This article presents our approach to cybersecurity risk management, detailing the internal governance structures, lifecycle methodologies, regulatory compliance processes, and organizational practices that collectively promote transparency and accountability. This approach is built on two foundational components: a structured risk management lifecycle and a governance model that integrates cybersecurity risk into enterprise-level decision making.

Governance as the foundation

Microsoft’s cybersecurity risk management program is fundamentally structured around robust governance mechanisms. Central to this framework is the Cybersecurity Governance Council, a cross-functional body composed of the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), Deputy CISOs (DCISOs), and representatives from legal and regulatory affairs. This council convenes twice weekly to evaluate emerging risks, validate mitigation plans, and ensure alignment with enterprise priorities.

The governance model is designed to facilitate bidirectional communication of risk intelligence. Information flows upward from engineering and operational domains to executive leadership, and downward from strategic oversight to operational execution. This exchange is essential for maintaining situational awareness and ensuring that risk mitigation efforts are both evidence-based and scalable.

At the operational level, DCISOs are accountable for reviewing, prioritizing, mitigating, and accepting risks within their domains. This domain-aligned ownership model ensures that accountability for cybersecurity risk is clearly defined and directly connected to enterprise decision making.

Once risks are identified, they are reviewed on a recurring basis and aggregated to inform enterprise-level prioritization. Risk acceptance decisions are tiered based on residual risk levels and aligned with Microsoft’s defined risk appetite. They are then governed and monitored to ensure consistency and appropriate oversight.

Foundational elements

Listening systems

• Internal and external audits
• Current and pending regulation
• Incidents and media
• Industry groups

Methodology

• Risk management framework
• Risk rating criteria
• Risk universe

Tools

• Power BI
• Risk portfolio and accountability matrix
• Risk assessments
• NIST cybersecurity assessments

Risk domains

• Cybersecurity
• Quality and availability
• Business resilience
• Corruption
• Digital safety and service misuse

• Product safety
• Sustainability
• Global trade
• Antitrust and regulation
• Talent management

• Data privacy
• Supply chain
• Financial
• Facility security and people safety

Operational risk

• Search, advertising, and news
• Artificial intelligence
• Cloud and AI
• Commercial business
• Consumer business

• Security
• Experience + Devices
• Customer and partner solutions
• Gaming
• LinkedIn

• Corporate, External, & Legal Affairs (CELA)
• Finance
• Human resources
• Business development and corporate strategy
• Marketing

Enterprise risk

• Identify, assess, and prioritize risk to strategy

• Senior leadership accountability and mitigation quality

• Enable board risk governance

Microsoft’s security standards are published on an annual basis, establishing explicit requirements for risk entry, scoring, and mitigation. Adherence to these standards is mandatory for all teams, ensuring uniformity and accountability across the organization. The standards are subject to periodic revision in response to evolving threats, regulatory developments, and historical incident analysis.

The CISO GRC team synthesizes risk intelligence into a semi-annual enterprise risk management (ERM) report. The report is disseminated to senior leadership and the audit committee, elevating cybersecurity risk management from operational domains to the highest levels of organizational oversight.

Microsoft also defines and tracks key risk management metrics to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of its cybersecurity risk management program, providing visibility into risk posture over time and enabling informed decision making as part of governance and reporting processes.

A lifecycle approach to risk management

Microsoft’s risk management lifecycle is organized into four principal stages: identification, assessment, mitigation and remediation, and prevention and monitoring. Each stage is designed to ensure that risks are logged, actively managed, tracked, and validated.

Risk identification draws on a range of inputs, including threat intelligence, penetration testing, post-incident reviews, security research reports, red team exercises, and internal assessments. Risks are also surfaced through self-identification by teams, findings from defense operations, and structured self-assessments, such as the annual NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) maturity review. The process is designed to be inclusive, allowing any employee or vendor with appropriate access to submit risks into a centralized system. This multifaceted approach aims to provide a comprehensive view of the threat landscape.

Upon identification, risks are entered into a centralized risk register, which provides early visibility and facilitates prompt action. The system is designed to be inclusive, permitting any employee or vendor with corporate access to submit risks. This democratized process reflects Microsoft’s commitment to broad-based risk identification across the organization.

Risk assessment is conducted by specialized teams employing structured methodologies, including impact and likelihood scoring, root cause analysis, and contextual evaluation informed by both internal signals and external intelligence. Assessment methodologies align with enterprise risk management practices and incorporate factors such as impact, likelihood, and management action and control opportunities to determine overall risk prioritization. Curators, who are Microsoft domain experts with risk management training, triage and assign risks to the appropriate DCISO area, thereby ensuring consistency and objectivity across all domains.

Risk mitigation and remediation strategies are tailored to the specific characteristics of each risk. Mitigation efforts may be prioritized and driven at an enterprise level through initiatives such as the Secure Future Initiative (SFI), or managed within specific organizational domains depending on scope and impact. These may involve deploying new controls, process adjustments, or implementation of technological solutions. Each risk is assigned an owner who is accountable for executing the mitigation plan and validating its effectiveness. Progress is monitored through workflow systems, and validation steps are employed to confirm the sustained efficacy of mitigations. Following mitigation, outcomes may inform updates to Microsoft security standards to strengthen systemic controls and prevent recurrence.

Prevention and monitoring constitute ongoing activities. Insights derived from mitigation efforts are also used to inform improvements delivered to customers, including secure-by-default configurations, product controls, and published guidance. Microsoft utilizes regression prevention techniques, continuous monitoring tools, and assurance systems to ensure the durability of mitigations over time. Insights derived from these activities are reintegrated into the identification process, thereby establishing a continuous improvement loop that is essential for maintaining resilience in a dynamic threat environment.

The risk register: Centralized oversight

The cybersecurity risk register functions as the central repository for Microsoft’s risk management program.

The workflow for risk management within the register encompasses seven defined stages: submission, triage, response, confirmation, information sharing, mitigation, and archiving. Each stage is governed by explicit service-level agreements to ensure accountability.

Risks are required to be triaged and scored within a specific timeframe following submission, and mitigation plans must be developed within a defined period after prioritization. Risk owners are required to provide regular, ongoing updates on the process of mitigation activities.

To support this workflow, roles within the risk register are clearly delineated:

• Risk Submitter: Responsible for providing comprehensive descriptions and supporting documentation for identified risks
• Risk Curator: Charged with validating, prioritizing, and assigning risks to appropriate domains
• Risk Owner: Accountable for implementing and monitoring mitigation plans
• Risk Viewer: Individuals such as auditors and senior leaders who access risk data for oversight and compliance purposes

In addition to these roles, DCISOs provide domain-level oversight and accountability for risks, including prioritization, acceptance, and escalation to enterprise governance structures.

Risk Submitter

The Risk Submitter is an individual, FTE or vendor who enters a new or existing risk into the Risk Register. Anyone with corp access can submit a risk, including Microsoft security experts. Responsible for submitting a clear, detailed, and understandable title, description, and supporting information for a risk.

Risk Curator

Delegated to take action by their DCISO, these are engineers, architects or analysts with respective domain knowledge and context who are responsible for triaging and prioritizing submitted security risks, ensuring the right DCISO area ownership alignment, identifying ownership, and tracking remediation.

