Administrator Voting Control for Risky Access Changes
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing identity and access management systems face challenges in preventing malicious, erroneous, or accidental actions by administrators, which can cause substantial damage due to insufficient authentication methods like username/password or certificate-based systems.
Innovation Solution
Implementing a voting mechanism among administrators to approve or reverse actions, especially critical ones, to mitigate risks, where less privileged administrators can vote to prevent or reverse actions proposed or performed by more privileged administrators.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If certificate-based authentication and access control are used, then security is improved, but the system remains vulnerable to malicious actions by administrators
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the administrator role into multiple independent administrators, each with limited individual authority. Critical actions require consensus or threshold approval from multiple administrators rather than a single administrator, thereby distributing power and preventing any one administrator from executing malicious actions alone.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces a voting mechanism as an intermediary layer between the administrator's action request and the system's execution. This mediator collects votes from multiple administrators, applies threshold logic, and only permits execution when the threshold is met, thereby preventing direct execution of potentially malicious actions by single administrators.
2Reliability
If voting operations are implemented for all actions, then protection against malicious actions is improved, but system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies different levels of voting requirements to different actions based on their criticality and risk profiles. High-risk actions such as certificate revocation, configuration changes, and administrative user management require voting and threshold approval, while routine low-risk actions can proceed without voting. This selective application of voting mechanisms reduces overall system complexity while maintaining protection where most needed.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent allows the voting threshold parameter to be dynamically configured based on action type, administrator trust levels, and system policies. This flexibility enables the system to adjust the complexity of the voting process according to the specific context, applying simpler thresholds for trusted administrators or lower-risk actions and more stringent thresholds for higher-risk scenarios.
3Reliability
If multiple administrators are required for voting, then security against erroneous actions is improved, but operational efficiency decreases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements a threshold-based voting system where a predefined number of administrator votes (threshold) are required for action approval, rather than requiring unanimous consent from all administrators. This partial action approach provides sufficient security against erroneous actions while avoiding the paralysis that would result from requiring complete consensus, thereby maintaining operational efficiency.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent establishes voting thresholds and administrator weightings in advance through system configuration and policy definition. This preliminary setup allows the voting mechanism to operate automatically and efficiently during runtime without requiring real-time negotiation or complex deliberations, as the criteria for approval are predetermined and clearly defined.
Data Source
AI summary
Preventing, mitigating, and reversing actions in a computing system. A voting mechanism is provided that is configured to block malicious or accidental configuration changes or other actions in a computing system. Risky actions cannot be performed as the voting mechanism requires certain actions to be subject to a vote. The actions are then, based on the voting by other administrators, allowed, disallowed, prevented, or reversed. Further different classes of administrators can participate in the voting operations.