This application is related to: (i) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/677,049, filed concurrently herewith, and entitled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SECURING DIGITAL ASSETS USING PROCESS-DRIVEN SECURITY POLICIES,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference; (ii) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/405,587, filed Apr. 1, 2003, and entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SECURING DIGITAL ASSETS USING CONTENT TYPE DESIGNATIONS,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference; (iii) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/159,537, filed May 5, 2002, and entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SECURING DIGITAL ASSETS,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and (iv) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/127,109, filed Apr. 22, 2002, and entitled “EVALUATION OF ACCESS RIGHTS TO SECURED DIGITAL ASSETS,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to security systems for data and, more particularly, to security systems that protect data in an inter/intra enterprise environment.
2. Description of Related Art
The Internet is the fastest growing telecommunications medium in history. This growth and the easy access it affords have significantly enhanced the opportunity to use advanced information technology for both the public and private sectors. It provides unprecedented opportunities for interaction and data sharing among businesses and individuals. However, the advantages provided by the Internet come with a significantly greater element of risk to the confidentiality and integrity of information. The Internet is an open, public and international network of interconnected computers and electronic devices. Without proper security means, an unauthorized person or machine may intercept information traveling across the Internet and even gain access to proprietary information stored in computers that interconnect to the Internet.
There are many efforts in progress aimed at protecting proprietary information traveling across the Internet and controlling access to computers carrying the proprietary information. Cryptography allows people to carry over the confidence found in the physical world to the electronic world, thus allowing people to do business electronically without worries of deceit and deception. Every day millions of people interact electronically, whether it is through e-mail, e-commerce (business conducted over the Internet), ATM machines, or cellular phones. The perpetual increase of information transmitted electronically has led to an increased reliance on cryptography.
One of the ongoing efforts in protecting the proprietary information traveling across the Internet is to use one or more cryptographic techniques to secure a private communication session between two communicating computers on the Internet. The cryptographic techniques provide a way to transmit information across an unsecure communication channel without disclosing the contents of the information to anyone eavesdropping on the communication channel. Using an encryption process in a cryptographic technique, one party can protect the contents of the data in transit from access by an unauthorized third party, yet the intended party can read the encrypted data after using a corresponding decryption process.
A firewall is another security measure that protects the resources of a private network from users of other networks. However, it has been reported that many unauthorized accesses to proprietary information occur from the inside, as opposed to from the outside. An example of someone gaining unauthorized access from the inside is when restricted or proprietary information is accessed by someone within an organization who is not supposed to do so. Due to the open nature of networks, contractual information, customer data, executive communications, product specifications, and a host of other confidential and proprietary intellectual property remain available and vulnerable to improper access and usage by unauthorized users within or outside a supposedly protected perimeter.
Many businesses and organizations have been looking for effective ways to protect their proprietary information. Typically, businesses and organizations have deployed firewalls, Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), and Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) to provide protection. Unfortunately, these various security means have been proven insufficient to reliably protect proprietary information residing on private networks. For example, depending on passwords to access sensitive documents from within often causes security breaches when the password of a few characters long is leaked or detected. Consequently, various cryptographic means are deployed to provide restricted access to electronic data in security systems.
Various security criteria, such as encryption or decryption keys, are often used to facilitate restricted access to data in security systems. Conventional uses of security criteria provide static assignment of security criteria to electronic resources being secured. However, the assigning of security criteria in a static manner does not permit subsequent alteration of the security criteria under certain conditions. Although an administrator may be able to change the security criteria for an electronic resource that has already been secured, such alteration would be a manual process only available to the administrator. Further, given that an administrator is managing secure electronic resources (e.g., data) for many users, it is not feasible for the administrator to participate in the changing of security criteria for a large volume of electronic resources. Therefore, there is a need to provide more effective ways for security systems to permit security criteria imposed on electronic resources to be changed, thereby altering the security used to protect the electronic resources.
The invention relates to techniques for dynamically altering security criteria used in a system (e.g., a file security system for an enterprise). The security criteria pertains to keys (or ciphers) used by the file security system to encrypt electronic files to be secured, or to decrypt electronic files already secured. The security criteria can, among other things, include keys that are required to gain access to electronic files. Here, the keys can be changed automatically as electronic files transition between different states of a process-driven security policy. The dynamic alteration of security criteria enhances the flexibility and robustness of the security system. In other words, access restrictions on electronic files can be dependent on the state of the process-driven security policy and enforced in conjunction with one or more cryptographic methods.
According to one aspect of the invention, methods and systems for securing electronic files use process-driven security policies. As an electronic file transitions through a process, access restrictions can automatically change. The process can be defined by a number of states, with each state having different security policies associated therewith. The security policies control, for example, which users are permitted to access the electronic files, or how the electronic files can be accessed. In one embodiment, the access restrictions are imposed by one or more keys that are required to decrypt electronic files that were previously secured. The process can also be referred to as a workflow, where the workflow has a series of states through which files (documents) can move, where different security policies can be imposed at different states.
Another aspect of the invention is that process-driven security policies are enforced or controlled at a server of a file security system. A group of one or more electronic documents are bound together and progress together through states of a process specified by process-driven security policies. The server can automatically and remotely enforce the process-driven security policies on the group of electronic documents.
Still another aspect of the invention is that process-driven security policies are controlled at a client of a file security system. Here, each individual electronic document can be separately and independently bound to process-driven security policies. The process-driven security policies can thus operate at the client with little or no communication with a central server in most cases.
The process-driven security policies typically offer persistent states. Each state can specify a different set of users or groups of users that are permitted access to an electronic document. The states are also independent of the electronic documents themselves.
The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a method, system, device, and computer readable medium. Several embodiments of the invention are discussed below.
As a document security system for restricting access to documents, one embodiment of the invention includes at least: a process-driven security policy that includes a plurality of states and transition rules, each of the states corresponding to one or more access restrictions, and the transition rules specify when the secured document is to transition from one state to another; and an access manager that determines whether access to a secured document is permitted by a requestor based on the state and the corresponding one or more access restrictions thereof for the process-driven security policy.
As a method for transitioning at least one secured document through a security-policy state machine having a plurality of states, one embodiment of the invention includes at least the acts of: receiving an event; determining whether the event causes a state transition for the at least one secured document from a former state to a subsequent state of the security-policy state machine; and automatically transitioning from the former state to the subsequent state of the security-policy state machine when the determining determines that the event causes the state transition.
