OPTIMIZE YOUR DATA LOSS PREVENTION INVESTMENT FOR BOTTOM LINE RESULTS

1. OPTIMIZE YOUR DATA LOSS PREVENTION INVESTMENT FOR BOTTOM LINE RESULTS

2. DATA LOSS PREVENTION EXPERTISE ProvidingDLP Since 2002 Completed 500+ Assessments Manage DLP Solutions in 22 Countries Deployed 400+ DLP Projects Provide Daily Management of 1,000,000+ Users Globally QUICK FACTS • Symantec Master Specialization DLP Partner • RSA’s Only Authorized Managed DLP Partner • 1st Managed DLP Services Provider (2008) • Localized Chinese DLP Practice (2011) • Global Support in 130 countries • Websense Certified TRITONs – More than any other partner,7 Olympians & 1 Gladiator

3. MARKET EVOLUTION - 2005/2006 GARTNER RESULTS BEW Global forms partnership with Vericept in 2002. At the time of this report, BEW had 38 deployments of Vericept in the US and UK. BEW Global and Vontu form a partnership. BEW Global is the first Vontu reseller. Vidius changes name to PortAuthority and accelerates product development and US presence. Reconnex enters market with forensics approach.

4. MARKET EVOLUTION - 2007 GARTNER RESULTS Websense acquires PortAuthority. ($80M) Trend Micro acquires Provilla, October 2007. Raytheon acquires Oakley Networks, October 2007. Tablus touted for exceptional data-at-rest capabilities. “Grid Worker”

5. MARKET EVOLUTION - 2008 GARTNER RESULTS Vontu acquired by Symantec. ($350M) Tablus acquired by RSA. ($40M Approx.) McAfee acquires Reconnex for network DLP ($46M) and Onigma ($20M) for Host DLP. Verdasys and Fidelis announce strategic partnership.

6. MARKET EVOLUTION - 2009 GARTNER RESULTS CA acquires Orchestria, January 2009. GTB struggles to gain a significant customer base. Palisade Systems and Code Green Networks target SMB DLP market. Workshare late entry into DLP market lacks functionality. Vericept acquired by Trustwave.

7. MARKET EVOLUTION - 2010 GARTNER RESULTS Symantec releases 10.5 and DataInsight to enhance DAR capabilities. RSA releases 8.0 with enhanced endpoint capabilities. Strategic partnership with Varonis. Websense releases 7.5 with upgraded management interface. Claims DLP in 30-minutes. McAfee releases 9.0 with greater integration with network and host DLP into ePO console.

8. MARKET EVOLUTION - 2011 GARTNER RESULTS

9. MARKET EVOLUTION - 2013 GARTNER RESULTS

10. USE CASE: DLP PRE-PROJECT STATE Organization Overview:Medical Device & Pharmaceutical Manufacturer, 40,000 employees globally DLP Scope: Protection of Intellectual Property (General) DLP Primary Issue: Customer overwhelmed with inaccurate incident data, no meaningful information Application Management: Operated and managed by IT Security with limited input from business Policy Governance: Failure to use a lifecycle software development process for policy construction Incident Triage: Infrequently reviewed by IT with little to no review by business owners Event Management: Hard to accomplish due to large # of false positives. No “gold nuggets” Reporting and Metrics: Zero customized reports. No relevant business analysis provided Status: System generates 25,000 incidents/day / 750,000 incidents/month

11. BEW GLOBAL METHODOLOGY ASSESS QUANTIFY IMPLEMENT REVIEW OPTIMIZE • BEW GLOBAL’S CORE DIFFERENTIATORS Methodology based on the cornerstones of ISO Plan-Do-Check-Act Leverage our proven Quality Management System (QMS) to drive continuous improvement Reduce risk and increase operational efficiencies

12. POLICY & RULE GOVERNANCE • Who requests rules & policy requirements? • Are business owners engaged? • Who reviews rule requests? • Criteria for approved rule? • What’s the process for converting a rule request into a policy? • What is the formal policy development process? • First drafts rarely work as expected! • Who’s responsible for converting a rule into technical policy? • Do they have technical policy authoring expertise? • Is there a process to relay production policy metrics to stakeholders?

13. WORKFLOWDEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT • Who develops & manages policy “buckets”? • False positive, inbound partner, outbound employee • Who defines thresholds that determine response rules for each “bucket”? • Are 10 SSNs a high, medium or low severity incident? • Who designs & sets the policy response triggers? • Malicious, Inadvertent, Suspicious, above threshold. • Who’s responsible for building alerts, alarms & notifications? • Has business been engaged on event management? • Triage response options: • Human notification • System notification (auto) • Hybrid? • Who manages the DLP policy & rules repository? • Why recreate the wheel?

14. INCIDENT TRIAGE & EVENT MANAGEMENT • How does DLP fit in overall incident/event management process? • Can this be mapped to DLP system? • Who reviews volume & yield of incidents & events? • What’s the review frequency? • How are events/incidents routed? • Who owns the incident/event? • How will integrated systems be tied together to yield valued info? • Secure mail, web gateway, GRC, SIEM • What metrics are developed to measure success of rules & related policy? • Who ‘s responsible for developing metrics? • Revision of rules based on quality of policy results. • Who manages policy optimization process?

15. BUSINESS ANALYTICS • Who drives report requirements? Requestors, Reviewers, others? • Whodevelopsreports? • Do they have the expertise with 3rd party reporting tools? • Are DLP system generated reports adequate? • Are the metrics valuable & driving meaningful change? • Report accuracy tied into QA process?

