Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

The primary use cases for Azure AD include use in projects and deliverables when implementing different solutions like SSPR, multifactor authentication, Conditional Access policies, and fine-graining the controls on end-user machines, devices, and applications. I also use it to sign licenses via different methods, including group-based licensing, direct licensing to individual users, registering applications, and providing CPUs and credentials. Lastly, I use Azure AD for whitelisting external identities and domains for communication between internal and external domains.

Our organization is global, with over nine locations across the world. We have a hybrid environment, which is very complex due to the size of the organization, and we have a varied client base. From a security standpoint, we have a variety of security services and products. 

Azure AD is a one-stop solution where we can manage every aspect of identities, access, and applications via policies across all domains of our organization.

We use the Conditional Access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls. This makes our Zero Trust strategy to verify users more robust, as standard users have limited access, on limited devices, with limited permissions. They can only access the domain on specific machines and must be on the corporate or office network. Access from outside the network isn't possible unless it's from a whitelisted location, and along with MFA, we have a powerful Zero Trust model in place.

Azure AD saves us a lot of time, as we previously used an on-prem legacy solution with poor integrations, which slowed onboarding and other processes. Thanks to the product, we spend approximately 70% less time daily and about 80% less time weekly. That's a big plus. 

The solution helps our organization save money from a cost perspective, and there are several other vital angles to consider. Azure AD is an out-of-the-box product in terms of features and security, which is a reduced cost. Whether an organization requires P1 or P2 licensing is another consideration. Finally, if a company is replacing legacy systems, that's money saved for licensing and maintaining those systems. Some of our clients have seen 30-40% savings, especially those using complete legacy systems and then switching to a cloud environment.   

Azure AD greatly helps user experience, as we can integrate the solution with many services. End-user experience improved, whether staff members try to access resources from mobile or even personal devices. We can fine-tune access control across the enterprise, and that helps us provide a good end-user experience.  

The most valuable features are the Conditional Access policies, SSPR, and MFA. Another good functionality is registering enterprise applications to provide access to external parties. These four features are precious and are the most used across different use cases for various clients and projects.

Azure AD provides a single pane of glass for managing user access; we can assign access permissions to different user accounts based on situational requirements, and helpful security features are available. The solution provides sign-on consistency, and we can configure permissions to enable single sign-on for a particular application or domain. This gives us the flexibility to offer a great user experience.    

The solution gives us a lot of flexibility when it comes to managing all identity and access tasks in our organization. We can manage freshly provisioned identities from scratch, as well as existing identities and apps through the Azure admin center.   

I want better integration between Azure AD and the on-prem environment because there are currently limitations that can hamper employee experience. We use a feature called password writeback, that can be challenging to implement in a hybrid environment. Employees can change their passwords using a self-service password reset (SSPR) feature, which reflects from the cloud to the on-prem identity, but not the other way around. Currently, there is no way to reflect passwords from on-prem identities to the cloud.

There are other similar limitations, such as a cap on the number of identities that can be synchronized in a particular time frame, which can be an issue for large enterprises with 300,000 employees or more.

I've been using the solution for over three years. 

The solution is stable, though there can be issues around synchronization within a vast organization. Performance-wise, Azure AD is a good product.

The scalability is good. 

Microsoft technical support can take a while to resolve. I can get a response in 30 minutes, but the time to resolve is usually more than four hours or over a day. I wonder if the support staff has adequate training and expertise to provide a better service.

Neutral

We previously used on-premises AD and switched to Azure AD because we wanted the benefits associated with cloud-based solutions.

The complexity of the initial setup depends on the deployment; cloud deployments are very straightforward, on-prem implementations are more complex due to the infrastructure, and hybrid deployments are always complex as there are many considerations and assessments to be made.

It is hard to measure ROI with security solutions, but identity is the first point of vulnerability for cyber attacks, so identities must be secure and well-managed. The solution provides this, and that is a worthwhile investment.

Azure AD has four licensing options- free, Office 365 apps, Premium P1, and Premium P2. The free option has a limited number of identities and features, and the Office 365 version comes included in several Office 365 subscriptions. With the P1 and P2 licenses, we get all the freeware features plus additional security features, but these come at a higher price. The base price for P1 and P2 is $6 and $9 per user per month, respectively.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. 

From a security standpoint, we don't have major controls from Azure AD, but we can implement features such as MFA and Conditional Access policies to fine-grain the rules on apps and devices. We can also enforce policies where users have different sign-on requirements for the same account, depending on where they sign in from.  

We used the solution's Conditional Access feature in conjunction with Microsoft Endpoint Manager as it was a requirement for a client-side project. There were some conflicts between the two tools regarding device management, so we had to select a different approach. Conditional Access reduces the risk of unpatched devices connecting to our corporate network because it triggers the policy stating only compliant devices can log in and access resources.

