Communication across domains

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8489878
  • Patent Number
    8,489,878
  • Date Filed
    Tuesday, March 13, 2012
    12 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, July 16, 2013
    10 years ago
Abstract
Communication across domains is described. In at least one implementation, a determination is made that an amount of data to be communicated via an Iframe exceeds a threshold amount. The data is divided into a plurality of portions that do not exceed the threshold amount. A plurality of messages is formed to communicate the divided data across domains.
Description
BACKGROUND

Through the use of web browsers (also known simply as “browsers”), users may obtain a wide variety of content from the Internet, such as online banking, email, and so on. However, the users may also be exposed to malicious parties via the Internet when browsing between network sites. For example, a malicious party may engage in a “phishing” scheme to obtain personal information from the users which may then be used to steal the users' identities, such as to purchase goods and services using credit information obtains from the users. In another example, the malicious party may attempt a “hack” to disable the users' computers, obtain personal information, and so on.


One technique that was developed to protect against these malicious parties employs security mechanisms around Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), which is used to prevent a single webpage from having multiple domains freely share data. For example, web pages are typically associated with domains. If a webpage from a domain attempts to communicate or execute a script on a webpage from another domain, typical browsers will disallow the communication or script execution. However, this may also serve to limit functionality available to the users' that may also be used for legitimate purposes, such as to share data between trusted domains.


SUMMARY

Communication across domains is described. In at least one implementation, a determination is made that an amount of data to be communicated via an Iframe exceeds a threshold amount. The data is divided into a plurality of portions that do not exceed the threshold amount. A plurality of messages is formed to communicate the divided data across domains.


This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The detailed description is described with reference to the accompanying figures. In the figures, the left-most digit(s) of a reference number identifies the figure in which the reference number first appears. The use of the same reference numbers in different instances in the description and the figures may indicate similar or identical items.



FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary environment, in accordance with one embodiment, in which the inventive embodiments can be employed.



FIG. 2 illustrates the system of FIG. 1 in which a cross domain message delivery system has been created in accordance with one embodiment.



FIG. 3 is a flow diagram that describes a process for creating a cross domain message system in accordance with one embodiment.



FIG. 4 illustrates cross domain communication in accordance with one embodiment.



FIG. 5 is a flow diagram that describes a process for using a cross domain message system in accordance with one embodiment.



FIG. 6 illustrates a web page and Iframes in accordance with one embodiment.



FIG. 7 illustrates the FIG. 6 web page and Iframes in accordance with one embodiment.



FIG. 8 is a flow diagram that describes a process for cross domain communication of data that exceeds a threshold amount that is permitted to be communicated via a single message.



FIG. 9 is a flow diagram that describes a process for asynchronous cross domain communication.



FIG. 10 is a flow diagram that describes a process for user confirmation of cross domain communication.



FIG. 11 is a flow diagram that describes a process for secure cross domain communication.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Overview


Various embodiments utilize nested Iframes within a web page to allow cross domain communication. That is, various embodiments can create an embedded Iframe that shares the domain of an Iframe or web page with which communication is desired. Because the embedded Iframe shares the domain of the Iframe or web page with which communication is desired, restrictions on cross-site scripting do not inhibit communication or scripting between the domain-matched Iframe(s) and/or web page. This embedded Iframe can then provide a mechanism by which web pages or Iframes from other domains can communicate with the Iframe or web page with which the embedded Iframe shares a domain.


The inventive approach can be utilized in the context of sending insecure and secure messages. Further, in at least some embodiments, reliability can be enhanced by providing a reliability mechanism that can be used to track and confirm messages that are sent back and forth between the domain-matched Iframe and web page.


Iframes and the manner in which Iframes work will be appreciated by the skilled artisan and, as such, are not described in great detail here. However, for some basic context on Iframes, consider the following.


An Iframe is a construct which embeds a document, such as a web page, into an HTML document. Traditionally, Iframes have been used so that embedded data can be displayed inside a sub-window of the browser's window. This does not mean full inclusion; the two documents are independent, and both them are treated as complete documents, instead of treating one as part of the other.


Basically, an Iframe element is of the form:

    • <iframe src=“URL” more attributes>
    • </iframe>


      Browsers which support Iframes display or load the document referred to by the URL in a subwindow, typically with vertical and/or horizontal scroll bars; such browsers ignore the content of the Iframe element (i.e., everything between the start tag <iframe . . . > and the end tag </iframe>). In the discussion that follows, Iframe are re-purposed, in a sense, to enable cross domain communication.


In the discussion below, the following primary sections are provided. First, a section entitled “Exemplary Environment” is provided and describes but one example of an environment in which the inventive embodiments can be employed. Following this, a section entitled “Establishing a Cross Domain Message Delivery System” is provided and describes how a cross domain message delivery system can be created in accordance with one embodiment. Next, a section entitled “Using the Cross Domain Message Delivery System” is provided and describes how one can use the cross domain message delivery system in accordance with one embodiment. Following this, a section entitled “Reliable Messaging” is provided and describes one embodiment in which a degree of reliability can be added to the cross domain communication of messages. Further, a section entitled “Using Cross Domain Communication to Facilitate Social Networking” is provided and describes but one example of how cross domain communication can be utilized. Yet further, a section entitled “Cross Domain Communication of Data over a Threshold Amount” describes but one example of how cross domain communication can be utilized using a plurality of messages to communicate data greater than an amount permitted in a single message. Yet still further, a section entitled “Asynchronous Cross Domain Communication” describes but one example of an asynchronous communication that may be performed utilizing a buffer, although implementations are also contemplated in which asynchronous communication is performed without a buffer. Finally, a section entitled “Cross Domain Communication Security Techniques” describes examples of security techniques that may be employed to provide cross domain communication, such as a permissions-based security mechanism which asks for confirmation of data to be sent to a third party site.


Exemplary Environment



FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary environment, in accordance with one embodiment, in which the inventive embodiments can be employed generally at 100. Here, system 100 includes a client computing device 102 which includes one or more processors 104 and one or more computer-readable media 106 on which executable, computer-readable instructions reside. In this example, computer-readable media 106 includes instructions in the form of code that implements one or more applications such as web browser 108. The various embodiments described below can be implemented in connection with any suitable type of application.


Web browser 108 is configured to communicate with one or more servers 110 via a network such as the Internet 112. In practice, browser 108 can receive web content from server 110 and render such content for a user in the form of a web page, an example of which is shown at 114. In the examples below, browser 108 can be used to render Iframes within a web page to create a cross domain message delivery system that can permit cross domain communication, as will become apparent.


It is to be appreciated and understood that while computing device 102 is illustrated as a desk top computing device, other computing devices such as laptop devices, notebook devices, handheld devices and the like can be utilized without departing from the spirit and scope of the claimed embodiments.


Establishing a Cross Domain Message Delivery System



FIG. 2 illustrates the system of FIG. 1 in which a cross domain message delivery system has been created in accordance with one embodiment. In this particular example, web page 114 includes two different Iframes that have been created—Iframe 116 and Iframe 118. It is possible for the web page to include a single Iframe and for the cross domain communication techniques to be implemented using that one Iframe. However, for this example, Iframes 116 and 118 are used.


Web page 114 is said to be a “containing page” because it contains the two created Iframes. In this example, web page 114 has been created in a first domain—domain A. Notice here that Iframe 116 has been created in domain A and Iframe 118 has been created in domain B. Each of Iframes 116 and 118 includes or contains, in this example, a listener Iframe that shares its Iframe's domain. Hence, Iframe 116 contains listener Iframe 116a and Iframe 118 contains listener Iframe 118a. Iframes 116 and 118 can be considered as “containing frames” because they contain other Iframes. The listener Iframes 116a, 118a can be considered as embedded or nested Iframes that serve as target windows for cross domain communication that takes place, as will become apparent below.


In accordance with one embodiment, the cross domain message delivery system can be created as follows.


When the containing page—here page 114—loads, it creates Iframe 116 in its own domain and passes into the Iframe a name that is to be used for a corresponding listener Iframe. Although any suitable name can be used, in this example the name comprises a private hash which, in the illustrated example, is represented as “abc”. Iframe 116 then creates the listener or nested Iframe 116a in its domain using the private hash as its name. Nested Iframe 116a is associated with a URL that is used for cross domain communication and is the message receiver or target window for messages intended for containing page 114.


In addition, containing page 114 can also create Iframe 118 in a different domain—domain B—and pass in a name that is to be used for a corresponding listener Iframe. Although any suitable name can be used, in this example the name comprises a private hash which, in the illustrated example, is represented as “def”. Iframe 118 then creates the listener or nested Iframe 118a in its domain using the private hash as its name. Nested Iframe 118a is associated with a URL that is used for cross domain communication and serves as the message receiver or target window for messages intended for the containing Iframe 118.


In this example, if communication is to take place between Iframes 116 and 118, each is provided with the name of the listener Iframe for the other. So, for example, Iframe 116 is provided with the name “def” and Iframe 118 is provided with the name “abc”. This can typically take place when the Iframe is initially created in the containing page 114.



