The CISO Cheat Sheet to Microsoft Digital Defense Report 2026
I know we’re all busy, so I’ve pulled the most important data from this year’s Microsoft Digital Defense Report into one short read. The full report is well worth exploring, but this article focuses on the numbers and trends most relevant to security leaders. This year’s edition shows that AI is lowering the time, expertise and cost required to discover and exploit weaknesses, enabling attackers to operate with greater speed, scale and autonomy. The report describes this as AI “changing the physics of cybersecurity”: attack timelines are compressing and agentic systems are beginning to automate more of the attack lifecycle. Trend 1: Time has collapsed The clearest finding is about speed. Vulnerability discovery is increasingly running ahead of remediation, while the time from discovery to weaponisation is shrinking. In the AI era, weaponisation can follow in hours. Vulnerability discovery and weaponisation now often needs only a well-written prompt. The median time from discovery in the wild to weaponisation is below 24 hours. Vulnerabilities were on track for a record estimated 72,000 CVEs in 2026. The report expects a multi-year period in which the number of known but unpatched vulnerabilities rises sharply before eventually declining. The median time from container start to first exploit attempt is 5.3 hours. The ransomware actor Storm-1175 moved from web-facing exploitation to deploying Medusa ransomware in as little as 24 hours. CISA added over 110 CVEs to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue between November 2025 and May 2026, most within a week of disclosure. The mismatch with enterprise reality is the uncomfortable part. The report says the disclosure-to-exploitation window has shrunk to single-digit days. Between November 2025 and May 2026, CISA added more than 110 vulnerabilities to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue, most within a week of disclosure. In one example, Storm-1175 moved from exploiting a web-facing vulnerability to deploying Medusa ransomware in as little as 24 hours. Microsoft’s Red Team makes an important point: a patch is also a disclosure. Every fix points attackers towards the flaw it closes. As AI-assisted analysis makes reversing patches faster and more reliable, the report argues that patch velocity, not simply patch availability, becomes the control that matters. Trend 2: Attack chains are gaining autonomy The report charts a clear progression: September–November 2025: AI assists in orchestrating a campaign, as in the Anthropic-reported espionage case. April–June 2026: Full-chain autonomy is demonstrated in labs. July 2026: Real-world autonomous attacks of increasing complexity appear. Two frontier models, Mythos and GPT-5.5, completed a 32-step attack chain against an emulated enterprise with no human help. The test environment had no defenders. The UK AI Security Institute reached a similar finding independently. GPT-5.5 was the second model to solve its end-to-end corporate network attack simulation, a task AISI estimates would take a human about 20 hours. Open-weight models lag closed models at orchestrating attacks by about seven months. In the wild, early July 2026 saw the first documented automated ransomware extortion attack, named JADEPUFFER by Sysdig. Microsoft has seen AI-orchestrated intrusions that share elements with it. Initial access consistently came from internet-exposed services running known-vulnerable software. The report is measured on this point. Volumes of AI-orchestrated activity remain low. In most observed real-world operations, complex end-to-end intrusions still retain meaningful human direction. The Red Team's framing is the most useful one: AI doesn't create a new class of attack, it collapses the effort needed to find and exploit existing attack paths. Trend 3: AI has become an attack surface The report's second takeaway is that attackers are already targeting AI itself. The adoption numbers explain why. 88% of enterprises are experimenting with agents, and 82% of leaders plan broader rollouts within 12–18 months. The report cites industry projections of roughly 1.3 billion agents in production by 2028. What attackers are doing to AI systems: Four techniques accounted for roughly 90% of observed attack activity in telemetry from Azure AI workloads: malicious link injection (52%), jailbreaks (16%), tool and agent abuse (12%), and identity and credential abuse (10%). Memory poisoning: An attacker who can place content anywhere an agent reads can often place it where the agent remembers. Email is the dominant pathway the Red Team has observed. Human-in-the-loop isn't a complete control: Red team testing saw approval prompts ignored, or bypassed by a policy stored in poisoned memory. Developer tools turned against their owners: The "s1ngularity" malware hijacked locally installed AI command-line tools to hunt for secrets. It leaked about 2,000 secrets and 20,000 files across 225 victims. AI browsers: In daily use at more than 40% of organisations in Microsoft's dataset, they were the initial infection vector in incidents involving 57 malware families in a May 2026 analysis. Chat histories as a target: Malicious AI-assistant extensions reached nearly 900,000 installs and more than 20,000 enterprise tenants, harvesting AI chat histories that often contain code, architecture and credentials. The identity implications are direct. Each agent needs its own identity, not one borrowed from an employee, and a named human sponsor. The report also treats revocation latency, the time to cut off a compromised agent, as a measured outcome. Trend 4: The front door is still identity AI changes the speed and personalisation of social engineering. It hasn't changed where attacks start. Initial access in Defender Experts data: User execution: 30% Valid accounts: 20% Malicious copy-and-paste: 13% Phishing: 