Support

The denial or attempted denial by an entity involved in a communication of having participated in all or part of the communication.

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms implement automated retry mechanisms that attempt to re-execute failed file transfers after network interruptions, partner endpoint unavailability, or temporary errors. The logic defines how many attempts to make, the intervals between them, and which error types qualify for automatic retries versus immediate escalation to operations teams.

Why It Matters

You can't maintain 99.9% uptime requirements without intelligent retry behavior. Network blips, partner maintenance windows, and temporary outages will disrupt transfers—that's reality. What separates reliable MFT operations from constant firefighting is whether your platform automatically recovers from transient failures or generates a midnight page to your on-call engineer. I've seen organizations reduce transfer failure tickets by 70% simply by tuning their retry parameters to match partner availability patterns and implementing guaranteed delivery requirements.

How It Works

When a transfer fails, the MFT engine evaluates the error code against configurable criteria. Connection timeouts, DNS failures, and "service unavailable" responses typically trigger retries, while authentication failures or file-not-found errors don't. The platform schedules subsequent attempts using either fixed intervals (every 5 minutes) or Backoff Strategy patterns (1 minute, 5 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes). Most implementations track attempt counts per transfer job, enforce maximum retry limits (typically 3-10 attempts), and maintain state between retries so you're not starting from scratch each time when combined with checkpoint capabilities.

MFT Context

Modern MFT platforms treat retry logic as a policy you configure per trading partner, protocol, or workflow. Your mainframe batch job that uploads accounting data at 2 AM might retry every 10 minutes for 2 hours, while real-time EDI transactions retry immediately twice then fail fast to trigger alerts. The platform logs every retry attempt with timestamps and error details, giving you visibility into partner reliability patterns. Some vendors let you define different retry behaviors for inbound versus outbound transfers, recognizing that you control your sending schedule but can't dictate when partners pull files.

Common Use Cases

• EDI transaction processing: Retry failed AS2 transmissions to trading partners every 5 minutes during business hours, with extended intervals overnight to accommodate partner maintenance windows
• Banking batch cycles: Attempt to deliver ACH files to federal reserve endpoints with aggressive retries during narrow submission windows before daily cutoff times
• Healthcare claims submission: Retry failed clearinghouse connections with progressive delays, ensuring timely filing while respecting rate limits
• Retail inventory updates: Re-attempt supplier file retrievals throughout the day when warehouse systems experience temporary overload during peak seasons

Best Practices

• Match retry patterns to partner SLAs: Configure more aggressive retries for time-sensitive workflows and relaxed patterns for batch processes that have multi-hour windows
• Implement idempotent operations: Ensure your retry logic includes duplicate detection so reprocessing the same file after a failed transfer doesn't create data integrity issues
• Set maximum retry limits: Cap total attempts at reasonable levels (5-10 for most workflows) to prevent infinite loops and move failures to exception queues after threshold
• Log comprehensive retry metadata: Capture attempt counts, error codes, and timing patterns to identify chronic partner availability issues versus random network glitches
• Use exponential backoff for unknown errors: When you can't classify the failure type, progressive delays reduce load on struggling endpoints while maximizing eventual success rates

Real World Example

A pharmaceutical manufacturer ships prescription data to 3,500 retail pharmacy locations nightly. Their MFT platform processes 45,000 outbound file transfers between 11 PM and 3 AM. During peak flu season, some pharmacy systems become overloaded and temporarily reject connections. The manufacturer configured retry logic with 3 immediate attempts (30-second intervals), followed by 5 extended attempts (5-minute intervals). This pattern recovers 94% of initial failures automatically. The remaining 6% that exceed retry limits flow to a dead-letter queue for morning review, typically representing true outages requiring pharmacy IT intervention.

Related Terms

• Backoff Strategy
• Checkpoint Restart

‍

In MFT systems, a reverse proxy intercepts inbound connections from external trading partners before they reach your file transfer servers, acting as an intermediary that forwards requests while hiding your internal infrastructure. Unlike a traditional forward proxy that serves clients, it sits in your DMZ and protects backend MFT servers from direct internet exposure.

Why It Matters

When you expose SFTP or HTTPS endpoints to hundreds of trading partners, you're creating attack vectors directly into your environment. I've seen organizations lose weeks to breaches because external parties connected straight to production MFT servers. A reverse proxy gives you a single, hardened entry point where you can terminate SSL, inspect traffic, enforce authentication policies, and distribute load across multiple backend servers—all without changing partner configurations.

How It Works

The reverse proxy accepts connections on standard ports (22, for SFTP, 443 for HTTPS) and maintains a separate, isolated connection to your internal MFT servers. It terminates the external SSL/TLS session, optionally re-encrypting before forwarding to backend systems. This separation lets you run different cipher suites externally versus internally, upgrade backend servers without partner involvement, and apply content inspection or protocol validation before data reaches your MFT platform. Most implementations use connection pooling to reduce overhead when forwarding thousands of concurrent sessions.

MFT Context

MFT platforms deploy reverse proxies to create a clear security boundary between untrusted partner networks and internal file transfer infrastructure. I typically see them handling SSL offloading for AS2 and FTPS endpoints, distributing connections across clustered MFT servers, and providing a static IP address that doesn't change even when you migrate or upgrade backend systems. In hybrid architectures, they bridge cloud-based MFT services with on-premises repositories, letting partners connect to a single endpoint regardless of where files actually land.

Common Use Cases

• Multi-region B2B integration where a centralized reverse proxy routes partners to geographically appropriate MFT servers based on source IP or hostname
• Protocol translation converting inbound HTTPS uploads from suppliers into SFTP deposits on legacy internal systems without partner reconfiguration
• Scheduled maintenance windows where the proxy buffers connections or redirects to standby servers while primary MFT systems undergo patching
• Rate limiting and DDoS protection throttling abusive partners who exceed agreed transfer volumes or connection frequencies
• Compliance segmentation keeping PHI or PCI data on dedicated backend servers while presenting a unified external interface

Best Practices

• Deploy in a proper DMZ with firewall rules allowing only specific outbound ports to MFT servers—I've seen too many "DMZ" reverse proxies with unrestricted internal access defeating the whole purpose.
• Implement session affinity for protocols like AS2 that require MDN responses to return through the same connection, using source IP or cookie-based persistence depending on protocol.
• Monitor proxy-to-backend latency separately from end-to-end transfer times so you can identify whether performance issues originate from external partners, the proxy layer, or backend MFT processing.
• Maintain separate SSL certificates for external-facing reverse proxies versus internal MFT servers, limiting certificate compromise blast radius and simplifying partner trust management.

Related Terms

• DMZ
• MFT Gateway
• Load Balancing
• SSL

‍

Enterprise MFT platforms rely on RSA asymmetric cryptography to secure connections, authenticate endpoints, and protect key exchanges. You'll find RSA key pairs (typically 2048-bit or 4096-bit) embedded in SSH host keys, TLS certificates, and partner authentication configurations across protocols like SFTP, FTPS and AS2.‍

Why It Matters

Without RSA, you can't establish trusted connections between trading partners. When your MFT server initiates an SFTP session, RSA verifies the remote host's identity and prevents man-in-the-middle attacks. It also enables digital signatures for non-repudiation—proving that a specific partner sent a specific file. I've seen organizations fail compliance audits because they accepted 1024-bit RSA keys that no longer meet regulatory minimums.

How It Works

RSA uses a mathematically linked public-private key pair. Your MFT server publishes the public key to partners; only the corresponding private key can decrypt messages or create valid signatures. During protocol handshakes, RSA typically encrypts a session key that both parties use for faster symmetric encryption (like AES-256). The computational intensity of RSA makes it impractical for bulk encryption, so this hybrid approach—RSA for key exchange, AES for payload—is standard across Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) implementations.

The security depends on the difficulty of factoring large prime numbers. A 2048-bit RSA key would take current technology centuries to crack, but 4096-bit keys are becoming common as computing power increases.

Compliance Connection

FIPS 140-3 requires RSA keys of at least 2048 bits for cryptographic modules protecting sensitive government data. PCI DSS v4.0 mandates strong cryptography for cardholder data in transit, which includes proper RSA key lengths in TLS certificates. HIPAA's Security Rule requires organizations to implement encryption mechanisms—most interpret this to mean RSA-based protocols like SFTP or FTPS with minimum 2048-bit keys. You'll need to document key sizes and rotation schedules during audits.

Common Use Cases

• SSH host authentication: MFT servers present RSA host keys so clients can verify they're connecting to the legitimate endpoint, not an impostor
• TLS certificate signing: Certificate authorities use RSA to sign X.509 certificates that validate HTTPS and FTPS connections to your MFT gateway
• Partner key authentication: Trading partners upload RSA public keys to your MFT platform for password-less SFTP authentication
• AS2 message signing: B2B integrations use RSA to digitally sign EDI transmissions, providing proof of origin and integrity

Best Practices

• Deploy 2048-bit minimum: Anything below 2048 bits fails modern compliance standards. Use 3072-bit or 4096-bit keys for long-term secrets like root CA certificates.
• Rotate keys on a schedule: I recommend annual rotation for server host keys and every 2-3 years for certificate keys to limit exposure from undetected compromises.
• Store private keys in HSMs: Hardware security modules prevent key extraction even if your MFT server is compromised. This is mandatory for PCI DSS Level 1 merchants.
• Plan for ECC migration: Many platforms now support elliptic curve cryptography, which provides equivalent security with shorter keys and better performance than RSA.

Related Terms

• ECC
• Digital Signatures
• AES

‍

In MFT systems, RBAC assigns access permissions based on job functions rather than individual identities. You create roles like "Trading Partner Administrator" or "Finance File Reviewer," then grant users these roles to control who can upload, download, delete, or manage specific file transfer workflows.

Why It Matters

I've seen organizations with 200+ trading partners try to manage individual user permissions—it becomes unmaintainable. RBAC scales because you're managing 10-15 roles instead of thousands of permission assignments. When someone changes departments or leaves, you adjust one role assignment rather than hunting through dozens of folder permissions. This prevents access creep where former employees still have download rights months after leaving.

How It Works

RBAC operates on three core objects: users, roles, and permissions. You define roles mapping to business functions (invoice processor, EDI coordinator, security auditor). Each role gets specific permissions like read-only access to /inbound/invoices or full partner configuration control. On authentication, the MFT platform checks assigned roles and applies combined permissions. Most platforms support role hierarchies where "Finance Manager" inherits all "Finance User" permissions plus admin capabilities.

MFT Context

MFT platforms implement RBAC at multiple levels: folder-level roles (who accesses which directories), protocol-level roles (who can use SFTP vs API), and administrative roles (who configures partners or views logs). Modern platforms integrate with Single Sign-On (SSO) so roles come from your corporate directory—an accounting clerk authenticated via SAML automatically gets the "AP_FileReviewer" role without separate MFT provisioning.

Common Use Cases

• Trading partner segregation: External partners get "Partner_Upload" role with write-only access to their drop folder, preventing them from seeing other partners' files
• Compliance separation: Finance teams download tax documents while IT operations manage transfers but never view sensitive file contents
• Multi-tenant environments: Service providers isolate customer workspaces so Company A's administrators can't access Company B's configurations
• Break-glass access: Emergency roles give security teams temporary full access during incidents, with all actions logged

Best Practices

• Start with least privilege: Create narrow roles first, then expand. I begin with read-only roles and add write permissions only when business needs justify it.
• Use naming conventions that reflect business functions, not technical details. "Payroll_Processor" makes more sense than "Group_FTP_RW_01" when auditors review access.
• Review role assignments quarterly. I've found 15-20% of assignments become obsolete each year as job functions evolve.
• Separate data access from administrative roles. Configuring file transfer jobs shouldn't grant access to view file contents—different trust boundaries.

Compliance Connection

RBAC directly addresses PCI DSS Requirement 7.2.1 (establish access control systems with role-based privileges) and SOC 2 CC6.3 (logical access controls restrict system access). HIPAA Security Rule 164.308(a)(4)(ii)(B) requires role-based access for electronic protected health information systems. Auditors expect documented role definitions, regular access reviews, and evidence that users only access data needed for their job function. Your MFT audit trail must show who assigned roles, when permissions changed, and what actions each role performed.

Related Terms

• Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC)
• Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
• SAML

‍

RosettaNet is a consortium of major Information Technology, Electronic Components and Semiconductor Manufacturing companies working to create and implement industry-wide, open e-business process standards. These standards form a common e-business language, aligning processes between supply chain partners on a global basis.

Routers are a special-purpose networking device responsible for managing the connection of two or more networks. Today, IP routers check the destination address of the packets and decide the appropriate route to send them. However, 15-years ago, IP routing functionality was provided only by UNIX workstations. Two Stanford professors developed IP routers that abstracted the routing functionality to form Cisco Systems. These specialized devices have enabled the construction of scalable and adaptive IP networks including the Internet, a feat that could not be achieved by general purpose workstations. Similarly, Business Process Routers provide functionality that is in many ways provided by various applications.

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms integrate S/MIME to encrypt and digitally sign email-based file transfer notifications, delivery receipts, and automated reports. This email security standard uses X.509 certificates and public key cryptography to ensure message confidentiality, integrity, and sender authentication across trading partner communications.

Why It Matters

When you're sending file transfer confirmations or EDI transaction acknowledgments via email, S/MIME prevents interception and tampering. I've seen organizations lose trading partners because unsigned email notifications failed authentication checks. S/MIME also provides non-repudiation—critical when disputes arise about whether a file was actually delivered or received. Many regulated industries require cryptographically signed audit reports, and S/MIME is often the simplest way to meet that requirement.

How It Works

S/MIME relies on paired asymmetric keys: your private key signs outgoing messages, while recipients verify signatures using your public key distributed via X.509 certificates. For encryption, you encrypt messages with the recipient's public key, and they decrypt with their private key. The standard supports multiple encryption algorithms including AES-256 and RSA-2048. S/MIME integrates directly into email clients and MFT notification engines, automatically signing and encrypting designated message types based on policy rules you configure.

