Pinned Posts
Forum Widgets
Latest Discussions
How 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.
Acessos pastas SharePoint / SharePoint folder access
É possível identificar somente acessos a pastas do SharePoint? Algumas informações internas da companhia foram vazadas e precisamos saber quem acessou a pastas do Sharepoint onde estavam essas informações. Outra situação, é que conseguimos identificar que nessa mesma pasta alguns arquivos foram baixados, mas no relatório o usuário aparece "app@sharepoint". Alguém saberia explicar? It is possible to identify access to SharePoint folders? Some of the company's international information was leaked, and we need to know who accessed the SharePoint folders containing that data. Another issue is that we identified files being downloaded from that same folder, but the user appears as "app@sharepoint". Could anyone explain this?
Purview archive shipped. Delete policy is still armed.
Roadmap 561208 went GA over the last few weeks with very little noise. Purview retention policies in Data Lifecycle Management can now move inactive OneDrive and SharePoint content into Microsoft 365 Archive. The framing is storage cost. I want to talk about something else, because I think there's a gap here that's going to catch people out, and I'd like to know whether anyone else is seeing it. Archive is a storage tier. It is not a retention state. An archived SharePoint site stays fully in scope of every retention policy that applied to it while it was active. Nothing about archiving protects content. Now layer that onto conflict resolution. Retention beats deletion, so a site policy set to delete after 2 years goes dormant while a label is retaining the item. Dormant, not cancelled. So picture this: A file carries a retention label with a 4-year retention period. The site it lives on has a delete-after-2-years retention policy. The label's end-of-retention action is deactivate retention settings. For four years, everything looks correct. The label holds. The delete policy sits there doing nothing. Then the label reaches end of retention and deactivates. The shield is gone. The delete instruction wakes up, unopposed, two years overdue, and the file goes. Not to archive. Just gone. The reflex here is "explicit wins over implicit." It doesn't apply. That principle only arbitrates between competing delete actions. A label that expires with no delete action of its own brings nothing to the contest. There is no explicit action to outrank the policy with. "Do nothing" sounds like a safe default. It's actually a decision to stop defending the file. Right now you cannot set a label to archive at end of retention. The options are deactivate, delete automatically, disposition review, or hand it to a Power Automate flow. Archive isn't on the list. Microsoft shipped archive at the policy level and left the label level to flows and webhooks. That reads to me like they know the gap exists and haven't decided how to close it. And here's my suspicion about why this shipped now. Archived content is excluded from Copilot indexing. That's Microsoft's own framing in the message center post. Which suggests this feature is going to evolve on Copilot's roadmap rather than records management's. The moment "archive" becomes the button you press to clean up Copilot's answers, people will press it constantly, at scale, without once checking what policy is sitting underneath. Meanwhile Exchange has nothing. Purview retention still can't move mail into an archive mailbox, and we're all still running MRM tags next to Purview years after being told MRM was legacy. Has anyone hit the deactivate-into-delete scenario in a live tenant, or is this still theoretical? And does anyone read the label-level gap differently than I do? Genuinely open to being told I've got this wrong.
Published Glossary Terms Not Appearing When Editing Microsoft Purview Data Assets
Help and Support for All Problem Published glossary terms were not available for selection when editing Data Map assets in Microsoft Purview. Although the glossary terms had been created and published within Governance Domains, and the user had the appropriate permissions, the Glossary Terms dropdown remained empty. This prevented glossary terms from being assigned to data assets or individual columns. Symptoms The following behaviour was observed: Published glossary terms existed within Governance Domains in the Unified Catalog. User permissions had been verified and were correctly configured. The Glossary Terms field was visible when editing a Data Map asset. The dropdown opened successfully but did not display any available glossary terms. Glossary terms could not be associated with data assets or columns. Root Cause The issue occurred because Asset Curation had not been enabled in Microsoft Purview. Although glossary terms had been created and published within Governance Domains in the Unified Catalog, the Data Map asset curation experience had not been configured to use Unified Catalog glossary terms. As a result, the Glossary Terms field was displayed when editing an asset, but no terms were available for selection. Microsoft Purview requires Asset Curation to be enabled and configured before Unified Catalog glossary terms can be assigned to Data Map assets and columns. Resolution The following steps resolved the issue: Confirmed that no Classic Glossaries, Classic Glossary Terms or Term Templates existed in the Purview account. Enabled Asset Curation (Preview). Configured Microsoft Purview to use Unified Catalog Glossary Terms. Completed the Asset Curation configuration wizard. Edited a Data Map asset and verified that published glossary terms were now displayed. Successfully assigned glossary terms to both Data Map assets and individual columns. Because no Classic Glossary content existed, there was no glossary content that required migration. Outcome After Asset Curation was enabled and configured, published Unified Catalog glossary terms became available in the Glossary Terms dropdown when editing Data Map assets. Glossary terms could then be successfully assigned to both assets and columns. Key Takeaway Creating and publishing glossary terms within Governance Domains is not sufficient on its own. To use Unified Catalog glossary terms when curating Data Map assets and columns, Asset Curation must also be enabled and configured to use Unified Catalog Glossary Terms.
