Patent Grant
12166786
The present invention relates generally to cyber security and more particularly to verifying and enhancing the detection of a cyber-attack on a network.
A cyber-attack may employ malware (malicious software), which may include a computer program or file that is harmful to a computer, computer network, and/or user. Conventional antivirus applications may be employed at computers, such as, for example, laptops and servers connectable as nodes (e.g., endpoints) of a network, to identify viruses and other malware using a signature-based approach. Antivirus applications identify malware using an antivirus engine that compares the contents of a file to a database of known malware signatures. Advanced malware often avoids detection by antivirus applications. Advanced malware is often polymorphic in nature, that is, changes its “fingerprint” while maintaining its central malicious functionality, thus avoiding matches against the signature database. Also, advanced malware is often custom-designed for use against targeted users, organizations or industries and not re-used against other targets. As such, targeted malware will often not match signatures of known generic malware. Given that advanced malware is able to circumvent conventional anti-virus analysis, this approach has been determined to be deficient.
Another solution employs a malware detection system to identify malware at the network periphery. In some solutions, detection at the network periphery may utilize a conventional network intrusion detection system (IDS) often incorporated into network firewalls to compare signatures of known malware against traffic for matches while, in other solutions, a two-phase network security appliance (NSA) may be employed. The two-phase approach may compare in-bound network traffic against known characteristics of malware in a static analysis phase and identify malicious behaviors during execution of the content in a dynamic analysis phase.
Detection at the network periphery may be limited by the capability of the malware detection system for precise and effective detection without excessive false positives (wrongly identified attacks) on the one hand (such as is often the case with IDSs), and for timely analysis of behaviors of the network traffic to prevent network intrusion on the other (such as may be the case with some NSAs pending completion of their analysis). Furthermore, the analysis at the network periphery may not provide sufficient information about the particular target or targets (e.g., endpoints) within the network and the potential scope and severity of the attack.
Moreover, the proliferation of malware detection systems and security software has inundated network administrators with security alerts. Actionable intelligence may be buried within these security alerts; however, the sheer number of the alerts makes it difficult for network administrators to identify high priority alerts, a situation exacerbated by the presence of false positives. Moreover, the alerts may not contain sufficient information regarding the progression of the attack once inside the network. Accordingly, a network manager may be unable to identify whether a cyber-attack is in progress or has even occurred and to determine appropriate and timely actions to contain and remediate potential damage.
The above and further advantages of the embodiments herein may be better understood by referring to the following description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which like reference numerals indicate identically or functionally similar elements, of which:
Aspects of the invention reside in the interoperation of a network endpoint and a network connected malware detection system for the detection and/or verification of malware threats to mitigate or prevent data theft, operational compromise and other cyber-attack effects. The network endpoint (“endpoint”) and malware detection system (“MDS”) may coordinate and enhance their respective detection capabilities and even block malware as well as predict future victims. An endpoint (e.g., a computing device connectable to a network, such as a laptop, desktop, server, etc.) may detect behaviors of an object or a suspicious object during the endpoint's normal operation, and trigger an MDS to process the object for further detection and analysis. The results from the endpoint and MDS are combined and correlated to classify the object as malicious or benign. This technique may be used to automatically determine, without human intervention, whether the network is under a cyber-attack, evaluate the scope and target(s) of the cyber-attack, assess the risk to the network, identify and trace the path of the cyber-attack on the network, and recognize polymorphic malware used in an attack.
An endpoint may be configured to monitor the behaviors of an object processed by the endpoint. The behaviors may be indicative of malware. In an embodiment, an endpoint processes an object (e.g., processing of a document file, etc.), the endpoint collects information related to the behaviors (“events”), and communicates the events to a security logic engine (“SLE”). In one embodiment, a software-based agent installed on the endpoint may monitor, collect and store the events, and, in some embodiments, classify the collected events as anomalous (i.e., represent unexpected, undesired, or unwanted behaviors) or otherwise suspicious (i.e., associated with potential or actual cyber-attacks), depending on the embodiment. The endpoint may communicate all monitored events or only suspicious events to the SLE for further correlation and classification of the object. The communications from the endpoint may trigger further analysis of the object by the MDS, as described below.
The SLE may determine or verify a cyber-attack by combining the analysis results of the endpoint and MDS. In some embodiments, a SLE may coordinate analyses of the object by the MDS in response to information received by the SLE from the endpoint, to obtain enhanced analysis results and make or verify a determination of maliciousness. The SLE may perform correlation of the respective analysis results and classification of the object as malicious or benign. The SLE may initiate and coordinate additional analyses of the suspicious object to identify other endpoints on the network that may be vulnerable to the verified malicious object by directing processing of the object by the MDS or endpoint(s) to collect further features related to the processing of the object. These endpoints may not yet be affected by the malware or the effects of the malware may not have been observed, as yet. By determining whether the malware may affect currently unaffected endpoints, the SLE may determine the scope of the threat, the target of the threat, and/or “predict” new victims susceptible to the malicious object.
The MDS may be contained within a special-purpose, dedicated malware detection appliance or a component in a general purpose computing device. As used herein, an appliance may be embodied as any type of general-purpose or special-purpose computer, including a dedicated electronic computing device, adapted to implement a variety of software architectures relating to exploit and malware detection functionality. The term “appliance” should therefore be taken broadly to include such arrangements, in addition to any systems or subsystems configured to perform a management function for exploit and malware detection, and associated with other equipment or systems, such as a network computing device interconnecting the WANs and LANs. The MDS may be available via a local network connection or remotely through the internet. The malware detection system may include a static analysis engine that may identify suspicious or malicious characteristics of an object, statically (operable without executing the object). Additionally, the MDS may utilize a dynamic analysis logic to process suspicious objects in an instrumented (i.e., monitored), virtual machine capable of detecting behaviors of the suspicious objects during processing. The dynamic analysis logic may be configured with (and run) an operating system and one or more applications (collectively, the “software profile”) that the suspicious object may expect or need for effective processing, and the software profile may include the same type of software run on the endpoint. By so doing, the software environment in which the endpoint monitored the suspicious behaviors may be replicated in the software profile run on the MDS. In this way, behaviors that may be exhibited only in the presence of those applications will be detected. The SLE (which may be a component of the MDS in some embodiments) may combine the results of the static and dynamic analyses to classify the object as malicious or benign.
During operation, for example, the MDS may receive a suspicious object from an endpoint, when connected to the network, along with information regarding the software profile of the endpoint and behavioral features identified by the endpoint (indicators of compromise or “IOC's” for short) during processing. The suspicious object received by the MDS may be processed in a virtual machine of the dynamic analysis logic, which observes the behaviors exhibited by the virtual machine during the processing of the object. In some embodiments, the dynamic analysis logic may guide the processing and monitoring of the object in response to the information received by the MDS from the endpoint (e.g., specific behaviors to monitor, specific responses to dialog boxes or requests for further user input). Therefore, the MDS may receive an information package from the endpoint indicating an object ID, IOC's and context related to the processing of the object at an endpoint, and conduct the further malware analysis accordingly on the object.
The statically detected characteristics and/or dynamically observed behaviors (collectively, “features”) of the suspicious object, during processing by the MDS, may be provided to a classification engine for classification of the object as malicious or benign. The classification engine of the MDS may generate a classification of the suspicious object based on a correlation of the features with known features of malware and benign objects. The known features of malware are determined based on heuristics and experiential knowledge of previously analyzed malware. The classification of the suspicious object may be conveyed to an SLE for verification of the determination of maliciousness by combining the dynamic analysis results (of the MDS) with the monitored behaviors received from the endpoints. Verification of the determination of maliciousness may thus include correlation of the analysis results with those associated with a known corpus of benign and malicious objects for classification of the object.
In some embodiments, the SLE may coordinate further analyses by the MDS based on additional information received from another endpoint. For example, the SLE may direct the MDS to conduct additional analyses of the object using a different software profile, that is, the software profile of the other (additional) endpoint. The SLE, in response to receiving these additional analysis results from the MDS, may make or modify the determination of maliciousness (e.g., verify the first determination of maliciousness, etc.). The SLE may also modify the determination of maliciousness based on the monitored behaviors reported by the additional endpoint, which may have the same or different software profile and may report the same or different monitored behaviors. This enhanced determination of maliciousness may be used to evaluate or modify the risk represented by the malware to endpoints on the network. For example, a malicious object is determined to affect a greater set of applications, or versions of an application, included in the software profiles of the original and additional endpoints, and thereby represent a threat to a larger set of endpoints on the network running those software profiles. For example, an initial interoperation of a first endpoint and an MDS may indicate all versions of Office applications using Windows 8.1 are susceptible to a cyber-attack by an object. This may be reported to a network administrator. Subsequently, additional information received by the SLE from a second endpoint indicates that the same applications running on Windows 10 are also susceptible to the malicious object. Accordingly, the SLE may initiate an alert or report to the effect that the determination of maliciousness is verified and expanded to include the additional software profile information.
