WO2019195820A1 - Securing temporal digital communications via authentication and validation - Google Patents

Abstract

An access control system is described that securitizes one or more blockchains using three sets of rules including authentication, validation, and access. The system also can include protection of signals between one or more secure DASA databases and/or one or more blockchains for various user devices. The DASA databases may exist external to, along with, or within the blockchains. The blockchains may or may not be securitized by this access control system. Specific methods and devices for securing (primarily digital and normally two-way) communications using applications that offer the combination of securing communications from user devices with reader devices, are also is provided. This disclosure also provides for the securitization of blockchain(s) for ensuring that communication signals transmitted from and data residing within databases and/or the blockchain itself are not corruptible or possibly compromised.

Description

SECURING TEMPORAL DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS VIA AUTHENTICATION AND VALIDATION

Priority Statement This application is a nonprovisional conversion of and takes priority under 119(e) of US Provisional Application number 62/654,093 filed April 6, 2018, entitled“Securing Temporal Digital Communications Via Authentication and Validation for Wireless User and Access Devices Utilizing Blockchain”.

This application is a continuation of US Nonprovisional Application number 16/376,399 filed April 5, 2019 and entitled,“Discrete Blockchain and Blockchain Communications”, which is a nonprovisional conversion of US Provisional Application number 62/653,144 filed April 5, 2018 and entitled, Managed Securitized and Encrypted Blockchain and Blockchain Communications”. This application is also a continuation of US Nonprovisional Application number 16/173,384 filed October 27, 2019, which is a continuation of 16/006,011 filed June 12, 2018 and granted as US Patent 10,158,613 on December 18, 2018, entitled“Combined Hidden Dynamic Random- Access Devices Utilizing Selectable Keys and Key Locators for Communicating Randomized Data together with Sub-Channels and Coded Encryption” which is a

nonprovisional conversion of US Provisional Application entitled“Combined Hidden

Dynamic Random Access Devices Utilizing Selectable Keys and Key Locators for

Communicating Randomized Data together with Sub-Channels and Coded Encryption Keys” with serial number 62/540,352, filed August 2, 2017. Further, application number 16/006,011, filed June 12, 2018, granted as US Patent Number 10,158,613 on December 18, 2018, is a continuation-in-part of US Nonprovisional Application number 16/005,040 filed June 11, 2018 entitled“Securitization of Temporal Digital Communications with Authentication and Validation of User and Access Devices”, granted as US Patent Number 10,154,021 on December 11, 2018. This application is also a continuation of US Nonprovisional Application number 16/202,905 filed November 28, 2018, which is a continuation of 16/005,134 filed June 11, 2018 and granted as US Patent 10,171,444 on January 1, 2019, entitled“Securitization of Temporal Digital Communications Via Authentication and Validation for Wireless User and Access Devices” which is a nonprovisional conversion of US Provisional Application entitled“Securitizing Temporal Digital Communications Via Authentication and Validation for Wireless User and Access Devices” with serial number 62/518,337, filed June 12, 2017.

Further, application number 16/005,134, filed June 11, 2018, granted as US Patent Number 10,171,444oh January 1, 2019, is a continuation-in-part of US Nonprovisional Application number 16/005,040 filed June 11, 2018 entitled “Securitization of Temporal Digital Communications with Authentication and Validation of User and Access Devices”, granted as US Patent Number 10,154,021 on December 11, 2018.

This application is also a continuation of US Nonprovisional Application number 16/173,091 filed October 29, 2018, which is a continuation of 16/005,040, filed June 11, 2018 and granted as US Patent 10,154,021 on December 11, 2018, and entitled“Securitization of Temporal Digital Communications with Authentication and Validation of User and Access Devices”, which is a nonprovisional conversion of US Provisional Application entitled“A System for Securing and Encrypting Temporal Digital Communications with Authentication and Validation of User and Access Devices” with serial number 62/518,281 filed June 12, 2017.

Field

The present disclosure relates to the security of communications, and more particularly to a system that protects signals between one or more secure databases for personal security cards either in combination with or between cellular phones to ensure proper entrance or access into secure locations by only approved personnel. Methods and devices for securing

(primarily digital and normally two-way) communications using applications that combine securing those communications for wireless/cellular phones with personnel access card readers (or other devices designed to receive security clearance for entry into secure locations) are not yet well established. These combined communication and access devices require using specific encryption techniques essential to denying fraudulent or otherwise unauthorized personnel with the ability to enter or access security protected devices or secure locations. The present disclosure also further relates to randomized encryption of communications, and more particularly to a system that conceals and under certain circumstances reveals signals between devices to ensure that the communications with and from securitized containers are discoverable by only designated third parties and also utilizes one or more blockchains. Methods and devices for protection of these (primarily digital and normally two-way) communications to, from, and within securitized blockchains using applications that may be combined with authorization and validation for receiving, storing, and retrieval of electronic, optical, and/or electro-optical communications in the form of voice, data, or optical transmissions, are also included. These protected data and data communications require special techniques essential to denying fraudulent or otherwise unauthorized third parties with the ability to access sealed transmissions used with data at rest as well as for data on the move and specific to data to, from, within, along and/or external to blockchains that can be securitized blockchains and that may also include either real or virtual devices.

The present disclosure also includes devices and a system that is specifically suited for data transmission applications that require a need for discrete communications, preserving privacy of information, electronic commerce transactions, electronic mail communications all required for solving security issues associated with one or more blockchains wherein the blockchains are utilized to enhance the system described and/or the blockchains themselves are further securitized resulting in more secure blockchains. Background

Access control systems such as personnel security cards to limit access to enclosed areas such as buildings, rooms within buildings, or fenced-in regions to only those personnel who have permission to enter are often employed. Conventional access control systems include access card readers at doors of the secured building. People who have permission to enter the building are often provided with an access control card that can be read by access card readers. The card reader reads information from the card, and transmits the information to a control panel, which determines whether the entrance (such as a door) should be unlocked. If the door should be unlocked (i.e., the card is associated with a person who has permission to enter), the control panel then sends a signal to the locking mechanism of the door, causing it to unlock. Conventional access control systems have several drawbacks and fail to take advantage of more recent and advanced technologies.

For example, many conventional systems utilize radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) for identification of the personal security card to the access control system. The access card reader includes an RFID transceiver, and the access card includes an RFID tag or transponder. The RFID transceiver transmits a radio frequency query to the card as the card passes over it. The transponder includes a silicon chip and an antenna that enables the card to receive and respond to the RF query. The response is typically an RF signal that includes a pre-programmed identification (ID) number. The card reader receives the signal and transmits the ID number to the control panel via a wire connection. Conventional card readers are not very sophisticated. These card readers may perform some basic formatting of the

identification data prior to sending it to the control panel, but are generally unable to perform more sophisticated functions with regard to securing digital communications.

The control panel is typically mounted on a wall somewhere in the building. The control panel conventionally includes a bank of relays that are each controlled by a controller device. The controller device accesses memory to determine whether the identification number received from the card reader is recognized and valid. If so, the controller causes the associated relay to open (or close) and thereby sends a signal to the door lock, which, if the signal is proper, causes the lock to enter the unlocked state. The lock typically remains unlocked for a specified amount of time.

Conventional control panels also have several deficiencies. In many instances, control panels consume a relatively large amount of space in relation to the number of doors they control. A control panel typically includes a specified number of relay banks, with each bank uniquely associated with the door it controls. For example, a control panel may have eight relay banks to control eight doors. Such a control panel could easily take up a 2 square foot area when mounted on a wall. If more than eight doors need to be controlled, then an additional control panel must be installed.

In addition, the "closed" architecture of conventional control panels make them inflexible, costly to maintain, and not user friendly. The closed architecture of the conventional control panels means that their design, functionality, and specifications are not disclosed by the manufacturers or owners. In addition, the control panel design is typically very complex, and specialized for a particular purpose, which renders them inaccessible by a typical building owner who has no specialized knowledge. As a result, when a control panel fails or needs to be upgraded, the building owner must call a specialized technician to perform maintenance or upgrading. The monetary costs associated with a technician's services contribute to excessive maintenance costs. In addition, a great deal of time is wasted waiting for the service technician to arrive.

Specific security concerns for cellular phones often deal with the content of the

communication itself (often protected by encryption methods), the integrity of the communication (often protected by error-checking and anti-virus software), and authorized access to the communication (often protected by account codes and passwords). For the purposes of this application the definition of mobile or smart phones is as follows;

A mobile phone is a portable telephone that can make and receive calls over a radio frequency link while the user is moving within a telephone service area. The radio frequency link establishes a connection to the switching systems of a mobile phone operator, which provides access to the public switched telephone network (PSTN). Most modem mobile telephone services use a cellular network architecture, and, therefore, mobile telephones are often also referred to as cellular telephones or cell phones. In addition to telephony, 2 I^st century era mobile phones support a variety of other services, such as text messaging, MMS, email, Internet access, short-range wireless communications (infrared, Bluetooth), business applications, gaming, and digital photography. Mobile phones which offer these and more general computing capabilities are referred to within this disclosure as“smartphones”.

Computer and associated cellular phone networks have been compromised by determining authorized account codes and passwords, thereby gaining access to proprietary two-way communications for obtaining information and additional capabilities. Attempts to combat these unauthorized communications has taken many forms. Interception of two-way communications of private (and often individual) conversations by government agencies has become common- place. One security measure implemented in typical communication systems is the authentication of communicating devices at registration, initiation or reception of the communication.

Authentication is viewed as the process of confirming the identity of the communicating device, perhaps by transmission and reception of an account or identification code and a password. In applications where the communicating device is mobile, authentication often requires communication between or through a plurality of communicating devices or networks in order to verify the identity of the communicating device and often the user of the communicating device.

Another serious flaw with existing cellular telephone systems is referred to as the“false mobile station” syndrome. It is presently possible to copy the entire memory contents of a mobile station and to use that information to manufacture clones that can demand and receive service from the network. Cellular phones may be cloned by reading the entire memory contents of the phone, including its identification codes,“secret” keys, internally stored personal identification codes, signatures, etc., and writing the same codes into any number of similar“clone” phones. The cloning procedure can become quite sophisticated and may include software modifications which replace physically stored information with

electronically stored information so that a number of stored mobile station identities may be cyclically rotated within one fraudulent mobile station and used to imitate several authentic mobile stations. Many communication systems, including cellular telephone networks and personnel security cards having authentication or authorization systems and comprise a vast number of distributed communicating devices that transmit data to a central computer system. The central communication system is in charge of determining whether to allow the

communication to go through or not. The central computer system may execute an authorization algorithm to determine if the security card has a valid account or identification number, if there is an available bio-identifier for the individual and, perhaps, if a valid personal identification number has been given or entered. However, sophisticated“hackers” have been able to duplicate valid identification numbers and determine one or more personal identification numbers. Password protection provides a limited degree of security, primarily protecting a

communication from access by persons who casually encounter the file, but this security can also be violated. Encryption is perhaps the most secure means for preventing outsiders from obtaining the content of the communication and, therefore, is in widespread use by corporations throughout the world for many or all of their electronic transactions.

