Authorization and Governance for AI Agents: Runtime Authorization Beyond Identity at Scale
Designing Authorization‑Aware AI Agents at Scale Enforcing Runtime RBAC + ABAC with Approval Injection (JIT) Microsoft Entra Agent Identity enables organizations to govern and manage AI agent identities in Copilot Studio, improving visibility and identity-level control. However, as enterprises deploy multiple autonomous AI agents, identity and OAuth permissions alone cannot answer a more critical question: “Should this action be executed now, by this agent, for this user, under the current business and regulatory context?” This post introduces a reusable Authorization Fabric—combining a Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) and Policy Decision Point (PDP)—implemented as a Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint using Azure Functions/App Service authentication. Every AI agent (Copilot Studio or AI Foundry/Semantic Kernel) calls this fabric before tool execution, receiving a deterministic runtime decision: ALLOW / DENY / REQUIRE_APPROVAL / MASK Who this is for Anyone building AI agents (Copilot Studio, AI Foundry/Semantic Kernel) that call tools, workflows, or APIs Organizations scaling to multiple agents and needing consistent runtime controls Teams operating in regulated or security‑sensitive environments, where decisions must be deterministic and auditable Why a V2? Identity is necessary—runtime authorization is missing Entra Agent Identity (preview) integrates Copilot Studio agents with Microsoft Entra so that newly created agents automatically get an Entra agent identity, manageable in the Entra admin center, and identity activity is logged in Entra. That solves who the agent is and improves identity governance visibility. But multi-agent deployments introduce a new risk class: Autonomous execution sprawl — many agents, operating with delegated privileges, invoking the same backends independently. OAuth and API permissions answer “can the agent call this API?” They do not answer “should the agent execute this action under business policy, compliance constraints, data boundaries, and approval thresholds?” This is where a runtime authorization decision plane becomes essential. The pattern: Microsoft Entra‑Protected Authorization Fabric (PEP + PDP) Instead of embedding RBAC logic independently inside every agent, use a shared fabric: PEP (Policy Enforcement Point): Gatekeeper invoked before any tool/action PDP (Policy Decision Point): Evaluates RBAC + ABAC + approval policies Decision output: ALLOW / DENY / REQUIRE_APPROVAL / MASK This Authorization Fabric functions as a shared enterprise control plane, decoupling authorization logic from individual agents and enforcing policies consistently across all autonomous execution paths. Architecture (POC reference architecture) Use a single runtime decision plane that sits between agents and tools. What’s important here Every agent (Copilot Studio or AI Foundry/SK) calls the Authorization Fabric API first The fabric is a protected endpoint (Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint required) Tools (Graph/ERP/CRM/custom APIs) are invoked only after an ALLOW decision (or approval) Trust boundaries enforced by this architecture Agents never call business tools directly without a prior authorization decision The Authorization Fabric validates caller identity via Microsoft Entra Authorization decisions are centralized, consistent, and auditable Approval workflows act as a runtime “break-glass” control for high-impact actions This ensures identity, intent, and execution are independently enforced, rather than implicitly trusted. Runtime flow (Decision → Approval → Execution) Here is the runtime sequence as a simple flow (you can keep your Mermaid diagram too). ```mermaid flowchart TD START(["START"]) --> S1["[1] User Request"] S1 --> S2["[2] Agent Extracts Intent\n(action, resource, attributes)"] S2 --> S3["[3] Call /authorize\n(Entra protected)"] S3 --> S4 subgraph S4["[4] PDP Evaluation"] ABAC["ABAC: Tenant · Region · Data Sensitivity"] RBAC["RBAC: Entitlement Check"] Threshold["Approval Threshold"] ABAC --> RBAC --> Threshold end S4 --> Decision{"[5] Decision?"} Decision -->|"ALLOW"| Exec["Execute Tool / API"] Decision -->|"MASK"| Masked["Execute with Masked Data"] Decision -->|"DENY"| Block["Block Request"] Decision -->|"REQUIRE_APPROVAL"| Approve{"[6] Approval Flow"} Approve -->|"Approved"| Exec Approve -->|"Rejected"| Block Exec --> Audit["[7] Audit & Telemetry"] Masked --> Audit Block --> Audit Audit --> ENDNODE(["END"]) style START fill:#4A90D9,stroke:#333,color:#fff style ENDNODE fill:#4A90D9,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S1 fill:#5B5FC7,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S2 fill:#5B5FC7,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S3 fill:#E8A838,stroke:#333,color:#fff style S4 fill:#FFF3E0,stroke:#E8A838,stroke-width:2px style ABAC fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style RBAC fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style Threshold fill:#FCE4B2,stroke:#999 style Decision fill:#fff,stroke:#333 style Exec fill:#2ECC71,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Masked