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.
Account recovery
I've been locked out of my main account for over 45 days now and everything important is linked to that email. I can't log in to many other things that send verification codes to my Microsoft email because it seems impossible to recover my Microsoft email. I have access to my security backup email but because I had 2 factor authentication turned on I need access to the authenticator app which is on my old phone or a 25 digit recovery code I can't find. I tried the account recovery form but because of 2FA it tells me I can't recover an account with 2FA enabled. I then tried the security information replacement which is a 30 day process to replace my old security info I no longer have access to with a new backup email. I received a confirmation that the 30 day replacement process started and a reminder at 15 days giving me an exact date and time that my new security information will replace the old information. The deadline arrived and nothing happened. I then contacted support the next day and they assured me there can be a delay up to 48 hours. I waited the 48 hours and still nothing happened. I've been in contact with support now almost daily and spoken to supervisors that have even taken control of my computer and recorded the issue. I'm now locked out of my account for a total of around 45 days and now 36 days into the 30 day deadline for replacing my old security information. I've even filled out forms that I was advised to fill and submit and in response I was just told to keep trying to "recover my account". But I can't "recover" my account because it had 2FA enabled. No one seems to be able to help even with escalations to the security team.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.Kerberos and the End of RC4: Protocol Hardening and Preparing for CVE‑2026‑20833
CVE-2026-20833 addresses the continued use of the RC4‑HMAC algorithm within the Kerberos protocol in Active Directory environments. Although RC4 has been retained for many years for compatibility with legacy systems, it is now considered cryptographically weak and unsuitable for modern authentication scenarios. As part of the security evolution of Kerberos, Microsoft has initiated a process of progressive protocol hardening, whose objective is to eliminate RC4 as an implicit fallback, establishing AES128 and AES256 as the default and recommended algorithms. This change should not be treated as optional or merely preventive. It represents a structural change in Kerberos behavior that will be progressively enforced through Windows security updates, culminating in a model where RC4 will no longer be implicitly accepted by the KDC. If Active Directory environments maintain service accounts, applications, or systems dependent on RC4, authentication failures may occur after the application of the updates planned for 2026, especially during the enforcement phases introduced starting in April and finalized in July 2026. For this reason, it is essential that organizations proactively identify and eliminate RC4 dependencies, ensuring that accounts, services, and applications are properly configured to use AES128 or AES256 before the definitive changes to Kerberos protocol behavior take effect. Official Microsoft References CVE-2026-25177 - Security Update Guide - Microsoft - Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability Microsoft Support – How to manage Kerberos KDC usage of RC4 for service account ticket issuance changes related to CVE-2026-20833 (KB 5073381) Microsoft Learn – Detect and Remediate RC4 Usage in Kerberos AskDS – What is going on with RC4 in Kerberos? Beyond RC4 for Windows authentication | Microsoft Windows Server Blog So, you think you’re ready for enforcing AES for Kerberos? | Microsoft Community Hub Risk Associated with the Vulnerability When RC4 is used in Kerberos tickets, an authenticated attacker can request Service Tickets (TGS) for valid SPNs, capture these tickets, and perform offline brute-force attacks, particularly Kerberoasting scenarios, with the goal of recovering service account passwords. Compared to AES, RC4 allows significantly faster cracking, especially for older accounts or accounts with weak passwords. Technical Overview of the Exploitation In simplified terms, the exploitation flow occurs as follows: The attacker requests a TGS for a valid SPN. The KDC issues the ticket using RC4, when that algorithm is still accepted. The ticket is captured and analyzed offline. The service account password is recovered. The compromised account is used for lateral movement or privilege escalation. Official Timeline Defined by Microsoft Important clarification on enforcement behavior Explicit account encryption type configurations continue to be honored even during enforcement mode. The Kerberos hardening associated with CVE‑2026‑20833 focuses on changing the default behavior of the KDC, enforcing AES-only encryption for TGS ticket issuance when no explicit configuration exists. This approach follows the same enforcement model previously applied to Kerberos session keys in earlier security updates (for example, KB5021131 related to CVE‑2022‑37966), representing another step in the progressive removal of RC4 as an implicit fallback. January 2026 – Audit Phase Starting in January 2026, Microsoft initiated the Audit Phase related to changes in RC4 usage within Kerberos, as described in the official guidance associated with CVE-2026-20833. The primary