Email Verification System Using Key Registration Server

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for verifying the identity of electronic mail messages, such as path-based and signature-based approaches, are inadequate in distinguishing authorized senders from unauthorized ones, particularly when messages are sent by third parties or undergo modifications during transmission, leading to incomplete filtering of unwanted emails.

Innovation Solution

A system and method that uses a public/private key pair to sign and verify electronic mail messages, incorporating a key registration server (KRS) and a rating service to authenticate the sender's domain and assess the security rating, allowing for verification of message modifications and ensuring only authorized messages are delivered.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If path-based verification is used to verify sender identity, then domain-level verification is achieved, but individual sender identification and authorization verification fail

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesender identification precisionVSAvoidauthorization verification reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The verification system segments the verification process into multiple independent components: path verification (domain-level), signature verification (message-level), and KRS authorization verification (sender-level). Each component addresses a specific aspect of sender identification, collectively achieving both precise individual sender identification and reliable authorization verification that path-based methods alone cannot provide.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Reliability

If signature-based verification is used to verify message authenticity, then message integrity is ensured, but authorized modifications cause verification failures

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemessage integrityVSAvoidmodification tolerance
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts verification strictness based on modification type. Permissible modifications (such as standard email headers or routing information) are tolerated without causing verification failure, while unauthorized modifications to critical message content still trigger verification failures. This dynamic approach maintains message integrity for essential content while adapting to legitimate email processing requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Adaptability or versatility

If third parties are authorized to send emails on behalf of a business, then email functionality is enabled, but network security is compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveemail sending capabilityVSAvoidnetwork security risk
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The KRS acts as an intermediary authorization layer between the business domain and third-party senders. Instead of directly authorizing third parties to access the business network (which would compromise security), the KRS verifies sender authorization through cryptographic signatures and public key infrastructure. This intermediary mechanism enables third-party email sending capability while maintaining network security by avoiding direct network access permissions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentUS8090940B1Method and system for verifying identification of an electronic message
Publication Date: 2012.01.03 CISCO TECHNOLOGY INC
  • US8090940B1 patent drawing
  • US8090940B1 patent drawing
  • US8090940B1 patent drawing

AI summary

An electronic message is accessed. The message comprises a number of headers and a signature comprising a digital signature and a version of the headers. The message is verified based on analysis of the version of the headers and the digital signature. The version of the headers is compared with the headers and a policy is applied based on results of the comparison to determine further processing of the electronic message.