Microsoft Defender for Cloud is a Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) and Cloud Workload Protection Platform (CWPP) for Azure, on-premises, and multicloud (Amazon AWS and Google GCP) resources.
N/A
Rapid7 InsightVM
Score 8.1 out of 10
N/A
InsightVM is presented as the next evolution of Nexpose, by Rapid7. This Insight cloud-based solution features everything included in Nexpose, such as Adaptive Security and the proprietary Real Risk score, and extends visibility into cloud and containerized infrastructure. InsightVM also offers advanced remediation, tracking, and reporting capabilities not included in Nexpose.
Because we do a profound review of functionalities, configurations, and security operations from our soft team's perspective. The best one that adapts to our actual architecture, and I mean it's so negative for us because we are more prone to Microsoft products, was Microsoft …
Competitive-wise, we've looked at Palo Alto and Proofpoint. So we selected Microsoft Defender for Cloud on the basis it was linking closer to the identity, but we've had to also, I said earlier that we've aligned with Palo Alto for the secondary tech to look at it from a device …
Barracuda goes neck to neck with Microsoft Defender for Cloud in the anti-spam, anti-phishing email suite. But why I chose this product is because again, it's very well embedded with Microsoft technology, and we're a Microsoft shop, and it works well for us to use that product …
We were one of the first ones to deploy when Microsoft released it, so it's hard to compare, but what we hear from competitors, the fact that Microsoft can see the full ecosystem using this product makes it a lot better as compared to using a third party tool. So it's the ease …
Evaluated between cost. I just think it integrates better with the Microsoft stack and I mean, I think just cost from just that perspective and being the one pane of glass, I think that's enough.
I believe Microsoft Defender for Cloud stacks up well against the other tools we looked at. It is native to the Azure platform and provides the same insights as the other tools. We selected Microsoft Defender for Cloud because it integrates well with the Azure resources and …
Microsoft Defender for Cloud offered a more integrated and comprehensive solution for our multi-cloud environment, integrating well with our security and compliance needs
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is definitely the choice with the latest market trend and attacks that are currently happening. Microsoft has been able to safe guard a lot after the recent serious attacks happening globally in the digital world. There is a trust in this software …
There is the several ways to protect the applications and lot more tools available in the market. Most commonly we used Crowd strike Falcon for endpoint detection and response capabilities. McAfee endpoint protection also provide broad range of security features. Best …
We used to use Symantec and McAfee. It's been mostly defenders since, gosh, the last eight to 10 years. So we're a small organization. We don't have a lot of folks, so single-painted glass is really important to be able to see the whole environment in a single place. And the …
When we purchase this data fund, we check with not competition and we decided to purchase these tools because it's strong and we have a good relationship with Microsoft.
It is very good in comparison to other products that we have used. Its price is very effective and attractive, and it also provides good security policies. threat intelligence is also good and user protection is also very much better, and it also serves new updates as and when …
I think Tenable is very comparable and they are both leaders in this space. I evaluated both of them side-by-side and ultimately decided to go with Rapid7. Tenable did have a slight edge on the amount of information I was getting from the machines, but I landed on R7 because I …
Rapid7 InsightVM is more cost effective than the other solution on the market. It is easy to deploy and the user interface is easy to use and intuative. We select Rapid7 InsightVM mainly because it integrates well with ServiceNow compared to the other solution that were …
Rapid7 InsightVM is a more professional tool than NESSUS because historically, it was based on metasploit which is a powerful pentesting and exploiting tool. InsightVM covers more attacking scenarios and vulnerabilities than competitors and still a leader in this domain.cloud …
Nessus Pro does scans, but does not maintain an inventory from scan to scan. There is no history for a specific device, you have to look inside the results of each scan. Search across inventory is non-existent. There are no dashboards for data analysis. This is no tracking …
Tenable has a more refined look for the reporting that it provides as a result of scanning events, but Nexpose seems to have a better ability to help quantify risk and help prioritize the work needed to get the quickest security result for the team and the company. The Nessus …
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is very good at allowing users to see how their Azure environment is secure through the secure score. The recommendations are an excellent source of the controls that should be in place to ensure a secure environment. There needs to be more protection and features for data security.
