Ask Microsoft Anything: The Microsoft Sentinel SIEM Migration Experience
Join us for a live demo and AMA on the Microsoft Sentinel SIEM migration experience. We’ll show how the experience helps teams move from legacy SIEMs like Splunk and QRadar into Microsoft Sentinel with a more guided, lower-friction path. We’ll cover what it does today, how it works, and the questions customers ask most, then open it up for live Q&A. What is an AMA? An 'Ask Microsoft Anything' (AMA) session is an opportunity for you to engage directly with Microsoft employees! This AMA will consist of a short presentation followed by taking questions on-camera from the comment section down below! Ask your questions/give your feedback and we will have our awesome Microsoft Subject Matter Experts engaging and responding directly in the video feed. We know this timeslot might not work for everyone, so feel free to ask your questions at any time leading up to the event and the experts will do their best to answer during the live hour. This page will stay up so come back and use it as a resource anytime. We hope you enjoy!Amazon Security Lake Integration with Microsoft Sentinel: Parquet at the Gates
This blog has been jointly published by ChitreshPandit and Arijit_Paul. In this blog post, we explore how centralized AWS Security Lake data can be transformed and streamed into Microsoft Sentinel using an AWS Lambda-based pipeline for near real-time ingestion. A story of cost, control, and custom engineering at cloud scale Every organization strives to design its security architecture to help address architectural complexity and support cost‑aware, scalable designs, depending on workload characteristics and implementation choices. Across multiple customer environments, we increasingly see a consistent pattern emerge - security telemetry from various AWS services is not ingested in isolation, but is deliberately centralized into Amazon Security Lake. This approach reflects a maturity in design, where organizations move beyond service-level integrations and instead adopt a unified data strategy. Amazon Security Lake enables this by aggregating security data from services such as Route53, WAF, Kubernetes, and others into a centralized, governed repository. The data is normalized and stored in an open, analytics-friendly format, often leveraging Apache Parquet, a columnar storage format optimized for large-scale processing and cost-efficient storage. This can allow organizations to retain high volumes of security data while maintaining performance and may help optimize storage efficiency in certain scenarios, depending on data volume, retention policies, and analytics patterns. However, this architectural choice introduces a new consideration. Microsoft Sentinel, when integrated into such environments, typically expects ingestion through connector-driven pipelines and streaming event models. In contrast, Security Lake represents a batch-oriented, schema-driven data platform. Rather than treating this as a constraint, it becomes an opportunity to rethink how data should flow between these systems. In this blog, we explore how a streaming bridge architecture can be implemented to align Amazon Security Lake with Microsoft Sentinel’s ingestion model. The approach leverages a combination of AWS Lambda and event-driven patterns to process data as it lands in Amazon S3, transforms it into a Sentinel-compatible format, and streams it through Azure Event Hub into Microsoft Sentinel using Data Collection Rules (DCRs) and Data Collection Endpoints (DCEs). This approach can support lower‑latency ingestion patterns when configured appropriately and compared to batch‑only processing models while preserving the lake-first architecture, allowing organizations to support analytics, visualization, and threat hunting activities using the ingested data. For demonstration, this implementation focuses on ingesting the following data sources from Amazon Security Lake: Amazon EKS audit and runtime events Route 53 DNS query logs AWS WAF access logs AWS Lambda execution activity Amazon S3 access events Note: The solution and code provided in this blog are not an officially supported Microsoft solution and do not guarantee performance, reliability, availability, or support. No service-level agreements (SLAs) are included. Readers are responsible for validating suitability for their environment. Before we begin, let us briefly discuss Amazon Security Lake and the Parquet format. Amazon Security Lake and the Parquet Constraint Amazon Security Lake provides a centralized, S3-backed repository for security telemetry, addressing fragmentation across services, accounts, and regions. Instead of service-level ingestion pipelines, logs from sources such as EKS, Route 53, WAF, Lambda, and S3 are aggregated into a single, governed data layer, enabling consistent visibility, separation of duties, and cost-efficient storage at scale. This data is stored in Apache Parquet, a columnar format optimized for analytics—delivering high compression, schema evolution, and efficient, selective reads across engines like Athena and Spark. Microsoft Sentinel operates on a streaming ingestion model expecting JSON payloads, source-specific pipelines, and continuous event flows. In lake-first architectures, reintroducing service-level ingestion is neither practical nor efficient. The requirement, therefore, is to bridge the two models -preserving Parquet for storage while enabling event-driven ingestion at the point of consumption. In the following sections, we will create an Event Hub, Configure the Lambda function and once the streaming is configured in Event Hub we will configure the Data Collection Rules, Data Collection endpoints, Data Collection Rule associations to configure the ingestion pipeline from Event Hub to Sentinel. Pre-requisites: Log Analytics workspace where you have at least contributor rights. Your Log Analytics workspace needs to be linked to a dedicated cluster or to have a commitment tier. Event Hubs namespace that permits public network access. If public network access is disabled, ensure that "Allow trusted Microsoft services to bypass this firewall" is set to "Yes." Event Hubs with events flowing in. In this implementation, events are sent to Event Hubs by the AWS Lambda function configured in the steps below - no manual event sending is required. Appropriate IAM roles in AWS accounts to configure SQS queue, Lambda function, IAM policies, etc. The Event Hub To begin, we need to create an Event Hub. Azure Event Hubs is a fully managed, high-throughput event ingestion and streaming platform, designed to support high event volumes within documented service limits, subject to configuration and tier selection. SKUs (Standard vs Premium) Standard tier is a throughput-unit (TU) based model, where capacity is explicitly controlled and shared across the namespace. Premium tier provides isolated compute and memory via processing units (PU), which can provide more consistent performance characteristics and higher throughput capacity compared to shared models, depending on workload. Additionally, Azure Event Hubs offers a Dedicated tier, which is a fully isolated, single-tenant cluster for enterprise-scale workloads with higher throughputs (at significantly higher cost). Throughput Characteristics (Standard Tier) A single Throughput Unit (TU) provides: Ingress: up to 1 MB/s Egress: up to 2 MB/s A Standard namespace can scale to a maximum of 40 TUs, giving: Max ingress: 40 MB/s Max egress: 80 MB/s All Event Hubs, partitions, and consumers within the namespace share this TU capacity, making it a central ingestion buffer for streaming pipelines rather than a per-source scaling model. Which SKU to choose: For ingress/egress up to 40/80 MB/s, a Standard SKU may be suitable. Higher volumes may warrant consideration of Premium, depending on workload requirements. Azure Event Hubs Concepts: Event Hub Namespace: A logical container that provides the endpoint, networking boundary, and shared throughput capacity (TUs/PUs) for all Event Hubs within it. Event Hub: An individual event stream (topic) within the namespace where events are ingested, stored, and read in a partitioned, ordered manner for parallel processing. Reference: Event Hubs features and terminology - Azure Event Hubs Creating Event Hub namespace, Event Hub entities, and considerations: Create the Azure Event Hub Namespace, in this example, we create a Standard Event Hub with minimum 1 TU with Auto Inflate on enabling scaling upto the maximum 40 TUs. Note the maximum Throughput Units should be based on the size of the logs expected per second from Amazon Security Lake. Since the Event Hub will be used to ingest data in Azure Monitor (Sentinel Workspace) please check the Supported Regions. Ensure Event Hub region alignment with Microsoft Sentinel. Configure TU based on expected ingestion rate Once the Event Hub is created, enable the Local Authentication, since the AWS Lambda code we are using (discussed in the next section) uses Shared access signature to connect to the Azure Event Hub. See Shared Access Signatures. Create individual Event Hubs within the namespace created in Step 1. One Event Hub is required per log type - for example, if Amazon Security Lake includes EKS, Route 53, and WAF logs, then three Event Hub entities should be created. Why this matters: Easier DCR mapping Avoids schema conflicts Create a consumer group in each Event Hub we created in the previous step. Consumer Group is an independent view of an event stream that allows multiple applications to read the same events separately, each maintaining its own position (offset) in the stream. Event Hub Features Avoid using the $Default consumer group. With the Event Hub namespace, entities, and consumer groups in place, the receiving end of the pipeline is ready. The next step is to configure the AWS Lambda function that will translate Security Lake's Parquet files into the JSON events that Event Hub expects. The AWS Lambda Function (SQS-driven Parquet → JSON) In this architecture, AWS Lambda is the translation layer, not an ingestion source. Instead of being invoked directly by S3, Security Lake emits S3 object‑creation notifications into Amazon SQS, and SQS becomes the Lambda trigger. This decoupling is intentional: SQS absorbs bursts of newly written Parquet objects which can help increase resilience of the ingestion pipeline under bursty or variable workloads. Once triggered, the Lambda function processes each queued S3 notification end‑to‑end: it derives the log type from the S3 object key, downloads the Parquet file, converts each row into a discrete JSON event, and forwards the resulting events to Azure Event Hub in batches for downstream ingestion via DCR/DCE. A practical consideration is event size management. Some sources - especially EKS audit telemetry - can carry large, nested fields that are not always useful for Sentinel analytics. For those log types, the Lambda function drops non‑essential fields during transformation to keep each event within Azure ingestion constraints; oversized fields can exceed the 64 KB Azure Monitor field size limit and disrupt ingestion (Fields more than 64 KB will be truncated in Log Analytics Workspace). Solution Architecture The diagram above illustrates the end-to-end data flow: logs originate in AWS, are converted by AWS Lambda, streamed through Azure Event Hub, and stored in Microsoft Sentinel. Amazon Security Lake writes Parquet files to a centralized S3 bucket as logs arrive from source services (CloudTrail, EKS, VPC Flow, WAF, Route 53, and others). Amazon SQS receives S3 event notifications from Security Lake and queues them as Lambda triggers. AWS Lambda picks up each SQS message, identifies the log source from the S3 object key, downloads the Parquet file, converts each row to JSON, and forwards the events to Azure Event Hub. Azure Event Hub receives the JSON events and makes them available for ingestion into Microsoft Sentinel via a Data Collection Rule (DCR). Microsoft Sentinel ingests the data into a custom log table, where it is available for detection rules, hunting queries, and dashboards. The full Lambda function code is available in the GithubRepository-LambdaFunction. Refer to the readme for more details. How the Lambda Function works At a high level, the Lambda function performs four things in sequence for every file it processes: Identify the log source: Security Lake organizes files under a structured S3 key path that includes the log type (for example, CLOUD_TRAIL_MGMT, EKS_AUDIT, VPC_FLOW). The function reads this key path to determine which log source the file belongs to, and routes it to the corresponding Azure Event Hub entity. Files that cannot be matched to a known log type are skipped and logged as warnings. Download and decompress the Parquet file: The function streams the Parquet file from S3 directly to local Lambda storage rather than loading it entirely into memory. This keeps memory consumption bounded regardless of file size. Where Security Lake uses gzip compression, the function decompresses automatically before processing. Convert Parquet rows to JSON: Each row in the Parquet file is read in batches using PyArrow and converted to a JSON object. Parquet columns can carry data types - such as NumPy scalars, nested arrays, and high-precision timestamps — that are not natively serializable to JSON. The function handles these type conversions before serialization, ensuring clean output that Sentinel's ingestion pipeline can accept without errors. Forward events to Azure Event Hub: Converted JSON events are sent to the respective Azure Event Hub entity in batches, with each row becoming a discrete event. The function respects Event Hub's payload size ceiling, handles throttling responses gracefully using retry logic with exponential backoff, and marks each processed file in S3 metadata to prevent duplicate ingestion on retry. Tuning the Lambda Messages at cloud scale are unforgiving. Memory, timeout, batch size, and retry behavior - each decision determines whether the messenger would keep up or fall behind. Several configuration changes are required beyond the default Lambda settings to make this function production-ready. Runtime and Dependencies - Lambda Layer The function depends on three libraries not available in Lambda's default Python runtime: pyarrow (for Parquet reading), pandas (for type handling), and azure-eventhub (for Event Hub connectivity). These are packaged as an AWS Lambda Layer and attached to the function, keeping the deployment package clean and the layer reusable across function versions. Step-by-step instructions for packaging the dependencies, creating the S3 bucket, publishing the Layer, and deploying the function are available in the GithubRepository-LambdaLayer. Secrets Management - AWS Secrets Manager The Azure Event Hub connection strings - one per log type - are sensitive credentials that must not be stored in environment variables in plaintext. The function retrieves them at cold start from AWS Secrets Manager, using a single secret ARN passed as a Lambda environment variable (SECRET_ARN). The secret is stored as a JSON object with each log type as a key. The full secret structure and configuration steps are available in the GithubRepository-SecretsManager. IAM Permissions The Lambda execution IAM role requires scoped permissions across S3, Secrets Manager, SQS, and CloudWatch Logs. Full IAM policy JSON files following the principle of least privilege are available in the GithubRepository-IAMPolicies. Deployment instructions for the IAM Policies are available in the IAM Policies README. Memory Configuration A starting configuration of 1,792 MB is recommended - this is the threshold at which Lambda may allocate a full vCPU. For environments with high log volumes or large Parquet files, increasing to 2,048 MB provides headroom for concurrent batch processing. Tune further based on observed execution durations in CloudWatch Metrics. Timeout Configuration The default Lambda timeout of 3 seconds is insufficient for Parquet processing at scale. The function must download a file from S3, process it in batches, and flush all events to Event Hub - a sequence that can take tens of seconds for larger Security Lake files. A timeout of 5 minutes (300 seconds) is recommended as a starting point, with adjustment based on observed execution durations in CloudWatch Metrics. SQS Trigger Configuration The SQS queue connected to Security Lake S3 event notifications is configured as the trigger for the Lambda function. This enables automatic invocation of the Lambda function whenever Security Lake writes a new Parquet file to S3. Validate Event Hub Ingestion At this point, events should be streaming into each Event Hub. To validate, open a specific Event Hub from the Azure Portal and navigate to the Overview page. You should see active metrics across Requests, Messages, and Throughput, confirming that the Lambda function is successfully forwarding Security Lake events. In the upcoming sections, we will follow the documentation to ingest events from Event Hub to Azure Monitor. Before we begin, please collect the required information as stated here to have resource ID's and other details ready for configuration of DCR and Data Collection Endpoint. Also create a user assigned managed identity (UAMI), since the DCRs in this setup use a UAMI that should be granted the required permissions on the Event Hub Namespace to Receive Events. To grant the Azure Event Hubs Data Receiver role to the user-assigned managed identity, follow the instructions here. Creating Tables in Log Analytics Workspace As mentioned in the Overview, this blog covers the following data sources: Amazon EKS audit and runtime events Route 53 DNS query logs AWS WAF access logs AWS Lambda execution activity Amazon S3 access events The PowerShell scripts to create these tables are provided here: GithubRepo CreateLAWTables. For assistance with executing these scripts, refer to: Readme.md. Note: In the Microsoft Documentation to Ingest logs from EventHub into Azure Monitor only 3 fields are created in the tables (TimeGenerated, RawData, Properties). In this case, the entire Json event from the Event Hub is sent to the RawData field. However the scripts we are running are creating additional fields since we will be parsing the RawData field and extracting/parsing the information from the complete event into individual fields. This makes it easier to search and analyze logs later and schema improves detection rules and KQL efficiency. Create a Data Collection Endpoint To collect data with a data collection rule, you need a data collection endpoint: Create a data collection endpoint. Note: Create the data collection endpoint in the same region as your Log Analytics workspace. From the data collection endpoint's Overview screen, select JSON View. Copy the Resource ID for the data collection rule. You use this information in the next step while creating Data Collection Rules. Create Data Collection Rules Since we have 5 sources in scope for this example, we need to create 5 DCRs using the collected information as stated here, the user assigned managed identity resource ID, and the Data Collection Endpoint resource ID we created in the previous step. DCR Deployment via ARM Templates The Data Collection Rules ARM templates can be found in the GithubRepo-DataCollectionRules. The instructions to create via ARM templates can be found in the readme.md (Microsoft article reference with manual steps here). DCR Mapping (AWS Sources → DCR Templates) ARM Templates in GitHub Repo to AWS Source mapping Data Source DCR Template Name Amazon EKS Logs DCR-awseks.json AWS S3 Access Logs DCR-awsS3access.json AWS WAF Logs DCR-awswaf.json AWS Lambda Execution DCR-lambdaexecution.json Amazon Route 53 Logs DCR-Route53.json Final Step: Associating the Event Hub with the Data Collection Rule At this stage, the core building blocks of the ingestion pipeline are already in place. We have successfully configured streaming to Event