In still other embodiments, the SLE may predict an additional set of computers on the network may be at risk from malware by identifying a threat vector which may be common to these other endpoints. For example, if on Windows 8.1 all versions of Firefox are determined to be vulnerable to a malicious object, the SLE may direct the MDS to process the suspicious object using a software profile including Windows 10 and Firefox (if that software profile is available to the MDS) to predict the maliciousness of the suspicious object to Windows 10. Similarly, the SLE may direct an endpoint configured with one or more versions of Firefox running over Windows 10 to run the same object using a closely monitored and/or sandboxed (or otherwise protected) process to detect suspicious behaviors. Based on the features detected by the endpoints and/or the MDS, the SLE may determine if Windows 10 computers of the network are vulnerable to the malicious object. In response to this determination of maliciousness, the SLE may issue a security alert, determine the priority to mitigate or repair the threat, and/or identify further systems that may be affected. By correlating the features associated with the malware, the SLE may identify endpoints on the network that may be affected by the malicious object even if no IOCs in those endpoints have yet been reported.
The combined system, using the interoperation of endpoint(s) and an MDS to coordinate the detection and/or verification of malware, and, in some cases, prediction of malware threats to a network so as to mitigate or prevent data theft, operational compromise, and cyber-attack effects. The system may leverage endpoints as a distributed network of malware behavioral sensors to communicate with an MDS on the network for further analysis and combine the results by a SLE, which may be implemented as part of or separate from (and in communication with) the MDS and endpoint(s). The SLE may utilize the features identified by the endpoints and MDS to identify or verify malware, trace a malware attack within the network, predict additional vulnerable endpoints, and enhance the ability of a security administrator to protect the network.
The intermediary computing devices 140 communicate by exchanging packets or messages (i.e., network traffic) according to a predefined set of protocols, such as the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). However, it should be noted that other protocols, such as the HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) for example, may be advantageously used with the inventive aspects described herein. In the case of private network 120, the intermediary computing device 140 may include a firewall or other computing device configured to limit or block certain network traffic in an attempt to protect the endpoint devices 200 from unauthorized users and attacks. The endpoint device 200 is communicatively coupled with the security logic engine 400 by the network interconnects 130, and may provide metadata monitored and stored by the endpoint device 200 to the security logic engine 400. The malware detection system 300, security logic engine 400, and optionally one or more intermediary network device 140 are similarly connected by interconnects 130.
As illustrated in
The hardware processor 210 is a multipurpose, programmable device that accepts digital data as input, processes the input data according to instructions stored in its memory, and provides results as output. One example of the hardware processor 210 is an Intel® microprocessor with its associated instruction set architecture, which is used as a central processing unit (CPU) of the endpoint device 200. Alternatively, the hardware processor 210 may include another type of CPU, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or the like.
The network device(s) 280 may include various input/output (I/O) or peripheral devices, such as a storage device, for example. One type of storage device may include a solid state drive (SSD) embodied as a flash storage device or other non-volatile, solid-state electronic device (e.g., drives based on storage class memory components). Another type of storage device may include a hard disk drive (HDD). Each network device 280 may include one or more network ports containing the mechanical, electrical and/or signaling circuitry needed to connect the endpoint device 200 to the private network 120 to thereby facilitate communications over the system network 100. To that end, the network interface(s) 220 may be configured to transmit and/or receive messages using a variety of communication protocols including, inter alia, TCP/IP and HTTPS. 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 memory 230 may include a plurality of locations that are addressable by the hardware processor 210 and the network interface(s) 220 for storing software (including software applications) and data structures associated with such software. The hardware processor 210 is adapted to manipulate the stored data structures as well as execute the stored software, which includes an operating system (OS) 240, one or more applications 265, an agent 250, and an endpoint device classifier 260.
The operating system (OS) 240 is software that manages hardware (e.g., hardware processors 210, network interface(s) 220, memory 230, network device(s) 280, etc.), software resources, and provides common services for computer programs, such as applications 265. For hardware functions such as input and output (I/O) and memory allocation, the operating system 240 acts as an intermediary between applications 265 and the computer hardware, although the application code is usually executed directly by the hardware and frequently makes system calls to an OS function or be interrupted by it.
The agent 250 is an executable software component configured to monitor the behavior of the applications 265 and/or operating system 240. The agent 250 may be configured to monitor (via monitoring logic 255), and store metadata (e.g., state information, memory accesses, process names, time stamp, etc.) associated with content executed at the endpoint device and/or behaviors (sometimes referred to as “events”) that may be associated with processing activity. Events are behaviors of an object that are exhibited by processes executed by the endpoint and are monitored by the agent 250 during the normal operation of the endpoint. Examples of these events may include information associated with a newly created process (e.g., process identifier, time of creation, originating source for creation of the new process, etc.), information about the type and location of certain data structures, information associated with an access to certain restricted port or memory address, or the like. The agent 250 may also retrieve and communicate off the endpoint device 200 to a remote electronic device such as the SLE 400 context information such as the contents of the endpoint device's memory or hard drive. Moreover, the monitoring logic 255 may be configurable so as to enable or disable the monitoring of select behaviors, activities or processes. In some embodiments, the agent 250 may include an event processing and filtering logic 257, which, for example, applies heuristics, rules or other conditions to the monitored behaviors, to identify anomalous or unexpected behaviors and determine if the object is suspicious. Notably, the endpoint may perform (implement) exploit and malware detection as background processing (i.e., minor use of endpoint resources) with user-directed data processing being implemented as its primary processing (e.g., majority use of endpoint resources). The processing and filtering logic 257, in some embodiments, may scan content being processed for matches with indicators (signatures). Also, in some embodiments, the agent 250 is configured to provide the events including the metadata to the endpoint device classifier 260 so as to classify the behaviors as suspicious or even malicious. Further information regarding an embodiment of an agent may be had with reference to U.S. Pat. No. 8,949,257 issued Feb. 3, 2015, entitled “Method and System for Collecting and Organizing Data Corresponding to an Event,” the full disclosure of which being incorporated herein by reference.
The agent 250 may receive from the security logic engine 400 and/or malware detection system 300 a communication identifying a malicious object for elevated levels of monitoring and/or identifying certain specified behaviors or processes for monitoring. The communication identifying the malicious object may, by way of example, include signatures (“fingerprint”), indicators, and/or patterns or sequences of behaviors. Elevated levels of monitoring of the suspicious object may include modifying system settings or configuring the agent 250. System setting modification may include activating additional system monitors (via the monitoring logic 255) to further observe suspicious object execution and expediting communications of detection results to the SLE.
The agent 250 may provide metadata related to the monitored behaviors to the endpoint device classifier or classification engine 260 for classification of an object, e.g., as to threat level. The threat level may be indicated by the classifier 260 in any of various ways, such as indicating the object as malicious or suspicious, where “suspicious” imports less certainty or a lower threat level than a classification of “maliciousness.” The agent 250 and classifier 260 may cooperate to analyze and classify certain observed behaviors of the object, based on monitored events, as indicative of malware. The classifier 260 may also be configured to classify the monitored behaviors as expected and unexpected/anomalous, such as memory access violations, in comparison with behaviors of known malware and known benign content as identified through the use of machine learning techniques and experiential knowledge.
In some embodiments, the agent 250 may utilize rules and heuristics to identify the anomalous behaviors of objects processed by the endpoint device 200. Examples of an anomalous behavior may include a communication-based anomaly, such as an unexpected attempt to establish a network communication, unexpected attempt to transfer data (e.g., unauthorized exfiltration of proprietary information, etc.), or an anomalous behavior may include an execution anomaly, for example, an unexpected execution of computer program code, an unexpected Application Programming Interface (API) function call, an unexpected alteration of a registry key, or the like. The endpoint device monitoring rules may be updated to improve the monitoring capability of the agent 250.
The endpoint device monitoring rules may be periodically or aperiodically updated, with the updates received by the agent 250 from the malware detection system 200 and/or the security logic engine 400. The update may include new or modified event monitoring rules and may set forth the behaviors to monitor. The monitoring logic 255 may be configured to implement the monitoring rules received by the endpoint device agent 250. For example, the agent 250 may be updated with new behavioral monitoring rules which may be provided to the monitoring logic 255, the monitoring logic configures the monitors with the monitoring rules received by the agent 250 for a certain running process or certain application 265, for example, to monitor for spawned additional processes. Alternatively, the behavioral monitoring rules may be received by the endpoint device 200 in response to a request from the endpoint device 200 to determine whether new rules are available, and in response, the new rules are downloaded by the endpoint device 200, provided to the agent 250, and used to configure the monitoring logic 255.
In some embodiments, an endpoint device 200 may include a separate user interface 290. The user interface 290 may produce a graphical or textual based representation to a user of the endpoint device 200. The user interface 290 provides the user with the ability to interact with the computer. The user interface 290 may not be present for an endpoint device that is not dedicated to a single user or does not require the interaction with a user.
Malware Detection System
Referring now to
As thus embodied, the malware detection system 300 includes a network interface(s) 310, a static analysis logic 320 comprising at least an indicator scanner 330, and a heuristics engine 335, a dynamic analysis logic 340 comprising at least a scheduler 350, a store of software profiles 355, and one or more virtual machine(s) 360, an event database and logic 362, a classifying engine 380, an indicator generator 385, and a reporting engine 390. The malware analysis may involve static, dynamic and/or an optional emulation analysis, as generally described in U.S. Pat. No. 9,223,972, the entire contents of which are incorporated by reference.
