Recent Discussions
Expected exactly one role management policy assignment but 0 were found
I am getting the following error in Entra when I try to assign a custom role to a user: Expected exactly one role management policy assignment but 0 were found What I have done: entra.microsoft.com → Entra ID: Roles & admins → New custom role Basics * Role name: User Directory Reader * Description: Provides read-only access to user directory information. Intended for security analysts and auditors who require visibility into user identities without modification permissions. Permissions * microsoft.directory/users/standard/read *microsoft.directory/users/memberOf/read *microsoft.directory/users/manager/read When I click + Add assignment I get the error "Expected exactly one role management policy assignment but 0 were found". I have trial license for Privileged Identity Management (Entra ID P2).
Group-Based Licensing (E3 → Business Premium): MutuallyExclusiveViolation – Months Unresolved
We operate a Microsoft 365 environment with Entra ID, Intune, and Exchange Online. For months, we have been dealing with a critical issue that remains unresolved to this day — despite an active Microsoft Support ticket. The Technical Problem: During the migration of approximately 87 user accounts from Microsoft 365 E3 to Business Premium (SPB) via group-based licensing in Entra ID, all affected accounts receive a MutuallyExclusiveViolation error. Microsoft's backend treats E3 and Business Premium as mutually exclusive, blocking the SPB assignment — despite sufficient licenses being available. A sequential approach (removing E3 first, then assigning Business Premium) is not an acceptable solution: a test run proved that this causes a complete loss of Exchange Online access. For a rollout across 87 productive user accounts, this is not viable. What is required is a seamless, atomic license swap at the backend level — exclusively via group-based licensing. The Support Problem: Two support engineers assigned — zero technical progress. Instead of a substantive solution, we received standard documentation steps that do not address the actual problem. A false resolution notice was issued — the issue had demonstrably not been resolved. Our own PowerShell tests (Get-MgUser, Get-MgSubscribedSku) and CSV exports from the Entra ID portal disproved this conclusively. Committed updates from the Engineering Team were not delivered. Instead, automatically generated follow-up emails were sent with no substantive relation to the ongoing case. An additional unexplained behavior: a test user appears in the error report of a license group they were never added to — a further backend inconsistency that has not been investigated. Current Status: The ticket has been open for months. 87 user accounts cannot be migrated to Business Premium. An escalation to the Team Manager has been initiated. No resolution is in sight. My Question to the Community: Has anyone experienced a similar issue with MutuallyExclusiveViolation in group-based licensing (E3 → Business Premium)? Is there a known workaround or an official Microsoft statement on this? Ticket Reference: #2604241410000669Unexpected button behaviour when using the prompt=create parameter in Entra External ID user flows
Hi, In a recent workload, I'm assisting a client to implement Entra External ID for streamlined authorization as well as single sign-on for associated registered external facing third-party applications for external customer users through their Entra External ID identity, as well as assisting the client with auth branding and other UI customizations, and preparing Entra ID federation custom OIDC providers and configuration for enabling SSO with organizational internal and remote work- and school accounts etc. The sign-up / create account experience is of importance to the client, as a rather substantial amount of users are expected to sign-up via self-service sign-up following having received an invite via another app. To ensure that the user lands on the create account view, in order to minimize the number of steps and actions the users need to take to get there, the prompt=create parameter is used to pre-select the sign-up/register experience in the user flows UI. Having stress-tested the user flows and experience recently, we noticed that in a specific scenario, some UI elements behave in a manner that could be described as unexpected, and even though a workaround has mitigated it to some extent, the behaviour of some elements could probably be improved a bit to ensure an even more consistent user experience in the built-in user flows. Specifically, if the user flow is invoked with the prompt parameter set, the user lands on the create account screen as expected, however, unless custom CSS modification is applied, the Back button that would typically be there, as if having arrived there from the initial sign-in screen where it’s also displayed. If pressing the Back button displayed on the Create account view when having navigated there with the prompt=create set in the /authorize request, pressing the button seemingly doesn’t have any impact or result in any action, one can click it, but nothing happens. I'd suspect it's perhaps a "remnant" from if the flow is invoked without any prompt parameter set, or with prompt=login set, but when prompt=create is set, there is no state/page history in the UI to navigate back to, as no previous page has been displayed or rendered yet and added to the history, and