Practical ways to use AI in your Data Science and ML journey
Are you ready to take your learning from “just reading” to “actively doing”? We are launching a series of interactive events designed to help you bridge the gap between theory and practice, connect with peers, and learn directly from experts, all in a vibrant, supportive Discord community. The series will guide you on practical ways to use AI in your learning journey with Data Science and Machine Learning. Join the series on Discord at: https://aka.ms/ds4beginners/discord Why You Should Join Guided Pathways: Move seamlessly from the popular Data Science for Beginners and Machine Learning for Beginners curriculums to interact with fellow learners in the Azure AI Foundry Discord community. We’ve designed study plans, office hours sessions, and showcases so you can learn, ask questions, and get feedback in real time. Practical AI Skills: See how Artificial Intelligence can supercharge your learning. . Community & Collaboration: Find peer learners with similar goals, collaborate on projects, and get support from experienced moderators and MVPs. Machine Learning AMA 1 Theme: Learning Machine Learning with AI, responsibly. Date: Tuesday, 23 September (10AM PST | 1PM ET | 5PM GMT | 8PM EAT) What to Expect: Curriculum overview, hands-on AI demos, critique and correct a simple classifier, and peer collaboration. Link: https://aka.ms/learnwithai/ml Data Science AMA 2 Theme: Learning Data Science with AI, responsibly. Date: Tuesday, 30 September (10AM PST | 1PM ET | 5PM GMT | 8PM EAT) What to Expect: Curriculum overview, integrating AI into your learning, live Q&A, and practical tips for responsible AI use. Link: https://aka.ms/learnwithai/ds Showcase 1: GitHub Copilot for Data Science Theme: Hands-on AI Agents for Data Scientists Date: Thursday, 25 September (10AM PST | 1PM ET | 5PM GMT | 8PM EAT) What to Expect: Learn to use Copilot’s advanced features in Python and Jupyter Notebooks, customize agents, and extend your analyses. Link: https://aka.ms/learnwithai/agents How to Get Involved Join the Discord Channels: https://aka.ms/ds4beginners/discord https://aka.ms/ml4beginners/discord Prepare: Make sure you have a GitHub account, VS Code, Data Wrangler, ready for hands-on sessions. What Makes This Program Different? Discord first learning: Experience higher engagement and deeper connections. Curriculum-anchored activities: Every event is designed to build on what you’ve learned in the open-source curriculums. AI-powered study plans and resources: Get starter notebooks, prompt cards, and recap templates to accelerate your progress. Resources Hands-on workshop: https://aka.ms/ds-agents Data Science for beginner's curriculum: https://aka.ms/ds4beginners Machine Learning for beginner's curriculum: https://aka.ms/ml4beginners Ready to transform your learning journey? Join us for these exciting events and join us in the Azure AI Foundry Discord community. Whether you’re just starting out or looking to deepen your skills, there’s a place for you here!Build Multi‑Agent AI Systems with Microsoft
Like many of you I have been on a journey to build AI systems where multiple agents (AI models with tools and autonomy) collaborate to solve complex tasks. In this post, I want to share the engineering challenges we faced, the architecture we designed with Azure AI Foundry, and the lessons learned along the way. Our goal is to empower AI engineers and developers to leverage multi-agent systems for real-world applications, with the benefit of Microsoft’s tools, research insights, and enterprise-grade platform. Why Multi‑Agent Systems? The Need for AI Teamwork Building a single AI agent to perform a task is often straightforward. However, many real-world processes are too complex for one agent alone. Tasks like in-depth research, enterprise workflow automation, or multi-step customer service involve context switching and specialized knowledge that overwhelm a lone chatbot. Multi-agent systems address this by distributing work across specialized agents while maintaining coordination. This approach brings several advantages: Scalability: Workloads can be split among agents, enabling horizontal scaling as tasks or data increase. More agents can handle more subtasks in parallel, avoiding bottlenecks. Specialisation: Each agent can be fine-tuned for a specific role or domain (e.g. research, summarisation, data extraction), which improves performance and maintainability. No single model has to be a master of all trades. Flexibility: Modular agents can be reused in different workflows or recombined to create new capabilities. It’s easy to extend the system by adding or swapping an agent without redesigning everything. Robustness: If one agent fails or underperforms, others can pick up the slack. Decoupling tasks means the overall system can tolerate faults better than a monolithic agent. This mirrors how human teams work: we achieve more by dividing and conquering complex problems. In fact, internal experiments and industry reports have shown that groups of AI agents can significantly outperform a single powerful model on complex, open-ended tasks. For example, Anthropic found a multi-agent system (Claude agents working together) answered 90% more queries correctly than a single-agent approach in one evaluation. The ability to operate in parallel is key – our experience likewise showed that multiple agents exploring different aspects of a problem can cover far more ground, albeit with increased resource usage. Challenge: A downside of multi-agent setups is they consume more resources (more model calls, more tokens) than single-agent runs. In Anthropic’s research, multi-agent systems used ~15× the tokens of a single chat session. We’ve observed similarly that letting agents think and interact in depth pays off in better results, but at a cost. Ensuring the task’s value justifies the cost is important when choosing a multi-agent solution. Designing the Architecture: Orchestration via a Lead Agent To harness these benefits, we designed a multi-agent architecture built around an orchestrator-worker pattern – very similar to Anthropic’s “lead agent and subagents” approach. In Azure AI Foundry (our enterprise AI platform), this takes shape as Connected Agents: a mechanism where a main agent can spawn and coordinate child agents to handle sub-tasks. The main agent is the brain of the operation, responsible for understanding the user’s request, breaking it into parts, and delegating those parts to the appropriate specialist agents. Each agent in the system is defined with three core components: Instructions (prompt/policy): defining the agent’s goal, role, and constraints (its “game plan”). Model: an LLM that powers the agent’s reasoning and dialogue (e.g. GPT-4 or other models available in Foundry). Tools: external capabilities the agent can invoke to get information or take actions (e.g. web search, databases, APIs). By composing agents with different instructions and tools, we create a team where each agent has a clear role. The main agent’s role is orchestration; the sub-agents focus on specific tasks. This separation of concerns makes the system easier to understand and debug, and prevents any single context window from becoming overloaded. How it works (overview): When a user query comes in, the lead agent analyzes the request and devises a plan. It may decide that multiple pieces of information or steps are needed. The lead agent then spins up subordinate agents in parallel to gather or compute those pieces]. Each sub-agent operates with its own context window and tools, exploring one aspect of the task. They report their findings back to the lead agent, which integrates the results and decides if more exploration is required. The loop continues until the lead agent is satisfied that it can produce a final answer, at which point it consolidates everything and returns the result to the user. This orchestrator/sub-agent pattern is powerful because it lets complex tasks be solved through natural language delegation rather than hard-coded logic. Notably, the main agent doesn’t need an if/else tree written by us to decide which sub-agent handles what; it uses the language model’s reasoning to route tasks. In Azure AI Foundry’s Connected Agents, the primary agent simply says (in effect) “You, Agent A, do X; You, Agent B, do Y,” and the platform handles the rest—no custom orchestration code needed. This drastically simplified our development: we focus on crafting the right prompts and agent designs, and let the AI figure out the coordination. Example: Sales Assistant with Specialist Agents To make this concrete, imagine a Sales Preparation Assistant that helps a sales team research a client before a meeting. Instead of trying to cram all knowledge and skills into one model, we give the assistant a team of four sub-agents, each an expert in a different area. The main agent (“Sales Assistant”) will ask each specialist for input and then compile a briefing. Agent Role Purpose & Task Example Tools/Models