Security baseline for Microsoft Edge version 151
We are pleased to announce the enterprise-ready release of the security baseline for Microsoft Edge version 151! We have reviewed the settings in Microsoft Edge version 151 and updated our guidance with six new recommendations. We have also identified one additional setting that organizations should consider evaluating in their environments. A new Microsoft Edge security baseline package was just released to the Download Center. You can download the new package from the Security Compliance Toolkit. Enable Process Isolation (added) We are enforcing ‘Enable Process Isolation’ to help protect Microsoft Edge from unauthorized access, modification, and tampering by other applications running on the device. This setting strengthens browser process integrity and helps safeguard sensitive data used by Microsoft Edge. Organizations that encounter compatibility issues with software that depends on browser process injection should treat such configurations as exceptions requiring explicit risk acceptance and compatibility validation. Enable renderer in app container (added) We are enforcing the default and enabling ‘Enable renderer in app container’ to strengthen Microsoft Edge’s browser isolation protections by ensuring renderer processes run within the additional restrictions provided by AppContainer. This helps reduce the impact of browser-based attacks and limits the ability of exploited renderer processes to interact with system resources. Organizations that require this setting to be disabled due to incompatible software should treat such configurations as exceptions that require explicit risk acceptance. Enable the network service sandbox (added) We are enforcing the default and enabling ‘Enable the network service sandbox’ to ensure Microsoft Edge network-facing processes operate within sandbox isolation boundaries that help reduce the impact of exploitation and limit access to system resources. Because disabling the network service sandbox weakens a core browser security protection, organizations should treat any requirement to disable this setting as an exception scenario requiring explicit risk acceptance and compatibility validation. Configure browser process code integrity guard (added) We are enabling ‘Configure browser process code integrity guard setting’ with a value of ‘Enable code integrity guard enforcement in the browser process’. The setting strengthens protections against unauthorized code injection into Microsoft Edge browser processes. Some enterprise applications, extensions, accessibility tools, or security products may still rely on legacy injection techniques and require compatibility validation. We encourage organizations to fully test this setting in their environments and work with vendors to identify or remediate incompatible software. Enable Application Bound Encryption (added) We are enabling ‘Enable Application Bound Encryption’ to strengthen protections for browser-stored credentials, authentication tokens, and other sensitive data by binding encryption more closely to the browser process. This helps reduce the risk of unauthorized access to protected browser data by malware or other untrusted software. Because disabling this setting weakens an important protection boundary, organizations should treat any requirement to disable the feature as an exception requiring explicit risk review. Enhance the security state in Microsoft Edge (added) We are enabling ‘Enhance the security state in Microsoft Edge’ and configuring the setting to Balanced to provide additional protection against modern web-based attacks while maintaining compatibility for most enterprise users. In Balanced mode, Microsoft Edge applies additional mitigations such as disabling just-in-time (JIT) JavaScript compilation and enabling added operating system protections on processes used to load sites that users do not frequently visit, helping reduce the risk of memory-related vulnerabilities. Because these protections can introduce compatibility issues for some applications or workflows, organizations should validate critical business sites and applications during their normal testing process prior to broad deployment and configure exceptions as needed. Additional details can be found here. Configure Automatic HTTPS (worth considering) We previously released a blog discussing a new feature called Automatic HTTPS. This setting can automatically switch your connections to websites from HTTP to HTTPS on sites that are highly likely to support the more secure protocol. This option helps ensure that users' network traffic is more secure and less susceptible to SSL stripping attacks. The best part, the end user doesn’t get prompted, it just works! This new feature has two configuration options: Navigations delivered over HTTP are switched to HTTPS’ (UpgradeCapableDomains) and ‘All navigation delivered over HTTP are switched to HTTPS’ (AlwaysUpgrade). There are trade-offs for each configuration: the UpgradeCapableDomains option only upgrades to HTTPS if Microsoft believes the site is likely to work over HTTPS, and this setting is unavailable if you’ve disabled the ComponentUpdatesEnabled policy. The more secure AlwaysUpgrade option unconditionally updates all HTTP requests to HTTPS, which will result in a user-visible error page if the target site does not support HTTPS. We encourage organizations to consider implementing and testing Automatic HTTPS within their environment. Collectively, these changes continue our focus on strengthening browser isolation, sandboxing, process integrity, and protection of sensitive browser data while balancing enterprise compatibility requirements. Microsoft Edge version 151 introduced 4 new computer and user settings. We have included a spreadsheet listing the new settings in the release to make it easier for you to find them. As a friendly reminder, all available settings for Microsoft Edge are documented here, and all available settings for Microsoft Edge Update are documented here. Please continue to give us feedback through the Security Baseline Community or in comments on this post.Security Review for Microsoft Edge version 152
We have reviewed the new settings in Microsoft Edge version 152 and determined that there are no additional security settings that require enforcement. The Microsoft Edge version 151 security baseline continues to be our recommended configuration which can be downloaded from the Microsoft Security Compliance Toolkit. Microsoft Edge version 152 introduced 4 new Computer and User settings; we have included a spreadsheet listing the new settings to make it easier for you to find. Starting with version 152 Microsoft Edge is moving to a more frequent release cycle. To better align with the needs of the enterprise customers, the Microsoft Edge security baseline is expected to align with the Extended Stable Channel, which provides major feature updates on an eight-week cadence while continuing to receive security and quality updates between releases. This approach provides organizations with additional time to evaluate and deploy feature changes while ensuring security protections remain current. Why the change? Security baselines are intended to provide guidance for managing security relevant configuration settings, not to track every feature introduced in a browser release. With the move to a two-week release cadence, publishing baseline updates for every release would increase operational overhead while providing limited security benefit. The Extended Stable cadence offers a more practical balance for enterprise customers by allowing additional time for testing and evaluation, while continuing to receive security and critical fixes between major feature releases. By aligning with Extended Stable, we can update the baselines less frequently and focus on publishing them earlier in the release cycle, giving IT administrators more time to review and plan for upcoming changes. Our goal is to make security baseline adoption more predictable and easier to manage while continuing to provide timely security guidance. As a friendly reminder, all available settings for Microsoft Edge are documented here, and all available settings for Microsoft Edge Update are documented here. Please continue to give us feedback through the Security Baselines Discussion site or this post.Authorization and Governance for AI Agents: Runtime Authorization Beyond Identity at Scale
