Designing Cloud Landing Zones by Traffic Flow: A Defence‑in‑Depth, DMZ‑First Architecture
As enterprises adopt Microsoft Azure for large‑scale and regulated workloads, security architecture must be driven by traffic trust boundaries and inspection intent, not connectivity alone. Regulatory frameworks consistently require a clear separation between Internet‑untrusted and private enterprise traffic, enforced through defence‑in‑depth controls aligned to the OSI model. This drives the adoption of a DMZ‑first landing zone architecture, where volumetric protection, application‑layer inspection, and perimeter controls are enforced at well‑defined trust boundaries. Security enforcement is prioritised before access, rather than being an afterthought of connectivity. A distributed hub architecture enables this model at scale, delivering consistent controls while improving resiliency, fault isolation, and operational clarity. Traffic Classification in an Enterprise Landing Zone Enterprise traffic flows are classified based on origin, destination, and trust level, which directly dictates inspection requirements: Internet Inbound (North–South): Traffic from the public Internet to Azure‑hosted applications Internet Outbound (South–North): Egress traffic from private workloads to the Internet East–West: Traffic between virtual networks within or across regions Hybrid Connectivity: Traffic between Azure, on‑premises, and multi‑cloud environments Each flow presents a distinct risk profile, making a uniform connectivity and inspection model unsuitable for enterprise and regulated environments. Hub‑and‑Spoke as the Foundation for Centralised Security Enterprises commonly adopt a Hub‑and‑Spoke topology using VNET peering or Azure Virtual WAN, extending hybrid connectivity via Site‑to‑Site VPN or ExpressRoute. The hub provides a centralised, datapath‑centric layer for shared networking and security services, while spoke VNETs host application workloads and remain private, typically without public IPs. Ingress and egress are handled through shared, centrally managed endpoints. This model consolidates critical controls—Azure Firewall, Azure WAF, and DDoS protection—at controlled entry and exit points, significantly reducing the attack surface. Integration with Microsoft Sentinel enables cross‑layer visibility, threat hunting, and detection of risks such as unauthorised access and data exfiltration. Why a Single Hub Is Not Sufficient Using a single hub to process all traffic types introduces operational and security challenges at scale by forcing Internet‑untrusted and private traffic through the same inspection tier. Key limitations include: Coupled Internet and private security policies Rapid firewall rule sprawl and management overhead A single blast radius across all traffic types Throughput and SNAT scalability constraints Increased difficulty meeting regulatory separation requirements These issues become more pronounced as environments scale across regions and workloads. Multi‑Hub as an Enterprise‑Grade Evolution A multi‑hub architecture resolves these challenges by separating inspection responsibilities across dedicated hubs: DMZ Hub VNET: Internet‑facing traffic and perimeter security enforcement Core Hub VNET: Outbound Internet access, East‑West, and hybrid traffic inspection This separation aligns security controls with traffic intent, reduces policy complexity, limits blast radius, and simplifies operations. In the next section, we explore multi‑hub architecture patterns and examine how each traffic flow is inspected and governed in practice. Scenario 1 – Third‑Party Firewall–Centric Multi‑Hub Design In this scenario, third‑party firewalls provide inspection for all traffic flows—Internet inbound, Internet outbound, East‑West, and hybrid connectivity—while Azure WAF and Azure DDoS Protection are used to defend against volumetric attacks, application‑layer threats, and malicious bot traffic. Architecture Overview The design uses two dedicated hub virtual networks, with spoke VNets peered to both hubs to maintain traffic separation based on trust and inspection requirements: DMZ Hub VNET (Internet Ingress Hub) Core Hub VNET (Egress, East‑West, and Hybrid Hub) DMZ Hub VNET – Internet Inbound (North–South) Traffic The DMZ hub establishes a dedicated perimeter for Internet‑facing applications. Internet traffic lands on a public Application Gateway with Azure WAF, protected by an Azure DDoS Protection Plan applied to the public frontend IP. Third‑party firewalls are deployed behind the Application Gateway to perform deep packet inspection. Firewalls operate in active‑active mode as standalone appliances, using three dedicated network interfaces (Untrust, Trust, and Management), each placed in separate subnets. Application Gateway provides load balancing and health probing, ensuring firewall availability and resiliency. Core Hub VNET – Egress, East‑West, and Hybrid Traffic The core hub handles all non‑Internet‑inbound traffic flows, including private inter‑VNET communication and hybrid connectivity. Third‑party firewalls are deployed behind an internal Azure Load Balancer, which maintains high availability using health probes. Firewalls follow the same active‑active, three‑NIC design for consistent policy enforcement and operational symmetry. Azure NAT Gateway is associated with the firewall Untrust subnet to scale outbound SNAT and simplify Internet egress with deterministic public IP. Site‑to‑site VPN or ExpressRoute terminate in this hub for on‑premises and multi‑cloud connectivity, ensuring private and regulated traffic bypasses Internet‑facing controls. Architecture Patterns - Traffic Flow 1.1 North–South (Internet Inbound) Traffic Flow This flow applies when applications hosted on Azure (VMs, VM Scale Sets, or services behind Internal Load Balancer / Internal Application Gateway) are published to the Internet. As shown in the diagram, Internet-bound client requests enter Azure through a dedicated DMZ Hub, where perimeter security controls are enforced before traffic reaches private application spokes. Inbound Request Flow (Blue Path) Client → Application Gateway (WAF) A client request (for example, app1.example.com) is resolved via DNS and lands on the public endpoint of Azure Application Gateway. Azure WAF performs Layer‑7 inspection, bot protection, and rule evaluation. Application Gateway → Firewall (DMZ Hub) Based on hostname and routing rules, Application Gateway forwards traffic to the firewalls while preserving the client’s real IP using the X‑Forwarded‑For (XFF) header. Firewall → Application (Spoke VNET) The firewall performs DNAT to the internal destination (Internal Application Gateway or Internal Load Balancer) and SNAT to its trust‑interface IP to ensure symmetric return traffic. Traffic is then routed over VNET peering to the private application workload. Response Flow (Green Path) Application → Firewall The application responds using its private IP, with the firewall trust interface as the destination. Firewall → Application Gateway The firewall forwards the response based on its session state. Application Gateway → Client Application Gateway returns the response to the Internet client. DDoS Protection Azure DDoS Protection continuously monitors the Application Gateway public IP and mitigates volumetric attacks before they reach the application stack. Key Design Considerations Application Gateway routing - Use a multi‑site listener with hostname‑based rules to steer traffic to the appropriate firewall backend. Firewall backend mapping - Register firewall VMs in a single backend pool and differentiate applications using distinct backend settings (same protocol, different ports). Application steering at firewall - Firewalls perform port‑based DNAT (or private FQDN‑based DNAT where supported) to forward traffic to the correct application private IP in spoke VNets. Traffic symmetry - Source NAT is applied on the firewall trust interface to maintain symmetric return paths. Protocol support - The same pattern applies to TCP/UDP workloads, using an External Azure Load Balancer instead of Application Gateway where WAF is not required. Client IP visibility Application Gateway enables WAF inspection using the real client IP, preserved downstream via X‑Forwarded‑For. With Azure Load Balancer, client IP is retained up to the firewall for IP‑based enforcement, with Azure DDoS Protection safeguarding the public frontend. 1.2 Hybrid Connectivity Traffic Flow Hybrid connectivity represents communication between Azure workloads and on‑premises environments using Site‑to‑Site VPN or ExpressRoute. Traffic Flow Request (Blue: 1–4): Traffic originates from applications in spoke VNETs and is forwarded via UDRs to the Internal Load Balancer, through active‑active firewalls, and then to on‑premises via VPN or ExpressRoute. Response (Green: 5–8): Return traffic follows the same path in reverse. Key Design Considerations Source and destination IP addresses remain unchanged end‑to‑end, despite firewalls operating behind an Internal Load Balancer. UDRs steer both outbound and inbound hybrid traffic to the Internal Load Balancer as the next hop. Azure Virtual Network Manager can be used to manage and scale UDR deployment centrally across Hub and spoke networks. 1.3 East-West Traffic flow This traffic flow represents the connectivity between resources across VNETs through Firewall. Considerations remain same as “Hybrid Connectivity Traffic flow” mentioned above. 1.4 Egress/Outbound Connectivity Traffic flow This traffic flow represents the connectivity from the resources hosted inside VNETs to Internet through Firewalls deployed behind Internal Load Blancer in Core Hub VNET. Key Considerations: A default route (0.0.0.0/0) UDR directs Internet-bound traffic to the Internal Load Balancer for firewall inspection. Firewall performs SNAT to its untrusted interface, after which Azure NAT Gateway translates traffic to a fixed public IP. Alternatively, a public IP can be assigned to the firewall untrusted interface to perform SNAT directly, removing the need for NAT Gateway and reducing cost. However, with horizontal firewall scaling, outbound public IPs become non-deterministic. Scenario 2: Third‑Party Firewalls for Ingress, Azure Firewall for Private Flows In this scenario, third‑party firewalls secure Internet‑facing traffic, while Azure Firewall handles Egress, East–West, and Hybrid flows. This separation enables organisations to retain existing perimeter security investments while adopting a fully managed, cloud‑native control and data plane for internal traffic flows. As private traffic patterns scale, particularly for chatty East–West communication, Azure Firewall helps simplify operations and improves scalability by offloading traffic inspection to a managed service. This approach reduces operational overhead and provides consistent policy enforcement across internal and hybrid flows. Setup DMZ Hub design remains unchanged from Scenario 1. Core Hub VNET use Azure Firewall for better scalability, built‑in resilience, and simplified operations. Azure Firewall eliminates the need for load balancers and reduces complexity for chatty east‑west traffic. It requires a single subnet (unless force tunnelling is enabled), optimising IP consumption. Outbound traffic is SNATed by Azure Firewall and further translated via Azure NAT Gateway. Firewall‑based SNAT to public IP can be used to avoid NAT Gateway costs when deterministic egress IPs or higher SNAT scale are not required. Traffic Flow North–South (Internet Inbound) Traffic Flow represented with Numbers. Request flow represented with Blue: 1–3 Response flow represented with Brown: 4–6 Egress/Outbound Connectivity Traffic flow represented with alphabets. Request flow represented with Green: A–C Response flow represented with Blue: D–F Hybrid flow represented with purple Architecture Diagram: Further if you want to use Azure Firewall for the Internet Ingress flow, you can use it as well. Below is the architecture diagram explaining the same pattern. Key Considerations: Application Gateway behaviour remains the same as Scenario 1; however, backend pools use IP‑based targets. Internal applications should be exposed via internal Application Gateway or internal load balancer to provide stable backend IPs. Firewall Private IP could be configured as Target of Application Gateway but then Firewall is required to Source and Destination NATing as in case of 3 rd party FWs. For non-web (TCP/UDP) workloads, applications can be directly exposed through the firewall public IP, with Azure DDoS Protection applied to mitigate volumetric attacks. Scenario 3 - Overcoming Peering Complexity at Scale with Azure Virtual WAN In environments where each application is hosted in its own dedicated VNET for isolation and stronger security, a traditional hub‑and‑spoke model quickly becomes complex. With a single hub, "N" spoke VNETs require "N" peering's; introducing multiple hubs increases this to "2N", significantly amplifying operational overhead—especially across multiple regions. Azure Virtual WAN addresses this challenge by eliminating the need for extensive VNET peering. As a global, managed service, it simplifies large‑scale and multi‑region architectures while providing built‑in scalability and operational consistency. Setup DMZ Hub design and components remain unchanged from Scenario 1 keeping defense in depth principles intact for Internet Inbound or North-South traffic. Core Hub VNET is replaced with Azure Virtual WAN Secure Hub which has Azure Firewall inside the managed Secure Hub VNETs. This further eliminates the need for creating Azure Firewall Subnet, Azure NAT Gateway resources for East-West, Egress and Hybrid connectivity and provides same level of security protection as mentioned in Scenario 2. Secure Hub design using Virtual WAN removes the routing and inspection complexity which was unless required in Scenario 2 by removing UDR configurations in Spoke VNETs, Gateway Subnet and Azure Firewall Subnet. This provides simplified design and operations with built-in resiliency by leveraging the managed platform. Azure Firewall eliminates the need for load balancers and reduces complexity for chatty east‑west traffic. East-West, Egress, and Hybrid connectivity happens via VPN Gateway and Express Route Gateway present in Virtual Hub. All private and Internet Egress traffic is inspected by Azure Firewall present in secure Hub. Outbound traffic is SNATed to Public IP by Azure Firewall thus avoiding the need of Azure NAT Gateway. Firewall‑based SNAT to public IP can be used to avoid NAT Gateway costs when deterministic egress IPs or higher SNAT scale are not required. Traffic Flow North–South (Internet Inbound) Traffic Flow represented with Numbers. Request flow represented with Blue: 1–5 Response flow represented with Green: 6–10 Egress/Outbound Connectivity Traffic flow represented with Red Hybrid flow represented with Green East-West connectivity flow represented with black Architecture Diagram: Key Considerations Virtual WAN has additional cost Refer to architecture diagram above for different traffic flows. The DMZ VNET components consideration remains same as per scenario 1 You can use your own managed public IP on Azure Firewall for applying standard IP/Network DDoS protection plan. Benefits of multi-Hub approach over single Hub You can use this table as decision matrix to choose the best option for your application requirements. Dimensions Multi-Hub Design Resiliency · Independent scaling of DMZ and Core firewalls · Failure in Internet inspection does not impact East‑West traffic · Easier multi‑region active‑active designs Security & Compliance Clear trust boundaries Auditable inspection points Easier alignment with Zero Trust & regulatory frameworks Operational Simplicity Smaller, purpose‑built firewall policies Clear ownership (Perimeter vs Core team) Faster troubleshooting due to deterministic flows Cost Optimisation Avoids over‑inspection of East‑West traffic by DMZ firewalls Smaller firewall SKUs per hub Better scale‑unit consumption Performance Efficiency Reduced latency for private traffic No unnecessary hair‑pinning Optimised SNAT and connection tracking Key Takeaways Security‑first landing zones should not be designed as one‑size‑fits‑all networks. By designing hubs based on traffic trust level and inspection intent, rather than convenience, organisations gain: o Stronger security boundaries and better fault isolation o Predictable operations at scale o Lower long‑term cost and complexity o Design for traffic flows, not just connectivity o Use DMZ hubs exclusively for Internet‑untrusted traffic o Use Core hubs for East‑West, outbound, and hybrid connectivity o Map security controls to OSI layers o Avoid single‑hub designs for large, regulated, or multi‑region environments This distributed hub‑and‑DMZ landing zone provides a clean, scalable, and secure foundation for enterprise workloads in any hyperscaler. For regulated, internet‑exposed, or multi‑region environments, a distributed hub with a dedicated DMZ is no longer optional — it is a foundational architecture decision.How Azure network security can help you meet NIS2 compliance
With the adoption of the NIS2 Directive EU 2022 2555, cybersecurity obligations for both public and private sector organizations have become more strict and far reaching. NIS2 aims to establish a higher common level of cybersecurity across the European Union by enforcing stronger requirements on risk management, incident reporting, supply chain protection, and governance. If your organization runs on Microsoft Azure, you already have powerful services to support your NIS2 journey. In particular Azure network security products such as Azure Firewall, Azure Web Application Firewall WAF, and Azure DDoS Protection provide foundational controls. The key is to configure and operate them in a way that aligns with the directive’s expectations. Important note This article is a technical guide based on the NIS2 Directive EU 2022 2555 and Microsoft product documentation. It is not legal advice. For formal interpretations, consult your legal or regulatory experts. What is NIS2? NIS2 replaces the original NIS Directive 2016 and entered into force on 16 January 2023. Member states must transpose it into national law by 17 October 2024. Its goals are to: Expand the scope of covered entities essential and important entities Harmonize cybersecurity standards across member states Introduce stricter supervisory and enforcement measures Strengthen supply chain security and reporting obligations Key provisions include: Article 20 management responsibility and governance Article 21 cybersecurity risk management measures Article 23 incident notification obligations These articles require organizations to implement technical, operational, and organizational measures to manage risks, respond to incidents, and ensure leadership accountability. Where Azure network security fits The table below maps common NIS2 focus areas to Azure network security capabilities and how they support compliance outcomes. NIS2 focus area Azure services and capabilities How this supports compliance Incident handling and detection Azure Firewall Premium IDPS and TLS inspection, Threat Intelligence mode, Azure WAF managed rule sets and custom rules, Azure DDoS Protection, Azure Bastion diagnostic logs Detect, block, and log threats across layers three to seven. Provide telemetry for triage and enable response workflows that are auditable. Business continuity and resilience Azure Firewall availability zones and autoscale, Azure Front Door or Application Gateway WAF with zone redundant deployments, Azure Monitor with Log Analytics, Traffic Manager or Front Door for failover Improve service availability and provide data for resilience reviews and disaster recovery scenarios. Access control and segmentation Azure Firewall policy with DNAT, network, and application rules, NSGs and ASGs, Azure Bastion for browser based RDP SSH without public IPs, Private Link Enforce segmentation and isolation of critical assets. Support Zero Trust and least privilege for inbound and egress. Vulnerability and misconfiguration defense Azure WAF Microsoft managed rule set based on OWASP CRS. Azure Firewall Premium IDPS signatures Reduce exposure to common web exploits and misconfigurations for public facing apps and APIs. Encryption and secure communications TLS policy: Application Gateway SSL policy; Front Door TLS policy; App Service/PaaS minimum TLS. Inspection: Azure Firewall Premium TLS inspection Inspect and enforce encrypted communication policies and block traffic that violates TLS requirements. Inspect decrypted traffic for threats. Incident reporting and evidence Azure Network Security diagnostics, Log Analytics, Microsoft Sentinel incidents, workbooks, and playbooks Capture and retain telemetry. Correlate events, create incident timelines, and export reports to meet regulator timelines. NIS2 articles in practice Article 21 cybersecurity risk management measures Azure network controls contribute to several required measures: Prevention and detection. Azure Firewall blocks unauthorized access and inspects traffic with IDPS. Azure DDoS Protection mitigates volumetric and protocol attacks. Azure WAF prevents common web exploits based on OWASP guidance. Logging and monitoring. Azure Firewall, WAF, DDoS, and Bastion resources produce detailed resource logs and metrics in Azure Monitor. Ingest these into Microsoft Sentinel for correlation, analytics rules, and automation. Control of encrypted communications. Azure Firewall Premium provides TLS inspection to reveal malicious payloads inside encrypted sessions. Supply chain and service provider management. Use Azure Policy and Defender for Cloud to continuously assess configuration and require approved network security baselines across subscriptions and landing zones. Article 23 incident notification Build an evidence friendly workflow with Sentinel: Early warning within twenty four hours. Use Sentinel analytics rules on Firewall, WAF, DDoS, and Bastion logs to generate incidents and trigger playbooks that assemble an initial advisory. Incident notification within seventy two hours. Enrich the incident with additional context such as mitigation actions from DDoS, Firewall and WAF. Final report within one month. Produce a summary that includes root cause, impact, and corrective actions. Use Workbooks to export charts and tables that back up your narrative. Article 20 governance and accountability Management accountability. Track policy compliance with Azure Policy initiatives for Firewall, DDoS and WAF. Use exemptions rarely and record justification. Centralized visibility. Defender for Cloud’s network security posture views and recommendations give executives and owners a quick view of exposure and misconfigurations. Change control and drift prevention. Manage Firewall, WAF, and DDoS through Network Security Hub and Infrastructure as Code with Bicep or Terraform. Require pull requests and approvals to enforce four eyes on changes. Network security baseline Use this blueprint as a starting point. Adapt to your landing zone architecture and regulator guidance. Topology and control plane Hub and spoke architecture with a centralized Azure Firewall Premium in the hub. Enable availability zones. Deploy Azure Bastion Premium in the hub or a dedicated management VNet; peer to spokes. Remove public IPs from management NICs and disable public RDP SSH on VMs. Use Network Security Hub for at-scale management. Require Infrastructure as Code for all network security resources. Web