Used Market Research Agent Gathers industry trends and news related to the client’s sector. Bing Web Search, internal news API Competitive Analysis Agent Finds information on the client’s competitors and market position. Web Search, Company DB Customer Insights Agent Summarises the client’s history and interactions (from CRM data). Azure Cognitive Search on CRM, GPT-4 Financial Analysis Agent Reviews the client’s financial data and recent performance. Finance database query tool, Excel APIs Main Sales Assistant Orchestrator that delegates to the above agents, then synthesises a final report for the sales team. GPT-4 (with instructions to compile and format results) In this scenario, the Main Sales Assistant agent would ask each sub-agent to report on their specialty (market news, competition, CRM insights, finances). Rather than one AI trying to do it all (and possibly missing nuances), we have focused mini-AIs each doing a thorough job in parallel. This approach was shown to reduce the overall time required and improve the quality of the final output. In early trials, such multi-agent setups often succeed where single agents fall short – for instance, finding all relevant facts across disparate sources and preparing a comprehensive briefing more quickly. Development is easier too: if tomorrow we need to add a “Regulatory Compliance Agent” for a new client requirement, we can plug it in without retraining or heavily modifying the others. Orchestration under the hood: Azure AI Foundry’s Agent Service provides the runtime that makes all this work reliably. It manages the message passing between the main agent and sub-agents, ensures each tool invocation is executed (with retries on failure), and keeps a structured log of the entire multi-agent conversation (we call it a thread). This means developers don’t have to manually implement how agents call each other or share data; the platform handles those mechanics. Foundry also supports true agent-to-agent messaging if agents need to talk directly, but often a hierarchical pattern (through the main agent) suffices for task delegation. Tools, Knowledge, and the Model Context Protocol (MCP) For agents to be effective, especially in enterprise scenarios, they must integrate with external knowledge sources and services – no single LLM knows everything or can perform all actions. Microsoft’s approach emphasizes a rich tool integration layer. In our system, tools range from web search and databases to APIs for taking real actions (sending emails, executing workflows, etc.) Equipping agents with the right tools extends their capabilities dramatically: an agent can retrieve up-to-date info, pull data behind corporate firewalls, or trigger business processes. One key innovation is the Model-Context Protocol (MCP), which Foundry uses to manage tools. MCP provides a structured way for agents to discover and use tools dynamically at runtime. Traditionally, if you wanted your AI agent to use a new tool, you might have to hard-code that tool’s API and update the agent’s code or prompt. With MCP, tools are defined on a central tool server (with descriptions and endpoints), and agents can query this server to see what tools are available. The agent’s SDK then generates the necessary code “stubs” to call the tool on the fly. This means: Easier maintenance: You can add, update, or remove tools in one place (the MCP registry) without changing the agent’s code. When the Finance database API updates, just update its MCP entry; all agents automatically get the new version next time they run. Dynamic adaptability: Agents can choose tools based on context. For example, a research agent might discover that a new MarketAnalysisAPI tool is available and start using it for a finance query, whereas previously it only had a generic web search. Separation of concerns: Those building AI agents can rely on domain experts to maintain the tool definitions, while they focus on the agent logic. Agents treat tools in a uniform way, as functions they can call. In practice, tool selection became a critical part of our agent design. A lesson we learned is that giving agents access to the right tool, with a clear description, can make or break their performance. If a tool’s description is vague or overlapping with another, the agent might choose the wrong approach and wander down a blind alley. For instance, we saw cases where an agent would stubbornly query an internal knowledge base for information that actually only existed on the web, simply because the tool prompt made the web search sound less relevant. We addressed this by carefully curating tool descriptions and even building an internal tool-testing agent that automatically tries out tools and suggests better descriptions for them. Ensuring each tool had a distinct purpose and clear usage guidance dramatically improved our agents’ success rate in choosing the optimal tool for a given job. Finally, multi-modal support is worth noting. Some tasks involve not just text, but images or other media. Our multi-agent architecture, especially with Azure AI Foundry, can incorporate vision-capable models as agents or tools. For example, an “Image Analysis Agent” could be part of a team, or an agent might call a vision API tool. The Telco customer service demo (using Foundry + OpenAI Agent SDK) featured an agent that could handle image uploads (like an ID document) by invoking an image-processing function. The orchestration framework doesn’t fundamentally change with multi-modality, it simply treats the vision model as another specialist agent or tool in the conversation. The ability to plug in different AI skills (text, vision, search, etc.) under a unified agent system is a big advantage of Microsoft’s approach: the agent team becomes cross-functional, each member with their own modality or expertise, collectively solving richer tasks than any single foundation model could. Reliability, Safety, and Enterprise-Grade Engineering While the basic idea of agents chatting and calling tools is elegant, productionizing this system for enterprise use brought serious engineering challenges. We needed our multi-agent system to be reliable, controllable, and secure. Here are the key areas we focused on and how we addressed them: Observability and Debugging Multi-agent chains can be complex and non-deterministic each run might involve different paths as agents make choices. Early on, we realized that treating the system as a black box was untenable. Developers and operators must be able to observe what each agent is “thinking” and doing, or else diagnosing issues would be impossible. Azure AI Foundry’s Agent Service was built with full conversation traceability in mind. Every message between agents (and to the user), every tool invocation and result, is captured in a structured thread log. We integrated this with Azure Application Insights telemetry, so one can monitor performance, latencies, errors, and even token consumption of agents in real time. This tracing proved invaluable. For example, when a complex workflow wasn’t producing the expected outcome, we could replay the entire agent conversation step by step to see where things went awry. In one instance, we found that two sub-agents were given slightly overlapping responsibilities, causing them to waste time retrieving nearly identical information. The logs and message transcripts made this immediately clear, guiding us to tighten the role definitions. Moreover, because the system logs are structured (not just free-form text), we could build automatic analysis tools like checking how often an agent hits a retry or how many cycles a conversation goes through before completion – to spot anomalies. This kind of observability was something the open-source community also highlighted as crucial; in fact, Sematic Kernel, AutoGen frameworks introduce metrics tracking and message tracing for exactly this reason. We also developed visual debugging tools. One example is the AutoGen Studio (a low-code interface from Microsoft Research) which allows developers to visually inspect agent interactions in real time, pause agents, or adjust their behavior on the fly. This interactive approach accelerates the prompt-engineering loop: one can watch agents argue or collaborate live, and intervene if needed. Such capabilities turned out to be vital for understanding emergent behaviors in multi-agent setups. Coordination Complexity and State Management As more agents come into play, keeping them coordinated and preserving shared context is hard. Early versions of agents would sometimes spawn excessive numbers of agents or get stuck in loops. For instance, one of our prototypes (before we applied strict limits) ended up in a degenerate state where two agents kept handing control back and forth without making progress. This taught us to implement guardrails and smarter orchestration policies. In Azure AI Foundry, beyond the simple connected-agent pattern, we introduced a more structured orchestration capability called Multi-Agent