Looking for a simple deployment guide
MS Learn is a great starting point, but it just doesn't seem to cover the steps needed to get up and running safely. I have concerns about adding or setting something that suddenly creates a vulnerability or exposure. Where is the installation guide that installs and configures the solution then tells you, "You are now protected". Do I really want to set my own policies? Why aren't the default set of rules good enough, safe enough. I can't have a solution that is so complicated I need to hire a team to manage it 24 hours a day. I am okay investigating an alert and helping a user solve a pop-up question. Why is every major corporation around the world required to re-invent the same or similar policies the company next door is creating to make this tool work? I want to onboard all of our Intune devices and monitor anything that CAN'T be stopped by default security measures. Just the fact that Sentinel appears to be changing as an embedded tool within Defender gives me hope that this will be getting closer to a more manageable tool. But that still seems a way off. I am ready to do the reading and research to get this set up but I am hoping for a guide that is specific enough to achieve a final result. Thank for understanding my challenges here.What’s new in Microsoft Sentinel: June 2026
Welcome back to What's new in Microsoft Sentinel. In June, Sentinel SIEM’s Advanced Security Information Model (ASIM) broadens its normalization, so one analytic rule can reach more sources with less per-source work and, additionally, two new ASIM schemas can now bring asset inventory and AI agent telemetry into common form. In Microsoft Sentinel data lake, the Agent Identities Asset Connector adds the identity context behind your AI agents, helping you see who owns an agent and what permissions it holds. In Sentinel MCP, graph tools help security teams investigate threats and optimize security coverage by visualizing relationships across identities, devices, alerts, and signals in a unified graph experience. Read on for the details, and explore the resources at the end to go deeper. Sentinel innovations: Sentinel SIEM Sentinel data lake Sentinel MCP Microsoft Security Store Sentinel SIEM Advanced Security Information Model (ASIM) parsers and schemas [Generally available] The Advanced Security Information Model (ASIM) in Sentinel normalizes logs into common schemas, so one analytic rule can cover many sources without managing each native schema. ASIM coverage has expanded across more Azure services, broader AWS CloudTrail activity, and a range of third-party firewall, identity, and proxy products, so your detections reach more of your environment with less per-source work. Two schemas also join ASIM: Asset Entities normalizes asset inventory so you can correlate files and assets across investigations, and AI Agent Events normalizes telemetry from AI-driven workflows and autonomous agents. Browse the ASIM parsers on GitHub to explore, file issues, or contribute. Learn more in our blog. Sentinel transition to Defender blog series By March 31, 2027, all Microsoft Sentinel customers transition to Defender. This six-part series guides you through moving your Sentinel experience from the Azure portal to Defender, where SIEM, XDR, threat intelligence, AI, and automation come together in one experience. Your analytics rules, playbooks, workbooks, log analytics workspace, and access assignments all carry forward while the operational layer becomes more connected and intelligent. Starting early matters because you realize the benefits sooner, including a unified incident queue, cross-product correlation, Security Copilot, Sentinel data lake, and SOC optimization. Across the six-part blog series you get 1) the strategic shift, 2) the anatomy of incident and data changes, 3) detection and automation, 4) the governance shift across roles and access, 5) a readiness playbook with the adoption helper and cost guidance, and 6) a look at the AI-first SOC. Each part stands alone, so you can read in order or jump to what matters most to you. Sentinel data lake Agent Identities Asset Connector [Public preview] The Agent Identities Asset Connector brings identity context for AI agents into Sentinel. Activity connectors like Agent 365 and Microsoft 365 Copilot already show you what AI agents do, but activity alone cannot tell you who owns an agent, what permissions it holds, or how it is governed. This connector fills that gap with four asset tables covering agent owners, agent identities, agent blueprints, and the service principals tied to those blueprints. Together they form a connected agent identity graph you can trace from owner to identity to blueprint to permissions to the resources an agent touches. Joining this asset data with activity data in Sentinel data lake lets you detect anomalous behavior relative to permissions, spot over-permissioned or misconfigured agents, and follow full execution chains for end-to-end traceability. To get started, install the Agent 365 and Microsoft 365 Copilot solutions in Content Hub and enable the asset and activity connectors. Learn more. Sentinel MCP Sentinel MCP graph tools [Public preview] Microsoft Security Graph MCP tools, recently introduced in the Microsoft Sentinel MCP Server data exploration collection helps security teams investigate threats by exploring relationships between identities and device assets, and threat and activity signals ingested by data connectors and surfaced by analytic rules. Starting from an alert, analysts can follow the exposure path across connected entities — tracing lateral movement, understanding blast radius, and identifying configuration gaps — all from a single, interactive workspace. The tool provides a clear graph view that highlights dependencies and makes it easier to understand how content interacts across your environment. This helps security teams assess coverage, optimize content deployment, and identify areas that may need tuning or additional data sources. Executing graph queries via the MCP tools will trigger the graph meter. Learn more. Microsoft Security Store Partner testimonials from Adaquest and Glueckkanja For partners like Adaquest and Glueckkanja, the Microsoft Security Store helps not only put their years of knowledge, understanding, and best practices into a scalable, packaged solution, it gives them the ability to democratize that expertise and take it to market globally. Security Store operationalizes their expertise as always-on defenses — discoverable, deployable, and driving real outcomes inside the tools that security teams rely on every day. See how the Security Store is helping security teams act on threats faster with the right solutions and to be ready when it matters most: Watch: Adaquest unlocks faster response times for customers (testimonial) Watch: Glueckkanja builds agents with purpose (testimonial) Additional resources Blogs and documentation: The Advanced Security Information Model (ASIM) Process Event normalization schema reference How BlueVoyant's ASIM-First Strategy Simplifies Threat Detection in Microsoft Sentinel Migrate Sentinel to Defender – Why It Is a Security Architecture Decision, Not Just a Portal Change Connect Microsoft Sentinel to the Microsoft Defender portal Agent 365 connector: Monitor, hunt, and investigate AI agent activity in Microsoft Sentinel Get started with Microsoft Sentinel MCP server Upcoming webinars and events: July 15–16: Microsoft Virtual Training Day: Predict and Defend Against Cybersecurity Threats July 22: Microsoft Security Immersion Event: Shadow Hunter July 23-24: Microsoft Virtual Training Day: Introduction to Microsoft Security July 28: Tech Brief: Modernize security operations with a unified platform July 29: Security Immersion Event: Into the Breach Stay connected Check back each month for the latest innovations, updates, and events to ensure you’re getting the most out of Microsoft Sentinel. We’ll see you in the next edition!Reminder: Next Tuesday 6/23 at 9AM PST we will be hosting an 'Ask Microsoft Anything' session on Tech Community for the Sentinel SIEM Migration Experience!
