This application is related to U.S. application Ser. No. 12/177,043 filed Jul. 21, 2008, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. This application is also related to applicants' co-pending application filed Sep. 11, 2008 entitled “Methods And Systems For Protect Agents Using Distributed Lightweight Fingerprints,”.
The present invention relates to information security and more specifically it relates to systems and methods for detecting and preventing unauthorized disclosure of secure information. Furthermore, the present invention pertains to implementing fingerprint lookups across remote agents connected to a network.
With the rapid increase and advances in digital documentation services 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. One solution to this challenge is to generate fingerprints from all of the digital information that the organization seeks to protect. These fingerprints tersely and securely represent the organization's secure data, and can be maintained in a database for later verification against the information that a user desires to disclose. When the user wishes to disclose any information outside of the organization, fingerprints are generated for the user's information, and these fingerprints are compared against the fingerprints stored in the fingerprint database. If the fingerprints of the user's information matches with fingerprints contained in the fingerprint server, suitable security actions are performed.
However, the user has at his disposal myriad options to disclose the information outside of the organization's protected environment. For example, the user could copy the digital information from his computer to a removable storage medium (e.g., a floppy drive, a USB storage device, etc.), or the user could email the information from his computer through the organization's email server, or the user could print out the information by sending a print request through the organization's print server, etc. Therefore, it is imperative to monitor the user's activity through each of these egress points.
In order to effectively protect the organization's secure information, the information that is transmitted through any of the organization's egress points needs to be converted to fingerprints and compared against the fingerprints contained in the organization's fingerprint database. One way of achieving this would be by replicating and maintaining a plurality of fingerprint database at the locations containing egress points (e.g., at the print server, at the email server, at the user's desktop computer, etc.). This can be achieved by means of database replication, agent polling, diff sync pushes from a central fingerprint server, etc.
However, most organizations have several desktop computers and maintain arrays of systems that represent a large number of egress points. With the increase in the number of egress points, the number of individual fingerprint databases that need to be created, maintained, and refreshed periodically becomes prohibitively large. In addition, the fingerprints in the fingerprint database may also contain additional metadata (e.g., to indicate the location of the fingerprint within a document, to indicate the origin information of the document, etc.), further increasing the size of the individual fingerprint databases, thus further exacerbating the cost and difficulties associated with maintaining a plethora of individual fingerprint databases.
Other solutions exist in the prior art to protect digital information in such porous environments. These solutions include encrypting the files, or applying digital rights management or watermarks directly to the files. These solutions do not typically employ the method of fingerprint lookups, and therefore do not require fingerprint databases to be maintained. However, they present other disadvantages. For example, the digital information itself needs to be converted, and unprotected versions of the information needs to be identified and managed (or destroyed) to ensure the security of the information. Additionally, the presence of the watermarking or the digital rights management information does not preclude the information from being disclosed outside of the organization. In most cases, the watermarks only serve as a security awareness or deterrent feature and do not actually prevent the information from being disclosed.
Methods and systems to provide efficient means to monitor and protect an organization's secure information using remote agent lookups is provided. In one embodiment, the present invention provides methods and systems to implement a protect agent across various egress points of an organization's computing environment. Examples of egress points include a printer or a removable storage device (e.g., a USB flash memory drive, CD drive, etc.) connected to a user's desktop computer through which the user could potentially transmit secure information outside of the organization's protected environment. The protect agents monitor activity across all egress points, and receive any information that a user intends to disclose through the egress points.
In one embodiment, the protect agents generate fingerprints from the received user information and transmit that information to a fingerprint server to do fingerprint lookups. The fingerprint server contains at least one copy of a registered fingerprint database. The registered fingerprint database comprises registered fingerprints generated from all of the organization's secure information. The fingerprint server and the protect agents communicate through a network to which they are connected. The network could either be a local network specific to the organization or could be the public internet. The network could also be a combination of the local network and the public internet.
In one embodiment, the fingerprint server receives client fingerprints transmitted by the protect agents. The fingerprint server does a lookup of the client fingerprints by comparing the client fingerprints against the registered fingerprints contained in the registered fingerprint database. The fingerprint server reports the results of the lookup by communicating the results of the comparison back to the protect agent that transmitted the client fingerprints. In one embodiment, the protect agent then initiates one or more security actions based on the results of the lookup.
