The following commonly owned, Patent Application, including the present application, are related to each other. The other application is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/854,102 entitled “Adapting a Security Tool for Performing Security Analysis on a Software Application,” filed Aug. 10, 2010.
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
The current invention relates generally to software applications used in a database system.
The subject matter discussed in the background section should not be assumed to be prior art merely as a result of its mention in the background section. Similarly, a problem mentioned in the background section or associated with the subject matter of the background section should not be assumed to have been previously recognized in the prior art. The subject matter in the background section merely represents different approaches, which, in and of themselves, may also be inventions.
A large number of organizations promote third-party ecosystems (e.g., Apple AppStore, Google Apps Marketplace, Salesforce.com AppExchange, SugarCRM SugarExchange, etc.) to expand product/service offerings, increase customer adoption and experience organic growth. Unfortunately, since these third-party products integrate closely with the organizations' core products and have access to customer data, a security vulnerability in these applications could cause catastrophic damage (e.g., financial, regulatory and reputational) to the promoting organization. The growth of online stores for software applications has further increased the risk to businesses and consumers. Many online marketplaces perform only random security checks or avoid the responsibility of security analysis completely.
Embodiments provide mechanisms and methods for performing security analysis on a software application. In one embodiment, a method includes receiving application architecture information for a software application; determining an application type based on the application architecture information. The method also includes performing one or more security tests on the code based on the application type and the application architecture information; and approving the software application to be available in an online marketplace if the code passes the one or more security tests.
While embodiments of the present invention may be implemented in a system having an application server providing a front end for an on-demand database service capable of supporting multiple tenants, the present invention is not limited to multi-tenant databases or deployment on application servers. Embodiments may be practiced using other database architectures, i.e., ORACLE®, DB2® by IBM and the like, without departing from the scope of the embodiments claimed.
Any of the above embodiments may be used alone or together with one another in any combination. Inventions encompassed within this specification may also include embodiments that are only partially mentioned or alluded to or are not mentioned or alluded to at all in this brief summary or in the abstract. Although various embodiments of the invention may have been motivated by various deficiencies with the prior art, which may be discussed or alluded to in one or more places in the specification, the embodiments of the invention do not necessarily address any of these deficiencies. In other words, different embodiments of the invention may address different deficiencies that may be discussed in the specification. Some embodiments may only partially address some deficiencies or just one deficiency that may be discussed in the specification, and some embodiments may not address any of these deficiencies.
In the following drawings like reference numbers are used to refer to like elements. Although the following figures depict various examples of the invention, the invention is not limited to the examples depicted in the figures.
General Overview
Systems and methods are provided for performing security analysis on a software application.
As used herein, the term multi-tenant database system refers to those systems in which various elements of hardware and software of the database system may be shared by one or more customers. For example, a given application server may simultaneously process requests for a great number of customers, and a given database table may store rows for a potentially much greater number of customers. As used herein, the term query plan refers to a set of steps used to access information in a database system.
Next, mechanisms and methods for performing security analysis on a software application will be described with reference to example embodiments.
System Overview
Environment 110 is an environment in which an on-demand database service exists. User system 112 may be any machine or system that is used by a user to access a database user system. For example, any of user systems 112 can be a handheld computing device, a mobile phone, a laptop computer, a work station, and/or a network of computing devices. As illustrated in
An on-demand database service, such as system 116, is a database system that is made available to outside users who do not need to necessarily be concerned with building and/or maintaining the database system, but instead may be available for more general use when the users need the database system (e.g., on the demand of the users). Some on-demand database services may store information from one or more tenants stored into tables of a common database image to form a multi-tenant database system (MTS). Accordingly, “on-demand database service 116” and “system 116” will be used interchangeably herein. A database image may include one or more database objects. A relational database management system (RDMS) or the equivalent may execute storage and retrieval of information against the database object(s). Application platform 118 may be a framework that allows the applications of system 116 to run, such as the hardware and/or software, e.g., the operating system. In an embodiment, on-demand database service 116 may include an application platform 118 that enables creating, managing, and executing one or more applications developed by either the provider of the on-demand database service, users accessing the on-demand database service via user systems 112, or third party application developers accessing the on-demand database service via user systems 112.
