I guess if you haven't done any DLP yet, but are looking for something, and have a CP infrastructure, it might be a good thing to look at. Seems to me like a lot of first cuts - the basic stuff is there, but there's still plenty to be done. What's good is that they are already on the RoadMap, so CP realises both of these are essential. Ditto support for common IM protocols, although to a lesser extent these can be controlled. I see SSL intercept as key here, without this there's too much legitimate traffic that would need to be blocked to ensure the effectiveness of the solution. The good thing is that it is on the Roadmap - the risk is that without being aware of the gaps, it might lead to a false sense of security about DLP because of the false assumption that the technology is covering the gaps. It's probably fair to argue that these areas are more likely places for DL issues these days than (non-encrypted) HTTP, FTP and SMTP, so it's a fair call to ask about it and identify it as a gap now. Even with control of system policies on discrete IM Applications, there's still plenty of opportunities through things like Facebook chat/Gmail/Web Messenger for IM-based phishing and DL attacks to happen. GMail) that the most likely accidental Data Leaks will happen. If you haven't got control of your systems and applications, then DLP is only one part of your issues.The problem is that it is via IM or "Public" mail systems (e.g. Regards the IM part, shops that want to spend a bunch of money on DLP now would presumably only have one internally mandated IM program, e.g.
0 kommentar(er)
