Identity Attack Graph in Microsoft Sentinel
Identity is now one of the most important attack surfaces in cloud security. In many real-world incidents, attackers do not rely only on malware or network movement. Instead, they abuse identities, permissions, role assignments, group memberships, service principals, and misconfigured access paths to move from an initial compromise to high-value resources. This is why the new Identity Attack Graph in Microsoft Sentinel is an important capability. It helps security teams visualize how identities are connected to Azure resources and how an attacker could potentially move from one identity to another resource through permissions and relationships. What is the Identity Attack Graph? The Identity Attack Graph in Microsoft Sentinel provides a visual way to understand how identities, permissions, groups, and Azure resources are connected. Instead of manually checking multiple portals, logs, and role assignments, the graph helps analysts understand relationships such as: Which identities have access to specific Azure resources Which users or service principals are over-privileged Which groups provide indirect access to sensitive resources Which identities may have a path to critical assets What the potential blast radius of a compromised identity could be How attackers could move laterally through identity and permission relationships This is especially useful because identity risk is often not obvious when looking at a single user, group, or role assignment in isolation. The real risk usually appears when these relationships are connected together. A user may not directly have access to a sensitive resource, but the user may be a member of a group that has access to another resource, which then has permissions that create a path toward a high-value asset. The Identity Attack Graph helps expose these hidden relationships. Why this matters In many Azure environments, permissions grow over time. Users change roles, groups are reused, emergency access is granted, service principals are created, and temporary permissions are not always removed. As a result, organizations often end up with: Too many privileged identities Unused or stale permissions Service principals with excessive access Guest users with unnecessary permissions Groups that provide indirect access to sensitive resources Subscription-level roles that are broader than required Lack of visibility into who can reach critical assets Traditional investigation usually requires analysts to move between several places, including Microsoft Entra ID, Azure RBAC, Azure Activity logs, Sentinel queries, Defender XDR, and Azure Resource Graph. The Identity Attack Graph reduces this complexity by presenting identity relationships as a connected graph. This makes it easier to answer practical security questions such as: “What can this identity access?” “What happens if this user is compromised?” “Which identities have a path to critical resources?” “Which access path should we remediate first?” “Which permissions create the highest risk?” “Why does this identity have access to this asset?” Key use cases The feature can support several important identity security and cloud security scenarios. 1. Attack path discovery Security teams can use the graph to identify how an attacker could move from a compromised identity to a sensitive Azure resource. This is useful during both proactive assessments and active incident response. For example, if a user account is suspected to be compromised, the graph can help identify which resources may be reachable through that identity’s direct or indirect permissions. 2. Blast-radius analysis When an identity is compromised, one of the first questions is: What could the attacker access with this identity? The Identity Attack Graph can help analysts understand the potential impact of a compromised user, group, service principal, or managed identity. This can help with containment, prioritization, and communication with stakeholders. 3. Over-privileged identity detection The graph can help identify identities that have more permissions than they need. Include: Users with Owner or Contributor access at subscription level Service principals with broad permissions Guest users with privileged access Groups that grant access to sensitive resources Identities that have access to multiple critical assets This is useful for enforcing least privilege and reducing identity attack surface. 4. Privileged access review IAM and cloud security teams can use the graph to support access reviews. Instead of only reviewing a list of role assignments, teams can understand the real impact of those permissions. This helps answer: Is this role assignment still required? Does this group create unnecessary risk? Does this identity have access to critical resources? Is this access direct or inherited? Is this path expected or suspicious? 5. Incident response and threat hunting For SOC teams, the graph can support investigations involving: Suspicious sign-ins Compromised users Privilege escalation Suspicious role assignments Lateral movement Service principal abuse Unusual access to sensitive resources The graph does not replace logs or hunting queries, but it gives analysts a faster way to understand relationships and prioritize what to investigate next. Important prerequisites and setup notes During my evaluation, there were a few important setup requirements that should be clearly highlighted. Microsoft Sentinel permissions The environment must already be onboarded to Microsoft Sentinel, and the user testing or configuring the feature must have the appropriate Microsoft Sentinel permissions. The documented role requirement includes Microsoft Sentinel Contributor. However, in my experience, this is not always enough for the full onboarding and validation experience. Subscription-level Owner permission One important prerequisite that should be clearly mentioned is that Owner permissions at the Azure subscription level may be required. This is especially important during onboarding and activation, because the graph depends on access to Azure resource and permission relationships. If the user does not have sufficient subscription-level permissions, some setup steps or visibility into resources and relationships may not work as expected. Recommended permission note: In addition to Microsoft Sentinel permissions, ensure that the user configuring the preview has Owner permissions at the subscription level for the subscriptions that should be represented in the graph. This should be made very clear in the onboarding documentation to avoid confusion during deployment. Required data connector: Azure Resource Graph Another very important setup step is the Azure Resource Graph data connector. The Azure Resource Graph connector must be: Installed manually Activated manually Connected to the relevant Sentinel workspace This is a key point. The connector is not automatically enabled just because the Identity Attack Graph feature is available. Without this connector, Sentinel may not have the required Azure resource relationship data needed to build a useful graph. Why Azure Resource Graph is important Azure Resource Graph provides visibility across Azure resources, subscriptions, and relationships. For an identity attack graph, this data is essential. The graph needs to understand not only identities, but also the resources those identities can reach. This may include: Subscriptions Resource groups Storage accounts Key Vaults Virtual machines Managed identities Role assignments Resource relationships Resource hierarchy Critical assets Without Azure Resource Graph data, the attack graph may not provide the full picture of how identities connect to Azure resources. For this reason, I believe the onboarding instructions should explicitly state: The Azure Resource Graph data connector must be manually installed and activated before using the Identity Attack Graph. Recommended onboarding checklist Before using the Identity Attack Graph, I would recommend validating the following: Requirement Recommendation Microsoft Sentinel workspace Ensure the workspace is active and accessible Sentinel role Microsoft Sentinel Contributor or equivalent access Subscription permissions Owner permissions at subscription level Azure Resource Graph connector Manually install and activate the connector Azure RBAC visibility Ensure access to relevant role assignments Microsoft Entra ID visibility Ensure identity and group data is available Resource visibility Validate that relevant subscriptions and resources are visible Data freshness Allow enough time for data collection and graph population This checklist can help avoid issues where the feature appears available but does not show the expected relationships. How the Identity Attack Graph improves investigation Before using a graph-based approach, an analyst often needs to manually collect and correlate data from multiple sources. A typical investigation may include: Checking the user in Microsoft Entra ID Reviewing group memberships Reviewing Azure RBAC assignments Checking subscription-level access Looking at resource-level permissions Reviewing PIM activations Searching Sentinel logs Running KQL queries Checking Azure Activity logs Validating access with cloud or IAM teams This process can be time-consuming. The Identity Attack Graph helps reduce this effort by showing relationships visually. This allows the analyst to understand the possible path faster and decide where to focus. For example, instead of manually asking: “Does this user have access to this resource through any group, role, or inherited permission?” The graph can help show the relationship directly. This is valuable because many risky permissions are indirect. The user may not have direct access, but may inherit access through a group, role assignment, nested relationship, or service principal path. Where validation is still needed Although the graph provides strong visibility, I would still validate findings before taking remediation action. This is especially important because removing access can affect business operations or production systems. I would still validate with: Microsoft Sentinel KQL queries Microsoft Entra sign-in logs Microsoft Entra audit logs Azure Activity logs Azure RBAC role assignments PIM activation history Defender XDR signals Defender for Cloud recommendations Azure Resource Graph queries IAM team input Cloud platform team input Application owner confirmation The graph is very useful for discovery and prioritization, but final remediation decisions should still be validated. GQL and graph-based investigation One of the interesting aspects of this feature is the use of graph-based thinking. Security teams are already familiar with query languages such as KQL for log analytics. However, graph investigation is different. KQL is excellent for searching and analyzing events over time, such as sign-ins, alerts, audit logs, and activity logs. Graph Query Language, or GQL, is designed for querying connected data. Instead of only asking what happened at a specific time, graph queries help answer how entities are connected. In identity security, this is very powerful because the risk often exists in the relationship between objects. Graph entities include: Users Groups Service principals Managed identities Roles Subscriptions Resource groups Azure resources Permissions Sessions Attack paths Graph relationships include: User is member of group Group has role assignment Identity has access to resource Service principal owns application Managed identity can access Key Vault User can escalate privilege Identity can reach critical asset This allows analysts to ask more relationship-focused questions, such as: Which identities can reach this resource? What is the shortest path from this user to a critical asset? Which groups create privileged access? Which service principals have paths to sensitive resources? Which identities have indirect access through nested relationships? Which attack paths include subscription Owner or Contributor permissions? KQL vs GQL: why both are useful KQL and GQL serve different but complementary purposes. Area KQL GQL / Graph Querying Main purpose Analyze logs and events Analyze relationships and paths Best for Time-based investigation Connected identity/resource investigation question “Did this user sign in from a risky location?” “What resources can this user reach?” Data model Tables Nodes and edges Common use Detection, hunting, analytics Attack path discovery, relationship mapping Strength Event correlation Path discovery In practice, security teams need both. KQL can identify a suspicious sign-in. The Identity Attack Graph can show what the compromised identity could access. KQL can then be used again to validate whether the attacker interacted with those resources. This creates a strong workflow between event-based detection and relationship-based investigation. Graph investigation scenarios The following are conceptual are the types of graph questions that would be useful in identity attack path analysis. Find paths from a user to critical resources A useful graph query would help answer: Show me all paths from this user to critical Azure resources. This could help determine whether a compromised identity has a direct or indirect route to sensitive assets. Find identities with paths to Key Vaults Key Vaults often contain secrets, certificates, and keys. A graph query could help identify: Which users, groups, service principals, or managed identities have a path to Key Vault resources? This would be useful for prioritizing access review and remediation. Find subscription-level privileged identities Subscription-level roles are high-impact because they can provide broad access. A graph query could help find: Which identities have Owner or Contributor access at subscription level? This is especially important because subscription-level permissions can create wide attack paths. Find indirect access through groups Many access paths are created through group membership. A graph query could help answer: Which users have access to this resource through group membership? This can help IAM teams clean up excessive or unnecessary group-based access. Find service principals with broad access Service principals are often used for automation and applications, but they can become high-risk if over-privileged. A useful query would identify: Which service principals have broad access to subscriptions or critical resources? This is important because service principal compromise can lead to significant impact. How GQL can improve analyst workflows Adding strong GQL support to the graph explorer would make the feature more powerful for advanced users. You could use graph queries to: Search for specific paths Filter by identity type Filter by role Filter by resource type Find shortest paths Find high-risk paths Exclude known approved paths Focus on critical assets Query only privileged relationships Identify unexpected permission chains This would help both SOC analysts and cloud security engineers move from visual exploration to repeatable analysis. A SOC analyst may want a quick visual graph during an incident, while a cloud security engineer
Microsoft Sentinel MCP Entity Analyzer: Explainable risk analysis for URLs and identities
What makes this release important is not just that it adds another AI feature to Sentinel. It changes the implementation model for enrichment and triage. Instead of building and maintaining a chain of custom playbooks, KQL lookups, threat intel checks, and entity correlation logic, SOC teams can call a single analyzer that returns a reasoned verdict and supporting evidence. Microsoft positions the analyzer as available through Sentinel MCP server connections for agent platforms and through Logic Apps for SOAR workflows, which makes it useful both for interactive investigations and for automated response pipelines. Why this matters First, it formalizes Entity Analyzer as a production feature rather than a preview experiment. Second, it introduces a real cost model, which means organizations now need to govern usage instead of treating it as a free enrichment helper. Third, Microsoft’s documentation is now detailed enough to support repeatable implementation patterns, including prerequisites, limits, required tables, Logic Apps deployment, and cost behavior. From a SOC engineering perspective, Entity Analyzer is interesting because it focuses on explainability. Microsoft describes the feature as generating clear, explainable verdicts for URLs and user identities by analyzing multiple modalities, including threat intelligence, prevalence, and organizational context. That is a much stronger operational model than simple point-enrichment because it aims to return an assessment that analysts can act on, not just more raw evidence What Entity Analyzer actually does The Entity Analyzer tools are described as AI-powered tools that analyze data in the Microsoft Sentinel data lake and provide a verdict plus detailed insights on URLs, domains, and user entities. Microsoft explicitly says these tools help eliminate the need for manual data collection and complex integrations usually required for investigation and enrichment hat positioning is important. In practice, many SOC teams have built enrichment playbooks that fetch sign-in history, query TI feeds, inspect click data, read watchlists, and collect relevant alerts. Those workflows work, but they create maintenance overhead and produce inconsistent analyst experiences. Entity Analyzer centralizes that reasoning layer. For user entities, Microsoft’s preview architecture explains that the analyzer retrieves sign-in logs, security alerts, behavior analytics, cloud app events, identity information, and Microsoft Threat Intelligence, then correlates those signals and applies AI-based reasoning to produce a verdict. Microsoft lists verdict examples such as Compromised, Suspicious activity found, and No evidence of compromise, and also warns that AI-generated content may be incorrect and should be checked for accuracy. That warning matters. The right way to think about Entity Analyzer is not “automatic truth,” but “high-value, explainable triage acceleration.” It should reduce analyst effort and improve consistency, while still fitting into human review and response policy. Under the hood: the implementation model Technically, Entity Analyzer is delivered through the Microsoft Sentinel MCP data exploration tool collection. Microsoft documents that entity analysis is asynchronous: you start analysis, receive an identifier, and then poll for results. The docs note that analysis may take a few minutes and that the retrieval step may need to be run more than once if the internal timeout is not enough for long operations. That design has two immediate implications for implementers. First, this is not a lightweight synchronous enrichment call you should drop carelessly into every automation branch. Second, any production workflow should include retry logic, timeouts, and concurrency controls. If you ignore that, you will create fragile playbooks and unnecessary SCU burn. The supported access path for the data exploration collection requires Microsoft Sentinel data lake and one of the supported MCP-capable platforms. Microsoft also states that access to the tools is supported for identities with at least Security Administrator, Security Operator, or Security Reader. The data exploration collection is hosted at the Sentinel MCP endpoint, and the same documentation notes additional Entity Analyzer roles related to Security Copilot usage. The prerequisite many teams will miss The most important prerequisite is easy to overlook: Microsoft Sentinel data lake is required. This is more than a licensing footnote. It directly affects data quality, analyzer usefulness, and rollout success. If your organization has not onboarded the right tables into the data lake, Entity Analyzer will either fail or return reduced-confidence output. For user analysis, the following tables are required to ensure accuracy: AlertEvidence, SigninLogs, CloudAppEvents, and IdentityInfo. also notes that IdentityInfo depends on Defender for Identity, Defender for Cloud Apps, or Defender for Endpoint P2 licensing. The analyzer works best with AADNonInteractiveUserSignInLogs and BehaviorAnalytics as well. For URL analysis, the analyzer works best with EmailUrlInfo, UrlClickEvents, ThreatIntelIndicators, Watchlist, and DeviceNetworkEvents. If those tables are missing, the analyzer returns a disclaimer identifying the missing sources A practical architecture view An incident, hunting workflow, or analyst identifies a high-interest URL or user. A Sentinel MCP client or Logic App calls Entity Analyzer. Entity Analyzer queries relevant Sentinel data lake sources and correlates the findings. AI reasoning produces a verdict, evidence narrative, and recommendations. The result is returned to the analyst, incident record, or automation workflow for next-step action. This model is especially valuable because it collapses a multi-query, multi-tool investigation pattern into a single explainable decisioning step. Where it fits in real Sentinel operations Entity Analyzer is not a replacement for analytics rules, UEBA, or threat intelligence. It is a force multiplier for them. For identity triage, it fits naturally after incidents triggered by sign-in anomaly detections, UEBA signals, or Defender alerts because it already consumes sign-in logs, cloud app events, and behavior analytics as core evidence sources. For URL triage, it complements phishing and click-investigation workflows because it uses TI, URL activity, watchlists, and device/network context. Implementation path 1: MCP clients and security agents Microsoft states that Entity Analyzer integrates with agents through Sentinel MCP server connections to first-party and third-party AI runtime platforms. In practice, this makes it attractive for analyst copilots, engineering-side investigation agents, and guided triage experiences The benefit of this model is speed. A security engineer or analyst can invoke the analyzer directly from an MCP-capable client without building a custom orchestration layer. The tradeoff is governance: once you make the tool widely accessible, you need a clear policy for who can run it, when it should be used, and how results are validated before action is taken. Implementation path 2: Logic Apps and SOAR playbooks For SOC teams, Logic Apps is likely the most immediately useful deployment model. Microsoft documents an entity analyzer action inside the Microsoft Sentinel MCP tools connector and provides the required parameters for adding it to an existing logic app. These include: Workspace ID Look Back Days Properties payload for either URL or User The documented payloads are straightforward: { "entityType": "Url", "url": "[URL]" } And { "entityType": "User", "userId": "[Microsoft Entra object ID or User Principal Name]" } Also states that the connector supports Microsoft Entra ID, service principals, and managed identities, and that the Logic App identity requires Security Reader to operate. This makes playbook integration a strong pattern for incident enrichment. A high-severity incident can trigger a playbook, extract entities, invoke Entity Analyzer, and post the verdict back to the incident as a comment or decision artifact. The concurrency lesson most people will learn the hard way Unusually direct guidance on concurrency: to avoid timeouts and threshold issues, turn on Concurrency control in Logic Apps loops and start with a degree of parallelism of . The data exploration doc repeats the same guidance, stating that running multiple instances at once can increase latency and recommending starting with a maximum of five concurrent analyses. This is a strong indicator that the correct implementation pattern is selective analysis, not blanket analysis. Do not analyze every entity in every incident. Analyze the entities that matter most: external URLs in phishing or delivery chains accounts tied to high-confidence alerts entities associated with high-severity or high-impact incidents suspicious users with multiple correlated signals That keeps latency, quota pressure, and SCU consumption under control. KQL still matters Entity Analyzer does not eliminate KQL. It changes where KQL adds value. Before running the analyzer, KQL is still useful for scoping and selecting the right entities. After the analyzer returns, KQL is useful for validation, deeper hunting, and building custom evidence views around the analyzer’s verdict. For example, a simple sign-in baseline for a target user: let TargetUpn = "email address removed for privacy reasons"; SigninLogs | where TimeGenerated between (ago(7d) .. now()) | where UserPrincipalName == TargetUpn | summarize Total=count(), Failures=countif(ResultType != "0"), Successes=countif(ResultType == "0"), DistinctIPs=dcount(IPAddress), Apps=make_set(AppDisplayName, 20) by bin(TimeGenerated, 1d) | order by TimeGenerated desc And a lightweight URL prevalence check: let TargetUrl = "omicron-obl.com"; UrlClickEvents | where TimeGenerated between (ago(7d) .. now()) | search TargetUrl | take 50 Cost, billing, and governance GA is where technical excitement meets budget reality. Microsoft’s Sentinel billing documentation says there is no extra cost for the MCP server interface itself. However, for Entity Analyzer, customers are charged for the SCUs used for AI reasoning and also for the KQL queries executed against the Microsoft Sentinel data lake. Microsoft further states that existing Security Copilot entitlements apply The April 2026 “What’s new” entry also explicitly says that starting April 1, 2026, customers are charged for the SCUs required when using Entity Analyzer. That means every rollout should include a governance plan: define who can invoke the analyzer decide when playbooks are allowed to call it monitor SCU consumption limit unnecessary repeat runs preserve results in incident records so you do not rerun the same analysis within a short period Microsoft’s MCP billing documentation also defines service limits: 200 total runs per hour, 500 total runs per day, and around 15 concurrent runs every five minutes, with analysis results available for one hour. Those are not just product limits. They are design requirements. Limitations you should state clearly The analyze_user_entity supports a maximum time window of seven days and only works for users with a Microsoft Entra object ID. On-premises Active Directory-only users are not supported for user analysis. Microsoft also says Entity Analyzer results expire after one hour and that the tool collection currently supports English prompts only. Recommended rollout pattern If I were implementing this in a production SOC, I would phase it like this: Start with a narrow set of high-value use cases, such as suspicious user identities and phishing-related URLs. Confirm that the required tables are present in the data lake. Deploy a Logic App enrichment pattern for incident-triggered analysis. Add concurrency control and retry logic. Persist returned verdicts into incident comments or case notes. Then review SCU usage and analyst value before expanding coverage.
