A facelift model of an automaker entered the engineering freeze stage. A chassis engineer completed a suspension hardpoint adjustment in CAD and submitted the updated 3D model to the PLM system. According to the process, this change notice needed to be synchronized to the process department, procurement department, and external suspension supplier. After downloading the model, the process engineer, for convenience in communicating with the supplier, forwarded the file to the supplier’s technical contact through a personal email. Three days later, a competitor’s engineering team displayed a rear suspension layout highly similar to this vehicle at an industry exhibition.
The security team launched an investigation and discovered an awkward fact: the PLM system recorded every download and approval, the email gateway recorded that outbound email, the endpoint management system recorded the operation of copying the file locally, and the DLP system did not trigger an alert—because the sensitivity level of this model had never been correctly defined. Each of the four systems possessed a fragment of the event, but no system connected the four fragments into a complete trajectory. More fatally, once this model left the enterprise network, it completely fell outside all control visibility.
This is not an accidental event involving one vehicle. In an automaker’s R&D system, core technical documents—CAD models, CAE simulation results, ECU source code, calibration parameters, and BOM lists—flow every day among R&D endpoints, process endpoints, and suppliers. Every transfer is a trust decision, and when the file itself carries no security attributes, the trust of the entire chain can only depend on the self-discipline of every person who handles it.
Part One: Three “Mismatches” in Automotive Core Document Protection
Core technical document protection in automotive enterprises faces three structural mismatches.
Mismatch One: The gap between the specialization of documents and generic control methods
Core document formats in automotive enterprises are highly specialized. 3D models from CATIA, NX, and Creo; simulation results from ANSYS and Abaqus; model files from MATLAB/Simulink; and parameter files generated by various ECU calibration tools—generic DLP solutions often cannot accurately identify the content of these files. A CATIA model may be released as an ordinary binary file in generic DLP, while it actually carries vehicle geometry, material properties, and assembly relationships. Security teams can only rely on file extensions for coarse-grained control, and changing a suffix can bypass detection.
A deeper problem is that the automotive R&D toolchain is extremely sensitive to system resources and operational stability. Opening and rendering a model may consume several GB of memory, and simulation solving may last for hours. If the encryption solution causes CATIA lag, Abaqus solving interruption, or file corruption, engineers will directly abandon the security solution.
Mismatch Two: The security logic of R&D endpoints and supply chain collaboration endpoints is diametrically opposite
The endpoint environment of automotive enterprises naturally splits into multiple worlds. R&D endpoints run heavy engineering software such as CATIA, NX, and ANSYS, and security policies must ensure that computation is not interrupted and files are not corrupted; office endpoints carry daily business such as procurement, finance, and marketing, and security policies focus on software compliance and document protection; supplier collaboration endpoints face a fundamental contradiction—suppliers need to obtain models and drawings to complete parts development, but once files leave the automaker’s environment, the automaker loses control.
Traditional solutions cover all endpoints with the same set of policies, resulting either in excessive control over R&D or insufficient control over collaboration endpoints. What is truly needed is to configure differentiated policies for different endpoints on a unified platform while maintaining linkage between policies and correlation between data.
Mismatch Three: The conflict between TISAX compliance requirements and a fragmented security system
TISAX (Trusted Information Security Assessment Exchange) is a commonly used information security standard in the automotive industry. It requires enterprises to classify and grade information assets, strictly control access, conduct traceable audits of incidents, and ensure that information security levels upstream and downstream of the supply chain are equivalent. When an automaker’s security capabilities are scattered across multiple systems such as endpoint management, DLP, encryption, and auditing, evidence collection for TISAX audits becomes a cross-system “manual patchwork”—exporting partial logs from each system and manually checking timelines and user identifiers, with efficiency and accuracy difficult to guarantee.
Part Two: The Solution Logic of the Integrated Platform—File-Centric, Not System-Centric
Ping64’s integrated office security platform does not add a fifth system for automotive core document protection, but integrates endpoint security management, transparent document encryption, data loss prevention, behavior auditing, and other capabilities into the same client, the same data foundation, and the same policy engine.
The concrete implementation of this logic in automotive scenarios unfolds around the complete lifecycle of a core technical document.
1. Design stage: Make encryption “imperceptible” and tools “lossless”
Ping64’s transparent document encryption sinks encryption and decryption logic down to the operating system kernel layer. When an engineer saves a model in CATIA, encryption is automatically completed at the moment the file is written to disk; when an authorized process reads it, decryption is likewise completed automatically. Engineers are unaware of the encryption process, and CATIA’s opening speed, rendering performance, and save operations are not affected in any way.
Ping64 supports deep compatibility with mainstream automotive engineering software such as CATIA, NX, Creo, ANSYS, and Abaqus. This compatibility is not simply “whitelist release,” but adaptation at the kernel layer to the specific file read/write patterns of engineering software, ensuring that large-file read/write, temporary file generation, caching mechanisms, and other behaviors unique to engineering software do not become abnormal due to encryption.
At the moment of file creation, the content identification engine automatically determines its sensitivity level—a model containing complete suspension geometry and an assembly file containing only a standard parts library are automatically distinguished in sensitivity level. Protection attributes are bound to the file, not to a folder or endpoint. This means that no matter which endpoint the file is copied to or which directory it is synchronized to, its security attributes always accompany it.
2. Circulation stage: Differentiated policies for R&D endpoints and office endpoints
On the integrated platform, automakers can configure differentiated security policy templates for different types of endpoints.
