ediscovery
16 TopicseDiscovery - Issues exploring groups & users related to a hybrid data source
Hi all, first time posting - unusually I could find nothing out there that helped. I work in an organisation has an on-premises domain which syncs to our tenant. I don't manage the domain or the sync, but I'm assured that the settings are vanilla and there are no errors being logged. 99% of our users are hybrid. The tenant is shared across multiple legal entities, so I'm using eDiscovery to fulfil our GDPR subject access requests The issue I am hitting is straightforward. in eDiscovery searches with hybrid users as the data source, I cannot add related objects (manager, direct reports, groups the user is in). The properties are present in Entra, but not visible to Purview, so I'm not investigating sync errors at the moment. For cloud objects, I can see manager, teams, etc. and it works fine. Does anyone have any insights they can share on the "explore and add" mechanics in eDiscovery search data sources? I'm drawing a complete blank on this one. Where should I be looking?72Views0likes2CommentsTeams Private Channels Reengineered: Compliance & Data Security Actions Needed by Sept 20, 2025
You may have missed this critical update, as it was published only on the Microsoft Teams blog and flagged as a Teams change in the Message Center under MC1134737. However, it represents a complete reengineering of how private channel data is stored and managed, with direct implications for Microsoft Purview compliance policies, including eDiscovery, Legal Hold, Data Loss Prevention (DLP), and Retention. 🔗 Read the official blog post here New enhancements in Private Channels in Microsoft Teams unlock their full potential | Microsoft Community Hub What’s Changing? A Shift from User to Group Mailboxes Historically, private channel data was stored in individual user mailboxes, requiring compliance and security policies to be scoped at the user level. Starting September 20, 2025, Microsoft is reengineering this model: Private channels will now use dedicated group mailboxes tied to the team’s Microsoft 365 group. Compliance and security policies must be applied to the team’s Microsoft 365 group, not just individual users. Existing user-level policies will not govern new private channel data post-migration. This change aligns private channels with how shared channels are managed, streamlining policy enforcement but requiring manual updates to ensure coverage. Why This Matters for Data Security and Compliance Admins If your organization uses Microsoft Purview for: eDiscovery Legal Hold Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Retention Policies You must review and update your Purview eDiscovery and legal holds, DLP, and retention policies. Without action, new private channel data may fall outside existing policy coverage, especially if your current policies are not already scoped to the team’s group. This could lead to significant data security, governance and legal risks. Action Required by September 20, 2025 Before migration begins: Review all Purview policies related to private channels. Apply policies to the team’s Microsoft 365 group to ensure continuity. Update eDiscovery searches to include both user and group mailboxes. Modify DLP scopes to include the team’s group. Align retention policies with the team’s group settings. Migration will begin in late September and continue through December 2025. A PowerShell command will be released to help track migration progress per tenant. Migration Timeline Migration begins September 20, 2025, and continues through December 2025. Migration timing may vary by tenant. A PowerShell command will be released to help track migration status. I recommend keeping track of any additional announcements in the message center.811Views2likes1CommentCannot update Case number in Microsoft Purview eDiscovery
I can no longer update the Case number under case settings in the new eDiscovery UI. I used to be able to update it via the externalId Graph endpoint but that appears to be deprecated. The error simply reads "update failed" - there is no additional information. Is anyone else having this problem?Solved230Views0likes2Comments9M365PurvieweDiscoveryInfra touching files in office activity logs
Hi, We use Office Activity Logs through Log Analytics Workspace to report on specific files. We noticed that in our most recent report, many files were accessed by 'ExportWorker' with 'ClientAppName' M365PurvieweDiscoveryInfra. This seems to have happened on specific days a couple of weeks ago where the activity 'file accessed' whenever an ediscovery was run on a location that stored the particular file was registered. This was not the case before if I remember correctly. Does anyone know why this activity was registered as such in the logs and/or has also experienced the exportworker of M365PurvieweDiscoveryInfra touch their files when running an ediscovery? Is this a change with the new eDiscovery? It is also undesirable that users can track incident response employees touching their files in case of an investigation.122Views0likes1CommenteDiscovery for email attachment with encrypted sensitivity labels
We are currently testing encrypted sensitivity labels in conjunction with eDiscovery. We applied an encrypted label to a document, and eDiscovery was able to successfully search for the content in both OneDrive and SharePoint. However, the same functionality does not appear to work for email attachments—the content of encrypted attachments is not searchable. Are there any specific settings or configurations that need to be enabled to support encrypted email attachments in eDiscovery? Thanks139Views0likes2CommentseDiscovery keyword statistics.
Noticing with this roadmap item: https://admin.microsoft.com/AdminPortal/Home?#/MessageCenter/:/messages/MC1105008 specifically Expanded search condition builder with support for logical operators (AND, OR, NEAR) in the keywords field That when running a new search that the statistics generated for keywords claims that "Query does not contain keywords" and doesn't generate the Statistics reports for keywords anymore. Tried with keywords on multiple lines as well as same line but separated with OR statements. Is this known issue?231Views0likes3CommentsDoes anyone know what the 'CS019-009' error means for eDiscovery premium jobs?
Hello, Once in a while, a job in eDiscovery premium will fail with error "CS019-009". For example when preparing search preview, making an export or adding a collection to a review set. The job will give status "failed". When restarted, the job runs completely fine so we never create a ticket for this. I can't seem to find anywhere what "CS019-009" means. Is this a generic error? Thanks in advance!Solved216Views1like1CommenteDiscovery hold for changing list of users
Hello. We have a policy to hold all email for individuals in certain roles in the org. The list of users needs to be continuously updated due to standard turnover. I attempted to use a dynamic group but that is evidently not supported. Any suggestions?Solved260Views0likes2CommentsQuestion about eDiscovery syntax
What would the appropriate eDiscovery syntax be if I wanted to perform a search on a single Exchange mailbox, capturing all email interactions between the mailbox's owner (i.e. mailto:email address removed for privacy reasons) and an external email address (i.e. mailto:email address removed for privacy reasons)?741Views1like2Comments