EzCloudInfo

Microsoft cloud · Identity · AI security

Tag: Security

  • From Technical Architecture to Business Value: Mapping AI Security Capabilities with Power BI

    A security architecture diagram can be completely accurate and still fail to answer the question that matters to a board member. Consider a proposed enterprise AI security initiative: The engineering team presents an impressive topology of Cloud proxies, API gateways, policy engines and data stores. But the board asks a simpler question: Which critical capabilities will this investment strengthen, and how will we know?

    This is where a capability oriented architecture view changes the conversation. In this hands on demonstration, we will map business concerns to security enabling capabilities, Microsoft controls, implementation evidence and technical assets. Then we will build three different views over the same model using Power BI. The approach is inspired by ArchiMate 3.2, but the dashboard is not presented as a certified ArchiMate modeling tool.

    “Show me what the AI security investment enables, how far delivery has progressed, and where I can verify the evidence.”

    Demo disclosure: Every organization name, maturity score, test percentage, owner and status in this article is fictional. No production Microsoft tenant was used to produce these results. The aim is to build and explain a repeatable architecture reporting pattern, not to claim measured business improvements.

    The following ArchiMate inspired architecture view shows how the board question links to security capabilities, delivery initiatives, Microsoft controls and implementation evidence. It is a conceptual traceability view rather than a formal ArchiMate model.

    ArchiMate-inspired layered architecture connecting a board question and business outcomes to AI security capabilities, initiatives, Microsoft controls, evidence and technical assets
    Figure 1. Executive to technical AI security traceability (synthetic architecture example).

    The architecture mistake: starting with technology instead of the stakeholder concern

    An API gateway, a Copilot DLP policy or a Conditional Access rule is not the answer to a board level capability question. These are important implementation details, but they belong in the next layer of the conversation. An executive needs to see the investment’s intended outcome, the capabilities it supports, delivery confidence and proof that controls are working.

    We should not throw away the engineering diagram. We should add an executive capability view and preserve the connections to implementation. The technical view remains available for architecture review and audit, without forcing every executive to interpret network components.

    Our design: one initiative, three complementary views

    1. Board capability view: Which security enabling capabilities support safer AI adoption? What is their baseline, target, implementation coverage and evidence review status?
    2. Capability traceability view: Which initiatives and Microsoft controls support the selected capability, who owns them, and what evidence supports the mapping?
    3. Engineering detail view: Which policies, gateways, applications, interfaces and technical diagrams implement the control?

    The traceability chain is easy to explain: Business objective → Capability → Initiative → Security control → Evidence → Technical asset. It is a navigational reporting chain, not a claim that these are all direct ArchiMate relationships.

    Sample scenario: Enterprise AI Security Foundation

    Imagine an organization planning to expand Microsoft 365 Copilot adoption and internal AI agents. The proposed security program includes sensitive data protection, governed identity access, risky OAuth app visibility, incident monitoring, audit assurance and secure custom agent interfaces.

    Capability we want to supportMicrosoft control exampleWhat we should validate
    Protect sensitive business informationMicrosoft Purview DLP for CopilotPercentage of approved sensitive prompt test cases that behave as expected
    Govern employee AI accessMicrosoft Entra Conditional AccessAccess policy test results across intended user and device scenarios
    Manage third party AI applicationsDefender for Cloud Apps app governancePercentage of identified risky OAuth apps reviewed
    Detect and respond to AI related threatsMicrosoft Defender XDRPercentage of agreed simulated incident scenarios detected and triaged
    Produce audit ready assuranceMicrosoft Purview AuditPercentage of required evidence retrieval tests passed
    Secure custom AI agent interfacesAzure API ManagementAuthentication and rate limit policy test results

    These are examples of security enabling capabilities. To tie them to the wider business, record the associated outcome, such as trusted employee AI adoption, protected customer information or repeatable regulatory assurance. Do not equate the number of configured controls with business value.

    A product specific caveat matters here: Microsoft Purview DLP has different actions for restricting external web searches, processing sensitive prompts and excluding labeled content. Sensitive prompt blocking is described by Microsoft as a feature subject to preview rollout, so validate availability and supported conditions in your tenant before designing tests. See Microsoft’s Copilot DLP documentation.

