Best practices: Open OneDrive/SharePoint sharing but restrict Teams guest access by domain
Hi all, Since SharePoint Online and OneDrive retired OTP-based external sharing in favor of Microsoft Entra B2B, we've run into a policy conflict and would like to hear how others are handling it. Our requirements: Enable OneDrive/SharePoint file sharing with external users, even if their email domain is not on any allowlist (ad-hoc sharing with clients, partners, one-off recipients) Restrict Microsoft Teams guest membership to a defined list of approved partner domains Keep Teams external access (federated chat/meetings) working with external users from all domains The problem: Teams guests, SharePoint guests, and OneDrive guests all go through the same Microsoft Entra B2B invitation framework, governed by the single "Collaboration restrictions" domain allow/deny list under External Identities > External collaboration settings. This means we can't set a stricter domain list for Teams guest / Entra ID invitations while keeping OneDrive/SharePoint sharing open to any domain, since it's the same policy for both. We confirmed this is expected/by-design behavior via Microsoft Q&A (Microsoft engineer's answer here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/5954975/onedrive-external-sharing-no-longer-working-with-a) Our current plan is to: Set Collaboration restrictions to "Allow invitations to be sent to any domain" Keep Teams External Access open to all domains (federation is separate from guest access, so this doesn't affect it) Compensate for Teams guest access using a Conditional Access policy that blocks Microsoft Teams sign-in for guest accounts that are not members of a dynamic security group scoped to our approved partner domains, while leaving SharePoint/OneDrive untouched (CA policy target resource = Microsoft Teams only) Before we implement this, we'd like to ask the community: Has anyone solved this differently, e.g., via Entra Entitlement Management / Access Packages with Connected Organizations, without needing to maintain a dynamic group? Are there any known limitations or edge cases with scoping a Conditional Access policy to "Microsoft Teams" specifically (vs. "Office 365" as a whole) that we should be aware of? Is there any roadmap item for per-workload domain restrictions within Collaboration restrictions (i.e., separate policies for Teams guest invitations vs. SharePoint/OneDrive guest invitations)? Any real-world experience or best practices would be very much appreciated. Thanks!
Entra ID External - Custom Claims Provider help
Hi, I'm working with Entra ID External identities, trying to get a 'Token Issuance Start' event in a Custom Claims Provider working correctly. I've got all the pieces in place (SPA, web api with endpoint set and configured, app registrations, basic login working successfully, etc). I just can't get the claims provider to call my claims endpoint. Tried so many different ways, get all different errors, all kinds of hours with and without ChatGPT, and still not working. I'm to the point where I'm ready to pay a consultant to help me get past this. But I'm just a solo dev working on a personal side project, I can't call an enterprise consulting company asking for an hour or two on a Zoom call, they don't deal with such miniscule jobs, at least none that I've called. I'm well past the point of making a stack overflow post or something like that, I need a one-on-one with someone familiar with Entra ID custom claims providers for External identities. But I'm guessing most folks with that knowledge are working for some big consulting firm that won't give me the time of day. Can anyone suggest a small company that could help me, or maybe a place to post online for someone that might want to make a few bucks moonlighting on the side? I'm not looking for a handout, I'll pay a reasonable rate, I just can't afford (and pretty sure I won't need) more than a couple hours. If anyone knows of some site (or anyone interested yourself) please let me know, I'd be forever grateful, I'm at my wits end :) Thanks, Andy
Am trying to create group with dynamic user membership using attribute "Employee Type"
Am trying to create group with dynamic user membership using attribute "Employee Type", tried to get details from Extension attribute but didn't find any option, Did anyone tried this and able to do ? I found a posting where it said to create a custom attribute that would be populated by the 'employee Type' field. That just seems a little strange to me to to create an attribute to be exactly like the one that is already there.
Can External ID (CIAM) federate to an Azure AD/Entra ID tenant using SAML?
What I'm trying to achieve I'm setting up SAML federation FROM my External ID tenant (CIAM) TO a partner's Entra ID tenant (regular organizational tenant) for a hybrid CIAM/B2B setup where: Business users authenticate via their corporate accounts (OIDC or SAML) Individual customers use username/password or social providers (OIDC) Tenant details / Terminology: CIAM tenant: External ID tenant for customer-facing applications IdP tenant: Example Partner's organizational Entra ID tenant with business accounts Custom domain: mycustomdomain.com (example domain for the IdP tenant) Configuration steps taken Step 1: IdP Tenant (Entra ID) - Created SAML App Set up Enterprise App with SAML SSO Entity ID: https://login.microsoftonline.com/<CIAM_TENANT_ID>/ Reply URL: https://<CIAM_TENANT_ID>.ciamlogin.com/login.srf NameID: Persistent format Claim mapping: emailaddress → user.mail Step 2: CIAM Tenant (External ID) - Added SAML IdP (Initially imported from the SAML metadata URL from the above setup) Federating domain: mycustomdomain.com Issuer URI: https://sts.windows.net/<IDP_TENANT_ID>/ Passive endpoint: https://login.microsoftonline.com/mycustomdomain.com/saml2 DNS TXT record added: DirectFedAuthUrl=https://login.microsoftonline.com/mycustomdomain.com/saml2 Step 3: Attached to User Flow Added SAML IdP to user flow under "Other identity providers" Saved configuration and waited for propagation The problem It doesn't work. When testing via "Run user flow": No SAML button appears (should display "Sign in with mycustomdomain") Entering email address removed for privacy reasons doesn't trigger federation The SAML provider appears configured but never shows up in the actual flow Also tried using the tenant GUID in the passive endpoint instead of the domain - same result My question Is SAML federation from External ID to regular Entra ID tenants actually possible? I know OIDC federation to Microsoft tenants is (currently, august 2025) explicitly blocked (microsoftonline.com domains are rejected). Is SAML similarly restricted? The portal lets me configure everything without throwing any errors, but it never actually works. Am I missing something in my configuration? The documentation for this use case is limited and I've had to piece together the setup from various sources. Or is this a fundamental limitation where External ID simply can't federate to ANY Microsoft tenant regardless of the protocol used?