Workflows. This lets developers explicitly define states, transitions, and triggers in a workflow that involves multiple agents. It’s like flowcharting the high-level process that the agents should follow, including how they pass data around. We use this for long-running or highly critical processes where you want extra determinism for example, an onboarding workflow might have clearly defined phases (Verification → Provisioning → Notification) each handled by different agents, and you want to ensure the process doesn’t derail. The workflow engine enforces that the system moves to the next state only when all agents in the current state have completed and certain conditions (triggers) are met. It also provides persistence: if the process needs to wait (say, for an external event or simply because it’s a lengthy task), the state is saved and can be resumed later without losing context. These workflow features were a response to reliability needs, they give fine-grained control and error recovery in multi-agent systems that operate over extended periods. In practice, we learned to use the simpler Connected Agents approach for quick, on-the-fly delegations (it’s amazingly capable with minimal setup), and reserve Workflow Orchestration for scenarios where we must guarantee a robust sequence over minutes, hours, or days. By having both options, we can strike a balance between flexibility and control as needed. Trust, Safety, and Governance When you let AI agents act autonomously (especially if they can use tools that modify data or interact with the real world), safety is paramount. From day one, our design included enterprise-grade safety measures: Content Filtering and Policy Enforcement: All AI outputs go through content filters to catch disallowed content or potential prompt injection attacks. The Foundry Agent Service has integrated guardrails so that even if an agent tries something risky (e.g., a tool returns a sensitive info that should not be shown), policies can prevent misuse or leakage. For example, we configured financial analysis agents with rules not to output certain PII or to stop if they detect a regulatory compliance issue, handing off to a human instead. Identity and Access Control: Agents operate with identities managed via Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD). This means every action an agent takes can be attributed and audited. Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) is enforced: an agent only has access to the data and APIs its role permits. If an agent’s credentials are compromised or misused, Azure’s standard auditing can alert us. Essentially, agents are first-class service principals in our cloud stack. Network Isolation and Compliance: For enterprise deployments, Azure AI Foundry allows agents to run in isolated networks (so they can’t arbitrarily call external services unless allowed) and to use customer-managed storage and search indices. This addresses the data governance aspect, we can ensure an agent looking up internal documents only sees what it’s supposed to, and all data stays within compliant boundaries. Auditability: As mentioned earlier, every decision an agent makes (every tool it calls, every answer it gives) is recorded. This is crucial for trust, if a multi-agent system is making business decisions, we need to be able to explain and justify those decisions later. By retaining the full reasoning trace and sources, we make the system’s work transparent and auditable. In fact, our “Deep Research” agents output not just answers but also a log of how they arrived at that answer, including citations to source material for each claim. This level of detail is a must-have in regulated industries or any high-stakes use case. Overall, baking in trust and safety by design was a non-negotiable requirement. It does introduce some overhead – e.g., being strict about content filtering can sometimes stop an agent from a creative solution until we refine its prompt or the filter thresholds, but it’s worth it for the confidence it gives to deploy these agents at scale. Performance and Cost Considerations We touched on the resource cost of multi-agent systems. Another challenge was ensuring the system runs efficiently. Without care, adding agents can linearly increase cost and latency. We mitigated this in a few ways: Parallelism: We make agents run concurrently wherever possible. Our lead agents typically fire off multiple sub-agents at once rather than sequentially waiting for one then starting the next. Also, our agents themselves can issue parallel tool calls. In fact, we enabled some of our retrieval agents to batch multiple search queries and send them all at the same time. Anthropic reported that this kind of parallelism cut their research task times by up to 90%, and we’ve observed similar dramatic speed-ups. By doing in 1 minute what a single agent might take 10 minutes to do step-by-step, we make the approach far more practical. Of course, the flip side is hitting many APIs and LLM endpoints concurrently can spike usage costs; we carefully monitor usage and recommend multi-agent mode only when needed for the problem complexity. Scaling rules and agent limits: One lesson learned was to prevent “agent sprawl.” We devised guidelines (and encoded some in prompts) about how many sub-agents to use for a given task complexity. For simple fact queries, the main agent is encouraged to handle it alone or with at most one helper; for moderately complex tasks, maybe spin up 2–3; only truly complex projects get a dozen specialists. This avoids the situation where an overzealous orchestrator might launch an army of agents and overkill the problem. These limits were informed by experimentation and echo the principle of scaling effort to the problem size. Model selection: Multi-agent systems don’t always need the largest model for every agent. We often use a mix of model sizes to optimize cost. For instance, a straightforward data extraction agent might be powered by a cheaper GPT-3.5, while the synthesis agent uses GPT-4 for the final answer quality. Foundry makes it easy to deploy a range of model endpoints (including open-source Llama-based models) and each agent can pick the one best suited. We learned that using an expensive model for a simple sub-task is wasteful; a smaller model with the right tools can do the job just as well. This mix-and-match approach helped keep our compute costs in check without sacrificing outcome quality. Lessons Learned and Best Practices Building these multi-agent systems was an iterative learning process. Here are some of the key lessons and best practices that emerged, which we believe will be useful to anyone developing their own: Let’s expand on a couple of these points: Prompt engineering for multi-agent is different: We quickly discovered that writing prompts for a team of agents is an order of magnitude more complex than for a single chatbot. Not only do you have to get each agent’s behavior right, you must shape how they interact. One principle that served us well was: “Think like your agents.” When debugging, we’d often step through the conversation from each agent’s perspective, almost role-playing as them, to see why they might be doing something silly. If an agent was repeating another’s results, maybe our instructions were too vague and they didn’t realise that sub-task was already covered. The fix would be to clarify the division of labour in the lead agent’s prompt or introduce an ordering (e.g., Agent B only runs after Agent A’s info is in, etc.). Another principle: teach the orchestrator to delegate effectively. The main agent’s prompt now includes explicit guidance on how to break down tasks and how to phrase sub-agent assignments with plenty of detail. We learned that if the lead just says “Research topic X” to two different agents, they might both do the same thing. Now, the lead agent provides distinct objectives and context to each sub-agent (e.g., focus one on recent news, another on historical data, etc.). This reduced redundancy and missed coverage dramatically. Let the AI help improve itself: One delightful surprise was that large models can be quite good at analyzing and refining their own strategies when asked. We sometimes gave an agent a chance to critique its output or plan, essentially a self-reflection step. In other cases we had a “judge” agent evaluate the final answers against criteria (accuracy, completeness, etc.) These evaluations not only gave us a score for benchmarking changes, but the judge’s feedback (being an LLM) often highlighted exactly where an agent went off track or missed something. In a sense, we used one AI to tell us how to make another AI better. This kind of meta-prompting and self-correction became a powerful tool in our development cycle, allowing faster iteration without full human-in-the-loop at every turn. Know when to simplify: Not every problem needs a fleet of agents. A big lesson was to use the simplest approach that works. If a single agent with a smart prompt can handle