The following disclosure is directed to methods and systems for mapping Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and domain names to organizations and, more specifically, methods and systems for mapping IP addresses and/or domain names to organizations based on user activity data.
Large organizations, such as companies, which may have a significant number of users and network assets may wish to know and/or manage IP addresses and/or domain names that are associated with their organizations or brand. This can be particularly true of large conglomerates having multiple subsidiary companies. For example, larger companies can be more subject to cyberattacks and typically have less knowledge of the extent of their network footprint as compared to smaller companies. By knowing more about the characteristics of their networks, they can address security vulnerabilities and better protect themselves from cyberattacks. Due to a large number of users in their systems, including guest and temporary users, there is a need for efficient discovery and management of network (and subnetwork) resources associated with the organizations.
The exemplary methods and systems described herein can discover, filter, and manage IP addresses and/or domain names that belong to organizations or companies by unifying user-associated domain name information of an email address with the observed IP address of that user's activity. In some cases, by applying machine learning techniques and a series of quality filters, and/or using a reference to discover the owner of either the domain or IP address, the exemplary mapping systems can assign the undiscovered resource to the organization. For instances when the IP addresses and domains are already known to belong to a particular organization's network, this information can be used to understand characteristics of that network.
In a first aspect of the disclosure, a computer-implemented method is provided for mapping Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and domain names to organizations. The method includes receiving, by a mapping system from an data provider, a dataset related to users of the data provider. The dataset includes (a) an IP address for a user device of each of the users, and (b) a domain name for a user account of each of the users; enriching, by an analytics engine of the mapping system, the received dataset with enrichment data from an enrichment source; receiving, by the analytics engine from a storage medium, historical data relevant to the enriched dataset; and mapping, by the analytics engine, (i) the IP address and/or (ii) the domain name of each user of some or all of the users to an organization based on the enriched dataset and the historical data.
Embodiments of the method can include one or more of the following features. The data provider can be an email service provider and the users are email users that send or receive email through the email service provider. The enriching, by the analytics engine of the mapping system, the received dataset with enrichment data from the enrichment source can further include determining whether a domain of the email service provider is a free or paid email service provider domain and adding information related to the determined domain to the received dataset; and/or determining whether a network of an IP address of the email user is of a cellular network or a guest network and adding information related to the determined network to the received dataset.
The data provider can be a messaging service provider and the users are messaging users that send or receive messages through the messaging service provider. The data provider can be a website that requires registration for use of the website by the users. The data provider can be a cryptography-related service that provides at least one of the IP address or domain name of each of the users. The historical data can include at least one of previously mapped IP addresses or previously mapped domain names of some or all of the users to the organization. The method can further include normalizing, by a collector of the mapping system, the received dataset.
Normalizing the received data can further include: (i) checking integrity of the dataset; (ii) reformatting some or all of the dataset; (iii) removing duplicates in the dataset; and/or (iv) removing irrelevant data from the dataset. The method can further include storing, by the storage medium, the normalized dataset before enriching by the analytics engine; and receiving, by the analytics engine, the normalized dataset from the storage medium.
The method can further include receiving, by the analytics engine from an entity management system, information about existing associations of organizations to IP addresses and domain names; and mapping, by the analytics engine, the IP address and/or the domain name of some or all of the email users to the organization based on the information about existing associations. The method can further include storing, by the storage medium, the enriched data from the analytics engine. The historical data can include a greater number of data points over time than data points of the dataset. The method can further include applying a predictive model of the mapping system to the processed dataset and the historical data, and/or applying deterministic rules to the processed dataset and the historical data. The method can further include processing, by the predictive model, two or more datasets over a time period, the two or more datasets including data related to a common set of users of the users; determining, by the predictive engine, whether the IP address of some or all of the common set of users are consistent over the time period; and mapping, by the mapping system, the IP address of each of some or all of the common set of users to the organization based on the determination. The deterministic rules can include a minimum number of unique mailboxes associated with an IP address. The method can further include mapping, by the mapping system, the IP address to the organization based whether one or more received datasets have the minimum or greater number of unique mailboxes associated with the IP address.
The dataset is a first dataset and the email users is a first set of email users, the method further includes receiving, by the analytics engine, a second dataset associated with a second set of email users, the second set of email users mutually non-exclusive with the first set of email users; comparing, by the analytics engine, the second dataset to the first dataset, and terminating, by the analytics engine, one or more existing mappings between the IP address and/or the domain name and the organization based on the comparison. The terminating, by the analytics engine, one or more existing mappings can be based on a threshold. The method can include storing, by the storage medium, the mapping of the IP address and/or domain name to the organization.
The mapping system 102 includes collector 116 coupled to analytics engine 118 and storage 120. Analytics engine 118 is coupled to storage 120, and, optionally, enrichment module 122 and entity management system 124. Each of the foregoing systems and data are described in greater detail below.
The exemplary methods and systems described herein are adapted to receive and process one or more datasets that provide an association between (1) an identifier (e.g., the domain component of a user's email address) that identifies an organization (e.g., a business, a school, a group, etc.) and (2) the IP address that is (a) assigned to the user's computer, device, or terminal, (b) assigned to an intermediary server that the user is implicitly or explicitly accessing and/or using, and/or (c) is the address that external third-parties would consider to be the user's IP address.
Examples of datasets containing information about these associations include, but are not limited to, the following.
In some embodiments, two or more portions of datasets may be used together or merged into one dataset. Specifically, the two or more portions can be merged if they are of the same type. For example, the exemplary system may be able to receive telemetry from two or more email service providers for the “email readability user activity” dataset and be able to join them with little cost to efficiency because, typically, there is a single origin to an email. In another example, for the “email access user activity” dataset, because email is hosted and accessed within the context of one organization or set of email systems, a user is restricted to access his or her email via the specific email portal of the organization (i.e., a user cannot use Yahoo to access his or her Gmail email).
In some embodiments, one or more privacy-enhancing transforms can be applied to the dataset by the data provider and/or the mapping system. These transforms can include, but are not limited to, hashing the mailbox portion of the email address, with or without using a private salt. This transform conceals the actual email addresses from the mapping system, while allowing the mapping system to compute the number of distinct email addresses.
The attributes of data within a dataset can vary depending on the method used to collect that data. In datasets having email readability user activity, client requests to email service provider readability resources may include a variety of information about the client, such as the client IP address, location information, the mail client or browser user agent, and/or the operating system and version. Other attributes may include any information sent in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) headers, or that may be inferred through fingerprinting techniques commonly used in the industry (e.g., fingerprints based on installed plugins, installed fonts, canvas information, time zone, location setting, etc.). The email service provider may associate the request of the resource back to the original email message, for example, by embedding an identifier in the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of the remote resource or through other means, which allows the provider to link that client back to the user, and thus also the mailbox, email address, and other metadata already known about the user.
Similar utilization of information is applicable to other types of datasets, such as web-based user activity and cryptography-related used activity, which also rely upon the HTTP protocol to exchange information between the client and server. In the case of chat-based user activity or email access user activity, the information available to a server receiving client requests may be more limited as each of these datasets rely upon other application-layer protocols.
The following are examples of data in the various types of datasets listed above.
In some embodiments, further to collecting data as discussed above, some data of one or more of the datasets can be processed by the data provider as in the following. The below-discussed processing can ensure quality of the output of the analytics engine, as further discussed below.
In some embodiments, additional contextual information about the client can be provided depending on the source dataset. For example, in the case of email readability user activity and web-based user activity, the following additional contextual information can be provided:
In some embodiments, any subset of the above-described attributes can be collected as long as the likelihood of false positive results are kept low. For example, an acceptable rate of false positive results is less than or equal to one in five hundred. In some embodiments, the system can associate an IP address or domain to an organization using data directly from the above-described datasets, without relying on extracted attributes.
Exemplary mapping system 102 is described herein in the context of an example for the purposes of illustrating the functionality of system 102. The examples provided herein are not intended to limit the functionality of the mapping system or steps of the mapping method. The example scenario depicted in
In the example scenario, customer 110, associated with email service provider 106, sends an email 124 to a user at an organization, the user having the email address “user1@example.com.” User 1 is physically present at the offices of company “Example, Inc.” and their devices (devices 1a and 1b) are on the organization's network 108a. This email can be initiated manually through the customer's email client (i.e., typed by the customer 110), an automated notification (i.e., an alert), as part of a broader email campaign generated through the email service provider's platform (i.e., marketing campaign), etc. As specified by the customer 110, the email service provider 106 sends the email to the appropriate recipients through one or more MTAs or email servers 112. This email is received by the individual user's email service provider (not shown in
The user (in this example, any one of User 1, 2, 8, and/or 9) is able to access his or her email through any client on any device. For example, the user may be using their web browser to access her email (e.g., Gmail or Yahoo Mail), or the user may be using a dedicated email client (e.g., Apple Mail, Microsoft Outlook, or Thunderbird). The user may be reading their email on a laptop, notebook computer, tablet, mobile device, smartwatch, or any electronic device capable of accessing email. Once the user opens the email, the user may load, via the HTTP protocol, embedded remote resources in the email 124 that can ultimately inform the originating email service provider 106 that the user opened the email. Specifically, this information 126 is sent to and consumed by data processing system 114 at the email service provider 106 that processes and keeps track of qualitative metrics of information 126. These resources may be embedded into content within the email, such as links to remote attachments or advertisements. Telemetry generated by interaction with those resources, such as the user clicking on URLs to access the content, can be processed by the data processor 114 and/or transmitted to the mapping system 102 for processing.