Risk owner

The Risk Owner is an FTE, typically in a DCISO’s scope, that is responsible for updating mitigation status of a prioritized risk. This accountability continues until all mitigations are complete and the risk is deprioritized or archived.

Risk Viewer

The Risk Viewer is an FTE who requires read-only access to risk data to fulfill a business or compliance obligation. Where possible, their access is limited to PBI reports instead of direct access to the Risk Register itself.

Risks are reviewed on a quarterly basis, and prioritized lists are communicated to leadership to inform strategic decision making. The centralized risk register enables prioritized risks to be surfaced and reported to the CISO function and Enterprise Risk Management (ERM), supporting enterprise-level visibility and oversight. These prioritized risks inform the Secure Future Initiative (SFI), which drives systemic change across Microsoft.

Regulatory compliance integration

Microsoft’s cybersecurity risk management program is aligned with global regulatory frameworks, including ISO 27001, NIST SP 800-53, and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, and is continuously updated to incorporate emerging requirements such as DORA and NIS2. These regulatory baselines inform both control implementation and risk evaluation, ensuring alignment between compliance requirements and operational risk management activities.

DCISOs are responsible for regulatory implementation and compliance within their respective domains. This encompasses oversight of regulated sectors such as healthcare, legal, and government, as well as emerging domains including artificial intelligence safety and privacy. The Cybersecurity Governance Council conducts regular reviews of regulatory risks and ensures that mitigation strategies are aligned with statutory and legal obligations.

ERM reporting integrates cybersecurity risks alongside financial and operational risks, thereby ensuring that regulatory compliance is embedded across the organization’s overall broader risk posture. This integrated approach enables Microsoft to respond expeditiously to regulatory changes and maintain trust with customers, partners, and regulatory authorities.

What makes Microsoft’s approach unique

The scale and complexity of Microsoft necessitate a risk management methodology that is both rigorous and adaptable. Several practices distinguish Microsoft’s program from industry counterparts.

The Secure Future Initiative (SFI) establishes a structured mechanism for driving systemic change, prioritizing critical risks and aligning mitigation efforts across engineering, operations, and executive leadership. While not all risks are represented within SFI, the initiative functions as a strategic accelerator, publicly articulating the prioritized risks and corresponding mitigation efforts that drive enterprise-wide improvements.

The culture of risk awareness is embedded throughout the organization. Risk identification is actively encouraged, and submissions are evaluated irrespective of origin, reflecting a commitment to democratized and proactive risk reporting. Internally, Microsoft advocates for a culture that celebrates the identification of risks and enables proactive reporting.

The governance cadence is highly disciplined; the Cybersecurity Governance Council convenes twice weekly, and DCISOs conduct reviews and confirm top risks every 90 days. These structured intervals ensure that risk management remains proactive, with clear accountability and continuous oversight.

The integration of operational and enterprise risk is seamless. The CISO GRC team synthesizes risk intelligence from across the organization and presents it in a unified ERM report, ensuring that cybersecurity risks are incorporated into strategic decision making, rather than isolated within technical silos.

Finally, Microsoft’s control ecosystem reinforces the durability of risk mitigation. Initiatives like the Secure Development Lifecycle (SDL), exception governance processes, and SFI collectively ensure that mitigations are implemented and sustained over time.

A blueprint for security leadership

Microsoft’s cybersecurity risk management program is a model of maturity, scalability, and transparency. The program integrates structured governance, rigorous processes controls, and a culture of accountability to ensure that risks are systematically identified, mitigated, and subject to continuous monitoring and improvement. For cybersecurity leaders seeking to understand risk management at scale, Microsoft offers a compelling blueprint: a proactive, integrated, and transparent framework that combines structured governance, rigorous process controls, and a culture of accountability.

Ultimately, cybersecurity risk management is not solely dependent on technical controls and frameworks; it is fundamentally about empowering individuals, building trust across teams, and connecting operational rigor with strategic clarity. If you are developing or refining your program, prioritize both structural and cultural elements, and build resilient processes around engaged teams. Security leadership presents significant challenges, but with the appropriate structure, culture, and rhythm, it can drive transformative outcomes.

The post How we approach cybersecurity risk management at Microsoft appeared first on Inside Track Blog.

Our Global Collection team in the Microsoft Treasury division makes sure payments are seamlessly executed in our fast-moving global enterprise environment. However, our case managers were often losing valuable time figuring out things like who the right contact was for a given customer, which issues were likely to be challenged by a customer, and where an exception should be routed next. This information was spread across systems or buried in handoffs.

To solve these challenges, our team built a human-led, AI agent-assisted support system to reduce preparation time and streamline their processes.

“Building the AI assistance wasn’t the hard part,” says Kathy Brustad, a director in the Global Treasury and Financial Services division at Microsoft. “The hard part was reimagining the collection experience with AI front and center, and bringing the underlying infrastructure up to speed to get it there.”

In this post, we explain how we did it so you can learn from our experience.

“We have over 1,000 collectors around the world who perform collections for Microsoft. They had multiple systems they had to go to in order to find out things like the totality of the customer’s invoice and what conversations a different team had with the customer. The information was fragmented.”

Kathy Brustad, director, Global Treasury and Financial Services

Stitching together information across systems

Our AI agent is focused on helping our case managers prioritize high-value work by:

• Predicting late payments and possible customer disputes
• Summarizing customer case interactions for use by case managers
• Routing customer emails to the right collections manager faster and with greater precision Automatically matching payments to invoices
• Automatically responding to customer inquiries

“We have over 1,000 collectors around the world who perform collections for Microsoft,” Brustad says. “They had multiple systems they had to go to in order to find out things like the totality of the customer’s invoice and what conversations a different team had with the customer. All of this information was fragmented. We didn’t have a single view of how much a customer owed us.”

We started by consolidating these dispersed tools and systems into an SAP and Microsoft Dynamics 365 environment, creating a single source of truth for all relevant customer, invoice, and payment data.

On that foundation, we layered on Microsoft’s IQ intelligence platform to infuse semantic understanding and business context. That standardized our workflows by simplifying templates and worklists to reduce complexity and put consistent global practices into place. Routine communications became fully automated.

We then applied AI to improve payment matching accuracy from 40% to 90%, generate customer response drafts, and intelligently route cases to reduce time-consuming back‑and‑forth.

Copilot assistance was embedded directly into the daily workflow of our case managers to reduce administrative load by providing inline knowledge suggestions, summarizing calls, and automatically drafting replies. With these standardized automated workflows, we could apply 98% of payments within 48 hours.

“In a nutshell, this is the collection story: We have various agents and models deployed to assist our human agents with all the activities they have to do, saving hundreds of thousands of hours that we spent on manually tracking things before.”

Kathy Brustad, director, Global Treasury and Financial Services

Moving faster on ‘act ready’ work

Deploying the agent was only the starting point. The harder work was helping our collection team change established ways of working. Brustad described the shift as learning to “run it in a different way,” moving from manual, fragmented preparation toward workflows where prioritization, context gathering, and routing were increasingly supported within the system.

