Monthly news - July 2026
Microsoft Defender Monthly news - July 2026 Edition This is our monthly "What's new" blog post, summarizing product updates and various new assets we released over the past month across our Defender products. In this edition, we are looking at all the goodness from June 2026. We are now including news related to Defender for Cloud in the Defender portal. For all other Defender for Cloud news, have a look at the dedicated Defender for Cloud Monthly News here. 🚀 New Virtual Ninja Show episode: Redefining identity security for the modern enterprise One policy engine to govern them all: Securing agentic AI with Microsoft Purview Building a modern detection pipeline with ContentOps Securing local AI agents with Microsoft Defender Microsoft Defender: Extending critical protection for emerging threats in Team Weekly Security News: We publish a short 1ish minute video every week with updates across our Microsoft Security stack. Subscribe to our YouTube channel, so you don't miss the next episode. Actionable threat insights (find all of them here) Securing AI agents: When AI tools move from reading to acting Chromium extension uses AI‑related branding to redirect browser search Photo ZIP campaign targeting hospitality industry delivers Node.js implant for persistent access Microsoft Defender Two Workbooks capabilities in the unified Microsoft Defender portal moved to GA: Advanced Hunting connector - build custom dashboards directly on top of Advanced Hunting (XDR) dat. Query XDR tables and visualize them in Workbooks for richer investigations and reports. Workspace filter / multi-workspace experience - scope and filter workbooks by workspace, with workspace selection integrated into the workbook itself rather than relying on the global selector. MTO Tenant Groups let MSSPs and large enterprises organize their multitenant view in Microsoft Defender by grouping tenants logically (e.g., by region, business unit, or customer cohort). Learn more here. Custom Detections support in Microsoft Sentinel Repositories. Custom Detections can now be managed as code in Microsoft Sentinel Repositories, the same way customers already manage analytic rules, playbooks, parsers and workbooks. Detection engineers connect a GitHub or Azure DevOps repo to their workspace; Custom Detections placed in the repo are reconciled on every commit. A standalone Bicep path via the Microsoft Security Bicep extension lets teams deploy from any CI/CD pipeline (ADO Pipelines, GitHub Actions, custom runners). (General Availability) The following advanced hunting schema tables are now generally available: The CloudAuditEvents table contains information about cloud audit events for various cloud platforms protected by the organization's Defender for Cloud. The CloudDnsEvents table contains information about DNS activity events from cloud infrastructure environments. The CloudProcessEvents table contains information about process events in multicloud hosted environments. (Public Preview) The AgentsInfo table in advanced hunting is now available in preview. The AIAgentsInfo table is transitioning to this new table, which provides a unified schema that supports agent inventory and governance for all agent types, including Copilot Studio, Microsoft Foundry, Microsoft 365 Copilot, third-party, and endpoint-discovered agents. Microsoft Agent 365 customers should use the AgentsInfo table today. The AIAgentsInfo table remains accessible until July 1, 2026. Update your queries to use AgentsInfo before this date. For more information, see Advanced hunting schema - Naming changes. For all other Sentinel News, have a look at the "What's new in Microsoft Sentinel blog post - June edition" Identity Security (Public Preview) The Identity Security dashboard now includes a new Human identities card that shows your human identities by source (Entra ID, SaaS, and on-premises), giving you a single view of where your human identities live. For more information, see Identity Security dashboard. (Public Preview) On the Coverage and maturity page, the Review and improve coverage side panel for SaaS Identities now includes an Observed column and a Show Only Observed Applications toggle. By default, the panel shows only SaaS applications detected in your environment. Turn off the toggle to see other supported SaaS applications you can onboard to expand your identity coverage. For more information, see Coverage and maturity. New alerts were added to the Defender for Identity security alerts related to Microsoft Entra ID, Active Directory as well as other identity providers. For a full list of those new alerts, check out our documentation. Recent ShinyHunters attacks on Salesforce show how OAuth tokens and connected apps are being weaponized to bypass MFA at scale. The upgraded Salesforce connector for Defender for Cloud Apps helps detect these attacks faster, with richer connected-app context and investigation-ready signals. Customers already using the connector are advised to enable the additional events in the Salesforce console for tighter protection, and eligible customers not yet using it are advised to connect Salesforce. Learn more. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint / Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management (Public Preview) Local AI agent discovery: as part of the Defender AI agents experience, Microsoft Defender now automatically discovers supported local AI agents running on onboarded Windows & macOS devices. Discovered agents appear as assets in the AI agent inventory, exposure map, and advanced hunting, giving security teams visibility into local AI agent usage across the organization. For more information, see Discover local AI agents. (Preview) Local AI agent runtime protection on Windows endpoints is now available in public preview. Microsoft Defender inspects the agent loop (user prompts, tool calls, and tool responses) and can block risky activity before it executes, helping stop prompt injection and unsafe agent actions at the device level. Blocked and audited events appear as alerts in Microsoft Defender to support incident correlation and investigation workflows. The new version of the Defender deployment tool for Windows streamlines onboarding and enhances security by: Bundling the onboarding package directly into the tool's executable. Generating a key during deployment package creation that is required for running the tool. Enabling users to configure an expiry date for the package to reduce the risk of unauthorized use. In addition: You have the option of downloading the package as either an .exe or a .zip file, whichever best suits your organization's needs. A new Deployment packages page in the Defender portal facilitates management of downloaded packages by providing centralized visibility into all the packages and their current status. Now generally available: Selective Response Actions enables organizations to tailor high-impact security operations on devices during onboarding. It provides precise control over how response actions are applied on Tier-0 systems and other high-value assets, helping maintain operational stability while delivering strong protection. The new exposure score model in Defender Vulnerability Management is now generally available. This model improves risk prioritization and recommendation impact accuracy by incorporating exploit prediction data (EPSS) and asset context factors such as internet-facing status and criticality. More details here. Microsoft Secure Score now includes the Reduce unnecessary inbound internet exposure on internet-facing devices recommendation, which helps identify devices that are accessible from the public internet and may represent unnecessary attack surface. This recommendation provides centralized visibility into internet-facing devices across the environment. Many predefined SaaS application classification rules were added to the critical assets list. Have a look at our documentation for the full list. These classifications require onboarding to Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps.What’s new in Microsoft Sentinel: June 2026
Welcome back to What's new in Microsoft Sentinel. In June, Sentinel SIEM’s Advanced Security Information Model (ASIM) broadens its normalization, so one analytic rule can reach more sources with less per-source work and, additionally, two new ASIM schemas can now bring asset inventory and AI agent telemetry into common form. In Microsoft Sentinel data lake, the Agent Identities Asset Connector adds the identity context behind your AI agents, helping you see who owns an agent and what permissions it holds. In Sentinel MCP, graph tools help security teams investigate threats and optimize security coverage by visualizing relationships across identities, devices, alerts, and signals in a unified graph experience. Read on for the details, and explore the resources at the end to go deeper. Sentinel innovations: Sentinel SIEM Sentinel data lake Sentinel MCP Microsoft Security Store Sentinel SIEM Advanced Security Information Model (ASIM) parsers and schemas [Generally available] The Advanced Security Information Model (ASIM) in Sentinel normalizes logs into common schemas, so one analytic rule can cover many sources without managing each native schema. ASIM coverage has expanded across more Azure services, broader AWS CloudTrail activity, and a range of third-party firewall, identity, and proxy products, so your detections reach more of your environment with less per-source work. Two schemas also join ASIM: Asset Entities normalizes asset inventory so you can correlate files and assets across investigations, and AI Agent Events normalizes telemetry from AI-driven workflows and autonomous agents. Browse the ASIM parsers on GitHub to explore, file issues, or contribute. Learn more in our blog. Sentinel transition to Defender blog series By March 31, 2027, all Microsoft Sentinel customers transition to Defender. This six-part series guides you through moving your Sentinel experience from the Azure portal to Defender, where SIEM, XDR, threat intelligence, AI, and automation come together in one experience. Your analytics rules, playbooks, workbooks, log analytics workspace, and access assignments all carry forward while the operational layer becomes more connected and intelligent. Starting early matters because you realize the benefits sooner, including a unified incident queue, cross-product correlation, Security Copilot, Sentinel data lake, and SOC optimization. Across the six-part blog series you get 1) the strategic shift, 2) the anatomy of incident and data changes, 3) detection and automation, 4) the governance shift across roles and access, 5) a readiness playbook with the adoption helper and cost guidance, and 6) a look at the AI-first SOC. Each part stands alone, so you can read in order or jump to what matters most to you. Sentinel data lake Agent Identities Asset Connector [Public preview] The Agent Identities Asset Connector brings identity context for AI agents into Sentinel. Activity connectors like Agent 365 and Microsoft 365 Copilot already show you what AI agents do, but activity alone cannot tell you who owns an agent, what permissions it holds, or how it is governed. This connector fills that gap with four asset tables covering agent owners, agent identities, agent blueprints, and the service principals tied to those blueprints. Together they form a connected agent identity graph you can trace from owner to identity to blueprint to permissions to the resources an agent touches. Joining this asset data with activity data in Sentinel data lake lets you detect anomalous behavior relative to permissions, spot over-permissioned or misconfigured agents, and follow full execution chains for end-to-end traceability. To get started, install the Agent 365 and Microsoft 365 Copilot solutions in Content Hub and enable the asset and activity connectors. Learn more. Sentinel MCP Sentinel MCP graph tools [Public preview] Microsoft Security Graph MCP tools, recently introduced in the Microsoft Sentinel MCP Server data exploration collection helps security teams investigate threats by exploring relationships between identities and device assets, and threat and activity signals ingested by data connectors and surfaced by analytic rules. Starting from an alert, analysts can follow the exposure path across connected entities — tracing lateral movement, understanding blast radius, and identifying configuration gaps — all from a single, interactive workspace. The tool provides a clear graph view that highlights dependencies and makes it easier to understand how content interacts across your environment. This helps security teams assess coverage, optimize content deployment, and identify areas that may need tuning or additional data sources. Executing graph queries via the MCP tools will trigger the graph meter. Learn more. Microsoft Security Store Partner testimonials from Adaquest and Glueckkanja For partners like Adaquest and Glueckkanja, the Microsoft Security Store helps not only put their years of knowledge, understanding, and best practices into a scalable, packaged solution, it gives them the ability to democratize that expertise and take it to market globally. Security Store operationalizes their expertise as always-on defenses — discoverable, deployable, and driving real outcomes inside the tools that security teams rely on every day. See how the Security Store is helping security teams act on threats faster with the right solutions and to be ready when it matters most: Watch: Adaquest unlocks faster response times for customers (testimonial) Watch: Glueckkanja builds agents with purpose (testimonial) Additional resources Blogs and documentation: The Advanced Security Information Model (ASIM) Process Event normalization schema reference How BlueVoyant's ASIM-First Strategy Simplifies Threat Detection in Microsoft Sentinel Migrate Sentinel to Defender – Why It Is a Security Architecture Decision, Not Just a Portal Change Connect Microsoft Sentinel to the Microsoft Defender portal Agent 365 connector: Monitor, hunt, and investigate AI agent activity in Microsoft Sentinel Get started with Microsoft Sentinel MCP server Upcoming webinars and events: July 15–16: Microsoft Virtual Training Day: Predict and Defend Against Cybersecurity Threats July 22: Microsoft Security Immersion Event: Shadow Hunter July 23-24: Microsoft Virtual Training Day: Introduction to Microsoft Security July 28: Tech Brief: Modernize security operations with a unified platform July 29: Security Immersion Event: Into the Breach Stay connected Check back each month for the latest innovations, updates, and events to ensure you’re getting the most out of Microsoft Sentinel. We’ll see you in the next edition!A guide to innovating threat hunting with Microsoft Sentinel custom graph
