Endpoint Configuration Enforcement via Group Segmentation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing computing systems lack an efficient method to manage and enforce system configurations across multiple endpoints, particularly in preventing malicious alterations and ensuring secure settings.

Innovation Solution

A system that groups endpoints based on evaluation result data, determines a target system configuration by combining a base configuration with blocking condition status, and transmits this configuration to software agents for implementation, ensuring secure and optimal system settings.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If system settings are allowed to be modified by multiple actors, then system adaptability and ease of operation improve, but system security and reliability deteriorate due to potential malicious alterations

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem configuration flexibilityVSAvoidsystem security

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments endpoints into different groups based on evaluation results, allowing different configuration policies to be applied to different segments. This enables secure default configurations while allowing controlled flexibility for specific groups that need it.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system applies different configuration enforcement levels to different endpoints based on their evaluation results. Endpoints with poor security postures receive stricter enforcement, while compliant endpoints maintain their configurations, creating local quality variations in policy application.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

2Reliability

If strict system configuration enforcement is implemented across all endpoints, then system security improves, but operational stability and ease of operation worsen due to potential disruptions

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem securityVSAvoidoperational stability

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary evaluation of endpoints before enforcing configurations. By assessing the current state and identifying blocking conditions in advance, the system can make informed decisions about configuration enforcement that prevent operational disruptions.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses evaluation results as feedback to determine configuration enforcement strategies. This feedback mechanism allows the system to adapt its enforcement level based on the actual state of each endpoint, ensuring security while maintaining operational stability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Productivity

If individualized system configurations are determined for each endpoint, then system optimization improves, but device complexity and management overhead increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveconfiguration optimizationVSAvoidsystem management complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system merges endpoints into groups based on shared characteristics and evaluation results. This allows configurations to be determined and managed at the group level rather than individually for each endpoint, reducing complexity while maintaining optimization benefits.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The system creates universal configuration templates that can be applied to multiple endpoints within a group. These templates serve multiple functions by addressing common security and operational requirements for entire groups of endpoints simultaneously.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Measurement precision

If comprehensive evaluation of all endpoints is performed, then measurement precision and security assessment improve, but loss of time and processing resources increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveendpoint evaluation accuracyVSAvoidevaluation processing time

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs partial evaluation by focusing on specific criteria and characteristics relevant to configuration compliance rather than comprehensively analyzing every aspect of each endpoint. This selective approach maintains sufficient accuracy while reducing processing time.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system segments the evaluation process into distinct phases and criteria, assessing endpoints based on prioritized security and operational parameters. This segmented approach enables efficient processing while maintaining measurement precision for critical attributes.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS12341823B2System for determining and monitoring compliance within a computing environment

Publication Date: 2025.06.24 SENTEON INC

AI summary

A system is disclosed that includes a computer. The computer includes a processor and a memory. The memory includes instructions such that the processor is programmed to: group a plurality of endpoints based on evaluation result data for each endpoint of the plurality of endpoints; determine a target system configuration for the group; and transmit the target system configuration to a software agent corresponding to each endpoint of the plurality of endpoints.