Microsoft Exchange 2016 Edge Transport Server Security Technical Implementation Guide

Email system availability depends in part on best practices strategies for setting tuning. This configuration controls the number of idle minutes before the connection is dropped. It works in conjunction with the Maximum Inbound Connections Count setting. Connections, once established, may incur delays in message transfer. If the timeout period is too long, there is risk that connections may be maintained for unnecessarily long time periods, preventing new connections from being established.

To mitigate the risk of unauthorized access to sensitive information by entities that have been issued certificates by DoD-approved PKIs, all DoD systems (e.g., networks, web servers, and web portals) must be properly configured to incorporate access control methods that do not rely solely on the possession of a certificate for access. Successful authentication must not automatically give an entity access to an asset or security boundary. Authorization procedures and controls must be implemented to ensure each authenticated entity also has a validated and current authorization. Authorization is the process of determining whether an entity, once authenticated, is permitted to access a specific asset. Information systems use access control policies and enforcement mechanisms to implement this requirement. Access control policies include identity-based policies, role-based policies, and attribute-based policies. Access enforcement mechanisms include access control lists, access control matrices, and cryptography. These policies and mechanisms must be employed by the application to control access between users (or processes acting on behalf of users) and objects (e.g., devices, files, records, processes, programs, and domains) in the information system. This requirement is applicable to access control enforcement applications (e.g., authentication servers) and other applications that perform information and system access control functions.

Exchange may be configured to accept email for multiple domain names. This setting identifies the domains for which the server will accept mail. This check verifies the email server is not accepting email for unauthorized domains.

Attackers can use automated messages to determine whether a user account is active, in the office, traveling, and so on. An attacker might use this information to conduct future attacks. Ensure Automatic Forwards to remote domains are disabled, except for enterprise email that must be restricted to forward-only to .mil and .gov. domains. Before enabling this setting, first configure a remote domain.

The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) connector is used by Exchange to send and receive messages from server to server. Several controls work together to provide security between internal servers. This setting controls the authentication method used for communications between servers. With this feature enabled, messages can be securely passed from a partner domain securely. The use of secure communication prevents eavesdroppers from reading or modifying communications between mail clients and servers. While sensitive message bodies should be encrypted by the sender at the client, requiring a secure connection from server to server adds protection by encrypting the sender and recipient information that cannot be encrypted by the sender. Individually, channel security and encryption can be compromised by attackers. Used together, email becomes a more difficult target, and security is heightened. Failure to enable this feature gives eavesdroppers an opportunity to read or modify messages between servers.

Log files help establish a history of activities and can be useful in detecting attack attempts or determining tuning adjustments to improve availability. Diagnostic logging, however, characteristically produces large volumes of data and requires care in managing the logs to prevent risk of disk capacity denial of service conditions. Exchange diagnostic logging is broken up into 29 main "services", each of which has anywhere from 2 to 26 "categories" of events to be monitored. Moreover, each category may be set to one of four levels of logging: Lowest, Low, CAT II, and High, depending on how much detail one desires. The higher the level of detail, the more disk space required to store the audit material. Diagnostic logging is intended to help administrators debug problems with their systems, not as a general-purpose auditing tool. Because the diagnostic logs collect a great deal of information, the log files may grow large very quickly. Diagnostic log levels may be raised for limited periods of time when attempting to debug relevant pieces of Exchange functionality. Once debugging has finished, diagnostic log levels should be reduced again.

A connectivity log is a record of the SMTP connection activity of the outbound message delivery queues to the destination mailbox server, smart host, or domain. Connectivity logging is available on Hub Transport servers and Edge Transport servers. By default, connectivity logging is disabled. If events are not recorded, it may be difficult or impossible to determine the root cause of system problems or the unauthorized activities of malicious users. Note: Transport configuration settings apply to the organization/global level of the Exchange SMTP path. By checking and setting them at the Hub server, the setting will apply to both Hub and Edge roles.

