Autonomous system for recognition of patterns formed by stored data during computer memory scrubbing

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 6279128
  • Patent Number
    6,279,128
  • Date Filed
    Thursday, December 29, 1994
    30 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, August 21, 2001
    23 years ago
Abstract
A system for continuous monitoring and autonomous detection of patterns in the main memory subsystem of a computer system. The invention can be embodied as an extension to existing memory scrubbing hardware to permit stored code pattern analysis and identification during the autonomous transparent memory scrubbing process. A library of stored target signatures is provided to which code signatures are compared during analysis. Code signatures may be derived directly from the memory subsystem data pattern or may be indirectly and more efficiently derived from the error correction code (ECC) string associated with the stored data pattern. This invention is directly applicable to computer virus detection and neutralization systems.
Description




BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION




1. Field of the Invention




This invention relates generally to computer memory error correction systems and specifically to a signature detection system for locating clandestine or sinister code patterns during normal memory “scrubbing” operations.




2. Discussion of the Related Art




Semiconductor memory devices used to implement main memory elements of modern computer systems are manufactured with cell sizes and densities such that individual storage cells are susceptible to alpha particle failure. This is particularly true for dynamic RAMs (DRAMs). Materials used in packaging such memory devices inevitably include radioactive traces that decay to create alpha particles that penetrate the silicon die. An alpha particle hit can cause a bit storage cell to switch states, creating a “soft” bit error, as is well-known in the art. To eliminate the effects of such soft errors, error checking and correcting circuitry is used in modern computer memory systems. An error correction circuit operates to add an Error Correction Code (ECC) to each incoming data item as it is stored. Because the ECC is calculated as a known function of the bit sequence making up the data item being stored, it can be recalculated and checked against the earlier stored ECC when the same data item is later read. With simple ECCs, a single soft bit error can be corrected transparently to the user (before submitting the data item to the CPU), permitting tolerance of the usual transient alpha particle hits in DRAM systems.




Even though soft errors can be tolerated in memory, to avoid long-term accumulation of such errors, it is a known practice to “scrub” (restore) memory locations that show correctable errors such as those produced by alpha particle hits in DRAMs. Memory scrubbing employs an extension to a storage subsystem with ECC circuits that performs continual autonomous reverification of memory storage accuracy. As used herein, “scrubbing” denominates the continual independent reading, ECC error checking and correcting, and rewriting of stored data to eliminate “soft” errors. When the memory subsystem is not busy with requests for data, the extended hardware reads a unit of storage in sequence, verifies its contents, and, if it contains a correctable error, corrects the data and restores the corrected data into memory. Since the ECCs are generally designed to operate on one word (“item”) of data, a memory scrubbing subsystem typically must sequentially process every word in storage. Usually the memory subsystem includes the scrubbing hardware necessary to accomplish the scrubbing operations independently and transparently to the CPU. Alternatively, a scrubbing process can be implemented by the CPU as part of its operating system but such “software scrubbing” schemes consume substantial CPU resources that are otherwise not required in a “hardware scrubbing” subsystem.




Practitioners in the art have proposed various memory scrubbing schemes. For instance, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,263,032, Porter et al. disclose a memory scrubbing subsystem that provides for creation and storage of a memory “footprint” to permit identification of frequently-failing memory locations and to distinguish “hard” (uncorrectable) memory faults from “soft” errors at each memory address. When a second corrected read data error occurs for the same location for which an earlier corrected read data error was scrubbed, the location is assumed to have a “hard” fault and the page containg such location is replaced to permit continued, transparent error-free memory operation in the event of a new “soft” fault. Similarly, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,964,130, Bowden III et al. disclose a memory scrubber with an error flag system to distinguish hard faults from soft errors. Neither Porter et al. nor Bowden III et al. consider or suggest using a memory scrubbing subsystem to monitor the memory subsystem for data storage patterns not associated with hard faults. Both teach the use of dedicated hardware scrubbing subsystems operating autonomously from the CPU.




Other practitioners have considered useful solutions to the general memory testing problem arising from the unacceptable amount of time required to exhaustively verify the absence of “hard” storage errors for every bit in the hundreds of millions of storage locations in modern memory chips. These schemes usually employ bit pattern or “signature” comparisons to verify internal functions. For instance, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,138,619, Fasang et al. disclose a built-in self-test for integrated circuit memory that includes on-chip hardware means for checking digital signature outputs responsive to predetermined digital input patterns. Fasang et al. consider the “pass/fail” chip testing problem and neither consider nor suggest the application of their invention to autonomous memory subsystem scrubbing. Similarly, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,101,409, Hack teaches a checkerboard memory self-tester that employs multiple input signature registers and a random digital input pattern generator to implement a chip “pass/fail” test. Hack teaches a high-efficiency memory chip pass/fail tester and neither considers nor suggests the application of his random testing procedure to the autonomous scrubbing of memory subsystems.