11% Together, user execution and valid accounts account for over half of observed activity. In incident response engagements, phishing as an initial access vector jumped from 7% to 23% year on year. The standout numbers: ClickFix: Defender saw user-pasted malicious commands on more than 1.1 million unique devices between February and early May 2026, roughly an 8x increase. AiTM: URLs accounted for 45% of the identified phishing techniques in the report’s breakdown. Separately, the share of AiTM phishing and token-theft attacks more than doubled during the first six months of 2026, although the report notes that their overall share remained comparatively small. Teams vishing: Weekly confirmed malicious volume increased 502% year on year. Per attempt, 48% of vishing calls kept the victim engaged for more than 20 seconds, and 30% lasted more than one minute. When a call succeeds, attackers can persuade the victim to install a remote-management tool and complete reconnaissance in two minutes or less. Business contact impersonation (BCI): The report introduces this term for conversations that start with a trusted-looking contact. Microsoft detected more than 46 million attacks in 12 months, with a 121% spike in April 2026. The share of first-contact messages that explicitly asked for money or documents fell from 17% to 3%. The first message is deliberately bland, like "Are you at your desk?" Password attacks declined 26% year on year, which the report describes as strong evidence that MFA and passkeys are forcing attackers to pivot. That pivot includes techniques such as fatigue attacks, AiTM phishing and token theft designed to circumvent conventional MFA. Trend 5: Attackers are inheriting trust rather than breaking in The report's headline theme is that risk is increasingly interconnected. Threats travel through the trusted relationships between identities, software supply chains, partners and cloud platforms. The numbers: Supply chain: Major open-source ecosystems saw attacks roughly every ten days, accelerating through Q2 2026. Shai-Hulud 2.0 affected 25,000 repositories. Megalodon backdoored 5,561 GitHub repositories in under six hours. Trusted signing: In May 2026, Microsoft disrupted Fox Tempest, a "malware-signing-as-a-service" operation that obtained genuine certificates for ransomware loaders and infostealers. Microsoft revoked over a thousand fraudulent code-signing certificates. Legitimate access: An unsanctioned remote monitoring tool is now one of the most reliable mid-stage indicators of a human-operated intrusion. Cloud identity: Cloud identity abuse was the most observed technique against critical infrastructure, representing 78% of the technique mix in Microsoft’s data for March to June 2026. Hybrid intrusions: The Storm-2885 case showed an attacker using a privileged cloud identity to close and downgrade security alerts. The report says identity governance and alert-handling workflows deserve Tier 0 treatment. Dwell time: DART data shows a statistically significant increase in dwell time year on year, meaning organisations took longer to detect intrusions. Ransomware shows the same ecosystem pattern. Qilin led leak-site data with 16.4% of victims, up 386%. Defender detections tell a different story, with Akira at 22%. Trend 6: Defence works best when it's connected The report is not only a catalogue of threats. The strongest defensive evidence: Disruption works. Following the March 2026 disruption, Tycoon2FA activity had fallen 95% from its November 2025 peak by June. Its share of CAPTCHA-gated phishing declined from 76% in December 2025 to 12% in June 2026. Correlation is the highest-leverage variable. The report argues that how well defenders share and correlate signals across endpoint, identity, cloud, email and network is one of the highest-leverage strategic variables under their control. AI is also changing defensive operations. The report describes AI-assisted triage, incident summarisation, hunting-query generation and detection engineering as ways to accelerate investigations and allow analysts to concentrate on higher-value work. Automated disruption can compress response time. The report says that when a correlated incident reaches a defined confidence threshold, defensive systems can automatically isolate devices, disable compromised accounts, revoke sessions or quarantine affected cloud resources. It also stresses the importance of appropriate governance and human oversight for high-risk AI actions. The report also recommends changing what leaders measure. It suggests moving from patches deployed to exposure reduced, detection coverage increased and time-to-mitigate compressed. What the MDDR recommends: ten security priorities The report starts its recommendations with the foundations: Secure by Design, Secure by Default and Secure Operations, applied through identity-centric Zero Trust. Microsoft says these keep the priorities below durable as AI adds more identities, applications, agents and dependencies to govern. Govern cyber risk at leadership level. Report identity exposure, patch latency, agent permissions, critical dependencies, dwell time and recovery readiness to the board. Defend identity as the primary control plane. Deploy passkeys and phishing-resistant MFA, reduce privilege and govern human and non-human identities. Invalidate and rotate tokens and session credentials quickly. Establish governance, visibility and data controls for AI. Keep visibility of approved AI tools, services and agents, and monitor for unauthorised or unmanaged use. Apply sensitivity-aware access and data protection to the data those systems can reach. Reduce exposure and edge risk. Continuously discover internet-facing assets and patch edge devices quickly. Centralise high-fidelity logging, enforce strong authentication and combine network visibility with threat intelligence. Focus on cross-signal correlation. Correlate endpoint, identity, cloud, application, email