Patent Grant
11038876
At least some embodiments disclosed herein relate to security evaluation in computer systems, and more particularly, but not limited to performing a security evaluation associated with access or attempted access by a computing device to a service (e.g., an online service provided by a service provider).
Mobile devices such as cell phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs) can be attacked by exploits or viruses that are specifically adapted for the mobile environment. Exploits can take advantage of security vulnerabilities associated with a mobile device in order to execute malicious code or perform undesired actions on the device. Potentially, exploits can bypass permissions or policies set by the user, manufacturer, operating system, or mobile operator and give the attacker complete control of the device. Mobile viruses are typically spread by downloading infected programs or files. Some viruses only become active if the recipient chooses to accept the virus file and run it on the mobile device. Other viruses, when combined with exploits, are self-propagating worms that may not need user intervention in order to spread, potentially creating a very severe and widespread security problem.
Devices may be compromised by viruses and exploits over wide area networks, such as the Internet or a cellular network, and local wireless networks, such as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. For example, some devices which are equipped with Bluetooth allow other nearby Bluetooth-enabled devices to transfer files or other data such as contact information. Bluetooth-enabled devices that are infected with viruses often search for nearby devices that are in “discoverable” mode. When an infected device discovers a target, it may send a virus disguised as a security update or another item designed to fool the target device's user into accepting the transfer and executing the virus. If a virus were to utilize an exploit instead of disguising itself in order to get a target user to accept the file transfer, a device which is in “discoverable” mode could become infected without the user being able to intervene.
In addition to being able to propagate viruses, exploits may be able to directly perform malicious actions on vulnerable devices. Such exploits may be used by attackers to steal information, charge money to the target device's phone bill, or prevent a device from functioning properly. Although vulnerabilities which take advantage of exploits may be fixed if the software vendor responsible for the vulnerability provides a patch or firmware upgrade, such fixes are often costly and time consuming to release and difficult for users or IT organizations to apply.
It is desired that both individual users and IT organization be able to verify that their security protection is functioning properly and be aware of the security state of their devices so as to be able to remediate or investigate issues as early as possible. If a device or group of devices has a security problem or has recently been attacked, the user or administrator responsible may not immediately know because mobile devices and existing solutions may not continuously present security status information and attempt to push important events to users and administrators.
What is needed in some cases is a system and method for identifying, reporting, and preventing mobile security problems and for providing security information concerning the state of a mobile device or group of mobile devices to a user or administrator. The system and method should keep users or administrators continuously aware of security status, recent security-related events, and potential security threats without requiring them to repeatedly seek out security-related information.
Because of inherent security concerns, mobile communications devices such as mobile phones, PDAs, and smartphones have yet to provide the same breadth of trusted connectivity found on desktop and laptop computer platforms. For example, mobile device users are less likely to access confidential information and/or perform financial transactions with a mobile communications device because such devices are not sufficiently secure. Similarly, service providers such as banks, online payment services and providers of confidential information are less likely to offer access to their services through mobile communications devices. As a result, mobile communications device users are limited by the types and availability of many online services. This is because present methods for securing mobile communications devices do not contemplate many ways users may wish to access online services and online service providers, and are therefore inadequate for providing a secure platform for access to and from online services or service providers.
Previous methods for securing mobile communications devices focus on an all-or-nothing approach. Access to or from the mobile device is either granted or not granted based upon whether the device meets certain standards, possesses certain configurations, or adheres to certain policy rules. If the device passes these standards, access is granted. If the device is deficient in any way, access is denied. Such an approach does not consider the types or levels of access required by certain service providers, nor does this approach contemplate the security and repair capabilities of the device itself. Indeed, prior art security systems and methods ignore the recent activity of the mobile device in relation to its overall security state. Furthermore, prior art security systems are typically limited to authorizing access to a given network, making them unsuitable for controlling access and access levels to services and service providers based on a device's security state.
What is therefore needed in some cases is a system and method for providing security for mobile communications devices that considers the security state of the device and provides a platform for integrating with services and service providers.
Detecting attacks on a mobile communications device presents challenges not found on traditional computing platforms. Mobile communications devices lack the hardware, software and memory resources of a traditional computer. As such, storing vast signature databases on the mobile communications device is not feasible, and running complicated analysis systems strains the device's memory, battery, and CPU. Other security solutions have been found unsuccessful at detecting attacks specifically directed to a mobile communications device, since mobile communications devices provide functionalities not found on traditional computers. For example, a mobile communications device may be attacked via network data, files, or executables received over various network interfaces such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, infrared, or cellular networks.
One of the issues that make it difficult to protect mobile communications devices from undesirable applications is the many different types of data and applications that are available for such devices. While service providers are able to manage the network traffic in providing applications, there is no current way to effectively monitor the behavior of these applications after they have been installed on a user's mobile communications device. As a further result, it is difficult to identify new, previously unknown malicious applications by their behavior and to track and prevent the spread or dissemination of damaging applications and data once they have been released to the network. It would be desirable to provide a system that can actively monitor a group of mobile communications devices in order gather data about the installation and behavior of applications on mobile communications devices.
Also, the source of an access request may be difficult to determine. For example, an enterprise employee visiting London, England on vacation with a sudden, urgent business issue may use free Wi-Fi in a coffee shop to VPN from her iPhone into her enterprise computer, which she left up and running in California. The employee may use that VPN access to command the enterprise computer to access enterprise resources. Typically, the enterprise backend would not know that the enterprise computer is projecting its display and sending enterprise data all the way to London. The enterprise would also not know the security status of the Wi-Fi connection or the iPhone.
What is therefore needed in some cases is a method for determining whether to allow or deny an access request based on knowledge of the source of the access request and knowledge of the security of the computing devices and network infrastructure involved in the transmission of the access request.
Systems and methods for security evaluation associated with a request for access by a computing device to a service (e.g., an online or network service) are described herein. Various embodiments are described below.
In one embodiment, a method includes: receiving a request regarding access by a first computing device (e.g., a mobile device of a user) to a service; in response to the request, performing, by a second computing device (e.g., an evaluation server, or a server of an identity provider), an evaluation of the first computing device; and performing, by the second computing device, an action (e.g., authorizing access to the service) based on the evaluation.
In one embodiment, a method includes: receiving a request regarding access by a first computing device to a service; in response to the request, performing, by a second computing device, an evaluation of a configuration of the first computing device, wherein the evaluation comprises determining a risk level; and performing, by the second computing device, an action based on the evaluation, wherein the action comprises sending a communication to a computing device of an identity provider, the communication indicating the risk level. In one embodiment, the service is provided by a service provider, and the identity provider is of record with the second computing device and/or the service provider as the identity provider to use for requests for access to the service. In one embodiment, the identity provider determines whether to authorize access (and/or to what extent to permit such access) to the service by the first computing device based on the risk level in the received communication.
The disclosure includes various methods and devices which perform the above methods and systems, including data processing systems which perform these methods, and computer readable media containing instructions which when executed on data processing systems cause the systems to perform these methods.
Other features will be apparent from the accompanying drawings and from the detailed description which follows.
The embodiments are illustrated by way of example and not limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which like references indicate similar elements.
The following description and drawings are illustrative and are not to be construed as limiting. Numerous specific details are described to provide a thorough understanding. However, in certain instances, well known or conventional details are not described in order to avoid obscuring the description. References to one or an embodiment in the present disclosure are not necessarily references to the same embodiment; and, such references mean at least one.
Reference in this specification to “one embodiment” or “an embodiment” means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment of the disclosure. The appearances of the phrase “in one embodiment” in various places in the specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment, nor are separate or alternative embodiments mutually exclusive of other embodiments. Moreover, various features are described which may be exhibited by some embodiments and not by others. Similarly, various requirements are described which may be requirements for some embodiments but not other embodiments.
Various embodiments regarding evaluation of device risk performed in response to a request for access to a service are described below. The evaluation may be performed, for example, by the evaluation server 150 above. In one embodiment, a method includes: receiving a request regarding access by a first computing device (e.g., mobile device 149 of
In one embodiment, the service is provided by a third computing device (e.g., service provider 170 of
In one embodiment, the evaluation determines that the configuration is not secure, and the action is blocking access by the first computing device to the service.
In one embodiment, the service is provided by a third computing device, the method further comprises receiving first data from the first computing device that is used in the evaluation, and the action is sending the first data to the third computing device.
In one embodiment, the first data is received from a software component installed on the first computing device, and the software component obtains the first data from the first computing device. In one embodiment, the second computing device receives aggregated information as described in U.S. Publication No. US 2016/0099963, discussed below. The evaluation is performed using at least the aggregated information.
In one embodiment, the action is sending a communication to a third computing device that grants access to the service by the first computing device, wherein software is installed on the first computing device, and wherein the evaluation comprises at least one of determining a source of the software, evaluating authenticity of the software, or analyzing at least one component of the software.
In one embodiment, the evaluation determines an extent of security risk for the configuration of the first computing device, and wherein an extent of access to the service provided to the first computing device is based on the determined extent of security risk. For example, a security component 6735c, as is described below, may allow access to the service in a limited fashion (e.g., run with output quarantined).
In one embodiment, the evaluation determines that the configuration passes a security threshold, and the action is sending a communication to a third computing device regarding the passed security threshold.
In one embodiment, a third computing device provides the service, and the method further comprises: generating a token for the first computing device, the token comprising first data encoding a risk level determined from the evaluation; and providing the token to the first computing device, wherein the first data is used by the third computing device to configure the service provided to the first computing device.
In one embodiment, the third computing device is configured to determine, using the first data, a risk state associated with providing service to the first computing device.
In one embodiment, the service is provided by a third computing device, and the method further comprises: extracting first data from a communication received from the first computing device or the third computing device, wherein the communication includes the request, or the communication is received subsequent to receiving the request; and performing the evaluation using the first data.
In one embodiment, the request regarding access to the service is generated by an application executing on the first computing device; performing the evaluation comprises determining an authenticity of the application; and performing the evaluation further comprises assessing a context of a user of the first computing device, the context comprising at least one of: a location of the first computing device, a device location for a prior login made to the service by the user, an event associated with a presence of the user on a computing device other than the first computing device, or credentials associated with the user that have become unsecure.
In one embodiment, the first computing device is associated with a domain, the method further comprises receiving a communication from a third computing device associated with the domain, and the evaluation comprises using data from the communication to evaluate the configuration of the first computing device.
In one embodiment, access to the service requires that a software component is installed on the first computing device, and the method further comprises: in response to determining that the software component is not installed on the first computing device, sending a communication to the first computing device requesting installation of the software component; after sending the communication, determining that the software component is installed on the first computing device; and in response to determining that the software component is installed on the first computing device, sending a communication to cause a third computing device to grant the access to the service.
In one embodiment, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores computer-readable instructions, which when executed, cause a first computing device to: receive a request regarding access by a second computing device to a service; in response to the request, perform an evaluation of the second computing device; and perform, by at least one processor, an action based on the evaluation.
In one embodiment, the instructions further cause the first computing device to receive security data from a software component installed on the second computing device, wherein the evaluation is performed using the security data to determine a security state of the second computing device, and wherein the action is authorizing access to the service by the second computing device at an access level dependent on the determined security state.
In one embodiment, a system includes: at least one processor of a first computing device; and memory storing instructions configured to instruct the at least one processor to: receive a request regarding access by a second computing device to a service; in response to the request, perform an evaluation of the second computing device; and perform an action based on the evaluation.
In one embodiment, a third computing device provides the service, and the first computing device is recorded by the third computing device as an identity provider for requests to access the service.
In one embodiment, a fourth computing device is an identity provider (e.g., identity provider 172 of
In one embodiment, the instructions are further configured to instruct the at least one processor to receive security state information regarding a state of the second computing device, wherein the evaluation is performed using the security state information to determine a security state of the second computing device, wherein the action is authorizing access to the service by the second computing device at an access level depending on the determined security state, and wherein the security state information comprises at least one of a device identifier, a configuration, a setting, information on a security event, or a device state.
Various methods are described in U.S. Publication No. US 2016/0099963, titled “METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SHARING RISK RESPONSES BETWEEN COLLECTIONS OF MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES,” and incorporated by reference, for determining an enterprise risk level, for sharing security risk information between enterprises by identifying a security response by a first enterprise and then sharing the security response to a second enterprise when a relationship database profile for the first collection indicates the security response may be shared. Methods are also provided for determining whether to allow a request from an originating device where the request may have been initiated by a remote device. In one embodiment, the security risk information is used in the security evaluation performed (e.g., by the evaluation server 150 of
In one embodiment, aggregated information as described in U.S. Publication No. US 2016/0099963 is used in the security evaluation above. In one embodiment, a method is provided for passing aggregated information, such as source information, along with an access request. In the embodiment, aggregated information may be used to determine whether to allow an attempt to access a resource. The aggregated information may include, for example, user authentication information and source information, and source information may include, for example, information about the state of the initiating and originating computing devices, attributes or identifies of applications being used in the access attempt, and similar information from any intermediate (“intervening” or “chained”) application or computing device that is part of the access attempt.
The aggregated information may be passed with the access request in a number of ways, including, for example: as SAML security assertion extensions, as additional HTTP headers, or via a separate flow. In a further example, a single sign-on (SSO) provider (or Identity Services Provider, such as for example identity provider 172 of
As described in FIG. 67 (note that this figure is shown only in U.S. Publication No. US 2016/0099963), a system 6700 employs a method for determining whether to allow or deny an access request 6745 based on a destination security component 6735c being able to evaluate source information from any computing device involved in the transmission of access request 6745. In FIG. 67, a user 6705 initiates access request 6745 using a computing device 6710. Computing device 6710 transmits access request 6745 to a computing device 6720 using a network connection 6715, which in turn relays access request 6745 to a destination computing device 6730 using a network connection 6725. Computing device 6710 is both an initiating computing device and an originating computing device. Computing device 6710 is the initiating computing device because the user used it to initiate access request 6745. Computing device 6710 is also the originating computing device because the actual request was transmitted from computing device 6710 to destination computing device 6730. Computing device 6720 is a terminal device, i.e., computing device 6720 is the device that transmits access request 6745 to destination computing device 6730. Computing device 6720 is also an intermediate computing device in that it is between the initial computing device 6710 and destination computing device 6730 along the route of access request 6745. Computing devices 6710, 6720 create a series 6740 of computing devices by which access request 6745 is initiated, originated, and transmitted to destination computing device 6730. In a series of one computing device the single computing device performs the functions of initiating the request, originating the request, and transmitting the request to the destination computing device.
In FIG. 67 of U.S. Publication No. US 2016/0099963, computing devices 6710, 6720, and 6730 are running instances of a security component 6735a, 6735b, and 6735c, respectively. Security components 6735a, 6735b, and 6735c monitor the respective computing device and determine if the device is secure (“trusted”) or not, according to policies under which the security components are operating. Security components 6735a, 6735b, and 6735c monitor, e.g., the inputs, outputs, communications, applications, and network connections of their respective devices. Security components 6735a, 6735b, and 6735c are thereby able to determine, for example, whether their respective computing devices initiated access request 6745, originated access request 6745, or transmitted (or “relayed”) access request 6745 received from another computing device. In monitoring a device, security components 6735a, 6735b, and 6735c may identify computing devices that communicate with the monitored computing device and associate those identities with any communications from or to the identified computing device. Additionally, security components 6735a, 6735b, and 6735c may communicate with each other regarding the security state and other information regarding their monitored computing devices. Furthermore, security components 6735a, 6735b, and 6735c may communicate to each other information relating to access request 6745, such as whether the monitored device initiated access request 6745, whether the monitored device originated access request 6745, whether the monitored device transmitted access request 6745 received from another device, the identity of any device that controlled the monitored device to cause the monitored device either originate access request 6745 or to control another device, and the identity of any device that transmitted access request 6745 to the monitored device. For example, security component 6735a may communicate with security components 6735b and 6735c, sending source information 6755 to security component 6735b in parallel with access request 6745. Source information 6755 may include that computing device 6710 is trusted (or not), that computing device 6710 initiated access request 6745 (i.e., was not being controlled by another device), and that computing device 6710 originated access request 6745 (i.e., created and sent access request 6745). Security component 6735b may receive this information and may itself communicate to security component 6735c, sending source information 6765 to security component 6735c in parallel with access request 6745. Source information 6765 may include that computing device 6720 is trusted (or not) and that computing device 6720 received access request 6745 from computing device 6710. Security component 6735b may also forward source information 6755 to security component 6735c in parallel with access request 6745.
As described in U.S. Publication No. US 2016/0099963, responses to an access request other than or in addition to “allow” and “deny” are allowed. For example, if the access request related to running an application on the destination computing device and the associated source information indicted that a computing device in the series was untrusted, security component 6735c may allow the request in a limited fashion (e.g., run with output quarantined), or deny the request and initiate or suggest to the user the uninstallation of the target application.
In one embodiment, a source of a software component on one or more of the series of computing devices by which an access request is transmitted (as described in U.S. Publication No. US 2016/0099963) may be determined as described below in the section titled “Side-Load Protection”. In one embodiment, these software components may further be analyzed as described below in the section titled “Analyzing Components of an Application”, or as otherwise described below.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,087,067, titled “SECURE MOBILE PLATFORM SYSTEM,” and incorporated by reference, describes a secure platform which enables mobile devices, such as a cell phones, smartphones, or PDAs, to have relationships with services or service providers that are controlled by the state of security on each device. In one example, the platform is comprised of a server that receives data from security software on a mobile device regarding the device's security state. The platform enables access to a service to be granted, denied, or limited based on the security state of the mobile device. The platform may provide two-way communications between a mobile device and a service so that the platform can enforce access security both from the client to the service and from the service to the client. Furthermore, the platform allows services or service providers to evaluate the security state of a device independently of using the platform to communicate with the device.
As described in U.S. Pat. No. 8,087,067, a system provides, by a software component on a computing device (e.g., for components on any one or more devices in a series of devices transmitting an access request, as discussed above), a dynamic assessment of a security state of a computing device (e.g., this assessment may be performed by the evaluation server 150 of
A system and method for reporting security information relating to a mobile device are described in U.S. Publication No. US 2010/0100964, published Apr. 22, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,060,936, issued Nov. 15, 2011, titled “SECURITY STATUS AND INFORMATION DISPLAY SYSTEM,” by Mahaffey et al., the entire contents of which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. In one embodiment, the security evaluation performed above (e.g., by the evaluation server 150 of
A method for evaluating security is described in U.S. Publication No. US 2014/0325586, published Oct. 30, 2014, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,307,412, issued Apr. 5, 2016, titled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING SECURITY FOR AN INTERACTIVE SERVICE OPERATION BY A MOBILE DEVICE,” by Halliday et al., the entire contents of which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. This method evaluates security during an interactive service operation by a mobile communications device and includes launching, by a mobile communications device, an interactive service configured to access a server over a network during an interactive service operation, and generating a security evaluation based on a plurality of trust factors related to a current state of the mobile communications device, to a security feature of the application, and/or to a security feature of the network. When the security evaluation is generated, an action is performed based on the security evaluation. In one embodiment, the evaluation server 150 above performs an evaluation as described by U.S. Publication No. US 2014/0325586, including use of a threshold as described therein. In one embodiment, these plurality of trust factors are included in the first data above received by the evaluation server 150 for use in the evaluation. In one embodiment, the action performed by the evaluation server 150 is an action as described by U.S. Publication No. US 2014/0325586.
Network 121 may be used to download and remotely install applications selected from marketplace 123 (e.g., using Google Play or the Android Market). Marketplace 123 may include one or more web servers (or other types of data communication servers) to communicate with the user terminals (e.g., 141, 143, . . . , 145) and mobile devices 147, 149. Each of these applications may initiate or originate an access request for a service provided by service provider 170.
Specifically, mobile device 149 may download a new application 1013 from application marketplace 123 or a developer server (not shown). An application obtained from the developer server is signed using a signing certificate.
New application 1013 has components 104 and 106. Application 1013 may generate an access request that is transmitted to evaluation server 150 (e.g., transmitted using a series of computing devices originating with mobile device 149). In one embodiment, component 104 is a software component (e.g., a security component) that generates or obtains data regarding a risk configuration of a computing device (e.g., a risk configuration of mobile device 149, on which a user initiates a request for access). For example, a user action in a user interface displayed on mobile device 149 causes component 104 to initiate an access request for a service provided by a computing device of service provider 170. The access request is transmitted to evaluation server 150, which performs a security evaluation of a configuration of mobile device 149 based on various factors, as discussed below in more detail.
If evaluation server 150 authorizes the access, server 150 sends a communication over network 121 to service provider 170 regarding authorizing access to the service. In an alternative embodiment, evaluation server 150 sends this communication to identity provider 172, which then performs additional authentication or identification services. In one embodiment, server 150 determines a risk level for mobile device 149 and includes this risk level in the communication to service provider 170 and/or identity provider 172.
In one embodiment, when component 104 makes a request for access to the service, the request is first sent to service provider 170. Then, service provider 170 forwards the access request to evaluation server 150. Evaluation server 150 performs a security evaluation of risk factors associated with mobile device 149. If the evaluation determines that the configuration is not secure, server 150 blocks access by mobile device 149 to the service.
In one embodiment, the security evaluation is based on data received from the mobile device 149. At least a portion of this data can be sent to service provider 170 and/or identity provider 172 along with a result of the security evaluation. In one embodiment, this data is received from component 104, or from another software component such as component 106 that is on mobile device 149. The data sent to evaluation server 150 is obtained from the mobile device using this software component.
In one embodiment, the security evaluation by server 150 includes determining a source of application 1013, component 104, and/or component 106. In one embodiment, the security evaluation includes evaluating authenticity of software on mobile device 149 and/or analyzing at least one component installed or otherwise stored on mobile device 149.
In one embodiment, the security evaluation determines an extent of security risk for mobile device 149 based on a plurality of factors. The extent of access to the service provided to mobile device 149 is based on this extent of security risk.
In one embodiment, the security evaluation determines that a risk configuration of mobile device 149 passes a security threshold. If the threshold is passed, server 150 sends a communication to service provider 170 and/or identity provider 172 regarding the passed security threshold. This communication may include data obtained from mobile device 149 and used in the security evaluation above.
In one embodiment, a token is generated for mobile device 149. This token includes data that encodes a risk level determined from the security evaluation. The token is provided to mobile device 149 by evaluation server 150 or another computing device such as service provider 170. The risk level and/or data obtained and used in the security evaluation is provided to service provider 170 to configure the service provided to mobile device 149. In one embodiment, service provider 170 uses the risk level and/or data from the security evaluation to determine a risk state associated with providing the service to mobile device 149.
The service may be dynamically reconfigured periodically and/or in real-time as subsequent security evaluations are performed for mobile device 149. Also, if the risk state fails a threshold determination, then the user of mobile device 149 may be alerted by a display or other communication on mobile device 149 that the service is blocked. In addition, the user may be requested to take remedial action using mobile device 149 and/or another computing device of the user.
In one embodiment, if it is determined by evaluation server 150 in a security evaluation, performed after a user has started receiving a service, that a risk level associated with mobile device 149 exceeds a threshold or is otherwise un-trusted, then an open session of the user with the service from service provider 170 can be closed. Also, any token of device 149 indicating a healthy or safe configuration of the device can be revoked or destroyed. This prevents further access to the service by the device. In one embodiment, if access to a service is terminated as just described, identity provider 172 can be notified of the change by evaluation server 150. Also, a level of access to the service can be decreased based on the newly-determined risk level, instead of terminating all access to the service.
In one embodiment, if it is determined by evaluation server 150 that mobile device 149 is not configured correctly or adequately as determined by a risk level, various actions may be taken. For example, mobile device 149 may be instructed to take a photo that is uploaded to server 150, acquire a device location and upload to server 150, and/or erase sensitive data on mobile device 149. Other examples include disabling login credentials, instructing the user how to remediate the problem, allowing login by the user, but denying access to certain services, revoking a token already in use by the device, and/or changing a password for the service.
In one embodiment, data used in the security evaluation by evaluation server 150 is extracted from one or more communications received from mobile device 149, from service provider 170, and/or identity provider 172. In some cases, such communication can be the communication that includes the access request. In other cases, the communication is received prior to or subsequent to receiving the access request.
In one embodiment, the access request is generated by application 1013, which is executing on mobile device 149. Performing the security evaluation includes determining the authenticity of application 1013, for example as discussed below.
In one embodiment, the security evaluation can include assessing a context of a user of mobile device 149. This context can be determined by various factors including a location of mobile device 149, a device location for at least one prior login made by the user (e.g., a prior login to the service), an event associated with the presence of the user on a computing device other than mobile device 149 (e.g., this other device may be a tablet, a laptop, or a watch device of the user), or credentials associated with the user that have become unsecure (e.g., credentials that have been identified from monitoring of the dark web).