The policy for R&D endpoints focuses on the balance between “protection strength” and “tool compatibility.” Encryption is mandatorily enabled, and outbound transfer is strictly approved, but encryption algorithms and drivers are specially optimized for engineering software to ensure that computation-intensive tasks are not affected. Endpoint security baseline checks focus on the integrity of the engineering software operating environment rather than generic office software compliance.
The policy for office endpoints focuses on “software compliance” and “outbound control.” The software blacklist and whitelist mechanism controls unauthorized software installation; outbound channels (email, instant messaging, USB, browser upload) are fully covered; and the approval process is linked with content identification.
The core policy for supplier collaboration endpoints is “data does not land.” Supplier personnel access models and drawings through a controlled environment. Files are opened in a controlled container and cannot be saved as local files, leaked through screenshots or printing, or copied to the clipboard. All operational behavior is fully recorded.
The three policies are centrally configured in the Ping64 unified policy center and share the same set of user, endpoint, and file classification and grading data. Policies are differentiated, but management is unified; endpoints are distributed, but data is correlated.
3. Outbound stage: Give every outbound transfer context
When an engineer needs to send a model to a supplier, Ping64 deeply links the approval process with content identification, endpoint status, and recipient identity. What the approver sees is not an isolated “file name and application reason,” but a file content summary, sensitivity level, applicant’s endpoint compliance status, historical outbound records, recipient identity, and historical cooperation records.
After approval, the system automatically processes the outbound file: adding tracing watermarks (watermark information includes sender, approver, recipient, and timestamp), setting validity periods, limiting the number of openings, and embedding tracing identifiers. Outbound transfer is not the endpoint of control, but the starting point of tracing. If the file is leaked on the supplier side, the automaker can quickly locate the source of the leak through watermark information.
For scenarios where models need to be provided to suppliers for collaborative development, Ping64 supports controlled outbound formats: files are transmitted in encrypted form, and suppliers open them in a specified environment. Upon opening, it automatically connects to the verification server for identity verification and permission checks. Files cannot be forwarded, copied, or saved as other formats, ensuring the secure flow of core geometry data in the supply chain.
4. Audit stage: From “having logs” to “having evidence”
Security investigations in automotive enterprises often face a dilemma: they can confirm that “the file was leaked,” but cannot answer “who took the file out, at what time, and through what method.”
Ping64’s unified audit center stores endpoint operation logs, file flow records, outbound approval records, screen recordings, and screenshot records in association. Every flow of data from creation to destruction forms a complete evidence chain in the unified audit center. Administrators can enter a file fingerprint or employee account to simultaneously retrieve all relevant records for that file or person—which endpoint it was opened on, where it was copied, through which channel it was sent out, whether approval was obtained, and who the recipient was—without switching between multiple systems.
For TISAX audits, this leap from “having logs” to “having evidence” is particularly significant. When auditors require protection evidence for a certain core technical document, what the automaker needs to provide is not fragmented logs exported from multiple systems, but a complete, coherent, and tamper-proof evidence chain.
Part Three: Where Exactly Is the Integrated Platform “Integrated”?
Integrating the security management of R&D endpoints, office endpoints, and supplier collaboration endpoints on the same platform provides advantages that can be summarized as three “sames.”
- Same-source policies. The policies for the three types of endpoints are different—R&D endpoints focus on encryption compatibility, office endpoints focus on software compliance and outbound control, and supplier collaboration endpoints focus on data not landing. But these policies are centrally configured in the unified policy center, and automakers can flexibly combine policies according to vehicle model projects, departments, and positions, with one configuration taking effect across the entire network. When a new vehicle model project starts, administrators do not need to build a new security system for the project team; they only need to assign a policy template to the new project in the unified policy center, and it automatically takes effect after endpoints connect.
- Same data foundation. In a multi-system architecture, encryption logs from R&D endpoints, DLP alerts from office endpoints, and access records from the supplier collaboration platform are stored in different systems, and post-event tracing requires manual reconstruction. Ping64’s security modules run on the same data foundation. Endpoint operation logs, file flow records, outbound approval records, and screen recordings share the same file identifier and user identifier at the moment they are generated, and correlation is natural, real-time, and accurate.
- Same response chain. When a security module discovers a risk, it can immediately invoke other modules to execute response actions. When it detects that an endpoint is attempting to send a highly sensitive model out through an unauthorized channel, the system automatically blocks the current operation, locks the screen for evidence collection, notifies administrators, and links with the endpoint security management module to tighten that endpoint’s network permissions. The time window from “discovering risk” to “controlling risk” is compressed to near-synchronous levels, rather than requiring cross-system manual coordination as in a multi-system architecture.
Conclusion: Making Core Technical Documents “Portable but Controllable”
Core technical document protection in automotive enterprises cannot rely on engineers’ security awareness, nor can it rely on post-event accountability. From the design bench to the supplier, every pair of hands, every channel, and every endpoint a model passes through should be under the same security governance framework.
What the Ping64 integrated office security platform provides for automakers is precisely such a file-centric governance logic: make encryption run imperceptibly in the design stage, execute policies differentially in the circulation stage, maintain tracing throughout the outbound stage, and make the evidence chain naturally complete in the audit stage. When these capabilities operate collaboratively on the same platform, automakers no longer need to make an either-or choice between “R&D efficiency” and “data security,” nor do they need to rebuild a security system for every new collaboration scenario.
In an era where intelligent connected vehicles are rapidly evolving, supply chain collaboration is increasingly globalized, and international security standards such as TISAX continue to escalate, making every core technical document leave the enterprise environment with “safe factory” attributes may be the most pragmatic protection for automakers’ core intellectual property.
Contact
13 min 
