Am trying to create group with dynamic user membership using attribute "Employee Type"
Am trying to create group with dynamic user membership using attribute "Employee Type", tried to get details from Extension attribute but didn't find any option, Did anyone tried this and able to do ? I found a posting where it said to create a custom attribute that would be populated by the 'employee Type' field. That just seems a little strange to me to to create an attribute to be exactly like the one that is already there.Orphaned TPM-bound Entra Workplace Join device — no tenant access, backend deletion required
I have a personal Windows device that remains stuck in a TPM-protected Workplace Join to a former Microsoft Entra ID tenant. I no longer have tenant access and am not an admin. Local remediation completed: - dsregcmd /leave executed as SYSTEM - All MS-Organization / AAD certificates removed - Device still reports WorkplaceJoined : YES Azure Support ticket creation fails with: AADSTS160021 – interaction_required Application requested a user session which does not exist. Tenant inaccessible / user not present in tenant. This is an orphaned Entra ID device object. Requesting guidance or escalation for backend deletion. Tenant ID: 99f9b903-8447-4711-a2df-c5bd1ad1adf7 Device ID: f47987f4-a20b-4c34-a5f7-40ab0f593c6c
PHS staged rollout works for existing users but not new synced users
We are troubleshooting an Entra ID PHS staged rollout issue with a federated domain using a third-party WS-Fed IdP. The intended behavior is that normal federated users redirect to the IdP, while users in the PHS staged rollout group receive the Microsoft/Entra password prompt instead. Existing users in the staged rollout group continue to work correctly. They enter their UPN and receive the Microsoft password prompt. One known-good test user is not provisioned in the third-party IdP and still signs in successfully through the Entra password prompt, so the working path does not require the user to exist in the IdP. The issue is only with newly created AD-synced users. Newly synced users in the same staged rollout group are still being routed to the federated IdP at HRD instead of receiving the Entra password prompt. We’ve verified the staged rollout policy and group membership from Graph, confirmed the affected users are properly AD-synced with clean immutableID/sourceAnchor, and confirmed PHS is working. Federation metadata and HRD policies also look clean. Seamless SSO/AZUREADSSOACC was checked and remediated, but the behavior did not change. For failed attempts, there is no Entra sign-in log entry, including tenant-wide interactive and non-interactive logs. However, the federated IdP logs show a WS-Fed inbound request from login.microsoftonline.com for the affected user. That makes it look like Entra HRD is routing the user to federation before sign-in logging or token issuance. The issue started around an Entra Connect AD connector/DC-path change. We have since reverted the connector to the previous known-good configuration. After reverting, we created a clean-room test user with the correct UPN set before first sync, confirmed sync/PHS/sourceAnchor, added the user directly to the staged rollout group, and waited 60+ minutes. The clean-room user still redirected to the federated IdP instead of getting the Entra password prompt. So the current behavior is that established staged-rollout users still get the Entra password prompt, but newly created synced staged-rollout users are sent to the federated IdP by HRD. Has anyone seen staged rollout get into this state, where existing users work but new synced users remain on the federated HRD path despite valid rollout policy, group membership, synced password hash, and clean immutableID/sourceAnchor? Is there any known backend cache/state reset or escalation path for HRD/staged rollout routing?Made a self-hosted Entra ID governance portal for app/identity sprawl (open source)
Our tenant ended up with hundreds of app registrations and enterprise apps, and the native portal makes you dig through a separate blade for every basic question. Who owns this app? Which secrets die next month? What hasn't been signed into in a year? Which ones have scary Graph permissions? There's no single view for any of it, and half the ownership info was missing anyway. Entra ID Governance, access reviews, PIM all exist, but they felt heavy (and licensed) for what I actually wanted, which was just a fast list I could scan for routine cleanup. So I built one. Lightweight portal that runs entirely in your own subscription: One grid for App Registrations, Enterprise Apps, Managed Identities and Privileged Users Risk flags per identity: expiring/expired creds, high-risk permissions, no owner, stale sign-in, no CA coverage Ownership tracking, review and owner-change workflow, CSV export Tenant health score and a consent posture dashboard Optional expiry email notifications (needs a SendGrid key) Reads Graph through a managed identity, so no app secrets for data access and nothing leaves your tenant Runs about $26-30/month (one B2 App Service plan). B1 is also supported, but it's noticeably slower. It's not a replacement for Entra ID Governance or PIM, more of a cheap everyday hygiene thing. Full disclosure, I used AI building this and writing this up. I designed the architecture and functionality, tested it and ran it against my own tenant. It's open source and deployable with Azure DevOps or an Azure CLI script. Data never leaves your own tenant. Repo (screenshots + setup): https://github.com/nicolaibaralmueller/entra-identity-governance-portal Would love feedback, especially what you'd want it to flag that it doesn't, or where the risk scoring feels off. Been building it on and off for a few months with a lot of iteration. Hopefully this could be useful for others as well.