In one embodiment, mobile device 149 is associated with a domain. Evaluation server 150 performs an evaluation using data from one or more prior communications received by evaluation server 150. These prior communications may be provided from other computing devices associated with the domain.
In one embodiment, access to the service from service provider 170 requires that a software component is installed on mobile device 149. In response to determining that the software component is not installed, the communication is sent to the mobile device requesting installation of the software component. After sending this communication, evaluation server 150 determines whether the software component is properly installed on mobile device 149. If so, server 150 sends a communication to cause service provider 170 or identity provider 172 to authorize or grant access to the service.
In various embodiments, access to a service provided by service provider 170 is conditioned on a successful evaluation of various risk-based factors. Mechanisms that may be used to authenticate a device, user, and/or application by evaluation server 150 include one or more of the following: requiring that an SSL client certificate be supplied for each access request by mobile device 149, evaluating authentication factors provided from network connection establishment (e.g., Wi-Fi, VPN, cellular, etc.) by mobile device 149, or evaluating authentication factors provided from establishment of a network tunnel or proxy connection for mobile device 149.
In various embodiments, factors used in a security evaluation by evaluation server 150 to allow or deny access to a service are now described below:
1. Various device factors associated with mobile device 149 include determining whether the device is compromised, such as whether an operating system is compromised, whether the device is up-to-date, such as whether a vulnerable operating system version is in use. Further factors include determining a presence of malware, or determining whether the device has a secure configuration. For example, determining whether a bad SSL root identified for certificate authorities is installed on the device, an anomalous VPN/proxy is identified, whether device encryption enabled, and/or whether a pin code is enabled. Further factors include evaluating hardware-backed authentication associated with mobile device 149. For example, determining whether a device key is stored in a secure enclave, or whether a server provides a nonce which mobile device 149 signs with hardware to prove presence of hardware-stored key.
2. Various user factors may be used in the security evaluation. These factors may include biometric factors such as a fingerprint, or knowledge-based factors such as whether a user of mobile device 149 is able to answer knowledge-based questions (e.g., about the user's background or prior life or work activities).
3. Various application factors may be used in the security evaluation. These factors may include determining whether application 1013 on mobile device 149 is an authorized or allowed version of the application. For example, whether the application is the official enterprise application or an unofficial version. Also, these factors include determining whether the application is up-to-date, such as whether there is a known vulnerability in this particular application.
4. Various context factors may be used in the security evaluation. These factors may include determining a location of device 149, other recent user logins and respective devices/locations associated with these logins, and/or other user-present events (e.g., a badge in, CCTV facial recognition, Wi-Fi connections, and Bluetooth beacon detections).
In various embodiments, various mechanisms are used to authorize access to the service by service provider 170, as now described below:
1. At authentication time, one or more the following mechanisms may be used:
2. At network connection time (e.g. VPN, Wi-Fi, cellular, or other network), various mechanisms are used to determine which of network segments associated with the network connection should be authorized, as follows:
3. The following mechanisms can be used for each access request or interaction by mobile device 149:
4. Out-of-band authentication:
Various additional embodiments of performing a security evaluation in response to an access request are now described below. The embodiments below do not limit the generality of the foregoing discussion.
In one embodiment, upon the user of a device or the device directly requesting the use of a service, the evaluation server determines whether a certain client application is present on the device. If the client application is not present and/or activated, then the evaluation server requires the delivery, installation and/or activation of the client application on the device before access to the service is granted.
If it is determined that the certain client application is present and activated, then the client application checks to see if the device is configured sufficiently well. In one embodiment, the device is sufficiently configured for service access if an evaluation of factors by the evaluation server passes a threshold.
In one embodiment, if it is determined that the certain client application is installed on mobile device 149, evaluation server 150 attempts to uniquely identify mobile device 149 based on information that the evaluation server 150 has previously stored and/or information received as part of authenticating mobile device 149. For example, the received information includes information regarding the type of device, the operating system the device is running, an IP address provided by the device, etc. In one embodiment, the foregoing information regarding the device is cross-referenced with a data set stored for a given enterprise. Based on this cross-referencing, evaluation server 150 can send a push notification to the device (e.g., a Google cloud message for an Android device).
In one embodiment, evaluation server 150 stores (e.g., in one or more databases accessible by server 150) a plurality of snapshots of the security configuration of mobile device 149 and other computing devices that have requested access to service provider 170. Each of these snapshots comprises data for a particular device as used in prior security evaluations. These stored snapshots can be used in performing a new security evaluation.
In one embodiment, for latency reasons, evaluation server 150 determines the time that the device last checked in with server 150 and was in a secure state (e.g., determined to be an acceptable or low-risk device). If the device was determined secure at this last check-in, evaluation server 150 determines that there is no need to wake up or otherwise interact with that device in real-time for a new security evaluation. Instead, evaluation server 150 authorizes access to the service in reliance on the prior snapshot, or prior risk state determination that falls within a predetermined time period.
In one embodiment, if evaluation server 150 determines that the client application is not installed on mobile device 149, evaluation server 150 creates a fingerprint of mobile device 149. This fingerprint comprises all information previously collected and/or newly-obtained about device 149. For example, some of this information is extracted from the communications with mobile device 149 as part of an authentication or identity communication flow.
Also, for example, this extracted information includes who the user is, what type of device is being used by the user, data extracted from the one or more HTTP or other headers of communications from the device (e.g., these headers may data regarding what service application the device is attempting to access), what operating system version the device is using, the IP address of the device, etc.
Evaluation server 150 checks to determine if this device fingerprint matches other data for fingerprints of any other devices that have interacted with evaluation server 150. In one case, these devices are other devices of the user of mobile device 149. In some cases, if the client application is not installed on the device, evaluation server 150 sends a communication causing mobile device 149 to request that the user install the client application.
In one embodiment, evaluation server 150 collects data from the device and sends the data to a cloud back-end server system accessible to server 150 in order to compare the collected data to other data that evaluation server 150 has collected. Types of data collected include, for example, an application inventory of all apps installed on the device, version numbers for the apps, and what are the hashes and unique identifiers associated with those applications. Evaluation server 150 fingerprints the filesystem of the device (e.g., firmware, etc.) and calculates a fingerprint for the device so evaluation server 150 can determine when a device is running modified firmware or other (improperly) modified software.
In one embodiment, evaluation server 150 collects information regarding how the network is behaving (e.g., the network communication path between evaluation server 150 and mobile device 149, or communications by mobile device 149 with other computing devices). For example, evaluation server 150 runs a series of behavioral tests on each network to which mobile device 149 connects (e.g., whether the device is sending potentially hack-able communications to random or unknown servers; whether there been any attempt to downgrade the TLS or other secure version of protocol being used for communication; and/or whether the certificates that the device is receiving from these requests are valid, etc.).
In one embodiment, at least a portion of data associated with the security evaluation by evaluation server 150 is sent to service provider 170. The service provider can configure a policy regarding the type of data that is sent by evaluation server 150 (e.g., using a console provided to the service provider by evaluation server 150). Use of this policy can group the device based on the evaluated data into a risk class (e.g., high-risk or low-risk). Evaluation server 150 only communicates to service provider 170 the class of risk based on the previously-determined or configured policy (e.g., using the console) of the service provider.
In one embodiment, data collected by evaluation server 150 is fed into an identity access engine on identity provider 172. This fed data can be correlated with or joined with other data sets stored by identity provider 172.
In one embodiment, evaluation server 150 monitors numerous computing devices (e.g., 10,000 or more devices that are monitoring and/or managed as to policies 116). For example, when an enterprise is attacked, typically it is more than just one individual device that is attacked. Evaluation server 150 monitors for the rise or occurrence of certain types of events that are detected across one or more of these devices associated with a given enterprise. The level of risk determined by evaluation server 150 in the security evaluation may be correlated with the number of devices that are affected by an event. In one embodiment, such monitored information is fed into a security information event management (SIEM) system. This is where data from evaluation server 150 can also be fed. The SIEM system can also be used to detect the above correlation to the above prior risk events, snapshots, or fingerprints.
In one embodiment, various configuration settings of the device can be checked as part of the security evaluation by the evaluation server, as follows:
A. For Android devices: Is a developer mode enabled or disabled? Is USB debugging enabled or disabled? Is “Nearby Devices” sharing on or off? (this can include a list of content to share, or a list of allowed or denied devices). Is the lock screen disabled, or if it is enabled, is the setting for making passwords visible on or off, is a PIN or a pattern or a password used, what is the secured lock time, is “Smart Lock” off or on, for on-body detection, for trusted places, for trusted devices, or unlocking for a trusted voice? Are there any other “trust agents” installed (e.g., like Google Smart Lock)? Are these apps configured with access to usage data? Are there CA certificates in the Trusted Credentials store that are anomalous (e.g., not ordinarily there), or whose presence violates enterprise policy? Is the device configured to allow or disallow security policy updates? Is there a SIM card lock or not on the device? Is there a factory data reset password or not? Is encryption for the device enabled or disabled? If there is an external SD card, is it configured to be encrypted or not? Is the installation of applications from unknown sources allowed or disallowed? Are there any apps configured to be device administrators? Are any of the apps disallowed by enterprise policy to be a device administrator? Are there any anomalous apps set as default applications, or apps disallowed by enterprise policy? Are there any accessibility apps enabled on the device? Is the verify apps setting enabled or disabled? Are there any installed keyboards?
B. For iOS devices: Is the lock screen disabled or enabled? Is the device configured to ask to join networks or not? Is Bluetooth on or off? Are there devices configured to be allowed to Bluetooth connect? Is a personal hotspot configured on or off? Is Wi-Fi assist configured on or off? Which apps have notifications configured to show on lock screen? Is Handoff configured on or off? Is Car Play configured off or on; if on, for what list of cars? Are there any installed keyboards? Are there any VPN configurations?
In one embodiment, for any of the above configuration settings, an enterprise policy that applies to the device (e.g., such as stored on administrative server 302) may determine the associated risk levels for each configuration or setting item. In one embodiment, this may be the determining of a risk result that is higher or lower than a threshold. This determination may be used to allow greater or fewer degrees of freedom regarding access to the service.
For any of the above configuration settings, where there is an enterprise or default policy that determines the associated risk levels for each configuration or setting item, the administrator may specify a combination method for the individual risk levels, for example, the maximum (riskiest) level, or an additive risk level (e.g., adding risk levels to create a total risk level), etc. The result may be compared with a threshold which is configured, or may be compared with a threshold percentile level for a comparable group of users or devices, for example this device's risk level is higher than a predetermined percentage (e.g., 75%) of all peer group users.
Alternatively, the comparison may be made with a comparable group of users or devices at large (in the world or other defined group of users or devices) vs. just users or devices within a particular enterprise. The peer group may be based on a user's role within an organization, the threshold may be based on the user's role within an organization, the threshold may be based on an inherent risk sensitivity associated with a user role, or the threshold may be based on the current set of data and/or services and/or apps which reside upon the device.
In one embodiment, if the device is determined to be configured correctly, or passes a threshold of configuration correctness (even though not fully correctly configured), the client application on the device informs the service provider that the device is correctly configured. In an alternative embodiment, the client application informs the service provider that the device is configured above a threshold, but not fully configured. The service provider permits the device to access the service (in a variation, the service provider permits the device to access some portion of the service but not the complete service (e.g., a user can check a balance on an account, but cannot transfer money)).
In one embodiment, in the above discussion, the service provider may itself also be an identity provider (e.g., a single sign-on (SSO) provider, or a provider of a service/function such as Active Directory or similar).
In one embodiment, all of the functions above are provided, but instead of using a separate client application on the device, the attestation functionality is provided via an SDK that controls the active application in the device directly. In other words, a software component is a part of the active application on the device that makes the request for access to the service.
In one embodiment, the dark web may be monitored to determine if user credentials have been leaked to the dark web. Upon detection of user credentials in the dark web, a notification is provided to an administrator console that user accounts have been identified as appearing on the dark web.
In one embodiment, the evaluation server collects data sets of leaked credentials from the dark web. This data may include e-mails, e-mails and passwords, or e-mails and passwords and the service they are associated with. If there are strong or weak matches against the totality of all legitimate identities that the evaluation server is aware of (e.g., that belong to users or customers of an enterprise or other service), then this information is fed into an identity system of identity provider so that appropriate actions can be taken.
For example, if an e-mail is dumped onto the dark web, even though there is not a password found, a user's security may be compromised (e.g., the password may be stolen even though not found by the evaluation server). In this case, as a precaution, the user is asked to reset her password. Alternatively, multi-factor authentication can be required the next time a login is attempted by this user on a service. Alternatively, all authorization tokens that have been issued for this user can be revoked.
In one embodiment, the evaluation server or another computing device stores hashes of passwords in a database. In case of a leak of a password to the dark web, the evaluation server compares a hash of the leaked password to these stored hashes.
In one embodiment, the administrator may trigger remediation. For example, the administrator may force a change of passwords, or force closing of any session which may currently be open using the leaked user credentials.
In one embodiment, the analysis functions performed by the evaluation server can be done via an SDK that is injected into a client application that the user is currently using on the user's device. One example is an identity provider (e.g., Okta has an app that facilitates single sign-on using a user device). The Okta app can include an SDK that incorporates the security evaluation functionality above so that the app can make risk decisions itself instead of having to consult another application or computing device.
In one embodiment, a use case is a business-to-consumer use case. For example, a bank can decide that before customers are permitted to login to a banking application, or attempt to initiate a large balance transfer, the evaluation server checks the risk level of the device. The bank can require that the user install an application that incorporates or uses the security evaluation discussed above.
In one embodiment, multi-factor authentication generates a soft token on a user mobile device. The risk level determined by the evaluation server can be incorporated into the token that is generated. The evaluation server uses a multi-factor authentication application, or this functionality can be integrated into a service application using an SDK as discussed above. When the user is generating the token, the token indicates that this is a trusted device that belongs to the user, and also that the device is in a given risk state, such as one of several classifications of risk. Also, other types of information can be encoded in the token that is generated. The user is not aware of the level of risk encoded in the token, and the entering of the token is also communicating information about the security status of the device.
In various embodiments, additional aspects of risk may be incorporated as factors in the security evaluation. For example, a version number of the application on the user device can be used as a factor.
In one embodiment regarding an IoT device, a module on that device can be interrogated. For example, the module can be used to check to see if communications are going through a secure VPN, check a firmware version, check typical requests to see if the requests look healthy or secure, or to personalize the device to enterprise ownership. In another example, a device phones home to a designated server that does a challenge response mechanism to authenticate the device.
In one embodiment, all checks in a security evaluation list are run through. If the checks are successfully done, then a credential challenge dialog is presented to a user on the device (e.g., in a login screen). In one embodiment, if a risk level is determined to be too high, login credentials are disabled.
In one embodiment, if a user takes a device out of compliance, a token on the device that indicates the device is healthy (or able to access services) is destroyed or removed. A different token can be used for each of several services.
In one embodiment, if an Apple watch or other computing device associated with the user is present, then this is a factor indicating the user is likely to be the normal user. In one embodiment, another factor is a determination that there is an unexpected proxy in the series of devices that transmit an access request.
In one embodiment, there are cases where the evaluation server determines that a device should not be trusted without first requiring installation of a client application on the device. For example, based on headers received by the evaluation server, it is determined that the device is running an older operating system that is deemed as being unacceptably old. So, a security evaluation does not necessarily require consulting a client application on the user device. There are cases where the evaluation server can make a decision not to trust the device (e.g., solely from a SAML request) even though no client application is on the device.
In one embodiment, a user of mobile device 149 is attempting to log into a service at the domain service.com provided by service provider 170. The user enters her username and password. Based on the user entering her e-mail address or the domain name of the e-mail address, service provider 170 redirects this access request to identity provider 172 (e.g., an identity sign-on provider such as the Okta service). The user then provides her username and password to identity provider 172. In one example, this communication occurs over protocols like SAML 2.0 or OOP (Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) is an XML-based data format for exchanging authentication and authorization data). In one embodiment, SAML chaining is used with multiple identity providers that all consult each other before a user can log in.
In one embodiment, the service request to service.com is made by an application on mobile device 149 that is associated with service.com. This application is configured to communicate with evaluation server 150 when an access request is made to the service.com domain. Evaluation server 150 is configured to communicate with identity provider 172 if server 150 determines that the device is in a secure state. If server 150 determines that the device is insecure, server 150 can request that the user remediate any issue identified.
In one embodiment, evaluation server 150 checks that a device is free of threats and is compliant with a corporate policy corresponding to service provider 170. Regarding vulnerabilities and this policy, these can be configured by service provider 170 based on the service provider's desired risk threshold. For example, for the risk of an operating system version that is too old, the service provider sets the policy as to whether the service provider wants to prevent access to that device. In other cases, regarding behavior and configuration, a determination can be made whether the application running on the device is compliant with policy, whether the way that the device is configured is compliant with policy, whether there is a passcode set, etc.
In one embodiment, the level of risk as determined by the security evaluation leads to access to some services, but not to other services. For example, access to some resources may be permitted, but not to other resources (e.g., resources required to send money). The determined level of risk is used to set the level of access provided to the service.
Various embodiments regarding side-load protection are discussed below. These embodiments do not limit the generality of the foregoing discussion regarding security evaluation.
As used herein, “side-loading” or “side-loaded” as used to characterize an application or other software indicates obtaining or obtained from a source that is not the default authorized channel for obtaining applications for the type of device (e.g., the default channel may be set by the administrator of the device such as by using an administrator server, or be set by any computing device different than the device onto which the application is to be installed). Examples of a source that is not the default authorized channel include a source that is not trusted, not known, or not authorized.
A source may be trusted for various reasons, including, for example, that the source is an authorized Google Play store or Apple App Store. Other examples include a source identified by an administrator of mobile devices (e.g., for a large corporation with thousands of employees) for use by users in downloading new software. In another example, a source may be trusted based on a prior history with that source (e.g., extensive prior downloads without negative incidents). Also, a source of prior copies of software may have been previously trusted, but at the time of sourcing a particular software file or component, the source is untrusted, so that the software is considered as being side-loaded.
Other examples of a side-loaded application include an application obtained from a source that is not known, and thus is untrusted, for example because there is no prior history of interaction with the source, or there is no independent confirmation or information that the source can be trusted. In another example, when referring to Android apps, an application is side-loaded if it is installed using an application package in APK format onto an Android device, after downloading the application package from a website other than Google Play. This side-loading is possible if the user has allowed “Unknown Sources” in her security settings on her computing device (this setting allows the installation of non-market apps).
The embodiments set forth herein are implemented using a wide variety of different types of computing devices. As used herein, examples of a “computing device” include, but are not limited to, a server, a centralized computing platform, a system of multiple computing processors and/or components, a mobile device, a user terminal, a vehicle, a personal communications device, a wearable digital device, an electronic kiosk, a general purpose computer, an electronic document reader, a tablet, a laptop computer, a smartphone, a digital camera, a residential domestic appliance, a television, or a digital music player.
An administrator defines and deploys policies for an organization. In some embodiments, the organization may be a family or other social group, and the administrator role may be performed by a parent or guardian, or may be performed by a third party service provider. Such a third party service provider may be a provider of security services, or the network operator, or a provider of content services. The additional levels of protection and control that organizations such as enterprises desire can also be advantageous for consumers, but consumers are typically not knowledgeable enough to perform administrator roles. Thus, there is often a need for third party service providers to act as technically-oriented admins. The consumer or parent or guardian as an admin may specify preferences corresponding to high-level policy decisions, and a technical admin can configure underlying services to meet these high-level policy decisions. As used in this disclosure, the term “administrator” or “admin” includes, but is not limited to, all such administrators (e.g., technical admin, consumer, parent, guardian, service provider, etc.) as described in this paragraph.
As mentioned above, users of mobile devices install applications from numerous various sources that are beyond the control of an administrator. In some embodiments, within a mobile network, the network operator can perform various admin functions as described in this disclosure. Also, the embodiments described herein are not limited to use solely in enterprise BYOD situations, but are also useful, for example, in other cases such as where a consumer wishes to administer all devices for the members of her family, or all of her personal devices (e.g., phone, watch, laptop, desktop computer, etc.).
In one example, a component is a part of an application (e.g., an application that is installed by a user from an Android or other software application marketplace and then executes on a mobile device). In one example, a component is provided by the application's creator or by a third party. In another example, the component may be code provided by an ad network or an analytics network.
In yet another example, components are linked libraries/SDKs that are packaged within an application. This is code that is within the application, but the code is developed by a third party and provides the ability for an application developer to integrate certain behaviors of that component into the developer's application (e.g., displaying a certain type of ads from a certain ad network such as LeadBolt). In another example, a set of data (e.g., in a file or a database) that is used by an application may be considered as a component of that application. Also, in some examples, data used by an application can be considered as known or unknown, or trusted or untrusted.
In one embodiment, a component (e.g., a component associated with an ad network) may have multiple behaviors associated with it (e.g., notification display, settings changes, and/or information collection). For example, the behaviors of the BTController application (discussed further below) is the summation of the behaviors of its constituent components. In some cases, components may provide the ability to selectively opt-out of individual behaviors. However, in other cases, this is not possible, and in order to opt out of any set of behaviors, a user must opt-out of the entire component.
Various embodiments described below for side-load protection relate to determining a source of software that is loaded on or otherwise transferred to a computing device. It is typically desired to determine the source in order to assess the risk of the software and make a determination or decision whether further action should be taken with respect to the software such as, for example, blocking installation of the software onto the computing device.
Sources of software (e.g., software loaded by user onto her laptop computer or mobile device) may include various numerous, non-limiting examples. For example, sources may include various channels of distribution for software applications. These channels may include the Google play store or the Apple App Store, other websites, various file sharing or transfer servers, peer-to-peer file-sharing systems (e.g., BitTorrent), and other network or computer system transfer sources for software. In addition to the foregoing types of sources, other sources include software accessed are installed locally such as by user inserting a USB memory drive into a computing device, or pairing two mobile devices using a Bluetooth connection.
There are various ways that a source of an application can be determined. In one embodiment, the source of an app on Android can be determined by calling getInstallerPackageName( ). In another embodiment, a source of software may be, for example, the “default” and/or “normal” channel for an operating system (OS) or other software, such as defined by an administrator server that manages computing devices for an enterprise.
In various embodiments, channels can be considered or deemed to be white-listed or black-listed. White-listed channels are trusted, and black-listed channels are untrusted. For example, applications from white-listed channels are generally considered as being trusted software, and applications from black-listed channels are generally considered as being untrusted software.
The software itself that is side-loaded includes various examples. For example, the software may be an application, a widget, an executable file, binary code, firmware, operating system components or updates, and other forms of executable software. Examples further include other files, such as office documents or PDF files, that may contain components like scripts or macros which are themselves executable. In some cases, such an embedded executable component may have associated with it identifiers or signing key information which can be used to separately determine the source of that executable component. An application itself may contain another application, for example, where an application for a mobile device which contains within it another related application which is intended for installation on a wearable or other personal or external device.
In various embodiments, the source of side-loaded software may be determined in various ways. For example, channel identifiers (channel IDs) associated with an application may be compared to various white lists and black lists. In another example, prior experience with the same or similar software on other computing devices may be used to make an assessment of the source of software being currently installed on a particular device. For example, various components of a currently-sourced software application can be identified and compared to components of software previously analyzed for prior installations made on other computing devices.
In another example, characteristics (e.g., a signing certificate or other signature of an application) associated with the developer of the software may be used to determine the source. In another example, the behavior of software either as installed on a mobile device or as determined by execution in a controlled environment may be used for making an identification of the source of the software. For example, the behavior of software newly being installed may be the same or similar as prior known malware.
In various embodiments, as each software application is assessed for making a determination of source, a source identifier is associated with the software. The source identifier is used by a mobile device or other computing device on which the software is being installed. The mobile device can communicate with an evaluation server using the source identifier as a basis for side-load protection activities, as discussed below. An application identifier is also associated with the software for tracking data related to the application. In one embodiment, an application identifier is an identifier used to identify a particular application. Examples of such identifiers include an application package name, an application title and version, or an arbitrary identification number (binary or otherwise).
In some embodiments, even a trusted source (e.g., the Google Play Store) may provide certain applications that are unauthorized or undesirable in at least one aspect. For example, a banking enterprise may authorize obtaining of a banking application from a designated enterprise website (e.g., a Bank of America website to which a user or a mobile device authenticates itself). An administrator of the enterprise desires that users download the banking application from this designated website, which the administrator considers to be a trusted source. However, a user might download the same or similar banking application from another source. This other source may be trusted for most applications. For example, the Google Play Store may be considered by an administrator server to be a trusted source for most applications downloaded to a device.
