Method and system for containment of networked application client software by explicit human input

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8539063
  • Patent Number
    8,539,063
  • Date Filed
    Friday, August 29, 2003
    22 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, September 17, 2013
    12 years ago
Abstract
Method and system for containing networked application client software in order to perform specified transactions only given explicit consent of a legitimate user. In one embodiment, a confirmation interceptor intercepts a service request message, queries the user of the request for a confirmation, and then either passes the service request message onto server application software or drops the request, depending on the user's confirmation response. In soliciting and processing the confirmation response, query is formulated so that the required response cannot be automatically generated by software that attempts to automate and simulate the user's actions.
Description
BACKGROUND OF INVENTION

1. Field of Invention


The present invention relates generally to computer systems. More particularly, the present invention relates to explicit human input or confirmation for containing networked application client software.


2. Related Art


In a typical computer system, any software running on the system has full network access to, and the service usage of, any networked service or application that is needed directly or indirectly by users of the computer system. Furthermore, networked application client software is herein defined as software that makes use of network-accessible services by using network communication from the client host to the host(s) providing the service(s), and implementing the correct protocol for using such service(s).


Today, there exist numerous techniques for automating and simulating a user in order so networked application client software would specify, request, and use the aforementioned network-accessible services. Although such techniques as creating a human-input script or creating client software that utilizes the same application programming interface (API) as the user-interface software do provide many benefits, the same techniques may also be used to allow malicious or erroneous software to make service requests that are not intended by the user.


One solution to detect malicious usage of networked application client software is to use human interactive proofs. Conventionally, human interactive proofs have been used to gather human input with high assurance that input came from a human rather than software developed to simulate human input. However, human interactive proofs have thus far neither been used to detect whether application software operating on behalf of a user is functioning without the user's knowledge or authorization, nor used within an existing application workflow to obtain human confirmation for an application transaction request.


A second solution is to implement network firewalls that control the ability of networked application client software to send request to networked application server software. In one example of a firewall technique, a firewall acts as a “proxy” for client/server transmission control protocol (TCP) connections, that is, acts as a TCP connection endpoint for a connection with a client and a second connection for a server. A firewall may set up a dialogue with the user in order to notify the user that some software is attempting to traverse the firewall to the host that the user is using. The dialogue is considered successful if the user provides the information expected in the dialogues (e.g. a mouse click on an “OK” button rather than a mouse click on a “Cancel” or “Close” button). However, such dialogue techniques have not been used to provide any assurance of human participation in the dialogue, that is, the data entered on the user's side may well be provided via a script or other forms of automation.


SUMMARY OF INVENTION

Accordingly, the present invention provides a method and system for containing the capabilities of networked application client software so that it can perform specified transactions only given explicit consent or confirmation of a legitimate user. In one embodiment of the present invention, the consent from the user is obtained by means of dialogues with the user who is using the host executing the networked application client software. The dialogues are performed with one of several techniques for gathering human input, wherein the techniques are designed so it is extremely difficult for software to automate the user's responses to a dialogue, and much more difficult to automate the user's responses reliably for multiple arbitrary dialogues.


The present invention provides a method and system to reduce or eliminate the spread of malicious software via means such as electronic mail or internet messaging that include data attachments. The present invention prevents the spread of such malicious service usage attempts by intercepting a service request, notifying the user of the service request, and subsequently dropping the request if the user denies the request or does not confirm the notification.


The present invention may also be used to prevent unauthorized service usage wherein the service request comes from a non-legitimate user masquerading as a legitimate user. Moreover, the system of the present invention may be used to implement service on user demand in order to contain a workstation to a specific set of services where each channel through which the workstation communicates with a host in order to access a service has been explicitly authorized by a human user. Alternatively, the present invention may be used to implement access on demand to contain a server's usage of other services to only the services that the server needs.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

The accompanying drawings that are incorporated in and form a part of this specification illustrate embodiments of the invention and together with the description, serve to explain the principles of the invention:



FIG. 1 is a block diagram comprising: a server host having server application software and a confirmation interceptor; a data network, a workstation host having user/client software, automated client software, and a confirmation agent; and a user, interacting in accordance to a first embodiment of the present invention.



FIG. 2 is a block diagram comprising the same components as FIG. 1 wherein the components interact without the user in accordance to the first embodiment of the present invention.



FIG. 3 is a block diagram comprising: a server host having server application software and a confirmation interceptor; a data network, a first workstation host having user/client software, and automated client software; a second workstation host having a confirmation agent; and a user, interacting in accordance to a second embodiment of the present invention.



FIG. 4 is a block diagram comprising: a server host having server application software and a confirmation interceptor; a data network, a workstation host having user/client software, and automated client software; a user, and a communication device comprising a confirmation agent, on the same data network as the workstation host, interacting in accordance to a third embodiment of the present invention.



FIG. 5 is a block diagram comprising: a server host having server application software and a confirmation interceptor; a data network, a workstation host having user/client software, and automated client software; a user, a communication device comprising a confirmation agent, and a second data network, interacting in accordance to a fourth embodiment of the present invention.



FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for containing networked application client software in accordance to one embodiment of the present invention.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENT (S)

The following description is presented to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention and is provided in the context of a patent application and its requirements. In the following description, specific nomenclature is set forth to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. It will be apparent to one skilled in the art that the specific details may not be necessary to practice the present invention. Furthermore, various modifications to the embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art and the generic principles herein may be applied to other embodiments. Thus, the present invention is not intended to be limited to the embodiments shown but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and features described herein.



FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram 100 in accordance to a first embodiment of the present invention. Block diagram 100 comprises: a server host denoted 1, a data network denoted 7, a workstation host denoted 9, and a user denoted 21. The server host 1 further comprises server application software denoted 3 and a confirmation interceptor denoted 5. The workstation host 9 further comprises: user/client software denoted 13, automated client software denoted 17, and a confirmation agent denoted 19. The user/client software 13 and the automated client software 17 each in turn comprise a network programming interface denoted 15.


Furthermore, the server host 1 is herein defined as a computer that is running a service that may be used directly or indirectly by the user 21 via user/client software 13. The data network 7 is herein defined as an electronic medium used for communication between two or more computers, including communication between the server host 1 and the workstation host 9. The workstation host is herein defined as a computer used by the user 21 to execute client software and make use of services running on the server host 1. The server application software 3 is herein defined as software that runs on the server that implements one or more services. The confirmation interceptor 5 is herein defined as software that intercepts service requests and in some cases obtains user confirmation for service requests. The confirmation agent 19 is herein defined as software used to receive information from the confirmation interceptor 5 and implement a dialogue between the system and the user 21. For example, internet messaging (IM) software may be used as a confirmation agent 19 to provide interaction between the system and the user. The user/client software 13 is herein defined as software comprising user-interface software and client application software. The automated client software 17 is herein defined as software comprising client application logic (i.e. usage and network programming interface). The network programming interface 15 is herein defined as a set of data exchange protocols used to facilitate communication between the server application software 3 and client application software. Moreover, client application software is herein defined as software that runs on workstation host 9 and executes tasks that comprises: implementing an application's network programming interface, using the network programming interface to formulate service requests, sending the requests to the server host 1, and receiving responses from the server host 1 via the data network 7.



