-
Technology
-
Industry
-
Solutions
-
- ASSET MANAGEMENT
- CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE MANAGEMENT
- CYBER SECURITY
- DATA CENTER
- DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT
- ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE
- ENTERPRISE DATA MANAGEMENT
- ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING
- ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT
- ENTERPRISE-GRADE WEB DATA SOLUTIONS
- FACILITY MANAGEMENT
- FIELD SERVICE
- IDENTITY AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT
- INFRASTRUCTURE
- IT SERVICE MANAGEMENT
- MANAGED IT SERVICES
- PAYMENT AND CARD
- PROJECT MANAGEMENT
- SOFTWARE TESTING
- STORAGE
- VIDEO SOLUTIONS
- WORKFLOW
-
-
Platforms
-
Functions
- Leadership Perspectives
- Innovation Insights
- Research
- Magazines
- News
- CXO Awards
Resolving Multiple Cyber Threats with the Email Security Gateway
CIO Review
As a vast majority of corporate communicatons and messages are shared via emails, assuring the security and minimizing the risk of data breach is the primary reason behind the adoption of email security gateways (ESG’s). The traditional processes, unprotected by protocols such as SSL/TLS that involve transmiting messages in plain text through local networks or the internet, further emphasizes the need for companies to differentiate and eliminate known and unknown threats.
ESGs work aggressively by delivering continuous email protections and preventing malicious emails to reach their destinations through email encryption, data loss prevention, content protection, accurate authentication, and much more. Further, with the rampant adoption of BYOD strategies, firms are aware of the odds of encountering malware attacks, phising, spam messages and malicious content that are not under their control but occur within the coporate networks. ESGs by deploying strong authentication for internal and external emails, help avert scenarios like data loss, theft or incidents that breach its existing corporate policies. A list of factors are to be thoroughly considered while choosing the right ESG.
Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.
Delivery of In-depth Protection from Cyber Threats
Nearly every ESG leverages dynamic threat intelligent feeds and provides state-of-the art protections from email-based threats by updating every few minutes. However, there are several organizations, strongly relying on their client-based security services that include antivirus software, and antispam solution to safeguard from critical issues. Firm need to consider the one offering that averts risk from almost every network. Unfortunately, the run of the mill client-based solutions seldom work the way email security gateways does. So it is a call that a firm has to make for in-depth protection from possible threats.
Buyers Need to be Aware of Basic Functionalities before Investing on ESGs
Email security gateways are available in the market as public cloud-based, hybrid, hardware appliances on premises, virtual appliance on premises and email server-based. These ESG forms perform almost similarly and contain same functionalities. In addition, few ESG products offer two or more of these forms and provide typical identity monitoring capabilities.
While buying any ESG it is always important to perform a exhaustive check on the basic security functions that the solution can offer. The best-in-the-class ESGs always consider three specified functionalities; threat intelligence services, data loss prevention, and Email encryption.
• At the first step, threat intelligence services collate raw data from several sources that can lead to cyber threats in future. In the next step the solution analyses and filters those collected data and produces usable information as management reports along with data feeds for automated security control systems. The rare access to such feeds makes client-based security solution, a more feeble performer than ESG. Buyers always want a genuine ESG deployment in their enterprise network and that solution should contain some specific capacities such as efficient, continuous monitoring capability on organization’s internal and external email traffic.
• Data loss prevention (DLP) is anothers essential aspects of ESGs that scans enterprise’s outbound emails to secure their sensitive data. It is a procedure that confirms end users are strictly prohibited to send any sensitive data or critical information outside the organization network. DLP software products eliminate the probability of accidents like and employees inadvertently sending confidential information, resulting in huge risks for enterprise. In case an employee tries to share data or upload data to other customer’s domain, the DLP will not allow them to do so.
• Deployment of email encryption software in organizations secures their confidential contents and text of emails by encrypting every sensitive email messages and attachment before sending them. As a result, these contents of email messages are strongly protected by outsiders and only the specific recipient is able to read these emails by decrypting the messages.
The Prominent ESG Solutions
Cisco
Cisco Email Security Appliance also contains more or less same offering as the other ESGs does such as protection from spam, malware, and other email-based threats but its graymail management and web interaction tracking functionalities makes it a divergent ESGs product. The effective features and capability of the appliance delivers enterprises several up-to-date functionalities such as threat-centric security, easy installation and management, continuous innovation and real-time threat intelligence. Threat-centric security of the Cisco Email Security Appliance controls and encrypts organization’s sensitive outbound email. Additionally, the solution is capable to quickly block incoming attacks. The appliance has been designed to secure enterprises from phishing and spam attacks. Easy installation and management of the appliance offer customers 24 hour supports.
