Electronic message system with federation of trusted senders

• US 7,650,383 B2
• Filed: 03/15/2005
• Issued: 01/19/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 03/15/2005
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Meta Platforms, Inc. (f/k/a Facebook, Inc.)
• Original Assignee: AOL LLC (Apollo Global Management, Inc.)
• Inventors: Goldman, Phillip Y., Goldman, legal representative, Sullivan, Timothy T., Logue, Jay D., Landsman, Richard
• Primary Examiner(s): Etienne; Ario
• Assistant Examiner(s): Kim; Hee Soo
• Application Number:
  US11/080,240
• Publication Number:
  US 20060212520A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,771 Days
• Field of Search: 709/206
• US Class Current: 709/206
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 51/212 using filtering or selective blocking
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/0442 wherein the sending and receiving network entities apply asymmetric encryption, i.e. different keys for encryption and decryption cryptographic mechanisms or cryptographic arrangements for public-key encryption H04L9/30
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/08 for authentication of entities cryptographic mechanisms or cryptographic arrangements for entity authentication H04L9/32
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/0807 using tickets, e.g. Kerberos cryptographic mechanisms or cryptographic arrangements for entity authentication using tickets or tokens H04L9/3213
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/0823 using certificates cryptographic mechanisms or cryptographic arrangements for entity authentication involving certificates H04L9/3263
• 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

Abstract

Systems and methods for allowing challenge messages to be sent directly to a recipient'"'"'s inbox where normally the challenge message would be sent to a pending folder or deleted. Challenge messages sent between federated messaging services contain a federated token which can be identified, authenticated and validated to determine whether the challenge message should be sent to a recipient'"'"'s inbox. The federated token can include an authentication portion and a validation portion. Authentication methods for the authentication portion can include, for example, checksums, salts, hashes and digital signatures. Once a federated token is authenticated by decrypting the authentication portion according to one or more of these authentication methods, the federated token is validated by determining the defined use-base and determining whether the receipt of the federated token satisfies the defined use.

Claims

1. In a server included in an electronic messaging system that receives challenge messages, a method of determining whether a challenge message should be delivered to a first user'"'"'s inbox comprising:

transmitting, by a first messaging service associated with a first domain name, an original message generated by a first user at a first client associated with the first domain name, the original message indicating the first user as sending the original message and indicating a second user to receive the original message, the second user being associated with a second messaging service associated with a second domain name;

in response to the original message, at a server of the first messaging service associated with the first domain name, receiving a first challenge message from the second messaging service associated with the second domain name, wherein the first challenge message was generated in response to the first user being unknown to the second user;

analyzing, by the server of the first messaging service, the first challenge message to identify whether the first challenge message contains a federated token;

if the first challenge message does not contain a federated token, using the server of the first messaging service to deliver the first challenge message to the first user'"'"'s pending folder;

if the first challenge message does contain a federated token, determining, by the server of the first messaging service, at least one of whether the federated token is authentic and whether the federated token is valid;

delivering, by the server of the first messaging service, the first challenge message to the first user'"'"'s inbox upon determining that the federated token is at least one of authentic and valid to allow the first user an opportunity to view and respond to the first challenge message;

in response to the first challenge message, at a server of the second messaging service associated with the second domain name, receiving a second challenge message from the first messaging service associated with the first domain name, wherein the second challenge message was generated in response to the server of the second messaging service being unknown to the first user;

analyzing, by the server of the second messaging service, the second challenge message to identify whether the second challenge message contains a federated token;

if the second challenge message does not contain a federated token, using the server of the second messaging service to deliver the second challenge message to the second user'"'"'s pending folder;

if the second challenge message does contain a federated token, determining, by the server of the second messaging service, at least one of whether the federated token is authentic and whether the federated token is valid; and

delivering, by the server of the second messaging service, the second challenge message to the second user'"'"'s inbox upon determining that the federated token is at least one of authentic and valid to allow the second user an opportunity to view and respond to the second challenge message.

2. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising:

delivering, by the server of the first messaging service, the first challenge message to the first user'"'"'s inbox upon determining that the federated token is both authentic and valid; and

delivering, by the server of the first messaging service, the first challenge message to the first user'"'"'s pending file upon determining that the federated token is not authentic or valid.

3. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein determining, by the server of the first messaging service, whether the federated token is authentic comprises at least one of:

using at least one of a partner key associated with a private key to decrypt the federated token;

regenerating a checksum in the federated token to determine whether the regenerated checksum is the same as an original checksum originally included in the federated token;

regenerating a hash value in the federated token to determine whether the regenerated hash value is the same as an original hash value originally included in the federated token; and

verifying a digital signature contained in the federated token.

4. The method as recited in claim 3, wherein regenerating a checksum in the federated token comprises regenerating the checksum using a private salt.

5. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein determining, by the server of the first messaging service, whether the federated token is valid comprises analyzing, by the server of the first messaging service, the federated token to determine a defined use base, wherein the defined use of the federated token is defined as at least one of single-based, multiple-based, and time-based usage, and determining whether the receipt of the federated token satisfies the defined use.

6. In an electronic messaging system, a method of determining whether a challenge message to a first messaging service from a second messaging service should be delivered to a first user'"'"'s inbox, the first user being associated with the first messaging service, the method comprising:

at a first messaging service associated with a first domain name, the first messaging service comprising systems and protocols that

     1) transmit an original message generated by a first user at a first client associated with the first messaging service to a second user to receive the second message, the second user being associated with a second messaging service associated with a second domain name, and

     2) allow the first messaging service to authorize incoming challenge messages,

receiving, by a first server associated with the first messaging service, a first challenge message from the second messaging service, wherein the first challenge message was generated in response to the first user being unknown to the second user;

analyzing, by the first server associated with the first messaging service, the first challenge message to identify whether the first challenge message contains a first federated token;

if the first challenge message does not contain a first federated token, using the first server associated with the first messaging service to deliver the first challenge message to the first user'"'"'s pending folder;

if the first challenge message does contain a federated token, determining, by the first server associated with the first messaging service, at least one of whether the first federated token is authentic and whether the first federated token is valid; and

delivering, by the first server associated with the first messaging service, the first challenge message to the first user'"'"'s inbox upon determining that the first federated token is at least one of authentic and valid to allow the first user an opportunity to view and respond to the first challenge message; and

at the second messaging service associated with the second domain name, the second messaging service comprising systems and protocols that allow the second messaging service to authorize incoming challenge messages,

receiving, by a second server associated with the second messaging service, a second challenge message, wherein the second challenge message was generated in response to the second user being unknown to the first server;

analyzing, by the second server associated with the second messaging service, the second challenge message to identify whether the second challenge message contains a second federated token;

if the second challenge message does not contain a second federated token, using the second server associated with the second messaging service to deliver the second challenge message to the second user'"'"'s pending folder;

if the second challenge message does contain a federated token, determining, by the second server associated with the second messaging service, at least one of whether the second federated token is authentic and whether the second federated token is valid; and

delivering, by the second server associated with the second messaging service, the second challenge message to the second user'"'"'s inbox upon determining that the second federated token is at least one of authentic and valid to allow the second user an opportunity to view and respond to the first challenge message.

7. The method as recited in claim 6, wherein receiving, by the first server associated with the first messaging service, the first challenge message from the second messaging service comprises the second messaging service generating the first challenge message as a result of the original message being forwarded to the second messaging service such that the second messaging service does not recognize an email address from which the original message was forwarded.

8. The method as recited in claim 6, wherein determining, by the first server associated with the first messaging service, whether the first federated token is authentic comprises at least one of:

evaluating the first federated token using at least one of a checksum, a hash value, and a digital signature; and

applying one or more partner keys to decrypt the first federated token.

9. The method as recited in claim 8, further comprising exchanging the one or more partner keys from the second messaging service to the first messaging service using at least one of:

passing the first challenge message through a certificate authorizing server;

sending the one or more partner keys in the first challenge message; and

sending a message subsequent to the first challenge message containing the one or more partner keys.

10. The method as recited in claim 6, wherein determining, by the first server associated with the first messaging service, whether the first federated token is authentic and determining whether the first federated token is valid comprises analyzing different portions of the first federated token.

11. The method as recited in claim 6, wherein determining whether the first federated token is authentic and determining whether the first federated token is valid comprises analyzing the same portions of the first federated token.

12. The method as recited in claim 6, wherein determining whether the first federated token is valid comprises:

identifying a usage rule associated with the first federated token, wherein the usage rule associated with the first federated token is at least one of a single-use rule, a multiple-use rule, and a time-based rule; and

determining whether the first federated token complies with the usage rule.