application protection Protect public apps with Azure Front Door Premium WAF where edge inspection is required. Use Application Gateway WAF v2 for regional scenarios. Enable the Microsoft managed rule set and the latest version. Add custom rules for geo based allow or deny and bot management. enable rate limiting when appropriate. DDoS strategy Enable DDoS Network Protection on virtual networks that contain internet facing resources. Use IP Protection for single public IP scenarios. Configure DDoS diagnostics and alerts. Stream to Sentinel. Define runbooks for escalation and service team engagement. Firewall policy Enable IDPS in alert and then in alert and deny for high confidence signatures. Enable TLS inspection for outbound and inbound where supported. Enforce FQDN and URL filtering for egress. Require explicit allow lists for critical segments. Deny inbound RDP SSH from the internet. Allow management traffic only from Bastion subnets or approved management jump segments. Logging, retention, and access Turn on diagnostic settings for Firewall, WAF, DDoS, and Application Gateway or Front Door. Send to Log Analytics and an archive storage account for long term retention. Set retention per national law and internal policy. Azure Monitor Log Analytics supports table-level retention and archive for up to 12 years, many teams keep a shorter interactive window and multi-year archive for audits. Restrict access with Azure RBAC and Customer Managed Keys where applicable. Automation and playbooks Build Sentinel playbooks for regulator notifications, ticket creation, and evidence collection. Maintain dry run versions for exercises. Add analytics for Bastion session starts to sensitive VMs, excessive failed connection attempts, and out of hours access. Conclusion Azure network security services provide the technical controls most organizations need in order to align with NIS2. When combined with policy enforcement, centralized logging, and automated detection and response, they create a defensible and auditable posture. Focus on layered protection, secure connectivity, and real time response so that you can reduce exposure to evolving threats, accelerate incident response, and meet NIS2 obligations with confidence. References NIS2 primary source Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2555/oj/eng Azure Firewall Premium features (TLS inspection, IDPS, URL filtering). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall/premium-features Deploy & configure Azure Firewall Premium. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall/premium-deploy IDPS signature categories reference. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall/idps-signature-categories Monitoring & diagnostic logs reference. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall/monitor-firewall-reference Web Application Firewall WAF on Azure Front Door overview & features. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/frontdoor/web-application-firewall WAF on Application Gateway overview. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/web-application-firewall/overview Examine WAF logs with Log Analytics. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/application-gateway/log-analytics Rate limiting with Front Door WAF. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/web-application-firewall/afds/waf-front-door-rate-limit Azure DDoS Protection Service overview & SKUs (Network Protection, IP Protection). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ddos-protection/ddos-protection-overview Quickstart: Enable DDoS IP Protection. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ddos-protection/manage-ddos-ip-protection-portal View DDoS diagnostic logs (Notifications, Mitigation Reports/Flows). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ddos-protection/ddos-view-diagnostic-logs Azure Bastion Azure Bastion overview and SKUs. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/bastion/bastion-overview Deploy and configure Azure Bastion. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/bastion/tutorial-create-host-portal Disable public RDP and SSH on Azure VMs. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/security-baseline Azure Bastion diagnostic logs and metrics. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/bastion/bastion-diagnostic-logs Microsoft Sentinel Sentinel documentation (onboard, analytics, automation). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sentinel/ Azure Firewall solution for Microsoft Sentinel. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall/firewall-sentinel-overview Use Microsoft Sentinel with Azure WAF. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/web-application-firewall/waf-sentinel Architecture & routing Hub‑spoke network topology (reference). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/networking/architecture/hub-spoke Azure Firewall Manager & secured virtual hub. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall-manager/secured-virtual-hub
Understanding and building an Azure Hybrid Meshed Hub-Spoke Topology
A meshed hybrid hub-spoke topology Azure offers two main approaches to build network architectures. This article focuses on traditional networking (using VNets, peering, route tables, etc.), rather than Azure Virtual WAN. Why a hub-spoke topology? A hub‑spoke topology is the only way to control traffic flows while maintaining scalability, because it enforces a central point of connectivity and policy enforcement: Centralized traffic control / inspection: All connectivity (to on‑premises, the internet, and between spokes) is anchored through the hub. The hub hosts shared services such as firewalls or NVAs, providing a single control point where traffic is inspected, filtered, and governed consistently. Avoids uncontrolled lateral communication: Spokes do not connect arbitrarily to each other. All connectivity is routed through the hub, preventing uncontrolled east‑west communication and ensuring traffic follows defined security and routing policies. Inherent scalability by design: New workloads are added by introducing additional spokes. The core network design remains unchanged, enabling linear scaling without the complexity of full-mesh connectivity. In summary, the hub‑spoke model provides centralized control combined with scalable, decoupled workload networks—something that flat or full-mesh designs struggle to achieve. From hub-spoke to meshed multi-region In a hub‑spoke topology, it’s important to keep in mind that the hub is implemented as an Azure Virtual Network (VNet) and VNets are scoped to a single region. This means that in a multi‑region setup, you’ll always need at least one hub per region. Each of these hubs hosts shared services like firewalls, NVAs, and DNS, acting as the central point for connectivity and traffic control. Extending dependencies across regions—for example by connecting spokes to a hub in another region—is generally not recommended. It creates tight coupling between regions, which goes against the goal of keeping regions independent. A well-designed multi‑region architecture aims for regional self‑containment to improve resilience and fault isolation. Relying on a remote hub can lead to issues like failure propagation between regions, higher latency for inspected traffic and more complex routing and operations. It can also introduce organizational challenges when different regions are managed by separate teams, reducing agility and increasing operational risk. For this reason, meshed hub‑spoke architectures should use hubs that are deployed within each region. Connectivity between regions should be established directly between the hubs, not through spokes. In a meshed design, hubs are typically connected in a full‑mesh peering model, allowing for controlled and predictable inter‑region communication while still maintaining regional independence. Within a single region, it can also make sense to deploy multiple hubs to create isolated environments. This is especially useful when you need to separate workloads based on security requirements, regulatory needs, or organizational boundaries. Each hub can then have its own dedicated set of connectivity and inspection services. Finally, each spoke VNet connects to just one hub. This keeps routing simple and predictable, ensures that all traffic passes through the correct inspection and policy enforcement layers, and reinforces the hub’s role as the central control point for network traffic within the region. Integrating hybrid connectivity In most enterprise scenarios, Azure doesn’t operate in isolation—it needs to connect to external networks such as on‑premises datacenters or other cloud environments. This hybrid connectivity is typically set up using services like Azure ExpressRoute, Azure VPN Gateway or third‑party SD‑WAN solutions. In a (meshed) hub‑spoke topology, these connectivity components are best deployed in the hub VNet, since the hub acts as the central point where all inbound and outbound traffic comes together. By centralizing external connectivity in the hub, all traffic—whether entering or leaving Azure—can be routed, inspected and governed in a consistent way using shared services like firewalls or NVAs. It also avoids the need to duplicate gateways and connectivity components across multiple spokes, which helps reduce cost and operational overhead. This approach also simplifies routing and policy management. Spokes can rely on the hub’s shared connectivity instead of maintaining their own connections to external networks. Overall, this reinforces the hub’s role as the single, controlled integration point between Azure and the broader network landscape. Implementation fundamentals With the overall architecture in place, the next step is to understand how Azure actually handles routing and traffic control in this kind of design. When working with a hub‑spoke topology in Azure, it’s important to realize that a virtual network (VNet) doesn’t behave like a traditional router. While you can associate Azure Route Tables with subnets, those routes only apply to traffic originating from within that subnet. Traffic entering the VNet from outside isn’t automatically re‑routed. This is also why VNet peering is non‑transitive by design: peered VNets can communicate directly, but they won’t forward traffic for other networks. To enable controlled routing between spokes—and between Azure and external networks such as ExpressRoute or VPN—you need a component in the hub that can actively receive and forward traffic. In most cases, this is handled by an Azure Firewall or a network virtual appliance (NVA) deployed in the hub. These components act as an explicit routing hop: they receive traffic, inspect or process it based on defined policies and then send it back into the virtual network so Azure’s routing engine can continue forwarding it. In a secure hub‑spoke design, the firewall plays a dual role. It not only provides centralized traffic inspection and enforces security policies, but also acts as the mechanism that enables transitive communication between spokes and external networks. This combination of control and connectivity is a key part of the architecture. Of course, this only works as intended if the firewall is configured with the right rules to allow or block traffic according to your security requirements. While it’s technically possible to implement routing using a basic virtual machine or even a Virtual Network Gateway, these approaches don’t meet typical enterprise requirements. They lack built‑in capabilities like advanced traffic inspection, high availability, autoscaling and centralized policy management. Purpose‑built solutions such as Azure Firewall or mature third‑party NVAs are designed to provide not just routing, but also integrated