What’s new in Microsoft Defender XDR at Secure 2025
Protecting your organization against cybersecurity threats is more challenging than ever before. As part of our 2025 Microsoft Secure cybersecurity conference announcements, we’re sharing new product features that spotlight our AI-first, end-to-end security innovations designed to help - including autonomous AI agents in the Security Operations Center (SOC), as well as automatic detection and response capabilities. We also share information on how you can expand your protection by bringing data security and collaboration tools closer to the SOC. Read on to learn more about how these capabilities can help your organization stay ahead of today’s advanced threat actors. Expanding AI-Driven Capabilities for Smarter SOC Operations Introducing Microsoft Security Copilot’s Security Alert Triage Agent (previously named Phishing Triage Agent) Today, we are excited to introduce Security Copilot agents, a major step in bringing AI-driven automation to Microsoft Security solutions. As part of this, we’re unveiling our newest innovation in Microsoft Defender: the Security Alert Triage Agent. Acting as a force multiplier for SOC analysts, it streamlines the triage of user-submitted phishing incidents by autonomously identifying and resolving false positives, typically cleaning out over 95% of submissions. This allows teams to focus on the remaining incidents – those that pose the most critical threats. Phishing submissions are among the highest-volume alerts that security teams handle daily, and our data shows that at least 9 in 10 reported emails turn out to be harmless bulk mail or spam. As a result, security teams must sift through hundreds of these incidents weekly, often spending up to 30 minutes per case determining whether it represents a real threat. This manual triage effort not only adds operational strain but also delays the response to actual phishing attacks, potentially impacting protection levels. The Security Alert Triage Agent transforms this process by leveraging advanced LLM-driven analysis to conduct sophisticated assessments –such as examining the semantic content of emails– to autonomously determine whether an incident is a genuine phishing attempt or a false alarm. By intelligently cutting through the noise, the agent alleviates the burden on SOC teams, allowing them to focus on high-priority threats. Figure 1. A phishing incident triaged by the Security Copilot Security Alert Triage Agent To help analysts gain trust in its decision-making, the agent provides natural language explanations for its classifications, along with a visual representation of its reasoning process. This transparency enables security teams to understand why an incident was classified in a certain way, making it easier to validate verdicts. Analysts can also provide feedback in plain language, allowing the agent to learn from these interactions, refine its accuracy, and adapt to the organization’s unique threat landscape. Over time, this continuous feedback loop fine-tunes the agent’s behavior, aligning it more closely with organizational nuances and reducing the need for manual verification. The Security Copilot Security Alert Triage Agent is designed to transform SOC operations with autonomous, AI-driven capabilities. As phishing threats grow increasingly sophisticated and SOC analysts face mounting demands, this agent alleviates the burden of repetitive tasks, allowing teams to shift their focus to proactive security measures that strengthen the organization’s overall defense. Note: The Phishing Triage Agent has since been expanded and is now called the Security Alert Triage Agent. Learn more at aka.ms/SATA Security Copilot Enriched Incident Summaries and Suggested Prompts Security Copilot Incident Summaries in Microsoft Defender now feature key enrichments, including related threat intelligence and asset risk –enhancements driven by customer feedback. Additionally, we are introducing suggested prompts following incident summaries, giving analysts quick access to common follow-up questions for deeper context on devices, users, threat intelligence, and more. This marks a step towards a more interactive experience, moving beyond predefined inputs to a more dynamic, conversational workflow. Read more about Microsoft Security Copilot agent announcements here. New protection across Microsoft Defender XDR workloads To strengthen core protection across Microsoft Defender XDR workloads, we're introducing new capabilities while building upon existing integrations for enhanced protection. This ensures a more comprehensive and seamless defense against evolving threats. Introducing collaboration security for Microsoft Teams Email remains a prevalent entry point for attackers. But the fast adoption of collaboration tools like Microsoft Teams has opened new attack surfaces for cybercriminals. Our advancements within Defender for Office 365 allow organizations to continue to protect users in Microsoft Teams against phishing and other emerging cyberthreats with inline protection against malicious URLs, safe attachments, brand impersonation protection, and more. And to ensure seamless investigation and response at the incident level, everything is centralized across our SOC workflows in the unified security operations platform. Read the announcement here. Introducing Microsoft Purview Data Security Investigations for the SOC Understanding the extent of the data that has been impacted to better prioritize incidents has been a challenge for security teams. As data remains the main target for attackers it’s critical to dismantle silos between security and data security teams to enhance