Network protection devices (e.g., firewalls) implement rules with respect to packet-switched network traffic entering or leaving the networks they protect. Such devices compare the rules with the traffic. If a match is found, then the devices apply the actions associated with the rules to the traffic, e.g., the traffic may be allowed to cross the network boundary, or the traffic may be prevented from crossing the boundary. Such rules are often grouped into rule sets, which may form one or more network policies. As networks increase in complexity, the number of rules in a rule set may correspondingly increase. Similarly, the number of rules in a rule set may increase due to a desire on the part of an administrator to manage network traffic with a high level of granularity.
Network protection devices may require time to switch between rule sets. As rule sets increase in complexity, the time required for switching between them presents obstacles for effective implementation. For example, a network protection device may be unable to process network traffic while switching between rule sets due to the utilization of resources for implementing the new rule set. Additionally, while implementing a new rule set, a network protection device may continue processing packets in accordance with an outdated rule set. In certain circumstances (e.g., in the event of a network attack), such processing may exacerbate rather than mitigate the impetus for the rule set switch (e.g., the effect of the network attack).
The following presents a simplified summary in order to provide a basic understanding of some aspects of the disclosure. It is neither intended to identify key or critical elements of the disclosure nor to delineate the scope of the disclosure. The following summary merely presents some concepts in a simplified form as a prelude to the description below.
In some variations, first and second rule sets may be received by a network protection device. The first and second rule sets may be preprocessed. For example, the first and second rule sets may be optimized to improve performance. The network protection device may be configured to process packets in accordance with the first rule set. Packets may be received by the network protection device. A first portion of the packets may be processed in accordance with the first rule set. The network protection device may be reconfigured to process packets in accordance with the second rule set. A second portion of the packets may be processed in accordance with the second rule set.
In some embodiments, the network protection device may include multiple processors. The processors, or a portion thereof, may be utilized for processing the first portion of the packets in accordance with the first rule set. Reconfiguring the network protection device to process packets in accordance with the second rule set may include synchronizing the processors. Synchronizing the processors may include signaling the processors to process packets in accordance with the second rule set. Responsive to signaling the processors to process packets in accordance with the second rule set, the processors may cease processing packets and may cache any unprocessed packets. The processors may be reconfigured to process packets in accordance with the second rule set. Once reconfigured, the processors may signal completion of the reconfiguration process. Responsive to signaling completion of the reconfiguration process, the processors may process the cached unprocessed packets in accordance with the second rule set.
In some embodiments, configuration information for configuring the network protection device to process packets in accordance with the first rule set may be stored. The stored configuration information may be utilized to reconfigure the network protection device to process packets in accordance with the first rule set, and a third portion of the packets may be processed in accordance with the first rule set.
In some embodiments, the first rule set may specify a set of network addresses for which packets should be forwarded and the second rule set may specify a set of network addresses for which packets should be forwarded. The second set of network addresses may include fewer network addresses than the first set. Alternatively, the second set of network addresses may include more network addresses than the first set.
In some embodiments, the first rule set may specify a set of network addresses for which packets should be dropped and the second rule set may specify a set of network addresses for which packets should be dropped. The second set of network addresses may include fewer network addresses than the first set. Alternatively, the second set of network addresses may include more network addresses than the first set.
In some embodiments, reconfiguring the network protection device to process packets in accordance with the second rule set may be performed in response to the network protection device receiving a message invoking the second rule set. Additionally or alternatively, reconfiguring the network protection device to process packets in accordance with the second rule set may be performed in response to one or more detected network conditions indicating a network attack.
Other details and features will be described in the sections that follow.
Some features herein are illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation, in the figures of the accompanying drawings, in which like reference numerals refer to similar elements.
In the following description of various illustrative embodiments, reference is made to the accompanying drawings, which form a part hereof, and in which is shown, by way of illustration, various embodiments in which aspects of the disclosure may be practiced. It is to be understood that other embodiments may be utilized, and structural and functional modifications may be made, without departing from the scope of the present disclosure.
Various connections between elements are discussed in the following description. These connections are general and, unless specified otherwise, may be direct or indirect, wired or wireless, physical or logical. In this respect, the specification is not intended to be limiting.
Network protection device 100 may also include one or more processors 114, memory 116, and packet filter 118. Network interfaces 108 and 110, management interface 112, processor(s) 114, memory 116, and packet filter 118 may be interconnected via data bus 120. Packet filter 118 may be configured to examine information specified by policy 122 with respect to packets received by network protection device 100 and forward the packets to one or more packet transformation functions specified by policy 122 based on the examined information. As used herein, a policy includes any combination of rules, rule sets, messages, instructions, files, data structures, or the like that specifies criteria corresponding to one or more packets and identifies a packet transformation function to be performed on packets corresponding to the specified criteria. Optionally, a policy may further specify one or more additional parameters as described herein.
Packet filter 118 may examine information specified by policy 122 with respect to packets received by network protection device 100 (e.g., packets received from network 104 via network interface 108) and forward the packets to one or more of packet transformation functions 124, 126, or 128 specified by policy 122 based on the examined information. Packet transformation functions 124, 126, and 128 may be configured to perform one or more functions on packets they receive from packet filter 118. For example, one or more of packet transformation functions 124, 126, and 128 may be configured to forward packets received from packet filter 118 into network 106, forward packets received from packet filter 118 to an Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) stack having an IPsec security association corresponding to the packets, or drop packets received from packet filter 118. Additionally or alternatively, one or more of packet transformation functions 124, 126, and 128 may be configured to forward one or more packets they receive to one or more other packet transformation functions (e.g., packet transformation function 124, 126, or 128), which may, in turn, perform one or more additional functions on the packets (e.g., log the packets, forward the packets into network 106, drop the packets, or forward the packets to one or more additional packet transformation functions for further processing). In some embodiments, one or more of packet transformation functions 124, 126, and 128 may be configured to drop packets by sending the packets to a local “infinite sink” (e.g., the /dev/null device file in a UNIX/LINUX system). U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/657,010, filed Oct. 22, 2012, describes the use of packet transformation functions and is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
As indicated above, network protection devices (e.g., network protection device 100) may require time to switch between rule sets, and, as rule sets increase in complexity, the time required for switching between them may present obstacles for effective implementation. For example, memory 116 may include policies 130 and 132. Each of policies 130 and 132 may include a rule set. In some embodiments, memory 116 may store policies 130 and 132's rule sets in one or more buffers. The buffers may be statically sized to one or more predetermined sizes or the size of the buffers may be dynamically adjusted based on the size of policies 130 and 132's rule sets. In order to optimize network protection device 100's implementation of policies 130 and 132 the rule set contained within policy 130 or policy 132 may be preprocessed prior to its implementation by network protection device 100. For example, recent advances in packet filtering technology have reduced the time required to apply large rule sets to network traffic. United States Patent Application Publication Nos. 2006/0195896 and 2006/0248580 to Fulp et al., and United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0055916 to Ahn, describe such advanced packet filtering technologies, and are each incorporated by reference herein in their entireties. In some embodiments, preprocessing policies 130 and 132's rule sets may include merging two or more rules within the rule sets into one rule, separating one or more rules within the rule sets into two or more rules, or reordering one or more rules within the rule sets.
