respond. If an attack is performed anywhere within the organization, you can isolate that instance from the network. This is what I can figure out for it. When integrated with Sentinel, you can set up playbooks to automate all the alerts gathered on Sentinel from different Microsoft solutions. Sentinel has a wider range of capabilities than XDR. 

Defender XDR has good threat visibility, but it could be better in some areas, like when we are hunting for a specific host. For example, let's say we are investigating email services, and want to trace an email account to its host PCs and investigate the emails in its inbox. We want more visibility into the email side of investigations. It would be better if these features could be more integrated into the console like you could have a tab for Cloud Apps to see the cloud applications a user had communicated with. 

Microsoft's threat analytics are somewhat helpful for anything related to Microsoft products. For instance, it can update us about any single sign-on vulnerabilities or something along those lines. However, Microsoft was very late in terms of the recent LockBit attacks. LockBit compromised some significant organizations, and Microsoft didn't provide the report fast enough. It was reported on my normal cybersecurity information websites first. The site analytics are a bit weak when it comes to non-Microsoft clouds.

Defender XDR is capable of providing intelligence reports about threats specific to Microsoft components, but if we are implementing a Microsoft solution across an organization, many other products and side factors must be considered. I feel like Microsoft falls behind some other vendors in threat intelligence.

When we do investigations, it would be better if Microsoft could populate the host dashboard more. When we open any host for investigation, we want the entire timeline of what is happening on the host, including all the users logging in, their hardware, Windows version, etc. 

I have used Defender XDR for nearly 2 years. 

We haven't faced issues with stability. XDR doesn't lag during investigations. We've seen a few minor bugs in the XDR console but not often. There have been no major issues that disrupted our operation. 

Defender XDR has good scalability. If you want more endpoint visibility, you don't need to scale your organization much. You only need to integrate that particular endpoint by running a script and deploying an agent to it. 

I haven't contacted Microsoft support about XDR, but my client has. One of the alerts was triggering incorrectly based on a default setting. We asked their team to investigate why the solution was excessively triggering. I just disabled the default rules and made custom policies. Now, everything is working fine.

I previously used CrowdStrike EDR. It's hard to compare the two products because CrowdStrike EDR was focused on endpoint detection, so it cannot investigate emails or have any other XDR capabilities. One is an XDR and the other an EDR. 

We compared Microsoft Defender XDR to Trend Micro's Vision One. Defender's advantage over Vision One is ease of use. Managing and enabling policies is much easier on Microsoft Defender. There's a considerable difference between their default rules. In some cases, alerts will trigger in Defender, but not Vision One. Overall, Microsoft Defender XDR is preferable over Vision One.

I rate Microsoft Defender XDR 7 out of 10. It's a useful product for a professional security analyst who knows how to increase the visibility. You only need to make some front-end changes and put the data on host names into XDR. 

If someone asked me whether a best-of-breed or single-vendor approach is better, I would support mixing different products. Each security vendor has its own intelligence base. By including other vendors, I am gaining visibility into more indicators of compromise. Nevertheless, I would still pick Microsoft Defender XDR and Sentinel together because they are well integrated. All the big companies and banks use Microsoft. Windows is a popular operating system across the world. Defender and Sentinel are better integrated with Microsoft systems.