When DLP work falls on non-core specialists as an additional burden - say, the IT department - they may not have the skills, time or desire to recognize a real incident. The result of the protection system will be zero, the business will suffer. The same will happen if you entrust the system to a security service that is used to working "the old way" - for example, to control ACS and video surveillance systems, physical security.
" systems half-heartedly, relying on default settings, is like hammering nails with a microscope. And to get the most out of them, you need to "level up." If there are no professionals on staff, you will have to either put up with a security breach or invest in retraining employees. Well, or ask for help. For example, entrust work with the system to outsourcers - as part of a one-time audit or regular monitoring.
All in one
The ideal option is when a business uses DLP, combining germany whatsapp data approaches. In practice, it looks like this: blocking is used to isolate particularly critical processes, and monitoring is used for the rest.
In this case, blocking solves an administrative problem: it regulates business processes and cuts off unnecessary risks. Channels that employees do not need for work (for example, clouds and social networks in the accounting department) are simply blocked - nothing will be leaked through them for sure. At the same time, everything necessary works, and within the framework of permitted processes, the system continues to track user activity according to security policies.
This allows you to direct the analytical capabilities of DLP to search for more complex, including fundamentally different violations - even those that are not directly related to leak attempts. For example, you can uncover corporate fraud: sabotage, kickbacks, side schemes, even mining on working equipment.