Sentinel - Defender XDR KQL Queries Library
Hello all, I’ve been building something over the past few weeks that I think the security community might find useful. https://goxdr.fyi is a searchable KQL query library for Microsoft Sentinel and Defender XDR. The name comes from a nickname my colleagues gave me (GoX) combined with XDR. I also picked up https://goxdr.fyi as a short and easy to remember domain for it. You can check it out here: https://goxdr.fyi The idea came from my own day to day work as someone working in IAM and SOC operations. I constantly find myself writing and refining KQL queries for threat hunting, detection engineering and incident investigation. Over time I realized I had a growing collection of queries that I kept going back to and I thought why not make these available to others? It currently has 117 queries covering identity security, BEC/AiTM detection, NTLM and LDAP attack hunting, OAuth governance, AI/Copilot security, Sentinel alert trending, SOC performance metrics and more. Some of these queries are ones I wrote from scratch based on real scenarios I encountered in production environments. Others are community queries I tested and validated in my own setup. Only the ones I found genuinely useful and that actually worked against real data made it in. Each query comes with a description explaining what it detects and why it matters, along with severity levels, platform tags (Sentinel, XDR or both) and a copy button so you can paste it directly into Advanced Hunting or use it as the basis for an Analytics Rule. The site is open source, hosted on GitHub Pages and licensed under CC BY 4.0. No sign-up, no paywall, no tracking. The source is available. I’ll keep adding queries as new scenarios come up. If there’s enough interest I’m also considering adding Cortex XQL queries for Palo Alto environments. Suggestions, feedback or ideas for new detections are always welcome. Feel free to reach out. ThanksSentinel - Defender XDR KQL Queries Library
Hello all, I’ve been building something over the past few weeks that I think the security community might find useful. GoXDR is a searchable KQL query library for Microsoft Sentinel and Defender XDR. The name comes from a nickname my colleagues gave me (GoX) combined with XDR. I also picked up https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgoxdr%2Efyi&urlhash=_Woa&mt=tkFQhDwIhUaUuizHXKTf9rOd8eGfZJ97aCPuiTBXuE3RlsAHkvTbqDoxBiyPcq9w-CAe3kkSV0tPW1XMq7JwTYO2YY58GXuiEa2lf_OCBXU5wszWw0wW4LbsuA&isSdui=true as a short and easy to remember domain for it. You can check it out here: https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgoxdr%2Efyi&urlhash=jgOI&mt=EHrWfnFiS_KrdMAYBvAMhbAIsX0VCZu--Z_9V4ARQOyPk2Pt__C4aH8bxSELw2IS5sbvhfRfrD8rkb6Jttb3-TGOjZ18taXakZEjgYte1Zb_jUui_xylwunC7A&isSdui=true The idea came from my own day to day work as someone working in IAM and SOC operations. I constantly find myself writing and refining KQL queries for threat hunting, detection engineering and incident investigation. Over time I realized I had a growing collection of queries that I kept going back to and I thought why not make these available to others? It currently has 117 queries covering identity security, BEC/AiTM detection, NTLM and LDAP attack hunting, OAuth governance, AI/Copilot security, Sentinel alert trending, SOC performance metrics and more. Some of these queries are ones I wrote from scratch based on real scenarios I encountered in production environments. Others are community queries I tested and validated in my own setup. Only the ones I found genuinely useful and that actually worked against real data made it in. Each query comes with a description explaining what it detects and why it matters, along with severity levels, platform tags (Sentinel, XDR or both) and a copy button so you can paste it directly into Advanced Hunting or use it as the basis for an Analytics Rule. The site is open source, hosted on GitHub Pages and licensed under CC BY 4.0. No sign-up, no paywall, no tracking. The source is available. I’ll keep adding queries as new scenarios come up. If there’s enough interest I’m also considering adding Cortex XQL queries for Palo Alto environments. Suggestions, feedback or ideas for new detections are always welcome. Feel free to reach out. ThanksDetecting AI agents and non-human identities in Microsoft Sentinel: the classic-agent blind spot
Build 2026 made the direction official. The industry is moving from the app era into the agent era, and Microsoft spent a real share of the keynote on securing agents across their lifecycle, from discovering what is exploitable to governing what is running in production. On the identity side the centerpiece is Microsoft Entra Agent ID, now generally available, which gives AI agents first-class identities and extends Conditional Access, Identity Protection, and full audit logging to them. That is good news for agents you build the new way. It is not the whole picture, and the gap is where most SOCs will get hurt first. Modern agents are covered. Classic agents are not. Entra Agent ID draws a hard line between two kinds of agent. Modern agents are created through the Agent ID platform, each backed by an agent identity blueprint. They carry a proper Agent ID, a full audit trail, and the complete set of governance capabilities, including Identity Protection for Agents, which establishes a baseline for an agent's normal activity and flags anomalies