To make that shift possible, the team introduced a change management work stream program and role-based training focused on real, day-to-day scenarios alongside the rollout. By anchoring the work in clear business pain points and showing tangible improvements, our team saw how the new approach made their work easier. Each morning, the agent prioritized each case manager’s workload according to urgency and past client behavior so case managers could immediately focus on the accounts that were the most pressing.

We reduced repetitive communications using automatically drafted responses and automated statements.

“In a nutshell, this is the collection story: We have various agents and models deployed to assist our human agents with all the activities they have to do, saving hundreds of thousands of hours that we spent on manually tracking things before,” Brustad says.

After deploying this system to our case managers, we saw measurable improvements in both productivity and speed, including:

• Hundreds of thousands of hours unlocked annually in order to do more human-led high-value work rather than routine administrative tasks
• 40% reduction in call preparation time
• 2X growth in automatic cash applications
• 2.5X acceleration of customer inquiry resolution time

Operationally, the team also saw up to 60% reduction in inquiry handling time through inline suggestions, summarized calls, and automatically drafted replies. To ensure these improvements were real and repeatable, we emphasized observability in our evaluation approach. Our team tracked dollars collected through collections and hours worked to create productivity metrics.

Data, trust, and good governance

When introducing AI systems or agents into finance workflows, leaders often ask two questions:

1. Can we trust the outputs?
2. Can we govern the process?

“The biggest takeaway is to know your own process very, very well. You need to understand where all the bottlenecks and pain points are. Start from there to design the new agent-enabled process instead of saying, ‘I’m going to just inject the agent into my existing process.’”

Kathy Brustad, director, Global Treasury and Financial Services

For us, trust came from getting the basics right in the form of right-sizing our enterprise data, standardizing our workflows, and establishing clear ownership for each part of the work. When we tested early and included frontline users throughout the process, outcomes improved.

“The biggest takeaway is to know your own process very, very well,” Brustad says. “You need to understand where all the bottlenecks and pain points are. Start from there to design the new agent-enabled process instead of saying, ‘I’m going to just inject the agent into my existing process.’”

Embed custom agent assistance directly into the moments where time disappears, such as prioritization, preparation, routing, and drafting so adoption feels natural and can be measured. You can prove impact with a small set of metrics like cycle time, throughput, dollars collected, and hours saved, and iterate from there.

Key takeaways

Modernizing collections is about fixing the fundamentals first, before you add AI into the mix. As you begin to streamline your own finance workflows, keep these lessons in mind:

• Fix fragmented workflows before adding intelligence: AI delivers the most value when it’s layered on top of standardized processes and a unified data foundation rather than disconnected systems and ad hoc handoffs.
• Embed assistance where time is actually lost: Copilot-style support works best when it shows up directly in prioritization, preparation, routing, and drafting to reduce friction without changing how people work.
• Focus AI on high‑ROI decisions, not just automation: Predicting late payments, flagging likely invoice disputes, and surfacing context can help teams spend time where it matters.
• Design around the practitioner’s day: When work arrives prioritized and prepped, case managers spend less time chasing context and more time resolving exceptions.
• Measure what matters to prove impact: Cycle time, dollars collected, throughput, and hours saved provide a clear, repeatable way to track productivity gains and cashflow velocity.
• Pair generative AI with strong governance: Trust comes from clear ownership, standardized workflows, quality data, and ongoing human oversight.

Editor’s notes:

• SAP is an enterprise finance system that many organizations use to manage invoices, payments, and financial records in a single, centralized platform.
• All metrics cited are based on Microsoft internal data gathered during the writing of this article. They’re best read as directional signals from that period, and they may change as systems, processes, and behaviors evolve. Microsoft makes no warranties, express, implied, or statutory.

Try it out

• Build and test an AI‑assisted workflow with Microsoft Copilot Studio to see how agents can help prioritize work, summarize context, and route cases more efficiently.
• Start a Dynamics 365 free trial.

Related links

• Discover the five lessons we learned on how to make AI stick for sellers during our Copilot rollout.
• See how we revamped and modernized our Microsoft Treasury infrastructure using Azure.
• Explore how we’re supercharging our support experience with Microsoft Dynamics 365 and AI.
• Learn how we’re transforming the marketing function at Microsoft with AI.
• Read about our role as Customer Zero in an AI-powered world.
• Check out how we’re measuring the impact of Microsoft 365 Copilot and AI internally.

The post Streamlining finance cash collection at Microsoft with AI appeared first on Inside Track Blog.

But in practice, the technical side of transformation is only part of the story. The missing piece is us humans.

When we encounter these kinds of challenges internally at Microsoft, we think of ourselves as “Customer Zero.” We roll out our technology across our own organization first, learning what works and what doesn’t in real time and at scale so we can pass our lessons on to you.

“After an early wave of enthusiasm for Copilot, adoption declined. People questioned whether AI was relevant to their role, worried about what it might mean for their work, and disengaged when the change they experienced didn’t match the change they imagined.”

Daniel Bertrand, senior director, AI Transformation Office

We learned valuable lessons about AI adoption and sustainable change when we deployed Microsoft 365 Copilot across our Microsoft Commercial organization, one of the company’s largest sales and service organizations. What we observed led us to reset our strategy and build a more human-centered process for deploying and driving adoption of our AI technology.

Driving AI adoption with role relevance and daily habits

Here on the Customer Zero team in Microsoft Customer and Partner Solutions (MCAPS), our 60,000-employee strong sales organization, we saw that getting access to Copilot didn’t automatically result in widespread AI adoption.

“After an early wave of enthusiasm for Copilot, adoption declined,” says Daniel Bertrand, a senior director on the AI Transformation Office team in MCAPS. “People questioned whether AI was relevant to their role, worried about what it might mean for their work, and disengaged when the change they experienced didn’t match the change they imagined.”

Initially, people used Copilot like a search engine and expected it to make work go away. When that didn’t happen automatically, they didn’t know how to approach prompting the AI, or how to create value with it. The gap between access and know‑how is where adoption slowed.

“I knew from experience that people prefer to hear from—and learn alongside—those closest to their day-to-day work, to build trust and confidence.”

Susan Neece Robien, senior director of adoption and change, AI Transformation Office

We reframed the problem from “How do we scale the technology?” to, “What does this change feel like for people doing the work every day?”

By talking to people in our larger organization about why they were reluctant to work with Copilot, we discovered the adoption barrier was less about the technology being available and more about whether people trusted it, understood how it fit their role, and felt confident enough to build new habits around it.

The ‘Adoption-in-a-Box’ approach

After these conversations, we changed our strategy across the board.

“I knew from experience that people prefer to hear from—and learn alongside—those closest to their day‑to‑day work, to build trust and confidence,” says Susan Neece Robien, a senior director of adoption and change on the AI Transformation Office team. “That led me to conceptualize Adoption‑in‑a‑Box—a repeatable approach that combines behavior‑change guidance, peer influence, habit‑forming activities, and light gamification so people can experiment with AI in a non‑threatening way and build confidence over time.”

