Dynamic content activation for automated analysis of embedded objects

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9438613
  • Patent Number
    9,438,613
  • Date Filed
    Monday, March 30, 2015
    9 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, September 6, 2016
    8 years ago
Abstract
According to one embodiment, a threat detection platform is integrated with at least one virtual machine that automatically performs a dynamic analysis of a received document object and monitors the processing during the dynamic analysis. The dynamic analysis includes a detection of embedded objects and may automatically process the embedded objects, while maintaining a context of the embedding, within the virtual machine processing the document object. The virtual machine may monitor the processing of both the document object and the embedded object. The results of the processing may be analyzed to determine whether the document object includes malware and/or a threat level of the document object.
Description
FIELD

Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the field of cyber security. More specifically, embodiments of the disclosure relate to a system for detecting anomalous, or more specifically, malicious behavior by detecting and launching embedded objects within a virtual machine.


GENERAL BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, malicious software has become a pervasive problem for Internet users as many networked resources include vulnerabilities that are subject to attack. For instance, over the past few years, more and more vulnerabilities are being discovered in software that is loaded onto endpoint devices present on the network. These vulnerabilities may be exploited by allowing a third-party, e.g., through computer software, to gain access to one or more areas within the network not typically accessible. For example, a third-party may exploit a software vulnerability to gain unauthorized access to email accounts and/or data files.


While some software vulnerabilities continue to be addressed through software patches, prior to the release of such software patches, network devices will continue to be targeted for attack through software vulnerabilities and/or by exploits, namely malicious computer code that attempts to acquire sensitive information, adversely influence, or attack normal operations of the network device or the entire enterprise network by taking advantage of a vulnerability in computer software.


In particular, malware is often placed in objects embedded in network traffic. For example, a portable document file (PDF) document (document object) may be received as part of network traffic and include a second PDF document embedded therein. Current malware detection systems have difficulty detecting the embedded object, especially if the embedded object is not present on the default view (e.g., the first page of a PDF document) of the document object during the malware detection process. For example, current malware detection systems may have difficulty detecting an embedded object that is located on page 50 of an 80 page PDF document, due to, in part, time constraints in analyzing the object.


Additionally, even if current malware detection systems are able to detect an embedded object within a document object, the presence of the embedded object is merely used as one characteristic of the document object. Current malware detection systems typically do not process the embedded object to determine whether the embedded object is itself malicious.


Therefore, current malware detection systems may provide false negatives and/or false positives because a full understanding of the maliciousness of the embedded object is not obtained. Numerous false negatives are reported when the document object is non-malicious, one of the embedded objects is malicious but the mere presence of the embedded object is not sufficient to cause the malware detection system to determine the document object is malicious. Since current malware detection systems do not process the embedded object, the maliciousness goes undetected. Similarly, numerous false positives are reported when the document object and the embedded object are both non-malicious but the mere presence of the embedded object causes the malware detection system to determine the document object is malicious.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Embodiments of the invention are illustrated by way of example and not by way of limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings, in which like references indicate similar elements and in which:



FIG. 1 is an exemplary block diagram of a network deploying a plurality of threat detection platforms (TDPs) deploying the invention.



FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an exemplary dynamic analysis engine within the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1.



FIG. 3 is an exemplary block diagram of logic associated with the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1.



FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary method for analyzing an object with the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1.



FIG. 5 is an illustration of a first exemplary illustrative flow for detecting an embedded object with the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1.



FIG. 6 is an illustration of a second exemplary illustrative flow for detecting an embedded object with the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1.



FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary method for launching a detected embedded object with the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Various embodiments of the disclosure relate to a threat detection platform (TDP) that improves malware detection, particularly, in the case of malware including embedded objects (wherein “malware” may collectively refer to exploits and/or malicious code). In one embodiment of the disclosure, the TDP determines whether an object is embedded within a document object through a dynamic analysis of the document object, and the embedded object, within a virtual run-time environment. Herein, the virtual run-time environment features one or more virtual machine instances (VMs), which may be provisioned with a guest image associated with a prescribed software profile. Each guest image may include a software application and/or an operating system (OS). Each guest image may further include one or more monitors, namely software components that are configured to observe and capture run-time behavior of an object under analysis during processing within the virtual machine. In another embodiment, the TDP may also perform a static analysis of the document object and/or embedded object (e.g., rules-based analysis using heuristics and/or comparisons of one or more signatures).


Herein, each VM may be configured with a guest image to simulate a particular endpoint device. Specifically, each VM may be configured with different operating systems, different applications, different versions of a common operating system and/or different versions of a common application. Herein, each VM may include a Dynamic Content Analyzer that includes a launcher, an identification agent and an activation agent. When a document object is received by a VM for dynamic analysis, the launcher launches the document object in a first application based on the object-type of the document object. The launcher may launch the document object in several versions of the first application within the VM. When malware in a document object is not detected within a predetermined amount of time of processing, the Dynamic Content Analyzer selects a version of the first application and determines whether an object is embedded therein by employing an automation framework interface to query the document object model of the document object. The employment of the automation framework interface of the application will be discussed in detail below. Depending on the object-type of a detected embedded object, the Dynamic Content Analyzer may evoke the automation framework interface of the application to activate the embedded object (e.g., launch the embedded object) in the VM. The embedded object is then processed in the VM. The level of maliciousness of the embedded object may then be attributed to the document object when determining whether the document object is malicious.


I. TERMINOLOGY

In the following description, certain terminology is used to describe features of the invention. For example, in certain situations, both terms “logic” and “engine” are representative of hardware, firmware and/or software that is configured to perform one or more functions. As hardware, logic (or engine) may include circuitry having data processing or storage functionality. Examples of such circuitry may include, but are not limited or restricted to a microprocessor, one or more processor cores, a programmable gate array, a microcontroller, a controller, an application specific integrated circuit, wireless receiver, transmitter and/or transceiver circuitry, semiconductor memory, or combinatorial logic.


Logic (or engine) may be software in the form of one or more software modules, such as executable code in the form of an executable application, an application programming interface (API), a subroutine, a function, a procedure, an applet, a servlet, a routine, source code, object code, a shared library/dynamic link library, or one or more instructions. These software modules may be stored in any type of a suitable non-transitory storage medium, or transitory storage medium (e.g., electrical, optical, acoustical or other form of propagated signals such as carrier waves, infrared signals, or digital signals). Examples of non-transitory storage medium may include, but are not limited or restricted to a programmable circuit; a semiconductor memory; non-persistent storage such as volatile memory (e.g., any type of random access memory “RAM”); persistent storage such as non-volatile memory (e.g., read-only memory “ROM”, power-backed RAM, flash memory, phase-change memory, etc.), a solid-state drive, hard disk drive, an optical disc drive, or a portable memory device. As firmware, the executable code is stored in persistent storage.


An “exploit” may be construed broadly as information (e.g., executable code, data, command(s), etc.) that attempts to take advantage of a software vulnerability and/or an action by a person gaining unauthorized access to one or more areas of a network device to cause the network device to experience undesirable or anomalous behaviors. The undesirable or anomalous behaviors may include a communication-based anomaly or an execution-based anomaly, which, for example, could (1) alter the functionality of an network device executing application software in an atypical manner (a file is opened by a first process where the file is configured to be opened by a second process and not the first process); (2) alter the functionality of the network device executing that application software without any malicious intent; and/or (3) provide unwanted functionality which may be generally acceptable in another context.


The term “object” generally refers to a collection of data, whether in transit (e.g., over a network) or at rest (e.g., stored), often having a logical structure or organization that enables it to be classified for purposes of analysis. An “object” may be referred to as having a known-formatted structure that may be set-forth in specifications promulgated by, for example, one or more corporate entities and/or standardization organizations. Examples of known-formatted structures include, but are not limited or restricted to, the structures set forth by Microsoft® Office applications such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc., the structure of a PDF, the structure of a Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) file, the structure of an Extensible Markup Language (XML) files, the structure of Microsoft® Compiled HTML Help (CHM) files, the structure of Rich Text Format (RTF) files, the structure of Hanword files (Korean word processing file), etc.


During analysis, for example, the object may exhibit a set of expected characteristics and, during processing, a set of expected behaviors. The object may also include an embedded object, which may in turn provide evidence that the object should be classified as malicious.


The term “document object” should be interpreted as an object that is not natively executable and that potentially includes an embedded object. For example, an object may be received in network traffic and provided to a threat detection platform for static and/or dynamic analysis such that a determination as to whether the object is malicious may be made. The object received in network traffic and provided to the threat detection platform may be referred to as a “document object.” Further, static and/or dynamic analysis may detect that an object is embedded within the document object. Hereinafter, the object embedded in the document object will be referred to as an “embedded object.” Furthermore, for purposes of the invention, a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) should be interpreted as an embedded object. In another embodiment, the document object may be included in content stored in persistent storage, such as portable flash drives and/or hard disk drives accessed via a communication interface.


The term “network device” should be construed as any electronic device with the capability of connecting to a network. Such a network may be a public network such as the Internet or a private network such as a wireless data telecommunication network, wide area network, a type of local area network (LAN), or a combination of networks. Examples of a network device may include, but are not limited or restricted to, a laptop, a mobile phone, a tablet, a computer, etc.


A “platform” generally refers to an electronic device which network connectivity that typically includes a housing that protects, and sometimes encases, circuitry with data processing and/or data storage. Examples of a platform may include a server or an endpoint device that may include, but is not limited or restricted to a stationary or portable computer including a desktop computer, laptop, electronic reader, netbook or tablet; a smart phone; a video-game console; or wearable technology (e.g., watch phone, etc.).


The terms “suspicious” and “malicious” may both represent a probability (or level of confidence) that the object is associated with a malicious attack. For instance, the probability may be based, at least in part, on (i) pattern matches; (ii) analyzed deviations in messaging practices set forth in applicable communication protocols (e.g., HTTP, TCP, etc.) and/or proprietary document specifications (e.g., Adobe PDF document specification); (iii) analyzed compliance with certain message formats established for the protocol (e.g., out-of-order commands); (iv) analyzed header or payload parameters to determine compliance, (v) attempts to communicate with external servers during dynamic processing, and/or (vi) attempts to access memory allocated to the application processing the document object.


Lastly, the terms “or” and “and/or” as used herein are to be interpreted as inclusive or meaning any one or any combination. Therefore, “A, B or C” or “A, B and/or C” mean “any of the following: A; B; C; A and B; A and C; B and C; A, B and C.” An exception to this definition will occur only when a combination of elements, functions, steps or acts are in some way inherently mutually exclusive.


The invention may be utilized for detecting malware, specifically malware including embedded objects. As this invention is susceptible to embodiments of many different forms, it is intended that the present disclosure is to be considered as an example of the principles of the invention and not intended to limit the invention to the specific embodiments shown and described.