As a method for imposing access restrictions on electronic documents, one embodiment of the invention includes at least the acts of: providing at least one process-driven security policy at a server machine, the process-driven security policy having a plurality of states associated therewith, each of the states having distinct access restrictions; providing a reference to the process-driven security policy at a client machine, the reference referring to the process-driven security policy resident on the server machine; associating the reference to an electronic document; transitioning the process-driven security policy from one state to a current state; and subsequently determining at the server computer whether a requestor is permitted to access the electronic document, the access being based on a current state of the process-driven security policy, the current state being informed to the server computer by sending the reference to the server computer.
As a computer readable medium including at least computer program code for transitioning at least one secured document through a security-policy state machine having a plurality of states, one embodiment of the invention includes at least: computer program code for receiving an event; computer program code for determining whether the event causes a state transition for the at least one secured document from a former state to a subsequent state of the security-policy state machine; and computer program code for automatically transitioning from the former state to the subsequent state of the security-policy state machine when the computer program code for determining determines that the event causes the state transition.
As a computer readable medium including at least computer program code for imposing access restrictions on electronic documents, one embodiment of the invention includes at least: computer program code for providing at least one process-driven security policy at a server machine, the process-driven security policy having a plurality of states associated therewith, each of the states having distinct access restrictions; computer program code for providing a reference to the process-driven security policy at a client machine, the reference referring to the process-driven security policy resident on the server machine; computer program code for associating the reference to an electronic document; computer program code for transforming the process-driven security policy from one state to a current state; and computer program code for determining at the server computer whether a requester is permitted to access the electronic document, the access being based on a current state of the process-driven security policy, the current state being informed to the server computer by sending the reference to the server computer.
Other objects, features, and advantages of the present invention will become apparent upon examining the following detailed description of an embodiment thereof, taken in conjunction with the attached drawings.
These and other features, aspects, and advantages of the invention will become better understood with regard to the following description, appended claims and accompanying drawings, wherein:
The invention relates to techniques for dynamically altering security criteria used in a system (e.g., a file security system for an enterprise). The security criteria pertains to keys (or ciphers) used by the file security system to encrypt electronic files to be secured, or to decrypt electronic files already secured. The security criteria can, among other things, include keys that are required to gain access to electronic files. Here, the keys can be changed automatically as electronic files transition between different states of a process-driven security policy. The dynamic alteration of security criteria enhances the flexibility and robustness of the security system. In other words, access restrictions on electronic files can be dependent on the state of the process-driven security policy.
As used herein, a file may include, but not be limited to, one or more various types of documents, multimedia files, data, executable code, images and texts, and in some cases, a collection of files. Accordingly, a secured file means that an electronic file typically stored or presented in a form that is nearly impossible to read without authorization and authentication. Its purpose is to ensure privacy by keeping the content in a file hidden from anyone for whom it is not intended, even those who may have a copy of the file.
According to one aspect of the invention, methods and systems for securing electronic files use process-driven security policies. As an electronic file transitions through a process, access restrictions can automatically change or remain intact depending on the process. The process can be defined by a number of states, with each state having its corresponding security policies associated therewith. The security policies control, for example, which users are permitted to access the electronic files or how the electronic files can be accessed. In one embodiment, the access restrictions are imposed by one or more keys that are required to decrypt electronic files that were previously secured. The process can also be referred to as a workflow, where the workflow has a series of states through which files (documents) can move, where different security policies can be imposed at different states.
Another aspect of the invention is that process-driven security policies are controlled at a server of a file security system. A group of one or more electronic documents are bound together and progress together through states of a process specified by process-driven security policies. The server can automatically and remotely enforce the process-driven security policies on the group of electronic documents.
Still another aspect of the invention is that process-driven security policies are controlled at a client of a file security system. Here, each individual electronic document can be separately and independently bound to process-driven security policies. The process-driven security policies can thus operate at the client with little or no communication with a central server.
The process-driven security policies typically offer persistent states. Each state can specify a different set of users that are permitted access to an electronic document. The states are also independent of the electronic documents themselves.
Secured files are files that require one or more keys, passwords, access privileges, etc. to gain access to their content. The security is often provided through encryption and access rules. The files, for example, can pertain to documents, multimedia files, data, executable code, images and text. In general, a secured file can only be accessed by authenticated users with appropriate access rights or privileges. In one embodiment, each secured file is provided with a header portion and a data portion, where the header portion contains, or points to, security information. The security information is used to determine whether access to associated data portions of secured files is permitted.
In one embodiment, security information provided with an electronic document controls restrictive access to a data portion which is encrypted. The security information can employ access rules together with cipher keys (e.g., a file key and various other keys) to ensure that only those users with proper access privileges or rights can access the encrypted data portion.
As used herein, a user may mean a human user, a software agent, a group of users, a member of the group, a device and/or application. Besides a human user who needs to access a secured document, a software application or agent sometimes needs to access secured files in order to proceed. Accordingly, unless specifically stated, the “user” as used herein does not necessarily pertain to a human being.
The invention is related to processes, systems, architectures and software products for providing pervasive security to digital assets (e.g., electronic documents). The invention is particularly suitable in an enterprise environment. In general, pervasive security means that digital assets are secured (i.e., secured data) and can only be accessed by authenticated users with appropriate access rights or privileges. Digital assets may include, but not be limited to, various types of documents, multimedia files, data, executable code, images and texts.
In the following description, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the invention. However, it will become obvious to those skilled in the art that the invention may be practiced without these specific details. The description and representation herein are the common meanings used by those experienced or skilled in the art to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures, components, and circuitry have not been described in detail to avoid unnecessarily obscuring aspects of the invention.
Reference herein to “one embodiment” or “an embodiment” means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment can be included in at least one embodiment of the invention. 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. Further, the order of blocks in process flowcharts or diagrams representing one or more embodiments of the invention do not inherently indicate any particular order, nor imply any limitations in the invention.
Embodiments of the invention are discussed herein with reference to
The process-driven security policy 100 is used by a file (document) security system to restrict access to files (documents). As files are placed in different ones of the states of the process-driven security policy 100, the access restrictions being utilized to secure access to the files typically changes. More particularly, as the files move from state-to-state in accordance with a process, the access restrictions utilized by the files often changes. Indeed, the access restrictions can change automatically based upon the state the file is in, and thus does not necessarily require user or administrator interaction in order to change the access restrictions. Typically, access restrictions will designate which users (or groups of users) are able to access secure documents, whether certain clearance levels are needed, whether off-line access is permitted, and which of various other possible criteria or considerations are utilized. A set of access restrictions for the various states can be referred to as a security policy.