MFT Context

Most MFT platforms treat S/MIME as an add-on for email-based workflows rather than core file transfer security. You'll configure certificate stores for automated notifications, set signing policies for delivery receipts, and establish encryption rules for reports containing sensitive metadata. I typically see S/MIME deployed when MFT systems send compliance reports to auditors, transmit transfer summaries to executives, or integrate with legacy EDI systems that trigger email-based acknowledgments. Some platforms auto-discover recipient certificates from directory services to streamline encryption.

Common Use Cases

• Healthcare EDI: Signing and encrypting electronic remittance advice (ERA) and claim acknowledgment notifications sent via email to clearinghouses and payers
• Financial reporting: Protecting automated email delivery of PCI DSS scan results, SOC 2 audit reports, and transfer logs containing payment card data
• Manufacturing B2B: Securing advance ship notices (ASNs) and purchase order confirmations exchanged via email between supply chain partners
• Legal discovery: Encrypting email-based delivery receipts for evidence files transferred during e-discovery processes, where chain of custody matters

Best Practices

• Automate certificate renewal: Set up monitoring for S/MIME certificates expiring within 30 days, because expired certificates break automated notifications without obvious error messages
• Separate signing and encryption keys: Use distinct key pairs for signatures versus encryption, allowing you to escrow decryption keys while keeping signing keys secure
• Test with common clients: Verify S/MIME messages render correctly in Outlook, Gmail, and mobile clients—I've seen formatting issues expose sensitive data in plain text headers
• Configure fallback rules: Define whether to send unsigned when recipient certificates are unavailable, or fail the notification entirely based on data sensitivity

Compliance Connection

HIPAA Security Rule §164.312(e)(1) requires transmission security, and S/MIME satisfies this when PHI appears in email notifications or transfer receipts. PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 4.2 mandates strong cryptography for cardholder data transmission—S/MIME qualifies if you're emailing payment reports. GDPR Article 32 security requirements accept S/MIME for protecting personal data in transit, though you'll need documented key management procedures to demonstrate compliance during audits.

Related Terms

• PGP
• Digital Signatures
• Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)

‍

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms use SAML as an XML-based authentication standard that lets you authenticate users against corporate identity providers like Active Directory, Okta, or Azure AD rather than maintaining separate credentials in the file transfer system. It's the backbone of SSO for file transfer portals and web-based management consoles.

Why It Matters

When you're managing file transfers for hundreds or thousands of users across multiple trading partners, maintaining separate passwords becomes a security nightmare. SAML eliminates this by centralizing authentication—users log in once with their corporate credentials, and that identity carries across your MFT platform. If someone leaves the company, you disable their account in one place, and they're immediately locked out of all file transfer access. I've seen organizations reduce helpdesk tickets by 40% just by implementing SAML-based authentication.

How It Works

SAML operates through a trust relationship between your MFT platform (the service provider) and your identity provider. When a user tries to access your file transfer portal, they're redirected to the identity provider with an authentication request. After successful login—often including MFA—the identity provider generates a digitally signed XML assertion containing the user's identity and attributes (like department, role, groups). This assertion is sent back to your MFT platform, which validates the signature and grants access based on the attributes received. The assertions typically expire within minutes, requiring fresh validation for new sessions.

MFT Context

Most modern MFT platforms support SAML 2.0 for their web interfaces—the admin console, user portals, and REST APIs. You'll configure your MFT platform as a service provider by exchanging metadata XML files with your identity provider. These metadata files contain certificate information for signature validation and endpoint URLs for authentication flows. The platform can map SAML attributes to internal permissions, automatically assigning role-based access based on Active Directory group membership passed in the assertion.

Common Use Cases

• Trading partner portals where external users authenticate through their own corporate identity providers via SAML federation, eliminating partner credential management
• Regulated industries requiring centralized authentication audit trails for all file access, with SAML providing username, timestamp, and source IP in every assertion
• Multi-subsidiary organizations running a single MFT platform where employees from different business units authenticate through their respective identity providers
• Cloud-to-hybrid deployments where SAML bridges authentication between on-premises identity systems and cloud-hosted MFT services

Compliance Connection

SAML directly supports multiple compliance requirements for centralized authentication. PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 8.2.2 requires strong authentication methods and centralized credential management—SAML achieves this by eliminating local passwords. HIPAA's access control requirements under 164.312(a)(1) mandate unique user identification, which SAML provides through identity provider assertions. SOC 2 CC6.1 controls require logical access controls that SAML enables through centralized authentication and attribute-based authorization.

Related Terms

• Single Sign-On (SSO)
• Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
• Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)

‍

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms use to automate user provisioning and deprovisioning through REST API calls. When you connect your MFT platform to an identity provider like Azure AD or Okta, SCIM handles the real-time synchronization of user accounts, group memberships, and attribute changes without manual admin intervention.

Why It Matters

Manually creating user accounts across multiple MFT instances is time-consuming and error-prone. I've seen organizations with 500+ trading partner contacts struggle to keep permissions current when employees join, change roles, or leave. SCIM cuts onboarding time from hours to minutes and ensures that when someone's terminated in your HR system, their MFT access disappears immediately—critical for preventing unauthorized file access.

How It Works

SCIM defines standardized REST endpoints and JSON schemas for user lifecycle operations. Your identity provider acts as the SCIM client, pushing CREATE, UPDATE, and DELETE requests to your MFT platform's SCIM server endpoint. When a user's added to a group in Azure AD, SCIM sends a PATCH request updating their group membership. The MFT platform receives this, maps the group to role-based access control policies, and automatically grants folder permissions or protocol access. Most implementations use SCIM 2.0 (RFC 7644) over HTTPS with OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens for authentication.

MFT Context

MFT platforms typically implement SCIM server functionality to receive provisioning requests from enterprise identity providers. You'll configure attribute mappings—translating Azure AD groups to MFT roles, or Okta user attributes to home directory paths. When integrated with SSO, SCIM handles the provisioning side while SAML or OIDC handles authentication. This combo means users authenticate once and their permissions automatically reflect their current organizational role across all MFT endpoints.

Common Use Cases

• Trading partner onboarding: When a new partner contact is added to your CRM, SCIM automatically provisions their MFT account with appropriate folder access and protocol permissions
• Employee lifecycle management: HR system triggers create accounts for new hires on day one, update permissions during role changes, and immediately disable access upon termination
• Multi-instance synchronization: Organizations running clustered MFT deployments use SCIM to keep user accounts consistent across all nodes without manual replication
• Contractor management: Temporary access for auditors or consultants automatically expires based on identity provider schedules, removing the risk of orphaned accounts

Best Practices

• Map groups carefully: Don't sync every Azure AD group to your MFT platform. Create specific groups for file transfer roles and map only those to avoid permission bloat and performance issues with large directory structures.
• Test deprovisioning flows: I always verify that account deletion in the IdP actually removes MFT access, not just disables the account. Some implementations soft-delete users, leaving authentication credentials active.
• Monitor sync failures: Set up alerts for SCIM API errors. If your identity provider can't reach your MFT platform, provisioning stops but users keep working—creating a growing gap between intended and actual permissions.
• Version your attribute mappings: Document which IdP attributes map to which MFT fields. When you reorganize departments or rename groups, you'll need this to prevent mass permission changes that break existing workflows.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 8.2.1 mandates timely removal of access for terminated users. SCIM provides the automated mechanism to meet this by synchronizing terminations from your authoritative source to your MFT platform within minutes. GDPR Article 32 requires appropriate technical measures for security; automated provisioning through SCIM reduces the risk of human error in access management. SOC 2 CC6.1 evaluates logical access controls, and auditors look favorably on automated provisioning that creates audit trails for every permission change.

Related Terms

• SAML
• OpenID Connect (OIDC)
• Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC)

‍

Supply Chain Management is that function or set of skills and disciplines which involve the logistics and processes of creating a product from its original constituent elements that may be manufactured by sub-contractors or other divisions to its ultimate delivery to the buyer.

Definition

Enterprise platforms occasionally support as a SSH based file transfer protocol for point-to-point file copying. While it provides encryption and authentication through SSH, SCP's limited functionality and lack of interactive features make it a secondary option in modern MFT deployments where SFTP dominates.

Why It Matters

SCP matters primarily for backward compatibility with legacy automation scripts and Unix/Linux environments where it's been hardcoded into decades-old processes. I've seen organizations maintain SCP support purely because migrating thousands of cron jobs to SFTP would require extensive testing and coordination across multiple teams. That said, its simplicity can be an advantage for straightforward, script-based file movements where you don't need directory browsing or complex file management.

How It Works

SCP establishes an SSH connection to the remote host and uses that encrypted tunnel to copy files. Unlike interactive protocols, SCP operates in a single direction per command—you either push files to a remote location or pull files from one. The client invokes the SCP server process on the remote host, which handles the file reception or transmission. Authentication works exactly like SSH, using either password-based login or public key authentication. Once authenticated, SCP transfers the file data over the encrypted channel, then terminates the connection. There's no persistent session, no directory listing capability, and no way to resume interrupted transfers.

Default Ports

Port 22 (TCP) - shares the standard SSH port since SCP runs over SSH protocol

Common Use Cases

• Automated batch scripts in Unix/Linux environments transferring log files, backups, or reports between servers on scheduled intervals
• Quick ad-hoc file movements by system administrators who need to copy configuration files or patches between hosts without setting up an interactive session
• Legacy application integrations where SCP commands are hardcoded into deployment pipelines or data processing workflows
• Containerized environments where minimal tooling is needed and SCP provides a lightweight option for file copying during initialization

Best Practices

• Migrate to SFTP for new implementations since it offers better error handling, resume capability, and broader MFT platform support. SCP's limitations outweigh its simplicity in most enterprise scenarios.
• Use key-based authentication exclusively rather than passwords, storing private keys in secure locations with appropriate file permissions (chmod 600). Rotate keys regularly and document which scripts use which key pairs.
• Implement wrapper scripts around SCP commands that verify file integrity after transfer using checksums, since SCP lacks built-in verification beyond the SSH transport layer's integrity checking.
• Configure SSH daemon settings to restrict SCP to specific users or groups using Match directives in sshd_config, limiting exposure if you must support it alongside SFTP.
• Monitor for SCP usage in your environment and maintain an inventory of scripts and applications that depend on it, making migration planning feasible when you eventually deprecate support.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 4.2.1 accepts SCP's encryption for cardholder data transmission since it uses SSH's strong cryptography. However, the protocol's lack of detailed logging and file management capabilities makes audit trail requirements (10.2.1) harder to satisfy compared to SFTP. Most compliance teams prefer SFTP for regulated data because MFT platforms provide better tracking, centralized logging, and transfer confirmation—all critical for proving you've met non-repudiation and data protection obligations.

Related Terms

• SSH
• SFTP
• Audit Trail

‍

Definition

For file transfers requiring security and firewall compatibility, operates as a binary protocol within an SSH tunnel, encrypting both credentials and payload. Unlike FTP-based protocols, it uses a single connection on port 22, making it simpler to configure through corporate firewalls and NAT devices.

Why It Matters

SFTP became the default for B2B file exchanges because you don't manage separate encryption certificates like FTPS requires. I've seen organizations cut trading partner onboarding time by 60% when standardizing on SFTP—no certificate distribution, no discussions about explicit versus implicit modes, and most Unix systems include an SFTP server by default. When connecting 500 vendors, that simplicity matters more than theoretical performance differences.

How It Works

SFTP establishes an SSH connection first, authenticating with password or public key credentials. Once the tunnel is active, the protocol sends binary commands for file operations (upload, download, delete, list) and receives structured responses. The entire conversation—authentication, commands, file content, and responses—gets encrypted by SSH using algorithms like AES-256 and key exchange methods like Diffie-Hellman. Unlike FTP or FTPS, there's no separate data channel; everything multiplexes through one SSH connection.

Default Ports

Port 22 for all operations (control and data combined)

Common Use Cases

• Healthcare EDI exchanges: Hospitals transmit HL7 files and claims data to clearinghouses, scheduled hourly with 500-2,000 transactions per batch
• Retail purchase order automation: Suppliers receive PO files from retailers, typically 10-50 KB CSV or XML files arriving throughout business hours
• Financial institution reporting: Banks send encrypted GL extracts and transaction logs to auditors on daily or monthly schedules

Best Practices

• Disable password authentication in production and require public key authentication—I configure most MFT platforms to reject password attempts entirely, reducing brute-force exposure.
• Restrict SFTP to a chroot jail so users can't navigate above their designated directories; without this, I've seen partners accidentally discover other organizations' folders.
• Monitor for deprecated SSH algorithms like 3DES or CBC mode ciphers; run quarterly scans ensuring your server only accepts modern cipher suites.
• Implement automated key rotation annually at minimum—most breaches I've investigated involved credentials that were three or more years old.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 4.2.1 explicitly lists SSH as acceptable strong cryptography for protecting cardholder data in transit. HIPAA's Security Rule (§164.312(e)(1)) requires transmission security for ePHI, and SFTP's mandatory encryption satisfies this without additional configuration. For GDPR Article 32 requirements around encryption of personal data, SFTP provides "appropriate technical measures" by default.

Real World Example

A pharmaceutical distributor exchanges 15,000 prescription files daily with 1,200 pharmacies. Each pharmacy has a dedicated SFTP folder. Between 2-4 AM, the distributor's ERP generates CSV files (50-200 KB each) containing prescription orders, which get pushed to pharmacy folders. Pharmacies poll every 15 minutes during business hours. This handles 450 million files annually with public key authentication and 90-day key rotation.

