Support

Definition

For file transfers requiring encryption, starts as a standard FTP connection on port 21, then upgrades to encrypted TLS after the client sends an AUTH TLS command. This negotiation happens in plain view before any credentials or files are exchanged, giving you control over when encryption kicks in.

How It Works

When your MFT client connects to an endpoint, it first establishes a normal FTP control channel. Before authenticating, the client issues an AUTH TLS or AUTH SSL command to request encryption. If the server supports it, both sides negotiate the TLS handshake, exchange certificates, and upgrade the connection to encrypted. From that point forward, authentication credentials and FTP commands travel encrypted. You can also encrypt the data channel (where files actually move) by issuing PROT P for private mode. This two-step approach means firewalls see standard FTP traffic initially, which simplifies NAT traversal compared to Implicit FTPS, though you'll still need to manage passive mode port ranges.

Default Ports

Port 21 for control channel (same as standard FTP)
Ports 1024-65535 for data channel in passive mode (configurable range, typically restricted to a smaller subset like 50000-50100 for firewall rules)

Why It Matters

I've seen organizations choose Explicit FTPS when they need to support legacy trading partners who can't handle SFTP but absolutely require encryption. It's backwards-compatible—you can run FTP and Explicit FTPS on the same port 21, letting the client decide whether to upgrade. That flexibility matters when you're migrating hundreds of partners from unencrypted FTP to secure transfers. The explicit upgrade also creates clear audit trails showing exactly when encryption starts, which compliance teams appreciate.

Common Use Cases

• Manufacturing supply chains exchanging CAD files and BOMs with partners who standardized on FTPS years ago and won't switch to SFTP
• Financial institutions migrating from plain FTP where regulatory pressure demands encryption but partner systems don't support SSH-based protocols
• Retail EDI exchanges where VAN providers offer FTPS endpoints for POS data uploads and inventory feeds
• Healthcare clearinghouses accepting insurance claims from smaller practices still running older practice management software with FTPS-only capabilities
• Media companies distributing content to regional broadcasters who specified FTPS in their technical requirements years ago

Best Practices

• Always enforce PROT P (protected data channel) in your MFT server settings. I've seen deployments where the control channel was encrypted but files moved in cleartext because PROT C was allowed.
• Define a narrow passive port range (100-200 ports maximum) and open only those in your firewall. Document this range for trading partners who need to whitelist your IP and ports.
• Require TLS 1.2 minimum and disable SSLv3/TLS 1.0 to meet current compliance standards. Most MFT platforms let you specify allowed cipher suites—use that.
• Use certificate-based authentication in addition to passwords when your MFT platform supports it. You get non-repudiation and stronger identity verification for high-value transfers.
• Test both active and passive modes with each trading partner before go-live. Their firewall configurations often determine which works, and you'll save hours of troubleshooting.

Related Terms

• Implicit FTPS
• FTPS
• SFTP

‍

A network that links an enterprise to its various business partners over a secure Internet-based environment. In this way, it has the security advantages of a private network at the shared cost of a public one. See VPN.

Definition

For MFT platforms handling regulated data, is the US and Canadian government standard that validates cryptographic modules meet specific security requirements. Published in 2019 as the successor to FIPS 140-2, it establishes four security levels for hardware and software cryptographic implementations used in file transfers.

Why It Matters

If you're transferring files for federal agencies or defense contractors, FIPS 140-3 validation isn't optional—it's mandatory. Beyond government work, I've seen financial institutions and healthcare organizations require it because validated cryptography gives auditors concrete proof that your encryption actually works as advertised. Without FIPS validation, you're asking regulators to trust your vendor's claims about encryption strength, and that rarely goes well during compliance audits.

Key MFT Requirements

When implementing FIPS 140-3 for file transfer operations, you need to address these specific requirements:

• Cryptographic module validation: Your MFT platform must use FIPS 140-3 validated modules for all encryption operations, including HSMs for key storage, with certificates matching your security level requirements—Level 1 for software modules, Level 3+ for tamper-evident hardware.
• Approved algorithms only: File transfers must use FIPS-approved cryptographic algorithms like AES-256 for symmetric encryption, RSA or ECC for key exchange, and SHA-256 or SHA-3 for hashing—older algorithms like 3DES or SHA-1 fail validation even if technically supported.
• Key management controls: Cryptographic keys protecting file transfers require FIPS-compliant generation, storage, and destruction processes, meaning you can't store keys in plain configuration files or use weak key derivation functions.
• Self-tests and error states: The cryptographic module must perform power-up self-tests before processing any file transfers and enter an error state if tests fail, preventing compromised encryption from silently passing through sensitive files.
• Physical security (Level 2+): For Level 2 and higher, you need tamper-evident seals or coatings on hardware cryptographic modules, which matters when you're running on-premises MFT servers with HSM appliances in your data center.

Common Use Cases

• Federal agencies transferring citizen data where FISMA compliance mandates FIPS 140-3 validated encryption for all data at rest and in transit across MFT platforms
• Defense contractors moving technical drawings and classified files under CMMC Level 2+ requirements that explicitly require FIPS validated cryptographic modules
• Healthcare systems exchanging protected health information when HIPAA security officers demand documented cryptographic validation beyond basic AES implementation
• Financial services firms processing payment card data where PCI DSS v4.0 recommends FIPS validation for cryptographic modules protecting cardholder data during file transfers

Best Practices

• Verify certificate validity: Don't trust vendor marketing—check the NIST CMVP website to confirm your MFT platform's specific version appears in the validated modules list with an active certificate, because updates often break validation.
• Match security levels to risk: Level 1 (software-only) works for most commercial file transfers, but federal systems need Level 2 minimum. I've seen organizations waste budget on Level 3 hardware when only Level 1 was required.
• Plan for migration windows: FIPS 140-2 certificates remain valid until September 2026, giving you time to upgrade MFT platforms to 140-3 validated modules without emergency migrations. Start testing now because compatibility issues take months to resolve.
• Document the validation chain: Auditors want proof that your entire encryption path uses validated modules, so maintain documentation showing your MFT platform's FIPS certificate, the specific algorithms configured for each protocol, and HSM validation certificates.
• Test in FIPS mode: Most MFT platforms support both FIPS and non-FIPS modes—running in FIPS mode disables non-approved algorithms and can break legacy partner connections, so test thoroughly before enforcing it in production.

Related Terms

• Hardware Security Module (HSM)
• AES-256
• CMMC

‍

FTPS (File Transfer Protocol Secure) is an extension of the traditional FTP protocol that adds support for SSL/TLS encryption to secure file transfers. It ensures that both commands and data are encrypted during transmission, providing protection against eavesdropping and tampering. FTPS is widely used in environments where compliance with security standards is required, and it supports both explicit and implicit modes of encryption for flexible integration.

Definition

In MFT systems, file integrity confirms that a transferred file arrives exactly as sent, with no corruption, tampering, or unintended modification during transit or storage. Platforms verify integrity through cryptographic hashes and checksum validation, comparing values calculated at the source against those generated at the destination.

Why It Matters

I've seen a single corrupted byte in a financial transaction file cause a $400,000 error that took three days to unwind. File integrity verification catches these issues before they become business problems. For regulated industries, proving that files haven't been altered during transfer isn't optional—it's a compliance requirement. Without integrity checks, you're trusting that network glitches, storage issues, or malicious actors haven't touched your data.

How It Works

The sending system calculates a hash value—most commonly SHA-256 in modern implementations—of the complete file before transfer. This hash acts as a digital fingerprint: changing even one bit in the file produces a completely different hash. The receiving system recalculates the hash upon arrival and compares it to the original. If they match, the file is intact. MFT platforms can also use digital signatures to verify both integrity and authenticity, proving who sent the file and that it hasn't been modified.

MFT Context

Enterprise MFT platforms build integrity checking into every transfer workflow. Most systems automatically generate and compare hashes without requiring manual intervention. I configure platforms to reject and quarantine any file that fails integrity validation, triggering immediate alerts to operations teams. The integrity verification happens post-transfer but pre-processing, so corrupted files never enter downstream systems. Advanced platforms store integrity proof alongside audit logs for compliance documentation.

Common Use Cases

• Healthcare organizations transmitting patient records where HIPAA requires both confidentiality and integrity verification for all ePHI transfers
• Financial institutions exchanging payment files where a single altered digit could misdirect millions in transactions
• Manufacturing supply chains sending CAD files and production specifications where file corruption could result in defective products
• Government agencies transferring classified information where integrity verification proves files haven't been intercepted and modified
• Software vendors distributing application updates where customers must verify that patches haven't been compromised

Best Practices

• Use SHA-256 or stronger for integrity verification; MD5 and SHA-1 are cryptographically broken and shouldn't be used for security-critical transfers, though they're acceptable for detecting accidental corruption.
• Verify integrity before processing any transferred file. I've configured systems to automatically quarantine files that fail validation and notify both sender and recipient within seconds.
• Store integrity values separately from the files themselves. If someone gains access to your storage and modifies both the file and its hash, you've lost your verification mechanism.
• Implement automatic retry with re-verification for failed integrity checks. Sometimes network issues cause corruption that resolves on subsequent attempts, but always maintain a failure threshold.
• Document integrity methods in partner agreements. Your trading partners need to know which hashing algorithms you support and expect, especially when compliance auditors come asking.

Real-World Example

A pharmaceutical manufacturer I worked with transfers 2,000+ clinical trial data files daily to research partners globally. Each file contains patient data that must remain unaltered per FDA 21 CFR Part 11 requirements. Their MFT platform calculates SHA-256 hashes at the source, transmits them via separate metadata channels, and validates every file at the destination. Failed integrity checks trigger automatic retransmission and alert the compliance team. They've caught 15-20 corrupted transfers monthly—mostly from network issues—before any data entered analysis systems.

Related Terms

• Checksum Validation
• Digital Signatures
• File Validation
• Non-Repudiation

‍

Definition

In MFT systems, an endpoint represents any source or destination location where you're sending or receiving files. Think of it as a configured connection profile that defines how to reach a specific partner, internal system, or storage location—complete with protocol choice, authentication credentials, and connection parameters.

Why It Matters

Every file transfer involves at least two endpoints, and how you manage them determines operational efficiency. Poor endpoint management creates security gaps when credentials expire, connection details change, or you lose visibility into who's sending what. I've seen organizations struggle with hundreds of spreadsheet-tracked partner endpoints—when a trading partner updates their SFTP server, you need to know immediately. Centralizing endpoint configurations means one place to update, audit, and secure all your connection points.

How It Works

Each endpoint configuration stores everything needed to establish a connection: hostname or IP address, port number, protocol type (SFTP, FTPS, HTTPS, AS2), authentication method, and credential vault references. When initiating a transfer, the MFT platform retrieves the endpoint profile, establishes the connection using the specified protocol, authenticates with stored credentials, and executes the file operation. For inbound transfers, endpoints also define where external partners connect to your infrastructure—whether that's directly to your MFT server or through a DMZ-based gateway architecture. Modern platforms test endpoint connectivity on demand and alert you when authentication fails or hosts become unreachable.

MFT Context

Enterprise MFT platforms treat endpoints as first-class objects with their own lifecycle management. You're not just storing IP addresses—you're managing relationships. Each endpoint has metadata: business owner, support contacts, maintenance windows, SLA expectations, data classification levels. When a partner requires certificate rotation or credential updates, you update the endpoint configuration once and all workflows using that endpoint inherit the change. This matters especially in regulated environments where you need audit trails showing exactly which endpoint configurations were active during specific file transfers.

Common Use Cases

• External partner integration: Configure endpoints for each supplier, customer, or bank connecting to exchange invoices, payments, or EDI documents with unique credentials and connection requirements
• Multi-cloud distribution: Define endpoints for AWS S3, Azure Blob Storage, and Google Cloud Storage buckets where application teams need files delivered after processing
• Internal system feeds: Set up endpoints for database servers, application directories, and mainframe locations that consume or produce daily batch files
• Backup and archival: Create endpoints pointing to long-term storage appliances or cold storage tiers that receive copies of all transmitted files for compliance retention
• Regional data centers: Establish endpoints across geographic locations to support local data residency requirements while maintaining centralized workflow control

Best Practices

• Separate credentials from workflows: Store endpoint credentials in a centralized vault with rotation policies, not hardcoded in job definitions—when credentials change, you update once and all jobs continue working
• Test connectivity regularly: Schedule automated connection tests for critical endpoints, especially external partners who may change firewall rules or certificates without notification
• Document ownership clearly: Assign business and technical owners to each endpoint with escalation contacts—when transfers fail at 2 AM, you need to know who to call
• Version endpoint changes: Keep configuration history showing what changed, when, and by whom—essential for troubleshooting when transfers suddenly break after someone "just made a small update"
• Group by function, not protocol: Organize endpoints by business purpose (payment partners, HR feeds, regulatory submissions) rather than technical protocol, making it easier for non-technical staff to understand relationships

Real-World Example

A healthcare clearinghouse manages 450 endpoints representing insurance payers, medical providers, and pharmacy networks. Each endpoint uses different protocols—some require SFTP, others demand AS2 with specific certificates, and legacy partners still use FTPS. Their MFT platform centralizes all endpoint configurations with automated certificate expiration monitoring. When a major payer updated their firewall rules affecting 50,000 daily claim submissions, the team identified the endpoint change within minutes by testing connectivity, updated the IP allowlist, and restored operations before missing their 6 AM processing window.

Related Terms

• Trading Partner
• MFT Agent
• SFTP
• B2B Integration

‍

Definition

In MFT systems, workflows orchestrate multi-step file transfer processes that combine transmission, validation, transformation, and routing into repeatable automated sequences. You're essentially building a pipeline where each step—like encrypt, transfer, decrypt, validate checksum, then route to final destination—executes based on success or failure conditions from the previous action.

Why It Matters

Manual file handling doesn't scale when you're moving 5,000+ files daily across dozens of partners. Workflows eliminate the "sneakernet" approach where operators manually trigger transfers, check for completion, then start the next step. I've seen organizations cut processing time from 4 hours to 15 minutes just by automating their nightly batch sequences. More importantly, workflows enforce consistency—every file follows the same validation and routing logic, which auditors love.

How It Works

Workflows use triggers and actions in a directed graph. A trigger initiates the workflow—could be a schedule (2 AM daily), an event-driven trigger (file lands in watched folder), or an API call. Then actions execute sequentially or in parallel: transfer the file, run checksum validation, transform format if needed, route to multiple destinations, send notification. If a step fails, the workflow branches to error handling—retry with backoff, move to dead letter queue, or alert operations. Modern MFT platforms let you build these visually with drag-and-drop designers, but under the hood they're state machines tracking each execution.

MFT Context

MFT platforms treat workflows as first-class objects you can version, test, and deploy across environments. You'll typically see workflow templates for common patterns: inbound processing (receive, validate, route), outbound distribution (gather, transform, deliver to N partners), and scheduled batch jobs. Most platforms integrate workflows with their audit trail, so every execution gets logged with timestamps, file metadata, and which user or service account initiated it. This becomes critical for compliance reporting and troubleshooting failed transfers at 3 AM.

