How to deploy Microsoft Purview DSPM for AI to secure your AI apps
Microsoft Purview Data Security Posture Management (DSPM for AI) is designed to enhance data security for the following AI applications: Microsoft Copilot experiences, including Microsoft 365 Copilot. Enterprise AI apps, including ChatGPT enterprise integration. Other AI apps, including all other AI applications like ChatGPT consumer, Microsoft Copilot, DeepSeek, and Google Gemini, accessed through the browser. In this blog, we will dive into the different policies and reporting we have to discover, protect and govern these three types of AI applications. Prerequisites Please refer to the prerequisites for DSPM for AI in the Microsoft Learn Docs. Login to the Purview portal To begin, start by logging into Microsoft 365 Purview portal with your admin credentials: In the Microsoft Purview portal, go to the Home page. Find DSPM for AI under solutions. 1. Securing Microsoft 365 Copilot Be sure to check out our blog on How to use the DSPM for AI data assessment report to help you address oversharing concerns when you deploy Microsoft 365 Copilot. Discover potential data security risks in Microsoft 365 Copilot interactions In the Overview tab of DSPM for AI, start with the tasks in “Get Started” and Activate Purview Audit if you have not yet activated it in your tenant to get insights into user interactions with Microsoft Copilot experiences In the Recommendations tab, review the recommendations that are under “Not Started”. Create the following data discovery policy to discover sensitive information in AI interactions by clicking into it. Detect risky interactions in AI apps - This public preview Purview Insider Risk Management policy helps calculate user risk by detecting risky prompts and responses in Microsoft 365 Copilot experiences. Click here to learn more about Risky AI usage policy. With the policies to discover sensitive information in Microsoft Copilot experiences in place, head back to the Reports tab of DSPM for AI to discover any AI interactions that may be risky, with the option to filter to Microsoft Copilot Experiences, and review the following for Microsoft Copilot experiences: Total interactions over time (Microsoft Copilot) Sensitive interactions per AI app Top unethical AI interactions Top sensitivity labels references in Microsoft 365 Copilot Insider Risk severity Insider risk severity per AI app Potential risky AI usage Protect sensitive data in Microsoft 365 Copilot interactions From the Reports tab, click on “View details” for each of the report graphs to view detailed activities in the Activity Explorer. Using available filters, filter the results to view activities from Microsoft Copilot experiences based on different Activity type, AI app category and App type, Scope, which support administrative units for DSPM for AI, and more. Then drill down to each activity to view details including the capability to view prompts and response with the right permissions. To protect the sensitive data in interactions for Microsoft 365 Copilot, review the Not Started policies in the Recommendations tab and create these policies: Information Protection Policy for Sensitivity Labels - This option creates default sensitivity labels and sensitivity label policies. If you've already configured sensitivity labels and their policies, this configuration is skipped. Protect sensitive data referenced in Microsoft 365 Copilot - This guides you through the process of creating a Purview Data Loss Prevention (DLP) policy to restrict the processing of content with specific sensitivity labels in Copilot interactions. Click here to learn more about Data Loss Prevention for Microsoft 365 Copilot. Protect sensitive data referenced in Copilot responses - Sensitivity labels help protect files by controlling user access to data. Microsoft 365 Copilot honors sensitivity labels on files and only shows users files they already have access to in prompts and responses. Use Data assessments to identify potential oversharing risks, including unlabeled files. Stay tuned for an upcoming blog post on using DSPM for AI data assessments! Use Copilot to improve your data security posture - Data Security Posture Management combines deep insights with Security Copilot capabilities to help you identify and address security risks in your org. Once you have created policies from the Recommendations tab, you can go to the Policies tab to review and manage all the policies you have created across your organization to discover and safeguard AI activity in one centralized place, as well as edit the policies or investigate alerts associated with those policies in solution. Note that additional policies not from the Recommendations tab will also appear in the Policies tab when DSPM for AI identifies them as policies to Secure and govern all AI apps. Govern the prompts and responses in Microsoft 365 Copilot interactions Understand and comply with AI regulations by selecting “Guided assistance to AI regulations” in the Recommendations tab and walking through the “Actions to take”. From the Recommendations tab, create a Control unethical behavior in AI Purview Communications Compliance policy to detect sensitive information in prompts and responses and address potentially unethical behavior in Microsoft Copilot experiences and ChatGPT for Enterprise. This policy covers all users and groups in your organization. To retain and/or delete Microsoft 365 Copilot prompts and responses, setup a Data Lifecycle policy by navigating to Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management and find Retention Policies under the Policies header. You can also preserve, collect, analyze, review, and export Microsoft 365 Copilot interactions by creating an eDiscovery case. 2. Securing Enterprise AI apps Please refer to this amazing blog on Unlocking the Power of Microsoft Purview for ChatGPT Enterprise | Microsoft Community Hub for detailed information on how to integrate with ChatGPT for enterprise, the Purview solutions it currently supports through Purview Communication Compliance, Insider Risk Management, eDiscovery, and Data Lifecycle Management. Learn more about the feature also through our public documentation. 3. Securing other AI Microsoft Purview DSPM for AI currently supports the following list of AI sites. Be sure to also check out our blog on the new Microsoft Purview data security controls for the browser & network to secure other AI apps. Discover potential data security risks in prompts sent to other AI apps In the Overview tab of DSPM for AI, go through these three steps in “Get Started” to discover potential data security risk in other AI interactions: Install Microsoft Purview browser extension For Windows users: The Purview extension is not necessary for the enforcement of data loss prevention on the Edge browser but required for Chrome to detect sensitive info pasted or uploaded to AI sites. The extension is also required to detect browsing to other AI sites through an Insider Risk Management policy for both Edge and Chrome browser. Therefore, Purview browser extension is required for both Edge and Chrome in Windows. For MacOS users: The Purview extension is not necessary for the enforcement of data loss prevention on macOS devices, and currently, browsing to other AI sites through Purview Insider Risk Management is not supported on MacOS, therefore, no Purview browser extension is required for MacOS. Extend your insights for data discovery – this one-click collection policy will setup three separate Purview detection policies for other AI apps: Detect sensitive info shared in AI prompts in Edge – a Purview collection policy that detects prompts sent to ChatGPT consumer, Micrsoft Copilot, DeepSeek, and Google Gemini in Microsoft Edge and discovers sensitive information shared in prompt contents. This policy covers all users and groups in your organization in audit mode only. Detect when users visit AI sites – a Purview Insider Risk Management policy that detects when users use a