The subject matter of the present application may also be related to the following U.S. Patent Applications: “Operation of Trusted State in Computing Platform,” Ser. No. 09/728,827, filed Nov. 28, 2000; “Performance of a Service on a Computing Platform,” Ser. No. 09/920,554, filed Aug. 1, 2001; “Secure E-Mail Handling Using a Compartmented Operating System,” Ser. No. 10/075,444, filed Feb. 15, 2002; “Electronic Communication,” Ser. No. 10/080,466, filed Feb. 22, 2002; “Multiple Trusted Computing Environments with Verifiable Environment Entities,” Ser. No. 10/175,183, filed Jun. 18, 2002; “Renting a Computing Environment on a Trusted Computing Platform,” Ser. No. 10/175,185, filed Jun. 18, 2002; “Interaction with Electronic Services and Markets,” Ser. No. 10/175,395, filed Jun. 18, 2002; “Multiple Trusted Computing Environments,” Ser. No. 10/175,542, filed Jun. 18, 2002; “Performing Secure and Insecure Computing Operations in a Compartmented Operating System,” Ser. No. 10/175,553, filed Jun. 18, 2002; “Privacy of Data on a Computer Platform,” Ser. No. 10/206,812, filed Jul. 26, 2002; “Trusted Operating System,” Ser. No. 10/240,137, filed Sep. 26, 2002; “Trusted Gateway System,” Ser. No. 10/240,139, filed Sep. 26, 2002; and “Apparatus and Method for Creating a Trusted Environment,” Ser. No. 10/303,690, filed Nov. 21, 2002.
The present invention relates in general to a method for demonstrating the integrity of a compartment of a compartmented operating system, and to a trusted device and computing platform for performing the same.
Compartmented operating systems have been available for several years in a form designed for handling and processing classified (military) information, using a containment mechanism enforced by a kernel of the operating system with mandatory access controls to resources of the computing platform such as files, processes and network connections. The operating system attaches labels to the resources and enforces a policy which governs the allowed interaction between these resources based on their label values. Most compartmented operating systems apply a policy based on the Bell-LaPadula model discussed in the paper “Applying Military Grade Security to the Internet” by C I Dalton and J F Griffin published in Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29 (1997) 1799-1808.
Whilst a compartmented operating system is secure offering a relatively high degree of containment, it is desired to provide a method for demonstrating the integrity of a compartment. In particular, it is desired to demonstrate that a compartment is in a trusted state and will operate in a predicted manner. As one example, it is desired to confirm that the compartment is free from subversion, either arising inadvertently or through an unauthorised attack.
An aim of the present invention is to provide a method for demonstrating the integrity of an operating system compartment. Another aim is to provide a computing platform allowing demonstration of the integrity of an operating system compartment.
According to a first aspect of the present invention there is provided a method for demonstrating integrity of an operating system compartment in a computing platform having a trusted device, comprising the steps of: (a) providing a host operating system; (b) confirming a status of the host operating system using the trusted device; (c) providing a compartment of the host operating system; and (d) confirming a status of the compartment.
The step (b) preferably comprises providing an integrity metric of the host operating system, which may be compared against an integrity metric in a previously formed certificate, to verify integrity of the host operating system. Preferably, the integrity metric is formed by the trusted device.
The step (d) preferably comprises providing status metric of the compartment, which may be compared against a status metric in a previously formed certificate, to verify integrity of the compartment. Here, the step (d) comprises comparing the current state of the compartment against an expected state. The status metric is formed by the host operating system, or preferably is formed by the trusted device.
Preferably, the step (d) comprises providing information about the current state of the compartment, including information about any one or more of (i) a section of file space allocated to the compartment; (ii) any processes allocated to the compartment; or (iii) any communication interfaces allocated to the compartment. Preferably, the step (d) comprises confirming that the compartment only has access to an expected section of file space. Preferably, the step (d) comprises confirming that the allocated section of file space is in an expected condition. Preferably, the step (d) comprises confirming that only an expected process or processes are allocated to the compartment. Preferably, the step (d) comprises confirming that only expected IPC channels are open. Preferably, the step (d) comprises confirming that only expected communication interfaces are allocated to the compartment.