Common Use Cases

• EDI processing: Receive 850 purchase orders from trading partner portal, validate against schema, transform to internal ERP format, route to procurement system, send 997 acknowledgment back
• Nightly batch distribution: At 1 AM, gather all day's transactions from database, create CSV exports, compress, encrypt with partner-specific PGP keys, deliver via SFTP to 40+ retail locations
• Healthcare data exchange: Inbound HL7 files trigger workflow that validates patient identifiers, checks for duplicates, masks PHI per data governance rules, routes to EMR integration queue
• Financial reconciliation: Every 4 hours, pull transaction files from payment processors, validate checksums, compare against internal records, flag discrepancies for manual review
• Media distribution: When video file lands in upload folder, workflow transcodes to multiple formats, generates thumbnails, transfers to CDN, updates content management system status

Best Practices

• Design for idempotency: Workflows should produce the same result if run twice with the same input. Use unique file identifiers and check if you've already processed a file before starting the workflow. Saves you from duplicate transactions when retry logic kicks in.
• Build checkpoints into long workflows: If you're moving 50GB files through a 10-step process, implement checkpoint restart so a failure at step 8 doesn't mean starting over. Store workflow state externally so you can resume even after system restart.
• Separate workflow logic from business logic: Don't hardcode partner-specific rules into workflows. Use configuration tables or external rule engines. When Partner X changes their file format requirements, you update config, not redeploy workflows.
• Monitor workflow SLAs, not just transfer success: Track end-to-end duration from trigger to final delivery. A workflow that "succeeds" but takes 6 hours instead of 30 minutes is failing from a business perspective.
• Version your workflows with semantic versioning: Use v1.2.3 naming and keep old versions available. When a workflow change breaks production at midnight, you need quick rollback capability without digging through backup archives.

Real-World Example

A pharmaceutical distributor uses workflows to coordinate shipment notifications with 200+ hospitals. When their warehouse management system closes a shipment, it triggers a workflow that pulls order details from their ERP, generates an ASN (Advanced Ship Notice) in both EDI 856 and XML formats, applies hospital-specific transformation rules, encrypts files, delivers via each hospital's preferred protocol (AS2 for large systems, SFTP for smaller clinics), then waits for MDN or acknowledgment. If no acknowledgment arrives within 2 hours, the workflow escalates to operations. They process 3,500 shipments daily with 99.8% first-attempt success rate.

Related Terms

• Workflow Automation
• Scheduled Transfers
• Process Orchestration
• Retry Logic

‍

Party that is authorised to view, use, download a set of master data provided by a data source. A final data recipient is not authorised to update any piece of master data provided by a data source in a public data pool (GCI definition). Final data recipient is also known as "Subscriber."

The Global Commerce Initiative (GCI) is a voluntary body created in October 1999 to improve the performance of the international supply chain for consumer goods through the collaborative development and endorsement of recommended standards and key business processes. (www.globalcommercerinitiative.org)

Global Data Alignment Service

Definition

For MFT platforms handling European personal data, sets strict requirements for file transfers containing information about EU residents. The regulation mandates technical controls like encryption, audit logging, and data sovereignty—meaning your transfer architecture must prove both security and accountability for every file containing personal data.

Why It Matters

GDPR penalties hit 4% of global annual revenue or €20 million, whichever is higher. I've seen organizations face investigations because they couldn't prove encryption was active during file transfers or failed to document exactly where customer data files moved. Your MFT system becomes the control point that either demonstrates compliance or becomes the liability that triggers violations when personal data crosses borders or gets accessed without proper authorization.

Key MFT Requirements

• Encryption mandate: Personal data files must use encryption-in-transit and encryption-at-rest. GDPR doesn't specify algorithms, but you'll need to document your choice and demonstrate why AES-256 or equivalent meets "appropriate technical measures" for your risk profile.
• Complete audit trails: Every file transfer touching personal data requires logging—who sent it, who received it, when, what data was inside, and the legal basis for processing. Your audit-trail must be tamper-proof and retained for the duration specified by your data protection impact assessment.
• Data subject rights: MFT systems must support deletion requests within 30 days, meaning you need workflows to identify and purge all copies of specific individuals' data across active transfers, archives, and partner endpoints. This includes automated file cleanup and verified deletion confirmation.
• Transfer impact assessments: Before you route personal data outside the EU, you need documented justification—standard contractual clauses, adequacy decisions, or binding corporate rules. Your MFT platform should enforce geographic routing policies that prevent unauthorized cross-border transfers.
• Breach notification: If you discover unauthorized access to personal data files, you've got 72 hours to notify authorities. Your MFT system needs real-time alerting on access anomalies, failed authentication attempts, and unexpected file exports.

Common Use Cases

• Financial services transferring customer account statements, transaction histories, or KYC documentation to partners in EU member states and requiring data residency proof for regulators
• Healthcare providers exchanging patient records, lab results, or insurance claims with European facilities while maintaining strict access controls and complete transfer lineage
• HR departments moving employee personal files—contracts, payroll data, benefits information—between offices in different countries with proper legal mechanisms documented
• Marketing platforms distributing customer preference data, email lists, or behavioral analytics to agencies while ensuring consent records travel with the personal data files

Best Practices

• Implement geographic routing rules in your MFT platform that block personal data transfers to non-approved regions by default. I configure explicit allow-lists rather than deny-lists because human error with deny rules creates compliance gaps.
• Use pseudonymization for testing and development workflows. When you need to validate transfer patterns or troubleshoot issues, replace personal identifiers in test files so you're not unnecessarily processing actual customer data through non-production systems.
• Configure automated retention policies that align with your legitimate processing periods. Don't keep transferred files longer than necessary—if your legal team says 7 years for financial records, your MFT archive should auto-delete at 7 years and 1 day.
• Document your encryption choices and key management practices in your data protection impact assessment. When auditors ask how you protect personal data in transit, you need to show TLS 1.3 with specific cipher suites, not just claim "we use encryption."

Real World Example

A German insurance company processes 50,000 policy files daily containing customer health information and financial details. Their MFT platform enforces EU-only routing for personal data transfers, automatically encrypts all files with AES-256, and generates audit records showing data subject identity, transfer purpose, legal basis (usually contractual necessity), and recipient location. When a customer requests deletion, the workflow identifies all transferred files containing that person's policy number across 15 partner connections, deletes copies, and collects confirmation receipts within the 30-day window.

Related Terms

• audit-trail
• encryption-at-rest
• data-residency

‍

Gateway is a hardware and/or software device that performs translations between two or more disparate protocols or networks.

The GDD is a global list of data items where:

1. The structure of attributes includes aggregate information entities (master data for party and item and transactional data)
2. Neutral and relationship-dependent data, core and extension groups and transaction oriented data
3. Definition of master data includes:
4. Neutral data: relationship independent, general valid data
5. Relationship-dependent data: depending on bilateral partner agreements
6. Core: irrespective of the sector and country
7. Extension: sector specific, country specific
8. Definition of transactional (process-dependent) data includes neutral and relationship-dependent as well as core and extension

A 13-digit non-significant reference number used to identify legal entities (e.g., registered companies), functional entities (e.g., specific department within a legal entity) or physical entities (e.g., a door of a warehouse).

A registry is a global directory for the registration of items and parties. It can only contain data certified GCI compliant. It federates the GCI/GDAS-compliant data pools and acts as a pointer to the data pools where master data has been originally and physically stored. From the conception viewpoint, the registry function is supported by one logical registry, which could be physically distributed.

An "umbrella" term used to describe the entire family of EAN/UCC data structures for trade items (products and services) identification. The family of data structures includes: EAN/UCC- 8, UCC-12, EAN/UCC-13 and EAN/UCC-14. Products at every level of product configuration (consumer selling unit, case level, inner pack level, pallet, shipper, etc.) require a unique GTIN. GTIN is a new term, not a standards change.

Groupware refers to a collection of applications that center around collaborative human activities. Originally coined as the product category for Lotus Notes, it is a model for client-server computing based on five foundation technologies: multimedia document management, workflow, email, conferencing and scheduling.

Definition

In MFT systems, guaranteed delivery ensures a file reaches its destination exactly once, even when networks fail, servers restart, or connections drop mid-transfer. The platform tracks transfer state persistently, automatically retries failed operations, and provides cryptographic proof of successful delivery through acknowledgment receipts.

Why It Matters

When you're transferring payroll files at month-end or ePHI records to processors, you can't afford lost or duplicated transactions. Guaranteed delivery eliminates manual intervention—no one's checking logs at 2 AM to resend dropped files. It's the difference between an automated process you trust and one that requires constant babysitting. Financial institutions processing thousands of daily transfers depend on this to meet service level agreements without adding operations staff.

How It Works

MFT platforms implement guaranteed delivery through persistent message queues and transaction logs. When you send a file, the system writes it to durable storage before attempting transmission. During transfer, checkpoint restart saves progress at intervals—if a 50GB file fails at 80%, it resumes from that point rather than starting over. The receiving system acknowledges receipt, which the sender logs permanently. If acknowledgment doesn't arrive within a timeout, retry logic automatically resends using exponential backoff. Both endpoints maintain state until they confirm successful delivery.

MFT Context

Enterprise MFT platforms build guaranteed delivery into every transfer protocol they support. I've configured systems where SFTP transfers automatically retry with different backup servers if the primary fails. AS2 implementations use digital receipts (MDNs) to prove delivery contractually. The platform's job scheduler tracks each transfer as a transaction—if it doesn't complete, the system alerts you and keeps trying based on policies you define. This works across protocols, so your partners don't need to implement anything special.

Common Use Cases

• Financial services processing 50,000+ daily ACH files where missing a transmission means delayed payments and regulatory reporting failures
• Healthcare organizations sending claims and eligibility files where duplicate submissions create billing disputes and patient data integrity issues
• Retail chains transmitting point-of-sale data to corporate systems where lost files mean inaccurate inventory and revenue reporting
• Manufacturing exchanging EDI purchase orders with suppliers where missed transactions disrupt just-in-time production schedules

Best Practices

• Configure retry policies with increasing intervals (30 seconds, 2 minutes, 10 minutes) to handle temporary network issues without overwhelming failed endpoints
• Set maximum retry limits and route persistent failures to a dead letter queue for human review rather than retrying indefinitely
• Store acknowledgment receipts alongside audit logs to prove delivery during financial audits or compliance reviews—I've seen this save organizations during disputes
• Test failover scenarios regularly by simulating network failures and server restarts to verify transfer resumption works as configured
• Monitor delivery timeframes against SLA thresholds; if transfers consistently need multiple retries, you've got underlying infrastructure problems to fix

Related Terms

• Checkpoint Restart
• Retry Logic
• Service Level Agreement (SLA)
• Non-Repudiation

‍

Definition

Healthcare organizations depend on managed file transfer platforms to meet 's demanding requirements for protecting electronic protected health information (ePHI) during transmission and storage. The Security Rule establishes specific technical safeguards that directly impact how you configure file transfer workflows, encryption standards, and access controls.

Why It Matters

I've watched healthcare breaches cost organizations millions—not just in penalties (up to $1.9 million per violation category annually) but in remediation and reputation damage. When you're transferring patient records, lab results, or insurance claims between hospitals and payers, your MFT platform becomes the enforcement point for technical safeguards. A single unencrypted file sent to the wrong recipient can trigger breach notification requirements affecting thousands of patients and federal investigations.

Key MFT Requirements

• Encryption for ePHI in Transit and at Rest: Implement encryption-at-rest and use protocols like SFTP, FTPS, or AS2 with TLS 1.2+ for all file transfers containing patient data—no exceptions for "internal" networks
• Access Controls and Authentication: Role-based access control limits who can send, receive, or view ePHI files, with unique user IDs and automatic logoff after inactivity periods
• Audit Controls and Logging: Complete audit trails tracking every file access, transfer attempt, and user action with timestamps and outcomes—retained for at least six years
• Integrity Controls: File validation mechanisms like checksum verification ensure ePHI hasn't been altered during transmission
• Transmission Security: Deploy dedicated secure channels for ePHI transfers using end-to-end encryption and authentication

Common Use Cases

• Hospital systems exchanging patient records and diagnostic images with specialty clinics on daily schedules
• Medical billing companies receiving claims files with patient demographics from provider networks for insurance submission
• Health insurance payers distributing eligibility rosters to thousands of healthcare providers
• Clinical laboratories transmitting test results back to ordering physicians through HL7 formatted files
• Pharmacy benefit managers exchanging prescription data with retail pharmacies and mail-order facilities

Best Practices

• Implement Business Associate Agreements Before File Exchange: Every trading partner receiving ePHI needs a signed BAA. Configure your MFT platform to block transfers to partners without documented agreements.
• Separate ePHI Workflows from Non-PHI Transfers: I always recommend dedicated MFT zones for healthcare data with stricter encryption, limited access, and enhanced logging—even on the same infrastructure.
• Automate Encryption Policy Enforcement: Configure folder-based rules that automatically apply AES-256 encryption for any path containing patient identifiers—don't rely on users to remember.
• Retain Audit Logs Beyond Minimum Requirements: HIPAA requires six years, but investigations often request older logs. Store detailed transfer logs in immutable storage.
• Test Breach Response Plans with File Transfer Scenarios: Run quarterly drills simulating unauthorized ePHI access through your MFT platform, including notification timelines and forensic analysis.

Related Terms

• PCI DSS
• GDPR
• Audit Trail

‍

Definition

In MFT systems, combines a cryptographic hash function like SHA-256 with a secret key to generate message authentication codes that verify both the integrity and authenticity of transferred files. Unlike simple checksums, proves that only someone with the shared secret key could have created the authentication code, preventing attackers from modifying files and recalculating valid checksums.

Why It Matters

I've watched organizations discover modified files weeks after a breach because they only checked basic checksums. HMAC stops that. When you transfer payment files or healthcare records, you need proof that the file wasn't tampered with AND that it came from your legitimate trading partner. Without HMAC or equivalent message authentication, an attacker who intercepts your transfers can modify content and recalculate checksums—you'd never know the difference until the damage is done.

How It Works

HMAC processes file content through a hash function (typically SHA-256 or SHA-512) combined with a secret key that both sender and receiver share. The algorithm performs two hash operations: it first hashes the key mixed with specific padding, then hashes that result combined with the message. This double-hashing with the secret key means you can't forge an HMAC even if you know the hash algorithm. When the receiver recalculates the HMAC using their copy of the secret key, matching codes confirm the file hasn't changed and came from someone with that key.

MFT Context

MFT platforms use HMAC in several layers. API authentication often relies on HMAC signatures—your integration partner sends requests with HMACs calculated from the request body and a shared API key. Protocol layers embed HMAC too: SSH (which underlies SFTP) uses HMAC algorithms to protect each packet. I configure HMAC-SHA-256 or HMAC-SHA-512 for SSH connections because older options like HMAC-MD5 have known weaknesses. Some platforms generate HMAC codes for stored file metadata, creating tamper-evident audit trails.