A file can transition between the various states of the process-driven security policy 100 in a controlled manner. Often, the process-driven security policy 100 defines the transitions that are permissible. In one embodiment, the state transitions are event-driven. The events can be either internal to the file security system or external to the file security system. When event-driven, the transitions between states can be automatic and thus do not require user or administrator interaction. However, some events can be triggered or initiated by user or administrator interaction.
As shown in
The transition process 200 begins with a decision 202 that determines whether an event relevant to the process-driven security policy imposed on a document has been received. Typically, the process-driven security policy is imposed on the document by a file security system. One implementation of a process-driven security policy is a security policy state machine. The process-driven security policy (or security policy state machine) has a plurality of states, and transition rules for transitioning between the various states. In any case, the transition process 200 monitors events that are relevant to the process-driven security policy (or the security policy state machine). When the decision 202 determines that an event has not yet been received, the transition process 200 awaits such an event.
On the other hand, when the decision 202 determines that an event has been received, then the transition process 200 determines 204 whether the event causes a state transition. Here, the rules by which transitions between states occur, i.e., transition rules, can be specified by the process-driven security policy. For example, an administrator for the document security system may have created the process-driven security policy and thus defined its states and its transition rules. Hence, when an event is received, it is evaluated to determine 204 whether the event causes a state transition. When the decision 206 determines that a state transition is to occur, the state transition is performed 208 to transfer one or more documents from one state to another state. Alternatively, when the decision 206 determines that a state transition is not to occur, the block 208 is bypassed so that no state transition is performed. Once the one or more documents transition to the new state, the access restrictions for the new state govern when access to the documents, which are secured, is permitted. Following the block 208 or its being bypassed, the transition process 200 is complete and ends.
A file security system can enforce the security policy state machine 300 on one or more electronic documents. In doing so, the security policy state machine 300 is typically described in a textual manner, such as in a markup language (e.g., XML), pseudo-code, and the like. One representative example of a textual description of the security policy state machine 300 is as follows.
State=DRAFT
Accessors=Finance, unrestricted
Deny off-line access
Grant audit access
State=FINAL DRAFT
Accessors=Finance, restricted; Finance Managers, unrestricted
Deny off-line access
Grant audit access
State=RETAIN
Accessors=All
Allow off-line access
Deny audit access
State=DELETE
Accessors=None
Note that in the Draft state, the users with permission to access the electronic document (referred to as “Accessors”) include those users that are members of a Finance group. The access is also unrestricted in this Draft state. Also, in the Draft state, offline access to the electronic document is not permitted, but audit access is permitted. Note, however, in the Final Draft state, those users that are members of the Finance group now only have restricted access. In one embodiment, restricted access means that the data (content) of the document can be accessed but that such data cannot be further disseminated through operations such as cut, paste, print, etc.
Additionally, the security policy state machine 300 transitions between the various states in accordance with transition rules. Typically, the transition rules are triggered by the occurrence of events. The events can be internal or external. The external events can originate from users or from another system (e.g., a document management system). In a specific case of the security policy state machine 300, a representative description of a transition rule is as follows.
Some exemplary transition rules using internal or external events are as follows.
Of these exemplary transition rules, the first and last transition rules are triggered by internal events and the others are triggered by external events. For example, the external events can be from a document management system that is separate from the file (document) security system.
The document securing system 400 creates or obtains an electronic document 402 that is to be secured. The electronic document 402 is then supplied to a securing engine 404. The securing engine 404 receives a designation of a classifier 406 to be associated with the electronic document 402. The classifier 406 refers to an accessor user list, and possibly other forms of access restriction. In one embodiment, the classifier 406 can be a label to a categorization of the electronic document with respect to a plurality of different types of content. Examples of classifiers include: External, Financial, Sales Forecast, Sales Quota, Press Release, Budget, Marketing Presentation, Marketing Planning, Engineering Planning, Engineering Project X, Engineering Specification, and Engineering Design. In addition, the securing engine 404 can receive a process-driven security policy 407 to be used to secure the electronic document 402. In one embodiment, the process-driven security policy 407 is chosen from a plurality of process-driven security policies based on the classifier 406. In another embodiment, the process-driven security policy 407 is made up of states, and each of the states correspond to one of the classifiers 406.
The securing engine 404 operates to produce a secured electronic document 408. The secured electronic document 408 includes an encrypted data portion 410 and a header portion 412. The encrypted data portion 410 is the electronic document 402 after having been encrypted. The encryption can result from the use of one or more keys and encryption algorithms. For stronger security, a hierarchy of encryption may be used. The header portion 412 is also referred to as encrypted security information, because the header portion 412 includes the encrypted security information as at least a substantial component of the header portion 412. The encrypted security information can include a classifier, access rules and at least one key (e.g., file key, private state key). The access rules and the keys utilized to encrypt the electronic document 402 depend on the state of the associated process-driven security policy 407 which is indicated by the classifier. Initially, the electronic document 402 is encrypted in accordance with an initial state of the process-driven security policy 407. Typically, one of the states of the process-driven security policy 407 is designated as its initial state.
Hence, if the encrypted security information is able to be decrypted, the file key is able to be retrieved from the header portion 412 and used to decrypt the encrypted data portion 410 of the secured electronic document 408, as will be discussed in more detail below with respect to
Additional details on securing files or documents is provided in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/159,537, filed May 5, 2002, and entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SECURING DIGITAL ASSETS,” which is hereby incorporated by reference.
The document securing process 440 initially opens or creates 442 an electronic document. Next, a decision 444 determines whether the electronic document is to be secured. When the decision 444 determines that the electronic document is not to be secured, then the electronic document is saved 446 in the normal course. Here, the electronic document is not secured but simply stored in a conventional fashion.
On the other hand, when the decision 444 determines that the electronic document is to be secured, then an initial policy reference for the electronic document is assigned 448. In one implementation, the policy reference is a pointer to an accessor user list. A classifier for an electronic document can be assigned in a variety of different ways. In one implementation, a user or creator of the electronic document is able to assign the classifier. For example, the user or creator of the electronic document might interact with a graphical user interface to select a classifier from a list of available classifiers.