FIG. 1 illustrates one exemplary embodiment for containment of the capabilities of network application client software. The term containment as used in the description of this invention is herein defined as a mechanism for ensuring that for any designated service or any designated transaction of a designated service, a human user has provided explicit confirmation to process the service or the transaction.


A contained system observes several properties including: any software in the contained system can be prevented from using network-accessible services unless the use of such services results from human-originated actions; any software in the contained system can be prevented from using transactions implemented by a specific service unless the use of such transactions result from human-originated actions; and no autonomous software in the contained system can surreptitiously use services and/or transactions.


Moreover, the containment mechanism can be applied selectively to services based on the nature of the service and/or the nature of specific threats or possible harmful effects that could results from the service. For example, malicious software could spread via electronic mail or messaging that includes data attachments, therefore, whenever electronic mail with attachments is sent, the human user is asked to confirm the origin of the request. If malicious software attempts to spread to other hosts by sending itself via electronic mail, the user will be contacted to confirm that he/she has sent the message and its associated data attachment, and the malicious attempt would be thwarted when the human user denies the origin of the electronic mail.


Containment is accomplished in a system by controlling the ability of any software on a host system to use a communication conduit. A conduit is herein defined as a mechanism that has the ability to create a communication session from the local host system to a host system offering a service, wherein the session uses a communication channel for the service. For example, a common pair of conduits used by many workstation hosts are able to communicate over a conduit to a mail server using TCP and port 110 in order to access a POP3 service for receiving mail; the pair may also communicate over a conduit to a mail server using TCP and port 24 to access a simple mail transfer protocol (SMTP) service for sending mail.


An important aspect of conduits in practice is that most hosts have the ability to use a conduit to communicate with most services running on most other hosts. The number of such conduits is large and most of these conduits are rarely used but are available for accidental or intentional abuse with harmful results.


A system is considered contained if there is a containment mechanism that controls the usage of all conduits, and enables the conduits that are actually needed. In a contained system, control is applied both to the ability to make use of a conduit (to make requests for transactions implemented by the server), and to the ability to use conduits to make a specific request.


Referring now back to FIG. 1. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the user 21 interacts with the user/client software 13 in order to provide user data input that describes an application transaction that the user wants performed. Once the user/client software 13 receives the data input from the user 21, the user/client software 13 sends a service request message to the server application software 3 on the server host 1.


The service request message is passed from the workstation host 9 to the confirmation interceptor 5 via the data network 7. The confirmation interceptor 5 then intercepts the service request message and determines whether the requested transaction necessitates user confirmation.


If the requested transaction does require user confirmation to proceed, the confirmation interceptor 5 holds the service request message and sends a confirmation request message to one of several possible devices such as: a confirmation agent on workstation 9, a confirmation agent on a second workstation associated with the user 21, a communication device comprising a confirmation agent connected to the data network 7, or a communication device comprising a confirmation agent connected to a second data network. Although the confirmation interceptor 5 may send a confirmation request message to any of a number of possible devices such as those listed, the confirmation interceptor 5 shown in FIG. 1 sends the confirmation request message to the confirmation agent 19. Moreover, confirmation request message comprises information related to the confirmation requested of the user.


The confirmation agent 19 then displays a message to the user, wherein the displayed message prompts the user for the response that the confirmation interceptor requires in order to process the service and/or the transaction requested. Moreover, to obtain the required response, the confirmation agent 19 may query the user by one or more dialogues. The confirmation agent 19 then waits for a user response within a predefined time frame. If the confirmation agent 19 obtains a response within the time frame, the confirmation agent 19 sends the response data back to the confirmation interceptor 5 in the form of a confirmation status message.


Moreover, when the confirmation interceptor 5 receives the response data, the interceptor determines whether the response data is an acceptable confirmation reply. In one example, the confirmation interceptor receives an acceptable confirmation from the user to proceed with the request transaction and forwards the service request message to the server application software 3. Alternatively, if the confirmation interceptor 5 determines that one of the following is true: a) the response is not an acceptable confirmation response; or b) there is no response data; the confirmation interceptor 5 then drops the service request message instead of forwarding the message to the server application software 3.



FIG. 2 illustrates an alternative scenario to the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, whereas a service request message originates from the user 21 to the user/client software 13 in FIG. 1, a service request message originates from automated client software 17 and the service request message is then transmitted to the confirmation agent 19 without the knowledge of the user 21. In FIG. 2, the automated client software 17 provides the confirmation response to the confirmation agent 19 that sends the response data back to the confirmation interceptor 5 in the form of a confirmation status message. The confirmation interceptor 5 then determines that the response is unacceptable, because the required response is designed to not be computable from either the original request message (intercepted by the confirmation interceptor 5) or the confirmation agent 19's prompt for the confirmation response. Consequently, confirmation interceptor 5 drops the service request message. However, the confirmation interceptor 5 would forward the request to the server application software 3 if the user 21 becomes aware of the service request that originates from the automated client software 17, confirms the request with an acceptable response to the confirmation agent 19 which forwards the response data to the confirmation interceptor 5. In the embodiment of the present invention illustrated in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, automated client software 17 is not prevented from seeing (or intercepting) the prompt for user confirmation, nor from attempting responses makes it infeasible for automated client software 17 to compute an acceptable response.



FIG. 3 is a block diagram 300 in accordance to a second embodiment of the present invention. Block diagram 300 comprises: a server host denoted 1, a data network denoted 7, a first workstation host denoted 9, a second workstation host denoted 11, and a user denoted 21. The server host 1 further comprises server application software denoted 3 and a confirmation interceptor denoted 5. The first workstation host 9 further comprises: user/client software denoted 13, and automated client software denoted 17. The second workstation host 11 further comprises a confirmation agent 23. The user/client software 13 and the automated client software 17 each in turn comprise a network programming interface denoted 15.


As shown in FIG. 3, the server host 1, the server application software 3, the confirmation interceptor 5, the user/client software 13, the automated client software 17, the network programming interface 15, and the user 21 are substantially the same as they are illustrated and described in FIG. 1. However, whereas confirmation agent 19 is shown to operate on workstation host 9 in FIG. 1, the confirmation agent 23 in FIG. 3 is shown to operate on a second workstation host 11 that is associated with the same user 21. As with the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the automated client software 17 may also originate a service request that is intercepted by the confirmation interceptor 5. However, the automated client software 17 shown in FIG. 3 is unable to see or intercept the confirmation request or user prompt since the confirmation request is directed not to the first workstation host denoted 9 on which the automated client software 17 executes, but instead to a second workstation host denoted 11.