II. GENERAL ARCHITECTURES OF THREAT DETECTION PLATFORM

Referring to FIG. 1, an exemplary block diagram of a network 100 deploying a plurality of threat detection platforms (TDPs) 1101-110N (N>1, where N=3 for this embodiment) communicatively coupled to a management system 107 via a network 106 is shown. In general, the management system 107 is adapted to manage each TDP 1101-1103. For instance, the management system 107 may be configured to provide content updates (e.g., upload new rules/signatures or modified rules/signatures, delete rules/signatures, modify parameters that are utilized by the rules/signatures) to logic included within each of the TDP 1101-1103.


As shown in FIG. 1, a first TDP 1101 is an electronic device that is adapted to analyze information associated with incoming data (e.g., network traffic, input data over a communication network 102, input data from another type of transmission medium, etc.) from/to one or more endpoint devices 130. In this illustrative embodiment, the communication network 102 may include a public network such as the Internet, a private network (e.g., a local area network “LAN”, wireless LAN, etc.), or a combination thereof.


According to the embodiment of FIG. 1, the first TDP 1101 may be communicatively coupled with one or more endpoint devices 104 (hereinafter referred to as “endpoint device(s)”). As shown, the first TDP 1101 may be communicatively coupled with the network 102 via the communication interface 111, which directs signaling on the communication network 102 to the scheduler 112 which in turn directs signaling to the static analysis engine 120, the dynamic analysis engine 130 and/or the storage device 113. The communication interface 111 is configured to receive at least a portion of network traffic propagating to/from the endpoint device(s) 104 and provide information associated with the received portion of the network traffic to the first TDP 1101. This information may include metadata and may be a portion of the received network traffic or a duplicated copy of the portion of the received network traffic. The metadata may be used, at least in part, to determine protocols, application types and other information that may be subsequently used by logic, such as the scheduler 112 for example, to configure one or more VM1-VMK (K≧1) with selected software profiles. For instance, the metadata may be used to determine which software images (e.g., application(s)), if any, and/or operating systems to be fetched from the storage device 113 for configuring operability of the VM1-VMK.


Alternatively, although not shown, the communication interface 111 may be configured to receive files or other objects that are not provided over a network. For instance, as an example, the communication interface 111 may be a data capturing device that automatically (or on command), accessing data stored in a storage system or another type of interface, such as a port, for receiving objects manually provided via a suitable dedicated communication link or from storage media such as portable flash drives. Additionally, although not shown, the communication interface 111 may be integrated into an intermediary device in the communication path (e.g., a firewall, router, switch or other networked electronic device) or may be a standalone component, such as a commercially available network tap.


As further shown in FIG. 1, the first TDP 1101 comprises the communication interface 111, the static analysis engine 120, the dynamic analysis engine 130, the classification engine 140 and the reporting engine 150. Herein, the communication interface 111 receives an object from the network 102 and converts the object into a format, as needed or appropriate, on which analysis by the static analysis engine 120 may be conducted. This conversion may involve decompression of the object, decompilation of the object, extraction of specific data associated with the object, and/or emulation of the extracted data (like Javascript™).


The static analysis engine 120 may include one or more controllers (e.g., processing circuitry such as one or more processors) that feature, at least, heuristics logic 121 and signature matching logic 122. Further, the static analysis engine 120 may include one or more software modules that, when executed by the controller(s), analyzes characteristics associated with the object, which may be a portion of network traffic (or downloaded data) according to an embodiment of the disclosure. Such static analysis may include one or more checks being conducted on the object without its execution. Examples of the checks may include (i) heuristics, performed by the heuristic logic 121, which are based on rules or policies as applied to the object and may determine whether one or more portions of the object are associated with anomalous or suspicious characteristics associated with known malware (e.g., a particular URL associated with known malware, or a particular source or destination address etc.); and/or (ii) signature matching, performed by the signature matching logic 122, which may include determinative rule-based analysis such as comparisons with entries on a blacklist and/or a whitelist.


The static analysis engine 120 may route the object to the virtual run-time environment 131 within the dynamic analysis engine 130. The virtual run-time environment 131 may include a virtual machine monitor (VMM) 132, a storage device 133 and the VM1-VMK (K≧1). The virtual run-time environment 131 provides for the processing of an object in one or more VM1-VMK managed by the VMM 132.


The classification engine 140 may be configured to receive the static analysis results (e.g., results from a static analysis, metadata associated with the incoming network traffic, etc.) and/or the dynamic analysis results stored in the storage device 133. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the classification engine 140 comprises the prioritization logic 141 and the score determination logic 142. The score determination logic 142 is configured to determine a probability (or level of confidence) that the document object is part of a malicious attack. More specifically, based on the dynamic analysis of the document object and a detected embedded object, the score determination logic 142 generates a value that may be used, in part, to identify the likelihood that the document object is part of a malicious attack.


The prioritization logic 141 may be configured to apply weighting to results provided from dynamic analysis engine 130 and/or static analysis engine 120. Thereafter, the classification engine 140 may route classification results comprising the weighting and/or prioritization applied to the static analysis results and dynamic analysis results to the reporting engine 150. The classification results may include the classification of any malware detected into a family of malware, describe the malware and further include the metadata associated with any object(s) within which the malware were detected.


As shown in FIG. 1, the reporting engine 150 includes an alert generation logic 151 and a classification storage 152. The reporting engine 150 is adapted to receive information from the classification engine 140 and generate alerts 153 that identify to a user of an endpoint device, network administrator or an expert network analyst that the object is associated with a malicious attack. The alerts may include various types of messages, which may include text messages and/or email messages, video or audio stream, or other types of information over a wired or wireless communication path. The reporting engine 150 features an optional user interface 154 (e.g., touch pad, keyed inputs, etc.) for customization as to the reporting configuration. In addition, the reporting engine 150 may store the classification results in the classification storage 153 for future reference.


Although FIG. 1 illustrates the TDP 1101 as a dedicated network device and the discussion of FIG. 1 explains examples based on an object received by the communication interface 111, the TDP 1101 may be implemented on an endpoint device. In such an embodiment, prior to actual execution of the object, the TDP 1101 may launch the object in a sandboxed environment and conduct simulated human interaction and simulated device controls. Responsive to non-anomalous behaviors by the object, the endpoint is allowed to utilize the object. In addition, the TDP 1101 may be implemented in the cloud computing services 105, where the below described simulated human and device control interactions may be fully or partially conducted therein.


Referring now to FIG. 2, a block diagram of the virtual run-time environment 131 of the dynamic analysis engine 130 within the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1 is shown. The virtual run-time environment 131, as mentioned above, provides for the processing of an object through one or more of the VM1-VMK. As shown, the VM1 may be provisioned with a monitoring logic 220 and a Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 that includes a launcher 211, an identification agent 212 and an activation agent 213. Additionally, the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 may launch one or more applications 2011-201p (where P≧1) when processing a document object 202, wherein each application includes an automation framework interface 204. Herein, the term “processing” may include launching an embedded object wherein launching should be interpreted as placing the embedded object in an activated state (e.g., opening an embedded object having an object-type of a Word® document using Microsoft® Word). As such, “processing” may include launching the embedded object and performing processing on the activated embedded object including, for example, scrolling through one or more pages, changing between one or more slides or sheets, adding text to the activated embedded object, or the like.


In one embodiment, an instance of the monitoring logic 220 is located within each of the one or more VM1-VMK. In particular, the monitoring logic 220 may monitor the launching process of the document object 202 within the VM1, the processing of the document object 202, the launching process of one or more embedded objects 203 detected within the VM1 and the processing of the one or more embedded objects 203. In one embodiment, the monitoring logic 220 may track the processing of each application (e.g., multiple versions of the application) by the process identification (PID) of the application.


As shown, the monitoring logic 220 is included within each of the VM1-VMK. In an alternative embodiment, the monitoring logic 220 may be located in the virtual run-time environment 131 wherein a single instance of the monitoring logic 220 may monitor the processing within each of the VM1-VMK.


The storage device 133 may store the processing results of each of the VM1-VMK. The results of each of the VM1-VMK may include, at least, identifying information of the document object 202, details of the one or more versions of the application used to launch and process the document object 202, identifying information of a detected embedded object 203 and/or details of the launching and processing of the embedded object 203. Additionally, the storage device 133 may optionally store a configuration file 230. As will be discussed below, the configuration file 230 may include information setting forth, among other information, one or more versions of an application with which to process the document object 202, a version of the application processing the document object 202 to select when determining whether an embedded object 203 is present, a predetermined amount of processing time to process the document object 202 prior to determining whether an embedded object 203 is present, a priority ordering of object-types for activating embedded objects and/or a predefined list of embedded object-types that should be processed.


Referring to FIG. 3, an exemplary block diagram of logic associated with the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1 is shown. The TDP 1101 includes one or more processors 300 that are coupled to the communication interface logic 310 via a first transmission medium 320. Communication interface logic 310 enables communication with the TDPs 1102-1103 and the management system of 107 of FIG. 1. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the communication interface logic 310 may be implemented as a physical interface including one or more ports for wired connectors. Additionally, or in the alternative, communication interface logic 310 may be implemented with one or more radio units for supporting wireless communications with other network devices.


The one or more processors 300 are further coupled to the persistent storage 315 via the transmission medium 325. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the persistent storage 315 may include (i) the static analysis engine 120 including the heuristics logic 121 and the signature matching logic 122; (ii) the virtual run-time environment 131 including the VM1-VMK and the virtual machine manager (VMM) 132; (iii) the classification engine 140; and (iv) the reporting engine 150. Of course, when implemented as hardware (such as circuitry and/or programmable logic arrays), one or more of these logic units could be implemented separately from each other. In addition, one or more of these logic units may be implemented in hardware while one or more logic units may be implemented as software.


III. OPERATIONAL FLOW OF THE THREAT DETECTION PLATFORM

Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart illustrating an exemplary method for analyzing a document object with the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1 is shown. Each block illustrated in FIG. 4 represents an operation performed in the method 400 of detecting malware based on the use of TDP 1101 of FIG. 1 wherein a document object under analysis includes an embedded object. At block 401, the TDP 1101 receives a document object to analyze and provides the document object to the VM1. At block 402, the document object is launched in the VM1 with one or more versions of a first application. For example, when the document object is a PDF document, multiple versions of Adobe® Reader® may be used to launch and process the document object. In such an example, the document object may be launched using Reader® 9.5, Reader® 10.0, Reader® 10.1 and Reader® 11.0.


At block 403, the document object is processed in each of the one or more versions of the first application for a predetermined amount of time to determine whether suspicious activity is observed. For example, an observation of suspicious activity may include, but is not limited or restricted to, detection of the detonation of an exploit, detection of a software vulnerability, activation of a macro and/or observation of anomalous behavior as a result of processing the document object 202. When no suspicious activity is observed within the predetermined amount of time, the identification agent 212 of the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 (1) selects one of the versions of the application processing the document object 202 and (2) employs an automation framework interface to query the document object model (DOM) of the object-type of the document object 202 to determine whether the document object 202 includes an embedded object 203. The DOM of an object-type is a standardized structure to which the structure of an object of the object-type adheres.


