Hunting AI Agent Configuration Drift with Microsoft Sentinel
Four KQL patterns for detecting instruction changes, new MCP servers, ownership changes, and organization-wide sharing I recently authored and contributed four new Microsoft Sentinel hunting queries for detecting security-relevant configuration drift in AI agents. They have been reviewed, approved, and merged into Microsoft's public Azure-Sentinel repository. I built the queries around four changes that can materially affect an agent's behavior, access, or exposure: instructions being modified, MCP servers being connected, owners being added, and sharing being expanded to the entire organization. Each modification may be legitimate, but each deserves enough context for a security team to verify that it was expected and authorized. For a security operations team, the difficult question is often not what does this agent look like now? It is what changed since the last known state? Microsoft Sentinel's AgentsInfo table provides inventory-style snapshots of AI agents and their associated configuration. That makes it useful for more than posture reporting. By comparing a recent snapshot with an earlier baseline, we can hunt for configuration drift that deserves investigation. This post walks through four practical hunting scenarios: Instructions changed on a previously published agent A newly observed MCP server on an existing agent An owner added to an MCP-enabled agent Sharing expanded from a restricted scope to the entire organization The complete hunting queries are available in Microsoft's public https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/tree/master/Hunting%20Queries/AI%20Agents. The focus here is the detection design behind them, the KQL patterns they share, and the investigation questions they help answer. What I contributed I wrote the four standalone hunting queries discussed in this article and submitted them to Azure/Azure-Sentinel in https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/pull/14702: AI Agents - Instructions changed on previously published agent AI Agents - Newly observed MCP server on existing agent AI Agents - Owner added to MCP-enabled agent AI Agents - Sharing expanded to organization-wide The contribution went through several rounds of technical review. Across six commits, I aligned the queries with the unified AgentsInfo schema, added schema-tolerant IdentityInfo enrichment, improved entity mappings, bounded the identity lookback, expanded all owner values, and kept the ATT&CK mappings limited to scenarios where a precise technique could be defended. Repository collaborator v-atulyadav approved the final revision, and the four queries were merged into master on July 20, 2026. This article explains the detection logic and engineering decisions behind that contribution rather than simply reproducing the final YAML files. Why current-state queries are not enough A current-state query can answer questions such as: Which agents are published? Which agents have MCP servers configured? Which agents are shared with the organization? Who owns a particular agent? Those are important posture questions, but they do not tell us whether the state is new. An agent with an MCP server might have been reviewed and approved months ago. The same MCP server appearing for the first time today is a different security signal. Configuration-drift hunting adds the missing time dimension. Instead of treating a risky-looking property as an event, it compares two states of the same agent and reports only meaningful transitions. The common detection pattern I used the same basic time model across all four hunts: let lookback = 14d; let recent = 2d; The latest snapshot observed during the last two days becomes the current state. The latest snapshot from the preceding portion of the 14-day lookback becomes the baseline. Conceptually, the comparison looks like this: let CurrentState = AgentsInfo | where Timestamp > ago(recent) | summarize arg_max(Timestamp, *) by AgentId | where LifecycleStatus != "Deleted"; let BaselineState = AgentsInfo | where Timestamp between (ago(lookback) .. ago(recent)) | where LifecycleStatus != "Deleted" | summarize arg_max(Timestamp, *) by AgentId; CurrentState | join kind=inner BaselineState on AgentId Several details matter here: arg_max(Timestamp, *) by AgentId selects the latest available state for each agent in the relevant time range. The inner join restricts results to agents that exist in both periods. A newly created agent is therefore not automatically treated as configuration drift on an existing agent. Deleted lifecycle snapshots are excluded so that a deletion record does not become the effective baseline or current configuration. The two-day current window is operationally significant. To retain coverage, these hunts should run within two days of a change. The 14-day and two-day values are practical defaults, not universal constants. Environments with different ingestion cadence or retention requirements can adjust them, but the current and baseline windows must remain non-overlapping. Scenario 1: Instructions changed on a published agent An agent's instructions define its default behavior, persona, and operating boundaries. Changing them can be part of normal development, but it can also weaken restrictions, redirect the agent's behavior, or modify how it uses connected capabilities. The first hunt compares the current and previous instruction values only when the agent was published in both snapshots: CurrentState | join kind=inner BaselineState on AgentId | where CurrentInstructions != PreviousInstructions | extend PreviousInstructionsHash = hash_sha256(PreviousInstructions), CurrentInstructionsHash = hash_sha256(CurrentInstructions), InstructionsLengthDelta = strlen(CurrentInstructions) - strlen(PreviousInstructions) I deliberately chose to expose hashes and a length delta rather than returning both instruction bodies in plaintext. This confirms that a change occurred without unnecessarily spreading potentially sensitive prompts through query results, exports, or screenshots. Useful investigation questions include: Was the change associated with an approved development or release process? Did the agent remain published while the instructions changed? Were guardrails, declared tools, permissions, or sharing settings modified around the same time? Do audit records identify an expected actor and change path? The query maps well to an integrity-focused investigation. Its MITRE ATT&CK mapping is T1565.001 (Stored Data Manipulation), but the result is still a hunting lead rather than proof of malicious manipulation. https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/blob/master/Hunting%20Queries/AI%20Agents/AgentsInfoInstructionsChangedOnPublishedAgent.yaml Scenario 2: A newly observed MCP server Model Context Protocol servers can extend an agent with external tools, data sources, or actions. From a defender's perspective, the important transition is not simply that an MCP server exists. It is that a server name appears in the current configuration but was absent from the baseline. The query expands the dynamic McpServers array and builds a set of server names for each agent: let CurrentMcp = CurrentRaw | mv-expand Mcp = McpServers | extend McpName = tostring(Mcp.name) | where isnotempty(McpName) | summarize CurrentMcpServers = make_set(McpName) by AgentI It performs the same normalization for the baseline, then calculates the difference: | extend AddedMcpServers = set_difference(CurrentMcpServers, BaselineMcpServers) | where array_length(AddedMcpServers) > 0 Using set_difference() avoids raising a result merely because the order of array elements changed. The hunt reports only MCP server names present in the current set and absent from the previous set. An analyst should validate more than the displayed name: Is the MCP integration part of the approved inventory? What endpoint, authentication method, and permissions are associated with it? Which tools or data can the server expose to the agent? Was the integration introduced through an expected deployment path? Did ownership, instructions, or sharing change in the same period? I did not assign an ATT&CK technique to this query. Adding an MCP server does not, by itself, prove command execution, persistence, or a specific attacker behavior. Avoiding an overly broad mapping keeps the signal honest. https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/blob/master/Hunting%20Queries/AI%20Agents/AgentsInfoNewlyObservedMcpServer.yaml Scenario 3: An owner added to an MCP-enabled agent Ownership is a control-plane relationship. A newly added owner may be able to modify an agent's configuration, instructions, integrations, or publication state. The risk becomes more interesting when the agent already has MCP servers configured. The hunt first limits the current state to MCP-enabled agents: | where array_length(coalesce(McpServers, dynamic([]))) > 0 | project AgentId, Timestamp, Name, Platform, CreatedDateTime, CurrentOwners = coalesce(Owners, dynamic([])), McpServers It then compares the owner arrays as sets: | extend AddedOwners = set_difference(CurrentOwners, PreviousOwners) | where array_length(AddedOwners) > 0 | mv-expand AddedOwnerId = AddedOwners to typeof(string) Expanding AddedOwners produces one row per newly observed owner. This is more useful than returning one opaque dynamic array because every added identity can be enriched, mapped, and investigated independently. I kept the raw object identifier in the result even when identity enrichment fails: | extend AddedOwnerUpn = AccountUpn, UnresolvedAddedOwnerId = iff(isempty(AccountUpn), AddedOwnerId, "") That fallback matters. A missing UPN should not hide the underlying ownership change. Investigation should establish: Is the added owner an expected person, service identity, or administrative group? Does the identity's role and business function justify control of this agent? Was the owner added before other configuration changes? Does the identity appear in related sign-in, audit, or privileged-access activity? Should ownership be removed while the change is reviewed? This query maps to T1098 (Account Manipulation) under Persistence and Privilege Escalation. As with the instruction-change hunt, the mapping frames an investigation hypothesis; it does not label every ownership change as malicious. https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/blob/master/Hunting%20Queries/AI%20Agents/AgentsInfoOwnerAddedToMcpAgent.yaml Scenario 4: Sharing expanded to the entire organization An agent can move from a limited audience to organization-wide availability without changing its underlying tools or instructions. That transition can materially increase exposure, especially when the agent has MCP integrations or declared tools. The hunt treats "*" in SharedWith as the organization-wide state. The current snapshot must contain it, while the baseline must not: // Current state | where set_has_element(coalesce(SharedWith, dynamic([])), "*") // Baseline state | where not(set_has_element(coalesce(SharedWith, dynamic([])), "*")) The result also counts MCP servers and declared tools: | extend McpServerCount = array_length(coalesce(McpServers, dynamic([]))), DeclaredToolCount = array_length(coalesce(DeclaredTools, dynamic([]))) | extend