response times. At Microsoft, we’ve made significant investments in bringing SOC and data security teams closer together by integrating Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Purview. We are continuing to build upon the rich set of capabilities and today, we are excited to announce that Microsoft Purview Data Security Investigations (DSI) can be initiated from the incident graph in Defender XDR. Ensuring robust data security within the SOC has always been important, as it helps protect sensitive information from breaches and unauthorized access. Data Security Investigations significantly accelerates the process of analyzing incident related data such as emails, files, and messages. With AI-powered deep content analysis, DSI reveals the key security and sensitive data risks. This integration allows analysts to further analyze the data involved in the incident, learn which data is at risk of compromise, and take action to respond and mitigate the incident faster, to keep the organization’s data protected. Read the announcement here. Figure 2. An incident that shows the ability to launch a data security investigation. OAuth app insights are now available in Exposure Management In recent years, we’ve witnessed a substantial surge in attackers exploiting OAuth applications to gain access to critical data in business applications like Microsoft Teams, SharePoint, and Outlook. To address this threat, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is now integrating OAuth apps and their connections into Microsoft Security Exposure Management, enhancing both attack path and attack surface map experiences. Additionally, we are introducing a unified application inventory to consolidate all app interactions into a single location. This will address the following use cases: Visualize and remediate attack paths that attackers could potentially exploit using high-privilege OAuth apps to access M365 SaaS applications or sensitive Azure resources. Investigate OAuth applications and their connections to the broader ecosystem in Attack Surface Map and Advanced Hunting. Explore OAuth application characteristics and actionable insights to reduce risk from our new unified application inventory. Figure 3. An attack path infused with OAuth app insights Read the latest announcement here AI & TI are critical for effective detection & response To effectively combat emerging threats, AI has become critical in enabling faster detection and response. By combining this with the latest threat analytics, security teams can quickly pinpoint emerging risks and respond in real-time, providing organizations with proactive protection against sophisticated attacks. Disrupt more attacks with automatic attack disruption In this era of multi-stage, multi-domain attacks, the SOC need solutions that enable both speed and scale when responding to threats. That’s where automatic attack disruption comes in—a self-defense capability that dynamically pivots to anticipate and block an attacker’s next move using multi-domain signals, the latest TI, and AI models. We’ve made significant advancements in attack disruption, such as threat intelligence-based disruption announced at Ignite, expansion to OAuth apps, and more. Today, we are thrilled to share our next innovation in attack disruption—the ability to disrupt more attacks through a self-learning architecture that enables much earlier and much broader disruption. At its core, this technology monitors a vast array of signals, ranging from raw telemetry data to alerts and incidents across Extended Detection and Response (XDR) and Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) systems. This extensive range of data sources provides an unparalleled view of your security environment, helping to ensure potential threats do not go unnoticed. What sets this innovation apart is its ability learn from historical events and previously seen attack types to identify and disrupt new attacks. By recognizing similar patterns across data and stitching them together into a contextual sequence, it processes information through machine learning models and enables disruption to stop the attack much earlier in the attack sequence, stopping significantly more attacks in volume and variety. Comprehensive Threat Analytics are now available across all Threat Intelligence reports Organizations can now leverage the full suite of Threat Analytics features (related incidents, impacted assets, endpoints exposure, recommended actions) on all Microsoft Threat Intelligence reports. Previously only available for a limited set of threats, these features are now available for all threats Microsoft has published in Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence (MDTI), offering comprehensive insights and actionable intelligence to help you ensure your security measures are robust and responsive. Some of these key features include: IOCs with historical hunting: Access IOCs after expiration to investigate past threats and aid in remediation and proactive hunting. MITRE TTPs: Build detections based on threat techniques, going beyond IOCs to block and alert on specific tactics. Targeted Industries: Filter threats by industry, aligning security efforts with sector-specific challenges. We’re proud of our new AI-first innovations that strengthen security protections for our customers and help us further our pledge to customers and our community to prioritize cyber safety above all else. Learn more about the innovations designed to help your organization protect data, defend against cyber threats, and stay compliant. Join Microsoft leaders online at Microsoft Secure on April 9. We hope you’ll also join us in San Francisco from April 27th-May 1 st 2025 at the RSA Conference 2025 to learn more. At the conference, we’ll share live, hands-on demos and theatre sessions all week at the Microsoft booth at Moscone Center. Secure your spot today.Why UK Enterprise Cybersecurity Is Failing in 2026 (And What Leaders Must Change)