Monitors are automated "process watchers" that respond to performance changes and can be useful in detecting outages and alerting administrators where attention is needed. Exchange has built-in monitors that enable the administrator to generate alerts if thresholds are reached, better enabling them to react in a timely fashion. This field offers choices of alerts when a "warning" or "critical" threshold is reached on the SMTP queue. A good rule of thumb (default) is to issue warnings when SMTP queue growth exceeds 10 minutes and critical messages when it exceeds 20 minutes, which should only exist occasionally. Frequent alerts against this counter may indicate a network or other issue (such as inbound SPAMMER traffic) that directly impacts email delivery. Notification choices include email alert to an email-enabled account (e.g., an email Administrator) or invoke a script to take other action (e.g., to add an Event to the Microsoft Application Event Log, where external monitors might detect it).

It is detrimental for applications to provide, or install by default, functionality exceeding requirements or mission objectives. These unnecessary capabilities or services are often overlooked and therefore may remain unsecured. They increase the risk to the platform by providing additional attack vectors. Applications are capable of providing a wide variety of functions and services. Some of the functions and services, provided by default, may not be necessary to support essential organizational operations (e.g., key missions, functions). Examples of non-essential capabilities include, but are not limited to, advertising software or browser plug-ins not related to requirements or providing a wide array of functionality not required for every mission, but cannot be disabled. All system errors in Exchange will result in outbound traffic that may be identified by an eavesdropper. For this reason, the "Report Fatal Errors to Microsoft" feature must be disabled.

Log files help establish a history of activities and can be useful in detecting attack attempts or determining tuning adjustments to improve availability. Audit log content must always be considered sensitive and in need of protection. Audit data available for modification by a malicious user can be altered to conceal malicious activity. Audit data might also provide a means for the malicious user to plan unauthorized activities that exploit weaknesses. The contents of audit logs are protected against unauthorized access, modification, or deletion. Only authorized auditors and the audit functions should be granted read and write access to audit log data.

It is detrimental for applications to provide, or install by default, functionality exceeding requirements or mission objectives. These unnecessary capabilities or services are often overlooked and therefore may remain unsecured. They increase the risk to the platform by providing additional attack vectors. Applications are capable of providing a wide variety of functions and services. Some of the functions and services, provided by default, may not be necessary to support essential organizational operations (e.g., key missions, functions). Examples of non-essential capabilities include, but are not limited to, advertising software or browser plug-ins not related to requirements or providing a wide array of functionality not required for every mission, but cannot be disabled. Customer Experience reports in Exchange will result in outbound traffic that may be identified by an eavesdropper. For this reason, the Customer Experience reports to Microsoft must not be sent.

Log files help establish a history of activities and can be useful in detecting attack attempts or determining tuning adjustments to improve availability. Audit log content must always be considered sensitive and in need of protection. Audit data available for modification by a malicious user can be altered to conceal malicious activity. Audit data might also provide a means for the malicious user to plan unauthorized activities that exploit weaknesses. The contents of audit logs are protected against unauthorized access, modification, or deletion. Only authorized auditors and the audit functions should be granted read and write access to audit log data.

Log files help establish a history of activities and can be useful in detecting attack attempts or determining tuning adjustments to improve availability. Audit log content must always be considered sensitive and in need of protection. Audit data available for modification by a malicious user can be altered to conceal malicious activity. Audit data might also provide a means for the malicious user to plan unauthorized activities that exploit weaknesses. The contents of audit logs are protected against unauthorized access, modification, or deletion. Only authorized auditors and the audit functions should be granted read and write access to audit log data.

Log files help establish a history of activities and can be useful in detecting attack attempts or determining tuning adjustments to improve availability. Audit log content must always be considered sensitive and in need of protection. Successful exploit of an application server vulnerability may well be logged by monitoring or audit processes when it occurs. Writing log and audit data to a separate partition where separate security contexts protect them may offer the ability to protect this information from being modified or removed by the exploit mechanism.

Scripts, especially those downloaded from untrusted locations, often provide a way for attackers to infiltrate a system. By setting machine policy to prevent unauthorized script executions, unanticipated system impacts can be avoided.

When identifying a "Smart Host" for the email environment, a logical Send connector is the preferred method. A Smart Host acts as an Internet-facing concentrator for other email servers. Appropriate hardening can be applied to the Smart Host, rather than at multiple locations throughout the enterprise. Failure to identify a Smart Host could default to each email server performing its own lookups (potentially through protective firewalls). Exchange servers should not be Internet facing and should therefore not perform any Smart Host functions. When the Exchange servers are Internet facing, they must be configured to identify the Internet-facing server that is performing the Smart Host function.

