Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the field of cybersecurity. More specifically, one embodiment of the disclosure relates to a key management system for use in authenticating subscribers to multi-tenant, cloud-based cybersecurity services.
In the past, businesses have relied on application software installed on one or more electronic devices residing in close proximity to its user (hereinafter, “on-premises electronic devices”). Each on-premises electronic device may constitute a type of computer such as a personal computer, a locally maintained mainframe, or a local server for example. As on-premises electronic devices became subjected to cybersecurity attacks (cyberattacks) more regularly, in order to protect these electronic devices, certain preeminent cybersecurity vendors began to develop and deploy on-premises threat detection appliances.
For on-premises deployments, a customer has to purchase threat detection appliances from a cybersecurity vendor, which requires both a significant upfront capital outlay for the purchase of the appliances as well as significant ongoing operational costs. These operational costs may include the costs for deploying, managing, maintaining, upgrading, repairing and replacing these appliances. For instance, a customer may be required to install multiple types of threat detection appliances within the enterprise network in order to detect different types of cybersecurity threats (cyberthreats). These cyberthreats may coincide with discrete activities associated with known or highly suspected cyberattacks.
As an illustrative example, a cybersecurity vendor would need to install one type of on-premises threat detection appliance that is directed to analyze electronic mail (email) messages for malware, normally ingress email messages from an outside source. Similarly, the cybersecurity vendor would need to install another type of on-premises threat detection appliance to analyze web-based content (e.g., downloaded web pages and related network traffic) in effort to detect cyberthreats such as web pages embedded with malware. Herein, “malware” may be generally considered to be software (e.g., executable) that is coded to cause a recipient electronic device to perform unauthorized, unexpected, anomalous, and/or unwanted behaviors or operations (hereinafter, “malicious behaviors”), such as altering the functionality of an electronic device upon execution of the malware.
Cybersecurity vendors have provided threat detection through cloud-based offerings that are self-hosted by these vendors. Herein, the responsibility for the above-described upfront capital outlays and ongoing operational costs is shifted from the customer to the cybersecurity vendor. As a result, the cybersecurity vendor are now saddled with even greater overall costs than a customer itself because the cybersecurity vendor must deploy infrastructure resources sized to handle the maximum aggregate threat detection analytic workload for all of its customers. These overall costs, directed to data processing and storage usage, would need to be passed on to its customers, where any significant cost increases may translate into a significant price increases for the cybersecurity services. As a result, customers are unable to accurately estimate or anticipate the costs associated with current and future cybersecurity needs, given that impact that changes in cybersecurity need, amongst all of the customers, may influence the costs apportioned for processing or storage usage.
Recently, more businesses and individuals have begun to rely on a public cloud network (hereinafter, “public cloud”) for all types of services, including cybersecurity services offered by the cloud provider. A “public cloud” is a fully virtualized environment with a multi-tenant architecture that enables tenants (i.e., customers) to establish different cloud accounts, but share computing and storage resources and retain the isolation of data within each customer's cloud account. The virtualized environment includes on-demand, cloud computing platforms that are provided by a collection of physical data centers, where each data center includes numerous servers hosted by the cloud provider. Examples of different types of public clouds may include, but is not limited or restricted to Amazon Web Services®, Microsoft® Azure® or Google Cloud Platform™ for example.
This growing reliance on public cloud platforms is due, in large part, to a number of advantages offered by these platforms, where these advantages may be realized by cybersecurity providers as well. However, deployment of a cybersecurity system as a Security-as-a-Service (SaaS) within a public cloud operating as an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) poses a number of challenging, given the high number of submissions of data for analysis that may reach into the millions for a subscriber to that cybersecurity system (SaaS-subscriber). Each submission would need to be tracked back to the subscriber for verification and confirmation of compliance with the terms of the subscription, where the keying mechanism offered by public clouds is not equip to monitor submissions associated with different SaaS-subscribers of the cybersecurity system.
Embodiments of the invention are illustrated by way of example and not by way of limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings, in which like references indicate similar elements and in which:
Embodiments of the present disclosure generally relate to a cloud-based cybersecurity system leveraging resources associated with the infrastructure provided by a public cloud. One embodiment of the cybersecurity system operates as a multi-tenant (subscription-based) Security-as-a-Service (SaaS), which is layered on a multi-tenant Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud platform. As a result, multiple subscribers may be afforded access to cybersecurity services offered by the cybersecurity system while multiple users, including the cybersecurity system, may be afforded access to shared resources hosted by the public cloud (hereinafter, “public cloud infrastructure resources”). Stated differently, as the SaaS-operating cybersecurity system (hereinafter, “cybersecurity system” or “SaaS”) may be installed by a cybersecurity vendor being a different entity than the cloud provider, the SaaS may deploy a vendor-specific proprietary software stack to run on the compute and storage resources provided by the IaaS cloud platform.
