Sentinel to Defender Portal Migration - my 5 Gotchas to help you
The migration to the unified Defender portal is one of those transitions where the documentation covers "what's new" but glosses over what breaks on cutover day. Here are the gotchas that consistently catch teams off-guard, along with practical fixes. Gotcha 1: Automatic Connector Enablement When a Sentinel workspace connects to the Defender portal, Microsoft auto-enables certain connectors - often without clear notification. The most common surprises: Connector Auto-Enables? Impact Defender for Endpoint Yes EDR telemetry starts flowing, new alerts created Defender for Cloud Yes Additional incidents, potential ingestion cost increase Defender for Cloud Apps Conditional Depends on existing tenant config Azure AD Identity Protection No Stays in Sentinel workspace only Immediate action: Within 2 hours of connecting, navigate to Security.microsoft.com > Connectors & integrations > Data connectors and audit what auto-enabled. Compare against your pre-migration connector list and disable anything unplanned. Why this matters: Auto-enabled connectors can duplicate data sources - ingesting the same telemetry through both Sentinel and Defender connectors inflates Log Analytics costs by 20-40%. Gotcha 2: Incident Duplication The most disruptive surprise. The same incident appears twice: once from a Sentinel analytics rule, once from the Defender portal's auto-created incident creation rule. SOC teams get paged twice, deduplication breaks, and MTTR metrics go sideways. Diagnosis: SecurityIncident | where TimeGenerated > ago(7d) | summarize IncidentCount = count() by Title | where IncidentCount > 1 | order by IncidentCount desc If you see unexpected duplicates, the cause is almost certainly the auto-enabled Microsoft incident creation rule conflicting with your existing analytics rules. Fix: Disable the auto-created incident creation rule in Sentinel Automation rules, and rely on your existing analytics rule > incident mapping instead. This ensures incidents are created only through Sentinel's pipeline. Gotcha 3: Analytics Rule Title Dependencies The Defender portal matches incidents to analytics rules by title, not by rule ID. This creates subtle problems: Renaming a rule breaks the incident linkage Copying a rule with a similar title causes cross-linkage Two workspaces with identically named rules generate separate incidents for the same alert Prevention checklist: Audit all analytics rule titles for uniqueness before migration Document the title-to-GUID mapping as a reference Avoid renaming rules en masse during migration Use a naming convention like <Severity>_<Tactic>_<Technique> to prevent collisions Gotcha 4: RBAC Gaps Sentinel workspace RBAC roles don't directly translate to Defender portal permissions: Sentinel Role Defender Portal Equivalent Gap Microsoft Sentinel Responder Security Operator Minor - name change Microsoft Sentinel Contributor Security Operator + Security settings (manage) Significant - split across roles Sentinel Automation Contributor Automation Contributor (new) New role required Migration approach: Create new unified RBAC roles in the Defender portal that mirror your existing Sentinel permissions. Test with a pilot group before org-wide rollout. Keep workspace RBAC roles for 30 days as a fallback. Gotcha 5: Automation Rules Don't Auto-Migrate Sentinel automation rules and playbooks don't carry over to the Defender portal automatically. The syntax has changed, and not all Sentinel automation actions are available in Defender. Recommended approach: Export existing Sentinel automation rules (screenshot condition logic and actions) Recreate them in the Defender portal Run both in parallel for one week to validate behavior Retire Sentinel automation rules only after confirming Defender equivalents work correctly Practical Migration Timeline Phase 1 - Pre-migration (1-2 weeks before): Audit connectors, analytics rules, RBAC roles, and automation rules Document everything - titles, GUIDs, permissions, automation logic Test in a pilot environment first Phase 2 - Cutover day: Connect workspace to Defender portal Within 2 hours: audit auto-enabled connectors Within 4 hours: check for duplicate incidents Within 24 hours: validate RBAC and automation rules Phase 3 - Post-migration (1-2 weeks after): Monitor incident volume for duplication spikes Validate automation rules fire correctly Collect SOC team feedback on workflow impact After 1 week of stability: retire legacy automation rules Phase 4 - Cleanup (2-4 weeks after): Remove duplicate automation rules Archive workspace-specific RBAC roles once unified RBAC is stable Update SOC runbooks and documentation The bottom line: treat this as a parallel-run migration, not a lift-and-shift. Budget 2 weeks for parallel operations. Teams that rushed this transition consistently reported longer MTTR during the first month post-migration.Ingesting Windows Security Events into Custom Datalake Tables Without Using Microsoft‑Prefixed Table