Enterprise cybersecurity in large organisations has always been an asymmetric game. But with the rise of AI‑enabled cyber attacks, that imbalance has widened dramatically - particularly for UK and EMEA enterprises operating complex cloud, SaaS, and identity‑driven environments. Microsoft Threat Intelligence and Microsoft Defender Security Research have publicly reported a clear shift in how attackers operate: AI is now embedded across the entire attack lifecycle. Threat actors use AI to accelerate reconnaissance, generate highly targeted phishing at scale, automate infrastructure, and adapt tactics in real time - dramatically reducing the time required to move from initial access to business impact. In recent months, Microsoft has documented AI‑enabled phishing campaigns abusing legitimate authentication mechanisms, including OAuth and device‑code flows, to compromise enterprise accounts at scale. These attacks rely on automation, dynamic code generation, and highly personalised lures - not on exploiting traditional vulnerabilities or stealing passwords. The Reality Gap: Adaptive Attackers vs. Static Enterprise Defences Meanwhile, many UK enterprises still rely on legacy cybersecurity controls designed for a very different threat model - one rooted in a far more predictable world. This creates a dangerous "Resilience Gap." Here is why your current stack is failing- and the C-Suite strategy required to fix it. 1. The Failure of Traditional Antivirus in the AI Era Traditional antivirus (AV) relies on static signatures and hashes. It assumes malicious code remains identical across different targets. AI has rendered this assumption obsolete. Modern malware now uses automated mutation to generate unique code variants at execution time, and adapts behaviour based on its environment. Microsoft Threat Intelligence has observed threat actors using AI‑assisted tooling to rapidly rewrite payload components, ensuring that every deployment looks subtly different. In this model, there is no reliable signature to detect. By the time a pattern exists, the attacker has already moved on. Signature‑based detection is not just slow - it is structurally misaligned with AI‑driven attacks. The Risk: If your security relies on "recognising" a threat, you are already breached. By the time a signature exists, the attacker has evolved. The C-Suite Pivot: Shift investment from artifact detection to EDR/XDR (Extended Detection and Response). We must prioritise behavioural analytics and machine learning models that identify intent rather than file names. 2. Why Perimeter Firewalls Fail in a Cloud-First World Many UK enterprise still rely on firewalls enforcing static allow/deny rules based on IP addresses and ports. This model worked when applications were predictable and networks clearly segmented. Today, enterprise traffic is encrypted, cloud‑hosted, API‑driven, and deeply integrated with SaaS and identity services. AI‑assisted phishing campaigns abusing OAuth and device‑code flows demonstrate this clearly. From a network perspective, everything looks legitimate: HTTPS traffic to trusted identity providers. No suspicious port. No malicious domain. Yet the attacker successfully compromises identity. The Risk: Traditional firewalls are "blind" to identity-based breaches in cloud environments. The C-Suite Pivot: Move to Identity-First Security. Treat Identity as the new Control Plane, integrating signals like user risk, device health, and geolocation into every access decision. 3. The Critical Weakness of Single-Factor Authentication Despite clear NCSC guidance, single-factor passwords remain a common vulnerability in legacy applications and VPNs. AI-driven credential abuse has changed the economics of these attacks. Threat actors now deploy adaptive phishing campaigns that evolve in real-time. Microsoft has observed attackers using AI to hyper-target high-value UK identities- specifically CEOs, Finance Directors, and Procurement leads. The Risk: Static passwords are now the primary weak link in UK supply chain security. The C-Suite Pivot: Mandate Phishing‑resistant MFA (Passkeys or hardware security keys). Implement Conditional Access policies that evaluate risk dynamically at the moment of access, not just at login. Legacy Security vs. AI‑Era Reality 4. The Inherent Risk of VPN-Centric Security VPNs were built on a flawed assumption: that anyone "inside" the network is trustworthy. In 2026, this logic is a liability. AI-assisted attackers now use automation to map internal networks and identify escalation paths the moment they gain VPN access. Furthermore, Microsoft has tracked nation-state actors using AI to create synthetic employee identities- complete with fake resumes and deepfake communication. In these scenarios, VPN access isn't "hacked"; it is legally granted to a fraudster. The Risk: A compromised VPN gives an attacker the "keys to the kingdom." The C-Suite Pivot: Transition to Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA). Access must be explicit, scoped to the specific application, and continuously re‑evaluated using behavioural signals. 