Phishing simulation results

Identifies phishing simulation results patterns in security and access control contexts. Detects potential exposure of sensitive security information in international systems.

Type

regex

Engine

boost_regex

Confidence

medium

Confidence justification

structural regex with domain-specific anchors and constrained context replaces phrase-only marker. Added context gating and exclusion rules improve precision and reduce incidental matches.

Detection quality

Mixed

Jurisdictions

global

Regulations

GDPR

Data categories

credentials, security

Scope

wide

Platform compatibility

Purview: Compatible, GCP DLP: Compatible, Macie: Compatible, Zscaler: Compatible, Palo Alto: Degraded, Netskope: Unsupported

Pattern

(?is)\b(?:phishing\s+simulation|campaign\s+results|click\s+rate|report\s+phish)\b

Corroborative evidence keywords

phishing simulation results, phishing, simulation, results, security, operations, threat, data

Proximity: 300 characters

Should match

• Phishing simulation results — Exact phrase marker match
• phishing simulation results — Case-insensitive phrase match
• Phishing simulation results — Normalized whitespace phrase
• structured sample with matching anchors — Structural anchor sample

Should not match

• unrelated generic text — No relevant phrase context
• placeholder value 12345 — Random text should not match phrase marker
• generic policy prose without anchors — Should reject generic mentions without structural anchor terms
• template example placeholder record identifier — Template/sample context should be excluded even when anchor words are present

Known false positives

• Authentication-related terminology in software documentation, security training materials, or system architecture descriptions without actual credentials. Mitigation: Require proximity to credential-specific patterns (API keys, connection strings, tokens) rather than general security terminology.
• Code snippets and configuration examples containing credential-related keywords or placeholder values in developer documentation. Mitigation: Check for common placeholder patterns (example.com, localhost, 0000) and documentation file types to reduce false positives from technical writing.

References

• https://www.cyber.gov.au/resources-business-and-government/essential-cyber-security/ism
• https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2018A00029/latest/text
• https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-guidance-for-organisations-and-government-agencies/preventing-preparing-for-and-responding-to-data-breaches/data-breach-preparation-and-response
• https://handbook.apra.gov.au/standard/cps-234