Also according to this first aspect of the present invention there is provided a method for use in a computing platform having a trusted device, the method comprising the steps of: (a) providing a host operating system; (b) verifying a status of the host operating system by comparing an integrity metric formed by the trusted device against an integrity metric in a previously formed certificate; (c) providing a compartment of the host operating system; and (d) verifying a status of the compartment by comparing a status metric formed by the trusted device against a status metric in a previously formed certificate.
According to a second aspect of the present invention there is provided a computing platform, comprising: a host operating system; at least one compartment provided by the host operating system; a trusted device arranged to confirm a status of the host operating system; and a status unit arranged to confirm a status of the compartment.
Preferably, the trusted device forms an integrity metric of the host operating system. Preferably, the trusted device forms the integrity metric during boot of the host operating system. Optionally, the integrity metric is updated periodically while the host operating system is running.
Preferably, the status unit comprises at least one of the host operating system or the trusted device.
Preferably, the status unit provides a current status of the compartment to be compared against an expected status. The status unit ideally provides a status metric based on the current status. Preferably, the current status identifies any one or more of (i) a section of file space allocated to the compartment, (ii) any processes allocated to the compartment, (iii) any IPC channels open for any process allocated to the compartment, or (iv) any communication interfaces allocated to the compartment.
Preferably, the status unit confirms a condition of the section of file space allocated to the compartment. Preferably, the condition of the section of file space allocated to the compartment is used to determine whether the section of file space has been corrupted.
Also according to this second aspect of the present invention there is provided a computing platform, comprising: a host operating system; a compartment provided by the host operating system; and a trusted device arranged to obtain an integrity metric of the host operating system for comparison against an integrity metric in a previously formed certificate, and arranged to obtain a status metric of the compartment for comparison against a status metric in a previously formed certificate.
Further, according to a third aspect of the present invention there is provided a trusted device for use in a computing platform providing a host operating system having at least one compartment, the trusted device comprising: means arranged in use to obtain an integrity metric of the host operating system for comparison against an integrity metric in a previously formed certificate; and means arranged in use to obtain a status metric of the compartment for comparison against a status metric in a previously formed certificate.
For a better understanding of the invention, and to show how embodiments of the same may be carried into effect, reference will now be made, by way of example, to the accompanying diagrammatic drawings in which:
In the preferred embodiment the hardware 21 includes a trusted device 213. The trusted device 213 is suitably a physical component such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). Preferably the trusted device is mounted within a tamper-resistant housing. The trusted device 213 is coupled to the computing unit 212, and ideally to the local user interface unit 211. The trusted device 213 is preferably mounted on a motherboard of the computing unit 212. The trusted device 213 functions to bind the identity of the computing platform 20 to reliably measured data that provides an integrity metric of the platform.
Preferably, the trusted device 213 performs a secure boot process when the computing platform 20 is reset to ensure that the operating system 22 of the platform 20 is running properly and in a secure manner. During the secure boot process, the trusted device 213 acquires the integrity metric of the operating system 22 by examining operation of the computing unit 212 and the local user interface unit 211. The integrity metric is then available for a user to determine whether to trust the computing platform to operate is a predicted manner. In particular, a trusted computing platform is expected not to be subject to subversion such as by a virus or by unauthorised access.
WO 00/48063 (Hewlett-Packard) discloses an example computing platform suitable for use in preferred embodiments of the present invention. In this example the trusted device 213 acquires a hash of a BIOS memory of the computing unit 212 after reset. The trusted device 213 receives memory read signals from the main processor and returns instructions for the main processor to form the hash. The hash is stored in the trusted device 213, which then returns an instruction that calls the BIOS program and a boot procedure continues as normal.