Common Use Cases

• API-based file submissions where trading partners calculate HMAC signatures over JSON payloads, proving request authenticity without sending passwords
• AS2 and AS4 protocol implementations that use HMAC within digital signature operations to verify message integrity
• Audit trail protection where platforms calculate HMACs over log entries, detecting attempts to alter transfer records
• Webhook notifications that include HMAC signatures so receiving systems verify notifications came from your MFT platform

Best Practices

• Use HMAC-SHA-256 as your minimum—too many implementations still use HMAC-SHA-1 or HMAC-MD5, which don't meet current security requirements for regulated environments.
• Rotate HMAC keys every 90-180 days for API integrations. Build your key distribution process before you need it—rotating with dozens of partners gets complicated fast.
• Never log or transmit HMAC keys themselves. I've reviewed incidents where keys appeared in debug logs or error messages, defeating the authentication entirely.
• Use constant-time comparison functions when verifying HMAC values to prevent timing attacks where attackers measure verification duration to guess codes byte by byte.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 4.2.1 requires strong cryptography during transmission, and HMAC algorithms protect the integrity layer of compliant protocols. FIPS 140-3 specifies approved HMAC implementations (HMAC-SHA-224, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-512) for government and regulated industries. When auditors review MFT configurations, they check that SSH and TLS cipher suites include approved HMAC algorithms, not deprecated options like HMAC-MD5.

Related Terms

• SHA-256
• Digital Signatures

‍

HyperText Markup Language, derived from the Standardized General Markup Language and managed by the W3C is a presentation-layer technology for displaying content in a web browser. The markup tags instructs the web browser how to display a web page.

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms use as a secure application-layer protocol for REST API communication, web-based file uploads, and webhook deliveries. Built on HTTP with TLS encryption, it protects credentials, file metadata, and payloads during transit over port 443. Most modern MFT interfaces—whether you're configuring workflows or exchanging files through browser-based portals—rely on .

Why It Matters

You can't run a secure MFT operation without HTTPS anymore. Every API call to provision trading partners, every webhook notification about transfer status, and every browser-based file upload needs protection from man-in-the-middle attacks. I've seen organizations fail compliance audits because they exposed MFT APIs over plain HTTP, letting credentials and sensitive metadata traverse networks in cleartext. HTTPS also validates server identity through digital certificates, so your partners know they're connecting to your legitimate endpoint, not an imposter.

How It Works

When an MFT client initiates an HTTPS connection, the TLS handshake happens first. The server presents its certificate, the client verifies it against trusted CAs, and both sides negotiate a cipher suite. Once the symmetric session key is established, all HTTP traffic—headers, authentication tokens, file data—flows through an encrypted tunnel. For file transfers specifically, you're typically using HTTPS with REST APIs: a POST or PUT request with the file as the request body, often in multipart form encoding. The MFT platform handles chunking for large files, retry logic, and response codes to confirm delivery.

Default Ports

Port 443 for standard HTTPS connections (can be customized in MFT gateway configurations for internal routing).

Common Use Cases

• REST API integration where external applications push files into MFT platforms or retrieve transfer status through JSON payloads over encrypted connections
• Browser-based ad-hoc transfers allowing business users to upload sensitive files through web portals without installing dedicated client software
• Webhook notifications from MFT systems to trigger downstream processes when transfers complete, fail, or require manual intervention
• Mobile app file exchanges in healthcare and field services where iOS and Android apps submit documents to central MFT repositories

Best Practices

• Enforce TLS 1.2 or higher on all HTTPS endpoints—I still see MFT platforms accepting TLS 1.0, which violates PCI DSS requirements and opens you to protocol downgrade attacks
• Implement certificate pinning for high-security API integrations so your MFT clients reject connections even if an attacker somehow compromises a certificate authority
• Use mutual TLS (mTLS) for machine-to-machine API calls between MFT gateways and trading partners, requiring client certificates alongside server certificates for bidirectional authentication
• Set appropriate timeouts for large file uploads over HTTPS—default 30-second limits will terminate legitimate 500MB transfers, so configure your web server and MFT gateway to allow 10+ minute connections based on expected file sizes

Related Terms

• TLS 1.3
• FTPS
• SFTP

‍

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms use HSMs—tamper-resistant cryptographic devices—to protect private keys for file encryption and protocol operations. These hardware modules generate, store, and manage keys for SFTP, AS2, and PGP while preventing extraction. Even administrators can't access raw key material stored inside the HSM's hardened security boundary.

Why It Matters

When you're transferring payment files or healthcare records, key compromise means every past and future transmission is at risk. Software-based key storage exposes keys to memory dumps and insider threats. HSMs provide physical protection with audit logs tracking every cryptographic operation. If someone breaches your MFT host, they still can't extract the private keys—the difference between a security incident and a catastrophic breach.

How It Works

The HSM connects to your MFT platform via network (TCP/IP) or PCIe attachment. When an SFTP connection arrives, the MFT server sends the cryptographic operation request to the HSM. The device performs operations using keys that never leave its hardened environment and returns only the result. For file encryption, the HSM generates data encryption keys wrapped with internal master keys. They include battery-backed memory that zeroes itself if tampered with and log every key usage event with immutable timestamps.

MFT Context

I've implemented HSMs for MFT deployments where trading partners require proof that private keys stay in hardware. The MFT platform treats the HSM as an external cryptographic provider—you configure certificate storage to point to HSM slots instead of filesystem keystores. For high-volume exchanges processing 50,000+ daily transfers, HSM-based operations introduce minimal latency (typically 2-5ms). You'll also see them in multi-tenant environments where business units need cryptographic isolation without separate infrastructure.

Best Practices

• Deploy HSMs in redundant pairs with synchronized key material. I've seen single HSM failures cause 6+ hour outages when teams didn't plan for hardware redundancy or key backup procedures.
• Use separate HSM partitions for production and test environments. Cryptographic isolation prevents development teams from accidentally using production keys during integration testing of new partner connections.
• Implement M-of-N authentication requiring multiple administrators for key generation or firmware updates. No single person should control cryptographic material protecting financial transfers.
• Monitor HSM performance metrics, especially operation latency. When cryptographic operations exceed 15-20ms, you're hitting capacity limits that'll bottleneck peak transfer windows.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 3.6.1.1 mandates cryptographic key protection using secure cryptographic devices like FIPS 140-3 Level 3+ HSMs for encrypting cardholder data. HIPAA's Security Rule §164.312(a)(2)(iv) requires encryption key management mechanisms, which HSMs satisfy through hardware-protected storage. For CMMC Level 2, practice AC.3.014 requires separation of duties for key management—HSM dual-control features provide this separation.

Related Terms

• Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
• Digital Certificate (X.509)
• FIPS 140-3

‍

A typical enterprise information system today includes many types of computer technology, from PCs to mainframes. These include a wide variety of different operating systems, application software and in-house developed applications. EAI solves the complex problem of making a heterogeneous infrastructure more coherent.

Definition

Enterprise file transfer platforms deploy High Availability configurations to eliminate single points of failure and maintain continuous operation during component outages. You're running multiple synchronized instances so a failed node doesn't interrupt transfers or partner connections.

Why It Matters

Downtime in file transfer operations creates immediate problems. Partners can't send you orders or invoices, automated workflows stall, and you're scrambling to explain missed SLAs. I've seen organizations lose regulatory compliance windows because their single MFT server went down during a critical reporting period. HA architectures keep transfers flowing even when hardware fails, databases crash, or you need to patch systems during business hours.

How It Works

HA configurations use clustering to maintain multiple MFT nodes that share state information—session data, transfer queues, configuration settings. In active-passive setups, one node handles all traffic while the standby monitors health and takes over during failures. Active-active configurations distribute load across all nodes, with automatic failover if any instance becomes unavailable. Most implementations rely on shared storage or database replication to keep transfer metadata synchronized, plus virtual IP addresses that automatically redirect to healthy nodes.

MFT Context in File Transfer

MFT platforms need HA at multiple layers. You're protecting not just the core transfer engine but also protocol servers, web interfaces, and backend job schedulers. When a partner initiates an SFTP connection, they hit a load balancer that routes to available nodes. Mid-transfer failures trigger automatic reconnection to different nodes using checkpoint restart. I configure heartbeat intervals around 5-10 seconds to detect failures quickly without creating false positives from temporary network delays.

Common Use Cases

• Financial services institutions processing 50,000+ daily payment files where even 15-minute outages trigger regulatory reporting and partner complaints
• Healthcare networks exchanging HL7 and claims data continuously, requiring 99.9% uptime to meet HIPAA business associate obligations
• Manufacturing supply chains sending production schedules and shipping notices across time zones, needing 24/7 availability for global operations
• Retail organizations during peak seasons transferring POS data and inventory updates where downtime directly impacts revenue and stock accuracy

Best Practices

• Test failover scenarios monthly under realistic load conditions—I've found that many HA setups fail their first real outage because they've never been tested beyond initial implementation
• Monitor synchronization lag between nodes; when replication delays exceed 30 seconds, you risk data inconsistency and duplicate processing during failovers
• Implement proper quorum mechanisms to prevent split-brain scenarios where multiple nodes think they're primary, which corrupts transfer state and creates duplicate deliveries
• Plan for cascading failures by ensuring your HA architecture doesn't share dependencies like network switches, power circuits, or database instances that could take down all nodes simultaneously

Related Terms

• Active-Active
• Active-Passive
• Disaster Recovery

‍

Defined

Enterprise MFT platforms like bTrade’s TDXchange use Accelerated File Transfer Protocol (AFTP) to deliver high-speed transfers of large files across geographically distant endpoints. AFTP achieves up to 100x faster performance than standard TCP-based protocols by optimizing network utilization through parallel streams, adaptive protocol tuning, and congestion management. This makes it ideal for moving high-volume, high-priority data with maximum efficiency.

Why It Matters

Traditional protocols like FTP and SFTP often underperform over long distances due to TCP’s limitations in handling latency and packet loss. When transferring multi-gigabyte files or syncing terabytes of data across continents, these constraints become critical bottlenecks.
With bTrade AFTP, organizations gain the high-speed transfer capabilities required to shrink transfer windows from hours to minutes, a key differentiator for meeting SLAs, ensuring business continuity, and enabling real-time collaboration across global teams.

How It Works

bTrade AFTP is engineered specifically for high-speed data transfer in MFT environments. It uses a combination of:

• Parallel UDP streams to maximize throughput
• Real-time congestion control to adapt to varying network conditions
• Compression and deduplication to reduce total transfer size
  These enhancements allow AFTP to bypass TCP’s one-size-fits-all behavior, delivering faster, more reliable transfers even on high-latency or congested networks.

Unlike general-purpose UDP-based accelerators, AFTP is tightly integrated into the MFT layer, preserving file integrity, auditability, and secure delivery while significantly boosting speed.

MFT Context

In bTrade’s TDXchange platform, AFTP is a protocol-level option that seamlessly integrates with other supported protocols like SFTP, FTPS, and HTTPS. This allows organizations to intelligently route traffic, using AFTP for high-speed transfers, particularly over long distances or during tight batch windows while retaining standard protocols for routine or compliance-sensitive routes.
The platform’s orchestration layer manages automated protocol negotiation, failover handling, and detailed audit trails, ensuring governance without compromising speed.

Common Use Cases

• Media & Entertainment: Moving 4K/8K video files (50–500 GB) across continents to meet tight post-production deadlines
• Financial Services: Performing overnight high-speed transfers of large datasets for risk modeling between global data centers
• Healthcare: Sending massive medical imaging files (e.g., MRI, CT scans) quickly to enable real-time diagnosis and remote collaboration
• Manufacturing: Sharing CAD files and PLM data between global design and production teams to accelerate product development cycles

Each of these use cases benefits from AFTP’s high-speed capabilities, which cut transfer times dramatically and eliminate the bottlenecks associated with standard protocols.

Best Practices

• Test your transfer paths: Benchmark AFTP on real-world routes—especially intercontinental—to confirm throughput gains
• Use checkpoint restart: Prevent data loss during large transfers by resuming from the point of interruption
• Apply bandwidth controls: Balance high-speed transfers with other traffic during peak hours
• License where it counts: Focus AFTP usage on high-impact routes to maximize ROI and avoid over-licensing

Real World Example

A global biotech firm needed to transfer 200 GB genomic datasets multiple times daily between labs in Boston and Singapore. SFTP over a 1 Gbps link took 8–10 hours, stalling research workflows. After implementing bTrade AFTP, transfer time dropped to 45–60 minutes, enabling near real-time data sharing and dramatically improving cross-site collaboration.
By scheduling high-speed AFTP jobs overnight, the company ensured both sites had access to the latest data at the start of each workday.

‍

Related Terms

• AFTP
• Parallel Transfer
• Checkpoint Restart

‍

The home data pool is the preferred data pool of a data source or a data recipient. A data source publishes its data in its home data pool, which makes it available to final data recipients. A final data recipient accesses master data through its home data pool. A home data pool could be a national, regional or private GCI/GDAS-compliant data pool. The home data pool is the key aspect of the single point of entry concept.

Defined

Organizations deploy hybrid architectures to run secure file transfer operations across both on-premises infrastructure and cloud environments. This model allows you to retain control of sensitive data processing within your internal network while leveraging the scalability, geographic reach, and agility of cloud services for partner connections and burst handling.

TDXchange fully supports hybrid architectures with a flexible, modern design. Its adapter framework enables connections to traditional MFT endpoints (SFTP, FTPS, AS2) and direct integration with cloud providers like AWS S3, Azure Blob Storage, GCP Cloud Storage, Dropbox, SharePoint, Box, and others without needing third-party plugins or manual scripting.

Why It Matters

Hybrid architectures give you the best of both worlds: compliance and flexibility. For example:

• A healthcare organization can keep PHI and HIPAA-sensitive workflows on-premises, while routing non-sensitive data through TDXchange gateways in AWS or Azure.
• A financial services firm may process ACH and cardholder data on local infrastructure for PCI DSS compliance, while using the cloud to deliver reports to partners or handle quarterly volume spikes.

Without hybrid flexibility, you're either overbuilding on-premises for worst-case loads or fully committing to the cloud and grappling with data residency, sovereignty, and audit concerns. TDXchange removes that false choice, letting you operate securely in both domains with a single control plane.

How It Works in TDXchange

TDXchange deploys gateways and agents in both cloud and on-prem environments, all connected to a centralized management system. Its cloud adapters allow direct interaction with:

• AWS S3 buckets
• Azure Blob Storage
• Google Cloud Storage
• Dropbox, Box, OneDrive, SharePoint
• And other REST/SaaS-based endpoints

Key capabilities include:

• Centralized policy and workflow definition, pushed out to both on-prem and cloud components
• Smart routing rules that direct files based on content tags, file type, or trading partner
• Seamless flow orchestration across environments (e.g., cloud ingress → on-prem processing → cloud distribution)
• End-to-end audit logging, no matter where the file is handled

Whether you're deploying in active-passive DR mode or running active-active across cloud regions and data centers, TDXchange maintains synchronized configurations, credentials, and audit data, avoiding drift and reducing troubleshooting effort.

