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?Report suspicious activity (Preview)
Allows users to report suspicious activities if they receive an authentication request that they did not initiate. This control is available when using the Microsoft Authenticator app and voice calls. Reporting suspicious activity will set the user's risk to high. If the user is subject to risk-based Conditional Access policies, they may be blocked.
Introducing the Entra Helpdesk Portal: A Zero-Trust, Dockerized ITSM Interface for Tier 1 Support
Hello everyone, If you manage identity in Microsoft Entra ID at an enterprise scale, you know the struggle: delegating day-to-day operational tasks (like password resets, session revocations, and MFA management) to Tier 1 and Tier 2 support staff is inherently risky. The native Azure/Entra portal is incredibly powerful, but it’s complex and lacks mandatory ITSM enforcement. Giving a helpdesk technician the "Helpdesk Administrator" role grants them access to a portal where a single misclick can cause a major headache. To solve this, I’ve developed the Entra Helpdesk Portal (Community Edition)—an open-source, containerized application designed to act as an isolated "airlock" between your support team and your Entra ID tenant. Why This Adds Value to Your Tenant Instead of having technicians log into the Azure portal, they log into this clean, Material Design web interface. It leverages a backend Service Principal (using MSAL and the Graph API) to execute commands on their behalf. Strict Zero Trust: Logging in via Microsoft SSO isn’t enough. The app intercepts the token and checks the user’s UPN against a hardcoded ALLOWED_ADMINS whitelist in your Docker environment file. Mandatory ITSM Ticketing: You cannot enforce ticketing in the native Azure Portal. In this app, every write action prompts a modal requiring a valid ticket number (e.g., INC-123456). Local Audit Logging: All actions, along with the actor, timestamp, and ticket number, are written to an immutable local SQLite database (audit.db) inside the container volume. Performance: Heavy Graph API reads are cached in-memory with a Time-To-Live (TTL) and smart invalidation. Searching for users or loading Enterprise Apps takes milliseconds. What Can It Do? Identity Lifecycle: Create users, auto-generate secure 16-character passwords, revoke sign-in sessions, reset passwords, and delete specific MFA methods to force re-registration. Diagnostics: View a user's last 5 sign-in logs, translating Microsoft error codes into plain English. Group Management: Add/remove members to Security and M365 groups. App/SPN Management: Lazy-load raw requiredResourceAccess Graph API payloads to audit app permissions, and instantly rotate client secrets. Universal Restore: Paste the Object ID of any soft-deleted item into the Recycle Bin tab to instantly resurrect it. How Easy Is It to Setup? I wanted this to be universally deployable, so I compiled it as a multi-architecture Docker image (linux/amd64 and linux/arm64). It will run on a massive Windows Server or a simple Raspberry Pi. Setup takes less than 5 minutes: Create an App Registration in Entra ID and grant it the necessary Graph API Application Permissions (e.g., User.ReadWrite.All, AuditLog.Read.All). Create a docker-compose.yml file. Define your feature toggles. You can literally turn off features (like User Deletion) by setting an environment variable to false. version: '3.8' services: helpdesk-portal: image: jahmed22/entra-helpdesk:latest container_name: entra_helpdesk restart: unless-stopped ports: - "8000:8000" environment: # CORE IDENTITY - TENANT_ID=your_tenant_id_here - CLIENT_ID=your_client_id_here - CLIENT_SECRET=your_client_secret_here - BASE_URL=https://entradesk.jahmed.cloud - ALLOWED_ADMINS=email address removed for privacy reasons # CUSTOMIZATION & FEATURE FLAGS - APP_NAME=Entra Help Desk - ENABLE_PASSWORD_RESET=true - ENABLE_MFA_MANAGEMENT=true - ENABLE_USER_DELETION=false - ENABLE_GROUP_MANAGEMENT=true - ENABLE_APP_MANAGEMENT=true volumes: - entra_helpdesk_data:/app/static/uploads - entra_helpdesk_db:/app volumes: entra_helpdesk_data: entra_helpdesk_db: 4.Run docker compose up -d and you are done! I built this to give back to the community and help secure our Tier 1 operations. If you are interested in testing it out in your dev tenants or want to see the full architecture breakdown, you can read the complete documentation on my website here I’d love to hear your thoughts, feedback, or any feature requests you might have!