Designing Authorization‑Aware AI Agents at Scale Enforcing Runtime RBAC + ABAC with Approval Injection (JIT) Microsoft Entra Agent Identity enables organizations to govern and manage AI agent identities in Copilot Studio, improving visibility and identity-level control. However, as enterprises deploy multiple autonomous AI agents, identity and OAuth permissions alone cannot answer a more critical question: “Should this action be executed now, by this agent, for this user, under the current business and regulatory context?” This post introduces a reusable Authorization Fabric—combining a Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) and Policy Decision Point (PDP)—implemented as a Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint using Azure Functions/App Service authentication. Every AI agent (Copilot Studio or AI Foundry/Semantic Kernel) calls this fabric before tool execution, receiving a deterministic runtime decision: ALLOW / DENY / REQUIRE_APPROVAL / MASK Who this is for Anyone building AI agents (Copilot Studio, AI Foundry/Semantic Kernel) that call tools, workflows, or APIs Organizations scaling to multiple agents and needing consistent runtime controls Teams operating in regulated or security‑sensitive environments, where decisions must be deterministic and auditable Why a V2? Identity is necessary—runtime authorization is missing Entra Agent Identity (preview) integrates Copilot Studio agents with Microsoft Entra so that newly created agents automatically get an Entra agent identity, manageable in the Entra admin center, and identity activity is logged in Entra. That solves who the agent is and improves identity governance visibility. But multi-agent deployments introduce a new risk class: Autonomous execution sprawl — many agents, operating with delegated privileges, invoking the same backends independently. OAuth and API permissions answer “can the agent call this API?” They do not answer “should the agent execute this action under business policy, compliance constraints, data boundaries, and approval thresholds?” This is where a runtime authorization decision plane becomes essential. The pattern: Microsoft Entra‑Protected Authorization Fabric (PEP + PDP) Instead of embedding RBAC logic independently inside every agent, use a shared fabric: PEP (Policy Enforcement Point): Gatekeeper invoked before any tool/action PDP (Policy Decision Point): Evaluates RBAC + ABAC + approval policies Decision output: ALLOW / DENY / REQUIRE_APPROVAL / MASK This Authorization Fabric functions as a shared enterprise control plane, decoupling authorization logic from individual agents and enforcing policies consistently across all autonomous execution paths. Architecture (POC reference architecture) Use a single runtime decision plane that sits between agents and tools. What’s important here Every agent (Copilot Studio or AI Foundry/SK) calls the Authorization Fabric API first The fabric is a protected endpoint (Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint required) Tools (Graph/ERP/CRM/custom APIs) are invoked only after an ALLOW decision (or approval) Trust boundaries enforced by this architecture Agents never call business tools directly without a prior authorization decision The Authorization Fabric validates caller identity via Microsoft Entra Authorization decisions are centralized, consistent, and auditable Approval workflows act as a runtime “break-glass” control for high-impact actions This ensures identity, intent, and execution are independently enforced, rather than implicitly trusted. Runtime flow (Decision → Approval → Execution) Here is the runtime sequence as a simple flow (you can keep your Mermaid diagram too). ```mermaid flowchart TD START(["START"]) --> S1["[1] User Request"] S1 --> S2["[2] Agent Extracts Intent\n(action, resource, attributes)"] S2 --> S3["[3] Call /authorize\n(Entra protected)"] S3 --> S4 subgraph S4["[4] PDP Evaluation"] ABAC["ABAC: Tenant · Region · Data Sensitivity"] RBAC["RBAC: Entitlement Check"] Threshold["Approval Threshold"] ABAC --> RBAC --> Threshold end S4 --> Decision{"[5] Decision?"} Decision -->|"ALLOW"| Exec["Execute Tool / API"] Decision -->|"MASK"| Masked["Execute with Masked Data"] Decision -->|"DENY"| Block["Block Request"] Decision -->|"REQUIRE_APPROVAL"| Approve{"[6] Approval Flow"} Approve -->|"Approved"| Exec Approve -->|"Rejected"| Block Exec --> Audit["[7] Audit & Telemetry"] Masked --> Audit Block --> Audit Audit --> ENDNODE(["END"]) style START fill:#4A90D9,stroke:#333,color:#fff style ENDNODE fill:#4A90D9,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S1 fill:#5B5FC7,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S2 fill:#5B5FC7,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S3 fill:#E8A838,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S4 fill:#FFF3E0,stroke:#E8A838,stroke-width:2px style ABAC fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style RBAC fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style Threshold fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style Decision fill:#fff,stroke:#333 style Exec fill:#2ECC71,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Masked fill:#27AE60,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Block fill:#C0392B,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Approve fill:#F39C12,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Audit fill:#3498DB,stroke:#333,color:#fff ``` Design principle: No tool execution occurs until the Authorization Fabric returns ALLOW or REQUIRE_APPROVAL is satisfied via an approval workflow. Where Power Automate fits (important for readers) In most Copilot Studio implementations, Agents calls Power Automate (agent flows), is the practical integration layer that calls enterprise services and APIs. Copilot Studio supports “agent flows” as a way to extend agent capabilities with low-code workflows. For this pattern, Power Automate typically: acquires/uses the right identity context for the call (depending on your tenant setup), and calls the /authorize endpoint of the Authorization Fabric, returns the decision payload to the agent for branching. Copilot Studio also supports calling REST endpoints directly using the HTTP Request node, including passing headers such as Authorization: Bearer <token>. Protected endpoint only: Securing the Authorization Fabric with Microsoft Entra For this V2 pattern, the Authorization Fabric must be protected using Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint on Azure Functions/App Service (built‑in auth). Microsoft Learn provides the configuration guidance for