browser to visit AI sites. Detect sensitive info pasted or uploaded to AI sites – a Purview Endpoint Data loss prevention (eDLP) policy that discovers sensitive content pasted or uploaded in Microsoft Edge, Chrome, and Firefox to AI sites. This policy covers all users and groups in your org in audit mode only. With the policies to discover sensitive information in other AI apps in place, head back to the Reports tab of DSPM for AI to discover any AI interactions that may be risky, with the option to filter by Other AI Apps, and review the following for other AI apps: Total interactions over time (other AI apps) Total visits (other AI apps) Sensitive interactions per AI app Insider Risk severity Insider risk severity per AI app Protect sensitive info shared with other AI apps From the Reports tab, click on “View details” for each of the report graphs to view detailed activities in the Activity Explorer. Using available filters, filter the results to view activities based on different Activity type, AI app category and App type, Scope, which support administrative units for DSPM for AI, and more. To protect the sensitive data in interactions for other AI apps, review the Not Started policies in the Recommendations tab and create these policies: Fortify your data security – This will create three policies to manage your data security risks with other AI apps: 1) Block elevated risk users from pasting or uploading sensitive info on AI sites – this will create a Microsoft Purview endpoint data loss prevention (eDLP) policy that uses adaptive protection to give a warn-with-override to elevated risk users attempting to paste or upload sensitive information to other AI apps in Edge, Chrome, and Firefox. This policy covers all users and groups in your org in test mode. Learn more about adaptive protection in Data loss prevention. 2) Block elevated risk users from submitting prompts to AI apps in Microsoft Edge – this will create a Microsoft Purview browser data loss prevention (DLP) policy, and using adaptive protection, this policy will block elevated, moderate, and minor risk users attempting to put information in other AI apps using Microsoft Edge. This integration is built-in to Microsoft Edge. Learn more about adaptive protection in Data loss prevention. 3) Block sensitive info from being sent to AI apps in Microsoft Edge - this will create a Microsoft Purview browser data loss prevention (DLP) policy to detect inline for a selection of common sensitive information types and blocks prompts being sent to AI apps while using Microsoft Edge. This integration is built-in to Microsoft Edge. Once you have created policies from the Recommendations tab, you can go to the Policies tab to review and manage all the policies you have created across your organization to discover and safeguard AI activity in one centralized place, as well as edit the policies or investigate alerts associated with those policies in solution. Note that additional policies not from the Recommendations tab will also appear in the Policies tab when DSPM for AI identifies them as policies to Secure and govern all AI apps. Conclusion Microsoft Purview DSPM for AI can help you discover, protect, and govern the interactions from AI applications in Microsoft Copilot experiences, Enterprise AI apps, and other AI apps. We recommend you review the Reports in DSPM for AI routinely to discover any new interactions that may be of concern, and to create policies to secure and govern those interactions as necessary. We also recommend you utilize the Activity Explorer in DSPM for AI to review different Activity explorer events while users interacting with AI, including the capability to view prompts and response with the right permissions. We will continue to update this blog with new features that become available in DSPM for AI, so be sure to bookmark this page! Follow-up Reading Check out this blog on the details of each recommended policies in DSPM for AI: Microsoft Purview – Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) for AI | Microsoft Community Hub Address oversharing concerns with Microsoft 365 blueprint - aka.ms/Copilot/Oversharing Microsoft Purview data security and compliance protections for Microsoft 365 Copilot and other generative AI apps | Microsoft Learn Considerations for deploying Microsoft Purview AI Hub and data security and compliance protections for Microsoft 365 Copilot and Microsoft Copilot | Microsoft Learn Commonly used properties in Copilot audit logs - Audit logs for Copilot and AI activities | Microsoft Learn Supported AI sites by Microsoft Purview for data security and compliance protections | Microsoft Learn Where Copilot usage data is stored and how you can audit it - Microsoft 365 Copilot data protection and auditing architecture | Microsoft Learn Downloadable whitepaper: Data Security for AI Adoption | Microsoft Public roadmap for DSPM for AI - Microsoft 365 Roadmap | Microsoft 365Welcome to the Microsoft Security Community!
Protect it all with Microsoft Security Eliminate gaps and get the simplified, comprehensive protection, expertise, and AI-powered solutions you need to innovate and grow in a changing world. The Microsoft Security Community is your gateway to connect, learn, and collaborate with peers, experts, and product teams. Gain access to technical discussions, webinars, and help shape Microsoft’s security products. Get there fast To stay up to date on upcoming opportunities and the latest Microsoft Security Community news, make sure to subscribe to our email list. Find the latest skilling content and on-demand videos – subscribe to the Microsoft Security Community YouTube channel. Catch the latest announcements and connect with us on LinkedIn – Microsoft Security Community and Microsoft Entra Community. Index Community Calls: March 2026 Upcoming Community Calls March 2026 Mar. 4 | 8:00am | Microsoft Security Store | A Day in the Life of an Identity Security Manager Powered by Security Agents In this session, you’ll see how security agents from the Microsoft Security Store help security teams amplify capacity, accelerate detection‑to‑remediation, and strengthen identity security posture. Co‑presented with identity security experts from the Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals (MVPs) community, we’ll walk through a day‑in‑the‑life of an identity protection manager—covering scenarios like password spray attacks, privileged account compromise, and dormant account exploitation. You’ll then see how security agents can take on the heavy lifting, while you remain firmly in control. Mar. 5 | 8:00am | Security Copilot Skilling Series | Conditional Access Optimization Agent: What It Is & Why It Matters Get a clear, practical look at the Conditional Access Optimization Agent—how it automates policy upkeep, simplifies operations, and uses new post‑Ignite updates like Agent Identity and dashboards to deliver smarter, standards‑aligned recommendations. Mar. 11 | 8:00am | Microsoft Security Store | A Day in the Life of an Identity Governance Manager Powered by Security Agents In this session, you’ll see how agents from the Microsoft Security Store help governance teams streamline reviews, reduce standing privilege, and close lifecycle gaps. Co‑presented with identity governance experts from the Microsoft MVP community, we’ll walk through a day‑in‑the‑life of an identity governance manager—covering scenarios like excessive access accumulation, offboarding gaps, and privileged role sprawl. You’ll see how agents can automate governance workflows while keeping you in control. Mar. 11 | 8:00am | Microsoft Entra | QR code authentication: Fast, simple sign‑in designed for Frontline Workers Frontline teams often work on shared mobile devices where typing long usernames and passwords slows everyone down. In this session, we’ll introduce the QR code authentication method in Microsoft Entra ID—a streamlined way for workers to sign in by scanning their unique QR code and entering a PIN on shared iOS/iPadOS or Android devices. No