microsoft purview
82 TopicsWorkaround Enabling Purview Data Quality & Profiling for Cross-Tenant Microsoft Fabric Assets
The Challenge: Cross-Tenant Data Quality Blockers Like many of you, I have been managing a complex architecture where Microsoft Purview sits in Tenant A and Microsoft Fabric resides in Tenant B. While we can achieve basic metadata scanning (with some configuration), I hit a hard wall when trying to enable Data Quality (DQ) scanning. Purview's native Data Quality scan for Fabric currently faces limitations in cross-tenant scenarios, preventing us from running Profiling or applying DQ Rules directly on the remote Delta tables. The Experiment: "Governance Staging" Architecture rather than waiting for a native API fix, I conducted an experiment to bridge this gap using a "Data Staging" approach. The goal was to bring the data's "physicality" into the same tenant as Purview to unlock the full DQ engine. The Solution Steps: Data Movement (Tenant B to Tenant A): Inside the Fabric Workspace (Tenant B), I created a Fabric Data Pipeline. I used this to export the critical Delta Tables as Parquet files to an ADLS Gen2 account located in Tenant A (the same tenant as Purview). Note: You can schedule this to run daily to keep the "Governance Copy" fresh. Native Scanning (Tenant A): I registered this ADLS Gen2 account as a source in Purview. Because both Purview and the ADLS account are in the same tenant, the scan was seamless, instantaneous, and required no complex authentication hurdles. Activating Data Quality: Once the Parquet files were scanned, I attached these assets to a Data Product in the Purview Data Governance portal. The Results: The results were immediate and successful. Because the data now resides on a fully supported, same-tenant ADLS Gen2 surface: ✅ Data Profiling: I could instantly see column statistics, null distributions, and value patterns. ✅ DQ Rules: I was able to apply custom logic and business rules to the data. ✅ Scans: The DQ scan ran successfully, generating a Data Quality Score for our Fabric data. Conclusion: While we await native cross-tenant "Live View" support for DQ in Fabric, this workaround works today. It allows you to leverage the full power of Microsoft Purview's Data Quality engine immediately. If you are blocked by tenant boundaries, I highly recommend setting up a lightweight "Governance Staging" container in your primary tenant. Has anyone else experimented with similar staging patterns for Governance? Let's discuss below.Solved147Views2likes3CommentsObjects in a Retention Policy populated by Adaptive Scopes
I need a way to get all users in a retention policy that is populated by an adaptive scope. I can get all the members of the scope, and I can show that the policy uses that adaptive scope. But I know my audience. They will want to see that the users are actually in the policy. They will probably even want to see that it matches the users in the adaptive scope. In the GUI, I can click on an adaptive retention policy and click on "policy details". This will show all the users that the policy applies to and the date/time they were added, if they were removed from the policy, etc. And I can even export that. How can I get this same information via PowerShell? It's going to be important because, as you can see, there's a big difference in the date/time added. they were all in the adaptive scope BEFORE this policy was created, but it still took nearly 24 hours for all users to be added. Which is fine, and typical, but if a user gets added to the adaptive scope and does not have the policy applied to them within 24 hours, we need to know this. The goal is as much automation as possible, with checks and balances in place. Checks and balances require gathering information. That's going to require getting this information via PowerShell.111Views0likes6CommentsCan´t Sign confidential documents
Hello, I have a problem. I want to send confidential contracts to customers for signing with Adobe DocuSign. This contracts have a label "confidential" from purview and are encrypted. But now the customer cant sign the contract with DocuSign because of the encryption. Is there a way that they can sign the document? We must encrypt the documents because compliance reasons and ISMS. Thank you.29Views1like0CommentsLabel group migration - existing files labelled with former parent labels
Hi, I have a question about behavior during migration from legacy parent labels to label groups. Historically, we were allowed to apply parent labels directly to content. In our environment, we have an existing parent label called PUBLIC which has sublabels. PUBLIC itself has content encryption configured, so during migration it will be recreated as a sublabel within a label group. As a result, there are existing files that are currently labelled simply as PUBLIC (applied back when parent labels could be used directly). Post-migration, we plan to de-publish this newly created PUBLIC sublabel from user-facing policies. My question is about what happens to those existing files during and after the migration. Will files that are already labelled as PUBLIC automatically be updated to a specific label within the label group, such as PUBLIC/PUBLIC, or will they remain labelled as PUBLIC with no automatic relabelling? In other words, does the label group migration perform any automatic relabelling of existing content, or does it only affect label structure and publication going forward?17Views0likes0CommentsJustification not triggered when downgrading between sublabels under same parent label
Hi all, I am looking for confirmation of expected behaviour with Microsoft Purview sensitivity labels and justification. We have justification enabled in our sensitivity label policy. When a user changes a label between labels that belong to the same label group, no justification prompt appears. When a user changes from a label in one label group to a label in a different label group, the justification prompt does appear as expected. Is this behavior by design? Specifically, does Microsoft treat the label group as the enforcement boundary for downgrade justification, meaning justification is not evaluated when moving between labels within the same group, even if effective protection is reduced? If this is expected, is there any supported way to require justification when downgrading between labels in the same label group? Thank you!22Views0likes0CommentsGuidance: Sensitivity Labels during Mergers & Acquisitions (separate tenants, non-M365, etc.)
