Access Reviews in Microsoft Entra ID: confirm or automatically revoke access regularly

How can group, app, and guest access be reviewed regularly without accidentally removing permissions that are still needed? Microsoft Entra Access Reviews can perform recurring reviews for supported groups, enterprise applications, access packages, and privileged access. A safe start uses clearly named reviewers, a limited scope, recommendations only as a decision aid, and no automatic revocation initially. Auto-Apply is activated only after a successful pilot and a documented rollback path.

Access Reviews solve an organizational problem: permissions are often granted upon hiring or project start but are not reliably removed upon role changes or project end. A review campaign makes the resource owner responsible for the continued necessity.

What Access Reviews can check

For many production scenarios around groups, applications, and guest access, Microsoft Entra ID Governance or Entra Suite is needed today. Individual older P2-near overlaps do not change the fact that the specific license assignment should be checked tenant-wide before a broad rollout.

Depending on the Microsoft Entra feature, license, and target object, reviews can concern:

• Members of groups,
• User assignments to enterprise applications,
• Guest users in Microsoft 365 groups,
• Assignments from Entitlement Management,
• Microsoft Entra or Azure roles in PIM scenarios.

Not every effective permission is automatically visible. Direct SharePoint sharing, nested groups, local application accounts, or permissions outside Entra may require separate reviews.

Define review goal before technology

A review needs a clear question. Examples:

• Does this person still need membership in the finance group?
• Should this guest still be able to access the project team?
• Is the assignment to the enterprise application still required?
• Does the administrator still need the PIM permission?

Unclear questions lead to blanket "approve" because reviewers do not understand the risk.

Choose appropriate reviewers

Group owners

Often know the resource purpose but not always the current role of each member.

Managers

Know the employee's tasks but not necessarily the technical significance of a group or app.

The user themselves

Can confirm their own needs but have a conflict of interest and do not always know compliance requirements.

Application/resource owners

Understand the access but need reliable information about the person and project.

Multi-level reviews

For critical resources, multiple levels can be useful, such as manager plus app owner. Configuration and license support must be checked.

The reviewer selection should match the review goal. For guests, the internal sponsor or group owner is often more suitable than the guest themselves.

One-time or recurring

Important for evaluation: Each review instance works with a snapshot at the start time. Changes to memberships or app assignments that occur only after the start appear only in a later instance or in a separate follow-up review.

One-time review

Suitable for an initial cleanup, audit finding, or project completion.

Recurring review

Suitable for ongoing governance. Microsoft supports periodic intervals such as monthly, quarterly, or yearly depending on the review type.

The frequency depends on risk:

• high-privilege roles: more frequently,
• business-critical app: regularly,
• short-lived project: at project end,
• stable base group: less frequently.

Use recommendations correctly

Microsoft Entra can display recommendations based on sign-in activity or other supported signals. For inactivity assessments, for example, a user without a sign-in in the considered period can be recommended as Deny.

Recommendations are not a complete business decision:

• a rarely used emergency application may still be required,
• service or non-interactive usage appears differently,
• sign-in logs have retention and license limits,
• a user can access via another identity,
• Seasonal processes create long periods of inactivity.

Reviewers should jointly evaluate the recommendation, resource purpose, and sponsor information.

Decisions and justifications

Typical decisions:

• Approve,
• Deny,
• Don't know or no answer, depending on configuration.

For critical resources, a justification should be required or organizationally expected. Approve – arbeitet noch hier is too weak if the question concerns access to a specific application.

Better:

• "Still project lead until 31.12.; access to project group required."
• "Role change completed; Finance app no longer needed."
• "External contract extended; sponsor confirms access until review date."

Handling unanswered reviews

Before starting, it must be defined what happens with open decisions at the end:

• Maintain access,
• Revoke access,
• Accept the system recommendation,
• Escalate to a fallback reviewer.

An automatic revocation upon missing response can be secure but may interrupt business processes if reviewers are absent or incorrectly assigned. Automatic maintenance makes the review ineffective. The decision must be risk-based and tested.

Carefully introduce auto-apply

When Auto-Apply is enabled, Microsoft Entra can apply decisions to the resource after completion. For Deny, for example, a direct group membership or app assignment is removed.

Pilot without auto-apply

1. Select a small, well-understood group,
2. Conduct the review,
3. Analyze decisions manually,
4. Simulate impacts,
5. Correct incorrect reviewers or recommendations,
6. Apply revocation in a controlled manner,
7. Monitor support cases.

