External reviews are not included in the AWS star rating for the product.
Managing active directories and middle directories, including users and accounts, is of utmost importance for organizations.
This entails implementing protective measures, enabling conditional access, and ensuring data security, among other essential aspects.
The most valuable features of this solution are its performance, security, and that it is easy to use.
There is room for improvement in terms of pricing.
I have been using Windows Server for 20 years.
I would rate the stability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.
I would rate the scalability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.
We have plans to increase our usage in the future.
I would rate the technical support a ten out of ten.
The initial setup was straightforward.
We have experienced a positive return on investment (ROI).
The cost is relatively high.
I would rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.
Organization is wanting to use Inspector to validate that launched EC2s are adequately hardened. Further, they wanted to evaluate against Inspector's CIS benchmarks. Figured, "if I start from an official AMI, it ought to be a homerun to get a clean output from Inspector". Launch an EC2 from the AMI. Discover that the AMI is missing the AWS agent. Correct this gap. Run Inspector. Wait for report. Report comes back with nearly 40 "High" findings (nearly 30 if you ignore the DC-only and NG-only findings).
Notice, "oh, *this* AMI is built using the 1.3.0.2 benchmarks and Inspector is using the 1.1.0 benchmarks. Go back to AWSMP and click on the "view older versions" link under the AMI. Am simply taken back to the AMI's normal information page with no indication of availability of back-rev AMIs that I might need.
Report back issues to my organization. They note, "but those findings are all HIGH findings".
Not the "homerun" I was hoping for.