IP Library Granted Patent US 12,255,861
Granted Patent B2
US 12,255,861 · App. 18/426,550 · Granted Mar 18, 2025

Misdirected email data loss prevention

Inventors: Shalini Kamalapuram Sundaram (Sunnyvale, CA); Chris Moores (Owen Sound, CA); Durgaprasad Velagaleti (Sunnyvale, CA); Srikanth Konjarla (Sunnyvale, CA); Harsh Doshi (Sunnyvale, CA)
Assignee: Proofpoint, Inc.
H04L51/23G06F21/606H04L51/21H04L51/42H04L51/56
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,255,861
App. No.
18/426,550
Granted
Mar 18, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Aspects of the disclosure relate to data loss prevention. A computing platform may detect input of a first target recipient domain into a first email message. The computing platform may identify, in real time and prior to sending the first email message, that the first target recipient domain is an unintended recipient domain instead of an intended recipient domain. The computing platform may identify, in real time and prior to sending the first email message, that the first email message violates one or more data loss prevention rules. Based on identifying the violation, the computing platform may send a notification that the first target recipient domain is flagged as an unintended recipient domain and one or more commands directing a user device of the message sender to display the notification.

Claims (85)

1. A computing platform, comprising:

at least one processor;

a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and

memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:

identify, using a user graph, a plurality of nearest neighbor recipients for a message sender of a first email message;

identify, using a decision tree model, that historical messages between the message sender and a first target recipient domain, included in the first email message, do not include a first level match of a context of the first email message by:

identifying that: a) the first target recipient domain corresponds to a user included in the plurality of nearest neighbor recipients, and b) the context of the first email message is a second level match with a context of one or more historical messages between the message sender and one or more of the plurality of nearest neighbor recipients, and

identifying, in real time and prior to sending the first email message, that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain;

identify, in real time and prior to sending the first email message, that the first email message violates one or more data loss prevention rules; and

based on identifying that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain and that the first email message violates the one or more data loss prevention rules, send a notification that the first target recipient domain is flagged as an unintended recipient domain and one or more commands directing a user device of the message sender to display the notification.

2. The computing platform of claim 1 , wherein identifying that the first email message violates the one or more data loss prevention rules comprises receiving a notification from a data loss prevention system, different than the computing platform, indicating that the first email message violates the one or more data loss prevention rules.

3. The computing platform of claim 1 , wherein the one or more data loss prevention rules comprise manually input rules defining message characteristics that, if identified, cause a corresponding email message to be flagged.

4. The computing platform of claim 1 , wherein the memory stores additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the computing platform to:

detect input of the first target recipient domain into the first email message; and

identify, in real time and prior to sending the first email message, that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain instead of an intended recipient domain, wherein identifying that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain instead of an intended recipient domain comprises analyzing, using the user graph and the decision tree model, an identity of the first target recipient domain and the context of the first email message, wherein analyzing the first email message using the user graph and the decision tree model comprises:

the identification, using the user graph, of the plurality of nearest neighbor recipients for the message sender of the first email message, and

the identification, using the decision tree model, that the historical messages between the message sender and the first target recipient domain, included in the first email message, do not include the first level match of the context of the first email message.

5. The computing platform of claim 4 , wherein identifying that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain instead of an intended recipient domain further comprises receiving a notification from a misdirected email system, different than the computing platform, indicating that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain.

6. The computing platform of claim 4 , wherein:

identifying that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain instead of an intended recipient domain further comprises applying one or more machine learning techniques, by the computing platform, to the first email message; and

identifying that the first email message violates the one or more data loss prevention rules comprises analyzing, by the computing platform, the first email message based on one or more data loss prevention rules stored at the computing platform.

7. The computing platform of claim 1 , wherein the memory stores additional computer readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the computing platform to:

detect input of a second target recipient domain into a second email message;

identify, in real time and prior to sending the second email message, that the second target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain instead of an intended recipient domain;

identify, in real time and prior to sending the second email message, that the second email message complies with each of the one or more data loss prevention rules; and

based on identifying that the second email message complies with each of the one or more data loss prevention rules, route the second email message to the unintended recipient domain.

