Security and AI Essentials
Protect your organization with AI-powered, end-to-end security.
Defend Against Threats
Get ahead of threat actors with integrated solutions.
Secure All Your Clouds
Protection from code to runtime.
Secure All Access
Secure access for any identity, anywhere, to any resource.
Protect Your Data
Comprehensive data security across your entire estate.
Recent Blogs
This post explores how certificate pinning affects TLS validation in Azure OSS databases and why CA-based trust is the recommended approach for maintaining secure, rotation-resilient connections...
May 13, 202664Views
0likes
0Comments
16 MIN READ
Member: TysonPaul | Microsoft Community Hub
Announcing Public Preview for Essential Machine Management
Team Blog: Azure Governance and Management
Author: Meagan McCrory
Published: 04/06/202...
May 12, 2026113Views
1like
0Comments
Learn how Face Check supports high assurance identity verification for onboarding, access requests, and account recovery.
May 11, 2026895Views
0likes
0Comments
Overview
Modern workloads increasingly rely on reacting to files as soon as they arrive in Azure Blob Storage. While Azure provides multiple ways to trigger computing from blob operations, choosing...
May 11, 2026162Views
0likes
0Comments
Recent Discussions
passkeys in the Authenticator app regarding attestation
I have a question about passkeys in the Authenticator app regarding attestation in connection with QR code-based cross-device sign-in. When we register a passkey with attestation enabled in the Authenticator app, it can be used to complete the sign-in process on another device via QR code and Bluetooth Low Energy. According to Microsoft’s documentation, this shouldn’t be possible with attestation enabled, yet it works. What are we misunderstanding here? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/identity/authentication/how-to-enable-authenticator-passkey Thanks for your inputs. JohannesSolvedAuto Labeling Policy Delay for Old Files (Exsisting Files)
Hi Everyone, We are observing a difference in auto labelling policy behaviour in Purview for Sharepoint. An auto labelling policy has been enabled and scoped to sharepoint with metadata based rule(document creation date or document modification date). The scoped sharepoint only contain 7 unlabeled files that were uploaded before the policy turned on. The policy is working because if i placed any new file after enabling the policy got labelled within about 5 minutes, but the exsisting files are not labeled and remains unlabelled. It seems the new files are evalauated via the near time while exsisting file rely on asychronous mode. Can anyone help explain why exsisting files take longer to be proceesed even when there there are only a few files or share if you faced similar behaviour. This is the test scenario, as we plan to enable the same policy across more than 50 plus sites containing millions of unlabeled files and we want to understand and predict that even though its takes time all exsisting unlabeled files will eventually will be labelled. This is very crucial, so please helo us understand this behaviour. Regards, BanuMuraliSolvedSentinel RBAC in the Unified portal: who has activated Unified RBAC, and how did it go?
Following the RSAC 2026 announcements last month, I have been working through the full permission picture for the Unified portal and wanted to open a discussion here given how much has shifted in a short period. A quick framing of where things stand. The baseline is still that Azure RBAC carries across for Sentinel SIEM access when you onboard, no changes required. But there are now two significant additions in public preview: Unified RBAC for Sentinel SIEM itself (extending the Defender Unified RBAC model to cover Sentinel directly), and a new Defender-native GDAP model for non-CSP organisations managing delegated access across tenants. The GDAP piece in particular is worth discussing carefully, because I want to be precise about what has and has not changed. The existing limitation from Microsoft's onboarding documentation, that GDAP with Azure Lighthouse is not supported for Sentinel data in the Defender portal, has not changed. What is new is a separate, Defender-portal-native GDAP mechanism announced at RSAC, which is a different thing. These are not the same capability. If you were using Entra B2B as the interim path based on earlier guidance, that guidance was correct and that path remains the generally available option today. A few things I would genuinely like to hear from practitioners: For those who have activated Unified RBAC for a Sentinel workspace in the Defender portal: what did the migration from Azure RBAC roles look like in practice? Did the import function bring roles across cleanly, or did you find gaps particularly around custom roles? For environments using Playbook Operator, Automation Contributor, or Workbook Contributor role assignments: how are you handling the fact those three roles are not yet in Unified RBAC and still require Azure portal management? Is the dual-management posture creating operational friction? For MSSPs evaluating the new Defender-native GDAP model against their existing Entra B2B setup: what factors are driving the decision either way at your scale? Writing this up as Part 3 of the migration series and the community experience here is directly useful for making sure the practitioner angle is grounded.SolvedHow to identify users handling SITs before purchasing Microsoft Purview licenses?