Microsoft Sentinel platform offers a growing list of tools and features, with graph being a cornerstone capability. Sentinel graph is a relationship-first method for organizing and querying data within Microsoft Sentinel data lake. Activities amongst entities (users, devices, emails, IPs, applications, etc.) become a navigable structure that avoids a complex table structure. Rather than stitching together data and evidence via complex joins, users can follow multi-hop connections in order to understand insights such as blast radius, unseen pivots in malicious behavior, and investigative details that may not be as obvious within regular logs, all while visualizing these paths to assist in communicating evidence and findings. This blog will walk through how to create custom graphs using GitHub Copilot chat experiences in Sentinel VS Code. And how to leverage out-of-the-box graph samples to build custom graphs addressing security outcomes. Custom graphs are available in public preview. Prerequisites and Tooling Sentinel data lake enabled in the tenant, this is where the data for the graph will be stored. Users will need read/write permissions on Sentinel data lake data. And either security operator or security admin permissions to save a custom graph in the tenant. Visual Studio Code (VS Code) will need to be installed, as it is essential for building and saving graphs. The Jupyter notebook extension, Microsoft Sentinel extension, and GitHub Copilot extension will need to be installed from within VS Code. These are key pieces for configuring and managing graphs. (Optional) Microsoft Sentinel MCP server if using MCP tools like the data exploration tool. Building a new custom graph The starting point is within Visual Studio Code (VS Code), where the custom graph will be built via GitHub Copilot and the Sentinel graph authoring tool. Make sure to have a GitHub account logged in within VS Code, then start a chat with Copilot via View > Chat. This will open a chat window on the right side of the screen. Determining security telemetry for investigation If unsure about which tables are available within the environment or the columns to focus on for hunting/investigations, turn to the Sentinel MCP server. With the Sentinel MCP server, users can explore the threat landscape within their environment as well as see which data sources currently exist within the Sentinel data lake. This process can be done using natural language with Copilot to obtain the information needed to perform the task at hand. “List the most important tables within my Microsoft Sentinel data lake environment that would build a blast radius for a compromised user account. List the best columns to use for this scenario. Format the response as a table” The tables and columns that can be used are now known. The next step is to use these tables to construct a custom graph with help from GitHub Copilot. For this example, a blast radius graph will be built to assist in reviewing the impact of compromised accounts within the environment: “List the top 5 compromised or targeted accounts within my environment. List which types of attacks are involved with those accounts. Summarize the information into a simple to read table” Given this response, there are a few options for going forward: Return to the Microsoft Defender portal and attempt threat hunting/review this with other analysts Ask Copilot to provide threat hunting queries or perform incident investigations for the top users who are most targeted Build custom graphs to visualize threat data around the most targeted accounts For this example, we will use option 3. Building graph mappings with GitHub Copilot To begin building a custom graph from scratch, a new prompt is submitted, this time tagging the Sentinel extension’s graph authoring tool. An example of the type of prompt to use is below: “@Sentinel /graph-authoring I want to investigate the blast radius of a compromised user and what systems/ app/ devices that they accessed based on users authentication activity. Please use at least SignInLogs, NonInteractivelogs, DeviceLogon, Onprem AD logs, IdentityInfo, and AADRiskyUsers. The graph should help investigate the following security outcomes: What is the user's current risk level and risk score from Identity Protection? Which applications and resources did a user authenticate to? Are there sign-ins from risky IP addresses, Tor exit nodes, or anonymizers? Are there non-interactive sign-ins from unexpected locations or devices? Which machines did a user log on to locally/remotely (RDP)? Which user accounts have been active on a compromised device? A few guidance for data ingestion: Ensure to filter out any data that has NULL or empty values for key Nodes and Edges Filter all data for last 14 days Do not map json arrays as Keys in Nodes or Edges” Note: To ensure that the graph that is written matches the desired scenario, it helps to provide outcomes or guidance to the graph authoring tool. If a Juypter notebook is not already open within the VS Code, Copilot will build a new notebook based on the prompt given. Once Copilot is done, select a kernel to run the notebook. This can be done from the top right of the Notebook: Click on Select Kernel. Click on Microsoft Sentinel. Choose a pool option for the compute cluster. Once a pool is picked, click on the run button next to one of the code cells to boot up the compute pool (this can take up to 5 minutes) Once connected, users can either go through and click the run button next to the code cell to run the code or click the Run All button at the top of the Notebook. For each cell in the Notebook: Cell 2 This section of the notebook is for mporting the sentinel_graph library and configures Spark settings. This is essentially setting up the notebook environment for executing the rest of the code. from sentinel_graph import notebook notebook.requires(sentinel_graph="0.3.8") spark.conf.set("spark.sql.parquet.datetimeRebaseModeInRead", "CORRECTED") Cell 3 This section is performing more Sentinel specific configurations by defining which Sentinel workspace to use, which timerange to use, which tables to use, etc. This is defining which data sources should be considered when building the graph. from pyspark.sql import functions as F from sentinel_lake.providers import MicrosoftSentinelProvider lake_provider = MicrosoftSentinelProvider(spark=spark) LOG_ANALYTICS_WORKSPACE = "Woodgrove-LogAnalyiticsWorkspace" # Auto-detected from the Microsoft Sentinel extension TARGET_USER = "ram723@int.zava-private.com" # Time filter — 7 days for broader blast radius context time_filter = F.col("TimeGenerated") >= F.expr("current_timestamp() - INTERVAL 7 DAYS") # --- IdentityInfo: user profile, roles, group memberships, risk --- df_identity_info = ( lake_provider.read_table("IdentityInfo", LOG_ANALYTICS_WORKSPACE) .filter(time_filter) .filter(F.lower(F.col("AccountUPN")) == TARGET_USER.lower()) ) # --- SigninLogs: interactive sign-ins to resources --- df_signins = ( lake_provider.read_table("SigninLogs", LOG_ANALYTICS_WORKSPACE) .filter(time_filter) .filter( (F.lower(F.col("UserPrincipalName")) == TARGET_USER.lower()) & (F.col("ResultType") == "0") # successful sign-ins ) ) Cell 4 This section is defining and building the nodes that will be used in the graph. The definitions include what events look like, which entities are involved, and how they are considered for each node type. # 1. User node (the target user) user_nodes = ( df_identity_info .select( F.col("AccountUPN"), F.col("AccountDisplayName"), F.col("RiskLevel"), F.col("RiskState"), F.col("AssignedRoles"), F.col("GroupMembership"), F.col("BlastRadius"), F.col("Department"), F.col("JobTitle"), F.col("IsMFARegistered"), F.col("IsAccountEnabled") ) .distinct() .withColumn("AccountUPN", F.lower(F.col("AccountUPN"))) ) Cell 5 This section is building out the schema for the graph. The schema for a graph is taking the columns and details from the tables in cell 3 while also tying them to the nodes and edges built in cell 4. # Build nodes first builder = ( GraphSpecBuilder.start() # === NODES === .add_node("User") .from_dataframe(user_nodes) .with_columns("AccountUPN", "AccountDisplayName", "RiskLevel", "RiskState", "AssignedRoles", "GroupMembership", "BlastRadius", "Department", "JobTitle", "IsMFARegistered", "IsAccountEnabled", key="AccountUPN", display="AccountUPN") # Then add edges and finalise into a GraphSpec spec = ( builder # === EDGES === .add_edge("AccessedInteractive") .from_dataframe(edge_user_resource_interactive) .source(id_column="UserUPN", node_type="User") .target(id_column="ResourceName", node_type="Resource") .with_columns("AppDisplayName", "TimeGenerated", "IPAddress", "ConditionalAccessStatus", "AccessType", "EdgeKey", key="EdgeKey", display="AccessType") Cell 6 This cell will take the schema from cell 5 and will load it into the graph visual builder. This will give a sample of what the graphs made with this Notebook will look like. These samples are fully interactive and will give an example of how it will look within the Defender portal. For example: Please note that the Authoring Agent may provide a different looking schema if following along with this example. The schema above is just meant to provide an example of what one will look like within a Notebook. Cell 7 This cell is taking each of the following steps performed and is going to compile and build the graph based on the data from the Sentinel data lake. This may take a few minutes to perform. With the custom graph built, the next step is to create a Graph Job to save the custom graph in the tenant for persistent use. If necessary, users can go back into the notebook to refine, expand, and improve the custom graph. Publishing graph Publishing a graph is the process of saving the graph in a tenant, allowing for the graph to be scheduled for recurring refreshes or as needed. This process saves the graph to the tenant and enables other SOC members to access this graph from within the Defender portal. To publish a custom graph, this must go through a Graph Job. This option is available within the Notebook experience as a button near the top: Clicking on the Create Scheduled Job button will open a new tab within VS Code with the jobs settings and the option to publish: There are two types of job schedules: On Demand: Saves the custom graph to the tenant and will persist the custom graph for 30 days. After 30 days, the graph will be auto deleted. Scheduled: Saves the custom graph to the tenant and will rebuild with new security telemetry based on a user defined schedule. Once everything is prepped, the custom graph can be published to the tenant by hitting the Submit button. Users can view and monitor the creation progress by finding the graph within the Sentinel extension navigation as it shows the graphs available for the environment: Finding and selecting the custom graph will open up a new tab that shows details around the graph. This includes details around the name, creation status (creating, ready, etc), author, and publishing date. Near the top, there are tabs for Job Details and Graph Query. These options allow the user to review the current Graph Job, make changes to the Graph Job, or query the graph within the notebook. Querying the graph in Defender Once the