From “No” to “Now”: A 7-Layer Strategy for Enterprise AI Safety
The “block” posture on Generative AI has failed. In a global enterprise, banning these tools doesn't stop usage; it simply pushes intellectual property into unmanaged channels and creates a massive visibility gap in corporate telemetry. The priority has now shifted from stopping AI to hardening the environment so that innovation can run at velocity without compromising data sovereignty. Traditional security perimeters are ineffective against the “slow bleed” of AI leakage - where data moves through prompts, clipboards, and autonomous agents rather than bulk file transfers. To secure this environment, a 7-layer defense-in-depth model is required to treat the conversation itself as the new perimeter. 1. Identity: The Only Verifiable Perimeter Identity is the primary control plane. Access to AI services must be treated with the same rigor as administrative access to core infrastructure. The strategy centers on enforcing device-bound Conditional Access, where access is strictly contingent on device health. To solve the "Account Leak" problem, the deployment of Tenant Restrictions v2 (TRv2) is essential to prevent users from signing into personal tenants using corporate-managed devices. For enhanced coverage, Universal Tenant Restrictions (UTR) via Global Secure Access (GSA) allows for consistent enforcement at the cloud edge. While TRv2 authentication-plane is GA, data-plane protection is GA for the Microsoft 365 admin center and remains in preview for other workloads such as SharePoint and Teams. 2. Eliminating the Visibility Gap (Shadow AI) You can’t secure what you can't see. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps (MDCA) serves to discover and govern the enterprise AI footprint, while Purview DSPM for AI (formerly AI Hub) monitors Copilot and third-party interactions. By categorizing tools using MDCA risk scores and compliance attributes, organizations can apply automated sanctioning decisions and enforce session controls for high-risk endpoints. 3. Data Hygiene: Hardening the “Work IQ” AI acts as a mirror of internal permissions. In a "flat" environment, AI acts like a search engine for your over-shared data. Hardening the foundation requires automated sensitivity labeling in Purview Information Protection. Identifying PII and proprietary code before assigning AI licenses ensures that labels travel with the data, preventing labeled content from being exfiltrated via prompts or unauthorized sharing. 4. Session Governance: Solving the “Clipboard Leak” The most common leak in 2025 is not a file upload; it’s a simple copy-paste action or a USB transfer. Deploying Conditional Access App Control (CAAC) via MDCA session policies allows sanctioned apps to function while specifically blocking cut/copy/paste. This is complemented by Endpoint DLP, which extends governance to the physical device level, preventing sensitive data from being moved to unmanaged USB storage or printers during an AI-assisted workflow. Purview Information Protection with IRM rounds this out by enforcing encryption and usage rights on the files themselves. When a user tries to print a "Do Not Print" document, Purview triggers an alert that flows into Microsoft Sentinel. This gives the SOC visibility into actual policy violations instead of them having to hunt through generic activity logs. 5. The “Agentic” Era: Agent 365 & Sharing Controls Now that we're moving from "Chat" to "Agents", Agent 365 and Entra Agent ID provide the necessary identity and control plane for autonomous entities. A quick tip: in large-scale tenants, default settings often present a governance risk. A critical first step is navigating to the Microsoft 365 admin center (Copilot > Agents) to disable the default “Anyone in organization” sharing option. Restricting agent creation and sharing to a validated security group is essential to prevent unvetted agent sprawl and ensure that only compliant agents are discoverable. 6. The Human Layer: “Safe Harbors” over Bans Security fails when it creates more friction than the risk it seeks to mitigate. Instead of an outright ban, investment in AI skilling-teaching users context minimization (redacting specifics before interacting with a model) - is the better path. Providing a sanctioned, enterprise-grade "Safe Harbor" like M365 Copilot offers a superior tool that naturally cuts down the use of Shadow AI. 7. Continuous Ops: Monitoring & Regulatory Audit Security is not a “set and forget” project, particularly with the EU AI Act on the horizon. Correlating AI interactions and DLP alerts in Microsoft Sentinel using Purview Audit (specifically the CopilotInteraction logs) data allows for real-time responses. Automated SOAR playbooks can then trigger protective actions - such as revoking an Agent ID - if an entity attempts to access sensitive HR or financial data. Final Thoughts Securing AI at scale is an architectural shift. By layering Identity, Session Governance, and Agentic Identity, AI moves from being a fragmented risk to a governed tool that actually works for the modern workplace.
