Email to external(trusted user) not require verify user Identity(with Google or One-time passcode)
Dear Expert and Community, I am starting with MS Purview - Data Loss Prevention. I have one point to clarify and seek your advise / comment / contribute or sharing good practice regarding with below: - Firstly, we can send email to externally user contain sensitive information, it is encryption or blocked (result: worked as expected). If remail encrypt, the external receiver require verify the Identity via sign in with google acc / with a one time password. - Second: we plan sending email to external user (only trusted user / domain). Is it possible, do not require these scope user reverify their Identity again and again? If yes, how to do it? If not - why? Well appreciated for update and supporting. Thanks,
[HELP] "Action required for browser protections" alert
Hello! I have an Endpoint DLP policy with Device location. After several scoping changes (device groups, inclusions/exclusions) to narrow it to a specific target group, the orange alert appeared: Action required for browser protections. One or more policies were not applied in Edge for Business. This could be due to a policy sync issue, lack of required permissions, or an issue with the server. Either resync these policies or contact an admin with the required permissions to resync. After resyncing, you might still see this message for up to 1 day while the system completes the sync and activates protections. The policies were working before. Clicked Resync multiple times, only for the error to return. Please help!
Datascan not picking up the schema of .parquet files ParquetFormat JavaInvocationException happened
Since about a week we have a problem with our datascan on ADLS not picking up the schema of .parquet files. It does pick up on the asset but not on the schema of said asset. The parquet files are perfectly readable and writeable with Fabric/spark. Purview had no issue picking them up before last week, but it seems that something has changed on the Microsoft side? Anyone else facing these issues recently? 2026-02-02T06:21:47.116Z,SystemError,ReadData,https://xxx.dfs.core.windows.net/landingzone/masterdata/someotherfile.parquet,ParquetFormat JavaInvocationException happened,ScanErr0000
How to Unassign Assets from Data Products in Microsoft Purview at Once
Hello, I’ve assigned around 100 assets to a specific data product and would now like to unassign all of them at once, rather than removing them individually. Using the Purview REST API with Python, I was able to retrieve the list of my data products and successfully identify the target data product. However, I haven’t been able to fetch the list of assets currently assigned to it, which prevents me from performing a bulk unassignment. Could anyone please advise how to retrieve and unassign all assets from a data product programmatically?Scaling Data Governance- Does a Purview in a Day Framework Exist?
Hello Purview Community, I’ve been exploring the available acceleration resources for Microsoft Purview, and one thing I noticed is a potential gap in the "In a Day" workshop series. While we have excellent programs like Power BI in a Day or Fabric in a Day, I haven't yet seen a formalized Purview in a Day framework designed to help organizations jumpstart their governance journey in a single, cohesive session. I am reaching out because my team is currently preparing something in this area that we believe will be very useful to the community and Microsoft in the future. Rather than working in isolation, we want to ensure we are aligned with the official roadmap. I wanted to reach out to the community and the Microsoft product team to ask: Is there an official "In a Day" initiative for Purview currently in the works? If not, who would be the best point of contact to discuss alignment? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and seeing if we can build something impactful together!Can´t Sign confidential documents
Hello, I have a problem. I want to send confidential contracts to customers for signing with Adobe DocuSign. This contracts have a label "confidential" from purview and are encrypted. But now the customer cant sign the contract with DocuSign because of the encryption. Is there a way that they can sign the document? We must encrypt the documents because compliance reasons and ISMS. Thank you.
Lifecycle using Custom Protection with Purview Sensitivity Labels
Organizations using Purview Sensitivity Labels with custom protection face a fundamental governance challenge: there is no lifecycle‑ready way to maintain, audit, or update per‑document user rights as teams evolve. This affects compliance, need‑to‑know enforcement, and operational security. Document lifecycle challenges Team growth: new members do not inherit document‑specific rights. Team shrinkage: departing members retain access unless manually removed. Employee offboarding: accounts are disabled, but compliance may require explicit removal from protected documents. Audit requirements: organizations need to answer “Who has what rights on document X?” — and today, no native tool provides this for custom‑protected files. Existing method Limitation Purview PowerShell Overwrites all existing assignments; no granular updates MIP Client Not yet capable of bulk lifecycle operations OlaProeis/FileLabeler Great tool, but limited by the same PowerShell constraints What the tool enables Rights audit trail per document Controlled lifecycle updates (add/remove/transfer rights) Preservation of original files for rollback Multi‑action batch processing Admin‑only delegated workflow with MIP superuser role Full logging for compliance Supported operations ListRightAssignments – extract all rights from each document under a given label GUID SetOwner / AddOwner – assign or add owners AddEditor / AddRestrictedEditor / AddViewer – role‑based additions RemoveAccess – remove any user from all roles AddAccessAs – map one user’s role to one or more new users Multi‑action execution – combine operations in a single run Safe mode – original files preserved; updated copies created with a trailer Because this tool can modify access to highly sensitive content, it must be embedded in a controlled workflow: ticket‑based approval, delegated admin, MIP superuser assignment, and retention of all logs as part of the audit trail. This ensures compliance with need‑to‑know, separation of duties, and legal requirements. I would appreciate feedback from the community and Microsoft product teams on: whether similar lifecycle capabilities are planned for Purview whether the MIP SDK is the right long‑term approach how others handle custom‑protected document lifecycle today interest in collaborating on a more robust open‑source version MaxDefault Sensitivity Label to be added to migrated files (from Local Network Server)
Hi Experts, We are migrating our file-sharing services from a local network file server to MS Teams/SPO. The requirement is to enable and give default sensitivity labels from the migrated files. Manually assigning sensitivity labels in over a TB of files is hectic and could be prone to error as well. MS Purview MIP labels and label policies are configured, however, at present, only new documents and/or revised files are only having the sensitivity labels assigned. Any suggestions, guide, and tips will be highly appreciated. Thanks, Rhey
Justification not triggered when downgrading between sublabels under same parent label
Hi all, I am looking for confirmation of expected behaviour with Microsoft Purview sensitivity labels and justification. We have justification enabled in our sensitivity label policy. When a user changes a label between labels that belong to the same label group, no justification prompt appears. When a user changes from a label in one label group to a label in a different label group, the justification prompt does appear as expected. Is this behavior by design? Specifically, does Microsoft treat the label group as the enforcement boundary for downgrade justification, meaning justification is not evaluated when moving between labels within the same group, even if effective protection is reduced? If this is expected, is there any supported way to require justification when downgrading between labels in the same label group? Thank you!
