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
How Microsoft Security is responsibly bringing agentic vulnerability discovery to customers with Defender class security, sovereignty, compliance, and operational governance.
Jul 30, 202638Views
0likes
0Comments
Why the platform around the model is the real enterprise differentiator
Enterprise AI has reached a turning point. Beyond answering questions, it can now reason over business context, retrieve know...
Jul 29, 2026240Views
0likes
0Comments
Beginning August 1, the final phase of Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence (MDTI) convergence will be generally available in the Defender portal, giving customers real-time Microsoft threat intell...
Jul 29, 2026935Views
2likes
0Comments
3 MIN READ
Organizations are rapidly adopting AI agents to automate workflows, access enterprise data, invoke tools, and take actions on behalf of users. This autonomy creates a fundamentally new security chall...
Jul 27, 2026551Views
1like
0Comments
Recent Discussions
Azure Databricks Unity Catalog connector - Metadata
For the Azure Databricks Unity Catalog connector, I believe Microsoft Purview scans and collects the following technical metadata: Table name View name Column names Catalog name Schema name Metastore information Table and column descriptions from Databricks comments Unity Catalog tags, which are stored within Purview properties Table, view and column lineage where supported Storage location information may also appear within the technical properties of the asset, depending on the Databricks object. However, Microsoft does not appear to clearly document storage location as guaranteed metadata from every scan. Can anybody explain this further or confirm whether they have seen different behaviour? Where the metadata is stored or managed in Azure Databricks Metadata collected by Microsoft Purview Where it is stored or managed in Azure Databricks Metastore Unity Catalog Metastore Catalog name Unity Catalog Schema name Unity Catalog Schema Table name Unity Catalog Table metadata View name Unity Catalog View metadata Column names Table schema in Unity Catalog Table description Unity Catalog Table Comment Column description Unity Catalog Column Comment Unity Catalog tags Tags applied to Unity Catalog objects such as tables, views and columns Table and column lineage Unity Catalog lineage metadata and system lineage tables Storage location Table metadata where applicable, particularly for external tables I believe table and column descriptions are stored in Databricks as comments against the Unity Catalog object. These comments can then be scanned into Microsoft Purview and displayed as descriptions. The Microsoft documentation appears clearer for column comments than it does for table comments, so I am planning to test this myself. Does anybody have practical experience of this behaviour? Unity Catalog tags Tags are stored as metadata against Unity Catalog securable objects. Tag information can also be queried through Unity Catalog INFORMATION_SCHEMA, including TABLE_TAGS and the corresponding column tag metadata. The core Unity Catalog structure is: Unity Catalog Metastore Catalog Schema Table or View Columns Additional metadata can include: Comments Tags Lineage Storage location where applicable What Microsoft currently documents as collected by the Microsoft Purview Azure Databricks Unity Catalog connector Databricks Unity Catalog metadata Collected into Purview? Notes Metastore Yes Represented in the Purview hierarchy Catalog name Yes Unity Catalog catalog Schema name Yes Unity Catalog schema Table name Yes Creates/discovers the table data asset View name Yes Views are supported Column names Yes Schema/column metadata is collected Table comment / description Yes Your observation is correct: Databricks table comments/descriptions can appear as the Purview Data Asset description Column comments / descriptions Yes Microsoft explicitly states that Databricks column comments are displayed as column descriptions in Purview Unity Catalog tags Yes Microsoft explicitly states that Unity Catalog tags are scanned into Purview Properties Table/view lineage Yes, subject to prerequisites Extracted from Unity Catalog system lineage tables Column lineage Yes, subject to prerequisites Supported, although there are lineage limitations External tables Metadata yes External table metadata is supported; lineage for external tables is not supported Microsoft's connector documentation currently lists the following core hierarchy and metadata as being extracted by the scan: Metastore Catalogs Schemas Tables and Columns Views and Columns Unity Catalog Tags Data Asset descriptions This behaviour appears to be genuine. Microsoft specifically documents that a Databricks column comment can be used as the description displayed in Microsoft Purview. Microsoft also notes that setting a Databricks table column comment to an empty string prevents the column description from being displayed in Purview. For practical purposes, the relationship is: Databricks comment or description Purview scan Microsoft Purview description This is explicitly documented for column comments. Table comments also appear to be surfaced as the Data Asset description through the connector, based on observed behaviour, although Microsoft's documentation is less explicit about this. Has anybody seen this working consistently for table descriptions? Unity Catalog tags Unity Catalog tags are supported by the current connector. Microsoft documentation states that tags from Unity Catalog are extracted during scanning and displayed within Microsoft Purview Properties. There is a documented exception where tags are not supported when the scan uses the Kubernetes Self-hosted Integration Runtime option. That exception should not apply where Kubernetes SHIR is not being used. Storage location The official connector documentation clearly documents the Unity Catalog hierarchy and the metadata listed above. However, it does not appear to explicitly list the table storage location or storage path as a guaranteed metadata element within the supported metadata capabilities. Storage location information may therefore appear for some Databricks objects, particularly external tables, but I would not currently treat it as guaranteed metadata from every Purview Unity Catalog scan without further testing. My current understanding is that a Microsoft Purview scan of Azure Databricks Unity Catalog can collect: Metastore Catalog Schema Table View Columns Table descriptions or comments Column descriptions or comments Unity Catalog tags Table and view lineage where supported Column lineage where supported External table metadata Storage location may also be visible where applicable, but this appears less clearly documented as a guaranteed field? Does this sound correct based on other people's experience of Microsoft Purview scans of Azure Databricks Unity Catalog data sources?Solved39Views0likes1CommentHow can we identify the size of a Microsoft Purview DLP policy and individual DLP rules?
