Recent Discussions
Scaling Data Governance- Does a Purview in a Day Framework Exist?
Hello Purview Community, I’ve been exploring the available acceleration resources for Microsoft Purview, and one thing I noticed is a potential gap in the "In a Day" workshop series. While we have excellent programs like Power BI in a Day or Fabric in a Day, I haven't yet seen a formalized Purview in a Day framework designed to help organizations jumpstart their governance journey in a single, cohesive session. I am reaching out because my team is currently preparing something in this area that we believe will be very useful to the community and Microsoft in the future. Rather than working in isolation, we want to ensure we are aligned with the official roadmap. I wanted to reach out to the community and the Microsoft product team to ask: Is there an official "In a Day" initiative for Purview currently in the works? If not, who would be the best point of contact to discuss alignment? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and seeing if we can build something impactful together! #MicrosoftPurview #Purview
Unusual Sign-In Activity E-mail but I cannot identify the account!
Hi, I'm experiencing something quite weird. This morning I got an alert to a personal e-mail address of mine (w********@gmail.com) that a Microsoft account of mine was accessed from an IP address in Brazil. I've attached that e-mail and it lists the account as "ja*****" with no domain name listed. I have two microsoft accounts that I know of that start with "ja". One is a hotmail account and one is registered with my university account. I figured this alert had to do with my university account because that could explain why it never listed a domain name. However, when I checked, neither account have any record of a sign in, successful or unsuccessful, from an IP address in Brazil today. Furthermore, the university account doesn't have the w*******@gmail.com listed as a primary or secondary e-mail account so even if that was the account that alert wouldn't have gone to that e-mail. I contacted Microsoft support hoping that they could try to locate the alert e-mail and confirm what account the alert was about from their end but they told me they don't have the tools for that and they have limited access to their own system. A supervisor told me that at this point my best bet is to either post on the community forums or to go to the police and ask them to track the IP address. I have a vague memory that years ago when I tried to log into my university Microsoft account, it would let me log in as a personal account and as a work account separately but now I can only use it as a work account. I'm wondering if that might be related like maybe someone was able to access my personal account of my university Microsoft account which could explain both the lack of a domain name in the e-mail and the fact that there's no history of it in my work account. This is really bugging me because someone may have accessed an account belonging to me but I'm completely unable to actually confirm that or even the account this is happening to. Thanks!
Change password for krbtgt account
What is the criteria that MDI uses to determine whether the https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-for-identity/security-posture-assessments/accounts#change-password-for-krbtgt-account recommendation has been completed? I'm working with an org where the passwordLastSet attribute on the krbtgt account says "never", yet this recommendation is showing "Completed".
Cannot setup phone sign in with Microsoft Authenticator
Hi All, My new Redmi Turbo 4 was working with Microsoft authenticator, but in the past month, it started malfunctioning, so I decided to reset the authenticator app and sign back into it. Now I can't setup the app to do phone sign-in, and the sign in request notifications does not come to the new phone. (old phone is currently still operational). Is there like a shadow ban to chinese android phones?