In U.S. Pat. No. 4,926,425, Hedtke et al. disclose a system for testing digital circuits, which could include data storage circuits. Hedtke et al. disclose an automatic self-test system relying on special test-node circuits inserted between successive digital components for monitoring by an external testing computer. Hedtke et al. suggest the use of signature analysis techniques in their test node components but neither consider nor suggest the application of signature analysis to autonomous scrubbing of online memory subsystems.




Modern computer systems are subject to the unwelcome effects of “Trojan Horse” or “virus” programs infecting their operating systems. As is well-known in the art, Trojan Horses are programs that directly violate the system data integrity or nondisclosure policies in a computer operating system. When executed, these programs use the access rights and privileges of their invoker to access data beyond the scope of the program's stated function. Such integrity violations can be purposeful (altering a user database to grant a user more privilege) or simply malicious (destroying data at random). “Viruses” are programs that modify other programs when executed. These modified programs, in turn, infect still additional other programs, thereby propagating the virus indefinitely. Viruses usually propagate by appending a code to existing program files into which their invoker has write privileges. Virus propagation itself generally does little harm (except for the illicit consumption of system resources) but the real purpose of a virus may be to attach itself to a program that possesses “interesting” rights or privileges in the system, at which point the virus then becomes a Trojan Horse that can directly attack the security of the operating system. All such malicious programs are herein denominated “computer viruses”.




Computer viruses are usually acquired by a computer user through the copying of “contaminated” software from outside sources and may lie dormant for some time before activation. A well-known class of schemes for the detection of computer viruses relies on the “virus scanner”, which uses short byte strings (herein denominated “signatures”) to identify particular computer viruses in executable files, boot records or memory. The “target” signatures selected to identify a particular computer virus should be chosen such that they always discover the virus if it is present but seldom give rise to a false alarm. The commonly-assigned copending patent application Ser. No. 004,871, entitled “A Method for Evaluating and Extracting Computer Virus Signatures”, (assignee docket no. YO992-002) filed Jan. 19, 1993 on and entirely included herein by this reference, discloses a statistical method for automatically extracting computer virus signatures suitable for efficient virus detection with minimal false-alarm rates.




Another class of virus detection schemes known in the art relies on the detection of activity initiated by the computer virus. For instance, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,144,660, Rose discloses a method for protecting a computer against “virus” programs that employs a hardware device inserted between the disk controller card and the disk drive of a computer system to monitor the disk drive bus for illegitimate write attempts to a protected area of the storage disk. Rose neither considers nor suggests virus detection techniques suitable for “passive” discovery of stored computer viruses. Similarly, Steves et al. (IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. 34, No. 7B, pp. 78-81, December 1991) propose a preemptive real-time auditing process to counteract illegitimate virus activities. This preemptive auditing process monitors operating programs to detect suspicious activities and relies on real-time preemptive operation to prevent undetected manipulation of the auditing subsystem itself. Steves et al. neither consider nor suggest any passive techniques for uncovering inactive computer viruses within a computer system. Finally, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,975,950 and 5,121,345, Lentz discloses a system for preventing the unauthorized alteration of stored data by a computer virus that employs a dedicated device or “second program” to check the system files for the presence of a computer virus before the system files are loaded into the memory subsystem from external storage. Thus, Lentz requires his “second program” to preempt the CPU before “boot-up” and to examine the operating system files in external storage for the presence of a computer virus. Once the externally-stored system files are given a clean bill-of-health by the “second program”, the normal boot-up process continues in the usual manner. Lentz does not consider the problem of possible computer virus contamination of his “second program” nor does he consider the problem of memory contamination occurring during system operation following the review of system files before boot-up.




Accordingly, there is a clearly-felt need in the art for a “passive” technique suitable for uncovering inactive computer virus signatures in a memory subsystem. It is desirable that such a passive computer virus detecting system operate autonomously and transparently to the main CPU, preferably through the use of dedicated (“bullet-proof”) hardware that can be isolated from unauthorized manipulation by computer viruses. These unresolved problems and deficiencies are clearly felt in the art and are solved by this invention in the manner described below.




SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION




This invention solves the above-described problems by a combining pattern-detection process with a memory-scrubbing process in a manner that allows autonomous detection of target patterns such as computer virus fragments stored in the memory subsystem of a computer system.




It is an object of the system of this invention to provide continuous autonomous scrutiny of the patterns formed by data stored in main memory. It is an advantage of the system of this invention that continuous off-line scrutiny of such data patterns is accomplished in concert with the memory-scrubbing data stream.




It is another object of the system of this invention to provide sophisticated data-pattern detection capability, including pattern detection based on statistical measures of similarity determined over a selectable range of stored data. It is another advantage of the system of this invention that, because the memory-scrubbing process operates to continuously and sequentially scans the entire memory subsystem, all stored data patterns are made continuously available for signature analysis. It is yet another advantage of the system of this invention that stored data patterns can be compared with each of a sizeable plurality of stored target data patterns to develop statistical measures of similarity to many different patterns of interest.




It is yet another object of the system of this invention to minimize false alarm rates associated with computer virus detection. It is another advantage of the system of this invention that the storage addresses of suspicious data patterns found to be innocent can be stored in a clean window log table and later consulted to avoid unnecessary re-examination of such innocent data patterns.




The foregoing, together with other objects, features and advantages of this invention, can be better appreciated with reference to the following specification, claims and the accompanying drawing.











BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING




For a more complete understanding of this invention, reference is now made to the following detailed description of the embodiments as illustrated in the accompanying drawing, wherein:





FIG. 1

is a functional block diagram of an exemplary embodiment of a computer system employing the data pattern monitor system of this invention;





FIG. 2

is a functional block diagram showing details of the memory controller portion of the system from

FIG. 1

;





FIG. 3

is a detailed functional block diagram of an exemplary embodiment of the autonomous data pattern monitor system of this invention from

FIGS. 1 and 2

;





FIG. 4

is a functional flow diagram of showing an exemplary embodiment of the method of this invention; and





FIG. 5

is a functional diagram depicting a computer program product containing a plurality of program objects according to the method of this invention.











DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS





FIG. 1

shows a functional block diagram for an exemplary computer system


10


employing the data pattern monitor


12


of this invention. Computer system


10


includes a CPU


14


connected by a system bus


16


to other computer system components, including a main addressable memory


18


connected by way of the memory controller


20


. Other elements coupled to bus


16


may include other CPUs exemplified by the CPU


22


and other data storage subsystems exemplified by the direct access storage device (DASD)


24


coupled by way of the DASD controller


26


. Memory


18


contains many data and program objects, exemplified by data object


28


and program object


30


. Data object


28


could represent a data storage table such as the clean window log table discussed below, for instance. Program object


30


could represent a sophisticated computer virus analysis and neutralization routine of the type well-known in the art for verifying and deactivating known computer viruses, for instance. Computer system


10


includes memory “scrubbing” capability and the scrub sequencer


32


element of memory controller


20


is depicted separately for illustrative purposes. Data pattern monitor


12


of this invention may also be considered an element of memory controller


20


and is depicted separately in

FIG. 1

for illustrative purposes.




Referring to

FIG. 2

, memory


18


and memory controller


20


are described in more detail. Bus


16


is shown with three distinct elements: a control signal bus


34


, an address bus


36


and a data bus


38


. Memory


18


contains a multiplicity of banks of DRAM arrays, exemplified by bank


40


, which includes a multiplicity of DRAM arrays exemplified by DRAM array


42


. For example, a 64 Mbit physical memory


18


could contain 128 four Mbit DRAM devices arranged on printed circuit boards plus additional DRAM devices required to handle ECCs, parity and other ancillary bits associated with the stored data words. The particular configuration of computer system


10


and memory


18


is governed by specific system design considerations that are not material to the description of this invention.




Except for the relationship to and operation of data pattern monitor


12


of this invention, the operation of memory controller


20


and memory


18


is generally known and appreciated in the art. The data paths for writing to and from memory


18


include an ECC generator


44


, and an ECC detector and error corrector


46


. Incoming data on bus


38


is routed through the input/output (I/O) switch


48


to ECC generator


44


, where an ECC bit sequence is generated for each data item. Thus, the input bus


50


to ECC generator


44


carries data alone and the output bus


52


from ECC generator


44


includes both data and their associated ECCs, which are stored together in memory


18


. For example, if the width of data bus


38


is 64 bits, an ECC may be generated for each 64-bit word of data presented on bus


50


. Thus, bus


52


must include the 64 bits of data together with perhaps 8 bits of ECC, for a total bus width of 72 bits. Similarly, the addressable storage word in DRAM array


42


must also be 72 bits, which are retrieved by operation of the address control circuit


54


responsive to the appropriate signals on control signal bus


34


and address bus


36


.