While preprocessing a rule set prior to its implementation may optimize its application to packets, preprocessing a rule set may be a resource intensive process that may require a substantial period of time. In certain contexts (e.g., initial setup) the time required for preprocessing may be of little moment; however, in other contexts (e.g., when rule sets are being swapped live), the time required for preprocessing a rule set may adversely affect the performance of network protection device 100. For example, network protection device 100 may preprocess policy 130's rule set and then implement the preprocessed rule set with respect to network traffic flowing between networks 104 and 106. Later, it may be desired to reconfigure network protection device 100 to implement policy 132's rule set with respect to network traffic flowing between networks 104 and 106. Accordingly, policy 132's rule set may be preprocessed and network protection device 100 may be reconfigured to implement the preprocessed rule set with respect to network traffic flowing between networks 104 and 106. Utilizing such an approach, however, may result in network protection device 100 having to devote resources to preprocessing policy 132's rule set while simultaneously implementing policy 130's rule set with respect to traffic flowing between networks 104 and 106. Thus, network protection device 100 may have to wait until preprocessing of policy 132's rule set is completed before switching to policy 132. Moreover, this period may be extended due to network protection device 100's ongoing implementation of policy 130's rule set with respect to traffic flowing between networks 104 and 106.
In accordance with aspects of the disclosure, network protection device 100 may be configured to preprocess multiple rule sets prior to their implementation and thereby enable network protection device 100 to perform fast rule swapping between rule sets.
It will be appreciated that by preprocessing both policy 130's rule set and policy 132's rule set prior to processing packets flowing between networks 104 and 106 in accordance with either of policy 130's rule set or policy 132's rule set, network protection device 100 may swap or switch between policy 130's rule set and policy 132's rule set more efficiently. For example, because policy 132's rule set is preprocessed prior to network protection device 100 being reconfigured to process packets in accordance with policy 132's rule set, network protection device 100 is not required to preprocess policy 132's rule set at the time network protection device 100 is switching between policy 130's rule set and policy 132's rule set. Moreover, network protection device 100 may be able to preprocess policy 132's rule set more efficiently because it may not be required to simultaneously process packets in accordance with policy 130's rule set.
In some embodiments, network protection device 100 may be configured to store configuration information associated with policy 130's rule set or policy 132's rule set. Such configuration information may later be utilized to reconfigure network protection device 100 to process packets in accordance with policy 130's rule set or policy 132's rule set (e.g., to swap or switch back to processing packets in accordance with a rule set network protection device 100 has previously processed packets in accordance with).
Due to the large number of rules a rule set may contain and the high volume of traffic a network protection device may be required to efficiently process, a network protection device may include multiple processors for processing packets in accordance with a rule set. Such a multi-processor network protection device may distribute packets amongst its processors for processing in accordance with a rule set.
Each of the individual rules within either of policies 130 or 132's rule sets may specify criteria (e.g., a set of network addresses) and an action (e.g., accept or deny) to be performed on packets matching the specified criteria. For example, rule 130A may specify that packets containing TCP packets, originating from a source IP address that begins with 140, having any source port, destined for any IP address, and destined for any port should have an accept packet transformation function performed on them. Similarly, rule 130B may specify that packets containing TCP packets, originating from a source IP address that begins with 198, having any source port, destined for an IP address that begins with 130, and destined for any port should have an accept packet transformation function performed on them; rule 130C may specify that packets containing UDP packets, originating from a source IP address that begins with 136, having any source port, destined for any IP address, and destined for any port should have an accept packet transformation function performed on them; rule 130Z may specify that packets containing packets of any protocol, originating from any IP source address, having any source port, destined for any IP address, and destined for any port should have a deny packet transformation function performed on them; rule 132A may specify that packets containing TCP packets, originating from a source IP address that begins with 140, having any source port, destined for any IP address than begins with 127, and destined for any port should have an accept packet transformation function performed on them; and rule 132Z may specify that packets containing packets of any protocol, originating from any IP source address, having any source port, destined for any IP address, and destined for any port should have a deny packet transformation function performed on them.
The individual rules of policies 130 and 132's rule sets may execute in a linear fashion. That is, a packet being processed in accordance with policy 130's rule set may first be compared to the criteria specified by rule 130A. If the packet matches the criteria specified by rule 130A, the corresponding action may be performed on the packet and packet filter 118's processor(s) may move on to the next packet. If the packet does not match the criteria specified by rule 130A, then the packet is compared to the criteria specified by the next rule (e.g., rule 130B), and so on, until the packet matches the criteria specified by a rule and the corresponding action is performed on the packet. Thus, for a multi-processor network protection device, individual processors may be comparing different individual packets to different rules within a given rule set when it is determined that the network protection device should swap or switch the rule set the packets are being processed in accordance with.