5. Data: The High-Velocity Target Sensitive data sitting unencrypted in legacy databases or backups is a ticking time bomb. In the AI era, data discovery is no longer a slow, manual process for a hacker. Attackers now use AI to instantly analyse your directory structures, classify your files, and prioritise high-value data for theft. Unencrypted data significantly increases your "blast radius," turning a containable incident into a catastrophic board-level crisis. The Risk: Beyond the technical breach, unencrypted data leads to massive UK GDPR fines and irreparable brand damage. The C-Suite Pivot: Adopt Data-Centric Security. Implement encryption by default, classify data while adding sensitivity labels and start board-level discussions regarding post‑quantum cryptography (PQC) to future-proof your most sensitive assets. 6. The Failure of Static IDS Traditional Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) rely on known indicators of compromise - assuming attackers reuse the same tools and techniques. AI‑driven attacks deliberately avoid that assumption. Threat actors are now using Large Language Models (LLMs) to weaponize newly disclosed vulnerabilities within hours. While your team waits for a "known pattern" to be updated in your system, the attacker is already using a custom, AI-generated exploit. The Risk: Your team is defending against yesterday's news while the attacker is moving at machine speed. The C-Suite Pivot: Invest in Adaptive Threat Detection. Move toward Graph‑based XDR platforms that correlate signals across email, endpoint, and cloud to automate investigation and response before the damage spreads. From Static Security to Continuous Security Closing Thought: Security Is a Journey, Not a Destination For UK enterprises, the shift toward adaptive cybersecurity is no longer optional - it is increasingly driven by regulatory expectation, board oversight, and accountability for operational resilience. Recent UK cyber resilience reforms and evolving regulatory frameworks signal a clear direction of travel: cybersecurity is now a board‑level responsibility, not a back‑office technical concern. Directors and executive leaders are expected to demonstrate effective governance, risk ownership, and preparedness for cyber disruption - particularly as AI reshapes the threat landscape. AI is not a future cybersecurity problem. It is a current force multiplier for attackers, exposing the limits of legacy enterprise security architectures faster than many organisations are willing to admit. The uncomfortable truth for boards in 2026 is that no enterprise is 100% secure. Intrusions are inevitable. Credentials will be compromised. Controls will be tested. The difference between a resilient enterprise and a vulnerable one is not the absence of incidents, but how risk is managed when they occur. In mature organisations, this means assuming breach and designing for containment: Access controls that limit blast radius Least privilege and conditional access restricting attackers to the smallest possible scope if an identity is compromised Data‑centric security using automated classification and encryption, ensuring that even when access is misused, sensitive data cannot be freely exfiltrated As a Senior Enterprise Cybersecurity Architect, I see this moment as a unique opportunity. AI adoption does not have to repeat the mistakes of earlier technology waves, where innovation moved fast and security followed years later. We now have a rare chance to embed security from day one - designing identity controls, data boundaries, automated monitoring, and governance before AI systems become business‑critical. When security is built in upfront, enterprises don’t just reduce risk - they gain the confidence to move faster and unlock AI’s value safely. Security is no longer a “department”. In the age of AI, it is a continuous business function - essential to preserving trust and maintaining operational continuity as attackers move at machine speed. References: Inside an AI‑enabled device code phishing campaign | Microsoft Security Blog AI as tradecraft: How threat actors operationalize AI | Microsoft Security Blog Detecting and analyzing prompt abuse in AI tools | Microsoft Security Blog Post-Quantum Cryptography | CSRC Microsoft Digital Defense Report 2025 | Microsoft https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/news/government-adopt-passkey-technology-digital-services
Full Automation Capabilities in Linux OS
Hello eveyone, We have configured Defender to detect viruses, and our goal is that if one of our assets downloads or encounters a virus, it is automatically hidden or removed. Based on the documentation regarding the automation levels in Automated Investigation and Remediation capabilities, we have set it to "Full - remediate threats automatically." While this works correctly on Windows devices, we have noticed that on Linux devices, the defender still detect the virus but it was not prevented. I was wondering if anyone has encountered this issue and, if so, how it was resolved? Additionally, as I am new to the Defender platform, I wanted to ask if could this issue potentially be resolved through specific Linux policies or functionalities? Best regards MathiewMicrosoft Sentinel MCP Entity Analyzer: Explainable risk analysis for URLs and identities