Posting this on behalf of a customer we are currently advising as a Microsoft Partner. The customer is in the evaluation stage of Microsoft Purview and has raised a licensing concern that we would like the community's guidance on. CUSTOMER'S CONCERN Purview licenses are user-based, meaning every user who directly or indirectly benefits from the service needs to be licensed. However, to determine which users actually handle sensitive data (and therefore require a license), tools like Content Explorer and Activity Explorer are needed — both of which require an E5 or equivalent license to access in the first place. This creates a chicken-and-egg problem for the customer: They need Purview to identify who handles sensitive data, but they need to know who handles sensitive data to decide how many Purview licenses to buy. QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMER 1. Is there an official Microsoft-supported mechanism or tool that allows customers to assess their SIT exposure and identify affected users before committing to a full Purview license purchase? 2. Is it viable for the customer to purchase a single license (1 qty) assigned to an admin account to perform a tenant-wide scoping and discovery exercise — and would that single license provide sufficient access to identify all users handling SITs across the tenant? 3. If the 90-day Purview E5 trial is the recommended path, does Content Explorer automatically scan and surface SIT matches across all users in the tenant without requiring any pre-configured DLP policies or sensitivity labels to be set up first? As a partner, we want to ensure we are guiding our customer toward the correct pre-purchase assessment approach before recommending a licensing SKU and quantity. Any guidance from the community or Microsoft would be greatly appreciated.SolvedPurview Graph API
Hello. I'm trying to find information on the Purview Graph API and it's endpoints. It looks like the endpoints aren't posted publicly and are listed within an admin console. Can someone help me with how to view the endpoints? Also, are the graph API endpoints capable of reading and creating assets into Purview?Solved81Views0likes1CommentUnable to use MS Graph DLP Api's to use with my Entra Registered App
In purview, I have set of policies in DLP, where I have registered to block the US SSN in the text contents and I have created different policies in all of them I have selected the available locations: Exchange email - All accounts SharePoint sites OneDrive accounts - All accounts Teams chat and channel messages - All accounts Devices - All accounts Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps On-premises repositories And selected action as block all, in all of them for the rule and enabled the rule (not in simulation mode) Now, I have the app registered in Entra and I try to use the following API's https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/api/userprotectionscopecontainer-compute?view=graph-rest-1.0 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/api/userdatasecurityandgovernance-processcontent?view=graph-rest-1.0&tabs=http But whenever I use the compute api I can see i'm only getting curl -X POST https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/users/5fd51e08-c5f1-4298-b79b-a357eaa414ff/dataSecurityAndGovernance/protectionScopes/compute\ -H 'Authorization: Bearer <ACCESS_TOKEN>'\ -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{ "activities": "uploadText,downloadText" }' { "@odata.context": "https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/$metadata#Collection(microsoft.graph.policyUserScope)", "value": [ { "activities": "uploadText,downloadText", "executionMode": "evaluateOffline", "locations": [ { "@odata.type": "#microsoft.graph.policyLocationApplication", "value": "b48106d9-1cdb-4d90-9485-fe2b6ee78acf" } ], "policyActions": [] } ] } My sample App's Id is showing up but always with `evaluateOffline` I don't know why it always gives 'evaluteOffline' and policyActions is always empty array Also, I can see my Entra registered app is showing up here in the value of the locations And when I use the processContent api , I always get modified in the response and nothing else like below: curl -XPOST https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/users/5fd51e08-c5f1-4298-b79b-a357eaa414ff/dataSecurityAndGovernance/processContent \ -H 'Authorization: <ACCESS TOKEN>'\ -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{ "contentToProcess": { "contentEntries": [ { "@odata.type": "microsoft.graph.processConversationMetadata", "identifier": "07785517-9081-4fe7-a9dc-85bcdf5e9075", "content": { "@odata.type": "microsoft.graph.textContent", "data": "Please process this application for John VSmith, his SSN is 121-98-1437 and credit card number is 4532667785213500" }, "name": "Postman message", "correlationId": "d63eafd2-e3a9-4c1a-b726-a2e9b9d9580d", "sequenceNumber": 