Hubs, created dedicated Event Hubs for each Amazon Security Lake source, provisioned destination tables in the Microsoft Sentinel workspace, and defined Data Collection Rules (DCRs) - leveraging the Azure Monitor pipeline and a user-assigned managed identity to securely read incoming events. The final step is to stitch this entire architecture together by establishing associations between the Event Hubs and their corresponding Data Collection Rules. This association links Event Hub to Sentinel, enabling Azure Monitor to actively pull data from the Event Hubs and route it into the defined destination tables. Without this linkage, the pipeline remains incomplete - data may continue to flow into Event Hubs, but it will not be picked up or ingested into Sentinel. Each Event Hub must be explicitly mapped to its respective Data Collection Rule, ensuring: The correct stream is processed by the intended transformation logic Events are routed to the appropriate custom tables The ingestion pipeline operates in a deterministic and scalable manner helping ensure data is routed to the intended destination in a consistent and predictable manner. Once these associations are configured, the end‑to‑end pipeline is intended to operate as designed, subject to configuration accuracy and ongoing operational monitoring— enabling automated ingestion workflows of Amazon Security Lake data into Microsoft Sentinel with minimal manual intervention once configured. Steps to be followed: Associate the data collection rule with the Event Hub To complete the setup, we now associate each Event Hub with its corresponding Data Collection Rule (DCR). This creates the link that allows Azure Monitor to read data from the Event Hub and send it to Microsoft Sentinel. Important: You must create one association per Data Collection Rule. Example: If an Event Hub is receiving AWS Route 53 logs, it must be associated with the DCR created for AWS Route 53. Copy the template from the above link and deploy it to create each Data Collection Rule association. We have to create 1 association per Data Collection Rule. What You Need Event Hub Resource ID Follow these steps to get the Event Hub Resource ID: Open the Event Hub Namespace in the Azure Portal Go to Entities → Event Hubs Select the Event Hub that is receiving the logs (e.g., Route 53 logs) In the Overview page, click on JSON View Copy the Resource ID Resource Group, Region, and Association Name The Resource Group must be the same as the one where the Event Hub is deployed Provide the Azure region where the resources are deployed Define a unique name for the association Data Collection Rule (DCR) Resource ID Open the corresponding Data Collection Rule Go to the Overview page Click on JSON View Copy the Resource ID Key Note: Make sure that Each Event Hub is mapped to the correct DCR The data source and DCR template are aligned (e.g., Route 53 → Route 53 DCR) Validate End-to-End Ingestion Once this configuration is complete, we can validate the logs in the destination table, fields, and parsing accuracy. If you are building on a lake-first security architecture and running into ingestion challenges with Sentinel, feel free to share your experience in the comments or raise an issue in the GitHub repository.The 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.Microsoft Security Community Spotlight: Marcel Graewer
Globally, Marcel shares practical detection engineering insights on Microsoft Sentinel and Microsoft Defender XDR through forums and blog posts. Locally, he represents his employer in the IT-Security group of the Microsoft Business User Forum, where German companies using Microsoft technologies exchange real-world experience and expertise. The work Marcel values most is helping people enter the IT field. In Germany, "Fachinformatiker" is a recognized IT profession learned through a multi-year apprenticeship, and he is proud to have trained apprentices. He also serves as an examiner for the IHK (the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce), evaluating the final exams of these IT apprentices. This commitment also led him to support younger learners by teaching school cybersecurity classes and participating in Girls’ Day, where he introduced female students to the field. “I do this because most people don’t get an honest view of security work until much later in their education—if they see it at all. Showing someone early that this field is creative, varied, and genuinely interesting can change their path. Being part of that, even for a few people, means more to me than anything that fits neatly on a CV.” Let’s hear more from Marcel about his Microsoft Security Community and product paths. All responses to questions are direct quotes from Marcel. What do you find most rewarding about being a member of the Microsoft Security Community? The most rewarding part for me is how practical the exchange is. Microsoft security tooling moves fast - Microsoft Sentinel, Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Security Copilot all change month to month- and no single person keeps up with all of it alone. The community is where that gap gets closed. When I read how someone else tuned a detection in their environment, or when someone responds to something I posted with a problem I hadn't considered, my own work gets better. It's a feedback loop you don't get from documentation. The other part I value is that it works in both directions: I started as a reader, learning from people more experienced than me, and now I'm at a point where I can give some of that back. Watching that shift happen has been genuinely motivating. How long have you been working with Microsoft Security Products? Over ten years! My way into Microsoft security ran through infrastructure rather than security itself. I started out administering Active Directory and VMware environments, the on-premises world, and that is where I first understood identity, endpoints and the quiet attack surface they create. At the time, security was something layered on top of infrastructure. What changed everything was the shift to the cloud. As the environments I worked in moved into Microsoft Azure and Microsoft 365, the old separation between "running things" and "securing things" stopped making sense. In a cloud-first world, the identity is the perimeter, the sign-in log is the crime scene, and the telemetry that used to be scattered across servers suddenly lives in one place you could actually query. That was the moment Microsoft's security stack became less of a product set and more of a working environment for me. As I moved from running infrastructure into roles centered on defending it, first leading IT infrastructure and security as a team lead, then as an IT Security Expert, and now as IT Security Manager focused on architecture and incident response in an Azure and M365 environment, Sentinel and Defender XDR went from tools I knew of to tools I work in every day. The infrastructure background turned out to be an advantage rather than a detour. Detection engineering makes far more sense once you have run the Active Directory and the endpoints that generate the very signals you are now writing detections against, and cloud security makes far more sense once you have felt the limits of the on-premises model it replaced. The part that keeps me engaged is that none of this stands still. The cloud security landscape changes constantly, the work is never quite finished, and that is exactly what I like about it. What Microsoft Security features or products have provided the most impact? The single biggest impact for me comes from Microsoft Sentinel as a cloud-native SIEM and SOAR platform. The move away from a self-hosted SIEM matters more than it first appears. A traditional SIEM is itself a piece of infrastructure that has to be sized, hosted, patched, and scaled, and that effort constantly competes with the actual security work. Microsoft Sentinel removes that layer. There is no platform estate to keep alive and no capacity planning for the SIEM itself, which frees attention for what actually matters: getting the right telemetry in and getting detection and response right. What I value most is how naturally Sentinel fits into modern, cloud-first environments. When the landscape you are protecting already lives in Azure and Microsoft 365, a security platform that lives in the same place removes an entire class of integration friction. The other strength is the breadth of data onboarding. With a traditional SIEM, connecting a new log source was often a small project of its own, with connectors to build and parsers to maintain. With Sentinel, that friction is largely gone. Whether a source sits on-premises, in another cloud or in a third-party product, getting it in is straightforward, and the platform still provides the integration depth that genuinely matters rather than a shallow connection. Microsoft Sentinel handles almost anything you point it at. Equally important is that SIEM and SOAR are not two separate platforms here. The orchestration and automation layer is built into the same solution, so response playbooks run on the same data that the detections are built on. For architecture, that is a real advantage: detection and response are designed as one system rather than stitched together afterwards. The central telemetry layer is one of the few decisions that is genuinely hard to reverse later, and Sentinel makes that an easy one to defend. What advice do you have for others who would like to get involved in the Microsoft Community? My advice is to start before you feel ready. I read Microsoft Tech Community (forums) for years before I posted anything myself, always with the feeling that I needed more experience first, that I would just be adding noise. That was the wrong instinct. The moment I actually started contributing, the feedback I got back made my own work better, and I realised the bar for being useful is far lower than it looks from the outside. You do not need to be the leading expert on a topic. You