Kerberos and the End of RC4: Protocol Hardening and Preparing for CVE‑2026‑20833
CVE-2026-20833 addresses the continued use of the RC4‑HMAC algorithm within the Kerberos protocol in Active Directory environments. Although RC4 has been retained for many years for compatibility with legacy systems, it is now considered cryptographically weak and unsuitable for modern authentication scenarios. As part of the security evolution of Kerberos, Microsoft has initiated a process of progressive protocol hardening, whose objective is to eliminate RC4 as an implicit fallback, establishing AES128 and AES256 as the default and recommended algorithms. This change should not be treated as optional or merely preventive. It represents a structural change in Kerberos behavior that will be progressively enforced through Windows security updates, culminating in a model where RC4 will no longer be implicitly accepted by the KDC. If Active Directory environments maintain service accounts, applications, or systems dependent on RC4, authentication failures may occur after the application of the updates planned for 2026, especially during the enforcement phases introduced starting in April and finalized in July 2026. For this reason, it is essential that organizations proactively identify and eliminate RC4 dependencies, ensuring that accounts, services, and applications are properly configured to use AES128 or AES256 before the definitive changes to Kerberos protocol behavior take effect. Official Microsoft References CVE-2026-25177 - Security Update Guide - Microsoft - Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Microsoft Support – How to manage Kerberos KDC usage of RC4 for service account ticket issuance changes related to CVE-2026-20833 (KB 5073381) Microsoft Learn – Detect and Remediate RC4 Usage in Kerberos AskDS – What is going on with RC4 in Kerberos? Beyond RC4 for Windows authentication | Microsoft Windows Server Blog So, you think you’re ready for enforcing AES for Kerberos? | Microsoft Community Hub Risk Associated with the Vulnerability When RC4 is used in Kerberos tickets, an authenticated attacker can request Service Tickets (TGS) for valid SPNs, capture these tickets, and perform offline brute-force attacks, particularly Kerberoasting scenarios, with the goal of recovering service account passwords. Compared to AES, RC4 allows significantly faster cracking, especially for older accounts or accounts with weak passwords. Technical Overview of the Exploitation In simplified terms, the exploitation flow occurs as follows: The attacker requests a TGS for a valid SPN. The KDC issues the ticket using RC4, when that algorithm is still accepted. The ticket is captured and analyzed offline. The service account password is recovered. The compromised account is used for lateral movement or privilege escalation. Official Timeline Defined by Microsoft Important clarification on enforcement behavior Explicit account encryption type configurations continue to be honored even during enforcement mode. The Kerberos hardening associated with CVE‑2026‑20833 focuses on changing the default behavior of the KDC, enforcing AES-only encryption for TGS ticket issuance when no explicit configuration exists. This approach follows the same enforcement model previously applied to Kerberos session keys in earlier security updates (for example, KB5021131 related to CVE‑2022‑37966), representing another step in the progressive removal of RC4 as an implicit fallback. January 2026 – Audit Phase Starting in January 2026, Microsoft initiated the Audit Phase related to changes in RC4 usage within Kerberos, as described in the official guidance associated with CVE-2026-20833. The primary objective of this phase is to allow organizations to identify existing RC4 dependencies before enforcement changes are applied in later phases. During this phase, no functional breakage is expected, as RC4 is still permitted by the KDC. However, additional auditing mechanisms were introduced, providing greater visibility into how Kerberos tickets are issued in the environment. Analysis is primarily based on the following events recorded in the Security Log of Domain Controllers: Event ID 4768 – Kerberos Authentication Service (AS request / Ticket Granting Ticket) Event ID 4769 – Kerberos Service Ticket Operations (Ticket Granting Service – TGS) Additional events related to the KDCSVC service These events allow identification of: the account that requested authentication the requested service or SPN the source host of the request the encryption algorithm used for the ticket and session key This information is critical for detecting scenarios where RC4 is still being implicitly used, enabling operations teams to plan remediation ahead of the enforcement phase. If these events are not being logged on Domain Controllers, it is necessary to verify whether Kerberos auditing is properly enabled. For Kerberos authentication events to be recorded in the Security Log, the corresponding audit policies must be configured. The minimum recommended configuration is to enable Success auditing for the following subcategories: Kerberos Authentication Service Kerberos Service Ticket Operations Verification can be performed directly on a Domain Controller using the following commands: auditpol /get /subcategory:"Kerberos Service Ticket Operations" auditpol /get /subcategory:"Kerberos Authentication Service" In enterprise environments, the recommended approach is to apply this configuration via Group Policy, ensuring consistency across all Domain Controllers. The corresponding policy can be found at: Computer Configuration - Policies - Windows Settings - Security Settings - Advanced Audit Policy Configuration - Audit Policies - Account Logon Once enabled, these audits record events 4768 and 4769 in the Domain Controllers’ Security Log, allowing analysis tools—such as inventory scripts or SIEM/Log Analytics queries—to accurately identify where RC4 is still present in the Kerberos authentication flow. April 2026 – Enforcement with Manual Rollback With the April 2026 update, the KDC begins operating in AES-only mode (0x18) when the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute is not defined. This means RC4 is no longer accepted as an implicit fallback. During this phase, applications, accounts, or computers that still implicitly depend on RC4 may start failing. Manual rollback remains possible via explicit configuration of the attribute in Active Directory. July 2026 – Final Enforcement Starting in July 2026, audit mode and rollback options are removed. RC4 will only function if explicitly configured—a practice that is strongly discouraged. This represents the point of no return in the hardening process. Official Monitoring Approach Microsoft provides official scripts in the repository: https://github.com/microsoft/Kerberos-Crypto/tree/main/scripts The two primary scripts used in this analysis are: Get-KerbEncryptionUsage.ps1 The Get-KerbEncryptionUsage.ps1 script, provided by Microsoft in the Kerberos‑Crypto repository, is designed to identify how Kerberos tickets are issued in the environment by analyzing authentication events recorded on Domain Controllers. Data collection is primarily based on: Event ID 4768 – Kerberos Authentication Service (AS‑REQ / TGT issuance) Event ID 4769 – Kerberos Service Ticket Operations (TGS issuance) From these events, the script extracts and consolidates several relevant fields for authentication flow analysis: Time – when the authentication occurred Requestor – IP address or host that initiated the request Source – account that requested the ticket Target – requested service or SPN Type – operation type (AS or TGS) Ticket – algorithm used to encrypt the ticket SessionKey – algorithm used to protect the session key Based on these fields, it becomes possible to objectively identify which algorithms are being used in the environment, both for ticket issuance and session establishment. This visibility is essential for detecting RC4 dependencies in the Kerberos authentication flow, enabling precise identification of which clients, services, or accounts still rely on this legacy algorithm. Example usage: .\Get-KerbEncryptionUsage.ps1 -Encryption RC4 -Searchscope AllKdcs | Export-Csv -Path .