automatically. Classic agents are everything that came before, or that gets built outside the platform: AI agents implemented as ordinary service principals or app registrations, for example Copilot Studio agents created before Agent ID was enabled, or any home-grown automation calling Graph with client credentials. In the Entra agent registry they appear with "Has Agent ID: No," and that flag matters, because the Agent ID protections apply to identities that actually hold an Agent ID. Classic agents sit outside Identity Protection for Agents and Conditional Access for Agents. Here is the uncomfortable part. The non-human identities you already run, the service principals behind your pipelines, your integrations, your scripts, your pre-platform Copilot Studio bots, are almost all classic agents. They tend to outnumber your human accounts, they have no MFA in any meaningful sense, and a credential added to one does not show up in the Azure portal. The new platform protections do not reach them. Until you migrate them, the only place you get detection coverage on that population is your SIEM. So this is the job Sentinel does that Agent ID does not: detect risky behavior on the classic, service-principal-backed agents that the platform cannot yet protect. The telemetry you have, and the one switch people forget Three tables carry most of the signal. AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs records service principal authentications, the client-credentials sign-ins your agents and automation use. No user, no MFA, just an app proving it holds a secret or certificate. AADManagedIdentitySignInLogs does the same for managed identities. AuditLogs records directory changes, including the one that matters most for persistence: a new credential added to an application or service principal. One practical warning before any of this works. Service principal and managed identity sign-in logs are not streamed by default. You have to enable those categories explicitly in the Entra diagnostic settings feeding your workspace. Plenty of teams write the detection, never check, and never notice the table is empty. Verify that first. Detection 1: a new credential on a service principal or app Adding a secret or certificate to an existing service principal is one of the cleanest persistence techniques in a Microsoft cloud. The attacker compromises a privileged user or app, drops a fresh credential on a service principal that already holds useful Graph permissions, and now has access that survives password resets and session revocation. It maps to MITRE T1098.001, Account Manipulation: Additional Cloud Credentials. For a classic agent it is especially nasty, because there is no Identity Protection baseline watching it. // Detection 1: new secret or certificate added to an application or service principal // MITRE T1098.001 - Account Manipulation: Additional Cloud Credentials AuditLogs | where OperationName has_any ("Add service principal", "Certificates and secrets management") | where Result =~ "success" | extend Initiator = coalesce( tostring(InitiatedBy.user.userPrincipalName), tostring(InitiatedBy.app.displayName)) | extend InitiatorIp = tostring(InitiatedBy.user.ipAddress) | mv-apply Target = TargetResources on ( where Target.type =~ "Application" | extend TargetName = tostring(Target.displayName), TargetId = tostring(Target.id), KeyChanges = Target.modifiedProperties ) | mv-apply Prop = KeyChanges on ( where tostring(Prop.displayName) =~ "KeyDescription" | extend NewKeys = parse_json(tostring(Prop.newValue)), OldKeys = parse_json(tostring(Prop.oldValue)) ) | extend AddedKeys = set_difference(NewKeys, OldKeys) | where array_length(AddedKeys) > 0 | project TimeGenerated, Initiator, InitiatorIp, TargetName, TargetId, AddedKeys | order by TimeGenerated desc The operation filter catches the three shapes this event takes in the log: "Add service principal," "Add service principal credentials," and "Update application - Certificates and secrets management." The modifiedProperties parsing isolates the KeyDescription change, and set_difference confirms a key was actually added rather than removed, so rotating out an old credential does not, on its own, fire the rule. False positives come from legitimate rotation and from automation that provisions app credentials (CI/CD, infrastructure as code). The initiator is the discriminant. A credential added by your deployment pipeline's service account at the usual time is routine. The same change initiated by an interactive admin out of hours, or by an account that never normally touches app credentials, is what you want to surface. Allow-list the expected initiators, not the targets. Detection 2: a classic agent signing in from a first-seen IP A service principal that has only ever authenticated from your Azure regions and suddenly signs in from somewhere new is a strong signal that its credential has been lifted and is being used elsewhere. Service principals have stable, boring network behavior, which makes a first-seen IP a far cleaner indicator for them than it is for roaming human users. This is the behavioral baseline Identity Protection gives you for free on modern agents, rebuilt in KQL for the classic ones it ignores. MITRE T1078.004, Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts. // Detection 2: classic-agent service principal signing in from a previously unseen IP // MITRE T1078.004 - Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts let baseline = 14d; let detection = 1d; let KnownIPs = AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs | where TimeGenerated between (ago(baseline + detection) .. ago(detection)) | where tostring(ResultType) == "0" | summarize KnownIPSet = make_set(IPAddress) by AppId; AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs | where TimeGenerated > ago(detection) | where tostring(ResultType) == "0" | lookup kind=leftouter KnownIPs on AppId | where set_has_element(KnownIPSet, IPAddress) == false | summarize FirstSeen = min(TimeGenerated), Resources = make_set(ResourceDisplayName, 10) by ServicePrincipalName, AppId, IPAddress | order by FirstSeen desc The query builds a per-application baseline of source IPs over the previous two weeks, then flags any successful sign-in today from an address outside that set. Two tuning notes. Brand-new service principals have no baseline, so they surface on first use. That is usually worth seeing once, but you can exclude AppIds younger than the baseline window if it gets noisy. And if your agents egress through shifting cloud IP ranges, widen the comparison from an exact IP to the autonomous system number or a known-range allow-list, otherwise you will chase your own infrastructure. This complements Agent ID, it does not replace it! The endgame is not to run these rules forever. It is to shrink the population they apply to. Inventory your tenant for agents marked "Has Agent ID: No," prioritize the ones holding sensitive Graph permissions, and migrate them onto the Agent ID platform, where Identity Protection and Conditional Access take over the baselining you are doing here by hand. Microsoft has signaled a migration path from classic to modern agents. Treat these two detections as the coverage you need in the meantime, and as a permanent safety net for anything that never makes the move. If you do one thing this week: enable the service principal sign-in log category, deploy detection 1, and pull a list of every service principal that had a credential added in the last 90 days. That list alone tends to be more interesting than people expect. Cheers, MarcelThe Worm in the Supply Chain: How Defender for Endpoint and Sentinel for SAP BTP Caught Shai-Hulud
On 29 April 2026, malicious versions of multiple SAP ecosystem npm packages were briefly published, creating a supply-chain exposure for SAP Cloud Application Programming (CAP) development environments and CI/CD pipelines. For a brief window that morning, affected developers have executed a credential-stealing payload on a workstation or, in higher-impact cases, within a CI/CD pipeline. SAP developers don't usually think of themselves as a juicy npm target. CAP, BTP, Fiori - that's enterprise turf, not crypto-stealer type territory – Until it is. Join me for the ride. See our latest click-video for an even more dynamic experience of SAP compromises. Affected packages and scope Four official npm packages from the SAP development ecosystem were published in malicious versions that day. Security researchers are calling the campaign "Mini Shai-Hulud" - the little cousin of the worm family that has been chewing its way through open-source registries for months. So, the "mini" part is a generous description in my opinion. Shai-Hulud has wriggled directly into the SAP supply chain, and that detail alone deserves a pause... SAP CAP is now interesting enough to have become a target. Four packages, all wearing legitimate SAP branding, all quietly swapped for evil twins: @cap-js/sqlite v2.2.2 @cap-js/postgres v2.2.2 @cap-js/db-service v2.10.1 mbt v1.2.48 These packages are not peripheral dependencies. The @cap-js/* modules are part of the SAP CAP Model used across custom development on SAP BTP, while mbt is the Cloud MTA Build Tool commonly embedded in CI/CD workflows that package and deploy Multi-Target Applications to BTP and on-premises environments. At roughly 930,000 weekly downloads, the combined exposure created meaningful downstream attack surface. The good news: SAP spotted the compromise fast, yanked the bad versions, and shipped clean replacements. The official guidance lives in SAP Security Note 3747787 - which carries the list of indicators of compromise, file hashes, and mitigation steps. Enough theory and evidence talk! Now, SHOW ME the detection! When the worm stirs beneath the sand, weak defenses vanish first. Observed telemetry in Microsoft Security products See below excerpt of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint from a compromised developer machine. The worm was neutralized immediately. Check the detection time (same day of release): Windows Defender AV detected malware ToString: DefenderDetection: File: /Users/User***/Projects/dara-api-manager-ui/node_modules/mbt/File***.js, Sha256: *** [Trojan:JS/SPchnStlr.BB], BlockingStatus: Prevented, BlockingStatusPriority: 900 DetectionTime: 2026-04-29 11:52:11Z DetectorName: Microsoft.Cyber.ObservationDetectors.DefenderConcreteDetector Observations (2): DefenderObservation Description: Defender detected and quarantined 'Trojan:JS/SPchnStlr.BB' in file 'File***.js' ThreatCategory = Trojan, ThreatFamily = SPchnStlr, How the Threat Actors Operationalized the Stolen Data The compromise allowed harvesting GitHub tokens, AWS/Azure/GCP secrets, npm credentials, Kubernetes config, SSH keys, .npmrc and .git-credentials files, and CI/CD environment variables. The hackers created a public GitHub repository on the victim’s own