Strengthen your security posture with Microsoft Entra Conditional Access
Learn how Microsoft Entra Conditional Access, our Microsoft Zero Trust policy engine, protects access for your workforce and for agents by enforcing real‑time adaptive access policies that continuously assess risk signals and use AI‑driven automation to dynamically allow, challenge, or block access for every identity. Join Microsoft experts as they walk through real‑world scenarios and share practical guidance to help your identity team address policy sprawl, enforce consistent Conditional Access policies, and strengthen security posture across your environment. How do I participate? Registration is not required. Add this event to your calendar, then sign in to the Tech Community and select Attend to receive reminders. Post your questions in advance, or any time during the live broadcast. Note: This session was originally scheduled for June 8, 2026 and will now take place on June 24, 2026.
Why “Data in Switzerland” Is Not Enough
Moving from Residency to Control in Microsoft 365 Every conversation about data sovereignty in regulated industries tends to start the same way: “We use Multi-Geo. The data stays in Switzerland.” It’s the right starting point. Microsoft 365 Multi-Geo allows organizations to place selected workloads - SharePoint sites, OneDrive accounts, Teams data, or Exchange mailboxes - into specific regions, including Switzerland, while maintaining a single global tenant. This makes it possible to align sensitive data with regulatory or customer requirements without fragmenting the overall environment. But it only answers one question: Where is the data stored? It does not answer who accessed the data, from where, under which conditions, or what happened after access. That is where the real problem begins. A scenario that happens every day A Swiss engineering firm stores sensitive project documentation in Switzerland using Multi-Geo. An external contractor - working from an unmanaged device outside Switzerland - is granted access to review a file. The document opens. The data is now on a screen in an unknown location, on a device with no compliance posture, in a session with no restrictions. From the platform’s perspective, residency was enforced. From a sovereignty perspective, control was lost the moment access was granted without conditions. The file never left Switzerland. But sovereignty did. Residency is static. Control is not. The moment a document is opened, storage location stops being the relevant boundary. The file is no longer just “in Switzerland.” It moves instantly across endpoints and browsers, collaboration tools like Teams, external users and partners, and increasingly AI-driven contexts. The infrastructure remains unchanged. The data does not. From the platform’s perspective, everything is working as designed - access was granted, residency was enforced - and control was lost. Most “data in Switzerland” strategies fail at exactly this moment: when the data is used. The shift: from location to conditions If data sovereignty is the goal, the question must change. Not “Where is the data stored?” but: Under which conditions can data be accessed and used? This shift fundamentally changes the architecture. Control must be applied across three distinct layers - and all three must be connected. Layer 1: Access is conditional, not static Conditional Access extends control beyond authentication and turns it into continuous evaluation. Access decisions can depend on: Device compliance Location (geo-restriction) Identity and risk signals Multi-Geo ensures data is placed correctly. Conditional Access ensures it is reachable only under defined conditions. The two must work together - residency without access governance is an incomplete control. Layer 2: The session is the real risk surface Even with strict access controls, risk remains. A session is an exposure surface by design. During an active session, data is viewed, copied, shared, processed by applications, and connected to AI prompts. The gap does not appear at storage or authentication. It appears during active usage - inside the session. This is the layer most architectures do not explicitly address. Controls must extend into the session itself: limiting data transfer and replication, restricting interaction patterns, and enforcing policies in real time. Access is no longer a one-time event. It becomes continuously governed. This becomes even more critical as AI assistants consume content across SharePoint, Teams, Exchange, and other Microsoft 365 services. The question is no longer only where the source document resides - but whether the AI interaction itself is governed by the same access and protection controls as direct access. Layer 3: The document becomes the control point The most durable control does not sit in the network or in the session. It sits in the data itself. In regulated industries, organizations often arrive at this architecture having first evaluated sovereign or national encryption solutions. The decision to rely on native Microsoft 365 Purview encryption rather than a separate layer comes down to integration: AES-256 protection operating natively at file, user, and SharePoint level - including geo-based access restrictions - without an additional system to maintain. When protection is applied directly to the document through Microsoft Purview: Sensitivity labels define classification - automatically assigned based on content Encryption enforces access - AES-256, bound to the file itself IRM controls usage - view, copy, print, share, and presentation rights DLP governs movement across services - preventing data from leaving defined boundaries Dynamic watermarking tracks exposure - applied on open, view, or print At that point, access is enforced by the file, usage restrictions travel with it, and control persists regardless of location. The document becomes the perimeter. Platform control: limiting provider access One dimension often overlooked in