and network signals to detect intrusions earlier. Correlation also helps defenders anticipate attack paths and likely targets. Enact a continuous threat and vulnerability management model. Combine asset visibility, vulnerability identification, threat detection and AI-accelerated insight into a single continuous programme. Validate exposure through proactive testing. Run assume-breach exercises on cloud services, SaaS platforms, APIs and workflow automation. Prioritise them by where your highest-value data is stored, accessed or aggregated. Secure software dependencies. Harden software installation, keep a software inventory and validate provenance. Monitor packages and prepare for rapid containment. Participate in collective defence. Share actionable threat indicators and victim-informed intelligence with trusted partners and law enforcement. This supports coordinated tracking, investigation and disruption. Prepare for long-horizon technology transitions. Build a cryptographic inventory and advance post-quantum planning alongside AI governance. Read together, the numbers tell one story: the attacker’s workflow is becoming faster and less expensive. AI can shorten vulnerability discovery, exploitation, secret discovery and lateral movement, while organisations still face the slower operational work of testing, coordinating and deploying safe changes across complex environments. At the same time, agent identities can proliferate faster than organisations can inventory, govern and revoke them The defining question for boards today is not whether disruption will occur, but whether the organization can continue operating, contain harm, recover quickly, and maintain trust when it does. Source: Microsoft Digital Defense Report 2026, Version 1.1. Reporting period: July 2025–June 2026.
Microsoft Defender XDR / Defender for Endpoint data connectors inconsistent failures
Hello, We are deploying our SOC (Sentinel) environments via Bicep. Now the Defender XDR ( MicrosoftThreatProtection) and Defender for Endpoint ( MicrosoftDefenderAdvancedThreatProtection) data connectors are failing to deploy inconsistantly. It seems to be a known issue due to the following posts: - https://github.com/Azure/SimuLand/issues/23 - https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-sentinel/quot-missing-consent-invalid-license-quot-defender-for-endpoint/m-p/3027212 - https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/issues/5007 Next to this issue I see almost no development on the data connectors API, is there some news to be spread how to enable data connectors automated in the future, since it seems to be moving to Content Hub. It is hard to find any docs about how to deploy this for example via Bicep!? Also I have a question regarding 'Tenant-based Microsoft Defender for Cloud (Preview)' data connector. We deploy this now via GenericUI data connector kind, but this has no option to enable it via automation. Same as the question in the previous paragraph, how would this be made possible?
Defender streaming setup and integration with private event hub
Hey team, Do we know Defeneder supports private endpoint only event hubs to ingest data - I think only public is supported Configure Azure Event Hubs for Microsoft Defender XDR event ingestion - Microsoft Defender XDR | Microsoft Learn Could anyone please clarify?
Microsoft Defender will not let me log in on Windows 11
I have a subscription to the Personal Microsoft 365 plan which includes Microsoft Defender. When I try logging into Microsoft Defender on my Windows PC, I receive an error message stating "Couldn't sign in to Microsoft Defender. Something went wrong-please try again later". I have been having this issue for several months now. I have recently contacted Microsoft Tech support who just directed me to this community. The tech support representative mentioned that others may have experienced similar issues as mine. I would appreciate if anyone could advise. My PC is running Windows 11 and is up to date on updates. All of my 365 applications are also up to date. I have also tried running the repair tool on Microsoft Defender in addition to uninstalling and reinstalling the application. The tech support representative mentioned something to me about the issue could be because I am using a personal email account for my login for Microsoft Defender. I did not fully understand why that would be the issue. I would like to note that I have no issue logging into Microsoft Defender on my Android phone. The problem appears to only occur on my PC and only for the Microsoft Defender app. All other apps that come with my 365 subscription use the same login and appear to be working fine.Authorization and Governance for AI Agents: Runtime Authorization Beyond Identity at Scale
Designing Authorization‑Aware AI Agents at Scale Enforcing Runtime RBAC + ABAC with Approval Injection (JIT) Microsoft Entra Agent Identity enables organizations to govern and manage AI agent identities in Copilot Studio, improving visibility and identity-level control. However, as enterprises deploy multiple autonomous AI agents, identity and OAuth permissions alone cannot answer a more critical question: “Should this action be executed now, by this agent, for this user, under the current business and regulatory context?” This post introduces a reusable Authorization Fabric—combining a Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) and Policy Decision Point (PDP)—implemented as a Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint using Azure Functions/App Service authentication. Every AI agent (Copilot Studio or AI Foundry/Semantic Kernel) calls this fabric before tool execution, receiving a deterministic runtime decision: ALLOW / DENY / REQUIRE_APPROVAL / MASK Who this is for Anyone building AI agents (Copilot Studio, AI Foundry/Semantic Kernel) that call tools, workflows, or APIs Organizations scaling to multiple agents