Preferably, the trusted device 213 controls the local user interface 211 such that a local user can trust the display of data provided on a visual display unit. WO 00/73913 (Hewlett-Packard) discloses an example system for providing a trustworthy user interface by locating a driver for the visual display unit within the trusted device 213.
The hardware 21 may also comprise a trusted user interface for performing secure communication with a user device such as a smart card held by the user. The trusted user interface allows the user to perform trusted communications with the trusted device 213 in order to verify the integrity of the computing platform 20. The use of a smart card or other token for trusted local user interaction is described in more detail in WO 00/54125 (Hewlett-Packard) and WO 00/54126 (Hewlett-Packard).
The computing platform 20 provides a computing environment 24 which gives access to resources of the computing platform, such as processor time, memory area, and filespace. Preferably, a plurality of discrete computing environments 24 are provided. Each computing environment is logically distinct, but shares access to at least some of the resources of the computing platform with other computing environments.
Suitably, the computing environment 24 runs as a compartment. The actions or privileges within a compartment are constrained, particularly to restrict the ability of a process to execute methods and operations which have effect outside the compartment 24, such as methods that request network access or access to files outside of the compartment. Also, operation of the process within the compartment is performed with a high level of isolation from interference and prying by outside influences.
Preferably, the compartment is an operating system compartment controlled by a kernel of the host operating system 22. This is also referred to as a compartmented operating system or a trusted operating system.
The preferred embodiment of the present invention adopts a simple and convenient form of operating system compartment. Each resource of the computing platform which it is desired to protect is given a label indicating the compartment to which that resource belongs. Mandatory access controls are performed by the kernel of the host operating system to ensure that resources from one compartment cannot interfere with resources from another compartment. Access controls can follow relatively simple rules, such as requiring an exact match of the label. Examples of resources include data structures describing individual processes, shared memory segments, semaphores, message queues, sockets, network packets, network interfaces and routing table entries.
Communication between processes is controlled by IPC (Inter-Process Communication) channels. Communication between compartments is provided using narrow kernel level controlled interfaces to a transport mechanism such as TCP/UDP. Access to these communication interfaces is governed by rules specified on a compartment by compartment basis. At appropriate points in the kernel, access control checks are performed such as through the use of hooks to a dynamically loadable security module that consults a table of rules indicating which compartments are allowed to access the resources of another compartment. In the absence of a rule explicitly allowing a cross compartment access to take place, an access attempt is denied by the kernel. The rules enforce mandatory segmentation across individual compartments, except for those compartments that have been explicitly allowed to access another compartment's resources. Communication between a compartment and a network resource is provided in a similar manner. In the absence of an explicit rule, access between a compartment and a network resource is denied.
Suitably, each compartment is allocated an individual section of a file system of the computing platform. For example, the section is a chroot of the main file system. Processes running within a particular compartment only have access to that section of the file system. Advantageously, through kernel controls, a process is restricted to the predetermined section of file system and cannot escape. In particular, access to the root of the file system is denied.
Advantageously, a compartment provides a high level of containment, whilst reducing implementation costs and changes required in order to implement an existing application within the compartment.
Referring to
Each computing environment is suitably an operating system compartment 24 that contains a section of file space, a group of one or more processes, and a set of allowed communication interfaces to other compartments and to network resources. It is desired to demonstrate the integrity of a compartment by confirming that the compartment is in an expected state. In one example the expected state requires that any one or more of the following are in a particular condition, namely (a) the compartment only has access to an expected section of file space, (b) that the predetermined section of file space is in an expected condition, e.g. has not been corrupted by a virus, (c) only the expected process or processes are running; (d) only expected IPC channels are open; and (e) only expected communication interfaces are available. Preferably, information about any one or more of these conditions or other suitable criteria is combined to form a status metric. Suitably, the status metric is individual to the compartment 24 and describes the current status of that compartment.