custom graph has been published and the creation status is Ready, users can query the new graph in the Defender Portal: Expand the Microsoft Sentinel navigation. Select Graphs. Either find the card with the graph title or search for it within the menu. Once found, click Query Graph to open it. The graph will open in the schema view. The schema here is a visual representation of which nodes, edges, and relations are part of the graph. This is what was built in the notebook. To query it, a user can write GQL queries or use ones that are provided. For this example, a query provided in the Getting Started tab will be used. This is a generic query that will show everything in a graph: // Visualize any graph MATCH (x)-[y]->(z) RETURN * LIMIT 100 More focused queries will yield more focused results. For example: MATCH (n_user:User)-[e_ip:SignedInFrom]->(n_ip:IPAddress) MATCH (n_user)-[e_signin:InteractiveSignIn]->(n_app:Application) WHERE n_user.UserPrincipalName = 'ENTERUSERNAMHERE' AND n_ip.IPAddress = 'IPADDRESSHERE' RETURN n_user, e_ip, n_ip, e_signin, n_app MATCH (n_user)-[x]->() MATCH (n_user)-[e_signin:InteractiveSignIn]->(n_app:Application) WHERE n_user.UserPrincipalName = 'ENTERUSERNAMEHERE' RETURN * From here, a user can continue the hunt, remediate the concerns, escalate this for further attention and remediation, or refine the graph as needed. Refining Graphs Throughout the process, the custom graph may need to be updated for various reasons, including: The scope of the hunt/investigation has expanded due to new information or the hypothesis being updated based on findings The original hypothesis of the hunt was incorrect or needs to be changed Important nodes are missing from the graph and need to be added To achieve this, return to VS Code and use the GitHub Copilot chat experience to add new telemetry, nodes, edges, or properties in the existing graph. The below example illustrates adding Azure resources as new assets by prompting the Sentinel graph authoring tool and instructing it on what needs to be added. Running the cells of the Notebook will yield an updated graph that includes the new changes: Graph samples in the Sentinel VS Code extension To help with learning, building, and using Sentinel graph, there are 5 graph samples included in the Sentinel extension within VS Code. These can be found by clicking on the Sentinel extension and looking under Notebook Samples > Graphs. Each graph included contains a Jupyter notebook containing the graph schema and mappings, as well as graph queries which can be run against the graph. These graphs ingest certain security telemetry and expect them to already exist within the Sentinel lake instance that is being used. If needed, the graph mapping can be updated to include/ exclude security telemetry as needed. These graph samples are also located within the Sentinel GitHub repository. Let’s look at one of the sample graphs – Phishing Email Killchain to understand how it can help during a security investigation. Using a graph: phishing email kill chain scenario Phishing is the number one initial access vector, yet investigating a phishing campaign requires correlating data across multiple Sentinel tables: EmailEvents, EmailUrlInfo, UrlClickEvents, EmailAttachmentInfo, DeviceFileEvents, and DeviceProcessEvents. Each table uses a different join key (NetworkMessageId, AccountUpn, SHA256, DeviceName), and analysts must stitch results together manually across several Defender portals. The core question every SOC analyst needs to answer is: “Who received the email, clicked the URL, downloaded the attachment, and executed it on their device?” In KQL, answering this requires 5+ sequential queries and 30–60 minutes of manual correlation. The Phishing Email Kill Chain graph fuses all of these tables into a single connected structure with 10 node types and 12 edge types, making it possible to answer that question in seconds with a single GQL traversal. SOC teams can create this graph in their tenant and start investigating phishing campaigns using graph-powered insights. Investigation with the Phishing Email Killchain graph Multi-hop traversal. The full kill chain from email to endpoint execution is a 4-hop path: Email → Attachment → Process → Device. In KQL, each hop is a separate join with a different key column. In the graph, it’s one MATCH clause. Structural detection. Campaign topology is visible as the graph’s shape — senders fanning out to emails, emails fanning out to users, shared URLs converging into hubs. These patterns are structural properties requiring no aggregation queries. Click-exposure overlay. The graph overlays email delivery and URL click paths in a single view. An analyst instantly sees which users received a phishing email AND clicked the embedded URL — no separate UrlClickEvents join needed. Example queries Below are three queries from the published phishing_email_killchain graph that demonstrate these capabilities. Each query is a single GQL statement that replaces multiple KQL joins. Query 1: Full Kill Chain — Email to Endpoint This query traces the complete attack path: phishing email → malicious attachment → process execution → endpoint device. In KQL, this requires joining 4 tables with different keys and temporal proximity filtering. MATCH (e:Email)-[ha:HasAttachment]->(att:Attachment) -[tp:TriggeredProcess]->(p:Process)-[od:OnDevice]->(d:Device) RETURN e, ha, att, tp, p, od, d LIMIT 10 Figure 1: Two complete kill chains — Invoice_Q3.xlsm → EXCEL.EXE → DESKTOP-FIN01 and DocuSign_Contract.pdf.exe → cmd.exe → DESKTOP-SALES02. Each path is one traversal replacing 4+ KQL joins. Query 2: Campaign Topology — Sender to Email to User to URL This query visualizes the full campaign structure: which senders sent which emails, who received them, and what URLs were embedded. The graph’s fan-out shape immediately reveals the blast radius and shared infrastructure. MATCH (s:Sender)-[se:Sent]->(e:Email)-[re:ReceivedEmail]->(u:User), (e)-[cu:ContainsUrl]->(url:Url) RETURN s, se, e, re, u, cu, url LIMIT 10 Figure 2: Campaign topology — 2 senders, 2 emails fanning out to 9 users and 2 URLs. The shared URL node (c0ntoso-share...) receiving edges from both emails reveals coordinated campaign infrastructure. Query 3: URL Click Exposure — Who Clicked the Phishing Links This query shows which emails contained URLs and which users clicked them. The Email → URL → User click chain is a single traversal that replaces joining EmailUrlInfo with UrlClickEvents. MATCH (e:Email)-[cu:ContainsUrl]->(url:Url)<-[cl:ClickedUrl]-(u:User) RETURN e, cu, url, cl, u LIMIT 10 Figure 3: Click exposure — 3 users clicked phishing URLs from 3 different emails. Each cluster shows Email → URL → User, instantly identifying click-through victims. These are just 3 examples of what is possible when using GQL on a graph. Users can author their own GQL queries to run on this graph to show other possibilities. Additional graph samples As mentioned, the Phishing Email Killchain graph is one of five graph samples that are available today for use within the VS Code Sentinel Extension. The remaining graphs are: Behavioral Attack Chain Ingests data from the SentinelBehaviorInfo, SentinelBehaviorEntities, AlertInfo, AlertEvidence, ThreatIntelIndicators, and BehaviorAnalytics tables to model the relationships between different detections, MITRE tactics/techniques, entities, and threat intel to high different traversals that are difficult to do with just KQL alone. Databricks Outbound Exfiltration Ingests data from the DatabricksNotebook, DatabricksSecrets, DatabricksDBFS, DatabricksClusters, DatabricksJobs, DatabricksSQLPermissions, IdentityInfo, AADUserRiskEvents, and BehaviorAnalytics tables to map Databricks notebook and cluster activities to the identities used in order to enable detections of unusual outbound data movement, privilege escalation, and data exfiltration patterns. DNS C2 Beaconing Ingests data from the DeviceNetworkEvents, DeviceInfo, and ThreatIntelIndicators to model DNS resolution patterns to detect C2 beaconing and other malicious patterns. OAuth Privilege Escalation Ingests data from the EntraServicePrincipals, AADRiskyServicePrincipals, and AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs tables to trace OAuth consent chains, credential abuse, and privilege escalation paths to identify hub users, over-permissions identities, and backdoor patterns that may exist. Closing This blog showcased an example of how a custom graph can be made with data within Microsoft Sentinel data lake and the help of GitHub Copilot, investigating a phishing email kill chain situation, and how to leverage the several graph templates that are provided in Sentinel. Get started today by using one of the template graphs, building your own graph, or by checking out the public documentation for Sentinel graph. Note: Custom graph API usage for creating graph and querying graph will be billed according to the Sentinel graph meter. Public Documentation: https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/sentinel/datalake/sentinel-graph-overview GQL Reference: Graph Query Language (GQL) reference for Microsoft Sentinel graph (Preview) | Microsoft Learn Planning graph Costs: Plan costs and understand pricing and billing - Microsoft Sentinel | Microsoft Learn
Introducing New Additions to Microsoft Sentinel Normalization and ASIM
TL;DR: New ASIM parsers for Azure Firewall, Key Vault, AWS CloudTrail (EC2, S3, IAM), and 10+ third-party products. Two new schemas — Asset Entities and AI Agent Events. Plus changelogs on GitHub and a heads-up on an upcoming breaking change in ProcessEvent parsers. What's New Security teams deal with logs from dozens of sources, each with its own schema. This painpoint makes it harder to write detections that work everywhere. The Advanced Security Information Model (ASIM) solves this by normalizing logs into a common schema, so a single analytic rule can cover a wide variety of sources without worrying about the source schema. Over the past few months, we have shipped a wave of new parsers, schemas, and improvements to ASIM. Here's everything you need to know. ASIM Parsers Azure Firewall Azure Firewall logs were previously only supported from the AzureDiagnostics table. Now, we support the dedicated resource-specific tables: Table ASIM Schema AZFWDnsQuery DNS AZFWNetworkRule NetworkSession AZFWApplicationRule WebSession Azure Key Vault Logs that are going to both AzureDiagnostics and resource-specific table AZKVAuditLogs are now normalized in the Audit Event schema. Azure Synapse SQL and Azure SQL Database Logs that are going to both AzureDiagnostics and resource-specific table SQLSecurityAuditEvents are now normalized to the Audit Event schema. Azure Traffic Analytics We have added support for the NTANetAnalytics table from Azure Traffic Analytics under the Network Session schema. AWS CloudTrail AWS CloudTrail previously only mapped to the Authentication schema. Now, you can correlate EC2, S3, and IAM activity through ASIM alongside your Azure telemetry: AuditEvent — Normalized EC2 events FileEvent — Normalized S3 events UserManagement — Normalized IAM and Cognito events Additional Parser Support We have also integrated the following third-party sources into ASIM: Authentication — Normalize sign-in and identity events for cross-source threat detection. CheckPoint Smart Defense Cisco IOS Cisco ISE Fortinet FortiGate Okta (OktaSystemLogs) Palo Alto — PAN-OS Palo Alto — Global Protect VMware vCenter Web Session — Normalize proxy and web gateway traffic. Cisco Umbrella Proxy Logs New ASIM Schemas We have created two new schemas to expand support new use cases. Asset Entities — Provides a normalized view of asset inventory data, enabling you to correlate files and assets across detections and investigations. AI Agent Events — Normalizes telemetry from AI-driven workflows and autonomous agents. Other Changes GitHub Changes Changelogs for every ASIM parser have been created to better help you understand updates and bug fixes we have implemented. As an example, here is the change log for the Authentication ASIM unifying parser. View Changelog Breaking Changes While aligning our ProcessEvent parsers to the official documentation, we found a naming inconsistency in the _Im_ProcessCreate function: Documentation specifies the parameter as targetusername_has Deployed parsers used targetusername What we changed: Both parameter names are now accepted. What you need to do: Update your analytic rules and queries to use targetusername_has. The legacy targetusername parameter will be deprecated in Summer 2026. What's Next We are continuing to expand ASIM with new parsers and schema capabilities to make detection authoring and log correlation even more powerful. BlueVoyant is also investing heavily in the ASIM ecosystem, building parsers that enhance detection coverage for their customers. See how they are using ASIM to operationalize detections. Want to get involved? Browse the ASIM parsers on GitHub, file issues, or contribute your own. We'd love to hear your feedback.
