IBM Applies for Password Manager Patent

An anonymous reader writes "As of August 21, IBM has applied for a patent on "A convenient and secure system and method for access to any number of password-protected computer applications, web sites and forms without adding to the user cognitive load and without circumventing the inherent security of such password-protection schemes. An existing password field on a device display is overlaid with password wallet pop-up field which allows a wallet "master" key to unlock the wallet. An application-specific and/or user-specific password is automatically retrieved from the wallet and entered into the password field with no other user action required." This isn't much different from Mozilla's "Master Password"."

Comments

Prior art

[Motherfucking Shit]

This isn't much different from Mozilla's "Master Password".

Or from Apple's "Keychain." Or even from Gator, for that matter...

Re:Prior art

[Neophytus]

Just remember, the only thing the USPTO considers as prior art are previous patents, until the said patent challenged in the courts.

Re:Prior Art

[CatPieMan]

Arguably, the line about "without circumventing the inherent security of such password-protection schemes" negates the post-it argument as there is now a clear-text version of the password available for anyone to see.

While I don't believe this is patent worthy, the whole idea of a password wallet/keyring/etc would be much better than what many office workers do -- "hide" their passwords and usernames on a piece of paper that is right under their keyboard.

-CPM

Re:Prior art

[JamesTRexx]

And Microsoft's Passport thing? Isn't it meant to include that functionality as well?

Re:Prior art

[the eric conspiracy]

the only thing the USPTO considers as prior art are previous patents, until the said patent challenged in the courts.

Not true at all. The USPTO does dog food as a preference, but if you try to patent something and include references to scientific literature in the patent, it is quite likely that the examiner will turn around and use those references against you.

Re:Prior art

[noda132]

And Microsoft's Passport thing? Isn't it meant to include that functionality as well?

No, read the story again. It distinctly says, "a convenient and secure system" (emphasis added).

Re:Prior art

[zieroh]

This "fact", while oft-repeated, is unfortunately completely untrue. The patent office may not do a stellar job of investigating for prior art, but technically any prior art, patented or not, counts.

Please stop repeating this falsehood.

Re:Prior art

[jfengel]

Seconded. I spent forever explaining how my work was different from the references that I provided, which he understood incompletly. (But I give him huge props for reading them at all, since they're highly technical and involved.)

That was rather frustrating, since he'd likely never have found those references if we didn't include them, when compared to some of the patent silliness I read on Slashdot.

Re:Prior art

[Minna Kirai]

technically any prior art, patented or not, counts.

No, only published prior art. If you secretly invented it, didn't reveal this to the public, but still can somehow prove it... it won't invalidate the patent.

One time, for example, a student came up with an invention and turned it in for a grade in college. Later on someone else filed for a patent on the same idea. Hearing about this, the college dug out the graded paper from their records, and got everyone involved to swear as to it's veracity. The USPTO acknowledged that yes, the student had invented it first, but the patent would still go to someone else.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

No, only published prior art. If you secretly invented it, didn't reveal this to the public, but still can somehow prove it... it won't invalidate the patent.

You have the first part wrong. Prior art need not be published for it to be used to invalidate a patent. The prior art only needs to be "known." See 35 USC 102, particularly subsection (a).

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,...

The reason the student's paper is not prior art is not because it wasn't published, but rather because it was secret, and therefore not legally "known" by others in the patent law sense.

Re:Prior art

[JamesP]

but if you try to patent something and include references to scientific literature in the patent, it is quite likely that the examiner will turn around and use those references against you.

That's why they will only patent things with no scientific literature, like Healing Pyramids and stuff...

Re:Prior art

[WEFUNK]

Not only are non-patents allowable as prior art, but many companies actually publish technical disclosure documents specifically to serve as prior art for things that they're not interested in patenting or don't feel that they could get a patent in but want to make sure nobody tries to pull a stunt.

IBM is famous for publishing many thousands of these, which are frequently cited by both inventors and patent examiners as prior art, and frequently wielded by IBM to quash bogus patents.

