Audit Detectfirsttimecapolicychange

KQL detection rule by reprise99 · MIT

Detects users who add, delete or update a Azure AD Conditional Access policy for the first time. First find users who have previously made CA policy changes, this example looks back 90 days

//Detects users who add, delete or update a Azure AD Conditional Access policy for the first time.
//First find users who have previously made CA policy changes, this example looks back 90 days

//Data connector required for this query - Azure Active Directory - Audit Logs

let knownusers=
    AuditLogs
    | where TimeGenerated > ago(90d) and TimeGenerated < ago(1d)
    | where OperationName in ("Update conditional access policy", "Add conditional access policy", "Delete conditional access policy")
    | extend Actor = tostring(parse_json(tostring(InitiatedBy.user)).userPrincipalName)
    | distinct Actor;
//Find new events from users not in the known user list
AuditLogs
| where TimeGenerated > ago(1d)
| where OperationName in ("Update conditional access policy", "Add conditional access policy", "Delete conditional access policy")
| extend Actor = tostring(parse_json(tostring(InitiatedBy.user)).userPrincipalName)
| extend ['Policy Name'] = tostring(TargetResources[0].displayName)
| extend ['Policy Id'] = tostring(TargetResources[0].id)
| where Actor !in (knownusers)
| project TimeGenerated, Actor, ['Policy Name'], ['Policy Id']

[[ currentRule.title && currentRule.title.length > 60 ? currentRule.title.slice(0, 60) + '…' : currentRule.title ]]

20bb22ce-1eef-4b69-abb3-3afa3107a4f9

Propose edits, view related rules, and engage with the community through comments.

Executable code, not a declarative rule

This submission is arbitrary [[ currentRule.format ? currentRule.format.toUpperCase() : '' ]] code, not a declarative detection rule — review it as you would any script before running it, and note that it cannot be safely aggregated or auto-executed alongside YARA/Sigma/Suricata/CRS rules.

Rejected pattern present

[[ reason ]]

What does this mean?

Format & documentation suggestions

Not a security issue — this rule is valid and was accepted as-is. These are optional fields/conventions its own format recommends, mainly affecting its quality score and how well it documents itself for other reviewers.

[[ reason ]]

What do these messages mean?

[[ currentRule.title && currentRule.title.length > 60 ? currentRule.title.slice(0, 60) + '…' : currentRule.title ]]

[[ currentRule.title ]]

Community Discussion