Join us for a live demo and AMA on the Microsoft Sentinel SIEM migration experience. We’ll show how the experience helps teams move from legacy SIEMs like Splunk and QRadar into Microsoft Sentinel with a more guided, lower-friction path. We’ll cover what it does today, how it works, and the questions customers ask most, then open it up for live Q&A. Link here: Ask Microsoft Anything: The Microsoft Sentinel SIEM Migration Experience Hope to see you there!Campaign-Centric Hunting with Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Sentinel
Phishing investigations usually start with one suspicious email. A user reports a message. An alert is generated. An analyst opens the email details, checks the sender, reviews the URL, and tries to understand whether the message is malicious. That is a normal starting point. However, in a real SOC investigation, one email is rarely the full story. Attackers usually operate in campaigns. They reuse sender infrastructure, similar subjects, URLs, payloads, templates, and delivery techniques. A single email may be only one part of a wider phishing or malware campaign targeting multiple users. This is why campaign-centric hunting is important. I wrote this article from the perspective of a SOC analyst who often needs to move quickly from a single suspicious email to the full campaign impact. The goal is simple: use Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Sentinel together to understand who was targeted, what was delivered, who clicked, and what should be prioritized first. Why Campaign-Centric Hunting When investigating a phishing or malware email, analysts usually need to answer practical questions: How many users received messages from the same campaign? Were the messages blocked, junked, delivered, or remediated? Did any user click the URL? Did anyone click through a Safe Links warning? Were any priority or high-risk users affected? Was the email removed after delivery? Are there related Defender XDR or Sentinel incidents? If we only investigate one message, we may miss the bigger picture. Campaign-centric hunting helps the SOC move from this question: Is this email malicious? To this question: What is the full impact of this campaign? That shift is important because the response priority should be based on campaign impact, not only on a single alert. What Campaign Views Provides Campaign Views in Microsoft Defender for Office 365 help analysts investigate coordinated email attacks such as phishing and malware campaigns. From Campaign Views, analysts can review campaign-level information such as: Campaign name Campaign type Campaign subtype Targeted users Inboxed messages Clicked users Visited links Sender domains Sender IPs Payload URLs Delivery actions Campaign timeline Campaign flow This is useful during triage because it quickly shows whether an email is part of a wider attack. For example, one reported phishing message may look small at first. But if Campaign Views shows that the same campaign targeted 50 users, delivered messages to 15 inboxes, and had 2 users click the URL, the investigation becomes much more urgent. Where CampaignInfo Fits The CampaignInfo table gives analysts a KQL-based way to query campaign-related data. Some useful fields are: Field Purpose CampaignId Unique identifier for the campaign CampaignName Name of the campaign CampaignType Campaign category, such as Phish or Malware CampaignSubtype Additional context, such as brand being phished or malware family NetworkMessageId Unique identifier for the email message RecipientEmailAddress Recipient affected by the campaign Timestamp Time when the event was recorded For correlation, the most important field is usually: NetworkMessageId This field can help connect campaign data with other Defender XDR email tables, including: EmailEvents UrlClickEvents EmailPostDeliveryEvents EmailAttachmentInfo EmailUrlInfo This makes CampaignInfo a useful pivot table for campaign-level hunting. Important note: CampaignInfo is currently documented as Preview. Before using these queries in production analytics rules, validate the table availability, schema, and results in your own tenant. Practical Scenario An analyst receives a phishing alert in Microsoft Defender XDR. The alert is related to a user who received a suspicious email with a credential-harvesting URL. The analyst opens Campaign Views and sees that the message belongs to a wider phishing campaign. At that point, the investigation should not stop with the original user. The analyst should now ask: Who else received this campaign? How many messages were delivered? Which users clicked? Did any users click through the Safe Links warning? Were the messages removed after delivery? Are there related incidents in Microsoft Sentinel? The investigation flow could look like this: Start from Campaign Views in Microsoft Defender XDR. Identify the campaign details. Use CampaignInfo to list affected users and messages. Join with EmailEvents to validate delivery status. Join with UrlClickEvents to identify user interaction. Join with EmailPostDeliveryEvents to confirm remediation. Review related Microsoft XDR incidents in Microsoft Sentinel. Prioritize response based on campaign impact. Query 1: List Recent Campaigns The first query gives a simple overview of recent campaigns. CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | summarize FirstSeen = min(Timestamp), LastSeen = max(Timestamp), AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by LastSeen desc This helps analysts quickly identify campaigns that affected the organization during the selected period. Useful questions to ask from this output: Which campaigns are most recent? Which campaigns affected the most users? Are the campaigns phishing, malware, or spam? Is there a specific brand or malware family in the subtype? Are similar campaigns appearing repeatedly? Query 2: Understand Delivery Impact After identifying campaigns, the next step is to understand delivery impact. A campaign that was fully blocked is different from a campaign that reached user inboxes. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter ( EmailEvents | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress, Subject, SenderFromAddress, SenderFromDomain, SenderIPv4, DeliveryAction, DeliveryLocation, ThreatTypes, DetectionMethods, Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId), AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Subjects = make_set(Subject, 5), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderFromDomain, 10), SenderIPs = make_set(SenderIPv4, 10) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, DeliveryAction, DeliveryLocation | order by AffectedUsers desc, Messages desc This query helps separate campaigns that were blocked from campaigns that actually reached users. From a SOC perspective, delivered messages deserve closer attention, especially if they reached the inbox. Query 3: Identify Users Who Clicked Campaign URLs Delivery is important, but clicks usually increase the priority of the incident. This query joins campaign data with UrlClickEvents. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=inner ( UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | project NetworkMessageId, AccountUpn, Url, ActionType, IsClickedThrough, ThreatTypes, DetectionMethods, IPAddress, Workload, ClickTime = Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId | summarize FirstClick = min(ClickTime), LastClick = max(ClickTime), ClickEvents = count(), ClickedUsers = dcount(AccountUpn), ClickThroughUsers = dcountif(AccountUpn, IsClickedThrough == true), ClickedUrls = make_set(Url, 10), SourceIPs = make_set(IPAddress, 10) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by ClickThroughUsers desc, ClickedUsers desc, LastClick desc This query helps identify campaigns where users interacted with the payload. If a user clicked a phishing URL, the next step should usually include identity-focused investigation, such as reviewing sign-in activity, MFA status, session activity, and possible risky sign-ins. Query 4: Focus on Click-Through Events Safe Links may block access to a malicious site. In some cases, however, a user may continue through a warning page. Those cases should be reviewed carefully. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=inner ( UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | where IsClickedThrough == true | project NetworkMessageId, AccountUpn, Url, ActionType, ThreatTypes, IPAddress, ClickTime = Timestamp ) on NetworkMessageId | project ClickTime, CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, AccountUpn, RecipientEmailAddress, Url, ActionType, ThreatTypes, IPAddress | order by ClickTime desc This is one of the most useful views during incident response. A click-through event does not automatically mean compromise, but it is a strong reason to investigate the user account further. Query 5: Confirm Post-Delivery Remediation A malicious message may be delivered first and removed later by ZAP, AIR, or manual remediation. This query joins CampaignInfo with EmailPostDeliveryEvents. let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter ( EmailPostDeliveryEvents | where Timestamp > ago(30d) | project NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress, RemediationTime = Timestamp, Action, ActionType, ActionTrigger, ActionResult, DeliveryLocation, SourceLocation ) on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize RemediatedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, isnotempty(ActionType)), RemediationTypes = make_set(ActionType, 10), RemediationResults = make_set(ActionResult, 10), LastRemediation = max(RemediationTime) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | order by LastRemediation desc This helps answer a very important question: Were the delivered malicious messages actually removed? This is useful for both SOC triage and reporting because it shows not only detection, but also response. Query 6: Campaign Blast Radius Summary The following query combines campaign, delivery, click, and remediation data into one campaign-level view. let TimeRange = 30d; let Campaigns = CampaignInfo | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | project CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype, NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; let Delivery = EmailEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize DeliveryActions = make_set(DeliveryAction, 10), DeliveryLocations = make_set(DeliveryLocation, 10), DeliveredMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Delivered"), JunkedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Junked"), BlockedMessages = dcountif(NetworkMessageId, DeliveryAction =~ "Blocked"), Subjects = make_set(Subject, 5), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderFromDomain, 10) by NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; let Clicks = UrlClickEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize ClickEvents = count(), ClickThroughEvents = countif(IsClickedThrough == true), FirstClick = min(Timestamp), LastClick = max(Timestamp), ClickedUrls = make_set(Url, 10) by NetworkMessageId; let Remediation = EmailPostDeliveryEvents | where Timestamp > ago(TimeRange) | summarize RemediationActions = make_set(ActionType, 10), LastRemediation = max(Timestamp) by NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress; Campaigns | join kind=leftouter Delivery on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | join kind=leftouter Clicks on NetworkMessageId | join kind=leftouter Remediation on NetworkMessageId, RecipientEmailAddress | summarize AffectedUsers = dcount(RecipientEmailAddress), Messages = dcount(NetworkMessageId), DeliveredMessages = sum(DeliveredMessages), JunkedMessages = sum(JunkedMessages), BlockedMessages = sum(BlockedMessages), TotalClickEvents = sum(ClickEvents), ClickThroughEvents = sum(ClickThroughEvents), Subjects = make_set(Subjects, 10), SenderDomains = make_set(SenderDomains, 10), ClickedUrls = make_set(ClickedUrls, 10), RemediationActions = make_set(RemediationActions, 10), LastClick = max(LastClick), LastRemediation = max(LastRemediation) by CampaignId, CampaignName, CampaignType, CampaignSubtype | extend SuggestedPriority = case( ClickThroughEvents > 0, "High", TotalClickEvents > 0, "Medium", DeliveredMessages > 0, "Medium", "Low" ) | order by SuggestedPriority asc, AffectedUsers desc, Messages desc This type of query can be useful during hunting sessions, incident review, and campaign reporting. The goal is not only to collect more data. The goal is to help the analyst decide what needs attention first. Correlating Campaign Activity with Microsoft Sentinel When Microsoft Defender XDR is connected to Microsoft Sentinel, incidents and alerts can be synchronized into the Sentinel incident queue. This allows the SOC to correlate