Integrating Proofpoint and Mimecast Email Security with Microsoft Sentinel
Microsoft Sentinel can ingest rich email security telemetry from Proofpoint and Mimecast to power advanced phishing detection. The Proofpoint On Demand (POD) Email Security and Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection (TAP) connectors pull threat logs (quarantines, spam, phishing attempts) and user click data into Sentinel. Similarly, the Mimecast Secure Email Gateway connector ingests detailed mail flow and targeted-threat logs (attachment/URL scans, impersonation events). These integrations use Azure-hosted ingestion (via Logic Apps or Azure Functions) and the new Codeless Connector framework to call vendor APIs on a schedule. The result is a consolidated dataset in Sentinel’s Log Analytics, enabling correlated alerting and hunting across email, identity, and endpoint signals. Figure: Phishing emails are processed by Mimecast’s gateway and Proofpoint POD/TAP services. Security logs (delivery/quarantine events, malicious attachments/links, user clicks) flow into Microsoft Sentinel. In Sentinel, these mail signals are correlated with identity (Azure AD), endpoint (Defender) and network telemetry for end-to-end phishing detection. Proofpoint POD (Email Protection) Connector The Proofpoint POD connector ingests core email protection logs. It creates two tables, ProofpointPODMailLog_CL and ProofpointPODMessage_CL. These logs include per-message metadata (senders, recipients, subject, message size, timestamps), threat scores (spamScore, phishScore, malwareScore, impostorScore), and attachment details (number of attachments, names, hash values and sandbox verdicts). Quarantine actions are recorded (quarantine folder/rule) and malicious indicators (URL or file hash) and campaign IDs are tagged in the threatsInfoMap field. For example, each ProofpointPODMessage_CL record may carry a sender_s (sender email domain hashed), recipient list, subject, and any detected threat type (Phish/Malware/Spam/Impostor) with associated threat hash or URL. Deployment: Proofpoint POD uses Sentinel’s codeless connector (an Azure Function behind the scenes). You must provide Proofpoint API credentials (Cluster ID and API token) in the connector UI. The connector periodically calls the Proofpoint SIEM API to fetch new log events (typically in 1–2 hour batches). The data lands in the above tables. (Older custom logic-app approaches similarly parse JSON output from the /v2/siem/messages endpoints.) Proofpoint TAP (Targeted Attack Protection) Connector Proofpoint TAP provides user-click and message-delivery events. Its connector creates four tables: ProofPointTAPMessagesDeliveredV2_CL, ProofPointTAPMessagesBlockedV2_CL, ProofPointTAPClicksPermittedV2_CL, and ProofPointTAPClicksBlockedV2_CL. The message tables report emails with detected threats (URL or attachment defense) that were delivered or blocked by TAP. They include the same fields as POD (message GUID, sender, recipients, subject, threat campaign ID, scores, attachments info). The click tables log when users click on URLs: each record has the URL, click timestamp (clickTime), the user’s IP (clickIP), user-agent, the message GUID, and the threat ID/category. These fields allow you to see who clicked which malicious link and when. As the connector description notes, these logs give “visibility into Message and Click events in Microsoft Sentinel” for hunting. Deployment: The TAP connector also uses the codeless framework. You supply a TAP API service principal and secret (proofpoint SIEM API credentials) in the Sentinel content connector. The function app calls TAP’s /v2/siem/clicks/blocked, /permitted, /messages/blocked, and /delivered endpoints. The Proofpoint SIEM API limits queries to 1-hour windows and 7-day history, with no paging (all events in the interval are returned). (A Logic App approach could also be used, as shown in the Tech Community blog: one HTTP GET per event type and a JSON Parse before sending to Log Analytics.) Mimecast Secure Email Gateway Connector The Mimecast connector ingests the Secure Email Gateway (SEG) logs and targeted-threat (TTP) logs. Inbound, outbound and internal mail events from the Mimecast MTA (receipt, processing, delivery stages) are pulled via the API. Typical fields include the unique message ID (aCode), sender, recipient, subject, attachment count/names, and the policy actions or holds (e.g. spam quarantine). For example, the Mimecast “Process” log shows AttCnt, AttNames, and if the message was held (Hld) for review. Delivery logs include the success/failure and TLS details. In addition, Mimecast TTP logs are collected: URL Protect logs (when a user clicks a blocked URL) include the clicked URL (url), category (urlCategory), sender/recipient, and block reason. Impersonation Protect logs capture spoofing detections (e.g. if an internal name is impersonated), with fields like Sender, Recipient, Definition and Action (hold/quarantine). Attachment Protect logs record malicious file detections (filename, hash, threat type). Deployment: Like Proofpoint, Mimecast’s connector uses Azure Functions via the Sentinel content hub. You install the Mimecast solution, open the connector page, then enter Azure app credentials and Mimecast API keys (API Application ID/Key and Access/Secret for the service account). As shown in the deployment guide, you must provide the Azure Subscription, Resource Group, Log Analytics Workspace and the Azure Client (App) ID, Tenant ID and Object ID of the admin