Electrical computers and digital processing systems: support – Multiple computer communication using cryptography – Protection at a particular protocol layer
Reexamination Certificate
1999-03-29
2003-08-19
Hua, Ly V. (Department: 2131)
Electrical computers and digital processing systems: support
Multiple computer communication using cryptography
Protection at a particular protocol layer
C713S152000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06609204
ABSTRACT:
The present invention relates to a method of theft protection for computers and/or computer related hardware and to data communication, particularly to theft protection via communication between components in computer chassis across a network.
BACKGROUND
High-Tech Equipment Theft
Physical computer equipment, and intellectual property stored on hard drives in computer systems, can be worth millions of dollars to the owner companies. Asset management is becoming very difficult, particularly where small, expensive, and portable computers are involved.
As computers have become more common, theft of the computers, of their components, and of information stored on them has become more prevalent. Employees continue to be the primary source for losses due to theft. For example, employees who have compatible systems at home may be tempted to swap boards and input devices at work to repair those systems. Employees are not the only threat. Repairmen, janitors, delivery-persons, other contractors, customers, invited guests, and even security people themselves have an opportunity to take computer property.
Size and portability are also factors. As integrated circuit manufacturers reduce the size of chips with a corresponding boost in performance and power, the boxes into which the chips are placed become smaller. Grab-and-run thefts are likely to focus on the smallest equipment. As computer equipment continues to decrease in size (e.g., to sub-notebook and smaller computers), the vulnerability of this equipment to theft increases.
The increasing use of plug-and-play and hot-swappable units has been helpful for thieves. These architectures have accelerated moves toward modular components. Such components can be quickly attached or removed from a system.
Computers and related peripherals and intellectual property are not the only targets of high-tech theft. State-of-the-art instrumentation and test equipment are also prime candidates and are usually more expensive per unit volume than a typical home computer. Although less marketable than computer equipment, they can represent a sizeable loss to companies which use such equipment.
However, the biggest loss due to theft is likely to be in the value of the information. Computers, boards, hard drives, and peripherals are replaceable. In many cases an organization may have its own servicing department that can replace a missing part within minutes. Confidential information or intellectual property such as trade secrets or computer code is much more difficult, sometimes impossible, to replace. Further, economic damage to an organization may result if the information contained in a stolen piece of hardware is used by a competitor.
BACKGROUND
Conventional Chassis Locks
Conventional desktop units currently include a mechanical lock of some sort. Such a lock allows the chassis to be opened with a key or a special tool. This approach presents a dilemma: if the special tool is exotic, it adds to the cost of a technician's toolbox and increases the likelihood that a technician may not have the proper tool when he needs it; if the special tool is too common, the risk is that thieves will have it, too. In many current systems, the special tool is simply a number 8 Torx™ driver, which is very widely available.
For systems which rely on key-lock, key management is a significant issue. In today's world of large corporate networks, such a setup would be extremely cumbersome for Information Management departments managing thousands of machines. Whenever service is required, the correct key has to be identified or the systems have to be left unlocked.
BACKGROUND
Compatibility
Over the years, communications technology has developed for the computer industry into what is now extensive sophistication in hardware and software systems for facilitating various types of communications. Nevertheless, extensive sophistication and advancements in many hardware and software systems can be thwarted from market or commercial applicability for many reasons. For example, if a new communications system is not compatible with an existing system, many users will not purchase the new system. Attempts for a single manufacturer to become the system to which all others must be compatible can be quite difficult to achieve and, even if successful, cost the manufacturer a great deal of investment capital. Attempts for different manufacturers to interface with each other often creates complex and expensive systems which can confuse system purchasers and installers alike, and can often making the problems worse. Also, manufacturers of systems are reluctant to develop or introduce new systems to the market when compatibility and user confusion are such big issues. Accordingly, compatibility with other existing or even future systems has been emphasized in various industries. Industry standards to accomplish compatibility goals of the data communication systems have resulted.
Despite the advancements of compatibility which result when particular industries adopt standards, another problem arises when an industry desires to change or make a transition to new standards. These new standards, for example can often provide higher speed capabilities or other significant improvements over previous standards. The new standards, however, often are not adopted because the new standard is not compatible with the existing standard. In other words, the market will not accept or is reluctant to accept, the new standard because it may require replacement of all existing systems with which the user wants to communicate. This can cause technology stagnation and inhibit rapid advancement of technology.
BACKGROUND
Home Automation Standards
Home automation systems have long used special techniques for local communication over power mains. This was originally necessitated by the absence of any other type of bus over which “smart” devices could “talk” to each other. However, communication over power mains also introduces very specific problems, including those of line noise received from motors and other devices attached to the power mains, the need to ensure that the data itself does not interfere with other devices connected to the mains, and limited bandwidth. For similar reasons, low-bandwidth power-mains communications have also been used for limited data communications between smart devices and local electric utility control systems.
One example of an industry standard for building or home automation data communication systems has been the X10 or X-10 communications protocol for remote control of electrical devices which communicate across standard wiring or power lines of a building such as a home. (In general, methods of ensuring the accuracy of transmitted and received data are known as communications protocols.) The X10 communications protocol allows various home electronic devices, such as lighting controllers or switches, status indicators, security systems, telephone interfaces, computer interfaces, and various home appliances, to readily be linked together for simple control applications. The X10 communications protocol generally has a narrow bandwidth, i.e., 120 KiloHertz (“KHz”), for communicating data at a relatively slow speed, i.e., 60 bits/second.
Another industry standard for home automation has been the Consumer Electronic Bus (“CEBus”) standard, which describes a local communications and control network designed specifically for the home. Like X10, the CEBus standard provides a standardized communication facility for exchange of control information and data among various devices and services in the home, such as lighting controllers or switches, status indicators, security systems, telephone interfaces, computer interfaces, stereo systems, and home appliances. The CEBus standard was developed by the Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries Association (“EIA”) and an inter-industry committee of representatives from both EIA and non-member companies. The CEBus standard generally has a wide bandwidth, e.g. 100-400 KHz, for communicating data at a relatively fast spe
Angelo Michael F.
Olarig Sompong P.
Sides Chi Kim
Hewlett--Packard Development Company, L.P.
Hua Ly V.
LandOfFree
Method and apparatus for locking/unlocking via platform... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Method and apparatus for locking/unlocking via platform..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Method and apparatus for locking/unlocking via platform... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3087005