account, tagged with the description “A Mini Shai-Hulud has Appeared“ to exfiltrate their reaping. Within hours, more than a thousand such repositories were visible in public GitHub search. For additional views on the topic check out the blogs of our Sentinel for SAP partners: Onapsis, Pathlock, and SecurityBridge. Containment and Impact Reduction If you were not as lucky as the developer using Defender for Endpoint and VS Code, you need end to end monitoring of your landscape in and around SAP. Once the worm is loose with cloud tokens it may appear in various unexpected places. Microsoft Sentinel Solution for SAP covers your ERP crown jewels, your SAP BTP landscape and allows informed correlation with the rest of your IT estate. Microsoft’s correlation engine: ensures traceability automatic attack disruption and just-in-time hardening of potential attack paths. Developers using the cloud-based IDE SAP Business Application Studio are out of reach by Defender for Endpoint but profit from threat monitoring through Sentinel for SAP BTP integrating SAP BTP’s malware scanner the same way. See this in action in this click-video and in below screenshot. SOC analysts get actionable insights and tailored guidance from Security Copilot once SAP BTP signals are added to the Microsoft incident graph - no matter where the threat involving SAP originates from. Getting Started with Sentinel Solution for SAP Rollout of Sentinel for SAP BTP can happen immediately. Learn more from our deployment guide. Check out the security content reference for more info out-of-the-box detections. Sentinel for SAP which covers your ERP solutions and more, requires configuration of SAP Integration Suite as intermediary step. Learn more from our deployment guide. Check out the security content reference for more info out-of-the-box detections Final Words This incident illustrates how far the SAP BTP attack surface now extends and why patching alone is insufficient once malicious code reaches developer tooling and build infrastructure. Effective defense also requires telemetry, correlation, and response coverage across SAP and non-SAP environments. See you out there folks! #Kudos to Mahesh Mandva and Cameron Gardiner on riding shai-holud with me. Feel free to reach out to talk more about SAP Cyber Security. Cheers, Martin Useful Links SAP Note 3747787 with mitigation guide Mini Shai-Hulud: Multi-Ecosystem Developer Supply Chain Attack – Lab Space Click-Demo for SAP Cyber Security with Microsoft Sentinel for SAP Security Content | Microsoft Learn Sentinel for SAP BTP Security Content | Microsoft LearnDeclutter and Defend: Reducing promotional mail noise with Microsoft Defender
Enterprise inboxes are overwhelmed with graymail — legitimate, bulk email like newsletters, vendor promotions, and product updates that isn't malicious but buries the messages that matter. When high volumes of these mails land in the inbox, it crowds out priority communications and can dull security vigilance. Employees conditioned to ignore repetitive emails may miss signs of a real threat. It also creates recurring work for admins and security teams who must continuously tune filters, manage exception requests, and chase noise from user reports for email that isn’t malicious. Because graymail passes every spam filter check, traditional defenses don't separate it — leaving this signal-to-noise gap unaddressed. Today we’re excited to announce that Microsoft Defender now includes built-in graymail filtering. It is delivered natively through a new Promotions experience in Outlook that automatically classifies and separates bulk email, so it no longer competes with business-critical communication in the inbox. Now in Public Preview, this capability learns from how users interact with graymail to become more accurate over time. Coupled with the existing Bulk Senders Insight report, Defender brings data-driven bulk classification and control into the security workflows you already use. What Is Graymail? Graymail is legitimate bulk email that isn't malicious—product newsletters, event announcements, marketing promotions, and software update notifications from reputable, authenticated senders. It is distinct from spam and from phishing - graymail comes from real organizations with proper authentication and traditional spam filters aren't designed to handle it. Graymail handling in Microsoft Defender Microsoft Defender's approach is built on three principles: classify intelligently, deliver natively, and learn continuously. Promotions Folder — Intelligent Inbox Organization A dedicated Promotions folder, natively provisioned in Outlook, now keeps legitimate bulk mail out of the primary inbox. Promotional content is separated from priority emails without being sent to Junk, which means users can still access and browse newsletters and updates at their own pace. The folder appears at the top level of the mailbox for easy discovery and is visible across all Outlook experiences. Non-spam bulk mail below the organization's configured Bulk Complaint Level threshold is automatically routed to the Promotions folder. Messages from senders the user has explicitly allowed continue to land in the Inbox. Messages identified as spam continue to go to Junk. To enable the Promotions folder administrators need to enable the "Bulk Moves Enabled" setting in their anti-spam policy. The Promotions folder is then created for all users and used for routing only when this