performing the setup. On the Mimecast side, you supply the API Base URL (regional), App ID/Secret and user Access/Secret. The connector creates a Function App that polls Mimecast’s SIEM APIs on a cron schedule (default every 30 minutes). You can optionally specify a start date for backfilling up to 7 days of logs. The default tables are MimecastSIEM_CL (for email flow logs) and MimecastDLP_CL (for DLP/TTP events), though custom names can be set. Ingestion Considerations Data Latency: All these connectors are pull-based and typically run on a schedule (often 30–60 minutes). For example, the Proofpoint POD docs note hourly log increments, and Mimecast logs are aggregated every 30 minutes. Expect a delay of up to an hour or more from event occurrence to Sentinel ingestion. Schema Nuances: The APIs often return nested arrays and optional fields. For instance, the Proofpoint blog warns that some JSON fields can be null or vary in type, so the parse schema should account for all possibilities. Similarly, Mimecast logs come in pipe-delimited or JSON format, with values sometimes empty (e.g. no attachments). In KQL, use tostring() or parse_json() on the raw _CL columns, and mv-expand on any multivalue fields (like message parts or threat lists). Table Names: Use the connector’s tables as listed. For Proofpoint: ProofpointPODMailLog_CL and ProofpointPODMessage_CL; for TAP: ProofPointTAPMessagesDeliveredV2_CL, ProofPointTAPMessagesBlockedV2_CL, ProofPointTAPClicksPermittedV2_CL, ProofPointTAPClicksBlockedV2_CL. For Mimecast SEG/TTP: MimecastSIEM_CL (seg logs) and MimecastDLP_CL (TTP logs). API Behavior: The Proofpoint TAP API has no paging. Be aware of timezones (Proofpoint uses UTC) and use the Sentinal ingestion TimeGenerated or event timestamp fields for binning. Detection Engineering and Correlation To detect phishing effectively, we correlate these email logs with identity, endpoint and intel data: Identity (Azure AD): Mail logs contain recipient addresses and (hashed) sender user parts. A common tactic is to correlate SMTP recipients or sender domains with Azure AD user records. For example, join TAP clicks by recipient to the user’s UPN. The Proofpoint logs also include the clicker’s IP (clickIP); we can match that to Azure AD sign-in logs or VPN logs to find which device/location clicked a malicious link. Likewise, anomalous Azure AD sign-ins (impossible travel, MFA failure) after a suspicious email can strengthen the case. Endpoints (Defender): Once a user clicks a bad link or opens a malicious attachment (captured in TAP or Mimecast logs), watch for follow-on behaviors. For instance, use Sentinel’s DeviceSecurityEvents or DeviceProcessEvents to see if that user’s machine launched unusual processes. The threatID or URL hash from email events can be looked up in Defender’s file data. Correlate by username (if available) or IP: if the email log shows a link click from IP X, see if any endpoint alerts or logon events occurred from X around the same time. As the Mimecast integration touts, this enables “correlation across Mimecast events, cloud, endpoint, and network data”. Threat Intelligence: Use Sentinel’s ThreatIntelligenceIndicator tables or Microsoft’s TI feeds to tag known bad URLs/domains in the email logs. For example, join ProofPointTAPClicksBlockedV2_CL on the clicked url against ThreatIntelligenceIndicator (type=URL) to automatically flag hits. Proofpoint’s logs already classify threats (malware/phish) and provide a threatID; one can enrich that with external intel (e.g. check if the hash appears in TI feeds). Mimecast’s URL logs include a urlCategory field, which can be mapped to known malicious categories. Automated playbooks can also pull Intel: e.g. use Sentinel’s TI REST API or Azure Sentinel watchlists containing phishing domains to annotate events. In summary, a robust detection strategy might look like: (1) Identify malicious email events (high phish scores, quarantines, URL clicks). (2) Correlate these events by user with Azure AD logs (did the user log in from a new IP after a phish click?). (3) Correlate with endpoint alerts (Defender found malware on that device). (4) Augment with threat intelligence lookups on URLs and attachments from the email logs. By linking the Proofpoint/Mimecast signals to identity and endpoint events, one can detect the full attack chain from email compromise to endpoint breach. KQL Query Here are representative Kusto queries for common phishing scenarios (adapt table/field names as needed): Malicious URL Click Detection: Identify users who clicked known-malicious URLs. For example, join TAP click logs to TI indicators:This flags any permitted click where the URL matches a known threat indicator. Alternatively, aggregate by domain: let TI = ThreatIntelligenceIndicator | where Active == true and _EntityType == "URL"; ProofPointTAPClicksPermittedV2_CL | where url_s != "" | project ClickTime=TimeGenerated, Recipient=recipient_s, URL=url_s, SenderIP=senderIP_s | join kind=inner TI on $left.URL == TI._Value | project ClickTime, Recipient, URL, Description=TI.Description This flags any permitted click where the URL matches a known threat indicator. Alternatively, aggregate by domain: ProofPointTAPClicksPermittedV2_CL | extend clickedDomain = extract(@"https?://([^/]+)", 1, url_s) | summarize ClickCount=count() by clickedDomain | where clickedDomain has "maliciousdomain.com" or clickedDomain has "phish.example.com" Quarantine Spike (Burst) Detection: Detect sudden spikes in quarantined messages. For