I. The Security Team: Running Ragged Across Six Systems
At 9:00 a.m., a security engineer at an Internet company opens the first console—the endpoint management system—to check how many endpoints failed to install patches last night. At 10:00, he switches to the second console—the DLP system—to handle outbound alerts. At 11:00, he logs into the third console—the document encryption system—to troubleshoot encryption client anomalies. At 2:00 p.m., he opens the fourth console—the behavior auditing system—to retrieve screen recordings of a departed employee. At 4:00 p.m., he enters the fifth console—the network admission system—to process a visitor device access request. At 5:00 p.m., he logs into the sixth console—the Zero Trust gateway—to adjust remote access policies.
By the end of the day, he has switched among six systems hundreds of times and handled dozens of alerts. But when he tries to answer a simple question—”At 3:00 p.m. yesterday, which file did Zhang San from R&D send to whom?”—he needs to log into four systems simultaneously, manually piece together the timeline, user accounts, and file identifiers, and spend two hours assembling an incomplete answer.
This is not a problem for one company alone; it is a common dilemma across the entire Internet industry. The more security tools are purchased, the busier the security team becomes, yet the response speed to security incidents grows slower. The root cause is not that there are too few tools, but that the tools are not connected to one another.
II. Multi-System Architecture: Data Fragmentation and Policy Conflicts
Internet companies generally adopt a construction model of “one risk point, one security tool.” This model is reasonable in the early stages of security construction—each tool solves a specific problem, with short procurement cycles and fast deployment. But as the number of tools increases, fragmentation between systems begins to emerge and gradually evolves into a structural defect of the security system.
- Data fragmentation is the most fatal. The endpoint management system knows whether a device is compliant, but not what content is flowing on the device; DLP knows whether a file matches sensitive rules, but not whether the endpoint is secure; the encryption system knows whether a file is encrypted, but not which channel the file is being transmitted through; the auditing system records operation logs, but cannot correlate file content with personnel context. Each system grasps only a fragment of an event, while what is truly needed is a complete chain from endpoint to data, and from operation to content.
- Policy conflicts are another chronic problem. The endpoint management system may whitelist a development tool, while the DLP system marks it as a high-risk outbound channel; the encryption system requires certain file types to be stored encrypted, while the admission system allows devices without the encryption client to connect to the network. The logical relationships among policies depend on manual maintenance, and a single change requires synchronization across multiple locations, making omissions and conflicts almost inevitable.
- Delayed response is the inevitable result. When a security incident involves multiple systems, response actions require cross-system coordination. When DLP discovers a sensitive file being sent out, it requires manually confirming endpoint status in the endpoint management system, adjusting network permissions in the admission system, and checking file status in the encryption system. This coordination process is measured in hours or even days, while the window for attackers or insider threats is measured in seconds and minutes.
III. Ping64: One Client, One Foundation, One Engine
The design starting point of the Ping64 integrated office security platform is not to add a seventh console, but to integrate the capabilities of six consoles onto one platform.
- One client replaces six agents. In traditional solutions, a single endpoint may simultaneously have the endpoint management client, DLP client, encryption client, auditing client, admission client, and other agents installed. These agents compete for system resources, frequently pop up conflict prompts, and degrade endpoint performance. Ping64 integrates admission control, software management, vulnerability management, data loss prevention, document encryption, behavior auditing, and endpoint detection and response into the same client. Employees only need to install one agent to obtain complete endpoint protection capabilities.
- One data foundation enables natural correlation. Ping64’s security modules run on the same data foundation. Endpoint operation logs, file flow records, outbound approval records, screen recordings, and screenshot records share the same file identifier and user identifier at the moment they are generated. When a security engineer needs to answer “At 3:00 p.m. yesterday, which file did Zhang San from R&D send to whom?”, he only needs to enter Zhang San’s account and the time range in the unified audit center, and the system automatically correlates all of Zhang San’s operation records during that period—which files were opened, through which channels they were sent out, whether approval was obtained, who the recipient was, and what the file’s sensitivity level was—without switching between multiple systems.
- One policy engine, one configuration effective across the entire network. Ping64’s unified policy center allows administrators to configure all security policies in one place. Endpoint security baselines, software blacklists and whitelists, peripheral control, network access permissions, data outbound rules, and encryption policies—all these policies share the same set of user, endpoint, and file classification and grading data, with consistent logic and unified execution. When an enterprise needs to adjust a policy, it only needs to modify it once in the unified policy center, and all endpoints across the network automatically synchronize and take effect.
IV. Unified Endpoint Management: Controllable Risk
Unified endpoint management is the foundational capability of the Ping64 integrated platform. It solves the problem of “visibility”—letting enterprises clearly know how many endpoints exist across the network, what each endpoint’s configuration is, what its operating status is, and whether security risks exist.
At the asset visibility level, Ping64 automatically discovers and brings endpoints across the entire network under management, uniformly collecting key data such as hardware configuration, operating system version, patch status, security configuration, and software installation status. Administrators can grasp the real-time security status of every endpoint on a single console.
At the software compliance level, Ping64 centers on the three goals of “visible, controllable, and manageable,” providing full-process governance of software from installation and use to external risks. The system automatically inventories software assets across the network, records software installation and uninstallation behavior, and achieves fine-grained management through a blacklist and whitelist mechanism. For the development tools, runtime environments, and third-party components widely used by Internet companies, Ping64 supports deep compatibility adaptation.
