Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We used Azure AD for a role-based customer access mechanism. We implemented a single tenant, single sign-on for users of the application. We gave them a sign-on feature with OpenID Connect.

Previously we had to manually create the authentication server, but when we used Azure AD, we got the server directly from Azure. I didn't have to design the server.

We were also able to filter on the domain for the client I was working for.

In addition, we used Azure AD's Conditional Access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls. That was pretty useful because we didn't have to do much because we had attributes like authorized tags. And we configured scope, meaning who can access what, in the manifest. It was not very complicated.

And Azure ID has definitely helped save us time. Earlier, we had to depend on the infrastructure team, a different team, to manage the Active Directory permissions. But now, most of the time, the developers have access in the portal. It is saving us about 40 percent of our time.

The most valuable features of Azure ID are the single sign-on and OpenID Connect authentication.

Also, it was very nice that the documentation, the articles and help, on how to implement what we were trying to do, were available freely on the site, making it easy to develop. We did two or three sprints because things worked. Most of the time was spent on development and testing. But the deployment was easy.

Maybe I don't have enough experience, but when you fix the rules and permissions, working directly on the manifest, you really need to have in-depth knowledge. If there were a graphical user interface to update the manifest, that would be good. For example, if I want to grant access to HR versus an admin, I have to specifically write that in the manifest file to create the various roles. That means I'm coding in the manifest file. A graphical user interface would really help.

I have been using Azure AD for two-plus years.

The stability is 95 percent. We don't have any issues with it.

Of course it's scalable and that's why we choose the platform. We only have two regions in the load balancer. We have not gone beyond that, so we have not faced an issue.

We deployed it in multiple locations for our customer.

We haven't contacted Microsoft support.

I have played a small role in deploying Azure AD, but I have not been involved in the migration process. Overall, the deployment is easy. It took us 20 to 25 days, including fixing issues. That was normal, nothing unusual.

Regarding maintenance, the team I'm on does application maintenance. For Azure, we have a cloud admin who looks at the Azure portal for things like billing, access management, and admin work.

Some people use SAML technology for single sign-on. Although I haven't used it, it seems a bit complex. I started working directly with Azure AD OpenID Connect to a single tenant, or Azure AD B2B or B2C, and it was very smooth. It was not much of a challenge. Most of the complex things are taken care of by the Azure AD login. Usually, you don't need to do a deep dive into what is happening internally. 

Microsoft is like a "hovercraft", as opposed to scuba diving. With Microsoft, you can use the "hovercraft". Without touching the river you can cross it.

I have not explored many other competitive products, like GCP or AWS. I am a supporter of Microsoft products.

With Verified ID, things were secure. In recent news, there has been some hacking due to some developer using an email ID as opposed to OpenID, but our team did not use email IDs. Even if we were using email IDs for single sign-on, the user still needed to sign up with a password, so it was not possible to impersonate someone else.

The user experience, the interface, is very smooth. We have never had any problems with the single sign-on.

When applications are hosted on Azure, you should use the advantages of Azure AD.

Azure AD manages the identities of all our employees. 

Azure AD allowed us to get rid of servers and other hardware that run at our offices. We moved everything to the cloud. Once we set up roles and permissions, it's only a matter of adding people and removing people from different groups and letting permissions flow through. 

It also saved us some money. Our IT group is tiny, so any automation we can do is valuable. We haven't had to grow the team beyond three. The employee reaction to Microsoft Entra has been positive. People like to have a single credential for accessing all our Microsoft and non-Microsoft apps.

I like Azure AD's single sign-on and identity federation features. It allows us to issue a single credential to every employee and not worry about managing a lot of passwords. Microsoft Entra provides a single pane of glass for managing user access, and we're pleased with it.

Entra's conditional access feature enables us to set policies up based on the location and risk score of the account and the device they use to access the network. Permission management lets us assign roles for various Azure functions based on functions people perform in the company. It helps us bundle access to different things by associating it with a given role at the company.

I would like to see a better delegation of access. For instance, we want to allow different groups within the company to manage different elements of Azure AD, but I need more granularity in delegating access.

We've been using Azure AD for 10 years.

I rate Azure AD nine out of ten for stability. They've had issues in the past, but it's been quite some time. It has been nearly two years since the last availability problem.

We only have 100 employees at the company, so we're nowhere near the maximum limits. I know of a massive company that adopted Azure AD. I imagine it's scalable well beyond the size of our company.

