What’s new in Microsoft Sentinel: RSAC 2026
Security is entering a new era, one defined by explosive data growth, increasingly sophisticated threats, and the rise of AI-enabled operations. To keep pace, security teams need an AI-powered approach to collect, reason over, and act on security data at scale. At RSA Conference 2026 (RSAC), we’re unveiling the next wave of Sentinel innovations designed to help organizations move faster, see deeper, and defend smarter with AI-ready tools. These updates include AI-driven playbooks that accelerate SOC automation, Granular Delegated Admin Privileges (GDAP) and granular role-based access controls (RBAC) that let you scale your SOC, accelerated data onboarding through new connectors, and data federation that enables analysis in place without duplication. Together, they give teams greater clarity, control, and speed. Come see us at RSAC to view these innovations in action. Hear from Sentinel leaders during our exclusive Microsoft Pre-Day, then visit Microsoft booth #5744 for demos, theater sessions, and conversations with Sentinel experts. Read on to explore what’s new. See you at RSAC! Sentinel feature innovations: Sentinel SIEM Sentinel data lake Sentinel graph Sentinel MCP Threat Intelligence Microsoft Security Store Sentinel promotions Sentinel SIEM Playbook generator [Now in public preview] The Sentinel playbook generator delivers a new era of automation capabilities. You can vibe code complex automations, integrate with different tools to ensure timely and compliant workflows throughout your SOC and feel confident in the results with built in testing and documentation. Customers and partners are already seeing benefit from this innovation. “The playbook generator gives security engineers the flexibility and speed of AI-assisted coding while delivering the deterministic outcomes that enterprise security operations require. It's the best of both worlds, and it lives natively in Defender where the engineers already work.” – Jaime Guimera Coll | Security and AI Architect | BlueVoyant Learn more about playbook generator. SIEM migration experience [General availability now] The Sentinel SIEM migration experience helps you plan and execute SIEM migrations through a guided, in-product workflow. You can upload Splunk or QRadar exports to generate recommendations for best‑fit Sentinel analytics rules and required data connectors, then assess migration scope, validate detection coverage, and migrate from Splunk or QRadar to Sentinel in phases while tracking progress. “The tool helps turn a Splunk to Sentinel migration into a practical decision process. It gives clear visibility into which detections are relevant, how they align to real security use cases, and where it makes sense to enable or prioritize coverage—especially with cost and data sources in mind.” – Deniz Mutlu | Director | Swiss Post Cybersecurity Ltd Learn more about SIEM migration experience. GDAP, unified RBAC, and row-level RBAC for Sentinel [Public preview, April 1] As Sentinel environments grow for enterprises, MSSPs, hyperscalers, and partners operating across shared or multiple environments, the challenge becomes managing access control efficiently and consistently at scale. Sentinel’s expanded permissions and access capabilities are designed to meet these needs. Granular Delegated Admin Privileges (GDAP) lets you streamline management across multiple governed tenants using your primary account, based on existing GDAP relationships. Unified RBAC allows you to opt in to managing permissions for Sentinel workspaces through a single pane of glass, configuring and enforcing access across Sentinel experiences in the analytics tier and data lake in the Defender portal. This simplifies administration and improves operational efficiency by reducing the number of permission models you need to manage. Row-level RBAC scoping within tables enables precise, scoped access to data in the Sentinel data lake. Multiple SOC teams can operate independently within a shared Sentinel environment, querying only the data they are authorized to see, without separating workspaces or introducing complex data flow changes. Consistent, reusable scope definitions ensure permissions are applied uniformly across tables and experiences, while maintaining strong security boundaries. To learn more, read our technical deep dives on RBAC and GDAP. Sentinel data lake Sentinel data federation [Public preview, April 1] Sentinel data federation lets you analyze security data in place without copying or duplicating your data. Powered by Microsoft Fabric, you can now federate data from Fabric, Azure Data Lake Storage (ADLS), and Azure Databricks into Sentinel data lake. Federated data appears alongside native Sentinel data, so you can use familiar tools like KQL hunting, notebooks, and custom graphs to correlate signals and investigate across your entire digital estate, all while preserving governance and compliance. You can start analyzing data in place and progressively ingest data into Sentinel for deeper security insights, advanced automation, and AI-powered defense at scale. You are billed only when you run analytics on federated data using existing Sentinel data lake query and advanced insights meters. les for unified investigation and hunting Sentinel cost estimation tool [Public Preview, April 9] The new Sentinel cost estimation tool offers all Microsoft customers and partners a guided, meter-level cost estimation experience that makes pricing transparent and predictable. A built-in three-year cost projection lets you model data growth and ramp-up over time, anticipate spend, and avoid surprises. Get transparent estimates into spend as you scale your security operations. All other customers can continue to use the Azure calculator for Sentinel pricing estimates. See the Sentinel pricing page for more information. Sentinel data connectors A365 connector [Public preview, May 5] Bring AI agent telemetry into the Sentinel data lake to investigate agent behavior, tool usage, prompts, reasoning and execution using hunting, graph, and MCP workflows. GitHub audit log connector using API polling [General availability, March 6] Ingest GitHub enterprise audit logs into Sentinel to monitor user and administrator activity, detect risky changes, and investigate security events across your development environment. Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) connector [General availability, March 6] Collect Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) audit and workload logs in Sentinel to monitor cluster activity, analyze workload behavior, and detect security threats across Kubernetes environments. Microsoft Entra and Azure Resource Graph (ARG) connector enhancements [Public preview, April 15] Enable new Entra assets (EntraDevices, EntraOrgContacts) and ARG assets (ARGRoleDefinitions) in existing asset connectors, expanding inventory coverage and powering richer, built‑in graph experiences for greater visibility. With over 350 Sentinel data connectors, customers achieve broad visibility into complex digital environments and can expand their security operations effectively. “Microsoft Sentinel data lake forms the core of our agentic SOC. By unifying large volumes of Microsoft and third-party data, enabling graph-based analysis, and supporting MCP-driven workflows, it allows us to investigate faster, at lower cost, and with greater confidence.” – Øyvind Bergerud | Head of Security Operations | Storebrand Learn more about Sentinel data connectors. Sentinel connector builder agent using Sentinel Visual Studio Code extension [Public preview, March 31] Build Sentinel data connectors in minutes instead of weeks using the AI‑assisted Connector Builder agent in Visual Studio Code. This low‑code experience guides developers and ISVs end-to-end, automatically generating schemas, deployment assets, connector UI, secure secret handling, and polling logic. Built‑in validation surfaces issues early, so you can validate event logs before deployment and ingestion. Example prompt in GitHub Copilot Chat: @sentinel-connector-builder Create a new connector for OpenAI audit logs using https://api.openai.com/v1/organization/audit_logs Get started with custom connectors and learn more in our blog. Data filtering and splitting [Public preview, March 30] As security teams ingest more data, the challenge shifts from scale to relevance. With filtering and splitting now built into the Defender portal, teams can shape data before it lands in Sentinel, without switching tools or managing custom JSON files. Define simple KQL‑based transformations directly in the UI to filter low‑value events and intelligently route data, making ingestion optimization faster, more intuitive, and easier to manage at scale. Filtering at ingest time allows you to remove low-value or benign events to reduce noise, cut unnecessary processing, and ensure that high-signal data drives detections and investigations. Splitting enables intelligent routing of data between the analytics tier and the data lake tier based on relevance and usage. Together, these two capabilities help you balance cost and performance while scaling data ingestion sustainably as your digital estate grows. Create workbook reports directly from the data lake [Public preview, April 1] Sentinel workbooks can now directly run on the data lake using KQL, enabling you to visualize and monitor security data straight from the data lake. By selecting the data lake as the workbook data source, you can now create trend analysis and executive reporting. Sentinel graph Custom graphs [Public preview, April 1] Custom graphs let you build tailored security graphs tuned to your unique security scenarios using data from Sentinel data lake as well as non-Microsoft sources. With custom graph, powered by Fabric, you can build, query, and visualize connected data, uncover hidden patterns and attack paths, and help surface risks that are hard to detect when data is analyzed in isolation. These graphs provide the knowledge context that enables AI-powered agent experiences to work more effectively, speeding investigations, revealing blast radius, and helping you move from noisy, disconnected alerts to confident decisions at scale. In the words of our preview customers: “We ingested our Databricks management-plane telemetry into the Sentinel data lake and built a custom security graph. Without writing a single detection rule, the graph surfaced unusual patterns of activity and overprivileged access that we escalated for investigation. We didn't know what we were looking for, the graph surfaced the risk for us by revealing anomalous activity patterns and unusual access combinations driven by relationships, not alerts.” – SVP, Security Solutions | Financial Services organization Custom graph API usage for creating graph and querying graph will be billed starting April 1, 2026, according to the Sentinel graph meter. Creating custom graph Using the Sentinel VS Code extension, you can generate graphs to validate hunting hypotheses, such as understanding attack paths and blast radius of a phishing campaign, reconstructing multi‑step attack chains, and identifying structurally unusual or high‑risk behavior, making it accessible to your team and AI agents. Once persisted via a schedule job, you can access these custom graphs from the ready-to-use section in the graph experience in the Defender portal. Graphs experience in the Microsoft Defender portal After creating your custom graphs, you can access them in the graphs section of the Defender portal under Sentinel. From there, you’ll be able to perform interactive graph-based investigations, such as using a graph built for phishing analysis to help you quickly evaluate the impact of a recent incident, profile the attacker, and trace its paths across Microsoft telemetry and third-party data. The new graph experience lets you run Graph Query Language (GQL) queries, view the graph schema, visualize the graph, view graph results in tabular format, and interactively travers the graph to the next hop with a simple click. Sentinel MCP Sentinel MCP entity analyzer [General availability, April 1] Entity analyzer provides reasoned, out-of-the-box risk assessments that help you quickly understand whether a URL or user identity represents potential malicious activity. The capability analyzes data across modalities including threat intelligence, prevalence, and organizational context to generate clear, explainable verdicts you can trust. Entity analyzer integrates easily with your agents through Sentinel MCP server connections to first-party and third-party AI runtime platforms, or with your SOAR workflows through Logic Apps. The entity analyzer is also a trusted foundation for the Defender Triage Agent and delivers more accurate alert classifications and deeper investigative reasoning. This removes the need to manually engineer evaluation logic and creates trust for analysts and AI agents to act with higher accuracy and confidence. Learn more about entity analyzer and in our blog here. Entity analyzer will be billed starting April 1, 2026, based on Security Compute Units (SCU) consumption. Learn more about MCP billing. Sentinel MCP graph tool collection [Public preview, May 20] Graph tool collection helps you visualize and explore relationships between identities and device assets, threats and activities signals ingested by data connectors and alerted by analytic rules. The tool provides a clear graph view that highlights dependencies and configuration gaps, which makes it easier to understand how content interacts across your environment. This helps security teams assess coverage, optimize content deployment, and identify areas that may need tuning or additional data sources, all from a single, interactive workspace. Executing graph queries via the MCP tools will trigger the graph meter. Claude MCP connector [Public preview, April 1] Anthropic Claude can connect to Sentinel through a custom MCP connector, giving you AI-assisted analysis across your Sentinel