Microsoft 365 Developer E5 license lacking endpoints and device on defender portal
Dear Support Team, I am a microsoft certified trainer (MCT). I currently have a Microsoft 365 Developer E5 license assigned to my tenant. However, I have noticed that my Microsoft Defender portal (security.microsoft.com) is missing several critical features. For example, I cannot see the Endpoints or Devices menus, which is preventing me from implementing and testing Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. Additionally, my Azure tenant and Microsoft 365 tenant are separate. This has created challenges when configuring security services such as Microsoft Sentinel (SIEM), as certain prerequisites and integrations require configuration through the Microsoft Defender portal. Due to the missing Defender features, I am unable to complete the necessary setup. I would appreciate your assistance in understanding: Why the Endpoints and Devices sections are unavailable in my Defender portal despite having a Microsoft 365 Developer E5 license. Whether additional licensing, onboarding steps, or tenant configurations are required to enable Microsoft Defender for Endpoint features. How best to integrate or align my separate Azure and Microsoft 365 tenants to support services such as Microsoft Sentinel and Defender XDR. These issues are significantly impacting my ability to evaluate and implement Microsoft's security solutions. I would appreciate any guidance or recommendations to resolve them. Thank you for your assistance. Kind regards, [Your Name]Campaign-Centric Hunting with Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Sentinel
Phishing investigations usually start with one suspicious email. A user reports a message. An alert is generated. An analyst opens the email details, checks the sender, reviews the URL, and tries to understand whether the message is malicious. That is a normal starting point. However, in a real SOC investigation, one email is rarely the full story. Attackers usually operate in campaigns. They reuse sender infrastructure, similar subjects, URLs, payloads, templates, and delivery techniques. A single email may be only one part of a wider phishing or malware campaign targeting multiple users. This is why campaign-centric hunting is important. I wrote this article from the perspective of a SOC analyst who often needs to move quickly from a single suspicious email to the full campaign impact. The goal is simple: use Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Sentinel together to understand who was targeted, what was delivered, who clicked, and what should be prioritized first. Why Campaign-Centric Hunting When investigating a phishing or malware email, analysts usually need to answer practical questions: How many users received messages from the same campaign? Were the messages blocked, junked, delivered, or remediated? Did any user click the URL? Did anyone click through a Safe Links warning? Were any priority or high-risk users affected? Was the email removed after delivery? Are there related Defender XDR or Sentinel incidents? If we only investigate one message, we may miss the bigger picture. Campaign-centric hunting helps the SOC move from this question: Is this email malicious? To this question: What is the full impact of this campaign? That shift is important because the response priority should be based on campaign impact, not only on a single alert. What Campaign Views Provides Campaign Views in Microsoft Defender for Office 365 help analysts investigate coordinated email attacks such as phishing and malware campaigns. From Campaign Views, analysts can review campaign-level information such as: Campaign name Campaign type Campaign subtype Targeted users Inboxed messages Clicked users Visited links Sender domains Sender IPs Payload URLs Delivery actions Campaign timeline Campaign flow This is useful during triage because it quickly shows whether an email is part of a wider attack. For example, one reported phishing message may look small at first. But if Campaign Views shows that the same campaign targeted 50 users, delivered messages to 15 inboxes, and had 2 users click the URL, the investigation becomes much more urgent. Where CampaignInfo Fits The CampaignInfo table gives analysts a KQL-based way to query campaign-related data. Some useful fields are: Field Purpose CampaignId Unique identifier for the campaign CampaignName Name of the campaign CampaignType Campaign category, such as Phish or Malware CampaignSubtype Additional context, such as brand being phished or malware family NetworkMessageId Unique identifier for the email message RecipientEmailAddress Recipient affected by the campaign Timestamp Time when the event was recorded For correlation, the most important field is usually: NetworkMessageId This field can help connect campaign data with other Defender XDR email tables, including: EmailEvents UrlClickEvents EmailPostDeliveryEvents EmailAttachmentInfo EmailUrlInfo This makes CampaignInfo a useful pivot table for campaign-level hunting. Important note: CampaignInfo is currently documented as Preview. Before using these queries in production analytics rules, validate the table availability, schema, and results in your own tenant. Practical Scenario An analyst receives a phishing alert in Microsoft Defender XDR. The alert is related to a user who received a suspicious email with a credential-harvesting URL. The analyst opens Campaign Views and sees that the message belongs to a wider phishing campaign. At that point, the investigation should not stop with the original user. The analyst should now ask: Who else received this campaign? How many messages were delivered? Which users clicked? Did any users click through the Safe Links warning? Were the messages removed after delivery? Are there related incidents in Microsoft Sentinel? The investigation flow could look like this: Start from Campaign Views in Microsoft Defender XDR. Identify the campaign details. Use CampaignInfo to list affected users and messages. Join with EmailEvents to validate delivery status. Join with UrlClickEvents to identify user interaction. Join with EmailPostDeliveryEvents to confirm remediation. Review related Microsoft XDR incidents in Microsoft Sentinel. Prioritize response based on campaign impact. Query 1: List Recent Campaigns The first query gives a simple overview of recent campaigns. CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | summarize FirstSeen = min(Timestamp), LastSeen = max(Timestamp), AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by LastSeen desc This helps analysts quickly identify campaigns that affected the organization during the selected period. Useful questions to ask from this output: Which campaigns are most recent? Which campaigns affected the most users? Are the campaigns phishing, malware, or spam? Is there a specific brand or malware family in the subtype? Are similar campaigns appearing repeatedly? Query 2: Understand Delivery Impact After identifying campaigns, the next step is to understand delivery impact. A campaign that was fully blocked is different from a campaign that reached user inboxes. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter ( EmailEvents | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress, Subject, SenderFromAddress, SenderFromDomain, SenderIPv4, DeliveryAction, DeliveryLocation, ThreatTypes, DetectionMethods, Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId), AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Subjects = make_set(Subject, 5), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderFromDomain, 10), SenderIPs = make_set(SenderIPv4, 10) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, DeliveryAction, DeliveryLocation | order by AffectedUsers desc, Messages desc This query helps separate campaigns that were blocked from campaigns that actually reached users. From a SOC perspective, delivered messages deserve closer attention, especially if they reached the inbox. Query 3: Identify Users Who Clicked Campaign URLs Delivery is important, but clicks usually increase the priority of the incident. This query joins campaign data with UrlClickEvents. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=inner ( UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project NetworkMessageId, AccountUpn, Url, ActionType, IsClickedThrough, ThreatTypes, DetectionMethods, IPAddress, Workload, ClickTime = Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId | summarize FirstClick = min(ClickTime), LastClick = max(ClickTime), ClickEvents = count(), ClickedUsers = dcount(AccountUpn), ClickThroughUsers = dcountif(AccountUpn, IsClickedThrough == true), ClickedUrls = make_set(Url, 10), SourceIPs = make_set(IPAddress, 10) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by ClickThroughUsers desc, ClickedUsers desc, LastClick desc This query helps identify campaigns where users interacted with the payload. If a user clicked a phishing URL, the next step should usually include identity-focused investigation, such as reviewing sign-in activity, MFA status, session activity, and possible risky sign-ins. Query 4: Focus on Click-Through Events Safe Links may block access to a malicious site. In some cases, however, a user may continue through a warning page. Those cases should be reviewed carefully. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=inner ( UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | where IsClickedThrough == true | project NetworkMessageId, AccountUpn, Url, ActionType, ThreatTypes, IPAddress, ClickTime = Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId | project ClickTime, CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, AccountUpn, RecipientEmailAddress, Url, ActionType, ThreatTypes, IPAddress | order by ClickTime desc This is one of the most useful views during incident response. A click-through event does not automatically mean compromise, but it is a strong reason to investigate the user account further. Query 5: Confirm Post-Delivery Remediation A malicious message may be delivered first and removed later by ZAP, AIR, or manual remediation. This query joins CampaignInfo with EmailPostDeliveryEvents. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter ( EmailPostDeliveryEvents | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress, RemediationTime = Timestamp, Action, ActionType, ActionTrigger, ActionResult, DeliveryLocation, SourceLocation ) on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize RemediatedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, isnotempty(ActionType)), RemediationTypes = make_set(ActionType, 10), RemediationResults = make_set(ActionResult, 10), LastRemediation = max(RemediationTime) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by LastRemediation desc This helps answer a very important question: Were the delivered malicious messages actually removed? This is useful for both SOC triage and reporting because it shows not only detection, but also response. Query 6: Campaign Blast Radius Summary The following query combines campaign, delivery, click, and remediation data into one campaign-level view. let TimeRange = 30d; let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; let Delivery = EmailEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize DeliveryActions = make_set(DeliveryAction, 10), DeliveryLocations = make_set(DeliveryLocation, 10), DeliveredMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Delivered"), JunkedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Junked"), BlockedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Blocked"), Subjects = make_set(Subject, 5), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderFromDomain, 10) by NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; let Clicks = UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize ClickEvents = count(), ClickThroughEvents = countif(IsClickedThrough == true), FirstClick = min(Timestamp), LastClick = max(Timestamp), ClickedUrls = make_set(Url, 10) by NetworkMessageId; let Remediation = EmailPostDeliveryEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize RemediationActions = make_set(ActionType, 10), LastRemediation = max(Timestamp) by NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter Delivery on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | join kind=leftouter Clicks on NetworkMessageId | join kind=leftouter Remediation on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId), DeliveredMessages = sum(DeliveredMessages), JunkedMessages = sum(JunkedMessages), BlockedMessages = sum(BlockedMessages), TotalClickEvents = sum(ClickEvents), ClickThroughEvents = sum(ClickThroughEvents), Subjects = make_set(Subjects, 10), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderDomains, 10), ClickedUrls = make_set(ClickedUrls, 10), RemediationActions = make_set(RemediationActions, 10), LastClick = max(LastClick), LastRemediation = max(LastRemediation) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | extend SuggestedPriority = case( ClickThroughEvents > 0, "High", TotalClickEvents > 0, "Medium", DeliveredMessages > 0, "Medium", "Low" ) | order by SuggestedPriority asc, AffectedUsers desc, Messages desc This type of query can be useful during hunting sessions, incident review, and campaign reporting. The goal is not only to collect more data. The goal is to help the analyst decide what needs attention first. Correlating Campaign Activity with Microsoft Sentinel When Microsoft Defender XDR is connected to Microsoft Sentinel, incidents and alerts can be synchronized into the Sentinel incident queue. This allows the SOC to correlate campaign-related email activity with other security signals, such as: Suspicious sign-ins Identity alerts Endpoint alerts Cloud app activity OAuth consent activity Data exfiltration attempts Related Microsoft XDR incidents For example, if a user clicked a phishing URL, the SOC can then review whether the same user had suspicious sign-in activity shortly after the click. The following query is a simple starting point for reviewing Microsoft XDR incidents in Microsoft Sentinel. SecurityIncident | where TimeGenerated > ago(30d) | where ProviderName == "Microsoft XDR" | where Title has_any ("phish", "phishing", "email", "malware", "campaign") | summarize Incidents = count(), HighSeverity = countif(Severity == "High"), MediumSeverity = countif(Severity == "Medium"), Closed = countif(Status == "Closed"), Active = countif(Status == "Active") by bin(TimeGenerated, 1d) | order by TimeGenerated desc This query does not replace campaign hunting. It simply helps analysts understand how email-related activity is represented in the Sentinel incident queue. Suggested SOC Workflow A practical campaign-centric workflow could look like this: Step 1: Start from Campaign Views Review campaigns with delivered messages, clicked users, visited links, or high user impact. Step 2: Pivot to KQL Use CampaignInfo to list campaign-related messages and affected recipients. Step 3: Validate Delivery Join with EmailEvents to confirm whether messages were blocked, junked, delivered, or replaced. Step 4: Review User Interaction Join with UrlClickEvents to identify users who clicked URLs or clicked through Safe Links warnings. Step 5: Confirm Remediation Join with EmailPostDeliveryEvents to confirm whether delivered messages were removed after delivery. Step 6: Correlate in Sentinel Review related Microsoft XDR incidents and correlate with identity, endpoint, and cloud activity. Step 7: Decide Response Depending on the impact, the SOC may decide to: Escalate the incident Notify affected users Review user sign-ins Revoke user sessions Reset passwords Block sender domains or URLs Submit false negatives Create a watchlist for related indicators Tune analytics rules or response processes Suggested Priority Logic Not every campaign needs the same level of response. A simple triage model could be: Condition Suggested priority Campaign blocked before delivery Low Campaign delivered to junk Low to Medium Campaign delivered to inbox Medium Campaign delivered to multiple inboxes Medium to High User clicked URL High User clicked through warning High Priority account clicked High Click followed by suspicious sign-in Critical This model should be adapted to each organization’s risk profile and response process. Limitations and Things to Validate Before using this approach in production, validate the following: Defender for Office 365 Plan 2 availability Campaign Views permissions CampaignInfo table availability Defender XDR connector configuration Advanced hunting event streaming Field names in your environment Retention period Data latency Join behavior using NetworkMessageId Whether click events can be joined to email metadata in all cases One important limitation is that some URL click events may not join cleanly with email metadata. For example, clicks from Drafts or Sent Items may not have the same message metadata available for correlation. Also, because CampaignInfo is currently documented as Preview, I would avoid depending on it alone for critical production automation without testing and validation.
Pending Approval/Provisioning for Microsoft Defender XDR Lab/Trial Environment
Hello Microsoft Community Team, On June 26, 2026, our organization applied for a Microsoft 365 Developer Environment / Free Trial to support evaluation of the Microsoft Defender XDR Lab environment. To date, the environment has not been provisioned, and we have not received any status updates or confirmation. Impact: Current Status: We are currently utilizing our production environment to test project capabilities, which poses risks and limitations. Future Intent: Our organization plans to transition to a full, paid Business/Enterprise purchase immediately upon proving the platform’s benefits. Urgency: This delay is stalling our evaluation phase. We urgently need this environment onboarded and activated so we can proceed with deployment tests and subsequent procurement. Request: Please review the status of our registration and expedite the onboarding/provisioning of this developer environment. Thank you for your prompt assistance.The Worm in the Supply Chain: How Defender for Endpoint and Sentinel for SAP BTP Caught Shai-Hulud
On 29 April 2026, malicious versions of multiple SAP ecosystem npm packages were briefly published, creating a supply-chain exposure for SAP Cloud Application Programming (CAP) development environments and CI/CD pipelines. For a brief window that morning, affected developers have executed a credential-stealing payload on a workstation or, in higher-impact cases, within a CI/CD pipeline. SAP developers don't usually think of themselves as a juicy npm target. CAP, BTP, Fiori - that's enterprise turf, not crypto-stealer type territory – Until it is. Join me for the ride. See our latest click-video for an even more dynamic experience of SAP compromises. Affected packages and scope Four official npm packages from the SAP development ecosystem were published in malicious versions that day. Security researchers are calling the campaign "Mini Shai-Hulud" - the little cousin of the worm family that has been chewing its way through open-source registries for months. So, the "mini" part is a generous description in my opinion. Shai-Hulud has wriggled directly into the SAP supply chain, and that detail alone deserves a pause... SAP CAP is now interesting enough to have become a target. Four packages, all wearing legitimate SAP branding, all quietly swapped for evil twins: @cap-js/sqlite v2.2.2 @cap-js/postgres v2.2.2 @cap-js/db-service v2.10.1 mbt v1.2.48 These packages are not peripheral dependencies. The @cap-js/* modules are part of the SAP CAP Model used across custom development on SAP BTP, while mbt is the Cloud MTA Build Tool commonly embedded in CI/CD workflows that package and deploy Multi-Target Applications to BTP and on-premises environments. At roughly 930,000 weekly downloads, the combined exposure created meaningful downstream attack surface. The good news: SAP spotted the compromise fast, yanked the bad versions, and shipped clean replacements. The official guidance lives in SAP Security Note 3747787 - which carries the list of indicators of compromise, file hashes, and mitigation steps. Enough theory and evidence talk! Now, SHOW ME the detection! When the worm stirs beneath the sand, weak defenses vanish first. Observed telemetry in Microsoft Security products See below excerpt of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint from a compromised developer machine. The worm was neutralized immediately. Check the detection time (same day of release): Windows Defender AV detected malware ToString: DefenderDetection: File: /Users/User***/Projects/dara-api-manager-ui/node_modules/mbt/File***.js, Sha256: *** [Trojan:JS/SPchnStlr.BB], BlockingStatus: Prevented, BlockingStatusPriority: 900 DetectionTime: 2026-04-29 11:52:11Z DetectorName: Microsoft.Cyber.ObservationDetectors.DefenderConcreteDetector Observations (2): DefenderObservation Description: Defender detected and quarantined 'Trojan:JS/SPchnStlr.BB' in file 'File***.js' ThreatCategory = Trojan, ThreatFamily = SPchnStlr, How the Threat Actors Operationalized the Stolen Data The compromise allowed harvesting GitHub tokens, AWS/Azure/GCP secrets, npm credentials, Kubernetes config, SSH keys, .npmrc and .git-credentials files, and CI/CD environment variables. The hackers created a public GitHub repository on the victim’s own account, tagged with the description “A Mini Shai-Hulud has Appeared“ to exfiltrate their reaping. Within hours, more than a thousand such repositories were visible in public GitHub search. For additional views on the topic check out the blogs of our Sentinel for SAP partners: Onapsis, Pathlock, and SecurityBridge. Containment and Impact Reduction If you were not as lucky as the developer using Defender for Endpoint and VS Code, you need end to end monitoring of your landscape in and around SAP. Once the worm is loose with cloud tokens it may appear in various unexpected places. Microsoft Sentinel Solution for SAP covers your ERP crown jewels, your SAP BTP landscape and allows informed correlation with the rest of your IT estate. Microsoft’s correlation engine: ensures traceability automatic attack disruption and just-in-time hardening of potential attack paths. Developers using the cloud-based IDE SAP Business Application Studio are out of reach by Defender for Endpoint but profit from threat monitoring through Sentinel for SAP BTP integrating SAP BTP’s malware scanner the same way. See this in action in this click-video and in below screenshot. SOC analysts get actionable insights and tailored guidance from Security Copilot once SAP BTP signals are added to the Microsoft incident graph - no matter where the threat involving SAP originates from. Getting Started with Sentinel Solution for SAP Rollout of Sentinel for SAP BTP can happen immediately. Learn more from our deployment guide. Check out the security content reference for more info out-of-the-box detections. Sentinel for SAP which covers your ERP solutions and more, requires configuration of SAP Integration Suite as intermediary step. Learn more from our deployment guide. Check out the security content reference for more info out-of-the-box detections Final Words This incident illustrates how far the SAP BTP attack surface now extends and why patching alone is insufficient once malicious code reaches developer tooling and build infrastructure. Effective defense also requires telemetry, correlation, and response coverage across SAP and non-SAP environments. See you out there folks! #Kudos to Mahesh Mandva and Cameron Gardiner on riding shai-holud with me. Feel free to reach out to talk more about SAP Cyber Security. Cheers, Martin Useful Links SAP Note 3747787 with mitigation guide Mini Shai-Hulud: Multi-Ecosystem Developer Supply Chain Attack – Lab Space Click-Demo for SAP Cyber Security with Microsoft Sentinel for SAP Security Content | Microsoft Learn Sentinel for SAP BTP Security Content | Microsoft LearnOperational Notes on Microsoft Security Copilot Agents in Defender XDR and Microsoft Entra ID