enabling Microsoft Entra as the authentication provider for Azure App Service / Azure Functions. Step 1 — Create the Authorization Fabric API (Azure Function) Expose an authorization endpoint: HTTP Step 2 — Enable Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint on the Function App In Azure Portal: Function App → Authentication Add identity provider → Microsoft Choose Workforce configuration (enterprise tenant) Set Require authentication for all requests This ensures the Authorization Fabric is not callable without a valid Entra token. Step 3 — Optional hardening (recommended) Depending on enterprise posture, layer: IP restrictions / Private endpoints APIM in front of the Function for rate limiting, request normalization, centralized logging (For a POC, keep it minimal—add hardening incrementally.) Externalizing policy (so governance scales) To make this pattern reusable across multiple agents, policies should not be hardcoded inside each agent. Instead, store policy definitions in a central policy store such as Cosmos DB (or equivalent configuration store), and have the PDP load/evaluate policies at runtime. Why this matters: Policy changes apply across all agents instantly (no agent republish) Central governance + versioning + rollback becomes possible Audit and reporting become consistent across environments (For the POC, a single JSON document per policy pack in Cosmos DB is sufficient. For production, add versioning and staged rollout.) Store one PolicyPack JSON document per environment (dev/test/prod). Include version, effectiveFrom, priority for safe rollout/rollback. Minimal decision contract (standard request / response) To keep the fabric reusable across agents, standardize the request payload. Request payload (example) Decision response (deterministic) Example scenario (1 minute to understand) Scenario: A user asks a Finance agent to create a Purchase Order for 70,000. Even if the user has API permission and the agent can technically call the ERP API, runtime policy should return: REQUIRE_APPROVAL (threshold exceeded) trigger an approval workflow execute only after approval is granted This is the difference between API access and authorized business execution. Sample Policy Model (RBAC + ABAC + Approval) This POC policy model intentionally stays simple while demonstrating both coarse and fine-grained governance. 1) Coarse‑grained RBAC (roles → actions) FinanceAnalyst CreatePO up to 50,000 ViewVendor FinanceManager CreatePO up to 100,000 and/or approve higher spend 2) Fine‑grained ABAC (conditions at runtime) ABAC evaluates context such as region, classification, tenant boundary, and risk: 3) Approval injection (Agent‑level JIT execution) For higher-risk/high-impact actions, the fabric returns REQUIRE_APPROVAL rather than hard deny (when appropriate): How policies should be evaluated (deterministic order) To ensure predictable and auditable behavior, evaluate in a deterministic order: Tenant isolation & residency (ABAC hard deny first) Classification rules (deny or mask) RBAC entitlement validation Threshold/risk evaluation Approval injection (JIT step-up) This prevents approval workflows from bypassing foundational security boundaries such as tenant isolation or data sovereignty. Copilot Studio integration (enforcing runtime authorization) Copilot Studio can call external REST APIs using the HTTP Request node, including passing headers such as Authorization: Bearer <token> and binding response schema for branching logic. Copilot Studio also supports using flows with agents (“agent flows”) to extend capabilities and orchestrate actions. Option A (Recommended): Copilot Studio → Agent Flow (Power Automate) → Authorization Fabric Why: Flows are a practical place to handle token acquisition patterns, approval orchestration, and standardized logging. Topic flow: Extract user intent + parameters Call an agent flow that: calls /authorize returns decision payload Branch in the topic: If ALLOW → proceed to tool call If REQUIRE_APPROVAL → trigger approval flow; proceed only if approved If DENY → stop and explain policy reason Important: Tool execution must never be reachable through an alternate topic path that bypasses the authorization check. Option B: Direct HTTP Request node to Authorization Fabric Use the Send HTTP request node to call the authorization endpoint and branch using the response schema. This approach is clean, but token acquisition and secure secretless authentication are often simpler when handled via a managed integration layer (flow + connector). AI Foundry / Semantic Kernel integration (tool invocation gate) For Foundry/SK agents, the integration point is before tool execution. Semantic Kernel supports Azure AI agent patterns and tool integration, making it a natural place to enforce a pre-tool authorization check. Pseudo-pattern: Agent extracts intent + context Calls Authorization Fabric Enforces decision Executes tool only when allowed (or after approval) Telemetry & audit (what Security Architects will ask for) Even the best policy engine is incomplete without audit trails. At minimum, log: agentId, userUPN, action, resource decision + reason + policyIds approval outcome (if any) correlationId for downstream tool execution Why it matters: you now have a defensible answer to: “Why did an autonomous agent execute this action?” Security signal bonus: Denials, unusual approval rates, and repeated policy mismatches can also indicate prompt injection attempts, mis-scoped agents, or governance drift. What this enables (and why it scales) With a shared Authorization Fabric: Avoid duplicating authorization logic across agents Standardize decisions across Copilot Studio + Foundry agents Update governance once (policy change) and apply everywhere Make autonomy safer without blocking productivity Closing: Identity gets you who. Runtime authorization gets you whether/when/how. Copilot Studio can automatically create Entra agent identities (preview), improving identity governance and visibility for agents. But safe autonomy requires a runtime decision plane. Securing that plane as an Entra-protected endpoint is foundational for enterprise deployments. In enterprise environments, autonomous execution without runtime authorization is equivalent to privileged access without PIM—powerful, fast, and operationally risky.Security Review for Microsoft Edge version 150
We have reviewed the new settings in Microsoft Edge version 150 and determined that there are no additional security settings that require enforcement. The Microsoft Edge version 139 security baseline continues to be our recommended configuration which can be downloaded from the Microsoft Security Compliance Toolkit. Microsoft Edge version 150 introduced 8 new Computer and User settings; we have included a spreadsheet listing the new settings to make it easier for you to find. As a friendly reminder, all available settings for Microsoft Edge are documented here, and all available settings for Microsoft Edge Update are documented here. Please continue to give us feedback through the Security Baselines Discussion site or this post.Sensitivity Auto-labelling via Document Property