The users of user systems 112 may differ in their respective capacities, and the capacity of a particular user system 112 might be entirely determined by permissions (permission levels) for the current user. For example, where a salesperson is using a particular user system 112 to interact with system 116, that user system has the capacities allotted to that salesperson. However, while an administrator is using that user system to interact with system 116, that user system has the capacities allotted to that administrator. In systems with a hierarchical role model, users at one permission level may have access to applications, data, and database information accessible by a lower permission level user, but may not have access to certain applications, database information, and data accessible by a user at a higher permission level. Thus, different users will have different capabilities with regard to accessing and modifying application and database information, depending on a user's security or permission level.
Network 114 is any network or combination of networks of devices that communicate with one another. For example, network 114 can be any one or any combination of a local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), telephone network, wireless network, point-to-point network, star network, token ring network, hub network, or other appropriate configuration. As the most common type of computer network in current use is a transfer control protocol and Internet protocol (TCP/IP) network, such as the global internetwork of networks often referred to as the “Internet” with a capital “I,” that network will be used in many of the examples herein. However, it should be understood that the networks that the present invention might use are not so limited, although TCP/IP is a frequently implemented protocol.
User systems 112 might communicate with system 116 using TCP/IP and, at a higher network level, use other common Internet protocols to communicate, such as hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP), file transfer protocol (FTP), Andrew file system (AFS), wireless application protocol (WAP), etc. In an example where HTTP is used, user system 112 might include an HTTP client commonly referred to as a “browser” for sending and receiving HTTP messages to and from an HTTP server at system 116. Such an HTTP server might be implemented as the sole network interface between system 116 and network 114, but other techniques might be used as well or instead. In some implementations, the interface between system 116 and network 114 includes load sharing functionality, such as round-robin HTTP request distributors to balance loads and distribute incoming HTTP requests evenly over a plurality of servers. At least for the users that are accessing that server, each of the plurality of servers has access to the MTS' data; however, other alternative configurations may be used instead.
In one embodiment, system 116, shown in
One arrangement for elements of system 116 is shown in
Several elements in the system shown in
According to one embodiment, each user system 112 and all of its components are operator configurable using applications, such as a browser, including computer code run using a central processing unit such as an Intel Pentium® processor or the like. Similarly, system 116 (and additional instances of an MTS, where more than one is present) and all of their components might be operator configurable using application(s) including computer code to run using a central processing unit such as processor system 117, which may include an Intel Pentium® processor or the like, and/or multiple processor units. A computer program product embodiment includes a machine-readable storage medium (media) having instructions stored thereon/in which can be used to program a computer to perform any of the processes of the embodiments described herein. Computer code for operating and configuring system 116 to intercommunicate and to process webpages, applications and other data and media content as described herein are preferably downloaded and stored on a hard disk, but the entire program code, or portions thereof, may also be stored in any other volatile or non-volatile memory medium or device as is well known, such as a read-only memory (ROM) or random-access memory (RAM), or provided on any media capable of storing program code, such as any type of rotating media including floppy disks, optical discs, digital versatile disk (DVD), compact disk (CD), microdrive, and magneto-optical disks, and magnetic or optical cards, nanosystems (including molecular memory integrated circuits (ICs)), or any type of media or device suitable for storing instructions and/or data. Additionally, the entire program code, or portions thereof, may be transmitted and downloaded from a software source over a transmission medium, e.g., over the Internet, or from another server, as is well known, or transmitted over any other conventional network connection as is well known (e.g., extranet, virtual private network (VPN), LAN, etc.) using any communication medium and protocols (e.g., TCP/IP, HTTP, HTTPS, Ethernet, etc.) as are well known. It will also be appreciated that computer code for implementing embodiments of the present invention can be implemented in any programming language that can be executed on a client system and/or server or server system such as, for example, C, C++, HTML, any other markup language, Java™, JavaScript, ActiveX, any other scripting language, such as VBScript, and many other programming languages as are well known may be used. (Java™ is a trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc.).