need a real problem you have worked through and the willingness to write down how you solved it. Someone else is stuck on exactly that problem right now. Start small, stay consistent, and treat the community as an exchange rather than a stage. Consistency matters more than any single brilliant post. Alles rund um sein Buch (All About His Book) Last year, I published "Die neue Realität der Cybersecurity" (2025). It tackles a question every security team is dealing with right now: “Where does AI genuinely strengthen security architecture and incident response, and where is it just noise?” Rather than staying abstract, the book takes the practitioner's side of that question, looking at how AI actually changes the work of designing defensible systems and responding to incidents, and where the limits and risks really are. It is written for the people doing the work, security architects, IR practitioners and the leaders who have to make decisions about AI without the marketing gloss. If that question is on your desk too, it is worth a look. Connect with Marcel Microsoft Tech Community: @marcel_graewer Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mgraewer/ Github: https://github.com/bifrost0x Blogs: graewer.com and magra-sec.de Book: Die neue Realität der Cybersecurity (ISBN: 9783695708833) Marcel Graewer is currently an IT-Security Manager at Festool Group and holds the CISSP certification. Outside of work, he is happiest when experimenting with technology on his own terms. He runs a Proxmox-based homelab with a range of self-hosted services and Docker containers, using it as both a playground and a testing ground. It gives him space to break things, learn, and explore without the constraints of formal change processes. He also spends time on Hack The Box and TryHackMe, believing that staying sharp on the offensive side makes him a stronger defender. Away from the keyboard, his life is refreshingly analog. He and his family, including two children, live in an old house that always seems to have one more project waiting. Between the homelab and the house, there is never a shortage of things to fix, and that suits him just fine. Learn and Engage with the Microsoft Security Community Log in and follow this Microsoft Security Community Blog. Follow = Click the heart in the upper right when you're logged in 🤍. Join the Microsoft Security Community and be notified of upcoming events, product feedback surveys, and more. Get early access to Microsoft Security products and provide feedback to engineers by joining the Microsoft Security Advisors. Join the Microsoft Security Community LinkedIn Group and follow the Microsoft Entra Community on LinkedInMigrate Sentinel to Defender - Why It Is a Security Architecture Decision, Not Just a Portal Change
Microsoft will retire the Sentinel experience in Azure on March 31, 2027. Most of the conversation around this transition focuses on cost optimization and portal consolidation. That framing undersells what is actually happening. The unified Defender portal is not a new interface for the same capabilities. It is the platform foundation for a fundamentally different SOC operating model — one built on a 2-tier data architecture, graph-based investigation, and AI agents that can hunt, enrich, and respond at machine speed. Partners who understand this will help customers build security programs that match how attackers actually operate. This document covers four things: What the unified experience delivers — the security capabilities that do not exist in standalone Sentinel and why they matter against today’s threats. What the transition really involves - is not data migration, but it is a data architecture project that changes how telemetry flows, where it lives, and who queries it. Where the partner opportunity lives — a structured progression from professional services (transactional, transition execution, and advisory) to ongoing managed security services. Why does the unified experience win competitively — factual capability advantages that give partners a defensible position against third-party SIEM alternatives. The Bigger Picture: Preparing for the Agentic SOC Before getting into transition mechanics, partners need to understand where the industry is headed — because the platform decisions made during this transition will determine whether a customer’s SOC is ready for what comes next. The security industry is moving from human-driven, alert-centric workflows to an operating model built on three pillars: Intellectual Property — the detection logic, hunting hypotheses, response playbooks, and domain expertise that differentiate one security team from another. Human Orchestration — the judgment, context, and decision-making that humans bring to complex incidents. Humans set strategy, validate findings, and make containment decisions. They do not manually triage every alert. AI Agents - built agents that execute repeatable work: enriching incidents, hunting across months of telemetry, validating security posture, drafting response actions, and flagging anomalies for human review. The SOC of 2027 will not be scaled by hiring more analysts. It will be scaled by deploying agents that encode institutional knowledge into automated workflows — orchestrated by humans who focus on the decisions that require judgment. This transformation requires a platform that provides three things: Deep telemetry — agents need months of queryable data to analyze behavioral patterns, build baselines, and detect slow-moving threats. The Sentinel data lake provides this at a cost point that makes long-retention feasible. Relationship context — agents need to understand how entities connect. Which accounts share credentials? What is the blast radius of a compromised service principle? What is the attack path from a phished user to domain admin? Sentinel Graph provides this. Extensibility — partners and customers need to build and deploy their own agents without waiting for Microsoft to ship them. The MCP framework and Copilot agent architecture provide this. None of these exist in Azure experience for Sentinel. All three ship with the Defender experience. The urgency goes beyond the March 2027 deadline. Organizations are deploying AI agents, copilots, and autonomous workflows across their businesses — and every one of those creates a new attack surface. Prompt injection, data poisoning, agent hijacking, cross-plugin exploitation — these are not theoretical risks. They are in the wild today. Defending against AI-powered attacks requires a security platform that is itself AI Agent-ready. The new experience in Defender unlocks this experience. What Unified SIEM and XDR Actually Delivers The original framing — “single pane of glass for SIEM and XDR” — is accurate but insufficient. Here is what the unified platform delivers that standalone Sentinel does not. Cross-Domain Incident Correlation The Defender correlation engine does not just group alerts by time proximity. It builds multi-stage incident graphs that link identity compromise to lateral movement to data exfiltration across SIEM and XDR telemetry — automatically. Consider a token theft chain: an infostealer harvests browser session cookies (endpoint telemetry), the attacker replays the token from a foreign IP (Entra ID sign-in logs), creates a mailbox forwarding rule (Exchange audit logs), and begins exfiltrating data (DLP alerts). In standalone Sentinel, these are four separate alerts in four different tables. In the unified platform, they are one correlated incident with a visual attack timeline. 2-Tier Data Architecture The Sentinel data lake introduces a second storage tier that changes the economics and capabilities of security telemetry: Analytics Tier Data Lake Purpose Real-time detection rules, SOAR, alerting Hunting, forensics, behavioral analysis, AI agent queries Latency Sub-5-minute query and alerting Minutes to hours acceptable Cost ~$4.30/GB PAYG ingestion (~$2.96 at 100 GB/day commitment) ~$0.05/GB ingestion + $0.10/GB data processing (at least 20x cheaper) Retention 90 days default (expensive to extend) Up to 12 years at low cost Best for High-signal, low-volume sources High-volume, investigation-critical sources The architecture decision is not “which tier is cheaper.” It is “which tier gives me the right detection capability for each data source.” Analytics tier candidates: Entra ID sign-in logs, Azure activity, audit logs, EDR alerts, PAM events, Defender for Identity alerts, email threat detections. These need sub-5-minute alerting. Data lake candidates: Raw firewall session logs, full DNS query streams, proxy request logs, Sysmon process events, NSG flow logs. These drive hunting and forensic analysis over weeks or months. Dual-ingest sources: Some sources need both tiers. Entra ID sign-in logs are the canonical example — analytics tier for real-time password spray detection, Data Lake for graph-based blast radius analysis across months of authentication history. Implementation is straightforward: a single Data Collection Rule (DCR) transformation handles the split. One collection point, two routing destinations. The right framing: “Right data in the right tier = better detections AND lower cost.” Cost savings are a side effect of good security architecture, not the goal. Sentinel Graph Sentinel graph enables SOC teams and AI agents to answer questions that flat log queries cannot: What is the blast radius of this compromised account? Which service principals share credentials with the breached identity? What is the attack path from this phished user to domain admin? Which entities are connected to this suspicious IP across all telemetry sources? Graph-based investigation turns isolated alerts into context-rich intelligence. It is the difference between knowing “this account was compromised” and understanding “this account has access to 47 service principals, 3 of which have written access to production Key Vault.” Security Copilot Integration Security Copilot embedded in the defender portal helps analysts