For example, at a time when it is determined that network protection device 100 should swap or switch from processing packets in accordance with policy 130's rule set to processing packets in accordance with policy 132's rule set, processor 300 may be beginning to process a packet than does not match the criteria of any of policy 130's rule set's rules other than rule 130Z. Thus, processor 300 may be required to compare the packet being processed to a large number of additional rules—potentially millions—before reaching the rule whose criteria the packet will match (e.g., rule 130Z). In contrast, at the time it is determined that network protection device 100 should swap or switch from processing packets in accordance with policy 130's rule set to processing packets in accordance with policy 132's rule set, processor 302 may be beginning to process a packet that matches the criteria specified by rule 130A, and will therefore process the packet relatively quickly compared to processor 300. Thus, if processors 300 and 302 each reconfigure to process packets in accordance with policy 132's rule set upon completion of processing their respective packets, processor 302 may begin processing packets in accordance with policy 132's rule set while processor 300 continues to process packets in accordance with policy 130's rule set. Accordingly, it may be advantageous to synchronize processors 300, 302, and 304's implementation of policy 132's rule set.
Referring to
In some embodiments, each of processors 300, 302, and 304 may finish processing the packet they are currently processing and then cease processing packets. In other embodiments, each of processors 300, 302, and 304 may cease processing packets and cache the packet they are currently processing for future processing in accordance with policy 132's rule set. In any of the aforementioned embodiments, once a processor has ceased processing packets, it may cache any additional packets for future processing in accordance with policy 132's rule set. For example, processor 300 may cache any unprocessed packets in cache 306. Similarly, processor 302 may cache any unprocessed packets in cache 308 and processor 304 may cache any unprocessed packets in cache 310.
Referring to
By synchronizing the implementation of policy 132's rule set across processors 300, 302, and 304, packets processed by network protection device 100 at any given time may receive uniform treatment irrespective of the particular processor which handles them. Because both policy 130's rule set and policy 132's rule set may be preprocessed prior to processing any packets in accordance with either of policies 130 or 132's rule sets, the time required to reconfigure network protection device 100 to process packets in accordance with policy 132's rule set may be reduced. Reducing the time required to swap or switch between processing packets in accordance with policy 130's rule set and policy 132's rule set may be particularly advantageous in certain contexts. For example, policy 130's rule set may specify a set of network address for which packets should be accepted (e.g., a set of network addresses corresponding to devices for which communications should be supported under normal network conditions) and that all other packets should be denied. Policy 132's rule set may specify a smaller set of network addresses for which packets should be accepted than that specified by policy 130's rule set (e.g., a set of network addresses corresponding to devices for which communications should be supported under demanding network conditions), and may further specify that all other packets should be denied. In the event of a network attack (e.g., a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack) or detection of one or more network conditions indicating a network attack, network protection device 100 may switch from processing packets in accordance with policy 130's rule set to processing packets in accordance with policy 132's rule set (e.g., in an effort to mitigate the effects of the attack). Accordingly, the faster network protection device 100 can switch from processing packets in accordance with policy 130's rule set to processing packets in accordance with policy 132's rule set, the greater the likelihood that the effects of the attack may be mitigated.
The functions and steps described herein may be embodied in computer-usable data or computer-executable instructions, such as in one or more program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices to perform one or more functions described herein. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types when executed by one or more processors in a computer or other data processing device. The computer-executable instructions may be stored on a computer-readable medium such as a hard disk, optical disk, removable storage media, solid state memory, RAM, etc. As will be appreciated, the functionality of the program modules may be combined or distributed as desired in various embodiments. In addition, the functionality may be embodied in whole or in part in firmware or hardware equivalents, such as integrated circuits, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGA), and the like. Particular data structures may be used to more effectively implement one or more aspects of the disclosure, and such data structures are contemplated to be within the scope of computer executable instructions and computer-usable data described herein.
Although not required, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that various aspects described herein may be embodied as a method, an apparatus, or as one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions. Accordingly, those aspects may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, an entirely firmware embodiment, or an embodiment combining software, hardware, and firmware aspects in any combination.
As described herein, the various methods and acts may be operative across one or more computing servers and one or more networks. The functionality may be distributed in any manner, or may be located in a single computing device (e.g., a server, a client computer, etc.).
Aspects of the disclosure have been described in terms of illustrative embodiments thereof. Numerous other embodiments, modifications, and variations within the scope and spirit of the appended claims will occur to persons of ordinary skill in the art from a review of this disclosure. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the steps illustrated in the illustrative figures may be performed in other than the recited order, and that one or more steps illustrated may be optional.
This application is a continuation of and claims priority to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/357,855, filed Mar. 19, 2019, and entitled “RULE SWAPPING IN A PACKET NETWORK,” which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/610,995, filed Jun. 1, 2017, and entitled “RULE SWAPPING IN A PACKET NETWORK,” which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/921,718, filed on Oct. 23, 2015, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,674,148 and entitled “RULE SWAPPING IN A PACKET NETWORK,” which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/739,178, filed on Jan. 11, 2013, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,203,806, and entitled “RULE SWAPPING IN A PACKET NETWORK.” The entire contents of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety and made part hereof.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6098172 | Coss et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6147976 | Shand et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6226372 | Beebe et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6279113 | Vaidya | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6317837 | Kenworthy | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6484261 | Wiegel | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6611875 | Chopra et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6662235 | Callis et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6691168 | Bal | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6826694 | Dutta et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6907042 | Oguchi | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6971028 | Lyle et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7054930 | Cheriton | May 2006 | B1 |