The network interface(s) 310 may receive and capture network traffic transmitted from multiple devices without appreciably affecting the performance of the private network 120 or the devices coupled to the private network 120. In one embodiment, the malware detection system 300 may capture objects contained in network traffic using the network interface(s) 310, make a copy of the objects, pass the objects to the appropriate endpoint device(s) 200 and pass the copy of the objects to the static analysis logic 320 and/or the dynamic analysis logic 340. In another embodiment, the malware detection system 300 may capture the objects using the network interface(s) 310 and pass the objects to the static analysis logic 320 and/or the dynamic analysis logic 340 for processing prior to passing the objects to the appropriate endpoint device(s) 200. In such an embodiment, sometimes called a “blocking deployment,” the objects will only be passed to the appropriate endpoint device(s) 200 (e.g., the destination of the network traffic as identified in network traffic packets) if the analysis of the objects does not indicate that the objects are associated with malicious, anomalous and/or unwanted characteristics and/or behaviors.
The network interface(s) 310 and static analysis logic 320 may be located at the periphery of the private network 120. The periphery of a private network 120 may be located at or near the interconnect(s) 130 between the private network 120 and other networks, e.g., behind a firewall (not shown) on the private network 120. For example, the network interface(s) 310 and static analysis logic 320 components of the malware detection system are located at the private network periphery while the dynamic analysis logic 340, scorer 370, classifier 380, indicator generator 385 and reporting engine 390 are each located on a remote server on the private network 120 or on a public network 110 connected to the private network 120 via interconnects 130. Alternatively, all of these components may be co-located at or near the periphery of the private network 120.
The static analysis logic 320 may receive the network traffic to then extract the objects and related metadata, or may receive the objects and related metadata from the network interface(s) 310 already extracted. 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. The static analysis logic 320 may provide the objects to the indicator scanner 330 to identify if the objects match known indicators of malware. The term “indicator” (or “signature”) designates a set of characteristics and/or behaviors exhibited by one or more malware that may or may not be unique to the malware. Thus, a match of the signature may indicate to some level of probability that an object constitutes malware. In some contexts, those of skill in the art have used the term “signature” as a unique identifier or “fingerprint.” For example, a specific malware or malware family, may be represented by an indicator which is generated, for instance, as a hash of its machine code, and that is a special sub-case for purposes of this disclosure. The indicator scanner 330 may incorporate, in memory (not separately shown), a database of known malware indicators. The database of known malware indicators may be updated by receiving through the network interface(s) 310 from the public network 110 or the private network 120, via network interconnects 130, new indicators of malware. The database of indicators may also be updated by the indicator generator 385.
The heuristics engine 335 determines characteristics of the objects and/or network traffic, such as formatting or patterns of their content, and uses such characteristics to determine a probability of maliciousness. The heuristic engine 335 applies heuristics and/or probability analysis to determine if the objects might contain or constitute malware. Heuristics engine 335 is adapted to analyze certain portions of the network traffic, constituting an object (e.g., the object may include a binary file), to determine whether a portion of the network traffic corresponds to either, for example: (i) a “suspicious” identifier such as either a particular Uniform Resource Locator “URL” that has previously been determined as being associated with known malware, a particular source or destination (IP or MAC) address that has previously been determined as being associated with known malware; or (ii) a known malicious pattern corresponding with malware. The heuristics engine 335 may be adapted to perform comparisons of an object under analysis against one or more pre-stored (e.g., pre-configured and/or predetermined) attack patterns stored in memory (not shown). The heuristics engine 335 may also be adapted to identify deviations in messaging practices set forth in applicable communication protocols (e.g., HTTP, TCP, etc.) exhibited by the traffic packets containing the object, since these deviations are often characteristic of malware. A match of an identifier may indicate, to some level of probability, often well less than 100%, that an object constitutes malware. The identifiers may represent identified characteristics (features) of the potential malware. The heuristics engine 335 may include scoring logic to correlate one or more characteristics of potential malware with a score of maliciousness, the score indicating the level of suspiciousness and/or maliciousness of the object. In one embodiment, when the score is above a first threshold, the heuristic engine 335 may generate an alert that the object is malicious. When the score is greater than a second threshold but lower than the first threshold, the object may be provided to the static analysis logic and/or the dynamic analysis logic for further analysis. When the score is less than the second threshold, the threat detection system may determine no further analysis is needed (e.g., the object is benign).
For dynamic analysis, the static analysis engine 320 may provide the object to the scheduler 350. The scheduler 350 is responsible for provisioning and instantiating a virtual machine to execute the object at a schedule time. In some embodiments, the heuristic module 335 transmits the metadata identifying a destination device to the scheduler 350, which can then provision a virtual machine with software (operating system (OS) and one or more applications) and other components appropriate for execution of the network data (data packets or objects), which in some cases are those associated with the destination device. In other embodiments, the scheduler 350 receives one or more data packets of the network traffic from the network interface(s) 310 and analyzes the one or more data packets to identify the destination device. A virtual machine is executable software that is configured to mimic the performance of a device (e.g., the destination device).
The scheduler 350 can configure the virtual machine to mimic the performance characteristics of a destination device that are pertinent for behavioral monitoring for malware detection. The virtual machine can be provisioned from the store of software profiles 355. In one example, the scheduler 350 configures the characteristics of the virtual machine to mimic only those features of the destination device that are affected by an object to be executed (opened, loaded, and/or executed) and analyzed. Such features of the destination device can include ports that are to receive the network data, select device drivers that are to respond to the network data and any other devices coupled to or contained within the destination device that can respond to the network data. In other embodiments, the dynamic analysis logic 340 may determine a software profile, and then configures one or more virtual machine(s) 360 with the appropriate ports and capabilities to receive and execute the network data based on that software profile. In other examples, the dynamic analysis logic 340 passes the software profile for the network data to the scheduler 350 which either selects from the store of software profiles 355 or configures the virtual machine based on that profile.
The store of software profiles 355 is configured to store virtual machine images. The store of software profiles 355 can be any storage capable of storing software. In one example, the store of software profiles 355 stores a single virtual machine image that can be configured by the scheduler 350 to mimic the performance of any destination device on the private network 120. The store of software profiles 355 can store any number of distinct virtual machine images that can be configured to simulate the performance of any destination devices when processed in one or more virtual machine(s) 360.
The processing of an object may occur within one or more virtual machine(s), which may be provisioned with one or more software profiles. The software profile may be configured in response to configuration information provided by the scheduler 350, information extracted from the metadata associated with the object, and/or a default analysis software profile. Each software profile may include a software application and/or an operating system. Each of the one or more virtual machine(s) 360 may further include one or more monitors (not separately shown), namely software components that are configured to observe, capture and report information regarding run-time behavior of an object under analysis during processing within the virtual machine. The observed and captured run-time behavior information as well as effects on the virtual machine, otherwise known as features, along with related metadata may be provided to a scoring logic 370.
The scoring logic 370 generates a score used in a decision of maliciousness by the classification engine 380. The score may be a probability value (expressed in any of various ways such as, for example, a numerical value or percent) or other indicator (quantitative or qualitative) of security risk or so-called threat level. The determination of the score of the object processed by the malware detection system 300 may be based on a correlation of each of the features identified by the static analysis logic 320 and dynamic analysis logic 340. The features may include characteristics, where characteristics include information about the object captured without requiring execution or “running” of the object. Characteristics may include metadata associated with the object, including, for example, anomalous formatting or structuring of the object. The features may also include behaviors, where behaviors include information about the object and its activities captured during its execution or processing. Behaviors may include, but are not limited to, attempted outbound communications over a network connection or with other processes, patterns of activity or inactivity, and/or attempts to access system resources.
The scoring logic 370 may correlate one or more characteristics and monitored behaviors (features) with a weight of maliciousness. The weight of maliciousness reflects experiential knowledge of the respective features (characteristics or monitored behaviors) and their correlations with those of known malware and benign objects. For example, during processing, the dynamic analysis logic 340 may monitor several behaviors of an object processed in the one or more virtual machine(s) 360, where, during processing, the object (i) executes a program, (ii) the program identifies personally identifiable data (e.g., login information, plain-text stored passwords, credit information), (iii) the program generates and encrypts the data in a new file, (iv) the program executes a network call, and (v) sends the encrypted data via the network connection to a remote server (exfiltrates the data). Each individual event may generate an independent score, weighted by the scoring logic 370, the weight based on experiential knowledge as to the maliciousness of each associated event. The individual scores or a combined score across these events may be provided to the classifying engine 380. Alternatively, in some embodiments, the generation of a combined score may be performed by the classifying engine 380, or the scoring logic 370 and classification engine 380 may be combined into a single engine.
