The present invention relates to information security and more specifically relates to systems and methods for detecting and preventing unauthorized disclosure of secure information. Furthermore, the present invention pertains to fingerprinting textual information using word runs for the purpose of detecting and preventing unauthorized disclosure of secure information.
With the rapid increase and advances in digital documentation capabilities and document management systems, organizations are increasingly storing important, confidential, and secure information in the form of digital documents. Unauthorized dissemination of this information, either by accident or by wanton means, presents serious security risks to these organizations. Therefore, it is imperative for the organizations to protect such secure information and detect and react to any secure information (or derivatives thereof) from being disclosed beyond the perimeters of the organization.
Additionally, the organizations face the challenge of categorizing and maintaining the large corpus of digital information across potentially thousands of data stores, content management systems, end-user desktops, etc. It is therefore valuable to the organization to be able to identify and disregard redundant information from this vast database. At the same time, it is critical to the organization's security to be able to identify derivative forms of the secure data (e.g., changes to the sentence structure or word ordering at the sentence/paragraph level, use of comparable words in the form of synonyms/hpernyms, varied usage of punctuations, etc.) and identify any unauthorized disclosure of even such derivative forms. Therefore, any system or method built to accomplish the task of preventing unauthorized disclosure would have to address these two conflicting challenges.
One method to detect similar data is by examining the database at the file level. This can be done by comparing the file names, or by comparing the file sizes, or by doing a checksum of the contents of the file. However, even minor differences between the two files will evade a detection method.
Other prior art solutions teach partial text matching methods using various k-gram approaches. In such approaches, text-characters of a fixed length, called k-grams, are selected from the secure text. These k-grams are hashed into a number called a fingerprint. In order to increase storage and resource efficiency, the various prior art approaches propose different means by which the k-grams can sampled, so as to store only a representative subset of the k-grams. However, these prior art approaches suffer a number of disadvantages. For example, these prior systems are not robust against derivate works of the secure text. Additionally, the k-gram approaches are not suitable for use in multi-language environments (e.g., a document containing a mixture of Mandarin and English words). Also, using a character-based approach as opposed to a word-based approach does not allow for the exclusion of common or repeated words, thus resulting in overall memory and resource inefficiencies.
Methods and systems to provide fast, efficient, and scalable means to fingerprint textual information using word runs is presented. In one embodiment, the present invention provides methods and systems to efficiently fingerprint vast amounts textual information using word runs and allows these fingerprints to be recorded in a repository. This embodiment comprises a receiving module to receive textual information from a plurality of input sources. It further includes a normalization module to convert the textual information to a standardized canonical format. It then includes a word boundary detection module that detects the boundaries of words in a language independent manner. It additionally includes a word hash list generator, where each word of the textual information is converted to a representative hash value. Several means are provided by which the word hash list can be post-processed to significantly improve memory and resource efficiencies. Examples of such post-processing include eliminating certain stop words, grouping certain categories of words and mapping them to one hash value, etc. This embodiment also includes a fingerprint generator, which generates fingerprints by applying hash functions over the elements of the word hash list. The fingerprint generator uses algorithms to generate only a representative subset of the entire word hash list, thus further enhancing the memory and resource efficiencies of the system. A repository, which can include any database or storage medium, is then used to record the fingerprints generated for the vast amounts of textual information received at the receiver module.
In another embodiment, the present invention provides methods and systems to receive any textual information entered in by a user and to match such information against a fingerprint database. This embodiment includes a receiving module to receive the user entered information, a normalization module to convert the textual information to a standardized canonical format, a language independent word boundary detector to detect the start and end of each word, a word hash list generator to generate representative hash values to every word, and a fingerprint generator that uses a sliding window to efficiently generate a representative subset of fingerprints for the received user information. This embodiment finally matches the generated fingerprints against a previously developed fingerprint database, and provides alerts to the user in the event that any secure or protected information is indeed being disclosed.
Other embodiments of the present invention allow the fingerprints to be generated without any dependence on human languages, and without any linguistic understanding of the underlying text, thereby allowing the invention to be applied to most languages. The present invention also provides embodiments where the fingerprints are made independent of presence of punctuations, ordering of words within sentences or paragraphs, and/or presence of upper and lower case characters in the words. By doing this, the present invention allows word runs to be matched and detected both at sentence and paragraph level. Additionally, this invention allows even derivative works of the original text (e.g., changes to the sentence structure or word ordering at the sentence/paragraph level, use of comparable words in the form of synonyms/hpernyms, varied usage of punctuations, removal or addition of certain stop words, etc.) to be matched and detected.