However, for the above particular banking application, the enterprise administrator only considers the application to be obtained from a trusted source if that source is the designated website. Any banking application obtained from the Google Play Store is considered to have been obtained from an untrusted source.
A source (such as previously identified and assigned to a source identifier) from which an undesirable application has been obtained can be set to or marked as being untrusted (either generally for all software obtained from that source, or untrusted, but only with respect to certain defined software). For the example of the banking application above, the Google Play Store can be deemed to be untrusted source for this application.
In one embodiment, evaluation server 150 stores data that associates source identifiers with application identifiers of those applications for which the respective source is considered untrusted (e.g., the banking application from the Google Play Store above). This stored data is used in later comparisons of source identifiers for new applications being installed on a computing device. The source identifier for a new application is compared to such previously-associated source identifier/application identifier records. If the new application is determined to be the same as or similar to the previous application (e.g., a previous application obtained in an unauthorized manner from the Google Play Store), than the new application is likewise considered to have been obtained from an untrusted source. For example, the similarity of the new application to the previous application can be determined by component analysis as described herein. In one case, a new, same-or-similar banking application obtained from the Google Play Store has an application state (or a state designation) set to untrusted in response to this determination.
In various embodiments, a mobile device on which an application is being installed stores state data. The state data includes a mobile device state and an application state for each application stored on or installed on the mobile device. The mobile device state may have values including trusted, untrusted, and unknown. The state of unknown indicates that a determination has not yet been made whether the mobile device is trusted or untrusted, or that an event has occurred on the device which could require re-assessment and could change the mobile device state. The application state may have values including trusted and untrusted. An application having a state of untrusted will, for example, not be executed.
Various embodiments described below also discuss state designations. A state designation is generally an indication by a computing device to be used by another computing device for setting a state. The state designation may have values of trusted and untrusted. The state may be the mobile device state or an application state. For example, the mobile device may receive a state designation from an evaluation server and then set the mobile device state (or alternatively an application state) based on the state designation. An application identifier will be associated with the state designation in order to identify the applicable application.
In some cases, the evaluation server communicates with an administrator server, which itself may make determinations of state designations that are sent to the evaluation server. The evaluation server uses a state designation from the administrator server in order to make a decision at the evaluation server regarding a state designation to send to the mobile device. The state designations may be selected based on various factors including the source of software, its source identifier, component or behavior analysis of software, etc., as discussed herein.
In various embodiments, based on the mobile device state and/or the application state, various actions may be performed with respect to the mobile device. For example, the mobile device may be denied access to a corporate network, or an application may be disabled.
In some embodiments, the source of the application may be determined during the process of assessing authenticity of the application, as discussed herein. For example, an application that is determined as not being authentic can have its source added to a blacklist.
In some embodiments, an application can be monitored for fraudulent behavior. If fraudulent behavior is identified, the source of the application can be added to a blacklist.
In some embodiments, installation of an application onto a computer device can be monitored. The signature associated with the application or other characteristics of the signer of the application can be used to assess the source.
In some embodiments, the manner of usage of an application on a computing device can be monitored. The usage or behavior of components of the application on the device that are inconsistent with a user or administrator-designated policy can be identified. In such event, the source and/or the application can be deemed as untrusted.
There are various examples of policies that may be used on mobile or other computing devices. For example, a user policy may define the handling of components 104 and 106 on mobile device 149. A policy may be defined by behavioral preferences established by a user and/or an administrator, and this policy is enforced on new applications installed on the mobile device. In another example, a policy may apply to a particular identified application.
In other examples, policies may be defined and applied to control or restrict the behavior of applications and their components. This can include the identification of advertising networks and defining policies to permit various opt-out actions for these advertising networks.
In some embodiments, a component analysis of an application can be used to relate components of a new application to a database of characteristics for known bad components. If the component in the new application corresponds to a known bad component, the source of the software can be identified as untrusted.
In various embodiments, side-load protection services are used by an administrator of numerous mobile devices, for example, for a company having thousands of employees. Mobile device management software is executed on an administrator server that provides a console for the administrator. The console provides information to the administrator regarding source information and statistics for side-loaded applications of managed devices. The administrator server communicates with the evaluation server as part of the side-load protection services.
In addition to the security evaluation discussed above, evaluation server 150 may also provide protection against side-loaded applications. In various embodiments, evaluation server 150 performs side-load protection as discussed below. The system of
Additional examples of mobile devices include devices that are part of what is called “the internet of things” (IOT). In the IOT there are multiple devices which operate on their own, without accompanying and attendant users. Such devices may be mobile or sessile; they may have various sensors and computing and communication capabilities and may run applications; schematically they can be considered substantially similar to a mobile device. Such “things” may have occasional interactions with their owners or administrators, who may monitor the things or modify settings on these things. Such owners or administrators play the role of users with respect to the “thing” devices. In some examples, the primary mobile device of a user may be an administrator server with respect to a paired “thing” device that is worn by the user (e.g., an Apple watch). In an embodiment, a “thing” or a device, e.g., one intended for use as a health or medical device, may have an embedded white list defining trusted sources for applications, or may have an administrator associated with that device, e.g., an administrator working for the medical device manufacturer or distributor, who can control the side-loading policies for that device.
As mentioned above, in
Network 121 may be used to download and remotely install applications selected from marketplace 123 (e.g., using Google Play or the Android Market). Marketplace 123 may include one or more web servers (or other types of data communication servers) to communicate with the user terminals (e.g., 141, 143, . . . , 145) and mobile devices 147, 149.
Specifically, mobile device 149 may download a new application 1013 from application marketplace 123 or developer server. An application obtained from developer server is signed using a signing certificate. New application 1013 has components 104 and 106.
In an alternative embodiment, an application or other software has been preloaded onto mobile device 149. In this case, assessment of this application alone (or assessment of this application along with a set of or all applications installed on mobile device 149) can be performed. In one embodiment, this preloaded application includes components that are assessed and handled such as described herein for new applications being installed on a mobile or other computing device.
Mobile device 149 stores a user policy 108. The new application 1013 may be compared to user policy 108 during or after installation. Evaluation server 150 includes a data repository of policies 116 (e.g., user policies). User policy 108 of mobile device 149 may be compared to policies 116. An administrator server (not shown) may provide some policies in policies 116 (e.g., as regards usage of or installation of applications onto mobile device 149).
In one example, an owner of an Android phone (e.g., mobile device 149) may visit a web site hosted by marketplace 123 and select a free poker game application for remote installation on mobile device 149. The user may authenticate itself to marketplace 123 by its email address (e.g., Gmail address) and password.
The marketplace 123 is connected to respective data storage facilities to store applications, messaging account data for users, user preference data, and other data. A messaging server (not shown) may be connected to communication network 121 to deliver messages (e.g., email or text) to user terminals 141-145 or one of a user's mobile devices 147, 149.
In one embodiment, a software server (not shown) may be coupled to communicate with application marketplace 123 and/or mobile devices 147, 149 by communication network 121. The software server stores, for example, an application (e.g., the Ad Network Detector discussed below) in memory. The application stored on the software server is sent to application marketplace 123, where it is stored for later download and installation by a user. For example, the user of mobile device 149 may access marketplace 123 to download and install the application. In another embodiment, the software server is developer server, or another computing device, and may be used to upload an application to marketplace 123.
In one embodiment, the software server communicates with the application (now executing on mobile device 149 after installation by the user). The application is configured to identify at least one behavior on mobile device 149 as discussed herein. The at least one behavior is associated with each of a plurality of components of a plurality of other applications installed on the mobile device 149 (e.g., other applications previously downloaded by the user from the Google Play service), and the at least one behavior includes a first behavior associated with a first component.
Evaluation server 150 may receive at least one behavioral preference of the user (e.g., from mobile device 149 and/or from an administrator of the mobile device). The at least one behavioral preference may be determined by the application based on input from the user (e.g., a user selection from a menu or results list) or the administrator.
The server stores the at least one behavioral preference (e.g., stores in a memory of the server) for later uses such as responding to queries from other computing devices regarding the intent of the user of mobile device 149. In one embodiment, the Ad Network Detector discussed below may manage these behavioral preferences on behalf of a user for these networks.
Identity provider 172 may be coupled to communication network 121. The identity provider 172 may communicate with, for example, evaluation server 150. For example, evaluation server 150 may obtain information from the identity provider regarding one or more software components for a side-loaded application being analyzed to determine its source.
In an alternative embodiment, the identity provider includes a database, which stores component identities (and optionally some or all of policies 116). Mobile device 149 may include applications that have been previously installed on mobile device 149. These applications may be installed from application marketplace 123 or the developer server.
The user policy 108 is stored locally in a memory of mobile device 149. In one embodiment, during operation, as discussed in more detail below, user policy 108 may be used to define the handling of components 104 and 106 on mobile device 149.
In one embodiment, a user policy for mobile device 149 may alternatively (or in addition to user policy 108) be stored as one of policies 116 on the evaluation server 150 and/or the identity provider. A user or administrator policy may be enforced on mobile device 149 using either a local user policy or a remote user policy, or a combination thereof.
As discussed in more detail below, after an application 102 is installed on mobile device 149, components 104 and 106 may be identified and behaviors exhibited on mobile device 149 may be attributed to one or more of components 104 and 106. Any given component (e.g., component 104) may be present in several different applications on mobile device 149 and/or may be common to numerous copies or versions of an application that have been installed on mobile or other computing devices for large numbers of other users. In one embodiment, this commonality of component presence permits observing and collecting structural and behavioral data associated with the component (e.g., how the component behaves on other mobile devices). This known component data may be stored in a database (not shown) of evaluation server 150, and the component data may be associated with a particular component identity. Thus, a data repository of prior component data can be used to compare to data more recently obtained for new components (such as those identified in newly-installed applications on mobile device 149). The results of the component comparison can also be used when determining a source of an application.
More specifically, as characteristics and behaviors associated with components on mobile device 149 are identified and attributed, these characteristics and behaviors may be compared with known characteristics and behaviors stored either locally on mobile device 149 or stored remotely on the identity provider (which was discussed above) as data associated with component identities (these identities may also be associated with previously-determined sources of the corresponding applications). The results from such comparisons in combination with determination of source, and/or mobile device state or application state, may be used for making decisions regarding configuration and/or disabling of one or more particular components on the mobile device or other computing device (e.g. user terminal 141), as discussed in greater detail below.
Although
In some embodiments, a combination of client server architecture and peer to peer architecture can be used, in which one or more centralized servers may be used to provide some of the information and/or services and the peer to peer network is used to provide other information and/or services. Thus, embodiments of the disclosure are not limited to a particular architecture.
An example of an application available for download from the Google Play Store is an application known as “BTController”. Some user reviews for this application have included complaints about excessive advertisements on the user's mobile device after installation. Thus, this may be considered an undesirable application (e.g., Google Play could be defined as untrusted with respect to this particular application). For example, evaluation server 150 can store a record associating a source identifier for the Google Play Store with an application identifier for this undesirable application. In response to a request from a mobile device requesting a state designation for a new application being installed on the mobile device that has been determined to be similar to this undesirable application, evaluation server 150 sends a state designation having a value of untrusted.
In one embodiment, evaluation server 150 uses one of policies 308 that is applicable to mobile device 149 as part of evaluating risk associated with mobile device 149. In one embodiment, this policy may be used to determine a threshold that a risk configuration of mobile device 149 must pass in order to access a service provided by service provider 170.
Administrator server 302 and evaluation server 150 communicate during side-load protection using network 121. This communication includes sharing of data regarding applications associated with mobile device 149, and the providing of state designations from administrator server 302 to evaluation server 150. The provided state designations may be based on data repositories and analysis of an application and/or its source as performed by administrator server 302.
Mobile device 149 stores state data 306 and mobile application data 304. State data 306 includes a mobile device state and an application state for each of the applications installed or stored on mobile device 149. The mobile device state and the application state may be set based on communications received from evaluation server 150.
The mobile application data 304 includes an application identifier for each application of mobile device 149 and a source identifier for each such application. This source identifier identifies the source from which the application has been obtained. In one example, this source is a channel identifier provided in a field of data for an application package downloaded from an application marketplace. In other cases, the application does not contain any identification of source, but a source is determined and assigned to the application based on analysis of the application, or by observation of how an application file is provisioned to a computing device, as described herein.
In one embodiment, application data 402 is used by evaluation server 150 in performing a security evaluation and response to an access request from mobile device 149. Other data that may be used in this evaluation includes data from source database 406, and/or application data 404 provided from administrator server 302.
The application identifier and source identifier are received from mobile device 149, for example, in one or more messages. In reply to these messages, evaluation server 150 sends a message with one or more state designations for each application identifier. Evaluation server 150 compares source identifiers from mobile device 149 with source identifiers in white list 408 and black list 410 of source database 406. White list 408 contains a list of source identifiers that have been previously determined to be trusted. Black list 410 includes a list of source identifiers that have been previously determined to be untrusted.
In some cases, evaluation server 150 determines and sends state designations to mobile device 149 without any interaction with administrator server 302. However, in other cases, evaluation server 150 sends a message to administrator server 302 providing an application identifier and source identifier along with the requests that administrator server 302 determine a state designation.
Administrator server 302 stores administrator application data 404, which includes application identifiers and source identifiers received from evaluation server 150. Administrator server 302 determines an administrator state designation for an application, as was mentioned above. This administrator state designation is sent to evaluation server 150, which uses the administrator state designation to set a state designation of the evaluation server for sending to mobile device 149. The state designation sent to mobile device 149 may be different than the administrator state designation that was received by evaluation server 150.
Various non-limiting embodiments for side-load source assessment and protection are now described below. In one embodiment, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores computer-readable instructions, which when executed, cause a first computing device to: determine, by the first computing device, whether a first source identifier of a first application matches a white list of source identifiers; determine whether the first source identifier matches a black list of source identifiers; and send, by the first computing device to a second computing device, at least one message comprising the first source identifier and a first application identifier for the first application.
In one embodiment, the determining whether the first source identifier matches the black list is performed in response to the first source identifier not matching the white list. In one embodiment, the determining whether the first source identifier matches the white list is performed in response to the first source identifier not matching the black list. In one embodiment, the determining whether the first source identifier matches the white list is performed simultaneously with the determining whether the first source identifier matches the black list.
In one embodiment, the computer-readable instructions further cause the first computing device to, in response to the first source identifier matching the black list, set a device state of the first computing device to untrusted, and send the at least one message to the second computing device, the at least one message further comprising the device state. The computer-readable instructions may further cause the first computing device to store the device state, wherein the device state can be set to values including trusted and untrusted.
In one embodiment, the computer-readable instructions further cause the first computing device to, in response to the first source identifier not matching the black list, set a first application state for the first application to unknown, and send the at least one message to the second computing device, the at least one message further comprising the first application state. The computer-readable instructions may further cause the first computing device to store data for a plurality of applications, the data comprising an application state and a source identifier for each of the applications, wherein each application state can be set to values including known and unknown.
In one embodiment, the computer-readable instructions further cause the first computing device to receive a message from the second computing device, the message comprising a first state designation for the first application. In one embodiment, the computer-readable instructions further cause the first computing device to set the device state to the first state designation. In one embodiment, the device state is set to the first state designation only if a device state of the first computing device is not set to untrusted.
In one embodiment, the computer-readable instructions further cause the first computing device to, prior to determining whether the first source identifier matches the white list, receive the white list from the second computing device. In one embodiment, the first computing device is a vehicle, a personal communications device, a wearable digital device, an electronic kiosk, a general purpose computer, an electronic document reader, a tablet, a laptop computer, a smartphone, a digital camera, a residential domestic appliance, a television, a digital music player, or a computing device that is embedded in a vehicle or other piece of machinery.
In one embodiment, a method includes: storing, by a first computing device, data for a plurality of applications associated with a second computing device, the data comprising a state designation for each of the applications, wherein the state designation can be set to values including trusted and untrusted; receiving, by the first computing device from the second computing device, a first application identifier and a first source identifier, each for a first application; setting, by the first computing device, a first state designation for the first application, wherein the first state designation is to be used for setting a state on the second computing device; and sending, by the first computing device, the first state designation to the second computing device. The state to be set may be a device state, or an application state for an application stored on the second computing device.
In one embodiment, the setting the first state designation comprises: sending, by the first computing device, over a network, the first application identifier and the first source identifier to a third computing device; receiving, from the third computing device, a second state designation for the first application; and setting the first state designation based on the second state designation.
In one embodiment, the setting the first state designation comprises: determining whether the first source identifier matches a white list of source identifiers; and in response to the first source identifier matching the white list, setting the first state designation to trusted.
In one embodiment, the setting the first state designation comprises: determining whether the first source identifier matches a white list of source identifiers; and in response to the first source identifier not matching the white list, determining whether the first source identifier matches a black list of source identifiers.
In one embodiment, the setting the first state designation further comprises, in response to the first source identifier matching the black list, setting the first state designation to untrusted. In one embodiment, the setting the first state designation further comprises, in response to the first source identifier not matching the black list: sending the first application identifier and the first source identifier to a third computing device; and setting the first state designation based on a second state designation received from the third computing device. In one embodiment, the method further comprises updating the black list based on the second state designation.
In one embodiment, a system includes: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions configured to instruct the at least one processor to: receive, from a first computing device, a first application identifier and a first source identifier, each for a first application of the first computing device; determine whether the first source identifier matches a white list of source identifiers; and determine whether the first source identifier matches a black list of source identifiers; send the first application identifier and the first source identifier over a network to a second computing device; receive, from the second computing device, a first state designation for the first application; set a second state designation based on the first state designation; and send the second state designation to the first computing device.
In one embodiment, the determining whether the first source identifier matches the black list is performed in response to the first source identifier not matching the white list. In one embodiment, the sending the first application identifier and the first source identifier to the second computing device is performed in response to the first source identifier not matching the black list. In one embodiment, the instructions are further configured to instruct the at least one processor to update the white list based on the first state designation.
In one embodiment, the system further comprises a database storing data for a plurality of applications associated with the first computing device, the data comprising a source identifier and a state designation for each of the applications, wherein each state designation can be set to values including trusted and untrusted.
In one embodiment, the first source identifier is based on a signature of the first application. In one embodiment, the instructions are further configured to instruct the at least one processor to receive a trusted source identifier from the second computing device, and update the white list based on the trusted source identifier. In one embodiment, the instructions are further configured to instruct the at least one processor to receive a trusted source identifier from the second computing device, and update the black list based on the trusted source identifier.
In one embodiment, the source of software for mobile device 149 is used by evaluation server 150 in performing a security evaluation for a risk level of mobile device 149 in response to a request initiated by mobile device 149 to access the service provided by service provider 170.
Authenticity server 1005 includes a database 1007, which stores component data 1009 and a repository 1003. Repository 1003 contains package identifiers and signing identifiers for applications being installed on mobile device 149. Various embodiments relating to authenticity server 1005 are discussed in greater detail below.
In
The inter-connect 202 interconnects the microprocessor(s) 203 and the memory 208 together and also interconnects them to a display controller and display device 207 and to peripheral devices such as input/output (I/O) devices 205 through an input/output controller(s) 206. Typical I/O devices include mice, keyboards, modems, network interfaces, printers, scanners, video cameras and other devices which are well known in the art.
The inter-connect 202 may include one or more buses connected to one another through various bridges, controllers and/or adapters. In one embodiment the I/O controller 206 includes a USB (Universal Serial Bus) adapter for controlling USB peripherals, and/or an IEEE-1394 bus adapter for controlling IEEE-1394 peripherals.
The memory 208 may include ROM (Read Only Memory), and volatile RAM (Random Access Memory) and non-volatile memory, such as hard drive, flash memory, etc.
Volatile RAM is typically implemented as dynamic RAM (DRAM) which requires power continually in order to refresh or maintain the data in the memory. Non-volatile memory is typically a magnetic hard drive, a magnetic optical drive, or an optical drive (e.g., a DVD RAM), or other type of memory system which maintains data even after power is removed from the system. The non-volatile memory may also be a random access memory.
The non-volatile memory can be a local device coupled directly to the rest of the components in the computing device. A non-volatile memory that is remote from the computing device, such as a network storage device coupled to the computing device through a network interface such as a modem or Ethernet interface, can also be used.
In one embodiment, a computing device as illustrated in
In another embodiment, a computing device as illustrated in
In some embodiments, one or more servers can be replaced with the service of a peer to peer network of a plurality of data processing systems, or a network of distributed computing systems. The peer to peer network, or a distributed computing system, can be collectively viewed as a computing device.
Embodiments of the disclosure can be implemented via the microprocessor(s) 203 and/or the memory 208. For example, the functionalities described can be partially implemented via hardware logic in the microprocessor(s) 203 and partially using the instructions stored in the memory 208. Some embodiments are implemented using the microprocessor(s) 203 without additional instructions stored in the memory 208. Some embodiments are implemented using the instructions stored in the memory 208 for execution by one or more general purpose microprocessor(s) 203. Thus, the disclosure is not limited to a specific configuration of hardware and/or software.
In
In
Various non-limiting embodiments and examples related to side-load protection and/or determination of a source of side-loaded software are now discussed below. The embodiments and examples of this section (i.e., “Side-Load Protection Variations”) do not limit the generality of the foregoing discussion.
In a first embodiment, an application has been installed (or in other cases will be or is planned to be installed) on a mobile device (e.g., mobile device 149) and a determination is made whether the source of the application is from an untrusted channel. For example, for an application on an Android mobile device, the application has been obtained from a source other than the Google Play Store.
Various use cases 1.1-1.6 are described below (pseudocode is used in portions of the discussion below for ease of explanation). These use cases relate to various situations in which one or more applications (sometimes referred to simply as an “app”) are to be installed on, are already installed on or otherwise interact with, or are intended for use on or with a mobile device. These applications may be tested in various ways as described below. In particular, use cases 1.5-1.6 relate to allowing or disallowing a side-loaded application. In some cases, this allowing or disallowing may relate to permitting or preventing installation of the application, or execution of an application that has already been installed. The “Server” and/or “server” mentioned in the use cases below can be, for example, evaluation server 150.
Various acronyms and terms used in the use cases below have the following meanings, with possible values indicated for some terms:
Use case 1.1: Testing a single downloaded app (white-listed channels and black-listed channels)
At the mobile device:
At the Server:
Use case 1.2: Testing all apps on the mobile device (white-listed channels and black-listed channels)
At the mobile device:
At the Server:
In one variation, the order for the above, as regards at the mobile device, is that the channel IDs are sent to the mobile device, and then at the device the channel IDs associated with the app are tested against a previously-received list of good/bad channel IDs (e.g., white list 432 and black list 434 of
Regarding the above at the server, a channel ID associated with an individual app is sent from MCD to the server where it is tested.
In one example, if the App-State of the app on the MCD is ‘unknown,’ which will be the case if the app is not from Google Play or an Amazon store [these are the only app stores currently filling out the value retrieved by the Android getInstallerPackageName( ) method], then an identifier can be sent for the app (e.g., package name or hash of the app) to the server (e.g., evaluation server 150), which may have other information about the origin and channel ID of the app, and the app identifier is used at the server to determine whether the app should be trusted or not.
In the case in which the channel ID is determined by monitoring file system or network activity somewhere else (e.g., on this particular mobile device, or on a different device for the same app (e.g., having the same application identifier), or on a server (e.g., in a VM or emulator monitoring behavior of the application)), then a channel ID could be available at the server, and thus sending an app identifier to the server can resolve the appropriate channel ID and the designation of it as trusted or untrusted.
Also, there is an optional variation in which the app may have been delivered by a good channel ID, but the app is no longer available from that good channel (e.g., it has been pulled by the operator of that channel), or the version of the app being analyzed has been replaced by a newer version of the app (e.g., an update or a vulnerability fix); in either case, the app may be considered as having an App-State of ‘untrusted’ (or in an alternative approach as having a state of ‘out-of-date’).
In yet other variations of the above, a previously GOOD channel ID is now known or determined to be BAD (e.g., by evaluation server 150 or admin server 302), and a re-evaluation of apps from that channel is performed.
In another variation, a previously BAD channel ID is now known to be GOOD, and a re-evaluation of apps from that channel is performed.
In another variation, a previously UNKNOWN channel ID is now known to be GOOD or BAD, and a re-evaluation of apps from that channel is performed.