We rolled out the Adoption-in-a-Box concept across the team in the following ways:

• Emphasized visible leadership support: We circulated videos and “day in the life” PowerPoint 1-pagers of how our leaders were using Copilot.
• Formed a community of early adopters: They becamepeer champions for adoption, evangelizing best practices and leading workshops.
• Created a Role Hub: The hub contained practical, role-specific learning about how to use Copilot rather than doing high-level general trainings.
• Ran prompt campaigns: To get our team started with habitually using AI in their daily roles, we ran prompt campaigns to make prompt learning accessible and actionable.
• Created the Copilot Cup: We encouraged friendly competitions with leadership support. We also ran hackathons and prompt-based scavenger hunts to gamify learning about and using the AI for our team.
• Created ongoing measurement mechanisms: We stood up dashboards with monthly, weekly, and daily average usage reports. We also ran quarterly surveys to track sentiment around AI adoption on the team.

After our initial success with Adoption-in-a-Box, we scaled it to adoption leads, who brought the model to life within their teams.

When people feel safe in experimenting with AI and incorporating it into their day-to-day work, that’s when it provides real value for the organization and the individual. We’ve learned that sustainable, scalable AI transformation succeeds when we put people first.

Key takeaways

If you’re wondering how to encourage your own team to adopt new AI technology into their workflows, you can learn from our experience:

• Prioritize visible leadership participation. Leaders set the tone of any transformation, and AI adoption is no exception.
• Roll out for role relevance. Specificity is the key here: How does AI relate to each person’s individual role? If the tool provides value and saves time, people will incorporate it into their workflow.
• Establishing habits is crucial. Sustainable adoption means people use the tool on a daily basis in the natural flow of their work. Give them low-friction opportunities to learn the ropes.
• Encourage peer-to-peer experimentation. Early adopters can be a valuable resource for showing others the way. Lowering the stakes by having a peer guide employees in a workshop or one-on-one can take the pressure off as they experiment with the tech.

Try it out

Test drive an AI-assisted workflow of your own with Microsoft 365 Copilot to see how agentic AI can transform your team.

Related links

• Discover the five lessons we learned about how to make AI stick for sellers during our Copilot rollout.
• Check out our full guide describing how we deployed and drove adoption of Microsoft 365 Copilot across our global organization.
• Read about our internal change management strategy for Copilot and how it helps us drive the future of work.
• Learn how the creation of a Copilot Expo propelled AI usage at Microsoft.
• See our seven tips for driving Copilot adoption with a virtual skilling event.
• Discover how one Microsoft Digital employee powers her typical workday using Copilot.

The post Staying human: How we’re using AI to transform the sales experience at Microsoft appeared first on Inside Track Blog.

Geoff Belknap, CVP and operating CISO shares the questions he asks when considering when and how to integrate technologies with a merged or acquired company.

Key takeaways

Think about moving slowly with early integration with M&A. Here are some key questions to consider:

• What do we risk by combining tools or technical capabilities too quickly?
• Is the deal still valuable if we do not integrate systems?
• What operational safeguards and governance are needed?

The post Microsoft CISO advice: Consider the risks of early integration with mergers and acquisitions appeared first on Inside Track Blog.

Yonatan Zunger, CVP and deputy CISO for Microsoft, suggests focusing exclusively on hardening a piece of software to security threats may make it difficult to use and introduce a new risk when users get frustrated and try to bypass controls. This is why engineers need to consider not just individual components but how they work together to maintain productivity.

“Think of every system as a socio-technical system containing many parts, and all of them working together in unison have to be secured,” Zunger says.

Learn from our experience 

Read our practical advice about applying security fundamentals to AI.

Try it out

Read more from Zunger about applying security fundamentals to AI.

Related links

• Explore more from Zunger about how to deploy AI safely.
• Discover what you need to know about governing autonomous agents.
• Learn about aligning user, developer role, and organizational intent in agent governance.
• Find out how to use Authorization Fabric to govern AI agents at scale.
• Read about agent abuse patterns.
• Identify ways to secure AI agents with Azure AI Foundry.
• Explore how Data Security Posture Management for AI can prevent runtime risks.

The post Microsoft CISO advice: Apply engineering fundamentals to securing AI appeared first on Inside Track Blog.

“It turns out that it’s very easy to write AI-powered software, but it’s very hard to write AI-powered software that works right in real-world cases,” says Yonatan Zunger, CVP and deputy CISO for Microsoft.

Yunger explains how important it is to test if you want to build trustworthy agentic AI.

Learn from our experience 

Read our practical advice about applying security fundamentals to AI.

Key takeaways

Here are best practices to apply while building trustworthy agentic AI:

• Prototype. Test. Iterate. Think of and try prompts your real users might give your agentic AI. Use real data. From those trials, build a set of test cases and keep testing.
• Use AI tools to amplify testing. Evaluating agents requires a “try it and repeat it” mindset. Using AI Foundry with such tools as Python Risk Identification Tool amplifies these assessment capabilities.
• Record your tests. Applying this practice, as you would with unit testing, enables you to repeat evaluations as your data models and agents evolve.
• Don’t skimp on testing. Test early, test often, test with real data. This is the best way to understand what your agent might do when it encounters the unexpected.

Try it out

• Find out how to deploy Python Risk Identification Tool (PyRIT).
• Explore how to use Microsoft Foundry Playgrounds to test your AI solutions.

Related links

• Read more about how to secure agentic AI.
• Learn more from Zunger about how to deploy AI safely.
• Discover what you need to know about governing autonomous agents.
• Explore how to use Azure AI Foundry to secure generative AI models.
• Generate synthetic data for fine-tuning in Microsoft Foundry.
• Leverage built-in policies for model deployment in Microsoft Foundry.

The post Microsoft CISO advice: How to build trustworthy agentic AI appeared first on Inside Track Blog.

“Make it an expectation in your organization that people will create safety plans and have them for everything,” Zunger says. “People get so excited about having clarity in front of them that they end up making much more systematic, careful plans, and the rate of errors goes down dramatically.”

Learn from our experience 

Read our practical advice about applying security fundamentals to AI.

Key takeaways

Here are questions and ideas to consider as you create a safety plan for your AI systems:

• Define the problem. What problem are you trying to solve? A simple and clear problem statement is always a great starting point before building anything, including an AI agent.
• Outline the solution. What is the basis of your solution? Can you explain your solution to an end user? What does a developer or administrative user of your solution need to know about what it is and does?
• List the things that can go wrong. What can go wrong with your solution? Creating this list is the first step to figuring out how to deal with those issues.
• Document your plan. What is your plan to address identified concerns? Identify the process you will follow when something goes wrong.
• Draft your plan early and update it as your solution matures. Your safety plan can be as simple as a list or outline and should evolve as you prepare to build your solution.
• Get feedback and buy-in. When you review the plan with stakeholders and leaders in your team and organization, you may uncover risks or issues you had not thought of. You also build awareness and agreement on what to do when something goes wrong.
• Make a template and build its use into your processes. This tip is for anyone who leads a team or influences process development. Encourage using a safety template in all your projects to bring clarity and structure to how you work with AI.

Try it out

Discover how to secure agentic AI.

Related links

• Learn more from Zunger about AI security fundamentals.
• Zunger shares one important thing to consider when securing AI. 