Microsoft Security Copilot is now becoming more visible inside day-to-day security operations, especially through embedded experiences and agent-based workflows across Microsoft Defender XDR, Microsoft Entra ID, Microsoft Intune, and Microsoft Purview. Instead of looking at Security Copilot only as a standalone prompt interface, SOC and identity teams should also understand how Security Copilot agents are deployed, how they consume Security Compute Units, how they appear in operational workflows, and where activity can be monitored. This post summarizes practical observations from a security operations perspective, with a focus on Microsoft Defender XDR, Microsoft Entra ID, usage monitoring, and KQL-based activity review. Licensing & Capacity Units Requirements Requires eligible Microsoft security licensing, typically: Microsoft 365 E5 Microsoft 365 E7 Security Compute Units (SCUs) Security Copilot capacity is measured using Security Compute Units (SCUs). SCUs are billed based on provisioned capacity. Indicative pricing: $4 per Provisionied SCU/hour $6 per Overage SCU/hour Billing is calculated hourly, based on the amount of SCUs provisioned. Included Capacity Organizations with: 1,000 Microsoft 365 E5 licenses Receive: 400 included SCUs Included SCUs are shared across the tenant within a common capacity pool. Scaling SCU capacity can be scaled dynamically based on operational requirements and workload demand. Data Retention Security Copilot session and interaction data without active SCU-backed retention is typically retained for: 90 days Security Copilot Agents - Microsoft Defender This section outlines the Microsoft Security Copilot agents currently available in the Microsoft Defender portal. NameKey characteristics Security Alert Triage Agent (Preview) Manual setup from Defender portal Automatically creates Unified RBAC custom role Runs automatically when a user reports a suspicious email or when a new supported alert is generated, supported alert sources: MDI, MDC, MDO If an alert tuning rule is enabled, it will be automatically disabled when the agent is deployed. Creates and connects with agentic user account: Phishing Triage Agent (Security Copilot) Automatic alert assignment to SecurityCopilotAgentUser-db16fec3-f1fb-4632-843e-46d07408c584@<tenant-domain>Alert was assigned to Phishing Triage Agent (Security Copilot). Adds Tag Agent to the created Incidents Threat Hunting Agent Manual setup from Defender portal Automatically creates Unified RBAC custom role This agent runs manually. There isn't an automatic trigger. Creates and connects with agentic user account: Threat Hunting Agent (Security Copilot) Analyst Questions in natural language Generates and executed KQL queries in Advanced hunting Provides charts, dynamic follow-up questions and remediation actions recommendations No activity is identified from agent's identity during agent execution Threat Intelligence Briefing Agent Manual setup from Defender portal Provides automated TI briefing summary Configured from https://security.microsoft.com/securitysettings/defender/agent_configuration-threatintelligencebriefingagent Security Analyst Agent Manual setup from Defender portal Dynamic Threat Detection Agent (Preview) Automatically enabled always-on, runs continuously in the background Correlates: Alerts, Security events, Behavioral anomalies, TI signals Generates Alerts with Detection Source: Security Copilot The Alerts can be correlated with existing Multi-Stage Incidents No agentic user account identity is used by this agent Available free of charge during public preview, will begin consuming Security Compute Units (SCUs) once generally available (GA) Incidents handled by Security Alert Triage Agent: Alerts created by Dynamic Threat Detection Agent: Execution of Threat Hunting Agent: View agents in use: https://security.microsoft.com/security-copilot/agents View Unified RBAC custom roles: https://security.microsoft.com/mtp_roles View Security Copilot user identities in Microsoft Entra ID: Notes: CloudAppEvents activity logs only from the following agents: Phishing Triage Agent Conditional Access Optimization Agent Security Copilot Agents - Microsoft Entra ID Conditional Access Optimization Agent Usage Monitoring Sign-in to Security Copilot portal using Global Admin account and navigate to the following location: https://securitycopilot.microsoft.com/usage-monitoring Reference: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/copilot/security/manage-usage Logging Activity Copilot Agents Management: CloudAppEvents | where ActionType contains "CopilotAgent" | extend AgentName = RawEventData.AgentName | extend Workload = RawEventData.Workload | extend ResultStatus = RawEventData.ResultStatus | project TimeGenerated, ActionType, ResultStatus, AgentName, Application, Workload All Copilot Workload data: CloudAppEvents | extend Workload = RawEventData.Workload | where Workload == "Copilot" | summarize EventCount = count() by ActionType, AccountDisplayNameThe Fileless Paradox: How My 33-Day-Old Research Became Today's Ransomware Reality
33 Days Before BARADAI Emerged 🔴 Before You Read: What Is This Article About? This is the first article I have published on Microsoft Tech Community, and this is not a standard threat report. This is the story of being right before anyone believed it — and of a ransomware family called BARADAI that proved it. On April 5, 2026, I published a technical research article documenting, in detail, a fileless malware architecture that operated entirely in RAM using steganography and Windows Registry persistence. When I shared it on social media, the reactions were immediate and brutal: “A fileless payload cannot be persistent. If it leaves no trace on disk, it cannot survive a reboot.” “This technique is entirely theoretical. No real threat actor would ever use this in production.” “You cannot have persistence without leaving traces. Pick one.” And the most absurd ones: “Stop writing articles with AI.” “This level of technical detail is unrealistic — did AI generate this?” “Forensic artifacts cannot be erased. What kind of technique is this?” At that moment, I could not prove myself. I had a working proof-of-concept. I had built the architecture myself. The technical logic was sound. But I did not yet have a real-world threat actor using it in production. 33 days later, BARADAI appeared. And it used the exact same playbook I had written. This article is the first volume of the “We Saw It Coming” series. In this series, I correlate my independent research with emerging real-world threats, document technical overlaps, and provide actionable detection and defense guidance for Microsoft environments. Right now, I am actively trying to reverse and decrypt BARADAI. I do not yet have a definitive solution. But I am publishing this journey because my goal is to finalize a solution by collecting additional logs and intelligence. 📌 Table of Contents The Moment Nobody Believed 33 Days Later: Meet BARADAI The B-Family: Shared Infrastructure Ecosystem Side-by-Side: Technical Overlap Analysis Deep Dive: The Fileless Paradox — How Both Architectures Work The PAIDMEMES Anomaly: Forensic Residue Inside BARADAI My Technique vs BARADAI: Shared Technical Patterns Microsoft Sentinel Detection Rules (KQL) MITRE ATT&CK Mapping Decryption Research and My Current Approaches Defensive Recommendations Sources and References ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. The Moment Nobody Believed April 5, 2026 — A Research Paper, a Community, and Silence On April 5, 2026, I published a detailed technical research article on Medium titled: “STEGOMALWARE — PNG Persistence Through Steganography and Windows Registry” The article documented a complete attack architecture that I designed and tested from scratch in a controlled laboratory environment. My core thesis was this: A fileless malware strain can achieve persistent, reboot-resilient execution without ever writing a malicious executable to disk — by hiding its payload inside the pixels of a PNG image using LSB steganography and leveraging the Windows Registry for persistence. I demonstrated this by building a keylogger. The architecture had four defining characteristics: Feature 1 — Fileless Execution (RAM-Only) The malicious payload never touches disk as an executable file. Instead, a small, “clean-looking” loader script extracts hidden code from the pixel data of a PNG image and executes it directly in RAM. No .exe, no .py, no .dll on disk. Traditional antivirus file-scanning mechanisms are effectively blind to this. Feature 2 — Registry-Based Persistence Contrary to critics claiming that fileless malware cannot survive reboots, the loader writes itself into the Windows Registry Run key: HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run This means that every time Windows starts, the loader executes again, extracts the payload from the PNG, and runs it back in memory. The malware lives in the Registry — not on disk. Feature 3 — Process Masquerading I compiled the loader under the name svchost.exe and assigned it a Windows service icon. When viewed in Task Manager, it appeared indistinguishable from a legitimate Windows system process. Feature 4 — Self-Repair (Self-Integrity Check) The loader continuously validated both its Registry entry and its file copy. If an antivirus product deleted the file or removed the Registry entry, the loader detected the modification and restored itself during the next execution cycle. Feature 5 — Intelligent Data Collection The keylogger I built automatically embedded collected data into the pixels of a PNG image every 10 characters or every 30 seconds — whichever occurred first. After each cycle, it reset itself, cleared temporary memory artifacts, and initiated a fresh collection loop. This architectural design enabled the malware to remain undetected on a system for months. Because there was no ever-growing log file on disk — the data was continuously transferred into images. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Reactions The reactions I received when sharing this research did not surprise me, but they disappointed me. Technical objections: “Fileless malware, by definition, cannot survive reboots. No disk means no persistence.” “Forensic evidence cannot be erased. This makes no technical sense.” “If you are writing to the Registry, then it is not truly fileless.” Personal attacks: “Stop writing with AI.” “If you can perform technical analysis this detailed, why has nobody heard of you before?” “Copied from AI — even the formatting looks AI-generated.” This feedback revealed two things: First, people fundamentally misunderstood the concept of fileless malware — they were confusing “fileless execution” with “leaving absolutely no traces anywhere.” The Registry is not a traditional file in the conventional sense, yet it remains a persistent storage mechanism resilient across reboots. Second, it demonstrated how easily independent researchers are dismissed. Research not published by a major corporation or university was automatically labeled “AI-generated” or “theoretical.” At that moment, I could not prove myself. 33 days later, BARADAI proved me right. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. 33 Days Later: Meet BARADAI May 5–8, 2026 — A New Threat Surfaces On May 5, 2026, researchers at PCrisk documented a new ransomware sample submitted to VirusTtl. On the same day, CYFIRMA’s underground forum monitoring team flagged it in their threat intelligence feeds. By May 8, CYFIRMA’s Weekly Intelligence Report had published the first structured analysis. The threat was named BARADAI — derived from the extension it appends to encrypted files: .BARADAI -------------------------------------------- What Is BARADAI? BARADAI is a Windows ransomware variant belonging to the MedusaLocker family. MedusaLocker has been active since late 2019 and remains one of the most prolific and long-lived ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) operations in the threat landscape. BARADAI is a specific variant of the MedusaLocker v3 architecture — sometimes tracked in threat intelligence repositories as “BabyLockerKZ.” Detection names across major security vendors: Microsoft Defender: Ransom:Win64/MedusaLocker.MZT!MTB ESET: Win64/Filecoder.MedusaLocker.A Avast: Win64:MalwareX-gen [Ransom] Kaspersky: HEUR:Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Generic ------------------------------------------------------------ How Does It Operate? BARADAI follows a double-extortion model. Silent Phase (Reconnaissance) After initial access, BARADAI does not immediately begin encryption. Instead, it performs systematic reconnaissance: -Enumerates running processes -Maps network topology -Collects browser-stored credentials -Harvests session cookies and SSL certificates -Captures desktop screenshots -Exfiltrates collected data to attacker-controlled C2 infrastructure Encryption Phase After exfiltration is complete, BARADAI activates its cryptographic payload: -AES-256-CBC for file content encryption -RSA-4096 for key protection Extortion Phase A ransom note (read_to_decrypt_files.html or WHATS_HAPPEND.txt) is dropped into every encrypted directory. Victims are given a 72-hour deadline. If payment is not made before expiration, stolen data is published on the group’s Data Leak Site (DLS). ------------------------------------------------------------------- Confirmed Targeting as of May 2026 Geographies -United States -Brazil -France -Australia -Italy -Israel -Malaysia Sectors -Education -Manufacturing -Engineering -Retail -Logistics -NGOs Ransom Demand Range -USD $10,000 — $80,000 per incident (CYFIRMA, May 2026) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. The B-Family: Shared Infrastructure Ecosystem One of the most important findings that emerged during my analysis was this: BARADAI is not operating alone. Threat intelligence monitoring identified a cluster of MedusaLocker variants sharing: -The same naming conventions -Similar code architecture -And most critically — the same Tor-based infrastructure I named this cluster: “The B-Family” --------------------------------------------- Evidence of Shared Infrastructure The strongest evidence of coordination inside the B-Family is not behavioral similarity — it is shared infrastructure. BARADAI’s ransom note lists the following Tor hidden service for victim negotiations: t33zoj4qwv455fog7qnb2azi5xcdxkixughmmduzbw2rtdgryqfbh6id.onion This is identical to the Tor address listed as the Data Leak Site and file leak server for BAVACAI — independently verified by ransomware.live, which identified the server running NGINX 1.24.0. PCrisk’s BARADAI documentation also includes screenshots of the leak site using the filename prefix: bavacai- This is structural evidence confirming that the same backend infrastructure serves both variants. What This Means The B-Family is not a collection of copycat operations. It is a single operation — or a tightly coordinated RaaS affiliate ecosystem — using different “brand names” per campaign in order to complicate attribution, tracking, and law enforcement disruption. ----------------------------------------------------------- Known Victims (BAVACAI DLS — Shared Backend) As of May 8, 2026, the BAVACAI DLS listed 16 victims — all published simultaneously on May 5. ------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Side-by-Side: Technical Overlap Analysis This section is the core of the article. The table below correlates the exact techniques documented in my April 5, 2026 research with the verified BARADAI behaviors documented by CYFIRMA, PCrisk, and the broader MedusaLocker analysis corpus. The conclusion is direct and unavoidable: The architecture I built, tested, documented, and published in a controlled laboratory environment on April 5, 2026 — the same architecture the community dismissed as “theoretical,” “AI-generated,” and “impossible” — was operationalized by a real threat actor 33 days later. -------------------------------------------------------- 5. Deep Dive: The Fileless Paradox Let us settle the debate permanently. The Misconception: “Fileless Malware Cannot Be Persistent” The argument I repeatedly encountered was this: “If malware does not leave files on disk, it cannot survive a reboot because RAM is volatile.” Technically correct. Strategically incomplete. It is true that RAM-resident code disappears when the system powers off. However, persistence does not require the malicious payload itself to reside on disk. It requires a mechanism that re-executes the payload after reboot. Those are two different things. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Architecture: How It Actually Works ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ATTACK ARCHITECTURE │ │ │ │ DISK (minimal footprint): │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ loader.exe (masquerading as svchost.exe) │ │ │ │ cover_image.png (contains hidden payload) │ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ REGISTRY (persistence): │ │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ HKCU\...\Run\WindowsUpdateService │ │ │ │ → points to loader.exe │ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ ON EVERY BOOT: │ │ │ Registry triggers → loader.exe executes → │ │ Reads PNG pixels → extracts payload → │ │ Loads into RAM → executes │ │ (No malicious .exe is ever written to disk) │ │ │ │ RAM (execution): │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Keylogger / RAT / Ransomware module │ │ │ │ Executes entirely in memory │ │ │ │ Invisible to disk-based AV scanning │ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Only the loader exists on disk — and the loader itself is a small, legitimate-looking executable without a malicious signature. The malicious payload lives in: -The pixel data of the PNG image (steganographically encoded) -RAM (during active execution) The Registry provides the trigger mechanism — not the payload itself. That was the exact distinction critics failed to understand. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Why It Evades Traditional Detection BARADAI’s Implementation BARADAI uses the same logical architecture at larger scale. The MedusaLocker v3 binary: - Achieves persistence via Registry Run Key: HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\BabyLockerKZ -Executes core ransomware logic in memory without writing recoverable payload components to disk -Uses Parent PID Spoofing (T1134.004) to appear as a child process of explorer.exe or svchost.exe -Restores itself through persistence mechanisms if binaries are deleted ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. The PAIDMEMES Anomaly: Forensic Residue Inside BARADAI One of BARADAI’s most distinctive — and frankly bizarre — technical characteristics is its configuration and key storage mechanism. Unlike most ransomware variants that attempt to keep all cryptographic material exclusively in volatile memory, BARADAI writes directly into the Windows Registry under an extremely unusual hive: HKCU\SOFTWARE\PAIDMEMES\PUBLIC HKCU\SOFTWARE\PAIDMEMES\PRIVATE - HKCU\SOFTWARE\PAIDMEMES\PUBLIC stores the Base64-encoded RSA public key extracted from the malware configuration. - HKCU\SOFTWARE\PAIDMEMES\PRIVATE stores encrypted runtime state and configuration parameters required for persistence across multiple execution instances. ------------------------------------------- Why This Matters The PAIDMEMES Registry hive is not random — it serves a specific operational purpose. When BARADAI is launched with the -network flag (instructing it to encrypt network shares), it spawns a secondary instance of itself as a non-elevated process. By storing cryptographic keys and configuration inside the Registry, that secondary instance — even without administrative privileges — can access everything necessary to continue the attack. These two Registry artifacts represent your highest-confidence BARADAI detection signals: HKCU\SOFTWARE\PAIDMEMES (Key creation = active infection) HKCU\...\Run\BabyLockerKZ (Persistence = infection survived reboot) ------------------------------------------------------------ 7. My Technique vs BARADAI: Detailed Technical Similarities Now let us go deeper technically and explain why I believe I am one of the people closest to understanding BARADAI. 7.1 Payload Concealment: LSB Steganography My Technique I replaced the least significant bits (LSB) of RGB channels in PNG pixels with Base64-encoded keylogger payload bits. A 1/255 modification inside an 8-bit value is visually imperceptible to the human eye. In BARADAI The stegomalware technique forms the core of payload transportation. The same LSB logic applies: -No visible image corruption -No signature-based scanner triggers -Payload blended into image “noise” Shared Point Mathematically, it is the same approach. The only difference is scale: I concealed a keylogger. BARADAI conceals a ransomware module. -------------------------------------------------------- 7.2 Fileless + Registry: The “Impossible” Combination My Technique I registered my loader under: HKCU\...\Run\WindowsUpdateService Every time Windows booted, the loader executed, read the PNG, extracted the payload into RAM, and launched it. A .py file never existed on disk. In BARADAI HKCU\...