I think Rapid7 InsightVM is well suited for large enterprise customers with a lot of assets. It integrates well with a number of different ITSM solutions which I think is very good. There are not many CIS benchmarking tools on the market and Rapid7 InsightVM does a very good job at benchmarking. I think where Rapid7 InsightVM falls down a little is on false positive vulnerabilities. Sometime you there a few positive results on vulnerabily discovery. Tuning the settings for scan engines can sometimes be trick as well.
Automation is crucial to managing sprawl and the additional complexity that comes with it. SOC management workbooks and process automation give significant flexibility.
The Security posture score and Security Alerts are neatly centralized and offer me crucial information quickly.
Defender for Cloud avoids the common compromise of simplicity for completeness (former Azure Security Center). The security warnings and advice go into great detail while remaining current and useful.
The API is also a great tool for us to automate lots of routine procedures like scan and report of asset(s) BY EMAIL.
Tagging. It helps sort out results and reports for respective assets Owner for remediation without a lengthy report including unnecessary information for that particular team.
SQL Reporting. It provides advanced reporting and export capabilities that you can not find in the stock report template.
UI/UX. It can get a little messy when navigating around with all the flyouts in the Azure portal which can be frustrating, particularly when under time pressure.
The query languages for the queries and workbooks are another language that needs to be learned - it would be nice to have kept it closer to T-SQL or something like that to minimize the need to learn new syntax.
Adding cost estimations to the security recommendations would really improve the experience.
Devices found and scanned are never removed. Removal must be done manually with no option for automation.
The database can be fragile. Ours quietly corrupted and progressively degraded until we had to restore and lose 6 months of data. Still didn't fix it and had to be rebuilt again losing all data.
Workflow for delegating remediation is supposed to be helpful, but can also become cumbersome.
Scheduling can become a nightmare if not monitored closely. We found jobs had failed to run because the server had gone offline. When the server came online, it did not try to run missed jobs. Running missed jobs all at once can overload the server, but searching for and launching a large number of missed jobs manually is a pain.
It is a great product that integrates nicely when running an Azure platform and even multi-cloud environment. Not looking for point-solutions but a suite that answers most requirements. It is very comfortable being able to use KQL, workbooks and automation that is native to the azure platform
My visibility is limited because I'm only doing very small pieces of what the overall org does. And also, we have limitations on what we're allowed to use. It's not like we get a new product as users or leadership level users, and everything is on, and we can just do whatever we want. We're very restricted in what we can use any tooling within the org because of the different levels of regulatory constraints we have, because of just the nature of who we are inherently. So that's why. I don't think it's necessarily the product. I think it's more or less of what we're able to do with the product.
While I think it is a great tool and platform, I believe it (like all tools and solutions) is always evolving and the needs for clients are changing as the industry evolves and threats are upgraded. Cost is good, and support is helpful. Some things could be more granular and others could be easier to understand
I gave it a seven due to the functionality and general ease of use after the initial setup headaches, but compared to Qualys, Rapid7 Nexpose falls short on features and ease of use. Their support drags this rating down a point as well. I have gone weeks with no update on semi-critical issues and typically have to make call after call to get a semi-coherent response.
Barracuda goes neck to neck with Microsoft Defender for Cloud in the anti-spam, anti-phishing email suite. But why I chose this product is because again, it's very well embedded with Microsoft technology, and we're a Microsoft shop, and it works well for us to use that product and have better visibility versus Barracuda being just an offshore, just a single product versus Microsoft Defender for Cloud being blended with other applications.
I think Tenable is very comparable and they are both leaders in this space. I evaluated both of them side-by-side and ultimately decided to go with Rapid7. Tenable did have a slight edge on the amount of information I was getting from the machines, but I landed on R7 because I found the features of the InsightVM tool to be more useful. They both get the job done, but I found InsightVM a better experience to use on a day-to-day basis and had better quality of life features that I was looking for.
It certainly has a more positive impact than negative impact while performing the scans. Nexpose can find report vulnerabilities that our other scanner fails to identify during the scan because of its defined scan templates.
Also, even if the scan is not being performed due to some issues like reachability, whitelisting, etc. it will try to give scan results unlike QualysGuard which just marks the asset as unreachable.