\KerbUsage_RC4_All_ThisDC.csv -NoTypeInformation -Encoding UTF8 Data Consolidation and Analysis In enterprise environments, where event volumes may be high, it is recommended to consolidate script results into analytical tools such as Power BI to facilitate visualization and investigation. The presented image illustrates an example dashboard built from collected results, enabling visibility into: Total events analyzed Number of Domain Controllers involved Number of requesting clients (Requestors) Most frequently involved services or SPNs (Targets) Temporal distribution of events RC4 usage scenarios (Ticket, SessionKey, or both) This type of visualization enables rapid identification of RC4 usage patterns, remediation prioritization, and progress tracking as dependencies are eliminated. Additionally, dashboards help answer key operational questions, such as: Which services still depend on RC4 Which clients are negotiating RC4 for sessions Which Domain Controllers are issuing these tickets Whether RC4 usage is decreasing over time This combined automated collection + analytical visualization approach is the recommended strategy to prepare environments for the Microsoft changes related to CVE‑2026‑20833 and the progressive removal of RC4 in Kerberos. Visualizing Results with Power BI To facilitate analysis and monitoring of RC4 usage in Kerberos, it is recommended to consolidate script results into a Power BI analytical dashboard. 1. Install Power BI Desktop Download and install Power BI Desktop from the official Microsoft website 2. Execute data collection After running the Get-KerbEncryptionUsage.ps1 script, save the generated CSV file to the following directory: C:\Temp\Kerberos_KDC_usage_of_RC4_Logs\KerbEncryptionUsage_RC4.csv 3. Open the dashboard in Power BI Open the file RC4-KerbEncryptionUsage-Dashboards.pbix using Power BI Desktop. If you are interested, please leave a comment on this post with your email address, and I will be happy to share with you. 4. Update the data source If the CSV file is located in a different directory, it will be necessary to adjust the data source path in Power BI. As illustrated, the dashboard uses a parameter named CsvFilePath, which defines the path to the collected CSV file. To adjust it: Open Transform Data in Power BI. Locate the CsvFilePath parameter in the list of Queries. Update the value to the directory where the CSV file was saved. Click Refresh Preview or Refresh to update the data. Click Home → Close & Apply. This approach allows rapid identification of RC4 dependencies, prioritization of remediation actions, and tracking of progress throughout the elimination process. List-AccountKeys.ps1 This script is used to identify which long-term keys are present on user, computer, and service accounts, enabling verification of whether RC4 is still required or whether AES128/AES256 keys are already available. Interpreting Observed Scenarios Microsoft recommends analyzing RC4 usage by jointly considering two key fields present in Kerberos events: Ticket Encryption Type Session Encryption Type Each combination represents a distinct Kerberos behavior, indicating the source of the issue, risk level, and remediation point in the environment. In addition to events 4768 and 4769, updates released starting January 13, 2026, introduce new Kdcsvc events in the System Event Log that assist in identifying RC4 dependencies ahead of enforcement. These events include: Event ID 201 – RC4 usage detected because the client advertises only RC4 and the service does not have msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes defined. Event ID 202 – RC4 usage detected because the service account does not have AES keys and the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute is not defined. Event ID 203 – RC4 usage blocked (enforcement phase) because the client advertises only RC4 and the service does not have msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes defined. Event ID 204 – RC4 usage blocked (enforcement phase) because the service account does not have AES keys and msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes is not defined. Event ID 205 – Detection of explicit enablement of insecure algorithms (such as RC4) in the domain policy DefaultDomainSupportedEncTypes. Event ID 206 – RC4 usage detected because the service accepts only AES, but the client does not advertise AES support. Event ID 207 – RC4 usage detected because the service is configured for AES, but the service account does not have AES keys. Event ID 208 – RC4 usage blocked (enforcement phase) because the service accepts only AES and the client does not advertise AES support. Event ID 209 – RC4 usage blocked (enforcement phase) because the service accepts only AES, but the service account does not have AES keys. https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/topic/how-to-manage-kerberos-kdc-usage-of-rc4-for-service-account-ticket-issuance-changes-related-to-cve-2026-20833-1ebcda33-720a-4da8-93c1-b0496e1910dc They indicate situations where RC4 usage will be blocked in future phases, allowing early detection of configuration issues in clients, services, or accounts. These events are logged under: Log: System Source: Kdcsvc Below are the primary scenarios observed during the analysis of Kerberos authentication behavior, highlighting how RC4 usage manifests across different ticket and session encryption combinations. Each scenario represents a distinct risk profile and indicates specific remediation actions required to ensure compliance with the upcoming enforcement phases. Scenario A – RC4 / RC4 In this scenario, both the Kerberos ticket and the session key are issued using RC4. This is the worst possible scenario from a security and compatibility perspective, as it indicates full and explicit dependence on RC4 in the authentication flow. This condition significantly increases exposure to Kerberoasting attacks, since RC4‑encrypted tickets can be subjected to offline brute-force attacks to recover service account passwords. In addition, environments remaining in this state have a high probability of authentication failure after the April 2026 updates, when RC4 will no longer be accepted as an implicit fallback by the KDC. Events Associated with This Scenario During the Audit Phase, this scenario is typically associated with: Event ID 201 – Kdcsvc Indicates that: the client advertises only RC4 the service does not have msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes defined the Domain Controller does not have DefaultDomainSupportedEncTypes defined This means RC4 is being used implicitly. This event indicates that the authentication will fail during the enforcement phase. Event ID 202 – Kdcsvc Indicates that: the service account does not have AES keys the service does not have msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes defined This typically occurs when: legacy accounts have never had their passwords reset only RC4 keys exist in Active Directory Possible Causes Common causes include: the originating client (Requestor) advertises only RC4 the target service (Target) is not explicitly configured to support AES the account has only legacy RC4 keys the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute is not defined Recommended Actions To remediate this scenario: Correctly identify the object involved in the authentication flow, typically: a service account (SPN) a computer account or a Domain Controller computer object Verify whether the object has AES keys available using analysis tools or scripts such as List-AccountKeys.ps1. If AES keys are not present, reset the account password, forcing generation of modern cryptographic keys (AES128 and AES256). Explicitly define the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute to enable AES support. Recommended value for modern environments: 0x18 (AES128 + AES256) = 24 As illustrated below, this configuration can be applied directly to the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute in Active Directory. AES can also be enabled via Active Directory Users and Computers by explicitly selecting: This account supports Kerberos AES 128 bit encryption This account supports Kerberos AES 256 bit encryption These options ensure that new Kerberos tickets are issued using AES algorithms instead of RC4. Temporary RC4 Usage (Controlled Rollback) In transitional scenarios—during migration or troubleshooting—it may be acceptable to temporarily use: 0x1C (RC4 + AES) = 28 This configuration allows the object to accept both RC4 and AES simultaneously, functioning as a controlled rollback while legacy dependencies are identified and corrected. However, the