Recent Blogs
Check out monthly news for the rest of the MTP suite here!
What's new in Defender for Cloud?
Now in public preview, Defender for Cloud provides threat protection for AI agents built with Foundr...
Mar 03, 2026
If you’ve been using Defender for Storage malware scanning with ADLS Gen2 storage accounts that have Hierarchical Namespace (HNS), you probably know that the scan happens, but the result isn’t easy t...
Mar 03, 2026
Onboarding all devices in your estate is paramount for strong security posture. In fact, Microsoft Threat Intelligence research shows that in the majority of ransomware attacks, the spreader machine ...
Mar 02, 2026
5 MIN READ
Microsoft Defender Monthly news - March 2026 Edition
This is our monthly "What's new" blog post, summarizing product updates and various new assets we released over the past month across our Defen...
Mar 02, 2026Recent Discussions
Email Entity - Preview Email
Hello all, I want to ask if there is a way to monitor and be alerted when someone is viewing an email from the email entity page by clicking "Email Preview". I couldn't find any documentation, and the action is not registered in any audit logs. Maybe I am missing something so please feel free to share some info regarding this issue since I believe it can have a major impact if a disgruntled security employee chooses to leak info from private emails. Nick
Auto-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 alternative
Microsoft 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.Microsoft Defender for Endpoint for Vulnerability Management and Reporting
Hi All, We’re currently using Rapid7 for vulnerability management and reporting, but we’re actively evaluating the possibility of moving to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint going forward. We’d like to better understand how to properly leverage Defender for Endpoint for vulnerability management and reporting. If this means using custom reports—such as building dashboards in Power BI—we’re definitely open to that approach. At a high level, we’re looking for guidance on best practices and the right direction to meet the following requirements: Ongoing vulnerability tracking and remediation Clearer reporting on vulnerability trends and areas needing improvement Breakdown of vulnerabilities by severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low), grouped by aging buckets (e.g., 30, 60, 90 days) Defender Secure Score reporting over time (30, 60, and 90-day views) Visibility into non-compliant devices in Intune, including devices in grace period and PCs that have checked in within the last 14 days Any recommendations, examples, or pointers to documentation or reporting approaches would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, DilanHow do I import Purview Unified Audit Log data related to the use of the Audit Log into Sentinel?
Dear Community, I would like to implement the following scenario on an environment with Microsoft 365 E5 licenses: Scenario: I want to import audit activities into an Azure Log Analytics workspace linked to Sentinel to generate alerts/incidents as soon as a search is performed in the Microsoft 365 Purview Unified Audit Log (primarily for IRM purposes). Challenge: Neither the "Microsoft 365" connector, nor the "Defender XDR" or "Purview" (which appear to be exclusively Azure Purview) connectors are importing the necessary data. Question: Which connector do I have to use in order to obtain Purview Unified Audit Log activities about the use of the Purview Unified Audit Log so that I can identify... ...which user conducted when an audit log search and with what kind of search query. Thank you!
Issues blocking DeepSeek
Hi all, I am investigating DeepSeek usage in our Microsoft security environment and have found inconsistent behaviour between Defender for Cloud Apps, Defender for Endpoint, and IOC controls. I am hoping to understand if others have seen the same. Environment Full Microsoft security and management suite What we are seeing Defender for Cloud Apps DeepSeek is classified as an Unsanctioned app Cloud Discovery shows ongoing traffic and active usage Multiple successful sessions and data activity visible Defender for Endpoint Indicators DeepSeek domains and URIs have been added as Indicators with Block action Indicators show as successfully applied Advanced Hunting and Device Timeline Multiple executable processes are initiating connections to DeepSeek domains Examples include Edge, Chrome, and other executables making outbound HTTPS connections Connection status is a mix of Successful and Unsuccessful No block events recorded Settings Network Protection enabled in block mode Web Content Filtering enabled SmartScreen enabled File Hash Computation enabled Network Protection Reputation mode set to 1 Has anyone else had similar issues when trying to block DeepSeek or other apps via Microsoft security suite? I am currently working with Microsoft support on this but wanted to ask here as well.URL Hyperlinking phishing training
Mi using the Defender phishing simulations to perform testing. When creating a positive reinforcement email that goes to the person you have the option to use default text or put in your own text. When I put in my own text I have lines in the text, but when it renders the lines are not displayed so it looks like a bunch of text crammed together. Any idea how to get these lines to display?
