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?
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!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!
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.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.
Challenges with custom data provided resource reviews
I was thrilled to see the ability to review disconnected applications in Entra, and even more thrilled to see that the permission and its description are available to the reviewer, which addresses a significant gap present in group-based reviews. However, the current decision-tracking approach does not adequately replicate the closed-loop remediation model typically found in traditional IGA access reviews for integrated applications. Requiring reviewers to upload confirmation that revocations have been completed is problematic. This approach does not mitigate the core risk: access may remain in place due to fulfillment errors or be incorrectly retained, and the reviewer may unknowingly validate an inaccurate state. This can lead to a compliance incident or audit finding. A more effective solution would allow reviewers to upload a current export of access data, enabling the review system to reconcile intended revocations against the actual state. Any discrepancies could then be flagged for remediation where revocations were missed or have failed, or for validation where access was revoked and immediately reinstated (e.g., due to reviewer misjudgement), ideally supported by corresponding ticketing or justification. There are currently a lot of gaps in Entra ID access reviews, and while this new feature arguably resolved the worst one, I think it's headed down the wrong path. I am curious about other people's thoughts.Registering user becomes local admin on Joined Devices
This setting works exactly as named, but the confusion is understandable because the privilege is invisible in the places people normally look. Per Microsoft's official docs (assign-local-admin): at the moment of Microsoft Entra join, two principals get added to the local administrators group — the Microsoft Entra Joined Device Local Administrator role and the user performing the join. This happens only during the join operation itself. It's not a directory role assignment, so it won't show up in role assignments, audit logs, or under "Device Administrators" — that's by design. Critically: users aren't directly listed in the local admin group; the privilege is delivered through the Primary Refresh Token (PRT) at sign-in. So: To validate on the device itself, sign in as the user and run whoami /groups — you should see the device-local Administrators SID. If you just changed the setting and want to force re-evaluation, run dsregcmd /refreshprt, then sign out and back in (lock/unlock won't trigger it — you need a fresh PRT, which can take up to ~4 hours to propagate otherwise). This setting only applies to joined devices, not registered (workplace-joined) ones — so your distinction there is correct. The "Manage Additional local administrators on all Microsoft Entra joined devices" link is a separate, tenant-wide mechanism (the same Device Administrator role) — it can't be scoped to specific devices, which is also worth knowing if you're trying to limit blast radius. If you want to stop this going forward for new joins without ripping out existing admins, set "Registering user is added as local administrator" to None, and consider a Windows Autopilot profile or Intune Local Users and Groups policy to manage membership going forward — existing devices won't be retroactively changed.Request to enable preview feature - Face Check with CAP
Dear Microsoft, I am on a business premium plan for my home test tenant. I cannot raise ticket nor do I have an account manager. I know this is in private preview. I would like my tenant to be enabled to test this new Verified ID feature to have "Face Check" in CAP as one of the Grant conditions. tenant id: bc85b508-0107-4472-a49c-fc8cefd4f0d7 Thank you.Orphaned TPM-bound Entra Workplace Join device — no tenant access, backend deletion required
I have a personal Windows device that remains stuck in a TPM-protected Workplace Join to a former Microsoft Entra ID tenant. I no longer have tenant access and am not an admin. Local remediation completed: - dsregcmd /leave executed as SYSTEM - All MS-Organization / AAD certificates removed - Device still reports WorkplaceJoined : YES Azure Support ticket creation fails with: AADSTS160021 – interaction_required Application requested a user session which does not exist. Tenant inaccessible / user not present in tenant. This is an orphaned Entra ID device object. Requesting guidance or escalation for backend deletion. Tenant ID: 99f9b903-8447-4711-a2df-c5bd1ad1adf7 Device ID: f47987f4-a20b-4c34-a5f7-40ab0f593c6c
