✳ Security Fit Map / EDR / Protocol v1.0

Response on managed endpoints

A small team supporting a mixed Windows, macOS, and Linux fleet, with staged rollout and reversible containment.

UNASSESSED · RESEARCH PROTOCOL · 2026-09-19

This edition publishes the evaluation question and work still required. It contains no scored vendor points.

What must be true

  • Required operating systems and response actions are supported.
  • A contained device can be safely restored.
  • An action is attributable to an authorized responder.

Candidate scope

Two publicly documented offerings form a small pilot. Inclusion is for methodology development, not a claim that these are the only or best choices. Exact tiers and test configurations must be frozen before scoring.

OfferingScopeStatus
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Plan 2Plan 2 includes EDR capabilities absent from Plan 1. Defender for Business and server coverage have separate licensing considerations; response functions also differ by operating system.Unassessed
Capability: null
Operating: null
Elastic DefendElastic Defend is the endpoint integration, distinct from the broader Elastic SIEM. Deployment requires the appropriate Elastic Stack or serverless environment, Fleet management and attention to licensed response capabilities.Unassessed
Capability: null
Operating: null

Evidence still needed

  • An agreed device and OS version matrix
  • Repeatable endpoint behavior and recovery tests
  • Sensor overhead, administration, and licensing evidence

How the evaluation will work

  1. Fix the workload, organizational assumptions, product editions, and mandatory requirements.
  2. Publish criterion-specific 0–5 anchors before collecting results.
  3. Collect reproducible observations, source dates, and operating measurements. Preserve contradictory evidence.
  4. Use the rubric below without filling unknowns with estimates.
  5. Have a second reviewer reproduce results. Publish only after both axes reach 80% coverage and critical requirements have explicit results.
AxisCriterionWeight
capabilityRequired functions40%
capabilityRepresentative effectiveness30%
capabilityEvidence and explainability15%
capabilityRequired data exchange15%
operatingStaffing and administration30%
operatingEnvironment and deployment25%
operatingIntegration maintenance20%
operatingPortability and exit15%
operatingCost predictability10%

Threshold: 70/100 on each axis. A missing-evidence interval that spans 70 prevents a definitive quadrant label. A critical failure blocks a shortlist recommendation.

Download this research protocol ↓

Find your next idea.

Tip: press / to open search. Escape closes this window.