The post Microsoft CISO advice: The importance of a written AI safety plan appeared first on Inside Track Blog.

Zunger and his team focus on AI safety and security. They consider all the different ways anything involving working with AI can go wrong.

“An important thing to know about AI is that AI’s make mistakes,” Zunger says. “You already know how to work with systems that make mistakes, get tricked.”

Explore Zero Trust for AI

Check out our new Zero Trust for AI tools and guidance.

Try it out

Explore how to extend Zero Trust principles to AI.

Related links

• Discover how to secure and govern autonomous agents.
• Find out how to deploy AI safely.
• Learn about aligning user, developer role, and organizational intent in agent governance.
• Review why it is important to eliminate high privilege access by applications. 
• Meet the Deputy CISOs who help shape Microsoft’s approach to cybersecurity. 

The post Microsoft CISO advice: The most important thing to know about securing AI appeared first on Inside Track Blog.

AI acceleration, cloud adoption, and rapid growth of enterprise apps have dramatically expanded the attack surface. Every new app introduces a new identity. Every identity carries permissions. Over time, those permissions accumulate, often without clear ownership or regular review.

“An app is another form of identity. In a cloud-first, Zero Trust world, identity becomes the primary security perimeter, and access is governed by the principle of least privilege. Whether it is a user, an app, or an agent, when permissions are overly broad or elevated the blast radius expands dramatically, increasing risk exponentially.”

B. Ganti, principal architect, Microsoft Digital

Inside Microsoft Digital—the company’s IT organization—we recognized this early. Many of our highest‑risk security scenarios didn’t start with malware or phishing. They started with access. Specifically, apps running with permissions beyond what they required.

“An app is another form of identity,” says B. Ganti, principal architect in Microsoft Digital. “In a cloud-first, Zero Trust world, identity becomes the primary security perimeter, and access is governed by the principle of least privilege. Whether it is a user, an app, or an agent, when permissions are overly broad or elevated the blast radius expands dramatically, increasing risk exponentially.”

Traditional security approaches such as periodic reviews, best‑practice guidance, and point‑in‑time hardening weren’t enough in an environment that changes daily. Configurations drift, new apps appear, and risk grows quietly in places that are hard to see at scale.

That reality forced a mindset shift internally here at Microsoft. Security couldn’t be optional. It couldn’t be advisory. And it couldn’t be static.

Our team operates one of the largest enterprise environments in the world, with tens of thousands of apps and a culture built on self‑service and autonomy. That scale drives innovation, but it also amplifies risk.

Our application identities became one of the most complex governance challenges we faced. Our ownership wasn’t always clear. Our permissions were often granted broadly to avoid disruption. And once approved, access rarely came under scrutiny again.

“As a self‑service organization, we empower people to move fast,” Ganti says. “But that also means apps get created, permissions get granted, and not everyone always remembers why.”

The rise of AI‑powered apps and agents—often requiring access to large volumes of data—increased our risk further.

“We’re using Microsoft Baseline Security Mode to move security from guidance to enforcement. It establishes secure‑by‑default configurations that scale across our environment, so teams can innovate quickly without inheriting unnecessary risk.”

Brian Fielder, vice president, Microsoft Digital

We needed a system to reduce that risk systematically, not one app at a time.

Microsoft Baseline Security Mode (BSM) became that system—a prescriptive, enforceable baseline that defines what “secure” means and keeps it that way.

“We’re using Microsoft Baseline Security Mode to move security from guidance to enforcement,” says Brian Fielder, vice president of Microsoft Digital. “It establishes secure‑by‑default configurations that scale across our environment, so teams can innovate quickly without inheriting unnecessary risk.”

Defining Microsoft Baseline Security Mode

BSM is more than just a checklist of recommended settings. It’s an enforced security baseline built directly into the Microsoft 365 admin center, designed to reduce attack surface by default across core Microsoft 365 workloads.

It was developed and then deployed internally at Microsoft, with our team in Microsoft Digital serving as a close design and deployment partner throughout the process.

“The settings in the Microsoft Baseline Security Mode were informed by years of experience in running our planet-scale services, and by analyzing historical security incidents across Microsoft to harden the security posture of tenants. The team identified concrete security settings that would prevent or significantly reduce known security vulnerabilities.”

Adriana Wood, principal product manager, Microsoft 365 security

At a technical level, BSM establishes a minimum required security posture by applying Microsoft‑managed policies and configuration states across services including Exchange Online, SharePoint Online, OneDrive, Teams, and Entra ID. The focus is on eliminating common misconfigurations, rather than theoretical or edge‑case risks.

“The settings in the Microsoft Baseline Security Mode were informed by years of experience in running our planet-scale services, and by analyzing historical security incidents across Microsoft to harden the security posture of tenants,” says Adriana Wood, a principal product manager for Microsoft 365 security. “The team identified concrete security settings that would prevent or significantly reduce known security vulnerabilities. The resulting mitigation controls were implemented and validated in Microsoft’s enterprise tenant, with Microsoft Digital evaluating operational impact, rollout characteristics, and failure modes before making it more broadly available to our customers.”

Legacy baselines rely on documentation and manual implementation. Administrators interpret guidance, apply settings where feasible, and revisit them periodically. In dynamic cloud environments, that model breaks down fast. Configurations drift, exceptions accumulate, and security degrades.

“Before enforcement, administrators can use reporting and simulation tools to understand how a baseline will affect users, apps, and workflows. That visibility allows teams to identify noncompliant assets, prioritize remediation by risk, and avoid unexpected disruptions.”

Keith Bunge, principal software engineer, Microsoft Digital

BSM replaces that approach with policy‑driven enforcement.

Now our controls are applied consistently across the tenant and continuously validated. When our configurations fall out of compliance, our risk surfaces immediately—it’s not discovered months later in an audit. The model is simple: get clean, stay clean.

Another key capability of BSM is impact awareness.

“Before enforcement, administrators can use reporting and simulation tools to understand how a baseline will affect users, apps, and workflows,” says Keith Bunge, a principal software engineer in Microsoft Digital. “That visibility allows teams to identify noncompliant assets, prioritize remediation by risk, and avoid unexpected disruptions. Our team in Microsoft Digital partnered closely with the product group to ensure these capabilities were practical for real enterprise deployments, not just greenfield environments.”

BSM is also not static.

The baseline evolves on a regular cadence to reflect changes in the threat landscape, new Microsoft 365 capabilities, and lessons learned from operating at scale.

From our perspective, BSM is not just a feature. It’s a security operating model. It shifts the default from “secure if configured correctly” to “secure by default.” Security decisions move out of individual teams and into a consistent, centrally enforced baseline. The question is no longer whether a control should be applied, but whether an exception is truly necessary—and how the associated risk will be mitigated.

That shift is what makes BSM sustainable at scale. And it’s why apps—where identities, permissions, and data access converge—became the next focus area for us in Microsoft Digital.

Addressing apps and high-risk surfaces

When we evaluated risk across our environment, one pattern was clear: Our apps represented both our most concentrated and least governed attack surface.

Apps are identities. They authenticate. They’re granted permissions. And unlike human users, they often operate continuously, without reassessment or visibility.