Observed Automation Discrepancies
Hi Team ... I want to know the logic behind the Defender XDR Automation Engine . How it works ? I have observed Defender XDR Automation Engine Behavior contrary to expectations of identical incident and automation handling in both environments, discrepancies were observed. Specifically, incidents with high-severity alerts were automatically closed by Defender XDR's automation engine before reaching their SOC for review, raising concerns among clients and colleagues. Automation rules are clearly logged in the activity log, whereas actions performed by Microsoft Defender XDR are less transparent . A high-severity alert related to a phishing incident was closed by Defender XDR's automation, resulting in the associated incident being closed and removed from SOC review. Wherein the automation was not triggered by our own rules, but by Microsoft's Defender XDR, and sought clarification on the underlying logic.What’s New in Microsoft Sentinel and XDR: AI Automation, Data Lake Innovation, and Unified SecOps
The most consequential “new” Microsoft Sentinel / Defender XDR narrative for a deeply technical Microsoft Tech Community article is the operational and engineering shift to unified security operations in the Microsoft Defender portal, including an explicit Azure portal retirement/sunset timeline and concrete migration implications (data tiering, correlation engine changes, schema differences, and automation behavior changes). Official sources now align on March 31, 2027 as the sunset date for managing Microsoft Sentinel in the Azure portal, with customers being redirected to the Defender portal after that date. The “headline” feature announcements to anchor your article around (because they create new engineering patterns, not just UI changes) are: AI playbook generator (preview): Natural-language-driven authoring of Python playbooks in an embedded VS Code environment (Cline), using Integration Profiles for dynamic API calls and an Enhanced Alert Trigger for broader automation triggering across Microsoft Sentinel, Defender, and XDR alert sources. CCF Push (public preview): A push-based connector model built on the Azure Monitor Logs Ingestion API, where deploying via Content Hub can automate provisioning of the typical plumbing (DCR/DCE/app registration/RBAC), enabling near-real-time ingestion plus ingestion-time transformations and (per announcement) direct delivery into certain system tables. Data lake tier ingestion for Advanced Hunting tables (GA): Direct ingestion of specific Microsoft XDR Advanced Hunting tables into the Microsoft Sentinel data lake without requiring analytics-tier ingestion—explicitly positioned for long-retention, cost-effective storage and retrospective investigations at scale. Microsoft 365 Copilot data connector (public preview): Ingests Copilot-related audit/activity events via the Purview Unified Audit Log feed into a dedicated table (CopilotActivity) with explicit admin-role requirements and cost notes. Multi-tenant content distribution expansion: Adds support for distributing analytics rules, automation rules, workbooks, and built-in alert tuning rules across tenants via distribution profiles, with stated limitations (for example, automation rules that trigger a playbook cannot currently be distributed). Alert schema differences for “standalone vs XDR connector”: A must-cite engineering artifact documenting breaking/behavioral differences (CompromisedEntity semantics, field mapping changes, alert filtering differences) when moving to the consolidated Defender XDR connector path. What’s new and when Feature and release matrix The table below consolidates officially documented Sentinel and Defender XDR features that are relevant to a “new announcements” technical article. If a source does not explicitly state GA/preview or a specific date, it is marked “unspecified.” Feature Concise description Status (official) Announcement / release date Azure portal Sentinel retirement / redirection Sentinel management experience shifts to Defender portal; sunset date extended; post-sunset redirection expected Date explicitly stated Mar 31, 2027 sunset (date stated) extension published Jan 29, 2026 Sentinel in Defender portal (core GA) Sentinel is GA in Defender portal, including for customers without Defender XDR/E5; unified SecOps surface GA Doc updated Sep 30, 2025; retirement note reiterated 2026 AI playbook generator Natural language → Python playbook, documentation, and a visual flow diagram; VS Code + Cline experience Preview Feb 23, 2026 Integration Profiles (playbook generator) Centralized configuration objects (base URL, auth method, credentials) used by generated playbooks to call external APIs dynamically Preview feature component Feb 23, 2026 Enhanced Alert Trigger (generated playbooks) Tenant-level trigger designed to target alerts across Sentinel + Defender + XDR sources and apply granular conditions Preview feature component Feb 23, 2026 CCF Push Push-based ingestion model that reduces setup friction (DCR/DCE/app reg/RBAC), built on Logs Ingestion API; supports transformations and high-throughput ingestion Public preview Feb 12–13, 2026 Legacy custom data collection API retirement Retirement of legacy custom data collection API noted as part of connector modernization Retirement date stated Sep 2026 (retirement) Data lake tier ingestion for Microsoft XDR Advanced Hunting tables Ingest selected Advanced Hunting tables from MDE/MDO/MDA directly into Sentinel data lake; supports long retention and lake-first analytics GA Feb 10, 2026 Microsoft 365 Copilot data connector Ingests Copilot activities/audit logs; data lands in CopilotActivity; requires specific tenant roles to enable; costs apply Public preview Feb 3, 2026 Multi-tenant content distribution: expanded content types Adds support for analytics rules, automation rules, workbooks, and built-in alert tuning rules; includes limitations and prerequisites Stated as “supported”; feature described as part of public preview experience in monthly update Jan 29, 2026 GKE dedicated connector Dedicated connector built on CCF; ingests GKE cluster activity/workload/security events into GKEAudit; supports DCR transformations and lake-only ingestion GA Mar 4, 2026 UEBA behaviors layer “Who did what to whom” behavior abstraction from raw logs; newer sources state GA; other page sections still label Preview GA and Preview labels appear in official sources (inconsistent) Feb 2026 (GA statement) UEBA widget in Defender portal home Home-page widget to surface anomalous user behavior and accelerate workflows Preview Jan 2026 Alert schema differences: standalone vs XDR connector Documents field mapping differences, CompromisedEntity behavior changes, and alert filtering/scoping differences Doc (behavioral/change reference) Feb 4, 2026 (last updated) Defender incident investigation: Blast radius analysis Graph visualization built on Sentinel data lake + graph for propagation path analysis Preview (per Defender XDR release notes) Sep 2025 (release notes section) Advanced hunting: Hunting graph Graph rendering of predefined threat scenarios in advanced hunting Preview (per Defender XDR release notes) Sep 2025 (release notes section) Sentinel repositories API version retirement “Call to action” to update API versions: older versions retired June 1, 2026; enforcement June 15, 2026 for actions Dates explicitly stated March 2026 (noticed); Jun 1 / Jun 15, 2026 (deadline/enforcement) Technical architecture and integrations Unified reference architecture Microsoft’s official integration documentation describes two “centers of gravity” depending on how you operate: In Defender portal mode, Sentinel data is ingested alongside organizational data into the Defender portal, enabling SOC teams to analyze and respond from a unified surface. In Azure portal mode, Defender XDR incidents/alerts flow via Sentinel connectors and analysts work across both experiences. Integration model: Defender suite and third-party security tools The Defender XDR integration doc is explicit about: Supported Defender components whose alerts appear through the integration (Defender for Endpoint, Identity, Office 365, Cloud Apps), plus other services such as Purview DLP and Entra ID Protection. Behavior when onboarding Sentinel to the Defender portal with Defender XDR licensing: the Defender XDR connector is automatically set up and component alert-provider connectors are disconnected. Expected latency: Defender XDR incidents typically appear in Sentinel UI/API within ~5 minutes, with additional lag before securityIncident ingestion is complete. Cost model: Defender XDR alerts and incidents that populate SecurityAlert / SecurityIncident are synchronized at no charge, while other data types (for example, Advanced Hunting tables) are charged. For third-party tools, Microsoft’s monthly “What’s new” explicitly calls out new GA out-of-the-box connectors/solutions (examples include Mimecast audit logs, Vectra AI XDR, and Proofpoint POD email security) as part of an expanding connector ecosystem intended to unify visibility across cloud, SaaS, and on-premises environments. Telemetry, schemas, analytics, automation, and APIs Data flows and ingestion engineering CCF Push and the “push connector” ingestion path Microsoft’s CCF Push announcement frames the “old” model as predominantly polling-based (Sentinel periodically fetching from partner/customer APIs) and introduces push-based connectors where partners/customers send data directly to a Sentinel workspace, emphasizing that “Deploy” can auto-provision the typical prerequisites: DCE, DCR, Entra app registration + secrets, and RBAC assignments. Microsoft also states that CCF Push is built on the Logs Ingestion API, with benefits including throughput, ingestion-time transformation, and system-table targeting. A precise engineering description of the underlying Logs Ingestion API components (useful for your article even if your readers never build a connector) is documented in Azure Monitor: Sender app authenticates via an app registration that has access to a DCR. Sender sends JSON matching the DCR’s expected structure to a DCR endpoint or a DCE (DCE required for Private Link scenarios). The DCR can apply a transformation to map/filter/enrich before writing to the target table. DCR transformation (KQL) Microsoft documents “transformations in Azure Monitor” and provides concrete sample KQL snippets for common needs such as cost reduction and enrichment. // Keep only Critical events source | where severity == "Critical" // Drop a noisy/unneeded column source | project-away RawData // Enrich with a simple internal/external IP classification (example) source | extend IpLocation = iff(split(ClientIp,".")[0] in ("10","192"), "Internal", "External") These are direct examples from Microsoft’s sample transformations guidance; they are especially relevant because ingestion-time filtering is one of the primary levers for both performance and cost management in Sentinel pipelines. A Sentinel-specific nuance: Microsoft states that Sentinel-enabled Log Analytics workspaces are not subject to Azure Monitor’s filtering ingestion charge, regardless of how much data a transformation filters (while other Azure Monitor transformation cost rules still exist in general). Telemetry schemas and key tables you should call out A “new announcements” article aimed at detection engineers should explicitly name the tables that are impacted by new features: Copilot connector → CopilotActivity table, with a published list of record types (for example, CopilotInteraction and related plugin/workspace/prompt-book operations) and explicit role requirements to enable (Global Administrator or Security Administrator). Defender XDR incident/alert sync → SecurityAlert and SecurityIncident populated at no charge; other Defender data types (Advanced Hunting event tables such as DeviceInfo/EmailEvents) are charged. Sentinel onboarding to Defender advanced hunting: Sentinel alerts tied to incidents are ingested into AlertInfo and accessible in Advanced hunting; SecurityAlert is queryable even if not shown in the schema list in Defender (notable for KQL portability). UEBA “core” tables (engineering relevance: query joins and tuning): IdentityInfo, BehaviorAnalytics, UserPeerAnalytics, Anomalies. UEBA behaviors layer tables (new behavior abstraction): SentinelBehaviorInfo and SentinelBehaviorEntities, created only if behaviors layer is enabled. Microsoft XDR Advanced Hunting lake tier ingestion GA: explicit supported tables from MDE/MDO/MDA (for example DeviceProcessEvents, DeviceNetworkEvents, EmailEvents, UrlClickEvents, CloudAppEvents) and an explicit note that MDI support will follow. Detection and analytics: UEBA and graph UEBA operating model and scoring Microsoft’s UEBA documentation gives you citeable technical detail: UEBA uses machine learning to build behavioral profiles and detect anomalies versus baselines, incorporating peer group analysis and “blast radius evaluation” concepts. Risk scoring is described with two different scoring models: BehaviorAnalytics.InvestigationPriority (0–10) vs Anomalies.AnomalyScore (0–1), with different processing characteristics (near-real-time/event-level vs batch/behavior-level). UEBA Essentials is positioned as a maintained pack of prebuilt queries (including multi-cloud anomaly detection), and Microsoft’s February 2026 update adds detail about expanded anomaly detection across Azure/AWS/GCP/Okta and the anomalies-table-powered queries. Sentinel data lake and graph as the new “analytics substrate” Microsoft’s data lake overview frames a two-tier model: Analytics tier: high-performance, real-time analytics supporting alerting/incident management. Data lake tier: centralized long-term storage for querying and Python-based analytics, designed for retention up to 12 years, with “single-copy” mirroring (data in analytics tier mirrored to lake tier). Microsoft’s graph documentation states that if you already have Sentinel data lake, the required graph is auto-provisioned when you sign into the Defender portal, enabling experiences like hunting graph and blast radius. Microsoft also notes that while the experiences are included in existing licensing, enabling data sources can incur ingestion/processing/storage costs. Automation: AI playbook generator details that matter technically The playbook generator doc contains unusually concrete engineering constraints and required setup. Key technical points to carry into your article: Prerequisites: Security Copilot must be enabled with SCUs available (Microsoft states SCUs aren’t billed for playbook generation but are required), and the Sentinel workspace must be onboarded to Defender. Roles: Sentinel Contributor is required for authoring Automation Rules, and a Detection tuning role in Entra is required to use the generator; permissions may take up to two hours to take effect. Integration Profiles: explicitly defined as Base URL + auth method + required credentials; cannot change API URL/auth method after creation; supports multiple auth methods including OAuth2 client credentials, API key, AWS auth, Bearer/JWT, etc. Enhanced Alert Trigger: designed for broader coverage across Sentinel, Defender, and XDR alerts and tenant-level automation consistency. Limitations: Python only, alerts as the sole input type, no external libraries, max 100 playbooks/tenant, 10-minute runtime, line limits, and separation of enhanced trigger rules from standard alert trigger rules (no automatic migration). APIs and code/CLI (official) Create/update a DCR with Azure CLI (official) Microsoft documents an az monitor data-collection rule create workflow to create/update a DCR from a JSON file, which is directly relevant if your readers build their own “push ingestion” paths outside of CCF Push or need transformations not supported via a guided connector UI. az monitor data-collection rule create \ --location 'eastus' \ --resource-group 'my-resource-group' \ --name 'my-dcr' \ --rule-file 'C:\MyNewDCR.json' \ --description 'This is my new DCR' Send logs via Azure Monitor Ingestion client (Python) (official) Microsoft’s Azure SDK documentation provides a straightforward LogsIngestionClient pattern (and the repo samples document the required environment variables such as DCE, rule immutable ID, and stream name). import os from azure.identity import DefaultAzureCredential from azure.monitor.ingestion import LogsIngestionClient endpoint = os.environ["DATA_COLLECTION_ENDPOINT"] rule_id = os.environ["LOGS_DCR_RULE_ID"] # DCR immutable ID stream_name = os.environ["LOGS_DCR_STREAM_NAME"] # stream name in DCR credential = DefaultAzureCredential() client = LogsIngestionClient(endpoint=endpoint, credential=credential) body = [ {"Time": "2026-03-18T00:00:00Z", "Computer": "host1", "AdditionalContext": "example"} ] # Actual upload method name/details depend on SDK version and sample specifics. # Refer to official ingestion samples and README for the exact call. The repo sample and README explicitly define the environment variables and the use of LogsIngestionClient + DefaultAzureCredential. Sentinel repositories API version retirement (engineering risk) Microsoft’s Sentinel release notes contain an explicit “call to action” that older REST API versions used for Sentinel Repositories will be retired (June 1, 2026) and that Source Control actions using older versions will stop being supported (starting June 15, 2026), recommending migration to specific versions. This is critical for “content-as-code” SOC engineering pipelines. Migration and implementation guidance Prerequisites and planning gates A technically rigorous migration section should treat this as a set of gating checks. Microsoft’s transition guidance highlights several that can materially block or change behavior: Portal transition has no extra cost: Microsoft explicitly states transitioning to the Defender portal has no extra cost (billing remains Sentinel consumption). Data storage and privacy policies change: after onboarding, Defender XDR policies apply even when working with Sentinel data (data retention/sharing differences). Customer-managed keys constraint for data lake: CMK is not supported for data stored in Sentinel data lake; even broader, Sentinel data lake onboarding doc warns that CMK-enabled workspaces aren’t accessible via data lake experiences and that data ingested into the lake is encrypted with Microsoft-managed keys. Region and data residency implications: data lake is provisioned in the primary workspace’s region and onboarding may require consent to ingest Microsoft 365 data into that region if it differs. Data appearance lag when switching tiers: enabling ingestion for the first time or switching between tiers can take 90–120 minutes for data to appear in tables. Step-by-step configuration tasks for the most “new” capabilities Enable lake-tier ingestion for Advanced Hunting tables (GA) Microsoft’s GA announcement provides direct UI steps in the Defender portal: Defender portal → Microsoft Sentinel → Configuration → Tables Select an Advanced Hunting table (from the supported list) Data Retention Settings → choose “Data lake tier” + set retention + save Microsoft states that this allows Defender data to remain accessible in the Advanced Hunting table for 30 days while a copy is sent to Sentinel data lake for long-term retention (up to 12 years) and graph/MCP-related scenarios. Deploy the Microsoft 365 Copilot data connector (public preview) Microsoft’s connector post provides the operational steps and requirements: Install via Content Hub in the Defender portal (search “Copilot”, install solution, open connector page). Enablement requires tenant-level Global Administrator or Security Administrator roles. Data lands in CopilotActivity. Ingestion costs apply based on Sentinel workspace settings or Sentinel data lake tier pricing. Configure multi-tenant content distribution (expanded content types) Microsoft documents: Navigate to “Content Distribution” in Defender multi-tenant management portal. Create/select a distribution profile; choose content types; select content; choose up to 100 workspaces per tenant; save and monitor sync results. Limitations: automation rules that trigger a playbook cannot currently be distributed; alert tuning rules limited to built-in rules (for now). Prerequisites: access to more than one tenant via delegated access; subscription to Microsoft 365 E5 or Office E5. Prepare for Defender XDR connector–driven changes Microsoft explicitly warns that incident creation rules are turned off for Defender XDR–integrated products to avoid duplicates and suggests compensating controls using Defender portal alert tuning or automation rules. It also warns that incident titles will be governed by Defender XDR correlation and recommends avoiding “incident name” conditions in automation rules (tags recommended). Common pitfalls and “what breaks” A strong engineering article should include a “what breaks” section, grounded in Microsoft’s own lists: Schema and field semantics drift: The “standalone vs XDR connector” schema differences doc calls out CompromisedEntity behavior differences, field mapping changes, and alert filtering differences (for example, Defender for Cloud informational alerts not ingested; Entra ID below High not ingested by default). Automation delays and unsupported actions post-onboarding: Transition guidance states automation rules might run up to 10 minutes after alert/incident changes due to forwarding, and that some playbook actions (like adding/removing alerts from incidents) are not supported after onboarding—breaking certain playbook patterns. Incident synchronization boundaries: incidents created in Sentinel via API/Logic App playbook/manual Azure portal aren’t synchronized to Defender portal (per transition doc). Advanced hunting differences after data lake enablement: auxiliary log tables are no longer available in Defender Advanced hunting once data lake is enabled; they must be accessed via data lake exploration KQL experiences. CI/CD failures from API retirement: repository connection create/manage tooling that calls older API versions must migrate by June 1, 2026 to avoid action failures. Performance and cost considerations Microsoft’s cost model is now best explained using tiering and retention: Sentinel data lake tier is designed for cost-effective long retention up to 12 years, with analytics-tier data mirrored to the lake tier as a single copy. For Defender XDR threat hunting data, Microsoft states it is available in analytics tier for 30 days by default; retaining beyond that and moving beyond free windows drives ingestion and/or storage costs depending on whether you extend analytics retention or store longer in lake tier. Ingesting data directly to data lake tier incurs ingestion, storage, and processing costs; retaining in lake beyond analytics retention incurs storage costs. Ingestion-time transformations are a first-class cost lever, and Microsoft explicitly frames filtering as a way to reduce ingestion costs in Log Analytics. Sample deployment checklist Phase Task Acceptance criteria (engineering) Governance Confirm target portal strategy and dates Internal cutover plan aligns with March 31, 2027 retirement; CI/CD deadlines tracked Identity/RBAC Validate roles for onboarding + automation Required Entra roles + Sentinel roles assigned; propagation delays accounted for Data lake readiness Decide whether to onboard to Sentinel data lake CMK policy alignment confirmed; billing subscription owner identified; region implications reviewed Defender XDR integration Choose integration mode and test incident sync Incidents visible within expected latency; bi-directional sync fields behave as expected Schema regression Validate queries/rules against XDR connector schema KQL regression tests pass; CompromisedEntity and filtering changes handled Connector modernization Inventory connectors; plan CCF / CCF Push transitions Function-based connectors migration plan; legacy custom data collection API retirement addressed Automation Pilot AI playbook generator + enhanced triggers Integration Profiles created; generated playbooks reviewed; enhanced trigger scopes correct Multi-tenant operations Configure content distribution if needed Distribution profiles sync reliably; limitations documented; rollback/override plan exists Outage-proofing Update Sentinel repos tooling for API retirement All source-control actions use recommended API versions before June 1, 2026 Use cases and customer impact Detection and response scenarios that map to the new announcements Copilot governance and misuse detection The Copilot connector’s published record types enable detections for scenarios such as unauthorized plugin/workspace/prompt-book operations and anomalous Copilot interactions. Data is explicitly positioned for analytic rules, workbooks, automation, and threat hunting within Sentinel and Sentinel data lake. Long-retention hunting on high-volume Defender telemetry (lake-first approach) Lake-tier ingestion for Advanced Hunting tables (GA) is explicitly framed around scale, cost containment, and retrospective investigations beyond “near-real-time” windows, while keeping 30-day availability in the Advanced Hunting tables themselves. Faster automation authoring and customization (SOAR engineering productivity) Microsoft positions the playbook generator as eliminating rigid templates and enabling dynamic API calls across Microsoft and third-party tools via Integration Profiles, with preview-customer feedback claiming faster automation development (vendor-stated). Multi-tenant SOC standardization (MSSP / large enterprise) Multi-tenant content distribution is explicitly designed to replicate detections, automation, and dashboards across tenants, reducing drift and accelerating onboarding, while keeping execution local to target tenants. Measurable benefit dimensions (how to discuss rigorously) Most Microsoft sources in this announcement set are descriptive (not benchmark studies). A rigorous article should therefore describe what you can measure, and label any numeric claims as vendor-stated. Recommended measurable dimensions grounded in the features as documented: Time-to-detect / time-to-ingest: CCF Push is positioned as real-time, event-driven delivery vs polling-based ingestion. Time-to-triage / time-to-investigate: UEBA layers (Anomalies + Behaviors) are designed to summarize and prioritize activity, with explicit scoring models and tables for query enrichment. Incident queue pressure: Defender XDR grouping/enrichment is explicitly described as reducing SOC queue size and time to resolve. Cost-per-retained-GB and query cost: tiering rules and retention windows define cost tradeoffs; ingestion-time transformations reduce cost by dropping unneeded rows/columns. Vendor-stated metrics: Microsoft’s March 2026 “What’s new” roundup references an external buyer’s guide and reports “44% reduction in total cost of ownership” and “93% faster deployment times” as outcomes for organizations using Sentinel (treat as vendor marketing unless corroborated by an independent study in your environment). Comparison of old vs new Microsoft capabilities and competitor XDR positioning Old vs new (Microsoft) Capability “Older” operating model (common patterns implied by docs) “New” model emphasized in announcements/release notes Primary SOC console Split experience (Azure portal Sentinel + Defender portal XDR) Defender portal as the primary unified SecOps surface; Azure portal sunset Incident correlation engine Sentinel correlation features (e.g., Fusion in Azure portal) Defender XDR correlation engine replaces Fusion for incident creation after onboarding; incident provider always “Microsoft XDR” in Defender portal mode Automation authoring Logic Apps playbooks + automation rules Adds AI playbook generator (Python) + Enhanced Alert Trigger, with explicit constraints/limits Custom ingestion Data Collector API legacy patterns + manual DCR/DCE plumbing CCF Push built on Logs Ingestion API; emphasizes automated provisioning and transformation support Long retention Primarily analytics-tier retention strategies Data lake tier supports up to 12 years; lake-tier ingestion for AH tables GA; explicit tier/cost model Graph-driven investigations Basic incident graphs Blast radius analysis + hunting graph experiences built on Sentinel data lake + graph Competitor XDR offerings (high-level, vendor pages) The table below is intentionally “high-level” and marks details as unspecified unless explicitly stated on the cited vendor pages. Vendor Positioning claims (from official vendor pages) Notes / unspecified items CrowdStrike Falcon Insight XDR is positioned as “AI-native XDR” for “endpoint and beyond,” emphasizing detection/response and threat intelligence. Data lake architecture, ingestion transformation model, and multi-tenant content distribution specifics are unspecified in cited sources. Palo Alto Networks Cortex XDR is positioned as integrated endpoint security with AI-driven operations and broader visibility; vendor site highlights outcome metrics in customer stories and “AI-driven endpoint security.” Lake/graph primitives, connector framework model, and schema parity details are unspecified in cited sources. SentinelOne Singularity XDR is positioned as AI-powered response with automated workflows across the environment; emphasizes machine-speed incident response. Specific SIEM-style retention tiering and documented ingestion-time transformations are unspecified in cited sources.Endpoint and EDR Ecosystem Connectors in Microsoft Sentinel
Most SOCs operate in mixed endpoint environments. Even if Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is your primary EDR, you may still run Cisco Secure Endpoint, WithSecure Elements, Knox, or Lookout in specific regions, subsidiaries, mobile fleets, or regulatory enclaves. The goal is not to replace any tool, but to standardize how signals become detections and response actions. This article explains an engineering-first approach: ingestion correctness, schema normalization, entity mapping, incident merging, and cross-platform response orchestration. Think of these connectors as four different lenses on endpoint risk. Two provide classic EDR detections (Cisco, WithSecure). Two provide mobile security and posture signals (Knox, Lookout). The highest-fidelity outcomes come from correlating them with Microsoft signals (Defender for Endpoint device telemetry, Entra ID sign-ins, and threat intelligence). Cisco Secure Endpoint Typical signal types include malware detections, exploit prevention events, retrospective detections, device isolation actions, and file/trajectory context. Cisco telemetry is often hash-centric (SHA256, file reputation) which makes it excellent for IOC matching and cross-EDR correlation. WithSecure Elements WithSecure Elements tends to provide strong behavioral detections and ransomware heuristics, often including process ancestry and behavioral classification. It complements hash-based detections by providing behavior and incident context that can be joined to Defender process events. Samsung Knox Asset Intelligence Knox is posture-heavy. Typical signals include compliance state, encryption status, root/jailbreak indicators, patch level, device model identifiers and policy violations. This data is extremely useful for identity correlation: it helps answer whether a successful sign-in came from a device that should be trusted. Lookout Mobile Threat Defense Lookout focuses on mobile threats such as malicious apps, phishing, risky networks (MITM), device compromise indicators, and risk scores. Lookout signals are critical for identity attack chains because mobile phishing is often the precursor to token theft or credential reuse. 2. Ingestion architecture: from vendor API to Sentinel tables Most third‑party connectors are API-based. In production, treat ingestion as a pipeline with reliability requirements. The standard pattern is vendor API → connector runtime (codeless connector or Azure Function) → DCE → DCR transform → Log Analytics table. Key engineering controls: Secrets and tokens should be stored in Azure Key Vault where supported; rotate and monitor auth failures. Use overlap windows (poll slightly more than the schedule interval) and deduplicate by stable event IDs. Use DCR transforms to normalize fields early (device/user/IP/severity) and to filter obviously low-value noise. Monitor connector health and ingestion lag; do not rely on ‘Connected’ status alone. Ingestion health checks (KQL) // Freshness & lag per connector table (adapt table names to your workspace) let lookback = 24h union isfuzzy=true (<CiscoTable> | extend Source="Cisco"), (<WithSecureTable> | extend Source="WithSecure"), (<KnoxTable> | extend Source="Knox"), (<LookoutTable> | extend Source="Lookout") | where TimeGenerated > ago(lookback) | summarize LastEvent=max(TimeGenerated), Events=count() by Source | extend IngestDelayMin = datetime_diff("minute", now(), LastEvent) | order by IngestDelayMin desc // Schema discovery (run after onboarding and after connector updates) Cisco | take 1 | getschema WithSecureTable | take 1 | getschema Knox | take 1 | getschema Lookout | take 1 | getschema 3. Normalization: make detections vendor-agnostic The most common failure mode in multi-EDR SOCs is writing separate rules per vendor. Instead, build one normalization function that outputs a stable schema. Then write rules once. Recommended canonical fields: Vendor, AlertId, EventTime, SeverityNormalized DeviceName (canonical), AccountUpn (canonical), SourceIP FileHash (when applicable), ThreatName/Category CorrelationKey (stable join key such as DeviceName + FileHash or DeviceName + AlertId) // Example NormalizeEndpoint() pattern. Replace column_ifexists(...) mappings after getschema(). let NormalizeEndpoint = () { union isfuzzy=true ( Cisco | extend Vendor="Cisco" | extend DeviceName=tostring(column_ifexists("hostname","")), AccountUpn=tostring(column_ifexists("user","")), SourceIP=tostring(column_ifexists("ip","")), FileHash=tostring(column_ifexists("sha256","")), ThreatName=tostring(column_ifexists("threat_name","")), SeverityNormalized=tolower(tostring(column_ifexists("severity",""))) ), ( WithSecure | extend Vendor="WithSecure" | extend DeviceName=tostring(column_ifexists("hostname","")), AccountUpn=tostring(column_ifexists("user","")), SourceIP=tostring(column_ifexists("ip","")), FileHash=tostring(column_ifexists("file_hash","")), ThreatName=tostring(column_ifexists("classification","")), SeverityNormalized=tolower(tostring(column_ifexists("risk_level",""))) ), ( Knox | extend Vendor="Knox" | extend DeviceName=tostring(column_ifexists("device_id","")), AccountUpn=tostring(column_ifexists("user","")), SourceIP="", FileHash="", ThreatName=strcat("Device posture: ", tostring(column_ifexists("compliance_state",""))), SeverityNormalized=tolower(tostring(column_ifexists("risk",""))) ), ( Lookout | extend Vendor="Lookout" | extend DeviceName=tostring(column_ifexists("device_id","")), AccountUpn=tostring(column_ifexists("user","")), SourceIP=tostring(column_ifexists("source_ip","")), FileHash="", ThreatName=tostring(column_ifexists("threat_type","")), SeverityNormalized=tolower(tostring(column_ifexists("risk_level",""))) ) | extend CorrelationKey = iff(isnotempty(FileHash), strcat(DeviceName, "|", FileHash), strcat(DeviceName, "|", ThreatName)) | project TimeGenerated, Vendor, DeviceName, AccountUpn, SourceIP, FileHash, ThreatName, SeverityNormalized, CorrelationKey, * } 4. Entity mapping and incident merging Sentinel’s incident experience improves dramatically when alerts include entity mapping. Map Host, Account, IP, and File (hash) where possible. Incident grouping should merge alerts by DeviceName and AccountUpn within a reasonable window (e.g., 6–24 hours) to avoid alert storms. 