FIG. 3 is a flow diagram that describes a process for creating a cross domain message system in accordance with one embodiment. The method can be implemented in connection with any suitable hardware, software, firmware or combination thereof. In but one embodiment, the method can be implemented in software in the form of a web browser.


Step 300 loads a containing web page and step 302 creates an Iframe that is contained within the web page. Step 302 can be performed multiple different times to create multiple different Iframes in the same and/or different domains from that of the containing web page. Step 304 passes a name to the Iframe. This step can be performed multiple different times as well and can be performed as part of the process of creating the Iframe. The name is to be used in connection with a nested listener Iframe that is to be created. Step 306 creates a nested Iframe using the name that was passed to the Iframe. This step can be performed multiple different times and can be performed by a corresponding Iframe that was created.


At this point, a cross domain message system, such as that illustrated in FIG. 2 has been created and can be used to message across different domains.


Using the Cross Domain Message Delivery System


In accordance with one embodiment, when a web page from a different domain wishes to communicate with a particular Iframe, it manipulates a URL associated with the Iframe's listener Iframe and includes, in the URL, the message that is desired to be communicated to the Iframe. In this particular example, cross domain communication can take place in connection with a server. This can permit a degree of security that is provided by the server. That is, the server can process the cross domain messages in many different ways such as by validating the messages, verifying the sender and the like.


For example, in the example of FIG. 2, assume that web page 114 wishes to communicate with Iframe 118. To do so, web page 114 might initiate a server call to open a window or load a page in the listener Iframe for Iframe 118 as follows:

    • window.open(http://Domain_B/secure_msg.aspx?[message] def)


      This call opens a window in the B domain, and it calls a secure message page “secure_msg.aspx” to implement some type of security procedure. After this portion of the URL, the message that is intended to be sent, i.e., “[message]” is appended, as is the name of the window to which the message is targeted—here, “def”.


Assuming that any security issues pertaining to the message are resolved favorably, the server then causes the message to load in the nested Iframe 118a which is in Iframe 118's domain. Nested Iframe 118a can then notify its parent or containing Iframe that it has a message. Iframe 118 can then process the message accordingly, as by executing scripts using the message.


To respond, Iframe 118 would simply issue a call to open a window or load a page in the listener Iframe 116a for Iframe 116. This call, routed through the server, would then cause a window to be opened or a page which contains the message to be loaded in listener Iframe 116a.


This process is diagrammatically shown in FIG. 4. Here, web page 114 initiates a call to open a window in the listener Iframe for Iframe 118. The call, which includes the message that is to be communicated across different domains, is routed through the server and the server then causes a corresponding window or page to be loaded in the listener Iframe 118a for Iframe 118. This page includes the message from web page 114. Hence, using this approach can allow messages and other information to be communicated across different domains.



FIG. 5 is a flow diagram that describes a process for using a cross domain message system in accordance with one embodiment. The method can be implemented in connection with any suitable hardware, software, firmware or combination thereof. In but one embodiment, the method can be implemented in software. In the explanation that follows, acts or steps that are performed on the client side are designated as such. Likewise, acts or steps that are performed on the server side are designated as such.


Step 500 creates a message that is intended to be communicated to a different domain. Any suitable type of message can be created. For example, one message might be a refresh message that causes another document to refresh (e.g., a stock list component can be notified to refresh stock quotes. Other messages can present ambient properties pertaining to the mode of a page such as “author” versus “view” mode, or share stylistic information (e.g., a stock quote component can switch to allow new stocks to be added, or a particular theme can be shared with the component. Further, some messages can request metadata (e.g., a list of contacts, books and the like can be requested and returned to the other page).


Step 502 includes the message in a URL associated with a listener Iframe in the different domain. One example of how this can be done is provided above. Step 504 initiates a call to a server that includes the URL. One example of how this can be done is provided above.


Step 506 receives the call from the client at the server and step 508 processes the message. Any suitable processing can take place. In the example above, the processing that takes place pertains to security. Other types of processing can take place. Step 510 returns to the client to cause the message to be processed by the listener Iframe.


Step 512 processes the message with the listener Iframe and step 514 notifies the containing Iframe that a message has been received. This step is performed by the listener Iframe.


In the embodiment described just above, a server is utilized to facilitate cross domain message delivery. Incorporating a server into the process can enable the message processing to be augmented in some way, such as by providing server-enhanced security processes. It is possible, however, for cross domain message delivery to take place in a purely client side manner without round tripping to the server.


In this embodiment, cross domain messages are sent by manipulating the URL of the Iframe that is contained with a web page. As an example, consider the following. Each individual Iframe in a web page is associated with an URL. An URL typically has the following form:

    • scheme://authority/path?query#fragment


The “authority” typically consists of the name or IP address of a server, optionally followed by a colon and a TCP port number. It may also contain a username and password for authenticating to the server. The “path” is a specification of a location in some hierarchical structure, using a slash (“/”) as delimiter between components. The “query” typically expresses parameters of a dynamic query to some database, program, or script residing on the server. The “fragment” occurs after the hash “#” and identifies a portion of a resource, often a location in a document. Fragments or hashes are interpreted on the client side and are not typically used by the server.


In accordance with this embodiment, when a containing page from a different domain wishes to communicate or send a message to an Iframe in another domain, it appends the message to the appropriate Iframe's URL after the hash. Thus, a message to an Iframe from another domain would take the following form:

    • scheme://authority/path?query#[message]


When the Iframe detects the URL change, it can parse the URL to access the message and can then process the message accordingly. If the Iframe wishes to communicate back to the containing page or another listener, it uses a similar approach—that is, it manipulates the URL of the intended recipient to append the message after the hash in the recipient's URL. If the intended recipient is a listener Iframe for the containing page, then the listener Iframe can receive the message and because it shares the domain of the containing page, it can call functions in the containing page—such as a notification function to notify the containing page that it has received a new message.


In this embodiment, all of the message sending and receiving can take place without round tripping to the server. Thus, server resources can be conserved.


Reliable Messaging


In at least some embodiments, message reliability can be enhanced by adding a unique message counter associated with each message that is sent from a particular domain. For example, in some instances, a particular Iframe may be the subject of a number of incoming messages. Yet, if these messages arrive at the same time, there is a chance that at least some of the messages will be missed. In this case, each message from a particular domain is associated with a unique, incremental ID that is incremented for each new message from that domain. When the Iframe receives a particular message from a particular domain, if the message counter is off by one or more increments, then the Iframe knows to request the missing messages from the sender. The message counter can be implemented as a field in the URL associated with the targeted recipient of the message.


Alternately or additionally, reliable messaging can be enhanced by having individual Iframes communicate back acknowledgements to the message originator that a particular message has been received. The message originator can also, if so desired, query the recipient to ascertain whether the recipient received the message.


Other Extensions


Using the above-described approach, a containing web page can also act as an intermediary between Iframes from different domains or allow the frames to communicate directly by giving each the name of the target window in the other. One of the things that this can enable is remote procedure calls or RPC. That is, a message schema can be utilized that allows messages to be defined for invoking methods or operations in other domains. In this way, a distributed RPC-like mechanism is provided for executing actions in other domains.


Using Cross Domain Communication to Facilitate Social Networking


There are instances when it would be desirable to enable a third party web site to utilize aspects of a user's relationships with others to provide the user a rich experience. For example, a user may have a large “buddy list” as part of their instant messaging application. Some third party web site might have applications that could provide the user with a rich and robust experience if it only had access to the buddy list. For example, a third party web site might be able to show you all of your buddies' wish lists. Yet, for purposes of privacy, it is not desirable to provide the third party web site with access to the user's buddy list.


In the embodiment described below, nested Iframes are utilized to provide a rich and robust experience in which relationship information can be shared, yet protected.


As an example, consider FIG. 6. There, a web page or containing page 600 created in domain A includes an Iframe 602 created in domain B, a buddy list 604 that has been rendered in domain B, and an Iframe 606 in domain A that is contained within Iframe 602. Because of restrictions on cross site scripting, neither web page 600 nor Iframe 606 can access the buddy list that resides in domain B. Yet, there are circumstances when it might be desirable to allow web page 600 to use relationship information associated with buddy list 604 while, at the same time, allow cross site scripting restrictions to disallow access to the buddy list.


That is, in this instance, the ability is provided to send information associated with Iframe 602 to web page 600. In accordance with one embodiment, when web page 600 loads, it creates Iframe 602 and provides it with a postback URL that can be used to communicate with web page 600. When Iframe 602 creates nested Iframe 606 (in the same domain as web page 600), it provides the nested Iframe with information on the postback URL. Since Iframe 606 and web page 600 are in the same domain, there are no cross site scripting restrictions that would prevent them from communicating. The web page 600 and Iframe 606 can now communicate using, for example, JavaScript.