personal phones or complex credentials required. We’ll walk through the end‑to‑end experience, from enabling the method in your tenant and issuing codes to workers (via the Entra admin center or My Staff), to the on‑device sign‑in flow that gets your teams productive quickly. We’ll also cover best‑practice controls—like using Conditional Access and Shared device mode—to help you deploy with confidence. Bring your questions—we’ll host Q&A and collect product feedback to help prioritize upcoming investments. Mar. 11 | 5:00pm | Microsoft Entra | Building MCP on Entra: Design Choices for Enterprise Agents Explore approaches for integrating MCP with Microsoft Entra Agent ID. We’ll outline key considerations for identity, consent, and authorization, discuss patterns for scalable and auditable agent architectures, and share insights on interoperability. Expect practical guidance, common pitfalls, and an open forum for questions and feedback. Mar. 12 | 12:00pm (BRT) | Microsoft Intune | Novidades do Microsoft Intune - Últimos lançamentos Junte-se a nós para explorar as novidades do Microsoft Intune, incluindo os lançamentos mais recentes anunciados no Microsoft Ignite e a integração do Microsoft Security Copilot no Intune. A sessão contará com demonstrações ao vivo e um espaço interativo de perguntas e respostas, onde você poderá tirar suas dúvidas com especialistas. Mar. 18 | 1:00pm (AEDT) | Microsoft Entra | From Lockouts to Logins: Modern Account Recovery and Passkeys Lost phone, no backup? In a passwordless world, users can face total lockouts and risky helpdesk recovery. This session shows how Entra ID Account Recovery uses strong identity verification and passkey profiles to help users safely regain access. Mar. 19 | 8:00am | Microsoft Purview | Insider Risk Data Risk Graph We’re excited to share a new capability that brings Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management (IRM) together with Microsoft Sentinel through the data risk graph (public preview) What it is: The data risk graph gives you an interactive, visual map of user activity, data movement, and risk signals—all in one place. Why it matters: Quickly investigate insider risk alerts with clear context, understand the impact of risky activities on sensitive data, accelerate response with intuitive, graph-based insights Getting started: Requires onboarding to the Sentinel data lake & graph. Needs appropriate admin/security roles and at least one IRM policy configured This session will provide practical guidance on onboarding, setup requirements, and best practices for data risk graph. Mar. 24 | 8:00am | Microsoft Purview | eDiscovery recent updates to the modern UX Join us to learn all about the recent updates to the modern UX, from new features and managing generative AI content. Mar. 24 | 9:00am | Microsoft Intune | Accelerate your Mac Management POC in Intune with Intune my Macs Intune my Macs enables you to stand up a complete Microsoft Intune macOS proof‑of‑concept in minutes. Using a single script, it deploys policies, compliance settings, scripts, PKG apps, and optionally Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (MDE). In this session, you’ll learn how to use the solution and see exactly what it delivers. Mar. 26 | 8:00am | Azure Network Security | What's New in Azure Web Application Firewall Azure Web Application Firewall (WAF) continues to evolve to help you protect your web applications against ever-changing threats. In this session, we’ll explore the latest enhancements across Azure WAF, including improvements in ruleset accuracy, threat detection, and configuration flexibility. Whether you use Application Gateway WAF or Azure Front Door WAF, this session will help you understand what’s new, what’s improved, and how to get the most from your WAF deployments. Mar. 31 | 8:00am | Microsoft Entra | Developer Tools for Agent ID: SDKs, CLIs & Samples Accelerate agent identity projects with Microsoft Entra’s developer toolchain. Explore SDKs, sample repos, and utilities for token acquisition, consent flows, and downstream API calls. Learn techniques for debugging local environments, validating authentication flows, and automating checks in CI/CD pipelines. Share ready-to-run samples, resources, and guidance for filing new tooling requests—helping you build faster and smarter. Looking for more? Join the Security Advisors! As a Security Advisor, you’ll gain early visibility into product roadmaps, participate in focus groups, and access private preview features before public release. You’ll have a direct channel to share feedback with engineering teams, influencing the direction of Microsoft Security products. The program also offers opportunities to collaborate and network with fellow end users and Microsoft product teams. Join the Security Advisors program that best fits your interests: www.aka.ms/joincommunity. Additional resources Microsoft Security Hub on Tech Community Virtual Ninja Training Courses Microsoft Security Documentation Azure Network Security GitHub Microsoft Defender for Cloud GitHub Microsoft Sentinel GitHub Microsoft Defender XDR GitHub Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps GitHub Microsoft Defender for Identity GitHub Microsoft Purview GitHub
Issue Accepting Microsoft Partner Agreement
Hello, having an issue accepting the cloud partner agreement while enrolling in Partner Center. I am currently applying for our company's driver signing permissions on Microsoft. While filling out information on the following webpage: https://partner.microsoft.com/en-us/dashboard/account/exp/enrollnow/partner, I encountered an issue. When the webpage pulled our company name from Dun & Bradstreet, Microsoft deemed our company name invalid. I noticed that there is a comma in the name, as shown in the screenshot. However, when we applied for a signature from DigiCert, we used the same company name with the comma as the signing name. Therefore, I cannot remove the comma at this point because if I do, Microsoft might reject the signed certification file later due to a mismatch in the company name. Could you help resolve this issue?Introducing Security Dashboard for AI (Now in Public Preview)
AI proliferation in the enterprise, combined with the emergence of AI governance committees and evolving AI regulations, leaves CISOs and AI risk leaders needing a clear view of their AI risks, such as data leaks, model vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and unethical agent actions across their entire AI estate, spanning AI platforms, apps, and agents. 53% of security professionals say their current AI risk management needs improvement, presenting an opportunity to better identify, assess and manage risk effectively. 1 At the same time, 86% of leaders prefer integrated platforms over fragmented tools, citing better visibility, fewer alerts and improved efficiency. 