Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Reviews

I have tried so many antiviruses personally, but this one is integrated with the operating system. That's one of the main reasons for considering this.

The main benefits are compliance and protection from threats.

It helps us to avoid disruption in the business. It helps us see if other solutions are causing any slowness to our end-user machines. We can see if there are any service availability issues. Operations-wise, it helps us a lot to maintain the uptime of our business.

It helps us prioritize threats across our enterprise, which is very important and one of our priorities.

We have the Defender for cloud applications. It's very easy to integrate. It's straightforward. These solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across our environment, which is very important for us.

We did extensive testing of its functionality, and it's very effective. It covers almost all the new, unknown, and known threats. 

It helps automate routine tasks and the finding of high-value alerts, which is helpful for incident response and SLAs. It has saved us 50% of the time to respond to the incident.

It helps us to be proactive. It can detect unknown threats and alerts us. We're able to identify any malicious sign-ins or logins. 

It has decreased our time to detect and respond. Previously, we were doing it manually. It took one hour to two hours to detect and respond. Now, it takes us minutes.

It has very good detection and protection capabilities. They have a new feature for ransomware protection. 

It doesn't cause the slowness of the system, which is one of the reasons why I like it.

There is complexity in accessing the dashboard. Microsoft security suite has a different URL per service or per application. If there was one single place of information, that would help.

They should bring back the feature of a dedicated proxy device for communication to the cloud. As of now, all the agents are required to send the logs directly to the cloud. There should be a solution where you can put a proxy and all the logs are consolidated, like a forwarder.

I've been using it for about five years.

It's very stable.

It's very scalable. We have deployed it only to 250 endpoints for now. It's not enterprise-wide. We have plans to increase its usage.

I haven't encountered many issues so far. Their support is good. I would rate them an 8 out of 10.

Positive

We used another solution. The switch over to this solution was a management decision.

We have a hybrid deployment with the Microsoft Azure cloud. The initial setup was complex. There were some issues because a lot of prerequisites needed to be accomplished. It took us about three months.

We had a staged approach. We first onboarded non-critical assets and then moved to critical assets.

It takes time to realize the benefits from the time of deployment. It took us about two years.

We had around five people for deployment. Some of them were testers, and some of them were admins for the configuration and deployment of agents.

It requires maintenance. We have cloud administrators and desktop support for endpoints.

We did look into other solutions. We have criteria for evaluation. The features that stood out were their reputation and innovation.

I would recommend Microsoft Defender. They are a leader, and they have many deployment use cases. However, it also depends on the requirements of a company. There is no one-size-fits-all. Each company has its own unique requirements.

I would rate it an 8 out of 10.

We are using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint with advanced threat production. Microsoft's enterprise mobility and security suite fulfills a large number of security strategy requirements for our organization. We are going to use this solution for identity production and for endpoint security.

It's a hybrid setup. The advanced threat protection only comes from the cloud intelligence engine. That's something of a new experience for us, but the rest of the components will be on-prem. We are using Microsoft's cloud. 

The whole suite of security enhancement doesn't just include Microsoft Defender. It also covers many of the features that come with the Windows Enterprise version. With this option, we are actually upgrading to the Enterprise version as well and unlocking those security features which are not available in Windows Professional. Microsoft Defender is a whole suite, which is simply not comparable with a usual anti-virus, anti-malware product.

In terms of the architecture of the management infrastructure, we found that other technologies are more simple. Microsoft Defender could be simpler too. Plus, Microsoft's philosophy is that they leverage the technology they have already built in Windows or any other services within Windows. So, it is good from that standpoint, but it also becomes a bit cumbersome when it comes to the dependency. Having dependency on many things can be a weakness sometimes because you add up more points of failure to the services. Whereas the other vendors are doing the limited thing, and that's why they're not comparable in prices, but their solutions basically aren't dependent on Microsoft's other services or anything else. They're more dependent on their agent. With Microsoft, it is not just the agent. It is the operating systems that aren't working well. The technology won't give you the desired output.

So, that's something that Microsoft may need to improve: making services more independent wherever possible. That's something of their philosophy. When they build something on their OS layer, they add on technologies, and then there's something for the ISV. That's their strategy, but we keep arguing with them that they have to compare the dependence as other vendors are doing.