Hi everyone, I’m looking to see whether there is a supported method to ingest Windows Security Events into custom Microsoft Sentinel Data Lake–tiered tables (for example, SecurityEvents_CL) without writing to or modifying the Microsoft‑prefixed analytical tables. Essentially, I want to route these events directly into custom tables only, bypassing the default Microsoft‑managed tables entirely. Has anyone implemented this, or is there a recommended approach? Thanks in advance for any guidance. Best Regards, Prabhu Kiran
Migrate MS Sentinel from one tenant to another tenant
I need to migrate Microsoft Sentinel with all its resources (playbooks, workbook, connectors, analytics rules), I would need a step by step, since I see that among the documentation that Microsoft has, it does not have it. I would like to know if there is any tool or functionality that allows me to do this, without having to rebuild everything
Unified detection rule management
Hi, I attended the webinar yesterday regarding the new unified custom detection rules in Defender XDR. I was wondering about the management of a library of rules. As with any SOC, our solution has a library of custom rules which we manage in a release cycle for a number of clients in different Tenants. To avoid having to manage rules individually we use the JSON approach, importing the library so it will update rules that we need to tune. Currently I'm not seeing an option to import unified detection rules in Defender XDR via JSON. Is that a feature that will be added? Thanks Ziv
From “No” to “Now”: A 7-Layer Strategy for Enterprise AI Safety
The “block” posture on Generative AI has failed. In a global enterprise, banning these tools doesn't stop usage; it simply pushes intellectual property into unmanaged channels and creates a massive visibility gap in corporate telemetry. The priority has now shifted from stopping AI to hardening the environment so that innovation can run at velocity without compromising data sovereignty. Traditional security perimeters are ineffective against the “slow bleed” of AI leakage - where data moves through prompts, clipboards, and autonomous agents rather than bulk file transfers. To secure this environment, a 7-layer defense-in-depth model is required to treat the conversation itself as the new perimeter. 1. Identity: The Only Verifiable Perimeter Identity is the primary control plane. Access to AI services must be treated with the same rigor as administrative access to core infrastructure. The strategy centers on enforcing device-bound Conditional Access, where access is strictly contingent on device health. To solve the "Account Leak" problem, the deployment of Tenant Restrictions v2 (TRv2) is essential to prevent users from signing into personal tenants using corporate-managed devices. For enhanced coverage, Universal Tenant Restrictions (UTR) via Global Secure Access (GSA) allows for consistent enforcement at the cloud edge. While TRv2 authentication-plane is GA, data-plane protection is GA for the Microsoft 365 admin center and remains in preview for other workloads such as SharePoint and Teams. 2. Eliminating the Visibility Gap (Shadow AI) You can’t secure what you can't see. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps (MDCA) serves to discover and govern the enterprise AI footprint, while Purview DSPM for AI (formerly AI Hub) monitors Copilot and third-party interactions. By categorizing tools using MDCA risk scores and compliance attributes, organizations can apply automated sanctioning decisions and enforce session controls for high-risk endpoints. 3. Data Hygiene: Hardening the “Work IQ” AI acts as a mirror of internal permissions. In a "flat" environment, AI acts like a search engine for your over-shared data. Hardening the foundation requires automated sensitivity labeling in Purview Information Protection. Identifying PII and proprietary code before assigning AI licenses ensures that labels travel with the data, preventing labeled content from being exfiltrated via prompts or unauthorized sharing. 