FIG. 4 is a block diagram 400 in accordance to a third embodiment of the present invention. Block diagram 400 comprises: a server host denoted 1, a data network denoted 7, a workstation host denoted 9, a communication device denoted 27 comprising a confirmation agent, and a user denoted 21. The server host 1 further comprises server application software denoted 3 and a confirmation interceptor denoted 5. The workstation host 9 further comprises: user/client software denoted 13, and automated client software denoted 17. The user/client software 13 and the automated client software 17 each in turn comprise a network programming interface denoted 15.


As shown in FIG. 4, the server host 1, the server application software 3, the confirmation interceptor 5, the user/client software 13, the automated client software 17, the network programming interface 15, and the user 21 are substantially the same as they are illustrated and described in FIG. 1. However, whereas the confirmation interceptor 5 is shown to send confirmation request messages to the confirmation agent 19 on workstation host 9, and receive confirmation status messages from the confirmation agent 19 in FIG. 1, the confirmation interceptor 5 in FIG. 4 is shown to send confirmation request messages to an alternative communication device 27 comprising a confirmation agent and receive confirmation status messages from the communication device 27, wherein the communication device 27 is on the same data network 7 but is not on workstation host 9. As with the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the automated client software 17 may also originate a service request that is intercepted by the confirmation interceptor 5. However, the automated client software 17 shown in FIG. 4 is unable to see or intercept the confirmation request or user prompt, because the confirmation request is directed not to the first workstation host denoted 9 on which the automated client software 17 executes, but instead to the communication device 27.



FIG. 5 illustrates a block diagram 500 in accordance to a fourth embodiment of the present invention. Block diagram 500 comprises: a server host denoted 1, a first data network denoted 7, a workstation host denoted 9, a second data network denoted 29, a communication device denoted 31 comprising a confirmation agent, and a user denoted 21. The server host 1 further comprises server application software denoted 3 and a confirmation interceptor denoted 5. The workstation host 9 further comprises: user/client software denoted 13, and automated client software denoted 17. The user/client software 13 and the automated client software 17 each in turn comprise a network programming interface denoted 15.


As shown in FIG. 5, the server host 1, the server application software 3, the confirmation interceptor 5, the user/client software 13, the automated client software 17, the network programming interface 15, and the user 21 are substantially the same as they are illustrated and described in FIG. 1. However, whereas the confirmation interceptor 5 is shown to send confirmation request messages to the confirmation agent 19 implemented on workstation host 9, and receive confirmation status messages from the confirmation agent 19 in FIG. 1, the confirmation interceptor 5 in FIG. 5 is shown to send confirmation request messages to an alternative communication device 31 via a second data network 29, and receive confirmation status messages from the communication device 31 via the second data network 29. As with the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the automated client software 17 may also originate a service request that is intercepted by the confirmation interceptor 5. However, the automated client software 17 shown in FIG. 5 is unable to see or intercept the confirmation request or user prompt, because the confirmation request is directed not to the first workstation host denoted 9 on which the automated client software 17 executes, but instead to the confirmation agent 31.



FIGS. 1 to 5 illustrate confirmation of explicit human input in accordance to several embodiments of the present invention. Moreover, the transactions between the elements shown in FIGS. 1 to 5 may be summarized into a log displayed to a human user such as a system administrator (not shown). In one exemplary embodiment, the log summary includes: the source and destination host addresses of the communication channel intercepted; protocol used to intercept communication (e.g. TCP, etc) including source and destination port numbers; host information for the confirmation interceptor; date and time of interception of transaction request message wherein the transaction requires confirmation; full or partial information related to the transaction request message; target device, communication channel, and protocols used by the confirmation interceptor to attempt contact with the confirmation agent (e.g. target host, protocol, port usage, type of network, network-specific target identifier such as a phone number, etc.); whether communication succeeded, failed, or timed out; and a log of communication with confirmation agent including: any local context provided by the confirmation agent to the confirmation interceptor, type of confirmation request sent; full log of confirmation requests sent to the confirmation agent; full log of response information gathered from human-machine interaction; whether response information was correct confirmation response; date and time of forwarded requests if response information was correct; actions taken if response information was incorrect.



FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating the steps for containing networked application client software in accordance to one embodiment of the present invention. In step 41, a service request message is sent to server application software. As illustrated by the embodiments shown in FIG. 1-FIG. 5, the service request message may originate from a user or may originate from automated client software as shown in FIG. 2. Moreover, a system in accordance with the present invention may operate in different modes wherein in a first exemplary embodiment, the system operates without user confirmation for service requests.


In this first exemplary embodiment, the service request is logged and the service request message is forwarded onto the server application software in step 57.


In an alternative embodiment, the system operates with user confirmation for service requests. In this alternative embodiment, the service request message is checked to determine whether the message requires a user confirmation in step 45. If the service request message does not require any user confirmation, the service request is logged and the service request message is forwarded onto the server application software in step 57.


In step 45, if it is determined that the service request message does require user confirmation, the message is checked to determine if a specific confirmation agent has been defined as the means to process the service request in step 47.


In step 49, if a confirmation agent has been designated to process the service request, a confirmation request message is then sent to the designated confirmation agent from a confirmation interceptor.


Alternatively, in step 51, if a confirmation agent is not designated to process the service request, a confirmation request message is sent to a default confirmation agent from a confirmation interceptor.


Having received the confirmation request message, the designated or default confirmation agent engages in a dialogue with the user in order to obtain user confirmation, and the designated or default confirmation agent subsequently sends a confirmation status message to the confirmation interceptor, wherein the confirmation status message comprises the content of the user's dialogue information. Moreover, the confirmation status message may comprise: a) an acceptable user response wherein the response is one that is required for the service request, b) an unacceptable user response, or c) no user response wherein the user does not respond within a user or system defined time frame. Case (b) may comprise a well-formed response wherein the user denies the service request, or it may comprise a malformed response such as the result of autonomous client software attempting to impersonate a user.


Furthermore, one or more techniques maybe employed to carry out the dialogue with the user in order to ensure that the response comes from a legitimate user rather than other means such as automation. In one embodiment, a natural language puzzle maybe used wherein human reasoning is necessary to determine the input solicited. For example, one dialogue employing natural language puzzles may solicit an input by asking for the name of a color in the rainbow, wherein the color is adjacent to the color yellow in the rainbow and is not a citrus fruit. The nature of such questions enables a higher probability of explicit user confirmation due to the current inability of software automation to perform human reasoning.