objective of this phase is to allow organizations to identify existing RC4 dependencies before enforcement changes are applied in later phases. During this phase, no functional breakage is expected, as RC4 is still permitted by the KDC. However, additional auditing mechanisms were introduced, providing greater visibility into how Kerberos tickets are issued in the environment. Analysis is primarily based on the following events recorded in the Security Log of Domain Controllers: Event ID 4768 – Kerberos Authentication Service (AS request / Ticket Granting Ticket) Event ID 4769 – Kerberos Service Ticket Operations (Ticket Granting Service – TGS) Additional events related to the KDCSVC service These events allow identification of: the account that requested authentication the requested service or SPN the source host of the request the encryption algorithm used for the ticket and session key This information is critical for detecting scenarios where RC4 is still being implicitly used, enabling operations teams to plan remediation ahead of the enforcement phase. If these events are not being logged on Domain Controllers, it is necessary to verify whether Kerberos auditing is properly enabled. For Kerberos authentication events to be recorded in the Security Log, the corresponding audit policies must be configured. The minimum recommended configuration is to enable Success auditing for the following subcategories: Kerberos Authentication Service Kerberos Service Ticket Operations Verification can be performed directly on a Domain Controller using the following commands: auditpol /get /subcategory:"Kerberos Service Ticket Operations" auditpol /get /subcategory:"Kerberos Authentication Service" In enterprise environments, the recommended approach is to apply this configuration via Group Policy, ensuring consistency across all Domain Controllers. The corresponding policy can be found at: Computer Configuration - Policies - Windows Settings - Security Settings - Advanced Audit Policy Configuration - Audit Policies - Account Logon Once enabled, these audits record events 4768 and 4769 in the Domain Controllers’ Security Log, allowing analysis tools—such as inventory scripts or SIEM/Log Analytics queries—to accurately identify where RC4 is still present in the Kerberos authentication flow. April 2026 – Enforcement with Manual Rollback With the April 2026 update, the KDC begins operating in AES-only mode (0x18) when the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute is not defined. This means RC4 is no longer accepted as an implicit fallback. During this phase, applications, accounts, or computers that still implicitly depend on RC4 may start failing. Manual rollback remains possible via explicit configuration of the attribute in Active Directory. July 2026 – Final Enforcement Starting in July 2026, audit mode and rollback options are removed. RC4 will only function if explicitly configured—a practice that is strongly discouraged. This represents the point of no return in the hardening process. Official Monitoring Approach Microsoft provides official scripts in the repository: https://github.com/microsoft/Kerberos-Crypto/tree/main/scripts The two primary scripts used in this analysis are: Get-KerbEncryptionUsage.ps1 The Get-KerbEncryptionUsage.ps1 script, provided by Microsoft in the Kerberos‑Crypto repository, is designed to identify how Kerberos tickets are issued in the environment by analyzing authentication events recorded on Domain Controllers. Data collection is primarily based on: Event ID 4768 – Kerberos Authentication Service (AS‑REQ / TGT issuance) Event ID 4769 – Kerberos Service Ticket Operations (TGS issuance) From these events, the script extracts and consolidates several relevant fields for authentication flow analysis: Time – when the authentication occurred Requestor – IP address or host that initiated the request Source – account that requested the ticket Target – requested service or SPN Type – operation type (AS or TGS) Ticket – algorithm used to encrypt the ticket SessionKey – algorithm used to protect the session key Based on these fields, it becomes possible to objectively identify which algorithms are being used in the environment, both for ticket issuance and session establishment. This visibility is essential for detecting RC4 dependencies in the Kerberos authentication flow, enabling precise identification of which clients, services, or accounts still rely on this legacy algorithm. Example usage: .\Get-KerbEncryptionUsage.ps1 -Encryption RC4 -Searchscope AllKdcs | Export-Csv -Path .\KerbUsage_RC4_All_ThisDC.csv -NoTypeInformation -Encoding UTF8 Data Consolidation and Analysis In enterprise environments, where event volumes may be high, it is recommended to consolidate script results into analytical tools such as Power BI to facilitate visualization and investigation. The presented image illustrates an example dashboard built from collected results, enabling visibility into: Total events analyzed Number of Domain Controllers involved Number of requesting clients (Requestors) Most frequently involved services or SPNs (Targets) Temporal distribution of events RC4 usage scenarios (Ticket, SessionKey, or both) This type of visualization enables rapid identification of RC4 usage patterns, remediation prioritization, and progress tracking as dependencies are eliminated. Additionally, dashboards help answer key operational questions, such as: Which services still depend on RC4 Which clients are negotiating RC4 for sessions Which Domain Controllers are issuing these tickets Whether RC4 usage is decreasing over time This combined automated collection + analytical visualization approach is the recommended strategy to prepare environments for the Microsoft changes related to CVE‑2026‑20833 and the progressive removal of RC4 in Kerberos. Visualizing Results with Power BI To facilitate analysis and monitoring of RC4 usage in Kerberos, it is recommended to consolidate script results into a Power BI analytical dashboard. 