Time-Based Anti-Replay via Metadata Payloads
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional sequence number-based anti-replay mechanisms are inadequate for protecting multi-sender group traffic in network communications, as they cannot differentiate between valid and replayed packets when multiple senders use the same sequence number, leading to potential rejection of valid data packets.
Innovation Solution
The system employs a pseudo-timestamp encapsulated in a metadata payload, which is synchronized across senders and receivers, allowing for time-based anti-replay protection by validating the freshness of data packets based on their transmission time, thereby preventing replay attacks without modifying existing hardware or protocols.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If sequence number based anti-replay mechanism is employed, then replay detection between two systems is improved, but it cannot be expanded to protect multi-sender group traffic
Solution Approach 1:
The patent changes the parameter used for replay detection from sequence numbers to timestamps. Each packet is assigned a timestamp indicating when it was sent, and the receiver checks if the timestamp is within an acceptable time window. This parameter change allows the system to handle multi-sender group traffic effectively, as timestamps provide temporal ordering without requiring unique sequence numbers across multiple senders.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent segments the anti-replay protection mechanism into individual sender-receiver pairs, where each sender maintains its own sequence number space. The receiver uses timestamps to order packets from different senders, effectively segmenting the problem into manageable units that can be processed independently while still providing group-wide protection.
2Reliability
If sequence number based anti-replay mechanism is used, then replay protection is provided, but valid data packets may be dropped when multiple senders use the same sequence number
Solution Approach 1:
The patent changes from using sequence numbers to using timestamps for packet validation. Timestamps provide a temporal dimension that resolves conflicts between packets from different senders, ensuring that valid packets are not mistakenly dropped. The receiver accepts packets with timestamps within the acceptable time window, regardless of sequence number conflicts.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent applies preliminary action by pre-synchronizing clocks among all senders and the receiver before communication begins. This clock synchronization ensures that timestamps are comparable and valid across all participants in the multi-sender group, preventing false rejection of valid packets while maintaining replay protection.
3Reliability
If clock synchronization is implemented among senders and receiver, then time based anti-replay protection is achieved, but network dependency increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent makes the clock synchronization infrastructure universal by having all senders and the receiver participate in the same time synchronization protocol. This multi-functional approach allows the same synchronization mechanism to serve multiple purposes: coordinating timestamps across all participants and providing the basis for time-based replay detection throughout the group.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces a time synchronization protocol as an intermediary mechanism that mediates time coordination among all senders and the receiver. This intermediary layer abstracts the complexity of clock synchronization, providing a standardized interface that simplifies implementation while achieving the desired time-based replay protection.
Data Source
AI summary
A system and method for facilitating anti-replay protection with multi-sender traffic is disclosed. The system employs time-based anti-replay protection wherein a sender transmits a data packet with a pseudo-timestamp encapsulated in a metadata payload. At the receiving end, the receiver compares the pseudo-timestamp information received with its own pseudo-time, determines if a packet is valid, and rejects a replay packet. The pseudo-time information is transmitted through the metadata payload and new fields need not be added to the IPSec (IP Security) Protocol, thus the existing hardware can be employed without any changes or modifications.