Chad

My feedback

  1. 24 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  2. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Azure Container Registry  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  3. 5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Container Registry  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  4. 11 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Azure Container Registry  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  5. 78 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  Azure Container Registry  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
  6. 119 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  Azure Container Registry  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  7. 21 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Security Center  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chad commented  · 

    This seems to be a rub in Azure, one team fights to enable features while another attempts to secure it - leaving features behind and leaving you with yet another security tradeoff to consider.

    Ex - cant use SQL Vulnerability Assessment if you want to put a firewall on your storage account: https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/issues/36124

    Ex- cannot use KeyVault integration with AppGateway if you want a firewall on your keyvault : https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs/issues/33157

    Ex - various feature limitations when using private AKS clusters
    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/private-clusters#limitations

    Chad supported this idea  · 
  8. 137 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  9. 8 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  (General Feedback) » azure.microsoft.com  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  10. 57 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Chad supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chad commented  · 

    Note - if you allow this via claim from the IDP - please account for the B2B Guest use case where AD tenant is not the HOME tenant for the user + the HOME tenant is federated IDP. Use case is all users are GUESTS into our tenant where we PIM. See: https://feedback.azure.com/forums/169401-azure-active-directory/suggestions/37590304-b2b-scenario-the-b2b-guest-user-should-use-the-m

  11. 32 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  12. 37 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  13. 54 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  14. 49 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  15. 51 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  16. 94 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  17. 114 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Data Factory  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  18. 42 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Azure Key Vault  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
  19. 6 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Security Center  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thanks for the valid suggestion. Your feedback is now open for the user community to up-vote & comment on. This allows us to effectively prioritize your request against our existing feature backlog and also gives us insight into the potential impact of implementing the suggested feature.

    Chad supported this idea  · 
  20. 83 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Microsoft
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    9 comments  ·  Azure Active Directory » B2B  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Chad supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Chad commented  · 

    Please consider a way to forward this claim between B2B tenant guest authentications. The "MFA requirement satisfied by claim in the token" authentication requirement for meeting MFA works great if you authenticate to your HOME realm tenant. After enforcing MFA via conditional access in the GUEST tenant, the claim is not sent in the federated authentication between HOME realm tenant and the GUEST tenant. This means B2B guest users must MFA twice with two different technologies if the HOME tenant is federated to a separate IDP.

Feedback and Knowledge Base