From the Microsoft end, the design working depends on the health of other services and other components of the operating system. Whereas if you compare it with the Symantec technology, just the agent health has to be there. That's the case with McAfee as well. They build up their products on developed agents only.

We did the POC around 18 months ago, and then we consolidated our findings. As per the organization procedure, we proposed to the committee and then got the recommendation to move on with the pilot and decide the future roadmap.

Microsoft Defender is just one part of the advanced risk protection and advanced malware protection functionality that comes with the Microsoft product. It came with a lot of security, advisories, reviews, and consultancy during the last couple of years. There was a stack of 15-20 requirements that we had to fulfill, like mobile device management and identity protection. We found that Windows Defender meets most of our requirements.

We have had good experience with tech support so far.

We have a direct support agreement with Microsoft. One of the major reasons for moving from the current endpoint security is the support. The quality is not up to the mark. That's something incomparable with the kind of support Microsoft provides.

I would give Microsoft's support a 5 out of 5.

In terms of the technical aspect, I'm the lead of the area, which actually takes care of endpoint management, and we have been using Symantec products for that purpose. We have evaluated Microsoft Defender and Microsoft security products, and we are going to switch over to that product. We found that  because the endpoint devices are based on Microsoft Windows devices and Windows Defender is integrated with the foundation and the core layer, it makes it more integrated and more agile in terms of responding to any security threats or changes or development, whereas compared to the other vendors who develop anything on top of that platform, they're always lagging behind.

Symantec support is very pathetic. They are very methodical. They're very slow. We seldom find them providing solutions to any incident or issue in a reasonable time. It can take from days to weeks. In the case of Microsoft, their resolution time is reasonably faster than Symantec. Even in the case of VMware and Redhead, Microsoft stands on top of all those vendors.

I wouldn't say the setup is easier than other solutions but it's not bad. It's almost equivalent to what we have been using currently, but the strength comes in what it does and how it secures that part. The setup is similar to the other competitors. For Symantec, we use their endpoint manager deployment and then a deployment across the sites and branches.

We are doing deployment with Microsoft's tech support. But for the implementations and rollout of technologies, we have seldom used Microsoft. We have our own technical team who are trained and who keep on updating on their skills, and we continue to inject new resources to the team as well. When a new technology comes in, then we do a combo, whereby the in-house team actually learns with the local authorized partner.

Microsoft Defender is not comparable to a single endpoint security product, like Trend Micro, Symantec, or McAfee. Because of that, the price is higher than others because it is doing more than what the others are doing.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

We were using the basic endpoint from Sophos without Intercept X and the EDR model, and currently, we are in the selection process of a new platform that has EDR embedded. We are using Microsoft Defender Antivirus for the time being till we get the new platform.

It is easy to use because it is already pre-installed in Windows 10. We don't have to do anything to configure it. You can also configure the firewall by using a group policy so that it can be easily adopted in an environment.

Microsoft Defender in the basic form is not very useful for managing the security environment. The free version is not capable of covering the needs of centralized management, EDR, and behavioral analysis. If you don't have the commercial version, you can't have centralized management and set up the policies and other things. Each client is a standalone installation, which is not useful for security in an enterprise model.

I have been using this solution for six months.

Currently, we have about 2,000 users.

I didn't use support for this solution.

It was already pre-installed in Windows 10.

It is free. It is included in Windows 10.

We are using Microsoft Defender only for the time being. We will switch to another endpoint platform that can offer us more advanced features, centralized management, and EDR. We have not chosen the solution at the moment, but we might go for Bitdefender. It is one of the products that we have evaluated, and it can be suitable for our environment. It has some use cases that are really in the same line as our requirements.

I would recommend this solution only for small home environments. It is not for enterprise environments unless you buy the commercial version.

I would rate Microsoft Defender Antivirus a seven out of ten.

We are using it only for EDR, but we have a plan to extend it to Microsoft email as well as to the cloud.

Within one month of using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, we could achieve great insights.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is a perfect solution. We have used several EDR products, and Microsoft Defender is the best one that I have worked with. It provides great visibility. It is very transparent. We can get so many details about a particular endpoint. It is a great product. I would rate it a five out of five in terms of visibility.

It helps us to identify process-based threats in our environment, not only the signature-based ones. We are able to identify some of the threats that were not detected previously.

We get severity levels from the solution itself. Based on them, we have developed our action plan to act upon any category of incident. It helps to achieve a better SLA to attend to incidents.