a task reliably, that’s fine! We reserved multi-agent mode for when there was clear added value e.g., problems requiring parallel exploration, different expertise, or lengthy reasoning that benefits from splitting into parts. This discipline kept our systems leaner and easier to maintain. It also helped us explain the value to stakeholders: we could justify the complexity by pointing to concrete gains (like a task that went from 2 hours by a single high-end model to 10 minutes by a team of agents with better results). Conclusion and Next Steps Multi-agent AI systems have moved from intriguing research demos to practical, production-ready solutions. Our journey involved close collaboration between teams such as those who built open-source frameworks like AutoGen to experiment with multi-agent interactions) and the Azure AI product teams (who turned these concepts into the robust Azure AI Foundry Agent Service). Along the way, we learned how to orchestrate LLMs at scale, how to keep them in check, and how to squeeze the most value out of agent collaboration. Today, Azure AI Foundry’s Agents platform provides a unified environment to develop, test, and deploy multi-agent systems, complete with the orchestration, observability, and safety features to make them enterprise-ready. The public preview of features like Connected Agents and Deep Research (which is essentially an advanced research agent that uses the web + analysis in a multi-step process) is already enabling customers to build “AI teams” that tackle complex workflows. This is just the beginning. We’re continuing to improve the platform with feedback from developers: upcoming releases will further tighten integration with the broader Azure ecosystem (for example, more seamless use of Azure Cognitive Search, Excel as a tool, etc.), expand the library of pre-built agent templates in the Agent Catalog (so you can start with a solid example for common scenarios), and introduce more advanced coordination patterns inspired by real-world use cases. If you’re an AI engineer or developer eager to explore multi-agent systems, now is a great time to dive in. Here are some resources to get you started: Microsoft AI Agents for Beginners - Learn all about AI Agents with this FREE curricula Azure AI Foundry Documentation – Learn more about the Agent Service and how to configure agents, tools, and workflows. Microsoft Learn Modules – step-by-step tutorial to build a connected multi-agent solution (for example, a ticket triage system) using Azure AI Foundry Agent Service. This will walk you through setting up agents and using the SDK. Microsoft MCP for Beginners: Integrating MCP Tools – Another tutorial focused on the Model Context Protocol, showing how to enable dynamic tool discovery for your agents. Azure AI Foundry Agent Catalog – Browse a growing collection of open-sourced agent examples contributed by Microsoft and partners, covering scenarios from content compliance to manufacturing optimization. These samples are great starting points to see how multi-agent code is structured in real projects. Multi-agent systems represent a significant shift in how we conceptualise AI solutions: from single brilliant assistants to teams of specialised agents working in concert. The engineering journey hasn’t been easy we navigated challenges in coordination, built new tooling for control, and refined prompts endlessly. But the end result is a new class of AI applications that are more powerful, resilient, and tunable. We hope the insights shared here help you in your own journey to build with AI agents. We’re excited to see what you will create with these technologies. As we continue to push the frontier of agentic AI (both in research and in Azure), one thing is clear: many minds – human or AI – are often better than one. Happy building! Userful References Introducing Multi-Agent Orchestration in Foundry Agent Service – Build ... Building a multimodal, multi-agent system using Azure AI Agent Service ... How we built our multi-agent research system \ Anthropic What is Azure AI Foundry Agent Service? - Azure AI Foundry Multi-Agent Systems and MCP Tools Integration with Azure AI Foundry ... Introducing Deep Research in Azure AI Foundry Agent Service AutoGen v0.4: Advancing the development of agentic AI systemsTable Talk: Sentinel’s New ThreatIntel Tables Explained
Key updates On April 3, 2025, we publicly previewed two new tables to support STIX (Structured Threat Information eXpression) indicator and object schemas: ThreatIntelIndicators and ThreatIntelObjects. To summarize the important dates: 31 August 2025: We previously announced that data ingestion into the legacy ThreatIntelligenceIndicator table would cease on the 31 July 2025. This timeline has now been extended and the transition to the new ThreatIntelIndicators and ThreatIntelObjects tables will proceed gradually until the 31 st of August 2025. The legacy ThreatIntelligenceIndicator table (and its data) will remain accessible, but no new data will be ingested there. Therefore, any custom content, such as workbooks, queries, or analytic rules, must be updated to reference the new tables to remain effective. If you require additional time to complete the transition, you may opt into dual ingestion, available until the official retirement on the 21 st of May 2026, by submitting a service request. Update: The opt in to dual ingestion ended on the 31 st of August and is no longer available. 31 May 2026: ThreatIntelligenceIndicator table support will officially retire, along with ingestion for those who opt-in to dual ingestion beyond 31 st of August 2025. What’s changing: ThreatIntelligenceIndicator VS ThreatIntelIndicators and ThreatIntelObjects Let’s summarise some of the differences. ThreatIntelligenceIndicator ThreatIntelIndicators ThreatIntelObjects Status Extended data ingestion until the 31st of August 2025, opt-in for additional transition time available. Deprecating on the 31st of May 2026 — no new data will be ingested after this date. Active and recommended for use. Active and complementary to ThreatIntelIndicators. Purpose Originally used to store threat indicators like IPs, domains, file hashes, etc. Stores individual threat indicators (e.g. IPs, URLs, file hashes). Stores STIX objects that provide contextual information about indicators. Examples: threat actors, malware families, campaigns, attack patterns. Characteristics Limitations: o Less flexible schema. o Limited support for STIX (Structured Threat Information eXpression) objects. o Fewer contextual fields for advanced threat hunting. Enhancements: o Supports STIX indicator schema. o Includes a Data column with full STIX object data for advanced hunting. o More metadata fields (e.g. LastUpdateMethod, IsDeleted, ExpirationDateTime). o Optimized ingestion: excludes empty key-value pairs and truncates long fields over 1,000 characters. Enhancements: o Enables richer threat modelling and correlation. o Includes fields like StixType, Data.name, and Data.id. Use cases Legacy structure for storing threat indicators. Migration Note: All custom queries, workbooks, and analytics rules referencing this table must be updated to use the new tables . Ideal for identifying and correlating specific threat indicators. Threat Hunting: Enables hunting for specific Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) such as IP addresses, domains, URLs, and file hashes. Alerting and detection rules: Can be used in KQL queries to match against telemetry from other tables (e.g. Heartbeat, SecurityEvent, Syslog). Example query correlating threat indictors with threat actors: Identify threat actors associated with specific threat indicators Useful for understanding relationships between indicators and broader threat entities (e.g. linking an IP to a known threat actor). Threat Hunting: Adds context by linking indicators to threat actors, malware families, campaigns, and attack patterns. Alerting and Detection rules: Enrich alerts with context like threat actor names or malware types. Example query listing TI objects related to a threat actor, “Sangria Tempest.” : List threat intelligence data related to a specific threat actor Benefits of the new ThreatIntelIndicators and ThreatIntelObjects tables In addition to what’s mentioned in the table above. The main benefits of the new table include: Enhanced Threat Visibility More granular and complete representation of threat intelligence. Support for advanced hunting scenarios and complex queries. Enables attribution to threat actors and relationships. Improved Hunting Capabilities Generic parsing of STIX patterns. Support for all valid STIX IoCs, Threat Actors, Identity, and Relationships. Important considerations with the new TI tables Higher volume of data being ingested: o In the legacy ThreatIntelligenceIndicator table, only the IoCs with Domain, File, URL, Email, Network sources were ingested. o The new tables support a richer schema and more detailed data, which naturally increases ingestion volume. The Data column in both tables