Unsanctioned cloud apps generates constant alerts
When I mark a cloud app as unsanctioned it created a URL based indicator to block the site. However, it also by default enables the Generate Alert option on the indictor. This causes my SOC to bet inundated with garbage alerts. Now normally if I'm just unsanctioning one Cloud App a could go and turn of the alert. However, I use cloud app policy that will identify any new Cloud Apps in an entire category and then unsanction it. But it enables Generate Alert on the URL indicator. Then if someone accesses that new one the generate alert kicks off. I don't want to have to go into every new app and untick generate alert manually that's just too time consuming. Is there a way to change the default behaviour when adding an indicator to not enable the generate alert? Of is there some other way to do this? I could consider using power automate or something but I'd rather the default behaviour be the fix as automation can break. I don't have time to babysit it.
From “No” to “Now”: A 7-Layer Strategy for Enterprise AI Safety
The “block” posture on Generative AI has failed. In a global enterprise, banning these tools doesn't stop usage; it simply pushes intellectual property into unmanaged channels and creates a massive visibility gap in corporate telemetry. The priority has now shifted from stopping AI to hardening the environment so that innovation can run at velocity without compromising data sovereignty. Traditional security perimeters are ineffective against the “slow bleed” of AI leakage - where data moves through prompts, clipboards, and autonomous agents rather than bulk file transfers. To secure this environment, a 7-layer defense-in-depth model is required to treat the conversation itself as the new perimeter. 1. Identity: The Only Verifiable Perimeter Identity is the primary control plane. Access to AI services must be treated with the same rigor as administrative access to core infrastructure. The strategy centers on enforcing device-bound Conditional Access, where access is strictly contingent on device health. To solve the "Account Leak" problem, the deployment of Tenant Restrictions v2 (TRv2) is essential to prevent users from signing into personal tenants using corporate-managed devices. For enhanced coverage, Universal Tenant Restrictions (UTR) via Global Secure Access (GSA) allows for consistent enforcement at the cloud edge. While TRv2 authentication-plane is GA, data-plane protection is GA for the Microsoft 365 admin center and remains in preview for other workloads such as SharePoint and Teams. 2. Eliminating the Visibility Gap (Shadow AI) You can’t secure what you can't see. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps (MDCA) serves to discover and govern the enterprise AI footprint, while Purview DSPM for AI (formerly AI Hub) monitors Copilot and third-party interactions. By categorizing tools using MDCA risk scores and compliance attributes, organizations can apply automated sanctioning decisions and enforce session controls for high-risk endpoints. 3. Data Hygiene: Hardening the “Work IQ” AI acts as a mirror of internal permissions. In a "flat" environment, AI acts like a search engine for your over-shared data. Hardening the foundation requires automated sensitivity labeling in Purview Information Protection. Identifying PII and proprietary code before assigning AI licenses ensures that labels travel with the data, preventing labeled content from being exfiltrated via prompts or unauthorized sharing. 4. Session Governance: Solving the “Clipboard Leak” The most common leak in 2025 is not a file upload; it’s a simple copy-paste action or a USB transfer. Deploying Conditional Access App Control (CAAC) via MDCA session policies allows sanctioned apps to function while specifically blocking cut/copy/paste. This is complemented by Endpoint DLP, which extends governance to the physical device level, preventing sensitive data from being moved to unmanaged USB storage or printers during an AI-assisted workflow. Purview Information Protection with IRM rounds this out by enforcing encryption and usage rights on the files themselves. When a user tries to print a "Do Not Print" document, Purview triggers an alert that flows into Microsoft Sentinel. This gives the SOC visibility into actual policy violations instead of them having to hunt through generic activity logs. 5. The “Agentic” Era: Agent 365 & Sharing Controls Now that we're moving from "Chat" to "Agents", Agent 365 and Entra Agent ID provide the necessary identity and control plane for autonomous entities. A quick tip: in large-scale tenants, default settings often present a governance risk. A critical first step is navigating to the Microsoft 365 admin center (Copilot > Agents) to disable the default “Anyone in organization” sharing option. Restricting agent creation and sharing to a validated security group is essential to prevent unvetted agent sprawl and ensure that only compliant agents are discoverable. 6. The Human Layer: “Safe Harbors” over Bans Security fails when it creates more friction than the risk it seeks to mitigate. Instead of an outright ban, investment in AI skilling-teaching users context minimization (redacting specifics before interacting with a model) - is the better path. Providing a sanctioned, enterprise-grade "Safe Harbor" like M365 Copilot offers a superior tool that naturally cuts down the use of Shadow AI. 7. Continuous Ops: Monitoring & Regulatory Audit Security is not a “set and forget” project, particularly with the EU AI Act on the horizon. Correlating AI interactions and DLP alerts in Microsoft Sentinel using Purview Audit (specifically the CopilotInteraction logs) data allows for real-time responses. Automated SOAR playbooks can then trigger protective actions - such as revoking an Agent ID - if an entity attempts to access sensitive HR or financial data. Final Thoughts Securing AI at scale is an architectural shift. By layering Identity, Session Governance, and Agentic Identity, AI moves from being a fragmented risk to a governed tool that actually works for the modern workplace.
