Most descriptions of the Defender and Intune integration stop at vague phrases about improved security. That explains nothing. What actually matters is how risk signals move through the system, where decisions are made, and why this architecture is fundamentally different from traditional endpoint protection.
This integration is not about antivirus management. It is about closing the gap between detection and access control.
Defender for Endpoint as a sensor, not a policy engine
The first mistake is assuming that Defender for Endpoint enforces security. It does not. Defender observes, correlates, and classifies.
At the endpoint level, Defender for Endpoint collects high volume telemetry. Process creation. Memory access. Network connections. Privilege escalation attempts. Persistence techniques. Exploit behaviour. This data is analysed locally and in the cloud using behavioural models and threat intelligence. The result is not a binary verdict but a continuous risk assessment.
Each device receives a risk level. Low. Medium. High.
That level is based on observed malicious behaviour, exposure to known vulnerabilities, exploit activity, and post breach indicators.
This risk is dynamic. It can increase within minutes and decrease after remediation. There is no concept of installed once and done.
At this point, Defender has completed its role. It has identified risk. It does not decide what happens next.
Intune translates risk into compliance state
This is where Intune enters the architecture. Not as a deployment tool, but as a policy interpreter.
Intune consumes device risk signals coming from Defender and evaluates them as part of compliance processing. This mapping is explicit and configurable. You decide whether medium risk is acceptable or whether only low risk devices are considered compliant.
Technically, Defender publishes device risk into the Microsoft security graph. Intune continuously evaluates that signal during compliance checks. Compliance is recalculated repeatedly, not on a fixed schedule.
This breaks the traditional management mindset. In older models, compliance is verified after deployment. In Intune, compliance can disappear at any moment.
Conditional Access as the enforcement layer
Neither Defender nor Intune blocks access to corporate resources. Enforcement happens in Conditional Access.
When Intune marks a device as non compliant due to elevated risk, that state becomes an input into Conditional Access evaluation during authentication. This is where Zero Trust moves from theory into execution.
Access decisions are made at sign in time and are based on identity, authentication strength, device compliance, device risk, and session context.
Depending on policy, access can be fully blocked, limited to restricted sessions, or redirected into remediation flows.
No endpoint script can do this. No local agent can replicate it. This is identity driven enforcement.
Security Tasks and the remediation loop
Detection and enforcement are not sufficient on their own. You also need a manageable remediation workflow.
Defender can generate Security Tasks that appear inside Intune. These tasks describe what was detected, why the device is considered risky, and what actions are required to restore compliance.
Intune becomes the coordination layer between security operations and endpoint management. Once remediation is complete and device risk is reduced, compliance is restored automatically. Access is re enabled without manual intervention.
Architecturally, this creates a continuous loop.
Endpoint behaviour generates telemetry.
Defender evaluates risk.
Intune recalculates compliance.
Conditional Access enforces access decisions.
Remediation reduces risk.
Compliance is restored.
No deployments. No deadlines. No enforcement windows.
Why scripts and custom logic fail in this model
Many teams still attempt to bolt custom security logic onto Intune using PowerShell. These scripts may successfully change local configuration, but architecturally they are irrelevant.
Scripts cannot influence Conditional Access.
They cannot understand user risk or sign in context.
They cannot participate in real time access control.
They cannot consume global threat intelligence.
At best, scripts maintain configuration hygiene. At worst, they create a false sense of security while real decisions are made elsewhere.
Security in this model is not endpoint centric. It is control plane centric.
Why timing no longer matters
Precise timing is meaningless in this architecture.
Whether a policy applied at fourteen hundred or ten minutes later does not matter if access is gated by compliance and risk. What matters is the size of the exposure window between compromise and enforcement.
That window is reduced by tighter integration between detection and identity, not by faster deployments.
This is why Intune does not offer granular enforcement scheduling. It is not a missing feature. It is a deliberate design decision.
The real role of Intune in modern security
When used correctly, Intune is not an MDM and not a replacement for SCCM. It is a security posture broker.
Defender detects.
Intune interprets.
Conditional Access enforces.
Once you see this clearly, the architecture becomes obvious. And once it becomes obvious, trying to treat Intune like a cloud deployment system starts to look outdated and counterproductive.
If your endpoint strategy revolves around whether a policy applied, you are managing configuration.
If it revolves around whether a device should be allowed to access data right now, you are managing security.
Modern environments demand the second.