1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to computer network and, more particularly, methods of and systems for thwarting attacks from remotely located computers.
2. Description of the Related Art
Not too many years ago, an individual might have used one or two computing devices—perhaps one at work and perhaps one at home. Today, individuals use a wide variety of computing devices. For example, it's not uncommon now for an individual to have multiple computers at work, one or more at home (perhaps a desktop computer and a laptop computer), a smart phone (which includes a pocket-sized, fully functional computer), digital cameras (still and video), and one or more tablet computers. In addition, many household appliances in use today also incorporate fully functional computers. Such appliances include televisions, set-top boxes, personal video recorders (PVRs), digital media players, and networked music players.
The multitude of devices used by an individual can be thought as the individual's device-sphere. One of the challenges with maintaining security within one's device-sphere is that failure to block just one out of many thousands or millions of attacks across several devices can have dire consequences. A particularly difficult type of attack to block is a “zero-day” attack, i.e., an attack on a vulnerability before the vulnerability has been discovered by those building anti-virus and other security tools.
What is needed is a way to better protect devices of a user's device-sphere from numerous and even zero-day attacks.
In accordance with the present invention, devices of an individual's device-sphere recognize risky or undesirable behavior requested by devices outside of the device-sphere and allow the user to prevent the behavior. The user's decision is stored and used to protect all devices of the user's device-sphere from similar risky behavior from the outside devices.
A number of types of behavior a remotely located device can request are identified as risky and can be recognized by devices of the user's device-sphere. Examples of such risky behavior include installation of logic or software, modification of system configuration, and execution of logic received from a remotely located device.
When a device determines that a remotely located device has requested behavior that is identified as risky, the device determines whether the user has previously indicated that such behavior, when requested by the remotely located device, is allowed or denied. If the behavior is allowed, the device performs the requested behavior. If the behavior is denied, the device refuses to perform the behavior.
If the behavior is neither allowed nor denied, the user is provided with information regarding the nature of the behavior requested by the remotely located device and information regarding the remotely located device itself. The user is then provided with a user interface by which the user can specify that the requested behavior is allowed for this device, denied for this device, allowed for all devices of the user's device-sphere, or denied for all devices of the user's device-sphere.
The user's choice is recorded and used to allow or deny similar requests for risky behavior from the remotely located device. If the choice is made for all devices of the user's device-sphere, the choice is broadcast to other devices of the user's device-sphere such that other devices can benefit from the choice made by the user.
The result is that any risky behavior, even if not matched by any anti-virus or other security logic in the device, is brought to the attention of the user and the user is able to use knowledge of the usage context of the device to make intelligent decisions regarding device security. For example, if the user is informed that a computer in Russia or some other far away location is attempting to install logic, such as a web browser plug-in for example, the user can decide whether that request makes sense. The user may have just have requested that a web browser be installed by a music retail web site based in Russia. In that case, perhaps the server in Russia should be allowed to install the web browser plug-in. However, if the user has not had recent interaction with servers known to be in Russia, the user can prevent even a zero-day attack by just saying “No”.
Other systems, methods, features and advantages of the invention will be or will become apparent to one with skill in the art upon examination of the following figures and detailed description. It is intended that all such additional systems, methods, features and advantages be included within this description, be within the scope of the invention, and be protected by the accompanying claims. Component parts shown in the drawings are not necessarily to scale, and may be exaggerated to better illustrate the important features of the invention. In the drawings, like reference numerals may designate like parts throughout the different views, wherein:
In accordance with the present invention, devices 102A-H (
In this illustrative example, the user's device-sphere includes devices 102A-H, device 108, and server 110. Devices 102A-H are coupled to one another through a local area network (LAN) 104, which can be owned and operated by the individual user in her home. There are a wide variety of computing devices that can be included in one's device-sphere; the devices shown in
Device 108 is remotely located, being connected to LAN 104 though a wide area network (WAN) 106. In this illustrative embodiment, device 108 connects to LAN 104 through WAN 106 through a Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection. In this illustrative embodiment, WAN 106 is the Internet.
Server 110 is also connected to LAN 104 though WAN 106. Server 110 is a remotely located and untrusted computer.
Logic flow diagram 200 (
In step 202, behavior monitoring logic 726 (
Match pattern 304 can specify any of a number of events, including installation of logic into device 102A, modification of system configuration of device 102A, execution of logic received from a remotely located device, etc. Match pattern 304 can also specify URL patterns to block certain types of content from being retrieved and displayed by device 102A. For example, match pattern 304 can specify URL patterns matching many known servers of advertising to thereby block advertising on device 102A.