In another variation, an app from a channel ID previously considered to be GOOD has been determined to be undesirable (e.g., due to malware discovered in the channel, or for other behavioral reasons), and as a result the designation of that channel ID as GOOD is changed to BAD or UNKNOWN.
Use case 1.3: Testing a single downloaded app (white-listed channels and no black-listed channels)
At the mobile device:
At the Server:
Use case 1.4: Testing all apps on the mobile device (white-listed channels but no black-listed channels)
At the mobile device:
At the Server:
Use case 1.5: Allowing/disallowing a single side-loaded app (white-listed channels and white-listed app authors)
At the mobile device:
At the server:
In one variation of the above, the app has not been installed yet, and the MCD is downloading the app; in order to do the next step of “Retrieve the channel ID” via the “getInstallerPackageName( )” method, the app is first installed. In an alternative approach, this processing is done before the installation proceeds (e.g., because the download is intercepted to determine a channel ID, or because there is logic in the InstallerPackage that is will determine a channel ID).
In one variation, the actions taken above are to set App-State; being “allowed/disallowed” means if “allowed” then permitting installation to proceed, and if disallowed, then either uninstalling the app if it has already been installed, or blocking the app from executing if the app has already been installed. In an embodiment, the signed application installation package contains a directive that the application is only intended for distribution from one or more specific channels, and if the application has been provided via a channel that was not listed, then the application will not be installed.
Use case 1.6: Conditionally allowing/disallowing a single side-loaded app
At the Mobile Device:
At the Server:
Various different situations associated with the above use cases may exist. In some cases, a channel is white for all apps or black for all apps, or sometimes an admin (e.g., admin server 302) may configure a more-complicated combination. For example, a particular channel ID may be predominantly GOOD (e.g., Google Play Store), but there may be certain known BAD apps available from that channel. In this case the channel ID has a ‘default’ designation as GOOD, but there is a black list for that channel of specific apps known to be BAD, and this channel specific list is also consulted during any decision processes (e.g., by the admin server and/or the evaluation server).
In another example, an enterprise (e.g., admin server 302) may not only store a list of GOOD channel IDs, but may also choose to have a channel-specific list of white-listed apps, which are the only ones from that channel that are to be allowed as ‘trusted.’ An example of this is that only enterprise-approved apps are allowed from that channel and not any other channels.
Another variation involves there being multiple destinations or install-locations on a single mobile (or other computing) device. Specifically, each ‘container’ on a mobile device can represent a separate install location (e.g., the ‘personal’ container and the ‘work’ container), as with the Google at Work product or other container solutions like those available from Good Technology. In this case, the designation of a channel as GOOD or BAD depends on the ‘install location’ for the app; that is, in one case, the only GOOD channel ID for the Work container on the device is the enterprise version of the Google Play app store; the general consumer version of the Google Play app store is not considered as a GOOD channel ID for the Work container. This variation may apply, for example, to any of the use cases above.
In some cases, an app appears to be available from both trusted and untrusted channels (e.g., the app is determined to be the same app based on a hash of each app). In these cases, if the app is identical to the app that is available from the trusted channel, then the app state is set to trusted, otherwise it is set to untrusted. Also, evaluation server 150 may or may not know where the actual app installed on the device was sourced from (e.g., whether from the trusted channel or the untrusted channel). Thus, the evaluation server may choose to determine that the app is untrusted or unknown because the actual source of the app is not known.
Some embodiments relate to wearable apps. These are apps which run on a wearable device (e.g., Android Wear), but these apps are packaged inside a handheld app, because users cannot browse and install apps directly on the wearable itself. If packaged properly, when users download the handheld app, a system automatically pushes the wearable app to the paired wearable. For example, see https://developer.android.com/training/wearables/apps/packaging.html Also see https://developer.android.com/training/building-wearables.html
There are cases of wearable apps being packaged inside the APK for the handheld device for subsequent installation onto a wearable device. With respect to detection of malware, or determination of whether the app is undesired, the wearable app may be scanned using a whitelist or a blacklist or a decision component. Also, there are cases in which wearable apps do not run on the mobile device, but instead run on a paired or connected wearable, and which are provisioned via a connection through the mobile device. Here, the source identifier for the embedded wearable app consists of the source identifier of the containing app plus the fact that the wearable app was contained within that wearable app. The side load protection system may distinguish between the containing app for installation or running on the mobile device and the embedded app for installation or running on the wearable device; e.g., one may be allowed, while the other may not, the decisions of the system can be independent of each other for these two apps and devices.
In one example, for an app that was preloaded on the device, the result from “getInstallerPackageName( )” can be “null.” If this value returned cannot be used to distinguish pre-loaded from non-pre-loaded apps, the system can determine by other attributes if the app had originally been pre-loaded [e.g., such as if the app is installed in location/system/app or/system/priv-app (Android 4.4 or greater)].
In another example, an app's install channel is detected on the device, or is detected in a piece of code that operates somewhere in the network path from the install/download network source to the device (e.g., in a network appliance/router/firewall/etc.). For example, by observing that an application is being downloaded to the device from a particular network location, a channel ID can be determined for that application as being an identifier for the source of the download, e.g., a network IP address, or domain name, or URL, or other network identifier. In such a variation, the system may choose to not allow a network connection to a network location known to be a source of bad channel IDs for applications, based on user preference, user policy or enterprise policy (e.g., as set by the admin server 302), or may choose to not allow an application to be downloaded from such a network source (other communications with this network source might be allowed).
In various cases, one detects a trusted/untrusted channel BEFORE the install, DURING the install, or AFTER the install. The URL https://developer.android.com/referencfe/android/content/pm/PackageInfo.html describes the PackageInfo class on Android. This may be obtained from the getInstallerPackageName(String packageName) method in the PackageManager class. See http://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/PackageManager.html#getInstallerPackageName(java.lang.String)
This stackoverflow article (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13289748/can-packagemanager-getinstallerpackagename-tell-me-that-my-app-was-installed-f) says that:
Google Play: “com.android.vending” or “com.google.play” or “com.google.android.feedback”
Amazon: “com.amazon.venezia”
Elsewhere: “null”
Samsung's installer may return com.sec.android.app.samsungapps.
The getInstallerPackageName is API Level 5 (Android 2.0+).
If the source of the information of “channel ID” is calling “getInstallerPackageName( )”, then there will typically be a non-null answer only for Google Play or the Amazon store or the Samsung store. A ‘null’ value means an unknown channel ID—and thus is determined (at least initially) to be an untrusted channel ID. If the actual source of the app can be determined as the network location or URL used to download the app, than that network location is the source ID or channel ID for the application.
In another embodiment, enterprise resources are protected when an application on a mobile device associated with the enterprise has been determined to have an application installed from an untrusted channel. In one example, a use case 2.1 relates to applying an enterprise policy (in many variations).
In this example, one or more of the following actions are taken:
In another embodiment, trust is restored between an enterprise admin server and a mobile device that hosts an app that was installed from an untrusted channel. In one example, a use case 3.1 relates to managed restoration of suspended functionality.
For example, one or more of the following actions are taken:
At the mobile device or terminal:
In another embodiment, a determination is made as to whether any high-risk activities occurred while a mobile device was in an untrusted state due to a side-loaded application. In one example, a use case 4.1 relates to an access usage log and report.
For example, one or more of the following actions is taken:
On the mobile device:
In one variation of the above, data has been sent that should not have been sent, and the amount of data and/or the frequency of such activity was unusual or inappropriate. The actual data that is sent is captured or inspected (or received). When inspecting such data, the administrator is notified of the findings.
In another embodiment, a population is managed in which the population includes mobile devices associated with an enterprise. The mobile devices have multiple diverse apps installed from multiple diverse channels and some of those apps are determined to be side-loaded apps (e.g., determined using evaluation server 150). In one example, a use case 5.1 relates to comparing a population of interest with a control population.
For example, one or more of the following actions are taken:
At the server (e.g., evaluation server 150):
In another embodiment, a determination is made of the channel or other source for an application. In one example, a use case 6.1 relates to a value obtained from an operating system (OS) for determining a channel ID, if the ID is available. If a channel ID is not available, a channel is determined from network and/or file system activity by monitoring file system changes.
For example, one or more of the following actions may be taken:
At the mobile device:
In another example, a use case 6.2 relates to determining a channel ID by monitoring network activity.
For example, one or more of the following actions may be taken:
At the mobile device:
At a network appliance (or server):
In one embodiment, previous behavior associated with a side-loaded app on another phone is used to predict the same behavior based on the early indications on the subject phone.
In other embodiments, side-loaded apps are identified in various ways. In one embodiment, an origin of the app is identified, and a determination is made (e.g., by evaluation server 150) whether the app is still available in the version that is currently being assessed (e.g., when being considered for installation on mobile device 149).
For origin detection, some things can be done in advance; for applications that are still available, a server checks corpus or a known App Store to see if the app still available there, or if a more recent version of the same app (e.g., as determined by similarity analysis as discussed herein) is now available, or if the version currently being analyzed is no longer available.
In some embodiments regarding origin detection, when a channel ID is not otherwise obtainable, a system may determine a source or channel ID by observing activity in a device's network connections or browser activity or file system operations. E.g., code that executes within a browser (such as a browser extension or plugin or a built-in browser function) or code that is observing the browser's activity (e.g., via monitoring of Android intents, or 105 protocol handlers, or via a network intercept on a device, such as for example a network shim or adapter or VPN or in a network appliance). Such code can detect that an app (e.g., an .apk or .ipa or other app packaging file format) is being downloaded (e.g., looking at a URL for source, or looking at HTTP header Content-type (e.g., application/vnd.android.package-archive for an Android APK, or application/octet-stream for an iOS IPA file); or seeing how the file name is represented in headers if present to see that a .apk or .ipa application file type is being downloaded). An app whose download is detected in this manner can be determined to be from a source or channel ID of the network location or URL used for the download.
In one embodiment, it may be detected whether an app download is via a client pull request or a web App Store push request, or an MDM app push request.
In one embodiment, an app has the same hash as a version from a known source, but is not delivered via that source. For example, an app is delivered via USB or Bluetooth (BT) or another peripheral form of communication (e.g., an Android USB ADB interface). Or an app is or was delivered by some other app (e.g., a third-party App Store app).
In one embodiment regarding post-installation detection for an application, a server or other computing device determines a source of the application by visiting/going to a plurality of well-known app stores, and seeing if an app with the same hash is available for download there (e.g., this can include an enterprise App Store or an MDM controlled store). Alternatively, one can use a cache of such info obtained previously from these source(s) (e.g., at a security company server); and determine that (i) an app with this hash is available there now; or (ii) an app with this hash is not available there now, but was available there in the past; and/or (iii) a newer version of the app (e.g., as determined by component analysis and/or similarity analysis as described herein) is now available there. Also, in some cases, the same app can have been available from multiple sources.
In one embodiment, for reports to administrators or other enterprise reports, it is determined whether this app is present on any other devices for the enterprise (e.g., mobile devices managed by admin server 302) plus numbers of devices and/or details of device activity, including present and/or historical. The prevalence of this app on any worldwide devices may be determined, including details of app or history or statistics of usage or behavior; and optionally determination of the prevalence among other enterprises' devices anonym ized with optional classification of enterprise size and IR type (e.g., SAIC Code).
In one embodiment, high confidence (e.g., confidence determined to be above a threshold) findings can be reported to an admin server, including support for a correlation of the app presence with any of: network endpoints visited; other apps present on the mobile device; or any other metadata related to device or networks connected to the mobile device, or user or other metadata. Also, a server can track the origin as to what network(s) device the mobile device was connected to at the time of download, or the specific computing device/network through which the download to the mobile device was made.
In some cases, an app is preloaded on a device. It can be determined whether the app has been updated since the preload time (e.g., updated by an automatic update and/or a user-initiated update); and/or whether a firmware flash or OTA OS UPDATE has occurred.
In one variation, an indication is put inside the app (e.g., inserted by the developer, such as by a developer server, into or with the code of the application) of an intended channel for delivery. The app should not show up with a different channel ID having been determined after analysis (e.g., by evaluation server 150). Otherwise, the app is considered to be from a bad source or untrusted.
In one embodiment, a change in the assessment of an app (e.g., as being benign, or malware, or other) may trigger a change in the assessment of a channel (e.g., the channel through which the app was distributed). For example, if a channel had been hitherto determined to be unknown (vs. trusted or untrusted), then the channel assessment may be altered to trusted or untrusted.
As described in more detail below, a user may express an intent as to how the user desires its computing device (e.g., mobile device 149) to behave. The intent may be explicitly provided by the user or may be otherwise determined (e.g., by reference to a database on a remote server). In one embodiment, the user's intent defines how the user wants to control receiving of certain types of messages (e.g., advertisements). The type of control desired by the user in its various forms of experience on a computing device (e.g., a mobile device 149) is expressed in the user's intent. This intent may be used to determine various behaviors of the computing device. For example, some undesired behaviors may be stopped by disabling various components of one or more applications that have been previously installed on the user's mobile device.
In one embodiment, the system of
A server (e.g., evaluation server 150 or administrator server 302) receives at least one behavioral preference of the user from mobile device 149, and the at least one behavioral preference is determined by the application based on input from the user. The server stores the at least one behavioral preference for later uses such as responding to queries from other computing devices regarding the intent of the user of mobile device 149. In one embodiment, the server is independently maintained by each of many ad networks. The Ad Network Detector as discussed herein may manage these behavioral preferences on behalf of a user for these networks. In an alternative embodiment, an identity provider (e.g., such as was discussed above) includes a database, which stores component identities and user policies.
In one embodiment, an application referred to herein as “Ad Network Detector” may be downloaded from the Google Play service onto a user's mobile device 149. The expressing of user intent and control of behavior for mobile device 149 as described below may be incorporated into or otherwise work in conjunction with the Ad Network Detector application.
The Ad Network Detector application scans a user's phone or tablet for the presence of ad networks used in mobile apps, giving the user information about what types of ads can be displayed, and what information is gathered by the ad networks. With access to this information, the user is able to decide whether to keep the application that has a particular ad network on the user's phone.
Mobile device (e.g., smartphone or tablet) usage has increased dramatically, and some advertisers have begun to experiment with aggressive, new techniques to display ads on mobile devices. These techniques include pushing ads to the standard Android notification bar, dropping generically designed icons on the mobile desktop, and modifying browser settings like bookmarks or the default homepage. Because each of these techniques can display an advertisement outside the context of a specific application, it's difficult for users to know exactly which app is responsible for any given ad. The Ad Network Detector application provides a method for users to determine which ad network and application are the source for such ads.
Some ad networks also collect information that identifies a specific device or user for use in targeted marketing campaigns. Much like for browser-based ads, this practice allows users to see more personalized or relevant ads. It is sometimes difficult for a user to know what aspects of the user's information are collected by ad networks. The capabilities and information collection methods specific to each ad network may be determined from investigation. The Ad Network Detector application informs the user what data is being collected, and by which ad network/application.
In this embodiment, the Ad Network Detector application provides information to the user to about practices supporting mobile advertising. The application may detect many ad networks. Some of the ad networks detected may include the following examples:
Regarding ad network capabilities and privacy, in this embodiment the capabilities and information collection methods specific to each ad network may be investigated. Based on this investigation, the Ad Network Detector application details what identifying information is collected by each ad network, and how it is collected. This may include personal information directly linkable to an individual user, such as an email address, and device and network information that is specific to an individual device or network, rather than to the user.
In one embodiment, a screen is presented by an installed application (e.g. the Ad Network Detector application after installation from application marketplace 123) to a user on a display of mobile device 149. In this embodiment, a user expresses his or her intent to control behavior of application components on mobile device 149.
In one example, a BTController application has previously been installed on the mobile device 149 by the user, among numerous other user-installed applications. The BTController includes an advertisement network component having several behaviors. A first behavior is the display of advertisements in the notification bar of mobile device 149.
In this embodiment, the components of each application (e.g., BTController) previously installed on mobile device 149 are determined (e.g., determined by an application or another tool installed on the mobile device for that purpose). For example, a scan to determine these components may be initiated by the user by her clicking on or touching a start scan button of a user interface.
An example of a component to be identified is the LeadBolt advertising network included in the BTController application. In addition, at least one behavior (e.g., displaying of ads in the notification bar) associated with each of the components for an installed application is identified.
The identified behaviors are presented to the user (e.g., in a list of scan results). At least one behavioral preference expressing the intent of the user is determined (e.g., a desire of the user to opt out of a particular behavior). This intent is then implemented on the mobile device by reconfiguring the identified components of various applications on the mobile device as necessary to conform to the user's expressed intent.
In one embodiment, a status display presented to the user by the installed application that indicates the status of analyzing applications on the mobile device 149 (i.e., other applications that are installed on the mobile device) to identify their respective components, according to one embodiment. An extent of progress of the analysis or scan is indicated by a bar.
In one embodiment, a set of results is presented to the user from the analyzing of the applications on the mobile device 149. The results include a list of behaviors identified. For example, one behavior is the display of ads in the notification bar of the mobile device. The number of applications identified that include a component exhibiting the listed behavior is indicated in vertical arrangement or column.
For example, only one application was identified that includes a component exhibiting this behavior. Two applications were identified that include a component exhibiting a different behavior. In contrast, zero applications were identified including a component that exhibits yet another behavior. It should be noted that the count, in this implementation, refers to the number of components that exhibit a particular behavior. This count (or an additional count) in other implementations could reflect the number of applications that exhibit the behavior. Any given component may be present in several different applications, so these two counts are not necessarily equal.
In one embodiment, a screen presents information about an advertisement network (LeadBolt) incorporated in an application (BTController) installed on mobile device 149. The screen includes a description of the behavior associated with the application.
In one embodiment, a screen presents an opt-out button for the user to opt out of the advertisement network. The screen includes a description describing an opt-out option for the advertisement network. The user expresses her intent by clicking on or touching (e.g., on a touch screen) opt-out button.
In one embodiment, the user's intent may be stored locally in a memory of mobile device 149. Alternatively, this intent may be stored remotely on a different computing device such as a server (e.g., a server operated by the software developer of the Ad Network Detector discussed above) accessible via communication network 121. This server may also be accessible by third-party application developers in order to conform behaviors to intents previously expressed by respective users. In another embodiment, this server is operated by the owner of the component.
Various other embodiments are now described below. In a first embodiment, a computer-readable storage medium stores computer-readable instructions (e.g., instructions of an Ad Network Detector), which when executed, cause a computing device (e.g., a mobile device of a user) to, for an application installed on the mobile device of the user, determine components of the application; identify, via at least one processor of the mobile device, at least one behavior associated with each of the components, including a first behavior (e.g., ad display in a notification bar) associated with a first component; present results from the identifying to the user, the results to include a list of behaviors including the first behavior; and receive a selection from the user of at least one behavioral preference. Further information regarding determining the components of an application is discussed in greater detail below in the section titled “Analyzing Components of an Application”.
In one embodiment, the at least one behavioral preference is selected from the group consisting of: opting out of the first behavior; opting out of one or more of the components including the first component; a set of user preferences for specifically-identified behaviors; and a policy. In one embodiment, the at least one behavioral preference is a policy, and the policy is enforced on new applications installed on the mobile device. In one embodiment, the first component enables the user to selectively opt out of individual behaviors of the first component.
In one embodiment, the selection from the user of at least one behavioral preference is to opt out of the first behavior, and the instructions further cause, after the opting out, running the first component to determine whether the first behavior is active. In one embodiment, the determining whether the first behavior is active comprises at least one activity selected from the group consisting of: running the first component in an emulated environment on a different computing device (e.g., a developer server); and monitoring behavior on the mobile device after receiving the selection from the user.
In one embodiment, the selection from the user of at least one behavioral preference is to opt out of the first behavior, and the instructions further cause, after the opting out, determining a status of the opting out using an application programming interface of the first component. In one embodiment, the instructions further cause the mobile device to, in response to the selection from the user, reconfigure execution of the first component so that the first behavior no longer occurs on the mobile device.
In one embodiment, the instructions further cause, in response to the selection from the user, uninstalling the application from the mobile computing device. In one embodiment, the instructions further cause, in response to the selection from the user, disabling further execution of the first component on the mobile device. In one embodiment, the first component is shared by the application and an additional application, and the disabling affects both the application and the additional application.
In one embodiment, the first behavior is a presentation of messages to the user. In one embodiment, the messages include at least one advertisement presented in a notification area of the mobile device. In one embodiment, the presentation of messages is outside of a context of the application presented to the user during normal operation of the application. In one embodiment, the first component is a part of the application.
In one embodiment, the instructions further cause displaying opt-out options to the user, wherein the opt-out options are solely for applications already installed on the mobile device. In one embodiment, the instructions further cause displaying opt-out options to the user, the opt-out options comprising all possible opt-out flows for the user on the mobile device as determined from a database. In one embodiment, the first component is a linked library packaged with the application prior to installation of the application on the mobile device.
In one embodiment, the mobile device is, for example, a tablet device, or an Android phone device. In one embodiment, the first component is a portion of the executable code of the application, and the executable code enables the application to interact with an advertising network or an analytics network. In one embodiment, interaction with the advertising network comprises display of advertisements provided from the advertising network.
In one embodiment, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores computer-readable instructions, which when executed, cause a computing device to: for an application installed on a computing device of a user, determine components of the application; identify, via at least one processor, at least one behavior associated with each of the components, including a first behavior associated with a first component; and determine at least one behavioral preference of the user.
In one embodiment, the instructions further cause storing the at least one behavioral preference on the computing device so that the application can locally determine the at least one behavioral preference. In one embodiment, the instructions further cause the first component to evaluate the at least on behavioral preference to determine how the first component is to behave on the computing device.
In one embodiment, the instructions further cause storing the at least one behavioral preference on a different computing device so that an advertisement network associated with the first component can query the different computing device (e.g., a developer server) in order to determine the at least one behavioral preference of the user. In one embodiment, the instructions further cause the first component to execute in conformance with results from the query of the different computing device, wherein the query includes a user identifier of the user.
In one embodiment, the instructions further cause: in response to downloading or installing the application, scanning the application to confirm compliance with the at least one behavioral preference of the user; and if the application violates the at least one behavioral preference, alerting the user of the violation or blocking installation of the application.
In one embodiment, a system comprises: a display; at least one processor; and memory storing instructions configured to instruct the at least one processor to: determine components of an installed application; identify at least one behavior associated with each of the components, including a first behavior associated with a first component; present, on the display, at least one component of the installed application for which a user can opt out; and receive a selection from the user of an opt-out for a first component of the at least one component.
In one embodiment, the instructions are further configured to instruct the at least one processor to present an opt-out status to the user for components for which the user has previously opted out.
In one embodiment, a method includes: for an application installed on a computing device of a user, determining components of the application; identifying, via at least one processor of the computing device, at least one behavior associated with each of the components, including a first behavior associated with a first component; presenting, on a display of the computing device, results from the identifying to the user, the results to include a list of behaviors including the first behavior; and receiving, via a user interface of the computing device, a selection from the user of at least one behavioral preference.
In one embodiment, a method includes: storing, in a memory (e.g., a memory of the developer server), a first application (e.g., the Ad Network Detector application) comprising computer-readable instructions, which when executed, cause a mobile device of a user to: determine components of a second application (e.g., BTController application) installed on the mobile device; identify at least one behavior associated with each of the components, including a first behavior associated with a first component (e.g., LeadBolt component); and determine at least one behavioral preference of the user; and sending, via at least one processor (e.g., microprocessor(s) of the developer server), over a communication network, the first application for storage in a data processing system (e.g., application marketplace 123) for subsequent installation from the data processing system onto the mobile device.
In one embodiment, the method further comprises communicating, via the at least one processor, with the first application after installation of the first application on the mobile device. In one embodiment, the data processing system comprises an application marketplace. In one embodiment, a network operator (e.g., Verizon or AT&T) controls the data processing system, and the mobile device is configured to operate with a cellular network operated by the network operator.
In one embodiment, a system (e.g., a developer server) comprises: at least one processor; and memory storing a first application, which when executed on a mobile device of a user, causes the mobile device to: determine components of a second application installed on the mobile device; identify at least one behavior associated with each of the components, including a first behavior associated with a first component; and determine at least one behavioral preference of the user; and the memory further storing instructions configured to instruct the at least one processor to send the first application to a data processing system (e.g., application marketplace 123) so that the first application can be later installed, over a communication network, on the mobile device from the data processing system.
In one embodiment, the instructions are further configured to instruct the at least one processor to communicate with the first application after installation of the first application on the mobile device.
