Entra ID 53003: How to identify primary authentication when Authentication Details are empty?
We are investigating repeated interactive Microsoft Entra ID sign-ins with the following pattern: - ErrorCode: 53003 (BlockedByConditionalAccess) - isInteractive: true - AppDisplayName: OfficeHome - Authentication requirement: Multifactor authentication Conditional Access correctly blocks these requests because they originate outside our trusted locations. We have already confirmed through controlled testing that the authentication flow can reach 53003 after the correct credentials are provided. Our current problem is different: We need to determine what mechanism satisfied the primary/first authentication factor for the observed 53003 events. For these events, Authentication Details are empty: - Authentication method: empty - Authentication method detail: empty - Result detail: empty Therefore, we cannot determine whether primary authentication was performed using a password, an existing token/session claim, PHS, PTA, federation, Seamless SSO, or another mechanism. Our questions are: 1. Is there any tenant-visible telemetry that can identify the primary authentication mechanism when AuthenticationDetails is empty? 2. Can fields such as AuthenticationProcessingDetails, AuthenticationProtocol, IncomingTokenType, OriginalTransferMethod, or AuthenticationMethodsUsed reliably distinguish between password validation and reuse of an existing authentication/token? 3. If additional authentication infrastructure is used: - can PTA Authentication Agent logs be correlated using RequestId or CorrelationId? - should Seamless SSO generate a corresponding Kerberos 4769 event for AZUREADSSOACC$? - should federated authentication be traceable in AD FS logs? 4. For Password Hash Synchronization, is there any tenant-visible telemetry confirming that Entra ID actually validated the password for a specific sign-in request? 5. If this information is not exposed to the tenant, can Microsoft Support retrieve backend authentication telemetry for a specific Sign-in ID / RequestId / CorrelationId and determine how primary authentication was satisfied? Our goal is not to determine why Conditional Access generated 53003 — that part is already understood. We specifically need to identify what satisfied primary authentication before the Conditional Access evaluation.
passkeys in the Authenticator app regarding attestation
I have a question about passkeys in the Authenticator app regarding attestation in connection with QR code-based cross-device sign-in. When we register a passkey with attestation enabled in the Authenticator app, it can be used to complete the sign-in process on another device via QR code and Bluetooth Low Energy. According to Microsoft’s documentation, this shouldn’t be possible with attestation enabled, yet it works. What are we misunderstanding here? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/identity/authentication/how-to-enable-authenticator-passkey Thanks for your inputs. JohannesWhy 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-services
Disabling PIN-based login on Entra-joined PCs
Hi guys. Yesterday I took two machines off the domain and Entra joined them. The goal was 1) remove their access to domain resources 2) have tenant users login to the machine and get enriched tokens every time. this works as desired. The problem is every user gets prompted to set a pin. these are both shared secondary/tertiary PC's - there is no point to having a 6 digit PIN on them. I thought the new Authentication Methods tools had controls for this, but apparently not. A script was run to change certain related Reg Keys (by my onsite tech) but this had no change on reboot. textreg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\PassportForWork" /v Enabled /t REG_DWORD /d 0 /freg add "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\PassportForWork" /v DisablePostLogonProvisioning /t REG_DWORD /d 1 /f HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\PassportForWork Enabled key was set to 0, and DisablePostLogonProvisioning was set to 1. These are from various help threads I found here and other resources. Unfortunately, they do not work. Not sure what to do here. I've read there are InTune controls for this - but I don't really have the time to work out WindowsPC ennrollment profiles for 2 machines. The site has InTune, but only for iOS mobile management. Thoughts?Hacking Made Easy, Patching Made Optional: A Modern Cyber Tragedy
In today’s cyber threat landscape, the tools and techniques required to compromise enterprise environments are no longer confined to highly skilled adversaries or state-sponsored actors. While artificial intelligence is increasingly being used to enhance the sophistication of attacks, the majority of breaches still rely on simple, publicly accessible tools and well-established social engineering tactics. Another major issue is the persistent failure of enterprises to patch common vulnerabilities in a timely manner—despite the availability of fixes and public warnings. This negligence continues to be a key enabler of large-scale breaches, as demonstrated in several recent incidents. The Rise of AI-Enhanced Attacks Attackers are now leveraging AI to increase the credibility and effectiveness of their campaigns. One notable example is the use of deepfake technology—synthetic media generated using AI—to impersonate individuals in video or voice calls. North Korean threat actors, for instance, have been observed using deepfake videos and AI-generated personas to conduct fraudulent job interviews with HR departments at Western technology companies. These scams are designed to gain insider access to corporate systems or to exfiltrate sensitive intellectual property under the guise of legitimate employment. Social Engineering: Still the Most Effective Entry Point And yet, many recent breaches have begun with classic social engineering techniques. In the cases of Coinbase and Marks & Spencer, attackers impersonated employees through phishing or fraudulent communications. Once they had gathered sufficient personal information, they contacted support desks or mobile carriers, convincingly posing as the victims to request password resets or SIM swaps. This