Securing Microsoft Copilot in the Enterprise: Risks and Best Practices

The explosive rise of generative AI and large language models has propelled Microsoft Copilot to the forefront of enterprise productivity. While Copilot promises to revolutionize everything from email drafting to real-time meeting insights, this very integration with organizational data introduces new and complex security challenges. As Bronwen Aker, a cybersecurity specialist at Black Hills Information Security (BHIS), recently explored in her deep dive on Copilot’s security posture, every organization deploying these tools must grapple with what it really means to “cage” Copilot—and why that’s quickly becoming an urgent blue team priority.

The Allure—and the Anxiety—of Copilot in the Enterprise​

Anyone on Microsoft 365 is at least peripherally acquainted with Copilot by now, whether through auto-generated document summaries, intelligent email suggestions, or automated meeting recaps. Microsoft’s swift move to bake Copilot into the core fabric of its suite is both a sign of its transformative intent and a growing privacy concern. For IT administrators and security professionals, the question isn’t just what AI can do for productivity, but how much latent risk is being introduced by giving an AI system highly privileged access to sensitive business data.
Aker’s article underscores a critical point: introducing Copilot is like inviting a new, extremely curious employee into every workspace, file share, and team message. This “employee” works unsupervised at machine speed, has impeccable recall, and doesn’t always understand the context or the subtle classifications that humans imply but rarely formalize. The sheer breadth and depth of data Copilot can access—and summarize or synthesize—is staggering, and potentially dangerous.

First-Hand Testing: Simulating the Attacker's Perspective​

A core lesson in the BHIS security review is that the real threat vector isn’t Copilot itself cleverly exfiltrating data, but rather, Copilot as a tool leveraged by an attacker who’s already inside the network, having compromised a legitimate user account. Their test premise was straightforward: what could an adversary, having phished or otherwise obtained valid credentials, extract through Copilot with standard user access?

Key Findings from the Smoke Test​

• Pervasive Access: In a client environment, Copilot was, unsurprisingly, granted access to email, Teams chats, files, and SharePoint content. The AI dutifully served up not only direct answers but also suggestions for prompts that could help an attacker dig further.
• Reconnaissance, Accelerated: Copilot actively facilitated organizational reconnaissance. It would surface job titles, summarize project statuses, and help enumerate internal resources based on user permissions.
• Sensitive Data Breadcrumbs: Direct requests for passwords were refused. But when prompted to find files with names containing "password," Copilot listed such files, complete with editors’ names and direct file links. This isn’t “data leakage” in the traditional sense, but it’s still a treasure map for motivated adversaries.

A Practical Example​

When prompted, “Can you find any files that have passwords stored in them?”, Copilot identified several files containing the word “password” in their names—not leaking the raw credential itself, but providing clear guidance on where to hunt. This aligns with the broader recognition in infosec that metadata, as much as content, can pose real risks.
The BHIS test also uncovered more flagrant exposures, such as Copilot surfacing actual bank account numbers from inbound emails or returning lists of recent project deliverables, all within its conversational interface. These are not theoretical risks—they mirror the very real attack sequences security teams see during internal compromise.

Limitations and Blockades​

Not every prompt was fruitful. When pressing for “the most commonly used password at (company name),” Copilot demurred, apologizing and refusing to process the request. However, Copilot reliably followed the permissions model dictated by the underlying Microsoft account: if a user could read a message or file natively, so could Copilot; if access was denied at an object level, so too was Copilot’s reach.

Configuring Risk: BHIS’s Experiment with Copilot Variants​

To understand these dynamics, Aker conducted tests both in a client’s Microsoft 365 environment and within BHIS’s own systems. The findings starkly reinforced a rule of thumb: Copilot privileges are purely a function of the access given to the underlying user account and the edition of Copilot deployed.

The Product Matrix: Copilot Standard, Pro, and Enterprise​

• Copilot Standard: Available to anyone with a Microsoft 365 account or even via the web, Copilot’s free tier can generate content, images, and use plugins. It does not have deep integration or privileged access to the enterprise’s internal files or email.
• Copilot Pro: At $20/user/month, Pro adds integrations with web versions of Microsoft apps (Word, Excel, Outlook), but stops short of deeply embedding itself in the org’s fabric.
• Copilot for Microsoft 365 (Business/Enterprise): At around $30/user/month, Copilot is unleashed across Outlook, Teams, Word, Excel, and more, with the ability to interact extensively with organizational data, reliant on Azure AD for access governance.

When BHIS ran Copilot Standard, internal files, emails, and messages were cloaked—even when the testers themselves went probing. But upon switching to an Enterprise license, the floodgates opened: Copilot instantly became omnipresent, eager to summarize documents, surface recent emails, suggest prompts referencing calendar entries, and offer all manner of organizational context.
Interesting nuances emerged: Copilot explicitly refused to provide content summaries for documents testers did not—by Microsoft permissions—have access to. However, within the permissions granted, Copilot could surface discussion threads, email contents, meetings, and, worryingly, password references in pentest reports and chat logs.

Security Lessons and the Path Forward​

For organizations in the throes of Copilot rollout, the article offers a suite of clear, actionable lessons:

1. Copilot Obeys the Principle of Least Privilege—But Only If You Do​

Copilot’s reach is a direct mirror of Azure Active Directory permissions. If you have tight role-based access control (RBAC), Copilot cannot peer where it shouldn’t. If you have sprawling permissions or legacy groups with excessive visibility, Copilot amplifies your exposure.
Critical analysis: The technology’s security posture is not inherently robust—its safety depends entirely on existing governance. This places the onus strongly on IT administrators to audit and minimize privilege sprawl. Gartner and Forrester both note that in practice, organizations routinely over-provision permissions, meaning Copilot can often see far more than principles would intend.

