Need Microsoft support to resolve a historical tenant association with a domain I recently acquired
Hello, I recently became the legitimate and independent registrant of a domain that had previously been owned or used by an unrelated organization. I have no affiliation whatsoever with the previous domain holder or that organization. I have now received a Microsoft Power Platform notification at an email address under my domain concerning a Default environment belonging to the previous organization. The notification includes a Tenant ID and Environment ID, and the environment name corresponds to that organization. I do not own, administer, or have access to this tenant or Power Platform environment, and I am not seeking access to or control over it. My main concern is that there may still be a historical association between my domain or its email addresses and the previous organization's Microsoft tenant or related services. I would like Microsoft to investigate this and, where necessary, properly separate my domain and its email addresses from any unrelated historical Microsoft accounts, tenants, directories, or services. Most importantly, I want to ensure that this historical association will not adversely affect my ability in the future to use my domain and its business email addresses to create, verify, and use my own Microsoft 365, Microsoft Entra, Power Platform, or other Microsoft business services. At present, I do not have a Microsoft business account, Microsoft 365 tenant, or Power Platform tenant of my own. As a result, I appear to be unable to use some of the normal business support channels that require an existing tenant or administrator account. Could someone please advise me on the appropriate way to get this matter reviewed by Microsoft Support? If a Microsoft employee or official support representative can assist or direct me to the appropriate private support channel, I would greatly appreciate it. For privacy and security reasons, I have intentionally not posted the actual domain name, email address, Tenant ID, or Environment ID publicly. I am happy to provide all of the relevant details privately to an authorized Microsoft support representative if required. Thank you for any guidance.
Expected exactly one role management policy assignment but 0 were found
I am getting the following error in Entra when I try to assign a custom role to a user: Expected exactly one role management policy assignment but 0 were found What I have done: entra.microsoft.com → Entra ID: Roles & admins → New custom role Basics * Role name: User Directory Reader * Description: Provides read-only access to user directory information. Intended for security analysts and auditors who require visibility into user identities without modification permissions. Permissions * microsoft.directory/users/standard/read *microsoft.directory/users/memberOf/read *microsoft.directory/users/manager/read When I click + Add assignment I get the error "Expected exactly one role management policy assignment but 0 were found". I have trial license for Privileged Identity Management (Entra ID P2).
Group-Based Licensing (E3 → Business Premium): MutuallyExclusiveViolation – Months Unresolved
We operate a Microsoft 365 environment with Entra ID, Intune, and Exchange Online. For months, we have been dealing with a critical issue that remains unresolved to this day — despite an active Microsoft Support ticket. The Technical Problem: During the migration of approximately 87 user accounts from Microsoft 365 E3 to Business Premium (SPB) via group-based licensing in Entra ID, all affected accounts receive a MutuallyExclusiveViolation error. Microsoft's backend treats E3 and Business Premium as mutually exclusive, blocking the SPB assignment — despite sufficient licenses being available. A sequential approach (removing E3 first, then assigning Business Premium) is not an acceptable solution: a test run proved that this causes a complete loss of Exchange Online access. For a rollout across 87 productive user accounts, this is not viable. What is required is a seamless, atomic license swap at the backend level — exclusively via group-based licensing. The Support Problem: Two support engineers assigned — zero technical progress. Instead of a substantive solution, we received standard documentation steps that do not address the actual problem. A false resolution notice was issued — the issue had demonstrably not been resolved. Our own PowerShell tests (Get-MgUser, Get-MgSubscribedSku) and CSV exports from the Entra ID portal disproved this conclusively. Committed updates from the Engineering Team were not delivered. Instead, automatically generated follow-up emails were sent with no substantive relation to the ongoing case. An additional unexplained behavior: a test user appears in the error report of a license group they were never added to — a further backend inconsistency that has not been investigated. Current Status: The ticket has been open for months. 87 user accounts cannot be migrated to Business Premium. An escalation to the Team Manager has been initiated. No resolution is in sight. My Question to the Community: Has anyone experienced a similar issue with MutuallyExclusiveViolation in group-based licensing (E3 → Business Premium)? Is there a known workaround or an official Microsoft statement on this? Ticket Reference: #2604241410000669Unexpected button behaviour when using the prompt=create parameter in Entra External ID user flows