In one embodiment, the Document Content Analyzer 210 may determine which version of the application processing the document object 202 to select based on information set forth in the configuration file 230. In a second embodiment, the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 may include logic to select based on the versions processing the document object 202. The Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 may select the version processing the document object 202 most likely to include one or more vulnerabilities or the most prevalently used version by one or more corporate entities. In one embodiment, the oldest version of the application processing the document object 202 may be the most likely to include one or more vulnerabilities. In a second embodiment, the version including the least up-to-date software patch may be the most likely to include one or more vulnerabilities. Alternatively, the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 may make the selection based on information included in the configuration file 230.


In one embodiment, the automation framework interface may be one or more software functions and/or a shared library (e.g., a dynamically linked library (DLL)) corresponding to the application processing the document object 202. The Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 may determine whether the document object 202 includes an embedded object 203 by employing the automation framework interface to query the document object model wherein the components of the document object 202 (e.g., nodes) are set forth in a predefined structure (e.g., in a tree structure such as a DOM tree) according to the object-type of the document object 202. In particular, the automation framework interface is loaded into the VM1 as part of the configuration of the VM1 with the application processing the document object 202. By employing the automation framework interface to query the DOM of the document object 202, the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 is provided with query results that include a list of all embedded objects 2031-203N that are present in the document object 202 as well as pointers to each embedded object. The pointers to each of the embedded objects 2031-203N may be maintained in a table, which may be stored by the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 in the storage 133. As discussed above, the query results also provide the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 with metadata of each of the embedded objects 2031-203N.


At block 404, the identification agent 212 receives query results detailing metadata of the embedded object 203 including an object-type of the embedded object 203 and the location of the embedded object 203 within the document object 202. In one embodiment, the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 may direct focus of the processing of the document object 202 to a portion of the document object 202 that includes the embedded object 203. For example, when an embedded object is detected on page 50 of a Microsoft® Word document, the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 may analyze page 50 of the Word document as the activation agent 213 launches the embedded object.


At block 405, based on the query results, the identification agent 212 determines whether the embedded object 203 is of the object-type that should be processed within the VM1. In one embodiment, whether the embedded object is of the object-type that should be processed with the VM1 may be derived based on a predetermined set of object-types set forth in the configuration file 230. At block 406, when the embedded object 203 is of the object-type that should be processed, the activation agent 213 launches the embedded object 203 in a second application by employing the automation framework interface of the first application. The second application used to launch and process the embedded object 203 is dependent on the object-type of the embedded object 203. Therefore, in one embodiment, the application-type of second application used to launch and process the embedded object 203 may be the same application-type as the first application used to launch and process the document object 202 (e.g., the document object 202 and the embedded object 203 are of the same object-type). In a second embodiment, the application-type of the second application may be the different than the application-type of the first application (e.g., the document object 202 and the embedded object 203 are of different object-types).


In an illustrative example, the document object 202 may be a Microsoft® Word document (e.g., a document of a text processor) that includes a PDF document as an embedded object 203. Initially, the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 (or specifically, the launcher 211) may launch the Word document (the document object 202) in one or more versions of Microsoft® Word. Microsoft® Word provides access to the automation framework interface, “Automation,” based on a documented format (e.g., based on the object-type of the document object 202). Automation may be used to determine the presence of the embedded object 203 (the PDF document) based on query results received from the document object model of Word. Automation may then utilize a packager tool to launch the embedded object 203. The packager tool is provided as part of the installation package of Microsoft® Office applications by default and performs, inter alia, (1) operations to embed an object and (2) operations to launch an embedded object. Therein, the packager tool may launch the embedded object 203 in a version of Adobe® Reader based on information included in the object package containing the embedded object. An object package is created by the packager tool in order to embed an object. In this example, the packager tool within Word would have created an object package in order to embed the PDF document within the Word document.


The packager tool may launch the embedded object 203 while maintaining the context of the embedding in the document object 202. The context of the embedding in the document object 202 may include, but is not limited or restricted to, activation from the application in which the embedded object 203 is embedded, any links between the embedded object 203 and the application in which the embedded object 203 is embedded, the name of the embedded object 203 and/or version information of the application used to launch the embedded object 203. Launching the embedded object 203 without maintaining the context of the embedding in the document object 202 may alter the embedded object 203 by, for example, modifying the name of the embedded object 203 and/or altering any links between the embedded object 203 and the application in which the embedded object 203 is embedded (e.g., malware may require the embedded object 203 to launch from a certain application and/or version in order to detonate). An alteration may in turn signal to malware not to detonate and thus allow the malware to go undetected.


At block 407, the monitoring logic 220 monitors the processing of both the document object 202 and the embedded object 203. Additionally, the monitoring logic 220 may store processing details in the storage device 133, via the VMM 132. For example, the monitoring logic 220 may record, inter alia, any actions performed by the document object 202 and/or the embedded object 203 (e.g., copying data, attempts to access storage locations, attempts to establish an external server, etc.), any requests for human interaction made during the processing of the document object 202 and/or the embedded object 203, and/or any results of simulated human interaction. Additionally, the monitoring logic 220 may store time stamps for all records made and PIDs of each application.


At block 408, the results of the processing of the document object 202 and the embedded object 203 may be provided to the score determination logic 142 of the classification engine 140. The score determination logic 142 may generate a score of suspiciousness and/or maliciousness for the document object 202 based on the processing results of the document object 202 and/or the embedded object 203.


At block 409, optionally, an alert may be generated by the alert generation logic 151 when an object is determined to be malicious and/or suspicious. The alert may notify one or more of a user of an endpoint device, a network administrator and/or an expert network analyst of the malware included in the object and, if applicable, the family of malware to which the detected malware belongs.


Additionally, the identification agent 212 may detect one or more embedded objects in the document object 202. Each of the embedded objects may be of the same object-type or one or more of the embedded objects may be of a different object-type. For example, a document object may include a PDF document and a Microsoft® Word document as embedded objects. When a plurality of embedded objects are detected, the embedded objects are activated selectively by the activation agent 213. In one embodiment, the activation agent 213 may determine an order of activating the plurality of embedded objects. The determination may be made based on, for example, the object-type of each embedded object wherein the ordering of the object-types is set-forth in the configuration file 230. In a second embodiment, the activation agent 213 may activate all of the detected embedded objects simultaneously.


Furthermore, an embedded object may include one or more embedded objects. Therefore, when an embedded object is launched for processing, the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 may detect one or more secondary embedded objects. The Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 may determine whether to launch one or more of the secondary embedded objects (or any objects detected while processing a secondary embedded object) based on the configuration file 230. The configuration file 230, as discussed above, may be stored in, for example the storage device 133 or the storage device 113. In addition, the configuration file 230 may be updated by, for example, information received from the management system 107 and/or from the cloud computing services 105. Additionally, the configuration file 230 may set forth a predetermined amount of processing time the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 should wait while detecting suspicious activity prior to selecting a version of the application processing the document object 202 for analysis for embedded objects (as discussed below).


A. Detection Phase


Referring now to FIG. 5, an illustration of a first exemplary illustrative flow for detecting an embedded object with the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1 is shown. Herein, a document object 202 has been provided to the VM1 for dynamic analysis. The launcher 211 of the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 launches the document object 202 in one or more instances of a first application 2011-201p (wherein P≧1).


After a predetermined amount of time has passed and no suspicious activity has been observed, the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 selects one application instance (e.g., one version of the application) to check for embedded objects therein. As discussed above, in one embodiment, the version of the application may be selected based on reference to the configuration file 230 that may be stored in, for example, the storage device 133 or the storage device 113. In a second embodiment, e.g., in the absence of a predetermined version set forth in a configuration file, the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 may select a version of the application, as discussed above.


The identification agent 212 employs an automation framework interface to query the document object model of the document object 202. The query returns whether the document object 202 includes one or more embedded objects 2031-203N and metadata of each of the one or more embedded objects 2031-203N. The metadata may include the application processing the document object 202, the object-type of the embedded object 2031-203N, the name of the embedded object 2031-203N, the location of the embedded object 2031-203N, and/or one or more attributes of the embedded object 2031-203N (e.g., enable, visible, play, loop, width, height). Additionally, the metadata may be stored in, for example, an event log in the storage device 133 and/or the storage device 113.


The identification agent 212 of the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 determines whether one or more of the embedded objects 2031-203N are of the object-type that should be further processed based on a predefined list of object-types set-forth in the configuration file 230. When an embedded object 203N is not of an object-type that is to be further processed, the presence of the embedded object 203N is stored by the monitoring logic 220 in, for example, the storage device 133 for use in the determination as to whether the document object 202 is malicious.


When one or more embedded objects 2031-203N are detected within the document object 202 and are of the object-type that should be further processed, the activation agent 213 launches one or more of the embedded object 2031-203N that are of the object-type to be processed further. In one embodiment, the embedded objects 2031-203N may be launched concurrently (wherein, the term “concurrently” should be interrupted as “at least partially overlapping at the same time”). In a second embodiment, the embedded objects 2031-203N may be launched in a serial manner. Each of the VM1-VMK is configured with the applications needed to process embedded objects of the object-types included in the predefined list of object-types that should be further processed.


Referring to FIG. 6, an illustration of a second exemplary illustrative flow for detecting an embedded object with the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1 is shown. FIG. 6 illustrates a detailed embodiment of the exemplary illustrative flow of FIG. 5. Herein, a document object 202 (e.g., a Microsoft® Word document) has been provided to the VM1 for dynamic analysis. The launcher 211 of the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 launches the Word document 202 in a plurality of instances of Microsoft® Word 2011-201p (wherein P=3 for this example). In the embodiment shown, the launcher 211 launched the Word document 202 in a plurality of versions including Microsoft® Word 2003, Microsoft® Word 2007 and Microsoft® Word 2010. Additionally, as illustrated, each version of Microsoft® Word is seen to include an automation framework interface. For example, when the document object 202 is a Word document, the document object 202 may be launched and processed with Microsoft® Word running in a Windows operating system. Windows operating systems provide an automation framework interface referred to as “Automation” (or “OLE Automation”), which is able to access the document object model through Component Object Model (COM) interfaces.


After a predetermined amount of time has passed and suspicious activity has not been observed, the identification agent 212 of the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 selects one application instance (e.g., one version of the application) to check for embedded objects therein. In one embodiment, the version of the application may be selected based on reference to the configuration file 230. In a second embodiment, e.g., in the absence of a predetermined version set forth in the configuration file 230, the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 may select a version of the application (e.g., Word 2003).


