Communication Blocking Based On Challenge Responses
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current communication technologies fail to effectively block unwanted communications, such as fraudulent and unsolicited calls and texts, due to spoofing and the inability of existing systems to verify the authenticity of caller identities, leading to unwanted messages reaching intended recipients.
Innovation Solution
Implementing a system that issues challenges to senders based on their trust levels, where high trust levels allow communications to pass through without challenges, medium trust levels receive one challenge, and low trust levels receive multiple challenges, with unsuccessful responses leading to temporary or permanent blocking of the sender's number.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Object-affected harmful factors
If communication blocking is implemented without trust level differentiation, then unwanted communications are blocked, but legitimate communications may also be blocked
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies local quality by differentiating trust levels for different sender telephone numbers. Instead of uniformly blocking or allowing all communications, the system assigns specific trust levels (high, medium, low) to individual senders based on their historical challenge response patterns. This enables precise control where high-trust senders experience no blocking while low-trust senders face multiple challenges, resolving the contradiction between blocking unwanted communications and allowing legitimate ones.
Solution Approach 2:
The system changes the parameter of trust level from a static binary state to a dynamic multi-level parameter. Trust levels are adjusted over time based on sender performance in responding to challenges. This parameter change allows the system to adaptively modify blocking behavior, improving both the blocking of unwanted communications and the accuracy of routing decisions by considering the evolving trustworthiness of each sender.
2Measurement precision
If multiple challenges are issued to all senders, then authentication accuracy improves, but communication efficiency deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements partial action by issuing challenges selectively based on trust levels rather than to all senders uniformly. High-trust senders receive no challenges (partial action applied), medium-trust senders receive one challenge, and low-trust senders receive multiple challenges. This selective application of verification maintains high authentication accuracy for suspicious senders while preserving communication throughput for trusted senders, resolving the contradiction between verification accuracy and communication efficiency.
Solution Approach 2:
The system employs feedback mechanisms where sender responses to challenges are monitored and used to adjust future challenge issuance. Senders who successfully respond to challenges have their trust levels increased, reducing or eliminating future challenges. This feedback loop maintains high verification accuracy while improving communication efficiency over time as more senders build trust, directly addressing the contradiction between authentication precision and productivity.
3Ease of operation
If trust level differentiation is implemented, then communication control improves, but system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system applies self-service by automatically managing trust levels and challenge issuance without requiring recipient intervention. The challenge management system autonomously evaluates sender responses, adjusts trust levels, and determines whether to issue challenges based on current trust assessments. This automation maintains improved recipient control while minimizing the operational complexity burden on users, resolving the contradiction between ease of operation and device complexity.
Data Source
AI summary
A challenge is transmitted to a sender. An unsuccessful response to the challenge is received from the sender. Responsive to determining that the unsuccessful response is received from the sender, routing of future communications from a telephone number associated with the sender is blocked for a duration of time. The duration of time can be based on a number of unsuccessful responses received from the telephone number.