7089581 | Nagai et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7095716 | Ke et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7107613 | Chen et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7143438 | Coss et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7152240 | Green et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7185368 | Copeland, III | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7215637 | Ferguson et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7225269 | Watanabe | May 2007 | B2 |
7227842 | Ji et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7237267 | Rayes et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7263099 | Woo et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7296288 | Hill et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7299353 | Le Pennec et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7331061 | Ramsey et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7478429 | Lyon | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7499412 | Matityahu et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7539186 | Aerrabotu et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7610621 | Turley et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7684400 | Govindarajan et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7710885 | Ilnicki et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7721084 | Salminen et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7792775 | Matsuda | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7814158 | Malik | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7814546 | Strayer et al. | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7818794 | Wittman | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7849502 | Bloch et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7913303 | Rouland et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7954143 | Aaron | May 2011 | B2 |
8004994 | Darisi et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
8009566 | Zuk et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8037517 | Fulp et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8042167 | Fulp et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8117655 | Spielman | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8156206 | Kiley et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8176561 | Hurst et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
8219675 | Ivershen | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8271645 | Rajan et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8306994 | Kenworthy | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8307029 | Davis et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8331234 | Newton et al. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8422391 | Zhu | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8495725 | Ahn | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8510821 | Brandwine et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8726379 | Stiansen et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8806638 | Mani | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8832832 | Visbal | Sep 2014 | B1 |
8856926 | Narayanaswamy et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8935785 | Pandrangi | Jan 2015 | B2 |
9094445 | Moore et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9124552 | Moore | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9137205 | Rogers et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9154446 | Gemelli et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9160713 | Moore | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9172627 | Kjendal et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9419942 | Buruganahalli et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9531672 | Li et al. | Dec 2016 | B1 |
9634911 | Meloche | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9686193 | Moore | Jun 2017 | B2 |
20010039579 | Trcka et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010039624 | Kellum | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020016858 | Sawada et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020038339 | Xu | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020049899 | Kenworthy | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020083345 | Halliday et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020112188 | Syvanne | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020152209 | Merugu et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020164962 | Mankins et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020165949 | Na et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020186683 | Buck et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020198981 | Corl et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030005122 | Freimuth et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014665 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018591 | Komisky | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030035370 | Brustoloni | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030051026 | Carter et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030051165 | Krishnan | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030088787 | Egevang | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097590 | Syvanne | May 2003 | A1 |
20030105976 | Copeland | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120622 | Nurmela et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030123456 | Denz et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030142681 | Chen et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030145225 | Bruton et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030154297 | Suzuki et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030154399 | Zuk et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030188192 | Tang et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030212900 | Liu et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030220940 | Futoransky et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040010712 | Hui et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015719 | Lee et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040073655 | Kan et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088542 | Daude | May 2004 | A1 |
20040093513 | Cantrell et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040098511 | Lin et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040114518 | MacFaden et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040123220 | Johnson et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040131056 | Dark | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040148520 | Talpade et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040151155 | Jouppi | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040172529 | Culbert | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040172557 | Nakae et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040177139 | Schuba et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193943 | Angelino et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199629 | Bomer et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205360 | Norton et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040250124 | Chesla et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050010765 | Swander et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050024189 | Weber | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050071650 | Jo et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050076227 | Kang et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050108557 | Kayo et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114704 | Swander | May 2005 | A1 |
20050117576 | McDysan et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050125697 | Tahara | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138204 | Iyer et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138353 | Spies et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050141537 | Kumar et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050183140 | Goddard | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050229246 | Rajagopal et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050249214 | Peng | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050251570 | Heasman et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050283823 | Okajo et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050286522 | Paddon et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060031928 | Conley et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060048142 | Roese et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060053491 | Khuti et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060070122 | Bellovin | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060080733 | Khosmood et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085849 | Culbert | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060092921 | Narayanan | May 2006 | A1 |