final objective must be to fully eliminate RC4 before the final enforcement phase in July 2026, ensuring the environment operates exclusively with AES128 and AES256. Scenario B – AES / RC4 In this case, the ticket is protected with AES, but the session is still negotiated using RC4. This typically indicates a client limitation, legacy configuration, or restricted advertisement of supported algorithms. Events Associated with This Scenario During the Audit Phase, this scenario may generate: Event ID 206 Indicates that: the service accepts only AES the client does not advertise AES in the Advertised Etypes In this case, the client is the issue. Recommended Action Investigate the Requestor Validate operating system, client type, and advertised algorithms Review legacy GPOs, hardening configurations, or settings that still force RC4 For Linux clients or third‑party applications, review krb5.conf, keytabs, and Kerberos libraries Scenario C – RC4 / AES Here, the session already uses AES, but the ticket is still issued using RC4. This indicates an implicit RC4 dependency on the Target or KDC side, and the environment may fail once enforcement begins. Events Associated with This Scenario This scenario may generate: Event ID 205 Indicates that the domain has explicit insecure algorithm configuration in: DefaultDomainSupportedEncTypes This means RC4 is explicitly allowed at the domain level. Recommended Action Correct the Target object Explicitly define msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes with 0x18 = 24 Revalidate new ticket issuance to confirm full migration to AES / AES Conclusion CVE‑2026‑20833 represents a structural change in Kerberos behavior within Active Directory environments. Proper monitoring is essential before April 2026, and the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute becomes the primary control point for service accounts, computer accounts, and Domain Controllers. July 2026 represents the final enforcement point, after which there will be no implicit rollback to RC4.Customer Offerings: Azure Local - Implementation, Migration, and Management
Hi everyone! Brandon here, back once again to talk to you about a couple of new offerings that have just been released to assist our Unified customers with their on-premises virtualization needs! I continue to have the privilege of leading a great program and team helping customers to migrate from VMware to more cost-effective and/or modern solutions. These new offerings are <drum roll>: Hyper-V - Implementation, Migration, and Management Azure Local - Implementation, Migration, and Management NOTE: These offerings do not provide hands on keyboard support, do not create custom documentation for customers, and cannot provide direct support for any 3 rd party products that may be used in the process of migrations. Many customers are reassessing their virtualization strategies and are actively exploring alternatives to VMware that align with long‑term hybrid cloud goals. Azure Local offers a purpose‑built platform that combines proven Windows Server–based virtualization with Azure services and management tooling, enabling customers to modernize on‑premises infrastructure while maintaining tight integration with Azure management, security, and governance capabilities. Whether driven by changing licensing models, cost optimization, or the need for deeper hybrid cloud integration, a successful transition requires more than a technology shift—it requires a structured, outcome‑focused approach. While we are providing these new offerings to customers, you do also have the option of more extended engagements as well that are broader in scope and more tailored to the end goals while we work side by side with you. If you are a Unified customer and looking to move off of VMware to Azure Local, or you just need help with your on-premises Microsoft virtualization technologies in general, have your account manager (CSAM) reach out to me! Planning to go at it alone?? Virtually (no pun intended) every environment reviewed by my team (and that is a LOT) that was set up prior to our review will have configuration issues, at times warranting extensive efforts to correct. Problem 1: There are some potentially significant differences between the way VMware and Azure Local are architected from the start, especially in areas of networking and storage, where mimicking methods used in the VMware world can actually lead to performance degradation in your target Azure Local environment. Problem 2: Your management method must also change. Additionally, if you are converting/migrating to Azure Local, the available methods need to be determined, the terminology and functional differences identified and learned…there can be a lot to unpack in this area. Problem 3: Perhaps the most obvious is that this may be a new platform for your team, and its important for them to gain experience through guided actions and knowledge transfer on the fly for those questions they really have, which is exactly what we aim to provide in guiding implementations and migrations! A Structured Engagement Model Successful Azure Local implementations are built around a guided engagement model rather than a one‑size‑fits‑all checklist. Each engagement is tailored to the customer environment, acknowledging that differences in scale, workloads, hardware, and operational maturity directly influence the migration approach. The framework emphasizes collaboration, clarity of expectations, and incremental progress instead of disruptive “lift‑and‑shift” execution. Whether we are talking about migration from another virtualization platform, or simply trying to reduce costs by implementing a new virtualization infrastructure, we’re here to help! Key Phases of an Azure Local Implementation and/or Migration Most Azure Local implementation and migration engagements progress through a common set of phases: Engagement scoping and technical discovery to understand goals and current state (this is the conversation I, or one of the TZ Leads in the VMware Migration Program have with customers) Planning and design aligned to business and operational outcomes, with a limited scope Deployment and configuration validation to ensure platform readiness Security and migration testing to reduce risk and confirm workload compatibility Feature enablement, including Azure Arc, to extend governance and management While these phases provide structure, the sequence and depth of each stage are adapted based on the customer environment and objectives. Key Outcomes for Customers Organizations that engage in Azure Local implementation or migration efforts commonly achieve: Deeper familiarity with Microsoft virtualization technologies Successful deployment of PoC, pilot, or production environments Validated test migrations of virtual machines Identification and resolution of technical blockers Increased confidence in operational readiness These engagements are advisory and collaborative in nature, prioritizing customer enablement and success. Knowledge Transfer and Operational Readiness A central focus of the Azure Local engagements is ensuring that IT teams are prepared to operate the platform long after deployment completes. Knowledge transfer is embedded throughout the engagement through working sessions and direct participation in implementation activities. This approach helps organizations move confidently into steady‑state operations without relying on long‑term external support. As I mentioned above, if you do feel you will need longer term support, we have your back on that front as well. Looking Beyond Migration An Azure Local migration is often the first step in a broader transformation journey. Many organizations use this transition to enable hybrid management, strengthen security posture, and prepare for future application or cloud modernization initiatives. When approached strategically, Azure Local becomes a platform for long‑term innovation and a step to modernizing your infrastructure, not just a replacement hypervisor. Conclusion Moving from VMware to Azure Local is not simply a technical migration—it is an opportunity to modernize how infrastructure is managed and governed. With structured planning, guided execution, and a focus on operational readiness, organizations can transition with confidence to a virtualization platform built for today’s hybrid cloud realities and tomorrow’s growth. Thanks for reading, and maybe we’ll talk soon!