2 To address these needs, we are excited to announce the Security Dashboard for AI, previously announced at Microsoft Ignite, is available in public preview. This unified dashboard aggregates posture and real-time risk signals from Microsoft Defender, Microsoft Entra, and Microsoft Purview - enabling users to see left-to-right across purpose-built security tools from within a single pane of glass. The dashboard equips CISOs and AI risk leaders with a governance tool to discover agents and AI apps, track AI posture and drift, and correlate risk signals to investigate and act across their entire AI ecosystem. Security teams can continue using the tools they trust while empowering security leaders to govern and collaborate effectively. Gain Unified AI Risk Visibility Consolidating risk signals from across purpose-built tools can simplify AI asset visibility and oversight, increase security teams’ efficiency, and reduce the opportunity for human error. The Security Dashboard for AI provides leaders with unified AI risk visibility by aggregating security, identity, and data risk across Defender, Entra, Purview into a single interactive dashboard experience. The Overview tab of the dashboard provides users with an AI risk scorecard, providing immediate visibility to where there may be risks for security teams to address. It also assesses an organization's implementation of Microsoft security for AI capabilities and provides recommendations for improving AI security posture. The dashboard also features an AI inventory with comprehensive views to support AI assets discovery, risk assessments, and remediation actions for broad coverage of AI agents, models, MCP servers, and applications. The dashboard provides coverage for all Microsoft AI solutions supported by Entra, Defender and Purview—including Microsoft 365 Copilot, Microsoft Copilot Studio agents, and Microsoft Foundry applications and agents—as well as third-party AI models, applications, and agents, such as Google Gemini, OpenAI ChatGPT, and MCP servers. This supports comprehensive visibility and control, regardless of where applications and agents are built. Prioritize Critical Risk with Security Copilots AI-Powered Insights Risk leaders must do more than just recognize existing risks—they also need to determine which ones pose the greatest threat to their business. The dashboard provides a consolidated view of AI-related security risks and leverages Security Copilot’s AI-powered insights to help find the most critical risks within an environment. For example, Security Copilot natural language interaction improves agent discovery and categorization, helping leaders identify unmanaged and shadow AI agents to enhance security posture. Furthermore, Security Copilot allows leaders to investigate AI risks and agent activities through prompt-based exploration, putting them in the driver’s seat for additional risk investigation. Drive Risk Mitigation By streamlining risk mitigation recommendations and automated task delegation, organizations can significantly improve the efficiency of their AI risk management processes. This approach can reduce the potential hidden AI risk and accelerate compliance efforts, helping to ensure that risk mitigation is timely and accurate. To address this, the Security Dashboard for AI evaluates how organizations put Microsoft’s AI security features into practice and offers tailored suggestions to strengthen AI security posture. It leverages Microsoft’s productivity tools for immediate action within the practitioner portal, making it easy for administrators to delegate recommendation tasks to designated users. With the Security Dashboard for AI, CISOs and risk leaders gain a clear, consolidated view of AI risks across agents, apps, and platforms—eliminating fragmented visibility, disconnected posture insights, and governance gaps as AI adoption scales. Best of all, the Security Dashboard for AI is included with eligible Microsoft security products customers already use. If an organization is already using Microsoft security products to secure AI, they are already a Security Dashboard for AI customer. Getting Started Existing Microsoft Security customers can start using Security Dashboard for AI today. It is included when a customer has the Microsoft Security products—Defender, Entra and Purview—with no additional licensing required. To begin using the Security Dashboard for AI, visit http://ai.security.microsoft.com or access the dashboard from the Defender, Entra or Purview portals. Learn more about the Security Dashboard for AI at Microsoft Security MS Learn. 1AuditBoard & Ascend2 Research. The Connected Risk Report: Uniting Teams and Insights to Drive Organizational Resilience. AuditBoard, October 2024. 2Microsoft. 2026 Data Security Index: Unifying Data Protection and AI Innovation. Microsoft Security, 2026DORA exit planning for Azure SQL Database: a practical, “general guidance” blueprint
Why this matters: Under the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), many financial entities are strengthening requirements around ICT risk management, third‑party risk oversight, and—critically—exit planning / substitutability. Microsoft provides resources to help customers navigate DORA, including a DORA compliance hub in the Microsoft Trust Center. This post distills general guidance based on a real-world support thread where a customer requested a formal advisory describing an exit strategy for an Azure SQL Database workload (including a large database scenario). (Note: The content here is intentionally generalized and not legal advice—always align with your compliance team and regulators.) The customer asked Microsoft Support for a formal response to support DORA regulatory expectations, focusing on data portability, exit planning, and substitution capabilities for workloads running on Azure SQL Database. The support response framed the need as: a regulatory submission use case under DORA, where Microsoft can provide official references and describe the technical capabilities enabling portability and exit. while customers remain responsible for defining, documenting, testing, and periodically validating their exit procedures. Microsoft’s DORA resources: where to pull “regulatory artifacts” from A key part of the Support Request response was pointing to Microsoft’s formal compliance resources: Microsoft publishes DORA-related guidance and operational resilience materials via the Microsoft Trust Center and makes compliance documentation available via the Service Trust Portal for supervisory/audit processes. Microsoft also maintains a DORA compliance hub in the Trust Center aimed at helping financial institutions meet DORA requirements. Microsoft Learn provides an overview of DORA, scope, and key areas for customer consideration. Navigating DORA compliance | Microsoft Trust Center Practical takeaway: For DORA evidence packs, align your narrative to the regulator’s questions, and use Trust Center / Service Trust Portal materials as the “Microsoft-published” backbone, then attach your customer-owned exit runbooks and test evidence. Data ownership and portability: the foundation of an exit plan In the ticket’s advisory, Microsoft Support emphasized: Azure SQL Database is built on the SQL Server engine, and customers retain ownership of their data. The service supports portability through SQL Server–compatible schemas, T‑SQL, and documented export/restore mechanisms, reducing dependency on proprietary formats. How to use this in a DORA exit narrative: Frame “reversibility” as standards-based data and schema portability (SQL/T‑SQL + documented export/import). That’s exactly the type of substitutability narrative many regulators want to see. Supported exit strategy building blocks (Azure SQL Database → on‑prem SQL Server) The Support Request response described the exit approach at a high level, using supported, documented capabilities: Exporting database schema and data using SQL Server–compatible formats Restoring or importing into an on‑prem SQL Server environment with functional equivalence Maintaining security controls (auth, encryption in transit/at rest, integrity protections) during transition Validating restored data and application functionality as part of exit testing One concrete, Microsoft-documented portability method for Azure SQL Database is exporting to a BACPAC (schema + data), which can later be imported into SQL Server. BACPAC: what Microsoft documentation explicitly calls out (and why it matters for “exit planning”) Microsoft Learn documents: A BACPAC contains metadata and data and can be stored in Azure Blob storage or local storage and later imported into Azure SQL Database, Azure SQL Managed Instance, or SQL Server. Export a BACPAC File - SQL Server | Microsoft Learn For transactional consistency, ensure no write activity during export or export from a transactionally consistent copy. Blob-storage exports have a maximum BACPAC size of 200 GB; larger exports should go to local storage using SqlPackage. BACPAC is not intended as a backup/restore mechanism; Azure SQL has built-in automated backups. DORA relevance: BACPAC is a strong “portability evidence” artifact