setting is ON. Existing mail flow is unaffected. Promotional mail tagging and Mailbox Rule Support Messages classified as graymail will automatically be labeled with a "Promotions" system tag in Outlook. The tag provides instant visual context without requiring users to open each message and is visible in Outlook on the Web and the native Outlook desktop apps for Windows and Mac. During Public Preview, the tagging component is opt-in, requiring administrators to enable it by configuring an Exchange Transport Rule. Once generally available, it will be enabled by default. Because this classification is integrated at the client level, the Promotions tag can also be used as a condition in Outlook mailbox rules. This enables custom routing logic for advanced scenarios like moving all promotions-tagged messages from a specific sender to a custom folder, flagging certain promotional emails for follow-up, or auto-forwarding or deleting promotions that meet specific criteria. This transforms the Promotions classification from a one-way filter into a flexible building block for personal and organizational workflows—particularly valuable for power users and teams with compliance or archival requirements. Adaptive Learning Microsoft Defender's graymail filtering gets smarter with every interaction. The system learns directly from how users handle their mail. When a user moves a message out of the Promotions folder and back to the Inbox, future emails from that sender will no longer be placed in the Promotions folder. When a user moves a message from the Inbox into the Promotions folder, future emails from that sender will be routed to the Promotions folder automatically. This creates a personalized, self-improving experience that becomes more accurate over time - no manual rule configuration required, no safe-sender lists to maintain, and no filtering rules for IT teams to manage on behalf of individual employees. Built into existing Security Workflows Administrators also gain visibility through the Bulk Senders Insight report, which provides data-driven guidance on what your organization actually receives and can help tune your bulk mail filtering. Graymail has long been the unsolved middle ground of email security—too legitimate to block, too noisy to ignore. Microsoft Defender now handles it where it should be handled: inside the platform, inside the mailbox, and inside the security workflows your organization already relies on. No new portals, no new vendors, no compromise between security and user experience. Get Started Configure promotions tagging and the promotions folder today - Bulk email detection documentation on Microsoft Learn. Monitor the experience using the Bulk Senders Insight report.Accelerate Agent Development: Hacks for Building with Microsoft Sentinel data lake
As a Senior Product Manager | Developer Architect on the App Assure team working to bring Microsoft Sentinel and Security Copilot solutions to market, I interact with many ISVs building agents on Microsoft Sentinel data lake for the first time. I’ve written this article to walk you through one possible approach for agent development – the process I use when building sample agents internally at Microsoft. If you have questions about this, or other methods for building your agent, App Assure offers guidance through our Sentinel Advisory Service. Throughout this post, I include screenshots and examples from Gigamon’s Security Posture Insight Agent. This article assumes you have: An existing SaaS or security product with accessible telemetry. A small ISV team (2–3 engineers + 1 PM). Focus on a single high value scenario for the first agent. The Composite Application Model (What You Are Building) When I begin designing an agent, I think end-to-end, from data ingestion requirements through agentic logic, following the Composite application model. The Composite Application Model consists of five layers: Data Sources – Your product’s raw security, audit, or operational data. Ingestion – Getting that data into Microsoft Sentinel. Sentinel data lake & Microsoft Graph – Normalization, storage, and correlation. Agent – Reasoning logic that queries data and produces outcomes. End User – Security Copilot or SaaS experiences that invoke the agent. This separation allows for evolving data ingestion and agent logic simultaneously. It also helps avoid downstream surprises that require going back and rearchitecting the entire solution. Optional Prerequisite You are enrolled in the ISV Success Program, so you can earn Azure Credits to provision Security Compute Units (SCUs) for Security Copilot Agents. Phase 1: Data Ingestion Design & Implementation Choose Your Ingestion Strategy The first choice I face when designing an agent is how the data is going to flow into my Sentinel workspace. Below I document two primary methods for ingestion. Option A: Codeless Connector Framework (CCF) This is the best option for ISVs with REST APIs. To build a CCF solution, reference our documentation for getting started. Option B: CCF Push (Public Preview) In this instance, an ISV pushes events directly to Sentinel via a CCF Push connector. Our MS Learn documentation is a great place to get started using this method. Additional Note: In the event you find that CCF does not support your needs, reach out to App Assure so we can capture your requirements for future consideration. Azure Functions remains an option if you’ve documented your CCF feature needs. Phase 2: Onboard to Microsoft Sentinel data lake Once my data is flowing into Sentinel, I onboard a single Sentinel workspace to data lake. This is a one-time action and cannot be repeated for additional workspaces. Onboarding Steps Go to the Defender portal. Follow the Sentinel Data lake onboarding instructions. Validate that tables are visible in the lake. See Running KQL Queries in data lake for additional information. Phase 3: Build and Test the Agent in Microsoft Foundry Once my data is successfully ingested into data lake, I begin the agent development process. There are multiple ways to build agents depending on your needs and tooling preferences. For this example, I chose Microsoft Foundry because it fit my needs for real-time logging, cost efficiency, and greater control. 