1. Technical Field
This invention relates generally to data transmission schemes and protocols. More particularly, the invention provides a method and apparatus for securely transmitting data between two or more computer nodes using an unreliable protocol such as User Datagram Protocol (UDP).
2. Related Information
The well-known Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) has been used for many years to transmit data packets between computers. TCP provides a guaranteed delivery and ordering scheme for data packets, such that two or more computers using TCP can rely on the protocol to ensure that any given packet will reach its destination in the order in which it was transmitted. Internet Protocol (IP) generally provides a point-to-point packet transmission service without guaranteed delivery.
Although TCP provides guaranteed delivery capabilities using built-in mechanisms (i.e., each application need not concern itself with reliability details), one disadvantage of using TCP is that it can incur delays and other side effects when transmitting a stream of data. For example, if two computers use TCP to transmit a packetized video stream, the received packets may appear “jerky” because missing or dropped packets must be re-transmitted before they can be re-ordered into the received packet stream. Consequently, TCP is not a good candidate for streaming data, such as videoconferencing applications.
The well-known User Datagram Protocol (UDP) provides a packet-oriented transmission service for communicating between two computers. In contrast to TCP and other guaranteed-delivery protocols, packets transmitted using UDP are not guaranteed to arrive at the destination computer. Moreover, packets that are transmitted in a particular order may arrive at the destination computer out of order. Thus, UDP is termed an “unreliable” transport protocol. In contrast to TCP and other guaranteed-delivery protocols, however, UDP provides a more time-sensitive delivery scheme, making it more suitable for streaming media such as video data.
As applications such as videoconferencing have increased the importance of streaming media, a need has arisen to provide secure streaming transmission facilities. For example, many corporations need to transmit streaming video between a headquarters facility and one or more remote offices. The transmission may include sensitive information that the company needs to protect from unintended recipients or eavesdropping. Because neither TCP nor UDP provide such security, they may be insufficient in themselves for such transmissions.
In recent years, various attempts have been made to provide secure transmission facilities by enhancing guaranteed-delivery protocols with encryption techniques. For example, the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) is a protocol that provides a secure channel between two machines. The secure channel is transparent yet encrypted between client and server, such that nearly any protocol that can be run over TCP can be run over SSL with only minimal modifications. Indeed, SSL/TLS security and fault detection rely on TCP (or a similar guaranteed delivery protocol) to order packets and guarantee delivery. After undergoing various revisions, SSL was renamed Transport Layer Security (TLS) and adopted by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), as reflected in RFC 2246. (The term SSL/TLS will be used to refer collectively to these two closely related protocols). A principal application of SSL/TLS is on-line shopping, wherein consumers transmit sensitive credit card information using HTTP protocols and web browsers in a secure manner.
Because most Internet protocols operate over TCP connections, SSL/TLS provides a convenient scheme for securely transmitting data between two or more computers.
(1) a client establishes a TCP connection with a server computer;
(2) the client and server use SSL/TLS protocols to exchange credentials (including an SSL/TLS handshake; negotiation of protocol mechanisms; and establishment of per-connection keys); and
(3) each HTTP request (e.g., GET) is converted into an SSL/TLS record having encrypted content.
Because of its transparent nature, any TCP-based protocols (e.g., HTTP, FTP, etc.) or any similar guaranteed delivery protocol can be operated over TLS. Further details of SSL and TLS are provided in a book entitled “SSL and TLS: Designing and Building Secure Systems,” by Eric Rescorla, ISBN 0-201-61598-3, published by Addison Wesley.
Unfortunately, reliance on TCP or other guaranteed-delivery protocols renders SSL/TLS susceptible to the same performance problems that TCP incurs. For example, using SSL/TLS to transmit streaming video data incurs the same costs and penalties (e.g., “jerky” video) that the underlying TCP incurs. By its nature, SSL/TLS requires the use of a reliable connection such as provided by TCP, because they will terminate a connection if a packet is dropped or received out-of-order.
