Securing AI Agents at Runtime: Real-Time Protection and Threat Detection for Microsoft Agent 365
Organizations are rapidly adopting AI agents to automate workflows, access enterprise data, invoke tools, and take actions on behalf of users. This autonomy creates a fundamentally new security challenge. Unlike traditional AI applications, agents operate across dynamic execution flows, interacting with external content, calling tools, and accessing sensitive resources. These interactions create new attack paths that traditional security controls were not designed to address. Today, we're announcing two major milestones for Security for AI in Microsoft Defender for Microsoft Agent 365: Threat detection for Microsoft Agent 365 agents — now in public preview. Real-time protection for Microsoft Agent 365 tooling servers — now generally available. Together, these capabilities help security teams detect, investigate, and block attacks targeting AI agents, extending Microsoft Defender's threat protection capabilities into the agent runtime. Threat detection for Microsoft Agent 365 Agents (Public Preview) Threat detection provides SOC teams with detailed visibility into attacks and suspicious activity targeting AI agents. By analyzing runtime signals across agent interactions, tool usage, and execution patterns, Microsoft Defender identifies suspicious and malicious behavior throughout the agent execution lifecycle and surfaces actionable security alerts for SOC teams. Threat detection supports cloud agent types that emit observability logs to Microsoft Agent 365, including: Microsoft Copilot Studio Microsoft Foundry Microsoft 365 Copilot Agent Builder Agents integrated through the Microsoft Agent 365 SDK This provides consistent threat visibility across supported Microsoft Agent 365 agent experiences, regardless of how the agent was built. Fig. 1. Microsoft Security for AI alerts in Microsoft Defender XDR (Preview) Microsoft Defender identifies a broad range of AI-specific threats, including: Indirect prompt injection (XPIA) — malicious instructions embedded in external content designed to manipulate agent behavior. Evasion techniques — attempts to bypass agent instructions or security controls. Malicious content propagation — attempts to use agents to generate or distribute malicious content. Secret leakage — exposure of credentials, API keys, or other sensitive information through agent interactions. LLM reconnaissance — attempts to probe agent capabilities, instructions, or security boundaries. Suspicious IP access — agent access originating from anonymized or suspicious IP addresses. Alerts are surfaced directly in Microsoft Defender, enabling SOC analysts to investigate and respond using familiar workflows, Advanced Hunting queries, and the Defender XDR investigation experience. Real-time protection for WorkIQ and Custom MCP servers (General Availability) Real-time protection moves beyond detection by blocking threats inline when AI agents interact with WorkIQ and custom MCP servers (see Microsoft Agent 365 tooling servers). When an agent invokes a registered tool or receives a tool response, Defender evaluates the interaction against configured security policies and determines whether to allow or block it directly within the agent's execution flow. This helps prevent malicious actions and data leakage in real time, without requiring agent developers to implement custom security logic. Fig. 2. Microsoft Security for AI Real-Time Protection policy in Defender Real-time protection currently guards against high-impact threats, including: Evasion techniques — attempts to bypass agent guardrails or security controls. Malicious content propagation — preventing agents from spreading malicious content through tool actions. Secret leakage — blocking agents from inadvertently exposing credentials or sensitive data through tool calls. Communication with untrusted domains — preventing agents from sending email or data to high-risk or untrusted email domains. Better Together: Detection and Protection Threat detection and real-time protection address complementary parts of the agent security lifecycle. Real-time protection provides inline enforcement to block malicious interactions during execution, while threat detection gives SOC teams the visibility and investigation context needed to identify attack patterns, assess impact, and respond to suspicious activity. Together, they provide a defense-in-depth approach that combines runtime enforcement with SOC-driven detection and investigation, purpose-built for AI agents. Getting Started Both capabilities are available through Microsoft Defender, using a dedicated Security for AI workload experience that brings together AI threat detections, investigations, and runtime protection policies. To learn more: Enable security for AI agents using Microsoft Defender Detect and investigate threats to AI agents using Microsoft Defender (Preview) Protect AI agents in real time using Microsoft Defender As AI agents become more autonomous and gain access to enterprise data and tools, securing their runtime behavior becomes critical. With Threat Detection and Real-Time Protection, Microsoft Defender helps organizations adopt AI agents with security controls designed for how agents actually operate—detecting attacks, enabling SOC investigation, and blocking malicious interactions at runtime.
Why “Data in Switzerland” Is Not Enough
Moving from Residency to Control in Microsoft 365 Every conversation about data sovereignty in regulated industries tends to start the same way: “We use Multi-Geo. The data stays in Switzerland.” It’s the right starting point. Microsoft 365 Multi-Geo allows organizations to place selected workloads - SharePoint sites, OneDrive accounts, Teams data, or Exchange mailboxes - into specific regions, including Switzerland, while maintaining a single global tenant. This makes it possible to align sensitive data with regulatory or customer requirements without fragmenting the overall environment. But it only answers one question: Where is the data stored? It does not answer who accessed the data, from where, under which conditions, or what happened after access. That is where the real problem begins. A scenario that happens every day A Swiss engineering firm stores sensitive project documentation in Switzerland using Multi-Geo. An external contractor - working from an unmanaged device outside Switzerland - is granted access to review a file. The document opens. The data is now on a screen in an unknown location, on a device with no compliance posture, in a session with no restrictions. From the platform’s perspective, residency was enforced. From a sovereignty perspective, control was lost the moment access was granted without conditions. The file never left Switzerland. But sovereignty did. Residency is static. Control is not. The moment a document is opened, storage location stops being the relevant boundary. The file is no longer just “in Switzerland.” It moves instantly across endpoints and browsers, collaboration tools like Teams, external users and partners, and increasingly AI-driven contexts. The infrastructure remains unchanged. The data does not. From the platform’s perspective, everything is working as designed - access was granted, residency was enforced - and control was lost. Most “data in Switzerland” strategies fail at exactly this moment: when the data is used. The shift: from location to conditions If data sovereignty is the goal, the question must change. Not “Where is the data stored?” but: Under which conditions can data be accessed and used? This shift fundamentally changes the architecture. Control must be applied across three distinct layers - and all three must be connected. Layer 1: Access is conditional, not static Conditional Access extends control beyond authentication and turns it into continuous evaluation. Access decisions can depend on: Device compliance Location (geo-restriction) Identity and risk signals Multi-Geo ensures data is placed correctly. Conditional Access ensures it is reachable only under defined conditions. The two must work together - residency without access governance is an incomplete control. Layer 2: The session is the real risk surface Even with strict access controls, risk remains. A session is an exposure surface by design. During an active session, data is viewed, copied, shared, processed by applications, and connected to AI prompts. The gap does not appear at storage or authentication. It appears during active usage - inside the session. This is the layer most architectures do not explicitly address. Controls must extend into the session itself: limiting data transfer and replication, restricting interaction patterns, and enforcing policies in real time. Access is no longer a one-time event. It becomes continuously governed. This becomes even more critical as AI assistants consume content across SharePoint, Teams, Exchange, and other Microsoft 365 services. The question is no longer only where the source document resides - but whether the AI interaction itself is governed by the same access and protection controls as direct access. Layer 3: The document becomes the control point The most durable control does not sit in the network or in the session. It sits in the data itself. In regulated industries, organizations often arrive at this architecture having first evaluated sovereign or national encryption solutions. The decision to rely on native Microsoft 365 Purview encryption rather than a separate layer comes down to integration: AES-256 protection operating natively at file, user, and SharePoint level - including geo-based access restrictions - without an additional system to maintain. When protection is applied directly to the document through Microsoft Purview: Sensitivity labels define classification - automatically assigned based on content Encryption enforces access - AES-256, bound to the file itself IRM controls usage - view, copy, print, share, and presentation rights DLP governs movement across services - preventing data from leaving defined boundaries