The support is decent. I always manage to find what I'm looking for. If it's not in the documentation, there are lots of blog posts that third parties have written, and I always seem to find what I need. I rate Microsoft support nine out of ten. 

Positive

We used the on-premises version of Active Directory, but we switched to the cloud to get rid of all of our hardware. We don't run any servers in the officer anymore. 

Setting up Azure AD was straightforward. It's all delivered online, so it's only a matter of filling in the parameters for our organization. After that point, it scales easily.

There's no traditional maintenance. We have to perform audits on accounts to ensure that people and permissions are still online. There isn't product or data maintenance. 

Azure AD is essential to how the business runs. We're only investing more in the whole Microsoft Suite.

We're a Microsoft partner, so we get partner benefits. We pay almost nothing, and it's massively valuable to us.

We didn't look at anything else because we're committed to Office 365, and we need to be on Active Directory for Office 365. It's a well-known, trusted solution so we never did an analysis of alternatives.

I rate Azure Active Directory nine out of ten. I'm sure there are some areas for improvement, but it's extremely valuable to us and the way that we operate.

Since we began to use Active Directory, I've learned a lot about industry best practices, particularly digital identity and its role in zero trust. By using a major mainstream identity provider, we're able to move toward the whole zero-trust model that's popular right now.

If you implement Azure AD, you need to consider the third-party apps you want to integrate. If they support competitors like Okta, Ping, and SailPoint, then they will almost certainly support Azure AD legacy applications. However, older software applications don't integrate well with Azure AD. 

We use this solution to authenticate to the portal. There are also some VMs that are not domain-joined, so we use Azure users that we create natively in the portal.

We also use it for our applications. The accounts that we create natively in Azure are used for application authentication.

We have a hybrid deployment model where some accounts are primarily native in Azure, whereas others are on-premises. We also have accounts that are synchronized between our on-premises servers and Azure.

Azure AD has features that have helped to improve our security posture. We have a service called Azure AD Privileged Identity Management, where instead of our administrators having permanent access or permanent admin assignment, they can now activate admin roles only when they need to perform administrative-level tasks.

This means that instead of using permanent assignments, our administrators activate the specific roles that they need at the moment that they need them. After the task is complete, the administrative access expires. This has definitely improved our security posture.

Using this product has also had a positive effect on our end-user experience. The self-service password reset is something that has definitely improved our end-user experience. Instead of having to call our service desk, users can now reset their own passwords.

This is important because due to our multi-factor authentication, we no longer have policies where we have to have periodic password changes. We have three and four-factor stages of authentication, which makes our logins more secure. This is why users don't have to change or reset their passwords on a regular basis.

One of the ways that Azure AD has improved the way our organization functions is to help cut down on service desk requests. If I have an issue with my password, in the past, I would have had to log a ticket with the service desk. With most of us working remotely, this would've posed a challenge. It would have required the service desk to verify that I am who I say I am, for example. Now, because users set up their own profiles and are able to change passwords for themselves, at any moment that their account is compromised, they're able to change their own password.

Overall, this solution has definitely improved our organization's security posture. We no longer have permanent administrative permission assignments, and we are also able to restrict who is able to log in to certain applications. Finally, we are able to see and review any risky or suspicious sign-ins.

Specifically, in the infrastructure team, we now have managed identities. Instead of having to create service accounts, we have managed identities that are directly linked to our resources that support them. All of that is managed by Azure Active Directory.

Another way that this solution has improved how we do our work is that we no longer have to keep a record of all service accounts or use one service account for multiple services. Now, each service that supports managed identities can have its own service account, and that is managed by Azure AD.

The most valuable feature is the conditional access policies. This gives us the ability to restrict who can access which applications or the portal in specific ways. We are able to define access based on job roles. For example, I'm primarily in the infrastructure team and only certain people should be able to connect to the Resource Manager. We can also define which IP addresses or locations those people can connect from before they can access the portal.

If your organization requires additional security then the subscription will be more expensive.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for approximately five years, since 2016.

In terms of stability, Azure Active Directory is definitely an improvement from what we used in the past. I'm happy so far with the offerings and we hardly ever have any service disruptions.

We have a lot of different people using this solution. We have normal users and we have administrators. It's a large organization.

So far, I've been happy with the technical support.

There are very few service disruptions and also, because of our agreement with Microsoft, we are able to get escalated support.