HasElevatedCapabilities = McpServerCount > 0 or DeclaredToolCount > 0 | sort by HasElevatedCapabilities desc, Timestamp desc I use HasElevatedCapabilities as a prioritization field, not a verdict. It brings agents with connected capabilities to the top of the result set so analysts can review the potentially larger blast radius first. Questions for triage include: Was organization-wide publication explicitly approved? Is the agent intended for every user, or was a group-based scope expected? What data sources, tools, and MCP servers can organization-wide users reach through it? Do the instructions contain assumptions that were safe only for a restricted audience? Were access reviews or user-acceptance tests completed before the expansion? No ATT&CK mapping is assigned because a broader sharing scope is a security-relevant exposure change, but not a sufficiently precise adversary technique on its own. https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/blob/master/Hunting%20Queries/AI%20Agents/AgentsInfoSharingExpandedToOrgWide.yaml Resolving owners without making the hunt schema-fragile The Owners field contains identifiers. Human-readable identity context makes results easier to triage, and entity mappings make those identities more useful in Sentinel investigations. I built a small, materialized IdentityInfo lookup that is shared by the four hunts: let IdentityIdtoUPN = materialize( IdentityInfo | extend ResolvedAccountUpn = tostring( column_ifexists("AccountUpn", column_ifexists("AccountUPN", ""))), IdentityTimestamp = todatetime( column_ifexists("Timestamp", column_ifexists("TimeGenerated", datetime(null)))) | where IdentityTimestamp >= ago(lookback) | where isnotempty(AccountObjectId) and isnotempty(ResolvedAccountUpn) | summarize arg_max(IdentityTimestamp, ResolvedAccountUpn) by AccountObjectId | project AccountObjectId = tostring(AccountObjectId), AccountUpn = ResolvedAccountUpn); There are three design choices worth noting: column_ifexists() accommodates observed IdentityInfo naming variants without maintaining separate query versions. The lookup is bounded by the same lookback period instead of scanning unbounded identity history. arg_max() keeps the latest usable identity record for each object ID. After enrichment, the queries map the account using the UPN components and the Entra object ID: entityMappings: - entityType: Account fieldMappings: - identifier: Name columnName: OwnerAccountName - identifier: UPNSuffix columnName: OwnerAccountUPNSuffix - identifier: AadUserId columnName: OwnerId The strong AadUserId identifier remains valuable even when display information changes. Microsoft Sentinel can use mapped entities in bookmarks and investigation experiences, so mapping the changed owner is more than cosmetic enrichment. Turning a result into an investigation These queries intentionally stop at the configuration transition. AgentsInfo tells us that two snapshots differ; it does not necessarily tell us who performed the change, through which interface, or whether the action was authorized. A practical investigation workflow is: Confirm that the two snapshots represent the expected agent and time period. Review the exact changed property and the agent's current capabilities. Identify the owner or newly added owner through IdentityInfo and Entra ID context. Correlate the transition with the relevant audit source for actor attribution. Check for related changes to permissions, tools, data sources, publication state, and sharing. Validate the change against an approved request, release, or ownership process. Restrict, unpublish, or revert the agent if the exposure cannot be justified. Expected changes can still be useful findings. Repeated legitimate results may reveal that a deployment process lacks a stable change window, that ownership is managed through noisy automation, or that the hunt's timing needs to be aligned with release activity. Tuning the hunts for your environment Before operational use, consider the following adjustments: Run cadence: Execute within the two-day current window. A daily cadence provides overlap without blending current and baseline periods. Lookback: Increase the 14-day lookback only if snapshot history and query cost support it. A longer lookback does not compensate for missing the current window. Known change windows: Add watchlists or environment-specific suppression logic for well-controlled automated deployments, while retaining enough context to audit the change. Agent scope: Filter by platform, business unit, agent naming convention, or owner if different teams require separate triage queues. Risk prioritization: Raise agents with sensitive declared data sources, powerful tools, privileged owners, or broad availability to the top of the result set. Audit correlation: Keep attribution logic separate unless the audit source and join keys are stable in your environment. This makes the configuration-drift hunt reusable while allowing each organization to attach its own control-plane evidence. Test with representative snapshots before treating any hunt as an operational control. In particular, validate array shapes for Owners, McpServers, and SharedWith, confirm the identity fields present in your workspace, and exercise both changed and unchanged states. Using the queries The four YAML definitions have been merged into the Hunting Queries/AI Agents folder of Microsoft's Azure-Sentinel repository. Each file contains the complete KQL, description, entity mappings, and ATT&CK mappings where a precise technique applies. https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/blob/master/Hunting%20Queries/AI%20Agents/AgentsInfoInstructionsChangedOnPublishedAgent.yaml https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/blob/master/Hunting%20Queries/AI%20Agents/AgentsInfoNewlyObservedMcpServer.yaml https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/blob/master/Hunting%20Queries/AI%20Agents/AgentsInfoOwnerAddedToMcpAgent.yaml https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/blob/master/Hunting%20Queries/AI%20Agents/AgentsInfoSharingExpandedToOrgWide.yaml The broader pattern is reusable beyond these four scenarios: select a stable current snapshot, select a non-overlapping baseline, normalize dynamic properties into comparable sets, calculate the transition, and enrich only after the drift has been identified. That keeps the core detection explainable and gives the analyst the before-and-after context needed for a defensible investigation. References https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/reference/tables/agentsinfo https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/reference/queries/agentsinfo https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/reference/tables/identityinfo https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sentinel/entities-reference https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/pull/14702 I authored the four hunting queries discussed in this article and contributed them to Microsoft's Azure-Sentinel repository as https://github.com/Azure/Azure-Sentinel/pull/14702. The complete implementations and review history are publicly available through the links above.Sentinel - Defender XDR KQL Queries Library
Hello all, I’ve been building something over the past few weeks that I think the security community might find useful. https://goxdr.fyi is a searchable KQL query library for Microsoft Sentinel and Defender XDR. The name comes from a nickname my colleagues gave me (GoX) combined with XDR. I also picked up https://goxdr.fyi as a short and easy to remember domain for it. You can check it out here: https://goxdr.fyi The idea came from my own day to day work as someone working in IAM and SOC operations. I constantly find myself writing and refining KQL queries for threat hunting, detection engineering and incident investigation. Over time I realized I had a growing collection of queries that I kept going back to and I thought why not make these available to others? It currently has 117 queries covering identity security, BEC/AiTM detection, NTLM and LDAP attack hunting, OAuth governance, AI/Copilot security, Sentinel alert trending, SOC performance metrics and more. Some of these queries are ones I wrote from scratch based on real scenarios I encountered in production environments. Others are community queries I tested and validated in my own setup. Only the ones I found genuinely useful and that actually worked against real data made it in. Each query comes with a description explaining what it detects and why it matters, along with severity levels, platform tags (Sentinel, XDR or both) and a copy button so you can paste it directly into Advanced Hunting or use it as the basis for an Analytics Rule. The site is open source, hosted on GitHub Pages and licensed under CC BY 4.0. No sign-up, no paywall, no tracking. The source is available. I’ll keep adding queries as new scenarios come up. If there’s enough interest I’m also considering adding Cortex XQL queries for Palo Alto environments. Suggestions, feedback or ideas for new detections are always welcome. Feel free to reach out. Thanks
Agent 365 connector: Monitor, hunt, and investigate AI agent activity in Microsoft Sentinel
As enterprises scale the use of AI agents, SOC teams need visibility into AI agent behavior. The Agent 365 connector, now in public preview, streams rich agent telemetry from Agent 365 into Microsoft Sentinel data lake. Agent activity, such as agent data exposure or access drift, is surfaced alongside other security data, giving SOC teams a unified view across digital environments. AI Agent actions are correlated with agent identity, endpoint, and cloud signals, enabling analysts to run end‑to‑end investigations using KQL, graph, and MCP-powered workflows. Why this matters for organizations By centralizing security and AI agent telemetry in Sentinel data lake, organizations establish a unified control plane for securing AI agents. This enables security teams to analyze agent activity in context with broader signals and investigate using familiar Sentinel tools. This unlocks the ability for SOCs to detect risky or anomalous agent behavior early, understand impact quickly, and respond with speed and confidence. As AI agents take on real operational responsibility, this level of visibility is critical to prevent blind spots, reduce risk, and ensure agents operate safely at enterprise scale. End‑to‑end visibility into AI agent behavior: A centralized view of AI agent behavior allows AI agents to be treated as first-class entities alongside users, identities, endpoints, and workloads. Advanced hunting with KQL: Hunt using KQL to proactively uncover unusual AI agent execution patterns, sensitive actions, or activity without clear human context. These hunts help surface potential risk early using the same workflows already used for other security data. Analyzing blast radius and impact with Sentinel graph: Security teams can correlate AI agent activity with identities, endpoints, and cloud resources to understand blast radius and potential impact during an investigation. By pivoting across related entities in Sentinel, analysts can assess how agent actions connect to the broader environment and support deeper, end‑to‑end