After the policy reference is assigned 448, the electronic document is secured 450 in accordance with a process-driven security policy associated with the policy reference. Here, the electronic document is typically secured in accordance with the initial state of the process-driven security policy. Thereafter, the secured electronic document is saved 452. Following the operations 452 and 446, the document securing process 440 is complete and ends. The subsequent transitions to other states of the process-driven security policy is discussed below with reference to
According to the encryption process 460, a file key is obtained 462. In one implementation, the file key is a symmetric key used to encrypt and decrypt a data portion of a secured document. After the file key is obtained 462, the data portion of the electronic document is then encrypted 464 using at least the file key.
In one embodiment, each of the different states of the process-driven security policy would include a different public state key that would be used to encrypt documents being placed into such state. An initial state of the process-driven security policy associated with the policy reference is then determined 466. Next, a public state key associated with the initial state is obtained 468. Typically, the public state key is a public key of a public and private cryptography key pair that is to be utilized to encrypt documents associated with the initial state of the process-driven security policy. Once the public state key associated with the initial state has been obtained 468, the file key is encrypted 470 using the public state key. Thereafter, security information is attached 472 to the encrypted data portion. The security information, for example, can include the policy reference and the encrypted file key. For example, the policy reference can be used as a state indicator to identify the applicable state of the process-driven security policy.
In one embodiment, the policy reference has a key pair associated therewith. The file (document) security system (e.g., server) maintains the current state of the process-driven security policy associated with the policy reference. The public key in this pair is used to encrypt the document and bind it with the process-driven security policy.
In this implementation, the electronic document has at least a data portion and a security information portion. The data portion is encrypted using at least the file key. In one embodiment, the electronic document can be encrypted many times over such that a plurality of different keys are needed to encrypt (and consequently to decrypt) the electronic document. In another embodiment, a key used to encrypt the electronic document can be encrypted many times over after being used to encrypt the electronic document. In other words, although the document securing process 440 refers to encryption of the data portion through use of the file key and then encryption of the file key through use of the public state key, it should be understood that additional keys can be used to directly encrypt the electronic document, or indirectly encrypt the electronic document by encrypting a key used to encrypt the electronic document. For example, the additional keys might include one or more of a classifier key, a user or group key, or a security clearance level key.
The security information is typically provided in a header (or header portion) of the electronic document. The header is thus typically attached to the encrypted data portion. The header together with the encrypted data portion represents a secured electronic document. Typically, the security information would include access rules, a policy reference (classifier), a private state key and at least one key (e.g., file key). The at least one key can be encrypted by a public state key that corresponds to the state, as well as possibly one or more other keys. The at least one key is often secured by encrypting either the at least one key itself, or the security information more generally, through use of one or more various other keys (e.g., group key, content type key, and/or clearance key).
The document unsecuring system 500 cooperates to receive a secured electronic document 502. The secured electronic document typically includes an encrypted data portion 504 and a header 506. Often, but not necessarily, the header 506 is encrypted. The header 506 includes a policy reference and at least one key, e.g., a file key, that is needed to decrypt the encrypted data portion 504. The secured electronic document 502 is supplied to an unsecuring engine 508. The unsecuring engine 508 examines the header 506 of the secured electronic document 502 to determine the policy reference. The policy reference identifies a process-based security policy 510, or a state thereof, that governs the security of the secured document 502. The unsecuring engine 508 also receives at least that portion of the process-based security policy that pertains to the state of the secured electronic document 502. In other words, the unsecuring engine 508 needs the access restrictions for the current state of the process-driven security policy 510 to unsecure the secured electronic document 502, and thus gain access to its contents. The unsecuring engine 508 then evaluates whether the secured electronic document 502 is permitted to be accessed by the requester, based on the access restrictions so retrieved. When the unsecuring engine 508 determines that the requestor is authorized to access the secured electronic document 502, then the unsecuring engine 508 can decrypt the encrypted data portion 504 of the secured electronic document 502 (and also eliminate at least significant portions of the header 506) to yield an electronic document 512 that is unsecured. In other words, the electronic document 512 is primarily (or exclusively) composed of the data portion of the encrypted data portion 504 after such has been decrypted. The decryption can involve the use of a number of keys (e.g., private keys) and decryption algorithms, one of such keys is the file key of the secured electronic document, and another of such keys is the private state key for the state of the secured electronic document.
In any case, once a request to access a secured electronic document has been received, a policy reference for the secured electronic document to be accessed is determined 524. In one embodiment, the security information portion of a secured electronic document contains the policy reference. Next, a process-driven security policy associated with the policy reference is determined 526. Then, the current state of the process-driven security policy for the secured electronic document is determined 528. In one embodiment, the policy reference (or other indicator) can indicate the current state of the state-based security policy. Next, access restriction are obtained 530 for the current state. Each of the different states of the process-driven security policy often has a different access restriction. Here, the state policy restrictions are those restrictions associated with the current state of a process-driven security policy.
Thereafter, a decision 542 determines whether the state policy restrictions are satisfied. In other words, the secured electronic document to be accessed is presently in the current state of the process-driven security policy. This current state has the access restriction associated therewith, that must be satisfied in order to gain access to the secured electronic document. Hence, the decision 542 determines whether the access restriction is satisfied by the requestor (e.g., user or group of users) seeking access to the secured electronic document. When the decision 542 determines that the access restriction is not satisfied, access to the secured electronic document is denied 544.
On the other hand, when the decision 542 determines that the access restriction has been satisfied, then a data portion of the secured electronic document is decrypted 546. Then, the data portion of the electronic document is returned 548 to the requestor. Following the block 548, as well as following the block 544, the document access process 520 ends.
The transition process 600 initially obtains 602 an encrypted file key from the electronic document. Typically, the encrypted file key would be retrieved from the security information portion of the electronic document. Then, a private state key is obtained 604. Here, the private state key is associated with a previous state of a process-driven security policy that is imposed on the electronic document. After the private state key has been obtained 604, the encrypted file key is decrypted 606 using the private state key. At this point, the file key has been decrypted and could be used to decrypt the data portion of the electronic document. However, the file key is instead re-encrypted in accordance with a next (current) state. More specifically, a public state key is then obtained 608. The public state key is associated with the next state of the state-based security policy that is to be imposed on the electronic document. Then, using the public state key, the file key can be encrypted 610. Thereafter, the electronic document is re-saved 612. By re-saving 612 the electronic document, the security information portion of the electronic document is updated to include the new encrypted file key in accordance with the next state (or current state). Note that the data portion of the electronic document (which is secured by the file key) advantageously need not be decrypted in the transition process 600; instead, the encryption of the file key is changed whenever a state transition occurs. Following the block 612, the transition process 600 is complete.