From “No” to “Now”: A 7-Layer Strategy for Enterprise AI Safety
The “block” posture on Generative AI has failed. In a global enterprise, banning these tools doesn't stop usage; it simply pushes intellectual property into unmanaged channels and creates a massive visibility gap in corporate telemetry. The priority has now shifted from stopping AI to hardening the environment so that innovation can run at velocity without compromising data sovereignty. Traditional security perimeters are ineffective against the “slow bleed” of AI leakage - where data moves through prompts, clipboards, and autonomous agents rather than bulk file transfers. To secure this environment, a 7-layer defense-in-depth model is required to treat the conversation itself as the new perimeter. 1. Identity: The Only Verifiable Perimeter Identity is the primary control plane. Access to AI services must be treated with the same rigor as administrative access to core infrastructure. The strategy centers on enforcing device-bound Conditional Access, where access is strictly contingent on device health. To solve the "Account Leak" problem, the deployment of Tenant Restrictions v2 (TRv2) is essential to prevent users from signing into personal tenants using corporate-managed devices. For enhanced coverage, Universal Tenant Restrictions (UTR) via Global Secure Access (GSA) allows for consistent enforcement at the cloud edge. While TRv2 authentication-plane is GA, data-plane protection is GA for the Microsoft 365 admin center and remains in preview for other workloads such as SharePoint and Teams. 2. Eliminating the Visibility Gap (Shadow AI) You can’t secure what you can't see. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps (MDCA) serves to discover and govern the enterprise AI footprint, while Purview DSPM for AI (formerly AI Hub) monitors Copilot and third-party interactions. By categorizing tools using MDCA risk scores and compliance attributes, organizations can apply automated sanctioning decisions and enforce session controls for high-risk endpoints. 3. Data Hygiene: Hardening the “Work IQ” AI acts as a mirror of internal permissions. In a "flat" environment, AI acts like a search engine for your over-shared data. Hardening the foundation requires automated sensitivity labeling in Purview Information Protection. Identifying PII and proprietary code before assigning AI licenses ensures that labels travel with the data, preventing labeled content from being exfiltrated via prompts or unauthorized sharing. 4. Session Governance: Solving the “Clipboard Leak” The most common leak in 2025 is not a file upload; it’s a simple copy-paste action or a USB transfer. Deploying Conditional Access App Control (CAAC) via MDCA session policies allows sanctioned apps to function while specifically blocking cut/copy/paste. This is complemented by Endpoint DLP, which extends governance to the physical device level, preventing sensitive data from being moved to unmanaged USB storage or printers during an AI-assisted workflow. Purview Information Protection with IRM rounds this out by enforcing encryption and usage rights on the files themselves. When a user tries to print a "Do Not Print" document, Purview triggers an alert that flows into Microsoft Sentinel. This gives the SOC visibility into actual policy violations instead of them having to hunt through generic activity logs. 5. The “Agentic” Era: Agent 365 & Sharing Controls Now that we're moving from "Chat" to "Agents", Agent 365 and Entra Agent ID provide the necessary identity and control plane for autonomous entities. A quick tip: in large-scale tenants, default settings often present a governance risk. A critical first step is navigating to the Microsoft 365 admin center (Copilot > Agents) to disable the default “Anyone in organization” sharing option. Restricting agent creation and sharing to a validated security group is essential to prevent unvetted agent sprawl and ensure that only compliant agents are discoverable. 6. The Human Layer: “Safe Harbors” over Bans Security fails when it creates more friction than the risk it seeks to mitigate. Instead of an outright ban, investment in AI skilling-teaching users context minimization (redacting specifics before interacting with a model) - is the better path. Providing a sanctioned, enterprise-grade "Safe Harbor" like M365 Copilot offers a superior tool that naturally cuts down the use of Shadow AI. 7. Continuous Ops: Monitoring & Regulatory Audit Security is not a “set and forget” project, particularly with the EU AI Act on the horizon. Correlating AI interactions and DLP alerts in Microsoft Sentinel using Purview Audit (specifically the CopilotInteraction logs) data allows for real-time responses. Automated SOAR playbooks can then trigger protective actions - such as revoking an Agent ID - if an entity attempts to access sensitive HR or financial data. Final Thoughts Securing AI at scale is an architectural shift. By layering Identity, Session Governance, and Agentic Identity, AI moves from being a fragmented risk to a governed tool that actually works for the modern workplace.Ingesting Windows Security Events into Custom Datalake Tables Without Using Microsoft‑Prefixed Table