investigations. Querying agent data through MCP: Use MCP to surface agent observability data through AI assistants, letting analysts pull agent telemetry into investigation workflows alongside other Sentinel data. Agent 365 connector key capabilities Install the Agent 365 connector with a single click using Sentinel Content Hub in the Defender portal. Once enabled, two capabilities come online automatically: Unified agent telemetry across Agent 365 agent experiences: Rich Agent 365 agent telemetry streams into Sentinel data lake, ready to analyze alongside identity, endpoint, and cloud signals using familiar SOC workflows. ASIM unified schema for AI agent observability: Agent 365 agent observability data is normalized into an ASIM-aligned schema so it is consistent, queryable, and ready for analytics and detections. With the connector in place, Sentinel data lake becomes the system of record and the control plane for Agent 365 agent security—turning agent behavior into first-class security signals across SecOps workflows like hunting, investigation, detection engineering, and response. Use cases Prevent sensitive data exposure from misconfigured agents When an AI agent is granted broader access than intended, a crafted prompt could override safeguards and expose confidential data. With agent telemetry, security teams can trace the full execution path—from prompt to tools to data access—to quickly identify the root cause and contain the exposure. Detect and control agent access drift over time As agents take on new tasks, their permissions can expand beyond the original scope, often without clear visibility. Agent telemetry enables continuous behavioral baselining, making it easier to spot abnormal access patterns early and prevent privilege misuse before it escalates. Uncover hidden lateral movement across agent workflows Agents often collaborate and delegate tasks across systems, creating complex chains of execution that are difficult to track. Agent telemetry provides visibility into these interactions, mapping delegation paths and helping teams understand and limit the potential blast radius. Defend against prompt injection and manipulation attacks Attackers can craft prompts to override agent instructions and manipulate behavior. By capturing prompts and reasoning flows, agent telemetry enables detection of these attacks and provides the context needed to investigate and remediate quickly. Accelerate SOC investigations with end-to-end visibility When an agent is involved in a security alert, understanding its actions can be challenging. Agent telemetry correlates prompts, identities, tools, and data access into a unified timeline, giving SOC teams the clarity needed to investigate faster and respond with confidence. Strengthen governance and compliance for AI agents Organizations need visibility into what agents exist and what data they can access. Agent telemetry provides a comprehensive audit trail of agent activity and access patterns, supporting compliance reporting and policy enforcement. Enable proactive threat hunting on agent behavior Security teams need to stay ahead of emerging risks as agent usage grows. Agent telemetry enables advanced hunting across agent activity, helping detect anomalies, uncover patterns, and identify threats before they impact the organization. Get started with Agent 365 connector Getting started is straightforward. In the Microsoft Defender portal, navigate to Microsoft Sentinel Open Content hub and search for Agent 365 Install the Agent 365 Connector (if not already installed) Open the connector page and select Connect to begin ingestion Once connected, AI agent telemetry starts flowing into Sentinel, ready for hunting, investigation, and response. Data ingestion and analytics are billed using existing Sentinel meters. Learn more Find the Agent 365 data connector | Microsoft Learn Discover and manage Sentinel out-of-the-box content | Microsoft Learn Connect data sources to Sentinel by using data connectors | Microsoft Learn Sample KQL queries for Sentinel data lake | Microsoft Learn Watch the Sentinel data lake video playlist | Microsoft Security Get started with Sentinel data lake | Microsoft LearnAccelerate Agent Development: Hacks for Building with Microsoft Sentinel data lake
As a Senior Product Manager | Developer Architect on the App Assure team working to bring Microsoft Sentinel and Security Copilot solutions to market, I interact with many ISVs building agents on Microsoft Sentinel data lake for the first time. I’ve written this article to walk you through one possible approach for agent development – the process I use when building sample agents internally at Microsoft. If you have questions about this, or other methods for building your agent, App Assure offers guidance through our Sentinel Advisory Service. Throughout this post, I include screenshots and examples from Gigamon’s Security Posture Insight Agent. This article assumes you have: An existing SaaS or security product with accessible telemetry. A small ISV team (2–3 engineers + 1 PM). Focus on a single high value scenario for the first agent. The Composite Application Model (What You Are Building) When I begin designing an agent, I think end-to-end, from data ingestion requirements through agentic logic, following the Composite application model. The Composite Application Model consists of five layers: Data Sources – Your product’s raw security, audit, or operational data. Ingestion – Getting that data into Microsoft Sentinel. Sentinel data lake & Microsoft Graph – Normalization, storage, and correlation. Agent – Reasoning logic that queries data and produces outcomes. End User – Security Copilot or SaaS experiences that invoke the agent. This separation allows for evolving data ingestion and agent logic simultaneously. It also helps avoid downstream surprises that require going back and rearchitecting the entire solution. Optional Prerequisite You are enrolled in the ISV Success Program, so you can earn Azure Credits to provision Security Compute Units (SCUs) for Security Copilot Agents. Phase 1: Data Ingestion Design & Implementation Choose Your Ingestion Strategy The first choice I face when designing an agent is how the data is going to flow into my Sentinel workspace. Below I document two primary methods for ingestion. Option A: Codeless Connector Framework (CCF) This is the best option for ISVs with REST APIs. To build a CCF solution, reference our documentation for getting started. Option B: CCF Push (Public Preview) In this instance, an ISV pushes events directly to Sentinel via a CCF Push connector. Our MS Learn documentation is a great place to get started using this method. Additional Note: In the event you find that CCF does not support your needs, reach out to App Assure so we can capture your requirements for future consideration. Azure Functions remains an option if you’ve documented your CCF feature needs. Phase 2: Onboard to Microsoft Sentinel data lake Once my data is flowing into Sentinel, I onboard a single Sentinel workspace to data lake. This is a one-time action and cannot be repeated for additional workspaces. Onboarding Steps Go to the Defender portal. Follow the Sentinel Data lake onboarding instructions. Validate that tables are visible in the lake. See Running KQL Queries in data lake for additional information. Phase 3: Build and Test the Agent in Microsoft Foundry Once my data is successfully ingested into data lake, I begin the agent development process. There are multiple ways to build agents depending on your needs and tooling preferences. For this example, I chose Microsoft Foundry because it fit my needs for real-time logging, cost efficiency, and greater control. 1. Create a Microsoft Foundry Instance Foundry is used as a tool for your development environment. Reference our QuickStart guide for setting up your Foundry instance. Required Permissions: Security Reader (Entra or Subscription) Azure AI Developer at the resource group After setup, click Create Agent. 2. Design the Agent A strong first agent: Solves one narrow security problem. Has deterministic outputs. Uses explicit instructions, not vague prompts. Example agent responsibilities: To query Sentinel data lake (Sentinel data exploration tool). To summarize recent incidents. To correlate ISVs specific signals with Sentinel alerts and other ISV tables (Sentinel data exploration tool). 3. Implement Agent Instructions Well-designed agent instructions should include: Role definition ("You are a security investigation agent…"). Data sources it can access. Step by step reasoning rules. Output format expectations. Sample Instructions can be found here: Agent Instructions 4. Configure the Microsoft Model Context Protocol (MCP) tooling for your agent For your agent to query, summarize and correlate all the data your connector has sent to data lake, take the following steps: Select Tools, and under Catalog, type Sentinel, and then select Microsoft Sentinel Data Exploration. For more information about the data exploration tool collection in MCP server, see our documentation. I always test repeatedly with real data until outputs are consistent. For more information on testing and validating the agent, please reference our documentation. Phase 4: Migrate the Agent to Security Copilot Once the agent works in Foundry, I migrate it to Security Copilot. To do this: Copy the full instruction set from Foundry Provision a SCU for your Security Copilot workspace. For instructions, please reference this documentation. Make note of this process as you will be charged per hour per SCU Once you are done testing you will need to deprovision the capacity to prevent additional charges Open Security Copilot and use Create From Scratch Agent Builder as outlined here. Add Sentinel data exploration MCP tools (these are the same instructions from the Foundry agent in the previous step). For more information on linking the Sentinel MCP tools, please refer to this article. Paste and adapt instructions. At this stage, I always validate the following: Agent Permissions – I have confirmed the agent has the necessary permissions to interact with the MCP tool and read data from your data lake instance. Agent Performance – I have confirmed a successful interaction with measured latency and benchmark results. This step intentionally avoids reimplementation. I am reusing proven logic. Phase 5: Execute, Validate, and Publish After setting up my agent, I navigate to the Agents tab to manually trigger the agent. For more information on testing an agent you can refer to this article. Now that the agent has been executed successfully, I download the agent Manifest file from the environment so that it can be packaged. Click View code on the Agent under the Build tab as outlined in this documentation. Publishing to the Microsoft Security Store If I were publishing my agent to the Microsoft Security Store, these are the steps I would follow: Finalize ingestion reliability. Document required permissions. Define supported scenarios clearly. Package agent instructions and guidance (by following these instructions). Summary Based on my experience developing Security Copilot agents on Microsoft Sentinel data lake, this playbook provides a practical, repeatable framework for ISVs to accelerate their agent development and delivery while maintaining high standards of quality. This foundation enables rapid iteration—future agents can often be built in days, not weeks, by reusing the same ingestion and data lake setup. When starting on your own agent development journey, keep the following in mind: To limit initial scope. To reuse Microsoft managed infrastructure. To separate ingestion from intelligence. What Success Looks Like At the end of this development process, you will have the following: A Microsoft Sentinel data connector live in Content Hub (or in process) that provides a data ingestion path. Data visible in data lake. A tested agent running in Security Copilot. Clear documentation for customers. A key success factor I look for is clarity over completeness. A focused agent is far more likely to be adopted. Need help? If you have any issues as you work to develop your agent, please reach out to the App Assure team for support via our Sentinel Advisory Service . Or if you have any other tips, please comment below, I’d love to hear your feedback.Security Copilot Integration with Microsoft Sentinel - Why Automation matters now