Why is this needed? Sensitivity labels are generally relevant within an organisation only. If a file is labelled within one environment and then moved to another environment, sensitivity label content markings may be visible, but by default, the applied sensitivity label will not be understood. This can lead to scenarios where information that has been generated externally is not adequately protected. My favourite analogy for these scenarios is to consider the parallels between receiving sensitive information and unpacking groceries. When unpacking groceries, you might sit your grocery bag on a counter or on the floor next to the pantry. You’ll likely then unpack each item, take a look at it and then decide where to place it. Without looking at an item to determine its correct location, you might place it in the wrong location. Porridge might be safe from the kids on the bottom shelf. If you place items that need to be protected, such as chocolate, on the bottom shelf, it’s not likely to last very long. So, I affectionately refer to information that hasn’t been evaluated as ‘porridge’, as until it has been checked, it will end up on the bottom shelf of the pantry where it is quite accessible. Label-based security controls, such as Data Loss Prevention (DLP) policies using conditions of ‘content contains sensitivity label’ will not apply to these items. To ensure the security of any contained sensitive information, we should look for potential clues to its sensitivity and then utilize these clues to ensure that the contained information is adequately protected - We take a closer look at the ‘porridge’, determine whether it’s an item that needs protection and if so, move it to a higher shelf in the pantry so that it’s out of reach for the kids. Effective use of Purview revolves around the use of ‘know your data’ strategies. We should be using as many methods as possible to try to determine the sensitivity of items. This can include the use of Sensitive Information Types (SITs) containing keyword or pattern-based classifiers, trainable classifiers, Exact Data Match, Document fingerprinting, etc. Matching items via SITs present in the items content can be problematic due to false positives. Keywords like ‘Sensitive’ or ‘Protected’ may be mentioned out of context, such as when referring to a classification or an environment. When classifications have been stamped via a property, it allows us to match via context rather than content. We don’t need to guess at an item’s sensitivity if another system has already established what the item’s classification is. These methods are much less prone to false positives. Why isn’t everyone doing this? Document properties are often not considered in Purview deployments. SharePoint metadata management seems to be a dying artform and most compliance or security resources completing Purview configurations don’t have this skill set. There’s also a lack of understanding of the relevance of checking for item properties. Microsoft haven’t helped as the documentation in this space is somewhat lacking and needs to be unpicked via some aligning DLP guidance (Create a DLP policy to protect documents with FCI or other properties). Many of these configurations will also be tied to regional requirements. Document properties being used by systems where I’m from, in Australia, will likely be very different to those used in other parts of the world. In the following sections, we’ll take a look at applicable use cases and walk through how to enable these configurations. Scenarios for use Labelling via document property isn’t for everyone. If your organisation is new to classification or you don’t have external partners that you collaborate with at higher sensitivity levels, then this likely isn’t for you. For those that collaborate heavily and have a shared classification framework, as is often seen across government, this is a must! This approach will also be highly relevant to multi-tenant organisations or conglomerates where information is regularly shared between environments. The following scenarios are examples of where this configuration will be relevant: 1. Migrating from 3 rd party classification tools If an item has been previously stamped by a 3 rd party classification tool, then evaluating its applied document properties will provide a clear picture of its security classification. These properties can then be used in service-based auto-labelling policies to effectively transition items from 3 rd party tools to Microsoft Purview sensitivity labels. As labels are applied to items, they will be brought into scope of label-based controls. 2. Detecting data spill Data spill is a term that is used to define situations where information that is of a higher than permitted security classification land in an environment. Consider a Microsoft 365 tenant that is approved for the storage of Official information but Top Secret files are uploaded to it. Document properties that align with higher than permitted classifications provide us with an almost guaranteed method of identifying spilled items. Pairing this document property with an auto-labelling policy allows for the application of encryption to lock unauthorized users out of the items. Tools like Content Explorer and eDiscovery can then be used to easily perform cleanup activities. If using document properties and auto-labelling for this purpose, keep in mind that you’ll need to create sensitivity labels for higher than permitted classifications in order to catch spilled items. These labels won’t impact usability as you won’t publish them to users. You will, however, need to publish them to a single user or break glass account so that they’re not ignored by auto-labelling. 3. Blocking access by AI tools If your organization was concerned about items with certain properties applied being accessed by generative AI tools, such as Copilot, you could use Auto-labelling to apply a sensitivity label that restricts EXTRACT permissions. You can find some information on this at Microsoft 365 Copilot data protection architecture | Microsoft Learn. This should be relevant for spilled data, but might also be useful in situations where there are certain records that have been marked via properties and which should not be Copilot accessible. 4. External Microsoft Purview Configurations Sensitivity labels are relevant internally only. A label, in its raw form, is essentially a piece of metadata with an ID (or GUID) that we stamp on pieces of information. These GUIDs are understood by your tenant only. If an item marked with a GUID shows up in another Microsoft 365 tenant, the GUID won’t correspond with any of that tenant’s labels or label-based controls. The art in Microsoft Purview lies in interpreting the sensitivity of items based on content markings and other identifiers, so that data security can be maintained. Document properties applied by Purview, such as ClassificationContentMarkingHeaderText are not relevant to a specific tenant, which makes them portable. We can use these properties to help maintain classifications as items move between environments. 5. Utilizing metadata applied by Records Management solutions Some EDRMS, Records or Content Management solutions will apply properties to items. If an item has been previously managed and then stamped with properties, potentially including a security classification, via one of these systems, we could use this information to inform sensitivity label application. 6. 