    Step 1: prepare the data model

    For an initial proof of concept, we can build the report entirely in Power BI Desktop using synthetic CSVs. No Microsoft 365 admin privileges or production telemetry are needed.

    DatasetPurpose
    01_Capabilities.csvCapability ID, name, outcome, owner, criticality and baseline/target maturity
    02_Initiatives.csvInitiative, sponsor and delivery stage
    03_Controls.csvNamed controls, Microsoft product, owner and type
    04_Traceability.csvAssociations between an initiative, capability and control, plus status and rationale
    05_Evidence.csvTest metric, observed and target values, review status and source
    06_TechnicalAssets.csvImplementing component, technology layer, owner and diagram reference
    Synthetic sample data tables for AI security capabilities and associated initiatives
    Figure 2. Capabilities and Initiatives sample datasets used in the demonstration.
    Sample Microsoft security controls and their mappings to AI security capabilities and initiatives
    Figure 3. Controls and Traceability sample datasets showing the capability control mapping.
    Synthetic examples of control evidence records and implementing technical assets
    Figure 4. Evidence and TechnicalAssets sample datasets used to validate control mappings.

    Use stable text IDs such as CAP-01, INIT-01 and CTRL-01. The TraceID key is the bridge from a control mapping to its supporting evidence and engineering artifacts. Keep what we plan, what is implemented and what has been tested as separate attributes.

    Download the Power BI starter kit: AI Security Capability Map – Power BI Starter Workbook (.xlsx). This workbook includes six synthetic datasets, relationship guidance, a README and DAX measures. Alternatively, use the original CSV files with Get Data → Text/CSV as described in the steps below.

    Step 2: load the datasets into Power BI Desktop

    1. Open Power BI Desktop and select Home → Get data → Text/CSV.
    2. Load the six files from the starter kit. Use Transform data to confirm key columns are text and measurement columns are numeric.
    3. In Model view, create the five one to many relationships shown below. Use single-direction filtering in the first version.
    4. Disable or review automatically inferred relationships so that additional ambiguous filter paths are not introduced.
    01_Capabilities[CapabilityID]   1 → * 04_Traceability[CapabilityID]
    02_Initiatives[InitiativeID]    1 → * 04_Traceability[InitiativeID]
    03_Controls[ControlID]          1 → * 04_Traceability[ControlID]
    04_Traceability[TraceID]        1 → * 05_Evidence[TraceID]
    04_Traceability[TraceID]        1 → * 06_TechnicalAssets[TraceID]

    The relationships make it possible to filter a capability down to its mapped controls and then into relevant evidence and assets. Avoid casually enabling bidirectional filtering across all the tables, which can produce misleading totals and ambiguous navigation.

    Power BI semantic model showing capabilities, initiatives and Microsoft controls mapped to traceability and evidence, with many-to-one single-direction relationship
    Figure 5. Power BI relationship model connecting AI security capabilities, initiatives, controls and evidence (synthetic demonstration). The Traceability Evidence relationship is active with single direction filtering.

    Step 3: create simple DAX measures

    The first report should distinguish implemented mappings from evidence reviewed mappings. Start with these measures, using the imported table names from the starter kit:

    Mappings = DISTINCTCOUNT('04_Traceability'[TraceID])
    Implemented Mappings =
    CALCULATE(
        [Mappings],
        '04_Traceability'[ImplementationStatus] = "Implemented"
    )
    Implementation Coverage % =
    DIVIDE([Implemented Mappings], [Mappings])
    Evidence Records =
    DISTINCTCOUNT('05_Evidence'[EvidenceID])
    Reviewed Evidence Records =
    CALCULATE(
        [Evidence Records],
        '05_Evidence'[ValidationState] = "Reviewed"
    )
    Evidence Review % =
    DIVIDE([Reviewed Evidence Records], [Evidence Records])

    Format the two percentage measures as percentages. Implementation Coverage % measures the share of mapped controls flagged implemented in our sample, not the degree to which the business capability has improved. Similarly, reviewed evidence records show review completion, not independent assurance that an enterprise risk has been eliminated.