summarize incidents, generate hunting queries, explain attacker behavior, and draft response actions. For complex multi-stage incidents, it reduces the time from “I see an alert” to “I understand the full scope” from hours to minutes. With free SCUs available with Microsoft 365 E5, teams can apply AI to the highest-effort investigation work without adding incremental cost. MCP and the Agent Framework The Model Context Protocol (MCP) and Copilot agent architecture let partners and customers build purpose-built security agents. A concrete example: an MCP-enabled agent can automatically enrich a phishing incident by querying email metadata, checking the sender against threat intelligence, pulling the user’s recent sign-in patterns, correlating with Sentinel Graph for lateral risk, and drafting a containment recommendation — in under 60 seconds. This is where partner intellectual property becomes competitive advantage. The agent framework is the mechanism for encoding proprietary detection logic, response playbooks, and domain expertise into automated workflows that run at machine speed. Security Store Security Store allows partners to evolve from one‑time transition projects into repeatable, scalable offerings—supporting professional services, managed services, and agent‑based IP that align with the customer’s unified SecOps operating model As part of the transition, the Microsoft Security Store becomes the extension layer for the Defender —allowing partners to deliver differentiated agents, SaaS, and security services natively within Defender and Sentinel, instead of building and integrating in isolation The 4 Investigation Surfaces: A Customer Maturity Ladder The Sentinel Data Lake exposes four distinct investigation surfaces, each representing a step toward the Agentic SOC — and a partner service opportunity: Surface Capability Maturity Level Partner Opportunity KQL Query Ad-hoc hunting, forensic investigation Basic — “we can query” Hunting query libraries; KQL training Graph Analytics Blast radius, attack paths, entity relationships Intermediate — “we understand relationships” Graph investigation training; attack path workshops Notebooks (PySpark) Statistical analysis, behavioral baselines, ML models Advanced — “we predict behaviors” Custom notebook development; anomaly scoring Agent/MCP Access Autonomous hunting, triage, response at machine speed Agentic SOC — “we automate” Custom agent development; MCP integration The customer who starts with “help us hunt better” ends up at “build us agents that hunt autonomously.” That is the progression from professional services to managed services. What the Transition Actually Involves It is not a data migration — customers’ underlying log data and analytics remain in their existing Log Analytics workspaces. That is important for partners to communicate clearly. But partners should not set the expectation that nothing changes except the URL. Microsoft’s official transition guide documents significant operational changes — including automation rules and playbooks, analytics rule, RBAC restructuring to the new unified model (URBAC), API schema changes that break ServiceNow and Jira integrations, analytics rule transitions where the Fusion engine is replaced by the Defender XDR correlation engine, and data policy shifts for regulated industries. Most customers cannot navigate this complexity without professional help. Important: Transitioning to the Defender portal has no extra cost - estimate the billing with the new Sentinel Cost Estimator Optimizing the unified platform means making deliberate changes: Adding dual-ingest for critical sources that need both real-time detection and long-horizon hunting. Moving high-volume telemetry to the Data Lake — enabling hunting at scale that was previously cost-prohibitive. Retiring redundant data copies where Defender XDR already provides the investigation capability. Updating RBAC, automation, and integrations for the unified portal’s consolidated schema and permission structure. Training analysts on new investigation workflows, Sentinel Graph navigation, and Copilot-assisted triage. Threat Coverage: The Detection Gap Most Organizations Do Not Know They Have This transition is an opportunity to quantify detection maturity — and most organizations will not like what they find. Based on real-world breach analysis — infostealers, business email compromise, human-operated ransomware, cloud identity abuse, vulnerability exploitation, nation-state espionage, and other prevalent threat categories — organizations running standalone Sentinel with default configurations typically have significant detection gaps. Those gaps cluster in three areas: Cross-domain correlation gaps — attacks that span identity, endpoint, email, and cloud workloads. These require the Defender correlation engine because no single log source tells the complete story. Long-retention hunting gaps — threats like command-and-control beaconing and slow data exfiltration that unfold over weeks or months. Analytics-tier retention at 90 days is too expensive to extend and too short for historical pattern analysis. Graph-based analysis gaps — lateral movement, blast radius assessment, and attack path analysis that require understanding entity relationships rather than flat log queries. The unified platform with proper log source coverage across Microsoft-native sources can materially close these gaps — but only if the transition includes a detection coverage assessment, not just a portal cutover. Partners should use MITRE ATT&CK as the common framework for measuring detection maturity. Map existing detections to ATT&CK tactics and techniques before and after transition — a measurable, defensible improvement that justifies advisory fees and ongoing managed services. Partner Opportunity: Professional Services to Managed Services This transition creates a structured progression for all partner types — from professional services that build trust and surface findings, to managed security services that deliver ongoing value. The key insight most partners miss: do not jump from “transition assessment” to “managed services pitch.” Customers are not ready for that conversation until they have experienced the value of professional services. The bridge engagement — whether transactional, transition execution, or advisory — builds trust, demonstrates the expertise, and surfaces the findings that make the managed services conversation a logical next step. Professional Services (transactional + transition execution + advisory) → Managed Security Services (MSSP) The USX transition is the ideal professional services entry point because it combines a mandatory deadline (March 2027) with genuine technical complexity (analytics rule, automation behavioral changes, RBAC restructuring, API schema shifts) that most customers cannot navigate alone. Every engagement produces findings — detection gaps, automation fragility, staffing shortfalls — that are the most credible possible evidence for managed services. Professional Services Transactional Partners Offer Customer Value Key Deliverables Transition Readiness Assessment Risk-mitigated transition with clear scope Sentinel deployment inventory; Defender portal compatibility check; transition roadmap with timeline; MITRE ATT&CK detection coverage baseline Transition Execution and Enablement Accelerated time-to-value, minimal disruption Workspace onboarding; RBAC and automation updates; Dual-portal testing and validation; SOC team training on unified workflows Security Posture and Detection Optimization Better detections and lower cost Data ingestion and tiering strategy; Dual-ingest implementation for critical sources; Detection coverage gap analysis; Automation and Copilot/MCP recommendations Advisory Partners Offer Customer Value Key Deliverables Executive and Strategy Advisory Leadership alignment on why this transition matters Unified SecOps vision and business case; Zero Trust and SOC modernization alignment; Stakeholder alignment across security, IT, and leadership Architecture and Design Advisory Future-ready architecture optimized for the Agentic SOC Target-state 2-tier data architecture; Dual-ingest routing decisions mapped to MITRE tactics; RBAC, retention, and access model design Detection Coverage and Gap Analysis Measurable detection maturity improvement Current-state MITRE ATT&CK coverage mapping; Gap analysis against 24 threat patterns; Detection improvement roadmap with priority recommendations SOC Operating Model Advisory Smooth analyst adoption with clear ownership Redesigned SOC workflows for unified portal; Incident triage and investigation playbooks; RACI for detection engineering, hunting, and platform ops Agentic SOC Readiness Preparation for AI-driven security operations MCP and agent architecture assessment; Custom agent development roadmap; IP + Human Orchestration + Agent operating model design Cost, Licensing and Value Advisory Transparent cost impact with strong business case Current vs. future cost analysis; Data tiering optimization recommendations; TCO and ROI modeling for leadership The conversion to managed services is evidence-based. Every professional services engagement produces findings — detection gaps, automation fragility, staffing shortfalls. Those findings are the most credible possible case for ongoing managed services. Managed Security Services The unified platform changes the managed security conversation. Partners are no longer selling “we watch your alerts 24/7.” They are selling an operating model where proprietary AI agents handle the repeatable work — enrichment, hunting, posture validation, response drafting — and human experts focus on the decisions that require judgment. This is where the competitive moat forms. The formula: IP + Human Orchestration + AI Agents = differentiated managed security. The unified platform enables this through: Multi-tenancy — the built-in multitenant portal eliminates the need for third-party management layers. Sentinel Data Lake — agents can query months