The present invention relates to computer networks, and in particular, to a capture device.
Computer networks and systems have become indispensable tools for modern business. Modern enterprises use such networks for communications and for storage. The information and data stored on the network of a business enterprise is often a highly valuable asset. Modern enterprises use numerous tools to keep outsiders, intruders, and unauthorized personnel from accessing valuable information stored on the network. These tools include firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and packet sniffer devices. However, once an intruder has gained access to sensitive content, there is no network device that can prevent the electronic transmission of the content from the network to outside the network. Similarly, there is no network device that can analyze the data leaving the network to monitor for policy violations, and make it possible to track down information leaks. What is needed is a comprehensive system to capture, store, and analyze all data communicated using the enterprises network.
The present invention is illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation, in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which like reference numerals refer to similar elements and in which:
Although the present system will be discussed with reference to various illustrated examples, these examples should not be read to limit the broader spirit and scope of the present invention. Some portions of the detailed description that follows are presented in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations on data within a computer memory. These algorithmic descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the computer science arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. An algorithm is here, and generally, conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of steps leading to a desired result. The steps are those requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, though not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared and otherwise manipulated.
It has proven convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, terms, numbers or the like. It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities. Unless specifically stated otherwise, it will be appreciated that throughout the description of the present invention, use of terms such as “processing”, “computing”, “calculating”, “determining”, “displaying” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the computer system's registers and memories into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within the computer system memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices.
As indicated above, one embodiment of the present invention is instantiated in computer software, that is, computer readable instructions, which, when executed by one or more computer processors/systems, instruct the processors/systems to perform the designated actions. Such computer software may be resident in one or more computer readable media, such as hard drives, CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, read-only memory, read-write memory and so on. Such software may be distributed on one or more of these media, or may be made available for download across one or more computer networks (e.g., the Internet). Regardless of the format, the computer programming, rendering and processing techniques discussed herein are simply examples of the types of programming, rendering and processing techniques that may be used to implement aspects of the present invention. These examples should in no way limit the present invention, which is best understood with reference to the claims that follow this description.
Networks
In
One embodiment of the present invention is now illustrated with reference to
There are various other possible configurations. For example, the router 20 can also forward a copy of all incoming data to the capture system 22 as well. Furthermore, the capture system 22 can be configured sequentially in front of, or behind the router 20, however this makes the capture system 22 a critical component in connecting to the Internet 12. In systems where a router 20 is not used at all, the capture system can be interposed directly between the LAN 10 and the Internet 12. In one embodiment, the capture system 22 has a user interface accessible from a LAN-attached device, such as a client 16.
In one embodiment, the capture system 22 intercepts all data leaving the network. In other embodiments, the capture system can also intercept all data being communicated inside the network 10. In one embodiment, the capture system 22 reconstructs the documents leaving the network 10, and stores them in a searchable fashion. The capture system 22 can then be used to search and sort through all documents that have left the network 10. There are many reasons such documents may be of interest, including network security reasons, intellectual property concerns, corporate governance regulations, and other corporate policy concerns.
Capture System
One embodiment of the present invention is now described with reference to
The captured raw data is then passed to a packet capture module 26. In one embodiment, the packet capture module 26 extracts data packets from the data stream received from the network interface module 24. In one embodiment, the packet capture module 26 reconstructs Ethernet packets from multiple sources to multiple destinations for the raw data stream.
In one embodiment, the packets are then provided the object assembly module 28. The object assembly module 28 reconstructs the objects being transmitted by the packets. For example, when a document is transmitted, e.g. as an email attachment, it is broken down into packets according to various data transfer protocols such as Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) and Ethernet. The object assembly module 28 can reconstruct the document from the captured packets.
One embodiment of the object assembly module 28 is now described in more detail with reference to
In one embodiment, the reassembler 36 begins a new flow upon the observation of a starting packet defined by the data transfer protocol. For a TCP/IP embodiment, the starting packet is generally referred to as the “SYN” packet. The flow can terminate upon observation of a finishing packet, e.g., a “Reset” or “FIN” packet in TCP/IP. If no finishing packet is observed by the reassembler 36 within some time constraint, it can terminate the flow via a timeout mechanism. In an embodiment using the TPC protocol, a TCP flow contains an ordered sequence of packets that can be assembled into a contiguous data stream by the reassembler 36. Thus, in one embodiment, a flow is an ordered data stream of a single communication between a source and a destination.