security, consistency, and scalability. For that reason, they’re generally the only realistic choice for production‑grade hub‑spoke environments where both control and resilience matter. Design principles for building the topology The diagram below shows the topology for a hybrid meshed hub-spoke, with 2 hubs and an Azure Firewall (any other 3rd party Firewall could be used as well). Ensuring correct connectivity in a hub-and-spoke topology may initially appear complex, but in practice it comes down to understanding and correctly applying four key design principles: controlled routing in the GatewaySubnet controlled routing in each spoke proper peering of spokes to the hub meshing the hubs. Before looking at these in detail, it is important to understand a fundamental behavior of Azure Virtual Network (VNet) peering. When two VNets are peered, Azure automatically exchanges their address spaces (CIDR ranges) and injects these prefixes as system routes into the effective route tables of all subnets. As a result, resources in one VNet can communicate directly with resources in the other using private IP addressing, without any additional routing configuration. This built-in route propagation is what makes VNet peering an efficient and low-latency connectivity mechanism in Azure. However, this default behavior is not always aligned with the requirements of a hub-and-spoke topology. In this model, network services such as firewalls, inspection and routing control are typically centralized in the hub VNet. If communication between spokes is allowed to follow the automatically injected system routes, traffic could bypass these centralized controls, which would undermine design objectives such as inspection, segmentation and governance. For this reason, although VNet peering provides seamless connectivity by default, additional configuration is required in a hub-and-spoke architecture. This is usually achieved through Azure Route Tables, network virtual appliances (NVAs) or Azure Firewall, ensuring that traffic between spokes is routed through the hub as intended. This approach enables a controlled routing model that is essential for maintaining security and architectural consistency in enterprise-scale Azure environments. Design principle 1: Controlled routing in the GatewaySubnet In hybrid connectivity scenarios, traffic originating from on-premises environments over VPN or ExpressRoute is first terminated by the Azure Virtual Network Gateway. From there, the traffic is injected into the Azure network using the routing context of the GatewaySubnet. By default, this process relies on system routes that are automatically populated through VNet peering. As a result, when the destination resides in a spoke VNet, the traffic is forwarded directly to that spoke, since its address space has already been learned and installed as a system route. While this behavior is efficient, it also means that traffic will bypass centralized security controls in the hub, such as Azure Firewall. To ensure that all incoming traffic is properly inspected, this default routing behavior needs to be adjusted. This is done by associating a custom Azure Route Table with the GatewaySubnet and defining user-defined routes for each spoke address range. These routes should point to the private IP address of the firewall as the next hop, effectively overriding the system routes created by VNet peering. Because Azure gives precedence to user-defined routes over system routes, traffic that would normally go directly to the spoke is instead redirected through the firewall before reaching its destination. It is important that these user-defined routes precisely match the CIDR ranges defined for the spoke VNets! Any mismatch, such as using broader or more specific prefixes, can lead to unexpected routing behavior and may introduce issues such as asymmetric traffic flows or packet loss. For instance, if a spoke uses address spaces like 10.10.10.0/24 and 192.168.10.0/24, these exact prefixes must be reflected in the route table. Only by aligning the custom routes with the advertised address ranges can you ensure predictable routing and consistent inspection through the firewall. If the hub VNet hosts additional resources beyond an Azure Firewall or third-party network virtual appliance that also require traffic inspection, the corresponding CIDR ranges—either for the specific subnets or for the entire hub VNet—should be included as routes in the route table associated with the GatewaySubnet. These routes should be configured in the same way as those for spoke VNets, ensuring that traffic destined for these resources is directed through the intended inspection point. A typical example is Azure DNS Private Resolver, which can include both inbound and outbound endpoints deployed in dedicated subnets. When such endpoints are present in the hub, their associated subnet address ranges must also be added to the route table for the GatewaySubnet. This ensures that traffic to and from these endpoints is routed through the designated inspection path, maintaining consistent enforcement of security controls. Design principle 2: Controlled routing in every spoke In a hub-and-spoke architecture, traffic flows should follow the intended security model. Workloads within the same spoke VNet are usually treated as part of the same trust boundary, so traffic between resources in that spoke can flow directly over the Azure backbone without needing to pass through centralized controls. Network Security Groups (NSGs) should still be used at the subnet level to provide granular, stateful filtering, but routing this traffic through a central firewall is typically not required. The situation changes when traffic leaves the local VNet. As soon as traffic is destined for another spoke, the hub, or on-premises networks, it crosses a trust boundary and needs to be inspected centrally. To enforce this, Azure’s default routing behavior must be overridden by associating an Azure Route Table with each subnet in the spoke VNets. In most cases, this route table can be kept simple by defining a single default route that sends all outbound, non-local traffic to the firewall in the hub: Destination: 0.0.0.0/0 Next hop: Private IP address of the hub firewall (Virtual Appliance) With this configuration in place, all traffic that is not local to the spoke is forced through the hub, ensuring that communication between VNets and towards external networks is inspected and controlled. From a management perspective, the same route table can often be reused across multiple subnets or even multiple VNets within the same subscription, which helps keep the design consistent and easy to maintain. It’s worth noting, however, that Azure requires route tables and the subnets they’re associated with to be in the same subscription, as this association is enforced by the platform. There is one additional setting that is often overlooked but plays an important role in getting routing right in a hub-and-spoke design. Azure route tables include an option called “Propagate gateway routes”, which controls whether routes learned by a Virtual Network Gateway are added to the effective routes of the associated subnets. By default, routes learned via BGP (for example from ExpressRoute or VPN) or defined through a Local Network Gateway are propagated not only within the hub VNet, but also across VNet peerings. This means that spoke VNets can automatically learn routes to on-premises or external networks and may send traffic directly to the gateway, bypassing the firewall in the hub. To avoid this and keep traffic flowing through the centralized security controls, this setting should be disabled on the route tables used by the spoke subnets. When “Propagate gateway routes” is set to No, routes learned by the gateway are no longer injected into the spokes. As a result, traffic to those destinations cannot take a direct path and instead follows the user-defined default route (0.0.0.0/0) toward the hub firewall, where it can be properly inspected. When combined with the default route to the firewall, this setup ensures that traffic—whether it is going to other VNets, on-premises environments, or external networks—always follows a controlled and predictable path through the hub. This helps maintain consistent security enforcement and avoids unexpected routing behavior in larger or hybrid deployments. Design principle 3: Peering the spokes to the hub Virtual Network (VNet) peering in Azure is often seen as a simple, single configuration, but in reality it is directional by design. To fully connect two VNets, you need two separate peering configurations—one in each direction—and both must be configured correctly to ensure not only connectivity, but also proper routing behavior. Each peering exposes four key settings and getting these right is especially important in a hub-and-spoke architecture. For basic connectivity, the first two settings—“allow virtual network access” and “allow forwarded traffic”—should be enabled on both peerings. These ensure that traffic can flow between VNets and support scenarios where traffic is routed through a central component, such as a firewall in the hub. The other two settings depend on the direction of the peering. In a typical hub-and-spoke setup, the Virtual Network Gateway (or Azure Route Server) is deployed in the hub. This means the peering from the spoke to the hub must enable “use remote gateways”, while the peering from the hub to the spoke must enable “allow gateway transit.” At first, this might seem to contradict the idea that spokes should not directly use the gateway. However, these settings influence control plane behavior and don't enable unrestricted traffic flow. They are required so the gateway can learn and advertise spoke address ranges via BGP to external networks, such as those connected over VPN or ExpressRoute. Whether those routes are actually used in the spokes is still controlled through the “propagate gateway routes” setting on the route tables, allowing you to enforce routing through the firewall as intended. Even if you are not currently using BGP—for example, in environments relying on static routing—it is still a good practice to configure peerings this way. Doing so makes the design future-proof, allowing you to introduce dynamic routing later without changes to the peering model. This approach keeps the architecture consistent and avoids unnecessary rework as the environment evolves. Design principle 4: Meshing the hubs When you extend a hub-and-spoke design across multiple regions, you typically introduce multiple hubs, each managing its own regional spokes. In this setup, it becomes important to connect the hubs to each other, which is done by fully meshing the hub VNets using VNet peering. At the same time, a key principle remains unchanged: each spoke should connect to only one hub in the same region. This keeps the architecture simple, scalable and easier to reason about from a routing perspective. When configuring connectivity between hubs, it’s important to note that VNet peering settings differ from the typical hub–spoke configuration. For inter-hub peerings, only “allow virtual network access” and “allow forwarded traffic” should be enabled. The remaining options—“allow gateway transit” and “use remote gateways”—should be left disabled, as gateway sharing is not required between hubs and would even be blocked in the configuration. Just connecting the hubs with peering is not enough to guarantee correct traffic flow. To ensure traffic moves between regions in a controlled and secure way, you need additional routing logic. Each hub should have an Azure Route Table assigned to its FirewallSubnet (or the subnet hosting the 3rd party NVAs) defining how traffic towards other hub-and-spoke