4. Session Governance: Solving the “Clipboard Leak” The most common leak in 2025 is not a file upload; it’s a simple copy-paste action or a USB transfer. Deploying Conditional Access App Control (CAAC) via MDCA session policies allows sanctioned apps to function while specifically blocking cut/copy/paste. This is complemented by Endpoint DLP, which extends governance to the physical device level, preventing sensitive data from being moved to unmanaged USB storage or printers during an AI-assisted workflow. Purview Information Protection with IRM rounds this out by enforcing encryption and usage rights on the files themselves. When a user tries to print a "Do Not Print" document, Purview triggers an alert that flows into Microsoft Sentinel. This gives the SOC visibility into actual policy violations instead of them having to hunt through generic activity logs. 5. The “Agentic” Era: Agent 365 & Sharing Controls Now that we're moving from "Chat" to "Agents", Agent 365 and Entra Agent ID provide the necessary identity and control plane for autonomous entities. A quick tip: in large-scale tenants, default settings often present a governance risk. A critical first step is navigating to the Microsoft 365 admin center (Copilot > Agents) to disable the default “Anyone in organization” sharing option. Restricting agent creation and sharing to a validated security group is essential to prevent unvetted agent sprawl and ensure that only compliant agents are discoverable. 6. The Human Layer: “Safe Harbors” over Bans Security fails when it creates more friction than the risk it seeks to mitigate. Instead of an outright ban, investment in AI skilling-teaching users context minimization (redacting specifics before interacting with a model) - is the better path. Providing a sanctioned, enterprise-grade "Safe Harbor" like M365 Copilot offers a superior tool that naturally cuts down the use of Shadow AI. 7. Continuous Ops: Monitoring & Regulatory Audit Security is not a “set and forget” project, particularly with the EU AI Act on the horizon. Correlating AI interactions and DLP alerts in Microsoft Sentinel using Purview Audit (specifically the CopilotInteraction logs) data allows for real-time responses. Automated SOAR playbooks can then trigger protective actions - such as revoking an Agent ID - if an entity attempts to access sensitive HR or financial data. Final Thoughts Securing AI at scale is an architectural shift. By layering Identity, Session Governance, and Agentic Identity, AI moves from being a fragmented risk to a governed tool that actually works for the modern workplace.
Enterprise Strategy for Secure Agentic AI: From Compliance to Implementation
Imagine an AI system that doesn’t just answer questions but takes action querying your databases, updating records, triggering workflows, even processing refunds without human intervention. That’s Agentic AI and it’s here. But with great power comes great responsibility. This autonomy introduces new attack surfaces and regulatory obligations. The Model Context Protocol (MCP) Server the gateway between your AI agent and critical systems becomes your Tier-0 control point. If it fails, the blast radius is enormous. This is the story of how enterprises can secure Agentic AI, stay compliant and implement Zero Trust architectures using Azure AI Foundry. Think of it as a roadmap a journey with three milestones - Milestone 1: Securing the Foundation Our journey starts with understanding the paradigm shift. Traditional AI with RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) is like a librarian: It retrieves pre-indexed data. It summarizes information. It never changes the books or places orders. Security here is simple: protect the index, validate queries, prevent data leaks. But Agentic AI? It’s a staffer with system access. It can: Execute tools and business logic autonomously. Chain operations: read → analyze → write → notify. Modify data and trigger workflows. Bottom line: RAG is a “smart librarian.” Agentic AI is a “staffer with system access.” Treat the security model accordingly. And that means new risks: unauthorized access, privilege escalation, financial impact, data corruption. So what’s the defense? Ten critical security controls your first line of protection: Here’s what a production‑grade, Zero Trust MCP gateway needs. Its intentionally simplified in the demo (e.g., no auth) to highlight where you must harden in production. (https://github.com/davisanc/ai-foundry-mcp-gateway) Authentication Demo: None Prod: Microsoft Entra ID, JWT validation, Managed Identity, automatic credential rotation Authorization & RBAC Demo: None Prod: Tool‑level RBAC via Entra; least privilege; explicit allow‑lists per agent/capability Input Validation Demo: Basic (ext whitelist, 10MB, filename sanitize) Prod: JSON Schema validation, injection guards (SQL/command), business‑rule checks Rate Limiting Demo: None Prod: Multi‑tier (per‑agent, per‑tool, global), adaptive throttling, backoff Audit Logging Demo: Console → App Service logs Prod: Structured logs w/ correlation IDs, compliance metadata, PII