The flow assembled by the reassembler 36 can then is provided to a protocol demultiplexer (demux) 38. In one embodiment, the protocol demux 38 sorts assembled flows using the TCP Ports. This can include performing a speculative classification of the flow contents based on the association of well-known port numbers with specified protocols. For example, Web Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) packets—i.e., Web traffic—are typically associated with port 80, File Transfer Protocol (FTP) packets with port 20, Kerberos authentication packets with port 88, and so on. Thus in one embodiment, the protocol demux 38 separates all the different protocols in one flow.
In one embodiment, a protocol classifier 40 also sorts the flows in addition to the protocol demux 38. In one embodiment, the protocol classifier 40—operating either in parallel or in sequence with the protocol demux 38—applies signature filters to the flows to attempt to identify the protocol based solely on the transported data. Furthermore, the protocol demux 38 can make a classification decision based on port number, which is subsequently overridden by protocol classifier 40. For example, if an individual or program attempted to masquerade an illicit communication (such as file sharing) using an apparently benign port such as port 80 (commonly used for HTTP Web browsing), the protocol classifier 40 would use protocol signatures, i.e., the characteristic data sequences of defined protocols, to verify the speculative classification performed by protocol demux 38.
In one embodiment, the object assembly module 28 outputs each flow organized by protocol, which represent the underlying objects. Referring again to
The object classification module 30 uses the inherent properties and signatures of various documents to determine the content type of each object. For example, a Word document has a signature that is distinct from a PowerPoint document, or an Email document. The object classification module 30 can extract out each individual object and sort them out by such content types. Such classification renders the present invention immune from cases where a malicious user has altered a file extension or other property in an attempt to avoid detection of illicit activity.
In one embodiment, the object classification module 30 determines whether each object should be stored or discarded. In one embodiment, this determination is based on a various capture rules. For example, a capture rule can indicate that Web Traffic should be discarded. Another capture rule can indicate that all PowerPoint documents should be stored, except for ones originating from the CEO's IP address. Such capture rules can be implemented as regular expressions, or by other similar means. Several embodiments of the object classification module 30 are described in more detail further below.
In one embodiment, the capture rules are authored by users of the capture system 22. The capture system 22 is made accessible to any network-connected machine through the network interface module 24 and user interface 34. In one embodiment, the user interface 34 is a graphical user interface providing the user with friendly access to the various features of the capture system 22. For example, the user interface 34 can provide a capture rule authoring tool that allows users to write and implement any capture rule desired, which are then applied by the object classification module 30 when determining whether each object should be stored. The user interface 34 can also provide pre-configured capture rules that the user can select from along with an explanation of the operation of such standard included capture rules. In one embodiment, the default capture rule implemented by the object classification module 30 captures all objects leaving the network 10.
If the capture of an object is mandated by the capture rules, the object classification module 30 can also determine where in the object store module 32 the captured object should be stored. With reference to
Tag Data Structure
In one embodiment, the content store is a canonical storage location, simply a place to deposit the captured objects. The indexing of the objects stored in the content store 44 is accomplished using a tag database 42. In one embodiment, the tag database 42 is a database data structure in which each record is a “tag” that indexes an object in the content store 44 and contains relevant information about the stored object. An example of a tag record in the tag database 42 that indexes an object stored in the content store 44 is set forth in Table 1:
There are various other possible tag fields, and some embodiments can omit numerous tag fields listed in Table 1. In other embodiments, the tag database 42 need not be implemented as a database, and a tag need not be a record. Any data structure capable of indexing an object by storing relational data over the object can be used as a tag data structure. Furthermore, the word “tag” is merely descriptive, other names such as “index” or “relational data store,” would be equally descriptive, as would any other designation performing similar functionality.
The mapping of tags to objects can, in one embodiment, be obtained by using unique combinations of tag fields to construct an object's name. For example, one such possible combination is an ordered list of the Source IP, Destination IP, Source Port, Destination Port, Instance and Timestamp. Many other such combinations including both shorter and longer names are possible. In another embodiment, the tag can contain a pointer to the storage location where the indexed object is stored.