Global Secure Access - Deleted Appliction still applies (and cannot be recreated)
Hello everyone, we currently face an issue with Global Secure Access - Private Access - Enterprise applications. An admin has delete and tried to recreate an enterprise application. When he tried added the ip address and the port he got an error, that this rule is already within another app. The link led to an "empty" app. It was found that under "app registrations" the previously deleted applicaiton is still there and it was permanently deleted. However the problem stays. If we try a connection to the ip address and port which was specified in the deleted policy, we can see an error in the GSA Event Log on the Client: Could not authenticate using a cached token... Error: 9, Message: IncorrectConfiguration {"Description":"V2Error: invalid_resource AADSTS500011: The resource principal named <id of the deleted application> was not found in the tenant named <ourTenant>. This can happen if the application has not been installed by the administrator of the tenant or consented to by any user in the tenant. You might have sent your authentication request to the wrong tenant. Unfortunatly, since the application is not permanently deleted, it cannot be restored. We tried to completly disable and reenable private access (in Entra!) but this did not fix the problem. For some reason the deleted policy is stuck in GSA and we have no idea how to get it out.Does Rights Management Service currently support MFA claims from EAM?
We've been testing EAM (external authentication methods) for a few months now as we try to move our Duo configuration away from CA custom controls. I noticed today that when my Outlook (classic) client would not correctly authenticate to Rights Management Service to decrypt OME-protected emails from another org. It tries to open the message, fails to connect to RMS, and opens a copy of the email with the "click here to read the message" spiel. It then throws a "something is wrong with your account" warning in the Outlook client's top right corner. If I try to manually authenticate & let it redirect to Duo's EAM endpoint, it simply fails with an HTTP 400 error. When you close that error, it then presents another error of "No Network Connection. Please check your network settings and try again. [2603]". I can close/reopen Outlook and that warning message in the top right stays suppresses unless I attempt signing into RMS all over again. However.. If I do the same thing and instead use an alternate MFA method (MS Authenticator, for example), it signs in perfectly fine and will decrypt those OME-protected emails on the fly in the Outlook client, as expected. I verified that we excluded "aadrm.com" from SSL inspection and that we're not breaking certificate pinning. So all I can assume at the moment is that Rights Management Service isn't honoring MFA claims from EAM. Any experience/thoughts on this? Thanks in advance!Looking for an on-prem MFA solution for Active Directory and RDP
Hi everyone, We're reviewing options for adding MFA to our on-premises Active Directory environment. Most of our users authenticate with Active Directory, while administrators also use RDP for managing Windows servers. Because part of our infrastructure is isolated from the Internet, we'd prefer an on-premises MFA solution instead of relying on a cloud-only service. Has anyone implemented something similar recently? I'm interested in hearing: Which solution did you choose? How difficult was the deployment? Did you run into any compatibility or performance issues? Is there anything you'd do differently if you were deploying it again? Any real-world experience or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Can the built-in "No account? Create one" link redirect to a custom sign-up page?
I'm using Microsoft Entra External ID with a built-in sign-in/sign-up user flow. On the Microsoft-hosted sign-in page, the "No account? Create one" link always redirects users to the default Entra sign-up page. I already have a custom registration page and would like this built-in link to redirect to my custom URL instead. Is there any supported way to customize the destination of this link in a built-in user flow? If not, could someone confirm whether this behavior is fixed by design? Thanks!Priority Handling in GSA Client Forwarding Profile Rules
Hello, I would like to provide feedback and propose a functional improvement regarding priority control for forwarding rules in Global Secure Access (GSA). In our environment, we are using Microsoft Entra Private Access with a combination of CIDR-based rules and FQDN-based rules. We understand that it is not possible to create Enterprise Applications with overlapping IP address ranges. Based on this limitation, our current operational model is as follows: Administrators create Enterprise Applications using CIDR ranges that broadly cover entire datacenter networks. Access for application owners to specific servers and ports is defined using FQDN-based rules. With this type of configuration, when reviewing the list of rules shown in the GSA Client → Forwarding Profile → Rules tab, we can see that each rule is assigned a Priority, and the rules appear to be evaluated sequentially from top to bottom. From this behavior, it is clear that: DNS rules are evaluated first Enterprise Application rules are evaluated next Quick Access rules are evaluated last However, between CIDR-based Enterprise Application rules and FQDN-based Enterprise Application rules, there does not appear to be a clear or explicit priority model. Instead, the position — and therefore the evaluation order — seems to depend on the order in which the Enterprise Applications were created. As a result, even when we intend to apply a more specific FQDN-based rule for a particular host, the broader CIDR-based administrative rule may be evaluated first. In such cases, access can be unintentionally blocked, preventing us from achieving the intended access control behavior. After understanding this mechanism, we have been working around the issue by carefully controlling the creation order of Enterprise Applications — creating host-specific FQDN-based applications first, followed by broader CIDR-based rules. While this approach avoids the issue, it significantly increases administrative complexity and makes long-term management more difficult. Based on this experience, we would strongly appreciate enhancements such as: The ability to manually control rule evaluation order in the UI, or More intelligent and predictable automatic prioritization between FQDN-based and CIDR-based rules Such improvements would greatly enhance usability, predictability, and maintainability of GSA forwarding rule configurations. Thank you for considering this feedback.