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, BanuMuraliEmail to external(trusted user) not require verify user Identity(with Google or One-time passcode)
Dear Expert and Community, I am starting with MS Purview - Data Loss Prevention. I have one point to clarify and seek your advise / comment / contribute or sharing good practice regarding with below: - Firstly, we can send email to externally user contain sensitive information, it is encryption or blocked (result: worked as expected). If remail encrypt, the external receiver require verify the Identity via sign in with google acc / with a one time password. - Second: we plan sending email to external user (only trusted user / domain). Is it possible, do not require these scope user reverify their Identity again and again? If yes, how to do it? If not - why? Well appreciated for update and supporting. Thanks,Federating Two Domains to Single Google Workspace Org — IssuerUri Conflict
Problem: I'm federating two custom domains (domainA.com and domainB.com) in the same Entra tenant to Google Workspace as the IdP using New-MgDomainFederationConfiguration. Cloud-only tenant, no on-premises AD. domainA.com works perfectly. When attempting to federate domainB.com, I get: 409 Conflict — Request_MultipleObjectsWithSameKeyValue Root cause: Both domains are in the same Google Workspace org. Google always sends the same IssuerUri in every SAML response regardless of which SAML app is used. Entra's global IssuerUri uniqueness constraint blocks the second domain. Workarounds attempted: Modified IssuerUri with unique query parameter — Google's SAML assertion still contains the original IssuerUri, Entra silently rejects it Second Google SAML app — Google sends identical IdP Entity ID regardless Google Legacy SSO profile with domain-specific issuer — only affects Google authentication, not Microsoft-initiated SAML flows Beta Graph API — same constraints MSOnline module — fails with Negotiate/forbidden error Questions: Is there any supported way to federate two domains in the same tenant to the same Google Workspace org? Is there a Graph API equivalent of the legacy -SupportMultipleDomain switch? domainB.com also returns "No matching stub found. Please reset the federation" on every update attempt — is this a known backend issue? We have a support ticket open for 21 days with no engineer response. Any help appreciated!
Convert Hybrid Azure AD Join Device to Azure AD Join Only
Hi , We are in Hybrid state ( SCCM+ Intune =CoManaged ) and Hybrid Azure AD Join . Now as next step moving to cloud only , We are moving device from Hybrid to Azure only State . While testing Manually remove a device from AD domain post reboot noticed that not able to even login with Azure that means loose the complete state ( AD as well as Azure ) , Login with Local account found with DSREGCMD that device is not attached to any . If I just removed the AD domain why this has removed from Azure AD Join as well .What is best way to Remove domain join but keep Azure AD join , Loose Users settings as well. Thanks MSB
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 advanceHow to add glossary term to domain
Does anyone know how to add a glossary term to a domain using the REST API? What is the correct url? None of these work: url = f"{my_purview_endpoint}/unifiedcatalog/domains/{my_glossary_guid}/glossaryTerms" url = f"{my_purview_endpoint}/datagovernance/catalog/businessdomains/{my_glossary_guid}/glossaryTerms" url = f"{my_purview_endpoint}/businessdomains/{my_glossary_guid}/terms"
PIM
Hello, everyone. I need some help. We already use PIM for Just-in-Time activation of administrative functions in Entra ID, but we would like something more granular. For example, we want certain administrative actions in Microsoft 365, such as accessing sensitive data or performing critical tasks, to only be possible upon specific request and approval, even if the user has already activated the function in PIM. Is this only possible with PIM, or is there another feature in Microsoft 365 for this type of control?PIM
Hello, everyone. I need some help. We already use PIM for Just-in-Time activation of administrative functions in Entra ID, but we would like something more granular. For example, we want certain administrative actions in Microsoft 365, such as accessing sensitive data or performing critical tasks, to only be possible upon specific request and approval, even if the user has already activated the function in PIM. Is this only possible with PIM, or is there another feature in Microsoft 365 for this type of control?Rollback Script for Purview Auto Labels Using PnP/Graph – Anyone Done This?