What makes this release important is not just that it adds another AI feature to Sentinel. It changes the implementation model for enrichment and triage. Instead of building and maintaining a chain of custom playbooks, KQL lookups, threat intel checks, and entity correlation logic, SOC teams can call a single analyzer that returns a reasoned verdict and supporting evidence. Microsoft positions the analyzer as available through Sentinel MCP server connections for agent platforms and through Logic Apps for SOAR workflows, which makes it useful both for interactive investigations and for automated response pipelines. Why this matters First, it formalizes Entity Analyzer as a production feature rather than a preview experiment. Second, it introduces a real cost model, which means organizations now need to govern usage instead of treating it as a free enrichment helper. Third, Microsoft’s documentation is now detailed enough to support repeatable implementation patterns, including prerequisites, limits, required tables, Logic Apps deployment, and cost behavior. From a SOC engineering perspective, Entity Analyzer is interesting because it focuses on explainability. Microsoft describes the feature as generating clear, explainable verdicts for URLs and user identities by analyzing multiple modalities, including threat intelligence, prevalence, and organizational context. That is a much stronger operational model than simple point-enrichment because it aims to return an assessment that analysts can act on, not just more raw evidence What Entity Analyzer actually does The Entity Analyzer tools are described as AI-powered tools that analyze data in the Microsoft Sentinel data lake and provide a verdict plus detailed insights on URLs, domains, and user entities. Microsoft explicitly says these tools help eliminate the need for manual data collection and complex integrations usually required for investigation and enrichment hat positioning is important. In practice, many SOC teams have built enrichment playbooks that fetch sign-in history, query TI feeds, inspect click data, read watchlists, and collect relevant alerts. Those workflows work, but they create maintenance overhead and produce inconsistent analyst experiences. Entity Analyzer centralizes that reasoning layer. For user entities, Microsoft’s preview architecture explains that the analyzer retrieves sign-in logs, security alerts, behavior analytics, cloud app events, identity information, and Microsoft Threat Intelligence, then correlates those signals and applies AI-based reasoning to produce a verdict. Microsoft lists verdict examples such as Compromised, Suspicious activity found, and No evidence of compromise, and also warns that AI-generated content may be incorrect and should be checked for accuracy. That warning matters. The right way to think about Entity Analyzer is not “automatic truth,” but “high-value, explainable triage acceleration.” It should reduce analyst effort and improve consistency, while still fitting into human review and response policy. Under the hood: the implementation model Technically, Entity Analyzer is delivered through the Microsoft Sentinel MCP data exploration tool collection. Microsoft documents that entity analysis is asynchronous: you start analysis, receive an identifier, and then poll for results. The docs note that analysis may take a few minutes and that the retrieval step may need to be run more than once if the internal timeout is not enough for long operations. That design has two immediate implications for implementers. First, this is not a lightweight synchronous enrichment call you should drop carelessly into every automation branch. Second, any production workflow should include retry logic, timeouts, and concurrency controls. If you ignore that, you will create fragile playbooks and unnecessary SCU burn. The supported access path for the data exploration collection requires Microsoft Sentinel data lake and one of the supported MCP-capable platforms. Microsoft also states that access to the tools is supported for identities with at least Security Administrator, Security Operator, or Security Reader. The data exploration collection is hosted at the Sentinel MCP endpoint, and the same documentation notes additional Entity Analyzer roles related to Security Copilot usage. The prerequisite many teams will miss The most important prerequisite is easy to overlook: Microsoft Sentinel data lake is required. This is more than a licensing footnote. It directly affects data quality, analyzer usefulness, and rollout success. If your organization has not onboarded the right tables into the data lake, Entity Analyzer will either fail or return reduced-confidence output. For user analysis, the following tables are required to ensure accuracy: AlertEvidence, SigninLogs, CloudAppEvents, and IdentityInfo. also notes that IdentityInfo depends on Defender for Identity, Defender for Cloud Apps, or Defender for Endpoint P2 licensing. The analyzer works best with AADNonInteractiveUserSignInLogs and BehaviorAnalytics as well. For URL analysis, the analyzer works best with EmailUrlInfo, UrlClickEvents, ThreatIntelIndicators, Watchlist, and DeviceNetworkEvents. If those tables are missing, the analyzer returns a disclaimer identifying the missing sources A practical architecture view An incident, hunting workflow, or analyst identifies a high-interest URL or user. A Sentinel MCP client or Logic App calls Entity Analyzer. Entity Analyzer queries relevant Sentinel data lake sources and correlates the findings. AI reasoning produces a verdict, evidence narrative, and recommendations. The result is returned to the analyst, incident record, or automation workflow for next-step action. This model is especially valuable because it collapses a multi-query, multi-tool investigation pattern into a single explainable decisioning step. Where it fits in real Sentinel operations Entity Analyzer is not a replacement for analytics rules, UEBA, or threat intelligence. It is a force multiplier for them. For identity triage, it fits naturally after incidents triggered by sign-in anomaly detections, UEBA signals, or Defender alerts because it already consumes sign-in logs, cloud app events, and behavior analytics as core evidence sources. For URL triage, it