Uncovering Hidden Risks in Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace Email Encryption

Anyone who has ever trusted Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace with their most sensitive information—especially in regulated fields like healthcare—may want to pause and reconsider that trust after reading Paubox’s new report. Titled “How Microsoft and Google Put PHI at Risk,” the investigative analysis alleges a fundamental, under-recognized weakness in the world’s most widely used cloud email providers: encryption failures that leave users’ data dangerously exposed. The findings shake up widely held assumptions about the gold-standard status of Google and Microsoft, upending their marketing narratives while pressing urgent questions about compliance, risk, and the meaning of “default security” in the cloud era.

Revisiting the Illusion of Email Encryption​

The Ubiquity—and the Blind Spots—of Cloud Email​

Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace are nearly ubiquitous in the enterprise and public sector. They underpin communication for organizations ranging from Fortune 500 giants to small clinics, from fintech upstarts to global law firms. Of particular note is their prevalence in healthcare—a sector where privacy regulations such as HIPAA, and the imperative to safeguard Protected Health Information (PHI), make email security non-negotiable.
Both platforms promote robust security features, boasting end-to-end encryption options, high-assurance authentication, and an ostensible commitment to regulatory compliance. For countless IT and compliance teams, the implicit promise has been clear: if you use Microsoft or Google, your sensitive emails—sometimes containing patient details, legal records, or trade secrets—will be protected in transit and at rest. That promise is often echoed in procurement checklists, regulatory filings, and public trust.
But the new Paubox report undermines this reassurance, revealing that—under real-world, but by no means rare, conditions—both giants’ encryption guarantees can silently fail, allowing emails (and their sensitive contents) to be transmitted using obsolete encryption or even delivered in cleartext, with no notification or visible log for sender or recipient.

Anatomy of the Flaw: What Paubox Discovered​

The Paubox research team conducted a series of controlled experiments designed to mimic what happens when email is sent from Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace to an outdated, noncompliant, or poorly configured server. This is not just a hypothetical scenario: healthcare is infamous for its patchwork digital infrastructure, with many clinics, labs, and service providers clinging to legacy systems or integrating with third-party vendors of uncertain security posture.
Here’s what the Paubox team found:

• Google Workspace: When unable to negotiate strong encryption with a receiving server, Google will fall back on obsolete protocols—such as TLS 1.0 or 1.1—that are explicitly banned by the NSA and modern security standards. These protocols have well-publicized vulnerabilities and are considered functionally equivalent to sending an unencrypted email in terms of attack surface.
• Microsoft 365: In certain scenarios where encryption cannot be negotiated, Microsoft 365 doesn’t just fall back gracefully—it delivers messages in cleartext, that is, fully unencrypted. This leaves email contents fully visible to anyone able to intercept traffic in transit—as on public Wi-Fi, compromised routers, or at vulnerable ISPs.
• Lack of Transparency: In both cases, neither sender nor recipient received a bounce, warning, or alert about the encryption failure. The only evidence of degraded (or absent) security was buried deep in the email header metadata—a location almost no end user or busy admin will routinely examine.
• No Audit Trail: There was no log entry or audit event visible through standard administrative portals that would notify IT that sensitive information was delivered in cleartext, further compounding the risk.

Paubox’s tests were neither esoteric nor convoluted; they put the platforms through exactly the workflows that cybersecurity best-practices would recommend—yet both failed to enforce a “fail closed” policy for encryption. Instead, the services opted for silent, “best effort” delivery, prioritizing successful message transmission over strict, non-negotiable security.

Technical Context and Independent Verification​

Paubox’s report draws immediate resonance with external recommendations from leading security authorities. Both the NSA and the IETF (via RFC 8996) have issued clear guidance: obsolete TLS versions “MUST NOT be used” in any context where sensitive information traverses a network. In their 2021 guidance, the NSA directly cautioned: “Using obsolete encryption provides a false sense of security because it seems as though sensitive data is protected, even though it really is not.” This isn’t mere pedantry; practical attacks against TLS 1.0 and 1.1 have been observed for over a decade, and automated tools for decrypting traffic using these protocols are easily found online.
External reviews and advisory opinions back up the seriousness of this flaw, drawing attention to the systemic nature of encryption downgrade attacks and the insufficiency of fallback mechanisms that deliver sensitive material in cleartext or weakly encrypted form. Despite the multitude of compliance checklists referencing email encryption, in the current model neither Google nor Microsoft can guarantee that such encryption will always be enforced—especially at the boundaries of the cloud, where one party is operating older or nonstandard mail server equipment.
Furthermore, healthcare compliance is not the only issue. As more regulated industries—including finance, law, and government—move sensitive communications into Microsoft and Google’s cloud, any silent downgrading or decryption dramatically increases the risk of regulatory violations, potential legal action, and reputational damage.