The classifying engine 380 may be configured to use the scoring information provided by scoring logic 370 to classify the object as malicious, suspicious, or benign. In one embodiment, when the score is above a first threshold, the heuristic engine 335 may generate an alert that the object is malicious. When the score is greater than a second threshold but lower than the first threshold, the object may be provided for further analysis to the static analysis logic and/or the dynamic analysis logic for further analysis. When the score is less than the second threshold, the classifying engine 380 may determine no further analysis is needed (e.g., the object is benign). The threshold of maliciousness may be fixed, modified by as security administrator, and/or modified based on network conditions (for example, if a network is experiencing anomalous network conditions, if many other clients of a similar type are under confirmed attack, etc.). The classifying engine 380 may be configured to classify the object based on the characteristics identified by the static analysis logic 320 and/or the behaviors (expected and unexpected/anomalous) monitored by the dynamic analysis logic 340. In some embodiments, the classifying engine 380 may use only the correlation information provided by the scoring logic 370. That is, a determination of whether the monitored behaviors represent expected or unexpected (anomalous) behaviors is rendered by correlating the monitored behaviors against behaviors of known malware. Results of the static analysis may also be used in the correlation and classification, e.g., by being combined with the results of the dynamic analysis to yield a combined score. In an embodiment, further static analysis and/or dynamic analysis may be performed at the MDS 300 based on the results of correlation and classification engines.
In some embodiments, the classifying engine 380 may provide objects classified as malicious to the indicator generator 385, which may then generate indicators associated with these malicious objects. Additionally, the indicator generator 385 may receive non-malicious objects to generate a suitable indicator associated with non-maliciousness. In some embodiments, the indicators may be “fingerprint” type signatures, formed as a hash of the object. Alternatively, or in addition, the indicators may include identification of observed features, including characteristics and behaviors. The indicators thus generated may be provided to the security logic engine 400 for further enhancement (e.g., with additional indication of features) using results provided by endpoint devices 200. The classifying engine 380 may alternatively bypass the indicator generator 385 if it determines that the analyzed object is not malicious. The indicators may be provided to the indicator scanner 330 for use in inspecting (by scanning) subsequently received objects. In some embodiments, the indicator generator 385 may also distribute the indicators to the endpoint devices 200 and/or the security logic engine 400.
If the malware detection system classifies the object as malicious based on a static analysis results and/or dynamic analysis results, the reporting engine 390 may signal to a network or security administrator for action by an appropriate alert. In an embodiment, the reporting engine 390 may report the indicators (“signatures”) of detected behaviors of a process/object as indicative of malware and organize those indicators as reports for distribution to the endpoint devices 200.
As noted previously, the reporting logic 390 may be configured to generate an alert for transmission external to the malware detection system 300 (e.g., to one or more other endpoint devices 200, to the security logic engine 400, and/or to a central manager). The reporting logic 390 is configured to provide reports via the network interface(s) 310. The security logic engine 400, when external to the MDS 300, e.g., may be configured to perform a management function or a separate management system may be provided, depending on the embodiment, e.g., to distribute the reports to other MDS within the private network, as well as to nodes within a malware detection services and/or equipment supplier network (e.g., supplier cloud infrastructure) for verification of the indicators and subsequent distribution to other malware detection system and/or among other customer networks. Illustratively, the reports distributed by the management function or system may include the entire or portions of the original indicator reports provided by the MDS 300, or may include new versions that are derived from the original reports.
Security Logic Engine
As shown in
The network interface(s) 410 can be coupled to a network such as private network 120 (
In some embodiments, a formatting logic 420 receives communication data from the network interface(s) 410 (or 310 of
The correlation engine 430 may correlate the features received by the security logic engine 400 from an endpoint device 200 and the malware detection system 300 with known behaviors and characteristics of benign and malicious objects. Additionally, the correlation engine 430 may correlate the features received from the endpoint device 200 with those received from the malware detection system 300 to verify the determination of maliciousness obtained by the malware detection system 300 or determine the extent to which the features from these two vantage points (network periphery and endpoint) correlate with one another. The correlations just described in the preceding two sentences can be performed separately or in the same operation depending on the implementation, and in other embodiments one or the other may be eliminated altogether.
The results of the correlation performed by the correlation engine 430 may be provided to a scorer 440. The scorer 440 may generate a score based on each correlation of an observed feature with known behaviors and characteristics of benign and malicious objects. The classification engine 450 may utilize the scores generated by the scorer 440 to classify the object as malicious if it exceeds a threshold. The threshold may be fixed or dynamic. The maliciousness threshold may be “factory-set,” “user-set,” and/or modified based on information received via a network interface(s) 410.
The correlation engine 430 may be configured, depending on the embodiment, (a) to verify a classification of maliciousness made by the endpoint 200, (b) to provide greater or lesser confidence that an object processed by the endpoint 200 should be classified as malware, and/or (c) to determine whether the malware detection system 300 has received and is processing malware, and if so, whether the malware is the same as that detected by the endpoint 200. The first of these involves the correlation engine 430 to correlate at least the results of the endpoint 200 with those of the malware detection system 300. The last of these involves the correlation engine 430 correlating the features reported by the malware detection system 300 with those of known malware, and compare the correlation results with those obtained by the endpoint 200.
For example, the correlation engine 430 may receive, over a communication network via network interface(s) 410, (i) a feature set (features including behaviors and, in some embodiments, characteristics) monitored by the endpoint device agent 250, and (ii) a feature set (features including behaviors and, in some embodiments, characteristics) associated with an object classified by the malware detection system as malware, and in some embodiments, the associated score or threat level determined by the MDS. The correlation engine 430 may correlate the feature sets received from the endpoint device 200 and the MDS 300 to determine whether the endpoint 200 observed the same or similar features to those monitored in the MDS 300 on which its classification decision was based, and may also correlate those feature sets with known features exhibited by known malware and/or malware families. In so doing, the correlation engine 430 may apply correlation rules to determine whether the feature sets separately (or those common features of the feature sets) indicate or verify the object as malware. The correlation rules may define, among other things, patterns (such as sequences) of known malicious behaviors, and, in some embodiments, also patterns of known benign behaviors. For example, in looking at patterns, a behavior may be detected that appears benign, but when examined with other behaviors, may be indicative of malicious activity.
The scorer 440 generates a risk level or numerical score used in a decision of maliciousness by the classification engine 450. The score may be a probability value (expressed in any of various ways such as, for example, a numerical value or percent) or other indicator (quantitative or qualitative) of security risk or threat level. The determination of the risk level of the object processed by the MDS 300 and observed by the endpoint device 200 may be based on monitored events used by the correlation engine 430, including, for example, (i) the location from where the object originated (e.g., a known website compared to an unknown website), (ii) the processed object spawned a new process, and/or (iii) actions taken by received objects during processing (e.g., executable code contained in objects attempts to execute a callback). An object with an associated score (value) above a first threshold may indicate a suspicious object, i.e., an object with a certain probability of being malicious, and above a second, higher threshold may indicate that object should be classified as malware, i.e., an object with a high probability of being malicious. In some embodiments, the scorer 440 may increase or decrease a score provided by the MDS 300 or may generate its own score based on all the available features of the feature sets. For example, if the results of the correlation of monitored behaviors from the endpoint device 200 and the MPS 300 and, in some embodiments, features associated with known malware, reveal a level of similarity above a first predetermined threshold (e.g., 60% or 70%), the scorer 440 may so indicate in its score. The security logic engine 400 may classify the object as malware in response to the score generated by the scorer 440.
Accordingly, the classification engine 450 may be configured to use the correlation information provided by correlation engine 430 and the score provided by a scorer 440 to render a decision as to whether the object is malicious. Illustratively, the classification engine 450 may be configured to classify the correlation information, including monitored behaviors and characteristics, of the object relative to those of known malware and benign content. If a first probability of attack (score) is received by the security logic engine 400 from a malware detection system 300 and differs by a threshold amount or falls beyond a comparison “range” from the probability of attack (score) as determined by the classification engine 450, the security logic engine 400 may generate a second classification (the classification generated by the classification engine 450), and provide the second classification to the malware detection system 300 and report the second classification in an alert. The threshold or comparison range may be fixed, and/or based on a percentage of the initial classification by the malware detection system 300.
In an embodiment, the security logic engine 400 may include a labeler 460 configured to add names of malware or malware families to indicators (signatures) of malware. The labeler 460 may define a new malware family or add the identified malware to the malware family bearing the greatest similarity to the identified malware. The similarity may be based on a correlation, conducted by the correlation engine 430 or the labeler 460, of the identified malware behaviors with a database (not shown) of known malware family entries and associated behaviors. The database entry for the known malware family associated with the newly detected malware may be updated with any new features detected for the malicious object. Alternatively, the association of a malware family may be implemented in a separate module. The malware detection system 300 may update the indicator scanner 330 using the enhanced indicators generated by the labeler 460. These indicators may be used internally by the indicator scanner 470 of the security logic engine 400 or distributed externally as part of indicator reports to the malware detection system (s) 300 or endpoint device(s) 200.
The indicator scanner 470 receives, authenticates, and stores malware indicators, and scans results received from the malware detection system 300 and results received from an endpoint device 200 to determine, when they match, that the object under analysis is malicious. The indicator scanner 470 may also generate enhanced indicators based on the additional information received from the endpoint device 200.
