Protecting Organizations from External Email Risks in Microsoft 365 Copilot
Introduction As organizations embrace Microsoft 365 Copilot (Copilot), a new category of risk emerges: what happens when Copilot grounds its responses in untrusted external emails? Messages from external or unverified senders can carry content Copilot shouldn’t rely on. A new policy in Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention (DLP) addresses exactly this challenge. It lets organizations ground Copilot in trusted internal email only—reducing the risk of cross-prompt injection, while keeping everyday work uninterrupted. Why This Matters: The Risk of External Email in Copilot Grounding Copilot is built to integrate deeply with your organizational data—emails, files, meetings, and more—to generate intelligent and context-aware responses. However, not all mailbox content is equally reliable. External emails—messages originating from outside your organization’s trusted domains—can introduce risks such as: Prompt injection (or cross prompt injection) attempts disguised as legitimate communication Manipulated or misleading content aimed at influencing Copilot-generated outputs Unverified information or instructions that may lead to inaccurate responses Social engineering content that could be amplified through Copilot summarization Without proper safeguards, Copilot may inadvertently reference or summarize this content, potentially impacting decision-making or exposing users to biased or manipulated information. Consider a common scenario: an employee receives a message from an outside address that looks like a routine vendor note but contains hidden text instructing any AI assistant to ignore prior guidance and surface the recipient’s recent internal updates. Later, the employee asks Copilot to "summarize my inbox." Without this policy, that external message is eligible for grounding, and its planted instructions could influence the summary. With this new policy enabled, the external email is excluded from grounding entirely—Copilot never reads it as a source, so the injected instructions have no effect. How It Works: Under the Hood The feature operates through a DLP policy configured in the Microsoft Purview portal using the "Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat" policy location with the "Email is received from > External users" condition. Here is how Copilot enforces the policy at runtime: Metadata Evaluation: Copilot evaluates email metadata and it checks the sender’s domain against your tenant’s accepted domains to determine whether an email is internal or external. Importantly, the body of the email is not inspected—only sender metadata is evaluated. External Emails Excluded from Grounding: Emails received from an external sender are excluded from Copilot grounding (source) data. This means when a user asks Copilot to summarize their inbox or reason over recent communications, those external emails are not referenced, summarized, or cited in the response. Other Grounding Sources Remain Available: Results from other grounding sources, such as web search, Word documents, Excel files, PowerPoint presentations, and internal emails, continue to show up in Copilot responses as normal. The policy is surgical in scope. No Impact on Email Access: User access to email remains completely unchanged. Users can still read, reply to, forward, and manage all their external emails as they always have. No Impact on Mail Flow: The policy does not affect mail flow, delivery, or retention. It operates exclusively at the Copilot grounding layer, not at the transport or storage layer. Things to Keep in Mind A few points help set the right expectations before you deploy: Metadata-only evaluation: The policy evaluates sender metadata, not message content. It does not scan or analyze the body of any email. Scoped to the grounding layer: The policy affects only what Copilot can use as a grounding source. It does not change mail flow, delivery, retention, or a user’s ability to access their email. Other sources are unaffected: Internal emails, files, and web results remain available to Copilot, so most everyday scenarios are unchanged. Validate before enforcing: Assess where external email is important to business workflows, then use simulation mode to validate impact and apply the protection only where it is relevant and needed. Key Benefits for Your Organization Mitigates Cross-Prompt Injection Risk: By excluding untrusted external email from Copilot’s grounding data, organizations significantly reduce the attack surface for prompt injection attempts embedded in incoming email. Applies protection where it is needed: Organizations can use the policy when external email presents a meaningful risk to Copilot grounding, while leaving external email available in scenarios where it is relevant and trusted. Ensures Copilot Responses Are Grounded in Trusted Data: Copilot responses reflect only your organization’s internal, verified communications, building greater confidence in Copilot generated insights. Minimal Disruption to Productivity: The feature keeps everyday work uninterrupted. Users retain full access to all their emails, and Copilot continues to function using all other permitted data sources. Simple Policy-Based Administration: Configured through familiar Microsoft Purview DLP policy workflows, making it easy for compliance and security teams to deploy and