20060104202 | Reiner | May 2006 | A1 |
20060114899 | Toumura et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060133377 | Jain | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136987 | Okuda | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060137009 | Chesla | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060146879 | Anthias et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060159028 | Curran-Gray et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060195896 | Fulp et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060212572 | Afek et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060248580 | Fulp et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060262798 | Joshi et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070056038 | Lok | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070083924 | Lu | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070118894 | Bhatia | May 2007 | A1 |
20070211644 | Ottamalika et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070240208 | Yu et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070291789 | Kutt et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080005795 | Acharya | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080028467 | Kommareddy et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080043739 | Suh et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080072307 | Maes | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080077705 | Li et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080080493 | Weintraub et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080086435 | Chesla | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080101234 | Nakil et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080163333 | Kasralikar | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080201772 | Mondaeev et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080229415 | Kapoor et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080235755 | Blaisdell et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080279196 | Friskney et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301765 | Nicol et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080313738 | Enderby | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080320116 | Briggs | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090028160 | Eswaran et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090138938 | Harrison et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090144819 | Babbar et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090150972 | Moon et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090172800 | Wool | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090185568 | Cho | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090222877 | Diehl et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090240698 | Shukla et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090262723 | Pelletier et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090262741 | Jungck et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090300759 | Wang et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328219 | Narayanaswamy | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100011433 | Harrison et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100011434 | Kay | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100082811 | Van Der Merwe et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100095367 | Narayanaswamy | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100107240 | Thaler et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100115621 | Staniford et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100132027 | Ou | May 2010 | A1 |
20100183015 | Inoue | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100195503 | Raleigh | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100199346 | Ling et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100202299 | Strayer et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100211678 | McDysan et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100232445 | Bellovin | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100242098 | Kenworthy | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100268799 | Maestas | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100296441 | Barkan | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100303240 | Beachem et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110055916 | Ahn | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110055923 | Thomas | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110088092 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110141900 | Jayawardena et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110185055 | Nappier et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110214157 | Korsunsky et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110270956 | McDysan et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110277034 | Hanson | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120023576 | Sorensen et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120084866 | Stolfo | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120106354 | Pleshek et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120110128 | Aaron | May 2012 | A1 |
20120110656 | Santos et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120113987 | Riddoch et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120240135 | Risbood et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120240185 | Kapoor et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120264443 | Ng et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120314617 | Erichsen et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120331543 | Bostrom et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130007257 | Ramaraj et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130047020 | Hershko et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130059527 | Hasesaka et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130061294 | Kenworthy | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130104236 | Ray et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130117852 | Stute | May 2013 | A1 |
20130139236 | Rubinstein et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130254766 | Zuo et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130291100 | Ganapathy et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130305311 | Puttaswamy Naga et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20140075510 | Sonoda et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140082204 | Shankar et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140082730 | Vashist et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140115654 | Rogers et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140150051 | Bharali et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140165130 | Zaitsev | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140201123 | Ahn et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140215561 | Roberson et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140215574 | Erb et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140259170 | Amsler | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140281030 | Cui et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140283004 | Moore | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140283030 | Moore et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140317397 | Martini | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140337613 | Martini | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140365372 | Ross et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140366132 | Stiansen et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150033336 | Wang et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150052601 | White et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150106930 | Honda et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150128274 | Giokas | May 2015 | A1 |