However, the security of even the most sophisticated encryption methods remains jeopardized by the growing computing power available to individuals and groups. Complex encryption algorithms using 64 bit keys having 2⁶⁴ (about 1.8^c 10¹⁹) possible keys can become marginalized in terms of protection against outside access to the communication.

Therefore, there is a need for improved methods of securing communications between two or more communicating devices and/or users. More particularly, there is a need for devices and methods to ensure prevention of personnel security cards and cellular phones as well the content of the communication. Having a cellular or“smart” phone (smart phones are also those that have embedded memory and microprocessors) that combines security card-type access together with secured cellular phones to ensure proper secured access to users is also important. It would also be desirable to provide devices with a method for a simple measure of detecting the use of“cloned” communicating devices. Furthermore, it would be especially desirable if the method did not require any significant physical modifications to existing communicating devices, but rather are employed by the addition or modification of software.

To solve the above mentioned problems and drawbacks, the inventions disclosed in U.S. Patent Numbers 6,466,780, 6,766,161, and 6,466,780 and the associated details are hereby incorporated by reference into the present disclosure in its entirety and for all proper purposes.

In addition, to the need for improved methods of securing communications between two or more communicating devices and/or users the use of blockchain can be added to not only provide enhanced security of the system described herein but also to use the system to enhance blockchain security. Simply put, a blockchain is a type of distributed ledger or decentralized database that keeps continuously updated digital records of who owns what. Rather than having a central administrator like a traditional database such as utilized by banks, governments, accountants, etc., or in one location in the cloud, a distributed ledger has a network of replicated databases, synchronized (often via the internet) and visible to anyone within the network. Blockchain networks can be private with restricted membership similar to an intranet, or they can utilize public internets such as the World Wide Web which can be accessed by any person in the world.

When a digital transaction is carried out, it is grouped together in a cryptographically protected block with other transactions that have occurred in a segment of time (normally the last 10 minutes) and sent out to the entire network. Miners (members in the network with high levels of computing power) then compete to validate the transactions by solving complex coded problems. The first miner to solve the problems and validate the block receives a reward. (In the Bitcoin Blockchain network, for example, a miner would receive Bitcoins).

Cryptocurrency and associated mining is what has led to popularizing the use of blockchain. The validated block of transactions is then timestamped and added to a chain in a linear, chronological order. New blocks of validated transactions are linked to older blocks, making a chain of blocks that show every transaction made in the history of that blockchain. The entire chain is continuously updated so that every ledger in the network is the same, giving each member the ability to prove who owns what at any given time or any given instance. According to Vitalik Buterin, the co-creator and inventor of Ethereum (another

cryptocurrency) , described as a“decentralized mining network and software development platform rolled into one” that facilitates the creation of new cryptocurrencies and programs that share a single blockchain (a cryptographic transaction ledger). “A blockchain is a magic computer that anyone can upload programs to and leave the programs to self-execute, where the current and all previous states of every program are always publicly visible, and which carries a very strong crypto economically secured guarantee that programs running on the chain will continue to execute in exactly the way that the blockchain protocol specifies.” Blockchain’s decentralized, open and cryptographic nature allows people to trust each other and transact peer to peer, making the need for intermediaries obsolete. This also brings unprecedented security benefits. Hacking attacks that commonly impact large centralized intermediaries like banks would be virtually impossible to pull off on the blockchain. For example, if someone wanted to hack into a particular block in a blockchain, a hacker would not only need to hack into that specific block, but all of the proceeding blocks going back toward and including the entire history of that blockchain. The hacker/perpetrator would also need to carry out this procedure for every ledger in the network, which could include millions, and simultaneously. Blockchain is a highly disruptive technology that promises to change the technology world as we know it today (2018). The technology is not only shifting the way we use the Internet, but it is also revolutionizing the global economy. By enabling the digitization of assets, blockchain is driving a fundamental shift from the Internet of information, where we can instantly view, exchange and communicate information to the Internet of value, where we can instantly exchange assets. A new global economy of immediate value transfer is on its way, where big intermediaries may no longer play a major role. An economy where trust is established not by central intermediaries but through consensus and complex computer code.

According to Don Tapscott, who is a Canadian business executive, author, consultant and speaker, and who specializes in business strategy, organizational transformation and the role of technology in business and society. He is the CEO of The Tapscott Group, and was founder and chairman of the international think tank New Paradigm before its acquisition,“The technology likely to have the greatest impact on the next few decades has arrived. And it’s not social media. It’s not big data. It’s not robotics. It’s not even AI. You’ll be surprised to learn that it’s the underlying technology of digital currencies like Bitcoin. It’s called the

blockchain.”

Blockchain has applications that go way beyond obvious things like digital currencies and money transfers. From electronic voting, smart contracts and digitally recorded property assets to patient health records management and proof of ownership for digital content. Blockchain will profoundly disrupt hundreds of industries that rely on intermediaries, including banking, finance, academia, real estate, insurance, legal, health care and the public sector— amongst many others. This will result in job losses and the complete transformation of entire industries. But overall, the elimination of intermediaries brings mostly positive benefits. Banks and governments for example, often impede the free flow of business because of the time it takes to process transactions and regulatory requirements. The blockchain will enable an increased amount of people and businesses to trade much more frequently and efficiently, significantly boosting local and international trade. Blockchain technology would also eliminate expensive intermediary fees that have become a burden on individuals and businesses, especially in the remittances space.

Brock Pierce, who in 2013 founded venture capital firm Blockchain Capital (BCC) which was reported to have raised $85 million in two venture funds by October 2017 and announced a $50 million Initial Coin Offering (ICO) by BCC in February 2017 known as EOS and marketed through a new vehicle called Block. one that is developing "end-to-end solutions to bring businesses onto the blockchain from strategic planning to product deployment" , stated that“Every human being on the planet with a phone, will have equal access(to a form of blockchain). This expands the total addressable market by 4X”

In other words, perhaps most profoundly, blockchain promises to democratize and expand the global financial system. Giving people who have limited exposure to the global economy, better access to financial and payment systems and stronger protection against corruption and exploitation is certainly one advantage that will make this technology more ubiquitous. The potential impacts of blockchain technology on society and the global economy are incredibly significant. With an ever-growing list of real-world uses, blockchain technology promises to have a massive impact. Briefly summarizing, the blockchain works as a tamper-proof distributed public ledger that manages transactions. Another way to think of this is that blockchain is like a magical Google spreadsheet in the cloud, or more specifically on a network. Put simply, a blockchain is basically an incorruptible distributed ledger of data, which can be used to store informational assets ranging from managing cryptographic contracts to transferring value. The most recognized application on a blockchain are bitcoin transactions. The transferring of value from one person to another with no central intermediary, and without allowing a person or party to spend their bitcoin (or other cryptocurrency) twice,“the double spend rule”. This means that “value” can have a change of title and ownership from one person/party to another, without the need of a trusted third party to validate/govem the trade. To accomplish this, the need for governance is found in the protocol. Besides being a ledger for“data of value”, or cryptocurrencies, blockchain technology is finding broader usage in peer to peer lending, (smart) contracts managements, healthcare data, stock transfers, and even elections. Like any emerging and disruptive technology, no one can predict the future of blockchain technology, but it is clear that it isn’t (just) for purchasing black-market goods and services. In fact, blockchain technology is finding its way into big firms such as IBM, Microsoft, and major banking institutions. Interest in the technology is driven by (fear of disruption) the fact that it excludes trusted third parties (banks and clearinghouses) during transfer of values, which in turn results in fast, private and less expensive financial transactions.

As stated above, blockchain can facilitate the peer-to-peer transfer of anything that’s of value. This may range from assets, properties, and contracts. The most crucial and far- reaching Blockchain applications is applied in Bitcoin, with transfer of value, and for Ethereum, with its enhancement of smart contracts. As low-trust digital-based systems gain adherents and differing use cases, software developers are creating new variant blockchains to deal with the inevitable fragmentation between public, consortium and private blockchain technologies.

Here, it is important to understand the differences between public, consortium and private blockchains.

Public— Fully decentralized and uncontrolled networks with no access permission required— anyone can participate in the consensus process to determine which transaction blocks are added. There is usually little or no pre-existing trust between participants in a Public blockchain.

Consortium— The consensus process for new transaction blocks is controlled by a fixed set of nodes, such as a group of financial institutions where pre-existing trust is high. Private— Access permissions are tightly controlled, with rights to read or modify the blockchain restricted to certain users. Permissions to read the blockchain may be restricted or public.

There is usually some degree of pre-existing trust between at least some of Private blockchain participants. The degree of pre-existing trust that an organization requires, as well as necessary control over participant permissions, will determine what type of blockchain to use. Different blockchain solutions have advantages and disadvantages. Take for example, the difference between how transactions are validated within each type of blockchain:

Proof of Work (PoW): About“mining” transactions utilizing a resource-intensive hashing process, which (a) confirms transactions between network participants and (b) writes the confirmed transactions into the blockchain ledger as a new block.

The accepted new block is proof that the work was done, so the miner may receive a 25 BTC (Bitcoins) payment for successfully completing the work. The problem with PoW is that it is resource-intensive and creates a centralizing tendency among miners based on computer resource capability.

Proof of Stake (PoS): About“validating” blocks created by miners and requires users to prove ownership of their“stake. Validation introduces a randomness into the process, making the establishment of a validation monopoly more difficult, thereby enhancing network security. One problem with PoS is the“nothing at stake” issue, where miners have nothing to lose in voting for different blockchain histories, preventing a consensus from being created. There are several attempts to solve this problem underway. Additional developments in this area hope to combine PoW with PoS to create hybrid blockchains with the highest security and lowest resource requirements. To that end, some developers are focused on enhancing network security through‘consensus without mining.’ Blockchains fundamentally operate on the basis of how consensus is agreed upon for each transaction added to the ledger.