manage. Transparent User Experience: Users receive clear notifications when organizational policies restrict content, maintaining trust and transparency in the Copilot experience. Prerequisites Before you begin, make sure you have: Permissions: An account with the Compliance Administrator or Data Loss Prevention administrator role, or equivalent permissions to create DLP policies in the Microsoft Purview portal. Accepted domains: Your tenant’s accepted (internal) domains configured correctly, since these determine which senders are treated as internal versus external. How to Set It Up Setting up this protection is straightforward: Sign in to the Microsoft Purview portal (https://purview.microsoft.com). Navigate to Data Loss Prevention > Policies and select + Create policy. Choose the Custom template, then Custom policy. On the Locations page, enable the Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat location. Add a rule with the condition "Email is received from," and set the value to External users. Set the action to "Prevent Copilot from processing content". Deploy the policy in simulation (test) mode first, and review the impact to confirm only the intended external email is affected. Once validated, save and activate (enforce) the policy. Conclusion As M365 Copilot becomes central to enterprise productivity, organizations must control what data feeds its responses. This new policy features adds a critical layer of defense, grounding M365 Copilot in trusted internal data while keeping the door open to seamless collaboration. By deploying this DLP policy, you protect more than data—you protect the integrity and trustworthiness of every Copilot-generated insight your organization relies on. Ready to get started? Create the policy in simulation mode today, validate the impact, and enforce it once you’re confident—so every Copilot response your organization relies on is grounded in data you trust. Learn more: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/dlp-microsoft365-copilot-location-learn-about
Two labels does not appear in outlook
We are at the very beginning of deploying the four sensitivity labels: Public, Internal, Restricted, and Confidential. The labels are visible in Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and other Microsoft 365 apps, but they do not appear in Outlook Desktop or Outlook on the Web (OWA) for me or the pilot users. Restricted and Confidential are configured with encryption and settings for both of them are same , i know strange but that's what mgmt want refer to the attached screenshot.Why DLP for External Web Search in Microsoft 365 Copilot Matters?
Introduction Microsoft 365 Copilot (Copilot) grounds its responses in your organizational data—emails, files, chats—and, optionally, the public web. With web search enabled, Copilot fetches real-time information from the Bing search service to deliver richer, more current answers. But what happens when a user’s prompt contains sensitive data such as credit card numbers, passport numbers, or Social Security numbers? That’s where a new feature in Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention (DLP) becomes essential: it keeps sensitive information from reaching external web search during Copilot’s query generation, preventing inadvertent data leakage while preserving the productivity benefits of AI. At a Glance In short: admin and user toggles decide whether Copilot can search the web; Microsoft Purview DLP decides what data may leave when it does. . Admin and user toggles are binary on/off controls—they aren’t aware of sensitive data. Prevents Copilot from using external web search as a grounding source for that prompt. It does not block the prompt itself or prevent Copilot from generating a response using permitted sources. It works regardless of your web search configuration,even as a safety net if web search is disabled. The Web Search Landscape in Copilot Before diving into the DLP feature, it’s important to understand the web search controls already available in Copilot and how they interact with this DLP feature. How Web Search Works in Copilot When web search is enabled, Copilot parses user prompts and generates search queries sent to the Bing search service. These generated queries are different from the user’s original prompt—they consist of a few words informed by the prompt. Importantly: The user’s entire prompt is NOT sent to Bing (unless it’s very short) Entire Microsoft 365 files (emails, documents) are NOT included in the search query User and tenant identifiers are removed before queries reach Bing Web search queries are not used to improve Bing, create advertising profiles, or train AI models Queries are treated as customer confidential information Admin Controls for Web Search IT administrators have several options to manage web search through the "Allow web search in Copilot" policy in Cloud Policy service for Microsoft 365: Enabled in Microsoft 365 Copilot and Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat: Web search is available across all Copilot experiences. Users get the Web content toggle to control it personally. Disabled in Microsoft 365 Copilot and Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat: Web search is completely turned off. The Web content toggle is dimmed and unavailable to users. Disabled in Work mode; Enabled in Web mode and Copilot Chat: A hybrid approach where web search is blocked in Work