Clients use different deployment methods for Azure AD, but most implement them within a hybrid environment. A few organizations are entirely cloud and SaaS-based, as they don't want the maintenance and management associated with on-prem infrastructure and prefer the security offered by the cloud.

My advice to those looking to implement the solution is to consider their primary goal and use case for the product and how they want to implement it. If you have a hybrid environment, many details about how Azure AD can fit into the environment must be figured out beforehand. Consider the costs and how the solution will help from a security standpoint over the next five to ten years, from all perspectives, including networking, security, systems management, and maintenance.

Our hybrid system includes in-house domain controllers and Azure integration to link with Microsoft Office solutions. We develop some small-time applications with Power BI and use the tool for local user authentications.

Our office has only two departments, so we don't use the solution across multiple locations. It's an in-house tool, and we created the hybrid system so that specific users can still connect remotely when they are off-prem. We have around 50 total end users. 

The solution made our organization very flexible and increased our security because we previously faced authentication issues; our users sometimes could not connect from their laptops when they took them off-premises. There were also occasions where the cache was lost, so we couldn't troubleshoot, and users could not log in. This issue was solved, and now the system is flawless.

Azure AD helped to save time for our IT administrators; I haven't calculated precisely how much, but I believe it saves me two to three hours a week. 

We are delighted with our organization's Azure AD user experience, so we have no complaints about that. One of the best aspects is we don't have to update anything; Microsoft handles all of that for us. 

The solution allows users to authenticate from home, and the Office 360 integration is advantageous.

Azure AD provides a single pane of glass for managing user access, making the user sign-on experience flawlessly consistent; there is little difference between working from home or on-premises.  

The single pane of glass makes the application of our security policies very consistent, as they are replicated well. We use a VPN to connect with users while working from home, ensuring our security policies are in place. This means there is little difference when staff work from home, as we can track their work. 

Verified ID is quite effective and secure when it comes to privacy and control of identity data.  

We use the solution's Permission Management, which provides excellent controls over identity permissions in Azure AD, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google Clouds. We don't have any issues with this asset.

The Permission Management feature helps to reduce our risk surface when it comes to identity permissions. 

The product could be more cost-effective. 

We've been using the solution for around four and a half years. 

The stability is excellent; we recently experienced our only Azure outage, which was a global one.

The solution is very scalable.

We never had to contact customer support, and the only time we contacted Microsoft was to renew our contract or change the provider. I provide technical support within our organization.

Positive

We didn't previously use a different solution; before Azure AD, our infrastructure was all on-prem, with only specific data and backup in the cloud.

I carried out the deployment, which was pretty straightforward; I previously did a course on Azure, so it wasn't a problem for me. The solution requires very little maintenance, and I'm the sole admin.

It took around three weeks to realize the benefits from the time of deployment, as we had to migrate many of our older systems into Azure, and the integration involved a lot of other vendors. Our email was on a Linux server, and we had a different cloud provider, so the deployment required significant collaboration with multiple parties.

As a small organization, we didn't have a deployment strategy as such, but my approach was to communicate with the other solutions' vendors to gather the required information. Then, I migrated our Linux emailing system into Azure, after which I went for the data, so it was relatively straightforward.

The solution costs us 60,000 Rupees annually, just over $700, and there are no additional costs.

We have to pay for the antivirus solution Microsoft offers with Azure AD, and they should provide it for free. It comes free with OSs, so it should be free with Azure too.

We didn't evaluate other options; we work solely with Microsoft products, so Azure AD is what we got. 

I rate the solution nine out of ten. 

The admin center is very useful, but I prefer to remote into my server to do the administration that way, so I don't use it very much.

We use the solution's Verified ID and two-factor authentication, but we don't use it to onboard remote employees; all our staff are based on-premises and sometimes go off-prem, but typically, they're all in the office. We don't have remote workers as such. 

Regarding cost, I don't think the solution saved us that much, but feature-wise, it's excellent.

To others considering Azure AD, it's an excellent product. If you want stability and simplicity on your system, it's a great choice, and I definitely recommend it.

I usually use Microsoft Entra ID to access our resources and to manage our approvals. It is used to assign roles, set limits, and manage access levels. For specific users, I ensure that nobody else has access. My personal files are protected, and confidential projects are kept secure.

The solution has helped build trust. I trust what I am doing and make sure that my files are protected and safe.

Microsoft Entra ID offers strong security levels, especially with two-step authentication, which confirms that I am the real user. It ensures that nobody can access files or emails without permission. Additionally, it consolidates sign-in requirements across different services, like GitHub, Twitter, and Upwork, in a single application. Microsoft Entra ID changes permissions to role access ID levels, ensuring access to only what is needed.

I do not see any area needing improvement. Perhaps integration with other AI tools, beyond Copilot, could enhance its use, like signing into ChatGPT.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for almost more than fifteen years.