These and other objects, features and characteristics of the present invention will become more apparent to those skilled in the art from a study of the following detailed description in conjunction with the appended claims and drawings, all of which form a part of this specification. In the drawings:
The present invention may be embodied in several forms and manners. The description provided below and the drawings show exemplary embodiments of the invention. Those of skill in the art will appreciate that the invention may be embodied in other forms and manners not shown below. It is understood that the use of relational terms, if any, such as first, second, top and bottom, and the like are used solely for distinguishing one entity or action from another, without necessarily requiring or implying any such actual relationship or order between such entities or actions.
Information may be received from several sources. In one embodiment, the source could include confidential, important, or secure information maintained by an organization, where such information needs to be recorded or registered into a database. In another embodiment, the source could include any information entered by a user having access to an organization's secure information, where such information would need to be matched and inspected against an existing database of secure information. The textual information received from either of these sources includes a plurality of words. Such words are may be present as a plurality of text-characters, with one word distinguished from another by the presence of at least one space-character. The words may also be present as plurality of text-characters, with one word separated from another by the use of punctuation marks.
The received information is first normalized to a canonical text representation 120. This can be done by converting the computer files containing the textual information into one of several raw text formats. One example of such normalization is to convert a PDF (Portable Document Format) file into a Unicode transformation format file. An example of a Unicode transformation format is UTF-16.
In one embodiment, the present invention uses a word boundary detector 125 to detect the separation of one word from a preceding or following word. The word boundary detector 125 uses a state machine and employs character-classes that dictate boundary analysis across languages. In this embodiment, the state machine utilizes mapping tables to determine what character-class a particular character belongs to. By mapping the current character and comparing that against the mapping of the previous character, the detector determines whether a word has just started or ended. Because the character-classes include generic word separators or delimiters common to most languages, this word boundary detector can be used in a language independent manner. Additionally, the characters within the words may be case-folded, such that the word-value hash assigned to a particular word does not depend upon whether the word has any upper or lower case characters. Note that the case folding can be done at any time prior to the generation of a word hash list.
In one embodiment, the word-value hashes are computed as 32-bit unsigned integers. This is advantageous because the computation of the word-value hashes could then use 32-bit arithmetic, which would be much faster than performing 64-bit arithmetic on 32-bit architectures.
The post processing steps of
The present invention also discloses methods by which the hash function can optionally be made word-order independent.
The following description of
The received information is converted to a normalized text format within the text normalization module 920. In one embodiment, this text normalization module is any computer implemented software application that can be used to convert the data file from a non-Unicode format to a Unicode text format. A person of skill in the art can immediately appreciate the wealth of third party software applications that are readily available to perform this normalization.
The received normalized information is then transmitted to a word detector 930. In one embodiment, the word detector could be a computer implemented software for running an algorithm to detect the boundaries of each word. In this embodiment, the word boundary detector uses a state machine and employs character-classes that dictate boundary analysis across languages. Here, the state machine utilizes mapping tables to determine what character-class a particular character belongs to. By mapping the current character and comparing that against the mapping of the previous character, the detector determines whether a word has just started or ended. Because the character-classes include generic word separators or delimiters common to most languages, this word boundary detector can be used in a language independent manner. Thus, various embodiments of this system can be developed for different languages. Additionally, a case-folding operation may be done on the words to remove any distinction between words containing upper case and lower case characters. This ensures that duplicate fingerprints are not generated for upper and lower case formats of the same word. Note that the case folding can be done at any time prior to the operation of the word hash list generation module.
The received normalized information is then used to generate a word hash list using the word hash list generation module 940. In one embodiment, this word hash list generation module is a computer implemented software that operates on every word of the received normalized textual information. In this embodiment, the module further comprises a computer implemented software to compute a hash function over all the characters of each word, resulting in a word-value hash for every word. These word-value hashes are compiled together in a list, and this list is designated as the word hash list. The word hash list can further be post-processed to exclude some word-value hashes in order to generate fingerprints that are robust and remain impervious to edits in derivative works of the original text. Examples of this include removing certain stop words that occur frequently in a language and grouping certain categories of words and mapping them to one common word-value hash. These post-processing steps can also be achieved by means of a computer implemented software.
The word hash list is finally used to generate a set of fingerprints by operation of the fingerprint generation module 950. In one embodiment, the fingerprint generation module is a computer implemented software capable of performing arithmetic and logic operations. Here, the software reads word-value hashes using a sliding window of size W, reading W number of word-value hashes at a given time. At each window instant, the software designates a distinct-valued word-value hash as an anchor, and generates a new fingerprint every time the anchor of the current window is not identical to the anchor from the immediately preceding window. The software computes the fingerprint by computing a new hash function over all word-value hashes starting from the first word-value hash of the current window up until the word-value hash corresponding to the anchor of the current window. This method of fingerprinting using wordruns is advantageous over other methods because it results in memory and resource efficiency, by reducing the total number of fingerprints that need to be stored in a fingerprint database.
