Protecting Your Azure Key Vault: Why Azure RBAC Is Critical for Security
Introduction In today’s cloud-centric landscape, misconfigured access controls remain one of the most critical weaknesses in the cyber kill chain. When access policies are overly permissive, they create opportunities for adversaries to gain unauthorized access to sensitive secrets, keys, and certificates. These credentials can be leveraged for lateral movement, privilege escalation, and establishing persistent footholds across cloud environments. A compromised Azure Key Vault doesn’t just expose isolated assets it can act as a pivot point to breach broader Azure resources, potentially leading to widespread security incidents, data exfiltration, and regulatory compliance failures. Without granular permissioning and centralized access governance, organizations face elevated risks of supply chain compromise, ransomware propagation, and significant operational disruption. The Role of Azure Key Vault in Security Azure Key Vault plays a crucial role in securely storing and managing sensitive information, making it a prime target for attackers. Effective access control is essential to prevent unauthorized access, maintain compliance, and ensure operational efficiency. Historically, Azure Key Vault used Access Policies for managing permissions. However, Azure Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) has emerged as the recommended and more secure approach. RBAC provides granular permissions, centralized management, and improved security, significantly reducing risks associated with misconfigurations and privilege misuse. In this blog, we’ll highlight the security risks of a misconfigured key vault, explain why RBAC is superior to legacy Access Policies and provide RBAC best practices, and how to migrate from access policies to RBAC. Security Risks of Misconfigured Azure Key Vault Access Overexposed Key Vaults create significant security vulnerabilities, including: Unauthorized access to API tokens, database credentials, and encryption keys. Compromise of dependent Azure services such as Virtual Machines, App Services, Storage Accounts, and Azure SQL databases. Privilege escalation via managed identity tokens, enabling further attacks within your environment. Indirect permission inheritance through Azure AD (AAD) group memberships, making it harder to track and control access. Nested AAD group access, which increases the risk of unintended privilege propagation and complicates auditing and governance. Consider this real-world example of the risks posed by overly permissive access policies: A global fintech company suffered a severe breach due to an overly permissive Key Vault configuration, including public network access and excessive permissions via legacy access policies. Attackers accessed sensitive Azure SQL databases, achieved lateral movement across resources, and escalated privileges using embedded tokens. The critical lesson: protect Key Vaults using strict RBAC permissions, network restrictions, and continuous security monitoring. Why Azure RBAC is Superior to Legacy Access Policies Azure RBAC enables centralized, scalable, and auditable access management. It integrates with Microsoft Entra, supports hierarchical role assignments, and works seamlessly with advanced security controls like Conditional Access and Defender for Cloud. Access Policies, on the other hand, were designed for simpler, resource-specific use cases and lack the flexibility and control required for modern cloud environments. For a deeper comparison, see Azure RBAC vs. access policies. Best Practices for Implementing Azure RBAC with Azure Key Vault To effectively secure your Key Vault, follow these RBAC best practices: Use Managed Identities: Eliminate secrets by authenticating applications through Microsoft Entra. Enforce Least Privilege: Precisely control permissions, granting each user or application only minimal required access. Centralize and Scale Role Management: Assign roles at subscription or resource group levels to reduce complexity and improve manageability. Leverage Privileged Identity Management (PIM): Implement just-in-time, temporary access for high-privilege roles. Regularly Audit Permissions: Periodically review and prune RBAC role