At the vulnerability management level, the system automatically scans the vulnerability status of endpoints across the network and distributes patches on a scheduled basis according to policies. For the cross-platform environments common in Internet companies—Windows, macOS, and Linux coexisting—Ping64 supports unified vulnerability management and patch distribution, without the need to deploy separate tools for each operating system.
At the endpoint detection and response level, Ping64 uses AI behavior analysis technology to continuously model and dynamically identify endpoint behavior, discover threat behaviors such as abnormal processes, abnormal network connections, and abnormal file operations, and automatically execute response actions such as blocking, isolation, and evidence collection.
V. Data Loss Prevention: Data-Centric
Unified endpoint management solves the problem of “whether the endpoint is secure,” while data loss prevention solves the problem of “whether the data is secure.” Ping64’s data loss prevention capability is data-centric, not channel-centric.
The core logic of traditional DLP solutions is “managing channels”—deploying control policies separately on channels such as email gateways, USB control, and cloud drive auditing. But the data leakage paths of Internet companies are often not these channels, but file sharing in code repositories, CI/CD pipelines, internal collaboration platforms, and instant messaging tools. These “internal channels” are usually not within the scope of control in traditional DLP solutions because their business justification is too strong.
Ping64’s approach is to shift the control anchor from channels to the data itself. From the moment data is created, it carries complete security attributes—sensitivity level, encryption status, circulation permissions, and tracing identifiers. No matter which channel it travels through, how many intermediate nodes it passes, or how many locations it is copied to, these attributes always accompany it.
The content identification engine automatically determines the file’s sensitivity level and triggers corresponding protection actions. Transparent document encryption sinks encryption and decryption logic down to the operating system kernel layer. When authorized processes read or write specified file types, encryption and decryption are completed automatically, while unauthorized processes always receive ciphertext. The outbound approval process is deeply linked with content identification, endpoint status, and recipient identity, enabling approvers to make judgments based on complete contextual information.
VI. Behavior Auditing: From Having Logs to Having Evidence
Security investigations in Internet companies often face a common dilemma: they can confirm that “data was leaked,” but cannot answer “who took the data out, at what time, and through what method.”
Ping64’s auditing capability restores endpoint operation behavior into traceable, filterable, and reviewable audit events. The system automatically, in real time, and around the clock records file operation behavior on endpoints—local creation, modification, deletion, and renaming, as well as operational behaviors such as USB copying, cloud drive uploads, instant messaging outbound transfers, email outbound transfers, and printing. After integrating sensitive content identification, the system automatically filters out sensitive incidents involving core secrets from massive logs, labels flow logs as “sensitive,” and highlights warnings.
When a security engineer discovers that a sensitive file has been abnormally sent out, he only needs to select that record and click “Trace Flow Trajectory.” The system will then use that file as the core node to automatically generate a visualized panoramic map of file flow, presenting the complete chain from creation, modification, and renaming to multi-channel outbound transfer. This leap from “having logs” to “having evidence” shortens security investigations from days to hours.
VII. Governance Value of the Integrated Platform
Integrating unified endpoint management, data loss prevention, document encryption, behavior auditing, and admission control on the same platform provides governance value in the Internet industry at three levels.
Improved management efficiency. IT teams shift from “multi-system O&M” to “unified platform operations.” They no longer need to deploy control tools separately for each new channel or each new tool, no longer need to switch between multiple consoles, and no longer need to manually synchronize user and permission data. One configuration takes effect across the entire network, achieving an order-of-magnitude improvement in management efficiency.
Improved response speed. When the DLP module identifies that sensitive data is being sent out, the system can automatically trigger the file transfer control module to block the current operation, simultaneously start screen recording to capture the on-site scene, and notify administrators for manual review. When the endpoint security status changes, transfer permissions are automatically adjusted. This cross-module automated linkage compresses the time window from “discovering risk” to “controlling risk” to near-synchronous levels.
Completeness of audit tracing. 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 user account to simultaneously retrieve all relevant records for that file or person—storage location, outbound records, approval records, tracing identifiers, and screen recordings—without switching between multiple systems.
VIII. From “Tool Stacking” to “Systematic Governance”
Endpoint security management in the Internet industry is moving from “tool stacking” to “systematic governance.” The path to this transformation is not to add more security tools, but to integrate different types of security capabilities on the same platform.
What the Ping64 integrated office security platform provides for the Internet industry is precisely such a governance logic: unified endpoint management to achieve network-wide visibility of endpoint assets, data loss prevention capabilities to protect core assets, transparent document encryption to achieve imperceptible protection, and behavior auditing capabilities to support tracing and accountability. These capabilities operate collaboratively on the same platform, enabling Internet companies to establish a complete security closed loop from endpoint to data, and from usage to auditing, without sacrificing R&D efficiency.
In an era where competition in the Internet industry is increasingly fierce, data security regulation continues to escalate, and remote work is increasingly normalized, endpoint security management is no longer a problem that can be remedied after the fact. Making every endpoint—whether an R&D workstation, an office PC, or an outsourced worker’s device—operate under a unified security framework may be the most pragmatic protection for the core assets of Internet companies.
Contact
13 min 