Note that one or more users having devices connected to the same organization's network 108a can be sent email from customer 110. When any of these users (for example, User 1 or 2) opens his or her email, a remote resource is retrieved and information 126 is provided to the data processor 114 at the email service provider 106.
Customer(s) 110 can send email 124 to User 8, at “user8@example.com”, who is working remotely from his or her residence. User 8 has device 8a connected to the residence network 108b. When User 8 opens the email 124, the act of doing so causes a remote resource to be retrieved but, instead of including information about the organization's network, it includes information 128 about User 8's present network, which is residential network 108b. In some embodiments, information 128 is filtered out the datasets used by the mapping system 102 as the residential networks are not typically of interest for mapping IP addresses and/or domain names to a specific organization (in this example, “Example, Inc.”).
Customer(s) 110 can send email 124 to User 9, at “user9@example.com”, who is working remotely from a public cafe or park and are connected to the city's public WiFi network 108c. When User 9 opens email 124, the act of doing so causes a remote resource to be retrieved and information 130 about the public network 108c is obtained by the data processing system 114. In some embodiments, information 130 is filtered out the datasets used by the mapping system 102 as the public networks are not typically of interest for mapping IP addresses and/or domain names to a specific organization (in this example, “Example, Inc.”).
In this example scenario, User 1 leaves the Example, Inc.'s office to take a meeting at another location. While on the way to the meeting, User 1 opens previously received email on her mobile device 1b connected to a cellular network 108d. The act of doing so causes those same remote resources to be retrieved and thus information 132 about the cellular network 108d is obtained by the data processing system 114. In some embodiments, information 132 is filtered out the datasets used by the mapping system 102 as cellular networks are not typically of interest for mapping IP addresses and/or domain names to a specific organization (in this example, “Example, Inc.”).
In some embodiments, the information received by the data processing system 114 at the email service provider 106 can be processed and provided as quantitative metrics 134 for their customers (#11). In some embodiments, the provider 106 may use metrics 134 for internal benchmarking or, for example, to determine whether its customers may be using its services to spam users. In some cases, the provider 106 may selectively include the remote resource in emails to users for a particular customer and/or in particular circumstances.
In an exemplary embodiment, mapping system 102 receives one or more datasets 115 from the email service provider 106, the datasets 115 having some or all of the attributes described in detail above. In some embodiments, the mapping system 102 receives the datasets 115 in a specific format from the processor 114. The example dataset 115 shows the fields that can include:
In some embodiment, collector 116 passes the normalized dataset(s) into the analytics engine 118 or into a storage medium 120, from which analytics engine 118 can retrieve the normalized dataset(s). Analytics engine 118 may begin by processing the datasets(s) and, in exemplary step 306, begin enriching the dataset(s) with other known information about the domains in the dataset(s) (i.e., whether the domains are free or paid email service provider email domains), or about the IP addresses in the dataset(s) (e.g., whether the IP addresses are cellular networks or if they are known guest or captive portal networks). In some embodiments, analytics engine 118 may engage with an entity management system 124, which stores information about existing associations (obtained from the analytics engine 118 or from another source) of domain names and IP addresses to organizations, to pull in information about known organizations. Analytics engine 118 may store the processed dataset(s) (including any additional information from the entity management system 124) in a storage medium 120. In exemplary step 308, analytics engine 118 may receive or retrieve historical data from storage medium 120 (having existing telemetry) or a caching layer, to provide additional historical context for the information in the datasets. Historical data can include data generated from prior processing of datasets, including any mapping of IP addresses and/or domains to organizations. This can be beneficial because some of the improved data quality attributes are dependent on time-series information larger than the collection period. For example, this is especially helpful for incoming data representing a real-time data stream, while some data quality methods may operate best with at least 24 hours of data for a given association to ensure a full business day has been collected.
In exemplary step 310, analytics engine 118 is configured to map at least one of (i) the IP address or (ii) the domain name of a portion of the plurality of users to an organization based on the enriched dataset and the historical data. Analytics engine 118 is configured to determine a confidence of the assigned IP address and domain name to the organization. Analytics engine 118 is configured to evaluate some or all of the data quality considerations and attributes, by itself or in combination with a developed machine learning model and/or deterministic rules to assess the confidence of a given domain and IP address to a given organization for a specified time period, as described in further detail below. In some embodiments, the analytics engine 118 is configured to assess whether existing associations should be terminated based on any new information that has been collected from incoming dataset(s) 115. The analytics engine 118 can store new associations into the entity management system 124 and can store residual conclusions and existing telemetry back into a storage medium 120. Residual conclusions can include those data that do not meet data quality threshold(s) due to the amount of data collected or due to another measure of quality. Even if the residual conclusions are not used for mapping purposes at a particular time, they may have value for future processing and/or mapping. In some embodiments, the analytics engine 118 can store updated enrichment data to be stored for future and ongoing enrichment activities in the enrichment unit 122. Enrichment can include other known information about the domains in the dataset(s) (i.e., whether the domains are free or paid email service provider email domains), or about the IP addresses in the dataset(s) (e.g., whether the IP addresses are cellular networks or if they are known guest or captive portal networks). Enrichment can also include data about IP address(es) (e.g., geolocation information, whether the address is a guest network, etc.), domain names (e.g., registration information, whether the email service provider is a free or paid service provider, etc.), timestamps (e.g., date, time, seasonal events, holidays in one or more countries, etc.), network characteristics of an IP address of the user (e.g., any present service set identifier (SSID) and basic service set identifier (BSSID), explicit proxies, known workstation and mobile devices, associated IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, domain name system (DNS) records, or data other than the datasets described above under headings “Datasets” and “Attributes of Datasets.”
In some embodiments, mapping system 200 can use a training dataset that includes one or more elements of the attributes described above to identify a pattern. The system may accept or reject the attribute based on the identified pattern. For example, telemetry from networks known to be public access networks can be trained in a predictive model that can be then used to identify other public access network candidates. These public access network candidates can be treated differently by the mapping system such that they are associated or not associated with a particular organization. Feedback from third parties, such as those organizations to which the IP addresses or domains are being associated can be injected back into the training dataset to allow the feedback to propagate to other organizations. For example, a company could provide information regarding the access characterizations of their network, such as the IP addresses reserved for employee devices, or those IP addresses associated with a sales office of the company. This information can then be used to identify other candidates fitting those attributes belonging to other organizations.
In some embodiments, once a candidate relationship between an IP address and a domain is established, one or more of the following actions may be used to confirm and map the IP or domain to an organization into a security risk management system, such as one described in commonly owned U.S. Pat. No. 9,438,615, issued Sep. 6, 2016 and titled “Security Risk Management,” which is incorporated herein in its entirety. The actions by mapping system 200 can include:
In other embodiments, the candidate association (IP address or domain) may not be immediately added to an organization map, but continuously monitored for changes or for confidence-building metrics as described earlier.
In some embodiments, once an IP address or domain is associated to an organization, a timestamp can be used to indicate the start of that association, which is known as the “start date.” The specific value of the “start date” may depend on the quality metrics described above. In some embodiments, the exemplary system may continuously monitor the dataset(s), thus facilitating continual identification of candidates, including monitoring for candidates that have already been added to the system. In some embodiments, after some period of not observing a candidate data in the received dataset(s) an “end date” can be applied to the candidate data to mark the termination of use of that IP address or domain by that organization. A threshold for the period of inactivity may depend on the organization. For example, for a company, the threshold may depend on the employee count or number of unique mailboxes observed before the company was added to the mapping system.
In embodiments in which the IP address and domain are already known to be associated to an organization, the above-described techniques may reveal attributes about the target networks (that include the organization and users) that may have been previously unknown. For example, the exemplary system can determine whether an IP address is predominantly used as a guest network by assessing the diversity of domains known to belong to other organizations making requests from that IP address.
In some embodiments, even if an organization is not associated with an IP address or domain name, these methods and systems described herein can learn characteristics of those networks or domains. For example, the even or strong presence of free or paid email service provider addresses relative to organization addresses, while the absolute count is relatively low, may reveal that the network is of an individual residence. For example, if the mapping system is able to identify (a) two distinct free or paid email service provider addresses and (b) one or two different addresses belonging to two different organizations, then the network may be considered a residence. The data points belonging to such a network could then subsequently be excluded in future analytic runs to improve efficiency of the exemplary system. In some embodiments, these networks could be labeled as residential and this information can be used as an input to, for example, improve efficiency in processing. Alternatively, a network with very high absolute number of mailbox and domain pairs in which no particular organization domain is prominent, in addition to a high concentration of free or paid email service provider addresses, may reveal a common transit network for a service provider, such as cellular networks or public Virtual Private Network (VPN) provider. This can be function of the number of users on the particular network. For example, an airport that services 10,000 passengers a day, in which 1,000 are connected to the Wi-Fi network may each work at different companies, but may additionally each own a personal email address on a free or paid email service. In this case, the maximum number of addresses for a given target organization domain is one.
In some examples, some or all of the processing described above can be carried out on a personal computing device, on one or more centralized computing devices, or via cloud-based processing by one or more servers. In some examples, some types of processing occur on one device and other types of processing occur on another device. In some examples, some or all of the data described above can be stored on a personal computing device, in data storage hosted on one or more centralized computing devices, or via cloud-based storage. In some examples, some data are stored in one location and other data are stored in another location. In some examples, quantum computing can be used. In some examples, functional programming languages can be used. In some examples, electrical memory, such as flash-based memory, can be used.
The memory 420 stores information within the system 400. In some implementations, the memory 420 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium. In some implementations, the memory 420 is a volatile memory unit. In some implementations, the memory 420 is a nonvolatile memory unit.