In a large, self‑service environment like ours, apps are created constantly by engineering teams, business groups, and automation workflows. Over time, many of those apps could accumulate permissions beyond what they actually needed, particularly within our Microsoft Graph. Our delegated permissions were especially risky, because they allow apps to act on our employees’ behalf at machine speed across massive data sets.

“As a user, I might not know where all my data lives,” Ganti says. “But an app with delegated permissions doesn’t have that limitation. It can search everything, everywhere, all at once.”

The challenge wasn’t just volume—it was inconsistency.

Our ownership was often unclear. Our permission reviews were infrequent or manual. And once we granted elevated access, we had few systemic controls in place requiring it to be revisited.

Microsoft Baseline Security Mode addresses this directly by treating apps explicitly as identities that must conform to least‑privilege principles.

We started with visibility. We inventoried apps and analyzed permission scopes, authentication models, and potential blast radius. Our apps with broad Microsoft Graph permissions, access to large volumes of unstructured data, or unclear ownership were prioritized. In some cases, we reduced permissions to more granular scopes. In others, we rearchitected apps to use delegated access more safely—or we retired them altogether.

This work was intentionally structured as a burndown, not a one‑time cleanup.

Removing our excess permissions was only half the equation. Preventing them from coming back was just as critical. BSM introduced guardrails earlier in the app lifecycle, to surface and control elevated permission requests before they reached production. New or updated apps requesting high‑risk permissions now trigger consistent review, and in many cases are blocked outright unless they meet strict criteria.

Moving from ‘get clean’ to ‘stay clean’

Reducing risk once is hard. Keeping it reduced is harder.

After our initial application burndown, we quickly learned that cleanup alone wouldn’t scale. Even as we reduced permissions and remediated high‑risk apps, new apps continued to appear. Existing apps evolved, teams changed, and without structural controls, the same risks would inevitably return.

BSM enabled us to shift from remediation to sustainability.

It started with visibility.

We needed a reliable way to detect when apps drifted out of compliance. That meant continuously monitoring permission changes, new consent grants, and scope expansions across our tenant. Instead of periodic reviews, we moved to continuous validation tied directly to the baseline.

Next came risk‑based prioritization.

Not every noncompliance carries equal impact. Our apps with broad Microsoft Graph permissions, access to large volumes of data, or unclear ownership were surfaced first. This ensured our security teams focused on material risk, rather than treating every deviation as equal.

It was equally important for us to control how new risk entered the system.

BSM introduces guardrails earlier in the application lifecycle. Our elevated permission requests are surfaced sooner and reviewed more consistently. In many cases, high‑risk permissions are blocked by default unless clear justification and mitigation are in place. Known‑bad patterns are stopped before our teams build or update apps.

Over time, this enforcement model fundamentally changed the operating posture.

Instead of recurring cleanup campaigns, we moved to continuous alignment. Our environment stays closer to the baseline by default. Our deviations are treated as exceptions that require explicit action, not silent drift.

This “stay clean” capability also reduced operational overhead.

As enforcement and validation moved into Microsoft Baseline Security Mode, we retired custom scripts, dashboards, and manual review processes that were difficult to maintain at scale. Our baseline became the source of truth for application security posture, not a snapshot taken after the fact.

Most importantly, we proved that BSM could scale.

“This isn’t limited to Microsoft 365. This is Microsoft, and it expands over time as more services come into scope.”

Jeff McDowell, principal program manager, OneDrive and SharePoint product group

By combining continuous validation, risk‑based prioritization, and enforced guardrails, we established a repeatable model for sustaining security improvements over time.

That model now serves as our foundation for extending BSM to additional workloads and security surfaces across the enterprise.

“This isn’t limited to Microsoft 365,” says Jeff McDowell, a principal program manager in the OneDrive and SharePoint product group. “This is Microsoft, and it expands over time as more services come into scope.”

Operationalizing Microsoft Baseline Security Mode

Defining a baseline is only the first step. Making it work day‑to‑day is the real challenge.

For us in Microsoft Digital, operationalizing BSM meant embedding it directly into how we run security. That required clear ownership, repeatable processes, and tight integration with our existing workflows.

Governance came first.

BSM creates a clear line between what is centrally enforced and what individual teams can influence. The baseline is owned and managed centrally to ensure consistency across the tenant. Our application owners and engineering teams still make design decisions, but within defined guardrails aligned to enterprise risk tolerance.

This clarity reduces friction.

Instead of debating security settings app by app, our teams start from a shared default. Our security conversations shift away from “Can we make an exception?” to “How do we meet the baseline with the least disruption?”

Operationally, BSM is integrated into our application lifecycle.

New apps are evaluated against baseline requirements early, before permissions are broadly granted or dependencies are established. Changes to existing apps, such as new permission requests or expanded scopes, are surfaced automatically and reviewed in context, rather than discovered months later during audits.

In an environment where apps are constantly being created, updated, and retired, automation is essential. Without policy‑driven enforcement, our security teams would be managing a perpetual backlog of reviews. BSM allows us to focus on true exceptions instead of revalidating the baseline itself.

That baseline is also embedded into our ongoing operations.

Our security posture is monitored continuously, not through periodic snapshots. When our configurations drift or new risks appear, we identify them early and address them while the blast radius is still small. Over time, this reduces both our operational effort and incident response overhead.

Perhaps our most important change was cultural.

BSM normalizes the idea that security defaults are foundational. Our teams still innovate and move quickly—but they do so in an environment where secure is expected, enforced, and sustained.

Embracing the feedback loop as Customer Zero

From the start, our team in Microsoft Digital deployed Microsoft Baseline Security Mode as Customer Zero: We applied early versions in our live, large‑scale enterprise environment, where we fed our real‑world learnings back to the product group. That feedback loop became central to how the platform evolved.

Running BSM at Microsoft scale quickly exposed challenges that don’t appear in smaller tenants. Visibility was one of the first. With thousands of apps and constantly changing permissions, it was difficult to pinpoint which apps violated least‑privilege principles and where security teams should focus first.

Those gaps directly shaped the product. Reporting and analytics were refined to better surface elevated permissions, risky scopes, and noncompliant apps, helping teams move from investigation to action more quickly.

Scalability was another critical lesson.

Controls that worked for dozens of apps didn’t automatically work for thousands. Our team needed policies that were opinionated, enforceable, and operationally sustainable without constant adjustment. That pushed BSM toward clearer defaults and stronger enforcement boundaries.

“What made the collaboration work is that Microsoft Digital was deploying this in a real tenant with real consequences,” Wood says. “Their feedback helped us understand what enterprises actually need to adopt these controls successfully, not just what looks good on paper.”

Over time, this became a virtuous cycle. Our team surfaced friction and risk through deployment. The product group translated those insights into product improvements. We then adopted those same improvements to replace custom tooling and manual processes.

For customers, this matters. The controls in BSM are shaped by operational reality, tested under scale and refined so other organizations don’t have to learn the same lessons the hard way.

What’s next for Microsoft Baseline Security Mode

Future iterations of BSM will expand coverage beyond traditional collaboration services to additional platforms and services, while maintaining the same opinionated approach. The goal is not to restrict environments indiscriminately, but to ensure new capabilities are introduced with security baked in from the start.