The status metric can include many elements. For example, data event logging is performed as described in WO 00/73880 (Hewlett-Packard) and applied specifically to the compartment 24. Also, a file digest is produced by applying a hash function to one or more data files stored in the section of file space allocated to the compartment, as described in WO 00/73904 (Hewlett-Packard).
Preferably, the status metric is formed by the trusted device 213. To achieve the status metric, the trusted device 213 communicates with other components of the computing platform 20 such as the computing unit 212.
Preferably, information about the compartment used to form the status metric is gathered in response to hooks (e.g. IOCTALS, SYSCALLS) into a kernel of the host operating system 22.
The method can be initiated by a local user of the computing platform 20, or a remote user coupled directly or indirectly to the computing platform 20.
Optionally, in step 201 authentication and authorisation checks are made to confirm that the party requesting demonstration of the integrity of a compartment is allowed access to that information.
In step 202 integrity of the computing platform is verified. Particularly, integrity of the host operating system 22 is verified. Preferably, the trusted device 213 provides an integrity metric of the host operating system 22.
In step 203, the status of a compartment 24 of the host operating system 22 is verified. Compartment status verification suitably includes providing access to information about the compartment or, preferably, providing a status metric containing the information in a specified form.
Preferably, the integrity metric of the host operating system and/or the status metric of the compartment are each compared against a certificate issued by a trusted party that is prepared to vouch for the integrity of the computing platform. A challenge and response may occur, such as the user sending a random number sequence to the computing platform and receiving the random number in return in an encoded format. If the verification is successful, the computing platform is considered a trusted computing platform. The user trusts the computing platform because the user trusts the trusted party. The trusted party trusts the computing platform because the trusted party has previously validated the identity and determined the proper integrity metric of the platform. More detailed background information concerning an example method for verifying the computing platform and the host operating system using an integrity metric is given in WO 00/48063 (Hewlett-Packard). A similar approach is adopted to verify the status metric of the compartment.
A method and computing platform have been described which allow demonstration of the integrity of a compartment of a compartmented operating system. Advantageously, a chain of trust is established firstly by verifying the host operating system, and then by verifying a particular compartment of the host operating system.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
0114885.7 | Jun 2001 | GB | national |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4747040 | Blanset et al. | May 1988 | A |
4799156 | Shavit et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4926476 | Covey | May 1990 | A |
4962533 | Krueger et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4984272 | McIlroy et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
5029206 | Marino et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5032979 | Hecht et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5038281 | Peters | Aug 1991 | A |
5136711 | Hugard et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5144660 | Rose | Sep 1992 | A |
5210795 | Lipner et al. | May 1993 | A |
5261104 | Bertram et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5278973 | O'Brien et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5325529 | Brown et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5359659 | Rosenthal | Oct 1994 | A |
5361359 | Tajalli et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5379342 | Arnold et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5404532 | Allen et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5410707 | Bell | Apr 1995 | A |
5414860 | Canova et al. | May 1995 | A |
5421006 | Jablon et al. | May 1995 | A |
5440723 | Arnold et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5444850 | Chang | Aug 1995 | A |
5448045 | Clark | Sep 1995 | A |
5454110 | Kannan et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5473692 | Davis | Dec 1995 | A |
5483649 | Kuznetsov et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5495569 | Kotzur | Feb 1996 | A |
5497490 | Harada et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5497494 | Combs et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5504814 | Miyahara | Apr 1996 | A |
5504910 | Wisor et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5530758 | Marino et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5535411 | Speed et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5537540 | Miller et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5548763 | Combs et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5555373 | Dayan et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5572590 | Chess | Nov 1996 | A |