The storage device 430 is capable of providing mass storage for the system 400. In some implementations, the storage device 430 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium. In various different implementations, the storage device 430 may include, for example, a hard disk device, an optical disk device, a solid-date drive, a flash drive, or some other large capacity storage device. For example, the storage device may store long-term data (e.g., database data, file system data, etc.). The input/output device 440 provides input/output operations for the system 400. In some implementations, the input/output device 440 may include one or more of a network interface devices, e.g., an Ethernet card, a serial communication device, e.g., an RS-232 port, and/or a wireless interface device, e.g., an 802.11 card, a 3G wireless modem, or a 4G wireless modem. In some implementations, the input/output device may include driver devices configured to receive input data and send output data to other input/output devices, e.g., keyboard, printer and display devices 460. In some examples, mobile computing devices, mobile communication devices, and other devices may be used.
In some implementations, at least a portion of the approaches described above may be realized by instructions that upon execution cause one or more processing devices to carry out the processes and functions described above. Such instructions may include, for example, interpreted instructions such as script instructions, or executable code, or other instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium. The storage device 430 may be implemented in a distributed way over a network, such as a server farm or a set of widely distributed servers, or may be implemented in a single computing device.
Although an example processing system has been described in
The term “system” may encompass all kinds of apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including by way of example a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers. A processing system may include special purpose logic circuitry, e.g., an FPGA (field programmable gate array) or an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit). A processing system may include, in addition to hardware, code that creates an execution environment for the computer program in question, e.g., code that constitutes processor firmware, a protocol stack, a database management system, an operating system, or a combination of one or more of them.
A computer program (which may also be referred to or described as a program, software, a software application, a module, a software module, a script, or code) can be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, or declarative or procedural languages, and it can be deployed in any form, including as a standalone program or as a module, component, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment. A computer program may, but need not, correspond to a file in a file system. A program can be stored in a portion of a file that holds other programs or data (e.g., one or more scripts stored in a markup language document), in a single file dedicated to the program in question, or in multiple coordinated files (e.g., files that store one or more modules, sub programs, or portions of code). A computer program can be deployed to be executed on one computer or on multiple computers that are located at one site or distributed across multiple sites and interconnected by a communication network.
The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable computers executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output. The processes and logic flows can also be performed by, and apparatus can also be implemented as, special purpose logic circuitry, e.g., an FPGA (field programmable gate array) or an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit).
Computers suitable for the execution of a computer program can include, by way of example, general or special purpose microprocessors or both, or any other kind of central processing unit. Generally, a central processing unit will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory or a random access memory or both. A computer generally includes a central processing unit for performing or executing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data. Generally, a computer will also include, or be operatively coupled to receive data from or transfer data to, or both, one or more mass storage devices for storing data, e.g., magnetic, magneto optical disks, or optical disks. However, a computer need not have such devices. Moreover, a computer can be embedded in another device, e.g., a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile audio or video player, a game console, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, or a portable storage device (e.g., a universal serial bus (USB) flash drive), to name just a few.
Computer readable media suitable for storing computer program instructions and data include all forms of nonvolatile memory, media and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, e.g., EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks, e.g., internal hard disks or removable disks; magneto optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks. The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry.
To provide for interaction with a user, embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented on a computer having a display device, e.g., a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor, for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device, e.g., a mouse or a trackball, by which the user can provide input to the computer. Other kinds of devices can be used to provide for interaction with a user as well; for example, feedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback, e.g., visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback; and input from the user can be received in any form, including acoustic, speech, or tactile input. In addition, a computer can interact with a user by sending documents to and receiving documents from a device that is used by the user; for example, by sending web pages to a web browser on a user's user device in response to requests received from the web browser.
Embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back end component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server, or that includes a front end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described in this specification, or any combination of one or more such back end, middleware, or front end components. The components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication, e.g., a communication network. Examples of communication networks include a local area network (“LAN”) and a wide area network (“WAN”), e.g., the Internet.
The computing system can include clients and servers. A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a communication network. The relationship of client and server arises by virtue of computer programs running on the respective computers and having a client-server relationship to each other.
While this specification contains many specific implementation details, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features that may be specific to particular embodiments. Certain features that are described in this specification in the context of separate embodiments can also be implemented in combination in a single embodiment. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single embodiment can also be implemented in multiple embodiments separately or in any suitable sub-combination. Moreover, although features may be described above as acting in certain combinations and even initially claimed as such, one or more features from a claimed combination can in some cases be excised from the combination, and the claimed combination may be directed to a sub-combination or variation of a sub-combination.
Similarly, while operations are depicted in the drawings in a particular order, this should not be understood as requiring that such operations be performed in the particular order shown or in sequential order, or that all illustrated operations be performed, to achieve desirable results. In certain circumstances, multitasking and parallel processing may be advantageous. Moreover, the separation of various system components in the embodiments described above should not be understood as requiring such separation in all embodiments, and it should be understood that the described program components and systems can generally be integrated together in a single software product or packaged into multiple software products.
Particular embodiments of the subject matter have been described. Other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims. For example, the actions recited in the claims can be performed in a different order and still achieve desirable results. As one example, the processes depicted in the accompanying figures do not necessarily require the particular order shown, or sequential order, to achieve desirable results. In certain implementations, multitasking and parallel processing may be advantageous. Other steps or stages may be provided, or steps or stages may be eliminated, from the described processes. Accordingly, other implementations are within the scope of the following claims.
The phraseology and terminology used herein is for the purpose of description and should not be regarded as limiting.
The term “approximately”, the phrase “approximately equal to”, and other similar phrases, as used in the specification and the claims (e.g., “X has a value of approximately Y” or “X is approximately equal to Y”), should be understood to mean that one value (X) is within a predetermined range of another value (Y). The predetermined range may be plus or minus 20%, 10%, 5%, 3%, 1%, 0.1%, or less than 0.1%, unless otherwise indicated.
The indefinite articles “a” and “an,” as used in the specification and in the claims, unless clearly indicated to the contrary, should be understood to mean “at least one.” The phrase “and/or,” as used in the specification and in the claims, should be understood to mean “either or both” of the elements so conjoined, i.e., elements that are conjunctively present in some cases and disjunctively present in other cases. Multiple elements listed with “and/or” should be construed in the same fashion, i.e., “one or more” of the elements so conjoined. Other elements may optionally be present other than the elements specifically identified by the “and/or” clause, whether related or unrelated to those elements specifically identified. Thus, as a non-limiting example, a reference to “A and/or B”, when used in conjunction with open-ended language such as “comprising” can refer, in one embodiment, to A only (optionally including elements other than B); in another embodiment, to B only (optionally including elements other than A); in yet another embodiment, to both A and B (optionally including other elements); etc.
As used in the specification and in the claims, “or” should be understood to have the same meaning as “and/or” as defined above. For example, when separating items in a list, “or” or “and/or” shall be interpreted as being inclusive, i.e., the inclusion of at least one, but also including more than one, of a number or list of elements, and, optionally, additional unlisted items. Only terms clearly indicated to the contrary, such as “only one of” or “exactly one of,” or, when used in the claims, “consisting of,” will refer to the inclusion of exactly one element of a number or list of elements. In general, the term “or” as used shall only be interpreted as indicating exclusive alternatives (i.e. “one or the other but not both”) when preceded by terms of exclusivity, such as “either,” “one of,” “only one of,” or “exactly one of.” “Consisting essentially of,” when used in the claims, shall have its ordinary meaning as used in the field of patent law.
As used in the specification and in the claims, the phrase “at least one,” in reference to a list of one or more elements, should be understood to mean at least one element selected from any one or more of the elements in the list of elements, but not necessarily including at least one of each and every element specifically listed within the list of elements and not excluding any combinations of elements in the list of elements. This definition also allows that elements may optionally be present other than the elements specifically identified within the list of elements to which the phrase “at least one” refers, whether related or unrelated to those elements specifically identified. Thus, as a non-limiting example, “at least one of A and B” (or, equivalently, “at least one of A or B,” or, equivalently “at least one of A and/or B”) can refer, in one embodiment, to at least one, optionally including more than one, A, with no B present (and optionally including elements other than B); in another embodiment, to at least one, optionally including more than one, B, with no A present (and optionally including elements other than A); in yet another embodiment, to at least one, optionally including more than one, A, and at least one, optionally including more than one, B (and optionally including other elements); etc.
The use of “including,” “comprising,” “having,” “containing,” “involving,” and variations thereof, is meant to encompass the items listed thereafter and additional items.
Use of ordinal terms such as “first,” “second,” “third,” etc., in the claims to modify a claim element does not by itself connote any priority, precedence, or order of one claim element over another or the temporal order in which acts of a method are performed. Ordinal terms are used merely as labels to distinguish one claim element having a certain name from another element having a same name (but for use of the ordinal term), to distinguish the claim elements.
