Unexpected button behaviour when using the prompt=create parameter in Entra External ID user flows
Hi, In a recent workload, I'm assisting a client to implement Entra External ID for streamlined authorization as well as single sign-on for associated registered external facing third-party applications for external customer users through their Entra External ID identity, as well as assisting the client with auth branding and other UI customizations, and preparing Entra ID federation custom OIDC providers and configuration for enabling SSO with organizational internal and remote work- and school accounts etc. The sign-up / create account experience is of importance to the client, as a rather substantial amount of users are expected to sign-up via self-service sign-up following having received an invite via another app. To ensure that the user lands on the create account view, in order to minimize the number of steps and actions the users need to take to get there, the prompt=create parameter is used to pre-select the sign-up/register experience in the user flows UI. Having stress-tested the user flows and experience recently, we noticed that in a specific scenario, some UI elements behave in a manner that could be described as unexpected, and even though a workaround has mitigated it to some extent, the behaviour of some elements could probably be improved a bit to ensure an even more consistent user experience in the built-in user flows. Specifically, if the user flow is invoked with the prompt parameter set, the user lands on the create account screen as expected, however, unless custom CSS modification is applied, the Back button that would typically be there, as if having arrived there from the initial sign-in screen where it’s also displayed. If pressing the Back button displayed on the Create account view when having navigated there with the prompt=create set in the /authorize request, pressing the button seemingly doesn’t have any impact or result in any action, one can click it, but nothing happens. I'd suspect it's perhaps a "remnant" from if the flow is invoked without any prompt parameter set, or with prompt=login set, but when prompt=create is set, there is no state/page history in the UI to navigate back to, as no previous page has been displayed or rendered yet and added to the history, and the Back button click thus doesn’t have any effect. In general, I think buttons that don't have any tangible action should not be displayed, also, if prompt=login is set, the Back button isn't shown then either on the very initial user flow view shown then, so it would seem the built-in user flows actually already follow such approach in fact, but not when the prompt=create has been set, thus causing some inconsistency in the UI that users could notice unless custom CSS styling is applied. The expected behaviour for our business case would be that if prompt=create is set, then, similar to the prompt=login, no Back button should be displayed, or, if shown, it should result in some navigation (perhaps something like javascript.go(-1), but that could/would be dependent on from where the user arrived, e.g., going back a step in the browser history won't work if the user clicked a link from an invite email ) and preferably not be non-actionable. Furthermore, on the topic of the Back button and its behaviour when the prompt=create parameter is set, there is another case at which we observed some unexpected button behaviour as well, that could probably benefit from some attention. At a specific second scenario, it seems that the Continue button is displayed without providing any action, and when clicking the Back button then, clicking it seemingly resets the "create account", state likely set by the prompt=create initially, and instead switches the flow back to the sign-in state, which can at least affect the display text of some subsequent buttons shown in later steps in the UI. The user arrives at a built-in Entra External ID user flow /authorize endpoint, with the prompt=create query parameter set The user triggers the OTP challenge by entering an email address to verify the email address The user receives the OTP code but enters it incorrectly, i.e., doesn't copy the full code length of eight digits, and instead enters/pastes six of the eight code digits. The UI then shows an error message that the code could not be used/validated, and the email address field is displayed again with the email address that was used for the verification attempt prefilled. If the user clicks the Continue button at this stage, nothing happens. If the user clicks the Back button instead (given that it’s not hidden), it shows the same view one more time, with the Back and Continue buttons at the bottom. However, if the user clicks the Continue button this time, it works and a new code is sent. On the next screen, where the newly sent code can be entered, instead of a button named "Continue", it will now instead show a button with the text "Sign-in" (it would seem like the create account state has gotten lost somewhere along the way at this point, perhaps when the back button in the step 5 above was pressed). If one omits the prompt=create parameter, or when using prompt=login, things seem to work fine, the above occurs when the prompt=create is set. The reason why is the prompt=create is used is due to a business requirement to try to minimize the steps, especially in conjunction with the registration/sign-up, as far a possible when signing up. We have opted for the built-in user flows, not the self-hosted native authentication UI pages, for this project, and then as I understand it, it is the prompt=create parameter that can/should be used to enable the user to land directly on the registration page without having to navigate there manually via the sign-up link, that is otherwise shown on the initial sign-in page. It would thus be great if the prompt=create parameter could have some attention (or perhaps if a dedicated sign-up user flow type could be added potentially, even though that would perhaps warrant some update to the user flow app linking as well, as my understanding is that one user flow can be linked to one app registration at a time currently) to avoid that some buttons become unresponsive when the parameter is used, or falls back to sign-in, to improve the built-in user flows further, as the prompt=create fulfils the business requirement well otherwise. If there would be any further/follow-up questions on the above, e.g., to clarify the requirement, or further explain the reproduction steps and behaviour observed, or anything else, please tell, and I'll ensure to get back as soon as possible. Also, would someone have some input on potential other/additional ways to pre-select the create account/sign-up experience, that would naturally be much appreciated as well, thanks! Regards Kristoffer
Windows defender is having a lot of problems.