0, "isTruncated": false, "createdDateTime": "2026-04-06T00:23:20", "modifiedDateTime": "2026-04-06T00:23:20" } ], "activityMetadata": { "activity": "uploadText" }, "deviceMetadata": { "operatingSystemSpecifications": { "operatingSystemPlatform": "Windows 11", "operatingSystemVersion": "10.0.26100.0" }, "ipAddress": "127.0.0.1" }, "protectedAppMetadata": { "name": "Postman", "version": "1.0", "applicationLocation": { "@odata.type": "microsoft.graph.policyLocationApplication", "value": "b48106d9-1cdb-4d90-9485-fe2b6ee78acf" } }, "integratedAppMetadata": { "name": "Postman", "version": "1.0" } } }' In the above request I have mentioned some sample US Security SSN, but the response I get is { "@odata.context": "https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/$metadata#microsoft.graph.processContentResponse", "protectionScopeState": "notModified", "policyActions": [], "processingErrors": [] } But Ideally I want to see whether I can get the content is valid or not, for example in the above request, it has SSN, so ideally I should get restrictAction or something right? Or is that evaluateInline is not available or something? Note that I have purchased E5 and assigned to the user who is trying this Also, whenever I choose to create a Policy in DLP , I got two options And Lets say I choose "Enterprise applications & devices", what happens is in the Locations, I'm seeing only these as the options: And If I choose the "Inline Traffic", i'm seeing only these options In Unmanaged, I'm seeing the following And in the Enforcement Options, I have the following : And in the "Advanced DLP rules" I'm seeing only these So, can you tell me the exact steps in the Purview suite, I couldn't where to mention the Entra registered App, I searched and I couldn't find one But in the compute endpoint, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/api/userprotectionscopecontainer-compute?view=graph-rest-1.0 I'm getting my app but only with "evaluateOffline" and with that ETag, If I use the processContent Api, its not giving anything except as I mentioned above in the postSolvedStuck looking up a watchlist value
Hiya, I get stuck working with watchlists sometimes. In this example, I'm wanting to focus on account activity from a list of UPNs. If I split the elements up, I get the individual results, but can't seem to pull it all together. ===================================================== In its entirety, the query returns zero results: let ServiceAccounts=(_GetWatchlist('ServiceAccounts_Monitoring'))| project SearchKey; let OpName = dynamic(['Reset password (self-service)','Reset User Password','Change user password','User reset password','User started password reset','Enable Account','Change password (self-service)','Update PasswordProfile','Self-service password reset flow activity progress']); AuditLogs | where OperationName has_any (OpName) | extend upn = TargetResources.[0].userPrincipalName | where upn in (ServiceAccounts) //<=This is where I think I'm wrong | project upn ===================================================== This line on its own, returns the user on the list: let ServiceAccounts=(_GetWatchlist('ServiceAccounts_Monitoring'))| project SearchKey; ===================================================== This section on its own, returns all the activity let OpName = dynamic(['Reset password (self-service)','Reset User Password','Change user password','User reset password','User started password reset','Enable Account','Change password (self-service)','Update PasswordProfile','Self-service password reset flow activity progress']); AuditLogs | where OperationName has_any (OpName) | extend upn = TargetResources.[0].userPrincipalName | where upn contains "username" //This is the name on the watchlistlist - so I know the activity exists) ==================================================== I'm doing something wrong when I'm trying to use the watchlist cache (I think) Any help\guidance or wisdom would be greatly appreciated! Many thanksSolved75Views0likes2CommentsAIP scanner not discovering sensitivity content
I am deploying the Purview Information Protection AIP scanner to scan an some of the on‑premises Windows file share and some network file shares that is in scope for compliance and data protection. However, the scanner is not discovering sensitive content within files stored on the share for a custom configured SIT. The custom SIT is tested and it properly works, but the data are being reported as no matches / no sensitive content found to discover the files that may be applied with sensitivity label. This issue is observed across one or more mapped repository paths and may be inconsistent by folder, file type or file size. I noticed the scanner appears “healthy” service is running, repository configured and schedules enabled.Solved102Views0likes2CommentsWhat caught you off guard when onboarding Sentinel to the Defender portal?