In a second embodiment, the dialogue is presented via a graphical representation of letters that are known to be difficult for optical character recognition. By presenting text as graphics rather than textual data, software automation would be forced to infer the text from the graphical representation of letters and words. In one example, the dialogue may solicit an input with a request such as “to confirm this operation, please type green”. Alternatively, the response may be solicited as selection of graphical items that represent letters or words, thus forming a “virtual keypad”.


In a third embodiment, the dialogue presents a challenge/response request where the request must be computed by using the challenge data in addition to information that the human knows and is not on the computer the user is using. For example, a “2 factor authentication” may be used wherein a separate handheld device is employed to compute the response.


In a fourth embodiment, the interface between the human user and the machine is implemented entirely on a separate device from the workstation the user is using. For example, confirmation may be solicited via a short messaging system to a designated cell phone so that the workstation the user is using would have no information regarding the response solicited. The separate device could be on a different communication network as in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 5 with the alternative network 29 being a short messaging system network and the confirmation agent 31 being a cell phone. The separate device could alternatively be on the same network as the workstation host 9 in FIG. 4 (e.g. a personal digital assistant connected to the network via 802.11 wireless networking) or could be another workstation associated with the same user 21 shown in FIG. 3.


Referring now back to FIG. 6. In step 53, the confirmation interceptor receives the confirmation status message from either the designated confirmation agent or from the default confirmation agent, and subsequently determines whether or not the response was from a legitimate user. Moreover, the lack of a user response is equivalent to a lack of confirmation for the service request.


In step 59, if the confirmation interceptor determines that the user has denied the service request, the service request is logged but the service request message is not forwarded to the server application software. Conversely, in step 57, if the confirmation interceptor determines that the user has confirmed the service request, the service request is logged and the service request message is forwarded to the server application software.


The foregoing descriptions of specific embodiments of the present invention have been presented for purposes of illustration and description. They are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed, and obviously many modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teaching. The embodiments were chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention and its practical application, to thereby enable others skilled in the arts to best utilize the invention and various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the Claims appended hereto and their equivalents.


For example, the confirmation interceptor 5 is illustrated in FIG. 1-FIG. 5 as an element of the server host 1. In a first alternative embodiment, the confirmation interceptor 5 is implemented on a second server host. In this first alternative embodiment, the confirmation interceptor intercepts communication from the server host 1 by redirecting communication from the server host 1 to the second server host. In a second alternative embodiment, the confirmation interceptor is software running on the workstation. In this second embodiment, the interceptor intercepts outgoing communication and gets confirmation for those transactions that require confirmation by contacting the confirmation agent using local host communication means. In a third alternative embodiment, the confirmation interceptor is embedded in a network device such as a switch or a router, wherein the network device is part of the communication path to and from the server host. In this third alternative embodiment, communication is intercepted when it passes through the network device in which the confirmation interceptor is embedded.


Moreover, the confirmation agents such as confirmation agent 19 and confirmation agent 23 may be implemented as special purpose software or existing communication software such as an email client or instant messaging client. The confirmation agent may be implemented using alternative communication devices such as handheld computers, personal digital assistants, 2-way pagers, cell phones, etc. Depending on the device in which a confirmation agent is implemented, the agent may be specific software or confirmation from the user may be solicited by using the native capabilities of the device. For example, telephone confirmation may be obtained via a phone call, the input would then be prompted as a voice response.