of customer telemetry for behavioral analysis without cost constraints. Sentinel Graph — agents can traverse entity relationships to assess blast radius and map attack paths. MCP extensibility — partners can build agents that integrate with proprietary tools and customer-specific systems. Partners who build proprietary agents encoding their detection logic into the MCP framework will differentiate from partners who rely on out-of-box capabilities. The Securing AI Opportunity Organizations are deploying AI agents, copilots, and autonomous workflows across their businesses at an accelerating pace. Every AI deployment creates a new attack surface — prompt injection, data poisoning, agent hijacking, cross-plugin exploitation, unauthorized data access through agentic workflows. These are not theoretical risks. They are in the wild today. Partners who can help customers secure their AI deployments while also using AI to strengthen their SOC will command premium positioning. This requires a security platform that is itself AI Agent-ready — one that can deploy defensive agents at the same pace organizations deploy business AI. The unified Defender portal is that platform. Partners who position USX as “preparing your SOC for AI-driven security operations” will differentiate from partners who position it as “moving to a new portal.” Cost and Operational Benefits Better security architecture also costs less. This is not a contradiction — it is the natural result of putting the right data in the right tier. Benefit How It Works Eliminate low-value ingestion Identify and remove log sources that are never used for detections, investigations, or hunting. Immediately lowers analytics-tier costs without impacting security outcomes. Right-size analytics rules Disable unused rules, consolidate overlapping detections, and remove automation that does not reduce SOC effort. Pay only for processing that delivers measurable security value. Avoid SIEM/XDR duplication Many threats can be investigated directly in Defender XDR without duplicating telemetry into Sentinel. Stop re-ingesting data that Defender already provides. Tier data by detection need Store high-volume, hunt-oriented telemetry in the Data Lake at at least 20x lower cost. Promote only high-signal sources to the analytics tier. Full data fidelity preserved in both tiers. Reduce operational overhead Unified SIEM+XDR workflows in a single portal reduce tool switching, accelerate investigations, simplify analyst onboarding, and enable SOC teams to scale without proportional headcount increases. Improve detection quality The Defender correlation engine produces higher-fidelity incidents with fewer false positives. SOC teams spend less time triaging noise and more time on real threats. Competitive Positioning Partners need defensible talking points when customers evaluate third-party SIEM alternatives. The following advantages are factual, sourced from Microsoft’s transition documentation and platform capabilities — not marketing claims. No extra cost for transitioning — even for non-E5 customers. Third-party SIEM migrations involve licensing, data migration, detection rewrite, and integration rebuild costs. Native cross-domain correlation across Sentinel + Defender products into multi-stage incident graphs. Third-party SIEMs receive Microsoft logs as flat events — they lack the internal signal context, entity resolution, and product-specific intelligence that powers cross-domain correlation. Custom detections across SIEM + XDR — query both Sentinel and Defender XDR tables without ingesting Defender data into Sentinel. Eliminates redundant ingestion cost. Alert tuning extends to Sentinel — previously Defender-only capability, now applicable to Sentinel analytics rules. Net-new noise reduction. Unified entity pages — consolidated user, device, and IP address pages with data from both Sentinel and Defender XDR, plus global search across SIEM and XDR. Third-party SIEMs provide entity views from ingested data only. Built-in multi-tenancy for MSSPs — multitenant portal manages incidents, alerts, and hunting across tenants without third-party management layers. Try out the new GDAP capabilities in Defender portal. Industry validation: Microsoft’s SIEM+XDR platform has been recognized as a Leader by both Forrester (Security Analytics Platforms, 2025) and Gartner (SIEM Magic Quadrant, 2025). Summary: What Partners Should Take Away Topic Key Message Framing USX is a security architecture transformation, not a portal transition. Lead with detection capability, not cost savings. Platform foundation Sentinel Data Lake + Sentinel Graph + MCP/Agent Framework = the platform for the Agentic SOC. 4 investigation surfaces KQL → Graph → Notebooks → Agent/MCP. A maturity ladder from “we can query” to “we automate at machine speed.” Architecture 2-tier data model (analytics + Data Lake) with dual-ingest for critical sources. Cost savings are a side effect of good architecture. Transition complexity Analytics rules and automation rules. API schema changes. RBAC restructuring. Most customers need professional help. Partner engagement model Professional Services (transactional + transition execution + advisory) → Managed Services (MSSP). Competitive positioning No extra cost. Native correlation. Cross-domain detections. Built-in multi-tenancy. Capabilities third-party SIEMs cannot replicate. Partner differentiation IP + Human Orchestration + AI Agents. Partners who build proprietary agents on MCP have competitive advantage. Timeline March 31, 2027. Start now — phased transition with one telemetry domain first, then scale.Security Copilot Agents in Defender XDR: where things actually stand
With RSAC 2026 behind us and the E5 inclusion now rolling out between April 20 and June 30, anyone planning SOC workflows or sitting on a capacity budget needs to get a clear picture of what is GA, what is preview, and what was just announced. The marketing pages tend to blur those lines. This is my sober look at the current state, with the operational details that matter for adoption decisions. What is actually shipping right now The Phishing Triage Agent is GA. It only handles user-reported phish through Defender for Office 365 P2, but for most SOCs that is a meaningful chunk of the L1 queue. Verdicts come with a natural-language rationale rather than just a label, which is the part that determines whether analysts will trust it. The agent learns from analyst confirmations and overrides, so the feedback loop matters more than the initial setup. There is a setup detail that is easy to miss: the agent will not classify alerts that have already been suppressed by alert tuning. The built-in rule "Auto-Resolve - Email reported by user as malware or phish" needs to be off, and any custom tuning rules that touch this alert type need review. If you skip this, the agent runs on an empty queue and you wonder why nothing is happening. The Threat Intelligence Briefing Agent is also GA. It produces tenant-tailored intel briefings on a regular cadence. Useful, but lower operational impact than the triage agents. Copilot Chat in Defender went GA with the April 2026 update. Conversational Q&A inside the portal, grounded in your incident and entity data. This is the lowest-risk way to get value out of Security Copilot and probably where most teams should start. Public preview, worth watching The Dynamic Threat Detection Agent is the most technically interesting one. It runs continuously in the Defender backend, correlates across Defender and Sentinel telemetry, generates its own hypotheses, and emits a dynamic alert when the evidence converges. Detection source on the alert is Security Copilot. Each alert includes the structured fields (severity, MITRE techniques, remediation) plus a narrative explaining the reasoning. For EU tenants the residency point is worth confirming with whoever owns data protection in your org: the service runs region-local, so customer data and required telemetry stay inside the designated geographic boundary. During public preview it is enabled by default for eligible customers and is free. At GA, currently targeted for late 2026, it transitions to the SCU consumption model and can be disabled. The Threat Hunting Agent is also in public preview. Natural language to KQL with guided hunting. Lower stakes, but useful for teams without deep KQL expertise on hand. Announced at RSAC, still preview Two agents got the headlines in March: The Security Alert Triage Agent extends the agentic triage approach beyond phishing into identity and cloud alerts. The longer-term direction is consolidating phishing, identity, and cloud triage under a single agent. Rollout is from April 2026, in preview. The Security Analyst Agent is the multi-step investigation agent. Deeper context across Defender and Sentinel, prioritised findings, transparent reasoning trace. Preview since March 26. Both look promising on paper, but Microsoft's history of preview features that take a long time to mature is well-documented. I would not plan production workflows around either of them yet. What you actually get with the E5 inclusion This is the licensing change most people are dealing with right now. Security Copilot has been part of the E5 product terms since January 1, 2026. Tenant rollout is phased between April 20 and June 30, 2026, with a 7-day notification before activation. The numbers: 400 SCUs per month for every 1,000 paid user licenses Capped at 10,000 SCUs per month, which you hit at around 25,000 seats Linear scaling below that, so a 3,000-seat tenant gets 1,200 SCUs per month No rollover, the pool resets monthly What is included: chat, promptbooks, agentic scenarios across Defender, Entra, Intune, Purview, and the standalone portal. Agent Builder and the Graph APIs are in. If you also run Sentinel, the included SCUs apply to Security Copilot scenarios there. What is not included: Sentinel data lake compute and storage. Those still run through Azure on the regular meters. Beyond the included pool you pay 6 USD per