In one embodiment, a method includes: communicating, via at least one processor (e.g., a processor of a software server), with an application (e.g., the Ad Network Detector application) executing on a mobile device of a user, the application identifying at least one behavior on the mobile device, the at least one behavior associated with each of a plurality of components of a plurality of other applications installed on the mobile device, and the at least one behavior including a first behavior associated with a first component; receiving at least one behavioral preference of the user from the mobile device, the at least one behavioral preference determined by the application based on input from the user; and storing, in a memory (e.g., storing in a database distributed among multiple database servers), the at least one behavioral preference.
In one embodiment, the method further comprises storing the at least one behavior. In one embodiment, the method further comprises receiving a query from an advertisement network, associated with the first component, the query requesting the at least one behavioral preference of the user. In one embodiment, the method further comprises receiving, from the mobile device, an identification of the first component; and running, via the at least one processor, the first component in an emulated environment to determine whether the first behavior is active.
In one embodiment, the method further comprises receiving a query regarding the at least one behavioral preference in order to determine conformance of a new application with the at least one behavioral preference. In one embodiment, the method further comprises providing information in response to a request, received over a communication network, in order to evaluate the at least one behavioral preference and determine how the first component is to behave on the mobile device.
Additional exemplary, non-limiting details regarding various implementations of the above embodiments are now described here below. In one example, a user may opt-out of specific components (e.g., as determined using the approaches described herein). The user is presented a list of components that the user can opt out of. The user may perform opt-out actions, or these may be done automatically upon user request or selection. Then, the user may see (e.g., on a display of a mobile device) a status indication that the user has opted out of identified components.
In one embodiment, there are various types of opt-out options. For example, a user may opt-out entirely of a component, opt-out of particular behaviors of a component, opt-in entirely to a component, opt-in to particular behaviors of a component, purge some or all data collected by a component, reset an identifier used to identify the user or device to a component, or otherwise modify the component's behavior on the device or the data transferred to or from the component on the device.
In one embodiment, opt-out options may be displayed to a user (e.g., on a display of a mobile device) using various approaches. In a first approach, this is done by detecting which components are present in installed applications on a mobile device, and then only displaying opt-out flows for the applications are installed on the mobile device. In a second approach, input is received from a user as to which behaviors the user wishes to opt out of. In a third approach, all possible opt-out flows, as determined from a database, are presented to the user.
In one embodiment, a user selects a degree of functionality within a range from minimum optional functionality to maximum optional functionality and a mobile device automatically translates that into actions to opt in and/or out of automatically-selected behaviors.
In one embodiment, a status for opt-out may be determined in various ways. A first way uses an API provided by the vendor or developer of the component to determine the opt-out status. A second way determines whether behavior is still active by running the corresponding component (e.g., in an emulated environment on a server or by monitoring behavior on the user's mobile device).
In one embodiment, a user declares preferences for specific behaviors desired on the user's mobile device. The components themselves evaluate these declared preferences in order to determine how the components should behave on the user's mobile device.
For example, the user may set its preferences, and then these preferences are stored locally or on a remote server (e.g., a developer server). A component queries these preferences (e.g., by sending a query) in order to determine how the component should behave (or is required to behave by the mobile device or another computing device).
In one embodiment, various types of preferences that can be set by the user relate to the following: location collection for targeted ads, notifications in a notification area of the user's device, planting of bookmarks or icons on a device, and app tracking used to deliver targeted ads (e.g., related to determining what apps a user has installed).
In one embodiment, various methods may be used for storing the users preferences. In a first approach, a local service on a device is used, whereby applications can query the local service to determine what preferences a user has set.
In a second approach, a server-side service permits ad networks to query a user's preferences based on a user identifier (e.g., phone number, IMEI, Android ID, Apple UDID, or hashed/salted-hashed versions of them).
In another embodiment, preferences are declared for which behaviors a user desires. Automatic scanning or alerting is performed when an application that violates these preferences is downloaded or installed.
For example, upon installation, the mobile device detects which components are in an application, and determines the behaviors that are associated with components of the application. If any of these behaviors are disallowed, or require an alert, the mobile device may either block the application from installing (or notify the user to uninstall the application), or may alert the user that the application contains a disallowed behavior in one of its components.
Now discussing additional non-limiting examples, there are various mechanisms that a user can use to express his or her intent. One example is an affirmative opt-in or opt-out for specific behaviors. For example, a user may say she does not want a specific component to track her location, or she does not want Google analytics to know certain information about her. Another might be that the user sets a preference indicating the desire that the user does not want any third party components to have access to or view the user's location data.
In another example, an application policy may be implemented. For any app that has a component that performs an unidentified behavior, the Ad Network Detector will block the app from being installed on the user's phone or other device. These are behavior-based preferences that are manifested in the prevention of installation for any applications that may contain components that express such behaviors.
In one example, when an application is running on a user's phone, it should ask a preference service or a preference store (e.g., implemented on a software developer server) what the preference is for the user and then respect that preference during execution. Information about user preferences for many users may be made available in a single online location so that a component can query and respect the preferences.
Regarding determining the components that are present in an application, the application can be identified and broken into components. After identification, there are various techniques that may be used to determine the behavior of those identified components. In some cases, structural comparisons of the call graphs of components in an application may be examined (e.g., determining which component is talking to the operating system of the mobile device, and which aspects of the operating system are involved). Other forms of static analysis may also be used that involve analyzing the code inside of a component. By analyzing the code, it can be determined whether the component can obtain a user's location, for example, or perform other functions. In one example, a knowledge base may be maintained that includes a list of components that are commonly distributed online and the corresponding behaviors of those components.
Also, dynamic analysis may be used, which is essentially running the application component in an emulated environment or on an actual device and detecting what is occurring (e.g., what services the component connects to or communicates with) on a computing device to determine whether a component has a particular behavior. Additional details regarding determination of components and component attribution are provided in the section below titled “Analyzing Components of an Application”.
In one example, the user may be presented with a screen that shows the applications installed on the user's device or the behaviors on the device (or even the full set of all behaviors that are possible on the device, even outside of the apps that the user has already installed on the device) and what applications/components the behaviors are attributed to.
In one example, a user can opt out of specific components. The user may be shown which components are on already her phone, or the user can say she does not want a certain type of behavior, and the Ad Network Detector only shows the user the specific network opt-outs that involve that behavior.
In another example, the user has expressed her preferences regarding behavior. An online preference service stores these preferences, and components are required to query the service prior to installation on a mobile device of the user. The service may be implemented on the mobile device, or on a separate server.
Additional information regarding various non-limiting examples of mobile devices and their usage more generally, including the presenting of information regarding a mobile device to a user, is described in U.S. Pat. No. 8,538,815, issued Sep. 17, 2013, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MOBILE DEVICE REPLACEMENT,” by Mahaffey et al.; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/960,585, filed 2013 Aug. 6 (which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 8,538,815), now U.S. Pat. No. 8,635,109 issued Jan. 21, 2014, and is entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING OFFERS FOR MOBILE DEVICES”; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/098,473, filed 2013 Dec. 5 (which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/960,585), and is entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING EFFECTIVE OFFERS TO REPLACE MOBILE DEVICES,” the entire contents of which applications are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Various additional embodiments related to component analysis and attribution (e.g., identifying and determining components of an application) are now set forth below. The embodiments below do not limit the generality of any embodiments in the foregoing description.
In one embodiment, an application is a mobile application, which contains one or more components (e.g., a library, ad network or analytics software development kit (SDK), or other set of code designed to work together). A component identity is information about a component. Examples of component identities include the following: a category (e.g. ad network, analytics, and malware SDK), authorship (e.g. Acme, Inc., John Smith), name of a component (e.g. “AdMob”), a range of versions or all versions of a component (e.g. AdMob 6.x, AdMob, zlib), and a particular version of a component (e.g. zlib 1.2.7, AdMob SDK 6.0.1). The data associated with a given component may be stored in a database.
In one embodiment, a component's behavior is generally that behavior existing or occurring (e.g., functions performed) when a component is functioning on a computing device (e.g., functioning in an application running on mobile device 149). One example of a behavior is the sending of certain types of data to a server (e.g., sending browser history to a server at www1.adcompany.com, or sending a location to a server at tracking.analyticscompany.net). Other examples include the following: accessing data on a computing device (e.g., contacts, call history); and performing certain functions on a device (e.g., changing brightness of a screen, sending a text message, making a phone call, pushing advertisements into a notification bar).
In one embodiment, a component's structure is how a component is implemented in code. This structure may include a code package and/or a code module structure. Also, a component's structure may include characteristics of the executable code of the component, such as for example, cross-references in a control flow/call graph, references to static data, and machine instructions used.
Various further embodiments related to component analysis are now described below. In a first embodiment, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores computer-readable instructions, which when executed, cause a system to: for an application installed on a computing device (e.g., mobile device 149) of a user, determine components (e.g., components 104 and 106) of the application; and identify, via at least one processor, at least one behavior (e.g., sending device location to an ad server) associated with each of the components, including a first behavior associated with a first component. The instructions may cause the system to present, on a user display of the computing device, an identification of the components. The instructions may cause the system to determine at least one behavioral preference of the user.
In one embodiment, the instructions cause the system to store a user policy (e.g., user policy 108 or one of policies 116) based at least in part on the at least one behavioral preference (e.g., user intents expressed by the user on a mobile device), and to enforce the user policy on new applications installed on the computing device.
In one embodiment, the instructions cause the first component to execute in conformance with results from a query of an identity provider (e.g., the identity provider as described earlier above, or another computing device). The instructions may cause the system to, in response to installing the application, scan the application to confirm compliance with a user policy of the user, where the user policy is stored on the identity provider. In one embodiment, the instructions may cause the system to enforce, based on identified behaviors associated with the components, a user policy for each of the components.
The instructions may cause the system to compare permissible behaviors in the user policy for the components with the identified behaviors. In one example, the comparing of the permissible behaviors comprises determining behaviors, observed for the components on other computing devices, from a data repository (e.g., a database). The instructions may cause the computing device to, in response to the determining the behaviors from the data repository, configure or disable execution of one or more of the components on the computing device.
In one embodiment, a system includes: a data repository (e.g., a database) storing component data for known components, the component data including data for a first known component; at least one processor; and memory storing instructions, which when executed on a computing device, cause the computing device to: for a new component in a first application for a computing device of a user, perform a comparison of the new component to the component data; and based on the comparison, make a determination that the new component corresponds to the first known component.
In one embodiment, the instructions further cause the computing device to, in response to the determination, perform at least one of: comparing a first known behavior of the first known component to a user policy of the user; and comparing an observed behavior of the new component to the user policy. In one embodiment, the component data includes component identities, each component identity corresponding to respective identifying information for a known component. In one embodiment, the determination is made prior to installing the new component on the computing device.
In one embodiment, the instructions further cause the computing device to associate a similarity value (e.g., a value within an arbitrary range of zero to one) with the comparison, and wherein the determination is made in response to the similarity value being greater than a threshold value. In alternative embodiments other forms of comparison of the similarity value to a threshold may be done (e.g., where the similarity value is lower than the threshold). In one embodiment, the comparison is based at least in part on a structure of the new component, the structure selected from the group consisting of a packaging structure, a module structure, and an executable code structure.
In one embodiment, the component data includes known structural characteristics and known behavioral characteristics. In one embodiment, the performing the comparison comprises comparing the known structural characteristics and the known behavioral characteristics to identified characteristics of the new component.
In one embodiment, the instructions further cause the computing device to generate a notification when the identified characteristics are determined to differ from at least one of the known structural characteristics and the known behavioral characteristics. In one embodiment, the generating the notification comprises sending an alert to the computing device.
In one embodiment, a method includes: storing, in memory, component data for known components, the component data including data for a first known component; for a new component in a first application for a computing device of a user, perform, via at least one processor, a comparison of the new component to the component data; and based on the comparison, make a determination that the new component corresponds to the first known component.
In one embodiment, the new component is selected from the group consisting of code from the first application, and a library in the first application. In one embodiment, each of a plurality of different applications includes the new component, the new component corresponds to a set of behaviors when executed on a computing device, and the component data comprises behavioral data including the set of behaviors.
In one embodiment, the method further comprises associating the set of behaviors with the new component. In one embodiment, each of a plurality of computing devices has been observed when running a respective one of the different applications, and each of the plurality of computing devices exhibits the set of behaviors. In one embodiment, the determination is based in part on a context of operation of the new component on the computing device.
In one embodiment, the context is an accessing, during execution of the first application, of location information while the first application has a visible presence to a user (e.g., the first application is presenting location information to the user on a user display), and the set of behaviors includes determining a location of the computing device. In one embodiment, the component data includes a plurality of contexts each associated with at least one acceptable behavior. In one embodiment, the component data includes risk scores for known components, and the method further comprises providing a risk score in response to a query regarding an application installed or to be installed on the computing device of the user.
In one embodiment, a method comprises: storing, in memory, a first application comprising computer-readable instructions, which when executed, cause a mobile device of a user to: for a new component of a second application installed on the mobile device, perform a comparison of the new component to component data for known components, the component data including data for a first known component; and based on the comparison, make a determination that the new component corresponds to the first known component; and sending, via at least one processor, over a communication network, the first application for storage in a data processing system for subsequent installation from the data processing system onto the mobile device.
In one embodiment, a system includes: at least one processor; and memory storing a first application, which when executed on a mobile device of a user, causes the mobile device to: for a new component of a second application installed on the mobile device, perform a comparison of the new component to component data for known components, the component data including data for a first known component; and based on the comparison, make a determination that the new component corresponds to the first known component; and the memory further storing instructions configured to instruct the at least one processor to send the first application to a data processing system so that the first application can be later installed, over a communication network, on the mobile device from the data processing system.
Now discussing a component analysis process for one particular embodiment, a new application may be decomposed into identifiable components. An identity of each component may be displayed to the user. Behavioral and/or structural characteristics attributable to each component identity may be identified. The behavior for a given component may be displayed to the user.
A user policy (e.g., user policy 108) based on component behavior may be enforced on the user's computing device. For example, the user policy may require that there be no applications that send location to an advertising network. In another example, the user policy may require that no applications send identifiers to an advertising network.
Behavioral and/or structural characteristics of a component present in the new application may be identified. This may be, for example, an application 1013 that has been installed on mobile device 149.
A comparison is made between the characteristics attributable to the component identity and the characteristics that have been identified in the new application. In one embodiment, if the identified characteristics are different from the characteristics attributable to the component identity, then an alert is generated to indicate that the behavior of the component has changed. The characteristics attributable to the component identity may be stored in a database of the identity provider and may be accessed when making this comparison. For example, these attributable characteristics may be stored as component data associated with respective component identities (i.e., known data regarding component behavior or other characteristics of a component may be stored for each component identity).
Now, further detail regarding how component analysis is performed is described below. As mentioned above, an application is decomposed into identifiable components. In particular, a data repository stores a set of component identities in a database.
Each component identity has identifying information for a given component that, if present in an application, indicates that the given component is present in the application. Examples of identifying information include the following: a package name prefix for a set of one or more classes, a class name, or a code fingerprint of a code block, method, class, package, etc.
When used, fingerprinting can be performed in a variety of ways. A first way is the creating of an abstract representation of an instruction set. Another way is to, from an abstract representation, create a set of n-gram indices that can create a fingerprint identifier for a set of code (e.g., a hash of indices) or that can be compared to another set of indices to perform a fuzzy match. In yet another way, asset or resource fingerprinting may be used. As a final way, fingerprinting may be done by analyzing the network traffic generated by an application on a device or in a dynamic analysis system. Server communication, network traffic destined to a server, may be used to associate a component with a particular network service. Some examples of network traffic include traffic to server with name server1.somewhere.com, traffic to server with IP 8.8.8.8 or 2001:4860:4860::8888, HTTP request with header “User-Agent: MyHttpLibrary-1.1”, HTTP request with a particular URI or URI pattern, and traffic that matches a SNORT or YARA rule.
Analysis of a new application can be used to determine if identifying information for a given component identity matches the new application. If it matches, then the given component is present in the new application. This analysis can be done at the client (e.g., mobile device 149), the server (e.g., the identity provider discussed above), or using a combination thereof.
In one embodiment, the analysis is done at one computing device (e.g., either on the client or the server). The database of identifying information is stored locally on the computing device. The new application is also present locally (e.g., the new application itself has been previously sent to the identity provider from mobile device 149, or from application marketplace or developer server prior to installation on mobile device 149).
In this embodiment, there are multiple options for analysis. In a first option, for each item of identifying information in the database, the new application is searched to determine if the identifying information matches the new application. Alternatively, information can be extracted from the new application, and then a check or comparison done to see if that information matches any of the identifying information stored in the database.
In another embodiment, a client submits information to a server to determine components that are present in an application. The database of component identifying information (known component data) is stored on the server. The application is present on the client. The client extracts information (e.g., component identifying information) from the application, and then sends this extracted information to the server.
The server checks to see if the extracted information matches any of the identifying information in the database (e.g., the extracted information may be received as a query from mobile device 149). If so, the server sends back information about component identities to the client (e.g., the server sends results from the query to mobile device 149).
In a different embodiment, the client submits an identifier for the new application to a server. This identifier may be, for example, a hash of the application binary code, a package name, a title of the application, or another form of application identifier. This server stores data regarding previously-analyzed applications. This data includes a list of components for each of the previously-analyzed applications. In yet other embodiments, the application information is gathered from an application store or marketplace, or from another device different from the client (e.g., where the application is not installed on a client, but is stored within an application store for downloading and installation, or is being staged for placement into an application store). Information from or about the application may be gathered from the application store or marketplace, or such other device. U.S. Publication No. 2012/0240236, filed 2010 Aug. 25, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,043,919 issued May 26, 2015, entitled “Crawling Multiple Markets and Correlating,” is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. U.S. Publication No. 2012/0240236 is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. No. 8,533,844, entitled “System and Method for Security Data Collection and Analysis.”
The server of the different embodiment above uses the identifier received from the client and compares this identifier to the data regarding previously-analyzed applications. If there is a match between the identifier and a previously-analyzed application, then the components for that matched application (obtained from the stored list of components above) are determined to be in the new application (and this result may be sent to the client). This matching to the database may be done similarly as was described earlier for the component analysis above. The server of the different embodiment above sends information about these identified component identities back to the client.
After a component has been identified as being present in an application, the identity of the component may be displayed to the user. For example, identification and display of components present in an application may be done similarly as was described above for the Ad Network Detector. Behavioral and/or structural characteristics that are attributable to a given component as stored in the database for various component identities may be sent from the server to the client for those components that have been identified as being present in an application.
In one embodiment, there are various ways to identify characteristics that are actually present in a component of an application. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 8,533,844, issued Sep. 10, 2013, and entitled “System and Method for Security Data Collection and Analysis”, by Mahaffey et al.; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/958,434, filed 2013 Aug. 2, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,100,389 issued Aug. 4, 2015, entitled “ASSESSING A DATA OBJECT BASED ON APPLICATION DATA ASSOCIATED WITH THE DATA OBJECT”; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/688,292, filed 2015 Apr. 16, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,344,431, issued May 17, 2016, entitled “System and Method for Assessing an Application Based on Data From Multiple Devices,” which applications are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein, provide a general discussion about the gathering of information from an application on a mobile device for further processing at a server. According to this embodiment, information that has been gathered as described by Mahaffey et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 8,533,844 is then used for component analysis at the identity provider (discussed above) in order to identify characteristics of a component.
In another embodiment, behavioral characteristics may be determined or collected using other approaches. For example, behavior may be determined based on network traffic (e.g., SMS, IP) data, or based on the code source of a given behavior (e.g., a class name or a package name responsible for geo-locating, or a fingerprint of a code segment responsible for sending SMS traffic).
In one embodiment, component identity-attributable characteristics are compared to actually-present characteristics (e.g., as gathered for a new application just installed on a mobile device). For example, if behavior is part of the known data for a component identity, and a new application's component behavior matches this known behavior, then it is assumed that information about the component identity applies to the new application. Information about the component identity may include, for example, a text description, risk scoring, and data whether an application is malware or is not malware. For example, this information may be provided as a result or response to a query from a mobile device.
If the actual behavior and the known behavior for the component identity are different, this may indicate that the component in the new application is a newer version or a tampered-version, and that the component needs to be reviewed again in order to update the database. Also, an alert may be generated based on the component information determined above. For example, an email may be sent to an analyst to do further analysis of a component, or an entry may be created in a work queue regarding further component analysis to be done.
In various other embodiments, the results from component identification for applications on a device are presented to the user. The user may provide input in a user interface to define or update a user policy based on this component identification. For example, the user may opt-out of an identified component.
In another embodiment, a component review process is provided for reviewing potentially undesirable code at scale (where manual review is not practical). The component analysis as described above is automated so that a human is not required to do component analysis manually. Characterizing components that have been previously reviewed (e.g., stored as data for a component identity with a risk score) and determining when that component has changed behavior (i.e., the actual behavior is different from the known behavior stored in the component identity) can create an automated process where humans only need to re-review component code when its behavior has changed. A behavior change may also be associated with a code fingerprint having changed slightly (e.g., if doing a fuzzy match, there is a threshold for which it is considered that there is no change, and another threshold for which it is considered that that there is a sufficient change in behavior). In various embodiments a comparison to a threshold may be done to see if a value is lower or greater than the threshold (which may include the cases of equal to or lower, or equal to or higher than the threshold). Similarly, other characteristics disclosed can be used to determine if the component in the new application exactly matches the known component or if it partially matches in a way that merits re-analysis.
Yet another embodiment relates to behavioral risk analysis of applications. In this embodiment, the component analysis involves separating identified components that have already been reviewed (i.e., components that have known component data stored in a database), and that are common across numerous different applications (or across copies of the same application) as installed on many computing devices, from components that are unique (e.g., an associated behavior has not been observed before) to a particular new application (e.g., behavior unique to a single, most-recent installation on mobile device 149). These unique behaviors are specifically audited within the context of the new application (e.g., application 1013).
As an example of context, it is common for ad networks to ask for location data. This is a well-accepted behavior. If a user is looking, for example, at a game like Angry Birds, an application that asks for a location may be exhibiting acceptable behavior if this behavior is associated with an ad network that has been previously observed as being acceptable (e.g., as determined from data stored in a database). However, in other cases, actual game code that is itself asking for location may be inappropriate behavior.
The amount of code that is unique to any given application is typically fairly small. Most applications (e.g., for mobile devices) predominantly use code that is in at least one or many other applications (the majority of code in an application is typically not unique and there is a lot of commonality in code between applications).
Sometimes, when a behavior is analyzed in the context of a known SDK, the behavior is a repeatable behavior that has previously been determined to be acceptable (or to have a low risk score). Thus, for example, if a library has already been reviewed, then further analysis can be skipped.
In an embodiment regarding similarity of known and new applications, fuzzy matching and fingerprinting may be used (as was discussed above). For example, a similarity score of zero to one may be used. A similarity score is returned from the server after analysis of a new application. The code in the new application is compared to code that is already in the identified component library (e.g., a library in a database on an identity server).
Typically, there is not an exact code similarity match because there are many changes that a compiler can make to a particular application installation to make it different than other installations. Similarities are defined so that if the differences are over a similarity threshold, then a determination is made that a known component is present in the newly-installed application. For example, the new application may include a slightly-customized version of a component (that was previously determined to be acceptable). In alternative embodiments other forms of comparison to a threshold may be done (e.g., where a value is lower than the threshold). In other cases, the new application may include a new version of a component that has not been previously analyzed. In one embodiment, unacceptable code that has been only slightly modified to defeat similarity protection mechanisms is instead detected as unacceptable based on behavioral observation and component analysis as discussed above.
In one embodiment, components are analyzed with respect to similarity of previously known components. Behaviors can include use of personal identifying information or device information, or any actions that can be taken by applications on the device, including user interface displays, notifications, network communications, and file reading or writing actions. Policies to control or restrict the behavior of applications and their components may be defined and applied. This can include the identification of advertising networks and defining policies to permit various opt-out actions for these advertising networks.
Various embodiments related to assessing application authenticity are now set forth below. In one embodiment, a method includes: evaluating (e.g., by a server or a mobile device) authenticity of a first application (e.g., software being downloaded to a mobile device) to provide a result, where the evaluating uses a plurality of inputs. In response to the result, an action is performed on the computing device.
In one embodiment, the result is a determination of a source of software. In another embodiment, the result is a state designation that is sent to evaluation server 150 for use similarly as described above for the administrator state designation. State designations from the authenticity server 1005 and the administrator server may both be used by server 150 in its determination of the state designation to send to mobile device 149.
In one example, the evaluating may be done by a server for an application that a user of a mobile device desires to install from an application marketplace. In one embodiment, the computing device is a server, and the action is sending a notification from the server to the mobile device, the notification including an assessment of authenticity of the first application.