The tag fields shown in Table 1 can be expressed more generally, to emphasize the underlying information indicated by the tag fields in various embodiments. Some of these possible generic tag fields are set forth in Table 2:
For many of the above tag fields in Tables 1 and 2, the definition adequately describes the relational data contained by each field. For the content field, the types of content that the object can be labeled as are numerous. Some example choices for content types (as determined, in one embodiment, by the object classification module 30) are JPEG, GIF, BMP, TIFF, PNG (for objects containing images in these various formats); Skintone (for objects containing images exposing human skin); PDF, MSWord, Excel, PowerPoint, MSOffice (for objects in these popular application formats); HTML, WebMail, SMTP, FTP (for objects captured in these transmission formats); Telnet, Rlogin, Chat (for communication conducted using these methods); GZIP, ZIP, TAR (for archives or collections of other objects); Basic_Source, C++_Source, C_Source, Java_Source, FORTRAN_Source, Verilog_Source, VHDL_Source, Assembly_Source, Pascal_Source, Cobol_Source, Ada_Source, Lisp_Source, Perl_Source, XQuery_Source, Hypertext Markup Language, Cascaded Style Sheets, JavaScript, DXF, Spice, Gerber, Mathematica, Matlab, AllegroPCB, ViewLogic, TangoPCAD, BSDL, C_Shell, K_Shell, Bash_Shell, Bourne_Shell, FTP, Telnet, MSExchange, POP3, RFC822, CVS, CMS, SQL, RTSP, MIME, PDF, PS (for source, markup, query, descriptive, and design code authored in these high-level programming languages); C Shell, K Shell, Bash Shell (for shell program scripts); Plaintext (for otherwise unclassified textual objects); Crypto (for objects that have been encrypted or that contain cryptographic elements); Englishtext, Frenchtext, Germantext, Spanishtext, Japanesetext, Chinesetext, Koreantext, Russiantext (any human language text); Binary Unknown, ASCII Unknown, and Unknown (as catchall categories).
The signature contained in the Signature and Tag Signature fields can be any digest or hash over the object, or some portion thereof. In one embodiment, a well-known hash, such as MD5 or SHA1 can be used. In one embodiment, the signature is a digital cryptographic signature. In one embodiment, a digital cryptographic signature is a hash signature that is signed with the private key of the capture system 22. Only the capture system 22 knows its own private key, thus, the integrity of the stored object can be verified by comparing a hash of the stored object to the signature decrypted with the public key of the capture system 22, the private and public keys being a public key cryptosystem key pair. Thus, if a stored object is modified from when it was originally captured, the modification will cause the comparison to fail.
Similarly, the signature over the tag stored in the Tag Signature field can also be a digital cryptographic signature. In such an embodiment, the integrity of the tag can also be verified. In one embodiment, verification of the object using the signature, and the tag using the tag signature is performed whenever an object is presented, e.g., displayed to a user. In one embodiment, if the object or the tag is found to have been compromised, an alarm is generated to alert the user that the object displayed may not be identical to the object originally captured.
Attributes
When a user searches over the objects captured by the capture system 22, it is desirable to make the search as fast as possible. One way to speed up searches is to perform searches over the tag database instead of the content store, since the content store will generally be stored on disk and is far more costly both in terms of time and processing power to search then a database.
A user query for a pattern is generally in the form of a regular expression. A regular expression is a string that describes or matches a set of strings, according to certain syntax rules. There are various well-known syntax rules such as the POSIX standard regular expressions and the PERL scripting language regular expressions. Regular expressions are used by many text editors and utilities to search and manipulate bodies of text based on certain patterns. Regular expressions are well-known in the art. For example, according to one syntax (Unix), the regular expression 4\d{15} means the digit “4” followed by any fifteen digits in a row. This user query would return all objects containing such a pattern.
Certain useful search categories cannot be defined well by a single regular expression. As an example, a user may want to query all emails containing a credit card number. Various credit card companies used different numbering patterns and conventions. A card number for each company can be represented by a regular expression. However, the concept of credit card number can be represented by a union of all such regular expressions.
For such categories, the concept of attribute is herein defined. An attribute, in one embodiment, represents a group of one or more regular expressions (or other such patterns). The term “attribute” is merely descriptive, such concept could just as easily be termed “category,” “regular expression list,” or any other descriptive term.
One embodiment of the present invention is now described with reference to
In one embodiment, the attribute module 64 generates an attribute index that can be inserted into an index field of the tag by the tag generator 68. One embodiment of such an index and how it works is now described with reference to
In one embodiment, an attribute index 78 is used to represent the attributes in a compact form. In one embodiment, the attribute index 78 is implemented as a bit vector. The attribute index 78 can be a vector of bits with one bit position associated with each defined attribute. For example, in one embodiment, the attribute index 78 has 128 bits. In such an embodiment, 128 separate attributes can be defined and occur independently of one another.
The association of bit positions with attributes can be maintained in a table. Such a table, for this example, would associate bit position A with the credit card number attribute, and bit position B with the phone number attribute. Since, in this example, regular expressions RegEx 70-72 would map to the credit card attribute, observing any one of the patterns defined by RegEx 70-72 would cause bit position A to be set to show the presence of a credit card number in the captured object.