The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/738,825 filed Jan. 9, 2020 and titled “Methods for mapping IP addresses and domains to organizations using user activity date,” which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/543,075 filed Aug. 16, 2019 and titled “Methods for mapping IP addresses and domains to organizations using user activity data,” which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/015,686 filed Jun. 22, 2018 and titled “Methods for mapping IP addresses and domains to organizations using user activity data,” which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/523,416 filed Jun. 22, 2017 and titled “Method for mapping IP addresses and domains to organizations using user activity data,” the entireties of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5867799 | Lang et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
6016475 | Miller et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6745150 | Breiman | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6792401 | Nigro et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
7062572 | Hampton | Jun 2006 | B1 |
D525264 | Chotai | Jul 2006 | S |
D525629 | Chotai | Jul 2006 | S |
7100195 | Underwood | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7194769 | Lippmann et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7290275 | Baudoin et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
D604740 | Matheny | Nov 2009 | S |
7650570 | Torrens et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7747778 | King | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7748038 | Olivier et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7827607 | Sobel et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
D630645 | Tokunaga | Jan 2011 | S |
7971252 | Lippmann et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8000698 | Wolman et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
D652048 | Joseph | Jan 2012 | S |
D667022 | LoBosco | Sep 2012 | S |
8370933 | Buckler | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8429630 | Nickolov et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
D682287 | Cong | May 2013 | S |
D688260 | Pearcy | Aug 2013 | S |
8504556 | Rice et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8505094 | Xuewen et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
D691164 | Lim | Oct 2013 | S |
D694252 | Helm | Nov 2013 | S |
D694253 | Helm | Nov 2013 | S |
8584233 | Yang et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8621621 | Burns et al. | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8661146 | Alex et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
D700616 | Chao | Mar 2014 | S |
8677481 | Lee | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8752183 | Heiderich et al. | Jun 2014 | B1 |
8775402 | Baskerville et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8825662 | Kingman et al. | Sep 2014 | B1 |
8949988 | Adams et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8966639 | Roytman et al. | Feb 2015 | B1 |
D730918 | Park | Jun 2015 | S |
9053210 | Elnikety | Jun 2015 | B2 |
9075990 | Yang | Jul 2015 | B1 |
D740847 | Yampolskiy et al. | Oct 2015 | S |
D740848 | Bolts | Oct 2015 | S |
D741351 | Kito | Oct 2015 | S |
D746832 | Pearcy | Jan 2016 | S |
9241252 | Dua et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9244899 | Greenbaum | Jan 2016 | B1 |
9294498 | Yampolskiy et al. | Mar 2016 | B1 |
D754690 | Park | Apr 2016 | S |
D754696 | Follett | Apr 2016 | S |
D756371 | Bertnick | May 2016 | S |
D756372 | Bertnick | May 2016 | S |
D756392 | Yun | May 2016 | S |
D759084 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jun 2016 | S |
D759689 | Olson | Jun 2016 | S |
9372994 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
9373144 | Ng et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
D760782 | Kendler | Jul 2016 | S |
9384206 | Bono et al. | Jul 2016 | B1 |
9401926 | Dubow et al. | Jul 2016 | B1 |
9407658 | Kuskov et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9420049 | Talmor et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9424333 | Bisignani | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9479526 | Yang | Oct 2016 | B1 |
D771103 | Eder | Nov 2016 | S |
D771695 | Yampolskiy et al. | Nov 2016 | S |
D772276 | Yampolskiy et al. | Nov 2016 | S |
9501647 | Yampolskiy et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
D773507 | Sagrillo | Dec 2016 | S |
D775635 | Raji | Jan 2017 | S |
D776136 | Chen | Jan 2017 | S |
D776153 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jan 2017 | S |
D777177 | Chen | Jan 2017 | S |
9560072 | Xu | Jan 2017 | B1 |
D778927 | Bertnick | Feb 2017 | S |
D778928 | Bertnick | Feb 2017 | S |
D779512 | Kimura | Feb 2017 | S |
D779514 | Baris | Feb 2017 | S |
D779531 | List | Feb 2017 | S |
D780770 | Sum | Mar 2017 | S |
D785009 | Lim | Apr 2017 | S |
D785010 | Bachman | Apr 2017 | S |
D785016 | Berwick | Apr 2017 | S |
9620079 | Curtis | Apr 2017 | B2 |
D787530 | Huang | May 2017 | S |
D788128 | Wada | May 2017 | S |
9641547 | Yampolskiy et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
9646110 | Byrne | May 2017 | B2 |
D789947 | Sun | Jun 2017 | S |
D789957 | Wu | Jun 2017 | S |
9680855 | Schultz et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
9680858 | Boyer et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
D791153 | Rice | Jul 2017 | S |
D791834 | Eze | Jul 2017 | S |
D792427 | Weaver | Jul 2017 | S |
D795891 | Kohan | Aug 2017 | S |
9736019 | Hardison et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
D796523 | Bhandari | Sep 2017 | S |
D801989 | Iketsuki | Nov 2017 | S |
D803237 | Wu | Nov 2017 | S |
D804528 | Martin | Dec 2017 | S |
D806735 | Olsen | Jan 2018 | S |
D806737 | Chung | Jan 2018 | S |
D809523 | Lipka | Feb 2018 | S |
D809989 | Lee et al. | Feb 2018 | S |
D812633 | Saneii | Mar 2018 | S |
D814483 | Gavaskar | Apr 2018 | S |
D815119 | Chalker | Apr 2018 | S |
D815148 | Martin | Apr 2018 | S |
D816105 | Rudick | Apr 2018 | S |
D816116 | Selassie | Apr 2018 | S |
9954893 | Zhao et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
D817970 | Chang | May 2018 | S |
D817977 | Kato | May 2018 | S |
D818475 | Yepez et al. | May 2018 | S |
D819687 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jun 2018 | S |
10044750 | Livshits et al. | Aug 2018 | B2 |
10079854 | Scott et al. | Sep 2018 | B1 |
10142364 | Baukes et al. | Nov 2018 | B2 |
D835631 | Yepez et al. | Dec 2018 | S |
10180966 | Lang et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
10185924 | McClintock et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
10217071 | Mo et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10230753 | Yampolskiy et al. | Mar 2019 | B2 |
10230764 | Ng et al. | Mar 2019 | B2 |
10235524 | Ford | Mar 2019 | B2 |
D847169 | Sombreireiro et al. | Apr 2019 | S |
10257219 | Geil et al. | Apr 2019 | B1 |
10305854 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
10331502 | Hart | Jun 2019 | B1 |
10339321 | Tedeschi | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10339484 | Pai et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10348755 | Shavell et al. | Jul 2019 | B1 |
10412083 | Zou et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
D863335 | Hardy et al. | Oct 2019 | S |
D863345 | Hardy et al. | Oct 2019 | S |
10469515 | Helmsen et al. | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10491619 | Yampolskiy et al. | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10491620 | Yampolskiy et al. | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10521583 | Bagulho Monteiro Pereira | Dec 2019 | B1 |
D872574 | Deylamian et al. | Jan 2020 | S |
10540374 | Singh et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
D874506 | Kang et al. | Feb 2020 | S |
D880512 | Greenwald et al. | Apr 2020 | S |
D894939 | Braica | Sep 2020 | S |
10764298 | Light et al. | Sep 2020 | B1 |
10776483 | Bagulho Monteiro Pereira | Sep 2020 | B2 |
10796260 | Brannon et al. | Oct 2020 | B2 |
D903693 | Li et al. | Dec 2020 | S |
D905712 | Li et al. | Dec 2020 | S |
D908139 | Hardy et al. | Jan 2021 | S |
10896394 | Brannon et al. | Jan 2021 | B2 |
10909488 | Hecht et al. | Feb 2021 | B2 |
D918955 | Madden, Jr. et al. | May 2021 | S |
D920343 | Bowland | May 2021 | S |
D920353 | Boutros et al. | May 2021 | S |
D921031 | Tessier et al. | Jun 2021 | S |
D921662 | Giannino et al. | Jun 2021 | S |
D921674 | Kmak et al. | Jun 2021 | S |
D921677 | Kmak et al. | Jun 2021 | S |
D922397 | Modi et al. | Jun 2021 | S |
D924909 | Nasu et al. | Jul 2021 | S |
20010044798 | Nagral et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020083077 | Vardi | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020133365 | Grey et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020164983 | Raviv | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030011601 | Itoh et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030050862 | Bleicken et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030074248 | Braud et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030123424 | Jung | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030187967 | Walsh et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040003284 | Campbell et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010709 | Baudoin et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024859 | Bloch et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040098375 | DeCarlo | May 2004 | A1 |
20040133561 | Burke | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040133689 | Vasisht | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040193907 | Patanella | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193918 | Green et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199791 | Poletto et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040199792 | Tan et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040221296 | Ogielski et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040250122 | Newton | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040250134 | Kohler et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050065807 | DeAngelis et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050066195 | Jones | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071450 | Allen et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050076245 | Graham et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050080720 | Betz et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050108415 | Turk et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050131830 | Juarez et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138413 | Lippmann et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050160002 | Roetter et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050234767 | Bolzman et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050278726 | Cano | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060036335 | Banter | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060107226 | Matthews | May 2006 | A1 |
20060173992 | Weber et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060212925 | Shull et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060253581 | Dixon et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271564 | Meng Muntz et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070016948 | Dubrovsky et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070067845 | Wiemer et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070113282 | Ross | May 2007 | A1 |
20070136622 | Price et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143851 | Nicodemus et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070179955 | Croft et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198275 | Malden et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070214151 | Thomas et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070282730 | Carpenter et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080017526 | Prescott et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080033775 | Dawson et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080047018 | Baudoin et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080091834 | Norton | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080140495 | Bhamidipaty et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080140728 | Fraser et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080162931 | Lord et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080172382 | Prettejohn | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080175266 | Alperovitch et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080208995 | Takahashi et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080209565 | Baudoin et al. | Aug 2008 | A2 |
20080222287 | Bahl et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080262895 | Hofmeister et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080270458 | Gvelesiani | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090044272 | Jarrett | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090064337 | Chien | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090094265 | Vlachos et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090125427 | Atwood et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090132861 | Costa et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090161629 | Purkayastha et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090193054 | Karimisetty et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090216700 | Bouchard et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090228830 | Herz et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090265787 | Baudoin et al. | Oct 2009 | A9 |
