This application is related to U.S. Pat. No. 6,108,619, issued Aug. 22, 2000, titled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SEMANTIC CHARACTERIZATION,” to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/512,963, titled “CONSTRUCTION, MANIPULATION, AND COMPARISON OF A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SEMANTIC SPACE,” filed Feb. 25, 2000, to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/615,726, titled “A METHOD AND MECHANISM FOR THE CREATION, MAINTENANCE, AND COMPARISON OF SEMANTIC ABSTRACTS,” filed Jul. 13, 2000, and to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/653,713, titled “INTENTIONAL-STANCE CHARACTERIZATION OF A GENERAL CONTENT STREAM OR REPOSITORY,” filed simultaneously herewith and incorporated by reference herein, all commonly assigned.
This invention pertains to enforcing network policy decisions in a computer system, and more particularly to enforcing policy decisions by monitoring network traffic and content.
In the prior art, policy enforcement is performed by counting packets traveling from their source to their destination. Most policy enforcement implementations ignore the content of the packets traversing the system. If the amount of traffic between source and destination Internet Protocol (IP) addresses becomes excessive, the policy enforcement implementation applies a limit to the packet flow.
One policy enforcement implementation (Layer 7) ostensibly considers the semantic content of the packets crossing the system. Layer 7 looks at tags in the header of the packet. If too many packets having a particular tag are crossing the system, Layer 7 restricts the flow of packets. But Layer 7 only considers tags in the packet header, and does not actually look at the semantic content of the packets. Thus, a program that sought to bypass the policy enforcement of Layer 7 only has to fraudulently label the tag in the header of the packet, and the policy will not be enforced against the packet.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/653,713, titled “INTENTIONAL-STANCE CHARACTERIZATION OF A GENERAL CONTENT STREAM OR REPOSITORY,” filed simultaneously herewith, incorporated by reference herein, and referred to as “the Intentional Stance application,” describes how users can listen to a content stream and set up response actions according to the content. Templates that include a set of state vectors in a topological vector space define the trigger. When the semantic content of the content stream comes close enough to the template, the action is triggered. But the Intentional Stance application does not describe how a network policy can be enforced using templates.
The present invention addresses these and other problems associated with the prior art.
The invention is a method and apparatus for enforcing policy over a computer network. A template is defined and assigned a policy. The network is then monitored to watch content in a content stream. When the content stream comes within a threshold distance of the template, the policy is enforced.
The foregoing and other features, objects, and advantages of the invention will become more readily apparent from the following detailed description, which proceeds with reference to the accompanying drawings.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/653,713, titled “INTENTIONAL-STANCE CHARACTERIZATION OF A GENERAL CONTENT STREAM OR REPOSITORY,” filed simultaneously herewith, is incorporated by reference herein and referred to as “the Intentional Stance application,” and further incorporates by reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/512,963, titled “CONSTRUCTION, MANIPULATION, AND COMPARISON OF A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SEMANTIC SPACE,” filed Feb. 25, 2000. The Intentional Stance application describes the creation of templates to use in intentional stance characterization. Recall that a template is a set of vectors defined by a semantic content. The template is compared with a content source. If the content source is close enough to the template, an action associated with the template is triggered.
Computer system 105 further includes software 130. In
Although the content compared with template 135 can be found stored on computer system 105, this is not required.
Network connection 165 can include any kind of network connection. For example, network connection 165 can enable computer system 105 to access content stream 160 over a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a global internetwork, or any other type of network. Similarly, once collected, the impact summary can be stored somewhere on computer system 105, or can be stored elsewhere using network connection 165.
Circle 210 represents the threshold distance defined for template 205 before the policy is enforced. The reader will recognize that circle 210 is an abstraction, since in the preferred embodiment distance is not measured from a single point in the topological vector space. Instead, in the preferred embodiment distance is measured from the entire set of vectors comprising the template, using the Hausdorff distance function or alternative measures suggested in the Intentional Stance application. But if template 205 could be reduced to a single point in the topological vector space, circle 210 could represent a threshold distance. Any content that comes within circle 210 would then trigger the policy associated with template 205.
