Standardized Trust Mapping for Systemic Security Risk Analysis
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current technologies lack standardized trust mapping solutions for computer systems, leading to improper problem-solution alignment, misconfiguration, and systemic risk due to unclear or neglected components, resulting in defensive weaknesses and vulnerabilities across architectures.
Innovation Solution
A method for classifying, labeling, and grouping system components, generating trust relationships, and analyzing security risks through trust mapping, which includes redacting and encapsulating information to optimize system design and mitigate risks.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Ease of manufacture
If ad hoc documentation labels and assumed knowledge are used, then marketing documentation can be created easily, but improper problem-solution alignment occurs and expert time is wasted
Solution Approach 1:
The patent changes the parameter of documentation from ad hoc labels to standardized labels with defined levels of abstraction. This standardization transforms the documentation structure to eliminate improper problem-solution alignment while maintaining ease of creation through reusable templates and standardized components.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent segments documentation into distinct levels of abstraction (e.g., high-level architectural views vs. detailed component views). This segmentation allows different stakeholder groups to consume appropriate levels of detail without overwhelming them, improving both ease of creation and alignment accuracy.
2Adaptability or versatility
If multiple solutions are integrated without standardized trust mapping, then system functionality is enhanced, but systemic risk increases due to unclear components and misconfiguration
Solution Approach 1:
The patent creates a universal trust mapping framework that can be applied across multiple solutions and integration scenarios. This universal approach ensures consistent trust relationship documentation regardless of which solutions are integrated, reducing systemic risk while maintaining adaptability.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent implements feedback mechanisms through automated trust relationship validation and verification. The system continuously monitors and validates trust mappings, providing feedback when misconfigurations or unclear components are detected, thereby reducing systemic risk in integrated systems.
3Loss of information
If detailed documentation of all components is provided, then complete system understanding is achieved, but human comprehension becomes impossible due to information overload
Solution Approach 1:
The patent adds the dimension of abstraction levels to documentation. Instead of presenting all details at one level, the system organizes information across multiple abstraction dimensions, allowing users to navigate from high-level overviews to detailed views as needed, maintaining completeness while enabling comprehension.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent implements nested documentation structures where high-level architectural views contain references to detailed component views, which in turn contain references to even more detailed implementation views. This nesting allows users to drill down into details only when necessary, preventing information overload while preserving complete system information.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2A
Figure 2B
AI summary
A method of generating a mapping of trust relationships between pairs of components and analyzing security risks of a computer system is provided and includes classifying, labeling, and grouping components of the computer system and generating the mapping of the trust relationships between pairs of components by designating a trustor and a trustee for each pair and by identifying a method associated with the trust relationship for each pair of components. Security risks of the computer system are analyzed by performing at least one of: patching a root cause of a security risk; modifying a policy of the computer system to mitigate a security risk; modifying a design of the computer system to mitigate a security risk; shifting a security risk from one component to another; and monitoring a root cause of a security risk.