20090293128 | Lippmann et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090299802 | Brennan | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090300768 | Krishnamurthy et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090319420 | Sanchez et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090323632 | Nix | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328063 | Corvera et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100017880 | Masood | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100042605 | Cheng et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100057582 | Arfin | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100114634 | Christiansen et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100186088 | Banerjee et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100205042 | Mun | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100218256 | Thomas et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100262444 | Atwal et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100275263 | Bennett et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100281124 | Westman et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100281151 | Ramankutty et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100309206 | Xie et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110137704 | Mitra | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110145168 | Dirnstorfer et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110145576 | Bettan | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110148880 | De Peuter | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110185403 | Dolan et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110213742 | Lemmond et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110219455 | Bhagwan et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110225085 | Takeshita et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110231395 | Vadlamani | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110239300 | Klein et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110249002 | Duplessis et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110282997 | Prince et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110296519 | Ide et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120008974 | Kawai et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120036263 | Madden et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120059823 | Barber et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120089745 | Turakhia | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120158725 | Molloy et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120166458 | Laudanski et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120174219 | Hernandez et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120198558 | Liu et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120215892 | Wanser | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120221376 | Austin | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120255027 | Kanakapura et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120291129 | Shulman et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130014253 | Vivian et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130055386 | Kim et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130060351 | Imming et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130080505 | Nielsen et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130086521 | Grossele | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130086687 | Chess et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130091574 | Howes et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130124644 | Hunt et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130124653 | Vick et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130142050 | Luna | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130173791 | Longo | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130212479 | Willis et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130227078 | Wei et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130227697 | Zandani | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130263270 | Cote et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130282406 | Snyder et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130291105 | Zheng | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130298244 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130305368 | Ford | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130333038 | Chien | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130347116 | Flores | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140006129 | Heath | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140019196 | Wiggins | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140052998 | Bloom et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140101006 | Pitt | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140108474 | David et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140114755 | Mezzacca | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140114843 | Klein et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140130158 | Wang et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140137257 | Martinez et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140146370 | Banner et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140173066 | Newton | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140189098 | MaGill et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140204803 | Nguyen et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140237545 | Mylavarapu et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140244317 | Roberts et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140282261 | Ranz et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140283068 | Call et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140288996 | Rence et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140304816 | Klein et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140330616 | Lyras | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140334336 | Chen et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140337086 | Asenjo et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140337633 | Yang et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140344332 | Giebler | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150033331 | Stern et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150033341 | Schmidtler et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150052607 | Al Hamami | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150074579 | Gladstone et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150081860 | Kuehnel et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150156084 | Kaminsky et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150180883 | Aktas et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150195299 | Zoldi et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150207776 | Morin | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150248280 | Pillay et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150261955 | Huang et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150264061 | Ibatullin et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150288706 | Marshall | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150288709 | Singhal et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150310188 | Ford et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150310213 | Ronen et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150317672 | Espinoza et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150331932 | Georges et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150347756 | Hidayat et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150350229 | Mitchell | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150381649 | Schultz et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160014081 | Don, Jr. et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160023639 | Cajiga et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160036849 | Zakian | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160065613 | Cho et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160078382 | Watkins et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160088015 | Sivan et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160119373 | Fausto et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160140466 | Sidebottom | May 2016 | A1 |
20160147992 | Zhao et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160162602 | Bradish et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160171415 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160173522 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160182537 | Tatourian et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160189301 | Ng et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160191554 | Kaminsky | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160205126 | Boyer et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160212101 | Reshadi et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160241560 | Reshadi et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160248797 | Yampolskiy et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160253500 | Alme et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160259945 | Yampolskiy et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160337387 | Hu et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160344769 | Li | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160344801 | Akkarawittayapoom | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160364496 | Li | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20160373485 | Kamble | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170048267 | Yampolskiy et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
20170063901 | Muddu et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170104783 | Vanunu et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170142148 | Bu Er et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170161253 | Silver | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170161409 | Martin | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170213292 | Sweeney et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170221072 | Athuluru Tlrumala et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170223002 | Sabin et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170236078 | Rasumov | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170237764 | Rasumov | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170264623 | Ficarra et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170279843 | Schultz et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170300911 | Alnajem | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170316324 | Barrett et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170318045 | Johns et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170324555 | Wu et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170324766 | Gonzalez | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170337487 | Nock et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20180013716 | Connell et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180088968 | Myhre et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180103043 | Kupreev et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180121659 | Sawhney et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180123934 | Gissing et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180124110 | Hunt et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180139180 | Napchi et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180146004 | Belfiore, Jr. et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180157468 | Stachura | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180191768 | Broda et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180285414 | Kondiles et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180322584 | Crabtree et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180336348 | Ng et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180337938 | Kneib et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180337941 | Kraning et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180349641 | Barday et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20180365519 | Pollard et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20180375896 | Wang et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20190034845 | Mo et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190065545 | Hazel et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
20190079869 | Baldi et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190089711 | Faulkner | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190098025 | Lim | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190124091 | Ujiie et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190140925 | Pon et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190141060 | Lim | May 2019 | A1 |
20190147378 | Mo et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190166152 | Steele et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190179490 | Barday et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
20190215331 | Anakata et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
20190238439 | Pugh | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190297106 | Geil et al. | Sep 2019 | A1 |
20190303574 | Lamay et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190379632 | Dahlberg et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
20190391707 | Ristow et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
20190392252 | Fighel et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
20200053127 | Brotherton et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
