Email Sender Verification Using Whitelist Display Name Matching
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing email systems lack effective methods to verify the identity of senders, particularly for key personnel, leading to increased susceptibility to email spoofing and phishing attacks.
Innovation Solution
A computer system maintains a whitelist of verified contact information for key personnel, comparing inbound email display names and addresses against this database to authenticate and quarantine suspicious emails, flagging them for further investigation by an administrator.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If traditional email systems are used without verification, then email communication is simple and fast, but the system becomes vulnerable to spoofing and phishing attacks
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary verification by comparing the display name in incoming emails against a whitelist of authorized display names before delivering the email. This advance check prevents spoofed emails from reaching recipients, improving security without requiring complex real-time analysis
Solution Approach 2:
A whitelist database acts as an intermediary between incoming emails and recipients, storing pre-authorized display names associated with specific email addresses. This mediator layer verifies sender identity by checking whether the display name matches the authorized list, resolving the contradiction between simple verification and high security
2Measurement precision
If display name verification is implemented, then email authenticity is improved, but false positives increase and legitimate emails are blocked
Solution Approach 1:
The system incorporates feedback mechanisms where administrators can review flagged emails and adjust the whitelist accordingly. When legitimate emails are incorrectly blocked, the system allows for correction by adding the sender's display name to the whitelist, thereby improving verification accuracy while reducing false positives through continuous learning
Solution Approach 2:
The system allows flexibility in verification parameters by enabling administrators to configure which fields are verified (display name, email address, or both) and to set different verification strictness levels. This adaptability helps balance verification precision with false positive reduction based on organizational needs
3Reliability
If comprehensive email verification is performed, then security against spoofing is enhanced, but administrative workload increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system enables self-service functionality where administrators can easily manage the whitelist through a user-friendly interface, adding or removing display names without requiring technical expertise. This reduces the time and effort needed for verification management while maintaining comprehensive spoofing protection
Solution Approach 2:
The whitelist is populated in advance with authorized display names and email addresses before verification begins. This preliminary preparation eliminates the need for real-time analysis of sender identities during email delivery, reducing administrative workload while maintaining high security standards
Data Source
AI summary
One variation of a method includes, intercepting an email addressed to a target recipient within an organization, the email received from a sender at an inbound email address and including a first inbound display name; accessing a whitelist including a set of contact information corresponding to an entity associated with the organization and including a verified display name associated with the entity and a set of verified email addresses associated with the entity. The method further includes, in response to the set of verified email addresses omitting the inbound email address: characterizing a display name difference between the inbound display name and the verified display name associated with the entity; and, in response to the display name difference falling below a threshold difference, withholding transmission of the email to the target recipient and flagging the email for authentication.