the Back button click thus doesn’t have any effect. In general, I think buttons that don't have any tangible action should not be displayed, also, if prompt=login is set, the Back button isn't shown then either on the very initial user flow view shown then, so it would seem the built-in user flows actually already follow such approach in fact, but not when the prompt=create has been set, thus causing some inconsistency in the UI that users could notice unless custom CSS styling is applied. The expected behaviour for our business case would be that if prompt=create is set, then, similar to the prompt=login, no Back button should be displayed, or, if shown, it should result in some navigation (perhaps something like javascript.go(-1), but that could/would be dependent on from where the user arrived, e.g., going back a step in the browser history won't work if the user clicked a link from an invite email ) and preferably not be non-actionable. Furthermore, on the topic of the Back button and its behaviour when the prompt=create parameter is set, there is another case at which we observed some unexpected button behaviour as well, that could probably benefit from some attention. At a specific second scenario, it seems that the Continue button is displayed without providing any action, and when clicking the Back button then, clicking it seemingly resets the "create account", state likely set by the prompt=create initially, and instead switches the flow back to the sign-in state, which can at least affect the display text of some subsequent buttons shown in later steps in the UI. The user arrives at a built-in Entra External ID user flow /authorize endpoint, with the prompt=create query parameter set The user triggers the OTP challenge by entering an email address to verify the email address The user receives the OTP code but enters it incorrectly, i.e., doesn't copy the full code length of eight digits, and instead enters/pastes six of the eight code digits. The UI then shows an error message that the code could not be used/validated, and the email address field is displayed again with the email address that was used for the verification attempt prefilled. If the user clicks the Continue button at this stage, nothing happens. If the user clicks the Back button instead (given that it’s not hidden), it shows the same view one more time, with the Back and Continue buttons at the bottom. However, if the user clicks the Continue button this time, it works and a new code is sent. On the next screen, where the newly sent code can be entered, instead of a button named "Continue", it will now instead show a button with the text "Sign-in" (it would seem like the create account state has gotten lost somewhere along the way at this point, perhaps when the back button in the step 5 above was pressed). If one omits the prompt=create parameter, or when using prompt=login, things seem to work fine, the above occurs when the prompt=create is set. The reason why is the prompt=create is used is due to a business requirement to try to minimize the steps, especially in conjunction with the registration/sign-up, as far a possible when signing up. We have opted for the built-in user flows, not the self-hosted native authentication UI pages, for this project, and then as I understand it, it is the prompt=create parameter that can/should be used to enable the user to land directly on the registration page without having to navigate there manually via the sign-up link, that is otherwise shown on the initial sign-in page. It would thus be great if the prompt=create parameter could have some attention (or perhaps if a dedicated sign-up user flow type could be added potentially, even though that would perhaps warrant some update to the user flow app linking as well, as my understanding is that one user flow can be linked to one app registration at a time currently) to avoid that some buttons become unresponsive when the parameter is used, or falls back to sign-in, to improve the built-in user flows further, as the prompt=create fulfils the business requirement well otherwise. If there would be any further/follow-up questions on the above, e.g., to clarify the requirement, or further explain the reproduction steps and behaviour observed, or anything else, please tell, and I'll ensure to get back as soon as possible. Also, would someone have some input on potential other/additional ways to pre-select the create account/sign-up experience, that would naturally be much appreciated as well, thanks! Regards Kristoffer
Adding PIM enabled security group to an Access Package
Hi, Recently a new feature has gone in preview, it's now possible to add PIM enabled security group to an access package. explained here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/id-governance/entitlement-management-access-package-eligible I followed the instruction exactly on 2 different tenants, one tenant has Entra ID Governance licence, another has the Entra Suite licence. The result on both tenants was the same. When adding a PIM enabled group to an access package. I am presented only with 2 roles (member or owner) and not with the expected 4 roles. (member, owner, eligible member, eligible owner). The group I add is created for test purpose couple of weeks ago, and really is PIM enabled (discovered ). Is this a preview that has to be activated on a tenant? (its not in the "Entra -> Identity -> settings -> Preview features" list). Am i missing something? Cheers!