How to Ingest Microsoft Intune Logs into Microsoft Sentinel
For many organizations using Microsoft Intune to manage devices, integrating Intune logs into Microsoft Sentinel is an essential for security operations (Incorporate the device into the SEIM). By routing Intune’s device management and compliance data into your central SIEM, you gain a unified view of endpoint events and can set up alerts on critical Intune activities e.g. devices falling out of compliance or policy changes. This unified monitoring helps security and IT teams detect issues faster, correlate Intune events with other security logs for threat hunting and improve compliance reporting. We’re publishing these best practices to help unblock common customer challenges in configuring Intune log ingestion. In this step-by-step guide, you’ll learn how to successfully send Intune logs to Microsoft Sentinel, so you can fully leverage Intune data for enhanced security and compliance visibility. Prerequisites and Overview Before configuring log ingestion, ensure the following prerequisites are in place: Microsoft Sentinel Enabled Workspace: A Log Analytics Workspace with Microsoft Sentinel enabled; For information regarding setting up a workspace and onboarding Microsoft Sentinel, see: Onboard Microsoft Sentinel - Log Analytics workspace overview. Microsoft Sentinel is now available in the Defender Portal, connect your Microsoft Sentinel Workspace to the Defender Portal: Connect Microsoft Sentinel to the Microsoft Defender portal - Unified security operations. Intune Administrator permissions: You need appropriate rights to configure Intune Diagnostic Settings. For information, see: Microsoft Entra built-in roles - Intune Administrator. Log Analytics Contributor role: The account configuring diagnostics should have permission to write to the Log Analytics workspace. For more information on the different roles, and what they can do, go to Manage access to log data and workspaces in Azure Monitor. Intune diagnostic logging enabled: Ensure that Intune diagnostic settings are configured to send logs to Azure Monitor / Log Analytics, and that devices and users are enrolled in Intune so that relevant management and compliance events are generated. For more information, see: Send Intune log data to Azure Storage, Event Hubs, or Log Analytics. Configure Intune to Send Logs to Microsoft Sentinel Sign in to the Microsoft Intune admin center. Select Reports > Diagnostics settings. If it’s the first time here, you may be prompted to “Turn on” diagnostic settings for Intune; enable it if so. Then click “+ Add diagnostic setting” to create a new setting: Select Intune Log Categories. In the “Diagnostic setting” configuration page, give the setting a name (e.g. “Microsoft Sentinel Intune Logs Demo”). Under Logs to send, you’ll see checkboxes for each Intune log category. Select the categories you want to forward. For comprehensive monitoring, check AuditLogs, OperationalLogs, DeviceComplianceOrg, and Devices. The selected log categories will be sent to a table in the Microsoft Sentinel Workspace. Configure Destination Details – Microsoft Sentinel Workspace. Under Destination details on the same page, select your Azure Subscription then select the Microsoft Sentinel workspace. Save the Diagnostic Setting. After you click save, the Microsoft Intune Logs will will be streamed to 4 tables which are in the Analytics Tier. For pricing on the analytic tier check here: Plan costs and understand pricing and billing. Verify Data in Microsoft Sentinel. After configuring Intune to send diagnostic data to a Microsoft Sentinel Workspace, it’s crucial to verify that the Intune logs are successfully flowing into Microsoft Sentinel. You can do this by checking specific Intune log tables both in the Microsoft 365 Defender portal and in the Azure Portal. The key tables to verify are: IntuneAuditLogs IntuneOperationalLogs IntuneDeviceComplianceOrg IntuneDevices Microsoft 365 Defender Portal (Unified) Azure Portal (Microsoft Sentinel) 1. Open Advanced Hunting: Sign in to the https://security.microsoft.com (the unified portal). Navigate to Advanced Hunting. – This opens the unified query editor where you can search across Microsoft Defender data and any connected Sentinel data. 2. Find Intune Tables: In the Advanced hunting Schema pane (on the left side of the query editor), scroll down past the Microsoft Sentinel Tables. Under the LogManagement Section Look for IntuneAuditLogs, IntuneOperationalLogs, IntuneDeviceComplianceOrg, and IntuneDevices in the list. Microsoft Sentinel in Defender Portal – Tables 1. Navigate to Logs: Sign in to the https://portal.azure.com and open Microsoft Sentinel. Select your Sentinel workspace, then click Logs (under General). 2. Find Intune Tables: In the Logs query editor that opens, you’ll see a Schema or tables list on the left. If it’s collapsed, click >> to expand it. Scroll down to find LogManagement and expand it; look for these Intune-related tables: IntuneAuditLogs, IntuneOperationalLogs, IntuneDeviceComplianceOrg, and IntuneDevices Microsoft Sentinel in Azure Portal – Tables Querying Intune Log Tables in Sentinel – Once the tables are present, use Kusto Query Language (KQL) in either portal to view and analyze Intune data: Microsoft 365 Defender Portal (Unified) Azure Portal (Microsoft Sentinel) In the Advanced Hunting page, ensure the query editor is visible (select New query if needed). Run a simple KQL query such as: IntuneDevice | take 5 Click Run query to display sample Intune device records. If results are returned, it confirms that Intune data is being ingested successfully. Note that querying across Microsoft Sentinel data in the unified Advanced Hunting view requires at least the Microsoft Sentinel Reader role. In the Azure Logs blade, use the query editor to run a simple KQL query such as: IntuneDevice | take 5 Select Run to view the results in a table showing sample Intune device data. If results appear, it confirms that your Intune logs are being collected successfully. You can select any record to view full event details and use KQL to further explore or filter the data - for example, by querying IntuneDeviceComplianceOrg to identify devices that are not compliant and adjust the query as needed. Once Microsoft Intune logs are flowing into Microsoft Sentinel, the real value comes from transforming that raw device and audit data into actionable security signals. To achieve this, you should set up detection rules that continuously analyze the Intune logs and automatically flag any risky or suspicious behavior. In practice, this means creating custom detection rules in the Microsoft Defender portal (part of the unified XDR experience) see [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-xdr/custom-detection-rules] and scheduled analytics rules in Microsoft Sentinel (in either the Azure Portal or the unified Defender portal