campaign-related email activity with other security signals, such as: Suspicious sign-ins Identity alerts Endpoint alerts Cloud app activity OAuth consent activity Data exfiltration attempts Related Microsoft XDR incidents For example, if a user clicked a phishing URL, the SOC can then review whether the same user had suspicious sign-in activity shortly after the click. The following query is a simple starting point for reviewing Microsoft XDR incidents in Microsoft Sentinel. SecurityIncident | where TimeGenerated > ago(30d) | where ProviderName == "Microsoft XDR" | where Title has_any ("phish", "phishing", "email", "malware", "campaign") | summarize Incidents = count(), HighSeverity = countif(Severity == "High"), MediumSeverity = countif(Severity == "Medium"), Closed = countif(Status == "Closed"), Active = countif(Status == "Active") by bin(TimeGenerated, 1d) | order by TimeGenerated desc This query does not replace campaign hunting. It simply helps analysts understand how email-related activity is represented in the Sentinel incident queue. Suggested SOC Workflow A practical campaign-centric workflow could look like this: Step 1: Start from Campaign Views Review campaigns with delivered messages, clicked users, visited links, or high user impact. Step 2: Pivot to KQL Use CampaignInfo to list campaign-related messages and affected recipients. Step 3: Validate Delivery Join with EmailEvents to confirm whether messages were blocked, junked, delivered, or replaced. Step 4: Review User Interaction Join with UrlClickEvents to identify users who clicked URLs or clicked through Safe Links warnings. Step 5: Confirm Remediation Join with EmailPostDeliveryEvents to confirm whether delivered messages were removed after delivery. Step 6: Correlate in Sentinel Review related Microsoft XDR incidents and correlate with identity, endpoint, and cloud activity. Step 7: Decide Response Depending on the impact, the SOC may decide to: Escalate the incident Notify affected users Review user sign-ins Revoke user sessions Reset passwords Block sender domains or URLs Submit false negatives Create a watchlist for related indicators Tune analytics rules or response processes Suggested Priority Logic Not every campaign needs the same level of response. A simple triage model could be: Condition Suggested priority Campaign blocked before delivery Low Campaign delivered to junk Low to Medium Campaign delivered to inbox Medium Campaign delivered to multiple inboxes Medium to High User clicked URL High User clicked through warning High Priority account clicked High Click followed by suspicious sign-in Critical This model should be adapted to each organization’s risk profile and response process. Limitations and Things to Validate Before using this approach in production, validate the following: Defender for Office 365 Plan 2 availability Campaign Views permissions CampaignInfo table availability Defender XDR connector configuration Advanced hunting event streaming Field names in your environment Retention period Data latency Join behavior using NetworkMessageId Whether click events can be joined to email metadata in all cases One important limitation is that some URL click events may not join cleanly with email metadata. For example, clicks from Drafts or Sent Items may not have the same message metadata available for correlation. Also, because CampaignInfo is currently documented as Preview, I would avoid depending on it alone for critical production automation without testing and validation.Pending Approval/Provisioning for Microsoft Defender XDR Lab/Trial Environment
Hello Microsoft Community Team, On June 26, 2026, our organization applied for a Microsoft 365 Developer Environment / Free Trial to support evaluation of the Microsoft Defender XDR Lab environment. To date, the environment has not been provisioned, and we have not received any status updates or confirmation. Impact: Current Status: We are currently utilizing our production environment to test project capabilities, which poses risks and limitations. Future Intent: Our organization plans to transition to a full, paid Business/Enterprise purchase immediately upon proving the platform’s benefits. Urgency: This delay is stalling our evaluation phase. We urgently need this environment onboarded and activated so we can proceed with deployment tests and subsequent procurement. Request: Please review the status of our registration and expedite the onboarding/provisioning of this developer environment. Thank you for your prompt assistance.Detecting AI agents and non-human identities in Microsoft Sentinel: the classic-agent blind spot
Build 2026 made the direction official. The industry is moving from the app era into the agent era, and Microsoft spent a real share of the keynote on securing agents across their lifecycle, from discovering what is exploitable to governing what is running in production. On the identity side the centerpiece is Microsoft Entra Agent ID, now generally available, which gives AI agents first-class identities and extends Conditional Access, Identity Protection, and full audit logging to them. That is good news for agents you build the new way. It is not the whole picture, and the gap is where most SOCs will get hurt first. Modern agents are covered. Classic agents are not. Entra Agent ID draws a hard line between two kinds of agent. Modern agents are created through the Agent ID platform, each backed by an agent identity blueprint. They carry a proper Agent ID, a full audit trail, and the complete set of governance capabilities, including Identity Protection for Agents, which establishes a baseline for an agent's normal activity and flags anomalies automatically. Classic agents are everything that came before, or that gets built outside the platform: AI agents implemented as ordinary service principals or app registrations, for example Copilot Studio agents created before Agent ID was enabled, or any home-grown automation calling Graph with client credentials. In the Entra agent registry they appear with "Has Agent ID: No," and that flag matters, because the Agent ID protections apply to identities that actually hold an Agent ID. Classic agents sit outside Identity Protection for Agents and Conditional Access for Agents. Here is the uncomfortable part. The non-human identities you already run, the service principals behind your pipelines, your integrations, your scripts, your