I have not experienced any performance or stability issues with Microsoft Entra ID.

Microsoft Entra ID is scalable. It can accommodate many accounts, beyond just a few.

I have not been in contact with Microsoft customer service.

Positive

I evaluated Google Identity and HashiCorp but decided to stay with Microsoft Entra ID because of its user-friendliness and familiarity.

The initial setup of Microsoft Entra ID was very straightforward.

The deployment of Microsoft Entra ID was handled in-house by our department.

I have not thought about return on investment because the company provides Microsoft Entra ID. However, the protection it offers is invaluable.

The cost of Microsoft Entra ID is around $8 per month, which I find very reasonable.

I evaluated Google Identity and HashiCorp.

I rate the solution at ten because it is a great solution for those looking for security and privacy.

The primary use in my organization is for identity and identity security management. In our case, it's in our hybrid infrastructure, where it's not the cloud-native option; it's based on on-prem identity infrastructure on the cloud. We use it to manage our identity in a multi-cloud scenario. 

We use it also for our software developers for credentialing. They use a single credential, and they can use multiple platforms, like, GitHub, Google Cloud, AWS, et cetera. 

The product is connected to our security operation setups.

We also use it in our organization to on and off-board the users constantly. It helps strengthen our permission management and privilege access management. For example, if one of our engineers or users needs temporary sole permission to perform an action, we use the product to temporarily grant that security role, or that extra permission that will last a certain amount of time. After the desktop is completed, the permissions are revoked. That way, users do not have a sensitive role constantly enabled.  

The overall identity management and lifecycle management capabilities are great. We can support our entire operation. For example, we can create an onboarding package for the users so that at the right moment they have everything that they need and access to exactly what they need when they need it, and this will help our transition team when new users start. They can have the password, credentials, et cetera, all accelerated while making sure there are no security gaps. 

Entity management is great. We can provide access for short amounts of time as needed. 

When we develop applications, we leverage Entra ID to create an application like an identity so we can tailor the security posture of an application that is often used or exposed on the public internet for customers. 

To summarize, identity lifecycle management, privileged access management, and identity and credential management for developers and applications are all the best aspects of the product, in a nutshell.

Entra ID provides a single pane of glass for managing user access as well HRID of API capability for third-party integration. The single pane of glass positively affects the consistency of the user's sign-on experience. That is one of the strongest points. Using a single pane of glass and then adding HID, like a gatekeeper for identity, is very helpful. The user now knows what they expect when they authenticate an application or they authenticate a portal or simply consume Microsoft Office since the experience is very consistent. It's always the same. Our support knows when, in which scenario, and what could be a problem and then quickly can help the user to overcome an issue. The single pane of glass actually is the beauty of the product.

Security policies can now be very consistent and very granular and can be completed in specific ways for individual users. For example, there is a way to tailor your security experience for certain container reviews. A sensitive user, a high-risk user, or a developer, can have a custom mail detail or security policy that will impact only them while the rest of the standard users will not be affected by an end security policy since their workloads wouldn't require that.

The portal is really handy. It's exactly what you would expect it to be. The management center is very comprehensive. We've had no problems with the useability of the admin access and the capability of the product offering. 

This solution removes a lot of burdens, especially for us as cyber engineers. With a few clicks, we can create and target certain users. It will provide inputs and insights on scenarios and security settings. It will send warnings before we enable policies to let us know what might be affected. It helps us on the front end to avoid security configuration mistakes. That's for the sake of security as well as the user, who could otherwise be blocked every now and then by an incorrect security policy. 

We use Entra ID's conditional access feature to enforce fine tune and adaptive access controls. We use that for user identity and to protect workflows. In EntraID, an application in the directory, it's considered an identity, even if it is an application. Therefore, we can create a policy for users as well as for applications where it will authorize access only if certain conditions are made. We use that extensively.

The conditional access feature positively affects the robustness of a zero-trust strategy to verify users. We use the conditional access feature in conjunction with the Microsoft Endpoint Manager.

We can use combined security products that fit with the product. It's very effective. It ensures security overlap.

I'm working with a verified ID as well. Users can use that single identity to access what they need and to configure the software developer pipeline to use that Microsoft-managed ID to push and pull code from restart to the application. If you have multiple other solutions, for instance, GCP, you can use that federated credential to manage software and code regardless of the cloud provider that is used by using the unique identity. This makes the work of developers more secure since they only need one ID. Otherwise, they will put on a piece of paper, their username and password for each application that requires access. With this solution, you have one identity secured to move them all, and it's easier for the developer who can be more productive while staying more secure.

We've used the product to onboard or move new employees. That's part of the identity lifecycle workflow that we are experiencing. It's probably the number one product for HR management when it comes to user onboarding. It helps onboard and offboard remote workers with ease. After all, not all departments require the same applications, for instance. With this product, we create the prerequisites by creating an access package. 