Claims
  • 1. A method comprising: intercepting a service request at a confirmation interceptor;sending a confirmation request to a user via a confirmation agent, wherein the confirmation request comprises one or more dialogues configured to require human participation by the user, wherein a selected one of the dialogues involving the confirmation request includes a short message service interaction with the user via a communication device that is separate from a host computer, wherein the host computer includes a software agent that originated the service request;receiving, from the communication device, a confirmation status message at the confirmation interceptor, wherein the confirmation status message is in response to the confirmation request; anddetermining acceptability of the confirmation status message, wherein the service request is associated with a destination other than the confirmation interceptor, and wherein if the status message is unacceptable, usage of a communication conduit associated with a port of the host computer is limited such that e-mail messages cannot be communicated by the host computer.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, after the intercepting step, further comprising the steps of determining if a confirmation mode is on.
  • 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the confirmation mode is on.
  • 4. The method of claim 3, further comprising the step of determining if the service request requires confirmation of explicit human input.
  • 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the service request does require confirmation of explicit human input.
  • 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the confirmation request is sent to a defined confirmation agent.
  • 7. The method of claim 5, wherein the confirmation request is sent to a default confirmation agent.
  • 8. The method of claim 2, wherein the confirmation mode is not on.
  • 9. The method of claim 8, further comprising the step of forwarding the service request from the confirmation interceptor.
  • 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the confirmation status message is acceptable.
  • 11. The method of claim 10, further comprising the step of forwarding the service request from the confirmation interceptor.
  • 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the confirmation status message is unacceptable.
  • 13. The method of claim 12, further comprising the step of discarding the service request at the confirmation interceptor.
  • 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the acceptability of the confirmation status message is determined by comparing the confirmation status message to an expected response.
  • 15. The method of claim 1, wherein the confirmation agent is separate from a source generating the service request.
  • 16. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the dialogues includes a natural language puzzle to be successfully answered with human reasoning in order to satisfy the service request.
  • 17. A system contained by verification of explicit human input, the system comprises: a server host having server application software;a confirmation interceptor connected to the server application software, wherein the confirmation interceptor intercepts a service request and receives a confirmation status;a workstation having user/client software connected to the confirmation interceptor, wherein the user/client software sends the service request to the server application software;a confirmation agent connected bi-directionally to the confirmation interceptor; anda user connected bi-directionally to the confirmation agent and connected to the user/client software, wherein the confirmation agent sends a confirmation request to the user and the confirmation status based on a response from the user to the confirmation interceptor to determine acceptability of the confirmation status, further wherein the confirmation request comprises one or more dialogues configured to require human participation by the user, wherein a selected one of the dialogues involving the confirmation request includes a short message service interaction with the user via a communication device that includes the confirmation agent, wherein the communication device is separate from the workstation, wherein the service request is associated with a destination other than the confirmation interceptor, and wherein if the confirmation status is unacceptable, usage of a communication conduit associated with a port of the workstation is limited such that e-mail messages cannot be communicated by the workstation.
  • 18. The system of claim 17, wherein the user/client software further comprises a network programming interface.
  • 19. The system of claim 17, further comprising a data network through which the user/client software and the confirmation agent connect to the confirmation interceptor.
  • 20. The system of claim 17, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on the server host.
  • 21. The system of claim 17, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on a second server host.
  • 22. The system of claim 17, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented in a network device, wherein the network device is part of any communication path to and from the server host.
  • 23. The system of claim 17, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on the workstation.
  • 24. The system of claim 17, wherein the confirmation agent is special-purpose software customized for containing the system.
  • 25. The system of claim 17, wherein the confirmation agent is commercially available communication software.
  • 26. The system of claim 17, wherein the confirmation agent is a separate application from the user/client software generating the service request.
  • 27. The system of claim 17, wherein at least one of the dialogues includes a natural language puzzle to be successfully answered with human reasoning in order to satisfy the service request.
  • 28. A system contained by verification of explicit human input, the system comprises: a server host having server application software;a confirmation interceptor connected to the server application software, wherein the confirmation interceptor intercepts a service request and receives a confirmation status;a first workstation host having user/client software connected to the confirmation interceptor, wherein the user/client software sends the service request to the server application software;a second workstation host having a confirmation agent connected bi-directionally to the confirmation interceptor; anda user connected bi-directionally to the confirmation agent and connected to the user/client software, wherein the confirmation agent sends a confirmation request to the user and the confirmation status based on a response from the user to the confirmation interceptor to determine acceptability of the confirmation status, further wherein the confirmation request comprises one or more dialogues configured to require human participation by the user, wherein a selected one of the dialogues involving the confirmation request includes a short message service interaction with the user via the second workstation host that is separate from the first workstation host, wherein the service request is associated with a destination other than the confirmation interceptor, and wherein if the confirmation status is unacceptable, usage of a communication conduit associated with a port of the first workstation host is limited such that e-mail messages cannot be communicated by the first workstation host.
  • 29. The system of claim 28, wherein the user/client software further comprises a network programming interface.
  • 30. The system of claim 28, further comprising a data network through which the user/client software and the confirmation agent connect to the confirmation interceptor.
  • 31. The system of claim 28, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on the server host.
  • 32. The system of claim 28, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on a second server host.
  • 33. The system of claim 28, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented in a network device, wherein the network device is part of any communication path to and from the server host.
  • 34. The system of claim 28, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on the first workstation host.
  • 35. The system of claim 28, wherein the confirmation agent is special-purpose software customized for containing the system.
  • 36. The system of claim 28, wherein the confirmation agent is commercially available communication software.
  • 37. The system of claim 28, wherein the confirmation agent is a communication device.
  • 38. The system of claim 28, wherein at least one of the dialogues includes a natural language puzzle to be successfully answered with human reasoning in order to satisfy the service request.