sovereignty discussions is platform access itself. Even a perfectly configured tenant is only as sovereign as the controls placed on the operator. Customer Lockbox ensures that even Microsoft support cannot access customer data without explicit, logged, time-bound approval. Every access request is visible, auditable, and subject to customer veto. Data control applies not only to users - but also to the platform operating the service. Enforcement requires an integrated architecture Most organizations already have the required capabilities: Multi-Geo, Conditional Access, session control, Purview (labels, encryption, DLP, IRM), and monitoring. The issue is not capability. It is fragmentation. In practice, fragmentation looks like this: residency is configured in one project, Conditional Access policies are managed by a different team, and Purview labels were applied during a compliance initiative that never connected to the access layer. The tools exist. The signals do not flow between them. When designed as a single architecture: Data is placed intentionally - residency aligned to regulatory requirements Access is governed by context - device, location, and identity evaluated continuously Usage is controlled dynamically - session-level restrictions enforced in real time Protection is embedded in the document - encryption and IRM travel with the file Signals are connected across the platform - monitoring feeds access policy, not just audit logs “Data in Switzerland” becomes not just a statement - but an enforceable system property. Closing thought Placing data in Switzerland is the right first step. Multi-Geo makes it possible, even in global environments. But residency alone is not control. Data residency answers where information is stored. Data sovereignty requires proving who can access it, under which conditions, and what controls remain in place after access is granted. In Microsoft 365, sovereignty is no longer defined by geography alone. It is defined by the ability to enforce control wherever the data travels.Passkey Sign in Method (Entra Account) missing in Security
Hi Microsoft Support we enable FIDO2 passkey in entraId. However, when we try to register the FIDO2 passkey on myaccount.microsoft.com -> Security -> Add a Sign-in Method -> Passkey is missing. Attached screenshot. For a personal account, the Passkey method is available at the same location, even though interface is slightly different than an Entra Id account. Attached screenshot for the personal account as well. Kindly guide us on where to register the passkey or if we need to enable certain settings in EntraId for the passkey to show up in sign-in methods. We have Auth Strengths enabled in EntraId for the particular user in question and this reflects in the Device Lockscreen during login on Entra Registred Device. Thanks Chandra
Fido passkeys blocked by policy
Hi all I'm helping out a customer with deploying physical passkeys and I'm running into a weird error. I've activated the sign in method and selected the two AAGuids for the Authenticator app and I've added the right AAGuid for the brand and model of passkey we are using. We can select the authentication method and enroll the security correctly but when trying to sign in using it we get the error as displayed in the attached picture. When checking the sign in logs i get this error message FIDO sign-in is disabled via policy and the error code is: 135016 I've not been able to track down any policy that would be blocking passkeys. anyone got any ideas?
MFA Options for Employees without Phones
Hello everbody, we're currently trying to implement MFA in our company, but approximately 1/10 of our employees have a workphone and are not allowed to use their personal phone. Since we also recently introduced Intune, the idea was to just use Windows Hello for Business, but when trying to provision it, we realized that you need to have MFA active for an account to be able to even activate it? Which kinda defeats the purpose. So my question is, is there some way to circumvent the MFA requirement for WHfB? Or what other options do we realistically have? Thanks in Advance!
Global Secure Access - Conditional Access Require GSA - Android Blocked
Hello all, I am currently working on deploying Global Secure Access client with Microsoft Forward Traffic profile and a conditional access policy to block access to M365 services unless connected through the GSA client. I have this working as I want it for Windows and mobile devices in a tenant we use for development. However, when I set this up at our live tenant, I cannot get the Android device to work. My setup is a Personally Owned Work Profile with the Defender app deployed and configured to enable GSA. I can connect to Global Secure Access and it does show some traffic tunneling to Microsoft. However, when I go to login to another app like Outlook, it blocks the sign-in. This is not the case for an iPhone I have personally enrolled and my Entra Joined laptop. Upon investigation of any differences between our development tenant (working fully) and our tenant (Android not working) I found that in the GSA section under Services, there is an extra service called “Microsoft Entra Channel Access”. This service does not show up when I am logged in our developer tenant. Even on the same phone by removing work profiles and signing in to both tenants, our live tenant shows the new channel, and the developer tenant does not have it. I did some log review with the advanced diagnostics feature and the app and noted a few things I am lead to believe that the issue is with this new Entra Channel that has been deployed to our live tenant and not to our dev tenant yet. When I go to sign-in to the Outlook application in the work profile for the developer tenant, I can see the authentication traffic being tunneled through the Microsoft 365 profile. (login.live.com, login.microsoftonline.com, and aadcdn.msftauth.net). However, in our production tenant when doing the same test I do not see those destinations being tunneled at all. I do see the traffic being collected in the “Hostname” section, but is not being tunneled. Another interesting point with this is that on an iPhone I am testing; I do see the authentication destinations being tunneled through the Entra Channel. Here are the screenshots of my findings. https://imgur.com/a/82r3HQC I have an open Microsoft support case and hoping to get the attention of a Microsoft employee or MVP who may be able to get this in front of the Entra product team to see if this is a bug.Advice required for temp / agency staff