1. Install Power BI Desktop Download and install Power BI Desktop from the official Microsoft website 2. Execute data collection After running the Get-KerbEncryptionUsage.ps1 script, save the generated CSV file to the following directory: C:\Temp\Kerberos_KDC_usage_of_RC4_Logs\KerbEncryptionUsage_RC4.csv 3. Open the dashboard in Power BI Open the file RC4-KerbEncryptionUsage-Dashboards.pbix using Power BI Desktop. If you are interested, please leave a comment on this post with your email address, and I will be happy to share with you. 4. Update the data source If the CSV file is located in a different directory, it will be necessary to adjust the data source path in Power BI. As illustrated, the dashboard uses a parameter named CsvFilePath, which defines the path to the collected CSV file. To adjust it: Open Transform Data in Power BI. Locate the CsvFilePath parameter in the list of Queries. Update the value to the directory where the CSV file was saved. Click Refresh Preview or Refresh to update the data. Click Home → Close & Apply. This approach allows rapid identification of RC4 dependencies, prioritization of remediation actions, and tracking of progress throughout the elimination process. List-AccountKeys.ps1 This script is used to identify which long-term keys are present on user, computer, and service accounts, enabling verification of whether RC4 is still required or whether AES128/AES256 keys are already available. Interpreting Observed Scenarios Microsoft recommends analyzing RC4 usage by jointly considering two key fields present in Kerberos events: Ticket Encryption Type Session Encryption Type Each combination represents a distinct Kerberos behavior, indicating the source of the issue, risk level, and remediation point in the environment. In addition to events 4768 and 4769, updates released starting January 13, 2026, introduce new Kdcsvc events in the System Event Log that assist in identifying RC4 dependencies ahead of enforcement. These events include: Event ID 201 – RC4 usage detected because the client advertises only RC4 and the service does not have msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes defined. Event ID 202 – RC4 usage detected because the service account does not have AES keys and the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute is not defined. Event ID 203 – RC4 usage blocked (enforcement phase) because the client advertises only RC4 and the service does not have msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes defined. Event ID 204 – RC4 usage blocked (enforcement phase) because the service account does not have AES keys and msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes is not defined. Event ID 205 – Detection of explicit enablement of insecure algorithms (such as RC4) in the domain policy DefaultDomainSupportedEncTypes. Event ID 206 – RC4 usage detected because the service accepts only AES, but the client does not advertise AES support. Event ID 207 – RC4 usage detected because the service is configured for AES, but the service account does not have AES keys. Event ID 208 – RC4 usage blocked (enforcement phase) because the service accepts only AES and the client does not advertise AES support. Event ID 209 – RC4 usage blocked (enforcement phase) because the service accepts only AES, but the service account does not have AES keys. https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/topic/how-to-manage-kerberos-kdc-usage-of-rc4-for-service-account-ticket-issuance-changes-related-to-cve-2026-20833-1ebcda33-720a-4da8-93c1-b0496e1910dc They indicate situations where RC4 usage will be blocked in future phases, allowing early detection of configuration issues in clients, services, or accounts. These events are logged under: Log: System Source: Kdcsvc Below are the primary scenarios observed during the analysis of Kerberos authentication behavior, highlighting how RC4 usage manifests across different ticket and session encryption combinations. Each scenario represents a distinct risk profile and indicates specific remediation actions required to ensure compliance with the upcoming enforcement phases. Scenario A – RC4 / RC4 In this scenario, both the Kerberos ticket and the session key are issued using RC4. This is the worst possible scenario from a security and compatibility perspective, as it indicates full and explicit dependence on RC4 in the authentication flow. This condition significantly increases exposure to Kerberoasting attacks, since RC4‑encrypted tickets can be subjected to offline brute-force attacks to recover service account passwords. In addition, environments remaining in this state have a high probability of authentication failure after the April 2026 updates, when RC4 will no longer be accepted as an implicit fallback by the KDC. Events Associated with This Scenario During the Audit Phase, this scenario is typically associated with: Event ID 201 – Kdcsvc Indicates that: the client advertises only RC4 the service does not have msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes defined the Domain Controller does not have DefaultDomainSupportedEncTypes defined This means RC4 is being used implicitly. This event indicates that the authentication will fail during the enforcement phase. Event ID 202 – Kdcsvc Indicates that: the service account does not have AES keys the service does not have msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes defined This typically occurs when: legacy accounts have never had their passwords reset only RC4 keys exist in Active Directory Possible Causes Common causes include: the originating client (Requestor) advertises only RC4 the target service (Target) is not explicitly configured to support AES the account has only legacy RC4 keys the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute is not defined Recommended Actions To remediate this scenario: Correctly identify the object involved in the authentication flow, typically: a service account (SPN) a computer account or a Domain Controller computer object Verify whether the object has AES keys available using analysis tools or scripts such as List-AccountKeys.ps1. If AES keys are not present, reset the account password, forcing generation of modern cryptographic keys (AES128 and AES256). Explicitly define the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute to enable AES support. Recommended value for modern environments: 0x18 (AES128 + AES256) = 24 As illustrated below, this configuration can be applied directly to the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute in Active Directory. AES can also be enabled via Active Directory Users and Computers by explicitly selecting: This account supports Kerberos AES 128 bit encryption This account supports Kerberos AES 256 bit encryption These options ensure that new Kerberos tickets are issued using AES algorithms instead of RC4. Temporary RC4 Usage (Controlled Rollback) In transitional scenarios—during migration or troubleshooting—it may be acceptable to temporarily use: 0x1C (RC4 + AES) = 28 This configuration allows the object to accept both RC4 and AES simultaneously, functioning as a controlled rollback while legacy dependencies are identified and corrected. However, the final objective must be to fully eliminate RC4 before the final enforcement phase in July 2026, ensuring the environment operates exclusively with AES128 and AES256. Scenario B – AES / RC4 In this case, the ticket is protected with AES, but the session is still negotiated using RC4. This typically indicates a client limitation, legacy configuration, or restricted advertisement of supported algorithms. Events Associated with This Scenario During the Audit Phase, this scenario may generate: Event ID 206 Indicates that: the service accepts only AES the client does not advertise AES in the Advertised Etypes In this case, the client is the issue. Recommended Action Investigate the Requestor Validate operating system, client type, and advertised algorithms Review legacy GPOs, hardening configurations, or settings that still force RC4 For Linux clients or third‑party applications, review krb5.conf, keytabs, and Kerberos libraries Scenario C – RC4 / AES Here, the session already uses AES, but the ticket is still issued using RC4. This indicates an implicit RC4 dependency on the Target or KDC side, and the environment may fail once enforcement begins. Events Associated with This Scenario This scenario may generate: Event ID 205 Indicates that the domain has explicit insecure algorithm configuration in: DefaultDomainSupportedEncTypes This means RC4 is explicitly allowed at the domain level. Recommended Action Correct the Target object Explicitly define msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes with 0x18 = 24 Revalidate new ticket issuance to confirm full migration to AES / AES Conclusion CVE‑2026‑20833 represents a structural change in Kerberos behavior within Active Directory environments. Proper monitoring is essential before April 2026, and the msDS-SupportedEncryptionTypes attribute becomes the primary control point for service accounts, computer accounts, and Domain Controllers. July 2026 represents the final enforcement point, after which there will be no implicit rollback to RC4.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.Authentication Context (Entra ID) Use case
Microsoft Entra ID has evolved rapidly over the last few years, with Microsoft continuously introducing new identity, access, and security capabilities as part of the broader Zero Trust strategy. While many organizations hold the necessary Entra ID and Microsoft 365 licenses (often through E3 or E5 bundles), a number of these advanced features remain under‑utilised or entirely unused. This is frequently due to limited awareness, overlapping capabilities or uncertainty about where and how these features provide real architectural value. One such capability which is not frequently used is Authentication Context. Although this feature is available for quite some time, it is often misunderstood or overlooked because it does not behave like traditional Conditional Access controls. Consider Authentication Context as a mobile “assurance tag” that connects a resource (or a particular access route to that resource) to one or several Conditional Access (CA) policies, allowing security measures to be enforced with resource-specific accuracy instead of broad, application-wide controls. Put simply, it permits step-up authentication only when