example, using POD mail log:This finds hours with an unusually high number of held (quarantined) emails, which may indicate a phishing campaign. You could similarly use ProofPointTAPMessagesBlockedV2_CL. ProofpointPODMailLog_CL | where action_s == "Held" | summarize HeldCount=count() by bin(TimeGenerated, 1h) | order by TimeGenerated desc | where HeldCount > 100 Targeted User Phishing: Find if a specific user received multiple malicious emails. E.g., for user email address removed for privacy reasons:This lists recent phish attempts targeting Username. You might also join with TAP click logs to see if she clicked anything. ProofpointPODMessage_CL | where recipient has "email address removed for privacy reasons" | where array_length(threatsInfoMap) > 0 and threatsInfoMap_classification_s == "Phish" | project TimeGenerated, sender_s, subject_s, threat=threatsInfoMap_threat_s Campaign-Level Analysis: Group emails by Proofpoint campaign ID to see scope of each campaign:This shows each campaign ID with how many unique recipients were hit and one example subject. Combining TAP and POD tables on GUID_s or QID_s can further link click events back to the originating message/campaign. ProofpointPODMessage_CL | mv-expand threatsInfoMap | summarize Recipients=make_set(recipient), Count=dcount(recipient) by CampaignID=threatsInfoMap_campaignId_s | project CampaignID, RecipientCount=Count, Recipients, SampleSubject=any(subject_s) Each query can be refined (for instance, filtering only within a recent time window) and embedded in Sentinel Analytics rules or hunting. The key is using the connectors’ fields – URLs, sender/recipient addresses, campaign IDs – to pivot between email data and other security signals.
Defender of XDR - Quarantine - Lack of filter/search options
Hi Microsoft, I love what you're doing with the Defender XDR portal, but could you please show some love to the Quarantine section soon? On a daily basis, I have to review emails caught in quarantine for false positives, and the lack of search and filtering options is appalling. As a company based in Denmark, 99% of legitimate emails come from .dk domains. Yet there is no way to search for or filter on something this simple. If I type .dk into the search box, I get 0 results, even though I can clearly see .dk sender addresses on the page. The filter options only allow me to enter full sender or recipient email addresses, which is of course almost useless in a quarantine-review context. Some examples of filters that would be extremely useful: Sender domain ends with .dk Sender domain contains .dk URL domain filtering Attachment name filtering Saved filter views More flexible search across message properties The Quarantine experience could be made dramatically better with relatively little effort. So please, pretty please, give the Quarantine portal some attention. It's often the part of Defender that security teams interact with every single day.
Pending Approval/Provisioning for Microsoft Defender XDR Lab/Trial Environment
Hello Microsoft Community Team, On June 26, 2026, our organization applied for a Microsoft 365 Developer Environment / Free Trial to support evaluation of the Microsoft Defender XDR Lab environment. To date, the environment has not been provisioned, and we have not received any status updates or confirmation. Impact: Current Status: We are currently utilizing our production environment to test project capabilities, which poses risks and limitations. Future Intent: Our organization plans to transition to a full, paid Business/Enterprise purchase immediately upon proving the platform’s benefits. Urgency: This delay is stalling our evaluation phase. We urgently need this environment onboarded and activated so we can proceed with deployment tests and subsequent procurement. Request: Please review the status of our registration and expedite the onboarding/provisioning of this developer environment. Thank you for your prompt assistance.Microsoft Defender Incident – Handling incident severity change
There's no dedicated history/audit endpoint for field-level transitions (like "this incident went from Low → High at timestamp X") in the /security/incidents Graph API — the incident object only exposes the current severity plus a lastUpdateDateTime, not a change log. So this isn't something you're missing; it genuinely doesn't exist as a queryable history today. Also worth knowing before you build around it: Graph change notifications (webhooks) are not documented as supported for /security/incidents — subscription/webhook support is only documented for the legacy /security/alerts resource, and that resource is deprecated with removal expected around April 2026. So polling is currently the only supported pattern for incidents specifically, not a limitation of your approach — there's no webhook alternative to fall back to yet. Given that, the fix is in your polling strategy, not in finding a hidden feature: instead of filtering once at creation time and then ignoring the incident, poll using $filter=lastUpdateDateTime gt {last_poll_timestamp}. Since lastUpdateDateTime bumps on any property change — including a severity escalation — this catches incidents that started as Low/Informational and later got escalated, without re-fetching everything. A pattern that works well in practice: GET /security/incidents?$filter=lastUpdateDateTime gt {last_poll_time}&$orderby=lastUpdateDateTime asc Then in your own store, diff the incoming severity against what you last recorded for that id to detect the transition yourself — you're effectively reconstructing the history client-side since the API won't give it to you natively. Store (incidentId, severity, lastUpdateDateTime) on each poll and compare. One gotcha: this still won't tell you the exact moment the severity changed if multiple fields changed between polls — only that it changed sometime between your last two poll timestamps. If you need second-level precision on transition timing, you'd need to poll more frequently (your 5-minute interval is probably fine for SOC triage purposes, but not for precise SLA timestamping).Campaign-Centric Hunting with Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Sentinel