and needing consistent runtime controls Teams operating in regulated or security‑sensitive environments, where decisions must be deterministic and auditable Why a V2? Identity is necessary—runtime authorization is missing Entra Agent Identity (preview) integrates Copilot Studio agents with Microsoft Entra so that newly created agents automatically get an Entra agent identity, manageable in the Entra admin center, and identity activity is logged in Entra. That solves who the agent is and improves identity governance visibility. But multi-agent deployments introduce a new risk class: Autonomous execution sprawl — many agents, operating with delegated privileges, invoking the same backends independently. OAuth and API permissions answer “can the agent call this API?” They do not answer “should the agent execute this action under business policy, compliance constraints, data boundaries, and approval thresholds?” This is where a runtime authorization decision plane becomes essential. The pattern: Microsoft Entra‑Protected Authorization Fabric (PEP + PDP) Instead of embedding RBAC logic independently inside every agent, use a shared fabric: PEP (Policy Enforcement Point): Gatekeeper invoked before any tool/action PDP (Policy Decision Point): Evaluates RBAC + ABAC + approval policies Decision output: ALLOW / DENY / REQUIRE_APPROVAL / MASK This Authorization Fabric functions as a shared enterprise control plane, decoupling authorization logic from individual agents and enforcing policies consistently across all autonomous execution paths. Architecture (POC reference architecture) Use a single runtime decision plane that sits between agents and tools. What’s important here Every agent (Copilot Studio or AI Foundry/SK) calls the Authorization Fabric API first The fabric is a protected endpoint (Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint required) Tools (Graph/ERP/CRM/custom APIs) are invoked only after an ALLOW decision (or approval) Trust boundaries enforced by this architecture Agents never call business tools directly without a prior authorization decision The Authorization Fabric validates caller identity via Microsoft Entra Authorization decisions are centralized, consistent, and auditable Approval workflows act as a runtime “break-glass” control for high-impact actions This ensures identity, intent, and execution are independently enforced, rather than implicitly trusted. Runtime flow (Decision → Approval → Execution) Here is the runtime sequence as a simple flow (you can keep your Mermaid diagram too). ```mermaid flowchart TD START(["START"]) --> S1["[1] User Request"] S1 --> S2["[2] Agent Extracts Intent\n(action, resource, attributes)"] S2 --> S3["[3] Call /authorize\n(Entra protected)"] S3 --> S4 subgraph S4["[4] PDP Evaluation"] ABAC["ABAC: Tenant · Region · Data Sensitivity"] RBAC["RBAC: Entitlement Check"] Threshold["Approval Threshold"] ABAC --> RBAC --> Threshold end S4 --> Decision{"[5] Decision?"} Decision -->|"ALLOW"| Exec["Execute Tool / API"] Decision -->|"MASK"| Masked["Execute with Masked Data"] Decision -->|"DENY"| Block["Block Request"] Decision -->|"REQUIRE_APPROVAL"| Approve{"[6] Approval Flow"} Approve -->|"Approved"| Exec Approve -->|"Rejected"| Block Exec --> Audit["[7] Audit & Telemetry"] Masked --> Audit Block --> Audit Audit --> ENDNODE(["END"]) style START fill:#4A90D9,stroke:#333,color:#fff style ENDNODE fill:#4A90D9,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S1 fill:#5B5FC7,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S2 fill:#5B5FC7,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S3 fill:#E8A838,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S4 fill:#FFF3E0,stroke:#E8A838,stroke-width:2px style ABAC fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style RBAC fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style Threshold fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style Decision fill:#fff,stroke:#333 style Exec fill:#2ECC71,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Masked fill:#27AE60,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Block fill:#C0392B,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Approve fill:#F39C12,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Audit fill:#3498DB,stroke:#333,color:#fff ``` Design principle: No tool execution occurs until the Authorization Fabric returns ALLOW or REQUIRE_APPROVAL is satisfied via an approval workflow. Where Power Automate fits (important for readers) In most Copilot Studio implementations, Agents calls Power Automate (agent flows), is the practical integration layer that calls enterprise services and APIs. Copilot Studio supports “agent flows” as a way to extend agent capabilities with low-code workflows. For this pattern, Power Automate typically: acquires/uses the right identity context for the call (depending on your tenant setup), and calls the /authorize endpoint of the Authorization Fabric, returns the decision payload to the agent for branching. Copilot Studio also supports calling REST endpoints directly using the HTTP Request node, including passing headers such as Authorization: Bearer <token>. Protected endpoint only: Securing the Authorization Fabric with Microsoft Entra For this V2 pattern, the Authorization Fabric must be protected using Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint on Azure Functions/App Service (built‑in auth). Microsoft Learn provides the configuration guidance for enabling Microsoft Entra as the authentication provider for Azure App Service / Azure Functions. Step 1 — Create the Authorization Fabric API (Azure Function) Expose an authorization endpoint: HTTP Step 2 — Enable Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint on the Function App In Azure Portal: Function App → Authentication Add identity provider → Microsoft Choose Workforce configuration (enterprise tenant) Set Require authentication for all requests This ensures the