\Run\BabyLockerKZ Exactly the same mechanism. Same Registry path. Same logic. Same “fileless yet persistent” paradox. ------------------------------------------------- Shared Point When critics claimed these two concepts could not coexist, they were wrong. Both BARADAI and I proved it. 7.3 Process Concealment: svchost.exe Masquerading My Technique I compiled the loader with PyInstaller under the name svchost.exe and assigned it a Windows service icon. Inside Task Manager, it appeared identical to a legitimate system process. In BARADAI BARADAI uses Parent PID Spoofing. Through Windows API manipulation, it makes execution appear as if initiated by svchost.exe or explorer.exe. EDR behavioral engines typically flag unknown processes performing system-level modifications. This technique bypasses those checks. Shared Point Same concealment strategy. Different implementation layer. 7.4 Timers and Silent Collection My Technique The keylogger embedded data into PNG images every 10 characters OR every 30 seconds — whichever occurred first. After each cycle: -Temporary memory artifacts were cleared -The process reset -No ever-growing log file existed on disk This is why antivirus products could not see it. This is why it could remain undetected for months. In BARADAI “Ghost Software.” After initial compromise, BARADAI does not immediately encrypt. It silently waits. Harvests credentials. Maps the network. Exfiltrates data. Encryption is the final signature. Shared Point Both architectures rely on a “silent hunter” model. I used 30-second image-based exfiltration loops. BARADAI remains dormant for days or weeks while collecting intelligence. The logic is identical. Only the timescale differs. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7.5 Why I Believe I Am One of the People Closest to Solving BARADAI These similarities are not coincidence. They reflect the same technical mindset reaching the same solutions to the same problems. Because I built this architecture from scratch: -I understand its weak points — because I encountered the same weak points myself -I can reverse-engineer LSB steganography workflows — because I wrote the same algorithm -I understand Registry-based configuration logic — the PAIDMEMES hive pattern is familiar to me - I understand interruption points inside timer-based collection loops — because I built the same cycle architecture myself ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Microsoft Sentinel Detection Rules (KQL) The following Kusto Query Language (KQL) queries are designed for deployment in Microsoft Sentinel. They target specific behavioral artifacts associated with BARADAI and the broader MedusaLocker family. Deploy all three as scheduled analytics rules. Rule 1: PAIDMEMES / BabyLockerKZ Registry Artifact Detection High confidence. Detects exact forensic strings unique to MedusaLocker v3 / BARADAI. If This Rule Triggers The device is actively infected with BARADAI or the malware has successfully established persistence. Treat as a P1 incident. Immediately isolate the endpoint. Rule 2: Shadow Copy & Backup Deletion Chain Detection High confidence. Detects BARADAI’s recovery-destruction sequence. If This Rule Triggers A ransomware payload is actively preparing for encryption. This is your final detection window before data loss begins. Immediately isolate the affected endpoint and every reachable network share. Rule 3: EnableLinkedConnections — Network Share Privilege Escalation Detection Medium-High confidence. Detects BARADAI’s technique for accessing administrator-mapped network drives from non-elevated processes. If This Rule Triggers An attacker is preparing to encrypt network shares normally visible only to administrator-level processes. This is a pre-encryption lateral movement signal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 9. MITRE ATT&CK Mapping ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. Decryption Research and My Current Approaches Let me be completely transparent. Current status: There is no verified public decryptor available for BARADAI. -The No More Ransom project lists no decryptor for any MedusaLocker v3 / BabyLockerKZ variant -The AES-256-CBC + RSA-4096 implementation is mathematically sound -Historical decryptors existed only for significantly older MedusaLocker v1 and early v2 variants by exploiting key sanitization weaknesses in memory management -Those vulnerabilities were patched in v3 What We Know About the Encryption BARADAI uses intermittent encryption for large files: -Files larger than ~7.7MB are not fully encrypted -The malware encrypts 750KB, skips 250KB, encrypts another 750KB, and repeats This dramatically reduces encryption time while still rendering the file structurally unusable. --------------------------------------------------------------- What I Am Currently Researching I am currently analyzing the BARADAI binary from multiple angles: PRNG Weaknesses I am investigating the entropy source used during AES key generation. If the PRNG is insufficiently random, the effective key space may be reducible. Key Sanitization Behavior I am investigating whether AES keys remain in memory after usage. This weakness existed in MedusaLocker v1 and v2 and enabled historical decryptors. Although patched in v3, implementation mistakes remain possible. PAIDMEMES Registry Storage Analysis The PAIDMEMES hive stores runtime state. I am investigating whether this storage area contains recoverable cryptographic material. Registry-stored cryptographic data could provide a viable decryption foothold. Weaknesses in Intermittent Encryption The 750KB-encrypt / 250KB-skip pattern enables structural comparisons between encrypted and unencrypted regions. Known file formats (.docx, .xlsx, etc.) contain predictable header structures. This creates potential for partial known-plaintext attacks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I will publish my findings in Vol.4 of this series regardless of the outcome. ------------------------------------------------- If You Are a BARADAI Victim -Do not pay the ransom until all alternatives are exhausted -Contact professional incident response services -Preserve all encrypted files and ransom notes — a future decryptor may eventually become available -Regularly monitor nomoreransom.org ---------------------------------------------------- 11. Defensive Recommendations Priority 1: Phishing-Resistant MFA (Against AiTM) Traditional MFA — push notifications, SMS codes, authenticator apps — can be defeated by AiTM reverse-proxy attacks. Deploy: -FIDO2 hardware security keys (YubiKey, etc.) -Windows Hello for Business These technologies cryptographically bind authentication tokens to the legitimate TLS session of the login portal. Stolen cookies become useless in separate sessions. ------------------------------------------------------- Priority 2: Eliminate RDP Exposure BARADAI’s primary initial access vector is exposed RDP on TCP 3389. -Disable Internet-facing RDP at the perimeter firewall -Enforce MFA + VPN for all remote administrative access -Implement account lockout policies and Network Level Authentication (NLA) Priority 3: Immutable Backups BARADAI deletes Volume Shadow Copies via vssadmin. Implement: -A 3–2–1 backup strategy with at least one offline/immutable copy -Azure Immutable Blob Storage (WORM) -Multi-user authorization for backup vaults -Monthly restoration testing --------------------------------------------- Priority 4: FSRM Canary Files Configure Windows File Server Resource Manager (FSRM): Immediately alert when files with extensions: .BARADAI .BAVACAI .BASANAI .BAGAJAI are created. Trigger automated scripts that: -Terminate the originating user session -Revoke network share access -------------------------------------------------- Priority 5: Deploy the Sentinel KQL Rules Above The three rules in Section 8 provide layered behavioral detection that signature-based tooling cannot replicate. Deploy them before an incident occurs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority 6: Zero Trust Architecture BARADAI’s EnableLinkedConnections Registry modification allows standard user processes to encrypt administrator-mapped drives. -Segment backup servers, Domain Controllers, and critical infrastructure -Require hardware-backed MFA for sensitive segments -Implement least privilege and Just-In-Time (JIT) administrative access with Azure PIM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 📢 Call to Action: Collective Intelligence I started this research alone. But disrupting the impact of the B-Family requires collective effort. If your organization or threat-hunting operations have observed additional logs, unusual network traffic, or alternative steganographic payload samples associated with the B-Family (BARADAI, BAVACAI, BASANAI, etc.), do not remain silent. Data Sharing You may share anonymized IoCs or log artifacts with us. and Direct Contact If you have technically significant observations or findings related to BARADAI analysis, you can contact me directly through my Webex profile. Webex Contact - email address removed for privacy reasons Our collective security depends on the aggregation of these small signals. --------------------------------------------- Sources and References For technical verification and further investigation, refer to the following resources: Threat Intelligence & Ransomware Reports CYFIRMA: Weekly Threat Intelligence Report (2026–05–08) Ransomware.live: BAVACAI Group & DLS Infrastructure PCrisk: BAVACAI | BAGAJAI | BASANAI Analysis Technical Foundations & MITRE TTPs CISA: MedusaLocker Advisory (AA22–181A) Picus Security: MedusaLocker TTPs and Simulation Barracuda: GhostFrame Phishing Kit Spotlight (2025–12–04) Detection & Response Tools Microsoft Sentinel: Official Shadow Copy Deletion Analytics Rule GitHub (Bert-JanP): Hunting Queries and Detection Rules No More Ransom: Global Decryption Tools Repository Cassandra MARE Independent Research Deniz Tektek: Stegomalware & Fileless Persistence (2026–04–05) https://medium.com/@deniizz/stegomalware-steganografi-ve-windows-registry-ile-kalıcılık-sağlayan-png-01e50849a218 Cassandra Community: Initial BARADAI Analysis (2026–05–14) https://medium.com/@cassandracommunity/baradai-ransomware-hayalet-yazılım-ı-parçalarına-ayırıyoruz-0c04bb008f73 This article has been published strictly for defensive purposes. All described techniques have been analyzed within the context of threat detection and defense. This is my debut article on the Microsoft Tech Community. I am Deniz Tektek, a Red Team Operator, Cybersecurity Analyst, and Founder of the Cassandra community. My work focuses on the intersection of human psychology, IoT security, and the development of zero-trust local AI agents. This article, “The Fileless Paradox,” is the inaugural entry in my "We Saw It Coming" threat intelligence series, where I document technical overlaps between independent research and active real-world threats. What’s Next? Vol. 2: "Invisible Exfiltration" — Analyzing how BARADAI’s C2 hides in plain sight. Vol. 3: "The Human Gateway" — Why your MFA and AI-driven defenses are currently being bypassed. Vol. 4: "Cracking BARADAI" — My ongoing decryption research. Connect With Me If you want to discuss these findings, exchange logs, or collaborate on security research, please check my profile bio for contact information or connect with me via LinkedIn. I welcome all technical perspectives and peer reviews. My LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deniz-t-91166438a Deniz Tektek — May 2026 © Deniz Tektek & Cassandra — All Rights Reserved. Originally published on Microsoft Tech Community. Cross-posted on Medium.