Fido passkeys blocked by policy
Hi all I'm helping out a customer with deploying physical passkeys and I'm running into a weird error. I've activated the sign in method and selected the two AAGuids for the Authenticator app and I've added the right AAGuid for the brand and model of passkey we are using. We can select the authentication method and enroll the security correctly but when trying to sign in using it we get the error as displayed in the attached picture. When checking the sign in logs i get this error message FIDO sign-in is disabled via policy and the error code is: 135016 I've not been able to track down any policy that would be blocking passkeys. anyone got any ideas?'Registering user becomes local admin on Joined Devices' - WHAT
Stumbled on a tenant with 'JOIN' available for all users. Haven't worked with this much - most tenants I see only have registration. But then I noticed the horrifying 'Registering user is added as local administrator on the device during Microsoft Entra join' option was ALSO set to ALL. This is a tenant we just took on, but I've never seen that control before. This is terrifying, considering AFAIK, there is no real way for a registering user to know if they're registering or joining. Beneath it is an option to 'Manage Additional local administrators on all Microsoft Entra joined devices', which leads to the Role page for Device Administrators, which is empty. Under Description, this describes what APPEARS to be to be the same thing mentioned in the previous control - 'Users with this role become local machine administrators on all Windows 10 devices that are joined to Microsoft Entra'. But no one is assigned this. Conveniently, on my own tenant, I happened to let someone JOIN yesterday. We have this limited to 2 (now 3) people - most just register... But this user Joined, and the 'Joining user becomes local admin' option was on ALL. But I can't validate that the user ever become local admin. They don't have the role, their device shows as joined, but there's no additional roles. The audit logs don't look weird. They're not in that 'Device Administrators' group, which describes itself as 'Users with this role become local machine administrators on all Windows 10 devices that are joined to Microsoft Entra'. Thoughts? Freaking out, honestly. We have a mix of DC and Cloud users. I've inherited them all, and had the understanding that Join was essentially registration but with Org ownership. I've tried to get some input from Copilot, but he has basically waffled between 'No, this setting is just badly named' and 'no, actually it's this other setting' and 'no, you know what, it all makes sense somehow'. 1. Does that option actually set the joining user as global admin? Is that really the default setting? 2. can you validate this ANYWHERE in Entra? Or does it just disappear? 3. what is that Device Admin group? A separate group, independent of these two settings, that gives local admin? 4. Is there a graph endpoint that can be used to set this? Thanks
Myapplications.microsoft.com and managing applications
We have begun testing the new Myapplications.microsoft.com site. One thing we have noticed is the inability to manage the users who have access to an enterprise application. In the older MyApps site, a delegated user listed within the self-service properties of an enterprise application, could manage and invite guest users (if they have been added to the Guest Inviter role) to their application. However, when trying to do the same thing on Myapplications.microsoft.com brings up the following message on the Permissions and Accounts tab: "This app does not have any accounts." Has anyone else experienced this issue? We currently have Azure AD P1.Hybrid Join Lifecycle Model
Microsoft Entra hybrid join is still a common reality in enterprise environments. For many organizations, it remains necessary because legacy applications still rely on Active Directory machine authentication, Group Policy is still in use, and on-premises operational dependencies have not fully been retired. At the same time, the long-term direction for endpoint identity is increasingly cloud-native. That creates an important architectural question: Should hybrid join be treated as a permanent device state, or as a lifecycle stage in a broader modernization journey? In practice, hybrid join is often discussed as a binary condition: the device is either hybrid joined or it is not. But from an operational perspective, that view is too limited. In real enterprise environments, hybrid join behaves much more like a lifecycle. A device moves through provisioning, registration, trust establishment, management attachment, steady-state operation, recovery, retirement, and eventually transition. That distinction matters because most hybrid join issues do not fail loudly. They usually appear as stale objects, pending registrations, broken trust, inconsistent management ownership, and environments that remain temporarily hybrid far longer than intended. Why a lifecycle model is useful Treating hybrid join as a lifecycle helps explain why so many organizations struggle with it even when the initial implementation appears technically correct. The challenge is usually not the first successful join. The challenge is everything that happens around it: Provisioning quality Trust validation Management