Recent Discussions
No way to automate restoring user‑reported emails after “no threats found”
When a user reports an email as phishing in Defender, the message gets moved to Deleted Items. After we triage it, if we mark it as “no threats found,” there’s no way to push it back to the user’s inbox as part of that workflow. That creates a bit of a broken experience: User is told the email is safe with our customized email response, but has to go find it themselves In a lot of cases they don’t (Outlook search won’t find it) We end up with follow‑ups like “where did it go?” Technically we could restore the email as part of our triage process, but that just shifts the effort onto the SOC. It doesn’t scale, and it’s not really the right place for that work. We have tried to create an automation to do this, but we have not been able to create an advanced hunting query based on our triage result that can then trigger an action to restore it to the mailbox. So we end up choosing between: Users having a bad experience, or Analysts doing manual mailbox work Neither is ideal. Other platforms (like Proofpoint) handle this end‑to‑end — once something is confirmed clean, it can be returned to the user automatically. Right now Defender stops at classification instead of completing the workflow. Is there a reason this isn’t wired in, or anything on the roadmap to address it?
Enable per‑user language selection for phishing simulation emails and landing pages
We use Attack Simulation Training to deliver phishing simulations to a global, multilingual user base. While Microsoft Defender supports multi‑language content, phishing simulation emails and landing pages are currently delivered in a single selected language per campaign. We are requesting a feature that allows phishing simulation emails and associated landing pages (including credential‑harvest pages) to automatically render in each user’s preferred language, based on: Outlook mailbox language settings, and/or Microsoft Entra ID user language preferences This capability would: Improve realism and accuracy of phishing simulations Ensure users experience simulations in the same language they normally work in Improve behavioral measurement in global organizations Reduce the need to create and manage multiple parallel simulations by language Providing consistent, per‑user language alignment across simulation emails, landing pages, and follow‑up training would significantly enhance the effectiveness of Attack Simulation Training for large, multilingual enterprises.Enable automatic per‑user language selection for Defender training modules
We use Attack Simulation Training and Microsoft Defender training modules as part of our security awareness program for a global audience. Currently, training content is assigned in a single language per campaign, even though users already have preferred language settings defined in Outlook and Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD). This creates challenges for multinational organizations and often requires duplicating campaigns or accepting that some users receive training in a non‑preferred language. We are requesting a capability that allows Defender training modules to automatically display in each user’s preferred language, based on: Outlook mailbox language settings, and/or Microsoft Entra ID user language preferences Enabling per‑user language selection would: Improve comprehension and learning outcomes Increase training effectiveness for non‑native speakers Reduce administrative overhead and duplicated campaigns Align Defender training with existing Microsoft 365 localization behavior Defender already supports training content in multiple languages. Allowing dynamic language delivery per user would significantly improve scalability and usability for enterprise security awareness programs.
Do XDR Alerts cover the same alerts available in Alert Policies?
The alerts in question are the 'User requested to release a quarantined message', 'User clicked a malicious link', etc. About 8 of these we send to 'email address removed for privacy reasons'. That administrator account has an EOM license, so Outlook rules can be set. We set rules to forward those 8 alerts to our 'email address removed for privacy reasons' address. This is, very specifically, so the alert passes through the @tenant.com address, and our ticketing endpoint knows what tenant sent it. But this ISN'T ideal because it requires an EOP license (or similar - this actually hasn't been an issue until now just because of our customer environments). I've looked at the following alternatives: - Setting email address removed for privacy reasons as the recipient directly on the Alert Policies in question. This results in the mail going directly from microsoft to our Ticketing Portal - so it ends up sorted into Microsoft tickets. and the right team doesn't get it. SMTP Forwarding via either Exchange AC User controls or Mail Flow Rules. But these aren't traditional forwarding, and they have the same issue as above. Making administrator @tenant.com a SHARED mailbox that we can also login to (for administration purposes). But this doesn't allow you to set Outlook rules (or even login to Outlook). I've checked out the newer alerts under Defender's Settings panel - XDR alerts, I think they're called. Wondering if these can be leveraged at all for this? Essentially, trying to get these Alerts to come to our external ticketing address, from the tenants domain (instead of Microsoft). I could probably update Autotask's rules to check for a header, and set that header via Mail Flow rules, but.. just hoping I don't have to do that for everyone.Impersonation Protection: Users to Protect should also be Trusted Senders