To address the benefits of each type of consensus mechanism and in which situation are they best utilized, the following additional terms have been defined. Delegated Proof of Stake— Network parameters are decided upon by elected delegates or representatives. If you value a“democratized” blockchain with reduced regulatory interference, this version is for you.

PAXOS— An academic and complicated protocol centered around multiple distributed machines reaching agreement on a single value. This protocol has been difficult to implement in real-world conditions.

RAFT— Similar to PAXOS in performance and fault tolerance except that it is“decomposed into relatively independent subproblems”, making it easier to understand and utilize.

Round Robin— Utilizing a randomized approach, the round robin protocol requires each block to be digitally signed by the block-adder, which may be a defined set of participants. This is more suited to a private blockchain network where participants are known to each other.

Federated Consensus— Federated consensus is where each participant knows all of the other participants, and where small sets of parties who trust each other agree on each transaction and over time the transaction is deemed valid. Suitable for systems where decentralized control is not an imperative.

Proprietary Distributed Ledger— A PDL is one where the ledger is controlled, or proprietary, to one central entity or consortium. The benefits of this protocol are that there is already a high degree of pre-existing trust between the network participants and agreed-upon security measures. Suitable for a consortium or group of trading partners, such as supply chains. PBFT— In a PBFT system, each node publishes a public key and messages are signed by each node, and after enough identical responses the transaction is deemed valid. PBFT is better suited for digital assets which require low latency due to high transaction volume but do not need large throughput. N2N— Node to node (N2N) systems are characterized by encrypted transactions where only the parties involved in a transaction have access to the data. Third parties such as regulators may have opt-in privileges. Suitable for use cases where a high degree of transaction confidentiality is required.

The above list represents the current major consensus mechanisms in operation or from research organizations.

Due to the initial visibility of Bitcoin, the financial services industry has been early in researching the possible uses of consensus mechanisms to streamline operations, reduce costs and eliminate fraudulent activity.

The multi-trillion dollar global financial services industry is really composed of many different sectors, from lending to smart contracts, trading execution, letters of credit, insurance, payments, asset registration, regulatory reporting and more.

For example, the process of securing a letter of credit, which is an important import/export trading service, would likely utilize a‘consortium’ approach to achieving transaction consensus. In August, 2016 a banking consortium, R3CEV, successfully designed and executed trading smart contracts. These types of contracts could then be applicable to accounts receivable invoice factoring and letter of credit transactions.

For the use case example of cross border remittances, which would involve many individuals on both sides of the transaction, a‘public’ consensus mechanism would likely be a relevant choice. Since remittances would need to have a relatively short time latency for transaction completion, a solution involving a Proof of Stake approach with its low resource requirement to validate transactions along with potentially higher security, would be compelling.

In sum, the state of blockchain development is rapidly gaining speed worldwide, yet there is much work to be done.

Numerous Global 2000 companies led by their technology executives and consultants are beginning to participate in development and testing of this revolutionary technology sector.

Organizations that begin first-hand learning about the power of blockchain technologies will have increased opportunity to lead their industry. Existing Proof of Work and Proof of Stake protocols have various problems, such as requiring huge outlays of energy usage and increasing centralization (PoW) or participants having nothing at stake (PoS) possibly contributing to consensus disruption on mined blocks.

Tendermint co-founder Jae Kwon has published a paper describing his firm’s concept and approach in this regard. Kwon’s solution is twofold and does not require Proof of Work mining:

(a) A % majority of validators is required to sign off on block submission, with no more than ½ able to sign duplicate blocks without penalty

(b) The protocol raises the penalty of double-spend attacks to unacceptably high levels by destroying the malicious actor’s Bitcoin account values. The algorithm is“based on a modified version of the DLS protocol and is resilient up to ½ of Byzantine participants.”

Kwon and his team at Tendermint hope to bring speed, simplicity and security to blockchain app development. An important and difficult to answer question remains. How does one decide on what type of blockchain to use and their relevancy for your company use case? Figure 4 provides a pathway for initial success, by determining the need for blockchain.

Below are a few examples of different types of blockchains, depending on the organization’s greatest prioritized need and a table which organizes these needs follows.

One consideration is confidentiality. For example, in the case of a public financial blockchain, all the transactions appear on the ledgers of each participant. So, while the identities of the transacting parties are not known, the transactions themselves are public.

Some companies are developing‘supporting’ blockchains to avoid this problem, by“storing or notarizing the contracts in encrypted form, and performing some basic duplicate detection.” Each company would store the transaction data in their own database, but use the blockchain for limited memorialization purposes.

A second consideration is whether you need provenance tracking. Existing supply chains are rife with counterfeit and theft problems. A blockchain that collectively belongs to the supply chain participants can reduce or eliminate breaks in the chain as well as secure the integrity of the database tracking the supply chain.

A third example is the need for recordkeeping between organizations, such as legal or accounting communications. A blockchain that timestamps and provides proof of origin for information submitted to a case archive would provide a way for multiple organizations to jointly manage the archive while keeping it secure from individual attempts to corrupt it.

Table 1 : Consensus for the Utilization of Blockchain

Blockchains fundamentally operate on the basis of how consensus is agreed upon for each transaction added to the ledger.

Understanding the differences between Private, Public and Consortium Blockchains is important.

As financial institutions begin to explore the possibilities of blockchain technology, they are coming up with systems that complement their existing business models. A private or a consortium blockchain platform, as opposed to the public platform that Bitcoin uses, will allow them to retain control and privacy while still cutting down their costs and transaction speeds.

In fact, this private system will have lower costs and faster speeds than a public blockchain platform can offer. Blockchain purists aren’t impressed. A private platform effectively kills their favorite part of this nascent technology: decentralization. They see the advent of private blockchain systems as little more than a sneaky attempt by big banks to retain their control of financial markets. The purists have a point, though the evil plot narrative is a bit much. If big banks can utilize a form of blockchain technology that revolutionizes finance, and if they are willing and able to pass these benefits onto their customers, then it is hardly an evil plot.

Vitalik Buterin said it best:“the idea that there is‘one true way’ to be blockchaining is completely wrong headed, and both categories have their own advantages and disadvantages”. This is the purpose for addressing other possibilities as listed below;

Public Blockchain

A Blockchain was designed to securely cut out the middleman in any exchange of asset scenario. It does this by setting up a block of peer-to-peer transactions. Each transaction is verified and synced with every node affiliated with the blockchain before it is written to the system. Until this has occurred, the next transaction cannot move forward. Anyone with a computer and internet connection can set up as a node that is then synced with the entire blockchain history. While this redundancy makes public blockchain extremely secure, it also makes it slow and wasteful. The electricity (power requirements) needed to run each transaction is astronomical and increases with every additional node. The benefit is every transaction is public and users can maintain anonymity. A public blockchain is most appropriate when a network needs to be decentralized. It is also great if full transparency of the ledger or individual anonymity are desired benefits. Costs are higher and speeds are slower than on a private chain, but still faster and less expensive than the accounting systems and methods used today.

This is a good trade-off for a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. Security is key to their users, a decentralized network is at the heart of the project and their competitors in the finance industry are still significantly more expensive and slower than a public blockchain network despite its slowness when compared to a private blockchain. Private Blockchain

Private blockchain lets the middleman back in, to a certain extent. It is similar to the statement “better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t know. Here, the company writes and verifies each transaction. This allows for much greater efficiency and transactions on a private blockchain will be completed significantly faster. Though it does not offer the same decentralized security as its public counterpart, trusting a business to run a blockchain is no more dangerous than trusting it to run a company without blockchain. The company can also choose who has read access to their blockchain’s transactions, allowing for greater privacy than a public blockchain.

A private blockchain is appropriate to more traditional business and governance models, but that isn’t a bad thing. Just because it is unlikely to revolutionize our world, doesn’t mean it can’t play a role in making the world better. Competition is key to developing the most useful products. Traditional financial institutions have long held a monopoly— technically, an oligopoly— over the industry. Their outdated products and services are a direct result of this power. Using a privately run version of blockchain technology can bring these organization into the 2lst century. A number of our governance institutions are old and outdated as well.

Like finance, our government is not subject to competition. Adoption and integration will likely be slower in this sector, but if and when blockchain technologies are adopted they will cut billions of dollars of behind the scenes spending.

Imagine a truly secure online voting system. No more poll workers, voting booths, paper ballots, paid counters or organizers with cushy salaries. What’s more, the barriers to voting will be greatly reduced and we will likely see an increase in turnout. This could be accomplished with a public design, but most governments are unlikely to decentralize control and security, so a vetted private system greatly increases the chance of adoption.

Consortium Blockchain

Consortium blockchain is partly private. There has been some confusion about how this differs from a fully private system. Here again, Vitalik Buterin provides a pretty straightforward definition: “So far there has been little emphasis on the distinction between consortium blockchains and fully private blockchains, although it is important: the former provides a hybrid between the ‘low-trust’ provided by public blockchains and the‘single highly -trusted entity’ model of private blockchains, whereas the latter can be more accurately described as a traditional centralized system with a degree of cryptographic auditability attached.”

Instead of allowing any person with an internet connection to participate in the verification of transactions process or allowing only one company to have full control, a few selected nodes are predetermined. A consortium platform provides many of the same benefits affiliated with private blockchain— efficiency and transaction privacy, for example— without consolidating power with only one company. One can think of it as trusting a council of elders. The council members are generally known entities and they can decide who has read access to the blockchain ledger. Consortium blockchain platforms have many of the same advantages of a private blockchain, but operate under the leadership of a group instead of a single entity. This platform would be great for organizational collaboration. Imagine central banks coordinating their activities based on international rules of finance. Another scenario could include the United Nations outsourcing their transactional ledger and voting system to blockchain, allowing each country to represent a verifying node.

A major concern and major objective of the present disclosure involves the fact that many people, institutions and corporations have the belief that even the blockchain is not completely secure and perhaps even corruptible.

