Information Processing Apparatus Whitelist Falsification Prevention

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing methods for preventing unauthorized rewriting of execution modules in information processing apparatuses often result in system downtime and functional degradation, even when successful in preventing falsification, as they stop the system upon detecting unauthorized rewriting attempts.

Innovation Solution

An information processing apparatus that utilizes a whitelist to prevent unauthorized rewriting by rejecting rewrite requests from unauthorized update modules while maintaining system functionality, using a rewrite request receiving unit, update module determination unit, falsification detection unit, and notification unit to manage and notify users of prevention actions without stopping the system.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the system stops execution of modules when unauthorized rewriting is detected, then the security against falsification is improved, but the system availability and operation rate deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesecurity against falsificationVSAvoidsystem availability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the response to unauthorized rewriting into different levels: for critical modules (boot modules, kernel modules), the system stops execution to ensure security; for non-critical modules, the system continues execution to maintain availability. This segmentation allows the system to achieve both security and availability by applying different response strategies to different module types.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies local quality by differentiating the response based on module characteristics. Critical modules receive strict security response (system stop), while non-critical modules receive lenient response (continue execution). This localized differentiation of response quality enables the system to maintain security where needed while preserving overall system availability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

2Reliability

If the system prohibits execution of modules with falsification detected, then the protection against unauthorized rewriting is improved, but the operational rate and system functions deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprotection against unauthorized rewritingVSAvoidoperational rate
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments modules into protected modules (boot modules, kernel modules) and non-protected modules. For protected modules, falsification detection leads to system stop; for non-protected modules, it allows continued execution. This segmentation enables the system to maintain protection effectiveness while preserving operational rate by not blocking all module executions uniformly.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies partial action by providing protection only where necessary (for critical modules) rather than universally blocking all module executions. This selective protection approach maintains effective security for essential components while avoiding excessive disruption to overall system operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Reliability

If the system stops and prohibits module execution upon detecting falsification, then the security function is improved, but the ease of operation and continuous use deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesecurity functionVSAvoidcontinuous use
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the security response based on module type: critical modules trigger system stop for maximum security, while non-critical modules allow continued execution for ease of operation. This segmentation enables the system to maintain strong security function for essential components while preserving ease of operation and continuous use for the overall system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies local quality by providing different operational experiences for different module types. Critical modules receive strict security treatment, while non-critical modules receive lenient treatment that maintains ease of operation. This localized differentiation allows the system to balance security function with ease of operation simultaneously.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentUS20240403409A1Information processing apparatus, information processing method, and storage medium
Publication Date: 2024.12.05 CANON KK
  • US20240403409A1 patent drawing
  • US20240403409A1 patent drawing
  • US20240403409A1 patent drawing

AI summary

An information processing apparatus includes a rewrite request receiving unit configured to receive a rewrite request for rewriting an execution module, an update module determination unit configured to determine whether an update module that issues the rewrite request is an authorized module, a first falsification detection unit configured to detect falsification of a whitelist, an unauthorized-rewriting prevention unit configured to prevent unauthorized rewriting while maintaining a function of the information processing apparatus by rejecting the rewrite request without stopping the function of the information processing apparatus, in a case where the execution module for which the rewrite request is issued is registered in a whitelist for which the first falsification detection unit determines that no falsification is made and where the rewrite request is issued by an update module for which the update module determination unit determines to be an unauthorized update module.