Hello Microsoft Community, According to the Microsoft Purview DLP policy reference, the following platform limits apply: Maximum size of a DLP policy: 100 KB Maximum size of an individual DLP rule: 100 KB or 102,400 characters Maximum number of rules within a policy: Limited by the overall policy size I would like to understand how these limits are calculated and how administrators can monitor the current size of an existing DLP policy or rule. Could someone please clarify the following? What exactly is included when calculating the 100 KB DLP policy size? Does the policy size include only policy-level configuration, such as locations, users, groups, administrative units, inclusions and exclusions, or does it also include the combined definitions of all rules associated with the policy? What exactly is included in the 100 KB individual rule size? Sensitive information types and their GUIDs Condition groups Instance-count and confidence-level configurations Exceptions Endpoint DLP restrictions User notifications and policy-tip messages Override options Alert and incident-report settings Recipient lists Advanced rule configuration For example, does it include: The documentation describes the rule limit as “100 KB (102,400 characters).” Is the limit based on: The number of characters The UTF-8 or Unicode byte size The serialized JSON/XML representation An internally generated policy payload Is there a supported method in the Microsoft Purview portal, Security & Compliance PowerShell, Microsoft Graph, or another API to display the current size of: A DLP policy Each DLP rule The remaining available policy capacity Can the size be estimated by exporting the output from Get-DlpCompliancePolicy and Get-DlpComplianceRule? If so, which properties should be included in the calculation, and what encoding or serialization format should be used? Does the 100 KB policy limit represent the combined size of the policy and all its rules, or are the policy and rule limits evaluated independently? What error or warning is generated when a policy or rule approaches or exceeds the limit? Is there any notification before the limit is reached? We are designing global Microsoft Purview DLP policies containing multiple Sensitive Information Types, condition groups and workload-specific rules. We need a reliable method to measure policy and rule sizes during design and ongoing policy governance. Any official guidance, supported script, API property, or calculation method would be appreciated.SolvedIs system-preferred first factor overriding Single Sign-On?