We hardly ever have any downtime. When we do need support, it's normally escalated and our service is restored in a reasonable timeframe.

I would rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Prior to this solution, we used the on-premises version of Active Directory.

The switch was part of our cloud migration strategy. For us to be able to use our apps and workloads in the cloud, we had to have Identity Management as part of our migration scope. It's linked to our cloud migration strategy.

I was not involved with the initial setup but I assume that it was not complex because we have Microsoft consultants assisting us.

We specifically work with Microsoft directly. We don't use a reseller or service provider. All of the assistance that we get is directly from the vendor.

Our technical team is responsible for deployment and maintenance. I'm not sure how many people are in that team. Somebody from security is involved, but I'm not sure what other roles are required for maintenance tasks.

We have definitenly seen a return on investment from using this product. We have seamless authentication, quicker response times, more robust security, access from anywhere without having to set up VPN links, and federated models.

If we had similar services on-premises, I assume that it would be expensive, especially given that we used to have a perpetual licensing model. Now that we are able to have a subscription-based service, it has not only improved our security posture but also cut down on costs.

My advice concerning the pricing and licensing would vary depending upon the stage of maturity of the organization. I've been with companies that are using the Office 365 license for Active Directory, whereas others are able to use the free version of it.

For organizations such as the one that I'm at now, where we require more security and have services like the Conditional Access Policies or Privileged Identity management, you have to upgrade to a higher level of the solution.

I'm not sure about the specific costs or how they're calculated, but essentially, the costs go up based on the level of security that is required by the organization.

I can't say for certain what our future plans are for Azure AD but I see it being used long-term. It has helped our organization to grow because of what we are able to do. Also, it has greatly improved our security posture because of the services that are available.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The Authenticator app is a client application on your smartphone, usually, and you configure your profile in the cloud. I use it with my Android smartphone. 

This is a Microsoft standalone application, which the user installs usually on a mobile device, either iOS-based or in my case, Android-based. Then you add your enterprise accounts into the Microsoft Authenticator app, your work account from Microsoft 365, or your whatever on-premise account, which makes uses the Azure or whatever IDP, identity provider so that you can do single sign-on or multi-factor sign-ins.

It's an authenticator. How it's used really depends on the use case that it is configured with. If you are using your Microsoft 365 work account, if your organization requires you to do multi-factor authentication, not just with the username and password, with an additional factor like the Microsoft Authenticator app, then it simply offers that extra level of protection and security.

You can manage locally additional pathways or passwords. You can collect your credit card information or whatever secret notices in the authenticate app. This is something that got the addition the last couple of years.

You could use it for different use cases. 

The Azure AD-integrated single sign-on scenarios are the most useful due to the fact that, if you are in a cloud application that you have on your smartphone, the Authenticator just requests you to allow or deny the access as a factor. Other applications require a token where you have to enter in an additional pin. Having the single sign-on or the multi-factor way with just allowing the application with one tap to authenticate is really smart.

The solution is free to use and you can use it for every service.

They recently redid the user interface a few months ago and it looks good.

I've found the solution to be stable and scalable. 

Adding a new account can be tricky. I do it a lot and therefore am used to it, however, if you don't you tend to forget the process. If you had a bottom menu and the settings menu, for example, be added to the bottom menu instead of a different place, the top right corner, it might be more intuitive.

One area of improvement is always with global offerings from large companies where we have a lot of users that require help. Users need videos, et cetera, in their own language, and in German, there is not much from Microsoft. These are products that have a very, very fast life cycle. They upgrade the services and applications in a very high rhythm every couple of months, and even Microsoft does not have the resources to offer the learning material in all the regions, however, they offer their services.

We have then to add some additional use via manuals of how to set up, et cetera, as we have users that are not willing or cannot understand videos in English that come from Microsoft.

I've been using the solution for two to three years. It might even be longer than that.

The solution is stable. I haven't had any problems so far. 

The product scales well. 

The goal is to have everyone using it. We are in the rollout phase, and in my organization of about 1,500 users, after a couple of weeks, we have maybe a third of the population starting to use the application. 

This is like this every rollout. It takes a couple of weeks to a month. In the end, we will have around 7,500 users using Microsoft Authenticator or the Microsoft multi-factor authenticator service that allows you to choose different factors. We have a lot of things using the Authenticator app. 