redaction Session Management Demo: In‑memory UUID sessions Prod: Encrypted distributed storage (Redis/Cosmos DB), tenant isolation, expirations File Upload Security Demo: Ext whitelist, size limits, memory‑only Prod: 7‑layer defense (validate, MIME, malware scanning via Defender for Storage), encryption at rest, signed URLs Network Security Demo: Public App Service + HTTPS Prod: Private Endpoints, VNet integration, NSGs, Azure Firewall no public exposure Secrets Management Demo: App Service env vars (not in code) Prod: Azure Key Vault + Managed Identity, rotation, access audit Observability & Threat Detection (5‑Layer Stack) Layer 1: Application Insights (requests, dependencies, custom security events) Layer 2: Azure AI Content Safety (harmful content, jailbreaks) Layer 3: Microsoft Defender for AI (prompt injection incl. ASCII smuggling, credential theft, anomalous tool usage) Layer 4: Microsoft Purview for AI (PII/PHI classification, DLP on outputs, lineage, policy) Layer 5: Microsoft Sentinel (SIEM correlation, custom rules, automated response) Note: Azure AI Content Safety is built into Azure AI Foundry for real‑time filtering on both prompts and completions. Picture this as an airport security model: multiple checkpoints, each catching what the previous missed. That’s defense-in-depth. Zero Trust in Practice ~ A Day in the Life of a Prompt Every agent request passes through 8 sequential checkpoints, mapped to MITRE ATLAS tactics/mitigations (e.g., AML.M0011 Input Validation, AML.M0004 Output Filtering, AML.M0015 Adversarial Input Detection). The design goal is defense‑in‑depth: multiple independent controls, different detection signals, and layered failure modes. Checkpoints 1‑7: Enforcement (deny/contain before business systems) Checkpoint 8: Monitoring (detect/respond, hunt, learn, harden) AML.M0009 – Control Access to ML Models AML.M0011 – Validate ML Model Inputs AML.M0000 – Limit ML Model Availability AML.M0014 – ML Artifact Logging AML.M0004 – Output Filtering AML.M0015 – Adversarial Input Detection If one control slips, the others still stand. Resilience is the product of layers. Milestone 2: Navigating Compliance Next stop: regulatory readiness. The EU AI Act is the world’s first comprehensive AI law. If your AI system operates in or impacts the EU market, compliance isn’t optional, it’s mandatory. Agentic AI often falls under high-risk classification. That means: Risk management systems. Technical documentation. Logging and traceability. Transparency and human oversight. Fail to comply? Fines up to €30M or 6% of global turnover. Azure helps you meet these obligations: Entra ID for identity and RBAC. Purview for data classification and DLP. Defender for AI for prompt injection detection. Content Safety for harmful content filtering. Sentinel for SIEM correlation and incident response. And this isn’t just about today. Future regulations are coming US AI Executive Orders, UK AI Roadmap, ISO/IEC 42001 standards. The trend is clear: transparency, explainability, and continuous monitoring will be universal. Milestone 3: Implementation Deep-Dive Now, the hands-on part. How do you build this strategy into reality? Step 1: Entra ID Authentication Register your MCP app in Entra ID. Configure OAuth2 and JWT validation. Enable Managed Identity for downstream resources. Step 2: Apply the 10 Controls RBAC: Tool-level access checks. Validation: JSON schema + injection prevention. Rate Limiting: Express middleware or Azure API Management. Audit Logging: Structured logs with correlation IDs. Session Mgmt: Redis with encryption. File Security: MIME checks + Defender for Storage. Network: Private Endpoints + VNet. Secrets: Azure Key Vault. Observability: App Insights + Defender for AI + Purview + Sentinel. Step 3: Secure CI/CD Pipelines Embed compliance checks in Azure DevOps: Pre-build: Secret scanning. Build: RBAC & validation tests. Deploy: Managed Identity for service connections. Post-deploy: Compliance scans via Azure Policy. Step 4: Build the 5-Layer Observability Stack App Insights → Telemetry. Content Safety → Harmful content detection. Defender for AI → Prompt injection monitoring. Purview → PII/PHI classification and lineage. Sentinel → SIEM correlation and automated response. The Destination: A Secure, Compliant Future By now, you’ve seen the full roadmap: Secure the foundation with Zero Trust and layered controls. Navigate compliance with EU AI Act and prepare for global regulations. Implement the strategy using Azure-native tools and CI/CD best practices. Because in the world of Agentic AI, security isn’t optional, compliance isn’t negotiable, and observability is your lifeline. Resources https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-foundry/what-is-azure-ai-foundry https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/defender-for-cloud/ai-threat-protection https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/ai-microsoft-purview https://atlas.mitre.org/ https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-approach-artificial-intelligence https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/microsoft-security-blog/microsoft-sentinel-mcp-server---generally-available-with-exciting-new-capabiliti/4470125Microsoft Sentinel Graph with Microsoft Security Solutions