  • 39. A system contained by verification of explicit human input, the system comprises: a server host having server application software;a confirmation interceptor connected to the server application software, wherein the confirmation interceptor intercepts a service request and receives a confirmation status;a workstation host having user/client software connected to the confirmation interceptor, wherein the user/client software sends the service request to the server application software; anda confirmation agent connected bi-directionally to the confirmation interceptor, wherein the confirmation agent sends a confirmation request to a user and the confirmation status based on a response from the user to the confirmation interceptor to determine acceptability of the confirmation status, further wherein the user is connected bi-directionally to the confirmation agent and is connected to the user/client software, further wherein the confirmation request comprises one or more dialogues configured to require human participation by the user, wherein a selected one of the dialogues involving the confirmation request includes a short message service interaction with the user via a communication device that includes the confirmation agent, wherein the communication device is separate from the workstation host, wherein the service request is associated with a destination other than the confirmation interceptor, and wherein if the confirmation status is unacceptable, usage of a communication conduit associated with a port of the workstation host is limited such that e-mail messages cannot be communicated by the workstation host.
  • 40. The system of claim 39, wherein the user/client software further comprises a network programming interface.
  • 41. The system of claim 39, further comprising a data network through which the user/client software and the confirmation agent connect to the confirmation interceptor.
  • 42. The system of claim 39, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on the server host.
  • 43. The system of claim 39, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on a second server host.
  • 44. The system of claim 39, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented in a network device, wherein the network device is part of any communication path to and from the server host.
  • 45. The system of claim 39, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on the workstation host.
  • 46. The system of claim 39, wherein the confirmation agent is special-purpose software customized for containing the system.
  • 47. The system of claim 39, wherein the confirmation agent is commercially available communication software.
  • 48. The system of claim 39, wherein at least one of the dialogues includes a natural language puzzle to be successfully answered with human reasoning in order to satisfy the service request.
  • 49. A system contained by verification of explicit human input, the system comprises: a server host having server application software;a confirmation interceptor connected to the server application software, wherein the confirmation interceptor intercepts a service request and receives a confirmation status;a workstation host having user/client software connected to the confirmation interceptor, wherein the user/client software sends the service request to the server application software;a first data network through which the user/client software connects to the confirmation interceptor;a confirmation agent connected bi-directionally to the confirmation interceptor;a second data network through which the confirmation agent connects to the confirmation interceptor; anda user connected bi-directionally to the confirmation agent and connected to the user/client software, wherein the confirmation agent sends a confirmation request to the user and the confirmation status based on a response from the user to the confirmation interceptor to determine acceptability of the confirmation status, further wherein the confirmation request comprises one or more dialogues configured to require human participation by the user, wherein a selected one of the dialogues involving the confirmation request includes a short message service interaction with the user via a communication device that includes the confirmation agent, wherein the communication device is separate from the workstation host, wherein the service request is associated with a destination other than the confirmation interceptor, and wherein if the confirmation status is unacceptable, usage of a communication conduit associated with a port of the workstation host is limited such that e-mail messages cannot be communicated by the workstation host.
  • 50. The system of claim 49, wherein the user/client software further comprises a network programming interface.
  • 51. The system of claim 49, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on the server host.
  • 52. The system of claim 49, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on a second server host.
  • 53. The system of claim 49, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented in a network device, wherein the network device is part of any communication path to and from the server host.
  • 54. The system of claim 49, wherein the confirmation interceptor is implemented on the workstation host.
  • 55. The system of claim 49, wherein the confirmation agent is special-purpose software customized for containing the system.
  • 56. The system of claim 49, wherein the confirmation agent is commercially available communication software.
  • 57. The system of claim 49, wherein the confirmation agent is a separate application from the user/client software generating the service request.
  • 58. The system of claim 49, wherein at least one of the dialogues includes a natural language puzzle to be successfully answered with human reasoning in order to satisfy the service request.
  • 59. A system contained by verification of explicit human input, the system comprises: a server host having server application software;a confirmation interceptor connected to the server application software, wherein the confirmation interceptor intercepts a service request and receives a confirmation status;a first workstation host having user/client software connected to the confirmation interceptor, wherein the user/client software sends the service request to the server application software;a second workstation host having a confirmation agent connected bi-directionally to the confirmation interceptor;a user connected bi-directionally to the confirmation agent and connected to the user/client software, wherein the confirmation agent sends a confirmation request to the user and the confirmation status based on a response from the user to the confirmation interceptor to determine acceptability of the confirmation status, further wherein the confirmation request comprises one or more dialogues configured to require human participation by the user, wherein a selected one of the dialogues involving the confirmation request includes a short message service interaction between the user via device the second workstation host that is separate from the first workstation host; andan interface connected to the confirmation interceptor, wherein the interface logs interactive events between the confirmation interceptor, the confirmation agent, and the user in a log summary, wherein the service request is associated with a destination other than the confirmation interceptor, and wherein if the confirmation status is unacceptable, usage of a communication conduit associated with a port of the first workstation host is limited such that e-mail messages cannot be communicated by the first workstation host.
  • 60. The system of claim 59 wherein the log summary comprises address information, protocol information, host information, date and time information and status information.
  • 61. The system of claim 59 wherein the log summary comprises a source host address of a communication channel intercepted, a destination host address of the communication channel intercepted, a protocol used to intercept the service request, host information for the communication interceptor, date and time data of interception of the service request, service request message information, a confirmation agent communication log and a communication status.
  • 62. The system of claim 59, wherein the confirmation agent is a separate application from the user/client software generating the service request.
  • 63. The system of claim 59, wherein at least one of the dialogues includes a natural language puzzle to be successfully answered with human reasoning in order to satisfy the service request.
US Referenced Citations (212)
Number Name Date Kind
4688169 Joshi Aug 1987 A
4982430 Frezza et al. Jan 1991 A
5155847 Kirouac et al. Oct 1992 A
5222134 Waite et al. Jun 1993 A
5390314 Swanson Feb 1995 A
5521849 Adelson et al. May 1996 A
5560008 Johnson et al. Sep 1996 A
5699513 Feigen et al. Dec 1997 A
5778226 Adams et al. Jul 1998 A
5778349 Okonogi Jul 1998 A
5787427 Benantar et al. Jul 1998 A
5842017 Hookway et al. Nov 1998 A
5907709 Cantey et al. May 1999 A
5907860 Garibay et al. May 1999 A
5926832 Wing et al. Jul 1999 A
5974149 Leppek Oct 1999 A
5987610 Franczek et al. Nov 1999 A
5987611 Freund Nov 1999 A
5991881 Conklin et al. Nov 1999 A
6064815 Hohensee et al. May 2000 A
6073142 Geiger et al. Jun 2000 A
6192401 Modiri et al. Feb 2001 B1
6192475 Wallace Feb 2001 B1
6256773 Bowman-Amuah Jul 2001 B1
6275938 Bond et al. Aug 2001 B1
6321267 Donaldson Nov 2001 B1
6356957 Sanchez, II et al. Mar 2002 B2
6393465 Leeds May 2002 B2
6442686 McArdle et al. Aug 2002 B1
6449040 Fujita Sep 2002 B1
6453468 D'Souza Sep 2002 B1
6460050 Pace et al. Oct 2002 B1
6587877 Douglis et al. Jul 2003 B1
6611925 Spear Aug 2003 B1
6662219 Nishanov et al. Dec 2003 B1
6748534 Gryaznov et al. Jun 2004 B1
6769008 Kumar et al. Jul 2004 B1
6769115 Oldman Jul 2004 B1
6795966 Lim et al. Sep 2004 B1
6832227 Seki et al. Dec 2004 B2
6834301 Hanchett Dec 2004 B1
6847993 Novaes et al. Jan 2005 B1
6907600 Neiger et al. Jun 2005 B2
6930985 Rathi et al. Aug 2005 B1
6934755 Saulpaugh et al. Aug 2005 B1
6988101 Ham et al. Jan 2006 B2
6988124 Douceur et al. Jan 2006 B2
7007302 Jagger et al. Feb 2006 B1
7010796 Strom et al. Mar 2006 B1
7024548 O'Toole, Jr. Apr 2006 B1
7039949 Cartmell et al. May 2006 B2
7069330 McArdle et al. Jun 2006 B1
7082456 Mani-Meitav et al. Jul 2006 B2
7093239 van der Made Aug 2006 B1
7124409 Davis et al. Oct 2006 B2
7139916 Billingsley et al. Nov 2006 B2