Authorization Fabric is not callable without a valid Entra token. Step 3 — Optional hardening (recommended) Depending on enterprise posture, layer: IP restrictions / Private endpoints APIM in front of the Function for rate limiting, request normalization, centralized logging (For a POC, keep it minimal—add hardening incrementally.) Externalizing policy (so governance scales) To make this pattern reusable across multiple agents, policies should not be hardcoded inside each agent. Instead, store policy definitions in a central policy store such as Cosmos DB (or equivalent configuration store), and have the PDP load/evaluate policies at runtime. Why this matters: Policy changes apply across all agents instantly (no agent republish) Central governance + versioning + rollback becomes possible Audit and reporting become consistent across environments (For the POC, a single JSON document per policy pack in Cosmos DB is sufficient. For production, add versioning and staged rollout.) Store one PolicyPack JSON document per environment (dev/test/prod). Include version, effectiveFrom, priority for safe rollout/rollback. Minimal decision contract (standard request / response) To keep the fabric reusable across agents, standardize the request payload. Request payload (example) Decision response (deterministic) Example scenario (1 minute to understand) Scenario: A user asks a Finance agent to create a Purchase Order for 70,000. Even if the user has API permission and the agent can technically call the ERP API, runtime policy should return: REQUIRE_APPROVAL (threshold exceeded) trigger an approval workflow execute only after approval is granted This is the difference between API access and authorized business execution. Sample Policy Model (RBAC + ABAC + Approval) This POC policy model intentionally stays simple while demonstrating both coarse and fine-grained governance. 1) Coarse‑grained RBAC (roles → actions) FinanceAnalyst CreatePO up to 50,000 ViewVendor FinanceManager CreatePO up to 100,000 and/or approve higher spend 2) Fine‑grained ABAC (conditions at runtime) ABAC evaluates context such as region, classification, tenant boundary, and risk: 3) Approval injection (Agent‑level JIT execution) For higher-risk/high-impact actions, the fabric returns REQUIRE_APPROVAL rather than hard deny (when appropriate): How policies should be evaluated (deterministic order) To ensure predictable and auditable behavior, evaluate in a deterministic order: Tenant isolation & residency (ABAC hard deny first) Classification rules (deny or mask) RBAC entitlement validation Threshold/risk evaluation Approval injection (JIT step-up) This prevents approval workflows from bypassing foundational security boundaries such as tenant isolation or data sovereignty. Copilot Studio integration (enforcing runtime authorization) Copilot Studio can call external REST APIs using the HTTP Request node, including passing headers such as Authorization: Bearer <token> and binding response schema for branching logic. Copilot Studio also supports using flows with agents (“agent flows”) to extend capabilities and orchestrate actions. Option A (Recommended): Copilot Studio → Agent Flow (Power Automate) → Authorization Fabric Why: Flows are a practical place to handle token acquisition patterns, approval orchestration, and standardized logging. Topic flow: Extract user intent + parameters Call an agent flow that: calls /authorize returns decision payload Branch in the topic: If ALLOW → proceed to tool call If REQUIRE_APPROVAL → trigger approval flow; proceed only if approved If DENY → stop and explain policy reason Important: Tool execution must never be reachable through an alternate topic path that bypasses the authorization check. Option B: Direct HTTP Request node to Authorization Fabric Use the Send HTTP request node to call the authorization endpoint and branch using the response schema. This approach is clean, but token acquisition and secure secretless authentication are often simpler when handled via a managed integration layer (flow + connector). AI Foundry / Semantic Kernel integration (tool invocation gate) For Foundry/SK agents, the integration point is before tool execution. Semantic Kernel supports Azure AI agent patterns and tool integration, making it a natural place to enforce a pre-tool authorization check. Pseudo-pattern: Agent extracts intent + context Calls Authorization Fabric Enforces decision Executes tool only when allowed (or after approval) Telemetry & audit (what Security Architects will ask for) Even the best policy engine is incomplete without audit trails. At minimum, log: agentId, userUPN, action, resource decision + reason + policyIds approval outcome (if any) correlationId for downstream tool execution Why it matters: you now have a defensible answer to: “Why did an autonomous agent execute this action?” Security signal bonus: Denials, unusual approval rates, and repeated policy mismatches can also indicate prompt injection attempts, mis-scoped agents, or governance drift. What this enables (and why it scales) With a shared Authorization Fabric: Avoid duplicating authorization logic across agents Standardize decisions across Copilot Studio + Foundry agents Update governance once (policy change) and apply everywhere Make autonomy safer without blocking productivity Closing: Identity gets you who. Runtime authorization gets you whether/when/how. Copilot Studio can automatically create Entra agent identities (preview), improving identity governance and visibility for agents. But safe autonomy requires a runtime decision plane. Securing that plane as an Entra-protected endpoint is foundational for enterprise deployments. In enterprise environments, autonomous execution without runtime authorization is equivalent to privileged access without PIM—powerful, fast, and operationally risky.Feature Request: Manual Invocation Mode for Embedded Security Copilot Experiences to reduce cost !
