Misleading statement for scenario when devices are behind forward proxy

[yoichimu]

Following statement leads to misunderstanding that enabling Network Protection would be an workaround for visibility of devices behind forward proxy in Cloud Discovery report. Therefore, I believe there should be some additional statement to avoid misunderstanding, such as "Note that this alternative is not a workaround for visibility of devices behind forward proxy in Cloud Discovery report.".

For an alternative way to view this traffic and investigate accessed URLs by devices behind the forward proxy, see Monitoring network connection behind forward proxy.

---

Document Details

⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

• ID: c1cc6749-39e9-8a7e-298d-a75acb63c72e
• Version Independent ID: b0388842-cc04-f09e-3ed3-f05d5d1c9164
• Content: Investigate apps discovered by Microsoft Defender for Endpoint
• Content Source: CloudAppSecurityDocs/mde-investigation.md
• Service: defender-for-cloud-apps
• GitHub Login: @dcurwin
• Microsoft Alias: dacurwin

[dcurwin]

Thank you for your comment. We'll investigate and get back to you.

[dcurwin]

@yoichimu - Thanks again for your comment. We've removed the phrase "behind the forward proxy" to help eliminate the confusion.

[yoichimu]

@dcurwin - Thank you for update. I have reviewed the update but we still feel confusing... Is it possible to change like below?

For an alternative way to view this traffic and investigate accessed URLs by devices behind the forward proxy, see Monitoring network connection behind forward proxy.

↓

To view traffic and investigate accessed URLs by devices, Monitoring network connection behind forward proxy would be another solution. It makes possible to see accessed URLs in Microsoft Defender for Endpoint portal, but you must aware that the traffic data still not be visible in Cloud Discovery reports.