Security Operations Centers face a relentless challenge - the volume of security alerts far exceeds the capacity of human analysts. On average, a mid-sized SOC receives thousands of alerts per day, and analysts spend up to 80% of their time on initial triage. That means determining whether an alert is a true positive, understanding its scope, and deciding on next steps. With Microsoft Security Copilot now deeply integrated into Microsoft Sentinel, there is finally a practical path to automating the most time-consuming parts of this workflow. So I decided to walk you through how to combine Security Copilot with Sentinel to build an automated incident triage pipeline - complete with KQL queries, automation rule patterns, and practical scenarios drawn from common enterprise deployments. Traditional triage workflows rely on analysts manually reviewing each incident - reading alert details, correlating entities across data sources, checking threat intelligence, and making a severity assessment. This is slow, inconsistent, and does not scale. Security Copilot changes this equation by providing: Natural language incident summarization - turning complex, multi-alert incidents into analyst-readable narratives Automated entity enrichment - pulling threat intelligence, user risk scores, and device compliance state without manual lookups Guided response recommendations - suggesting containment and remediation steps based on the incident type and organizational context The key insight is that Copilot does not replace analysts - it handles the repetitive first-pass triage so analysts can focus on decision-making and complex investigations. Architecture - How the Pieces Fit Together The automated triage pipeline consists of four layers: Detection Layer - Sentinel analytics rules generate incidents from log data Enrichment Layer - Automation rules trigger Logic Apps that call Security Copilot Triage Layer - Copilot analyzes the incident, enriches entities, and produces a triage summary Routing Layer - Based on Copilot's assessment, incidents are routed, re-prioritized, or auto-closed (Forgive my AI-painted illustration here, but I find it a nice way to display dependencies.) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Microsoft Sentinel | | | | Analytics Rules --> Incidents --> Automation Rules | | | | | v | | Logic App / Playbook | | | | | v | | Security Copilot API | | +-----------------+ | | | Summarize | | | | Enrich Entities | | | | Assess Risk | | | | Recommend Action| | | +--------+--------+ | | | | | v | | +-----------------------------+ | | | Update Incident | | | | - Add triage summary tag | | | | - Adjust severity | | | | - Assign to analyst/team | | | | - Auto-close false positive| | | +-----------------------------+ | +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Step 1 - Identify High-Volume Triage Candidates Not every incident type benefits equally from automated triage. Start with alert types that are high in volume but often turn out to be false positives or low severity. Use this KQL query to identify your top candidates: SecurityIncident | where TimeGenerated > ago(30d) | summarize TotalIncidents = count(), AutoClosed = countif(Classification == "FalsePositive" or Classification == "BenignPositive"), AvgTimeToTriageMinutes = avg(datetime_diff('minute', FirstActivityTime, CreatedTime)) by Title | extend FalsePositiveRate = round(AutoClosed * 100.0 / TotalIncidents, 1) | where TotalIncidents > 10 | order by TotalIncidents desc | take 20 This query surfaces the incident types where automation will deliver the highest ROI. Based on publicly available data and community reports, the following categories consistently appear at the top: Impossible travel alerts (high volume, around 60% false positive rate) Suspicious sign-in activity from unfamiliar locations Mass file download and share events Mailbox forwarding rule creation Step 2 - Build the Copilot-Powered Triage Playbook Create a Logic App playbook that triggers on incident creation and leverages the Security Copilot connector. The core flow looks like this: Trigger: Microsoft Sentinel Incident - When an incident is created Action 1 - Get incident entities: let incidentEntities = SecurityIncident | where IncidentNumber == <IncidentNumber> | mv-expand AlertIds | join kind=inner (SecurityAlert | extend AlertId = SystemAlertId) on $left.AlertIds == $right.AlertId | mv-expand Entities | extend EntityData = parse_json(Entities) | project EntityType = tostring(EntityData.Type), EntityValue = coalesce( tostring(EntityData.HostName), tostring(EntityData.Address), tostring(EntityData.Name), tostring(EntityData.DnsDomain) ); incidentEntities Note: The <IncidentNumber> placeholder above is a Logic App dynamic content variable. When building your playbook, select the incident number from the trigger output rather than hardcoding a value. Action 2 - Copilot prompt session: Send a structured prompt to Security Copilot that requests: Analyze this Microsoft Sentinel incident and provide a triage assessment: Incident Title: {IncidentTitle} Severity: {Severity} Description: {Description} Entities involved: {EntityList} Alert count: {AlertCount} Please provide: 1. A concise summary of what happened (2-3 sentences) 2. Entity risk assessment for each IP, user, and host 3. Whether this appears to be a true positive, benign positive, or false positive 4. Recommended next steps 5. Suggested severity adjustment (if any) Action 3 - Parse and route: Use the Copilot response to update the incident. The Logic App parses the structured output and: Adds the triage summary as an incident comment Tags the incident with copilot-triaged Adjusts severity if Copilot recommends it Routes to the appropriate analyst tier based on the assessment Step 3 - Enrich with Contextual KQL Lookups Security Copilot's assessment improves dramatically when you feed it contextual data. Before sending the prompt, enrich the incident with organization-specific signals: // Check if the user has a history of similar alerts (repeat offender vs. first time) let userAlertHistory = SecurityAlert | where TimeGenerated > ago(90d) | mv-expand Entities | extend EntityData = parse_json(Entities) | where EntityData.Type == "account" | where tostring(EntityData.Name) == "<UserPrincipalName>" | summarize PriorAlertCount = count(), DistinctAlertTypes = dcount(AlertName), LastAlertTime = max(TimeGenerated) | extend IsRepeatOffender = PriorAlertCount > 5; userAlertHistory // Check user risk level from Entra ID Protection AADUserRiskEvents | where TimeGenerated > ago(7d) | where UserPrincipalName == "<UserPrincipalName>" | summarize arg_max(TimeGenerated, RiskLevel), RecentRiskEvents = count() | project RiskLevel, RecentRiskEvents Including this context in the Copilot prompt transforms generic assessments into organization-aware triage decisions. A "suspicious sign-in" for a user who travels internationally every week is very different from the same alert for a user who has never left their home country. Step 4 - Implement Feedback Loops Automated triage is only as good as its accuracy over time. Build a feedback mechanism by tracking Copilot's assessments against analyst final classifications: SecurityIncident | where Tags has "copilot-triaged" | where TimeGenerated > ago(30d) | where Classification != "" | mv-expand Comments | extend CopilotAssessment = extract("Assessment: (True Positive|False Positive|Benign Positive)", 1, tostring(Comments)) | where isnotempty(CopilotAssessment) | summarize Total = dcount(IncidentNumber), Correct = dcountif(IncidentNumber, (CopilotAssessment == "False Positive" and Classification == "FalsePositive") or (CopilotAssessment == "True Positive" and Classification == "TruePositive") or (CopilotAssessment == "Benign Positive" and Classification == "BenignPositive") ) by bin(TimeGenerated, 7d) | extend AccuracyPercent = round(Correct * 100.0 / Total, 1) | order by TimeGenerated asc For this query to work reliably, the automation playbook must write the assessment in a consistent format within the incident comments. Use a structured prefix such as Assessment: True Positive so the regex extraction remains stable. According to Microsoft's published benchmarks and community feedback, Copilot-assisted triage typically achieves 85-92% agreement with senior analyst classifications after prompt tuning - significantly reducing the manual triage burden. A Note on Licensing and Compute Units Security Copilot is licensed through Security Compute Units (SCUs), which are provisioned in Azure. Each prompt session consumes SCUs based on the complexity of the request. For automated triage at scale, plan your SCU capacity carefully - high-volume playbooks can accumulate significant usage. Start with a conservative allocation, monitor consumption through the Security Copilot usage dashboard, and scale up as you validate ROI. Microsoft provides detailed guidance on SCU sizing in the official Security Copilot documentation. Example Scenario - Impossible Travel at Scale Consider a typical enterprise that generates over 200 impossible travel alerts per week. The SOC team spends roughly 15 hours weekly just triaging these. Here is how automated triage addresses this: Detection - Sentinel's built-in impossible travel analytics rule flags the incidents Enrichment - The playbook pulls each user's typical travel patterns from sign-in logs over the past 90 days, VPN usage, and whether the "impossible" location matches any known corporate office or VPN egress point Copilot Analysis - Security Copilot receives the enriched context and classifies each incident Expected Result - Based on common deployment patterns, around 70-75% of impossible travel incidents are auto-closed as benign (VPN, known travel patterns), roughly 20% are downgraded to informational with a triage note, and only about 5% are escalated to analysts as genuine suspicious activity This type of automation can reclaim over 10 hours per week - time that analysts can redirect to proactive threat hunting. Getting Started - Practical Recommendations For teams ready to implement automated triage with Security Copilot and Sentinel, here is a recommended approach: Start small. Pick one high-volume, high-false-positive incident type. Do not try to automate everything at once. Run in shadow mode first. Have the playbook add triage comments but do not auto-close or re-route. Let analysts compare Copilot's assessment with their own for two to four weeks. Tune your prompts. Generic prompts produce generic results. Include organization-specific context - naming conventions, known infrastructure, typical user behavior patterns. Monitor accuracy continuously. Use the feedback loop KQL above. If accuracy drops below 80%, pause automation and investigate. Maintain human oversight. Even at 90%+ accuracy, keep a human review step for high-severity incidents. Automation handles volume - analysts handle judgment. The combination of Security Copilot and Microsoft Sentinel represents a genuine step forward for SOC efficiency. By automating the initial triage pass - summarizing incidents, enriching entities, and providing classification recommendations - analysts are freed to focus on what humans do best: making nuanced security decisions under uncertainty. Feel free to like or/and connect :)Agentic Use Cases for Developers on the Microsoft Sentinel Platform