Hi everyone, I’m looking to see whether there is a supported method to ingest Windows Security Events into custom Microsoft Sentinel Data Lake–tiered tables (for example, SecurityEvents_CL) without writing to or modifying the Microsoft‑prefixed analytical tables. Essentially, I want to route these events directly into custom tables only, bypassing the default Microsoft‑managed tables entirely. Has anyone implemented this, or is there a recommended approach? Thanks in advance for any guidance. Best Regards, Prabhu KiranDefender for Identity health issues - Not Closing
We have old issues and they're not being "Closed" as reported. Are we missing something or is this "Microsoft Defender for Identity" Health Issues process broken? Thanks! Closed: A health issue is automatically marked as Closed when Microsoft Defender for Identity detects that the underlying issue is resolved. If you have the Azure ATP (workspace name) Administrator role, you can also manually close a health issue.New Blog | Vulnerability Management Dashboard: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint - Updated Release 240
By Nathan Hughes-Smith Introduction As Microsoft Cloud Solution Architects, we get asked by Businesses, IT Managers and Cybersecurity Experts to accurately report on the Vulnerabilities and CVEs in our environments. This could be as easy as just deploying Endpoint Protection updates or as advanced as deploying every category and 3rd Party Updates using Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. Vulnerability Management Dashboard: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint This Spring release involves implementing a cloud-based reporting and visualization solution that brings exposure to active threats into sharp focus. It is intended to provide value to IT Leaders, Stakeholders, Security & Compliance teams, and Operations Teams that are responsible for mitigating CVE documented risks. The reports provide rich drill throughs that enable full understanding of an organization's current data and trends. The data is sourced from Microsoft Defender for Endpoint using API calls, stored in a small serverless Azure SQL instance, and can be accessed from anywhere on any device. Outcomes Dashboard with a summary view that shows CVE vulnerability status for the current month, the previous month, and all prior. These views refresh daily on a desired scheduled time frame. Customization options to exclude specific CVEs and classes of vulnerabilities. Cloud installation that creates a small Azure serverless SQL instance, an Azure Automation Account, and an Azure Service Principal. The Report The report features 8 main pages to use as a starting point, with additional subpages and drill-ins to allow you to get the information the way you need to see it. Summary - View device compliance against CVEs, grouped by the last 3 monthly release cycles. Drill into devices with a specific status in a specific period to get a detailed list of devices and which CVEs have open vulnerabilities currently. Read the full post here: Vulnerability Management Dashboard: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint - Updated Release 2405
Security alerts Graph API and MFA
Hello, Does anyone know if https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/api/resources/partner-security-partnersecurityalert-api-overview?view=graph-rest-beta Security alerts works with app only method (app + cert or app + secret )? Currently i successfully login to graph using both methods Welcome to Microsoft Graph! Connected via apponly access using "ID number" Then i request to get alerts and i get error code: WARNING: Error body: {"error":{"code":"UnknownError","message":"{\"Error\":{\"Code\":\"Unauthorized_MissingMFA\",\"Message\":\"MFA is required for this request. The provided authentication token does not have MFA I found that old API worked with app+user credential only but it's not mentioned in new one about this restriction.What are the differences between "eDiscovery Search" and "content search"
Hi, I thought if anybody is able to explain what are the differences with "eDiscovery Case Search" and "Content Search"and what are scenarios when to choose one over other? So far I have understood that eDiscovery Manager can see all Content Searches from tenant, but for eDiscovery Search manager can see only own cases. I have also a feeling that eDiscovery Search is very much slower. At first I'm getting zero findings, while Content Search list all of the items. But then, after some hours eDiscovery Search start finding the same items. As a site note, I'm testing this to find chat messages (Teams and Skype) from already deleted user (inactive mailbox).
Windows Hello passkeys dialog appearing and cannot remove or suppress it.