In recent years, a protocol known as Private Communication Technology (PCT) was proposed, although it was never commercially successful. PCT was an attempt to extend SSL to secure datagram traffic (using so-called “stream cipers”). For example, PCT used a different header format (4 bytes, 2 length and 2 record type) from SSL (5 bytes, 1 record type, 2 version number, 2 length). The handshaking message bodies also contained a different beginning format; PCT used 4 bytes (2 handshake type, 2 record flags), while SSL uses only 1 byte (handshake type). PCT datagram support used the following format:
2 bytes of key_length
(key_length) bytes of key data
(data_length) bytes of encrypted data
(mac_length) bytes of MAC data,
whereas SSL's datagram support is formatted as follows:
(data_length) bytes of encrypted data
(mac length) bytes of MAC
(padding_length) bytes of padding
1 byte of padding_length
(nonce_length) bytes of nonce.
PCT specified a mechanism in which every datagram has a new encryption key created by hashing a master key with the ENCRYPTED_KEY—1_DATA (a random value is assigned to each record that is part of DK_ENCRYPTED_KEY DATA).
The proposed PCT mechanisms imposed various performance tradeoffs. For example, although the PCT mechanism could be used with stream ciphers, it is likely to be much slower, because of additional hashing and key schedule creation to process every single record. In other words, it uses a different key for every datagram, which is computationally costly. Key schedule setup can be expensive for some block ciphers. Moreover, PCT did not provide a mechanism for integration with the SOCKS or other multiprotocol proxies.
Conventional wisdom states that UDP is not suitable for secure communications. The Rescorla book identified above, for example, specifically states that “UDP does not [provide reliable transport] and so SSL cannot be successfully run over UDP, because records might be arbitrarily lost or reordered, which would look like an active attack to the SSL implementation.” Consequently, the prior art teaches away from using UDP in combination with SSL to transmit secure data. Yet UDP would be a good match for many streaming media applications, which can tolerate occasionally dropped data packets, but not delays that occur in TCP. For example, a videoconference that is broadcast in real-time can tolerate an occasionally missing video frame, but not the “jerkiness” that occurs when missing packets are retransmitted and reordered. Moreover, user session terminations occur frequently with standard UDP sent over standard SSL.
Some protocols rely on both TCP and UDP to transmit high-performance data, such as video or audio streaming. REALAUDIO, for example, is believed to use both TCP and UDP, wherein TCP is used for signaling (e.g., start/stop), while UDP is used to transmit data packets for the streaming content. However, the UDP datagrams are transmitted “in the clear,” rendering them susceptible to interception or attack.
A protocol known as KERBEROS, used mainly in academic circles, provides security by encrypting UDP datagrams. The mechanism used by KERBEROS to provide datagram security is specified in RFC 1964. However, it is not compatible with SSL/TLS protocols, and thus has not found widespread use. One of the primary reasons that KERBEROS has not been commercially successful is that it is complex to operate, and not streamlined for widespread use in network processing. In particular, network-based security software must interoperate efficiently with web servers and proxy servers to control and secure user access. In general, simpler protocols have been favored for fast processing and distributed systems.
KERBEROS also uses separate encryption mechanisms, namely key establishment handshakes, to communicate secure UDP and TCP traffic. However, it may be desirable to reduce computational and network traffic overhead by integrating those under a single standard security protocol, such as SSL, running on a multiprotocol proxy server standard such as SOCKS. KERBEROS also adds a random key field for packet identification to extend the data record in a conventional manner, for purposes of initializing the encryption algorithm. However, this requires additional computation and network traffic as KERBEROS has a separate sequence number in the data record. It may be advantageous in some systems to have a single field serving both purposes.
UDP and SSL are standards in the software industry. UDP is used for processing datagrams, while SSL provides secure communication. At the same time, the adoption of multiprotocol proxy servers, such as those running the popular SOCKS protocol, provide a means for combining industry standard communications protocols such as TCP and UDP in one system. Until recently, it has not been possible to do so because of the incompatibility of UDP and SSL. To understand this problem and the limitations it creates for management of network communications under a single proxy server protocol such as SOCKs, it is first necessary to understand how SOCKS processes information.
The SOCKS protocol provides a generic proxying protocol for traversing firewalls and other boundaries. Version 5 of this protocol, described in IETF RFC 1928, provides features such as authentication and UDP support.