5619571 | Sandstrom et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5657390 | Elgamal et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5680452 | Shanton | Oct 1997 | A |
5680547 | Chang | Oct 1997 | A |
5692124 | Holden et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5694590 | Thuraisingham et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5771354 | Crawford | Jun 1998 | A |
5787175 | Carter | Jul 1998 | A |
5796841 | Cordery et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5809145 | Slik | Sep 1998 | A |
5812669 | Jenkins et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5815665 | Teper et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5825890 | Elgamal et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5828751 | Walker et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5841869 | Merkling et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5844986 | Davis | Dec 1998 | A |
5845068 | Winiger | Dec 1998 | A |
5864683 | Boebert et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5867646 | Benson et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5883956 | Le et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5887163 | Nguyen et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5889989 | Robertazzi et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5892900 | Ginter et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5903732 | Reed et al. | May 1999 | A |
5913024 | Green et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5915019 | Ginter et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5915021 | Herlin et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5917360 | Yasutake | Jun 1999 | A |
5917912 | Ginter et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5922074 | Richard et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5923756 | Shambroom | Jul 1999 | A |
5923763 | Walker et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933498 | Schneck et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5949876 | Ginter et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5960177 | Tanno | Sep 1999 | A |
5968136 | Saulpaugh et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5982891 | Ginter et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987605 | Hill et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987608 | Roskind | Nov 1999 | A |
5991414 | Garay et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5996076 | Rowney et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6003084 | Green et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6006332 | Rabne et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012080 | Ozden et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6023689 | Herlin et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6023765 | Kuhn | Feb 2000 | A |
6049878 | Caronni et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6067559 | Allard et al. | May 2000 | A |
6078948 | Podgorny et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6079016 | Park | Jun 2000 | A |
6081830 | Schindler | Jun 2000 | A |
6081894 | Mann | Jun 2000 | A |
6081900 | Subramaniam et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6092202 | Veil et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6100738 | Illegems | Aug 2000 | A |
6105131 | Carroll | Aug 2000 | A |
6115819 | Anderson | Sep 2000 | A |
6125114 | Blanc et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6134328 | Cordery et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6138239 | Veil | Oct 2000 | A |
6154838 | Le et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6157719 | Wasilewski et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6157721 | Shear et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6175917 | Arrow et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185678 | Arbaugh et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6185683 | Ginter et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6189103 | Nevarez et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192472 | Garay et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6195751 | Caronni et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6198824 | Shambroom | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6211583 | Humphreys | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6237786 | Ginter et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6253193 | Ginter et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6263438 | Walker et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272631 | Thomlinson et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6275848 | Arnold | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282648 | Walker et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6289453 | Walker et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6289462 | McNabb et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292569 | Shear et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292900 | Ngo et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6304970 | Bizzaro et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6314409 | Schneck et al. | Nov 2001 | B2 |
