Microsoft Defender (GCC) - User Submitted "Mark and Notify" for Third Party Phishing Simulations
Our Microsoft 365 tenant is in the GCC environment, and we use a third party phishing simulation platform along with the built in Outlook Report Message button (not a third party reporting add in). When a user correctly reports one of our simulated phishing emails, the message appears in Microsoft Defender > User Submitted as expected. The problem is what happens next. When we select Mark and notify, the only available options are: Phishing Spam No threat found There is no option to notify the user that the email was actually part of a phishing simulation. This creates a difficult situation: If we choose No threat found, Defender tells the user the message was safe, making it appear they incorrectly reported the email even though they did exactly what we trained them to do. If we choose Phishing, the user receives the correct feedback, but the message is counted as a real phishing event, affecting our Defender metrics and potentially generating false incidents and reporting. It feels like we're stuck in a design loop where neither option provides the desired outcome. My questions are: Is there a supported way in Microsoft Defender (particularly GCC) to notify users that a reported message was a simulated phishing email when using the native Outlook Report Message button? Is this capability available in Commercial tenants but not GCC, or is it unavailable across all environments? If this functionality does not exist, what is the recommended process for submitting a feature request specifically for the GCC version of Microsoft Defender? This seems like a valuable enhancement for organizations that use third party phishing simulation platforms while relying on Microsoft's native reporting experience. Has anyone else found a good workflow for this scenario?
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.Microsoft Defender for Office 365: Fine-Tuning
In incident response, most business email compromise doesn’t start with “sophisticated zero-day malware.” It starts with configuration gaps: forwarding mail outside the tenant, users clicking through Safe Links warnings, impersonation policies left at day-one defaults, or post-delivery cleanup still relying on a human analyst at 2:00 AM. Those gaps are what attackers actually exploit. This blog covers our top recommendations for fine-tuning Microsoft Defender for Office 365 configuration from hundreds of deployments and recovery engagements: Core fine-tuning actions every email or security admin should land right now Data-driven bulk mail tuning (BCL and Bulk Mail Insights) Impersonation and anti-phishing policy hygiene for executive protection Automate post-delivery cleanup by enabling Automated Remediation Each section includes a short video and practical guidance you can apply immediately in Microsoft Defender for Office 365. These recommendations align with Microsoft’s “secure by default” direction: applying the Standard and Strict preset security policies to users, using Configuration analyzer to catch configuration drift, and enforcing least-privilege release of high-risk mail. When possible, enable the Preset security policies to give you Microsoft’s recommended settings for Safe Links, Safe Attachments, Anti-Phishing, and Anti-Spam. If you use custom policies (or if you exclude users from the Presets) then use Configuration analyzer regularly to compare custom policies to the Standard/Strict baselines, since those get updated as Microsoft updates the Preset policies. Core Fine-Tuning Checklist for Defender for Office 365 This section highlights six controls we recommend implementing broadly. These are “day one hardening” items we repeatedly validate with customers. Block automatic external forwarding by default Attackers often create hidden inbox rules that quietly forward mail (invoices, purchase orders, wire info) to an external account they control. Use outbound spam policies to block automatic external forwarding for the entire org and then create tightly scoped exceptions only for the handful of mailboxes that legitimately need it. This prevents data leakage and payment fraud scenarios where mail auto-forwards out of your tenant without anyone noticing. Although this setting is on by default (“System Controlled” means that external forwarding is disabled), we’ve found many tenants where this was disabled because the admin didn’t know how to create a custom policy for authorized forwarders. The trick is to order custom outbound policies to run as a higher priority than the default outbound policy which should be set to block auto-forwarded emails. It is a good idea to regularly review the auto forwarded message report (located in the Exchange Admin Center). Use Enhanced Filtering for Connectors (“skip listing”) when necessary If you’re routing inbound mail through a third-party Secure Email Gateway or an on-prem hop before Microsoft 365, Defender will see that intermediary as the source IP instead of the original sending IP, which degrades anti-spoofing effectiveness.Enhanced Filtering for Connectors — also called skip listing — lets Microsoft 365 look past that last hop and evaluate the real sending IP and headers, so SPF / DKIM / DMARC and anti-spam logic work correctly. This setting does not support centralized mail routing (unless the routing is linear; see the Enhanced Filtering for Connectors learn article), so make sure you are not using that before enabling Enhanced Filtering. Centralized routing is sometimes used by organizations running a hybrid Exchange deployment, connecting Exchange Online with an on-premises