Related Terms

• SCP
• FTP

‍

Definition

In MFT systems, SHA generates fixed-length hash values that uniquely identify files during transfer operations. When you send a 5GB database export, SHA creates a cryptographic fingerprint that proves the file arrived intact—even a single bit change produces a completely different hash.

Why It Matters

Every file transfer carries risk of corruption, whether from network errors, storage failures, or intentional tampering. SHA provides mathematical certainty about file integrity. Without hash verification, you're trusting that your healthcare claims file or financial transactions arrived exactly as sent. I've seen organizations lose days troubleshooting application errors that were actually corrupted files that passed through unvalidated transfers.

How It Works

SHA processes input in fixed-size blocks, applying complex mathematical operations through multiple rounds to produce a hash digest. For a 100MB file, the algorithm reads data sequentially, updating an internal state through bitwise operations and compression functions. The result is a fixed-length output—256 bits for SHA-256, 512 bits for SHA-512—that's computationally infeasible to reverse or forge. Modern implementations combine SHA with HMAC for authenticated message verification.

MFT Context

MFT platforms calculate SHA hashes at multiple checkpoints: before transmission, after network transfer, and post-decryption. Your platform stores the source hash in transfer metadata and compares it against the received file's hash. If they don't match, the transfer fails and triggers retry logic. Most platforms log hash values in audit trails for compliance verification—proving the file transmitted on Tuesday at 2:47 PM was identical to the source.

Common Use Cases

• Financial file reconciliation where banks verify daily transaction files (200,000+ records) haven't been altered during transmission between institutions
• Healthcare claims processing using SHA-256 hashes to validate ePHI file integrity across multiple trading partners
• Software distribution where vendors include SHA hashes alongside installers so recipients can verify authentic, unmodified downloads
• Compliance archiving requiring hash values for every transferred file to prove chain of custody during audits

Best Practices

• Use SHA-256 minimum for all production transfers; SHA-1 is cryptographically broken and appears in vulnerability scans. I've migrated dozens of environments away from legacy SHA-1.
• Store hashes separately from files in your transfer database or metadata repository. If someone compromises file storage, they can't modify both the file and its verification hash.
• Combine with digital signatures for non-repudiation. SHA provides integrity; signatures add authentication proving who sent the file.
• Automate hash verification in your transfer workflows rather than manual checks. Every automated verification catches errors that human processes miss.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 4.2.1 mandates strong cryptography including secure hash functions for protecting cardholder data in transit. HIPAA Security Rule 164.312(e)(2)(i) requires integrity controls for ePHI transmissions, typically implemented through SHA-based verification. FIPS 140-3 specifies approved hash algorithms—SHA-2 family and SHA-3—for federal systems.

Real-World Example

A pharmaceutical manufacturer transfers clinical trial data to the FDA multiple times daily. Each submission contains 50-100 files ranging from 10KB to 2GB. Their MFT platform calculates SHA-256 hashes for every file pre-transfer, transmits via AS2 with hash values embedded in the MDN, and the FDA's receiving system verifies each hash before importing. Any mismatch triggers automatic retransmission and generates compliance documentation.

Related Terms

• SHA-256
• Digital Signatures
• File Integrity

‍

Defined

Enterprise MFT platforms like TDXchange rely on SHA-256 (Secure Hash Algorithm 256-bit) to generate unique, cryptographic fingerprints for files during transfer, processing, and storage. Each file produces a consistent 64-character hexadecimal output even a one-byte difference results in a completely different hash.

In high-volume environments where millions of files move daily, TDXchange uses SHA-256 to perform checksum validation, catching corruption or tampering before files reach downstream systems. It’s a core part of ensuring data integrity and trust.

Why It Matters

You need absolute assurance that the 50GB financial report your system receives at 2 AM is exactly what your partner sent. File size isn’t enough. SHA-256 gives you cryptographic proof, something older algorithms like MD5 or SHA-1 can no longer guarantee due to known collision vulnerabilities.

In TDXchange, SHA-256 isn’t just used at the edge, it’s enforced throughout the transfer pipeline:

• Pre-transfer: TDXchange calculates the hash and stores it in its tamper-evident audit logs
• Post-transfer: The platform re-calculates and compares the hash before triggering downstream workflows
• At rest: SHA-256 is used to verify integrity after decryption or data transformation

When a pharmaceutical company moves clinical trial data via TDXchange, they're not just logging the file, they’re validating it byte-for-byte, ensuring accuracy for regulatory compliance and scientific reliability.

How It Works

SHA-256 processes input data in 512-bit blocks through 64 rounds of mathematical operations, producing a fixed 256-bit (64-character) hash value. It’s:

• Deterministic: The same input always produces the same hash
• One-way: You cannot reverse-engineer the original content from the hash

TDXchange automates the entire process:

• The sender node generates the hash and transmits it via secure metadata
• The receiver node independently recalculates the hash after receiving the file
• If hashes don’t match, TDXchange triggers alerts, retries, or quarantines the file

This comparison takes milliseconds, even for large files, enabling real-time integrity checks at scale.

MFT Context in TDXchange

TDXchange integrates SHA-256 into multiple layers of its file transfer architecture:

• Workflow-level integrity checks (before and after encryption)
• Transfer retries triggered by hash mismatches
• Dead-letter queue routing for corrupt or incomplete files
• Audit trails that include hash values to prove file integrity at a given timestamp
• Validation checkpoints in multi-step pipelines (e.g., after decryption or transformation)

Common Use Cases

• Financial Services: Using SHA-256 in TDXchange to prove wire transfer files weren’t altered post-submission—supporting non-repudiation
• Healthcare: Validating DICOM files or HL7 messages before importing to EHRs, ensuring diagnostic and compliance accuracy
• Manufacturing: Ensuring CAD files and firmware updates are bit-perfect before deployment, critical in preventing downstream quality issues
• Legal & Compliance: Hashing legal discovery files and storing the values in immutable audit logs to maintain chain-of-custody

Best Practices

• Hash before and after compression: TDXchange allows hashing of raw and compressed versions to catch archive-level corruption
• Store hashes separately: TDXchange maintains hash values in its protected metadata store and audit logs, preventing simultaneous tampering
• Use batch manifests: For multi-file transfers, TDXchange can generate manifest files that include individual SHA-256 hashes for complete set validation
• Automate hash enforcement: Configure policies that trigger retries, alerts, or workflow halts when integrity checks fail—eliminating silent corruption

Compliance Connection

SHA-256 hashing in TDXchange supports multiple industry regulations:

• PCI DSS v4.0 (Req. 3.5.1): Ensures cardholder data integrity with approved cryptographic hash functions
• HIPAA Security Rule §164.312(e)(2)(ii): Provides integrity checks for ePHI during transmission, complementing encryption
• FIPS 140-3: TDXchange supports SHA-256 implementations aligned with validated cryptographic modules for federal use
• GDPR Article 5(1)(f): Helps fulfill integrity and confidentiality obligations by proving data hasn’t been altered

TDXchange audit logs store both the hash value and the event trail, offering defensible proof for audits and incident response.

‍

Related Terms

• SHA
• HMAC
• Digital Signatures

‍

System Network Architecture.

Simple Object Access Protocol. An emerging standard that enables distributed software components to exchange data as XML pages.

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms expose s for programmatic control of file transfer operations, enabling business applications to initiate transfers, query status, and manage configurations through XML-based web service calls with formal WSDL contracts.

Why It Matters

You'll find SOAP APIs throughout enterprise environments where formal contracts and WS-* standards matter. Legacy ERP systems, mainframe integrations, and ESB-based architectures rely on SOAP's strongly-typed interfaces for reliable workflow automation. While newer platforms favor REST, SOAP remains critical for backward compatibility—I've seen financial institutions running both SOAP and REST APIs side-by-side for years during gradual modernization.

How It Works

SOAP APIs use XML messages wrapped in HTTP or HTTPS requests, following a strict WSDL contract that defines available operations and parameters. When you trigger a transfer, your application constructs a SOAP envelope, sends it to the MFT platform's endpoint (typically /services or /soap), and receives a structured XML response. The platform validates the request against the WSDL schema, authenticates using WS-Security tokens, executes the operation, and returns detailed success or fault messages.

MFT Context

MFT platforms implement SOAP APIs for operations like submitting transfer jobs, retrieving history, managing trading partner configurations, and controlling workflows. Most enterprise platforms maintain SOAP alongside REST for backward compatibility—Axway, IBM Sterling, GoAnywhere all support both. The SOAP interface typically mirrors REST functionality but uses XML instead of JSON, making it easier to integrate with Java enterprise applications and ESB middleware like MuleSoft.

Common Use Cases

• ERP-triggered transfers: SAP or Oracle ERP systems automatically submit nightly financial files to trading partners through SOAP-based integration points
• Mainframe integration: COBOL applications on IBM z/OS invoke SOAP services to transfer batch processing results to distributed systems
• ESB orchestration: Enterprise service buses coordinate multi-step B2B workflows by calling SOAP operations to initiate transfers, check status, and handle exceptions
• Legacy application support: Insurance claims processing systems built on older .NET frameworks consume WSDL contracts to automate policy document exchanges

Best Practices

• Maintain both interfaces during migration: If you're moving from SOAP to REST, keep both APIs active for 12-18 months to avoid breaking existing integrations—I've seen rushed migrations cause production outages
• Use WS-Security for authentication: Implement username tokens with timestamps and nonces rather than relying solely on HTTP basic auth, especially when endpoints are exposed beyond your internal network
• Cache WSDL locally: Don't fetch the WSDL contract on every service call—parse it once during application startup to avoid network overhead and potential failure points

Real World Example

A healthcare payer manages 45,000 daily claim files exchanged with providers. Their mainframe eligibility system uses SOAP APIs to submit claim batches between 11 PM and 3 AM. Each call includes member ID, claim type, and destination code. The platform validates the request, applies routing rules, encrypts with the provider's PGP key, and returns a tracking ID. The mainframe polls another endpoint every 15 minutes to check delivery status.

Related Terms

• API Integration
• iPaaS
• B2B Integration

‍

Definition

For MFT providers and cloud-based file transfer services, SOC 2 attestations verify that your platform handles customer file transfers with appropriate security controls across five Trust Services Criteria: Security (mandatory), Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy. Unlike compliance mandates your customers must meet, SOC 2 proves you built the platform correctly—and auditors test those controls independently.

Why It Matters

When you're shopping for an MFT platform, a SOC 2 Type II report gives you third-party validation that the vendor actually implements what they promise. I've seen procurement teams require SOC 2 because it answers the "how do we know you're secure?" question without sending auditors into every vendor's data center. For SaaS MFT vendors, passing SOC 2 becomes table stakes—you won't get past enterprise security reviews without it. Type I validates your design; Type II proves you maintained those controls for 6-12 months under continuous auditor observation.

Key MFT Requirements

• Logical Access Controls: Implement role-based access control for file transfer administrators and end users, enforce multi-factor authentication for privileged accounts, and maintain access reviews showing who can initiate, approve, or monitor transfers across all trading partners and endpoints.
• Encryption Implementation: Apply encryption in transit for all file transfers using current protocol versions, maintain encryption at rest for files stored in staging areas or archives, document your cipher suites and key management procedures, and prove you rotate credentials on defined schedules.
• Change Management: Maintain version control for MFT platform configurations, document change approval workflows for protocol updates or security patches, implement separate development and production environments, and demonstrate you test changes before pushing to production systems handling customer file flows.
• System Monitoring and Incident Response: Collect detailed audit trails capturing transfer attempts, authentication events, and configuration changes; maintain log retention proving you can investigate incidents 90+ days back; document incident response procedures specific to file transfer security events like unauthorized access attempts or failed encryption.
• Vendor and Subprocessor Management: If your MFT platform uses third-party storage, network providers, or HSM services, maintain current SOC 2 reports from those vendors, document data flow diagrams showing where customer files transit or rest, and prove you review subprocessor security at least annually.

Common Use Cases

• SaaS MFT vendors proving to enterprise customers that their cloud file transfer platform maintains security controls independently validated by CPA firms under AICPA standards
• Healthcare organizations using SOC 2 as complementary evidence alongside HIPAA compliance when implementing managed file transfer services that handle protected health information across multiple facilities
• Financial institutions requiring SOC 2 Type II reports from any MFT-as-a-Service provider before routing payment files, ACH batches, or credit card transaction data through their platforms
• Procurement teams shortlisting file transfer vendors by filtering for SOC 2 certification, then using the actual report to validate specific controls around encryption, access management, and availability during vendor assessments

Best Practices

• Request the actual SOC 2 Type II report, not just a certification badge—the report details which Trust Services Criteria were tested and reveals any exceptions or qualifications the auditor noted about specific controls.
• Pay attention to the audit period dates. A report from 18 months ago tells you what controls existed then, not whether the vendor maintained them through recent platform updates or infrastructure migrations.
• Cross-reference SOC 2 controls with your own requirements. A Type II might validate encryption exists but not specify TLS 1.3 or AES-256—you still need to verify the platform meets your technical standards.
• For internal MFT deployments, consider pursuing SOC 2 if you provide file transfer services to external business units or subsidiaries who need independent validation for their own compliance programs.

Related Terms

• PCI DSS
• Audit Trail
• Data Governance

‍

Definition

Enterprise platforms use as the cryptographic protocol that secures remote access and enables encrypted file transfer channels between systems. SSH-2 operates on port 22 by default and provides the security foundation for SFTP and SCP transfers across production environments.

Why It Matters

Without SSH, you're transmitting credentials and data in plaintext or relying on weaker encryption methods. SSH gives you encrypted authentication, encrypted data channels, and integrity verification in a single protocol. When a trading partner connects to your MFT platform, SSH prevents credential theft and man-in-the-middle attacks that could expose sensitive files. I've seen organizations fail audits simply because they allowed legacy SSH-1 connections or used weak 1024-bit RSA keys.

