Skip to content

A policy nobody can explain isn't working.

Conditional Access rules accumulate the same way everything else in a tenant does—one exception at a time. A sanity check is a plain review of whether the current rule set still makes sense together.

Book a scoping call

Four patterns worth naming out loud.

  • Coverage

    An accidental gap in coverage

    An admin account, a service account, or a whole app was excluded during setup and never added back.

  • Conflicts

    Policies that quietly contradict each other

    Two rules target the same sign-in and one silently wins, without anyone deciding it should.

  • Legacy

    Legacy authentication left open

    An older protocol that bypasses modern sign-in controls is still technically allowed.

  • Break-glass

    No documented emergency account

    Nobody can say what happens if the normal sign-in path fails for every administrator at once.

Sanity check, not a penetration test.

A sanity check, not a formal test or a scored audit.

This is a plain-language read of whether the policy set is internally consistent: does multi-factor authentication actually apply where it is supposed to, do exclusions still make sense, and would anyone notice if a rule silently stopped working? It does not produce a compliance score, map to a specific regulatory framework, or substitute for a formal penetration test or identity security assessment.

The goal is narrower and more useful month to month: catch the gap before it becomes an incident, not after.

Five recurring checks.

  • Multi-factor authentication still applies to every standard user and administrator sign-in
  • No policy exclusion exists without a documented, current reason
  • Legacy or basic authentication protocols remain blocked where they should be
  • A break-glass account exists, is excluded deliberately, and is monitored for use
  • New apps or integrations added since the last review are covered by an appropriate policy

A formal identity or posture review is a separate, defined scope.

Regulatory mapping, a full identity security assessment, or hardening beyond the baseline deserves its own written scope—not an assumption baked into routine monthly care.