Exchange Server organization. Important: Do this instead of blanket SCL -1 transport rules that “bypass spam filtering for anything coming from our gateway.” Over-bypassing means phishing that slipped through the third-party filter can sail straight to user inboxes, which Microsoft specifically warns against. Turn on Safe Attachments protection beyond email (SharePoint, OneDrive, Teams) In the Safe Attachments “Global settings,” make sure Defender for Office 365 is set to protect files in SharePoint, OneDrive, and Microsoft Teams. When enabled, if a file is identified as malicious, Defender automatically locks the file in-place so users can’t open it in Teams or OneDrive. This gives you malware detonation and containment in collaboration channels, not just email. This step closes a gap we still see a lot: customers protect mail attachments well, but shared files and Teams chats are wide open. In the 1st part of this blog series, Microsoft MVP Purav Desai describes (here) how to prevent users from downloading malicious files by running a SharePoint PowerShell cmdlet: Set-SPOTenant -DisallowInfectedFileDownload $true Don’t let users click through Safe Links warnings Safe Links rewrites and time-of-click scans URLs in mail, Office apps, and Teams. In the Safe Links policy, clear “Let users click through to the original URL.” That prevents the classic “I know it says it’s malicious, but I really need to see it…” moment. Users get blocked instead of “warned but allowed.” This setting is also enforced in Microsoft’s Standard AND Strict preset security policies where click-through is explicitly disabled. Go beyond the default Common Attachment filter The anti-malware policy’s Common Attachment filter blocks known dangerous file extensions (executable content, scriptable content, etc.). Microsoft ships a default list (historically 50+ high-risk extensions), and you can customize it to block additional file types common in malware delivery, like HTML droppers or password-protected archives. Messages with those file types are treated as malware and quarantined. Do this centrally rather than relying on users to “spot a suspicious attachment.” Automation beats user judgment here. Use custom quarantine policies that require admin approval (instead of self-release) If you are not using the Preset Policies, you can create a quarantine policy to customize the user experience with quarantined messages. For anything phishing-related, I recommend creating a custom policy that allows the user to “request release from admin.” That means users can raise a hand if they think something should not have been quarantined, and an Incident is created for administrators to review before it is released. To me, this strikes the best balance between security and productivity. This keeps containment intact and gives the SOC final say. It also creates an auditable workflow: who asked for release, who approved it, and why. Bulk Mail Insights: Tune BCL using your tenant’s mail Bulk email (“graymail”) is noisy. Payroll alerts and benefits notifications are legitimate, but they look exactly like phishing. At the same time, true marketing email (graymail) are also bulk. The traditional response (“just whitelist the sender so users stop complaining”) often opens the door for attacker-looking mail to get delivered straight to executives. Defender for Office 365 gives you something better: Bulk Mail Insights (a.k.a. Bulk senders insight). This report shows, over the last 60 days, how much mail at each Bulk Complaint Level (BCL 1–9) was delivered vs. blocked, which senders are generating volume, and where users are likely to experience false positives or false negatives. You can interactively simulate raising or lowering the bulk threshold and immediately see, “If we tighten BCL, how many more messages get quarantined? How many of those were probably junk? How many were probably wanted?” Why this matters: You stop tuning bulk mail based on anecdotes and start tuning based on real telemetry from your own tenant. You can justify decisions to leadership and audit (“We set BCL at X because here is the simulation showing false positive/false negative impact”). You avoid blanket allow rules. Instead, you adjust bulk thresholds for legitimate high-volume senders while keeping stricter actions for everyone else. Note: You can modify the BCL threshold in your default or custom anti-spam policy, but you can’t change it inside the Standard (BCL:6) or Strict (BCL:5) preset security policies themselves. Standard and Strict are already aligned to Microsoft’s recommended baselines. Additional Links: https://security.microsoft.com/senderinsights https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-office-365/anti-spam-bulk-senders-insight https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-office-365/mdo-deployment-guide#step-2-configure-threat-policies https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-office-365/preset-security-policies#policy-settings-in-preset-security-policies https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-office-365/recommended-settings-for-eop-and-office365 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/07/17/transparency-on-microsoft-defender-for-office-365-email-security-effectiveness/ Anti-Phishing / Impersonation Tuning: Protect the people attackers actually spoof Business email compromise very often looks like this: “Hi, can you handle this payment today?” sent from an address that looks like your CFO or CEO. Microsoft Defender for Office 365 includes targeted impersonation protection, but it only really works if you target your most targeted executives. Here