My colleagues and I have noticed that we've started being prompted to perform a Windows Hello for Business authentication when we use Edge to access web resources that are authenticated with Entra. Previously, this authentication occurred silently through Single Sign-On with the PRT, per Understanding Primary Refresh Token (PRT) in Microsoft Entra ID - Microsoft Entra ID | Microsoft Learn. While investigating what might have caused this change in behavior, I found MC1411574 in the M365 Message Center, which talks about a change to system-preferred authentication that started rolling out in late June 2026, whereby it now applies to the first factor as well as multi-factor authentication. I excluded myself from system-preferred authentication and sure enough, that seems to have restored the previous behavior. Is it intended that this change to system-preferred authentication will disable SSO, or do we have something misconfigured?Solved74Views0likes3CommentsCustom Detection Rules as Code in Sentinel Repositories: What Your Pipeline Owns Now
While going through the June Sentinel updates I almost scrolled past this one, and I think that would have been a mistake: custom detection rules can now be managed as code in Sentinel Repositories, the same way analytics rules, playbooks, parsers and workbooks already are. You connect a GitHub or Azure DevOps repo, enable the Custom Detection Rules content type, and rules are synced on every commit. There is also a standalone path via the Bicep CLI for teams running their own pipelines. The feature is in preview per the Learn documentation, and in my view it matters more than the low-key rollout suggests. Microsoft has been positioning custom detections as the unified experience for building rules over both Defender XDR and Sentinel data since late 2025. If custom detections are becoming the primary detection type, then this preview is the moment your primary detection type becomes pipeline-managed. I spent some time in the documentation to understand what that actually means, and there is one implication I have not seen anyone talk about yet. How it works Custom detection rules use a different mechanism than every other content type in Repositories. Analytics rules deploy as Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/providers/alertRules resources, with the Microsoft.SecurityInsights provider sitting in the resource name. Custom detection rules instead use a dedicated Bicep extension. You declare it in a `bicepconfig.json` at the repo root: { "extensions": { "MicrosoftSecurity": "br:mcr.microsoft.com/bicep/extensions/microsoftsecurity:v1.0.1" } } The rule itself is a `Microsoft.Security/detectionRules` resource. This is the structure from the Microsoft documentation: extension MicrosoftSecurity resource detectionRule 'Microsoft.Security/detectionRules@2026-06-01-preview' = { id: 'custom-rule-id' displayName: 'Custom Rule Display Name' status: 'enabled' queryCondition: { queryText: 'DeviceProcessEvents | take 10 | project DeviceId, Timestamp, FileName' } schedule: { frequency: 'PT1H' } detectionAction: { alertTemplate: { title: '<ruleTitle>' description: 'Custom detection rule' severity: 'medium' tactics: [ { tactic: 'Execution' techniques: [ { technique: 'T1059' } ] } ] entityMappings: { hosts: [ { id: 'h' deviceIdColumn: 'DeviceId' } ] } } } } Rules are uniquely identified by the `id` property, which you provide in the template. Deployment is either the automatic Repositories sync or a plain `az deployment group create` against a resource group. That last part is what I like most about the design: any CI/CD system that can run Azure CLI can ship these rules. Prerequisites beyond the standard Repositories setup: a Microsoft 365 E5 license or equivalent that includes Defender XDR, and a Sentinel workspace onboarded to the Defender portal. Two preview limitations are documented: custom frequency for Sentinel-only data is not supported yet, and neither are custom details. The part that made me stop reading and think Repositories are designed as the single source of truth. The documentation is explicit that content in your repo overwrites changes made through the portal. That is the whole point of the feature, and for analytics rules it has been mostly harmless. For custom detections I see a wrinkle. When Microsoft renames tables or columns in the advanced hunting schema, those naming changes are applied automatically to queries saved in Microsoft Defender, including the queries inside custom detection rules. The docs are equally explicit that this automatic migration does not cover queries run via API or saved anywhere outside Defender. A Git repo is outside Defender. Play that forward with a current example. The `AIAgentsInfo` table stopped being accessible on July 1, 2026, replaced by the unified `AgentsInfo` table with a changed column set. A portal-managed custom detection referencing the old table got migrated automatically. The same rule managed as code did not, because the authoritative copy of the query now lives in your repo, and nothing in the sync path rewrites your Bicep files. Your repo is now the thing standing between Microsoft's server-side fix and your production detection. Either the sync starts failing, or the stale query gets reasserted over the migrated rule. The documentation does not say which of the two happens, and honestly, neither is good. No alert fires for either. And if smart deployments, which skip files that have not changed since the last deployment, apply to this content type the same way they do to the rest of Repositories, it gets slightly worse in a way I find almost funny: a stale rule would sit untouched until someone happens to edit it. What I would put in front of the merge To be clear, none of this is an argument against the feature. I want detections in Git, and I suspect most people reading this do too. It is an argument that moving custom detections into a repo moves the schema lifecycle responsibility into your review process, because the portal safety net explicitly does not reach into source control. Concretely, a PR touching detection content should be checked for references to deprecated or transitioning advanced hunting tables, for the result columns the custom detection docs recommend (`Timestamp` or `TimeGenerated`, plus `DeviceId` or `DeviceName` for Defender for Endpoint tables, plus `Timestamp` and `ReportId` from the same event for the