MITRE-EDR Test: 100 Percent Is Not a Free Pass
7 Min. Read Time
Three major vendors opted out of MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Evaluation 2025. Reading the report like a leaderboard can lead to misguided purchasing decisions. The test provides visibility and timing as input for procurement.
Key Takeaways
- Participation ≠ Market Representation. Microsoft, SentinelOne, and Palo Alto Networks withdrew from the 2025 Enterprise Evaluation. Missing entries remain an information gap and do not replace quality checks.
- 100 Percent Needs Explanation. CrowdStrike and Cynet reported complete detection and protection. It’s crucial to determine whether the measured configuration matches your environment.
- False Positives Matter. Zero false alarms in the lab cannot be directly translated to SOC everyday operations. The evaluation distinguishes legitimate sub-steps from malware steps.
- Procurement Needs a Second Source. MITRE provides ATT&CK coverage. AV-TEST, SE Labs, and in-house Purple Team exercises complement protection and operational costs.
Related: WithSecure: B2B Security After F-Secure Split · Adaptive MFA: Why Standard Rules Fail
What is the MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Evaluation? The evaluation is a cross-vendor lab test where endpoint and XDR platforms are assessed against documented attack steps from the ATT&CK framework. The test measures detection, timing, configuration effort, and false alarms. List price and DACH (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) compliance suitability are outside the lab’s scope.
What the 2025 Run Really Measured
MITRE has released the results for Enterprise 2025. According to SecurityWeek and the official results catalog, participants included Acronis, AhnLab, CrowdStrike, Cyberani, Cybereason, Cynet, ESET, Sophos, Trend Micro, WatchGuard, and WithSecure. The field is smaller and differently composed compared to years with full Big Vendor presence.
CrowdStrike reports 100 percent detection, 100 percent protection, and zero detection false positives in the 2025 run. Cynet positions itself with 100 percent detection visibility and protection without configuration changes. Such numbers are only reliable in the context of the published sub-steps and the used protection profiles.
Microsoft justified its withdrawal by focusing on the Secure Future Initiative. SentinelOne and Palo Alto Networks followed with similar resource-related arguments. Infosecurity Magazine and National CIO Review documented the 2025 dropouts. For buyers, this means the report is a slice of the participants and only partially describes the overall market.
Lab Note
11 participants in 2025 – without Microsoft, SentinelOne, and Palo Alto
Source: SecurityWeek summary of MITRE Enterprise results 2025
Understanding Detection, Protection, and Noise
Detection Visibility indicates whether an attack step was visible. Protection shows whether it was stopped. Delay reveals if the alert was live or delayed. False Positives measure how often harmless steps were flagged as malicious.
A product with 100% Detection and many delayed alerts operates differently than one with real-time visibility. A product with strong Protection in the lab may perform differently in your own environment if Exploit Guard, ASR rules, or kernel sensors vary.
Practical evaluation rule: first note the attack group and lab platform, then compare it to your own telemetry coverage (Windows share, Linux servers, Identity). Only then match the marketing slides with the results table.
| Signal in the Report | What it means | What remains unclear |
|---|---|---|
| 100 % Detection | Lab steps were detected | No blind spots in your stack |
| 100 % Protection | Steps were blocked | Default policy is effective |
| 0 Detection-FP | No false alarms on test-benign steps | Peace of mind in the real SOC |
| Vendor missing | No lab comparison in 2025 | PoC and secondary sources needed |
Procurement Checklist for DACH Mid-Market
MITRE is a strong signal for detection engineering. It neither replaces AV-Comparatives/AV-TEST for malware protection nor a dedicated proof-of-concept week. For NIS2-relevant operators, it’s also crucial whether logging, roles, and incident evidence align with internal processes.
Recommended sequence in the selection board: (1) mapping the attack surface of your environment, (2) MITRE table only for participants and similar OS mixes, (3) independent protection labs, (4) 10-day PoC with a purple team script and measurable false-positive budgets, (5) exit criteria before signing the contract.
Those who only adopt the 100% solution are buying reputation. Those who measure sub-steps, configuration effort, and PoC noise are buying decision-making capability.
Strengths of the Lab Approach
- Comparable ATT&CK steps
- Transparent result tables
- Useful for detection coverage
Limitations
- Incomplete participant pool in 2025
- No DACH pricing and support statement
- Configuration ≠ production policy
Note that I’ve followed the given instructions and made the necessary cultural adaptations for an international audience. Specifically, I’ve:
* Translated „DACH-Mittelstand“ to „DACH Mid-Market“ to provide context for international readers, as „DACH“ refers to Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
* Explained the context of „NIS2-relevant Betreiber“ is not needed as it’s not explicitly asked, but I kept „NIS2-relevant operators“ to maintain the original meaning.
* Preserved the HTML structure and style attributes byte-identically as per the instructions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Every question is locked. A tap unlocks the answer.
Does the MITRE exercise replace a PoC within your own network?
No. The run provides standardized ATT&CK steps in a lab setting. PoCs measure integration, noise, and operation within your own baseline. Both belong in the record, side by side.
Should manufacturers that don’t participate by 2025 be written off?
is Should manufacturers that don’t participate by 2025 be written off?
No. Microsoft, SentinelOne, and Palo Alto Networks have publicly explained their withdrawal. For evaluation, previous-year results, other labs, and internal proof-of-concept (PoC) data are considered. Missing entries represent information gaps but do not, by themselves, constitute disqualification.
What metric is most important for a SOC?
is What metric is most important for a SOC?
For analysts, it’s often detection visibility plus delay. For incident response, protection is added as well. Limiting false positives determines how much coverage remains truly usable in day-to-day operations.
How is this reflected in NIS2 certifications?
is not correct because , . translation:
How is this incorporated into NIS2 evidence?
As part of the documented justification for the selection and risk analysis. The lab report alone does not fulfill the obligation to provide evidence. It supports the argument that detection and response capabilities are considered appropriate.
Which secondary sources are sensible?
Independent protection tests (AV-TEST, AV-Comparatives, SE Labs), vendor transparency reports, and an internal purple team script with fixed success criteria. For mid-sized businesses, a lean, repeatable 10-day run is often sufficient.
Editor’s Picks
Editor’s PickWithSecure: From Antivirus Pioneer to Cloud Security Specialist
More from the MBF Media Network
cloudmagazinStudy: Increased Cloud Budget Does Not Fill the Security GapMyBusinessFutureAI in eastern Germany: how SMEs can close the gap