An important feature of the present invention is that the registered fingerprints are maintained at a remote location (e.g., at the fingerprint servers connected to the network). This obviates the need to maintain numerous redundant copies of the registered fingerprints locally at the location of every protect agent. Maintaining remote central copies of the registered fingerprints also allows the registered fingerprint database to be updated and version controlled more efficiently.
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.
Such points at which information can be transferred outside of the organization's protected environment are called egress points. Examples of transferring data at egress points include copying the information from the computer to a CD disk 112 or any other optical storage medium, copying the information to a floppy drive 113 or any other tape medium, copying the information to a USB key 114 or other flash based storage medium, transferring the information by printing the information using a printer 115, copying information to the clipboard 115a of the local operating system, etc. In such an event, all the information that is transmitted through the computer 111 needs to be monitored to ensure that secure or sensitive information does not get transferred.
To achieve this purpose, the various egress points of the computer 111 are monitored to detect any activity that purports to disclose information through the egress points. A software agent, called the protect agent 116, is run on the computer 111 to monitor activity at the egress points (112, 113, 114, 115, 115a) associated with the computer 111. If the organization supports more than one computer system, each of these computer systems (110, 116, 117, 118) have protect agents installed on them to ensure that the activity on each of the computer systems is monitored. In one embodiment, the protect agent 116 is a set of computer instructions or a computer implemented program available on a memory location (e.g., on a magnetic tape drive, a flash memory drive, etc.) at the site of the protect agent 116.
In addition to being installed in every computer system (110, 116, 117, 118) in the network, the protect agents are also installed on other vulnerable egress points across the organization. One example of such a vulnerable egress point includes one or more email server systems 118 connected to the network. The email server 119 handles and routes the emails sent out and received by the organization. The protect agent 120 installed on the email server 119 monitors the emails desired to be sent out of the organization through the email server. Another example of a vulnerable egress point could be a print server 121 connected to the organization's network. A protect agent 123 connected to the print server 122 monitors print jobs sent by the users to the printers connected to the network.
Additional examples of vulnerable egress points include network appliance systems 126. Here, a protect agent 128 is installed in each network appliance 127 to ensure that information disclosed through a particular network appliance 127 is monitored. Examples of using network appliances 126 to transfer data include sharing of data over a network share medium, data transferred at the socket or TCP layer of the network, etc. It is understood that in addition to these examples, the egress points also include other porous environments through which information can be disclosed by the user beyond the secure environment of the organization.
The computer systems and all other systems representing egress points (the egress point systems) are centrally connected to a network 125. In one embodiment, the network includes a local network. This includes a network that is managed and maintained locally by the organization. In another embodiment, the network could also be the internet. In the case of the internet, each of the egress point systems could be directly and individually connected to the internet, or could be connected to a local network or a cluster of local networks, with each of the local networks communicating with each other through the internet. Other combinations of the egress point systems within the local network and the internet are possible and such combinations will be apparent to a person of skill in the art.
In the case of the public internet, the protect agents transmit fingerprint lookup requests to a hosted fingerprint server. A hosted fingerprint server is similar to the fingerprint server connected to a local network in that it contains at least one copy of the database of registered fingerprints (corresponding to the secure information of an organization). However, the difference is that the hosted fingerprint server is publicly accessible over the internet. One advantage of using a hosted fingerprint server is that an organization does not have to deploy and manage one or more server appliances within its networks. Some small organizations may not even have infrastructure to maintain a network and host a fingerprint server, but may still require their secure information to be protected. In such cases, the support and manageability of the fingerprint server can be done by even a third party provider who provides the service of a hosted fingerprint server.
A hosted fingerprint service enables protect agents to behave consistently in mobile environments, with the same fingerprint lookups happening inside and outside of the organization. For example, a laptop user can be blocked from emailing confidential files while using a wireless internet connection in a café. In this case, the protect agent can still communicate with the publicly accessible hosted fingerprint service. A provider offering a hosted fingerprint service can also support multi-tenancy services, whereby the provider shares the hosted fingerprint server's resources across different organizations and cutting down on costs. In one embodiment, this would allow fingerprint databases for multiple organizations to reside on the same server.