First, client application 201A makes a request to connect to server 203B. Next, SOCKS client 201B detects the requested connection, and is aware that communication with server 203 must be handled via proxy server 202. Consequently, SOCKS client 201B sends a request to SOCKS server 202A to establish a TCP connection. Proxy function 202B establishes a connection with server 203, and all further communication between client application 201A and server function 203B goes through SOCKS server 202A and proxy function 202B. As is conventional, SOCKS uses SSL/TLS to establish a secure connection with client 201, and may demand a password before permitting the connection to be established. The architecture of
The architecture of
As described above, it is not possible to securely transmit UDP datagrams in the context of SSL/TLS, due to SSL/TLS's reliance on TCP to provide a reliable connection service. However, it would be advantageous to provide a secure UDP service in the scheme of
In view of the failure of conventional attempts to providing secure data transmission facilities without incurring the penalties and overhead inherent in reliable communication protocols, there exists a need to provide such facilities to support high-bandwidth applications such as secure videoconferencing. Moreover, there is a need to provide secure data transmission services while retaining compatibility with SSL/TLS.
The present invention overcomes the aforementioned problems by providing a method and apparatus for transmitting encrypted data over an unreliable protocol, such as UDP. In one variation, a special bit is set in data records which, when received by a proxy server, cause the records to be diverted to special processing. The special processing may include use of a nonce to detect the existence of repeat records and use of an initialization vector that permits the proxy server to decrypt a record without reference to data in any other record. Data records that do not have the special bit set are processed according to conventional SSL/TLS processing.
Other features and advantages of the invention will become apparent with reference to the following detailed description and the figures.
In contrast to the system of
The architecture shown in
There are many variations on the architecture of
As shown in
In accordance with the SSL/TLS standard, the next plaintext 406 is encrypted using the same key 402, but using ciphertext 405 generated from the previously transmitted record as the second initialization vector. This creates a “link” between successive records, such that if the link is broken (e.g., a packet is lost or corrupted), the scheme will fail.
The second (and subsequent) incoming record 411 is decrypted using session key 414 but, instead of initialization vector 415, ciphertext 410A is used as the initialization vector. This matches the counterpart encryption scheme shown in
As explained above, the conventional SSL/TLS reliance on previously transmitted data records requires that the underlying packet transmission mechanism be completely reliable. This is referred to as “cipher block chaining,” and it requires reliable transmission of records because each successive data record is encrypted in reliance on the previously generated record (with respect to DES, cipher block chaining is defined by FIPS 81). Consequently, if a record is received out of order or a data record is dropped, the encryption scheme will break down, and the sequence numbers will not match. If this happens, according to the conventional SSL/TLS scheme, the TCP connection will be terminated and a new connection will be required to re-establish data transmission. This security feature is intended to thwart hackers from interfering with the secure transmission scheme by inserting or manipulating data records between the client and proxy server. As explained above, if UDP or another unreliable protocol were used to transmit the data according to the scheme of
As shown in
In contrast to conventional SSL/TLS schemes, the nonce/IV value is explicitly included as part of each record so that the record can be decrypted without reliance on a previously transmitted record. In certain embodiments, the sequence number and initialization vector can be combined into a single value (the nonce), which can be an arbitrary or randomly generated number. In one embodiment, the nonce is the same size as the sequence number in SSL (e.g., 8 bytes), and each value is unique (i.e., the recipient can check them against a list of previously received records). The initialization vector may comprise the same size as a block of cipher (e.g., 8 bytes), and each value can be unique. In one variation, it may be desirable to create a large Hamming distance between difference initialization vectors (e.g., random numbers where each bit has a 50% chance of changing). Instead of appending separate nonces and initialization vectors, a combined nonce/IV value can be used. A cryptographically strong random-number generator can be used to generate such numbers, such as the RSA BSAFE CRYPTO-C product sold by RSA Security, Inc.
On the right side of
Turning to
The second record 516 is decrypted in a similar manner, except that it does not rely on values in the previously transmitted record 507 to perform decryption. In this manner, dropped or mis-ordered records can still be handled.
According to a variation of the invention illustrated in
As described above, the nonce and IV can be combined into a single value, such that the same value is used both as an IV and as a unique identifier for MAC calculation.
