Level up your Azure Network Security Skills with our Upcoming Webinar Series
As network and application-layer threats continue to evolve, security and infrastructure teams need more than product knowledge. They need practical, scenario-driven guidance they can apply to real workloads. To support that, the Azure Network Security team is hosting a series of upcoming technical webinars covering the capabilities our customers rely on every day: Azure Web Application Firewall (WAF), Azure Firewall, Azure DDoS Protection and Azure Bastion. Each session is focused on demos, the latest enhancements, and the design and operational decisions you face when securing modern Azure environments. Whether you are protecting customer-facing web applications, hardening east-west and egress traffic, or securing remote administrative access at scale, there is a session in this lineup for you. These webinars are ideal for Security Architects and Engineers, Network and Infrastructure teams, SOC Analysts, Cloud Platform Owners, Partner Technical Consultants, and any practitioner responsible for the security posture of workloads running on Azure. Below is the schedule of the upcoming live deliveries. Upcoming Events Azure WAF Layer 7 DDoS defense in practice Date and time: Thursday, June 18, 2026, at 8am PST View event details and join As web applications become primary targets for sophisticated application-layer attacks, Azure Web Application Firewall continues to evolve to meet the needs of modern application security teams facing volumetric and targeted application-layer threats. In this webinar, we will explore how Azure WAF enables a layered, adaptive approach to application-layer DDoS mitigation, helping organizations detect and block malicious request patterns through intelligent inspection, control traffic flow to prevent resource exhaustion from abusive sources, progressively challenge suspicious clients to verify legitimacy without disrupting real users, and combine multiple defense mechanisms into a cohesive mitigation strategy that adapts to evolving attack techniques. Whether you're securing customer-facing web apps or business-critical services, this session will equip you with practical approaches to building resilient application-layer defenses on Azure. Azure Firewall IDPS Detections and Sentinel Integration Date and time: Thursday, July 9, 2026, at 8am PST View event details and join As network threats grow in complexity, organizations need visibility that extends beyond simple traffic filtering into intelligent detection and unified investigation workflows. Azure Firewall's Intrusion Detection and Prevention capabilities continue to evolve to meet the needs of modern security operations teams facing advanced lateral movement, exploitation attempts, and command-and-control activity. In this webinar, we will explore how Azure Firewall identifies malicious network patterns in real time, how detection signals flow seamlessly into Microsoft Sentinel to enrich the broader security narrative, and how security teams can correlate firewall intelligence with other data sources to accelerate threat hunting, streamline incident response, and build a more connected and actionable view of their network security posture. What's New in Azure Bastion Date and time: Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 8am PST View event details and join Secure remote access to cloud workloads remains a critical requirement as organizations scale their Azure environments and adapt to evolving operational demands. Azure Bastion continues to evolve to meet the needs of modern infrastructure teams seeking seamless, browser-based connectivity without exposing virtual machines to the public internet. In this webinar, we'll explore the latest enhancements to Azure Bastion covering new capabilities that improve connectivity options, streamline the administrative experience, expand protocol and session support, and strengthen the overall security posture of remote access workflows. Whether you're managing a handful of VMs or operating at enterprise scale, this session will bring you up to speed on what's new and how these improvements can simplify and secure your day-to-day operations. What's New in Azure Firewall Date and time: Thursday, August 6, 2026, at 8am PST View event details and join As network architectures grow more distributed and threat landscapes more dynamic, organizations need a cloud-native firewall that keeps pace with both modern workload patterns and adversary techniques. Azure Firewall continues to evolve to meet the needs of network and security teams managing hybrid environments, multi-region deployments, and increasingly complex east-west and north-south traffic flows. In this webinar, we will explore the latest enhancements to Azure Firewall covering new policy and rule management capabilities, improvements that expand protocol and traffic inspection coverage, and deeper integrations across the Azure security ecosystem to streamline operations. Whether you are standardizing perimeter protection across a global Azure footprint or modernizing segmentation for business-critical workloads, this session will bring you up to speed on what is new and how these improvements can simplify and strengthen your day-to-day network security operations. What's New in Azure Web Application Firewall Date and time: Thursday, August 27, 2026, at 8am PST View event details and join Web applications remain primary entry points for attackers, and organizations need a Web Application Firewall that adapts as quickly as the threats targeting their workloads. Azure Web Application Firewall continues to evolve to meet the needs of modern application security teams defending against an expanding mix of OWASP-class attacks, automated abuse, and business logic threats across diverse hosting models. In this webinar, we will explore the latest enhancements to Azure WAF. We will cover new detection and rule capabilities that improve protection accuracy, tuning and exclusion improvements that reduce false positives without weakening coverage, and expanded visibility and analytics that accelerate investigation. Whether you are securing customer-facing web apps or managing WAF policies at scale, this session will bring you up to speed on what's new and how these improvements can simplify and strengthen your application protection strategy Past Recordings: View additional past webinars from Azure Network Security on Microsoft Security Community YouTube. Stay connected with the Azure Network Security community Influence product feedback and join the Threat Protection Advisors Program Stay up-to-date and follow the Azure Network Security Blog | Microsoft Community Hub Engage with peers, ask and answer questions in the Azure Network Security discussion board --- Learn and Engage with the Microsoft Security Community Log in and follow this Microsoft Security Community Blog and post/ interact in the Microsoft Security Community discussion spaces. 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.. Learn about the Microsoft MVP Program. Join the Microsoft Security Community LinkedIn and the Microsoft Entra Community LinkedInRegistration Open: Community-Led Purview Lightning Talks
Get ready for an electrifying event! The Microsoft Security Community proudly presents Purview Lightning Talks; an action-packed series featuring your fellow Microsoft users, partners and passionate Microsoft Security community members of all sorts. Each 3-12 minute talk cuts straight to the chase, delivering expert insights, real-world use cases, and even a few game-changing tips and tricks. Don’t miss this opportunity to learn, connect, and be inspired! Secure your spot now for the big day: April 30th at 8am Redmond Time. See agenda details below and follow this blog post (sign in and click the "follow" heart in the upper right) to receive notifications. ❗UPDATE❗This event is expected to last around 2 hours and 15 minutes, due to the incredible number of community sessions that were submitted! 💖 Please see the timing table below broken out into sections of four talks each, and plan to arrive 10 minutes before the section that interests you, OR stay for the whole time! Speakers will be available in the chat to answer your questions; please ask your questions during their session. Spillover Q&A forum links will also be shared. The full session recording will be indexed and posted to Microsoft Security Community YouTube within 24 hours after the event. Bookmark this page or follow this blog post for updates! Agenda Legend ↩️ Data Lifecycle Management 🔐 Information Protection 🚫 Data Loss Prevention (DLP) 🦾 Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) for AI 🤖 Purview for AI 👁️ Insider Risk Management (IRM) 🔍 eDiscovery 📊 Governance 🗒️ Compliance Manager 🛡️ Data Security All times are listed in US Pacific/Redmond Time. Session lengths are rounded to the nearest minute. AGENDA Section 1 - approximately 8:00 am - 8:43 am ↩️ The Day Offboarding Exposed Infinite Retention — Nikki Chapple Length: 10 minutes | Topic: Data Lifecycle Management A routine Purview request led to an unexpected discovery: more than 9,000 orphaned OneDrives and thousands of inactive mailboxes still storing content long after employees had left. This talk explains how a retain-only policy created hidden retention debt and how Adaptive Scopes can help organisations separate active users from leavers to avoid similar pitfalls. 