Business management systems may use automated features to manage hardware devices such as computers and software applications installed and executing on the computers, including on a network of computers. These automated features allow a human user to discover, track, and inventory hardware, software, and network assets that make up an organization's information technology (IT) infrastructure.
The detailed description will refer to the following figures in which like numerals refer to like items, and in which:
Organizations with large information technology (IT) infrastructures often employ some type of business service automation system to manage and control their IT assets, including hardware components and the software residing and executing on the hardware components. A typical business services automation system may include a discovery and dependency mapping inventory (DDMI) system that periodically scans hardware components to discover, identify, and inventory software applications. Individual file records are created for each instance of a discovered software application. The software application may include many individual files, and the files may be spread across multiple directories. For example, a word processing application may include a main .exe file and several associated files such as dll files. The .exe file may be contained in a first directory and the .dll files in a second directory. A discovery engine produces a scanning result file (an XML-formatted file, for example) containing file records for each of these individual files in a particular directory. The file records in a scanning result file are submitted to a recognition engine, one file record at a time. Each file record contains feature information such as file name and file size. For each file record, the recognition engine compares the feature information to features of sample files that may be contained in a sample application inventory. When the aggregate feature information from the discovered software application is sufficiently close in value to that of the sample software application, the recognition engine determines that a match exists, and identifies the discovered software application as the same as the matching sample software application.
However, the hardware platform on which the discovered software application is found may contain only the main (e.g., .exe) file, and none of the associated (e.g., .dll) files. Yet the software application matching process might still “declare” a match with a sample software application. In addition, the discovered software application could match more than one version of the sample software application. In this case, a further, complicated elimination process may be required to determine the correct identity of the discovered software application.
For example, in the presence of multiple versions, if at least one version has an install string, then all sample software applications without an install string are discarded. Of the remaining versions, those sample software applications whose language is the recognition engine's configurable preferred language are selected. If this language selection step selects no sample software application versions, then those sample software application versions whose language is neutral language are selected. If there are no neutral language sample software application versions, then those versions whose language is English are selected. If more than one sample software application remains after these language-based elimination steps, all remaining sample software applications could possibly match the discovered software application and the recognition engine then may arbitrarily choose a sample software application as the identity of the discovered software application. Many other criteria may be used to try to identify or recognize the correct version of the discovered software application. In particular, a complex, multi-level analysis may be required, where the analysis includes a file-level recognition process, a directory-level recognition process, and a machine-level recognition process. This multi-level analysis is referred to hereinafter as a DDMI recognition process, algorithm, or method. The complexity and processor-intensive nature of this DDMI recognition algorithm stems in part from the use of many different criteria in order to select a correct version of a software application, making the logic more complicated and sample application index database maintenance more difficult. Another disadvantage is that the DDMI recognition algorithm may declare a match between a discovered software application and a sample software application based on a comparison of the applications' main file, and ignoring the applications' associated files, which may differ because of version changes, resulting in an erroneous identification of the discovered software application.
Rather than the complicated, laborious and sometimes erroneous DDMI recognition process, as described above, of setting criteria and matching to a discovered software application over multiple levels and across multiple directories, a herein disclosed software application identification device, system, and method determines a resemblance between a set of queried or discovered files and sample applications that are stored in a software application index database so as to identify a target software application in a fast, reliable manner.
The computer system 10 is shown with three connected computers 20, 30, and 40, although the system 10 may include many more computers. Each of the computers 30 and 40 may include software application recognition features similar to those described above for computer 20, and the software application recognition features may be used by each computer 20, 30, and 40 to manage locally installed software applications. Alternately, the software application recognition features may reside on computer 20 only, and those features may be used to manage software applications on all three computers 20, 30, 40.
The results of the resemblance engine's processing are passed to output engine 140, which generates a vector r of the weighted resemblance values for the K closest sample software applications. Comparison engine 150 then compares the resemblance values ri in vector r to a threshold value to determine if the resemblance values are high enough to use for identifying a discovered software application. The comparison engine 150 may receive an adjustable threshold value set through use of threshold engine 160. The value applied through threshold engine 160 may be set explicitly by a human user (e.g., resemblance value greater than 75 percent) with user input 170.
Each discovered software application, and each sample software application, may include a number of individual files, and corresponding attributes. For example, a discovered software application may be represented by file set P. File set P may contain fi=1-n files, where each file fi contains N attributes fi={f1i . . . fin}, with fij representing file size, file name, or file signature.
The resemblance computation engine 130 computes a measure of the distance r between two files q and s using, for example, equation 1:
and
The value range of r(q, s) is 0.1.
To calculate the resemblance R(Q, S) between reference file set S={si|1≦l≦n, si≦si+1} and target file set Q={qi|1≦l≦m, qi≦qi+2}, the resemblance computation engine 130 uses, for example, equation 2:
where, qQ, s
S, sj-l<qi<sj
The output engine 140 then stores the output resemblance values, R(Q,S) of the K nearest neighbors to the target file set Q in vector R={R1, R2, . . . RK}.
In block 415, the engine 130 finds the difference in attribute values for each file of file pair qi, si. In block 425, the engine 130 calculates the resemblance R(Q,S) between the target software application file set and each of K sample software application file sets.
The process of
Table 2 lists parameters of a target file set, with appropriate weights assigned to each of the three parameters.
Table 3 lists the resemblance values for the three (K=3) possible applications, along with the vector R(Q,S). Note that if the threshold value for resemblance is greater than or equal to 0.75, then the application vendor1:app 1:1:1.0 will be chosen. As noted above, this resemblance value calculation will proceed for each of the identified target sets.
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/CN10/01720 | 10/29/2010 | WO | 00 | 3/6/2013 |