Consider now FIG. 7 in conjunction with the following example. Assume that web page 600 is associated with a large on-line retailer that sells books, music CDs and the like. Assume also that a user has browsed to the page and responsively, Iframe 602 has loaded their buddy list. Assume also that web page 600 asks the user if they would like to view wish lists for any of their buddies. Assume now that the user clicks on one of their buddies. In this embodiment, each buddy is mappable to a unique ID or Guid. Because of cross-site scripting restrictions, this mapping is available within domain B but not domain A. The Guid for the user's particular friend is retrieved and rendered as a web page inside Iframe 606 using, for example, techniques described above. Now, using the Guid that was just rendered, Iframe 606 uses the web page's post back URL (or some other form of communication) to provide the Guid to web page 600. Having the Guid, web page 600 has access to a mapping of Guids to wish lists. Hence, the web page can now render the particular buddy's wish list for the user, without having access to the buddy's identity or any other of the buddy's information.


In this way, third party web sites can access and leverage relationship information associated with a particular user, while at the same time such relationship information is protected.


Cross Domain Communication of Data over a Threshold Amount


In accordance with one embodiment, cross domain communication may be utilized to communicate data that exceeds a threshold amount that is permitted to be communicated using a single message. For example, in some instances a threshold may be set at 2,083 bytes which corresponds to an amount of data that may be permitted for communication in a single tag. To permit communication of amount of data that are greater than this threshold amount, a “chunking” technique may be implemented to divide this data from communication across domains using a plurality of messages.



FIG. 8 is a flow diagram that describes an exemplary process for cross domain communication of data that exceeds a threshold amount that is permitted to be communicated via a single message in accordance with one embodiment. The process can be implemented in connection with any suitable hardware, software, firmware or combination thereof. In but one embodiment, the method can be implemented in software.


Step 800 receives data that is intended to be communicated to a different domain. The data may be configured for a variety of purposes, such as refresh messages, present ambient properties, request metadata, and so on as previously described.


Step 802 determines that an amount of data to be communicated via an Iframe exceeds a threshold amount. A sender (e.g., an Iframe or a webpage), for instance, may determine that the amount of data to be communicated to a recipient (e.g., another Iframe or webpage) exceeds 2083 bytes, which is an amount of data in an implementation that is permitted to be communicated via an Iframe in a single message.


Step 804 divides the data into a plurality of portions that do not exceed the threshold amount. For example, the sender may divide the data into portions that do not exceed 2083 bytes.


Step 806 forms a plurality of messages to communicate the divided data across domains and step 808 communicates the plurality of messages. As previously described, cross domain messages may be sent by manipulating the URL of the Iframe that is contained with a web page. For instance, when the sender from a different domain wishes to communicate or send a message to an Iframe in another domain, it appends the portion of the data to the appropriate Iframe's URL after the hash. In this way, the portion forms a “body” of the message, which may take the following form:

    • scheme://authority/path?query#[message]


      When the Iframe detects the URL change, it can parse the URL to access the message and can then process the message accordingly. If the Iframe wishes to communicate back to the containing page or another listener, it uses a similar approach—that is, it manipulates the URL of the intended recipient to append the message after the hash in the recipient's URL. If the intended recipient is a listener Iframe for the containing page, then the listener Iframe can receive the message and because it shares the domain of the containing page, it can call functions in the containing page—such as a notification function to notify the containing page that it has received a new message. A variety of communication techniques may be employed, such as synchronous communication having a time basis or asynchronous communication, further discussion of which may be found in relation to the following section.


Asynchronous Cross Domain Communication


In accordance with one embodiment, asynchronous communication may be utilized to communicate data across domains. Further, queues may be employed by one or both sides (e.g., sender and/or receiver) to further improve efficiency of the communication.



FIG. 9 is a flow diagram that describes a process for asynchronous cross domain communication. Step 900 assigns a unique identifier to each of the plurality of messages, such as one of a plurality of messages formed via the steps of FIG. 8. The unique identifier may be assigned in a variety of ways, such as sequentially through use of a counter, use of a globally unique identifier (GUID), and so on.


Step 902 stores the plurality of messages in a queue, such as in a queue that is local to a sender of the messages. Step 904 selects one of the messages for communication across domains. For example, the queue may be configured to use first in/first out (FIFO) techniques such that the “oldest” message is first selected. A variety of other examples are also contemplated.


Step 906 communicates the selected message, such as through use of a server (e.g., as previously described in relation to FIG. 4), directly without use of a server as also previously described, and so on.


Step 908 determines whether an acknowledgement has been received that includes the unique identifier. For example, an intended recipient of the message may strip-out the unique identifier and return it in an acknowledgement to the sender to indicate that the message has been successfully received.


When the acknowledgement has not been received from step 908, step 910 resends the message that corresponds to the unique identifier that was not received. The sender, for instance, may use a “time-out” value such that when a message in the queue has not received a corresponding acknowledgement in a specified amount of time, the message is resent. A variety of other examples are also contemplated to determine when to resend a message, such as by receiving an acknowledgement of a later received message.


When the acknowledgement has been received from step 908, step 912 removes the message from the queue that corresponds to the unique identifier. In this way, the sender may “clean out” the queue or messages that have been successfully communicated yet messages that have not been successfully communicated may remain to be resent.


Step 914 determines whether another message is included in the queue. If so, step 904 selects one of the messages for communication across domains as previously described. If not, step 916 finishes asynchronous communication.


Cross Domain Communication Security Techniques


There are some instances in which it is describable to employ security techniques when enabling communication across domains. For example, the data to be communicated across the domains may be “sensitive”. In such an example, techniques may be employed in which a user confirms that communication of the data is permitted before the communication occurs, further discussion of which may be found in relation to FIG. 10. In another example, a secure communication channel may be formed, such as between a sender and a third party to protect against attacks by malicious parties, further discussion of which may be found in relation to FIG. 11.



FIG. 10 is a flow diagram that describes a process for user confirmation of cross domain communication. Step 1000 determines that data to be communicated via an Iframe is to be confirmed by a user before communication. This determination may be made in a variety of ways. For example, step 1002 ascertains that the data contains personally identifiable information, such as through examination of the data, ascertaining that the data originated from a source containing personally identifiable information (e.g., logon information repository) and so on. In another example, step 1004 ascertains that an intended recipient of the data is a third-party site, such as a site that is not within the control and/or part of a recognized association with a sender. In a further example, step 1006 ascertains that an intended recipient is not trusted, such as by not receiving a certificate indicating trustworthiness, inclusion on an “unsafe” list and/or not included on a “safe” list, and so on. A variety of other examples are also contemplated.


Step 1008 outputs in a user interface a portion that is selectable by the user to confirm that communication of the data is permitted. The user interface, for instance, may be a web browser that outputs a pop-up window having a description of the data that is to be sent and one or more portions that are selectable by a user to confirm and/or cancel communication of the data.


Step 1010 determines whether the user confirmed that communication is permitted. If not (“no” from step 1010), step 1012 cancels data communication. If so (“yes” from step 1010), step 1014 communicates the data via an Iframe.



FIG. 11 is a flow diagram that describes a process for secure cross domain communication. Step 1100 determines that a secure communication channel across domains is warranted. For example, it may be determined that the secure communication channel is to be used to communicate sensitive data, such as personally identifiable information, banking information, and so on.


Step 1102 shares one or more secrets across the domains. For example, step 1104 provides a first secret configured as a cryptographic number from a sender to a recipient. The cryptographic number may be configured as a number that is difficult to guess based on previously generated numbers, such as a random number.


Step 1106 receives a result of a function applied to the first secret and a second secret configured as a cryptographic number from the recipient. The recipient, for instance, may also generate a cryptographic number. A function may then be applied to the cryptographic number generated by the sender and the cryptographic number generated by the recipient, which may be a function that is known or unknown by the sender.


Step 1108 forms a secure communication channel across the domains via at least one Iframe using the one or more secrets. The one or more secrets may be used as a part of the message communicated between the sender and recipient such that the sender and recipient may determine that the message originated from one of the two participants, as opposed to a malicious party. For instance, the result of the function applied to the first and second secrets may be used within a body of the message such that the sender and/or the recipient may parse the message to locate the result. A variety of other examples are also contemplated.


CONCLUSION

Various embodiments utilize nested Iframes within a web page to allow cross domain communication. That is, various embodiments can create an embedded Iframe that shares the domain of an Iframe or web page with which communication is desired. Because the embedded Iframe shares the domain of the Iframe or web page with which communication is desired, restrictions on cross-site scripting do not inhibit communication or scripting between the domain-matched Iframe(s) and/or web page. This embedded Iframe can then provide a mechanism by which web pages or Iframes from other domains can communicate with the Iframe or web page with which the embedded Iframe shares a domain.


Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological steps, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or steps described. Rather, the specific features and steps are disclosed as preferred forms of implementing the claimed invention.

