Blockchain Permissions for Distributed Authorization
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
In distributed hyperscale systems, the load on servers becomes overwhelming due to the need for authorization validation across millions of clients and thousands of files, leading to scalability and delay issues, especially when clients are geographically dispersed, and hardening vulnerabilities becomes challenging.
Innovation Solution
Implementing a blockchain database that uses smart contracts to manage permissions, allowing nodes in a distributed consensus network to validate and store updates locally, reducing the need for server-side hardening and improving scalability by using a shared ledger for authorization, which can operate in server-less mode during bifurcation events or disasters.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If centralized server validation is used for authorization, then authorization control is maintained, but server load becomes overwhelming and scalability deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The centralized authorization server is segmented into distributed authorization nodes that operate autonomously across the network. Each node maintains a local copy of the shared ledger and can independently validate permissions, distributing the validation load from a single server to multiple nodes throughout the network.
Solution Approach 2:
The system transitions from a single-dimensional centralized validation model to a multi-dimensional distributed validation model. The shared ledger provides a common source of truth that spans across multiple nodes, enabling authorization validation in parallel across different network locations rather than sequential processing through a single server.
2Productivity
If distributed nodes validate permissions locally, then server load is reduced and scalability improves, but system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The shared ledger serves multiple functions simultaneously: it acts as a database for permission storage, a communication protocol for node synchronization, and a validation mechanism for authorization. This multi-functionality reduces the need for separate systems and protocols that would otherwise increase complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The system changes the state parameter of the ledger from centralized to distributed, and from static to dynamically updatable. This parameter change enables the system to maintain simplicity at the node level while achieving distributed complexity benefits, as each node follows the same simple rules but the overall system becomes more capable.
3Ease of operation
If centralized authorization server is used, then permission management is simplified, but single point of failure risk increases
Solution Approach 1:
The centralized authorization server is segmented into multiple distributed nodes that collectively provide the same permission management functionality. Each node can independently manage and validate permissions, eliminating the single point of failure while maintaining the simplicity of centralized management through the shared ledger protocol.
Solution Approach 2:
The shared ledger acts as an intermediary that coordinates between distributed nodes and maintains consistency across the network. It mediates permission updates and validations, allowing nodes to operate independently while maintaining synchronized state, thus distributing failure risk while preserving operational simplicity.
4Adaptability or versatility
If geographically distributed nodes are deployed, then accessibility is improved, but synchronization difficulty increases
Solution Approach 1:
The shared ledger creates an equipotential state across all geographically distributed nodes by providing a common data structure and validation rules that all nodes follow uniformly. This ensures that regardless of geographical location, all nodes operate from the same authorization state, eliminating synchronization conflicts that would otherwise arise from distributed updates.
Solution Approach 2:
The system changes the synchronization parameter from complex multi-version conflict resolution to simple sequential ledger updates. By organizing authorization data in a blockchain structure with clear chronological ordering, the system enables easy synchronization across distributed nodes without requiring complex conflict resolution mechanisms.
Data Source
AI summary
A network device receives a smart contract for permissions to access a service, wherein the smart contract is in an initial block for authorizations in a shared ledger. The network device receives, from an authorization server device, an update to the shared ledger, wherein the update is a proposed block in the shared ledger requiring validation. The network device stores, in a local memory, a copy of the shared ledger with the update, when the update is validated by the distributed consensus network. The network device receives, from a client device, an item request for an item associated with the service, wherein the item request includes a client identifier. The network device identifies if there is match of the client identifier and the item in the copy of the shared ledger and sends, to the client device, the item when there is match of the client identifier and the item.