Wednesday, July 10, 2024
HomeBig DataIs there a case for Microsoft as your solely enterprise safety companion?

Is there a case for Microsoft as your solely enterprise safety companion?


In latest GigaOm analysis, we evaluated whether or not there was a very good argument to make use of a single safety companion to guard a corporation or if a number of “better of breed” options are nonetheless the way in which to go.

We checked out two use circumstances. Microsoft, utilizing the broad capabilities of its M365 E3 platform with its E5 safety add-on, in comparison with choosing particular person options from a number of main enterprise safety distributors, together with Crowdstrike, OKTA and Proofpoint.

The analysis consisted of price evaluation, technical comparisons, and conversations with senior IT decision-makers to grasp a number of the standards they used when evaluating expertise.

Our evaluation confirmed that technically and commercially, Microsoft’s instruments and companies provide a sexy single-vendor proposition. Nonetheless, it additionally uncovered that, whereas this was the case, there was additionally a pervading angle from quite a few CxOs, that not solely was Microsoft not their main selection, however for some, they’d not even think about Microsoft as a safety companion.

That raised the query as as to if Microsoft did, in truth, current a robust sufficient proposition to be a single safety companion for an enterprise and whether or not it was attainable to beat the issues of CxOs. To aim to reply these questions, we wished to evaluation our analysis and produce a contemporary CxO perspective to it. To do this, we enrolled our personal CTO, Howard Holton, to supply further CxO perception into the outcomes of our work.

The analysis round Microsoft as a safety companion

The purpose of this put up is to not share all of the analysis. It’s to supply a abstract of our findings which may help reply a number of the questions decision-makers would ask when evaluating a single-vendor versus multi-vendor strategy for cybersecurity instruments and companies.

Analysis scope

Earlier than offering that abstract, it’s helpful to stipulate the scope of our analysis. You will need to observe that this was not a hands-on technical analysis, detailed performance testing, or TCO evaluation. The scope of the analysis was to supply a C-level briefing that seemed on the following;

  • Answer capabilities
  • Excessive-level price evaluation
  • Different operational overhead/enterprise dangers

We evaluated these areas to grasp whether or not the single-vendor versus multi-vendor strategy may;

  • Cut back complexity
  • Cut back price 
  • Keep/improve safety

We utilized these questions throughout a number of enterprise safety challenges. The Microsoft E5 Safety Add-on covers every of those areas, and we in contrast that to the seller listed in every class;

  • Endpoint together with cell – Crowdstrike
  • Id Administration – Okta
  • E-mail Safety together with BEC, phishing safety, virus, and malware protection – Proofpoint
  • MFA and adaptive entry controls – Okta/Proofpoint
  • Instruments to watch menace and failure – Crowdstrike
  • Knowledge Loss Prevention and Related Knowledge Safety Applied sciences – Proofpoint
  • Cloud Utility Safety/Cloud Entry Service Dealer – Proofpoint

These areas precisely replicate the important thing safety focus we discover in all sorts of organizations. Due to this fact, evaluating the aptitude of any device in opposition to them was a helpful solution to evaluate options and functionality, their price, and whether or not they would meet the wants of a corporation’s trendy safety calls for.

The professionals and cons of Microsoft as a safety companion

Microsoft’s E3 + E5 Safety add-on affords a complete vary of safety instruments for customers of its Microsoft 365 and Azure companies. Its breadth of functionality would supply a corporation with wide-reaching safety and complete safety by means of a single vendor.

The Microsoft Safety Toolset

Microsoft’s safety protection is broad and break up throughout quite a few core service suites. This consists of;

  • Microsoft Defender for EDR, anti-virus, Cloud App safety, anti-phishing, and information loss prevention throughout desktop, server, Mac, cell, and naturally, Cloud
  • Microsoft Entra offers id safety
  • Change On-line Safety defends in opposition to phishing and BEC and affords malware safety

This vary of safety instruments is tightly built-in into Microsoft Azure and M365 to supply prospects with a complete, seamless safety expertise. For these prospects, the analysis highlighted that the only vendor, single platform strategy reduces each technical and business complexity, making a compelling safety providing.