MFT Context

Not all MFT platforms handle hybrid well. Many bolt on cloud support as an afterthought, requiring multiple admin consoles and manual syncs between environments.

TDXchange, by contrast, was built with hybrid in mind. It uses:

• A common runtime architecture for both cloud and on-prem nodes
• One UI for all policy, partner, and workflow management
• Unified logging and visibility, even across mixed deployments

This means when a transfer fails, you're not flipping between two platforms to correlate logs, TDXchange shows you everything in one place, with timestamps, flow details, and status at a glance.

Common Use Cases

• Financial services: Core payment processing on-prem for PCI compliance; reporting and partner exchanges through AWS-based gateways
• Pharmaceuticals: Regulatory-controlled data processed locally; global EDI and marketing asset distribution via cloud endpoints
• Retail operations: Year-round on-prem processing with auto-scaling into cloud during seasonal demand surges (e.g., Black Friday)
• Global logistics: Using regional cloud deployments of TDXchange for faster last-mile delivery of files while syncing back to centralized systems

Best Practices

• Treat configuration as code: Use version-controlled config definitions that sync to all TDXchange nodes, whether it's in the cloud and on-prem. Avoid drift.
• Test failover regularly: Simulate loss of the on-prem or cloud side and verify that TDXchange reroutes traffic or queues files without data loss.
• Plan for split-brain: Ensure local components queue data during network outages and push automatically once connections restore.
• Leverage native cloud services: With TDXchange adapters, send files straight to an S3 bucket or SharePoint folder, eliminating middleware and reducing latency.

‍

Related Terms

• MFT Gateway
• Centralized Control
• Disaster Recovery
• High Availability

‍

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms use to offload content scanning and adaptation to external security appliances. When files pass through your MFT gateway, ICAP servers handle virus scanning, DLP checks, and content transformation without burdening the core transfer engine.

Why It Matters

I've seen MFT platforms struggle when they try to perform antivirus scanning and content inspection inline. ICAP solves this by offloading those CPU-intensive tasks to dedicated security appliances. You get real-time malware detection and policy enforcement without sacrificing transfer performance. If a file fails inspection, the transfer stops before it reaches your internal network or gets delivered to a trading partner.

How It Works

ICAP operates like a specialized HTTP proxy on port 1344. When your MFT platform receives a file, it sends a REQMOD or RESPMOD message to the ICAP server with the file contents. The ICAP server runs its checks—antivirus, DLP rules, content filters—then returns either an OK, a modified file, or a block decision. The exchange happens in milliseconds for small files, though large transfers see delays depending on ICAP server capacity.

MFT Context

Modern MFT platforms support ICAP integration for content inspection at multiple checkpoints. You'll typically configure ICAP scanning on inbound transfers before files hit your watched folders, and again on outbound transfers before partner delivery. Some platforms let you chain multiple ICAP servers for layered security—one for antivirus, another for DLP, a third for content disarm. The MFT platform handles connection pooling and failover if an ICAP server becomes unavailable.

Common Use Cases

• Healthcare file exchanges scanning inbound patient records for malware before they enter EMR systems, blocking executables and suspicious attachments
• Financial services enforcing DLP policies on outbound transfers to prevent credit card numbers or account data from leaving via unauthorized channels
• Manufacturing EDI workflows validating XML and EDI files conform to partner specifications before transmission, converting character encodings when needed
• Government data sharing running content disarm on all inbound documents to strip active content and potential exploits

Best Practices

• Size ICAP infrastructure separately from your MFT platform—scanning is I/O intensive and you don't want resource contention affecting your transfer nodes' performance
• Set timeouts between 30-120 seconds based on typical file sizes; too short causes unnecessary failures, too long backs up your transfer queues during scanning delays
• Use connection pooling to maintain persistent connections to ICAP servers rather than opening new TCP connections for every file, reducing latency and overhead
• Implement bypass logic for ICAP failures—decide whether to block all transfers, allow them unchecked, or quarantine for manual review based on your risk tolerance
• Monitor ICAP response times as leading performance indicators; sudden spikes usually mean your antivirus definitions are too aggressive or your hardware needs scaling

Real-World Example

A pharmaceutical company I worked with processes about 8,000 clinical trial documents daily from research partners. They configured their MFT platform to send every upload through an ICAP-enabled antivirus cluster before files reach scientists' drives. The ICAP servers scan for malware, strip macros from Office documents, and convert PDFs to safe formats. When threats are detected, the platform quarantines files and alerts security. The check adds less than 2 seconds to typical transfers, catching dozens of infected submissions monthly.

Related Terms

• Content Inspection
• Data Loss Prevention
• Content Disarm and Reconstruction CDR
• Content Security

‍

Internet Inter-ORB Protocol - a standard that ensures interoperability for objects in a multi-vendor ORB environment operating over the Internet.

Organizations deploy ISO/IEC 27001 as the information security management system (ISMS) framework for their file transfer operations. The standard requires documented security controls around access management, cryptographic protection, operational procedures, and comprehensive audit trails covering all file exchange activities between trading partners, applications, and systems.

Why It Matters

certification proves to trading partners and auditors that you've built security into your file transfer operations, not bolted it on. I've seen organizations win contracts specifically because they held this certification—it's become table stakes for handling sensitive financial records, healthcare data, or personal information. Without it, you're explaining security controls in every vendor assessment instead of pointing to verified compliance.

Key MFT Requirements

• Annex A.9 (Access Control): Implement role-based access control for all file transfer users, enforce password policies meeting complexity requirements, and require multi-factor authentication for administrative access to MFT platforms.
• Annex A.10 (Cryptography): Use approved encryption algorithms (AES-256, RSA 2048-bit or higher) for data at rest and in transit. Establish documented key management procedures with defined rotation schedules and secure storage.
• Annex A.12 (Operations Security): Maintain change management procedures for MFT configurations, implement automated malware scanning on transferred files, and establish capacity monitoring to prevent service disruptions during peak transfer windows.
• Annex A.12.4 (Logging and Monitoring): Generate tamper-proof audit logs capturing all file transfers, access attempts, configuration changes, and security events with timestamp synchronization across distributed systems and geographic locations.
• Annex A.18 (Compliance): Document data flows showing where sensitive information travels through your file transfer infrastructure, maintain records of processing activities, and demonstrate periodic reviews of trading partner security controls.

Common Use Cases

• Financial institutions exchanging payment files, account statements, and regulatory reports with banking partners who require ISO 27001 certification before establishing secure file transfer connections
• Healthcare organizations transmitting claims, eligibility files, and patient records to payers and clearinghouses under business associate agreements that mandate certified security frameworks
• Manufacturing companies sharing CAD drawings, product specifications, and supply chain data with global partners who audit security certifications annually as part of vendor management
• European subsidiaries of US companies needing ISO 27001 alongside GDPR to satisfy dual compliance requirements for cross-border transfers of customer and employee information

Best Practices

• Map each Annex A control to specific MFT platform features during your gap analysis—don't assume your vendor's marketing claims satisfy every requirement without verification through testing and documentation review.
• Schedule quarterly internal audits of your MFT operations focusing on the controls most frequently cited in certification audits: access reviews, encryption verification, log completeness, and incident response procedures.
• Maintain separate documentation showing how your MFT platform addresses each applicable control. I keep a controls matrix linking ISO requirements directly to configuration screenshots, policy documents, and procedure manuals.
• Include your MFT vendor's SOC 2 reports or ISO certifications in your evidence package if you're using hosted or cloud services—auditors want to see inherited controls documented clearly with responsibility matrices.

Related Terms

• SOC 2
• Audit Trail
• Data Governance

‍

In a client-server environment, integrity means that the server code and server data are centrally maintained and therefore secure and reliable.

The interconnection of embedded devices, including smart objects, with an existing infrastructure which is accessible via the internet.

Data pools and the global registry are connected so that they constitute one logical data pool, which makes available to users, all required master data in a standardised and transparent way.

An internal Internet. An intranet is a network based on TCP/IP protocols and belonging to an organization, usually a corporation. An intranet is accessible only by the organization's members, employees, or other authorized users. An intranet's web sites look and act just like any other web site but the firewall surrounding an intranet fends off unauthorized access. Secure intranets are now the fastest-growing segment of the Internet because they are much less expensive to build and manage than private networks based on proprietary protocols.

An implementation approach that requires changes or additions to existing applications.

An item is any product or service on which there is a need to retrieve pre-defined information and that may be priced, ordered or invoiced at any point in any supply chain (EAN/UCC GDAS definition). An item is uniquely identified by an EAN/UCC Global Trade Item Number (GTIN).

bTrade Process Routers have a unique just-in-time binding which binds the most current partner capability to the process at the moment it is required. This allows very large scale networks to deal with churn among partner capabilities such as addresses, names, protocols and business processes.

Definition

In MFT systems, centralizes the creation, storage, and lifecycle management of encryption keys used to protect files at rest and in transit. Instead of storing keys alongside encrypted files or hardcoding them in applications, KMS maintains keys in a separate, protected environment with strict access controls and comprehensive audit logging.

Why It Matters

If you're managing thousands of encrypted file transfers daily, key sprawl becomes a real security risk. I've seen organizations struggle with keys stored in configuration files, databases, and scripts across dozens of servers—each a potential breach point. KMS solves this by centralizing key access through APIs, so your MFT platform retrieves keys on demand rather than storing them locally. When a key is compromised or you need to rotate credentials, you're updating one location instead of hunting through infrastructure. This approach also addresses compliance requirements that mandate key separation from encrypted content.

How It Works

Your MFT platform authenticates to KMS using service credentials or instance roles, then requests specific keys by identifier. KMS returns the key material only to authorized services and logs every access attempt. For encryption-at-rest, the platform typically requests a data encryption key (DEK) that KMS generates and encrypts with a master key (KEK). The encrypted DEK is stored with your file, while the master key never leaves KMS. When you need to decrypt, the platform sends the encrypted DEK back to KMS, which decrypts it and returns the plaintext key for use. This envelope encryption pattern means compromising stored files doesn't expose the master keys.

MFT Context

MFT platforms integrate with KMS through APIs to protect sensitive payloads in landing zones and archives. When trading partners send PHI, payment card data, or personal information, the platform encrypts files immediately upon receipt using keys from KMS, then stores them in cloud or on-premises storage. The separation between key management and file storage satisfies auditor requirements that encryption keys remain independent from encrypted data. Many implementations also use KMS to protect SSH private keys, database credentials, and API tokens that the MFT platform needs for operation.

Common Use Cases

• Healthcare providers encrypting patient records transferred via SFTP before archiving to cloud storage, with KMS managing all encryption keys separately from file buckets
• Financial institutions rotating encryption keys quarterly for payment files, using KMS automation to re-encrypt existing archives without manual intervention
• Multi-region MFT deployments replicating encrypted files across data centers while keeping master keys isolated in each region's KMS instance

Best Practices

• Enable automatic key rotation for master keys annually at minimum. Most KMS implementations handle this transparently, automatically re-encrypting data encryption keys with the new master key version.
• Separate keys by data classification—don't use the same master key for public marketing materials and regulated financial data. This limits blast radius if a key is compromised.
• Monitor KMS access patterns for anomalies. If your MFT platform suddenly requests 10x normal key operations or attempts access outside transfer windows, that's a red flag worth investigating.
• Test key recovery procedures as part of disaster recovery drills. Verify you can restore KMS backups and decrypt archived files in your failover region.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS Requirement 3.5.2 mandates that cryptographic keys are stored in the fewest possible locations and forms, which KMS directly addresses through centralization. HIPAA requires documented key management procedures under the encryption standard (45 CFR § 164.312(a)(2)(iv)), including key generation, distribution, and destruction—all capabilities KMS provides with built-in audit trails. For GDPR, KMS supports the "right to erasure" by allowing immediate key deletion, rendering encrypted personal data permanently unrecoverable without complex data purges.

Related Terms

• Hardware Security Module (HSM)
• Key Rotation
• Encryption at Rest

‍

Definition

In MFT systems, key rotation is the scheduled practice of replacing cryptographic keys before they reach the end of their safe operational lifetime. You're cycling out SSH host keys, private keys for file encryption, and API credentials used by trading partners—not just changing passwords, but regenerating the actual cryptographic material that protects your file transfers.

Why It Matters

Every cryptographic key has a cryptoperiod—a window where it's considered secure. The longer a key stays in use, the more ciphertext an attacker can collect for analysis, and the higher the chance it's been compromised without your knowledge. I've seen organizations run SFTP connections on the same host keys for five years, which means a single key compromise exposes years of traffic. Regular rotation limits your blast radius and satisfies auditors who check for this during compliance assessments.

How It Works

The rotation process follows a multi-stage lifecycle. First, you generate new key material (a fresh SSH keypair, a new TLS certificate from your CA, or a replacement PGP key). Then you distribute public keys to your trading partners through a documented change control process—usually with a 30-90 day overlap period where both old and new keys work. During the overlap, partners update their configurations and test connections. Finally, you revoke or retire the old keys and update your audit logs to track which keys were active during which file transfer windows.

MFT Context

Most MFT platforms tie key rotation to their Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) or Key Management Service integrations. You'll configure rotation schedules in the platform's security settings—quarterly for SSH host keys, annually for service accounts, every 90 days for PGP keys protecting payment files. The platform handles the cryptographic generation, but you still coordinate the distribution with your trading partner network. Some platforms auto-distribute public keys via secure channels; others require manual email exchanges with signed verification.

Common Use Cases

• SSH host key rotation for SFTP servers handling healthcare data, where HIPAA assessors check key age during audits
• PGP keypair replacement every 12 months for financial institutions exchanging encrypted ACH files with banking partners
• TLS certificate renewal for AS2 and HTTPS endpoints, typically on annual cycles before expiration
• API token rotation every 90 days for automated integrations with cloud storage endpoints and iPaaS platforms
• Service account credential cycling for MFT agents connecting to internal databases or ERP systems

Best Practices

• Automate what you can: Use your platform's key management features or HSM integrations to schedule rotation rather than relying on calendar reminders that get missed during busy months.
• Coordinate with trading partners: Send 60-day advance notices for public key changes, include test connection windows, and document which key fingerprints are valid during overlap periods.
• Track key usage: Your audit logs should show which specific key was used for each file transfer, so you can prove to auditors that retired keys aren't still processing production traffic.
• Plan overlap periods: Never hard-cut from old to new keys. I recommend 30 days minimum overlap for internal systems, 60-90 days for external trading partner connections where coordination is slower.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 3.6.4 requires cryptographic key management processes that include "changing keys at the end of the defined cryptoperiod." The standard doesn't specify rotation intervals, but most QSAs expect at least annual rotation for keys protecting cardholder data. NIST SP 800-57 provides cryptoperiod recommendations: 1-2 years for symmetric keys, 1-3 years for private signature keys. For SFTP connections handling payment card data, you're documenting not just when keys were rotated, but proving old keys can no longer decrypt archived files.