pre-platform Copilot Studio bots, are almost all classic agents. They tend to outnumber your human accounts, they have no MFA in any meaningful sense, and a credential added to one does not show up in the Azure portal. The new platform protections do not reach them. Until you migrate them, the only place you get detection coverage on that population is your SIEM. So this is the job Sentinel does that Agent ID does not: detect risky behavior on the classic, service-principal-backed agents that the platform cannot yet protect. The telemetry you have, and the one switch people forget Three tables carry most of the signal. AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs records service principal authentications, the client-credentials sign-ins your agents and automation use. No user, no MFA, just an app proving it holds a secret or certificate. AADManagedIdentitySignInLogs does the same for managed identities. AuditLogs records directory changes, including the one that matters most for persistence: a new credential added to an application or service principal. One practical warning before any of this works. Service principal and managed identity sign-in logs are not streamed by default. You have to enable those categories explicitly in the Entra diagnostic settings feeding your workspace. Plenty of teams write the detection, never check, and never notice the table is empty. Verify that first. Detection 1: a new credential on a service principal or app Adding a secret or certificate to an existing service principal is one of the cleanest persistence techniques in a Microsoft cloud. The attacker compromises a privileged user or app, drops a fresh credential on a service principal that already holds useful Graph permissions, and now has access that survives password resets and session revocation. It maps to MITRE T1098.001, Account Manipulation: Additional Cloud Credentials. For a classic agent it is especially nasty, because there is no Identity Protection baseline watching it. // Detection 1: new secret or certificate added to an application or service principal // MITRE T1098.001 - Account Manipulation: Additional Cloud Credentials AuditLogs | where OperationName has_any ("Add service principal", "Certificates and secrets management") | where Result =~ "success" | extend Initiator = coalesce( tostring(InitiatedBy.user.userPrincipalName), tostring(InitiatedBy.app.displayName)) | extend InitiatorIp = tostring(InitiatedBy.user.ipAddress) | mv-apply Target = TargetResources on ( where Target.type =~ "Application" | extend TargetName = tostring(Target.displayName), TargetId = tostring(Target.id), KeyChanges = Target.modifiedProperties ) | mv-apply Prop = KeyChanges on ( where tostring(Prop.displayName) =~ "KeyDescription" | extend NewKeys = parse_json(tostring(Prop.newValue)), OldKeys = parse_json(tostring(Prop.oldValue)) ) | extend AddedKeys = set_difference(NewKeys, OldKeys) | where array_length(AddedKeys) > 0 | project TimeGenerated, Initiator, InitiatorIp, TargetName, TargetId, AddedKeys | order by TimeGenerated desc The operation filter catches the three shapes this event takes in the log: "Add service principal," "Add service principal credentials," and "Update application - Certificates and secrets management." The modifiedProperties parsing isolates the KeyDescription change, and set_difference confirms a key was actually added rather than removed, so rotating out an old credential does not, on its own, fire the rule. False positives come from legitimate rotation and from automation that provisions app credentials (CI/CD, infrastructure as code). The initiator is the discriminant. A credential added by your deployment pipeline's service account at the usual time is routine. The same change initiated by an interactive admin out of hours, or by an account that never normally touches app credentials, is what you want to surface. Allow-list the expected initiators, not the targets. Detection 2: a classic agent signing in from a first-seen IP A service principal that has only ever authenticated from your Azure regions and suddenly signs in from somewhere new is a strong signal that its credential has been lifted and is being used elsewhere. Service principals have stable, boring network behavior, which makes a first-seen IP a far cleaner indicator for them than it is for roaming human users. This is the behavioral baseline Identity Protection gives you for free on modern agents, rebuilt in KQL for the classic ones it ignores. MITRE T1078.004, Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts. // Detection 2: classic-agent service principal signing in from a previously unseen IP // MITRE T1078.004 - Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts let baseline = 14d; let detection = 1d; let KnownIPs = AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs | where TimeGenerated between (ago(baseline + detection) .. ago(detection)) | where tostring(ResultType) == "0" | summarize KnownIPSet = make_set(IPAddress) by AppId; AADServicePrincipalSignInLogs | where TimeGenerated > ago(detection) | where tostring(ResultType) == "0" | lookup kind=leftouter KnownIPs on AppId | where set_has_element(KnownIPSet, IPAddress) == false | summarize FirstSeen = min(TimeGenerated), Resources = make_set(ResourceDisplayName, 10) by ServicePrincipalName, AppId, IPAddress | order by FirstSeen desc The query builds a per-application baseline of source IPs over the previous two weeks, then flags any successful sign-in today from an address outside that set. Two tuning notes. Brand-new service principals have no baseline, so they surface on first use. That is usually worth seeing once, but you can exclude AppIds younger than the baseline window if it gets noisy. And if your agents egress through shifting cloud IP ranges, widen the comparison from an exact IP to the autonomous system number or a known-range allow-list, otherwise you will chase your own infrastructure. This complements Agent ID, it does not replace it! The endgame is not to run these rules forever. It is to shrink the population they apply to. Inventory your tenant for agents marked "Has Agent ID: No," prioritize the ones holding sensitive Graph permissions, and migrate them onto the Agent ID platform, where Identity Protection and Conditional Access take over the baselining you are doing here by hand. Microsoft has signaled a migration path from classic to modern agents. Treat these two detections as the coverage you need in the meantime, and as a permanent safety net for anything that never makes the move. If you do one thing this week: enable the service principal sign-in log category, deploy detection 1, and pull a list of every service principal that had a credential added in the last 90 days. That list alone tends to be more interesting than people expect. Cheers, MarcelThe Worm in the Supply Chain: How Defender for Endpoint and Sentinel for SAP BTP Caught Shai-Hulud