Add Privacy Scrub Service to Microsoft Defender?
Microsoft Defender protects accounts against phishing and malware, but attackers increasingly exploit nuisance data broker sites that publish personal information (names, emails, addresses). These sites are scraped to personalize phishing campaigns, making them harder to detect. I propose a premium Defender add‑on that automatically files opt‑out requests with major data brokers (similar to DeleteMe).Blocking Personal Outlook and Gmail Accounts on Corporate Device
Hello Community, In my organization, we use the Microsoft 365 environment. We have a hybrid infrastructure, but we aim to deploy as many policies as possible through Microsoft 365 (Intune, Purview, Defender, etc.). One of our goals is to limit the use of corporate devices for personal purposes. We use Outlook as our corporate email service, and we would like to block employees from signing into their personal email accounts (either via web or desktop application). Additionally, we would like to block access to other email services, such as Gmail, both via web and desktop apps. Could you provide guidance on how to achieve this? I would greatly appreciate any help or suggestions. Thank you very much! Juan RojasSecure Score Improvement Recommended actions information sheet
Hello All I am starting a project to Improve our Secure score following the "Recommended Actions" section in the M365 Defender portal. Now each action comes with its own set of General information and remediation options. Rather than get the actions on each of the 208 recommendations by clicking through all the tabs and recording every step required to complete the recommendation , does anyone know if Microsoft has an Excel sheet with all the relevant Secure Score Improvement actions/information in one place? Will make running this project so much easier! Thanks in advance ! Kind Regards ChristoInsider Builds
I have been an avid Microsoft user for many years with only a couple of small issues every now and again. The 6 weeks have been unbelievably stressful and disheartening. I thought trying samples of New Insider builds and enlisting in Azure for some up to date training for myself to help with what I wanted to roll out for my business. This has been the worst experience i have ever been apart of. I now have multiple computers and hardware in disarray but more importantly the loss of time and patience is paramount . I have come to realise the repetitive responses and requests for data collection on feedback or issues is one-sided The amount of user data submissions is not the issue though. It is the assistance from Microsoft regarding issue via portals, help-desk etc. The inclusion of many backend functions for the purpose of better user experience is heavily flawed. Unless end-user inadvertently has or encounters issues in there OS life is good. Heavily automated program tiggers sit through all OS builds for example. One drive. Regardless whether this is declined or removed it will always be running in the background. If you system had been compromised this is a perfect place for root-kit other Malware to spread. Xcopy: A Microsoft background function which has the ability clone and copy 99% of drivers of operating info structure. Can be controlled by ghost script directives or embedded dll to aid malware. Anti-virus or defender find difficulties identifying or distinguishing authentic and re-pro-ducted data. In time this type of incursion can mimic a vast amount of OS functionality. Microsoft OS validity. I have trailed numerous builds with all sharing this characteristic. Invalid or expired software and driver certificates & TPM flaws even after a full clean reset and TPM turned off in bios. Inevitably this can introduce compromised software without end-user knowledge. The impact leads to unauthorised access in many elements of the OS platform especially data access and embedded .dll which can run inline or above elevated authorisation. A lot of this is undetectable. Once embedded in OS and bios this is impossible to clean without expert assistance and can be very costly. For the most part the inclusion of new AI functionality across the OS platform is very welcomed. Unfortunately there are a large amount of bugs to be ironed out especially in the platform navigation. Advice provided via OS AI can be mis-leading or incorrect. .Live response sessions and Zscaler
Has anyone managed to get live response sessions from Defender XDR working with Zscaler enabled? I have bypassed all necessary URLs from SSL inspection but still getting blocked from performing actions on live response. It is definitely Zscaler as when it's disabled live response works perfectly.
Old .NET versions automatic uninstallation/removal
Hello, How are you removing old versions of .NET from your devices? Is there a way to automate this? To better clarify our issue, please see the screenshot below. We just installed the latest version (6.0.35) for both: .NET Runtime and Desktop Runtime but older 6.0.33 versions are still there. We need to automate those older versions removal. I appreciate your response and help. Thanks, MarkUnable to Restrict Sensitive Data Access by Microsoft Edge via Endpoint DLP Policy
Hello everyone, I've been running into a peculiar issue where actions we have configured to be blocked via our Endpoint DLP policies do not apply to the Microsoft Edge browser. Currently, we have a DLP policy configured to block attempts to access protected files by a list of restricted apps. Our restricted apps include "firefox.exe", "chrome.exe", "msedge.exe" and "msedgewebview2.exe". When the sensitive content is accessed by either Chrome or Firefox, the DLP policy works correctly (Block with override), but the policy completely refuses to work in any scenario that involves Edge. The data we are using as an example is able to be accessed by the Edge executables without restriction. Has anyone else run into this issue? It's strange to me that for some reason Edge is just completely exempt from the DLP policy actions we have implemented. Thank you!