The identification agent 212 of the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 employs an automation framework interface to query the document object model of the document object 202. The query returns whether the document object 202 includes one or more embedded objects 2031-203N and metadata of each of the one or more embedded objects 2031-203N including the object-type of each of the one or more embedded objects 2031-203N and the location of each of the one or more embedded objects 2031-203N.


When the embedded PDF object 2031 is detected within the Word document 202, the identification agent 212 determines whether the object-type of the embedded PDF object 2031 (PDF) is of the type that should be further processed. In one embodiment, the determination of whether an embedded object is of the object-type that should be further processed may be made based on reference to the configuration file 230. For example, the configuration file 230 may include a predefined set of object-types that should be further processed.


When the embedded PDF object 2031 is not of the type that should be further processed, the TDP 1101 includes the presence of the embedded object 203 in the determination of whether the document object 202 is malicious. In the case that the object-type is not recognized by the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210, a notification may be generated by the alert generation 151 and provided to a network administrator and/or an expert network analyst.


Upon determining the embedded PDF object 2031 is of the type that should be further processed, the activation agent 213 launches the embedded object 2031. The activation agent 213 launches the embedded object 2031 within the VM1, while maintaining a context of the embedding of the embedded PDF object 2031 within the Word document by utilizing a packager tool, as discussed above.


Once the embedded PDF object 2031 has been launched, the monitoring logic 220 monitors both the Word document processing in the selected version of Microsoft® Word as well as the embedded PDF object 2031 processing in Adobe® Reader. As discussed above, processing information may be stored by the monitoring logic 220 in an event log included in the storage device 133 and/or the storage device 113 and provided, or made available, to the score determination logic 142 in the classification engine 140. Herein, the processing information of the embedded PDF object 2031 that is monitored and stored by the monitoring logic 220 may be used in the determination of a threat level (e.g., “suspicious,” “malicious,” or “benign”) or a score representing the maliciousness of the Word document 202. By processing the embedded PDF object 2031 instead of merely using the presence of an embedded object included in the Word document 202 as factor in determining the maliciousness of the Word document 202, the TDP 1101 may obtain a more complete understanding of the maliciousness of the Word document 202. Therefore, by processing the embedded PDF object 2031 and detecting malware therein, the TDP 1101 may determine the Word document 202 is malicious, although the analysis of the processing of the Word document 202 within one or more of the instances of Microsoft® Word 2011-2013 did not detect malware.


B. Activation Phase


Referring to FIG. 7, a flowchart illustrating an exemplary method for launching a detected embedded object with the TDP 1101 of FIG. 1 is shown. Each block illustrated in FIG. 7 represents an operation performed in the method 700 of launching a detected embedded object 203 within a document object 202 based on the use of TDP 1101 of FIG. 1 wherein a document object 202 under analysis includes an embedded object 203. At block 701, the activation agent 213 of the Dynamic Content Analyzer 210 is notified by the identification agent 213 that an embedded object 203 that requires processing is included in the document object 202. As discussed above, the identification agent 213 employs an automation framework interface to query the document object model.


At block 702, the activation agent 213 launches the embedded object 203 by employing the automation framework interface. Specifically, the embedded object 203 is launched while maintaining the context of the embedding of the embedded object 203 within the document object 202.


At block 703, the monitoring logic 220 monitors the processing of the document object 202 and the embedded object 203. At block 704, the monitoring logic 220 may store processing information according to each of the document object 202 and the embedded object 203 by association with the PIDs of each of the applications performing processing. The processing information may be stored in, for example, the storage device 133.


At block 705, the score determination logic 142 of the classification engine may be provided with the processing information. The score determination 142 may determine the maliciousness of the document object 202 based on the processing information of the document object 202 and/or the processing information of the embedded object 203, in addition to a static analysis result provided by the static analysis engine 120, if applicable. Additionally, the classification engine 140 may determine a malware family to which detected malware belongs.


Finally, at block 706, optionally, an alert may be generated by the alert generation logic 151 when an object is determined to be malicious and/or suspicious. The alert may notify one or more of a user of an endpoint device, a network administrator and/or an expert network analyst of the malware included in the object and, if applicable, the family of malware to which the detected malware belongs.


In the foregoing description, the invention is described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments thereof. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims.