    Step 4: build the board capability view

    Create a report page called Board Capability Overview. Add a Matrix visual with CapabilityName as rows. Include BaselineMaturity, TargetMaturity, Implemented Mappings, Implementation Coverage % and Reviewed Evidence Records. Add a slicer for InitiativeName, with criticality and owner available as supplementary context.

    Use conditional formatting for implementation coverage, but keep maturity and evidence in separate columns. A red capability might be a delivery gap, an evidence gap, or both. The dashboard should tell the board which problem exists instead of combining everything into a single unexplained red/amber/green status.

    Executive capability matrix showing baseline maturity, target maturity, implementation coverage and evidence review status.

    Step 5: drill into capability traceability

    Create a second page named Capability Traceability. Add CapabilityID to the page’s drillthrough fields. Include the selected capability, mapped initiative, control name, implementation status, rationale, owner and evidence validation state.

    From the board report, right click a capability and use Drill through → Capability Traceability. Add a Back button for a natural navigation path. Microsoft documents this pattern in its Power BI drillthrough guidance.

    Our fictional example should let the reviewer start with Protect sensitive business information, inspect the Enterprise AI Security Foundation initiative, see the mapped Purview Copilot DLP control, and open its synthetic test evidence record. This is traceability from a high level capability to implementation, not just another static slide.

    Capability drillthrough page showing the mapped control, test result, review state and control owner.

    Step 6: keep the detailed technical architecture

    Create a third page called Engineering Detail. Display the policy set, API gateway, application interface, audit source or other technical asset referenced by the selected traceability record. Include architecture diagram links as reviewed metadata. This is where the network topology belongs.

    For custom agents, Azure API Management can enforce token validation and request throttling. Refer to validate-jwt, validate-azure-ad-token for Entra-issued tokens, and rate-limit-by-key. The dashboard should link to tested implementation details without displaying secrets, tokens or unnecessary user data.

    Engineering detail page, with a technical component inventory

    Now do the Drill through by going to the capability traceability tabe

    And after that it must show the expected result

    Step 7: move from CSV to Microsoft Lists and security evidence

    Once the static report works, create six Microsoft Lists in SharePoint using the same fields. In Power BI Desktop use Get data → SharePoint Online List, enter the SharePoint site URL and select the lists. Microsoft documents the supported connector in Power Query’s SharePoint Online List reference.

    For a later version, enrich the Evidence list using carefully permissioned exports or APIs. Example sources include app governance reviews, Entra policy test results, Purview audit data and Microsoft Graph security incidents. Microsoft Graph exposes an incident listing API, but API permissions, retention, schema and licensing must be verified. Do not assume every Purview DLP event can be fetched through the same API or that evidence is available in every tenant.

    Store only approved aggregates and reference links in the board facing dataset. Don’t load raw prompts, secrets, individual user identities or unrestricted incident descriptions into a broadly shared Power BI semantic model. Apply SharePoint permissions and Power BI row level security or audience separation where required.

    Where ArchiMate fits

    The modeling logic can be expressed through ArchiMate’s distinct concerns: Motivation for stakeholder concerns and goals, Strategy for capabilities, Implementation and Migration for delivery work packages, and Application/Technology for the supporting services and components.

    The Power BI data relationships are a reporting model inspired by those ideas, not literal ArchiMate connector definitions. If a formal ArchiMate artifact is needed, create and validate the view in a modeling tool such as the free Archi, using the Open Group ArchiMate specification and guidance to choose appropriate elements and relationships.

    What this dashboard proves, and what it does not

    • It can show: mapped capabilities, accountable owners, planned versus implemented controls, test results, last review dates and links to technical implementations.
    • It cannot automatically prove: a real reduction in AI risk, regulatory compliance, higher capability maturity or a causal return on investment.
    • To demonstrate improvement: define the outcome KPI, establish a baseline, agree on the test method, capture time-bound results and record independent review.

    Closing thoughts

    The engineering architecture and the executive capability view are both necessary, but they serve different audiences. A board member should be able to start with what the investment strengthens. An architect should be able to drill into how it is implemented. And an auditor should be able to follow what evidence exists.

