Dynamic Audit Plug-in System for Compliance Validation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

System administrators face challenges in accurately performing security and audit compliance validation in dynamic computing environments due to frequent changes in system components, making manual validation inefficient and inaccurate.

Innovation Solution

A system and method for dynamically performing audit and security compliance validation using a tool with plug-ins that scans the computer system, selects appropriate plug-ins based on scheduling criteria, and automatically runs them to ensure compliance, securely transmitting results to a repository.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If manual security and audit compliance validation is performed by system administrators, then flexibility and adaptability to specific system changes can be maintained, but accuracy and efficiency deteriorate due to the dynamic nature of system components and frequent changes

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecompliance validation accuracyVSAvoidvalidation efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-validation through automated scanning and compliance checking mechanisms. The compliance validation system automatically detects system changes, selects appropriate plug-ins, and executes validation routines without requiring continuous manual intervention, thereby maintaining high accuracy while improving efficiency.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

Manual administrative processes are replaced with automated computational systems. The system uses automated scanning tools, plug-in-based validation mechanisms, and scheduling criteria to substitute human administrators' manual validation work, achieving both higher accuracy and efficiency.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Reliability

If comprehensive scanning and validation of all computer applications is performed manually, then thorough compliance checking can be achieved, but time consumption and resource usage increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecompliance validation thoroughnessVSAvoidvalidation time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adapts its validation scope and intensity based on scheduling criteria and system state. Rather than performing static comprehensive validation, the system adjusts its scanning depth and plug-in selection based on change detection results, maintaining thoroughness while reducing unnecessary time consumption.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary scanning and change detection before executing full compliance validation. By identifying system changes upfront and selecting only relevant plug-ins based on detected changes, the system prepares validation in advance, ensuring thoroughness while minimizing actual validation time.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

3Speed

If the validation system is configured to run frequently to detect changes timely, then detection speed improves, but system resource consumption and operational complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvechange detection speedVSAvoidsystem configuration complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

SpeedVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system employs periodic validation execution based on scheduling criteria rather than continuous monitoring. Validation runs are triggered at scheduled intervals or upon detecting specific change conditions, achieving timely detection while avoiding the complexity of continuous real-time monitoring systems.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #19Periodic action

4Adaptability or versatility

If multiple plug-ins are selected and executed for comprehensive validation, then validation coverage improves, but execution time and computational resources increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvevalidation coverageVSAvoidvalidation throughput

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies different validation approaches to different system components based on local characteristics. Rather than uniformly applying all plug-ins to all applications, the system selects specific plug-ins based on detected changes and application types, ensuring appropriate validation coverage while improving throughput by avoiding unnecessary validations.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentUS8800047B2System, method and program product for dynamically performing an audit and security compliance validation in an operating environment

Publication Date: 2014.08.05 FINJAN BLUE INC

AI summary

A system, method and program product for dynamically performing an audit and security compliance validation. The method includes providing a tool for performing a compliance check of installed computer applications running on a system, the tool including a first set and a second set of plug-ins. Further, the method includes scanning the system, using plug-ins selected from the first set to obtain a current inventory of applications currently installed on the system and selecting plug-ins from the second set to be run on the system in response to the current inventory of applications obtained, and automatically running the plug-ins selected from the second set for performing the compliance check on the system in response to a scheduling criteria identified for the system, where the second set of plug-ins perform the compliance check for only the applications currently installed on the system.