As compliance requirements grow more complex and more global, organizations need a consistent, defensible security baseline. BSM provides a Microsoft‑managed standard informed by real‑world attack patterns and enterprise deployment realities.

Controls evolve. Scope expands. Feedback loops remain active. As new risks emerge, the baseline adapts, without requiring organizations to redefine their security posture from scratch.

It’s a foundation designed to support whatever comes next.

Key takeaways

If you’re ready to strengthen your organization’s security posture with Microsoft Baseline Security Mode, consider these immediate actions:

• Establish clear ownership. Assign responsibility for baseline security management to ensure consistency and accountability.
• Implement repeatable processes. Develop standardized procedures to evaluate and enforce baseline requirements throughout the app lifecycle.
• Integrate with existing workflows. Embed security controls into daily operations to reduce friction and streamline compliance.
• Prioritize automation and monitoring. Use automated enforcementand continuous validation for early risk detection and response.
• Foster a security-first culture. Normalize secure defaults and encourage teams to innovate within defined guardrails.
• Design for evolution. Design your baseline to adapt as new services, platforms, and compliance needs arise.

Try it out

Learn how to access and implement Microsoft Baseline Security Mode.

Related links

• Read more about how we’re hardening our digital defenses with Microsoft Baseline Security Mode.
• Announcing Microsoft Baseline Security Mode.
• Increase application security with the principle of least privilege.

The post Deploying Microsoft Baseline Security Mode at Microsoft: Our virtuous learning cycle appeared first on Inside Track Blog.

Learn from our experience

Network isolation (Secure Future Initiative)

“Knowing where devices are, who owns them, and what they’re supposed to be doing is pretty important in the middle of an incident,” Belknap says.

Key takeaways

Here are best practices you can use to secure your network:

• Build a complete inventory. Keep track of what your network devices are, who owns them, and what they do.
• Capture robust telemetry. Make sure your operational teams have the tools they need to see and analyze access and authentication logs.
• Use dynamic access control. Manage who can send packets on the corporate network by applying policies.
• Deprecate old network assets. Cyberattackers know to look for older, unpatched network devices. You can reduce the attack surface by replacing older devices.

Try it out

• Find at-risk devices with device inventory in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.
• Learn how to apply managed identity best practices in Azure.

Related links

• Read about how to apply Azure network security in a Zero Trust approach to security.
• Discover the key network security capabilities in Azure.
• Explore how Microsoft online services secure the network boundary.
• View security principles and guidance on establishing related network security controls.

The post Microsoft CISO advice: Read our four tips for securing your network appeared first on Inside Track Blog.

“The path attackers really like to use is to compromise support tooling and laterally move to your core tooling,” says Raji Dani, Deputy Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) for Microsoft business operations.

Learn from our experience

The importance of hardening customer support tools against cyberattacks

Dani and her team focus on understanding and mitigating the risks within customer support operations. In this video, she shares principles and practices for every business that relies on online tools in their customer support ecosystem.

Key takeaways

Here are best practices you can apply to your customer support ecosystem:

• Create dedicated and isolated support identities. Use standardized support identities with phish-resistant multifactor authentication based in a separate identity ecosystem.
• Implement least privilege and enforce device protection. Only grant the access needed for a given task and nothing more.
• Ensure tooling does not have high privilege access to customer data. Architect secure tools and manage service-to-service trust and high privileged access.
• Implement strong telemetry. Anomalous patterns in logs and telemetry data are often the first clue a cyberattack is underway.

Try it out

Discover how to start applying Zero Trust practices to protect your customer support ecosystem.

Related links

• Explore more approaches for eliminating high-privilege access to enhance security.
• Review logging and threat detection capabilities.
• Find out more about phishing-resistant multifactor authentication.
• Read how we’re improving security by protecting elevated-privilege accounts at Microsoft.
• Check out how to use role-based access control to manage endpoint access.

The post Microsoft CISO advice: Explore our four tips for securing your customer support ecosystem appeared first on Inside Track Blog.

At an organization the size of ours—with a global workforce, massive cloud footprint, and millions of identities to protect—relying on passwords wasn’t a sustainable security posture. We needed something stronger, simpler, and more secure.

This led to the introduction of Windows Hello for Business, which was first built into Windows 10 and then Windows 11. Windows Hello for Business replaces traditional passwords with hardware‑backed keys tied to a user’s device.

So, instead of typing a “secret phrase” that can be phished or leaked, our employees authenticate with biometrics or a PIN that never leaves the device. It’s fast, intuitive, and—most importantly—resistant to the kinds of attacks that plague password‑based systems.

“This wasn’t just a technology shift—it was a structural change in how we establish trust across the organization. The lessons we learned offer a practical blueprint for any organization looking to strengthen their security while also reducing friction for their workforce.”

Abu Kabir, director of IT service management, Microsoft Digital

Rolling out passwordless authentication at a large company like ours took more than just introducing new technology. It also required that we come up with a new way to onboard our employees securely, no matter where they work.  

The first step we took toward passwordless credentials was to create Identity Pass, which included an emphasis on Day 1 authentication (on a new employee’s first day at Microsoft). By combining strong identity proofing, a Temporary Access Pass (TAP), and automated onboarding workflows, we forged an identification system where employees could unbox their device, sign in securely, and register their credentials without ever needing a password.

The result wasn’t just a smoother user experience.

“This wasn’t just a technology shift—it was a structural change in how we establish trust across the organization,” says Abu Kabir, a director of IT service management in Microsoft Digital, the company’s IT organization. “The lessons we learned offer a practical blueprint for any organization looking to strengthen their security while also reducing friction for their workforce.”

How we launched passwordless authentication

To understand how we worked through the details of passwordless authentication, it’s helpful to explain how it was implemented in the first place.

Our passwordless security system includes several components, including face or fingerprint, a PIN tied to their device, and a physical security key (like a YubiKey), but this story focuses these on two:

• Identity Pass: the internal system for secure, passwordless onboarding and recovery
• Windows Hello for Business: the phishing‑resistant credential that Identity Pass helps users register

Identity Pass

Identity Pass, which is only used internally here at Microsoft, uses several tools to “bootstrap” the user, which is the first step in establishing trust among a user, a device, and an identity system. It’s the moment when you go from “nothing trusted” to “something trusted.” Everything that happens afterward depends on getting that moment right.

Identity Pass relies on three core elements:

• Verified ID is what we use internally to establish proof of identity. It’s an initial step and is valid for 30 days.
• Temporary Access Pass (TAP) establishes authentication.
• Conditional access enforces policy.

Identity Pass is where risk signals matter most, because onboarding and recovery are the moments when identity assurance is weakest. Those risk signals include:

• Authentication behavior detection: If a user tries to redeem a TAP or Verified ID from an unusual location, device, or pattern, Authentication Behavior Detection can flag a sign in as risky. Identity Pass can then require stronger identity proofing or block the flow.
• Global high‑risk detection: If our threat intelligence determines the user is likely compromised, Identity Pass will not allow TAP issuance or passwordless registration until the risk is remediated.
• Strong fraud indicators: If the user’s session or token shows signs of fraud (token replay, hijacking, malicious infrastructure), Identity Pass will force remediation and block bootstrap flows.
• Risk‑based identity assurance: This is the decision engine that takes security signals and determines what level of assurance is required. For example:
  • Low risk = allow TAP issuance
  • Medium risk = require Verified ID reproofing
  • High risk = block and escalate

Identity Pass is essentially the front door where these signals decide whether a user can even begin the passwordless journey.