Claims
  • 1. A computing device comprising: a computer-readable storage device comprising instructions that are executable by the computing device to:receive a first secret to enable communication of data with a sender across domains via an Iframe, the receipt of the first secret indicating that the computing device is determined to be untrusted by the sender as confirmed by a user of the sender;apply a function to the first secret and a second secret provided by the computing device;send a result of the function to the sender from the computing device; andreceive the data from the sender via a secure communication channel formed across the domains via the Iframe using the result and the second secret.
  • 2. A computing device as described in claim 1, wherein receipt of the first secret further indicates that the computing device is determined to be associated with a third-party site relative to the sender.
  • 3. A computing device as described in claim 1, wherein the first secret received by the computing device is configured as a cryptographic number from the sender and the second secret is configured as a cryptographic number.
  • 4. A computing device as described in claim 3, wherein the cryptographic numbers are random numbers.
  • 5. A computing device as described in claim 1, wherein the data received by the computing device is received via a server.
  • 6. A computing device as described in claim 1, wherein the data received by the computing device is received directly from the sender without use of a server.
  • 7. A computing device as described in claim 1, wherein the function applied to the first secret and the second secret is known by the sender.
  • 8. A computing device as described in claim 1, wherein the function applied to the first secret and the second secret is unknown by the sender.
  • 9. A computing device as described in claim 1, wherein the data received by the computing device is received in a message that includes the result of the function applied to the first secret and the second secret, inclusion of the result in the message indicating that the message originated from the sender.
  • 10. A computing device as described in claim 1, wherein the data received by the computing device is received in a message that includes the result of the function applied to the first secret and the second secret, the message including the result of the function within a body of the message.
  • 11. A computing device as described in claim 10, wherein the instructions are further executable by the computing device to parse the message to locate the result.
  • 12. A method comprising: receiving a first secret by a recipient, using a computing device, to enable communication of data with a sender across domains via an Iframe, the receiving of the first secret indicating that the recipient is determined to be untrusted by the sender and is associated with a third-party site relative to the sender as confirmed by a user of the sender;applying a function by the recipient to the first secret and a second secret provided by the recipient;sending a result of the function to the sender by the recipient;receiving the data by the recipient as a plurality of messages via a secure communication channel formed across the domains via the Iframe using the result and the second secret.
  • 13. A method as described in claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of messages includes the result of the function applied to the first secret and the second secret within a body of said message.
  • 14. A method as described in claim 12, further comprising parsing each of the plurality of messages to locate the result of the function applied to the first secret and the second secret contained in a body of each said message.
  • 15. A method as described in claim 12, further comprising sending notifications to the sender indicating that the plurality of messages are received, the notifications including the result of the function applied to the first secret and the second secret and being parsable by the recipient to locate the result.
  • 16. A method as described in claim 12, wherein the Iframe is incorporated within a web-page.
  • 17. A method as described in claim 12, wherein the communication is enabled between an Iframe of the sender and an Iframe of the recipient.
  • 18. A method as described in claim 12, wherein the data exceeds a threshold amount of data permitted for a single message.
  • 19. A method as described in claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of messages includes a portion of the data that does not exceed a threshold amount of data permitted for a single said message.
  • 20. A computer-readable storage device comprising instructions that are executable by a computing device to: receive a first secret to enable communication of data with a sender across domains via an Iframe, the receipt of the first secret indicating that the computing device is determined to be untrusted by the sender as confirmed by a user of the sender;apply a function to the first secret and a second secret provided by the computing device;send a result of the function to the sender from the computing device; andreceive the data from the sender via a secure communication channel formed across the domains via the Iframe using the result and the second secret.
RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/805,088, filed May 22, 2007, which is a continuation-in-part of and claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/426,174, filed Jun. 23, 2006, the entire disclosures of which are incorporated by reference.