ownership Drift detection Stale object cleanup Exit criteria for transition to Entra join Without that lifecycle view, hybrid join often becomes a static design decision with no clear operational model behind it. The eight phases 1. Provisioning The lifecycle starts when the device is built, imaged, or provisioned. This stage is more important than it looks. If the device is provisioned from a contaminated image, or if cloning and snapshot practices are not handled carefully, later identity issues are often inherited rather than newly created. Provisioning should be treated as an identity-controlled event, not just an OS deployment task. 2. Registration The device becomes known to Microsoft Entra. This is where many environments confuse visibility with readiness. A device object may exist in the cloud, but that does not automatically mean the hybrid identity state is healthy or operationally usable. 3. Trust Establishment This is the point where hybrid join becomes real. A device should not be considered fully onboarded until both sides of trust are present and healthy. In operational terms, this means the device is not only registered, but also capable of supporting the expected sign-in and identity flows. 4. Management Attachment Once trust exists, governance becomes the next question. Many organizations still balance Group Policy, Configuration Manager, Intune, and legacy application dependencies at the same time. That is exactly why hybrid join often persists. But if management ownership is not clearly defined, organizations end up with overlapping policy planes, inconsistent control, and unclear accountability. 5. Operational Steady State Hybrid join does not stop at successful registration. The device must remain healthy over time, and that means monitoring trust health, registration state, token health, line-of-sight to required infrastructure, and management consistency. A device that was healthy once is not necessarily healthy now. 6. Recovery Every real environment eventually encounters drift. Pending states, broken trust, orphaned records, reimaged devices, and inconsistent registration scenarios should not be treated as unusual edge cases. They should be expected and handled with formal recovery playbooks. Recovery is not an exception to the lifecycle. It is part of the lifecycle. 7. Retirement Retirement is one of the weakest areas in many hybrid environments. Devices are replaced or decommissioned, but their identity records often remain behind. That leads to stale objects, inventory noise, and administrative confusion. A proper lifecycle model should include a controlled retirement sequence rather than ad hoc cleanup. 8. Transition This is the most important strategic phase. The key question is no longer whether a device can remain hybrid joined, but whether there is still a justified reason to keep it there. Hybrid join may still be necessary in many environments today, but in many cases it should be treated as transitional architecture rather than the target end state. Practical takeaway Looking at hybrid join as a lifecycle creates a more useful framework for architecture decisions, operational ownership, troubleshooting, directory hygiene, governance, and transition planning toward Microsoft Entra join. That is the real value of this model. It does not replace technical implementation guidance, but it helps organizations think more clearly about why hybrid join exists, how it should be operated, and when it should eventually be retired. Final thought Hybrid join is still relevant in many enterprise environments, but it should not automatically be treated as a default destination. In many cases, it works best when it is managed as a lifecycle-driven operating model with defined phases, controls, and exit criteria. That makes it easier to stabilize operations today, while also creating a clearer path toward a more cloud-native endpoint identity model tomorrow. Full article: https://www.modernendpoint.tech/hybrid-join-lifecycle-model
ID token issued by AAD doesn't match public signing key
Hi, I've encountered an issue that ID tokens (JWT) issued by AAD do not match a public signing key. This is my JWKS url: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flogin.microsoftonline.com%2F1d063515-6cad-4195-9486-ea65df456faa%2Fdiscovery%2Fv2.0%2Fkeys&data=02%7C01%7Cyu.kuang.lu%40LEGO.com%7C83d34dcb3e744cd9498508d8294edcdf%7C1d0635156cad41959486ea65df456faa%7C1%7C0%7C637304765982427993&sdata=9WgGhPx7T%2B9ngD3RSu6zT3ePFwIfr3IwKk2m9JiNAxE%3D&reserved=0 However the ID token I receive has a unmatched kid like below { "typ": "JWT", "alg": "RS256", "kid": "ylQQc6jLgNEIt8AMAPm8jR27QCE" } It's been working fine until a couple of days ago. It is mentioned somewhere that AAD rotates public keys but it seems tokens might be persisted without knowledge that the signing key has changed. However access token match one of the keys like { "typ": "JWT", "nonce": "ExKWqBKO2TvzbusXVkALk0RQhka3YiNxEKQg69gs27Q", "alg": "RS256", "x5t": "huN95IvPfehq34GzBDZ1GXGirnM", "kid": "huN95IvPfehq34GzBDZ1GXGirnM" } Is this the expected behaviour? AAD is my IDP and AWS Cognito is the auth server in my set up. Because of this issue, Cognito is unable to verify signature of ID tokens therefore users can sign in but cannot proceed further because of this. Has anyone come across a similar issue before?
