Microsoft Litigation Hold

The subject deliberately deletes emails - either sent, received, or both - with the intent to obstruct investigative visibility, remove evidence of policy violations, or eliminate traces of communication relevant to an insider event. While routine inbox maintenance is common, patterns of targeted deletion may indicate purposeful concealment.

The subject deploys destructive malware; software designed to irreversibly damage systems, erase data, or disrupt operational availability. Unlike ransomware, which encrypts files to extort payment, destructive malware is deployed with the explicit intent to delete, corrupt, or disable systems and assets without recovery. Its objective is disruption or sabotage, not necessarily for direct financial gain.

This behavior may include:

• Wiper malware (e.g. HermeticWiper, WhisperGate, ZeroCleare)
• Logic bombs or time-triggered deletion scripts
• Bootloader overwrite tools or UEFI tampering utilities
• Mass delete or format scripts (format, cipher /w, del /s /q, rm -rf)
• Data corruption utilities (e.g. file rewriters, header corruptors)
• Credential/system-wide lockout scripts (e.g. disabling accounts, resetting passwords en masse)

Insiders may deploy destructive malware as an act of retaliation (e.g. prior to departure), sabotage (e.g. to disrupt an investigation or competitor), or under coercion. Detonation may be manual or scheduled, and in some cases the malware is disguised as routine tooling to delay detection.

Destructive deployment is high-severity and often coincides with forensic tampering or precursor access based infringements (e.g. file enumeration or backup deletion).

A subject enables or uses a communication feature that automatically deletes messages after they are read, after a defined period, or when a conversation is closed, with the intention of reducing the communication evidence available to investigators.

The subject may use disappearing-message functionality within an approved corporate platform or through a non-corporate messaging application. Automatic deletion may be configured for an individual conversation, group, channel, workspace, or account. The subject may also change an existing conversation from persistent retention to temporary retention before exchanging information connected to an infringement.

This behavior differs from the manual deletion of corporate or non-corporate messages because the removal mechanism is established before or during the communication. Messages may disappear without a separate deletion action being performed after each message is sent.

Investigators should examine when the disappearing-message setting was enabled, who enabled it, the configured retention period, which participants were involved, and whether the setting was changed shortly before sensitive or suspicious communications occurred. The ordinary availability of an ephemeral messaging feature does not establish anti-forensic intent; classification should require evidence that the feature was deliberately used to reduce investigative visibility.

A subject deletes a substantial volume of messages, conversations, threads, channels, or communication history to remove or materially reduce the records available for investigation.

Bulk deletion may involve selecting and deleting multiple messages, repeatedly deleting individual messages within a short period, clearing an entire conversation, removing channel history, deleting archived communications, or using scripts, administrative tools, application programming interfaces, or automation to remove content at scale.

The behavior may occur after the subject becomes aware of an investigation, disciplinary process, access review, audit, legal dispute, or anticipated offboarding. It may also occur immediately before the subject conducts another infringement where prior communications could reveal planning, coordination, relationships, or intent.

The significance of bulk deletion should be assessed against the subject’s normal messaging activity, the amount of content removed, the time period affected, the platforms involved, and whether the deleted communications related to known subjects, external parties, sensitive projects, or active investigations.

Investigators should identify deletion event volume, timestamps, conversation identifiers, affected participants, client or application source, administrative actions, and any corresponding data preserved through retention or legal-hold systems.

A subject uses administrative, moderation, ownership, compliance, or delegated platform privileges to delete messages created by another subject or to remove communication records from a shared organizational environment.

The subject may delete individual messages, conversation threads, channel content, direct-message history, group discussions, or entire communication spaces. Because the subject acts through an elevated or delegated role, the deletion may affect evidence belonging to several participants and may remove communications that the original author could not delete themselves.

This behavior may be used to conceal improper instructions, remove evidence of collusion, suppress complaints, protect another subject, or interfere with an active investigation. The administrative action may appear legitimate where the subject normally manages inappropriate content, retention, moderation, or workspace administration.

Investigators should assess whether the deletion was supported by an approved moderation, legal, records-management, or operational requirement. Relevant evidence includes the administrative identity used, the original message author, affected participants, deletion reason, approval records, platform audit logs, retention configuration, and the relationship between the deleting subject and those whose messages were removed.

The use of administrative privileges alone does not establish anti-forensic conduct. Classification should require evidence that the deletion was unauthorized or intended to remove evidence relevant to an insider event.

A subject deletes a channel, group, workspace, conversation, mailbox folder, discussion board, or other communication container to remove the messages and associated context held within it.

Deleting a communication container may remove or obscure a larger body of evidence than deleting individual messages. The affected records may include message content, participant lists, timestamps, thread relationships, attachments, reactions, membership changes, and links to other organizational material.

The subject may delete the container after communications associated with an infringement have concluded, after participants have left the group, or after the subject becomes aware that the communication environment may be reviewed. They may also rename, archive, or move the container before deletion to make it more difficult to identify.

Investigators should establish who created, owned, administered, archived, and deleted the container; when the deletion occurred; which participants and messages were affected; and whether the activity followed an alert, complaint, investigation, or other relevant event. Platform audit records, retention systems, backups, legal holds, exports, and participant devices may allow the deleted content or surrounding metadata to be reconstructed.