20150135325 | Stevens et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150207809 | Macaulay | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150237012 | Moore | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150244734 | Olson et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150256431 | Buchanan et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150304354 | Rogers et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150334125 | Bartos et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150341389 | Kurakami | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150347246 | Matsui et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150350229 | Mitchell | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150372977 | Yin | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150373043 | Wang et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160020968 | Aumann et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160028751 | Cruz Mota et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160065611 | Fakeri-Tabrizi et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160112443 | Grossman et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160119365 | Barel | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160127417 | Janssen | May 2016 | A1 |
20160191558 | Davison | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160205069 | Blocher et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160219065 | Dasgupta et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160285706 | Rao | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160294870 | Banerjee et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160366099 | Jordan | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170223046 | Singh | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170272469 | Kraemer et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2005328336 | Sep 2011 | AU |
2006230171 | Jun 2012 | AU |
2600236 | Oct 2006 | CA |
1006701 | Jun 2000 | EP |
1313290 | May 2003 | EP |
1484884 | Dec 2004 | EP |
1677484 | Jul 2006 | EP |
2385676 | Nov 2011 | EP |
2498442 | Sep 2012 | EP |
1864226 | May 2013 | EP |
20010079361 | Aug 2001 | KR |
2005046145 | May 2005 | WO |
2006093557 | Sep 2006 | WO |
2006105093 | Oct 2006 | WO |
2007109541 | Sep 2007 | WO |
2011038420 | Mar 2011 | WO |
2012146265 | Nov 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“Cisco ACNS Softward Configuration Guide for Centrally Managed Deployments,” Release 5.5. Text Part No. OL-9136-01, Cisco Systems, Inc., 2006, 944 pages. |
“Control Plane Policing Implementation Best Practices”; Cisco Systems; Mar. 13, 2013; <https://web.archive.org/web/20130313135143/http:www.cisco.com/web/about/security/intelligence/coppwp_gs.html>. |
“Examining SSL-encrypted Communications: Netronome SSL InspectorTM Solution Overview,” Jan. 1, 2008, XP055036015, retrieved from <http://www.infosecurityproductsguide.com/technology/2008/Netronome_Examining_SSL-encrypted_Communications.pdf>, 8 pages. |
Sep. 11, 2006—(WO) Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority—App PCT/US05/47008. |
Aug. 31, 2007—(EP) Communication Pursuant to Rules 109 and 110—App 05857614.1. |
Jul. 3, 2008—(WO) Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority—App PCT/US06/11291. |
Jun. 24, 2009—U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 11/390,976. |
Sep. 13, 2009 U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 11/316,331. |
Apr. 29, 2010—U.S. Interview Summary—U.S. Appl. No. 11/390,976. |
Aug. 20, 2010—(AU) Office Action—App 2005328336. |
Jun. 23, 2010—U.S. Final Rejection—U.S. Appl. No. 11/316,331. |
Mar. 26, 2010—U.S. Final Rejection—U.S. Appl. No. 11/390,976. |
Sep. 10, 2010—(AU) Office Action—App 2006230171. |
Sep. 30, 2010—U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 11/390,976. |
Apr. 27, 2011—(WO) International Search Report and Written Opinion—App PCT/US2010/054520. |
Aug. 25, 2011—U.S. Non Final Rejection—U.S. Appl. No. 12/871,806. |
Feb. 14, 2011—(EP) Search Report—App 06758213.0. |
Jun. 9, 2011—U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 11/390,976. |
Mar. 3, 2011—(EP) Communication Pursuant to Rules 70(2) and 70a(2)—App 06758213.0. |
Mar. 4, 2011—U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 11/316,331. |
Nov. 11, 2011—(AU) Second Office Action—App 2006230171. |
Oct. 18, 2011—(EP) Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3)—App 06 758 213.0. |
Aug. 7, 2012—U.S. Non Final Rejection—U.S. Appl. No. 12/871,806. |
Feb. 6, 2012—U.S. Final Rejection—U.S. Appl. No. 12/871,806. |
Jun. 9, 2012—(AU) Notice of Acceptance—App 2006230171. |
Jun. 26, 2012—(EP) Extended Search Report—App 05857614.1. |
Nov. 20, 2012—(EP) Communication under rule 71(3)—App 06 758 213.0. |
Nov. 26, 2012—U.S. Final Rejection—U.S. Appl. No. 12/871,806. |
Apr. 4, 2013—U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 12/871,806. |
Apr. 18, 2013—(EP) Decision to Grant a European Patent—App 06758212.0. |
Jan. 16, 2013—(CA) Office Action—App 2,594,020. |
Jan. 17, 2013—(CA) Office Action—App 2,600,236. |
Nov. 7, 2013 (WO) International Search Report—App. PCT/US2013/057502. |
Jun. 24, 2014 (WO) International Search Report—App. PCT/US2014/023286. |
Jun. 26, 2014 (WO) International Search Report—App. PCT/US2014/027723. |
Mar. 24, 2014 (WO) International Search Report—App. PCT/US2013/072566. |
May 26, 2014—(CA) Office Action—App 2010297968. |
Apr. 28, 2015 (WO) International Preliminary Report on Patentability—App. PCT/US2013/057502, dated Apr. 28, 2015. |
Dec. 22, 2015—U.S. Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/714,207. |
Jan. 14, 2015—(EP) Extended Search Report—App 10819667.6. |
Jul. 10, 2015—(WO) Communication Relating to the Results of the Partial International Search for International App—PCT/US2015/024691. |
Jul. 14, 2015—(WO) International Preliminary Report on Patentability—App PCT/US2013/072566. |
May 14, 2015—U.S. Non Final Rejection—U.S. Appl. No. 13/940,240. |
May 25, 2015—(AU) Notice of Acceptance—App 2010297968. |
Nov. 2, 2015—(AU) Office Action—App 2013372879. |
Nov. 27, 2015—U.S. Final Rejection—U.S. Appl. No. 13/940,240. |
Sep. 15, 2015 (WO) International Preliminary Report on Patentability—App.—PCT/US2014/027723. |
Sep. 15, 2015 (WO) International Preliminary Report on Patentability—App. PCT/US2014/023286. |
Sep. 16, 2015 (WO) International Search Report and Written Opinion—App. No. PCT/US2015/024691. |
Sep. 4, 2015 U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 14/702,755. |
Mar. 5, 2020 U.S. Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable of U.S. Pat. No. 9,674,148 B2—IPR2018-01454. |
Aug. 9, 2018 U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 15/413,947. |
Dec. 18, 2018 U.S. Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 15/610,995. |
Jul. 11, 2018 (US) Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, PhD in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat No. 9,565,213—IPR2018-01386. |
Jul. 12, 2018 (US) Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,565,213—IPR2018-01386. |
Jul. 13, 2018 U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 15/414,117. |
Jul. 20, 2018 (US) Declaration of Dr. Stuart Staniford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,124,552—IPR2018-01436. |
Jul. 20, 2018 (US) Declaration of Dr. Stuart Staniford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,160,713—IPR2018-01437. |
Jul. 20, 2018 (US) Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,124,552—IPR2018-01436. |
Jul. 20, 2018 (US) Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,160,713—IPR2018-01437. |
Jul. 26, 2018 (US) Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, PhD in Support of First Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,137,205—IPR2018-01443. |
Jul. 26, 2018 (US) Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, PhD in Support of Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,137,205—IPR2018-01444. |
Jul. 27, 2018 (US) First Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,137,205—IPR2018-01443. |
Jul. 27, 2018 U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 15/382,806. |
Jul. 27, 2018 (US) Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,137,205—IPR2018-01444. |
Jul. 5, 2018 U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 15/413,750. |
Mar. 15, 2018 (EP) Second Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC—App. 13765547.8. |
Mar. 16, 2018 (EP) Communication Pursuant to Rule 164(2)(b) and Article 94(3) EPC—App. 15722292.8. |
Mar. 21, 2018 (AU) First Examination Report—App. 2015382393. |
Mar. 8, 2018 U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/745,207. |
May 25, 2018 U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 15/413,834. |
Nov. 14, 2018 U.S. Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/745,207. |
Oct. 12, 2018 U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 16/039,896. |
Oct. 4, 2018 U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 16/030,374. |
Oct. 4, 2018 U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 15/827,477. |
Sep. 17, 2018 (US) Declaration of Narasimha Reddy Ph.D., in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,560,176 (First)—IRP2018-01654. |