Why I Chose Sentinel Graph Modern security operations demand speed and clarity. Attackers exploit complex relationships across identities, devices, and workloads. I needed a solution that could: Correlate signals across identity, endpoint and cloud workloads. Predict lateral movement and highlight blast radius for compromised accounts. Integrate seamlessly with Microsoft Defender, Entra ID and Purview. Sentinel Graph delivered exactly that, acting as the reasoning layer for AI-driven defense. What's new: Sentinel Graph Public Preview Sentinel Graph introduces: Graph-based threat hunting: Traverse relationships across millions of entities. Blast radius analysis: Visualize the impact of compromised accounts or assets. AI-powered reasoning: Built for integration with Security Copilot. Native integration with Microsoft Defender and Purview for unified security posture. Uncover Hidden Security Risks Sentinel Graph helps security teams: Expose lateral movement paths that attackers could exploit. Identify choke points where defenses can be strengthened. Reveal risky relationships between identities, devices, and resources that traditional tools miss. Prioritize remediation by visualizing the most critical nodes in an attack path. This capability transforms threat hunting from reactive alert triage to proactive risk discovery, enabling defenders to harden their environment before an attack occurs. How to Enable Defense at All Stages Sentinel Graph strengthens defense across: Prevention: Identify choke points and harden critical paths before attackers exploit them. Detection: Use graph traversal to uncover hidden attack paths and suspicious relationships. Investigation: Quickly pivot from alerts to full graph-based context for deeper analysis. Response: Contain threats faster by visualizing blast radius and isolating impacted entities. This end-to-end approach ensures security teams can anticipate, detect, and respond with precision. How I Implemented It Step 1: Enabling Sentinel Graph If you already have the Sentinel Data Lake, the graph is auto provisioned when you sign in to the Microsoft Defender portal. Hunting graph and blast radius experiences appear directly in Defender. New to Data Lake? Use the Sentinel Data Lake onboarding flow to enable both the data lake and graph. Step 2: Integration with Microsoft Defender Practical examples from my project: Query: Show me all entities connected to this suspicious IP address. → Revealed lateral movement attempts across multiple endpoints. Query: Map the blast radius of a compromised account. → Identified linked service principals and privileged accounts for isolation. Step 3: Integration with Microsoft Purview In Purview Insider Risk Management, follow Data Risk Graph setup instructions. In Purview Data Security Investigations, enable Data Risk Graph for sensitive data flow analysis. Example: Query: Highlight all paths where sensitive data intersects with external connectors. → Helped detect risky data exfiltration paths. Step 4: AI-Powered Insights Using Microsoft Security Copilot, I asked: Predict the next hop for this attacker based on current graph state. Identify choke points in this attack path. This reduced investigation time and improved proactive defense. If you want to experience the power of Microsoft Sentinel Graph, here’s how you can get started Enable Sentinel Graph In your Sentinel workspace, turn on the Sentinel Data Lake. The graph will be auto provisioned when you sign in to the Microsoft Defender portal. Connect Microsoft Security Solutions Use built-in connectors to integrate Microsoft Defender, Microsoft Entra ID, and Microsoft Purview. This ensures unified visibility across identities, endpoints, and data. Explore Graph Queries Start hunting with Sentinel Notebooks or take it a step further by integrating with Microsoft Security Copilot for natural language investigations. Example: “Show me the blast radius of a compromised account.” or “Find everything connected to this suspicious IP address.” You can sign up here for a free preview of Sentinel graph MCP tools, which will also roll out starting December 1, 2025.Know MCP risks before you deploy!