According to one embodiment, each system 116 is configured to provide webpages, forms, applications, data and media content to user (client) systems 112 to support the access by user systems 112 as tenants of system 116. As such, system 116 provides security mechanisms to keep each tenant's data separate unless the data is shared. If more than one MTS is used, they may be located in close proximity to one another (e.g., in a server farm located in a single building or campus), or they may be distributed at locations remote from one another (e.g., one or more servers located in city A and one or more servers located in city B). As used herein, each MTS could include one or more logically and/or physically connected servers distributed locally or across one or more geographic locations. Additionally, the term “server” is meant to include a computer system, including processing hardware and process space(s), and an associated storage system and database application (e.g., object oriented database management system (OODBMS) or rational database management system (RDBMS)) as is well known in the art. It should also be understood that “server system” and “server” are often used interchangeably herein. Similarly, the database object described herein can be implemented as single databases, a distributed database, a collection of distributed databases, a database with redundant online or offline backups or other redundancies, etc., and might include a distributed database or storage network and associated processing intelligence.
User system 112, network 114, system 116, tenant data storage 122, and system data storage 124 were discussed above in
Application platform 118 includes an application setup mechanism 238 that supports application developers' creation and management of applications, which may be saved as metadata into tenant data storage 122 by save routines 236 for execution by subscribers as one or more tenant process spaces 204 managed by tenant management process 210, for example. Invocations to such applications may be coded using PL/SOQL 234 that provides a programming language style interface extension to API 232. Invocations to applications may be detected by one or more system processes, which manage retrieving application metadata 216 for the subscriber, making the invocation and executing the metadata as an application in a virtual machine.
Each application server 200 may be communicably coupled to database systems, e.g., having access to system data 125 and tenant data 123, via a different network connection. For example, one application server 2001 might be coupled via the network 114 (e.g., the Internet), another application server 200N−1 might be coupled via a direct network link, and another application server 200N might be coupled by yet a different network connection. Transfer control protocol and Internet protocol (TCP/IP) are typical protocols for communicating between application servers 200 and the database system. However, it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that other transport protocols may be used to optimize the system depending on the network connection used.
In certain embodiments, each application server 200 is configured to handle requests for any user associated with any organization that is a tenant. Because it is desirable to be able to add and remove application servers from the server pool at any time for any reason, there is preferably no server affinity for a user and/or organization to a specific application server 200. In one embodiment, therefore, an interface system implementing a load balancing function (e.g., an F5 Big-IP load balancer) is communicably coupled between the application servers 200 and the user systems 112 to distribute requests to the application servers 200. In one embodiment, the load balancer uses a least connections algorithm to route user requests to the application servers 200. Other examples of load balancing algorithms, such as round robin and observed response time, also can be used. For example, in certain embodiments, three consecutive requests from the same user could hit three different application servers 200, and three requests from different users could hit the same application server 200. In this manner, system 116 is multi-tenant, wherein system 116 handles the storage of, and access to, different objects, data and applications across disparate users and organizations.
As an example of storage, one tenant might be a company that employs a sales force where each salesperson uses system 116 to manage his or her sales process. Thus, a user might maintain contact data, leads data, customer follow-up data, performance data, goals and progress data, etc., all applicable to that user's personal sales process (e.g., in tenant data storage 122). In an example of an MTS arrangement, since all of the data and the applications to access, view, modify, report, transmit, calculate, etc., can be maintained and accessed by a user system having nothing more than network access, the user can manage his or her sales efforts and cycles from any of many different user systems. For example, if a salesperson is visiting a customer and the customer has Internet access in their lobby, the salesperson can obtain critical updates as to that customer while waiting for the customer to arrive in the lobby.
While each user's data might be separate from other users' data regardless of the employers of each user, some data might be organization-wide data shared or accessible by a plurality of users or all of the users for a given organization that is a tenant. Thus, there might be some data structures managed by system 116 that are allocated at the tenant level while other data structures might be managed at the user level. Because an MTS might support multiple tenants including possible competitors, the MTS should have security protocols that keep data, applications, and application use separate. Also, because many tenants may opt for access to an MTS rather than maintain their own system, redundancy, up-time, and backup are additional functions that may be implemented in the MTS. In addition to user-specific data and tenant specific data, system 116 might also maintain system level data usable by multiple tenants or other data. Such system level data might include industry reports, news, postings, and the like that are sharable among tenants.