20200065213 | Poghosyan et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
20200074084 | Dorrans et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
20200092172 | Kumaran et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
20200097845 | Shaikh et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
20200106798 | Lin | Apr 2020 | A1 |
20200125734 | Light et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
20200183655 | Barday et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
20200272763 | Brannon et al. | Aug 2020 | A1 |
20200285737 | Kraus et al. | Sep 2020 | A1 |
20200356689 | McEnroe et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
20200356695 | Brannon et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
3015146 | Aug 2017 | CA |
WO-2017142694 | Jan 2019 | WO |
WO-2019023045 | Jan 2019 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“About Neo4j,” 1 page. |
“Agreed Upon Procedures,” Version 4.0, BITS, The Financial Institution Shared Assessments Program, Assessment Guide, Sep. 2008, 56 pages. |
“Amazon Mechanical Turk,” accessed on the internet at https://www.mturk.com/; 7 pages. |
“An Executive View of IT Governance,” IT Governance Institute, 2009, 32 pages. |
“Assessing Risk in Turbulent Times,” A Workshop for Information Security Executives, Glassmeyter/McNamee Center for Digital Strategies, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection, 2009, 17 pages. |
“Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information and Communications Infrastructure,” Cyberspace Policy Review, May 2009, 76 pages. |
“Computer Network Graph,” http://www.opte.org; 1 page. |
“Creating Transparency with Palantir,” accessed on the internet at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cbGChfagUA; Jul. 5, 2012; 1 page. |
“Maltego XL,” accessed on the Internet at https://www.paterva.com/web7/buy/maltegoclients/maltego-xl.php, 5 pages. |
“Master Security Criteria,” Version 3.0, BITS Financial Services Security Laboratory, Oct. 2001, 47 pages. |
“Neo4j (neo4j.com),” accessed on the internet at https://web.archive.org/web/20151220150341/http://neo4j.com:80/developer/guide-data-visualization/; Dec. 20, 2015; 1 page. |
“Palantir Cyber: Uncovering malicious behavior at petabyte scale,” accessed on the internet at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= EhYezV0SEE; Dec. 21, 2012; 1 page. |
“Palantir.com,” accessed on the internet at http://www.palantir.com/; Dec. 2015; 2 pages. |
“Plugging the Right Holes,” Lab Notes, MIT Lincoln Library, Posted Jul. 2008, retrieved Sep. 14, 2010 from http://www.il.miLedufpublicationsflabnotesfpluggingtherightho! . . . , 2 pages. |
“Rapid7 Nexpose Vulnerability Scanner,” accessed on the internet at https://www.rapid7.com/products/nexpose/download/, 3 pages. |
“Report on Controls Placed in Operation and Test of Operating Effectiveness,” EasCorp, Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, 2008, prepared by Crowe Horwath, 58 pages. |
“Shared Assessments: Getting Started,” BITS, 2008, 4 pages. |
“Tenable Nessus Network Vulnerability Scanner,” accessed on the internet at https://www.tenable.com/products/nessus/nessus-professional; 13 pages. |
“Twenty Critical Controls for Effective Cyber Defense: Consensus Audit,” Version 2.3, Nov. 13, 2009, retrieved on Apr. 9, 2010 from http://www.sans.org/critical-security-controls/print.php., 52 pages. |
2009 Data Breach Investigations Report, study conducted by Verizon Business RISK Team, 52 pages. |
Application as filed, pending claims of U.S. Appl. No. 13/240,572 as of Nov. 18, 2015, 45 pages. |
Artz, Michael Lyle, “NetSPA: A Network Security Planning Architecture,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 24, 2002, 97 pages. |
Bhilare et al., “Protecting Intellectual Property and Sensitive Information in Academic Campuses from Trusted Insiders: Leveraging Active Directory”, SIGUCC, Oct. 2009 (5 pages). |
BitSight, “Cyber Security Myths Versus Reality: How Optimism Bias Contributes to Inaccurate Perceptions of Risk”, Jun. 2015, Dimensional Research, pp. 1-9. |
Borgatti, et al., “On Social Network Analysis in a Supply Chain Context,” Journal of Supply Chain Management; 45(2): 5-22; Apr. 2009, 18 pages. |
Boyer, Stephen, et al., Playing with Blocks: SCAP-Enable Higher-Level Analyses, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 5th Annual IT Security Automation Conference, Oct. 26-29, 2009, 35 pages. |
Browne, Niall, et al., “Shared Assessments Program AUP and SAS70 Frequently Asked Questions,” BITS, 4 pages. |
Buckshaw, Donald L., “Use of Decision Support Techniques for Information System Risk Management,” submitted for publication in Wiley's Encyclopedia of Quantitative Risk Assessment in Jan. 2007, 11 pages. |
Buehler, Kevin S., et al., “Running with risk,” The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 4, 2003, pp. 40-49. |
Carstens, et al., “Modeling Company Risk and Importance in Supply Graphs,” European Semantic Web Conference 2017: The Semantic Web pp. 18-31. |
Chu, Matthew, et al., “Visualizing Attack Graphs, Reachability, and Trust Relationships with Navigator,” MIT Lincoln Library, VizSEC '10, Ontario, Canada, Sep. 14, 2010, 12 pages. |
Chuvakin, “SIEM: Moving beyond compliance”, RSA White Paper (2010) (16 pages). |
Computer Network Graph-Bees, http://bioteams.com/2007/04/30/visualizing_complex_networks.html, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 2 pages. |
Computer Network Graph—Univ. of Michigan, http://people.cst.cmich.edu/liao1q/research.shtml, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 5 pages. |
Crowther, Kenneth G., et al., “Principles for Better Information Security through More Accurate, Transparent Risk Scoring,” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, vol. 7, Issue 1, Article 37, 2010, 20 pages. |
Davis, Lois M., et al., “The National Computer Security Survey (NCSS) Final Methodology,” Technical report prepared for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Safety and Justice Program, RAND Infrastructure, Safety and Environment (ISE), 2008, 91 pages. |
Dillon-Merrill, PhD., Robin L, et al., “Logic Trees: Fault, Success, Attack, Event, Probability, and Decision Trees,” Wiley Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security, 13 pages. |
Dun & Bradstreet, The DUNSRight Quality Process: Power Behind Quality Information, 24 pages. |
Edmonds, Robert, “ISC Passive DNS Architecture”, Internet Systems Consortium, Inc., Mar. 2012, 18 pages. |
Equifax Inc. Stock Report, Standard & Poor's, Jun. 6, 2009, 8 pages. |
Gephi (gephi.org), accessed on the internet at https://web.archive.org/web/20151216223216/https://gephi.org/; Dec. 16, 2015; 1 page. |
Gilgur, et al., “Percentile-Based Approach to Forecasting Workload Growth” Proceedings of CMG'15 Performance and Capacity International Conference by the Computer Measurement Group. No. 2015 (Year:2015). |
Gundert, Levi, “Big Data in Security—Part III: Graph Analytics,” accessed on the Internet at https://blogs.cisco.com/security/big-data-in-security-part-iii-graph-analytics; Cisco Blog, Dec. 2013, 8 pages. |
Hachem, Sara; Toninelli, Alessandra; Pathak, Animesh; Issany, Valerie. Policy-Based Access Control in Mobile Social Ecosystems. 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (Policy). Http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=5976796. 8 pages. |
Hacking Exposed 6, S. McClure et al., copyright 2009, 37 pages. |
Ingols, Kyle, et al., “Modeling Modern Network Attacks and Countermeasures Using Attack Graphs,” MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 16 pages. |
Ingols, Kyle, et al., “Practical Attack Graph Generation for Network Defense,” MIT Lincoln Library, IEEE Computer Society, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC'06), 2006, 10 pages. |
Ingols, Kyle, et al., “Practical Experiences Using SCAP to Aggregate CND Data,” MIT Lincoln Library, Presentation to NIST SCAP Conference, Sep. 24, 2008, 59 pages. |
Jean, “Cyber Security: How to use graphs to do an attack analysis,” accessed on the internet at https://linkurio.us/blog/cyber-security-use-graphs-attack-analysis/; Aug. 2014, 11 pages. |
Jin et al., “Identifying and tracking suspicious activities through IP gray space analysis”, MineNet, Jun. 12, 2007 (6 pages). |
Johnson, Eric, et al., “Information Risk and the Evolution of the Security Rating Industry,” Mar. 24, 2009, 27 pages. |
Joslyn, et al., “Massive Scale Cyber Traffic Analysis: A Driver for Graph Database Research,” Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experience and Systems (Grades 2013), 6 pages. |
KC Claffy, “Internet measurement and data analysis: topology, workload, performance and routing statistics,” accessed on the Internet at http://www.caida.org/publications/papers/1999/Nae/Nae.html., NAE '99 workshop, 1999, 22 pages. |
Li et al., “Finding the Linchpins of the Dark Web: a Study on Topologically Dedicated Hosts on Malicious Web Infrastructures”, IEEE, 2013 (15 pages). |
Lippmann, Rich, et al., NetSPA: a Network Security Planning Architecture, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 11 pages. |
Lippmann, Richard, et al., “Validating and Restoring Defense in Depth Using Attack Graphs,” MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 10 pages. |
Lippmann, RP., et al., “An Annotated Review of Papers on Attack Graphs,” Project Report IA-1, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mar. 31, 2005, 39 pages. |
Lippmann, RP., et al., “Evaluating and Strengthening Enterprise Network Security Using Attack Graphs,” Project Report IA-2, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Oct. 5, 2005, 96 pages. |
Massimo Candela, “Real-time BGP Visualisation with BGPlay,” accessed on the Internet at https://labs.ripe.net/Members/massimo_candela/real-time-bgp-visualisationwith-bgplay), Sep. 30, 2015, 8 pages. |
MaxMind, https://www.maxmind.com/en/about-maxmind, https://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip2-isp-database, date accessed Sep. 28, 20116, 3 pages. |
Mcnab, “Network Security Assessment,” copyright 2004, 56 pages. |
Method Documentation, CNSS Risk Assessment Tool Version 1.1, Mar. 31, 2009, 24 pages. |
Mile 2 CPTE Maltego Demo, accessed on the internet at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2oNKOUzPOU; Jul. 12, 2012; 1 page. |
Moradi, et al., “Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management,” IGI Global, 2012, 29 pages. |
Netcraft, www.netcraft.com, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 2 pages. |
NetScanTools Pro, http://www.netscantools.com/nstpromain.html, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 2 pages. |
Network Security Assessment, C. McNab, copyright 2004, 13 pages. |
Noel, et al., “Big-Data Architecture for Cyber Attack Graphs, Representing Security Relationships in NoSQL Graph Databases,” The MITRE Corporation, 2014, 6 pages. |
Nye, John, “Avoiding Audit Overlap,” Moody's Risk Services, Presentation, Source Boston, Mar. 14, 2008, 19 pages. |
Pending claims for U.S. Appl. No. 14/021,585, as of Apr. 29, 2016, 2 pages. |
Pending claims for U.S. Appl. No. 14/021,585, as of Nov. 18, 2015, 6 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/240,572 and pending claims as of Mar. 22, 2016, 10 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/240,572 as of Oct. 7, 2015, application as filed and pending claims, 45 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/021,585 and pending claims as of Mar. 22, 2016, 2 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/021,585 as of Oct. 7, 2015 and application as filed, 70 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/944,484 and pending claims as of Mar. 22, 2016, 4 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 61/386,156 as of Oct. 7, 2015. 2 pages. |
Application as filed and pending claims for U.S. Appl. No. 13/240,572 as of Apr. 29, 2016, 46 pages. |
Application as filed and pending claims for U.S. Appl. No. 14/944,484 as of Apr. 29, 2016, 4 pages. |
Paxson, Vern, “How The Pursuit of Truth Led Me To Selling Viagra,” EECS Department, University of California, International Computer Science Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Aug. 13, 2009, 68 pages. |
Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part 1—Proposal Preparation & Submission Guidelines GPG, The National Science Foundation, Feb. 2009, 68 pages. |
Provos et al., “The Ghost In the Browser Analysis of Web-based Malware”, 2007 (9 pages). |
Rare Events, Oct. 2009, Jason, The Mitre Corporation, Oct. 2009, 104 pages. |
Report to the Congress on Credit Scoring and Its Effects on the Availability and Affordability of Credit, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Aug. 2007, 304 pages. |
RFC 1834, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1834, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 7 pages. |
RFC 781, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc781, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 3 pages. |
RFC 950, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc950, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 19 pages. |
RFC 954, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc954, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 5 pages. |
SamSpade Network Inquiry Utility, https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/tools/sam-spade-934, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 19 pages. |
SBIR Phase I: Enterprise Cyber Security Scoring, CyberAnalytix, LLC, http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward. do?AwardNumber=I013603, Apr. 28, 2010, 2 pages. |
Security Warrior, Cyrus Peikari, Anton, Chapter 8: Reconnaissance, 6 pages. |
Snort Intrusion Monitoring System, http://archive.oreilly.eom/pub/h/1393, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 3 pages. |