5. Correlation patterns that raise confidence High-confidence detections come from confirmation across independent sensors. These patterns reduce false positives while catching real compromise chains. 5.1 Multi-vendor confirmation (two EDRs agree) NormalizeEndpoint() | where TimeGenerated > ago(24h) | summarize Vendors=dcount(Vendor), VendorSet=make_set(Vendor, 10) by DeviceName | where Vendors >= 2 5.2 Third-party detection confirmed by Defender process telemetry let tp = NormalizeEndpoint() | where TimeGenerated > ago(6h) | where ThreatName has_any ("powershell","ransom","credential","exploit") | project TPTime=TimeGenerated, DeviceName, AccountUpn, Vendor, ThreatName tp | join kind=inner ( DeviceProcessEvents | where Timestamp > ago(6h) | where ProcessCommandLine has_any ("EncodedCommand","IEX","FromBase64String","rundll32","regsvr32") | project MDETime=Timestamp, DeviceName=tostring(DeviceName), Proc=ProcessCommandLine ) on DeviceName | where MDETime between (TPTime .. TPTime + 30m) | project TPTime, MDETime, DeviceName, Vendor, ThreatName, Proc 5.3 Mobile phishing signal followed by successful sign-in let mobile = NormalizeEndpoint() | where TimeGenerated > ago(24h) | where Vendor == "Lookout" and ThreatName has "phish" | project MTDTime=TimeGenerated, AccountUpn, DeviceName, SourceIP mobile | join kind=inner ( SigninLogs | where TimeGenerated > ago(24h) | where ResultType == 0 | project SigninTime=TimeGenerated, AccountUpn=tostring(UserPrincipalName), IPAddress, AppDisplayName ) on AccountUpn | where SigninTime between (MTDTime .. MTDTime + 30m) | project MTDTime, SigninTime, AccountUpn, DeviceName, SourceIP, IPAddress, AppDisplayName 5.4 Knox posture and high-risk sign-in let noncompliant = NormalizeEndpoint() | where TimeGenerated > ago(7d) | where Vendor=="Knox" and ThreatName has "NonCompliant" | project DeviceName, AccountUpn, KnoxTime=TimeGenerated noncompliant | join kind=inner ( SigninLogs | where TimeGenerated > ago(7d) | where RiskLevelDuringSignIn in ("high","medium") | project SigninTime=TimeGenerated, AccountUpn=tostring(UserPrincipalName), RiskLevelDuringSignIn, IPAddress ) on AccountUpn | where SigninTime between (KnoxTime .. KnoxTime + 2h) | project KnoxTime, SigninTime, AccountUpn, DeviceName, RiskLevelDuringSignIn, IPAddress 6. Response orchestration (SOAR) design Response should be consistent across vendors. Use a scoring model to decide whether to isolate a device, revoke tokens, or enforce Conditional Access. Prefer reversible actions, and log every automation step for audit. 6.1 Risk scoring to gate playbooks let SevScore = (s:string) { case(s=="critical",5,s=="high",4,s=="medium",2,1) } NormalizeEndpoint() | where TimeGenerated > ago(24h) | extend Score = SevScore(SeverityNormalized) | summarize RiskScore=sum(Score), Alerts=count(), Vendors=make_set(Vendor, 10) by DeviceName, AccountUpn | where RiskScore >= 8 | order by RiskScore desc High-severity playbooks typically execute: (1) isolate device via Defender (if onboarded), (2) revoke tokens in Entra ID, (3) trigger Conditional Access block, (4) notify and open ITSM ticket. Medium-severity playbooks usually tag the incident, add watchlist entries, and notify analysts.SAP & Business-Critical App Security Connectors
I validated what it takes to make SAP and SAP-adjacent security signals operational in a SOC: reliable ingestion, stable schemas, and detections that survive latency and schema drift. I focus on four integrations into Microsoft Sentinel: SAP Enterprise Threat Detection (ETD) cloud edition (SAPETDAlerts_CL, SAPETDInvestigations_CL), SAP S/4HANA Cloud Public Edition agentless audit ingestion (ABAPAuditLog), Onapsis Defend (Onapsis_Defend_CL), and SecurityBridge (also ABAPAuditLog). Because vendor API specifics for ETD Retrieval API / Audit Retrieval API aren’t publicly detailed in the accessible primary sources I could retrieve, I explicitly label pagination/rate/time-window behaviors as unspecified where appropriate. Connector architectures and deployment patterns For SAP-centric telemetry I separate two planes: First is SAP application telemetry that lands in SAP-native tables, especially ABAPAuditLog, ABAPChangeDocsLog, ABAPUserDetails, and ABAPAuthorizationDetails. These tables are the foundation for ABAP-layer monitoring and are documented with typed columns in Azure Monitor Logs reference. Second is external “security product” telemetry (ETD alerts, Onapsis findings). These land in custom tables (*_CL) and typically require a SOC-owned normalization layer to avoid brittle detections. Within Microsoft’s SAP solution itself, there are two deployment models: agentless and containerized connector agent. The agentless connector uses SAP Cloud Connector and SAP Integration Suite to pull logs, and Microsoft documents it as the recommended approach; the containerized agent is being deprecated and disabled on September 14, 2026. On the “implementation technology” axis, Sentinel integrations generally show up as: - Codeless Connector Framework (CCF) pollers/pushers (SaaS-managed ingestion definitions with DCR support). - Function/Logic App custom pipelines using the Logs Ingestion API when you need custom polling, enrichment, or a vendor endpoint that isn’t modeled in CCF. In my view, ETD and S/4HANA Cloud connectors are “agentless” from the Sentinel side (API credentials only), while Onapsis Defend and SecurityBridge connectors behave like push pipelines because Microsoft requires an Entra app + DCR permissions (typical Logs Ingestion API pattern). Authentication and secrets handling Microsoft documents the required credentials per connector: - ETD cloud connector requires Client Id + Client Secret for ETD Retrieval API (token mechanics unspecified). - S/4HANA Cloud Public Edition connector requires Client Id + Client Secret for Audit Retrieval API (token mechanics unspecified), and Microsoft notes “alternative authentication mechanisms” exist (details in linked repo are unspecified in accessible sources). - Onapsis Defend and SecurityBridge connectors require a Microsoft Entra ID app registration and Azure permission to assign Monitoring Metrics Publisher on DCRs. This maps directly to the Logs Ingestion API guidance, where a service principal is granted DCR access via that role (or the Microsoft.Insights/Telemetry/Write data action). For production, I treat these as “SOC platform secrets”: - Store client secrets/certificates in Key Vault when you own the pipeline (Function/Logic App); rotate on an operational schedule; alert on auth failures and sudden ingestion drops. - For vendor-managed ingestion (Onapsis/SecurityBridge), I still require: documented ownership of the Entra app, explicit RBAC scope for the DCR, and change control for credential rotation because a rotated secret is effectively a data outage. API behaviors and ingestion reliability For ETD Retrieval API and Audit Retrieval API, pagination/rate limits/time windows are unspecified in the accessible vendor documentation I could retrieve. I therefore design ingestion and detections assuming non-ideal API behavior: late-arriving events, cursor/page limitations, and throttling. CCF’s RestApiPoller model supports explicit retry policy, windowing, and multiple paging strategies, so if/when you can obtain vendor API semantics, you can encode them declaratively (rather than writing fragile code). For the SAP solution’s telemetry plane, Microsoft provides strong operational cues: agentless collection flows through Integration Suite, and troubleshooting typically happens in the Integration Suite message log; this is where I validate delivery failures before debugging Sentinel-side parsers. For scheduled detections, I always account for ingestion delay explicitly. Microsoft’s guidance is to widen event lookback by expected delay and then constrain on ingestion_time() to prevent duplicates from overlap. Schema, DCR transformations, and normalization layer Connector attribute comparison Connector Auth method Sentinel tables Default polling Backfill Pagination Rate limits SAP ETD (cloud) Client ID + Secret (ETD Retrieval API) SAPETDAlerts_CL, SAPETDInvestigations_CL unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified SAP S/4HANA Cloud (agentless) Client ID + Secret (Audit Retrieval API); alt auth referenced ABAPAuditLog unspecified unspecified unspecified unspecified Onapsis Defend Entra app + DCR permission (Monitoring Metrics Publisher) Onapsis_Defend_CL n/a (push pattern) unspecified n/a unspecified SecurityBridge Entra app + DCR permission (Monitoring Metrics Publisher) ABAPAuditLog n/a (push pattern) unspecified n/a unspecified Ingestion-time DCR transformations Sentinel supports ingestion-time transformations through DCRs to filter, enrich, and mask data before it’s stored. Example: I remove low-signal audit noise and mask email identifiers in ABAPAuditLog: source | where isnotempty(TransactionCode) and isnotempty(User) | where TransactionCode !in ("SM21","ST22") // example noise; tune per tenant | extend Email = iif(Email has "@", strcat(substring(Email,0,2),"***@", tostring(split(Email,"@")[1])), Email) Normalization functions Microsoft explicitly recommends using SAP solution functions instead of raw tables because they can change the infrastructure beneath without breaking detections. I follow the same pattern for ETD/Onapsis custom tables: I publish SOC-owned functions as a schema contract. .create-or-alter function with (folder="SOC/SAP") Normalize_ABAPAudit() { ABAPAuditLog | project TimeGenerated, SystemId, ClientId, User, TransactionCode, TerminalIpV6, MessageId, MessageClass, MessageText, AlertSeverityText, UpdatedOn } .create-or-alter function with (folder="SOC/SAP") Normalize_ETDAlerts() { SAPETDAlerts_CL | extend AlertId = tostring(coalesce(column_ifexists("AlertId",""), column_ifexists("id",""))), Severity = tostring(coalesce(column_ifexists("Severity",""), column_ifexists("severity",""))), SapUser = tostring(coalesce(column_ifexists("SAP_User",""), column_ifexists("User",""), column_ifexists("user",""))) | project TimeGenerated, AlertId, Severity, SapUser, * } .create-or-alter function with (folder="SOC/SAP") Normalize_Onapsis() { Onapsis_Defend_CL | extend FindingId = tostring(coalesce(column_ifexists("FindingId",""), column_ifexists("id",""))), Severity = tostring(coalesce(column_ifexists("Severity",""), column_ifexists("severity",""))), SapUser = tostring(coalesce(column_ifexists("SAP_User",""), column_ifexists("user",""))) | project TimeGenerated, FindingId, Severity, SapUser, * } Health/lag monitoring and anti-gap I monitor both connector health and ingestion delay. SentinelHealth is the native health table, and Microsoft provides a health workbook and a schema reference for the fields. let lookback=24h; union isfuzzy=true (ABAPAuditLog | extend T="ABAPAuditLog"), (SAPETDAlerts_CL | extend T="SAPETDAlerts_CL"), (Onapsis_Defend_CL | extend T="Onapsis_Defend_CL") | where TimeGenerated > ago(lookback) | summarize LastEvent=max(TimeGenerated), P95DelaySec=percentile(datetime_diff("second", ingestion_time(), TimeGenerated), 95), Events=count() by T Anti-gap scheduled-rule frame (Microsoft pattern): let ingestion_delay=10m; let rule_lookback=5m; ABAPAuditLog | where TimeGenerated >= ago(ingestion_delay + rule_lookback) | where ingestion_time() > ago(rule_lookback) SOC detections for ABAP privilege abuse, fraud/insider behavior, and audit readiness Privileged ABAP transaction monitoring ABAPAuditLog includes TransactionCode, User, SystemId, and terminal/IP fields, so I start with a curated high-risk tcode set and then add baselines. let PrivTCodes=dynamic(["SU01","PFCG","SM59","RZ10","SM49","SE37","SE16","SE16N"]); Normalize_ABAPAudit() | where TransactionCode in (PrivTCodes) | summarize Actions=count(), Ips=make_set(TerminalIpV6,5) by SystemId, User, TransactionCode, bin(TimeGenerated, 1h) | where Actions >= 3 Fraud/insider scenario: sensitive object change near privileged audit activity ABAPChangeDocsLog exposes ObjectClass, ObjectId, and change types; I correlate sensitive object changes to privileged transactions in a tight window. let w=10m; let Sensitive=dynamic(["BELEG","BPAR","PFCG","IDENTITY"]); ABAPChangeDocsLog | where ObjectClass in (Sensitive) | project ChangeTime=TimeGenerated, SystemId, User=tostring(column_ifexists("User","")), ObjectClass, ObjectId, TypeOfChange=tostring(column_ifexists("ItemTypeOfChange","")) | join kind=innerunique ( Normalize_ABAPAudit() | project AuditTime=TimeGenerated, SystemId, User, TransactionCode ) on SystemId, User | where AuditTime between (ChangeTime-w .. ChangeTime+w) | project ChangeTime, AuditTime, SystemId, User, ObjectClass, ObjectId, TransactionCode, TypeOfChange Audit-ready pipeline: monitoring continuity and configuration touchpoints I treat audit logging itself as a monitored control. A simple SOC-safe control is “volume drop” by system; it’s vendor-agnostic and catches pipeline breaks and deliberate suppression. Normalize_ABAPAudit() | summarize PerHour=count() by SystemId, bin(TimeGenerated, 1h) | summarize Avg=avg(PerHour), Latest=arg_max(TimeGenerated, PerHour) by SystemId | where Latest_PerHour < (Avg * 0.2) Where Onapsis/ETD are present, I increase fidelity by requiring “privileged ABAP activity” plus an external SAP-security product finding (field mappings are tenant-specific; normalize first): let win=1h; Normalize_ABAPAudit() | where TransactionCode in ("SU01","PFCG","SM59","SE16N") | join kind=leftouter (Normalize_Onapsis()) on $left.User == $right.SapUser | where isempty(FindingId) == false and TimeGenerated1 between (TimeGenerated .. TimeGenerated+win) | project TimeGenerated, SystemId, User, TransactionCode, FindingId, OnapsisSeverity=Severity Production validation, troubleshooting, and runbook For acceptance, I validate in this order: table creation, freshness/lag percentiles, connector health state, and cross-check of event counts against the upstream system for the same UTC window (where available). Connector health monitoring is built around SentinelHealth plus the Data collection health workbook. For SAP agentless ingestion, Microsoft states most troubleshooting happens in Integration Suite message logs—this is where I triage authentication/networking failures before tuning KQL. For Onapsis/SecurityBridge-style ingestion, I validate Entra app auth, DCR permission assignment (Monitoring Metrics Publisher), and a minimal ingestion test payload using the Logs Ingestion API tutorial flow. Operational runbook items I treat as non-optional: health alerts on connector failure and freshness drift; scheduled rule anti-gap logic; playbooks that capture evidence bundles (ABAPAuditLog slice + user context from ABAPUserDetails/ABAPAuthorizationDetails); DCR filters to reduce noise and cost; and change control for normalization functions and watchlists. SOC “definition of done” checklist (short): 1) Tables present and steadily ingesting; 2) P95 ingestion delay measured and rules use the anti-gap pattern; 3) SentinelHealth enabled with alerts; 4) SOC-owned normalization functions deployed; 5) at least one privileged-tcode rule + one change-correlation rule + one audit-continuity rule in production. Mermaid ingestion flow:Integrating Proofpoint and Mimecast Email Security with Microsoft Sentinel