In one embodiment, to effect a state transition, the user only needs permission to effect the state transition. Additionally, users authorized to effect state changes with respect to a document, might be quite different from users authorized to access the document.
Secured files may be stored in any one of the devices 701, 702, 704 and 706. When a user of the client machine 701 attempts to exchange a secured file with a remote destination 712 being used by an external user, one or more of the processing 300, 400, 500 and 600 discussed above are activated to ensure that the requested secure file is delivered without compromising the security imposed on the secured file.
According to one embodiment, a created document is caused to go through an encryption process that is preferably transparent to a user. In other words, the created document is encrypted or decrypted under the authoring application so that the user is not aware of the process. One or more keys, such as a state key, a user key and/or a content type key, can be used to retrieve a file key to decrypt an encrypted document. Typically, the user key is associated with an access privilege for the user or a group of users, and the content type key is associated with the type of content of the created document. For a given secured document, only a user with proper access privileges can access the secured document.
In one setting, a secured document may be uploaded via the network 710 from the client computer 701 to a computing or storage device 702 that may serve as a central repository. Although not necessary, the network 710 can provide a private link between the computer 701 and the computing or storage device 702. Such link may be provided by an internal network in an enterprise or a secured communication protocol (e.g., VPN and HTTPS) over a public network (e.g., the Internet). Alternatively, such link may simply be provided by a TCP/IP link. As such, secured documents on the computer 702 may be remotely accessed.
In another setting, the computer 701 and the computing or storage device 702 are inseparable, in which case the computing or storage device 702 may be a local store to retain secured documents or receive secured network resources (e.g., dynamic Web contents, results of a database query, or a live multimedia feed). Regardless of where the secured documents or secured resources are actually located, a user, with proper access privileges, can access the secured documents or resources from the client computer 701 or the computing or storage device 702 using an application (e.g., Microsoft Internet Explorer, Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat Reader).
Accordingly, respective local modules in local servers, in coordination with the central server, form a distributed mechanism to provide distributed access control enforcement. Such distributed access control enforcement ensures the dependability, reliability and scalability of centralized access control management undertaken by the central server for an entire enterprise or a business location.
The security information 826 can vary depending upon implementation. However, as shown in
The invention is preferably implemented by software or a combination of hardware and software, but can also be implemented in hardware. The invention can also be embodied as computer readable code on a computer readable medium. The computer readable medium is any data storage device that can store data which can thereafter be read by a computer system. Examples of the computer readable medium include read-only memory, random-access memory, CD-ROMs, DVDs, magnetic tape, optical data storage devices, and carrier waves. The computer readable medium can also be distributed over network-coupled computer systems so that the computer readable code is stored and executed in a distributed fashion.
The various embodiments, implementations and features of the invention noted above can be combined in various ways or used separately. Those skilled in the art will understand from the description that the invention can be equally applied to or used in various other settings with respect to different combinations, embodiments, implementations or features as provided in the description herein.
The invention may be practiced in two broad approaches: one, where document move asynchronously through a persistent workflow (here, the state changes are typically triggered by the users); and two, where documents move synchronously through a single-use workflow, a plurality of which however can be initiated from a workflow template (here, the state changes are typically due to administrator central command). The two approaches may be combined for use in a single enterprise. State changes due to external events may occur with both approaches.
The advantages of the invention are numerous. Different embodiments or implementations may yield one or more of the following advantages. One advantage of the invention is that file security systems are able to automatically enforce process-driven security policies on files (e.g., documents). The automatic nature of the enforcement of the process-driven security policies alleviates otherwise excessive burdens on an administrator. Another advantage of the invention is that changing of the security policies for files (e.g., documents) in accordance with a process allows greater flexibility in utilizing security policies. Still another advantage of the invention is that the process-driven security policies can be enforced centrally or locally. Still another advantage is that a workflow ordered through a centralized document management system (DMS) may be extended to a plurality of documents stored in a distributed fashion, thereby allowing a system administrator to use the well-known DMS interface.
The foregoing description of embodiments is illustrative of various aspects/embodiments of the present invention. Various modifications to the invention can be made to the preferred embodiments by those skilled in the art without departing from the true spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. Accordingly, the scope of the present invention is defined by the appended claims rather than the foregoing description of embodiments.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4203166 | Ehrsam et al. | May 1980 | A |
4238854 | Ehrsam et al. | Dec 1980 | A |
4423387 | Sempel | Dec 1983 | A |
4734568 | Watanabe | Mar 1988 | A |
4757533 | Allen et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4796220 | Wolfe | Jan 1989 | A |
4799258 | Davies | Jan 1989 | A |
4827508 | Shear | May 1989 | A |
4887204 | Johnson et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
4888800 | Marshall et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
4912552 | Allison et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4972472 | Brown et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
5032979 | Hecht et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5052040 | Preston et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5058164 | Elmer et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5144660 | Rose | Sep 1992 | A |
5204897 | Wyman | Apr 1993 | A |
5212788 | Lomet et al. | May 1993 | A |
5220657 | Bly et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5235641 | Nozawa et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5247575 | Sprague et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5267313 | Hirata | Nov 1993 | A |
5276735 | Boebert et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5301247 | Rasmussen et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5319705 | Halter et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5369702 | Shanton | Nov 1994 | A |
5375169 | Seheidt et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5404404 | Novorita | Apr 1995 | A |
5406628 | Beller et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5414852 | Kramer et al. | May 1995 | A |
5434918 | Kung et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5461710 | Bloomfield et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5467342 | Logston et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5495533 | Linehan et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5497422 | Tysen et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5499297 | Boebert | Mar 1996 | A |
5502766 | Boebert et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5535375 | Eshel et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5557765 | Lipner et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5570108 | McLaughlin et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5584023 | Hsu | Dec 1996 | A |
5600722 | Yamaguchi et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5606663 | Kadooka | Feb 1997 | A |
5619576 | Shaw | Apr 1997 | A |
5638501 | Gough et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5640388 | Woodhead et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5655119 | Davy | Aug 1997 | A |
5661668 | Yemini et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5661806 | Nevoux et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5671412 | Christiano | Sep 1997 | A |
5673316 | Auerbach et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5677953 | Dolphin | Oct 1997 | A |
5680452 | Shanton | Oct 1997 | A |
5682537 | Davies et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5684987 | Mamiya et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5689688 | Strong et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5689718 | Sakurai et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5699428 | McDonnal et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5708709 | Rose | Jan 1998 | A |
5715403 | Stefik | Feb 1998 | A |
5717755 | Shanton | Feb 1998 | A |
5719941 | Swift et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5720033 | Deo | Feb 1998 | A |
5729734 | Parker et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5732265 | Dewitt et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5745573 | Lipner et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745750 | Porcaro | Apr 1998 | A |
5748736 | Mittra | May 1998 | A |
5751287 | Hahn et al. | May 1998 | A |
5757920 | Misra et al. | May 1998 | A |
5765152 | Erickson | Jun 1998 | A |
5768381 | Hawthorne | Jun 1998 | A |
5778065 | Hauser et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5778350 | Adams et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5781711 | Austin et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5787169 | Eldridge et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5787173 | Seheidt et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5787175 | Carter | Jul 1998 | A |
5790789 | Suarez | Aug 1998 | A |
5790790 | Smith et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5813009 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5821933 | Keller et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5825876 | Peterson | Oct 1998 | A |
5835592 | Chang et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5835601 | Shimbo et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5850443 | Van Oorschot et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5857189 | Riddle | Jan 1999 | A |
5862325 | Reed et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5870468 | Harrison | Feb 1999 | A |
5870477 | Sasaki et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5881287 | Mast | Mar 1999 | A |
5892900 | Ginter et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5893084 | Morgan et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5898781 | Shanton | Apr 1999 | A |
5922073 | Shimada | Jul 1999 | A |
5923754 | Angelo et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933498 | Schneck et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5944794 | Okamoto et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5953419 | Lohstroh et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5968177 | Batten-Carew et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5970502 | Salkewicz et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5978802 | Hurvig | Nov 1999 | A |
5987440 | O'Neil et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991879 | Still | Nov 1999 | A |
5999907 | Donner | Dec 1999 | A |
6011847 | Follendore, III | Jan 2000 | A |
6014730 | Ohtsu | Jan 2000 | A |
6023506 | Ote et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6031584 | Gray | Feb 2000 | A |
6032216 | Schmuck et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6035404 | Zhao | Mar 2000 | A |
6038322 | Harkins | Mar 2000 | A |
6044155 | Thomlinson et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6055314 | Spies et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6058424 | Dixon et al. | May 2000 | A |
6061790 | Bodnar | May 2000 | A |
6069057 | Wu | May 2000 | A |
6070244 | Orchier et al. | May 2000 | A |
6085323 | Shimizu et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6088717 | Reed et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6088805 | Davis et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6098056 | Rusnak et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6101507 | Cane et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6105131 | Carroll | Aug 2000 | A |