stores full STIX objects, which are often large and complex. o Additional metadata fields (e.g. LastUpdateMethod, StixType, ObservableKey, etc.) increase the size of each record. o Some fields like description and pattern are truncated if they exceed 1,000 characters, indicating the potential for large payloads. More Frequent Republishing: o Previously, threat intelligence data was republished over a 12-day cycle. Now, all data is republished every 7-10 days (depending on the volume), increasing the ingestion frequency and volume. o This change ensures fresher data but also leads to more frequent ingestion events. o Republishing is identifiable by LastUpdateMethod = "LogARepublisher" in the tables. Optimising data ingestion There are two mechanisms to optimise threat intelligence data ingestion and control costs. Ingestion Rules See ingestion rules in action: Introducing Threat Intelligence Ingestion Rules | Microsoft Community Hub Sentinel supports Ingestion Rules that allow organizations to curate data before it enters the system. In addition, it enables: Bulk tagging, expiration extensions, and confidence-based filtering, which may increase ingestion if more indicators are retained or extended. Custom workflows that may result in additional ingestion events (e.g. tagging or relationship creation). Reduce noise by filtering out irrelevant TI Objects such as low confidence indicators (e.g. drop IoCs with a confidence score of 0), suppressing known false positives from specific feeds. These rules act on TI objects before they are ingested into Sentinel, giving you control over what gets stored and analysed. Data Collection Rules/ Data transformation As mentioned above, the ThreatIntelIndicator and ThreatIntelObjects tables include a “Data” column which contains the full original STIX object and may or may not be relevant for your use cases. In this case, you can use a workspace transformation DCR to filter it out using a KQL query. An example of this KQL query is shown below, for more examples about using workspace transformations and data collection rules: Data collection rules in Azure Monitor - Azure Monitor | Microsoft Learn source | project-away Data A few things to note: o Your threat intelligence feeds will be sending the additional STIX objects data and IoCs, if you prefer not to receive these additional TI data, you can modify the filter out data according to your use cases as mentioned above. More examples are mentioned here: Work with STIX objects and indicators to enhance threat intelligence and threat hunting in Microsoft Sentinel (Preview) - Microsoft Sentinel | Microsoft Learn o If you are using a data collection rule to make schema changes such as dropping the fields, please make sure to modify the relevant Sentinel content (e.g. detection rules, Workbooks, hunting queries, etc.) that are using the tables. o There can be additional cost when using Azure Monitor data transformations (such as when adding extra columns or adding enrichments to incoming data), however, if Sentinel is enabled on the Log Analytics workspace, there is no filtering ingestion charge regardless of how much data the transformation filters. New Threat Intelligence solution pack available A new Threat Intelligence solution is now available in the Content Hub, providing out of the box content referencing the new TI tables, including 51 detection rules, 5 hunting queries, 1 Workbook, 5 data connectors and also includes 1 parser for the ThreatIntelIndicators. Please note, the previous Threat Intelligence solution pack will be deprecated and removed after the transition phase. We recommend downloading the new solution from the Content Hub as shown below: Conclusion The transition to the new ThreatIntelIndicators and ThreatIntelObjects tables provide enhanced support for STIX schemas, improved hunting and alerting features, and greater control over data ingestion allowing organizations to get deeper visibility and more effective threat detection. To ensure continuity and maximize value, it's essential to update existing content and adopt the new Threat Intelligence solution pack available in the Content Hub. Related content and references: Work with STIX objects and indicators to enhance threat intelligence and threat hunting in Microsoft Sentinel Curate Threat Intelligence using Ingestion Rules Announcing Public Preview: New STIX Objects in Microsoft Sentinel
Securing Microsoft Teams Best Practice & Cleanup
Working on a Teams environment that is fully wide open. They have seen a huge number of Teams created and are looking to get it under control from here on out and clean up. Wanted some advice on what you recommend doing and if you have the instructions to complete those tasks. My thoughts would be Block Team creation where IT would need to be involved. I believe this could be accomplished by blocking M365 Group creation. Way to expire or archive old Teams with no activity in X amount of time? Also, how are you handling guest invitations or access? Doing anything that allows but might secure things better for the organization. Thanks all.Search Less, Build More: Inner Sourcing with GitHub CoPilot and ADO MCP Server
Developers burn cycles context‑switching: opening five repos to find a logging example, searching a wiki for a data masking rule, scrolling chat history for the latest pipeline pattern. Organisations that I speak to are often on the path of transformational platform engineering projects but always have the fear or doubt of "what if my engineers don't use these resources". While projects like Backstage still play a pivotal role in inner sourcing and discoverability I also empathise with developers who would argue "How would I even know in the first place, which modules have or haven't been created for reuse". In this blog we explore how we can ensure organisational standards and developer satisfaction without any heavy lifting on either side, no custom model training, no rewriting or relocating of repositories and no stagnant local data. Using GitHub CoPilot + Azure DevOps MCP server (with the free `code_search` extension) we turn the IDE into an organizational knowledge interface. Instead of guessing or re‑implementing, engineers can start scaffolding projects or solving issues as they would normally (hopefully using CoPilot) and without extra prompting. GitHub CoPilot can lean into organisational standards and ensure recommendations are made with code snippets directly generated from existing examples. What Is the Azure DevOps MCP Server + code_search Extension? MCP (Model Context Protocol) is an open standard that lets agents (like GitHub Copilot) pull in structured, on-demand context from external systems. MCP servers contain natural language explanations of the tools that the agent can utilise allowing dynamic decision making of when to implement certain toolsets over others. The Azure DevOps MCP Server is the ADO Product Team's implementation of that standard. It exposes your ADO environment in a way CoPilot can consume. Out of the box it gives you access to: Projects – list and navigate across projects in your organization. Repositories – browse repos, branches, and files. Work items – surface user stories, bugs, or acceptance criteria. Wiki's – pull policies, standards, and documentation. This means CoPilot can ground its answers in live ADO content, instead of hallucinating or relying only on what’s in the current editor window. The ADO server runs locally from your own machine to ensure that all sensitive project information remains within your secure network boundary. This also means that existing permissions on ADO objects such as Projects or Repositories are respected. Wiki search tooling available out of the box with ADO MCP server is very useful however if I am honest I have seen these wiki's go unused with documentation being stored elsewhere either inside the repository or in a project management tool. This means any tool that needs to implement code requires the ability to accurately search the code stored in the repositories themself. That is where the code_search extension enablement in ADO is so important. Most organisations have this enabled already however it is worth noting that this pre-requisite is the real unlock of cross-repo search. This allows for CoPilot to: Query for symbols, snippets, or keywords across all repos. Retrieve usage examples from code, not just docs. Locate standards (like logging wrappers or retry policies) wherever they live. Back every recommendation with specific source lines. In short: MCP connects CoPilot to Azure DevOps. code_search makes that connection powerful by turning it into a discovery engine. What is the relevance of CoPilot Instructions? One of the less obvious but most powerful features of GitHub CoPilot is its ability to follow instructions files. CoPilot automatically looks for these files and uses them as a “playbook” for how it should behave. There are different types of instructions you can provide: Organisational instructions – apply across your