Smart Authentication Platform Adjusting Friction via Adversity Quotient
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Users face authentication friction that hinders usability while seeking high security, as existing authentication methods often require cumbersome processes without adequately adjusting to varying circumstances.
Innovation Solution
Implementing a 'smart' authentication platform that adjusts authentication friction levels based on adversity quotients, using multiple scales (user, enterprise, service) and machine learning to dynamically determine authentication requirements, allowing for reduced friction in safe environments while maintaining security during adverse conditions.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If traditional authentication methods are used, then security is maintained, but authentication friction increases and usability deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The authentication system dynamically adjusts the authentication friction level based on real-time adversity quotient assessment. The system transitions from static authentication requirements to dynamic ones, where the strength of authentication factors required changes according to the current security risk environment. This resolves the contradiction by making authentication adaptive rather than fixed.
Solution Approach 2:
The system changes the parameters of authentication factors (such as requiring stronger or weaker authentication methods) based on the calculated adversity quotient. When adversity is low, weaker authentication factors are accepted; when adversity is high, stronger factors are required. This parameter adjustment resolves the contradiction between security and usability.
2Reliability
If strong authentication factors are always required, then security is improved, but authentication friction increases and user experience worsens
Solution Approach 1:
The system dynamically determines the validation period and authentication requirements based on the adversity quotient. Instead of always requiring strong authentication, the system adapts the authentication strength to the current risk level, reducing authentication time when risk is low while maintaining security when risk is high.
Solution Approach 2:
The system applies partial authentication actions when sufficient - using weaker authentication factors when the adversity quotient indicates low risk. This avoids the excessive action of always requiring strong authentication, thereby reducing authentication time while maintaining adequate security.
3Ease of operation
If authentication friction is reduced, then usability is improved, but security protection deteriorates in adverse conditions
Solution Approach 1:
The system continuously monitors adversity indicators and provides feedback by adjusting authentication requirements in real-time. The feedback loop ensures that when adverse conditions are detected, the system automatically strengthens authentication protection, while in favorable conditions, it maintains low friction for improved usability.
Solution Approach 2:
The authentication system is made dynamic by continuously assessing the adversity quotient and adjusting protection levels accordingly. This dynamic adaptation resolves the contradiction by ensuring security protection is strong only when needed, while maintaining usability during normal operations.
Data Source
AI summary
Granting a validation period. A method includes receiving user input providing one or more authentication factors. The method further includes receiving information about one or more authentication scales. Based on the strength of the authentication factors received from the user and the information about the one or more authentication scales, the method further includes determining a validation period. The method further includes granting or revoking the validation period to the user.