🔐 The Purview Label Engine: Automated Classification, Translation, and co-Documentation for Enterprise Tenants — Michael Kirst-Neshva Length: 12 minutes | Topic: Information Protection Global enterprises face the challenge of implementing uniform data protection standards across borders and languages. In this talk, I’ll present a framework that makes Microsoft Purview labels truly scalable. Discover how to roll out parent and child label logics automatically, manage priorities with a single click, and generate instant compliance documentation for every business unit. 🗒️ What's In My Compliance Manager Toolbox: A Cloud Security Architect's Perspective — Jerrad Dahlager Length: 8 minutes | Topic: Compliance Manager A practical walkthrough of how I use Compliance Manager across real client engagements to map controls, track improvement actions, and simplify multi-framework compliance. No theory, just what works in the field. 🛡️ Stop, Think, Protect: Data Security in Real Life with Purview — Oliver Sahlmann Length: 8 minutes | Topic: Data Security With simple labels and matching DLP policies, Purview offers a practical and accessible way to approach data security. This lightning talk uses a real-life traffic light concept to show how a low barrier to adoption can still drive meaningful protection and awareness. Section 2 - approximately 8:44 am - 9:15 am 🔐 Using Purview to prevent oversharing with AI services — Viktor Hedberg Length: 10 minutes | Topic: Information Protection In this day and age, AI is the big thing. However, Copilot has access to everything you can access, including potentially sensitive data. In this session we will look at how to prevent Copilot to access highly sensitive data, using Information Protection. 🦾 How I Helped My Customers Understand their AI Usage (and protect their sensitive data) — Bram de Jager Length: 5 minutes | Topic: Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) for AI As AI tools explode across the web, many organizations still have no idea what’s actually happening in the browser—where employees type prompts, paste sensitive data, or visit public AI sites outside corporate governance. In this lightning talk, I’ll share how I helped customers shine a light on this issue. We’ll explore how Purview Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) can reveal which AI tools employees use, what types of data they input, and where sensitive information may leak through prompts. I’ll walk through real customer scenario where we detected risky AI usage patterns—such as employees pasting confidential documents into public chatbots. 🔐 Four Labels Max for Daily Use: Which Ones & Why? — Romain Dalle Length: 8 minutes | Topic: Information Protection Sensitivity labels are one of the most critical parts of a Purview Risk and compliance deployment, if not the most critical, because it directly impacts how end-users and business units should allow or restrict themselves to share their business data, internally and externally, on a daily basis. Labels have not other options than being precise, meaningful, and balanced in terms of embedded data security. Setting the right taxonomy is core to success, and is everything but a one-time project. 🚫 Data-driven Endpoint DLP Solution with Advanced Hunting — Tatu Seppälä Length: 8 minutes | Topic: Data Loss Prevention (DLP) This lightning talk shows you how to use KQL queries in advanced hunting to easily build initial sensitive service domain groups for authorized and unauthorized domains based on your organization's usage patterns. The same approach can be used for numerous other similar solution refinement and design purposes. Section 3 - approximately 9:16 am - 9:46 am 🔐 The Purview Hack No One Talks About: Container Sensitivity Labels That Fix Oversharing Fast — Nikki Chapple Length: 10 minutes | Topic: Information Protection Most organizations tackle oversharing with manual fixes, but the fastest solution is often overlooked. In this lightning talk, I show how container sensitivity labels automatically apply the right sharing and collaboration controls, ensuring every new Group, Team or SharePoint site starts secure by default. 🔍 Does M365 Support eDiscovery? — Julian Kusenberg Length: 11 minutes | Topic: eDiscovery A myth-busting session that separates perception from reality when it comes to Microsoft 365 eDiscovery capabilities. 📊 Improving Discovery, Trust, and Reuse of Analytics with Purview Data Products — Craig Wyndowe Length: 5 minutes | Topic: Governance This talk shows how bringing Power BI and Fabric assets into Microsoft Purview Governance Domains and Data Products creates a single, trusted view of enterprise analytics. By connecting reports, semantic models, and underlying data with shared metadata, ownership, and business context, organizations can make existing assets easy to discover and safe to reuse. 🔐 Why You Should Create Your Own Sensitive Information Types (SITs) — Niels Jakobsen Length: 5 minutes | Topic: Information Protection An in depth analysis of why Microsoft SITs are not one-size-fits-all, and how to create your own using what Microsoft has already built for you. Section 4 - approximately 9:47 am-10:30 am 👁️ From Zero to First Signal: Insider Risk Management Prerequisites That Actually Matter — Sathish Veerapandian Length: 8 minutes | Topic: Insider Risk Management (IRM) A focused live demo showing the real world prerequisites required for Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management to work effectively. This session highlights the critical Entra ID, Intune, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, and Purview DLP configurations that must be in place before creating IRM policies. 🤖 Securing data in the age of AI — Júlio César Gonçalves Vasconcelos Length: 11 minutes | Topic: Purview for AI AI will transform business as we know it; but without proper governance, it can introduce serious risks. We’ll show you how Microsoft Purview enables organizations to accelerate AI adoption while maintaining security, compliance, and transparency. 🔍 Beyond eDiscovery - Purview DSI for Security Investigation — Susantha Silva Length: 11 minutes | Topic: eDiscovery Most people hear “Microsoft Purview” and immediately think compliance, eDiscovery, or legal holds. But this session highlights Data Security Investigations, showing how DSI lets you take a DLP alert or insider risk signal and turn it into a structured investigation. 🚫 Elevating Purview DLP with a real world use case — Victor Wingsing Length: 14 minutes | Topic: Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Learn how I hardened Microsoft Purview DLP beyond out of the box defaults—closing real world data loss gaps, tuning policies to actual user behavior, and turning noisy alerts into protection that really blocks exfiltration. - Quick Closing/ Resource Sharing
Simplifying Code Signing for Windows Apps: Artifact Signing (GA)