The risk analyzer 480 determines the risk of harm to private network 120 from a verified malicious object based on the results provided by the classification engine 450 and labeler 460 and the indicator scanner 470. The risk analyzer 480 may base the risk of harm on information retrieved from a database regarding named malware or malware families. More specifically, the risk analyzer 480 may receive information about the object from the classification engine 450 and/or the labeler 460, which may also provide the observed behaviors from an endpoint device 200 and a malware detection system 300 as well as a malware family name and/or identified malware name. The risk analyzer 480 may also retrieve information from the network or be provided with information about network device properties (e.g., network location, connected users, operating system version, etc.) for use in its risk assessment. The risk analyzer 480 may also receive a classification of the malware from the classification engine 450 or the signature matcher 470. The risk analyzer 480 determines a risk to the private network 120 using experiential knowledge to correlate the information about the malicious object with the information about the network device properties. The correlation results in a risk profile for each endpoint device, which may be provided to a network administrator.
The risk analyzer 480 may identify endpoint device(s) 200 that may be affected by the cyber-attack involving the verified malicious object. The risk analyzer 480 may utilize the identified features and metadata of a verified malicious object to determine if the system configuration (where a system configuration may be characterized by its hardware and software profiles) of each endpoint device in the private network 120 is vulnerable to the attack. To determine the risk posed by the verified malicious object to each endpoint device 200, the risk analyzer 480 may correlate each feature and its metadata of the object (e.g., software profile running during processing of the object during which malicious behavior was observed) with system configuration attributes of the endpoints on the network. If an endpoint device system configuration correlates with the features and metadata of the verified malware, the risk analyzer 480 identifies the endpoint device as at risk to attack.
In some embodiments, the risk analyzer 480 may communicate to a malware detection system 300 that further analysis of the verified malicious object is necessary if the risk analyzer 480 cannot determine if the verified malicious object will behave maliciously when processed by endpoint device system configurations on the private network. The malware detection system 300 may conduct the further analyses with software profiles and other system characteristics as available to the malware detection system for use with its virtual machines.
The risk analyzer 480 may issue alerts to particular network devices (e.g., endpoint devices, network storage servers being accessed by an endpoint device 200 with a verified malicious object present) to restrict access from network devices found to be correlated with a high risk and/or may issue alerts to a network or security administrator via the reporting engine 490.
The reporting engine 490 is adapted to receive information from the signature matcher 470 and the risk analyzer 480 to generate alerts that identify to a user of an endpoint device, network administrator or an expert network analyst the likelihood of verified network cyber-attack. Other additional information regarding the verified malware may optionally be included in the alerts. For example, additional reported information may contain, in part, typical behaviors associated with the malware, particular classifications of endpoint devices or users that may be targeted, and/or the priority for mitigation of the malware's effects. Additionally, a user of an endpoint device that was to receive the objects and/or a network administer may be alerted to the results of the processing via alert generated by a reporting engine 490. The reporting engine 490 may also provide connected malware detection systems and endpoint devices 200 with updated information regarding malicious attacks and their correlation with particular behaviors identified by the security logic engine 400. Where the security logic engine is a component of the MDS 300, the reporting engine 490 may be eliminated or combined with reporting engine 390.
If the endpoint identifies features of the object that may be indicative of malware in step 720, the object analyzed may be suspicious. Features may be determined to be indicative of malware, and thus suspicious by the endpoint employing heuristics, black lists (or white lists), or by correlation with features of known malicious and benign objects based on experiential knowledge and machine learning. If the endpoint determines the object is suspicious, further analysis by a malware detection system may be triggered or otherwise initiated, for example, in response to a request from an endpoint. In step 725 the malware detection system receives information related to the object for further processing. The information received by the malware detection system may include the object itself and/or information related to the object (e.g., an identifier associated with the object—the identifier may be used to retrieve a copy of the object stored by a network traffic store such as a network storage system or facility and/or a network periphery device which may have stored the object). In some embodiments the MDS may receive the information related to the object directly from the endpoint which first processed the object, or in other embodiments through an intermediary network device (for example, a network device incorporating a security logic engine). The MDS, in response to the request for analysis of the object may determine if the suspicious object has already been classified as malicious or benign. In some embodiments, to determine if the suspicious object has already been classified, the MDS may access a local store of classifications associated with malicious and/or benign objects previously scanned or submit a request to a network based store of prior classifications. In some embodiments, if the MDS does not have access to the suspicious object for analysis (e.g., the suspicious object was received by the endpoint while it was not connected to a network protected by the MDS and therefore was not stored there), the MDS may request the object for analysis from one or more endpoints on the network (e.g., from the endpoint requesting the analysis of the suspicious object) or from a network traffic store connected to the MDS which may preserve (for a limited period of time) objects transmitted throughout the network. In some embodiments the endpoint may provide additional information about the context of the processing of the object by the endpoint, to the MDS, by providing information about the software profile of the endpoint (such as the operating system and applications available on the endpoint during processing of the object) and/or features detected during processing by the endpoint.
In step 730 the MDS may conduct an analysis of the suspicious object. In some embodiments, the MDS may conduct an analysis of the suspicious object using a static and/or dynamic analysis. The static analysis may, in part, include an indicator scanner 330 and/or a heuristics engine 335 which may utilize statically identified characteristics of the suspicious object to determine if the object is malicious. The dynamic analysis of the suspicious object may include processing the suspicious object in a dynamic analysis logic 340 (e.g., employing a virtual machine of the malware detection system 360) configured with monitoring mechanisms to identify behaviors associated with the executing the object by the virtual machine. In some embodiments the virtual machine may be configured with an operating system, and a set of one or more applications, which may be collectively referred to as a software profile. The software profile of the virtual machine may be consistent (identical and/or similar) with the software profile running on the endpoint having reported the suspicious object, with respect to the operating system and affected applications, or at least in so far as the object requiring processing in the virtual machine requires or expects to find the software running in its run-time environment. In some embodiments, the results (characteristics and behaviors) generated by the analysis of the MDS (including the characteristics identified by the static analysis engine and the behaviors monitored during processing the object in the dynamic analysis logic may be provided, as features, to an MDS correlation engine for determination of maliciousness. In still other embodiments these features detected by the MDS may be provided to a security logic engine for correlation and determination of maliciousness.
In step 735, the security logic engine 400 receives the detected features associated with the suspicious object from the MDS 300 and the endpoint 200. In some embodiments the SLE may be a component of the MDS whereby the SLE shall receive the detected features of the object processed via the reporting engine 390. The SLE may correlate the features received and combine the results of the analysis performed by the MDS 300 in step 730 with the monitored features from the endpoint device 200 in step 715. The combination of the features received by the SLE may be used to generate further correlations of those features with the features of known malicious and benign objects as determined from experiential knowledge and machine learning. If further correlations with features known (labeled) objects exceed a correlation threshold, as described herein, the SLE 400 in step 45 may identify a cyber-attack. If the determination of a cyber-attack cannot be made, the SLE 400 may await further monitored features to be received from the endpoint device 200 or end the analysis.
If the system determines the object is benign, proceed to step 755 where the process ends. If a determination of maliciousness is made, in step 755, the security event analyzing logic 400 may report the determination of a cyber-attack to a security administrator for remediation and/or mitigation.
In some embodiments, the SLE may poll (communicate with) another endpoint to determine whether the other endpoint has processed the same object or whether the other endpoint has detected similar behaviors.
In step 812 the security logic engine, in response to receiving an indication of suspiciousness from the processing of the object by the endpoint, triggers the processing of the object by a malware detection system. The security logic engine may receive, from the endpoint (directly via a communication interface or indirectly via one or more intermediary devices such as a USB flash drive, network connected appliance, etc.) the object or an object identifier that may be used to retrieve the object. The indication of suspiciousness received by the security logic engine from the endpoint may result from applying a heuristic, at the endpoint, to features detected during processing of the object by the endpoint. In some embodiments, the indication of suspiciousness may result from a correlation of the features detected, during processing by the endpoint, with known malicious or benign objects. The SLE may receive from the endpoint an indication of suspiciousness resulting from a heuristic or correlation of the features detected, employed at the endpoint, and an identifier of the object or the object itself. The SLE may send a message to trigger, in step 815, in response to receiving the indication of suspiciousness, a malware detection system to process the object in a monitored runtime environment such as a virtual machine. The security logic engine may provide the object (or the object identifier) to the static analysis logic 320 and to dynamic analysis logic 340 of the malware detection system so that the object may be processed.
The method continues with the SLE 400 receiving features from the malware detection system 300 in step 815 by the static analysis logic 320 and dynamic analysis logic 340. In some embodiments, the processing and classification conducted by the malware detection system 300 may be directed by the SLE in response to receiving a suspicious object requiring further analysis and/or a security administrator. The malware detection system 300 processes the received network traffic using at least the static analysis logic 320 and/or dynamic analysis logic 340.
