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 MathiewEnterprise Cybersecurity in the Age of AI: Why Legacy Security Is Failing as Attackers Move Faster
Cybersecurity has always been an asymmetric game. But with the rise of AI‑enabled attacks, that imbalance has widened dramatically. Microsoft Threat Intelligence and Microsoft Defender Security Research have publicly reported a clear shift in how attackers operate: AI is now being embedded across the entire attack lifecycle. Threat actors are using it to accelerate reconnaissance, generate highly targeted phishing at scale, automate infrastructure, and adapt their techniques in real time - reducing the time and effort required to move from initial access to 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 campaigns rely on automation, dynamic code generation, and highly personalised lures, rather than on stealing passwords or exploiting traditional vulnerabilities. Meanwhile, many large enterprises are still defending themselves with security controls designed for a very different threat model - one rooted in predictability, static signatures, and trusted perimeters. These approaches were built to stop repeatable attacks, not adversaries that continuously adapt and blend into normal business activity. The result is a dangerous gap: highly adaptive attackers versus static, legacy defences. Below are some of the most common outdated security practices still widely used by enterprises today - and why they are no longer sufficient against modern, AI‑driven threats. 1. Signature‑Based Antivirus Traditional antivirus solutions rely on known signatures and hashes, assuming malware looks the same each time it is deployed. AI has completely broken that assumption. Modern malware families now automatically mutate their code, generate new variants on execution, and adapt behaviour based on the environment they encounter. Microsoft Threat Intelligence has observed multiple actors using AI‑assisted tooling to rapidly rewrite payload components during development and testing, making each deployment look subtly different. In this model, there is no stable signature to detect. By the time a pattern exists, the attacker has already iterated past it. Signature‑based detection is not just slow - it is structurally mismatched to how modern threats operate. What to adopt instead Shift from artifact‑based detection to behavior‑based endpoint protection: EDR/XDR platforms that analyse process behaviour, memory activity, and execution chains Machine‑learning models trained on what attackers do, not what binaries look like Continuous monitoring with automated response, not one‑time blocking 2. Firewalls Many enterprises still rely on firewalls that enforce static allow/deny rules based on ports and IP addresses. That approach worked when applications were predictable and networks were clearly segmented. Today, traffic is encrypted, cloud‑based, API‑driven, and deeply intertwined with legitimate SaaS and identity services. Recent AI‑assisted phishing campaigns abusing legitimate OAuth and device‑code authentication flows illustrate this perfectly. From a network perspective, everything looks allowed: HTTPS traffic to trusted identity providers. There is no suspicious port, no malicious domain, no obvious anomaly - yet the attacker successfully hijacks the authentication process itself. What to adopt instead Move from perimeter controls to identity‑ and context‑aware network security: Application‑aware firewalls with behavioural and risk‑based inspection Integration with identity signals (user, device, location, risk score) Continuous evaluation of sessions, not one‑time allow/deny decisions In modern environments, identity is the new control plane. 3. Single‑Factor Authentication Despite years of guidance, single‑factor passwords remain common - especially for legacy applications, VPN access, and service accounts. AI‑powered credential abuse changes the economics of these attacks entirely. Threat actors now operate credential‑stuffing and phishing campaigns that adapt lures in real time, testing millions of combinations with minimal cost. In multiple Microsoft‑observed campaigns, attackers didn’t brute‑force access broadly. Instead, they used AI to identify which compromised identities were financially or operationally valuable - executives, payroll, procurement - and focused only on those accounts. What to adopt instead Replace static authentication with phishing‑resistant, risk‑based identity controls: Phishing‑resistant MFA (hardware‑backed or passkeys) Conditional access based on user behaviour, device health, and risk Continuous authentication instead of a single login event 4. VPN‑Centric Security VPNs were designed to extend the corporate network to remote users, based on the assumption that “inside” meant trustworthy. That assumption no longer holds. AI‑assisted attacks increasingly exploit VPN access post‑compromise. Once credentials are obtained, automation is used to map internal resources, identify privilege escalation paths, and move laterally - often without triggering traditional alerts. In parallel, Microsoft has observed nation‑state actors using AI to create highly convincing fake employee personas, complete with AI‑generated resumes, consistent communication styles, and synthetic media, allowing them to pass hiring and onboarding processes and gain long‑term, trusted access. In these scenarios, VPN access is not breached - it is granted. What to adopt instead Transition from network trust to Zero Trust access models: Identity‑based access to applications, not networks Least‑privilege, per‑app/user/service access instead of broad internal connectivity Continuous verification using behavioural signals In modern enterprises, access should be explicit, scoped, and continuously re‑evaluated. 5. Treating Unencrypted Data as “Low‑Risk” It is still common to find sensitive data stored unencrypted in older databases, file shares, and backups. In an AI‑driven threat landscape, data discovery is no longer manual or slow. After compromise, attackers increasingly use AI as an on‑demand analyst - summarizing directory structures, classifying stolen datasets, and prioritizing what matters most for impact or monetization. Unencrypted data dramatically lowers the cost and consequence of breach activity, turning what could have been a limited incident into a full‑scale exposure. What to adopt instead Shift from passive data storage to data‑centric security: Encryption by default, both at rest and in transit Data classification and sensitivity labeling built into platforms Access controls tied to data sensitivity, not just system location Begin preparing for post‑quantum cryptography (PQC) as part of long‑term data protection and crypto‑agility strategy 6. Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) Built on Known Patterns Traditional IDS platforms look for known indicators of compromise - assuming attackers reuse the same tools and techniques. AI‑driven attacks deliberately avoid that assumption. Microsoft Threat Intelligence reports actors using large language models to quickly analyse publicly disclosed vulnerabilities, understand exploitation paths, and compress the time between disclosure and weaponization. This isn’t about zero‑days - it’s about speed. What once took days or weeks now takes hours. Legacy IDS platforms often fail silently in these scenarios, detecting only what they already know how to recognize. What to adopt instead Move from static detection to adaptive, correlation‑based threat detection: Graph‑based XDR platforms correlating signals across identity, endpoint, email, cloud, and network Anomaly detection that focuses on deviation from normal behaviour Automated investigation and response to match attacker speed Closing Thought: Security Is a Journey, Not a Destination AI is not a future cybersecurity problem. It is a current force multiplier for attackers - and it is exposing the limits of legacy security architectures faster than many organisations are willing to admit. A realistic security strategy starts with an uncomfortable but necessary acknowledgement: no organisation can be 100% secure. Intrusions will happen. 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 effectively risk is managed when they occur. In mature organisations, this means assuming breach and designing for containment. Strong access controls limit blast radius. Least privilege and conditional access reduce what an attacker can reach. Data Loss Prevention (DLP) ensures that even when access is misused, sensitive data cannot be freely exfiltrated. Just as importantly, leaders understand the business consequences of compromise - which data matters most, which systems are critical, and which risks are acceptable versus existential. As a 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. AI gives organisations the chance to introduce a new class of service while embedding security from day one - designing access, data boundaries, monitoring, and governance into the platform before it becomes business‑critical. When security is built in upfront, enterprises don’t just reduce risk - they gain confidence to move faster and truly leverage AI’s value. Security, especially in the age of AI, is not about preventing every intrusion. It is about controlling impact, preserving trust, and maintaining operational continuity in a world where attackers move faster than ever. In the age of AI, standing still is the same as falling behind. 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 | MicrosoftMicrosoft 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.Your Sentinel AMA Logs & Queries Are Public by Default — AMPLS Architectures to Fix That
When you deploy Microsoft Sentinel, security log ingestion travels over public Azure Data Collection Endpoints by default. The connection is encrypted, and the data arrives correctly — but the endpoint is publicly reachable, and so is the workspace itself, queryable from any browser on any network. For many organisations, that trade-off is fine. For others — regulated industries, healthcare, financial services, critical infrastructure — it is the exact problem they need to solve. Azure Monitor Private Link Scope (AMPLS) is how you solve it. What AMPLS Actually Does AMPLS is a single Azure resource that wraps your monitoring pipeline and controls two settings: Where logs are allowed to go (ingestion mode: Open or PrivateOnly) Where analysts are allowed to query from (query mode: Open or PrivateOnly) Change those two settings and you fundamentally change the security posture — not as a policy recommendation, but as a hard platform enforcement. Set ingestion to PrivateOnly and the public endpoint stops working. It does not fall back gracefully. It returns an error. That is the point. It is not a firewall rule someone can bypass or a policy someone can override. Control is baked in at the infrastructure level. Three Patterns — One Spectrum There is no universally correct answer. The right architecture depends on your organisation's risk appetite, existing network infrastructure, and how much operational complexity your team can realistically manage. These three patterns cover the full range: Architecture 1 — Open / Public (Basic) No AMPLS. Logs travel to public Data Collection Endpoints over the internet. The workspace is open to queries from anywhere. This is the default — operational in minutes with zero network setup. Cloud service connectors (Microsoft 365, Defender, third-party) work immediately because they are server-side/API/Graph pulls and are unaffected by AMPLS. Azure Monitor Agents and Azure Arc agents handle ingestion from cloud or on-prem machines via public network. Simplicity: 9/10 | Security: 6/10 Good for: Dev environments, teams getting started, low-sensitivity workloads Architecture 2 — Hybrid: Private Ingestion, Open Queries (Recommended for most) AMPLS is in place. Ingestion is locked to PrivateOnly — logs from virtual machines travel through a Private Endpoint inside your own network, never touching a public route. On-premises or hybrid machines connect through Azure Arc over VPN or a dedicated circuit and feed into the same private pipeline. Query access stays open, so analysts can work from anywhere without needing a VPN/Jumpbox to reach the Sentinel portal — the investigation workflow stays flexible, but the log ingestion path is fully ring-fenced. You can also split ingestion mode per DCE if you need some sources public and some private. This is the architecture most organisations land on as their steady state. Simplicity: 6/10 | Security: 8/10 Good for: Organisations with mixed cloud and on-premises estates that need private ingestion without restricting analyst access Architecture 3 — Fully Private (Maximum Control) Infrastructure is essentially identical to Architecture 2 — AMPLS, Private Endpoints, Private DNS zones, VPN or dedicated circuit, Azure Arc for on-premises machines. The single difference: query mode is also set to PrivateOnly. Analysts can only reach Sentinel from inside the private network. VPN or Jumpbox required to access the portal. Both the pipe that carries logs in and the channel analysts use to read them are fully contained within the defined boundary. This is the right choice when your organisation needs to demonstrate — not just claim — that security data never moves outside a defined network perimeter. Simplicity: 2/10 | Security: 10/10 Good for: Organisations with strict data boundary requirements (regulated industries, audit, compliance mandates) Quick Reference — Which Pattern Fits? Scenario Architecture Getting started / low-sensitivity workloads Arch 1 — No network setup, public endpoints accepted Private log ingestion, analysts work anywhere Arch 2 — AMPLS PrivateOnly ingestion, query mode open Both ingestion and queries must be fully private Arch 3 — Same as Arch 2 + query mode set to PrivateOnly One thing all three share: Microsoft 365, Entra ID, and Defender connectors work in every pattern — they are server-side pulls by Sentinel and are not affected by your network posture. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions regarding the information provided.