Dynamic watermarking tracks exposure - applied on open, view, or print At that point, access is enforced by the file, usage restrictions travel with it, and control persists regardless of location. The document becomes the perimeter. Platform control: limiting provider access One dimension often overlooked in sovereignty discussions is platform access itself. Even a perfectly configured tenant is only as sovereign as the controls placed on the operator. Customer Lockbox ensures that even Microsoft support cannot access customer data without explicit, logged, time-bound approval. Every access request is visible, auditable, and subject to customer veto. Data control applies not only to users - but also to the platform operating the service. Enforcement requires an integrated architecture Most organizations already have the required capabilities: Multi-Geo, Conditional Access, session control, Purview (labels, encryption, DLP, IRM), and monitoring. The issue is not capability. It is fragmentation. In practice, fragmentation looks like this: residency is configured in one project, Conditional Access policies are managed by a different team, and Purview labels were applied during a compliance initiative that never connected to the access layer. The tools exist. The signals do not flow between them. When designed as a single architecture: Data is placed intentionally - residency aligned to regulatory requirements Access is governed by context - device, location, and identity evaluated continuously Usage is controlled dynamically - session-level restrictions enforced in real time Protection is embedded in the document - encryption and IRM travel with the file Signals are connected across the platform - monitoring feeds access policy, not just audit logs “Data in Switzerland” becomes not just a statement - but an enforceable system property. Closing thought Placing data in Switzerland is the right first step. Multi-Geo makes it possible, even in global environments. But residency alone is not control. Data residency answers where information is stored. Data sovereignty requires proving who can access it, under which conditions, and what controls remain in place after access is granted. In Microsoft 365, sovereignty is no longer defined by geography alone. It is defined by the ability to enforce control wherever the data travels.Securing AI Agents End‑to‑End: Connecting Purview DSPM, Agent 365, and the AI Security Dashboard
The Challenge: Organizations deploying Microsoft Copilot and custom AI agents face a critical gap: security visibility is fragmented across data protection, identity governance, and threat detection tools. While Microsoft provides powerful capabilities through Purview Data Security Posture Management (DSPM), Agent 365, and the AI Security Dashboard, practitioners often struggle to understand how these components work together to deliver unified AI security posture management. This blog provides an architectural and operational blueprint for connecting these three pillars into a cohesive security framework that security architects can implement today. The Three Pillars: Capabilities Overview Microsoft Purview DSPM for AI Purview DSPM extends data‑centric security controls to AI interactions. Its key capabilities include: Sensitivity labels with EXTRACT usage rights that govern whether AI agents can read and process sensitive content Data Loss Prevention (DLP) policies that block or audit AI interactions involving confidential data across Copilot, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams Comprehensive audit logging that captures AI‑to‑data interactions, including user identity, agent identity, data classification, and the action taken Insider Risk Management integration that detects anomalous agent behavior patterns, such as bulk or unusual data access DSPM operates at the data layer, answering a foundational question: What sensitive information can this agent access, and what is it doing with that data? Microsoft Agent 365 Agent 365 provides a unified control plane for governing AI agent identity, access, and lifecycle across the Microsoft 365 ecosystem. Core components include: Agent Registry, backed by Entra Agent IDs, providing a unique identity for every Copilot Studio agent, custom agent, and supported third‑party AI integration Conditional Access policies that enforce real‑time access controls based on agent identity, user context, device compliance, and risk signals Centralized observability, with dashboards showing agent‑to‑agent interactions, agent‑to‑human conversations, and near real‑time telemetry Governance workflows that support agent approval, lifecycle management, suspension, and decommissioning Agent 365 operates at the identity and control layer, answering: Which agents exist, who authorized them, and what access boundaries are enforced? AI Security Dashboard The AI Security Dashboard aggregates security signals from Entra, Purview, and Defender to provide a unified risk view across all AI assets. It delivers: AI asset inventory, cataloging Copilot instances, custom agents, and third‑party models with associated risk context Misconfiguration detection, identifying agents with excessive permissions, missing conditional access policies, or DLP coverage gaps Attack path visualization, showing how compromised agents could pivot to sensitive data or escalate privileges Integration with Microsoft Security Copilot, enabling natural‑language investigation of AI security risks and incidents The Dashboard operates at the aggregation and recommendation layer, answering: What is my overall AI security posture, and where should remediation be prioritized? The Unified Architecture: How Signals Flow End-to-End Understanding the technical integration requires mapping how identity, data, and security signals flow across these three systems. Identity Foundation (Microsoft Entra): Every AI agent is assigned a unique Entra Agent ID at creation. This identity becomes the anchor for all security controls—conditional access policies in Agent 365, audit attribution in Purview, and risk correlation in the AI Security Dashboard. When a Copilot Studio agent is deployed, Entra automatically registers it with Agent 365 and propagates identity metadata to connected security services. Data Interaction Telemetry (Microsoft Purview): When an agent accesses SharePoint files, reads emails, or queries structured data, Purview captures detailed audit events that include agent identity, user context, data classification labels, and enforcement outcomes. These events flow into Purview’s unified audit log and are accessible through the Compliance portal, Microsoft Graph, and SIEM integrations. Crucially, Purview enforces sensitivity labels with EXTRACT usage rights—if a document is labeled Confidential without EXTRACT permission, the agent’s request is blocked before content reaches the AI model. Control Plane Enforcement (Agent 365): Agent 365 applies identity‑based governance by evaluating Entra signals and surfaced risk indicators. During policy evaluation, the control plane verifies whether the agent is registered, whether the invoking user satisfies authentication requirements, and whether recent signals (such as DLP violations) warrant blocking execution. Agent 365 also provides observability views that correlate agent activity with security events, helping administrators identify unmanaged or unauthorized (“shadow”) agents. Aggregated Risk View (AI Security Dashboard): The AI Security Dashboard correlates telemetry from: Entra — conditional access decisions, authentication anomalies, and privileged identity usage Purview — DLP violations, sensitivity label mismatches, and Insider Risk Management signals Defender — threat detections, application posture assessments, and suspicious activity indicators These signals are correlated by agent identity and time, then surfaced as risk cards with contextual severity and recommended remediation actions. The Dashboard does not replace the underlying tools; instead, it provides a consolidated view that helps teams focus on the most impactful risks. The diagram below illustrates how identity, data, and threat signals flow across the three AI security pillars. Figure 1: End‑to‑end AI security architecture. Enforcement happens at the data layer (Purview) and identity layer (Agent 365 via Entra). The AI Security Dashboard aggregates—rather than replaces—underlying security controls. From Architecture to Action: Telemetry & Enforcement Flow Understanding architecture is essential—but practitioners need to know when and where enforcement occurs during a real agent invocation. The sequence below illustrates runtime interaction between a user, an AI agent, and the three security pillars. The Critical Distinction: Two Enforcement Layers Enforcement occurs at two distinct points in the request lifecycle. First, Microsoft Entra validates agent identity and evaluates conditional access policies before execution begins. If the agent is not registered, if the user fails authentication requirements, or if policy conditions require blocking, execution is denied immediately. Second, when execution is permitted, Purview DSPM enforces data access controls inline. Every attempt to access documents, emails, or structured data is evaluated in real time. If a document is labeled Confidential without EXTRACT rights, Purview blocks the request and returns no sensitive content to the agent. Telemetry Generation Across the Stack Each step produces structured telemetry. Entra logs authentication attempts and policy decisions. Purview records AI interaction audit events, including enforcement outcomes. Agent 365 correlates identity and behavior signals to maintain agent posture and observability. These combined signals are surfaced in the AI Security Dashboard, which correlates activity across time and identity to present prioritized risk insights. Make the “where enforcement happens” distinction explicit (data vs. identity). Figure 2: Purview enforces data controls inline, Agent 365 enforces identity and execution controls, and the AI