false impression According to Mr. Baryshev, the legitimate use of DLP does not have a clear solution, if only because the DLP system manufacturers themselves provide functionality that helps hide the work of the system’s software agents on users’ workstations. “among information security specialists that employees controll by the DLP solution will never know that they are under surveillance. But in order to apply sanctions to an “offending” employee, the results of the DLP system’s work will have to be present to him, and it is quite possible that these results (along with the sanctions) can be challeng in court, which, of course, will affect the loyalty of the rest of the employees,” he says.
Therefore, today, when implementing false impression
DLP, integrators and vendors provide whatsapp number list services that include a legally support possibility of using the system, the results of which will be taken into account by the court, in the company’s information security policy. In our country, there are already such examples from judicial practice.
To sum up the issue of the legitimacy of using
DLP in our country, I would like to refer to the opinion of Timur Kabataev, a system architect at IBS Platformix, who believes that controversial situations will constantly arise due to contradictions and inaccuracies in Russian laws that allow for ambiguous interpretation of situations when using DLP systems.
DLP and Mobility
In general, our experts believe that DLP is not the main tool for controlling mobile access to corporate data and its use, although guide to effective email outreach the market is interest in the development of the functionality of such systems towards mobility. Thus, DLP systems can effectively control mobile devices connect t o afb directory workstations due to agents install on the stations, and a number of DLP vendors offer special modules for controlling smartphones, tablets, and laptops.