The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) connector is used by Exchange to send and receive messages from server to server. Several controls work together to provide security between internal servers. This setting controls the authentication method used for communications between servers. With this feature enabled, only servers capable of supporting domain authentication will be able to send and receive mail within the domain. The use of secure communication prevents eavesdroppers from reading or modifying communications between mail clients and servers. While sensitive message bodies should be encrypted by the sender at the client, requiring a secure connection from server to server adds protection by encrypting the sender and recipient information that cannot be encrypted by the sender. Individually, channel security and encryption can be compromised by attackers. Used together, email becomes a more difficult target, and security is heightened. Failure to enable this feature gives eavesdroppers an opportunity to read or modify messages between servers.

Sending unencrypted email over the Internet increases the risk that messages can be intercepted or altered. TLS is designed to protect confidentiality and data integrity by encrypting email messages between servers and thereby reducing the risk of eavesdropping, interception, and alteration. This setting forces Exchange to offer TLS before using basic authentication.

Email system availability depends in part on best practice strategies for setting tuning configurations. This configuration controls the number of idle minutes before the connection is dropped. It works in conjunction with the Maximum Outbound Connections Count setting. Connections, once established, may incur delays in message transfer. The default of 10 minutes is a reasonable window in which to resume activities without maintaining idle connections for excessive intervals. If the timeout period is too long, idle connections may be maintained for unnecessarily long time periods, preventing new connections from being established. Sluggish connectivity increases the risk of lost data. A value of 10 or less is optimal.

Email system availability depends in part on best practice strategies for setting tuning configurations. This configuration controls the maximum number of simultaneous outbound connections from a domain and works in conjunction with the Maximum Outbound Connections Count setting as a delivery tuning mechanism. If the limit is too low, connections may be dropped. If the limit is too high, some domains may use a disproportionate resource share, denying access to other domains. Appropriate tuning reduces the risk of data delay or loss. By default, a limit of 20 simultaneous outbound connections from a domain should be sufficient. The value may be adjusted if justified by local site conditions.

Email system availability depends in part on best practice strategies for setting tuning configurations. This setting controls the maximum number of hops (email servers traversed) a message may take as it travels to its destination. Part of the original Internet protocol implementation, the hop count limit prevents a message from being passed in a routing loop indefinitely. Messages exceeding the maximum hop count are discarded undelivered. Recent studies indicate that virtually all messages can be delivered in fewer than 60 hops. If the hop count is set too low, messages may expire before they reach their destinations. If set too high, an undeliverable message may cycle between servers, raising the risk of network congestion.

Email system availability depends in part on best practice strategies for setting tuning configurations. This configuration controls the maximum number of recipients who will receive a copy of a message at one time. This tunable value is related to throughput capacity and can enable the ability to optimize message delivery. Note: There are two types of default Receive connecters: "Client Servername" accepts SMTP connections from all non-MAPI clients, such as POP and IMAP. As POP and IMAP are not authorized for use in DoD, these should not be present. Their default value for MaxRecipientsPerMessage is 200. "Default Servername" accepts connections from other mailbox servers and any Edge Transport servers. Their default value for MaxRecipientsPerMessage is 5000.

By performing filtering at the perimeter, up to 90 percent of spam, malware, and other undesirable messages are eliminated from the message stream rather than admitting them into the mail server environment. Anonymous email (messages with blank sender fields) cannot be replied to. Messages formatted in this way may be attempting to hide their true origin to avoid responses or to spam any receiver with impunity while hiding their source of origination. Rather than spend resources and risk infection while evaluating them, it is recommended that these messages be filtered immediately upon receipt and not forwarded to end users.

By performing filtering at the perimeter, up to 90 percent of spam, malware, and other undesirable messages are eliminated from the message stream rather than admitting them into the mail server environment. Anonymous email (messages with blank sender fields) cannot be replied to. Messages formatted in this way may be attempting to hide their true origin to avoid responses or to spam any receiver with impunity while hiding their source of origination. Rather than spend resources and risk infection while evaluating them, it is recommended that these messages be filtered immediately upon receipt and not forwarded to end users.

By performing filtering at the perimeter, up to 90 percent of spam, malware, and other undesirable messages are eliminated from the message stream rather than admitting them into the mail server environment. This significantly reduces the attack vector for inbound email-borne spam and malware. As messages are filtered, it is prudent to temporarily host them in an archive for evaluation by administrators or users. The archive can be used to recover messages that might have been inappropriately filtered, preventing data loss, and to provide a base of analysis that can provide future filter refinements.