environments is handled. This ensures that inter-region traffic is always routed through the appropriate hub firewall, instead of flowing directly across the Azure backbone. At this point, IP address planning becomes critical. Without a clear addressing strategy, routing quickly becomes complex and hard to maintain. A common best practice is to assign a single “master” CIDR range per region, and then allocate all VNets in that region—both hub and spokes—from that range. This creates a clean, hierarchical addressing model that simplifies routing decisions. With this approach in place, route tables can remain relatively simple. Instead of adding routes for every individual spoke, you only need one route per remote region. The destination is the master CIDR range of that region and the next hop is the private IP of the firewall in the corresponding hub. Because all hubs are peered with each other, these address ranges and firewall endpoints are automatically known through peering, allowing for consistent and predictable routing. Overall, this design keeps routing logic straightforward while ensuring that all inter-region traffic is inspected in the correct hub, preserving the security model and making it easy to scale as new regions are added. Conclusion When the four design principles described in this article are applied consistently, a hub-and-spoke architecture becomes a strong, scalable and easy-to-operate foundation for your network. By combining controlled routing, centralized inspection and clear traffic flows, the model delivers both solid security and predictable behavior, even in complex environments. More importantly, the concepts covered here go beyond just one specific design. They represent the key building blocks of Azure networking, including routing, peering and traffic control. Understanding these fundamentals not only helps you implement hub-and-spoke topologies correctly, but also gives you a solid base for designing and running reliable, enterprise-grade network architectures in Azure. To make this easier to apply in practice, the table below summarizes the main concepts from this article and how they translate into actual configuration. It can be useful both when setting up a hub-and-spoke topology and when troubleshooting existing environments. Area Configuration Key Setting / Value Purpose Hub VNet Deploy shared services Azure Firewall or NVA in hub Central inspection + routing Deploy connectivity VPN Gateway / ExpressRoute in hub Centralize hybrid connectivity GatewaySubnet Associate Route Table UDRs for each spoke CIDR → Firewall IP Force inbound traffic through firewall Spoke Subnets Associate Route Table 0.0.0.0/0 → Firewall (Virtual Appliance) Force all outbound traffic via hub Route Table setting Propagate gateway routes = Disabled Prevent bypass of firewall via gateway VNet Peering (Spoke → Hub) Setting Allow VNet access = Yes Basic connectivity Setting Allow forwarded traffic = Yes Support transitive routing via firewall Setting Allow gateway transit = Yes Allow spoke to leverage hub gateway Setting Use remote gateways = No - VNet Peering (Hub → Spoke) Setting Allow VNet access = Yes Basic connectivity Setting Allow forwarded traffic = Yes Support routing through firewall Setting Allow gateway transit = No - Setting Use remote gateways = Yes Advertise spoke prefixes via hub gateway VNet Peering (Hub→ Hub) Setting Allow VNet access = Yes Basic connectivity Setting Allow forwarded traffic = Yes Support transitive routing via firewall Setting Allow gateway transit = No - Setting Use remote gateways = No - Hub FirewallSubnet Associate Route Table Route remote region CIDR → remote hub firewall IP Ensure inter-region/hub routing Addressing strategy CIDR planning Assign master CIDR per region Simplify routing and reduce UDR complexity Spoke design rule Peering constraint Each spoke connected to one hub only Prevent routing ambiguity
Designing Outbound Connectivity for "Private Subnets" in Azure
Why Private Subnets Change Everything Historically, Azure virtual machines relied on default outbound internet access, where the platform automatically assigned a dynamic SNAT IP from a shared pool. This was convenient but problematic: ❌ No deterministic outbound IP addresses ❌ No traffic inspection or filtering ❌ No FQDN or URL governance ❌ Difficult to audit for compliance ❌ Susceptible to noisy neighbor SNAT exhaustion With private subnets, outbound access is disabled by default. This shifts the responsibility to the architect — deliberately. The result is an environment where: ✅ Every outbound flow is intentional ✅ Every outbound IP is known and documented ✅ Every egress path can be governed and logged ✅ Compliance evidence is straightforward to produce The question is no longer "does my VM have internet access?" but rather "how exactly does my VM reach the internet, and is that path appropriate for this workload?" The Three Outbound Patterns at a Glance Option Primary Role Inspection Scale Cost Best For NAT Gateway Managed outbound SNAT ❌ None ⭐⭐⭐ High 💲 Low Simple, scalable egress Azure Firewall Secure governed egress ✅ Full L3–L7 ⭐⭐⭐ High 💲💲💲 Higher Security boundaries Load Balancer Legacy SNAT ❌ None ⭐⭐ Limited 💲 Low Legacy / transitional Scenario 1: NAT Gateway What is NAT Gateway? Azure NAT Gateway is a fully managed, zone‑resilient, outbound‑only SNAT service. It attaches at the subnet level and automatically handles all outbound flows from that subnet using one or more static public IP addresses or prefixes. It is purpose‑built for one thing: providing predictable, scalable outbound internet access — without routing complexity or inline devices. Key flow are depicted below: VM → NAT Gateway: Automatic SNAT (no UDR required) NAT Gateway → Internet: Static, deterministic public IP Inbound: NOT supported (outbound only) How it works (step by step) VM initiates an outbound connection (e.g., HTTPS to an API) NAT Gateway intercepts the flow at the subnet boundary Source IP is translated to the NAT Gateway's static public IP The packet is forwarded to the internet Return traffic is automatically tracked and delivered back to the VM No UDRs. No routing tables. No inline devices. It just works. Strengths Massive SNAT scale — no port exhaustion concerns at typical enterprise scale Deterministic outbound IPs — easy to allowlist with external services Zone resilient — survives availability zone failures Subnet scoped — applies to all VMs in the subnet automatically No routing configuration required Limitations ❌ No traffic inspection or filtering ❌ No FQDN or URL policy enforcement ❌ No threat intelligence integration ❌ Cannot restrict which internet destinations are allowed Best Fit Use Cases ✅ Application tiers calling external SaaS APIs ✅ VMs requiring OS updates and patch downloads ✅ CI/CD build agents and pipeline runners ✅ Spoke VNets in hub‑and‑spoke where east‑west goes through firewall, but simple internet egress is acceptable ✅ Dev/test environments Scenario 2: Azure Firewall What is Azure Firewall? Azure Firewall is a cloud‑native, stateful, L3–L7 network security service. When used for outbound egress, it transforms the egress path from a connectivity function into a security enforcement boundary. Unlike NAT Gateway, Azure Firewall inspects every packet, evaluates it against policy, and either allows or denies it based on network rules, application rules, and threat intelligence feeds. KEY Flow are depicted below: VM → UDR: Forces ALL outbound traffic to Firewall Firewall: Evaluates against policy before allowing Firewall → Internet: Only explicitly permitted flows pass All denied flows: Logged and alertable How it works (step by step) VM initiates an outbound connection UDR intercepts the flow and redirects to Azure Firewall's private IP Azure Firewall evaluates the traffic: Network rules (IP/port match) Application rules (FQDN/URL match) Threat intelligence (known malicious IPs/domains) If allowed: traffic is forwarded via Firewall's public IP If denied: traffic is dropped and logged All flows (allowed and denied) are logged to Log Analytics / Sentinel Strengths ✅ Full L3–L7 inspection ✅ FQDN and URL‑based filtering (application rules) ✅ Threat intelligence integration (Microsoft TI feed) ✅ TLS inspection (Premium SKU) ✅ Centralized governance across multiple VNets via Firewall Manager ✅ Rich logging — every allowed and denied flow is recorded ✅ IDPS (Intrusion Detection and Prevention) available in Premium Limitations ❌ Higher cost (hourly + data processing charges) ❌ Requires UDR configuration on each spoke subnet ❌ Adds latency (small but non‑zero) ❌ Requires careful SNAT configuration at scale Best Fit Use Cases ✅ Regulated industries (financial services, healthcare, government) ✅ Any workload where outbound internet is a security boundary ✅ Environments requiring egress allowlisting for compliance ✅ Hub‑and‑spoke architectures with centralized control plane ✅ SOC environments needing outbound flow telemetry Scenario 3: Load Balancer Outbound What is Load Balancer Outbound? Azure Load Balancer outbound rules were historically the primary mechanism for providing SNAT to VMs behind a Standard Load Balancer. While newer patterns (NAT Gateway, Azure Firewall) have largely replaced this approach for new designs, outbound rules remain valid in specific scenarios. Key flows are depicted below: VMs → Load Balancer: Backend pool members get SNAT LB Outbound Rules: Define port allocation per VM ⚠️ Port exhaustion risk at scale ⚠️ No inspection or policy enforcement How it works (step by step) VM in the backend pool initiates an outbound connection Load Balancer applies SNAT using the frontend public IP Ephemeral ports are allocated per VM from a fixed pool Return traffic is tracked and delivered back to the correct VM If port pool is exhausted: connections fail (SNAT exhaustion) Strengths Lower cost than NAT Gateway or Firewall Tightly integrated with existing load‑balanced workloads Familiar operational model for legacy teams Limitations ❌ SNAT port pool is fixed and must be manually managed ❌ Risk of SNAT exhaustion at scale ❌ No traffic inspection ❌ Less flexible than NAT Gateway ❌ Not recommended for new designs Best Fit Use Cases ✅ Existing architectures already built around Azure Load Balancer ✅ Low outbound connection volume workloads ✅ Transitional architectures during modernization to NAT Gateway Decision Framework: Choosing the Right Outbound Pattern Common Pitfalls to Avoid ⚠️ Pitfall 1: Forgetting SNAT scale limits Load Balancer outbound rules allocate a fixed number of ephemeral ports per VM. At scale this exhausts quickly. Use NAT Gateway instead. ⚠️ Pitfall 2: Over‑securing low‑risk workloads Not every workload needs Azure Firewall for outbound. Dev/test and patch traffic are better served by NAT Gateway — simpler, cheaper, faster. ⚠️ Pitfall 3: Mixing outbound models in the same subnet NAT Gateway and Load Balancer outbound rules cannot coexist on the same subnet. NAT Gateway always takes precedence. Plan your subnet boundaries carefully. ⚠️ Pitfall 4: Blocking Azure platform dependencies Many Azure services still use public endpoints (even when Private Link is available). Ensure your outbound policy allows required Azure service tags before enforcing egress controls. ⚠️ Pitfall 5: Relying on platform defaults Default outbound access is retired for new VNets. Do not assume VMs can reach the internet without explicit configuration. Summary and Key Takeaways Scenario Best Choice Why Simple internet egress at scale NAT Gateway Scalable, predictable, no complexity Security boundary for egress Azure Firewall Inspection, FQDN rules, threat intel Legacy load‑balanced workloads Load Balancer Outbound Transitional only Regulated / compliance environments Azure Firewall Audit logs, policy enforcement Dev / test / patch traffic NAT Gateway Low cost, low friction The core principle Private subnets make outbound access intentional. Choose the outbound pattern that matches the risk level of the workload — not the most complex option available. References https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/nat-gateway/nat-overview https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/firewall/overview https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/load-balancer/outbound-rules https://azure.microsoft.com/blog/default-outbound-access-for-vms-in-azure-will-be-retired
