How Does an Attack Path Arise Within Microsoft Azure?

An attacker who gains access to your Microsoft Azure environment rarely operates through a single major vulnerability. In most cases, they combine small weaknesses, misconfigurations, and identity issues into a connected route toward your organization’s crown jewels. That is an attack path: a series of steps an attacker can take to move from limited access to full control. Understanding how such an attack path arises is the first step toward breaking it.

In this guide, you will walk through the complete process of analyzing an Azure attack path: from preparation to validation and remediation. Whether you are conducting an Azure pentest, performing a security review, or simply want to better understand how attackers think, these steps give you a concrete framework to work with.

What you need to analyze an attack path

Before you begin the actual analysis, make sure you have the right access and tools at hand. An attack path analysis of an Azure environment requires insight into the configuration of the tenant, the identities, and the permissions. Without that foundation, you cannot draw reliable conclusions.

These are the minimum requirements for a thorough analysis:

• Read access to the Azure tenant via the Azure Portal or via the Azure CLI
• Access to Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure Active Directory) for identity and role data
• A tool for visualizing permissions and relationships, such as BloodHound for Azure (AzureHound) or Microsoft’s own tools such as Defender for Cloud
• Insight into the scope: which subscriptions, resource groups, and services fall within the assessment?
• Documentation of existing security controls, such as Conditional Access policies and MFA settings

Also make sure you have clearly defined the scope before you start. An Azure environment can be large and complex. By determining in advance which components you are analyzing, you avoid getting lost in details that fall outside the relevant attack surface.

Map Azure identities and permissions

Most Azure attack paths start with identities. Attackers look for accounts with excessive permissions, service principals with unmanaged credentials, or managed identities that have more permissions than strictly necessary. The first step is therefore a complete overview of who or what has access to what.

1. Export all users, groups, and service principals from Microsoft Entra ID via the Azure Portal or via PowerShell with the Get-AzureADUser and Get-AzureADServicePrincipal cmdlets.
2. Inventory the role assignments per subscription and resource group via Get-AzRoleAssignment. Pay specific attention to broad roles such as Owner, Contributor, and User Access Administrator.
3. Use AzureHound to automatically collect the relationships between identities, groups, and resources and visualize them in BloodHound. This makes it easier to see indirect permissions and group memberships.
4. Identify service principals with client secrets or certificates that have not been rotated in a long time, or that have owner rights on resources.

After this step, you have a complete picture of the identity landscape within the Azure environment. You will likely encounter accounts and principals that have more rights than expected. That is normal, and exactly what attackers find too. Note all anomalies for the next step.

Identify weak links in the chain of trust

With the permission map in hand, you now look for the weak links: the points in the chain where an attacker can gain a foothold and move further from there. In Azure pentests, these are the most common weak points that attackers actively exploit.

Check the following categories systematically:

• Misconfigured Conditional Access policies: are there users or locations that are excluded from MFA? Are there legacy authentication protocols still active that bypass MFA?
• Overprivileged accounts: does an account have Owner rights on a subscription while it only manages a specific application?
• Managed identities with broad scope: a managed identity assigned to a VM with Contributor rights on the entire subscription is an attractive target.
• Public storage with sensitive data: Azure Blob Storage containers that are publicly accessible and contain configuration files, credentials, or certificates.
• Unmanaged app registrations: applications in Entra ID with high API permissions and credentials that are no longer actively managed.

Link each weak link to the identities and permissions you inventoried in the previous step. This way you start to see the outlines of possible attack paths: an attacker who gains access to account A can, via group membership B, take over the rights of principal C, and thereby reach resource D.

Simulate the attack route step by step

Now that you know where the weak links are, it is time to reason like an attacker. The goal of this step is not to test arbitrary vulnerabilities, but to determine which combination of weaknesses leads to a working attack path toward a valuable target, such as a database with customer data, a key vault with secrets, or Global Administrator rights in Entra ID.