Sep. 17, 2018 (US) Declaration of Narasimha Reddy Ph.D., in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,560,176 (Second)—IRP2018-01655. |
Sep. 17, 2018 (US) Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,560,176 (First)—IPR 2018-01654. |
Sep. 17, 2018 (US) Petition for Inter Partes review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,560,176 (Second)—IPR2018-01655. |
Sep. 27, 2018 (WO) International Search Report and Written Opinion—App. PCT/US2018/043367. |
Sep. 4, 2018 (WO) International Search Report and Written Opinion—App. PCT/US2018/041355. |
Sep. 27, 2018 U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 15/614,956. |
Apr. 2, 2019 (US) Decision—Institution of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,560,077—IPR 2018-01513. |
Apr. 8, 2019 U.S. Final Office Aciton—U.S. Appl. No. 15/413,947. |
Feb. 21, 2019 U.S. Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 15/382,806. |
Feb. 6, 2019 U.S. Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 15/413,750. |
Feb. 6, 2019 U.S. Notice of Allowance and Fees Due—U.S. Appl. No. 16/039,896. |
Jan. 24, 2019 (US) Decision—Institution of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,124,552 B2—IPR 2018-01436. |
Jan. 24, 2019 (US) Decision—Institution of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,160,713 B2—IPR 2018-01437. |
Jan. 24, 2019 U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 15/610,995. |
Jun. 3, 2019 (EP) Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC—Third Examination Report—App. 13765547.8. |
Jun. 3, 2019 U.S. Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 15/614,956. |
Mar. 11, 2019 U.S. Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 16/030,354. |
Mar. 18, 2019 (AU) First Examination Report—App. 2016379156. |
Mar. 8, 2019 U.S. Notice of Allowance and Fees Due—U.S. Appl. No. 16/030,374. |
Mar. 8, 2019 U.S. Notice of Allowance and Fees Due—U.S. Appl. No. 16/060,374. |
May 23, 2019 U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/745,207. |
May 24, 2019 U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 16/111,524. |
A. Feldmann et al., “Tradeoffs for Packet Classification”, Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, 397-413, 2000. |
A. Hari et al., “Detecting and Resolving Packet Filter Conflicts”, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, 1203-1212, 2000. |
Apr. 15, 2016—U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 14/855,374. |
Apr. 26, 2016—U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/745,207. |
Dec. 5, 2016—U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 14/714,207. |
Feb. 24, 2016—(AU) Office Action—App 2014228257. |
Feb. 25, 2016—(AU) Office Action—App 2014249055. |
Feb. 26, 2016—U.S. Non Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/253,992. |
Jan. 11, 2016—U.S. Non Final Rejection—U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,560. |
Jan. 28, 2016—(WO) International Search Report and Written Opinion—App PCT/US2015/062691. |
Jul. 11, 2016—(EP) Office Action—App 14720824.3. |
Jul. 20, 2016—(AU) Office Action—App 2013335255. |
Jul. 22, 2016—U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/921,718. |
Jun. 9, 2016—(WO) International Search Report—PCT/US2016/026339. |
Jun. 14, 2016—U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/625,486. |
Jun. 16, 2016—(CA) Office Action—App 2,888,935. |
May 6, 2016 U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/714,207. |
May 13, 2016—U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 13/940,240. |
Nov. 21, 2016—U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/745,207. |
Oct. 5, 2016—Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,560. |
Oct. 26, 2016 U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 13/940,240. |
Sep. 13, 2016—(CA) Office Action—App 2,902,206. |
Sep. 14, 2016—(CA) Office Action—App 2,897,737. |
Sep. 26, 2016—(CA) Office Action—App 2,902,158. |
Apr. 12, 2017—U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/757,638. |
Aug. 15, 2017 (WO) International Preliminary Report on Patentability—App. PCT/US2015/062691. |
Aug. 21, 2017 (AU) First Examination Report—App. 2015248067. |
Feb. 10, 2017—U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 14/625,486. |
Feb. 15, 2017—U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 14/921,718. |
Jul. 20, 2017 (US) Complaint for Patent Infringement—Case No. 2:17-cv-00383-HCN-LRL, Document 1, 38 pages. |
Jun. 7, 2017—U.S. Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 14/745,207. |
Jun. 7, 2017—(WO) International Search Report and Written Opinion—App PCT/US2016/067111. |
Mar. 6, 2017—(WO) International Search Report and Written Opinion—App PCT/US2016/068008. |
Nov. 21, 2017—U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 14/690,302. |
Nov. 3, 2017—U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 15/413,834. |
Oct. 17, 2017 (WO) International Preliminary Report on Patentability—App. PCT/US2016/026339. |
Sep. 5, 2017 (US) Defendant Ixia's Partial Answer to Complaint for Patent Infringement—Case No. 2:17-cv-00383-HCN-LRL, Document 29, 14 pages. |
Sep. 5, 2017 (US) Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Ixia and Keysight Technologies, Inc's Motion to Dismiss for Unpatentability Under 35 U.S.C § 101—Case No. 2:17-cv-00383-HCM-LRL, Document 21, 29 pages. |
Sep. 5, 2017 (US) Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendants Ixia and Keysight Technologies, Inc's Motion to Dismiss for Unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101—Case No. 2:17-cv-00383-HCN-LRL, Document 22, 3 pages. |
Sep. 29, 2017 (CA) Examination Report—App. 2,772,630. |
Apr. 17, 2018 U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 15/610,995. |
Aug. 30, 2018 (US) Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, PhD in Support of Third Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,137,205—IPR2018-01505. |
Aug. 3, 2018 (US) Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, PhD in Support of Third Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,560,077—IPR2018-01513. |
Aug. 3, 2018 (US) Third Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,137,205—IPR2018-01505. |
Aug. 10, 2018 (US) Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, PhD in Support of Fourth Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,137,205—IPR2018-01506. |
Aug. 10, 2018 (US) Fourth Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,137,205—IPR2018-01506. |
Aug. 10, 2018 (US) Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. No. 9,560,077—IPR2018-01513. |
Aug. 15, 2018 (US) Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, PhD in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,565,213—IPR2018-01512. |
Aug. 15, 2018 (US) Declaration of Staurt Staniford, PhD in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,686,193—IPR2018-01556. |
Aug. 20, 2018 (US) Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,565,213—IPR2018-01512. |
Aug. 21, 2018 (US) Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,686,193—IPR2018-01559. |
Aug. 29, 2018 (CA) Office Action—App. 2,888,935. |
Acharya et al, “OPTWALL: A Hierarchical Traffic-Aware Firewall,” Department of Computer Science, Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh, pp. 1-11 (2007). |
Anonymous: “The Distribution of Malicious Domains,” The DomainTools Report, 2016 Edition, Mar. 9, 2016 (Mar. 9, 2016), pp. 1-11, XP055502306, Retrieved from: https://www.domaintools.com/resources/white-papers/the-domaintools-report-the-distribution-of-malicious-domains. |
Bellion, “High Performance Packet Classification”, http://www.hipac.org (Publication Date Unknown). |
Blake, et al, “An Architecture for Differentiated Services,” Network Working Group RFC 2475, Dec. 1998, 36 pages. |
Blake, et al., “An Architecture for Differentiated Services,” also known as the Diffserv architecture, as defined in RFC 2475, Network Working Group, Dec. 1998, 36 pages. |
C. Benecke, “A Parallel Packet Screen for High Speed Networks”, Proceedings of the 15th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 1999. |
Chen, et al, “Research on the Anomaly Discovering Algorithm of the Packet Filtering Rule Sets,” Sep. 2010, First International Confererence on Pervasive Computing, Signal Processing and Applications, pp. 362-366. |
D. Comer, “Analysis of a Heuristic for Full Trie Minimization”, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 6(3): 513-537, Sep. 1981. |
D. Decasper et al., “Router Plugins: A Software Architecture for Next-Generation Routers”, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 8(1): Feb. 2000. |