Hey all, sort of a weird question here. Teaching my staff about Impersonation Protection, and it's kind of occurred to me that any external sender added to 'Senders to Protect' sort of implicitly should also be a 'Trusted Sender'. Example - we're an MSP, and we want our Help Desk (email address removed for privacy reasons) to be protected from impersonation. Specifically, we want to protect the 'Help Desk' name. So we add email address removed for privacy reasons to Senders to protect. However, we ALSO want to make sure our emails come thru. So we've ALSO had to add email address removed for privacy reasons to Trusted Senders on other tenants. Chats with Copilot have sort of given me an understanding that this is essentially a 'which is more usefuI' scenario. But CoPilot makes things up, and I want some human input. In theory, ANYONE we add to 'trusted senders' we ALSO want protected from Impersonation. Anyone we protect from Impersonation we ALSO want to trust. Copilot says you SHOULDN'T do both. Which is better / more practical?I would like to know the complete list of alerts whose serviceSource is MDO
Hi all In order to determine the alerts that should be monitored by the SOC, I would like to identify, from the alerts listed at the link below, those whose serviceSource is Microsoft Defender for Office 365 (MDO). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-xdr/alert-policies I couldn’t find where this is documented, no matter how thoroughly I searched, so I would appreciate it if you could point me to the relevant documentation. thx
Defender for iOS: “This account has reached its devices limit” even though no devices are listed
I am using all 5 devices available (2 PC's, 1 Mac, 2 IOS devices) I was trying to install Microsoft Defender for IOS on a new iPhone created by copying from the old phone (iPhone 11) to the new phone (iPhone 17). I erased my old iPhone 11 while Defender was still installed My Microsoft account shows zero mobile devices (none were linked to my MS account) Defender on the new iPhone never completed sign‑in with my MS account “Sign out everywhere” and app removal didn’t help (also app removal, restart IOS device, reinstall Defender for IOS) You suspect a stuck Defender mobile enrollment token You need Microsoft to reset the backend mobile device slot From Office Copilot: What to tell the agent (so you don’t get bounced) Use this exact wording: “Microsoft Defender for iOS says ‘This account has reached its devices limit’ even though no devices appear in my Microsoft account. My old iPhone was erased while Defender was still signed in. I need my Defender mobile device enrollment reset.” This sends them straight to the backend reset tool. Why this works when everything else doesn’t The issue isn’t on your devices or in your account UI — it’s a server-side Defender mobile quota flag that only Microsoft support can clear. The consumer Defender team (under Microsoft 365 support) is the only group with access to that system.
I have absolutely no idea what Microsoft Defender 365 wants me to do here
The process starts with an emal: There's more below on the email - an offer for credit monitoring, an option to add another device, an option to download the mobile app - but I don't want to do any of the, so I click on the "Open Defender" button, which results in this: OK, so my laptop is the bad boy here, there's that Status not of "Action recommended", with no "recommendations" and the only live link here is "Add device", something I don't need to do. The only potential "problem" I can even guess at here is that Microsoft is telling me that the laptop needs updating. Since I seldom use the laptop, only when traveling, I'd guess the next time I'd fire it up the update will occur, but of course I really don't know that's the recommended action it's warning me about, do I? You'd expect that if something is warning you "ACTION NEEDED!!!" they'd be a little more explicit, wouldn't you?Tenant Forwarding - Trusted ARC Sealer
As part of a tenant to tenant migration we often need to forward mail from one tenant to another. This can cause some issues with email authentication verdicts on the destination tenant. Is it possible or best practice to configure another tenant as a Trusted ARC sealer to help with forwarded email deliverability?License question
Hello, From what I've read, if I have 10 licensed (Defender for Office 365) users, each with their own mailbox and an additional shared mailbox connected, I only need to license those 10 users (the shared mailbox doesn't need to be licensed additionally). However, I don't see such a provision in the licensing agreements themselves. If I understand this correctly, can someone point me to the relevant clause in the agreement? Does a shared mailbox that no one uses require a Defender license (if the organization uses Defender for Office 365 licenses)? thx.Secure Score rec. out of date - Entra consent settings
TLDR: 1. SecureScore recommendation for user consent settings does not match the User Consent settings recommendation. 2. Also, the recommendation on User Consent page is not described in a sensible way. This recommendation - Ensure user consent to apps accessing company data on their behalf is not allowed - instructs people to set the Consent Settings to 'Allow users to consent to low-level permissions', and select the low-level permissions. Optionally, to also set up admin workflow. This is the SecureScore recommended process we've been using. It was bugged, so we'd set it to 'Resolved by ____' usually once completed. It looks like this is fixed and now properly shows Completed (from testing, the manual resolve statuses aren't overwritten by the automatic completion - it'll wait until those are set to something else to update it to completed. Anyway,, that's not the issue. Recently noticed on the actual Consent blade, it shows that the recommendation is Microsoft-managed. I've never noticed this before - i believe it's new. So now it's kinda unclear what's ACTUALLY recommended. Reading the associated KB, it is described currently as 'end users can consent for any user consentable delegated permissions EXCEPT: Files.Read.All, Files.ReadWrite.All, Sites.Read.All, Sites.ReadWrite.All.'. But it doesn't actually describe what are 'user consentable' is... is that whatever 'low impact' permissions you set? is it something completely different? So the options are 1. Users can't consent 2. Users can consent to permissions you deem low-risk 3. Users can consent to permissions users can consent to, but not these x There isn't a feedback button on SecureScore.