One of the functions of the fingerprint server router 130 is to collect performance and logistics information from each of the fingerprint servers and route any information received from the protect agents to the fingerprint server that is least busy. In one embodiment, the fingerprint servers could be located at different geographical locations (not shown in
Regardless of whether a single fingerprint server is used or a suite of fingerprint servers are used, every fingerprint server contains at least one fingerprint database. The fingerprint data base is a repository of fingerprints representing the secure information that the organization intends to protect. In one embodiment, the fingerprint server router 130 is responsible for keeping the redundant fingerprint databases in every fingerprint server up to date. It should be noted that the fingerprint server router is not imperative to maintaining a distributed fingerprint server array. Any other means known in the art through which a distributed network can be achieved can be employed in the place of the fingerprint server router 130. More information on fingerprints and the generation of fingerprints is provided further below.
The protect agent then transmits the user input information to the fingerprint server connected to the network. The protect agent transmits this information through the network. In one embodiment, the mechanism through which the protect agent and the fingerprint server communicate includes web service calls. Using the web service call standard or a similar standard (as understood by people skilled in the art) allows interoperability between different operating systems and computer language environments. These standards also allow the fingerprint lookups to operate as a service that can be published and integrated with third-parties. As indicated above, the network could either be a local network maintained by the organization, or could be the public internet, or a combination of the local network and the public internet.
The information transmitted by the protect agent to the fingerprint server could be in several formats. In one embodiment, the protect agent directly transmits the digital information 220 that the user intends to disclose. Examples of such digital information include text files, audio files, video files, etc. These examples also include other forms of data, such as software code, design data (e.g., VLSI or CAD design files), or any other digital form of data that an organization wishes to protect. In such cases, the protect agent transmits the information as-is, or encrypts the files before transmission to ensure the security of the transmitted information. The encryption can be done with any of the standard encryption algorithms known to people skilled in the art.
In another embodiment, the protect agent converts the information received from the user to a raw text format 225 before transmission to the fingerprint server. One advantage of converting the files to raw text is that it decreases the size of the file being sent over, thus reducing network congestion and file lookup latency. Additionally, processing the files at the site of the protect agents relieves the fingerprint server of some of the computational burden from handling the user input information received from all protect agents. The protect agents may additionally encrypt the raw text before transmission. There are several methods widely known in the field of art to convert a digital file to raw text. One such method is described in the U.S. application Ser. No. 12/177,043, describing how a digital text file can be converted to raw text.
In one other embodiment, the protect agent converts the digital information to fingerprints 230 before transmission to the fingerprint server. Fingerprinting the information helps achieve a file size reduction, thus ensuring the advantages of reducing network congestion and lookup latency. The fingerprint servers are also freed up from the task of generating fingerprints, and therefore are relieved from the computational burden imposed by the several protect agents they communicate with. Additionally, because the fingerprints inherently add security to the information being transmitted, this method obviates the need for additional encryption of the transmitted files. There are several methods widely known in the field of art to generate fingerprints from digital information. One such method is described in the U.S. application Ser. No. 12/177,043, providing how fingerprints are generated from digital text information.
The fingerprint server receives the information transmitted by the protect agent. If the information received is not in the form of fingerprints, the fingerprint server generates the fingerprints after receiving the information from the protect agent. Otherwise, the received fingerprints are used as-is. The fingerprint server, as discussed above, contains a database of fingerprints that represent the secure information for a particular organization. The fingerprint server is primarily a computer capable of performing arithmetic and logic operations. The fingerprint server compares the fingerprints associated with the user input information (the client fingerprints) with the fingerprints contained in the fingerprint server 235. Based on the results of the comparison, the fingerprint server generates a comparison analysis and transmits this analysis back to the protect agent 240. The fingerprint server contains a set of instructions or suitable software available in one of its memory locations to perform the comparison analysis. After completing the comparison analysis, the fingerprint server transmits the data to the protect agent utilizing the network.