Verified ID is good when it comes to privacy and control of identity data. Privacy control is a mix of responsibilities between the organization and Microsoft Cloud, of course. There is full transparency with Microsoft covering this data, however, nothing is perfect. If Microsoft changes something, since they are linked, it may affect performance.

The visibility and control for permission management are excellent. Integrations are becoming more and more native. It helps reduce our surface risk when it comes to identity permissions. When in combination with Microsoft Sentinel, it's really feature-rich. I can also create reports for when management wants to assess problem areas.

It's helped to save time for your IT admin waiters or HR department. There is a reduction of recurring tasks by up to 50% to 70% compared to the legacy solution. It's tricky to contemplate how much money is being saved, however. 

The product has affected the employee user experience in a positive way. The organization is very happy with it.

Sometimes with this solution, since our old API can have some latency and short links if you want to enable permission on a system application can be some delays. For example, sometimes, when a user requires their access, sometimes it's not happening in real-time; they just wait a couple of minutes before the TCI really provides it. Sometimes this can create confusion if a user an engineer or a developer believes that the solution is broken. The solution is not broken. It just sometimes has a delay. That is something that I encourage Microsoft to fix. During the pandemic, we had a lot of conditions with the remote workers. So when the capacity increased, there could be latency. However, that is a Microsoft scalability problem that they have to address at a certain point. That said, it's not a dealbreaker.

It would be good to have more clarity around licensing. It's a bit technical for those strictly dealing with budgets. 

I would like to see a little bit of improvement in the resiliency of the platform. Entra ID has a global point of presence worldwide, however, if one node goes down in a geographical location, it has a global impact. Sometimes even a simple certificate that is not renewed on time can cause global issues. Microsoft should improve global operations and sandboxing. So if one of the nodes is down in Asia, it won't take down the United States as well. The redundancy and the resiliency of the product should be improved over the global geographical scale of the product.

In terms of features, at the moment, the solution is covering everything. I don't see a new feature needed aside from improving their API.

I've been using the solution since 2015 or 2016. I've used it since before the name change.

Overall, the product is stable. It's 99.9% stable. 

In my current organization, we have around 100 users on the solution. However, we have B2B integrations that include 3,000 to 4,000 users.

Microsoft does scale up to hundreds of thousands of objects. The solution scales well.

If you need more than fifty thousand objects that can be created in a single tenant they can be created within an additional directory.

Microsoft offers different tiers of support according to the licensing model. The support is great. Generally, at first, you get a general engineer. They'll tell you to go and check an article. I tend to tell them the issue and lay out the problem and ask them not to send me an article since I am an expert. then I'll get to a second-phase engineer that can help. However, once you get to the right person, support is excellent. 

Positive

I have experience with One Identity, SharePoint, SharePointIQ, and InsightID.

I like how this product has a view on a single pane of glass. Out of the box, it can serve multiple types of organizations that may have multi-cloud strategies. It also has good third-party integration and reporting capabilities. Everything we need to start is right in one solution. 

We do have Okta, which we are phasing out. We use it for some B2C scenarios. It's an excellent product and has solved problems for us over the years.

When you set it up the product, there's always a combination of business people, decision-makers, and IT people, and I always encourage business and decision-makers to read the Microsoft adoption framework for Entra VNS Ready. So that way the decision makers have an idea of how to use the product and which features are required. Then we start with the technical part. 

We should basically start always with an assessment. How many users do you have? Which one is the office license model? And so on and so forth. When the assessment is done and when we have an idea of the topology of the user, we can start the design. We ask, okay, would you like to be cloud native? Would you like to have a hybrid model where you have an on-prem identity shipped to the cloud? And based on the decision, we'll start by usually setting up Azure AD Connect. 

Azure AD Connect is a solution that's on-prem. We'll onboard the identity on the cloud and all the security tokens that come with it. Then, of course, we start to plan the identity migration.

Based on the call on existing users, the next design is to onboard a lifecycle identity for the new commerce that will join and for people that will lead. It's important to read the Microsoft architecture and adoption framework for InsightID. And based on that, then we go into the nitty gritty technical decisions. 

The setup can be handled by one person. However, once you begin to integrate it with 95% of the organization and need to touch messaging systems and mail systems, you'll need to collaborate with others. If you are using the Internet and SharePoint, you need an Internet engineer. You likely need a few people to assist.

The maintenance aspect is not difficult. It's a SaaS and Microsoft handles most of the burden. You just need to perform hygiene rather than maintenance, for example, removing people you no longer need. While maintenance is mostly taken care of, people should pay attention to the Azure cloud as Azure can cause security holes with changes. 

We have witnessed a return on investment, however, it's hard to quantify. Definitely, in the long run, there's a benefit to leveraging the product.

Decision-makers dealing with budgets will sometimes struggle to really understand the kind of license that's needed. When you are doing multi-cloud the costs can be a little bit higher. It may not be cost-effective if you do not how to use the platform.

The price point is pretty high.

However, for Android and Office users, it's very useful to have.

We use a hybrid approach on-prem. We have some log applications and some legacy applications that require us to have an active directory as a primary identity source of view. This means that we ship our identity to the cloud, however, we don't have a vice-versa mechanism. 

I'd advise potential new users should investigate by creating a POC free of charge. Microsoft offers free credits for POCs. These can be extended for a certain amount of time.

I'd encourage anyone to contact a Microsoft representative and set up a POC and get training material and really evaluate the product first. Once you use it, there's no going back.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Microsoft Entra ID is used for user management and directory governance, including conditional access management, sync user management, group management, and application and SSO connections. In short, it is a user, policy, and access management solution for environments with 10,000 to 50,000+ users.

Microsoft Entra ID provides a single pane of glass for user management.

Originally, it was just an integration within Entra ID with limited governance and scalability. Over time, more and more features such as Certificate Authority and Privileged Identity Management have been added, and the amount of governance and controls has increased. As a result, we can now control more aspects within Azure AD. For example, in the beginning, we could not review sign-ins. We could only see simplified final messages. Now, we have more insight into sign-ins, and the overall service has improved. It is now more stable and reliable, which is most important.

Microsoft Entra ID's conditional access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls work. 

When Microsoft Entra ID is implemented properly it can help save our staff time.

If the implementation was done properly, the user experience was seamless. It may have even improved the experience, given that it supports single sign-on and cross-platform access. For example, signing on to enterprise applications was even better. So, it depends on the engineers who implement the product, not the product itself.

Microsoft Entra ID's valuable features include integration capabilities, a simplified Active Directory approach, scalability, conditional access, and privileged identity management.

The single pane of glass has limited filtering options within the directory.

The robustness of the conditional access feature of the zero trust strategy to verify users is adequate but not comprehensive. This means that it is still possible to deceive conditional access.

The group management and group capabilities have room for improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for over five years.

Microsoft Entra ID is mostly stable, but we had some issues with MSA. We must have a backup plan when using a cloud provider. If we put all our trust in one provider, that's on us, but most of the time, the service is stable.

Microsoft Entra ID is scalable. When we provision more and more users, we do not notice any impact. User management may be more difficult due to the portal, loading times, and so on, but provisioning the users themselves is not a problem. We have service limitations, but based on those, we can have a large number of users and work on them smoothly.

The quality of technical support depends on the engineer assigned. I've been working with Microsoft One, and while they have some awesome engineers, I've also had situations where they didn't seem to know what they were talking about.

Neutral

In my previous role, I worked with Google for enterprise, and it was a nightmare. I also worked with Okta, which is not as seamless as Microsoft Entra ID when it comes to MSA and policy management. However, maybe that's the feature, the improvement that can be done. Even though Okta has more errors and is more annoying as a product, it does have one positive: it is a cross-platform product. We can integrate it with non-Microsoft products, while Microsoft works really well with its own products. So, if we use Endpoint, enterprise apps, and 365 services, it will work most of the time, ten out of ten. But if we try to integrate anything else that is not a Microsoft service, it will be a disaster or we will not be able to onboard the service. That is something that Microsoft could improve: make it cross-platform.

The deployment time depends on the knowledge of the engineers and the cloud approach. Therefore, it can take from a few months to a few years, and sometimes it may result in the provisioning of everything because of a gap in knowledge of the people deploying. I have seen really bad deployments because the people were not cloud-ready.

We have seen a ten percent return on investment.

I think the pricing is efficient, but the licensing is overly complicated and difficult to understand. There are many tricks in the licensing that weigh against us.

I would give Microsoft Entra ID seven out of ten.

Conditional Access works well with Microsoft Endpoint Manager, but there are better options, as Endpoint Manager is not the best service.

Microsoft Entra ID is an enterprise-level solution.

Microsoft Entra ID does not require maintenance, but the conventional access policy, AD Connect, and server-related ATSs all do.

I have had multiple use cases for Entra ID during my previous position as a system administrator. In that role, I was responsible for managing around three thousand users within our organization, including some external parties, which brought the total user count to approximately ten thousand. Entra ID is a cloud-based solution designed for identity and access management. In our organization, we primarily employed it to maintain user groups for authentication purposes. Additionally, we had on-premises applications that required registration within Entra ID, enabling us to provide a single sign-on solution for these applications, granting access to our users.

Entra ID boasts several other features as well. For instance, we utilized a security feature called NFA to enhance user security. We also implemented a conditional access policy, tightly integrated with Microsoft Intune. This policy allowed us to define specific access rules based on user locations. This means that if a user was located in a particular branch, they would be granted access to certain services while others would not. Such configurations were established within our conditional access policy in Entra ID.

At times, we needed to provide temporary access to certain users as administrators. For instance, our compliance team might require access to check compliance reports or logs for a limited period, which we facilitated by granting access for one or two hours. Within Entra ID, we have a functionality known as Security Score, which we utilize to assess and benchmark the security of our organization. This helps us identify potential risks and areas for security enhancement.

Among the tools we employ, Intune plays a crucial role. With Intune, we effectively managed our Windows, iOS, and Android devices. We could establish compliance policies and configuration settings for both Entra ID and Intune, ensuring a consistent and secure user experience across different devices and platforms.

Entra ID can be deployed using a hybrid model for organizations with a significant on-premises presence, or in a fully cloud-based setup for those that do not.

Entra ID offers a unified interface for managing user access.

In addition to the Single Sign-On provided by Entra ID, we also offer a biometric option through Windows Hello.

In the admin center, we can locate the dashboard. Recently, Microsoft has made significant improvements. Previously, searching for a username required navigating to the user test section. However, presently, I've observed that Microsoft has enhanced the search scenario. Now, by simply searching for the username on our web page, it will display the username along with all associated details. Furthermore, we have password identity management, group management, and application registration options available. We also support on-prem authentication, specifically rescoping authentication like NTLM, which is an older authentication method. However, if we register our application with Entra ID, we can easily enhance the security of our authentication through modern authentication methods. These security features are available within the admin center.

Verified ID, in fact, is obtained when we create or subscribe within Entra for the initial time. Therefore, it is a default setting on Microsoft that provides us with a default domain. However, if we perform this on Microsoft.com, we need to append that tenant and subsequently verify it. This, of course, necessitates the addition of certain DNS entries to incorporate our customized domain into Entra ID. Consequently, we have the capacity to include up to 500 domains within a single tenant.

We are three global admin users. As such, we are responsible for maintaining our company's tenants. Occasionally, the security or compliance teams need to assess the current status. For instance, we might have a project requiring a vendor to have access for a specific duration. In such cases, we can readily grant customized access to that user for the designated period. Post this duration, access will be automatically revoked. Hence, we can manage these settings through permission management.

Microsoft has indeed introduced new features. For instance, we now have the ability to create a multitude of users or add members to a group all at once. To facilitate this, they have developed a custom script. By including the object ID of the user in an Excel or CSV file and importing that file, the system will automatically add the users. Entra ID is particularly time-saving, as it allows us to add 100 users in just 30 seconds using the group method. If we were to create the group manually, it would take one to two hours per user.

In my situation, not all users are motivated. The IT division and the technicians might be up to date with the latest technology. However, when we consider the finance or sales personnel, their primary focus is on their business sales. They lack knowledge of IT or technologies. As a result, when we introduce a new solution and onboard their users to that system, we encounter certain issues. Nevertheless, through integration and training, we established the necessary procedures for logging in and working, which eventually became acceptable. Entra ID has played a significant role in making the user experience more seamless.

As an administrator, we sometimes observe a discrepancy between Microsoft Intune and Entra ID – these are distinct solutions, each with its own licensing subscription. On occasion, these two solutions are combined into a single service, or conversely, certain services might be removed. Such situations can create conflicts for administrators. A few days ago, I noticed that certain aspects like the Microsoft Compliance and Microsoft Security tabs were missing when accessing Entra ID. It appears that some services have been removed from Entra ID and new ones have been introduced, which wasn't communicated to us. I would appreciate receiving notifications regarding the removal of services from specific tabs, along with information about their replacements. This would allow us to plan our logins accordingly. Microsoft offers two portals – the classic portal and the modern portal. When using the classic portal, we promptly receive notifications about its upcoming transition to the modern portal after a designated date. However, no such notifications were provided for Entra ID. In my quest to locate security and compliance checking features within Entra ID, I discovered that the options were seemingly absent. Subsequent Google searches revealed that these features had been consolidated under a single solution.

We are receiving false security alerts on the dashboard. We have set up a conditional access policy that restricts access based on the user's location. However, we have observed that there are instances when Microsoft's AI might be generating these false alerts. This is causing users to be blocked from accessing their accounts. When we reached out to these users, they confirmed that they hadn't visited the specified area or country in the last seven to ten days. Despite this, they are receiving notifications to reset their passwords, with a warning of being locked out. Microsoft should work on enhancing its machine-learning algorithm to prevent unnecessary lockouts of users.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for five years.

Entra ID is a cloud-based solution. Microsoft, in fact, operates multi-zone data centers which greatly reduce the possibility of service outages. However, this year we have experienced a significant amount of downtime. For instance, we encountered Exchange Online issues in Bangladesh. They source their authentication from either the Singapore or Indian data centers. Unfortunately, there were several instances of problems in this area this year, about two or three times. We faced communication as well as mail-sending problems. While their Service Level Agreement is supposed to be 99.99 percent uptime, it seems to be closer to 99.98 percent. Interestingly, for the past four years, we did not encounter any such issues. Strangely, this year, these problems began around the time of the Russian incident. It's possible that backend issues, perhaps related to cybersecurity, contributed. Additionally, Microsoft laid off ten thousand employees this year, and after this restructuring, we started facing these issues.

I would give the scalability a ten out of ten.

The quality of technical support depends on both the issue at hand and the expertise of the assisting engineer. In certain cases, they might be unable to provide assistance, leading us to resolve the issues on our own.

Positive

We previously used the on-premise version of Active Directory before switching to Entra ID.

The initial setup for Entra ID is simple when opting for a full cloud deployment. We only need to onboard the users and enter the license. However, in a hybrid scenario, we require network connectivity from on-premises to the cloud. Additionally, a separate server is necessary to synchronize the users with the cloud. This process is time-consuming and intricate to manage.

I implemented Entra ID for three to four companies in Bangladesh. Additionally, for on-premises Active Directory deployments, I handled more than ten to fifteen projects. In the capacity of a vendor, I collaborated with a company that served as a local partner of Microsoft.

The deployment involves four or five teams, including IT, Networking, and Security.

To facilitate hybrid implementations, we need the support of an architect to design the servers.

As Entra ID is a subscription service, a payment is required for each user every month. To access its features, purchasing the license is necessary. Initially, upon creating the tenant, a complimentary subscription for either 30 or 90 days is provided. After this trial period, it's mandatory to choose a subscription. Entra ID is relatively expensive compared to other solutions. There are free alternatives available for managing and providing authentication. However, considering a comprehensive range of solutions under one umbrella, Entra ID stands out. It offers additional benefits such as one terabyte of OneDrive and SharePoint storage, along with Microsoft Teams integration. The cost covers various applications and extra features, providing good value for the investment.

Entra has P1 and P2 licenses that are bundled with lots of applications.

I would rate Entra ID a nine out of ten.

Since Entra ID is cloud-based, remote users or branches need to ensure that they have a stable internet connection to access our environment.

Maintenance for cloud solutions is generally not obligatory. This is due to the automatic functionality that activates when users are enabled. However, if a license expires, we must either seek assistance from Microsoft or renew all licenses, subsequently testing the new licenses. Occasionally, for maintenance, especially when dealing with our own custom applications and enabling single sign-on with Entra ID users, we require assistance both from Microsoft and our mitigation team. This is because each application has its own authentication method, often resulting in compliance issues. To address this, discussions with the mitigation personnel are necessary, and we may need to allocate time for aid from a Microsoft engineer. In certain instances, collaboration with Microsoft vendors from the integration team is essential. Apart from these situations, the process remains fairly straightforward.

We primarily use the solution for user integration; we have many users around the globe and use it for authentication syncing in Microsoft 365 and SSO, and the product provides a single point of use. Our environment encompasses many offices around the world. 

As we have a hybrid deployment, providing our engineers access rather than allowing them direct access to our Azure AD server is easier, reducing our security concerns. Our end users can also reset passwords themselves without going through our support or services teams.

The solution saves us a lot of time for our IT department and others. Taking into account onboarding, IT, and HR concerns, Azure AD gives us 50% time savings weekly.

Azure AD saves us a lot of money. 

Overall, the solution positively affects the employee user experience in our organization. We can manage all kinds of activities and other MS products from a single pane of glass, including users, endpoints, roles and permissions, mail, and more. This ease of management ensures a positive experience for our end users.  

Single sign-on, license management, and role management are the most valuable features. Integration with Microsoft 365 is also very valuable. 

Azure AD provides a single pane of glass for managing user access, which makes the user sign-on experience very consistent; users can access multiple applications with the same credentials.  

The single pane of glass makes the security policies we apply consistent.  

We use Azure AD Verified ID to onboard remote employees, and it's pretty quick.  

Verified ID is excellent for privacy and control of identity data; many options, such as multi-factor authentication, are available. 

We have used the solution's Permission Management, which provides good visibility and control over identity permissions. It's an easy feature to operate, and the portal is intuitive.

The custom role creation function could be improved as it's somewhat tricky to use. 

We've been using Azure AD for over five years. 

The product is stable. 

Azure AD is a scalable solution; we have around 10,000 end users managed by 12 to 15 engineers. 

The technical support team is good; I rate them eight out of ten.

Positive

We previously used an in-house Active Directory and Okta Workforce Management. Azure AD is more affordable, has the benefit of being a Microsoft product, and allows single sign-on from the same page. Onboarding products is more manageable with Azure AD, and we prefer to use the Microsoft suite rather than mixing and matching from multiple vendors.  

The initial setup was straightforward. 

Azure AD is worth the money and provides us with an ROI. 

The pricing is good; it's not cheap but very reasonable. 

I rate the solution nine out of ten, and I recommend it. 

I use it to access my work applications. When I install Microsoft Teams or Outlook, or I want to access my work applications, I authenticate myself using Microsoft Authenticator.

During the pandemic, one of the challenges for organizations was how to secure their IT networks. People were working remotely, and some of them were working from the remotest locations. It gave confidence to the organization that only the right person was getting access to work applications.

It also improves your customer experience or employee experience. You don't have to rely much on servers. 

Being able to easily authenticate yourself on the MSA app is valuable. It is easy to use. Rather than receiving a code in an SMS, you can just verify that it is you. You don't have to punch in any password or any six-digit code. That's the feature that I like the most.

It does give you the confidence that no one else can access your details or can have access to your account because it does add a second layer of security. Even if someone hacks the server where my details are stored, unless and until I authenticate myself on MSA, even hackers won't be able to get into my account.

It works absolutely fine from the login perspective. You can also configure it on third-party devices, and it works pretty well. I haven't faced any issues from the login point of view.

They can improve how people manage their accounts. They can simplify and provide more information about adding or updating a phone number or email id in the MSA account. A lot of time users do get confused about where to go. For example, if I've changed my mobile number, where do I go and change my mobile number in the MSA account? A lot of time, employees think if they change the phone number in the HR database, it'll automatically get changed on the MSA account, which is not the case. Microsoft can simplify that and add these questions in the FAQ documents as well. They can provide more clarity about how it is different from your organization's database.

Voice recognition could be added going forward. With a smartphone, such as iPhone, as well as with Windows Hello for business, you already have facial recognition. Voice recognition is something that could be added going forward, especially for people with special needs.

I have been using it for a year.

It is quite stable. Coming from Microsoft, you don't question the stability factor at all. I have Microsoft Authenticator installed on my phone, and even when I switched organizations, I could simply add my new workplace email id, and it worked absolutely fine. It is quite stable, and it gives you a good user experience.

Scalability-wise, it is quite good. We were rolling it out to 150,000 people across the globe and different geographies. One of the good things is that Microsoft doesn't need any introduction anywhere. In terms of user experience, it is right up there. It is also right up there in terms of how different work applications align with it. I would rate it quite high.

Technical support was good. We didn't have to rely on Microsoft's technical support big time because the solution worked very well overall. We had our third-party technical support team involved as well.

Positive

Before Microsoft Authenticator, we used Okta Multi-Factor, and prior to Okta, we were totally relying on passwords, which was obviously very risky. 

We switched to Microsoft Authenticator because when you implement the whole Microsoft 365 suite, especially in a large organization, all the work applications sync pretty well with Microsoft, and you already have a good relationship with the vendor. 

It was initially on-prem, but later on, we shifted it to the cloud. When I joined the organization, it was already on-prem, and I helped to shift all the data from on-prem to Azure cloud. The process was a little complex. We had a few on-prem issues, and we had to redo the capability testing to check if those issues will arise on the Azure Cloud as well. It was complex because we were again asking some of the users who had changed their phone numbers to go and re-add their phone numbers. If they had the same phone number, it would have worked fine, but if they had changed the phone number, once it is shifted from on-prem to Azure Cloud, it wouldn’t have worked anymore. So, they had to re-add their phone number. The challenge was to identify those users and convince them to redo the activity. This switchover took about two quarters or six months.

We had a team of about 7 to 10 people from project management, change management, IT, and global IT teams. We are a massive organization. It was being rolled out to 150,000 people across the globe.

We did pilot testing across different functions and across different geographies. That's the standard practice that we follow in our organization.

We have seen an ROI. We were able to secure our IT networks by more than 80%. More than 80% of the audience did subscribe to MSA and used it for logging into their work accounts.

It took us two to three months to realize its benefits from the time of deployment. We did run a pilot batch. We were trying to customize the solution according to our network. Within a quarter, we were able to identify its benefits.

I'm not totally aware of the pricing and licensing, but I do know that the pricing and licensing must be quite balanced. We are a pretty old client of Microsoft, and MSA is just one of the services we use from Microsoft. There's a whole Microsoft 365 suite that's implemented as well. I'm sure it is something that is acceptable to both parties.

We were totally relying on Microsoft. We didn't evaluate any other vendor.

To those looking to evaluate this solution, I would advise doing proper pilot testing to iron out any hurdles later on. It is important to take a call on whether you want to adopt the on-prem model or the cloud model. Obviously, the on-prem model is not sustainable if you're trying to secure your IT networks. The cloud model is more sustainable in that sense. I would advise taking that call right in the beginning.

I would also advise considering how to secure third-party devices. There might be third-party contractors who don't have the company laptops, but they do have company email ids to log into the company accounts from their own devices. You should work out how you are going to add those devices to the secure cloud.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. In the next version, if they can come up with voice recognition, especially for people with special needs, it will be helpful.