Walk through the simulation as follows:

1. Choose a realistic starting point for the attacker: a compromised user account with limited rights, or a leaked service principal credential.
2. Define the end goal: which resource or permission level is most valuable to an attacker in this environment?
3. Map the route from starting point to end goal, step by step. Which permissions are needed? Which intermediate resources or identities are used?
4. Technically validate each step: is the permission actually present? Can the attacker perform the action without additional authentication or approval?
5. Pay specific attention to privilege escalation opportunities: situations where an attacker with limited rights can grant themselves higher rights, for example via a misconfigured role assignment or an overprivileged managed identity.

A common Azure attack path in practice looks like this: an attacker compromises a user account without MFA via a phishing attack, discovers that this account is a member of a group with Contributor rights on a subscription, finds via that access a storage account with a configuration file containing credentials for a service principal with Owner rights, and then takes full control of the environment. Each step individually seems manageable, but the combination makes it dangerous. More background on how attackers build these kinds of routes can be found in our cyber research.

Validate and document the attack path

After identifying a potential attack path, thoroughly validate the finding before drawing conclusions. An attack path that seems technically possible but is blocked in practice by a compensating control is not a working path. Conversely, a path you overlook because you have not validated a step can be a critical risk.

1. Actually execute each step in the attack route in a controlled test environment, or verify the permissions via the Azure Portal and CLI without actually triggering the action.
2. Check whether compensating controls block the path: are there Azure Policies that prohibit certain actions? Are there alerts configured that would make the attack route visible?
3. Document the path visually: draw the route with the involved identities, permissions, and resources. BloodHound makes this automatically insightful for complex environments.
4. Classify the severity based on impact (what can an attacker achieve?) and exploitability (how difficult is the path to traverse?).

Good documentation is essential, not only for the people who need to resolve the attack path, but also for management that needs to set priorities. A clearly documented attack path shows why a combination of weaknesses is more dangerous than the individual components suggest. That is precisely the difference between a list of individual vulnerabilities and a real attack path analysis.

Close the attack path with targeted measures

With the attack path validated and documented, the final step is to actually close the route. The key here is to prioritize: not every weak link needs to be resolved immediately, but the link that most effectively breaks the attack path has the highest urgency. Focus on the step in the chain that is least complex to fix and has the greatest impact.

1. Remove or restrict overprivileged role assignments via the principle of least privilege: give accounts and service principals only the rights they actually need.
2. Enforce MFA for all accounts without exception, and block legacy authentication protocols via Conditional Access.
3. Rotate credentials of service principals and app registrations identified as weak links, and set up automatic rotation where possible.
4. Remediate misconfigurations in storage accounts, key vaults, and other resources that are unintentionally accessible.
5. Set up detection rules via Microsoft Defender for Cloud or Microsoft Sentinel that monitor the critical steps in the attack path, so that an attempted abuse becomes visible.

After implementing the measures, verify that the attack path has actually been closed by walking through the route again. A fix that looks correct on paper but has not been properly implemented in practice gives a false sense of security. Repeat the validation step until the path is demonstrably blocked. Keep in mind that Azure environments are constantly changing: new resources, adjusted permissions, and new accounts can open a new attack path as early as tomorrow. One-time testing is therefore rarely sufficient. More about how to approach this structurally can be found on the page about Continuous-Q.

How Q-Cyber helps with analyzing Azure attack paths

An attack path analysis of a Microsoft Azure environment requires technical depth, knowledge of identity and permission structures, and the ability to reason like a real attacker. That is precisely what we specialize in. We do not run automated scans that produce a list of individual vulnerabilities, but investigate how an attacker can combine various weaknesses into a working attack path toward your organization’s crown jewels.

What we concretely offer for Azure environments:

• A manual pentest focused on Azure identities, permissions, and cloud misconfigurations
• Full attack path analysis including visualization of the attack route
• Insight into privilege escalation opportunities and weak links in the chain of trust
• A clear report with concrete priorities, focused on breaking the most critical attack paths
• Pragmatic remediation advice tailored to your specific environment and organization
• Optional: continuous monitoring of new attack paths via our red team and Continuous-Q program

Want to know how your Azure environment stands and which attack paths already exist? Get in touch and we will look together at the best approach for your situation.

Related Articles

• SOC vs. Continuous Penetration Testing: What's the Difference?
• How Does Continuous Penetration Testing Work in a Changing Cloud Environment?
• When Does an Organization Need Continuous Penetration Testing?