In certain embodiments, user systems 112 (which may be client systems) communicate with application servers 200 to request and update system-level and tenant-level data from system 116 that may require sending one or more queries to tenant data storage 122 and/or system data storage 124. System 116 (e.g., an application server 700 in system 116) automatically generates one or more structured query language (SQL) statements (e.g., one or more SQL queries) that are designed to access the desired information. System data storage 124 may generate query plans to access the requested data from the database.
Embodiments describe below with respect to
Before system 116 receives the code for the software application, the code is first bundled into a format suitable for upload to system 116 and suitable for listing on an online marketplace. The format can be a compressed bundle (ZIP, gzip, etc), an executable, an install script, or a marketplace specific packaging format. The application developer then uses the marketplace's upload software or utility to begin the upload and listing process for the software application.
Before the software application is directly listed in the marketplace, system 116 queues the software application in a repository for security analysis by automated tools. The repository may consist of a database, file system, or distributed data store. For example, system database 124 (
In one embodiment, system 116 also receives identifying information associated with the code and more generally to the software application. The identifying information may be a part of the application architecture information and may include, for example, a company name, a name of the user, etc.
In block 304, system 116 determines an application type based on the application architecture information. In one embodiment, software application types may be of two categories, where one category may be referred to as native applications and the other category may be referred to as composite applications. Additional categories are possible.
In one embodiment, native applications are applications that are completely developed and hosted on system 116 with no external integrations, except to approve third parties (e.g., Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.). Even if native applications are internal to system 116, their software code may still contain security vulnerabilities.
In one embodiment, composite applications are applications that are developed outside the system 116 platform, and are integrated with system 116 platform via an API. In one embodiment, data used by composite applications may reside outside of system 116. Also, composite applications may use some stub code on system 116, where most of the work is performed on third-party servers via the Internet. Because of this, in one embodiment, additional controls such as network security, physical security, etc. are tested by system 116.
As shown in
In block 306, system 116 receives a questionnaire associated with the received code if the application type is a composite application. In one embodiment, the questionnaire may be included with the application architecture information as a part of the application architecture information. In one embodiment, system 116 may generate and send the questionnaire to the user online or via email and resumes with the process of
In one embodiment, the questionnaire informs system 116 of what needs to be done to minimize or eliminate security vulnerabilities, which security tools to run to detect security vulnerabilities, and how system 116 and/or administrators of system 116 may help the user to minimize or eliminate security vulnerabilities.
In block 308, system 116 generates a risk score based on the questionnaire. In one embodiment, the questionnaire has dependencies based on how questions are being answered. For example, in one embodiment, a geographical location (e.g., country) or a physical location (e.g., house) of the server running the software application may trigger follow-up questions. For example, some countries may lack laws protecting privacy. A questionnaire indicating a particular geographical location, physical location, or other attribute may trigger follow-up questions to better understand potential security vulnerabilities. In one embodiment, system 116 generates the risk score based on a pre-defined risk scoring methodology. For example, system 116 may give a weight value to each question of the questionnaire. Each question may be weighted based on a relative importance, or, more particularly, relative risk factors. For example, a question about location may have a high weight value. In one embodiment, a given question may have a high weight value while being dependent on another question that has a low-weight value. For example, whether a given network used by a server running a software application is a wireless network may be of less importance than whether encryption is used with the wireless network. Accordingly, a question about the type of network may have a low weight value, while a related question about the wireless network being encrypted or not may have a high weight value.