Hi everyone, I’m dealing with a persistent Windows Hello and passkey issue in Chrome and Brave and yes this is relevant as they're the only browsers having this issue whilst Edge for example is fine, and at this point I’m trying to understand whether this is expected behavior, a bug, or a design oversight. PS. Yes, I'm in contact with related browser support teams but since they seem utterly hopeless i'm asking here, since its at least partially Windows Hello issue. Problem description Even with: Password managers disabled in browser settings, Windows Hello disabled in Chrome/Brave settings, Windows Hello PIN enabled only for device login, Passkeys still stored under chrome://settings/passkeys (which I cannot delete since its used for logging on the device), The devices are connected to Entra ID but this is not required to reproduce the issue although a buisness account configuration creates a Passkey with Windows Hello afaik. Observed behavior When I attempt to sign in on office.com, Windows Hello automatically triggers a dialog offering authentication via passkeys, even though: I don’t want passkeys used for browser logins, passkeys are turned off everywhere they can be, Windows Hello is intended only for local device authentication. The dialog cannot be suppressed, disabled, or hidden(trust me, i tried for weeks). It effectively forces the Windows Hello prompt as a primary option, which causes problems both personally and in business contexts (wrong credential signaling, misleading users that are supposed to use a dedicated password manager solution insted of browser password managers, enforcing an unwanted authentication flow, etc.). What I already verified Many, many, (too many) Windows registry workarounds that never worked. Dug through almost all flags on those browsers. Chrome/Brave → Password Manager: disabled Chrome/Brave → Windows Hello toggle: off Looked through what feels like almost every related option in Windows Settings. Tried gpedit.msc local rules System up to date Windows Hello configured to use PIN, but stores "passkeys used to log on to this device" Why this is a problem Windows Hello automatically assumes that the device-level Windows Hello credentials should always be available as a WebAuthn authenticator. This feels like a big security and UX issue due to: unexpected authentication dialogs, Inability to controll where and how passkey credential are shared to applications, inability to turn the feature off, no administrative or local option to disable Hello for WebAuthn separately from device login. Buisness users either having issues with keeping passwords in order (our buissnes uses a dedicated Password Manager but this behaviour covers its dialog option) or not having PIN to their devices (when I disable windows hello entierly, since when there is no passkeys the option doesn't appear) Questions Is there any supported way to disable Windows Hello as a WebAuthn/passkey option in browsers, while keeping Hello enabled for local device login? Is this expected behavior from the Windows Hello, or is it considered a bug? Are there registry/policy settings (documented or upcoming) that allow disabling the Windows platform authenticator specifically for browsers like Chrome and Brave? Is Microsoft aware of this issue? If so, is it tracked anywhere? Additional notes This issue replicates 100% across (as long as there are passkeys configured): Windows 11 devices i've managed to get my hands on, Chrome and Brave (latest versions), multiple Microsoft accounts and tenants, multiple clean installations. Any guidance or clarification from the Windows security or identity teams would be greatly appreciated. And honestly if there is any more info i could possibly provide PLEASE ask away.