In a read operation, the addressed data word (e.g., a


64-


bit sequence) is retrieved from memory


18


together with its associated ECC (e.g., an 8-bit sequence) by way of the internal bus


56


to the input/output (I/O) switch


58


, which routes it over the bus


60


to ECC detector


46


. ECC detector and error corrector


46


first recalculates the ECC for the data sequence to obtain a second ECC and then compares this second ECC with the first ECC stored earlier to determine if the retrieved data is precisely unchanged from when it was written. If the retrieved data is without error, it is passed over the internal bus


62


to I/O switch


48


, which routes it to data bus


38


(part of system bus


16


). If ECC detector


46


uncovers an error in the retrieved data, this error is corrected (assuming that the error is within the correction range of the particular ECC process embodied therein) and the corrected data is passed along to bus


16


in the same fashion. At this point, the correctable data error still exists in memory


18


. This error can be corrected in many different ways. ECC detector


46


can initiate a “scrub cycle” for the particular address by signalling address control circuit


54


(not shown) and cause I/O device


48


to switch the corrected data on bus


62


around to bus


50


and down into memory


18


for restorage. This process is herein denominated a memory scrub cycle. ECC detector


46


may also cause an interrupt to be generated by address control circuit


54


for transmission via bus


34


over bus


16


to CPU


14


. This CPU interrupt may initiate a software memory scrubbing cycle under CPU control.




For the purposes of describing this invention, the stored soft bit error is presumed to be corrected by a hardware scrub cycle. Further, it is assumed that scrub sequencer


32


operates to continuously sequence through memory


18


from one end of the physical address space to the other. That is, the scrub cycle is implemented for every physical memory address location in memory


18


on a continuing basis without waiting for a CPU request for data before detecting and fixing soft bit errors. Scrub sequencer


32


controls the continuous verification of the contents of memory


18


by way of address control circuit


54


. Whenever address control circuit


54


is not busy with traffic on bus


34


, it accepts control and address instructions from scrub sequencer


32


on internal bus


64


. These scrub sequencer instructions are interpreted to provide the necessary control words on internal bus


66


and addresses on internal bus


68


. Thus, as can be appreciated from the above description of read and write operations, each word stored in memory


18


is (a) specified on internal address bus


68


, (b) read responsive to a read command on internal bus


66


, (c) analyzed and corrected by ECC detector


46


and (d) cycled around and rewritten into the same address responsive to a write command on internal bus


66


. This scrub cycle is repeated continuously for each sequential address in memory


18


, subject only to pauses for servicing incoming traffic from CPU


14


.




Data pattern monitor


12


thus has access to the continual stream of control words on internal bus


66


, the continuous stream of physical addresses on internal bus


68


and the stream of data words on bus


56


. This continuous information flow is a useful consequence of the autonomous memory scrubbing process just described that, until now, has never been exploited in the art for data pattern monitoring.





FIG. 3

shows data pattern monitor


12


in more detail. Data pattern monitor


12


operates to detect patterns created by the data bits stored in memory


18


and is preferably embodied in hardware to avoid burdening CPU


14


with such continuous activity. In

FIG. 3

, the address on internal bus


68


and control words on internal bus


66


are passed to the monitor controller


70


. Simultaneously, the data on internal data bus


56


is passed to a code signature computation circuit


72


. Computation circuit


72


computes a code signature on the data accumulated over a selectable finite moving window (e.g., 32 sequential words). A programmable mask option can be included in computation unit


72


to selectively exclude particular data words from the moving window signature computation process. After each scrub cycle, the computed signature is transferred on internal bus


74


to the signature comparison circuit


76


.




The target signatures used by signature comparison circuit


76


are stored in the target signature memory


78


and passed to signature comparison circuit


76


over the internal bus


80


. The target signatures are preferably preloaded into target signature memory


78


and may be loaded by the operating system during the “boot-up” of the system or may be preserved in non-volatile storage. In

FIG. 3

, the target signatures are shown as loadable from a separate data bus


82


in some manner. The use of a separate bus


82


ensures that the contents of target signature memory


78


are isolated from possible contamination by illicit computer virus activity. Periodic updates and additions to the target signature library can be made by the user merely by reloading new signatures over bus


82


.