Verifying domain name issue
We're trying to verify our custom domain in Entra ID, but it turns out the domain is already claimed on another tenant that we have no access to (unknown account, no admin credentials). Because of that, verification on our own tenant fails. Normally the fix for a claimed-domain conflict is to open a support request so Microsoft can help release it. The problem: doing that requires a support plan, and purchasing one doesn't work for us. "payment" always succeeds and we dont get an error, but we don't get charged and the account status doesn't change, we have nothing more to go on. So we're stuck in a loop: we need support to release the domain, but we can't buy the support plan needed to reach support. Has anyone dealt with a domain claimed on an inaccessible tenant? And is there another route to Microsoft support when the support plan purchase itself fails?Best practices: Open OneDrive/SharePoint sharing but restrict Teams guest access by domain
Hi all, Since SharePoint Online and OneDrive moved fully to Microsoft Entra B2B for external sharing, we've run into a policy conflict and would like to hear how others are handling it. Our requirements Enable OneDrive and SharePoint file sharing with external users, regardless of their email domain. Restrict Microsoft Teams guest access to a predefined list of approved partner domains. Continue allowing Teams external access (federated chat and meetings) for all domains. The problem: Teams guests, SharePoint guests, and OneDrive guests are now governed by the same Microsoft Entra B2B invitation framework and the single Collaboration restrictions allow/deny list under: External Identities → External collaboration settings As a result, restricting guest invitations by domain also restricts OneDrive and SharePoint sharing for domains not on the allowlist. According to Microsoft's response in the following Q&A, this behavior is currently by design: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/5954975/onedrive-external-sharing-no-longer-working-with-a Questions to the community Has anyone implemented a solution where OneDrive/SharePoint sharing remains open to all domains while Teams guest access is restricted to approved domains only? Are there recommended approaches using Entitlement Management, Access Packages, Connected Organizations, or other Entra capabilities? Is there any roadmap item for workload-specific collaboration restrictions (e.g., separate policies for Teams guest invitations and SharePoint/OneDrive sharing)? Any real-world experience or best practices would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, BejhanPHS staged rollout works for existing users but not new synced users
We are troubleshooting an Entra ID PHS staged rollout issue with a federated domain using a third-party WS-Fed IdP. The intended behavior is that normal federated users redirect to the IdP, while users in the PHS staged rollout group receive the Microsoft/Entra password prompt instead. Existing users in the staged rollout group continue to work correctly. They enter their UPN and receive the Microsoft password prompt. One known-good test user is not provisioned in the third-party IdP and still signs in successfully through the Entra password prompt, so the working path does not require the user to exist in the IdP. The issue is only with newly created AD-synced users. Newly synced users in the same staged rollout group are still being routed to the federated IdP at HRD instead of receiving the Entra password prompt. We’ve verified the staged rollout policy and group membership from Graph, confirmed the affected users are properly AD-synced with clean immutableID/sourceAnchor, and confirmed PHS is working. Federation metadata and HRD policies also look clean. Seamless SSO/AZUREADSSOACC was checked and remediated, but the behavior did not change. For failed attempts, there is no Entra sign-in log entry, including tenant-wide interactive and non-interactive logs. However, the federated IdP logs show a WS-Fed inbound request from login.microsoftonline.com for the affected user. That makes it look like Entra HRD is routing the user to federation before sign-in logging or token issuance. The issue started around an Entra Connect AD connector/DC-path change. We have since reverted the connector to the previous known-good configuration. After reverting, we created a clean-room test user with the correct UPN set before first sync, confirmed sync/PHS/sourceAnchor, added the user directly to the staged rollout group, and waited 60+ minutes. The clean-room user still redirected to the federated IdP instead of getting the Entra password prompt. So the current behavior is that established staged-rollout users still get the Entra password prompt, but newly created synced staged-rollout users are sent to the federated IdP by HRD. Has anyone seen staged rollout get into this state, where existing users work but new synced users remain on the federated HRD path despite valid rollout policy, group membership, synced password hash, and clean immutableID/sourceAnchor? Is there any known backend cache/state reset or escalation path for HRD/staged rollout routing?
Entra ID External - Custom Claims Provider help
Hi, I'm working with Entra ID External identities, trying to get a 'Token Issuance Start' event in a Custom Claims Provider working correctly. I've got all the pieces in place (SPA, web api with endpoint set and configured, app registrations, basic login working successfully, etc). I just can't get the claims provider to call my claims endpoint. Tried so many different ways, get all different errors, all kinds of hours with and without ChatGPT, and still not working. I'm to the point where I'm ready to pay a consultant to help me get past this. But I'm just a solo dev working on a personal side project, I can't call an enterprise consulting company asking for an hour or two on a Zoom call, they don't deal with such miniscule jobs, at least none that I've called. I'm well past the point of making a stack overflow post or something like that, I need a one-on-one with someone familiar with Entra ID custom claims providers for External identities. But I'm guessing most folks with that knowledge are working for some big consulting firm that won't give me the time of day. Can anyone suggest a small company that could help me, or maybe a place to post online for someone that might want to make a few bucks moonlighting on the side? I'm not looking for a handout, I'll pay a reasonable rate, I just can't afford (and pretty sure I won't need) more than a couple hours. If anyone knows of some site (or anyone interested yourself) please let me know, I'd be forever grateful, I'm at my wits end :) Thanks, AndyAm trying to create group with dynamic user membership using attribute "Employee Type"
Am trying to create group with dynamic user membership using attribute "Employee Type", tried to get details from Extension attribute but didn't find any option, Did anyone tried this and able to do ? I found a posting where it said to create a custom attribute that would be populated by the 'employee Type' field. That just seems a little strange to me to to create an attribute to be exactly like the one that is already there.