In recent months, Bitcoin’s supporters have pointed to its falling use in illegal transactions as a sign of the cryptocurrency’s growth toward mainstream acceptance. But German researchers say that links to child pornography within technology underlying Bitcoin could stifle its development. While the block chain is largely known to be an immutable ledger of Bitcoin transactions corroborated by copies held by participating computers, it also allows its users to leave coded messages. Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, famously left a cryptic message on the blockchain’s original block:“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.” Like that very first message, most of the content left on the blockchain has been relatively benign— tributes to the late Nelson Mandela, or messages to loved ones on Valentine’s Day. But the ones that could be illegal, containing links to child pom, for example, could be an outsized problem for the Bitcoin community. “While most of this content is harmless, there is also content to be considered objectionable in many jurisdictions, e.g., the depiction of nudity of a young woman or hundreds of links to child pornography,” the paper authored by members of RWTH Aachen University and Goethe University read.“As a result, it could become illegal (or even already is today) to possess the blockchain, which is required to participate in Bitcoin.” The study from RWTH Aachen University, also stales that other files on the biockchain may violate copyright and privacy laws. Researchers stated they had found eight files with sexual content. And three of these contained content "objectionable for almost all jurisdictions". Two of these between them listed more than 200 links to child sexual abuse imagery A Garrick Hileman, a crypto-currency expert at Cambridge University, stated that the issue of illegal content had been“discussed and known about for awhile." Pruning, or altering parts of the biockchain ledger, would allow users to rid their local copies of illegal content, he said, but was likely to be too technical for most Bitcoin users. "There are big barriers anytime you need to make modifications," Mr Hileman said. But he also added that although maintaining a complete record of the biockchain was more secure than an altered copy, "many would argue that it's not that important".

The researchers said they found 1,600 instances in which transactions on the blockchain included non-fmancial information, representing about 1.4% of transactions. Since the Bitcoin blockchain is immutable, those who download it are also unwittingly downloading links to child pom. The Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment from Fortune.

It’s not the first time curious onlookers have found links to child pornography in Bitcoin’s blockchain. Users first pointed out the links in 2013. Though this is perhaps the first time researchers have been able to quantify the volume of potentially illicit material hidden in the blockchain. Additionally, since Bitcoin has buyers and traders all over the world, items in the blockchain also raise questions about legality in other nations. As the blockchain researchers note:“In China, the mere possession of state secrets can result in longtime prison sentences.

Furthermore, China’s definition of state secrets is vague and covers, e.g., activities for safeguarding state security. Such vague allegations with reference to state secrets have been applied to critical news in the past.”

The researchers pointed out that the blockchain includes online news articles concerning pro democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong in 2014, demonstrations that were a point of irritation for Beijing.

In an effort to rebuke the possibility that blockchain may be less than secure and/or corruptible , a research paper published in July 2017 entitled“Data Insertion in Bitcoin’s Blockchain” explores this topic in more detail and explains how the Coinbase data“is arbitrary and can be up to 100 bytes in size”. This article states that only miners have the ability to insert data in this manner, and it’s typically used to signal mining support for proposed protocol changes. There are five other ways in which data can be encoded on the bitcoin blockchain, and it is the OP RETURN option that is at the center of the child pornography story. The 2017 research paper explains that“this method is appropriate for inserting small amounts of data (or transaction metadata), but it is not suitable for large quantities of data.”

80 bytes is all that OP RETURN can store, and what’s more that information is subject to deletion. That’s because bitcoin nodes are capable of pruning“provably unspendable” UTXOs for efficiency, which include OP RETURN data. Anyone wishing to use the bitcoin blockchain to seek out child pornography would need to perform the following convoluted process:

1. Download the entire bitcoin blockchain and sift through 251 million transactions to find the 1.4% that contain some kind of arbitrary data encoded in them.

2. Ensure that the version of the blockchain you were using had been subject to no pruning that might have removed OP RETURN data.

3. Extract any web links that might be concealed in the data using some sort of

steganography. 4. Type the links into your browser until you eventually found a website that was still accessible.

To assert that the bitcoin blockchain contains child pornography (CP) is disingenuous, and is no more meaningful than say mg that the internet contains CP. You could live to 100 and never encounter CP on the web, because that s not how the web works. And that’s not how the blockchain works either.

Asserting that there is child pornography on the blockchain would be like strolling through the U.S. Capitol Building, dropping a scrap of paper containing a deep web address, and then claiming that the American government is storing obscene content. As respected bitcoin commenter Nic Carter wrote:“Any journalist writing about arbitrary' content injection into the Bitcoin blockchain should be extremely careful to detail to what extent that content exists, is extractable, viewable, etc. A text string which is a URL link to a [website displaying a thing] is not [the thing itself]. That is an extremely bad interpretation. Do not conflate the two. If you are willing to claim that“the blockchain contains X” you should be able to prove that you can extract X.”

Steganography and blockchain data insertion are fascinating topics that deserve scrutiny and further study. To assert that the blockchain contains child pornography is misleading to the point of falsehood. It’s possible to encode a hi dden link inside any database, including

Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia.

In any case, the present disclosure provides software developers with a new and better way to secure whatever software they're building so when that software communicates with either a copy of itself or other types of software, including the software resident in various ty pes of devices, the data is kept safe. This application is specific to the ability to further secure one or more blockchains. which are already secure but have been reportedly hacked as stated above.

The present disclosure also relates generally to a cryptographic management scheme that provides for network security, mobile security, and specifically and more particularly relates to devices (such as containers) and a system for creating and manipulating encryption keys without risking the security of the key. The present disclosure addresses all of the needs described directly herein, as well as described earlier above. The basis of this application is detailed below and includes the ability to both utilize one or more blockchains to enhance the securitization system as well as utilize the system to provide additional securitization for one or more blockchains.

Security of the blockchain can be further enhanced by utilizing additional cryptographic computer systems. In addition, these cryptographic computer systems can be enhanced by use of blockchain(s).

As it is known in cryptology, encryption techniques (codification) using standard and evolving algorithms are used so that data exposed to undesirable third parties are encrypted making it difficult (and intended to be impossible) for an unauthorized third party to see or use it. Usually, for encryption, the term‘plaintext’ refers to a text which has not been coded or encrypted. In most cases the plaintext is usually directly readable, and the terms‘cipher- text’ or‘encrypted text’ are used to refer to text that has been coded or“encrypted”.

Encryption experts also assert that, despite the name,“plaintext”, the word is also synonymous with textual data and binary data, both in data file and computer file form. The term“plaintext” also refers to serial data transferred, for example, from a communication system such as a satellite, telephone or electronic mail system. Terms such as‘encryption’ and‘enciphering’,‘encrypted’ and‘ciphered’,‘encrypting device’ and‘ciphering device’, ‘decrypting device’ and‘decipher device’ have an equivalent meaning within cryptology and are herein used to describe devices and methods that include encryption and decryption techniques.

There is an increasing need for security in communications over public and private networks. The expanding popularity of the Internet, and especially the World Wide Web, have lured many more people and businesses into the realm of network communications. There has been a concomitant rapid growth in the transmission of confidential information over these networks. As a consequence, there is a critical need for improved approaches to ensuring the confidentiality of private information.

Network security is a burgeoning field. There are well known encryption algorithms, authentication techniques and integrity checking mechanisms which serve as the foundation for today's secure communications. For example, public key encryption techniques using RSA and Diffie-Hellman are widely used. Well known public key encryption techniques generally described in the following U.S. Pat. Nos: 4,200,770 entitled, Cryptographic Apparatus and Method, invented by Hellman, Diffie and Merkle; 4,218,582 entitled, Public Key Cryptographic Apparatus and Method, invented by Hellman and Merkle; 4,405,829 entitled Cryptographic Communications System and Method, invented by Rivest, Shamir and Adleman; and 4,424,414 entitled, Exponentiation Cryptographic Apparatus and Method, invented by Hellman and Pohlig. For a general discussion of network security, refer to Network and Internetwork Security, by William Stallings, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1995.

In spite of the great strides that have been made in network security, there still is a need for further improvement. For example, with the proliferation of heterogeneous network environments in which different host computers use different operating system platforms, there is an increasing need for a security mechanism that is platform independent. Moreover, with the increasing sophistication and variety of application programs that seek access to a wide range of information over networks, there is an increasing need for a security mechanism that can work with many different types of applications that request a wide variety of different types of information from a wide variety of different types of server applications. Furthermore, as security becomes more important and the volume of confidential network transactions expands, it becomes increasingly important to ensure that security can be achieved efficiently, with minimal time and effort. The creation of proprietary digital information is arguably the most valuable intellectual asset developed, shared, and traded among individuals, businesses, institutions, and countries today. This information is mostly defined in electronic digital formats, e.g., alphanumeric, audio, video, photographic, scanned image, etc. It is well known that a large number of encryption schemes have been used for at least the last 100 years and deployed more frequently since the onset of World Wars I and II. Since the beginning of the cold war, the “cat and mouse” spy missions have further promulgated the need for secure encryption devices and associated systems.

Simultaneously, there has been an increased need for mobility of transmissions including data and signals by physical or logical transport between home and office, or from office to office(s) among designated recipients. The dramatic increase in the velocity of business transactions and the fusion of business, home, and travel environments has accelerated sharing of this proprietary commercial, government, and military digital information. To facilitate sharing and mobility, large amounts of valuable information may be stored on a variety of portable storage devices (e.g., memory cards, memory sticks, flash drives, optical and hard disc magnetic media) and moved among home and office PCs, portable laptops, PDAs and cell phones, and data and video players and recorders. The physical mobility of these storage devices makes them vulnerable to theft, capture, loss, and possible misuse. Indeed, the storage capacity of such portable storage devices is now approaching a terabyte, sufficient to capture an entire computer operating environment and associated data. This would permit copying a targeted computer on the storage media and replicating the entire data environment on an unauthorized“virgin” computer or host device.

Another trend in data mobility is to upload and download data on demand over a network, so that the most recent version of the data is always accessible and can be shared only with authorized users. This facilitates the use of“thin client” software and minimizes the cost of storing replicated versions of the data, facilitates the implementation of a common backup and long-term storage retention and/or purging plan, and may provide enhanced visibility and auditing as to who accessed the data and the time of access, as may be required for regulatory compliance. However, thin client software greatly increases the vulnerability of such data to hackers who are able to penetrate the firewalls and other mechanisms, unless the data is encrypted on the storage medium in such a way that only authorized users could make sense of it, even if an unauthorized user were able to access the encrypted files.