Why have been CxO’s not embracing Microsoft’s compelling providing?

Whereas Microsoft did make a robust single-vendor case, why did potential prospects and their safety decision-makers meet this with the view that “Microsoft shouldn’t be even a consideration” when evaluating safety options and companions?

Causes for not selecting Microsoft

What have been a number of the key causes we found?

  • I don’t need to spend much more with Microsoft.
  • Whereas the options are broad, I don’t imagine their capabilities are nearly as good as specialist distributors.
  • I don’t want all my safety eggs in a single basket.
  • The pricing of migration from my present suppliers is important.
  • Can they supply me with hands-on menace response assist?
  • Is their menace response device one thing I may reclaim by way of my cyber insurance coverage?

Are these legitimate issues?

Whereas all issues are legitimate throughout our analysis, we discovered proof that may very well be used to assist reply a few of them. This doesn’t imply the issues are incorrect, however they supply further context which will alter a possible buyer’s notion.

I don’t need to spend extra with Microsoft

There are good business the reason why this can be the case. We did additionally discover that there was a really sturdy monetary case made for the single-vendor strategy.

Based mostly on printed pricing, our analysis noticed potential financial savings near 80% when utilizing the Microsoft E5 safety add-on in comparison with utilizing three particular person distributors*. Whereas there could also be business causes to not spend extra with Microsoft, this can be a important determine, and one that ought to make for nearer examination, particularly the place budgets are below ever-increasing strain.

Microsoft’s capabilities are not so good as specialist distributors

This can be a advanced query, and because the analysis was not primarily based on performance testing, it was not definitively answered right here. Nonetheless, we’ve present in different GigaOm analysis that Microsoft’s capabilities rating extremely in our security-based experiences.

It also needs to be thought of that the single-vendor strategy will scale back the complexity that a number of distributors can create. We additionally found that Microsoft’s E5 strategy is extraordinarily complete and crammed gaps that have been left by the a number of main distributors we additionally evaluated.

I don’t want a single vendor

The worth of utilizing a number of best-of-breed distributors has benefits. To grasp if that may be a legitimate concern in any given occasion, you will need to perceive why the multi-vendor strategy is most well-liked and what it affords {that a} single vendor can’t. We discovered Microsoft’s strategy technically and commercially engaging. Our findings definitely made a case for the re-appraisal of the only vendor strategy in these situations.

Value of migration

This can be a sturdy and legitimate concern. As IT budgets stay strained, migration prices might deliver unwelcome further strain. This could not imply it shouldn’t be thought of, as there are probably long-term financial savings available. Nonetheless, organizations ought to research the size of this return to determine its viability.

Menace response and cyber insurance coverage

One of many main questions raised when evaluating Microsoft with different main distributors was its functionality to supply menace response if a cyber incident ought to happen. Whereas Microsoft can certainly cowl menace response, we discovered service definitions and prices much less clear throughout our analysis than these of opponents similar to Crowdstrike.

An extra concern was whether or not they  can be lined below cyber insurance coverage when partaking in such companies. Each issues are important and would require full readability when evaluating adopting or altering or single safety vendor strategy.

What have been the three key benefits we found?

In exploring this with GigaOm’s CTO Howard Holton, we found a number of key benefits of the only vendor strategy that the diligent tech evaluator ought to think about. None of this stuff is to say Microsoft or any single vendor is the fitting reply, however there’s a case to discover, and as Howard talked about on the finish of our analysis, “at the very least we’d have Microsoft within the dialog”.