According to this illustrative embodiment, the SaaS-oriented cybersecurity system deploys a key management system that is responsible for generating keys (described below as “virtual keys”), which are distributed to a subscriber of the cybersecurity system (e.g., administrator) for subsequent distribution to different subscriber members. The different subscriber members may be different persons (e.g., analysts, other administrators, etc.) or different entities within an enterprise (e.g., groups, business units, departments, subsidiaries or agencies, etc.). The virtual keys enable the cybersecurity system and/or the subscriber itself to monitor a number or rate of submissions at a selected granularity (e.g., by person or by entity) in order to track usage of the cybersecurity system by those subscriber members. Such data may enable a subscriber to identify certain subscriber members within an enterprise who may be violating internal submission procedures and/or abusing submission privileges. Additionally, the virtual keys may enable a security administrator to pinpoint a particular person, group, department, agency or subsidiary within an enterprise (e.g., multi-national company, government, etc.) that may be experiencing a cybersecurity attack based on a higher than normal level of submissions or the results of the submissions.
As an additional feature, an administrator may access a dashboard to select a particular virtual key and restrict usage of the key to a particular address. For example, a virtual key may be restricted to usage by a specific source Internet Protocol (IP) address or a range of source IP addresses. This allows each of the virtual key to be restricted, if desired, to a particular network device associated with the source IP address or a collection of network devices represented by a range of IP addresses to allow the virtual key to be used by a group of subscribers. Herein, according to one embodiment, a virtual key may be restricted to a specific public IP address or range of public IP addresses. This restriction may be performed by the administrator at any time while the virtual key is active (e.g., when awarded to a subscriber with restriction to the subscriber's IP address, when the virtual key is compromised to restrict usage to only the subscriber's IP address range allocated to an enterprise associated with the virtual key, etc.).
In light of this dual, multi-tenant deployment, the cybersecurity system may be configured to charge usage in accordance with a different pricing scheme than offered by the IaaS (public cloud). For example, the cybersecurity system may be configured with a tiered subscription pricing scheme based on a number of submissions of objects undergoing cyberthreat analytics by the cybersecurity system (e.g., the number of objects uploaded via a portal or other type of interface or the number of objects processed to account for objects created and processed during processing of another object if more details analytics are requested along with additional subscription enrichments (e.g., enhanced reporting formats, memory dump capabilities, etc.). Additionally, or in the alternative, the cybersecurity system may be configured with a “pay per usage” pricing scheme, which enjoys no maximum submission thresholds over a prescribed duration but higher costs are applied to each submission.
As a result of the SaaS deployment described herein, the cybersecurity system enables both the customer and cybersecurity vendor to avoid the complexity and significant capital outlay in buying and operating physical servers and other datacenter infrastructure. Instead, the cybersecurity vendor incurs the costs associated with the actual use of certain public cloud infrastructure resources, such as storage amounts or compute time as measured by the time of data processing conducted by computing instances hosted by the public cloud and configured as analytic engines within the cybersecurity system as described below. The subscribers incur the costs associated with their actual number of object submissions for a determination as to whether the objects constitute a cyberthreat.
Unlike conventional cyberthreat detection appliances, the cybersecurity system is configured to be “submission agnostic,” meaning that the same submission scheme may be followed for uploading different object types for analysis (e.g., email messages, web page content, uniform resource locators (URLs), hashes, files, documents, etc.) and/or the same multi-stage evaluation is conducted on a data sample, inclusive of that object and context information associated with the object, independent of object type. Herein, the architecture of the cybersecurity system is designed to conduct cyberthreat analytics on multiple types of objects uploaded to cybersecurity system by at least (i) validating a submission by confirming that requisite information is included within the submission, (ii) authenticating the subscriber that input the submission based on operations of a key management system integrated as part of the cybersecurity system, and/or (iii) verifying the subscriber is authorized to perform the task(s) associated with the submission. Upon successful validation, authentication and/or verification of a particular type of submission, such as a submission for example, the cybersecurity system conducts cyberthreat analytics on the object in accordance with a multi-stage evaluation that is submission agnostic (i.e., evaluation stages do not change based on the object type).