mode (where organizational data is accessed) but available in Web mode and Copilot Chat. User-Level Control: The Web Content Toggle When the admin enables web search, users in Copilot (Work chat) have a "Web content" toggle that is ON by default. Users can turn it off to exclude web content from their Copilot responses. This toggle is NOT available in Copilot Chat. The Gap: Why Admin Controls and User Toggles Are Not Enough Here’s the critical question: What if your organization has web search enabled (for good reasons—better answers, real-time data, improved productivity) but a user inadvertently includes sensitive information in their prompt? Consider these scenarios: A user asks Copilot: "What are the compliance requirements for processing credit card number 4532-XXXX-XXXX-1234?" An employee types: "Find regulations related to passport number AB1234567 for our international transfer." A prompt includes a customer’s Social Security number while asking about tax filing procedures. In each case, if web search is enabled, Copilot might generate a search query informed by the sensitive data in the prompt. Even though Copilot doesn’t send the entire prompt to Bing, the generated search query could still be influenced by or contain fragments of sensitive information. This is the gap that DLP for external web search fills—and it works regardless of which web search configuration option your admin has chosen. The Solution: DLP Policy to Restrict Web Search When Prompts Contain Sensitive Data Microsoft Purview DLP allows you to create a policy that detects when a user’s prompt contains sensitive information types (SITs)—such as credit card numbers, passport numbers, Social Security numbers, or custom SITs defined by your organization—and automatically prevents Copilot from using external web search as a grounding source for that specific prompt. How It Works Real-Time Detection: The DLP policy evaluates each prompt in real time, checking for configured sensitive information types before Copilot generates any web search query. Surgical Blocking: Only the web search component is prevented for that specific prompt. Copilot continues to generate responses using permitted internal Microsoft 365 data sources (emails, files, chats) where applicable. Per-Prompt Enforcement: The restriction applies only to prompts that actually contain sensitive data. The next prompt from the same user (without sensitive data) will use web search normally. Supports various available SIT Types: Works with Microsoft-provided SITs (credit cards, passports, SSNs, etc.) and custom SITs defined by your organization. Clear User Notification: Users are informed that web search was restricted for their prompt due to organizational policy, maintaining transparency. Why This Feature Is Critical, Regardless of Your Web Search Configuration This is the key insight that every security and compliance team must understand: The DLP policy for external web search provides a fundamentally different layer of protection than the admin toggle or user toggle for web search. Scenario 1: Web Search Fully Enabled With web search enabled across all Copilot experiences—the most common setup—the DLP policy acts as a safety net. Normal prompts get full web-grounded answers, but the moment a prompt contains sensitive data, web search is blocked for that prompt alone. External web grounding is prevented for that prompt when the policy detects configured sensitive content. Scenario 2: Web Search Disabled in Work Mode, Enabled in Web Mode Even here, users in Web mode and Copilot Chat still have web search active. The mode-level toggle is binary (on/off) and can’t tell safe prompts from sensitive ones—so if a prompt in these modes contains sensitive data, DLP adds prompt-level, data-aware protection beyond binary web-search controls.. Scenario 3: Web Search Enabled with User Toggle Available Expecting users to toggle off web search before every sensitive prompt is unrealistic—they don’t always know when content counts as sensitive by compliance standards. The DLP policy removes that human error, detecting and blocking automatically on a per-prompt basis. Scenario 4: Even When Web Search Is Fully Disabled Even with web search disabled entirely, the DLP policy adds defense-in-depth. Configurations change, policies get modified, and new users join groups with different settings. If web search is ever re-enabled—intentionally or not—the policy keeps sensitive data protected. Comparing the Controls: A Side-by-Side View Control Scope Granularity Sensitive Data Aware? Admin Policy (Allow web search) Tenant/User Group Binary: On or Off per mode No User Web Content Toggle Individual User Binary: On or Off No DLP: Block Web Search for SITs (Recommended) Per Prompt (Real-Time) Layered defense-in-depth; Conditional Block: Only when SITs detected Yes Key Takeaway: The admin toggle and user toggle control whether web search is available. The DLP policy controls what data can be sent when web search is available. These are complementary, not overlapping controls. Prerequisites Before you configure the policy, make sure you have: Licensing: Microsoft 365 Copilot licenses for your users, plus Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention (included with Microsoft 365 E5 or E5 Compliance, or an equivalent plan). Permissions: An account with a role that can create DLP policies for the Copilot location, e.g. Compliance Administrator