fill:#27AE60,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Block fill:#C0392B,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Approve fill:#F39C12,stroke:#333,color:#fff style Audit fill:#3498DB,stroke:#333,color:#fff ``` Design principle: No tool execution occurs until the Authorization Fabric returns ALLOW or REQUIRE_APPROVAL is satisfied via an approval workflow. Where Power Automate fits (important for readers) In most Copilot Studio implementations, Agents calls Power Automate (agent flows), is the practical integration layer that calls enterprise services and APIs. Copilot Studio supports “agent flows” as a way to extend agent capabilities with low-code workflows. For this pattern, Power Automate typically: acquires/uses the right identity context for the call (depending on your tenant setup), and calls the /authorize endpoint of the Authorization Fabric, returns the decision payload to the agent for branching. Copilot Studio also supports calling REST endpoints directly using the HTTP Request node, including passing headers such as Authorization: Bearer <token>. Protected endpoint only: Securing the Authorization Fabric with Microsoft Entra For this V2 pattern, the Authorization Fabric must be protected using Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint on Azure Functions/App Service (built‑in auth). Microsoft Learn provides the configuration guidance for enabling Microsoft Entra as the authentication provider for Azure App Service / Azure Functions. Step 1 — Create the Authorization Fabric API (Azure Function) Expose an authorization endpoint: HTTP Step 2 — Enable Microsoft Entra‑protected endpoint on the Function App In Azure Portal: Function App → Authentication Add identity provider → Microsoft Choose Workforce configuration (enterprise tenant) Set Require authentication for all requests This ensures the Authorization Fabric is not callable without a valid Entra token. Step 3 — Optional hardening (recommended) Depending on enterprise posture, layer: IP restrictions / Private endpoints APIM in front of the Function for rate limiting, request normalization, centralized logging (For a POC, keep it minimal—add hardening incrementally.) Externalizing policy (so governance scales) To make this pattern reusable across multiple agents, policies should not be hardcoded inside each agent. Instead, store policy definitions in a central policy store such as Cosmos DB (or equivalent configuration store), and have the PDP load/evaluate policies at runtime. Why this matters: Policy changes apply across all agents instantly (no agent republish) Central governance + versioning + rollback becomes possible Audit and reporting become consistent across environments (For the POC, a single JSON document per policy pack in Cosmos DB is sufficient. For production, add versioning and staged rollout.) Store one PolicyPack JSON document per environment (dev/test/prod). Include version, effectiveFrom, priority for safe rollout/rollback. Minimal decision contract (standard request / response) To keep the fabric reusable across agents, standardize the request payload. Request payload (example) Decision response (deterministic) Example scenario (1 minute to understand) Scenario: A user asks a Finance agent to create a Purchase Order for 70,000. Even if the user has API permission and the agent can technically call the ERP API, runtime policy should return: REQUIRE_APPROVAL (threshold exceeded) trigger an approval workflow execute only after approval is granted This is the difference between API access and authorized business execution. Sample Policy Model (RBAC + ABAC + Approval) This POC policy model intentionally stays simple while demonstrating both coarse and fine-grained governance. 1) Coarse‑grained RBAC (roles → actions) FinanceAnalyst CreatePO up to 50,000 ViewVendor FinanceManager CreatePO up to 100,000 and/or approve higher spend 2) Fine‑grained ABAC (conditions at runtime) ABAC evaluates context such as region, classification, tenant boundary, and risk: 3) Approval injection (Agent‑level JIT execution) For higher-risk/high-impact actions, the fabric returns REQUIRE_APPROVAL rather than hard deny (when appropriate): How policies should be evaluated (deterministic order) To ensure predictable and auditable behavior, evaluate in a deterministic order: Tenant isolation & residency (ABAC hard deny first) Classification rules (deny or mask) RBAC entitlement validation Threshold/risk evaluation Approval injection (JIT step-up) This prevents approval workflows from bypassing foundational security boundaries such as tenant isolation or data sovereignty. Copilot Studio integration (enforcing runtime authorization) Copilot Studio can call external REST APIs using the HTTP Request node, including passing headers such as Authorization: Bearer <token> and binding response schema for branching logic. Copilot Studio also supports using flows with agents (“agent flows”) to extend capabilities and orchestrate actions. Option A (Recommended): Copilot Studio → Agent Flow (Power Automate) → Authorization Fabric Why: Flows are a practical place to handle token acquisition patterns, approval orchestration, and standardized logging. Topic flow: Extract user