Following on from a previous discussion around what actually changes versus what doesn't in the Sentinel to Defender portal migration, I wanted to open a more specific conversation around the onboarding moment itself. One thing I have been writing about is how much happens automatically the moment you connect your workspace. The Defender XDR connector enables on its own, a bi-directional sync starts immediately, and if your Microsoft incident creation rules are still active across Defender for Endpoint, Identity, Office 365, Cloud Apps, and Entra ID Protection, you are going to see duplicate incidents before you have had a chance to do anything about it. That is one of the reasons I keep coming back to the inventory phase as the most underestimated part of this migration. Most of the painful post-migration experiences I hear about trace back to things that could have been caught in a pre-migration audit: analytics rules with incident title dependencies, automation conditions that assumed stable incident naming, RBAC gaps that only become visible when someone tries to access the data lake for the first time. A few things I would genuinely love to hear from practitioners who have been through this: - When you onboarded, what was the first thing that behaved unexpectedly that you had not anticipated from the documentation? - For those who have reviewed automation rules post-onboarding: did you find conditions relying on incident title matching that broke, and how did you remediate them? - For anyone managing access across multiple tenants: how are you currently handling the GDAP gap while Microsoft completes that capability? I am writing up a detailed pre-migration inventory framework covering all four areas and the community experience here is genuinely useful for making sure the practitioner angle covers the right ground. Happy to discuss anything above in more detail.SolvedRSAC 2026: What the Sentinel Playbook Generator actually means for SOC automation
RSAC 2026 brought a wave of Sentinel announcements, but the one I keep coming back to is the playbook generator. Not because it's the flashiest, but because it touches something that's been a real operational pain point for years: the gap between what SOC teams need to automate and what they can realistically build and maintain. I want to unpack what this actually changes from an operational perspective, because I think the implications go further than "you can now vibe-code a playbook." The problem it solves If you've built and maintained Logic Apps playbooks in Sentinel at any scale, you know the friction. You need a connector for every integration. If there isn't one, you're writing custom HTTP actions with authentication handling, pagination, error handling - all inside a visual designer that wasn't built for complex branching logic. Debugging is painful. Version control is an afterthought. And when something breaks at 2am, the person on call needs to understand both the Logic Apps runtime AND the security workflow to fix it. The result in most environments I've seen: teams build a handful of playbooks for the obvious use cases (isolate host, disable account, post to Teams) and then stop. The long tail of automation - the enrichment workflows, the cross-tool correlation, the conditional response chains - stays manual because building it is too expensive relative to the time saved. What's actually different now The playbook generator produces Python. Not Logic Apps JSON, not ARM templates - actual Python code with documentation and a visual flowchart. You describe the workflow in natural language, the system proposes a plan, asks clarifying questions, and then generates the code once you approve. The Integration Profile concept is where this gets interesting. Instead of relying on predefined connectors, you define a base URL, auth method, and credentials for any service - and the generator creates dynamic API calls against it. This means you can automate against ServiceNow, Jira, Slack, your internal CMDB, or any REST API without waiting for Microsoft or a partner to ship a connector. The