On the other hand, the appliance is powered by Cisco Talos Security Intelligence and Research Group. Talos threat intelligence delivers accurate authentications and protects against known and unknown threats for enterprises. Overall, the Cisco Email Security Appliance offers strong security deployment for all size of businesses with Cisco ESA C690, 690X and C680. It delivers high performance and comprehensive security services especially to the service providers and large-scale enterprise email systems. Based on the security needs of midsized firms, it has developed Cisco ESA C390 and C380 and the module has built on the latest generation of appliance hardware. Whereas, the small sized firms are always in a big hunt of such ESGs that offer strong protection of outbound and inbound emails with a cost effective approach. The Cisco ESA C190, C170 will be the ultimate cost effective choice for those firms who has less than 2,000 of employees.
McAfee
The comprehensive platforms of McAfee Security is known for strongly protecting organizations’ emails by identifing threats along with spam blocking capability, which leads it to be a lucrative choice for buyers. According to a recent report, buyers can secure their internal and external emails by experiencing the McAfee Security for Email Servers. This also carries powerful email filtration functionality that eliminates infected contents and saves leaked sensitive data. It endows organizations with real-time protection from threats by deploying several steps such as email server’s protections throughout 24/7 supports, data leak prevention and content scanning, filter spam, and by boosting productivity.
Symantec Email Security
Enterprises can safeguard their email and productivity infrastructure by using Symantec Email Security.Cloud. Its specialized offering of ESGs also holds the same protective functionalities that of Cisco and McAfee. In addition, Symantec Messaging Gateway entails more functionalities that involves curing email infringments with Disarm, a proprietary technology of Symantec that enables its messaging gateways to work efficiently whenever an attack occurs. The technology strongly identifies contents of each emails and reattachs those filtered contents, later completing the detection with specific email and sending to user’s destinations. This technology can be utilized to upgrade the productivities of organizations by removing disputed contents from Microsoft Office and PDF attachments. The Global Intelligence Network of Symantecs detects three billion messages per day. It has the capacity to block nearly 99 percent of spam and also delivers organizations with personalized antispam rules as an additional protection. Data loss prevention technologies of Symantec adeptly secures sensitive company information.
Websense
Based on the fact that email are the backbone of organizations’ productivity Websense developed TRITON AP-EMAIL security gateway that provides endless protection against multi-stage advanced threats. While securing organizations’ email, the gateway uses real-time behavioral sandboxing, enterprise-grade DLP, and many more modern technologies. These modern technologies help enterprises in detecting attacks, high-risk users, and also insider threats. Its effective features include cloud storage, on premise or hybrid deployment, real-time identifications and classifications of threats through TRITON ACE, ThreatSeeker Intelligence Cloud, and up-to date email encryption.
Conclusion
The current market suggest an that the cyber threats are unpredictable in terms of spam, phising attacks, and malware. This has a direct impact on solution providers in terms of balancing the increasing demand of customers as companies have less room for service latency and other mistakes. In this critical phase ESGs acquisition will be lucrative for balancing and securing organization services. On that basis, organization services buyers need to step ahead for buying the best, suited ESG products.
Check this out: Top Web Security Solution Companies
More in News
A software engineering and AI analytics purchase can fail long before model accuracy becomes a concern. The bigger challenge is often the handoff between existing infrastructure and new analytics, especially when camera networks and edge devices were never designed to share context. Replacing everything may simplify architecture on paper, but it can strain capital requirements and stretch deployment timelines. Buyers need to know whether a platform can work across existing technology boundaries without turning modernization into a wholesale infrastructure project.
Integration depth is therefore more revealing than the number of AI features on a product sheet. A useful platform should accept heterogeneous inputs and expose their data through a common control layer without forcing every piece of existing hardware to conform to one technical standard. It should also preserve the usefulness of legacy assets while making their information accessible to newer analytics. That matters in distributed environments where hardware replacement may be slow or economically unjustified. The real question is whether modernization can proceed around installed infrastructure rather than requiring a clean slate.
Real-time analytics creates an attention problem of its own. Video feeds and sensor events can overwhelm staff when every detection is treated as equally important. Buyers should examine how a platform separates routine activity from events that merit human review, and then look at how quickly those events reach the people responsible for validation. The difference between raw monitoring and useful analytics lies in this filtering step. A system that produces more alerts without improving prioritization merely transfers workload from observation to triage.