6314519 | Davis et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327579 | Crawford | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6327652 | England et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6330669 | McKeeth | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6330670 | England et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6367012 | Atkinson et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6393412 | Deep | May 2002 | B1 |
6446203 | Aguilar et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6449716 | Rickey | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6477702 | Yellin et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487601 | Hubacher et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6496847 | Bugnion et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505300 | Chan et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6513156 | Bak et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6519623 | Mancisidor | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6530024 | Proctor | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6609248 | Srivastava et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6622018 | Erekson | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6671716 | Diedrichsen et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6678833 | Grawrock | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6681304 | Vogt et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6701440 | Kim et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6732276 | Cofler et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6751680 | Langerman et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6757824 | England | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757830 | Tarbotton et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6775779 | England et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6847995 | Hubbard et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6892307 | Wood et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6931545 | Ta et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6948069 | Teppler | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6965816 | Walker | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6988250 | Proudler et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7058807 | Grawrock et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7194092 | England et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7877799 | Proudler | Jan 2011 | B2 |
8037380 | Cagno et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
20010037450 | Metlitski et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020012432 | England et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020023212 | Proudler | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020042874 | Arora | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020059286 | Challener | May 2002 | A1 |
20020069354 | Fallon et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020120575 | Pearson et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020144104 | Springfield et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020180778 | Proudler | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020184486 | Kershenbaum et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020184520 | Bush et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020188763 | Griffin | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194482 | Griffin et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194496 | Griffin et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030009685 | Choo et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014372 | Wheeler et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014466 | Berger et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023872 | Chen et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030037233 | Pearson | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037246 | Goodman et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030074548 | Cromer et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030084285 | Cromer et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030084436 | Berger et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030145235 | Choo | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030191957 | Hypponen et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030196083 | Grawrock et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030196110 | Lampson et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030226031 | Proudler et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030226040 | Challener et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040003288 | Wiseman et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040039924 | Baldwin et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040045019 | Bracha et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040073617 | Milliken et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040073806 | Zimmer | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040083366 | Nachenberg et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040148514 | Fee et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20050256799 | Warsaw et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2 187 855 | Jun 1997 | CA |