Srivastava, Divesh; Velegrakis, Yannis. Using Queries to Associate Metadata with Data. IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering. Pub. Date: 2007. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=4221823, 3 pages. |
Stone-Gross, Brett, et al., “FIRE: Finding Rogue Networks,” 10 pages. |
Taleb, Nassim N., et al., “The Six Mistakes Executives Make in Risk Management,” Harvard Business Review, Oct. 2009, 5 pages. |
The CIS Security Metrics vI.0.0, The Center for Internet Security, May 11, 2009, 90 pages. |
The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Stock Report, Standard & Poor's, Jun. 6, 2009, 8 pages. |
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Jul. 30, 2004, 86 pages. |
The Financial Institution Shared Assessments Program, Industry Positioning and Mapping Document, BITS, Oct. 2007, 44 pages. |
Wagner, et al., “Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains using graph theory,” Int. J. Production Economics 126 (2010) 121-129. |
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 25 pages. |
Williams, Leevar, et al., “An Interactive Attack Graph Cascade and Reachability Display,” MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 17 pages. |
Williams, Leevar, et al., “GARNET: A Graphical Attack Graph and Reachability Network Evaluation Tool,” MIT Lincoln Library, VizSEC 2009, pp. 44-59. |
Seneviratne et al., “SSIDs in the Wild: Extracting Semantic Information from WiFi SSIDs” HAL archives-ouvertes.fr, HAL Id: hal-01181254, Jul. 29, 2015, 5 pages. |
Search Query Report form IP.com (performed Apr. 27, 2020). |
Camelo et al., “Condenser: A Graph-Based Approach for Detecting Botnets,” AnubisNetworks R&D, Amadora, Portugal, 8 pages. |
Camelo, “Botnet Cluster Identification,” Sep. 2014, 2 pages. |
Azman, Mohamed et al. Wireless Daisy Chain and Tree Topology Networks for Smart Cities. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber= 8869252 (Year: 2019). |
Basinya, Evgeny A.; Yushmanov, Anton A. Development of a Comprehensive Security System. 2019 Dynamics of Systems, Mechanisms and Machines (Dynamics). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8944700 (Year: 2019). |
Luo, Hui; Henry, Paul. A Secure Public Wireless LAN Access Technique That Supports Walk-Up Users. GLOBECOM '03. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber= 1258471 (Year: 2003). |
Seigneur et al., A Survey of Trust and Risk Metrics for a BYOD Mobile Worker World: Third International Conference on Social Eco-Informatics, 2013, 11 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/025,930 Published as: US 2021-0006581 A1, Methods for Using Organizational Behavior for Risk Ratings, Sep. 18, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/240,572 U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,331 Published as: US2016/0205126, Information Technology Security Assessment System, Sep. 22, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/146,064, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data, Jan. 11, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/918,286 U.S. Pat. No. 10,247,219, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity, Mar. 12, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/292,956 U.S. Pat. No. 10,594,723, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity, May 5, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/795,056 U.S. Pat. No. 10,931,705 Published as: 2020-0195681 A1, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity, Feb. 19, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/688,647 U.S. Pat. No. 10,776,483 Published as: US 2020-0134174 A1, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects, Nov. 19, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/954,921 U.S. Pat. No. 10,812,520 Published as: US 2019-0319979 A1, Systems and Methods for External Detection of Misconfigured Systems, Apr. 17, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/014,495 Published as: US 2020-0404017 A1, Systems and Methods for External Detection of Misconfigured Systems, Sep. 8, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/549,764, Systems and Methods for Inferring Entity Relationships Via Network Communications of Users or User Devices, Aug. 23, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/360,641, Systems and Methods for Forecasting Cybersecurity Ratings Based on Event-Rate Scenarios, Mar. 21, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/677,306, Computer Display With Corporate Hierarchy Graphical User Interface Computer Display With Corporate Hierarchy Graphical User Interface, Jan. 18, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/779,437 U.S. Pat. No. 10,791,140, Systems and Methods for Rapidly Producing Security Ratings, Jan. 31, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/039,675 U.S. Pat. No. 10,893,067, Systems and Methods for Rapidly Generating Security Ratings, Jan. 31, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/119,822, Systems and Methods for Cybersecurity Risk Mitigation and Management, Dec. 11, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/942,452, Systems and Methods for Improving a Security Profile of an Entity Based on Peer Security Profiles, Jul. 29, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/736,641, Computer Display With Peer Analytics Graphical User Interface, Jun. 2, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/039,675, Systems and Methods for Determining Asset Importance in Security Risk Management, Sep. 30, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/271,655, the Office Actions dated Feb. 21, 2017 and Aug. 18, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/377,574, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,705,932, the Office Action dated Mar. 2, 2017 and the Notice of Allowance dated Jun. 1, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/021,585, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,438,615, the Office Action dated Mar. 11, 2016 and the Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 9, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/216,955, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,326,786, the Office Actions dated Nov. 4, 2016, Mar. 9, 2017, Jun. 6, 2017, Dec. 5, 2017, and Aug. 29, 2018, and the Notice of Allowance dated Feb. 6, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/239,063, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,341,370, the Office Action dated Mar. 21, 2018 and the Notice of Allowance dated Jan. 14, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/405,121, the Office Action dated Aug. 1, 2019 and Nov. 21, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/240,572, the Office Actions dated Nov. 21, 2013, Jun. 16, 2014, Feb. 27, 2015, Jun. 3, 2015, Oct. 26, 2015, Mar. 10, 2016 Feb. 13, 2017 and the Notice of Allowance dated Jun. 1, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/944,484, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,973,524, the Office Actions dated Mar. 11, 2016, Jul. 5, 2016, and Jan. 17, 2017 and the Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 20, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/142,677, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,830,569, the Office Actions dated Jul. 26, 2016, and Apr. 24, 2017 and the Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 11, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/134,845, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,680,858, the Office Actions dated Jul. 19, 2016 and Jan. 26, 2017, and the Notices of Allowance dated Apr. 27, 2017 and May 9, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/044,952, the Office Action dated Jul. 8, 2019, Feb. 21, 2020, and Sep. 30, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/089,375, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,176,445, the Office Actions dated Sep. 9, 2016, May 17, 2017, and Nov. 17, 2017 and the Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 9, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/598,298, now U.S. Pat. No. D. 835,631, the Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 15, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/598,299, now U.S. Pat. No. D. 818,475, the Notice of Allowance dated Jan. 2, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/599,622, now U.S. Pat. No. D. 847,169, the Notice of Allowance dated Dec. 11, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/599,620, now U.S. Pat. No. D. 846,562, the Office Action dated May 3, 2018, the Notice of Allowance dated Nov. 27, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/015,686, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,425,380, the Office Action dated Nov. 16, 2018 and the Notice of Allowance dated May 10, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/543,075, the Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 25, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/738,825, the Office Actions dated Jul. 8, 2019 and Feb. 21, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/918,286, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,257,219, the Office Action dated Aug. 7, 2018 and the Notice of Allowance dated Nov. 29, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/292,956, the Office Action dated Jul. 10, 2019 and the Notices of Allowance dated Jan. 8, 2020 and Jan. 27, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/795,056, the Office Action dated May 1, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/170,680, the Office Action dated Mar. 26, 2019; the Notices of Allowance dated Oct. 29, 2019 and Aug. 27, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/688,647, the Office Action dated Jan. 29, 2020; the Notice of Allowance dated May 12, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/000,135, the Office Action dated Feb. 2, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/954,921, the Office Actions dated Sep. 4, 2018, Jan. 3, 2019, Aug. 19, 2019, and Dec. 5, 2019; Advisory Action dated Mar. 3, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/787,650, the Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 7, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/583,991, the Office Action dated Jan. 13, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/666,942, the Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 30, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/360,641, the Office Action dated Aug. 7, 2019, Feb. 20, 2020 and Sep. 4, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/514,771, the Office Action dated Dec. 4, 2019; the Notice of Allowance dated Mar. 18, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/922,673, the Office Action dated Jan. 22, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/775,840, the Notice of Allowance dated May 19, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/779,437, the Notices of Allowance dated Aug. 12, 2020, Oct. 26, 2020 and Nov. 9, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/802,232, the Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 24, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/942,452, the Office Action dated Oct. 23, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/039,675, the Notice of Allowance dated Feb. 3, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/884,607, the Office Action dated Jan. 25, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/271,655 Published as: US2018/0083999, Self-Published Security Risk Management, Sep. 21, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/069,151, Information Technology Security Assessment System, Oct. 13, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/599,622, Computer Display With Security Ratings Graphical User Interface, Apr. 5, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/599,620, Computer Display With Security Ratings Graphical User Interface, Apr. 5, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/015,686, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data, Jun. 22, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/543,075, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data, Aug. 16, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/738,825, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data, Jan. 9, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/918,286, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity, Mar. 12, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/292,956, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity, May 5, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/795,056, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity, Feb. 19, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/179,630, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity, Feb. 19, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/170,680, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects, Oct. 25, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/688,647, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects, Nov. 19, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/000,135, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects, Aug. 21, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/954,921, Systems and Methods for External Detection of Misconfigured Systems, Apr. 17, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/014,495, Systems and Methods for External Detection of Misconfigured Systems, Sep. 8, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/787,650, Systems and Methods for Inferring Entity Relationships Via Network Communications of Users or User Devices, Feb. 11, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/583,991, Systems and Methods for Network Asset Discovery and Association Thereof With Entities, Sep. 26, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/085,550, Systems and Methods for Network Asset Discovery and Association Thereof With Entities, Oct. 30, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/666,942, Computer Display With Graphical User Interface, Oct. 17, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/514,771, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for Entities, Jul. 17, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/922,672, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for Entities, Jul. 7, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/307,577, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for Entities, May 4, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/775,840, Systems and Methods for Assessing Cybersecurity State of Entities Based on Computer Network Characterization, Jan. 29, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/018,587, Systems and Methods for Assessing Cybersecurity State of Entities Based on Computer Network Characterization, Sep. 11, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/132,512, Systems and Methods for Rapidly Generating Security Ratings, Dec. 23, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/779,437, Systems and Methods for Rapidly Generating Security Ratings, Jan. 31, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/802,232, Systems and Methods for Improving a Security Profile of an Entity Based on Peer Security Profiles, Feb. 26, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/320,997, Systems and Methods for Determining Asset Importance in Security Risk Management, May 14, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/884,607, Systems and Methods for Managing Cybersecurity Alerts, May 27, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/236,594, Systems and Methods for Managing Cybersecurity Alerts, Apr. 21, 2021. |