Hi, In a recent workload, I'm assisting a client to implement Entra External ID for streamlined authorization as well as single sign-on for associated registered external facing third-party applications for external customer users through their Entra External ID identity, as well as assisting the client with auth branding and other UI customizations, and preparing Entra ID federation custom OIDC providers and configuration for enabling SSO with organizational internal and remote work- and school accounts etc. The sign-up / create account experience is of importance to the client, as a rather substantial amount of users are expected to sign-up via self-service sign-up following having received an invite via another app. To ensure that the user lands on the create account view, in order to minimize the number of steps and actions the users need to take to get there, the prompt=create parameter is used to pre-select the sign-up/register experience in the user flows UI. Having stress-tested the user flows and experience recently, we noticed that in a specific scenario, some UI elements behave in a manner that could be described as unexpected, and even though a workaround has mitigated it to some extent, the behaviour of some elements could probably be improved a bit to ensure an even more consistent user experience in the built-in user flows. Specifically, if the user flow is invoked with the prompt parameter set, the user lands on the create account screen as expected, however, unless custom CSS modification is applied, the Back button that would typically be there, as if having arrived there from the initial sign-in screen where it’s also displayed. If pressing the Back button displayed on the Create account view when having navigated there with the prompt=create set in the /authorize request, pressing the button seemingly doesn’t have any impact or result in any action, one can click it, but nothing happens. I'd suspect it's perhaps a "remnant" from if the flow is invoked without any prompt parameter set, or with prompt=login set, but when prompt=create is set, there is no state/page history in the UI to navigate back to, as no previous page has been displayed or rendered yet and added to the history, and the Back button click thus doesn’t have any effect. In general, I think buttons that don't have any tangible action should not be displayed, also, if prompt=login is set, the Back button isn't shown then either on the very initial user flow view shown then, so it would seem the built-in user flows actually already follow such approach in fact, but not when the prompt=create has been set, thus causing some inconsistency in the UI that users could notice unless custom CSS styling is applied. The expected behaviour for our business case would be that if prompt=create is set, then, similar to the prompt=login, no Back button should be displayed, or, if shown, it should result in some navigation (perhaps something like javascript.go(-1), but that could/would be dependent on from where the user arrived, e.g., going back a step in the browser history won't work if the user clicked a link from an invite email ) and preferably not be non-actionable. Furthermore, on the topic of the Back button and its behaviour when the prompt=create parameter is set, there is another case at which we observed some unexpected button behaviour as well, that could probably benefit from some attention. At a specific second scenario, it seems that the Continue button is displayed without providing any action, and when clicking the Back button then, clicking it seemingly resets the "create account", state likely set by the prompt=create initially, and instead switches the flow back to the sign-in state, which can at least affect the display text of some subsequent buttons shown in later steps in the UI. The user arrives at a built-in Entra External ID user flow /authorize endpoint, with the prompt=create query parameter set The user triggers the OTP challenge by entering an email address to verify the email address The user receives the OTP code but enters it incorrectly, i.e., doesn't copy the full code length of eight digits, and instead enters/pastes six of the eight code digits. The UI then shows an error message that the code could not be used/validated, and the email address field is displayed again with the email address that was used for the verification attempt prefilled. If the user clicks the Continue button at this stage, nothing happens. If the user clicks the Back button instead (given that it’s not hidden), it shows the same view one more time, with the Back and Continue buttons at the bottom. However, if the user clicks the Continue button this time, it works and a new code is sent. On the next screen, where the newly sent code can be entered, instead of a button named "Continue", it will now instead show a button with the text "Sign-in" (it would seem like the create account state has gotten lost somewhere along the way at this point, perhaps when the back button in the step 5 above was pressed). If one omits the prompt=create parameter, or when using prompt=login, things seem to work fine, the above occurs when the prompt=create is set. The reason why is the prompt=create is used is due to a business requirement to try to minimize the steps, especially in conjunction with the registration/sign-up, as far a possible when signing up. We have opted for the built-in user flows, not the self-hosted native authentication UI pages, for this project, and then as I understand it, it is the prompt=create parameter that can/should be used to enable the user to land directly on the registration page without having to navigate there manually via the sign-up link, that is otherwise shown on the initial sign-in page. It would thus be great if the prompt=create parameter could have some attention (or perhaps if a dedicated sign-up user flow type could be added potentially, even though that would perhaps warrant some update to the user flow app linking as well, as my understanding is that one user flow can be linked to one app registration at a time currently) to avoid that some buttons become unresponsive when the parameter is used, or falls back to sign-in, to improve the built-in user flows further, as the prompt=create fulfils the business requirement well otherwise. If there would be any further/follow-up questions on the above, e.g., to clarify the requirement, or further explain the reproduction steps and behaviour observed, or anything else, please tell, and I'll ensure to get back as soon as possible. Also, would someone have some input on potential other/additional ways to pre-select the create account/sign-up experience, that would naturally be much appreciated as well, thanks! Regards Kristoffer
Can External ID (CIAM) federate to an Azure AD/Entra ID tenant using SAML?