1. Create a Microsoft Foundry Instance Foundry is used as a tool for your development environment. Reference our QuickStart guide for setting up your Foundry instance. Required Permissions: Security Reader (Entra or Subscription) Azure AI Developer at the resource group After setup, click Create Agent. 2. Design the Agent A strong first agent: Solves one narrow security problem. Has deterministic outputs. Uses explicit instructions, not vague prompts. Example agent responsibilities: To query Sentinel data lake (Sentinel data exploration tool). To summarize recent incidents. To correlate ISVs specific signals with Sentinel alerts and other ISV tables (Sentinel data exploration tool). 3. Implement Agent Instructions Well-designed agent instructions should include: Role definition ("You are a security investigation agent…"). Data sources it can access. Step by step reasoning rules. Output format expectations. Sample Instructions can be found here: Agent Instructions 4. Configure the Microsoft Model Context Protocol (MCP) tooling for your agent For your agent to query, summarize and correlate all the data your connector has sent to data lake, take the following steps: Select Tools, and under Catalog, type Sentinel, and then select Microsoft Sentinel Data Exploration. For more information about the data exploration tool collection in MCP server, see our documentation. I always test repeatedly with real data until outputs are consistent. For more information on testing and validating the agent, please reference our documentation. Phase 4: Migrate the Agent to Security Copilot Once the agent works in Foundry, I migrate it to Security Copilot. To do this: Copy the full instruction set from Foundry Provision a SCU for your Security Copilot workspace. For instructions, please reference this documentation. Make note of this process as you will be charged per hour per SCU Once you are done testing you will need to deprovision the capacity to prevent additional charges Open Security Copilot and use Create From Scratch Agent Builder as outlined here. Add Sentinel data exploration MCP tools (these are the same instructions from the Foundry agent in the previous step). For more information on linking the Sentinel MCP tools, please refer to this article. Paste and adapt instructions. At this stage, I always validate the following: Agent Permissions – I have confirmed the agent has the necessary permissions to interact with the MCP tool and read data from your data lake instance. Agent Performance – I have confirmed a successful interaction with measured latency and benchmark results. This step intentionally avoids reimplementation. I am reusing proven logic. Phase 5: Execute, Validate, and Publish After setting up my agent, I navigate to the Agents tab to manually trigger the agent. For more information on testing an agent you can refer to this article. Now that the agent has been executed successfully, I download the agent Manifest file from the environment so that it can be packaged. Click View code on the Agent under the Build tab as outlined in this documentation. Publishing to the Microsoft Security Store If I were publishing my agent to the Microsoft Security Store, these are the steps I would follow: Finalize ingestion reliability. Document required permissions. Define supported scenarios clearly. Package agent instructions and guidance (by following these instructions). Summary Based on my experience developing Security Copilot agents on Microsoft Sentinel data lake, this playbook provides a practical, repeatable framework for ISVs to accelerate their agent development and delivery while maintaining high standards of quality. This foundation enables rapid iteration—future agents can often be built in days, not weeks, by reusing the same ingestion and data lake setup. When starting on your own agent development journey, keep the following in mind: To limit initial scope. To reuse Microsoft managed infrastructure. To separate ingestion from intelligence. What Success Looks Like At the end of this development process, you will have the following: A Microsoft Sentinel data connector live in Content Hub (or in process) that provides a data ingestion path. Data visible in data lake. A tested agent running in Security Copilot. Clear documentation for customers. A key success factor I look for is clarity over completeness. A focused agent is far more likely to be adopted. Need help? If you have any issues as you work to develop your agent, please reach out to the App Assure team for support via our Sentinel Advisory Service . Or if you have any other tips, please comment below, I’d love to hear your feedback.