The systems explained in
The algorithms and software presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general purpose systems may be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structure for a variety of these systems will appear from other portions of this description. In addition, the present invention is not described with reference to any particular programming language, and various embodiments may thus be implemented using a variety of programming languages.
In addition to the above mentioned examples, various other modifications and alterations of the invention may be made without departing from the invention. Accordingly, the above disclosure is not to be considered as limiting and the appended claims are to be interpreted as encompassing the true spirit and the entire scope of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4479195 | Herr et al. | Oct 1984 | A |
4949300 | Christenson et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
5008853 | Bly et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5072412 | Henderson, Jr. et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5220657 | Bly et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5245553 | Tanenbaum | Sep 1993 | A |
5247615 | Mori et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5293619 | Dean | Mar 1994 | A |
5379374 | Ishizaki et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5446842 | Schaeffer et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5608872 | Schwartz et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5617539 | Ludwig et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5634062 | Shimizu et al. | May 1997 | A |
5671428 | Muranaga et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
RE35861 | Queen | Jul 1998 | E |
5787175 | Carter | Jul 1998 | A |
5801702 | Dolan et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5819300 | Kohno et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832494 | Egger et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5890177 | Moody et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5898836 | Freivald et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
6003060 | Aznar et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012087 | Freivald et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6049804 | Burgess et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6067551 | Brown et al. | May 2000 | A |
6088702 | Plantz et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6145084 | Zuili et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6189019 | Blumer et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6212534 | Lo et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6219818 | Freivald et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6243091 | Berstis | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6263350 | Wollrath et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263364 | Najork et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269370 | Kirsch | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6285999 | Page | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6301368 | Bolle et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6321265 | Najork et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6336123 | Inoue et al. | Jan 2002 | B2 |
6351755 | Najork et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6377984 | Najork et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6404446 | Bates et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6418433 | Chakrabarti et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6418453 | Kraft et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424966 | Meyerzon et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6449624 | Hammack et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6513050 | Williams et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6547829 | Meyerzon et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6560620 | Ching | May 2003 | B1 |
6584466 | Serbinis et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6594662 | Sieffert et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6614789 | Yazdani et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6658626 | Aiken | Dec 2003 | B1 |
7035427 | Rhoads | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7107518 | Ramaley et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7152019 | Tarantola et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7212955 | Kirshenbaum et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7240207 | Weare | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7299504 | Tiller et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7356704 | Rinkevich et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7496841 | Hadfield et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7624447 | Horowitz et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7627613 | Dulitz et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7680785 | Najork | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7694336 | Rinkevich et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7857201 | Silverbrook et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7877790 | Vishik et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7890752 | Bardsley et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
8042112 | Zhu et al. | Oct 2011 | B1 |
20020010682 | Johnson | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020019827 | Shiman et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020023158 | Polizzi et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020052928 | Stern et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020063154 | Hoyos et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065827 | Christie et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065848 | Walker et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020073188 | Rawson, III | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087515 | Swannack et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099602 | Moskowitz et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020129062 | Luparello | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020136222 | Robohm | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138744 | Schleicher et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020159239 | Amie et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020164058 | Aggarwal et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030037010 | Schmelzer | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030061260 | Rajkumar | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030131005 | Berry | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030158839 | Faybishenko et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20060005247 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021031 | Leahy et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060059196 | Sato et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060064717 | Shibata et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060112120 | Rohall | May 2006 | A1 |
20060271947 | Lienhart et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070005589 | Gollapudi | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070025265 | Porras et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070101154 | Bardsley et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070101413 | Vishik et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070294612 | Drucker et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080033913 | Winburn | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080080515 | Tombroff et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080219495 | Hulten et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090034804 | Cho et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090064326 | Goldstein | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090129002 | Wu et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090241187 | Troyansky | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20100064372 | More et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070448 | Omoigui | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100299727 | More et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
10177650 | Jun 1998 | JP |
2004265267 | Sep 2004 | JP |
2007299364 | Nov 2007 | JP |
1020010078840 | Aug 2001 | KR |
20040047413 | Jun 2004 | KR |
1020060048686 | May 2006 | KR |
200070049518 | May 2007 | KR |
1020080029602 | Apr 2008 | KR |
WO-0060504 | Oct 2000 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100017850 A1 | Jan 2010 | US |