0 3040 33 | Feb 1989 | EP |
0 421 409 | Apr 1991 | EP |
0 510 244 | Oct 1992 | EP |
0 580 350 | Jan 1994 | EP |
0 825 511 | Feb 1998 | EP |
0 849 657 | Jun 1998 | EP |
0 849 680 | Jun 1998 | EP |
0 465 016 | Dec 1998 | EP |
0 893 751 | Jan 1999 | EP |
0 895 148 | Feb 1999 | EP |
0 926 605 | Jun 1999 | EP |
0 992 958 | Apr 2000 | EP |
1 030 237 | Aug 2000 | EP |
1 056 014 | Aug 2000 | EP |
1 049 036 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1 055 990 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1 056 010 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1 076 279 | Feb 2001 | EP |
1 107 137 | Jun 2001 | EP |
2 317 476 | Mar 1998 | GB |
2 336 918 | Nov 1999 | GB |
0020441.2 | Aug 2000 | GB |
2 353 885 | Mar 2001 | GB |
2 361 153 | Oct 2001 | GB |
9325024 | Dec 1993 | WO |
9411967 | May 1994 | WO |
9524696 | Sep 1995 | WO |
9527249 | Oct 1995 | WO |
9729416 | Aug 1997 | WO |
9815082 | Apr 1998 | WO |
9836517 | Aug 1998 | WO |
9826529 | Sep 1998 | WO |
9840809 | Sep 1998 | WO |
9844402 | Oct 1998 | WO |
9845778 | Oct 1998 | WO |
0019324 | Apr 2000 | WO |
0019324 | Apr 2000 | WO |
0031644 | Jun 2000 | WO |
0048062 | Aug 2000 | WO |
0048063 | Aug 2000 | WO |
0052900 | Sep 2000 | WO |
0054125 | Sep 2000 | WO |
0054125 | Sep 2000 | WO |
0054126 | Sep 2000 | WO |
0058859 | Oct 2000 | WO |
0073880 | Dec 2000 | WO |
0073880 | Dec 2000 | WO |
0073904 | Dec 2000 | WO |
0073904 | Dec 2000 | WO |
0073913 | Dec 2000 | WO |
0073913 | Dec 2000 | WO |
0109781 | Feb 2001 | WO |
0113198 | Feb 2001 | WO |
0123980 | Apr 2001 | WO |
0127722 | Apr 2001 | WO |
0165334 | Sep 2001 | WO |
0165366 | Sep 2001 | WO |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 09/979,902, filed Nov. 27, 2001, Proudler, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/979,903, filed Nov. 27, 2001, Proudler, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/080,476, filed Feb. 22, 2002, Proudler, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/080,477, filed Feb. 22, 2002, Brown, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/080,478, filed Feb. 22, 2002, Pearson, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/080,479, filed Feb. 22, 2002, Pearson, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/165,840, filed Jun. 7, 2002, Dalton. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/194,831, filed Jul. 11, 2002, Chen, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/240,138, filed Sep. 26, 2002, Choo. |
Barkley, J., et al., “Managing Role/Permission Relationships Using Object Access Types,” ACM, pp. 73-80, Jul. 1998, retrieved Jun. 25, 2005. |
Bontchev, V., “Possible Virus Attacks Against Integrity Programs and How to Prevent Them,” Virus Bulletin Conference, pp. 131-141 (Sep. 1992). |
Grimm, R., et al., “Separating Access Control Policy, Enforcement, and Functionality in Extensible Systems,” ACM pp. 36-70, Feb. 2001, retrieved Jun. 25, 2005. |
Jaeger, T., et al., “Requirements of Role-Based Access Control for Collaborative Systems,” ACM, pp. 53-64, Dec. 1996, retrieved Jun. 25, 2005. |
Naor, M., et al., “Secure and Efficient Metering,” Internet: <http://citeseer.nj.com/naor98secure.html> Sections 1-1.3 (1998). |
P.C Magazine Online; The 1999 Utility Guide: Desktop Antivirus; Norton Antivirus 5.0 DeLux, Internet. |
Radai, Y., “Checksumming Techniques for Anti-Viral Purposes,” Virus Bulletin Conference, pp. 39-68 (Sep. 1991). |
Schneck, P.B., “Persistent Access Control to Prevent Piracy of Digital Information,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 87, No. 7, pp. 1239-1250 (Jul. 1999). |
“System for Detecting Undesired Alteration of Software,” IBM Technical Bulletin, vol. 32, No. 11 pp. 48-50 (Apr. 1990). |
The Trusted Computing Platform Alliance, “Building Foundation of Trust in the PC,”, 9 pages, located at Internet address <www.trustedpc.org/home/home.html.> (Jan. 2000). |
Zhang, N.X., et al., “Secure Code Distribution,” pp. 76-79, 1997 IEEE, retrieved Jun. 25, 2005. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/728,827, filed Nov. 28, 2000, Proudler et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/920,554, filed Aug. 1, 2001, Proudler. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/075,444, filed Feb. 15, 2002, Brown et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/080,466, filed Feb. 22, 2002, Pearson et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/175,183, filed Jun. 18, 2002, Griffin et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/175,185, filed Jun. 18, 2002, Pearson et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/175,395, filed Jun. 18, 2002, Pearson et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/175,542, filed Jun. 18, 2002, Griffin et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/175,553, filed Jun. 18, 2002, Griffin et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,812, filed Jul. 26, 2002, Proudler. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/240,137, filed Sep. 26, 2002, Dalton et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/240,139, filed Sep. 26, 2002, Choo et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/303,690, filed Nov. 21, 2002, Proudler et al. |