because it is explicitly positioned for “archiving” or “moving to another platform,” including SQL Server. sql-docs/azure-sql/database/database-export.md at live · MicrosoftDocs/sql-docs Large databases: why “one-button export” may not be your plan The Support Request thread highlighted a “large database” scenario and referenced that Microsoft documentation describes high-level migration patterns such as offline export/import and staged validation for large databases. In practice, if your database is far beyond BACPAC’s typical constraints (for example, BACPAC export to blob capped at 200 GB), your exit plan should explicitly describe: a staged approach (e.g., dry-run validation environment, phased cutover planning), capacity planning (network bandwidth, validation windows), and a testing cadence that produces regulator-friendly evidence. The ticket response also emphasized that customers should plan for sufficient time and capacity for transfer and validation (especially for large databases). Customer responsibilities under DORA (the part regulators care about most) A key statement from the Support Request advisory is worth repeating as general guidance: Microsoft provides the technical capabilities enabling data portability and exit, but customers remain responsible for defining, documenting, testing, and periodically validating exit procedures—including planning timelines, allocating sufficient capacity, executing test exits, and maintaining evidence for regulatory review. This aligns well with DORA’s intent and Microsoft’s broader DORA guidance narrative: DORA requires operational resilience outcomes, and organizations must integrate cloud capabilities into their governance and controls. A simple DORA-ready “exit plan checklist” you can adapt Below is a general checklist you can use to structure your exit plan documentation and evidence pack—aligned with what was emphasized in the Support Request: Scope & dependencies Identify the Azure SQL Database workloads, dependent applications, and data flows to be included in the exit plan. (Customer-owned documentation and evidence) Portability mechanism(s) Reference documented portability options such as schema+data export mechanisms (e.g., BACPAC) where applicable. Security controls during transition Document how auth and encryption controls are maintained during transfer and restoration validation. Validation plan Define how you will validate data integrity and application functionality in the target environment. Scale planning (large DBs) Document transfer capacity planning, timelines, and staged validation where needed. Evidence & audit trail Store test outputs, run logs, and references to Microsoft Trust Center / Service Trust Portal materials used in submissions. From the SR’s formal advisory perspective, the message is consistent: Azure SQL Database supports data portability and exits planning via SQL Server–compatible design and documented export/import mechanisms, Microsoft provides DORA-oriented compliance materials via the Trust Center and Service Trust Portal. and customers should own the exit runbook, testing, and evidence required for regulatory review.Security Baseline for M365 Apps for enterprise v2512
Security baseline for Microsoft 365 Apps for enterprise (v2512, December 2025) Microsoft is pleased to announce the latest Security Baseline for Microsoft 365 Apps for enterprise, version 2512, is now available as part of the Microsoft Security Compliance Toolkit. This release builds on previous baselines and introduces updated, security‑hardened recommendations aligned with modern threat landscapes and the latest Office administrative templates. As with prior releases, this baseline is intended to help enterprise administrators quickly deploy Microsoft recommended security configurations, reduce configuration drift, and ensure consistent protection across user environments. Download the updated baseline today from the Microsoft Security Compliance Toolkit, test the recommended configurations, and implement as appropriate. This release introduces and updates several security focused policies designed to strengthen protections in Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint, and core Microsoft 365 Apps components. These changes reflect evolving attacker techniques, partner feedback, and Microsoft’s secure by design engineering standards. The recommended settings in this security baseline correspond with the administrative templates released in version 5516. Below are the updated settings included in this baseline: Excel: File Block Includes External Link Files Policy Path: User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Microsoft Excel 2016\Excel Options\Security\Trust Center\File Block Settings\File Block includes external link files The baseline will ensure that external links to workbooks blocked by File Block will no longer refresh. Attempts to create or update links to blocked files return an error. This prevents data ingestion from untrusted or potentially malicious sources. Block Insecure Protocols Across Microsoft 365 Apps Policy Path: User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Microsoft Office 2016\Security Settings\Block Insecure Protocols The baseline will block all non‑HTTPS protocols when opening documents, eliminating downgrade paths and unsafe connections. This aligns with Microsoft’s broader effort to enforce TLS‑secure communication across productivity and cloud services. Block OLE Graph Functionality Policy Path: User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Microsoft Office 2016\Security Settings\Block OLE Graph This setting will prevent MSGraph.Application and MSGraph.Chart (classic OLE Graph components) from executing. Microsoft 365 Apps will instead render a static image, mitigating a historically risky automation interface. Block OrgChart Add‑in Policy Path: User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Microsoft Office 2016\Security Settings\Block OrgChart The legacy OrgChart add‑in is disabled, preventing execution and replacing output with an image. This reduces exposure to outdated automation frameworks while maintaining visual fidelity. Restrict FPRPC Fallback in Microsoft 365 Apps Policy Path: User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Microsoft Office 2016\Security Settings\Restrict Apps from FPRPC Fallback The baseline disables the ability for Microsoft 365 Apps to fall back to FrontPage Server Extensions RPC which is an aging protocol not designed for modern security requirements. Avoiding fallback ensures consistent use of modern, authenticated file‑access methods. PowerPoint: OLE Active Content Controls Updated Policy Path: User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Microsoft PowerPoint 2016\PowerPoint Options\Security\OLE Active Content This baseline enforces disabling interactive OLE actions, no OLE content will be activate. The recommended baseline selection ensures secure‑by‑default OLE activation, reducing risk from embedded legacy objects. Deployment options for the baseline IT Admins can apply baseline settings in different ways. Depending on the method(s) chosen, different registry keys will be written, and they will be observed in order of precedence: Office cloud policies will override ADMX/Group Policies which will override end user settings in the Trust Center. Cloud policies may be deployed with the Office cloud policy service for policies in HKCU. Cloud policies apply to a user on any device accessing files in Office apps with their AAD account. In Office cloud policy service, you can create a filter for the Area column to display the current Security Baselines, and within each policy's context pane the recommended baseline setting is set by default. Learn more about Office cloud policy service. ADMX policies may be deployed with Microsoft Intune for both HKCU and HKLM policies. These settings are written to the same place as Group Policy, but managed from the cloud. There are two methods to create and deploy policy configurations: Administrative templates or the settings catalog. Group Policy may be deployed with on premise AD DS to deploy Group Policy Objects (GPO) to users and computers. The downloadable baseline package includes importable GPOs, a script to apply the GPOs to local policy, a script to import the GPOs into Active Directory Group Policy, updated custom administrative template (SecGuide.ADMX/L) file, all the recommended settings in spreadsheet form and a Policy Analyzer rules file. GPOs included in the baseline Most organizations can implement the baseline’s recommended settings without any problems. However, there are a few settings that will cause operational issues for some organizations. We've broken out related groups of such settings into their own GPOs to make it easier for organizations to add or remove these restrictions as a set. The local-policy script (Baseline-LocalInstall.ps1) offers command-line options to control whether these GPOs are installed. "MSFT Microsoft 365 Apps v2512" GPO set includes “Computer” and “User” GPOs that represent the “core” settings that should be trouble free, and each of these potentially challenging GPOs: “DDE Block - User” is a User Configuration GPO that blocks using DDE to search for existing DDE server processes or to start new ones. “Legacy File Block - User” is a User Configuration GPO that prevents Office applications from opening or saving legacy file formats. "Legacy JScript Block - Computer" disables the legacy JScript execution for websites in the Internet Zone and Restricted Sites Zone. “Require Macro Signing - User” is a User Configuration GPO that disables unsigned macros in each of the Office applications. If you have questions or issues, please let us know via the Security Baseline Community or this post. Related: Learn about Microsoft Baseline Security ModeFrom AI pilots to public decisions: what it really takes to close the intelligence gap
Across the public sector, the conversation about AI has shifted. The question is no longer whether AI can generate insight—most leaders have already seen impressive pilots. The harder question is whether those insights survive the realities of government: public scrutiny, auditability, cross‑department delivery, and the need to explain decisions in plain language. That challenge was recently articulated by Sadaf Mozaffarian, writing in Smart Cities World, in the context of city‑scale AI deployments. Governments don’t need more experiments. They need decision‑ready intelligence—intelligence that can be acted on safely, governed consistently, and defended when outcomes are questioned. What’s emerging now is a more operational lens on AI adoption, one that exposes two issues many pilots quietly avoid. Decision latency is the real enemy In government, decision latency is not about slow analytics, it’s the time lost between having a signal and being able to act on it with confidence. Much of the focus in AI discussions is on accuracy, bias, or model performance. But in cities, the more damaging problem is often this latency. When data is fragmented across departments, policies live in PDFs, and institutional knowledge walks out the door at 5pm, leaders may have insight but still can’t decide fast enough. AI pilots often demonstrate answers in isolation, but they don’t reduce the friction between insight, approval, and execution. Decision‑ready intelligence directly attacks this problem. It brings together: Operational data already trusted by the organization Policy and regulatory context that constrains decisions Human checkpoints that reflect how accountability actually works The result isn’t faster answers—it’s faster decisions that stick, because they align with how governments are structured to operate. Institutional memory is infrastructure Cities invest heavily in physical infrastructure—roads, pipes, facilities—but far less deliberately in institutional memory. Yet planning rationales, inspection notes, precedent cases, and prior decisions are often what make or break today’s choices. Consider a routine enforcement or permitting decision that looks reasonable on current data, but quietly contradicts a prior settlement, a regulator’s interpretation, or a lesson learned during a past inquiry. AI systems that don’t account for this history don’t just miss context, they create risk. Decision‑ready intelligence treats institutional memory as a first‑class asset. It ensures that when AI supports a decision, it does so with: Access to relevant historical records and prior outcomes Clear lineage back to source documents and policies Logging that preserves not just what was decided, but why This is what allows governments to move faster without relearning the same lessons under audit pressure. Why this matters now Public sector AI initiatives rarely fail because of a lack of ambition. They stall because trust questions—governance, records, explainability—arrive too late. By the time leaders ask, “Can we stand behind this decision?” the system was never designed to answer. Decision‑ready intelligence flips that sequence. Governance is not bolted on after the pilot; it’s built into the operating model from the start. That’s what allows agencies to scale from a single use case to repeatable patterns across departments. A practical starting point The cities making progress aren’t trying to transform everything at once. They start small but visible: Identify one cross‑department “moment of truth” Define what must be logged, retained, and explainable Connect just enough data, policy, and work context to support that decision From there, they reuse the same patterns—governed data products, policy knowledge bases, and human‑in‑the‑loop workflows—to scale responsibly. AI in government will ultimately be judged the same way every public investment is judged: by outcomes, fairness, and public confidence. Closing the intelligence gap isn’t about smarter models. It’s about designing decision systems that reflect how governments actually work—and are held accountable. Learn more by reading Sadaf's full article: Closing the intelligence gap: how cities turn AI experiments into operational impactAuthorization and Identity Governance Inside AI Agents
Designing Authorization‑Aware AI Agents Enforcing Microsoft Entra ID RBAC in Copilot Studio As AI agents move from experimentation to enterprise execution, authorization becomes the defining line between innovation and risk. AI agents are rapidly evolving from experimental assistants into enterprise operators—retrieving user data, triggering workflows, and invoking protected APIs. While many early implementations rely on prompt‑level instructions to control access, regulated enterprise environments require authorization to be enforced by identity systems, not language models. This article presents a production‑ready, identity‑first architecture for building authorization‑aware AI agents using Copilot Studio, Power Automate, Microsoft Entra ID, and Microsoft Graph, ensuring every agent action executes strictly within the requesting user’s permissions. Why Prompt‑Level Security Is Not Enough Large Language Models interpret intent—they do not enforce policy. Even the most carefully written prompts cannot: Validate Microsoft Entra ID group or role membership Reliably distinguish delegated user identity from application identity Enforce deterministic access decisions Produce auditable authorization outcomes Relying on prompts for authorization introduces silent security failures, over‑privileged access, and compliance gaps—particularly in Financial Services, Healthcare, and other regulated industries. Authorization is not a reasoning problem. It is an identity enforcement problem. Common Authorization Anti‑Patterns in AI Agents The following patterns frequently appear in early AI agent implementations and should be avoided in enterprise environments: Hard‑coded role or group checks embedded in prompts Trusting group names passed as plain‑text parameters Using application permissions for user‑initiated actions