Multiple Transaction Interface Framework for Secure Data Access

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current data processing systems face challenges in securely handling multiple transactions across different access levels, particularly in ensuring secure access to private data while minimizing network traffic and optimizing computing resources.

Innovation Solution

A multiple transaction interface framework is implemented, comprising three computing devices: a public machine, a restricted machine, and a private machine, which communicate through a network to provide a single interface, allowing secure data access and minimizing network traffic by using remote function calls and shared memory for data storage and validation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If a publicly accessible server application is implemented, then accessibility and ease of operation are improved, but security vulnerabilities and reliability deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveaccessibilityVSAvoidsecurity
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system is divided into three distinct computing devices with different access levels: a public computing device accessible by multiple users, a restricted computing device accessible by specific users, and a private computing device inaccessible to users. This segmentation allows the system to provide public accessibility while maintaining security by isolating sensitive operations in the restricted and private zones.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The restricted computing device acts as an intermediary between the public and private computing devices. It receives requests from the public device, validates parameters, and forwards approved requests to the private device. This intermediary layer enables public accessibility while protecting the private system from direct exposure to security vulnerabilities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Ease of operation

If direct connections are established between computing devices, then ease of operation is improved, but network traffic increases and computing resources are consumed

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedirect accessVSAvoidnetwork traffic
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSLoss of energy

Solution Approach 1:

The restricted computing device performs preliminary validation of parameters before forwarding requests to the private computing device. By pre-validating parameters and preparing requests in advance, the system reduces the need for repeated communication rounds and minimizes network traffic while maintaining ease of operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements a nested architecture where the restricted computing device is nested between the public and private devices, and the private device is nested within the restricted device's communication scope. This nested structure allows indirect access that reduces network traffic compared to multiple direct connections, while maintaining operational ease through a unified interface.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #7Nested doll (Nesting)

3Reliability

If security restrictions are implemented, then reliability is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesecurityVSAvoidsystem structure
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The restricted computing device serves multiple functions: it acts as a security filter, parameter validator, request forwarder, and communication bridge between public and private systems. By consolidating these security and communication functions into a single multi-functional device, the system achieves high security without proportionally increasing overall system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Reliability

If multiple computing devices are used for secure access, then security is improved, but administrative efforts and resource utilization increase

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesecurityVSAvoidadministrative efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system merges security validation, parameter checking, and request routing functions into the restricted computing device. This consolidation reduces administrative overhead by centralizing security management in one device rather than requiring separate administrative configurations for multiple devices, thereby improving productivity while maintaining security.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentUS9231959B2Multiple transaction interface framework
Publication Date: 2016.01.05 SAP SE

AI summary

Example methods and systems are directed to a multiple transaction interface framework. A system may comprise three computing devices. The first computing device may be accessible to a plurality of users. The second computing device may be inaccessible to the plurality of users, but accessible by a user account of the first computing device. The third computing device may be inaccessible to the plurality of users, and inaccessible by the user account of the first computing device, but accessible by a user account of the second computing device. In some example embodiments, the first computing device causes a user interface to be presented. The user interface may include data retrieved from the second computing device. The data may have been retrieved by the second computing device from the third computing device, which may be configured to store the data.