On 29 April 2026, malicious versions of multiple SAP ecosystem npm packages were briefly published, creating a supply-chain exposure for SAP Cloud Application Programming (CAP) development environments and CI/CD pipelines. For a brief window that morning, affected developers have executed a credential-stealing payload on a workstation or, in higher-impact cases, within a CI/CD pipeline. SAP developers don't usually think of themselves as a juicy npm target. CAP, BTP, Fiori - that's enterprise turf, not crypto-stealer type territory – Until it is. Join me for the ride. See our latest click-video for an even more dynamic experience of SAP compromises. Affected packages and scope Four official npm packages from the SAP development ecosystem were published in malicious versions that day. Security researchers are calling the campaign "Mini Shai-Hulud" - the little cousin of the worm family that has been chewing its way through open-source registries for months. So, the "mini" part is a generous description in my opinion. Shai-Hulud has wriggled directly into the SAP supply chain, and that detail alone deserves a pause... SAP CAP is now interesting enough to have become a target. Four packages, all wearing legitimate SAP branding, all quietly swapped for evil twins: @cap-js/sqlite v2.2.2 @cap-js/postgres v2.2.2 @cap-js/db-service v2.10.1 mbt v1.2.48 These packages are not peripheral dependencies. The @cap-js/* modules are part of the SAP CAP Model used across custom development on SAP BTP, while mbt is the Cloud MTA Build Tool commonly embedded in CI/CD workflows that package and deploy Multi-Target Applications to BTP and on-premises environments. At roughly 930,000 weekly downloads, the combined exposure created meaningful downstream attack surface. The good news: SAP spotted the compromise fast, yanked the bad versions, and shipped clean replacements. The official guidance lives in SAP Security Note 3747787 - which carries the list of indicators of compromise, file hashes, and mitigation steps. Enough theory and evidence talk! Now, SHOW ME the detection! When the worm stirs beneath the sand, weak defenses vanish first. Observed telemetry in Microsoft Security products See below excerpt of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint from a compromised developer machine. The worm was neutralized immediately. Check the detection time (same day of release): Windows Defender AV detected malware ToString: DefenderDetection: File: /Users/User***/Projects/dara-api-manager-ui/node_modules/mbt/File***.js, Sha256: *** [Trojan:JS/SPchnStlr.BB], BlockingStatus: Prevented, BlockingStatusPriority: 900 DetectionTime: 2026-04-29 11:52:11Z DetectorName: Microsoft.Cyber.ObservationDetectors.DefenderConcreteDetector Observations (2): DefenderObservation Description: Defender detected and quarantined 'Trojan:JS/SPchnStlr.BB' in file 'File***.js' ThreatCategory = Trojan, ThreatFamily = SPchnStlr, How the Threat Actors Operationalized the Stolen Data The compromise allowed harvesting GitHub tokens, AWS/Azure/GCP secrets, npm credentials, Kubernetes config, SSH keys, .npmrc and .git-credentials files, and CI/CD environment variables. The hackers created a public GitHub repository on the victim’s own account, tagged with the description “A Mini Shai-Hulud has Appeared“ to exfiltrate their reaping. Within hours, more than a thousand such repositories were visible in public GitHub search. For additional views on the topic check out the blogs of our Sentinel for SAP partners: Onapsis, Pathlock, and SecurityBridge. Containment and Impact Reduction If you were not as lucky as the developer using Defender for Endpoint and VS Code, you need end to end monitoring of your landscape in and around SAP. Once the worm is loose with cloud tokens it may appear in various unexpected places. Microsoft Sentinel Solution for SAP covers your ERP crown jewels, your SAP BTP landscape and allows informed correlation with the rest of your IT estate. Microsoft’s correlation engine: ensures traceability automatic attack disruption and just-in-time hardening of potential attack paths. Developers using the cloud-based IDE SAP Business Application Studio are out of reach by Defender for Endpoint but profit from threat monitoring through Sentinel for SAP BTP integrating SAP BTP’s malware scanner the same way. See this in action in this click-video and in below screenshot. SOC analysts get actionable insights and tailored guidance from Security Copilot once SAP BTP signals are added to the Microsoft incident graph - no matter where the threat involving SAP originates from. Getting Started with Sentinel Solution for SAP Rollout of Sentinel for SAP BTP can happen immediately. Learn more from our deployment guide. Check out the security content reference for more info out-of-the-box detections. Sentinel for SAP which covers your ERP solutions and more, requires configuration of SAP Integration Suite as intermediary step. Learn more from our deployment guide. Check out the security content reference for more info out-of-the-box detections Final Words This incident illustrates how far the SAP BTP attack surface now extends and why patching alone is insufficient once malicious code reaches developer tooling and build infrastructure. Effective defense also requires telemetry, correlation, and response coverage across SAP and non-SAP environments. See you out there folks! #Kudos to Mahesh Mandva and Cameron Gardiner on riding shai-holud with me. Feel free to reach out to talk more about SAP Cyber Security. Cheers, Martin Useful Links SAP Note 3747787 with mitigation guide Mini Shai-Hulud: Multi-Ecosystem Developer Supply Chain Attack – Lab Space Click-Demo for SAP Cyber Security with Microsoft Sentinel for SAP Security Content | Microsoft Learn Sentinel for SAP BTP Security Content | Microsoft Learn
MSSP migration to Unified portal: how are you sequencing your customer portfolio?