    By connecting these views in Power BI and Microsoft Lists, we make enterprise AI security architecture easier to explain without losing the underlying technical detail. The next enhancement would be a small, controlled pipeline that refreshes selected evidence from Microsoft security services, with explicit review and data access boundaries.

    Official references

  • Investigating Risky Microsoft 365 Copilot Usage with Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management

    Introduction

    Microsoft 365 Copilot helps employees find, summarize, and work with information they are already authorized to access. That productivity benefit also raises an important security question: how can an organization identify potentially risky AI interactions without assuming that every unusual prompt represents malicious intent?

    This article explores how Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management (IRM) can detect and investigate risky AI usage, and how it complements Data Loss Prevention (DLP), audit, and Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) for AI.

    [Figure 1 — Screenshot Placeholder: Insider Risk Management overview]

    Read more: Investigating Risky Microsoft 365 Copilot Usage with Microsoft Purview Insider Risk Management

    Why Microsoft 365 Copilot Changes the Risk Conversation

    Copilot operates within the user’s effective access permissions; it is not a substitute for fixing excessive permissions or oversharing. But natural language discovery and summarization can make already-accessible information easier to aggregate. For example, a user might request summaries of financial forecasts, customer escalations, sensitive project documents, or security incidents.

    Such queries are not inherently suspicious. Investigators need to consider the user’s role, the sensitivity of the information, the interaction’s context, related file activities, and whether the behavior differs from expected work.

    Which Purview Capabilities Detect What?

    • Insider Risk Management — correlates risk indicators and supports alert triage, cases, and investigations. Its dedicated Risky AI usage policy template is the most relevant starting point for this article.
    • DSPM for AI — provides posture insights and recommendations, including a path to configure detection of risky AI interactions.
    • Data Loss Prevention — helps enforce restrictions involving sensitive information and supported Copilot interactions. DLP policy matches are different from insider-risk alerts.
    • Audit and Activity Explorer — help investigate supported AI interaction and data activities, depending on permissions, licensing, and configuration.

    [Figure 2 — Screenshot Placeholder: Risky AI usage policy template]

    Configure a Risky AI Usage Policy

    1. Confirm that your Microsoft Purview licensing and role assignments support Insider Risk Management and the relevant AI indicators. Available signals vary by workload and license.

    2. In Microsoft Purview, review Insider Risk Management > Settings > Policy indicators. Inspect the Generative AI apps indicators and the available Microsoft Copilot experiences and other app selections. Check any applicable pay as you go billing requirements before enabling non-Microsoft 365 AI data sources.

    3. Review the Risky AI usage policy template in Insider Risk Management > Policies. Configure the scope, supported indicators, thresholds, and privacy controls. Microsoft’s documentation lists a browser extension and at least one browsing indicator as prerequisites for this template; validate the current requirements for the signals you intend to monitor.

    [Figure 3 — Screenshot Placeholder: Generative AI policy indicators]

    4. Start with an authorized pilot group and test using non-production sample data. Document expected activity, what generated an indicator, and whether an alert was actually created. Do not assume that every prompt or file summary automatically generates an alert.

    5. Where applicable, use DSPM for AI’s recommendation to detect risky interactions in AI apps, then inspect the related reports and activity explorer once telemetry becomes available.

    Four Investigation Scenarios

    Scenario 1: Departing employee collecting data

    An employee nearing departure reviews confidential project files and downloads unusual volumes of material. IRM can help correlate supported file-exfiltration indicators with configured departure signals. A Copilot interaction alone does not establish data theft: review the file activity, timing, policy triggers, and legitimate job requirements.

    Scenario 2: Sensitive or risky Copilot interactions

    A user submits prompts containing sensitive information or asks for protected material. The Risky AI usage template and supported generative AI indicators may detect qualifying risky prompts or sensitive responses. Confirm the workload, policy coverage, classifications, and required signals before claiming detection.

    Scenario 3: Large scale information aggregation

    An employee gathers and summarizes multiple sensitive documents. Investigate related access, sharing, downloads, and any supported AI indicators. The volume of summaries by itself should not be treated as proof of an insider threat.