environment. Microsoft provides step-by-step guidance for configuring a custom connector in Claude that securely connects to a Sentinel MCP server. With this connection you can summarize incidents, investigate alerts, and reason over security signals while keeping data inside Microsoft's security boundary. Access to large language models (LLMs) is managed through Microsoft authentication and role-based controls, supporting faster triage and investigation workflows while maintaining compliance and visibility. Threat Intelligence CVEs of interest in the Threat Intelligence Briefing Agent [Public preview in April] The Threat Intelligence Briefing Agent delivers curated intelligence based on your organization’s configuration, preferences, and unique industry and geographic needs. CVEs of interest which highlights vulnerabilities actively discussed across the security landscape and assesses their potential impact on your environment, delivering more timely threat intelligence insights. The agent automatically incorporates internet exposure data powered by the Sentinel platform to surface threats targeting technologies exposed in your organization. Together, these enhancements help you focus faster on the threats that matter most, without manual investigation. Microsoft Security Store Security Store embedded in Entra [General availability, March 23] As identity environments grow more complex, teams need to move faster and extend Entra with trusted third‑party capabilities that address operational, compliance, and risk challenges. The Security Store embedded directly into Entra lets you discover and adopt Entra‑ready agents and solutions in your workflow. You can extend Entra with identity‑focused agents that surface privileged access risk, identity posture gaps, network access insights, and overall identity health, turning identity data into clear recommendations and reports teams can use immediately. You can also enhance Entra with Verified ID and External ID integrations that strengthen identity verification, streamline account recovery, and reduce fraud across workforce, consumer, and external identities. Security Store embedded in Microsoft Purview [General availability, March 31] Extending data security across the digital estate requires visibility and enforcement into new data sources and risk surfaces, often requiring a partnered approach. The Security Store embedded directly into Purview lets you discover and evaluate integrated solutions inside your data security workflows. Relevant partner capabilities surface alongside context, making it easier to strengthen data protection, address regulatory requirements, and respond to risk without disrupting existing processes. You can quickly assess which solutions align to data security scenarios, especially with respect to securing AI use, and how they can leverage established classifiers, policies, and investigation workflows in Purview. Keeping integration discovery in‑flow and purchases centralized through the Security Store means you move faster from evaluation to deployment, reducing friction and maintaining a secure, consistent transaction experience. Security Store Advisor [General availability, March 23] Security teams today face growing complexity and choice. Teams often know the security outcome they need, whether that's strengthening identity protection, improving ransomware resilience, or reducing insider risk, but lack a clear, efficient way to determine which solutions will help them get there. Security Store Advisor provides a guided, natural-language discovery experience that shifts security evaluation from product‑centric browsing to outcome‑driven decision‑making. You can describe your goal in plain language, and the Advisor surfaces the most relevant Microsoft and partner agents, solutions, and services available in the Security Store, without requiring deep product knowledge. This approach simplifies discovery, reduces time spent navigating catalogs and documentation, and helps you understand how individual capabilities fit together to deliver meaningful security outcomes. Sentinel promotions Extending signups for promotional 50 GB commitment tier [Through June 2026] The Sentinel promotional 50 GB commitment tier offers small and mid-sized organizations a cost-effective entry point into Sentinel. Sign up for the 50 GB commitment tier until June 30, 2026, and maintain the promotional rate until March 31, 2027. This promotion is available globally with regional variations in pricing and accessible through EA, CSP, and Direct channels. Visit the Sentinel pricing page for details and to get started. Sentinel RSAC 2026 sessions All week – Sentinel product demos, Microsoft Booth #5744 Mon Mar 23, 3:55 PM – RSAC 2026 main stage Keynote with CVP Vasu Jakkal [KEY-M10W] Ambient and autonomous security: Building trust in the agentic AI era Tue Mar 24, 10:30 AM – Live Q&A session, Microsoft booth #5744 and online Ask me anything with Microsoft Security SMEs and real practitioners Tue Mar 24, 11 AM – Sentinel data lake theater session, Microsoft booth #5744 From signals to insights: How Microsoft Sentinel data lake powers modern security operations Tue Mar 24, 2 PM – Sentinel SIEM theater session, Microsoft booth #5744 Vibe-coding SecOps automations with the Sentinel playbook generator Wed Mar 25, 12 PM – Executive event at Palace Hotel with Threat Protection GM Scott Woodgate The AI risk equation: Visibility, control, and threat acceleration Wed Mar 25, 1:30 PM – Sentinel graph theater session, Microsoft booth #5744 Bringing knowledge-driven context to security with Microsoft Sentinel graph Wed Mar 25, 5 PM – MISA theater session, Microsoft booth #5744 Cut SIEM costs without reducing protection: A Sentinel data lake case study Thu Mar 26, 1 PM – Security Store theater session, Microsoft booth #5744 What's next for Security Store: Expanding in portal and smarter discovery All week – 1:1 meetings with Microsoft security experts Meet with Microsoft Defender and Sentinel SIEM and Defender Security Operations Additional resources Sentinel data lake video playlist Explore the full capabilities of Sentinel data lake as a unified, AI-ready security platform that is deeply integrated into the Defender portal Sentinel data lake FAQ blog Get answers to many of the questions we’ve heard from our customers and partners on Sentinel data lake and billing AI‑powered SIEM migration experience ninja training Walk through the SIEM migration experience, see how it maps detections, surfaces connector requirements, and supports phased migration decisions SIEM migration experience documentation Learn how the SIEM migration experience analyzes your exports, maps detections and connectors, and recommends prioritized coverage Accenture collaborates with Microsoft to bring agentic security and business resilience to the front lines of cyber defense Stay connected Check back each month for the latest innovations, updates, and events to ensure you’re getting the most out of Sentinel. We’ll see you in the next edition!