Microsoft Sentinel can ingest rich email security telemetry from Proofpoint and Mimecast to power advanced phishing detection. The Proofpoint On Demand (POD) Email Security and Proofpoint Targeted Attack Protection (TAP) connectors pull threat logs (quarantines, spam, phishing attempts) and user click data into Sentinel. Similarly, the Mimecast Secure Email Gateway connector ingests detailed mail flow and targeted-threat logs (attachment/URL scans, impersonation events). These integrations use Azure-hosted ingestion (via Logic Apps or Azure Functions) and the new Codeless Connector framework to call vendor APIs on a schedule. The result is a consolidated dataset in Sentinel’s Log Analytics, enabling correlated alerting and hunting across email, identity, and endpoint signals. Figure: Phishing emails are processed by Mimecast’s gateway and Proofpoint POD/TAP services. Security logs (delivery/quarantine events, malicious attachments/links, user clicks) flow into Microsoft Sentinel. In Sentinel, these mail signals are correlated with identity (Azure AD), endpoint (Defender) and network telemetry for end-to-end phishing detection. Proofpoint POD (Email Protection) Connector The Proofpoint POD connector ingests core email protection logs. It creates two tables, ProofpointPODMailLog_CL and ProofpointPODMessage_CL. These logs include per-message metadata (senders, recipients, subject, message size, timestamps), threat scores (spamScore, phishScore, malwareScore, impostorScore), and attachment details (number of attachments, names, hash values and sandbox verdicts). Quarantine actions are recorded (quarantine folder/rule) and malicious indicators (URL or file hash) and campaign IDs are tagged in the threatsInfoMap field. For example, each ProofpointPODMessage_CL record may carry a sender_s (sender email domain hashed), recipient list, subject, and any detected threat type (Phish/Malware/Spam/Impostor) with associated threat hash or URL. Deployment: Proofpoint POD uses Sentinel’s codeless connector (an Azure Function behind the scenes). You must provide Proofpoint API credentials (Cluster ID and API token) in the connector UI. The connector periodically calls the Proofpoint SIEM API to fetch new log events (typically in 1–2 hour batches). The data lands in the above tables. (Older custom logic-app approaches similarly parse JSON output from the /v2/siem/messages endpoints.) Proofpoint TAP (Targeted Attack Protection) Connector Proofpoint TAP provides user-click and message-delivery events. Its connector creates four tables: ProofPointTAPMessagesDeliveredV2_CL, ProofPointTAPMessagesBlockedV2_CL, ProofPointTAPClicksPermittedV2_CL, and ProofPointTAPClicksBlockedV2_CL. The message tables report emails with detected threats (URL or attachment defense) that were delivered or blocked by TAP. They include the same fields as POD (message GUID, sender, recipients, subject, threat campaign ID, scores, attachments info). The click tables log when users click on URLs: each record has the URL, click timestamp (clickTime), the user’s IP (clickIP), user-agent, the message GUID, and the threat ID/category. These fields allow you to see who clicked which malicious link and when. As the connector description notes, these logs give “visibility into Message and Click events in Microsoft Sentinel” for hunting. Deployment: The TAP connector also uses the codeless framework. You supply a TAP API service principal and secret (proofpoint SIEM API credentials) in the Sentinel content connector. The function app calls TAP’s /v2/siem/clicks/blocked, /permitted, /messages/blocked, and /delivered endpoints. The Proofpoint SIEM API limits queries to 1-hour windows and 7-day history, with no paging (all events in the interval are returned). (A Logic App approach could also be used, as shown in the Tech Community blog: one HTTP GET per event type and a JSON Parse before sending to Log Analytics.) Mimecast Secure Email Gateway Connector The Mimecast connector ingests the Secure Email Gateway (SEG) logs and targeted-threat (TTP) logs. Inbound, outbound and internal mail events from the Mimecast MTA (receipt, processing, delivery stages) are pulled via the API. Typical fields include the unique message ID (aCode), sender, recipient, subject, attachment count/names, and the policy actions or holds (e.g. spam quarantine). For example, the Mimecast “Process” log shows AttCnt, AttNames, and if the message was held (Hld) for review. Delivery logs include the success/failure and TLS details. In addition, Mimecast TTP logs are collected: URL Protect logs (when a user clicks a blocked URL) include the clicked URL (url), category (urlCategory), sender/recipient, and block reason. Impersonation Protect logs capture spoofing detections (e.g. if an internal name is impersonated), with fields like Sender, Recipient, Definition and Action (hold/quarantine). Attachment Protect logs record malicious file detections (filename, hash, threat type). Deployment: Like Proofpoint, Mimecast’s connector uses Azure Functions via the Sentinel content hub. You install the Mimecast solution, open the connector page, then enter Azure app credentials and Mimecast API keys (API Application ID/Key and Access/Secret for the service account). As shown in the deployment guide, you must provide the Azure Subscription, Resource Group, Log Analytics Workspace and the Azure Client (App) ID, Tenant ID and Object ID of the admin performing the setup. On the Mimecast side, you supply the API Base URL (regional), App ID/Secret and user Access/Secret. The connector creates a Function App that polls Mimecast’s SIEM APIs on a cron schedule (default every 30 minutes). You can optionally specify a start date for backfilling up to 7 days of logs. The default tables are MimecastSIEM_CL (for email flow logs) and MimecastDLP_CL (for DLP/TTP events), though custom names can be set. Ingestion Considerations Data Latency: All these connectors are pull-based and typically run on a schedule (often 30–60 minutes). For example, the Proofpoint POD docs note hourly log increments, and Mimecast logs are aggregated every 30 minutes. Expect a delay of up to an hour or more from event occurrence to Sentinel ingestion. Schema Nuances: The APIs often return nested arrays and optional fields. For instance, the Proofpoint blog warns that some JSON fields can be null or vary in type, so the parse schema should account for all possibilities. Similarly, Mimecast logs come in pipe-delimited or JSON format, with values sometimes empty (e.g. no attachments). In KQL, use tostring() or parse_json() on the raw _CL columns, and mv-expand on any multivalue fields (like message parts or threat lists). Table Names: Use the connector’s tables as listed. For Proofpoint: ProofpointPODMailLog_CL and ProofpointPODMessage_CL; for TAP: ProofPointTAPMessagesDeliveredV2_CL, ProofPointTAPMessagesBlockedV2_CL, ProofPointTAPClicksPermittedV2_CL, ProofPointTAPClicksBlockedV2_CL. For Mimecast SEG/TTP: MimecastSIEM_CL (seg logs) and MimecastDLP_CL (TTP logs). API Behavior: The Proofpoint TAP API has no paging. Be aware of timezones (Proofpoint uses UTC) and use the Sentinal ingestion TimeGenerated or event timestamp fields for binning. Detection Engineering and Correlation To detect phishing effectively, we correlate these email logs with identity, endpoint and intel data: Identity (Azure AD): Mail logs contain recipient addresses and (hashed) sender user parts. A common tactic is to correlate SMTP recipients or sender domains with Azure AD user records. For example, join TAP clicks by recipient to the user’s UPN. The Proofpoint logs also include the clicker’s IP (clickIP); we can match that to Azure AD sign-in logs or VPN logs to find which device/location clicked a malicious link. Likewise, anomalous Azure AD sign-ins (impossible travel, MFA failure) after a suspicious email can strengthen the case. Endpoints (Defender): Once a user clicks a bad link or opens a malicious attachment (captured in TAP or Mimecast logs), watch for follow-on behaviors. For instance, use Sentinel’s DeviceSecurityEvents or DeviceProcessEvents to see if that user’s machine launched unusual processes. The threatID or URL hash from email events can be looked up in Defender’s file data. Correlate by username (if available) or IP: if the email log shows a link click from IP X, see if any endpoint alerts or logon events occurred from X around the same time. As the Mimecast integration touts, this enables “correlation across Mimecast events, cloud, endpoint, and network data”. Threat Intelligence: Use Sentinel’s ThreatIntelligenceIndicator tables or Microsoft’s TI feeds to tag known bad URLs/domains in the email logs. For example, join ProofPointTAPClicksBlockedV2_CL on the clicked url against ThreatIntelligenceIndicator (type=URL) to automatically flag hits. Proofpoint’s logs already classify threats (malware/phish) and provide a threatID; one can enrich that with external intel (e.g. check if the hash appears in TI feeds). Mimecast’s URL logs include a urlCategory field, which can be mapped to known malicious categories. Automated playbooks can also pull Intel: e.g. use Sentinel’s TI REST API or Azure Sentinel watchlists containing phishing domains to annotate events. In summary, a robust detection strategy might look like: (1) Identify malicious email events (high phish scores, quarantines, URL clicks). (2) Correlate these events by user with Azure AD logs (did the user log in from a new IP after a phish click?). (3) Correlate with endpoint alerts (Defender found malware on that device). (4) Augment with threat intelligence lookups on URLs and attachments from the email logs. By linking the Proofpoint/Mimecast signals to identity and endpoint events, one can detect the full attack chain from email compromise to endpoint breach. KQL Query Here are representative Kusto queries for common phishing scenarios (adapt table/field names as needed): Malicious URL Click Detection: Identify users who clicked known-malicious URLs. For example, join TAP click logs to TI indicators:This flags any permitted click where the URL matches a known threat indicator. Alternatively, aggregate by domain: let TI = ThreatIntelligenceIndicator | where Active == true and _EntityType == "URL"; ProofPointTAPClicksPermittedV2_CL | where url_s != "" | project ClickTime=TimeGenerated, Recipient=recipient_s, URL=url_s, SenderIP=senderIP_s | join kind=inner TI on $left.URL == TI._Value | project ClickTime, Recipient, URL, Description=TI.Description This flags any permitted click where the URL matches a known threat indicator. Alternatively, aggregate by domain: ProofPointTAPClicksPermittedV2_CL | extend clickedDomain = extract(@"https?://([^/]+)", 1, url_s) | summarize ClickCount=count() by clickedDomain | where clickedDomain has "maliciousdomain.com" or clickedDomain has "phish.example.com" Quarantine Spike (Burst) Detection: Detect sudden spikes in quarantined messages. For example, using POD mail log:This finds hours with an unusually high number of held (quarantined) emails, which may indicate a phishing campaign. You could similarly use ProofPointTAPMessagesBlockedV2_CL. ProofpointPODMailLog_CL | where action_s == "Held" | summarize HeldCount=count() by bin(TimeGenerated, 1h) | order by TimeGenerated desc | where HeldCount > 100 Targeted User Phishing: Find if a specific user received multiple malicious emails. E.g., for user email address removed for privacy reasons:This lists recent phish attempts targeting Username. You might also join with TAP click logs to see if she clicked anything. ProofpointPODMessage_CL | where recipient has "email address removed for privacy reasons" | where array_length(threatsInfoMap) > 0 and threatsInfoMap_classification_s == "Phish" | project TimeGenerated, sender_s, subject_s, threat=threatsInfoMap_threat_s Campaign-Level Analysis: Group emails by Proofpoint campaign ID to see scope of each campaign:This shows each campaign ID with how many unique recipients were hit and one example subject. Combining TAP and POD tables on GUID_s or QID_s can further link click events back to the originating message/campaign. ProofpointPODMessage_CL | mv-expand threatsInfoMap | summarize Recipients=make_set(recipient), Count=dcount(recipient) by CampaignID=threatsInfoMap_campaignId_s | project CampaignID, RecipientCount=Count, Recipients, SampleSubject=any(subject_s) Each query can be refined (for instance, filtering only within a recent time window) and embedded in Sentinel Analytics rules or hunting. The key is using the connectors’ fields – URLs, sender/recipient addresses, campaign IDs – to pivot between email data and other security signals.Cloud Posture + Attack Surface Signals in Microsoft Sentinel (Prisma Cloud + Cortex Xpanse)
Microsoft expanded Microsoft Sentinel’s connector ecosystem with Palo Alto integrations that pull cloud posture, cloud workload runtime, and external attack surface signals into the SIEM, so your SOC can correlate “what’s exposed” and “what’s misconfigured” with “what’s actively being attacked.” Specifically, the Ignite connectors list includes Palo Alto: Cortex Xpanse CCF and Palo Alto: Prisma Cloud CWPP. Why these connectors matter for Sentinel detection engineering Traditional SIEM pipelines ingest “events.” But exposure and posture are just as important as the events—because they tell you which incidents actually matter. Attack surface (Xpanse) tells you what’s reachable from the internet and what attackers can see. Posture (Prisma CSPM) tells you which controls are broken (public storage, permissive IAM, weak network paths). Runtime (Prisma CWPP) tells you what’s actively happening inside workloads (containers/hosts/serverless). In Sentinel, these become powerful when you can join them with your “classic” telemetry (cloud activity logs, NSG flow logs, DNS, endpoint, identity). Result: fewer false positives, faster triage, better prioritization. Connector overview (what each one ingests) 1) Palo Alto Prisma Cloud CSPM Solution What comes in: Prisma Cloud CSPM alerts + audit logs via the Prisma Cloud CSPM API. What it ships with: connector + parser + workbook + analytics rules + hunting queries + playbooks (prebuilt content). Best for: Misconfig alerts: public storage, overly permissive IAM, weak encryption, risky network exposure. Compliance posture drift + audit readiness (prove you’re monitoring and responding). 2) Palo Alto Prisma Cloud CWPP (Preview) What comes in: CWPP alerts via Prisma Cloud API (Compute/runtime side). Implementation detail: Built on Codeless Connector Platform (CCP). Best for: Runtime detections (host/container/serverless security alerts) “Exploit succeeded” signals that you need to correlate with posture and exposure. 3) Palo Alto Cortex Xpanse CCF What comes in: Alerts logs fetched from the Cortex Xpanse API, ingested using Microsoft Sentinel Codeless Connector Framework (CCF). Important: Supports DCR-based ingestion-time transformations that parse to a custom table for better performance. Best for: External exposure findings and “internet-facing risk” detection Turning exposure into incidents only when the asset is critical / actively targeted. Reference architecture (how the data lands in Sentinel) Here’s the mental model you want for all three: flowchart LR A[Palo Alto Prisma Cloud CSPM] -->|CSPM API: alerts + audit logs| S[Sentinel Data Connector] B[Palo Alto Prisma Cloud CWPP] -->|Prisma API: runtime alerts| S C[Cortex Xpanse] -->|Xpanse API: exposure alerts| S S -->|CCF/CCP + DCR Transform| T[(Custom Tables)] T --> K[KQL Analytics + Hunting] K --> I[Incidents] I -->P[SOAR Playbooks] K --> W[Workbooks / Dashboards] Key design point: Xpanse explicitly emphasizes DCR transformations at ingestion time, use that to normalize fields early so your queries stay fast under load. Deployment patterns (practical, SOC-friendly setup) Step 0 — Decide what goes to “analytics” vs “storage” If you’re using Sentinel’s data lake strategy, posture/exposure data is a perfect candidate for longer retention (trend + audit), while only “high severity” may need real-time analytics. Step 1 — Install solutions from Content Hub Install: Palo Alto Prisma Cloud CSPM Solution Palo Alto Prisma Cloud CWPP (Preview) Palo Alto Cortex Xpanse CCF Step 2 — Credentials & least privilege Create dedicated service accounts / API keys in Palo Alto products with read-only scope for: CSPM alerts + audit CWPP alerts Xpanse alerts/exposures Step 3 — Validate ingestion (don’t skip this) In Sentinel Logs: Locate the custom tables created by each solution (Tables blade). Run a basic sanity query: “All events last 1h” “Top 20 alert types” “Distinct severities” Tip: Save “ingestion smoke tests” as Hunting queries so you can re-run them after upgrades. Step 4 — Turn on included analytics content (then tune) The Prisma Cloud CSPM solution comes with multiple analytics rules, hunting queries, and playbooks out of the box—enable them gradually and tune thresholds before going wide. Detection engineering: high-signal correlation recipes Below are patterns that consistently outperform “single-source alerts.” I’m giving them as KQL templates using placeholder table names because your exact custom table names/columns are workspace-dependent (you’ll see them after install). Recipe 1 — “Internet-exposed + actively probed” (Xpanse + network logs) Goal: Only fire when exposure is real and there’s traffic evidence. let xpanse = <XpanseTable> | where TimeGenerated > ago(24h) | where Severity in ("High","Critical") | project AssetIp=<ip_field>, Finding=<finding_field>, Severity, TimeGenerated; let net = <NetworkFlowTable> | where TimeGenerated > ago(24h) | where Direction == "Inbound" | summarize Hits=count(), SrcIps=make_set(SrcIp, 50) by DstIp; xpanse | join kind=inner (net) on $left.AssetIp == $right.DstIp | where Hits > 50 | project TimeGenerated, Severity, Finding, AssetIp, Hits, SrcIps Why it works: Xpanse gives you exposure. Flow/WAF/Firewall gives you intent. Recipe 2 — “Misconfiguration that creates a breach path” (CSPM + identity or cloud activity) Goal: Prioritize posture findings that coincide with suspicious access or admin changes. let posture = <PrismaCSPMTable> | where TimeGenerated > ago(7d) | where PolicySeverity in ("High","Critical") | where FindingType has_any ("Public", "OverPermissive", "NoMFA", "EncryptionDisabled") | project ResourceId=<resource_id>, Finding=<finding>, PolicySeverity, FirstSeen=TimeGenerated; let activity = <CloudActivityTable> | where TimeGenerated > ago(7d) | where OperationName has_any ("RoleAssignmentWrite","SetIamPolicy","AddMember","CreateAccessKey") | project ResourceId=<resource_id>, Actor=<caller>, OperationName, TimeGenerated; posture | join kind=inner (activity) on ResourceId | project PolicySeverity, Finding, OperationName, Actor, FirstSeen, TimeGenerated | order by PolicySeverity desc, TimeGenerated desc Recipe 3 — “Runtime alert on a workload that was already high-risk” (CWPP + CSPM) Goal: Raise severity when runtime alerts occur on assets with known posture debt. let risky_assets = <PrismaCSPMTable> | where TimeGenerated > ago(30d) | where PolicySeverity in ("High","Critical") | summarize RiskyFindings=count() by AssetId=<asset_id>; <CWPPTable> | where TimeGenerated > ago(24h) | project AssetId=<asset_id>, AlertName=<alert>, Severity=<severity>, TimeGenerated, Details=<details> | join kind=leftouter (risky_assets) on AssetId | extend RiskScore = coalesce(RiskyFindings,0) | order by Severity desc, RiskScore desc, TimeGenerated desc SOC outcome: same runtime alert, different priority depending on posture risk. Operational (in real life) 1) Normalize severities early If Xpanse is using DCR transforms (it is), normalize severity to a consistent enum (“Informational/Low/Medium/High/Critical”) to simplify analytics. 