We have central support organizations and I don't access Microsoft support myself. Therefore, I can't speak to their level of service.

I've used many authenticator applications. I used already Microsoft Authenticator when it came out, maybe five, six, or seven years ago. Then I used Google Authenticator and other authenticator applications. You can, however, use these all in parallel. For example, if you mix your private and your work accounts in the same applications, or if your smartphone is managed by your company and you want to separate your private accounts from any corporate policy that can delete your smartphone, you can use different authenticators for different purposes. Right now, I have the Authenticator app in front of me, and I have seven accounts configured, and this is a mix of private and corporate or work accounts.

The initial setup is easy. You just download it and start using it. 

We don't need to worry about maintenance. This is a service from Microsoft.

The solution doesn't cost anything to use.

I'm the Chief Security officer of our organization. I always have to do some research on these topics.

I'm a Microsoft customer.

I'd advise any user to use MFA these days. There's not just war in Ukraine. There's also war in this kind of space and a multi-factor authentication method is a must just to make your cyber life a little bit safer at least.

I'd rate the product eight out of ten.

We are using it for all non-structured data and as an identity manager for all of our accounts. In addition, we use it also to authenticate Google services, because we have Google Workspace for email, and to integrate other tools with our services. We are able to keep it all going, balanced, and synchronized. It's very good. We use it for just about everything that we need to do an identity check on.

We couldn't live without the Active Directory services. It has helped to improve our security posture. We have a lot of users and hardware to manage and we can do that with Active Directory.

The most valuable feature is the ability to deploy and make changes to every workstation that I need to. We use it to control policy and I can apply the right policies to all our 1,500 workstations, notebooks, et cetera.

I have been using the Active Directory solution for three years. I'm responsible for almost all infrastructure services in our organization.

It's pretty stable. In the three years, the service has never been down.

As far as I know, it works for 10,000 and 100,000. It's just difficult to find current information, such as how much hardware and how many licenses we would need to keep it going. But it's scalable and works really well. We can keep adding servers and scale up or out.

We don't have another company that provides support for Active Directory. On my team, there are three people who work with it, and we have about 2,000 users in our company.

To be honest, I can barely navigate Microsoft's support. Microsoft is so well-known and there is so much information to look up on the internet, that we have never come to the point where we have actually had to open an issue with Microsoft's team. We can almost always find out the information that we need by looking it up with Google or in Microsoft's Knowledge Base.

We used to use LDAP, a free tool, but since almost all of our hardware needed integration, we had to move to Active Directory. We couldn't apply the policies that we needed, using open source, and we couldn't keep the integration going the way we needed to.

We are really happy with how the functionality Azure Active Directory gives us. I have a security policy applied to all workstations. Before, all of our users could configure their machines the way they wanted to. As a result, we often had to reconfigure and do other things to them as well because the computers were crashing. We almost don't have to do that anymore.

The trick was to immigrate from LDAP. We had to get all the properties from the files into Active Directory, so it took some time. When we did that, there were some issues with the system and we had to do it manually. It would be nice if they had a service that would make it easier to migrate from LDAP to Active Directory, keeping all of the properties from files and non-structured data as well.

It gives a good return on investment. The amount of first-level support we have had to give internally has dropped a lot since we applied the policies and restricted our users. But our users are now more satisfied because their computers don't have the issues that they had before. Before Active Directory, there were many issues that our users complained about, like worms and malware. We don't have those issues anymore. Even with endpoint protection we had some cases of viruses in our company, but now we don't have them either.

Directly, I couldn't calculate the return on investment, but indirectly we saved by reducing work for our team, and we are keeping our users satisfied.

The process for buying licenses from Microsoft is somewhat messy and really hard to do. We have to talk to someone because it's hard to find out how many licenses we need. If I'm applying for 2,000 users, how many Windows licenses do we need?

They could also charge less for support. You buy the license, but if you want to keep it in good standing, you have to pay for the support, and it is expensive. It's okay to pay for the license itself, but to pay so much for support...

We were thinking about buying another tool, to be capable of managing and keeping all the identities within our organization current. But we had to go straight to Microsoft because there are no other solutions that I know of. By now, almost all organizations are using Windows 10 or 11, and it would be hard to achieve the possibilities that we have with Active Directory if we used another service.

We are integrated with NetApp because we use NetApp storage. It's pretty awesome. We are also integrated with many others, such as our data center hardware with storage from IBM. We're using it for logging switches, as well. It works really well.