In one variation, the explicitly transmitted nonce is used to determine whether a previously received record has been received a second time. If so, the protocol optionally terminates the connection or generates a warning, since such a situation might be indicative of a hacker attack by so-called “replaying” packets.” Note that the latter is different from conventional SSL/TLS, which terminates the connection if a sequence number is received out of order. Moreover, in certain embodiments the sequence number checking can be disabled or not used.
According to one aspect of the present invention, in contrast to conventional SSL/TLS, initialization vectors are not chained across records. Each record includes a unique initialization vector, and ciphertext blocks are chained together within a record as is conventional.
The use of a special UDP bit is only one technique for identifying records as conventional or modified SSL/TLS records. In one embodiment, no bit at all is needed, and the assumption is made that every record conforms to the modified SSL/TLS protocol as described herein. In other embodiments, different flags or methods can be used to signify that a particular record should be processed according to the modified scheme set forth above. As one example, during the initial handshaking that occurs between client and proxy server, a message can be sent indicating that subsequent records will be received according to the aforementioned protocol. In another embodiment, secure TCP can be used to exchange a set of MAC or IV values, equivalent to the nonce, for comparison and identification of the data record.
It should also be recognized that unreliable protocols other than UDP can be used to carry out the inventive principles, and the invention is not limited to UDP datagrams. Moreover, it should be appreciated that other encryption algorithms other than DES (e.g., AES) could be used, and the invention is not limited in this respect.
Assume that a client wants to receive secure video data from an application server using the architecture shown in
In step 603, a nonce/IV is generated, using for example a random-number generator. In step 604, a UDP datagram received from server 303 is encrypted using the nonce, and the other fields shown in
In step 605, a “secure UDP” bit is set in the record header to indicate that the record has been encrypted according to the modified SSL/TLS/SOCKS protocol. As explained above, this bit is optional, since the encryption information can be indicated in various other ways. Finally, in step 606, the record is transmitted from proxy server 302 to client 301. Instep 607, the record is received in record detector 301E and, if the secure UDP bit is set, the record is decrypted in step 609 according to the modified SOCKS processing outlined above. Otherwise, in step 608 the record is decrypted according to conventional SOCKS processing.
Thus has been described a system and methods for transmitting data securely using an unreliable protocol, such as UDP. The invention can be used in a wide variety of systems and applications, including videoconferencing; streaming media (including audio, video, or both); bulk transfers of files; computer games over the Internet (including near-realtime gaming systems); Internet telephony; cellular telephone transmission; wireless LANS; and other system. The invention can provide advantages in the form of lower power consumption and less computer processing because the use of the inherently less complex and unreliable communication protocols (e.g., UDP, IP, and others) reduces the overhead and processing needed to transmit data securely. The invention can be used not only for communicating over the Internet, but for use in other computer networks, such as local area networks (e.g., Ethernet), peer-to-peer networks, and the like. It is also suitable for securing various data types, including nonstreaming media, although its principal application is with UDP traffic for streaming media.
Although specific embodiments of the invention have been described, various modifications, alterations, alternative constructions, and equivalents are also encompassed within the scope of the invention. The described invention is not restricted to operation within certain specific data processing environments, but is free to operate within a plurality of data processing environments, such as a distributed computer network environment, a single stand-alone computer system environment, or other computing environments. Additionally, although the present invention has been described using a particular series of transactions and steps, it should be apparent to those skilled in the art that the scope of the present invention is not limited to the described series of transactions and steps.
There is inherent flexibility in creating the logic, system flow, tables, and data structures used for programming the present invention. Data structures and values upon which calculations are performed may be explicit, derived from other data, imported from other sources, or result from program calculations or logical operations, all without departing from the spirit or limiting the scope of the invention. The algorithms for indexing, searching and data processing in this patent may be substituted or modified to support various performance and/or systems integration requirements, all without deviating from the spirit or limiting the scope of the invention.
Further, while the present invention has been described using a particular combination of hardware and software, it should be recognized that other combinations of hardware and software are also within the scope of the present invention. The present invention may be implemented only in hardware or only in software or using combinations thereof.
The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense. It will, however, be evident that additions, subtractions, deletions, and other modifications and changes may be made thereunto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the claims.
Reference numerals in the appended method claims identifying steps are for convenience only and are not intended to imply a necessary ordering of the steps. It is, therefore, to be understood that within the scope of the appended claims the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described. No claim should be interpreted to be in means-plus-function format.