    Scenario 4: Privileged-user activity

    Users with broad effective access may be able to retrieve more information through Copilot. Review entitlement hygiene, SharePoint permissions, sensitivity labels, and correlated behavior rather than assuming privileged users are automatically monitored as a special Copilot category.

    [Figure 4 — Screenshot Placeholder: Insider Risk Management alerts dashboard]

    Investigating an Alert in Practice

    1. Open Microsoft Purview > Insider Risk Management > Alerts and review the applicable policy, severity, trigger, and time window.
    2. Open a case where appropriate and inspect the activity timeline and available indicators. Separate directly observed actions from analyst hypotheses.
    3. Correlate with relevant Audit, DLP, and Activity Explorer events, subject to supported signal coverage and permissions.
    4. Check the user’s normal business duties and whether the access or AI interaction had a legitimate purpose.
    5. Escalate using your documented investigation process. Preserve privacy safeguards, role based access, and evidence-handling requirements.

    [Figure 5 — Screenshot Placeholder: Alert investigation activity timeline]

    Privacy, Limitations, and False Positives

    Microsoft describes Insider Risk Management as privacy by design, including pseudonymization by default and role-based access controls. In production, involve legal, privacy, works council, and employee-relations stakeholders as applicable. A prompt is not a conviction; a risk score and alert are leads for proportionate review.

    Detection depends on supported services, configured indicators, policy triggers, licensing, and telemetry. Some AI scenarios concern prompts and responses; traditional exfiltration scenarios concern activities such as downloads or external sharing. Be explicit about which evidence comes from which source.

    Operational Best Practices

    • Pilot first and measure false positives before expanding policy scope.
    • Tune indicators and alert thresholds against legitimate workflows.
    • Review overshared permissions and sensitivity label coverage separately from monitoring.
    • Pair IRM with DLP, DSPM for AI, Audit, and Adaptive Protection where supported.
    • Train analysts to document evidence, context, and the reason for escalation.
    • Revalidate Microsoft’s current licensing and feature prerequisites before rollout.

    Conclusion

    Microsoft 365 Copilot can accelerate knowledge work, but it also makes the quality of access governance and insider risk detection more important. Microsoft Purview’s Risky AI usage template offers a targeted way to assess supported AI interactions, while conventional data-leak and departing user policies help examine surrounding file activities. A defensible investigation relies on multiple signals, careful tuning, and human context not on treating every sensitive-sounding prompt as malicious.

    Microsoft documentation

  • From App Inventory to AI Governance: Building a Read Only Control Center with Microsoft Entra ID

    I built a small AI Governance Control Center to explore application inventory, granted permissions, and control assessments. Here is what the working Entra ID integration can show today and what still needs evidence before calling it an AI governance finding.

    AI governance becomes difficult when an organization has to answer several questions at once: Which applications and agents exist? What permissions have they been granted? What data can they reach? Which safeguards are actually in place?

    I wanted a simple workspace to explore those questions. The result is an AI Governance Control Center prototype with two clearly separated parts: an interactive sample assessment and a live, read only inventory from my test Microsoft Entra ID tenant.

    The separation matters. An Entra application inventory is useful evidence about identity and permissions. It does not, on its own, prove that an application is an AI agent, that it accessed confidential data, or that a content safety control is enabled.

    What the prototype does today

    The sample workspace has an overview, an AI application list, a control assessment, and prioritized recommendations. You can switch illustrative controls on or off and watch the sample coverage score and recommendations change. These records and scores are demonstration data, not findings from my tenant.

    The separate Test tenant view signs me into my own Entra tenant and calls Microsoft Graph. It lists enterprise applications, supports searching by application name or client ID, and lets me inspect the application permissions granted to a selected service principal. In my test, the sign-in and inventory retrieval worked against the tenant.

    “Illustrative dashboard and control scores; no live risk assessment is implied.”

    (more…)

  • Zero Trust at the Device Level: Securing Endpoints, Internet Access, and Sensitive Data with Microsoft 365

    Cybersecurity has shifted dramatically. Traditional perimeter defenses such as firewalls and VPNs are no longer enough to protect a workforce that operates across devices, networks, and locations. Today, the endpoint the laptop, mobile device, or workstation has become the primary battleground. Attackers target users directly through phishing, malicious scripts, identity compromise, and lateral movement techniques that bypass legacy controls.