Security Dashboard correlates signals for prioritization. Practitioner Scenario: Detecting and Blocking Agent Data Exposure Context: Your organization deploys a custom Copilot Studio agent to summarize sales proposals stored in SharePoint. Several documents contain customer PII labeled "Highly Confidential" with no EXTRACT usage rights granted. Incident Timeline: Agent Data Exposure Detection → Remediation Detection The agent attempts to access SharePoint files through Microsoft Graph. Purview DSPM evaluates sensitivity labels and identifies restricted documents. A DLP policy blocks access and logs a violation with full context. The audit event appears in the Purview unified audit log within minutes. Visibility Agent 365 flags the blocked interaction in its observability dashboard. The AI Security Dashboard surfaces a High‑severity risk card titled “Agent accessing restricted data.” Security teams investigate the agent using Security Copilot to determine scope and recurrence. Remediation An administrator applies an Entra conditional access policy to suspend the agent. Data permissions are adjusted to restrict access or explicitly grant EXTRACT rights where justified. The AI Security Dashboard reflects a reduced risk score once controls are validated. Outcome: The incident is contained quickly, audit evidence is preserved, and the agent is restored with least‑privilege access—without disrupting legitimate business workflows. Figure 3: A single DLP violation triggers coordinated detection, investigation, and remediation across Purview, Agent 365, and the AI Security Dashboard within 30 minutes. Division of Responsibility: What Each Tool Does Tool Primary Function Key Signals Enforcement Capability Purview DSPM Data-layer protection and audit Sensitivity labels, DLP violations, data access patterns Blocks API calls violating DLP or label policies Agent 365 Identity and lifecycle governance Agent registry, conditional access hits, observability telemetry Denies agent invocation based on Entra policies AI Security Dashboard Unified risk aggregation Cross-product signals from Entra, Purview, Defender No direct enforcement—provides recommendations and prioritization Critical Distinction: Enforcement happens at two layers—Purview blocks data access violations, while Agent 365 (via Entra) blocks agent invocation. The Dashboard does not enforce policies but accelerates investigation and remediation by correlating signals that would otherwise require manual analysis across three separate consoles. Key Takeaways for Practitioners Agent identity is the integration anchor. Every security control—DLP policies, conditional access, audit logs, risk scoring—relies on Entra Agent IDs. Ensure all agents are properly registered in Agent 365 before production deployment. Purview enforces at the data layer, Agent 365 at the identity layer. Use both—Purview prevents unauthorized data exfiltration, while Agent 365 prevents unauthorized agent execution. Neither is redundant. The AI Security Dashboard is for prioritization, not replacement. Continue using Purview Compliance Portal for detailed DLP investigations and Agent 365 registry for operational monitoring. Use the Dashboard to identify which risks warrant immediate attention. Audit logs are your ground truth. All three tools consume Purview audit events. Integrate these logs with Microsoft Sentinel or your SIEM for long-term retention and advanced threat hunting. Shadow agents are your blind spot. Regularly audit the Agent 365 registry against actual AI deployments (Copilot Studio, Azure OpenAI, third-party integrations) to identify unregistered instances. As AI agents become embedded in everyday work, security teams must move beyond feature‑level understanding and adopt an end‑to‑end enforcement mindset. The combination of Purview DSPM, Agent 365, and the AI Security Dashboard provides the building blocks—but value is realized only when they are implemented as a unified model. How are you governing AI agents in your environment today? Share your experiences and patterns in the comments—especially where identity, data, and security signals intersect.Security Dashboard for AI: 3 Ways CISOs Drive Impact Today
AI is reshaping the enterprise and, with it, the threat landscape. Today's organizations face new threats with AI agents that modify configurations, execute workflows, and access data without direct human oversight. As a result, the gap between AI adoption and AI governance is widening, and CISOs face growing challenges to maintain visibility, control, and compliance across an increasingly complex ecosystem. As AI becomes embedded across the enterprise, CISOs face four key challenges: Scale without visibility: Over 75% of enterprises surveyed by PWC report they are already adopting AI agents. ¹ At the same time, over 80% of security teams surveyed by Nokod report visibility gaps into the applications and AI agents created within their organization. ² Rapid AI proliferation and evolving regulations make unified visibility across AI platforms, apps, and agents critical for CISOs. Fragmentation: Organizations rely on multiple siloed tools for AI asset visibility, making oversight fragmented and inefficient. According to Gartner’s 2024 survey of 162 enterprises, organizations use 45 cybersecurity tools on average. Expanding AI risk: AI proliferation is rapidly increasing the attack and risk surface, with the surge of AI-generated identities. By 2027, 4 out of 5 organizations will face phishing attacks powered by AI-generated synthetic identities, according to IDC. ³ This makes it harder for CISOs to track emerging threats, unmanaged assets, and shifting risk patterns. Overload: Alert fatigue is now a top challenge, with organizations now receiving an average of 2,992 security alerts daily, yet 63% go unaddressed. ⁴ Increasing AI risk without a way to prioritize what matters most compounds pressure on CISOs. In conversations between Microsoft and CISOs, one common need emerged: a single place to view integrated AI risk across the enterprise. To address these growing challenges, we are excited to provide CISOs with the Security Dashboard for AI, which recently became generally available. This unified dashboard aggregates posture and real-time risk signals from Microsoft Defender, Entra, and Purview into one unified, executive-level view of AI posture, risk, and inventory across agents, apps, and platforms. The Security Dashboard for AI helps CISOs: Gain unified AI risk visibility: Discover AI agents and applications and continuously monitor posture across the environment Prioritize critical risks: Correlate signals across identity, data, and threat protection to surface the most urgent issues Drive risk mitigations: Investigate activity and take action to help reduce exposure across the AI ecosystem The dashboard is capable of aggregating and surfacing AI risks from across Microsoft Defender, Entra, Purview - including Microsoft 365 Copilot, Microsoft Copilot Studio agents, and Microsoft Foundry applications and agents as well as cross-platform AI risks with Microsoft network-based or SDK-enabled integrations, and MCP servers. This supports comprehensive visibility and control, regardless of where applications and agents are built. As you activate Microsoft Security for AI capabilities, you can gain richer visibility into different aspects of your AI risk posture. Figure 1: Security Dashboard for AI in browser Getting Started with the Security Dashboard for AI The Security Dashboard for AI is provided at no additional cost to customers already using Defender, Entra, and/or Purview to protect their AI innovation. Based on how early adopter CISOs are using the dashboard, here are three ways you can start leveraging the dashboard today. 1. Manage Daily AI Risk Beyond reporting, you must stay hands-on with AI risks, scanning for emerging issues, verifying asset governance, and delegating remediations. The Security Dashboard for AI consolidates daily operations into a single pane of glass, surfacing critical alerts, unmanaged assets, and emerging risks. Use the dashboard as a daily AI risk radar, enabling rapid triage and ensuring you focus on the most urgent threats. Scan and triage daily AI risk: Start each day by identifying and prioritizing the highest-risk AI exposures. Risks are prioritized on severity reported by underlying security tools, helping you focus on the most critical exposures. Track AI asset inventory and monitor agent sprawl: Use the Inventory page to gain comprehensive visibility into all AI assets. Identify newly registered assets to mitigate the risk of shadow or unmanaged IT and surface inactive agents to proactively monitor and control agent sprawl. Delegate tasks for remediation: Move from insight to action by delegating tasks to your security team with easy click delegation. Delegation routes ownership via email or Microsoft Teams with notifications, due date, and ownership tracking. Delegate actions to specific roles such as global admin and AI administrator, without granting full access to underlying tools. Figure 2: Security Dashboard for AI risk page 2. Guide Briefings with Security Teams You require up-to-date intelligence to guide conversations with Security Teams about what is happening across the AI estate. The Security Dashboard for AI helps you anchor discussions in specific risks, trends, and ownership gaps surfaced in the data. The dashboard becomes a conversation driver, helping you ask the right questions about risk and security posture, to help ensure you and your team are triaging the right priorities. Because the dashboard consolidates signals from Defender, Entra, and Purview, both CISO and security teams operate from the same facts, enabling more outcome-driven discussions and faster prioritization, so you can shift the conversations from status updates to targeted action planning. Prioritize top AI Risk: Use the dashboard to help you prioritize the AI risk that matters the most. In preparation for team meetings, use Microsoft Security Copilot to explore AI risks, agent activity, and