8. The computing platform of claim 1 , wherein the memory stores additional computer readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the computing platform to:

detect input of a second target recipient domain into a second email message; and

identify, in real time and prior to sending the second email message, that the second target recipient domain comprises a second unintended recipient domain instead of a second intended recipient domain, wherein identifying that the second target recipient domain comprises the second unintended recipient domain instead of the second intended recipient domain comprises analyzing, using the user graph and the decision tree model, an identity of the second target recipient domain and a context of the second email message.

9. The computing platform of claim 8 , wherein analyzing the second email message using the user graph and the decision tree model comprises:

identifying, using the user graph, a plurality of nearest neighbor recipients for a message sender of the second email message;

identifying, using a plurality of machine learning models, a context of the second email message;

identifying whether historical messages between the message sender of the second email message and second target recipient domain include a first level match of the context of the second email message;

based on identifying that the historical messages between the message sender of the second email message and the second target recipient domain include the context of the second email message, identifying whether the second email message violates the one or more data loss prevention rules;

based on identifying that the historical messages between the message sender of the second email message and the second target recipient domain do not include the first level match of the context of the second email message:

identifying whether the second target recipient domain corresponds to a user included in the plurality of nearest neighbor recipients;

identifying whether the context of the second email message is a second level match with a context of one or more of historical messages between the message sender of the second email message and the nearest neighbor recipients;

based on identifying that: a) the second target recipient domain corresponds to a user included in the plurality of nearest neighbor recipients, and b) the context of the second email message is a second level match with a context of one or more of historical messages between the message sender of the second email message and the nearest neighbor recipients, sending a notification to the user device of the message sender of the second email message indicating that the second email message may be intended for a different recipient and prompting the message sender of the second email message to send the second email message or modify the second target recipient domain;

based on identifying that either: a) the second target recipient domain does not correspond to a user included in the plurality of nearest neighbor recipients, or b) the context of the second email message is not a second level match with a context of one or more of historical messages between the message sender of the second email message and the nearest neighbor recipients:

identifying, for each nearest neighbor recipient, a corresponding new plurality of nearest neighbor recipients;

identifying whether the second target recipient domain is a third level match with a user included in one or more of the new pluralities of nearest neighbor recipients;

based on identifying that the second target recipient domain is a third level match with a user included in the one or more of the new pluralities of nearest neighbor recipients, sending a notification to the user device of the message sender of the second email message indicating that the second email message may be intended for a different recipient and prompting the message sender to send the second email message or modify the second target recipient domain;

based on identifying that the second target recipient domain is not a third level match with a user included in the one or more of the new pluralities of nearest neighbor recipients:

if the context of the second email message was identified as a second level match with a context of the one or more historical messages between the message sender of the second email message and the nearest neighbor recipients, sending a notification to the user device of the message sender of the second email message indicating that the second email message may be intended for a different recipient and prompting the message sender of the second email message to send the second email message or modify the second target recipient domain, wherein the notification includes a spelling mistake recommendation indicating a difference between the second target recipient domain and one or more recipient domains of the second level match; and

if the context of the second email message was not identified as a second level match with a context of the one or more historical messages between the message sender of the second email message and the nearest neighbor recipients, sending a notification to the user device of the message sender of the second email message indicating that the second email message may be intended for a different recipient and prompting the message sender of the second email message to send the second email message or modify the second target recipient domain.

10. The computing platform of claim 9 , wherein the plurality of machine learning models includes: latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), named entity recognition (NER), and text summarization.

11. The computing platform of claim 10 , wherein the memory stores additional computer readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the computing platform to:

identify the context of the first email message, wherein identifying the context of the first email message comprises:

identifying, using the LDA, one or more topics in the first email message,

identifying, using the NER, one or more named entities in the first email message, and

identifying, using the text summarization, a predetermined number of most frequently used keywords in the first email message.