Question malware detected Defender for Windows 10
Why did my Microsoft Defender detect a malicious file in AppData\Roaming\Secure\QtWebKit4.dll (Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.C!ml) during a full scan and the Kaspersky Free and Malwarebytes Free scans didn't detect it? Was it maliciously modifying, corrupting, or deleting various files on my PC before detection? I sent it to Virus Total, the hash: 935cd9070679168cfcea6aea40d68294ae5f44c551cee971e69dc32f0d7ce14b Inside the same folder as this DLL, there's another folder with a suspicious file, Caller.exe. I sent it to Virus Total, and only one detection from 72 antivirus programs was found, with the name TrojanPSW.Rhadamanthys. VT hash: d2251490ca5bd67e63ea52a65bbff8823f2012f417ad0bd073366c02aa0b3828
Ingesting Purview compliance DLP logs to Splunk
We are in the process of enabling Microsoft purview MIP DLP for a large-scale enterprise, and there is a requirement to push MIP DLP related alerts, incidents and data to Splunk SIEM. Could not find any specific documentation for the same. researched on this and found below solutions however not sure which could work to fit in our requirement: Splunk add on for Microsoft security is available: The Splunk Add-on for Microsoft Security is now available - Microsoft Community Hub but this does not talk about Purview DLP logs. This add-on is available for Splunk but only says MIP can be integrated however does not talk about DLP logs: https://splunkbase.splunk.com/app/4564 As per few articles we can also ingest Defender logs to Azure event hub then event hub can be connected to splunk. Above mentioned steps do not explain much about Ingestion of MIP DLP raw data or incidents. If anyone has done it in the past I will appreciate any input.Copy and paste pictures to restricted service domains not blocked by DLP policy
i believe i've configured the DLP policy but i'm not sure if i missed something i've defined the restricted site in the restricted domain list and set to block i've also configured the DLP policy to block upload to restricted domains i tried 3 different methods to upload the pictures (.jpg & .png) to web.whatsapp.com 1. drag and drop - blocked 2. clicking upload on web.whatsapp.com - blocked 3. copy and paste - not blocked i'm not sure why copy and paste is not blocked while the rest is blockedUse Endpoint DLP to block uploads
Hello, I am trying to block files from being uploaded to specific domains using Endpoint DLP. I have added several domains to the Service Domain section of DLP and set it to Block. I have also added a Service Domain Group with those same domains (not sure if this is required in this case). Then I have created a DLP policy scoped to Devices only. The rule conditions in the policy are set to any file over 1 byte in size should be blocked from upload to those service domains. I have also added the Service Domain Groups to this policy and set it to block. I turn on the policy and it is applied to the appropriate endpoints but when I test, the only files blocked from being uploaded to those domains are files tagged a sensitivity label. Can this DLP policy apply to all files instead of just labelled ones? We just want to block upload to specific domains outright. Any help is appreciated!DLP Alerts Issue - Windows Defender
Hi, I am encountering an issue where a single file containing multiple policy matches triggers multiple DLP alerts defined for Exchange. I would prefer to receive just one alert per email, regardless of the number of files or policy/rule matches in Windows Defender. Any suggestions on how to resolve this would be greatly appreciatedBlocking Personal Outlook and Gmail Accounts on Corporate Device
Hello Community, In my organization, we use the Microsoft 365 environment. We have a hybrid infrastructure, but we aim to deploy as many policies as possible through Microsoft 365 (Intune, Purview, Defender, etc.). One of our goals is to limit the use of corporate devices for personal purposes. We use Outlook as our corporate email service, and we would like to block employees from signing into their personal email accounts (either via web or desktop application). Additionally, we would like to block access to other email services, such as Gmail, both via web and desktop apps. Could you provide guidance on how to achieve this? I would greatly appreciate any help or suggestions. Thank you very much! Juan RojasCompliance Center DLP Policy Tips
Greetings! We are in the middle of implementing the Compliance Center DLP solution using a variety of the advanced rules. We really love the idea of Policy Tips providing guidance to users on what they should do with their sensitive data. Our model is that we are allowed to send sensitive data to intended and verified recipients as long as it is encrypted. So we have some rules that look for HIPAA and PII and inform the user that they should encrypt before sending. The selling point for us was the ability to provide users an override to the policy in cases where encryption wasn't necessary. It is less common, but makes up about 10% of our use-case. Minus the normal bumps and issues, we are mostly happy with the way the system works! Users can override, encrypt, and we get good visibility on why users are sending data unencrypted if they do, so we can retrain or tune the system. Our issue is, of course, the wonkyness of the PolicyTips and how it checks for certain conditions and may or may not clear when a condition is met/not-met. Issue: A user composes an email headed out of our company that contains sensitive data. The system catches this and throws a Policy Tip requiring they encrypt or override. They say, "oh ya! Thanks for reminding me" and hit that encrypt button. This doesn't clear the Policy Tip or the block condition and they cannot send the email, even though it is encrypted. What I've Tried: I added the exception onto the rules to exempt if the Message Type is: Permission Controlled. I tried Message Type: Encrypted, but it doesn't work correctly at all. With this setup, everything works except the Policy Tip, which get stuck. Example: blue box is original PolicyTip. Red box is button encryption. Current Work-Around: The users hate it, because the button is way easier than the subject tags. Our current work-around is to "Clear the Policy Tip" by 1) Remove encryption by clicking link in PolicyTip, 2) Remove Recipient using same method inside Policy Tip. This resets the Policy Tip, so then the user can push the Encrypt button first, then add recipients, without redrafting the whole email. Help!! What sort of logic do I need to make the Encrypt button clear out the Policy Tips? Or is this just it? Workaround city! Thanks for reading and I'd love any help or guidance. Trust me, I've read every docs.microsoft article I can find about Policy Tips and DLP. But I'll take some more if you have them if they are relevant.