Can External ID (CIAM) federate to an Azure AD/Entra ID tenant using SAML?
What I'm trying to achieve I'm setting up SAML federation FROM my External ID tenant (CIAM) TO a partner's Entra ID tenant (regular organizational tenant) for a hybrid CIAM/B2B setup where: Business users authenticate via their corporate accounts (OIDC or SAML) Individual customers use username/password or social providers (OIDC) Tenant details / Terminology: CIAM tenant: External ID tenant for customer-facing applications IdP tenant: Example Partner's organizational Entra ID tenant with business accounts Custom domain: mycustomdomain.com (example domain for the IdP tenant) Configuration steps taken Step 1: IdP Tenant (Entra ID) - Created SAML App Set up Enterprise App with SAML SSO Entity ID: https://login.microsoftonline.com/<CIAM_TENANT_ID>/ Reply URL: https://<CIAM_TENANT_ID>.ciamlogin.com/login.srf NameID: Persistent format Claim mapping: emailaddress → user.mail Step 2: CIAM Tenant (External ID) - Added SAML IdP (Initially imported from the SAML metadata URL from the above setup) Federating domain: mycustomdomain.com Issuer URI: https://sts.windows.net/<IDP_TENANT_ID>/ Passive endpoint: https://login.microsoftonline.com/mycustomdomain.com/saml2 DNS TXT record added: DirectFedAuthUrl=https://login.microsoftonline.com/mycustomdomain.com/saml2 Step 3: Attached to User Flow Added SAML IdP to user flow under "Other identity providers" Saved configuration and waited for propagation The problem It doesn't work. When testing via "Run user flow": No SAML button appears (should display "Sign in with mycustomdomain") Entering email address removed for privacy reasons doesn't trigger federation The SAML provider appears configured but never shows up in the actual flow Also tried using the tenant GUID in the passive endpoint instead of the domain - same result My question Is SAML federation from External ID to regular Entra ID tenants actually possible? I know OIDC federation to Microsoft tenants is (currently, august 2025) explicitly blocked (microsoftonline.com domains are rejected). Is SAML similarly restricted? The portal lets me configure everything without throwing any errors, but it never actually works. Am I missing something in my configuration? The documentation for this use case is limited and I've had to piece together the setup from various sources. Or is this a fundamental limitation where External ID simply can't federate to ANY Microsoft tenant regardless of the protocol used?
Global Secure Access - Deleted Appliction still applies (and cannot be recreated)
Hello everyone, we currently face an issue with Global Secure Access - Private Access - Enterprise applications. An admin has delete and tried to recreate an enterprise application. When he tried added the ip address and the port he got an error, that this rule is already within another app. The link led to an "empty" app. It was found that under "app registrations" the previously deleted applicaiton is still there and it was permanently deleted. However the problem stays. If we try a connection to the ip address and port which was specified in the deleted policy, we can see an error in the GSA Event Log on the Client: Could not authenticate using a cached token... Error: 9, Message: IncorrectConfiguration {"Description":"V2Error: invalid_resource AADSTS500011: The resource principal named <id of the deleted application> was not found in the tenant named <ourTenant>. This can happen if the application has not been installed by the administrator of the tenant or consented to by any user in the tenant. You might have sent your authentication request to the wrong tenant. Unfortunatly, since the application is not permanently deleted, it cannot be restored. We tried to completly disable and reenable private access (in Entra!) but this did not fix the problem. For some reason the deleted policy is stuck in GSA and we have no idea how to get it out.Does Rights Management Service currently support MFA claims from EAM?