interface) see:[Create scheduled analytics rules in Microsoft Sentinel | Microsoft Learn]. These detection rules will continuously monitor your Intune telemetry – tracking device compliance status, enrollment activity, and administrative actions – and will raise alerts whenever they detect suspicious or out-of-policy events. For example, you can be alerted if a large number of devices fall out of compliance, if an unusual spike in enrollment failures occurs, or if an Intune policy is modified by an unexpected account. Each alert generated by these rules becomes an incident in Microsoft Sentinel (and in the XDR Defender portal’s unified incident queue), enabling your security team to investigate and respond through the standard SOC workflow. In turn, this converts raw Intune log data into high-value security insights: you’ll achieve proactive detection of potential issues, faster investigation by pivoting on the enriched Intune data in each incident, and even automated response across your endpoints (for instance, by triggering playbooks or other automated remediation actions when an alert fires). Use this Detection Logic to Create a detection Rule IntuneDeviceComplianceOrg | where TimeGenerated > ago(24h) | where ComplianceState != "Compliant" | summarize NonCompliantCount = count() by DeviceName, TimeGenerated | where NonCompliantCount > 3 Additional Tips: After confirming data ingestion and setting up alerts, you can leverage other Microsoft Sentinel features to get more value from your Intune logs. For example: Workbooks for Visualization: Create custom workbooks to build dashboards for Intune data (or check if community-contributed Intune workbooks are available). This can help you monitor device compliance trends and Intune activities visually. Hunting and Queries: Use advanced hunting (KQL queries) to proactively search through Intune logs for suspicious activities or trends. The unified Defender portal’s Advanced Hunting page can query both Sentinel (Intune logs) and Defender data together, enabling correlation across Intune and other security data. For instance, you might join IntuneDevices data with Azure AD sign-in logs to investigate a device associated with risky sign-ins. Incident Management: Leverage Sentinel’s Incidents view (in Azure portal) or the unified Incidents queue in Defender to investigate alerts triggered by your new rules. Incidents in Sentinel (whether created in Azure or Defender portal) will appear in the connected portal, allowing your security operations team to manage Intune-related alerts just like any other security incident. Built-in Rules & Content: Remember that Microsoft Sentinel provides many built-in Analytics Rule templates and Content Hub solutions. While there isn’t a native pre-built Intune content pack as of now, you can use general Sentinel features to monitor Intune data. Frequently Asked Questions If you’ve set everything up but don’t see logs in Sentinel, run through these checks: Check Diagnostic Settings Go to the Microsoft Intune admin center → Reports → Diagnostic settings. Make sure the setting is turned ON and sending the right log categories to the correct Microsoft Sentinel workspace. Confirm the Right Workspace Double-check that the Azure subscription and Microsoft Sentinel workspace are selected. If you have multiple tenants/directories, make sure you’re in the right one. Verify Permissions Make Sure Logs Are Being Generated If no devices are enrolled or no actions have been taken, there may be nothing to log yet. Try enrolling a device or changing a policy to trigger logs. Check Your Queries Make sure you’re querying the correct workspace and time range in Microsoft Sentinel. Try a direct query like: IntuneAuditLogs | take 5 Still Nothing? Try deleting and re-adding the diagnostic setting. Most issues come down to permissions or selecting the wrong workspace. How long are Intune logs retained, and how can I keep them longer? The analytics tier keeps data in the interactive retention state for 90 days by default, extensible for up to two years. This interactive state, while expensive, allows you to query your data in unlimited fashion, with high performance, at no charge per query: Log retention tiers in Microsoft Sentinel. We hope this helps you to successfully connect your resources and end-to-end ingest Intune logs into Microsoft Sentinel. If you have any questions, leave a comment below or reach out to us on X @MSFTSecSuppTeam!
Issue connecting Azure Sentinel GitHub app to Sentinel Instance when IP allow list is enabled
Hi everyone, I’m running into an issue connecting the Azure Sentinel GitHub app to my Sentinel workspace in order to create our CI/CD pipelines for our detection rules, and I’m hoping someone can point me in the right direction. Symptoms: When configuring the GitHub connection in Sentinel, the repository dropdown does not populate. There are no explicit errors, but the connection clearly isn’t completing. If I disable my organization’s IP allow list, everything works as expected and the repos appear immediately. I’ve seen that some GitHub Apps automatically add the IP ranges they require to an organization’s allow list. However, from what I can tell, the Azure Sentinel GitHub app does not seem to have this capability, and requires manual allow listing instead. What I’ve tried / researched: Reviewed Microsoft documentation for Sentinel ↔ GitHub integrations Looked through Azure IP range and Service Tag documentation I’ve seen recommendations to allow list the IP ranges published at //api.github.com/meta, as many GitHub apps rely on these ranges I’ve already tried allow listing multiple ranges from the GitHub meta endpoint, but the issue persists My questions: Does anyone know which IP ranges are used by the Azure Sentinel GitHub app specifically? Is there an official or recommended approach for using this integration in environments with strict IP allow lists? Has anyone successfully configured this integration without fully disabling IP restrictions? Any insight, references, or firsthand experience would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Missing details in Azure Activity Logs – MICROSOFT.SECURITYINSIGHTS/ENTITIES/ACTION