Interested in building an agent with Sentinel platform solutions but not sure where to start? This blog will help you understand some common use cases for agent development that we’ve seen across our partner ecosystem. SOC teams don’t need more alerts - they need fast, repeatable investigation and response workflows. Security Copilot agents can help orchestrate the steps analysts perform by correlating across the Sentinel data lake, executing targeted KQL queries, fetching related entities, enriching with context, and producing an evidence-backed decision without forcing analysts to switch tools. Microsoft Sentinel platform is a strong foundation for agentic experiences because it exposes a normalized security data layer, an investigation surface based on incidents and entities, and extensive automation capabilities. An agent can use these primitives to correlate identity, endpoint, cloud, and network telemetry; traverse entity relationships; and recommend remediation actions. In this blog, I will break down common agentic use cases that developers can implement on Sentinel platform, framed in buildable and repeatable patterns: Identify the investigation scenario Understand the required Sentinel data connectors and KQL queries Build enrichment and correlation logic Summarize findings with supporting evidence and recommended remediation steps Use Case 1: Identity & Access Intelligence Investigation Scenario: Is this risky sign-in part of an attack path? Signals Correlated: Identity access telemetry: Source user, IPs, target resources, MFA logs Authentication outcomes and diversity: Success vs. failure, Geographic spread Identity risk posture: User risk level/state Post-auth endpoint execution: Suspicious LOLBins Correlation Logic: An analyst receives a risky sign-in signal for a user and needs to determine whether the activity reflects expected behavior - such as travel, remote access, or MFA friction - or if it signals the early stage of an identity compromise that could escalate into privileged access and downstream workload impact. Practical Example: Silverfort Identity Threat Triage Agent, which is built on a similar framework, takes the user’s UPN as input and builds a bounded, last-24-hour investigation across authentication activity, MFA logs, user risk posture, and post-authentication endpoint behavior. Outcome: By correlating identity risk signals, MFA logs, sign-in success and failure patterns, and suspicious execution activity following authentication, the agent connects the initial risky sign-in to endpoint behavior, enabling the analyst to quickly assess compromise likelihood, identify escalation indicators, and determine appropriate remediation actions. “Our collaboration with Microsoft Sentinel and Security Copilot underscores the central role identity plays across every stage of attack path triage. By integrating Silverfort’s identity risk signals with Microsoft Entra ID and Defender for Endpoint, and sharing rich telemetry across platforms, we enable Security Copilot Agent to distinguish isolated anomalies from true identity-driven intrusions - while dramatically reducing the manual effort traditionally required for incident response and threat hunting. AI-driven agents accelerate analysis, enrich investigative context, reduce dwell time, and speed detection. Instead of relying on complex queries or deep familiarity with underlying data structures, security teams can now perform seamless, identity-centric reasoning within a single interaction.” - Frank Gasparovic, Director of Solution Architecture, Technology Alliances, Silverfort Use Case 2: Cyber Resilience, Backup & Recovery Investigation Scenario: Are the threats detected on a backup indicative of production impact and recovery risk? Signals Correlated: Backup threat telemetry: Backup threat scan alerts, risk analysis events, affected host/workload, detection timestamps Cross-vendor security alerts: Endpoint, network, and cloud security alerts for the same host/workload in the same time window Correlation Logic: The agent correlates threat signals originating from the backup environment with security telemetry associated with same host/workload to validate whether there is corroborating evidence in the production environment and whether activity aligns in time. Practical Example: Commvault Security Investigation Agent, which is built on a similar framework, takes a hostname as input and builds an investigation across Commvault Threat Scan / Risk Analysis events and third-party security telemetry. By correlating backup-originating detections with production security activity for the same host, the agent determines whether the backup threat signal aligns with observable production impact. Outcome: By correlating backup threat detections with endpoint, network, and cloud security telemetry while validating timing alignment, event spikes, and data coverage, the agent connects a backup originating threat signal to production evidence, enabling the analyst to quickly assess impact likelihood and determine appropriate actions such as containment or recovery-point validation. Use Case 3: Network, Exposure & Connectivity Investigation Scenario: Is this activity indicative of legitimate remote access, or does it demonstrate suspicious connectivity and access attempts that increase risk to private applications and internal resources. Signals Correlated: User access telemetry: Source user, source IPs/geo, device/context, destinations Auth and enforcement outcomes: Success vs. failure, MFA allow/block Behavior drift: new/rare IPs/locations, unusual destination/app diversity. Suspicious activity indicators: Risky URLs/categories, known-bad indicators, automated/bot-like patterns, repeated denied private app access attempts Correlation Logic: An analyst receives an alert for a specific user and needs to determine whether the activity reflects expected behavior such as travel, remote work, or VPN usage, or whether it signals the early stages of a compromise that could later extend into private application access. Practical Example: Zscaler ZIA ZPA Correlation Agent starts with a username and builds a bounded, last-24-hour investigation across Zscaler Internet Access and Zscaler Private Access activity. By correlating user internet behavior, access context, and private application interactions, the agent connects the initial Zscaler alert to any downstream access attempts or authentication anomalies, enabling the analyst to quickly assess risk, identify suspicious patterns, and determine whether Zscaler policy adjustments are required. Outcome: Provides a last‑24‑hour verdict on whether the activity reflects expected access patterns or escalation toward private application access, and recommends next actions—such as closing as benign drift, escalating for containment, or tuning access policy—based on correlated evidence. Use Case 4: Endpoint & Runtime Intelligence Investigation Scenario: Is this process malicious or a legitimate admin action? Signals Correlated: Execution context: Process chain, full command line, signer, unusual path Account & logon: Initiating user, logon type (RDP/service), recent risky sign-ins Tooling & TTPs: LOLBins, credential access hints, lateral movement tooling Network behavior: Suspicious connections, repeated callbacks/beaconing Correlation Logic: A PowerShell alert triggers on a production server. The agent ties the process to its parent (e.g., spawned by a web worker vs. an admin shell), validates the command-line indicators, correlates outbound connections from the same PID to a first-seen destination, and checks for immediate follow-on persistence and any adjacent runtime alerts in the same time window. Outcome: Classifies the activity as malicious vs. admin and produces an evidence pack (process tree, key command indicators, destinations, persistence/tamper artifacts) as well as the recommended containment step (isolate host and revoke/reset initiating credentials). Use Case 5: Exposure & Exploitability Investigation Scenario: What is the likelihood of exploitation and blast radius? Signals Correlated: Asset exposure: Internet-facing status, exposed services/ports, and identity or network paths required to reach the workload Exploit activity: Defender alerts on the resource, IDS/WAF hits, IOC matches, and first seen exploit or probing attempts Risk amplification signals: Internet communication, high privilege access paths, and indicators that the workload processes PII or sensitive data Blast radius: Downstream reachability to crown jewel systems (e.g., databases, key vaults) and trust relationships that could enable escalation Correlation Logic: An analyst receives a Medium/High Microsoft Defender for Cloud alert on a workload and needs to determine whether it’s a standalone detection or an exploitable exposure that can quickly progress into privilege abuse and data impact. The agent correlates exposure evidence signals such as internet reachability, high-privilege paths, and indicators that workload handles sensitive data by analyzing suspicious network connections in the same bounded time window. Outcome: Produces a resource-specific risk analysis that explains why the Defender for Cloud alert is likely to be exploited, based on asset attack surface and effective privileges, plus any supporting activity in the same 24-hour window. Use Case 6: Threat Intelligence & Adversary Context Investigation Scenario: Is this activity aligned with known attacker behavior? Signals Correlated: Behavior sequence: ordered events identity → execution → network. Technique mapping: MITRE ATT&CK technique IDs, typical progression, and required prerequisites. Threat intel match: campaign/adversary, TTPs, IOCs Correlation Logic: A chain of identity compromise, PowerShell obfuscation, and periodic outbound HTTPS is observed. The agent maps the sequence to ATT&CK techniques and correlates it with threat intel that matches a known adversary campaign. Outcome: Surfaces adversary-aligned behavioral insights and TTP context to help analysts assess intrusion likelihood and guide the next investigation steps. Summary This blog is intended to help developers better understand the key use cases for building agents with Microsoft Sentinel platform along with practical patterns to apply when designing and implementing agent scenarios. Need help? If you have any issues as you work to develop your agent, the App Assure team is available to assist via our Sentinel Advisory Service. Reach out via our intake form. Resources Learn more: For a practical overview of how ISVs can move from Sentinel data lake onboarding to building agents, see the Accelerate Agent Development blog - https://aka.ms/AppAssure_AccelerateAgentDev. Get hands-on: Explore the end-to-end journey from Sentinel data lake onboarding to a working Security Copilot agent through the accompanying lab modules available on GitHub Repo: https://github.com/suchandanreddy/Microsoft-Sentinel-Labs.RSAC 2026: New Microsoft Sentinel Connectors Announcement