users access sensitive information or perform critical actions, while maintaining a smooth experience for the “regular path.” When used intentionally, it enables resource‑level and scenario‑driven access control, allowing organizations to apply stronger authentication only where it is actually needed without increasing friction across the entire user experience. Not expensive Most importantly to use Authentication Context the minimum licensing requirement is Microsoft Entra ID Premium P1 which most customers already have this license. so you not need to convenience for higher license to utilize this feature. But do note Entra Premium 2 is needed if your Conditional Access policy uses advanced signals, such as: User or sign‑in risk (Identity Protection) Privileged Identity Management (PIM) protected roles Risk‑based Conditional Access policies The Workflow Architecturally, Authentication Context works when a claims request is made as part of token issuance commonly expressed via the acrs claim. When the request includes a specific context (for example c1), Entra evaluates CA policies that target that context and forces the required controls (MFA, device compliance, trusted location, etc.). The important constraint: the context must be requested/triggered by a supported workload (e.g., SharePoint) or by an application designed to request the claim; it is not an automatic “detect any action inside any app” feature. Lets look at few high level architecture reference 1. Define “assurance tiers” as contexts Create a small set of contexts (e.g., c1: Confidential Access, c2: Privileged Operations) and publish them for use by supported apps/services. 2. Bind contexts to resources Assign the context to the resource boundary you want to protect—most commonly SharePoint sites (directly or via sensitivity labels), so only those sites trigger the context. (e.g - Specific SharePoint sites like financials, agreements etc ) 3. Attach Conditional Access policies to the context Create CA policies that target the context and define enforcement requirements (Additional MFA strength, mandating device compliance, or location constraint through named locations etc.). The context is the “switch” that activates those policies at the right moment. 4. Validate runtime behavior and app compatibility Because authentication context can impact some client apps and flows, validate supported clients and known limitations (especially for SharePoint/OneDrive/Teams integrations). Some Practical Business Scenarios Scenario A — Confidential SharePoint Sites (M&A / Legal / HR) Problem: You want stronger controls for a subset of SharePoint sites without forcing those controls for all SharePoint access. Architect pattern: Tag the confidential site(s) with Authentication Context and apply a CA policy requiring stronger auth (e.g., compliant device + MFA) for that context. Pre-reqs: SharePoint Online support for authentication context; appropriate licensing and admin permissions; CA policies targeted to the context Scenario B — “Step-up” Inside a Custom Line-of-Business App Problem: Users can access the app normally, but certain operations (approval, export, privileged view) need elevated assurance. Architect pattern: Build the app on OpenID Connect/OAuth2 and explicitly request the authentication context (via acrs) when the user reaches the sensitive path; CA then enforces step-up. Pre-reqs: App integrated with Microsoft identity platform using OIDC/OAuth2; the app can trigger claims requests/handle claim challenges where applicable; CA policies defined for the context Scenario C — Granular “Resource-based” Zero Trust Without Blanket MFA Problem: Security wants strong controls on crown jewels, but business wants minimal prompts for routine work. Architect pattern: Use authentication context to enforce higher assurance only for protected resources (e.g., sensitive SharePoint sites). This provides least privilege at the resource boundary while reducing global friction. Pre-reqs: Clearly defined resource classification; authentication context configured and published; CA policies and monitoring. In a nutshell, Authentication Context allows organizations to move beyond broad, one‑size‑fits‑all Conditional Access policies and adopt a more precise, resource‑driven security model. By using it to link sensitive resources or protected access paths to stronger authentication requirements, organizations can improve security outcomes while minimizing unnecessary user friction. When applied deliberately and aligned to business‑critical assets, Authentication Context helps close the gap between licensing capability and real‑world value—turning underused Entra ID features into practical, scalable Zero Trust controls. If you find this useful, please do not forget to like and add your thoughts 🙂Why “Data in Switzerland” Is Not Enough