Description 306 (
Once behavior monitoring logic 726 (
In test step 206 (
To determine whether the requested behavior is allowed, behavior monitoring logic 726 retrieves a permission record 400 for which source 402 specifies the remotely located device, destination 404 specifies device 102A as one to which the permission record pertains, and behavior 406 specifies the particular type of behavior determined to be risky in step 202 (
Conversely, if the retrieved permission record 400 (
If behavior monitoring logic 726 is unable to retrieve a permission record 400 (
In this illustrative embodiment, behavior monitoring logic 726 causes device access control logic 720 to perform steps 214-218, allowing a user-space application to handle user-interface and other tasks not typically handled within operating system 724. In step 214, device access control logic 720 gathers information regarding the requesting remotely located device that can be helpful to the user in determining whether the requested risky behavior should be permitted. In this illustrative embodiment, device access control logic 720 determines the geological or geopolitical location of the remote device. One manner of determining geopolitical location of a remotely located device is described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,151,631 and that description is incorporated by reference.
In step 216 (
The user can specify that the requested behavior is allowed for this device, denied for this device, allowed for all devices in her device-sphere, or denied for all devices in her device-sphere. The user indicates her choice by physical manipulation of one or more of user input device 708 (
In the example of
Once the user's decision has been received in step 216 (
After step 218 (
Sometimes, device 102A determines a permission record 400 that pertains to one or more others of devices 102B-H and 108. For example, when the trapped behavior is requested of a device not normally used directly by the user, e.g., devices 102F and 102H, device 102A can be asked to interact with the user to determine whether the trapped behavior is to be allowed or denied. In addition, the user can specify that the trapped behavior is to be allowed or denied for all of devices 102A-H and 108. Logic flow diagram 218 (
In test step 802 (
In test step 806, device access control logic 720 determines whether the choice was successfully communicated to the other device. If so, processing according to logic flow diagram 218, and therefore step 218 (
Conversely, if the choice was not successfully communicated to the other device, processing transfers to step 808 (
Processing also transfers to step 808 when device access control logic 720 determines that the user's choice was not just for another device (test step 802) and was for all devices in the user's device-sphere (test step 810).
After step 808, processing according to logic flow diagram 218, and therefore step 218 (
From time-to-time, one or more of devices 102B-H and 108 will not be operational and connected to LAN 104 (
Device 102A is shown in greater detail in
CPU 702 and memory 704 are connected to one another through a conventional interconnect 706, which is a bus in this illustrative embodiment and which connects CPU 702 and memory 704 to one or more input devices 708, output devices 710, and network access circuitry 712. Input devices 708 generate signals in response to physical manipulation by a human user and can include, for example, a keyboard, a keypad, a touch-sensitive screen, a mouse, a microphone, and one or more cameras. Output devices 310 can include, for example, a display—such as a liquid crystal display (LCD)—and one or more loudspeakers. Network access circuitry 712 sends and receives data through computer networks such as LAN 104 (
A number of components of device 102A are stored in memory 704. In particular, device access control logic 720 and operating system 724, including behavior monitoring logic 726, are each all or part of one or more computer processes executing within CPU 702 from memory 704 in this illustrative embodiment but can also be implemented using digital logic circuitry. As used herein, “logic” refers to (i) logic implemented as computer instructions and/or data within one or more computer processes and/or (ii) logic implemented in electronic circuitry.
Digital fingerprint 722 is data stored persistently in memory 704. Digital fingerprint 722 includes data specific to hardware elements of device 102A, such as serial numbers and parameters of hardware components of device 102A, to serve as a globally unique identifier of device 102A. Digital fingerprints are known and described in U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0093503 for “Computer Hardware Identity Tracking Using Characteristic Parameter-Derived Data” by Craig S. Etchegoyen (filed Apr. 21, 2011) and that description is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.
Device permissions 730 is also data stored persistently in memory 704 and, in this illustrative embodiment, is organized as one or more databases. Device permissions 730 stores trapped behavior records such as trapped behavior 300 (
The above description is illustrative only and is not limiting. The present invention is defined solely by the claims which follow and their full range of equivalents. It is intended that the following appended claims be interpreted as including all such alterations, modifications, permutations, and substitute equivalents as fall within the true spirit and scope of the present invention.