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) is emerging as a powerful standard for enabling AI agents to interact with tools and data. However, like any evolving technology, MCP introduces new security challenges that organizations must address before deploying it in production environments. Major MCP Vulnerabilities MCP’s flexibility comes with risks. Here are the most critical vulnerabilities: Prompt Injection Attackers embed hidden instructions in user input, manipulating the model to trigger unauthorized MCP actions and bypass safety rules. Tool Poisoning Malicious MCP servers provide misleading tool descriptions or parameters, tricking agents into leaking sensitive data or executing harmful commands. Remote Code Execution Untrusted servers can inject OS-level commands through compromised endpoints, enabling full control over the host environment. Unauthenticated Access Rogue MCP servers bypass authentication and directly call sensitive tools, extracting internal data without user consent. Confused Deputy (OAuth Proxy) A malicious server misuses OAuth tokens issued for a trusted agent, performing unauthorized actions under a legitimate identity. MCP Configuration Poisoning Attackers silently modify approved configuration files so agents execute malicious commands as if they were part of the original setup. Token or Credential Theft Plaintext MCP config files expose API keys, cloud credentials, and access tokens, making them easy targets for malware or filesystem attacks. Path Traversal Older MCP filesystem implementations allow navigation outside the intended directory, exposing sensitive project or system files. Token Passthrough Some servers blindly accept forwarded tokens, allowing compromised agents to impersonate other services without validation. Session Hijacking Session IDs appearing in URLs can be captured from logs or redirects and reused to access active sessions. Current Known Limitations While MCP is promising, it has structural limitations that organizations must plan for: Lack of Native Tool Authenticity Verification There is no built-in mechanism to verify if a tool or server is genuine. Trust relies on external validation, increasing exposure to tool poisoning attacks. Weak Context Isolation Multi-session environments risk cross-contamination, where sensitive data from one session leaks into another. Limited Built-In Encryption Enforcement MCP depends on HTTPS/TLS for secure communication but does not enforce encryption across all channels by default. Monitoring & Auditing Gaps MCP lacks native logging and auditing capabilities. Organizations must integrate with external SIEM tools like Microsoft Sentinel for visibility. Dynamic Registration Risks Current implementations allow dynamic client registration without granular controls, enabling rogue client onboarding. Scalability Constraints Large-scale deployments require manual tuning for performance and security. There is no standardized approach for load balancing or high availability. Configuration Management Challenges Credentials often stored in plaintext within MCP config files. Lack of automated secret rotation or secure vault integration makes them vulnerable. Limited Standardization Across Vendors MCP is still evolving, and interoperability between different implementations is inconsistent, creating integration complexity. Mitigation Best Practices To reduce risk and strengthen MCP deployments: Enforce OAuth 2.1 with PKCE and strong RBAC. Use HTTPS/TLS for all MCP communications. Deploy MCP servers in isolated networks with private endpoints. Validate tools before integration; avoid untrusted sources. Integrate with Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Sentinel for monitoring. Encrypt and rotate credentials; never store in plaintext. Implement policy-as-code for configuration governance. MCP opens new possibilities for AI-driven automation, but without robust security, it can become an attack vector. Organizations must start with a secure baseline, continuously monitor, and adopt best practices to operationalize MCP safely.New Blog Post | How to Query HaveIBeenPwned Using a Microsoft Sentinel Playbook