3 rd party classification tools used externally Even if your organisation hasn’t been using 3rd party classification tools, you should consider that partner organisations, such as other Government departments, might be. Evaluating the properties applied by external organisations to items that you receive will allow you to extend protections to these items. If classification tools like Janus or Titus are used in your geography/industry, then you may want to consider checking for their properties. Regarding the use of auto-classification tools Some organisations, particularly those in Government, will have organisational policies that prevent the use of automatic classification capabilities. These policies are intended to ensure that each item is assessed by an actual person for risk of disclosure rather than via an automated service that could be prone to error. However, when auto-labelling is used to interpret and honour existing classifications, we are lowering rather than raising the risk profile. If the item’s existing classification (applied via property) is ignored, the item will be treated as porridge and is likely to be at risk. If auto-labelling is able to identify a high-risk item and apply the relevant label, it will then be within scope of Purview’s data security controls, including label-based DLP, groups and sites data out of place alerting, and potentially even item encryption. The outcome is that, through the use of auto-labelling, we are able to significantly reduce risk of inappropriate or unintended disclosure. Configuration Process Setting up document property-based auto-labelling is fairly straightforward. We need to setup a managed property and then utilize it an auto-labelling policy. Below, I've split this process into 6 steps: Step 1 – Prepare your files In order to make use of document properties, an item with the properties applied will first need to be indexed by SharePoint. SharePoint will record the properties as ‘crawled properties’, which we’ll then need to convert into ‘managed properties’ to make them useful. If you already have items with the relevant properties stored in SharePoint, then they are likely already indexed. If not, you’ll need to upload or create an item or items with the properties applied. For testing, you’ll want to create a file with each property/value combination so that you can confirm that your auto-labelling policies are all working correctly. This could require quite a few files depending on the number of properties you’re looking for. To kick off your crawled property generation though, you could create or upload a single file with the correct properties applied. For example: In the above, I’ve created properties for ClassificationContentMarkingHeaderText and ClassificationContentMarkingFooterText, which you’ll often see applied by Purview when an item has a sensitivity label content marking applied to it. I’ve also included properties to help identify items classified via JanusSeal, Titus and Objective. Step 2 – Index the files After creating or uploading your file, we then need SharePoint to index it. This should happen fairly quickly depending on the size of your environment. I'd expect to wait sometime between 10 minutes and 24 hrs. If you're not in a hurry, then I'd recommend just checking back the next day. You'll know when this has been completed when you head into SharePoint Admin > Search > Managed Search Schema > Crawled Properties and can find your newly indexed properties: Step 3 – Configure managed properties Next, the properties need to be configured as managed properties. To do this, go to SharePoint Admin > More features > Search > Managed Search Schema > Managed Properties. Create a new managed property and give it a name. Note that there are some character restrictions in naming, but you should be able to get it close to your document property name. Set the property’s type to text, select queryable and retrievable. Under ‘mappings to crawled properties’, choose add mapping, search for and select the property indexed from the file property. Note that the crawled property will have the same name as your document property, so there’s no need to browse through all of them: Repeat this so that you have a managed property for each document property that you want to look for. Step 4 – Configure Auto-labelling policies Next up, create some auto-labelling policies. You’ll need one for each label that you want to apply, not one per property as you can check multiple properties within the one auto-labelling policy. - From within Purview, head to Information Protection > Policies > Auto-labelling policies. - Create a new policy using the custom policy template. - Give your policy an appropriate name (e.g. Label PROTECTED via property). - Select the label that you want to apply (e.g. PROTECTED). - Select SharePoint based services (SharePoint and OneDrive). - Name your auto-labelling rules appropriately (e.g. SPO – Contains PROTECTED property) - Enter your conditions as a long string with property and value separated via a colon and multiple entries separated with a comma. For example: ClassificationContentMarkingHeaderText:PROTECTED,ClassificationContentMarkingFooterText:PROTECTED,Objective-Classification:PROTECTED,PMDisplay:PROTECTED,TitusSEC:PROTECTED Note that the properties that you are referencing are the Managed Property rather than the document property. This will be relevant if your managed property ended up having a different name due to character restrictions. After pasting in your string into the UI, the resultant rule should look something like this: When done, you can either leave your policy in simulation mode or save it and then turn it on from the auto-labelling policies screen. Just be aware of any potential impacts, such as accidently locking users out by automatically deploying a label with encryption configuration. You can reduce any potential impact by targeting your auto-labelling policy at a site or set of sites initially and then expanding its scope after testing. Step 5 - Test Testing your configuration will be as easy as uploading or creating a set of files with the relevant document properties in place. Once uploaded, you’ll need to give SharePoint some time to index the items and then the auto-labelling policy some time to apply sensitivity labels to them. To confirm label application, you can head to the document library where your test files are located and enable the sensitivity column. Files that have been auto-labelled will have their label listed: You could also check for auto-labelling activity in Purview via Activity explorer: Step 6 – Expand into DLP If you’ve spent the time setting up managed properties, then you really should consider capitalizing on them in your DLP configurations. DLP policy conditions can be configured in the same manner that we configured Auto-labelling in Step 3 above. The document property also gives us an anchor for DLP conditions that is independent of an item’s sensitivity label. You may wish to consider the following: DLP policies blocking external sharing of items with certain properties applied. This might be handy for situations where auto-labelling hasn’t yet labelled an item. DLP policies blocking the external sharing of items where the applied sensitivity label doesn’t match the applied document property. This could provide an indication of risky label downgrade. You could extend such policies into Insider Risk Management (IRM) by creating IRM policies that are aligned with the above DLP policies. This will allow for document properties to be considered in user risk calculation, which can inform controls like Adaptive Protection. Here's an example of a policy from the DLP rule summary screen that shows conditions of item contains a label or one of our configured document properties: Thanks for reading and I hope this article has been of use. If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to reach out.