There is a balance among legal, economic, national security, and pragmatic motivations to develop robust security implementations and policies to protect the storage of proprietary digital information, based on the value of the information, the consequences of its exposure or theft, and the identification and trust associated with each of the targeted recipients. In order to provide such varying degrees of protection for portable storage devices, system methods and application functionality must be developed and easily integrated into the operating procedures of the relevant institutions. Different policies defining degrees of protection are required to economically accommodate and adapt to a wide range of targeted recipient audiences for this data. Known encryption systems for these devices include the“Data Encryption Standard”

(“DES”), which was initially standardized by the“American National Bureau of Standards”, currently“National Institute of Standards and Technology” (“NBS” or“NIST”) in the United States. Another includes the“Fast data encipherment algorithm FEAL” (FEAL) developed later in Japan, and described in the IECEJ Technical Report IT 86-33. U.S. Pat. No. 5,214,703 entitled“Device for the Conversion of a Digital Block and Use of Same” describes the use of additional devices as does an encryption device described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,653 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Digital Encryption”. In most cases, the user making use of protecting the data after encryption or enciphering of a plaintext has delegated the strength of the invulnerability of the encryption to be positioned in front of an enemy attack. This positioning is aimed to discover the contents of the cipher text or the encryption key used, trusting in the organizations, institutions, or experts endorsing their security and providing a degree of confusion and diffusion of values introduced by the encryption device used in the cipher text. The user encrypting a particular plaintext has no objective security regarding the degree of confusion and diffusion of values present in a cipher text that result from the application of the encryption device. Attacks on personal computers and commercial, government and military data are now commonplace; indeed, identity theft of passwords is the largest white-collar crime in the United States. Yet passwords and PINs (Personal Identification Numbers), in most cases generated by human beings who are tempted to use native-language words, Social Security Numbers, telephone numbers, etc., are still the most used access security methods for protecting portable encryption devices, and among the most vulnerable to both brute force dictionary attacks as well as sophisticated logic tracing.

Professional criminal attackers and even amateur hackers now have access to sophisticated software and supercomputing networks that can unknowingly invade processing devices and storage devices, trace software instruction sequences and memory locations, and by knowing or discovering the algorithms being used, intercept and copy encryption keys, PINs, and other profile data used to protect the access to stored content. They can exploit vulnerabilities in the underlying commercial software, or in the construction of the integrated circuit chips housing and executing the cryptographic processes, or in the specialized cryptographic software, which enables exposing keys and access parameters at some deterministic point in the processing sequence. Industrial laboratory facilities are also available to read the data content stored in memory cells by measuring the electronic charge through the use of electronic beam microscopes, and thus steal stored PINs, keys, and therefore access the previously protected data. Many prior art methods exist for the key management protection necessary for securing key encryption keys for large groups of users. Split-key secret sharing schemes have been proposed whereby the decryption key is split and shared among multiple parties or entities to be combined to reconstitute the decryption key. In these cases, however, the individual secret shares themselves are maintained statically in multiple storage devices, generally on-line, where they are susceptible to attackers, particularly from within the institution, who can target the secret shares and recombine then to form the decryption key. Such solutions are often implemented for relatively static configurations of computing and storage devices and related communities of interest or tiers of users, and have not addressed the ability to so protect key encrypting keys when the data itself, and the means to encrypt and decrypt the data and to generate and recombine the shared secrets, are on a portable device.

Current file encryption systems provide a technique for a general-purpose computer to encrypt or decrypt computer-based files. Current encryption and decryption techniques typically rely on lengthy strings (e.g., 1024 bits, 2048 bits, 4096 bits, or more) to provide for secure encryption or decryption of files. Computer performance suffers due to the amount of data in the messages as well as the size of the encryption keys themselves.

Asymmetric file encryption systems use a different key to encrypt a file from the key used to decrypt the encrypted file. Many current file encryption systems rely on asymmetric encryption, such as those that rely on public key/private key pairs. An example of an encryption algorithm that utilizes public key/private key pairs is the RSA (Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman) algorithm. Symmetric file systems use an identical key to encrypt a file as the key used to decrypt the encrypted file. Certain file encryption systems utilize a cryptographic process or random number generator to derive a random symmetric key known as the file encryption key (FEK). The FEK is used to encrypt the file. Symmetric cryptography functions up to five orders of magnitude faster than asymmetric cryptography on files. Even with a very fast key device or software that encrypts/decrypts using the asymmetric key, any such file encryption system still has to overcome the fact that asymmetric keys generally operate at orders of magnitude slower than symmetric keys. When using the file encryption key, each time a file is being authenticated, the file encryption key has to be decrypted by the asymmetric key which is time consuming, but becoming less so as computer speeds and operations are constantly improving. What is needed are highly robust and proven security techniques incorporated into new system methods and into new commercially available portable storage hardware apparatus to implement configurable security policies for accessing information through rigorous authentication means, to secure the information with certified levels of accepted

cryptographic technology, and to rigorously control the environment within which the information is shared.

In addition, there is a need to better secure portable storage apparatus and method of encrypting and sealing digital information files and storing them in the device's integral or removable memory, or alternatively on the host device's memory or other ancillary memory storage devices, while operating under cryptographically protected security policies for transport and authorized access to such digital information.

There is also a need for secure physical and logical transport of data to and from multiple recipients. To this end, it is desirable to provide a means of securely transporting data from one place to another, if the user has to carry the data or physically transport the data and the secure encryption device, and somehow communicate the information necessary to log on and access the data by another authorized user. What is required are a multiplicity of methods to securely transport the encrypted data, either physically or logically, between an Originator user and one or more Receivers.

The use of encryption devices by the general population is becoming very common in for example, commercial electronic transactions and/or electronic mail. A predominant portion of all societies want to believe in an objective, easily verified way, that the maximum degree of the diffusion and confusion (encryption) of data and data values provided by a system they are using to encrypt their data, is the superior set of encrypted devices and system.

The present disclosure also relates generally to a cryptographic management scheme that provides for network security, mobile security and specifically and more particularly relates to devices and a system for creating and manipulating encryption keys without risking the security of the key while enhancing the security of the blockchain as well as utilizing the blockchain to enhance the security of the cryptographic management scheme. The present disclosure addresses all of the needs described directly herein, as well as described earlier above. Summary

As stated above, the present disclosure also describes the utility of employing one or more blockchains to provide securitized management devices, wherein at least a single path transfers signals controlled by a controller that exists within a blockchain wherein the signals further travel through the blockchain and wherein the signals are securitized and/or otherwise protected either before, or as the signals enter the at least blockchain.

The present disclosure also provides the ability to secure digital communications for the authorization and authentication of cellular phones together with personnel security cards by combing these devices and using a unique software technique. The present disclosure provides the ability to secure digital communications for the authorization, validation, and access of user and access devices that includes as many as five levels of encryption that ensure complete security of all communications between these devices and utilizes one or more blockchains between disparate platforms as required. These blockchains can be utilized with either real or virtual devices. More specifically, this disclosure described one or more devices comprising one or more real or virtual master distributed auto-synchronous array (DASA) databases located within or external to these devices that at least store and retrieve data and that include at least two or more partial distributed auto-synchronous array (DASA) databases wherein partial DASA databases function in either an independent manner, a collaborative manner or both, and wherein the master and partial DASA databases allow for bi-directional transmission of data exists within, along, or external to one or more securitized blockchains with multiple partial user devices and multiple partial access devices or to and from both partial user and partial access devices, wherein the one or more partial user and access devices store and provide at least partial copies of portions of the master DASA database and wherein the master DASA database, the partial DASA databases or both partial and master DASA databases are linked and communicate and utilize one or more securitized blockchains with one or more logging and monitoring databases capable of statistical and numerical calculations utilizing the data, wherein the devices authenticate using a first set of computing operations, validates using a second set of computing operations, and wherein a third set of computing operations controls access for a specified set of users. The devices further operate by transmission of a credential identifier to an access control server when the devices are determined to be operating, a local authentication processor configured to authenticate a credential identifier against entries of one or more keys existing within tables that exist external to, within, or along one or more securitized blockchains when the access control system is determined to be operating and an input/output processor configured to send a signal to a secured area that exists external to, within or along said one or more securitized blockchains when the credential identifier has been successfully authenticated and wherein a communications transceiver includes an interface to serve data that can be displayed to both a user external to the access control devices and displayed on the access control devices themselves and wherein the access control devices exist external to, within or along one or more securitized blockchains.

In most embodiments, the data is transmitted to a secured area that exists external to, within, or along one or more securitized blockchains such that the data is transmitted and received by a cellular phone. If access is allowed, a user’s device that exists external to, within or along one or more securitized blockchains provides use of oral, visual, or text data on a display, as a message that indicates a match so that the user is allowed access. If access is denied, the user’s device that exists external to, within or along said one or more securitized blockchains provides use of an oral, visual, or text data on a display as a message of denial of the match indicating that the user is denied access.

Denial of the match causes an encryption application that exists external to, within or along one or more securitized blockchains on the user’s device to be removed and wherein to ensure that master keys in a user table are secured, a new master key in the user table that exists external to, within or along one or more securitized blockchains is generated either via a signal from the user’s device to one or more secured encryption databases that exist external to, within or along one or more securitized blockchains or via a signal from a key management system to one or more secured encryption databases that exist external to, within or along one or more securitized blockchains.

There also exists in several embodiments, a key management system that is a system that provides one or more keys for encryption or decryption or both encryption and decryption that exist external to, within or along one or more securitized blockchains, as required by the devices.

These devices may control access to an enclosed area from a group consisting of a building, a room within a building, a cabinet, a parking lot, a fenced-in region, and an elevator. These devices further comprise a signal converter coupled to a communications processor that is capable of receiving and transmitting data as signals and that exists external to, within or along said one or more securitized blockchains, wherein the communications processor(s) is agnostic to a communication protocol of an access control server that exists external to, within or along said one or more securitized blockchains and that is also a portion of the devices themselves.

The signal converter is agnostic to a communication protocol of a local authentication processor that exists external to, within or along one or more securitized blockchains. The signal converter can also be adapted to interface with a plurality of access controllers that exist external to, within or along said one or more securitized blockchains.

A communication transceiver is provided for the partial user device or the partial access device or both partial user and access devices so that both exist external to, within or along said one or more securitized blockchains and includes at least one of the group consisting of; a serial interface, a TCP/IP interface, an IEEE 802.11 interface, an IEEE 802.15.4 interface, and a secure HTTP interface.

In several embodiments, a communications transceiver exists external to, within or along said one or more securitized blockchains and is configured to transmit a credential identifier to access a control server via a wireless communication link. In other embodiments, a communications transceiver receives a credential identifier from a radio-frequency identification (RFID) transponder that exists external to, within or along said one or more securitized blockchains included in an access control card.

In many embodiments, operational modes of the devices include at least one of a

synchronous mode and an asynchronous mode. Data transmitted to an access control server is encrypted and exists external to, within or along said one or more securitized blockchains.