Claims
  • 1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon logic that, upon execution by one or more processors implemented within a network device, performs operations during processing of a first object in a virtual machine, comprising: launching the first object in the virtual machine;querying a document object model corresponding to an object-type of the first object to determine whether an embedded object is included in the first object;responsive to querying the document object model, receiving metadata associated with the embedded object, the metadata including an object-type of the embedded object;responsive to determining the object-type of the embedded object is one of a predetermined set of object-types based on the metadata, processing the embedded object in the virtual machine; anddetermining whether at least one of the first object or the embedded object is malicious.
  • 2. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the processing of the embedded object includes launching the embedded object to place the embedded object in an activated state and subsequently processing the activated embedded object.
  • 3. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1 wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: prior to processing the first object in the virtual machine, launching the first object in a plurality of versions of a first application.
  • 4. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 3 wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: monitoring the processing of the first object for suspicious activity; andwhen no suspicious activity has been observed within a predetermined amount of time and prior to querying the document object model, selecting a version of the plurality of versions of the first application to utilize when querying the document object model.
  • 5. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the launching of the embedded object is performed through an automation framework interface.
  • 6. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 5, wherein when the first object is a document of a text processor, the automation framework interface uses a packager tool to launch the embedded object.
  • 7. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein based on the processing of the first object and the processing of the embedded object, a threat level is determined.
  • 8. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein, during the processing of the embedded object, a secondary embedded object is detected within the embedded object.
  • 9. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein, whether processing of the secondary embedded object is performed is determined based on information in a configuration file.
  • 10. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the configuration file may be updated based on information received over a network.
  • 11. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1 wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: storing metadata of the embedded object in an event log.
  • 12. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the metadata is used to generate one or more signatures.
  • 13. A system for detecting malware during processing of a first object in a virtual machine, the system comprising: one or more processors; anda storage module communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the storage module comprising logic executed by the one or more processors, the logic comprising: a launcher that launches the first object in a plurality of versions of the first application processed in the virtual machine;an identification agent that utilizes an automation framework interface to query a document object model corresponding to the object-type of the first object to determine whether an embedded object is included with the first object and to receive metadata of the embedded object based on the query to the document object model, the metadata including an object-type of the embedded object, the identification agent further selects one version of the plurality of versions of the first application to utilize when (i) querying the document object model and (ii) no suspicious activity is observed within a predetermined amount of time; andan activation agent for launching the embedded object in a second application in the virtual machine.
  • 14. The system of claim 13, wherein the activation agent, when launching the embedded object, places the embedded object in an activated state and processes the activated embedded object.
  • 15. The system of claim 13, wherein the identification agent determines the object-type of the embedded object is one of a predetermined set of object-types.
  • 16. The system of claim 13, wherein the activation agent launches the embedded object by utilizing the automation framework interface of the first application.
  • 17. The system of claim 16, wherein when the first object is a document of a text processor, the automation framework interface uses a packager tool to launch the embedded object.
  • 18. The system of claim 13, wherein the first application is dependent on the object-type of the first object and the second application is dependent on the object-type of the embedded object.
  • 19. A computerized method detecting malware associated with a first object being processed in a virtual machine, the method comprising: launching the first object in the virtual machine;querying a document object model corresponding to an object-type of the first object to determine whether an embedded object is included in the first object;receiving metadata associated with the embedded object based on the querying of the document object model, the metadata including an object-type of the embedded object;responsive to determining the object-type of the embedded object is one of a predetermined set of object-types based on the metadata, processing the embedded object in the virtual machine; anddetermining whether at least one of the first object or the embedded object is malicious.
  • 20. The computerized method of claim 19, wherein the processing of the embedded object includes launching the embedded object to place the embedded object in an activated state and subsequently processing the activated embedded object.
  • 21. The computerized method of claim 19 further comprising: prior to processing the first object in the virtual machine, launching the first object in a plurality of versions of a first application.
  • 22. The computerized method of claim 21, wherein when no suspicious activity is observed within a predetermined amount of time, selecting one version of the plurality of versions of the first application to utilize when querying the document object model.
  • 23. The computerized method of claim 21, wherein the launching of the embedded object is performed by utilization of an automation framework interface.
  • 24. The computerized method of claim 23, wherein when the first object is a document of a text processor, the automation framework interface uses a packager tool to launch the embedded object.
  • 25. The computerized method of claim 19, wherein based on the processing of the first object and the processing of the embedded object, a threat level is determined.
  • 26. The computerized method of claim 19, wherein, during the processing of the embedded object, a secondary embedded object is detected within the embedded object.
  • 27. The computerized method of claim 26, wherein, whether processing of the secondary embedded object is performed is determined based on information in a configuration file.
  • 28. The computerized method of claim 27, wherein the configuration file may be updated based on information received over a network.
  • 29. The computerized method of claim 19, further comprising: storing metadata of the embedded object in an event log.
  • 30. The computerized method of claim 29, wherein the metadata is used to generate one or more signatures.
  • 31. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the metadata further includes an object-type of the embedded object, and the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: responsive to determining the location of the embedded object based on the metadata, directing the processing of the first object to a portion of first object including the location of the embedded object, the portion of the first object being less than an entirety of the first object.
  • 32. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the embedded object is a Uniform Resource Locator (URL).
  • 33. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 2, wherein the activating and the processing of the embedded object includes maintaining a context of embedding the embedded object in the first object.
  • 34. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon logic that, upon execution by one or more processors implemented within a network device, performs operations during processing a first object in a virtual machine, comprising: launching the first object in the virtual machine;querying a document object model corresponding to an object-type of the first object to determine whether an embedded object is included in the first object;responsive to querying the document object model, receiving metadata associated with the embedded object, the metadata including a location of the embedded object within the first object;responsive to determining the location of the embedded object based on the metadata, directing processing of the first object to a portion of the first object including the location of the embedded object, the portion of the first object being less than an entirety of the first object;processing the embedded object; anddetermining whether at least one of the first object or the embedded object is malicious.
  • 35. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 34, wherein the processing of the embedded object includes launching the embedded object to place the embedded object in an activated state and subsequently processing the activated embedded object.
  • 36. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 34, wherein the embedded object is a Uniform Resource Locator (URL).
  • 37. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 34 wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: launching the first object in a plurality of versions of a first application.
  • 38. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 37 wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: monitoring the processing of the first object for suspicious activity; andwhen no suspicious activity has been observed within a predetermined amount of time and prior to querying the document object model, selecting a version of the plurality of versions of the first application to utilize when querying the document object model.
  • 39. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 34, wherein the launching of the embedded object is performed through an automation framework interface.
  • 40. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 39, wherein when the first object is a document of a text processor, the automation framework interface uses a packager tool to launch the embedded object.
  • 41. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 34, wherein based on the processing of the first object and the processing of the embedded object, a threat level is determined.
  • 42. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 34, wherein, during the processing of the embedded object, a secondary embedded object is detected within the embedded object.
  • 43. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 42, wherein, whether processing of the secondary embedded object is performed is determined based on information in a configuration file.
  • 44. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 43, wherein the configuration file may be updated based on information received over a network.
  • 45. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 34 wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: storing metadata of the embedded object in an event log.
  • 46. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 45, wherein the metadata is used to generate one or more signatures.
  • 47. A system for detecting malware during processing of a first object in a virtual machine, the system comprising: one or more processors; anda storage module communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the storage module comprising logic executed by the one or more processors, the logic comprising: a launcher that launches the first object in a plurality of versions of the first application processed in the virtual machine;an identification agent that utilizes an automation framework interface to query a document object model corresponding to the object-type of the first object to determine whether an embedded object is included with the first object and to receive metadata of the embedded object based on the query to the document object model, the metadata including a location of the embedded object in the first object, the identification agent further selects one version of the plurality of versions of the first application to utilize when (i) querying the document object model and (ii) no suspicious activity is observed within a predetermined amount of time; andan activation agent for launching the embedded object in a second application in the virtual machine.
  • 48. The system of claim 47, wherein the activation agent, when launching the embedded object, places the embedded object in an activated state for processing within the virtual machine.
  • 49. The system of claim 47, wherein the embedded object is a Uniform Resource Locator (URL).
  • 50. The system of claim 47, wherein the processing of the embedded object includes launching the embedded object to place the embedded object in an activated state and subsequently processing the activated embedded object.
  • 51. The system of claim 47 wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: launching the first object in a plurality of versions of a first application.
  • 52. The system of claim 51 wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: monitoring the processing of the first object for suspicious activity; andwhen no suspicious activity has been observed within a predetermined amount of time and prior to querying the document object model, selecting a version of the plurality of versions of the first application to utilize when querying the document object model.
  • 53. The system of claim 47, wherein the launching of the embedded object is performed through an automation framework interface.
  • 54. The system of claim 53, wherein when the first object is a document of a text processor, the automation framework interface uses a packager tool to launch the embedded object.