Feature Request: Extend Security Copilot inclusion (M365 E5) to M365 A5 Education tenants
Background At Ignite 2025, Microsoft announced that Security Copilot is included for all Microsoft 365 E5 customers, with a phased rollout starting November 18, 2025. This is a significant step forward for security operations. The gap Microsoft 365 A5 for Education is the academic equivalent of E5 — it includes the same core security stack: Microsoft Defender, Entra, Intune, and Purview. However, the Security Copilot inclusion explicitly covers only commercial E5 customers. There is no public roadmap or timeline for extending this benefit to A5 education tenants. Why this matters Education institutions face the same cybersecurity threats as commercial organizations — often with fewer dedicated security resources. The A5 license was positioned as the premium security offering for education. Excluding it from Security Copilot inclusion creates an inequity between commercial and education customers holding functionally equivalent license tiers. Request We would like Microsoft to: Confirm whether Security Copilot inclusion will be extended to M365 A5 Education tenants If yes, provide an indicative timeline If no, clarify the rationale and what alternative paths exist for education customers Are other EDU admins in the same situation? Would appreciate any upvotes or comments to help raise visibility with the product team.
Best practices for maintaining emergency contact information
Hello everyone. Our organization is currently reviewing its emergency contact directory as part of our business continuity and operational processes. What best practices do you recommend for keeping emergency contact information updated and ensuring it remains available during incidents or emergencies? Thank you for your suggestions.Registration Open: Community-Led Purview Lightning Talks
Get ready for an electrifying event! The Microsoft Security Community proudly presents Purview Lightning Talks; an action-packed series featuring your fellow Microsoft users, partners and passionate Microsoft Security community members of all sorts. Each 3-12 minute talk cuts straight to the chase, delivering expert insights, real-world use cases, and even a few game-changing tips and tricks. Don’t miss this opportunity to learn, connect, and be inspired! Secure your spot now for the big day: April 30th at 8am Redmond Time. See agenda details below and follow this blog post (sign in and click the "follow" heart in the upper right) to receive notifications. ❗UPDATE❗This event is expected to last around 2 hours and 15 minutes, due to the incredible number of community sessions that were submitted! 💖 Please see the timing table below broken out into sections of four talks each, and plan to arrive 10 minutes before the section that interests you, OR stay for the whole time! Speakers will be available in the chat to answer your questions; please ask your questions during their session. Spillover Q&A forum links will also be shared. The full session recording will be indexed and posted to Microsoft Security Community YouTube within 24 hours after the event. Bookmark this page or follow this blog post for updates! Agenda Legend ↩️ Data Lifecycle Management 🔐 Information Protection 🚫 Data Loss Prevention (DLP) 🦾 Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) for AI 🤖 Purview for AI 👁️ Insider Risk Management (IRM) 🔍 eDiscovery 📊 Governance 🗒️ Compliance Manager 🛡️ Data Security All times are listed in US Pacific/Redmond Time. Session lengths are rounded to the nearest minute. AGENDA Section 1 - approximately 8:00 am - 8:43 am ↩️ The Day Offboarding Exposed Infinite Retention — Nikki Chapple Length: 10 minutes | Topic: Data Lifecycle Management A routine Purview request led to an unexpected discovery: more than 9,000 orphaned OneDrives and thousands of inactive mailboxes still storing content long after employees had left. This talk explains how a retain-only policy created hidden retention debt and how Adaptive Scopes can help organisations separate active users from leavers to avoid similar pitfalls. 🔐 The Purview Label Engine: Automated Classification, Translation, and co-Documentation for Enterprise Tenants — Michael Kirst-Neshva Length: 12 minutes | Topic: Information Protection Global enterprises face the challenge of implementing uniform data protection standards across borders and languages. In this talk, I’ll present a framework that makes Microsoft Purview labels truly scalable. Discover how to roll out parent and child label logics automatically, manage priorities with a single click, and generate instant compliance documentation for every business unit. 🗒️ What's In My Compliance Manager Toolbox: A Cloud Security Architect's Perspective — Jerrad Dahlager Length: 8 minutes | Topic: Compliance Manager A practical walkthrough of how I use Compliance Manager across real client engagements to map controls, track improvement actions, and simplify multi-framework compliance. No theory, just what works in the field. 🛡️ Stop, Think, Protect: Data Security in Real Life with Purview — Oliver Sahlmann Length: 8 minutes | Topic: Data Security With simple labels and matching DLP policies, Purview offers a practical and accessible way to approach data security. This lightning talk uses a real-life traffic light concept to show how a low barrier to adoption can still drive meaningful protection and awareness. Section 2 - approximately 8:44 am - 9:15 am 🔐 Using Purview to prevent oversharing with AI services — Viktor Hedberg Length: 10 minutes | Topic: Information Protection In this day and age, AI is the big thing. However, Copilot has access to everything you can access, including potentially sensitive data. In this session we will look at how to prevent Copilot to access highly sensitive data, using Information Protection. 🦾 How I Helped My Customers Understand their AI Usage (and protect their sensitive data) — Bram de Jager Length: 5 minutes | Topic: Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) for AI As AI tools explode across the web, many organizations still have no idea what’s actually happening in the browser—where employees type prompts, paste sensitive data, or visit public AI sites outside corporate governance. In this lightning talk, I’ll share how I helped customers shine a light on this issue. We’ll explore how Purview Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) can reveal which AI tools employees use, what types of data they input, and where sensitive information may leak through prompts. I’ll walk through real customer scenario where we detected risky AI usage patterns—such as employees pasting confidential documents into public chatbots. 