The fingerprint server is at a location remote from the protect agents. This fingerprint server contains a database of registered fingerprints 325. The registered fingerprints represent the secure digital information of a particular organization. The fingerprint server receives the fingerprints transmitted by the protect agents (the client fingerprints), and compares the received fingerprints with the registered fingerprints 345. The fingerprint server then transmits the results of the comparison back to the protect agent. If the protect agent receives information that one or more client fingerprints match the registered fingerprints, it takes an appropriate security action 350. Some examples of the security action include preventing the information from being transmitted out through the associated egress point, sending out a security alert to a system administrator, revoking the user's access to the particular information, alerting the user of the security violation, etc. The security actions may also include integration with third party software to offer security solutions (e.g., integration with Microsoft Windows® RMS to apply rights management to the information being disclosed). It is understood that these examples of security actions are used for illustrative purposes only, and that other security actions known to people skilled in the art are equally applicable here.
In one implementation of the embodiment, the protect agent determines whether the client is connected to a local network 425. If the protect agent determines that the client is connected to the local network, it transmits the fingerprints to the fingerprint server connected to the local network. The fingerprint server connected to the local network compares the fingerprints received from the client against the registered fingerprints contained in the fingerprint server 445. On the other hand, if the protect agent determines that the client is not connected to the local network (e.g., when the user uses his laptop computer from a public café), the fingerprints corresponding to information he attempts to disclose are transmitted to the hosted fingerprint server connected to the internet. This hosted fingerprint server compares the client fingerprints against the registered fingerprints to determine if there are any matches 445. If a match is detected by either fingerprint server, a suitable security action is taken 460.
The systems explained above and associated embodiments relate to apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but is not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, and magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, each coupled to a computer system.
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 |
4853961 | Pastor | Aug 1989 | 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 |
5315504 | Lemble | May 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 |
5619649 | Kovnat et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5634062 | Shimizu et al. | May 1997 | A |
5671428 | Muranaga et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5673316 | Auerbach et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5699427 | Chow et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5745879 | Wyman | Apr 1998 | A |
5751814 | Kafri | May 1998 | A |
RE35861 | Queen | Jul 1998 | E |
5787175 | Carter | Jul 1998 | A |
5801702 | Dolan et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5806078 | Hug et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5819300 | Kohno et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832494 | Egger et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5850219 | Kumomura | Dec 1998 | A |
5874953 | Webster et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5890176 | Kish et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5890177 | Moody et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5898836 | Freivald et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
6003060 | Aznar et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6009173 | Sumner | 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 |
6169976 | Colosso | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6189019 | Blumer et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6189146 | Misra et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6212534 | Lo et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6216112 | Fuller et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6219652 | Carter 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 |
6327611 | Everingham | Dec 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 |
6505237 | Beyda et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6513050 | Williams et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6547829 | Meyerzon et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6556982 | McGaffey et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6560620 | Ching | May 2003 | B1 |
6584466 | Serbinis et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6591289 | Britton | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6594662 | Sieffert et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6596030 | Ball et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6614789 | Yazdani et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6658626 | Aiken | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6662212 | Chandhok et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6738762 | Chen et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6918082 | Gross | Jul 2005 | B1 |
7035427 | Rhoads | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7107518 | Ramaley et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7113615 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7152019 | Tarantola et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7212955 | Kirshenbau et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7233686 | Hamid | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7240207 | Weare | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7299504 | Tiller et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7321864 | Gendler | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7353455 | Malik | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7356704 | Rinkevich et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7434164 | Salesin et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7454778 | Pearson et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7496841 | Hadfield | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7564997 | Hamid | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7613770 | Li | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7624447 | Horowitz et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7627613 | Dulitz et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7673324 | Tirosh et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7680785 | Najork | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7694336 | Rinkevich et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7720256 | Desprez et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7730175 | Roesch et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7788235 | Yeo | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7796309 | Sadovsky et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7818678 | Massand | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7844116 | Monga | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7857201 | Silverbrook et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7877790 | Vishik et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7890752 | Bardsley et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7895276 | Massand | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7903822 | Hair et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7941844 | Anno | May 2011 | B2 |