security recommendations via prompts to strengthen your AI security posture. With your team, take a closer look at risk vectors like data leakage, oversharing and unethical behavior, and discuss what actions need to be taken. Review Security Recommendations: Create a routine with your security team to review the recommended Microsoft security actions and track your progress over time. Across regular team check‑ins, review what has been addressed, what remains open, and which actions require follow‑up so you are prepared to respond to regulatory, audit, or executive questions with up‑to‑date metrics. Figure 3: Security Dashboard for AI inventory page Figure 4: Security Dashboard for AI delegation 3. Executive Reporting Reporting to the board on AI security posture has historically meant weeks of manual data gathering across multiple tools. The Security Dashboard for AI streamlines the data collection process with a single source of truth for AI risk, enabling confident, data-backed insights for your board presentations and conversations. Early adopters confirm the value and are using it for quarterly executive briefings. Prepare for Board Discussions: Use the dashboard to help get the right insights at the right altitude to help you prepare for discussions with your board. The Overview page aggregates identity, data security, and threat protection signals from Defender, Entra, and Purview into an AI risk scorecard with risk factors. The embedded Security Copilot AI-powered insights provide suggested prompts with risk assessments, summaries, and recommendations to help you prioritize what matters most. Extend Observability to Executive Stakeholders: Authorize AI risk follow‑ups to the appropriate security, identity, or governance owners using Microsoft Teams or email. Distribute visibility across GRC lead, AI governance, and IT leaders, while maintaining executive‑level oversight. Figure 5: Security Dashboard for AI Copilot prompt gallery Next Steps The Security Dashboard for AI helps CISOs manage AI risk faster, more confidently and more collaboratively with their team. Defender, Entra, and Purview signals are surfaced in a single pane of glass, providing observability across your AI estate. Drive faster triage, use data to support board-level discussions about AI risk, and enable coordinated action with integrated insights, recommendations, and delegation to help accelerate remediation across existing security workflows. The Security Dashboard for AI is generally available now. If your organization uses Microsoft Defender, Entra, and/or Purview, you already have access, no additional licensing is required. Visit ai.security.microsoft.com to access the dashboard directly, or navigate to it from the Defender, Entra, or Purview portals. Learn more about the Security Dashboard for AI on the MS Learn page and the Security Dashboard for AI Security Blog. Discover new features in the Security Dashboard for AI such as the Security Reader role, new delegation flow, and new identity risk section here. ¹AI agent survey. PwC, May 2025 ²Security Teams Taking on Expanded AI Data Responsibilities. Bedrock Data, March 2025 ³IDC FutureScape: Worldwide Security and Trust 2026 Predictions, November 2025 ⁴2026 State of Threat Detection and Response Report. Vectra AI, February 2026The Advantages of Premium Cases in Purview eDiscovery
Capacity & Scale Feature Description Advantage over E3 Enhanced Limits Supports significantly higher limits, including eDiscovery case count and export volume. For example, up to 50,000 cases and 5 TB per search in E5 (versus 10,000 cases and 2 TB in E3). Handles large investigations without splitting into multiple cases or searches. E3’s lower limits would force breaking up big jobs, adding overhead and risk of errors. E5’s higher capacity means fewer workarounds and seamless handling of large-scale litigation. Tenant-Wide eDiscovery Process and Holds Reports (Preview) Provides a central dashboard of all eDiscovery activities and eDiscovery holds across the tenant. Compliance and IT teams get at-a-glance status of ongoing jobs and active holds. Improves oversight and management efficiency for eDiscovery. E3 lacks centralized reporting, making it harder to track many cases. E5’s reporting gives better visibility into operations, which is crucial for heavy workloads and tight deadlines. Expanded Hold Capacity Each legal hold in E5 can encompass up to 2,000 mailboxes and 2,000 sites in one policy. E3 holds are limited to 1,000 mailboxes or 100 sites per policy. Enables placing very large custodian sets on hold with a single action. In E3, exceeding hold limits means juggling multiple policies for one case, increasing complexity. E5 simplifies hold management by consolidating more custodians per hold, reducing admin burden. Search & Collection Feature Description Advantage over E3 Advanced Search Filters Offers richer search criteria beyond keywords. You can filter by sensitive info types (credit cards, SSNs), specific message IDs, or sensitivity labels on documents. This helps pinpoint relevant sensitive content directly. Enables more precise and speedy discovery of critical data. In E3, finding the same info might require complex keyword strings or separate tools (with a higher chance of missing items). E5’s advanced filters mean faster, targeted searches for things like confidential data or GDPR content. Data Source Sync Allows you to refresh custodians’ data sources in a search or hold to catch updates to locations. For example, if a custodian adds a new OneDrive, E5 will detect and prompt you to include it. Ensures no content location is overlooked as the case evolves. E3 has no easy way to know if data moved or new sites were created, potentially leaving gaps. E5’s sync provides complete and defensible collection by keeping holds/searches up-to-date. Cloud Attachment Collection (Hyper-linked Documents) Automatically collects the content of files shared via cloud links (OneDrive/SharePoint) in emails or chats. E5 can retrieve the actual document (and its versions) that was linked, even pulling the specific version that was shared at the time if the version shared feature is enabled. Preserves evidence that E3 would miss. E3 eDiscovery does not fetch linked file content. It would only show a hyperlink, making it difficult to return the associated file. E5 ensures linked documents (with version history) are collected, so the full context of communications is retained. Conversation Threading (Chats & Email) Reconstructs conversations in a threaded view for Microsoft Teams chats and email chains. Reviewers can see messages in context (like a chat transcript or email thread) rather than as isolated items. Greatly improves contextual understanding. E3 exports chats as separate messages with no threading, making it hard to follow the story. E5’s threaded view lets reviewers grasp the full conversation at a glance, reducing confusion and ensuring nothing is interpreted out of context. Custodian & Hold Management Feature Description Advantage over E3 Case-Level Custodian Management Provides a dedicated tab to manage custodians (people) within each case. You add custodians once and can easily apply holds or searches to all their data without re-entering their information each time. Streamlines hold setup and ensures clarity on who is in the case. E3 has no concept of custodians. You must manually input email or site addresses for each search/hold. E5’s approach saves time, reduces errors, and gives a clear view of all people involved in the matter. Bulk Custodian Import Supports importing up to 1,000 custodians at once from a list into a case. Useful for large investigations (e.g., adding an entire department as custodians in one go). Dramatically faster setup for big cases. In E3, adding hundreds of people means typing or pasting each individually, which is time-consuming and error prone. E5’s bulk import means quick, one-time setup for large custodian lists, ensuring no one is missed. “Explore & Add” Custodian Sources Provides an intelligent way to discover related data sources for a given custodian. For example, it can list Teams, SharePoint sites, or groups the person is part of, and let you add those to the case. Helps capture all relevant locations for each person. In E3, you might overlook a Teams channel or group mailbox a custodian was involved in. E5’s explore feature surfaces those connections, improving completeness of your holds and searches by including collaboration spaces that might otherwise be missed. In-Place Review & Analytics Feature Description Advantage over E3 Advanced Indexing and OCR Automatically re-indexes content that was partially indexed or had errors and performs OCR (Optical Character Recognition) on images to extract text. This means files with images or previously unsearchable formats become searchable in E5. Ensures “no stone is left unturned.” E3 would flag such content as “unindexed” (meaning you know a file exists but not what’s inside it). With E5, far more data is searchable, even text inside images or scanned PDFs, reducing the amount of partially indexed content and the chance of missing critical evidence due to format issues. In-Place Review Sets Lets you create a review set of collected data in the cloud. Review sets offer contextual review of conversations, powerful query and filtering capabilities, and query reports for additional insights. Pre-review culling is possible in E5. E3 has no in-product review capability. You must export everything to an outside tool for examination. E5’s review sets allow the team to filter out irrelevant data and focus on what matters before exporting. This reduces the volume (and cost) of data sent for attorney review and keeps data in a secure, auditable environment during analysis. Tagging and Metadata Filters Enables applying tags (labels like “Responsive,” “Privileged,” “Personal Data”) to documents and emails in a review set, and filtering by these tags or other metadata fields. Improves organization and review workflow. E3 cannot tag items in-place, so keeping track of