  • 55. The system of claim 47, wherein based on the processing of the first object and the processing of the embedded object, a threat level is determined.
  • 56. The system of claim 47, wherein, during the processing of the embedded object, a secondary embedded object is detected within the embedded object.
  • 57. The system of claim 56, wherein, whether processing of the secondary embedded object is performed is determined based on information in a configuration file.
  • 58. The system of claim 57, wherein the configuration file may be updated based on information received over a network.
  • 59. The system of claim 47 wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: storing metadata of the embedded object in an event log.
  • 60. The system of claim 59, wherein the metadata is used to generate one or more signatures.
  • 61. A computerized method detecting malware associated with a first object being processed in a virtual machine, the method comprising: launching the first object in the virtual machine;querying a document object model corresponding to an object-type of the first object to determine whether an embedded object is included in the first object;responsive to querying the document object model, receiving metadata associated with the embedded object, the metadata including a location of the embedded object;responsive to determining the location of the embedded object based on the metadata, directing processing of the first object to a portion of the first object including the location of the embedded object, the portion of the first object being less than an entirety of the first object;processing the embedded object; anddetermining whether at least one of the first object or the embedded object is malicious.
  • 62. The computerized method of claim 61, wherein the processing of the embedded object includes launching the embedded object to place the embedded object in an activated state and subsequently processing the activated embedded object.
  • 63. The computerized method of claim 61, wherein the embedded object is a Uniform Resource Locator (URL).
  • 64. The computerized method of claim 61, wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: prior to processing the first object in the virtual machine, launching the first object in a plurality of versions of a first application.
  • 65. The computerized method of claim 64, wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: monitoring the processing of the first object for suspicious activity; andwhen no suspicious activity has been observed within a predetermined amount of time and prior to querying the document object model, selecting a version of the plurality of versions of the first application to utilize when querying the document object model.
  • 66. The computerized method of claim 61, wherein the launching of the embedded object is performed through an automation framework interface.
  • 67. The computerized method of claim 66, wherein when the first object is a document of a text processor, the automation framework interface uses a packager tool to launch the embedded object.
  • 68. The computerized method of claim 61, wherein based on the processing of the first object and the processing of the embedded object, a threat level is determined.
  • 69. The computerized method of claim 61, wherein, during the processing of the embedded object, a secondary embedded object is detected within the embedded object.
  • 70. The computerized method of claim 69, wherein, whether processing of the secondary embedded object is performed is determined based on information in a configuration file.
  • 71. The computerized method of claim 70, wherein the configuration file may be updated based on information received over a network.
  • 72. The computerized method of claim 61 wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors implemented within the network device, further performs operations comprising: storing metadata of the embedded object in an event log.
  • 73. The computerized method of claim 72, wherein the metadata is used to generate one or more signatures.
US Referenced Citations (586)
Number Name Date Kind
4292580 Ott et al. Sep 1981 A
5175732 Hendel et al. Dec 1992 A
5440723 Arnold et al. Aug 1995 A
5490249 Miller Feb 1996 A
5657473 Killean et al. Aug 1997 A
5842002 Schnurer et al. Nov 1998 A
5978917 Chi Nov 1999 A
6088803 Tso et al. Jul 2000 A
6094677 Capek et al. Jul 2000 A
6108799 Boulay et al. Aug 2000 A
6118382 Hibbs et al. Sep 2000 A
6269330 Cidon et al. Jul 2001 B1
6272641 Ji Aug 2001 B1
6279113 Vaidya Aug 2001 B1
6298445 Shostack et al. Oct 2001 B1
6357008 Nachenberg Mar 2002 B1
6417774 Hibbs et al. Jul 2002 B1
6424627 Sørhaug et al. Jul 2002 B1
6442696 Wray et al. Aug 2002 B1
6484315 Ziese Nov 2002 B1
6487666 Shanklin et al. Nov 2002 B1
6493756 O'Brien et al. Dec 2002 B1
6550012 Villa et al. Apr 2003 B1
6700497 Hibbs et al. Mar 2004 B2
6775657 Baker Aug 2004 B1
6831893 Ben Nun et al. Dec 2004 B1
6832367 Choi et al. Dec 2004 B1
6895550 Kanchirayappa et al. May 2005 B2
6898632 Gordy et al. May 2005 B2
6907396 Muttik et al. Jun 2005 B1
6941348 Petry et al. Sep 2005 B2
6971097 Wallman Nov 2005 B1
6981279 Arnold et al. Dec 2005 B1
6995665 Appelt et al. Feb 2006 B2
7007107 Ivchenko et al. Feb 2006 B1
7028179 Anderson et al. Apr 2006 B2
7043757 Hoefelmeyer et al. May 2006 B2
7069316 Gryaznov Jun 2006 B1
7080407 Zhao et al. Jul 2006 B1
7080408 Pak et al. Jul 2006 B1
7093002 Wolff et al. Aug 2006 B2
7093239 van der Made Aug 2006 B1
7096498 Judge Aug 2006 B2
7100201 Izatt Aug 2006 B2
7107617 Hursey et al. Sep 2006 B2
7159149 Spiegel et al. Jan 2007 B2
7213260 Judge May 2007 B2
7231667 Jordan Jun 2007 B2
7240364 Branscomb et al. Jul 2007 B1
7240368 Roesch et al. Jul 2007 B1
7243371 Kasper et al. Jul 2007 B1
7249175 Donaldson Jul 2007 B1
7287278 Liang Oct 2007 B2
7308716 Danford et al. Dec 2007 B2
7328453 Merkle, Jr. et al. Feb 2008 B2
7346486 Ivancic et al. Mar 2008 B2
7356736 Natvig Apr 2008 B2
7386888 Liang et al. Jun 2008 B2
7392542 Bucher Jun 2008 B2
7418729 Szor Aug 2008 B2
7428300 Drew et al. Sep 2008 B1
7441272 Durham et al. Oct 2008 B2
7448084 Apap et al. Nov 2008 B1
7458098 Judge et al. Nov 2008 B2
7464404 Carpenter et al. Dec 2008 B2
7464407 Nakae et al. Dec 2008 B2
7467408 O'Toole, Jr. Dec 2008 B1
7478428 Thomlinson Jan 2009 B1
7480773 Reed Jan 2009 B1
7487543 Arnold et al. Feb 2009 B2
7496960 Chen et al. Feb 2009 B1
7496961 Zimmer et al. Feb 2009 B2
7519990 Xie Apr 2009 B1
7523493 Liang et al. Apr 2009 B2
7530104 Thrower et al. May 2009 B1
7540025 Tzadikario May 2009 B2
7546638 Anderson et al. Jun 2009 B2
7565550 Liang et al. Jul 2009 B2
7568233 Szor et al. Jul 2009 B1
7584455 Ball Sep 2009 B2
7603715 Costa et al. Oct 2009 B2
7607171 Marsden et al. Oct 2009 B1
7639714 Stolfo et al. Dec 2009 B2
7644441 Schmid et al. Jan 2010 B2
7657419 van der Made Feb 2010 B2
7676841 Sobchuk et al. Mar 2010 B2
7698548 Shelest et al. Apr 2010 B2
7707633 Danford et al. Apr 2010 B2
7712136 Sprosts et al. May 2010 B2
7730011 Deninger et al. Jun 2010 B1
7739740 Nachenberg et al. Jun 2010 B1
7779463 Stolfo et al. Aug 2010 B2
7784097 Stolfo et al. Aug 2010 B1
7832008 Kraemer Nov 2010 B1
7836502 Zhao et al. Nov 2010 B1
7849506 Dansey et al. Dec 2010 B1
7854007 Sprosts et al. Dec 2010 B2
7869073 Oshima Jan 2011 B2
7877803 Enstone et al. Jan 2011 B2
7904959 Sidiroglou et al. Mar 2011 B2
7908660 Bahl Mar 2011 B2
7930738 Petersen Apr 2011 B1
7937761 Bennett May 2011 B1
7949849 Lowe et al. May 2011 B2
7996556 Raghavan et al. Aug 2011 B2
7996836 McCorkendale et al. Aug 2011 B1
7996904 Chiueh et al. Aug 2011 B1
7996905 Arnold et al. Aug 2011 B2
8006305 Aziz Aug 2011 B2
8010667 Zhang et al. Aug 2011 B2
8020206 Hubbard et al. Sep 2011 B2
8028338 Schneider et al. Sep 2011 B1
8042184 Batenin Oct 2011 B1
8045094 Teragawa Oct 2011 B2
8045458 Alperovitch et al. Oct 2011 B2
8069484 McMillan et al. Nov 2011 B2
8087086 Lai et al. Dec 2011 B1
8171553 Aziz et al. May 2012 B2
8176049 Deninger et al. May 2012 B2
8176480 Spertus May 2012 B1
8201072 Matulic Jun 2012 B2
8201246 Wu et al. Jun 2012 B1
8204984 Aziz et al. Jun 2012 B1
8214905 Doukhvalov et al. Jul 2012 B1
8220055 Kennedy Jul 2012 B1
8225288 Miller et al. Jul 2012 B2
8225373 Kraemer Jul 2012 B2
8233882 Rogel Jul 2012 B2
8234640 Fitzgerald et al. Jul 2012 B1
8234709 Viljoen et al. Jul 2012 B2
8239944 Nachenberg et al. Aug 2012 B1
8260914 Ranjan Sep 2012 B1
8266091 Gubin et al. Sep 2012 B1
8286251 Eker et al. Oct 2012 B2
8291198 Mott et al. Oct 2012 B2
8291499 Aziz et al. Oct 2012 B2
8307435 Mann et al. Nov 2012 B1
8307443 Wang et al. Nov 2012 B2
8312545 Tuvell et al. Nov 2012 B2
8321240 Lorsch Nov 2012 B2
8321936 Green et al. Nov 2012 B1
8321941 Tuvell et al. Nov 2012 B2
8332571 Edwards, Sr. Dec 2012 B1
8365286 Poston Jan 2013 B2
8365297 Parshin et al. Jan 2013 B1
8370938 Daswani et al. Feb 2013 B1
8370939 Zaitsev et al. Feb 2013 B2
8375444 Aziz et al. Feb 2013 B2
8381299 Stolfo et al. Feb 2013 B2
8397306 Tormasov Mar 2013 B1
8402529 Green et al. Mar 2013 B1
8438174 Shields May 2013 B2
8464340 Ahn et al. Jun 2013 B2
8479174 Chiriac Jul 2013 B2
8479276 Vaystikh et al. Jul 2013 B1
8479291 Bodke Jul 2013 B1
8510827 Leake et al. Aug 2013 B1
8510828 Guo et al. Aug 2013 B1
8510842 Amit et al. Aug 2013 B2
8516478 Edwards et al. Aug 2013 B1
8516590 Ranadive et al. Aug 2013 B1
8516593 Aziz Aug 2013 B2
8522348 Chen et al. Aug 2013 B2
8528086 Aziz Sep 2013 B1
8533824 Hutton et al. Sep 2013 B2
8533844 Mahaffey Sep 2013 B2
8539582 Aziz et al. Sep 2013 B1
8549638 Aziz Oct 2013 B2
8555391 Demir et al. Oct 2013 B1
8561177 Aziz et al. Oct 2013 B1
8566946 Aziz et al. Oct 2013 B1
8584094 Dadhia et al. Nov 2013 B2
8584234 Sobel et al. Nov 2013 B1
8584239 Aziz et al. Nov 2013 B2
8595834 Xie et al. Nov 2013 B2
8627476 Satish et al. Jan 2014 B1
8635696 Aziz Jan 2014 B1
8682054 Xue et al. Mar 2014 B2
8682812 Ranjan Mar 2014 B1
8689333 Aziz Apr 2014 B2
8695096 Zhang Apr 2014 B1
8713631 Pavlyushchik Apr 2014 B1
8713681 Silberman et al. Apr 2014 B2
8726392 McCorkendale et al. May 2014 B1
8739280 Chess et al. May 2014 B2
8776229 Aziz Jul 2014 B1
8782792 Bodke Jul 2014 B1
8789172 Stolfo et al. Jul 2014 B2
8789178 Kejriwal et al. Jul 2014 B2
8793787 Ismael et al. Jul 2014 B2
8805947 Kuzkin et al. Aug 2014 B1
8806647 Daswani et al. Aug 2014 B1
8832829 Manni et al. Sep 2014 B2
8850570 Ramzan Sep 2014 B1
8850571 Staniford et al. Sep 2014 B2
8881234 Narasimhan et al. Nov 2014 B2
8881282 Aziz et al. Nov 2014 B1
8898788 Aziz et al. Nov 2014 B1
8931109 Adams Jan 2015 B2
8935779 Manni et al. Jan 2015 B2
8959428 Majidian Feb 2015 B2
8973135 Thomas Mar 2015 B2
8984638 Aziz et al. Mar 2015 B1
8990939 Staniford et al. Mar 2015 B2
8990944 Singh et al. Mar 2015 B1
8997219 Staniford Mar 2015 B2
9009822 Ismael et al. Apr 2015 B1
9009823 Ismael et al. Apr 2015 B1
9027135 Aziz May 2015 B1
9071638 Aziz et al. Jun 2015 B1
9104867 Thioux et al. Aug 2015 B1
9106694 Aziz et al. Aug 2015 B2
9118715 Staniford et al. Aug 2015 B2
9159035 Ismael et al. Oct 2015 B1
9171160 Vincent et al. Oct 2015 B2
9176843 Ismael et al. Nov 2015 B1
9189627 Islam Nov 2015 B1
9195829 Goradia et al. Nov 2015 B1
9197664 Aziz et al. Nov 2015 B1
9223972 Vincent et al. Dec 2015 B1
9225740 Ismael et al. Dec 2015 B1
9241010 Bennett et al. Jan 2016 B1
9251343 Vincent Feb 2016 B1
9262635 Paithane et al. Feb 2016 B2
9282109 Aziz et al. Mar 2016 B1
9294501 Mesdaq et al. Mar 2016 B2
9300686 Pidathala et al. Mar 2016 B2
9306960 Aziz Apr 2016 B1
9306974 Aziz et al. Apr 2016 B1
9311479 Manni et al. Apr 2016 B1
20010005889 Albrecht Jun 2001 A1
20010047326 Broadbent et al. Nov 2001 A1
20020018903 Kokubo et al. Feb 2002 A1
20020038430 Edwards et al. Mar 2002 A1
20020091819 Melchione et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020095607 Lin-Hendel Jul 2002 A1
20020116627 Tarbotton et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020144156 Copeland Oct 2002 A1
20020162015 Tang Oct 2002 A1
20020166063 Lachman et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020169952 DiSanto et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020184528 Shevenell et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020188887 Largman et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020194490 Halperin et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030021728 Sharpe et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030074578 Ford et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030084318 Schertz May 2003 A1
20030101381 Mateev et al. May 2003 A1
20030115483 Liang Jun 2003 A1
20030188190 Aaron et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030191957 Hypponen et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030200460 Morota et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030212902 van der Made Nov 2003 A1
20030229801 Kouznetsov et al. Dec 2003 A1
20030237000 Denton et al. Dec 2003 A1
20040003323 Bennett et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040006473 Mills et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040015712 Szor Jan 2004 A1
20040019832 Arnold et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040047356 Bauer Mar 2004 A1
20040083408 Spiegel et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040088581 Brawn et al. May 2004 A1
20040093513 Cantrell et al. May 2004 A1
20040111531 Staniford et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040117478 Triulzi et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040117624 Brandt et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040128355 Chao et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040165588 Pandya Aug 2004 A1
20040236963 Danford et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040243349 Greifeneder et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040249911 Alkhatib et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040255161 Cavanaugh Dec 2004 A1
20040268147 Wiederin et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050005159 Oliphant Jan 2005 A1
20050021740 Bar et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050033960 Vialen et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050033989 Poletto et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050050148 Mohammadioun et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050086523 Zimmer et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050091513 Mitomo et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050091533 Omote et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050091652 Ross et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050108562 Khazan et al. May 2005 A1
20050114663 Cornell et al. May 2005 A1
20050125195 Brendel Jun 2005 A1
20050149726 Joshi et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050157662 Bingham et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050183143 Anderholm et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050201297 Peikari Sep 2005 A1