complements phishing and click-investigation workflows because it uses TI, URL activity, watchlists, and device/network context. Implementation path 1: MCP clients and security agents Microsoft states that Entity Analyzer integrates with agents through Sentinel MCP server connections to first-party and third-party AI runtime platforms. In practice, this makes it attractive for analyst copilots, engineering-side investigation agents, and guided triage experiences The benefit of this model is speed. A security engineer or analyst can invoke the analyzer directly from an MCP-capable client without building a custom orchestration layer. The tradeoff is governance: once you make the tool widely accessible, you need a clear policy for who can run it, when it should be used, and how results are validated before action is taken. Implementation path 2: Logic Apps and SOAR playbooks For SOC teams, Logic Apps is likely the most immediately useful deployment model. Microsoft documents an entity analyzer action inside the Microsoft Sentinel MCP tools connector and provides the required parameters for adding it to an existing logic app. These include: Workspace ID Look Back Days Properties payload for either URL or User The documented payloads are straightforward: { "entityType": "Url", "url": "[URL]" } And { "entityType": "User", "userId": "[Microsoft Entra object ID or User Principal Name]" } Also states that the connector supports Microsoft Entra ID, service principals, and managed identities, and that the Logic App identity requires Security Reader to operate. This makes playbook integration a strong pattern for incident enrichment. A high-severity incident can trigger a playbook, extract entities, invoke Entity Analyzer, and post the verdict back to the incident as a comment or decision artifact. The concurrency lesson most people will learn the hard way Unusually direct guidance on concurrency: to avoid timeouts and threshold issues, turn on Concurrency control in Logic Apps loops and start with a degree of parallelism of . The data exploration doc repeats the same guidance, stating that running multiple instances at once can increase latency and recommending starting with a maximum of five concurrent analyses. This is a strong indicator that the correct implementation pattern is selective analysis, not blanket analysis. Do not analyze every entity in every incident. Analyze the entities that matter most: external URLs in phishing or delivery chains accounts tied to high-confidence alerts entities associated with high-severity or high-impact incidents suspicious users with multiple correlated signals That keeps latency, quota pressure, and SCU consumption under control. KQL still matters Entity Analyzer does not eliminate KQL. It changes where KQL adds value. Before running the analyzer, KQL is still useful for scoping and selecting the right entities. After the analyzer returns, KQL is useful for validation, deeper hunting, and building custom evidence views around the analyzer’s verdict. For example, a simple sign-in baseline for a target user: let TargetUpn = "email address removed for privacy reasons"; SigninLogs | where TimeGenerated between (ago(7d) .. now()) | where UserPrincipalName == TargetUpn | summarize Total=count(), Failures=countif(ResultType != "0"), Successes=countif(ResultType == "0"), DistinctIPs=dcount(IPAddress), Apps=make_set(AppDisplayName, 20) by bin(TimeGenerated, 1d) | order by TimeGenerated desc And a lightweight URL prevalence check: let TargetUrl = "omicron-obl.com"; UrlClickEvents | where TimeGenerated between (ago(7d) .. now()) | search TargetUrl | take 50 Cost, billing, and governance GA is where technical excitement meets budget reality. Microsoft’s Sentinel billing documentation says there is no extra cost for the MCP server interface itself. However, for Entity Analyzer, customers are charged for the SCUs used for AI reasoning and also for the KQL queries executed against the Microsoft Sentinel data lake. Microsoft further states that existing Security Copilot entitlements apply The April 2026 “What’s new” entry also explicitly says that starting April 1, 2026, customers are charged for the SCUs required when using Entity Analyzer. That means every rollout should include a governance plan: define who can invoke the analyzer decide when playbooks are allowed to call it monitor SCU consumption limit unnecessary repeat runs preserve results in incident records so you do not rerun the same analysis within a short period Microsoft’s MCP billing documentation also defines service limits: 200 total runs per hour, 500 total runs per day, and around 15 concurrent runs every five minutes, with analysis results available for one hour. Those are not just product limits. They are design requirements. Limitations you should state clearly The analyze_user_entity supports a maximum time window of seven days and only works for users with a Microsoft Entra object ID. On-premises Active Directory-only users are not supported for user analysis. Microsoft also says Entity Analyzer results expire after one hour and that the tool collection currently supports English prompts only. Recommended rollout pattern If I were implementing this in a production SOC, I would phase it like this: Start with a narrow set of high-value use cases, such as suspicious user identities and phishing-related URLs. Confirm that the required tables are present in the data lake. Deploy a Logic App enrichment pattern for incident-triggered analysis. Add concurrency control and retry logic. Persist returned verdicts into incident comments or case notes. Then review SCU usage and analyst value before expanding coverage.