12. A method, comprising:

at a computing platform comprising at least one processor, a communication interface, and memory:

identifying, using a user graph, a plurality of nearest neighbor recipients for a message sender of a first email message;

identifying, using a decision tree model, that historical messages between the message sender and a first target recipient domain, included in the first email message, do not include a first level match of a context of the first email message by:

identifying that: a) the first target recipient domain corresponds to a user included in the plurality of nearest neighbor recipients, and b) the context of the first email message is a second level match with a context of one or more historical messages between the message sender and one or more of the plurality of nearest neighbor recipients, and

identifying, in real time and prior to sending the first email message, that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain;

identifying, in real time and prior to sending the first email message, that the first email message violates one or more data loss prevention rules; and

based on identifying that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain and that the first email message violates the one or more data loss prevention rules, sending a notification that the first target recipient domain is flagged as an unintended recipient domain and one or more commands directing a user device of the message sender to display the notification.

13. The method of claim 12 , wherein identifying that the first email message violates the one or more data loss prevention rules comprises receiving a notification from a data loss prevention system, different than the computing platform, indicating that the first email message violates the one or more data loss prevention rules.

14. The method of claim 12 , wherein the one or more data loss prevention rules comprise manually input rules defining message characteristics that, if identified, cause a corresponding email message to be flagged.

15. The method of 12 , further comprising:

detecting input of the first target recipient domain into the first email message; and

identifying, in real time and prior to sending the first email message, that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain instead of an intended recipient domain, wherein identifying that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain instead of an intended recipient domain comprises analyzing, using the user graph and the decision tree model, an identity of the first target recipient domain and the context of the first email message, wherein analyzing the first email message using the user graph and the decision tree model comprises:

the identification, using the user graph, the plurality of nearest neighbor recipients for the message sender of the first email message, and

the identification, using the decision tree model, that the historical messages between the message sender and the first target recipient domain, included in the first email message, do not include the first level match of the context of the first email message.

16. The method of claim 15 , wherein identifying that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain instead of an intended recipient domain further comprises receiving a notification from a misdirected email system, different than the computing platform, indicating that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain.

17. The method of claim 15 , wherein:

identifying that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain instead of an intended recipient domain further comprises applying one or more machine learning techniques, by the computing platform, to the first email message; and

identifying that the first email message violates the one or more data loss prevention rules comprises analyzing, by the computing platform, the first email message based on one or more data loss prevention rules stored at the computing platform.

18. The method of claim 12 , further comprising:

detecting input of a second target recipient domain into a second email message;

identifying, in real time and prior to sending the second email message, that the second target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain instead of an intended recipient domain;

identifying, in real time and prior to sending the second email message, that the second email message complies with each of the one or more data loss prevention rules; and

based on identifying that the second email message complies with each of the one or more data loss prevention rules, routing the second email message to the unintended recipient domain.

19. The method of claim 12 , further comprising:

detecting input of a second target recipient domain into a second email message; and

identifying, in real time and prior to sending the second email message, that the second target recipient domain comprises a second unintended recipient domain instead of a second intended recipient domain, wherein identifying that the second target recipient domain comprises the second unintended recipient domain instead of the second intended recipient domain comprises analyzing, using the user graph and the decision tree model, an identity of the second target recipient domain and a context of the second email message.

20. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a computing platform comprising at least one processor, a communication interface, and memory, cause the computing platform to:

identify, using a user graph, a plurality of nearest neighbor recipients for a message sender of a first email message;

identify, using a decision tree model, that historical messages between the message sender and a first target recipient domain, included in the first email message, do not include a first level match of a context of the first email message by:

identifying that: a) the first target recipient domain corresponds to a user included in the plurality of nearest neighbor recipients, and b) the context of the first email message is a second level match with a context of one or more historical messages between the message sender and one or more of the plurality of nearest neighbor recipients, and

identifying, in real time and prior to sending the first email message, that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain;

identify, in real time and prior to sending the first email message, that the first email message violates one or more data loss prevention rules; and

based on identifying that the first target recipient domain comprises an unintended recipient domain and that the first email message violates the one or more data loss prevention rules, send a notification that the first target recipient domain is flagged as an unintended recipient domain and one or more commands directing a user device of the message sender to display the notification.