or the Purview Data Security AI Admin role. Sensitive information types: The Microsoft-provided or custom SITs you want to detect (credit card numbers, passport numbers, SSNs, and so on) identified ahead of time. How to Configure the DLP Policy Follow these steps to set up the protection in Microsoft Purview: Sign in to the Microsoft Purview portal (https://purview.microsoft.com). Go to Data Loss Prevention > Policies and select + Create policy. Select the Custom template, then Custom policy. On the Locations page, set the Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat location to On. Add a rule with the "Content contains" > "Sensitive information types" condition and choose the SITs you want to detect (e.g., Credit Card Number, Passport Number, SSN, or custom SITs). In the same rule, set the action to "Prevent Copilot from processing content" > "Performing Web Searches". Save and turn on the policy. Policy Design note: Conditions based on sensitive information types and sensitivity labels must be configured in separate rules within the same policy. Note: DLP policy changes can take up to 4-8 hours to take effect in Copilot. Deploy in simulation (test) mode first to review the impact before you enforce the policy. Real-World Use Case: Contoso Contoso wants employees to use Copilot for productivity and has web search enabled to provide the best possible responses. However, they don’t want sensitive customer data—such as credit card numbers or national identification numbers—to be sent to external web search when Copilot grounds responses on the web. They configure a DLP policy targeting the Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat location with a rule that detects their relevant SITs and sets the action to "Prevent Copilot from processing content" > "Performing Web Searches". Result: When a user submits a prompt containing those SITs, Copilot does not send the prompt to external web search. Copilot still returns a response grounded in internal Microsoft 365 data sources where the user has access. For all other prompts, web search works normally. Other prompts can continue to use web search, subject to applicable settings and policies Best Practices Deploy the DLP web search policy alongside your existing web search admin controls for defense-in-depth. Include both Microsoft-provided and custom SITs relevant to your industry and data classification. Use simulation mode first to understand the impact before enforcing the policy. Combine with the "Prevent sensitive information types in prompts" DLP action for comprehensive protection (note: these must be separate rules within the same policy). Regularly review DLP alerts to identify patterns of sensitive data in prompts that may indicate user training needs. Document your layered approach: admin toggle for broad control, DLP for data-aware conditional control. Conclusion The “Restrict Microsoft 365 Copilot from using external web search when prompts contain sensitive data” DLP capability fills a critical gap. Admin policies and user toggles give broad on/off control over web search availability, but they can’t tell a prompt that’s safe to ground on the web from one carrying sensitive information that must never leave your Microsoft 365 boundary. This DLP feature adds intelligent, real-time, per-prompt protection that works regardless of your web search configuration. Users keep the productivity benefits of web-grounded Copilot responses without compromising data security—a clear example of security enabling productivity rather than restricting it. Bottom line: If your organization uses M365 Copilot with web search in any capacity, this DLP policy isn’t optional—it’s essential. References DLP for Microsoft 365 Copilot, Copilot Chat and Cowork: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/dlp-microsoft365-copilot-location-learn-about Data, Privacy, and Security for Web Search in Copilot: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/copilot/manage-public-web-access
Feature Request: Extend Security Copilot inclusion (M365 E5) to M365 A5 Education tenants
Background At Ignite 2025, Microsoft announced that Security Copilot is included for all Microsoft 365 E5 customers, with a phased rollout starting November 18, 2025. This is a significant step forward for security operations. The gap Microsoft 365 A5 for Education is the academic equivalent of E5 — it includes the same core security stack: Microsoft Defender, Entra, Intune, and Purview. However, the Security Copilot inclusion explicitly covers only commercial E5 customers. There is no public roadmap or timeline for extending this benefit to A5 education tenants. Why this matters Education institutions face the same cybersecurity threats as commercial organizations — often with fewer dedicated security resources. The A5 license was positioned as the premium security offering for education. Excluding it from Security Copilot inclusion creates an inequity between commercial and education customers holding functionally equivalent license tiers. Request We would like Microsoft to: Confirm whether Security Copilot inclusion will be extended to M365 A5 Education tenants If yes, provide an indicative timeline If no, clarify the rationale and what alternative paths exist for education customers Are other EDU admins in the same situation? Would appreciate any upvotes or comments to help raise visibility with the product team.