Setting a bit position can be done by changing a bit either from 0 to 1 or from 1 to 0 depending on which one is the default value. In one embodiment, bit positions are initialized as 0 and are set to 1 to show the presence of an attribute. Similarly, since regular expressions 73 and 74 map to the phone number attribute, observing any one of the patterns defined by RegEx 73 and 74 would cause bit position B to be set (e.g., to 1) to show the presence of a phone number in the captured object.
With the above understanding of how one embodiment of the attribute index 78 works, one embodiment of the attribute module 64 is now described with reference to
In one embodiment, the text content contained in the object is first extracted to simplify the attribute tagging processing. The text content of objects includes only textual characters without formatting or application context. In one embodiment, the object or the text extracted from the object is provided to parser 80. The parser 80 parses the object to identify which regular expressions appear in the object.
In one embodiment, the parser accesses a regular expression table 82 that lists all the regular expressions of interest. The parser 80 then can determine which of the regular expressions appear in the object or the text extracted from the object.
In one embodiment, the regular expression table 82 also associates each regular expression contained therein with an attribute. In this manner, the regular expression table 82 can function as the regular expression to attribute map 76 illustrated in
Since the regular expression table 82 contains the regular expressions and their attribute mapping, the parser 80, by parsing the regular expressions over the object can determine which attributes are present in the object. In one embodiment, the parsing can be made faster by only parsing the regular expressions related to attributes that have not yet been found in the object. For example, if the parser finds a hit from regular expression D in the object, then attribute Z is found in the object. This makes parsing using regular expressions E and F unnecessary, since attribute Z is already hit.
In one embodiment, the parser 80 outputs a list of attributes found in the object. As explained above, an attribute can be a category of patterns such as credit card number, phone numbers, email addresses, bank routing numbers, social security numbers, confidentiality markers, web sites, the names of executive officers of a company, medical conditions or diagnoses, confidential project names or numerical strings indicating salary or compensation information.
In one embodiment, the attributes found in the object are provided to an index generator 84. In one embodiment, the index generator 84 generates the attribute index 78 described with reference to
As an example, if an object contained regular expression A, D, and F, then the parser 80 would first note that attribute X has been hit. When recognizing regular expression D, the parser 80 would note that attribute Z has been hit. Since these are the only attributes in this abbreviated example, the parser 80 would provide attributes X and Z to the index generator 84. According to the attribute table 86, the index generator would set bit positions 1 and 3 of an attribute index 78. Thus, for this simplified example, the attribute index 78 would be “101.”
The generation of an attribute index 78 and the use of the specific mapping tables shown in
One embodiment of attribute tagging is now described with reference to
If the regular expression under consideration does not appear in the text, then, processing continues again at block 106 using the next regular expression on the regular expression list. If, however, the regular expression under consideration does appear in the text, then, in block 108 the attribute associated with the regular expression is tagged. This can be done by setting a field or position in an index in a tag of metadata associated with the object.
In block 110, all other regular expressions associated with the observed attribute are removed from future consideration with respect to the object. In block 112, a determination is made as to whether attribute tagging has completed with respect to the object. If no regular expressions remain to be compared with the extracted text, then the attribute tagging is complete and processing terminates. Otherwise, processing continues at block 106 with the next regular expression on the list under consideration.
Several embodiments of how issuing a query over captured objects is improved by using the attributes described above is now described with reference to
The query—in addition to other limitations, such as content type, size, time range, and so on—can contain one or more attributes the user is looking for. For example, the query could be for all Microsoft Excel documents from last week containing credit card numbers, credit card numbers being an attribute.
In an alternate scenario, the received query only includes one or more regular expressions, as shown in block 1104. In one such embodiment, in block 1106, the regular expression is matched to an attribute, if possible. For example, if the regular expression in the query is only satisfied if another regular expression associated with an attribute is satisfied, then, objects having this attribute tagged are more relevant for this query than objects in general. In particular, any object satisfying the regular expression would also satisfy the attribute. For example, a query for a specific credit card number or range will satisfy the credit card attribute.
Whether provided by the user, or identified based on the query, in block 1108, the appropriate attribute or attributes are used to eliminate objects from the query. In one embodiment, a search is done over the appropriate attribute field or index bit positions in the tags in the tag database. If the attributes being sought are not shown as present in an object, the object is eliminated from further consideration for this query.
In block 1110, the object remaining after elimination are retrieved from the medium they are stored on (such as disk) into memory. They can now be presented to the user as query results, or object can be further eliminated by parsing the retrieved objects for the specific regular expression queried for, where no specific attribute was named.