16. APPLICATIONMANAGEMENT PITFALL Inadequately Trained Infrastructure Resources Inadequate Planning & Resources • Problem: Current IT infrastructure management is often inadequately trained for planning, deployment and ongoing operational management of DLP system. (Oracle vs. SQL, etc.) • Solution: Better internal planning & cross functional involvement. In addition to outsourced 3rd party management of on premise solution or fully managed cloud-based delivery. This provides you with instant expertise reducing the need for staffing and providing higher availability.

17. POLICY GOVERNANCE PITFALL No Plan of Attack Inadequate Planning & Resources • Problem: A survey of 50 DLP customers in 2010 said 83% of firms did not consider the overall DLP system cycle & the necessary resources for optimal system usage prior to solution acquisition. Inadequate or lack of resources leads to poor policy construction & unmanageable incidents. • Solution:A well thought out DLP scope with a supporting policy governance process that is VERY inclusive of business unitsinput as well as involvement with the triage & event management process. There must be people budgeted for any DLP project as well as preparation for business unit buy-in.

18. POLICY GOVERNANCE PITFALL Failure to Engage the Business Stuck in the IT Department • Problem: A survey of 50 DLP customers in 2010 said 76%of firms stated the DLP system technical management & daily operations were the responsibility of a group directly involved with IT. In these cases it is very rare to find heavy involvement from business owners directly involved with the creation & usage of the data targeted for protection. • Solution: Designation of a primary business owner of the DLP solution, in conjunction with technical management, is the best recipe for success on the front-end planning phaseof the project. Without direct & serious involvement from the business, it is very likely that the entire DLP program will never get more than mediocre results.

19. POLICY GOVERNANCE PITFALL Lack of Rule Customization Inaccuracy of Out-of-Box (OOB) Policies • Problem: The reliance of organizations to use OOB policies as the primary detection criteria for their DLP scope. In many cases data identifiers in OOB policies may never capture unique attributes of a organizations information targets, yielding a combination of false positives and false negatives which lead to an unmanageable incident yield. • Solution: Prior to enabling ANY managed production policies, it is highly recommended to select one primary data criteriato focus initial efforts. Once agreed upon, use business process mapping to capture how the data is used and stored. Then, obtain examples and construct policies based on the collected data.

20. DATA-IN-MOTIONPITFALLS: Missing the Target – False Sense of Security • Mis-configured Tap or Port Span • Encryption – The Masked Data • Misfire of Network Discovery Scans • Network versus Endpoint Discovery • ProblemAnalysis of data DID not take place prior to encryption. • SolutionComprehensive test plan that proves ALL DLP data assessment takes place prior to the gateway encryption & implement managed “test” DLP policies that identify encrypted transmissions as part of the test plan. • Problem Locations of sensitive data never targetedby the organization for scanning due to lack of an effective policy governance process. • SolutionIdentify potential data stores by discussing the DLP program with staff to understand process. • ProblemRunning DAR scans using a combo of network & endpoint without thinking about which policy types & detection methods are not the same. • SolutionPrior to acquiring DLP solution, have an understanding of the data types that make up your target environment & then, decide on scanning method. • . • ProblemMissing segments of network traffic or protocols • SolutionComprehensive test plan that maps to in scope business processes and related data types transmitted from various network locations to ensure all relevant data streams are being captured.

21. Problem Failure to monitor endpoint population & their frequency of “checking-in”to the management server with validated results. • SolutionPhased deployment of endpoint with validation via test plan on initial success of ALL agents & on-going endpoint agent health reports. • ProblemNo rigorous endpoint environment assessment prior to the selection of the application & enablement. • SolutionAddress age of environment, performance capabilities, technical & human issues, & load of applications, in conjunction with education on the DLP endpoints. • ProblemFailure to calculate & measure the impact of endpoint policy traffic across wide & local area network connections. • SolutionThorough assessment of endpoint policies that addresses all of the concerns including policy design requirements, timing, frequency & delivery methods. • Problem Implementing same policies for network based & endpoint assessments without testing or modification. • SolutionUtilize a comprehensive test plan outlining specific metrics (time to open files, open/send emails, open applications) prior to deployment. DATA-IN-USE (ENDPOINT) PITFALLS: The Pandora’s Box of DLP • Environment Assessment • Staying in • Contact • User Performance • Impacts • Network/System Performance Impacts

22. QMS SAMPLE QUARTERLY REPORT

23. USE CASE –POST PROJECT STATE Organization Overview: Medical Device & Pharmaceutical Manufacturer, 40,000 employees globally DLP Scope: Focused on 3 specific product lines linked to highest revenue & earnings DLP Primary Goal: Identification of unauthorized movement of specific elements of IP Application Management: Operated by a combination of IT, messaging & desktop management teams Policy Governance: 100% customized policies based on data collected from business unit Incident Triage: Daily review of incidents by Information Security Event Management: Incidents meeting severity criteria routed to business unit for investigation Reporting and Metrics: Behavioral pattern analysis leading to preventive actions Status: R&D teams have high-level of confidence in ability to identify leakage of IP

24. BEW GLOBAL HQ BEW GLOBAL EMEA BEW GLOBAL APAC • 5613 DTC Parkway • Suite 1250 • Greenwood Village, CO 80111 • USA • (ph) +1 720 227 0990 • (fax) +1 720 227 0984 • www.bewglobal.com • 3 Albany Court • Albany Park • Camberley GU16 7QR • England • (ph) +44 (0) 845 481 0882(fax) +44 (0) 871 714 2170 • www.bewglobal.com • 520 Oxford Street • Level 23, Tower 1 • Bondi Junction • Sydney 2022 • (ph)  +61 (2) 9513 8800(fax) +61 (2) 9513 8888 • www.bewglobal.com