Trusted Signing is now Artifact Signing—and it’s officially Generally Available! Artifact Signing is a fully managed, end-to-end code signing service that makes it easier than ever for Windows application developers to sign their apps securely and efficiently. As Artifact Signing rebrands, customers will see changes over the next weeks. Please refer to our Learn docs for the most updated information. What is Artifact Signing? Code signing has traditionally been a complex and manual process. Managing certificates, securing keys, and integrating signing into build pipelines can slow teams down and introduce risk. Artifact Signing changes that by offering a fully managed, end-to-end solution that automates certificate management, enforces strong security controls, and integrates seamlessly with your existing developer tools. With zero-touch certificate management, verified identity, role-based access control, and support for multiple trust models, Artifact Signing makes it easier than ever to build and distribute secure Windows applications. Whether you're shipping consumer apps or internal tools, Artifact Signing helps you deliver software that’s secure. Security Made Simple Zero-Touch Certificate Management No more manual certificate handling. The service provides “zero-touch” certificate management, meaning it handles the creation, protection, and even automatic rotation of code signing certificates on your behalf. These certificates are short-lived and auto renewed behind the scenes, giving you tighter control, faster revocation when needed, and eliminating the risks associated with long-lived certs. Your signing reputation isn’t tied to a single certificate. Instead, it’s anchored to your verified identity in Azure, and every signature reflects that verified identity. Verified Identity Identity validation with Artifact Signing ensures your app’s digital signature displays accurate and verified publisher information. Once validated, your identity details, such as your individual or organization name, are included in the certificate. This means your signed apps will show a verified publisher name, not the dreaded “Unknown Publisher” warning. The entire validation process happens in the Azure portal. You simply submit your individual or organization details, and in some cases, upload supporting documents like business registration papers. Most validations are completed within a few business days, and once approved, you’re ready to start signing your apps immediately. organization validation page Secure and Controlled Signing (RBAC) Artifact Signing enforces Azure’s Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) to secure signing activities. You can assign specific Azure roles to accounts or CI agents that use your Artifact Signing resource, ensuring only authorized developers or build pipelines can initiate signing operations. This tight access control helps prevent unauthorized or rogue signatures. Full Telemetry and Audit Logs Every signing request is tracked. You can see what was signed, when, and by whom in the Azure portal. This logging not only helps with compliance and auditing needs but also enables fast remediation if an issue arises. For example, if you discover a particular signing certificate was used in error or compromised, you can quickly revoke it directly from the portal. The short-lived nature of certificates in Artifact Signing further limits the window of any potential misuse. Artifact Signing gives you enterprise-grade security controls out of the box: strong protection of keys, fine-grained access control, and visibility. For developers and companies concerned about supply chain security, this dramatically reduces risk compared to handling signing keys manually. Built for Developers Artifact Signing was built to slot directly into developers’ existing workflows. You don’t need to overhaul how you build or release software, just plug Artifact Signing into your toolchain: GitHub Actions & Azure DevOps: The service includes first-class support for modern CI/CD. An official GitHub Action is available for easy integration into your workflow YAML, and Azure DevOps has tasks for pipelines. With these tools, every Windows app build can automatically sign binaries or installers—no manual steps required. Since signing credentials are managed in Azure, you avoid storing secrets in your repository. Visual Studio & MSBuild: Use the Artifact Signing client with SignTool to integrate signing into publish profiles or post-build steps. Once the Artifact Signing client is installed, Visual Studio or MSBuild can invoke SignTool as usual, with signatures routed through the Artifact Signing service. SignTool / CLI: Developers using scripts or custom build systems can continue using the familiar signtool.exe command. After a one-time setup, your existing SignTool commands will sign via the cloud service. The actual file signing on your build machine uses a digest signing approach: SignTool computes a hash of your file and sends that to the Artifact Signing service, which returns a signature. The file itself isn’t uploaded, preserving confidentiality and speed. This way, integrating Artifact Signing can be as simple as adding a couple of lines to your build script to point SignTool at Azure. PowerShell & SDK: For advanced automation or custom scenarios, Artifact Signing supports PowerShell modules and an SDK. These tools allow you to script signing operations, bulk-sign files, or integrate signing into specialized build systems. The Right Trust for the Right Audience Artifact Signing has support for multiple trust models to suit different distribution scenarios. You can choose between Public Trust and Private Trust for your code signing, depending on your app’s audience: Public Trust: This is the standard model for software intended to go to consumers. When you use Public Trust signing, the certificates come from a Microsoft CA that’s part of the Microsoft Trusted Root Program. Apps signed under Public Trust are recognized by Windows as coming from a known publisher, enabling a smooth installation experience when security features such as Smart App Control and SmartScreen are enabled. Private Trust: This model is for internal or enterprise apps. These certificates aren’t publicly trusted but are instead meant to work with Windows Defender Application Control (App Control for Business) policies. This is ideal for line-of-business applications, internal tools, or scenarios where you want to tightly control who trusts the app. Artifact Signing ’s Private Trust model is the modern, expanded evolution of Microsoft’s older Device Guard Signing Service (DGSS) -- delivering the same ability to sign internal apps but with ease of access and expanded capabilities. Test Signing: Useful for development and testing. These certificates mimic real signatures but aren’t publicly trusted, allowing you to validate your signing setup in non-production environments before releasing your app. Note on Expanded Scenario Support: Artifact Signing supports additional certificate profiles, including those for VBS enclaves and Private Trust CI Policies. In addition, there is a new preview feature for signing container images using the Notary v2 standard from the CNCF Notary project. This enables developers to sign Docker/OCI container images stored in Azure Container Registry using tools like the notation CLI, backed by Artifact Signing. Having all trust models in one service means you can manage all your signing needs in one place. Whether your code is destined for the world or just your organization, Artifact Signing makes it easy to ensure it is signed with an appropriate level of trust. Misuse and Abuse Management Artifact Signing is engineered with robust safeguards to counter certificate misuse and abuse. The signing platform employs active threat intelligence monitoring to continuously detect suspicious signing activity in real time. The service also emphasizes prevention: certificates are short-lived (renewed daily and valid for only 72 hours), which means any certificate used maliciously can be swiftly revoked without impacting software signed outside its brief lifetime. When misuse is confirmed, Artifact Signing quickly revokes the certificate and suspends the subscriber’s account, removing trust from the malicious code’s signature and stopping further abuse. These measures adhere to strict industry standards for responsible certificate governance. By combining real-time threat detection, built-in preventive controls, and rapid response policies, Artifact Signing gives Windows app developers confidence that any attempt to abuse the platform will be quickly identified and contained, helping protect the broader software ecosystem from emerging threats. Availability and What’s Next Check out the upcoming “What’s New” section in the Artifact Signing Learn Docs for updates on supported file types, new region availability, and more. Microsoft will continue evolving the service to meet developer needs. Conclusion: Enhancing Trust and Security for All Windows Apps Artifact Signing empowers Windows developers to sign their applications with ease and confidence. It integrates effortlessly into your development tools, automates the heavy lifting of certificate management, and ensures every app carries a verified digital signature backed by Microsoft’s Certificate Authorities. For users, it means peace of mind. For developers and organizations, it means fewer headaches, stronger protection against supply chain threats, and complete control over who signs what and when. Now that Artifact Signing is generally available, it’s a must-have for building trustworthy Windows software. It reflects Microsoft’s commitment to a secure, inclusive ecosystem and brings modern security features like Smart App Control and App Control for Business within reach, simply by signing your code. Whether you're shipping consumer apps or internal tools, Artifact Signing helps you deliver software that’s both easy to install and tough to compromise.Introducing new security and compliance add-ons for Microsoft 365 Business Premium