important documents is harder. In E5, tagging allows systematic categorization for quick retrieval (e.g., find all items tagged Highly Relevant instantly). These tags also carry over on export, so any work done during review isn’t lost when handing off to external counsel. Email Threading and Analytics Automatically identifies and stitches together email threads, showing only the last inclusive email that contains the entire conversation. Earlier duplicate emails in the chain are noted and can be skipped. Cuts down review volume and improves context. E3 reviewers would see every single email (even if content repeats across replies). This saves review time and ensures attorneys see the full discussion in one place rather than piecemeal. Conversation View Displays collected Teams (and other chat) messages in a conversation format in a review set, similar to how one would view a chat in the app, instead of individual out-of-context messages. Makes reviewing chat evidence much easier. In E3, chat messages are isolated, forcing reviewers to manually piece together who said what when. E5’s conversational view provides full context at a glance, so nothing is misunderstood or missed in chat-based communications. Near-Duplicate Detection Finds and groups nearly identical documents (e.g. multiple versions of a file or emails with only slight differences). Reviewers are informed which items are alike. Saves time and ensures consistency. E3 requires manually spotting similar files. E5 can let a reviewer examine one version and then quickly tag all its close duplicates the same way. This speeds up review and ensures similar content is handled uniformly (no conflicting judgments on essentially the same document). Themes (Topic Analytics) Uses analytics to cluster documents by themes/topics. For example, it might reveal a group of emails all discussing “Project X” or detect an unusual theme (like frequent mentions of “resignation”). Uncovers hidden patterns that simple keyword searches in E3 might miss. This insight helps investigators spot important threads of discussion or issues they weren’t explicitly searching for, leading to a more thorough understanding of the data set. It adds a layer of proactive insight absent in E3. Global Deduplication Automatically de-duplicates exact copies of emails or files across all custodians using review sets. Each unique item is retained once for review, with duplicates noted. Prevents redundant review work. In E3, the same email stored in five mailboxes would appear five times and could be reviewed and tagged inconsistently by different people. E5’s deduplication means reviewers spend time only on unique content improving efficiency and ensuring consistency in treatment of identical items. Export & Integration Feature Description Advantage over E3 Guest Reviewer Access Allows secure, read-only external access to a review set for outside experts (like outside counsel). Guest reviewers can be invited to review and tag documents in your E5 case via secure Azure AD access (with MFA), without data leaving the tenant. Enables collaboration with outside counsel without exporting data. E3 cannot extend access to external users. You’d have to export files and send them out, which is slower and riskier. E5 keeps the data in-place and governed, letting external reviewers work more efficiently while your organization retains control and visibility. Import External Data Supports ingestion of data from outside M365 into eDiscovery. You can load files like PST emails, PDFs, or documents from file shares into an E5 review set, maintaining custodians’ identity and metadata. Brings all relevant data under one roof. E3 cannot handle content beyond Exchange/SharePoint/Teams, so any non-M365 data would be reviewed separately. E5’s ingestion means even file server or third-party data can be included in the case, making your eDiscovery truly comprehensive and eliminating blind spots between different systems. Rich Export with Metadata Exports include a detailed load file with extensive metadata from the review (custodian info, email thread indices, attachment names, message IDs, tags applied, etc.). This is in addition to the actual content files. Simplifies downstream processing and preserves review decisions. E3’s export is basic (limited metadata), often requiring additional data processing in third-party tools. E5’s comprehensive load file means that all important context (including tags like “Privileged” that your team applied) travels with the exported data, so external reviewers immediately see those cues. This saves time and prevents rework. MIP Search and Decryption Integration Can automatically decrypt protected content (encrypted by Microsoft Information Protection, e.g. with sensitivity labels/Azure RMS) during eDiscovery. Encrypted emails and documents are made readable and searchable when added to a review set. Ensures encrypted files aren’t “invisible” in your investigation. E3 often cannot search or preview MIP-protected emails/docs until they’re manually decrypted after export (if at all). E5 seamlessly includes these encrypted items in search results and review, so you don’t miss evidence that was simply locked behind encryption. Insider Risk Management Escalation Integrates with Microsoft Insider Risk Management (IRM) alerts. With E5, if an insider risk policy flags a user (e.g., for a potential data theft), you can one-click escalate to create an eDiscovery case that automatically targets that user’s content around the incident. Enables a fast, seamless response to insider threats. E3 has no IRM at all, so there’s no such trigger. In E5, the moment a high-risk activity is detected, the legal team can immediately jump into collecting and reviewing the related data. This tight integration means quicker investigations and potentially mitigating issues before they escalate. Communication Compliance Escalation Ties into Communication Compliance (E5’s internal communications monitoring for policy violations). If a serious policy violation is found (e.g., harassment in Teams chats or inappropriate sharing of sensitive info), it can be escalated directly into an eDiscovery case for further investigation. Offers proactive discovery of misconduct. E3 lacks built-in communication monitoring, so issues may go unnoticed until too late. With E5, compliance officers can swiftly pivot from detecting a problem to launching a full eDiscovery inquiry, ensuring faster and more thorough handling of incidents like HR violations or data leaks. Graph API & Automation Fully supports the Microsoft Graph API for eDiscovery. This means eDiscovery tasks (case creation, adding custodians, running searches, exporting data) can be automated or integrated into other applications via scripting/programming without additional cost. While API support is supported for E3, the E3 export API is a metered solution. E5 allows organizations to streamline eDiscovery workflows – for example, auto-create a case and hold when HR flags an employee exit, or integrate with third-party legal management tools without additional cost. Teams and Copilot Interactions Purge Provides an incident response capability to search and purge Teams chats or Microsoft 365 Copilot interactions if sensitive information was shared. Authorized investigators can directly delete up to 100 Teams chat messages (across participant mailboxes) in one go via the eDiscovery interface (leveraging Graph API) when necessary to contain a data leak. Allows quick containment of spills that E3 cannot do. E3’s content search can purge emails but cannot delete Teams messages or Copilot content. With E5, if confidential data pops up in a Teams chat, compliance can not only find it but also bulk-delete those messages from user mailboxes to mitigate further exposure. This capability is crucial for responding to internal data mishandling in real time.Collecting Microsoft 365 Copilot Data with Microsoft Purview eDiscovery
Copilot Data Collection Reference Table Data Type Storage Location Item Class Collection Strategy Copilot Prompts (user questions sent to M365 Copilot) Exchange Online: Hidden folder in the user's mailbox. Compliance copies stored similar to Teams chats, but with unique item classes. IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.<AppName> (e.g., .Word, .Excel, .Outlook, .BizChat). Additional AI-related classes may also apply: IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.ConnectedAIApp*, IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.CloudAIApp*, IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.TeamCopilot*, IPM.SkypeTeams.TeamCopilot* 1. Add the user's Exchange mailbox as a data source to the search. 2. In the condition builder you can optionally filter the search to only return Copilot prompts by adding a condition of "Item class contains any of Copilot activity". This automatically applies all relevant M365 Copilot item classes as a condition of the search. 3. Add any further additional conditions such as date range or keywords to narrow results as required. You can also use the Item Class condition to exclude M365 Copilot interactions from your collections when targeting a user’s mailbox. Notes: · Additional item classes may be added. The item class condition will be updated accordingly. Copilot Responses (AI-generated answers) Exchange Online: The same hidden folder in the user's mailbox as prompts. The same IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.<AppName> pattern as prompts The same collection strategy used for prompts. Copilot Memories (personalized saved information Copilot "remembers") Exchange Online: Hidden CopilotMemory subfolder within the user's mailbox contacts. Stored as contact entries separate from prompts and responses. IPM.Contact Each memory item appears as a contact card within Exchange, which is distinct from the message-based item classes used for prompts/responses. 1. Add the user's Exchange mailbox as a data source to the search. 