How It Works

SSH establishes a secure tunnel through a multi-stage process. First, the client and server negotiate encryption algorithms and perform a key exchange using Diffie-Hellman or elliptic curve methods. Then the client authenticates—either with password credentials or public key cryptography. Once authenticated, SSH encrypts all data using symmetric algorithms like AES-256 or ChaCha20, and applies HMAC-based integrity checks to every packet. The protocol maintains this encrypted tunnel for the entire session, whether you're transferring files via SFTP or executing remote commands.

Default Ports

Port 22 for both SSH connections and SFTP file transfers

Common Use Cases

• Automated file transfers where MFT servers authenticate to remote SFTP endpoints using SSH key pairs instead of passwords
• Secure remote administration of MFT gateways and agents deployed in DMZs or partner networks
• Jump server access where administrators SSH through a bastion host before accessing internal file transfer systems
• Third-party SFTP access where external partners connect to your MFT platform using SSH key authentication and IP restrictions

Best Practices

• Disable SSH-1 completely and configure your MFT platform to accept only SSH-2 protocol connections with modern key exchange algorithms like curve25519 or diffie-hellman-group16-sha512.
• Enforce public key authentication for all automated transfers and service accounts—storing encrypted private keys in your MFT vault rather than on individual servers or in application code.
• Rotate SSH host keys on a scheduled basis and maintain a current authorized_keys file for each transfer endpoint, removing keys when partners are offboarded or when you detect unauthorized access attempts.
• Restrict cipher suites to strong algorithms only—I typically configure AES-256-GCM or ChaCha20-Poly1305 for encryption and disable CBC mode ciphers that are vulnerable to certain attacks.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 4.2.1 mandates strong cryptography during transmission of cardholder data across open networks. SSH with modern cipher suites satisfies this requirement for file transfers. HIPAA's Security Rule requires encryption of ePHI in transit—SSH provides this through its encrypted channels. You'll need to document your SSH configuration, including allowed algorithms, key lengths (minimum 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit Ed25519), and authentication methods. Most compliance frameworks also require disabling protocol versions below SSH-2 and enforcing regular key rotation for administrative access.

Related Terms

• SFTP
• SCP
• TLS
• Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)

‍

Definition

Enterprise file transfer platforms originally implemented to encrypt client-server connections, but the protocol contains fundamental cryptographic weaknesses discovered over the past two decades. SSL 3.0, the final version released in 1996, has been fully deprecated since 2015.

Security Warning

SSL versions 1.0 through 3.0 are cryptographically broken and vulnerable to POODLE, BEAST, and other attacks that expose plaintext data. Every MFT platform should disable SSL entirely and enforce TLS 1.2 or higher—there's no legitimate reason to support SSL anymore.

How It Works

SSL established encrypted channels through a handshake process: the client requests a secure connection, the server presents its digital certificate, both parties negotiate a cipher suite, and they exchange keys to create a symmetric encryption session. The protocol used RSA for key exchange and supported cipher suites like 3DES and RC4, which are now considered weak. SSL operated at the transport layer, sitting between TCP and application protocols like HTTP or FTP.

Why It Matters

You'll still see "SSL" in documentation and product names because the term became synonymous with encrypted connections—people say "SSL certificate" when they mean X.509 certificates used by TLS. But running actual SSL protocol versions creates massive compliance and security problems. I've seen organizations fail audits because they left SSL 3.0 enabled "for compatibility" with systems that hadn't needed it in years.

MFT Context

Modern MFT platforms use the term SSL in their configuration interfaces for historical reasons, but they're actually implementing TLS. When you enable "SSL" on an FTPS endpoint or configure an "SSL certificate" for HTTPS-based APIs, the platform is using TLS 1.2 or 1.3 under the hood. Some legacy systems still label their TLS settings as "SSL/TLS" which confuses security teams during compliance reviews.

Common Use Cases

• Legacy protocol naming: FTPS implementations still refer to "implicit SSL" and "explicit SSL" modes even though they use TLS
• Certificate management: MFT administrators provision "SSL certificates" for HTTPS interfaces, AS2 endpoints, and secure web portals
• Audit documentation: Compliance reports reference "SSL/TLS configuration" when describing transport encryption controls
• Vendor communication: Trading partners request "SSL-enabled connections" in their onboarding requirements, meaning TLS-encrypted transfers

Best Practices

• Disable all SSL versions in your MFT platform's cipher suite configuration and verify with nmap --script ssl-enum-ciphers that SSLv2 and SSLv3 are completely disabled
• Update documentation to use "TLS" instead of "SSL" in your technical specifications and trading partner guidelines—it reduces confusion during security reviews
• Enforce minimum TLS versions by configuring your MFT endpoints to reject connections below TLS 1.2, and plan migration to TLS 1.3 for new implementations
• Scan quarterly for SSL protocol support using vulnerability scanners, because configuration drift can re-enable deprecated versions after platform updates
• Educate trading partners who request "SSL" in their technical requirements—clarify that you support modern TLS encryption, not deprecated SSL protocols

Related Terms

• TLS
• FTPS
• HTTPS

‍

Straight Through Processing occurs when a transaction, once entered into a system, passes through its entire life cycle without any manual intervention. STP is an example of a Zero Latency Process, but one specific to the finance industry which has many proprietary networks and messaging formats.

Scalability refers to the ability of a system to support large implementations or to be easily upgradeable as the scale dimension grows. For trading networks, the dimension refers to large number of partners - 1000s. Process routers have high scalability because they can support thousands of partners and protocols, while an integration appliance can only support a few at once.

Definition

In MFT systems, scheduled transfers execute file movements at predetermined times or intervals without manual intervention. You configure the transfer once—specifying source, destination, frequency, and timing parameters—and the platform handles execution automatically based on your calendar or interval settings.

Why It Matters

Most B2B file exchanges happen on predictable schedules because both parties need to coordinate processing windows. If you're sending payroll files every Friday at 6 PM or receiving inventory updates daily at 2 AM, scheduled transfers eliminate the risk of someone forgetting to click "send." I've seen organizations reduce transfer-related incidents by 70% just by automating their routine exchanges. It also helps you meet service-level agreements by ensuring files arrive within expected timeframes.

How It Works

The MFT platform's scheduler monitors its queue and triggers transfers based on timing rules you define. You can set simple intervals (every 15 minutes), specific times (daily at 3:00 AM), or complex patterns using cron expressions (every weekday at 4:30 PM and 9:45 PM). The scheduler accounts for time zones, daylight saving changes, and holidays if configured. When a scheduled time arrives, the platform initiates the transfer using your predefined connection settings, protocol parameters, and file selection criteria. Most schedulers include dependency logic—you can configure Transfer B to wait until Transfer A completes successfully.

MFT Context

Enterprise MFT platforms treat scheduled transfers as persistent job definitions stored in a centralized repository. You configure them through the admin console, specifying not just timing but also pre-transfer validation, post-transfer actions, and failure handling. The scheduler integrates with the platform's monitoring and alerting, so you'll know if a scheduled transfer fails or misses its window. Many platforms support calendar-based scheduling that respects business calendars—no transfers on holidays or maintenance windows. I typically see organizations running anywhere from 50 to 5,000 scheduled transfers daily across their partner ecosystem.

Common Use Cases

• Financial services closing processes: Banks schedule account reconciliation files at 11:59 PM daily, ensuring end-of-day balances reach the mainframe before overnight processing begins
• Retail inventory management: Store systems push sales data to headquarters every 4 hours, feeding into demand forecasting and replenishment systems
• Healthcare claims processing: Insurance providers schedule claims file pickups from medical facilities every night at 1 AM during low-traffic windows
• Manufacturing production reporting: Plants send production metrics every shift change (6 AM, 2 PM, 10 PM) to central planning systems
• Payroll distribution: HR systems schedule direct deposit files to banks by 3 PM on payday-minus-two to meet processing cutoffs

Best Practices

• Build in timing buffers: Schedule transfers 30-60 minutes before actual deadlines to account for retries and processing delays. If the bank needs files by 5 PM, schedule them for 3:30 PM.
• Stagger concurrent transfers: Don't schedule 500 transfers for exactly midnight. Spread them across 11:45 PM to 12:15 AM to avoid resource contention and bandwidth spikes.
• Use maintenance windows strategically: Schedule high-volume or resource-intensive transfers during off-peak hours, but avoid clustering everything at 2 AM when everyone else has the same idea.
• Document business calendar exceptions: Explicitly configure holiday schedules and regional calendar variations. I've seen payroll issues when systems assumed US holidays applied to UK operations.
• Monitor for schedule drift: Track whether transfers are completing within their expected windows. If a 15-minute transfer keeps taking 20 minutes, you've got a capacity or performance problem developing.

Related Terms

• Job Scheduler
• Event-Driven Transfers
• Workflow Automation
• Retry Logic

‍

This provides data visibility according to userÕs permissions and certain criteria such as categories, GTIN, GLN, target market, etc. The home data pool provides this visibility in the framework of the GCI interoperable network.

The value used in a symmetric encryption algorithm to encrypt and decrypt data. Only the trading partners authorized to access the encrypted data must know secret keys.

The EAN-UCC number comprising 18 digits for identifying uniquely a logistic unit (licence plate concept). Standard: A specification for hardware, software or data that is either widely used and accepted (de facto) or is sanctioned by a standards organization (de jure). A "protocol" is an example of a "standard."

Generically, a server is any computer providing services. In client-server systems, the server provides specific capabilities to client software running on other computers. Usually, the server typically interacts with many clients at a time, while the client may interact with only one server.

Defined

In Managed File Transfer (MFT) systems, a Service Level Agreement (SLA) defines guaranteed performance expectations for file transfers, whether between external partners or internal business units. These agreements typically specify:

• Uptime commitments (e.g., 99.9%)
• Delivery windows (e.g., files received by 6:00 AM EST)
• Transfer success rates (e.g., 99.95%)
• Retry logic and thresholds

In TDXchange, SLAs are deeply embedded into the platform, with granular, flow-level SLA monitoring and notification. You can define SLA thresholds on a per-partner, per-workflow, or per-file-type basis, and TDXchange tracks compliance automatically, issuing real-time alerts and generating audit-ready logs.

Why It Matters

Missed SLAs don’t just hurt performance, they impact your bottom line. I’ve seen companies lose millions when time-sensitive transfers miss cutoffs:

• Bank wire files arriving after the 9 AM processing window
• Healthcare claims delayed beyond payor thresholds
• Retail orders missing same-day pick windows
• Regulatory submissions falling outside compliance deadlines

TDXchange allows you to set, enforce, and monitor SLAs directly within each data flow, so you’re not relying on vague promises or post-mortem investigations. The platform can detect delays in real time and notify you before a missed SLA with your client occurs, giving teams a chance to act.

MFT Context in TDXchange

In most MFT platforms, SLA compliance is tracked via dashboards and timestamps, but TDXchange takes it further by enabling:

• SLA configuration at the flow level (not just system-wide)
• Automated alerts at predefined SLA thresholds (e.g., 50%, 75%, 90% of the SLA window)
• Workflow pause or rerouting when SLA breach risk is detected
• Visual SLA indicators on transfer status dashboards
• Tamper-evident SLA logs and audit records to support partner reporting and regulatory audits

TDXchange logs when files are sent, when they’re acknowledged or accepted, and whether they met the SLA delivery window. It supports mechanisms like:

• Delivery receipts (MDNs)
• Timestamp logging
• Integration with email, SMS, or SIEM for SLA alerts

These capabilities are critical for industries that demand bulletproof proof of performance and timeliness.

Common Use Cases

• Financial services: ACH files or wire batch submissions that must reach the Federal Reserve or banks before end-of-day cutoffs
• Healthcare: Submitting claims (837s) to clearinghouses within 72-hour windows to avoid revenue cycle delays
• Retail logistics: Sending 850 POs and receiving 856 ship notices in time for same-day fulfillment
• Manufacturing: Ensuring JIT inventory data reaches suppliers in 2–4 hour SLA windows to prevent production line stoppages
• Regulatory compliance: On-time SEC filings, tax submissions, and audit logs to avoid fines and penalties

Best Practices

• Define SLAs precisely: “99.9% of transfers complete within 30 minutes” is measurable; “as soon as possible” is not
• Set buffer time: If a job takes 1 hour, commit to 90 minutes externally to absorb unforeseen delays
• Use proactive thresholds: Configure SLA alerts at 50% and 75% time consumption in TDXchange so your teams can intervene early
• Log and retain delivery proof: TDXchange stores timestamped audit records and MDNs to prove SLA compliance in disputes
• Test non-production partner routes: Regular off-hours testing in TDXchange ensures no config drift silently breaks SLA fulfillment

Compliance Connection

SLAs help demonstrate operational discipline and regulatory adherence:

• PCI DSS: Proves transmission deadlines and encryption policies are enforced
• HIPAA: Supports timely data delivery for ePHI exchanges under the Security Rule
• SOX & SEC: Confirms financial data was submitted and acknowledged within regulatory timeframes
• GDPR Article 32: Demonstrates technical measures (like timely delivery and integrity) are in place for personal data handling

With TDXchange, SLA compliance is not a manual process, it’s automated, trackable, and defensible.

Related Terms

• Guaranteed Delivery
• Operational Resilience

‍

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms use Single Sign-On to let you authenticate once with your corporate identity provider—Azure AD, Okta, ADFS, whatever you're running—and access all file transfer components without repeated logins. That's your web portal, admin console, APIs, and monitoring dashboards. Most implementations rely on SAML or OpenID Connect to federate authentication with your existing identity infrastructure.

Why It Matters

Password sprawl creates security gaps in file transfer environments. When operations teams need separate credentials for the MFT web UI, admin console, and API access, you get weak passwords, credential reuse, and shadow IT workarounds. SSO eliminates these risks while giving centralized control over access. When someone leaves the company, one account deactivation revokes all MFT access instantly.