D. Eppstein et al., “Internet Packet Filter Management and Rectangle Geometry”, Proceedings of the Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 827-835, 2001. |
E. Al-Shaer et al., “Firewall Policy Advisor for Anomaly Discovery and Rule Editing”, Proceedings of the IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, 2003. |
E. Al-Shaer et al., “Modeling and Management of Firewall Policies”, IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 1(1): 2004. |
E- Fulp et al., “Network Firewall Policy Tries”, Technical Report, Computer Science Department, Wake Forest University, 2004. |
E. Fulp, “Optimization of Network Firewall Policies Using Ordered Sets and Directed Acyclical Graphs”, Technical Report, Computer Scient Department, Wake Forest University, Jan. 2004. |
E. Fulp, “Preventing Denial of Service Attacks on Quality of Service”, Proceedings of the 2001 DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition II, 2001. |
E.L. Lawler, “Sequencing Jobs to Minimize Total Weighted Completion Time Subject to Precedence Constraints”, Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 2: 75-90, 1978. |
E.W. Fulp, “Firewall Architectures for High Speed Networks”, U.S. Department of Energy Grant Application, Funded Sep. 2003. |
Frahim, et al., “Cisco ASA: All-in-One Firewall, IPS, and VPN Adaptive Security Appliance,” Indiana: Cisco Press: 2006, 54 pages. |
Fulp, “Trie-Based Policy Representations for Network Firewalls,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Computer Communications (2005). |
Fulp, Errin: “CV: Errin Fulp,” XP002618346, www.cs.wfu.edu/fulp/ewfPub.html, pp. 1-5 (Copyright 2010). |
G. Brightwell et al., “Counting Linear Extensions is #P-Complete”, Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1991. |
G.V. Rooij, “Real Stateful TCP Packet Filtering in IP Filter”, Proceedings of the 10th USENIX Security Symposium, 2001. |
Greenwald, Michael; “Designing an Academic Firewall: Policy, Practice, and Experience with SURF”; IEEE, Proceedings of SNDSS, 1996. |
J. Xu et al., “Design and Evaluation of a High-Performance ATM Firewall Switch and Its Applications”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 17(6): 1190-1200, Jun. 1999. |
J.K. Lenstra et al., “Complexity of Scheduling Under Precedence Constraints”, Operations Research, 26(1): 22-35,1978. |
Kindervag, et al. “Build Security Into Your Network's DNA: The Zero Trust Network Architecture,” Forrester Research Inc.; Nov. 5, 2010, pp. 1-26. |
L. Qui et al., “Fast Firewall Implementations for Software and Hardware-Based Routers”, Proceedings of ACM Sigmetrics, Jun. 2001. |
Lee et al., “Development Framework for Firewall Processors,” IEEE, pp. 352-355 (2002). |
M. Al-Suwaiyel et al., “Algorithms for Tile Compaction”, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 9(2): 243-263, Jun. 1984. |
M. Christiansen et al., “Using IDDs for Packet Filtering,” Technical Report, BRICS, Oct. 2002. |
M. Degermark et al., “Small Forwarding Tables for Fast Routing Lookups”, Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, 4-13, 1997. |
Mizuno et al., A New Remote Configurable Firewall System for Home-use Gateways, Jan. 2005. Second IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, pp. 599-601. |
Moore, S, “SBIR Case Study: Centripetal Networks: How CNI Leveraged DHS S&T SBIR Funding to Launch a Successful Cyber Security Company,” 2012 Principal Investigators' Meeting, Cyber Security Division, Oct. 10, 2014. |
Nichols, et al, “Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers,” Network Working Group RFC 2474, Dec. 1998, 20 pages. |
O. Paul et al., “A full Bandwidth ATM Firewall”, Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security ESORICS'2000, 2000. |
P. Warkhede et al., “Fast Packet Classification for Two-Dimensional Conflict-Free Filters”, Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, 1434-1443, 2001. |
Palo Alto Networks; “Designing a Zero Trust Network With Next-Generation Firewalls”; pp. 1-10; last viewed on Oct. 21, 2012. |
Perkins, “IP Encapsulation with IP,” Network Working Group RFC 2003, Oct. 1996, 14 pages. |
R. Funke et al., “Performance Evaluation of Firewalls in Gigabit-Networks”, Proceedings of the Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, 1999. |
R. Rivest, “On Self-Organizing Sequential Search Heuristics”, Communications of the ACM, 19(2): 1976. |
R.L. Graham et al., “Optimization and Approximation in Deterministic Sequencing and Scheduling: A Survey”, Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 5: 287-326, 1979. |
Reddy, A.L.(2012) A.L. Narasimha Reddy Curriculum Vitae. Retrieved from https://cesg.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/res_ext032.pdf, 16 pages. |
Reumann, John; “Adaptive Packet Filters”; IEEE, 2001, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. |
S,M. Bellovin et al., “Network Firewalls”, IEEE Communications Magazine, 50-57, 1994. |
S. Goddard et al., “An Unavailability Analysis of Firewall Sandwich Configurations”, Proceedings of the 6th IEEE Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering, 2001. |
S. Suri et al., “Packet Filtering in High Speed Networks”, Proceedings of the Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 969-970, 1999. |
Singh, Rajeev et al. “Detecting and Reducing the Denial of Service attacks in WLANs”, Dec. 2011, World Congress on Information and Communication TEchnologies, pp. 968-973. |
Sourcefire 3D System User Guide, Version 4.10, Mar. 16, 2011, 2123 pages. |
Statement Re: Related Application, dated Jul. 24, 2015. |
Tarsa et al., “Balancing Trie-Based Policy representations for Network Firewalls,” Department of Computer Science, Wake Forest University, pp. 1-6 (2006). |
U. Ellermann et al., “Firewalls for ATM Networks”, Proceedings of INFOSEC'COM, 1998. |
V. Srinivasan et al., “Fast and Scalable Layer Four Switching”, Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, 191-202, 1998. |
V.P. Ranganath, “A Set-Based Approach to Packet Classification”, Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing and Systems, 889-894, 2003. |
W.E. Leland et al., “On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic”, IEEE Transactions on Networking, 2(1); 15, 1994. |
W.E. Smith, “Various Optimizers for Single-Stage Productions”, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 3: 59-66, 1956. |
X. Gan et al., “LSMAC vs. LSNAT: Scalable Cluster-based Web servers”, Journal of Networks, Software Tools, and Applications, 3(3): 175-185, 2000. |
Ylonen, et al, “The Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Layer Protocol,” SSH Communication Security Corp, Newtork Working Group RFC 4253, Jan. 2006, 32 pages. |
Aug. 2, 2018 U.S. Notice of Allowance and Fees Due—U.S. Appl. No. 16/030,254. |
Jul. 5, 2019 (EP) Extended European Search Report—App. 19179539.2. |
Aug. 2, 2019 (CA) Office Action—App. 2,888,935. |
Aug. 2, 2019 U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 16/448,969. |
Aug. 16, 2019 (EP) Extended Search Report—App. 19170936.9. |
Sep. 18, 2018 (US) Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,413,722—IPR 2018-01760. |
Sep. 18, 2018 (US) Declaration of Dr. Stuart Staniford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,413,722—IPR 2018-01760. |
Sep. 3, 2019 U.S. Notice of Allowance and Fees Due—U.S. Appl. No. 16/518,190. |
Aug. 19, 2019 (EP) Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC—Examination Report—App. 14719415.3. |
Oct. 11, 2019—U.S. Non-Final Office Action—U.S. Appl. No. 16/554,293. |
Oct. 10, 2019—U.S. Notice of Allowance—U.S. Appl. No. 16/448,997. |
Sep. 30, 2019 (WO) International Search Report and Written Opinion of International Searching Authority—Application No. PCT/US2019/040830. |
Exhibit 1022—“Transmission Control Protocol,” IETF RFC 793. J. Postel, ed., Sep. 1981. |
Exhibit 1023—“Internet Protocol,” IETF RFC 791, J. Postel, ed., Sep. 1981. |
Exhibit 1024—“File Transfer Protocol,” IETF RFC 765, J. Postel, ed., Jun. 1980. |
May 20, 2019 (US) Decision—Institution of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,413,722 B1—IPR 2018-01760. |
Aug. 20, 2019 (US) Declaration of Dr. Alessandro Orso in Support of Patent Owner's Response of U.S. Pat. No. 9,413,722—IPR 2018-01760. |
Feb. 21, 2019 (US) Patent Owner's Preliminary Response of U.S. Pat. No. 9,413,722—IPR 2018-01760. |
Aug. 20, 2019 (US) Patent Owner's Response of U.S. Pat. No. 9,413,722—IPR 2018-01760. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200153795 A1 | May 2020 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16357855 | Mar 2019 | US |
Child | 16744341 | US | |
Parent | 15610995 | Jun 2017 | US |
Child | 16357855 | US | |
Parent | 14921718 | Oct 2015 | US |
Child | 15610995 | US | |
Parent | 13739178 | Jan 2013 | US |
Child | 14921718 | US |