Spam origination sites and other sources of suspected email-borne malware have the ability to corrupt, compromise, or otherwise limit availability of email servers. Limiting exposure to unfiltered inbound messages can reduce the risk of spam and malware impacts. The Global Deny list blocks messages originating from specific sources. Most blacklist filtering is done using a commercial Block List service, because eliminating threats from known spammers prevents the messages being evaluated inside the enclave where there is more risk they can do harm. Additional sources should also be blocked to supplement the contents of the commercial Block List service. For example, during a zero-day threat action, entries can be added and then removed when the threat is mitigated. An additional best practice is to enter the enterprise’s home domains in the Deny List, because inbound email with a "from" address of the home domain is very likely to be spoofed spam.

Spam originators, in an effort to refine mailing lists, sometimes use a technique where they first create fictitious names and then monitor rejected emails for non-existent recipients. Those not rejected are deemed to exist and are used in future spam mailings. To prevent this disclosure of existing email accounts to spammers, email to nonexistent recipients must not be blocked. Instead, it is recommended that all messages be received, then evaluated and disposed of without enabling the sender to determine existent vs. nonexistent recipients.

By performing filtering at the perimeter, up to 90 percent of spam, malware, and other undesirable messages are eliminated from the message stream rather than admitting them into the mail server environment. Sender Reputation is antispam functionality that blocks messages according to many characteristics of the sender. Sender Reputation relies on persisted data about the sender to determine what action, if any, to take on an inbound message. This setting enables the Sender Reputation function.

By performing filtering at the perimeter, up to 90 percent of spam, malware, and other undesirable messages are eliminated from the message stream rather than admitting them into the mail server environment. Sender Reputation is antispam functionality that blocks messages according to many characteristics of the sender. Sender Reputation relies on persisted data about the sender to determine what action, if any, to take on an inbound message. This setting enables the threshold at which an email will be considered spam.

By performing filtering at the perimeter, up to 90 percent of spam, malware, and other undesirable messages are eliminated from the message stream rather than admitting them into the mail server environment. Attachments are being used more frequently for different forms of attacks. By filtering undesirable attachments, a large percent of malicious code can be prevented from entering the system. Attachments must be controlled at the entry point into the email environment to prevent successful attachment-based attacks. The following is a basic list of known attachments that should be filtered from Internet mail attachments: *.ade *.crt *.jse *.msi *.scr *.wsh *.dir *.adp *.csh *.ksh *.msp *.sct *.htm *.dcr *.app *.exe *.lnk *.mst *.shb *.html *.plg *.asx *.fxp *.mda *.ops *.shs *.htc *.spl *.bas *.hlp *.mdb *.pcd *.url *.mht *.swf *.bat *.hta *.mde *.pif *.vb *.mhtml *.zip *.chm *.inf *.mdt *.prf *.vbe *.shtm *.cmd *.ins *.mdw *.prg *.vbs *.shtml *.com *.isp *.mdz *.reg *.wsc *.stm *.cpl *.js *.msc *.scf *.wsf *.xml

By performing filtering at the perimeter, up to 90 percent of spam, malware, and other undesirable messages may be eliminated from the transport message stream, preventing their entry into the Exchange environment. This significantly reduces the attack vector for inbound email-borne spam and malware. Spam Evaluation filters scan inbound email messages for evidence of spam and other attacks that primarily use "social engineering" techniques. Upon evaluation completion, a rating is assigned to each message estimating the likelihood of its being spam. Upon arrival at the destination mailbox, the junk mail filter threshold (also configurable) determines whether the message will be withheld from delivery, delivered to the junk mail folder, or delivered to the user’s inbox.

Block List filtering is a sanitization process performed on email messages prior to their arrival at the destination mailbox. By performing this process at the email perimeter, threats can be eliminated outside the enclave, where there is less risk for them to do harm. Block List services (sometimes called Reputation Data services) are fee-based data providers that collect the IP addresses of known spammers and other malware purveyors. Block List service subscribers benefit from more effective spam elimination. (Spam is estimated to compose up to 90 percent of inbound mail volume.) Failure to specify a Block List provider risks that manual email administration effort would be needed to maintain and update larger Block Lists than a single email site administrator could conveniently or accurately maintain. The Block List service vendor provides a value for this field, usually the Domain Name System (DNS) suffix for its domain.

