Email to external(trusted user) not require verify user Identity(with Google or One-time passcode)
Dear Expert and Community, I am starting with MS Purview - Data Loss Prevention. I have one point to clarify and seek your advise / comment / contribute or sharing good practice regarding with below: - Firstly, we can send email to externally user contain sensitive information, it is encryption or blocked (result: worked as expected). If remail encrypt, the external receiver require verify the Identity via sign in with google acc / with a one time password. - Second: we plan sending email to external user (only trusted user / domain). Is it possible, do not require these scope user reverify their Identity again and again? If yes, how to do it? If not - why? Well appreciated for update and supporting. Thanks,
[HELP]"Action required for browser protections" alert
Hello! I have an Endpoint DLP policy with the Devices location. After multiple scoping changes (device groups, inclusions/exclusions) to narrow it to a specific target group, the alert appeared: Action required for browser protections. One or more policies were not applied in Edge for Business. This could be due to a policy sync issue, lack of required permissions, or an issue with the server. Either resync these policies or contact an admin with the required permissions to resync. After resyncing, you might still see this message for up to 1 day while the system completes the sync and activates protections. The policies were working before. Clicked Resync multiple times, banner disappears briefly, only to return. Please help!
eDiscovery - Issues exploring groups & users related to a hybrid data source
Hi all, first time posting - unusually I could find nothing out there that helped. I work in an organisation has an on-premises domain which syncs to our tenant. I don't manage the domain or the sync, but I'm assured that the settings are vanilla and there are no errors being logged. 99% of our users are hybrid. The tenant is shared across multiple legal entities, so I'm using eDiscovery to fulfil our GDPR subject access requests The issue I am hitting is straightforward. in eDiscovery searches with hybrid users as the data source, I cannot add related objects (manager, direct reports, groups the user is in). The properties are present in Entra, but not visible to Purview, so I'm not investigating sync errors at the moment. For cloud objects, I can see manager, teams, etc. and it works fine. Does anyone have any insights they can share on the "explore and add" mechanics in eDiscovery search data sources? I'm drawing a complete blank on this one. Where should I be looking?
Purview Data Map scanning Microsoft Fabric and no classifications applied or scan rule sets
Microsoft Purview cannot currently apply built-in or custom classifications (including sensitive information types) to metadata discovered from Microsoft Fabric workspace scans. While Purview can register Fabric workspaces and extract structural metadata (workspaces, Lakehouses, Warehouses, tables, columns, and limited lineage), classification rules are not executed against Fabric assets in the same way they are for supported sources such as Azure SQL, ADLS Gen2, or on-prem databases. This results in classification gaps across a core enterprise analytics platform. Why This Is a Significant Service Omission 1. Breaks the Core Value Proposition of Purview 2. Undermines Regulatory and Risk Management Controls 3. Creates an Inconsistent Governance Experience 4. Blocks Downstream Purview Capabilities 5. Forces Anti-Patterns and Workarounds The lack of automated classification support for Microsoft Fabric workspace data represents a material service omission in Microsoft Purview, significantly limiting its effectiveness as a unified data governance platform and introducing avoidable compliance, operational, and assurance risks—particularly in regulated environments. Are there plans to improve this and if so what are the timescales?Can´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.
Lifecycle using Custom Protection with Purview Sensitivity Labels
Organizations using Purview Sensitivity Labels with custom protection face a fundamental governance challenge: there is no lifecycle‑ready way to maintain, audit, or update per‑document user rights as teams evolve. This affects compliance, need‑to‑know enforcement, and operational security. Document lifecycle challenges Team growth: new members do not inherit document‑specific rights. Team shrinkage: departing members retain access unless manually removed. Employee offboarding: accounts are disabled, but compliance may require explicit removal from protected documents. Audit requirements: organizations need to answer “Who has what rights on document X?” — and today, no native tool provides this for custom‑protected files. Existing method Limitation Purview PowerShell Overwrites all existing assignments; no granular updates MIP Client Not yet capable of bulk lifecycle operations OlaProeis/FileLabeler Great tool, but limited by the same PowerShell constraints What the tool enables Rights audit trail per document Controlled lifecycle updates (add/remove/transfer rights) Preservation of original files for rollback Multi‑action batch processing Admin‑only delegated workflow with MIP superuser role Full logging for compliance Supported operations ListRightAssignments – extract all rights from each document under a given label GUID SetOwner / AddOwner – assign or add owners AddEditor / AddRestrictedEditor / AddViewer – role‑based additions RemoveAccess – remove any user from all roles AddAccessAs – map one user’s role to one or more new users Multi‑action execution – combine operations in a single run Safe mode – original files preserved; updated copies created with a trailer Because this tool can modify access to highly sensitive content, it must be embedded in a controlled workflow: ticket‑based approval, delegated admin, MIP superuser assignment, and retention of all logs as part of the audit trail. This ensures compliance with need‑to‑know, separation of duties, and legal requirements. I would appreciate feedback from the community and Microsoft product teams on: whether similar lifecycle capabilities are planned for Purview whether the MIP SDK is the right long‑term approach how others handle custom‑protected document lifecycle today interest in collaborating on a more robust open‑source version MaxJustification 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!Test 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 ? thanksLabel 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?