My advice to others would be to look at the options and focus on how you can pay less. Do the research so that you buy just the essential licenses to keep it going. If you don't do the sizing well, you can buy more, but it's expensive to keep it going and pay for support.

We provide single sign-on, app syncing, and API seamless access to more than 2,000 users with the syncs into Azure. We provide access to email, SharePoint Online, Skype, and other services on the cloud to half of those users. We have services in the cloud, such as app registration and documents for SharePoint Online.

The single sign-on is the most valuable aspect of the solution. It allows for storing passwords in secure vaults. For developers, we use a vault for SSH. Mainly, we have replication from all services on-prem to the cloud.

With a single sign-on, in the case something happens on-premises, users can still use a single sign-on to a PC to access the cloud.

We can deploy policies, which improves our security posture. It's mainly very similar to on-premises, however, some new features can be used on the cloud as well, such as labs and password rotation. Some features have improved, which has been great.

The solution improves the way our organization functions. I can deploy a policy that will search for unused accounts, for example, and delete or just move them to a different organization unit that handles unused accounts. We can change unsecured passwords. We can detect intrusion and inform a security group on how to disable that account immediately. We can also perform security checks on services.

We can easily migrate services and improve the quality and improvement of bandwidth of the service. It's easy to scale.

There are some searches, such as a global search, which have powerful query capabilities if you configure it in a certain way.

It's easy to use. The portal experience provides a dashboard of what's happening. With the dashboard, you can see what's happening with the service faster. Of course, I’m talking about the cloud. On-prem you don't have that dashboard.

Active Directory has affected our end-user experience. It has improved it as we have centralized management now and we have centralized administration, and things can be automated easily. You can have most tasks automated. It's good.

The security needs to be improved. For example, in terms of changing from one version to the latest, meaning going from 2008 to 2012, or 2016 to 2019, you need to get rid of all the operating systems and they need to ensure the security is upgraded and improved.

They need to bring BitLocker into the VMs and the servers.

LAPS could also be improved. LAPS are used to rotate passwords on a server. That can be improved upon to increase security levels.

Protocols SSL 2.0 and SSL 3.0 need to be removed and they should change my TLS 1.2 for every application.

I've been using Azure for about 13 years. However, I've used Active Directory for 25 years. It's been a long time.

We have found some servers do not have enough CPU or memory which meant there was not enough stability. I scaled up the service to ESX, to a virtual host, and I installed multiple DCs, virtualized. As the solution has physical machines, CPU and memory were not enough. However, the scaling provided much more stability.

The scalability is good now, and I find it to be more stable and faster since scaling up to ESX.

We tend to increase usage every month. We have five countries with multiple forests. Currently, we have 200 users or so on the solution.

The technical support is not so bad, however, it's lacking in faster response times sometimes.

We did not previously use a different product.

The initial setup was complex. It has several forests connected to multiple domains in several countries, and it's going through multiple data centers. Typically, we have a solution for the VPN. It's different in every country sometimes. On top of that, centralized services are not so easy to manage in different forests.

The initial deployment was set initially for six months, and then we’ve been doing improvements for the last six months as well. It’s been a year in total.

Our initial implementation strategy was to sync a forest with multiple domains.

We have ten to 15 people who are capable to handle maintenance on the product. These include a cloud architect to Active Directory architect engineers, help desk engineers to deploy and manage solutions, and engineers to manage the servers.

We did not use an integrator, reseller, or consultant for the deployment. We handled it in-house. That is my understanding.

We have seen a bit of an ROI.

The solution is not the cheapest in the market. It could be improved and possibly lowered slightly.

We moved right into Active Directory, however, as a cloud architect, I am familiar with other solutions. I advised the client to go right to Active Directory based on my past experience. Due to the complexity of services they offered, I knew integration would be easy.

We are a Microsoft partner.

We use several versions of the product, including 2016 and 2019. For one customer, they're running 2008, which is the old version, and I just upgraded them to 2012. The domain controller is 2012 R2 and has the latest patches.

I'd advise new users to do an original design with an architect, and think about scaling up while considering services you will be adding in the future. It's important to plan the security tightly and do a neat design and consider services such as BitLocker and other resources that will be needed.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We are a small consultant company, and we help customers to build hybrid environments. We synchronize on-premises AD to Azure AD and help our customers decide which one they want to use.