From “No” to “Now”: A 7-Layer Strategy for Enterprise AI Safety
The “block” posture on Generative AI has failed. In a global enterprise, banning these tools doesn't stop usage; it simply pushes intellectual property into unmanaged channels and creates a massive visibility gap in corporate telemetry. The priority has now shifted from stopping AI to hardening the environment so that innovation can run at velocity without compromising data sovereignty. Traditional security perimeters are ineffective against the “slow bleed” of AI leakage - where data moves through prompts, clipboards, and autonomous agents rather than bulk file transfers. To secure this environment, a 7-layer defense-in-depth model is required to treat the conversation itself as the new perimeter. 1. Identity: The Only Verifiable Perimeter Identity is the primary control plane. Access to AI services must be treated with the same rigor as administrative access to core infrastructure. The strategy centers on enforcing device-bound Conditional Access, where access is strictly contingent on device health. To solve the "Account Leak" problem, the deployment of Tenant Restrictions v2 (TRv2) is essential to prevent users from signing into personal tenants using corporate-managed devices. For enhanced coverage, Universal Tenant Restrictions (UTR) via Global Secure Access (GSA) allows for consistent enforcement at the cloud edge. While TRv2 authentication-plane is GA, data-plane protection is GA for the Microsoft 365 admin center and remains in preview for other workloads such as SharePoint and Teams. 2. Eliminating the Visibility Gap (Shadow AI) You can’t secure what you can't see. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps (MDCA) serves to discover and govern the enterprise AI footprint, while Purview DSPM for AI (formerly AI Hub) monitors Copilot and third-party interactions. By categorizing tools using MDCA risk scores and compliance attributes, organizations can apply automated sanctioning decisions and enforce session controls for high-risk endpoints. 3. Data Hygiene: Hardening the “Work IQ” AI acts as a mirror of internal permissions. In a "flat" environment, AI acts like a search engine for your over-shared data. Hardening the foundation requires automated sensitivity labeling in Purview Information Protection. Identifying PII and proprietary code before assigning AI licenses ensures that labels travel with the data, preventing labeled content from being exfiltrated via prompts or unauthorized sharing. 4. Session Governance: Solving the “Clipboard Leak” The most common leak in 2025 is not a file upload; it’s a simple copy-paste action or a USB transfer. Deploying Conditional Access App Control (CAAC) via MDCA session policies allows sanctioned apps to function while specifically blocking cut/copy/paste. This is complemented by Endpoint DLP, which extends governance to the physical device level, preventing sensitive data from being moved to unmanaged USB storage or printers during an AI-assisted workflow. Purview Information Protection with IRM rounds this out by enforcing encryption and usage rights on the files themselves. When a user tries to print a "Do Not Print" document, Purview triggers an alert that flows into Microsoft Sentinel. This gives the SOC visibility into actual policy violations instead of them having to hunt through generic activity logs. 5. The “Agentic” Era: Agent 365 & Sharing Controls Now that we're moving from "Chat" to "Agents", Agent 365 and Entra Agent ID provide the necessary identity and control plane for autonomous entities. A quick tip: in large-scale tenants, default settings often present a governance risk. A critical first step is navigating to the Microsoft 365 admin center (Copilot > Agents) to disable the default “Anyone in organization” sharing option. Restricting agent creation and sharing to a validated security group is essential to prevent unvetted agent sprawl and ensure that only compliant agents are discoverable. 6. The Human Layer: “Safe Harbors” over Bans Security fails when it creates more friction than the risk it seeks to mitigate. Instead of an outright ban, investment in AI skilling-teaching users context minimization (redacting specifics before interacting with a model) - is the better path. Providing a sanctioned, enterprise-grade "Safe Harbor" like M365 Copilot offers a superior tool that naturally cuts down the use of Shadow AI. 7. Continuous Ops: Monitoring & Regulatory Audit Security is not a “set and forget” project, particularly with the EU AI Act on the horizon. Correlating AI interactions and DLP alerts in Microsoft Sentinel using Purview Audit (specifically the CopilotInteraction logs) data allows for real-time responses. Automated SOAR playbooks can then trigger protective actions - such as revoking an Agent ID - if an entity attempts to access sensitive HR or financial data. Final Thoughts Securing AI at scale is an architectural shift. By layering Identity, Session Governance, and Agentic Identity, AI moves from being a fragmented risk to a governed tool that actually works for the modern workplace.