This application is a continuation and claims the priority benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/782,593 filed Feb. 12, 2001 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,353,380 and entitled “Method & Apparatus for Providing Secure Streaming Data Transmission Facilities Using Unreliable Protocols,” now U.S. Pat. No. 7,353,380, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5325433 | Torii et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5548648 | Yorke-Smith | Aug 1996 | A |
5566297 | Devarakonda et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5583940 | Vidrascu et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5657390 | Elgamal et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5673319 | Bellare et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5754651 | Blatter et al. | May 1998 | A |
5822531 | Gorczyca et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5974144 | Brandman | Oct 1999 | A |
5991810 | Shapiro et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5996086 | Delaney et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6006259 | Adelman et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6018805 | Ma et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6029245 | Scanlan | Feb 2000 | A |
6038677 | Lawlor et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6061796 | Chen et al. | May 2000 | A |
6070245 | Murphy, Jr. et al. | May 2000 | A |
6078957 | Adelman et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6094485 | Weinstein et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6119230 | Carter | Sep 2000 | A |
6125186 | Saito et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6125366 | Bernstein et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6141423 | Fischer | Oct 2000 | A |
6141749 | Coss et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6145089 | Le et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6148405 | Liao et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6167438 | Yates et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6178441 | Elnozahy | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185567 | Ratnaraj et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6185695 | Murphy et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192417 | Block et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6195366 | Kayashima et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199110 | Rizvi et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6263437 | Liao et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6275588 | Videcrantz | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6288739 | Hales et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6317729 | Camp et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6317831 | King | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6321268 | Dillon et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6333983 | Enichen et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6345288 | Reed et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6351539 | Djakovic | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6385596 | Wiser et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6415031 | Colligan et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6453343 | Housel et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6490610 | Rizvi et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6502135 | Munger et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505192 | Godwin et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6505253 | Chiu et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6519636 | Engel | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6606663 | Liao et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6618761 | Munger et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6643260 | Kloth et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6728747 | Jenkins et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6754832 | Godwin et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6766373 | Beadle et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6775772 | Binding et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6816968 | Walmsley | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6829720 | Schoenthal et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6832316 | Sibert | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6947992 | Shachor | Sep 2005 | B1 |
7046802 | Rogaway | May 2006 | B2 |
7058723 | Wilson | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7062570 | Hong et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7177424 | Furuya et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7197547 | Miller et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7296077 | Harmon et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7304951 | Rhee | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7346925 | Marejan | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7353380 | VanHeyningen | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7360075 | VanHeyningen et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7383329 | Erickson | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7526533 | Bue et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7631084 | Thomas et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7665127 | Rao et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7720975 | Erickson | May 2010 | B2 |
7870258 | Sundaresan et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7870380 | VanHeyningen et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7954144 | Ebrahimi et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
8032642 | Erickson | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8458340 | Erickson | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8533457 | VanHeyningen | Sep 2013 | B2 |
