I'd say C here since normalizing the numbers to 16 digits might help with detection. Maybe the DLP's not picking up patterns because non-standard formatting is being used in your test data? Not totally positive since it could be a validity issue too, but worth considering. Agree?
Yeah, C is tempting but pretty sure it's just a distractor. The DLP policy actually runs the Luhn check for validity, so you won’t see hits unless your sample data contains real, mathematically valid card numbers. That’s B for this one. If anyone’s seen test hits with just any 16 digits, let me know.
I don’t think C works here. With Netskope's DLP, the identifier isn’t just looking for 16-digit strings, it actually runs the Luhn check to make sure they’re true card numbers. So only B explains why no hits would show up if your data doesn’t have valid numbers. Easy to overlook that trap with C. Pretty sure it’s B unless someone’s seen a different behavior in practice?