In further embodiments a credential identifier is transmitted to an access control server that exists external to, within or along one or more securitized blockchains via a wireless communication link.

In yet additional embodiments, an access control system is described that comprises; a real or virtual master distributed auto-synchronous array (DASA) database located within or external to the system that at least stores and retrieves data and that include at least two or more partial distributed auto-synchronous array (DASA) databases wherein partial DASA databases function in either an independent manner, a collaborative manner or both, and wherein the master and partial DASA databases allow for bi-directional transmission of data exists within, along, or external to one or more securitized blockchains with multiple partial user devices and multiple partial access devices or to and from both partial user and partial access devices, wherein the one or more partial user and access devices store and provide at least partial copies of portions of the master DASA database and wherein the master DASA database, the partial DASA databases or both partial and master DASA databases are linked and communicate and utilize one or more securitized blockchains with one or more logging and monitoring databases capable of statistical and numerical calculations utilizing said data, wherein the system authenticates using a first set of computing operations, validates using a second set of computing operations, and wherein a third set of computing operations controls access for a specified set of users.

The system further operates by transmission of a credential identifier to an access control server that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain when the access control system is determined to be operating a local authentication processor that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain and is configured to authenticate the credential identifier against entries of one or more keys existing within tables that exist within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain when the access control system is determined to be operating and a input/output processor that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain and is configured to send a signal to a secured area when the credential identifier has been successfully authenticated; wherein a communication transceiver that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain includes an interface to serve data that can be displayed to both a user external to the access control devices and displayed on the access control devices themselves

The data is transmitted to a secured area that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain such that the data is transmitted and received by a cellular phone. If access is allowed, a user’s device that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain provides use of oral, visual, or text data on a display, as a message that indicates a match so that the user is allowed access. If access is denied, the user’s device provides use of an oral, visual, or text data on a display as a message of denial of the match indicating the user is denied access.

Denial of the match causes an encryption application on the user’s device to be removed and to ensure that master keys in a user table are secured, a new master key in the user table that exists within, along, or external to said securitized blockchain is generated either via a signal from the user’s device to one or more secured encryption databases or via a signal from a key management system, that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain, to the one or more secured encryption databases that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain.

In many embodiments as before, a key management system exists that provides one or more keys for encryption or decryption or both encryption and decryption as required by the access control system. The access control system may exist within, along, or external to said securitized blockchain, controls access to an enclosed area from a group consisting of a building, a room within a building, a cabinet, a parking lot, a fenced-in region, and an elevator.

The access control system also may comprise a signal converter coupled to a communications processors that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain and is capable of receiving and transmitting data as signals, wherein the communication processor is agnostic to a communication protocol of an access control server that is also a portion of the access control system. In many cases, the signal converter is agnostic to a communication protocol of a local authentication processor that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain.

In some embodiments, the signal converter is adapted to interface with a plurality of access controllers that exist within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain. Often, a communications transceiver is provided for the partial user device or the partial access device or both partial user and access devices that may exist within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain and includes at least one of the group consisting of; a serial interface, a TCP/IP interface, an IEEE 802.11 interface, an IEEE 802.15.4 interface, and a secure HTTP interface. The communications transceiver is configured to transmit a credential identifier to access a control server via a wireless communication link that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain.

In a further embodiment, the communications transceiver receives the credential identifier from a radio-frequency identification (RFID) transponder that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain and includes an access control card.

In most embodiments, operational modes of the access control system include at least one of a synchronous mode and an asynchronous mode.

In further embodiments, data transmitted to an access control server is encrypted and exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain.

In yet other embodiments of the system, a credential identifier is transmitted to an access control server via a wireless communication link that exists within, along, or external to the securitized blockchain.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Embodiments of the present disclosure are presented in the following drawings.

Figure 1 is a flow chart describing the installation of a user authentication application for a user onto a cellular/smart phone in accordance with the present disclosure.

Figure 2 is a flowchart describing the use of an authentication application that creates a user credential such as a QR code onto a cellular/smart phone.

Figure 3 is a flow chart describing the access process for a user with an authenticated credential. Figure 4 is a flow chart that describes how a user can determine the need for utilizing blockchain technology for essentially any data application.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION While the foregoing discussion has dealt primarily with detecting unauthorized

communicating devices, the present disclosure may also include the ability to detect unauthorized users. In many applications, including credit card authorization and approval and cellular telephone communications, it is frequently desirable to verify that the communication is being initiated by an authorized user. The inclusion of a user authorization system is beneficial for reducing the use of authentic communicating devices when they have been stolen or lost. Losses due to the use of lost or stolen communicating devices is also very significant, but is inherently limited to the capacity of the authorized communicating device itself, i.e., one communication at a time, a credit limit, etc. Furthermore, the use of lost or stolen communicating devices by unauthorized users may be restricted by the use of user specific codes, such as a personal identification number (PIN), finger print, password, voice commands and the like.

In another aspect of the disclosure, the host device and/or the communicating device may be programmed to verify the identity and authenticity of the device alone or in combination with the user. In one example, the host computer may first verify that the communication is being initiated from an authorized communicating device, then prompt the user to enter a personal identification code (PIN) indicating that the user is also authorized. Only upon satisfaction of these two criteria is the communication be allowed to proceed. It should be recognized that the host device could be programmed to verify these two codes, or other additional codes and authorizations, in any order. In another example, the communicating device itself may require the successful input of a personal identification code prior to enabling or energizing the transaction specific code, any portion of the device identification code or even some portion of the communication itself.

A still further aspect of the disclosure provides for automatic re-synchronization of the transaction specific codes following one or more unauthorized communications. Re- synchronization methods according to the present disclosure may be achieved by programming the host device to reset the a pointer or designated portion within a database regarding transaction specific (TS) codes for a particular identification code upon receiving a series of attempted communications having a series of transaction specific (TS) codes that match a portion of the database. For example, after receiving an attempted communication having a transaction specific (TS) code that is not the next expected transaction specific (TS) code or within the range of tolerance, no further communications using the same

identification code can proceed until the transaction specific codes of the communicating device and the host are re-synchronized. If the host device is programmed to allow re synchronization after receiving three transaction specific codes (i.e., 12, 13, 14) that match a portion of the host database (i.e., 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, etc.) for the given identification code, then the pointer in the host database is reset for the next TS code (i.e., 15) in the database. Subsequent communications may proceed in accordance with the aforementioned methods. It may be beneficial to a separate range of tolerance for re-synchronization in order to prevent re-synchronization at a dramatically different point in the sequence of transaction specific codes.

Figure 1 is a flow chart (100) describing the installation of a user authentication application (112) for a user onto a cellular/smart phone in accordance with the present disclosure. More specifically, the system provides for a user (105) to operate a secured cellular (“smart”) phone (110). The user (105) must download an application (app) (120) from a device that provides a check on a fingerprint (or other bio-identifier) (115). These devices require fingerprints (or other/additional individual biomarkers) which must be subsequently validated (125). When the fingerprint is not valid, the user (105) is notified (130) and is prompted to close the install application (180) which is unloaded (185). In the case where the fingerprint is validated, the user (105) must then provide a user ID (UID) entry (135). This UID entry must be verified against a user table (140) which resides within one or more secured distributed auto-synchronous array databases (DAS A), (147) to determine if this user is a valid registered UID (150). The DASA database can exist in one or more stand-alone storage devices, computers, computer related clouds, the world-wide-web (internet), intranet, and/or servers (149). In the case when the user (105) fails to validate, the user is notified (160) and the application is unloaded (180, 185). When the user (105) is validated, an encryption application within the DASA database (147) is employed to“build” a master key (155). Next, the master key is sent to a user table (165) via the secured DASA database (147). The combination of the user ID and the master key (170) are then stored within a storage system (175) (such as a memory chip within the cellular phone or transmitted subsequently or directly into a cloud based memory system external to the cellular phone). Finally, an installation application (app) message is received and displayed (180) by the cellular phone (110), prompting the user (105) to finalize the installation application onto the cellular phone (110) for the user (105). The user app is subsequently be unloaded (185). Figure 2 is a flow chart (200) describing the use of an authentication application that creates a user credential such as a QR code onto a cellular/smart phone in accordance with the present disclosure. More specifically the system is for a user (205) that needs access through a secured door (or entrance) and in this instance invokes the use of the user authentication application (212), (which corresponds to (112) in Figure 1) onto an encrypted cellular phone (210). The user (205) activates the user authentication application (212) from the cellular phone (210) which provides a check on a fingerprint (or any other bio-identifier) (215) that requires fingerprints (or other/additional individual biomarkers) which must be subsequently validated (220). If determination of validity (225) fails (230), the user (205) is notified (230) with a message (275) prompting the user (205) to close the application (212) and the application is subsequently unloaded (280).

The storage device (245) contains records with at least one user record (246) residing within the DASA database (147). When determination of fingerprint validation (225) is confirmed, then an encryption key (240) is generated, utilizing information in the user record (246), of the DASA database (147), residing in storage device (245). In this instance, a QR code is built (250) utilizing the encryption key (240) and information in the user record (246). The QR code(s) function as a“superset” of synchronous transaction specific codes (TS codes) within the DASA database (147) user record(s) (246). More specifically, the QR codes contain all the functionality of the TS codes plus additional specific metadata pertaining to items such as; user temporal information, location, and historical usage. The QR codes utilized in this specific instance, can themselves be encrypted with one or more levels of encryption. Next, the QR code is rendered for display (255) onto the cellular phone (210) via a“user friendly” text derivation that changes the cellular phone into a“smarter” phone (260) in that it now has a QR identifier residing on the phone (210). The QR code timeout threshold (265) is retrieved from a configuration table also held within the records (246) of the DASA database (247). Next, a clock (267) is preset with this timeout (265). The clock (267) is to check to determine if the delay between the start time and end time is properly achieved regarding whether or not the generation of a new QR code has expired (270). If the QR code has not expired it can be used to match that of the receiving portion of the security system described below. If the QR code has expired, then the user application (app) (212) a message is displayed (275) on the cellular phone (210), prompting the user to close the app which is subsequently loaded (280).

Figure 3 is a flow chart (300) describing the access process for a user (305) with an authenticated credential. The authenticated credential in this instance is one more QR codes. The system utilizes two separate devices. The user device which is a smarter cell phone (360) displays a QR code and corresponds to (260) in Figure 2. The other device is an access device that has been installed in a cellular phone (310) but can also be a card reader for entrance into a secured location.