The Azure Activity Logs are crucial for tracking access and actions within Sentinel. However, I’m encountering a significant lack of documentation and clarity regarding some specific operation types. Resources consulted: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sentinel/audit-sentinel-data https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/securityinsights/entities?view=rest-securityinsights-2024-01-01-preview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/securityinsights/operations/list?view=rest-securityinsights-2024-09-01&tabs=HTTP My issue: I observed unauthorized activity on our Sentinel workspace. The Azure Activity Logs clearly indicate the user involved, the resource, and the operation type: "MICROSOFT.SECURITYINSIGHTS/ENTITIES/ACTION" But that’s it. No detail about what the action was, what entity it targeted, or how it was triggered. This makes auditing extremely difficult. It's clear the person was in Sentinel and perform an activity through it, from search, KQL, logs to find an entity from a KQL query. But, that's all... Strangely, this operation is not even listed in the official Sentinel Operations documentation linked above. My question: Has anyone encountered this and found a way to interpret this operation type properly? Any insight into how to retrieve more meaningful details (action context, target entity, etc.) from these events would be greatly appreciated.Authorization and Governance for AI Agents: Runtime Authorization Beyond Identity at Scale
Designing Authorization‑Aware AI Agents at Scale Enforcing Runtime RBAC + ABAC with Approval Injection (JIT) Microsoft Entra Agent Identity enables organizations to govern and manage AI agent identities in Copilot Studio, improving visibility and identity-level control. However, as enterprises deploy multiple autonomous AI agents, identity and OAuth permissions alone cannot answer a more critical question: “Should this action be executed now, by this agent, for this user, under the current business and regulatory context?” This post introduces a reusable Authorization Fabric—combining a Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) and Policy Decision Point (PDP)—implemented as a Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint using Azure Functions/App Service authentication. Every AI agent (Copilot Studio or AI Foundry/Semantic Kernel) calls this fabric before tool execution, receiving a deterministic runtime decision: ALLOW / DENY / REQUIRE_APPROVAL / MASK Who this is for Anyone building AI agents (Copilot Studio, AI Foundry/Semantic Kernel) that call tools, workflows, or APIs Organizations scaling to multiple agents and needing consistent runtime controls Teams operating in regulated or security‑sensitive environments, where decisions must be deterministic and auditable Why a V2? Identity is necessary—runtime authorization is missing Entra Agent Identity (preview) integrates Copilot Studio agents with Microsoft Entra so that newly created agents automatically get an Entra agent identity, manageable in the Entra admin center, and identity activity is logged in Entra. That solves who the agent is and improves identity governance visibility. But multi-agent deployments introduce a new risk class: Autonomous execution sprawl — many agents, operating with delegated privileges, invoking the same backends independently. OAuth and API permissions answer “can the agent call this API?” They do not answer “should the agent execute this action under business policy, compliance constraints, data boundaries, and approval thresholds?” This is where a runtime authorization decision plane becomes essential. The pattern: Microsoft Entra‑Protected Authorization Fabric (PEP + PDP) Instead of embedding RBAC logic independently inside every agent, use a shared fabric: PEP (Policy Enforcement Point): Gatekeeper invoked before any tool/action PDP (Policy Decision Point): Evaluates RBAC + ABAC + approval policies Decision output: ALLOW / DENY / REQUIRE_APPROVAL / MASK This Authorization Fabric functions as a shared enterprise control plane, decoupling authorization logic from individual agents and enforcing policies consistently across all autonomous execution paths. Architecture (POC reference architecture) Use a single runtime decision plane that sits between agents and tools. What’s important here Every agent (Copilot Studio or AI Foundry/SK) calls the Authorization Fabric API first The fabric is a protected endpoint (Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint required) Tools (Graph/ERP/CRM/custom APIs) are invoked only after an ALLOW decision (or approval) Trust boundaries enforced by this architecture Agents never call business tools directly without a prior authorization decision The Authorization Fabric validates caller identity via Microsoft Entra Authorization decisions are centralized, consistent, and auditable Approval workflows act as a runtime “break-glass” control for high-impact actions This ensures identity, intent, and execution are independently enforced, rather than implicitly trusted. Runtime flow (Decision → Approval → Execution) Here is the runtime sequence as a simple flow (you can keep your Mermaid diagram too). ```mermaid flowchart TD START(["START"]) --> S1["[1] User Request"] S1 --> S2["[2] Agent Extracts Intent\n(action, resource, attributes)"] S2 --> S3["[3] Call /authorize\n(Entra protected)"] S3 --> S4 subgraph S4["[4] PDP Evaluation"] ABAC["ABAC: Tenant · Region · Data Sensitivity"] RBAC["RBAC: Entitlement Check"] Threshold["Approval Threshold"] ABAC --> RBAC --> Threshold end S4 --> Decision{"[5] Decision?"} Decision -->|"ALLOW"| Exec["Execute Tool / API"] Decision -->|"MASK"| Masked["Execute with Masked Data"] Decision -->|"DENY"| Block["Block Request"] Decision -->|"REQUIRE_APPROVAL"| Approve{"[6] Approval Flow"} Approve -->|"Approved"| Exec Approve -->|"Rejected"| Block Exec --> Audit["[7] Audit & Telemetry"] Masked --> Audit Block --> Audit Audit --> ENDNODE(["END"]) style START fill:#4A90D9,stroke:#333,color:#fff style ENDNODE fill:#4A90D9,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S1 fill:#5B5FC7,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S2 fill:#5B5FC7,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S3 fill:#E8A838,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S4 fill:#FFF3E0,stroke:#E8A838,stroke-width:2px style ABAC fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style RBAC fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style Threshold fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style Decision fill:#fff,stroke:#333 style Exec fill:#2ECC71,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Masked fill:#27AE60,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Block fill:#C0392B,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Approve fill:#F39C12,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Audit fill:#3498DB,stroke:#333,color:#fff ``` Design principle: No tool execution occurs until the Authorization Fabric returns ALLOW or REQUIRE_APPROVAL is satisfied via an approval workflow. Where Power Automate fits (important for readers) In most Copilot Studio implementations, Agents calls Power Automate (agent flows), is the practical integration layer that calls enterprise services and APIs. Copilot Studio supports “agent flows” as a way to extend agent capabilities with low-code workflows. For this pattern, Power Automate typically: acquires/uses the right identity context for the call (depending on your tenant setup), and calls the /authorize endpoint of the Authorization Fabric, returns the decision