Missing activity names from Audit Log documentation
We all know that the documentation team is A-tier and amazing at what they do and isn't just copy and pasting marketing materials. But I've noticed that some really obscure functionalities like 'user registered a device' or 'user joined a device' or about half the other things a user can do, are not documented on this list of activity names. The ironically named 'friendly' list doesn't work. So I actually can't audit the unfamiliar devices under our tenants? It appears that this KB is actually locked down, so more can't be added when they are discovered. How are we supposed to use the tool Microsoft has forced everyone towards, when the Documentation team is too bad to document anything, so they outsource it to the community (Microsoft victims), but then they lock down contributions (presumably, because they have some metric that keeps them from being useful - atleast based on my interactions with them). Documentation seems to be a massive fail on Microsoft's part. How did it get this way? Is there a reliable way of finding the activity name - one that ISN'T some preview Graph endpoint that I can't teach my techs to use, because I'm not teaching my techs to program?Microsoft Purview Unified Catalog; Governance Domains and Business Concepts
I've been using the attached artefacts for some time to help explain the knowledge exchange aspects of Microsoft Purview Unified Catalog, particularly how Governance Domains and Business Concepts work together to provide business context, ownership, stewardship and operational insights. They have been useful in workshops with data architects, governance professionals, product owners and business stakeholders to demonstrate how concepts fit together within a governance domain and contribute towards trusted information and better business outcomes. I'm interested in hearing from the wider Purview community: Do these artefacts accurately represent the intent and capabilities of Governance Domains within Microsoft Purview? Are there any concepts that you feel are missing, over-emphasised, or could be represented more clearly? How are others explaining Governance Domains and Business Concepts to non-technical stakeholders? Any feedback, suggestions, or alternative approaches would be greatly appreciated. I'm always looking to refine these materials and make them more useful for organisations adopting Purview Unified Catalog. #MicrosoftPurview #DataGovernance #DataManagement #Metadata #DataProducts #MicrosoftData #Purview #DataArchitecture #UnifiedCatalog
Struggling with running DQ Scans (Long queuing and Retry Count Error Issues)
Hi everyone, I have been exploring Microsoft Purview Data Quality quite extensively. At this point, I have configured more than 4,000 data quality rules across more than 10 Microsoft Fabric capacities, each with a minimum capacity of F16. Fabric is the source for all assets registered in Purview. I have identified several issues with the product, but the two that are currently impacting me the most are the following: DQ scans failing with a generic error“Max Retry Count Reached. Ending Workflow. Current Task HandleError”The challenge is that the error message does not identify which rule is causing the failure. As a result, I have to troubleshoot manually by disabling groups of rules, rerunning the scans, and repeating the process until I find the problematic rule. This trial-and-error approach is very time-consuming, especially at this scale. This seems to be caused by issues in some of the DQ rules, even though all rules are marked as “Good to go” in Purview. When running Data Quality scans, I often receive the following error: DQ scans remain queued for a long timeI am not sure why this happens or what resource, orchestration, or scheduling constraint is causing the delay. Whenever I run these DQ scans, they remain in a Queued state for at least 10 minutes, even when there is nothing running on the Fabric capacities. Has anyone experienced similar behavior with Purview Data Quality at this scale? Specifically, I would appreciate any guidance on: How to identify which DQ rule is causing a scan failure Why scans remain queued even when Fabric capacity appears to be idle Whether there are known limitations or best practices for running thousands of DQ rules in Purview Thank you.
Issue Using Built in Trainable Classifiers in Auto Labelling Policies - Purview
Over the last few days, I have run into issue while configuring Auto labelling policies in Purview specifically when using built in classifiers for eg: Budget, Agreements These classifiers are parr of ready to use. They have been working well for us until recently but now saving an auto labelling rule that includes any of Trainable classifiers getting client side error: 'Could not find rule pack associated with sensitive information type' this is unexpected because: same classifiers eg: Budget worked perfectly just few weeks ago. No changes have made to roll, permissions on our side. Still not sure why showing issue now. Kindly request you, help me with root cause of the cause. Please feel free to post it comments if someone faced same issue in using trainable classifiers in auto labelling policies. Thanks in advance. Regards, BanuMurali