are five pitfalls we see over and over: Empty or stale VIP list Populate “users to protect / high value targets” with executives, finance approvers, legal, anyone authorized to move money or data. Review it monthly. Roles change, and you only get a finite number of protected users (for example, ~350 entries). An out-of-date list silently weakens protection for the people attackers actually impersonate. Phishing email threshold stuck at 1 forever We find organizations that are not using the preset policies have left their phishing threshold values at the default “1” because of initial false positives. We recommend raising it to match the Standard Preset (“3”) or Strict (“4”). Weak action If suspicious “CFO” mail just goes to Junk, users can still act on it. High-confidence impersonation of executives should be quarantined with AdminOnly or request-release workflows, not left in end-user control. Tie this back to the custom quarantine policies (discussed later in this article). Common-name overload If your CEO’s name is something extremely common, you’ll get noise. Expect it. Don’t “turn off” protection for that name — add that address to the Trusted Senders otherwise it will be blocked as an impersonation attempt. Use Trusted Senders / Trusted Domains for known-good partners and vendors so you keep protection high without drowning in alerts. Add only legitimate senders/domains to the Trusted Senders or Trusted Domains instead of lowering enforcement. No scheduled review This control can’t be “set and forget.” Put impersonation tuning and spoof intelligence review on a monthly checklist. That lets you catch new vendors pretending to be finance, new “urgent wire” lure patterns, and any drift from Standard / Strict baseline that Configuration analyzer will also call out. When done right, impersonation protection is not just “spam reduction.” It’s payment fraud prevention. Automated Investigation & Response (AIR): Let Defender remove malicious email before your SOC has to! One of the biggest wins you can land quickly is letting Microsoft Defender for Office 365 automatically remove clusters of malicious messages — without waiting for analyst approval on every single item. Here’s how it works. Defender’s Automated Investigation and Response (AIR) groups messages into “clusters” based on shared indicators like the same malicious URL or malicious file hash. If you opt in to automatic remediation for those cluster types, AIR will go find every matching copy of that threat across the tenant and soft-delete those messages, not just the one that triggered the alert. Why this matters: It turns post-delivery cleanup into something that happens immediately instead of “after Tier 1 has time to review.” It removes known-bad messages from user mailboxes (and related collaboration surfaces like Teams) before a target can click. It dramatically cuts the classic “Did anyone else get this?” manual hunt-and-purge work that burns out SOC analysts. When you configure AIR automation settings in the Microsoft Defender portal (Settings > Email & collaboration > MDO automation settings), you’ll see checkboxes for “Similar files” and “Similar URLs.” Selecting those opts you into automatic soft delete for those clusters. Today, soft delete is the default supported action for these automatic remediations, enabling administrators to undo a deletion, if necessary. This is Defender for Office 365 Plan 2 / Microsoft 365 E5 functionality, and it’s exactly the kind of “secure operations by default” Microsoft has been pushing: detect, contain, and clean up automatically, then let humans investigate with context instead of manually chasing every copy of a phish. This automation triggers when malicious clusters are detected. For automating the classification and triage of user-submitted phishing incidents, check out the Security Copilot Phishing Triage Agent (Preview). Additional Links: GA Announcement: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/-/auto-remediation-of-malicious-messages-in-automated/4418047 Docs: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-office-365/air-auto-remediation Final Thoughts Defender for Office 365 is more than “email filtering.” It’s part of your security operations surface. The decisions you make about automated remediation (AIR), bulk mail thresholds, Safe Links/Attachment behavior, outbound forwarding, connector hygiene, quarantine policy, and impersonation tuning directly determine how easy — or how hard — it is for an attacker to penetrate your organization. Microsoft’s current guidance is clear: Apply Standard or Strict preset security policies so users get the recommended protections by default (for example, Safe Links with no click-through). If you must use a custom policy, review the recommendations from the Configuration analyzer monthly for new recommendations, or to catch and correct drift whenever someone weakens a control. Align internal procedures with the excellent Security Operations Guide for Defender for Office 365. Lock down quarantine so only admins can release high-risk messages, with an auditable “request release” path for users. Turn on automated remediation so Defender can remove malicious clusters of messages before anyone clicks. Organizations that land these basics are in a dramatically better position during an incident. Instead of “Who clicked the link?” you can say, “AIR already pulled it, users were blocked from clicking through, outbound forwarding is disabled, and impersonation of the CFO is quarantined for admin review.” That’s what “secure by default” actually looks like in production. ________ This blog was authored by Joe