US Referenced Citations (380)
Number Name Date Kind
4227253 Ehrsam et al. Oct 1980 A
4984272 McIlroy et al. Jan 1991 A
5210874 Karger May 1993 A
5339422 Brender et al. Aug 1994 A
5377188 Seki Dec 1994 A
5428529 Hartrick et al. Jun 1995 A
5623604 Russell et al. Apr 1997 A
5659539 Porter et al. Aug 1997 A
5666519 Hayden Sep 1997 A
5675762 Bodin et al. Oct 1997 A
5729710 Magee et al. Mar 1998 A
5758093 Boezeman et al. May 1998 A
5760767 Shore et al. Jun 1998 A
5771383 Magee et al. Jun 1998 A
5799090 Angert Aug 1998 A
5812394 Lewis et al. Sep 1998 A
5852435 Vigneaux et al. Dec 1998 A
5892904 Atkinson et al. Apr 1999 A
5931900 Notani et al. Aug 1999 A
5941947 Brown et al. Aug 1999 A
5949882 Angelo Sep 1999 A
5974549 Golan Oct 1999 A
5983348 Ji Nov 1999 A
5987523 Hind et al. Nov 1999 A
5987611 Freund Nov 1999 A
5995945 Notani et al. Nov 1999 A
6006228 McCollum et al. Dec 1999 A
6029245 Scanlan Feb 2000 A
6041309 Laor Mar 2000 A
6076109 Kikinis Jun 2000 A
6092194 Touboul Jul 2000 A
6154844 Touboul et al. Nov 2000 A
6158007 Moreh et al. Dec 2000 A
6161139 Win et al. Dec 2000 A
6211877 Steele et al. Apr 2001 B1
6253326 Lincke et al. Jun 2001 B1
6266681 Guthrie Jul 2001 B1
6272641 Ji Aug 2001 B1
6275937 Hailpern et al. Aug 2001 B1
6275938 Bond et al. Aug 2001 B1
6279111 Jensenworth et al. Aug 2001 B1
6311269 Luckenbaugh et al. Oct 2001 B2
6317868 Grimm et al. Nov 2001 B1
6321334 Jerger et al. Nov 2001 B1
6332147 Moran et al. Dec 2001 B1
6339423 Sampson et al. Jan 2002 B1
6343362 Ptacek et al. Jan 2002 B1
6345361 Jerger et al. Feb 2002 B1
6351816 Mueller et al. Feb 2002 B1
6366912 Wallent et al. Apr 2002 B1
6385301 Nolting et al. May 2002 B1
6430561 Austel et al. Aug 2002 B1
6457130 Hitz et al. Sep 2002 B2
6460079 Blumenau Oct 2002 B1
6473800 Jerger et al. Oct 2002 B1
6490626 Edwards et al. Dec 2002 B1
6516308 Cohen Feb 2003 B1
6519647 Howard et al. Feb 2003 B1
6526513 Shrader et al. Feb 2003 B1
6546546 Van Doorn Apr 2003 B1
6553393 Eilbott et al. Apr 2003 B1
6553410 Kikinis Apr 2003 B2
6584186 Aravamudan et al. Jun 2003 B1
6591265 Erickson et al. Jul 2003 B1
6594664 Estrada et al. Jul 2003 B1
6598046 Goldberg et al. Jul 2003 B1
6601233 Underwood Jul 2003 B1
6609198 Wood et al. Aug 2003 B1
6629081 Cornelius et al. Sep 2003 B1
6629246 Gadi Sep 2003 B1
6636889 Estrada et al. Oct 2003 B1
6636972 Ptacek et al. Oct 2003 B1
6662341 Cooper et al. Dec 2003 B1
6671802 Ott Dec 2003 B1
6691153 Hanson et al. Feb 2004 B1
6691230 Bardon Feb 2004 B1
6701376 Haverstock et al. Mar 2004 B1
6711675 Spiegel et al. Mar 2004 B1
6724406 Kelley Apr 2004 B1
6728762 Estrada et al. Apr 2004 B1
6748425 Duffy et al. Jun 2004 B1
6754702 Kennelly et al. Jun 2004 B1
6772167 Snavely et al. Aug 2004 B1
6772345 Shett Aug 2004 B1
6772393 Estrada et al. Aug 2004 B1
6779120 Valente Aug 2004 B1
6785790 Christie et al. Aug 2004 B1
6789170 Jacobs et al. Sep 2004 B1
6789204 Abdelnur et al. Sep 2004 B2
6792113 Ansell et al. Sep 2004 B1
6799208 Sankaranarayan et al. Sep 2004 B1
6801224 Lewallen et al. Oct 2004 B1
6820261 Bloch Nov 2004 B1
6823433 Barnes et al. Nov 2004 B1
6826716 Mason Nov 2004 B2
6850252 Hoffberg Feb 2005 B1
6854039 Strongin et al. Feb 2005 B1
6862488 Mansour-Awad Mar 2005 B2
6871321 Wakayama Mar 2005 B2
6898618 Slaughter et al. May 2005 B1
6898705 Abboud et al. May 2005 B2
6915454 Moore et al. Jul 2005 B1
6920560 Wallace et al. Jul 2005 B2
6931532 Davis et al. Aug 2005 B1
6934757 Kalantar et al. Aug 2005 B1
6941459 Hind et al. Sep 2005 B1
6959336 Moreh et al. Oct 2005 B2
6961849 Davis et al. Nov 2005 B1
6978367 Hind et al. Dec 2005 B1
7003734 Gardner et al. Feb 2006 B1
7010681 Fletcher et al. Mar 2006 B1
7051366 LaMacchia et al. May 2006 B1
7051368 Howard et al. May 2006 B1
7069554 Stammers et al. Jun 2006 B1
7082527 Zimmer et al. Jul 2006 B2
7082572 Pea et al. Jul 2006 B2
7085995 Fukuda et al. Aug 2006 B2
7093244 Lajoie et al. Aug 2006 B2
7117504 Smith et al. Oct 2006 B2
7143362 Dieberger et al. Nov 2006 B2
7155737 Lim et al. Dec 2006 B1
7159237 Schneier et al. Jan 2007 B2
7185210 Faden Feb 2007 B1
7188363 Boutros et al. Mar 2007 B1
7191252 Redlich et al. Mar 2007 B2
7194744 Srivastava et al. Mar 2007 B2
7203749 Hiraga Apr 2007 B2
7213051 Zhu et al. May 2007 B2
7240015 Karmouch et al. Jul 2007 B1
7263561 Green et al. Aug 2007 B1
7275152 Goud et al. Sep 2007 B2
7281132 Bender et al. Oct 2007 B2
7308648 Buchthal et al. Dec 2007 B1
7318238 Elvanoglu et al. Jan 2008 B2
7328435 Trifon Feb 2008 B2
7343626 Gallagher Mar 2008 B1
7392545 Weber et al. Jun 2008 B1
7398533 Slaughter et al. Jul 2008 B1
7406502 Oliver et al. Jul 2008 B1
7451352 Moore et al. Nov 2008 B1
7475404 Hamel Jan 2009 B2
7478434 Hinton et al. Jan 2009 B1
7480907 Marolia et al. Jan 2009 B1
7484247 Rozman et al. Jan 2009 B2
7562382 Hinton et al. Jul 2009 B2
7600224 Obayashi et al. Oct 2009 B2
7620719 Tock et al. Nov 2009 B2
7640434 Lee et al. Dec 2009 B2
7650617 Hoshino et al. Jan 2010 B2
7650638 Njemanze et al. Jan 2010 B1
7660868 Kembel et al. Feb 2010 B1
7729992 Rose Jun 2010 B2
7792964 Franco Sep 2010 B2
7904278 Wilson et al. Mar 2011 B2
8078740 Franco Dec 2011 B2
8185737 Isaacs May 2012 B2
8335929 Isaacs Dec 2012 B2
20010013096 Luckenbaugh et al. Aug 2001 A1
20010016907 Kang et al. Aug 2001 A1
20010039622 Hitz et al. Nov 2001 A1
20010043237 Schmieder Nov 2001 A1
20010049671 Joerg Dec 2001 A1
20010054049 Maeda et al. Dec 2001 A1
20020010679 Felsher Jan 2002 A1
20020010855 Reshef et al. Jan 2002 A1
20020019936 Hitz et al. Feb 2002 A1
20020019941 Chan et al. Feb 2002 A1
20020046290 Andersson et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020054126 Gamon May 2002 A1
20020069200 Cooper et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020073119 Richard Jun 2002 A1
20020073197 Bhogal et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020087479 Malcolm Jul 2002 A1
20020099952 Lambert et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020104023 Hewett et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020107889 Stone et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020107890 Gao et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020112155 Martherus et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020124181 Nambu Sep 2002 A1
20020129239 Clark Sep 2002 A1
20020147923 Dotan Oct 2002 A1
20020166052 Garg et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020178375 Whittaker et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020184520 Bush et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020188527 Dillard et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020188689 Michael Dec 2002 A1
20020188869 Patrick Dec 2002 A1
20030002526 Dias et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030014659 Zhu Jan 2003 A1
20030023445 Trifon Jan 2003 A1
20030023774 Gladstone et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030023880 Edwards et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030025727 Rath et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030037236 Simon et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030037261 Meffert et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030051027 Aupperle et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030051142 Hidalgo et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030061482 Emmerichs Mar 2003 A1
20030061512 Flurry et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030078949 Scholz et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030088807 Mathiske et al. May 2003 A1
20030093464 Clough et al. May 2003 A1
20030093666 Millen et al. May 2003 A1
20030097591 Pham et al. May 2003 A1
20030135504 Elvanoglu et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030163448 Kilemba et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030172293 Johnson et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030177226 Garg et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030177389 Albert et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030177390 Radhakrishnan Sep 2003 A1
20030229501 Copeland et al. Dec 2003 A1
20040006706 Erlingsson Jan 2004 A1
20040025060 Raffaele et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040030788 Cimo et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040034794 Mayer et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040039752 Goldfuss et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040047347 Worry et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040054791 Chakraborty et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040073811 Sanin Apr 2004 A1
20040078577 Feng et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040078591 Teixeira et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040103200 Ross et al. May 2004 A1
20040103203 Nichols et al. May 2004 A1
20040109410 Chase et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040123137 Yodaiken Jun 2004 A1
20040123157 Alagna et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040151323 Olkin et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040167964 Rounthwaite et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040187031 Liddle Sep 2004 A1
20040199603 Tafla et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040199763 Freund Oct 2004 A1
20040205342 Roegner Oct 2004 A1
20040210536 Gudelj et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040215731 Tzann-en Szeto Oct 2004 A1
20040230825 Shepherd et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040239700 Baschy Dec 2004 A1
20040239703 Angelica Dec 2004 A1
20040254812 Horstemeyer et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040260754 Olson et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040268139 Christianson et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040268322 Chow et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050015752 Alpern et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050021791 Sakiyama et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050022012 Bluestone et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050055458 Mohan et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050055570 Kwan et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050066290 Chebolu et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050066311 Hagmeier et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050071616 Zimmer et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050091536 Whitmer et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050108517 Dillon et al. May 2005 A1
20050108518 Pandya May 2005 A1
20050108554 Rubin et al. May 2005 A1
20050114430 Zheng et al. May 2005 A1
20050120242 Mayer et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050149726 Joshi et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050154885 Viscomi et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050177635 Schmidt et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050182924 Sauve et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050182928 Kamalanathan et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050193329 Kickel Sep 2005 A1