Implications for Compliance and Risk Management​

Failures of Notification and Audit​

Perhaps the most damning aspect highlighted by Paubox is the utter lack of notification or robust logging when encryption fails. In regulated industries, incident detection, response, and documentation are cornerstones of acceptable risk posture. If an email containing PHI or Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is transmitted unencrypted, and the organization is never warned, it has no opportunity to remediate, report, or learn from the event.
This is a critical gap. It means that IT and compliance teams, who may have passed all required training, checked all available system indicators, and believed they were in compliance, could in fact have a long trail of unprotected sensitive data exposures—none of which were ever visible in their monitoring dashboards.
Moreover, standard third-party tools and secure email gateways offer limited protections in these edge cases. Unless message security headers are actively audited (a process that is both labor-intensive and unreliable at scale), the failures remain hidden.

Why “Best Effort Encryption” Falls Short​

Microsoft and Google’s approach—often labeled as “opportunistic” or “best effort” TLS—is built around the idea that encryption should be used wherever possible, but should not block message delivery if a secure connection cannot be negotiated. It is easy to understand why product teams might prioritize guaranteed delivery and user convenience over risk of message loss. For many years, such compromises may have been acceptable.
Yet, in a world of sophisticated adversaries and rising regulatory pressure, this model is outdated. When handling PHI, financial records, or legal disclosures, strict “encryption or nothing” is an industry norm. Numerous compliance frameworks now stipulate that sensitive messages must not only be sent securely, but that any failure to do so must trigger an immediate notification, an audit event, or the outright rejection of the message.
Without such safeguards, unsuspecting organizations are left exposed. Emails may flow smoothly, support tickets may remain silent, dashboards may stay green—and yet confidential data might already be in the wild, ripe for interception by state actors, cybercriminals, or insider threats.

Real-World Risks: How Often Can This Happen?​

The Fragmented Infrastructure Dilemma​

The scenario Paubox tested is far from academic. Digital infrastructure in healthcare and many other sectors is notoriously fragmented. Legacy mail servers abound, vendor integrations often lag behind current security best practices, and even major partner organizations may unknowingly operate on outdated software, creating a patchwork of varying risk levels.
Google and Microsoft’s platforms regularly send (and receive) enormous volumes of mail to and from external domains outside the tightly managed cloud envelope. Unless every destination server is fully compliant with the latest encryption standards, the risk of downgrade or cleartext delivery is real—and, due to lack of alerting, essentially invisible to the sender.

Attack Vectors and Adversarial Risks​

The most direct risk is that of passive eavesdropping. Any entity able to access the network path—whether a rogue coffee shop Wi-Fi access point, an upstream ISP, or an unscrupulous employee at an intermediary provider—can capture cleartext emails or intercept weakly encrypted messages.
Additionally, adversaries can seek out or create vulnerable endpoints explicitly to exploit this flaw. A targeted attacker can configure a server that intentionally refuses modern TLS, forcing a fallback to older protocols or cleartext, and collect any messages sent to it—even if only one party in a large organization makes a typo in an address or forwards a sensitive chain to a noncompliant vendor.

Regulatory Fallout​

HIPAA, the GDPR, and similar regulatory frameworks have clear provisions requiring both encryption and incident awareness. Organizations may be liable not only for the transmission of unencrypted data, but for not knowing that such transmission occurred, since the absence of auditing or alerting is itself a failure of duty-of-care. The silent nature of these encryption failures means the risk is both ongoing and retrospective: years’ worth of data could have already been compromised.

Strengths and Weaknesses by Design​

What Microsoft and Google Do Well​

• Ubiquity and Integration: Both cloud platforms offer exceptional convenience, interoperability, and management, supporting enormous ecosystems of business users. Their security teams have demonstrated capability and agility in responding to well-publicized bugs and zero-day vulnerabilities, especially when such issues become publicly known.
• Best-Practice Defaults (Mostly): By default, both providers now require secure (HTTPS/TLS) connections for user access, enforce modern authentication, and have made significant investments in spam, phishing, and malware protection. Their scale enables best-in-class threat intelligence and rapid updates in the event of major vulnerabilities.
• Layered Security Features: Microsoft and Google invest heavily in compliance toolkits and in providing plug-in data loss prevention (DLP), identity management, and threat analytics systems that allow informed customers to tailor security postures to their risk appetite.