In one embodiment, the computing device is a mobile device on which the first application is being or has been installed, and the action is providing of a notification in a user interface of the mobile device relating to an assessment of authenticity of the first application. In an alternative embodiment, the application may have been previously installed on the mobile device, but the user desires an evaluation of authenticity (e.g., to consider whether to remove the application from the mobile device).
In one embodiment, one or more of the plurality of inputs may be received from a distributor of the first application, an online application store, a carrier/operator/device manufacturer (e.g., for preloaded software on a mobile device), and/or from a computing device within an enterprise or an organization's internal network.
In one embodiment, the computing device is a server (e.g., authenticity server 1005), and the first application has a first package identifier and a first signing identifier, the method further comprising receiving the first package identifier and the first signing identifier from a mobile device on which the first application is being or has been installed. The first package identifier may be, for example, an Android package name, an Apple iOS bundle identifier, or a hash of such name or identifier, etc. The first signing identifier may be, for example, a certificate (e.g., a signing certificate, digital certificate, etc.), a certificate thumbprint, or a public key, or a hash of a certificate, a hash of a public key, or other data which can be used to identify the signer. In one embodiment, the method further comprises receiving the first application itself from the mobile device (e.g., for testing or other operation for evaluation by the server).
In one embodiment, the plurality of inputs comprises receipt (e.g., from a computing device of a developer of the first application) of a developer signing certificate for the first application, and the evaluating comprises comparing the developer signing certificate to the first signing identifier.
In one embodiment, the plurality of inputs comprises one or more of the following: receipt, from a computing device, of an indication of ownership in the first application by a developer (e.g., a developer of known or assumed credibility simply makes an assertion or claim to ownership in an electronic communication); a prevalence of the first application (e.g., the application is the most popular version that has been distributed and this version is assumed to be authentic); and a model (e.g., a model to predict expected characteristics associated with a first application and/or to assess observed behavior or characteristics for the first application). In one embodiment, the first application has a first signing identifier, and the plurality of inputs comprises a history of the first signing identifier.
In one embodiment, the method further comprises comparing a first signing identifier of the first application to a signing key in a registry of known signing keys. In one embodiment, the registry comprises a plurality of package identifiers, each identifier associated with a respective one of the known signing keys, and the method further comprises comparing a first package identifier of the first application to the plurality of package identifiers.
In one embodiment, the result from the evaluating is a score, and the performing of the action is conditional on the score exceeding a threshold (or other alternative forms of comparison to the threshold).
In one embodiment, the evaluating comprises: identifying a plurality of applications that are similar to the first application (e.g., using component analysis as discussed above); classifying the similar applications, based on a respective signing identifier for each application; and identifying, based on the classifying, applications having a signing identifier of a developer, and applications having a signing identifier that is different from the signing identifier of the developer.
In one embodiment, the method further comprises sending a notification to a computing device of the developer that identifies the applications having the signing identifier that is different from the signing identifier of the developer.
In one embodiment, the identifying the plurality of applications that are similar to the first application comprises identifying applications having at least one of an identical package identifier, code similarity, identical strings, similar strings, identical media assets, and similar media assets. In one embodiment, a server determines the similarity of newly-observed applications to a previously known-to-be authentic application (e.g., stored in a database at the server). In one example, this determination includes component analysis (e.g., comparison of known and new components) and/or application/component/code similarity assessment as was discussed earlier above. In another example, the server can notify the developer of the authentic application, or challenge the developer to authenticate itself as the actual application signer for the newly-observed application(s).
In one embodiment, the method further comprises receiving the signing identifier of the developer, sending data to the developer to be signed by the developer with a private key, receiving the signed data from the developer, and confirming the signed data corresponds to the signing identifier of the developer. For example, the data sent to the developer may be an archive or a nonce, or the data may be for the issuing of a crypto-based challenge to the developer.
In yet another embodiment, the first application may be examined in the context of known business entity databases (e.g., Equifax database, Dun & Bradstreet database, etc.) or other information sources, and information obtained from such sources may be used as one or more of the plurality of inputs in the evaluating of the first application. For example, these inputs may include: the company name as determined from a WHOIS response; the name of an owner of the IP space that the first application talks to (e.g., an inquiry can be made as to who owns the application server that the first application communicates with); the response to an inquiry as to whether the package name for the first application corresponds to a valid organizational domain name, and further whether that domain name's WHOIS name shows up in a business database; and the developer name as determined in an online application store such as Google Play.
In one embodiment, authenticity is assessed by a method in which mobile device 149 of a user communicates with authenticity server 1005 to evaluate the authenticity of new application 1013, for example which is being newly-installed on the mobile device (or alternatively has already been installed), according to one embodiment. In other embodiments, some or all of the authenticity functions described for authenticity server 1005 may be performed by an identity server.
Authenticity server 1005 receives from mobile device 149 a package identifier and a signing identifier associated with new application 1013. Authenticity server 1005 uses a plurality of inputs, such as are described herein, to evaluate the authenticity of new application 1013. This evaluation provides a result, for example a score indicating the risk of the new application being inauthentic. Based on this result, an action is performed by authenticity server 1005. If the score is above a threshold, the application may be deemed as being untrusted, or a state designation of untrusted may be sent to server 150.
In one example, this action is the sending of a notification to a mobile device 149 in order to alert the user that the new application 1013 may be fraudulent or a tampered version. New application 1013 may have been provided, for example, to application marketplace 123 or directly to mobile device 149, by developer server, along with a signing certificate. The developer server also provides a package identifier for new application 1013. The signing certificate of the developer server is one form of signing identifier that may be provided to authenticity server 1005 for evaluation of application 1013.
Authenticity server 1005 has a database 1007 for storing information and data regarding applications, such as previously known or identified applications that are considered to be authentic. The authentic developer or other source of the application is stored in database 1007. Database 1007 further may include component data 1009, which corresponds to information about software components as was discussed earlier above. Database 1007 further may include repository 1003, which stores package identifiers and corresponding signing identifiers, for example such as collected or identified for previously authentic, known-good, or deemed good applications.
The evaluation of authenticity may alternatively be performed in part or fully on mobile device 149. If an inauthentic application is discovered, then the user of mobile device 149 may be notified on a display of a user interface. This notification may include an assessment of the authenticity of the new application 1013.
In one embodiment, authenticity server 1005 compares a signing certificate of the developer from the developer server to an existing signing identifier contained in repository 1003. Authenticity server 1005, in one example, compares this signing certificate to a known, good signing key stored in repository 1003.
Various other non-limiting embodiments are now described below. In a first embodiment, authenticity server 1005 has a registry of known application signing keys and the package names they are registered for. If an application pretends to own one of those package names with a different signing key, a user is alerted that the application is likely tampered with. In some cases, authenticity server 1005 may also use similarity detection (e.g., similarity analysis as was discussed earlier above) to determine that, even if an application has a different package name, it is highly similar to another previously-known application, but has a different signer.
In one embodiment, all applications are identified that are similar to a given application (e.g., where the given application is being newly-installed on a mobile device). One or more of the following inputs may be used in evaluating the new application: whether applications have the same package name, code similarity between the applications, similar or identical strings (especially strings that occur infrequently) between new and known applications, and similar or identical media assets (e.g., images, sounds, video, etc.) between new and known applications. In some embodiments, similarity and/or component analysis as was discussed above may be used.
In one embodiment, applications that have been determined to be similar (e.g., as described above) are classified based on signing certificates, which are used to classify applications into two groups: applications with a given developer signing certificate, and applications with a different signing certificate. This classification is used for one or more of the following: identifying potentially pirated applications (e.g., for copyright enforcement); identifying potentially malicious applications; optimizing a sales strategy (e.g., such as identifying additional markets where an application could be sold); and managing release processes (e.g., identifying versions of an application that are sold in different markets).
In one embodiment, a workflow for establishing ownership of a signing certificate includes: a developer or other user uploads the certificate, then receives download of a jar (or Java archive), which the developer must sign to prove that it has the private key corresponding to the certificate. In one embodiment, the workflow is extended to allow a developer to manage multiple signing certificates.
In one embodiment, a workflow for discovering applications, based on proof of certificate ownership includes: a developer or other user proves certificate ownership, then authenticity server 1005 finds all packages signed with the same certificate, and also identifies similar applications, signed both by the same certificate and other certificates. In one embodiment, the workflow is extended to allow a developer to manage multiple signing certificates.
In an alternative embodiment, authenticity server 1005 provides monitoring and security services to Android or other system developers. These services determine developer identification (to confirm that the developer is who it purports to be). The services may include monitoring tools and/or anti-piracy functions. If the developer's application has been pirated and is being distributed in different markets, authenticity server 1005 notifies the developer.
The services may also include brand protection. For example, a bank may want to know if a version of its application has been pirated and is being misused for phishing. In one embodiment, the services include looking at actual software assets being used in applications (e.g., logos, images, etc.) to determine if they are being used in non-sanctioned manners. Application assessments and/or reports for the above services may be provided to a brand owner, developer, or other entity. In another example, a vendor of application components (e.g., such as advertising SDKs, sensor activity SDKs, etc.) may want to know if a version of its components are being used in an application. In one embodiment, the services include looking at application components being used in applications (libraries, SDKs, components, etc.) to determine that they are being used in sanctioned or non-sanctioned manners. Application assessments and/or reports for the above services may be provided to a vendor or developer or distributor of such application components or other entity.
In one embodiment, an assessment of privacy is provided by the services. This includes analyzing potential privacy issues in the application. Authenticity server 1005 may generate a privacy policy for the developer based on permissions provided by the developer. In one embodiment, a security assessment is provided by the services. Authenticity server 1005 analyzes potential security vulnerabilities and provides recommendations to the developer or other entity.
In one embodiment, the services above permit a developer to develop a good reputation. For example, an application/developer certification may be provided to a user after an evaluating of authenticity of an application. For example, a seal of approval or other visual indication may be provided in a user interface display for this purpose to indicate to a user that an application is authentic. The services above may be supported by analysis of application components as described above (e.g., when providing piracy or brand protection).
Additional information regarding various non-limiting examples of analyzing, characterizing, and/or scoring applications with respect to security is described in previously-published U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0047594, published Feb. 24, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,367,680, issued Jun. 14, 2016, entitled “System and Method for Mobile Communication Device Application Advisement,” by Mahaffey et al., and also in previously-published U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0263260, published Oct. 3, 2013, entitled “System and Method for Assessing an Application to be Installed on a Mobile Communication Device”, by Mahaffey et al., the entire contents of which applications are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
In particular, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0263260 describes a system that checks for harmful behavior of an application to be installed on a mobile device. A server computer receives from the mobile device data pertaining to the application to be installed and information pertaining to the mobile device. The server processes the data and information to determine an assessment for the application to be installed. The assessment is provided to the mobile device and the assessment is displayed on the device if the assessment is one of dangerous and potentially dangerous. The data and information received from the mobile device may be used, for example, as one or more inputs in the plurality of inputs for evaluating the first application as described herein.
Also, in particular, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0047594 describes a system for providing advisement about applications on mobile devices such as smartphones, netbooks, and tablets. A server gathers data about mobile applications, analyzes the applications, and produces an assessment that may advise users on a variety of factors, including security, privacy, battery impact, performance impact, and network usage. The disclosure helps users understand the impact of applications to improve the experience in using their mobile device. The disclosure also enables a server to feed information about applications to other protection systems such as application policy systems and network infrastructure. The disclosure also enables advisement about applications to be presented in a variety of forms, such as through a mobile application, as part of a web application, or integrated into other services via an API. The data gathered by the server may be used, for example, as one or more inputs in the plurality of inputs for evaluating the first application as described herein. Also, some of the forms of advisement discussed may be used, for example, in providing notifications to the user and/or to developers or others regarding evaluations of software authenticity.
Additional information regarding various non-limiting examples of some analytic methods for determining application behavior is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/063,342, filed Oct. 25, 2013, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,642,008, issued May 2, 2017, entitled “System and Method for Creating and Assigning a Policy for a Mobile Communications Device Based on Personal Data,” by Timothy Micheal Wyatt, the entire contents of which application is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. For example, one or more of the methods for determining behavior may be used when evaluating application authenticity as described herein.
Additional information regarding various non-limiting examples of security evaluation and scoring relating to a plurality of trust factors is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/072,718, filed Nov. 5, 2013, published as U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0325586 on Oct. 30, 2014, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,307,412 issued Apr. 5, 2016, entitled “Method and System for Evaluating Security for an Interactive Service Operation by a Mobile Device,” by Derek Halliday, the entire contents of which application is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. For example, some of the trust factors may be used as inputs when evaluating application authenticity.
In one specific example, the context in which a signing certificate or other signing identifier or signing is observed is assessed using factors which may include one or more trust factors as described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/072,718 above. These factors may, for example, be used in formulating a score that is compared to a threshold that is used to make a decision whether to perform an action in response to evaluating an application (e.g., various forms of comparison to the threshold may be used, as described previously).
In particular, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/072,718 describes a method for evaluating security during an interactive service operation by a mobile device that includes launching, by a mobile device, an interactive service configured to access a server over a network during an interactive service operation, and generating a security evaluation based on a plurality of trust factors related to a current state of the mobile device, to a security feature of the application, and/or to a security feature of the network. When the security evaluation is generated, an action is performed based on the security evaluation. In some examples, these actions may be performed in response to the result from an evaluation of application authenticity.
In another embodiment, the first application is evaluated to determine its components and/or to identify behaviors associated with each of the components. This evaluation may provide some or all of the plurality of inputs used in the evaluating of the first application as was discussed above. In one embodiment, the components of the first application can be analyzed regarding similarity to previously-known components when assessing authenticity of the first application.
Behaviors associated with one or more components of the first application may include, for example, use of personal identifying information or device information, or any actions that can be taken by applications on the device, including user interface displays, notifications, network communications, and file reading or writing actions. In one embodiment, the evaluating of the first application may include analysis of components of the first application as described in the section above titled “Analyzing Components of an Application” (and also further optionally include analysis of components in other applications being compared to the first application).
In one embodiment, the first application above is a mobile application, which contains one or more components, such as were discussed previously above. The source of the components is indicated by a component identity. In one example, the component identity is an authorship (e.g., an identification of a developer of the first application), or the name of a component. Previously collected data associated with a given component may be stored in a database (e.g., as was discussed above).
In one embodiment, as discussed in more detail below, for a first application being installed on mobile device 149, components are identified and behaviors exhibited on mobile device 149 are attributed to one or more of the components. Any given component may be present in several different applications on mobile device 149 and/or may be common to numerous copies or versions of an application that have been installed on computing devices for large numbers of other users. In one embodiment, this commonality of component presence permits observing and collecting structural and behavioral data associated with the component. This known component data is stored in a database (e.g., database 1007 discussed above) and the component data is associated with a particular component identity. Thus, a data repository of prior component data can be used to compare to data more recently obtained for new components (such as those identified in newly-installed applications on a mobile device) when evaluating authenticity of the first application being installed.
More specifically, as characteristics and behaviors associated with components on mobile device 149 are identified and attributed, these characteristics and behaviors may be compared with known characteristics and behaviors stored either locally on mobile device 149 or stored remotely on authenticity server 1005 in database 1007. The results from such comparisons may be used as inputs for the evaluating of the first application being installed (e.g., for making decisions regarding disabling of one or more particular components that are being considered for a new installation on the mobile device).
In one embodiment, behavioral and/or structural characteristics of a component present in the first application may be identified (e.g., as was discussed in the section titled “Analyzing Components of an Application” above). This may be, for example, an application that is being installed on mobile device 149 and for which the user desires to determine if the application is from an authentic source (e.g., a known developer of an earlier or related version of the new application).
A comparison is made between the characteristics attributable to a component associated with the first package identifier and characteristics that have been identified in the new application. In one embodiment, if the identified characteristics are different from the characteristics associated with the first package identifier, then an alert is generated to indicate that the new application is not authentic. The characteristics associated with the first package identifier may be stored in a database of authenticity server 1005 and may be accessed when making this comparison (alternatively, the characteristics may be stored in a database and/or the comparison made or supported by an identity provider). For example, these attributable characteristics may be stored as component data associated with respective component identities.
Each component identity has identifying information for a given component that, if present in an application, indicates that the given component is present in the application. Examples of identifying information include the following: a package name prefix for a set of one or more classes, a class name, or a code fingerprint of a code block, method, class, package, etc.
Analysis of a new application being installed can be used to determine if identifying information for a given component identity matches the new application. If it matches, then the given component is present in the new application. This analysis can be done at the client (e.g., mobile device 149), the server (e.g., authenticity server 1005 or an identity provider), or using a combination thereof. This match that determines presence of the component in the new application can be used as an input in evaluating authenticity of the new application.
In a different embodiment, the client submits an identifier for the new application to a server (e.g., authenticity server 1005). This identifier may be, for example, a hash of the application binary code, a package name, a title of the application, or another form of application identifier. This server stores data regarding previously-analyzed applications. This data includes data associated with each component of a set of components for each of the previously-analyzed applications.
The server uses the identifier received from the client and compares this identifier to the data regarding previously-analyzed applications. If there is a match between the identifier and a previously-analyzed application, then the components for that matched application (obtained from the stored set of component data above) are determined to be in the new application. This result may be sent to the client. Also, this result may be used as one of the plurality of inputs in evaluating the application. In one example, this matching is done similarly as was described earlier above for the component analysis on a single device. The server sends information about these identified component identities back to the client (e.g., a notification that a new application is not authentic, or a score indicating the risk of a fraudulent application).
If the actual behavior and the known behavior for the component identity are different, this may indicate that the component in the new application is either a newer version or a tampered-version (i.e., is not authentic), and that the component needs to be reviewed again in order to update the database. Also, an alert may be generated based on the component information determined above. For example, an email may be sent to an analyst to do further analysis of a component, or an entry may be created in a work queue regarding further component analysis to be done. In another example, a notification is sent to the developer of a prior, known-good version of an application (e.g., to alert the developer that a fraudulent version of the application was identified).
Yet further additional non-limiting embodiments and examples are now discussed below. In a first embodiment, a developer registers through a website and provides its signing key. The developer claims authorship of a given application. An application that is signed with this key is considered to be authored by the developer. If the same application is signed by a different person or entity, then authenticity server 1005 alerts the developer that another entity is potentially illegitimate.
In one embodiment, authenticity server 1005 implements an authenticity component and a response component. An application is evaluated by the authenticity component and the result from the authenticity component is acted upon by the response component.
The authenticity component is a data set that may include a plurality of inputs used for evaluating an application. For example, these inputs may include that a developer signs an application, the prevalence of an application, the context or environment in which the application is observed, and a history of the signing key or certificate associated with an application.
The output from this evaluation may be a score such as, for example, 0.4 or 0.6 on a scale of 0.0-1.0. This multi-input authenticity component model provides a result that is acted upon by the response component. In one embodiment, the score is used to make a decision to set a state designation for an application to trusted or untrusted.
Another embodiment is based on probability, in which it is assumed that the most popular version of a given application is the legitimate one. Another embodiment assumes that the application that is published in Google Play, or another legitimate application store, is the legitimate or authentic one.
If another version of that same application is signed by a different person, then one of the applications is authoritative and the other is not. Authenticity server 1005 alerts the user the mobile device as to whether a version being installed is authentic.
In one embodiment, there are various ways to determine the authentic version of several versions of an application being distributed. In some cases the most popular version of an application may not be the authentic version of the application. Thus, a collection of factors are used from the exemplary inputs provided above (e.g., whether the application is published in the Google Play store, what is the context of the observation of the application, does the application have good online reviews over an extended predetermined time period, such as for example more than 6 months, etc.).
In one embodiment, the history of usage of a signature is considered as an input. For example, if a signing key is used to sign an application that authenticity server 1005 knows is bad, then if that same key signs other applications, those applications can also be assumed to be bad. This is like a signer reputation. If the signer is connected to prior suspicious activity, then the signer itself can be flagged as suspicious, and this fact considered in evaluating authenticity.
Another input may be the signing of different applications that authenticity server 1005 knows are provided from different developers. Another input is that the applications may communicate with different servers in different parts of the world—this indicates that one of the applications is not authentic and/or that there are potentially different developers.
In one embodiment, the first appearance of a signed application indicates authenticity. For example, the first person to sign and package that application is considered or assumed to be the authentic author. Authenticity server 1005 may have a huge network of devices (e.g., greater than 10,000 or 1 million devices) that report all the applications that they see. Therefore, presumably the legitimate application appears first as stored in database 1007. For example, the first time that the server sees an application, it will take the signature on that application and consider it to be the authentic signature.
In one embodiment, another input is the number of stars or other rating level that an application gets in Google Play or another store. For example the application may have been in a store for at least a predetermined time period (e.g., at least one or two years) and have a good rating. If the application has at least a predetermined number of ratings, for example, 300,000 ratings, and a star value over a given level, then the application is likely a legitimate version of the application.
In one embodiment, the longevity of the key is an input. The longevity may be a weighted user distribution based on time period and number of users. For example, if the application is observed for a year, but with very little users, that is a negative input. However, in contrast, having a million users over a year is a positive sign.
In one embodiment, various inputs are provided into a black box model used in authenticity evaluation. The inputs may include, for example, the signing key as registered by the developer itself, the usage history of a signing key, a history-weighted time of first appearance, an appearance in certain reputable application stores, a signing key used to sign applications that are substantially different, applications that talk to substantially different servers, applications that have substantially different code bases, and two applications that are signed and appear under different developer names in an authoritative marketplace such as Google Play.
In one embodiment, there are different interfaces provided for different users to provide information from authenticity server 1005 about the result from the evaluation of the authenticity. For the user (e.g., user of a mobile device), there may just be a warning provided (e.g., a popup that states that an application is not authentic). An alternative is a notice that indicates (e.g., an authentication seal that appears in the lower right-hand corner of a window) to the user that this is an authentic application. As one example, a user is presented and sees an authentication seal when a banking application is being installed by the user on its mobile device.
In this description, various functions and operations may be described as being performed by or caused by software code to simplify description. However, those skilled in the art will recognize what is meant by such expressions is that the functions result from execution of the code by a processor, such as a microprocessor. Alternatively, or in combination, the functions and operations can be implemented using special purpose circuitry, with or without software instructions, such as using an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) or a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). Embodiments can be implemented using hardwired circuitry without software instructions, or in combination with software instructions. Thus, the techniques are limited neither to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and software, nor to any particular source for the instructions executed by a computing device.
While some embodiments can be implemented in fully functioning computers and computer systems, various embodiments are capable of being distributed as a computing product in a variety of forms and are capable of being applied regardless of the particular type of machine or computer-readable media used to actually effect the distribution.
At least some aspects disclosed can be embodied, at least in part, in software. That is, the techniques may be carried out in a computing device or other system in response to its processor, such as a microprocessor, executing sequences of instructions contained in a memory, such as ROM, volatile RAM, non-volatile memory, cache or a remote storage device.
Routines executed to implement the embodiments may be implemented as part of an operating system, middleware, service delivery platform, SDK (Software Development Kit) component, web services, or other specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions referred to as “computer programs.” Invocation interfaces to these routines can be exposed to a software development community as an API (Application Programming Interface). The computer programs typically comprise one or more instructions set at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause the computer to perform operations necessary to execute elements involving the various aspects.
A machine readable medium can be used to store software and data which when executed by a computing device causes the device to perform various methods. The executable software and data may be stored in various places including for example ROM, volatile RAM, non-volatile memory and/or cache. Portions of this software and/or data may be stored in any one of these storage devices. Further, the data and instructions can be obtained from centralized servers or peer to peer networks. Different portions of the data and instructions can be obtained from different centralized servers and/or peer to peer networks at different times and in different communication sessions or in a same communication session. The data and instructions can be obtained in entirety prior to the execution of the applications. Alternatively, portions of the data and instructions can be obtained dynamically, just in time, when needed for execution. Thus, it is not required that the data and instructions be on a machine readable medium in entirety at a particular instance of time.
Examples of computer-readable media include but are not limited to recordable and non-recordable type media such as volatile and non-volatile memory devices, read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), flash memory devices, removable disks, magnetic disk storage media, optical storage media (e.g., Compact Disk Read-Only Memory (CD ROMS), Digital Versatile Disks (DVDs), etc.), among others. The computer-readable media may store the instructions.
The instructions may also be embodied in digital and analog communication links for electrical, optical, acoustical or other forms of propagated signals, such as carrier waves, infrared signals, digital signals, etc. However, propagated signals, such as carrier waves, infrared signals, digital signals, etc. are not tangible machine readable medium and are not configured to store instructions.