Hi All I hope you are well. Anyway, I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction. We have Android devices in Entra Shared Device Mode (Multi App) which any of our employees with a valid UPN can logon to. All good there. What we need is a solution for temporary or agency staff. This would be staff that could be called on at very short notice and may not stay around for long. For security and audit reasons, we'd rather not create "userless" accounts. Is there anything in Entra / Entra Shared Device Mode that can achieve this? Info greatly appreciated. SK
'Microsoft App Access Panel' and Conditional Access with SSPR combined registration bug
Currently, enabling self-service password reset (SSPR) registration enforcement causes the app 'Microsoft App Access Panel' to be added to the login flow of users who have SSPR enabled. This app is not able to be excluded from Conditional Access (CA) polices and is caught by 'All cloud apps', which breaks secure zero-trust scenarios and CA policy configurations. Best way to demonstrate this is through examples... ----Example 1---- Environment: CA Policy 1 - 'All cloud apps' requiring hybrid/compliant device, but excluding [App] (for all non-guest accounts) CA Policy 2 - [App] requiring MFA only (for contractor accounts, etc) CA Policy 3 - [App] requiring hybrid/compliant device (for internal accounts, etc) SSPR registration enforcement (Password reset > Registration) - set to 'Yes' MFA registration enforcement (Security > Authentication Methods > Registration campaign) - set to 'Enabled' Scenario: A new user requires access to web [App] on an unenrolled device and is assigned an account that falls under CA Policy 1 and 2, however [App] is excluded from 1 and shouldn't apply to this login. When accessing [App] for the first time, users must register SSPR/MFA. They see the below message, click 'Next' and are directed to https://accounts.activedirectory.windowsazure.com/passwordreset/register.aspx: Then they see this screen, which will block the login and try to get the user to download the Company Portal app: While behind the scenes, the login to [App] is being blocked by 'Microsoft App Access Panel' because it is seemingly added to the login flow and caught in CA Policy 1 in Req 2/3: CA Policy 1 shows as not applied on Req 1, CA Policy 2 shows as successful for Req 1/2/3 and CA Policy 3 shows as not applied for Req 1/2/3. Creating a CA policy for the 'Register security information' user action has no effect on this scenario and also shows as not applied on all the related sign-in logs. ----Example 2---- Environment: Same as above, but SSPR registration enforcement - set to 'No' Scenario: Same as above, but when accessing the [App] for the first time, they see the below message instead, click 'Next' and are directed to https://accounts.activedirectory.windowsazure.com/proofup.aspx: Then they are directed to the combined SSPR/MFA registration experience successfully: The 'Microsoft App Access Panel' doesn't show in the sign-in logs and the sign-in is successful after registration. From the two examples, it seems to be a bug with the SSPR registration enforcement and the combined registration experience. ----Workarounds---- 1 - Prevent using 'All cloud apps' with device based CA policies (difficult, requires redesigning/thinking/testing policies, could introduce new gaps, etc) 2 - Turn off SSPR registration enforcement and turn on MFA registration enforcement like in example 2 (easy, but only enforces MS MFA App registration, doesn't seem to re-trigger registration if the MS MFA App is removed, no other methods are supported for registration, and doesn't remind users to update) 3 - Disable SSPR entirely for affected users (medium depending on available security groups, and doesn't allow for affected users to use SSPR) ----Related links---- https://feedback.azure.com/d365community/idea/d5253b08-d076-ed11-a81b-000d3adb7ffd https://feedback.azure.com/d365community/idea/1365df89-c625-ec11-b6e6-000d3a4f0789 Conditional Access Policies, Guest Access and the "Microsoft Invitation Acceptance Portal" - Microsoft Community Hub MS, please either: 1 - Allow 'Microsoft App Access Panel' to be added to CA policies so it can be excluded 2 - Prevent 'Microsoft App Access Panel' from showing up in the CA login flow when SSPR registration enforcement is enabledAuthentication Context (Entra ID) Use case
Microsoft Entra ID has evolved rapidly over the last few years, with Microsoft continuously introducing new identity, access, and security capabilities as part of the broader Zero Trust strategy. While many organizations hold the necessary Entra ID and Microsoft 365 licenses (often through E3 or E5 bundles), a number of these advanced features remain under‑utilised or entirely unused. This is frequently due to limited awareness, overlapping capabilities or uncertainty about where and how these features provide real architectural value. One such capability which is not frequently used is Authentication Context. Although this feature is available for quite some time, it is often misunderstood or overlooked because it does not behave like traditional Conditional Access controls. Consider Authentication Context as a mobile “assurance tag” that connects a resource (or a particular access route to that resource) to one or several Conditional Access (CA) policies, allowing security measures to be enforced with