Observed Automation Discrepancies
Hi Team ... I want to know the logic behind the Defender XDR Automation Engine . How it works ? I have observed Defender XDR Automation Engine Behavior contrary to expectations of identical incident and automation handling in both environments, discrepancies were observed. Specifically, incidents with high-severity alerts were automatically closed by Defender XDR's automation engine before reaching their SOC for review, raising concerns among clients and colleagues. Automation rules are clearly logged in the activity log, whereas actions performed by Microsoft Defender XDR are less transparent . A high-severity alert related to a phishing incident was closed by Defender XDR's automation, resulting in the associated incident being closed and removed from SOC review. Wherein the automation was not triggered by our own rules, but by Microsoft's Defender XDR, and sought clarification on the underlying logic.
Issue connecting Azure Sentinel GitHub app to Sentinel Instance when IP allow list is enabled
Hi everyone, I’m running into an issue connecting the Azure Sentinel GitHub app to my Sentinel workspace in order to create our CI/CD pipelines for our detection rules, and I’m hoping someone can point me in the right direction. Symptoms: When configuring the GitHub connection in Sentinel, the repository dropdown does not populate. There are no explicit errors, but the connection clearly isn’t completing. If I disable my organization’s IP allow list, everything works as expected and the repos appear immediately. I’ve seen that some GitHub Apps automatically add the IP ranges they require to an organization’s allow list. However, from what I can tell, the Azure Sentinel GitHub app does not seem to have this capability, and requires manual allow listing instead. What I’ve tried / researched: Reviewed Microsoft documentation for Sentinel ↔ GitHub integrations Looked through Azure IP range and Service Tag documentation I’ve seen recommendations to allow list the IP ranges published at //api.github.com/meta, as many GitHub apps rely on these ranges I’ve already tried allow listing multiple ranges from the GitHub meta endpoint, but the issue persists My questions: Does anyone know which IP ranges are used by the Azure Sentinel GitHub app specifically? Is there an official or recommended approach for using this integration in environments with strict IP allow lists? Has anyone successfully configured this integration without fully disabling IP restrictions? Any insight, references, or firsthand experience would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Accelerate Agent Development: Hacks for Building with Microsoft Sentinel data lake
As a Senior Product Manager | Developer Architect on the App Assure team working to bring Microsoft Sentinel and Security Copilot solutions to market, I interact with many ISVs building agents on Microsoft Sentinel data lake for the first time. I’ve written this article to walk you through one possible approach for agent development – the process I use when building sample agents internally at Microsoft. If you have questions about this, or other methods for building your agent, App Assure offers guidance through our Sentinel Advisory Service. Throughout this post, I include screenshots and examples from Gigamon’s Security Posture Insight Agent. This article assumes you have: An existing SaaS or security product with accessible telemetry. A small ISV team (2–3 engineers + 1 PM). Focus on a single high value scenario for the first agent. The Composite Application Model (What You Are Building) When I begin designing an agent, I think end-to-end, from data ingestion requirements through agentic logic, following the Composite application model. The Composite Application Model consists of five layers: Data Sources – Your product’s raw security, audit, or operational data. Ingestion – Getting that data into Microsoft Sentinel. Sentinel data lake & Microsoft Graph – Normalization, storage, and correlation. Agent – Reasoning logic that queries data and produces outcomes. End User – Security Copilot or SaaS experiences that invoke the agent. This separation allows for evolving data ingestion and agent logic simultaneously. It also helps avoid downstream surprises that require going back and rearchitecting the entire solution. Optional Prerequisite You are enrolled in the ISV Success Program, so you can earn Azure Credits to provision Security Compute Units (SCUs) for Security Copilot Agents. Phase 1: Data Ingestion Design & Implementation Choose Your Ingestion Strategy The first choice I face when designing an agent is how the data is going to flow into my Sentinel workspace. Below I document two primary methods for ingestion. Option A: Codeless Connector Framework (CCF) This is the best option for ISVs with REST APIs. To build a CCF solution, reference our documentation for getting started. Option B: CCF Push (Public Preview) In this instance, an ISV pushes events directly to Sentinel via a CCF Push connector. Our MS Learn documentation is a great place to get started using this method. Additional Note: In the event you find that CCF does not support your needs, reach out to App Assure so we can capture your requirements for future consideration. Azure Functions remains an option if you’ve documented your CCF feature needs. Phase 2: Onboard to Microsoft Sentinel data lake Once my data is flowing into Sentinel, I onboard a single Sentinel workspace to data lake. This is a one-time action and cannot be repeated for additional workspaces. Onboarding Steps Go to the Defender portal. Follow the Sentinel Data lake onboarding instructions. Validate that tables are visible in the lake. See Running KQL Queries in data lake for additional information. Phase 3: Build and Test the Agent in Microsoft Foundry Once my data is successfully ingested into data lake, I begin the agent development process. There are multiple ways to build agents depending on your needs and tooling preferences. For this example, I chose Microsoft Foundry because it fit my needs for real-time logging, cost efficiency, and greater control. 