20050198153 Keohane et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050198332 Laertz et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050204041 Blinn et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050216582 Toomey et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050222902 Coit et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050223412 Nadalin et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050223413 Duggan et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050235200 Goldberg Oct 2005 A1
20050256924 Chory et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050259655 Cuervo et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050259674 Cuervo et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050262181 Schmidt et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050262232 Cuervo et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050262493 Schmidt et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050267870 Everett-Church et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050268214 Lu Dec 2005 A1
20050283719 Awamoto et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050283828 Perley et al. Dec 2005 A1
20060010134 Davis Jan 2006 A1
20060015728 Ballinger et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060020538 Ram et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060020679 Hinton et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060026667 Bhide Feb 2006 A1
20060031347 Sahi Feb 2006 A1
20060031404 Kassab Feb 2006 A1
20060036746 Davis Feb 2006 A1
20060041636 Ballinger et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060041834 Chen et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060047959 Morais Mar 2006 A1
20060053048 Tandetnik Mar 2006 A1
20060053224 Subramaniam Mar 2006 A1
20060053411 Takamiya et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060056431 Toyoda et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060069613 Marquardt Mar 2006 A1
20060069737 Gilhuly et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060123244 Gheorghescu et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060136590 Barrett et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060143688 Futoransky Jun 2006 A1
20060150256 Fanton et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060155780 Sakairi et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060185021 Dujari et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060259955 Gunther et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060271425 Goodman et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060277218 Franco et al. Dec 2006 A1
20060277592 Brown et al. Dec 2006 A1
20060277605 Curtis et al. Dec 2006 A1
20070011744 Carothers et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070016948 Dubrovsky et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070016949 Dunagan et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070016954 Choi Jan 2007 A1
20070027779 Bhambri et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070028185 Bhogal et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070050854 Cooperstein et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070056019 Allen et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070073800 Rothman et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070094712 Gibbs et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070100915 Rose May 2007 A1
20070101258 Xu et al. May 2007 A1
20070101435 Konanka et al. May 2007 A1
20070106650 Moore May 2007 A1
20070107057 Chander et al. May 2007 A1
20070113237 Hickson May 2007 A1
20070113282 Ross May 2007 A1
20070124693 Dominowska et al. May 2007 A1
20070124797 Gupta et al. May 2007 A1
20070136579 Levy et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070136811 Gruzman et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070146812 Lawton Jun 2007 A1
20070174419 O'Connell et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070180147 Leigh Aug 2007 A1
20070180490 Renzi et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070192839 Fee et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070199000 Shekhel et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070199011 Zhang et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070199050 Meier Aug 2007 A1
20070204223 Bartels et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070208822 Wang et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070214503 Shulman et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070245310 Rosenstein et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070256003 Wagoner et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070260495 Mace et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070261037 Bendapudi Nov 2007 A1
20070271342 Brandt et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070282863 Schacher et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070294332 Karki et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070299857 Gwozdz et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070300064 Isaacs et al. Dec 2007 A1
20080005282 Gaedcke Jan 2008 A1
20080010615 Curtis et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080046518 Tonnison et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080046562 Butler Feb 2008 A1
20080195575 Schiffler Aug 2008 A1
20080262913 Reitz et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080263566 Buerge et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080288885 Ide et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080294716 Couvreur Nov 2008 A1
20080301643 Appleton et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080313648 Wang et al. Dec 2008 A1
20090006996 Saha et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090037517 Frei Feb 2009 A1
20090037806 Yang et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090043739 Choi Feb 2009 A1
20090070872 Cowings et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090083714 Kiciman et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090132713 Dutta et al. May 2009 A1
20090138937 Erlingsson et al. May 2009 A1
20090183171 Isaacs et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090183227 Isaacs et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090187918 Chen et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090254898 Sareen et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090265760 Zhu et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090276835 Jackson et al. Nov 2009 A1
20090299862 Fan et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090300496 Fan et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090327869 Fan et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090327896 Pall et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100058293 Dunagan Mar 2010 A1
20110106948 Franco May 2011 A1
20120173756 Isaacs Jul 2012 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (19)
Number Date Country
1299478 Jun 2001 CN
1366239 Aug 2002 CN
1420562 May 2004 EP
1119321 Feb 2009 HK
11167487 Jun 1999 JP
2001325249 Nov 2001 JP
2002290900 Oct 2002 JP
2004318816 Nov 2004 JP
20070102859 Oct 2007 KR
WO-0153965 Jul 2001 WO
WO-0213026 Feb 2002 WO
WO-0219076 Mar 2002 WO
WO-0239237 May 2002 WO
WO-03073240 Sep 2003 WO
WO-2004077294 Sep 2004 WO
WO-2005008456 Jan 2005 WO
WO-2005059755 Jun 2005 WO
WO-2008002456 Jan 2008 WO
WO-2008036969 Mar 2008 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (186)
Entry
“Corrected Notice of Allowance”, U.S. Appl. No. 13/419,254, (Sep. 28, 2012), 2 pages.
“Notice of Allowance”, U.S. Appl. No. 13/419,254, (Aug. 9, 2012), 8 pages.
“About URL Security Zones”, Available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms537183%28VS.85%29.aspx, (Jan. 23, 2008), 10 pages.
“Access Management and Single Sign-On for Web and J2EE Environments”, Available at http://www.entegrity.com/products/aa/aa.shtml, (Feb. 6, 2005), 1 pages.
“Ad Blocking Resources”, Retrieved from <<https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/resource.htm>> on Aug. 17, 2005, (Jul. 17, 2005), 20 pages.
“Advisory Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,785, Informed in an email dated Oct. 6, 2010 that this case is related.,(May 26, 2010),3 pages.
“Appeal Decision”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/118,333, (Jun. 8, 2011), 2 pages.
“Bindings and Profiles for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML)”, Version 1.1, Retrieved from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3405/oasis-sstc-saml-bindings-1.1.pdf, (Sep. 2, 2003), 31 pages.
“Block JavaScript, VBScript, and/or Embedded Objects”, MalekTips, last accessed on Oct. 20, 2008, available at http://malektips.com/zonealarm—pro—0008.html, 1 page.
“BPAI Decision”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/606,089, (Aug. 25, 2010), 8 pages.
“CERT Advisory CA-2000-02 Malicious HTML Tags Embedded in Client Web Requests”, Carnegie Mellon University, http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-02.html., (Feb. 2, 2000), 7 pages.
“CERT.org, Understanding Malicious Content Mitigation for Web Developers”, Available at http://www.cert.org/tech—tips/malicious—code—mitigation.html#9. Last accessed on Nov. 22, 2010., (Feb. 2000), 9 pages.
“Chinese Office Action”, CN200680025529.2, a counterpart of U.S. Appl. No. 11/183,329, (Jul. 26, 2011), 11 Pages.
“Content Restrictions”, Version 0.9.2-2007-03-20 http://www.gerv.net/security/content-restrictions/, (Mar. 20, 2007), 3 pages.
“Enough is Enough!”, Retrieved from <<https://netiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/resource6>> on Aug. 17, 2005., (Apr. 14, 2002), 3 pages.
“Enterprise Start Pages and Mashup Applications Online”, Available at http://datamashups.com retrieved on Jan. 28, 2008, (2006),2 pages.
“EP Office Action”, European Patent application 06786875.2, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Appl. No. 11/183,329, (Oct. 17, 2011), 5 pages.
“eTrust Access Control”, Available at http://www3.ca.com/solutions/Product/aspx?ID=154, (Jun. 8, 2001), 2 pages.