How to Query HaveIBeenPwned Using a Microsoft Sentinel Playbook - Azure Cloud & AI Domain Blog (azurecloudai.blog) I’ve known Troy Hunt for a number of years and his contributions to the security and privacy industry have been hugely valuable and much appreciated by the masses. HaveIBeenPwned is a great resource developed and maintained by Troy. It provides the ability to query against its database to expose domains or user accounts that have been caught up in any of the number of reported industry data breaches. Wouldn’t it be nice, then, to have this data available for your Microsoft Sentinel investigations? Fortunately, Troy provides an API for his service. I’ve provided a Microsoft Sentinel Playbook that takes email addresses associated with an Incident and submits them through the API and returns a quick note to the Comments tab in the Incident as to whether or not the email address(es) has been compromised.
Hunting for MFA manipulations in Entra ID tenants using KQL
The following article, Hunting for MFA manipulations in Entra ID tenants using KQL proved to be an invaluable resource in my search for an automated way to notify users of MFA modifications. I've adapted the KQL query to function within Defender Advanced Hunting or Azure Entra, my objective is to establish an alert that directly E-Mails the affected user, informing them of the MFA change and advising them to contact security if they did not initiate it. While the query runs correctly under Defender Advanced Hunting, I'm currently unable to create a workable custom alert because no "ReportId" is being captured. Despite consulting with Copilot, Gemini, CDW Support, and Microsoft Support, no workable solution has been achieved. Any insight would be greatly appreciated - Thank You! //Advanced Hunting query to parse modified: //StrongAuthenticationUserDetails (SAUD) //StrongAuthenticationMethod (SAM) let SearchWindow = 1h; let AuthenticationMethods = dynamic(["TwoWayVoiceMobile","TwoWaySms","TwoWayVoiceOffice","TwoWayVoiceOtherMobile","TwoWaySmsOtherMobile","OneWaySms","PhoneAppNotification","PhoneAppOTP"]); let AuthenticationMethodChanges = CloudAppEvents | where ActionType == "Update user." and RawEventData contains "StrongAuthenticationMethod" | extend Target = tostring(RawEventData.ObjectId) | extend Actor = tostring(RawEventData.UserId) | mv-expand ModifiedProperties = parse_json(RawEventData.ModifiedProperties) | where ModifiedProperties.Name == "StrongAuthenticationMethod" | project Timestamp,Actor,Target,ModifiedProperties,RawEventData,ReportId; let OldValues = AuthenticationMethodChanges | extend OldValue = parse_json(tostring(ModifiedProperties.OldValue)) | mv-apply OldValue on (extend Old_MethodType=tostring(OldValue.MethodType),Old_Default=tostring(OldValue.Default) | sort by Old_MethodType); let NewValues = AuthenticationMethodChanges | extend NewValue = parse_json(tostring(ModifiedProperties.NewValue)) | mv-apply NewValue on (extend New_MethodType=tostring(NewValue.MethodType),New_Default=tostring(NewValue.Default) | sort by New_MethodType); let RemovedMethods = AuthenticationMethodChanges | join kind=inner OldValues on ReportId | join kind=leftouter NewValues on ReportId,$left.Old_MethodType==$right.New_MethodType | where Old_MethodType != New_MethodType | extend Action = strcat("Removed (" , AuthenticationMethods[toint(Old_MethodType)], ") from Authentication Methods.") | extend ChangedValue = "Method Removed"; let AddedMethods = AuthenticationMethodChanges | join kind=inner NewValues on ReportId | join kind=leftouter OldValues on ReportId,$left.New_MethodType==$right.Old_MethodType | where Old_MethodType != New_MethodType | extend Action = strcat("Added (" , AuthenticationMethods[toint(New_MethodType)], ") as Authentication Method.") | extend ChangedValue = "Method Added"; let DefaultMethodChanges = AuthenticationMethodChanges | join kind=inner OldValues on ReportId | join kind=inner NewValues on ReportId | where Old_Default != New_Default and Old_MethodType == New_MethodType and New_Default == "true" | join kind=inner OldValues on ReportId | where Old_Default1 == "true" and Old_MethodType1 != New_MethodType | extend Old_MethodType = Old_MethodType1 | extend Action = strcat("Default Authentication Method was changed to (" , AuthenticationMethods[toint(New_MethodType)], ").") | extend ChangedValue = "Default Method"; let AuthenticationMethodReport = union RemovedMethods,AddedMethods,DefaultMethodChanges | project Timestamp,Action,Actor,Target,ChangedValue,OldValue=case(isempty(Old_MethodType), "",strcat(Old_MethodType,": ", AuthenticationMethods[toint(Old_MethodType)])),NewValue=case(isempty( New_MethodType),"", strcat(New_MethodType,": ", AuthenticationMethods[toint(New_MethodType)])); let AuthenticationDetailsChanges = CloudAppEvents | where ActionType == "Update user." and RawEventData contains "StrongAuthenticationUserDetails" | extend Target = tostring(RawEventData.ObjectId) | extend Actor = tostring(RawEventData.UserId) | extend ReportId= tostring(RawEventData.ReportId) | mvexpand ModifiedProperties = parse_json(RawEventData.ModifiedProperties) | where ModifiedProperties.Name == "StrongAuthenticationUserDetails" | extend NewValue = parse_json(replace_string(replace_string(tostring(ModifiedProperties.NewValue),"[",""),"]","")) | extend OldValue = parse_json(replace_string(replace_string(tostring(ModifiedProperties.OldValue),"[",""),"]","")) | mv-expand NewValue | mv-expand OldValue | where (tostring( bag_keys(OldValue)) == tostring(bag_keys(NewValue))) or (isempty(OldValue) and tostring(NewValue) !contains ":null") or (isempty(NewValue) and tostring(OldValue) !contains ":null") | extend ChangedValue = tostring(bag_keys(NewValue)[0]) | extend OldValue = tostring(parse_json(OldValue)[ChangedValue]) | extend NewValue = tostring(parse_json(NewValue)[ChangedValue]) | extend OldValue = case(ChangedValue == "PhoneNumber" or ChangedValue == "AlternativePhoneNumber", replace_strings(OldValue,dynamic([' ','(',')']), dynamic(['','',''])), OldValue ) | extend NewValue = case(ChangedValue == "PhoneNumber" or ChangedValue == "AlternativePhoneNumber", replace_strings(NewValue,dynamic([' ','(',')']), dynamic(['','',''])), NewValue ) | where tostring(OldValue) != tostring(NewValue) | extend Action = case(isempty(OldValue), strcat("Added new ",ChangedValue, " to Strong Authentication."),isempty(NewValue),strcat("Removed existing ",ChangedValue, " from Strong Authentication."),strcat("Changed ",ChangedValue," in Strong Authentication.")); union AuthenticationMethodReport, AuthenticationDetailsChanges | extend AccountUpn = Target | where Timestamp > ago(SearchWindow) //| summarize count() by Timestamp, Action, Actor, Target, ChangedValue, OldValue, NewValue, ReportId, AccountDisplayName, AccountId, AccountUpn | summarize arg_max(Timestamp, *) by Action | project Timestamp, Action, Actor, Target, ChangedValue, OldValue, NewValue, ReportId, AccountDisplayName, AccountId, AccountUpn | sort by Timestamp desc