Moving from Residency to Control in Microsoft 365 Every conversation about data sovereignty in regulated industries tends to start the same way: “We use Multi-Geo. The data stays in Switzerland.” It’s the right starting point. Microsoft 365 Multi-Geo allows organizations to place selected workloads - SharePoint sites, OneDrive accounts, Teams data, or Exchange mailboxes - into specific regions, including Switzerland, while maintaining a single global tenant. This makes it possible to align sensitive data with regulatory or customer requirements without fragmenting the overall environment. But it only answers one question: Where is the data stored? It does not answer who accessed the data, from where, under which conditions, or what happened after access. That is where the real problem begins. A scenario that happens every day A Swiss engineering firm stores sensitive project documentation in Switzerland using Multi-Geo. An external contractor - working from an unmanaged device outside Switzerland - is granted access to review a file. The document opens. The data is now on a screen in an unknown location, on a device with no compliance posture, in a session with no restrictions. From the platform’s perspective, residency was enforced. From a sovereignty perspective, control was lost the moment access was granted without conditions. The file never left Switzerland. But sovereignty did. Residency is static. Control is not. The moment a document is opened, storage location stops being the relevant boundary. The file is no longer just “in Switzerland.” It moves instantly across endpoints and browsers, collaboration tools like Teams, external users and partners, and increasingly AI-driven contexts. The infrastructure remains unchanged. The data does not. From the platform’s perspective, everything is working as designed - access was granted, residency was enforced - and control was lost. Most “data in Switzerland” strategies fail at exactly this moment: when the data is used. The shift: from location to conditions If data sovereignty is the goal, the question must change. Not “Where is the data stored?” but: Under which conditions can data be accessed and used? This shift fundamentally changes the architecture. Control must be applied across three distinct layers - and all three must be connected. Layer 1: Access is conditional, not static Conditional Access extends control beyond authentication and turns it into continuous evaluation. Access decisions can depend on: Device compliance Location (geo-restriction) Identity and risk signals Multi-Geo ensures data is placed correctly. Conditional Access ensures it is reachable only under defined conditions. The two must work together - residency without access governance is an incomplete control. Layer 2: The session is the real risk surface Even with strict access controls, risk remains. A session is an exposure surface by design. During an active session, data is viewed, copied, shared, processed by applications, and connected to AI prompts. The gap does not appear at storage or authentication. It appears during active usage - inside the session. This is the layer most architectures do not explicitly address. Controls must extend into the session itself: limiting data transfer and replication, restricting interaction patterns, and enforcing policies in real time. Access is no longer a one-time event. It becomes continuously governed. This becomes even more critical as AI assistants consume content across SharePoint, Teams, Exchange, and other Microsoft 365 services. The question is no longer only where the source document resides - but whether the AI interaction itself is governed by the same access and protection controls as direct access. Layer 3: The document becomes the control point The most durable control does not sit in the network or in the session. It sits in the data itself. In regulated industries, organizations often arrive at this architecture having first evaluated sovereign or national encryption solutions. The decision to rely on native Microsoft 365 Purview encryption rather than a separate layer comes down to integration: AES-256 protection operating natively at file, user, and SharePoint level - including geo-based access restrictions - without an additional system to maintain. When protection is applied directly to the document through Microsoft Purview: Sensitivity labels define classification - automatically assigned based on content Encryption enforces access - AES-256, bound to the file itself IRM controls usage - view, copy, print, share, and presentation rights DLP governs movement across services - preventing data from leaving defined boundaries Dynamic watermarking tracks exposure - applied on open, view, or print At that point, access is enforced by the file, usage restrictions travel with it, and control persists regardless of location. The document becomes the perimeter. Platform control: limiting provider access One dimension often overlooked in sovereignty discussions is platform access itself. Even a perfectly configured tenant is only as sovereign as the controls placed on the operator. Customer Lockbox ensures that even Microsoft support cannot access customer data without explicit, logged, time-bound approval. Every access request is visible, auditable, and subject to customer veto. Data control applies not only to users - but also to the platform operating the service. Enforcement requires an integrated architecture Most organizations already have the required capabilities: Multi-Geo, Conditional Access, session control, Purview (labels, encryption, DLP, IRM), and monitoring. The issue is not capability. It is fragmentation. In practice, fragmentation looks like this: residency is configured in one project, Conditional Access policies are managed by a different team, and Purview labels were applied during a compliance initiative that never connected to the access layer. The tools exist. The signals do not flow between them. When designed as a single architecture: Data is placed intentionally - residency aligned to regulatory requirements Access is governed by context - device, location, and