Self-Attestation Security Verification for Shared Threat Certification
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing electronic product manufacturing processes suffer from a silo effect where only individual product manufacturers are aware of vulnerabilities, leading to fragmented and inefficient threat identification and certification, which can compromise consumer safety.
Innovation Solution
A self-attestation security verification and reporting system that integrates a threat rating module to identify and communicate vulnerabilities across products, breaking the silo effect by using a centralized database and automated threat assessment to provide real-time certification updates and notifications to manufacturers.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If third party testing labs are used to ensure product safety compliance, then product reliability is improved, but information silos are created where threat information is isolated to individual products
Solution Approach 1:
The patent merges the functionality of multiple testing labs and standards organizations into a single centralized system. The certification server consolidates threat information from various sources into one unified database, allowing manufacturers to submit products for certification once rather than separately to multiple entities. This eliminates information silos while maintaining comprehensive security verification.
Solution Approach 2:
The system provides universal certification services that can evaluate products against multiple security standards simultaneously. The same certification server handles compliance verification for different standards organizations, and the threat rating module can assess various threat types (known vulnerabilities, predicted threats, supply chain risks) within a single process, making the system multi-functional and reducing information fragmentation.
2Reliability
If comprehensive threat assessment is performed on all products, then product safety is improved, but time to compliance increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary threat rating and risk assessment automatically during the certification submission process. The threat rating module evaluates products against known vulnerabilities and predicted threats before final certification decisions are made. This preliminary action identifies security issues early, allowing manufacturers to address them before compliance deadlines, thereby reducing overall time to compliance.
Solution Approach 2:
The system provides continuous feedback to manufacturers during the certification process. The threat rating module generates risk assessments and compliance status reports that are returned to manufacturers, allowing them to make real-time adjustments to their products. This feedback loop enables iterative improvement and reduces the total time needed to achieve compliance by identifying and fixing issues more efficiently.
3Loss of information
If threat information is shared across all products, then the silo effect is reduced, but system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the complex threat assessment system into distinct functional modules: a certification server for submission processing, a threat rating module for risk assessment, and a database for information storage. This segmentation allows each component to handle specific tasks independently, making the overall system more manageable despite the comprehensive information sharing capability. The modular architecture reduces operational complexity while maintaining broad information access.
Data Source
AI summary
A method self-attestation security verification and reporting for a product by a company is disclosed. The method uses a processor for: (a) receiving a request for selected certification type; (b) dynamically creating a self-certification entry form based on elements of the selected certification type; (c) saving responses entered into the form; (d) automatically validating the responses according to a test plan invoked by the selected certification type; (e) upon successful validation, including the product in a public list of certified products; (f) automatically reviewing the successful validation of the product after a predetermined time period; (g) if the product fails the automatic validation, sending a message to the company regarding the basis for failed certification; and (h) if the product fails the automatic update, sending a message to the company regarding the basis for pending denial of certification, wherein the messages contain a hyperlink to the responses for the product.