SCU pay-as-you-go, with 30 days notice before that mode kicks in. Practical things worth knowing before activation A few details that are easy to miss in the docs: Under System > Settings > Copilot in Defender > Preferences, switch from Auto-generate to Generate on demand. Auto-generate will burn SCUs on incidents nobody is going to look at. Generate on demand gives you direct control. In the Security Copilot portal workspace settings, check the data storage location and the data sharing toggle. Data sharing is on by default, which means Microsoft uses interaction data for product improvement. If your compliance position does not allow that, change it before agents start running. Changing it requires the Capacity Contributor role. Agent runs are not equivalent to the same number of analyst chat prompts. A triage agent processing fifty alerts in one run consumes meaningfully more SCUs than fifty manual prompts on the same data. If you have a high-volume phishing pipeline, model that out before you flip the switch broadly. The usage dashboard in the Security Copilot portal breaks down consumption by day, user, and scenario. Output quality depends on telemetry quality. Flaky connectors, gaps in log sources, or a high baseline of misconfigured alerts will produce verdicts that match. Connector health monitoring (the SentinelHealth table in Advanced Hunting is a sensible starting point) is a precondition. The agents only improve if analysts feed the override loop. If your team treats the verdicts as background noise rather than confirming or correcting them, the feedback signal is lost and calibration stays where it shipped. That is a process problem, not a product problem, but it determines whether any of this is worth the SCUs. A reasonable adoption order A rough sequence that minimises capacity surprises: Copilot Chat in Defender first. Lowest risk, immediate value through natural language Q&A in the investigation context. Phishing Triage Agent on a controlled subset, with a review cadence in place. Check the built-in tuning rules first. Watch the SCU dashboard for the first month before adding anything else. Let the Dynamic Threat Detection Agent run while it is in public preview, since it is default-on and free anyway. Compare its alerts against existing Sentinel detections. Security Alert Triage Agent for identity and cloud once the phishing baseline is stable. Establish a monthly review covering agent decisions, false-positive rate, SCU cost, and MTTD/MTTR trends. Technically, agentic triage is moving past phishing into identity and cloud, and the Dynamic Threat Detection Agent represents a genuine attempt at the false-negative problem rather than just another rule engine. Lizenziell, the E5 inclusion removes the biggest barrier to adoption that previously existed. The risk is enabling everything at once. Agents that nobody reviews are agents that consume capacity without delivering value, and the SCU dashboard is the only thing that will tell you that is happening. One agent, one use case, a 30-day baseline, then the next one. The order matters more than the speed.Why UK Enterprise Cybersecurity Is Failing in 2026 (And What Leaders Must Change)
Enterprise cybersecurity in large organisations has always been an asymmetric game. But with the rise of AI‑enabled cyber attacks, that imbalance has widened dramatically - particularly for UK and EMEA enterprises operating complex cloud, SaaS, and identity‑driven environments. Microsoft Threat Intelligence and Microsoft Defender Security Research have publicly reported a clear shift in how attackers operate: AI is now embedded across the entire attack lifecycle. Threat actors use AI to accelerate reconnaissance, generate highly targeted phishing at scale, automate infrastructure, and adapt tactics in real time - dramatically reducing the time required to move from initial access to business impact. In recent months, Microsoft has documented AI‑enabled phishing campaigns abusing legitimate authentication mechanisms, including OAuth and device‑code flows, to compromise enterprise accounts at scale. These attacks rely on automation, dynamic code generation, and highly personalised lures - not on exploiting traditional vulnerabilities or stealing passwords. The Reality Gap: Adaptive Attackers vs. Static Enterprise Defences Meanwhile, many UK enterprises still rely on legacy cybersecurity controls designed for a very different threat model - one rooted in a far more predictable world. This creates a dangerous "Resilience Gap." Here is why your current stack is failing- and the C-Suite strategy required to fix it. 1. The Failure of Traditional Antivirus in the AI Era Traditional antivirus (AV) relies on static signatures and hashes. It assumes malicious code remains identical across different targets. AI has rendered this assumption obsolete. Modern malware now uses automated mutation to generate unique code variants at execution time, and adapts behaviour based on its environment. Microsoft Threat Intelligence has observed threat actors using AI‑assisted tooling to rapidly rewrite payload components, ensuring that every deployment looks subtly different. In this model, there is no reliable signature to detect. By the time a pattern exists, the attacker has already moved on. Signature‑based detection is not just slow - it is structurally misaligned with AI‑driven attacks. The Risk: If your security relies on "recognising" a threat, you are already breached. By the time a signature exists, the attacker has evolved. The C-Suite Pivot: Shift investment from artifact detection to EDR/XDR (Extended Detection and Response). We must prioritise behavioural analytics and machine learning models that identify intent rather than file names. 2. Why Perimeter Firewalls Fail in a Cloud-First World Many UK enterprise still rely on firewalls enforcing static allow/deny rules based on IP addresses and ports. This model worked when applications were predictable and networks clearly segmented. Today, enterprise traffic is encrypted, cloud‑hosted, API‑driven, and deeply integrated with SaaS and identity services. AI‑assisted phishing campaigns abusing OAuth and device‑code flows demonstrate this clearly. From a network perspective, everything looks legitimate: HTTPS traffic to trusted identity providers. No suspicious port. No malicious domain. Yet the attacker successfully compromises identity. The Risk: Traditional firewalls are "blind" to identity-based breaches in cloud environments. The C-Suite Pivot: Move to Identity-First Security. Treat Identity as the new Control Plane, integrating signals like user risk, device health, and geolocation into every access decision. 3. The Critical Weakness of Single-Factor Authentication Despite clear NCSC guidance, single-factor passwords remain a common vulnerability in legacy applications and VPNs. AI-driven credential abuse has changed the economics of these attacks. Threat actors now deploy adaptive phishing campaigns that evolve in real-time. Microsoft has observed attackers using AI to hyper-target high-value UK identities- specifically CEOs, Finance Directors, and Procurement leads. The Risk: Static passwords are now the primary weak link in UK supply chain security. The C-Suite Pivot: Mandate Phishing‑resistant MFA (Passkeys or hardware security keys). Implement Conditional Access policies that evaluate risk dynamically at the moment of access, not just at login. Legacy Security vs. AI‑Era Reality 4. The Inherent Risk of VPN-Centric Security VPNs were built on a flawed assumption: that anyone "inside" the network is trustworthy. In 2026, this logic is a liability. AI-assisted attackers now use automation to map internal networks and identify escalation paths the moment they gain VPN access. Furthermore, Microsoft has tracked nation-state actors using AI to create synthetic employee identities- complete with fake resumes and deepfake communication. In these scenarios, VPN access isn't "hacked"; it is legally granted to a fraudster. The Risk: A compromised VPN gives an attacker the "keys to the kingdom." The C-Suite Pivot: Transition to Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA). Access must be explicit, scoped to the specific application, and continuously re‑evaluated using behavioural signals. 5. Data: The High-Velocity Target Sensitive data sitting unencrypted in legacy databases or backups is a ticking time bomb. In the AI era, data discovery is no longer a slow, manual process for a hacker. Attackers now use AI to instantly analyse your directory structures, classify your files, and prioritise high-value data for theft. Unencrypted data significantly increases your "blast radius," turning a containable incident into a catastrophic board-level crisis. The Risk: Beyond the technical breach, unencrypted data leads to massive UK GDPR fines and irreparable brand damage. The C-Suite Pivot: Adopt Data-Centric Security. Implement encryption by default, classify data while adding sensitivity labels and start board-level discussions regarding post‑quantum cryptography (PQC) to future-proof your most sensitive assets. 