Small and medium businesses (SMBs) are under pressure like never before. Cyber threats are evolving rapidly, and regulatory requirements are becoming increasingly complex. Microsoft 365 Business Premium is our productivity and security solution designed for SMBs (1–300 users). It includes Office apps, Teams, advanced security such as Microsoft Defender for Business, and device management — all in one cost-effective package. Today, we’re taking that a step further. We’re excited to announce three new Microsoft 365 Business Premium add-ons designed to supercharge security and compliance. Tailored for medium-sized organizations, these add-ons bring enterprise-grade security, compliance, and identity protection to the Business Premium experience without the enterprise price tag. Microsoft Defender Suite for Business Premium: $10/user/month Cyberattacks are becoming more complex. Attackers are getting smarter. Microsoft Defender Suite provides end-to-end security to safeguard your businesses from identity attacks, device threats, email phishing, and risky cloud apps. It enables SMBs to reduce risks, respond faster, and maintain a strong security posture without adding complexity. It includes: Protect your business from identity threats: Microsoft Entra ID P2 offers advanced security and governance features including Microsoft Entra ID Protection and Microsoft Entra ID Governance. Microsoft Entra ID protection offers risk-based conditional access that helps block identity attacks in real time using behavioral analytics and signals from both user risk and sign-in risk. It also enables SMBs to detect, investigate, and remediate potential identity-based risks using sophisticated machine learning and anomaly detection capabilities. With detailed reports and alerts, your business is notified of suspicious user activities and sign-in attempts, including scenarios like a password-spray where attackers try to gain unauthorized access to company employee accounts by trying a small number of commonly used passwords across many different accounts. ID Governance capabilities are also included to help automate workflows and processes that give users access to resources. For example, IT admins historically manage the onboarding process manually and generate repetitive user access requests for Managers to review which is time consuming and inefficient. With ID Governance capabilities, pre-configured workflows facilitate the automation of employee onboarding, user access, and lifecycle management throughout their employment, streamlining the process and reducing onboarding time. Microsoft Defender for Identity includes dedicated sensors and connectors for common identity elements that offer visibility into your unique identity landscape and provide detailed posture recommendations, robust detections and response actions. These powerful detections are then automatically enriched and correlated with data from other domains across Defender XDR for true incident-level visibility. Keep your devices safe: Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Plan 2 offers industry-leading antimalware, cyberattack surface reduction, device-based conditional access, comprehensive endpoint detection and response (EDR), advanced hunting with support for custom detections, and attack surface reduction capabilities powered by Secure Score. Secure email and collaboration: With Microsoft Defender for Office 365 P2, you gain access to cyber-attack simulation training, which provides SMBs with a safe and controlled environment to simulate real-world cyber-attacks, helping to train employees in recognizing phishing attempts. Additionally automated response capabilities and post-breach investigations help reduce the time and resources required to identify and remediate potential security breaches. Detailed reports are also available that capture information on employees’ URL clicks, internal and external email distribution, and more. Protect your cloud apps: Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is a comprehensive, AI-powered software-as-a-service (SaaS) security solution that enables IT teams to identify and manage shadow IT and ensure that only approved applications are used. It protects against sophisticated SaaS-based attacks, OAuth attacks, and risky interactions with generative AI apps by combining SaaS app discovery, security posture management, app-to-app protection, and integrated threat protection. IT teams can gain full visibility into their SaaS app landscape, understand the risks and set up controls to manage the apps. SaaS security posture management quickly identifies app misconfigurations and provides remediation actions to reduce the attack surface. Microsoft Purview Suite for Business Premium: $10/user/month Protect against insider threats Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management uses behavioral analytics to detect risky activities, like an employee downloading large volumes of files before leaving the company. Privacy is built in, so you can act early without breaking employee trust. Protect sensitive data wherever it goes Microsoft Purview Information Protection classifies and labels sensitive data, so the right protections follow the data wherever it goes. Think of it as a ‘security tag’ that stays attached to a document whether it’s stored in OneDrive, shared in Teams, or emailed outside the company. Policies can be set based on the ‘tag’ to prevent data oversharing, ensuring sensitive files are only accessible to the right people. Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention (DLP) works in the background to stop sensitive information, like credit card numbers or health data, from being accidentally shared with unauthorized people Microsoft Purview Message Encryption adds another layer by making sure email content stays private, even when sent outside the organization. Microsoft Purview Customer Key gives organizations control of their own encryption keys, helping meet strict regulatory requirements. Ensure data privacy and compliant communications Microsoft Purview Communication Compliance monitors and flags inappropriate or risky communications to protect against policy and compliance violations. Protect AI interactions Microsoft Purview Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) for AI provides visibility into how AI interacts with sensitive data, helping detect oversharing, risky prompts, and unethical behavior. Monitors Copilot and third-party AI usage with real-time alerts, policy enforcement, and risk scoring. Manage information through its lifecycle Microsoft Purview Records and Data Lifecycle Management helps businesses meet compliance obligations by applying policies that enable automatic retention or deletion of data. Stay investigation-ready Microsoft Purview eDiscovery (Premium) makes it easier to respond to internal investigations, legal holds, or compliance reviews. Instead of juggling multiple systems, you can search, place holds, and export information in one place — ensuring legal and compliance teams work efficiently. Microsoft Purview Audit (Premium) provides deeper audit logs and analytics to trace activity like file access, email reads, or user actions. This level of detail is critical for incident response and forensic investigations, helping SMBs maintain regulatory readiness and customer trust. Simplify Compliance Management Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager helps track regulatory requirements, assess risk, and manage improvement actions, all in one dashboard tailored for SMBs. Together, these capabilities help SMBs operate with the same level of compliance and data protection as large enterprises but simplified for smaller teams and tighter budgets. Microsoft Defender and Purview Suites for Business Premium: $15/user/month The new Microsoft Defender and Purview Suites unite the full capabilities of Microsoft Defender and Purview into a single, cost-effective package. This all-in-one solution delivers comprehensive security, compliance, and data protection, while helping SMB customers unlock up to 68% savings compared to buying the products separately, making it easier than ever to safeguard your organization without compromising on features or budget. FAQ Q: When will these new add-ons be available for purchase? A: They will be available for purchase as add-ons to Business Premium in September 2025. Q: How can I purchase? A: You can purchase these as add-ons to your Business Premium subscription through Microsoft Security for SMBs website or through your Partner. Q: Are there any seat limits for the add-on offers? A: Yes. Customers can purchase a mix of add-on offers, but the total number of seats across all add-ons is limited to 300 per customer. Q: Does Microsoft 365 Business Premium plus Microsoft Defender Suite allow mixed licensing for endpoint security solutions? A: Microsoft Defender for Business does not support mixed licensing so a tenant with Defender for Business (included in Microsoft 365 Business Premium) along with Defender for Endpoint Plan 2 (included in Microsoft 365 Security) will default to Defender for Business. For example, if you have 80 users licensed for Microsoft 365 Business Premium and you’ve added Microsoft Defender Suite for 30 of those users, the experience for all users will default to Defender for Business. If you would like to change that to the Defender for Endpoint Plan 2 experience, you should license all users for Defender for Endpoint Plan 2 (either through standalone or Microsoft Defender Suite) and then contact Microsoft Support to request the switch for your tenant. You can learn more here. Q: Can customers who purchased the E5 Security Suite as an add-on to Microsoft 365 Business Premium transition to the new Defender Suite starting from the October billing cycle? A: Yes. Customers currently using the Microsoft 365 E5 Security add-on with Microsoft 365 Business Premium are eligible to transition to the new Defender Suite beginning with the October billing cycle. For detailed guidance, please refer to the guidelines here. Q: As a Partner, how do I build Managed Detection and Response (MDR) services with MDB? A: For partners or customers looking to build their own security operations center (SOC) with MDR, Defender for Business supports the streaming of device events (device file, registry, network, logon events and more) to Azure Event Hub, Azure Storage, and Microsoft Sentinel to support advanced hunting and attack detection. If you are using the streaming API for the first time, you can find step-by-step instructions in the Microsoft 365 Streaming API Guide on configuring the Microsoft 365 Streaming API to stream events to your Azure Event Hubs or to your Azure Storage Account. To learn more about Microsoft Security solutions for SMBs you can visit our website.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.June 4 - Secure Boot AMA
Microsoft is updating the Secure Boot certificates originally issued in 2011 to ensure Windows devices continue to verify trusted boot software. These older certificates begin expiring in June 2026. Devices that haven’t received the newer 2023 certificates will continue to start and operate normally, and standard Windows updates will continue to install. However, these devices will no longer be able to receive new security protections for the early boot process, including updates to Windows Boot Manager, Secure Boot databases, revocation lists, or mitigations for newly discovered boot level vulnerabilities. Whether you are already working through Secure Boot certificate updates across your estate, or aren't sure where to start, you can get answers to your questions and helpful insights at the next Secure Boot AMA on 8:00 a.m. PDT June 4, 2026. Can't attend live? No problem. Post your questions in advance. Visit https://aka.ms/AMA/SecureBoot to save the date and post your questions. For detailed, step-by-step guidance, see the following resources: Secure Boot Playbook for Windows client Secure Boot playbook for Windows Server Secure Boot Certificate Updates for Windows 365 Secure Boot Certificate Updates for Azure Virtual DesktopNew Windows Features to Secure Today’s Data in a Post-Quantum World
Quantum safety is a staged transition across customer environments. Windows is enabling this progression by extending quantum-safe support beyond algorithms and APIs, into the protocols and platform components that organizations use the most. This foundation empowers customers to build, validate, pilot, and ultimately deploy quantum-safe applications, systems, and infrastructure at scale. Microsoft’s earlier announcements introduced PQC support in the core cryptographic building blocks and outlined the broader Quantum Safe Program, including the need for crypto-agility, standards alignment, and a practical migration path. Microsoft delivered a key milestone last November by making PQC algorithms generally available on Windows 11 and Windows Server 2025. Now, we’re bringing quantum-safe capabilities to where they are used: adding PQ TLS hybrid key exchange to the Windows Transport Layer Security (TLS) stack, enabling composite PQC algorithms in Windows cryptography APIs and certificate functions, and bringing the ability to generate PQ certificates via Active Directory Certificate Services (ADCS). Together, these advances help organizations address long-lived data risks now and begin preparing for the broader transition across authentication, certificates, device protection, and management workflows. These updates are part of a broader transition: bringing quantum-safe security into the systems and workflows on which organizations already rely. PQ TLS hybrid key exchange comes to Windows The Windows TLS stack is a core component for secure communication across the platform. Adding PQ TLS hybrid key exchange brings quantum-safe protection to real data-in-transit scenarios that already run on Windows. Hybrid key exchange combines classical and post-quantum algorithms, allowing organizations to begin mitigating HNDL risks. This is especially important for data that must remain confidential for years, as adversaries can capture encrypted traffic today and attempt to decrypt it in the future when quantum computing becomes practical. This reflects Microsoft’s ongoing work in standards development and broader platform investments, including the core cryptographic library SymCrypt, Windows cryptography APIs, and certificate handling. TLS PQ hybrid key exchange is available now in preview through the Windows Insider Program and will become generally available on Windows 11 and Windows Server 2025 in the coming months. These new quantum safe key exchange options can be configured the same way as existing TLS curves (the classical encryption groups already in use today). IT administrators can enable them using familiar Windows management tools: Group Policy for domain-joined enterprise environments, Mobile Device Management (MDM) for modern device management platforms such as Intune, or TLS PowerShell cmdlets (scripted configuration commands) for manual or automated setup. The following hybrid combinations — each pairing a classical algorithm with the post-quantum NIST ML-KEM algorithm to protect against both current and future threats — are available: X25519_MLKEM768 — combines the widely-used X25519 classical algorithm with ML-KEM SecP256r1_MLKEM768 — combines the NIST P-256 elliptic curve with ML-KEM SecP384r1_MLKEM1024 — combines the NIST P-384 elliptic curve with ML-KEM at a higher security level In practical terms, bringing this capability to Windows enables security teams and application owners to evaluate real, Windows-native deployments and begin planning the policy and configuration updates needed for quantum-safe readiness. It provides a direct path to start testing in familiar Windows environments, without relying only on specialized preview stacks. Our TLS supported groups page describes the PQ TLS hybrid key exchange groups available and how to enable them in your environment. Composite PQC algorithms in Windows cryptography APIs Windows cryptography APIs are adding support for composite ML-KEM and composite ML-DSA, where ML‑KEM (Module-Lattice Key Encapsulation Mechanism) and ML‑DSA (Module-Lattice Digital Signature Algorithm) are NIST approved PQ algorithms for key exchange and digital signatures respectively. Composite approaches are important for transition because they allow cryptographic operations to incorporate both classical and post-quantum components. Composite algorithms provide defense in depth by requiring an adversary to break all components to compromise protected data. When implemented natively, they abstract away the complexity of securely combining multiple algorithms, reducing the risk of incorrect integrations and strengthening resilience against weaknesses in individual schemes. This work follows the IETF drafts for composite ML-DSA and composite ML-KEM, to combine the traditional digital signature algorithm ECDSA with ML-DSA and traditional key exchange algorithm ECDHE with ML-KEM. For developers, platform engineers, and security architects, this means Windows-native APIs are moving beyond foundational primitives toward the real-world certificate and signing patterns required in production environments. Composite