Burke, J.P., “Security Suite Gives Sniffer Programs Hay Fever,” HP Professional, vol. 8, No. 9, 3 pages total (Sep. 1994). |
Dalton, C.I. and J.F. Griffin, “Applying Military Grade Security to the Internet,” Proceedings JENCS- Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 29, pp. 1799-1808(1999). |
Ford, B., et al., “Microkernels Meet Recursive Virtual Machines”, Operating Systems Review, ACM, vol. 30, No. Special Issue, pp. 137-151 (Dec. 21, 1996). |
Goldberg, R.P., “Survey of Virtual Machine Research”, Computer, IEEE Service Center, vol. 7 , No. 6, pp. 34-45 (Jun. 1974). |
Popek, G. J., “Formal Requirements for Virtualizable Third Generation Architectures”, Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, ACM, vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 412-421 (Jul. 1974). |
EDS Timeline, The 1960's, at EDS.com. |
Anderson, R., et al., “Tamper Resistance—a Cautionary Note,” ISENIX Association, Second USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, pp. 1-11 (Nov. 18-21, 1996). |
Berger, J.L., et al., “Compartmented Mode Workstation: Prototype Highlights,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 16, No. 6 (Jun. 1990). |
Chaum, D., “Security without Identification: Transaction Systems to Make Big Brother Obsolete,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 28, No. 10, pp. 1030-1044 (Oct. 1985). |
Choo, T.H., et al., “Trusted Linux: A Secure Platform for Hosting Compartmented Applications,” Enterprise Solutions, pp. 1-14 (Nov./Dec. 2001). |
Dalton, C., et al., “An operating system approach to securing e-services,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 44, Issue 2 (Feb. 2001). |
Dalton, C.I., et al., “Design of secure UNIX,” Elsevier Information Security Report, (Feb. 1992). |
Hallyn, S.E., et al., “Domain and Type Enforcement for Linux,” <Internet: <http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/als2000/full—papers/hallyn/hallyn—html/>. (Retrieved Apr. 24, 2002). |
Loscocco, P., et al., “Integrating Flexible Support for Security Policies into the Linux Operating System,” Internet: <www.nsa.gov/selinux> (Retrieved Apr. 24, 2002). |
Milojicic, D., et al., “Process Migration,” Internet <http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/1999/HPL-1999-21.html.> pp. 1-48 (Dec. 5, 1998). |
Scheibe, M., “TCPA Security: Trust your Platform!” Quarterly Focus PC Security, pp. 44-47. Internet: <http://www.silicon-trust.com/pdf/secure—PDF/Seite—44-47.pdf>. |
Senie, D., “Using the Sock—Packet mechanism in Linux to gain complete control of an Ethernet Interface,” Internet: <http://www.senie.com/dan/technology/sock—packet.html>. (Retrieved Apr. 24, 2002). |
Wiseman, S., et al., “The Trusted Path between Smite and the User,” Proceedings 1988 IEEE Symposium on and Privacy, pp. 147-155 (Apr. 18-21, 1988). |
“Yee, B., Using Secure Coprocessors,” Doctoral thesis—Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 1-94 (May 1994). |
Boot Integrity Services Application Programming Interface, Version 1.0, Intel Corporation, pp. 1-60 (Dec. 28, 1998). |
“Building a Foundation of Trust in the PC,” Trusted Computing Platform Alliance, pp. 1-7 (Jan. 2000). |
“HP Virtualvault: Trusted Web-server Platform Product Brief,” Internet: <http://www.hp.com/security/products/virtualvault/papers/brief—4.0/> pp. 1-6. |
“Information technology—Security techniques—Entity authentication; Part 3: Mechanisms using digital signature techniques,” ISO/IEC 9798-3, Second Edition, pp. 1-6 (1998). |
“Information technology—Security techniques—Key management—Part 3: Mechanisms using asymmetric techniques,” ISO/IEC 11770-3, pp. 1-34 (1999). |
“NIST Announces Technical Correction to Secure Hash Standard,” Internet: <http://www.nist.gov/public—affairs/releases/hashstan.htm> pp. 1-2 (Oct. 24, 2002). |
“Norton AntiVirus 5.0 Delux,” PC Magazine Online; The 1999 Utility Guide: Desktop Antivirus, pp. 1-2, Internet: <http://wwww.zdnet.com/pcmag/features/utilities99/deskav07.html> (Retrieved Nov. 30, 2001). |
“Secure Computing with JAVA™: Now and the Future,” <http://java.sun.com/marketing/collateral/security.html> pp. 1-29 (Apr. 2, 2002). |
“Secure Execution Environments, Internet Safety through Type-Enforcing Firewalls,” Internet: <thp://www.ghp.com/research/nailabs/secure-execution/internet-safety.asp> (Retrieved Apr. 24, 2002). |
Sophos Anti-Virus for Notes/Domino release Note Version 2.0, pp. 1-2, Internet: <http://www.sophos.com/sophos/products/full/readmes/readnote.txt> (Retrieved Nov. 30, 2001). |
Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA), Main Specification, Version 1.0, pp. 1-284 (2000). |
Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA), TCPA Design Philosophies and Concepts, Version 1.0, Internet: <www.trustedpc.org> pp. 1-30 (Jan. 2001). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20020194493 A1 | Dec 2002 | US |