I. A “Compliant” Leak
A security team at a technology company once handled a puzzling data leak incident. The investigation showed that the leaked file had never been sent out via email, never copied to a USB drive, and never uploaded to a cloud drive. The DLP system had generated no alerts, and there was no abnormal traffic in the firewall logs. The file appeared in the hands of a competitor as if out of thin air.
The final tracing results revealed the truth: an employee shared the file with an internal colleague during normal business operations, the colleague synchronized it to a department shared directory, the department shared directory was configured to be accessible to an external collaborator, the collaborator forwarded the file to a downstream supplier without knowing, and the downstream supplier happened to be an affiliate of the competitor. Throughout the entire chain, every operation was authorized, and every node complied with the permission configuration at the time—but no single link was responsible for “where this file ultimately went.”
This case reveals a long-overlooked fact: most data leak prevention solutions do not manage data, but channels. Email DLP manages the email channel, USB control manages the peripheral channel, cloud drive auditing manages the cloud drive channel, and network firewalls manage the network channel. Each channel operates independently, and each policy is configured independently—while the data itself, its sensitivity level, encryption status, circulation permissions, and tracing identifier, has no continuity when flowing across channels.
The core breakthrough of the Ping64 integrated office security platform lies precisely here: it does not add more channel control tools, but shifts the anchor of control from channels to the data itself. From the moment data is created, it carries complete security attributes. 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.
II. The Triple Failure of Channel Control
To understand why data leak prevention needs to shift from “managing channels” to “managing data,” one must first understand why channel control frequently fails in real-world scenarios.
- First failure: The number of channels can never be caught up with. Ten years ago, the main channels for enterprise file outbound transfer were email and USB. Five years ago, instant messaging and cloud drives were added. Today, collaborative office tools, code hosting platforms, online documents, and AI chat tools can all become channels for data leakage. Every time a new tool appears, the security team needs to assess risks, deploy controls, and configure policies. This “whack-a-mole” model is barely feasible when the number of channels is small, but completely fails when the number of channels explodes.
- Second failure: Channel control cannot perceive data attributes. An email can carry a public product white paper or a piece of core source code. If the DLP policy only looks at the recipient domain and attachment size, it cannot distinguish between these two cases. Content identification needs to run on the same platform as channel control in order to determine “whether this data is sensitive” at the moment of transmission. But in a multi-system architecture, the content identification engine exists only in the DLP system. The endpoint security system does not know whether a file is sensitive, and the encryption system does not know which channel the file is being transmitted through.
- Third failure: Data loses control after leaving the channel. Once a file is sent via email, the mission of channel control ends. Whether the file is forwarded, downloaded, screenshotted, or continues to circulate in an external environment—channel control has no way of knowing. True data leak prevention requires maintaining a certain degree of visibility and controllability after data leaves the enterprise environment.
These three failures point to the same conclusion: channel control is necessary, but far from sufficient. Enterprises need a unified protection system that is data-centric, covers all channels, and spans the full lifecycle of data.
III. Data Security Attributes Are Determined at Creation
The starting point of the Ping64 data leak prevention solution is to determine security attributes at the moment of data creation.
When a file is created or saved in a controlled application, the content identification engine automatically determines its sensitivity level and triggers corresponding protection actions. This process does not require employees to manually select classification levels, nor does it require administrators to review files one by one. Protection attributes are determined at the moment the file is created and run through the file’s entire lifecycle.
On the endpoint side, 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. This means that even if a file is copied to an unauthorized location, synchronized to a personal cloud drive, or transmitted through an uncontrolled channel, the file content remains under encryption protection.
On the server side, Ping64 provides secure file storage space. Files are automatically encrypted upon upload and dynamically decrypted upon access based on user identity and permissions. Files on storage media always exist in ciphertext form. Even if the storage device is physically stolen, the file content cannot be directly read.
The core logic of this layer is: protection attributes are bound to the data, not to the channel or storage location. No matter where the data flows, its security attributes always accompany it.
IV. Full-Scenario Coverage of Data Flow
After data security attributes are determined, Ping64 implements control in every scenario of data flow. These scenarios constitute the complete coverage of data leak prevention.
1. Endpoint scenario.
Data is created, edited, copied, screenshotted, and printed on endpoints. Ping64 performs fine-grained control over file operation behavior on the endpoint side, recording every operation and triggering alerts or blocking for sensitive operations. Screenshot records automatically retain screenshot copies when employees perform screenshot operations, preventing bypassing file outbound control through screenshots. Print control performs approval and content auditing on printing operations, and printed files automatically have tracing watermarks added.