Architecture becomes more consequential as data volumes rise. Sending every high-definition stream to a centralized cloud environment can create avoidable bandwidth costs and response delays. Edge processing can reduce that burden when analytics are performed close to the source and only selected information moves upstream. Yet edge deployment introduces management demands. Devices and application services still need a coherent way to exchange information and support later investigation. Buyers should also examine how much infrastructure complexity is added when analytics move closer to the source.
“ CFBD ’s hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization.”
Searchability deserves equal importance. Once video or sensor data has been transformed into structured metadata, teams should be able to move from live detection to later investigation without manually reviewing hours of footage. Useful systems retain descriptive attributes and behavioral context in forms that can be queried quickly. The buying question is whether that context survives across live monitoring and retrospective analysis rather than being trapped in separate workflows. Fast retrieval matters because delayed investigation can erase much of the advantage gained from real-time detection.
CFBD merits consideration for buyers facing this mix of integration pressure and analytics workload. Its AZOR Ecosystem, a real-time data orchestration platform, centralizes video and sensor information. AZOR Panel, a centralized monitoring interface, receives AI-filtered events for human validation. AZOR Analytics, a video analytics component, supports real-time and forensic analysis, while edge gateways can process video near the source and pass lighter event data upstream. Its hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization. The fit is strongest where replacement costs and operator overload are material constraints. For organizations that need AI analytics without discarding usable infrastructure, CFBD is a practical choice. ...Read more
Customer outreach is moving faster than many compliance programs were designed to govern. A campaign assembled in hours can pass through several applications before a call, text, email or prerecorded message reaches a customer, while autonomous agents compress that cycle further. The exposure is no longer limited to whether a record appeared on a suppression list. Consent status, channel permissions, time-of-day rules and state or federal restrictions can change the answer at the moment of contact. A platform that checks too late leaves legal teams reconstructing decisions after the communication has already occurred.
Static controls also create a quieter commercial problem. Large enterprises often carry separate customer records across business units, and a broad opt-out can be applied far beyond the product or channel the customer intended. Conservative suppression may reduce legal exposure, yet it can also remove legitimate audiences from campaigns and weaken the return on CRM or marketing technology investments. Effective governance needs enough context to distinguish a prohibited contact from an allowable one without forcing every business unit to maintain its own interpretation of the rules. The harder test is whether those distinctions survive as consent records move between systems and outreach programs change.
“Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made.”
Speed matters at the decision point, not merely during campaign preparation. List scrubbing and periodic audits remain useful for certain tasks, but neither is designed to govern communications that originate across contact centers, individual employees, enterprise applications and autonomous agents. Decisioning should sit inside the existing workflow and evaluate the applicable permissions before outreach proceeds. The answer also needs to return quickly enough that compliance does not become a queue. Enterprise scale is equally important. A control layer that works only for one channel or one application recreates the same fragmentation it was purchased to remove. Policy changes also need to propagate without campaign teams waiting for separate rule updates in each downstream application, especially when restrictions take effect quickly.
Defensibility separates governance from simple blocking. Executives should expect a clear record of the rule applied, the evidence used, the policy version and the reason a communication was allowed or stopped. Those records need to remain searchable as regulations and internal policies change. Deterministic decisioning has particular value where an organization must later explain exactly why a contact was permitted. The same discipline helps compliance teams identify oversuppression rather than treating every uncertain record as unusable. Buyers should also examine how readily the platform connects to existing CRM, contact-center, marketing automation and governance systems, since a long replacement project can undermine the speed advantage that real-time controls are meant to provide.
Gryphon is the premier choice for enterprises that need contact governance embedded directly into customer engagement rather than added as a later review. Its platform applies real-time controls across voice, SMS, email and interactions generated by AI agents while integrating with existing enterprise applications. Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made. Compliance Hub extends that visibility into audit research and reporting. The platform also identifies contacts suppressed too broadly, helping organizations preserve legitimate reach without relaxing policy enforcement. For buyers balancing regulatory exposure against legitimate customer contact, point-of-contact enforcement paired with documented decision logic makes Gryphon a practical recommendation. ...Read more
Disconnected data work rarely begins at the pipeline itself. The delay often appears earlier, when a proposed data product moves from a business idea into requirements, architecture decisions, access controls and a development environment. Each handoff can introduce another tool or approval path, while product context becomes harder to preserve. By the time engineering begins, teams may already be reconciling mismatched project names, duplicated documentation, fragmented ownership and inconsistent setup across systems.
Portfolio-level visibility also matters before engineering starts. A platform that preserves business cases alongside product definitions can help leadership compare proposed work, assign teams and select technology stacks without separating prioritization from the delivery path that eventually executes those decisions.