2) Deduplicate exposure findings Attack surface tools can generate repeated findings. Use a dedup function (hash of asset + finding type + port/service) and alert only on “new or changed exposure.” 3) Don’t incident-everything Treat CSPM findings as: Incidents only when: critical + reachable + targeted OR tied to privileged activity Tickets when: high risk but not active Backlog when: medium/low with compensating controls 4) Make SOAR “safe by default” Automations should prefer reversible actions: Block IP (temporary) Add to watchlist Notify owners Open ticket with evidence bundle …and only escalate to destructive actions after confidence thresholds.Ingesting Google Cloud Logs into Microsoft Sentinel: Native vs. Custom Architectures
Overview of GCP Log Types and SOC Value Modern Security Operations Centers (SOCs) require visibility into key Google Cloud Platform logs to detect threats and suspicious activities. The main log types include: GCP Audit Logs – These encompass Admin Activity, Data Access, and Access Transparency logs for GCP services. They record every administrative action (resource creation, modification, IAM changes, etc.) and access to sensitive data, providing a trail of who did what and when in the cloud. In a SOC context, audit logs help identify unauthorized changes or anomalous admin behavior (e.g. an attacker creating a new service account or disabling logging). They are essential for compliance and forensics, as they detail changes to configurations and access patterns across GCP resources. VPC Flow Logs – These logs capture network traffic flow information at the Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) level. Each entry typically includes source/destination IPs, ports, protocol, bytes, and an allow/deny action. In a SOC, VPC flow logs are invaluable for network threat detection: they allow analysts to monitor access patterns, detect port scanning, identify unusual internal traffic, and profile ingress/egress traffic for anomalies. For example, a surge in outbound traffic to an unknown IP or lateral movement between VMs can be spotted via flow logs. They also aid in investigating data exfiltration and verifying network policy enforcement. Cloud DNS Logs – Google Cloud DNS query logs record DNS requests/responses from resources, and DNS audit logs record changes to DNS configurations. DNS query logs are extremely useful in threat hunting because they can reveal systems resolving malicious domain names (C2 servers, phishing sites, DGA domains) or performing unusual lookups. Many malware campaigns rely on DNS; having these logs in Sentinel enables detection of known bad domains and anomalous DNS traffic patterns. DNS audit logs, on the other hand, track modifications to DNS records (e.g. newly added subdomains or changes in IP mappings), which can indicate misconfigurations or potential domain hijacking attempts. Together, these GCP logs provide comprehensive coverage: audit logs tell what actions were taken in the cloud, while VPC and DNS logs tell what network activities are happening. Ingesting all three into Sentinel gives a cloud security architect visibility to detect unauthorized access, network intrusions, and malware communication in a GCP environment. Native Microsoft Sentinel GCP Connector: Architecture & Setup Microsoft Sentinel offers native data connectors to ingest Google Cloud logs, leveraging Google’s Pub/Sub messaging for scalable, secure integration. The native solution is built on Sentinel’s Codeless Connector Framework (CCF) and uses a pull-based architecture: GCP exports logs to Pub/Sub, and Sentinel’s connector pulls from Pub/Sub into Azure. This approach avoids custom code and uses cloud-native services on both sides. Supported GCP Log Connectors: Out of the box, Sentinel provides connectors for: GCP Audit Logs – Ingests the Cloud Audit Logs (admin activity, data access, transparency). GCP Security Command Center (SCC) – Ingests security findings from Google SCC for threat and vulnerability management. GCP VPC Flow Logs – (Recently added) Ingests VPC network flow logs. GCP Cloud DNS Logs – (Recently added) Ingests Cloud DNS query logs and DNS audit logs. Others – Additional connectors exist for specific GCP services (Cloud Load Balancer logs, Cloud CDN, Cloud IDS, GKE, IAM activity, etc.) via CCF, expanding the coverage of GCP telemetry in Sentinel. Each connector typically writes to its own Log Analytics table (e.g. GCPAuditLogs, GCPVPCFlow, GCPDNS, etc.) and comes with built-in KQL parsers. Architecture & Authentication: The native connector uses Google Pub/Sub as the pipeline for log delivery. On the Google side, you will set up a Pub/Sub Topic that receives the logs (via Cloud Logging exports), and Sentinel will subscribe to that topic. Authentication is handled through Workload Identity Federation (WIF) using OpenID Connect: instead of managing static credentials, you establish a trust between Azure AD and GCP so that Sentinel can impersonate a GCP service account. The high-level architecture is: GCP Cloud Logging (logs from services) → Log Router (export sink) → Pub/Sub Topic → (Secure pull over OIDC) → Azure Sentinel Data Connector → Log Analytics Workspace. This ensures a secure, keyless integration. The Azure side (Sentinel) authenticates as a Google service account via OIDC tokens issued by Azure AD, which GCP trusts through the Workload Identity Provider. Below are the detailed setup steps: GCP Setup (Publishing Logs to Pub/Sub) Enable Required APIs: Ensure the GCP project hosting the logs has the IAM API and Cloud Resource Manager API enabled (needed for creating identity pools and roles). You’ll also need owner/editor access on the project to create the resources below. Create a Workload Identity Pool & Provider: In Google Cloud IAM, create a new Workload Identity Pool (e.g. named “Azure-Sentinel-Pool”) and then a Workload Identity Provider within that pool that trusts your Azure AD tenant. Google provides a template for Azure AD OIDC trust – you’ll supply your Azure tenant ID and the audience and issuer URIs that Azure uses. For Azure Commercial, the issuer is typically https://sts.windows.net/<TenantID>/ and audience api://<some-guid> as documented. (Microsoft’s documentation or Terraform scripts provide these values for the Sentinel connector.) Create a Service Account for Sentinel: Still in GCP, create a dedicated service account (e.g. email address removed for privacy reasons). This account will be what Sentinel “impersonates” via the WIF trust. Grant this service account two key roles: Pub/Sub Subscriber on the Pub/Sub Subscription that will be created (allows pulling messages). You can grant roles/pubsub.subscriber at the project level or on the specific subscription. Workload Identity User on the Workload Identity Pool. In the pool’s permissions, add a principal of the form principalSet://iam.googleapis.com/projects/<WIF_project_number>/locations/global/workloadIdentityPools/<Pool_ID>/* and grant it the role roles/iam.workloadIdentityUser on your service account. This allows the Azure AD identity to impersonate the GCP service account. Note: GCP best practice is often to keep the identity pool in a centralized project and service accounts in separate projects, but as of late 2023 the Sentinel connector UI expected them in one project (a limitation under review). It’s simplest to create the WIF pool/provider and the service account within the same GCP project to avoid connectivity issues (unless documentation confirms support for cross-project). Create a Pub/Sub Topic and Subscription: Open the GCP Pub/Sub service and create a Topic (for example, projects/yourproject/topics/sentinel-logs). It’s convenient to dedicate one topic per log type or use case (e.g. one for audit logs). As you create the topic, you can add a Subscription to it in Pull mode (since Sentinel will pull messages). Use a default subscription with an appropriate name (e.g. sentinel-audit-sub). You can leave the default settings (ack deadline, retention) as is, or extend retention if you want messages to persist longer in case of downtime (default is 7 days). Create a Logging Export (Sink): In GCP Cloud Logging, set up a Log Sink to route the desired logs into the Pub/Sub topic. Go to Logging > Logs Router and create a sink: Give it a descriptive name (e.g. audit-logs-to-sentinel). Choose Cloud Pub/Sub as the Destination and select the topic you created (or use the format pubsub.googleapis.com/projects/yourproject/topics/sentinel-logs). Scope and filters: Decide which logs to include. For Audit Logs, you might include ALL audit logs in the project (the sink can be set to include admin activity, data access, etc., by default for the whole project or even entire organization if created at org level). For other log types like VPC Flow Logs or DNS, you’d set an inclusion filter for those specific log names (e.g. logName:"compute.googleapis.com/vpc_flows" to capture VPC Flow Logs). You can also create organization-level sinks to aggregate logs from all projects. Permissions: When creating a sink, GCP will ask to grant the sink service account publish rights to the Pub/Sub topic. Accept this so logs can flow. Once the sink is created, verify logs are flowing: in Pub/Sub > Subscriptions, you can “Pull” messages manually to see if any logs appear. Generating a test event (e.g., create a VM to produce an audit log, or make a DNS query) can help confirm. At this point, GCP is set up to export logs. All requisite GCP resources (IAM federation, service account, topic/subscription, sink) are ready. Google also provides Terraform scripts (and Microsoft supplies Terraform templates in their GitHub) to automate these steps. Using Terraform, you can stand up the IAM and Pub/Sub configuration quickly if comfortable with code. Azure Sentinel Setup (Connecting the GCP Connector) With GCP publishing logs to Pub/Sub, configure Sentinel to start pulling them: Install the GCP Solution: In the Azure portal, navigate to your Sentinel workspace. Under Content Hub (or Data Connectors), find Google Cloud Platform Audit Logs (for example) and click Install. This deploys any needed artifacts (the connector definition, parser, etc.). Repeat for other GCP solutions (like GCP VPC Flow Logs or GCP DNS) as needed. Open Data Connector Configuration: After installation, go to Data Connectors in Sentinel, search for “GCP Pub/Sub Audit Logs” (or the relevant connector), and select it. Click Open connector page. In the connector page, click + Add new (or Add new collector) to configure a new connection instance. Enter GCP Parameters: A pane will prompt for details to connect: you need to supply the Project ID (of the GCP project where the Pub/Sub lives), the Project Number, the Topic and Subscription name, and the Service Account Email you created. You’ll also enter the Workload Identity Provider ID (the identifier of the WIF provider, usually in format projects/<proj>/locations/global/workloadIdentityPools/<pool>/providers/<provider>). All these values correspond to the GCP resources set up earlier – the UI screenshot in docs shows sample placeholders. Make sure there are no typos (a common error is mixing up project ID (name) with project number, or using the wrong Tenant ID). Data Collection Rule (DCR): The connector may also ask for a Data Collection Rule (DCR) and DCE (Data Collection Endpoint) names. Newer connectors based on CCF use the Log Ingestion API, so behind the scenes a DCR is used. If required, provide a name (the docs often suggest prefixing with “Microsoft-Sentinel-” e.g., Microsoft-Sentinel-GCPAuditLogs-DCR). The system will create the DCR and a DCE for you if not already created. (If you installed via Content Hub, this is often automated – just ensure the names follow any expected pattern.) Connect: Click Connect. Sentinel will attempt to use the provided info to establish connectivity. It performs checks like verifying the subscription exists and that the service account can authenticate. If everything is set up properly, the connector will connect and start streaming data. In case of an error, you’ll receive a detailed message. For example, an error about WIF Pool ID not found or subscription not found indicates an issue in the provided IDs or permissions. Double-check those values if so. Validation: After ~15-30 minutes, verify that logs are arriving. You can run a Log Analytics query on the new table, for example: GCPAuditLogs | take 5 (for audit logs) or GCPVPCFlow | take 5 for flow logs. You should see records if ingestion succeeded. Sentinel also provides a “Data connector health” feature – enable it to get alerts or status on data latency and volume for this connector. Data Flow and Ingestion: Once connected, the system works continuously and serverlessly: GCP Log Router pushes new log entries to Pub/Sub as they occur. The Sentinel connector (running in Azure’s cloud) polls the Pub/Sub subscription. It uses the service account credentials (via OIDC token) to call the Pub/Sub API and pull messages in batches. This happens at a defined interval (typically very frequently, e.g. every few seconds). Each message (which contains a log entry in JSON) is then ingested into Log Analytics. The CCF connector uses the Log Ingestion API on the backend, mapping the JSON fields to the appropriate table schema. The logs appear in the respective table (with columns for each JSON field or a dynamic JSON column, depending on the connector design). Sentinel’s built-in parser or Normalized Schemas (ASIM) can be used to query these logs in a friendly way. For instance, the Audit Logs solution includes KQL functions to parse out common fields like user, method, status, etc., from the raw JSON. This native pipeline is fully managed – you don’t have to run any servers or code. The use of Pub/Sub and OIDC makes it scalable and secure by design. Design Considerations & Best Practices for the Native Connector: Scalability & Performance: The native connector approach is designed for high scale. Pub/Sub itself can handle very large log volumes with low latency. The Sentinel CCF connectors use a SaaS, auto-scaling model – no fixed infrastructure means they will scale out as needed to ingest bursts of data. This is a significant advantage over custom scripts or function apps which might need manual scaling. In testing, the native connector can reliably ingest millions of log events per day. If you anticipate extremely high volumes (e.g. VPC flow logs from hundreds of VMs), monitor the connector’s performance but it should scale automatically. Reliability: By leveraging Pub/Sub’s at-least-once delivery, the integration is robust. Even if Azure or the connector has a transient outage, log messages will buffer in Pub/Sub. Once the connector resumes, it will catch up on the backlog. Ensure the subscription’s message retention is adequate (the default 7 days is usually fine). The connector acknowledges messages only after they’re ingested into Log Analytics, which prevents data loss on failures. This reliability is achieved without custom code – reducing the chance of bugs. Still, it’s good practice to use Sentinel’s connector health metrics to catch any issues (e.g., if the connector hasn’t pulled data in X minutes, indicating a problem). Security: The elimination of persistent credentials is a best practice. By using