IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,238,106
Granted Patent B1
US 12,238,106 · App. 17/547,659 · Granted Feb 25, 2025

Troubleshooting policy-based permissions

Inventors: Homer Strong (Seattle, WA); Lucie Klimosova (Seattle, WA)
Assignee: Amazon Technologies, Inc.
H04L63/101H04L63/0263H04L63/20
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,238,106
App. No.
17/547,659
Granted
Feb 25, 2025
Kind
B1
Abstract

One or more indications may be received of a decision to deny an attempted access of a computing resource by an identity. A plurality of relevant policies may be determined whose permissions are evaluated as inputs to the decision to deny. One or more denial-related policies of the relevant policies may be determined that are associated with at least one of explicitly denying or implicitly denying the attempted access. One or more denial indications may be provided of the one or more denial-related policies. The one or more denial indications may include at least one explicit deny indication of at least one of the one or more denial-related policies that explicitly denies the attempted access. The one or more denial indications may also include at least one implicit deny indication of at least one of the one or more denial-related policies that implicitly denies the attempted access.

Claims (42)

1. A computing system comprising:

one or more hardware processors; and

one or more memories having stored therein instructions that, upon execution by the one or more hardware processors, cause the computing system to perform computing operations comprising:

receiving, by an identity management service, one or more indications of a decision to deny an attempted access of a computing resource by an identity, wherein an evaluation of the decision to deny the attempted access is performed based at least in part on a log analysis that indicates more than a threshold quantity of access denial errors within a given time period;

providing, for display, an interface of an activity monitoring service that shows a relationship between policy changes made by a user and the access denial errors, the interface identifying a first time at which the policy changes are made by the user and a second time at which an increase occurred in an amount of the access denial errors;

determining, by the identity management service, a plurality of relevant access permission policies whose permissions are evaluated as inputs to the decision to deny the attempted access;

determining, by the identity management service, one or more explicit deny policies of the relevant access permission policies that explicitly deny the attempted access;

determining, by the identity management service, one or more implicit deny policies of the relevant access permission policies that implicitly deny the attempted access;

providing, by the identity management service, at least one explicit deny indication of at least one of the one or more explicit deny policies; and

providing, by the identity management service, at least one implicit deny indication of at least one of the one or more implicit deny policies.

2. The computing system of claim 1 , wherein the operations further comprise:

providing a suggested modification indication that indicates a policy modification that is performable to cause the attempted access to be allowed.

3. The computing system of claim 2 , wherein the suggested modification indication comprises an example statement that is addible into a policy to cause the attempted access to be allowed.

4. The computing system of claim 2 , wherein the suggested modification indication comprises an indication of the policy modification that would be easiest for the user to implement to cause the attempted access to be allowed.

5. A computer-implemented method comprising:

receiving one or more indications of a decision to deny an attempted access of a computing resource by an identity, wherein an evaluation of the decision to deny the attempted access is performed based at least in part on a log analysis that indicates more than a threshold quantity of access denial errors within a given time period;

providing, for display, an interface of an activity monitoring service that shows a relationship between policy changes made by a user and the access denial errors, the interface identifying a first time at which the policy changes are made by the user and a second time at which an increase occurred in an amount of the access denial errors;

determining a plurality of relevant access permission policies whose permissions are evaluated as inputs to the decision to deny the attempted access;

determining one or more explicit deny policies of the relevant access permission policies that explicitly deny the attempted access;

determining one or more implicit deny policies of the relevant access permission policies that implicitly deny the attempted access;

providing at least one explicit deny indication of at least one of the one or more explicit deny policies; and

providing at least one implicit deny indication of at least one of the one or more implicit deny policies.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5 , wherein the one or more explicit deny indications comprise at least one identification of at least one location that allows modification of the at least one explicit deny policy.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 5 , wherein the one or more implicit deny indications comprise at least one identification of at least one location that allows modification of the at least one implicit deny policy.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 5 , further comprising:

providing a suggested modification indication that indicates a policy modification that is performable to cause the attempted access to be allowed.

9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8 , wherein the suggested modification indication comprises at least one of an example statement that is addible to a policy to cause the attempted access to be allowed or an indication of a modification that would be easiest for the user to implement to cause the attempted access to be allowed.

10. The computer-implemented method of claim 5 , wherein the plurality of relevant access permission policies comprise all policies attached to the identity and all policies attached to the computing resource.

11. One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon computing instructions that, upon execution by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform computing operations comprising:

receiving one or more indications of a decision to deny an attempted access of a computing resource by an identity, wherein an evaluation of the decision to deny the attempted access is performed based at least in part on a log analysis that indicates more than a threshold quantity of access denial errors within a given time period;

providing, for display, an interface of an activity monitoring service that shows a relationship between policy changes made by a user and the access denial errors, the interface identifying a first time at which the policy changes are made by the user and a second time at which an increase occurred in an amount of the access denial errors;

determining a plurality of relevant access permission policies whose permissions are evaluated as inputs to the decision to deny the attempted access;

determining one or more explicit deny policies of the relevant access permission policies that explicitly deny the attempted access;

determining one or more implicit deny policies of the relevant access permission policies that implicitly deny the attempted access;

providing at least one explicit deny indication of at least one of the one or more explicit deny policies; and

providing at least one implicit deny indication of at least one of the one or more implicit deny policies.

12. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11 , wherein the one or more explicit deny indications comprise at least one identification of at least one location that allows modification of the at least one explicit deny policy.

13. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11 , wherein the one or more implicit deny indications comprise at least one identification of at least one location that allows modification of the at least one implicit deny policy.

14. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11 , wherein the operations further comprise:

providing a suggested modification indication that indicates a policy modification that is performable to cause the attempted access to be allowed.

15. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 14 , wherein the suggested modification indication comprises at least one of an example statement that is addible to a policy to cause the attempted access to be allowed or an indication of a modification that would be easiest for the user to implement to cause the attempted access to be allowed.

16. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11 , wherein the plurality of relevant access permission policies comprise all policies attached to the identity and all policies attached to the computing resource.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Dec 10, 2021
From: STRONG, HOMER; KLIMOSOVA, LUCIE
To: AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Reel/Frame 058359/0667 →
References Cited (12)
US 7580919B1 · Hannel · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 8406120B1 · Sandhu · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 9877227B2 · Zhang · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 10320624B1 · Roth et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10581919B2 · Kruse · 2020 [cited by examiner]
Soatto, Stefano; “Graceful AI”; https://www.amazon.science/latest-news/graceful-ai; Amazon.com; May 13, 2021; accessed Feb. 14, 2023; 6 pages. [cited by applicant]
Shen et al.; “Towards Backward-Compatible Representation Learning”; IEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; 2020; p. 6368-6377. [cited by applicant]
Katz et al.; “Reluplex: An Efficient SMT Solver for Verifying Deep Neural Networks”; Int'l Conf. on Computer Aided Verification; May 2017; 31 pages. [cited by applicant]
Huang et al.; “A survey of safety and trustworthiness of deep neural networks: Verification, testing, adversarial attack and defence, and interpretability”; Computer Science Review; vol. 37; May 2020; 95 pages. [cited by applicant]
Liu et al.; “Algorithms for Verifying Deep Neural Networks”; Foundations and Trends; vol. 4; Feb. 2021; 161 pages. [cited by applicant]
Yan et al.; “Positive-Congruent Training: Towards Regression-Free Model Updates”; IEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; May 2021; p. 14299-14308. [cited by applicant]
Yan et al.; “Positive-Congruent Training: Towards Regression-Free Model Updates”; obtained from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.09161.pdf; May 2021; 12 pages. [cited by applicant]