Hello, I see that Copilot for Security in XDR dashboards , if used in embedded mode (I mean whenever you are opening a case to investigate) you get AUTOMATICALLY a summary of the incident , and you are consuming SCU costs. I want a way either globally as a tenant option, or through a pwsh to be able to DISABLE this, or be able to PRESS the AI button AND THEN generate the AI reply (and consume SCU credits ..) Current behavior: Open Incident --> Copilot automatically generates Incident Summary --> SCUs ARE consumed Desired behavior: Open Incident --> No AI execution --> Click "Generate Summary" MANUALLY --> SCUs consumed I am not talking about RBAC controls to assign WHO of my admins can use Security Copilot, I have set that, BUT I want my admin to decide IF they want AI to help them (and consume - pay for that SCU credits-costs) OR NOT !! At the moment I havent found any solution, except to educate my admin to press CANCEL the moment he/she opens such an XDR dashboard ! :) Does anyone knows something ? Regards, PanosSentinel - 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. ThanksDefender of XDR - Quarantine - Lack of filter/search options
Hi Microsoft, I love what you're doing with the Defender XDR portal, but could you please show some love to the Quarantine section soon? On a daily basis, I have to review emails caught in quarantine for false positives, and the lack of search and filtering options is appalling. As a company based in Denmark, 99% of legitimate emails come from .dk domains. Yet there is no way to search for or filter on something this simple. If I type .dk into the search box, I get 0 results, even though I can clearly see .dk sender addresses on the page. The filter options only allow me to enter full sender or recipient email addresses, which is of course almost useless in a quarantine-review context. Some examples of filters that would be extremely useful: Sender domain ends with .dk Sender domain contains .dk URL domain filtering Attachment name filtering Saved filter views More flexible search across message properties The Quarantine experience could be made dramatically better with relatively little effort. So please, pretty please, give the Quarantine portal some attention. It's often the part of Defender that security teams interact with every single day.Campaign-Centric Hunting with Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Sentinel
Phishing investigations usually start with one suspicious email. A user reports a message. An alert is generated. An analyst opens the email details, checks the sender, reviews the URL, and tries to understand whether the message is malicious. That is a normal starting point. However, in a real SOC investigation, one email is rarely the full story. Attackers usually operate in campaigns. They reuse sender infrastructure, similar subjects, URLs, payloads, templates, and delivery techniques. A single email may be only one part of a wider phishing or malware campaign targeting multiple users. This is why campaign-centric hunting is important. I wrote this article from the perspective of a SOC analyst who often needs to move quickly from a single suspicious email to the full campaign impact. The goal is simple: use Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Sentinel together to understand who was targeted, what was delivered, who clicked, and what should be prioritized first. Why Campaign-Centric Hunting When investigating a phishing or malware email, analysts usually need to answer practical questions: How many users received messages from the same campaign? Were the messages blocked, junked, delivered, or remediated? Did any user click the URL? Did anyone click through a Safe Links warning? Were any priority or high-risk users affected? Was the email removed after delivery? Are there related Defender XDR or Sentinel incidents? If we only investigate one message, we may miss the bigger picture. Campaign-centric hunting helps the SOC move from this question: Is this email malicious? To this question: What is the full impact of this campaign? That shift is important because the response priority should be based on campaign impact, not only on a single alert. What Campaign Views Provides Campaign Views in Microsoft Defender for Office 365 help analysts investigate coordinated email attacks such as phishing and malware campaigns. From Campaign Views, analysts can review campaign-level information such as: Campaign name Campaign type Campaign subtype Targeted users Inboxed messages Clicked users Visited links Sender domains Sender IPs Payload URLs Delivery actions Campaign timeline Campaign flow This is useful during triage because it quickly shows whether an email is part of a wider attack. For example, one reported phishing message may look small at first. But if Campaign Views shows that the same campaign targeted 50 users, delivered messages to 15 inboxes, and had 2 users click the URL, the investigation becomes much more urgent. Where CampaignInfo Fits The CampaignInfo table gives analysts a KQL-based way to query campaign-related data. Some useful fields are: Field Purpose CampaignId Unique identifier for the campaign CampaignName Name of the campaign CampaignType Campaign category, such as Phish or Malware CampaignSubtype Additional context, such as brand being phished or malware family NetworkMessageId Unique identifier for the email message RecipientEmailAddress Recipient affected by the campaign Timestamp Time when the event was recorded For correlation, the most important field is usually: NetworkMessageId This field can help connect campaign data with other Defender XDR email tables, including: EmailEvents UrlClickEvents EmailPostDeliveryEvents EmailAttachmentInfo EmailUrlInfo This makes CampaignInfo a useful pivot table for campaign-level hunting. Important note: CampaignInfo is currently documented as Preview. Before using these queries in production analytics rules, validate the table availability, schema, and