Resolve IP-based identity activity to computers before investigation

Keep this document to one review outcome: Resolve IP-based identity activity to computers before investigation. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.

Source fact:

The official Network Name Resolution (NNR) in Microsoft Defender for Identity from Microsoft supports the following bounded statements:

• Defender for Identity activities derived from network traffic, Windows events, and ETW commonly contain IP data. The research record locates this support at Opening overview.
• Network Name Resolution correlates raw IP activities with computers so Defender for Identity can profile entities and generate alerts for suspicious activity. The research record locates this support at Correlation explanation.

Only the traced statements above are asserted as source facts. Apply the review to identity detections, contributing events, entities, alert logic, tuning, exclusions, investigation, and response decisions after confirming that the source and deployed context match.

What the source does not establish

Name resolution is correlation evidence, not proof that a device owner or user caused an activity; v2 and v3 resolution methods differ. The citation is not a substitute for observed state, authorization, compliance evidence, or dependency health. Examine Active Directory, Windows DNS, sensor health, time, network visibility, cloud analytics, endpoint evidence, and security operations before translating the source into an operational decision.

Applicability questions

• For source statement 1 at Opening overview, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?
• For source statement 2 at Correlation explanation, which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?
• Which deployed instance of identity detections, contributing events, entities, alert logic, tuning, exclusions, investigation, and response decisions will be compared with the source, and why that instance?
• How will the review distinguish a source mismatch from a failure in Active Directory, Windows DNS, sensor health, time, network visibility, cloud analytics, endpoint evidence, and security operations?
• Who approves the conclusion, exception, test window, and rollback threshold?

DSE recommendation:

DSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Begin by recording scope and current state before deciding whether a change is warranted. Record the source location, examined part of identity detections, contributing events, entities, alert logic, tuning, exclusions, investigation, and response decisions, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.

If the review warrants change, use a bounded implementation with prerequisites, test population, monitoring, abort criteria, and a rehearsed reversal. Sequence checks for Active Directory, Windows DNS, sensor health, time, network visibility, cloud analytics, endpoint evidence, and security operations and sanitize protected material before retention.

Verification and evidence

A reviewer should be able to retrace the decision from Opening overview; Correlation explanation through sanitized alerts, source events, entity timelines, tuning conditions, exclusion scope, analyst findings, and response outcomes. Record what was collected, where, when, by whom, and which system or role it represents.

Record the decision even when no change is made, including uncertainty and the next trigger. Use safe testing conditions for disruptive work, preserve rollback proof, and revisit the conclusion after relevant platform, dependency, vendor, or ownership changes.

Official references

• Network Name Resolution (NNR) in Microsoft Defender for Identity — Microsoft