We've been testing EAM (external authentication methods) for a few months now as we try to move our Duo configuration away from CA custom controls. I noticed today that when my Outlook (classic) client would not correctly authenticate to Rights Management Service to decrypt OME-protected emails from another org. It tries to open the message, fails to connect to RMS, and opens a copy of the email with the "click here to read the message" spiel. It then throws a "something is wrong with your account" warning in the Outlook client's top right corner. If I try to manually authenticate & let it redirect to Duo's EAM endpoint, it simply fails with an HTTP 400 error. When you close that error, it then presents another error of "No Network Connection. Please check your network settings and try again. [2603]". I can close/reopen Outlook and that warning message in the top right stays suppresses unless I attempt signing into RMS all over again. However.. If I do the same thing and instead use an alternate MFA method (MS Authenticator, for example), it signs in perfectly fine and will decrypt those OME-protected emails on the fly in the Outlook client, as expected. I verified that we excluded "aadrm.com" from SSL inspection and that we're not breaking certificate pinning. So all I can assume at the moment is that Rights Management Service isn't honoring MFA claims from EAM. Any experience/thoughts on this? Thanks in advance!Looking for an on-prem MFA solution for Active Directory and RDP
Hi everyone, We're reviewing options for adding MFA to our on-premises Active Directory environment. Most of our users authenticate with Active Directory, while administrators also use RDP for managing Windows servers. Because part of our infrastructure is isolated from the Internet, we'd prefer an on-premises MFA solution instead of relying on a cloud-only service. Has anyone implemented something similar recently? I'm interested in hearing: Which solution did you choose? How difficult was the deployment? Did you run into any compatibility or performance issues? Is there anything you'd do differently if you were deploying it again? Any real-world experience or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Can the built-in "No account? Create one" link redirect to a custom sign-up page?
I'm using Microsoft Entra External ID with a built-in sign-in/sign-up user flow. On the Microsoft-hosted sign-in page, the "No account? Create one" link always redirects users to the default Entra sign-up page. I already have a custom registration page and would like this built-in link to redirect to my custom URL instead. Is there any supported way to customize the destination of this link in a built-in user flow? If not, could someone confirm whether this behavior is fixed by design? Thanks!Understand Why a Service Principal Was Created in Your Entra Tenant
Are you a tenant admin or member of a security team in your organization and find yourself asking “Why was this service principal created in our tenant?” Historically, answering this required correlating audit logs with Microsoft Graph queries or going through long investigations. Microsoft Entra now introduces enhanced audit log properties that make it significantly easier to understand the origin and intent behind newly created service principals directly from tenant audit logs. These new improvements surface additional insights within the Add service principal activity under the ApplicationManagement category—helping administrators determine whether a service principal was provisioned automatically by Microsoft services, triggered by a purchased subscription, or explicitly created by user or application activity. What’s in it for me as an Admins or member of the Security Team When a service principal is created, new metadata is now captured within Microsoft Entra audit logs that enables faster root‑cause analysis. These properties help distinguish between Microsoft‑driven provisioning processes and tenant‑initiated actions, allowing teams to quickly assess whether an event is expected platform behavior or something requiring deeper investigation. For example, administrators can now: Identify provisioning initiated by Microsoft services versus internal users or automation. Determine which tenant subscription or service plan enabled just‑in‑time provisioning. Recognize provisioning linked to Azure resource onboarding or managed identities. Investigate service principal creation without relying on additional Graph lookups. By leveraging these enriched audit logs, security teams can streamline investigations into newly created enterprise applications and reduce manual dependency on downstream data sources. This ultimately improves visibility into application onboarding events and supports faster decision‑making when assessing potential risk or unexpected provisioning activity within the tenant. Learn more here- Understand why a service principal was created in your tenant - Microsoft Entra ID | Microsoft Learn
AADSTS50105 error message is unreadable for end users — UX improvement suggestion