In one embodiment, the attributes are completely user-configurable. The user interface 34 can provide an attribute editor that allows a user to define attributes by creating attributes and associating a group of regular expressions with the created attribute. The capture device 22 may come preset with a list of common or popular attributes that may be tailored specifically to the industry into which the capture device 22 is sold.
In one embodiment, the capture device 22 can create new attributes automatically. For example, the capture device 22 may observe that a certain regular expression is being searched with some threshold frequency (generally set to be above normal). The capture device 22 may create an attribute to be associated with this regular expression, and begin tagging the newly defined attribute when capturing new objects. In another embodiment, the capture device may suggest that a new attribute be created when a regular expression is searched frequently. In yet another embodiment, the capture device 22 may suggest that an attribute be deleted if infrequently used to make room for another more useful attribute.
General Matters
In several embodiments, the capture system 22 has been described above as a stand-alone device. However, the capture system of the present invention can be implemented on any appliance capable of capturing and analyzing data from a network. For example, the capture system 22 described above could be implemented on one or more of the servers 14 or clients 16 shown in
In one embodiment, the capture system 22 is an appliance constructed using commonly available computing equipment and storage systems capable of supporting the software requirements. In one embodiment, illustrated by
Thus, a capture system and a word indexing scheme for the capture system have been described. In the forgoing description, various specific values were given names, such as “objects,” and various specific modules and tables, such as the “attribute module” and “general expression table” have been described. However, these names are merely to describe and illustrate various aspects of the present invention, and in no way limit the scope of the present invention. Furthermore various modules can be implemented as software or hardware modules, or without dividing their functionalities into modules at all. The present invention is not limited to any modular architecture either in software or in hardware, whether described above or not.
This application is a continuation (and claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. §120) of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/751,876, filed on Mar. 31, 2010 now U.S. Pat. No. 8,176,049, entitled “ATTRIBUTES OF CAPTURED OBJECTS IN A CAPTURE SYSTEM,” which application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/254,436, filed Oct. 19, 2005, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,730,011, entitled “ATTRIBUTES OF CAPTURED OBJECTS IN A CAPTURE SYSTEM”. The disclosures of the prior applications are considered part of (and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety) the disclosure of this application.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4286255 | Siy | Aug 1981 | A |
4710957 | Bocci et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
5249289 | Thamm et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5465299 | Matsumoto et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5479654 | Squibb | Dec 1995 | A |
5497489 | Menne | Mar 1996 | A |
5542090 | Henderson et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5557747 | Rogers et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5623652 | Vora et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5768578 | Kirk | Jun 1998 | A |
5781629 | Haber et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5794052 | Harding | Aug 1998 | A |
5813009 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5873081 | Harel | Feb 1999 | A |
5937422 | Nelson et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5943670 | Prager | Aug 1999 | A |
5987610 | Franczek et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5995111 | Morioka et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6026411 | Delp | Feb 2000 | A |
6073142 | Geiger et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6078953 | Vaid et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6094531 | Allison et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6108697 | Raymond et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6122379 | Barbir | Sep 2000 | A |
6161102 | Yanagilhara et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6175867 | Taghadoss | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6192472 | Garay et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6243091 | Berstis | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6243720 | Munter et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6278992 | Curtis et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6292810 | Richards | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6336186 | Dyksterhouse et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6343376 | Saxe et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6356885 | Ross et al. | Mar 2002 | B2 |
6363488 | Ginter et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6389405 | Oatman et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6389419 | Wong et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6408294 | Getchius et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6408301 | Patton et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411952 | Bharat et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6457017 | Watkins et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
6460050 | Pace et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6493761 | Baker et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6499105 | Yoshiura et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6502091 | Chundi et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6515681 | Knight | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6516320 | Odom et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6523026 | Gillis | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6539024 | Janoska et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6556964 | Haug et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6556983 | Altschuler et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6571275 | Dong et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6584458 | Millett et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6598033 | Ross et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6629097 | Keith | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6662176 | Brunet et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6665662 | Kirkwood et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675159 | Lin et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6691209 | O'Connell | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6754647 | Tackett et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757646 | Marchisio | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6771595 | Gilbert et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6772214 | McClain et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785815 | Serret-Avila et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6804627 | Marokhovsky et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6820082 | Cook et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6857011 | Reinke | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6937257 | Dunlavey | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6950864 | Tsuchiya | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6978297 | Piersol | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6978367 | Hind et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7007020 | Chen et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7020654 | Najmi | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7020661 | Cruanes et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7062572 | Hampton | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7072967 | Saulpaugh et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7082443 | Ashby | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7093288 | Hydrie et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7130587 | Hikokubo et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7158983 | Willse et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7185073 | Gai et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7185192 | Kahn | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7194483 | Mohan et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7219131 | Banister et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7219134 | Takeshima et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7243120 | Massey | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7246236 | Stirbu | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7254562 | Hsu et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7254632 | Zeira et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7266845 | Hypponen | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7272724 | Tarbotton et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7277957 | Rowley et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7290048 | Barnett et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7293067 | Maki et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7293238 | Brook et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7296070 | Sweeney et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7296088 | Padmanabhan et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7296232 | Burdick et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7299277 | Moran et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7373500 | Ramelson et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7424744 | Wu et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7426181 | Feroz et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7434058 | Ahuja et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7467202 | Savchuk | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7477780 | Boncyk et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7483916 | Lowe et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7493659 | Wu et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7505463 | Schuba et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7506055 | McClain et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7506155 | Stewart et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7509677 | Saurabh et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7516492 | Nisbet et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7551629 | Chen et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7577154 | Yung et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7581059 | Gupta et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7596571 | Sifry | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7599844 | King et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7657104 | Deninger et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7664083 | Cermak et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7685254 | Pandya | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7689614 | de la Iglesia et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7730011 | Deninger et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7739080 | Beck et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7760730 | Goldschmidt et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7760769 | Lovett et al. | Jul 2010 | B1 |
7774604 | Lowe et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7814327 | Ahuja et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7818326 | Deninger et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7844582 | Arbilla et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7899828 | de la Iglesia et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7907608 | Liu et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7921072 | Bohannon et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7930540 | Ahuja et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7949849 | Lowe et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7958227 | Ahuja et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7962591 | Deninger et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7984175 | de la Iglesia et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7996373 | Zoppas et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
8005863 | de la Iglesia et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8010689 | Deninger et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8055601 | Pandya | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8166307 | Ahuja et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8176049 | Deninger et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8200026 | Deninger et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8205242 | Liu et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8271794 | Lowe et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8301635 | de la Iglesia et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8307007 | de la Iglesia et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8307206 | Ahuja et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
20010013024 | Takahashi et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010032310 | Corella | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010037324 | Agrawal et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010046230 | Rojas | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020032677 | Morgenthaler et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020032772 | Olstad et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020052896 | Streit et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065956 | Yagawa et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078355 | Samar | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020091579 | Yehia et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103876 | Chatani et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107843 | Biebesheimer et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116124 | Garin et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020126673 | Dagli et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020128903 | Kernahan | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020129140 | Peled et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020159447 | Carey et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030009718 | Wolfgang et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030028493 | Tajima | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030028774 | Meka | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046369 | Sim et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030053420 | Duckett et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055962 | Freund et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030065571 | Dutta | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030084300 | Koike | May 2003 | A1 |
20030084318 | Schertz | May 2003 | A1 |
20030084326 | Tarquini | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093678 | Bowe et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030099243 | Oh et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030105716 | Sutton et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030105739 | Essafi et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030105854 | Thorsteinsson et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030131116 | Jain et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030135612 | Huntington | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030167392 | Fransdonk | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030185220 | Valenci | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030196081 | Savarda et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030204741 | Schoen et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030221101 | Micali | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030225796 | Matsubara | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030225841 | Song et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030231632 | Haeberlen | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233411 | Parry et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040001498 | Chen et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010484 | Foulger et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015579 | Cooper et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040036716 | Jordahl | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040054779 | Takeshima et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040059736 | Willse et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040059920 | Godwin | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040071164 | Baum | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040111406 | Udeshi et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040111678 | Hara | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040114518 | McFaden et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117414 | Braun et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040120325 | Ayres | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040122863 | Sidman | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040139120 | Clark et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040181513 | Henderson et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040181690 | Rothermel et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040194141 | Sanders | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040196970 | Cole | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205457 | Bent et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215612 | Brody | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040220944 | Behrens et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040230572 | Omoigui | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040249781 | Anderson | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040267753 | Hoche | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050004911 | Goldberg et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021715 | Dugatkin et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021743 | Fleig et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050022114 | Shanahan et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050027881 | Figueira et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050033726 | Wu et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050033747 | Wittkotter | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050033803 | Vleet et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050038788 | Dettinger et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050038809 | Abajian et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050044289 | Hendel et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050050205 | Gordy et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050055327 | Agrawal et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050055399 | Savchuk | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050075103 | Hikokubo et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086252 | Jones et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091443 | Hershkovich et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091532 | Moghe | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050097441 | Herbach et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050108244 | Riise et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114452 | Prakash | May 2005 | A1 |
20050120006 | Nye | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050127171 | Ahuja et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050128242 | Suzuki | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050131876 | Ahuja et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050132034 | de la Iglesia et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050132046 | de la Iglesia et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050132079 | de la Iglesia et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050132197 | Medlar | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050132198 | Ahuja et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050132297 | Milic-Frayling et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138110 | Redlich et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138242 | Pope et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138279 | Somasundaram | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050149494 | Lindh et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050149504 | Ratnaparkhi | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050166066 | Ahuja et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050177725 | Lowe et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050180341 | Nelson et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050182765 | Liddy | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050188218 | Walmsley et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050203940 | Farrar et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050204129 | Sudia et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050228864 | Robertson | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050235153 | Ikeda | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050289181 | Deninger et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005247 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021045 | Cook | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021050 | Cook et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060037072 | Rao et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041560 | Forman et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041570 | Lowe et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041760 | Huang | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060047675 | Lowe et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060075228 | Black et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060080130 | Choksi | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060083180 | Baba et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060106793 | Liang | May 2006 | A1 |
20060106866 | Green et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060150249 | Gassen et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167896 | Kapur et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060184532 | Hamada et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060235811 | Fairweather | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242126 | Fitzhugh | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242313 | Le et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060251109 | Muller et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060253445 | Huang et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271506 | Bohannon et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060272024 | Huang et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060288216 | Buhler et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070006293 | Balakrishnan et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070011309 | Brady et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070028039 | Gupta et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070036156 | Liu et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070050334 | Deninger et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070050381 | Hu et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070050467 | Borrett et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070081471 | Talley et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094394 | Singh et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070106685 | Houh et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070110089 | Essafi et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112838 | Bjarnestam et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070116366 | Deninger et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070136599 | Suga | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070162609 | Pope et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070220607 | Sprosts et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070226504 | de la Iglesia et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070226510 | de la Iglesia et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070248029 | Merkey et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070271254 | de la Iglesia et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070271371 | Ahuja et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070271372 | Deninger et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070280123 | Atkins et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080027971 | Statchuk | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080028467 | Kommareddy et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080091408 | Roulland et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080112411 | Stafford et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080115125 | Stafford et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080140657 | Azvine et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080141117 | King et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080235163 | Balasubramanian et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080270462 | Thomsen | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090070328 | Loeser et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090100055 | Wang | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090178110 | Higuchi | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090187568 | Morin | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090216752 | Terui et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090232391 | Deninger et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090254532 | Yang et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090288164 | Adelstein et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090300709 | Chen et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090326925 | Crider et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100011016 | Greene | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100011410 | Liu | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100037324 | Grant et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100088317 | Bone et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100100551 | Knauft et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100121853 | de la Iglesia et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100174528 | Oya et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100185622 | Deninger et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100191732 | Lowe et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100195909 | Wasson et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100268959 | Lowe et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100332502 | Carmel et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110004599 | Deninger et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110040552 | Van Guilder et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110131199 | Simon et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110149959 | Liu et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110167212 | Lowe et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110167265 | Ahuja et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110196911 | de la Iglesia et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110197284 | Ahuja et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110208861 | Deninger et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110219237 | Ahuja et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110258197 | de la Iglesia et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110276575 | de la Iglesia et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110276709 | Deninger et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120114119 | Ahuja et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120179687 | Liu | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120180137 | Liu | Jul 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2499806 | Sep 2012 | EP |
