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.
Label 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?Justification 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!
Guidance: 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!
Aggregate 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 alertsTest 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 ? thanks
Data 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.
DLP USB Block
Currently we have DLP policies setup to block the use of USB devices and copying data to it. When checking the activity explorer I am still seeing user's able to copy data to USB devices and for the action item it says "Audit" when in the DLP policies we explicitly set it to block. Has anyone run into this issue or seen similar behavior?