Orchestrating Intrusion Detection and Prevention Signature overrides in Azure Firewall Premium
Introduction: Azure Firewall Premium provides strong protection with a built-in Intrusion Detection and Prevention System (IDPS). It inspects inbound, outbound, and east-west traffic against Microsoft’s continuously updated signature set and can block threats before they reach your workloads. IDPS works out of the box without manual intervention. However, in many environments administrators need the flexibility to override specific signatures to better align with operational or security requirements. Common reasons include: Compliance enforcement – enforcing policies that require certain threats (such as High severity signatures) to always be blocked, directional tuning or protocol/category-based tuning. Incident response – reacting quickly to emerging vulnerabilities by enabling blocking for newly relevant signatures. Noise reduction – keeping informational signatures in alert mode to avoid false positives while still maintaining visibility. In many environments, signature overrides are typically managed in one of two ways: Using the global IDPS mode Using the Azure portal to apply per-signature overrides individually While these approaches work, managing overrides manually becomes difficult when thousands of signatures are involved. The Azure portal also limits the number of changes that can be applied at once, which makes large tuning operations time-consuming. To simplify this process, this blog introduces an automation approach that allows you to export, filter, and apply IDPS signature overrides in bulk using PowerShell scripts. A Common Operational Scenario: Consider the following scenario frequently encountered by security teams: Scenario A security team wants to move their firewall from Alert → Alert + Deny globally to strengthen threat prevention. However, they do not want Low severity signatures to Deny traffic, because these signatures are primarily informational and may create unnecessary noise or false positives. Example: Signature ID: 2014906 Severity: Low Description: INFO – .exe File requested over FTP This signature is classified as informational because requesting an .exe file over FTP indicates contextual risk, not necessarily confirmed malicious activity. If the global mode is switched to Alert + Deny, this signature may start blocking traffic unnecessarily. The goal therefore becomes: Enable Alert + Deny globally Keep Low severity signatures in Alert mode The workflow described in this blog demonstrates how to achieve this outcome using the IDPS Override script. Automation Workflow: The automation process uses two scripts to export and update signatures. Workflow overview Azure Firewall Policy │ ▼ Export Signatures (ipssigs.ps1) │ ▼ CSV Review / Edit │ ▼ Bulk Update (ipssigupdate.ps1) │ ▼ Updated Firewall Policy Before implementing the workflow, it’s helpful to review the available IDPS modes and severity as seen below, very briefly. IDPS Modes: Severity: Prerequisites: Now that we understand Azure Firewall IDPS concepts and have the context for this script, let's get started with the workings of the script itself. First of all, let us ensure that you are connected to your Azure account and have selected the correct subscription. You can do so by running the following command: Connect-AzAccount -Subscription "<your-subscription-id>" Ensure the following modules are installed which are required for this operation: Az.Accounts Az.Network 💡 Tip: You can check if the above modules are installed by running the following command: Get-Module -ListAvailable Az* or check specific modules using this following commands: Get-module Az.Network | select Name, Version, Path Get-module Az.Accounts | select Name, Version, Path If you need to install/import them, run the following command which downloads all generally available Azure service modules from the PowerShell Gallery, overwriting existing versions without prompting: Import-Module Az.Network Import-Module Az.Accounts Restart PowerShell after installation. Configure ipsconfig.json Now, let's configure the ipsconfig.json file and ensure the configuration file contains your target environment details i.e., target subscription, target firewall policy resource group name, firewall name, firewall policy name, location and rule collection group name. Example: { "subs": "xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx", "rg": "TEST-RG", "fw": "fw", "fwp": "fw-policy", "location": "CentralUS", "rcg": "DefaultNetworkRuleCollectionGroup" } Note: Your account must have permissions to read and update firewall policy and IDPS settings. Running the Script: 1. Export Signatures Now that we have all the prerequisites ready, it's time to run the script. Run the following command in PS in the directory where the script exists: .\ipssigs.ps1 Now, the script should prompt for filtering criteria as shown below and you can input the values as per your requirements: For the example scenario that we considered, we will give the following inputs as shown above in the snapshot: Mode: Alert Severity: Low 💡 Tip: When specifying multiple values, ensure there is space between the 2 values but no comma, otherwise the script may return no results. The script now exports the results to ipssignatures_results.csv file by default (or a custom filename if specified). The exported CSV includes metadata such as severity, direction, group, and protocol, which can help inform tuning decisions. 2. Prepare the CSV Now, we do not need all of these columns when inputting the CSV file to update the Firewall Policy. We only need the following columns. Signature Id Mode Therefore, we will need to remove all other columns while keeping the SignatureId and mode columns along with their headers as seen below: 3. Update the Firewall Policy Now, it's time to update the Firewall Policy with the signature/mode overrides that we need using the above CSV file. However, please note that the script supports two operations: Changing the global IDPS mode Applying bulk signature overrides using the CSV file You can use either option independently or both together. Let's understand this further by looking at these 2 examples. Example 1: Change Global Mode and Override Low Severity Signatures Goal: Set global mode to Alert + Deny Keep Low severity signatures in Alert Command: .\ipssigupdate.ps1 -GlobalMode Deny -InputFile Lowseveritysignatures.csv Result: High and Medium signatures → Alert + Deny Low signatures → Alert Example 2: Override Signatures Only If the global mode should remain unchanged, then run the following command only. .\ipssigupdate.ps1 The script will then prompt for the input CSV file in the next step as seen below: As seen the changed were made to the Azure Firewall in just a few seconds. After the script completes, updated signature actions should appear in the firewall policy. 4. Monitoring Script Execution Please use the following commands to track and monitor the background processes, to verify the status, check for any error and remove completed jobs as seen below: You can check background job status using: Get-Job -Id <#> View results: Receive-Job -Id <#> -Keep Remove completed jobs: Remove-Job -Id <#> Note: Up to 10,000 IDPS rules can be customized at a time 5. Validate the Changes: Now that we finished running the script, it's time to verify the update by confirming: Global IDPS mode in the firewall policy Signature override state Alert or block events in your logging destination (Log Analytics or Microsoft Sentinel) Note: Please note that, while most signatures support Off, Alert, or Deny actions, there are some context-setting signatures, that have fixed actions and cannot be overridden. Conclusion: Azure Firewall Premium makes it straightforward to apply broad IDPS configuration changes through the Azure portal. However, as environments scale, administrators often require more precise and repeatable ways to manage signature tuning. The automation approach described in this blog allows administrators to query, review, and update thousands of signatures in minutes. This enables repeatable tuning workflows, improves operational efficiency, and simplifies large-scale security configuration changes. References: Github Repository for the IDPS scripts Azure Firewall IDPS Azure Firewall IDPS signature rule categories
Detect, correlate, contain: New Azure Firewall IDPS detections in Microsoft Sentinel and XDR
As threat actors continue to blend reconnaissance, exploitation, and post-compromise activity, network-level signals remain critical for early detection and correlated response. To strengthen this layer, we're introducing five new Azure Firewall IDPS detections, now available out of the box in the Azure Firewall solution for Microsoft Sentinel and Microsoft Defender XDR. See It in Action This short demo walks through Azure Firewall's IDPS capabilities, the new Sentinel detections, and the automated response playbook — from malicious traffic hitting the firewall to the threat being contained without manual intervention. Watch the demo → Azure Firewall integration with Microsoft Sentinel and Defender XDR Read on for the full details on each detection, customization options, and a step-by-step walkthrough of the automated response workflow. What’s new The Azure Firewall solution now includes five new analytic detections built on Azure Firewall. Detection name What it detects (network signal) MITRE ATT&CK tactic(s) Example ATT&CK techniques (representative) SOC impact High severity malicious activity Repeated high confidence IDPS hits such as exploit kits, malware C2, credential theft, trojans, shellcode delivery Initial access (TA0001) execution (TA0002) Command and Control (TA0011) Exploit public facing application (T1190) command and control over web protocols (T1071.001) Ingress Tool Transfer (T1105) Highlights active exploitation or post compromise behavior at the network layer; strong pivot point into XDR investigations Elevation of privilege attempt Repeated attempts or success gaining user or administrator privileges Privilege escalation (TA0004) Exploitation for privilege escalation (T1068) Flags critical inflection points where attackers move from foothold to higher impact control Web application attack Probing or exploitation attempts against web applications Initial access (TA0001) Exploit public facing application (T1190) Surfaces external attack pressure against internet facing apps protected by Azure Firewall Medium severity malicious activity Potentially unwanted programs, crypto mining, social engineering indicators, suspicious filenames/system calls Initial access (TA0001) execution (TA0002) impact (TA0040) User Execution (T1204) Resource Hijacking (T1496) Early stage or lower confidence signals that help teams hunt, monitor, and tune response before escalation Denial of Service (DoS) attack Attempted or sustained denial of service traffic patterns Impact (TA0040) Network Denial of Service (T1498) Enables faster DoS identification and escalation, reducing time to mitigation Where these detections apply These detections are available through the Azure Firewall solution in: Microsoft Sentinel, enabling SOC centric investigation, hunting, and automation Microsoft Defender XDR, allowing network level signals to participate in end-to-end attack correlation across identity, endpoint, cloud, and email They are powered by the AZFWIdpsSignature log table and require Azure Firewall with IDPS enabled (preferably with TLS inspection). Customizing the detections to fit your environment The Azure Firewall IDPS detections included in the Microsoft Sentinel solution are designed to be fully adaptable to customer environments, allowing SOC teams to tune sensitivity, scope, and signal fidelity based on their risk tolerance and operational maturity. Each detection is built on the AZFWIdpsSignature log table and exposes several clearly defined parameters that customers can modify without rewriting the analytic logic. 