Stocker, Microsoft Security MVP and Founder of Patriot Consulting Technology Group, in partnership with the Microsoft Defender for Office 365 product team, including Paul Newell, Senior Product Manager, Microsoft Defender for Office 365. Joe Stocker Microsoft Security MVP Learn More and Meet the Author 1) December 16th Ask the Experts Webinar: Microsoft Defender for Office 365 | Ask the Experts: Tips and Tricks (REGISTER HERE) DECEMBER 16, 8 AM US Pacific You’ve watched the latest Microsoft Defender for Office 365 best practices videos and read the blog posts by the esteemed Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals (MVPs). Now bring your toughest questions or unique situations straight to the experts. In this interactive panel discussion, Microsoft MVPs will answer your real-world scenarios, clarify best practices, and highlight practical tips surfaced in the recent series. We’ll kick off with a who’s who and recent blog/video series recap, then dedicate most of the time to your questions across migration, SOC optimization, fine-tuning configuration, Teams protection, and even Microsoft community engagement. Come ready with your questions (or pre-submit here) for the expert Security MVPs on camera, or the Microsoft Defender for Office 365 product team in the chat! REGISTER NOW for 12/16. 2) Additional MVP Tips and Tricks Blogs and Videos in this Four-Part Series: Microsoft Defender for Office 365: Migration & Onboarding by Purav Desai Safeguarding Microsoft Teams with Microsoft Defender for Office 365 by Pierre Thoor You may be right after all! Disputing Submission Responses in Microsoft Defender for Office 365 by Mona Ghadiri (This post) "Microsoft Defender for Office 365: Fine-Tuning" by Joe Stocker Learn and Engage with the Microsoft Security Community Log in and follow this Microsoft Defender for Office 365 blog and follow/post in the Microsoft Defender for Office 365 discussion space. Follow = Click the heart in the upper right when you're logged in 🤍 Learn more about the Microsoft MVP Program. Join the Microsoft Security Community and be notified of upcoming events, product feedback surveys, and more. Get early access to Microsoft Security products and provide feedback to engineers by joining the Microsoft Customer Connection Community. Join the Microsoft Security Community LinkedIn
Microsoft Ignite 2025: Transforming Phishing Response with Agentic Innovation
Phishing attacks remain one of the most persistent and damaging threats to organizations worldwide. Security teams are under constant pressure to investigate a growing number of user reported phishing emails daily, ensuring accurate verdicts and timely responses. As threats grow in volume and sophistication, SOC teams are forced to spend valuable time triaging and investigating, often at the expense of strategic defense and proactive threat hunting. At Microsoft Ignite 2025 we are delivering innovation that showcases our continued commitment to infuse AI agents, and agentic workflows into the core of our email security solution and SOC operations to automate repetitive tasks, accelerate investigations, and provide transparent, actionable insights for every reported phishing email. In addition, we continue to invest in our ecosystem partnerships to empower customers with seamless integrations, as they adopt layered security solutions to comply with regulatory requirements, enhance detection, and ensure robust protection. Today I’m excited to announce: General Availability of the Security Alert Triage Agent (previously named Phishing Triage Agent) Agentic Email Grading System in Microsoft Defender Cisco and VIPRE Security Group join the Microsoft Defender ICES ecosystem Note: The Phishing Triage Agent has since been expanded and is now called the Security Alert Triage Agent. Learn more at aka.ms/SATA The Security Alert Triage Agent is now generally available In March 2025, we introduced the Security Alert Triage Agent, designed to autonomously handle user-submitted phishing reports at scale. The agent classifies incoming alerts, resolves false positives, and escalates only the malicious cases that require human expertise. Today, we’re announcing its general availability. We will also be extending the agent to triage alerts for identity and cloud alerts. The Security Alert Triage Agent automates repetitive tasks, accelerates investigations, and every decision is transparent, allowing security teams to focus on what matters most—investigating real threats and strengthening the overall security posture. Early results prove how it is transforming analyst work: Identified 6.5X more malicious alerts Improved verdict accuracy by 77% Agent supported analysts spent 53% more time investigating real threats Agentic email grading: Advanced analysis of phishing email submissions When customers report suspicious messages to Microsoft, they expect clarity, speed, and actionable insights to protect their environment. They expect a response they can trust, understand easily, and take additional investigation and response action for the organization. Previously, when customers reported messages to Microsoft, our response depended largely on manual human grader reviews, creating delays and inconsistent verdicts. Customers often waited several hours for a response, and sometimes it lacked clarity on how a verdict was reached. Today, we are excited to announce that we integrated an agentic grading system into the Microsoft Defender submission analysis and response workflow when customers report phishing messages to Microsoft. Image 2: Agentic Email Grading: Advanced analysis of phishing email submissions The agentic grading