Workload Identity Federation, the Azure connector obtains short-lived tokens to act as the GCP service account. There is no need to store a GCP service account key file, which could be a leak risk. Ensure that the service account has the minimal roles needed. Typically, it does not need broad viewer roles on all GCP resources – it just needs Pub/Sub subscription access (and logging viewer only if you choose to restrict log export by IAM – usually not necessary since the logs are already exported via the sink). Keep the Azure AD application’s access limited too: the Azure AD app (which underpins the Sentinel connector) only needs to access the Sentinel workspace and doesn’t need rights in GCP – the trust is handled by the WIF provider. Filtering and Log Volume Management: A common best practice is to filter GCP logs at the sink to avoid ingesting superfluous data. For instance, if only certain audit log categories are of interest (e.g., Admin Activity and security-related Data Access), you could exclude noisy Data Access logs like storage object reads. For VPC Flow Logs, you might filter on specific subnetworks or even specific metadata (though typically you’d ingest all flows and use Sentinel for filtering). Google’s sink filters allow you to use boolean expressions on log fields. The community recommendation for Firewall or VPC logs, for example, is to set a filter so that only those logs go into that subscription. This reduces cost and noise in Sentinel. Plan your log sinks carefully: you may create multiple sinks if you want to separate log types (one sink to Pub/Sub for audit logs, another sink (with its own topic) for flow logs, etc.). The Sentinel connectors are each tied to one subscription and one table, so separating by log type can help manage parsing and access. Coverage Gaps: Check what the native connectors support as of the current date. Microsoft has been rapidly adding GCP connectors (VPC Flow Logs and DNS logs were in Preview in mid-2025 and are likely GA by now). If a needed log type is not supported (for example, if you have a custom application writing logs to Google Cloud Logging), you might consider the custom ingestion approach (see next section). For most standard infrastructure logs, the native route is available and preferable. Monitoring and Troubleshooting: Familiarize yourself with the connector’s status in Azure. In the Sentinel UI, each configured GCP connector instance will show a status (Connected/Warning/Error) and possibly last received timestamp. If there’s an issue, gather details from error messages there. On GCP, monitor the Pub/Sub subscription: pubsub subscriptions list --filter="name:sentinel-audit-sub" can show if there’s a growing backlog (unacked message count). A healthy system should have near-zero backlog with steady consumption. If backlog is growing, it means the connector isn’t keeping up or isn’t pulling – check Azure side for throttling or errors. Multi-project or Org-wide ingestion: If your organization has many GCP projects, you have options. You could deploy a connector per project, or use an organization-level log sink in GCP to funnel logs from all projects into a single Pub/Sub. The Sentinel connector can pull organization-wide if the service account has rights (the Terraform script allows an org sink by providing an organization-id). This centralizes management but be mindful of very large volumes. Also, ensure the service account has visibility on those logs (usually not an issue if they’re exported; the sink’s own service account handles the export). In summary, the native GCP connector provides a straightforward and robust way to get Google Cloud logs into Sentinel. It’s the recommended approach for supported log types due to its minimal maintenance and tight integration. Custom Ingestion Architecture (Pub/Sub to Azure Event Hub, etc.) In cases where the built-in connector doesn’t meet requirements – e.g., unsupported log types, custom formats, or corporate policy to use an intermediary – you can design a custom ingestion pipeline. The goal of custom architectures is the same (move logs from GCP to Sentinel) but you can incorporate additional processing or routing. One reference pattern is: GCP Pub/Sub → Azure Event Hub → Sentinel, which we’ll use as an example among other alternatives. GCP Export (Source): This part remains the same as the native setup – you create log sinks in GCP to continuously export logs to Pub/Sub topics. You can reuse what you’ve set up or create new, dedicated Pub/Sub topics for the custom pipeline. For instance, you might have a sink for Cloud DNS query logs if the native connector wasn’t used, sending those logs to a topic. Ensure you also create subscriptions on those topics for your custom pipeline to pull from. If you plan to use a GCP-based function to forward data, a Push subscription could be used instead (which can directly call an HTTP endpoint), but a Pull model is more common for custom solutions. Bridge / Transfer Component: This is the core of the custom pipeline – a piece of code that reads from Pub/Sub and sends data to Azure. Several implementation options: Google Cloud Function or Cloud Run (in GCP): You can deploy a Cloud Function that triggers on new Pub/Sub messages (using Google’s EventArc or a Pub/Sub trigger). This function will execute with the message as input. Inside the function, you would parse the Pub/Sub message and then forward it to Azure. This approach keeps the “pull” logic on the GCP side – effectively GCP pushes to Azure. For example, a Cloud Function (Python) could be subscribed to the sentinel-logs topic; each time a log message arrives, the function runs, authenticates to Azure, and calls the ingestion API. Cloud Functions can scale out automatically based on the message volume. Custom Puller in Azure (Function App or Container): Instead of running the bridging code in GCP, you can run it in Azure. For instance, an Azure Function with a timer trigger (running every minute) or an infinite-loop container in Azure Kubernetes Service could use Google’s Pub/Sub client library to pull messages from GCP. You would provide it the service account credentials (likely a JSON key) to authenticate to the Pub/Sub pull API. After pulling a batch of messages, it would send them to the Log Analytics workspace. This approach centralizes everything in Azure but requires managing GCP credentials securely in Azure. Using Google Cloud Dataflow (Apache Beam): For a heavy-duty streaming solution, you could write an Apache Beam pipeline that reads from Pub/Sub and writes to an HTTP endpoint (Azure). Google Dataflow runs Beam pipelines in a fully managed way and can handle very large scale with exactly-once processing. However, this is a complex approach unless you already use Beam – it’s likely overkill for most cases and involves significant development. No matter which method, the bridge component must handle reading, transforming, and forwarding logs efficiently. Destination in Azure: There are two primary ways to ingest the data into Sentinel: Azure Log Ingestion API (via DCR) – This is the modern method (introduced in 2022) to send custom data to Log Analytics. You’ll create a Data Collection Endpoint (DCE) in Azure and a Data Collection Rule (DCR) that defines how incoming data is routed to a Log Analytics table. For example, you might create a custom table GCP_Custom_Logs_CL for your logs. Your bridge component will call the Log Ingestion REST API endpoint (which is a URL associated with the DCE) and include a shared access signature or Azure AD token for auth. The payload will be the log records (in JSON) and the DCR rule ID to apply. The DCR can also perform transformations if needed (e.g., mappings of fields). This API call will insert the data into Log Analytics in real-time. This approach is quite direct and is the recommended custom ingestion method (it replaces the older HTTP Data Collector API). Azure Event Hub + Sentinel Connector – In this approach, instead of pushing directly into Log Analytics, you use an Event Hub as an intermediate buffer in Azure. Your GCP bridge will act as a producer, sending each log message to an Event Hub (over AMQP or using Azure’s SDK). Then, you need something to get data from Event Hub into Sentinel. There are a couple of options: Historically, Sentinel provided an Event Hub data connector (often used for Azure Activity logs or custom CEF logs). This connector can pull events from an Event Hub and write to Log Analytics. However, it typically expects the events to be in a specific format (like CEF or JSON with a known structure). If your logs are raw JSON, you might need to wrap them or use a compatible format. This method is somewhat less flexible unless you tailor your output to what Sentinel expects. Alternatively (and more flexibly), you can write a small Azure Function that triggers on the Event Hub (using Event Hub trigger binding). When a message arrives, the function takes it and calls the Log Ingestion API (similar to method (a) above) to put it into Log Analytics. Essentially, this just decouples the pulling from GCP (done by the first function) and the pushing to Sentinel (done by the second function). This two-stage design might be useful if you want to do more complex buffering or retries, but it does introduce more components. Using an Event Hub in the pipeline can be beneficial if you want a cloud-neutral queue between GCP and Azure (maybe your organization already consolidates logs in an Event Hub or Kafka). It also allows reusing any existing tools that read off Event Hubs (for example, maybe feeding the same data to another system in parallel to Sentinel). This pattern – Cloud Logging → Pub/Sub → Event Hub → Log Analytics – has been observed in real-world multi-cloud deployments, essentially treating Pub/Sub + Event Hub as a bridging message bus between clouds. Data Transformation: With a custom pipeline, you have full control (and responsibility) for any data transformations needed. Key considerations: Message Decoding: GCP Pub/Sub messages contain the log entry in the data field, which is a base64-encoded string of a JSON object. Your code must decode that (it’s a one-liner in most languages) to get the raw JSON log. After decoding, you’ll have a JSON structure identical to what you’d see in Cloud Logging. For example, an audit log entry JSON has fields like protoPayload, resourceName, etc. Schema Mapping: Decide how to map the JSON to your Log Analytics table. You could ingest the entire JSON as a single column (and later parse in KQL), but it’s often better to map important fields. For instance, for VPC Flow Logs, you might extract src_ip, dest_ip, src_port, dest_port, bytes_sent, action and map each to a column in a custom table. This requires that you create the custom table with those columns and configure the DCR’s transformation schema accordingly. If using the Log Ingestion API, the DCR can transform the incoming JSON to the table schema. If using the Data Collector API (legacy, not recommended now), your code would need to format records as the exact JSON that Log Analytics expects. Enrichment (optional): In a custom pipeline, you could enrich the logs before sending to Sentinel. For example, performing IP geolocation on VPC flow logs, or tagging DNS logs with threat intel (if a domain is known malicious) – so that the augmented information is stored in Sentinel. Be cautious: enrichment adds processing time and potential failure points. If it’s light (like a dictionary lookup), it might be fine; if heavy, consider doing it after ingestion using Sentinel analytics instead. Filtering: Another advantage of custom ingestion is that you can filter events at the bridge. You might decide to drop certain events entirely (to save cost or noise). For example, if DNS query logs are too verbose, you might only forward queries for certain domains or exclude known benign domains. Or for audit logs, you might exclude read-only operations. This gives flexibility beyond what the GCP sink filter can do, since you have the full event content to decide. The trade-off is complexity – every filter you implement must be maintained/justified. Batching: The Log Ingestion API allows sending multiple records in one call. It’s more efficient to batch a bunch of log events (say 100 at a time) into one API request rather than call per event. Your function can accumulate a short batch (with some timeout or max size) and send together. This improves throughput and lowers overhead. Ensure the payload stays within API limits (~1 MB per post, and 30,000 events per post for Log Ingestion API). Pub/Sub and Event Hub also have batch capabilities – you may receive multiple messages in one invocation or read them in a loop. Design your code to handle variable batch sizes. Authentication & Permissions (Custom Pipeline): You will effectively need to handle two authentications: GCP → Bridge, and Bridge → Azure: GCP to Bridge: If using a GCP Cloud Function triggered by Pub/Sub, GCP handles the auth for pulling the message (the function is simply invoked with the data). If pulling from Azure, you’ll need GCP credentials. The most secure way is to use a service account key with minimal permissions (just Pub/Sub subscriber on the subscription). Store this key securely (Azure Key Vault or as an App Setting in the Azure Function, possibly encrypted). The code uses this key (a JSON file or key string) to initialize the Pub/Sub client. Google’s libraries support reading the key from an environment variable. Alternatively, you could explore using the same Workload Identity Federation concept in reverse (Azure to GCP), but that’s non-trivial to set up manually for custom code. A service account key is straightforward but do rotate it periodically. On GCP’s side, you might also restrict the service account so it cannot access anything except Pub/Sub. Bridge to Azure: To call the Log Ingestion API, you need an Azure AD App Registration (client ID/secret) with permissions or a SAS token for the DCR. The modern approach: create an AAD app, grant it the role Monitoring Data Contributor on your Sentinel workspace or explicitly grant the DCR permissions (Log Ingestion Data Contributor). Then your code can use the app’s client ID and secret to get a token and call the API. This is a secure, managed way. Alternatively, the DCR can be configured with a shared access signature (SAS) that you generate in Azure – your code could use that SAS token in the API URL (so that no interactive auth is needed). The older Data Collector API used the workspace ID and a primary key for auth (HMAC SHA-256 header) – some existing solutions still use that, but since that API is being deprecated, it’s better to use the new method. In summary: ensure the Azure credentials are stored safely (Key Vault or GCP Secret Manager if function is in GCP) and that you follow principle of least privilege (only allow ingest, no read of other data). End-to-End Data Flow Example: To make this concrete, consider an example where we ingest Firewall/VPC logs using a custom pipeline (this mirrors a solution published by Microsoft for when these logs weren’t yet natively supported): A GCP Log Sink filters for VPC Firewall logs (the logs generated by GCP firewall rules, which are part of VPC flow logging) and exports them to a Pub/Sub topic. An Azure Function (in PowerShell, as in the example, or any language) runs on a timer. Every minute, it pulls all messages from the Pub/Sub subscription (using the Google APIs). The function authenticates with a stored service account key to do this. It then decodes each message’s JSON. The function constructs an output in the required format for Sentinel’s Log Ingestion API. In this case, they created a custom Log Analytics table (say GCPFirewall_CL) with columns matching the log fields (source IP, dest IP, action, etc.). The function maps each JSON field to a column. For instance, json.payload.sourceIp -> src_ip column. It then calls the Log Ingestion REST API to send a batch of log records. The call is authorized with an Azure AD app’s client ID/secret which the function has in its config. Upon successfully POSTing the data, the function sends an acknowledgment back to Pub/Sub for those messages (or, if using the Pub/Sub client in pull mode, it acks as it pulls). This removal is important to ensure the messages don’t get re-delivered. If the send to Azure fails for some reason, the function can choose not to ack, so that the message remains in Pub/Sub and will be retried on the next run (ensuring reliability). The logs show up in Sentinel under the custom table, and can now be used in queries and analytics just like any other log. The entire process from log generation in GCP to log ingestion in Sentinel can be only a few seconds of latency in this design, effectively near-real-time. Tooling & Infrastructure: When implementing the above, some recommended tools: Use official SDKs where possible. For example, Google Cloud has a Pub/Sub client library for Python, Node.js, C#, etc., which simplifies pulling messages. Azure has an SDK for the Monitor Ingestion API (or you can call the REST endpoints directly with an HTTP client). This saves time versus manually crafting HTTP calls and