Only then is Auto-Apply considered for suitable resources.

Nested groups

When access is created through a nested group, the review of the target resource cannot necessarily remove membership in the source group. Microsoft points out limitations with indirect memberships. Effective access must therefore be tested after the review. For reviewers, the target resource can show nested members, but a Deny does not automatically remove membership in the nested source group.

Check guest access

Especially for guest access, operations and contract parameters should remain visible. Depending on the tenant and agreement, Access Reviews, Entitlement Management, and Guest Governance can trigger additional MAU-based costs, even though the actual review appears technically unremarkable.

For guests, reviews can examine all guest members of certain groups or other defined scopes. Options can also support the later blocking or removal of guest objects, depending on configuration.

The review should distinguish:

• The guest still needs the resource,
• The guest loses resource access but remains for other projects,
• The guest has no resource needs at all and can be removed from the tenant.

The guest object must not be automatically deleted if it is still used for other groups, apps, or direct sharing.

Enterprise Applications

Before an app review, the application must be properly integrated into Entra and access must be represented through traceable assignments. If Assignment required is disabled or the app uses its own local authorization, the review may not capture the full access.

Check:

• direct user and group assignments,
• App Roles,
• nested groups,
• local accounts in the SaaS system,
• provisioning status,
• actual sign-ins,
• Owners and business team leads.

An Access Review checks user access, not the application's API permissions. A separate App Consent Review is needed for that, see App Permissions and Admin Consent.

Privileged roles

PIM and Access Reviews can control privileged assignments. The reviewer must understand what tasks the role allows and whether a smaller role is sufficient.

Questions:

• Was the role activated in the last period?
• Is non-use proof of unnecessary access or only proof of rare emergencies?
• Must the assignment be active or only eligible?
• Is the scope correct?
• Is there coverage and an end date?

Typical problem patterns

Reviewer does not know the group

The cause is often missing ownership. Stop or correct the review, appoint a business domain owner, and provide a description and resource purpose.

All accesses are approved en masse

The review is too large, too unclear, or has no consequences. Smaller scopes, risk categories, justifications, and owner training improve quality.

Access was revoked, but the user still has it

Possible causes:

• nested group,
• second direct assignment,
• local app account,
• existing session or token,
• SharePoint direct sharing,
• another group with the same app role.

Verify effective access end-to-end.

Access was incorrectly revoked

Remediation:

1. confirm business need,
2. identify prior assignment from Review/Audit,
3. restore membership or app assignment as needed,
4. test user sign-in,
5. correct the cause—Reviewer, Fallback, or Scope,
6. document the exception with an expiration date.

Review includes departed employees who are already deactivated

This may indicate that JML processes are not fully revoking access. Access Reviews should not permanently replace the missing Leaver process.

Review design

Document the following for each Review:

• Name and resource,
• Goal and risk class,
• Scope,
• Reviewer and Fallback,
• Start, duration, and recurrence,
• Recommendation configuration,
• Handling of non-response,
• Auto-Apply,
• Guest removal,
• Notifications,
• Audit and Fallback procedures.
• Owner of the review program.

Test catalog

1. active user with a clear need,
2. inactive user without a need,
3. user with indirect membership,
4. guest with multiple resources,
5. reviewer is absent,
6. reviewer selects Deny, Auto-Apply enabled,
7. manual revocation and restoration,
8. Auto-Apply in pilot group,
9. app access despite removed assignment,
10. review ends with open decisions,
11. recurring next instance,
12. audit export and completion report.

Operational metrics

• review completion rate,
• unanswered decisions,
• proportion of blanket approvals,
• revoked accesses,
• restored accesses after the fact,
• resources without an owner,
• guests without a sponsor,
• indirect accesses that the review could not remove,
• overdue or deactivated review series.

A high revocation count is not automatically a success. What matters more are correct decisions and a decreasing number of outdated access rights.

Access Reviews are closely linked to guest accounts and external identities in Microsoft Entra ID as well as to the user lifecycle in Microsoft Entra ID.

How to regularly clean up historically grown access rights

Access Reviews are effective when the right person answers a clear access question and the decision is technically verified. Piloting without Auto-Apply, clear rules for non-responses, considering indirect access, and a tested fallback prevent unnecessary failures. Recurring Reviews complement Joiner-Mover-Leaver processes and turn existing permissions into a regularly confirmed decision.