How It Works

When a user tries to access your MFT platform, it redirects them to your corporate identity provider instead of showing a login form. The IdP verifies their identity (usually with Multi-Factor Authentication), then sends back a digitally signed token—either a SAML assertion or OIDC ID token—confirming who they are. The MFT platform validates this token's signature and extracts user attributes like email, department, and group memberships. These attributes map to roles and permissions that control folder access, partner visibility, and administrative functions.

MFT Context

I've configured SSO on MFT platforms ranging from 50 to 5,000 users, and the implementation varies by vendor. Some platforms only support SSO for their web interface while forcing local accounts for APIs or SFTP. Better implementations extend SSO to API bearer tokens and integrate with SSH public key management. The key is understanding what your vendor actually federates—many claim "full SSO support" but only handle authentication, leaving authorization as a manual process.

Common Use Cases

• Multi-site file transfer operations where users across 15+ regional offices need consistent access to centralized MFT infrastructure without managing separate credential sets
• Compliance-driven industries like healthcare and finance where quarterly access reviews require proof that terminated employees can't access file transfer systems
• API-driven automation where developers use SSO-issued OAuth tokens to interact with MFT REST APIs instead of embedding service account credentials in scripts

Best Practices

• Test your logout flow thoroughly—I've seen implementations where logging out of the MFT portal didn't trigger IdP logout, leaving sessions active for hours
• Plan for identity provider outages by maintaining a break-glass local admin account that works when corporate SSO is down; document this in your runbook
• Map IdP groups to MFT roles automatically using SAML attributes rather than manually assigning permissions—this scales better past 100 users

Compliance Connection

SSO directly supports several compliance requirements by creating verifiable identity trails. PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 8.2.2 mandates unique user IDs for anyone accessing cardholder data—SSO provides this through corporate identity federation. HIPAA's access control standards (45 CFR § 164.312(a)(1)) require unique user identification for ePHI access, and SSO's centralized authentication creates the audit trail needed to demonstrate compliance during reviews. When you terminate an employee, SSO integration proves you revoked all access simultaneously.

Related Terms

• SAML
• Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
• Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)

‍

Sockets describe the software methods invoked to correctly form an IP packet on the processor to physical communications interface. Aka President Clinton's cat.

A program that creates a named collection of SQL or other procedural statements and logic that is compiled, verified and stored in a server database.

A data recipient requests that it receive a 'notification' when a specific event occurs that meets the recipient's criteria (selective on sources, categories, etc.). This is subject to the recipient's access to information as controlled by the data source through its home data pool. There are two kinds of subscriptions:

• Generic subscriptions - to generic types of data (item or party that is part of a specific category).
• Detailed subscriptions - to a specific party (identified by its GLN) or specific item (identified by its GTIN)

With the set-up of a detailed subscription, a data recipient sets a profile to receive ongoing updates of the specific item, party or partner profile. The detailed subscription is also used to indicate an 'Authorisation'.

The supply chain links supplier and user organizations and includes all activities involved in the production and delivery of goods and services, including planning and forecasting, procurement, production/operations, distribution, transportation, order management, and customer service.

An encryption algorithm that uses the same key for encryption and decryption.

Sync is a form of communication that requires both applications to run concurrently during the communications process. A process issues a call and idles, performing no other function, until it receives a response.

Definition

In MFT systems, TCP windowing controls how much data the sender can transmit before waiting for acknowledgment from the receiver. The receive window size determines throughput capacity—too small and you're constantly waiting for ACKs across long-distance connections, wasting bandwidth even on high-speed links.

Why It Matters

When you're moving multi-gigabyte files internationally, default TCP window sizes (typically 64KB) become a massive bottleneck. I've seen transfers between New York and Singapore crawl at 2-3 Mbps on a 1 Gbps link simply because the round-trip time (RTT) of 200ms meant the sender spent 95% of its time idle, waiting for acknowledgments. Window scaling is what separates 10-hour transfers from 30-minute ones.

How It Works

TCP's sliding window mechanism lets the receiver advertise how much buffer space it has available. The sender transmits up to that amount before pausing for acknowledgment. The optimal window size equals the bandwidth-delay product—bandwidth multiplied by RTT. For a 100 Mbps link with 100ms latency, you need a 1.25MB window (not the default 64KB). Modern systems use window scaling (TCP option in the three-way handshake) to negotiate windows up to 1GB, though 2-16MB is typical for long-haul transfers.

MFT Context

Enterprise MFT platforms tackling intercontinental transfers must tune TCP windows at both OS and application levels. Most solutions configure kernel parameters (tcp_rmem and tcp_wmem on Linux, registry settings on Windows) during installation. Advanced platforms like those with WAN optimization modules automatically calculate optimal window sizes based on detected RTT and available bandwidth, then adjust system buffers accordingly. Without proper windowing, your expensive 10Gbps circuits deliver dialup-era performance.

Common Use Cases

• Cross-border financial transfers: Banks moving 50-100GB daily reconciliation files between US and Asian data centers where RTT exceeds 150ms
• Media distribution: Studios sending 200GB+ 4K masters to international post-production houses with sub-4-hour delivery requirements
• Manufacturing data sync: Automotive companies transferring CAD files (5-20GB each) between Detroit engineering centers and European plants overnight
• Healthcare imaging: Hospital networks transmitting DICOM studies (2-10GB) to offshore radiology reading centers within 2-hour windows

Best Practices

• Calculate before configuring: Measure actual RTT to key partners using ping or traceroute, then set window size to bandwidth × RTT × 1.5 safety factor
• Enable window scaling: Verify TCP window scaling is active—it's disabled by default on some older Windows Server installations and breaks large transfers silently
• Monitor socket buffers: Track dropped packets and retransmissions; if you see frequent TCP zero-window conditions, your receiver buffers are undersized
• Coordinate with partners: Window tuning requires configuration on both endpoints—a 16MB window on your end means nothing if your partner's receive buffer is 64KB
• Test during low-traffic periods: Validate window size changes with actual large transfers, not synthetic benchmarks—application behavior matters as much as TCP settings

Real-World Example

A pharmaceutical company moved clinical trial data (5-8TB monthly) from US research facilities to European regulatory authorities. Initial transfers took 28 hours over their 1 Gbps dedicated link. RTT measured 110ms. They calculated optimal window size at 13.75MB, configured both endpoints' TCP buffers to 16MB, and enabled window scaling. Transfer times dropped to 12 hours—a 57% improvement on identical infrastructure, just by letting TCP use the bandwidth they were already paying for.

Related Terms

• Bandwidth-Delay Product (BDP)
• High-Speed File Transfer
• WAN Optimization
• UDP-Based Acceleration

‍

Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol is the IETF-defined suite of the network protocols used in the Internet that runs on virtually every operating system. IP is the network layer and TCP is the transport layer.

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms rely on TLS (Transport Layer Security) as the cryptographic protocol securing FTPS, HTTPS file transfers, and API communications. TLS replaced SSL and operates at the transport layer to encrypt data in transit between endpoints, establishing secure channels before any payload moves.

Why It Matters

‍Without TLS, your file transfers expose sensitive data to interception and tampering. I've seen organizations fail audits because they allowed TLS 1.0 connections from legacy partners. Modern MFT implementations require TLS 1.2 or higher to meet compliance standards and protect against man-in-the-middle attacks. A single misconfigured endpoint accepting weak TLS can compromise your entire security posture.

How It Works

TLS establishes a secure channel through a multi-step handshake. The client and server negotiate protocol version, exchange certificates for authentication, agree on a cipher suite, and generate session keys. Once the handshake completes—typically 200-500ms depending on latency—all data transfers use symmetric encryption with the negotiated algorithm. Modern implementations support perfect forward secrecy to prevent retroactive decryption if long-term private keys are later compromised.

Default Ports

‍TLS wraps existing protocols rather than using dedicated ports. Port 990 for implicit FTPS, port 21 with command-channel upgrade for explicit FTPS, port 443 for HTTPS file transfers and REST API calls, and port 465 for SMTP with TLS when your MFT platform sends transfer notifications.

Common Use Cases:

• Financial institutions transmitting payment files using FTPS connections secured with TLS 1.2 minimum, processing thousands of transactions nightly
• Healthcare providers exchanging patient records via HTTPS APIs with partner hospitals for claims processing
• Retailers submitting credit card batch files to payment processors over TLS-encrypted channels during 2-4 AM settlement windows
• Manufacturing companies securing EDI purchase orders with trading partners through TLS-protected AS2 or HTTPS connections

Best Practices:

• Disable TLS 1.0 and 1.1 completely—enforce TLS 1.2 as the minimum, with TLS 1.3 preferred for new implementations
• Configure cipher suites to prioritize AES-GCM with 256-bit keys and ECDHE for forward secrecy, explicitly removing deprecated algorithms like 3DES and RC4
• Implement certificate pinning for known trading partners to prevent certificate substitution attacks in high-security environments
• Monitor TLS handshake failures in your MFT logs—spikes often indicate misconfigured clients or potential attack attempts
• Set certificate expiration alerts at 90, 30, and 7 days to prevent transfer outages from expired certificates

Compliance Connection

‍PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 4.2.1 mandates TLS 1.2 or higher for transmitting cardholder data, with TLS 1.3 recommended. HIPAA's Security Rule requires encryption in transit for ePHI, satisfied by properly configured TLS. Most compliance frameworks prohibit SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, and TLS 1.1 due to known vulnerabilities. Your MFT platform must support protocol version enforcement and log the TLS version used for each connection to demonstrate compliance during audits.

Related Terms:

• SSL
• TLS 1.2
• TLS 1.3
• FTPS

‍

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms implement as the latest transport layer security protocol to encrypt file transfers over networks. Published in 2018 as RFC 8446, it's a complete redesign that reduces the handshake from two round trips to one, cutting connection overhead by 50% while eliminating vulnerable legacy cryptography that attackers have exploited in older versions.

Why It Matters

When you're moving financial records or healthcare data between trading partners, every millisecond of connection time and every cryptographic weakness matters. TLS 1.3 removes protocol-level vulnerabilities I've seen exploited in older implementations—no more RSA key exchange, no more static Diffie-Hellman, no CBC mode ciphers. For high-volume MFT environments processing thousands of transfers daily, the faster handshake means measurably lower latency, and the mandatory perfect forward secrecy means a compromised private key can't decrypt past sessions that attackers may have recorded.

How It Works

TLS 1.3 streamlines the handshake to a 1-RTT process: the client sends supported cipher suites and key share in the first message, the server responds with its selection and key share, and encryption begins immediately. Compare that to TLS 1.2's 2-RTT dance, and you'll see why it matters for transfer initiation. The protocol mandates modern AEAD ciphers like AES-GCM and ChaCha20-Poly1305, removing every cipher suite with known weaknesses. It enforces perfect forward secrecy through ephemeral key exchanges—no exceptions. The simplified state machine also eliminates renegotiation attacks and downgrade vulnerabilities that plagued earlier versions.

MFT Context

Modern MFT platforms support TLS 1.3 across their protocol stack—HTTPS admin interfaces, REST APIs, and increasingly within FTPS connections. When you configure a protocol endpoint, you'll typically see options to require TLS 1.3, allow TLS 1.2 fallback for legacy partners, or enforce the latest version only. Most platforms now default to TLS 1.3 for internal component communication and recommend it for all new trading partner connections, though you'll still see TLS 1.2 in production for backward compatibility until all parties upgrade.

Common Use Cases

• Financial institutions exchanging payment files and transaction records with processing networks that mandate current cryptographic standards
• Healthcare organizations transmitting ePHI to clearinghouses and payers where HIPAA requires protecting data in transit with industry-standard encryption
• Retailers sending payment card data to processors under PCI DSS requirements that explicitly call for strong cryptography and current TLS versions
• Government contractors meeting CMMC Level 2+ requirements for protecting CUI during file transfers to prime contractors and agencies
• Cloud MFT deployments where providers enforce TLS 1.3 by default to reduce their security support burden and eliminate legacy protocol management

Best Practices

• Require TLS 1.3 for new connections and set a migration deadline for existing partners still using TLS 1.2—I typically recommend 6-12 months notice depending on partner technical maturity.
• Disable TLS 1.0 and 1.1 entirely across your MFT platform; both are deprecated and create compliance risks even if you've enabled stronger versions.
• Monitor cipher suite selection in your connection logs to verify that clients are actually negotiating TLS 1.3 and not falling back to older versions due to misconfiguration.
• Test performance improvements by comparing connection establishment times before and after TLS 1.3 enablement—you should see measurable gains in high-frequency transfer scenarios.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS v4.0 Requirement 4.2.1 mandates strong cryptography for protecting cardholder data in transit, which explicitly means current TLS versions. While PCI DSS 3.2.1 allowed TLS 1.2, the council's guidance increasingly points toward TLS 1.3 as the preferred implementation. HIPAA's Security Rule requires encryption of ePHI during transmission, and HHS guidance recommends following NIST standards that now favor TLS 1.3. FIPS 140-3 validated cryptographic modules support TLS 1.3's cipher suites, making it the appropriate choice for federal systems and contractors handling CUI.

Related Terms

• TLS 1.2
• FTPS
• Cipher Suite

‍

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms use tokenization to replace sensitive data elements with non-sensitive substitutes before routing files through internal systems or external partners. Unlike encryption at rest, which scrambles entire files, tokenization swaps specific fields—credit card numbers, Social Security numbers, account IDs—with random tokens while maintaining the original format when needed for downstream processing.

Why It Matters

Tokenization dramatically reduces your compliance scope. When you tokenize payment card data in transit through your MFT environment, those systems fall outside PCI DSS audit boundaries because they never touch real card numbers. I've seen organizations cut their compliance costs by 60-70% after implementing tokenization at ingestion points. If you're moving healthcare records or financial data between partners, tokenization protects you even when files get misrouted or land on the wrong SFTP endpoint.