XdrLogRaider Defender XDR portal telemetry
A Microsoft Sentinel custom data connector that ingests Microsoft Defender XDR portal-only telemetry — configuration, compliance, drift, exposure, governance — that public Microsoft APIs (Graph Security, Microsoft 365 Defender, MDE) don't expose. https://github.com/akefallonitis/xdrlograider— Defender XDR portal telemetry Happy Hunting 🥳 🎉
KQL query not working
Hi everyone, I'm not a kusto expert so bare with me. I'm trying to replace a text to another text... The one in bold is what I'm tryng to use but is not working. Basically the log doesn't make a reference for (9999) which is actually "URL filtering log"... and I need this this to show on the results... not as (9999) but as "URL filtering log". I've been trying to use CommonSecurityLog | where DeviceProduct has 'PAN-OS' | where DeviceVendor =~ 'Palo AltoNetworks' //| where DeviceEventClassID =~ 'correlation' | extend ThreatId = extract('cat=([^;]+)', 1, AdditionalExtensions) | extend ThreatCategory = extract('PanOSThreatCategory=([^;]+)', 1, AdditionalExtensions) | extend str=strcat("9999", "9999", "URL") | extend replaced=replace_string(str, '9999', 'URL') | summarize Amount=count() by ThreatId, ThreatCategory, LogSeverity | top 20 by Amount RESULTS:
Part 3: Unified Security Intelligence - Orchestrating GenAI Threat Detection with Microsoft Sentinel
Why Sentinel for GenAI Security Observability? Before diving into detection rules, let's address why Microsoft Sentinel is uniquely positioned for GenAI security operations—especially compared to traditional or non-native SIEMs. Native Azure Integration: Zero ETL Overhead The problem with external SIEMs: To monitor your GenAI workloads with a third-party SIEM, you need to: Configure log forwarding from Log Analytics to external systems Set up data connectors or agents for Azure OpenAI audit logs Create custom parsers for Azure-specific log schemas Maintain authentication and network connectivity between Azure and your SIEM Pay data egress costs for logs leaving Azure The Sentinel advantage: Your logs are already in Azure. Sentinel connects directly to: Log Analytics workspace - Where your Container Insights logs already flow Azure OpenAI audit logs - Native access without configuration Azure AD sign-in logs - Instant correlation with identity events Defender for Cloud alerts - Platform-level AI threat detection included Threat intelligence feeds - Microsoft's global threat data built-in Microsoft Defender XDR - AI-driven cybersecurity that unifies threat detection and response across endpoints, email, identities, cloud apps and Sentinel There's no data movement, no ETL pipelines, and no latency from log shipping. Your GenAI security data is queryable in real-time. KQL: Built for Complex Correlation at Scale Why this matters for GenAI: Detecting sophisticated AI attacks requires correlating: Application logs (your code from Part 2) Azure OpenAI service logs (API calls, token usage, throttling) Identity signals (who authenticated, from where) Threat intelligence (known malicious IPs) Defender for Cloud alerts (platform-level anomalies) KQL's advantage: Kusto Query Language is designed for this. You can: Join across multiple data sources in a single query Parse nested JSON (like your structured logs) natively Use time-series analysis functions for anomaly detection and behavior patterns Aggregate millions of events in seconds Extract entities (users, IPs, sessions) automatically for investigation graphs Example: Correlating your app logs with Azure AD sign-ins and Defender alerts takes 10 lines of KQL. In a traditional SIEM, this might require custom scripts, data normalization, and significantly slower performance. User Security Context Flows Natively Remember the user_security_context you pass in extra_body from Part 2? That context: Automatically appears in Azure OpenAI's audit logs Flows into Defender for Cloud AI alerts Is queryable in Sentinel without custom parsing Maps to the same identity schema as Azure AD logs With external SIEMs: You'd need to: Extract user context from your application logs Separately ingest Azure OpenAI logs Write correlation logic to match them Maintain entity resolution across different data sources With Sentinel: It just works. The end_user_id, source_ip, and application_name are already normalized across Azure services. Built-In AI Threat Detection Sentinel includes pre-built detections for cloud and AI workloads: Azure OpenAI anomalous access patterns (out of the box) Unusual token consumption (built-in analytics templates) Geographic anomalies (using Azure's global IP intelligence) Impossible travel detection (cross-referencing sign-ins with AI API calls) Microsoft Defender XDR (correlation with endpoint, email, cloud app signals) These aren't generic "high volume" alerts—they're tuned for Azure AI services by Microsoft's security research team. You can use them as-is or customize them with your application-specific context. Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) Sentinel's UEBA automatically builds baselines for: Normal request volumes per user Typical request patterns per application Expected geographic access locations Standard model usage patterns Then it surfaces anomalies: "User_12345 normally makes 10 requests/day, suddenly made 500 in an hour" "Application_A typically uses GPT-3.5, suddenly switched to GPT-4 exclusively" "User authenticated from Seattle, made AI requests from Moscow 10 minutes later" This behavior modeling happens automatically—no custom ML model training required. Traditional SIEMs would require you to build this logic yourself. The Bottom Line For GenAI security on Azure: Sentinel reduces time-to-detection because data is already there Correlation is simpler because everything speaks the same language Investigation is faster because entities are automatically linked Cost is lower because you're not paying data egress fees Maintenance is minimal because connectors are native If your GenAI workloads are on Azure, using anything other than Sentinel means fighting against the platform instead of leveraging it. From Logs to Intelligence: The Complete Picture Your structured logs from Part 2 are flowing into Log Analytics. Here's what they look like: { "timestamp": "2025-10-21T14:32:17.234Z", "level": "INFO", "message": "LLM Request Received", "request_id": "a7c3e9f1-4b2d-4a8e-9c1f-3e5d7a9b2c4f", "session_id": "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000", "prompt_hash": "d3b07384d113edec49eaa6238ad5ff00", "security_check_passed": "PASS", "source_ip": "203.0.113.42", "end_user_id": "user_550e8400", "application_name": "AOAI-Customer-Support-Bot", "model_deployment": "gpt-4-turbo" } These logs are in the ContainerLogv2 