assignments. Detailed Microsoft Entra logging enhances auditability and simplifies compliance reporting. Integrate Security Controls: Strengthen RBAC by integrating with Microsoft Entra Conditional Access, Defender for Cloud, and Azure Policy. For more on the Azure RBAC features specific to AKV, see the Azure Key Vault RBAC Guide. For a comprehensive security checklist, see Secure your Azure Key Vault. Migrating from Access Policies to RBAC To transition your Key Vault from legacy access policies to RBAC, follow these steps: Prepare: Confirm you have the necessary administrative permissions and gather an inventory of applications and users accessing the vault. Conduct inventory: Document all current access policies, including the specific permissions granted to each identity. Assign RBAC Roles: Map each identity to an appropriate RBAC role (e.g., Reader, Contributor, Administrator) based on the principle of least privilege. Enable RBAC: Switch the Key Vault to the RBAC authorization model. Validate: Test all application and user access paths to ensure nothing is inadvertently broken. Monitor: Implement monitoring and alerting to detect and respond to access issues or misconfigurations. For detailed, step-by-step instructions—including examples in CLI and PowerShell—see Migrate from access policies to RBAC. Conclusion Now is the time to modernize access control strategies. Adopting Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) not only eliminates configuration drift and overly broad permissions but also enhances operational efficiency and strengthens your defense against evolving threat landscapes. Transitioning to RBAC is a proactive step toward building a resilient and future-ready security framework for your Azure environment. Overexposed Azure Key Vaults aren’t just isolated risks — they act as breach multipliers. Treat them as Tier-0 assets, on par with domain controllers and enterprise credential stores. Protecting them requires the same level of rigor and strategic prioritization. By enforcing network segmentation, applying least-privilege access through RBAC, and integrating continuous monitoring, organizations can dramatically reduce the blast radius of a potential compromise and ensure stronger containment in the face of advanced threats. Want to learn more? Explore Microsoft's RBAC Documentation for additional details.
Misplacement of schema in AllowedHostPathVolumesInKubernetesClusterList Policy Parameter?
In the Microsoft Cloud Security Benchmark, the policy parameter `AllowedHostPathVolumesInKubernetesClusterList` defines a `schema` object nested under metadata. Is this placement intentional, or should the schema be defined at the top level of the parameter https://github.com/Azure/azure-policy/blob/303a0000a3b9d1aed7361c69edaafd4340d37df7/built-in-policies/policySetDefinitions/Azure%20Government/Security%20Center/AzureSecurityCenter.json#L4132
Script or Query for Management Group Compliance Statistics
I've been trying to reproduce the Azure Portal Compliance statistics for a Management Group in a PowerShell script or Resource Graph query without much luck. What I'd like to do is reproduce the numbers like compliance percentage, number of compliant / non-compliant resources, in the portal display. And run a daily script or query to track the numbers over time. (Without doing screen shots every day.) Just to be clear, I've attached a screenshot of a compliance screen for management group TEST1. I want to automate calculation of the Overall Resource Compliance (46%, 317 out of 692), and the policies/initiatives compliance state and resource compliance percentages at the bottom of the screen. I'm only interested in the resource compliance percentages below a threshold like 90% in order to help guide our remediation efforts. I've found several scripts and resource graph queries online but none seem to address management group scope. And even the ones that produce numbers for subscription scope don't seem to match the portal numbers. Has anyone successfully reproduced the portal MG compliance numbers with a script or quiery? Or, is it possible to obtain the logic behind the portals' MG scope compliance code? Seems like we should be able to reproduce the numbers shown by the console. Thanks.