Following the automation and SOAR discussion, I wanted to open a conversation specifically focused on the MSSP and multi-tenant side of the migration, because this is where the coordination challenges are an order of magnitude higher than the technical ones. A few things I am working through before writing this up as Part 5 of the migration series. On Workspace Manager: Microsoft's own documentation now points you away from Workspace Manager at the point of onboarding to the Defender portal, directing you to Microsoft Defender multitenant management instead. For MSSPs who built their operating model around Workspace Manager, this is a significant structural change. For those implementing now, the recommendation is to go straight to the multitenant portal. I am interested in what the transition has looked like in practice for teams who were mid-flight on Workspace Manager when this became clear. On access delegation: one of the more honest framings I want to include in the article is around the GDAP plus Unified RBAC gap. A Microsoft employee confirmed in the RSAC 2026 thread that Unified RBAC support for GDAP in the Defender portal is on the roadmap with no firm date. MSSPs choosing between Entra B2B and the governance relationships model today are making an architectural call that is difficult to reverse. I want to present this accurately, and real experience from practitioners will sharpen that framing. On the connector deployment constraint: you cannot deploy connectors from a managed workspace configured with Azure Lighthouse alone, you also need GDAP. This makes a layered delegation architecture, Lighthouse plus GDAP plus B2B or governance relationships, necessary rather than optional. I am curious whether MSSPs are already running this layered model or whether most are still trying to make Lighthouse work as a single mechanism. On migration sequencing: the question I want to ask specifically is how teams are structuring their customer portfolio migration. Are you running waves based on customer complexity, based on contract renewal timing, based on customer risk appetite, or some other factor? And when something goes wrong in one tenant's migration, how are you containing the impact on the rest of the programme? Sharing the full article once it is written. Happy to discuss anything above in more detail in the thread.Operational Notes on Microsoft Security Copilot Agents in Defender XDR and Microsoft Entra ID
Microsoft Security Copilot is now becoming more visible inside day-to-day security operations, especially through embedded experiences and agent-based workflows across Microsoft Defender XDR, Microsoft Entra ID, Microsoft Intune, and Microsoft Purview. Instead of looking at Security Copilot only as a standalone prompt interface, SOC and identity teams should also understand how Security Copilot agents are deployed, how they consume Security Compute Units, how they appear in operational workflows, and where activity can be monitored. This post summarizes practical observations from a security operations perspective, with a focus on Microsoft Defender XDR, Microsoft Entra ID, usage monitoring, and KQL-based activity review. Licensing & Capacity Units Requirements Requires eligible Microsoft security licensing, typically: Microsoft 365 E5 Microsoft 365 E7 Security Compute Units (SCUs) Security Copilot capacity is measured using Security Compute Units (SCUs). SCUs are billed based on provisioned capacity. Indicative pricing: $4 per Provisionied SCU/hour $6 per Overage SCU/hour Billing is calculated hourly, based on the amount of SCUs provisioned. Included Capacity Organizations with: 1,000 Microsoft 365 E5 licenses Receive: 400 included SCUs Included SCUs are shared across the tenant within a common capacity pool. Scaling SCU capacity can be scaled dynamically based on operational requirements and workload demand. Data Retention Security Copilot session and interaction data without active SCU-backed retention is typically retained for: 90 days Security Copilot Agents - Microsoft Defender This section outlines the Microsoft Security Copilot agents currently available in the Microsoft Defender portal. NameKey characteristics Security Alert Triage Agent (Preview) Manual setup from Defender portal Automatically creates Unified RBAC custom role Runs automatically when a user reports a suspicious email or when a new supported alert is generated, supported alert sources: MDI, MDC, MDO If an alert tuning rule is enabled, it will be automatically disabled when the agent is deployed. Creates and connects with agentic user account: Phishing Triage Agent (Security Copilot) Automatic alert assignment to SecurityCopilotAgentUser-db16fec3-f1fb-4632-843e-46d07408c584@<tenant-domain>Alert was assigned to Phishing Triage Agent (Security Copilot). Adds Tag Agent to the created Incidents Threat Hunting Agent Manual setup from Defender portal Automatically creates Unified RBAC custom role This agent runs manually. There isn't an automatic trigger. Creates and connects with agentic user account: Threat Hunting Agent (Security Copilot) Analyst Questions in natural language Generates and executed KQL queries in Advanced hunting Provides charts, dynamic follow-up questions and remediation actions recommendations No activity is identified from agent's identity during agent execution Threat Intelligence Briefing Agent Manual setup from Defender portal Provides automated TI briefing summary Configured from https://security.microsoft.com/securitysettings/defender/agent_configuration-threatintelligencebriefingagent Security Analyst Agent Manual setup from Defender portal Dynamic Threat Detection Agent (Preview) Automatically enabled always-on, runs continuously in