intent + parameters Call an agent flow that: calls /authorize returns decision payload Branch in the topic: If ALLOW → proceed to tool call If REQUIRE_APPROVAL → trigger approval flow; proceed only if approved If DENY → stop and explain policy reason Important: Tool execution must never be reachable through an alternate topic path that bypasses the authorization check. Option B: Direct HTTP Request node to Authorization Fabric Use the Send HTTP request node to call the authorization endpoint and branch using the response schema. This approach is clean, but token acquisition and secure secretless authentication are often simpler when handled via a managed integration layer (flow + connector). AI Foundry / Semantic Kernel integration (tool invocation gate) For Foundry/SK agents, the integration point is before tool execution. Semantic Kernel supports Azure AI agent patterns and tool integration, making it a natural place to enforce a pre-tool authorization check. Pseudo-pattern: Agent extracts intent + context Calls Authorization Fabric Enforces decision Executes tool only when allowed (or after approval) Telemetry & audit (what Security Architects will ask for) Even the best policy engine is incomplete without audit trails. At minimum, log: agentId, userUPN, action, resource decision + reason + policyIds approval outcome (if any) correlationId for downstream tool execution Why it matters: you now have a defensible answer to: “Why did an autonomous agent execute this action?” Security signal bonus: Denials, unusual approval rates, and repeated policy mismatches can also indicate prompt injection attempts, mis-scoped agents, or governance drift. What this enables (and why it scales) With a shared Authorization Fabric: Avoid duplicating authorization logic across agents Standardize decisions across Copilot Studio + Foundry agents Update governance once (policy change) and apply everywhere Make autonomy safer without blocking productivity Closing: Identity gets you who. Runtime authorization gets you whether/when/how. Copilot Studio can automatically create Entra agent identities (preview), improving identity governance and visibility for agents. But safe autonomy requires a runtime decision plane. Securing that plane as an Entra-protected endpoint is foundational for enterprise deployments. In enterprise environments, autonomous execution without runtime authorization is equivalent to privileged access without PIM—powerful, fast, and operationally risky.An Entra app credential is expiring. Which workload still uses it?
A credential rotation ticket often starts with three things: an application name, an expiry date and a deadline. That is enough to know something must happen, but not enough to rotate safely. Before touching the credential, I want to know whether that exact key is still requesting tokens, which resources it accesses and where those requests appear to come from. If Microsoft Entra sign-in logs are already connected to Log Analytics or Microsoft Sentinel, KQL can answer most of that without changing anything in the tenant. This is the workflow I use. What needs to be in the workspace The important diagnostic category is ServicePrincipalSignInLogs. In Log Analytics it becomes the AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs table. Normal SigninLogs are for interactive user sign-ins and are not the right data source for an app authenticating with its own secret or certificate. The diagnostic setting is configured under: Microsoft Entra ID > Monitoring & health > Diagnostic settings Make sure ServicePrincipalSignInLogs is being sent to the workspace you are querying. Microsoft documents the available log categories and their purpose here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/identity/monitoring-health/concept-diagnostic-settings-logs-options From the Entra recommendation or the affected application, copy the Application (client) ID. Do not confuse it with the application object ID or the service principal object ID. In the Kusto table: AppId is the Application (client) ID. ServicePrincipalId is the object ID of the service principal in the tenant. ServicePrincipalCredentialKeyId identifies the secret or certificate key used for the token request. ServicePrincipalCredentialThumbprint can help identify a certificate. ResourceDisplayName and ResourceServicePrincipalId identify the target resource. Those fields are part of the documented AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs schema: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/reference/tables/aadserviceprincipalsigninlogs Step 1: See every credential recently used by the application Replace TargetAppId with the Application (client) ID from Entra: let Lookback = 30d; let TargetAppId = "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000"; AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs | where TimeGenerated >= ago(Lookback) | extend SignInTime = coalesce(CreatedDateTime, TimeGenerated) | where SignInTime >= ago(Lookback) | where AppId =~ TargetAppId | extend SignInSucceeded = tostring(ResultType) == "0" | summarize FirstSeen = min(SignInTime), LastSeen = max(SignInTime), Attempts = count(), SuccessfulSignIns = countif(SignInSucceeded), FailedSignIns = countif(SignInSucceeded == false), CredentialTypes = make_set(ClientCredentialType, 10), SourceIPs = make_set(IPAddress, 20), UserAgents = make_set(UserAgent, 10), TargetResources = make_set( strcat(ResourceDisplayName, " [", ResourceServicePrincipalId, "]"), 20 ) by AppId, ServicePrincipalId, ServicePrincipalName, ServicePrincipalCredentialKeyId, ServicePrincipalCredentialThumbprint, FederatedCredentialId | order by LastSeen desc This gives me a short usage map for the application. If the expiring credential's key ID appears in the result, that exact credential was used for at least one recorded token request during the selected lookback period. The target resources show what it requested a token for. Source IPs and user agents usually help narrow down the workload. They are clues, not host identification. A source IP might be a NAT gateway, proxy or shared outbound address, and user-agent strings are neither guaranteed nor trustworthy. I use them to narrow the search in deployment settings, automation jobs, Key Vault references and CI/CD configuration, not as final proof of where the workload runs. Rows with a populated FederatedCredentialId represent workload identity federation. They should not be mistaken for use of the expiring secret or certificate. Step 2: Inspect the exact credential Once the expiring key ID is known, this query shows the individual sign-in records for that key: let Lookback = 30d; let TargetAppId = "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000"; let ExpiringCredentialKeyId = "11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111"; AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs | where TimeGenerated >= ago(Lookback) | extend SignInTime = coalesce(CreatedDateTime, TimeGenerated) | where SignInTime >= ago(Lookback) | where AppId =~ TargetAppId | where ServicePrincipalCredentialKeyId =~ ExpiringCredentialKeyId | extend Result = iff(tostring(ResultType) == "0", "Success", "Failure") | project SignInTime, Result, ResultType, ResultDescription, ServicePrincipalName, ServicePrincipalId, ClientCredentialType, ServicePrincipalCredentialKeyId, ServicePrincipalCredentialThumbprint, IPAddress, UserAgent, ResourceDisplayName, ResourceServicePrincipalId, CorrelationId | order by SignInTime desc A successful row is direct evidence that Entra accepted that credential for a token request at that time. Repeated failures can also be useful: they might show an incomplete rotation, an expired credential that is still configured somewhere, or a forgotten workload that keeps retrying. No rows do not mean "safe to delete." They only mean that no matching event exists in the data currently available to this workspace for the selected period. The workload might run monthly, the event might be outside retention, the diagnostic category might have been enabled recently, or the relevant logs might be routed elsewhere. The table also does not contain the application's business owner. I confirm ownership on the application or enterprise application in Entra, or enrich the result from an existing CMDB or Sentinel watchlist. I would not invent an owner from the last source IP or from whoever originally created the app. Step 3: Prove the replacement is actually in use After adding the replacement credential and updating the workload, I use the cutover time plus the old and new key IDs to verify the change: let CutoverTime = datetime(2026-08-26T12:00:00Z); let TargetAppId = "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000"; let OldCredentialKeyId = "11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111"; let NewCredentialKeyId = "22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222"; AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs | where TimeGenerated >= CutoverTime | extend SignInTime = coalesce(CreatedDateTime, TimeGenerated) | where SignInTime >= CutoverTime | where AppId =~ TargetAppId | where ServicePrincipalCredentialKeyId in~ (OldCredentialKeyId, NewCredentialKeyId) | extend Credential = case( ServicePrincipalCredentialKeyId =~ OldCredentialKeyId, "old", ServicePrincipalCredentialKeyId =~ NewCredentialKeyId, "new", "other" ) | where Credential != "other" | summarize FirstSeen = min(SignInTime), LastSeen = max(SignInTime), Attempts = count(), SuccessfulSignIns = countif(tostring(ResultType) == "0"), FailedSignIns = countif(tostring(ResultType) != "0"), SourceIPs = make_set(IPAddress, 20), TargetResources = make_set(ResourceDisplayName, 20) by Credential, ServicePrincipalCredentialKeyId | order by LastSeen desc Before I remove the old credential, I want to see a successful token request with the new key ID after the cutover. I also run a real operation against the intended resource. A generic process health check is not enough if it never exercises the dependency that uses Entra authentication. Continued sign-ins with the old key after the cutover are a clear sign that another instance, deployment slot or workload still has the old value. An absence of old-key sign-ins becomes meaningful only after the expected workload schedule has been covered and the logs have arrived in the workspace. One final trap is token caching. Service principal sign-in logs show token requests, not