Restrict Cost Consumption by using Azure Automation, Budget and Policy
Video See the demo video by using below link Demonstration Video Automation Runbook Logic Logic which set tag value once threshold exceeds # Authenticate using Managed Identity (recommended for Automation Accounts) Connect-AzAccount -Identity # Define Subscription ID and Reset Tag $subscriptionId = (Get-AzContext).Subscription.Id $tags = @{ "cost exceeded" = "yes" } # Resetting the tag value # Update the tag Update-AzTag -ResourceId "/subscriptions/$subscriptionId" -Tag $tags -Operation Merge Write-Output "Tag 'cost exceeded' reset to 'yes' for subscription $subscriptionId" Logic which reset tag value every month # Authenticate using Managed Identity (recommended for Automation Accounts) Connect-AzAccount -Identity # Define Subscription ID and Reset Tag $subscriptionId = (Get-AzContext).Subscription.Id $tags = @{ "cost exceeded" = "no" } # Resetting the tag value # Update the tag Update-AzTag -ResourceId "/subscriptions/$subscriptionId" -Tag $tags -Operation Merge Write-Output "Tag 'cost exceeded' reset to 'no' for subscription $subscriptionId" Azure Policy Logic { "properties": { "displayName": "budget", "policyType": "Custom", "mode": "All", "metadata": { "version": "1.0.0", "createdBy": "f6bb4303-e52d-4cba-9790-01f0798164b7", "createdOn": "2025-03-13T05:08:05.8483517Z", "updatedBy": "f6bb4303-e52d-4cba-9790-01f0798164b7", "updatedOn": "2025-03-13T06:32:35.1740944Z" }, "version": "1.0.0", "parameters": {}, "policyRule": { "if": { "allOf": [ { "field": "type", "notEquals": "Microsoft.Resources/subscriptions" }, { "value": "[subscription().tags['cost exceeded']]", "equals": "yes" } ] }, "then": { "effect": "Deny" } }, "versions": [ "1.0.0" ] }, }
How to programmatically assign security standards on Defender for Cloud
Hi all, i would like to know if there is a way to programmatically (REST API, Terraform,...) activate custom secutity Standards on Defender for Cloud. Basically the step 6 on this guide https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/defender-for-cloud/update-regulatory-compliance-packages. I didn't found any way to do that. I have a policySet that i would like to activate in an automated way. Any ideas? Thank you in advance!Adding VM Instance View Details, e.g. osName, to the VM Resource Object JSON (for Custom Policy Use)
I'm requesting to add more details to the JSON of the VM resource object, particularly from the VM instance view data. This is to include operating system information, such as the name and version (osName and osVersion), for use in a custom Policy. Although these details are visible in the portal, they're not present in the VM's resource object, which is necessary for our custom policy.Azure Policy - Seeking Guidance: Adding "Destination Table" to Built-In Azure Policy
Hi Team, I am sharing the existing Built-In Azure Policy that previously sent logs to Log Analytics Workspace. However, it currently lacks the option to choose "Destination Table" with selections such as "Azure Diagnostics" or "Resource Specific." I would like to include this option in the policy. Could you please advise on how to achieve this? Built-in Policy Name : Enable logging by category group for Application gateways (microsoft.network/applicationgateways) to Log Analytics Policy Code { "mode": "Indexed", "policyRule": { "if": { "allOf": [ { "field": "type", "equals": "microsoft.network/applicationgateways" }, { "anyOf": [ { "value": "[first(parameters('resourceLocationList'))]", "equals": "*" }, { "field": "location", "in": "[parameters('resourceLocationList')]" } ] } ] }, "then": { "effect": "[parameters('effect')]", "details": { "type": "Microsoft.Insights/diagnosticSettings", "evaluationDelay": "AfterProvisioning", "existenceCondition": { "allOf": [ { "count": { "field": "Microsoft.Insights/diagnosticSettings/logs[*]", "where": { "allOf": [ { "field": "Microsoft.Insights/diagnosticSettings/logs[*].enabled", "equals": "[equals(parameters('categoryGroup'), 'allLogs')]" }, { "field": "microsoft.insights/diagnosticSettings/logs[*].categoryGroup", "equals": "allLogs" } ] } }, "equals": 