I am quite interested in the vulnerability dashboard. It provides vulnerability data according to the CVE database, which helps us to prioritize vulnerabilities in our environment and address them.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint works with Windows and Linux, so we could cover them all. It is suitable for servers as well, not only for endpoints, so we could implement it on most devices in the organization. It has probably saved us 20% of the time. 

It has Kusto Query Language (KQL), so we can use our own queries to find anything.

We can get real-time updates. It is not just signature-based. It provides results based on behavior and successors. It analyzes the behavior and the process. With that, we can achieve greater results that other products do not offer.

We need better support to learn about the product. Documentation is available, but we need some kind of training program so that we can get a better understanding of the product.

We switched to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint about one month ago.

I would rate it an eight out of ten in terms of stability.

It is highly scalable. We have around 5,000 users. I would rate it a ten out of ten in terms of scalability.

Previously, we were using a separate EDR product in our environment. We were using Sophos. Our organization moved into Microsoft 365, so we switched to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. 

We heard that it is one of the best products in the industry. We thought that we would get better results with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. That is why we moved to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, and we were able to achieve better results with it.

It is a cloud deployment. It took us a few months to make the switch.

It does not require any maintenance from our end.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Defender for Endpoint a nine out of ten.

We used it as an EPP and EDR solution. 

Microsoft Defender made the work quite easy because we didn't have to rely on multiple tools, and we could look at one thing. It had a specific endpoint-level reporting standard as well where you can see the vulnerable threats and the outdated versions. It was very convenient.

We had certain compliance and usage issues. For example, our company wanted to go with CIS, but we didn't have a proper way of measuring whether the endpoints have the right standards in place or whether they were compliant with CIS. Microsoft Defender was like a one-stop for most things because it gave us the vulnerability and patching scores so that our vulnerability management teams can focus on covering up the vulnerabilities and the patching team can check the vulnerable versions and deploy the right versions. It had multiple advantages for us in terms of patching, vulnerability management, adhering to security standards, and EDR and AV capabilities. 

Microsoft Defender was pretty interesting in terms of visibility. When we compare the solution that we had before with Microsoft Defender, there is almost a night and day difference. Microsoft Defender is pretty advanced with the threats. We used to run, simulate, and see whether we were prone to the latest vulnerabilities. It was a pretty good solution in our experience.

It definitely saved us a lot of time. I don't have the metrics, but because it was a one-stop place, we didn't have to navigate through all the controls and go from one place to another to look for different reports for each section. We had one tool that could do everything in one place. It would have definitely saved us nearly one-fifth or 20% of the time. It would have also saved money because you rely on one single tool for multiple things. When you go with the premium suite, you get other tools as well. There is definitely a cost-saving aspect.

It came in a suite. There were multiple other products that were included with it as well in the premium suite. Another factor was that you don't have to invest in two products, and you can get both components, the EPP and the EDR, in one. You can also do simple vulnerability management, CIS hardening, and things like that from Microsoft Defender. Those were the main reasons for considering it back then.

I haven't used the product in nearly eight months. I use it on my device, but I haven't used it at an administrative level. Previously, with Microsoft Defender, we used to have certain problems with the Mac machines, but later on, they came up with various ways so that we could use the MDM solution to do the job. They provided pretty good support. Their engineers came and tried to figure out the solution.

I'm not too sure of its current capabilities, but I'm pretty sure they are doing a good job on Windows and Mac. However, I'm not sure whether they covered Linux. If I remember correctly, Microsoft Defender didn't have anything proper on Linux back then, but if they have improved it from that aspect, it would already be ticking all the boxes.

I have used Microsoft Defender for eight months to one year in my previous organization.

In comparison to the other solutions that I've had experience with, Microsoft Defender was very good.

It was definitely scalable. In my previous organization, we enrolled more than 20,000 endpoints.

It was pretty good. At that time, Microsoft Defender was very new. When they released it for Mac, that's when we got hold of them. There was a time when their support engineers learned certain things from me about it, and I also did learn something from them. It was a win-win situation for both of us.

I would rate their support a seven out of them. The level of support depends on the complexity of the issue. If an issue is small, anyone can solve it, and it wouldn't take much time, but when you run into a complex problem, you need proper people coming in quickly and giving you some support after looking into the issue. Ideally, if they are very well-trained at all levels, that would be good.