7991751 | Peled | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8005277 | Tulyakov et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8042112 | Zhu et al. | Oct 2011 | B1 |
8060575 | Massand | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8140513 | Ghods et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8181036 | Nachenberg | May 2012 | B1 |
8196030 | Wang et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8201254 | Wilhelm et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8233723 | Sundaresan | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8286085 | Denise | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8286171 | More et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8326814 | Ghods | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8381104 | Massand | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8406456 | More | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8471781 | Massand | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8473847 | Glover | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8478995 | Alculumbre | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8555080 | More et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8620020 | More | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8635295 | Mulder | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8670600 | More | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8839100 | Orofino, II | Sep 2014 | B1 |
8977697 | Massand | Mar 2015 | B2 |
20010042073 | Saether et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
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 | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087515 | Swannack et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099602 | Moskowitz et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020120648 | Ball et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020129062 | Luparello | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020136222 | Robohm | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138744 | Schleicher | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020159239 | Amie et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020164058 | Aggarwal et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030009518 | Harrow et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030037010 | Schmelzer | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046572 | Newman et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030046639 | Fai et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061260 | Rajkumar | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030093755 | Ramakrishnan | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097454 | Yamakawa et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030112273 | Hadfield et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115273 | Delia et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030121008 | Tischer | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030131005 | Berry | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030147267 | Huttunen | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030158839 | Faybishenko et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030191799 | Araujo et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030196087 | Stringer et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030223624 | Hamid | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233419 | Beringer | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040002049 | Beavers et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040122659 | Hourihane et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040186851 | Jhingan et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040187076 | Ki | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040261016 | Glass et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050021637 | Cox | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050027704 | Hammond et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050055306 | Miller et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050086525 | Cirulli et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050123137 | McCallum | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138540 | Baltus et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050251748 | Gusmorino et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050268327 | Starikov | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005247 | Zhang | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060013393 | Ferchichi et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060020520 | Lange et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021031 | Leahy et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060050937 | Hamid | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060059196 | Sato et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060064717 | Shibata et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060067578 | Fuse | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069605 | Hatoun | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069740 | Ando | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060098850 | Hamid | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112120 | Rohall | May 2006 | A1 |
20060129592 | Poozhiyil et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060129627 | Phillips | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060171588 | Chellapilla et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184505 | Kedem | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060190493 | Kawai et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060218004 | Dworkin et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060218643 | DeYoung | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060224589 | Rowney | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236246 | Bono et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060259524 | Horton | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060259949 | Schaefer et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060261112 | Gates et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271947 | Lienhart et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060294468 | Sareen et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060294469 | Sareen et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005589 | Gollapudi | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070011211 | Reeves | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070025265 | Porras et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070027830 | Simons et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070100991 | Daniels et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070101154 | Bardsley et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070101413 | Vishik et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112854 | Franca | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112930 | Foo et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070118598 | Bedi et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070141641 | Fang | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070156785 | Hines et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070192728 | Finley et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070220068 | Thompson et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070253608 | Tulyakov et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070261112 | Todd et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070294318 | Arora et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070294612 | Drucker et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080028017 | Garbow et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080033913 | Winburn | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080040388 | Petri et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080046518 | Tonnison et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080080515 | Tombroff et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080082529 | Mantena et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080082930 | Omernick et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080094370 | Ording et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080178076 | Kritt et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080209001 | Boyle et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080219495 | Hulten et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080235760 | Broussard | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080263363 | Jueneman et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080306894 | Rajkumar et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080310624 | Celikkan | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080320316 | Waldspurger et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090019051 | Winburn | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090030997 | Malik | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090034804 | Cho et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090037520 | Loffredo | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090052778 | Edgecomb et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090064326 | Goldstein | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090070128 | McCauley et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083384 | Bhogal et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090094530 | Champlain et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090129002 | Wu et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090164427 | Shields et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090177754 | Brezina et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090183257 | Prahalad | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090216843 | Willner et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090222450 | Zigelman | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090234863 | Evans | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090235706 | Broussard et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090241187 | Troyansky | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090271620 | Sudhakar | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100011077 | Shkolnikov et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017404 | Banerjee et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017478 | Mejia et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017850 | More et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100064372 | More et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070448 | Omoigui | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100076985 | Egnor | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100114985 | Chaudhary et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100114991 | Chaudhary et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100124354 | More | May 2010 | A1 |
20100174761 | Longobardi et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100217987 | Shevade | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100251104 | Massand | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100257352 | Errico | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100287246 | Klos et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299727 | More et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100332682 | Sharp et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110029625 | Cheng et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110107106 | Morii et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110141521 | Qiao | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110145229 | Vailaya et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110154180 | Evanitsky et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110276658 | Massand | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110283177 | Gates et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120011361 | Guerrero et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120016867 | Clemm et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120110092 | Keohane et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120131635 | Huapaya | May 2012 | A1 |
20120133989 | Glover | May 2012 | A1 |
20120136862 | Glover | May 2012 | A1 |
20120136951 | Mulder | May 2012 | A1 |
20120136952 | Mulder | May 2012 | A1 |
20120173881 | Trotter | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120265817 | Vidalenc et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120317414 | Glover | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120317479 | Safa | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120324369 | Safa | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130074195 | Johnston et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130074198 | More | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130097421 | Lim | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130246901 | Massand | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130254536 | Glover | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130290867 | Massand | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140115066 | Massand | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140281872 | Glover | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20150033283 | Mulder | Jan 2015 | 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 |
20070049518 | May 2007 | KR |
1020080029602 | Apr 2008 | KR |
0060504 | Oct 2000 | WO |
WO-0060504 | Oct 2000 | WO |
0152473 | Jul 2001 | WO |
2010030871 | Mar 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/064919 dated Jul. 1, 2010, pp. 1-3. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/064919 dated Jul. 1, 2010, pp. 1-4. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056651, Dated Apr. 21, 2010, pp. 1-5. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056668 dated Apr. 16, 2010, pp. 1-9. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056668 dated Apr. 16, 2010, pp. 1-4. |
PC Magazine “Pure Intranets: Real-TIme Internet Collaboration”, http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/featuresgroupware/gpwst.htm, Aug. 30, 2001, 2 pages. |
Wells et al., “Groupware & Collaboration Support”, www.objs.com/survey/groupwar.htm, Aug. 30, 2001, 10 pages. |
Tsai, et al., “A Document Workspace for Collaboration and Annotation based on XML Technology”, IEEE, 2000, pp. 165-172. |
Roussev, et al., “Integrating XML and Object-based Programming for Distributed Collaboration”, IEEE, 2000, pp. 254-259. |
XP-002257904, “Workshare Debuts Synergy”, 2003, 3 pages. |
Microsoft, “Microsoft XP, Product Guide”, pp. 1-26. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/IB2002/005821, Jan. 30, 2004, 6 pages. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/051313, Mar. 3, 2010, 3 pages. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001. |
Non-Final Office Action Mailed May 7, 2008 in Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001. |
