Forum Widgets
Latest Discussions
Passkey Sign‑In Fails in Entra Free Tenants (AADSTS135016 – FIDO Sign‑In Disabled via Policy)
Hello everyone, I’m documenting an issue which seems to be appearing across multiple tenants and multiple threads, but the root cause has never been clearly stated. If I’m mistaken in any part of this analysis, my apologies and I welcome correction. This post is intended to consolidate the symptoms, the misleading error message, and the actual underlying cause so other admins don’t waste time troubleshooting a problem that cannot be fixed through configuration. Summary of the Issue In Microsoft Entra ID Free tenants: Passkeys can be enabled Passkeys can be registered Passkeys appear correctly in Security Info Passkeys work for MFA Passkeys work for self‑service setup But passkey sign‑in fails, consistently, with: AADSTS135016: FIDO sign‑in is disabled via policy This occurs even when: FIDO2 is fully enabled AAGUIDs are correct “Allow self‑service setup” is enabled No Conditional Access policies exist Security defaults are disabled User‑level MFA settings are off Passkey profiles are correctly targeted Browser/device combinations are clean Multiple admins have reported this exact behavior. Why This Error Is Misleading The error suggests that a policy is blocking FIDO sign‑in. However, in Entra Free tenants, the real issue is that the required policy objects do not exist at all. Specifically, Entra Free tenants do not include: Authentication Strengths Passwordless Strength Phishing‑Resistant MFA Strength FIDO2 Strength Conditional Access enforcement Strength‑based sign‑in policies Passkey sign‑in requires these backend objects to bind the FIDO2 credential to the primary authentication flow. Without them, the sign‑in pipeline rejects the passkey and throws error 135016, even though registration succeeds. This is why: Some tenants work (licensed) Some tenants fail (Entra Free) “Fixes” like waiting, renaming profiles, or toggling settings only work in licensed tenants where the backend policy objects exist No amount of configuration resolves the issue in Entra Free This is a licensing limitation, not a configuration problem. Why This Needs Attention Microsoft is actively promoting: Passkeys Passwordless authentication Phishing‑resistant MFA Modern identity security But Entra Free tenants — including personal tenants, small labs, students, developers, and home environments — cannot use passkey sign‑in at all, despite documentation implying otherwise. This creates: Confusion Wasted time Misleading error messages Failed deployments Frustration for users who purchased physical passkeys A contradiction between Microsoft’s marketing and actual product behavior Passkeys are a security feature, not an enterprise feature. Basic passkey sign‑in should not be locked behind Entra ID P1. Request to Microsoft Please consider enabling basic passkey sign‑in for Entra Free tenants. At minimum: Update documentation to clearly state that passkey sign‑in requires Authentication Strengths (P1+) Update the error message to reflect the real cause Provide guidance for admins deploying passkeys in small or personal tenants This would reduce confusion and align the product with Microsoft’s own passwordless security goals. Closing If anyone has additional data points, please add them here. This issue is affecting multiple tenants and deserves a clear, authoritative answer from Microsoft. Thanks.
Need Microsoft support to resolve a historical tenant association with a domain I recently acquired
Hello, I recently became the legitimate and independent registrant of a domain that had previously been owned or used by an unrelated organization. I have no affiliation whatsoever with the previous domain holder or that organization. I have now received a Microsoft Power Platform notification at an email address under my domain concerning a Default environment belonging to the previous organization. The notification includes a Tenant ID and Environment ID, and the environment name corresponds to that organization. I do not own, administer, or have access to this tenant or Power Platform environment, and I am not seeking access to or control over it. My main concern is that there may still be a historical association between my domain or its email addresses and the previous organization's Microsoft tenant or related services. I would like Microsoft to investigate this and, where necessary, properly separate my domain and its email addresses from any unrelated historical Microsoft accounts, tenants, directories, or services. Most importantly, I want to ensure that this historical association will not adversely affect my ability in the future to use my domain and its business email addresses to create, verify, and use my own Microsoft 365, Microsoft Entra, Power Platform, or other Microsoft business services. At present, I do not have a Microsoft business account, Microsoft 365 tenant, or Power Platform tenant of my own. As a result, I appear to be unable to use some of the normal business support channels that require an existing tenant or administrator account. Could someone please advise me on the appropriate way to get this matter reviewed by Microsoft Support? If a Microsoft employee or official support representative can assist or direct me to the appropriate private support channel, I would greatly appreciate it. For privacy and security reasons, I have intentionally not posted the actual domain name, email address, Tenant ID, or Environment ID publicly. I am happy to provide all of the relevant details privately to an authorized Microsoft support representative if required. Thank you for any guidance.Disabled account OU
Hello We have a scenario for which I need help User account was disabled and was in Disabled account OU when she joined back it was enabled and moved to proper user account OU.This is synched from onpremise in O365 The earlier mailbox is converted from user mailbox to a cloud mailbox.This is a incloud object How do we proceed here We want the shared mailbox to be linked to the user account which was disabled earlier. Regards,
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?