In block 310, system 116 performs one or more security tests on the code of the software application based on the risk score. In one embodiment, in addition to the risk score, system 116 may perform one or more security tests on the code of the software application based on the application architecture information. In one embodiment, system 116 may require hands-on security test or may require hand-run security tools. In one embodiment, for code written on system 116, a custom connector downloads all the Apex and Visualforce code and runs a static source code analysis tool to identify security vulnerabilities. In one embodiment, system 116 may utilized a variety of security tools to perform security tests. Such security tools are described in more detail below with respect to
In block 312, system 116 receives a questionnaire associated with the received code if the application type is a native application. As indicated above, in one embodiment, the questionnaire may be included with the application architecture information as a part of the application architecture information. In one embodiment, system 116 may generate and send the questionnaire to the user online or via email and resumes with the process of
In block 318, system 116 approves the software application to be available on the online marketplace (e.g., AppExchange) if the code of the software application passes the one or more security tests. In one embodiment, for each application, the analysis tools generate a report for any security vulnerabilities identified in the application. System 116 may notify the user via any suitable means (e.g., online, email, etc.).
In one embodiment, if a given application is approved, the application is also categorized into a low, medium or high risk-ranking. The ranking may be determined by a number of characteristics, some of which include: whether sensitive data is stored on servers outside of the system platform; how authentication is managed; a worse-case scenario if the third-party application is compromised; a number of customers using the application; and security awareness of the application developer(s), etc.
In block 320, if the software code fails the one or more security tests, system 116 provides results to the user via any suitable means (e.g., online, email, etc.). In one embodiment, the code fails a security test if the security test identifies one or more security vulnerabilities. The user would then be required to address the security vulnerabilities (e.g., by modifying the code to address the security vulnerabilities). In one embodiment, the user may be required to address the security vulnerabilities within a predefined time period (e.g., within 30 days). In one embodiment, the notification includes information about the one or test failures so that the user may modify the software code as needed in order to pass the one or more tests.
If vulnerabilities are found, the total risk posed by the vulnerabilities is compared against the marketplace's risk for the target package. Acceptable risk levels can be based on the target consumer of the software, the access given to the software, the type of environment into which the software can be installed, or other factors. If the total vulnerability risk exceeds the marketplace's tolerance for the package's risk, the upload or update process is automatically cancelled, and the user is notified that the upload process failed. In one embodiment, the report is delivered to the user through the upload utility or another mechanism such as email. Alternatively, the marketplace can decide to allow the package to be uploaded or updated but send the generated report to the developer along with a notice that issues must be resolved in a pre-determined time period. If a package is not remedied within the specified timeline, the package is removed from the marketplace.
In one embodiment, before sending a notification to the user, system 116 ensures that the user is authorized to receive the notification, because the notification itself may be a security vulnerability. In one embodiment, system 116 may look up the user, all information associated with the user (e.g., the user's role as administrator, normal user, etc.).
In one embodiment, the security review process described above may be used for subsequent application updates. For example, if a user updates/upgrades and uploads an application, and the application is associated with an existing online marketplace listing, an automated source code scan is triggered, and the process above is performed for the update/upgrade.
In one embodiment, system may perform recurring reviews on previously approved applications in order to ensure high security standards. In one embodiment, the recurring reviews may be based on the risk ranking of the application during its previous review. In one embodiment, such recurring reviews may occur at a predefined time period. For example, the frequency may be once every 6 months for high-risk applications to once every 2 years for low-risk applications, etc. In one embodiment, a risk-ranking matrix may be used to determine periodic review frequency. In one embodiment, the process for recurring reviews is essentially the same as the process for a new application, as described above. If the application fails, the user may be required to address security vulnerability issues and re-submit the application for another review. In one embodiment, the user may be required to address any security vulnerability issues within a predefined time period (e.g., 30 days, 60 days, etc.). Failure to comply may result in removal of the application from being publicly available on the online marketplace. In one embodiment, recurring reviews may be required for all third-party applications.
Embodiments described below with respect to
In one embodiment, each registry entry is associated with a particular security tool and is associated with software component criteria. In one embodiment, the software component criteria include a listing of components that that a particular security tool is designed to analyze for security vulnerabilities. In one embodiment, different software packages have different software components that use different technologies and languages. For example, in one embodiment, the listing of software components may contain file extensions, programming language, application design category (e.g., web application, client server, etc.), application characteristics (e.g., database-backed, clustered, etc.), regular expressions, application behaviors (e.g., accepts data parameter, connects to other systems, requires user logins, etc.), and other characteristics and distinguishing features, etc.
In one embodiment, for a given type of software component, some security tools are more reliable and accurate than others. In one embodiment, the security tools may include port and network scanners, web application scanners, static analysis engines for different languages, virus scanners, and component-specific custom tools, test-specific custom tools, etc.
In one embodiment, each security tool analyzes a software component to identify any security vulnerabilities, which could compromise system 116. Each security tool detects different types of security vulnerabilities. Depending on type of code submitted, system 116 may send the software application to particular tool that will be more effective in identifying security vulnerabilities. For example, the network scanner is sometimes but not always used, depending on the architecture of the code. Because a network scanner may require a substantial amount of system resources, it is beneficial to selectively use the network scanner.
In block 404, system 116 receives code for a software application from a user. The user may submit the code in various ways. In one embodiment, the user may initiate an upload of the code for the software application. In this example, the user types code into system 116 (e.g., via input system 112C of
In block 406, system 116 retrieves all current registry entries from the registry to determine all available security tools and associated component criteria. In block 408, system 116 compares the component criteria for each security tool against each component of the software application. In one embodiment, the component criteria for each respective security tool indicate which software components the respective security tool is designed to analyze for security vulnerabilities. In one embodiment, the comparing step may utilize automated searches for programming method calls known to perform certain behaviors. For example, system 116 may compare a given component that is written in a given language (e.g., C++, COBAL, etc.) to the available security tools in order to match the component to one or more security tools designed to analyze code in the given language. In one embodiment, system 116 may compare a given component of a given size to the available security tools in order to match the component to one or more security tools designed to efficiently and/or quickly analyze code of the given size. In one embodiment, the comparing step may also utilize automated searches for file names, file extensions, regular expressions, package origin, package installation environment, or other tests against the software package, etc. In one embodiment, the comparing step can be augmented with developer or administrator contributed checklists that outline characteristics of the software package.
In block 410, for each security tool that matches at least one component criterion, system 116 generates a tool-specific package for each component of the software application, wherein the tool-specific package includes one or more security tools that are designed to analyze the respective component for security vulnerabilities.
In one embodiment, system 116 may access security history information associated with the application. For example, the security history information may include the name of the user, the company, if the user has submitted applications in the past, what the user has done regarding security, and what the user may know about security vulnerabilities. For example, system 116 may require the user to take a quiz of a predetermined number of questions (e.g., 5-30 questions) in order to assess the user's knowledge of security (e.g., web application security). In one embodiment, system 116 may already have information about the user and company, before determining which tools to send it to.
In one embodiment, the tool-specific package may be based on a combination of the software components of the application and the security history information.
In block 412, system 116 processes the tool-specific package. In one embodiment, the processing may include analysis of the security tool. In one embodiment the processing may include configuration of one or more security tools (e.g., fine tuning the security tool) to more accurately and reliably identify security vulnerabilities in the one or more corresponding software components. In one embodiment, system 116 determines when to run each security tool in the tool-specific package (in 20 minutes, in 2 weeks, etc.).
In one embodiment, system 116 analyzes the software application to identify security vulnerabilities using the tool-specific package. In one embodiment, the assessment engine configures the tool-specific package to run against the software application in the necessary configuration or at the specified location.
A record of each tool used for the software application is saved and maintained. After all security tools have been completed, the individual reports are gathered from their respective tool repositories. Reports may optionally be assembled into a single master report containing the results of each tool's security analysis. In one embodiment, the results of each tool are used to derive a numeric risk score that is incorporated into an overall risk score. The design and function of the software package are used to weight the individual risk scores according to the expected quality of their results as well as their relevance of the tools area of assessment.
In one embodiment, if the one or more security vulnerabilities are identified by a security tool, system 116 may notify the user so that the user may address the security vulnerabilities. In one embodiment, system 116 may provide one or more fixes, people to contact for help, as well as libraries of code for appropriate modifications to the application.
Embodiments described herein provide numerous benefits. For example, the embodiments provide a scalable program to assess the security of thousands of the third-party applications that are constantly being generated and updated, without impacting the innovativeness and time-to-market of these third-parties. Embodiments eliminate the need to manually look through applications for security vulnerabilities, which enables security analysis performed by the system to keep pace with new application submissions and revisions of existing packages.