The cybersecurity system is configured to conduct cyberthreat analytics on data samples submitted from a subscriber in efforts to determine whether any objects, included as part of the data samples, are associated with a cyberattack (i.e., constitute a cyberthreat). Each data sample includes an object and context information associated with that object. The data sample is encapsulated as part of a submission, which includes a key assigned by the cybersecurity system for subscriber authentication and determination of subscription entitlements associated with the subscriber, as described below.
Unlike conventional cyberthreat detection appliances, the cybersecurity system handles the submission and analytics for multiple, different object types (e.g., email messages, web page content, uniform resource locators (URLs), hashes, files, documents, etc.). Stated differently, the cybersecurity system is designed to analyze multiple types of objects through a cybersecurity service that (i) validates a submission including the object submitted for cyberthreat analytics, (ii) authenticates the subscriber submitting the data sample based on operations of a key management system integrated as part of the cybersecurity system, and upon successful validation and authentication, (iii) conducts cybersecurity analytics on the object in accordance with a multi-stage evaluation that is object type agnostic (i.e., evaluation stages do not change based on the object type).
In general, the cybersecurity system may be configured to receive multiple types of objects included as part of a submission through an interface (e.g., a cybersecurity portal, device interface including one or more Application Programming Interfaces “APIs”, etc.) upon completion of a subscriber onboarding process. Upon receipt of an object included as part of a data sample, the cybersecurity system may validate the submission by confirming that the submission includes requisite information such as credential(s), a subscription identifier (hereinafter, “Subscription ID”), or the like. Additionally, the cybersecurity system may authenticate the subscriber by confirming that the submitted credential is active and verify that the subscriber is authorized to perform the requested task(s) through analysis of entitlements made available to the subscriber based on its chosen subscription type as identified by the Subscription ID (e.g., subscription parameters such as access privileges, submission thresholds, virtual key allocation threshold, etc.).
Based on submission validation, subscriber authentication, and task verification, the cybersecurity system may conduct cyberthreat analytics on the object, namely analyses conducted on the object and/or context information associated with the object. The context information may include meta-information associated with the object (object context), meta-information associated with the subscription (entitlement context), and/or meta-information associated with the submission (submission context). As illustrative examples, as described below, the “submission context” may include meta-information pertaining to the submission, such as the time of input, origin of the object included in the submission (e.g., from email, network cloud shared drive, network transmission medium, etc.), location of the subscriber's network device providing the object, or the like. The “entitlement context” may include meta-information pertaining to the subscription selected by subscriber, such as information directed to what features are permitted by the subscription (e.g., types of analytics supported, reporting formats available, or other features may distinguish different subscription tiers). Lastly, the “object context” may include meta-information pertaining to the object, such as its extension type.
Herein, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, the analytic engines may be selected based, at least in part, on the submission context, entitlement context and/or the object context. As a result, the analytic engines may be selected as a combination of any single type or any combination of two or more types of the following analytic engines: (i) static analytic engines that conduct an analysis on the content of an object and generate results including observed features represented by characteristics of the object (and accompanying context information); (ii) dynamic analytic engines that conduct an execution of the object and generate results including features represented by observed behaviors of the analytic engine (and accompanying context information); (iii) machine learning analytic engines that conduct extraction of insights using a trained module and generate results including features represented by a probability of an object being malicious (and accompanying context information); and/or (iv) emulation analytic engines that conduct reproduction of operations representing the execution of the object without such execution and generate results including features represented by the emulated behaviors (and accompanying context information).
Thereafter, the generated results (features) produced by the cyberthreat analytics conducted on the object (and its context information) are correlated with features of known malicious objects and/or known benign objects to determine a threat verdict for the object (e.g., malicious/benign, good/bad. high-risk/low-risk or any other measurement to signify the likelihood of the object being malicious or non-malicious). Based on the assigned threat verdict, the cybersecurity system may be further configured to conduct post-processing analytics based, at least in part, on the correlated results in order to determine what additional operations, if any, are to be conducted on the object. These operations may include retention of a portion of the context information associated with an identified malicious or benign object within the cybersecurity intelligence used by the cybersecurity system, transmission of the object to a forensic team for subsequent analysis, or the like.
In addition to conducting cyberthreat analytics, the cybersecurity system is configured to monitor and maintain, on a per subscriber basis, SaaS metrics. The SaaS metrics may include, inter alia, a sum total of submissions made by a subscriber to the cybersecurity system (SaaS subscriber) during a selected time period and/or a sum total of active virtual keys currently issued to the SaaS subscriber. The SaaS metrics may be used for billing of the subscriber based on the number of submissions made during a selected time period, and in some cases, to ensure compliance with subscription entitlements.
