digital asset protection feature
varying degrees of success) in three key ways. The first is physical media distribution - in other words, shipping tape. Having established that this outmoded method is economically and environmentally unsound, many companies are turning to niche service providers that specialise in file movement, but these services are just as expensive as shipping physical media and are not optimised for moving larger and larger files that are being used today.
The third method is an unmanaged IP-based solution such as FTP, but this approach is typically inefficient and unreliable from a network standpoint and lacks any reliable means for tracking the assets. Furthermore, FTP authent- ication mechanisms are weak and managing user IDs and passwords used by FTP scripts is labour- intensive, insecure, and does not scale. Asset protection during an FTP file transfer is an ad hoc, manual process that must be carried out in multiple stages. Consider the typical corporate network, which is highly secure and firewalled. At the next layer is a type of ‘demilitarised zone’ with marginal security in which the corporate website and publicly accessible servers reside, and on the outside is the public Internet. When Company A needs to transfer a video asset to Company B via FTP, the asset must traverse through the corporate network and DMZ and out to the public Internet, and then to the partner’s website layer and corporate network. Without the proper security to move through every layer, Company A is required to perform time-consuming manual FTP steps at each level to accomplish the transfer. Inefficiency aside, these manual processes present real security risks for companies at every stage in the media supply chain. In an age when piracy is a global epidemic and well-documented digital security breaches have cost media companies many millions of dollars, the risks are just too great to leave asset transfer security to chance.
B2B content peering deconstructed
Through B2B content peering, CSCM systems overcome these challenges by automating manual security steps, and by providing a common model for companies to link to and exchange content freely with their business partners. As exemplified by the Signiant CSCM solution, peering is based on the placement of trusted software agents that can be installed in all layers of the network, on both sides of the B2B content exchange.
In a typical peering implementation, Company A’s software agents contact a locally-running management system that provides third-party certificate authority as the security mechanism to facilitate the transfer of assets to Company B. In other words, the manager gives the agent the information it needs to validate that Company B is trusted (the certificate authority), including public key security credentials necessary to mutually authenticate with Company B’s agents and guarantee the privacy and integrity of data. In this manner, the agent can securely and automatically
pass the content via public key encryption through all of the network layers and into Company B’s network (see Figure 1). As an added control measure, Company B can fine-tune the file transfer by applying workflow and resource management rules to include the type of transfer that its agent can conduct with Company A. Therefore, Company A’s agent is only authorised to send content that meets Company B’s specific criteria, eg no executable files, only *.mpg files that were created by a certain person, no more than three *.mpg files at once, only content that’s been virus-scanned, or no files without XML instructions. Once the sending agent meets the criteria, it is qualified as a trusted agent and the content is transferred smoothly. Thus, both sides have powerful control over such aspects as bandwidth usage, how much of their networks will be allocated for the transaction, and the location in the network where the content will be downloaded.
In a more concrete example, a large post production house has its own network of CSCM agents and managers, as do each of the broadcasters the company does business with. Upon completion of the latest phase of a project (say, a new cut of the latest episode of a popular television series), the post engineer is ready to send the content to the broadcaster for review and approval. The sending engineer simply drops the content into a folder monitored by the trusted agent for that broadcaster. Since the post engineer and the receiving engineer at the broadcaster had previously exchanged security certificates, the post house’s security certificate now resides in the broadcaster’s peer manager system as a guarantee that the content is coming from a trusted source and coupled with the business rules meets the broadcaster’s guidelines. Once accepted, the trusted agent can be viewed by the post engineer and the transfer can occur smoothly, and at a bandwidth specified by the receiving party. Both ends of the transaction are trusted and both have control, making the exchange truly collaborative.
In summary
File-based workflows have become more the norm than the exception in today’s most sophisticated media operations. As a consequence, global collaboration and partnerships are vital in today’s media enterprises, with the seamless exchange of content of paramount importance. The stakes have never been higher for companies to prevent network security breaches and protect valuable content assets - particularly when they are exchanged between enterprises.
By establishing mutual trust between trading partners through the exchange of security certificates, B2B content peering provides a much more effective and powerful alternative to the manual and time-consuming security aspects of FTP file transfers. Thus, peering has become an integral component in any media company’s strategy for content supply chain management.
www.ibeweb.com l january/february 2011 l ibe l 33
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44