Best Way to Exclude Delta _delta_log Folders from Purview Scans?
Hi Purview Community, We're scanning ADLS Gen2 assets with Microsoft Purview Data Map and have encountered issues with _delta_log folders being ingested as catalog assets. Initially, _delta_log folders were included in scans and were ingested into the Data Map. This appears to have introduced a large number of technical assets that are not useful for business users and may be contributing to unexpected metadata and row count discrepancies. Questions What is the recommended ignore pattern to exclude all _delta_log folders from ADLS Gen2 / Fabric scans? After updating a scan rule to exclude _delta_log, how can previously ingested _delta_log assets be completely removed from the Data Map? Is deleting the assets from Data Map sufficient? Is there a metadata purge process? Are there any known limitations where deleted _delta_log assets still affect resource sets, lineage, profiling, DQ, or row count calculations? Has anyone experienced inflated row counts or profiling results after _delta_log folders were previously scanned? For example, we're seeing significant differences between Purview-reported row counts and source system row counts even after excluding _delta_log folders and deleting the corresponding assets. Any guidance, best practices, or Microsoft documentation references would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Objects 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.Updating Purview DLP Sensitive Service Domain Groups with PowerShell
Introduction Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention (DLP) can use Sensitive Service Domain Groups to organize websites and other network destinations that are referenced by endpoint DLP rules. Administrators can manage these settings in the Purview portal, while PowerShell is useful when changes must be repeatable, reviewed, and validated before they are committed. This article demonstrates how to retrieve the tenant policy configuration, identify an existing group, add new URL entries only when they are not already present, validate the change, commit it, and verify the final configuration. Important The SiteGroupsPsws object contains tenant-wide endpoint restriction settings. Test the script in a non-production tenant first, export the original configuration, and use change control. Microsoft documents Get-PolicyConfig and Set-PolicyConfig for viewing and modifying endpoint restrictions, but the internal shape of individual hashtable entries can evolve. Prerequisites Requirement Guidance Permissions Use an account assigned the required Microsoft Purview permissions for the configuration being changed. Microsoft states that Get-PolicyConfig and Set-PolicyConfig require permissions in Security & Compliance PowerShell. PowerShell module Install or update the ExchangeOnlineManagement module. Security & Compliance PowerShell uses this module for connectivity. Connection Connect to Security & Compliance PowerShell by using Connect-IPPSSession before running the policy configuration cmdlets. Existing group The target Sensitive Service Domain Group must already exist. This script updates a group named Claude; it does not create the group. Change controls Run the discovery and backup commands first, use -WhatIf before commit, and retain the exported JSON for rollback analysis. Step 1: Install the module and connect Install-Module -Name ExchangeOnlineManagement -Scope CurrentUser Import-Module ExchangeOnlineManagement Connect-IPPSSession Confirm that the policy configuration can be retrieved: Get-PolicyConfig | Format-List Step 2: Discover available group names List the names exposed in SiteGroupsPsws and confirm that the target group exists before making any change. (Get-PolicyConfig).SiteGroupsPsws | Where-Object { $_.ContainsKey("Name") } | ForEach-Object { $_.Name } Step 3: Back up the current configuration Export the current SiteGroupsPsws representation before modifying the in-memory object. $BackupPath = ".