In our own company, we use Office 365, so we use Activity Directory directly for authentication and authorization.

The most valuable feature is Conditional Access. As there are more and more people working from home, security is a challenge for a lot of companies. To build a general trust solution, we need Conditional Access to make sure the right people use the right device and access the right content.

In our company, we use Conditional Access with Trend to make sure that our employees can use the device from the company. We can make sure that there is higher security. We can also use Trend to set up a group policy and to set up Windows Defender as well.

Microsoft Azure AD is easy to install and is a stable solution.

There is no documentation about how Microsoft will scale Azure AD for customers. It only mentions that it will scale out if you have a lot of requests but does not mention how in detail.

More documentation on some complete scenarios, such as best practices to integrate forests into Azure AD when a customer has several on-premises forests, would be helpful.

I've been using it for four years.

In my experience, it has been working fine.

Scalability is a pain point. There is no documentation about how Microsoft will scale Azure AD for customers. We do, however, plan to increase usage.

We used on-premises Active Directory before using Azure Active Directory.

The initial setup is pretty simple. Microsoft Azure AD can be deployed in one or two minutes.

If you have an Office 365 subscription, Microsoft will build Azure AD for you.

Microsoft Azure AD has P1 or P2 licensing options, and it depends on the customer's needs. To use Conditional Access, you need to have the P1 license, and to use the PIN features, you need the P2 license. We use the P1 license as we use Conditional Access.

It will be a very good solution if your company is already using on-premises Windows Active Directory. Microsoft has provided a useful tool called Azure AD Connect. So, you can easily sync your on-premises Active Directory to Azure Active Directory, and you can easily implement the SSO.

Overall, we are satisfied with the solution and the features provided, and on a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution at nine.

We have users, groups, and applications, and the purpose of this product is authentication, authorization, and attestation. We use it for the services connected to those three "A"s. The use cases in all organizations are more or less the same, even if some side services differ. Azure AD is used for authentication and authorization. It's about managing identities and granting access to applications.

It has features that have definitely helped to improve our security posture. The identity and access management, at the end of the day, are about security. It also offers features like multi-factor authentication, Privileged Identity Management, and access review and attestation, and all of these are connected to security and typically help improve security posture.

Many of its features are valuable, including: 

• facilitating application authentication 
• privileged access management 
• processes for attestation
• access reviews.

The multi-factor authentication, similar to when you use your mobile banking application when you want to do a transaction, doesn't rely only on your username and password. It triggers a second factor, like an SMS to your mobile. It requires another factor for authentication. This is one of the standard services Microsoft offers with Azure AD Directory.

Privileged identity management is also a standard feature of Azure AD for privileged accounts. We make sure we do privileged role activation when it's needed so that we do not have sensitive roles active every day.

A lot of aspects can be improved and Microsoft is constantly improving it. If I compare Azure AD today with what it was like five years ago, or even three years ago, a lot of areas have been improved, and from different angles. There have been improvements that offer more security and there have been some improvements in the efficiency domain. Azure AD is not a small product. It's not, say, Acrobat Reader, where I could say, "Okay, if these two features are added, it will be a perfect product." Azure is a vast platform.

But if we look at multi-factor authentication, can it be improved? Yes. Perhaps it could cope with the newest authentication protocols or offer new methods for second or third factors.

I'm also willing to go towards passwordless authentication. I don't want anyone to have passwords. I want them to authenticate using other methods, like maybe biometrics via your fingerprint or your face or a gesture. These things, together with the smart card you have, could mean no more passwords. The trends are moving in that direction.

When it comes to identity governance, the governance features in Azure AD are very focused on Microsoft products. I would like to see those governance and life cycle management features offered for non-Microsoft products connected to Azure AD. Currently, those aspects are not covered. Microsoft has started to introduce Identity Governance tools in Azure AD, and I know they are improving on them. For me, this is one of the interesting areas to explore further—and I'm looking to see what more Microsoft offers. Once they improve these areas, organizations will start to utilize Microsoft more because, in that domain, Microsoft is a bit behind. Right now, we need third-party tools to complete the circle.

In addition, sometimes meeting the principle of least privilege is not easy because the roles are not very granular. That means that if you are an administrator you need to do small things connected to resetting passwords and updating certain attributes. Sometimes I have to grant access for the purposes of user management, but it includes more access than they need. Role granularity is something that can be improved, and they are improving it.

