Skip to main content
Question

Microsoft 365 Defender - Integration

  • June 10, 2026
  • 9 replies
  • 120 views

delston
Forum|alt.badge.img+5

Hi All, 

I am testing the Microsoft 365 Defender (XDR) Integration v26.0 and have observed the following which when looking at the documentation seems to be by design.

 

Scenario 1

  • Event triggered and “Incident 1” created in XDR
  • Event triggered and “Incident 2” created in XDR
  • Both incidents and their associated alerts are ingested into the SOAR and created:
  • Case 1 with the name “Incident 1”
  • Case 2 with the name “Incident 2”
  • XDR then correlated Incidents 1 & 2 and based on a rule and renamed “Incident 1” to “Suspicious activity on one endpoint”  moved the alert from “Incident 2” to “Incident 1” and closed “Incident 2”
  • The Sync Job in SOAR attached all alerts to Case 1 but left the Case name as “Incident 1”
  • The SOAR Case “Incident 2” was left open along with it’s associated Alert

Scenario 2

  • Event triggered and “Incident 1” created in XDR
  • Event triggered and “Incident 2” created in XDR
  • “Incident 1” ingested into SOAR and a Case created with the same name “Incident 1” 
  • Before Ingestion of “Incident 2” XDR correlated the Incidents based on a rule and renamed “Incident 1” to “Suspicious activity on one endpoint”  moved the alert from “Incident 2” to “Incident 1” and closed “Incident 2”
  • The Sync Job in SOAR attached all alerts to Case 1 but left the Case name as “Incident 1”

I am thinking if the Sync Job only handles Alerts then I will probably need to write a Job to Close the orphaned Case in SOAR by checking the status of the Incident in XDR, any thoughts?

 

Thanks

Daryll

9 replies

ylandovskyy
Staff
Forum|alt.badge.img+16

Hey ​@delston,

If the Incident 2 in your example got closed automatically in XDR, then it should get closed in SecOps as well, but if it was left open, then there is limited way for SecOps to know that it got grouped under a different case.

The name of the case is determined by the first alert ingested into the case and it will not change automatically no matter what alert will get grouped into it, but you can build a custom logic via a sync job to make this logic more sophisticated.


delston
Forum|alt.badge.img+5
  • Author
  • Bronze 2
  • June 11, 2026

Thanks ​@ylandovskyy 

 

I will open a support call as I am also seeing Alerts re-ingested depending on the action for instance:

  • Once the correlation takes place in XDR the 2 x Alerts are re-ingested giving me 3 x Alerts where the first Alert is duplicated.
  • If I add a comment the Alert is re-ingested giving me 4 x Alerts 

This has the downside of attaching the same playbook to the new alert, this is handled by checking for the First Alert and if this is false brach to Lock the Playbook.


ylandovskyy
Staff
Forum|alt.badge.img+16

@delston there are certain properties that can have the alert ingested again. For example, new events / entities were associated with the Alert.

Comments, Assignee, Tags - all of this shouldn’t force the connector to have data re-ingested. So, I suggest to check, if the there no changes to the events.


  • New Member
  • June 11, 2026

@delston just sharing our experience with the connector & job;

 

We have an timing issue with the connector and the job making it so we sometimes end up having multiple cases or new cases of already closed cases.

IE we close a case in SecOps → if the connector run happens before the job run → same case recreated. We don’t want to have a huge delay from when an XDR alert/incident is created to when the case is created in SecOps.

 

@ylandovskyy, Imo the two should merge rather than being independant connector/job as there’s no reconsilliation during runtime for either or.

At this time, we have decided to create a custom integration to resolve this issue as the provided solution for syncing XDR alerts & incidents are insufficent.


ylandovskyy
Staff
Forum|alt.badge.img+16

@zalmez Thanks for the feedback. 


delston
Forum|alt.badge.img+5
  • Author
  • Bronze 2
  • June 11, 2026

@zalmez  - Thanks for sharing your experience, I am of the same opinion the Ingest and Synch should be tied in some way even if the code is not fully merged. I will open a support call and let you know the outcome.

 


AnimSparrow
Forum|alt.badge.img+6
  • Bronze 5
  • June 17, 2026

we also had some troubles with syncing and we decide on our own method of aggregation of similiar cases and close/re-close/reopen them depends on the status - but it is written in IDE and used in Jobs

So also would like to see other taughts on that


delston
Forum|alt.badge.img+5
  • Author
  • Bronze 2
  • July 21, 2026

I just received the following update on the Case I have open:

 

“Our engineering team is actively investigating the issues you reported regarding the Microsoft 365 Defender integration, specifically the orphaned cases following XDR incident correlation and the re-creation of cases after closure in SOAR. They are working diligently to identify a resolution or determine potential backend enhancements to address these synchronization and timing behaviors.”

 

Thanks, Daryll


AnimSparrow
Forum|alt.badge.img+6
  • Bronze 5
  • July 21, 2026

I just received the following update on the Case I have open:

 

“Our engineering team is actively investigating the issues you reported regarding the Microsoft 365 Defender integration, specifically the orphaned cases following XDR incident correlation and the re-creation of cases after closure in SOAR. They are working diligently to identify a resolution or determine potential backend enhancements to address these synchronization and timing behaviors.”

 

Thanks, Daryll

same here
Thanks for confirmation that it is ongoing on multiple customers