20050210533 Copeland et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050229044 Ball Oct 2005 A1
20050238005 Chen et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050240781 Gassoway Oct 2005 A1
20050262562 Gassoway Nov 2005 A1
20050265331 Stolfo Dec 2005 A1
20050283839 Cowburn Dec 2005 A1
20060010495 Cohen et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060015416 Hoffman et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060015715 Anderson Jan 2006 A1
20060015747 Van de Ven Jan 2006 A1
20060021029 Brickell et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060021054 Costa et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060031476 Mathes et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060047665 Neil Mar 2006 A1
20060070130 Costea et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060075496 Carpenter et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060095968 Portolani et al. May 2006 A1
20060101516 Sudaharan et al. May 2006 A1
20060101517 Banzhof et al. May 2006 A1
20060117385 Mester et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060123477 Raghavan et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060143709 Brooks et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060150249 Gassen et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060161983 Cothrell et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060161987 Levy-Yurista Jul 2006 A1
20060161989 Reshef et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060164199 Gilde et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060173992 Weber et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060179147 Tran et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060184632 Marino et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060190561 Conboy et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060191010 Benjamin Aug 2006 A1
20060221956 Narayan et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060236393 Kramer et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060242709 Seinfeld et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060248519 Jaeger et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060248582 Panjwani et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060251104 Koga Nov 2006 A1
20060288417 Bookbinder et al. Dec 2006 A1
20070006288 Mayfield et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070006313 Porras et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070011174 Takaragi et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070016951 Piccard et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070019286 Kikuchi Jan 2007 A1
20070033645 Jones Feb 2007 A1
20070038943 FitzGerald et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070064689 Shin et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070074169 Chess et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070094730 Bhikkaji et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070101435 Konanka et al. May 2007 A1
20070128855 Cho et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070142030 Sinha et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070143827 Nicodemus et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070156895 Vuong Jul 2007 A1
20070157180 Tillmann et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070157306 Elrod et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070168988 Eisner et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070171824 Ruello et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070174915 Gribble et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070192500 Lum Aug 2007 A1
20070192858 Lum Aug 2007 A1
20070198275 Malden et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070208822 Wang et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070220607 Sprosts et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070240218 Tuvell et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070240219 Tuvell et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070240220 Tuvell et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070240222 Tuvell et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070250930 Aziz et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070256132 Oliphant Nov 2007 A2
20070271446 Nakamura Nov 2007 A1
20080005782 Aziz Jan 2008 A1
20080018122 Zierler et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080028463 Dagon et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080032556 Schreier Feb 2008 A1
20080040710 Chiriac Feb 2008 A1
20080046781 Childs et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080066179 Liu Mar 2008 A1
20080072326 Danford et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080077793 Tan et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080080518 Hoeflin et al. Apr 2008 A1
20080086720 Lekel Apr 2008 A1
20080098476 Syversen Apr 2008 A1
20080120722 Sima et al. May 2008 A1
20080134178 Fitzgerald et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080134334 Kim et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080141376 Clausen et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080181227 Todd Jul 2008 A1
20080184367 McMillan et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080184373 Traut et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080189787 Arnold et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080201778 Guo et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080209557 Herley et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080215742 Goldszmidt et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080222729 Chen et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080263665 Ma et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080295172 Bohacek Nov 2008 A1
20080301810 Lehane et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080307524 Singh et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080313738 Enderby Dec 2008 A1
20080320556 Lee et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080320594 Jiang Dec 2008 A1
20090003317 Kasralikar et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090007100 Field et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090013408 Schipka Jan 2009 A1
20090031423 Liu et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090036111 Danford et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090037835 Goldman Feb 2009 A1
20090044024 Oberheide et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090044274 Budko et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090064332 Porras et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090077666 Chen et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090083369 Marmor Mar 2009 A1
20090083855 Apap et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090089879 Wang et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090094697 Provos et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090113425 Ports et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090125976 Wassermann et al. May 2009 A1
20090126015 Monastyrsky et al. May 2009 A1
20090126016 Sobko et al. May 2009 A1
20090133125 Choi et al. May 2009 A1
20090144823 Lamastra et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090158430 Borders Jun 2009 A1
20090172815 Gu et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090187992 Poston Jul 2009 A1
20090193293 Stolfo et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090198651 Shiffer et al. Aug 2009 A1
20090198670 Shiffer et al. Aug 2009 A1
20090198689 Frazier et al. Aug 2009 A1
20090199274 Frazier et al. Aug 2009 A1
20090199296 Xie et al. Aug 2009 A1
20090228233 Anderson et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090241187 Troyansky Sep 2009 A1
20090241190 Todd et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090265692 Godefroid et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090271867 Zhang Oct 2009 A1
20090300415 Zhang et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090300761 Park et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090328185 Berg et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090328221 Blumfield et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100005146 Drako et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100011205 McKenna Jan 2010 A1
20100017546 Poo et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100030996 Butler, II Feb 2010 A1
20100031353 Thomas et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100037314 Perdisci et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100043073 Kuwamura Feb 2010 A1
20100054278 Stolfo et al. Mar 2010 A1
20100058474 Hicks Mar 2010 A1
20100064044 Nonoyama Mar 2010 A1
20100077481 Polyakov et al. Mar 2010 A1
20100083376 Pereira et al. Apr 2010 A1
20100115621 Staniford et al. May 2010 A1
20100132038 Zaitsev May 2010 A1
20100154056 Smith et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100180344 Malyshev et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100192057 Majidian Jul 2010 A1
20100192223 Ismael et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100220863 Dupaquis et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100235831 Dittmer Sep 2010 A1
20100251104 Massand Sep 2010 A1
20100275210 Phillips et al. Oct 2010 A1
20100281102 Chinta et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100281541 Stolfo et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100281542 Stolfo et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100287260 Peterson et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100299754 Amit et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100306173 Frank Dec 2010 A1
20110004737 Greenebaum Jan 2011 A1
20110025504 Lyon et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110041179 St Hlberg Feb 2011 A1
20110047594 Mahaffey et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110047620 Mahaffey Feb 2011 A1
20110055907 Narasimhan et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110078794 Manni et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110093951 Aziz Apr 2011 A1
20110099620 Stavrou et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110099633 Aziz Apr 2011 A1
20110099635 Silberman et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110113231 Kaminsky May 2011 A1
20110145918 Jung et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110145920 Mahaffey et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110145934 Abramovici et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110167493 Song et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110167494 Bowen et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110173178 Conboy et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110173213 Frazier et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110173460 Ito et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110219449 St. Neitzel et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110219450 McDougal et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110225624 Sawhney et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110225655 Niemela et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110247072 Staniford et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110265182 Peinado et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110289582 Kejriwal et al. Nov 2011 A1
20110302587 Nishikawa et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110307954 Melnik et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110307955 Kaplan et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110307956 Yermakov et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110314546 Aziz et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120023593 Puder et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120054869 Yen et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120066698 Yanoo Mar 2012 A1
20120079596 Thomas et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120084859 Radinsky et al. Apr 2012 A1
20120110667 Zubrilin et al. May 2012 A1
20120117652 Manni et al. May 2012 A1
20120121154 Xue et al. May 2012 A1
20120124426 Maybee et al. May 2012 A1
20120174186 Aziz et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120174196 Bhogavilli et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120174218 McCoy et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120198279 Schroeder Aug 2012 A1
20120210423 Friedrichs et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120222121 Staniford et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120255015 Sahita et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120255017 Sallam Oct 2012 A1
20120260340 Morris Oct 2012 A1
20120260342 Dube et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120266244 Green et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120278886 Luna Nov 2012 A1
20120297489 Dequevy Nov 2012 A1
20120330801 McDougal et al. Dec 2012 A1
20120331553 Aziz et al. Dec 2012 A1
20130014259 Gribble et al. Jan 2013 A1
20130036472 Aziz Feb 2013 A1
20130047257 Aziz Feb 2013 A1
20130074185 McDougal et al. Mar 2013 A1
20130086683 Thomas Apr 2013 A1
20130086684 Mohler Apr 2013 A1
20130097699 Balupari et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130097706 Titonis et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130111587 Goel et al. May 2013 A1
20130117849 Golshan May 2013 A1
20130117852 Stute May 2013 A1
20130117855 Kim et al. May 2013 A1
20130139264 Brinkley et al. May 2013 A1
20130160125 Likhachev et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130160127 Jeong et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130160130 Mendelev et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130160131 Madou et al. Jun 2013 A1
20130167236 Sick Jun 2013 A1
20130174214 Duncan Jul 2013 A1
20130185789 Hagiwara et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130185795 Winn et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130185798 Saunders et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130191915 Antonakakis et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130196649 Paddon et al. Aug 2013 A1
20130227691 Aziz et al. Aug 2013 A1
20130246370 Bartram et al. Sep 2013 A1
20130247186 LeMasters Sep 2013 A1
20130263260 Mahaffey et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130291109 Staniford et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130298243 Kumar et al. Nov 2013 A1
20130318038 Shiffer et al. Nov 2013 A1
20130318073 Shiffer et al. Nov 2013 A1
20130325791 Shiffer et al. Dec 2013 A1
20130325792 Shiffer et al. Dec 2013 A1
20130325871 Shiffer et al. Dec 2013 A1
20130325872 Shiffer et al. Dec 2013 A1
20140032875 Butler Jan 2014 A1
20140053260 Gupta et al. Feb 2014 A1
20140053261 Gupta et al. Feb 2014 A1
20140130158 Wang et al. May 2014 A1
20140137180 Lukacs et al. May 2014 A1
20140169762 Ryu Jun 2014 A1
20140179360 Jackson et al. Jun 2014 A1
20140181131 Ross Jun 2014 A1