the background Correlates: Alerts, Security events, Behavioral anomalies, TI signals Generates Alerts with Detection Source: Security Copilot The Alerts can be correlated with existing Multi-Stage Incidents No agentic user account identity is used by this agent Available free of charge during public preview, will begin consuming Security Compute Units (SCUs) once generally available (GA) Incidents handled by Security Alert Triage Agent: Alerts created by Dynamic Threat Detection Agent: Execution of Threat Hunting Agent: View agents in use: https://security.microsoft.com/security-copilot/agents View Unified RBAC custom roles: https://security.microsoft.com/mtp_roles View Security Copilot user identities in Microsoft Entra ID: Notes: CloudAppEvents activity logs only from the following agents: Phishing Triage Agent Conditional Access Optimization Agent Security Copilot Agents - Microsoft Entra ID Conditional Access Optimization Agent Usage Monitoring Sign-in to Security Copilot portal using Global Admin account and navigate to the following location: https://securitycopilot.microsoft.com/usage-monitoring Reference: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/copilot/security/manage-usage Logging Activity Copilot Agents Management: CloudAppEvents | where ActionType contains "CopilotAgent" | extend AgentName = RawEventData.AgentName | extend Workload = RawEventData.Workload | extend ResultStatus = RawEventData.ResultStatus | project TimeGenerated, ActionType, ResultStatus, AgentName, Application, Workload All Copilot Workload data: CloudAppEvents | extend Workload = RawEventData.Workload | where Workload == "Copilot" | summarize EventCount = count() by ActionType, AccountDisplayName
SentinelHealth: Scheduled Rule Retry Logging Does Not Match Docs
## Objective I am working on a health checks architecture for Microsoft Sentinel analytic rules. The goal is to build a set of monitoring queries/approaches that cover rule execution failures, configuration issues (entity mapping, partial success), rule audit tracking, and auto-disabled rule detection. ## My Current Approach So far I have built monitoring for the following areas using the SentinelHealth and SentinelAudit tables: - Scheduled rule window failures (retry exhaustion) - NRT rule execution delays (cumulative delay over 25 minutes) - Partial success and configuration issues (entity mapping drops, alert size limits, semantic errors) with transient error codes filtered out - Auto-disabled rules detection - Rule disable/delete audit tracking via SentinelAudit + AzActivity ## The Issue: Scheduled Rule Retry Logging The documentation at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sentinel/monitor-analytics-rule-integrity#scheduled-rules states that when a scheduled rule fails, it is retried 5 more times on the same window (6 total attempts). It also provides this query to detect completely skipped windows: ```kql _SentinelHealth() | where SentinelResourceType == @"Analytics Rule" | where SentinelResourceKind == "Scheduled" | where Status != "Success" | extend startTime = tostring(ExtendedProperties["QueryStartTimeUTC"]) | summarize failuresByStartTime = count() by startTime, SentinelResourceId | where failuresByStartTime == 6 | summarize count() by SentinelResourceId ``` This query assumes that each retry attempt is logged as a separate event in SentinelHealth, all sharing the same QueryStartTimeUTC. You would then count 6 failure records per startTime to identify a fully skipped window. However, in practice I am seeing different behavior. I ran a diagnostic query with a 90-day lookback (480 non-success events total, 73 unique rules). Every single event had a count of 1 per unique (SentinelResourceName, startTime) combination. No grouping of retries was observed at all. I then found an actual failed-window event that confirms this. Here is the record: - Rule: Port scan detected (ASIM Network Session schema) - Status: Failure - Description: "Rule's scheduled run at 06/01/2026 10:43:55 failed after numerous attempts. It will be re-executed over the next scheduled time." - Issue Code: SemanticErrorInQuery - Only 1 SentinelHealth record exists for this failed window The Description field says "failed after numerous attempts" which indicates the retries happened internally, but only one consolidated Failure event was written to SentinelHealth after all retries were exhausted. The individual retry attempts do not appear as separate records. This means the failuresByStartTime == 6 query from the documentation would never match this pattern, because there is only 1 record per failed window, not 6. ## Why This Matters Yes, completely skipped windows are rare. In my 90-day dataset most failures were permanent types (SemanticErrorInQuery, QueryGeneralError) that would not benefit from retries anyway. But they still happen, and if a tenant experiences a transient issue that causes a higher rate of failed windows, the documented query would silently return nothing. For my health checks I have rewritten the detection to simply look for Status == "Failure" with Description containing "failed after numerous attempts" which matches the actual consolidated event Sentinel writes. ## Questions Is the documented failuresByStartTime == 6 query still accurate? Or has the retry logging behavior changed to write a single consolidated event per failed window? Are there specific failure types or conditions where individual retries are logged as separate events? Perhaps transient failures behave differently from permanent ones in this regard? For anyone else building health monitoring on SentinelHealth - am I missing any important use cases beyond what I described above? Any clarification would be appreciated.