2. In the condition builder you can optionally filter the search to only return Contacts by adding a condition of "Item class contains any of Contacts". Notes: · Copilot memories will not be preserved under a legal hold or retention policy. · This will return both Copilot memories stored in contacts as well as traditional contacts from the user’s Exchange mailbox. Copilot Pages (AI-generated, user-editable documents) SharePoint Online: Stored in a user-owned SharePoint embedded container (shared with Loop workspace content and Copilot Notebooks). File format is .page. Not stored in the user's mailbox. N/A These are SharePoint files (not Exchange items), so no item class applies. Identify them in search results by the .page file extension. 1. Add the custodian’s SharePoint embedded site URL as a data source to the search. Alternatively, tenant-wide searches of all SPO sites will include all SharePoint Embedded containers 2. Optionally use the condition builder with conditions such as date range, keywords or file type to further filter results returned Facilitator agent interactions in a Team meeting chat Exchange Online: Hidden folder in all meeting attendees’ mailboxes. Compliance copies stored as Teams chats IPM.SkypeTeams.Message 1. Add the user's Exchange mailbox as a data source to the search. 2. In the condition builder you can optionally filter the search to only return Copilot prompts by adding a condition of "Item class contains any of Instant messages". 3. Add any further additional conditions such as date range or keywords to narrow results as required. Facilitator agent meeting notes (loop) SharePoint Online: Facilitator meeting notes are stored as a .loop file in a OneDrive folder titled Meetings of the user who initiated Facilitator in Teams N/A These are SharePoint files (not Exchange items), so no item class applies. Identify them in search results by the .loop file extension. 1. Add the user's OneDrive URL as a data source to the search. 2. In the condition builder you can optionally filter the search to only return loop files by adding a condition of "File type equals any of loop". 3. Add any further additional conditions such as date range or keywords to narrow results as required. Notes: · With eDiscovery premium enabled cases you can follow the standard workflow for collecting Team meeting messages and select to include cloud attachments in your collection. This will automatically pull into the export or review set any Facilitator agent meeting notes. Facilitator created word/loop documents SharePoint Online: When the facilitator agent is asked to create a word or loop document during a meeting they are stored in the requesters OneDrive in a folder called N/A These are SharePoint files (not Exchange items), so no item class applies. Identify them in search results by the .loop file extension. 1. Add the user's OneDrive URL as a data source to the search. 2. In the condition builder you can optionally filter the search to only return loop and doc files by adding a condition of "File type equals any of loop, docx". 3. Add any further additional conditions such as date range or keywords to narrow results as required. Notes: · With eDiscovery premium enabled cases you can follow the standard workflow for collecting Team meeting messages and select to include cloud attachments in your collection. This will automatically pull into the export or review set any Facilitator generated loop or word documents. Facilitator generated and assigned tasks Exchange Online: When the facilitator agent creates and assigns a task to an individual, it is created as a to-do item in the assigned individual's Exchange Mailbox IPM.Task 1. Add the user's Exchange mailbox as a data source to the search. 2. In the condition builder you can optionally filter the search to only return Tasks by adding a condition of "Item class contains any of Tasks". 3. Add any further additional conditions such as date range or keywords to narrow results as required. Application-Specific Item Classes for Prompts & Responses For more granular filtering by Copilot application, the following item class values can be used in KQL queries: Application Context Item Class Value Microsoft Copilot Chat (BizChat / Teams) IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.BizChat Copilot in Excel IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.Excel Copilot in Loop IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.Loop Copilot in Outlook IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.Outlook Copilot in PowerPoint IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.PowerPoint Copilot in Teams IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.Teams Copilot in Whiteboard IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.Whiteboard Copilot in Word IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.Word To target all Copilot applications at once, use the wildcard query ItemClass:IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.*. For a wider list of AI data sources, see the following link: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/edisc-search-copilot-data#data-sources-for-ai-data Important Notes for eDiscovery Practitioners Excluding Copilot Data from Broader Searches Because Copilot prompts and responses reside in the same Exchange mailbox as emails and Teams chats, they will appear in broad mailbox searches unless explicitly filtered out. To exclude Copilot items, use the condition "Item Class Contains none of Copilot activity" in the condition builder, or add (-ItemClass:IPM.SkypeTeams.Message.Copilot.*) in KQL. Some eDiscovery managers run separate searches, one for Copilot data and one for other communications, to keep collections distinct. Copilot Memories: Retention & Hold Limitations Purview retention policies and eDiscovery holds do not currently apply to Copilot memory items. Memory items remain until a user deletes them or an admin explicitly removes them via eDiscovery or Graph API. Additionally, deleting a Copilot prompt and response does not delete any memory derived from that conversation. Memories must be removed separately if required. Copilot Pages: Do Not Treat Like Prompts/Responses Copilot Pages are not stored in Exchange mailboxes. Searching only a custodian’s mailbox will not return Copilot Pages. Treat Copilot Pages the same way as you do for SharePoint content in your existing eDiscovery workflow. For collections, keyword searches will generate hits on text content within the .page file if either the SharePoint Embedded URL is included in the search or the search is a tenant-wide search of all SharePoint sites Be aware that full-text search within .page files in Purview eDiscovery review sets is not currently available. Instead you can use filters such as Subject/Title or Native File Type to locate Copilot Pages in your review set and review the content. When an eDiscovery hold is placed on a custodian’s mailbox, it does not automatically extend to the SharePoint Embedded site where the Copilot Pages are stored. Instead, ensure the hold policy includes the URL for the user-owned SharePoint Embedded site that contains the Copilot Page(s) that must be preserved. Audit Logs vs. eDiscovery for Copilot Content Audit logs record that a Copilot interaction occurred (time, user, workload context) but do not include the actual prompt or response text. To retrieve the substance of Copilot interactions, use Purview eDiscovery searches against the mailbox. Copilot Prompts and Responses: HTML Transcription Copilot prompts and responses are stored as individual messages within the user’s mailbox. When collecting Copilot interactions, enabling the “Organize conversations into HTML transcripts” premium option will convert these individual messages into HTML transcripts making for easier review and linkage between the user’s original prompt and the Copilot responses. Copilot Prompts and Responses: Contextual prompts and responses When using the Keywords condition as part of your collection in eDiscovery, it will only return items that match the keywords included in the query. This means that you may only return a part of the Copilot interaction. If using keywords in your collection query you can enable the “Include full conversation for Copilot, Teams and Viva Engage messages” premium option. This will include in the export or review set any prompts or responses from the Copilot interaction within a 12-hour window before and after each responsive item. This means that you are able to see the full context of the prompt or response that was responsive to search. Collecting Referenced Documents (Cloud Attachments) Copilot responses may reference or summarize SharePoint/OneDrive files. When collecting Copilot interactions, enabling the "Access links (cloud attachments) in messages" premium option will additionally collect the files referenced in the prompt or response and include them in the export package. This provides full evidentiary context but can significantly increase export size and processing time so consider if collecting these artifacts are relevant to the investigation. If so, look to use additional conditions such as date to effectively manage volumes or reduce the number of custodians in the collection. Facilitator agent in Microsoft Teams Meetings The Facilitator agent in Microsoft Teams is an AI-powered assistant (included with Microsoft 365 Copilot) that enhances meeting productivity by generating real-time notes, summarizing key decisions, and managing action items. It acts as an active participant, allowing for collaborative editing of notes and answering chat questions during calls. As the Facilitator works within the context of Microsoft Teams meetings (scheduled private meetings only) your existing workflows for collecting Microsoft Teams meetings chat should be used. In addition, enabling the "Access links (cloud attachments) in messages" premium setting will automatically collect any meeting note (loop) or loop or word documents created by the Facilitator agent. Copilot Retention Reference Table Data Type Microsoft Purview Retention Policy Location/Scope Copilot prompts and responses Microsoft Copilot experiences Copilot Memories (personalized saved information Copilot "remembers") Not supported Copilot Pages (AI-generated, user-editable documents) SharePoint classic and communications sites (Static Scopes only) Facilitator interactions in a Team meeting Teams chats Facilitator meeting notes (loop) OneDrive Accounts Facilitator created word/loop documents OneDrive Accounts Facilitator generated and assigned tasks Exchange mailboxes (Tasks with end dates only)
