If anyone from Microsoft security reads this, could you please do something about login.microsoftonline.com/XXX/v2.0/adminconsent?
The callback you're redirecting the user to at the end of that flow is forgeable if an attacker knows an azure tenant ID of a different customer, and putting a "Never use the tenant ID value of the tenant parameter to authenticate or authorize users" warning in the docs is only helpful as long as a way to authenticate users exists.
They'll see it, tell a manager, it'll get added as a ticket to an Azure Devops board under the initiative for this month under the epic for employee suggestions, which will be reviewed & prioritised by Copilot and sent to a different middle manager as a weekly summary email and then automatically closed when no human ever interacts with the ticket after three months.
I spent 6 months working as a contractor in MS’ Chicagoland data centers. Nothing worked — phones on the walls ran Windows and did not give dial tone. Security systems unable to function because of Windows updates. Personnel more concerned with their required LinkedIn updates than their jobs. Not one FTE liked their role — everyone had a foot out the door.
When they offered to make me FTE I declined and moved on. Because it was an obvious absolute shit-show.
Sorry for those that are currently employed by MS.
Anyone that's had to deal with Microsoft will tell you this means nothing
If you can even get attention from someone, you'll be bounced between teams and people who barely know the products they are "supporting"
Don't get me started on the Azure and O365 management portals
The only worse support experience I've had was with Oracle where it could take days just to get the boilerplate "send us your logs" response on a Sev1 issue, despite the logs already being provided in the initial ticket
In both cases, this is while at F100 companies with millions of dollars of licensed software and premium support contracts
Managing a vendor relationship is the act of distributing license usage through your people, reviewing contracts, having somebody that knows when and where you have to send money so that the software keeps working, and making sure you are not doing something against the contract.
With Microsoft that takes several people working full time. Corporations tend to not want more of those relationships to manage.
What do you mean "even get attention from someone"? Enterprise contracts have support included. You can get an engineer on the phone within 24 hours. As long as you are competent enough to answer their questions, their support has been fairly good in my experience.
> Anyone that's had to deal with Microsoft will tell you this means nothing...
In relation to everything you said in your post, let's just say "trust me, I know".
But you missed the point I was making.
The GP said "Makes me wonder why enterprises still flock there".
And anyone who's had to deal with enterprise procurement knows if you've got a vendor on the list then its easier to deal with that one than push for multiple.
And then there's the whole budgeting thing. If management can see you're already buying every single employee in the org a Teams license, then getting extra budget for some Azure toys will probably be an easier sell then "yeah, I know we're paying Microsoft a lot of money, but can we have some AWS too". Since in their eyes Azure and Teams licenses is the same thing, "money for Microsoft".
Sadly the tech desk experience in enterprises tends to fall low down the list, if it is considered at all.
Sure, in theory, if you've got a good CTO to fight your corner then YMMV, but not everyone does.
For us a big part is that they have data centers in our country. It makes for improved latency and also makes a lot of our customers sleep better (justifiably so or not).
Amazon doesn't and regardless nobody feels comfortable using Google, who knows when they'll discontinue a product we would rely on.
Their sales folks are very good with C level folks, from the meetings I've sat in on. They will give you substantial credits and hands on support to build for you, depending on vertical and predicted future spend, especially if you're already at another cloud provider they're trying to pull you from.
Really not surprising given the history of sloppy coding, elementary authentication mistakes, outsourced "support", and anecdotal reports of horrid internal culture over the past few years
Let’s see how their platform design holds up in the coming years, and if it can hold up to LLMs doing more of this same type of discovery and whether MSFT can fix it.
God. I would hate to be the engineer forced to have enough Azure experience to be able to find these bugs and understand Azure’s infrastructure on this level.
Should have been addressed in the Geneva conventions.
> Reporting “theoretical” issues with validation as an Employee
Microsoft still has employees ? ;)
(Sorry. Low bar. But in all honesty I thought they outsourced the majority of ops. I was surprised to hear in recent news that they actually had that many employees left)
The callback you're redirecting the user to at the end of that flow is forgeable if an attacker knows an azure tenant ID of a different customer, and putting a "Never use the tenant ID value of the tenant parameter to authenticate or authorize users" warning in the docs is only helpful as long as a way to authenticate users exists.