Each database can generally be viewed as a collection of objects, such as a set of logical tables, containing data fitted into predefined categories. A “table” is one representation of a data object, and may be used herein to simplify the conceptual description of objects and custom objects according to the present invention. It should be understood that “table” and “object” may be used interchangeably herein. Each table generally contains one or more data categories logically arranged as columns or fields in a viewable schema. Each row or record of a table contains an instance of data for each category defined by the fields. For example, a CRM database may include a table that describes a customer with fields for basic contact information such as name, address, phone number, fax number, etc. Another table might describe a purchase order, including fields for information such as customer, product, sale price, date, etc. In some multi-tenant database systems, standard entity tables might be provided for use by all tenants. For CRM database applications, such standard entities might include tables for Account, Contact, Lead, and Opportunity data, each containing pre-defined fields. It should be understood that the word “entity” may also be used interchangeably herein with “object” and “table”.
In some multi-tenant database systems, tenants may be allowed to create and store custom objects, or they may be allowed to customize standard entities or objects, for example by creating custom fields for standard objects, including custom index fields. In certain embodiments, for example, all custom entity data rows are stored in a single multi-tenant physical table, which may contain multiple logical tables per organization. It is transparent to customers that their multiple “tables” are in fact stored in one large table or that their data may be stored in the same table as the data of other customers.
Any suitable programming language can be used to implement the routines of particular embodiments including C, C++, Java, assembly language, etc. Different programming techniques can be employed such as procedural or object oriented. The routines can execute on a single processing device or multiple processors. Although the steps, operations, or computations may be presented in a specific order, this order may be changed in different particular embodiments. In some particular embodiments, multiple steps shown as sequential in this specification can be performed at the same time.
Particular embodiments may be implemented in a computer-readable storage medium for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, system, or device. Particular embodiments can be implemented in the form of control logic in software or hardware or a combination of both. The control logic, when executed by one or more processors, may be operable to perform that which is described in particular embodiments.
A “processor” includes any suitable hardware and/or software system, mechanism or component that processes data, signals or other information. A processor can include a system with a general-purpose central processing unit, multiple processing units, dedicated circuitry for achieving functionality, or other systems. Processing need not be limited to a geographic location, or have temporal limitations. For example, a processor can perform its functions in “real time,” “offline,” in a “batch mode,” etc. Portions of processing can be performed at different times and at different locations, by different (or the same) processing systems. A computer may be any processor in communication with a memory. The memory may be any suitable processor-readable storage medium, such as random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), magnetic or optical disk, or other tangible media suitable for storing instructions for execution by the processor.
Particular embodiments may be implemented by using a programmed general purpose digital computer, by using application specific integrated circuits, programmable logic devices, field programmable gate arrays, optical, chemical, biological, quantum or nanoengineered systems, components and mechanisms may be used. In general, the functions of particular embodiments can be achieved by any means as is known in the art. Distributed, networked systems, components, and/or circuits can be used. Communication, or transfer, of data may be wired, wireless, or by any other means.
It will also be appreciated that one or more of the elements depicted in the drawings/figures can also be implemented in a more separated or integrated manner, or even removed or rendered as inoperable in certain cases, as is useful in accordance with a particular application. It is also within the spirit and scope to implement a program or code that can be stored in a machine-readable medium to permit a computer to perform any of the methods described above.
As used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, “a”, “an”, and “the” includes plural references unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Also, as used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, the meaning of “in” includes “in” and “on” unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.