Add Privacy Scrub Service to Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender protects accounts against phishing and malware, but attackers increasingly exploit nuisance data broker sites that publish personal information (names, emails, addresses). These sites are scraped to personalize phishing campaigns, making them harder to detect. I propose a premium Defender add‑on that automatically files opt‑out requests with major data brokers (similar to DeleteMe).IdentityLogonEvents - IsNtlmV1
Hi, I cannot find documentation on how the IdentityLogonEvents table's AdditionalFields.IsNtlmV1 populated. In a demo environment, I intentionally "enforced" NTLMv1 and made an NTLMv1 connection to a domain controller. On the DC's Security log, event ID 4624 shows correct info: Detailed Authentication Information: Logon Process: NtLmSsp Authentication Package: NTLM Transited Services: - Package Name (NTLM only): NTLM V1 Key Length: 128 On MDI side however it looks like this: (using the following KQL to display relevant info here: IdentityLogonEvents | where ReportId == @"f70dbd37-af8e-4e4e-a77d-b4250f9e0d0b" | extend todynamic(AdditionalFields) | project TimeGenerated, ActionType, Application, LogonType, Protocol,IsNtlmV1 = AdditionalFields.IsNtlmV1 ) TimeGenerated ActionType Application LogonType Protocol IsNtlmV1 Nov 28, 2025 10:43:05 PM LogonSuccess Active Directory Credentials validation Ntlm false Can someone please explain, under which circumstances will the IsNtlmV1 property become "true"? Thank you in advancesensor service fails to start
Hello, i've installed MDI on all of our domain controllers and everything went fine. I am trying to install MDI our Entra connect server and our certificate authority server (which are not domain controllers) and the service is continually failing to start. Could someone please point me in the right direction on how to rectify this? I've tried: recreating the service account (3x), checking the service account with Test-ADServiceAccount (works fine from both member servers) verified the service account is given the right to log on as service. The error log is very vague: 2025-11-13 19:05:30.0968 Error DirectoryServicesClient+<CreateLdapConnectionAsync>d__49 Microsoft.Tri.Infrastructure.ExtendedException: CreateLdapConnectionAsync failed [DomainControllerDnsName={FQDN of DC}] at async Task<LdapConnection> Microsoft.Tri.Sensor.DirectoryServicesClient.CreateLdapConnectionAsync(DomainControllerConnectionData domainControllerConnectionData, bool isGlobalCatalog, bool isTraversing) at async Task<bool> Microsoft.Tri.Sensor.DirectoryServicesClient.TryCreateLdapConnectionAsync(DomainControllerConnectionData domainControllerConnectionData, bool isGlobalCatalog, bool isTraversing) 2025-11-13 19:05:30.1124 Error DirectoryServicesClient Microsoft.Tri.Infrastructure.ExtendedException: Failed to communicate with configured domain controllers [ _domainControllerConnectionDatas={FQDN of DC}] at new Microsoft.Tri.Sensor.DirectoryServicesClient(IConfigurationManager configurationManager, IDirectoryServicesDomainNetworkCredentialsManager domainNetworkCredentialsManager, IDomainTrustMappingManager domainTrustMappingManager, IRemoteImpersonationManager remoteImpersonationManager, IMetricManager metricManager, IWorkspaceApplicationSensorApiJsonProxy workspaceApplicationSensorApiJsonProxy) at object lambda_method(Closure, object[]) at object Autofac.Core.Activators.Reflection.ConstructorParameterBinding.Instantiate() at void Microsoft.Tri.Infrastructure.ModuleManager.AddModules(Type[] moduleTypes) at new Microsoft.Tri.Sensor.SensorModuleManager() at ModuleManager Microsoft.Tri.Sensor.SensorService.CreateModuleManager() at async Task Microsoft.Tri.Infrastructure.Service.OnStartAsync() at void Microsoft.Tri.Infrastructure.TaskExtension.Await(Task task) at void Microsoft.Tri.Infrastructure.Service.OnStart(string[] args)Passed AZ-500 Exam
I have passed my exam. Initially, I found AZ-500 exam preparation difficult but later I got https://www.p2pexams.com/products/az-500 material from P2PExams. It was a great help for me. This AZ-500 exam study material was well-designed by professionals. It helped me understand all key concepts related to an actual exam. On the exam day. I easily attempted all the questions and got brilliant results on the exam. I especially thank P2PExams. It was really a great resource.
Events
Microsoft Purview Data Security Investigations is now generally available!
Data Security Investigations enables customers to quickly uncover and mitigate data security and sensitive data risks bur...
Online
Recent Blogs
- 7 MIN READBrowser has transformed how enterprises operate, but it has also created new opportunities for attackers. As we’ve seen in Part 1, as browsers have become indispensable with Cloud and SaaS adoption, ...Jan 14, 2026
- We are excited to announce the Public Preview of IP Network Firewalls for Azure Key Vault Managed HSM in East US, West US, West US 2, West Central US, UK South, and West Europe. The feature allow...Jan 13, 2026