support enables organizations to prototype new certificate profiles, evaluate trust chain impacts, and prepare for scenarios as relying parties, issuing systems, and policy controls adopt post-quantum capabilities at different speeds. These capabilities are in Windows Insider Preview for Cryptography API Next Generation and certificate functions and will become generally available on Windows 11 and Windows Server 2025 in the coming months. Visit our crypto developers page to learn more and get started. PQ Certificates come to ADCS Active Directory Certificate Services (ADCS) support for issuance of ML‑DSA certificates in Windows Server 2025 is now generally available as of May 2026, bringing PQC support into enterprise public key infrastructure (PKI). ML‑DSA enables quantum‑resistant signing operations across Certification Authorities (CAs) and Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) Responders, providing a practical way to evaluate post‑quantum certificate issuance and trust validation workflows. ADCS supports three ML‑DSA parameter sets (ML‑DSA‑44, ML‑DSA‑65, ML‑DSA‑87), allowing organizations to balance security strength with key and signature size for scenarios like code signing and TLS certificates. PQC support requires newly deployed CAs (as existing CAs cannot be upgraded in place), so organizations can introduce a parallel CA hierarchy alongside existing infrastructure to test and validate deployments without disrupting production workloads. Additional post‑quantum capabilities, including ML‑KEM and composite algorithm support, are planned later this year to expand beyond signing scenarios and enable broader certificate interoperability. What this means for security teams and developers For many organizations, these announcements provide a clear starting point to adopt quantum-safe cryptography. The Windows platform now enables early validation and integration of PQC capabilities across applications and infrastructure. The most effective migrations will be phased. Organizations should start by inventorying where public-key cryptography is used, prioritizing systems that protect sensitive data with long confidentiality lifetimes, and testing hybrid and composite approaches in non-production environments. Security teams can start by identifying where long-lived data is at risk, such as document repositories (e.g., SharePoint), email archives, database systems, and backup or archival storage (including device and cloud backups), and prioritizing the systems that depend on TLS and certificate-based trust. They can then map which applications rely on Windows cryptographic interfaces. Developers can test new algorithm support in controlled environments. IT administrators can prepare for the operational changes required for quantum-safe migration, including across certificates, device policy, performance validation, interoperability testing, and cryptographic inventory management. The goal is not only to adopt new algorithms, but to build crypto-agility into processes so future transitions are easier to manage. These latest Windows capabilities make it easier for that work to begin in a more practical, standards-aligned way. Looking ahead: the next wave of quantum-safe capabilities in Windows These announcements mark early but important steps in bringing quantum-safe capabilities into the Windows scenarios organizations depend on most. Beyond foundational cryptography and PQ hybrid key exchange, that roadmap extends across certificate lifecycle workflows, networking protections such as IPsec and Wi-Fi, authentication scenarios including TLS and Kerberos, passwordless experiences like Windows Hello and passkeys, and platform protections that rely on trusted keys, certificates, and recovery flows. This future direction includes additional capabilities like composite PQ support in ADCS, which will be central to enterprise certificate enrollment and issuance, as well as BitLocker, software signing, and firmware signing. Customers will see progress in some of these areas this year, with additional advancements planned for 2027. Across these investments, the goal remains consistent: to help customers move from algorithm availability to deployable, manageable, enterprise-ready, and quantum-safe solutions. Preparing now for the transition ahead The transition to quantum safety will take time, testing, and close coordination across standards bodies, platform providers, software developers, and enterprise security teams. But momentum matters. By expanding Windows support from foundational post-quantum primitives to real protocol and certificate scenarios, Microsoft is helping make that transition more practical. TLS PQ hybrid key exchange in the Windows TLS stack, composite PQC algorithms in Windows cryptography APIs, and PQC capabilities in ADCS represent important next steps in turning quantum-safe readiness into deployable capability. As the roadmap continues to unfold across certificates, authentication, and platform protection, the best time for organizations to begin preparing is now. Securing today. Preparing for what’s next. Security in Windows is built into the platform - continuously maintained and designed to evolve as threats change. Learn more in the Windows Security book and Windows Server Security book or explore Windows 11, Windows Server, and Copilot+ PCs. For broader solutions, visit the Microsoft Security site, follow the Security blog, or connect with Microsoft Security on LinkedIn and @MSFTSecurity.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.Safeguarding Sensitive Data in Microsoft 365 Copilot Interactions: DLP for Microsoft 365 Copilot
Microsoft 365 Copilot is redefining how organizations work, bringing the power of generative AI directly into our secure productivity tools. As Copilot adoption accelerates, we’ve heard that you want more control over how your sensitive data can be used in interactions with Copilot. At Ignite 2025, Microsoft announced a major enhancement: Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention for Microsoft 365 Copilot to safeguard Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat prompts, now entering General Availability. Even better, this capability is included for all users of Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat. Why DLP for Copilot Prompts Is a Game-Changer As organizations adopt Copilot, their ways of sharing, creating, and interacting with data expand. With just a prompt, users can have Copilot summarize documents, analyze spreadsheets, or help brainstorm presentations. However, it raises an important question: what if the prompt includes sensitive information, like project code names, financial account numbers, health records, or other sensitive data? Over the last 2 years, Microsoft has been building a set of Data Loss Prevention (DLP) controls specifically designed for Copilot. Below is a quick overview of these related capabilities — ranging from already available to newly in preview — before we dive deep into today's GA announcement: Prevent Copilot processing of files & emails based on sensitivity labels In November 2024, Microsoft introduced the ability to create a DLP policy to restrict Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat from processing sensitive files and emails using Sensitivity Labels for grounding data. This capability gives you control over whether content with the sensitivity labels you specify is restricted from being used in Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat to generate summaries and responses. Prevent web searches for prompts containing Sensitive Information Types (SITs) The latest feature entering Public Preview is DLP for Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat to prevent web searches for prompts containing sensitive data. This real-time control helps organizations mitigate data leakage and oversharing risks by preventing Microsoft 365 Copilot and agents from using sensitive data for external web searches. If a sensitive information type (SIT) is detected in a user prompt, Copilot can still leverage your enterprise data to form a response without sending the sensitive data to external search engines for web grounding. This capability extends to Microsoft 365 Copilot and agents built in Copilot Studio that are published to Microsoft 365 Copilot. DLP to Safeguard Copilot Prompts with Sensitive Information Types (SITs) The rest of this blog focuses on a key addition to this capability set: DLP for Microsoft 365 Copilot + Copilot Chat prompts to prevent processing of prompts containing sensitive information, now entering General Availability. Unlike the web search capability above, which prevents sensitive data from being sent externally during a web query, this