🔐 Four Labels Max for Daily Use: Which Ones & Why? — Romain Dalle Length: 8 minutes | Topic: Information Protection Sensitivity labels are one of the most critical parts of a Purview Risk and compliance deployment, if not the most critical, because it directly impacts how end-users and business units should allow or restrict themselves to share their business data, internally and externally, on a daily basis. Labels have not other options than being precise, meaningful, and balanced in terms of embedded data security. Setting the right taxonomy is core to success, and is everything but a one-time project. 🚫 Data-driven Endpoint DLP Solution with Advanced Hunting — Tatu Seppälä Length: 8 minutes | Topic: Data Loss Prevention (DLP) This lightning talk shows you how to use KQL queries in advanced hunting to easily build initial sensitive service domain groups for authorized and unauthorized domains based on your organization's usage patterns. The same approach can be used for numerous other similar solution refinement and design purposes. Section 3 - approximately 9:16 am - 9:46 am 🔐 The Purview Hack No One Talks About: Container Sensitivity Labels That Fix Oversharing Fast — Nikki Chapple Length: 10 minutes | Topic: Information Protection Most organizations tackle oversharing with manual fixes, but the fastest solution is often overlooked. In this lightning talk, I show how container sensitivity labels automatically apply the right sharing and collaboration controls, ensuring every new Group, Team or SharePoint site starts secure by default. 🔍 Does M365 Support eDiscovery? — Julian Kusenberg Length: 11 minutes | Topic: eDiscovery A myth-busting session that separates perception from reality when it comes to Microsoft 365 eDiscovery capabilities. 📊 Improving Discovery, Trust, and Reuse of Analytics with Purview Data Products — Craig Wyndowe Length: 5 minutes | Topic: Governance This talk shows how bringing Power BI and Fabric assets into Microsoft Purview Governance Domains and Data Products creates a single, trusted view of enterprise analytics. By connecting reports, semantic models, and underlying data with shared metadata, ownership, and business context, organizations can make existing assets easy to discover and safe to reuse. 🔐 Why You Should Create Your Own Sensitive Information Types (SITs) — Niels Jakobsen Length: 5 minutes | Topic: Information Protection An in depth analysis of why Microsoft SITs are not one-size-fits-all, and how to create your own using what Microsoft has already built for you. Section 4 - approximately 9:47 am-10:30 am 👁️ From Zero to First Signal: Insider Risk Management Prerequisites That Actually Matter — Sathish Veerapandian Length: 8 minutes | Topic: Insider Risk Management (IRM) A focused live demo showing the real world prerequisites required for Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management to work effectively. This session highlights the critical Entra ID, Intune, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, and Purview DLP configurations that must be in place before creating IRM policies. 🤖 Securing data in the age of AI — Júlio César Gonçalves Vasconcelos Length: 11 minutes | Topic: Purview for AI AI will transform business as we know it; but without proper governance, it can introduce serious risks. We’ll show you how Microsoft Purview enables organizations to accelerate AI adoption while maintaining security, compliance, and transparency. 🔍 Beyond eDiscovery - Purview DSI for Security Investigation — Susantha Silva Length: 11 minutes | Topic: eDiscovery Most people hear “Microsoft Purview” and immediately think compliance, eDiscovery, or legal holds. But this session highlights Data Security Investigations, showing how DSI lets you take a DLP alert or insider risk signal and turn it into a structured investigation. 🚫 Elevating Purview DLP with a real world use case — Victor Wingsing Length: 14 minutes | Topic: Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Learn how I hardened Microsoft Purview DLP beyond out of the box defaults—closing real world data loss gaps, tuning policies to actual user behavior, and turning noisy alerts into protection that really blocks exfiltration. - Quick Closing/ Resource SharingSecurity 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.Windows 11, version 25H2 security baseline
Microsoft is pleased to announce the security baseline package for Windows 11, version 25H2! 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 This release includes several changes made since the Windows 11, version 24H2 security baseline to further assist in the security of enterprise customers, to include better alignment with the latest capabilities and standards. The changes include what is depicted in the table below. Security Policy Change Summary Printer: Impersonate a client after authentication Add “RESTRICTED SERVICES\PrintSpoolerService” to allow the Print Spooler’s restricted service identity to impersonate clients securely NTLM Auditing Enhancements Enable by default to improve visibility into NTLM usage within your environment MDAV: Attack Surface Reduction (ASR) Add "Block process creations originating from PSExec and WMI commands" (d1e49aac-8f56-4280-b9ba-993a6d77406c) with a recommended value of 2 (Audit) to improve visibility into suspicious activity MDAV: Control whether exclusions are visible to local users Move to Not Configured as it is overridden by the parent setting MDAV: Scan packed executables Remove from the baseline because the setting is no longer functional - Windows always scans packed executables by default Network: Configure NetBIOS settings Disable NetBIOS name resolution on all network adapters to reduce legacy protocol exposure Disable Internet Explorer 11 Launch Via COM Automation Disable to prevent legacy scripts and applications from programmatically launching Internet Explorer 11 using COM automation interfaces Include command line in process creation events Enable to improve visibility into how processes are executed across the system WDigest Authentication Remove from the baseline because the setting is obsolete - WDigest is disabled by default and no longer needed in modern Windows environments Printer Improving Print Security with IPPS and Certificate Validation To enhance the security of network printing, Windows introduces two new policies focused on controlling the use of IPP (Internet Printing Protocol) printers and enforcing encrypted communications. The setting, "Require IPPS for IPP printers", (Administrative Templates\Printers) determines whether printers that do not support TLS are allowed to be installed. When this policy is disabled (default), both IPP and IPPS transport printers can be installed - although IPPS is preferred when both are available. When enabled, only IPPS printers will be