We’re building an internal playbook for how to handle Microsoft Purview sensitivity labels during mergers and acquisitions, and I’d really appreciate any lessons learned or best practices. Specifically, I’m interested in how others have handled: Acquired organizations on a separate Microsoft 365/O365 tenant for an extended period (pre- and post-close): How did you handle “Internal Only” content when the two tenants couldn’t fully trust each other yet? Any tips to reduce friction for collaboration between tenants during the transition? Existing label structures, such as: We use labels like “All Internal Only” and labels with user-defined permissions — has anyone found good patterns for mapping or reconciling these with another company’s labels? What if the acquired company is already using sensitivity labels with a different taxonomy? How did you rationalize or migrate them? Acquisitions where the target does not use Microsoft 365 (for example, Google Workspace, on-prem, or other platforms): Any strategies for protecting imported content with labels during or after migration? Gotchas around legacy permissions versus label-based protections? General pitfalls or watch-outs between deal close and full migration: Anything you wish you had known before your first M&A with Purview labels in play? Policies or configurations you’d recommend setting (or avoiding) during the interim period? Any examples, war stories, or template approaches you’re willing to share would be incredibly helpful as we shape our playbook. Thanks in advance for any insights!42Views0likes0CommentsPurview Unified Catalogue Gov Domains Numeric Prefixing
Has Anyone Tried Numeric Prefixing for Governance Domains in Purview? Context: We introduced a structured numeric prefixing system for governance domains in Microsoft Purview to make hierarchical sorting more intuitive. What we did: Parent domains use a base prefix ending in .00 (e.g., 02.00 Group). Child domains are numbered sequentially (e.g., 02.01 Directorate, 02.01.01 Team). Why: Purview sorts domains alphabetically, which caused child domains (e.g., 02.01) to appear above their parent (02 Group). Adding .00 ensures parents always sort before children, creating a clear hierarchy. How it works: All already have 01.00- Top-level groups: 02.00 Directorates: 02.01, 02.02 Teams/Units: 02.01.01 This approach guarantees correct sorting, clear hierarchy, and scalability for future additions? Question for the community: Has anyone else implemented a similar numeric prefixing approach in Purview? Do you think this is a good idea for maintaining clarity and scalability? Any alternative strategies you’ve found effective?Solved64Views1like1CommentAggregate alerts not showing up for Email DLP
Hi, I’m unable to see the “Aggregate alerts” option while configuring an Email DLP policy, although the same option is visible for Endpoint DLP. The available license is Microsoft 365 E5 Information Protection and DLP (add-on). If this is a licensing limitation, why am I still able to see the option for Endpoint DLP but not for Email DLP? Screen short showing option for Endpoint DLP alertsSolved61Views0likes2CommentsTest DLP Policy: On-Prem
We have DLP policies based on SIT and it is working well for various locations such as Sharepoint, Exchange and Endpoint devices. But the DLP policy for On-Prem Nas shares is not matching when used with Microsoft Information Protection Scanner. DLP Rule: Conditions Content contains any of these sensitive info types: Credit Card Number U.S. Bank Account Number U.S. Driver's License Number U.S. Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) U.S. Social Security Number (SSN) The policy is visible to the Scanner and it is being logged as being executed MSIP.Lib MSIP.Scanner (30548) Executing policy: Data Discovery On-Prem, policyId: 85........................ and the MIP reports are listing files with these SITs The results Information Type Name - Credit Card Number U.S. Social Security Number (SSN) U.S. Bank Account Number Action - Classified Dlp Mode -- Test Dlp Status -- Skipped Dlp Comment -- No match There is no other information in logs. Why is the DLP policy not matching and how can I test the policy ? thanks68Views0likes1CommentData Quality Error (Internal Service Error)
I am facing an issue while running the DQ scan, when i tried doing manual scan and scheduled scans both time i faced Internal Service Error. ( DataQualityInternalError Internal service error occurred .Please retry or contact Microsoft support ) Data Profiling is running successfully but for none of the asset, DQ is working. After the lineage patch which MS had fixed, they had introduced Custom SQL option to create a rule, and after that only i am facing this issue. Is anyone else also facing the same? I tried with different data sources (ADLS, and Synapse) its same for both. If anyone has an idea, do share it here, it will be helpful.57Views0likes1Comment