In step 820 the security logic engine 400 combines the features and/or information associated with processing the object received from the one or more endpoints 200 and the malware detection system 300. In some embodiments, where the security logic engine is a component of the malware detection system, the security logic engine may receive the information associated with processing the object through the reporting engine 390. In some embodiments, the malware detection system 300 may provide the security logic engine 400 a determination of maliciousness. The security logic engine may verify the malware detection system determination of maliciousness by correlating the received features (the features received from the one more endpoints 200 and the malware detection system 300), with the features of known malicious and benign objects to determine if the object is malicious. If the malware detection system determination of maliciousness and the security logic engine determination of maliciousness correspond, the determination of maliciousness is verified. If determination of maliciousness from the malware detection system 300 and the security logic engine 400 do not correspond, the determination of maliciousness by the security logic engine, based on features received from processing the object at least one endpoint and the malware detection system, supersedes the malware detection system determination of maliciousness and is not verified.
At step 825 the security logic engine 400 determines if the object is malicious based on the information and features related to processing the object that are received. If the object is determined to be malicious the method proceeds to step 840 where security alerts for an administrator are generated and issued by the system. The security alert generated may provide the object, the object identifier, a description of the threat posed to the network, a tracing of the cyber-attack in the network, and an identification of affected endpoints and/or endpoints which may be at risk to the cyber-attack. If the object is determined to not be malicious, the method may terminate in step 845. If the object is determined to be malicious, the method may continue to step 835, wherein the security logic engine 400 identifies endpoints on the network susceptible to the object. For example, the security logic engine 400 may identify endpoints susceptible to the object by identifying endpoints with a software profile similar to the first endpoint and/or the software profile used to configure the malware detection system 300 virtual machine (in step 815).
In some embodiments the method may continue to step 830 where the security logic engine 400 receives additional features detected while processing the same (or a similar) object by a second endpoint. A signature (e.g., a hash) of the object may be used to identify whether the second endpoint is processing the same object. The additional features from the second endpoint may be used by the security logic engine to modify the determination of maliciousness of the object. The additional features received from the second endpoint by the security logic engine in step 830 may be combined with the previously received features for correlation and classification in step 820. The combined features may, in step 825, the object(s) to be malicious. If the determination of maliciousness is in accord with the previous determination of maliciousness, the latter is verified. If the security logic engine modifies the determination of maliciousness for the object in step 820, the SLE may generate and issue a modified report of the cyber-attack. The procedure may proceed, if the object is determined non-malicious to step 845, to step 830 if additional features from the same or yet another endpoint are received by the security logic engine, or step 835 if the object is determined to be malicious and no additional features are received.
In some embodiments the additional features received from the second endpoint in step 830 may result in a feature correlation, with known malicious objects, so as to classify the object as malicious based on certain characteristics. For example, the vulnerability to cyber-attack caused by a malicious object t may only affect endpoints using both Windows 8.1 and Firefox 41.0 and 45.0. In some embodiments the security logic engine 400 may generate alerts for endpoints with the known characteristics of vulnerability. If an alert was generated and issued before the additional information from a second (or more) endpoint, the SLE may modify the existing alert and/or generate and issue another alert.
In still further embodiments, the additional features received from the second endpoint by security logic engine in step 830 may indicate that the object contains polymorphic code (i.e. code that allows the malicious program to mutate—have a different code signature—but maintain the original or core malicious functions and purpose). Polymorphic code may be identified in step 830 if objects, received from a plurality of endpoints, have similar behaviors but different code signatures. The similar behaviors may be identified by the security logic engine identifying a correlation between the objects received from the plurality of endpoints. The additional information related to the object received from another endpoint in step 830 may be used by the security logic engine to determine if the object contains polymorphic code by employing the correlation engine 430 of the security logic engine to determine if the features received from the plurality of endpoints in response to processing object correlate. The identification of polymorphic code may cause the scorer 440 to increase the maliciousness score of the object. The classification of the object in step 825 as malicious may lead the procedure to step 830 or to step 845 if determined to be not malicious.
If the security logic engine does not receive additional features (i.e. step 830 does not occur) and the object is not determined to be malicious, the process proceeds to step 845 where it ends. Conversely, if the security logic engine does not receive additional features and the object is determined to be malicious, the security logic engine generates and issues a report to a security administrator detailing the cyber-attack in step 840 and the procedure proceeds to step 845 where it ends. In some embodiments, the security logic engine may also send messages to endpoints affected by the malicious object, or to endpoints found by the SLE to be at risk of cyber-attack by the malicious object, to notify the endpoint or, via screen display or other alert, of the attack and in some embodiments, to block and/or prevent processing of the object by the endpoint.
In some embodiments, the security logic engine 400 may direct a malware detection system 300 to analyze an object, known to be malicious, to determine the risk posed to other endpoints on the network. For example, the security logic engine may make a determination that an object received from a first endpoint is malicious based on the features received in response to processing the object by the endpoint and a malware detection system. To determine if the object is malicious to other computers on the network the security logic engine may direct the malware detection system to process the object in a virtual machine configured with a software profile similar to at least one other endpoint on the network and collect features related to maliciousness. The security logic engine may receive these features to determine if the object is malicious to endpoints with a same or similar software profile based on the directed processing of the object in the malware detection system.
In yet another embodiment, the security logic engine 400 may direct a second endpoint on the network to collect and return monitored features resulting from processing the object and coordinate with the security logic engine to determine if the object is malicious to the second endpoint. The security logic engine may identify the second endpoint based on a risk to the network as identified by the SLE. For example, if a security logic engine receives features from a first endpoint with a first software profile and the security logic engine determines the object is malicious in coordination with a malware detection system, the security logic engine may identify a set of endpoints with a different software profile and direct at least one endpoint of the set of endpoints to return monitored features resulting from processing the object to the security logic engine for analysis. The security logic engine may combine the features received and correlate the results to classify whether the object is malicious to the set of endpoints. By directing the analysis of the object by at least one of the set of endpoints by the security logic engine, the security logic engine may determine if the object represents a cyberattack risk to the set of endpoints.
As shown in
The endpoint 200 may identify a suspicious object and communicate at least an identifier of the suspicious object and/or the suspicious object to the MDS. The endpoint 200 may identify the suspicious object by monitoring the processing of the object. The object may be processed in response to user interaction (e.g., opening a document file from the internet, where the document is the object) or in response to an automated process (e.g., the endpoint receives an object from another system, via a network connection, for monitoring during processing). The endpoint may detect features related to the processing of the object at the endpoint. The endpoint may correlate these features with known features of malicious objects and classify the object as suspicious. If the endpoint determines the object is suspicious it may communicate at least the suspicious object or suspicious object identifier to an SLE or MDS. The endpoint may optionally also communicate a set of detected features and/or additional information about the endpoint (e.g., software profile information, such as the operating system, applications available on the endpoint, and/or the programs responsible for processing the object).
The suspicious object or suspicious object identifier may be communicated directly to the MDS or via a security logic engine (SLE). If the MDS and/or SLE receive a suspicious object identifier via a communication interface, each may retrieve the suspicious object from an object store (e.g., a network traffic storage system), a local store of objects, and/or by requesting the endpoint having communicated the suspicious object identifier return the object to each respective system.
The malware detection system 300 may receive the suspicious object (or suspicious object identifier by which the MDS may retrieve the suspicious object as previously described herein) for processing and classification as malicious or benign. In some embodiments, the MDS may receive the suspicious object through the integrated SLE component, or alternatively the MDS may retrieve the suspicious object directly. The MDS may process the suspicious object, to detect features, in at least a static analysis logic 320 or a dynamic analysis logic 340. The static analysis logic 320 may identify features of the object that may provide sufficient features for a correlation of the MDS to classify the suspicious object as malicious. In some embodiments the features detected by the static analysis logic may be used by the dynamic analysis logic 340 to guide feature detection during processing.
The dynamic analysis logic 340 may configure one or more virtual machine(s) (see
The features detected by the MDS by processing the suspicious object using the static analysis logic 320 and/or the dynamic analysis logic 340, may be correlated with features of known malicious objects to determine if the suspicious object is malicious or benign. The features detected by the MDS may be communicated to the SLE 400 and combined with information received by the SLE from the endpoint. The SLE may correlate the received information from the endpoint and the MDS to classify the suspicious object as malicious or benign. The classification done by the SLE, if consistent with the determination by the MDS, verifies the MDS determination of maliciousness.
Similarly, in an embodiment, the SLE may direct the MDS to process an object, in the virtual machine(s) configured with a software profile of an unaffected endpoint. The SLE may provide the object directly to the MDS or provide an object identifier by which the MDS may retrieve the object via the network. During processing of the object by the MDS in the virtual machine(s) the MDS may detect features associated with processing of the object. The features detected by the MDS may be provided by the MDS to the SLE for correlation and classification in combination with any features previously received by the SLE related to that object. By classifying the object with the features received from the MDS directed to process the object, the SLE may identify a set of endpoints on the network, with a given software profile, that may be vulnerable to the object.
In further embodiments, the SLE may identify polymorphic code by combining the features detected by at least two processing locations (e.g., MDS and endpoint, or between two endpoints, etc.). The SLE may determine that the features detected by the plurality of processing locations indicate identical behaviors that relate to maliciousness, however the objects have different code signatures. The different code signatures but identical behaviors may indicate the existence of malicious polymorphic code. If the object in which the polymorphic code is identified is found to be malicious by the SLE, the SLE may generate and issue an alert to a security administrator and/or to affected endpoints providing information about the malicious object.