The system of this invention is suited to search and detect in addressable memory many different types of data bit patterns. Although not limiting on this invention, one example of particular interest is the detection of computer virus patterns or fragments. The moving window signatures can be examined for an exact match with known virus fragment patterns or can be examined statistically to produce a “measure of similarity” representing how close the stored data pattern is to one or more known virus fragments. The above-cited copending patent application Ser. No. 004,871 provides an extensive description of methods for extracting bit sequences from known computer viruses that are useful for detecting the presence of such virus without unacceptable false alarm rates. A useful “measure of similarity” can be derived using known “distance matching” techniques such as those described by Hamming or Levenshtein (“Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions, and Reversals”, Soviet Physics-Doklady, Vol. 10, No. 8, pp. 707-710, February 1966). Such techniques can determine that a stored data sequence is within a specified hamming distance or that the two patterns differ by a minimum number of insertions and deletions.




“Global” or regional signature matching is also a useful technique that can be implemented in signature comparison circuit


76


. For instance, signature matches (“hits”) within a predetermined distance threshold can be accumulated over a specified memory region to develop a “global measure of similarity” to several different virus fragments known to occur in a defined region.




Code signature computation circuit


72


recomputes a code signature at each scrub cycle, which is necessary because the computer virus fragment patterns sought can appear at any starting offset in memory address space. Thus, by recomputing the code signature at each scrub cycle, the finite moving window examined for the target pattern is effectively stepped word by word through the entire memory address space. The same advantageous effect can be achieved by computing the code signature over adjacent blocks of addresses and stepping the block starting address with each pass through memory


18


. Alternatively, the target signature memory


78


can be preloaded with target signatures representing all possible alignments of known virus fragments in the finite window size employed.




Thus, for each scrub cycle, signature comparison circuit


76


compares one code signature from bus


74


with each of the multiplicity of target signatures presented on internal bus


80


from target signature memory


78


. Signature comparison circuit


76


produces a “measure of similarity” for each of the multiplicity of target signatures in target signature memory


78


and presents this series of “measures of similarity” to the interrupt generator circuit


86


on internal bus


84


. Interrupt generator circuit


86


compares each “measure of similarity” from bus


84


with a threshold


88


. When interrupt generator


86


encounters a measure of similarity that exceeds threshold


88


, it produces a CPU interrupt on internal bus


90


, which is presented to monitor controller


70


for transfer to CPU


14


by way of internal bus


66


to address control


54


and control signal bus


34


(FIG.


2


).




Responsive to the CPU interrupt created by interrupt generator


86


, CPU


14


starts a secondary task that includes a high-level antivirus process designed to verify and disable the suspected computer virus found in memory


18


. This secondary task performs any validation or correction steps necessary, which might include examination of the entire region around the code signature window in which the match was found, determination as to which virus or viruses are involved and verification of the presence of the suspected computer virus. If a computer virus is verified, it could be automatically deactivated by other elements of the secondary task, the system could be alerted to signal the user with a request for further instructions, or the entire computer system


10


could be halted until outside support can be summoned.




This secondary antivirus task should ideally be invoked only when necessary to minimize the unnecessary use of system resources. If the secondary task finds that the suspected data pattern is a “false alarm” and represents innocent data instead of a computer virus, then the address of the window that produced the code signature leading to the CPU interrupt is stored in the clean window log table


92


by monitor controller


70


by way of the internal bus


94


. Monitor controller


70


also searches clean window log table


92


by way of internal bus


94


during each scrub cycle and produces an inhibit signal on internal bus


90


whenever the current scrub address on bus


68


matches an entry in clean window log table


92


. This inhibit signal on bus


90


operates to inhibit interrupt generator


86


to prevent CPU interrupts from signature matches in windows that have already been checked for computer viruses by the secondary antivirus task monitor controller to remove from clean window log table


92


the window address after any write to a storage location within the window in a fashion similar to the “dirty” marking of a rewritten cache line.





FIG. 4

shows a flow diagram of an exemplary embodiment of the procedure of this invention. The process starts by reading a data item at step


96


. The data item includes both the data bit sequence and the ECC bit sequence, either or both of which can be used in step


98


to compute the code signature. Using the ECCs to compute code signatures saves considerable hardware because the ECC sequence is typically only a fraction of the size of the data sequence and ECC code signature extraction requires significantly less hardware. Because the ECC uniquely represents the data bit sequence, useful code signatures can be derived from the ECC alone.