'Microsoft App Access Panel' and Conditional Access with SSPR combined registration bug
Currently, enabling self-service password reset (SSPR) registration enforcement causes the app 'Microsoft App Access Panel' to be added to the login flow of users who have SSPR enabled. This app is not able to be excluded from Conditional Access (CA) polices and is caught by 'All cloud apps', which breaks secure zero-trust scenarios and CA policy configurations. Best way to demonstrate this is through examples... ----Example 1---- Environment: CA Policy 1 - 'All cloud apps' requiring hybrid/compliant device, but excluding [App] (for all non-guest accounts) CA Policy 2 - [App] requiring MFA only (for contractor accounts, etc) CA Policy 3 - [App] requiring hybrid/compliant device (for internal accounts, etc) SSPR registration enforcement (Password reset > Registration) - set to 'Yes' MFA registration enforcement (Security > Authentication Methods > Registration campaign) - set to 'Enabled' Scenario: A new user requires access to web [App] on an unenrolled device and is assigned an account that falls under CA Policy 1 and 2, however [App] is excluded from 1 and shouldn't apply to this login. When accessing [App] for the first time, users must register SSPR/MFA. They see the below message, click 'Next' and are directed to https://accounts.activedirectory.windowsazure.com/passwordreset/register.aspx: Then they see this screen, which will block the login and try to get the user to download the Company Portal app: While behind the scenes, the login to [App] is being blocked by 'Microsoft App Access Panel' because it is seemingly added to the login flow and caught in CA Policy 1 in Req 2/3: CA Policy 1 shows as not applied on Req 1, CA Policy 2 shows as successful for Req 1/2/3 and CA Policy 3 shows as not applied for Req 1/2/3. Creating a CA policy for the 'Register security information' user action has no effect on this scenario and also shows as not applied on all the related sign-in logs. ----Example 2---- Environment: Same as above, but SSPR registration enforcement - set to 'No' Scenario: Same as above, but when accessing the [App] for the first time, they see the below message instead, click 'Next' and are directed to https://accounts.activedirectory.windowsazure.com/proofup.aspx: Then they are directed to the combined SSPR/MFA registration experience successfully: The 'Microsoft App Access Panel' doesn't show in the sign-in logs and the sign-in is successful after registration. From the two examples, it seems to be a bug with the SSPR registration enforcement and the combined registration experience. ----Workarounds---- 1 - Prevent using 'All cloud apps' with device based CA policies (difficult, requires redesigning/thinking/testing policies, could introduce new gaps, etc) 2 - Turn off SSPR registration enforcement and turn on MFA registration enforcement like in example 2 (easy, but only enforces MS MFA App registration, doesn't seem to re-trigger registration if the MS MFA App is removed, no other methods are supported for registration, and doesn't remind users to update) 3 - Disable SSPR entirely for affected users (medium depending on available security groups, and doesn't allow for affected users to use SSPR) ----Related links---- https://feedback.azure.com/d365community/idea/d5253b08-d076-ed11-a81b-000d3adb7ffd https://feedback.azure.com/d365community/idea/1365df89-c625-ec11-b6e6-000d3a4f0789 Conditional Access Policies, Guest Access and the "Microsoft Invitation Acceptance Portal" - Microsoft Community Hub MS, please either: 1 - Allow 'Microsoft App Access Panel' to be added to CA policies so it can be excluded 2 - Prevent 'Microsoft App Access Panel' from showing up in the CA login flow when SSPR registration enforcement is enabledDevice Migration from On-prem AD to Azure AD
Hello All, We want to migrate our On-Prem AD devices to Azure AD and enroll into intune. We have Azure AD sync and all but needs to convert machine to Azure AD join only not Hybrid AD. So we would like to create new user profile on machine. We have used two methods so far. 1) Reset the machine and use join to Azure AD from OOBE. ( Issue - This will make user a Administrator for that machine and we dont want that ) 2) Unbind from on-prem AD, join to Azure AD manually but the same issue like number 1. 3) Using Hardware Hash, register devices to Autopilot and then reset all the machines. ( Issue - This will take too long to migrate 250 machines and helping remote workers are quite difficult ) Has anyone tried any different method or is there any expert suggestion ? Thanks!Can External ID (CIAM) federate to an Azure AD/Entra ID tenant using SAML?
What I'm trying to achieve I'm setting up SAML federation FROM my External ID tenant (CIAM) TO a partner's Entra ID tenant (regular organizational tenant) for a hybrid CIAM/B2B setup where: Business users authenticate via their corporate accounts (OIDC or SAML) Individual customers use username/password or social providers (OIDC) Tenant details / Terminology: CIAM tenant: External ID tenant for customer-facing applications IdP tenant: Example Partner's organizational Entra ID tenant with business accounts Custom domain: mycustomdomain.com (example domain for the IdP tenant) Configuration steps taken Step 1: IdP Tenant (Entra ID) - Created SAML App Set up Enterprise App with SAML SSO Entity ID: https://login.microsoftonline.com/<CIAM_TENANT_ID>/ Reply URL: https://<CIAM_TENANT_ID>.ciamlogin.com/login.srf NameID: Persistent format Claim mapping: emailaddress → user.mail Step 2: CIAM Tenant (External ID) - Added SAML IdP (Initially imported from the SAML metadata URL from the above setup) Federating domain: mycustomdomain.com Issuer URI: https://sts.windows.net/<IDP_TENANT_ID>/ Passive endpoint: https://login.microsoftonline.com/mycustomdomain.com/saml2 DNS TXT record added: DirectFedAuthUrl=https://login.microsoftonline.com/mycustomdomain.com/saml2 Step 3: Attached to User Flow Added SAML IdP to user flow under "Other identity providers" Saved configuration and waited for propagation The problem It doesn't work. When testing via "Run user flow": No SAML button appears (should display "Sign in with mycustomdomain") Entering email address removed for privacy reasons doesn't trigger federation The SAML provider appears configured but never shows up in the actual flow Also tried using the tenant GUID in the passive endpoint instead of the domain - same result My question Is SAML federation from External ID to regular Entra ID tenants actually possible? I know OIDC federation to Microsoft tenants is (currently, august 2025) explicitly blocked (microsoftonline.com domains are rejected). Is SAML similarly restricted? The portal lets me configure everything without throwing any errors, but it never actually works. Am I missing something in my configuration? The documentation for this use case is limited and I've had to piece together the setup from various sources. Or is this a fundamental limitation where External ID simply can't federate to ANY Microsoft tenant regardless of the protocol used?