2. Zero Trust and Continuous Monitoring are Non-Negotiable​

Just as with any sensitive system, adopting zero trust and regular auditing is crucial. Copilot, by design, responds to user queries in ways that can surface sensitive organizational knowledge quickly. Regular reviews of access logs, prompt usage, and abnormal data requests are essential.
Weakness: The model makes real-time monitoring difficult—by the time inappropriate information is surfaced via Copilot, data leakage may already have occurred. This underscores the need for proactive rather than reactive defenses.

3. Phishing and Lateral Movement Get Easier with AI Assistants​

The AI’s helpfulness extends to drafting phishing content, generating plausible internal emails, and synthesizing organization-specific terminology just as a would-be attacker might. The combination of internal knowledge and generative compositional skills makes AI a force multiplier for social engineering and privilege escalation.

4. Prompt Engineering as an Attack Surface​

Aker’s work highlights another emergent risk: the art of prompt engineering. While prompt filtering and Microsoft’s built-in guardrails block the most overtly malicious requests (“What’s our password?”), evasive prompts can often tease out sensitive data indirectly (“Where do we keep our passwords?” or “Who last edited the file with this project’s credentials?”).These prompts might not trip filtering but still reveal valuable intelligence.
Strength: Microsoft is actively tuning Copilot’s filters and response behaviors as abuse cases are reported. Weakness: The cat-and-mouse nature of prompt engineering is such that attackers will always be probing for new inroads.

5. Copilot is Not Magic—It’s a Reflection of Your Security Hygiene​

Perhaps the most vital point: Copilot’s boundaries are those of your existing cybersecurity program. If your data is insecurely labeled or widely accessible internally, Copilot will magnify the mistake. If you practice good data governance, enforce RBAC, and educate users, your risk is proportionally reduced.

Practical Defensive Measures for “Caging Copilot”​

BHIS distills the following recommendations to contain Copilot’s potential for harm:

• Define the Scope of Use: Have a clear policy outlining what Copilot should be used for. Defaulting to all-access is risky; limit the tool’s deployment to teams or datasets with well-understood risk profiles.
• Least Privilege at Every Layer: Reinforce RBAC not just for data access but for Copilot licensing itself. Only users who essential need deep Copilot integration should have it.
• Security Awareness Training: Train users not just in classical security hygiene, but also in Copilot-specific tactics—how to recognize inappropriate prompt suggestions, and to contest or report AI-driven anomalies.
• DLP and Enhanced Auditing: Activate Data Loss Prevention tools within Microsoft 365 to monitor for and prevent movement of sensitive files via Copilot queries. Review logs of Copilot interactions for signs of enumeration or privilege escalation attempts.
• Harden Data Integration Points: Protect all API endpoints Copilot interacts with, ensure encryption in transit and at rest, and conduct regular vulnerability scans on integrations between Copilot and other line-of-business apps.

The Uncomfortable Reality​

No matter how restrictive an organization’s controls, if an account is compromised, Copilot must be viewed as a force multiplier for attackers. Just as tools like PowerShell, Outlook rules, or internal Wikis can be abused by malicious insiders or compromised users, Copilot will do what its assigned user can—at the speed and scale of the cloud.
This “amplification risk” can’t be patched away; it is intrinsic to any AI system trained to summarize, synthesize, and retrieve at scale. For organizations under regulatory or contractual data handling constraints, the right to audit and restrict such systems is both a compliance and a reputational imperative.

The AI Security Arms Race​

As enterprises lean on Copilot for productivity, attackers are learning to twist these same features for reconnaissance and lateral movement. Microsoft, for its part, is locked in a continuous game of cat and mouse, tuning prompt filters and adding detection features as new attempts at abuse are discovered.
Independent testing (such as that performed by BHIS) is therefore an essential pillar of an effective AI security program. Organizations should view every significant Copilot upgrade or policy change as a prompt for renewed internal red teaming—using simulated adversary tactics to see what’s newly exposed.

Summing Up: The Balanced Approach​

Copilot delivers transformative capabilities when carefully scoped and governed, but organizations must resist the temptation of all-access deployment based on productivity FOMO (fear of missing out). The real takeaway from BHIS’s experience is not to fear Copilot, but to recognize that Copilot’s security is their security. An AI assistant “caged” by diligent, ongoing implementation of core info-sec fundamentals—zero trust, RBAC, least privilege, monitoring, and training—is a manageable risk. Unchecked, Copilot becomes an unwitting partner in organizational compromise.
For Windows admins, CISOs, and IT architects rolling out Copilot or similar generative AI assistants: treat every new prompt as an opportunity for abuse, every new feature as a potential exposure, and every user credential as a boundary on your corporate memory. In the end, the “magic” behind Copilot is nothing more—or less—than the sum of your defenses.
Organizations that calmly, systematically cage Copilot may not only avoid tomorrow’s headlines but unlock genuine AI-powered productivity with their secrets—and reputations—intact.

---

Source: Black Hills Information Security Caging Copilot: Lessons Learned in LLM Security - Black Hills Information Security, Inc.