1. Tune alert sensitivity and time horizon Customers can adjust the lookback period (TimeWindow) and minimum hit count (HitThreshold) to control how aggressively the detection triggers. Shorter windows and lower thresholds surface faster alerts for high-risk environments, while longer windows and higher thresholds help reduce noise in high volume networks. 2. Align severity with internal risk models Each analytic rule includes a configurable minimum severity (MinSeverity) aligned to Azure Firewall IDPS severity scoring. Organizations can raise or lower this value to match internal incident classification standards and escalation policies. 3. Focus on relevant threat categories and behaviors Optional filters allow detections to be scoped to specific threat categories, descriptions, or enforcement actions. Customers can enable or disable: Category filtering to focus on specific attack classes (for example, command and control, exploit kits, denial of service, or privilege escalation). Description filtering to target specific behavioral patterns. Action filtering to alert only on denied or alerted traffic versus purely observed activity. This flexibility makes it easy to tailor detections for different deployment scenarios such as internet facing workloads, internal east-west traffic monitoring, or regulated environments with stricter alerting requirements. 4. Preserve structure while customizing output Even with customization, the detections retain consistent enrichment fields including source IP, threat category, hit count, severity, actions taken, and signature IDs ensuring alerts remain actionable and easy to correlate across Microsoft Sentinel and Microsoft Defender XDR workflows. By allowing customers to tune thresholds, scope, and focus areas while preserving analytic intent, these Azure Firewall IDPS detections provide a strong out of the box baseline that can evolve alongside an organization’s threat landscape and SOC maturity. Automated detection and response for Azure Firewall using Microsoft Sentinel In this walkthrough, we’ll follow a real-world attack simulation and see how Azure Firewall, Microsoft Sentinel, and an automated playbook work together to detect, respond to, and contain malicious activity, without manual intervention. Step 1: Malicious traffic originates from a compromised source A source IP address 10.0.100.20, hosted within a virtual network, attempts to reach a web application protected by Azure Firewall. To validate the scenario, we intentionally generate malicious outbound traffic from this source, such as payloads that match known attack patterns. This is an outbound flow, meaning the traffic is leaving the internal network and attempting to reach an external destination through Azure Firewall. At this stage: Azure Firewall is acting as the central enforcement point Traffic is still allowed, but deep packet inspection is in effect Step 2: Azure Firewall IDPS detects malicious behavior Azure Firewall's intrusion detection and prevention system (IDPS) is enabled and inspects traffic as it passes through the firewall. When IDPS detects patterns that match known malicious signatures, the action taken depends on the signature's configured mode: Alert mode: IDPS generates a detailed security log for the matched signature but allows the traffic to continue. This is useful for monitoring and tuning before enforcing blocks. Alert and Deny mode: IDPS blocks the matching traffic and generates a detailed security log. The threat is stopped at the network layer while full telemetry is preserved for investigation. In both cases, IDPS records rich metadata including source IP, destination, protocol, signature name, severity, and threat category. These logs are what power the downstream detections in Microsoft Sentinel. In this walkthrough, the signature is configured in Alert and Deny mode, meaning the malicious traffic from 10.0.100.20 is blocked immediately at the firewall while the corresponding log is forwarded for analysis. Step 3: Firewall logs are sent to Log Analytics All Azure Firewall logs, including IDPS logs, are sent to a Log Analytics workspace named law-cxeinstance. At this point: Firewall logs are centralized Logs are normalized and can be queried No alerting has happened yet, only data collection This workspace becomes the single source of truth for downstream analytics and detections. Step 4: Microsoft Sentinel ingests and analyzes the Firewall logs The Log Analytics workspace is connected to Microsoft Sentinel, which continuously analyzes incoming data. Using the Azure Firewall solution from the Sentinel Content Hub, we previously deployed a set of built-in analytic rule templates designed specifically for Firewall telemetry. One of these rules is: “High severity malicious activity detected”. This rule evaluates IDPS logs and looks for: High-confidence signatures, known exploit techniques and malicious categories identified by Firewall IDPS. Step 5: Sentinel creates an incident When the analytic rules are met, Microsoft Sentinel automatically: Raises an alert Groups related alerts into an incident Extracts entities such as IP addresses, severity, and evidence In this case, the source IP 10.0.100.20 is clearly identified as the malicious actor and attached as an IP entity to the incident. This marks the transition from detection to response. Step 6: An automation rule triggers the playbook To avoid manual response, we configured a Sentinel automation rule that triggers whenever: An incident is created The analytic rule name matches any of the analytic rules we configured The automation rule immediately triggers a Logic App playbook named AzureFirewallBlockIPaddToIPGroup. This playbook is available as part of the Azure Firewall solution and can be deployed directly from the solution package. In addition, a simplified version of the playbook is published in our GitHub repository, allowing you to deploy it directly to your resource group using the provided ARM template. This is where automated containment begins. Step 7: The playbook aggregates and updates the IP Group The playbook performs several critical actions in sequence: Extracts IP entities from the Sentinel incident Retrieves the existing Azure Firewall IP Group named MaliciousIPs Checks for duplicates to avoid unnecessary updates Aggregates new IPs into a single array/list Updates the IP Group in a single operation. It is important to note that the playbook managed identity should have contributor access on the IP Group or its resource group to perform this action. In our scenario, the IP 10.0.100.20 is added to the MaliciousIPs IP Group. Step 8: Firewall policy enforces the block immediately Azure Firewall already has a network rule named BlockMaliciousTraffic configured with: Source: MaliciousIPs IP Group Destination: Any Protocol: Any Action: Deny Because the rule references the IP Group dynamically, the moment the playbook updates MaliciousIPs, the firewall enforcement takes effect instantly — without modifying the rule itself. Traffic originating from 10.0.100.20 is now fully blocked, preventing any further probing or communication with the destination. The threat has been effectively contained. When a SOC analyst opens the Sentinel incident, they see that containment has already occurred: the malicious IP was identified, the IP Group was updated, and the firewall block is in effect — all with a full audit trail of every automated action taken, from detection through response. No manual intervention was required. Conclusion With these five new IDPS detections, Azure Firewall closes the gap between network-level signal and SOC-level action. Raw signature telemetry is automatically transformed into severity-aware, MITRE ATT&CK-mapped alerts inside Microsoft Sentinel and Microsoft Defender XDR — giving security teams correlated, investigation-ready incidents instead of isolated log entries. Combined with automation playbooks, the result is a fully integrated detect-and-respond workflow: Azure Firewall identifies malicious behavior, Sentinel raises and enriches the incident, and a Logic App playbook contains the threat by updating firewall policy in real time — all without manual intervention. These detections are included at no additional cost. Simply install the Azure Firewall solution from the Microsoft Sentinel Content Hub, and the analytic rules automatically appear in your Sentinel workspace — ready to enable, customize, and operationalize. Get started today: Azure Firewall with Microsoft Sentinel overview Automate Threat Response with Playbooks in Microsoft Sentinel Azure Firewall Premium features implementation guide Recent real‑world breaches underscore why these detections matter. Over the past year, attackers have repeatedly gained initial access by exploiting public‑facing applications, followed by command‑and‑control activity, web shell deployment, cryptomining, and denial‑of‑service attacks. Incidents such as the GoAnywhere MFT exploitation, widespread web‑application intrusions observed by Cisco Talos, and large‑scale cryptomining campaigns against exposed cloud services demonstrate the value of correlating repeated network‑level malicious signals. The new Azure Firewall IDPS detections are designed to surface these patterns early, reduce alert noise, and feed high‑confidence network signals directly into Microsoft Sentinel and Microsoft Defender XDR for faster investigation and response. Your network telemetry is a first-class security signal - let it work for you! Visit us at RSA 2026 to see the full detection-to-containment workflow live.
Help! - How is VNet traffic reaching vWAN/on‑prem when the VNet isn’t connected to the vWAN hub
Hello, I needed some clarity on how the following is working: Attached is a network diagram of our current setup. The function apps (in VNet-1) initiate a connection(s) to a specific IP:Port or FQDN:Port in the on-premises network(s). A Private DNS zone ensures that any FQDN is resolved to the correct internal IP address of the on-prem endpoint. In our setup, both the function app and the external firewall reside in the same VNet. This firewall is described as “Unattached” because it is not the built-in firewall of a secured vWAN hub, but rather an independent Azure Firewall deployed in that VNet. The VNet has a user-defined default route (0.0.0.0/0) directing all outbound traffic to the firewall’s IP. The firewall then filters the traffic, allowing only traffic destined to whitelisted on-premises IP: Port or FQDN: Port combinations (using IP Groups), and blocking everything else. The critical question and the part that I am unable to figure out is: Once the firewall permits a packet, how does Azure know to route it to the vWAN hub and on to the site-to-site VPN? Because VNet-1 truly has no connection at all to the vWAN hub (no direct attachment, no peering, no VPN from the NVA). But the traffic is still reaching the on-prem sites. Unable to figure out how this is happening. Am I missing something obvious? Any help on this would be appreciated. Thank you!