entire workspace, regardless of which repo you’re in. Repo-specific instructions – scoped to a particular repository, useful when one project has unique standards or patterns. Personal instructions – smaller overrides layered on top of global rules when a local exception applies. (Stored in .github/copilot-instructions.md) In this solution, I’m using a single personal instructions file. It tells CoPilot: When to search (e.g., always query repos and wikis before answering a standards question). Where to look (Azure DevOps repos, wikis, and with code_search, the code itself). How to answer (responses must cite the repo/file/line or wiki page; if no source is found, say so). How to resolve conflicts (prefer dated wiki entries over older README fragments). As a small example, a section of a CoPilot instruction file could look like this: # GitHub Copilot Instructions for Azure DevOps MCP Integration This project uses Azure DevOps with MCP server integration to provide organizational context awareness. Always check to see if the Azure DevOps MCP server has a tool relevant to the user's request. ## Core Principles ### 1. Azure DevOps Integration - **Always prioritize Azure DevOps MCP tools** when users ask about: - Work items, stories, bugs, tasks - Pull requests and code reviews - Build pipelines and deployments - Repository operations and branch management - Wiki pages and documentation - Test plans and test cases - Project and team information ### 2. Organizational Context Awareness - Before suggesting solutions, **check existing organizational patterns** by: - Searching code across repositories for similar implementations - Referencing established coding standards and frameworks - Looking for existing shared libraries and utilities - Checking architectural decision records (ADRs) in wikis ### 3. Cross-Repository Intelligence - When providing code suggestions: - **Search for existing patterns** in other repositories first - **Reference shared libraries** and common utilities - **Maintain consistency** with organizational standards - **Suggest reusable components** when appropriate ## Tool Usage Guidelines ### Work Items and Project Management When users mention bugs, features, tasks, or project planning: ``` ✅ Use: wit_my_work_items, wit_create_work_item, wit_update_work_item ✅ Use: wit_list_backlogs, wit_get_work_items_for_iteration ✅ Use: work_list_team_iterations, core_list_projects The result... To test this I created 3 ADO Projects each with between 1-2 repositories. The repositories were light with only ReadMe's inside containing descriptions of the "repo" and some code snippets examples for usage. I have then created a brand-new workspace with no context apart from a CoPilot instructions document (which could be part of a repo scaffold or organisation wide) which tells CoPilot to search code and the wikis across all ADO projects in my demo environment. It returns guidance and standards from all available repo's and starts to use it to formulate its response. In the screenshot I have highlighted some key parts with red boxes. The first being a section of the readme that CoPilot has identified in its response, that part also highlighted within CoPilot chat response. I have highlighted the rather generic prompt I used to get this response at the bottom of that window too. Above I have highlighted CoPilot using the MCP server tooling searching through projects, repo's and code. Finally the largest box highlights the instructions given to CoPilot on how to search and how easily these could be optimised or changed depending on the requirements and organisational coding standards. How did I implement this? Implementation is actually incredibly simple. As mentioned I created multiple projects and repositories within my ADO Organisation in order to test cross-project & cross-repo discovery. I then did the following: Enable code_search - in your Azure DevOps organization (Marketplace → install extension). Login to Azure - Use the AZ CLI to authenticate to Azure with "az login". Create vscode/mcp.json file - Snippet is provided below, the organisation name should be changed to your organisations name. Start and enable your MCP server - In the mcp.json file you should see a "Start" button. Using the snippet below you will be prompted to add your organisation name. Ensure your CoPilot agent has access to the server under "tools" too. View this setup guide for full setup instructions (azure-devops-mcp/docs/GETTINGSTARTED.md at main · microsoft/azure-devops-mcp) Create a CoPilot Instructions file - with a search-first directive. I have inserted the full version used in this demo at the bottom of the article. Experiment with Prompts – Start generic (“How do we secure APIs?”). Review the output and tools used and then tailor your instructions. Considerations While this is a great approach I do still have some considerations when going to production. Latency - Using MCP tooling on every request will add some latency to developer requests. We can look at optimizing usage through copilot instructions to better identify when CoPilot should or shouldn't use the ADO MCP server. Complex Projects and Repositories - While I have demonstrated cross project and cross repository retrieval my demo environment does not truly simulate an enterprise ADO environment. Performance should be tested and closely monitored as organisational complexity increases. Public Preview - The ADO MCP server is moving quickly but is currently still public preview. We have demonstrated in this article how quickly we can make our Azure DevOps content discoverable. While their are considerations moving forward this showcases a direction towards agentic inner sourcing. Feel free to comment below how you think this approach could be extended or augmented for other use cases! Resources MCP Server Config (/.vscode/mcp.json) { "inputs": [ { "id": "ado_org", "type": "promptString", "description": "Azure DevOps organization name (e.g. 'contoso')" } ], "servers": { "ado": { "type": "stdio", "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "@azure-devops/mcp", "${input:ado_org}"] } } } CoPilot Instructions (/.github/copilot-instructions.md) # GitHub Copilot Instructions for Azure DevOps MCP Integration This project uses Azure DevOps with MCP server integration to provide organizational context awareness. Always check to see if the Azure DevOps MCP server has a tool relevant to the user's request. ## Core Principles ### 1. Azure DevOps Integration - **Always prioritize Azure DevOps MCP tools** when users ask about: - Work items, stories, bugs, tasks - Pull requests and code reviews - Build pipelines and deployments - Repository operations and branch management - Wiki pages and documentation - Test plans and test cases - Project and team information ### 2. Organizational Context Awareness - Before suggesting solutions, **check existing organizational patterns** by: - Searching code across repositories for similar implementations - Referencing established coding standards and frameworks - Looking for existing shared libraries and utilities - Checking architectural decision records (ADRs) in wikis ### 3. Cross-Repository Intelligence - When providing code suggestions: - **Search for existing patterns** in other repositories first - **Reference shared libraries** and common utilities - **Maintain consistency** with organizational standards - **Suggest reusable components** when appropriate ## Tool Usage Guidelines ### Work Items and Project Management When users mention bugs, features, tasks, or project planning: ``` ✅ Use: wit_my_work_items, wit_create_work_item, wit_update_work_item ✅ Use: wit_list_backlogs, wit_get_work_items_for_iteration ✅ Use: work_list_team_iterations, core_list_projects ``` ### Code and Repository Operations When users ask about code, branches, or pull requests: ``` ✅ Use: repo_list_repos_by_project, repo_list_pull_requests_by_repo ✅ Use: repo_list_branches_by_repo, repo_search_commits ✅ Use: search_code for finding patterns across repositories ``` ### Documentation and Knowledge Sharing When users need documentation or want to create/update docs: ``` ✅ Use: wiki_list_wikis, wiki_get_page_content, wiki_create_or_update_page ✅ Use: search_wiki for finding existing documentation ``` ### Build and Deployment When users ask about builds, deployments, or CI/CD: ``` ✅ Use: pipelines_get_builds, pipelines_get_build_definitions ✅ Use: pipelines_run_pipeline, pipelines_get_build_status ``` ## Response Patterns ### 1. Discovery First Before providing solutions, always discover organizational context: ``` "Let me first check what patterns exist in your organization..." → Search code, check repositories, review existing work items ``` ### 2. Reference Organizational Standards When suggesting code or approaches: ``` "Based on patterns I found in your [RepositoryName] repository..." "Following your organization's standard approach seen in..." "This aligns with the pattern established in [TeamName]'s implementation..." ``` ### 3. Actionable Integration Always