every API call made with a token. Removing the old client credential prevents it from obtaining new tokens, but an access token already issued by Microsoft Entra normally remains valid until it expires. The rotation test must therefore force the workload to acquire a fresh token. Access token documentation: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/identity-platform/access-tokens My rotation order is simple: Identify the exact old credential and the workload using it. Add the replacement while the old credential is still valid. Deploy the new credential to the workload's secret store. Force a fresh token request and execute a real operation. Confirm the new key ID in AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs. Watch for unexpected use of the old key for an appropriate period. Remove the old credential after the evidence and rollback window are sufficient for that workload. Microsoft Entra's preview recommendations for expiring application credentials and expiring service principal credentials are useful starting points. For me, the KQL correlation is the part that turns the warning into a controlled change instead of a blind rotation. Recommendation documentation: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/identity/monitoring-health/recommendation-renew-expiring-application-credential https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/identity/monitoring-health/recommendation-renew-expiring-service-principal-credential How are you carrying application ownership into Sentinel? A maintained watchlist works, but it can easily become just another stale inventory.Ask Microsoft Anything: Why Cybersecurity Needs a New Security Stack for the AI Era with David Weston
David Weston leads Agentic Security at Microsoft, where he and his team build the AI models, autonomous agents, and evaluation systems redefining how defenders operate. At Microsoft since the Windows 7 era, he has worked across exploit mitigation design, malware analysis, APT research, and led security engineering for Windows, Xbox, Azure OS, and Microsoft's Offensive Security Research & Engineering group. His current work is leading teams training frontier security models, agentic security systems for defenders, and pushing AI-driven vulnerability discovery through Microsoft's Multi-Model Agentic Scanning Harness (MDASH). A longtime member of the research community and former CISA technical advisor, David is a regular presenter at BlueHat, Black Hat, and DEF CON. Key areas Dave and his team can discuss: The vision behind Project Perception How AI is changing the economics of cyber offense and defense Lessons learned from building MDASH and Microsoft's AI security initiatives Security-first AI development and deployment What's next for defenders as agentic systems become mainstream This will be a TEXT-BASED AMA, so ask your questions in the comment section down below and David and team will be answering via comment replies during the live hour!
Need Microsoft support to resolve a historical tenant association with a domain I recently acquired
Hello, I recently became the legitimate and independent registrant of a domain that had previously been owned or used by an unrelated organization. I have no affiliation whatsoever with the previous domain holder or that organization. I have now received a Microsoft Power Platform notification at an email address under my domain concerning a Default environment belonging to the previous organization. The notification includes a Tenant ID and Environment ID, and the environment name corresponds to that organization. I do not own, administer, or have access to this tenant or Power Platform environment, and I am not seeking access to or control over it. My main concern is that there may still be a historical association between my domain or its email addresses and the previous organization's Microsoft tenant or related services. I would like Microsoft to investigate this and, where necessary, properly separate my domain and its email addresses from any unrelated historical Microsoft accounts, tenants, directories, or services. Most importantly, I want to ensure that this historical association will not adversely affect my ability in the future to use my domain and its business email addresses to create, verify, and use my own Microsoft 365, Microsoft Entra, Power Platform, or other Microsoft business services. At present, I do not have a Microsoft business account, Microsoft 365 tenant, or Power Platform tenant of my own. As a result, I appear to be unable to use some of the normal business support channels that require an existing tenant or administrator account. Could someone please advise me on the appropriate way to get this matter reviewed by Microsoft Support? If a Microsoft employee or official support representative can assist or direct me to the appropriate private support channel, I would greatly appreciate it. For privacy and security reasons, I have intentionally not posted the actual domain name, email address, Tenant ID, or Environment ID publicly. I am happy to provide all of the relevant details privately to an authorized Microsoft support representative if required. Thank you for any guidance.