table since our application “AOAI-Customer-Support-Bot” is running on Azure Kubernetes Services (AKS). Steps to Setup AKS to stream logs to Sentinel/Log Analytics From Azure portal, navigate to your AKS, then to Monitoring -> Insights Select Monitor Settings Under Container Logs Select the Sentinel-enabled Log Analytics workspace Select Logs and events Check the ‘Enable ContainerLogV2’ and ‘Enable Syslog collection’ options More details can be found at this link Kubernetes monitoring in Azure Monitor - Azure Monitor | Microsoft Learn Critical Analytics Rules: What to Detect and Why Rule 1: Prompt Injection Attack Detection Why it matters: Prompt injection is the GenAI equivalent of SQL injection. Attackers try to manipulate the model by overriding system instructions. Multiple attempts indicate intentional malicious behavior. What to detect: 3+ prompt injection attempts within 10 minutes from similar IP let timeframe = 1d; let threshold = 3; AlertEvidence | where TimeGenerated >= ago(timeframe) and EntityType == "Ip" | where DetectionSource == "Microsoft Defender for AI Services" | where Title contains "jailbreak" or Title contains "prompt injection" | summarize count() by bin (TimeGenerated, 1d), RemoteIP | where count_ >= threshold What the SOC sees: User identity attempting injection Source IP and geographic location Sample prompts for investigation Frequency indicating automation vs. manual attempts Severity: High (these are actual attempts to bypass security) Rule 2: Content Safety Filter Violations Why it matters: When Azure AI Content Safety blocks a request, it means harmful content (violence, hate speech, etc.) was detected. Multiple violations indicate intentional abuse or a compromised account. What to detect: Users with 3+ content safety violations in a 1 hour block during a 24 hour time period. let timeframe = 1d; let threshold = 3; ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated >= ago(timeframe) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.end_user_id) | where LogMessage.security_check_passed == "FAIL" | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend session_id=tostring(LogMessage.session_id) | extend application_name = tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | summarize count() by bin(TimeGenerated, 1h),source_ip,end_user_id,session_id,Computer,application_name,security_check_passed | where count_ >= threshold What the SOC sees: Severity based on violation count Time span showing if it's persistent vs. isolated Prompt samples (first 80 chars) for context Session ID for conversation history review Severity: High (these are actual harmful content attempts) Rule 3: Rate Limit Abuse Why it matters: Persistent rate limit violations indicate automated attacks, credential stuffing, or attempts to overwhelm the system. Legitimate users who hit rate limits don't retry 10+ times in minutes. What to detect: Users blocked by rate limiter 5+ times in 10 minutes let timeframe = 1h; let threshold = 5; AzureDiagnostics | where ResourceProvider == "MICROSOFT.COGNITIVESERVICES" | where OperationName == "Completions" or OperationName contains "ChatCompletions" | extend tokensUsed = todouble(parse_json(properties_s).usage.total_tokens) | summarize totalTokens = sum(tokensUsed), requests = count(), rateLimitErrors = countif(httpstatuscode_s == "429") by bin(TimeGenerated, 1h) | where count_ >= threshold What the SOC sees: Whether it's a bot (immediate retries) or human (gradual retries) Duration of attack Which application is targeted Correlation with other security events from same user/IP Severity: Medium (nuisance attack, possible reconnaissance) Rule 4: Anomalous Source IP for User Why it matters: A user suddenly accessing from a new country or VPN could indicate account compromise. This is especially critical for privileged accounts or after-hours access. What to detect: User accessing from an IP never seen in the last 7 days let lookback = 7d; let recent = 1h; let baseline = IdentityLogonEvents | where Timestamp between (ago(lookback + recent) .. ago(recent)) | where isnotempty(IPAddress) | summarize knownIPs = make_set(IPAddress) by AccountUpn; ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated >= ago(recent) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend session_id=tostring(LogMessage.session_id) | extend application_name = tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | extend full_prompt_sample = tostring (LogMessage.full_prompt_sample) | lookup baseline on $left.AccountUpn == $right.end_user_id | where isnull(knownIPs) or IPAddress !in (knownIPs) | project TimeGenerated, source_ip, end_user_id, session_id, Computer, application_name, security_check_passed, full_prompt_sample What the SOC sees: User identity and new IP address Geographic location change Whether suspicious prompts accompanied the new IP Timing (after-hours access is higher risk) Severity: Medium (environment compromise, reconnaissance) Rule 5: Coordinated Attack - Same Prompt from Multiple Users Why it matters: When 5+ users send identical prompts, it indicates a bot network, credential stuffing, or organized attack campaign. This is not normal user behavior. What to detect: Same prompt hash from 5+ different users within 1 hour let timeframe = 1h; let threshold = 5; ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated >= ago(timeframe) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.prompt_hash) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend prompt_hash=tostring(LogMessage.prompt_hash) | extend application_name = tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | project TimeGenerated, prompt_hash, source_ip, end_user_id, application_name, security_check_passed | summarize DistinctUsers = dcount(end_user_id), Attempts = count(), Users = make_set(end_user_id, 100), IpAddress = make_set(source_ip, 100) by prompt_hash, bin(TimeGenerated, 1h) | where DistinctUsers >= threshold What the SOC sees: Attack pattern (single attacker with stolen accounts vs. botnet) List of compromised user accounts Source IPs for blocking Prompt sample to understand attack goal Severity: High (indicates organized attack) Rule 6: Malicious model detected Why it matters: Model serialization attacks can lead to serious compromise. When Defender for Cloud Model Scanning identifies issues with a custom or opensource model that is part of Azure ML Workspace, Registry, or hosted in Foundry, that may be or may not be a user oversight. What to detect: Model scan results from Defender for Cloud and if it is being actively used. What the SOC sees: Malicious model Applications leveraging the model Source IPs and users accessed the model Severity: Medium (can be user oversight) Advanced Correlation: Connecting the Dots The power