More specifically, the user (305) that needs access through a secured door (or entrance) in this instance invokes the use of the smarter cell phone displaying a QR identifier (360). This smarter phone (360) is then pointed toward access device (310). In this specific instance, the access device is a cellular phone (310) that includes a camera or other detecting technique that is operating by searching for a QR identifier. If the QR identifier is found (320) then the next step is to acquire a User Identification (UID) and encryption key embedded in the QR identifier (330). Simultaneously (or within a short time interval), the access device (310) sends an oral verbal/text/data message displayed or specifically stated as“attempting access”.

The DASA database (147) contains secured access information that resides in the records (346) of the storage device (345) and employs a set of process rules (380) that are followed to authenticate (381), validate (382) and determine access (383) for the access device (310). There can be, and often are, different rules that should be followed for other access devices. The flow path provided indicates that the access device(s) authenticates (381) using a first set of rules, validates (382) using a second set of rules, and includes a third set of rules that controls access (383) using data that has been supplied by the user device (in this case the smarter cell phone (360)) that ensures access to only the authenticated and validated set of users under specified conditions.

The process rules are finalized with an access decision (384) which includes at least two options. One option is an access decision that includes the process of allowing user access (385) with the smarter cell phone (360) and verifies the user (305) has invoked its privileges. In this instance this includes physical access such as opening doors or otherwise gaining entrance to secured areas. This equally applies to gaining logical access such as unlocking data within databases or communication systems. The user (305) is alerted when the system allows access by displaying a message on the access device (360). The user’s activity is monitored by the access process (385) to ensure that they have utilized their access within certain limitations. Physical limitations may be provided by enabling door monitoring switches, floor-mats, man traps, video analysis, etc. Logical limitations may be monitored by keyboard and/or data access and the like. Temporal limitations may be employed as required. Access may further be limited by counting the number of access egress or access egress attempts. In the case of access denial (386), the user will be normally be notified of the denial of access by a displayed message on access device (360) and optional alarming may take place. Reporting of the activity is normally returned from the access device (360) to the storage device (345) containing records (346) which are synchronized to the DASA database (147), which also provides for logging the data, meta-data, and associated information to the external logging and monitoring database (105).

Figure 4 provides a pathway for initial success, by determining the need for blockchain.

Figure 4 is a simple flow chart that provides a logic methodology that assists in determining both the usefulness and type of blockchain that may be required by a user. Implementation of the blockchain into the system described in Figures 1-3 above will provide security for the DASA system. In addition, insertion of the DASA system into one or more blockchains or types of blockchains will improve the security of any of the blockchains.

In a further aspect of the disclosure protecting the security of cellular/smart phone, the security of any transmitting/receiving (transceiving) of signals of the cellular/smart phone with other devices, as well as protection of the acquisition of the QR codes are all accomplished by the use of the encryption techniques described above. In another aspect of the disclosure, this electronically generated bit or any number of electronically generated bits may be provided to indicate other information about the use of the card, such as an excessive number of attempts to enter the personal identification code. Other uses for additional electronically generated bits will become apparent in particular applications.

While most of the foregoing discussion about the present encryption technique has focused on the use of databases, lists and tables for storing transaction specific codes, it may be preferred in some applications having limited memory to provide an algorithm for calculating the next transaction specific code. In these applications, the pointer refers to the number of steps into the algorithm or the value input into the algorithm and the transaction specific code is the calculated output of the algorithm. The cellular/smart phone and QR code generator are provided with the same algorithm and compares the transaction specific code received from the communicating device with the next expected transaction specific code. The concept of “tolerance” described earlier may be incorporated either by setting an acceptable range of values for the transaction specific code (output of the algorithm) or the pointer itself (input to the algorithm), the latter being the equivalent of back calculating the pointer and verifying that it is within the range of tolerance.

The computer readable media described within this application is non-transitory. The transmission of data is transmitted via signals that are non-transitory signals.

In addition, each and every aspect of all US Provisional Applications and US Non-

Provisional applications as well as any of the cited granted patents listed above are hereby fully incorporated by reference.

While the foregoing is directed to preferred embodiments of the present invention, other and further embodiments of this disclosure may be devised without departing from the basic scope thereof, and the scope thereof is determined by the claims which follow.

Claims

We claim;

1. A computer enabled access control system comprising; a real or virtual master distributed auto-synchronous array (DASA) database that at least stores and retrieves data and that includes at least two or more partial distributed auto-synchronous array (DASA) databases wherein said partial DASA databases are capable of functioning in an independent and/or collaborative manner, wherein said master and partial DASA databases allow for bi directional transmission of data that utilizes one or more securitized blockchains as needed for multiple partial user devices and with multiple partial access devices wherein said devices store and provide at least partial copies of portions of said master DASA database and wherein said master and/or partial DASA databases are linked and communicate with one or more logging and monitoring databases capable of statistical and numerical calculations utilizing said data, wherein said system authenticates using a first set of rules, validates using a second set of rules, and wherein a third set of rules controls access for a specified set of users. 2. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said master and partial DASA databases analyze and provide information in a form of data that utilizes blockchain as needed and acts to control one or more output devices, wherein said output devices can create user devices and wherein said securitized blockchains are securitized by implementation of said access control system. 3. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said partial user devices and said partial access devices are independent and capable of completing required operations that utilize securitized blockchain as needed without a need for other partial user devices and partial access devices.

4. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said partial user devices and said partial access devices are networked and cooperate to complete any required operation within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and wherein said blockchains may or may not be securitized blockchains.

5. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said system includes at least one virtual user device that provides a separate storage and retrieval location which is utilized in a sequential manner such that said virtual user device is not physical but operationally made to appear as if it is a physical device and wherein said virtual user device exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains.

6. The virtual user device of claim 5, wherein said virtual user devices provide data from or to one or more blockchain and wherein said data is contained within, along, or external to one or more blockchains as needed for said access devices such that said virtual user devices functionality is provided via said access devices.

7. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said access devices act upon said user devices that exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and are capable of distinguishing a physical user device from a virtual user device.

8. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said access devices can utilize said user devices without any need to distinguish said physical user device from said virtual user device.

9. The virtual user device of claim 5, wherein said virtual user device requires utilization in sequence unless tolerance allows rules for out of sequence usage.

10. The virtual user device of claim 1, wherein said logging and monitoring database exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains include temporal aspects regarding said data.

11. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said partial DAS A databases operate independently and utilize a designated portion of a user’s record existing within said partial DASA databases that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and ultimately within said master DASA database and said system utilizes blockchain as needed.

12. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said partial DASA databases are capable of storage and retrieval of data but are not required to perform data manipulation with computational operations.

13. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said user devices transmit data that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and utilizes blockchain as needed and are not required to perform computational operations, and wherein said one or more user devices are selected from a group consisting of; tickets, chits, tokens, RFID tags, radio, electrical, magnetic, electromagnetic and radiative tags, wavelengths of optical and wavelengths of sonic energy tags. 14. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said transmission of data is transmitted via signals that exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and said transmission utilizes blockchain as needed.

15. The access control system of claim 14, wherein said signals are generated via at least one form of energy selected from any one or more of the group consisting of; electrical, optical, mechanical, chemical, magnetic, radiative, electro-optical, electro-mechanical, electro chemical and electro-magnetic energy.

16. The access control system of claim 1, wherein according to said first set of rules, authentication attempts utilize said designated portion of said user’s record such that said first set of rules invoke constantly changing said designated portion within said user’s record of said auto-synchronous DASA database and wherein blockchain are utilized as needed.

17. The access control system of claim 1, wherein non-authentication events do not cause constant changing of said designated portion of said user’s record within said DASA database.

18. The access control system of claim 17, wherein non-authentication events are recorded. 19. The access control system of claim 17 wherein authentication events are recorded.

20. The access control system of claim 1, wherein after authentication, validation occurs according to said second set of rules wherein a subset of data with user specific information exists within said designated portion of said user’s record, such that validation requires retrieving, analyzing, utilizing and storing said subset of data that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and that is subsequently changed when validation of specific data within said subset occurs.

21. The access control system of claim 20, wherein said validation provides allowance to attempt access.

22. The access control system of claim 1, wherein after authentication and validation said third set of rules are invoked, so that access and denial is a recorded event that is stored and resides within user’s records exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains.

23. The access control system of claim 1, wherein if access is granted, verification is provided indicating access occurred.

24. The access control system of claim 1, wherein as said third set of rules are invoked, access and denial is a recorded event stored in said logging and monitoring database that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and that is separate from said DASA database. 25. The recorded event of claim 24, wherein n numbers of events influence future access and denial of said specified set of users.

26. The recorded event of claim 25, wherein after n events, access is denied until temporal rules re-enable access.

27. The temporal rules of claim 26, wherein said temporal rules are invoked via utilization of elapsed time that is accessed from said user device, said access device, or an external source wherein said user device, said access device and external source exist within along, or external to one or more blockchains and are capable of temporal measurement.

28. The temporal rules of claim 27, wherein said temporal rules are invoked via utilization of calendrical and associated clock time accessed from either said user device, said access device, or said external source.

29. The access control system of claim 24, wherein if access to said specified set of users is allowed but said specified set of users decides not to gain access, use of an entry code is not reusable and if entry is provided but not utilized, eventually too many access attempts are recorded, resulting in denial of access.

30. The access control system of claim 29, wherein each attempt for access causes a new code be generated from said auto-synchronous DASA databases and provides for each attempt, thereby each attempt results in an ability to encrypt a different encryption for and of said data, said data transmission, and said new code and wherein said data, said data transmission and said new code exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains.

31. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said third set of rules provides degrees of access that are either incomplete or partial access.

32. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said third set of rules is combined with using logic embedded within said user devices or said access devices and utilize blockchain as needed, wherein said user devices and/or said access devices are smart devices in that said smart devices are capable of at least one of a set of functions selected from a group consisting of; acquisition, analysis, storage and retrieval of said data and wherein said smart devices exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and wherein said devices are real or virtual devices .

33. The DASA database of claim 1, wherein said designated portion of said user’s record utilized corresponds with only a single user.

34. The DASA database of claim 1, wherein said database resides on a server that communicates with one or more computers or computerized equipment that are within, along, or external to one or more blockchains as needed.