The old IBM Patent server, which later became Delphion, originally provided access to the IBM technical disclosure bulletins as well as US patents. They are now searchable for free at the IP.com Prior Art Database along with disclosures from a number of other large companies. I've only just found out about it, but apparently you can only view summaries and have purchase full documents or to perform advanced searching, but it appears like a useful resource. Also easily browsable by month, which is kinda neat.

I'm sure someone could find an example otherwise (or even has their own horror story), but as I understand it, IBM is probably the one big tech company least guilty of abusing the patent system. Sure, they make a lot of money off of licensing and have been known to throw their weight around from time to time, but they usually seem to play relatively fair unless they're put on the defensive.

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

This is FALSE. I guess all you gotta do on slashdot to get modded up is _sound_ authoritative. I wish modders would verify facts before modding people up.

Phil Farnsworth was awarded patent rights to using CRT as the mechanism for electronic television based on some scribble he had made in high school as a 14 year old.

Patents are granted for first to invent, not first to publish.
On the other hand if you invent something and dont patent it within one year, you lose the rights to patent it (that is, nobody will get the patent).

Who do we like today?

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO story... YAY IBM

Patent story... BOO IBM

do we like Apple today too? or is this an anti apple day? it's hard to keep up

Re:Who do we like today?

[Servo]

I think its fair to be able to criticize and praise companies for individual things they are doing or having done to them. SCO suing IBM is bad, but IBM trying to patent existing technology is bad too. What's so hard to see?

Re:Who do we like today?

[bug-eyed monster]

I would say...

SCO Story... BOO SCO and the American judicial system for allowing to let this farce go on for so long

Patent Story... BOO USPTO for allowing American corporations to behave like this.

Generally.. Boo the American government for giving corporations so much power.

Re:Who do we like today?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

That is how campaign financing works. Corporations finance politicians' campaigns, corporations get to write the laws.

Having said that, SCO's abuse of the legal system is of a completely different order to IBM's (attempted?) abuse of the Patents system here. SCO are committing the corporate equivalent of a suicide bombing.

Re:Who do we like today?

[GreyWolf3000]

Generally.. Boo the American government for giving corporations so much power.

Correction. From your point of view, I would think that the problem is that the government hasn't restricted corporations enough, not that it has handed them anything.

These are different situations, since restricting corporations might not always be a good thing, yet giving them power is always decidedly bad.

And the whole government is not to blame for these issues; merely the USPTO and often the judicial branch.

Re:Who do we like today?

[GigsVT]

But it has handed them something. Patents (and IP) don't exist as a fundamental right, they're a wholly synthetic creation designed to benefit science and engineering.

Re:Who do we like today?

[GreyWolf3000]

I'd say the patent office has handed corporations quite a bit.

Patents are good when they protect the little guy from the big guy, and they even make sense for corporationsn at times.

In my opinion, the problems come when people patent the digital equivalent of eating cereal with milk. A more knowledgeable USPTO would go a long way to keep the suits off our backs.

Re:Who do we like today?

[HiThere]

IBM is using the patent system in the way it is currently designed to be used. It would only become abuse if they tried to enforce the patent on someone rather than just holding it so that it couldn't be used against them.

That said, this is a really vile game, that only benefits the big players. But IBM didn't start it. And IBM hasn't been particularly viscious about it. (I'm told that they *do* collect a lot of money on patent royalties, but I haven't heard of them trying to put companies out of business [bar SCO].)

Re:Who do we like today?

[GigsVT]

A more knowledgeable USPTO would go a long way to keep the suits off our backs.

Interesting double meaning there.

Novell

[jrwillis]

This is also seen in Novell's "Secure Sign-on".

Re:Novell

[malraid]

Maybe you are talking about single sign-on? Secure sign-on is basically the idea that your authentication goes encrypted over the wire (RSA encryption). And by the way, single sign-on is diferent. You only have one password, and all services check a single database (NDS). This is like using LDAP as the authentication backend of several services. Single sign-on has another nice feature, that authentication can happen on the background, so you don't have to retype your user/pass everytime you use a service. Basically single sign-on is one password for all resources or services. So no prior art from Novell I think.

Yet Another Uninformed Patent Story

[servoled]

Please try to remember that the abstract of a patent doesn't mean a single thing legally. It is just a short summary of the invention, nothing more. The claims are the only part of the patent that has any legal power, and since the poster failed to actually link to the patent or give us the patent number it is hard to say what this patent would cover.

Also try to remember that a patent is for a specific implemenation of an invention and does not cover the general idea of the invention itself. If this were granted it would be possible to come up with your own implementation for password management and not be infringing on the patent.

Re:Yet Another Uninformed Patent Story

[Psx29]

It looks like the original page was taken down, however you can still see it in google's cache

Re:Yet Another Uninformed Patent Story

[servoled]

It is true that the specification covers a preffered embodiement of the invention. However, the claims themselves do not cover the general idea as I originally said. The claims will cover the basic steps/parts of what they believe their invention to be. Granted, this is broader in scope than the preffered embodiment described in the specification, but it still only covers a specific implementation of the general idea.

For example, here the general idea is password management. If this patent were granted, IBM would not have a lock on all patent mangagement systems regardless of implementation, they would only have protection on patent managment systems which meet the restrictions set by the claims.

Re:Yet Another Uninformed Patent Story

[pauljlucas]

However, the claims themselves do not cover the general idea as I originally said.

Again, it depends on how broad the claim is. If you got a patent on a steam engine that contained a broad claim about converting steam into mechanical motion, then whether you generate steam by burning wood or coal or whatever, or move up/down or back/forward along rails, is irrelevant: you are in violation. The job of a patent attorney is to get the broadest claims possible to cover as much as possible, including methods and other inventions that don't currently exist.

For example, here the general idea is password management.

Well if you want to go crazy with generality, the general idea is security: passwords are just one method for providing security. No, the least-general "general idea" is using one master password to provide access to others so users only have to remember one password. If you invent something else that does that, you are in violation.

Re:Yet Another Uninformed Patent Story

[servoled]

If a claim were written as "a method of converting steam into mechanical motion" it would be rejected under 35 USC 112 which states:

The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

You can't write claims which leave out important steps or parts in the invention you are trying to patent. In the above example the claim would have to have a part about some manner of transistion between the steam and the mechanical motion. However, the unless the claim specifically mentions how the steam is produced, you are correct. It should also be noted that the only time such a claim would have been allowed in a broad state such as the example above is when the first steam engine was invented. It would still be possible to patent a generic steam engine today if your transistion step from steam to mechanical motion was a novel one.

No, the least-general "general idea" is using one master password to provide access to others so users only have to remember one password. If you invent something else that does that, you are in violation.

This would be true only if your method of providing one master password to provide acess to others is by the same method as stated in the claims of the patent application. If you come up with a new/different method of doing this, then you will not be in violation.

Re:Yet Another Uninformed Patent Story

[iabervon]

The outline of the idea, however, is as given in the claims, which need to be sufficiently specific to allow a working implementation to be produced based on the description. This is because the point of the patent office is to make the techniques necessary to make an invention work commonly known (patens), as the price of giving the inventor the right to limit implementations of the techniques. This is to contrast with trade secrets, where the inventor gets no protection from the law, but does not have to reveal the technique.

Chances are that IBM has some innovation here, and isn't claiming the master password idea (which has been used for decades), but some refinement on it. Of course, they're probably not going to reveal what the innovation is just yet, since they aren't supposed to. (One of the issues with the patent which applied to GIF was that the technique had been published by the inventor for more than a year before the patent application was submitted.) There are, of course, plenty of issues with current master password systems, any of which IBM might have found a way to overcome, and this method would then be patentable.

Bruce Schneier did this a long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

and he called it "Password Safe".

Re:Bruce Schneier did this a long time ago

[eddy]

I'm not so sure, but then I haven't read the claims (and won't bother either). Password Safe though, is available here.

I just wish someone would implement a treeview instead of a list.

Not necessarily bad...

[PoiBoy]

Think of it this way. You could have IBM apply for this patent, or you could have some less scrupulous company. For all intents and purposes, IBM will never make a penny from this patent. Moreover, IBM is more likely to allow others to use this technology without filing patent infringement suits than some other company like amazon.com with its one-click shopping.

Said another way, IBM having the patent just prevents some VC-backed cyber squatter patent the idea and then demand royalties from everyone under the sun.

More prior art at Bell-Labs - 2002

[DrSkwid]

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/auth.html

The Fourth Edition of Plan 9 includes a substantially reworked security architecture, described in the USENIX Security 2002 conference paper [html, ps, pdf] by Russ Cox, Eric Grosse, Rob Pike, Dave Presotto, and Sean Quinlan.

One particular aspect that other operating systems may wish to adopt is our single-signon solution. A process called factotum is used to hold credentials like passwords and public/private keypairs and perform cryptographic operations. Factotum allows clients to speak a variety of cryptographic protocols and therefore legacy application servers can participate in our single-signon system without change and without even knowing it exists.

The factotum has no direct permanent storage, but rather fetches credentials at startup from a secstore server on the network. To authenticate safely with the secstore, Password Authenticated Key-exchange is used; this implies that the user just has to remember and type one password and passive eavsdroppers or even active malicious intermediaries can not launch even a dictionary attack against the system. The credentials are encrypted for storage on secstore, so even an administrator there would have difficulty reading them.

Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

The person who allowed the patent at the patent office should personally be responsible for any prior art they find afterwards. This person should be obligated to eat a copy of all specifications of prior art available. Either they would learn to appreciate and to digest cellulose or they would take a closer look at the papers they sign.

I don't think you know what prior art means...

[MyNameIsFred]

Prior art does not mean something generically related. For example, just because lawnmowers have been around forever, doesn't mean that I can't patent a new type of lawnmover. As an example, look at the weedwacker. Lawnmowers existed before it was invented, however, the weedwacker was a new type of lawnmower and, I believe, patentable.

So the question is does IBM have a new and unique way of doing password management.

Re:I don't think you know what prior art means...

[phillymjs]

So the question is does IBM have a new and unique way of doing password management.

No, they don't. Because their description is exactly what Apple's Keychain does. Just replace "wallet" with "keychain" in this passage from IBM's own description of their system:

"An existing password field on a device display is overlaid with password wallet pop-up field which allows a wallet "master" key to unlock the wallet. An application-specific and/or user-specific password is automatically retrieved from the wallet and entered into the password field with no other user action required."

The Keychain has been around since System 7 Pro, which dates back to October of 1993 or thereabouts. Whether Apple patented it or back then not, I don't think they'll have any choice but to contest this IBM patent attempt-- because if it goes through, Apple will have to pay licensing fees to IBM to continue using Keychain in OS X.

~Philly

Re:I don't think you know what prior art means...

[phillymjs]

I not only read the blockquote, I read a fair bit of the Google-cached patent application. The behavior IS the same, you twit, the Keychain is an OS-level service that can be used by anyone who wants to use it in their apps.

When a Keychain-aware Mac application wants a password and I have previously indicated that I want it to use the Keychain services, a Keychain dialog pops up and asks for my Keychain password. Upon correct authentication, the Keychain passes the application-specific password to the requesting application.

Do you think IBM's system will just automatically sniff out instances where it should assert itself? Because I don't-- I think apps will have to be changed to be at least minimally aware of the password wallet service.

~Philly

STOP! STOP!

[symbolic]

[sarcasm]

The innovation is killing me!

[/sarcasm]

Just make an opinion check

[Lord_Slepnir]

Here's how you do it: First, select which company it is from the first chart. Then apply any of the modifier from the second chart. Roll a d20. If you can beat that DC, then we like that company. If you fail, you hate that company.

Comanies:
SCO: DC 30
IBM: DC 10
Microsoft: DC 20
Amazon: DC 15
MPAA / RIAA: DC 30
Apple (If you use Macs): DC 5
Apple (otherwise) : DC 15
RedHat: DC 5
Disney: DC 15
US Government: DC 20
Other Government: DC 10

Modifiers:
Is switching to linux: -20
Is switching from linux: +15
Is going after Microsoft: -10
_____ vs. SCO : -20
Files a BS patent: +10
Is being investigated by the US government for anti-trust or Fraud: -5

In this case, we have IBM, a DC 10 check. We add a +10 Filing BS patent modifier, and we realize that we'll have to roll a natural 20 to make this check. I rolled a 18, so while I come close to supporting them, I just can't and decide to waste a bunch of my time making these charts instead.

Useful reminder

[buddha42]

Stuff like this is good for us /.'ers once in awhile. It helps us snap out of the whole 'ibm-is-a-good-guy/on-our-side' romanticism. There are parts of IBM who's goals line up with ours very well, and there are parts that don't even come close. IBM is too big and diversified to have any sort of character assigned to it.

read more carefully

[mindstrm]

they are talking more about the user interface....

A password field pops up in an application. their software pops up a dialog right over top, and asks you for the master password. It then finds your password and fills in the box.

visually, it makes more sense.

Re:KeyChain

[Rosyna]

Found more information. Tidbits from May 29th, 1995 mentions the Keychain, it's use, and what it could be used for and just what it happens to be used for now.

And an article Sep 27th, 1993 talks about PowerTalk's upcoming release. So yeah, good luck with that patent IBM.

This seems to fit a pattern...

[hansendc]

Other patents by the same person

They seem to include such revolutionary ideas as scroll bars and window resizing

Read the claims...

[smeenz]

From the google cache of the patent claims:

Points 10 - 13 explain what it is they are 'inventing' that is different from existing schemes. They list IE's auto complete, and say it has a failing in that anyone using the computer can autocomplete the form (thus it is not very secure), they mention quicken having a very similar method of requiring one master password to complete any password diaglog, but say that it is not ideal because the API is closed for quicken's exclusive use.

The crux of their solution is that they want to make a generic API that allows their 'invention' to provide a password where requested to any application, browser window or similar.

Of course, as other people have already pointed out, this too has already been done. Novell's single-signon pops to my mind, and I'm sure a lot of other people have done this as well.

Nonsense! Repetition does not make it true.

[werdna]

This canard, repeated in Slashdot with the frequency of a Bush press release on Fox News, just isn't the case. It does not become more true upon repetition.

Prior art is defined by statute, and the USPTO has no discretion to distinguish between patent and non-patent prior art. The USPTO searches not only the corpus of patent art, but also many commercial and generally available databases of non-patent prior art. Patent claims are frequently (and in some cases famously) refused in view of non-patent prior art.

Singificantly, if you are aware of patent prior art for a published application, there are vehicles by which you may make the art a matter of record. Finally, if a patent issues with respect to which you are aware of prior art (patent or non-patent) raising a substantial new question of patentability, you may either file yourself or bring it to the attention of the Commissioner who may, in his discretion, bring his own reexamination proceeding. Again, patents have been rescinded famously in view of non-prior art in this manner as well (Compton's for example).

It's okay people....

[herrvinny]

Don't start slapping IBM and putting on your tinfoil hats people. If IBM doesn't patent this, chances are someone else will, and then sue IBM. Yes, it might be the most obvious thing in the world, and I hate myself for not applying for this patent myself, but in the hands of IBM, it's more or less safe. IBM's not going to sue anyone unless they start spewing FUD like SCO. Hell, I'd prefer this patent in the hands of MS than in anybody SCO-like. Say what you want about MS, but they have tons of patents as well, but they're very lax about enforcing them. Better a patent with IBM/MS than with someone like SCO or Eolas.

Re:It's okay people....

[wayne606]

Don't make the mistake of assuming that these days IBM == good and SCO == evil. They are both for-profit corporations and the *single* goal of a for-profit corporation is to make money. IBM feels it's in its short-term best interest to be nice to the Open Source community. SCO has nothing to save itself from going out of business execpt the current FUD lawsuits. That doesn't mean that in the future IBM (or Novell, or any current "white hat" company) might turn "evil" if their $$$ interests dictate and use whatever patents they have to make a profit.

Dontcha love Gator?

[Cid Highwind]

Not only is it "not spyware", but now it's prior-artware too!

Actually read the claims...

[RevMike]

If you actually read the patent application, you'll see that they are patenting something much more narrow than you think.

IBM is attempting to patent a UI hack that will detect a signon request from a website or other application, and superimpose their master signon dialog. They are NOT attempting to patent the ideas that are covered by Keychain or Mozilla's autofill. By superimposing their own "widget" exactly where the application specific logon would be, this master signon system preserves the flow of the application UI.

By comparison, the Keychain and autofill solutions can be more intrusive, and can be less secure. IBM's master signon would be entered every time I need to signon. I'd only need to remember one password. By comparison, Keychain and autofill don't require one to log into each application. An office worker can walk away from their desk without locking their screen saver and someone can use their accounts.

Re:Actually read the claims...

[femto]

Sounds like a Trojan Horse to me.

So the user thinks they are typing their password into site XYZ's mega secure web site, when they are actually typing it into IBM's not so secure widget? What are the consequences when this 'password widget' gets cracked? The user is not aware of even the possibility of a crack because they are not aware the widget exists.

Not to mention the possibilities for a virus/worm installing its own version of a 'password widget', which the user will again not be aware of.

Here's what it really is

[dilute]

For those who tried to follow the (broken) link, I looked this up. It's U.S. published application number 220030159071, which was published on August 12, 2003 and originally filed on Feb. 21, 2002.

This is merely a PUBLISHED PATENT APPLICATION, not a PATENT. There is no indication that the application has as yet been examined. The most that can be said is that IBM has asked to patent what is claimed. Whether it will be allowed, amended, etc., remains to be seen. Anyway, this is claim 1, which is representative of what IBM is going after in this patent:

1. A method within a computing platform of graphically providing a secure field value retrieval and entry, wherein said computing platform includes a display device, a field activation device and a user selection device, said method comprising: displaying a user dialogue to receive a master key value from a user responsive to activation of a field; receiving a computing context indicator regarding the context of said activated field; determining said master key value is a correct master key value; retrieving a field value from a secure field value store which is associated with said computing context, said activated field and a user identification; and automatically entering said retrieved field value into said activated field.

Maybe the examiner will find the good prior art, or maybe even IBM will be good enough to cite it themselves. In any event, what would be NICE, rather than relying merely on the effectiveness of the examiner and the bona fides of the applicant, would be a mechanism to take comments from the public on pending patent applications after they are published and after (or maybe even before) they are examined. This is (more or less) how it works in most other countries (it's called "opposition"), and variations of this approach have been suggested many times in this country and repeatedly shot down or watered down to the point of being useless. Now the Federal Trade Commission is jumping on this as well (it is one of their recebnt suggestions), but it will probably get nowhere because the small inventor lobby (decidedly NOT the IBMs of the world) is too strong.

IBM, as some other poster has pointed out, has been pretty much a model citizen in the patent world.

Gator?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Could this give IBM the leverage to shut down Gator? I'm not saying they would, they'd probably make them pay a license fee. But in a magical world where IBM had our best interests at heart, would this give them the legal power to shut down Gator for patent infringement? (Note: this is ignoring the 1145 other patents of IBM's that Gator infringes on, including using a button to give power to an electronic device, and using a diode to transfer electricity)

How to get richer:

[Newer Guy]

1. Steal someone's unpatented invention

2. Patent it yourself

3. Get patent granted...It's easy to do! After all, the patent office is so clueless they would probably issue a patent for: "Brown 25 Organic Lubricant" (see: "The Kentucky Fried Movie") these days.

4. ????

5. Profit!

Naive and foolish

[werdna]

You may continue to believe what you read on Slashdot all you like, but it just isn't so. Read some patents, read the citations, and note that you will find cited non-patent prior art. How do you think that gets there? By accident?

And, by the way, there are a kazillion remedies available to you if the USPTO issues a bad patent short of full-scale litigation. If you actually have killer prior art, just file for reexamination, and it would be a matter of course.