offer to create or update Azure DevOps artifacts: ``` "I can create a work item for this enhancement..." "Should I update the wiki page with this new pattern?" "Let me link this to the current iteration..." ``` ## Specific Scenarios ### New Feature Development 1. **Search existing repositories** for similar features 2. **Check architectural patterns** and shared libraries 3. **Review related work items** and planning documents 4. **Suggest implementation** based on organizational standards 5. **Offer to create work items** and documentation ### Bug Investigation 1. **Search for similar issues** across repositories and work items 2. **Check related builds** and recent changes 3. **Review test results** and failure patterns 4. **Provide solution** based on organizational practices 5. **Offer to create/update** bug work items and documentation ### Code Review and Standards 1. **Compare against organizational patterns** found in other repositories 2. **Reference coding standards** from wiki documentation 3. **Suggest improvements** based on established practices 4. **Check for reusable components** that could be leveraged ### Documentation Requests 1. **Search existing wikis** for related content 2. **Check for ADRs** and technical documentation 3. **Reference patterns** from similar projects 4. **Offer to create/update** wiki pages with findings ## Error Handling If Azure DevOps MCP tools are not available or fail: 1. **Inform the user** about the limitation 2. **Provide alternative approaches** using available information 3. **Suggest manual steps** for Azure DevOps integration 4. **Offer to help** with configuration if needed ## Best Practices ### Always Do: - ✅ Search organizational context before suggesting solutions - ✅ Reference existing patterns and standards - ✅ Offer to create/update Azure DevOps artifacts - ✅ Maintain consistency with organizational practices - ✅ Provide actionable next steps ### Never Do: - ❌ Suggest solutions without checking organizational context - ❌ Ignore existing patterns and implementations - ❌ Provide generic advice when specific organizational context is available - ❌ Forget to offer Azure DevOps integration opportunities --- **Remember: The goal is to provide intelligent, context-aware assistance that leverages the full organizational knowledge base available through Azure DevOps while maintaining development efficiency and consistency.**General Availability of on-demand scanning in Defender for Storage
When malware protection was initially introduced in Microsoft Defender for Storage, security administrators gained the ability to safeguard their storage accounts against malicious attacks during blob uploads. This means that any time a blob is uploaded—whether from a web application, server, or user—into an Azure Blob storage account, malware scanning powered by Microsoft Defender Antivirus examines the content for any malicious elements within the blob, including images, documents, zip files and more. 🎉In addition to on-upload malware protection, on-demand malware protection is now generally available in Defender for Storage. This article will focus on the recent general availability release of on-demand scanning, its benefits, and how security administrators can begin utilizing this feature today. 🐞What is on-demand scanning? Unlike on-upload scanning, which is a security feature that automatically scan blobs for malware when they are uploaded or modified in cloud storage environments, on-demand scanning enables security administrators to manually initiate scans of entire storage accounts for malware. This scanning method is particularly beneficial for targeted security inspections, incident response, creating security baselines for specific storage accounts and compliance with regulatory requirements. Scanning all existing blobs in a storage account can be performed via the API and Azure portal user interface. Let's explore some use case scenarios and reasons why an organization might need on-demand scanning. Contoso IT Department has received a budget to enhance the security of their organization following the acquisition of Company Z. Company Z possesses numerous storage accounts containing dormant data that have not undergone malware scanning. To integrate these data blobs into the parent organization, it is essential that they first be scanned for malware. Contoso Health Department is mandated by state law to conduct a scheduled quarterly audit of the storage accounts. This audit ensures data integrity and provides documented assurance of security controls for compliance. It involves verifying that important cloud-hosted documents are secure and free from malware. Contoso Legal Corporation experienced a recent breach where the attacker accessed several storage accounts. Post-breach, Contoso Legal Corporation must assure their stakeholders that the storage accounts are free of malware. 💪Benefits of on-demand scanning On-demand scanning offers numerous advantages that security administrators can leverage to safeguard their cloud storage. This section details some of the primary benefits associated with on-demand scanning. Native scan experience: Malware scanning within Defender for Storage is an agentless solution that requires no additional infrastructure. Security administrators can enable malware protection easily and observe its benefits immediately. Respond to security events: Immediately scan storage accounts when security alerts or suspicious activities are detected. Security audits and maintenance: Performing on-demand scans is crucial during security audits or routine system maintenance to ensure that all potential issues are identified and addressed. Latest malware signatures: On-demand scanning ensures that the most recent malware signatures are utilized. Blobs that may have previously evaded detection by previous malware scans can be identified during a manual scan. 🫰On-demand scanning cost estimation Organizations frequently possess extensive amounts of data and require scanning for malware due to various security considerations. A lack of understanding regarding the precise cost of this operation can hinder security leaders from effectively safeguarding their organization. To address this issue, Defender for Storage offers an integrated cost estimation tool within the Azure portal user interface for on-demand scanning. This new UI will display the size of the blob storage and provide estimated costs for scans based on the volume of data. Access to this crucial information facilitates budgeting processes. 🤔On-upload or on-demand scanning In the current configuration of malware protection within Defender for Storage, it is required to have on-upload malware scanning enabled to use the on-demand functionality. On-demand scanning is offered as an additional option. On-upload scanning ensures that incoming blobs are free from malware, while on-demand scanning provides malware baselines and verifies blob health using the latest malware signatures. On-upload and on-demand scanning have distinct triggers. On-upload scanning is automatically performed when new blobs are uploaded to a blob-based storage account, whereas on-demand scanning is manually triggered by a user or an API call. On-demand scanning can also be initiated by workflow automation, such as using a logic app within Azure for scheduled scans. 👟Start scanning your blobs with on-demand scanning Prerequisites Malware protection in Defender for Storage is exclusively available in the per-storage account plan. If your organization is still using the classic Defender for Storage plan, we highly recommend upgrading to take advantage of the full range of security benefits and the latest features. To get started with this agentless solution, please look at the prerequisites in our public documentation here. Test on-demand Malware Scanning Within the Microsoft Defender for Cloud Ninja Training available on GitHub, security administrators can utilize Exercise 12: Test On-demand Malware Scanning in Module 19. The exercise includes detailed instructions and screenshots for testing on-demand malware scanning. This test can be performed using the Azure Portal User Interface or API. Best Practices To maximize the effectiveness of on-demand malware scanning in Microsoft Defender for Storage, please take a look at the best practices that are outlined in our public documentation here. 📖 Conclusion In this article we have explored the newly available on-demand scanning feature in Defender for Storage, which complements existing on-upload scanning capabilities by allowing security administrators to manually initiate malware scans for storage accounts. This feature is particularly useful for targeted security checks, incident response, creating security baseline for storage accounts and compliance audits. Additionally, Defender for Storage includes a built-in cost estimation tool to help organizations budget for on-demand scanning based on their data volume. ⚙️Additional Resources Defender for Storage Malware Protection Overview On-demand malware protection in Defender for Storage On-upload malware protection in Defender for Storage We want to hear from you! Please take a moment to fill out this survey to provide direct feedback to the Defender for Storage engineering team.Case Management: Incidents, Cases, and When to Use Them