While the invention has been described by way of example and in terms of the specific embodiments, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments. To the contrary, it is intended to cover various modifications and similar arrangements as would be apparent to those skilled in the art. Therefore, the scope of the appended claims should be accorded the broadest interpretation so as to encompass all such modifications and similar arrangements.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5577188 | Zhu | Nov 1996 | A |
5608872 | Schwartz et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5649104 | Carleton et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5715450 | Ambrose et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5761419 | Schwartz et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5819038 | Carleton et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5821937 | Tonelli et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5831610 | Tonelli et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5873096 | Lim et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5918159 | Fomukong et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5963953 | Cram et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
6092083 | Brodersen et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6169534 | Raffel et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6178425 | Brodersen et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6189011 | Lim et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6216135 | Brodersen et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6233617 | Rothwein et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6266669 | Brodersen et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6295530 | Ritchie et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6324568 | Diec et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324693 | Brodersen et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6336137 | Lee et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
D454139 | Feldcamp | Mar 2002 | S |
6367077 | Brodersen et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6393605 | Loomans | May 2002 | B1 |
6405220 | Brodersen et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6434550 | Warner et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6446089 | Brodersen et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6535909 | Rust | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6549908 | Loomans | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6553563 | Ambrose et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6560461 | Fomukong et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6574635 | Stauber et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6577726 | Huang et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6601087 | Zhu et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6604117 | Lim et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6604128 | Diec | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6609150 | Lee et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6621834 | Scherpbier et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6654032 | Zhu et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6665648 | Brodersen et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6665655 | Warner et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6684438 | Brodersen et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6711565 | Subramaniam et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6724399 | Katchour et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6728702 | Subramaniam et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6728960 | Loomans | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6732095 | Warshavsky et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6732100 | Brodersen et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6732111 | Brodersen et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6754681 | Brodersen et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6763351 | Subramaniam et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6763501 | Zhu et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6766481 | Estep et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6768904 | Kim | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6782383 | Subramaniam et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6804330 | Jones et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6826565 | Ritchie et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6826582 | Chatterjee et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6826745 | Coker et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6829655 | Huang et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6842748 | Warner et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6850895 | Brodersen et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6850949 | Warner et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
7296197 | Pushpavanam et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7330967 | Pujare et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7340411 | Cook | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7389216 | Parent et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7480900 | Zhou et al. | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7552480 | Voss | Jun 2009 | B1 |
7620655 | Larsson et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7698160 | Beaven et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7802089 | Snover et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7962788 | Manglik et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8024807 | Hall et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8082301 | Ahlgren et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8095413 | Beaven | Jan 2012 | B1 |
8095594 | Beaven et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8176560 | Jin et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8275836 | Beaven et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
20010044791 | Richter et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020072951 | Lee et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020082892 | Raffel et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020129352 | Brodersen et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020140731 | Subramaniam et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020143997 | Huang et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020162090 | Parnell et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020165742 | Robins | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030004971 | Gong et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018705 | Chen et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018830 | Chen et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030066031 | Laane | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030066032 | Ramachandran et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030069936 | Warner et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030070000 | Coker et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030070004 | Mukundan et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030070005 | Mukundan et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074418 | Coker et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030120675 | Stauber et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030151633 | George et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030159136 | Huang et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030187921 | Diec et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030189600 | Gune et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030204427 | Gune et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030206192 | Chen et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030225730 | Warner et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040001092 | Rothwein et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040006704 | Dahlstrom et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010489 | Rio et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015981 | Coker et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040027388 | Berg et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040128001 | Levin et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040186860 | Lee et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193510 | Catahan et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199489 | Barnes-Leon et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040199536 | Barnes Leon et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040199543 | Braud et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040249854 | Barnes-Leon et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040260534 | Pak et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040260659 | Chan et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040268299 | Lei et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050050555 | Exley et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050091098 | Brodersen et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050144226 | Purewal | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050166094 | Blackwell et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050273859 | Chess et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060026519 | Vaindiner et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060064570 | di Savoia | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060085852 | Sima | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060168564 | Zhang et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20080163372 | Wang | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080209567 | Lockhart et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20090049553 | Vasudeva | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090055804 | Blaschek et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20100146486 | Mehta et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100180260 | Chikkadevaiah et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100281248 | Lockhart et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110185231 | Balestrieri et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110246504 | Slater et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20120042383 | Greene et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120054871 | Soby et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120072968 | Wysopal et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,102, mailed Sep. 18, 2012. |
USPTO, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/854,102, mailed Mar. 14, 2013. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120042384 A1 | Feb 2012 | US |