7152148 Williams et al. Dec 2006 B2
7159036 Hinchliffe et al. Jan 2007 B2
7203864 Goin et al. Apr 2007 B2
7251655 Kaler et al. Jul 2007 B2
7290266 Gladstone et al. Oct 2007 B2
7330849 Gerasoulis et al. Feb 2008 B2
7346781 Cowle et al. Mar 2008 B2
7349931 Horne Mar 2008 B2
7350204 Lambert et al. Mar 2008 B2
7353501 Tang et al. Apr 2008 B2
7363022 Whelan et al. Apr 2008 B2
7370360 van der Made May 2008 B2
7406517 Hunt et al. Jul 2008 B2
7441265 Staamann et al. Oct 2008 B2
7464408 Shah et al. Dec 2008 B1
7506155 Stewart et al. Mar 2009 B1
7506170 Finnegan Mar 2009 B2
7506364 Vayman Mar 2009 B2
7546333 Alon et al. Jun 2009 B2
7546594 McGuire et al. Jun 2009 B2
7552479 Conover et al. Jun 2009 B1
7577995 Chebolu et al. Aug 2009 B2
7603552 Sebes et al. Oct 2009 B1
7607170 Chesla Oct 2009 B2
7669195 Qumei Feb 2010 B1
7685635 Vega et al. Mar 2010 B2
7698744 Fanton et al. Apr 2010 B2
7703090 Napier et al. Apr 2010 B2
7757269 Roy-Chowdhury et al. Jul 2010 B1
7765538 Zweifel et al. Jul 2010 B2
7809704 Surendran et al. Oct 2010 B2
7818377 Whitney et al. Oct 2010 B2
7823148 Deshpande et al. Oct 2010 B2
7836504 Ray et al. Nov 2010 B2
7849507 Bloch et al. Dec 2010 B1
7865931 Stone et al. Jan 2011 B1
7908653 Brickell et al. Mar 2011 B2
7937455 Saha et al. May 2011 B2
7966659 Wilkinson et al. Jun 2011 B1
7996836 McCorkendale et al. Aug 2011 B1
8015388 Rihan et al. Sep 2011 B1
8015563 Araujo et al. Sep 2011 B2
8234713 Roy-Chowdhury et al. Jul 2012 B2
20020056076 van der Made May 2002 A1
20020069367 Tindal et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020083175 Afek et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020099671 Mastin Crosbie et al. Jul 2002 A1
20030014667 Kolichtchak Jan 2003 A1
20030023736 Abkemeier Jan 2003 A1
20030033510 Dice Feb 2003 A1
20030073894 Chiang et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030074552 Olkin et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030120601 Ouye et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030120811 Hanson et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030120935 Teal et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030145232 Poletto et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030163718 Johnson et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030167292 Ross Sep 2003 A1
20030167399 Audebert et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030200332 Gupta et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030212902 van der Made Nov 2003 A1
20030220944 Schottland et al. Nov 2003 A1
20030221190 Deshpande et al. Nov 2003 A1
20040003258 Billingsley et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040015554 Wilson Jan 2004 A1
20040051736 Daniell Mar 2004 A1
20040054928 Hall Mar 2004 A1
20040143749 Tajalli et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040167906 Smith et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040230963 Rothman et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040243678 Smith Dec 2004 A1
20040255161 Cavanaugh Dec 2004 A1
20050018651 Yan et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050086047 Uchimoto et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050108516 Balzer et al. May 2005 A1
20050108562 Khazan et al. May 2005 A1
20050114672 Duncan et al. May 2005 A1
20050132346 Tsantilis Jun 2005 A1
20050228990 Kato et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050235360 Pearson Oct 2005 A1
20050257207 Blumfield et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050257265 Cook et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050260996 Groenendaal Nov 2005 A1
20050262558 Usov Nov 2005 A1
20050273858 Zadok et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050283823 Okajo et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050289538 Black-Ziegelbein et al. Dec 2005 A1
20060004875 Baron et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060015501 Sanamrad et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060037016 Saha et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060080656 Cain et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060085785 Garrett Apr 2006 A1
20060101277 Meenan et al. May 2006 A1
20060133223 Nakamura et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060136910 Brickell et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060136911 Robinson et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060195906 Jin et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060200863 Ray et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060230314 Sanjar et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060236398 Trakic et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060259734 Sheu et al. Nov 2006 A1
20070011746 Malpani et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070028303 Brennan Feb 2007 A1
20070039049 Kupferman et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070050579 Hall et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070050764 Traut Mar 2007 A1
20070074199 Schoenberg Mar 2007 A1
20070083522 Nord et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070101435 Konanka et al. May 2007 A1
20070136579 Levy et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070143851 Nicodemus et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070169079 Keller et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070192329 Croft et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070220061 Tirosh et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070220507 Back et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070253430 Minami et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070256138 Gadea et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070271561 Winner et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070300215 Bardsley Dec 2007 A1
20080005737 Saha et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080005798 Ross Jan 2008 A1
20080010304 Vempala et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080022384 Yee et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080034416 Kumar et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080052468 Speirs et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080082977 Araujo et al. Apr 2008 A1
20080120499 Zimmer et al. May 2008 A1
20080163207 Reumann et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080163210 Bowman et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080165952 Smith et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080184373 Traut et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080235534 Matthias et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080294703 Craft et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080301770 Kinder Dec 2008 A1
20090007100 Field et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090038017 Durham et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090043993 Ford et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090055693 Budko et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090113110 Xiaoxin et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090144300 Chatley et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090150639 Ohata Jun 2009 A1
20090249053 Zimmer et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090249438 Litvin et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090320140 Sebes et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100071035 Budko et al. Mar 2010 A1
20100114825 Siddegowda May 2010 A1
20100250895 Adams et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100281133 Brendel Nov 2010 A1
20100332910 Qasim et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110029772 Fanton et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110035423 Kobayashi et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110047543 Mohinder Feb 2011 A1
20110078550 Nabutovsky Mar 2011 A1
20110093842 Sebes Apr 2011 A1
20110093950 Bhargava et al. Apr 2011 A1
20120278853 Chowdhury et al. Nov 2012 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (10)
Number Date Country
1 482 394 Dec 2004 EP
2 037 657 Mar 2009 EP
WO 9844404 Oct 1998 WO
WO 0184285 Nov 2001 WO
WO 2006012197 Feb 2006 WO
WO 2006124832 Nov 2006 WO
WO 2008054997 May 2008 WO
WO 2012015489 Feb 2010 WO
WO 2011059877 May 2011 WO
WO 2012015485 Feb 2012 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (60)
Entry
