The invention relates to methods of and systems for minimally invasive state checks of electronic computational systems including but not limited to computer systems and network systems for the purposes not limited to compliance, configuration, or security checks.
The state of a system can include but is not limited to, the existence of files on a storage system, file permissions, file content, file permissions, registry key existence, registry key permissions, registry values, system software versions, kernel software versions, system variables, network configuration, hardware configuration, data structures within the operating system kernel, hardware state, processor states, database configuration, database content, and user permission levels. For security purposes, system auditing, or system compliance checking, there is a need to quickly and with minimal impact capture and analyze the state of a system.
The present state of the art uses individual software agents installed on each processing system to capture and analyze the system state. However, as discussed below there are several disadvantages to this configuration.
The system shown in
In one configuration, an agent 120A located with the system software, is used to capture and analyze the state of the system 100. The agent 120A runs as a separate process(es) or application concurrently with the other system software 110. Disadvantages of a system software based agent 120A is that the agent 120A consumes large amounts of system resources such as CPU processing cycles, storage system bandwidth, and storage system space for taking state snapshots. Further, if the agent runs in parallel with the system software, the system configuration could change while capturing the system state and thus the agent can only report the system state at points within a potentially large time window. A further disadvantage of a system software based agent is that such an agent is limited in the scope of system state information that can be analyzed. A system software based agent 120A does not have access to the operating system kernel data structures and thus has limited ability to analyze the state of the kernel, or evaluate the kernel for viruses or root kits.
In a second configuration, a kernel based agent 120B is used to capture and analyze the state of the system 100. This configuration enables the agent to check a broader scope of state information including checks on the kernel data structures. However, this configuration has the same drawbacks as the first configuration. Specifically, the kernel based agent 120B consumes a significant amount of CPU cycles, storage system bandwidth, and storage space.
In a third configuration, a hardware based agent 120C is used to capture and analyze the state information of the system. A hardware board agent 120C is connected to the hardware 140. When a state check is to be performed, the hardware board agent 120C stops the processor and examines files, registries, system software states, and examines kernel data structures. Typically, the computational hardware 140 is stopped during the state snapshot capture and analysis. This implementation has the disadvantage of stopping the CPU and thus the computing system 100 unavailable during the state check. Further, the extra hardware required has the additional disadvantage that the hardware based agent board 120C can reduce the reliability of the system, and increase the power usage. Further, the cost varies with the number of server cards given that an agent board 120C is required for each server card. Further, a hardware board agent can introduce security issues of physically having to gain access to the hardware.
What is needed is a means to analyze the state of an electronic system with minimal impact to a performance of the system, a state analysis solution that is easy to maintain, and does not reduce the reliability of a system.
The invention provides a new, less intrusive, and easier to maintain system for capturing and analyzing the state of a computational processing system. The computational system is typically a computational system such as a server farm or data center and can have a number of guest computational machines running on a virtual machine layer. A state snapshot server can execute on a guest machine or can execute on separate hardware coupled to communicate with the virtual machine layer directly or through a network. Further the state snapshot server can work in conjunction with a configuration management server for compliance and security checking.
Within this document references are made to state information, state data, or a state snapshots which are considered to be equivalent. State snapshot information is comprised of persistent and non-persistent state information. Generally, non-persistent state information is associated with runtime information. State snapshot information includes file related information and physical memory information. The file related information includes but is not limited to file/directory existence, content, version, permissions and other attributes, registry key existence and permissions, registry value and existence, versions of the operating system, operating system components, attributes of system passwords such as the password length, and the age of the password, database configuration, schema structure and table values. Physical memory snapshot includes associated user memory and associated kernel memory. Snapshot state information found in kernel memory includes application runtimes, kernel runtime data structures, open network ports, network sockets connected with particular hosts, users logged into the system, virtual hardware configuration state information, and processor state information or a combination thereof. User memory state information includes state information on what programs a user is running and the state of user data structures that can indicated the presence of mal-ware. System security checks can involve the analysis of a combination of the above state information. If the type of system state analysis is a compliance check, then typically kernel checks, device state and processor state information is not included.
Further, the analysis the of the state information can be performed in terms of a policy. The policy is an information structure containing parameters, characteristics, ranges, and specific data relating to system state information that is captured and analyzed. Preferably the policy information is configurable and stored on the State Snapshot Server or any storage device accessible by the State Snapshot Server. For example, the policy can be a file stored on a disk directly attached to the State Snapshot Server or a disk on a network through which the State Snap Server can communicate. Also contemplated by the invention is the policy information being coded within the State Snapshot Server application. The policy specifies attributes by which to analyze of a piece of the state snapshot information. For example, the policy information can set ranges for state information such as but not limited to registry values ranges, database value ranges, environment or system variable ranges, and minimum password lengths. System characteristics can include whether a files is writable, and who has permission to change a file. Further, the policy for runtime information can include which processes should be running, who can be logged in, what times a user can be logged in, what communication channels are active, which network ports are open, what host can be connected to the network sockets, and the analysis of kernel data structures to verify that the kernel data structures are not corrupted or infected by a root-kit virus. Specific data relating to system state can include but are not limited to the password names, names of allowed hosts, allowed or not allowed users, allowed communication protocols.
The specification refers to triggers for taking and analyzing snapshots of system state data. Triggers include changes in the configuration change information. Configuration change information is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/008,274, filed Jan. 9, 2008, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESS ENFORCED CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT” that is incorporated by reference in its entirety. Further, the triggers can include host content change requests. Host content change request are described in pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/346,741, filed Feb. 2, 2006, entitled “ENFORCING ALIGNMENT OF APPROVED CHANGES AND DEPLOYED CHANGES IN THE SOFTWARE CHANGE LIFE-CYCLE” that is incorporated by reference in its entirety. Further, the triggers can be based on a specified user logging on or off a system, a process stop/start, or a reboot event on a Guest Machine, a State Snapshot Server, or a Configuration Management Server.
A first aspect of the invention is for a method of computational system state analysis. The method involves the steps of capturing selective state information of a computational system having one or more guest machines running on a virtual machine layer configured to output the state information. In a subsequent step, the state information is analyzed. The guest machines can have the same or different kernels (operating systems) running each of the guest machines.
In one embodiment, the state information is selectively specified on a guest machine basis. The capture of this state information can be for one guest machine, multiple guest machines or all guest machines.
In another embodiment, the analysis of the state information is according to a policy. The analysis can include processing according to the policy persistent state information, non-persistent information, or a combination thereof. Further, the processing of non-persistent state information includes, kernel state data, user state data and a combination thereof. The analysis of the kernel data structures can include verifying that root kit has not been configured into the system, the absence of a virus, or a given configuration of the kernel and the analysis of the physical user data snapshot can check fro mal-ware or whether the programs being run conform with the policy.
In another embodiment, the state information is stored on a storage system. The storage system can be directly coupled to the hardware running the virtual machine layer and guest machines or can be a distributed storage system. The coupling of the storage system can be directly tied to the computational hardware executing the virtual machine layer and guest machines or can be coupled using a network interface including ethernet, optical, or SAN (Storage Area Networks).
In a further embodiment, the method includes the step of controlling the virtual machine layer to selectively capture system state information. The capture of state information includes selective capture of information on a single guest machine or the capture of state information from a specified plurality of guest machines. The control of the virtual machine layer that generates snapshots can originate from a process or a software program running on a guest machine or by a process or software program running on a different computational hardware. The coupling of the control process with the virtual machine layer can be made directly or indirectly, such as through a network. Also, control over other communication links such as a direct communication link is contemplated. Alternatively, special purpose software or networking software can be configured to communicate with the virtual machine layer through the kernel running on the virtual machine.
In another embodiment, the method can include configuration management steps used in the maintenance and upgrading of an electronic computational system. The method can include the creating or opening configuration change ticket. The capture of the system state information and the analysis of the state information can be triggered in response to the creating or opening the configuration change ticket. Preferably, in the configuration change that is specified in the configuration change ticket is implemented before the capture and analysis of the state information for the one or more guest machines.
In another embodiment the capturing and processing of a state snapshot can be invoked by a number of triggers. These triggers can include a computer scheduled event, a change to the policy, or event triggers. The policy change can include a change to a file containing policy information or an application that is given an indication that the policy is changed. The triggers are described above and in the incorporated references.
In a further embodiment, the issuing of the change ticket includes using change process rules in the configuration management of a computational system. The analysis of the system state can utilize the change process rules in that analysis. The analysis can use the change process rules to extend the configuration, compliance, or security analysis to include when configuration change was made and by whom. Alternatively, the analysis can be used to determine any conflicts between the configuration, compliance, or security requirements and a configuration change. In one configuration, the analysis of the system state information is performed on the same computational hardware which executes the virtual machine layer and guest machines. In another embodiment, separate computational hardware is used for the state snapshot server. Further, in one embodiment, the configuration management system executes on one of the guest machines. In another embodiment, the configuration management system executes on hardware separate from the hardware executing the virtual machine layer and the guest machines.
Another aspect of the invention, is for a system for analyzing the state of a computational system. The system includes one or more guest machines, a storage system, and a virtual machine layer interfaced to the one or more guest machines. The virtual machine layer is configured to generate system state information for the one or more guest machines. A state snapshot server is configured to control the virtual machine layer. A first computation hardware unit is configured to execute the one or more guest machine and the virtual machine layer, and is coupled to the storage system. The storage system can be coupled through a network including but not limited to ethernet or a storage area network. Preferably, the virtual machine layer is configured to take fast system snapshots of state data without effecting the performance of any of the guest machines. The first computational hardware unit can comprise a single computational processing unit or a plurality of processing units. The processing units can be but is not limited to a single processor, multiple processing cores, a server blade, an array of processors or a combination thereof.
Further the analysis of the state information data can be analyzed according to a policy. A trigger can be used to invoke a state snapshot and analysis. The triggers are described above and in the incorporated references.
In one embodiment, the state snapshot server is configured to execute within one of the guest machines. In a different embodiment, the state snapshot server is configured to execute on a second computational hardware unit. The second computational hardware unit can be located away-from or near the first computational hardware unit. The communication channel between the first and second computational hardware unit can be through a wired or wireless network or through a dedicated communication channel using standard or proprietary communication protocols. Further, the taking and process of a state snapshot can be invoked by a number triggers. These triggers can include a computer scheduled event, a change to the policy, or event triggers. The policy change can include a change to a file containing policy information or an application that gives an indication that the policy is changed. The triggers are described above and in the incorporated references.
In another embodiment, the system further comprises a configuration management server. The server is configured to communicate control and configuration information with the state snapshot server. The configuration management server can issue a configuration change ticket. In response to the issuing the change ticket, the configuration management server can configure the state snapshot server to perform a system snapshot and analysis of the system state. The analysis can be performed according to a policy. In one embodiment the system state snapshot is taken before the configuration change indicated in the issued configuration ticket. In another embodiment, the state snapshot and analysis is performed after the configuration change is performed. The analysis of the system snapshot can include utilizing the change process rules information communicated by the change management server to the state snapshot server. Further, all or part of the state analysis results can be incorporated into the change ticket. The configuration management server can either read the information from an accessible file, request the information from the state snapshot server, or the state snapshot server can send the data to the configuration management server.
In another aspect of the present invention, the invention embodies one or more machine readable storage devices having processor readable code embodied on the storage devices for programming computational hardware to perform a method of system state analysis of a computational system. The code comprises the steps of capturing selective state information of a computational system having one or more guest machines running on a virtual machine layer configured to output the state information and analyzing the state information. The machine readable storage devices can include but is not limited to CD-ROMs, DVDs, hard disks, solid-state storage devices, tape, floppies, or other magnetic media. In one embodiment the state information is selectively captured from one or more guest machines. In another embodiment, the captured system state data is process according to a policy. In another embodiment the processor readable code is embodied on the storage devices is configured to read a system state snapshot from a storage system and then analyze the snapshot information.
The invention is better understood by reading the following detailed description of exemplary embodiments in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
The following description of the invention is provided as an enabling teaching of the invention in its best, currently known embodiment. Those skilled in the relevant art will recognize that many changes can be made to the embodiment described, while still obtaining the beneficial results of the present invention. It will also be apparent that some of the desired benefits of the present invention can be obtained by selecting some of the features of the present invention without utilizing other features. Accordingly, those who work in the art will recognize that many modifications and adaptations to the present inventions are possible and can even be desirable in certain circumstances, and are a part of the present invention. Thus, the following description is provided as illustrative of the principles of the present invention and not in limitation thereof, since the scope of the present invention is defined by the claims.
The illustrative embodiment of the invention provides means for analyzing the system state of a processing system for purposes including but not limited to configuration management, compliance or security checking, security enforcement or a combination thereof. Processing systems that could benefit from the invention include but are not limited server farms, data centers, and processing clusters. Also contemplated by the invention is the use of the invention within networking equipment. Further, the methods of and system for system state snapshotting and analysis can be integrated with configuration management systems to provide control of configuration changes, post change compliance security checking or a combination thereof. After an authorized configuration management change is implemented, a compliance check can be performed to validate that a desired system configuration is made. Any standard configuration management system can be used. Also, a process enforced configuration management system can be utilized. Detail of such a system can be found in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/008,274, filed: Jan. 9, 2008, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESS ENFORCED CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT” which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
The invention comprises a state snapshot server which controls a virtual machine layer in the taking of system state snapshots and the analysis of the snapshot data.
The invention provides a number of benefits. First, using the virtual machine layer to take system state snapshots is typically much quicker than taking a snapshot from the a guest machine. Many of the current implementations of virtual machine layer utilize incremental file systems where the state of the files, including the content can quickly be stored away. Secondly, the analysis of the system state can be performed with minimal impact to the performance of each guest machine. Further, a system state snapshot taken by the virtual machine layer can include persistent and non-persistent state information where the non-persistent state information includes physical memory, both user and kernel, state information. As described above, the state snapshot information can be analyzed according to a policy. This includes the analysis of non-persistent system snapshot data that includes kernel and user physical memory. The analysis of the physical memory can include but is not limited to validating kernel data structures have not been corrupted by a root kit or a virus, that the kernel is properly configured, and that the kernel has the required components installed. Further the user data memory can be analyzed to determine whether the programs being run conform with the policy and whether any of the programs are corrupted by mal-ware. A major benefit of the current invention is that only one snapshot server has to be installed, maintained, and upgraded as oppose one for each guest machine.
An illustrative embodiment of the present invention is shown in
The virtual machine layer 220 is preferably a software component that runs on the computational hardware 230. The virtual machine layer 220 is to allows multiple kernels 215A-215n, also referred to as operating systems, to share the same computational hardware and its associated resources including the storage systems 240 and the network communications 235. The operating system 215A-215n on each guest machine can be the same operating system, different versions/configurations of the same operating system, a different operating system 215 or a combination thereof. Each operating system is able to run concurrently on the same computational hardware 230 while the virtual machine layer 220 makes it appear to each operating system 215 that it the only operating system 215 controlling the hardware 230. The advantage of a system configured with a virtual machine layer 220 is that different software applications can use either a different operating system 215, a different version of the operating system 215, or different configuration of an operating system 215. For example, an accounting software package may require Unix while the engineering tools require two different versions of version of Linx, while Microsoft Windows® Server is used for general file sharing services. Instead of requiring a separate dedicated computational hardware 230 for each of the of different operating systems 215 and applications, the computational hardware 230 can be easily shared. Two commonly used virualization machines are VMware®, Widows Virtual Server by Microsoft®, or Microsoft Virtual PC®. The virtual machine layer 220 has an interface for the storing a snapshot of the state of file system and a kernel state each guest machine 210A-210n. These snapshots can be taken by a state snapshot server 250/250′, specifying for each guest machine the system state snapshot to be taken. Further, the virtual machine layer 220 can implement an incremental file system. The incremental file system operates by saving and tracking incremental changes to a file. Thus, a snapshot of the file does not require the storage of an entire file but only the storage of references to the incremental changes up to the time when a snapshot is taken. Saving this incremental information takes significantly less time than storing a copy of an entire file for state analysis.
The computational hardware 230 can range from a single processor to a distributed data center utilizing racks of server blades. Thus, the virtual machine layer 220 abstracts the computational hardware 230 allowing the computational resource to be more effectively shared between different applications requiring different operating system environments. The computational hardware 230 is coupled to the networking hardware 235 for interfacing with storage devices or to other processing systems including but not limited to configuration management servers 260 or state snapshot servers 250. The interface is not limited to a single network or a specific type of network. The connection 242 to the storage system 240 can be over ethernet or storage area networks.
The guest machines 210A-210n include system software including applications, and kernel software 215A-215n (the operating system). The kernel software 215 accesses hardware resources through the virtual machine layer 220 which makes it appear to each kernel software 215 of each guest machine 240 as if it is the only operating system controlling the hardware resources. Each guest machine 210 can access the network 242 or storage systems 240 attached to the computational hardware 230. The state snapshot server 250′ and the configuration management server 260′ can execute as an application or process on one of the guest machines 210.
The storage system 240 can be any commonly found media designed to interface with computational systems such as data server. The storage system 240 can include disk drives, solid state storage, tape drives or any other magnetic media. Preferably, the interface with the storage system 240 has a high bandwidth. A SAN or storage area network 242 can be used to couple the storage system 240 with the computational hardware 230. The guest machines 210 can access the storage system through the network 242. The storage system 240 can be partitioned such that each guest machine 210 only has access to a part of the storage system 240. The state snapshot server 250 may also be coupled to the storage system over a SAN or through another type of network 242. State snapshots or information referenced by the snapshot for an incremental file systems is stored on the storage system or can be directly used by the state snapshot server 250/250′.
The state snapshot server 250/250′ controls the virtual machine layer 220 to produce system state snapshots of the guest machines 210A-n. Further references to the guest machines 210A-n can include any of the guest machines and can be referenced the numerical indicator 210. The state snapshot server 250/250′ is shown as either a separate snapshot server 250 running on different computational hardware than the guest machines 210, or can be a state snapshot server 250′ running on a guest machine 210. Further references to the state snapshot server 250, 250′ will refer to either configuration unless stated otherwise and will only use the numerical indicator 250. The state snapshot server 250 can also interface with the configuration management server 260/260′ or through user interface. Further references to the configuration management server 260/260′ will refer to either configuration unless stated otherwise and will only be indicated by the numerical indicator 260. A user interface can provide control for taking system state data, storing and analyzing. Communication with the storage system can be over network including but not limited to ethernet, SANs or over a dedicated communication channel. Communication with the virtual machine layer 220 can be over interprocess communication protocols such as but not limited to sockets for the case were the snapshot sever is running on a guest machine 210, or though a library or kernel call.
The configuration management server 260 is used to provide a process enforced system for making system configuration changes. The U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/008,274, filed: Jan. 9, 2008, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESS ENFORCED CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT” which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety describes in detail a process enforced configuration management system. The configuration management system uses change process rules to control when and if a configuration change is made. The configuration management system 260 can execute on a server with separate hardware and communicate with the state snapshot server 250 over a network. Alternatively, the configuration management server 260′ executes on a guest machine. Communication with the state snapshot server can be through but not limited to common interprocess or network communications including but not limited to socket communication.
In some embodiments, the state snapshot server application(s) 430 includes several applications and/or modules. In some embodiments, the state snapshot server application(s) 430 include an analysis module 432, a control module 434 and an configuration management interface and control module 436.
To analyze system state snapshots, the state snapshot server 250 controls a virtual machine layer 220 to take a snapshot of one or more of the guest machines. The snapshot is then also analyzed according to a policy. The policy can include analysis parameter for persistent state information and non-persistent state information. The non-persistent state information can include user and kernel physical memory. In some embodiments, via an external interface, a configuration management server 260 sends control messages to the state snapshot server 250 to take and analyze the system state snapshot. These control messages can be the result of a trigger. The configuration management server 260 can send information related to change process rules that can be used in the analysis of the system state snapshots. For example, the configuration management server 260 can have rules on who and when a configuration change can be made. For security or compliance reasons, there can be restrictions related to these parameters. This allows for configuration, compliance, and security verification to extend beyond just state information. This invention now enables the incorporation of the additional information of “who” and “when” a configuration change was made. For example, the verification can now include a check of who made a configuration change, the time that it was made, and that the change was properly authorized as specified in a configuration change ticket and at the time specified by the configuration change ticket.
In operation, the state snapshot server 250 controls the taking and analyzing of state snapshots of guest machines 210 through the control of the virtual machine layer 220 in a manner that has minimal effect on the guest machine 210 performance. As discussed above, the state snapshot sever 250′ can executed on one of the guest machines 210 or on a separate piece of computational hardware. The state snapshot server 250 receives a control input for the taking and analyzing of one or more snapshots from one or more of the guest machines 210. The source of the control can be a user input from a terminal, a graphics display device, or can be scheduled by the operating system to execute a system state snapshot at a specified time. Further, the system state snapshot server 250 can be configured to be controlled by another process, application or server such as a configuration management server 260. In response to the issuance of a configuration change ticket, the configuration management server 260 can change the configuration of one or more of the guest machines 210, associated files systems or the computational hardware 230 configuration. Subsequently an indication is communicated to the state snapshot server 250 to take and analyze one or more system state snapshots. Preferably, the state snapshot server 250 interfaces with a virtual machine layer 230 that implements incremental file storage. Thus, as described above, the system state can be saved with a minimal copying of files. Thus, the time to take and store a snapshot is minimized and computation processing time and storage bandwidth is minimized.
The state snapshot server 250 can communicate with the virtual machine layer 220 over any standard computer communication method. Communication with the virtual machine can be over network sockets, signals, or shared memory communication. A dedicated program or library can be added to the guest machine 210 for the state snapshot application or process to communicate with the virtual machine layer 220 for the configuration where the state snapshot server 250′ is running on a guest machine. The state snapshot server 250 indicates to the virtual machine layer 220 which state snapshots are to be taken. The state snapshot server 250 can also specify the scope of the snapshot data to be taken. For example, snapshots of only file data can be taken. In another snapshot, the snapshots could include kernel data to be analyzed.
The virtual machine layer 230 can communicate back to the state snapshot server upon completion of the state snapshot. The snapshot is then analyzed by the state snapshot server 250. The analysis can include checking the state of the system against a specified state configuration. The analysis check includes analyzing the system snapshot data according to a policy. As described above, the system snapshot data can include persistent and non-persistent data including physical memory data that include user and kernel state information. Further, the analysis can utilize information provided by the configuration management server 260. This information can include process change rules from which conflicts between the configuration change, configuration change rules and a compliance configuration can be compared. The results of the analysis can be stored on a storage system 240, displayed on a graphical display device, communicated to the configuration management server 260, or a combination thereof.
This application is a continuation-in-part of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/008,274, filed: Jan. 9, 2008, entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESS ENFORCED CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT” which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, and which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of the co-pending, co-owned United States Provisional Patent Application, Ser. No. 60/879,826, filed Jan. 10, 2007, and entitled “SOFTWARE THAT MESSAGES CHANGE CONTROL.” This application further claims priority to United States Provisional Patent Application, Ser. No. 61/002,540 filed Nov. 8, 2007, and entitled “COMPLIANCE SOLUTION FOR V13 ENVIRONMENTS” and is also hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
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 |
5873086 | Fujii et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5884298 | Smith, II et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5907709 | Cantey et al. | May 1999 | A |
5907860 | Garibay et al. | May 1999 | A |
5926832 | Wing et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5944839 | Isenberg | Aug 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 |
6141698 | Krishnan et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6182142 | Win et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
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 |
6338149 | Ciccone, Jr. et al. | Jan 2002 | 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 |
6496477 | Perkins et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6587877 | Douglis et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6611925 | Spear | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6658645 | Akuta et al. | Dec 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 |
6918110 | Hundt et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6930985 | Rathi et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6934755 | Saulpaugh et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6941470 | Jooste | Sep 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 |
7054930 | Cheriton | May 2006 | B1 |
7065767 | Kambhammettu et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7069330 | McArdle et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7082456 | Mani-Meitav et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7093239 | van der Made | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7096500 | Roberts et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
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 |
7177267 | Oliver et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7203864 | Goin et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7251655 | Kaler et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7290266 | Gladstone et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7302558 | Campbell et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7330849 | Gerasoulis et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7340684 | Ramamoorthy et al. | Mar 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 |
7360097 | Rothstein | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7363022 | Whelan et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7370360 | van der Made | May 2008 | B2 |
7385938 | Beckett et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7406517 | Hunt et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7441265 | Staamann et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7463590 | Mualem et al. | Dec 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 |
7607170 | Chesla | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7657599 | Smith | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7669195 | Qumei | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7685635 | Vega et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7694150 | Kirby | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7698744 | Fanton et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7703090 | Napier et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7739497 | Fink et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7757269 | Roy-Chowdhury et al. | Jul 2010 | B1 |
7765538 | Zweifel et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7783735 | Sebes et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7809704 | Surendran et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7814554 | Ragner | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7818377 | Whitney et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7823148 | Deshpande et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7836504 | Ray et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7840968 | Sharma et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7849507 | Bloch et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7853643 | Martinez et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7856661 | Sebes et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7865931 | Stone et al. | Jan 2011 | B1 |
7870387 | Bhargava et al. | Jan 2011 | B1 |
7873955 | Sebes et al. | Jan 2011 | B1 |
7895573 | Bhargava et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7908653 | Brickell et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7925722 | Reed et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7937455 | Saha et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7950056 | Satish et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
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 |
8028340 | Sebes et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8055904 | Cato et al. | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8195931 | Sharma et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8205188 | Ramamoorthy et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8209680 | Le et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8234709 | Viljoen et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8234713 | Roy-Chowdhury et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8307437 | Sebes et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8321932 | Bhargava et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8332929 | Bhargava et al. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8352930 | Sebes et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8381284 | Dang et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8387046 | Montague et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8515075 | Saraf et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8539063 | Sharma et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8544003 | Sawhney et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8549003 | Bhargava et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8549546 | Sharma et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8555404 | Sebes et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8561051 | Sebes et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8561082 | Sharma et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8584199 | Chen et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8701182 | Bhargava et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8707422 | Bhargava et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8707446 | Roy-Chowdhury et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8713668 | Cooper et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8726391 | Zhong et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8739272 | Cooper et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8762928 | Sharma et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8763118 | Sebes et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8793489 | Polunin et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8800024 | Cooper et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8843903 | Blaser et al. | Sep 2014 | B1 |
8869265 | Dang et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8875292 | Bogorad et al. | Oct 2014 | B1 |
8904520 | Nachenberg et al. | Dec 2014 | B1 |
8925101 | Bhargava et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8938800 | Bhargava et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
8973146 | Ramanan et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9112830 | Cooper et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9134998 | Roy-Chowdhury et al. | Sep 2015 | 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 |
20020114319 | Liu et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030014667 | Kolichtchak | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023736 | Abkemeier | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033510 | Dice | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030061506 | Cooper et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030065945 | Lingafelt et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030073894 | Chiang et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074552 | Olkin et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030088680 | Nachenberg et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030115222 | Oashi et al. | Jun 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 |
20040057454 | Hennegan et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040088398 | Barlow | May 2004 | A1 |
20040139206 | Claudatos et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143749 | Tajalli et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040153650 | Hillmer | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040167906 | Smith et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040172551 | Fielding et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040230963 | Rothman et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243678 | Smith et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255161 | Cavanaugh | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040268149 | Aaron | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050005006 | Chauffour et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050018651 | Yan et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050022014 | Shipman | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050071633 | Rothstein | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050081053 | Aston et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050086047 | Uchimoto et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091321 | Daniell et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091487 | Cross 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 |
20050198519 | Tamura et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050228990 | Kato et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050235360 | Pearson | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050256907 | Novik et al. | Nov 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 |
20060072451 | Ross | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075299 | Chandramouleeswaran et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075478 | Hyndman et al. | Apr 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 |
20060143713 | Challener 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 |
20060277603 | Kelso et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070011746 | Malpani et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070028303 | Brennan | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070033645 | Jones | 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 |
20070157303 | Pankratov | Jul 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 |
20070232265 | Park et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070253430 | Minami et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070256138 | Gadea et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070271561 | Winner et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070297333 | Zuk et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070297396 | Eldar et al. | Dec 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 |
20080034418 | Venkatraman et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080052468 | Speirs et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080059123 | Estberg et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080082662 | Dandliker et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080082977 | Araujo et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080086513 | O'Brien | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080115012 | Jann et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080120499 | Zimmer et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080141371 | Bradicich et al. | Jun 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 | Schunter et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080282080 | Hyndman et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080294703 | Craft et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080295173 | Tsvetanov | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301770 | Kinder | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080307524 | Singh et al. | 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 |
20090063665 | Bagepalli et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090113110 | Chen et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090144300 | Chatley et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090150639 | Ohata | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090178110 | Higuchi | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090220080 | Herne et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090249053 | Zimmer et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090249438 | Litvin et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090320010 | Chow et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090320133 | Viljoen et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328144 | Sherlock et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328185 | van den Berg et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100049973 | Chen | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100071035 | Budko et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100100970 | Chowdhury et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100114825 | Siddegowda | May 2010 | A1 |
20100138430 | Gotou | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100188976 | Rahman et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100250895 | Adams et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100281133 | Brendel | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100293225 | Sebes et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299277 | Emelo et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100332910 | Ali et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110029772 | Fanton et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110035423 | Kobayashi et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110047542 | Dang et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110047543 | Mohinder | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110061092 | Bailloeul et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110077948 | Sharma et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110078550 | Nabutovsky | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110093842 | Sebes | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110093950 | Bhargava et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110113467 | Agarwal et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110119760 | Sebes et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110138461 | Bhargava et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110246753 | Thomas | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110302647 | Bhattacharya et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120030731 | Bhargava et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120030750 | Bhargava et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120110666 | Ogilvie | May 2012 | A1 |
20120159631 | Niemela et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120216271 | Cooper et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120233611 | Voccio | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120278853 | Chowdhury et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120290827 | Bhargava et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120290828 | Bhargava et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120297176 | Bhargava et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130024934 | Sebes et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130091318 | Bhattacharjee et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130097355 | Dang et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130097356 | Dang et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130097658 | Cooper et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130097692 | Cooper et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130117823 | Dang et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130179971 | Harrison | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130227683 | Bettini et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130246044 | Sharma et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130246393 | Saraf et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130246423 | Bhargava et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130246685 | Bhargava et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247016 | Sharma et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247027 | Shah et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247032 | Bhargava et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247181 | Saraf et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247192 | Krasser et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247201 | Alperovitch et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247226 | Sebes et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130268994 | Cooper et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140090061 | Avasarala et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140101783 | Bhargava et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140189859 | Ramanan et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140237584 | Cooper et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140250492 | Cooper et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140283065 | Teddy et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140283066 | Teddy et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140317592 | Roy-Chowdhury et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140351895 | Bhargava et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150121449 | Cp | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150180884 | Bhargava et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150180997 | Ramanan et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150200968 | Bhargava et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150365380 | Cooper et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1383295 | Dec 2002 | CN |
101147379 | Mar 2008 | CN |
101218568 | Jul 2008 | CN |
101569129 | Oct 2009 | CN |
101636998 | Jan 2010 | CN |
103283202 | Sep 2013 | CN |
1 482 394 | Dec 2004 | EP |
2 037 657 | Mar 2009 | EP |
2599026 | Jun 2013 | EP |
2599276 | Jun 2013 | EP |
2004524598 | Aug 2004 | JP |
2005-275839 | Jun 2005 | JP |
2005-202523 | Jul 2005 | JP |
2005-275839 | Oct 2005 | JP |
2006-59217 | Mar 2006 | JP |
2006-302292 | Nov 2006 | JP |
2007-500396 | Jan 2007 | JP |
2008-506303 | Feb 2008 | JP |
2008-217306 | Sep 2008 | JP |
2009-510858 | Mar 2009 | JP |
2010-16834 | Jan 2010 | JP |
WO 9844404 | Oct 1998 | WO |
WO 0184285 | Nov 2001 | WO |
WO 2006012197 | Feb 2006 | WO |
WO 2006124832 | Nov 2006 | WO |
WO 2007016478 | Feb 2007 | WO |
WO 2008054997 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2011003958 | Jan 2011 | WO |
WO 2011059877 | May 2011 | WO |
WO 2012015485 | Feb 2012 | WO |
WO 2012015489 | Feb 2012 | WO |
WO 2012116098 | Aug 2012 | WO |
WO 2013058940 | Apr 2013 | WO |
WO 2013058944 | Apr 2013 | WO |
WO 2014105308 | Jul 2014 | WO |
WO 2015060857 | Apr 2015 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Kurt Gutzmann, “Access Control and Session Management in the HTTP Environment,”Jan./Feb. 2001, pp. 26-35, IEEE Internet Computing. |
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. 10/651,591, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Networked Application Client Software by Explicit Human Input,” filed Aug. 29, 2003, Inventor(s): Rosen Sharma 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. 11/122,872, entitled “Piracy Prevention Using Unique Module Translation,” filed May 4, 2005, Inventor(s): E. John Sebes 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. 12/322,220, 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+architecture—Q1+2008.pdf, printed Aug. 18, 2009 (9 pages). |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/551,673, entitled “Piracy Prevention Using Unique Module Translation,” filed Sep. 1, 2009, Inventor(s): E. John Sebes et al. |
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/, printed Oct. 12, 2009, 1 page. |
Secure Mobile Computing, Website: http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/mobile.html, 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. |
Patent Examination Report No. 1, Australian Application No. 2011283160, mailed Oct. 30, 2013, 3 pages. |
USPTO Dec. 6, 2013 Notice of Allowance received for U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,181, 10 pages. |
USPTO Dec. 6, 2013 Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 13/540,448, 7 pages. |
USPTO Dec. 16, 2013 Notice of Allowance received for U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,227, 10 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/127,395, entitled “Agent Assisted Malicious Application Blocking in a Network Environment,” filed Dec. 18, 2013, Inventors: Chandan CP et al., 76 pages. |
Patent Examination Report No. 1, Australian Application No. 2011283164, mailed Jan. 14, 2014, 6 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/257,770, entitled “Enforcing Alignment of Approved Changes and Deployed Changes in the Software Change Life-Cycle,” filed Apr. 21, 2014, Inventors: Rahul Roy-Chowdhury et al., 56 pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability in International Application No. PCT/US2012/057312, mailed Apr. 22, 2014, 5 pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability in International Application No. PCT/US2012/057153, mailed Apr. 22, 2014, 4 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/263,164, entitled “System and Method for Redirected Firewall Discovery in a Network Environment,” filed Apr. 28, 2014, Inventors: Geoffrey Cooper et al., 38 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/277,954, entitled “System and Method for Interlocking a Host and a Gateway,” filed May 15, 2014, Inventors: Geoffrey Cooper et al., 42 pages. |
USPTO Feb. 21, 2014 Nonfinal Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/229,502, 22 pages. |
Citrix, CTX 115813—FAX: XenMotion, Live Migration—Citrix Knowledge Center, copyright 1999-2012 Citrix Systems, Inc., retrieved from http://support/citrix.com/article/CTX115813 on Aug. 7, 2012, 2 pages. |
Citrix® , Citrix Synchronizer™ 1.0 RC Administrator Guide, Published May 11, 2010, copyright 2009 Citrix, 32 pages. |
Notification of International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion mailed May 24, 2012 for International Application No. PCT/US2010/055520, 5 pages. |
Sailer et al., sHype: Secure Hypervisor Approach to Trusted Virtualized Systems, IBM research Report, Feb. 2, 2005, 13 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/229,502, filed Sep. 9, 2011, entitled System and Method for Passive Threat Detection Using Virtual Memory Inspection, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al. |
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. |
VMware VMotion Product Datasheet, How is VMware VMotion Used in the Enterprise?, copyright 2009 VMware, Inc., retrieved from http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/VMware-VMotion-DS-EN.pdf, printed Aug. 7, 2012, 2 pages. |
VMware vSphere™ Experience Game-changing Virtual Machine Mobility, copyright 2012 VMware, Inc., retrieved from website: http://www.vmware.com/products/vmotion/overview.html, printed Aug. 7, 2012, 2 pages. |
VMware vSphere™ Features of VMware vMotion for Live Migration of Virtual Machines, copyright 2012 VMware, Inc., retrieved from http://www.vmware.com/products/vmotion/features.html, printed Aug. 7, 2012, 2 pages. |
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.Ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.91.5091&rep=rep1&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,” Inventors Venkata Ramanan, et al. |
An Analysis of Address Space Layout Randomization on Windows Vista™, Symantec Advanced Threat Research, copyright 2007 Symantec Corporation, available at http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/reference/Address—Space—Layout—Randomization.pdf, 19 pages. |