What I'm trying to achieve I'm setting up SAML federation FROM my External ID tenant (CIAM) TO a partner's Entra ID tenant (regular organizational tenant) for a hybrid CIAM/B2B setup where: Business users authenticate via their corporate accounts (OIDC or SAML) Individual customers use username/password or social providers (OIDC) Tenant details / Terminology: CIAM tenant: External ID tenant for customer-facing applications IdP tenant: Example Partner's organizational Entra ID tenant with business accounts Custom domain: mycustomdomain.com (example domain for the IdP tenant) Configuration steps taken Step 1: IdP Tenant (Entra ID) - Created SAML App Set up Enterprise App with SAML SSO Entity ID: https://login.microsoftonline.com/<CIAM_TENANT_ID>/ Reply URL: https://<CIAM_TENANT_ID>.ciamlogin.com/login.srf NameID: Persistent format Claim mapping: emailaddress → user.mail Step 2: CIAM Tenant (External ID) - Added SAML IdP (Initially imported from the SAML metadata URL from the above setup) Federating domain: mycustomdomain.com Issuer URI: https://sts.windows.net/<IDP_TENANT_ID>/ Passive endpoint: https://login.microsoftonline.com/mycustomdomain.com/saml2 DNS TXT record added: DirectFedAuthUrl=https://login.microsoftonline.com/mycustomdomain.com/saml2 Step 3: Attached to User Flow Added SAML IdP to user flow under "Other identity providers" Saved configuration and waited for propagation The problem It doesn't work. When testing via "Run user flow": No SAML button appears (should display "Sign in with mycustomdomain") Entering email address removed for privacy reasons doesn't trigger federation The SAML provider appears configured but never shows up in the actual flow Also tried using the tenant GUID in the passive endpoint instead of the domain - same result My question Is SAML federation from External ID to regular Entra ID tenants actually possible? I know OIDC federation to Microsoft tenants is (currently, august 2025) explicitly blocked (microsoftonline.com domains are rejected). Is SAML similarly restricted? The portal lets me configure everything without throwing any errors, but it never actually works. Am I missing something in my configuration? The documentation for this use case is limited and I've had to piece together the setup from various sources. Or is this a fundamental limitation where External ID simply can't federate to ANY Microsoft tenant regardless of the protocol used?Looking for an on-prem MFA solution for Active Directory and RDP
Hi everyone, We're reviewing options for adding MFA to our on-premises Active Directory environment. Most of our users authenticate with Active Directory, while administrators also use RDP for managing Windows servers. Because part of our infrastructure is isolated from the Internet, we'd prefer an on-premises MFA solution instead of relying on a cloud-only service. Has anyone implemented something similar recently? I'm interested in hearing: Which solution did you choose? How difficult was the deployment? Did you run into any compatibility or performance issues? Is there anything you'd do differently if you were deploying it again? Any real-world experience or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Can the built-in "No account? Create one" link redirect to a custom sign-up page?
I'm using Microsoft Entra External ID with a built-in sign-in/sign-up user flow. On the Microsoft-hosted sign-in page, the "No account? Create one" link always redirects users to the default Entra sign-up page. I already have a custom registration page and would like this built-in link to redirect to my custom URL instead. Is there any supported way to customize the destination of this link in a built-in user flow? If not, could someone confirm whether this behavior is fixed by design? Thanks!
Challenges with custom data provided resource reviews
I was thrilled to see the ability to review disconnected applications in Entra, and even more thrilled to see that the permission and its description are available to the reviewer, which addresses a significant gap present in group-based reviews. However, the current decision-tracking approach does not adequately replicate the closed-loop remediation model typically found in traditional IGA access reviews for integrated applications. Requiring reviewers to upload confirmation that revocations have been completed is problematic. This approach does not mitigate the core risk: access may remain in place due to fulfillment errors or be incorrectly retained, and the reviewer may unknowingly validate an inaccurate state. This can lead to a compliance incident or audit finding. A more effective solution would allow reviewers to upload a current export of access data, enabling the review system to reconcile intended revocations against the actual state. Any discrepancies could then be flagged for remediation where revocations were missed or have failed, or for validation where access was revoked and immediately reinstated (e.g., due to reviewer misjudgement), ideally supported by corresponding ticketing or justification. There are currently a lot of gaps in Entra ID access reviews, and while this new feature arguably resolved the worst one, I think it's headed down the wrong path. I am curious about other people's thoughts.Request to enable preview feature - Face Check with CAP
Dear Microsoft, I am on a business premium plan for my home test tenant. I cannot raise ticket nor do I have an account manager. I know this is in private preview. I would like my tenant to be enabled to test this new Verified ID feature to have "Face Check" in CAP as one of the Grant conditions. tenant id: bc85b508-0107-4472-a49c-fc8cefd4f0d7 Thank you.