  • Value discount: the potential right here is important. Whereas it ought to by no means be the primary criterion, it’s a consideration in a world of under-pressure budgets. Our comparability of Microsoft’s E3/E5 Add-on versus an amalgamated main vendor strategy confirmed potential financial savings within the area of 80%*. In fact, in the actual world, prospects are unlikely to pay full printed costs, however the saving potential does exist and have to be thought of.
  • Complexity discount: Complexity is the enemy of safety. The extra merchandise a corporation tries to deliver collectively, the extra advanced it turns into to safe, the upper the operational overhead, and the extra probably there will probably be safety gaps. Microsoft is extraordinarily sturdy right here, if not excellent. Their options are managed from its single M365 platform however not essentially in a single console. It offers consistency of safety coverage and process throughout the platform. And, after all, the breadth of the platform ensures detailed insights and analytics from throughout a corporation are made out there to assist with menace investigation and looking. That is additionally augmented by each automated incident response and, extra just lately, the additions of managed response by way of Microsoft Safety Specialists. This isn’t unimaginable to realize with third-party distributors, particularly those we checked out right here, who share a spread of tight product integrations that share intelligence to supply broad safety insights, nevertheless it does take further work.
  • Improved Safety: This one is much less clear. There isn’t a doubt that the breadth of protection and capabilities Microsoft offers can definitely assist enhance safety posture, particularly for these utilizing E5 to fill current gaps. The E5 license affords a robust resolution, particularly for these deeply invested in Microsoft’s cloud platforms. Nonetheless, it’s much less clear whether or not these already invested in different instruments would see the identical enhancements. Whereas in some circumstances, Microsoft will ship parity and even function enchancment, there will probably be many circumstances the place best-of-breed opponents do issues Microsoft doesn’t. Safety have to be the primary criterion in these circumstances, no matter potential price financial savings.

Remaining ideas

In reply to the query we posed on this put up, the reply is sure, Microsoft may very well be a single safety supplier for a corporation. Nonetheless, not for all. Whereas it offers stable safety capabilities at a really engaging worth, there are gaps. In actuality, Microsoft’s strategy is just going to be efficient for these with a robust funding and strategic dedication to Microsoft Azure and M365 already.

There, after all, would be the comparability of capabilities. Specialist distributors are, on the very least, perceived to supply “higher” safety capabilities than Microsoft’s native instruments and, in lots of circumstances, present issues Microsoft don’t. The concept that Microsoft offers “adequate” safety is true, nevertheless it shouldn’t have unfavorable connotations. Ok safety is precisely that, adequate to fulfill wants. Nonetheless, organizations should totally consider whether or not any potential options meet their wants.

More and more organizations additionally want companies to reinforce their inside sources. Distributors like Crowdstrike provide complete skilled companies with menace and incident response groups. Microsoft does provide this, however the full path of its Safety Specialists service and the way that may evaluate is unclear. This will probably be a vital consideration.

This analysis confirmed us {that a} single vendor, particularly Microsoft, could make a robust case when it comes to functionality, efficacy and value. They might both turn out to be a single vendor filling safety portfolio gaps, and even change different distributors in some situations.

Nonetheless, we additionally famous that best-of-breed market-leading options are perceived as that for a cause, and that price alone should not be the one criterion for changing them. 

What was definitely true for individuals who take the time to totally consider Microsoft’s capabilities, as our CTO Howard Holton identified, it ought to at the very least make Microsoft a part of the dialogue.

Word

*Our worth comparisons have been primarily based on a 5000-user enterprise, 10,000 units evaluating M365 E3 plus E5 safety versus Crowdstrike, Okta and Proofpoint as a part of Crowdstrike’s Spectra Alliance offering the identical safety protection. Based mostly on printed checklist worth comparisons, analysis confirmed a 77% saving utilizing Microsoft’s instruments in comparison with an built-in strategy utilizing the three main distributors confirmed.

This didn’t embody any discount in operational price, as this was exterior of the scope of this analysis. Nonetheless, it ought to be famous that in earlier analysis, wanting on the affect of safety device consolidation, we’ve seen reductions in operational prices of 3-7 occasions.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments