The product could be more cost-effective. 

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.

Certain aspects of the user interface can be rather clunky and slow. It can sometimes be circular in terms of clicking a link for a risky user sign-in and seeing what the risky login attempts were. It takes you in a circle back to where you started, so drilling down into details, especially if you are not in it every day and it is one of many tools that you use, can be difficult. It can be difficult to track down the source of an issue.

There should be better integration or support for FSMO roles and cross-tenant force management. If you want to enable it, it is tricky when you add Entra ID into the mix for domain sync or directory sync.

The conditional access rules are a little limiting. There's greater scope for the variety of rules and conditions you could put in that rules around a more factual authentication for other users. If you have an Azure AD setup, you can then connect to other people's Azure AD, but you don't have a huge amount of control in terms of what you can do. Greater control over guest users and guest access would be better. It's pretty good as it is but that could be improved.

There are several limitations that Microsoft is currently facing. Since I work with global customers daily, they often come up with new ideas. However, these ideas are sometimes hindered by Microsoft's limitations. As a result, many people are turning to third-party tools or services, even from vendors that are not as reputable as AWS or GCP.

I have personally made similar suggestions to my product team, especially regarding the vendors that users are attempting to rely on. For instance, certain organizations prefer to restrict the use of mobile phones, particularly in countries like India. These organizations are very strict about security and prohibit the use of Android or camera-enabled mobile devices for their employees. Consequently, these users cannot utilize Microsoft Authentication, and instead, they must resort to other password authentication methods such as Fido or Windows Hello for Business.

Among these options, we have only one choice, which is Fido, a security key. However, when users need to use Fido, they are required to also use multifactor authentication. This means that a user can only register for Fido after they have registered for the Authenticator, which is not an ideal scenario. If an organization has already decided not to use mobile phones and has opted for Fido authentication with security keys, it's not advisable to then ask them to use Microsoft Authenticator.

Recently, Microsoft introduced an alternative solution known as the temporary access pass. This pass allows users to log in temporarily, but its effectiveness is limited. This is especially true for Fido authentication with security keys, although it is included in the Entra IDs CBA, particularly for Android and mobile devices. Unfortunately, these secure options are not available when logging in from devices like iPads or iOS-based mobiles, other operating systems, laptops, mobile devices, Chrome, or Linux machines.

Microsoft needs to make improvements in this regard and extend its services to other operating systems as well, especially when considering their widespread usage.

They have had a few outages, so stability is a little bit of an issue. It is global. That is the thing. I know some of the other competitors are regionalized ID platforms, but Entra ID is global, so when something goes wrong, it is a problem because it underpins everything, whether you are logging in to M365 or you have single sign-on to Azure, Autopilot, Intune, Exchange mailbox or another application. If there is a problem with Entra ID, all of that falls apart, so its great strength and weakness is the global single tenant for it. Stability is a key area for me. Otherwise, it is generally pretty good. 

We are getting away from the hybrid experience where we used to have devices connected to Entra ID and on-premises directory. That was painful because the on-prem version was probably developed 30 years ago, and it was not designed for a cloud world. It is not too bad now, but getting there can be quite painful in terms of synchronous users and things. It is not very seamless, but if you are fully in Entra ID only, it is a good experience. The stability and the hybrid state can be very problematic and complicated.

We have a custom solution now running to tie all those Azure ADs together. We use the B2B functionality for that. Improvements are already on the roadmap for Azure AD in that area. I think they will make it easier to work together between two different tenants in Azure AD, because normally one tenant is a security boundary. For example, company one has a tenant and company two has a tenant, and then you can do B2B collaboration between those, but it is still quite limited. For our use case, it is enough currently. However, if we want to extend the collaboration even further, then we need an easier way to collaborate between two tenants, but I think that is already on the roadmap of Azure AD anyway.

In terms of licensing - being able to pick some premium features without purchasing a package is advantageous.

Increasing the free log retention period might be more beneficial.

Compatibility features for legacy systems integration with new features will be challenging at times.

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.

The one area that we are working on at the moment is the business-to-consumer (B2C) element. It is not as rich as some of the other competitors out there. The B2C element of Azure AD is quite niche. Some of the features that they offer, e.g., customized emails, are not available with B2C. You are stuck with whatever email template they give you, and it is not the best user experience. For B2C, that is a bit of a negative thing.

In my previous role, there would have been a few things that I would have liked added, but they have already introduced them. Those are already in the roadmap. 

I haven't had any issues with the product.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand the structure of the menu. Sometimes they make some changes in the configuration structure and you might have trouble finding a button or some functionality based on a UI update. That can be annoying. Too many interface changes can make it confusing. 

The documentation could be better. Microsoft documentation is confusing. We do not like working with documents. There is not one big website where you can find whatever you want. Instead, there are thousands of websites that cover certain parts or services. On top of that, they often have old, out-of-date information that hasn't been checked. This is the most difficult part of dealing with Microsoft. 

The B2B Federation functionality is not perfect and could be improved. It is not on the same level that we could have if it were being used on-premises. It offers a different experience, which is a bit complicated and has some additional drawbacks.

The MFA has some limitations compared to the legacy version. We still use our on-premises version because it works with our legacy applications using certain protocols. 

I think that as Microsoft is going to the cloud, they are turning off the on-premises features too quickly because the functionality is not yet at par.

I would like to see more features included, such as some surrounding the lifecycle of licenses, and access management for non-Azure cloud applications

Microsoft Entra ID can make improvements in two key areas. The first is to upgrade Workday and SuccessFactors integration to OAuth 2.0. Currently, these HR applications use basic authentication for inbound provisioning to Entra ID, while integration with other IDPs utilizes OAuth 2.0. Many organizations request the adoption of OAuth 2.0 for Entra ID as well, considering its enhanced security. The second is to provide clearer communication about features under public review. Features under public review should have comprehensive documentation outlining their capabilities and limitations. While user feedback is crucial, deploying incomplete features in production environments can lead to frustration and blame. Customers should be informed that public review features are not intended for production use.

I have used Okta in the past. Okta is easy to use, and it's also very friendly. Even users who have no tech experience would be able to use Okta.

When it comes to Azure, creating certain things or getting different resources isn't very clear. You need a certain level of knowledge of the system. It could be a little bit more friendly so that some of the things can be done easily, but after everything is created, it's easy to use.

The group policy structure options continue to change, and the naming conventions remain confusing when we access the cloud. 

The support is a bit slow. This is particularly challenging for the service engineers. For instance, opening a ticket takes a considerable amount of time to pinpoint the underlying issue. While high-severity tickets are resolved quickly, there are instances of lower-severity issues that still impact a specific group of users. Addressing these problems is taking longer than usual.

I would like to have the option if needed to use the hierarchy when setting up groups.

I don't feel the Entra admin center offers a single pane of glass for managing user access because we have to use more resources and it is not user-friendly.

The user sign-on experience was ultimately satisfactory, but the process of finding the best configuration was somewhat arduous due to the protection of licenses or access; the users were confronted with strict instructions on how to log on and were required to select two options to do so, such as providing a cell number or personal email or using an app to connect and verify the two steps. This was not easy for the users to feel comfortable with.

The implementation of the conditional access feature was challenging due to our users' unfamiliarity with this type of login. Managing it was difficult.

The solution can improve the educational portion because it is an administration cost.

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.

They can combine conditional access for user actions and application filtering. Currently, they are separated, and we cannot mix the two. I do not know how it would be possible, but it would be interesting.

For permission access, there can be a bit more granular distinction between Microsoft applications. Currently, you have a pack of things, but sometimes, you only want to allow one of the things and not the whole pack. For example, you just want to allow the Azure portal, not the whole experience. However, such scenarios are rare. Overall, I am pretty happy with where we are today. It is always exciting to do new things, but for the customers I have worked with, it covered 99% of the scenarios.

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

When we add some user groups, at times they will not be properly configured. Also, sometimes Azure AD is not aware of the group policy, like the control, device functions, and settings, in detail. For example, you cannot configure these settings through mobile devices. It doesn't provide the flexibility to do that.

The other challenge is that a third-party application may provide access without authorization.

Microsoft should focus on improving the group policies at the user policy level. Functional-level improvements are also required. They have to configure the policies according to user requirements, providing the best policies that can be adopted by using Azure AD.

The downside of using a single password to access the entire system is that if those credentials are compromised, the hacker will have full access. It would be more beneficial if Entra ID could be completely passwordless.

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.

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.

My organization is less familiar with some of the new tools in the market, so I don't know whether I can speak about what needs improvement in Microsoft Entra ID presently.

I have to absorb whatever I have learned about Microsoft Entra ID. I don't know if I can say what additional features need to be introduced in the product, but I can say that the product looks promising based on what I have learned about Microsoft Entra ID.

Attempts to simplify hooks to perform access management are not always easy, but in my organization, we might be able to make some progress in the future.

Microsoft's technical support has shortcomings where improvements are required.

There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of its integration with the local Active Directory. There are some gaps in terms of the local Active Directory through which Microsoft is syncing our environment from our data center. There should be the availability of custom attributes on Azure Active Directory. In addition, there should be the availability of security groups and distribution groups that are residing on the local Active Directory. Currently, they are not replicated on Azure Active Directory by default.

There should also be a provision for Azure Active Directory to support custom-built applications. 

I would like to see a better user interface. Right now, it's not that great. Maybe there could be a dashboard view for Active Directory with some pie or bar charts on who is logged in, who is not logged in, and on the activity of each user for the past few days: whether they're active or not active.

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.

One of the areas where Microsoft is very actively working on enhancing is the capabilities around the B2B and B2C areas.

Microsoft is actively pursuing and building new capabilities around identity governance.

There is a concept of cross-tenant trust relationships, which I believe Microsoft is actively pursuing. That is something which in the coming days and years to come by will be very key to the success of Azure Active Directory, because many organizations are going into mergers and acquisitions or spinning off new companies. They will still have to access the old tenant information because of multiple legal reasons, compliance reasons, and all those things. So, there should be some level of tenant-level trust functionality, where you can bring people from other tenants to access some part of your tenant application. So, that is an area which is growing. I believe Microsoft is actively pursuing this, and it will be an interesting piece.

The user administration has room for improvement because some parts are not available within the Azure AD portal, but they are available within the Microsoft 365 portal. When I want to assign that to a user, it would be great if that would be available within the Azure AD portal.

It would be awesome to have a feature where you can see the permissions of a user in all their Azure subscriptions. Right now, you have to select a user, then you have to select the subscription to see which permissions the user has in their selected subscriptions. Sometimes, you just want to know, "Does that user have any permissions in any subscriptions?" That would be awesome if that would be available via the portal.

I would like to have an additional security option to prevent spam.

The price has room for improvement.

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.

The provisioning capability is a two-edged sword because it is very useful, but it also needs some improvement. When you start to deal with legacy applications, provisioning is not as intuitive. Legacy applications, a lot of times, were based on an on-premise Active Directory and you had to use it to provision users or grant access to the product. I don't know of a way to make Azure Active Directory act as an on-premises version to connect to those legacy applications.

The speed and responsiveness of the technical support are things that could use some improvement.

We don't have as much control. It's all Microsoft. If any service is down, it can affect a whole region. We would need to wait on a ticket and get word from Microsoft to understand the issues. If it takes longer to resolve the issue on Microsoft's side, all we can do is wait for them to fix it. If it was under our data center, we'd be able to give it immediate attention directly.

The general usability of the site could be improved.

The ease of use regarding finding audit information for users could also be improved.

We want to see better integration with other Microsoft 365 products; it's a separate tool, but they all need to work together.

It's really difficult to speak to this. The product is constantly undergoing feature enhancement and enrichment, and anything I would like to see coming is already available for public review.

Azure Active Directory is an easy-to-deploy, robust unified identity and access solution that securely extends your existing on-premise infrastructure to the cloud and provides seamless integration for in-house applications and 3rd party SaaS platforms. Granular policy-driven access controls ensure that access is granted only to authorized identities and devices and from approved locations. Azure AD includes an array of security and compliance options to ensure your business governance is adhered to without impacting productivity.

If I had to pick one, it would be to put the features of P1 and P2 into a single license.

Microsoft services and most familiar third-party applications are currently supported, but we can't find many other platforms that integrate with Office 365 or Azure Active Directory. Microsoft should develop connectors for different applications and collaborate more with other vendors to cover a broader range of applications.

There are a lot of areas where the data from a reporting standpoint is extremely granular. It is great that you're able to get to that data at the same time unless you actually are hands-on with the tool, as it can sometimes be overwhelming to actually be able to decipher what that means. So if you're looking at audit reports or another sort of logging, the amount of information is never the problem within Azure AD, it's trying to distill it down to the information that you want. I think the solution can improve by making the consumption of that data easier for the customers.

Compared to what we can do on-prem, Azure AD lacks a feature for multiple hierarchical groups. For example, Group A is part of group B. Group B is part of group C. Then, if I put someone into group A, which is part of already B, they get access to any system that group B has access to, and that provisioning is automatically there.

Geo-filtering is not that strong in Azure AD, where we need it to identify and filter out if a request is coming unexpectedly from a different country.

The permission management is a mess because it is not centralized, especially when we go back from Azure, which is quite big to SharePoint. This is not really well done and has room for improvement.

I would appreciate it if Azure AD could provide an option to simplify its interface by removing unnecessary features for small companies with a maximum of 50 users. This would make it more user-friendly for our customers who find the current interface overwhelming due to its numerous options.

Many of the features are outdated, so the UI and UX could be improved. 

The wiki is hard to use as it's more of a repository for technical information, but when I'm writing a PRD, I need more tools for writing. 

It would be good if the UI were more visually appealing, as it looks dated compared to other products on the market. It works fine for the dev team, but the navigation could be improved, especially for managers.

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.

Generally, everything works pretty well, but sometimes, Azure Active Directory has outages on the Microsoft side of things. These outages really have a very big impact on the users, applications, and everything else because they are closely tied to the Azure AD ecosystem. So, whenever there is an outage, it is really difficult because all things start failing. This happens very rarely, but when it happens, there is a big impact.

The role-based access control can be improved. Normally, the role-based access control has different privileges. Each role, such as administrator or user, has different privileges, and the setup rules for them should be defined automatically rather than doing it manually.

I would like Azure AD to provide features similar to check-in on-prem AD. The fetch-all service is the only one that is not currently available on Azure AD.

The technical support has room for improvement.

The licensing and support are expensive and have room for improvement.

In a hybrid deployment, when we update the UPN or email address of a user who has license assigned, it does not get updated automatically during normal sync. This means that we have to update it manually from Azure, which is something that needs to be corrected. Essentially, if it's a hybrid sync then it should happen automatically and we shouldn't have to do anything manually.

Azure AD DS allows only one instance in a particular tenant, which is something that could be improved. There are people that want to have AD DS on a per-subscription basis.

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

The biggest thing is if they could integrate with their IPS/IDS processes as well as have integration with another app, like a third-party application. Varonis was another solution that my customers are trying to integrate with ADFS. For some reason, they were seeing some difficulties with the integration. There is a case open with Microsoft on this particular thing.

The only issue is the OU is not properly synced. Therefore, you have to do a manual sync sometimes or you might lose the connector due to AD Connect or sync servers.

There are four levels of subscription and the security features are not available for free. At the free or basic level of service, Azure should provide identity protection features including single sign-on and multifactor authentication. These are the most important features for organizations and everybody should be able to utilize them for working remotely.

We have been trying not to use the solution. It is used for a specific use case, which is around authenticating M365, and we are trying to see if we can get out of using it, but that is only because our environment is extremely complicated. Entra ID is not battle-tested or stable enough to support a business of our size. There are some design issues specifically around support for legacy services. We used to be part of Microsoft, so we have about 15-year-old services sitting in our data center that still need to use legacy LDAP authentication. The way we currently have the environment set up is for one very specific domain. I am using a domain for specific context here to keep it simple. We have 36 Active Directory domains, and that does not include the child. We follow the least privileged access model. Our environment currently consists of using AD Connect to synchronize objects from our corporate tenant into Entra ID, and then from Entra ID, we wanted to stand up Azure domain services as a possibility for retiring legacy LDAP services. The issue with Entra ID specifically is that the way it replicates objects out of its database into the Azure domain services Active Directory tenant or Active Directory service is that it uses the display name. This is a bad practice, and it has been known as a bad practice even by Microsoft over the past decade, so the design is not good. The issue with replicating based on the display name is that when you are coming from an environment that uses a least privilege access model, where you want to obfuscate the type of security account being used by hiding it behind a generic display name, instead of myusername_da, myusername_ao, etcetera, to have an idea of what accounts are being used when they are logging in, it is unable to reconcile that object when it creates a new domain. If they all have the same DM, you end up with quadruplicates of each user identity that was replicated to it from the directory. Those quadruplicates or their same account names, as well as the display names within the cloud domain services directory, have a unique identifier with the original account name attached. What that does is that it not only breaks that LDAP legacy authentication, but it also drives up the cost for your customers because you are paying for each additional seat, additional user objects that are created, or additional users. You also cannot tell any of those accounts apart unless you dive deep into the user object to peel back what type of account that is to map it back to what came from on-prem itself, so the service is completely useless. What we have done in our case is that we do not really need Entra ID. We have Okta, so we use an Okta LDAP endpoint. That does exactly what we need in using SCIM, which is the technology that is able to take identities from multiple dynamic providers and merge them together into a single record. It is able to act as an official LDAP endpoint for the business, so legacy apps work. We do not have a problem. Microsoft could learn from that.

Entra should allow for external MFA providers rather than forcing you into a walled garden and the Microsoft ecosystem. Flexibility is a big thing, especially for companies of our size. A big issue for us is that we want the identity to be in Entra for sure, but we want it to come from Okta. We want the authentication and stuff to work, but we want Okta to control the PIM rules. We want it to do the MFA and all those things, but Entra does not play nice with others. Okta has engineered some ways to get it done, but it is not as full-featured as we would like it to be. Microsoft should do what they do with some other partners such as Nerdio and Jamf where they have their own version of a service, but they are still partnering with those other companies to at least add options on the market.

Fully customizable UARs and Azure Secure Identity Workflows would be great. Currently, you can do it if you cobble together a bunch of Azure functions and use Sentinel. If you are sending logs to Sentinel and are able to match patterns and run automation based on that, it would be great. They can help with a solution that abstracts away a lot of that complexity across multiple services into exactly what IIQ does. I could definitely foresee Entra being the choice for identity for pretty much all cloud providers if they can focus on the areas that SailPoint's IIQ does. A big pain point for a business of our size by being in Okta is that we do not have the same workflows that we have between IIQ and AD. With the amount of data that our company generates, we wanted Sentinel. I had their security department onboard, and it was going to be millions a month just to use Sentinel, but we could not use it, so we decided to leverage Splunk and a few other SIEM providers. 

They should also stop changing the name of the product.

Azure AD could be more robust and adopt a saturated model, where they can offer unlimited support for a multi-cloud environment.

From our utilization perspective, they are providing almost everything. That said, the customization, like the data sharing between the application, is something that needs to be improved from their side. For example, we are sharing certain types of data. We have a container application structure, so we have a single sign-on application where we are using the Active Directory authentication, and when the user clicks on that application, the information of that user is passed to the child application, and the child application does not authenticate the user again. That is a single sign-on concept, which is available across 50 applications within that container. We pass a lot of various types of data, therefore, there's a limited capability of doing that in Microsoft Azure as, on the Azure Active Directory, we may be able to create some additional attributes, however, there are certain limitations.

Technical support could be better.

I haven't explored all aspects of the solution just yet. There's still more to look at.

I believe the product is perfect, however, it could be improved if it could integrate with other clouds with fewer efforts and provide the same functionality it provides to Microsoft products.

Most of the features come with a P1 or P2 license. With the free version, you do not get much.

The objects in Azure AD are not managed in organizational units similar to what you get in the windows server active directory, which makes it more difficult to delegate administrative tasks

Azure AD does not support legacy authentication protocols, such as NTLM or Kerberos.

Azure AD is unaware of group policies. If you would like to use the same on-premises group policies, then you need to use the passthrough authentication method with your existing on-premises AD servers. This would compromise the high availability of the cloud and create a single point of failure.

The management interface has some areas that need improvement. It doesn't give you an overview similar to a dashboard view for Azure Active Directory. The view can be complicated. There are many different tabs and you have to drill down into each individual area to find additional information.

There are too many features available, more than we can use.

The documentation, and the way that people are notified of updates, are things that can be improved. I'm a big fan of Microsoft products but the way they document is not that great.

The thing that is a bit annoying is the inability to nest groups. Because we run an Azure hybrid model, we have nested groups on-premise which does not translate well. So, we have written some scripts to kind of work around that. This is a feature request that we have put in previously to be able to use a group that is nested in Active Directory on-premise and have it handled the same way in Azure. That is something that is actively being worked on. 

One of the other things that we felt could be improved upon is from an Application Proxy perspective. We have applications native to SSH, and we want to be able to do app proxy to TCP/IP. It sounds like that is actively on the roadmap now, which was amazing. It makes us very excited that it is coming, because we do have use cases with that as well.

Support could be improved.

Okta has had more time in the business than Microsoft. I hope, in the roadmap, Microsoft eventually offers the same features as Okta. It will take some more time to mature. 

For the moment, I don't have any complaints. 

The pricing is okay, however, it could always be better in the future.

I don't think the documentation is where it needs to be yet, for user journeys and that type of flow. There is still trial and error that I would like to see cleaned up.

Also, they do have support for SAML 2.0 and it's very easy to set up linkages to other Active Directory customers. But if somebody is using an IdP or an identity solution other than Active Directory, that's where you have to start jumping through some hoops. So far, our largest customers are all using Active Directory, but I don't think the solution is quite as third-party-centric as Okta or Auth0. Those solutions have a lot of support for all kinds of IdPs you want to link up to.

Finally, a couple of months ago I was on a team that was looking at low-cost MFA for SSO, where we would control the MFA on our side, instead of having the remote database handle it. In those kinds of flows, there aren't as many off-the-shelf options as I would like. There were cost implications, if I recall, to turn on 2FA. Also, the linkages that they had set up off-the-shelf—obviously they had the Authenticator app—meant that if you wanted to do something with Duo Mobile or any of the other popular 2FA providers, it seems it might have taken us more time than we wanted to put into it.

Honestly speaking, I haven't thought about where areas of improvement might be necessary.

Everything was very smooth every time we used Azure AD. In other Microsoft solutions, we come across some bugs or workarounds, et cetera. However, as far as Azure AD is concerned, or maybe, to the extent that we are using it at least, we haven't come across any issues.

In terms of identity and access management and concerns, all of our needs are provided by the existing implemented features.

On-premise capabilities for information and identity management need improvement but I know these are in pipeline.

The security policy of Azure Active Directory should be based on a matrix so that we can easily visualize which users have access to what.

I would like to see Microsoft communicate how they intend to manage legacy applications. Right now, you still have to deploy a hosted domain server (which comes at an extra cost) if you have a legacy application that cannot sync properly with the enterprise applications and the modern applications.

Azure Active Directory could improve by having an authentication service for laptops or desktop computers running Mac and Linux operating systems. They currently have authentication capabilities for Microsoft Windows. Having this capability would benefit people because in today's world everybody is working from the home environment.

The cost of licensing always has room for improvement.

If we're highly experienced or dealing with intricate scenarios, Microsoft Entra ID might not be the most suitable solution. In my opinion, it resolves the majority of cases, but it lacks comprehensive management tools for access control. I don't consider it the premier tool for user or identity management. While it covers many aspects, we'll need supplementary tools to effectively manage access rules. This deficiency is quite significant. To make it viable for a large organization, substantial additional development is necessary.

Microsoft Entra ID provides a way to manage user access, but it's not an effective tool for access management due to its excessive complexity. This is primarily because the process needs to be performed manually. Therefore, it lacks a user-friendly interface where we could define all access rules and scenarios comprehensively.

Zero trust is not easy to set up, especially for large organizations. While it could be implemented for smaller organizations, the extensive manual configuration required makes it impractical for larger enterprises.

Microsoft Entra ID's impact on access and identity management is relatively limited.

The single interface for managing permissions, permission rules, or conditional access policies needs to be significantly more user-friendly. While it remains functional for IT departments, it is not particularly user-friendly for end users. There is considerable room for improvement in this regard.

Microsoft Entra ID offers various features, but its setup and utilization are quite complex due to the lack of a user-friendly interface for end users. Unless we allocate a significant budget and a substantial workforce to configure it for end users, making it usable remains a challenge. Moreover, even with these investments, the cost of using Microsoft Entra ID would become prohibitively high. Thus, it's evident that the platform lacks the necessary functionality to provide a satisfactory end-user experience. 

Azure AD needs to be more in sync. The synchronization can be time-consuming. 

I wish transitioning from Microsoft Active Directory to Microsoft Entra ID was a little easier, and I didn't have to learn so many new concepts. I faced difficulties from Micorosft's end and during the transition from Microsoft Active Directory to Microsoft Entra ID. Sometimes, some of Microsoft's documentation could be a little outdated. The product doesn't meet the organization's niche requirements, especially in our environment. Microsoft Entra ID is not a very standard product.

When I think about the trade-off I have had to go for to get the aforementioned feature, it does annoy me. For me, I can't mirror accounts with the solution. I need to consider that we have so many groups and subscriptions, and I can't just see a blanket of their different individual roles in every single resource if I create an account for someone who takes over a job in the organization. In the solution, some people might have specific roles in one resource, which might be the only thing in there. With Microsoft Entra ID, I can't view every instance, and I have to go one by one subscription all the way down, which is a huge pain when you have 400 to 500 subscriptions. The aforementioned aspects can be considered for the improvement of the solution.

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 want to see more features to improve security, such as integrated user behavior analysis.

The ability to manage and authenticate against on-premises solutions would be beneficial.

The licensing could be improved. There are premium one, premium two or P1, P2 licensing right now and a lot of organizations are a little bit confused about the licensing information that they have. They want to know how much they're spending. It's not really clear cut. 

Transitioning to the cloud is very difficult. They need the training to make it easier. They should probably put in more training or even include it on the licensing so that there are people that manage their environment have somewhere to come to learn on their own. Maybe there could be some workshop or training within Azure. 

The solution could offer better notifications. They do upgrades once or twice a year. They need to do a better job of alerting users to the changes that are upcoming - especially on the portal where you manage your users and accounts. There needs to be enough time to showcase the new features so your organization is not surprised or put off by sudden changes. 

Microsoft Authenticator can improve their notifications because sometimes, my team doesn't receive notifications about app updates and authentication failures.

The private access is the next big thing for us, and that's one feature I'm going to try in public preview and probably move towards. There is no great solution in the cloud for Conditional Access authentication and RADIUS-type authentication.

One thing I would like to see is when you're doing control measures if you could globally apply them instead of going through every user individually. I looked at this problem twenty years ago, and it has stayed the same. In twenty years, it's still the same one by one. The default is whether you get group permissions or role-based assignments, you still have to go in individually to everyone every time, which is cumbersome to me. My problem with Azure AD is that it's designed for medium to large systems, and we're not that large.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

Better integration with external governance products would be a welcome addition to Azure AD. 

Sometimes, the notifications and alerts are not delivered properly, and we end up missing them. Also, the overall graphical user interface needs to be improved.

What could be improved is the environment. It still has administration centers in Office 365, and the same is true for Azure in general. You can manage the users from the Office 365 administration center, and you can manage them from Azure Active Directory. Those are two different environments, but they do the same things. They can gather the features in one place, and it might be better if that place were Azure.

For the end users, it can be confusing if they have worked for another company that had the Authenticator app. It is tricky if they have already had the Authenticator app and then work somewhere else. If they have to download it again and use it again on their phone, it is something that gets complicated. I know how to get through it. They just need to uninstall and reinstall the application, but for them, sometimes, it is confusing. You can have the Authenticator app for multiple services on your phone, and that's what drives them crazy. They get a code and say "I'm using the code for the Authenticator app, but I can't get in." I tell them that it is because they already had it in, but it is for something else. They now have to add. They don't like that at all. You could be on the phone for 45 minutes trying to figure out what their problem is because they don't.

Instead of authenticating by getting a passcode or answering the phone, fingerprint identification should be added to the Authenticator app. Currently, with the Authenticator app, you have to reply to the email, enter a code, or answer the phone. It can just call my phone and then I just press the button to verify that this is me.

Definitely, the price could be lower. When we moved from AWS to Azure, we started paying more. The licensing fees were more expensive.

Something that can be improved is their user interface. It needs to be better.

It's always a good idea to have some kind of expert GUI that you can turn on/off. There are a lot of settings to work through. If you are not that experienced, then maybe you might not want to use them. 

There should be an easier way to set up the regular things and then switch to a more expert kind of wizard to set things up.

One thing that bothers me about Azure AD is that I can't specify login hours. I have to use an on-premises instance of Active Directory if I want to specify the hours during which a user can log in. For example, if I want to restrict login to only be possible during working hours, to prevent overtime payments or to prevent lawsuits, I can't do this using only Azure AD.

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.

Sometimes, what one customer may like, another may not like it. We have had customers asking, "Why is Microsoft forcing us to do this?" For example, when you use Exchange Server on-premise, then you can customize it for your company and these customizations are unlimited. However, if you use Exchange Online or with Microsoft 365, then your ability to make modifications is limited. So, only the cloud versus is limited.

In terms of what could be improved, I would say its interface is not very flexible, as opposed to AWS.

The services are very clear, but the user admin interface needs to be better. That's all.

In future releases, I would like to see an attack simulator incorporated, especially for some of the business plans.

I would not recommend any changes or improvements right now, in terms of the organization. I think something that is key would be the group policies replication over the cloud, in order to prevent or to avoid relying on the on-premise Active Directory servers and to manage group policies.

Azure Active Directory currently supports Linux machines. However, the problem is that you get either full or minimal access. It would be very nice if we could have some granular authorization modules in Azure Active Directory, then we could join it to the Linux machine and get elevated access as required. Right now, it is either full or nothing. I would like that to be improved. 

We have the ability to join Windows VMs to Azure. It would be nice if we could have some user logs, statistics, and monitoring with Azure Active Directory.

When we subscribe to MFA, the users get MFA tokens. However, it is not a straightforward process to embed any of the OTP providers. It would be good if Microsoft started embedding other third-party OTP solutions. That would be a huge enhancement.

There are some features, where if you want to access them, then you need to make use of PowerShell. If someone is not really versed in PowerShell scripting, then they would definitely have issues using some of those features in Azure Active Directory. 

There are some difficulties in the hybrid version, things to do with firewall security, inside the organization. They need to work on that more.

In addition, everything should be in one package. There are so many different packages. They need to provide guidance because there are so many features and we don't know how to implement them in our organization.

I'm also expecting a Windows 365 virtual desktop. I would be interested in that feature.

I would like to dive into some of the things that we saw today around the workflows at this Microsoft event. I cannot say that they need to make it better because I do not have much experience with it, but something that is always applicable to Microsoft is that they need to be able to integrate with their competitors. If you look at IDP, they do not integrate with Okta.

The product takes at least ten minutes to activate privilege identity management roles. 

One thing that they need to improve is the cost. It already has a lot of features, but more protection of the identity would be beneficial for customers.

Microsoft is working with Microsoft Identity Manager for Active Directory on-premise. It will be very important to have these identity management solutions directly in Azure Active Directory. It's very important to have some kind of Azure identity manager as a technology for identity and access management for working both in the cloud and inside the Azure suite.

We had some issues with the migration of users from the local user accounts to Azure AD. It was more like a local issue and had nothing to do with the Azure AD itself. It works fine for SSO, the Single Sign On. We were not able to do the integration very easily with ADP, so that was a challenge, but later on it was resolved. We had to do a lot of things to have that on the configuration. Some systems do not integrate very well with Azure AD. We thought of going for Okta, but later on we were able to achieve it, but not the way we wanted. It was not as easy as we thought it would be, the integration was not very seamless.

Additionally, it would be great if they added support for more applications in terms of integration for SSO. That's the only thing that I find missing for Azure AD.

The most challenging aspect I found was the creation of organizational units and specific domains. They have a tool called Bastion, which is expensive and a little bit confusing. I had to cancel the subscription because it was using my credits too quickly. For the students, it was not a very cheap way to learn it.

It would be helpful if they provided more credits for students who are performing test cases because we had to be really careful when we were using it. Making it cheaper for students would be great.

The problem with this product is that we have limited control, and can't even see where it is running.  If Microsoft can give us a way to see where this product is running, from a backend perspective, then it would be great.

I would like to see Microsoft continue to add new features gradually, over time, so that we can introduce them to our customers.

An area where there is room for improvement is the ease of use of the dashboards.

Also, if a user is working in India, and we suddenly see a login from the US, Australia, or New Zealand, we should be alerted, because we wouldn't expect that application would be used by that user in those locations at that time.

An area for improvement is that there is so much dependence on on-premises databases, in the on-premises directory services.

In terms of features we would like to see, we don't have domain controllers in Azure AD. We are also looking at how we can best migrate users from on-premises to Azure AD, and how we can welcome B2B users. We would like to see improvement in the B2B functionality. We hope that is already in the roadmap. We'd also like to see some functionality for how we can set boundaries for tenants. We have multiple tenants that we're trying to consolidate. It's definitely going to be a big challenge to consolidate two tenants, so we're looking for help in that area.

It's just been renamed. That said, I can't speak of room for improvement. There may be areas that could be better, however, I haven't thought too much about that. 

I would change the device access a bit. It's very difficult. I would add some features. I would like to be able to authenticate Wi-Fi users using the Azure ID. However, my understanding is it needs to be from both sides, from the vendor that is creating devices for the Wi-Fi and for the networking part and Microsoft. 

The solution could be cheaper.

I would like to see improvements made when it comes to viewing audit logs, sign-in logs, and resource tags.

The solution has certain limitations. For example, it has very little governance functionality. This is, of course, a choice made by Microsoft to see which areas they want to have deep functionality, and which areas they believe are more profitable for them. 

In terms of improvement, there should be more flexibility and conditional access. There is a lot of flexibility already, but there are some technologies that should be embedded and integrated into it for a more flexible, customized experience. Also, there should be more tools for analysis for clients, e.g., there should be more flexibility aimed at end users. Regular IT guys for each company should be able to use the tools to troubleshoot a certain level of analysis in their environment.

The security part should be improved overall. 

The visibility in the GUI is not good for management. There are a lot of improvements that could make it better. It should be more user-friendly overall. It is not user-friendly because everything keeps changing on the platform. I can understand it because I know the platform,  am familiar with it, and use it every day. However, for a lot of clients, they don't use it every day or are not familiar with it, so it should be more user friendly.

The Azure AD Application Proxy, which helps you publish applications in a secure way, is really good, but has room for improvement. We are moving from another solution into the Application Proxy and the other one has features that the App Proxy doesn't have. An example is where the the role you're signing in as will send you to different URLs, a feature that App Proxy doesn't have (yet).

With Azure AD, if you look in detail on any of the features, you will see 20 good things but it can be missing one thing. All over the place there are small features that could be improved, but these improvement is coming out all the time. It's not like, "Oh, it's been a year since new features came out." Features are coming out all the time and I've even contacted Microsoft and requested some changes and they've been implemented as well.

Allowing for more customization would be very useful. There is a limited metadata capability. When you look at a user, there are only six pieces of information you can see, but organizations are way more complex, so having that metadata available and being able to use that for dynamic user groups and other policies would be very helpful.

From my personal experience, I'd say that the features need to be more visible to make the product easier to explore for new users. They need to make it possible for someone with very little knowledge to come in and find things. The product needs to be more user-friendly. 

The solution needs to update documentation much more regularly. They need to just come out and update the documentation to reflect new features and make sure the updates are included in the already existing documentation so that someone like me can just pick up the documentation, read it, and know that it is very up-to-date listed and has all the new features contained within it.

I'm still new to the solution. I need to look at the solution more before commenting on what to enhance. 

I do not need any extra features from my side. 

Having more training would be quite helpful. 

Having a faster interface could be helpful.

The workflow management for registering new applications and users could be improved.

Our users sometimes experience issues from having multiple Microsoft accounts, which can cause some confusion and hassle.

It would be good to see the incorporation of fingerprints and Face IDs as authentication options. This would simplify the authentication process for end users, especially those who aren't as tech-savvy. It is also a consideration for visually impaired people, for example.

The on-premises AD comes with a lot of options and group policies. With the group policies, we are using screen saver a lot, and it is messing up Azure AD and isn't working effectively. We are also using MDM technology through Azure. For Android the MDM technology is okay, but it doesn't work properly on iPhones.

When we do a screen share and screenshots, it doesn't work on the iPhone. For Android, it will only work for Outlook, which is provided in the company portal.

I would like to see the group policies on the same platform on cloud.

Active Directory could always be more secure. Right now, we've got two-factor authentications. All services based on Active Directory have a username and password. If somebody hacked our username, they could easily get all the data from our side. So I want two-factor authentication and a stronger password policy from Active Directory. The domain controllers should be more secure as well.

So far, the solution has worked well for us. there are no missing features. 

The monitoring dashboard could be a bit better.

Its integration with open-source applications can be improved. I know that they are working on open-source authentication methods for integration with open-source applications, but they can make it more open.

It can be a bit expensive for an organization. There should be a better pricing plan for the license.

We have a lot of freedom in using the Group Policy Objects and, although Group Policy Objects are part of Azure Active Directory, there are still a lot of things that can be improved, such as providing local admin rights to a user. There are various, easy ways that I can do that in the on-premises version, but in the cloud version, it is a bit difficult. You have to create a bunch of policies to make it work.

The product needs to improve its support.

The only improvement would be for everything to be instant in terms of applying changes and propagating them to systems.

I believe it can also be integrated into other Microsoft products, as well as more integrations with other solutions.

Azure Active Directory could be made easier to use. We have large amounts of data and storage. We are looking for video files and media content for applications, we will think about options, such as cloud storage or a CDN.

Its area of improvement is more about the synchronization of accounts and the intervals for that. Sometimes, there're customers with other network challenges, and it takes a while for synchronization to happen to the cloud. There is some component of their on-prem that is delaying things getting to the cloud. The turnaround time for these requests is very time-sensitive. I don't mean this as derogatory for this service, but in my experience, that happens a lot. 

For the Active Directory component, there are some value differences and things like that as compared to on-prem. I have run into problems a few times when there is a custom schema involved with their on-prem installation. You can use it, but that custom schema or functionality is going to have to go somewhere else or rerouted back to on-prem.

Overall, it's not a very intuitive solution.

When you have an Office 365 enterprise subscription, it comes with Azure Active Directory. We don't have a subscription to Active Directory, but our Active Directory connector puts our credentials into the Azure Active Directory. On the Office 365 side, we're also in the GCC high 365, so it's a lot more locked down. There are a few things that aren't implemented which make things frustrating. I don't blame the product necessarily, but there are links and things within there that still point back to the .com-side and not the .us-side.

There's a security portal and a compliance portal. They're being maintained, but one's being phased in and the others are being phased out. Things continue to change. I guess that's good, but it's just been a bit of a learning curve.

Our Office 365 subscriptions are tied to our on-prem domain — I have a domain admin there. With our Active Directory connector, our on-prem credentials are being pushed to the cloud. We also have domain credentials in the cloud, but there's no Office subscription tied to it, just to do the administration stuff. I moved my sync credential to have a lot more administrative privileges. Some of the documentation I was reading clearly showed that when you have this particular ability right on the Azure side, and then you have another ability on the Office side, that intuitively, the Microsoft cloud knows to give you certain rights to be able to do stuff. They're just kind of hidden in different places.

Some things are in Exchange, and some things are in the Intune section. We had a few extra light subscriptions that weren't being used, so I gave my microsoft.us admin account a whole other subscription. In the big scheme of things, it's roughly $500 a year additionally — it just seems like a lot. I didn't create a mailbox for that and I was trying to do something in Exchange online and it said I couldn't do it because I didn't have a mailbox.

You can expect a different user experience between on-prem and online. Through this cloud period, we have premiere services, we have a premiere agreement and we had an excellent engineer help us with an exchange upgrade where we needed a server. We needed an OS upgrade and we needed the exchange upgrade on the on-prem hybrid server. We asked this engineer for assistance because my CIO wanted to get rid of the on-prem exchange hybrid server, but everything that I was reading was saying that you needed to keep it as long as you had anything on-prem. We asked the engineer about it and he said, "Yeah, you want to keep that." In his opinion, it was at least going to be two years. So at least I got my CIO to stop talking about that. It's just been an interesting time in this transition between on-prem and in the cloud.

In a secure environment, a lot of this stuff is PowerShell, which is fine. It's a learning curve, but if you don't use it all time, then it's a lot of back and forth with looking at the documentation and looking at other blogs. If you're in a secure environment, the Windows RM (remote management) stuff can be blocked, and that's frustrating, too.

The onboarding process for new users can be improved. It can be made simpler for people who have never registered to Azure AD previously and need to create an account and enable the MFA. The initial setup can be made simpler for non-IT people. 

It should be a bit simpler to use. Unless you get certifications, such as AZ-300 and AZ-301, it is not a simple thing to use at the enterprise scale.

Whatever business requirements we needed in the past three years, users were created, with the name of the user and they were not connected with the Active Directory. We were trying to in house in three years and with directory, but we were not able to achieve it. Based on that we have informed Microsoft. And now we have created the things that are connected to the  cloud.

In Africa, we do not have the same bandwidth with internet speed. This slows the connectivity and it provides challenges for our business.

Microsoft Entra ID should improve workload identities. It should set conditional access. 

Using wild imagination, I am thinking about to what extent AAD can integrate with products in a seamless way, such as applications that are running on-premises and making use of on-premises directory services. The most common, of course, is Azure Active Directory Domain Services. To what extent can it be used to replace the on-premises Active Directory Domain Services? Even though they are similar in concept, they are totally separate products. 

I would like to see applications that make use of on-premises Active Directory Domain Services have the ability to also seamlessly make use of Azure Active Directory.

And when it comes to identity and access life cycle management for applications that are run on-premises, as well as access governance, if those kinds of capabilities could be built into Azure Active Directory, that would be good.

One area where it can improve is connectivity with other systems. Not all systems are connected and you have to do coding to establish a point of connectivity. It supports certain vendors and it supports certain protocols. It is limited in many other aspects at the attribute level.

Also, some of the provisioning filters are not capable enough. You cannot do a date filter on the provisioning.

Perhaps they could also have easy protocols to create the accounts. Instead of just a file upload, they should have an easy connector to do the provisioning part.

The downside is that we now have all our eggs in one basket with Microsoft. We have this great authentication and single sign-on, but if Microsoft has an outage in North America or globally, on Outlook or Teams, we're dead in the water. There is no drop-back-and-punt. There is no "Plan B." The bottom line is that if their services go down, our productivity goes with it. Working with them when we have outages can be very frustrating. We get some type of hiccup once a quarter.

We get service notifications from them all the time that the services are under investigation or that there is some type of issue. More than the headache of not completely understanding the severity, we have to make sure that we communicate with our end-users. We get to the point where we're potentially "crying wolf." We're telling them there's a problem but some people don't have the problem. Then they get to the point where they just ignore our communication.

Outages can last hours, but never more than a day. They can be regional outages where one area is affected and other areas aren't. The advantage is that it could be evening or night in the area that is down, so it's less impactful.

My understanding is, in the future, they will be able to bring everything into one single platform and they are not there yet. We are loving third-party authentication, however, those authentications will be further scrutinized by AD itself.

For example, if you want to book a flight, you go to any website to book. Booking the flight can be divided into two parts. One is creating a log-in with a particular website and then booking. However, if there are five to ten websites and you want to compare prices on all of them. You aren’t going to set up a log-in for each and every site. That's not feasible.

Instead, you can use your own login credentials, for example, from your Hotmail or Google account. Then, you have a token authenticated by Google, et cetera, which gives you the privilege to do the booking for a particular session. This is similar to what Azure AD should do in the future for authentication and allowing access.

Recently, Microsoft has developed lightweight synchronization software, the Cloud Provisioning Agent, to do the job of the preceding, heavier version called AD Connect. You can do a lot more with AD Connect, but it can take a lot of expertise to manage and maintain it. As a result, customers were raising a lot of tickets. So Microsoft developed the lightweight version. However, there are still a lot of features that the Cloud Provisioning Agent lacks. I would like to see it upgraded. 

The Cloud Provisioning Agent cannot provision a lot of the information that AD Connect does. For starters, the lightweight version cannot synchronize device information. If you have computers on-premises, the information about them will not be synchronized by the Cloud Provisioning Agent. In addition, if you have a user on the cloud and he changes his password, that information should be written back to the on-premises instance. But that workflow cannot be done with the lightweight agent. It can only be done with the more robust version.

I believe the Cloud Provisioning Agent will be upgraded eventually, it's just a matter of time.

I want to see new functionalities for the active directory. I would like to be able to establish that when you log into computers locally, it is installed on a laptop and you can enable the MFA feature that is currently not available for local computers or Windows on-or off-premise - thus being one of the characteristics that can give greater added value to information security issues. 

If this feature was available on computers, it would help us in the future to avoid security breaches, information loss, or data backup vulnerabilities. In many cases, this could generate a complication. However, we always want to innovate, and the Innovation part is always to ensure that any place, device, or management that we are going to establish at the computational level is 100% secure.

The synchronization with my AD is not the best. The synchronization between my AD and Azure AD needs improvement. For example, for reports, et cetera, due to the fact that now I have two different ADs - one for local AD and another for Azure AD, the types of fields in the local AD do not sync with Azure AD. It's completely different.

Four years ago, we had an issue with Azure AD. We wanted to reverse sync from Azure AD to on-prem Active Directory, but we couldn't achieve this. Azure AD could connect only in one way, for example, from your site to Azure. If you needed to do the reverse and connect from Azure to on-prem, there was no way to achieve it. We asked Microsoft, and they told us that they don't support it.

Their support should be faster and more knowledgeable and customer-friendly.

Microsoft Authenticator is as easy as Google Authenticator, but it is not open to all types of applications. Google Authenticator is integrated with other third-party platforms and applications, whereas Microsoft Authenticator is not. It should have more integration with third-party platforms and applications.

Many people believe that the Azure Active Directory is overly complicated and antiquated.

Active Directory Windows hasn't evolved that much in over 20 years. Azure Active Directory, has a few nuanced elements. It's fairly straightforward.

The solution could be improved when it comes to monitoring and logging as these are the most critical areas in case something was to go wrong.

Additionally, the available zones should be in all regions, such as in AWS, they have higher availability in all regions.

It would be nice if it had some visualization tools. A bit of visualization would be really nice to show your Azure directory structure. It would be very good because you might have sub-domains and odds-and-ends going on. So, a bit of visualization would be really good. Being able to plug it directly into the video to produce models would be a really nice feature.

I want to be able to identify the audiences effectively and manage them. 

The synchronization with the local Active Directory and synchronization with all of the users on the local and cloud could be better. Every user on the cloud and the on-premise local users should have a connection, have the same privilege, the same features. We should be able to change passwords from the local and have it synchronized with the cloud users.

I had some issues with the Azure Active Directory on Windows XP. However, it worked well on Windows 7.

The password policy that we had in place caused some system lockups.

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.

Better deployment management and visibility functionality would be helpful. There is a lot of room for improvement in our infrastructure, and in particular, when we create something, we have to visit a lot of websites. This makes life more difficult for us.

When we deploy new infrastructure, it begins with a lengthy approval process. For example, as an administrator, I may receive an infrastructure request from one of our developers. The developer might need access to our front-end, where all of the servers are deployed. The problem is that we don't know exactly what has been deployed within our servers, so better visibility would be helpful.

It's a closed infrastructure, and every developer gets an individualized container. We don't know exactly which features have been provided to them and it's a roundabout process to log back into Active Directory and see exactly what permissions have been assigned. It requires returning to a specific feature and looking at the specific user.

It would be ideal if the solution moved to a passwordless type of environment. It's the future of authentification. It's also more secure and convenient.

Microsoft needs to add a single setup, so whenever resources join the company or are leaving the company, all of the changes can be made with a single click.

I would like to see a secure, on-premises gateway that offers connectivity between the physical servers and the cloud. The capability already exists, but it is not secure enough when the setting is marked private.

We would like to see more system updates. They should happen more frequently.

ESAE management, especially the admin tools, could be improved. It should be built in by the vendor, and I shouldn't have to add patches or updates to connect to my domain directly. It should be added by default. The price could be better.

It's not intuitive and we use it mainly for our hybrid capability now and are expanding our footprint in Microsoft 365. The integration between on-prem and Online is interesting. However, the learning curve is high.

When you have an Office 365 enterprise subscription, it comes with Azure Active Directory, however, you don't have an Azure subscription. Yet, all of our active directory connectors put our credentials into the Azure Active Directory. 

There are enough things that aren't implemented on our side and we are in the middle of this transition.  I don't blame the product necessarily for that. However, there are links and items within Microsoft 365 that still point back to the .com side.

Items seem to continue to move, such as security and compliance. Now there's a security portal and a compliance portal, and all three are still being maintained, however, one's being phased in and the others are being phased out. Things continue to change. It's just been a bit to learn. There's a lot to keep track of. There should be a bit more transparency.

The Office 365 subscriptions are a bit confusing with a hybrid environment with what credential has an Microsoft 365 subscription.  However, then some of the documentation I was reading this week was where I ran into a wall. This particular document clearly showed that when you have a particular ability on the Azure side, and then you have another ability on the Office side, intuitively the Microsoft cloud knows to give you certain other rights, to be able to do stuff. This settings and configurations are in different places. Some things are then in the Exchange Online, some things are in the Intune section, etc.

I am not sure if the intent is to have an Microsoft 365 administrator with a second subscription for a cloud admin account or not.  I was trying to do something in Exchange online and received a message that I couldn't do it because I didn't have a mailbox. It's frustrating and confusing at times. There are things like that just are a different user experience between on-prem and online.

The Microsoft Premier Agreement we have has been very beneficial and we have had an excellent experience with a couple of different short cycle projects.

Technical support could be faster.

We find that most of the new features are in preview for too long. It gives you the announcement that there's a new feature and yet, most of the time, it takes more than one year to have it generally available. Often we have to go and sometimes just use a preview without support. 

We cannot run all the configurations from the APIs. I would like to have something that has code and to just be able to back up and apply my configuration. Right now, we are managing more Azure tenants. It's hard to keep all of those configurations at the same level, the same value.

We would like to have more granularity in the Azure conditional access in order to be able to manage more groups for applications. That way, when adding a new applications I don't have multiple conditional access to modify. 

One of the main requests from our security team is the MFA challenge. Azure, by default, is more user-friendly. We have a lot of debates with the security team here as the MFA doesn't pop up often enough for them. From an end-user perspective, it's a better user experience, as users generally prefer fewer pop-ups, however, security doesn't like it. It's hard for security to add. 

We don't have Azure Premium P2 yet, however, most of the advanced security features are in the P2, and it costs a lot more money.

One of the things with Windows 10 as a company client's software is that they're using it on laptops, desktops, or whatever. In Active Directory Premium, you can control the sign-in and the spaces where documents might be kept on that device with Active Directory Premium and the rights management piece.

Documentation I think is always the worst part with what Azure's doing right now across the board. You may run into an issue you get a technician that says, "Here, look at all these links through self-documentation, and then make comments to it if you want to change it or do something." It's just that the documentation itself, is not very friendly to somebody who is just going in to it. If I had to turn it over to a customer, I just don't think that documentation is that friendly to somebody who does not have in-depth knowledge.

I would like them to improve the dashboard by presenting the raw data in a more visual way for the logs and events. That would help us understand the reports better.

The only issue with Azure AD is that it doesn't have control over the wifi network. You have to do something more to have a secure wifi network. To have it working, you need an active directory server on-premises to take care of the networks.

My only pain point in this solution is creating group membership for devices. This is something that could be improved. Essentially, I want to be able to create collection groups, or organizational units and include devices in there. I should be able to add them in the same way that we can add users.

We want to be able to create members as devices in groups, without having to leverage a dynamic group membership with queries. I want to be able to just pick machines, create a group, and add them.

From an admin perspective, I would like to see improvement in the Microsoft Graph API.

I guess price would be the thing, and some of the proprietary lock-in. But, I guess documentation and support would be good.

The features are fine. I wouldn't suggest any features because you can keep adding to it. But, its simplicity is that it works under its own ecosystem. It's nice and reliable. If you start adding all these extra things to it, it'll probably cause complications with some of the legacy things that are still slowly just hanging onto them. But, to look at more documentation, engineering, or an open standard would be nice.

The licensing cost is a bit prohibitive.

I think there is room for improvement with actually discussing, and advertising Microsoft as a an authenticator. Many people just get confused and use Google. It's weird because it's exactly the same way that it works. But it's there, it's definite region to start the people is more used to use their the Google authenticator instead of the Microsoft authentication. I think if Microsoft would make more of an effort to penetrate the market, that would be key.

In addition, it would be nice to have a biometric authentication like voice ID, or any of your medical ID. This would be a nice additional feature for Azure to have.

I don't have any major problems. I don't use it in a way that requires a lot of resources.

The main issue is that because Active Directory is in the cloud, it will inevitably be dependent on internet connectivity.

It would be beneficial if Microsoft could make it lighter so that it requires fewer resources.

Better pricing will help us market it more than having it on-premises.

It doesn't function the same way as Active Directory inside of a physical infrastructure. Even VMware Active Directory doesn't function the same way in the cloud. Cloud is all flat. That's one of the disadvantages. You can authenticate through Active Directory through Federated Services, but it's mainly like an IIS web frontend and bulk storage.

It's all record based.

Its price should be improved. It is very expensive for Turkish people.

Azure AD provides two types of features. One is Azure AD Excel and is already B2C. Out of both versions, Azure B2C requires some improvement, in terms of user management and role management, et cetera.

I'd like to see integration between applications and phones included in the solution. It would also be helpful to have support for the kind of integration you see between Facebook and Google, support with protocols from one application on the internet or SaaS to another one. I've seen several kinds of applications in the area of risky behavior that are a little better in other solutions.

The solution has not saved costs. While we’ve eliminated some tools, there are some other features that we are dependent on as admin, which is not yet integrated with Azure AD.

Other features have a broader scope and are covered under Azure. If, for example, I want to create a workflow, that cannot be done in Azure AD. That is something that is done in the Azure function or Azure logic app. Parts have to be covered in other functions. 

Longer-term, there are some features which might be added, such as admin features similar to Google admin. If I'm an employee and I'm exiting the company, for example, I need to transfer that data from myself to my manager. For that, maybe they could include a feature where they can transfer the data from the user directly and we don't have to rely on any admins.

Some of the features related to authentication could be made clearer. In my last organization, I tried to integrate a third-party education solution with Azure AD, but it was a bit difficult to configure. I would like it to be easier to integrate third-party applications.

I would like it if Intune could manage MacOS or iOS directly. Right now, we have to use a third-party solution. 

Role-based access controls.

Reading documentation could be simplified. Technical support could also be faster.

Microsoft has a feedback page, in which if anyone has any suggestions or feedback, you can send them to them. They have all of the technical resources available on the internet, on their website. In case you need the support, you can easily open a ticket with them because you already have a subscription and you are eligible to open a ticket.

The natural evolution of things because obviously Azure Active Directory has a way to authenticate against on-prem normally you would need to have a Domain Controller on-premise and have either SSO or or Federation Services to be able to engage those two components and be able to allow authentication. But, having everything on the cloud as this customer didn't want anything on-prem only their network devices and some security devices and the limited applications, apart from that, they don't have anything to authenticate users on-prem. Having everything in the cloud and Active Directory, Azure AD is not able to provide Kerberos or Kerberos authentication if you're running only Azure AD it is a limitation. I think it's the next evolution of things. That's what the future is going to look like. There will barely be a be a need for any stuff on-prem. Everything will be on the cloud.

I can't speak to many aspects of the solution that need improvement.

The dashboard and interface could be better. It would be ideal if it was easier to use.

We found the ADFS being a redundant part of the solution. But, it was removed. The licensing is a bit confusing if you are not going into the premium model.

Azure Active Directory could improve the two-factor authentication.

It would be an improvement if Authenticator made it easier to recover the app if you reboot your cellphone and lose access.

The licensing model makes it difficult to understand the real cost of the solution, especially because it changes all the time.  

Azure Active Directory could benefit by adding the capability for identity life cycle for the on-premise solution. For example, an HR solution, which is built on-premise or, in general, better on-premise capable solutions.

The integration between the Azure active directory and the traditional active directory could be improved upon. We have two active directories that are installed on virtual machines, which are traditional active directories. The interactions between the two are very limited. For example, I could modify users in our own private instances of AD, however, they won't propagate up to the Azure active directory and vice versa. For us, the integrations are the biggie between the on-prem or the self-hosted AD versus Azure AD.

The traditional AD instances that we maintain have UIs that are very archaic and monolithic and very difficult to navigate. They should update the UI to make it easier to navigate and make it overall more modern.

I think the documentation and configuration are both areas that need improvement. 

The product changes and gets updated, but the documentation doesn't keep pace.

The initial setup could be simplified.

I would like to see a better UI tool.

Right now I can't point out a particular feature, but sometimes when we work, it evolves.  There are so many features that are out recently, so it'd be hard to set up MSA for obvious remote users, so users who are using Azure are hard to use it remotely. So, while we're setting that up, we have face of issues which show the limitations of Azure.

Initially, we wanted to exclude specific users from MSA. So, we had a condition policy, which forces MSA for all the users. So we wanted to exclude users who are using an NPS extension.  So it was not listed, as a NPS extension was not listed outside an application, in actual, so, we go back and were not able to exclude users using NPS extension from MSA. So that was one limitation that we found and we had to work around that.

We noticed recent additions on display that have been in recent updates. On the board, there are some features that still need help. 

The SSO MyApps interface is very basic and needs better customization capabilities.