Gutzmann, K., “Access control and session management in the HTTP environment”, Internet Computing, IEEE vol. 5, Issue 1, Jan.-Feb. 2001 pp. 26-35.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/379,953, entitled “Software Modification by Group to Minimize Breakage,” filed Apr. 24, 2006, Inventor(s): E. John Sebes et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/277,596, entitled “Execution Environment File Inventory,” filed Mar. 27, 2006, Inventor(s): Rishi Bhargava et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/806,578, entitled Containment of Network communication, filed Mar. 22, 2004, Inventor(s): E. John Sebes et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/739,230, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Usage of Language Interfaces,” filed Dec. 17, 2003, Inventor(s): Rosen Sharma et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/935,772, entitled “Solidifying the Executable Software Set of a Computer,” filed Sep. 7, 2004, Inventor(s): E. John Sebes et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/060,683, entitled “Distribution and Installation of Solidified Software on a Computer,” Filed Feb. 16, 2005, Inventor(s): Bakul Shah et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/346,741, entitled “Enforcing Alignment of Approved Changes and Deployed Changes in the Software Change Life-Cycle,” filed Feb. 2, 2006, Inventor(s): Rahul Roy-Chowdhury et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/182,320, entitled “Classification of Software on Networked Systems,” filed Jul. 14, 2005, Inventor(s): E. John Sebes et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/400,085, entitled “Program-Based Authorization,” filed Apr. 7, 2006, Inventor(s): Rishi Bhargava et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/437,317, entitled “Connectivity-Based Authorization,” filed May 18, 2006, Inventor(s): E. John Sebes et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/290,380, entitled “Application Change Control,” filed Oct. 29, 2008, Inventor(s): Rosen Sharma et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/008,274, entitled Method and Apparatus for Process Enforced Configuration Management, filed Jan. 9, 2008, Inventor(s): Rishi Bhargava et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/291,232, entitled “Method of and System for Computer System State Checks,” filed Nov. 7, 2008, inventor(s): Rishi Bhargava et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/322,220, entitled “Method of and System for Malicious Software Detection Using Critical Address Space Protection,” filed Jan. 29, 2009, Inventor(s): Suman Saraf et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/322,321, entitled “Method of and System for Computer System Denial-of-Service Protection,” filed Jan. 29, 2009, Inventor(s): Suman Saraf et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/426,859, entitled “Method of and System for Reverse Mapping Vnode Pointers,” filed Apr. 20, 2009, Inventor(s): Suman Saraf et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/545,609, entitled “System and Method for Enforcing Security Policies in a Virtual Environment,” filed Aug. 21, 2009, Inventor(s): Amit Dang et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/545,745, entitled “System and Method for Providing Address Protection in a Virtual Environment,” filed Aug. 21, 2009, Inventor(s): Preet Mohinder.
Eli M. Dow, et al., “The Xen Hypervisor,” INFORMIT, dated Apr. 10, 2008, http://www.informit.com/articles/printerfriendly.aspx?p=1187966, printed Aug. 11, 2009 (13 pages).
“Xen Architecture Overview,” Xen, dated Feb. 13, 2008, Version 1.2, http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenArchitecture?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=Xen+archit ecture—Q1+2008.pdf, printed Aug. 18, 2009 (9 pages).
U.S. Appl. No. 12/615,521, entitled “System and Method for Preventing Data Loss Using Virtual Machine Wrapped Applications,” filed Nov. 10, 2009, Inventor(s): Sonali Agarwal, et al.
Desktop Management and Control, Website: http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/, Retrieved and printed Oct. 12, 2009, 1 page.
Secure Mobile Computing, Website: http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/mobile.html, Retrieved and printed Oct. 12, 2009, 2 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/636,414, entitled “System and Method for Managing Virtual Machine Configurations,” filed Dec. 11, 2009, Inventor(s): Harvinder Singh Sawhney, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/640,098, entitled “Enforcing Alignment of Approved Changes and Deployed Changes in the Software Change Life-Cycle,” filed Dec. 17, 2009, Inventor(s): Rahul Roy-Chowdhury, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/839,856, entitled “Containment of Network Communication,” filed Jul. 20, 2010, Inventor(s) E. John Sebes, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,892, entitled “System and Method for Protecting Computer Networks Against Malicious Software,” filed Jul. 28, 2010, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,964, entitled “System and Method for Network Level Protection Against Malicious Software,” filed Jul. 28, 2010, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/880,125, entitled “System and Method for Clustering Host Inventories,” filed Sep. 12, 2010, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/944,567, entitled “Classification of Software on Networked Systems,” filed Nov. 11, 2010, Inventor(s) E. John Sebes, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/903,993, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Usage of Language Interfaces,” filed Oct. 13, 2010, Inventor(s) Rosen Sharma, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/946,081, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Usage of Language Interfaces,” filed Nov. 15, Inventor(s) Rosen Sharma, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/946,344, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Usage of Language Interfaces,” filed Nov. 15, 2010, Inventor(s) Rosen Sharma, et al.
Barrantes et al., “Randomized Instruction Set Emulation to Dispurt Binary Code Injection Attacks,” Oct. 27-31, 2003, ACM, pp. 281-289.
Gaurav et al., “Countering Code-Injection Attacks with Instruction-Set Randomization,” Oct. 27-31, 2003, ACM, pp. 272-280.
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (1 page), International Search Report (4 pages), and Written Opinion (3 pages), mailed Mar. 2, 2011, International Application No. PCT/US2010/055520.
Tal Garfinkel, et al., “Terra: A Virtual Machine-Based Platform for Trusted Computing,” XP-002340992, SOSP'03, Oct. 19-22, 2003, 14 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/012,138, entitled “System and Method for Selectively Grouping and Managing Program Files,” filed Jan. 24, 2011, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al. (04796-1055).
U.S. Appl. No. 13/022,148, entitled “Execution Environment File Inventory,” filed Feb. 7, 2011, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/037,988, entitled “System and Method for Botnet Detection by Comprehensive Email Behavioral Analysis,” filed Mar. 1, 2011, Inventor(s) Sven Krasser, et al.
IA-32 Intel® Architecture Software Developer's Manual, vol. 3B; Jun. 2006; pp. 13, 15, 22 and 145-146.
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.: “ZoneAlarm Security Software User Guide Version 9”, Aug. 24, 2009, XP002634548, 259 pages, retrieved from Internet: URL:http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/media/pdf/zaclient91—user—manual.pdf.
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration (1 page), International Search Report (6 pages), and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (10 pages) for International Application No. PCT/US2011/020677 mailed Jul. 22, 2011.
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration (1 page), International Search Report (3 pages), and Written Opinion of the International Search Authority (6 pages) for International Application No. PCT/US2011/024869 mailed Jul. 14, 2011.
Notification of International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion mailed May 24, 2012 for International Application No. PCT/US2010/055520, 5 pages (04796-1047).
Sailer et al., sHype: Secure Hypervisor Approach to Trusted Virtualized Systems, IBM research Report, Feb. 2, 2005, 13 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,181, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Process Enforced Configuration Management,” filed Jul. 25, 2012, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,227, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Process Enforced Configuration Management,” filed Jul. 25, 2012, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,277, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Process Enforced Configuration Management,” filed Jul. 25, 2012, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava et al.
Myung-Sup Kim et al., “A load cluster management system using SNMP and web”, [Online], May 2002, pp. 367-378, [Retrieved from Internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nem.453/pdf>.
G. Pruett et al., “BladeCenter systems management software”, [Online], Nov. 2005, pp. 963-975, [Retrieved from Internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://citeseerx.lst.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.91.5091&rep=repl&type=pdf>.
Philip M. Papadopoulos et al., “NPACI Rocks: tools and techniques for easily deploying manageable Linux clusters” [Online], Aug. 2002, pp. 707-725, [Retrieved from internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpe.722/pdf>.
Thomas Staub et al., “Secure Remote Management and Software Distribution for Wireless Mesh Networks”, [Online], Sep. 2007, pp. 1-8, [Retrieved from Internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://cds.unibe.ch/research/pub—files/B07.pdf>.
“What's New: McAfee VirusScan Enterprise, 8.8,” copyright 2010, retrieved on Nov. 23, 2012 at https://kc.mcafee.com/resources/sites/Mcafee/content/live/PRODUCT—DOCUMENTATION/22000/PD22973/en—US/VSE%208.8%20-%20What's%20New.pdf, 4 pages.
“McAfee Management for Optimized Virtual Environments,” copyright 2012, retrieved on Nov. 26, 2012 at AntiVirushttp://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/data-sheets/ds-move-anti-virus.pdf, 2 pages.
Rivest, R., “The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm”, RFC 1321, Apr. 1992, retrieved on Dec. 14, 2012 from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1321.txt, 21 pages.
Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, “Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses”, RFC 4193, Oct. 2005, retrieved on Nov. 20, 2012 from http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc4193.pdf, 17 pages.
“Secure Hash Standard (SHS)”, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication, FIPS PUB 180-4, Mar. 2012, retrieved on Dec. 14, 2012 from http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/fips-180-4.pdf, 35 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/728,705, filed Dec. 27, 2012, entitled “Herd Based Scan Avoidance System in a Network Environment,” Inventor(s) Venkata Ramanan, et al.