of Sentinel is correlating your application logs with other security signals. Here are the most valuable correlations: Correlation 1: Failed GenAI Requests + Failed Sign-Ins = Compromised Account Why: Account showing both authentication failures and malicious AI prompts is likely compromised within a 1 hour timeframe l let timeframe = 1h; ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated >= ago(timeframe) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend session_id=tostring(LogMessage.session_id) | extend application_name = tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | extend full_prompt_sample = tostring (LogMessage.full_prompt_sample) | extend message = tostring (LogMessage.message) | where security_check_passed == "FAIL" or message contains "WARNING" | join kind=inner ( SigninLogs | where ResultType != 0 // 0 means success, non-zero indicates failure | project TimeGenerated, UserPrincipalName, ResultType, ResultDescription, IPAddress, Location, AppDisplayName ) on $left.end_user_id == $right.UserPrincipalName | project TimeGenerated, source_ip, end_user_id, application_name, full_prompt_sample, prompt_hash, message, security_check_passed Severity: High (High probability of compromise) Correlation 2: Application Logs + Defender for Cloud AI Alerts Why: Defender for Cloud AI Threat Protection detects platform-level threats (unusual API patterns, data exfiltration attempts). When both your code and the platform flag the same user, confidence is very high. let timeframe = 1h; ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated >= ago(timeframe) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend session_id=tostring(LogMessage.session_id) | extend application_name = tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | extend full_prompt_sample = tostring (LogMessage.full_prompt_sample) | extend message = tostring (LogMessage.message) | where security_check_passed == "FAIL" or message contains "WARNING" | join kind=inner ( AlertEvidence | where TimeGenerated >= ago(timeframe) and AdditionalFields.Asset == "true" | where DetectionSource == "Microsoft Defender for AI Services" | project TimeGenerated, Title, CloudResource ) on $left.application_name == $right.CloudResource | project TimeGenerated, application_name, end_user_id, source_ip, Title Severity: Critical (Multi-layer detection) Correlation 3: Source IP + Threat Intelligence Feeds Why: If requests come from known malicious IPs (C2 servers, VPN exit nodes used in attacks), treat them as high priority even if behavior seems normal. //This rule correlates GenAI app activity with Microsoft Threat Intelligence feed available in Sentinel and Microsoft XDR for malicious IP IOCs let timeframe = 10m; ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated >= ago(timeframe) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend session_id=tostring(LogMessage.session_id) | extend application_name = tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | extend full_prompt_sample = tostring (LogMessage.full_prompt_sample) | join kind=inner ( ThreatIntelIndicators | where IsActive == "true" | where ObservableKey startswith "ipv4-addr" or ObservableKey startswith "network-traffic" | project IndicatorIP = ObservableValue ) on $left.source_ip == $right.IndicatorIP | project TimeGenerated, source_ip, end_user_id, application_name, full_prompt_sample, security_check_passed Severity: High (Known bad actor) Workbooks: What Your SOC Needs to See Executive Dashboard: GenAI Security Health Purpose: Leadership wants to know: "Are we secure?" Answer with metrics. Key visualizations: Security Status Tiles (24 hours) Total Requests Success Rate Blocked Threats (Self detected + Content Safety + Threat Protection for AI) Rate Limit Violations Model Security Score (Red Team evaluation status of currently deployed model) ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated > ago (1d) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | summarize SuccessCount=countif(security_check_passed == "PASS"), FailedCount=countif(security_check_passed == "FAIL") by bin(TimeGenerated, 1h) | extend TotalRequests = SuccessCount + FailedCount | extend SuccessRate = todouble(SuccessCount)/todouble(TotalRequests) * 100 | order by SuccessRate 1. Trend Chart: Pass vs. Fail Over Time Shows if attack volume is increasing Identifies attack time windows Validates that defenses are working ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated > ago (14d) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | summarize SuccessCount=countif(security_check_passed == "PASS"), FailedCount=countif(security_check_passed == "FAIL") by bin(TimeGenerated, 1d) | render timechart 2. Top 10 Users by Security Events Bar chart of users with most failures ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated > ago (1d) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | where security_check_passed == "FAIL" | summarize FailureCount = count() by end_user_id | top 20 by FailureCount | render barchart Applications with most failures ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated > ago (1d) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.application_name) | extend application_name=tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | where security_check_passed == "FAIL" | summarize FailureCount = count() by application_name | top 20 by FailureCount | render barchart 3. Geographic Threat Map Where are attacks originating? Useful for geo-blocking decisions ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated > ago (1d) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.application_name) | extend application_name=tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | where security_check_passed == "FAIL" | extend GeoInfo = geo_info_from_ip_address(source_ip) | project sourceip, GeoInfo.counrty, GeoInfo.city Analyst Deep-Dive: User Behavior Analysis Purpose: SOC analyst investigating a specific user or session Key components: 1. User Activity Timeline Every request from the user in time order ContainerLogV2 | where isnotempty(LogMessage.end_user_id) | project TimeGenerated, LogMessage.source_ip, LogMessage.end_user_id, LogMessage. session_id, Computer, LogMessage.application_name, LogMessage.request_id, LogMessage.message, LogMessage.full_prompt_sample | order by tostring(LogMessage_end_user_id), TimeGenerated Color-coded by security status AlertInfo | where DetectionSource == "Microsoft Defender for AI Services" | project TimeGenerated, AlertId, Title, Category, Severity, SeverityColor = case( Severity == "High", "🔴 High", Severity == "Medium", "🟠 Medium", Severity == "Low", "🟢 Low", "⚪ Unknown" ) 2. Session Analysis Table All sessions for the user ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated > ago (1d) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | where end_user_id == "<username>" // Replace with actual username | extend application_name=tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | extend session_id=tostri1ng(LogMessage.session_id) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | project TimeGenerated, session_id, end_user_id, application_name, security_check_passed Failed requests per session ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated > ago (1d) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | where security_check_passed == "FAIL" | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend session_id=tostring(LogMessage.session_id) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | summarize Failed_Sessions = count() by end_user_id, session_id | order by Failed_Sessions Session duration ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated > ago (1d) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.session_id) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | where security_check_passed == "PASS" | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend session_id=tostring(LogMessage.session_id) | extend application_name=tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | summarize Start=min(TimeGenerated), End=max(TimeGenerated), count() by end_user_id, session_id, source_ip, application_name | extend DurationSeconds = datetime_diff("second", End, Start) 3. Prompt Pattern Detection Unique prompts by hash Frequency of each pattern Detect if user is fuzzing/testing boundaries Sample query for user investigation: ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated > ago (14d) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.prompt_hash) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.full_prompt_sample) | extend prompt_hash=tostring(LogMessage.prompt_hash) | extend full_prompt_sample=tostring(LogMessage.full_prompt_sample) | extend application_name=tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | summarize count() by prompt_hash, full_prompt_sample | order by count_ Threat Hunting Dashboard: Proactive Detection Purpose: Find threats before they trigger alerts Key queries: 1. Suspicious Keywords in Prompts (e.g. Ignore, Disregard, system prompt, instructions, DAN, jailbreak, pretend, roleplay) let suspicious_prompts = externaldata (content_policy:int, content_policy_name:string, q_id:int, question:string) [ @"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/verazuo/jailbreak_llms/refs/heads/main/data/forbidden_question/forbidden_question_set.csv"] with (format="csv", has_header_row=true, ignoreFirstRecord=true); ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated > ago (14d) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.full_prompt_sample) | extend full_prompt_sample=tostring(LogMessage.full_prompt_sample) | where full_prompt_sample in (suspicious_prompts) | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend session_id=tostring(LogMessage.session_id) | extend application_name=tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | project TimeGenerated, session_id, end_user_id, source_ip, application_name, full_prompt_sample 2. High-Volume Anomalies User sending too many requests by a IP or User. Assuming that Foundry Projects are configured to use Azure AD and not API Keys. //50+ requests in 1 hour let timeframe = 1h; let threshold = 50; AzureDiagnostics | where ResourceProvider == "MICROSOFT.COGNITIVESERVICES" | where OperationName == "Completions" or OperationName contains "ChatCompletions" | extend tokensUsed = todouble(parse_json(properties_s).usage.total_tokens) | summarize totalTokens = sum(tokensUsed), requests = count() by bin(TimeGenerated, 1h),CallerIPAddress | where count_ >= threshold 3. Rare Failures (Novel Attack Detection) Rare failures might indicate zero-day prompts or new attack techniques //10 or more failures in 24 hours ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated >= ago (24h) | where isnotempty(LogMessage.security_check_passed) | extend security_check_passed=tostring(LogMessage.security_check_passed) | where security_check_passed == "FAIL" | extend application_name=tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | summarize FailedAttempts = count(), FirstAttempt=min(TimeGenerated), LastAttempt=max(TimeGenerated) by application_name | extend DurationHours = datetime_diff('hour', LastAttempt, FirstAttempt) | where DurationHours >= 24 and FailedAttempts >=10 | project application_name, FirstAttempt, LastAttempt, DurationHours, FailedAttempts Measuring Success: Security Operations Metrics Key Performance Indicators Mean Time to Detect (MTTD): let AppLog = ContainerLogV2 | extend application_name=tostring(LogMessage.application_name) | extend security_check_passed=tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | extend session_id=tostring(LogMessage.session_id) | extend end_user_id=tostring(LogMessage.end_user_id) | extend source_ip=tostring(LogMessage.source_ip) | where security_check_passed=="FAIL" | summarize FirstLogTime=min(TimeGenerated) by application_name, session_id, end_user_id, source_ip; let Alert = AlertEvidence | where DetectionSource == "Microsoft Defender for AI Services" | extend end_user_id = tostring(AdditionalFields.AadUserId) | extend source_ip=RemoteIP | extend application_name=CloudResource | summarize FirstAlertTime=min(TimeGenerated) by AlertId, Title, application_name, end_user_id, source_ip; AppLog | join kind=inner (Alert) on application_name, end_user_id, source_ip | extend DetectionDelayMinutes=datetime_diff('minute', FirstAlertTime, FirstLogTime) | summarize MTTD_Minutes=round(avg (DetectionDelayMinutes),2) by AlertId, Title Target: <= 15 minutes from first malicious activity to alert Mean Time to Respond (MTTR): SecurityIncident | where Status in ("New", "Active") | where CreatedTime >= ago(14d) | extend ResponseDelay = datetime_diff('minute', LastActivityTime, FirstActivityTime) | summarize MTTR_Minutes = round (avg (ResponseDelay),2) by CreatedTime, IncidentNumber | order by CreatedTime, IncidentNumber asc Target: < 4 hours from alert to remediation Threat Detection Rate: ContainerLogV2 | where TimeGenerated > ago (1d) | extend security_check_passed = tostring (LogMessage.security_check_passed) | summarize SuccessCount=countif(security_check_passed == "PASS"), FailedCount=countif(security_check_passed == "FAIL") by bin(TimeGenerated, 1h) | extend TotalRequests = SuccessCount + FailedCount | extend SuccessRate = todouble(SuccessCount)/todouble(TotalRequests) * 100 | order by SuccessRate Context: 1-3% is typical for production systems (most traffic is legitimate) What You've Built By implementing the logging from Part 2 and the analytics