After computing the code signature at step


98


, the comparison loop begins with selection of a stored target signature at step


100


. After selecting a target signature, the measure of similarity between code and target signatures is computed at step


102


. Step


104


asks if the pattern detection process is in a “cumulative” mode. That is, is a single measure of similarity test sufficient to generate a CPU interrupt or is the CPU interrupt generated responsive to a “global” examination of several windows. If not in cumulative mode, step


106


next compares the measure of similarity to an appropriate threshold to determine whether a CPU interrupt must be originated. If in cumulative mode, step


108


next adds the measure of similarity to some global accumulation of such measures of similarity and then proceeds to step


110


to test whether the global measure of similarity is completed. If not completed, the procedure returns to the beginning of the loop at step


100


for the next target signature. If complete, the procedure then tests the global measure of similarity against an appropriate threshold at step


112


. If this test fails, then step


114


checks for more target signatures and returns to the beginning of the loop at step


100


if more signatures await comparison. If the target signatures are exhausted, step


114


returns to the beginning at step


96


to read the next data item.




If either measure of similarity test at steps


106


or


112


succeeds, then step


116


creates the CPU interrupt signalling successful pattern detection. Immediately after creating the interrupt, the secondary antivirus task is activated to verify the existence of a virus (not shown) and may return a false alarm indication. If the secondary task returns a false alarm indication at step


118


, the window address is stored in the clean window log table at step


120


and the process returns to step


96


to read the next data item. If there is no false alarm, then the secondary task disables the computer virus at step


122


and the process then returns to step


96


. If the threshold test at step


106


fails, step


124


tests for target signature exhaustion and either returns to step


100


for the next target signature or to step


96


for the next data item.




Although this invention is described as a method and a system, it is readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the system of this invention may be embodied as a conventional data processor, including a CPU, memory, program storage, a connecting bus and the like. Such a processor may include appropriate program means for executing the method of this invention. Also, an article of manufacture such as the pre-recorded floppy disk


210


or other similar computer program product, for use with a data processing system, may include a storage medium and program means recorded thereon for directing a data processing system to facilitate the practice of the method of this invention. For instance, disk


210


includes a recording surface


212


on which a reading program object


214


, a mapping program object


216


, a comparing program object


218


and an interrupt program object


220


are recorded. It is readily apparent to practitioners in the art that program product articles of manufacture such as disk


210


also fall within the spirit and scope of this invention.




Clearly, other embodiments and modifications of this invention may occur to those of ordinary skill in the art in view of these teachings. Therefore, this invention is to be limited only by the following claims, which include all such embodiments and modifications when viewed in conjunction with the above specification and accompanying drawing.