Windows Hello for Business

Windows Hello for Business is the strong, phishing‑resistant credential that Identity Pass helps users register. Once this is in place, the risk signals listed above continue to influence authentication.

• Authentication behavior detection: Windows Hello for Business sign‑ins are evaluated like any other. If the user suddenly authenticates from an impossible location or unusual device, this system flags it as a sign‑in risk.
• Global high‑risk detection: If our detects a high‑confidence compromise, Windows Hello for Business sessions can be revoked via Continuous Access Evaluation. The user then reregisters through Identity Pass.
• Strong fraud indicators: If a Windows Hello for Business token is replayed or misused, this system triggers immediate revocation and forces secure recovery.
• Risk‑based identity assurance: This determines whether Windows Hello for Business alone is sufficient, or whether the user must step up to a stronger method based on risk.

Windows Hello for Business is the credential, but the risk signals determine whether that credential is trusted at any given moment.

What we learned: Rollout and implementation

While our toolsets and protocols offer a clear path for any organization moving toward passwordless authentication, transferring users from a typical user/password security setup can have a variety of challenges—especially at the outset.

Devices, environments, and remote work all matter

When an organization adopts identity‑based, passwordless authentication, one of the first realities it confronts is that the onboarding experience isn’t uniform. Employees don’t all show up with the same hardware, the same operating system version, or the same security capabilities. That diversity has a direct impact on how smoothly a user can complete the initial Day 1 setup and register a strong, phishing‑resistant credential.

“It’s not one-size-fits-all. The onboarding experience can be different by platform, version, and device. The further away you get from a homogenized environment, the more complexity you introduce.”

Matt Scott, senior IT service manager, Microsoft Digital

Device and platform diversity is one of the defining factors in designing a successful passwordless onboarding experience. Any organization adopting identity‑based authentication needs an onboarding system that can adapt to a wide range of hardware, OS versions, and security capabilities while still enforcing a consistent, high‑assurance security model.

Identity proofing and credential registration don’t look the same across platforms. A laptop might support credential setup directly at the login screen, while a mobile device might require an app‑based flow, and a non‑traditional platform might rely entirely on browser‑based enrollment. The underlying model stays consistent, but the user experience varies depending on where the user begins.

“It’s not one-size-fits-all,” says Matt Scott, a senior IT service manager in Microsoft Digital. “The onboarding experience can be different by platform, version, and device. The further away you get from a homogenized environment, the more complexity you introduce.”

Support volume

With Identity Pass in place, we have seen dramatic reductions in password reset volume (80%), onboarding delays, and help desk tickets related to account access. At the initial rollout stage, however, most organizations should anticipate a temporary spike in support needs.

“We expected an increase in volume, because we had recently gotten to 99% in terms of users being identified through Phish-Resistant Multi-Factor Authentication,” Scott says. “In reality, what’s happening is you have a lot of users who are unhappy with the experience as part of the move to a passwordless environment.”

No matter how solid the argument is for a passwordless approach or how cleanly an organization implements it, our experience shows that organizations should expect initial confusion from employees and increased pressure on support teams.

“Moving into a passwordless environment is obviously good for everyone, but we needed to make it easier for users to get the information they needed,” Scott says. “It’s not just one fell swoop of moving from password to passwordless. It’s truly a journey. And it’s very important that change management is part of that journey.”

Helping employees help themselves

Another key learning during our implementation of passwordless authentication was the importance of accessible documentation. This gives users who have yet to establish their identity credentials a way to get unblocked without having to immediately call IT support.

That documentation must stay accurate over time, so it’s crucial to build a governance strategy that ensures updates are made quickly as new devices, platforms, and scenarios emerge.

“During onboarding, if there’s a problem and a user is locked out, they may not have access to the corporate network,” Kabir says. “Having a site that they could access, with actual instruction based on which device they’re using and that shows them how to get past key blockers, was very helpful.”

Maintaining a direct line to leadership in order to help unblock lingering change requests also proved to be essential. In one case, bugs lingered in the engineering queue for days, even weeks, because the escalation path was limited (by design).

“Approval requests were blocked, and so approvals needed to be accelerated to the skip-level approver,” Kabir says. “We were able to move fast to fix that, because we had a clear understanding of the pain that folks were feeling on our side and could effectively communicate that to leadership.”

Short-term pain, long-term gain

The impact has been significant. Instead of spending long cycles troubleshooting forgotten passwords or manually verifying user identities, IT teams can focus on higher‑value work: strengthening identity protection, refining automation, and improving the user experience. This shift not only reduces operational overhead, it also aligns with our Zero Trust principles by removing weak authentication steps from the identity lifecycle.

For employees, the experience is equally transformative. New hires can unbox a device, authenticate using a TAP delivered through a secure Verified ID workflow, and immediately register passwordless methods like Windows Hello for Business. Although the onboarding journey may vary across platforms and devices, the process is fast and intuitive.

For existing users who lose access—whether due to a forgotten PIN, a lost device, or a credential reset—Identity Pass provides a self‑service recovery path that avoids the delays and security risks of traditional reset processes.

Our experience demonstrates that when these processes are redesigned around strong, hardware‑backed, phishing‑resistant credentials, organizations gain both security and efficiency. The result is a more resilient identity foundation that supports the realities of modern work.

Key takeaways

Here are some suggestions for getting started with Windows Hello for Business and Day 1 onboarding:

• Passwordless authentication start with strong identity proofing. Establishing user identity up front is essential to creating a secure foundation for all future authentication.
• Day 1 onboarding is the riskiest moment. The initial bootstrap step is where trust is first established, and risk signals matter most.
• Temporary Access Pass replaces temporary passwords. TAP provides a secure, time‑bound way for users to authenticate and register passwordless credentials without exposing the network to attack.
• Device and platform diversity shapes the user experience. Different hardware, operating systems, and compute environments require flexible onboarding paths that still enforce consistent security.
• Support demand spikes before it drops. Organizations should expect short‑term confusion and increased help‑desk volume before passwordless security benefits fully materialize.
• Long‑term gains are significant. Once deployed, passwordless authentication reduces operational overhead, strengthens security, and improves the user experience across the identity lifecycle.

Try it out

• Explore Windows Hello for Business.
• Check out Microsoft identity and access management services.

Related links

• Learn more about implementing strong user authentication with Windows Hello for Business.
• Read about phishing-resistant authentication with Microsoft Entra ID.
• See how Microsoft is using AI to reinvent network security.
• Discover how we developed a Zero Trust security model at Microsoft.
• Find out how Windows Hotpatch transformed security and compliance at Microsoft.
• Learn how Microsoft hardened our defenses with Microsoft Baseline Security Mode.

The post Getting started with Windows Hello for Business and Day 1 authentication at Microsoft appeared first on Inside Track Blog.