resource-specific accuracy instead of broad, application-wide controls. Put simply, it permits step-up authentication only when users access sensitive information or perform critical actions, while maintaining a smooth experience for the “regular path.” When used intentionally, it enables resource‑level and scenario‑driven access control, allowing organizations to apply stronger authentication only where it is actually needed without increasing friction across the entire user experience. Not expensive Most importantly to use Authentication Context the minimum licensing requirement is Microsoft Entra ID Premium P1 which most customers already have this license. so you not need to convenience for higher license to utilize this feature. But do note Entra Premium 2 is needed if your Conditional Access policy uses advanced signals, such as: User or sign‑in risk (Identity Protection) Privileged Identity Management (PIM) protected roles Risk‑based Conditional Access policies The Workflow Architecturally, Authentication Context works when a claims request is made as part of token issuance commonly expressed via the acrs claim. When the request includes a specific context (for example c1), Entra evaluates CA policies that target that context and forces the required controls (MFA, device compliance, trusted location, etc.). The important constraint: the context must be requested/triggered by a supported workload (e.g., SharePoint) or by an application designed to request the claim; it is not an automatic “detect any action inside any app” feature. Lets look at few high level architecture reference 1. Define “assurance tiers” as contexts Create a small set of contexts (e.g., c1: Confidential Access, c2: Privileged Operations) and publish them for use by supported apps/services. 2. Bind contexts to resources Assign the context to the resource boundary you want to protect—most commonly SharePoint sites (directly or via sensitivity labels), so only those sites trigger the context. (e.g - Specific SharePoint sites like financials, agreements etc ) 3. Attach Conditional Access policies to the context Create CA policies that target the context and define enforcement requirements (Additional MFA strength, mandating device compliance, or location constraint through named locations etc.). The context is the “switch” that activates those policies at the right moment. 4. Validate runtime behavior and app compatibility Because authentication context can impact some client apps and flows, validate supported clients and known limitations (especially for SharePoint/OneDrive/Teams integrations). Some Practical Business Scenarios Scenario A — Confidential SharePoint Sites (M&A / Legal / HR) Problem: You want stronger controls for a subset of SharePoint sites without forcing those controls for all SharePoint access. Architect pattern: Tag the confidential site(s) with Authentication Context and apply a CA policy requiring stronger auth (e.g., compliant device + MFA) for that context. Pre-reqs: SharePoint Online support for authentication context; appropriate licensing and admin permissions; CA policies targeted to the context Scenario B — “Step-up” Inside a Custom Line-of-Business App Problem: Users can access the app normally, but certain operations (approval, export, privileged view) need elevated assurance. Architect pattern: Build the app on OpenID Connect/OAuth2 and explicitly request the authentication context (via acrs) when the user reaches the sensitive path; CA then enforces step-up. Pre-reqs: App integrated with Microsoft identity platform using OIDC/OAuth2; the app can trigger claims requests/handle claim challenges where applicable; CA policies defined for the context Scenario C — Granular “Resource-based” Zero Trust Without Blanket MFA Problem: Security wants strong controls on crown jewels, but business wants minimal prompts for routine work. Architect pattern: Use authentication context to enforce higher assurance only for protected resources (e.g., sensitive SharePoint sites). This provides least privilege at the resource boundary while reducing global friction. Pre-reqs: Clearly defined resource classification; authentication context configured and published; CA policies and monitoring. In a nutshell, Authentication Context allows organizations to move beyond broad, one‑size‑fits‑all Conditional Access policies and adopt a more precise, resource‑driven security model. By using it to link sensitive resources or protected access paths to stronger authentication requirements, organizations can improve security outcomes while minimizing unnecessary user friction. When applied deliberately and aligned to business‑critical assets, Authentication Context helps close the gap between licensing capability and real‑world value—turning underused Entra ID features into practical, scalable Zero Trust controls. If you find this useful, please do not forget to like and add your thoughts 🙂MFA catch-22 during onboarding due to registration policy
Hi, We are experiencing a catch-22 scenario during user onboarding related to MFA. New users are required to install the Microsoft Authenticator app via our Company Portal. However, they are prompted to complete MFA registration before they can access or download anything from the Company Portal. Since they do not yet have the Authenticator app installed, they are effectively blocked from completing the MFA setup. From our investigation, it appears that the Multi-Factor Authentication registration policy is enforcing MFA registration for new users. In our scenario, this creates a circular dependency. We have attempted to exclude our office network from MFA using Conditional Access, but this does not resolve the issue because the MFA registration policy is triggered before Conditional Access policies are evaluated. Our questions: Is there a recommended way to handle MFA onboarding in this type of scenario? Can Conditional Access policies be used instead of the MFA registration policy for initial MFA enrollment?