Why External Users Can’t Open Encrypted Attachments in Certain Conditions & How to Fix It Securely
When Conditional Access policies enforce MFA across all cloud apps and include external users, encrypted attachments may require additional considerations. This post explains why. This behavior applies only in environments where all of the following are true: Microsoft Purview encryption is used for emails and attachments A Conditional Access (CA) policy is configured to: Require MFA Apply to all cloud applications Include guest or external users The Situation: Email Opens, Attachment Doesn’t When an email is encrypted using: Microsoft Purview Sensitivity Labels, or Information Rights Management (IRM) Any attached Office document automatically inherits encryption. This inheritance is intentional and enforced by the service, Ensures consistent protection of sensitive content. That inheritance is mandatory and cannot be disabled. So far, so good. But here’s where things break for external recipients. The Hidden Dependency: Identity & Conditional Access Reading an encrypted email and opening an encrypted attachment are two different flows. External users can usually read encrypted emails by authenticating through: One-Time Passcode (OTP) Microsoft personal accounts Their own organization’s identity However, encrypted attachments use Microsoft Rights Management Services (RMS) — and RMS expects an identity the sender’s tenant can evaluate. If your organization has: A global Conditional Access policy Enforcing MFA for all users Applied to all cloud apps external users can get blocked even after successful email decryption. This commonly results in errors like: “This account does not exist in the sender’s tenant…” AADSTS90072: The external user account does not exist in our tenant and cannot access the Microsoft Office application. The account needs to be added as an external user in the tenant or use an alternative authentication method. When It Works (and Why It Often Doesn’t) External access to encrypted attachments works only when one of these conditions is met: The sender trusts the recipient’s tenant MFA via Cross‑Tenant Access (MFA trust) The recipient already exists as a guest account in the sender’s tenant In real-world scenarios, these conditions often fail: External recipients use consumer or non‑Entra identities Recipient domains are not predictable Guest onboarding does not scale Cross‑tenant trust is intentionally restricted In such cases, Conditional Access policies designed for internal users can affect RMS evaluation for external users. So what’s the alternative? The Practical, Secure Alternative When the two standard access conditions (cross‑tenant trust or guest presence) cannot be met , you can refine Conditional Access evaluation without weakening encryption. The goal is not to remove MFA, but to ensure it is applied appropriately based on identity type and access path. In this scenario: MFA remains enforced for all internal users, including access to Microsoft Rights Management Services (RMS) MFA remains enforced for external users across cloud applications other than RMS The Key Idea Let encryption stay strong, but stop blocking external RMS authentication. This is achieved by: Keeping the existing Conditional Access policy that enforces MFA for all internal users across all cloud applications, including RMS Excluding guest and external users from that internal‑only policy Deploying a separate Conditional Access policy scoped to guest and external users to: Continue enforcing MFA for external users where supported Explicitly exclude Microsoft Rights Management Services (RMS) from evaluation RMS can be excluded from the external‑user policy by specifying the following application (client) ID: RMS App ID: 00000012-0000-0000-c000-000000000000 Why This Is Still Secure This approach: ✅ Keeps email and attachment encryption fully intact ✅ Internal security posture is unchanged ✅ External users remain protected by MFA where applicable ✅ Allows external users to authenticate using supported methods ✅ Avoids over-trusting external tenants ✅ Scales for large, unpredictable recipient sets Final Takeaway Encrypted attachment access is governed by identity recognition and policy design, not by email encryption alone. By aligning Conditional Access with how encrypted content is evaluated, organizations can enable secure external collaboration while maintaining strong protection standardsAuthorization and Governance for AI Agents: Runtime Authorization Beyond Identity at Scale
Designing Authorization‑Aware AI Agents at Scale Enforcing Runtime RBAC + ABAC with Approval Injection (JIT) Microsoft Entra Agent Identity enables organizations to govern and manage AI agent identities in Copilot Studio, improving visibility and identity-level control. However, as enterprises deploy multiple autonomous AI agents, identity and OAuth permissions alone cannot answer a more critical question: “Should this action be executed now, by this agent, for this user, under the current business and regulatory context?” This post introduces a reusable Authorization Fabric—combining a Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) and Policy Decision Point (PDP)—implemented as a Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint using Azure Functions/App Service authentication. Every AI agent (Copilot Studio or AI Foundry/Semantic Kernel) calls this fabric before tool execution, receiving a deterministic runtime decision: ALLOW / DENY / REQUIRE_APPROVAL / MASK Who this is for Anyone building AI agents (Copilot Studio, AI Foundry/Semantic Kernel) that call tools, workflows, or APIs Organizations scaling to multiple agents and needing consistent runtime controls Teams operating in regulated or security‑sensitive environments, where decisions must be deterministic and auditable Why a V2? Identity is necessary—runtime authorization is missing Entra Agent Identity (preview) integrates Copilot Studio agents with Microsoft Entra so that newly created agents automatically get an Entra agent identity, manageable in the Entra admin center, and identity activity is logged in Entra. That solves who the agent is and improves identity governance visibility. But multi-agent deployments introduce a new risk class: Autonomous execution sprawl — many agents, operating with delegated privileges, invoking the same backends independently. OAuth and API permissions answer “can the agent call this API?” They do not answer “should the agent execute this action under business policy, compliance constraints, data boundaries, and approval thresholds?” This is where a runtime authorization decision plane becomes essential. The pattern: Microsoft Entra‑Protected Authorization Fabric (PEP + PDP) Instead of embedding RBAC logic independently inside every agent, use a shared fabric: PEP (Policy Enforcement Point): Gatekeeper invoked before any tool/action PDP (Policy Decision Point): Evaluates RBAC + ABAC + approval policies Decision output: ALLOW / DENY / REQUIRE_APPROVAL / MASK This Authorization Fabric functions as a shared enterprise control plane, decoupling authorization logic from individual agents and enforcing policies consistently across all autonomous execution paths. Architecture (POC reference architecture) Use a single runtime decision plane that sits between agents and tools. What’s important here Every agent (Copilot Studio or AI Foundry/SK) calls the Authorization Fabric API first The fabric is a protected endpoint (Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint required) Tools (Graph/ERP/CRM/custom APIs) are invoked only after an ALLOW decision (or approval) Trust boundaries enforced by this architecture Agents never call business tools directly without a prior authorization decision The Authorization Fabric validates caller identity via Microsoft Entra Authorization decisions are centralized, consistent, and auditable Approval workflows act as a runtime “break-glass” control for high-impact actions This ensures identity, intent, and execution are independently enforced, rather than implicitly trusted. Runtime flow (Decision → Approval → Execution) Here is the runtime sequence as a simple flow (you can keep your Mermaid diagram too). ```mermaid flowchart TD START(["START"]) --> S1["[1] User Request"] S1 --> S2["[2] Agent Extracts Intent\n(action, resource, attributes)"] S2 --> S3["[3] Call /authorize\n(Entra protected)"] S3 --> S4 subgraph S4["[4] PDP Evaluation"] ABAC["ABAC: Tenant · Region · Data Sensitivity"] RBAC["RBAC: Entitlement Check"] Threshold["Approval Threshold"] ABAC --> RBAC --> Threshold end S4 --> Decision{"[5] Decision?"