capability evaluates the user’s text input directly, before processing occurs, to determine whether both enterprise data and web grounding can proceed. This feature uses Sensitive Information Types (SITs) as a condition within a Purview DLP policy to assess whether a user prompt sent to Copilot contains sensitive data, even if the data is unlabeled. With DLP for Copilot prompts, a user’s text input is scanned in real time for SITs, whether built-in (like Social Security Numbers, credit card numbers, etc.) or custom-defined by your organization (such as confidential terms or project names). If a text prompt contains one of the SITs you specify, Copilot restricts processing, halts any Graph or web grounding, and displays a clear message to the end user that the request cannot be completed. A user enters a prompt in Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat containing sensitive information. How DLP for Copilot Protects Prompts: Real-Time, Intelligent Protection The new DLP capability integrates seamlessly with Microsoft Purview, leveraging its powerful data classification & detection engine for sensitive information types. Here’s how it works: Input: When a user submits a prompt, Copilot checks the prompt for sensitive information using built-in or organization-defined sensitive information types (SITs). Immediate Action: If a SIT is detected, Copilot restricts the prompt from being processed. No AI response is generated, and no data is sent for Graph or web grounding. Output: Users receive a clear notification that their request cannot be completed due to company policies. This real-time protection ensures that sensitive data is not leaked or overshared, even as users explore new ways to work with AI. Setting Up DLP for Copilot Prompts: Data Security Admin Experience The easiest way to get started is through the new Microsoft Purview Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) portal, which provides a guided, one-click setup experience: 1. In Purview, go to Solutions > DSPM (preview) 2. Select the "Prevent data exposure in Microsoft 365 Copilot and Microsoft Copilot interactions" objective. 3. Follow the guided workflow and apply the recommended one-click DLP policy. The policy starts in simulation mode so you can review activity before enforcing it. Alternatively, you can configure and customize this policy directly from the Purview DLP portal Policies page or enable it from the Microsoft 365 Admin Center. view the remediation plan. view policy details and review. Then click the button, create a custom policy in DLP simulation mode to protect sensitive data referenced in Microsoft 365 Copilot and Microsoft Copilot. the confidence level and instance count. Practical Scenarios: Protecting What Matters Most Protect PII, financial data, and intellectual property: Financial institutions can block prompts containing deal terms, account numbers, or other sensitive data, preventing leaks through AI interactions. Similarly, healthcare organizations can safeguard patient information, and manufacturers can secure intellectual property and trade secrets from exposure, along with many other practical use cases. Once the prompt is detected and blocked, Microsoft Graph grounding and Bing web grounding is restricted. Safeguard sensitive non-public information: Imagine an organization involved in a confidential merger. By using DLP for Copilot prompts, administrators can set up a custom SIT that includes the project’s code name. If a user asks Copilot about the merger using the project’s code name, their request will be blocked, keeping sensitive information secure and protected. Visibility into DLP for M365 Copilot Prompts When a user’s prompt triggers a DLP policy, notifications and alerts are surfaced directly in the Microsoft Purview and Defender portals for security administrators. These alerts provide detailed information about which policy was activated, the type of sensitive information detected, and the context of the attempted Copilot interaction. Using these alert queues in Purview and Defender XDR, administrators can efficiently track policy activity, investigate potential incidents, and refine DLP rules to better align with organizational needs. The ability to review historical alerts and track ongoing enforcement empowers admins to maintain strong data security and proactively safeguard sensitive information. Defender XDR portal investigation of prompt DLP based incident. Takeaways The introduction of this latest enhancement to DLP for Copilot represents a key advancement in secure Copilot deployment and adoption. By empowering organizations to block sensitive data at the prompt level, Microsoft is helping customers unlock the full potential of Copilot, without compromising security or compliance. This innovation reflects Microsoft’s commitment to responsible AI, continuous improvement, and customer-driven development. As Copilot evolves, so will the tools to protect your data, ensuring that productivity and security go hand in hand. For more details, stay tuned for updates to the Product Roadmap and Learn documentation. Learn about using DLP to protect interactions with Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat Learn about the default DLP policy for Microsoft 365 Copilot location | Microsoft Learn Permissions to create or edit a DLP policy to safeguard Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat Learn about the new Microsoft Purview Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) | Microsoft Learn Roadmap Item: DLP for Microsoft 365 Copilot to safeguard prompts Roadmap Item: DLP to safeguard web search in Microsoft 365 CopilotSecuring AI Agents End‑to‑End: Connecting Purview DSPM, Agent 365, and the AI Security Dashboard
The Challenge: Organizations deploying Microsoft Copilot and custom AI agents face a critical gap: security visibility is fragmented across data protection, identity governance, and threat detection tools. While Microsoft provides powerful capabilities through Purview Data Security Posture Management (DSPM), Agent 365, and the AI Security Dashboard, practitioners often struggle to understand how these components work together to deliver unified AI security posture management. This blog provides an architectural and operational blueprint for connecting these three pillars into a cohesive security framework that security architects can implement today. The Three Pillars: Capabilities Overview Microsoft Purview DSPM for AI Purview DSPM extends data‑centric security controls to AI interactions. Its key capabilities include: Sensitivity labels with EXTRACT usage rights that govern whether AI agents can read and process sensitive content Data Loss Prevention (DLP) policies that block or audit AI interactions involving confidential data across Copilot, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams Comprehensive audit logging that captures AI‑to‑data interactions, including user identity, agent identity, data classification, and the action taken Insider Risk Management integration that detects anomalous agent behavior patterns, such as bulk or unusual data access DSPM operates at the data layer, answering a foundational question: What sensitive information can this agent access, and what is it doing with that data? Microsoft Agent 365 Agent 365 provides a unified control plane for governing AI agent identity, access, and lifecycle across the Microsoft 365 ecosystem. Core components include: Agent Registry, backed by Entra Agent IDs, providing a unique identity for every Copilot Studio agent, custom agent, and supported third‑party AI integration Conditional Access policies that enforce real‑time access controls based on agent identity, user context, device compliance, and risk signals Centralized observability, with dashboards showing agent‑to‑agent interactions, agent‑to‑human conversations, and near real‑time telemetry Governance workflows that support agent approval, lifecycle management, suspension, and decommissioning Agent 365 operates at the identity and control layer, answering: Which agents exist, who authorized them, and what access boundaries are enforced? AI Security Dashboard The AI Security Dashboard aggregates security signals from Entra, Purview, and Defender to provide a unified risk view across all AI assets. It delivers: AI asset inventory, cataloging Copilot instances, custom agents, and third‑party models with associated risk context Misconfiguration detection, identifying agents with excessive permissions, missing conditional access policies, or DLP coverage gaps Attack path visualization, showing how compromised agents could pivot to sensitive data or escalate privileges Integration with Microsoft Security Copilot, enabling natural‑language investigation of