Claims
  • 1. A method for operating a computer system having a central processing unit (CPU) for processing data responsive to interrupt signals and stored instructions, having a memory for storing data in a plurality of addressable locations and having scrubbing means for the continuous autonomous detection and correction of soft bit errors in said data stored in said memory, said method comprising the steps of:(a) providing one or more items of said data read by said scrubbing means from a first memory address; (b) mapping said one or more data items to produce a code signature related to said one or more data items according to a first predetermined transformation; (c) comparing said code signature to each of one or more stored target signatures to determine a measure of similarity therebetween; (d) producing a CPU interrupt signal when said measure of similarity equals or exceeds a predetermined threshold; and (e) repeating steps (a) through (d) for each of said plurality of memory locations.
  • 2. The method of claim 1 wherein said data includes associated error correction codes (ECCs) and said mapping step (b) comprises the step of:(b) mapping said associated ECCs to produce said code signature related to said one or more data items according to a second predetermined transformation.
  • 3. The method of claim 2 wherein said comparing step (c) comprises the step of:(c.1) comparing each of a plurality of said code signatures to said each stored target signature to determine said measure of similarity.
  • 4. The method of claim 3 wherein said computer system includes means for storing a clean window log table of said memory addresses that are free of computer virus fragments and further comprising the steps of:(f) testing, responsive to said CPU interrupt signal, said one or more data items from said first memory address for the presence of a computer virus fragment; and (g) storing said first memory address in said clean window log table if no said computer virus fragment is found; otherwise (h) disabling any said computer virus fragment found at said first memory address; and (i) deleting said first memory address from said clean window log table responsive to any change to said one or more data items stored at said first memory address in said memory.
  • 5. The method of claim 4 wherein said producing step (d) consists essentially of the step of:(d) producing said CPU interrupt signal when said measure of similarity equals or exceeds a predetermined threshold for any said first memory address not stored in said clean window log table.
  • 6. The method of claim 1 wherein said computer system includes means for storing a clean window log table of said memory addresses that are free of computer virus fragments and further comprising the steps of:(f) testing, responsive to said CPU interrupt signal, said one or more data items from said first memory address for the presence of a computer virus fragment; and (g) storing said first memory address in said clean window log table if no said computer virus fragment is found; otherwise (h) disabling any said computer virus fragment found at said first memory address; and (i) deleting said first memory address from said clean window log table responsive to any change to said one or more data items stored at said first memory address in said memory.
  • 7. The method of claim 6 wherein said producing step (d) consists essentially of the step of:(d) producing said CPU interrupt signal when said measure of similarity equals or exceeds a predetermined threshold for any said first memory address not stored in said clean window log table.
  • 8. The method of claim 1 wherein said comparing step (c) comprises the step of:(c.1) comparing each of a plurality of said code signatures to said each stored target signature to determine said measure of similarity.
  • 9. A computer system comprising:memory means for storing data in a plurality of addressable locations; CPU means coupled to said memory means for processing data responsive to interrupt signals and stored instructions; scrubbing means coupled to said memory means for the continuous autonomous detection and correction of soft bit errors in said data stored in said memory means including means for reading one or more data items from said memory means and means for writing said data items with corrections to said memory means; signature computation means coupled to said scrubbing means for mapping one or more said data items from a first said memory address to produce a code signature related to said one or more data items according to a first predetermined transformation; signature storage means coupled to said signature computation means for storing one or more target signatures; and signature comparison means coupled to said signature computation means for comparing said code signature to each of said plurality of target signatures to determine a measure of similarity therebetween including means for producing a CPU interrupt signal when said measure of similarity equals or exceeds a predetermined threshold.
  • 10. The system of claim 9 wherein said data includes associated error correction codes (ECCs), said system further comprising:ECC means coupled to said memory means for producing a first ECC for storage with each said data item and for producing a second ECC upon retrieving said each data item including means for comparing said second ECC with said first ECC to detect and correct bit errors in said each retrieved data item; and ECC signature means in said signature computation means for mapping said first ECC associated with said one or more data items from said first memory address to produce said code signature related to said one or more data items according to a second predetermined transformation.
  • 11. The system of claim 10 wherein said signature comparison means comprises:cumulative signature means for comparing each of a plurality of said code signatures to said each target signature to determine said measure of similarity.
  • 12. The system of claim 11 further comprising:virus detection means coupled to said CPU means for testing, responsive to said CPU interrupt signal, said one or more data items from said first memory address for the presence of a computer virus fragment; logging means coupled to said signature comparison means for storing said first memory address in a clean window log table of said memory addresses that are free of computer virus fragments if no computer virus fragment is found at said first memory address including means for deleting from said clean window log table each said memory address at which said one or more data items is changed; and antivirus means coupled to said CPU means for disabling any said computer virus fragment found at said first memory address.
  • 13. The system of claim 12 wherein said signature comparison means comprises:bypass means for preventing said CPU interrupt signal production for any said first memory address stored in said clean window log table.