Sender Identification (SID) is an email antispam sanitization process. Sender ID uses DNS MX record lookups to verify the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) sending server is authorized to send email for the originating domain. Failure to implement Sender ID risks that spam could be admitted into the email domain that originates from rogue servers. Most spam content originates from domains where the IP address has been spoofed prior to sending, thereby avoiding detection. For example, messages with malformed or incorrect "purported responsible sender" data in the message header could be (best case) created by using RFI noncompliant software but is more likely to be spam.

Email system availability depends in part on best practice strategies for setting tuning configurations. Careful tuning reduces the risk that system or network congestion will contribute to availability impacts. Filters that govern inbound email evaluation can significantly reduce spam, phishing, and spoofed emails. Messages from blank senders, known spammers, or zero-day attack modifications must be enabled to be effective.

Tarpitting is the practice of artificially delaying server responses for specific Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) communication patterns that indicate high volumes of spam or other unwelcome messages. The intent of tarpitting is to slow down the communication process for spam batches to reduce the cost effectiveness of sending spam and thwart directory harvest attacks. A directory harvest attack is an attempt to collect valid email addresses from a particular organization so the email addresses can be added to a spam database. A program can be written to collect email addresses that return a "Recipient OK" SMTP response and discard all email addresses that return a "User unknown" SMTP response. Tarpitting makes directory harvest attacks too costly to automate efficiently.

This control is used to limit the servers that may use this server as a relay. If a Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP) sender does not have a direct connection to the Internet (for example, an application that produces reports to be emailed), it will need to use an SMTP Receive connector that does have a path to the Internet (for example, a local email server) as a relay. SMTP relay functions must be protected so third parties are not able to hijack a relay service for their own purposes. Most commonly, relay hijacking is done by spammers to disguise the source of their messages and may also be used to cover the source of more destructive attacks. Relays can be restricted in one of three ways: by blocking relays (restrict to a blank list of servers); by restricting use to lists of valid servers; or by restricting use to servers that can authenticate. Because authenticated connections are the most secure for SMTP Receive connectors, it is recommended that relays allow only servers that can authenticate.

Email system availability depends in part on best practice strategies for setting tuning configurations. Careful tuning reduces the risk that system or network congestion will contribute to availability impacts. Filters that govern inbound email evaluation can significantly reduce spam, phishing, and spoofed emails. Filters for messages from blank senders, known spammers, or zero-day attack modifications must be enabled to be effective. Having items identified in the Allow List causes other spam evaluation steps to be bypassed and therefore should be used only with an abundance of caution. If spammers were to learn of entries in the Allow List, it could enable them to plan a denial of service attack (or other attack) by spoofing that source.

Email system availability depends in part on best practice strategies for setting tuning configurations. Careful tuning reduces the risk that system or network congestion will contribute to availability impacts. Filters that govern inbound email evaluation can significantly reduce spam, phishing, and spoofed emails. Filters for messages from blank senders, known spammers, or zero-day attack modifications must be enabled to be effective. Having items identified in the Allow List causes other spam evaluation steps to be bypassed and therefore should be used only with an abundance of caution. If spammers were to learn of entries in the Allow List, it could enable them to plan a denial of service attack (or other attack) by spoofing that source.

Email system availability depends in part on best practices strategies for setting tuning configurations. Careful tuning reduces the risk that system or network congestion will contribute to availability impacts. Filters that govern inbound email evaluation can significantly reduce spam, phishing, and spoofed emails. Filters for messages from blank senders, known spammers, or zero-day attack modifications must be enabled to be effective. Failure to enable the filter will result in no action taken. This setting should always be enabled.

Originators of spam messages are constantly changing their techniques in order to defeat spam countermeasures; therefore, spam software must be constantly updated to address the changing threat. Spam protection mechanisms include, for example, signature definitions, rule sets, and algorithms. Exchange 2016 provides both antispam and antimalware protection out of the box. The Exchange 2016 antispam and antimalware product capabilities are limited but still provide some protection.