“Examiner's Answer to an Appeal”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/606,089, (Apr. 8, 2008), 18 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/047,302, (Mar. 28, 2007), 19 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/606,089, (Dec. 23, 2010), 11 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/606,089, (May 29, 2007), 12 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/606,089, (Jul. 15, 2011), 17 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/606,089, (Jul. 24, 2006), 12 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/145,530, (Jan. 6, 2010), 28 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/145,530, (Oct. 27, 2010), 49 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/145,530, (Dec. 8, 2008) ,25.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/217,748, (Oct. 11, 2011), 14 Pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/217,748, (Jun. 8, 2009), 11 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/217,748, (Aug. 4, 2010), 13 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,316, (Feb. 3, 2010), 13 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,316, (Apr. 17, 2009), 14 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,174, (Nov. 24, 2008), 28 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,174, (Mar. 17, 2011), 28 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,174, (May 27, 2010), 25 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,785, (Feb. 3, 2011), 13 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,785, Informed in an email dated Oct. 6, 2010 that this case is related.,(Feb. 8, 2010), 8 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/805,088, (Sep. 21, 2010), 8 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/016,654, (Oct. 28, 2011), 21 Pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/118,333, (Jan. 14, 2011), 17 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/146,460, (Jan. 4, 2012), 13 Pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/146,461, (Sep. 16, 2011), 14 Pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/147,620, (Jul. 25, 2011), 15 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/147,963, (Jan. 23, 2012), 12 Pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/188,333, (Mar. 15, 2010), 11 pages.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/188,333, (May 21, 2009), 10 pages.
“Final Office Action”, Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/183,329, (Oct. 24, 2011), 18 Pages.
“Foreign Office Action”, Chinese Application No. 200680019185.4, (Aug. 4, 2010), 13 pages.
“Foreign Office Action”, Chinese Application No. 200680031682.6, (Sep. 13, 2010), 16 pages.
“Foreign Office Action”, Chinese Application No. 200680031682.6, (Jun. 19, 2009), 12 pages.
“From Coffee to Celebrity Sightings: How Mashups are Changing Online Mapping”, Spunlogic 2007, www.spunlogic.com, (2007), 6 pages.
“IBM Tivoli Federated Identity Manager”, Available at http://www-01.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/federated-identity-mgr/, (Nov. 9, 2005), 5 pages.
“Intense Internet Security Pro 2005”, Retrieved from <<http://www.intenseintegrations.com/catalog/iis.php>> on Aug. 17, 2005, (Jan. 9, 2005), 1 page.
“International Search Report”, Application No. PCT/US2008/062763, (May 6, 2008), 12 pages.
“International Search Report”, Application No. PCT/US2009/045765, (May 30, 2009), 9 pages.
“Internet-based Content Security Protection in the Net”, Internet Citation, 2004, retrieved from <http://www.streamshield.com/resources/whitepapers.php> Dec. 20, 2005, 19 pages.
“JP Office Action”, JP Application No. 2008-521517, a counterpart foreign application of U.S. Appl. No. 11/183,329, (Sep. 9, 2011), 5 Pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, Application No. 1/217,748, (Jan. 2, 2009), 8 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/047,302, (Apr. 11, 2005), 23 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/047,302, (Aug. 4, 2006), 15 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/606,089, (Jan. 4, 2007), 15 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/606,089, (Feb. 15, 2006), 11 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/145,530, (Jun. 19, 2008), 16 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/145,530, (Jul. 17, 2009), 24 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/183,329, (May 19, 2011), 15 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/217,748, (Nov. 24, 2009), 13 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/217,748, (Feb. 14, 2011), 13 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,316, (Aug. 18, 2008), 16 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,174, (Nov. 30, 2009), 28 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,174, (Mar. 18, 2008), 19 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,174, (May 12, 2009), 28 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,174, (Sep. 16, 2010), 26 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,785, (Jun. 27, 2011), 21 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,785, Informed in an email dated Oct. 6, 2010 that this case is related.,(Jul. 21, 2010),13 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,785, Informed in an email dated Oct. 6, 2010 that this case is related.,(Jul. 8, 2009),10 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/016,654, (May 12, 2011), 18 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/118,333, (Dec. 12, 2008), 14 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/118,333, (Jul. 21, 2010), 9 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/146,460, (Jun. 6, 2011), 14 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/146,461, (Dec. 28, 2010), 12 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/147,620, (Feb. 7, 2011), 14 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/147,963, (Jun. 15, 2011), 10 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/188,333, (Sep. 25, 2009), 9 pages.
“Non-Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/606,089, (Oct. 6, 2010), 15 pages.
“Non-Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/606,089, (Feb. 17, 2011), 20 pages.
“Non-Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/606,089, (Mar. 1, 2012), 17 pages.
“Non-Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/145,530, (Mar. 9, 2011), 45 pages.
“Non-Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/145,530, (May 26, 2010), 37 pages.
“Non-Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/762,900, (Nov. 29, 2010), 13 pages.
“Non-Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/805,088, (Jul. 21, 2010), 7 pages.
“Non-Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/118,321, (Oct. 17, 2011), 7 Pages.
“Non-Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,316, (Aug. 19, 2009), 12 pages.
“Notice of Allowance”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/047,302, (Sep. 20, 2007), 3 pages.
“Notice of Allowance”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/145,530, (Aug. 8, 2011), 11 pages.
“Notice of Allowance”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/262,316, (Jun. 28, 2010), 9 pages.
“Notice of Allowance”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/805,088, (Jan. 9, 2012), 8 pages.
“Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority in International Application No. PCTIUS2008/087265”, Application No. PCT/US2008/087265, (Jun. 25, 2009), 6 pages.
“Oasis Security Services Use Cases and Requirements”, Retrieved from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/docs/draft-sstc-saml-reqs-01.pdf, Cited in NFOA for U.S. Appl. No. 10/047,302,(May 30, 2001), 29 pages.
“PCT Search Report and Written Opinion”, Application No. PCT/US06/18752, (Aug. 31, 2007), 7 pages.
“Performing Code Assist on Java Code”, JDT Plug-in Developer Guide. Programmer's Guide. JDT Core., retrieved from <http://help.eclipse.org/helios/topic/org.eclipse.jdt.doc.isv/guide/jdt—api—codeassist.htm> on Apr. 27, 2011, 3 pages.
“Provisional Application”, U.S. Appl. No. 61/020,597, (Jan. 11, 2008), 61 pages.
“Provisional Application”, U.S. Appl. No. 61/058,213, (Jun. 3, 2008), 36 pages.
“Provisional Application”, U.S. Appl. No. 61/058,214, (Jun. 3, 2008), 35 pages.
“Restriction Requirement”, U.S. Appl. No. 10/047,302, (Mar. 20, 2006), 4 pages.
“SpywareBlaster 3.4”, Retrieved from <<http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html>> on Aug. 17, 2005, (2002), 1 page.
“SpywareGuard 2.2”, Retrieved from <<http://www.javacoolsoftward.com/spywareguard.html>> on Aug. 17, 2005, (2002), 2 pages.
“Sun Java System Access Manager”, Available at http://www.sun.com/software/products/access—mgr/index.xml, (Feb. 2, 2006), 3 pages.
“Supplemental Notice of Allowance”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/145,530, (Oct. 26, 2011), 2 pages.
“Supplemental Notice of Allowance”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/805,088, (Feb. 14, 2012), 2 pages.
“U.S. Appl. No. 61/020,597”, (Jan. 11, 2008), 61 pages.
“U.S. Appl. No. 61/058,213”, (Jun. 3, 2008), 33 pages.
“U.S. Appl. No. 61/058,214”, (Jun. 3, 2008), 32 pages.
“Veritas OpForce”, retrieved from <http://www.symantec.qassociates.co.uk/server-provisioning-veritas-opforce.htm> on Jan. 3, 2008, 3 pages.
“Virtual Sandbox 2.0”, Retrieved from: <http://www.fortresgrand.com/products/vsb/vsb.htm> on Jan. 25, 2008, 3 pages.
“Wayback Machine, Security Attribute”, Retrieved from <<http://web.archive.orglweb/2001—04170820—17lhttp://msdn.microsoft.comlworkshop/author/dhtmllreference/properties/security—.asp>> on Apr. 5, 2005, (Apr. 17, 2001), 3 Pages.
Alsop, Phil “Symantec: Breaking through the Dissimilar Hardware Restore Challenge”, Storage Networking Solutions (SNS) Europe, retrieved from <http://www.snseurope.com/snslink/news/printer-friendly.php?newsid=4635> on Jan. 3, 2008,(Sep. 19, 2006), 4 pages.
Anupam, Vinod et al., “Secure Web Scripting”, IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 2 , Issue 6, ISSN:1089-7801, (Nov. 1998), 15 pages.
Barth, Adam et al., “Securing Frame Communication in Browsers”, (2008), 14 pages.
Bershad, Brian N., et al., “Lightweight Remote Procedure Call”, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 8, No. 1, (Feb. 1990), pp. 37-55.
Bertino, Elisa et al., “On Specifying Security Policies for Web Documents with an XML-based Language”, Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies—SACMAT, Retrieved from http://isrl.cs.byu.edu/pubs/X-secIntro.pdf, (2001), 9 pages.
Chang, Po-Hao “An Adaptive Distributed Object Framework for the Web”, Available at http://csl.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/ecoop-phd04/main.pdf, Jun. 14-15, 2004, 10 pages.
Chen, Shuo “Light-Weight Transparent Defense Against Browser Cross-Frame Attacks Using Script Accenting”, Technical Report—MSR-TR-2007-29, Mar. 14, 2007 http://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2007-29.pdf. Last accessed Oct. 5, 2007, 16 pages.
Chen, Shuo et al., “A Systematic Approach to Uncover Security Flaws in GUI Logic”, IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 2007, 15 pages.
Chess, et al., “JavaScript Hijacking”, Fortify Software, (Mar. 12, 2007), 10 pages.
Couvreur, Juien “Curiosity is Bliss: Web API Authentication for Mashups”, Available at http://blog.monstuff.com/—archives/000296.html, (Jun. 25, 2006), 5 pages.
De Keukelaera, Frederik et al., “SMash: Secure Component Model for Cross-Domain Mashups on Unmodified Browsers”, Proceeding of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, Apr. 21-25, 2008, ACM Press, New York, NT, USA, 13 pages.