results in your own tenant. Practical Scenario An analyst receives a phishing alert in Microsoft Defender XDR. The alert is related to a user who received a suspicious email with a credential-harvesting URL. The analyst opens Campaign Views and sees that the message belongs to a wider phishing campaign. At that point, the investigation should not stop with the original user. The analyst should now ask: Who else received this campaign? How many messages were delivered? Which users clicked? Did any users click through the Safe Links warning? Were the messages removed after delivery? Are there related incidents in Microsoft Sentinel? The investigation flow could look like this: Start from Campaign Views in Microsoft Defender XDR. Identify the campaign details. Use CampaignInfo to list affected users and messages. Join with EmailEvents to validate delivery status. Join with UrlClickEvents to identify user interaction. Join with EmailPostDeliveryEvents to confirm remediation. Review related Microsoft XDR incidents in Microsoft Sentinel. Prioritize response based on campaign impact. Query 1: List Recent Campaigns The first query gives a simple overview of recent campaigns. CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | summarize FirstSeen = min(Timestamp), LastSeen = max(Timestamp), AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by LastSeen desc This helps analysts quickly identify campaigns that affected the organization during the selected period. Useful questions to ask from this output: Which campaigns are most recent? Which campaigns affected the most users? Are the campaigns phishing, malware, or spam? Is there a specific brand or malware family in the subtype? Are similar campaigns appearing repeatedly? Query 2: Understand Delivery Impact After identifying campaigns, the next step is to understand delivery impact. A campaign that was fully blocked is different from a campaign that reached user inboxes. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter ( EmailEvents | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress, Subject, SenderFromAddress, SenderFromDomain, SenderIPv4, DeliveryAction, DeliveryLocation, ThreatTypes, DetectionMethods, Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId), AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Subjects = make_set(Subject, 5), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderFromDomain, 10), SenderIPs = make_set(SenderIPv4, 10) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, DeliveryAction, DeliveryLocation | order by AffectedUsers desc, Messages desc This query helps separate campaigns that were blocked from campaigns that actually reached users. From a SOC perspective, delivered messages deserve closer attention, especially if they reached the inbox. Query 3: Identify Users Who Clicked Campaign URLs Delivery is important, but clicks usually increase the priority of the incident. This query joins campaign data with UrlClickEvents. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=inner ( UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project NetworkMessageId, AccountUpn, Url, ActionType, IsClickedThrough, ThreatTypes, DetectionMethods, IPAddress, Workload, ClickTime = Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId | summarize FirstClick = min(ClickTime), LastClick = max(ClickTime), ClickEvents = count(), ClickedUsers = dcount(AccountUpn), ClickThroughUsers = dcountif(AccountUpn, IsClickedThrough == true), ClickedUrls = make_set(Url, 10), SourceIPs = make_set(IPAddress, 10) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by ClickThroughUsers desc, ClickedUsers desc, LastClick desc This query helps identify campaigns where users interacted with the payload. If a user clicked a phishing URL, the next step should usually include identity-focused investigation, such as reviewing sign-in activity, MFA status, session activity, and possible risky sign-ins. Query 4: Focus on Click-Through Events Safe Links may block access to a malicious site. In some cases, however, a user may continue through a warning page. Those cases should be reviewed carefully. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=inner ( UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | where IsClickedThrough == true | project NetworkMessageId, AccountUpn, Url, ActionType, ThreatTypes, IPAddress, ClickTime = Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId | project ClickTime, CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, AccountUpn, RecipientEmailAddress, Url, ActionType, ThreatTypes, IPAddress | order by ClickTime desc This is one of the most useful views during incident response. A click-through event does not automatically mean compromise, but it is a strong reason to investigate the user account further. Query 5: Confirm Post-Delivery Remediation A malicious message may be delivered first and removed later by ZAP, AIR, or manual remediation. This query joins CampaignInfo with EmailPostDeliveryEvents. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter ( EmailPostDeliveryEvents | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress, RemediationTime = Timestamp, Action, ActionType, ActionTrigger, ActionResult, DeliveryLocation, SourceLocation ) on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize RemediatedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, isnotempty(ActionType)), RemediationTypes = make_set(ActionType, 10), RemediationResults = make_set(ActionResult, 10), LastRemediation = max(RemediationTime) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by LastRemediation desc This helps answer a very important question: Were the delivered malicious messages actually removed? This is useful for both SOC triage and reporting because it shows not only detection, but also response. Query 6: Campaign Blast Radius Summary The following query combines campaign, delivery, click, and remediation data into one campaign-level view. let TimeRange = 