Related Terms

• Key Management Service (KMS)
• Hardware Security Module (HSM)
• Digital Certificate (X.509)

‍

The trustworthy process of creating a private key/public key pair. The public key is supplied to an issuing authority during the certificate application process.

(1) An algorithm that uses mathematical or heuristic rules to deterministically produce a pseudo-random sequence of cryptographic key values. (2) An encryption device that incorporates a key generation mechanism and applies the key to plaintext (for example, by Boolean exclusive ORing the key bit string with the plain text bit string) to produce ciphertext.

The period for which a cryptographic key remains active.

A private key and its corresponding public key. The public key can verify a digital signature created by using the corresponding private key. See private key and public key.

Automatic balancing of requests among replicated servers to ensure that no server is overloaded.

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms distribute incoming file transfer requests across multiple servers or nodes using load balancing, preventing any single point from becoming overwhelmed. This technique spreads connection attempts, active transfers, and processing tasks across a pool of identical resources, maintaining consistent performance even during peak volumes of 10,000+ concurrent sessions.

Why It Matters

Without load balancing, your MFT environment becomes vulnerable to performance bottlenecks and single points of failure. When a trading partner sends 50,000 files during your batch window and they all hit one server, you're looking at connection timeouts, queue backlogs, and missed SLA deadlines. Load balancing ensures that transfer capacity scales horizontally—add more nodes to handle more concurrent connections and throughput demands. I've seen deployments handle 5x traffic growth just by adding servers behind the load balancer.

How It Works

Most MFT deployments place a load balancer (hardware appliance or software-based) in front of multiple protocol servers running SFTP, FTPS, or AS2 endpoints. The load balancer receives incoming connections and distributes them using algorithms like round-robin, least connections, or IP hash. Health checks continuously monitor backend nodes—if a server fails health checks (checking port 22 for SFTP or port 443 for HTTPS), the load balancer automatically removes it from rotation. Session persistence ensures that multi-packet protocol handshakes complete on the same node, which is critical for protocols requiring stateful connections.

MFT Context

In clustering configurations, load balancing becomes essential for achieving true active-active file transfer capabilities. I've seen implementations where four MFT gateway nodes sit behind a load balancer, each sharing access to centralized metadata and storage. The load balancer handles the initial protocol connection, but once authenticated, the MFT node manages the actual file transfer, writing to shared SAN or NFS storage. This architecture delivers both horizontal scaling and availability—you can lose two nodes and still process transfers at 50% capacity.

Common Use Cases

• High-volume trading partner networks where 200+ partners connect simultaneously during end-of-day processing windows, requiring distribution across 6-8 protocol servers
• Global MFT deployments with regional load balancers directing connections to the nearest data center based on geographic location or network latency
• Multi-protocol environments where separate server pools handle SFTP, FTPS, and AS2 traffic, with protocol-aware load balancing routing each connection type appropriately
• Cloud-native MFT architectures using AWS Application Load Balancers or Azure Load Balancer to auto-scale containerized transfer nodes based on CPU and connection metrics

Best Practices

• Configure health checks beyond simple port availability—validate that the MFT service itself responds correctly, not just that port 22 is listening. I use SFTP banner checks or HTTP health endpoints that verify database connectivity.
• Implement session affinity carefully for protocols requiring multiple connections (like FTP's separate control and data channels), but avoid sticky sessions for stateless protocols where they reduce distribution effectiveness.
• Monitor per-node metrics separately from aggregate load balancer statistics. You need visibility into individual server CPU, memory, and connection counts to identify nodes that aren't pulling their weight.
• Test failover behavior under load by deliberately failing nodes during peak transfer windows. Your monitoring should catch the failure before partners start reporting timeouts.

Real World Example

A pharmaceutical company runs an MFT cluster with five nodes behind an F5 load balancer, processing regulatory submissions from 300+ clinical trial sites. Each site uploads patient data files ranging from 50MB to 2GB between 6-10 PM. The load balancer uses least-connections algorithm to distribute incoming SFTP sessions, with health checks every 10 seconds verifying that each node can access the shared PostgreSQL metadata database. During peak hours, they handle 150-200 concurrent connections distributed across the cluster, with automatic failover handling hardware failures without partner intervention.

Related Terms

• High Availability
• Active-Passive
• Reverse Proxy
• MFT Gateway

‍

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms deploy agents as lightweight software components on endpoints—whether internal servers, perimeter hosts, or remote locations—to execute file transfer operations locally while maintaining communication with a central management server. The agent handles file pickup, delivery, protocol translation, and local processing without requiring direct inbound connections to protected systems.

Why It Matters

Agents solve a fundamental problem: how do you securely move files to and from systems that can't or shouldn't accept inbound connections? Instead of opening firewall ports to every source, you install an agent that initiates outbound connections to your MFT platform. This inverts the security model—the protected system reaches out rather than being reached into. I've seen this dramatically simplify network security architecture while extending centralized control to hundreds of endpoints across global operations.

How It Works

The agent runs as a service or daemon on the target system, establishing an encrypted control channel to the MFT server. When a transfer job triggers, the server sends instructions through this persistent or on-demand connection. The agent then performs local operations: reading files from watched directories, writing incoming transfers to specified paths, executing pre/post-processing scripts, and reporting status back to the central platform. Most agents support protocol conversion—the central server might receive via SFTP, but the agent delivers locally via file copy or even API calls.

MFT Context in Practice

You'll see agent architectures in environments that prioritize security segmentation. A bank might deploy agents in their DMZ to handle external partner exchanges while keeping the core MFT server deep in the internal network. Cloud migrations often use agents too—install them on cloud VMs to maintain your existing MFT workflows without re-architecting your entire transfer infrastructure. The alternative is agentless, where the MFT server directly connects to endpoints using standard protocols, but that requires those endpoints to accept inbound connections and expose services.

Common Use Cases

• Internal database servers that generate nightly extracts but can't run full MFT software due to resource constraints or vendor support limitations
• DMZ servers handling external partner connections where you want protocol breaks and additional security inspection before files reach internal systems
• Remote office locations with intermittent connectivity, where agents queue transfers locally and sync when connections are available
• Trading partner environments where you install agents on their infrastructure to simplify their implementation while maintaining your audit and control standards

Best Practices

• Deploy agent monitoring that alerts on version drift, missed check-ins, or excessive retry attempts—a silent agent failure can break critical workflows for hours before anyone notices.
• Standardize agent configurations through your central platform rather than allowing local customization. I've debugged too many incidents caused by one-off agent settings that someone implemented months earlier.
• Plan your agent update strategy before you hit 50+ deployed agents. You need orchestrated rollouts with rollback capabilities, not manual upgrades during weekend maintenance windows.
• Use separate agent credentials per endpoint or environment zone. If an agent's credentials are compromised, you want to limit the blast radius to that specific system or tier.

Real-World Example

A pharmaceutical manufacturer I worked with deployed 200+ agents across manufacturing sites in 15 countries. Each site's production systems generated quality control data every 2 hours that needed to reach their central data lake. The sites had strict OT/IT segmentation—no inbound connections to production networks allowed. Agents on edge servers in each plant initiated outbound connections to the central MFT platform, picked up files from production systems via local file shares, and transmitted them using HTTPS. The central platform handled all the routing, compliance logging, and delivery to cloud storage without any inbound firewall rules to manufacturing networks.

Related Terms

• MFT Gateway
• File Transfer Endpoint
• Centralized Control

‍

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms deploy gateways as dedicated edge servers that accept external file transfer connections and route them to internal processing systems. The gateway sits in the network perimeter—typically your DMZ—handling protocol sessions from trading partners while keeping your core MFT infrastructure protected behind additional security layers.

Why It Matters

The gateway architecture solves a critical security problem: you need to accept file transfers from hundreds of external partners without exposing your internal MFT servers directly to the internet. I've seen breaches happen when organizations skip this layer and put everything in one zone. A properly deployed gateway reduces your attack surface by 80% or more, gives you a single point for security controls, and lets you fail over external access without touching internal workflows. Your security team will sleep better.

How It Works

When an external partner initiates a connection—say SFTP on port 22—your gateway terminates that protocol session at the perimeter. It authenticates the partner, applies content security policies, then establishes a separate, outbound-only connection to your internal MFT server. This reverse proxy pattern means external systems never make direct inbound connections to your core infrastructure. Most deployments run gateway clusters with 2-4 nodes behind a load balancer, ensuring a single gateway failure doesn't block partner transfers. The gateway itself is typically a stripped-down server running only the transfer protocols you need—no database, no workflow engine, just connection handling and security enforcement.

MFT Context

Modern MFT platforms offer gateway components as part of their architecture or as separate installable modules. You'll deploy the gateway in your DMZ or public subnet, while your central MFT server with workflow automation, audit databases, and business logic stays in protected internal zones. The gateway handles the protocol diversity—SFTP, FTPS, AS2, HTTPS uploads—while routing everything back through a single, hardened channel to your MFT core. In hybrid or cloud deployments, gateways can span environments: edge gateways in AWS or Azure accepting partner connections, with your main MFT infrastructure still on-premises.

Common Use Cases

• B2B partner onboarding: External suppliers and customers connect to your gateway rather than VPNing into your corporate network, keeping third-party access isolated and auditable
• Multi-protocol consolidation: Gateway presents SFTP, FTPS, AS2, and HTTPS endpoints to different partners while normalizing everything to a single internal delivery mechanism
• Cloud-first architectures: Deploy lightweight gateways in multiple cloud regions for geographic proximity to partners while maintaining centralized control and monitoring
• Zero-trust implementations: Gateway enforces authentication and authorization at the perimeter before routing approved transfers through microsegmented internal networks with strict access controls

Best Practices

• Deploy in true DMZ topology: Gateway should have two network interfaces—one facing internet, one facing internal—with firewall rules blocking any direct path between zones that bypasses the gateway.
• Run active-active clusters: Two or more gateway nodes behind a load balancer eliminate single points of failure. I typically see 2-node setups for small deployments, 4+ nodes for organizations handling 50,000+ daily partner transactions.
• Minimize installed protocols: Only enable the protocols your partners actually use. If you don't need AS2, don't run it—every disabled service is one less attack vector.
• Implement connection-level monitoring: Track failed authentication attempts, unusual connection patterns, and protocol anomalies at the gateway before they reach internal systems. Set alerts for 10+ failed attempts from the same IP within 5 minutes.

Related Terms

• DMZ
• Reverse Proxy
• MFT Agent

‍

Definition

Organizations deploy as a cloud-hosted alternative to on-premises MFT infrastructure, where the vendor manages all server hardware, software updates, security patches, and platform availability. You're essentially renting transfer capacity and storage from a provider's multi-tenant or dedicated environment, accessing the platform through web interfaces and APIs rather than maintaining your own data center footprint.

Why It Matters

I've seen companies cut their infrastructure costs by 40-60% when they switch from maintaining their own MFT servers to a cloud service model. You're not buying hardware, managing OS patches at 2 AM, or keeping redundant capacity for peak loads. The provider handles high availability, disaster recovery, and scaling—you pay for what you use. For mid-sized companies without dedicated infrastructure teams, this shift from capital expenditure to operational expenditure changes how quickly you can deploy secure file transfer capabilities, often going from 6-month procurement cycles to 2-week implementations.

How It Works

The provider runs the MFT platform in their cloud infrastructure—AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, or their own data centers. You get access to protocol endpoints (SFTP, FTPS, HTTPS, AS2), a web console for configuration, and APIs for automation. Some vendors offer single-tenant deployments where your instance runs on dedicated infrastructure, while others use multi-tenant architectures where multiple customers share underlying resources but with strict isolation. The provider handles clustering, load balancing, and geographic redundancy. You configure trading partners, set up workflows, and manage users, but someone else is responsible for keeping the lights on.

MFT Context

Cloud-based MFT platforms still need to connect to your internal systems for file pickup and delivery. Most deployments use MFT agents installed in your environment that establish outbound connections to the cloud service—this avoids opening inbound firewall holes. The agents watch local folders, grab files, and push them through the cloud platform to external trading partners. Return files get pulled back through the same agents. You're essentially extending your internal file transfer workflows through a cloud-based intermediary rather than exposing your own infrastructure to the internet.

Common Use Cases

• Rapid B2B onboarding: Companies adding 50+ new trading partners annually use to avoid capacity planning, provisioning new partner endpoints in hours instead of weeks
• Seasonal volume spikes: Retailers handling 10x normal transfer volumes during holiday seasons let the cloud provider absorb the scaling burden
• Geographic expansion: Organizations opening offices in new regions deploy cloud transfer points without shipping hardware or negotiating data center contracts
• Compliance-as-code: Healthcare and financial services firms use vendor-maintained audit trails, encryption, and certification reports rather than building their own evidence packages

Best Practices

• Evaluate data residency requirements early—if you're subject to GDPR or industry-specific rules, confirm the provider can keep your data in specific geographic regions and provide documentation for auditors
• Test agent failover scenarios before production—understand what happens when your internal agents lose connectivity to the cloud service, how queuing works, and whether transfers resume automatically
• Review the shared responsibility model in vendor contracts—clarify who's responsible for protocol security, user management, data encryption at rest, and incident response when things go wrong
• Calculate true total cost by including API calls, bandwidth charges, and storage fees beyond base subscription rates—I've seen bills double when companies don't account for per-transaction pricing

Related Terms

• Managed File Transfer (MFT)
• On-premises
• Hybrid Architecture

‍

Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension is an extension to the original Internet e-mail protocol that lets people exchange different kinds of data files on the Internet: audio, video, images, application programs, and other kinds, as well as the ASCII handled in the original protocol, the Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP). Servers insert the MIME header at the beginning of any Web transmission. Clients use this header to select an appropriate "player" application for the type of data the header indicates. Some of these players are built into the Web client or browser (for example, all browser come with GIF and JPEG image players as well as the ability to handle HTML files); other players may need to be downloaded. New MIME data types are registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority MIME as specified in detail in Internet RFC-1521 and RFC-1522.

Message-Oriented Middleware is a set of products that connects applications running on different systems by sending and receiving application data as messages. Examples are RPC, CPI-C and message queuing.

The process of relating information in one domain to another domain. Used here in the context of relating information from an EDI format to one used within application systems.

In UCCnet Item Sync service, a Market Group is a list of retailers or other trading partners, that the manufacturer communicates the same product, pricing, logistical and other relevant standard or extended item data attributes.

Master data is a data set describing the specifications and structures of each item and party involved in supply chain processes. Each set of data is uniquely identified by a Global Trade Item Number (GTIN) for items and a Global Location Number (GLN) for party details. Master data can be divided into neutral and relationship- dependent data. Master data is the foundation of business information systems.