So I have a Microsoft 365 Family subscription, and Dark Web Monitoring shows 0 monitored items. SSN verification fails and advises you to contact support. I was also unable to delete the monitored information. I’m receive the error "Something went wrong, try again in a bit." The issue occurs in the Microsoft Defender app, web portal, and across devices. Is there anyway that I can get help with this?Does Rights Management Service currently support MFA claims from EAM?
We've been testing EAM (external authentication methods) for a few months now as we try to move our Duo configuration away from CA custom controls. I noticed today that when my Outlook (classic) client would not correctly authenticate to Rights Management Service to decrypt OME-protected emails from another org. It tries to open the message, fails to connect to RMS, and opens a copy of the email with the "click here to read the message" spiel. It then throws a "something is wrong with your account" warning in the Outlook client's top right corner. If I try to manually authenticate & let it redirect to Duo's EAM endpoint, it simply fails with an HTTP 400 error. When you close that error, it then presents another error of "No Network Connection. Please check your network settings and try again. [2603]". I can close/reopen Outlook and that warning message in the top right stays suppresses unless I attempt signing into RMS all over again. However.. If I do the same thing and instead use an alternate MFA method (MS Authenticator, for example), it signs in perfectly fine and will decrypt those OME-protected emails on the fly in the Outlook client, as expected. I verified that we excluded "aadrm.com" from SSL inspection and that we're not breaking certificate pinning. So all I can assume at the moment is that Rights Management Service isn't honoring MFA claims from EAM. Any experience/thoughts on this? Thanks in advance!
Can the built-in "No account? Create one" link redirect to a custom sign-up page?
I'm using Microsoft Entra External ID with a built-in sign-in/sign-up user flow. On the Microsoft-hosted sign-in page, the "No account? Create one" link always redirects users to the default Entra sign-up page. I already have a custom registration page and would like this built-in link to redirect to my custom URL instead. Is there any supported way to customize the destination of this link in a built-in user flow? If not, could someone confirm whether this behavior is fixed by design? Thanks!
Enable automatic per‑user language selection for Defender training modules
We use Attack Simulation Training and Microsoft Defender training modules as part of our security awareness program for a global audience. Currently, training content is assigned in a single language per campaign, even though users already have preferred language settings defined in Outlook and Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD). This creates challenges for multinational organizations and often requires duplicating campaigns or accepting that some users receive training in a non‑preferred language. We are requesting a capability that allows Defender training modules to automatically display in each user’s preferred language, based on: Outlook mailbox language settings, and/or Microsoft Entra ID user language preferences Enabling per‑user language selection would: Improve comprehension and learning outcomes Increase training effectiveness for non‑native speakers Reduce administrative overhead and duplicated campaigns Align Defender training with existing Microsoft 365 localization behavior Defender already supports training content in multiple languages. Allowing dynamic language delivery per user would significantly improve scalability and usability for enterprise security awareness programs.