6122630 | Strickler et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6134327 | Van Oorschot | Oct 2000 | A |
6134658 | Multerer et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6134660 | Boneh et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6134664 | Walker | Oct 2000 | A |
6141754 | Choy | Oct 2000 | A |
6145084 | Zuili | Nov 2000 | A |
6148338 | Lachelt et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6158010 | Moriconi et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6161139 | Win et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6182142 | Win et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185684 | Pravetz et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192408 | Vahalia et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199070 | Polo-Wood et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6205549 | Pravetz | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6212561 | Sitaraman et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6223285 | Komuro et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226618 | Downs et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6226745 | Wiederhold | May 2001 | B1 |
6240188 | Dondeti et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6249755 | Yemini et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6249873 | Richard et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253193 | Ginter et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6260040 | Kauffman et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6260141 | Park | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263348 | Kathrow et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266420 | Langford et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272631 | Thomlinson et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6272632 | Carman et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282649 | Lambert et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6289450 | Pensak et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6289458 | Garg et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292895 | Baltzley | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292899 | McBride | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6295361 | Kadansky et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6299069 | Shona | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6301614 | Najork et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6308256 | Folmsbee | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6308273 | Goertzel et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6314408 | Salas et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6314409 | Schneck et al. | Nov 2001 | B2 |
6317777 | Skarbo et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6332025 | Takahashi et al. | Dec 2001 | B2 |
6336114 | Garrison | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6339423 | Sampson et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6339825 | Pensak et al. | Jan 2002 | B2 |
6341164 | Dilkie et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6343316 | Sakata | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6347374 | Drake et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6349337 | Parsons et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6351813 | Mooney et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6356903 | Baxter et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6356941 | Cohen | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6357010 | Viets et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363480 | Perlman | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366298 | Haitsuka et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6370249 | Van Oorschot | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381698 | Devanbu et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385644 | Devine et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6389433 | Bolosky et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6389538 | Gruse et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6393420 | Peters | May 2002 | B1 |
6405315 | Burns et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6405318 | Rowland | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6408404 | Ladwig | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6421714 | Rai et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6442688 | Moses et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442695 | Dutcher et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6446090 | Hart | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6449721 | Pensak et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6453353 | Win et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6453419 | Flint et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6466476 | Wong et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466932 | Dennis et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477544 | Bolosky et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487662 | Kharon et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6490680 | Scheidt et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505300 | Chan et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6510349 | Schneck et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6519700 | Ram et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6529956 | Smith et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6530020 | Aoki | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6530024 | Proctor | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6542608 | Scheidt et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6549623 | Scheidt et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6550011 | Sims | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6557039 | Leong et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6567914 | Just et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6571291 | Chow | May 2003 | B1 |
6574733 | Langford | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6584466 | Serbinis et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6587878 | Merriam | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6587946 | Jakobsson | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6588673 | Chan et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6591295 | Diamond et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6594662 | Sieffert et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6598161 | Kluttz et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6601170 | Wallace, Jr. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6603857 | Batten-Carew et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6608636 | Roseman | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6611599 | Natarajan | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6611846 | Stoodley | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6615349 | Hair | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6615350 | Schell et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6625650 | Stelliga | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6625734 | Marvit et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6629140 | Fertell et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6629243 | Kleinman et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6633311 | Douvikas et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6640307 | Viets et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6646515 | Jun et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6647388 | Numao et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6678835 | Shah et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6683954 | Searle | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6687822 | Jakobsson | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6693652 | Barrus et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6698022 | Wu | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6711683 | Laczko et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6718361 | Basani et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6735701 | Jacobson | May 2004 | B1 |
6738908 | Bonn et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6751573 | Burch | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6754657 | Lomet | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6754665 | Futagami et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6775779 | England et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6779031 | Picher-Dempsey | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6782403 | Kino et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6801999 | Venkatesan et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6807534 | Erickson | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6807636 | Hartman et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6810389 | Meyer | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6810479 | Barlow et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6816871 | Lee | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6816969 | Miyazaki et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6826698 | Minkin et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6834333 | Yoshino et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6834341 | Bahl et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6842825 | Geiner et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6845452 | Roddy et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6851050 | Singhal et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6862103 | Miura et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6865555 | Novak | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6870920 | Henits | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6874139 | Krueger et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6877010 | Smith-Semedo et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6877136 | Bess et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6882994 | Yoshimura et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6889210 | Vainstein | May 2005 | B1 |
6891953 | DeMello et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6892201 | Brown et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6892306 | En-Seung et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6898627 | Sekiguchi | May 2005 | B1 |
6907034 | Begis | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6909708 | Krishnaswamy et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6915425 | Xu et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6915434 | Kuroda et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6915435 | Merriam | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6920558 | Sames et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6922785 | Brewer et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6924425 | Naples et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6931450 | Howard et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6931530 | Pham et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6931597 | Prakash | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6938042 | Aboulhosn et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6938156 | Wheeler et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6941355 | Donaghey et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6941456 | Wilson | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6941472 | Moriconi et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6944183 | Iyer et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6947556 | Matyas, Jr. et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6950818 | Dennis et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6950936 | Subramaniam et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6950941 | Lee et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6950943 | Bacha et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6952780 | Olsen et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6957261 | Lortz | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6959308 | Gramsamer et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6961849 | Davis et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6961855 | Rich et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6968060 | Pinkas | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6968456 | Tripathi et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6971018 | Witt et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6976259 | Dutta et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6978366 | Ignatchenko et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6978376 | Giroux et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6978377 | Asano et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6987752 | Sarraf et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6988133 | Zavalkovsky