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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
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:
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
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
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.
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:
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 |
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 |
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. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120173868 A1 | Jul 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11805088 | May 2007 | US |
Child | 13419215 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11426174 | Jun 2006 | US |
Child | 11805088 | US |