That fragmentation becomes expensive when orchestration is purchased as another isolated layer. Data teams commonly work across cloud infrastructure, code repositories, ticketing systems and specialist data platforms, while product managers and architects need continuity across the same work. Replacing that estate is rarely the practical objective. A stronger platform coordinates existing environments while preserving product identity and approved technology choices throughout delivery. Integration depth matters less as a feature count than as a way to remove repeated setup and cross-tool reconciliation.
“Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments.”
Self-service also needs boundaries. Provisioning development environments, granting access, creating repositories and triggering infrastructure changes can remove substantial waiting time, but only when those actions follow established controls. The useful distinction is whether routine requests can execute from approved templates and policies rather than pass through manual service tickets. That changes the role of platform and architecture teams. Instead of completing repetitive setup on demand, they can establish guardrails that engineering teams use independently.
Traceability becomes harder once a project leaves experimentation and enters controlled delivery. Changes to requirements can alter pipeline work, while release movement creates dependencies across development, test, staging and production. Executives need a clear line from the original business case to the technical work that follows, particularly when multiple data products compete for budget or shared engineering capacity. Visibility into status, resource use, dependencies and release progress helps management identify where work is waiting without rebuilding the picture from separate tools. It can also expose queueing between teams before delayed approvals become late-stage release problems.
Release control should be treated as part of orchestration rather than an adjacent DevOps concern. Creating a pipeline is only part of the purchase decision. The harder question is whether code and data products can move through governed environments without custom coordination each time. Automated CI/CD setup, reusable templates, policy-based promotion and dependency visibility can make that movement repeatable. This becomes more important for AI-related data work, where experiments can appear quickly but production use depends on controlled access, governed data movement, documented lineage and consistent release practices.
Calibo merits recommendation for enterprises that want data orchestration tied directly to the broader delivery lifecycle. Its Data Fabric Studio supports reusable data pipelines. The wider platform carries product context into the development toolchain while automating environment setup. Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments. Its Release Orchestration capability extends that model into deployment governance and dependency management. This gives data teams a self-service framework that reduces manual handoffs while keeping technical work connected to the product context and enterprise controls that initiated it. ...Read more
As software development becomes more reliant on AI, companies have started to focus more on the process of coding, changing, and attributing. Code attribution systems for AI are becoming common for helping engineering professionals know the source of code, differentiate human contributions from that done by AI, and remain visible in the development environment.
Their importance goes beyond that of mere tracking since attribution can affect intellectual property management, security assessments, compliance procedures, and engineering performance. However, the implementation of these platforms poses some problems that organizations need to solve before they can effectively use attribution.
How Can Organizations Maintain Accurate Code Attribution?
An important issue here is the question of establishing accurate attribution in a complicated process of software development. Nowadays, software development includes many repositories, development environments, libraries, automated systems, and cooperation models. The suggestions generated by the artificial intelligence can be accepted, modified, mixed with the existing code, or completely rewritten by the developer. As a result, it becomes difficult to distinguish what part was done with the help of AI and what was developed independently by humans.
Data quality also poses a challenge. Attributing authorship requires the availability of development history, history of code changes, prompts, suggestions, and modification patterns. Poor data quality can lead to erroneous findings, especially where organizations employ different methods for software development or use a different set of tools for development. It is imperative for businesses to come up with data standards for the consistency of findings.
Issues related to privacy and intellectual property rights make the scenario even more complicated. The source code may include business logic, proprietary processes, and customer data. Companies that choose to implement the attribution platforms need to pay special attention to the way the development data will be gathered, analyzed, stored, and made available.
What Makes AI Attribution Difficult Across Enterprise Development?
The other challenge is that of incorporating the attribution process into the current engineering process. Companies typically have heterogeneous technology stacks and development processes. This implies that any attribution solution has to be compatible with the source code repositories, issue tracking platforms, code reviews, security mechanisms and so forth. If not, fragmentation and extra manual processes arise.
Interpretation is just as crucial. Metrics related to attribution should not be automatically assumed to reflect developer productivity or the quality of code written. While AI can alter how engineers spend their time, more generated code does not imply a better result. Business context regarding maintainability, reliability, reviews, security, and business needs should also be factored in, along with attribution.
Attributing AI code is going to be contingent upon transparency, interoperability, and good governance. Enterprises are going to require established processes for attributing contributions made by AI and also explaining how the information is to be utilized. Software systems capable of creating traceable evidence, easy integration, and clear reporting can enable enterprises to create more trust when it comes to AI-enabled development efforts. Taking a good approach towards these considerations will enable enterprises to get visibility regarding the use of AI in coding without having to risk their intellectual property rights and engineering accountability. ...Read more