installed; attempts to install non-compliant printers will fail and generate an event in the Application log, indicating that installation was blocked by policy. The second policy, "Set TLS/SSL security policy for IPP printers" (same policy path) requires that printers present valid and trusted TLS/SSL certificates before connections can be established. Enabling this policy defends against spoofed or unauthorized printers, reducing the risk of credential theft or redirection of sensitive print jobs. While these policies significantly improve security posture, enabling them may introduce operational challenges in environments where IPP and self-signed or locally issued certificates are still commonly used. For this reason, neither policy is enforced in the security baseline, at this time. We recommend that you assess your printers, and if they meet the requirements, consider enabling those policies with a remediation plan to address any non-compliant printers in a controlled and predictable manner. User Rights Assignment Update: Impersonate a client after authentication We have added RESTRICTED SERVICES\PrintSpoolerService in the “Impersonate a client after authentication” User Rights Assignment policy. The baseline already includes Administrators, SERVICE, LOCAL SERVICE, and NETWORK SERVICE for this user right. Adding the restricted Print Spooler supports Microsoft’s ongoing effort to apply least privilege to system services. It enables Print Spooler to securely impersonate user tokens in modern print scenarios using a scoped, restricted service identity. Although this identity is associated with functionality introduced as part of Windows Protected Print (WPP), it is required to support proper print operations even if WPP is not currently enabled. The system manifests the identity by default, and its presence ensures forward compatibility with WPP-based printing. Note: This account may appear as a raw SID (e.g., S-1-5-99-...) in Group Policy or local policy tools before the service is fully initialized. This is expected and does not indicate a misconfiguration. Warning: Removing this entry will result in print failures in environments where WPP is enabled. We recommend retaining this entry in any custom security configuration that defines this user right. NTLM Auditing Enhancements Windows 11, version 25H2 includes enhanced NTLM auditing capabilities, enabled by default, which significantly improves visibility into NTLM usage within your environment. 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. Microsoft Defender Antivirus Attack Surface Reduction (ASR) In this release, we've updated the Attack Surface Reduction (ASR) rules to add the policy Block process creations originating from PSExec and WMI commands (d1e49aac-8f56-4280-b9ba-993a6d77406c) with a recommended value of 2 (Audit). By auditing this rule, you can gain essential visibility into potential privilege escalation attempts via tools such as PSExec or persistence mechanisms using WMI. This enhancement helps organizations proactively identify suspicious activities without impacting legitimate administrative workflows. Control whether exclusions are visible to local users We have removed the configuration for the policy "Control whether exclusions are visible to local users" (Windows Components\Microsoft Defender Antivirus) from the baseline in this release. This change was made because the parent policy "Control whether or not exclusions are visible to Local Admins" is already set to Enabled, which takes precedence and effectively overrides the behavior of the former setting. As a result, explicitly configuring the child policy is unnecessary. You can continue to manage exclusion visibility through the parent policy, which provides the intended control over whether local administrators can view exclusion lists. Scan packed executables The “Scan packed executables” setting (Windows Components\Microsoft Defender Antivirus\Scan) has been removed from the security baseline because it is no longer functional in modern Windows releases. Microsoft Defender Antivirus always scans packed executables by default, therefore configuring this policy has no effect on the system. Disable NetBIOS Name Resolution on All Networks In this release, we start disabling NetBIOS name resolution on all network adapters in the security baseline, including those connected to private and domain networks. The change is reflected in the policy setting “Configure NetBIOS settings” (Network\DNS Client). We are trying to eliminate the legacy name resolution protocol that is vulnerable to spoofing and credential theft. NetBIOS is no longer needed in modern environments where DNS is fully deployed and supported. To mitigate potential compatibility issues, you should ensure that all internal systems and applications use DNS for name resolution. We recommend the following; test critical workflows in a staging environment prior to deployment, monitor for any resolution failures or fallback behavior, and inform support staff of the change to assist with troubleshooting as needed. This update aligns with our broader efforts to phase out legacy protocols and improve security. Disable Internet Explorer 11 Launch Via COM Automation To enhance the security posture of enterprise environments, 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. Include command line in process creation events We have enabled the setting "Include command line in process creation events" (System\Audit Process Creation) in the baseline to improve visibility into how processes are executed across the system. Capturing command-line arguments allows defenders to detect and investigate malicious activity that may otherwise appear legitimate, such as abuse of scripting engines, credential theft tools, or obfuscated payloads using native binaries. This setting supports modern threat detection techniques with minimal performance overhead and is highly recommended. WDigest Authentication We removed the policy "WDigest Authentication (disabling may require KB2871997)" from the security baseline because it is no longer necessary for Windows. This policy was originally enforced to prevent WDigest from storing user’s plaintext passwords in memory, which posed a serious credential theft risk. However, starting with 24H2 update, the engineering teams deprecated this policy. As a result, there is no longer a need to explicitly enforce this setting, and the policy has been removed from the baseline to reflect the current default behavior. Since the setting does not write to the normal policies location in the registry it will not be cleaned up automatically for any existing deployments. Please let us know your thoughts by commenting on this post or through the Security Baseline Community.