Skipping verification of the user’s Entra ID identity Lacking an auditable authorization decision point These approaches may work in demos, but they do not survive security reviews, compliance audits, or real‑world misuse scenarios. Authorization‑Aware Agent Architecture In an authorization‑aware design, the agent never decides access. Authorization is enforced externally, by identity‑aware workflows that sit outside the language model’s reasoning boundary. High‑Level Flow The Copilot Studio agent receives a user request The agent passes the User Principal Name (UPN) and intended action A Power Automate flow validates permissions using Microsoft Entra ID via Microsoft Graph Only authorized requests are allowed to proceed Unauthorized requests fail fast with a deterministic outcome Authorization‑aware Copilot Studio architecture enforces Entra ID RBAC before executing any business action. The agent orchestrates intent. Identity systems enforce access. Enforcing Entra ID RBAC with Microsoft Graph Power Automate acts as the authorization enforcement layer: Resolve user identity from the supplied UPN Retrieve group or role memberships using Microsoft Graph Normalize and compare memberships against approved RBAC groups Explicitly deny execution when authorization fails This keeps authorization logic: Centralized Deterministic Auditable Independent of the AI model Reference Implementation: Power Automate RBAC Enforcement Flow The following import‑ready Power Automate cloud flow demonstrates a secure RBAC enforcement pattern for Copilot Studio agents. It validates Microsoft Entra ID group membership before allowing any business action. Scenario Trigger: User‑initiated agent action Identity model: Delegated user identity Input: userUPN, requestedAction Outcome: Authorized or denied based on Entra ID RBAC { "$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/providers/Microsoft.Logic/schemas/2016-06-01/workflowdefinition.json#", "contentVersion": "1.0.0.0", "triggers": { "Copilot_Request": { "type": "Request", "kind": "Http", "inputs": { "schema": { "type": "object", "properties": { "userUPN": { "type": "string" }, "requestedAction": { "type": "string" } }, "required": [ "userUPN" ] } } } }, "actions": { "Get_User_Groups": { "type": "Http", "inputs": { "method": "GET", "uri": "https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/users/@{triggerBody()?['userUPN']}/memberOf?$select=displayName", "authentication": { "type": "ManagedServiceIdentity" } } }, "Normalize_Group_Names": { "type": "Select", "inputs": { "from": "@body('Get_User_Groups')?['value']", "select": { "groupName": "@toLower(item()?['displayName'])" } }, "runAfter": { "Get_User_Groups": [ "Succeeded" ] } }, "Check_Authorization": { "type": "Condition", "expression": "@contains(body('Normalize_Group_Names'), 'ai-authorized-users')", "runAfter": { "Normalize_Group_Names": [ "Succeeded" ] }, "actions": { "Authorized_Action": { "type": "Compose", "inputs": "User authorized via Entra ID RBAC" } }, "else": { "actions": { "Access_Denied": { "type": "Terminate", "inputs": { "status": "Failed", "message": "Access denied. User not authorized via Entra ID RBAC." } } } } } } } This pattern enforces authorization outside the agent, aligns with Zero Trust principles, and creates a clear audit boundary suitable for enterprise and regulated environments. Flow Diagram: Agent Integrated with RBAC Authorization Flow and Sample Prompt Execution: Delegated vs Application Permissions Scenario Recommended Permission Model User‑initiated agent actions Delegated permissions Background or system automation Application permissions Using delegated permissions ensures agent execution remains strictly within the requesting user’s identity boundary. Auditing and Compliance Benefits Deterministic and explainable authorization decisions Centralized enforcement aligned with identity governance Clear audit trails for security and compliance reviews Readiness for SOC, ISO, PCI, and FSI assessments Enterprise Security Takeaways Authorization belongs in Microsoft Entra ID, not prompts AI agents must respect enterprise identity boundaries Copilot Studio + Power Automate + Microsoft Graph enable secure‑by‑design AI agents By treating AI agents as first‑class enterprise actors and enforcing authorization at the identity layer, organizations can scale AI adoption with confidence, trust, and compliance.Security baseline for Windows Server 2025, version 2602
Microsoft is pleased to announce the February 2026 Revision (v2602) of the security baseline package for Windows Server 2025! You can download the baseline package from the Microsoft Security Compliance Toolkit, test the recommended configurations in your environment, and customize / implement them as appropriate. Summary of Changes in This Release This release includes several changes made since the Security baseline for Windows Server 2025, version 2506 to further assist in the security of enterprise customers along with better aligning with the latest capabilities and standards. The changes include what is now depicted in the table below. Security Policy Change Summary Configure the behavior of the sudo command Configured as Enabled: Disabled on both MS and DC Configure Validation of ROCA-vulnerable WHfB keys during authentication Configured as Enabled: Block on DC to block Windows Hello for Business (WHfB) keys that are vulnerable to the Return of Coppersmith's attack (ROCA) Disable Internet Explorer 11 Launch Via COM Automation Configured as Enabled to prevent legacy scripts and applications from programmatically launching Internet Explorer 11 using COM automation interfaces Do not apply the Mark of the Web tag to files copied from insecure sources Configured as Disabled on both MS and DC Network security: Restrict NTLM: Audit Incoming NTLM Traffic Configured as Enable auditing for all accounts on both MS and DC Network security: Restrict NTLM: Audit NTLM authentication in this domain Configured as Enable all on DC Network security: Restrict NTLM: Outgoing NTLM traffic to remote servers Configured as Audit all on both MS and DC NTLM Auditing Enhancements Already enabled by default to improve visibility into NTLM usage within your environment Prevent downloading of enclosures Remove from the baseline as it is not applicable for Windows Server 2025. It depends on IE – RSS feed Printer: Configure RPC connection settings Enforce the default, RPC over TCP with Authentication Enabled, on both MS and DC Printer: Configure RPC listener settings Configure as RPC over TCP | Kerberos on MS Printer: Impersonate a client after authentication Add RESTRICTED SERVICES\PrintSpoolerService to allow the Print Spooler’s restricted service identity to impersonate clients securely Configure the behavior of the sudo command Sudo for Windows can be used as a potential escalation of privilege vector when enabled in certain configurations. It may allow attackers or malicious insiders to run commands with elevated privileges, bypassing traditional UAC prompts. This is especially concerning in environments with Active Directory or domain controllers. We recommend to configuring the policy Configure the behavior of the sudo command (System) as Enabled with the maximum allowed sudo mode as Disabled to prevent the sudo command from being used. Configure Validation of ROCA-vulnerable WHfB keys during authentication To mitigate Windows Hello for Business (WHfB) keys that are vulnerable to the Return of Coppersmith's attack (ROCA), we recommend enabling the setting Configure Validation of ROCA-vulnerable WHfB keys during authentication (System\Security Account Manager) in a Block mode in domain controllers. To ensure there are no incompatible devices/orphaned/vulnerable keys in use that will break when blocked, please see Using WHfBTools PowerShell module for cleaning up orphaned Windows Hello for Business Keys - Microsoft Support. Note: A reboot is not required for changes to this setting to take effect. Disable Internet Explorer 11 Launch Via COM Automation Similar to the