Data integrity and consensuses with blockchain

Patent metadata

Field	Value
Publication number	US-12019613-B2
Application number	US-201916516138-A
Country	US
Kind code	B2
Filing date	Jul 18, 2019
Priority date	Jul 18, 2019
Publication date	Jun 25, 2024
Grant date	Jun 25, 2024

Abstract

One example method includes receiving, from an entity, a proposed entry for a ledger, where the ledger is shared and accessible by multiple users and includes a whitelist and a blacklist, determining, or assigning, a credibility score and rate limiter value for the entity, comparing the credibility score and rate limiter value with respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds, determining that the credibility score and rate limiter value meet or exceed the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds, and submitting the proposed entry to the ledger.

First claim

What is claimed is:

1. A method, comprising:
in a group that comprises a first user/contributor and a second user/contributor that are each operable to receive and evaluate proposed distributed ledger entries from the other:
receiving, by the first user/contributor from the second user/contributor, a proposed entry for addition to a distributed ledger, where the distributed ledger comprises a whitelist and a blacklist;
determining, by a credibility engine, a credibility score for the second user/contributor;
inputting the credibility score into the rate limiter engine and determining a rate limiter value;
assigning, by the first user/contributor, the rate limiter value for the second user/contributor;
comparing, by the first user/contributor, the credibility score and rate limiter value of the second user/contributor with respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds;
determining, by the first user/contributor, that the credibility score and rate limiter value of the second user/contributor meet or exceed the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds;
based on the determining, submitting, by the first user/contributor, the proposed entry to either the whitelist or the blacklist of the distributed ledger; and
updating the credibility score, by the credibility engine, and the rate limiter value, by the rate limiter engine, based on where the proposed entry is located in the distributed ledger.

2. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the proposed entry is identified by the second user/contributor as either a whitelist candidate or a blacklist candidate.

3. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the method is performed by a verification system that includes a credibility score engine and a rate limiter engine.

4. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the credibility score is based in part on any prior transactions involving an entity.

5. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the submitting of the proposed entry to either the whitelist or the blacklist of the distributed ledger indicates a consensus of the group that the proposed entry is permitted to be listed in the distributed ledger.

6. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the rate limiter value specifies a maximum number of submissions that the entity is permitted to make within a time period of a particular length.

7. The method as recited in claim 1 , further comprising:
receiving, by a member of the group, from another member of the group, another proposed entry for the distributed ledger;
determining, by the member of the group, that a credibility score and a rate limiter value associated with the another member of the group do not meet respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds for the another entity; and
refusing the another proposed entry to the distributed ledger, and the refusing the another proposed entry indicates a consensus of the group that the proposed entry is not permitted to be listed in the distributed ledger.

8. The method as recited in claim 7 , further comprising adjusting the credibility score and/or the rate limiter value of the another member of the group based upon the determination that the credibility score and rate limiter value of the another member of the group do not meet the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds for the another member of the group.

9. The method as recited in claim 1 , further comprising adjusting the credibility score and/or the rate limiter value based upon the determination that the credibility score and rate limiter value meet or exceed the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds.

10. The method as recited in claim 1 , wherein the proposed entry identifies one of: a file; a website address; malware; or, ransomware.

11. A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, perform operations comprising:
receiving, by the first user/contributor from the second user/contributor, a proposed entry for addition to a distributed ledger, where the distributed ledger comprises a whitelist and a blacklist;
determining, by a credibility engine, a credibility score for the second user/contributor;
inputting the credibility score into the rate limiter engine and determining a rate limiter value;
assigning, by the first user/contributor, the rate limiter value for the second user/contributor;
comparing, by the first user/contributor, the credibility score and rate limiter value of the second user/contributor with respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds;
determining, by the first user/contributor, that the credibility score and rate limiter value of the second user/contributor meet or exceed the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds;
based on the determining, submitting, by the first user/contributor, the proposed entry to either the whitelist or the blacklist of the distributed ledger; and
updating the credibility score, by the credibility engine, and the rate limiter value, by the rate limiter engine, based on where the proposed entry is located in the distributed ledger.

12. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the proposed entry is identified by the second user/contributor as either a whitelist candidate or a blacklist candidate.

13. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the operations are performed by a verification system that includes a credibility score engine and a rate limiter engine.

14. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the credibility score is based in part on any prior transactions involving an entity.

15. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the submitting of the proposed entry to either the whitelist or the blacklist of the distributed ledger indicates a consensus of the group that the proposed entry is permitted to be listed in the distributed ledger.

16. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the rate limiter value specifies a maximum number of submissions that the entity is permitted to make within a time period of a particular length.

17. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving, by a member of the group, from another member of the group, another proposed entry for the distributed ledger;
determining, by the member of the group, that a credibility score and a rate limiter value associated with the another member of the group do not meet respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds for the another entity; and
refusing the another proposed entry to the distributed ledger, and the refusing the another proposed entry indicates a consensus of the group that the proposed entry is not permitted to be listed in the distributed ledger.

18. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 17 , further comprising adjusting the credibility score and/or the rate limiter value of the another member of the group based upon the determination that the credibility score and rate limiter value of the another member of the group do not meet the respective credibility score and rate limiter value thresholds for the another member of the group.

19. The non-transitory storage medium as recited in claim 11 , wherein the operations further comprise adjusting the credibility score and/or the rate limiter value based upon the determination that the cr

Assignees

• Emc Ip Holding Co Llc

Inventors

• Murti Arun
• Brenner Adam E
• Malamut Mark D
• Lei Joey C

Classifications

• G06F16/2379

  Updates performed during online database operations; commit processing · CPC title

• G06F16/27

  Replication, distribution or synchronisation of data between databases or within a distributed database system; Distributed database system architectures therefor · CPC title

• H04L63/1433

  Vulnerability analysis · CPC title

• G06F21/565

  by checking file integrity · CPC title

• G06F16/2365 Primary

  Ensuring data consistency and integrity · CPC title