    This shift is why Endpoint Security is now the foundation of Zero Trust.

    Microsoft’s modern security ecosystem Defender for Endpoint, Intune, Entra Conditional Access, Network Protection, Web Content Filtering, Purview DLP, and Entra Internet Access provides a unified, real time defense that protects devices, identities, networks, and data wherever work happens.

    In this blog, we explore how these capabilities work together to deliver a layered, Zero Trust aligned endpoint and network security strategy that:

    • Reduces attack surface through hardened configurations
    • Detects and blocks malicious behavior directly on the device
    • Ensures only healthy, compliant devices can access corporate resources
    • Controls internet and private app access using identity‑aware network filtering
    • Prevents sensitive data from being copied, shared, or uploaded in unsafe ways
    • Provides unified visibility across endpoint, network, and data activity
    (more…)

  • Windows Hello Enhanced Sign in Security: The Hidden Layer That Makes Passwordless Truly Secure

    Passwordless authentication is becoming the new standard for modern identity security.

    Windows Hello for Business already replaces passwords with biometrics and PINs  but convenience alone doesn’t guarantee strong protection against credential theft.

    This is where Windows Hello Enhanced Sign in Security (ESS) comes in.

    ESS is a hardened, hardware backed mode of Windows Hello that ensures your authentication keys are protected inside the device’s secure enclave.

    Even if malware is running, even if attackers gain local access, ESS prevents credential extraction and replay attacks.

    What ESS Actually Does ?

    ESS enforces:

    • TPM backed asymmetric keys
    • Hardware based isolation
    • Secure key release
    • Anti spoofing protections
    • Replay and credential theft resistance
    (more…)

  • Entra Global Secure Access Content Policies + Purview Scan (Preview) – A First Look at the New Integration Ahead of General Availability

    Microsoft Entra’s Secure Web Gateway (SWG) capabilities under Global Secure Access (GSA) are expanding rapidly. One of the newest additions visible in the portal is the “Scan with Purview (Preview)” action inside Content Policies.

    This feature represents a major step forward:

    Inline, real time file upload scanning using Microsoft Purview’s classification engine directly inside Entra Secure web gateway (SWG). This helps organizations better protect sensitive files in transit.

    By integrating Entra Secure Web Gateway with Purview, organizations gain the ability to inspect file transfers at the network layer and enforce DLP rules in real time. This prevents sensitive data from leaving the organization through untrusted cloud apps, regardless of whether the upload happens via a browser, desktop application, API, or add‑in

    This feature as it appears today in preview, based entirely on observable behavior in a Microsoft 365 E5 tenant.
    Because this is a preview feature, some components are still evolving, and full functionality is expected to be available by mid June when the feature reaches General Availability (GA) and when the tenant gets this feature completely enabled.

    (more…)

  • The Future of Account Recovery: Microsoft Entra Verified ID Powered by AU10TIX for Account Recovery (Preview)

    Introduction

    Microsoft Entra Verified ID transforms identity verification by enabling secure, privacy‑preserving, verifiable credentials. Whether you’re implementing Account Recovery (Preview) or integrating a trusted identity verification partner like AU10TIX, the onboarding process requires a few key steps: enabling the provider, provisioning resources, activating the integration, and validating the recovery flow.

    This blog walks through the full, end‑to‑end Verified ID setup using AU10TIX as the identity verification provider. You’ll find prerequisites, detailed configuration steps, screenshots, and a summary to help you complete the setup smoothly

    Prerequisites

    Before you begin, ensure the following:

    1. Verified ID Setup :

    You need to have the Verified ID setup properly configured in your tenant first and the foremost thing to do before proceeding to any steps. If this one is not setup then the account recovery (Preview) is not going to work . Especially your domain needs to be a verified domain here.