6. The Failure of Static IDS Traditional Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) rely on known indicators of compromise - assuming attackers reuse the same tools and techniques. AI‑driven attacks deliberately avoid that assumption. Threat actors are now using Large Language Models (LLMs) to weaponize newly disclosed vulnerabilities within hours. While your team waits for a "known pattern" to be updated in your system, the attacker is already using a custom, AI-generated exploit. The Risk: Your team is defending against yesterday's news while the attacker is moving at machine speed. The C-Suite Pivot: Invest in Adaptive Threat Detection. Move toward Graph‑based XDR platforms that correlate signals across email, endpoint, and cloud to automate investigation and response before the damage spreads. From Static Security to Continuous Security Closing Thought: Security Is a Journey, Not a Destination For UK enterprises, the shift toward adaptive cybersecurity is no longer optional - it is increasingly driven by regulatory expectation, board oversight, and accountability for operational resilience. Recent UK cyber resilience reforms and evolving regulatory frameworks signal a clear direction of travel: cybersecurity is now a board‑level responsibility, not a back‑office technical concern. Directors and executive leaders are expected to demonstrate effective governance, risk ownership, and preparedness for cyber disruption - particularly as AI reshapes the threat landscape. AI is not a future cybersecurity problem. It is a current force multiplier for attackers, exposing the limits of legacy enterprise security architectures faster than many organisations are willing to admit. The uncomfortable truth for boards in 2026 is that no enterprise is 100% secure. Intrusions are inevitable. Credentials will be compromised. Controls will be tested. The difference between a resilient enterprise and a vulnerable one is not the absence of incidents, but how risk is managed when they occur. In mature organisations, this means assuming breach and designing for containment: Access controls that limit blast radius Least privilege and conditional access restricting attackers to the smallest possible scope if an identity is compromised Data‑centric security using automated classification and encryption, ensuring that even when access is misused, sensitive data cannot be freely exfiltrated As a Senior Enterprise Cybersecurity Architect, I see this moment as a unique opportunity. AI adoption does not have to repeat the mistakes of earlier technology waves, where innovation moved fast and security followed years later. We now have a rare chance to embed security from day one - designing identity controls, data boundaries, automated monitoring, and governance before AI systems become business‑critical. When security is built in upfront, enterprises don’t just reduce risk - they gain the confidence to move faster and unlock AI’s value safely. Security is no longer a “department”. In the age of AI, it is a continuous business function - essential to preserving trust and maintaining operational continuity as attackers move at machine speed. References: Inside an AI‑enabled device code phishing campaign | Microsoft Security Blog AI as tradecraft: How threat actors operationalize AI | Microsoft Security Blog Detecting and analyzing prompt abuse in AI tools | Microsoft Security Blog Post-Quantum Cryptography | CSRC Microsoft Digital Defense Report 2025 | Microsoft https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/news/government-adopt-passkey-technology-digital-servicesSentinel 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.Announcing public preview of custom graphs in Microsoft Sentinel
Security attacks span identities, devices, resources, and activity, making it critical to understand how these elements connect to expose real risk. In November, we shared how Sentinel graph brings these signals together into a relationship-aware view to help uncover hidden security risks. We’re excited to announce the public preview of custom graphs in Sentinel, available starting April 1 st . Custom graphs let defenders model relationships that are unique to their organization, then run graph analytics to surface blast radius, attack paths, privilege chains, chokepoints, and anomalies that are difficult to spot in tables alone. In this post, we’ll cover what custom graphs are, how they work, and how to get started so the entire team can use them. Custom graphs Security data is inherently connected: a sign-in leads to a token, a token touches a workload, a workload accesses data, and data movement triggers new activity. Graphs represent these relationships as nodes (entities) and edges (relationships), helping you answer questions like: “Who received the phishing email, who clicked, and which clicks were allowed by the proxy?” or “Show me users who exported notebooks, staged files in storage, then uploaded data to personal cloud storage- the full, three‑phase exfiltration chain through one identity.” With custom graphs, security teams can build, query, and visualize tailored security graphs using data from the Sentinel data lake and non-Microsoft sources, powered by Fabric. By uncovering hidden patterns and attack paths, graphs provide the relationship context needed to surface real risk. This context strengthens AI‑powered agent experiences, speeds investigations, clarifies blast radius, and helps teams move from noisy, disconnected alerts to confident decisions. In the words of our preview customers: “We ingested our Databricks management-plane telemetry into the Sentinel data lake and built a custom security graph. Without writing a single detection rule, the graph surfaced unusual patterns of activity and overprivileged access that we escalated for investigation. We didn't know what we were looking for, the graph surfaced the risk for us by revealing anomalous activity patterns and unusual access combinations driven by relationships, not alerts.” – SVP, Security Solutions | Financial Services organization Use cases Sentinel graph offers embedded, Microsoft managed, security graphs in Defender and Microsoft Purview experiences to help you at every stage of defense, from pre-breach to post-breach and across assets, activities, and threat intelligence. See here for more details. The new custom graph capability gives you full control to create your own graphs combining data from Microsoft sources, non-Microsoft sources, and federated sources in the Sentinel data lake. With custom graphs you can: Understand blast radius – Trace phishing campaigns, malware spread, OAuth abuse, or privilege escalation paths across identities, devices, apps, and data, without stitching together dozens of tables. Reconstruct real attack chains – Model multi-step attacker behavior (MITRE techniques, lateral movement, before/after malware) as connected sequences so investigations are complete and explainable, not a set of partial pivots. Reconstruct these chains from historical data in the Sentinel data lake. Figure 2: Drill into which specific MITRE techniques each IP is executing and in which tactic category Spot hidden risks and anomalies – Detect structural outliers like users with unusually broad access, anomalous email exfiltration, or dangerous permission combinations that are invisible in flat logs. Figure 3: OAuth consent chain – a single compromised user consented four dangerous permissions Creating custom graph Using the Sentinel VS Code extension, you can generate graphs to validate hunting hypotheses, such as understanding attack paths and blast radius of a phishing campaign, reconstructing multi‑step attack chains, and identifying structurally unusual or high‑risk behavior, making it accessible to your team and AI agents. Once persisted via a schedule job, you can access these custom graphs from the ready-to-use section in the graphs section in the Defender portal. Figure 4: Use AI-assisted vibe coding in Visual Studio Code to create tailored security graphs powered by Sentinel data lake and Fabric Graphs experience in the Microsoft Defender portal After creating your custom graphs, you can access them in the Graphs section of the Microsoft Defender portal under Sentinel. From there, you can perform interactive, graph-based investigations, for example, using a graph built for phishing analysis to quickly evaluate the impact of a recent incident, profile the attacker, and trace paths across Microsoft telemetry and third-party data. The graph experience lets you run Graph Query Language (GQL) queries, view the graph schema, visualize results, see results in a table, and interactively traverse to the next hop with a single click. Figure 5: Query, visualize, and traverse custom graphs with the new graph experience in Sentinel Billing Custom graph API usage for creating graph and querying graph is billed according to the Sentinel graph meter. Get started To use custom graphs, you’ll need Microsoft Sentinel data lake enabled in your tenant, since the lake provides the scalable, open-format foundation that custom graphs build on. Use the Sentinel data lake onboarding flow to provision the data lake if it isn’t already enabled. Ensure the required connectors are configured to populate your data lake. See Manage data tiers and retention in Microsoft Sentinel | Microsoft Learn. Create and persist a custom graph. See Get started with custom graphs in Microsoft Sentinel (preview) | Microsoft Learn. Run adhoc graph queries and visualize graph results. See Visualize custom graphs in Microsoft Sentinel graph (preview) | Microsoft Learn. [Optional] Schedule jobs to write graph query results to the lake tier and analytics tier using notebooks. See Exploring and interacting with lake data using Jupyter Notebooks - Microsoft Security | Microsoft Learn. Learn more Earlier posts (Sentinel graph general availability) RSAC 2026 announcement roundup Custom graphs documentation Custom graph billingCrawl, Walk, Run: A Practitioner's Guide to AI Maturity in the SOC
Every security operations center is being told to adopt AI. Vendors promise autonomous threat detection, instant incident response, and the end of alert fatigue. The reality is messier. Most SOC teams are still figuring out where AI fits into their existing workflows, and jumping straight to autonomous agents without building foundational trust is a recipe for expensive failure. The Crawl, Walk, Run framework offers a more honest path. It's not a new concept. Cloud migration teams, DevOps organizations, and Zero Trust programs have used it for years. But it maps remarkably well to how security teams should adopt AI. Each phase builds organizational trust, governance maturity, and technical capability that the next phase depends on. Skip a phase and the risk compounds. This guide is written for SOC leaders and practitioners who want a practical, phased approach to AI adoption, not a vendor pitch.