It is the timely and 'auditable' distribution of certified standardised master data from a data source to a final data recipient of this information. The synchronisation process is well known as 'Master Data Alignment' process. The master data synchronisation process is a prerequisite to the Simple E-Business concept (Simple_EB). Successful master data synchronisation is achieved via the use of EAN/UCC coding specifications throughout the supply chain. The synchronisation process is completed when an acknowledgement is provided to a data source certifying that the data recipient has accepted the data distributed. In the master data synchronisation process, data sources and final data recipients are linked via a network of interoperable data pools and global registry. Such an interoperable network is the GCI-Global Data Synchronisation Network.

A key component of EAI, a message broker is a software intermediary that directs the flow of messages between applications. Message brokers provide a very flexible communications mechanism providing such services as data transformation, message routing and message warehousing, but require application intimacy to function properly. Not suitable for inter-business interactions between independent partners where security concerns may exclude message brokering as a potential solution.

A document, typically digitally signed, acknowledging receipt of data from the sender.

Definition

In MFT systems, a Message Disposition Notification is a digitally signed receipt that confirms successful message delivery and validates content integrity. Most commonly used with AS2 transfers, MDNs provide proof that your trading partner received the file exactly as sent. Think of it as a certified mail receipt for B2B file exchanges—except it's automated and includes cryptographic verification.

Why It Matters

MDNs solve the "did they really get it?" problem in automated file transfers. Without them, you're trusting that files arrived without any confirmation or proof. That's fine for internal transfers, but when you're exchanging sensitive data with external partners—financial transactions, healthcare records, supply chain documents—you need verifiable evidence. MDNs provide non-repudiation: neither party can claim they didn't send or receive a file. I've seen audit failures happen because organizations couldn't prove file delivery to regulators.

How It Works

When your MFT system sends a file via AS2, the recipient's system validates the message signature and content integrity using the sender's digital certificate. If everything checks out, it generates an MDN response signed with its own certificate. This MDN contains status codes, details about the original message (like Message-ID and timestamp), and a cryptographic hash of the received content. The MDN itself is signed using S/MIME standards, ensuring it can't be forged or altered.

Synchronous MDNs return immediately over the same HTTP connection, while asynchronous MDNs arrive later via a separate connection. Most B2B scenarios use synchronous for immediate confirmation, but asynchronous makes sense when the recipient needs time to validate large files before acknowledging.

MFT Context

Enterprise MFT platforms track MDN status for every AS2 transmission in their audit logs. You'll configure retry behavior for when MDNs don't arrive within your timeout window—typically 30-120 seconds for synchronous, longer for asynchronous. The platform verifies the MDN signature against the partner's stored certificate and parses the disposition field to determine if the transfer truly succeeded. Failed or missing MDNs trigger alerts and automatic retransmission. Modern platforms also correlate MDNs with SLA reporting, showing you which trading partners have delivery issues or slow acknowledgment times.

Common Use Cases

• EDI transaction exchanges where retailers and suppliers need proof that purchase orders, invoices, and advance ship notices were delivered without modification
• Healthcare data exchange between hospitals, insurers, and clearinghouses where HIPAA requires documented proof of PHI transmission and receipt
• Financial services moving payment files, account statements, and transaction reports between banks, processors, and corporate clients
• Pharmaceutical supply chain tracking where manufacturers must prove serialization data reached distributors for compliance with drug tracing requirements

Best Practices

• Always require signed MDNs for external partner transfers—unsigned acknowledgments can be repudiated and offer no legal protection in disputes. I've seen contract arguments hinge on MDN signatures.
• Set appropriate timeout values based on partner capabilities and file sizes. 60 seconds works for most standard EDI transactions, but large files or partners with slower systems need 180+ seconds to avoid false failures.
• Archive MDNs alongside the original messages in your audit repository. Regulators expect you to produce both the transmission and its proof of delivery. Keep them for the same retention period as the business documents.
• Monitor MDN failure patterns by trading partner. If one partner consistently fails to return MDNs or returns error dispositions, that's a configuration mismatch that needs troubleshooting before it causes business disruption.

Compliance Connection

MDNs directly support non-repudiation requirements across multiple frameworks. PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 12.10.7 expects documented evidence of data transmission when cardholder data moves between entities. HIPAA Security Rule § 164.312(b) requires transmission security, and MDNs provide the audit evidence that protected health information reached its intended recipient. For SOC 2 audits, MDNs demonstrate the "delivery and integrity" control point that examiners look for in CC6.6 (logical and physical access controls). Many B2B contracts explicitly require MDN-based proof of delivery as part of data governance obligations.

Real World Example

A pharmaceutical distributor I worked with processes about 8,000 AS2 transmissions daily from 200+ trading partners—manufacturers, wholesalers, and retail chains. Every transmission requires a signed MDN within 90 seconds. Their MFT platform automatically retries up to three times if an MDN doesn't arrive, with exponential backoff (15, 45, 90 seconds). They archive MDNs in an immutable audit store for seven years to meet FDA 21 CFR Part 11 requirements. When the FDA audited their serialization data exchanges, they produced MDNs proving exact delivery times for all DSCSA transaction files, demonstrating complete chain of custody.

Related Terms

• AS2
• Non-repudiation
• Digital Signatures
• S/MIME

‍

A form of communication between programs. Application data is combined with a header (information about the data) to form a message. Messages are stored in queues, which can be buffered or persistent (see Buffered Queue and Persistent Queue). It is an asynchronous communications style and provides a loosely coupled exchange across multiple operating systems.

A super-application process where messages are routed to applications based on business rules. A particular message may be directed based on its subject or actual content.

Middleware describes a group of software products that facilitate the communications between two applications or two layers of an application. It provides an API through which applications invoke services and it controls the transmission of the data exchange over networks. There are three basic types: communications middleware, database middleware and systems middleware.

Enterprise platforms use MFA to add layered verification beyond passwords when users access file transfer systems. In MFT environments, this typically combines something you know (password), something you have (token or mobile app), and sometimes something you are (biometric) before granting access to sensitive file operations.

Why It Matters

I've watched breach post-mortems where stolen credentials gave attackers direct access to file transfer platforms. A single compromised password can expose thousands of partner connections and years of archived transfers. MFA blocks about 99% of automated credential attacks because attackers can't replicate that second factor. When you're managing cardholder or healthcare records through your MFT platform, that extra authentication layer isn't optional—it's what separates passing audits from explaining breaches.

How It Works

MFT platforms integrate MFA at multiple access points. For web consoles, you authenticate through your identity provider using SAML or OpenID Connect, which validates credentials then prompts for a time-based one-time password from an authenticator app or hardware token. Protocol-based access like SFTP typically requires SSH key pairs plus secondary verification. API access uses OAuth2 tokens with short-lived refresh cycles. Most platforms support push notifications, biometric verification, or SMS codes—though I avoid SMS since SIM-swapping attacks are common.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 8.4.2 explicitly mandates MFA for all access to cardholder data environments, including administrative access to file transfer platforms. HIPAA's Security Rule §164.312(a)(2)(i) requires verification procedures for persons accessing ePHI. GDPR Article 32 calls for appropriate technical measures, which regulators consistently interpret as requiring MFA for access to personal data processing systems. Auditors will specifically check that MFA applies to all privileged accounts and remote access paths.

MFT Context

Most modern MFT platforms treat MFA as an access gateway requirement. You'll configure it for administrative users, operators monitoring transfers, and sometimes trading partners accessing self-service portals. I typically see internal users authenticate through corporate identity providers with MFA enforced at the directory level, while external partners use platform-native MFA. The challenge is protocol compatibility—legacy automated processes using SFTP don't naturally support interactive authentication prompts, so you architect around that with service accounts, certificate-based auth, and restricted IP allowlists.

Common Use Cases

• Financial institutions requiring step-up authentication when trading partners access payment file drop zones or download account reconciliation batches
• Healthcare providers enforcing MFA for portals where referring physicians retrieve patient records through secure file exchange
• Retailers mandating multi-factor verification for supply chain partners uploading product catalogs or downloading sales reports
• Government contractors meeting CMMC Level 2 requirements by enforcing MFA on all accounts accessing controlled unclassified information

Best Practices

• Enforce MFA universally for administrative and operator accounts but architect separate authentication flows for automated service accounts using certificate-based methods instead of interactive prompts.
• Integrate with existing identity providers rather than managing separate MFA databases—centralized control through Active Directory or Azure AD reduces credential sprawl and simplifies offboarding.
• Implement risk-based step-up authentication that requires additional verification when users access sensitive partner connections or attempt bulk downloads outside normal patterns.
• Plan for MFA recovery scenarios before you need them—establish secure account recovery workflows that don't undermine security with weak fallback options.

Related Terms

• Single Sign-On (SSO)
• Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
• Zero Trust Architecture

‍

It is master data that is generally shared among multiple parties and that is relationship independent (e.g., GTIN, item description, measurements, catalogues prices, standard terms, GLN, addresses) (GDAS definition). Most of the existing data pools facilitate the exchange of neutral master data.

An asynchronous messaging process whereby the requestor of a service does not have to wait until a response is received from another application.

This is an EAI implementation that does not require changes or additions to existing applications.

Provides proof of the origin or delivery of data in order to protect the sender against a false denial by the recipient that the data has been received or to protect the recipient against false denial by the sender that the data has been sent.

The data source, through its home data pool/solution provider, sends an electronic notice to a subscriber when a valid event occurs. This is based on the subscription profile. Events that can trigger notifications are:

• Publication of new data/change of publication (visibility granted, deleted)
• Change of published item/party/partner profile
• Change of owner, rights
• Subscription (generic, detailed)
• Authorisation/non-authorisation/rejection
• Positive search response

Notifications are not sent in the following cases since data are not yet public and validated information:

• Data load (add, change, etc.)
• Data validation
• Registration of new item/party/partner profile The data distribution, which is the movement of data from one entity to another, is handled through a specific notification type.

The Object Processing Language is a simple user-friendly process description language, based on XML that is used to provide processing instructions to a bTrade Business Process Router. Certain aspects of OPL are patent-pending.

The Object Request Broker is a software process that allows objects to dynamically discover each other and interact across machines, operating systems and networks.

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms use OpenID Connect as an authentication layer built on top of OAuth 2.0, enabling identity verification and single sign-on capabilities across web portals, APIs, and file transfer clients. OIDC returns standardized JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) containing user identity claims, eliminating separate authentication databases in each system.

Why It Matters

When you're managing hundreds of trading partners or thousands of internal users accessing MFT systems, OIDC solves the authentication sprawl problem. Instead of maintaining separate credentials for file transfer portals, SFTP connections, and API integrations, users authenticate once through your corporate identity provider. I've seen organizations reduce helpdesk tickets by 40% just by eliminating password resets across multiple MFT authentication points. It also enables immediate access revocation—disable an account in Azure AD or Okta, and that user loses MFT access instantly.

How It Works

OIDC extends OAuth 2.0's authorization framework by adding an identity layer. When a user accesses your MFT web portal, they're redirected to your identity provider (IdP) like Okta, Azure AD, or Keycloak. After successful authentication, the IdP returns an id_token (a signed JWT) containing claims about the user—email, groups, roles, department. Your MFT platform validates the token's signature, extracts the claims, and maps them to file transfer permissions. The entire exchange happens over HTTPS using authorization codes, and tokens typically expire in 15-60 minutes, requiring refresh tokens for longer sessions.

MFT Context

MFT platforms implement OIDC primarily for their web-based administration consoles and file exchange portals where trading partners upload/download files through browsers. The identity claims from OIDC tokens map directly to folder permissions, allowed protocols, and bandwidth limits. For example, a JWT claim of "department": "finance" might grant access to /outbound/invoices/ while restricting SFTP access. Some platforms also support OIDC for REST API authentication, where API clients obtain tokens and include them in Authorization headers for programmatic file transfers.

Common Use Cases

• Partner portal authentication: External trading partners log in through their corporate IdP to access dedicated upload/download folders without creating MFT-specific accounts
• Multi-cloud MFT deployments: Same OIDC provider authenticates users across MFT instances running on AWS, Azure, and on-premises for consistent access
• Temporary contractor access: HR provisions contractors in Azure AD with group membership that automatically grants time-limited MFT access through OIDC claims
• API-driven file transfers: Automated systems obtain OIDC tokens to authenticate REST API calls for scheduled file uploads without embedded credentials

Best Practices

• Map OIDC groups to MFT roles early: Define how IdP group claims translate to file transfer permissions before going live. I've seen teams struggle when "cn=Finance" and "role=finance-user" both exist in different claim formats.
• Set short token lifetimes for privileged access: Admin console tokens should expire in 15-30 minutes max. File exchange portals can use 60 minutes for better user experience without compromising security.
• Implement token validation correctly: Don't just decode the JWT—verify the signature against your IdP's public keys and check iss, aud, and exp claims every time to prevent token forgery.
• Plan for IdP outages: Cache the last successful authentication or implement a local admin bypass so you're not locked out during Azure AD or Okta incidents.

Compliance Connection

OIDC supports compliance by providing audit trails with precise identity attribution—you know exactly who accessed which files, not just that "admin" did something. PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 8.2.2 requires MFA for administrative access, which OIDC integrates with by accepting MFA-validated tokens from your IdP. SOC 2 CC6.1 needs logical access controls based on job function; OIDC's claim-based authorization lets you enforce this through IdP group memberships. For GDPR, OIDC's centralized authentication simplifies Article 32's access control requirements across all MFT touchpoints.

Related Terms

• Single Sign-On (SSO)
• SAML
• Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)

‍

Definition

Enterprise file transfer platforms implement as an open standard for encrypting, decrypting, and signing files using public key cryptography. Based on RFC 4880, it provides vendor-neutral encryption that works across different MFT systems, allowing trading partners to exchange protected files without proprietary software dependencies.

Why It Matters

When you're exchanging sensitive files with external partners, gives you encryption that doesn't lock you into a specific vendor. I've seen organizations save significant licensing costs by using OpenPGP implementations instead of proprietary alternatives. More importantly, it prevents cleartext exposure during B2B transfers—if an attacker intercepts an encrypted file, they can't read it without the private key. The digital signature capability also proves file authenticity, which matters when you're processing financial transactions or healthcare records.

How It Works

OpenPGP uses asymmetric encryption where each party maintains a public/private key pair. When you send an encrypted file, your MFT system encrypts it with the recipient's public key—only their private key can decrypt it. For signing, you encrypt a hash of the file with your private key, and recipients verify it with your public key. The standard supports multiple algorithms including RSA (2048-bit or 4096-bit keys), AES-256 for symmetric encryption, and SHA-256 for hashing. Most implementations use GnuPG (GPG) as the underlying engine, which is free and widely audited.

MFT Context

Modern MFT platforms integrate OpenPGP at multiple workflow points. You can configure automatic encryption before transmission and decryption after receipt, embedding the process directly into your file transfer jobs. I typically see implementations where the platform stores partner public keys in a centralized keyring, and the workflow engine automatically selects the correct key based on the destination. Some platforms also handle key expiration monitoring and automated alerts when partner keys need renewal, which prevents transfer failures at 2 AM.