auth. Leverage Terraform or IaC for repeatability. You can automate creation of Azure resources (Function App, Event Hub, etc.) and even the GCP setup. For instance, the community SCC->Sentinel example provides Terraform scripts. This makes it easier to deploy the pipeline in dev/test and prod consistently. Logging and monitoring: implement robust logging in your function code. In GCP Cloud Functions, use Cloud Logging to record errors (so you can see if something fails). In Azure Functions, use Application Insights to track failures or performance metrics. Set up alerts if the function fails repeatedly or if an expected log volume drops (which could indicate a broken pipeline). Essentially, treat your custom pipeline as you would any production integration – monitor its health continuously. Example Use-Case – Ingesting All Custom GCP Logs: One key advantage of a custom approach is flexibility. Imagine you have a custom application writing logs to Google Cloud Logging (Stackdriver) that has no out-of-the-box Sentinel connector. You can still get those logs into Sentinel. As one cloud architect noted, they built a fully custom pipeline with GCP Log Sink -> Pub/Sub -> Cloud Function -> Sentinel, specifically to ingest arbitrary GCP logs beyond the built-in connectors. This unlocked visibility into application-specific events that would otherwise be siloed. While doing this, they followed many of the steps above, demonstrating that any log that can enter Pub/Sub can ultimately land in Sentinel. This extensibility is a major benefit of a custom solution – you’re not limited by what Microsoft or Google have pre-integrated. In summary, the custom ingestion route requires more effort up front, but it grants complete control. You can tune what you collect, transform data to your needs, and integrate logs that might not be natively supported. Organizations often resort to this if they have very specific needs or if they started building ingestion pipelines before native connectors were available. Many will start with custom for something like DNS logs and later switch to a native connector once available. A hybrid approach is also possible (using native connector for audit logs, but custom for a niche log source). Comparison of Native vs. Custom Ingestion Methods Both native and custom approaches will get your GCP logs into Microsoft Sentinel, but they differ in complexity and capabilities. The table below summarizes the trade-offs to help choose the right approach: Aspect Native GCP Connector (Sentinel Pub/Sub Integration) Custom Ingestion Pipeline (DIY via Event Hubs or API) Ease of Setup Low-Code Setup: Requires configuration in GCP and Azure, but no custom code. You use provided Terraform scripts and a UI wizard. In a few hours you can enable the connector if prerequisites (IAM, Pub/Sub) are met. Microsoft’s documentation guides the process step by step. High-Code Setup: Requires designing and writing integration code (function or app) and configuring cloud services (Function Apps, Event Hub, etc.). More moving parts mean a longer setup time – possibly days or weeks to develop and thoroughly test. Suitable if your team has cloud developers or if requirements demand it. Log Type Coverage Supported Logs: Out-of-the-box support for standard GCP logs (audit, SCC findings, VPC flow, DNS, etc.). However, it’s limited to those data types Microsoft has released connectors for. (As of 2025, many GCP services are covered, but not necessarily all Google products.) If a connector exists, it will reliably ingest that log type. Any Log Source: Virtually unlimited – you can ingest any log from GCP, including custom application logs or niche services, as long as you can export it to Pub/Sub. You define the pipeline for each new log source. This is ideal for custom logs beyond built-ins. The trade-off is you must build parsing/handling for each log format yourself. Development & Maintenance Minimal Maintenance: After initial setup, the connector runs as a service. No custom code to maintain; Microsoft handles updates/improvements. You might need to update configuration if GCP projects or requirements change, but generally it’s “configure and monitor.” Support is available from Microsoft for connector issues. Ongoing Maintenance: You own the code. Updates to log schemas, API changes, or cloud platform changes might require code modifications. You need to monitor the custom pipeline, handle exceptions, and possibly update credentials regularly. This approach is closer to software maintenance – expect to allocate effort for bug fixes or improvements over time. Scalability Cloud-Scale (Managed): The connector uses Azure’s cloud infrastructure which auto-scales. High volumes are handled by scaling out processing nodes behind the scenes. GCP Pub/Sub will buffer and deliver messages at whatever rate the connector can pull, and the connector is optimized for throughput. There’s effectively no hard limit exposed to you (aside from Log Analytics ingestion rate limits, which are very high). Custom Scaling Required: Scalability depends on your implementation. Cloud Functions and Event Hubs can scale, but you must configure them (e.g., set concurrency, ensure enough throughput units on Event Hub). If logs increase tenfold, you may need to tweak settings or upgrade plans. There’s more possibility of bottlenecks (e.g., a single-threaded function might lag). Designing for scale (parallelism, batching, multi-partition processing) is your responsibility. Reliability & Resilience Reliable by Design: Built on proven Google Pub/Sub durability and Azure’s reliable ingestion pipeline. The connector handles retries and acknowledgements. If issues occur, Microsoft likely addresses them in updates. Also, you get built-in monitoring in Sentinel for connector health. Reliability Varies: Requires implementing your own retry and error-handling logic. A well-built custom pipeline can be very reliable (e.g., using Pub/Sub’s ack/retry and durable Event Hub storage), but mistakes in code could drop logs or duplicate them. You need to test failure scenarios (network blips, API timeouts, etc.). Additionally, you must implement your own health checks/alerts to know if something breaks. Flexibility & Transformation Standardized Ingestion: Limited flexibility – it ingests logs in their native structure into pre-defined tables. Little opportunity to transform data (beyond what the connector’s mapping does). Essentially “what GCP sends is what you get,” and you rely on Sentinel’s parsing for analysis. All logs of a given type are ingested (you control scope via GCP sink filters, but not the content). Highly Flexible: You can customize everything – which fields to ingest, how to format them, and even augment logs with external data. For example, you could drop benign DNS queries or mask sensitive fields before sending. You can consolidate multiple GCP log types into one table or split one log type into multiple tables if desired. This freedom lets you tailor the data to your environment and use cases. The flip side is complexity: every transformation is custom logic to maintain. Cost Considerations Cost-Efficient Pipeline: There is no charge for the Sentinel connector itself (it’s part of the service). Costs on GCP: Pub/Sub charges are minimal (especially for pulling data) and logging export has no extra cost aside from the egress of the data. On Azure: you pay for data ingestion and storage in Log Analytics as usual. No need to run VMs or functions continuously. Overall, the native route avoids infrastructure costs – you’re mainly paying for the data volume ingested (which is unavoidable either way) and a tiny cost for Pub/Sub (pennies for millions of messages). Additional Costs: On top of Log Analytics ingestion costs, you will incur charges for the components you use. An Azure Function or Cloud Function has execution costs (though modest, they add up with high volume). An Event Hub has hourly charges based on throughput units and retention. Data egress from GCP to Azure will be charged by Google (network egress fees) – this also applies to the native connector, though in that case GCP egress is typically quite small cost. If your pipeline runs 24h, ensure to factor in those platform costs. Custom pipelines can also potentially reduce Log Analytics costs by filtering out data (saving money by not ingesting noise), so there’s a trade-off: spend on processing to save on storage, if needed. Support & Troubleshooting Vendor-Supported: Microsoft supports the connector – if things go wrong, you can open a support case. Documentation covers common setup issues. The connector UI will show error messages (e.g., authentication failures) to guide troubleshooting. Upgrades/improvements are handled by Microsoft (e.g., if GCP API changes, Microsoft will update the connector). Self-Support: You build it, you fix it. Debugging issues might involve checking logs across two clouds. Community forums and documentation can help (e.g., Google’s docs for Pub/Sub, Azure docs for Log Ingestion API). When something breaks, your team must identify whether it’s on the GCP side (sink or Pub/Sub) or Azure side (function error or DCR issue). This requires familiarity with both environments. There’s no single vendor to take responsibility for the end-to-end pipeline since it’s custom. In short, use the native connector whenever possible – it’s easier and reliably maintained. Opt for a custom solution only if you truly need the flexibility or to support logs that the native connectors can’t handle. Some organizations start with custom ingestion out of necessity (before native support exists) and later migrate to native connectors once available, to reduce their maintenance burden. Troubleshooting Common Issues Finally, regardless of method, you may encounter some hurdles. Here are common issues and ways to address them in the context of GCP-to-Sentinel log integration: No data appearing in Sentinel: If you’ve set up a connector and see no logs, first be patient – initial data can take ~10–30 minutes to show up. If nothing appears after that, verify the GCP side: Check the Log Router sink status in GCP (did you set the correct inclusion filters? Are logs actually being generated? You can view logs in Cloud Logging to confirm the events exist). Go to Pub/Sub and use the “Pull” option on the subscription to see if messages are piling up. If you can pull messages manually but Sentinel isn’t getting them, the issue is likely on the Azure side. In Sentinel, ensure the connector shows as Connected. If it’s in an error state, click on it to see details. A common misconfiguration is an incorrect Project Number or Service Account in the connector settings – one typo in those will prevent ingestion. Update the parameters if needed and reconnect. Authentication or Connectivity errors (native connector): These show up as errors like “Workload Identity Pool ID not found” or “Subscription does not exist” in the connector page. This usually means the values entered in the connector are mismatched: Double-check the Workload Identity Provider ID. It must exactly match the one in GCP (including correct project number). If you created the WIF pool in a different project than the Pub/Sub, remember the connector (until recently) expected them in one project. Ensure you used the correct project ID/number for all fields. Verify the service account email is correct and that you granted the Workload Identity User role on it. If not, the Azure identity cannot assume the service account. Check that the subscription name is correct and that the service account has roles/pubsub.subscriber on it. If you forgot to add that role, Azure will be denied access to Pub/Sub. Ensure the Azure AD app (which is automatically used by Sentinel) wasn’t deleted or disabled in your tenant. The Sentinel connector uses a multi-tenant app provided by Microsoft (identified by the audience GUID in the docs), which should be fine unless your org blocked third-party Azure apps. If you have restrictions, you might need to allow Microsoft’s Sentinel multi-cloud connector app. Tip: Try running the Terraform scripts provided by Microsoft if you did things manually and it’s failing. The scripts often can pinpoint what’s missing by setting everything up for you. Partial data or specific logs missing: If some expected events are not showing up: Revisit your sink filter in GCP. Perhaps the filter is too narrow. For example, for DNS logs, you might need to include both _Default logs and DNS-specific log IDs. Or for audit logs, remember that Data Access logs for certain services might be excluded by default (you have to enable Data Access audit logs in GCP for some services). If those aren’t enabled in GCP, they won’t be exported at all. If using the SCC connector, ensure you enabled continuous export of findings in SCC to Pub/Sub – those findings won’t flow unless explicitly configured. Check Sentinel’s table for any clues – sometimes logs might arrive under a slightly different table or format. E.g., if the connector was set up incorrectly initially, it might have sent data to a custom table with a suffix. Use Log Analytics query across all tables (or search by a specific IP or timestamp) to ensure the data truly isn’t there. Duplicate logs or high event counts (custom ingestion): If your custom pipeline isn’t carefully handling acknowledgments, you might ingest duplicates. For instance, if your function crashes after sending data to Sentinel but before acking Pub/Sub, the message will be retried later – resulting in the same log ingested twice. Over time this could double-count events. Solution: Ensure idempotency or proper ack logic. One way is to include a unique ID with each log (GCP audit logs have an insertId which is unique per log event; VPC flow logs have unique flowID for each flow chunk). You could use that as a de-duplication key on the Sentinel side (e.g., ingest it and deduplicate in queries). Or design the pipeline to mark messages as processed in an external store. However, the simplest is to acknowledge only after successful ingestion and let Pub/Sub handle retries. If you notice duplicates in Sentinel, double-check that your code isn’t calling ack too early or multiple times. Log Ingestion API errors (custom pipeline): When calling the Log Ingestion API, you might encounter HTTP errors: 400 Bad Request – often schema mismatch. This means the JSON you sent doesn’t match the DCR’s expected format. Check the error details; the API usually returns a message indicating which field is wrong. Common issues: sending a string value for a column defined as integer, missing a required column, or having an extra column that’s not in the table. Adjust your transformation or DCR accordingly. 403 Forbidden – authentication failure. Your Azure AD token might be expired or your app doesn’t have rights. Make sure the token is fresh (fetch a new one for each function run, or use a managed identity if supported and authorized). Also verify the app’s role assignments. 429 Too Many Requests / Throttling – you might be sending data too fast. The Log Ingestion API has throughput limits (per second per workspace). If you hit these, implement a backoff/retry and consider batching more. This is rare unless you have a very high log rate. Azure Function timeouts – if using Functions, sometimes the default timeout (e.g., 5 minutes for an HTTP-triggered function) might be hit if processing a large batch. Consider increasing the timeout setting or splitting work into smaller chunks. Connector health alerts: If you enabled the health feature for connectors, you might get alerted that “no logs received from GCP Audit Logs in last X minutes” etc. If this is a false alarm (e.g., simply that there were genuinely no new logs in GCP during that period), you can adjust the alert logic or threshold. But if it’s a real issue, treat it as an incident: check GCP’s Cloud Logging to ensure new events exist (if not, maybe nothing happened – e.g., no admin activity in the last hour). If events do exist in GCP but none in Sentinel, you have a pipeline problem – refer to the earlier troubleshooting steps for auth/connectivity. Updating or Migrating pipelines: Over time, you might replace a custom pipeline with a native connector (or vice versa). Be cautious of duplicate ingestion if both are running simultaneously. For example, if you enable the new GCP DNS connector while your custom DNS log pipeline is still on, you’ll start ingesting DNS logs twice. Plan a cutover: disable one before enabling the other in production. Also, if migrating, note that the data may land in a different table (the native connector might use GCPDNS table whereas your custom went to GCP_DNS_Custom_CL). You may need to adjust your queries and workbooks to unify this. It could be worthwhile to backfill historical data for continuity if needed. By following these practices and monitoring closely, you can ensure a successful integration of GCP logs into Microsoft Sentinel. The end result is a centralized view in Sentinel where your Azure, AWS, on-prem, and now GCP logs all reside – empowering your SOC to run advanced detections and investigations across your multi-cloud environment using a single pane of glass.