impersonation enabled attackers to bypass authentication controls and gain initial access to sensitive systems, which they then leveraged to escalate privileges and move laterally within the network. Threat groups such as Scattered Spider have demonstrated mastery of these techniques, often combining phishing with SIM swap attacks and MFA bypass to infiltrate telecom and cloud infrastructure. Similarly, Solt Thypoon (formerly DEV-0343), linked to North Korean operations, has used AI-generated personas and deepfake content to conduct fraudulent job interviews—gaining insider access under the guise of legitimate employment. These examples underscore the evolving sophistication of social engineering and the need for robust identity verification protocols. Built for Defense, Used for Breach Despite the emergence of AI-driven threats, many of the most successful attacks continue to rely on simple, freely available tools that require minimal technical expertise. These tools are widely used by security professionals for legitimate purposes such as penetration testing, red teaming, and vulnerability assessments. However, they are also routinely abused by attackers to compromise systems Case studies for tools like Nmap, Metasploit, Mimikatz, BloodHound, Cobalt Strike, etc. The dual-use nature of these tools underscores the importance of not only detecting their presence but also understanding the context in which they are being used. From CVE to Compromise While social engineering remains a common entry point, many breaches are ultimately enabled by known vulnerabilities that remain unpatched for extended periods. For example, the MOVEit Transfer vulnerability (CVE-2023-34362) was exploited by the Cl0p ransomware group to compromise hundreds of organizations, despite a patch being available. Similarly, the OpenMetadata vulnerability (CVE-2024-28255, CVE-2024-28847) allowed attackers to gain access to Kubernetes workloads and leverage them for cryptomining activity days after a fix had been issued. Advanced persistent threat groups such as APT29 (also known as Cozy Bear) have historically exploited unpatched systems to maintain long-term access and conduct stealthy operations. Their use of credential harvesting tools like Mimikatz and lateral movement frameworks such as Cobalt Strike highlights the critical importance of timely patch management—not just for ransomware defense, but also for countering nation-state actors. Recommendations To reduce the risk of enterprise breaches stemming from tool misuse, social engineering, and unpatched vulnerabilities, organizations should adopt the following practices: 1. Patch Promptly and Systematically Ensure that software updates and security patches are applied in a timely and consistent manner. This involves automating patch management processes to reduce human error and delay, while prioritizing vulnerabilities based on their exploitability and exposure. Microsoft Intune can be used to enforce update policies across devices, while Windows Autopatch simplifies the deployment of updates for Windows and Microsoft 365 applications. To identify and rank vulnerabilities, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management offers risk-based insights that help focus remediation efforts where they matter most. 2. Implement Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) To mitigate credential-based attacks, MFA should be enforced across all user accounts. Conditional access policies should be configured to adapt authentication requirements based on contextual risk factors such as user behavior, device health, and location. Microsoft Entra Conditional Access allows for dynamic policy enforcement, while Microsoft Entra ID Protection identifies and responds to risky sign-ins. Organizations should also adopt phishing-resistant MFA methods, including FIDO2 security keys and certificate-based authentication, to further reduce exposure. 3. Identity Protection Access Reviews and Least Privilege Enforcement Conducting regular access reviews ensures that users retain only the permissions necessary for their roles. Applying least privilege principles and adopting Microsoft Zero Trust Architecture limits the potential for lateral movement in the event of a compromise. Microsoft Entra Access Reviews automates these processes, while Privileged Identity Management (PIM) provides just-in-time access and approval workflows for elevated roles. Just-in-Time Access and Risk-Based Controls Standing privileges should be minimized to reduce the attack surface. Risk-based conditional access policies can block high-risk sign-ins and enforce additional verification steps. Microsoft Entra ID Protection identifies risky behaviors and applies automated controls, while Conditional Access ensures access decisions are based on real-time risk assessments to block or challenge high-risk authentication attempts. Password Hygiene and Secure Authentication Promoting strong password practices and transitioning to passwordless authentication enhances security and user experience. Microsoft Authenticator supports multi-factor and passwordless sign-ins, while Windows Hello for Business enables biometric authentication using secure hardware-backed credentials. 4. Deploy SIEM and XDR for Detection and Response A robust detection and response capability is vital for identifying and mitigating threats across endpoints, identities, and cloud environments. Microsoft Sentinel serves as a cloud-native SIEM that aggregates and analyses security data, while Microsoft Defender XDR integrates signals from multiple sources to provide a unified view of threats and automate response actions. 5. Map and Harden Attack Paths Organizations should regularly assess their environments for attack paths such as privilege escalation and lateral movement. Tools like Microsoft Defender for Identity help uncover Lateral Movement Paths, while Microsoft Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) integrates identity signals with threat intelligence to automate response. These capabilities are accessible via the Microsoft Defender portal, which includes an attack path analysis feature for prioritizing multicloud risks. 