Talk:Data loss prevention software
|WikiProject Computer Security / Computing||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Regarding the name of the article
"Data Loss Prevention" does NOT equal "Data Loss Prevention products". DLP is a concept, not a product or a solution. DLP Products are just that, products. And unless the article is going to list commercial or otherwise, products, then what is "Products" doing in the title? Dekket (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to contest whether DLP works, or whether it's necessary, or whether it's a good thing, but I am going to say that all three of those statements are specific points of view. Wikipedia articles must be neutral, which means that you can't describe a product by means of advocacy here.
--- tqbf 04:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this article is not very neutral. Terms should be international, not vendor specific. --- de 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just read this wikiarticle and was unable to find out which the "neutrality issue" is. Maybe the editing done since the tagging date (Dec'07) has already removed that issue? If so, can this article be un-tagged? Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In total agreement with the initial neutrality comment. Until a recent edit, this article is clearly skewed toward "content-only" based terms, solutions, and those IT analysts who mistakenly attempt to define the data loss issue to a much-too-narrow scope. The original description/definition completely ignored contextual rules and policies that are crucial to any data security approach. The contextual understanding of "who" (user/group) is doing "what" (copying/printing/"sending") via "which medium" (print/port/device/network transport method) of "which data" (allowed/restricted file types, etc), "when" (during work hours or not), and "to whom" (user/group or outside recipient) are completely relevent to security in prevention of data or information loss. Basing all DLP only on "content", is ignoring this simple reality. 23 November 2009
Vendor presence in this article
Wikipedia articles get spammed routinely by vendors big and small wanting their company to appear on the first page of Google results for a topic. We had this problem on Talk:Comparison_of_DNS_server_software, and a long-time editor proposed that we restrict vendor coverage to those vendors who already had Wikipedia pages. I disagreed, tried to work with some vendor proponents to make the page work with all vendors, and got burned; many of the "products" covered weren't products, or were no longer being sold, or were clearly not notable.
So, for the health and welfare of this article, I'm a vote for the following editorial stance: vendors can be mentioned here if they have an active DLP line of business and an article in the Wikipedia.
It is not hard to create articles for truly notable DLP vendors; most have tens of press mentions to source an article. Start there first, and then link their Wikipedia page to this article --- not the vendor's website. Per WP:EL, avoid linking to sites whose primary purpose is to sell a product.
--- tqbf 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
-- vendors come and go. If you ask me the only reason to have a vendor article in wikipedia is if there's something to criticize about the company that they aren't saying on their own web page. Anything that can be found on the company brochure or by phone call to them is information that doesn't require them to have a wikipedia article. And given that they come and go, no vendor links should be in any pages. Infact you should immediately remove all company links or even mentions whenever you see them. All trademark mentions should also go. (and they do when I see them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- "If you ask me the only reason to have a vendor article in wikipedia is if there's something to criticize about the company that they aren't saying on their own web page." What you just said is very POV. Entbark (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the comments. However, after reading this wikiarticle I believe that at this point there is no longer a "vendor presence" in it. If I'm right, can this article be un-tagged? Thanks and regards, DPdH (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It still reads like an advertisement and has no sources. I added the unreferenced tag. Entbark (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I've just reverted the last 3 changes, all done by the same anonymous user. REASON: what was written looked more an opinion than verifiable facts. Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
precise and imprecise methods
I removed that information because it seems based only on DLP Core Technology. This is the website of a software vendor, claiming that the software that they sell is precise and that all other software is imprecise because it uses "imprecise" methods. It doesn't look like an independent third-party source. Let's see if someone can find a neutral scholar source about the effectivity of data identification methods. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ugh, the source I added was also sponsored by a vendor, although less directly. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
With no vendor mention/links/presence, the usefulness of this article is reduced. People looking for "Data loss prevention software" would be interested to know about the software solutions out there. The article is just a theoretical discussion of DLP capabilities as it currently stands. At least linking to lists of DLP software would be helpful. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
"High False Positive Rates will cause the system to be DLD not DLP." DLD is not defined in the article, and I couldn't figure it out by googling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)