Microsoft ATA vs ATP: Difference and Comparison

Due to the increasing digitalization of companies and big enterprises, cyber security is becoming one of the major concerns.

The question arises in people’s minds with increasing technological advancements, how can organizations be saved from cybercrimes? Therefore, a focus on ATP and ATA is given to detect cybercrimes. 

Key Takeaways

1. Microsoft ATA (Advanced Threat Analytics) is a security solution that detects and alerts administrators to suspicious activities in a network. In contrast, Microsoft ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) protects against advanced cyber threats.
2. ATA uses machine learning algorithms to detect suspicious activities, whereas ATP uses behavioral analysis to detect and respond to threats.
3. ATA is focused on detecting insider threats, whereas ATP is focused on detecting external threats.

Microsoft ATA vs ATP 

Microsoft Advanced Threat Analytics (ATA) is an on-premises security solution that helps to detect and investigate advanced attacks and insider threats. Microsoft Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) is a cloud-based security solution that provides real-time protection against advanced attacks across endpoints, email, and data.

Microsoft ATA uses the information accumulated based on the on-premise entrance, previous records, experience, and machine behaviour to protect the company or organization from vindictive storms.

Abnormal behavior, such as suspicious logins, can be reported across ATA network activity. Information on suspicious activities is represented through ATA comfort. 

 Microsoft ATP is called Azure ATP. It uses similar information and data to report on similar kinds of cyber storms. All the audited specifics for scrutiny and description are sent to the ATP cloud.

ATP provides the same features as ATA but necessitates little statement-based considerations. 

Comparison Table

Parameters of Comparison	Microsoft ATA	Microsoft ATP
Meaning	It provides remedies to protect the companies based on the on-premise establishment.	It is the revised genre of ATA accountable to azure cloud having no more servers on-premise.
Objective	Microsoft ATP makes on-premise warning diagnosis with cloud investigation and announcement.	Microsoft ATA has an on-premise establishment.
Position	Microsoft ATP has a hybrid installation.	Microsoft ATA Stands for Microsoft’s advanced threat analytics.
Authority	Under Microsoft, ATA authority keeps on fluctuating.	Under Microsoft, ATP authority is given to enterprise and suite E5.
Full-Form	Microsoft ATA Stands for Microsoft ‘advanced threat analytics.	Microsoft ATP stands for Microsoft’s advanced threat protection.

What is Microsoft ATA? 

Microsoft ATA collects information from different sources to determine the irregularities happening on business networks to make a secure network.

It also takes help from journals, records, and registers and is based on previous experience with the device. It also uses audit systems to discover suspicious logins, vindictive storms,, or any unusual activity. 

ATA can foresee lasting warnings, vindictive activities, etc.

Because it has a piece of deep knowledge about how devices, and systems work and interact with each other, and if any changes occur between the system or networks, it can find the error in the system. 

Using port mirroring, ATA observes the control networks and a copy of the networks is sent to the ATA entrance to scrutinise them.

Replacement to port mirroring, it is possible to situate ATA flimsy entrance on the zone controllers. ATA can find the irregularities on time, which helps to focus on alerts indicating that problems may arise.   

 A proper logbook of events can help to foresee the errors or activities that might occur in the future concerning other events and makes it more probable that you will find out the break by minimizing false positives. 

What is Microsoft ATP? 

Microsoft ATP helps to find out and scrutinize the ultra-modern storms and insider warnings across on-premise.

It works in different areas with hybrid solutions, not simply on-premise, and stops the attackers from acquiring ingress to your system.

After gaining knowledge from the different events and behaviour of the organisation’s users, it builds an image of them. 

When any unusual activity is discovered, it alerts you whether it is an attack across the workspace portal. It helps you to find out any vindictive actions in your environment.

ATP protects against storms that can cause damage to the enterprise, whether known or unknown to the organization. 

ATP is of three types, i.e., Azure ATP, windows defender ATP, and Office 365 ATP.

Window Defender ATP is now known as Microsoft Defender for an endpoint that unites with Azure ATP to discover and provide protection against unusual activities.

But its main focus is on endpoints, i.e., the devices in use. 

Microsoft Defender for Office 365 safeguards your emails, files, and applications from unusual storms, links, and suspicious attachments.

It helps you to know in advance who will be the next target in the company and what kind of vindictive storm you will deal with.

Main Differences Between Microsoft ATA and ATP  

1. Microsoft ATA can be defined as protecting companies against dubious activities on company networks or servers. In contrast, Microsoft ATP is the revised version of Microsoft ATA accountable to the Azure cloud. 
2. The main objective of Microsoft ATA is to discover errors or any unusual activity on-premise basis with announcement and analysis. In contrast, the objective of Microsoft ATP is to detect errors on-premise with cloud investigation and announcement. 
3. Microsoft ATA is on-premise, whereas Microsoft ATP is at the hybrid establishment. 
4. Authority in the case of Microsoft ATA fluctuates, whereas authority in the case of Microsoft ATP lies in the enterprise and E5 suite. 
5. The full form of ATA is defined as ‘advanced threat analytics,’ whereas the full form of ATP is defined as ‘advanced threat protection. 

References 

1. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4842-4853-9.pdf
2. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4842-4230-8_2