6. Stay Current with Threat Actor TTPs Monitor the evolving tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) employed by sophisticated threat actors. Understanding these behaviours enables organizations to anticipate attacks and strengthen defenses proactively. Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence provides detailed profiles of threat actors and maps their activities to the MITRE ATT&CK framework. Complementing this, Microsoft Sentinel allows security teams to hunt for these TTPs across enterprise telemetry and correlate signals to detect emerging threats. 7. Build Organizational Awareness Organizations should train staff to identify phishing, impersonation, and deepfake threats. Simulated attacks help improve response readiness and reduce human error. Use Attack Simulation Training, in Microsoft Defender for Office 365 to run realistic phishing scenarios and assess user vulnerability. Additionally, educate users about consent phishing, where attackers trick individuals into granting access to malicious apps. Conclusion The democratization of offensive security tooling, combined with the persistent failure to patch known vulnerabilities, has significantly lowered the barrier to entry for cyber attackers. Organizations must recognize that the tools used against them are often the same ones available to their own security teams. The key to resilience lies not in avoiding these tools, but in mastering them—using them to simulate attacks, identify weaknesses, and build a proactive defense. Cybersecurity is no longer a matter of if, but when. The question is: will you detect the attacker before they achieve their objective? Will you be able to stop them before reaching your most sensitive data? Additional read: Gartner Predicts 30% of Enterprises Will Consider Identity Verification and Authentication Solutions Unreliable in Isolation Due to AI-Generated Deepfakes by 2026 Cyber security breaches survey 2025 - GOV.UK Jasper Sleet: North Korean remote IT workers’ evolving tactics to infiltrate organizations | Microsoft Security Blog MOVEit Transfer vulnerability Solt Thypoon Scattered Spider SIM swaps Attackers exploiting new critical OpenMetadata vulnerabilities on Kubernetes clusters | Microsoft Security Blog Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management - Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management | Microsoft Learn Zero Trust Architecture | NIST tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) - Glossary | CSRC https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security/zero-trust/deploy/overview
Passwordless POC Blocked by CA BYOD Policy – Looking for Workarounds
We’re currently running a POC for passwordless authentication in our environment. One challenge we’ve hit is that our CA BYOD policy blocks personal devices, which prevents users from enabling passwordless sign-in via the Microsoft Authenticator app. Since Authenticator is not a cloud app, we can’t exclude it from the CA policy using the usual cloud app filters. This is causing issues when users try to register or use passwordless sign-in from their personal phones. Has anyone dealt with this scenario or found a workaround that allows passwordless sign-in while still enforcing BYOD restrictions? Any ideas, suggestions, or creative solutions would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance!
Fido passkeys blocked by policy
Hi all I'm helping out a customer with deploying physical passkeys and I'm running into a weird error. I've activated the sign in method and selected the two AAGuids for the Authenticator app and I've added the right AAGuid for the brand and model of passkey we are using. We can select the authentication method and enroll the security correctly but when trying to sign in using it we get the error as displayed in the attached picture. When checking the sign in logs i get this error message FIDO sign-in is disabled via policy and the error code is: 135016 I've not been able to track down any policy that would be blocking passkeys. anyone got any ideas?
Kid finds a way into my account using an old PIN
I have set up parental controls. Somehow my sone managed to find the password logged in the Microsoft Familly app and changed the settings at will. I have changed my password in the meantime but he found an easy way around it as he selects use other methods to sign in and then selects PIN, inputs my old PIN and he is back in. How is this possible? I have changed the password, I have changed the PIN, turned on 2FA and reset Windows Hello and he just goes around all this in one go by introducing my old PIN. Is there a fix for this ?Issues with Passkey Login Hanging on "Connecting to Your Device"
Hi everyone, I'm currently working on enabling passkey login for some users. I have a test account where I enabled the passkey and enrolled it in Microsoft Authenticator. However, when I try to log in and scan the key, it hangs on "connecting to your device." Has anyone encountered this issue before? How can I find the root cause, and which log would show what might be blocking me? Thanks in advance for your help!
Entra ID FIDO2 with multiple accounts returns "something went wrong" for the first sign-in attempt
I am finding there seems to be a bug possibly with Entra ID authentication when using FIDO2. In a scenario where a user has multiple accounts registered on their FIDO2 security key or Microsoft Authenticator in the same tenant, the first time they sign in the authentication process only sees one account. For example, an IT staff member may have a separate account used for administrative access. The first authentication attempt returns Something went wrong, trying again shows both accounts registered on the FIDO2 device, and the login is successful. I am able to consistently reproduce this with both a hardware FIDO2 token and using Microsoft Authenticator Cross-Device authentication on Android. This happens when authenticating to the Azure Admin portal, some Microsoft 365 PowerShell modules and some 3rd party applications. Interestingly it seems that possibly a newer authentication library for developers fixes the problem. I used to have the behavior in Exchange Online PowerShell, but the most current version of it never has the problem. Does anyone else see this behavior?