Group-Based Licensing (E3 → Business Premium): MutuallyExclusiveViolation – Months Unresolved
We operate a Microsoft 365 environment with Entra ID, Intune, and Exchange Online. For months, we have been dealing with a critical issue that remains unresolved to this day — despite an active Microsoft Support ticket. The Technical Problem: During the migration of approximately 87 user accounts from Microsoft 365 E3 to Business Premium (SPB) via group-based licensing in Entra ID, all affected accounts receive a MutuallyExclusiveViolation error. Microsoft's backend treats E3 and Business Premium as mutually exclusive, blocking the SPB assignment — despite sufficient licenses being available. A sequential approach (removing E3 first, then assigning Business Premium) is not an acceptable solution: a test run proved that this causes a complete loss of Exchange Online access. For a rollout across 87 productive user accounts, this is not viable. What is required is a seamless, atomic license swap at the backend level — exclusively via group-based licensing. The Support Problem: Two support engineers assigned — zero technical progress. Instead of a substantive solution, we received standard documentation steps that do not address the actual problem. A false resolution notice was issued — the issue had demonstrably not been resolved. Our own PowerShell tests (Get-MgUser, Get-MgSubscribedSku) and CSV exports from the Entra ID portal disproved this conclusively. Committed updates from the Engineering Team were not delivered. Instead, automatically generated follow-up emails were sent with no substantive relation to the ongoing case. An additional unexplained behavior: a test user appears in the error report of a license group they were never added to — a further backend inconsistency that has not been investigated. Current Status: The ticket has been open for months. 87 user accounts cannot be migrated to Business Premium. An escalation to the Team Manager has been initiated. No resolution is in sight. My Question to the Community: Has anyone experienced a similar issue with MutuallyExclusiveViolation in group-based licensing (E3 → Business Premium)? Is there a known workaround or an official Microsoft statement on this? Ticket Reference: #2604241410000669Unexpected button behaviour when using the prompt=create parameter in Entra External ID user flows
Hi, In a recent workload, I'm assisting a client to implement Entra External ID for streamlined authorization as well as single sign-on for associated registered external facing third-party applications for external customer users through their Entra External ID identity, as well as assisting the client with auth branding and other UI customizations, and preparing Entra ID federation custom OIDC providers and configuration for enabling SSO with organizational internal and remote work- and school accounts etc. The sign-up / create account experience is of importance to the client, as a rather substantial amount of users are expected to sign-up via self-service sign-up following having received an invite via another app. To ensure that the user lands on the create account view, in order to minimize the number of steps and actions the users need to take to get there, the prompt=create parameter is used to pre-select the sign-up/register experience in the user flows UI. Having stress-tested the user flows and experience recently, we noticed that in a specific scenario, some UI elements behave in a manner that could be described as unexpected, and even though a workaround has mitigated it to some extent, the behaviour of some elements could probably be improved a bit to ensure an even more consistent user experience in the built-in user flows. Specifically, if the user flow is invoked with the prompt parameter set, the user lands on the create account screen as expected, however, unless custom CSS modification is applied, the Back button that would typically be there, as if having arrived there from the initial sign-in screen where it’s also displayed. If pressing the Back button displayed on the Create account view when having navigated there with the prompt=create set in the /authorize request, pressing the button seemingly doesn’t have any impact or result in any action, one can click it, but nothing happens. I'd suspect it's perhaps a "remnant" from if the flow is invoked without any prompt parameter set, or with prompt=login set, but when prompt=create is set, there is no state/page history in the UI to navigate back to, as no previous page has been displayed or rendered yet and added to the history, and the Back button click thus doesn’t have any effect. In general, I think buttons that don't have any tangible action should not be displayed, also, if prompt=login is set, the Back button isn't shown then either on the very initial user flow view shown then, so it would seem the built-in user flows actually already follow such approach in fact, but not when the prompt=create has been set, thus causing some inconsistency in the UI that users could notice unless custom CSS styling is applied. The expected behaviour for our business case would be that if prompt=create is set, then, similar to the prompt=login, no Back button should be displayed, or, if shown, it should result in some navigation (perhaps something like javascript.go(-1), but that could/would