Again, if I compare Azure AD today to what it was like three years ago, there have been a lot of improvements in all these domains. But we could also pick any of these specific feature domains in Azure AD and have in-depth discussions about what could be improved, and how.

We have been using Azure Active Directory for more than five years.`

Azure AD is very scalable. The only concern is around role-based access control limitations at the subscription level. That is something Microsoft is improving on. Currently, per subscription, you can have a maximum 2,000 role assignments. Sometimes big organizations hit the limit and need to implement workarounds to resolve that limitation. But that is something Microsoft has already confirmed it is improving. That is a limitation of the Azure platform, it's not specific to my organization. A smaller organization may never hit the limit, but bigger organizations do.

Apart from that, their application integrations, the service, MFA, and everything else, are quite scalable. It is moving in the right direction.

Setting up Azure AD, is about moving toward the cloud journey. I cannot say setting up Azure AD is easy, but on the other hand, organizations are not moving to the cloud in one go. It's not all or nothing, that you have it or you don't have it. It depends on which services you are receiving from Azure AD. Some organizations, like ours, start with a limited number of services.

You usually start with syncing your identities to the cloud so that you can offer your employees certain cloud services. You want to enable them to use certain SaaS applications, where they are relying on a cloud identity, and that's why you need to have your accounts in the cloud. Without that, you cannot grant them access.

Later, you may offer the ability for business partners to use and benefit from certain cloud applications, and gradually the use cases increase. For example, someone may become a privileged user to take responsibility for an application and manage it. When that happens you start to think about what other features in the Azure platform you can offer to do administration in a more secure way. Or, once you have thousands of users benefiting from cloud applications, how can you make sure that you protect their assets and their data? That leads you to start implementing other security features, such as multi-factor authentication. Over time, you may have users benefiting from Office 365 and they need to collaborate by using Teams and SharePoint. Again, you start to build something else around that.

Whether large or small, organizations are on a journey, where they start from on-premises with servers and all these server rooms and applications in the organization. They then shift workloads to the cloud. That process is still ongoing in my organization and in many organizations. Ten years ago, workloads were all on-premises. Five years ago, maybe 90 percent were on-premises. Today it might be 50 percent cloud and 50 percent on-premises. There is value from the cloud: elasticity and flexibility, even for big organizations. A server on-premises is a different story compared to having it on the cloud. If I need to upgrade a server on the cloud, it takes five minutes. If it's on-premises, I need to order hardware and then change the hardware. The usage of Azure Active Directory is due to the evolution of the cloud.

The bottom line is that the implementation is gradual. It's not difficult or easy, although we started with things that were easy to adopt, and then we continued the journey.

The staff required for maintenance of Azure AD depends on how you organize your support. Some organizations outsource their end-user support to other companies, while other organizations staff that completely internally. It can also depend on the users. Is your organization a global organization or a small, local organization? For us, to make sure we maintain the support and availability and all the services we need, including change management, we need at least 15 to 20 resources for a global application with more than 20,000 users, to maintain the platform.

We worked with a lot of consultants for Azure AD. There are many features and no one expert or professional can help with all aspects. Organizations, during their journeys, have to work with different partners and integrators. It may be that there is a specific application you need to integrate with Azure AD and you need some skills there. It may be that you want to better manage Azure resources, so you would talk to a different type of resource. You may want to increase your identity security scores, depending on how you configure Azure AD, and for that, you would need to talk to an Azure security expert. I think this applies to all big enterprises. We need different skills to better utilize Azure, including Azure AD, and to do processes in a more secure way.

We have Microsoft Professional Services. That's the primary source for many organizations that are utilizing Microsoft services. If you have an enterprise agreement or a unified agreement with Microsoft, they offer you consulting services. Of course, you have to pay for Professional Services, but we get value there. The number-one consulting and integration support provider is Microsoft.

They also work with certified partners like Accenture or Avanade. These organizations are connected with Microsoft and they offer consultancy services to enterprises like ours. Depending on the subject, we may use services from any of these providers. We usually go with Microsoft-certified partners.

Multi-factor authentication means you need to do an extra step, but that is normal because the attack surface is wider. We want to make sure you are who you say you are. That extra step impacts the end-user experience, but it's needed. The way authentication happens today is far different from 10 years ago. It may result in some added difficulty, but it is there to protect employees, organizations, customers, business partners, IT assets, data, et cetera.