user-reported phishing emails
Dear Community I have a technical question regarding user-reported emails. In Defender, under “Action and Submissions” -> “Submissions,” I can see the emails that users have reported under the “user reported” option. There, we have the option to analyze these emails and mark them as “no threats found,” “phishing,” or “spam.” The user is then informed. Question: Do these reported emails remain in the user's inbox when they report them? If not, do we have the option to return these reported emails to the user's inbox with the “No threats found” action? Because I don't see this option. In another tenant, under “Choose response Action,” I see “move or delete,” but the “inbox” option is grayed out. Why is that? Thank you very much!Disabling Auto Align Feature in Microsoft Defender 365 Console Alerts
The Microsoft Defender 365 console has recently started auto aligning the alert screen upon clicking on an alert name, which seems to be part of the updated alert management experience. This change is quite bothersome and distracting. How can this feature be disabled?'system has learned from the submission / mail is automatically allowed'
Hey folks, got an alert about a tenant allow//block list entry expiring. Only recently did we start getting these, because only recently did we start using expiring whitelisting. But I'm a little confused by the details, which says 'Mail from x is now automatically alllowed and the allow entry has been removed' and the activity that ''an allow entry is no longer required as the system has learned from the submission' The referenced email is actually an internal tenant - it receives ticket requests, and sends out ticket updates. But I'm REALLY curious about the 'automatic' allowing. Is this a feature limited to Defender 2, or part of Microsoft's AI detection framework for all 365 Defender/EOP? I don't even remember submitting this email - if I did, it was probably more than 45 days ago. So 1) Is this notice primarily that the entry had expired, but ALSO it's not needed or does this send out as soon as 'the system' recognizes it as legitimate, and removed regardless of the time left? 2) is there a way to review a list of entries Microsoft has 'accepted'? 3) What exactly does this 'allow'? I know that the tenant allow/block list allowed a certain set of lower-risk indicators in an email, but still blocked some higher-risk ones - unless there was a submission made. At that point, more is allowed. But there's still a limit, compared to a blanket bypass on the policy itself.Microsoft Defender EOP
We have been experiencing an issue since last week where we are unable to view the details of quarantined emails. Could you please confirm if this is related to a known backend service issue, or if there are any specific troubleshooting steps we should perform on our end? Any guidance or updates would be greatly appreciated.Searching for Activities in Audit Log returns repeated results - appears broken
I'm in Defender, using the Audit Log tool, trying to find out who changed the Anti-Phishing policy on the 23rd of January. Selecting the 'Activities - friendly names' drop-down, and inputting 'policy' returns A number of different categories + activities for stuff unrelated to Defender (ie, Purview, CoPilot in Outlook,, SharePoint AI use, the 365 AC, 'Places Directory' - whatever that is) but nothing related to Defender (the tool I'm opening it within)... The same category - M365 Apps Admin Services cloud policy activities - about 30 times, with every activity it includes. Probably 70% of the results, are just this same thing over and over. I looked into it - because I've never heard of this, yet it SOUNDS like something related to what I do. First off, on the [audit log activities](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/purview/audit-log-activities#microsoft-365-apps-admin-services-cloud-policy-activities) KB, this category is listed once, with 4 activities. there's about 13 that show up in each duplicated category in the search, so that's unhelpful. It links to another kb which seems to imply that 'Cloud Policy service' is not an actual thing - it's just a marketing/conceptual term for a functionality of InTune. Why it's not in the InTune KB - I do not know - I've made some suggestions to the KB's The first KB I mentioned does not list any activities for Defender's policies - there's stuff for Endpoint (multiple categories), XDR (multiple categories)... So I have 2 questions. 1) Is anyone able to advise how to get the data I want? At this point, I'm not even sure this audit log would PULL any relevant data, based on the lack of activities - so I don't really want to just blanket search for that date, and sift through stuff. 2) Does anyone know how to use this tool effectively? Know of a KB that is good and reliable and helpful? Thanks
Block all internet traffic except some sites
Hi, i've a subset of machines that need only access to some sites, like internal websites, office365 and av updates but i'm being asked to block all other sites. Can i use office365 defender (https://security.microsoft.com/securitysettings/endpoints) to do this? what is the best option? Thx
All Excel Macro Files Suddenly Flagged as Malware (X97M/Slacker.gen!A) Across M365 Starting April 16
Starting around 8 PM GMT+8 on April 16, 2025, macro-enabled Excel files with extensions such as .xlsm, .xlsb, or .xls began being automatically flagged as malware, specifically identified as X97M/Slacker.gen!A—when opened or edited in SharePoint, OneDrive, or Teams. Before this, the same files were not flagged as malicious, even when opened or edited, and this behavior had remained consistent for several months. This issue affects our entire tenant, with over 800 files being flagged as malware under the name X97M/Slacker.gen!A. These files are located across various locations and have been modified by different users. We are a Cloud-only tenant, and we have not done any configuration changes in Threat Policies for the past few months.
Recent Blogs
- 3 MIN READEmail investigations are a key part of detecting and responding to phishing and malware. As security workflows continue to evolve, there is an increasing need to align email content visibility more c...Apr 29, 2026
- Enterprise inboxes are overwhelmed with graymail — legitimate, bulk email like newsletters, vendor promotions, and product updates that isn't malicious but buries the messages that matter. When high ...Apr 22, 2026