Common Use Cases

• Financial services encrypting wire transfer files, ACH batches, and trading confirmations exchanged between institutions throughout the day
• Healthcare clearinghouses protecting PHI in claims files sent to payers, typically containing thousands of patient records per batch
• Retailers securing credit card reconciliation files and POS transaction data sent to payment processors and acquiring banks
• Government agencies encrypting citizen data shared between departments or with contractors who need long-term archive access

Best Practices

• Use 4096-bit RSA keys for new key pairs—2048-bit still works but you're planning for 10+ years of file retention in many cases
• Implement automated key rotation every 2-3 years and maintain clear processes for distributing updated public keys to all partners before expiration
• Encrypt filenames and metadata when possible by using the --hidden-recipient option or encrypting entire archive files rather than individual documents
• Store private keys in hardware security modules for production systems handling payment card data or systems processing over 10,000 encrypted files daily

Compliance Connection

OpenPGP encryption directly addresses multiple compliance controls. PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 4.2.1 mandates strong cryptography for protecting cardholder data during transmission, which OpenPGP with AES-256 satisfies. HIPAA Security Rule 164.312(e)(1) requires encryption of ePHI during transmission, and OpenPGP provides both the encryption mechanism and the audit trail through signature verification. For GDPR Article 32, OpenPGP delivers "encryption of personal data" as a technical measure, particularly valuable when transferring EU citizen data to third parties or across borders.

Related Terms

• PGP
• End-to-End Encryption
• Digital Signatures
• Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)

‍

Definition

In MFT systems, operational resilience goes beyond simple uptime—it's your platform's ability to maintain critical file transfer operations through infrastructure failures, network outages, and regional disasters while meeting SLA commitments. This includes automated failover, transfer resumption, and partner notification capabilities that keep business-critical data flows running.

Why It Matters

File transfers don't happen in isolation. When your MFT platform goes down at 2 AM during a critical EDI cutoff window, you're not just dealing with a technical issue—you're breaking SLAs, disrupting supply chains, and potentially triggering penalty clauses in partner agreements. I've seen companies lose six-figure contracts because they couldn't guarantee 99.9% availability for financial reconciliation files. Operational resilience is what separates platforms that handle production loads from those that crumble under real-world pressure.

MFT Context

Modern MFT platforms build resilience through multiple layers. Geographic redundancy with active-active or active-passive configurations ensures transfers fail over automatically between datacenters. Checkpoint-restart capabilities mean a 50GB file transfer interrupted at 80% completion doesn't start over—it picks up where it left off. Most enterprise platforms maintain separate control and data planes, so you can still monitor and manage transfers even if transfer nodes are degraded. The key difference from generic IT resilience is that MFT systems must preserve transfer state, partner routing rules, and scheduled job contexts across failures.

Common Use Cases

• Banking payment files: Processing daily NACHA files with zero-tolerance cutoff times where even 10-minute delays trigger regulatory issues
• Healthcare claims processing: Maintaining 837/835 EDI flows across multiple regions with automatic failover when primary sites go offline
• Manufacturing supply chain: Ensuring purchase orders and advance ship notices reach partners even during planned maintenance or datacenter switches
• Retail POS data: Handling end-of-day sales file uploads from thousands of stores where failures mean lost revenue visibility
• Pharma serialization: Meeting DSCSA track-and-trace requirements where missed transfers create compliance gaps

Best Practices

• Test failover under load: Don't just verify passive nodes start—ensure they handle 10,000 concurrent transfers during switchover without dropping connections or losing transfer state
• Implement transfer-aware health checks: Monitor actual file delivery success rates, not just process uptime, because a technically "healthy" node that can't write to storage is still failing
• Design for degraded operation: Configure priority queues so critical trading partner transfers continue even when capacity drops to 30% during incidents
• Maintain partner communication channels: Build automated notification workflows that alert trading partners when you're operating in failover mode, setting expectations for potential delays
• Document recovery time objectives per use case: Your overnight batch processing might tolerate 4-hour recovery windows, but real-time payment processing might need sub-5-minute RTO

Related Terms

• High Availability
• Disaster Recovery
• Guaranteed Delivery

‍

A unit of executable software, written in OPL used to provide processing instructions to bTrade Business Process Routers. Oplets provide the logic for business document processing, transformation and routing algorithms. Oplet is a trademark of bTrade Inc.

A data store of oplets retained either in local storage or in remote storage share by multiple process routers.

Pretty Good Privacy is a security system used to encrypt and decrypt e-mail over the Internet. It can also be used to send an encrypted digital signature that lets the receiver verify the sender's identity and know that the message was not changed en route.

Public Key Infrastructure. A system of CAs, RAs, directories, client applications, and servers that model trust. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)'s X.509 standard is the de-facto standard by which public keys can be managed on a secure basis. See CA and RA.

Defined

Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) refers to cryptographic algorithms designed to remain secure against attacks from quantum computers. Within TDXchange, PQC is used to protect data in motion and cryptographic exchanges against future quantum-enabled threats, while maintaining compatibility with existing enterprise workflows.

Unlike traditional public-key algorithms such as RSA and ECC—which are vulnerable to quantum attacks—PQC algorithms are built on mathematical problems believed to be resistant to both classical and quantum computing techniques.

How It Works

PQC replaces or supplements traditional asymmetric cryptography with algorithms designed to withstand quantum attacks. These algorithms are used for key exchange, digital signatures, or both.

In a TDXchange environment, PQC is implemented as part of the cryptographic stack that protects:

• Session establishment
• Key exchange mechanisms
• Digital signatures and authentication workflows

TDXchange supports integrating PQC algorithms alongside existing cryptography, allowing organizations to adopt hybrid models where classical and post-quantum algorithms are used together. This ensures security continuity while standards mature and interoperability evolves.

PQC algorithms are selected based on standards published by bodies such as NIST, which has begun approving post-quantum algorithms for enterprise use.

Default Scope of Use

PQC is not tied to a single port or protocol. In TDXchange, it is applied across secure transport and cryptographic operations, including:

• Secure file transfer sessions
• Key exchange and authentication processes
• Encrypted data exchanges over existing MFT protocols

PQC operates beneath the protocol layer, strengthening security without changing how partners connect or exchange files.

Common Use Cases

• Financial services: Protecting payment files, trading data, and long-lived financial records that must remain confidential for decades
• Healthcare: Securing patient data and medical records with extended confidentiality requirements
• Government and regulated industries: Ensuring cryptographic compliance for data with long retention and audit requirements
• Long-term data protection: Safeguarding archived or replicated data that may be vulnerable to “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks

TDXchange enables organizations in these sectors to begin PQC adoption without disrupting existing operations.

Best Practices

• Adopt hybrid cryptography first: Combine classical and post-quantum algorithms to maintain interoperability while improving future resilience
• Inventory cryptographic usage: Understand where encryption, signing, and key exchange are used across your TDXchange environment
• Plan for algorithm agility: PQC is evolving—TDXchange supports cryptographic flexibility so algorithms can be updated as standards change
• Test performance impacts: Some PQC algorithms have larger key sizes and higher computational cost; validate behavior under real transfer loads
• Align with standards bodies: Follow NIST guidance and approved algorithms to ensure long-term compliance and interoperability

Compliance Connection

PQC is becoming increasingly relevant for regulatory and compliance frameworks concerned with long-term data protection.

• NIST guidance encourages organizations to begin transitioning to post-quantum algorithms as standards are finalized
• Financial regulators are beginning to ask when, not if, organizations will address quantum-related risk
• Data protection regulations implicitly require safeguards appropriate to the data’s confidentiality lifespan, not just current threat models

By incorporating PQC into TDXchange, organizations demonstrate proactive risk management and readiness for evolving cryptographic expectations.

‍

Related Terms

• Quantum-Safe-Encryption

‍

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms split large files into multiple segments or open multiple concurrent connections to maximize throughput when moving data across networks. You'll see this technique used for accelerating transfers of multi-gigabyte files where a single TCP connection can't saturate available bandwidth due to latency constraints.

Why It Matters

Single-threaded transfers often can't fully utilize available bandwidth, especially on high-latency networks. I've seen organizations with 10 Gbps circuits getting only 50-100 Mbps throughput using traditional single-connection transfers. Parallel techniques can increase actual throughput by 10-50x in long-distance scenarios. When you're moving terabytes of data in tight batch windows, this becomes the difference between meeting SLAs and missing them completely.

How It Works

The platform takes one of two approaches: file segmentation or multi-stream transfer. With segmentation, the MFT solution splits a large file into chunks (typically 5-100 MB each), transfers all chunks simultaneously over separate connections, then reassembles them at the destination. Multi-stream methods open multiple TCP connections for the entire file, letting each connection carry different portions of the data stream. Both approaches work around the TCP windowing limitations that throttle single connections on high-latency networks. Some implementations combine this with compression and adaptive algorithms that adjust the number of parallel streams based on real-time network conditions.

MFT Context

Most enterprise MFT platforms include parallel transfer as a configurable option for specific routes or file patterns. You typically set thresholds—say, enable parallel mode for files over 500 MB or for connections with latency above 50ms. The platform handles all the complexity: stream management, checkpoint restart if individual segments fail, and verification that reassembled files match source checksums. Cloud-focused MFT solutions often integrate with native cloud storage APIs that support parallel uploads natively.

Common Use Cases

• Media and entertainment companies transferring 50-500 GB video files between production facilities across continents for post-production workflows
• Healthcare organizations moving large medical imaging datasets (CT scans, MRI sequences) between research institutions or to cloud-based AI analysis platforms
• Manufacturing firms synchronizing CAD/CAM files and simulation data (often 10-100 GB per file) between global design centers
• Financial services handling end-of-day data warehouse loads where terabyte-scale datasets must complete within 4-hour batch windows
• Genomics research transferring sequencing data files (100+ GB) between laboratories and cloud compute clusters for analysis

Best Practices

• Start with files over 1 GB: The overhead of segmentation and reassembly isn't worth it for smaller files. I typically set the threshold at 500 MB minimum, 1 GB for most implementations.
• Match stream count to latency, not bandwidth: On 10ms latency networks, 4-8 streams is usually optimal. At 100ms+ latency, you might go to 16-32 streams. More isn't always better—too many streams create connection overhead.
• Monitor reassembly errors carefully: Failed parallel transfers can create orphaned segments. Make sure your platform cleans these up and has proper retry logic for individual segment failures.
• Test with your actual network paths: Lab results don't predict production performance. Run parallel transfer tests during different times to understand real-world congestion patterns.

Real World Example

A pharmaceutical company I worked with needed to transfer 200-400 GB molecular modeling datasets daily from European research labs to US-based high-performance computing clusters. Single-stream SFTP was achieving only 80 Mbps on their 1 Gbps circuit due to 140ms transatlantic latency. After implementing parallel transfer with 24 concurrent streams, throughput jumped to 750 Mbps. Transfer windows dropped from 8 hours to under 1 hour, letting researchers start compute jobs during US business hours instead of waiting overnight.

Related Terms

• Multipart Upload
• High-Speed File Transfer
• TCP Windowing
• WAN Optimization

‍

A party (or) location is any legal, functional or physical entity involved at any point in any supply chain and upon which there is a need to retrieve pre-defined information (GDAS definition). A party is uniquely identified by a EAN/UCC Global Location Number (GLN).

In contrast to perishable queues, persistence refers to a message queue that resides on a permanent device, such as a disk, and can be recovered in case of system failure or relatively (from a computer processing cycle perspective) long process or idle duration.

Unencrypted data; intelligible data that can be directly acted upon without decryption.

Place where the purchase is made at the checkstand or scanning terminals in a retail store. The acronym 'POS' frequently is used to describe the sales data generated at checkout scanners. The relief of inventory and computation of sales data at a time and place of sale, generally through the use of bar coding or magnetic media equipment.

Defined

Enterprise file transfer platforms like TDXchange use PGP encryption to secure files before transmission, providing a layer of protection independent of the transport method. Built on public key cryptography, PGP allows trading partners to exchange files securely without sharing secret keys. Most modern MFT systems implement OpenPGP, with GPG (GNU Privacy Guard) being the most widely used open-source implementation.

TDXchange supports standard OpenPGP encryption, but also extends file-level security with bTrade’s proprietary TDCompress encryption for compression + encryption efficiency, as well as quantum-safe encryption options designed to protect against future cryptographic threats.

Why It Matters

PGP delivers true defense in depth. Even if a connection is intercepted or files are accessed on an intermediate system, PGP-encrypted data remains unreadable without the recipient’s private key.

I've seen real-world cases where firewalls stripped out transport encryption due to misconfiguration, but because the files were PGP-encrypted via TDXchange, sensitive data was still completely protected. PGP also enables non-repudiation through digital signatures, verifying the origin and integrity of each file critical for audits and dispute resolution.

TDXchange takes this further by integrating:

• PGP key management
• Automated signature verification
• Per-partner encryption policies
• Fallback options to TDCompress or quantum-safe encryption based on partner capabilities or regulatory demands

How It Works

PGP combines symmetric and asymmetric encryption for speed and security:

1. A random session key is generated
2. The file is encrypted with that key using AES-256 (or stronger)
3. The session key is then encrypted with the recipient’s public RSA or ECC key

The recipient decrypts the session key with their private key, then decrypts the file.
Digital signatures work in reverse: the sender creates a hash of the file and encrypts the hash with their private key. Recipients decrypt it with the sender’s public key to verify authenticity and file integrity.

In TDXchange, this process is fully automated, with support for:

• Signature enforcement policies
• Multiple key pairs per trading partner
• Integrated error handling and alerting on signature or encryption failures

Compliance Connection

PGP is widely recognized as an approved method of data-at-rest encryption for regulated file transfers:

• PCI DSS v4.0 (Requirement 4.2.1): PGP fulfills encryption requirements when transmitting cardholder data across open networks.
• HIPAA Security Rule §164.312(e)(1): PGP protects ePHI during transmission, even when intermediate servers are involved.
• GDPR Articles 32 & 5: PGP supports encryption and integrity mandates through both encryption and digital signatures.
• CMMC & NIST 800-171: For government contractors, PGP helps protect CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information) across supply chains.

TDXchange's immutable audit logs include PGP validation results, signature verification status, and key usage history streamlining compliance reporting and forensic investigations.

Common Use Cases

• Financial Services: Encrypting ACH files, credit card batch uploads, and settlement reports, especially for partners requiring non-AS2 file delivery
• Healthcare: Transmitting HL7, EDI 837/835, or claims files with strong encryption independent of SFTP or HTTPS
• Retail EDI: Sending PGP-encrypted 850s, 810s, or 856s to partners who don't support S/MIME or AS2 encryption
• Government Contracting: Protecting CUI in file transfers to meet FISMA, CMMC, and FedRAMP security controls

With TDXchange, PGP is part of a broader encryption strategy that adjusts dynamically to partner needs whether that means PGP, TDCompress, or quantum-resistant ciphers.