Originators of spam messages are constantly changing their techniques in order to defeat spam countermeasures; therefore, spam software must be constantly updated to address the changing threat. Spam protection mechanisms include, for example, signature definitions, rule sets, and algorithms. Exchange 2016 provides both antispam and antimalware protection out of the box. The Exchange 2016 antispam and antimalware product capabilities are limited but still provide some protection.

Originators of spam messages are constantly changing their techniques in order to defeat spam countermeasures; therefore, spam software must be constantly updated to address the changing threat. A manual update procedure is labor intensive and does not scale well in an enterprise environment. This risk may be mitigated by using an automatic update capability. Spam protection mechanisms include, for example, signature definitions, rule sets, and algorithms. Exchange 2016 provides both antispam and antimalware protection out of the box. The Exchange 2016 antispam and antimalware product capabilities are limited but still provide some protection.

Email is only as secure as the recipient. When the recipient is an email server accepting inbound messages, authenticating the sender enables the receiver to better assess message quality and to validate the sending domain as authentic. One or more authentication techniques used in combination can be effective in reducing spam, phishing, and forger attacks. The Sender ID Framework (SIDF) receiver accesses specially formatted DNS records (SPF format) that contain the IP address of authorized sending servers for the sending domain that can be compared to data in the email message header. Receivers are able to validate the authenticity of the sending domain, helping to avoid receiving inbound messages from phishing or other spam domains.

Default product installations may provide more generous access permissions than are necessary to run the application. By examining and tailoring access permissions to more closely provide the least amount of privilege possible, attack vectors that align with user permissions are less likely to access more highly secured areas.

Exchange software, as with other application software installed on a host system, must be included in a system baseline record and periodically reviewed; otherwise, unauthorized changes to the software may not be discovered. This effort is a vital step to securing the host and the applications, as it is the only method that may provide the ability to detect and recover from otherwise undetected changes, such as those that result from worm or bot intrusions. The Exchange software and configuration baseline is created and maintained for comparison during scanning efforts. Operational procedures must include baseline updates as part of configuration management tasks that change the software and configuration.

Unneeded but running services offer attackers an enhanced attack profile, and attackers are constantly watching to discover open ports with running services. By analyzing and disabling unneeded services, the associated open ports become unresponsive to outside queries, and servers become more secure as a result. Exchange Server has role-based server deployment to enable protocol path control and logical separation of network traffic types. For example, a server implemented in the Client Access role (i.e., Outlook Web App [OWA]) is configured and tuned as a web server using web protocols. A client access server exposes only web protocols (HTTP/HTTPS), enabling system administrators to optimize the protocol path and disable all services unnecessary for Exchange web services. Similarly, servers created to host mailboxes are dedicated to that task and must operate only the services needed for mailbox hosting. (Exchange servers must also operate some web services, but only to the degree that Exchange requires the IIS engine in order to function). Because POP3 and IMAP4 clients are not included in the standard desktop offering, they must be disabled.

In the same way that added security layers can provide a cumulative positive effect on security posture, multiple applications can provide a cumulative negative effect. A vulnerability and subsequent exploit to one application can lead to an exploit of other applications sharing the same security context. For example, an exploit to a web server process that leads to unauthorized administrative access to the host system can most likely lead to a compromise of all applications hosted by the same system. Email services should be installed on a partition that does not host other applications. Email services should never be installed on a Domain Controller/Directory Services server.

Automated connection responses occur as a result of FTP or Telnet connections when connecting to those services. They report a successful connection by greeting the connecting client and stating the name, release level, and (often) additional information about the responding product. While useful to the connecting client, connection responses can also be used by a third party to determine operating system or product release levels on the target server. The result can include disclosure of configuration information to third parties, paving the way for possible future attacks. For example, when querying the SMTP service on port 25, the default response looks similar to this one: 220 exchange.mydomain.org Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service, Version: 6.0.3790.211 ready at Wed, 2 Feb 2005 23:40:00 -0500 Changing the response to hide local configuration details reduces the attack profile of the target.

The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) connector is used by Exchange to send and receive messages from server to server. Several controls work together to provide security between internal servers. This setting controls the encryption method used for communications between servers. With this feature enabled, only servers capable of supporting Transport Layer Security (TLS) will be able to send and receive mail within the domain. The use of secure communication prevents eavesdroppers from reading or modifying communications between mail clients and servers. While sensitive message bodies should be encrypted by the sender at the client, requiring a secure connection from server to server adds protection by encrypting the sender and recipient information that cannot be encrypted by the sender. Individually, channel security and encryption can be compromised by attackers. Used together, email becomes a more difficult target, and security is heightened. Failure to enable this feature gives eavesdroppers an opportunity to read or modify messages between servers.