35. The DASA database of claim 1, wherein said DASA database is generated with one or more algorithms and wherein said DASA database possesses technology limited size regarding data memory storage and data micro-processing speeds and wherein a fraction of said DASA database is utilized during any data transaction is utilized within, along, or external to one or more blockchains36. The access control system of claim 1, wherein at least one encryption application exists within said DASA database and wherein encryption application possesses one or more keys.

37. The encryption application of claim 36, wherein data transmission from said user device is encrypted with said keys and wherein said data transmission is received by said access device and decrypted with said keys and wherein said encryption application utilizes blockchain as needed.

38. The keys of claim 37, wherein said one or more keys are generated with one or more algorithms from a subset of data with user specific information existing within said designated portion of said user’s record of said auto-synchronous database such that authentication is implemented according to said first set of rules, wherein said first set of rules also includes encryption and decryption.

39. The keys of claim 38, wherein said one or more keys are generated with one or more algorithms from a subset of data with user specific information existing and residing outside said designated portion of said user’s record of said auto-synchronous database that utilizes blockchain as needed such that authentication occurs according to said first set of rules wherein said first set of rules includes encryption and decryption.

40. The encryption application of claim 36, wherein said application is secured in a secured database within a secured cloud or other secured computer aided storage systems that utilize one or more of the group selected from a computer accessible cloud, network, internet, intranet, within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and at least one server.

41. The encryption application of claim 36, wherein said application employs at least a single level encryption process as follows; a first level of encryption and decryption of data transmission utilizing keys and blockchain as needed, wherein a first set of encryption keys exist and are retrieved from one or more encryption applications, said applications existing within one or more databases or data storage devices or securitized blockchains containing said encryption keys, wherein a user accesses and utilizes at least a single key that exists in both said user device and said access device that exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains via utilization of said distributed auto-synchronous array (DASA) database that exists for and is accessible by both virtual and real user devices and said access devices, wherein at least said single key exists within all devices, thereby alleviating a need to distinguish between user ID’s; a second level of encryption and decryption of data transmission utilizing keys and blockchain as needed wherein at least one user ID is attached to said data and wherein said user ID must be placed within an unencrypted portion of said data such that said user can access and acquire at least one key from said user record but not out of said encryption application, such that every user possesses their own key and an unencrypted user ID in received data is utilized to select one or more user’s data records such that said at least one key from said one or more user’s data records is utilized; and wherein said user ID attached to said data is attached via a tag of said data and; wherein a third level of encryption and decryption of data transmission that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains utilizing keys and blockchain as needed provides for multiple user records that exist for multiple users wherein said user can access and acquire said keys wherein said keys residing within said DASA database are constantly changing thereby requiring smart user devices that can utilize these constantly changing keys; a fourth level of encryption and decryption of data transmission that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains utilizing keys and blockchain as needed wherein said keys are located in an expanded data record field within a range of data records so that said designated portion of said expanded data record field is utilized wherein said keys are in a first record of said designated portion providing one or more unique keys for every data transmission. 42. The fourth level of claim 41, wherein said designated portion is constantly changing.

43. The fourth level of encryption of claim 42, wherein a fifth level of encryption and decryption of data transmission that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains utilizes keys and blockchain as needed such that algorithms produce keys from any combination of a group consisting of; record numbers, recorded time, and random numbers associated with said user record and wherein one or more algorithm produced keys exist and allow for generation of an identical key using an identical algorithm for decryption wherein said keys exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains .

44. The fifth level of encryption of claim 43, wherein said one or more algorithm produced keys exist within said DASA database and/or within, along, or external to one or more blockchains.

45. The fifth level of encryption of claim 44, wherein each and every instance of transmitting data within, along, or external to one or more blockchains generates a new set of keys (one or more pairs) without transmitting said new set of keys from said user device(s) to said access device(s) and blockchain are utilized as needed.

46. The fifth level of encryption of claim 45, wherein in absence of transmission of said new set of keys it is impossible for interception of said new set of keys without access to said DASA database and/or access to said one or more blockchains wherein said blockchains themselves may or may not be securitized with said encryption application of claim 36.

47. The encryption application of claims 41-46, wherein for all levels of encryption, if data fields are picked that are changed during use of said user device, it is impossible to intercept said keys without access to said DASA database and/or said one or more blockchains. 48. The DASA databases of claim 1, wherein said DASA database itself is encrypted to protect against unauthorized access of said DASA database and/or said one or more blockchains.

49. The DASA databases of claim 36, wherein protection of said DASA database and/or one or more blockchains is provided by utilizing a system key for each user to be allowed access to said system.

50. The designated portion of a user’s record of claim 1, wherein tolerance of said designated portion is provided when data is in transit from said designated potion to said access device and wherein transit of said data is synchronized between said user device and said access device and wherein data in transit exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and blockchains are utilized as needed.

51. The designated portion of a user’s record of claim 1, wherein according to said first set of rules defining authentication, said first set of rules also relate to, correspond with, and/or invoke tolerance rules that search for an access device’s data record regarding data sent by said user device and wherein within, along, or external to one or more blockchains.

52. The access control system of claim 1, wherein when data in transit is not synchronous and when said data is transmitted within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and outside of a predetermined and limited tolerance, no authentication can be achieved.

53. The access control system of claim 52, wherein when synchronization is not occurring, resynchronization is achieved by changing said designated portion during access to said access device to match said designated portion of said user device, thereby achieving resynchronization.

54. The access control system of claim 53, wherein when resynchronization occurs said user ID is utilized to select said user record according to said third set of rules, thereby allowing said user record to be accessed from a known portion of one or more DASA database(s) and/or one from one or more blockchains and wherein resynchronization recognizes said specified set of users to ensure proper resynchronization in order that said access device can properly allow or deny access for said specified set of users.

55. The access control system of claim 1, wherein during a process of trying to authenticate, a user must decrypt each data record within said designated portion that possess its own unique key and wherein said process continues until said user finds a match of said data record with said key and wherein said key resides within, along, or external to one or more blockchains.

56. The access control system of claim 51, wherein said tolerance provides a desired range within which said system operates and said tolerance utilizes one or more record numbers via one or more algorithms that exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains that encrypt and decrypt data.

57. The access control system of claim 56, wherein said tolerance is increased in complexity by applying a more stringent check of additional records within a designated portion of said user and access devices that exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains along with temporal limitations that limit authentication thereby increasing security.

58. The access control system of claim 51, wherein first attempts to access a secure device or location begins by acquisition of one or more keys utilize a complex tolerance that provides for a number of attempts (n) to retrieve keys from a configuration table that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains wherein said encryption application with a get next key routine is invoked locally on or in proximity to said user device to generate encryption keys as well as to generate a new master key and wherein simultaneous attempts are made to match said user’s device user identification (ID) encryption keys with an encryption database derived from user ID encryption keys by using a specific tolerance number/range selected from many numbers (n) available through an algorithmic number generator that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains.

59. The access control system of claim 58, wherein an encryption application has been added for layering security required for said system so that a match is determined to establish whether a user of said user device has access privileges.

60. The encryption application of claim 59, wherein all encryption keys can be removed from a user table either, before, during, or after said match such that a key management system that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and to ensure that said keys themselves are neither discoverable nor compromised.

61. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said DASA databases include a list of identifiers and codes that may reside in either user devices or access devices or within both devices and/or exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains , such that said access control system includes a device that functions as two or more devices; one a user device and another an access device, both possessing matching databases that communicate with each other and utilize one or more encryption applications and wherein said matching databases exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains .

62. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said access device is a reader device.

63. The access control system of claim 62, wherein said reader device is a badge reader.

64. The access control system of claim 63, wherein said user device communicates internally within said user device and externally from said user device by transmitting and receiving data utilizing one or more encryption application(s) that exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and a secured location and wherein said reader device is a detecting device that searches, retrieves, and analyzes a recognizable securitized and encrypted data signal that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains and are generated after installation of said encryption application(s) is completed.

65. The access control system of claim 64, wherein said data is contained within a token that exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains. 66. The access control system of claim 65, wherein said token is recognized by a reader device that controls access to an entrance into said user device and controls access to an entrance into said reader device and also controls access to one or more locations.

67. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said data is provided as code, said code selected from the group consisting of; a QR code, a bar code, a digital code, an analogue code, and a 7-bit binary code.

68. The access control system of claim 1, wherein one or more user devices and one or more access devices are data transceiver devices all can exist within, along, or external to one or more blockchains. 69. The access control system of claim 68, wherein said transceiver is intelligent and said receiver is intelligent in that said transceiver and receiver are computerized and possess memory.

70. The access control system of claim 69, wherein said user device is selected from a group consisting of cellular phones, cameras, infrared transmitters, optical transmitters, Wi-Fi transmitters, Bluetooth transmitters, ultra-wide band nearfield transmitters, communication transmitters, radiation transmitting devices, magnetic strips, and smart chips.

71. The access control system of claim 70, wherein user devices and access devices contain sensors selected from the group consisting of RFIDs, gyro sensors , magnetic field sensors electromagnetic field sensors, electrical optical infrared sensors, radar sensors, LIDAR sensors, inclination accelerometers, inclinometers, cameras, and bio-sensors.

72. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said access device is a cellular phone.

73. The access control system of claim 72, wherein said access device is a cellular phone that contains a camera.

74. The access control system of claims 72-73, wherein said cellular phone is a smart phone in that it can access, interact with, and display internet provided data as well provide GPS guidance and allow for computational search, retrieval, and analysis of data derived from, residing within, or accessed by said smart phone.

75. The access control system of claim 1, wherein said access devices are further selected from the group consisting of; controllers and switches that control a flow of energy in signal form to and from devices including; lights, all forms of transportation vehicles including aerospace vehicles; elevators and escalators, electrical switches, and electrical contacts and wherein said controllers and switches are further selected from the group consisting of; rheostats, thermostats, and transformers, wherein said controllers and switches are selectively manipulated to operate and control said devices within a specified range.

76. The access control system of claim 75, wherein said access system is local and exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains .

77. The access control system of claim 76, wherein said access system is remote and exists within, along, or external to one or more blockchains

78. The access control system of claim 67, wherein said QR code found by said access device is recognizable in that it is recognized by said user’s cellular phone and thereby allows access to a User Identification (ID) encryption key from said QR code which is subsequently passed through said encryption application.

79. The access control system of claim 1, wherein simultaneously said access device sends a message in the form of a group consisting of an; oral, verbal, text, and data message that is displayed and specifically states“attempting encryption match” and utilizes blockchain as needed.