In March, Case Management went to GA status within the unified portal for customers. This introduced new functionality and experiences such as: A new case queue Custom statuses New Case task experience Linking incidents to cases This can be a little confusing for existing users who are familiar with incidents and the incident experience for either Microsoft Defender or Sentinel. Let’s break this down into more detail. What are Incidents? Incidents are artifacts that act as containers for alerts to signal that a noteworthy event took place that involves one or more malicious activities. These serve to be a single landing page for alerts, activities, entities, and more. When to use Incidents? Incidents are the default experience for analysts as they perform incident investigations and response. Incidents are where they will find any and all details available for alerts and entities while performing the basic tasks of a SOC analyst. Incidents should be used when investigating and responding to malicious activity within the environment. The current incident experience provides features such as: Alert timeline Entity mapping and tracking Entity investigation graph Copilot for Security Pre-performed investigations and responses What are Cases? Cases are artifacts that represent an actionable or trackable item, such as incident investigation, validating a threat hunting hypothesis, reviewing threat intelligence review, managing endpoint vulnerabilities, and more. They can exist without alerts or incidents. When to use Cases vs. Incidents? This section is not meant to put one over the other, but is meant to clear up some confusion. Cases serve as items that can be created to track important activities within the SOC, they don’t have to just be for incident response. A case can be created for any notable activity that the SOC performs, as mentioned above. Cases can be used as a collaboration tool within your SOC team. While cases may seem redundant to incident, that is not true one bit. Here are a few distinguishing points: As incidents are a container for alerts, cases can be a container for incidents, allowing multiple incidents to be worked on at once if they are related by threat actor, impacted entities, and more. Cases offer a native task experience, similar to the experience within Microsoft Sentinel in Azure. Cases offer attachment support, allowing analysts a more traditional case management experience that incidents do not have. Cases allow for more customization, such as custom statuses. Incidents do not offer custom statuses. Let’s look at two example scenarios: Cases with Incidents I am a SOC Analyst that is reviewing the incident queue. I find an incident that involves multiple threat types and scripts. I would like to work on this incident with my colleagues while tracking notable artifacts that we find in our investigation. For example: I visit the unified incident queue and see that I have a multi-stage incident, involving multiple alerts for multiple assets. I perform my initial triage and confirm that this is a true positive that should be addressed. I will then cut a case and attach this incident to it for collaboration. Within the case, I can add a code block to list any query that I have performed within Advanced Hunting, as well as paste results from my queries directly in the case for tracking. If using Copilot for Security, I can copy and paste the Copilot incident summary in the case so that my colleagues can get an incident summary without having to leave the case. Cases without Incidents I am a SOC Analyst that is responsible for remediating device vulnerabilities. I check our current CVE’s within Exposure Management and see that I have several devices that are currently vulnerable to CVE-2025-5419, a Microsoft Edge Chromium vulnerability. I save my list of devices to a CSV file so that I can attach it to my case. I also copy the description of the CVE to add the case notes to make it more convenient for my colleagues to join the case and not need to leave it. I then pivot to Advanced Hunting to review activities by any of these vulnerable devices. I have a match and would like to connect that result to my case, so I use Export > Copy to Clipboard so that I can paste it in the case. Back within the case, I begin uploading the CSV of exposed devices as evidence, I leave a message that is formatted to draw attention to the findings, and I paste my findings based on my query. Based on my findings, I begin generating new tasks for each device owner and pasting the instructions for remediation of the CVE. These are just some examples of the many uses for cases within the Defender Portal. Hopefully this highlights the versatility of case management today and how it can operate both with and without an incident involved. Keep an eye out for more improvements as Case Management matures. If looking to learn about case management, please check out the below resources: Public documentation: Manage security operations cases natively in the Microsoft Defender portal - Unified security operations | Microsoft Learn Video based learning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-vfMJSL11g Demo: Case Management in Microsoft Defender
Shopify Campaign Buy X Get Y fullfillment.
Hi, I understand from an article that campaign articles Buy X Get Y (campaign items) in Shopify must currently be fulfilled manually. But I’m wondering if anyone has found a workaround for this limitation. Specifically: - Is it possible to adjust the Shopify Connector so that the fulfillment process can be automated? - Alternatively, can we fulfill the order in Business Central and then have that fulfillment successfully sync back to Shopify? Here’s what I’ve found so far: - There is a synchronization function in Business Central: Sync Shipments to Shopify. - The Sales Shipment Line (Table 111) in BC has a row number that matches with the Shopify Order Line (Table 30119). - However, the Shopify Fulfillment Order Line (Table 30144) does not have a row number that links back to the Shopify Order Line (30119). This creates a problem: If the order contains both “normal” items and campaign items, then the normal items are fulfilled as expected. But the campaign items are ignored during the fulfillment process, because of the Shopify Product IDs and Variant IDs are identical. Has anyone found a way to handle this? Maybe through a modification of the connector? Or another method to make sure campaign items also get fulfilled automatically when syncing shipments from BC to Shopify? Any tips, experiences, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
Team call handling - option to redirect calls if there is no answer
Dear Community To prevent calls from being dropped when the Teams client is offline, we have set the global calling policy 'Voicemail for inbound calls' to 'On' (AllowVoicemail: AlwaysEnabled in PowerShell CsTeamsCallingPolicy). With this setting enabled, incoming calls to users who are not logged in to a client are forwarded to their voicemail. Until recently (1-2 month?) users had the option to set the rule "When you can't answer a call" and "Ring for this many seconds before redirecting" in the Teams client. Now, only the 'Ring for this many seconds before redirecting' option is shown, and sometimes even that setting is unavailable. We cannot rule out an issue with the Teams client; however, resetting the app does not help at the moment. Reversing the entry on the calling policy 'Voicemail for inbound calls' to 'Let users decide' does solve the issue in the Teams client. However, depending on the user's configuration, calls may be dropped if the user is offline. According to Microsoft's documentation, this is an expected behaviour; however, the user should not be able to change the redirection time (fixed to thirty seconds). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoftteams/set-csteamscallingpolicy -AllowVoicemail Enables inbound calls to be routed to voicemail. Valid options are: AlwaysEnabled: Calls are always forwarded to voicemail on unanswered after ringing for thirty seconds, regardless of the unanswered call forward setting for the user. AlwaysDisabled: Calls are never routed to voicemail, regardless of the call forward or unanswered settings for the user. Voicemail isn't available as a call forwarding or unanswered setting in Teams. UserOverride: Calls are forwarded to voicemail based on the call forwarding and/or unanswered settings for the user. What is the recommended policy setting for 'Voicemail for inbound calls' and how can we ensure that incoming calls are transferred to voicemail when the user is offline, while still enabling them to set 'When you can't answer a call'? Many thanks.