Neutral

We had other products for antivirus and EDR. We removed those two products and replaced them with Microsoft Defender. They both were pretty good solutions in the market back then. One of them is a pretty good solution even now.

We found Microsoft Defender pretty good when we did the PoC as compared to the rest of the tools. Some of the solutions were only antivirus, and some of them were only EDR, whereas this particular tool had a lot of features built into it. So, one agent could do many things. Another reason for going for this solution was that the company I used to work with was a bit biased toward Microsoft. They were a Microsoft customer, and they were comfortable with Microsoft. 

The reliability of support was one of the reasons why we chose Microsoft. When it comes to tools, there are always requirements related to budget, level of support, and other things. When you go for a PoC and look at the demo, you might think a product is stable, but when you run into a problem, the support could be weak. In such instances, what's the use of the product if you don't have good support or if they take at least two to three days to solve a small issue?

I handled the Mac machine part of it. Initially, setting up policies and getting all the configuration profiles in place was a bit of a challenge because they didn't have proper documentation at first. During the PoC, there were not many documents or support articles, but when we were in the deployment phase, they had everything, even specific to particular MDMs, which made it very smooth. We ran into a couple of small problems, but that's pretty common in every deployment. Other than that, it was pretty smooth. 

From Microsoft's side, there is a pretty good deployment strategy in place, but different companies have different objectives and different ways of working. There are situations where certain users and groups might need something specific but other users or groups don't. There could be multiple groups of users with different expectations. So, it is pretty straightforward, but like with any security tool, there could be internal user-level challenges. However, for a company that does not have a very complex environment, it should be a piece of cake. It should be pretty easy.

In terms of our implementation strategy, we first targeted the least impacted devices because we didn't want high-end or critical users complaining about having issues. So, we selected the low-priority users and implemented it for them, and then we tested it out. After that, we implemented it for users with higher priorities. We gradually moved based on the severity.

In terms of maintenance, agent updates are required, which we scheduled automatically. It didn't seem to need much attention. If the product is in a non-complex environment, it won't have many issues, but in a complex environment, there will be some because of VLAN restrictions, network connectivity limitations, etc. We also had issues where agents were not communicating, but it was not because of an issue with the tool. It was mainly because of the complexity of the environment in terms of networking and architecture.

Microsoft Defender decreased our time to detect and time to respond. However, we didn't completely rely on one solution. We had other means as well. We used to have another EDR solution as well, and we used to run both together.

I would definitely agree with a security colleague who says that it’s better to go with a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor’s security suite. For example, if you are a one-vendor customer, the day the vendor gets hit with zero-day or any huge attack, none of your tools or software would work. Your data and other things are also at risk. So, having multiple vendors is good because you'll be covered by different products. 

Microsoft Defender's threat intelligence helps to prepare for potential threats before they hit and take practice steps, but there was another team that was using the threat intelligence and reporting capabilities to see whether the organization was ready. In my previous organization, we had overall IT support, which was then divided into nearly 20 different teams. We had one team specifically to do one specific job. 

For prioritization of threats, if I'm not wrong, Microsoft Defender gives you a severity value. I haven't been in the admin part for long, but it gives you a severity value. Based on that, you can prioritize your threats.

I would rate Microsoft Defender an eight out of ten. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We combine Microsoft Defender with Advanced Threat Protection to manage, isolate, and scan our laptops and workstations for security threats. We have a dashboard that is embedded into Office 365 and it allows us to remotely scan for viruses and malware, so we don’t have to have the laptop present.

Using this product helps with device inventory. This is not an inventory solution, but it helps you take count of how many workstations you have, as well as what software is installed on each of them. It is important because any software installed on a workstation may be vulnerable to parts of the internet.

Microsoft Defender has features that have helped to add layers to our security posture. The most important of these features is visibility and the provision of detailed alerts. It correlates the data and using this information, I can identify a threat and see if any other workstation in the environment has been affected by it.

Using this product has not negatively affected our user experience. It is just like using Windows 10.

The GUI is very nice.

The reporting capabilities are fantastic.

In the future, I would like to have the ability to patch using this product. Specifically, in an enterprise environment, it would be very good if you could patch the workstations remotely.

The alerting is something that needs to be improved. Alerts need to be sent immediately because as it is now, you see some of them without delay and others arrive perhaps 30 minutes later, and it leaves important gaps in terms of information gathering.