other Defender tables), and for complete entity mappings, since entities drive how alerts group into incidents. One more detail from the custom detection docs that I suspect will trip up people coming from analytics rules, because it goes against years of muscle memory: avoid filtering on `Timestamp` or `TimeGenerated` in the query itself. The service prefilters data based on the detection lookback using ingestion time. The scheduled-analytics-rule reflex of always pinning a time window works against you here. Whether you enforce these checks with a homegrown script or a linting step in the pipeline matters less than doing it before merge rather than discovering it in the alert queue. The deployment mechanics are now solved. The content governance is yours. Full transparency: I have worked through the documentation and the sample content, but I have not yet run a retired-table scenario through the sync myself. So if you are testing the preview, I would genuinely like to hear how it behaves in your environment when a repo-managed rule references a table like `AIAgentsInfo`. That failure mode is the one I want to understand before this reaches GA. Beyond that specific case, I am curious where you all stand: are you moving custom detections into Git now, or waiting for GA? And if you already run detections as code for analytics rules, what checks have earned a permanent place in your PR pipeline? My used references: Manage content as code with Microsoft Sentinel repositories: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sentinel/ci-cd-custom-content Advanced hunting schema naming changes: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-xdr/advanced-hunting-schema-changes Create custom detection rules in Microsoft Defender XDR: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-xdr/custom-detection-rules Custom detections as the unified detection experience: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-defender-threat-protection/custom-detections-are-now-the-unified-experience-for-creating/ba-p/4463875SolvedUsing Cloud sync to sync AD to existing Entra Accounts
I want to sync in premise AD accounts with existing Entra accounts. The email on both accounts is the same, and I added the Entra/o365 suffix to the domain and set the UPN to that suffix, making both UPN(s) the same. It did not sync. It created a NEW Entra account. I thought I covered all my bases. How can I get on premise AD and existing Entra accounts to sync? thank youSolvedPurview HR connector
Hi, I am trying to upload a csv file with resigning users to Purview through the HR connector, following the steps from this documentation (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/import-hr-data). Have set up a power automate flow to create a bearer token and upload the csv file using a POST API to "https://webhook.ingestion.office.com/api/signals" as shown in the Github sample solution and script. However, I run into the following error: "No HTTP resource was found that matches the request URI 'https://40.75.149.147/api/signals'. The IP seems to change each time I make the API call. Is the URI correct or should I be using another specific URI? Any help would be greatly appreaciated. Thanks in advance!Solved84Views0likes1CommentUnlabelled Files
I have a requirement to produce a report which contains the number of files in M365 SharePoint & OneDrive which do not have a sensitivity label applied. I am struggling to find a sensible approach to this and I am fairly certain this is not possible in Purview unless I have missed something. If anyone can help it would be appreciated. ThanksSolvedPasskey Sign in Method (Entra Account) missing in Security
Hi Microsoft Support we enable FIDO2 passkey in entraId. However, when we try to register the FIDO2 passkey on myaccount.microsoft.com -> Security -> Add a Sign-in Method -> Passkey is missing. Attached screenshot. For a personal account, the Passkey method is available at the same location, even though interface is slightly different than an Entra Id account. Attached screenshot for the personal account as well. Kindly guide us on where to register the passkey or if we need to enable certain settings in EntraId for the passkey to show up in sign-in methods. We have Auth Strengths enabled in EntraId for the particular user in question and this reflects in the Device Lockscreen during login on Entra Registred Device. Thanks ChandraSolvedData System Wide Lineage via API Request
I'm struggling with finding a solution. My goal is to identify all existing lineage relationships for any data objects within a specific data system they belong to. I've been using the Purview REST API (Datamap Dataplane) but I haven't found an endpoint returning data system side lineage/relationships. For my scenario I have a Databricks metastore and need to know the existing lineage relationships of those data objects within Purview so I can purge them out when we are doing our scheduled lineage refresh.Solved147Views1like3Commentspasskeys 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, BanuMuraliSolvedUnified Catalog Self-serve analytics integration
I'm hoping someone has gone through the process of setting up the Self-serve analytics in the Unified Catalog settings to push the Unified Catalog information down to a Fabric Lakehouse. I created a Workspace, and then created a lakehouse in this workspace, and created a folder under the files section in the lakehouse. I used the MSI that is shown in Purview when you configure the storage for the connection and granted it contriubutor access to the Workspace. I then went into Purview, settings for Unified Catalog, and in the solution integrations, set up Fabric storage and provided the URL to the File folder I set up on the lakehouse. I tested the connection and it tested successfully. When I set up the scheduler to run, I received the following: The blacked out is the Workspace ID. I'm trying to understand what I'm missing, I'm assuming write permissions are missing somewhere, but I'm not sure. Any assistance is appreciated.Solved127Views0likes4CommentsSentinel 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?Solved141Views0likes1CommentUnable 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 thanksSolved97Views0likes2CommentsAIP 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.Solved143Views1like2CommentsWhat 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.Solved