Microsoft Sentinel helps organizations detect, investigate, and respond to security threats across increasingly complex environments. With the rollout of the Microsoft Sentinel data lake in the fall, and the App Assure-backed Sentinel promise that supports it, customers now have access to long-term, cost-effective storage for security telemetry, creating a solid foundation for emerging Agentic AI experiences. Since our last announcement at Ignite 2025, the Microsoft Sentinel connector ecosystem has expanded rapidly, reflecting continued investment from software development partners building for our shared customers. These connectors bring diverse security signals together, enabling correlation at scale and delivering richer investigation context across the Sentinel platform. Below is a snapshot of Microsoft Sentinel connectors newly available or recently enhanced since our last announcement, highlighting the breadth of partner solutions contributing data into, and extending the value of, the Microsoft Sentinel ecosystem. New and notable integrations Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to bring data protection and security telemetry into a centralized SOC view. The connector streams alerts, events, and activity data - spanning backup, endpoint protection, and workload security - into Microsoft Sentinel for correlation with other signals. This integration helps security teams investigate ransomware and data-centric threats more effectively, leverage built-in hunting queries and detection rules, and improve visibility across managed environments without adding operational complexity. Anvilogic Anvilogic integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to help security teams operationalize detection engineering at scale. The connector streams Anvilogic alerts into Microsoft Sentinel, giving SOC analysts centralized visibility into high-fidelity detections and faster context for investigation and triage. By unifying detection workflows, reducing alert noise, and improving prioritization, this integration supports more efficient threat detection and response while helping teams extend coverage across evolving attack techniques. BigID BigID integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to extend data security posture management (DSPM) insights into security operations workflows. The solution brings visibility into sensitive, regulated, and critical data across cloud, SaaS, and on‑premises environments, helping security teams understand where high‑risk data resides and how it may be exposed. By incorporating data‑centric risk context into Sentinel, this integration supports more informed investigation and prioritization, enabling organizations to reduce data‑related risk and align security operations with data protection and compliance objectives. Commvault Cloud Commvault Cloud integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to bring data protection and cyber‑resilience telemetry into security operations workflows. The connector ingests security‑relevant signals from Commvault Cloud—such as backup anomalies, malware and ransomware indicators, and other threat‑related events—into Sentinel, enabling centralized detection, investigation, and automated response. By correlating backup intelligence with broader Sentinel telemetry, this integration helps security teams reduce blind spots, validate the scope of incidents, and improve coordination between security and recovery operations. CyberArk Audit CyberArk Audit integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to centralize visibility into privileged identity and access activity. By streaming detailed audit logs - covering system events, user actions, and administrative activity - into Microsoft Sentinel, security teams can correlate identity-driven risks with broader security telemetry. This integration supports faster investigations, improved monitoring of privileged access, and more effective incident response through automated workflows and enriched context for SOC analysts. Cyera Cyera integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to extend AI-native data security posture management into security operations. The connector brings Cyera’s data context and actionable intelligence across multi-cloud, on-premises, and SaaS environments into Microsoft Sentinel, helping teams understand where sensitive data resides and how it is accessed, exposed, and used. Built on Sentinel’s modern framework, the integration feeds context-rich data risk signals into the Sentinel data lake, enabling more informed threat hunting, automation, and decision-making around data, user, and AI-related risk. TacitRed CrowdStrike IOC Automation Data443 TacitRed CS IOC Automation integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to streamline the operationalization of compromised credential intelligence. The solution uses Sentinel playbooks to automatically push TacitRed indicators of compromise into CrowdStrike via Sentinel playbooks, helping security teams turn identity-based threat intelligence into action. By automating IOC handling and reducing manual effort, this integration supports faster response to credential exposure and strengthens protection against account-driven attacks across the environment. TacitRed SentinelOne IOC Automation Data443 TacitRed SentinelOne IOC Automation integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to help operationalize identity-focused threat intelligence at the endpoint layer. The solution uses Sentinel playbooks to automatically consume TacitRed indicators and push curated indicators into SentinelOne via Sentinel playbooks and API-based enforcement, enabling faster enforcement of high-risk IOCs without manual handling. By automating the flow of compromised credential intelligence from Sentinel into EDR, this integration supports quicker response to identity-driven attacks and improves coordination between threat intelligence and endpoint protection workflows. TacitRed Threat Intelligence Data443 TacitRed Threat Intelligence integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to provide enhanced visibility into identity-based risks, including compromised credentials and high-risk user exposure. The solution ingests curated TacitRed intelligence directly into Sentinel, enriching incidents with context that helps SOC teams identify credential-driven threats earlier in the attack lifecycle. With built-in analytics, workbooks, and hunting queries, this integration supports proactive identity threat detection, faster triage, and more informed response across the SOC. Cyren Threat Intelligence Cyren Threat Intelligence integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to enhance detection of network-based threats using curated IP reputation and malware URL intelligence. The connector ingests Cyren threat feeds into Sentinel using the Codeless Connector Framework (CCF), transforming raw indicators into actionable insights, dashboards, and enriched investigations. By adding context to suspicious traffic and phishing infrastructure, this integration helps SOC teams improve alert accuracy, accelerate triage, and make more confident response decisions across their environments. TacitRed Defender Threat Intelligence Data443 TacitRed Defender Threat Intelligence integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to surface early indicators of credential exposure and identity-driven risk. The solution automatically ingests compromised credential intelligence from TacitRed into Sentinel and can support synchronization of validated indicators with Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence through Sentinel workflows, helping SOC teams detect account compromise before abuse occurs. By enriching Sentinel incidents with actionable identity context, this integration supports faster triage, proactive remediation, and stronger protection against credential-based attacks. Datawiza Access Proxy (DAP) Datawiza Access Proxy integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to provide centralized visibility into application access and authentication activity. By streaming access and MFA logs from Datawiza into Sentinel, security teams can correlate identity and session-level events with broader security telemetry. This integration supports detection of anomalous access patterns, faster investigation through session traceability, and more effective response using Sentinel automation, helping organizations strengthen Zero Trust controls and meet auditing and compliance requirements. Endace Endace integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to provide deep network visibility by providing always-on, packet-level evidence. The connector enables one-click pivoting from Sentinel alerts directly to recorded packet data captured by EndaceProbes. This helps SOC and NetOps teams reconstruct events and validate threats with confidence. By combining Sentinel’s AI-driven analytics with Endace’s always-on, full-packet capture across on-premises, hybrid, and cloud environments, this integration supports faster investigations, improved forensic accuracy, and more decisive incident response. Feedly Feedly integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to ingest curated threat intelligence directly into security operations workflows. The connector automatically imports Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) from Feedly Team Boards and folders into Sentinel, enriching detections and investigations with context from the original intelligence articles. By bringing analyst‑curated threat intelligence into Sentinel in a structured, automated way, this integration helps security teams stay current on emerging threats and reduce the manual effort required to operationalize external intelligence. Gigamon Gigamon integrates with Microsoft Sentinel through a new connector that provides access to Gigamon Application Metadata Intelligence (AMI), delivering high-fidelity network-derived telemetry with rich application metadata from inspected traffic directly into Sentinel. This added context helps security teams detect suspicious activity, encrypted threats, and lateral movement faster and with greater precision. By enriching analytics without requiring full packet ingestion, organizations can reduce noise, manage SIEM costs, and extend visibility across hybrid