“Mile 2 CPTE Maltego Demo,” accessed on the Internet at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2oNKOUzP0U; Jul. 12, 2012; 1 page. |
“Palantir Cyber: Uncovering malicious behavior at petabyte scale,” accessed on the internet at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EhYezVO6EE; Dec. 21, 2012; 1 page. |
“Percentile-Based Approach to Forecasting Workload Growth Proceedings of CMG'15 Performance and Capacity International Conference by the Computer Measurement Group. No. 2015 (Year:2015).” |
Camelo, “Botnet Cluster Identification,” Sep. 2014, 90 pages. |
Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Stock Report, Standard & Poor's, Jun. 6, 2009, 8 pages. |
Gilgur, et al., “Percentile-Based Approach to Forecasting Workload Growth” Proceedings of CMG'15 Performance and Capacity International Conference by the Computer Measurement Group. No. 2015 (Year:2015), 16 pages. |
Mcnab, “Network Security Assessment,” copyright 2004, 13 pages. |
Morningstar Direct, dated to Nov. 12, 202, morningstardirect.com [online]. Retrieved Feb. 26, 2021 from internet <URL:https://web.archive.org/web/20201112021943/https://www.morningstar.com/products/direct> (Year: 2020). |
Rees, L. P. et al., “Decision support for cybersecurity risk planning.” Decision Support Systems 51.3 (2011): pp. 493-505. |
Santos, J. R. et al., “A framework for linking cybersecurity metrics to the modeling of macroeconomic interdependencies.” Risk Analysis: An International Journal (2007) 27.5, pp. 1283-1297. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/377,574 U.S. Pat. No. 9,705,932, Methods and Systems for Creating, De-Duplicating, and Accessing Data Using an Object Storage System, Dec. 13, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/021,585 U.S. Pat. No. 9,438,615 Published as: US2015/0074579, Security Risk Management, Sep. 9, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/216,955 Published as: US2016/0330231, Methods for Using Organizational Behavior for Risk Ratings, Jul. 22, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/239,063 Published as: US2017/0093901, Security Risk Management, Aug. 17, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/405,121 Published as: US2019/0260791, Methods for Using Organizational Behavior for Risk Ratings, May 7, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/025,930, Methods for Using Organizational Behavior for Risk Ratings, Sep. 18, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/240,572 Published as: US2016/0205126, Information Technology Security Assessment System, Sep. 22, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/944,484 U.S. Pat. No. 9,973,524 Published as: US2016/0323308, Information Technology Security Assessment System, Nov. 18, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/142,677 U.S. Pat. No. 9,830,569 Published as: US/2016/0239772, Security Assessment Using Service Provider Digital Asset Information, Apr. 29, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/069,151 Published as: US/2021/0211454, Information Technology Security Assessment System, Oct. 13, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/134,845 U.S. Pat. No. 9,680,858, Annotation Platform for a Security Risk System, Apr. 21, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/044,952 Published as: US2017/0236077, Relationships Among Technology Assets and Services and the Entities Responsible for Them, Feb. 16, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/089,375 U.S. Pat. No. 10,176,445 Published as: US2017/0236079, Relationships Among Technology Assets and Services and the Entities Responsible for Them, Apr. 1, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/598,298 U.S. Pat. No. D. 835,631, Computer Display Screen With Graphical User Interface, Mar. 24, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/598,299 U.S. Pat. No. D. 818,475, Computer Display With Security Ratings Graphical User Interface, Mar. 24, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/599,622 U.S. Pat. No. D. 847,169, Computer Display With Security Ratings Graphical User Interface, Apr. 5, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/599,620 U.S. Pat. No. D. 846,562, Computer Display With Security Ratings Graphical User Interface, Apr. 5, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/015,686 U.S. Pat. No. 10,425,380, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data, Jun. 22, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/543,075 U.S. Pat. No. 10,554,619, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data, Aug. 16, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/738,825 U.S. Pat. No. 10,893,021, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data, Jan. 9, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/918,286 U.S. Pat. No. 10,257,219, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity, Mar. 12, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/292,956 U.S. Pat. No. 10,594,723, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity, Mar. 5, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/795,056 U.S. Pat. No. 10,931,705, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity, Feb. 19, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/179,630 Published as: US2021/0176269, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity, Feb. 19, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/170,680 U.S. Pat. No. 10,521,583, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects, Oct. 25, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/688,647 U.S. Pat. No. 10,776,483, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects, Nov. 19, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/000,135 U.S. Pat. No. 11,126,723, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects, Aug. 21, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/401,683 Published as US 2021/0374243, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects, Aug. 13, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/954,921 U.S. Pat. No. 10,812,520, Systems and Methods for External Detection of Misconfigured Systems, Apr. 17, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/014,495 Published as: US2020/0404017, Systems and Methods for External Detection of Misconfigured Systems, Sep. 8, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/549,764 Published as: US2021/0058421, Systems and Methods for Inferring Entity Relationships Via Network Communications of Users or User Devices, Aug. 23, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/787,650 U.S. Pat. No. 10,749,893, Systems and Methods for Inferring Entity Relationships Via Network Communications of Users or User Devices, Feb. 11, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/583,991 U.S. Pat. No. 10,848,382, Systems and Methods for Network Asset Discovery and Association Thereof With Entities, Sep. 26, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/085,550 U.S. Pat. No. 11,329,878, Systems and Methods for Network Asset Discovery and Association Thereof With Entities, Oct. 30, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/666,942 U.S. Pat. No. D. 892,135, Computer Display With Graphical User Interface, Oct. 17, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/360,641 U.S. Pat. No. 11,200,323, Systems and Methods for Forecasting Cybersecurity Ratings Based on Event-Rate Scenarios, Mar. 21, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/523,166 Published as US 2022/0121753, Systems and Methods for Forecasting Cybersecurity Ratings Based on Event-Rate Scenarios, Nov. 10, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/514,771 U.S. Pat. No. 10,726,136, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for Entities, Jul. 17, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/922,673 U.S. Pat. No. 11,030,325, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for Entities, Jul. 7, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/307,577 Published as: US2021/0326449, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for Entities, May 4, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/677,306 U.S. Pat. No. D. 905,702, Computer Display With Corporate Hierarchy Graphical User Interface, Jan. 18, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/775,840 U.S. Pat. No. 10,791,140, Systems and Methods for Assessing Cybersecurity State of Entities Based on Computer Network Characterization, Jan. 29, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/018,587 U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,779, Systems and Methods for Assessing Cybersecurity State of Entities Based on Computer Network Characterization, Sep. 11, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/779,437 U.S. Pat. No. 10,893,067, Systems and Methods for Rapidly Generating Security Ratings, Jan. 31, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/132,512 Published as US 2021/0243221, Systems and Methods for Rapidly Generating Security Ratings, Dec. 23, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/119,822 U.S. Pat. No. 11,122,073, Systems and Methods for Cybersecurity Risk Mitigation and Management, Dec. 11, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/815,855, Computer Display With a Graphical User Interface for Cybersecurity Risk Management, Nov. 17, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/392,521 Published as US 2022/0191232, Systems and Methods for Cybersecurity Risk Mitigation and Management, Aug. 3, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/802,232 U.S. Pat. No. 10,764,298, Systems and Methods for Improving a Security Profile of an Entity Based on Peer Security Profiles, Feb. 26, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/942,452 U.S. Pat. No. 11,265,330, Systems and Methods for Improving a Security Profile of an Entity Based on Peer Security Profiles, Jul. 29, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/725,724, Computer Display With Risk Vectors Graphical User Interface, Feb. 26, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 29/736,641 U.S. Pat. No. D. 937,870, Computer Display With Peer Analytics Graphical User Interface, Jun. 2, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/039,675 U.S. Pat. No. 11,032,244, Systems and Methods for Determining Asset Importance in Security Risk Management, Sep. 30, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/320,997 Published as US 2021/0344647, Systems and Methods for Determining Asset Importance in Security Risk Management, May 14, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/884,607 U.S. Pat. No. 11,023,585, Systems and Methods for Managing Cybersecurity Alerts, May 27, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/236,594 Published as US 2021/0374246, Systems and Methods for Managing Cybersecurity Alerts, Apr. 21, 2021. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/710,168, Systems and Methods for Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in a Work From Home Environment, Mar. 31, 2022. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/945,337, Systems and Methods for Precomputation of Digital Asset Inventories, Sep. 15, 2022. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/856,217, Systems and Methods for Accelerating Cybersecurity Assessments, Jul. 1, 2022. |
Chernyshev, M. et al., “On 802.11 Access Point Locatability and Named Entity Recognition in Service Set Identifiers”, IEEE Trans. on Info. and Sec., vol. 11 No. 3 (Mar. 2016). |
Search Query Report from IP.com (performed Jul. 29, 2022). |
Winship, C., “Models for sample selection bias”, Annual review of sociology, 18(1) (Aug. 1992), pp. 327-350. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210218702 A1 | Jul 2021 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62523416 | Jun 2017 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16738825 | Jan 2020 | US |
Child | 17146064 | US | |
Parent | 16543075 | Aug 2019 | US |
Child | 16738825 | US | |
Parent | 16015686 | Jun 2018 | US |
Child | 16543075 | US |