In some embodiments, the SLE may determine the progress of a cyber-attack through the network. The SLE, having identified a cyber-attack based on features collected while processing an object by at least one endpoint and a malware detection system, may receive further features and/or information related to the cyber-attack (related to processing the object) from other endpoints on the network. In some embodiments this may include information from known affected endpoints related to communication with other endpoints, this communication may represent transmission of malicious content, related to the cyber-attack, to additional endpoints. By combining and analyzing the received information related to the cyber-attack, from the endpoints, the SLE may determine the scope of the attack and trace the attack through the network. The SLE may generate reports tracing the cyber-attack to be used in mitigation and repair of the network.
In some embodiments, if the SLE determines the suspicious object is malicious, the SLE may determine that a cyber-attack is underway and initiate mitigation techniques. The mitigation techniques may be initiated automatically by the SLE or in response to commands by a security administrator. A mitigation technique may include issuing an alert to affected endpoints regarding the malicious object and/or issuing an alert to endpoints with a similar software profile (and thus similarly vulnerable) as the affected endpoint. Another mitigation technique may include generating and distributing information to block and/or stop the malicious object from being processed by another endpoint on the network.
The foregoing description has been directed to specific embodiments. It will be apparent, however, that other variations and modifications may be made to the described embodiments, with the attainment of some or all of their advantages. For instance, it is expressly contemplated that the components and/or elements described herein can be implemented as software encoded on a tangible (non-transitory) computer-readable medium (e.g., disks, electronic memory, and/or CDs) having program instructions executing on a computer, hardware, firmware, or a combination thereof. Moreover, the embodiments or aspects thereof can be implemented in hardware, firmware, software, or a combination thereof. In the foregoing description, for example, in certain situations, terms such as “engine,” “component” and “logic” are representative of hardware, firmware and/or software that is configured to perform one or more functions. As hardware, engine (or component/logic) may include circuitry having data processing or storage functionality. Examples of such circuitry may include, but is not limited or restricted to a microprocessor, one or more processor cores, a programmable gate array, a microcontroller, an application specific integrated circuit, semiconductor memory, or combinatorial logic. Accordingly this description is to be taken only by way of example and not to otherwise limit the scope of the embodiments herein. Therefore, it is the object of the appended claims to cover all such variations and modifications as come within the true spirit and scope of the invention.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/666,335, filed on Oct. 28, 2019, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,240,262 issued Feb. 1, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/633,226, filed Jun. 26, 2017, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,462,173 issued Oct. 29, 2019, which claims priority from commonly owned Provisional Patent Application No. 62/357,119 filed Jun. 30, 2016, entitled MALWARE DETECTION VERIFICATION AND ENHANCEMENT BY COORDINATING ENDPOINT AND MALWARE DETECTION SYSTEMS, by Ashar Aziz et al., filed on Jun. 30, 2016 the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4292580 | Ott et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
| 5175732 | Hendel et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5319776 | Hile et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5440723 | Arnold et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5490249 | Miller | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5657473 | Killean et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5802277 | Cowlard | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5838973 | Carpenter-Smith | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5842002 | Schnurer et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5960170 | Chen et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5978917 | Chi | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5983348 | Ji | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6088803 | Tso et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6092194 | Touboul | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6094677 | Capek | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6108799 | Boulay et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6154844 | Touboul et al. | Nov 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 7007107 | Ivchenko et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7028179 | Anderson et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7043757 | Hoefelmeyer et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7058822 | Edery et al. | Jun 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 |
| 7694150 | Kirby | Apr 2010 | B1 |
| 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 |
| 7937387 | Frazier et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 8402529 | Green et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
| 8458462 | Hanna | Jun 2013 | B1 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 8566476 | Shiffer et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 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 |
| 8683592 | Dotan | 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 |
| 8793278 | Frazier 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 |
| 8881271 | Butler, II | Nov 2014 | B2 |
| 8881282 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
| 8898788 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
| 8935779 | Manni et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
| 8949257 | Shiffer et al. | Feb 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 et al. | 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 |
| 9106630 | Frazier et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 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 |
| 9203862 | Kashyap et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
| 9223972 | Vincent et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
| 9225740 | Ismael et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
| 9241010 | Bennett et al. | Jan 2016 | B1 |
| 9245121 | Luo | Jan 2016 | B1 |
| 9251343 | Vincent et al. | Feb 2016 | B1 |
| 9262635 | Paithane et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
| 9268936 | Butler | Feb 2016 | B2 |
| 9275229 | LeMasters | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 9282109 | Aziz et al. | Mar 2016 | B1 |
| 9292686 | Ismael et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 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 |
| 9355247 | Thioux et al. | May 2016 | B1 |
| 9356944 | Aziz | May 2016 | B1 |
| 9363280 | Rivlin et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
| 9367681 | Ismael et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
| 9398028 | Karandikar et al. | Jul 2016 | B1 |
| 9413781 | Cunningham et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
| 9426071 | Caldejon et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
| 9430646 | Mushtaq et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
| 9432389 | Khalid et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
| 9438613 | Paithane et al. | Sep 2016 | B1 |
| 9438622 | Staniford et al. | Sep 2016 | B1 |
| 9438623 | Thioux et al. | Sep 2016 | B1 |
| 9459901 | Jung et al. | Oct 2016 | B2 |
| 9467460 | Otvagin et al. | Oct 2016 | B1 |
| 9483644 | Paithane et al. | Nov 2016 | B1 |
| 9495180 | Ismael | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9497213 | Thompson et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9507935 | Ismael et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9515889 | Wang | Dec 2016 | B2 |
| 9516057 | Aziz | Dec 2016 | B2 |
| 9519782 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2016 | B2 |
| 9536091 | Paithane et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
| 9537972 | Edwards et al. | Jan 2017 | B1 |
| 9560059 | Islam | Jan 2017 | B1 |
| 9565202 | Kindlund et al. | Feb 2017 | B1 |
| 9591015 | Amin et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
| 9591020 | Aziz | Mar 2017 | B1 |
| 9594904 | Jain et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
| 9594905 | Ismael et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
| 9594912 | Thioux et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
| 9609007 | Rivlin et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
| 9626509 | Khalid et al. | Apr 2017 | B1 |
| 9628498 | Aziz et al. | Apr 2017 | B1 |
| 9628507 | Haq et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
| 9633134 | Ross | Apr 2017 | B2 |
| 9635039 | Islam et al. | Apr 2017 | B1 |
| 9641544 | Treat | May 2017 | B1 |
| 9641546 | Manni et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
| 9654485 | Neumann | May 2017 | B1 |
| 9661009 | Karandikar et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
| 9661018 | Aziz | May 2017 | B1 |
| 9674298 | Edwards et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
| 9680862 | Ismael et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
| 9690606 | Ha et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
| 9690933 | Singh et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
| 9690935 | Shiffer et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
| 9690936 | Malik et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
| 9736179 | Ismael | Aug 2017 | B2 |
| 9740857 | Ismael et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
| 9747446 | Pidathala et al. | Aug 2017 | B1 |
| 9749353 | Benskin et al. | Aug 2017 | B1 |
| 9756074 | Aziz et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
| 9773112 | Rathor et al. | Sep 2017 | B1 |
| 9781144 | Otvagin et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
| 9787700 | Amin et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
| 9787706 | Otvagin et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
| 9792196 | Ismael et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
| 9800590 | Gates et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
| 9824209 | Ismael et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
| 9824211 | Wilson | Nov 2017 | B2 |
| 9824216 | Khalid et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
| 9825976 | Gomez et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
| 9825989 | Mehra et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
| 9838405 | Guo et al. | Dec 2017 | B1 |
| 9838408 | Karandikar et al. | Dec 2017 | B1 |
| 9838411 | Aziz | Dec 2017 | B1 |
| 9838416 | Aziz | Dec 2017 | B1 |
| 9838417 | Khalid et al. | Dec 2017 | B1 |
| 9846776 | Paithane et al. | Dec 2017 | B1 |
| 9876701 | Caldejon et al. | Jan 2018 | B1 |
| 9888016 | Amin et al. | Feb 2018 | B1 |
| 9888019 | Pidathala et al. | Feb 2018 | B1 |
| 9910988 | Vincent et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
| 9912644 | Cunningham | Mar 2018 | B2 |
| 9912681 | Ismael et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
| 9912684 | Aziz et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
| 9912691 | Mesdaq et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
| 9912698 | Thioux et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
| 9916440 | Paithane et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
| 9921978 | Chan et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
| 9934376 | Ismael | Apr 2018 | B1 |
| 9934381 | Kindlund et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
| 9946568 | Ismael et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
| 9954890 | Staniford et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
| 9973531 | Thioux | May 2018 | B1 |
| 9998484 | Buyukkayhan et al. | Jun 2018 | B1 |
| 10002252 | Ismael et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
| 10019338 | Goradia et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
| 10019573 | Silberman et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
| 10025691 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
| 10025927 | Khalid et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
| 10027689 | Rathor et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
| 10027690 | Aziz et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
| 10027696 | Rivlin et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
| 10033747 | Paithane et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
| 10033748 | Cunningham et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
| 10033753 | Islam et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
| 10033759 | Kabra et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
| 10050998 | Singh | Aug 2018 | B1 |
| 10068091 | Aziz et al. | Sep 2018 | B1 |
| 10075455 | Zafar et al. | Sep 2018 | B2 |