In general, a tangible or non-transitory machine readable medium includes any mechanism that provides (e.g., stores) information in a form accessible by a machine (e.g., a computer, network device, personal digital assistant, manufacturing tool, any device with a set of one or more processors, etc.).
In various embodiments, hardwired circuitry may be used in combination with software instructions to implement the techniques. Thus, the techniques are neither limited to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and software nor to any particular source for the instructions executed by a computing device.
Although some of the drawings illustrate a number of operations in a particular order, operations which are not order dependent may be reordered and other operations may be combined or broken out. While some reordering or other groupings are specifically mentioned, others will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art and so do not present an exhaustive list of alternatives. Moreover, it should be recognized that the stages could be implemented in hardware, firmware, software or any combination thereof.
In the foregoing specification, the disclosure has been described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments thereof. It will be evident that various modifications may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope as set forth in the following claims. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative sense rather than a restrictive sense.
The present application is a continuation application of and claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/619,356, filed Jun. 9, 2017 and entitled “Use of Device Risk Evaluation to Manage Access to Services,” the entire disclosure of which application is hereby incorporated herein by reference. The present application is related to U.S. Pat. No. 8,087,067, issued Dec. 27, 2011, titled “SECURE MOBILE PLATFORM SYSTEM,” by Mahaffey et al., the entire contents of which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. The present application is also related to U.S. Publication No. US 2016/0099963, published Apr. 7, 2016, titled “METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SHARING RISK RESPONSES BETWEEN COLLECTIONS OF MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES,” by Mahaffey et al., U.S. Pat. No. 8,397,301, issued Mar. 12, 2013, titled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING VULNERABILITIES ON A MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICE,” by Hering et al., and U.S. application Ser. No. 14/109,725, filed Dec. 17, 2013, titled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING VULNERABILITIES ON A MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE,” by Hering et al., the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. The present application is also related to U.S. Pat. No. 9,589,129, issued Mar. 7, 2017, titled “DETERMINING SOURCE OF SIDE-LOADED SOFTWARE,” by Richardson et al., the entire contents of which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3416032 | Jahns et al. | Dec 1968 | A |
| 4553257 | Mori et al. | Nov 1985 | A |
| 5319776 | Hile et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5574775 | Miller, II et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5715518 | Barrere et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 6092194 | Touboul | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6167520 | Touboul | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6185689 | Todd, Sr. et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6269456 | Hodges et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6272353 | Dicker et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6301668 | Gleichauf et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6453345 | Trcka et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
| 6476828 | Burkett et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6480962 | Touboul | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6502131 | Vaid et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6529143 | Mikkola et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
| 6658393 | Basch | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6696941 | Baker | Feb 2004 | B2 |
| 6707476 | Hochstedler | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6748195 | Phillips | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6792543 | Pak et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
| 6804780 | Touboul | Oct 2004 | B1 |
| 6892225 | Tu et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6907530 | Wang | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6959184 | Byers et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
| 7020895 | Albrecht | Mar 2006 | B2 |
| 7023383 | Stilp et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7069589 | Schmall et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7096368 | Kouznetsov et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7123933 | Poor et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7127455 | Carson et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
| 7139820 | O'Toole, Jr. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
| 7152244 | Toomey | Dec 2006 | B2 |
| 7159036 | Hinchliffe et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7159237 | Schneier et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7171690 | Kouznetsov et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7178166 | Taylor et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
| 7181225 | Moton, Jr. et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
| 7181252 | Komsi | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7203909 | Horvitz et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
| 7210168 | Hursey et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
| 7228566 | Caceres et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7231427 | Du | Jun 2007 | B1 |
| 7236598 | Sheymov et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7237264 | Graham et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
| 7266810 | Karkare et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
| 7266845 | Hypponen | Sep 2007 | B2 |
| 7290276 | Ogata | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7304570 | Thomas et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7305245 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7308256 | Morota et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7308712 | Banzhof | Dec 2007 | B2 |
| 7325249 | Sutton, Jr. et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7346605 | Hepworth et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
| 7355981 | Jorgenson | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7356835 | Gancarcik et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7363500 | Funk | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7376969 | Njemanze et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
| 7386297 | An | Jun 2008 | B2 |
| 7392043 | Kouznetsov et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
| 7392543 | Szor | Jun 2008 | B2 |
| 7397424 | Houri | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7397434 | Mun et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7401359 | Gartside et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7403762 | Morgan et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7414988 | Jones et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7415270 | Wilhelmsson et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7415536 | Nakazawa | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7433694 | Morgan et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7437158 | Russell | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7464407 | Nakae et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7467206 | Moore et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7471954 | Brachet et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
| 7472422 | Agbabian | Dec 2008 | B1 |
| 7474897 | Morgan et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
| 7493127 | Morgan et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7493403 | Shull et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7502620 | Morgan et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
| 7515578 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| 7525541 | Chun et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| 7526297 | Holur et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
| 7539882 | Jessup et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7551579 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7551929 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7568220 | Burshan | Jul 2009 | B2 |
| 7610273 | Kuppusamy et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7634800 | Ide et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7640585 | Lee et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
| 7685132 | Hyman | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7685629 | White | Mar 2010 | B1 |
| 7696923 | Houri | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7761583 | Shull et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7768963 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7769396 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7774637 | Beddoe et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
| 7783281 | Cook et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
| 7809353 | Brown et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7809366 | Rao et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7809936 | Einloth et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7813745 | Li | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7818017 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7835754 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7856234 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7856373 | Ullah | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7861303 | Kouznetsov et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7865937 | White | Jan 2011 | B1 |
| 7877784 | Chow et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7882247 | Sturniolo et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7882557 | Coskun et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7907966 | Mammen | Mar 2011 | B1 |
| 7916661 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7978691 | Cole | Jul 2011 | B1 |
| 7991854 | Bahl | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 7999742 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8001610 | Chickering et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
| 8014788 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8019357 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8024711 | Albahari et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8031657 | Jones et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 8037203 | Accapadi et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
| 8042178 | Fisher | Oct 2011 | B1 |
| 8054219 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8087067 | Mahaffey et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8087082 | Bloch et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8089398 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8089399 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8090386 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8091120 | Perrella | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8095172 | Cole et al. | Jan 2012 | B1 |
| 8099764 | Herzog et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8108555 | Awadallah et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8108933 | Mahaffey | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8112797 | Coskun et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8121617 | LaGrotta et al. | Feb 2012 | B1 |
| 8126456 | Lotter et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8126866 | Barton et al. | Feb 2012 | B1 |
| 8127158 | Jessup et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8127350 | Wei et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8127358 | Lee | Feb 2012 | B1 |
| 8135395 | Cassett et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8151327 | Eisen | Apr 2012 | B2 |
| D659157 | Klein et al. | May 2012 | S |
| 8195196 | Haran et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| 8200773 | Bluestone et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| D664430 | Kelly et al. | Jul 2012 | S |
| 8214910 | Gossweiler, III et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
| 8225103 | Chiou et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8228234 | Paulson et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8229392 | Bumiller et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8259568 | Laudermilch et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8261351 | Thornewell et al. | Sep 2012 | B1 |
| 8266288 | Banerjee et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8266324 | Baratakke et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8271056 | Keohane et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8275345 | Bumiller et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| D671132 | Woo | Nov 2012 | S |
| 8321949 | Green et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
| 8332922 | Dickinson et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8346860 | Berg et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8347386 | Mahaffey et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8352738 | Pamo et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8356080 | Luna et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8359016 | Lindeman et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8364785 | Plamondon | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8365252 | Mahaffey et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8370580 | Mobarak et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
| 8370933 | Buckler | Feb 2013 | B1 |
| 8370942 | Peterson et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
| D677688 | Woo | Mar 2013 | S |
| 8397301 | Hering et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| 8401521 | Bennett et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
| D680131 | Anzures | Apr 2013 | S |
| 8412626 | Hirson | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8434151 | Franklin | Apr 2013 | B1 |
| 8447856 | Drako | May 2013 | B2 |
| 8452956 | Kersey | May 2013 | B1 |
| 8463915 | Kim | Jun 2013 | B1 |
| 8464335 | Sinha et al. | Jun 2013 | B1 |
| 8467768 | Mahaffey et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8484332 | Bush et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8484460 | Vaughn et al. | Jul 2013 | B1 |
| 8504775 | Plamondon | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8505102 | Cannings | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8521131 | Ramalingam et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8533844 | Mahaffey et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8538815 | Mahaffey et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8561144 | Mahaffey et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 8588870 | Vargantwar | Nov 2013 | B1 |
| 8589691 | Hackborn et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
| 8635701 | Hilaiel | Jan 2014 | B2 |
| 8650558 | DePoy | Feb 2014 | B2 |
| 8650649 | Chen et al. | Feb 2014 | B1 |
| 8655307 | Walker et al. | Feb 2014 | B1 |
| 8677497 | Basavapatna | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8683605 | Tenenboym et al. | Mar 2014 | B1 |
| 8701192 | Glick et al. | Apr 2014 | B1 |
| 8738765 | Wyatt et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
| 8739260 | Damm-Goossens | May 2014 | B1 |
| 8756432 | Chen et al. | Jun 2014 | B1 |
| 8806641 | Li et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
| 8806643 | Nachenberg | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8806647 | Daswani et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
| 8806657 | Mimatsu et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8814650 | Cockerille et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8843627 | Baldi et al. | Sep 2014 | B1 |
| 8843752 | Priyadarshi | Sep 2014 | B1 |
| 8868915 | Counterman | Oct 2014 | B2 |
| 8869259 | Udapa et al. | Oct 2014 | B1 |
| 8869279 | Shulman et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
| 8914893 | Zhao et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
| 8949243 | Kashyap et al. | Feb 2015 | B1 |
| 8949993 | Basavapatna | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| 8950002 | Radhakrishnan | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| 8973088 | Leung et al. | Mar 2015 | B1 |
| 8984604 | Begley et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
| 8990933 | Magdalin | Mar 2015 | B1 |
| 8997181 | Mahaffey et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
| 8997231 | Karta et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
| 9069943 | Radhakrishnan | Jun 2015 | B2 |
| 9112896 | Basavapatna et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9159065 | Radhakrishnan | Oct 2015 | B2 |
| 9166966 | Radhakrishnan | Oct 2015 | B2 |
| 9197606 | Deschenes et al. | Nov 2015 | B2 |
| 9208215 | Mahaffey et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9215074 | Wyatt et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9232491 | Mahaffey | Jan 2016 | B2 |
| 9288223 | Sharabani et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 9294284 | Mao | Mar 2016 | B1 |
| 9298494 | Gathala et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 9349015 | Archer et al. | May 2016 | B1 |
| 9367680 | Mahaffey et al. | Jun 2016 | B2 |
| 9378373 | Sobel | Jun 2016 | B2 |
| 9407443 | Wyatt et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
| 9407640 | Mahaffey et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
| 9495194 | Twitchell, Jr. | Nov 2016 | B1 |
| 9503463 | Karta et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9537886 | Gareau | Jan 2017 | B1 |
| 9589129 | Richardson et al. | Mar 2017 | B2 |
| 9602531 | Wallace et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
| 9635028 | Shepard et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
| 9736147 | Mead | Aug 2017 | B1 |
| 9824353 | Li | Nov 2017 | B2 |
| 9867043 | Aissi | Jan 2018 | B2 |
| 9940454 | Richardson et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
| 9948744 | Billau | Apr 2018 | B1 |
| 9992025 | Mahaffey et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
| 10218697 | Cockerill et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
| 10225740 | Bansal | Mar 2019 | B2 |
| 10256979 | Mahaffey et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
| 10387269 | Muller | Aug 2019 | B2 |
| 10409984 | McCauley | Sep 2019 | B1 |
| 10419222 | Mahaffey et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
| 10540494 | Richardson et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
| 10652024 | Holness | May 2020 | B2 |
| 20010044339 | Cordero et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20020042886 | Lahti et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020087483 | Harif | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020087882 | Schneier | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020108005 | Larson et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020108058 | Iwamura | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020157019 | Kadyk et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020183060 | Ko et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20020191018 | Broussard | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030028803 | Bunker et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030046134 | Frolick et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030070091 | Loveland | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030079145 | Kouznetsov et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030115485 | Milliken | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030120951 | Gartside et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030131148 | Kelley et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030233566 | Kouznetsov et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040015725 | Boneh et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040022258 | Tsukada et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040024706 | Leduc | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040025042 | Kouznetsov et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040058644 | Saigo et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040120260 | Bernier | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133624 | Park | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040158741 | Schneider | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040185900 | McElveen | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040199665 | Omar et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040203622 | Esque et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040205419 | Liang et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040209608 | Kouznetsov et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040221168 | Girard | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040225887 | O'Neil et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040259532 | Isomaki et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050010821 | Cooper et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050010921 | Sueyoshi | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050015443 | Levine et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050074106 | Orlamunder et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050076246 | Singhal | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050091308 | Bookman et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050102514 | Bergenwall et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050124323 | Ichihara | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050125779 | Kelley et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050130627 | Calmels et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050131900 | Palliyll | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050138395 | Benco et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050138413 | Lippmann et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050138450 | Hsieh | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050154796 | Forsyth | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050186954 | Kenney | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050197099 | Nehushtan | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050221800 | Jackson et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050227669 | Haparnas | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050237970 | Inoue | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050240999 | Rubin et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050254654 | Rockwell et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050278777 | Loza | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050282533 | Draluk et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060026283 | Trueba | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060048142 | Roese et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060073820 | Craswell et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060075388 | Kelley et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060075472 | Sanda et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060080680 | Anwar et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060085357 | Pizarro | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060095454 | Shankar et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060101518 | Schumaker et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060130145 | Choi et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060150238 | D'Agostino | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060150256 | Fanton et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060179485 | Longsine et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060191011 | Korkishko et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212931 | Shull et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060217115 | Cassett et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060218482 | Ralston et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060218636 | Chaum | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060224742 | Shahbazi | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060236325 | Rao et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060253205 | Gardiner | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060253584 | Dixon et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060272011 | Ide et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060277408 | Bhat et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060294582 | Linsley-Hood et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070005327 | Ferris | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070005967 | Mister et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070011319 | McClure et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070015519 | Casey | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070016953 | Morris et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070016955 | Goldberg et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070021112 | Byrne et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070028095 | Allen et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070028302 | Brennan et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070028303 | Brennan | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070028304 | Brennan | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070038677 | Reasor et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070039053 | Dvir | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070050471 | Patel et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070067581 | Baek | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070071238 | Adams et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070074033 | Adams et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070074034 | Adams et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070086476 | Iglesias et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070089165 | Wei et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070090954 | Mahaffey | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070094260 | Murphy et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070113090 | Villela | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143851 | Nicodemus | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070154014 | Aissi et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174472 | Kulakowski | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174490 | Choi et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070186275 | Shahbazi | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070186282 | Jenkins | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070190995 | Wang et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070192608 | De Arruda Villela | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070214245 | Hamalainen et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070214504 | Milani Comparetti et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220259 | Pavlicic | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220608 | Lahti et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070240127 | Roques et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070240218 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070240221 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070240222 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070248047 | Shorty et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070250627 | May et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070253377 | Janneteau et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070270212 | Cockerille et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070293263 | Eslambolchi et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20070297610 | Chen et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080016347 | Maj et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080028470 | Remington et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080046369 | Wood | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080046557 | Cheng | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080047007 | Satkunanathan et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080049653 | Demirhan et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080060062 | Lord | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080065507 | Morrison et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080070495 | Stricklen et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080072329 | Herschaft | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080086638 | Mather | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080086773 | Tuvell et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080086776 | Tuvell et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080098464 | Mizrah | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080098478 | Vaidya et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080109871 | Jacobs | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080120611 | Aaron | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080127171 | Tarassov | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080127179 | Moss et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080127334 | Gassoway | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080127336 | Sun et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080132218 | Samson et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080134281 | Shinde et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080140767 | Rao et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080148381 | Aaron | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080172746 | Lotter et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080178294 | Hu et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080181116 | Kavanaugh et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080186162 | Rajan et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080196104 | Tuvell et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080200160 | Fitzpatrick et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080208950 | Kim et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080209557 | Herley et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080235801 | Soderberg et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080244407 | Eklund | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080250500 | Olson et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080271149 | Dettinger | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080275992 | Basty et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080276111 | Jacoby et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080293396 | Barnes et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080307243 | Lee | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20080318562 | Featherstone et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090006956 | Bae et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090013399 | Cottrell et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090019546 | Park | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090064303 | Dickinson et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090064330 | Shraim et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090070283 | Kang et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090083852 | Kuo et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090106439 | Twitchell, Jr. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090119143 | Silver et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090158390 | Guan | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090172227 | Taylor et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090182517 | Gandhi et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090199298 | Miliefsky | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090205016 | Milas | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090205041 | Michalske | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090205047 | Podjarny | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090210702 | Welingkar et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090210712 | Fort | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090240774 | Sachtjen et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090248623 | Adelman et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090282485 | Bennett | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090292487 | Duncan et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090293125 | Szor | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090300511 | Behar et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090300763 | Harvey et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090303066 | Lee | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090319998 | Sobel et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100005291 | Hulten et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100009758 | Twitchell, Jr. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100011029 | Niemela | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100019731 | Connolly et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100041946 | Kim | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100058064 | Kirovski et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100058468 | Green et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100064341 | Aldera | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100064344 | Wang | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100085883 | Paster | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100088398 | Plamondon | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100095359 | Gordon | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100097494 | Gum et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100100591 | Mahaffey et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100100939 | Mahaffey et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100100959 | Mahaffey | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100100963 | Mahaffey | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100100964 | Mahaffey et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100114634 | Christiansen | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100115092 | Westin | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100138501 | Clinton et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100154032 | Ollmann | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100173658 | Fan et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100210240 | Mahaffey et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100240419 | Horino | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100250603 | Balakrishnaiah | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100262924 | Kalu | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100275127 | Morita et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100299292 | Collazo | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100299738 | Wahl | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100306432 | Juarez et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100313270 | Kim et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100317324 | Brown et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100325035 | Hilgers | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100332593 | Barash et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100332680 | Anderson et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110016320 | Bergsten et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110022681 | Simeonov | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110047033 | Mahaffey et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110047594 | Mahaffey et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110047597 | Mahaffey et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110047620 | Mahaffey et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110050503 | Fong et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110072262 | Amir et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110087690 | Cairns | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110099377 | Hoornaert | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110107414 | Diab et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110111799 | Kothari et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110119765 | Hering et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110131204 | Bodin et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110145920 | Mahaffey et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110154439 | Patel et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110167474 | Sinha | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110171923 | Daly et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110173071 | Meyer et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110173698 | Polyakov et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110179136 | Twitchell, Jr. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110225492 | Boettcher et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110225505 | Uchida et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110235624 | Scott et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110241872 | Mahaffey | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110289423 | Kim et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110296401 | DePoy | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110296510 | Hatlelid et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110301890 | Shirriff et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110307711 | Novak et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110314542 | Viswanathan et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110320307 | Mehta et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120005476 | Wei et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120011439 | Karn et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120023153 | Karasaridis | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120023583 | Sallam | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120042257 | Aftab et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120042382 | Mahaffey | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120054277 | Gedikian | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120054847 | Schultz | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120060222 | Mahaffey et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120072569 | Xu | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120084195 | Bauerschmidt | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120084836 | Mahaffey et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120084864 | Mahaffey et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120089963 | Claussen et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120096516 | Sobel et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120096555 | Mahaffey | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120102568 | Tarbotton et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120108208 | Willis | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120110174 | Wootton et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120117386 | Headley | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120124239 | Shribman et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120129503 | Lindeman et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120159434 | Dang et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120159578 | Chawla et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120159598 | Kim et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120159607 | Wei et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120159636 | Pandya et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120166276 | Chitnis et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120173680 | Coskun et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120179801 | Luna et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120179814 | Swildens et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120185780 | Ma | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120188064 | Mahaffey et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120196571 | Grkov et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120204033 | Etchegoyen | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120210431 | Stahlberg et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120215938 | Fletcher et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120222120 | Rim et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120233674 | Gladstone et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120233694 | Baliga et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120233695 | Mahaffey et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120240183 | Sinha | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120246499 | Jessup et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120250658 | Eisl et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120254285 | Tiger et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120254634 | Chakra et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120259954 | McCarthy et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120278467 | Schneider | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120290584 | De Bona et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120303735 | Raciborski et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120311659 | Narain et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120317153 | Parthasarathy et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120317233 | Redpath | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120317266 | Abbott | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120317370 | Luna | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120324076 | Zerr et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120324094 | Wyatt et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120324259 | Aasheim et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20120324568 | Wyatt et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130013775 | Baumback et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130019311 | Swildens et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130023209 | Fisher et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130041946 | Joel et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130041974 | Luna et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130042124 | Isozaki et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130047034 | Salomon et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130047195 | Radhakrishnan | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130047224 | Radhakrishnan | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130047242 | Radhakrishnan | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130047253 | Radhakrishnan | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130054702 | Belchee et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130054796 | Baumback et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130054960 | Grab et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130055163 | Matas | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130055372 | Chao et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130055405 | Zhao et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130061038 | Pao et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130067054 | Pulleyn et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130073859 | Carlson | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086682 | Mahaffey et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130090088 | Chevsky | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130097660 | Das et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130097706 | Titonis | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130097710 | Basavapatna | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130104197 | Nandakumar | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130111597 | Gossweiler, III et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130117854 | Britton et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130130649 | Mahaffey et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130132330 | Hurwitz et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130132565 | Cetin et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130144785 | Karpenko | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130152047 | Moorthi et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130155879 | He et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130155899 | Gallagher | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130159719 | Ha et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130166899 | Courtney et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130167136 | Goldman | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130178270 | Flaherty | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130191662 | Ingrassia, Jr. et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130191918 | Nachenberg | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130212160 | Lawson et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130212684 | Li et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130227683 | Bettini et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130247217 | Junod | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130254889 | Stuntebeck | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130276120 | Dalcher et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130283377 | Das et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130290709 | Muppidi et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130294602 | Huxham et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130298244 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130303154 | Gupta et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130318613 | Archer et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130318614 | Archer et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130325779 | Shahshahani et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130326476 | Wyatt et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130326477 | Wyatt et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130326500 | Park et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130333039 | Kelly | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130346760 | Ignatchenko | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140006418 | Forte et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140006464 | Pitts | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140006796 | Smith | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140007222 | Qureshi | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140019241 | Treiser | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140019456 | Li et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140024348 | Hurst | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140041037 | Ashish Bhatia et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140066015 | Aissi | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140082738 | Bahl | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140090077 | Jeong et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140096246 | Morrissey et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140109200 | Tootill et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140113588 | Chekina et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140115659 | Attfield et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140123289 | Hsiao et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140150096 | Moon et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140157381 | Disraeli | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140181925 | Smith et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140181973 | Lee et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140188886 | Mahaffey et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140189808 | Mahaffey | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140196104 | Chari | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140199966 | Schushan | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140215628 | Yan | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140244318 | Drake | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140283066 | Teddy et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140289833 | Briceno | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140317754 | Niemela et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140325586 | Halliday et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140331275 | Singh | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140351573 | Martini | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140359777 | Lam | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20140379853 | Shelton | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20140380422 | Su | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20140380484 | Choi | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150007325 | Eliseev et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150046339 | Wong | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150067143 | Babakhan | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150067830 | Johansson et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150067831 | Wawda et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150067855 | Lee et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150074390 | Stoback | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150088955 | Hendrick et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150089585 | Novack | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150095990 | Ranganathan | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150135338 | Moskal | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150169877 | Mahaffey et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150172057 | Mahaffey et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150172060 | Mahaffey et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150172146 | Mahaffey et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150186892 | Zhang | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150188924 | Mahaffey et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150188932 | King et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150193781 | Dave | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150195252 | Walter et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150220734 | Nalluri et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150229651 | Nicodemus et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150235015 | Holler et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150244737 | Siman | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150256550 | Taylor | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150324616 | Alarabi | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150326586 | Khesin | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20160021135 | Chesla | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160027011 | Ninomiya | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160080408 | Coleman | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160086184 | Carpenter | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160099963 | Mahaffey | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160099972 | Qureshi | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160112450 | Basavapatna et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160119195 | Blondeau | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160142858 | Molinet | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160192154 | Modica | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160218881 | Adams | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160226872 | Oberheide | Aug 2016 | A1 |
| 20160239650 | Mao | Aug 2016 | A1 |
| 20160321452 | Richardson et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160344729 | Slaight | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160352526 | Adler | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160366586 | Gross | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160373478 | Doubleday | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170024135 | Christodorescu | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170041036 | Phung | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170060497 | Maezawa | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170063865 | Belchee | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170075677 | Gross | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170103215 | Mahaffey et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170104790 | Meyers | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170126696 | Duffell | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170134412 | Cheng | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170146970 | Joo | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170147810 | Richardson et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170163616 | Smith | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170230402 | Greenspan | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170255932 | Aabye | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| 20170262609 | Perlroth | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| 20170289139 | Guo | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170318000 | Louis | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170331828 | Caldera | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170332238 | Bansal | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170345004 | Cowan | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170359306 | Thomas | Dec 2017 | A1 |
| 20170366553 | Shetye | Dec 2017 | A1 |
| 20180025344 | L. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180026944 | Phillips | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180026976 | White | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180054417 | Schibuk | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180054433 | Junod | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180082301 | Chan-Bauza | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180082302 | Chan-Bauza | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180082303 | Chan-Bauza | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180189478 | Richardson et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
| 20180198629 | Deymonnaz | Jul 2018 | A1 |
| 20180294969 | Holness | Oct 2018 | A1 |
| 20180316598 | Twitchell, Jr. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180359244 | Cockerill et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20190274042 | Gupta | Sep 2019 | A1 |
| 20190294464 | Twitchell, Jr. | Sep 2019 | A1 |
| 20190363893 | Mahaffey et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
| 20200089869 | Richardson et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 103167488 | Jun 2013 | CN |
| 0965094 | Dec 1999 | EP |
| 2765750 | Aug 2014 | EP |
| 2884784 | Jun 2015 | EP |
| 2430588 | Mar 2007 | GB |
| 1020090044656 | May 2009 | KR |
| 101143999 | May 2012 | KR |
| 2005101789 | Oct 2005 | WO |
| 2006110181 | Oct 2006 | WO |
| 2008007111 | Mar 2007 | WO |
| 2007081356 | Jul 2007 | WO |
| 2008057737 | May 2008 | WO |
| 2010048218 | Apr 2010 | WO |
| 2010048220 | Apr 2010 | WO |
| 2012027588 | Jan 2012 | WO |
| 2013147891 | Oct 2013 | WO |
| 2014063124 | Apr 2014 | WO |
| 2015101522 | Jul 2015 | WO |
| 2016162687 | Oct 2016 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Jan Spooren, Davy Preuveneers, and Wouter Joosen. 2015. Mobile device fingerprinting considered harmful for risk-based authentication. In Proceedings of the Eighth European Workshop on System Security (EuroSec '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA. |
| “Berry Locator”, available at http://www.mobireport.com/apps/b1/, retrieved on Aug. 10, 2011, published Feb. 8, 2008. |
| “F-Secure Mobile Security for S60 User's Guide,” F-Secure Corporation 2009, 34 pages. |
| “Firefox,” Wikipedia, Jul. 20, 2011, available at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/firefox> retrieved Aug. 10, 2011, 37 pages. |
| “I'm Aza Raskin@aza. I make shiny things. I simplify.”, “Vote! How to Detect the Social Sites Your Visitors Use”, web page downloaded Nov. 4, 2013 from http://www.ararask.in/blog/postlsocialhistoryjs, pp. 1-83. |
| “Java Virtual Machine,” Wikipedia, Aug. 7, 2011, available at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Virtual_Machine> retrieved Aug 10, 2011, 7 pages. |
| “Kaspersky AV,” Kaspersky Lab 1997-2007, 1 page. |
| “Kaspersky Mobile Security-Anti Theft”, Kaspersky Lab 2008, available at http://www.kaspersky.com/kaspersky_mobile_security, 2 Pages. |
| “Kaspersky Mobile Security-Home Computer Security,” Kaspersky Lab 2008, available at <http://www.kaspersky.com/kaspersky_mobile_security> , 1 pages. |
| “Norton Smartphone Security,” Symantec, 2007, available at <http://www.symantec.com/norton/smartphone-security> retrieved Oct. 21, 2008, 2 pages. |
| “PhoneBak PDA Phone Anti-theft software for your PDA phone”, 2007, Bak2u Pte Ltd (Singapore) pp. 1-4. |
| “PhoneBak: Mobile Phone Theft Recovery Software”, 2007, Westin Tech. |
| “Real world Computing” Jun. 16, 2008 (PC Pro) pp. 1. |
| “Sprint—Report that your device is lost or stolen”, web page downloaded Apr. 11, 2013 from http://support.sprint.com/support/article/Report_that_your_device_is_lost_or_stolen/case-ba416758-20090629-143222. |
| “Symantec Endpoint Protection,” Symantec, 2008, available at <http://www.symantec.com/business/products/family.isp?familyid=endpointsecurity>, 6 pages. |
| “Symantec Mobile Security Suite for Windows Mobile,” Symantec, 2008, available at <http://www.symantec.com/business/products/sysreq.jsp?pcid=2241&pvid=mobile_security_suite_1>, 5 pages. |
| “Virgin Media—Phone Lost or Stolen?”, web page downloaded Apr. 11, 2013 from http://www.virginmobile.com/vm/ukCoverage.do?contentId=insurance.howdoi.sm283. |
| Amazon.com: Mining the Web Discovering Knowledge from Hypertext Data (9781558607545): Soumen Chakrabarti: Books, Amazon available at http://www.amazon.com/exe/obidos/ASIN/1558607544/, retrieved on Jun. 7, 2012, published on Dec. 13, 2001, pp. 1-7. |
| Banerjee et al., “Users and Batteries: Interactions and Adaptive Energy Management in Mobile Systems”, LNCS 1717, (2007), pp. 217-234. |
| Benyon et al., “Applying user modelling to human-computer interaction design” AI Review 7, pp. 199-225, 1993, Kluwer Academic Publishers. |
| COMODO Group, Inc. website history page using wayback machine, “Digital Code Signing, Code Signing Certificates—COMODO”, May 11, 2013, p. 1-6. |
| Clickatell, available at http://www.clickatell.com, retrieved Sep. 14, 2011, published on Jan. 18, 2011, 11 pages. |
| Content Security Policy 1.0, “W3C Candidate Recommendation Nov. 15, 2012”, Internet Archive, Way Back Machine, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20131102204842/http://www.w3org/TR/CSP/, Retrieved Oct. 16, 2017, 10 pages. |
| Diligenti, M., et al. Focused Crawling Using Context Graphs:, Proceedings of the 26th VLDB Conference, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 1-8, available at www.vldb.org/conf/2000/P257.pdf, retrieved on Oct. 21, 2008, published on Sep. 10, 2000. |
| Dashwire: Manage Your Cell Phone on the Web, News Blog, with Jessica Dolocourt, Oct. 29, 2007, 5:00am PDT <http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9805657-7.html> retrieved Jun. 15, 2009; pp. 1-3. |
| David M. Nicol, Model-Based Evaluation: From Dependability to Security, 2006, IEEE, pp. 1-17. |
| E. Kirda, C. Kruegel. Protecting Users Against Phishing Attacks with AntiPhish. COMPSAC 2005, pp. 1-8. |
| European Patent Application 13800352.0, Partial Search Report, Dec. 22, 2015. |
| European Patent Application No. 13800352.0, Extended European Search Report, dated May 17, 2016. |
| Ferreira et al., “Understanding Human-Smartphone Concerns_A Study of Battery Life,” In Proceedings of the 9th International conference on Pervasive computing (Pervasive 2011), Kent Lyons, Jeffrey Hightower, and Elaine M. Huang (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 19-33. |
| Fette, Ian “Understanding Phishing and Malware Protection in Google Chrome,” The Chromium Blog, available at http://blog.chromium.org/2008_11_01_archive.html, retrieved on May 17, 2011, published on Nov. 14, 2008, 6 pages. |
| Fisher, Oliver, “Malware? We Don't Need No Stinking Malware!”, Google, available at http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/malware-we-dont-need-no-stinking.html, retrieved on Mar. 30, 2012, published on Oct. 24, 2008, 11 pages. |
| Fido Alliance, Universal 2nd Factor (U2f) Overview, FIDO Alliance Proposed Standard Oct. 9, 2014, http://www.fidoalliance.org/specs/fido-u2f-v1.0-ps-20141009/fido-u2f-overview-v1.0-ps-20141009.html, pp. 1-17, downloaded Dec. 26, 2014. |
| Final Office Action dated Feb. 1, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/255,626, filed Oct. 21, 2008; pp. 1-18. |
| Fleurey et al., “A Domain Specific Modeling Language Supporting Specification, Simulation and Execution of Dynamic Adaptive Systems”, Models 2009, LNCS 5795, pp. 606-621, 2009, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. |
| Ghazarian et al., “Automatic detection of users' skill levels using high-frequency interface events”, User Model User adap-Itnter 20, pp. 109-146, 2010, Springer Science+Business Mediea B.V. |
| Gianluigi Caldiera et al.; Identifying and Qualifying Reusable Software Components; 1991 IEEE; pp. 61-70; <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=67210>. |
| Grafio “Stay Secure,” Opera Software, Sep. 29, 2008, available at <http://widgets.opera.com/widget/4495> retrieved Oct. 21, 2008, 4 pages. |
| HTC “Mobile Wipe Smart Phone Management”, pp. 1-4, published on Dec. 5, 2007, retrieved on Dec. 5, 2007. |
| HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), IETF RFC 6797, web page downloaded from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6797,May 5, 2017, 47 pages. |
| Hervas et al., “Towards the ubiquitous visualization: Adaptive user-interfaces based on the Semantic Web”, Interacting with Computers 23, pp. 40-56, 2011, Elsevier BM. |
| International Patent Application PCT/US2013/043569, International Search Report and Written Opinion, dated Aug. 27, 2013. |
| International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US17/35016, dated Sep. 22, 2017, 12 pages. |
| J. S. Poulin et al.; The business case for software reuse; 1993 IBM; pp. 567-594; <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5387336>. |
| Zhang et al., “Accurate Online Power Estimation and Automatic Battery Behavior Based Power Model Generation for Smartphones,” CODES/ISSS (2010). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 105-114. |
| Zhang et al., “PowerVisor: a battery virtualization scheme for smartphones,” In Proceedings of the third ACM workshop on Mobile cloud computing and services (MCS 2012). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 37-44. |
| Ivica Crnkovic et al.; A Classification Framework for Software Component Models; 2011 IEEE; pp. 593-615; <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5587419>. |
| “Android Cloud to Device Messaging Framework,” Google Code Labs, available at http://code.google.com/android/c2dm/, retrieved on Sep. 14, 2011, published on Apr. 11, 2011, 9 pages. |
| “BlackBerry Push Service Overview,” available at http://us.blackberry.com/developers/platform/pushapi.isp#tab_tab_resources, retrieved on Sep. 14, 2011, published on Nov. 6, 2010, 21 pages. |
| “Get the Physical Location of Wireless Router From its MAC Address (BSSID),” Coderrr, available at http://coderrr.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/get-the-physical-location-of-wireless-router-from-its-mac-address-bssid/, retrieved on Mar. 30, 2012, published on Sep. 12, 2008, 13 pages. |
| “Hooking—Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia,” Wikipedia, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20100415154752/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooking, retrieved Mar. 30, 2012, published on Apr. 15, 2010, 6 pages. |
| “Pidgin the Universal Chat Client,” Pidign, available at http://www.pidgin.im/, retrieved Sep. 14, 2011, published on May 1, 2007, 14 pages. |
| “Twilio Cloud Communications Web Service API for Building Voice and SMS Applications,” Twilio, available at http://www.twilio.com, retrieved Sep. 14, 2011, published on Jun. 5, 2008, 12 pages. |
| “Understanding Direct Push,” Microsoft, Feb. 18, 2009, available at http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997252(v=exchg.80).aspx, retrieved on Mar. 30, 2012, published on Feb. 18, 2009, 3 pages. |
| “Urban Airship: Powering Modern Mobile,” available at http://urbanairship.com/products/, retrieved on Sep. 16, 2011, published on Feb. 19, 2010, 14 pages. |
| “ESoft unveils SiteFilter 3.0 for OEMs,” Infosecurity, Mar. 23, 2010, available at http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/8273/esoft-unveils-sitefilter-30-for-oems/, retrieved on Mar. 30, 2012, published on Mar. 23, 2010, 2 pages. |
| “ZVeloDB URL Database,” zVelo, available at https://zvelo.com/technology/zvelodb-url-database, retrieved Mar. 30, 2012, published on Jan. 21, 2012, 2 pages. |
| Jefferies, Charles R “Webroot AntiVirus 2010 With Spy Sweeper Review,” Notebook Review, available at http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=5700&review=Webroot+AntiVirus+2010+With+Spy+Sweeper+Review, retrieved on May 18, 2011, published on Jun. 22, 2010, 3 pages. |
| Jan Bosch; Maturity and Evolution in Software Product Lines Approaches, Artefacts and Organization; 2002 Springer; pp. 257-271; <http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-45652-X_16>. |
| Jung, Jaeyeon et al. “DNS Performance and the Effectiveness of Caching,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 10, Issue 5, Oct. 2002, pp. 589-603. |
| K. Benton, Joyeon Jo, Yoohwan Kim. Signature Check: A Protocol to Detect Man-In-The-Middle Attack in SSL. ACM CSIIRW '11 Oct. 12-14, 2011, 4 pages. |
| Keane, Justin K. “Using the Google Safe Browsing API from PHP,” Mad Irish, Aug. 7, 2009, available at http://www.madirish.net/node/245, retrieved Mar. 30, 2012, published on Aug. 7, 2009, 5 pages. |
| Kincaid, Jason “Urban Airship Brings Easy Push Notifications to Android,” TechCrunch, available at http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/10/urban-airship-brings-easy-push-notifications-to-android/, retrieved on Jun. 16, 2011, published on Aug. 10, 2010, 5 pages. |
| Leiva Torres et al., “A Gesture Inference Methodology for User Evaluation Based on Mouse Activity Tracking”, Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction 2008, part of the ADIS Multi-Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems 2008, MCCSIS'08, pp. 18-26, IADIS Press, 2008. |
| Liljeberg, M. et al. “Optimizing World-Wide Web for Weakly Connected Mobile Workstations: An Indirect Approach,” Second Internatioinal Workshop on Services Distributed and Networked Environments, Jun. 5-6, 1995, pp. 132-139. |
| Mytton, David “How to Build an Apple Push Notification Provider Server (Tutorial),” Server Density, available at http://blog.serverdensity.com/2009/07/10/how-to-build-an-apple-push-notification-provider-server-tutorial/, retrieved on Apr. 2, 2012, published on Jul. 10, 2009, 33 pages. |
| McAfee Artemis Technology—Always-On, Real-Time Protection, 2008. |
| McAfee Knowledge Base Corporate KB60224, last modified on Jan. 19, 2010. |
| McAfee Technical Brief zero day to real time, 2008. |
| McAfee, Internet Archive, Way Back Machine, available at <http://web.archive.org/web/20080517102505/www.mcafeesecure.com/us/technology-intro.jsp>, retrieved Feb. 23, 2011,2 pages. |
| Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 26, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/160,382, filed Jun. 14, 2011; pp. 1-23. |
| Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 24, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/255,635, filed Oct. 21, 2008; pp. 1-17. |
| Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 14, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/255,614, filed Oct. 21, 2008; pp. 1-6. |
| Norton Insight a solution to Performance, published on Aug. 29, 2008. |
| Notice of Allowance dated Nov. 3, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/255,632, filed Oct. 21, 2008; pp. 1-5. |
| PCT “International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US2013/027166”, dated Jun. 19, 2013. |
| PCT “International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US13/66676,” dated Jan. 16, 2014. |
| PCT International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/US2011/049182; dated Mar. 7, 2013; pp. 1-9. |
| PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US2009/061370; dated Dec. 14, 2009; pp. 1-12. |
| PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US2009/061372; dated Mar. 24, 2010; pp. 1-16. |
| PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2013/67109, dated Apr. 16, 2014; pp. 1-16. |
| PCT , “International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/US2011/049182”, dated Dec. 23, 2011. |
| Pogue, David “Simplifying the Lives of Web Users,” The New York Times, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/technology/personaltech/19pogue.html, retrieved May 17, 2011, Published on Aug. 18, 2010, 5 pages. |
| PagerDuty, available at http://www.pagerduty.com, retrieved on Sep. 14, 2011, published on Jun. 6, 2009, 23 pages. |
| Preventing attacks on a user's history through CSS: visited selectors, “How CSS can be used to query a user's browser history”, L. David Baron, Mozilla Corporation, Internet Archive, Way Back Machine, available at https://web.archive.org/web/201311011024118/http://dbaron.org/mozilla/visited-privacy, Retrieved Oct. 16, 2017, 3 pages. |
| Prey, available at http://preyproject.com/, retrieved Jan. 10, 2012, published on May 16, 2009, 4 pages. |
| Qualys, “Executive Dashboard,” Internet Archive, Way back Machine, availble at <http://web.archive.org/web20080507161417/www.qualys.com/products/screens/?screen=Executive + Dashboard>, retrieved Feb. 23, 2011, 1 page. |
| Qualys, “Vulnerability Management,” Internet Archive, Way Back Machine, available at <http://web.archive.org/web/20080611095201/www.qualys.com/solutions/vulnerability_management> Retrieved Feb. 24, 2011, 1 page. |
| Ravi et al., “Context-aware Battery Management for Mobile Phones,” In Proceedings of the 2008 Sixth Annual IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PERCOM 2008), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 224-233. |
| Reardon, Marguerite, “Mobile Phones That Track Your Buddies,” Cnet, available at <http://news.cnet.com/Mobile-phones-that-track-your-buddies/2100-1039_3-6135209.html, retrieved Mar. 30, 2012, published on Nov. 14, 2006, 6 pages. |
| Richardson, Alexis, “Introduction to RabbitMQ”, Google UK, available at http://www.rabbitmq.com/resources/google-tech-talk-final/alexis-google-rabbitmq-talk.pdf, retrieved on Mar. 30, 2012, 33 pages, published on Sep. 25, 2008. |
| Richard Lippmann et al.; The Effect of Identifying Vulnerabilities and Patching Software on the Utility of Network Intrusion Detection; 2002 Springer; pp. 307-326; <http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-36084-0_17>. |
| Summerson, Cameron “5 Android Antivirus Apps Compared, Find Out Which Ones Are Worth Having!,” Android Headlines, available at http://androidheadlines.com/2011/03/5-android-antivirus-apps-comapred-find-out-which-ones-are-worth-having.html, retrieved on Mar. 30, 2012, published on Mar. 8, 2011, 9 pages. |
| Simone, “Playing with ActiveMQ,” Mostly Useless, available at http://www.mostly-useless.com/blog/2007/12/27/playing-with-activemq/, retrieved Mar. 30, 2012, published on Dec. 27, 2007, 6 pages. |
| Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon; “Securing Your Web Browser”, Dormann et al., web page downloaded Nov. 4, 2013 from http://www.cert.org/tech_tips/securing_browser/, pp. 1-17. |
| Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon; “Securing Your Web Browser”, Dormann et al., Internet Archive, Way Back Machine, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20131015224907/http://www.cert.org/tech_tips/securing_browsed, Retrieved Oct. 16, 2017,15 pages. |
| Song, Hui and Cao, Guohong. “Cache-Miss-Initiated Prefetch in Mobile Environments,” Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, Computer Communications, vol. 28, Issue 7, May 2, 2005, pp. 741-753. |
| Sprint Nextel, Mobile Locator, Internet Archive, Way Back Machine, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20080901070835/http://www.nextel.com/en/solutions/gps/mobile_locator.html, 2 pages, Retrieved Jan. 16, 2013. |
| Sprite Mobile, Sprite Backup, Internet Archive, Way Back Machine, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20080901220103/http://www.spritesoftware.com/?page_id=280, 4 pages, Retrieved Jan. 16, 2013. |
| Tedeschi, Bob, “In Choosing a New Phone, Online Research Goes Only So Far”, The New York Times, Oct. 7, 2009; downloaded Jul. 13, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/technology/personaltech/08smat.html?_r=0. |
| Teh, Joe, “Norton 360 Version 3.0 Review,”Mar. 9, 2009, Available at <http://techielobang-com/blog/2009/03/09/norton-360-version-30-review/> Retrieved Feb. 23, 2011, 12 pages. |
| TippingPoint “TippingPoint Security Management System (SMS)”, available at http://www.tippingpoint.com/products_sms.html, retrieved on Oct. 21, 2008, published on Mar. 31, 2005, 2 pages. |
| TrendMicro SmartPhone Protection Network, dated Jun. 2008. |
| Trillian, available at http://www.trillian.im/, retrieved on Sep. 14, 2011, published on Oct. 11, 2007, 24 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/255,635. Prosecution history available via USPTO IFW (including Office Action dated Mar. 24, 2011 and references cited.). |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/255,626. Prosecution history available via USPTO IFW (including Office Action dated Feb. 1, 2011 and references cited.). |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/255,621. Prosecution history available via USPTO IFW (including Office Action dated Apr. 13, 2011 and references cited.). |
| European Patent Application 16789745.3, Extended Search Report, dated Aug. 1, 2018. |
| International Patent Application PCT/US2016/028149, International Search Report and Written Opinion, dated May 17, 2016. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US2018/036562, dated Oct. 18, 2018. |
| Extended European Search Report, EP18814342.4, dated Nov. 17, 2020. |
| Title: Expressing Intent to Control Behavior of Application Components, U.S. Appl. No. 13/786,210, filed Mar. 5, 2013, Inventor(s): Timothy Wyatt, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 9,215,074, Issue Date: Dec. 15, 2015 |
| Title: Component Analysis of Software Applications on Computing Devices, U.S. Appl. No. 13/692,806, filed Dec. 3, 2012, Inventor(s): Timothy Wyatt, et al U.S. Pat. No. 9,407,443, Issue Date: Aug. 2, 2016 |
| Title: User Classification Based on Data Gathered from a Computing Device, U.S. Appl. No. 13/728,189, filed Dec. 27, 2012, Inventor(s): Kevin Mahaffey, et al U.S. Pat. No. 9,208,215, Issue Date: Dec. 8, 2015 |
| Title: Assessing Application Authenticity and Performing an Action in Response to an Evaluation Result, U.S. Appl. No. 14/105,950, filed Dec. 13, 2013, Inventor(s): Kevin Mahaffey, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 1,025,6979, Issue Date: Apr. 9, 2019. |
| Title: Monitoring Installed Applications on User Devices, U.S. Appl. No. 14/253,702, filed Apr. 15, 2014, Inventor(s): Kevin Mahaffey, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 9,992,025, Issue Date: Jun. 5, 2018. |
| Title: Identifying Manner of Usage for Software Assets in Applications on User Devices, U.S. Appl. No. 14/253,739, filed Apr. 15, 2014, Inventor(s): Kevin Mahaffey, et al, Status: Abandoned—Failure to Respond to an Office Action, Status Date: Mar. 18, 2018. |
| Title: Monitoring for Fraudulent or Harmful Behavior in Applications Being Installed on User Devices, U.S. Appl. No. 14/301,007, filed Jun. 10, 2014, Inventor(s): Kevin Mahaffey, et al, Status: Awaiting TC Resp, Issue Fee Payment Verified, Status Date: Jul. 31, 2019. |
| Title: Evaluating Authenticity of Applications Based on Assessing User Device Context for Increased Security, U.S. Appl. No. 16/532,304, filed Aug. 5, 2019, Inventor(s): Kevin Mahaffey, et al, Status: Docketed New Case—Ready for Examination, Status Date: Aug. 23, 2019 |
| Title: Determining Source of Side-loaded Software, U.S. Appl. No. 14/731,273, filed Jun. 4, 2015, Inventor(s): David Richardson, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 9,589,129, Issue Date: Mar. 7, 2017. |
| Title: Determining Source of Side-loaded Software Using Signature of Authorship, U.S. Appl. No. 15/427,491, filed Feb. 8, 2017, Inventor(s): David Richardson, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 9,940,454, Issue Date: Apr. 10, 2018. |
| Title: Determining Source of Side-loaded Software Using an Administrator Server, U.S. Appl. No. 15/909,796, filed Mar. 1, 2018, Inventor(s): David Richardson, et al, Status: Non Final Action dated May 2, 2019. |
| Title: Use of Device Risk Evaluation to Manage Access to Services, U.S. Appl. No. 15/619,356, filed Jun. 9, 2017, Inventor(s): Aaron Cockerill, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 1,021,8697, Issue Date: Feb. 26, 2019. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20190141030 A1 | May 2019 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 15619356 | Jun 2017 | US |
| Child | 16241504 | US |