2. Outbound transfer scenario.
Data is sent out through channels such as email, instant messaging, cloud drives, browser uploads, and USB copying. Ping64 covers all common outbound channels. The system parses file content in real time. Once sensitive information is identified, it automatically triggers prompts, approval, blocking, encryption, or watermarking according to policies. The approval process is deeply linked with content identification, endpoint status, and recipient identity, enabling approvers to make judgments based on complete contextual information.
3. Cross-network scenario.
Data needs to flow between isolated networks such as the R&D network, office network, and production network. Ping64 establishes secure transit zones between different network zones, and files are transmitted through controlled ferry mechanisms. During the ferry process, files remain encrypted, and the transmission channel uses encrypted protocols, ensuring that files are not stolen or tampered with during transmission.
4. Post-outbound scenario.
After data leaves the enterprise environment, Ping64 maintains tracing capabilities through technologies such as digital watermarks, file fingerprints, and controlled outbound formats. When an outbound file is leaked, the enterprise can quickly locate the source of the leak and the responsible party through watermark information.
5. Storage scenario.
The storage locations of data within the enterprise include local disks, shared directories, cloud drives, and removable storage devices. Ping64 identifies the storage location of files and automatically applies differentiated control policies based on the storage location. When a file is copied to an unauthorized location, the system alerts and records in real time.
The control policies for these five scenarios are centrally configured in the Ping64 unified policy center, taking effect across the entire network from a single configuration, avoiding policy conflicts and coverage blind spots across multiple systems.
V. Protection Advantages Brought by the Integrated Platform
Embedding data leak prevention capabilities into an integrated office security platform provides advantages not only at the functional level but also at the governance logic level.
Improved control precision. In a multi-system architecture, DLP only knows whether content matches rules, not whether the endpoint is compliant; the endpoint management system only knows whether the device is compliant, not whether the file is sensitive; the encryption system only knows whether the file is encrypted, not which channel the file is being transmitted through. Ping64 integrates this information on the same platform, enabling control decisions to simultaneously consider multiple dimensions such as file sensitivity level, endpoint security status, user identity, transmission channel, and recipient identity. Control precision is elevated from “channel level” to “data level + context level.”
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 Ping64 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. This leap from “having logs” to “having evidence” shortens security investigations from days to hours.
Improved compliance efficiency. When facing MLPS assessments, ISO 27001 audits, Data Security Law compliance checks, or industry regulatory requirements, enterprises need to provide complete data flow records and control evidence. Ping64’s unified audit center supports generating standardized reports according to compliance requirements. File storage records, outbound records, approval process logs, and tracing records are continuously generated and archived on the unified platform, and compliance evidence collection no longer depends on centralized organization after an incident occurs.
VI. Three-Stage Leap
The maturity of enterprise data leak prevention construction can be divided into three stages.
The first stage is “blocking channels.” Enterprises disable USB, block personal cloud drives, and limit email attachment sizes, attempting to eliminate data leakage risks through blocking. The result is that employees take photos with phones and send files via personal WeChat, forming more covert dark channels.
The second stage is “managing channels.” Enterprises deploy control tools on each channel—email DLP, USB control, cloud drive auditing, browser upload interception. Control coverage expands, but multiple systems each act on their own, and problems of policy conflicts, data fragmentation, and delayed response remain.
The third stage is “managing data.” Enterprises shift the control anchor from channels to the data itself. From the moment of creation, data carries protection attributes, and no matter which channel it travels through, the protection attributes always accompany it. Channel control becomes the execution means of data control, rather than an independent security objective.
What the Ping64 integrated office security platform pursues is precisely the goal of the third stage. When data leak prevention operates collaboratively with content identification, endpoint security management, transparent document encryption, and unified identity management on the same platform, enterprises no longer need to deploy control tools separately for each new channel, nor do they need to make an either-or choice between “security” and “efficiency.”
Conclusion
Data does not lie. From creation to destruction, which endpoints, which users, which channels, and which network zones a file passed through—these facts will not disappear due to the absence of control tools; they will only become untraceable due to a broken evidence chain.
In an era where data has become a core enterprise asset, the essence of data leak prevention is not “controlling channels,” but “controlling data.” Channels will continue to change; today’s mainstream channels may be replaced by new tools in three to five years. But the security attributes of the data itself—its sensitivity level, encryption status, circulation permissions, and tracing identifier—are stable, definable, and executable.
What the Ping64 integrated office security platform provides for data leak prevention is precisely such a data-centric governance logic: keeping every piece of data protected from the moment it is created, making every flow traceable, keeping every outbound transfer controllable, and enabling every security investigation to obtain a complete evidence chain. This may be the most pragmatic starting point for enterprise data security governance.
Contact
13 min 