The organization (including any contractor to the organization) must promptly install security-relevant software updates (e.g., patches, service packs, hot fixes). Flaws discovered during security assessments, continuous monitoring, incident response activities, or information system error handling must also be addressed.

Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to anti-virus and malware detection software. In order to minimize potential negative impact to the organization that can be caused by malicious code, it is imperative that malicious code is identified and eradicated. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, trojan horses, and spyware. It is not enough to simply have the software installed; this software must periodically scan the system to search for malware on an organization-defined frequency. This requirement applies to applications providing malicious code protection.

Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to anti-virus and malware detection software. In order to minimize potential negative impact to the organization that can be caused by malicious code, it is imperative that malicious code is identified and eradicated. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, trojan horses, and spyware. It is not enough to simply have the software installed; this software must periodically scan the system to search for malware on an organization-defined frequency. This requirement applies to applications providing malicious code protection.

Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to anti-virus and malware detection software. In order to minimize potential negative impact to the organization that can be caused by malicious code, it is imperative that malicious code is identified and eradicated. Applications providing this capability must be able to perform actions in response to detected malware. Responses include blocking, quarantining, deleting, and alerting. Other technology- or organization-specific responses may also be employed to satisfy this requirement. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, trojan horses, and spyware. This requirement applies to applications providing malicious code protection.

Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to anti-virus and malware detection software. In order to minimize potential negative impact to the organization that can be caused by malicious code, it is imperative that malicious code is identified and eradicated. Applications providing this capability must be able to perform actions in response to detected malware. Responses include blocking, quarantining, deleting, and alerting. Other technology- or organization-specific responses may also be employed to satisfy this requirement. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, trojan horses, and spyware. This requirement applies to applications providing malicious code protection.

Malicious code includes viruses, worms, trojan horses, and spyware. The code provides the ability for a malicious user to read from and write to files and folders on a computer's hard drive. Malicious code may also be able to run and attach programs, which may allow the unauthorized distribution of malicious mobile code. Once this code is installed on endpoints within the network, unauthorized users may be able to breach firewalls and gain access to sensitive data. This requirement applies to applications providing malicious code protection. Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to, anti-virus and malware detection software. Malicious code protection mechanisms (including signature definitions and rule sets) must be updated when new releases are available.

Malicious code includes viruses, worms, trojan horses, and spyware. The code provides the ability for a malicious user to read from and write to files and folders on a computer's hard drive. Malicious code may also be able to run and attach programs, which may allow the unauthorized distribution of malicious mobile code. Once this code is installed on endpoints within the network, unauthorized users may be able to breach firewalls and gain access to sensitive data. This requirement applies to applications providing malicious code protection. Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to, anti-virus and malware detection software. Malicious code protection mechanisms (including signature definitions and rule sets) must be updated when new releases are available.

Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to, anti-virus and malware detection software. In order to minimize potential negative impact to the organization that can be caused by malicious code, it is imperative that malicious code is identified and eradicated. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, trojan horses, and spyware. It is not enough to simply have the software installed; this software must periodically scan the system to search for malware on an organization-defined frequency. Exchange's built-in Malware Agent is not designed to address all malicious code protection workloads. This workload is best handled by third-party anti-virus and intrusion prevention software. Site must utilize an approved DoD scanner. Exchange Malware software has a limited scanning capability and does not scan files that are downloaded, opened, or executed.

Malicious code protection mechanisms include, but are not limited, to, anti-virus and malware detection software. In order to minimize potential negative impact to the organization that can be caused by malicious code, it is imperative that malicious code is identified and eradicated. Malicious code includes viruses, worms, trojan horses, and spyware. It is not enough to simply have the software installed; this software must periodically scan the system to search for malware on an organization-defined frequency. Exchange's built-in Malware Agent is not designed to address all malicious code protection workloads. This workload is best handled by third-party anti-virus and intrusion prevention software. Site must utilize an approved DoD scanner. Exchange Malware software has a limited scanning capability and does not scan files that are downloaded, opened, or executed.