cloud infrastructure. Halcyon Halcyon integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to provide purpose-built ransomware detection and automated containment across the Microsoft security ecosystem. The connector surfaces Halcyon ransomware alerts directly within Sentinel, enabling SOC teams to correlate ransomware behavior with Microsoft Defender and broader Microsoft telemetry. By supporting Sentinel analytics and automation workflows, this integration helps organizations detect ransomware earlier, investigate faster using native Sentinel tools, and isolate affected endpoints to prevent lateral spread and reinfection. Illumio The Illumio platform identifies and contains threats across hybrid multi-cloud environments. By integrating AI-driven insights with Microsoft Sentinel and Microsoft Graph, Illumio Insights enables SOC analysts to visualize attack paths, prioritize high-risk activity, and investigate threats with greater precision. Illumio Segmentation secures critical assets, workloads, and devices and then publishes segmentation policy back into Microsoft Sentinel to ensure compliance monitoring. Joe Sandbox Joe Sandbox integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to enrich incidents with dynamic malware and URL analysis. The connector ingests Joe Sandbox threat intelligence and automatically detonates suspicious files and URLs associated with Sentinel incidents, returning behavioral and contextual analysis results directly into investigation workflows. By adding sandbox-driven insights to indicators, alerts, and incident comments, this integration helps SOC teams validate threats faster, reduce false positives, and improve response decisions using deeper visibility into malicious behavior. Keeper Security The Keeper Security integration with Microsoft Sentinel brings advanced password and secrets management telemetry into your SIEM environment. By streaming audit logs and privileged access events from Keeper into Sentinel, security teams gain centralized visibility into credential usage and potential misuse. The connector supports custom queries and automated playbooks, helping organizations accelerate investigations, enforce Zero Trust principles, and strengthen identity security across hybrid environments. Lookout Mobile Threat Defense (MTD) Lookout Mobile Threat Defense integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to extend SOC visibility to mobile endpoints across Android, iOS, and Chrome OS. The connector streams device, threat, and audit telemetry from Lookout into Sentinel, enabling security teams to correlate mobile risk signals such as phishing, malicious apps, and device compromise, with broader enterprise security data. By incorporating mobile threat intelligence into Sentinel analytics, dashboards, and alerts, this integration helps organizations detect mobile driven attacks earlier and strengthen protection for an increasingly mobile workforce. Miro Miro integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to provide centralized visibility into collaboration activity across Miro workspaces. The connector ingests organization-wide audit logs and content activity logs into Sentinel, enabling security teams to monitor authentication events, administrative actions, and content changes alongside other enterprise signals. By bringing Miro collaboration telemetry into Sentinel analytics and dashboards, this integration helps organizations detect suspicious access patterns, support compliance and eDiscovery needs, and maintain stronger oversight of collaborative environments without disrupting productivity. Obsidian Activity Threat The Obsidian Threat and Activity Feed for Microsoft Sentinel delivers deep visibility into SaaS and AI applications, helping security teams detect account compromise and insider threats. By streaming user behavior and configuration data into Sentinel, organizations can correlate application risks with enterprise telemetry for faster investigations. Prebuilt analytics and dashboards enable proactive monitoring, while automated playbooks simplify response workflows, strengthening security posture across critical cloud apps. OneTrust for Purview DSPM OneTrust integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to bring privacy, compliance, and data governance signals into security operations workflows. The connector enriches Sentinel with privacy relevant events and risk indicators from OneTrust, helping organizations detect sensitive data exposure, oversharing, and compliance risks across cloud and non-Microsoft data sources. By unifying privacy intelligence with Sentinel analytics and automation, this integration enables security and privacy teams to respond more quickly to data risk events and support responsible data use and AI-ready governance. Pathlock Pathlock integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to bring SAP-specific threat detection and response signals into centralized security operations. The connector forwards security-relevant SAP events into Sentinel, enabling SOC teams to correlate SAP activity with broader enterprise telemetry and investigate threats using familiar SIEM workflows. By enriching Sentinel with SAP security context and focused detection logic, this integration helps organizations improve visibility into SAP landscapes, reduce noise, and accelerate detection and response for risks affecting critical business systems. Quokka Q-scout Quokka Q-scout integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to centralize mobile application risk intelligence across Microsoft Intune-managed devices. The connector automatically ingests app inventories from Intune, analyzes them using Quokka’s mobile app vetting engines, and streams security, privacy, and compliance risk findings into Sentinel. By surfacing app-level risks through Sentinel analytics and alerts, this integration helps security teams identify malicious or high-risk mobile apps, prioritize remediation, and strengthen mobile security posture without deploying agents or disrupting users. Semperis Lightning Semperis Lightning integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to deliver deep visibility into identity‑centric risk across Active Directory and Microsoft Entra environments. The connector ingests identity security telemetry such as indicators of exposure, Tier 0 assets, and attack path insights into Sentinel, enabling security teams to correlate identity risks with broader security signals. By bringing rich identity context into Sentinel analytics, hunting, and investigations, this integration helps organizations detect, prioritize, and respond to identity‑driven attacks more effectively across hybrid identity infrastructures. Synqly Synqly integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to simplify and scale security integrations through a unified API approach. The connector enables organizations and security vendors to establish a bi‑directional connection with Sentinel without relying on brittle, point‑to‑point integrations. By abstracting common integration challenges such as authentication handling, retries, and schema changes, Synqly helps teams orchestrate security data flows into and out of Sentinel more reliably, supporting faster onboarding of new data sources and more maintainable integrations at scale. Versasec vSEC:CMS Versasec vSEC:CMS integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to provide centralized visibility into credential lifecycle and system health events. The connector securely streams vSEC:CMS and vSEC:CLOUD alerts and status data into Sentinel using the Codeless Connector Framework (CCF), transforming credential management activity into correlation-ready security signals. By bringing smart card, token, and passkey management telemetry into Sentinel, this integration helps security teams monitor authentication infrastructure health, investigate credential-related incidents, and unify identity security operations within their SIEM workflows. VirtualMetric DataStream VirtualMetric DataStream integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to optimize how security telemetry is collected, normalized, and routed across the Microsoft security ecosystem. Acting as a high-performance telemetry pipeline, DataStream intelligently filters and enriches logs, sending high-value security data to Sentinel while routing less-critical data to Sentinel data lake or Azure Blob Storage for cost-effective retention. By reducing noise upstream and standardizing logs to Sentinel ready schemas, this integration helps organizations control ingestion costs, improve detection quality, and streamline threat hunting and compliance workflows. VMRay VMRay integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to enrich SIEM and SOAR workflows with automated sandbox analysis and high-fidelity, behavior-based threat intelligence. The connector enables suspicious files and phishing URLs to be submitted directly from Sentinel to VMRay for dynamic analysis, while validated, high-confidence indicators of compromise (IOCs) are streamed back into Sentinel’s Threat Intelligence repository for correlation and detection. By adding detailed attack-chain visibility and enriched incident context, this integration helps SOC teams reduce investigation time, improve detection accuracy, and strengthen automated response workflows across Sentinel environments. XBOW XBOW integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to bring autonomous penetration testing insights directly into security operations workflows. The connector ingests automated penetration test findings from the XBOW platform into Sentinel, enabling security teams to analyze validated exploit activity alongside alerts, incidents, and other security telemetry. By correlating offensive testing results with Sentinel detections, this integration helps organizations identify monitoring gaps, validate detection coverage, and strengthen defensive controls using real‑world, continuously generated attack evidence. Zero Networks Segment Audit Zero Networks Segment integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to provide visibility into micro-segmentation and access-control activity across the network. The connector can collect audit logs or activities from Zero Networks Segment, enabling security teams to monitor policy changes, administrative actions, and access events related to MFA-based network segmentation. By bringing segmentation audit telemetry into Sentinel, this integration supports compliance monitoring, investigation of suspicious changes, and faster detection of attempts to bypass lateral-movement controls within enterprise environments. Zscaler Internet Access (ZIA) Zscaler Internet Access integrates with Microsoft Sentinel to centralize cloud security telemetry from web and firewall traffic. The connector enables ZIA logs to be ingested into Sentinel, allowing security teams to correlate Zscaler Internet Access signals with other enterprise data for improved threat detection, investigation, and response. By bringing ZIA web, firewall, and security events into Sentinel analytics and hunting workflows, this integration helps organizations gain broader visibility into internet-based threats and strengthen Zero Trust security operations. In