How It Works

When a file enters your MFT platform, a tokenization engine scans designated fields and replaces matching patterns with tokens from a secure vault. The vault stores the mapping between tokens and original values in a separate, heavily protected database. Format-preserving tokenization generates tokens that match the original data structure—a 16-digit card number becomes a different 16-digit number that passes Luhn validation but can't be reversed without vault access. Non-format-preserving tokens use random alphanumeric strings when you don't need to maintain data patterns for legacy applications.

MFT Context

Most MFT implementations tokenize at two points: during file ingestion before routing to internal systems, and before external transmission to partners who don't need access to production data. I typically see tokenization engines deployed as pre-processing steps in workflow automation—files hit a watched folder, the MFT platform calls a tokenization API for specific fields, then routes the sanitized version to its destination. Some platforms integrate directly with enterprise token vaults; others treat tokenization as an external service called through REST APIs during file transformation stages.

Common Use Cases

• Retail EDI processing: Tokenizing credit card data in 850 purchase orders before routing to fulfillment systems that need order details but not payment information
• Healthcare claims: Replacing patient identifiers and member IDs in 837 claim files sent to third-party analytics vendors or billing clearinghouses
• Financial reconciliation: Tokenizing account numbers in daily transaction reports shared with external auditors or regulatory compliance teams
• HR partner integration: Substituting Social Security numbers in benefits enrollment files sent to insurance providers or 401(k) administrators

Best Practices

• Tokenize at the edge before files enter your MFT environment—once sensitive data touches multiple systems, you've already expanded your compliance scope and audit surface area.
• Use format-preserving tokens when downstream applications expect specific data patterns or field lengths, but accept the performance hit—format-preserving algorithms run 3-5x slower than random tokenization.
• Separate your token vault from the MFT platform itself, ideally on isolated infrastructure with restricted network access—if someone compromises your MFT server, they shouldn't automatically gain vault access.
• Build detokenization into outbound workflows selectively—only authorized partners should receive files with original values restored, and you should log every detokenization request for audit purposes.

Compliance Connection

PCI DSS v4.0 explicitly recognizes tokenization as a method to remove cardholder data from scope under Requirement 3.5.1. When properly implemented, tokenized data doesn't count as account data for Requirements 3, 4, or 9—but you need to prove the tokens are cryptographically irreversible and your vault is properly secured. HIPAA's Safe Harbor provision (45 CFR §164.514) doesn't explicitly mention tokenization, but the technique satisfies de-identification standards when tokens can't be traced back to individuals without the vault.

Real World Example

A regional healthcare network processes 45,000 patient encounter files daily through their MFT platform to external billing vendors and analytics partners. They tokenize member IDs, Social Security numbers, and medical record numbers at ingestion using a format-preserving vault. Billing vendors receive files with tokens that maintain the 9-digit SSN format their legacy mainframes expect, while a separate detokenization workflow runs for their primary claims processor who needs real identifiers. This setup removed 14 file processing servers from their HIPAA audit scope and cut annual compliance review time from 6 weeks to 10 days.

Related Terms

• Data Masking
• Pseudonymization
• Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

‍

Any item (product or service) on which there is a need to retrieve pre-defined information and that may be priced or ordered or invoiced at any point in any supply chain.

A network of business partners who trade, transact, and execute external business processes with each other.

Definition

In MFT systems, a trading partner represents an external organization you exchange files with regularly—a supplier sending inventory feeds, a customer receiving order confirmations, a bank processing payment files. Each partner gets their own configuration profile that defines connection methods, protocols, routing destinations, and security controls for their specific transfers.

Why It Matters

Trading partner management separates secure file transfer from chaos. I've seen organizations handling hundreds of partners, each with different requirements: one wants AS2 with digital signatures, another needs SFTP with specific IP restrictions, a third uses a managed network service. Without structured partner profiles, you're managing authentication credentials scattered across spreadsheets and firewall rules buried in tickets. When a partner changes their IP address or certificate expires, you need to find and update that configuration fast—often during an outage. Partner management gives you that central control point.

MFT Context

MFT platforms treat partners as first-class objects in their configuration. You're not just creating a user account; you're defining a business relationship with all its technical and operational details. A partner profile typically includes connection parameters (hostnames, ports, authentication methods), routing rules (inbound directories, outbound destinations), protocol settings (encryption requirements, compression options), and SLA thresholds for monitoring. Most platforms let you template common configurations—your standard AS2 partner setup or typical SFTP supplier profile—then customize for specific needs. You'll also track partner lifecycle: onboarding status, testing phases, go-live dates, and retirement schedules.

Common Use Cases

• Supply chain integration: Manufacturing companies exchanging EDI documents, purchase orders, and advance ship notices with suppliers and distributors using multiple protocols
• Financial services: Banks receiving payment files from corporate clients via SFTP during nightly processing windows, with strict cutoff times and confirmation requirements
• Healthcare clearinghouses: Medical billing companies submitting HIPAA-compliant claim files to insurance payers, each with different submission formats and schedules
• Retail networks: Franchise headquarters distributing pricing updates, promotional materials, and sales reports to thousands of store locations on daily schedules
• Regulatory reporting: Investment firms sending transaction data to government agencies on fixed calendars, with certified delivery proof required

Best Practices

• Document partner requirements before onboarding: I capture protocol preferences, IP addresses, certificate details, file naming conventions, and contact escalation paths in a standard intake form—saves back-and-forth later.
• Maintain comprehensive audit trails per partner: Track every connection attempt, file transfer, authentication failure, and configuration change with partner ID attached, which audit trail capabilities make essential for dispute resolution and compliance reviews.
• Test in isolation before production: Set up parallel test environments where partners can validate connectivity, exchange sample files, and confirm processing logic without risking production data or triggering real business processes.
• Monitor partner-specific SLAs separately: Don't just alert on platform health—track each partner's transfer windows, success rates, and response times individually, because one failing partner shouldn't hide in aggregate metrics.
• Version partner configurations: Keep history of what changed when, especially for protocol settings and routing rules, so you can quickly roll back problematic updates or answer questions during audits.

Related Terms

• B2B Integration
• Service Level Agreement (SLA)
• Value-Added Network (VAN)

‍

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms implement transfer resumption to restart interrupted transfers from their last successful checkpoint rather than beginning again. When a 50 GB file fails at 80% completion due to a network disruption, the transfer picks up at that point instead of re-sending 40 GB of already-transmitted data.

Why It Matters

Without resumption capability, every network hiccup forces you to start over. I've seen organizations burn through bandwidth budgets retransmitting the same data repeatedly. For large files—anything over a few gigabytes—this becomes critical. You can't rely on perfect network conditions for a 6-hour transfer window. Resumption turns what would be failed transfers into successful ones, improving your Service Level Agreement (SLA) compliance and reducing operational overhead from manual intervention.

How It Works

The MFT platform writes checkpoint data during transmission, recording how many bytes or blocks have been successfully transferred. When a connection drops, the receiving system confirms what it has, and the sender restarts from that point. Modern protocols like SFTP use the SSH_FXF_APPEND flag, while HTTPS implementations use Range headers (Range: bytes=1048576-). Checkpoint restart mechanisms store transfer state either in memory for active transfers or persistently for longer interruptions. High-speed protocols like Aspera FASP use their own checkpoint files, typically saving state every few megabytes.

MFT Context

Your MFT platform needs to track transfer state across multiple components—the sending agent, the core server, and the receiving endpoint. Most platforms store checkpoint metadata in their database, linking it to the transfer job ID. When you're moving files between cloud regions or across continents, resumption becomes mandatory. I configure resumption windows (typically 24-72 hours) after which checkpoint data expires and transfers must restart completely if not resumed.

Common Use Cases

• Media companies transmitting 100+ GB video files across continents where network interruptions are common
• Healthcare organizations sending large medical imaging datasets between facilities during business hours when networks experience congestion
• Manufacturing firms transferring CAD/CAM files ranging from 5-50 GB to offshore design partners over variable-quality connections
• Financial institutions moving end-of-day backup archives to disaster recovery sites where transfer windows span multiple hours

Best Practices

• Configure checkpoint intervals based on file size—every 10-50 MB for files under 1 GB, every 100-500 MB for larger transfers to balance overhead against recovery granularity
• Set appropriate timeout values for resumption attempts; I typically use 3 retries with exponential backoff before marking a transfer as failed
• Monitor checkpoint storage consumption since persistent state data accumulates; implement cleanup policies for abandoned transfers older than your resumption window
• Test resumption capability regularly by deliberately interrupting large transfers in your test environment to verify the mechanism works as expected

Related Terms

• Checkpoint Restart
• Guaranteed Delivery
• Retry Logic

‍

In MFT systems, transfer throughput measures the actual volume of data moved per unit of time, typically expressed in megabytes per second (MB/s) or gigabits per second (Gbps). Unlike bandwidth—which represents theoretical maximum capacity—throughput reflects real-world performance after accounting for protocol overhead, network latency, packet loss, and processing delays.

Why It Matters

Organizations miss critical business windows when throughput drops below what's needed. I've seen retail chains fail to deliver product updates before store openings, and financial firms breach [service-level agreement Load-balancing commitments because they assumed bandwidth equals throughput. The gap between a 10 Gbps connection and actual 200 MB/s throughput matters when you're moving terabytes in overnight windows.

How It Works

Throughput depends on multiple factors beyond raw bandwidth. TCP-based protocols like SFTP achieve only 30-40% of theoretical bandwidth due to protocol overhead and acknowledgment packets. File size matters significantly—10,000 small files generate far more overhead than one large file of equal size. Network latency affects throughput exponentially; a 100ms transatlantic delay can reduce SFTP throughput by 90% compared to local transfers. Parallel transfer techniques and UDP-based protocols address these limitations.

MFT Context

Enterprise MFT platforms monitor throughput in real-time to detect performance degradation and predict transfer completion times. Modern platforms automatically adjust transfer methods based on file characteristics—switching to multi-stream transfers for large files or batching small files. Load-balancing across multiple endpoints maintains consistent throughput during peak periods. Most solutions include throttling to prevent overwhelming recipient systems or consuming all available bandwidth.

Common Use Cases

• Media companies transferring 4K video files requiring sustained 500+ MB/s throughput to meet production deadlines
• Healthcare organizations exchanging multi-gigabyte DICOM medical imaging files needing predictable delivery times
• Manufacturing firms synchronizing CAD/CAM files across global design centers within specific transfer windows
• Financial institutions moving end-of-day transaction logs where consistent throughput ensures backup window compliance

Best Practices

• Measure actual throughput during pilots to set realistic expectations—don't assume bandwidth equals performance across high-latency connections
• Use compression for text-based files but skip it for pre-compressed formats to avoid CPU bottlenecks
• Schedule large transfers during off-peak hours and reserve capacity for time-sensitive smaller transfers
• Monitor throughput trends to identify degradation before it impacts operations—sudden drops indicate network or resource issues

Real-World Example

A pharmaceutical manufacturer needed to transfer 500 GB of clinical trial data daily from research sites to their central warehouse. Using standard SFTP over 1 Gbps, they achieved only 40 MB/s throughput—requiring nearly 4 hours. After implementing multi-stream transfers and adjusting TCP window sizes, throughput increased to 110 MB/s, completing transfers in 80 minutes and meeting their 2-hour window.

Related Terms

• high-speed-file-transfer
• parallel-transfer
• tcp-windowing
• wan-optimization

‍

A trigger is a stored procedure that is automatically invoked on the basis of data-related events.

A security enhancement to Digital Encryption Standard (DES) encryption that employs three-successive single- DES block operations. Using two or three unique DES keys, this increases resistance to known cryptographic attacks by increasing the effective key length. See DES.

A mechanism to synchronize updates on different machines or platforms so that they all fail or all succeed together. The decision to commit is centralized, but each participant has the right to veto. This is a key process in real time transaction-based environments.

www.uccnet.org

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).

Universal Description, Discovery and Integration. UDDI is a project to design open standard specifications and implementations for an Internet service architecture capable of registering and discovering information about businesses and their products and servicesÉÉa web based business directory.

Defined

Enterprise file transfer platforms such as bTrade’s TDXchange with its Accelerated File Transfer Protocol (AFTP) use UDP-based acceleration to overcome TCP’s performance limitations across long distances and high-latency networks. Instead of relying on TCP’s connection-oriented model and acknowledgment overhead, bTrade AFTP transmits data using UDP with custom congestion control, enabling high-speed transfers that fully utilize available bandwidth regardless of latency.

Why It Matters

When transferring multi-gigabyte or terabyte-scale files across continents or to remote locations, TCP-based protocols inevitably hit a performance ceiling. The bandwidth-delay product limits TCP’s throughput on high-latency links we’ve seen 1 Gbps circuits effectively reduced to 5–10 Mbps with SFTP.
bTrade AFTP’s high-speed transfer capability breaks through this ceiling, turning transfers that once took hours into minutes and making global data distribution practical for time-sensitive business workflows.

How It Works

bTrade AFTP replaces TCP’s congestion control with custom, real-time rate adaptation algorithms designed for high-speed file transfer. Data is transmitted via UDP without waiting for per-packet acknowledgments, while a parallel control channel handles delivery validation and selective retransmission of lost packets.
This design decouples throughput from latency, allowing AFTP to achieve 90–95%+ bandwidth utilization even on links with 150–200 ms round-trip times, conditions where TCP typically struggles to reach 10–15% efficiency.

MFT Context

Within bTrade’s TDXchange MFT platform, AFTP is available as an optional high-speed transport layer alongside traditional protocols like SFTP and HTTPS. Organizations commonly deploy AFTP for long-distance, high-volume transfers such as media assets, database replication, or disaster recovery, while retaining TCP-based protocols for standard or compliance-driven workflows.
TDXchange manages encryption, auditing, protocol selection, and fallback, while AFTP handles the accelerated data movement, ensuring speed without sacrificing governance or visibility.