et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6988199 | Toh et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6990441 | Bolme et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6993135 | Ishibashi | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6996718 | Henry et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7000150 | Zunino et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7003116 | Riedel et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7003117 | Kacker et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7003560 | Mullen et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7003661 | Beattie et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7010689 | Matyas et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7010809 | Hori et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7013332 | Friedel et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7013485 | Brown et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7020645 | Bisbee et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7024427 | Bobbitt et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7035854 | Hsiao et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7035910 | Dutta et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7043637 | Bolosky et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7046807 | Hirano et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7047404 | Doonan et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7051213 | Kobayashi et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7058696 | Phillips et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7058978 | Feuerstein et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7073063 | Peinado | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7073073 | Nonaka et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7076067 | Raike et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7076312 | Law et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7076469 | Schreiber et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7076633 | Tormasov et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7080077 | Ramamurthy et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7095853 | Morishita | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7096266 | Lewin et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7099926 | Ims et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7103911 | Spies et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7107185 | Yemini et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7107269 | Arlein et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7107416 | Stuart et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7113594 | Boneh et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7116785 | Okaue | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7117322 | Hochberg et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7120635 | Bhide et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7120757 | Tsuge | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7124164 | Chemtob | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7126957 | Isukapalli et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7130964 | Ims et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7131071 | Gune et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7134041 | Murray et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7136903 | Phillips et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7139399 | Zimmermann | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7140044 | Redlich et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7145898 | Elliott | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7146388 | Stakutis et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7146498 | Takechi et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7159036 | Hinchliffe et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7168094 | Fredell | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7171557 | Kallahalla et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7174563 | Brownlie et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7177427 | Komuro et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7177839 | Claxton et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7178033 | Garcia | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7181017 | Nagel et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7185364 | Knouse et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7187033 | Pendharkar | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7188181 | Squier et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7194764 | Martherus et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7197638 | Grawrock et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7200747 | Kallahalla et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7203317 | Kallahalla et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7203968 | Asano et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7219230 | Riedel et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7224795 | Takada et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7225256 | Villavicencio | May 2007 | B2 |
7227953 | Shida | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7233948 | Shamoon et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7237002 | Estrada et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7249044 | Kumar et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7249251 | Todd et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7260555 | Rossmann et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7265764 | Alben et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7266684 | Jancula | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7280658 | Amini et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7281272 | Rubin et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7287055 | Smith et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7287058 | Loveland et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7290148 | Tozawa et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7308702 | Thomsen et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7313824 | Bala et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7319752 | Asano et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7340600 | Corella | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7343488 | Yadav | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7359517 | Rowe | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7362868 | Madoukh et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7380120 | Garcia | May 2008 | B1 |
7383586 | Cross et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7386529 | Kiessig et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7386599 | Piersol et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7401220 | Bolosky et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7406596 | Tararukhina et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7415608 | Bolosky et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7434048 | Shapiro et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7454612 | Bolosky et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7461157 | Ahlard et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7461405 | Boudreault et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7478243 | Bolosky et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7478418 | Supramaniam et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7484245 | Friedman et al. | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7496959 | Adelstein et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7509492 | Boyen et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7512810 | Ryan | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7539867 | Bolosky et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7555558 | Kenrich et al. | Jun 2009 | B1 |
7562232 | Zuili et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7565683 | Huang et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7631184 | Ryan | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7681034 | Lee et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7698230 | Brown et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7702909 | Vainstein | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7703140 | Nath et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7707427 | Kenrich et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7729995 | Alain et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7730543 | Nath et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7748045 | Kenrich et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
20010000265 | Schreiber et al. | Apr 2001 | A1 |
20010011254 | Clark | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010014882 | Stefik et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010018743 | Morishita | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010021255 | Ishibashi | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010021926 | Schnek et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010023421 | Numao et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010032181 | Jakstadt et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010033611 | Grimwood et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010034839 | Karjoth et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010042110 | Furusawa et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010044903 | Yamamoto et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010056541 | Matsuzaki et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20010056550 | Lee | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020003886 | Hillegass et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020007335 | Millard et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020010679 | Felsher | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020013772 | Peinado | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020016921 | Olsen et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020016922 | Richards et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020023208 | Jancula | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020026321 | Faris et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020027886 | Fischer et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020029340 | Pensak et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020031230 | Sweet et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035624 | Kim | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020036984 | Chiussi et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020041391 | Bannai | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020042756 | Kumar et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020046350 | Lordemann et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020050098 | Chan | May 2002 | A1 |
20020052981 | Yasuda | May 2002 | A1 |
20020056042 | van der Kaay et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020062240 | Morinville | May 2002 | A1 |
20020062245 | Niu et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020062451 | Scheidt et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020069077 | Brophy et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020069272 | Kim et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020069363 | Winburn | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020073320 | Rinkevich et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020077986 | Kobata et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020077988 | Sasaki et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078239 | Howard et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078361 | Giroux et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087479 | Malcolm | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020089602 | Sullivan | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091532 | Viets et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091745 | Ramamurthy et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091928 | Bouchard et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020093527 | Sherlock et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099947 | Evans | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020112035 | Carey et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020112048 | Gruyer et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120851 | Clarke | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020124180 | Hagman | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020129158 | Zhang et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020129235 | Okamoto et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133500 | Arlein et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133699 | Pueschel | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138571 | Trinon et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138726 | Sames et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138762 | Horne | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143710 | Liu | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020143906 | Tormasov et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020150239 | Carny et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020152302 | Motoyama et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020156726 | Kleckner et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020157016 | Russell et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020162104 | Raike et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020165870 | Chakraborty et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020166053 | Wilson | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020169963 | Seder et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020169965 | Hale et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020172367 | Mulder et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020174030 | Praisner et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020174109 | Chandy et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020174415 | Hines | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020176572 | Ananth | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178271 | Graham et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020184217 | Bisbee et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020184488 | Amini et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194484 | Bolosky et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020198798 | Ludwig et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030005168 | Leerssen et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030009685 | Choo et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014391 | Evans et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023559 | Choi et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030026431 | Hammersmith | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030028610 | Pearson | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030033528 | Ozog et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037029 | Holenstein et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037133 | Owens | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037237 | Abgrall et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037253 | Blank et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046176 | Hynes | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030046238 | Nonaka et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030046270 | Leung et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030050919 | Brown et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030051039 | Brown et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030056139 | Murray et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061482 | Emmerichs | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061506 | Cooper et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030074580 | Knouse et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030078959 | Yeung et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030079175 | Limantsev | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030081784 | Kallahalla et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030081785 | Boneh et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030081787 | Kallahalla et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030081790 | Kallahalla et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030088517 | Medoff | May 2003 | A1 |
20030088783 | DiPierro | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093457 | Goldick | May 2003 | A1 |
20030095552 | Bernhard et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030099248 | Speciner | May 2003 | A1 |
20030101072 | Dick et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030110169 | Zuili | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030110266 | Rollins et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030110280 | Hinchliffe et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030110397 | Supramaniam | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115146 | Lee et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115218 | Bobbitt et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115570 | Bisceglia | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120601 | Ouye | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120684 | Zuili et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030126434 | Lim et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030132949 | Fallon et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030154296 | Noguchi et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030154381 | Ouye | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030154396 | Godwin et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030154401 | Hartman et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030159048 | Matsumoto et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030159066 | Staw et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030163704 | Dick et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030165117 | Garcia-Luna-Aceves et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030172280 | Scheidt et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030177070 | Viswanath et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030177378 | Wittkotter | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030182310 | Charnock et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030182579 | Leporini et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030182584 | Banes et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030191938 | Woods et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030196096 | Sutton | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030197729 | Denoue et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030200202 | Hsiao et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030204692 | Tamer et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030208485 | Castellanos | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217264 | Martin et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217281 | Ryan | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217282 | Henry | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217333 | Smith et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030220999 | Emerson | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030222141 | Vogler et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030226013 | Dutertre | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233650 | Zaner et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040022390 | McDonald et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040025037 | Hair | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039781 | LaVallee et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040041845 | Alben et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040049702 | Subramaniam et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040064507 | Sakata | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040064710 | Vainstein | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040068524 | Aboulhosn et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040068664 | Nachenberg et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040073660 | Toomey | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040073718 | Johannessen et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088548 | Smetters et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040098580 | DeTreville | May 2004 | A1 |
20040103202 | Hildebrand et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040103280 | Balfanz et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040117371 | Bhide et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040131191 | Chen et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040133544 | Kiessig et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040158586 | Tsai | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040186845 | Fukui | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193602 | Liu et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193905 | Lirov et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193912 | Li et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199514 | Rosenblatt et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205576 | Chikirivao et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215956 | Venkatachary et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215962 | Douceur et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040243853 | Swander et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040254884 | Haber et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050021467 | Franzdonk | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021629 | Cannata et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050028006 | Leser et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050039034 | Doyle et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050050098 | Barnett | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071275 | Vainstein et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071657 | Ryan | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071658 | Nath et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050081029 | Thornton et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086531 | Kenrich | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091289 | Shappell et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091484 | Thornton et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050097061 | Shapiro et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050120199 | Carter | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138371 | Supramaniam | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138383 | Vainstein | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050168766 | Troyansky et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050177716 | Ginter et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050177858 | Ueda | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050198326 | Schlimmer et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050223242 | Nath | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050223414 | Kenrich et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050235154 | Serret-Avila | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050256909 | Aboulhosn et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050268033 | Ogasawara et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050273600 | Seeman | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283610 | Serret-Avila et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050288961 | Tabrizi | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005021 | Torrubia-Saez | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060075258 | Adamson et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075465 | Ramanathan et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060093150 | Reddy et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101285 | Chen et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060149407 | Markham et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060168147 | Inoue et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060184637 | Hultgren et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060230437 | Alexander Boyer et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060277316 | Wang et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070006214 | Dubal et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070067837 | Schuster | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070083575 | Leung et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070192478 | Louie et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070193397 | Hwan et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070294368 | Bomgaars et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080075126 | Yang | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20090254843 | Van Wie et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100047757 | McCurry et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100199088 | Nath | Aug 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0 672 991 | Sep 1995 | EP |
0 674 253 | Sep 1995 | EP |
0 809 170 | Nov 1997 | EP |
0 913 966 | May 1999 | EP |
0 913 967 | May 1999 | EP |
0 950 941 | Oct 1999 | EP |
0 950 941 | Oct 1999 | EP |
1 107 504 | Jun 2001 | EP |
1 107 504 | Jun 2001 | EP |
1 130 492 | Sep 2001 | EP |
1 154 348 | Nov 2001 | EP |
1324565 | Jul 2003 | EP |
2 328 047 | Feb 1999 | GB |
2001-036517 | Feb 2001 | JP |
2006-244044 | Sep 2006 | JP |
2009-020720 | Jan 2009 | JP |
WO 9641288 | Dec 1996 | WO |
WO 0056028 | Sep 2000 | WO |
WO 0161438 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO 0163387 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO 0163387 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO 0177783 | Oct 2001 | WO |
WO 0178285 | Oct 2001 | WO |
WO 0184271 | Nov 2001 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20050071275 A1 | Mar 2005 | US |