Continuous Attestation System for Supply Chain Security Compliance

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Federal contractors face challenges in demonstrating compliance with security requirements for protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) as specified by NIST 800-171, particularly in ensuring continuous and real-time monitoring of security controls across their supply chains.

Innovation Solution

A cloud-based system is implemented with buyer and supplier portals that enable continuous attestation programs, allowing buyers to specify security requirements, suppliers to define and manage attestation schedules, and automatic generation of evaluation metrics based on compliance responses, thereby providing real-time risk assessments.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional compliance monitoring methods are used, then implementation simplicity is maintained, but continuous real-time monitoring capability is lost

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontinuous compliance monitoringVSAvoidattestation program structure
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The attestation program is divided into multiple attestation instances, each corresponding to a specific security requirement. This segmentation allows the system to monitor compliance with individual requirements independently while maintaining an overall continuous monitoring framework, resolving the contradiction between comprehensive monitoring and system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary actions by automatically generating attestation instances and collecting compliance data before formal evaluation occurs. This proactive approach enables continuous monitoring readiness without requiring complex real-time intervention mechanisms, thus maintaining reliability while managing complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Productivity

If manual compliance verification is used, then system complexity is reduced, but time consumption for compliance assessment increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecompliance assessment speedVSAvoidautomated evaluation system
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements self-service mechanisms where the automated evaluation logic independently assesses compliance status by analyzing collected attestation data against security requirements. This eliminates the need for manual verification while maintaining manageable complexity through rule-based automated decision-making, thereby increasing productivity without excessive system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Reliability

If comprehensive security requirements are enforced, then CUI protection is improved, but supplier operational flexibility is reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveCUI protectionVSAvoidsupplier operational flexibility
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies local quality by allowing different attestation frequencies and evaluation criteria for different security requirements based on their risk levels. Critical security requirements receive more frequent and rigorous monitoring, while less critical ones have reduced monitoring intensity, thus maintaining strong CUI protection while preserving supplier operational flexibility in lower-risk areas.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

4Measurement precision

If frequent attestation updates are required, then compliance accuracy is improved, but data collection burden increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecompliance status accuracyVSAvoiddata collection time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements periodic action by scheduling attestation updates at different frequencies based on the criticality of each security requirement. High-priority requirements are monitored more frequently to maintain measurement precision, while lower-priority requirements use less frequent updates to reduce the time burden on suppliers, thus balancing accuracy with operational efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #19Periodic action

Data Source

PatentUS20240370882A1Systems and Methods for Managing and Monitoring Continuous Attestation of Security Requirements
Publication Date: 2024.11.07 REFERENTIA SYSTEMS INC
  • US20240370882A1 patent drawing
  • US20240370882A1 patent drawing
  • US20240370882A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A system includes buyer portal logic enabling a buyer to specify security requirements for attestation by a supplier. The system includes attestation program logic enabling the supplier to define a continuous attestation program for the security requirements through a supplier interface provided by supplier portal logic. The continuation attestation program includes an annual attestation program and a sub-annual attestation program. The system receives compliance attestation responses from the supplier for the security requirements and correlates the compliance attestation responses to the continuous attestation program for the supplier. The system enables the supplier to specify an access privilege for the buyer with regard to the supplier's sub-annual continuous attestation program data and/or annual attestation program data. The system generates compliance evaluation metrics for the supplier in real-time, which includes an overall risk level for the supplier, and exposes in real-time the overall risk level for the supplier to the buyer.