| 10083302 | Paithane et al. | Sep 2018 | B1 |
| 10084813 | Eyada | Sep 2018 | B2 |
| 10089461 | Ha et al. | Oct 2018 | B1 |
| 10097573 | Aziz | Oct 2018 | B1 |
| 10104102 | Neumann | Oct 2018 | B1 |
| 10108446 | Steinberg et al. | Oct 2018 | B1 |
| 10121000 | Rivlin et al. | Nov 2018 | B1 |
| 10122746 | Manni et al. | Nov 2018 | B1 |
| 10133863 | Bu et al. | Nov 2018 | B2 |
| 10133866 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2018 | B1 |
| 10146810 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2018 | B2 |
| 10148693 | Singh et al. | Dec 2018 | B2 |
| 10165000 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2018 | B1 |
| 10169585 | Pilipenko et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
| 10176321 | Abbasi et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
| 10181029 | Ismael et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
| 10191861 | Steinberg et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
| 10192052 | Singh et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
| 10198574 | Thioux et al. | Feb 2019 | B1 |
| 10200384 | Mushtaq et al. | Feb 2019 | B1 |
| 10210329 | Malik et al. | Feb 2019 | B1 |
| 10216927 | Steinberg | Feb 2019 | B1 |
| 10218740 | Mesdaq et al. | Feb 2019 | B1 |
| 10242185 | Goradia | Mar 2019 | B1 |
| 10360371 | Watson | Jul 2019 | B1 |
| 10462173 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2019 | 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 |
| 20020083343 | Crosbie et al. | Jun 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 |
| 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 |
| 20060161653 | Webb | 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 |
| 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 |
| 20080040710 | Chiriac | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080046781 | Childs et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080047009 | Overcash 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 20090122697 | Madhyasha | May 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 | 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 |
| 20100153537 | Wang | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100154056 | Smith et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100180344 | Malyshev et al. | 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 |
| 20100251363 | Todorovic | Sep 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 | Stahlberg | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110047594 | Mahaffey et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110047620 | Mahaffey et al. | 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 |
| 20110145926 | Dalcher 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 |
| 20110173213 | Frazier et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110173460 | Ito et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110173699 | Figlin et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110185428 | Sallam | 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 |
| 20120096553 | Srivastava 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 |
| 20120255003 | Sallam | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120255015 | Sahita et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120255017 | Sallam | 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 |
| 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 |
| 20130117852 | Stute | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130117855 | Kim et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130139264 | Brinkley et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130145471 | Richard et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130152200 | Alme et al. | Jun 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 |
| 20130227694 | Weinstein | 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 |
| 20130298230 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130298243 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130298244 | Kumar | 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 |
| 20140007238 | Magee | Jan 2014 | 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 |
| 20140215621 | Xaypanya et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140237595 | Sridhara et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140237600 | Silberman et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140245439 | Day | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140280245 | Wilson | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140283037 | Sikorski et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140283063 | Thompson et al. | Sep 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 |
| 20150121449 | Cp et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150180886 | Staniford et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150186645 | Aziz et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150199513 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150199531 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150199532 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150220735 | Paithane et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150304198 | Angelov | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150372980 | Eyada | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150373039 | Wang | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150379282 | Thota et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160004869 | Ismael et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160006756 | Ismael et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160044000 | Cunningham | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160078365 | Baumard | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160080417 | Thomas | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160127393 | Aziz et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160173509 | Ray et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160173510 | Harris et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160173525 | Thomas et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160191547 | Zafar et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160191550 | Ismael et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160261612 | Mesdaq et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160285914 | Singh et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160301703 | Aziz | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160301704 | Hassanzadeh | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160301709 | Hassanzadeh | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160330219 | Hasan | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160335110 | Paithane et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160344768 | McGrew | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160359695 | Yadav | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160359886 | Yadav | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160359887 | Yadav | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160373485 | Kamble | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170083703 | Abbasi et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170099309 | Di Pietro | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170149807 | Schilling et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170171235 | Mulchandani | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170185778 | Sahita et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170235967 | Ray et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170262522 | Ranjan | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| 20170359306 | Thomas et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
| 20180013770 | Ismael | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180048660 | Paithane et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180121316 | Ismael et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180288077 | Siddiqui et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2439806 | Jan 2008 | GB |
| 2490431 | Mar 2014 | 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 |
| 2016049319 | Mar 2016 | WO |
| 2016097686 | Jun 2016 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/633,226, filed Jun. 26, 2017 Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 10, 2019. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/633,226, filed Jun. 26, 2017 Notice of Allowance dated Jun. 4, 2019. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/666,335, filed Oct. 28, 2019 Advisory Action dated Mar. 23, 2021. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/666,335, filed Oct. 28, 2019 Final Office Action dated Feb. 10, 2021. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/666,335, filed Oct. 28, 2019 Non-Final Office Action dated May 25, 2021. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/666,335, filed Oct. 28, 2019 Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 13, 2020. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/666,335, filed Oct. 28, 2019 Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 28, 2021. |
| Venezia, Paul , “NetDetector Captures Intrusions”, InfoWorld Issue 27, (“Venezia”), (Jul. 14, 2003). |
| Vladimir Getov: “Security as a Service in Smart Clouds—Opportunities and Concerns”, Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), 2012 IEEE 36th Annual, IEEE, Jul. 16, 2012 (Jul. 16, 2012). |
| 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, Matthew M., “Throttling Viruses: 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. |
| “Mining Specification of Malicious Behavior”—Jha et al, UCSB, Sep. 2007 https://www.cs.ucsb.edu/.about.chris/research/doc/esec07.sub.--mining.pdf-. |
| “Network Security: NetDetector—Network Intrusion Forensic System (NIFS) Whitepaper”, (“NetDetector Whitepaper”), (2003). |
| “When Virtual is Better Than Real”, IEEEXplore Digital Library, available at, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.isp?reload=true&arnumbe- r=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). |
| 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. |
| Baecher, “The Nepenthes Platform: An Efficient Approach to collect Malware”, Springer-verlag Berlin Heidelberg, (2006), pp. 165-184. |
| 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, Toulouse, France, (Oct. 2005), pp. 71-82. |
| Chen, P. M. and Noble, B. D., “When Virtual is Better Than Real, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science”, University of Michigan (“Chen”) (2001). |
| Cisco “Intrusion Prevention for the Cisco ASA 5500-x Series” Data Sheet (2012). |
| 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). |
| Didier Stevens, “Malicious PDF Documents Explained”, Security & Privacy, IEEE, IEEE Service Center, Los Alamitos, CA, US, vol. 9, No. 1, Jan. 1, 2011, pp. 80-82, XP011329453, ISSN: 1540-7993, DOI: 10.1109/MSP.2011.14. |
| 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). |
| 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. |
| 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:http://www.informationweek.com/microsofts-honeymonkeys-show-patching-windows-works/d/d-id/1035069? [retrieved on Jun. 1, 2016]. |
| Heng Yin et al, Panorama: Capturing System-Wide Information Flow for Malware Detection and Analysis, Research Showcase @ CMU, Carnegie Mellon University, 2007. |
| Hiroshi Shinotsuka, Malware Authors Using New Techniques to Evade Automated Threat Analysis Systems, Oct. 26, 2012, http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/, pp. 1-4. |
| Idika et al., A-Survey-of-Malware-Detection-Techniques, Feb. 2, 2007, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University. |
| 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. |
| Khaled Salah et al: “Using Cloud Computing to Implement a Security Overlay Network”, Security & Privacy, IEEE, IEEE Service Center, Los Alamitos, CA, US, vol. 11, No. 1, Jan. 1, 2013 (Jan. 1, 2013). |
| 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”), (2003). |
| 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. |
| Lastline Labs, The Threat of Evasive Malware, Feb. 25, 2013, Lastline Labs, pp. 1-8. |
| 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. |
| Lindorfer, Martina, Clemens Kolbitsch, and Paolo Milani Comparetti. “Detecting environment-sensitive malware.” Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. |
| Marchette, David J., “Computer Intrusion Detection and Network Monitoring: A Statistical Viewpoint”, (“Marchette”), (2001). |
| 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). |
| 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. |
| Reiner Sailer, Enriquillo Valdez, Trent Jaeger, Roonald Perez, Leendert van Doorn, John Linwood Griffin, Stefan Berger., sHype: Secure Hypervisor Appraoch 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). |
| Thomas H. Ptacek, and Timothy N. Newsham , “Insertion, Evasion, and Denial of Service: Eluding Network Intrusion Detection”, Secure Networks, (“Ptacek”), (Jan. 1998). |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62357119 | Jun 2016 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 16666335 | Oct 2019 | US |
| Child | 17588097 | US | |
| Parent | 15633226 | Jun 2017 | US |
| Child | 16666335 | US |