Bhatkar, et al., “Efficient Techniques for Comprehensive Protection from Memory Error Exploits,” USENIX Association, 14th USENIX Security Symposium, Aug. 1-5, 2005, Baltimore, MD, 16 pages. |
Dewan, et al., “A Hypervisor-Based System for Protecting Software Runtime Memory and Persistent Storage,” Spring Simulation Multiconference 2008, Apr. 14-17, 2008, Ottawa, Canada, (available at website: www.vodun.org/papers/2008—secure—locker—submit—v1-1.pdf, printed Oct. 11, 2011), 8 pages. |
Shacham, et al., “On the Effectiveness of Address-Space Randomization,” CCS'04, Oct. 25-29, 2004, Washington, D.C., Copyright 2004, 10 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Dec. 14, 2012 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/055674, 9 pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion issued Jan. 29, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2011/020677 (9 pages). |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion issued Jan. 29, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2011/024869 (6 pages). |
Datagram Transport Layer Security Request for Comments 4347, E. Rescorla, et al., Stanford University, Apr. 2006, retrieved and printed on Oct. 17, 2011 from http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc4347.pdf, 26 pages. |
Internet Control Message Protocol Request for Comments 792, J. Postel, ISI, Sep. 1981, retrieved and printed on Oct. 17, 2011 from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc792, 22 pages. |
Mathew J. Schwartz, “Palo Alto Introduces Security for Cloud, Mobile Users,” retrieved Feb. 9, 2011 from http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/perimeter/showArticle.jhtml?articleID-22, 4 pages. |
Requirements for IV Version 4 Routers Request for Comments 1812, F. Baker, Cisco Systems, Jun. 1995, retrieved and printed on Oct. 17, 2011 from http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc1812.pdf, 176 pages. |
The Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC), FIPS PUB 198, Issued Mar. 6, 2002, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication, retrieved and printed on Oct. 17, 2011 from http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips198/fips-198a.pdf, 20 pages. |
Zhen Chen et al., “Application Level Network Access Control System Based on TNC Architecture for Enterprise Network,” In: Wireless communications Networking and Information Security (WCNIS), 2010 IEEE International Conference, Jun. 25-27, 2010 (5 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US2012/026169, mailed Jun. 18, 2012, 11 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US2012/057312, mailed Jan. 31, 2013, 10 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US2012/057153, mailed Dec. 26, 2012, 8 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/437,900, filed Apr. 2, 2012, entitled “System and Method for Interlocking a Host and a Gateway,” Inventors: Geoffrey Howard Cooper, et al. |
Narten et al., RFC 4861, “Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)”, Sep. 2007, retrieved from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861, 194 pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability, International Application No. PCT/US2012/026169, mailed Aug. 27, 2013, 8 pages. |
USPTO Aug. 14, 2013 Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 13/540,448. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/045,208, filed Oct. 3, 2013, entitled “Execution Environment File Inventory,” Inventors: Rishi Bhargava, et al. |
USPTO Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 13/540,448, mailed on Apr. 10, 2013, 20 pages. |
USPTO Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,181, mailed on Aug. 7, 2013, 13 pages. |
USPTO Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,181, mailed on May 8, 2013, 13 pages. |
USPTO Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,227, mailed on Aug. 6, 2013, 13 pages. |
USPTO Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,227, mailed on May 8, 2013, 22 pages. |
USPTO Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,277, mailed on Oct. 3, 2013, 11 pages. |
USPTO Office Action received for U.S Appl. No. 13/558,277, mailed on May 10, 2013, 22 pages. |
PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US13/66690, filed Oct. 24, 2013, entitled “Agent Assisted Malicious Application Blocking in a Network Environment,” 67 pages. |
Patent Examination Report No. 1, Australian Application No. 2011283160, mailed Oct. 30, 2013. |
PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US13/71327, filed Nov. 21, 2013, entitled “Herd Based Scan Avoidance System in a Network Environment,” 46 pages. |
Barrantes et al., “Randomized Instruction Set Emulation to Dispurt Binary Code Injection Attacks,” Oct. 27-31, 2003, ACM, pp. 281-289. |
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. |
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. 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, Inventors(s) Rishi Bhargava, 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. 12/946,344, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Usage of Language Interfaces,” filed Nov. 15, 2010, Inventor(s) Rosen Sharma, et al. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
IA-32 Intel® Architecture Software Developer's Manual, vol. 3B; Jun. 2006; pp. 13, 15, 22 and 145-146. |
USPTO Jun. 5, 2013 Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 11/437,317, 8 pages. |
USPTO Jun. 10, 2013 Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 12/976,159, 9 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US2013/071327, mailed Mar. 7, 2014, 12 pages. |
“Optical stateful security filtering approach based on code words,” Sliti, M.; Boudriga, N., 2013 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC), 10 pages. |
Rothenberg, et al., “A Review of Policy-Based Resource and Admission Control Functions in Evolving Access and Next Generation Networks,” Journal of Network and Systems Management, 16.1 (2008) 14-45, 32 pages. |
USPTO Sep. 10, 2014 Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/229,502, 18 pages. |
USPTO Oct. 2, 2014 Nonfinal Rejection from U.S. Appl. No. 14/257,770, 8 pages. |
Muttik, Igor, and Chris Barton, “Cloud security technologies,” Information security technical report 14.1 (2009), 1-6, 6 pages. |
USPTO Feb. 12, 2015 Final Rejection from U.S. Appl. No. 14/257,770, 6 pages. |
Baba, Tatsuya, et al., “A Proposal of an Integrated Worm Countermeasure System Based on Dynamic VLAN Control,” Journal of Information Processing Society of Japan, Japan, Information Processing Society of Japan, Aug. 15, 2006, vol. 47, No. 8, pp. 2449-2511, 14 pages, English language Abstract only. |
Fujita, Keisuke, et al., “Proposal of DF system with boot control function against unauthorized programs,” Transactions of Computer Security Symposium 2007, Japan, Information Processing Society of Japan, Oct. 31, 2007, vol. 2007, No. 10, pp. 501-506, 7 pages, English language Abstract only. |
Ashiwa, Takashi, “IT Keyword too late to ask: Bot,” Nikkei Computer, Japan, Nikkei Business Publications, Oct. 30, 2006, No. 664, pp. 244-249, 14 pages, 7 pages of English translation. |
USPTO Apr. 28, 2015 Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 14/257,770, 8 pages. |
Cheneau, Tony, et al., “Significantly improved performances of the cryptographically generated addresses thanks to ECC and GPGPU,” Computers & Security, vol. 29, No. 4, Jun. 2010, pp. 419-431, 13 pages. |
USPTO Jul. 10, 2015 Nonfinal Rejection from U.S. Appl. No. 14/045,208, 41 pages. |
USPTO Jul. 20, 2015 Nonfinal Rejection from U.S. Appl. No. 14/251,009, 40 pages. |
USPTO Aug. 21, 2015 Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 13/229,502, 22 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/848,522, entitled “Enforcing Alignment of Approved Changes and Deployed Changes in the Software Change Life-Cycle,” filed Sep. 9, 2015, Inventors: Rahul Roy-Chowdhury et al., 41 pages. |
USPTO Nov. 10, 2015 Final Rejection from U.S. Appl. No. 14/251,009, 13 pages. |
USPTO Nov. 13, 2015 Final Rejection from U.S. Appl. No. 14/045,208, 36 pages. |
USPTO Mar. 15, 2016 Nonfinal Rejection from U.S. Appl. No. 14/251,009, 30 pages. |
USPTO May 24, 2016 Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 14/045,208, 14 pages. |
USPTO Jun. 2, 2016 Nonfinal Rejection from U.S. Appl. No. 14/848,522, 10 pages. |
USPTO Jun. 24, 2016 Final Rejection from U.S. Appl. No. 14/251,009, 16 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130247032 A1 | Sep 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60879826 | Jan 2007 | US | |
61002540 | Nov 2007 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12008274 | Jan 2008 | US |
Child | 12291232 | US |