Phishing investigations usually start with one suspicious email. A user reports a message. An alert is generated. An analyst opens the email details, checks the sender, reviews the URL, and tries to understand whether the message is malicious. That is a normal starting point. However, in a real SOC investigation, one email is rarely the full story. Attackers usually operate in campaigns. They reuse sender infrastructure, similar subjects, URLs, payloads, templates, and delivery techniques. A single email may be only one part of a wider phishing or malware campaign targeting multiple users. This is why campaign-centric hunting is important. I wrote this article from the perspective of a SOC analyst who often needs to move quickly from a single suspicious email to the full campaign impact. The goal is simple: use Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Sentinel together to understand who was targeted, what was delivered, who clicked, and what should be prioritized first. Why Campaign-Centric Hunting When investigating a phishing or malware email, analysts usually need to answer practical questions: How many users received messages from the same campaign? Were the messages blocked, junked, delivered, or remediated? Did any user click the URL? Did anyone click through a Safe Links warning? Were any priority or high-risk users affected? Was the email removed after delivery? Are there related Defender XDR or Sentinel incidents? If we only investigate one message, we may miss the bigger picture. Campaign-centric hunting helps the SOC move from this question: Is this email malicious? To this question: What is the full impact of this campaign? That shift is important because the response priority should be based on campaign impact, not only on a single alert. What Campaign Views Provides Campaign Views in Microsoft Defender for Office 365 help analysts investigate coordinated email attacks such as phishing and malware campaigns. From Campaign Views, analysts can review campaign-level information such as: Campaign name Campaign type Campaign subtype Targeted users Inboxed messages Clicked users Visited links Sender domains Sender IPs Payload URLs Delivery actions Campaign timeline Campaign flow This is useful during triage because it quickly shows whether an email is part of a wider attack. For example, one reported phishing message may look small at first. But if Campaign Views shows that the same campaign targeted 50 users, delivered messages to 15 inboxes, and had 2 users click the URL, the investigation becomes much more urgent. Where CampaignInfo Fits The CampaignInfo table gives analysts a KQL-based way to query campaign-related data. Some useful fields are: Field Purpose CampaignId Unique identifier for the campaign CampaignName Name of the campaign CampaignType Campaign category, such as Phish or Malware CampaignSubtype Additional context, such as brand being phished or malware family NetworkMessageId Unique identifier for the email message RecipientEmailAddress Recipient affected by the campaign Timestamp Time when the event was recorded For correlation, the most important field is usually: NetworkMessageId This field can help connect campaign data with other Defender XDR email tables, including: EmailEvents UrlClickEvents EmailPostDeliveryEvents EmailAttachmentInfo EmailUrlInfo This makes CampaignInfo a useful pivot table for campaign-level hunting. Important note: CampaignInfo is currently documented as Preview. Before using these queries in production analytics rules, validate the table availability, schema, and results in your own tenant. Practical Scenario An analyst receives a phishing alert in Microsoft Defender XDR. The alert is related to a user who received a suspicious email with a credential-harvesting URL. The analyst opens Campaign Views and sees that the message belongs to a wider phishing campaign. At that point, the investigation should not stop with the original user. The analyst should now ask: Who else received this campaign? How many messages were delivered? Which users clicked? Did any users click through the Safe Links warning? Were the messages removed after delivery? Are there related incidents in Microsoft Sentinel? The investigation flow could look like this: Start from Campaign Views in Microsoft Defender XDR. Identify the campaign details. Use CampaignInfo to list affected users and messages. Join with EmailEvents to validate delivery status. Join with UrlClickEvents to identify user interaction. Join with EmailPostDeliveryEvents to confirm remediation. Review related Microsoft XDR incidents in Microsoft Sentinel. Prioritize response based on campaign impact. Query 1: List Recent Campaigns The first query gives a simple overview of recent campaigns. CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | summarize FirstSeen = min(Timestamp), LastSeen = max(Timestamp), AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by LastSeen desc This helps analysts quickly identify campaigns that affected the organization during the selected period. Useful questions to ask from this output: Which campaigns are most recent? Which campaigns affected the most users? Are the campaigns phishing, malware, or spam? Is there a specific brand or malware family in the subtype? Are similar campaigns appearing repeatedly? Query 2: Understand Delivery Impact After identifying campaigns, the next step is to understand delivery impact. A campaign that was fully blocked is different from a campaign that reached user inboxes. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter ( EmailEvents | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress, Subject, SenderFromAddress, SenderFromDomain, SenderIPv4, DeliveryAction, DeliveryLocation, ThreatTypes, DetectionMethods, Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId), AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Subjects = make_set(Subject, 5), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderFromDomain, 10), SenderIPs = make_set(SenderIPv4, 10) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, DeliveryAction, DeliveryLocation | order by AffectedUsers desc, Messages desc This query helps separate campaigns that were blocked from campaigns that actually reached users. From a SOC perspective, delivered messages deserve closer attention, especially if they reached the inbox. Query 3: Identify Users Who Clicked Campaign URLs Delivery is important, but clicks usually increase the priority of the incident. This query joins campaign data with UrlClickEvents. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=inner ( UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project NetworkMessageId, AccountUpn, Url, ActionType, IsClickedThrough, ThreatTypes, DetectionMethods, IPAddress, Workload, ClickTime = Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId | summarize FirstClick = min(ClickTime), LastClick = max(ClickTime), ClickEvents = count(), ClickedUsers = dcount(AccountUpn), ClickThroughUsers = dcountif(AccountUpn, IsClickedThrough == true), ClickedUrls = make_set(Url, 10), SourceIPs = make_set(IPAddress, 10) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by ClickThroughUsers desc, ClickedUsers desc, LastClick desc This query helps identify campaigns where users interacted with the payload. If a user clicked a phishing URL, the next step should usually include identity-focused investigation, such as reviewing sign-in activity, MFA status, session activity, and possible risky sign-ins. Query 4: Focus on Click-Through Events Safe Links may block access to a malicious site. In some cases, however, a user may continue through a warning page. Those cases should be reviewed carefully. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=inner ( UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | where IsClickedThrough == true | project NetworkMessageId, AccountUpn, Url, ActionType, ThreatTypes, IPAddress, ClickTime = Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId | project ClickTime, CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, AccountUpn, RecipientEmailAddress, Url, ActionType, ThreatTypes, IPAddress | order by ClickTime desc This is one of the most useful views during incident response. A click-through event does not automatically mean compromise, but it is a strong reason to investigate the user account further. Query 5: Confirm Post-Delivery Remediation A malicious message may be delivered first and removed later by ZAP, AIR, or manual remediation. This query joins CampaignInfo with EmailPostDeliveryEvents. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter ( EmailPostDeliveryEvents | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress, RemediationTime = Timestamp, Action, ActionType, ActionTrigger, ActionResult, DeliveryLocation, SourceLocation ) on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize RemediatedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, isnotempty(ActionType)), RemediationTypes = make_set(ActionType, 10), RemediationResults = make_set(ActionResult, 10), LastRemediation = max(RemediationTime) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by LastRemediation desc This helps answer a very important question: Were the delivered malicious messages actually removed? This is useful for both SOC triage and reporting because it shows not only detection, but also response. Query 6: Campaign Blast Radius Summary The following query combines campaign, delivery, click, and remediation data into one campaign-level view. let TimeRange = 30d; let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; let Delivery = EmailEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize DeliveryActions = make_set(DeliveryAction, 10), DeliveryLocations = make_set(DeliveryLocation, 10), DeliveredMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Delivered"), JunkedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Junked"), BlockedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Blocked"), Subjects = make_set(Subject, 5), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderFromDomain, 10) by NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; let Clicks = UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize ClickEvents = count(), ClickThroughEvents = countif(IsClickedThrough == true), FirstClick = min(Timestamp), LastClick = max(Timestamp), ClickedUrls = make_set(Url, 10) by NetworkMessageId; let Remediation = EmailPostDeliveryEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize RemediationActions = make_set(ActionType, 10), LastRemediation = max(Timestamp) by NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter Delivery on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | join kind=leftouter Clicks on NetworkMessageId | join kind=leftouter Remediation on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId), DeliveredMessages = sum(DeliveredMessages), JunkedMessages = sum(JunkedMessages), BlockedMessages = sum(BlockedMessages), TotalClickEvents = sum(ClickEvents), ClickThroughEvents = sum(ClickThroughEvents), Subjects = make_set(Subjects, 10), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderDomains, 10), ClickedUrls = make_set(ClickedUrls, 10), RemediationActions = make_set(RemediationActions, 10), LastClick = max(LastClick), LastRemediation = max(LastRemediation) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | extend SuggestedPriority = case( ClickThroughEvents > 0, "High", TotalClickEvents > 0, "Medium", DeliveredMessages > 0, "Medium", "Low" ) | order by SuggestedPriority asc, AffectedUsers desc, Messages desc This type of query can be useful during hunting sessions, incident review, and campaign reporting. The goal is not only to collect more data. The goal is to help the analyst decide what needs attention first. Correlating Campaign Activity with Microsoft Sentinel When Microsoft Defender XDR is connected to Microsoft Sentinel, incidents and alerts can be synchronized into the Sentinel incident queue. This allows the SOC to correlate campaign-related email activity with other security signals, such as: Suspicious sign-ins Identity alerts Endpoint alerts Cloud app activity OAuth consent activity Data exfiltration attempts Related Microsoft XDR incidents For example, if a user clicked a phishing URL, the SOC can then review whether the same user had suspicious sign-in activity shortly after the click. The following query is a simple starting point for reviewing Microsoft XDR incidents in Microsoft Sentinel. SecurityIncident | where TimeGenerated > ago(30d) | where ProviderName == "Microsoft XDR" | where Title has_any ("phish", "phishing", "email", "malware", "campaign") | summarize Incidents = count(), HighSeverity = countif(Severity == "High"), MediumSeverity = countif(Severity == "Medium"), Closed = countif(Status == "Closed"), Active = countif(Status == "Active") by bin(TimeGenerated, 1d) | order by TimeGenerated desc This query does not replace campaign hunting. It simply helps analysts understand how email-related activity is represented in the Sentinel incident queue. Suggested SOC Workflow A practical campaign-centric workflow could look like this: Step 1: Start from Campaign Views Review campaigns with delivered messages, clicked users, visited links, or high user impact. Step 2: Pivot to KQL Use CampaignInfo to list campaign-related messages and affected recipients. Step 3: Validate Delivery Join with EmailEvents to confirm whether messages were blocked, junked, delivered, or replaced. Step 4: Review User Interaction Join with UrlClickEvents to identify users who clicked URLs or clicked through Safe Links warnings. Step 5: Confirm Remediation Join with EmailPostDeliveryEvents to confirm whether delivered messages were removed after delivery. Step 6: Correlate in Sentinel Review related Microsoft XDR incidents and correlate with identity, endpoint, and cloud activity. Step 7: Decide Response Depending on the impact, the SOC may decide to: Escalate the incident Notify affected users Review user sign-ins Revoke user sessions Reset passwords Block sender domains or URLs Submit false negatives Create a watchlist for related indicators Tune analytics rules or response processes Suggested Priority Logic Not every campaign needs the same level of response. A simple triage model could be: Condition Suggested priority Campaign blocked before delivery Low Campaign delivered to junk Low to Medium Campaign delivered to inbox Medium Campaign delivered to multiple inboxes Medium to High User clicked URL High User clicked through warning High Priority account clicked High Click followed by suspicious sign-in Critical This model should be adapted to each organization’s risk profile and response process. Limitations and Things to Validate Before using this approach in production, validate the following: Defender for Office 365 Plan 2 availability Campaign Views permissions CampaignInfo table availability Defender XDR connector configuration Advanced hunting event streaming Field names in your environment Retention period Data latency Join behavior using NetworkMessageId Whether click events can be joined to email metadata in all cases One important limitation is that some URL click events may not join cleanly with email metadata. For example, clicks from Drafts or Sent Items may not have the same message metadata available for correlation. Also, because CampaignInfo is currently documented as Preview, I would avoid depending on it alone for critical production automation without testing and validation.
MDO query of EmailEvents is not accepted in the flow which is why causing the badgateway error
When used the following MDO query of EmailEvents it is working in the Defender control panel but when applied through 'Advanced Hunting' action in Power automate application given bad gateway error. Is this query supported in this application?
