UTILIZING ROUTING FOR SECURE TRANSACTIONS

• US 20140259107A1
• Filed: 03/08/2013
• Published: 09/11/2014
• Est. Priority Date: 03/08/2013
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Itron, Inc.
• Original Assignee: Itron, Inc.
• Inventors: Garrison Stuber, Michael T., Buffington, John E., Jetcheva, Jorjeta G.
• Granted Patent: US 9,288,215 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 726/3
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 21/44 Program or device authentication
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/12 Applying verification of the received information cryptographic mechanisms or cryptographic arrangements for data integrity or data verification H04L9/32
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/18 using different networks or channels, e.g. using out of band channels cryptographic mechanisms or cryptographic arrangements for key distribution involving distinctive intermediate devices or communication paths H04L9/0827; cryptographic mechanisms or cryptographic arrangements for authentication using a plurality of channels H04L9/3215

Abstract

The present disclosure relates to methodologies, networks, and nodes for providing secure transaction routing among network components. Network transactions (messages) may be intentionally routed though networks using different paths where the act of following the particular node paths or traversing particular nodes provides a security enhancing feature for the messages. A transaction receiving node will examine the paths taken from a sending node to determine if the paths correspond to predetermined paths to verify the authenticity of the transaction. In some embodiments, predetermined paths may change in a predetermined sequence where the sequence itself becomes a portion of the security feature.

Claims

1. Methodology for validating messages transmitted through a network, the network containing plural nodes connectable to form plural paths for communications transactions, comprising:

transmitting a first message from a first node along a first path to a second node;

transmitting at least one second message from the first node along a second path to the second node; and

determining validity of at least one of the first message and the at least one second message based at least in part on the paths traveled by messages received by the second node.

2. Methodology as in claim 1, wherein determining validity further comprises comparing the first message and the at least one second message to determine whether they are identical.

3. Methodology as in claim 1, wherein determining validity further comprises comparing the paths taken by the first message and the at least one second message to determine whether the paths correspond to predetermined paths.

4. Methodology as in claim 3, further comprising requesting reauthentication from a transmitting node for messages arriving by paths other than the predetermined paths.

5. Methodology as in claim 3, wherein determining validity further comprises determining whether the first and at least one second message predetermined paths include a predetermined number of hops.

6. Methodology as in claim 1, wherein the first message and the at least one second message comprise sub-messages of an overall message.

7. Methodology as in claim 1, wherein determining validity further comprises determining whether at least one of the first message and the at least one second message passed through one or more predetermined nodes.

8. Methodology as in claim 1, further comprising configuring individual nodes to negotiate between each other the routing paths to be used for communications therebetween.

9. Methodology as in claim 8, further comprising configuring the individual nodes to negotiate with each other a rotational sequence of the negotiated routing paths.

10. Methodology as in claim 1, wherein:

the first message and the at least one second message are identical messages; and

determining validity comprises determining whether the identical messages have been sent via plural predetermined paths.

11. Methodology as in claim 1, wherein:

the first message and the at least one second message are identical messages; and

determining validity comprises determining whether the identical messages have been received by the second node by plural predetermined nodes.

12. Methodology as in claim 1, wherein:

the first message comprises plural preliminary messages transmitted through particular nodes; and

wherein determining validity comprises determining whether the particular nodes correspond to predetermined nodes to thereby permit passage of the at least one second message to the second node.

13. Methodology as in claim 1, wherein:

the first message comprises plural preliminary messages transmitted through particular paths; and

wherein determining validity comprises determining whether the particular paths correspond to predetermined paths to thereby permit passage of the at least one second message to the second node.

14. A network, comprising:

a first node;

a second node; and

a plurality of nodes connectable to form plural paths for communications transactions between said first node and said second node;

wherein said first node is configured to transmit a first message and at least one second message along one or more paths through said plurality of nodes to said second node; and

wherein said second node is configured to determine validity of at least one said first message and said at least one second message based at least in part on the paths traveled by messages received by the second node.

15. A network as in claim 14, wherein said second node is configured to determine validity of message based on whether said first message and said at least one second messages are identical.

16. A network as in claim 14, wherein the first node and second node are configured to negotiate predetermined paths for messages therebetween.

17. A network as in claim 16, wherein said second node is configured to request reauthentication from said first node for messages arriving by paths other than predetermined paths.

18. A network as in claim 16, wherein said second node is configured to determine validity of said messages by determining whether the predetermined paths include at least one predetermined node.

19. A network as in claim 16, wherein said second node is configured to determine validity of said messages by determining whether the predetermined paths include at least a predetermined number of hops.

20. A network as in claim 14, wherein said first message and said at least one second message comprise sub-messages of an overall message.

21. A network as in claim 14, wherein said network comprises a mesh network.

22. A network as in claim 14, wherein said network comprises plural types of connected networks.

23. A network as in claim 14, wherein at least one of said first node and said at least one second node each comprise respective utility measurement devices.

24. A node for use in a network environment with one or more similar nodes, comprising:

an input/output (I/O) component;

a controller component;

a communications device; and

a memory;

wherein said memory contains program logic to cause said controller to validate received data based in part on paths taken by a first message and taken by at least one second message received at said communications device.

25. A node as in claim 24, wherein said memory further contains program logic to cause said controller to validate received data by comparing a first received message and at least one second received message to determine whether they are identical.

26. A node as in claim 24, wherein said memory further contains program logic to cause said controller to validate received data by comparing a first received message and at least one second received message to determine whether said paths taken correspond to predetermined paths.

27. A node as in claim 26, wherein said memory further contains program logic to cause said controller to request re-authentication from a transmitting node for messages arriving by paths other than the predetermined paths.

28. A node as in claim 26, wherein said memory further contains program logic to cause said controller to validate received data by comparing a first received message and at least one second received message to determine whether the first and at least one second message predetermined paths include a predetermined number of hops.

29. A node as in claim 24, wherein said memory further contains program logic to cause said controller to determine whether at least one of the first message and the at least one second message passed through one or more predetermined nodes.

30. A node as in claim 24, wherein said memory further contains program logic to cause said controller to negotiate with other nodes to establish routing paths to be used for communications therebetween.

31. A node as in claim 30, wherein said memory further contains program logic to cause said controller to configure the node to negotiate with other nodes a rotational sequence of the negotiated routing paths.

32. A node as in claim 24, wherein said memory further contains program logic to cause said controller to determine whether identical received messages have been sent via plural predetermined paths.

33. A node as in claim 24, wherein said memory further contains program logic to cause said controller to determine whether identical received messages have been sent via plural predetermined nodes.

34. A node as in claim 24, wherein:

said first message comprises plural preliminary messages transmitted through particular nodes; and

wherein validating received data comprises determining whether the particular nodes correspond to predetermined nodes to thereby permit passage of the at least one second message to the second node.

35. Methodology for validating messages transmitted through a network, the network containing plural nodes connectable to form plural paths for communications transactions, comprising:

transmitting a first message from a first node along a first path to a second node; and

determining validity of the first message based at least in part on the first path traveled by messages received by the second node.

36. Methodology as in claim 35, wherein determining validity comprises determining whether the first path encompasses a particular node known to be on the network.

37. Methodology as in claim 36, wherein determining validity further comprises rejecting messages whenever it is determined that the first path does not encompass a particular node known to be on the network.

38. Methodology as in claim 37, further comprising requesting reauthentication from a transmitting node for rejected messages.

39. Methodology as in claim 35, wherein the first message comprises a sub-message of an overall message.

40. Methodology as in claim 35, further comprising programming a set of devices associated with the network to send packets through a particular node known to be on the network.

41. Methodology as in claim 40, wherein such programming for such set of devices is done during manufacturing or further includes using at least one of an out-of-band mechanism, including one of optical, wired, or wireless communication, or a smart card, or an in-band mechanism through a trusted third party, including one of a router or host application that is aware of the network paths.