\SiteGroupsPsws-backup-{0}.json" -f (Get-Date -Format "yyyyMMdd-HHmmss") (Get-PolicyConfig).SiteGroupsPsws | ConvertTo-Json -Depth 20 | Set-Content -Path $BackupPath -Encoding UTF8 Write-Host "Backup written to $BackupPath" -ForegroundColor Cyan Step 4: Define the target group and URLs $GroupName = "Claude" $NewUrls = @( "claude1.com", "chatgpt2.com", "claude3.com" ) Replace the sample values with the approved production URLs. Use only the domain or wildcard format supported by your DLP design. Step 5: Retrieve and validate the target group $PolicyConfig = Get-PolicyConfig $Groups = $PolicyConfig.SiteGroupsPsws $TargetGroup = $Groups | Where-Object { $_["Name"] -eq $GroupName } if (-not $TargetGroup) { $AvailableGroups = $Groups | Where-Object { $_.ContainsKey("Name") } | ForEach-Object { $_.Name } throw "Sensitive Service Domain Group '$GroupName' was not found. Available groups: $($AvailableGroups -join ', ')" } Complete script # Target Sensitive Service Domain Group $GroupName = "Claude" # URLs to add $NewUrls = @( "claude1.com", "chatgpt2.com", "claude3.com" ) $PolicyConfig = Get-PolicyConfig $Groups = $PolicyConfig.SiteGroupsPsws $TargetGroup = $Groups | Where-Object { $_["Name"] -eq $GroupName } $Addresses = $TargetGroup["Addresses"] | ConvertFrom-Json foreach ($Url in $NewUrls) { if ($Addresses.Url -notcontains $Url) { $Addresses += [pscustomobject]@{ Url = $Url MatchType = "UrlMatch" } } } $TargetGroup["Addresses"] = $Addresses | ConvertTo-Json -Compress # Validate Set-PolicyConfig -SiteGroupsPsws $Groups -WhatIf # Commit Set-PolicyConfig -SiteGroupsPsws $Groups Step 6: Verify the change Retrieve a fresh copy from the service rather than validating only the modified local object. $VerifiedGroups = (Get-PolicyConfig).SiteGroupsPsws $VerifiedTarget = $VerifiedGroups | Where-Object { $_["Name"] -eq $GroupName } $VerifiedAddresses = @($VerifiedTarget["Addresses"] | ConvertFrom-Json) $Verification = foreach ($Url in $NormalizedNewUrls) { [pscustomobject]@{ Group = $GroupName Url = $Url Present = ($VerifiedAddresses.Url -contains $Url) } } $Verification | Format-Table -AutoSize if ($Verification.Present -contains $false) { throw "Verification failed: one or more URLs were not found after the update." } Write-Host "Verification passed for all requested URLs." -ForegroundColor Green Step 7: Optional full configuration views # Writable PowerShell representation (Get-PolicyConfig).SiteGroupsPsws | ConvertTo-Json -Depth 20 # Service view (Get-PolicyConfig).SiteGroups Sample output The sample is illustrative. Actual service output and formatting can vary by module version and tenant configuration. Troubleshooting Symptom Recommended check Get-PolicyConfig or Set-PolicyConfig is not recognized Confirm that the ExchangeOnlineManagement module is installed and that the session was connected with Connect-IPPSSession. Access denied or authorization error Verify the administrator account has the required Purview role-group permissions, then reconnect after role propagation. Target group not found Run the discovery command and use the exact group name returned by SiteGroupsPsws. Addresses cannot be parsed Inspect the raw Addresses property before changing anything. Restore from the exported JSON if the object shape is unexpected. -WhatIf succeeds but verification fails Retrieve Get-PolicyConfig again, check for service-side errors, and confirm no competing administrator update overwrote the configuration. Summary PowerShell provides a controlled way to update Microsoft Purview DLP Sensitive Service Domain Groups at scale. The safest pattern is to discover the exact group name, export the current configuration, validate the target object, normalize and de-duplicate input, run Set-PolicyConfig with -WhatIf, commit the change, and then verify it through a fresh Get-PolicyConfig call. This validation-first workflow improves repeatability and reduces the risk of unintended tenant-wide configuration changes. References Get-PolicyConfig cmdlet reference https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/exchangepowershell/get-policyconfig?view=exchange-ps Set-PolicyConfig cmdlet reference https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/exchangepowershell/set-policyconfig?view=exchange-ps Security & Compliance PowerShell overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/exchange/scc-powershell?view=exchange-ps Configure Endpoint DLP settings https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/dlp-configure-endpoint-settings