identity evaluated continuously Usage is controlled dynamically - session-level restrictions enforced in real time Protection is embedded in the document - encryption and IRM travel with the file Signals are connected across the platform - monitoring feeds access policy, not just audit logs “Data in Switzerland” becomes not just a statement - but an enforceable system property. Closing thought Placing data in Switzerland is the right first step. Multi-Geo makes it possible, even in global environments. But residency alone is not control. Data residency answers where information is stored. Data sovereignty requires proving who can access it, under which conditions, and what controls remain in place after access is granted. In Microsoft 365, sovereignty is no longer defined by geography alone. It is defined by the ability to enforce control wherever the data travels.Passkey Sign in Method (Entra Account) missing in Security
Hi BANNEDUSERNAMESupport we enable FIDO2 passkey in entraId. However, when we try to register the FIDO2 passkey on myaccount.microsoft.com -> Security -> Add a Sign-in Method -> Passkey is missing. Attached screenshot. For a personal account, the Passkey method is available at the same location, even though interface is slightly different than an Entra Id account. Attached screenshot for the personal account as well. Kindly guide us on where to register the passkey or if we need to enable certain settings in EntraId for the passkey to show up in sign-in methods. We have Auth Strengths enabled in EntraId for the particular user in question and this reflects in the Device Lockscreen during login on Entra Registred Device. Thanks Chandra
Windows Hello passkeys dialog appearing and cannot remove or suppress it.
Hi everyone, I’m dealing with a persistent Windows Hello and passkey issue in Chrome and Brave and yes this is relevant as they're the only browsers having this issue whilst Edge for example is fine, and at this point I’m trying to understand whether this is expected behavior, a bug, or a design oversight. PS. Yes, I'm in contact with related browser support teams but since they seem utterly hopeless i'm asking here, since its at least partially Windows Hello issue. Problem description Even with: Password managers disabled in browser settings, Windows Hello disabled in Chrome/Brave settings, Windows Hello PIN enabled only for device login, Passkeys still stored under chrome://settings/passkeys (which I cannot delete since its used for logging on the device), The devices are connected to Entra ID but this is not required to reproduce the issue although a buisness account configuration creates a Passkey with Windows Hello afaik. Observed behavior When I attempt to sign in on office.com, Windows Hello automatically triggers a dialog offering authentication via passkeys, even though: I don’t want passkeys used for browser logins, passkeys are turned off everywhere they can be, Windows Hello is intended only for local device authentication. The dialog cannot be suppressed, disabled, or hidden(trust me, i tried for weeks). It effectively forces the Windows Hello prompt as a primary option, which causes problems both personally and in business contexts (wrong credential signaling, misleading users that are supposed to use a dedicated password manager solution insted of browser password managers, enforcing an unwanted authentication flow, etc.). What I already verified Many, many, (too many) Windows registry workarounds that never worked. Dug through almost all flags on those browsers. Chrome/Brave → Password Manager: disabled Chrome/Brave → Windows Hello toggle: off Looked through what feels like almost every related option in Windows Settings. Tried gpedit.msc local rules System up to date Windows Hello configured to use PIN, but stores "passkeys used to log on to this device" Why this is a problem Windows Hello automatically assumes that the device-level Windows Hello credentials should always be available as a WebAuthn authenticator. This feels like a big security and UX issue due to: unexpected authentication dialogs, Inability to controll where and how passkey credential are shared to applications, inability to turn the feature off, no administrative or local option to disable Hello for WebAuthn separately from device login. Buisness users either having issues with keeping passwords in order (our buissnes uses a dedicated Password Manager but this behaviour covers its dialog option) or not having PIN to their devices (when I disable windows hello entierly, since when there is no passkeys the option doesn't appear) Questions Is there any supported way to disable Windows Hello as a WebAuthn/passkey option in browsers, while keeping Hello enabled for local device login? Is this expected behavior from the Windows Hello, or is it considered a bug? Are there registry/policy settings (documented or upcoming) that allow disabling the Windows platform authenticator specifically for browsers like Chrome and Brave? Is Microsoft aware of this issue? If so, is it tracked anywhere? Additional notes This issue replicates 100% across (as long as there are passkeys configured): Windows 11 devices i've managed to get my hands on, Chrome and Brave (latest versions), multiple Microsoft accounts and tenants, multiple clean installations. Any guidance or clarification from the Windows security or identity teams would be greatly appreciated. And honestly if there is any more info i could possibly provide PLEASE ask away.