be dependent on from where the user arrived, e.g., going back a step in the browser history won't work if the user clicked a link from an invite email ) and preferably not be non-actionable. Furthermore, on the topic of the Back button and its behaviour when the prompt=create parameter is set, there is another case at which we observed some unexpected button behaviour as well, that could probably benefit from some attention. At a specific second scenario, it seems that the Continue button is displayed without providing any action, and when clicking the Back button then, clicking it seemingly resets the "create account", state likely set by the prompt=create initially, and instead switches the flow back to the sign-in state, which can at least affect the display text of some subsequent buttons shown in later steps in the UI. The user arrives at a built-in Entra External ID user flow /authorize endpoint, with the prompt=create query parameter set The user triggers the OTP challenge by entering an email address to verify the email address The user receives the OTP code but enters it incorrectly, i.e., doesn't copy the full code length of eight digits, and instead enters/pastes six of the eight code digits. The UI then shows an error message that the code could not be used/validated, and the email address field is displayed again with the email address that was used for the verification attempt prefilled. If the user clicks the Continue button at this stage, nothing happens. If the user clicks the Back button instead (given that it’s not hidden), it shows the same view one more time, with the Back and Continue buttons at the bottom. However, if the user clicks the Continue button this time, it works and a new code is sent. On the next screen, where the newly sent code can be entered, instead of a button named "Continue", it will now instead show a button with the text "Sign-in" (it would seem like the create account state has gotten lost somewhere along the way at this point, perhaps when the back button in the step 5 above was pressed). If one omits the prompt=create parameter, or when using prompt=login, things seem to work fine, the above occurs when the prompt=create is set. The reason why is the prompt=create is used is due to a business requirement to try to minimize the steps, especially in conjunction with the registration/sign-up, as far a possible when signing up. We have opted for the built-in user flows, not the self-hosted native authentication UI pages, for this project, and then as I understand it, it is the prompt=create parameter that can/should be used to enable the user to land directly on the registration page without having to navigate there manually via the sign-up link, that is otherwise shown on the initial sign-in page. It would thus be great if the prompt=create parameter could have some attention (or perhaps if a dedicated sign-up user flow type could be added potentially, even though that would perhaps warrant some update to the user flow app linking as well, as my understanding is that one user flow can be linked to one app registration at a time currently) to avoid that some buttons become unresponsive when the parameter is used, or falls back to sign-in, to improve the built-in user flows further, as the prompt=create fulfils the business requirement well otherwise. If there would be any further/follow-up questions on the above, e.g., to clarify the requirement, or further explain the reproduction steps and behaviour observed, or anything else, please tell, and I'll ensure to get back as soon as possible. Also, would someone have some input on potential other/additional ways to pre-select the create account/sign-up experience, that would naturally be much appreciated as well, thanks! Regards KristofferAuthentication Context (Entra ID) Use case
Microsoft Entra ID has evolved rapidly over the last few years, with Microsoft continuously introducing new identity, access, and security capabilities as part of the broader Zero Trust strategy. While many organizations hold the necessary Entra ID and Microsoft 365 licenses (often through E3 or E5 bundles), a number of these advanced features remain under‑utilised or entirely unused. This is frequently due to limited awareness, overlapping capabilities or uncertainty about where and how these features provide real architectural value. One such capability which is not frequently used is Authentication Context. Although this feature is available for quite some time, it is often misunderstood or overlooked because it does not behave like traditional Conditional Access controls. Consider Authentication Context as a mobile “assurance tag” that connects a resource (or a particular access route to that resource) to one or several Conditional Access (CA) policies, allowing security measures to be enforced with resource-specific accuracy instead of broad, application-wide controls. Put simply, it permits step-up authentication only when users access sensitive information or perform critical actions, while maintaining a smooth experience for the “regular path.” When used intentionally, it enables resource‑level and scenario‑driven access control, allowing organizations to apply stronger authentication only where it is actually needed without increasing friction across the entire user experience. Not expensive Most importantly