} Decision -->|"ALLOW"| Exec["Execute Tool / API"] Decision -->|"MASK"| Masked["Execute with Masked Data"] Decision -->|"DENY"| Block["Block Request"] Decision -->|"REQUIRE_APPROVAL"| Approve{"[6] Approval Flow"} Approve -->|"Approved"| Exec Approve -->|"Rejected"| Block Exec --> Audit["[7] Audit & Telemetry"] Masked --> Audit Block --> Audit Audit --> ENDNODE(["END"]) style START fill:#4A90D9,stroke:#333,color:#fff style ENDNODE fill:#4A90D9,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S1 fill:#5B5FC7,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S2 fill:#5B5FC7,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S3 fill:#E8A838,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S4 fill:#FFF3E0,stroke:#E8A838,stroke-width:2px style ABAC fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style RBAC fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style Threshold fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style Decision fill:#fff,stroke:#333 style Exec fill:#2ECC71,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Masked fill:#27AE60,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Block fill:#C0392B,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Approve fill:#F39C12,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Audit fill:#3498DB,stroke:#333,color:#fff ``` Design principle: No tool execution occurs until the Authorization Fabric returns ALLOW or REQUIRE_APPROVAL is satisfied via an approval workflow. Where Power Automate fits (important for readers) In most Copilot Studio implementations, Agents calls Power Automate (agent flows), is the practical integration layer that calls enterprise services and APIs. Copilot Studio supports “agent flows” as a way to extend agent capabilities with low-code workflows. For this pattern, Power Automate typically: acquires/uses the right identity context for the call (depending on your tenant setup), and calls the /authorize endpoint of the Authorization Fabric, returns the decision payload to the agent for branching. Copilot Studio also supports calling REST endpoints directly using the HTTP Request node, including passing headers such as Authorization: Bearer <token>. Protected endpoint only: Securing the Authorization Fabric with Microsoft Entra For this V2 pattern, the Authorization Fabric must be protected using Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint on Azure Functions/App Service (built‑in auth). Microsoft Learn provides the configuration guidance for enabling Microsoft Entra as the authentication provider for Azure App Service / Azure Functions. Step 1 — Create the Authorization Fabric API (Azure Function) Expose an authorization endpoint: HTTP Step 2 — Enable Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint on the Function App In Azure Portal: Function App → Authentication Add identity provider → Microsoft Choose Workforce configuration (enterprise tenant) Set Require authentication for all requests This ensures the Authorization Fabric is not callable without a valid Entra token. Step 3 — Optional hardening (recommended) Depending on enterprise posture, layer: IP restrictions / Private endpoints APIM in front of the Function for rate limiting, request normalization, centralized logging (For a POC, keep it minimal—add hardening incrementally.) Externalizing policy (so governance scales) To make this pattern reusable across multiple agents, policies should not be hardcoded inside each agent. Instead, store policy definitions in a central policy store such as Cosmos DB (or equivalent configuration store), and have the PDP load/evaluate policies at runtime. Why this matters: Policy changes apply across all agents instantly (no agent republish) Central governance + versioning + rollback becomes possible Audit and reporting become consistent across environments (For the POC, a single JSON document per policy pack in Cosmos DB is sufficient. For production, add versioning and staged rollout.) Store one PolicyPack JSON document per environment (dev/test/prod). Include version, effectiveFrom, priority for safe rollout/rollback. Minimal decision contract (standard request / response) To keep the fabric reusable across agents, standardize the request payload. Request payload (example) Decision response (deterministic) Example scenario (1 minute to understand) Scenario: A user asks a Finance agent to create a Purchase Order for 70,000. Even if the user has API permission and the agent can technically call the ERP API, runtime policy should return: REQUIRE_APPROVAL (threshold exceeded) trigger an approval workflow execute only after approval is granted This is the difference between API access and authorized business execution. Sample Policy Model (RBAC + ABAC + Approval) This POC policy model intentionally stays simple while demonstrating both coarse and fine-grained governance. 1) Coarse‑grained RBAC (roles → actions) FinanceAnalyst CreatePO up to 50,000 ViewVendor FinanceManager CreatePO up to 100,000 and/or approve higher spend 2) Fine‑grained ABAC (conditions at runtime) ABAC evaluates context such as region, classification, tenant boundary, and risk: 3) Approval injection (Agent‑level JIT execution) For higher-risk/high-impact actions, the fabric returns REQUIRE_APPROVAL rather than hard deny (when appropriate): How policies should be evaluated (deterministic order) To ensure predictable and auditable behavior, evaluate in a deterministic order: Tenant isolation & residency (ABAC hard deny first) Classification rules (deny or mask) RBAC entitlement validation Threshold/risk evaluation Approval injection (JIT step-up) This prevents approval workflows from bypassing foundational security boundaries such as tenant isolation or data sovereignty. Copilot Studio integration (enforcing runtime authorization) Copilot Studio can call external REST APIs using the HTTP Request node, including passing headers such as Authorization: Bearer <token> and binding response schema for branching logic. Copilot Studio also supports using flows with agents (“agent flows”) to extend capabilities and orchestrate actions. Option A (Recommended): Copilot Studio → Agent Flow (Power Automate) → Authorization Fabric Why: Flows are a practical place to handle token acquisition patterns, approval orchestration, and standardized logging. Topic flow: Extract user intent + parameters Call an agent flow that: calls /authorize returns decision payload Branch in the topic: If ALLOW → proceed to tool call If REQUIRE_APPROVAL → trigger approval flow; proceed only if approved If DENY → stop and explain policy reason Important: Tool execution must never be reachable through an alternate topic path that bypasses the authorization check. Option B: Direct HTTP Request node to Authorization Fabric Use the Send HTTP request node to call the authorization endpoint and branch using the response schema. This approach is clean, but token acquisition and secure secretless authentication are often simpler when handled via a managed integration layer (flow + connector). AI Foundry / Semantic Kernel integration (tool invocation gate) For Foundry/SK agents, the integration point is before tool execution. Semantic Kernel supports Azure AI agent patterns and tool integration, making it a natural place to enforce a pre-tool authorization check. Pseudo-pattern: Agent extracts intent + context Calls Authorization Fabric Enforces decision Executes tool only when allowed (or after approval) Telemetry & audit (what Security Architects will ask for) Even the best policy engine is incomplete without audit trails. At minimum, log: agentId, userUPN, action, resource decision + reason + policyIds approval outcome (if any) correlationId for downstream tool execution Why it matters: you now have a defensible answer to: “Why did an autonomous agent execute this action?” Security signal bonus: Denials, unusual approval rates, and repeated policy mismatches can also indicate prompt injection attempts, mis-scoped agents, or governance drift. What this enables (and why it scales) With a shared Authorization Fabric: Avoid duplicating authorization logic across agents Standardize decisions across Copilot Studio + Foundry agents Update governance once (policy change) and apply everywhere Make autonomy safer without blocking productivity Closing: Identity gets you who. Runtime authorization gets you whether/when/how. Copilot Studio can automatically create Entra agent identities (preview), improving identity governance and visibility for agents. But safe autonomy requires a runtime decision plane. Securing that plane as an Entra-protected endpoint is foundational for enterprise deployments. In enterprise environments, autonomous execution without runtime authorization is equivalent to privileged access without PIM—powerful, fast, and operationally risky.
Feature Request: Extend Security Copilot inclusion (M365 E5) to M365 A5 Education tenants
Background At Ignite 2025, Microsoft announced that Security Copilot is included for all Microsoft 365 E5 customers, with a phased rollout starting November 18, 2025. This is a significant step forward for security operations. The gap Microsoft 365 A5 for Education is the academic equivalent of E5 — it includes the same core security stack: Microsoft Defender, Entra, Intune, and Purview. However, the Security Copilot inclusion explicitly covers only commercial E5 customers. There is no public roadmap or timeline for extending this benefit to A5 education tenants. Why this matters Education institutions face the same cybersecurity threats as commercial organizations — often with fewer dedicated security resources. The A5 license was positioned as the premium security offering for education. Excluding it from Security Copilot inclusion creates an inequity between commercial and education customers holding functionally equivalent license tiers. Request We would like Microsoft to: Confirm whether Security Copilot inclusion will be extended to M365 A5 Education tenants If yes, provide an indicative timeline If no, clarify the rationale and what alternative paths exist for education customers Are other EDU admins in the same situation? Would appreciate any upvotes or comments to help raise visibility with the product team.Microsoft Purview securing data and enabling apps and agents across your AI stack
As agentic AI moves from experimentation to enterprise execution, it fundamentally reshapes the data risk landscape—because AI apps and autonomous agents can access, reason over, and act on sensitive information at unprecedented speed and scale. This blog explains how Microsoft Purview extends security, compliance, and risk management across the AI stack (from data and prompts to copilots, custom agents, and even third‑party AI services) with capabilities like DSPM, sensitivity labels, DLP, insider risk, and audit/eDiscovery. It also highlights recent innovations such as inline DLP for Copilot Studio agents, upcoming DLM insights and policy recommendations for Copilot/AI app interactions, and expanded protections for Copilot web search and network/browser enforcement through partners.