Assignments (3)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT SUPPLEMENT Recorded Dec 9, 2025
From: PROOFPOINT, INC.
To: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 073910/0027 →
SECOND LIEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECURITY AGREEMENT Recorded Dec 8, 2025
From: PROOFPOINT, INC.
To: U.S. BANK TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 073889/0677 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Dec 9, 2024
From: SUNDARAM, SHALINI KAMALAPURAM; MOORES, CHRIS; VELAGALETI, DURGAPRASAD; KONJARLA, SRIKANTH; DOSHI, HARSH
To: PROOFPOINT, INC.
Reel/Frame 069525/0910 →
Continuity (3)
Continuation 17834902 · Jun 7, 2022
Provisional Application 63208481 · Jun 8, 2021
Related Publication 20240171536A1 · May 23, 2024
References Cited (83)
US 6671718B1 · Meister · 2003 [cited by examiner]
US 7249175B1 · Donaldson · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 7499976B2 · Cato · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 7970834B2 · Daniels · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 8185592B2 · Christensen · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 8250160B2 · Hirota · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 8769022B2 · Tivyan · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 8892672B1 · Rackliffe · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 9137048B2 · Tokuda · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 9378487B2 · Meister · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 9406048B2 · Meister · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 9418238B2 · Ito · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 10560412B2 · Smith · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10614364B2 · Krumm · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10862838B1 · Bodapati · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10868787B2 · Bishop · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 11088982B1 · Agarwal · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 11943193B2 · Sundaram · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 12021817B2 · Sundaram · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20050278430A1 · Cato · 2005 [cited by examiner]
US 20070005702A1 · Tokuda · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20070226300A1 · Smith · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20110055334A1 · Tivyan · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20120011192A1 · Meister · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 20120180134A1 · Coughtrey · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 20130060863A1 · D'Eri · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20130110955A1 · Brady et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140007182A1 · Qureshi · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20150312197A1 · Dong · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20160308814A1 · Meister · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20170076217A1 · Krumm · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20170351855A1 · Allen · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20180131805A1 · Byrne · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20190281004A1 · White · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190364001A1 · Dotan-Cohen et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200053035A1 · Mukherjee et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200059447A1 · Bahar · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200137110A1 · Tyler · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200151620A1 · Chao · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20210126944A1 · Lesperance · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210286633A1 · Bar-On et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20220239633A1 · Dupont · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20220394007A1 · Sundaram · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20220394008A1 · Sundaram · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20240171536A1 · Sundaram · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20240291792A1 · Sundaram · 2024 [cited by examiner]
WO 2022046029A1 · 2022 [cited by applicant]
Andrew Disney :“Social network analysis 101: centrality measures explained” Jan. 2, 2020, https://cambridge-intelligence.com/keylines-faqs-social-network-analysis/. [cited by applicant]
T.H. Haveliwala: “Topic-Sensitive Page Rank”: A Context-Sensitive Ranking Algorithm for Web Search https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/˜pxt/IDA/topic_pagerank.pdf IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 15, No. … [cited by applicant]
Farshad Rabib:“University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Resear ennessee Research and Cr ch and Creative Exchange. Supplier Ranking System and its Effect on the Reliability of the Supply Chain” Dec. 2020 https… [cited by applicant]
Daniel Fogaras et al.: “Towards Scaling Fully Personalized Page Rank: Algorithms, Lower Bounds, and Experiments” Internet Mathematics vol. 2 No.3 333-358, https://projecteuclid.org/journals/internet-mathematics/volume-2… [cited by applicant]