  • 14. The system of claim 9 further comprising:virus detection means coupled to said CPU means for testing, responsive to said CPU interrupt signal, said one or more data items from said first memory address for the presence of a computer virus fragment; logging means coupled to said signature comparison means and said CPU means for storing said first memory address in a clean window log table of said memory addresses that are free of computer virus fragments if no computer virus fragment is found at said first memory address including means for deleting from said clean window log table each said memory address at which said one or more data items is updated; and antivirus means coupled to said CPU means for disabling any said computer virus fragment found at said first memory address.
  • 15. The system of claim 14 wherein said signature comparison means comprises:bypass means for preventing said CPU interrupt signal production for any said first memory address stored in said clean window log table.
  • 16. The system of claim 9 wherein said signature comparison means comprises:cumulative signature means for comparing each of a plurality of said code signatures to said each stored target signature to determine said measure of similarity.
  • 17. An addressable data memory system comprising:memory means for storing data in a plurality of addressable locations; scrubbing means coupled to said memory means for the continuous autonomous detection and correction of soft bit errors in said data stored in said memory means including means for reading one or more data items from said memory means and means for writing such data items with corrections to said memory means; signature computation means coupled to said scrubbing means for mapping one or more said data items from a first said memory address to produce a code signature related to said one or more data items according to a first predetermined transformation; signature storage means coupled to said signature computation means for storing one or more target signatures; and signature comparison means coupled to said signature computation means for comparing said code signature to each of said plurality of target signatures to determine a measure of similarity therebetween including means for producing a CPU interrupt signal when said measure of similarity equals or exceeds a predetermined threshold.
  • 18. The system of claim 17 wherein said data includes associated error correction codes (ECCs), said system further comprising:ECC means coupled to said memory means for producing a first ECC for storage with each said data item and for producing a second ECC upon retrieving said each data item including means for comparing said second ECC with said first ECC to detect and correct bit errors in said each retrieved data item; and ECC signature means in said signature computation means for mapping said first ECC associated with said one or more data items from said first memory address to produce said code signature related to said one or more data items according to a second predetermined transformation.
  • 19. The system of claim 18 further comprising:virus detection means coupled to said CPU means for testing, responsive to said CPU interrupt signal, said one or more data items from said first memory address for the presence of a computer virus fragment; logging means coupled to said signature comparison means for storing said first memory address in a clean window log table of said memory addresses that are free of computer virus fragments if no computer virus fragment is found at said first memory address including means for deleting from said clean window log table each said memory address at which said one or more data items is changed; and antivirus means coupled to said CPU means for disabling any said computer virus fragment found at said first memory address.
  • 20. The system of claim 19 wherein said signature comparison means comprises:bypass means for preventing said CPU interrupt signal production for any said first memory address stored in said clean window log table.
  • 21. A computer program product for use with a computer system having a central processing unit (CPU) for processing data responsive to interrupt signals and stored instructions, having a memory for storing data and associated error correction codes (ECCs) in a plurality of addressable locations and having scrubbing means for the continuous autonomous detection and correction of soft bit errors in said data stored in said memory, said computer program product comprising:a recording medium; means, recorded on said recording medium, for receiving one or more items of said data and said associated ECCs read by said scrubbing means from a first memory address; means, recorded on said recording medium, for directing said computer system to map said one or more data items to produce a code signature related to said one or more data items according to a first determined transformation; means, recorded on said recording medium, for directing said computer system to compare said code signature to each of one or more stored target signatures to determine a measure of similarity therebetween; means, recorded on said recording medium, for directing said computer system to produce a CPU interrupt signal when said measure of similarity equals or exceeds a predetermined threshold; and means, recorded on said recording medium, for directing said computer system to repeat operation of said means for directing to read, said means for directing to map, said means for directing to compare, and said means for directing to produce for each of said plurality of memory locations.
  • 22. The computer program product of claim 21 wherein said means for directing to map comprises:means, recorded on said recording medium, for directing said computer system to map said associated ECCs to produce said code signature related to said one or more data items according to a second predetermined transformation.
US Referenced Citations (26)
Number Name Date Kind
4371949 Chu et al. Feb 1983
4479214 Ryan Oct 1984
4621364 Tschoepe Nov 1986
4926425 Hedtke et al. May 1990
4964130 Bowden, III et al. Oct 1990
4975950 Lentz Dec 1990
5031180 McIver et al. Jul 1991
5101409 Hack Mar 1992
5121345 Lentz Jun 1992
5138619 Fasang et al. Aug 1992
5144659 Jones Sep 1992
5144660 Rose Sep 1992
5155844 Chang et al. Oct 1992
5263032 Porter et al. Nov 1993
5274646 Brey et al. Dec 1993
5319776 Hile et al. Jun 1994
5398196 Chambers Mar 1995
5440723 Arnold et al. Aug 1995
5442699 Arnold et al. Aug 1995
5446741 Boldt et al. Aug 1995
5452442 Kephart Sep 1995
5475839 Watson et al. Dec 1995
5485575 Chess et al. Jan 1996
5493649 Slivka et al. Feb 1996
5495491 Snowden et al. Feb 1996
5511163 Lerche et al. Apr 1996
Non-Patent Literature Citations (6)
Entry
Phillippo, “Practical Virus Detection and Prevention”, IEE Colloq. No. 132, pp. 2/1-2/2, 1990.*
Qasem et al. “Computer Viruses: Detectiona ND Prevention Techniques”, Southeastcon, IEEE Conf. Proceedings, pp. 199-201, 1990.*
P. Roche, “Logic Signature Application”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 27, No.8, Jan. 1985, pp. 4943-4944.
D. H. Steves et al., “Trojan Horse and Virus Detection Using Real-Time Auditing”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 34, No. 7B, Dec. 1991, pp. 78-81.
T. R. N. Rao et al, “Error-Control Coding for Computer Systems”, 1989, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
V. I. Levenshtein, “Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions, and Reversals”, Soviet Physics-Doklady, vol. 10, No. 8, Feb., 1966.