Full Automation Capabilities in Linux OS
Hello eveyone, We have configured Defender to detect viruses, and our goal is that if one of our assets downloads or encounters a virus, it is automatically hidden or removed. Based on the documentation regarding the automation levels in Automated Investigation and Remediation capabilities, we have set it to "Full - remediate threats automatically." While this works correctly on Windows devices, we have noticed that on Linux devices, the defender still detect the virus but it was not prevented. I was wondering if anyone has encountered this issue and, if so, how it was resolved? Additionally, as I am new to the Defender platform, I wanted to ask if could this issue potentially be resolved through specific Linux policies or functionalities? Best regards MathiewMicrosoft Sentinel MCP Entity Analyzer: Explainable risk analysis for URLs and identities
What makes this release important is not just that it adds another AI feature to Sentinel. It changes the implementation model for enrichment and triage. Instead of building and maintaining a chain of custom playbooks, KQL lookups, threat intel checks, and entity correlation logic, SOC teams can call a single analyzer that returns a reasoned verdict and supporting evidence. Microsoft positions the analyzer as available through Sentinel MCP server connections for agent platforms and through Logic Apps for SOAR workflows, which makes it useful both for interactive investigations and for automated response pipelines. Why this matters First, it formalizes Entity Analyzer as a production feature rather than a preview experiment. Second, it introduces a real cost model, which means organizations now need to govern usage instead of treating it as a free enrichment helper. Third, Microsoft’s documentation is now detailed enough to support repeatable implementation patterns, including prerequisites, limits, required tables, Logic Apps deployment, and cost behavior. From a SOC engineering perspective, Entity Analyzer is interesting because it focuses on explainability. Microsoft describes the feature as generating clear, explainable verdicts for URLs and user identities by analyzing multiple modalities, including threat intelligence, prevalence, and organizational context. That is a much stronger operational model than simple point-enrichment because it aims to return an assessment that analysts can act on, not just more raw evidence What Entity Analyzer actually does The Entity Analyzer tools are described as AI-powered tools that analyze data in the Microsoft Sentinel data lake and provide a verdict plus detailed insights on URLs, domains, and user entities. Microsoft explicitly says these tools help eliminate the need for manual data collection and complex integrations usually required for investigation and enrichment hat positioning is important. In practice, many SOC teams have built enrichment playbooks that fetch sign-in history, query TI feeds, inspect click data, read watchlists, and collect relevant alerts. Those workflows work, but they create maintenance overhead and produce inconsistent analyst experiences. Entity Analyzer centralizes that reasoning layer. For user entities, Microsoft’s preview architecture explains that the analyzer retrieves sign-in logs, security alerts, behavior analytics, cloud app events, identity information, and Microsoft Threat Intelligence, then correlates those signals and applies AI-based reasoning to produce a verdict. Microsoft lists verdict examples such as Compromised, Suspicious activity found, and No evidence of compromise, and also warns that AI-generated content may be incorrect and should be checked for accuracy. That warning matters. The right way to think about Entity Analyzer is not “automatic truth,” but “high-value, explainable triage acceleration.” It should reduce analyst effort and improve consistency, while still fitting into human review and response policy. Under the hood: the implementation model Technically, Entity Analyzer is delivered through the Microsoft Sentinel MCP data exploration tool collection. Microsoft documents that entity analysis is asynchronous: you start analysis, receive an identifier, and then poll for results. The docs note that analysis may take a few minutes and that the retrieval step may need to be run more than once if the internal timeout is not enough for long operations. That design has two immediate implications for implementers. First, this is not a lightweight synchronous enrichment call you should drop carelessly into every automation branch. Second, any production workflow should include retry logic, timeouts, and concurrency controls. If you ignore that, you will create fragile playbooks and unnecessary SCU burn. The supported access path for the data exploration collection requires Microsoft Sentinel data lake and one of the supported MCP-capable platforms. Microsoft also states that access to the tools is supported for identities with at least Security Administrator, Security Operator, or Security Reader. The data exploration collection is hosted at the Sentinel MCP endpoint, and the same documentation notes additional Entity Analyzer roles related to Security Copilot usage. The prerequisite many teams will miss The most important prerequisite is easy to overlook: Microsoft Sentinel data lake is required. This is more than a licensing footnote. It directly affects data quality, analyzer usefulness, and rollout success. If your organization has not onboarded the right tables into the data lake, Entity Analyzer will either fail or return reduced-confidence output. For user analysis, the following tables are required to ensure accuracy: AlertEvidence, SigninLogs, CloudAppEvents, and IdentityInfo. also notes that IdentityInfo depends on Defender for Identity, Defender for Cloud Apps, or Defender for Endpoint P2 licensing. The analyzer works best with AADNonInteractiveUserSignInLogs and BehaviorAnalytics as well. For URL analysis, the analyzer works best with EmailUrlInfo, UrlClickEvents, ThreatIntelIndicators, Watchlist, and DeviceNetworkEvents. If those tables are missing, the analyzer returns a disclaimer identifying the missing sources A practical architecture view An incident, hunting workflow, or analyst identifies a high-interest URL or user. A Sentinel MCP client or Logic App calls Entity Analyzer. Entity Analyzer queries relevant Sentinel data lake sources and correlates the findings. AI reasoning produces a verdict, evidence narrative, and recommendations. The result is returned to the analyst, incident record, or automation workflow for next-step action. This model is especially valuable because it collapses a multi-query, multi-tool investigation pattern into a single explainable decisioning step. Where it fits in real Sentinel operations Entity Analyzer is not a replacement for analytics rules, UEBA, or threat intelligence. It is