This patent application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/074,153 filed on Nov. 7, 2013 which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/770,662, filed Feb. 28, 2013, the entire disclosure of which is herein incorporated by reference. The benefits of such earlier filing dates are hereby claimed by applicant under 35 U.S.C. §120.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4200770 | Hellman et al. | Apr 1980 | A |
4218582 | Hellman et al. | Aug 1980 | A |
4323921 | Guillou | Apr 1982 | A |
4337483 | Guillou | Jun 1982 | A |
4405829 | Rivest et al. | Sep 1983 | A |
4450535 | de Pommery et al. | May 1984 | A |
4633036 | Hellman et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
4652990 | Pailen et al. | Mar 1987 | A |
4672572 | Alsberg | Jun 1987 | A |
4747139 | Taaffe | May 1988 | A |
4868877 | Fischer | Sep 1989 | A |
4977594 | Shear | Dec 1990 | A |
5005200 | Fischer | Apr 1991 | A |
5019813 | Kip et al. | May 1991 | A |
5048085 | Abraham et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5050213 | Shear | Sep 1991 | A |
5123045 | Ostrovsky et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5144667 | Pogue, Jr. et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5148481 | Abraham et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5155680 | Wiedemer | Oct 1992 | A |
5162638 | Diehl et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5191611 | Lang | Mar 1993 | A |
5204901 | Hershey et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5231668 | Kravitz | Jul 1993 | A |
5239648 | Nukui | Aug 1993 | A |
5249178 | Kurano et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5313637 | Rose | May 1994 | A |
5349643 | Cox et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5418854 | Kaufman et al. | May 1995 | A |
5606614 | Brady et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
6098053 | Slater | Aug 2000 | A |
6098106 | Philyaw et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6163843 | Inoue et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6681017 | Matias et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6791982 | Westberg | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6880079 | Kefford et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6999461 | Li et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7032110 | Su et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7032242 | Grabelsky et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7310813 | Lin et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7444508 | Karjala et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7506056 | Satish et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7599303 | Nadeau et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7600039 | Tang et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7739401 | Goyal | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7739402 | Roese et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7818573 | Martin et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7852861 | Wu et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7965843 | Maino et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
8018937 | Epps et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8020190 | Plummer | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8375221 | Thom et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8966657 | Martinez | Feb 2015 | B2 |
20020010864 | Safa | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020099952 | Lambert et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020112171 | Ginter et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020163889 | Yemini et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178122 | Maes | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030063750 | Medvinsky et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030070067 | Saito | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030131001 | Matsuo | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030149777 | Adler | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030182435 | Redlich et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030190046 | Kamerman et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030204726 | Kefford et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030212892 | Oishi | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217263 | Sakai | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030237004 | Okamura | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040003288 | Wiseman et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040145773 | Oakeson et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20050033957 | Enokida | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050169271 | Janneteau et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050187890 | Sullivan | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20060075134 | Aalto et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060095454 | Shankar et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060130135 | Krstulich et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060253584 | Dixon et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271485 | McKenzie et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060280207 | Guarini et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005974 | Kudou | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070055853 | Hatasaki et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070079365 | Ito et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070153764 | Thubert et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070235525 | Murch | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080022103 | Brown et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080028114 | Mun | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080040785 | Shimada | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080049779 | Hopmann et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080052775 | Sandhu et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080076572 | Nguyen et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080080750 | Bee et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080082813 | Chow et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080097924 | Carper et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080098471 | Ooi et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080114709 | Dixon et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080244739 | Liu et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080282338 | Beer | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080311994 | Amaitis et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090003600 | Chen et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090006861 | Bemmel | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090016264 | Hirano et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090099830 | Gross et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090113088 | Illowsky et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090158426 | Yoon et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20100034207 | McGrew et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100100962 | Boren | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100146589 | Safa | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100164720 | Kore | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100199188 | Abu-Hakima et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100208899 | Kasargod et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100211795 | Brown et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100269168 | Hegli et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100281261 | Razzell | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110007901 | Ikeda et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110026529 | Majumdar et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110090896 | Bradley | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110215158 | Kargl et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110295988 | Le Jouan | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120216262 | Bardsley et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120275354 | Villain | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130166494 | Davis et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130166609 | Hao et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130212389 | McCreight et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130283374 | Zisapel et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1 903 518 | Sep 2007 | EP |
2391965 | Feb 2004 | GB |
4 117 548 | Apr 1992 | JP |
5181734 | Jul 1993 | JP |
WO 0109756 | Feb 2001 | WO |
WO 2006102399 | Sep 2006 | WO |
WO 2008034900 | Mar 2008 | WO |
WO 2008052310 | May 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Eisen, Ori, “Catching the Fraudulent Man-in-the-Middle and Man-in-the-Browser,” Network Security, Apr. 2010, pp. 11-12. |
Harrington, D., et al., “An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks,” RFC 3411, IETF, Dec. 2002, pp. 1-64. |
Housley et al., “Internet x.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile,” The Internet Society's Network Working Group, Jan. 1999. |
Moshchuk, Alexander, et al., “SpyProxy: Execution-based Detection of Malicious Web Content,” 2007, pp. 27-42. |
Nesi, et al., “A Protection Processor for MPEG-21 Players,” In Proceedings of ICME, 2006, pp. 1357-1360. |
Ylonen et al., “The Secure Shell (SSH) Authentication Protocol,” Network Working Group, Jan. 2006, 17 pages. RFC-4252. |
Zhu, Yunpu, “A New Architecture for Secure Two-Party Mobile Payment Transactions,” Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of the University of Lethbridge, Master of Science, 2010, 240 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150058990 A1 | Feb 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61770662 | Feb 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14074153 | Nov 2013 | US |
Child | 14530529 | US |