to use Authentication Context the minimum licensing requirement is Microsoft Entra ID Premium P1 which most customers already have this license. so you not need to convenience for higher license to utilize this feature. But do note Entra Premium 2 is needed if your Conditional Access policy uses advanced signals, such as: User or sign‑in risk (Identity Protection) Privileged Identity Management (PIM) protected roles Risk‑based Conditional Access policies The Workflow Architecturally, Authentication Context works when a claims request is made as part of token issuance commonly expressed via the acrs claim. When the request includes a specific context (for example c1), Entra evaluates CA policies that target that context and forces the required controls (MFA, device compliance, trusted location, etc.). The important constraint: the context must be requested/triggered by a supported workload (e.g., SharePoint) or by an application designed to request the claim; it is not an automatic “detect any action inside any app” feature. Lets look at few high level architecture reference 1. Define “assurance tiers” as contexts Create a small set of contexts (e.g., c1: Confidential Access, c2: Privileged Operations) and publish them for use by supported apps/services. 2. Bind contexts to resources Assign the context to the resource boundary you want to protect—most commonly SharePoint sites (directly or via sensitivity labels), so only those sites trigger the context. (e.g - Specific SharePoint sites like financials, agreements etc ) 3. Attach Conditional Access policies to the context Create CA policies that target the context and define enforcement requirements (Additional MFA strength, mandating device compliance, or location constraint through named locations etc.). The context is the “switch” that activates those policies at the right moment. 4. Validate runtime behavior and app compatibility Because authentication context can impact some client apps and flows, validate supported clients and known limitations (especially for SharePoint/OneDrive/Teams integrations). Some Practical Business Scenarios Scenario A — Confidential SharePoint Sites (M&A / Legal / HR) Problem: You want stronger controls for a subset of SharePoint sites without forcing those controls for all SharePoint access. Architect pattern: Tag the confidential site(s) with Authentication Context and apply a CA policy requiring stronger auth (e.g., compliant device + MFA) for that context. Pre-reqs: SharePoint Online support for authentication context; appropriate licensing and admin permissions; CA policies targeted to the context Scenario B — “Step-up” Inside a Custom Line-of-Business App Problem: Users can access the app normally, but certain operations (approval, export, privileged view) need elevated assurance. Architect pattern: Build the app on OpenID Connect/OAuth2 and explicitly request the authentication context (via acrs) when the user reaches the sensitive path; CA then enforces step-up. Pre-reqs: App integrated with Microsoft identity platform using OIDC/OAuth2; the app can trigger claims requests/handle claim challenges where applicable; CA policies defined for the context Scenario C — Granular “Resource-based” Zero Trust Without Blanket MFA Problem: Security wants strong controls on crown jewels, but business wants minimal prompts for routine work. Architect pattern: Use authentication context to enforce higher assurance only for protected resources (e.g., sensitive SharePoint sites). This provides least privilege at the resource boundary while reducing global friction. Pre-reqs: Clearly defined resource classification; authentication context configured and published; CA policies and monitoring. In a nutshell, Authentication Context allows organizations to move beyond broad, one‑size‑fits‑all Conditional Access policies and adopt a more precise, resource‑driven security model. By using it to link sensitive resources or protected access paths to stronger authentication requirements, organizations can improve security outcomes while minimizing unnecessary user friction. When applied deliberately and aligned to business‑critical assets, Authentication Context helps close the gap between licensing capability and real‑world value—turning underused Entra ID features into practical, scalable Zero Trust controls. If you find this useful, please do not forget to like and add your thoughts 🙂
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.
Verifying domain name issue
We're trying to verify our custom domain in Entra ID, but it turns out the domain is already claimed on another tenant that we have no access to (unknown account, no admin credentials). Because of that, verification on our own tenant fails. Normally the fix for a claimed-domain conflict is to open a support request so Microsoft can help release it. The problem: doing that requires a support plan, and purchasing one doesn't work for us. "payment" always succeeds and we dont get an error, but we don't get charged and the account status doesn't change, we have nothing more to go on. So we're stuck in a loop: we need support to release the domain, but we can't buy the support plan needed to reach support. Has anyone dealt with a domain claimed on an inaccessible tenant? And is there another route to Microsoft support when the support plan purchase itself fails?