addition to these solutions from our third-party partners, we are also excited to announce the following connector published by the Microsoft Sentinel team: GitHub Enterprise Audit Logs Microsoft’s Sentinel Promise For Customers Every connector in the Microsoft Sentinel ecosystem is built to work out of the box. In the unlikely event a customer encounters any issue with a connector, the App Assure team stands ready to assist. For Software Developers Software partners in need of assistance in creating or updating a Sentinel solution can also leverage Microsoft’s Sentinel Promise to support our shared customers. For developers seeking to build agentic experiences utilizing Sentinel data lake, we are excited to announce the launch of our Sentinel Advisory Service to guide developers across their Sentinel journey. Customers and developers alike can reach out to us via our intake form. Learn More Microsoft Sentinel data lake Microsoft Sentinel data lake: Unify signals, cut costs, and power agentic AI Introducing Microsoft Sentinel data lake What is Microsoft Sentinel data lake Unlocking Developer Innovation with Microsoft Sentinel data lake Microsoft Sentinel Codeless Connector Framework (CCF) Create a codeless connector for Microsoft Sentinel Public Preview Announcement: Microsoft Sentinel CCF Push What’s New in Microsoft Sentinel Monthly Blog Microsoft App Assure App Assure home page App Assure services App Assure blog App Assure Request Assistance Form App Assure Sentinel Advisory Services announcement App Assure’s promise: Migrate to Sentinel with confidence App Assure’s Sentinel promise now extends to Microsoft Sentinel data lake Ignite 2025 new Microsoft Sentinel connectors announcement Microsoft Security Microsoft’s Secure Future Initiative Microsoft Unified SecOps Editor's Note - April 7th, 2026: This blog was updated to include connector descriptions for BigID, Commvault, Semperis, and XBOW.Turn Complexity into Clarity: Introducing the New UEBA Behaviors Layer in Microsoft Sentinel
Security teams today face an overwhelming challenge: every data point is now a potential security signal, and SOCs are drowning in fragmented, high-volume logs from countless sources - firewalls, cloud platforms, identity systems, and more. Analysts spend precious time translating between schemas, manually correlating events, and piecing together timelines across disparate data sources. For custom detections, it’s no different. What if you could transform this noisy complexity into clear, actionable security intelligence? Today, we're thrilled to announce the release of the UEBA Behaviors layer - a breakthrough AI-based UEBA capability in Microsoft Sentinel that fundamentally changes how SOC teams understand and respond to security events. The Behaviors layer translates low-level, noisy telemetry into human-readable behavioral insights that answer the critical question: "Who did what to whom, and why does it matter?" Instead of sifting through thousands of raw CloudTrail events or firewall logs, you get enriched, normalized behaviors - each one mapped to MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques, tagged with entity roles, and presented with a clear, natural-language explanation. All behaviors are aggregated and sequenced within a time window or specific trigger, to give you the security story that resides in the logs. What Makes the Behaviors Layer Different? Unlike alerts - which signal potential threats - or anomalies - which flag unusual activity - behaviors are neutral, descriptive observations. They don't decide if something is malicious; they simply describe meaningful actions in a consistent, security-focused way. The Behaviors layer bridges the gap between alerts (work items for the SOC, indicating a breach) and raw logs, providing an abstraction layer that makes sense of what happened without requiring deep familiarity with every log source. While existing UEBA capabilities provide insights and anomalies for a specific event (raw log), behaviors turn clusters of related events – based on time windows or triggers – into security data. The technology behind it: Generative AI powers the Behaviors layer to create and scale the insights it provides. AI is used to develop behavior logic, map entities, perform MITRE mapping, and ensure explainability - all while maintaining quality guardrails. Each behavior is mapped back to raw logs, so you can always trace which events contributed to it. Real-World Impact: We've been working closely with enterprise customers during private preview, and their feedback speaks volumes about the transformative potential of the Behaviors layer: "We're constantly exploring innovative ways to detect anomalous behavior for our detection engineering and incident enrichment. Behaviors adds a powerful new layer that also covers third-party data sources in a multi-cloud environment - seamlessly integrable and packed with rich insights, including MITRE mapping and detailed context for deeper correlation and context-driven investigation." (Glueckkanja) "Microsoft's new AI-powered extension for UEBA enhances behavioral capabilities for PaloAlto logs. By intelligently aggregating and sequencing low-level security events, it elevates them into high-fidelity 'behaviors' - powerful, actionable signals. This enhanced behavioral intelligence significantly can improve your security operations. During investigations, these behaviors are immediately pointing to unusual or suspicious activities and providing a rich, contextual understanding of an entity's actions. They serve as a stable starting point for the analysts, instead of sifting through millions of logs." (BlueVoyant) How It Works: Aggregation and Sequencing The Behaviors layer operates using two powerful patterns: Aggregation Behaviors detect volume-based patterns. For example: "User accessed 50+ AWS resources in 1 hour." These are invaluable for spotting unusual activity levels and turning high-volume logs into actionable security insights. Sequencing Behaviors detect multi-step patterns that surface complex chains invisible in individual events. For example: "Access key created → used from new IP → privileged API calls." This helps you spot sophisticated tactics and procedures across sources. Once enabled, behaviors are aggregated and sequenced based on time windows and triggers tailored to each logic. When the time window closes or a pattern is identified, the behavior log is created immediately - providing near real-time availability. The behaviors are stored as records in Log Analytics. This means each behavior record contributes to your data volume and will be billed according to your Sentinel/Log Analytics data ingestion rates. Use Cases: Empowering Every SOC Persona The new Behaviors layer in Microsoft Sentinel enhances the daily workflows of SOC analysts, threat hunters, and detection engineers by providing a unified, contextual view of security activity across diverse data sources. SOC analysts can now investigate incidents faster by querying behaviors tied to the entities involved in an incident. For example, instead of reviewing 20 separate AWS API calls, a single behavior like “Suspicious mass secret access via AWS IAM” provides immediate clarity and context, with or without filtering on specific MITRE ATT&CK mapping. Simply use the following query (choose the entity you’re investigating): let targetTechniques = dynamic ("Password Guessing (T1110.001)"); // to filter on MITRE ATT&CK let behaviorInfoFiltered = BehaviorInfo | where TimeGenerated > ago(1d) | where AttackTechniques has_any (targetTechniques) | project BehaviorId, AttackTechniques; BehaviorEntities | where TimeGenerated > ago(1d) | where AccountUpn == ("user@domain.com") | join kind=inner (behaviorInfoFiltered) on BehaviorId Threat hunters benefit from the ability to proactively search for behaviors mapped to MITRE tactics or specific patterns, uncovering stealthy activity such as credential enumeration or lateral movement without complex queries. Another use case, is looking for specific entities that move across the MITRE ATT&CK chain within a specific time window, for example: let behaviorInfo = BehaviorInfo | where TimeGenerated > ago(12h) | where Categories has "Persistance" or Categories has "Discovery" // Replace with actual tactics | project BehaviorId, Categories, Title, TimeGenerated; BehaviorEntities | where TimeGenerated > ago(12h) | extend EntityName = coalesce(AccountUpn, DeviceName, CloudResourceId) // Replace with actual entity types | join kind=inner (behaviorInfo) on BehaviorId | summarize BehaviorTypes = make_set(Title), AffectedEntities = dcount(EntityName) by bin(TimeGenerated, 5m) | where AffectedEntities > 5 Detection engineers can build simpler, more explainable rules using normalized, high-fidelity behaviors as building blocks. This enables faster deployment of detections and more reliable automation triggers, such as correlating a new AWS access key creation with privilege escalation within a defined time window. Another example is joining the rarest behaviors with other signals that include the organization’s highest value assets: BehaviorInfo | where TimeGenerated > ago(5d) | summarize Occurrences = dcount(behaviorId), FirstSeen = min(TimeGenerated), LastSeen = max(TimeGenerated) by Title | order by Occurrences asc Supported Data Sources & Coverage This release focuses on most common non-Microsoft data sources that traditionally lack easy behavioral context in Sentinel. Coverage of more behaviors will expand over time - both within each data source and across new sources. Initial supported sources include: CommonSecurityLog - Specific vendors and logs: o Cyber Ark Vault o Palo Alto Threats AWS CloudTrail - Coverage for several AWS services like EC2, IAM, S3, EKS, Secrets Manager (common AWS management activities) GCPAuditLogs Once enabled, two new tables (BehaviorInfo and BehaviorEntities) will populate in your Log Analytics workspace. You can query these tables in Advanced Hunting, use them in detection rules, or view them alongside incidents - just like any other Sentinel data. If you already benefit from Defender behaviors (such as Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps), the same query will show results for all sources. Ready to Experience the Power of Behaviors? The future of security operations is here. Don't wait to modernize your SOC workflows. Enable the Behaviors layer in Microsoft Sentinel today and start transforming raw telemetry into clear, contextual insights that accelerate detection, investigation, and response. Get started now: Understand pre-requisites, limitations, pricing, and use of AI in Documentation. Navigate to your Sentinel workspace settings, enable the Behaviors layer (a new tab under the UEBA settings) and connect the data sources. This is currently supported for a single workspace per tenant (best chosen by the ingestion of the supported data sources). Once enabled, explore the BehaviorInfo and BehaviorEntities tables in Advanced Hunting. If you already benefit from behaviors in XDR, querying the tables will show results from both XDR and UEBA. Start building detection rules, hunting queries, and automation workflows using the behaviors as building blocks. Share your feedback to help us improve and expand coverage.