Windows 11 version 25H2 security baseline, we recommend disabling Internet Explorer 11 Launch Via COM Automation (Windows Components\Internet Explorer) to prevent legacy scripts and applications from programmatically launching Internet Explorer 11 using COM automation interfaces such as CreateObject("InternetExplorer.Application"). Allowing such behavior poses a significant risk by exposing systems to the legacy MSHTML and ActiveX components, which are vulnerable to exploitation. Do not apply the Mark of the Web tag to files copied from insecure sources We have included the setting Do not apply the Mark of the Web tag to files copied from insecure sources (Windows Components\File Explorer) configured as Disabled, which is consistent with Windows 11 security baseline. When this configuration is set to Disabled, Windows applies the Mark of the Web (MotW) tag to files copied from locations classified as Internet or other untrusted zones. This tag helps enforce additional protections such as SmartScreen checks and Office macro blocking, reducing the risk of malicious content execution. NTLM Auditing As part of our ongoing effort to help customers transition away from NTLM and adopt Kerberos for a more secure environment, we introduce new recommendations to strengthen monitoring and prepare for future NTLM restrictions on Windows Server 2025. Configure Network security: Restrict NTLM: Audit Incoming NTLM Traffic (Security Options) to Enable auditing for all accounts on both member servers and domain controllers. When enabled, the server logs events for all NTLM authentication requests that would be blocked once incoming NTLM traffic restrictions are enforced. Configure Network security: Restrict NTLM: Audit NTLM authentication in this domain (Security Options) to Enable all on domain controllers. This setting logs NTLM pass-through authentication requests from servers and accounts that would be denied when NTLM authentication restrictions are applied at the domain level. Configure Outgoing NTLM traffic to remote servers (Security Options) to Audit all on both member servers and domain controllers to log an event for each NTLM authentication request sent to a remote server, helping identify servers that still receive NTLM traffic. In addition, there are two new NTLM auditing capabilities enabled by default that were recently introduced in Windows Server 2025 and Windows 11 version 25H2. These enhancements provide detailed audit logs to help security teams monitor and investigate authentication activity, identify insecure practices, and prepare for future NTLM restrictions. Since these auditing improvements are enabled by default, no additional configuration is required, and thus the baseline does not explicitly enforce them. For more details, see Overview of NTLM auditing enhancements in Windows 11 and Windows Server 2025. Prevent Downloading of Enclosures The policy Prevent downloading of enclosures (Windows Components\RSS Feeds) has been removed from the Windows Server 2025 security baseline. This setting is not applicable to Windows Server 2025 because it depends on Internet Explorer functionality for RSS feeds. Printer security enhancements There are two new policies in Windows Server 2025 designed to significantly improve security posture of printers: Require IPPS for IPP printers (Printers) Set TLS/SSL security policy for IPP printers (Printers) Enabling these policies may cause operational challenges in environments that still rely on IPP or use self-signed or locally issued certificates. For this reason, these policies are not ter enforced in the Windows Server 2025 security baseline. However, we do recommend customers transition out of IPP or self-signed certificates and restricting them for a more secure environment. In addition, there are some changes to printer security Added RESTRICTED SERVICES\PrintSpoolerServiceto the Impersonate a client after authentication (User Rights Assignments) policy for both member servers and domain controllers, consistent with security baseline for Windows 11 version 25H2. Enforced the default setting for Configure RPC connection settings (Printers) to always use RPC over TCP with Authentication Enabled on both member servers and domain controllers. This prevents misconfiguration that could introduce security risks. Raised the security bar of the policy Configure RPC listener settings (Printers) from Negotiate (default) to Kerberos on member servers. This change encourages customers to move away from NTLM and adopt Kerberos for a more secure environment. Secure Boot certificate update To help organizations deploy, manage, and monitor the Secure Boot certificate update, Windows includes several policy settings under Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Secure Boot. These settings are deployment controls and aids. Enable Secure Boot Certificate Deployment allows an organization to explicitly initiate certificate deployment on a device. When enabled, Windows begins the Secure Boot certificate update process the next time the Secure Boot task runs. This setting does not override firmware compatibility checks or force updates onto unsupported devices. Automatic Certificate Deployment via Updates controls whether Secure Boot certificate updates are applied automatically through monthly Windows security and non‑security updates. By default, devices that Microsoft has identified as capable of safely applying the updates will receive and apply them automatically as part of cumulative servicing. If this setting is disabled, automatic deployment is blocked and certificate updates must be initiated through other supported deployment methods. Certificate Deployment via Controlled Feature Rollout allows organizations to opt devices into a Microsoft‑managed Controlled Feature Rollout for Secure Boot certificate updates. When enabled, Microsoft assists with coordinating deployment across enrolled devices to reduce risk during rollout. Devices participating in a Controlled Feature Rollout must have diagnostic data enabled. Devices that are not enrolled will not participate. Secure Boot certificate updates depend on device firmware support. Some devices have known firmware limitations that can prevent updates from being applied safely. Organizations should test representative hardware, monitor Secure Boot event logs, and consult the deployment guidance at https://aka.ms/GetSecureBoot for detailed recommendations and troubleshooting information. SMB Server hardening feature SMB Server has been susceptible to relay attacks (e.g., CVE-2025-55234), and Microsoft has released multiple features to protect against the relay attacks including SMB Server signing, which can be enabled with the setting of Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always) (Security Option) SMB Server extended protection for authentication (EPA), which can be enabled with the setting of Microsoft network server: Server SPN target name validation level (Security Option) To further support customers to adopt these SMB Server hardening features, in the September 2025 Security Updates, Microsoft has released support for Audit events, across all supported in-market platforms, to audit SMB client compatibility for SMB Server signing as well as SMB Server EPA. These audit capabilities can be controlled via the two policies located at Network\Lanman Server Audit client does not support signing Audit SMB client SPN support This allows you to identify any potential device or software incompatibility issues before deploying the hardening measures that are already supported by SMB Server. Our recommendation is For domain controllers, the SMB signing is already enabled by default so there is no action needed for hardening purposes. For member servers, first enabling the two new audit features to assess the environment and then decide whether SMB Server Signing or EPA should be used to mitigate the attack vector. Please let us know your thoughts by commenting on this post or through the Security Baseline Community.
