Talk:Vera Security

Requested move 25 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 01:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Vera (platform) → Vera Security – I work for Vera Security and the page should be renamed because the platform is only one feature of Vera. The company name, which this page is describing, is Vera Security. 2605:E000:92E8:CB00:945B:25D3:B8A7:25B8 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, and clean up the article, which is presently a trainwreck. It starts about being about the platform product, then veers into being about the company. Should cover the company primarily and its products/services secondarily, unless and until it's clearly established that one of the latter is WP:Notable enough for a stand-alone article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• The article was written and submitted by User:VeraSecurity under this title and has gotten almost no attention from anyone since then, so I doubt it's near the top of the list for anyone to clean up. It's a bit irksome to rename the old COI article when they picked the title to begin with. I commend the IP editor for divulging the conflict of interest here, though. Dekimasuよ! 01:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• It looks like it was submitted as Draft:Vera and was put at this title when it was moved to mainspace. Dekimasuよ! 01:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested lead and structure cleanup to reflect Vera's acquisition and current product name

Hello, I have a conflict of interest with respect to this article (declared on my user page: Fortra, Boldon James, and Vera Security). These are limited requests to improve accuracy and structure.

1. Lead rewrite

Please replace the current lead:

−

Vera is an enterprise [[data security]] and [[information rights management]] platform that provides [[encryption]] and tracks and controls digital information shared across users, devices, applications, and platforms. It offers developers access to its IRM-as-a-service (IRMaaS) platform via a REST [[API]] and downloadable [[software development kit]].

+

Vera was an enterprise [[data security]] and [[information rights management]] platform developed by Vera Security, providing [[encryption]] and tracking and control of digital information shared across users, devices, applications, and platforms. In 2020, Vera Security was acquired by HelpSystems, which rebranded as [[Fortra]] in 2022. Fortra continues to market the product, which it describes as Secure Collaboration (formerly Vera).

Reason: The current lead reads as if Vera were still a standalone present-day platform. The revised wording makes the article historical, reflects the 2020 acquisition and the 2022 HelpSystems-to-Fortra rebrand, and notes the current product name without promotional language. Note on naming: Fortra's own materials refer to the product variously as "Fortra Secure Collaboration" and "Digital Guardian Secure Collaboration," both "formerly Vera," so I have attributed the current name to Fortra rather than asserting a single fixed product name; a reviewer may prefer to adjust the exact wording.

2. Consolidate Funding section into History

Please remove the standalone Funding section and fold a shorter, sourced summary into History, after the sentence about Vera launching its product in April 2015:

Before its acquisition, Vera raised $31 million in venture financing, including a $14 million Series A round in 2014 and a $17 million Series B round in 2016.

Please retain the existing Wall Street Journal and TechCrunch funding citations on that sentence.

Reason: The funding history is sourced and useful as historical context, but the standalone Funding section reads like a stale startup profile and includes dated board and personnel details with limited present-day relevance. Consolidating preserves the core sourced facts while improving structure. No new references should be needed.

3. Consolidate Product architecture section into History

Please remove the standalone Product architecture section and fold its content into History, after the sentence about Vera's integrations with Dropbox, Okta, Centrify, Box, VMware, and Microsoft Office:

In March 2016, Vera announced an SDK for adding encryption, tracking, policy enforcement, and access control to custom and legacy business applications.

Please retain the existing SecurityWeek citation.

Reason: The standalone section is a single 2016 product announcement. Moving it into History preserves the sourced information while reducing the stale company-profile structure. No new references should be needed.

4. Awards section (optional)

The Awards section is sourced and relevant to Vera's earlier startup history, so it does not need to be removed. If an editor is streamlining the article, it could optionally be folded into History as:

In 2015 and 2016, Vera received startup-industry recognition, including being named by CRN one of the "10 Coolest Security Startups of 2015" and being selected as a top-10 finalist for the RSA Conference 2016 Innovation Sandbox competition.

Please retain the existing CRN and Infosecurity Magazine citations if this is done. I leave this one to editor discretion.

Thank you for considering these limited requests. Mrmctorso (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Question:

For point 1, why do you want to remove the sentence "It offers developers access to its IRM-as-a-service (IRMaaS) platform via a REST API and downloadable software development kit."? You could preserve that portion and still add info about its aquisition.

For point 2, I am partially opposed. I wouldn't be against merging the funding section with the history section, but I see no reason to condense it.

For point 3, I honestly feel like it should be removed.

For point 4, I'm fine with folding the award section into history. Your wording feels a bit promotional though but I can make it work. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 18:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

References

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Mustbeotherwise: Thanks for working through these! The suggestions all seem reasonable and I'm happy to adjust. Point by point:

1. Lead. Fair point, and no objection to keeping that sentence. I only meant to move the article into the past tense. Retaining that sentence, the lead would read:

Vera was an enterprise data security and information rights management platform developed by Vera Security, providing encryption and tracking and control of digital information shared across users, devices, applications, and platforms. It offered developers access to its IRM-as-a-service (IRMaaS) platform via a REST API and downloadable software development kit. In 2020, Vera Security was acquired by HelpSystems, which rebranded as Fortra in 2022. Fortra continues to market the product, which it describes as Secure Collaboration (formerly Vera).

(Same two citations as in my original request: the Star Tribune rebrand article and Fortra's product page.)

2. Funding. That works; please merge it into History as-is. My aim was only to drop the standalone startup-style section, so keep whatever level of detail you consider due.

3. Product architecture. No objection to removing it. That also fits with point 1: since the retained lead sentence already notes the IRMaaS/SDK capability, the standalone section is redundant, so removal loses nothing sourced.

4. Awards. A plainer version, if it helps: "In 2015, CRN named Vera one of its '10 Coolest Security Startups of 2015,' and in 2016 Vera was a top-10 finalist in the RSA Conference Innovation Sandbox competition." Please adjust as you see fit.

If it's easier, I can post a consolidated draft of the History section with all of this folded in; otherwise I'm glad to leave it in your hands. Thanks again.

Mrmctorso (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Not done: Your proposal has signs of being generated by a Large Language Model. AI generated content is largely prohibited for articles and on talk pages. Your proposal has been denied. Feel free to open another request without using AI. Thanks! - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 16:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)