And Where They Fall Short​

• Silent Encryption Failures: The most critical weakness, per Paubox, is the total lack of notification, audit trails, or default enforcement when email encryption cannot be negotiated. The fact that this situation can occur without so much as a warning banner or administrative alert is damning.
• Obsolete Protocol Downgrade: Google still supports TLS 1.0/1.1, and Microsoft will deliver in cleartext under specific but not rare conditions. Both behaviors directly contravene current NSA and IETF recommendations.
• User and Admin Blindness: While sophisticated admins might ferret out encryption status in header logs, this is well beyond the capacity (or expected responsibility) of most users and even many IT teams.
• Compliance Misalignment: The actual behavior of these platforms lags well behind what most compliance regimes expect—or what marketing claims may imply.
• Absence of Default “Fail-Closed” Posture: Rather than rejecting non-encrypted transmissions, the platforms err on the side of delivery, leading to best-effort security rather than strict enforcement.

Comparative Industry View: Is Anyone Getting This Right?​

Paubox’s report implicitly promotes its own platform as a solution—one that for regulatory reasons must strictly enforce encryption, reject unprotected messages, and document exceptions for compliance review. While readers should consider the source’s commercial interests, the specifics of their control group experiments and the alignment with independent security standards lend credibility to the technical critique.
By contrast, recent reviews of other secure email gateway products and major cloud providers reflect a growing awareness that, while perimeter security is strong, cross-platform and backward compatibility decisions can undermine the overall posture. Even so-called “secure” business messaging solutions—including those marketed for compliance—can fail under pressure to integrate with older external systems, or when vendor lock-in leads to overlooked downgrade paths.

What Should IT and Compliance Teams Do Next?​

Paubox’s Recommendations​

The report’s guidance is direct: IT and compliance leaders must:

• Stop assuming that encryption “just works” simply because a provider claims as much.
• Actively test and verify encryption between senders and recipients—especially when working across boundaries between modern cloud platforms and older or third-party infrastructure.
• Review actual header information from sample messages delivered under different test conditions to confirm real-world encryption status.
• Push vendors for greater transparency, auditability, and a guaranteed “fail-closed” model where message delivery is not permitted unless encryption is enforced.

The company goes so far as to include annotated examples of message headers to help non-security experts identify evidence of downgrade or cleartext transmission—an education that could prove vital to protecting sensitive data.

Independent Best Practices​

Security experts outside Paubox echo many of these recommendations. Establishing a comprehensive data loss prevention (DLP) and monitoring strategy that encompasses email journeys both inside and outside the cloud perimeter is critical. Organizations should audit for anomalous mail delivery patterns, systematically test for encryption failures, and consider third-party enforcing gateways for sensitive data.
Where possible, settings should be configured to reject or at least quarantine non-encrypted inbound or outbound messages. Administrators should regularly review all policies and exception logs, push for transparency from vendors, and escalate critical audit events up the chain of accountability. In regulated industries, legal counsel should be directly consulted about corrective reporting in the event past data may have been sent unprotected.

Looking Forward: Time for a Culture Shift in Cloud Security?​

The Larger Context​

The failures detailed by Paubox reflect an all-too-common pattern in modern cloud security: robust central controls are weakened or bypassed by edge cases, legacy integration, or the inertia of backward compatibility. With cybercrime growing ever more industrialized, enterprises face unprecedented pressures not simply to secure their own infrastructure, but to enforce policy and vigilance across complex, extended digital supply chains.

Pressure on Microsoft and Google​

If Paubox’s findings reach critical adoption among IT buyers, they may force Microsoft, Google, and other cloud titans to reassess their opacity, upgrade or disable legacy protocol support, and implement more robust detection and alerting mechanisms. For now, however, the burden remains on customers to verify, test, and validate what their suppliers only promise.

Conclusion: Trust, But Verify​

The Paubox report does the ecosystem a vital service by translating an arcane, technical flaw into an actionable wake-up call for every organization relying on Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace for sensitive email. The core insight is not merely technical: it is cultural and operational. “Default” security is not always sufficient, and marketing claims often omit the devil in the operational details. Without firm enforcement, transparency, and active verification, even the biggest names in cloud computing can become unwitting enablers of risk.
Organizations handling regulated or sensitive data should act now—inspecting, testing, and demanding clarity regarding email encryption—not after the next breach or regulator’s audit. In the cloud era, trust is mandatory, but verification isn’t just optional; it’s survival.

---

Source: Business Wire Paubox Report Exposes Encryption Failures by Microsoft and Google That Put Users at Risk