Common Use Cases

• Media & Entertainment distributing 4K/8K video dailies (50–500 GB files) between global production and post-production sites
• Healthcare organizations replicating PACS imaging archives, moving terabytes of diagnostic scans nightly between regional data centers
• Financial institutions synchronizing trading databases and risk analytics across global offices within tight processing windows
• Manufacturing enterprises transferring large CAD/CAM assemblies (10–100 GB) between international engineering teams
• Research institutions moving genomic sequencing data and simulation results between supercomputing centers and partner universities

Each of these scenarios benefits directly from bTrade AFTP’s high-speed, UDP-based acceleration, eliminating TCP bottlenecks.

Best Practices

• Validate performance per route: Test both TCP and AFTP on real network paths, AFTP delivers the greatest benefit on long-distance, high-latency links
• Implement rate limiting: Prevent high-speed AFTP transfers from monopolizing shared bandwidth during peak business hours
• Coordinate firewall policies: AFTP may use non-standard UDP ports and bidirectional flows that require security team alignment
• Monitor loss and retransmissions: Ensure packet loss isn’t negating AFTP’s performance gains
• Maintain protocol fallback: Use standard protocols for transfers where guaranteed delivery outweighs raw speed

Real-World Example

A leading name in the film industry was gearing up for its next blockbuster. With film sequences shot in diverse global locations and post-production units located in yet other locations, the organization faced a daunting challenge transferring huge volumes of high-definition raw footage to multiple locations for editing, VFX integration, sound design, etc., was proving to be time-consuming and cumbersome. Any delays or data compromises could push release dates and escalate costs. They needed to transfer 150-200GB daily across a 1Gbps transatlantic circuit with 80ms latency. SFTP maxed out at 45Mbps (about 4% utilization) due to TCP window size limitations, turning each 150GB transfer into an 8-hour overnight job. After implementing AFTP, those same transfers complete in 28 minutes at 890Mbps utilization—well within their 2-hour delivery SLA. The protocol automatically checkpoints every 10GB, so network hiccups during European morning hours don't restart entire transfers.

Several global banks rely on bTrade’s TDXchange with AFTP to securely and efficiently manage the transfer of large volumes of sensitive data, particularly during complex legal processes such as eDiscovery.

Related Terms

• High-Speed File Transfer
• WAN Optimization
• TCP Windowing
• Parallel Transfer

‍

The Uniform Code Council (UCC), based in the United States, is a membership organisation that jointly manages the EAN-UCC System with EAN International. The UCC administers the EAN-UCC System in the United States and Canada.

UCC-12 data structure. One-digit number system character with 10-digit EAN-UCC Company prefix and item reference with one check digit. One of four data structures used in the Global Trade Identification Number (GTIN).

Value Added Networks have been serving the EDI user for nearly 30 years. They provide network connections, receipt messages, aggregation services, access control and mailboxing services. EDIINT promises to eliminate

Value Chain Markup Language is a set of XML-based vocabularies (words and meanings) and documents used by some firms, in certain industries for the conduct of business over the Internet. VCML is a marketing initiative of Vitria Technologies.

Virtual Private Networks are logical networks built over a physical network. VPN is used by enterprises to link its customers and business partners via secure Internet connections. The network controls access to the VPN (hence the private aspect) yet shares the core transmission resources with other VPNs or other Internet users. In the Internet world, this is accomplished by using security methods such as packet encryption or packet encapsulation (the VPN packets refer to an addressing scheme for example that are imbedded in the IP packets of the larger, physical network). In long distance VPNs companies had specific dial plans with access control elements. In both cases, however, the company had a network with the security features of a private network and the shared economics of a public network.

Validation is compliance checking of new or changed data versus GCI/GDAS Data Standards, principles and rules. The validation consists of ensuring as a minimum:

• Syntax (e.g., format of fields)
• Mandatory, dependent data (completeness of data)
• Semantic (e.g., can't make a change before add, allocation rules for GTINs and GLNs)
• Check of classification
• Uniqueness of the item/party/partner profile (checked by registry)

A third-party EDI service provider that provides a communication link between companies to enable electronic exchange of business data/documents.

Defined

Enterprise B2B communication often relies on third-party intermediaries that route electronic documents between trading partners. A Value-Added Network (VAN) provides managed EDI exchange through centralized mailbox services, handling protocol translation, delivery confirmation, and compliance archiving. You connect once to the VAN rather than building separate integrations with each of your 200 suppliers or customers.

36 years ago, bTrade began solving early VAN challenges with security and compression technologies. Its pioneering products, TDCompress and TDAccess, were designed to optimize and secure file exchange across VANs. That innovation laid the groundwork for today’s TDXchange, which continues to support secure, reliable transfers across a variety of VAN infrastructures, while evolving to support modern MFT needs.

Why It Matters

VANs solved the complexity problem when direct partner connections were expensive and technically challenging. One VAN connection replaces hundreds of individual partner integrations. The VAN handles delivery tracking, automatic retries, and provides proof of transmission for dispute resolution. Most VANs archive transactions for 7+ years, meeting regulatory requirements without you maintaining storage infrastructure. When a document fails, the VAN's delivery notifications tell you immediately rather than discovering the issue days later.

How It Works

The VAN operates a store-and-forward mailbox model. You submit an EDI document (like an 850 purchase order) using FTP, SFTP, or proprietary APIs. The VAN validates the document structure, converts formats if your partner requires different EDI standards, and places it in the recipient's mailbox. Recipients retrieve documents on their schedule. This asynchronous approach doesn't require both parties online simultaneously. The VAN generates functional acknowledgments (997s) and tracks each document from submission to retrieval. Most VANs charge per kilocharacter or per transaction, typically $0.03–$0.10 per EDI document.

MFT Context

Modern MFT platforms increasingly replace VAN services for direct B2B integration. Organizations paying $50,000–$500,000 annually to VANs realize their MFT platform can handle document exchange directly. AS2-enabled MFT eliminates per-transaction fees by establishing peer-to-peer connections with trading partners.

However, VANs remain valuable for small suppliers lacking technical capabilities by providing simple connectivity any partner can access. TDXchange still plays a critical role in hybrid environments handling both direct integrations and long-tail VAN communications with equal efficiency.

Common Use Cases

• Retail supply chain: Exchanging 850 purchase orders, 856 advance ship notices, and 810 invoices with hundreds of suppliers through a single VAN connection
• Healthcare claims: Submitting 837 claims and receiving 835 remittance advice with HIPAA-compliant audit trails and required archiving
• Automotive manufacturing: Transmitting 862 shipping schedules and 830 planning schedules with suppliers on tight just-in-time delivery windows
• Financial payments: Routing ACH files through VANs that provide non-repudiation and regulatory archiving
• Government procurement: Exchanging documents with agencies mandating specific VAN providers for contract compliance

Best Practices

• Evaluate direct connection economics when you're exchanging 50,000+ documents annually with a partner via AS2 or SFTP connections typically pay for themselves within 6–12 months.
• Negotiate volume pricing rather than accepting standard rate cards, which are often 40–60% higher than competitive rates with usage commitments.
• Implement VAN failover through secondary providers or direct MFT connections for critical partners—single VAN outages can halt production within hours.
• Archive your own document copies instead of relying solely on VAN archives, since historical document retrieval often incurs additional fees.
• Test connectivity monthly with critical trading partners. Connection problems often go undetected until production documents fail under time pressure.

Real World Example

A national grocery chain manages 800 suppliers through a VAN, sending 15,000 purchase orders daily and receiving corresponding advance ship notices. The VAN translates between the retailer's XML format and each supplier's EDI standard (X12 or EDIFACT), handling timezone differences for European partners. After implementing an MFT platform, they migrated 50 high-volume suppliers to direct AS2 connections, reducing annual VAN costs from $380,000 to $160,000 while maintaining VAN connectivity for smaller suppliers lacking AS2 capabilities.

Related Terms

• EDI
• Trading Partner
• AS2

‍

In relation to a given digital signature, message, and public key, to determine accurately that (1) the digital signature was created during the operational period of a valid certificate by the private key corresponding to the public key contained in the certificate and (2) the associated message has not been altered since the digital signature was created.

Definition

Enterprise MFT platforms deploy WAN optimization to overcome the latency, packet loss, and bandwidth constraints that plague long-distance file transfers. Instead of accepting that a 10GB file takes 8 hours to reach a regional office 5,000 miles away, these techniques modify how protocols behave and how data gets transmitted to achieve speeds 10-50x faster than standard TCP.

Why It Matters

Geography kills file transfer performance. I've watched organizations struggle with identical 1Gbps connections on both ends but only achieving 5-10% throughput because of 150ms round-trip latency between continents. Without WAN optimization, you're burning high-speed-file-transfer budget on bandwidth you can't actually use. A manufacturing company sending CAD files from Detroit to Shanghai might see 6-hour transfer windows shrink to 20 minutes with proper optimization—that's the difference between next-day production starts and multi-day delays.

How It Works

WAN optimization addresses the fundamental problem: standard TCP waits for acknowledgments before sending more data, and high latency means constant waiting. Protocol optimization modifies TCP behavior through larger window sizes, selective acknowledgments, and reducing the chattiness of handshakes. Data reduction applies compression and deduplication at the byte level—if you're sending similar files daily, optimization appliances remember previous patterns and only transmit what's changed. Caching and prefetching store frequently transferred files closer to destinations. Some solutions bypass TCP entirely, using UDP-based acceleration with custom error correction that doesn't wait for acknowledgments.

MFT Context

Modern MFT platforms integrate WAN optimization through built-in accelerators, agent-based compression, or partnerships with specialized vendors. You'll see this as configurable transfer profiles where administrators select optimization levels for different routes. An MFT gateway in New York might automatically apply aggressive compression and protocol tuning for any transfer destined for Asia-Pacific endpoints, while keeping lighter optimization for domestic transfers. Some platforms calculate the bandwidth-delay product for each connection and dynamically adjust TCP parameters without requiring WAN optimization appliances at every site.

Common Use Cases

• Global manufacturing operations transferring 50-200GB design files daily between engineering centers in North America, Europe, and Asia where latency exceeds 200ms
• Media and entertainment distributing 4K video masters and dailies to post-production facilities worldwide, reducing 12-hour overnight transfers to 45-minute windows
• Financial services replicating trading data and compliance archives between data centers across continents while meeting tight recovery time objectives
• Healthcare networks sending medical imaging studies (100-500MB DICOM files) from regional clinics to centralized reading centers without impacting patient care timelines

Best Practices

• Test before you buy: Run proof-of-concept transfers on your actual routes with your actual file types—compression ratios vary wildly between pre-compressed video files and text-based datasets.
• Monitor the bandwidth-delay product: Calculate available bandwidth × round-trip time to understand your theoretical maximum throughput and set realistic optimization targets.
• Layer optimizations strategically: Combine protocol tuning for latency, compression for repetitive data, and parallel streams for large files rather than expecting one technique to solve everything.
• Document optimization profiles per route: Create playbooks that specify which techniques to apply for different geographic pairs and file characteristics—don't use the same settings for 100MB files to Europe as 10GB files to Australia.

Real World Example

A pharmaceutical company operates research facilities in Boston, Zurich, and Singapore that share genomic sequencing data. Before implementing WAN optimization, their 5GB transfers between Boston and Singapore took 6-8 hours over a 100Mbps dedicated circuit—bandwidth utilization hovered around 12% due to 220ms latency. After deploying MFT with integrated protocol optimization and byte-level deduplication, the same transfers complete in 35-40 minutes with 75% bandwidth utilization. The deduplication proved especially valuable since sequential genome files share significant overlap, reducing actual bytes transmitted by 40-60% once the optimization engines learned their data patterns.

Related Terms

• TCP Windowing
• Bandwidth-Delay Product (BDP)
• Parallel Transfer

‍

Web Services Description Language is an XML-based language used to define Web services and describe how to access them.

Definition

In MFT systems, a watched folder (or drop folder) is a designated directory that the platform continuously monitors for incoming files. When new files appear, the MFT platform automatically triggers predefined actions—transfers, transformations, or notifications—without manual intervention. Most implementations poll the directory every 5-60 seconds, though some use filesystem events for near-instantaneous detection.

Why It Matters

Watched folders eliminate manual file handling, which reduces human error and accelerates processing times. I've seen organizations cut file processing delays from hours to seconds by switching from manual uploads to watched folder automation. For high-volume scenarios—think 10,000+ daily files from retail stores or manufacturing plants—you can't rely on someone manually clicking "send" all day. The approach also creates clear handoff points between applications, where one system deposits files and another picks them up automatically.

How It Works

The MFT platform runs a monitoring process that scans the watched folder at regular intervals or responds to filesystem change notifications. When it detects a new or modified file, it waits for the file to stabilize (no size changes for X seconds) to avoid processing incomplete writes. Once stable, the platform executes the configured event-driven trigger—initiating an outbound transfer, moving the file to another location, running validation scripts, or kicking off multi-step workflows. Most platforms let you filter by filename patterns (.csv, PO_.xml) and apply different processing rules based on what arrives.

MFT Context

Enterprise MFT platforms treat watched folders as workflow automation entry points. You'll configure them through the admin console, specifying the local path, monitoring frequency, file filters, and post-detection actions. Many platforms support multiple watched folders with different behaviors—one might compress and encrypt files before transfer, while another performs format validation first. Modern MFT solutions also handle race conditions when multiple files arrive simultaneously, processing them in sequence or parallel based on your configuration.