embedded VS Code experience with plan mode and act mode is a deliberate design choice. Plan mode lets you iterate on the workflow before any code is generated. Act mode produces the implementation. You can then validate against real alerts and refine through conversation or direct code edits. This is a meaningful improvement over the "deploy and pray" cycle most of us have with Logic Apps. Where I see the real impact For environments running Sentinel at scale, the playbook generator could unlock the automation long tail I mentioned above. The workflows that were never worth the Logic Apps development effort might now be worth a 15-minute conversation with the generator. Think: enrichment chains that pull context from three different tools before deciding on a response path, or conditional escalation workflows that factor in asset criticality, time of day, and analyst availability. There's also an interesting angle for teams that operate across Microsoft and non-Microsoft tooling. If your SOC uses Sentinel for SIEM but has Palo Alto, CrowdStrike, or other vendors in the stack, the Integration Profile approach means you can build cross-vendor response playbooks without middleware. The questions I'd genuinely like to hear about A few things that aren't clear from the documentation and that I think matter for production use: Security Copilot dependency: The prerequisites require a Security Copilot workspace with EU or US capacity. Someone in the blog comments already flagged this as a potential blocker for organizations that have Sentinel but not Security Copilot. Is this a hard requirement going forward, or will there be a path for Sentinel-only customers? Code lifecycle management: The generated Python runs... where exactly? What's the execution runtime? How do you version control, test, and promote these playbooks across dev/staging/prod? Logic Apps had ARM templates and CI/CD patterns. What's the equivalent here? Integration Profile security: You're storing credentials for potentially every tool in your security stack inside these profiles. What's the credential storage model? Is this backed by Key Vault? How do you rotate credentials without breaking running playbooks? Debugging in production: When a generated playbook fails at 2am, what does the troubleshooting experience look like? Do you get structured logs, execution traces, retry telemetry? Or are you reading Python stack traces? Coexistence with Logic Apps: Most environments won't rip and replace overnight. What's the intended coexistence model between generated Python playbooks and existing Logic Apps automation rules? I'm genuinely optimistic about this direction. Moving from a low-code visual designer to an AI-assisted coding model with transparent, editable output feels like the right architectural bet for where SOC automation needs to go. But the operational details around lifecycle, security, and debugging will determine whether this becomes a production staple or stays a demo-only feature. Would be interested to hear from anyone who's been in the preview - what's the reality like compared to the pitch?SolvedIntegrate MS Purview with ServiceNow for Data Governance
Hi team, We are planning to leverage Microsoft Purview for core Data Governance (DG) capabilities and build the remaining DG functions on ServiceNow. We have two key questions as we design the target‑state architecture: 1. What is the recommended split of DG capabilities between Microsoft Purview and ServiceNow? 2. How should data be shared and synchronized between Purview and ServiceNow to keep governance processes aligned and up to date? Thanks!Solved308Views0likes3CommentsHow to remove/modify a sensitivity label for many SharePoint documents?
We would like to implement Purview sensitivity labels for our SharePoint sites. We would like to use auto labeling. Before we start the implementation, we would like to test some rollback scenario. How to remove/modify a sensitivity label for many SharePoint documents?Solved338Views0likes6CommentsThe Sentinel migration mental model question: what's actually retiring vs what isn't?
Something I keep seeing come up in conversations with other Sentinel operators lately, and I think it's worth surfacing here as a proper discussion. There's a consistent gap in how the migration to the Defender portal is being understood, and I think it's causing some teams to either over-scope their effort or under-prepare. The gap is this: the Microsoft comms have consistently told us *what* is happening (Azure portal experience retires March 31, 2027), but the question that actually drives migration planning, what is architecturally changing versus what is just moving to a different screen, doesn't have a clean answer anywhere in the community right now. The framing I've been working with, which I'd genuinely like to get other practitioners to poke holes in: What's retiring: The Azure portal UI experience for Sentinel operations. Incident management, analytics rule configuration, hunting, automation management: all of that moves to the Defender portal. What isn't changing: The Log Analytics workspace, all ingested data, your KQL rules, connectors, retention config, billing. None of that moves. The Defender XDR data lake is a separate Microsoft-managed layer, not a replacement for your workspace. Where it gets genuinely complex: MSSP/multi-tenant setups, teams with meaningful SOAR investments, and anyone who's built tooling against the SecurityInsights API for incident management (which now needs to shift to Microsoft Graph for unified incidents). The deadline extension from July 2026 to March 2027 tells its own story. Microsoft acknowledged that scale operators needed more time and capabilities. If you're in that camp, that extra runway is for proper planning, not deferral. A few questions I'd genuinely love to hear about from people who've started the migration or are actively scoping it: For those who've done the onboarding already: what was the thing that caught you most off guard that isn't well-documented? For anyone running Sentinel across multiple tenants: how are you approaching the GDAP gap while Microsoft completes that capability? Are you using B2B authentication as the interim path, or Azure Lighthouse for cross-workspace querying? I've been writing up a more detailed breakdown of this, covering the RBAC transition, automation review, and the MSSP-specific path, and the community discussion here is genuinely useful for making sure the practitioner perspective covers the right edge cases. Happy to share more context on anything above if useful.SolvedCloud Kerberos Trust with 1 AD and 6 M365 Tenants?
Hi, we would like to enable Cloud Kerberos Trust on hybrid joined devices ( via Entra connect sync) In our local AD wie have 6 OUs and users and devices from each OU have a seperate SCP to differnt M365 Tenants. I found this Article to configure the Cloud Kerberos Trust . Set-AzureADKerberosServer 1 2 The Set-AzureADKerberosServer PowerShell cmdlet is used to configure a Microsoft Entra (formerly Azure AD) Kerberos server object. This enables seamless Single Sign-On (SSO) for on-premises resources using modern authentication methods like FIDO2 security keys or Windows Hello for Business. Steps to Configure the Kerberos Server 1. Prerequisites Ensure your environment meets the following: Devices must run Windows 10 version 2004 or later. Domain Controllers must run Windows Server 2016 or later. Install the AzureADHybridAuthenticationManagement module: [Net.ServicePointManager]::SecurityProtocol = [Net.ServicePointManager]::SecurityProtocol -bor [Net.SecurityProtocolType]::Tls12 Install-Module -Name AzureADHybridAuthenticationManagement -AllowClobber 2. Create the Kerberos Server Object Run the following PowerShell commands to create and publish the Kerberos server object: Prompt for All Credentials: $domain = $env:USERDNSDOMAIN $cloudCred = Get-Credential -Message 'Enter Azure AD Hybrid Identity Administrator credentials' $domainCred = Get-Credential -Message 'Enter Domain Admin credentials' Set-AzureADKerberosServer -Domain $domain -CloudCredential $cloudCred -DomainCredential $domainCred As I understand the process, a object is created in local AD when running Set-AzureADKerberosServer What happens, if I run the command multiple times, for each OU/Tenant. Does this ovveride the object, or does it create a new objects?SolvedMicrosoft purview endpoint DLP Printing
Hello All, We can monitor print activities in Microsoft purview endpoint DLP, If someone print sensitive data based on the conditions defined in DLP it will take action on printing. I want to know how the Purview endpoint DLP intercepts the printing and avoid data exfiltration. Does it stop before it reaches the spooler? Please provide technical insights on this doubt. Thank you.Solved398Views0likes4CommentsAuto-labelling does not support content marking