1. Create a Microsoft Foundry Instance Foundry is used as a tool for your development environment. Reference our QuickStart guide for setting up your Foundry instance. Required Permissions: Security Reader (Entra or Subscription) Azure AI Developer at the resource group After setup, click Create Agent. 2. Design the Agent A strong first agent: Solves one narrow security problem. Has deterministic outputs. Uses explicit instructions, not vague prompts. Example agent responsibilities: To query Sentinel data lake (Sentinel data exploration tool). To summarize recent incidents. To correlate ISVs specific signals with Sentinel alerts and other ISV tables (Sentinel data exploration tool). 3. Implement Agent Instructions Well-designed agent instructions should include: Role definition ("You are a security investigation agent…"). Data sources it can access. Step by step reasoning rules. Output format expectations. Sample Instructions can be found here: Agent Instructions 4. Configure the Microsoft Model Context Protocol (MCP) tooling for your agent For your agent to query, summarize and correlate all the data your connector has sent to data lake, take the following steps: Select Tools, and under Catalog, type Sentinel, and then select Microsoft Sentinel Data Exploration. For more information about the data exploration tool collection in MCP server, see our documentation. I always test repeatedly with real data until outputs are consistent. For more information on testing and validating the agent, please reference our documentation. Phase 4: Migrate the Agent to Security Copilot Once the agent works in Foundry, I migrate it to Security Copilot. To do this: Copy the full instruction set from Foundry Provision a SCU for your Security Copilot workspace. For instructions, please reference this documentation. Make note of this process as you will be charged per hour per SCU Once you are done testing you will need to deprovision the capacity to prevent additional charges Open Security Copilot and use Create From Scratch Agent Builder as outlined here. Add Sentinel data exploration MCP tools (these are the same instructions from the Foundry agent in the previous step). For more information on linking the Sentinel MCP tools, please refer to this article. Paste and adapt instructions. At this stage, I always validate the following: Agent Permissions – I have confirmed the agent has the necessary permissions to interact with the MCP tool and read data from your data lake instance. Agent Performance – I have confirmed a successful interaction with measured latency and benchmark results. This step intentionally avoids reimplementation. I am reusing proven logic. Phase 5: Execute, Validate, and Publish After setting up my agent, I navigate to the Agents tab to manually trigger the agent. For more information on testing an agent you can refer to this article. Now that the agent has been executed successfully, I download the agent Manifest file from the environment so that it can be packaged. Click View code on the Agent under the Build tab as outlined in this documentation. Publishing to the Microsoft Security Store If I were publishing my agent to the Microsoft Security Store, these are the steps I would follow: Finalize ingestion reliability. Document required permissions. Define supported scenarios clearly. Package agent instructions and guidance (by following these instructions). Summary Based on my experience developing Security Copilot agents on Microsoft Sentinel data lake, this playbook provides a practical, repeatable framework for ISVs to accelerate their agent development and delivery while maintaining high standards of quality. This foundation enables rapid iteration—future agents can often be built in days, not weeks, by reusing the same ingestion and data lake setup. When starting on your own agent development journey, keep the following in mind: To limit initial scope. To reuse Microsoft managed infrastructure. To separate ingestion from intelligence. What Success Looks Like At the end of this development process, you will have the following: A Microsoft Sentinel data connector live in Content Hub (or in process) that provides a data ingestion path. Data visible in data lake. A tested agent running in Security Copilot. Clear documentation for customers. A key success factor I look for is clarity over completeness. A focused agent is far more likely to be adopted. Need help? If you have any issues as you work to develop your agent, please reach out to the App Assure team for support via our Sentinel Advisory Service . Or if you have any other tips, please comment below, I’d love to hear your feedback.Crawl, Walk, Run: A Practitioner's Guide to AI Maturity in the SOC
Every security operations center is being told to adopt AI. Vendors promise autonomous threat detection, instant incident response, and the end of alert fatigue. The reality is messier. Most SOC teams are still figuring out where AI fits into their existing workflows, and jumping straight to autonomous agents without building foundational trust is a recipe for expensive failure. The Crawl, Walk, Run framework offers a more honest path. It's not a new concept. Cloud migration teams, DevOps organizations, and Zero Trust programs have used it for years. But it maps remarkably well to how security teams should adopt AI. Each phase builds organizational trust, governance maturity, and technical capability that the next phase depends on. Skip a phase and the risk compounds. This guide is written for SOC leaders and practitioners who want a practical, phased approach to AI adoption, not a vendor pitch.