1 }, { "field": "Microsoft.Insights/diagnosticSettings/workspaceId", "equals": "[parameters('logAnalytics')]" } ] }, "roleDefinitionIds": [ "/providers/Microsoft.Authorization/roleDefinitions/92aaf0da-9dab-42b6-94a3-d43ce8d16293" ], "deployment": { "properties": { "mode": "incremental", "template": { "$schema": "http://schema.management.azure.com/schemas/2019-08-01/deploymentTemplate.json#", "contentVersion": "1.0.0.0", "parameters": { "diagnosticSettingName": { "type": "string" }, "logAnalytics": { "type": "string" }, "categoryGroup": { "type": "String" }, "resourceName": { "type": "string" } }, "variables": {}, "resources": [ { "type": "microsoft.network/applicationgateways/providers/diagnosticSettings", "apiVersion": "2021-05-01-preview", "name": "[concat(parameters('resourceName'), '/', 'Microsoft.Insights/', parameters('diagnosticSettingName'))]", "properties": { "workspaceId": "[parameters('logAnalytics')]", "logs": [ { "categoryGroup": "allLogs", "enabled": "[equals(parameters('categoryGroup'), 'allLogs')]" } ], "metrics": [] } } ], "outputs": { "policy": { "type": "string", "value": "[concat('Diagnostic setting ', parameters('diagnosticSettingName'), ' for type Application gateways (microsoft.network/applicationgateways), resourceName ', parameters('resourceName'), ' to Log Analytics ', parameters('logAnalytics'), ' configured')]" } } }, "parameters": { "diagnosticSettingName": { "value": "[parameters('diagnosticSettingName')]" }, "logAnalytics": { "value": "[parameters('logAnalytics')]" }, "categoryGroup": { "value": "[parameters('categoryGroup')]" }, "resourceName": { "value": "[field('name')]" } } } } } } }, "parameters": { "effect": { "type": "String", "metadata": { "displayName": "Effect", "description": "Enable or disable the execution of the policy" }, "allowedValues": [ "DeployIfNotExists", "AuditIfNotExists", "Disabled" ], "defaultValue": "DeployIfNotExists" }, "diagnosticSettingName": { "type": "String", "metadata": { "displayName": "Diagnostic Setting Name", "description": "Diagnostic Setting Name" }, "defaultValue": "setByPolicy-LogAnalytics" }, "categoryGroup": { "type": "String", "metadata": { "displayName": "Category Group", "description": "Diagnostic category group - none, audit, or allLogs." }, "allowedValues": [ "audit", "allLogs" ], "defaultValue": "audit" }, "resourceLocationList": { "type": "Array", "metadata": { "displayName": "Resource Location List", "description": "Resource Location List to send logs to nearby Log Analytics. A single entry \"*\" selects all locations (default)." }, "defaultValue": [ "*" ] }, "logAnalytics": { "type": "String", "metadata": { "displayName": "Log Analytics Workspace", "description": "Log Analytics Workspace", "strongType": "omsWorkspace", "assignPermissions": true } } } }Azure Policy require multiple tags with values
I have a policy that requires specific tag with specific values (json below), but I want to require more tags within the same policy also with specific value and not sure how to do it... Is there a way to add more tags with specific values to the same policy? For example, I want to require two tags: environment with prod/non-prod and department with Infra/Finance Is it possible? Thank you! { "properties": { "displayName": "Require tag environment and its values on resources ", "policyType": "Custom", "mode": "Indexed", "description": "Enforces a required tag environment and its value. Does not apply to resource groups.", "metadata": { "category": "Tags", "createdBy": "" "createdOn": "" "updatedBy": "" "updatedOn": "" }, "version": "1.0.0", "parameters": { "tagName": { "type": "String", "metadata": { "displayName": "Tag Name1", "description": "Name of the tag, such as 'environment'" }, "allowedValues": [ "environment" ] }, "tagValue": { "type": "Array", "metadata": { "displayName": "Tag Value1", "description": "Value of the tag, such as 'production'" }, "allowedValues": [ "prod", "non-prod" ] } }, "policyRule": { "if": { "not": { "field": "[concat('tags[', parameters('tagName'), ']')]", "in": "[parameters('tagValue')]" } }, "then": { "effect": "deny" } }, "versions": [ "1.0.0" ] }, } }