Disabling PIN-based login on Entra-joined PCs
Hi guys. Yesterday I took two machines off the domain and Entra joined them. The goal was 1) remove their access to domain resources 2) have tenant users login to the machine and get enriched tokens every time. this works as desired. The problem is every user gets prompted to set a pin. these are both shared secondary/tertiary PC's - there is no point to having a 6 digit PIN on them. I thought the new Authentication Methods tools had controls for this, but apparently not. A script was run to change certain related Reg Keys (by my onsite tech) but this had no change on reboot. textreg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\PassportForWork" /v Enabled /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /freg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\PassportForWork" /v DisablePostLogonProvisioning /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\PassportForWork Enabled key was set to 0, and DisablePostLogonProvisioning was set to 1. These are from various help threads I found here and other resources. Unfortunately, they do not work. Not sure what to do here. I've read there are InTune controls for this - but I don't really have the time to work out WindowsPC ennrollment profiles for 2 machines. The site has InTune, but only for iOS mobile management. Thoughts?Do XDR Alerts cover the same alerts available in Alert Policies?
The alerts in question are the 'User requested to release a quarantined message', 'User clicked a malicious link', etc. About 8 of these we send to 'email address removed for privacy reasons'. That administrator account has an EOM license, so Outlook rules can be set. We set rules to forward those 8 alerts to our 'email address removed for privacy reasons' address. This is, very specifically, so the alert passes through the @tenant.com address, and our ticketing endpoint knows what tenant sent it. But this ISN'T ideal because it requires an EOP license (or similar - this actually hasn't been an issue until now just because of our customer environments). I've looked at the following alternatives: - Setting email address removed for privacy reasons as the recipient directly on the Alert Policies in question. This results in the mail going directly from BANNEDUSERNAME to our Ticketing Portal - so it ends up sorted into Microsoft tickets. and the right team doesn't get it. SMTP Forwarding via either Exchange AC User controls or Mail Flow Rules. But these aren't traditional forwarding, and they have the same issue as above. Making administrator @tenant.com a SHARED mailbox that we can also login to (for administration purposes). But this doesn't allow you to set Outlook rules (or even login to Outlook). I've checked out the newer alerts under Defender's Settings panel - XDR alerts, I think they're called. Wondering if these can be leveraged at all for this? Essentially, trying to get these Alerts to come to our external ticketing address, from the tenants domain (instead of Microsoft). I could probably update Autotask's rules to check for a header, and set that header via Mail Flow rules, but.. just hoping I don't have to do that for everyone.Impersonation Protection: Users to Protect should also be Trusted Senders
Hey all, sort of a weird question here. Teaching my staff about Impersonation Protection, and it's kind of occurred to me that any external sender added to 'Senders to Protect' sort of implicitly should also be a 'Trusted Sender'. Example - we're an MSP, and we want our Help Desk (email address removed for privacy reasons) to be protected from impersonation. Specifically, we want to protect the 'Help Desk' name. So we add email address removed for privacy reasons to Senders to protect. However, we ALSO want to make sure our emails come thru. So we've ALSO had to add email address removed for privacy reasons to Trusted Senders on other tenants. Chats with Copilot have sort of given me an understanding that this is essentially a 'which is more usefuI' scenario. But CoPilot makes things up, and I want some human input. In theory, ANYONE we add to 'trusted senders' we ALSO want protected from Impersonation. Anyone we protect from Impersonation we ALSO want to trust. Copilot says you SHOULDN'T do both. Which is better / more practical?
Tenant Forwarding - Trusted ARC Sealer
As part of a tenant to tenant migration we often need to forward mail from one tenant to another. This can cause some issues with email authentication verdicts on the destination tenant. Is it possible or best practice to configure another tenant as a Trusted ARC sealer to help with forwarded email deliverability?