Common Use Cases

• EDI processing: Trading partners drop X12 or EDIFACT files into designated folders, triggering translation and delivery to backend ERP systems within minutes
• Branch office uploads: Retail stores deposit daily sales reports to local folders, which MFT agents automatically collect and transfer to headquarters overnight
• Application integration: Legacy systems that can't make API calls write output files to folders, where MFT picks them up for modern destinations
• Print-to-file workflows: Generated invoices or reports land in watched folders for immediate secure distribution to customers or partners

Best Practices

• Use file age thresholds of 10-30 seconds before processing to ensure complete writes, especially for large files or slow storage
• Implement archive folders where processed files move automatically, maintaining 30-90 days of history for troubleshooting without cluttering the watched location
• Set filesystem permissions carefully—the watched folder needs read/write for source applications but shouldn't be world-writable
• Monitor folder health with alerts for stuck files, unexpected volumes, or processing failures that could indicate upstream application issues
• Avoid nested watched folders or overlapping patterns that can cause files to be processed multiple times or trigger conflicting workflows

Real World Example

A pharmaceutical distributor uses watched folders to automate order processing from 200+ pharmacy customers. Each customer's SFTP account maps to a watched folder on the MFT platform. When pharmacies upload purchase orders (typically 50-300 files daily per customer), the MFT platform detects them within 15 seconds, validates the XML format, applies customer-specific pricing rules, then routes approved orders to the ERP system while sending rejections back to the originating folders. The entire process runs 24/7 with zero manual intervention.

Related Terms

• Scheduled Transfers
• Event-Driven Transfers
• Retry Logic
• File Validation

‍

In automated inter-business processes, such as UCCnet Item Sync service, the work list defines those tasks requiring human intervention to complete one or more process steps.

Workflow refers to the process of routing events or work-items from one person to another. Workflow is synonymous with process flow, although is more often used in the context of person-to-person document flows.

In MFT systems, workflow automation coordinates the complete lifecycle of file transfers—from triggering an initial transfer to transforming content, validating delivery, and handling exceptions—without manual intervention. Modern platforms use rule-based engines that respond to schedules, events, or conditions to orchestrate multi-step file exchange processes.

Why It Matters

I've seen teams cut operational overhead by 70% when they move from manual file handling to automated workflows. More importantly, automation eliminates the "someone forgot to send Friday's payroll file" scenarios that cause genuine business problems. When your trading partners expect files at specific times with exact formats, automation ensures you meet those expectations consistently. It also captures every action in audit logs, which matters for compliance reviews.

How It Works

Workflow automation engines monitor multiple trigger types: time-based schedules (via cron expressions or calendar rules), file system events through watched folders, API calls, or message queue notifications. When triggered, the engine executes a defined sequence—initiating transfers, applying transformations like compression or encryption, validating checksums, routing to destinations based on conditions, and handling failures with retry logic. Modern platforms let you build workflows using visual designers or configuration files, then execute them on distributed agents for scalability.

MFT Context

MFT platforms treat workflows as first-class objects that you can version, test, and deploy across environments. I typically configure workflows that span internal and external systems—grabbing files from internal databases, transforming formats for partner requirements, transferring via appropriate protocols, and updating tracking systems. The workflow engine manages state, so if a step fails at 2 AM, you don't discover it when you arrive at the office; alert rules notify the right people immediately.

Common Use Cases

• Daily financial close processes: Collecting transaction files from 50+ retail locations between 11 PM-1 AM, consolidating data, and delivering aggregated reports to accounting systems by 6 AM
• Healthcare claims submission: Transforming patient records into compliant EDI formats, validating against schema rules, delivering to clearinghouses, and processing MDN acknowledgments
• Supply chain coordination: Receiving purchase orders from partners, routing to internal ERP systems, generating shipping confirmations, and returning ASNs within defined SLA windows
• Regulatory reporting: Aggregating data from multiple source systems on monthly cycles, applying masking rules, and submitting to government portals with required digital signatures

Best Practices

• Design for failure from the start: Build workflows with explicit error handling, retry strategies, and escalation paths rather than assuming happy-path execution will always work
• Use environment-specific configurations: Parameterize connection details, schedules, and partner endpoints so the same workflow definition runs in dev, test, and production with different settings
• Implement workflow versioning: Maintain version history so you can roll back when a change causes issues, and track which version processed specific transfers for audit purposes
• Monitor execution metrics: Track workflow duration, failure rates, and queue depths to identify performance degradation before it impacts SLAs
• Keep workflows modular: Break complex processes into smaller, reusable components that you can test independently and combine in different ways

Real-World Example

A pharmaceutical distributor I worked with processes 12,000 orders daily through automated workflows. When an order file arrives via AS2, the workflow validates XML schema compliance, checks inventory availability via API call, splits orders by warehouse location, transforms into each facility's required format (some use EDI, others JSON), transfers files to warehouse systems, waits for acknowledgment, and updates the order management system. If any warehouse system is unavailable, orders queue with exponential backoff retry. The entire process averages 3 minutes per order without human intervention.

Related Terms

• Event-Driven Transfers
• Job Scheduler
• Process Orchestration

‍

The International Telecommunications Union-T (ITU-T) specification that describes the format for hierarchical maintenance and storage of public keys for public-key systems.

An independent open systems organization with the strategy to combine various standards into a comprehensive integrated systems environment called Common Applications Environment, which contains an evolving portfolio of practical APIs.

An international standard for EDI messages, developed by the Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) for the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

An ANSI security structures standard that defines data formats required for authentication and encryption to provide integrity, confidentiality, and verification of the security originator to the security recipient for the exchange of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) data defined by Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) X12. See X12.

Like HTML, eXtensible Markup Language is a subset of Standard Generalized Markup Language. XML is a standard for defining descriptions of content. Where HTML uses tags to define the presentation of information without context, XML uses tags to provide metadata which describes the context of the data thereby giving meaning to data that can be understood by computers. Since its approval by the W3C in 1998, XML has been endorsed by every major software vendor as the standard API, offering great promise to the industry indeed.

An XML schema defines a type of document and the specialized XML tags that will be used with it. The schema may also include rules for exchanges of the document type.

An XML query access method that navigates the hierarchical structure of an XML document. It gets to a particular point in the document by naming a progression of nodes in the tree structure.

An SQL-like query language based on the structure of XML that allows direct access to specific nodes in an XML document. XML documents are hierarchical, starting with a document root and proceeding through a tree structure of parent nodes and related child nodes. A node may be any tagged element in the document, such as its title, table of contents, charts or tables. XQuery can retrieve and store information contained at a particular node without requiring the user to name all elements along the hierarchical path to that node.

The eXtensible Stylesheet Language is a syntax for defining the display of XML information.

An XSL Transform defines how XML data defined in one vocabulary can be translated into another, say between two customers.

Latency is the delay, measured between action and reaction.  Zero latency, therefore, means no delay between an event and its response.

An automated process with no time delays (i.e. no manual re-entry of data) at the interfaces of different information systems. STP is an example.

Defined

In MFT systems, Zero Trust Architecture assumes every transfer request is potentially hostile, requiring verification regardless of where it originates—inside or outside your network perimeter. Instead of trusting connections from "internal" zones, every transfer session validates identity, checks authorization, and inspects content before granting access to file repositories or partners.

Definition

In bTrade’s TDXchange, Zero Trust Architecture assumes that every transfer request is potentially hostile, regardless of whether it originates inside or outside the network perimeter. Instead of trusting “internal” connections by default, TDXchange requires every transfer session to verify identity, validate authorization, and inspect content before granting access to file repositories or trading partners.

There is no implicit trust based on network location. Every connection, user, application, and file interaction is treated as untrusted until proven otherwise.

Why It Matters

Traditional MFT deployments often trusted anything inside the DMZ or corporate network. That model breaks down once an attacker gains a foothold internally.

I’ve seen breaches where a single compromised internal application led to unrestricted access to file shares because internal traffic was implicitly trusted. TDXchange’s Zero Trust model prevents this by applying the same level of scrutiny to a scheduled internal job at 3 a.m. as it does to an unknown external partner connection.

For B2B integration scenarios, this is even more critical. With TDXchange, partner identity is verified per transfer, not just once during onboarding.

How It Works

Zero Trust in TDXchange is implemented through continuous verification at every stage of a transfer.

When a transfer initiates:

• TDXchange authenticates the user, application, or partner identity
• Current authorization policies are evaluated (not cached credentials)
• Context is assessed (time, source, behavior, certificate validity)
• Files are inspected before transmission is allowed

Each file zone is micro-segmented, so access to one directory does not imply access to others. Session tokens are short-lived, forcing frequent re-validation. Every verification decision is logged—not just successful transfers.

If conditions change mid-session (IP shifts, unusual behavior, revoked credentials), TDXchange can terminate the transfer even after it has started.

MFT Context

In TDXchange, Zero Trust applies to every component of the transfer chain:

• Automated jobs authenticate on every run, even if they’re scheduled
• Trading partner certificates are validated against revocation lists on each connection, not just at onboarding
• File integrity checks occur at submission, during transfer, and at delivery

Even administrative access requires strong authentication per session, and file zones are segmented so users in finance cannot accidentally access healthcare or legal data. Every API call, agent check-in, and watched-folder pickup is treated as a new verification event.

Common Use Cases

• Hybrid cloud MFT: Verifying transfers between on-premises and cloud environments where traditional network boundaries no longer apply
• Partner ecosystem management: Enforcing fresh authentication for every partner transfer instead of long-lived credentials
• Regulated data flows: Healthcare, financial, and legal data exchanges where every access must be verified, logged, and attributable
• Post-breach containment: Preventing lateral movement by requiring verification even for internal application-to-application transfers

Best Practices

• Segment access by data classification, not just by role or function—PCI or PHI zones should require stronger verification
• Expire session tokens aggressively (15–30 minutes for interactive access, per-transfer for automated jobs)
• Log every authorization decision, not just failures—continuous verification evidence is critical for PCI, SOC 2, and HIPAA audits
• Use Zero Trust as part of defense-in-depth, alongside encryption, content inspection, and integrity validation

Real-World Example

A pharmaceutical company processes over 8,000 clinical trial transfers per day using TDXchange across research sites, CROs, and headquarters.

They implemented Zero Trust by:

• Requiring IP filtering and certificate-based authentication per transfer
• Segmenting trial data by study ID
• Validating file hashes before downstream access

When one CRO’s credentials were compromised, the attacker could only access only one study folder. Every attempted transfer triggered alerts due to abnormal source behavior. The incident was contained to 12 files instead of the entire trial dataset. However the attacker would not be able to use the files because they were encrypted using quantum-safe encryption. Although the attack breached the environment, it had no financial or reputational impact on the organization.

‍

Related Terms

• Defense-in-Depth
• Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)
• Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)

‍

Definition

Organizations deploy to connect cloud applications and automate workflows through pre-built connectors and API-driven integration. In file transfer contexts, platforms increasingly handle lightweight file movement between SaaS applications, though they complement rather than replace managed file transfer systems when you're dealing with high-volume or security-critical transfers.

Why It Matters

You'll see iPaaS compete with traditional MFT in cloud-to-cloud file scenarios. A retail company might use iPaaS to move daily sales reports from Salesforce to NetSuite, but they'll still rely on MFT for 50,000 EDI transactions per day with suppliers. The boundary matters because iPaaS typically lacks enterprise file transfer features like checkpoint restart, protocol support beyond HTTPS, and granular audit trails. Choosing the wrong platform creates security gaps or operational bottlenecks you can't easily fix later.

MFT Context

Most B2B integration teams I work with run both platforms—iPaaS handles application-to-application workflows with smaller files (under 100MB), while MFT manages protocol-based transfers, large files, and regulated data. Some iPaaS vendors now offer SFTP connectors, but these are often basic implementations without high availability, transfer resumption, or compliance logging. Modern MFT platforms expose REST APIs that iPaaS workflows can trigger, creating a hybrid model where iPaaS orchestrates business logic and MFT handles the actual file movement.

Common Use Cases

• SaaS application integration: Moving daily CSV exports from HR systems to cloud storage, then triggering downstream processing with file metadata
• Cloud-to-cloud transfers: Syncing customer documents between Salesforce and AWS S3 where files stay under 50MB and protocols are minimal
• Event-driven workflows: Receiving webhook notifications when files arrive in cloud storage, then routing them to multiple destinations based on filename patterns
• Marketing automation: Transferring campaign performance files between advertising platforms and analytics tools on hourly schedules

Best Practices

• Define the boundary clearly: Use iPaaS for application logic and lightweight files; route regulated data, EDI, and files over 500MB through your MFT platform with proper protocol support
• Monitor file transfer SLAs separately: iPaaS platforms report on workflow success but may not capture transfer-specific metrics like throughput, retry attempts, or partial failures
• Avoid protocol mixing: If trading partners require AS2, SFTP, or FTPS with specific cipher suites, don't try to implement these in iPaaS—the protocol stacks aren't built for it
• Plan for audit requirements: iPaaS audit logs focus on API calls and workflow steps, not file-level lineage or compliance evidence that regulators expect

Real-World Example

A healthcare payer uses iPaaS to orchestrate 2,000 daily workflows across 15 SaaS applications, including 400 file movements between Workday and ServiceNow. But PHI-containing claims files—3GB each, arriving via SFTP from 200 providers—route through their MFT platform with encryption validation, audit trails, and checkpoint restart. The iPaaS workflow monitors MFT's REST API for completion status, then triggers downstream claim processing systems. This hybrid approach keeps sensitive transfers properly controlled while automating application integration.

Related Terms

• API Integration
• MFTaaS
• workflow automation

‍

In contrast to the notification function, the acknowledgement is a response to a command (e.g., add, change) returned to the originator of the command. Every command needs a response and is handled according to the agreement between the parties involved (e.g., source data pool, final recipient exchange). In the interoperable network, acknowledgement messages are standardised and may contain the following information: Confirmation of message receipt, Success/failure of processing (syntax and content) and Reason for failure, with a code assigned to each failure.