Traffic processing BGP Azure VPN gateway A/A
Hello, Can someone explain how Azure processes the traffic with implemented a VPN gateway in Active Active mode?. Azure firewall premium is also configured. BGP is without preferences. The user route definition is set up to the next hop Azure firewall . Is it possible in this scenario occurs the asymmetric routing with traffic drop by azure firewall ? In my understand is that, if we need to configure User route definition on Gateway subnet to inspect traffic to peering subnet, so the firewall don't see traffic passing through VPN gateway. Traffic going through ipsec tunnels can go different paths and firewall do not interfere because everything is routed to it by user route definition.Zero Trust with Azure Firewall, Azure DDoS Protection and Azure WAF: A practical use case
Introduction Zero Trust has emerged as the defining security ethos of the modern enterprise. It is guided by a simple but powerful principle: “Never trust, always verify.” This principle is more relevant now than ever as cyberattacks continue to trend upward in both frequency and impact, affecting organizations of every size and industry. No entity large or small can assume immunity. As a result, adopting Zero Trust is no longer optional, it is a foundational requirement for designing secure, resilient architectures. A key tenet of Zero Trust is the assumption of breach, thus designing systems with the expectation that threats may already exist both outside and inside the network perimeter. To implement this principle, you need multiple, independent security controls that inspect traffic at different layers and enforce least privilege access continuously. Relying on a single security control, even a highly capable one, leaves gaps that modern attackers are adept at exploiting. It is within this context that combining the use of Azure Firewall, Azure DDoS Protection and Azure Web Application Firewall (WAF) services to secure Web Applications while protecting the network perimeter becomes important. Together, these services deliver comprehensive protection across the network and application layers. Defense-in-depth: Why Azure WAF, Azure DDoS Protection and Azure Firewall are essential for Zero Trust In these sections ahead, we examine the common network and application-layer attack vectors that target modern web applications and illustrate how Azure WAF, Azure DDoS protection, and Azure Firewall, when layered strategically, work in tandem to mitigate these threats. The architecture The test environment was designed to reflect a common Azure deployment pattern: Azure DDoS Protection at the edge, to defend against a comprehensive set of network layer (layer 3/4) attacks Azure Application Gateway with WAF, inspecting inbound HTTP traffic for application-layer threats Azure Firewall Premium behind the gateway, providing network-layer protection, deep packet inspection, and outbound traffic governance. A backend subnet hosting an intentionally vulnerable application (OWASP Juice Shop) to simulate real-world attack scenarios. Traffic flows through the DDoS first, then WAF, and then the firewall, before reaching the backend. Outbound traffic from the backend is routed through the firewall for inspection. This ensures that all inbound and outbound traffic is scrutinized. Two access paths that will be tested: Via the Application Gateway public IP, where traffic passes through DDoS, WAF and Firewall. Via the Firewall public IP using a DNAT rule, where traffic bypasses WAF and is inspected only by the Firewall. The following scenarios illustrate how this complementary protection strengthens overall resilience: Scenario 1: SQL injection (application-layer attack) Let’s say an attacker on the internet attempts to access the application’s login endpoint via the Application Gateway IP address and injects a SQL payload into the input field. For example, the attacker submits a request containing the following payload in the User ID field: ?id=' OR 1=1 -- Azure WAF will receive the request, analyze, and if Azure WAF is deployed in Prevention mode, it will immediately detect the SQL injection attempt using its built-in Managed Ruleset. Upon detection, Azure WAF will return a WAF block page, preventing the request from ever reaching the application. By contrast, when the same application is accessed through a firewall-only path (for example, via a DNAT rule on Azure Firewall that exposes the application on port 443), Azure Firewall allows the traffic as it does not perform deep Application layer inspection and SQL injection payloads when embedded within the HTTP request body, appear legitimate at the network layer. Here is a snapshot of the attacker gaining access to the admin role when they insert this SQL injection attack without Azure WAF and only Azure Firewall in the path. Scenario 2: Volumetric and application-layer DDoS attacks Next, the attacker launches a volumetric network layer DDoS (SYN/UDP floods) to saturate bandwidth, but Azure DDoS Network Protection absorbs and scrubs the attack at the edge, so no traffic reaches Application Gateway, WAF, or Firewall. When the network layer attack fails, they shift to HTTP flood attack at the application layer, overwhelming the web application with a high volume of requests. Some requests include exploit attempts, while others are designed purely to exhaust application resources. Azure WAF here, can identify malicious patterns such as: Automated bots lacking proper headers Abnormal request rates Known exploit payloads embedded within requests Malicious IP addresses Note: Azure DDoS Protection is a comprehensive service that provides protection across network layers (Layer 3 and 4), while HTTP DDoS Protection specifically targets application-layer attacks (Layer 7) and is integrated with Azure WAF. They are complementary services designed to defend against different types of threats within the Azure environment. Additionally, if the botnet’s IPs are known threat actors or malicious traffic, Azure Firewall’s threat intelligence and IDPS will be able to flag this traffic too. Together, these services form a complementary, defense-in-depth strategy for protecting Azure workloads against distributed denial-of-service attacks. Scenario 3: Path Traversal Attempt/Information leak: (Application-Layer Attack) Next, the attacker sends HTTP requests to access sensitive system files such as /etc/passwd by sending crafted HTTP requests to the application via the Application Gateway public IP address. The request successfully passes through Azure Application Gateway WAF, as it does not trigger a managed rule violation in this case. However, when the request reaches Azure Firewall, the Firewall’s IDPS detects the malicious pattern in the HTTP header and blocks the connection before it can reach the backend workload. Because the backend connection is denied by Azure Firewall, Application Gateway is unable to establish a successful response and returns a 504 Gateway Timeout to the client, rather than a 403 Forbidden response that would typically be generated by WAF when it blocks traffic. Below is the log from Azure Firewall showing that its able to detect this traffic as – Attempted Information Leak. As seen below, the traffic passed Application Gateway+WAF but was caught by Azure Firewall: This scenario highlights an important architectural outcome: The combination of WAF and Azure Firewall provides layered enforcement, even if an attack manages to slip past Azure WAF, Azure Firewall adds an additional enforcement layer to ensure the application remains protected. Now, let’s look at some more Network Layer attacks: Scenario 4: Network reconnaissance and breach In this scenario, port 3389 is exposed on Application Gateway using the L4 TCP Proxy option. Now, the attacker attempts to scan the Application Gateway on all the ports/protocols and found that port 3389 was open along with other ports such as ports 80, 8080, 3000. Azure WAF will alert us for Layer 7/Application exploit but cannot verify/validate the attack on port 3389 since it was purely Layer 3/4 and contained no HTTP payload for WAF inspection. The L4 proxy listener on App Gateway simply forwards the raw TCP connections to the Azure Firewall behind it. Azure Firewall, however, performs full network‑layer inspection across all ports and protocols, allowing it to detect and alert on this type of L3/L4 reconnaissance even when App Gateway had the port open via the TCP proxy feature. As seen below the traffic passed Application Gateway+WAF but was caught by Azure Firewall since it is non-HTTP: The attacker then tries a different approach: Now the attacker somehow compromises a workstation inside our network and attempts to move laterally to the web server via RDP on port 3389 and/or attempts to exfiltrate and try to access something outside of the network. Azure Firewall located inside the VNet blocks the RDP attempt (if there is no rule allowing it) and if there is, its IDPS flags/blocks the traffic as suspicious. In this case, Azure WAF will not be involved but Azure Firewall inspects this internal and/or outbound traffic and blocks it. This illustrates how a combination of the two stops the attacker at multiple points: firewall foiled the reconnaissance and lateral movement/exfiltration, WAF foiled the application exploit. We can see below the outbound malicious attempt caught by Azure Firewall IDPS: In summary, Azure WAF is like the “bodyguard at the application’s front door” – inspecting every HTTP request in detail and ejecting those carrying hidden weapons or exhibiting bad behavior. It focuses on the web layer, which Azure Firewall or DDoS alone cannot fully protect. If we only had the WAF and no network firewall or DDoS, we’d be safe from many web attacks but would remain exposed to network-level threats (e.g., someone trying to RDP into a VM, or flooding a non-HTTP service). Conversely, if we had only the firewall, a crafty attacker could still exploit a vulnerability in our web app with a well-crafted HTTP request that looks “allowed” to the firewall – that’s where the WAF comes in to catch it. Azure Firewall on the other hand, acts as the “moat and drawbridge” to your cloud network: it keeps out the obvious bad guys at the gate, tightly limits what’s allowed in or out (no implicit trust for internal IPs), and uses threat intel + signatures to sniff out known threats in any traffic it passes, even outbound traffic. The table below shows the traffic flow that will be filtered by Azure WAF vs Azure Firewall. As you can see, layered security is fundamental to Zero Trust Conclusion In a Zero Trust architecture, security cannot rely on implicit trust or a single layer of defense. The combination of Azure Firewall Premium, Azure DDoS protection and Azure Application Gateway WAF exemplifies defense-in-depth by protecting both network and application layers. Organizations hosting internet-facing applications should adopt this layered strategy to reduce exposure to modern threats, prevent lateral movement, and maintain strict control over outbound traffic. By implementing these services together, you align with Microsoft’s recommended best practices for Zero Trust and significantly strengthen your cloud security posture. References: Implement a Zero Trust network for web applications by using Azure Firewall and Azure Application Gateway What is Azure Web Application Firewall? Azure DDoS Protection Overview | Microsoft Learn What is Azure Firewall? Architecture designs using Azure WAF and Azure Firewall together Zero Trust Assessment Overview | Microsoft Learn
How to find Azure Firewall SNAT exhaustion on a compute unit?
I have some applications on my AKS cluster which frequently hits a application server. This application server URL is behind Akamai. When ever applications want to establish an SSL connection with the external URL, it has to go through Azure Firewall. I have occasional connection timeouts if a connection is not establish to Akamai servers in 1s. I saw that the SNAT Utilization is in the range of 10 percent to 30%. I know this graph is smoothened out across instances and can't see which Azure Firewall compute unit is getting overloaded if I have frequent access to one URL which goes through Akamai? Is there any way to find out the reason for these occasional connection timeouts with the external IPs(Akamai)? through logs or by any other means? I believe lack of the SNAT metrics by firewall compute unit is responsible for such tough debugging.