Best Practices

• Use Strong Key Sizes: In TDXchange, use 4096-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC keys by default. 2048-bit RSA is no longer considered long-term safe.
• Automate Key Rotation: Rotate keys every 1–2 years and track rotation history. TDXchange simplifies this with partner-specific rotation policies.
• Secure Private Keys: Store private keys in HSMs or encrypted vaults, not shared file systems. TDXchange integrates with secure key storage options.
• Verify Every Signature: Don’t just decrypt, validate the sender's digital signature before processing. TDXchange automates this and alerts on any failure.

Related Terms

• OpenPGP
• Encryption in Transit
• S/MIME

‍

The mathematical value of an asymmetric key pair that is not shared with trading partners. The private key works in conjunction with the public key to encrypt and decrypt data. For example, when the private key is used to encrypt data, only the public key can successfully decrypt that data. See secret-key.

In MFT systems, process orchestration coordinates multiple file transfer operations—receiving, validating, transforming, routing, and notification—into automated workflows that execute in sequence or parallel. Rather than managing discrete transfer tasks, orchestration engines maintain state across multi-step processes, handling dependencies and conditional logic based on transfer outcomes or file attributes.

Why It Matters

Without orchestration, you're manually triggering each step of complex file workflows. I've seen teams spend hours daily babysitting transfers: waiting for files, checking validation, manually moving them forward. Process orchestration eliminates this overhead and ensures consistent execution. If validation fails, the engine automatically routes to error handling instead of silently continuing with corrupt data—preventing downstream failures.

How It Works

Orchestration engines use state machines to track workflow progress. When a file arrives via SFTP, the engine triggers the first task—maybe checksum validation. Based on success or failure, it branches to different paths: transform and route on success, or alert and quarantine on failure. The engine maintains execution context, passing metadata between steps. Most implementations use event-driven triggers combined with dependency graphs, where tasks wait for prerequisites before executing.

MFT Context

MFT platforms implement orchestration across distributed components—agents, gateways, and transformation servers. A typical workflow might involve an MFT agent receiving a file, the central server orchestrating validation and transformation, then multiple agents delivering to different destinations simultaneously. The orchestration layer tracks all steps, maintains audit logs, and handles partial failures. If delivery to partner A succeeds but partner B fails, the engine retries only the failed leg.

Common Use Cases

• Healthcare claims processing: Receive HL7 files overnight, validate against schema, de-identify PHI, split by payer, deliver to clearinghouses with acknowledgment tracking
• Retail supply chain: EDI 850 purchase orders arrive, transform to internal format, route to warehouse and finance systems, archive originals for 7 years
• Financial reconciliation: Collect transaction files from 50+ branches hourly, merge into single dataset, validate totals, encrypt, deliver to audit system before 6 AM
• Manufacturing B2B: Partner sends CAD files via AS2, trigger virus scan, convert formats, notify engineering, auto-reply with MDN

Best Practices

• Design idempotent workflows: Ensure re-running failed steps doesn't create duplicates. Use unique transfer IDs and check for existing records before processing.
• Implement clear error boundaries: Don't let failures in later steps invalidate earlier successes. Persist state at each stage for surgical retry.
• Build observable workflows: Emit events at every transition for real-time monitoring. Include correlation IDs linking operations for a single business transaction.
• Plan for partial success: Define rollback or compensation logic when multi-destination deliveries fail mid-flight. Sometimes partial delivery is acceptable.

Real World Example

A pharmaceutical distributor orchestrates 8,000 order files daily from retail pharmacies. Files arrive via SFTP throughout the day, triggering workflows that validate DEA numbers, check inventory, transform orders to warehouse format, route to fulfillment systems in three regional DCs, and send confirmations back. The orchestration handles dependencies—if inventory check fails, it auto-routes to backorder processing. The entire workflow completes in under 2 minutes per order, with full audit trails for FDA compliance.

Related Terms

• Workflow Automation
• Event-Driven Transfers
• Job Scheduler

‍

A specialized networking device that automates the execution of specific business process(es) and appropriate routing and or transformation algorithm(s), given a business document.

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms depend on PKI to establish trusted communication channels between file transfer endpoints. PKI is the framework of policies, processes, and technologies that creates, manages, distributes, and revokes digital certificates used to authenticate identities and encrypt file transfers across protocols like SFTP, FTPS, AS2, and HTTPS.

Why It Matters

Without PKI, you can't verify that you're sending financial reports to your actual trading partner versus an imposter. I've seen organizations lose six-figure contracts because they couldn't prove their file transfer identities met audit requirements. PKI provides the cryptographic foundation for non-repudiation—proving who sent what file, when—which is essential for regulatory compliance and dispute resolution in B2B file exchanges.

How It Works

PKI operates through a trust hierarchy. A Certificate Authority issues digital certificates that bind a public key to an entity's verified identity (company name, domain, etc.). When your MFT server initiates an FTPS connection, it presents its certificate. The receiving server validates this certificate against the CA's signature, checks expiration dates, and verifies it hasn't been revoked via CRL or OCSP lookups. Once validated, the servers exchange encrypted session keys using the public keys from their certificates. The corresponding private keys—stored securely on each server—decrypt the communications, creating an authenticated and encrypted channel for file transfers.

MFT Context

Modern MFT platforms integrate certificate management directly into their administrative consoles. You'll configure certificate stores for different protocols—SSH host keys for SFTP endpoints, X.509 certificates for FTPS listeners, AS2 signing and encryption certificates for EDI partners. Most enterprise platforms support automatic certificate renewal through ACME protocol integration or can pull certificates from centralized keystores. I typically see organizations maintaining separate certificate hierarchies for internal versus external trading partners, with stricter validation requirements for high-value financial or healthcare data exchanges.

Common Use Cases

• AS2 EDI transactions where both signing and encryption certificates prove sender identity and protect invoice and purchase order data during transmission
• Multi-enterprise supply chains using FTPS with client certificate authentication to ensure only authorized manufacturers access production schedules
• Healthcare data exchanges requiring certificate-based authentication for HIPAA-compliant ePHI transfers between hospitals, insurers, and clearinghouses
• Financial institutions implementing mutual TLS authentication for daily batch transfers of transaction files and regulatory reports
• Cloud integrations where MFT platforms use certificates to authenticate API connections and encrypt files between SaaS applications

Best Practices

• Implement certificate lifecycle management with automated alerts at least 60 days before expiration—production file transfers fail when certificates expire over weekends
• Use separate certificates for different functions: server authentication, client authentication, signing, and encryption to limit damage if a private key is compromised
• Store private keys in hardware security modules for certificates protecting regulated data—software keystores are vulnerable to extraction via malware or insider threats
• Maintain an offline root CA for your internal PKI, using intermediate CAs to issue operational certificates so you can revoke compromised intermediates without rebuilding everything
• Test certificate revocation quarterly by actually revoking a test certificate and confirming your MFT platform blocks connections—many teams configure CRL/OCSP but never verify it works

Compliance Connection

PKI directly satisfies multiple compliance requirements. PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 4.2.1 mandates strong cryptography for cardholder data in transit, which you implement using PKI-issued certificates with TLS 1.2+ for FTPS and HTTPS transfers. HIPAA's Security Rule §164.312(e)(1) requires transmission security for ePHI—PKI certificates enable the encryption and authentication mechanisms that satisfy this. GDPR Article 32 demands appropriate technical measures for data protection, and PKI-based authentication and encryption demonstrate due diligence. Most auditors want to see certificate inventories, renewal logs, and evidence of revocation capability during compliance assessments.

Related Terms

• Digital Certificate (X.509)
• Certificate Authority (CA)
• TLS
• Hardware Security Module (HSM)

‍

The mathematical value of an asymmetric key pair that is shared with trading partners. The public key works in conjunction with the private key to encrypt and decrypt data. For example, when the public key is used to encrypt data, only the private key can successfully decrypt that data.

Encryption that uses a key pair of mathematically related encryption keys. The public key can be made available to anyone who wishes to use it and can encrypt information or verify a digital signature; the private key is kept secret by its holder and can decrypt information or generate a digital signature. This permits users to verify each other's messages without having to securely exchange secret keys.

The data source grants visibility of item, party and partner profiles, including party capabilities data to a given list of parties (identified by their GLNs) or to all parties in a given market.

Pub-Sub is a style of inter-application communications. Publishers are able to broadcast data to a community of information users or subscribers, which have issued the type of information they wish to receive (normally defining topics or subjects of interest). An application or user can be both a publisher and subscriber. The Process Router to Trading Network Agent interaction can be considered as a pub-sub form of communications where the agent registers the subscriber and the process router is the publisher.

Defined

Quantum-safe encryption refers to encryption methods designed to protect data against both classical and future quantum computing attacks. In TDXchange, quantum-safe encryption is used to safeguard data in motion and cryptographic exchanges so sensitive information remains protected throughout its entire confidentiality lifespan.

Unlike traditional encryption that relies on algorithms vulnerable to quantum attacks, quantum-safe encryption incorporates post-quantum algorithms or hybrid cryptographic models that maintain security even as computational capabilities evolve.

How It Works

Quantum-safe encryption strengthens the cryptographic foundation of data exchanges by replacing or augmenting vulnerable algorithms with quantum-resistant alternatives.

In a TDXchange environment, this is implemented by:

• Using post-quantum algorithms for key exchange, authentication, or digital signatures
• Supporting hybrid encryption models, where classical and quantum-safe algorithms operate together
• Maintaining interoperability with existing partners while enhancing future resilience

TDXchange applies quantum-safe encryption at the cryptographic layer, allowing secure file transfers, partner authentication, and session establishment to remain unchanged from an operational standpoint while significantly improving long-term security posture.

Scope of Use

Quantum-safe encryption is not limited to a single protocol or port. In TDXchange, it is applied across:

• Secure file transfer sessions
• Authentication and key exchange processes
• Encrypted communications supporting MFT protocols such as SFTP, HTTPS, and AS2

This approach ensures quantum-safe protections are embedded consistently across the platform rather than applied as isolated point solutions.

Common Use Cases

• Financial services: Protecting payment files, trading data, and financial records that must remain confidential for decades
• Healthcare: Securing patient data and medical records with long retention and regulatory requirements
• Legal and eDiscovery workflows: Safeguarding sensitive legal data against “harvest now, decrypt later” threats
• Government and regulated industries: Meeting evolving expectations for long-term cryptographic resilience

TDXchange enables organizations in these environments to adopt quantum-safe encryption without disrupting existing transfer workflows or partner integrations.

Best Practices

• Adopt hybrid encryption models: Combine classical and quantum-safe algorithms to ensure compatibility while improving future readiness
• Plan for cryptographic agility: Quantum-safe encryption is evolving; TDXchange supports updating algorithms as standards mature
• Inventory long-lived data: Prioritize quantum-safe encryption for data with extended confidentiality requirements
• Validate performance at scale: Test quantum-safe configurations under real transfer loads to understand performance impacts
• Align with approved standards: Follow NIST-approved post-quantum algorithms to ensure interoperability and compliance

Compliance Connection

Quantum-safe encryption is becoming increasingly relevant to compliance and risk management frameworks.

• NIST has begun approving post-quantum algorithms, signaling a shift toward enterprise adoption
• Financial and data protection regulators are starting to assess quantum-related risk based on data longevity
• Privacy and security regulations implicitly require protections appropriate to how long data must remain confidential

By implementing quantum-safe encryption within TDXchange, organizations demonstrate proactive risk management and preparedness for evolving cryptographic expectations—without waiting for quantum threats to become operationally urgent.

Related Terms

• PQC

‍

A data source or a final data recipient triggers an inquiry, a subscription and gives a status on a particular event or information element. In this function, all the acknowledgements and audit trails are covered.

Remote Data Access, usually to an RDBMS via SQL.

Relational Database Management System.

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms expose s to give you programmatic control over file transfers, user management, and monitoring without touching the web interface. Most modern MFT solutions provide RESTful endpoints that return JSON responses, letting your applications trigger transfers, query job status, or retrieve audit logs through standard HTTP methods.

Why It Matters

You can't scale MFT operations if everything requires manual clicks. REST APIs let you integrate file transfer workflows into your existing business applications—ERP systems can automatically send invoices, monitoring tools can pull transfer metrics, and DevOps pipelines can provision trading partners. I've seen teams reduce deployment time from hours to minutes once they automated partner onboarding through API integration.

How It Works

REST APIs in MFT platforms use HTTP verbs (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE‍to manage resources. You authenticate with OAuth 2.0 tokens or API keys, then send requests to endpoints like /api/v1/transfers or /api/v1/users. The platform validates your credentials, checks role-based permissions, and executes the requested operation. Responses come back as JSON with status codes (200 for success, 401 for auth failures, 429 for rate limits). Most platforms version their APIs (/v1, /v2) so they can add features without breaking existing integrations.

MFT Context

Modern MFT platforms use REST APIs as the primary integration method for Workflow Automation and external system connectivity. You'll call REST endpoints to submit ad-hoc transfers when specific business events occur—a completed order in Salesforce, a closed ticket in ServiceNow, or a payment batch ready in your treasury system. The API also powers administrative tasks like bulk partner provisioning, automated key rotation, and integration with ITSM platforms.

Common Use Cases

• Business application integration: ERP systems trigger outbound transfers when invoices are generated, automatically delivering files to payment processors or customer SFTP sites
• Custom portal development: Build self-service portals where trading partners can submit transfers, view history, and download files without accessing the MFT console
• Monitoring and alerting: Pull transfer status and metrics into Datadog, Splunk, or ServiceNow to correlate file transfer failures with other infrastructure events
• DevOps automation: Terraform and Ansible scripts call APIs to provision users, configure transfer routes, and deploy partner connections across environments

Best Practices

• Use OAuth 2.0 with short-lived tokens rather than long-lived API keys—I rotate tokens every 24 hours and store them in secrets managers like HashiCorp Vault or AWS Secrets Manager
• Implement exponential backoff for rate-limited responses—most MFT APIs limit requests to 100-500 per minute, so build retry logic that waits longer between attempts after HTTP 429
• Log API correlation IDs from responses to connect your application requests with MFT platform audit trails when troubleshooting failed transfers or missing files

Related Terms

• API Integration
• SOAP API
• Workflow Automation

‍

Remote Procedure Call is a form of application-to-application communication that is a tightly coupled synchronous process.

Registration is the process that references all items and parties published in all GCI/GDAS-compliant data pools and on which there is a need to synchronise/ retrieve information. This is supported by data storage in accordance with the registry data scope and rules.

Globally, it is master data that concerns all terms bilaterally agreed and communicated between trading partners such as marketing conditions, prices and discounts, logistics agreements, etc. (EAN/UCC GDAS definition).

A storage mechanism for finalised DTDs and other XML components. In this context a repository is the wrapping of potential business library components into information that can be used in an implementation.