system brings a new level of speed and transparency to phishing analysis. It uses large language models (LLMs) orchestrated within an agentic workflow to analyze phishing emails, assess the full content of a submitted email, and communicate context and related metadata. This system combines advanced AI with existing machine learning models and human review for additional levels of accuracy and transparency for decision making. Every verdict comes with higher quality, clear verdicts, and context-rich explanations tailored to each phishing email submission. Additionally, it establishes a feedback mechanism that enhances continuous learning and self-healing, thereby strengthening and optimizing protection over time. By reducing reliance on manual reviews, users will experience lower wait times, faster responses and higher-quality results. It will enable security teams to respond promptly and act confidently against phishing threats. Over time we plan to expand beyond phishing verdicts to include spam, scam, bulk, and clean classifications, making the process more comprehensive. The system will continue to evolve through feedback and adapt to emerging attack patterns. How to view agentic submission responses in Microsoft Defender When you report a suspicious email—whether as an admin or an end user—you can now see how Microsoft Defender’s new agentic grading system evaluates your submission. To view agentic grading system responses, follow the steps below: Report the suspicious email Submit the email through the admin submission or user-reported submission process. Sign in to Microsoft Defender Go to https://security.microsoft.com. Navigate to Submissions From the left menu, select: Investigation & response > Actions & submissions > Submissions. Choose the correct tab Emails for admin submissions User reported for user submissions Open the submission details Click the email submission you want to review. A flyout panel will display Result details. Look for the Agentic AI note If the verdict was generated by Agentic AI, you’ll see: “AI-generated content may be incorrect. Check it for accuracy.” Image 3: AI generated explainable verdicts Expanding the Integrated Cloud Email Security (ICES) ecosystem In June, we introduced the Microsoft Defender ICES vendor ecosystem, a unified framework that enables seamless integration of Microsoft’s Defender’s email security solution with trusted third-party vendors. Today we are excited to announce two new partners: Cisco and VIPRE Security Group. The addition of these partners to our ecosystem reinforces our ongoing commitment to support customers in their choice to strategically layer their email security solutions. Organizations benefit from a unified quarantine experience, and a deep integration across the various SOC experiences including threat explorer, advanced hunting, and the email entity page, while providing clear insight into detection efficacy of each solution. As we continue to innovate, our commitment remains steadfast: empowering defenders with intelligent, transparent, and integrated security solutions that adapt to the evolving threat landscape. By infusing agentic AI into every layer of Microsoft Defender, expanding our ecosystem of trusted partners, and delivering faster, more actionable insights, we’re helping organizations build resilience and stay ahead of attackers. Our strategy is rooted in delivering real value making security simpler, more effective, and adapted to the needs of every customer. Learn More: Want to know what else is new in Microsoft Defender at Ignite 2025 check out the blog here. For info on how to complete admin phish submissions, please see For end user reported phish submissions, you need to have it configured for reporting messages to Microsoft. Set it up today. Join us at Microsoft Ignite Join us at Microsoft Ignite to see these advancements in action and discover how intelligent, agentic defense is becoming accessible to every organization. Don’t miss our featured sessions: AI vs AI: Protect email and collaboration tools with Microsoft Defender on Thursday, November 20 th . Learn More. Microsoft Defender: Building the agentic SOC with guest Allie Mellen on Wednesday, November 19 th . Learn more. Empowering the SOC: Security Copilot and the rise of Agentic Defense on Friday, November 21 st . Learn more.Phishing Simulation Training with Teams?
Hey all, while setting up some Exchange Online Phishing Simulation Training, I saw the (greyd-out) option to use a teams payload when it comes to setting up a phishing simulation. I didnt find any very useful articles, why this is greyed out. Business Premium+ Defender and Purview Suite for BP is licensed. How do I set this up and configure it? Does this also support all types of attacks (Credital harvest, ...) I'd be happy for any recommendations! BR SchnittlauchEnable 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.Protect your organizations against QR code phishing with Defender for Office 365
QR code phishing campaigns have most recently become the fastest growing type of email-based attack. These types of attacks are growing and embed QR code images linked to malicious content directly into the email body, to evade detection. They often entice unwitting users with seemingly genuine prompts, like a password reset or a two-factor authentication request. Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is continuously adapting as threat actors evolve their methodologies. In this blog post we’ll share more details on how we’re helping defenders address this threat and keeping end-users safe.
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