WO 2004008310 | Jan 2004 | WO |
WO 2012060892 | May 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Chapter 1. Introduction, “Computer Program product for analyzing network traffic,” Ethereal. Computer program product for analyzing network traffic, pp. 17-26, http://web.archive.org/web/20030315045117/www.ethereal.com/distribution/docs/user-guide, approximated copyright 2004-2005, printed Mar. 12, 2009. |
Microsoft Outlook, Outlook, copyright 1995-2000, 2 pages. |
Preneel, Bart, “Cryptographic Hash Functions”, Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on State and Progress of Research in Cryptography, 1993, pp. 161-171. |
Mao et al. “MOT: Memory Online Tracing of Web Information System,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering (WISE '01); pp. 271-277, (IEEE0-0-7695-1393-X/02) Aug. 7, 2002 (7 pages). |
Han, OLAP Mining: An Integration of OLAP with Data Mining, Oct. 1997, pp. 1-18. |
Niemi, Constructing OLAP Cubes Based on Queries, Nov. 2001, pp. 1-7. |
Schultz, Data Mining for Detection of New Malicious Executables, May 2001, pp. 1-13. |
Webopedia, definition of “filter”, 2002, p. 1. |
Werth, T. et al., “Chapter 1—DAG Mining in Procedural Abstraction,” Programming Systems Group; Computer Science Department, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany (cited by Examiner in Sep. 19, 2011 Non-final Rejection). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion and Declaration of Non-Establishment of International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/US2011/024902 mailed Aug. 1, 2011 (8 pages). |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/254,436, filed Oct. 19, 2005, entitled “Attributes of Captured Objects in a Capture System,” Inventor(s) William Deninger et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/900,964, filed Sep. 14, 2007, entitled “System and Method for Indexing a Capture System,” Inventor(s) Ashok Doddapaneni et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/190,536, filed Aug. 12, 2008, entitled “Configuration Management for a Capture/Registration System,” Inventor(s) Jitendra B. Gaitonde et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/352,720, filed Jan. 13, 2009, entitled “System and Method for Concept Building,” Inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Singh Ahuja et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/354,688, filed Jan. 15, 2009, entitled “System and Method for Intelligent Term Grouping,” Inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Ahuja et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/358,399, filed Jan. 23, 2009, entitled “System and Method for Intelligent State Management,” Inventor(s) William Deninger et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/360,537, filed Jan. 27, 2009, entitled “Database for a Capture System,” Inventor(s) Rick Lowe et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/410,875, filed Mar. 25, 2009, entitled “System and Method for Data Mining and Security Policy Management,” Inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Singh Ahuja et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/410,905, filed Mar. 25, 2009, entitled “System and Method for Managing Data and Policies,” Inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Singh Ahuja et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/690,153, filed Jan. 20, 2010, entitled “Query Generation for a Capture System,” Inventor(s) Erik de la Iglesia, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/751,876, filed Mar. 31, 2010, entitled “Attributes of Captured Objects in a Capture System,” Inventor(s) William Deninger, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/829,220, filed Jul. 1, 2010, entitled “Verifying Captured Objects Before Presentation,” Inventor(s) Rick Lowe, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/873,061, filed Aug. 31, 2010, entitled “Document Registration,” Inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Singh Ahuja, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/873,860, filed Sep. 1, 2010, entitled “A System and Method for Word Indexing in a Capture System and Querying Thereof,” Inventor(s) William Deninger, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/939,340, filed Nov. 3, 2010, entitled “System and Method for Protecting Specified Data Combinations,” Inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Singh Ahuja, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/422,791, filed Mar. 16, 2012, entitled “System and Method for Data Mining and Security Policy Management”, Inventor, Weimin Liu. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/424,249, filed Mar. 19, 2012, entitled “System and Method for Data Mining and Security Policy Management”, Inventor, Weimin Liu. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/436,275 filed Mar. 30, 2012, entitled “System and Method for Intelligent State Management”, Inventors William Deninger, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/024,923, filed Feb. 10, 2011, entitled “High Speed Packet Capture,” Inventor(s) Weimin Liu, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/047,068, filed Mar. 14, 2011, entitled “Cryptographic Policy Enforcement,” Inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Singh Ahuja, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/049,533, filed Mar. 16, 2011, entitled “File System for a Capture System,” Inventor(s) Rick Lowe, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/089,158, filed Apr. 18, 2011, entitled “Attributes of Captured Objects in a Capture System,” Inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Singh Ahuja, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/099,516, filed May 3, 2011, entitled “Object Classification in a Capture System,” Inventor(s) William Deninger, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/168,739, filed Jun. 24, 2011, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Data Capture and Analysis System,” Inventor(s) Erik de la Iglesia, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/187,421, filed Jul. 20, 2011, entitled “Query Generation for a Capture System,” Inventor(s) Erik de la Iglesia, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/188,441 filed Jul. 21, 2011, entitled “Locational Tagging in a Capture System,” Inventor(s) William Deninger et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/967,013, filed Dec. 13, 2010, entitled “Tag Data Structure for Maintaining Relational Data Over Captured Objects,” Inventor(s) Erik de la Iglesia, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/337,737, filed Dec. 27, 2011 and entitled “System and Method for Providing Data Protection Workflows in a Network Environment”, inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Singh Ahuja, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/338,060, filed Dec. 27, 2011 and entitled “System and Method for Providing Data Protection Workflows in a Network Environment”, inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Singh Ahuja, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/338,159, filed Dec. 27, 2011 and entitled “System and Method for Providing Data Protection Workflows in a Network Environment”, inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Singh Ahuja, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/338,195, filed Dec. 27, 2011 and entitled “System and Method for Providing Data Protection Workflows in a Network Environment”, inventor(s) Ratinder Paul Singh Ahuja, et al. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120191722 A1 | Jul 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11254436 | Oct 2005 | US |
Child | 12751876 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12751876 | Mar 2010 | US |
Child | 13431678 | US |