Bahman Bahmani et al.: “Fast Incremental and Personalized PageRank” http://snap.stanford.edu/class p. 173-184. [cited by applicant]
Jianshu Weng et al.: Singapore Management University. Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. Research Collection School of Information Systems. Feb. 2010. https://ink.library.smu.edu. [cited by applicant]
J Weng et al.: “Singapore Management University” Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University, Feb. 2010. https://www.cs.cornell.edu/˜bindel//blurbs/edge. [cited by applicant]
Xiaoming Liu et al.: “Co-Authorship Networks in the Digital Library Research Community”Preprint submitted to Elsevier Science. Feb. 1, 2008. https://arxiv.org. [cited by applicant]
Rada Tarau: TextRank: Bringing Order into Texts Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau Department of Computer Science University of North Texas, https://web.eecs.umich.edu/˜mihalcea/papers/mihalcea.emnlp04.pdf. [cited by applicant]
Gartner, Market Guide for Email Security, Oct. 7, 2021, Mark Harris, Peter Firstbrook, Ravisha Chugh, Mario de Boer https://wiki.proofpoint.com/wiki/display/SOLENG/Misdirected+Email. [cited by applicant]
Baeza-Yates, R et al.: Jun. 1996 “A faster algorithm for approximate string matching”. In Dan Hirchsberg; Gene Myers (eds.). Combinatorial Pattern Matching (CPM'96), LNCS 1075. Irvine, CA. pp. 1-23. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.42.… [cited by applicant]
Sergey Brin et al.: “The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 30 1998 107-117. Published 1998 , by http://www.cse.fau.edu/xqzhu/courses/cap6777/google.search.engine… [cited by applicant]
Neo4j Graph Data Science Graph Algorithms Centrality PageRank 2022 https://neo4j.com/docs/graph-data-science/current/algorithms/page-rank/. [cited by applicant]
Neo4j Graph Data Science Graph Algorithms Centrality. 2022. https://neo4j.com/docs/graph-data-science/current/algorithms/centrality/. [cited by applicant]
Spark 3.2.1:“GraphX Programming Guide” https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/graphx-programming-guide.html#pagerank. [cited by applicant]
Spark 1.6.1 Quick Start “Interactive Analysis with the Spark Shell” https://spark.apache.org/docs/1.6.1/api/java/org/apache/spark/graphx/lib/PageRank.html. [cited by applicant]
Briggsby “Personalized Page Rank with Edge Weights” Feb. 23, 2021 by Justin https://www.briggsby.com/personalized-pagerank. [cited by applicant]
Mimecast vs Proofpoint https://hq-stash.corp.proofpoint.com/projects/SOLUENG/repos/mde-email-poc-workspace/browse/mde-engine-service. [cited by applicant]
Pranay Chandekar: “Evaluate your Recommendation Engine using NDCG” Jan. 13, 2020 https://towardsdatascience.com/evaluate-your-recommendation-engine-using-ndcg-759a851452d1. [cited by applicant]
Stephen E. Robertson et al. “Okapi BM25” 1970s and 1980 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi_BM25. [cited by applicant]
Algorithm used by Google Search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank. [cited by applicant]
Christopher J.C. Burges et al. : “Learning to Rank with Nonsmooth Cost Functions” https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/lambdarank.pdf. [cited by applicant]
Chris Burges et al.: “Learning to Rank using Gradient Descent” https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2005/08/icml_ranking.pdf. [cited by applicant]
Ying Ding: “Applying weighted Page Rank to author citation networks” https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1760.pdf. [cited by applicant]
Lars Backstrom et al. : Supervised Random Walks: “Predicting and Recommending Links in Social Networks” https://cs.stanford.edu/˜jure/pubs/linkpred-wsdm11.pdf. [cited by applicant]
B. Gao, T.-Y.Liu, W. Wei, T. Wang, and H. Li. Semi-supervised ranking on very large graphs with rich metadata. In KDD, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Pnkaj Gupta et al.: “WTF: The Who to Follow Service at Twitter” http://www.vldb.org/conf/2004/RS15P2.PDF. [cited by applicant]
Very Large Data Bases Endowment Inc.; hosted by Bluehost; May 28, 2021; http://www.vldb.org/conf/2004/RS15P2.PDF. [cited by applicant]
Cite Seer X The College of Information Sciences and Technology; https://;http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/index; 2016. [cited by applicant]
Standford University ;https://stanford.edu/˜rezab/papers/wtf_overview.pdf Mar. 27, 2019. [cited by applicant]
Feb. 14, 2023—(US) Non Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 17/834,902. [cited by applicant]
Jun. 29, 2023—(US) Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 17/834,902. [cited by applicant]
Oct. 25, 2023—(US) Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 17/834,887. [cited by applicant]
Nov. 13, 2023—(US) Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 17/834,902. [cited by applicant]
Feb. 12, 2024—(US) Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 17/834,887. [cited by applicant]
Sep. 30, 2024—(US) Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 18/660,423. [cited by applicant]