payload to the agent for branching. Copilot Studio also supports calling REST endpoints directly using the HTTP Request node, including passing headers such as Authorization: Bearer <token>. Protected endpoint only: Securing the Authorization Fabric with Microsoft Entra For this V2 pattern, the Authorization Fabric must be protected using Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint on Azure Functions/App Service (built‑in auth). Microsoft Learn provides the configuration guidance for enabling Microsoft Entra as the authentication provider for Azure App Service / Azure Functions. Step 1 — Create the Authorization Fabric API (Azure Function) Expose an authorization endpoint: HTTP Step 2 — Enable Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint on the Function App In Azure Portal: Function App → Authentication Add identity provider → Microsoft Choose Workforce configuration (enterprise tenant) Set Require authentication for all requests This ensures the Authorization Fabric is not callable without a valid Entra token. Step 3 — Optional hardening (recommended) Depending on enterprise posture, layer: IP restrictions / Private endpoints APIM in front of the Function for rate limiting, request normalization, centralized logging (For a POC, keep it minimal—add hardening incrementally.) Externalizing policy (so governance scales) To make this pattern reusable across multiple agents, policies should not be hardcoded inside each agent. Instead, store policy definitions in a central policy store such as Cosmos DB (or equivalent configuration store), and have the PDP load/evaluate policies at runtime. Why this matters: Policy changes apply across all agents instantly (no agent republish) Central governance + versioning + rollback becomes possible Audit and reporting become consistent across environments (For the POC, a single JSON document per policy pack in Cosmos DB is sufficient. For production, add versioning and staged rollout.) Store one PolicyPack JSON document per environment (dev/test/prod). Include version, effectiveFrom, priority for safe rollout/rollback. Minimal decision contract (standard request / response) To keep the fabric reusable across agents, standardize the request payload. Request payload (example) Decision response (deterministic) Example scenario (1 minute to understand) Scenario: A user asks a Finance agent to create a Purchase Order for 70,000. Even if the user has API permission and the agent can technically call the ERP API, runtime policy should return: REQUIRE_APPROVAL (threshold exceeded) trigger an approval workflow execute only after approval is granted This is the difference between API access and authorized business execution. Sample Policy Model (RBAC + ABAC + Approval) This POC policy model intentionally stays simple while demonstrating both coarse and fine-grained governance. 1) Coarse‑grained RBAC (roles → actions) FinanceAnalyst CreatePO up to 50,000 ViewVendor FinanceManager CreatePO up to 100,000 and/or approve higher spend 2) Fine‑grained ABAC (conditions at runtime) ABAC evaluates context such as region, classification, tenant boundary, and risk: 3) Approval injection (Agent‑level JIT execution) For higher-risk/high-impact actions, the fabric returns REQUIRE_APPROVAL rather than hard deny (when appropriate): How policies should be evaluated (deterministic order) To ensure predictable and auditable behavior, evaluate in a deterministic order: Tenant isolation & residency (ABAC hard deny first) Classification rules (deny or mask) RBAC entitlement validation Threshold/risk evaluation Approval injection (JIT step-up) This prevents approval workflows from bypassing foundational security boundaries such as tenant isolation or data sovereignty. Copilot Studio integration (enforcing runtime authorization) Copilot Studio can call external REST APIs using the HTTP Request node, including passing headers such as Authorization: Bearer <token> and binding response schema for branching logic. Copilot Studio also supports using flows with agents (“agent flows”) to extend capabilities and orchestrate actions. Option A (Recommended): Copilot Studio → Agent Flow (Power Automate) → Authorization Fabric Why: Flows are a practical place to handle token acquisition patterns, approval orchestration, and standardized logging. Topic flow: Extract user intent + parameters Call an agent flow that: calls /authorize returns decision payload Branch in the topic: If ALLOW → proceed to tool call If REQUIRE_APPROVAL → trigger approval flow; proceed only if approved If DENY → stop and explain policy reason Important: Tool execution must never be reachable through an alternate topic path that bypasses the authorization check. Option B: Direct HTTP Request node to Authorization Fabric Use the Send HTTP request node to call the authorization endpoint and branch using the response schema. This approach is clean, but token acquisition and secure secretless authentication are often simpler when handled via a managed integration layer (flow + connector). AI Foundry / Semantic Kernel integration (tool invocation gate) For Foundry/SK agents, the integration point is before tool execution. Semantic Kernel supports Azure AI agent patterns and tool integration, making it a natural place to enforce a pre-tool authorization check. Pseudo-pattern: Agent extracts intent + context Calls Authorization Fabric Enforces decision Executes tool only when allowed (or after approval) Telemetry & audit (what Security Architects will ask for) Even the best policy engine is incomplete without audit trails. At minimum, log: agentId, userUPN, action, resource decision + reason + policyIds approval outcome (if any) correlationId for downstream tool execution Why it matters: you now have a defensible answer to: “Why did an autonomous agent execute this action?” Security signal bonus: Denials, unusual approval rates, and repeated policy mismatches can also indicate prompt injection attempts, mis-scoped agents, or governance drift. What this enables (and why it scales) With a shared Authorization Fabric: Avoid duplicating authorization logic across agents Standardize decisions across Copilot Studio + Foundry agents Update governance once (policy change) and apply everywhere Make autonomy safer without blocking productivity Closing: Identity gets you who. Runtime authorization gets you whether/when/how. Copilot Studio can automatically create Entra agent identities (preview), improving identity governance and visibility for agents. But safe autonomy requires a runtime decision plane. Securing that plane as an Entra-protected endpoint is foundational for enterprise deployments. In enterprise environments, autonomous execution without runtime authorization is equivalent to privileged access without PIM—powerful, fast, and operationally risky.Introducing the New Microsoft Sentinel Logstash Output Plugin (Public Preview!)