As an example of a possible network policy and its use, consider a server supporting newsgroup traffic. (As the reader will recall, a newsgroup carries multiple threads, each thread composed of messages generated by readers of the newsgroup.) One such newsgroup can be dedicated to medicine. Because the subject of abortion is generally controversial, the system administrator for the server can set a low bandwidth limit to messages relating to abortion. For example, the system administrator can set the policy to limit total bandwidth to messages relating to abortion at 5% of the bandwidth for the newsgroup. Similarly, the system administrator can set a policy dedicating a minimum guaranteed bandwidth to a subject, so that topical subjects are not lost for lack of bandwidth.
As an additional example, consider a network where security is an issue. In such systems, users typically have differing levels of access, depending on their security rating. Rather than assigning security levels to individual files, the system administrator can establish a policy that persons with particular security levels are to be denied access to documents on particular subjects. This simplifies the administration process, as the number of policies will typically be far less than the number of files on the network. This also allows for a document's content to change, thereby affecting the document's security rating, without the system administrator having to change the document's security level.
A person skilled in the art will recognize that content streams are not static. Content changes over time. For example, returning to the example of the newsgroup, threads die out as users stop posting new messages regarding the thread or moderators kill improper threads. New threads pop up as new subjects are proposed. People's viewpoints change as one argument or another sways them. As content changes, the need for policy enforcement can accordingly change. Since content streams are dynamic and change over time, it is expected that the distance between the content stream and the template will vary over time. Accordingly, impact summaries need to be updated to remain current. A person skilled in the art will recognize how
Intentional stance basis chains are a selected subset of the chains in dictionary 600. For example,
Having illustrated and described the principles of our invention in a preferred embodiment thereof, it should be readily apparent to those skilled in the art that the invention can be modified in arrangement and detail without departing from such principles. We claim all modifications coming within the spirit and scope of the accompanying claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5276677 | Ramamurthy et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5278980 | Pedersen et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5317507 | Gallant | May 1994 | A |
5325298 | Gallant | Jun 1994 | A |
5390281 | Luciw et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5539841 | Huttenlocher et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5551049 | Kaplan et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5619709 | Caid et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5675819 | Schuetze | Oct 1997 | A |
5694523 | Wical | Dec 1997 | A |
5696962 | Kupiec | Dec 1997 | A |
5708825 | Sotomayor | Jan 1998 | A |
5721897 | Rubinstein | Feb 1998 | A |
5778362 | Deerwester | Jul 1998 | A |
5778378 | Rubin | Jul 1998 | A |
5778397 | Kupiec et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5794178 | Caid et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5799276 | Komissarchik et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5822731 | Schultz | Oct 1998 | A |
5832470 | Morita et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5867799 | Lang et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5873056 | Liddy et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5934910 | Ho et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5937400 | Au | Aug 1999 | A |
5940821 | Wical | Aug 1999 | A |
5963965 | Vogel | Oct 1999 | A |
5966686 | Heidorn et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5970490 | Morgenstern | Oct 1999 | A |
5974412 | Hazlehurst et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5991713 | Unger et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6006221 | Liddy et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6009418 | Cooper | Dec 1999 | A |
6078953 | Vaid et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6085201 | Tso | Jul 2000 | A |
6097697 | Yao et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6105044 | DeRose et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6108619 | Carter et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6122628 | Castelli | Sep 2000 | A |
6173261 | Arai et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6205456 | Nakao | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6289353 | Hazlehurst et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6295533 | Cohen | Sep 2001 | B2 |
6297824 | Hearst et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6311194 | Sheth et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6317708 | Witbrock et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6317709 | Zack | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6356864 | Foltz et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363378 | Conklin et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6459809 | Jensen et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6470307 | Turney | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6493663 | Ueda | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6513031 | Fries et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6523026 | Gillis | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6615208 | Behrens et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6675159 | Lin et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |