Every time you make a payment online, send a file, or connect to a shared network, tiny digital handshakes decide what can be trusted. They verify where your data comes from, how it behaves, and whether it follows the security rules that keep the internet stable.
By the early 2000s, that trust was starting to break down. Networks were growing faster than their ability to check what was genuine. Attackers had learned how to disguise malicious data as legitimate traffic.
To solve this, inventors Marcel Mordechay Yung and Yoram Ofek filed Patent US7895643B2 in 2002. The patent introduced a new way for networks to automatically recognize when data truly came from approved software.
To understand how this invention changed the way we look at network integrity, we used the Global Patent Search (GPS) tool. It helped us uncover how similar ideas evolved and what other technologies followed the same path toward a safer, self-checking internet.
US7895643B2: The Architecture of a Self-Checking Network
US7895643B2 wasn’t just about identifying trusted software. It was about teaching networks how to think for themselves.
Before this invention, networks relied heavily on external firewalls or antivirus tools to decide what was safe. The patent changed that logic. It gave the network its own built-in ability to verify trust at the packet level.
Here’s how it worked: Every piece of software approved to operate within a network was designed to embed a unique, hidden cryptographic signal into the data it sent. When that data reached a checkpoint – such as a firewall or a router– the signal was automatically verified.
If it matched, the packet moved on. If not, it was blocked before causing any harm.
This approach turned verification into a self-sustaining loop. The network no longer needed to rely solely on external security rules. It could confirm authenticity in real time, at scale, without slowing performance.
In practical terms, that meant fewer false positives, faster response times, and a network that could defend itself even as threats evolved.
That’s what made US7895643B2 a quiet but defining milestone in the evolution of modern network trust. And the subject of an infringement suit too.
Recommended Read: Learn how earlier patents tackled denial-of-service risks in our analysis of US7523497B2, which strengthened the foundations of secure packet handling.
Main Functional Components of US7895643B2
US7895643B2 is built on five core components that work together to make network trust automatic and continuous. Each one adds a layer of verification that reinforces the next.
Trusted Flow Generator: Embeds a hidden cryptographic signal into every packet, confirming that the data originates from verified software before it enters the network.
Firewall Checkpoint: Acts as the first inspection layer at the network edge. It verifies each signal in real time and blocks any packet that doesn’t match the expected signature.
Interlocked Modules: Connects different software components so tightly that altering or replacing one automatically breaks the verification chain, exposing any unauthorized change.
Live Monitoring: Observes all network communication as it happens. Detects unusual traffic patterns instantly and reacts to potential threats before they spread.
Self-Verification Loop: Allows every packet to validate its own integrity while in motion. This continuous process ensures that trust is maintained across every layer of the network.
Together, these features create a framework where trust is not just enforced but constantly renewed, turning the network into an environment that checks itself and adapts as it runs.
Explore Other Patents with the Same Mission
Every major invention exists within a network of related ideas. Some came before it, some evolved alongside it.
When we explored US7895643B2 using the Global Patent Search (GPS) tool, we discovered several other patents working toward the same goal of making network communication more trustworthy.
Let’s explore some of them.
1. US5935245A – The First Step Toward Trusted Packet Flows
Filed in 1997 by 3Com Corp, US5935245A focused on one big question: how do you ensure that every packet moving through a network is safe and follows the rules?
The solution was a small component called a Data Pattern Enforcer (DPE). It sat deep inside the network adaptor and checked each packet before letting it move forward. If a packet matched the approved pattern, it went through. If not, it was blocked right away.
Source – GPS
The smart part was that users could not tamper with it. The DPE worked at the hardware level and locked its settings after startup, so no outside program could interfere. That made it a built-in gatekeeper for trusted communication.
But it had one limitation. The verification was local i.e. it checked patterns, not the authenticity of the source.
That missing layer of trust is exactly what US7895643B2 would later bring in, turning simple packet checks into full proof of legitimacy across the network
The Bigger Picture
The patent was one of the first to bring security checks to the hardware layer itself. It showed that trust could be built directly into the way packets travel, not just through software.
Later inventions, including US7895643B2, built on this same idea of verifying the flow of data instead of simply hoping it plays by the rules.
2. US7103910B1 – The Legitimacy Checker
The patent US7103910B1, filed in 2000 by Sun Microsystems, introduced a way for systems to confirm whether the software modules they relied on could actually be trusted.
At the time, many frameworks allowed encryption components to be plugged in. The risk was that an unverified or malicious component could slip through and act as if it were legitimate.
The patent solved this by introducing a clever verification process. The system sent two sets of information to the untrusted component in a random order. Each time, it checked how the component responded. If all responses matched what was expected, the software was verified as authentic. If any failed, the system knew not to trust it.
This approach became a key part of Java’s security layer, where every encryption or signature mechanism had to prove its integrity before being used.
Comparing it with US7895643B2, GPS showed a shared belief in proof over assumption. Both inventions wanted to make computing environments self-checking and trustworthy.
The Bigger Picture
The invention marked a turning point for software security. It proved that trust could be earned, not assumed. That same idea carries forward in US7895643B2, which also focuses on verifying behavior, only this time, at the level of data packets moving through a network.
Difd you know: Patents like US8402099B2 reveal how the foundations of secure online communication were first laid. Read the article to get all the deets.
3. WO1998058322A2 – The Shape-Shifting Encryptor
When it was published in 1998, WO1998058322A2 introduced a tiny security device that changed how people thought about encryption.
You plugged it into your computer, and it didn’t just lock your data; it changed the lock every single time.
Inside, the device stored random sequences of bits. Those bits decided which encryption method to use and how long each piece of data should stay hidden. No two messages were ever the same. Every transfer became unpredictable, a moving puzzle no one could solve twice.
It was a clever way to keep data safe by never repeating a pattern.
US7895643B2 carried that same spirit forward but gave it a different purpose. Instead of only protecting what’s inside the message, it taught networks to verify every signal they send.
The Bigger Picture
WO1998058322A2 showed that randomness could be a defense in itself, changing faster than anyone trying to break it.
US7895643B2 took that same idea and gave it direction by turning unpredictability into proof. Instead of simply hiding what’s inside, it taught systems to verify what’s real. Together, they mark the moment when encryption stopped being only about secrecy and started being about trust.
4. US6763469B1 – The Shift Toward Distributed Firewalls
Published in 2004, US6763469B1 imagined something far ahead of its time.
Security didn’t have to live in one big box at the edge of the network anymore; it could sit right next to every computer that used it.
Instead of relying on a single central firewall, it placed small hardware devices on each computer. Each one acted as a local gatekeeper, checking every packet that came in or went out. The device worked hand-in-hand with a security agent that sent instructions and updated filtering rules.
This meant every user had their own protective layer, one that could adapt to addresses, protocols, and even application-level commands. For instance, it could allow someone to download a file but block them from uploading one.
It was flexible, distributed, and deeply personal.
When we look at it next to US7895643B2, both focus on verification, but from different angles. The 2004 system verified who was allowed to talk on a network, while US7895643B2 verified what kind of data was allowed to pass through.
The Bigger Picture
US6763469B1 showed what happens when security stops being a wall and starts becoming a network of sentinels. Instead of defending one big doorway, it gave every computer its own gatekeeper.
That shift from centralized protection to distributed control, is the same idea that now powers modern zero-trust systems. Every device checks, every packet proves itself, and trust is earned, not assumed.
5. CA2059172A1 – The Origin of Challenge and Response
Published in 1992, this IBM patent tackled one of the internet’s oldest problems: proving who is really on the other end of a connection.
It introduced a simple yet powerful idea called challenge and response. When one computer tried to talk to another, it sent a random number, a kind of secret question. The other computer had to answer correctly using a shared secret known only to both sides.
To stop hackers from copying and reusing old answers, IBM added a small but smart element called the direction indicator. It told the system which way the message was moving, so no one could trick it with repeated messages.
When compared to US7895643B2, both worked toward building trust in digital communication. But this early system focused on proving identity, while US7895643B2 went a step further by verifying the authenticity of the data itself.
The Bigger Picture
CA2059172A1 planted the roots of modern authentication. It taught computers how to prove they are genuine before they exchange information.
That simple exchange of secret questions and answers still powers today’s logins, secure chats, and encrypted web sessions.
Comparison Summary: How Each Patent Compares with US7895643B2
| Patent | Filed | Core Idea | Verification or Security Method | Technical Overlap with US7895643B2 | Key Difference |
| US7895643B2 | 2002 | Trusted data flow verification using hidden software signals | Cross-verifies packets through embedded cryptographic tags checked at network firewalls | ||
| US5935245A | 1997 | Packet-level security enforced by hardware rules | Matches packet patterns using bit vectors and verification masks | Similar packet validation concept at the transmission layer | Uses fixed rules in adapters instead of dynamic, cryptographic signals |
| US7103910B1 | 2000 | Testing the legitimacy of untrusted mechanisms | Sends unpredictable test data to verify proper cryptographic behavior | Both use unpredictable or hidden signals to confirm authenticity | Focuses on verifying encryption components, not entire network flows |
| WO1998058322A2 | 1998 | Portable device for dynamic random encryption | Uses changing encryption algorithms for every message | Shares the idea of randomness and hidden logic for trust | Operates at encryption level, not packet behavior or transmission compliance |
| US6763469B1 | 2001 | Local firewall device for distributed security | Filters packets based on local rules managed by a central security agent | Aligns with the idea of enforcing trusted communication at endpoints | Limits enforcement to access control, lacks embedded packet trust signals |
| CA2059172A1 | 1992 | Challenge-response protocol for user authentication | Random challenges confirm identity through shared secrets | Both emphasize trust through verification in data exchange | Focuses on proving identity, while US7895643B2 verifies program integrity and data compliance |
How GPS Reveals the Bigger Picture
Every security innovation is part of a bigger conversation, a long chain of ideas trying to make digital communication more trustworthy.
The Global Patent Search tool helps uncover that chain. It brings together patents and research that share the same goal: protecting information as it moves through a network.
The tool surfaces the patent landscape for a technology, showing how similar inventions evolved across industries.
Here’s how to get the most from GPS tool:
- Start with your core patent: Type in the patent number, like US7895643B2, or describe the idea in plain English. For instance, a method to ensure trusted data flow across network connections.
GPS uses that as your starting point to map related inventions that deal with similar verification, signaling, or encryption methods.
- Dive deeper when it’s relevant: If a summary feels close to your invention, open the snippets for technical detail. They show how other systems handle signal authentication, encryption logic, or flow validation. That helps you understand whether an idea strengthens, complements, or challenges your own.
- Read the snippets: Each relevant result includes snippets that show how it’s connected to your query. These might come from the claims or the detailed description, often phrases about trusted transmission, secure packet flow, or signal verification.
Skim through these before opening full documents to see how other inventors tackled the same trust problem.
- See how the idea spreads: GPS reveals how the concept of subject patent shows up across industries, from firewalls and VPNs to IoT security and encrypted cloud systems.
You can trace how each adaptation adds a new layer to the same fundamental question: how to make networks self-verifying.
All in all, GPS does more than surface similar inventions. It uncovers the shared DNA of security systems built to make networks trustworthy.
For US7895643B2, it means tracing how signal-based verification evolved into a cornerstone of modern cybersecurity. Try the GPS tool today to see how these connections come together.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is a trusted communication flow?
A trusted communication flow means every data packet follows verified rules of transmission. The system ensures that each packet comes from approved software and behaves according to defined limits, reducing the chance of misuse or tampering.
2. How does signal-based verification work in networks?
Signal-based verification embeds a small, hidden signal within data packets. When these packets reach the network gateway or firewall, the signal is checked. If it matches the expected pattern, the system knows the packet came from authentic software.
3. Why is software integrity important in secure networks?
If a program can be altered or replaced, it can send unauthorized data or overload the system. Software integrity checks make sure only approved versions of programs are running, preventing malicious or modified software from accessing the network.
4. What role does encryption play in trusted network systems?
Encryption protects both the content of the data and the verification signals themselves. It ensures that no external attacker can fake the signals or read sensitive transmission patterns.