    Also in the Authentication method you must have the Temproary Access Pass Enabled

    (more…)

  • Rethinking Network Access: A Deep Dive into Microsoft Entra Global Secure Access Diagnostics & Troubleshooting

    Modern network access has evolved, and Microsoft Entra Global Secure Access (GSA) is leading the transformation. Whether users are accessing private resources, Microsoft 365 services, or the internet, every request is now routed through an identity aware, Zero Trust-aligned infrastructure. This shift introduces new troubleshooting paradigms and this guide is here to help.

    Why Global Secure Access Exists

    Global Secure Access combines multiple security layers to deliver robust protection and optimized routing:

    • Zero Trust enforcement for all traffic
    • Unified identity, device, and network controls
    • VPN replacement for private apps
    • Secure outbound internet access
    • Optimized Microsoft 365 routing

    Traffic Profiles Explained

    GSA categorizes traffic into three distinct profiles:

    • Internet Access → Secure outbound browsing
    • Microsoft 365 Access → Optimized, identity-aware routing
    • Private Access → Zero Trust access to internal apps

    For architectural flow diagrams and examples (e.g., Synology NAS), refer to my previous blog.

    (more…)

  • From Home to Zero Trust: A Hands-On Guide to Microsoft Entra Private Access

    In today’s hybrid work environment, secure access to internal resources without relying on traditional VPNs is a key requirement. Microsoft Entra Private Access, part of the Global Secure Access suite, enables Zero Trust-based connectivity to private applications hosted on-premises or in private networks.

    In this demo, we’ll walk through setting up a home lab using an Azure tenant, installing the Entra connector, and configuring access to a Synology NAS as a private application—all from a personal laptop and home network.

    Before starting, make sure you have:

    • Microsoft Entra ID tenant with Global Secure Access enabled.
    • Microsoft Entra Global Secure Access license (Private Access feature).
    • Windows 11 Pro device (required for advanced networking and policy support).
    • Device joined to Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD joined or Hybrid joined).
    • Intune-managed device for policy enforcement and NRPT configuration.
    • Administrative access to your Azure tenant and local machine.
    • Microsoft Entra Connector installer downloaded from the Entra Admin Center.
    • Global Secure Access Client installer for Windows.
    • Internal resource (Synology NAS or similar) reachable on your home network.
    • Internal IP address of the resource (e.g., 10.0.x.x).
    • Optional DNS setup:
      • Private DNS zone or hosts file entry for FQDN (e.g., demo.synology.me).
    • Self-signed certificate (optional) for HTTPS access.
    • Internet connectivity for connector registration and client sign-in.
    (more…)

  • Navigating DORA with Microsoft Purview: A compliance blueprint for Microsoft 365

    Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) is reshaping how EU financial entities manage ICT risk, resilience testing, incident reporting, and third‑party risk. If you run Microsoft 365, Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager gives you a practical way to translate DORA requirements into actions, evidence, and measurable progress. This guide walks through a clean, step‑by‑step implementation flow from setting up a DORA assessment to assigning improvement actions and tracking your score, so you can be audit ready without drowning in spreadsheets.

    Why use Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager for DORA ?

    • Prebuilt assessments: DORA assessment templates map regulatory articles to actionable controls you can assign and track.
    • Control mapping: Microsoft‑managed baselines and customer‑managed controls provide clarity on shared responsibility.
    • Improvement actions: Structured tasks with owners, due dates, and recommended steps create accountability.
    • Evidence management: Centralized artifacts (documents, links, screenshots) simplify audit preparation.
    • Real‑time scoring: Compliance scores help prioritize high‑risk gaps and demonstrate progress.

    Prerequisites and approach

    • Access: Ensure you have appropriate roles in Microsoft Purview (e.g., Compliance Manager Admin or similar).
    • Scope: Decide which services to cover first; start with Microsoft 365 for a focused rollout.
    • Vanilla setup: Use a fresh assessment group to avoid inherited noise and control drift.

    Quick Tip

    Can also use the default user access options available from the Assesment option in the Compliance Manager Portal

    Step‑by‑step setup in Compliance Manager

    Create and configure your DORA assessment

    • Open Purview: Go to Microsoft Purview portal → Compliance Manager – Navigate to assessment – Select Regulation
    • Find templates: Search for “Digital” under assessment templates. (I was not able to find with DORA :))
    (more…)