a force multiplier for them. For identity triage, it fits naturally after incidents triggered by sign-in anomaly detections, UEBA signals, or Defender alerts because it already consumes sign-in logs, cloud app events, and behavior analytics as core evidence sources. For URL triage, it complements phishing and click-investigation workflows because it uses TI, URL activity, watchlists, and device/network context. Implementation path 1: MCP clients and security agents Microsoft states that Entity Analyzer integrates with agents through Sentinel MCP server connections to first-party and third-party AI runtime platforms. In practice, this makes it attractive for analyst copilots, engineering-side investigation agents, and guided triage experiences The benefit of this model is speed. A security engineer or analyst can invoke the analyzer directly from an MCP-capable client without building a custom orchestration layer. The tradeoff is governance: once you make the tool widely accessible, you need a clear policy for who can run it, when it should be used, and how results are validated before action is taken. Implementation path 2: Logic Apps and SOAR playbooks For SOC teams, Logic Apps is likely the most immediately useful deployment model. Microsoft documents an entity analyzer action inside the Microsoft Sentinel MCP tools connector and provides the required parameters for adding it to an existing logic app. These include: Workspace ID Look Back Days Properties payload for either URL or User The documented payloads are straightforward: { "entityType": "Url", "url": "[URL]" } And { "entityType": "User", "userId": "[Microsoft Entra object ID or User Principal Name]" } Also states that the connector supports Microsoft Entra ID, service principals, and managed identities, and that the Logic App identity requires Security Reader to operate. This makes playbook integration a strong pattern for incident enrichment. A high-severity incident can trigger a playbook, extract entities, invoke Entity Analyzer, and post the verdict back to the incident as a comment or decision artifact. The concurrency lesson most people will learn the hard way Unusually direct guidance on concurrency: to avoid timeouts and threshold issues, turn on Concurrency control in Logic Apps loops and start with a degree of parallelism of . The data exploration doc repeats the same guidance, stating that running multiple instances at once can increase latency and recommending starting with a maximum of five concurrent analyses. This is a strong indicator that the correct implementation pattern is selective analysis, not blanket analysis. Do not analyze every entity in every incident. Analyze the entities that matter most: external URLs in phishing or delivery chains accounts tied to high-confidence alerts entities associated with high-severity or high-impact incidents suspicious users with multiple correlated signals That keeps latency, quota pressure, and SCU consumption under control. KQL still matters Entity Analyzer does not eliminate KQL. It changes where KQL adds value. Before running the analyzer, KQL is still useful for scoping and selecting the right entities. After the analyzer returns, KQL is useful for validation, deeper hunting, and building custom evidence views around the analyzer’s verdict. For example, a simple sign-in baseline for a target user: let TargetUpn = "email address removed for privacy reasons"; SigninLogs | where TimeGenerated between (ago(7d) .. now()) | where UserPrincipalName == TargetUpn | summarize Total=count(), Failures=countif(ResultType != "0"), Successes=countif(ResultType == "0"), DistinctIPs=dcount(IPAddress), Apps=make_set(AppDisplayName, 20) by bin(TimeGenerated, 1d) | order by TimeGenerated desc And a lightweight URL prevalence check: let TargetUrl = "omicron-obl.com"; UrlClickEvents | where TimeGenerated between (ago(7d) .. now()) | search TargetUrl | take 50 Cost, billing, and governance GA is where technical excitement meets budget reality. Microsoft’s Sentinel billing documentation says there is no extra cost for the MCP server interface itself. However, for Entity Analyzer, customers are charged for the SCUs used for AI reasoning and also for the KQL queries executed against the Microsoft Sentinel data lake. Microsoft further states that existing Security Copilot entitlements apply The April 2026 “What’s new” entry also explicitly says that starting April 1, 2026, customers are charged for the SCUs required when using Entity Analyzer. That means every rollout should include a governance plan: define who can invoke the analyzer decide when playbooks are allowed to call it monitor SCU consumption limit unnecessary repeat runs preserve results in incident records so you do not rerun the same analysis within a short period Microsoft’s MCP billing documentation also defines service limits: 200 total runs per hour, 500 total runs per day, and around 15 concurrent runs every five minutes, with analysis results available for one hour. Those are not just product limits. They are design requirements. Limitations you should state clearly The analyze_user_entity supports a maximum time window of seven days and only works for users with a Microsoft Entra object ID. On-premises Active Directory-only users are not supported for user analysis. Microsoft also says Entity Analyzer results expire after one hour and that the tool collection currently supports English prompts only. Recommended rollout pattern If I were implementing this in a production SOC, I would phase it like this: Start with a narrow set of high-value use cases, such as suspicious user identities and phishing-related URLs. Confirm that the required tables are present in the data lake. Deploy a Logic App enrichment pattern for incident-triggered analysis. Add concurrency control and retry logic. Persist returned verdicts into incident comments or case notes. Then review SCU usage and analyst value before expanding coverage.
Observed Automation Discrepancies
Hi Team ... I want to know the logic behind the Defender XDR Automation Engine . How it works ? I have observed Defender XDR Automation Engine Behavior contrary to expectations of identical incident and automation handling in both environments, discrepancies were observed. Specifically, incidents with high-severity alerts were automatically closed by Defender XDR's automation engine before reaching their SOC for review, raising concerns among clients and colleagues. Automation rules are clearly logged in the activity log, whereas actions performed by Microsoft Defender XDR are less transparent . A high-severity alert related to a phishing incident was closed by Defender XDR's automation, resulting in the associated incident being closed and removed from SOC review. Wherein the automation was not triggered by our own rules, but by Microsoft's Defender XDR, and sought clarification on the underlying logic.