I have been working with Microsoft Defender Antivirus since it first came out, at least seven or eight years ago.

With respect to the stability of the product line, Microsoft has many products that do almost the same thing. The question becomes which one you want to use. This is a good product but at the same time, after a while, you don't know if it is the next one that Microsoft is going to stop releasing because of other products that practically do the same thing.

Microsoft Defender is very scalable and there is a lot of room to expand and add extra layers. We have 2,500 endpoints and we plan to expand; however, we are thinking about using the Microsoft Endpoint Manager in place of it.

Once the decision is made to stay with this product or instead adopt Endpoint Manager, we will expand to cover 6,000 endpoints.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

Prior to Microsoft Defender, we tried quite a few different products from vendors such as Kaspersky and McAfee. One of the major reasons that we adopted Defender is because of the advantage that Microsoft owns the platform, Windows 10. As they have developed the operating system, it is believed that they understand how to guard it much better against a third party. An attacker has to learn a lot about Windows 10.

Another reason we selected Defender is the frequency of updates. Every other time that Windows is updated, Defender is updated. Again, this is because it is owned by Microsoft and exists on its platform.

We also use Microsoft ATP and we are currently looking at Microsoft Endpoint Manager.

The initial setup is straightforward. Basically, once you have the competency with the product, it is straightforward and there are no surprises. It is not rocket science.

This product is built into the Windows 10 image that we install. As you roll out Windows 10, it is already set up and pre-configured, so there is no additional work required.

We saw a return on our investment within the first two years.

If I quantify the effort used for the setup and compare it with the pricing of the previous solution, value for the money was realized during the second year.

We have an enterprise agreement so from my perspective, this is a product that ships with Windows and it is not priced standalone. It comes together with the other Microsoft products that we buy.

When we evaluated Kaspersky and McAfee, we found the scalability was better for Microsoft. You can do in-place upgrades of the endpoints with Defender but for the others, you would have to re-install the upgraded agents on the workstation. This takes a lot of time and it is not productive.

We are currently evaluating Microsoft Endpoint Manager by comparing the differences between it and Microsoft Defender. This is being done in advance of expanding our usage.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to first analyze their critical assets to have an understanding of what they are. Then, decide if they want a scalable solution. New threats are coming in every month and the way this is going, Microsoft is learning lessons from networks that have been compromised. With this information, they give updates and patches to everybody. In support of this product, you have to consider the patching, consider the visibility that it gives, and then consider the critical assets it is protecting.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are a system integrator and I specialize in practically everything that is security-related. This is a product that we sell as part of Office 365, and rarely as a standalone solution.

Usually, if we have a customer with Office 365 and they need this type of solution then we increase the subscription to a point where it is included.

From the user's point of view, this is classic anti-virus software. From a management point of view, this product gives better control over endpoint devices because some processes can be stopped remotely. If you have a person that is watching over the system then they have a higher level of control over endpoints.

This is a cloud-based product so it is always updated by the end-user.

They have to improve the email scanning where email is coming from somewhere other than our private network. The scanning is slow when it is working with incoming emails. Often, I can see the email but the scanning process is not finished and I cannot open the attachment. In general, the scanning has to be faster.

This solution looks stable. Provided that Windows 10 is updated, everything is okay.

I have not been in contact with technical support in regards to this product. However, technical support for Microsoft products is always of bad quality. In my experience, if you cannot find the solution yourself then you will have a huge problem because it is not an easy task to have them understand and support you.

You can lose a lot of time explaining the problem before you receive something that works.

My advice to is look for a good support library and try to find the solution yourself. This means that you don't need to contact support.

We have worked with many different security solutions. For example, we are selling a Security Operations Center as a service. We implement EDR, Privileged Access Management, Identity Management, anti-fraud solutions, web application firewalls, database security, and more. We are working with practically everything in cybersecurity.

We are working with between 10 and 15 different vendors. Sometimes, this is too many, but it is useful to have information about each product, its quality, and how it compares to others. Two products that we are working with now are Cisco AMP and Carbon Black.

There is a free version of Windows Defender, although the paid version has EDR functionality. We sell this product as part of Office 365 and it is not expensive.

I have never touched this product. I'm just selling it, and I don't recommend it to anybody as a standalone solution.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.