1. What’s wrong with the current error message a. It’s written for administrators, not users The message exposes: Internal system names (AADSTS50105) GUIDs (aaaabbbb-cccc-dddd-eeee-ffff01234567) Identity provider jargon (“direct member of a group with access”) None of this helps the person who sees the error decide what to do next. b. The actual problem is buried in a wall of text The real issue is simply: You don’t have permission to access this app. Instead, the message forces users to: Read a long paragraph Decode domain-specific language Guess which part matters Cognitively, this is high effort for low payoff. c. “Contact your administrator” is vague and unhelpful Users ask: Which administrator? IT? Security? App owner? Their manager? What should they say? Without context, users either: Ignore the error Forward screenshots randomly Open the wrong support ticket d. Error codes without guidance increase support load AADSTS50105 may be meaningful internally, but: Users don’t know whether to Google it Support teams receive unclear tickets (“it doesn’t work”) This paradoxically raises support cost instead of lowering it. 2. What a better error message should do A good error message answers four questions in order: What happened? Why did it happen (in plain language)? What can the user do next? Who specifically can help? And it does so in under 30 seconds of reading time. 3. Example of a much better error message You don’t have access to [APPLICATION] Your account (email address removed for privacy reasons) isn’t currently authorized to use [APPLICATION]. This usually means: You haven’t been added to the required security group, or Access hasn’t been requested or approved yet. What to do next If you believe you should have access, contact IT Service Desk or your [APPLICATION] owner and request access. Helpful details to include in your request Application name: [APPLICATION] Your email: email address removed for privacy reasons Error reference: Access not assigned (Error ID: AADSTS50105 — for IT use) 4. Optional but high-impact improvement: Add a “Request Access” button or link One-click takes users to: ServiceNow / Jira / internal form Auto-populates app name and user email Administrators configure support link when configuring the applicationPriority Handling in GSA Client Forwarding Profile Rules
Hello, I would like to provide feedback and propose a functional improvement regarding priority control for forwarding rules in Global Secure Access (GSA). In our environment, we are using Microsoft Entra Private Access with a combination of CIDR-based rules and FQDN-based rules. We understand that it is not possible to create Enterprise Applications with overlapping IP address ranges. Based on this limitation, our current operational model is as follows: Administrators create Enterprise Applications using CIDR ranges that broadly cover entire datacenter networks. Access for application owners to specific servers and ports is defined using FQDN-based rules. With this type of configuration, when reviewing the list of rules shown in the GSA Client → Forwarding Profile → Rules tab, we can see that each rule is assigned a Priority, and the rules appear to be evaluated sequentially from top to bottom. From this behavior, it is clear that: DNS rules are evaluated first Enterprise Application rules are evaluated next Quick Access rules are evaluated last However, between CIDR-based Enterprise Application rules and FQDN-based Enterprise Application rules, there does not appear to be a clear or explicit priority model. Instead, the position — and therefore the evaluation order — seems to depend on the order in which the Enterprise Applications were created. As a result, even when we intend to apply a more specific FQDN-based rule for a particular host, the broader CIDR-based administrative rule may be evaluated first. In such cases, access can be unintentionally blocked, preventing us from achieving the intended access control behavior. After understanding this mechanism, we have been working around the issue by carefully controlling the creation order of Enterprise Applications — creating host-specific FQDN-based applications first, followed by broader CIDR-based rules. While this approach avoids the issue, it significantly increases administrative complexity and makes long-term management more difficult. Based on this experience, we would strongly appreciate enhancements such as: The ability to manually control rule evaluation order in the UI, or More intelligent and predictable automatic prioritization between FQDN-based and CIDR-based rules Such improvements would greatly enhance usability, predictability, and maintainability of GSA forwarding rule configurations. Thank you for considering this feedback.Challenges with custom data provided resource reviews
I was thrilled to see the ability to review disconnected applications in Entra, and even more thrilled to see that the permission and its description are available to the reviewer, which addresses a significant gap present in group-based reviews. However, the current decision-tracking approach does not adequately replicate the closed-loop remediation model typically found in traditional IGA access reviews for integrated applications. Requiring reviewers to upload confirmation that revocations have been completed is problematic. This approach does not mitigate the core risk: access may remain in place due to fulfillment errors or be incorrectly retained, and the reviewer may unknowingly validate an inaccurate state. This can lead to a compliance incident or audit finding. A more effective solution would allow reviewers to upload a current export of access data, enabling the review system to reconcile intended revocations against the actual state. Any discrepancies could then be flagged for remediation where revocations were missed or have failed, or for validation where access was revoked and immediately reinstated (e.g., due to reviewer misjudgement), ideally supported by corresponding ticketing or justification. There are currently a lot of gaps in Entra ID access reviews, and while this new feature arguably resolved the worst one, I think it's headed down the wrong path. I am curious about other people's thoughts.
Recent Blogs
- 4 MIN READProtect AI, SaaS, private apps, and web traffic with adaptive policies that respond to risk in real time.Aug 05, 2026
- 4 MIN READLearn about generally available and public preview identity and network access capabilities released in the past 30 days.Jul 24, 2026