20140189687 Jung et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140189866 Shiffer et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140189882 Jung et al. Jul 2014 A1
20140223566 Zaitsev Aug 2014 A1
20140237600 Silberman et al. Aug 2014 A1
20140259166 Ghaskadvi Sep 2014 A1
20140280245 Wilson Sep 2014 A1
20140283037 Sikorski et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140283063 Thompson et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140325344 Bourke et al. Oct 2014 A1
20140328204 Klotsche et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140337836 Ismael Nov 2014 A1
20140344926 Cunningham et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140351935 Shao et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140380473 Bu et al. Dec 2014 A1
20140380474 Paithane et al. Dec 2014 A1
20150007312 Pidathala et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150096022 Vincent et al. Apr 2015 A1
20150096023 Mesdaq et al. Apr 2015 A1
20150096024 Haq et al. Apr 2015 A1
20150096025 Ismael Apr 2015 A1
20150180886 Staniford et al. Jun 2015 A1
20150186645 Aziz et al. Jul 2015 A1
20150220735 Paithane et al. Aug 2015 A1
20150294113 Troeger Oct 2015 A1
20150372980 Eyada Dec 2015 A1
20160044000 Cunningham Feb 2016 A1
20160127393 Aziz et al. May 2016 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (11)
Number Date Country
2439806 Jan 2008 GB
2490431 Oct 2012 GB
0206928 Jan 2002 WO
0223805 Mar 2002 WO
2007117636 Oct 2007 WO
2008041950 Apr 2008 WO
2011084431 Jul 2011 WO
2011112348 Sep 2011 WO
2012075336 Jun 2012 WO
2012145066 Oct 2012 WO
2013067505 May 2013 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (86)
Entry
“Network Security: NetDetector—Network Intrusion Forensic System (NIFS) Whitepaper”, (“NetDetector Whitepaper”), (2003).
“Packet”, Microsoft Computer Dictionary Microsoft Press, (Mar. 2002), 1 page.
“When Virtual is Better Than Real”, IEEEXplore Digital Library, available at, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jso?reload=true&arnumber=990073, (Dec. 7, 2013).
Abdullah, et al., Visualizing Network Data for Intrusion Detection, 2005 IEEE Workshop on Information Assurance and Security, pp. 100-108.
Adetoye, Adedayo, et al., “Network Intrusion Detection & Response System”, (“Adetoye”) (Sep. 2003).
Adobe Systems Incorporated, “PDF 32000-1:2008, Document management—Portable document format—Part1:PDF 1.7”, First Edition, Jul. 1, 2008, 756 pages.
AltaVista Advanced Search Results. “attack vector identifier” Http://www.altavista.com/web/results?Itag=ody&pg=aq&aqmode=aqa=Event+Orchestrator . . . , (Accessed on Sep. 15, 2009).
AltaVista Advanced Search Results. “Event Orchestrator”. Http://www.altavista.com/web/results?Itag=ody&pg=aq&aqmode=aqa=Event+Orchesrator . . . , (Accessed on Sep. 3, 2009).
Apostolopoulos, George; hassapis, Constantinos; “V-eM: A cluster of Virtual Machines for Robust, Detailed, and High-Performance Network Emulation”, 14th IEEE International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, Sep. 11-14, 2006, pp. 117-126.
Aura, Tuomas, “Scanning electronic documents for personally identifiable information”, Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on Privacy in electronic society. ACM, 2006.
Aziz, Ashar, System and Method for Malware Containment, U.S. Appl. No. 14/620,060, filed Feb. 11, 2015, non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 3, 2015.
Baecher, “The Nepenthes Platform: An Efficient Approach to collect Malware”, Springer-verlaq Berlin Heidelberg, (2006), pp. 165-184.
Baldi, Mario; Risso, Fulvio; “A Framework for Rapid Development and Portable Execution of Packet-Handling Applications”, 5th IEEE International Symposium Processing and Information Technology, Dec. 21, 2005, pp. 233-238.
Bayer, et al., “Dynamic Analysis of Malicious Code”, J Comput Virol, Springer-Verlag, France., (2006), pp. 67-77.
Boubalos, Chris , “extracting syslog data out of raw pcap dumps, seclists.org, Honeypots mailing list archives”, available at http://seclists.org/honeypots/2003/q2/319 (“Boubalos”), (Jun. 5, 2003).
Chaudet, C., et al., “Optimal Positioning of Active and Passive Monitoring Devices”, International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Conference on Emerging Network Experiment and Technology, CoNEXT '05, Toulousse, France, (Oct. 2005), pp. 71-82.
Cisco “Intrusion Prevention for the Cisco ASA 5500-x Series” Data Sheet (2012).
Cisco, Configuring the Catalyst Switched Port Analyzer (SPAN) (“Cisco”), (1992-2003).
Clark, John, Sylvian Leblanc,and Scott Knight. “Risks associated with usb hardware trojan devices used by insiders.” Systems Conference (SysCon), 2011 IEEE International. IEEE, 2011.
Cohen, M.I., “PyFlag—An advanced network forensic framework”, Digital investigation 5, ELSEVIER, (2008), pp. S112-S120.
Costa, M., et al., “Vigilante: End-to-End Containment of Internet Worms”, SOSP '05 Association for Computing Machinery, Inc., Brighton U.K., (Oct. 23-26, 2005).
Crandall, J.R., et al., “Minos:Control Data Attack Prevention Orthogonal to Memory Model”, 37th International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Portland, Oregon, (Dec. 2004).
Deutsch, P., ““Zlib compressed data format specification version 3.3” RFC 1950, (1996)”.
Distler, “Malware Analysis: An Introduction”, SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room, SANS Institute, (2007).
Dunlap, George W. , et al., “ReVirt: Enabling Intrusion Analysis through Virtual-Machine Logging and Replay”, Proceeding of the 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, USENIX Association, (“Dunlap”), (Dec. 9, 2002).
Excerpt regarding First Printing Date for Merike Kaeo, Designing Network Security (“Kaeo”), (2005).
Filiol, Eric , et al., “Combinatorial Optimisation of Worm Propagation on an Unknown Network”, International Journal of Computer Science 2.2 (2007).
FireEye Malware Analysis & Exchange Network, Malware Protection System, FireEye Inc., 2010.
FireEye Malware Analysis, Modern Malware Forensics, FireEye Inc., 2010.
FireEye v.6.0 Security Target, pp. 1-35, Version 1.1, FireEye Inc., May 2011.
Gibler, Clint, et al. AndroidLeaks: automatically detecting potential privacy leaks in android applications on a large scale. Srpinger Berlin Heidelberg, 2012.
Goel, et al., Reconstructing System State for Intrusion Analysis, Apr. 2008 SIGOPS Operating Systems Review vol. 42 Issue 3, pp. 21-28.
Gregg Keizer: “Microsoft's HoneyMonkeys Show Patching Windows Works”, Aug. 8, 2005, XP055143386, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://web.archive.org/web/20121022220617/http://www.informationweek-.com/microsofts-honeymonkeys-show-patching-wi/167600716 [retrieved on Sep. 29, 2014].
Heng Yin et al, Panorama: Capturing System-Wide Information Flow for Malware Detection and Analysis, Research Showcase @ CMU, Carnegie Mellon University, 2007.
Hjelmvik, Erik, “Passive Network Security Analysis with NetworkMiner”, (IN)SECURE, Issue 18, (Oct. 2008), pp. 1-100.
Idika et al., A-Survey-of-Malware-Detection-Techniques, Feb. 2, 2007, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University.
IEEE Xplore Digital Library Sear Results for “detection of unknown computer worms”. Http//ieeexplore.ieee.org/searchresult.jsp?SortField=Score&SortOrder=desc&ResultC . . . (Accessed on Aug. 28, 2009).
Isohara, Takamasa, Keisuke Takemori, and Ayumu Kubota. “Kernel-based behavior analysis for android malware detection,” Computational intelligence and Security (CIS), 2011 Seventh International Conference on. IEEE, 2011.
Kaeo, Merike, “Designing Network Security”, (“Kaeo”), (Nov. 2003).
Kevin A Roundy et al: “Hybrid Analysis and Control of Malware”, Sep. 15, 2010, Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 317-338, XP019150454 ISBN:978-3-642-15511-6.
Kim, H., et al., “Autograph: Toward Automated, Distributed Worm Signature Detection”, Proceedings of the 13th Usenix Security Symposium (Security 2004), San Diego, (Aug. 2004), pp. 271-286.
King, Samuel T. et al., “Operating System Support for Virtual Machines”, (“King”).
Krasnyansky, Max, et al., Universal TUN/TAP driver, available at https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/tuntap.txt (2002) (“Krasnyansky”).
Kreibich, C., et al., “Honeycomb-Creating Intrusion Detection Signatures Using Honeypots”, 2nd Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-11), Boston, USA, (2003).
Kristoff, J., “Botnets, Detection and Mitigation: DNS-Based Techniques”, NU Security Day, (2005), 23 pages.
Leading Colleges Select FireEye to Stop Malware-Related Data Breaches, FireEye Inc., 2009.
Li et al., a VMM-Based System Call Interposition Framework for Program Monitoring, Dec. 2010, IEEE 16th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems, pp. 706-711.
Liljenstam, Michael, et al., “Simulating Realistic Network Traffic for Worm Warning System Design and Testing”, Institute for Security Technology studies, Dartmouth College, (“Liljenstam”), (Oct. 27, 2003).
Lindorfer, Martina, Clemens Kolbitsch, and Paolo Milani Comparetti. “Detecting environment-sensitive malware.” Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
Lok Kwong et al: “DroidScope: Seamlessly Reconstructing the OS and Dalvik Semantic Views for Dynamic Android Malware Analysis”, Aug. 10, 2012, XP055158513, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://www.usenix.org/system/ files/conference/usenixsecurity12/sec12- -final107.pdf [retrieved on Dec. 15, 2014].
Bowen, B. M. et al “BotSwindler: Tamper Resistant Injection of Believable Decoys in VM-Based Hosts for Crimeware; Detection”, in Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, Springer ISBN: 978-3-642-15511-6 (pp. 118-137) (Sep. 15, 2010).
PCT/US2015/067082 filed Dec. 21, 2015 International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 24, 2016.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/775,171, filed Feb. 23, 2013 Final Office Action dated Dec. 12, 2014.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/775,171, filed Feb. 23, 2013 Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 5, 2015.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/775,171, filed Feb. 23, 2013 Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 27, 2014.
Marchette, David J., Computer Intrusion Detection and Network Monitoring: A Statistical (“Marchette”), (2001).
Margolis, P.E., “Random House Webster's Computer & Internet Dictionary 3rd Edition”, ISBN 0375703519, (Dec. 1998).
Moore, D., et al., “Internet Quarantine: Requirements for Containing Self-Propagating Code”, INFOCOM, vol. 3, (Mar. 30-Apr. 3, 2003), pp. 1901-1910.
Morales, Jose A., et al., ““Analyzing and exploiting network behaviors of malware.””, Security and Privacy in Communication Networks. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. 20-34.
Mori, Detecting Unknown Computer Viruses, 2004, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Natvig, Kurt, “SANDBOXII: Internet”, Virus Bulletin Conference, (“Natvig”), (Sep. 2002).
NetBIOS Working Group. Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP transport: Concepts and Methods. STD 19, RFC 1001, Mar. 1987.
Newsome, J., et al., “Dynamic Taint Analysis for Automatic Detection, Analysis, and Signature Generation of Exploits on Commodity Software”, In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Network and Distributed System Security, Symposium (NDSS '05), (Feb. 2005).
Newsome, J., et al., “Polygraph: Automatically Generating Signatures for Polymorphic Worms”, In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, (May 2005).
Nojiri, D. , et al., “Cooperation Response Strategies for Large Scale Attack Mitigation”, DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, vol. 1, (Apr. 22-24, 2003), pp. 293-302.
Oberheide et al., CloudAV.sub.--N-Version Antivirus in the Network Cloud, 17th USENIX Security Symposium USENIX Security '08 Jul. 28-Aug. 1, 2008 San Jose, CA.
Peter M. Chen, and Brian D. Noble, “When Virtual Is Better Than Real, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science”, University of Michigan (“Chen”).
Reiner Sailer, Enriquillo Valdez, Trent Jaeger, Roonald Perez, Leendert van Doorn, John Linwood Griffin, Stefan Berger., sHype: Secure Hypervisor Approach to Trusted Virtualized Systems (Feb. 2, 2005) (“Sailer”).
Silicon Defense, “Worm Containment in the Internal Network”, (Mar. 2003), pp. 1-25.
Singh, S., et al., “Automated Worm Fingerprinting”, Proceedings of the ACM/USENIX Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation, San Francisco, California, (Dec. 2004).
Spitzner, Lance, “Honeypots: Tracking Hackers”, (“Spizner”), (Sep. 17, 2002).
The Sniffers's Guide to Raw Traffic available at: yuba.stanford.edu/˜casado/pcap/sectionl.html, (Jan. 6, 2014).
Thomas H. Ptacek, and Timothy N. Newsham , “Insertion, Evasion, and Denial of Service: Eluding Network Intrusion Detection”, Secure Networks, (“Ptacek”), (Jan. 1998).
U.S. Appl. No. 11/717,475, filed Mar. 12, 2007 Final Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2013.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/717,475, filed Mar. 12, 2007 Final Office Action dated Nov. 22, 2010.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/717,475, filed Mar. 12, 2007 Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 28, 2012.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/717,475, filed Mar. 12, 2007 Non-Final Office Action dated May 6, 2010.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/059,381, filed Oct. 21, 2013 Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 29, 2014.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,171,553 filed Apr. 20, 2006, Inter Parties Review Decision dated Jul. 10, 2015.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,291,499 filed Mar. 16, 2012, Inter Parties Review Decision dated Jul. 10, 2015.
Venezia, Paul, “NetDetector Captures Intrusions”, InfoWorld Issue 27, (“Venezia”), (Jul. 14, 2003).
Wahid et al., Characterising the Evolution in Scanning Activity of Suspicious Hosts, Oct. 2009, Third International Conference on Network and System Security, pp. 344-350.
Whyte, et al., “DNS-Based Detection of Scanning Works in an Enterprise Network”, Proceedings of the 12th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, (Feb. 2005), 15 pages.
Williamson, Mathew M., “Throttling Virses: Restricting Propagation to Defeat Malicious Mobile Code”, ACSAC Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, (Dec. 2002), pp. 1-9.
Yuhei Kawakoya et al: “Memory behavior-based automatic malware unpacking in stealth debugging environment”, Malicious and Unwanted Software (Malware), 2010 5th International Conference on, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, Oct. 19, 2010, pp. 39-46, XP031833827, ISBN:978-1-4244-8-9353-1.
Zhang et al., The Effects of Threading, Infection Time, and Multiple-Attacker Collaboration on Malware Propagation, Sep. 2009, IEEE 28th International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, pp. 73-82.