20020023209 | Domstedt et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020073167 | Powell et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083148 | Shaw et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020094085 | Roberts | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099829 | Richards et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020112152 | VanHeyningen et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020118836 | Howard et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020138551 | Erickson | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030023845 | VanHeyningen | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030061372 | Agarwalla et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030093511 | Barde et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030167403 | McCurley et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040107286 | Larson et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20050273849 | Araujo et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060155857 | Feenan et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20070180125 | Knowles et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20080040550 | Lindner | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080104390 | VanHeyningen et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080104686 | Erickson | May 2008 | A1 |
20100185728 | Erickson | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20110173436 | VanHeyningen et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20120084384 | Erickson | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20130268617 | Erickson | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130346739 | VanHeyningen et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 02065321 | Aug 2002 | WO |
WO 02065650 | Aug 2002 | WO |
WO 02065691 | Aug 2002 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comment (RFC) 1928, “SOCKS Protocol V5,” M. Leech et al., Mar. 1996. (4405). |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comment (RFC) 1929, “Username/Password Authentication for SOCKS V5,” M. Leech, Mar. 1996. |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comment (RFC) 1301, “Multicast Transport Protocol,” by S. Armstrong et al., Feb. 1992. |
Robert Uzgalis, Hashing Concepts and The Java Programming Language, 1996. |
John Hamer, “HasB.sml—Hashing Functions for Lab 2-B,” 2000. |
“MTP: Multicast Transport Protocol,” an article posted on the Network and Telecommunications Research Group website address http://ntrg.cs.tcd.ie/4ba2multicast/magnus/index.html on Jan. 24, 2001. |
“Nokia VPN Gateways: Patented IP Clustering Technology Provides True Active Session Failover and Dynamic Load Balancing.” |
“TIB/Rendezvous C Reference,” Tibco Software Inc., Dec. 1999. |
“TIB/Rendezvous Java Reference,” Tibco Software Inc., Dec. 1999. |
“TIB/Rendezvous Administration,” Tibco Software Inc., Dec. 1999. |
“TIB/Rendezvous Installation,” Tibco Software Inc., Dec. 1999. |
“TIB/Rendezvous Concepts,” Tibco Software Inc., Dec. 1999.z. |
Wireless Application Protocol, Wireless Transport Layer Security Specification, WAP WTLS WAP-199-WTLS, Version 18, Feb. 2000, 99 pages. |
D. Simon: Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Corporation's PCT Protocol, Document Version 2.00, Apr. 1996, 38 pages. |
E. Rescorla: “SSL and TSL, Designing and Building Secure Systems,” Addison Wesley Publishing, pp. 43-45, 57-67, and 88-91. |
S. Thomas: “SSL and TLS Essentials, Securing the Web” Wiley Publishing, Table of Contents pp. ix-xiii, pp. 10-11, p. 13, and pp. 118-129. |
Information printed from website (www.openssl.org/docs/apps/openssl.html) on Jul. 2, 2001, 7 pages. |
Information printed from website (www.openssl.org/docs/ssl/ssl.html) on Jul. 2, 2001, 15 pages. |
Information printed from website (www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/crypto.html) on Jul. 2, 2001, 2 pages. |
Information printed from website (www.openssl.org/docs/HOWTO/) on Jul. 2, 2001, 1 page. |
B. Tung: “KERBEROS A Network Authentication System” Addison Wesley Networking Basics Series, entire book pp. vii-164. |
Information printed from website (www.broadcom.com/doc/promo5820.html) on Aug. 15, 2001, 6 pages. |
The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms, 2000 by IEEE, Inc., Seventh Edition, pp. 505-506. |
David A. McGrew, et al., Cisco Systems et al., “The Secure Real Time Protocol.” Nov. 2000. Cisco Systems IETF Standard-Working-Draft, Internet. Engineering Task Force. CH XPO15032291, ISSN; 000-0004. |
International Search Report for PCT/US02/03626 mailed May 7, 2002. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/782,593 mailed Sep. 18, 2007. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/782,593 mailed Jul. 3, 2006. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/782,593 mailed Oct. 21, 2005. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/782,593 mailed Apr. 22, 2005. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/782,593 mailed Jun. 17, 2004. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/783,146 mailed Dec. 20, 2005. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/783,146 mailed Jul. 26, 2005. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/783,146 mailed Dec. 15, 2004. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/004,812 mailed Jan. 17, 2013. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/004,812 mailed Mar. 12, 2012. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/783,147 mailed Oct. 30, 2006. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/783,147 mailed Oct. 8, 2004. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/927,350 mailed Oct. 8, 2009. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/927,350 mailed May 13, 2009. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/694,198 mailed Dec. 16, 2010. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/252,170 mailed Aug. 28, 2012. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/252,170 mailed Apr. 19, 2012. |
“BCM5820 E-Commerce Processor,” BCM 5820 Product Brief, Broadcom, 2000, Irvine, California. |
Supplementary European Search Report in corresponding European Patent Office application, No. EP02714859, mailed Aug. 1, 2005. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/182,355, filed Feb. 14, 2000. |
International Search Report for PCT/US02/03859 mailed May 30, 2002, 2 pages. |
International Search Report for PCT/US02/03625 mailed Dec. 12, 2002, 1 page. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/252,170 mailed Feb. 1, 2012. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080141020 A1 | Jun 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09782593 | Feb 2001 | US |
Child | 11927371 | US |