AI security risks and incidents The Dashboard operates at the aggregation and recommendation layer, answering: What is my overall AI security posture, and where should remediation be prioritized? The Unified Architecture: How Signals Flow End-to-End Understanding the technical integration requires mapping how identity, data, and security signals flow across these three systems. Identity Foundation (Microsoft Entra): Every AI agent is assigned a unique Entra Agent ID at creation. This identity becomes the anchor for all security controls—conditional access policies in Agent 365, audit attribution in Purview, and risk correlation in the AI Security Dashboard. When a Copilot Studio agent is deployed, Entra automatically registers it with Agent 365 and propagates identity metadata to connected security services. Data Interaction Telemetry (Microsoft Purview): When an agent accesses SharePoint files, reads emails, or queries structured data, Purview captures detailed audit events that include agent identity, user context, data classification labels, and enforcement outcomes. These events flow into Purview’s unified audit log and are accessible through the Compliance portal, Microsoft Graph, and SIEM integrations. Crucially, Purview enforces sensitivity labels with EXTRACT usage rights—if a document is labeled Confidential without EXTRACT permission, the agent’s request is blocked before content reaches the AI model. Control Plane Enforcement (Agent 365): Agent 365 applies identity‑based governance by evaluating Entra signals and surfaced risk indicators. During policy evaluation, the control plane verifies whether the agent is registered, whether the invoking user satisfies authentication requirements, and whether recent signals (such as DLP violations) warrant blocking execution. Agent 365 also provides observability views that correlate agent activity with security events, helping administrators identify unmanaged or unauthorized (“shadow”) agents. Aggregated Risk View (AI Security Dashboard): The AI Security Dashboard correlates telemetry from: Entra — conditional access decisions, authentication anomalies, and privileged identity usage Purview — DLP violations, sensitivity label mismatches, and Insider Risk Management signals Defender — threat detections, application posture assessments, and suspicious activity indicators These signals are correlated by agent identity and time, then surfaced as risk cards with contextual severity and recommended remediation actions. The Dashboard does not replace the underlying tools; instead, it provides a consolidated view that helps teams focus on the most impactful risks. The diagram below illustrates how identity, data, and threat signals flow across the three AI security pillars. Figure 1: End‑to‑end AI security architecture. Enforcement happens at the data layer (Purview) and identity layer (Agent 365 via Entra). The AI Security Dashboard aggregates—rather than replaces—underlying security controls. From Architecture to Action: Telemetry & Enforcement Flow Understanding architecture is essential—but practitioners need to know when and where enforcement occurs during a real agent invocation. The sequence below illustrates runtime interaction between a user, an AI agent, and the three security pillars. The Critical Distinction: Two Enforcement Layers Enforcement occurs at two distinct points in the request lifecycle. First, Microsoft Entra validates agent identity and evaluates conditional access policies before execution begins. If the agent is not registered, if the user fails authentication requirements, or if policy conditions require blocking, execution is denied immediately. Second, when execution is permitted, Purview DSPM enforces data access controls inline. Every attempt to access documents, emails, or structured data is evaluated in real time. If a document is labeled Confidential without EXTRACT rights, Purview blocks the request and returns no sensitive content to the agent. Telemetry Generation Across the Stack Each step produces structured telemetry. Entra logs authentication attempts and policy decisions. Purview records AI interaction audit events, including enforcement outcomes. Agent 365 correlates identity and behavior signals to maintain agent posture and observability. These combined signals are surfaced in the AI Security Dashboard, which correlates activity across time and identity to present prioritized risk insights. Make the “where enforcement happens” distinction explicit (data vs. identity). Figure 2: Purview enforces data controls inline, Agent 365 enforces identity and execution controls, and the AI Security Dashboard correlates signals for prioritization. Practitioner Scenario: Detecting and Blocking Agent Data Exposure Context: Your organization deploys a custom Copilot Studio agent to summarize sales proposals stored in SharePoint. Several documents contain customer PII labeled "Highly Confidential" with no EXTRACT usage rights granted. Incident Timeline: Agent Data Exposure Detection → Remediation Detection The agent attempts to access SharePoint files through Microsoft Graph. Purview DSPM evaluates sensitivity labels and identifies restricted documents. A DLP policy blocks access and logs a violation with full context. The audit event appears in the Purview unified audit log within minutes. Visibility Agent 365 flags the blocked interaction in its observability dashboard. The AI Security Dashboard surfaces a High‑severity risk card titled “Agent accessing restricted data.” Security teams investigate the agent using Security Copilot to determine scope and recurrence. Remediation An administrator applies an Entra conditional access policy to suspend the agent. Data permissions are adjusted to restrict access or explicitly grant EXTRACT rights where justified. The AI Security Dashboard reflects a reduced risk score once controls are validated. Outcome: The incident is contained quickly, audit evidence is preserved, and the agent is restored with least‑privilege access—without disrupting legitimate business workflows. Figure 3: A single DLP violation triggers coordinated detection, investigation, and remediation across Purview, Agent 365, and the AI Security Dashboard within 30 minutes. Division of Responsibility: What Each Tool Does Tool Primary Function Key Signals Enforcement Capability Purview DSPM Data-layer protection and audit Sensitivity labels, DLP violations, data access patterns Blocks API calls violating DLP or label policies Agent 365 Identity and lifecycle governance Agent registry, conditional access hits, observability telemetry Denies agent invocation based on Entra policies AI Security Dashboard Unified risk aggregation Cross-product signals from Entra, Purview, Defender No direct enforcement—provides recommendations and prioritization Critical Distinction: Enforcement happens at two layers—Purview blocks data access violations, while Agent 365 (via Entra) blocks agent invocation. The Dashboard does not enforce policies but accelerates investigation and remediation by correlating signals that would otherwise require manual analysis across three separate consoles. Key Takeaways for Practitioners Agent identity is the integration anchor. Every security control—DLP policies, conditional access, audit logs, risk scoring—relies on Entra Agent IDs. Ensure all agents are properly registered in Agent 365 before production deployment. Purview enforces at the data layer, Agent 365 at the identity layer. Use both—Purview prevents unauthorized data exfiltration, while Agent 365 prevents unauthorized agent execution. Neither is redundant. The AI Security Dashboard is for prioritization, not replacement. Continue using Purview Compliance Portal for detailed DLP investigations and Agent 365 registry for operational monitoring. Use the Dashboard to identify which risks warrant immediate attention. Audit logs are your ground truth. All three tools consume Purview audit events. Integrate these logs with Microsoft Sentinel or your SIEM for long-term retention and advanced threat hunting. Shadow agents are your blind spot. Regularly audit the Agent 365 registry against actual AI deployments (Copilot Studio, Azure OpenAI, third-party integrations) to identify unregistered instances. As AI agents become embedded in everyday work, security teams must move beyond feature‑level understanding and adopt an end‑to‑end enforcement mindset. The combination of Purview DSPM, Agent 365, and the AI Security Dashboard provides the building blocks—but value is realized only when they are implemented as a unified model. How are you governing AI agents in your environment today? Share your experiences and patterns in the comments—especially where identity, data, and security signals intersect.
