Azure Defender for Cloud is much slower this week

Jan Tošovský 26 Reputation points
2026-11-03T12:40:46.23+00:00

When testing Azure Defender for Cloud, I was positively surprised by the performance. Files uploaded to blob storage were scanned immediately: small text files in a few seconds, a 20 GB file (exe installer) within 3 minutes. I've seen the same responses in random tries during the last 2 months.

However, this week I am seeing a pretty different picture. 1 GB file (zipped exe) took more than 1 hour to process and when repeating the procedure, I've even received the SAM259207: Scan failed - scan exceeded time limitation.

Even small text files take minutes, not seconds.

Health checks don't show anything abnormal. Maybe I was in some unusual performance-boosted window in the testing stage. Or, it is degraded now. It is hard to tell.

Any idea what is happening now?

Microsoft Security | Microsoft Defender | Microsoft Defender for Cloud
0 comments No comments

Answer accepted by question author

AI answer

2026-11-03T12:41:05.1033333+00:00

What is being observed matches documented Defender for Storage malware scanning behavior under load or with complex content.

  • SAM259207 means the scan timed out before completion. Scan time depends on blob size, type, complexity, and storage-account load. A smaller blob can still time out if it contains a compressed file with many entries, while a larger blob can finish quickly if only limited analysis is needed.
  • Slow scans for even small files can also happen when the service is delayed or when the storage account is busy:
    • SAM259215: the scan was delayed due to system load and will run later.
    • SAM259221: the storage account was busy or not responsive, which can happen under high load, throttling, or blocked network access.
  • Defender also documents that large or complex blobs can exceed the scanning timeout window, which ranges from 30 minutes to 3 hours depending on blob size and structure. ZIP files with many nested entries are specifically called out as taking longer.

Practical checks:

  1. Check the exact scan result code for the affected blobs.
    • SAM259207 = timeout.
    • SAM259215 = delayed by service load.
    • SAM259221 = storage account busy/not responsive.
  2. Review whether the slow files are compressed archives.
    • A 1 GB zipped executable can take much longer than an uncompressed file because archive structure affects scan duration.
  3. Check storage-account load and throttling.
    • If the account is under high load, Defender may not be able to access blobs efficiently enough to complete scans.
    • If this is happening, reduce load, distribute workload across multiple storage accounts, or move to a higher performance tier.
  4. Retry the same upload.
    • For timeout cases, the documented guidance is that the issue is often temporary and uploading the same blob again usually succeeds.
  5. Review unsupported or problematic patterns.
    • Chunked uploads can prevent accurate detection.
    • Client-side encrypted blobs cannot be scanned.
    • Password-protected archives and excessive archive nesting can also cause scan failures.
  6. Consider on-demand malware scanning for targeted retests.
    • It can be used to retry a failed scan for a specific blob without rescanning the whole account.

So the most likely explanation is not a permanent product regression, but one of these documented conditions: higher service/system load, storage-account load, or archive/blob complexity causing scans to take much longer and sometimes hit the timeout window.


References:

AI-generated content may be incorrect. Read our transparency notes for more information.

Was this answer helpful?

1 person found this answer helpful.

1 additional answer

Sort by: Newest
  1. Jan Tošovský 26 Reputation points
    2026-11-03T13:55:35.34+00:00

    I should add I mixed zip files and that from this week testing contained not just an exe file, but many subfolders and files, and even nested zip file. This explains the difference. Exactly this is mentioned as "problematic" in the doc. Those even larger files (20 GB) in initial testing were huge EXE installers. And they are still processed quite fast.

    Was this answer helpful?

    0 comments No comments

Your answer

Answers can be marked as 'Accepted' by the question author and 'Recommended' by moderators, which helps users know the answer solved the author's problem.