30d; let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; let Delivery = EmailEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize DeliveryActions = make_set(DeliveryAction, 10), DeliveryLocations = make_set(DeliveryLocation, 10), DeliveredMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Delivered"), JunkedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Junked"), BlockedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Blocked"), Subjects = make_set(Subject, 5), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderFromDomain, 10) by NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; let Clicks = UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize ClickEvents = count(), ClickThroughEvents = countif(IsClickedThrough == true), FirstClick = min(Timestamp), LastClick = max(Timestamp), ClickedUrls = make_set(Url, 10) by NetworkMessageId; let Remediation = EmailPostDeliveryEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize RemediationActions = make_set(ActionType, 10), LastRemediation = max(Timestamp) by NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter Delivery on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | join kind=leftouter Clicks on NetworkMessageId | join kind=leftouter Remediation on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId), DeliveredMessages = sum(DeliveredMessages), JunkedMessages = sum(JunkedMessages), BlockedMessages = sum(BlockedMessages), TotalClickEvents = sum(ClickEvents), ClickThroughEvents = sum(ClickThroughEvents), Subjects = make_set(Subjects, 10), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderDomains, 10), ClickedUrls = make_set(ClickedUrls, 10), RemediationActions = make_set(RemediationActions, 10), LastClick = max(LastClick), LastRemediation = max(LastRemediation) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | extend SuggestedPriority = case( ClickThroughEvents > 0, "High", TotalClickEvents > 0, "Medium", DeliveredMessages > 0, "Medium", "Low" ) | order by SuggestedPriority asc, AffectedUsers desc, Messages desc This type of query can be useful during hunting sessions, incident review, and campaign reporting. The goal is not only to collect more data. The goal is to help the analyst decide what needs attention first. Correlating Campaign Activity with Microsoft Sentinel When Microsoft Defender XDR is connected to Microsoft Sentinel, incidents and alerts can be synchronized into the Sentinel incident queue. This allows the SOC to correlate campaign-related email activity with other security signals, such as: Suspicious sign-ins Identity alerts Endpoint alerts Cloud app activity OAuth consent activity Data exfiltration attempts Related Microsoft XDR incidents For example, if a user clicked a phishing URL, the SOC can then review whether the same user had suspicious sign-in activity shortly after the click. The following query is a simple starting point for reviewing Microsoft XDR incidents in Microsoft Sentinel. SecurityIncident | where TimeGenerated > ago(30d) | where ProviderName == "Microsoft XDR" | where Title has_any ("phish", "phishing", "email", "malware", "campaign") | summarize Incidents = count(), HighSeverity = countif(Severity == "High"), MediumSeverity = countif(Severity == "Medium"), Closed = countif(Status == "Closed"), Active = countif(Status == "Active") by bin(TimeGenerated, 1d) | order by TimeGenerated desc This query does not replace campaign hunting. It simply helps analysts understand how email-related activity is represented in the Sentinel incident queue. Suggested SOC Workflow A practical campaign-centric workflow could look like this: Step 1: Start from Campaign Views Review campaigns with delivered messages, clicked users, visited links, or high user impact. Step 2: Pivot to KQL Use CampaignInfo to list campaign-related messages and affected recipients. Step 3: Validate Delivery Join with EmailEvents to confirm whether messages were blocked, junked, delivered, or replaced. Step 4: Review User Interaction Join with UrlClickEvents to identify users who clicked URLs or clicked through Safe Links warnings. Step 5: Confirm Remediation Join with EmailPostDeliveryEvents to confirm whether delivered messages were removed after delivery. Step 6: Correlate in Sentinel Review related Microsoft XDR incidents and correlate with identity, endpoint, and cloud activity. Step 7: Decide Response Depending on the impact, the SOC may decide to: Escalate the incident Notify affected users Review user sign-ins Revoke user sessions Reset passwords Block sender domains or URLs Submit false negatives Create a watchlist for related indicators Tune analytics rules or response processes Suggested Priority Logic Not every campaign needs the same level of response. A simple triage model could be: Condition Suggested priority Campaign blocked before delivery Low Campaign delivered to junk Low to Medium Campaign delivered to inbox Medium Campaign delivered to multiple inboxes Medium to High User clicked URL High User clicked through warning High Priority account clicked High Click followed by suspicious sign-in Critical This model should be adapted to each organization’s risk profile and response process. Limitations and Things to Validate Before using this approach in production, validate the following: Defender for Office 365 Plan 2 availability Campaign Views permissions CampaignInfo table availability Defender XDR connector configuration Advanced hunting event streaming Field names in your environment Retention period Data latency Join behavior using NetworkMessageId Whether click events can be joined to email metadata in all cases One important limitation is that some URL click events may not join cleanly with email metadata. For example, clicks from Drafts or Sent Items may not have the same message metadata available for correlation. Also, because CampaignInfo is currently documented as Preview, I would avoid depending on it alone for critical production automation without testing and validation.