Dhamija, Rachna et al., “The Battle Against Phishing: Dynamic Security Skins”, Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Usable Security and Privacy, Available at <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/˜tygar/papers/Phishing/Battle—against—phishing.pdf>,(Jul. 20, 2005), pp. 77-88.
Edwards, Mark J., “The Guide to Internet Explorer Security Zones”, Retrieved from http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/internet/the-guide-to-internet-explorer-security-zones.aspx on Dec. 7, 2010, (Jan. 2000), 3 pages.
Epstein, Kevin “Scalent Systems—Next Generation Data Center Virtualization”, retrieved from <http://scalent.findtechblogs.com/?q=afcom> on Jan. 3, 2008,(Apr. 24, 2007), 1 page.
Erlingsson, Ulfar et al., “End-to-End Web Application Security”, Available at http://www.usenix.org/events/hotos07/tech/—fulLpapers/erlingsson/erlingsson—html/, (Apr. 2007), 6 pages.
Evans, David E., “Policy-Directed Code Safety”, Available at http://www.cs.virgina.edu/-evans/phd-thesis/thesis.ps.gz, (Feb. 2000), 137 pages.
Martin, Jr., David M., et al., “Blocking Java Applets at the Firewall”, Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, Feb. 10-11, 1997, IEEE Computer Soc., 11 pages.
McLaren, Chris et al., “Oasis SSTC SAML Protocols Schema Discussion”, Retrieved from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/docs/draft-sstc-protocol-discussion-01.pdf, Cited in NFOA for U.S. Appl. No. 10/047,302,(Jul. 28, 2001), 14 pages.
Miller, Mark S., et al., “Caja: Safe Active Content in Sanitized JavaScript”, Draft Tech Report. Available at google-caja.googlecode.com/files/caja-spec-2008-01-15.pdf, (Nov. 5, 2007), 26 pages.
Muffincharizard, “Having Download Problems (About Mobile Code)”, Available at http://forums.zonelabs.com/showthread.php?t=39390, (Sep. 16, 2003), 2 pages.
Murphy, Jim et al., “Securing the Enterprise from Malware Threats”, Available at http://www.surfcontrol.com/uploadedfiles/general/white—papers/Malware—Whitepaper.pdf, (2004), 14 pages.
Ollmann, “HTML Code Injection and Cross-Site Scripting”, http://www.techincalinfo.net/papers/CSS.html, accessed Jan. 18, 2006,(Jan. 2003), 20 pages.
Raggett, Dave “HTML 4.01”, W3C, retrieved from <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html> on May 30, 2011,(Dec. 24, 1999), 14 pages.
Reis, Charles et al., “Architectural Principles for Safe Web Programs”, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, (2007),7 pages.
Reis, Charles et al., “Browsershield: Vulnerability-Driven Filtering of Dynamic HTML”, vol. 1, Issue 3, ACM Press New York, NY, USA, (Sep. 2007), 14 pages.
Sandboxie, “Overview”, Retrieved from <<http://www.sandboxie.com/>> on Aug. 17, 2005., (2004), 3 pages.
Scott, David “Specifying and Enforcing Application-Level Web Security Policies”, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 15, No. 4,(Jul. 2003), pp. 771-783.
Scott, David et al., “Abstracting Application-Level Web Security”, In Proceedings of WWW 2002, (May 2002), 13 pages.
Scott, David et al., “Developing Secure Web Applications”, IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 6, No. 6,(Nov. 2002), pp. 38-45.
Scott, et al., “Design Considerations for Cross Page Post Backs in ASP.NET 2.0”, http://odetocode.com/Articles/421.aspx, (Jul. 24, 2005), 9 pages.
Selkirk, A. “Using XML Security Mechanisms”, BT Technology Journal, vol. 19, No. 3, DOI: 10.1023/A:1011930030096, (Jul. 2001), pp. 35-43.
Selkirk, A. “XML and Security”, BT Technology Journal, vol. 19, No. 23-34, DOI: 10.1023/A:1011977913258, (Jul. 2001), pp. 23-34.
Sirer, Emin G., et al., “An Access Control Language for Web Services”, In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on World Wide Web (Honolulu, HI, USA, May 7-11, 2002). WWW '02. ACM Press, New York, NY, 396-407. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/1, 8 pages.
Sliwa, Carol “Microsoft Bolsters Internet Explorer Security”, Network World Fusion, Retrieved from www.nwfusion.com/archive/1997/97-06-09micr-a.html on Nov. 22, 2010., (Jun. 9, 1997), 2 pages.
Snell, Ned “SAMS Teach Yourself the Internet in 24 Hours”, Third Edition, ISBN: 0-672-31589-0, Available at http://my.safaribooksonline.com/web-applications-and-services/0672315890, (Jun. 17, 1999), 528 pages.
Thorpe, Danny “Secure Cross-Domain Communication in the Browser”, Available http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb735305(printer).aspx, (2008), 6 pages.
Vuong, Nathan N., et al., “Managing Security Policies in a Distributed Environment Using eXtensible Markup Language (XML)”, ACM Symposium on Applied Computing—SAC, Retrieved from http://users.cis.fiu.edu/˜smithg/papers/sac01.pdf, (2001), 7 pages.
Wahbe, Robert et al., “Efficient Software-Based Fault Isolation”, 1993 ACM SIGOPS, Dec. 5-8, 1993, 14 pages.
Wang, Helen J., et al., “Protection and Communication Abstractions for Web Browsers in MashupOS”, SOSP07, ACM, Oct. 14-17, 2007, 15 pages.
Wang, Helen J., et al., “Shield: Vulnerability-Driven Network Filters for Preventing Known Vulnerability Exploits”, SIGCOMM '04, Aug. 30-Sep. 3, 2004, Portland, OR, Available at http://dalivery.acm.org/10.1145/1—020000/1—015489/p193-wang.pdf?key1=1015489&key2=8156443411—&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=72316072&CFTOKEN=46175408, pp. 193-204.
Wang, Helen J., et al., “The Multi-Principal OS Construction of the Gazelle Web Browser”, Microsoft Research, White Paper, (Feb. 2009), 16 pages.
Wheeler, David “Secure Programming for Linux and Unix Howto”, version 2.966,(2002), 1-143.
Yoshihama, Sachiko et al., “Security Model for the Client-Side Web Application Environments”, IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory, (May 24, 2007), 2 pages.
Zhang, Yan et al., “An Agent-Based Framework for Cross-Domain Cooperation of Enterprise”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, 2004. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs—free.jsp?arNumber=1349034, printed on Apr. 13, 2006, (May 26, 2004), 1 page.
Zviran, Moshe et al., “Towards Generating a Data Integrity Standard”, Data and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 32, Issue 3, (Mar. 2000), pp. 291-313.
“Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/118,321, (Apr. 12, 2012), 11 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/199,813, (Apr. 24, 2012), 6 pages.
“Non Final Office Action”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/199,813, (May 4, 2012), 11 pages.
“Notice of Allowance and Fees”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/217,748, (May 14, 2012), 9 Pages.
“Notice of Allowance and Fees”, U.S. Appl. No. 12/147,963, (May 29, 2012), 11 Pages.
“Notice of Allowance”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,174, (Apr. 19, 2012), 21 pages.
“Notice of Allowance”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/426,785, (Apr. 13, 2012), 10 pages.
“Supplemental Notice of Allowance”, U.S. Appl. No. 11/805,088, (Apr. 23, 2012), 2 pages.
Berners-Lee, et al., “Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax”, retrieved from << http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986>> on Mar. 27, 2012,(2005), 62 pages.
Jermyn, et al., “Out of The Sandbox”, Third Party Validation for Java Applications, Int. Soc. Comput. & Their Appl. Mar. 25-27, 1998, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TNkXZnwTSGoJ:www.cs.nyu.edu/milan/publications/cata98.ps.gz+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us,(5/1998), 5 Pages.
Lopes, et al., “A Uniform Resource Identifier Scheme for SNMP”, 2002 IEEE, retrieved from: <<http://bibliotecadigital.ipb.pt/bitstream/10198/2244/1/snmpUrl-rpl-jlo.pdf>>,(2002), 6 pages.
Malkhi, et al., “Secure execution of Java applets using a remote playground”, IEEE, vol. 26, retrieved from <<http://avirubin.com/playground.pdf>>,(Dec. 2000), 12 Pages.
Paternostro, et al., “Advanced Features of the Eclipse Modeling Framework”, http://eclipse.org/emf/docs/—presentations/EclipseCon/, retrieved from:<<http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/docs/presentations/EclipseCon/EclipseCon2006—EMF—Advanced.pdf>>,(Mar. 20, 2006), 106 pages.
Ray, et al., “Programming Web Services with Perl”, Publisher: O'Reilly Media, Inc. Chapter 11 REST: Representational State Transfer, (Dec. 19, 2002), pp. 237-261.
Fettig, Abe “How to Make XMLHttpRequest Calls to Another Server in Your Domain”, http://ajaxian.com/archives/how-to-make-xmlhttprequest-calls-to-another-server-in-your-domain. Last accessed Oct. 28, 2010, (Nov. 29, 2005), 2 pages.
Gong, Li et al., “Going Beyond the Sandbox: An Overview of the New Security Architecture in the Java Development Kit 1.2”, Proceedings of the USENIX Symposium on Intervet Technologies and Systems, Monterey, CA, (Dec. 1997), 10 pages.
Hallam-Baker, Phillip “X-TASS: XML Trust Assertion Service Specification”, VeriSign, Version 0.9, Retrieved from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/docs/draft-xtass-v09.pdf, (Jan. 5, 2001), 26 pages.
Howell, Jon et al., “MashupOS: Operating System Abstractions for Client Mashups”, Proceedings 11th USENIX workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, (2007), 7 pages.
IEBLOG, “Using Frames More Securely”, Available at http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/01/18/using-frames-more-—securely.aspx, (Jan. 18, 2008), 19 pages.
Jackson, Collin et al., “Subspace: Secure Cross-Domain Communication for Web Mashups”, In Proceedings of WWW 2007,(May 2007), pp. 611-619.
Jajodia, Sushil et al., “A Unified Framework for Enforcing Multiple Access Control Policies”, In Proceedings of the 1997 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (Tucson, AZ, USA)., (1997), 12 pages.
Jim, Trevor et al., “Defeating Script Injection Attacks with Browser-Enforced Embedded Policies”, In Proceedings of WWW 2007, May 8-12, 2007, available at <http://www2007.org/papers/paper595.pdf>, pp. 601-610.
Johansson, Jesper et al., “Dealing with Contextual Vulnerabilities in Code: Distinguishing between Solutions and Pseudosolutions”, Computers and security, vol. 22, (2003), pp. 152-159.
Jose, Rui et al., “Integrated Context Management for Multi-domain Pervasive Environments”, MCMP-05, Available at <https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/2878/1/2005-MCMP-vade-context—final.pdf>,(May 2005), 10 pages.
Kals, Stefan et al., “SecuBat: A Web Vulnerability Scanner”, WWW 2006, Available at <http://www.seclab.tuwien.ac.at/papers/secubat.pdf>,(May 2006), 10 pages.
Karger, David R., et al., “Haystack: A User Interface for Creating, Browsing, and Organizing Arbitrary Semistructured Information”, CHI 2004 Demonstration, Apr. 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria, ACM 1-58113-703-6/04/0004, pp. 777-778.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20120173868 A1 Jul 2012 US
Continuations (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 11805088 May 2007 US
Child 13419215 US
Continuation in Parts (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 11426174 Jun 2006 US
Child 11805088 US