Hi , I have been working on a rollback script using PnP and Microsoft Graph API to remove a sensitivity label from SharePoint and OneDrive documents through an Enterprise App (service principal). The purpose of this is to avoid a common issue in Purview. When a sensitivity label is applied through auto labeling and later changed manually, Purview reclassifies it as a manual label. After that, even if you run another scan, Purview will not automatically apply an auto label again because the file is now considered to have a user applied label. To prevent this problem, the idea is to make all label changes through a service principal so that the change is not treated as a manual action. This gives us a safe way to roll back labels if something goes wrong and lets us return the files to a clean state so that Purview can apply auto labeling again when needed. This approach would be very helpful during testing or when adjusting label priorities or scopes. My question is the following: Has anyone successfully built something like this? I am looking for examples of removing labels in bulk or replacing one label with another, for example replacing Label A with Label B, using PnP or Graph through a service principal. I do have a script somewhat ready but , I am also getting an error when calling some Graph endpoints that says the operation requires a Premium Purview feature (PAYG). If anyone has found a workaround or can confirm which operations require payment, that would be extremely helpful. Thanks!Priority Handling in GSA Client Forwarding Profile Rules
Hello, I would like to provide feedback and propose a functional improvement regarding priority control for forwarding rules in Global Secure Access (GSA). In our environment, we are using Microsoft Entra Private Access with a combination of CIDR-based rules and FQDN-based rules. We understand that it is not possible to create Enterprise Applications with overlapping IP address ranges. Based on this limitation, our current operational model is as follows: Administrators create Enterprise Applications using CIDR ranges that broadly cover entire datacenter networks. Access for application owners to specific servers and ports is defined using FQDN-based rules. With this type of configuration, when reviewing the list of rules shown in the GSA Client → Forwarding Profile → Rules tab, we can see that each rule is assigned a Priority, and the rules appear to be evaluated sequentially from top to bottom. From this behavior, it is clear that: DNS rules are evaluated first Enterprise Application rules are evaluated next Quick Access rules are evaluated last However, between CIDR-based Enterprise Application rules and FQDN-based Enterprise Application rules, there does not appear to be a clear or explicit priority model. Instead, the position — and therefore the evaluation order — seems to depend on the order in which the Enterprise Applications were created. As a result, even when we intend to apply a more specific FQDN-based rule for a particular host, the broader CIDR-based administrative rule may be evaluated first. In such cases, access can be unintentionally blocked, preventing us from achieving the intended access control behavior. After understanding this mechanism, we have been working around the issue by carefully controlling the creation order of Enterprise Applications — creating host-specific FQDN-based applications first, followed by broader CIDR-based rules. While this approach avoids the issue, it significantly increases administrative complexity and makes long-term management more difficult. Based on this experience, we would strongly appreciate enhancements such as: The ability to manually control rule evaluation order in the UI, or More intelligent and predictable automatic prioritization between FQDN-based and CIDR-based rules Such improvements would greatly enhance usability, predictability, and maintainability of GSA forwarding rule configurations. Thank you for considering this feedback.
Events
in 1 hour
Strong access strategy isn’t about initial setup: it’s about keeping operations fast, safe, and scalable as environments constantly change. Learn how Microsoft Security Copilot agent can be used with...
Online
Start your journey to secure AI workloads in the cloud. Learn how Defender for Cloud provides foundational protection for your AI solutions and why it’s essential for modern security strategies.
Wh...
Online