Many organizations rely on Logstash as a flexible, trusted data pipeline for collecting, transforming, and forwarding logs from on-premises and hybrid environments. Microsoft Sentinel has long supported a Logstash output plugin, enabling customers to send data directly into Sentinel as part of their existing pipelines. The original plugin was implemented in Ruby, and while it has served its purpose, it no longer meets Microsoft’s Secure Future Initiative (SFI) standards and has limited engineering support. To address both security and sustainability, we have rebuilt the plugin from the ground up in Java, a language that is more secure, better supported across Microsoft, and aligned with long-term platform investments. To ensure a seamless transition, the new implementation is still packaged and distributed as a standard Logstash Ruby gem. This means the installation and usage experience remains unchanged for customers, while benefiting from a more secure and maintainable foundation. What's New in This Version Java‑based and SFI‑compliant Same Logstash plugin experience, now rebuilt on a stronger foundation. The new implementation is fully Java‑based, aligning with Microsoft’s Secure Future Initiative (SFI) and providing improved security, supportability, and long-term maintainability. Modern, DCR‑based ingestion The plugin now uses the Azure Monitor Logs Ingestion API with Data Collection Rules (DCRs), replacing the legacy HTTP Data Collection API (For more info, see Migrate from the HTTP Data Collector API to the Log Ingestion API - Azure Monitor | Microsoft Learn). This gives customers full schema control, enables custom log tables, and supports ingestion into standard Microsoft Sentinel tables as well as Microsoft Sentinel data lake. Flexible authentication options Authentication is automatically determined based on your configuration, with support for: Client secret (App registration / service principal) Managed identity, eliminating the need to store credentials in configuration files Sovereign cloud support: The plugin supports Azure sovereign clouds, including Azure US Government, Azure China, and Azure Germany. Standard Logstash distribution model The plugin is published on RubyGems.org, the standard distribution channel for Logstash plugins, and can be installed directly using the Logstash plugin manager, no change to your existing installation workflow. What the Plugin Does Logstash plugin operates as a three-stage data pipeline: Input → Filter → Output. Input: You control how data enters the pipeline, using sources such as syslog, filebeat, Kafka, Event Hubs, databases (via JDBC), files, and more. Filter: You enrich and transform events using Logstash’s powerful filtering ecosystem, including plugins like grok, mutate, and Json, shaping data to match your security and operational needs. Output: This is where Microsoft comes in. The Microsoft Sentinel Logstash Output Plugin securely sends your processed events to an Azure Monitor Data Collection Endpoint, where they are ingested into Sentinel via a Data Collection Rule (DCR). With this model, you retain full control over your Logstash pipeline and data processing logic, while the Sentinel plugin provides a secure, reliable path to ingest data into Microsoft Sentinel. Getting Started Prerequisites Logstash installed and running An Azure Monitor Data Collection Endpoint (DCE) and Data Collection Rule (DCR) in your subscription Contributor role on your Log Analytics workspace Who Is This For? Organizations that already have Logstash pipelines, need to collect from on-premises or legacy systems, and operate in distributed/hybrid environments including air-gapped networks. To learn more, see: microsoft-sentinel-log-analytics-logstash-output-plugin | RubyGems.org | your community gem host
Pricing Calculator for Microsoft Sentinel
Hi everyone, I am using the Pricing Calculator for Microsoft Sentinel. I can see the pricing split into two parts - Azure Monitor and Microsoft Sentinel. In my understanding, Microsoft Sentinel will process the log stored in the Log Analytics Workspace. The Cost is based on the log size in the Log Analytics Workspace. It may not relate to the Azure Monitor part. The Pricing Calculator will charge the Azure Monitor part because Azure Monitor and Microsoft Sentinel share the same Log Analytics Workspace? Basically, I am not using Azure Monitor. Any method to reduce the cost of the Azure Monitor part?
Introducing the Entra Helpdesk Portal: A Zero-Trust, Dockerized ITSM Interface for Tier 1 Support
Hello everyone, If you manage identity in Microsoft Entra ID at an enterprise scale, you know the struggle: delegating day-to-day operational tasks (like password resets, session revocations, and MFA management) to Tier 1 and Tier 2 support staff is inherently risky. The native Azure/Entra portal is incredibly powerful, but it’s complex and lacks mandatory ITSM enforcement. Giving a helpdesk technician the "Helpdesk Administrator" role grants them access to a portal where a single misclick can cause a major headache. To solve this, I’ve developed the Entra Helpdesk Portal (Community Edition)—an open-source, containerized application designed to act as an isolated "airlock" between your support team and your Entra ID tenant. Why This Adds Value to Your Tenant Instead of having technicians log into the Azure portal, they log into this clean, Material Design web interface. It leverages a backend Service Principal (using MSAL and the Graph API) to execute commands on their behalf. Strict Zero Trust: Logging in via Microsoft SSO isn’t enough. The app intercepts the token and checks the user’s UPN against a hardcoded ALLOWED_ADMINS whitelist in your Docker environment file. Mandatory ITSM Ticketing: You cannot enforce ticketing in the native Azure Portal. In this app, every write action prompts a modal requiring a valid ticket number (e.g., INC-123456). Local Audit Logging: All actions, along with the actor, timestamp, and ticket number, are written to an immutable local SQLite database (audit.db) inside the container volume. Performance: Heavy Graph API reads are cached in-memory with a Time-To-Live (TTL) and smart invalidation. Searching for users or loading Enterprise Apps takes milliseconds. What Can It Do? Identity Lifecycle: Create users, auto-generate secure 16-character passwords, revoke sign-in sessions, reset passwords, and delete specific MFA methods to force re-registration. Diagnostics: View a user's last 5 sign-in logs, translating Microsoft error codes into plain English. Group Management: Add/remove members to Security and M365 groups. App/SPN Management: Lazy-load raw requiredResourceAccess Graph API payloads to audit app permissions, and instantly rotate client secrets. Universal Restore: Paste the Object ID of any soft-deleted item into the Recycle Bin tab to instantly resurrect it. How Easy Is It to Setup? I wanted this to be universally deployable, so I compiled it as a multi-architecture Docker image (linux/amd64 and linux/arm64). It will run on a massive Windows Server or a simple Raspberry Pi. Setup takes less than 5 minutes: Create an App Registration in Entra ID and grant it the necessary Graph API Application Permissions (e.g., User.ReadWrite.All, AuditLog.Read.All). Create a docker-compose.yml file. Define your feature toggles. You can literally turn off features (like User Deletion) by setting an environment variable to false. version: '3.8' services: helpdesk-portal: image: jahmed22/entra-helpdesk:latest container_name: entra_helpdesk restart: unless-stopped ports: - "8000:8000" environment: # CORE IDENTITY - TENANT_ID=your_tenant_id_here - CLIENT_ID=your_client_id_here - CLIENT_SECRET=your_client_secret_here - BASE_URL=https://entradesk.jahmed.cloud - ALLOWED_ADMINS=email address removed for privacy reasons # CUSTOMIZATION & FEATURE FLAGS - APP_NAME=Entra Help Desk - ENABLE_PASSWORD_RESET=true - ENABLE_MFA_MANAGEMENT=true - ENABLE_USER_DELETION=false - ENABLE_GROUP_MANAGEMENT=true - ENABLE_APP_MANAGEMENT=true volumes: - entra_helpdesk_data:/app/static/uploads - entra_helpdesk_db:/app volumes: entra_helpdesk_data: entra_helpdesk_db: 4.Run docker compose up -d and you are done! I built this to give back to the community and help secure our Tier 1 operations. If you are interested in testing it out in your dev tenants or want to see the full architecture breakdown, you can read the complete documentation on my website here I’d love to hear your thoughts, feedback, or any feature requests you might have!