When they offered to make me FTE I declined and moved on. Because it was an obvious absolute shit-show.
Sorry for those that are currently employed by MS.
Well, when you're already paying Microsoft $/user/month for Intune, Teams&co. you might as well use Azure too.
Only one vendor relationship to manage, and I suspect you probably have to spend far less money than you do with AWS to get some personal attention.
Anyone that's had to deal with Microsoft will tell you this means nothing
If you can even get attention from someone, you'll be bounced between teams and people who barely know the products they are "supporting"
Don't get me started on the Azure and O365 management portals
The only worse support experience I've had was with Oracle where it could take days just to get the boilerplate "send us your logs" response on a Sev1 issue, despite the logs already being provided in the initial ticket
In both cases, this is while at F100 companies with millions of dollars of licensed software and premium support contracts
With Microsoft that takes several people working full time. Corporations tend to not want more of those relationships to manage.
In relation to everything you said in your post, let's just say "trust me, I know".
But you missed the point I was making.
The GP said "Makes me wonder why enterprises still flock there".
And anyone who's had to deal with enterprise procurement knows if you've got a vendor on the list then its easier to deal with that one than push for multiple.
And then there's the whole budgeting thing. If management can see you're already buying every single employee in the org a Teams license, then getting extra budget for some Azure toys will probably be an easier sell then "yeah, I know we're paying Microsoft a lot of money, but can we have some AWS too". Since in their eyes Azure and Teams licenses is the same thing, "money for Microsoft".
Sadly the tech desk experience in enterprises tends to fall low down the list, if it is considered at all.
Sure, in theory, if you've got a good CTO to fight your corner then YMMV, but not everyone does.
I am talking about the most basic capability of a professional presentation tool like exists in Webex, or GotoMeeting or Zoom. And requested...
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/4410610/...
by more than 2000 requests across different microsoft discussion boards, including 1044 on one request alone....
Amazon doesn't and regardless nobody feels comfortable using Google, who knows when they'll discontinue a product we would rely on.
So not a lot left to choose from.
[2026-10-02]
beginning of curent month feels like two years ago when multiple vulns drop daily
"… then put your little hand in mine…"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD2ZC11pPPQ
likely been active since the inception of these capabilities
wonder if the recommendation to "add randomness to resource names" is because of this (unrelated security by obscurity lol)
Microsoft had an egregious cross-tenant vulnerability (really, how many cross-tenant vulnerabilities did other clouds have?).
Vulnerability was reported.
They fixed it - incorrectly. Reported again.
They fixed it this time... and broke the previous fix. So it's vulnerable again.
What a clown show.
[2026] Erosion of Trust @ Azure
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47616242
https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize...
[2026] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2026/05/18/sto...
[2025] https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2025/07/20/microsoft...
[2025] https://www.securityweek.com/all-microsoft-entra-tenants-wer...
[2024] https://www.cloaked.com/post/microsoft-data-breach
[2023] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/chinese-hackers-stole-60000...
[2023] https://www.wiz.io/blog/storm-0558-compromised-microsoft-key...
[2022] https://www.spiceworks.com/it-security/cloud-security/news/m...
[2022] https://techcrunch.com/2022/03/23/microsoft-lapsus-hack-sour...
[2021] https://www.cpomagazine.com/cyber-security/microsoft-power-a...
[2021] https://www.darkreading.com/cloud-security/microsoft-azure-c...
And this is just the Azure / O365 stuff - there's been thousands of Windows client/server and Office software exploits across the same time period
The cloud:
Let’s see how their platform design holds up in the coming years, and if it can hold up to LLMs doing more of this same type of discovery and whether MSFT can fix it.
Should have been addressed in the Geneva conventions.
Reporting “theoretical” issues with validation as an Employee gets you a lot of questions as to why you were looking.
Oh well.
That explains a lot.
Microsoft still has employees ? ;)
(Sorry. Low bar. But in all honesty I thought they outsourced the majority of ops. I was surprised to hear in recent news that they actually had that many employees left)