We’ve hit a limitation with service-side auto-labeling in Purview: when a sensitivity label is applied by an auto-labeling policy, any configured visual markings (headers, footers, watermarks) are not written into the document. A further complication is that there is a requirement which includes a custom script that applies sensitivity labels at the folder level and relies on the service-side engine to cascade those labels down to the folder's contents. This means automation isn't just a 'nice to have' for scale — it is a core dependency of our labeling architecture. The inability to also apply visual markings through this same automated path creates a direct gap in our compliance posture and the MS solution. For environments where visible classification is mandated by regulation, this effectively means we can’t rely on service-side auto-labeling alone, which is a big constraint. I’d really appreciate: Any confirmed best practices/workarounds others are using, and Input from the product team on whether server-side visual markings tied to auto-labeling are being considered / and what to consider meeting this requirement as an alternativeSolvedPriority between CIDR and FQDN rules in Microsoft Entra Private Access (GSA)
Hello Question about prioritization between CIDR and FQDN rules in Microsoft Entra Private Access (GSA) Question: Hello everyone, I have a question about how rules are prioritized in Microsoft Entra Private Access (Global Secure Access). In my environment, I configured the following: I created an Enterprise Application using a broad CIDR range (10.10.0.0/16) to represent the entire data center. Within the same environment, I created other Enterprise Applications using specific FQDNs ( app01.company.local, app02.company.local) with specific ports. All rules are in the same Forwarding Profile. I noticed that in the GSA client rules tab there is a “Priority” field, and apparently the rules are evaluated from top to bottom. My question is: When there is an overlap between a broad CIDR rule and a more specific FQDN-based rule, which one takes precedence? Is there some internal technical criterion (DNS resolution first, longest prefix match,), or is the evaluation purely based on the order displayed? Is there a risk that the CIDR rule will capture traffic before the FQDN rule and impact granular access control? I want to make sure my architecture is correct before expanding its use to production. Could someone clarify the actual technical behavior of this prioritization?Solved183Views0likes3CommentsClarification on UEBA Behaviors Layer Support for Zscaler and Fortinet Logs
I would like to confirm whether the new UEBA Behaviors Layer in Microsoft Sentinel currently supports generating behavior insights for Zscaler and Fortinet log sources. Based on the documentation, the preview version of the Behaviors Layer only supports specific vendors under CommonSecurityLog (CyberArk Vault and Palo Alto Threats), AWS CloudTrail services, and GCP Audit Logs. Since Zscaler and Fortinet are not listed among the supported vendors, I want to verify: Does the UEBA Behaviors Layer generate behavior records for Zscaler and Fortinet logs, or are these vendors currently unsupported for behavior generation? As logs from Zscaler and Fortinet will also be get ingested in CommonSecurityLog table only.Solved195Views0likes1CommentClassification on DataBricks
Hello everyone, I would like to request an updated confirmation regarding the correct functioning of custom classification for Databricks Unity Catalog data sources. Here is my current setup: The data source is active. Source scanning is working correctly. I created the custom classification in “Annotation management / Classifications”. I created and successfully tested the regular expression under “Annotation management / Classification Rules”. I generated the Custom Scan Rule Set in “Source management / Scan Rule Sets”, associated to Databricks and selecting the custom rule. However, when running the scan on Databricks: I do not find any option to select my Scan Rule Set (for another source like Teradata, this option is visible). No classification findings are generated based on my custom rule. Other tests do produce findings (system-generated). Does anyone have insights on what I should verify? Or is this custom classification functionality not supported for Databricks?Solved
Events
Learn how Microsoft Entra Conditional Access, our Microsoft Zero Trust policy engine, protects access for your workforce and for agents by enforcing real‑time adaptive access policies that continuous...
Monday, Jun 08, 2026, 09:00 AM PDTOnline
0likes
35Attendees
1Comment