Weiss et al., Lightweight document matching for help-desk applications, In: Intelligent Systems and their Applications, IEEE, Vo. 15, Issue:2, pp. 57-61, ISSN 1094-7167, 2000. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/065019 dated Jun. 4, 2010, pp. 1-6. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/065019 dated Jun. 4, 2010 pp. 1-5. |
Final Office Action Mailed Oct. 21, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Advisory Action Mailed Nov. 1, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Cox et al; Microsoft Office Word 2007 Step by Step; Jan. 17, 2007; Microsoft Press; pp. 283-293. |
Prinz, Wolfgang, and Sabine Kolvenbach. “Support for workflows in a ministerial environment.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, vol. 16, No. 20, 1996; pp. 2-4, 8. |
Howard, Pamela O. Prototype Message Dissemination System and Document Routing System for an Army Organization. Arizona Univ Tucson, 1990; pp. 7-9. |
Stephen Voida et al., Share and Share Alike: Exploring the User Interface Affordances of File Sharing, Apr. 22-27, 2006, ACM, pp. 1-10. |
Dominik Grolmund et al., Cryptree: A Folder Tree Structure for Cryptographic File Systems, Oct. 2-4, 2006, IEEE, pp. 189-198. |
Nathanial S. Good et al., Usability and privacy: a study of KaZaA P2P file-sharing, Apr. 5-10 2003, ACM, vol. No. 5, Issue No. 1, pp. 137-144. |
M. Eric Johnson et al., The Evolution of the Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Industry and the Security Risks for Users, Jan. 7-10, 2008, IEEE, pp. 1-10. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/056651, Dated Apr. 21, 2010, pp. 1-3. |
Written Opinion of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/051313, Mar. 3, 2010, 4 pages. |
Written Opinion PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/043345 dated Apr. 28, 2011, 4 pages. |
Restriction Requirement Mailed Jun. 30, 2006 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Notice of Allowance Mailed Oct. 24, 2008 in Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001. |
Non-Final Office Action mailed Dec. 6, 2012 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,798, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action mailed Aug. 13, 2013 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,819 by Glover, R.W., filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action mailed May 17, 2013 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,765 by Mulder, S. P.M, filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Non-Final Office Action Mailed Mar. 20, 2006 in Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 10/136,733, filed Apr. 30, 2002. |
Non-final office action issued for U.S. Appl. No. 13/799,067 on Oct. 30, 2014. |
Final Office Action mailed Aug. 16, 2013 in co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/306,798 of Glover, R.W., filed Nov. 29, 2011. |
Notice of Allowance Mailed Jul. 8, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082 by S. More et al., filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance Mailed Oct. 2, 2012, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185 by More, S., filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Final Office Action Mailed Feb. 1, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429 by More, S., filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Advisory Action mailed Apr. 12, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429 by More, S., filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Non-Final Office Action Mailed Sep. 19, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 by Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Final Office Attion Mailed Jan. 18, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 by Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Notice of Allowance Mailed Mar. 13, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818 by Glover, R., filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action Mailed Mar. 18, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action Mailed Apr. 26, 2013 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,817 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Notice of Allowance Mailed Sep. 25, 2013, in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,817 by More, S., filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Monga, et al., “Perceptual Image Hashing Via Feature Points: Performance Evaluation and Tradeoffs,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 15, No. 11, Nov. 2006. |
Monga, “Robust Perceptual Image Hashing Using Feature Points,” http://bluecoat-02/?cfru=aHR0cDovL3NpZ25hbC51Y2UudXRleGFzLmVkdS9+dmlzaGFsL2hhc2gtcGFydEkucHM=, 2003. |
Tulyakov, et al., “Symmetric Hash Functions for Fingerprint Minutiae,” International Workshop on Pattern Recognition for Crime Prevention, Security and Surveillance, Bath U.K., Oct. 2, 2005, pp. 30-38. |
Xuefeng Liang; et al., “Fingerprint Matching Using Minutia Polygons,” Pattern Recognition, 2006, ICPR 2006, 18th International Conference on, vol. 1, No., pp. 1046-1049. |
Sujoy Roy, et al., “Robust Hash for Detecting and Localizing Image Tampering,” Image Processing, 2007, ICIP 2007, IEEE International Conference on, vol. 6, No., pp. V1-117-V1-120, Sep. 16, 2007-Oct. 19, 2007. |
Yung, et al., “Generating Robust Digital Signature for Image/Video Authentication,” Multimedia and Security Workshop at ACM Multimedia '98, Bristol, U.K., Sep. 1998. |
Non-Final Office Action Mailed Aug. 1, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429, filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Notice of Allowance Mailed Aug. 19, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Final Office Action Mailed May 10, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action Mailed Apr. 27, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185, filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance Mailed Jun. 26, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185, filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/620,364, filed Sep. 14, 2012. |
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,793, filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,817, filed Oct. 24, 2012. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/621,429, filed Nov. 18, 2009. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082, filed Sep. 11, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/275,185, filed Nov. 20, 2008. |
Co-pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,818, filed Jul. 27, 2010. |
Final Office Action Mailed Apr. 17, 2007 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, Issued U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/US2010/043345, Apr. 28, 2011, 3 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action Mailed Mar. 16, 2006 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, Issued U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Non-Final Office Action Mailed Sep. 19, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Restriction Requirement Mailed Feb. 14, 2005 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, Issued U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Restriction Requirement Mailed Feb. 5, 2008 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/023,010, filed Dec. 17, 2001, Issued U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,841. |
Non-Final Office Action Mailed Dec. 22, 2011 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/209,082. |
Non-Final Office Action Mailed Jan. 9, 2012 in Co-Pending U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,043, filed Jul. 21, 2008. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100064372 A1 | Mar 2010 | US |