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 microsoft 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?Agentic Use Cases for Developers on the Microsoft Sentinel Platform
Interested in building an agent with Sentinel platform solutions but not sure where to start? This blog will help you understand some common use cases for agent development that we’ve seen across our partner ecosystem. SOC teams don’t need more alerts - they need fast, repeatable investigation and response workflows. Security Copilot agents can help orchestrate the steps analysts perform by correlating across the Sentinel data lake, executing targeted KQL queries, fetching related entities, enriching with context, and producing an evidence-backed decision without forcing analysts to switch tools. Microsoft Sentinel platform is a strong foundation for agentic experiences because it exposes a normalized security data layer, an investigation surface based on incidents and entities, and extensive automation capabilities. An agent can use these primitives to correlate identity, endpoint, cloud, and network telemetry; traverse entity relationships; and recommend remediation actions. In this blog, I will break down common agentic use cases that developers can implement on Sentinel platform, framed in buildable and repeatable patterns: Identify the investigation scenario Understand the required Sentinel data connectors and KQL queries Build enrichment and correlation logic Summarize findings with supporting evidence and recommended remediation steps Use Case 1: Identity & Access Intelligence Investigation Scenario: Is this risky sign-in part of an attack path? Signals Correlated: Identity access telemetry: Source user, IPs, target resources, MFA logs Authentication outcomes and diversity: Success vs. failure, Geographic spread Identity risk posture: User risk level/state Post-auth endpoint execution: Suspicious LOLBins Correlation Logic: An analyst receives a risky sign-in signal for a user and needs to determine whether the activity reflects expected behavior - such as travel, remote access, or MFA friction - or if it signals the early stage of an identity compromise that could escalate into privileged access and downstream workload impact. Practical Example: Silverfort Identity Threat Triage Agent, which is built on a similar framework, takes the user’s UPN as input and builds a bounded, last-24-hour investigation across authentication activity, MFA logs, user risk posture, and post-authentication endpoint behavior. Outcome: By correlating identity risk signals, MFA logs, sign-in success and failure patterns, and suspicious execution activity following authentication, the agent connects the initial risky sign-in to endpoint behavior, enabling the analyst to quickly assess compromise likelihood, identify escalation indicators, and determine appropriate remediation actions. “Our collaboration with Microsoft Sentinel and Security Copilot underscores the central role identity plays across every stage of attack path triage. By integrating Silverfort’s identity risk signals with Microsoft Entra ID and Defender for Endpoint, and sharing rich telemetry across platforms, we enable Security Copilot Agent to distinguish isolated anomalies from true identity-driven intrusions - while dramatically reducing the manual effort traditionally required for incident response and threat hunting. AI-driven agents accelerate analysis, enrich investigative context, reduce dwell time, and speed detection. Instead of relying on complex queries or deep familiarity with underlying data structures, security teams can now perform seamless, identity-centric reasoning within a single interaction.” - Frank Gasparovic, Director of Solution Architecture, Technology Alliances, Silverfort Use Case 2: Cyber Resilience, Backup & Recovery Investigation Scenario: Are the threats detected on a backup indicative of production impact and recovery risk? Signals Correlated: Backup threat telemetry: Backup threat scan alerts, risk analysis events, affected host/workload, detection timestamps Cross-vendor security alerts: Endpoint, network, and cloud security alerts for the same host/workload in the same time window Correlation Logic: The agent correlates threat signals originating from the backup environment with security telemetry associated with same host/workload to validate whether there is corroborating evidence in the production environment and whether activity aligns in time. Practical Example: Commvault Security Investigation Agent, which is built on a similar framework, takes a hostname as input and builds an investigation across Commvault Threat Scan / Risk Analysis events and third-party security telemetry. By correlating backup-originating detections with production security activity for the same host, the agent determines whether the backup threat signal aligns with observable production impact. Outcome: By correlating backup threat detections with endpoint, network, and cloud security telemetry while validating timing alignment, event spikes, and data coverage, the agent connects a backup originating threat signal to production evidence, enabling the analyst to quickly assess impact likelihood and determine appropriate actions such as containment or recovery-point validation. Use Case 3: Network, Exposure & Connectivity Investigation Scenario: Is this activity indicative of legitimate remote access, or does it demonstrate suspicious connectivity and access attempts that increase risk to private applications and internal resources. Signals Correlated: User access telemetry: Source user, source IPs/geo, device/context, destinations Auth and enforcement outcomes: Success vs. failure, MFA allow/block Behavior drift: new/rare IPs/locations, unusual destination/app diversity. Suspicious activity indicators: Risky URLs/categories, known-bad indicators, automated/bot-like patterns, repeated denied private app access attempts Correlation Logic: An analyst receives an alert for a specific user and needs to determine whether the activity reflects expected behavior such as travel, remote work, or VPN usage, or whether it signals the early stages of a compromise that could later extend into private application access. Practical Example: Zscaler ZIA ZPA Correlation Agent starts with a username and builds a bounded, last-24-hour investigation across Zscaler Internet Access and Zscaler Private Access activity. By correlating user internet behavior, access context, and private application interactions, the agent connects the initial Zscaler alert to any downstream access attempts or authentication anomalies, enabling the analyst to quickly assess risk, identify suspicious patterns, and determine whether Zscaler policy adjustments are required. Outcome: Provides a last‑24‑hour verdict on whether the activity reflects expected access patterns or escalation toward private application access, and recommends next actions—such as closing as benign drift, escalating for containment, or tuning access policy—based on correlated evidence. Use Case 4: Endpoint & Runtime Intelligence Investigation Scenario: Is this process malicious or a legitimate admin action? Signals Correlated: Execution context: Process chain, full command line, signer, unusual path Account & logon: Initiating user, logon type (RDP/service), recent risky sign-ins Tooling & TTPs: LOLBins, credential access hints, lateral movement tooling Network behavior: Suspicious connections, repeated callbacks/beaconing Correlation Logic: A PowerShell alert triggers on a production server. The agent ties the process to its parent (e.g., spawned by a web worker vs. an admin shell), validates the command-line indicators, correlates outbound connections from the same PID to a first-seen destination, and checks for immediate follow-on persistence and any adjacent runtime alerts in the same time window. Outcome: Classifies the activity as malicious vs. admin and produces an evidence pack (process tree, key command indicators, destinations, persistence/tamper artifacts) as well as the recommended containment step (isolate host and revoke/reset initiating credentials). Use Case 5: Exposure & Exploitability Investigation Scenario: What is the likelihood of exploitation and blast radius? Signals Correlated: Asset exposure: Internet-facing status, exposed services/ports, and identity or network paths required to reach the workload Exploit activity: Defender alerts on the resource, IDS/WAF hits, IOC matches, and first seen exploit or probing attempts Risk amplification signals: Internet communication, high privilege access paths, and indicators that the workload processes PII or sensitive data Blast radius: Downstream reachability to crown jewel systems (e.g., databases, key vaults) and trust relationships that could enable escalation Correlation Logic: An analyst receives a Medium/High Microsoft Defender for Cloud alert on a workload and needs to determine whether it’s a standalone detection or an exploitable exposure that can quickly progress into privilege abuse and data impact. The agent correlates exposure evidence signals such as internet reachability, high-privilege paths, and indicators that workload handles sensitive data by analyzing suspicious network connections in the same bounded time window. Outcome: Produces a resource-specific risk analysis that explains why the Defender for Cloud alert is likely to be exploited, based on asset attack surface and effective privileges, plus any supporting activity in the same 24-hour window. Use Case 6: Threat Intelligence & Adversary Context Investigation Scenario: Is this activity aligned with known attacker behavior? Signals Correlated: Behavior sequence: ordered events identity → execution → network. Technique mapping: MITRE ATT&CK technique IDs, typical progression, and required prerequisites. Threat intel match: campaign/adversary, TTPs, IOCs Correlation Logic: A chain of identity compromise, PowerShell obfuscation, and periodic outbound HTTPS is observed. The agent maps the sequence to ATT&CK techniques and correlates it with threat intel that matches a known adversary campaign. Outcome: Surfaces adversary-aligned behavioral insights and TTP context to help analysts assess intrusion likelihood and guide the next investigation steps. Summary This blog is intended to help developers better understand the key use cases for building agents with Microsoft Sentinel platform along with practical patterns to apply when designing and implementing agent scenarios. Need help? If you have any issues as you work to develop your agent, the App Assure team is available to assist via our Sentinel Advisory Service. Reach out via our intake form. Resources Learn more: For a practical overview of how ISVs can move from Sentinel data lake onboarding to building agents, see the Accelerate Agent Development blog - https://aka.ms/AppAssure_AccelerateAgentDev. Get hands-on: Explore the end-to-end journey from Sentinel data lake onboarding to a working Security Copilot agent through the accompanying lab modules available on GitHub Repo: https://github.com/suchandanreddy/Microsoft-Sentinel-Labs.