rules in this post, your SOC now has: ✅ Real-time threat detection - Alerts fire within minutes of malicious activity ✅ User attribution - Every incident has identity, IP, and application context ✅ Pattern recognition - Detect both volume-based and behavior-based attacks ✅ Correlation across layers - Application logs + platform alerts + identity signals ✅ Proactive hunting - Dashboards for finding threats before they trigger rules ✅ Executive visibility - Metrics showing program effectiveness Key Takeaways GenAI threats need GenAI-specific analytics - Generic rules miss context like prompt injection, content safety violations, and session-based attacks Correlation is critical - The most sophisticated attacks span multiple signals. Correlating app logs with identity and platform alerts catches what individual rules miss. User context from Part 2 pays off - end_user_id, source_ip, and session_id enable investigation and response at scale Prompt hashing enables pattern detection - Detect repeated attacks without storing sensitive prompt content Workbooks serve different audiences - Executives want metrics; analysts want investigation tools; hunters want anomaly detection Start with high-fidelity rules - Content Safety violations and rate limit abuse have very low false positive rates. Add behavioral rules after establishing baselines. What's Next: Closing the Loop You've now built detection and visibility. In Part 4, we'll close the security operations loop with: Part 4: Platform Integration and Automated Response Building SOAR playbooks for automated incident response Implementing automated key rotation with Azure Key Vault Blocking identities in Entra Creating feedback loops from incidents to code improvements The journey from blind spot to full security operations capability is almost complete. Previous: Part 1: Securing GenAI Workloads in Azure: A Complete Guide to Monitoring and Threat Protection - AIO11Y | Microsoft Community Hub Part 2: Part 2: Building Security Observability Into Your Code - Defensive Programming for Azure OpenAI | Microsoft Community Hub Next: Part 4: Platform Integration and Automated Response (Coming soon)
need to create monitoring queries to track the health status of data connectors
I'm working with Microsoft Sentinel and need to create monitoring queries to track the health status of data connectors. Specifically, I want to: Identify unhealthy or disconnected data connectors, Determine when a data connector last lost connection Get historical connection status information What I'm looking for: A KQL query that can be run in the Sentinel workspace to check connector status OR a PowerShell script/command that can retrieve this information Ideally, something that can be automated for regular monitoring Looking at the SentinelHealth table, but unsure about the exact schema,connector, etc Checking if there are specific tables that track connector status changes Using Azure Resource Graph or management APIs Ive Tried multiple approaches (KQL, PowerShell, Resource Graph) however I somehow cannot get the information I'm looking to obtain. Please assist with this, for example i see this microsoft docs page, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sentinel/monitor-data-connector-health#supported-data-connectors however I would like my query to state data such as - Last ingestion of tables? How much data has been ingested by specific tables and connectors? What connectors are currently connected? The health of my connectors? Please help
Update Coverage Workbook in Microsoft Defender for Cloud to Include Defender for AI Plan status
Option 1: Update the Existing Coverage Workbook Enhance the current workbook by adding a query that checks Defender for AI plan enablement across subscriptions. Steps Open the Coverage Workbook in Defender for Cloud. Edit the workbook and update the query section to include the line below. AIServices = defenderPlans.AI Display the results in a table or chart alongside other Defender plans. Save and publish the updated workbook for organization-wide visibility. Pros Single pane of glass for all Defender coverage. Easy for SOC teams already using the workbook. Cons Requires manual customization and maintenance. Updates may be overwritten during workbook template refresh. Option 2: Use Azure Resource Graph Explorer Run a Resource Graph query to check Defender for AI enablement status across multiple subscriptions without modifying the workbook. Steps Go to Azure Resource Graph Explorer in the Azure portal. Run the following query: __________________________________________________________________________________ securityresources | where type =~ "microsoft.security/pricings" | extend pricingTier = properties.pricingTier, subPlan = properties.subPlan | extend planSet = pack(name, level = case(isnotempty(subPlan),subPlan,pricingTier)) | summarize defenderPlans = make_bag(planSet) by subscriptionId | project subscriptionId, CloudPosture = defenderPlans.CloudPosture, VirtualMachines = defenderPlans.VirtualMachines, AppServices = defenderPlans.AppServices, AIServices = defenderPlans.AI, SqlServers = defenderPlans.SqlServers, SqlServerVirtualMachines = defenderPlans.SqlServerVirtualMachines, OpenSourceRelationalDatabases = defenderPlans.OpenSourceRelationalDatabases, CosmosDB = defenderPlans.CosmosDbs, StorageAccounts = defenderPlans.StorageAccounts, Containers = defenderPlans.Containers, KeyVaults = defenderPlans.KeyVaults, Arm = defenderPlans.Arm, DNS = defenderPlans.Dns, KubernetesService = defenderPlans.KubernetesService, ContainerRegistry = defenderPlans.ContainerRegistry The output appears as shown below. Export results to CSV or Power BI for reporting. Optionally, schedule the query using Azure Automation or Logic Apps for periodic checks. Pros No dependency on workbook customization. Flexible for ad hoc queries and automation. Cons Separate reporting interface from the Coverage Workbook. Requires manual execution or automation setup. Recommendation If your organization prefers a centralized dashboard, choose Option 1 and update the Coverage Workbook. For quick checks or automation, Option 2 using Resource Graph Explorer is simpler and more scalable.Sentinel Data Connector: Google Workspace (G Suite) (using Azure Functions)
I'm encountering a problem when attempting to run the GWorkspace_Report workbook in Azure Sentinel. The query is throwing this error related to the union operator: 'union' operator: Failed to resolve table expression named 'GWorkspace_ReportsAPI_gcp_CL' I've double-checked, and the GoogleWorkspaceReports connector is installed and updated to version 3.0.2. Has anyone seen this or know what might be causing the table GWorkspace_ReportsAPI_gcp_CL to be unresolved? Thanks!