Herein, the cybersecurity system includes an architecture that relies upon the public cloud infrastructure resources and monitors the usage of various services (e.g., submissions, virtual key issuances, etc.) to ensure compliance with subscription entitlements as well as for reporting and billing purposes. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the cybersecurity system operates as a multi-tenant, subscription-based SaaS), which leverages resources, such as compute and storage resources, hosted by an IaaS cloud platform, although other deployments are available and pertain to the broader spirit and scope of the invention. The cybersecurity system features (i) interface logic, (ii) administrative control logic, (iii) multi-stage, object evaluation logic, and/or (iv) reporting logic.
The interface logic enables communications to the administrative control logic to validate a submission, authenticate a subscriber associated with the submission, and verify that that the subscriber is authorized to perform one or more tasks associated with the submission. Depending on the submission type, upon submission validation, subscriber authentication and task verification, the interface logic enables the return of data requested by the submission to the subscriber or routes at least a portion of the submission to the object evaluation logic. For example, as an illustrative embodiment, the interface logic may include a cybersecurity portal that allows any user (potential subscriber) to register and establish a subscription with the cybersecurity system. After the subscription is established, the user (referred to as the “subscriber”) may receive credentials to allow for the submission of objects (in the form of data samples including the object and its context information) via a cybersecurity portal for cyberthreat analytics, submission of queries for certain subscriber-based metrics, or submission of parameters for customizing functionality of the object evaluation logic akin to the subscriber's needs.
Additionally, after the subscription is established, the interface logic may be provided with an additional interface (hereinafter, “device interface”). The device interface includes logic supporting one or more APIs, where access to the APIs may depend on the subscription entitlements. The APIs may include a first API that provides an interface for the submission of objects (and its context information) for cyberthreat analytics, a second API for subscription management (e.g., ascertain the subscriber-based metrics), and a third API for management and/or customization of the functionality of analytic engines operating within the object evaluation logic.
The administrative control logic includes a subscription management module, a subscriber accounts data store, a key management module, a consumption quota monitoring module, a configuration management module, and a subscription billing module. The subscriber accounts data store may be non-volatile, cloud-based storage hosted by the public cloud that is allocated to the IaaS subscriber (e.g., the cybersecurity vendor), where different portions of the subscriber accounts data store may be allocated to each SaaS subscriber. Therefore, each SaaS subscriber includes one or more virtual data stores that are secured and inaccessible by other SaaS subscribers. Other of the above-identified modules may be shared by the SaaS subscribers, where these modules are maintained with cloud-based storage hosted by the public cloud and operate based on execution of these modules by compute engines hosted by the public cloud.
The subscription management module is configured to control access to the cybersecurity system by controlling a subscriber onboarding process in which user information and financial information are acquired prior to selection, by the user, of a particular subscription tier. The subscription tiers may be allocated based on submission thresholds, over a prescribed period of time, a desired number of submission sources (e.g., number of persons (e.g., security analytics, functional organization, departments, subsidiaries) or network devices to be provided with a virtual key for subscriber authentication), or the like. Based on a chosen subscription tier, after successful completion, a subscription identifier (hereinafter, “Subscription ID”) may be assigned to the subscription secured by the subscriber and stored within a particular portion of the subscriber accounts data store reserved for that subscriber.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the subscriber accounts data store may be configured as (i) one or more virtual data stores each maintaining a record of the account data for a particular subscriber, (ii) one or more virtual data stores maintaining a collection of references (e.g., links, etc.) each directed to a different portion of cloud-based storage maintained in the aggregate for the IaaS subscriber (cybersecurity vendor), but allocated separately by the cybersecurity system to different SaaS subscribers to include account data, or (iii) a combination thereof (e.g., storage of credentials and/or personal identifiable information within the virtual data store(s) along with references to a remainder of the account data maintained at different virtual data stores.
Herein, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, subscriber account data may include any information (or meta-information) that may be used to identify the subscriber, provide subscription status, authenticate a subscriber based on keys (e.g., access control data in the form of any credential such as a cryptographic key, a token, a hash value, or representatives thereof), identify certain entitlements provided to the submission provided by the subscriber. Also, the subscriber account data may be used to verify compliance with subscription entitlements prior to the cybersecurity system completing a task requested by the submission, or the like. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the subscriber account data may include a Subscription ID and information associated with the subscriber (e.g., contact information, financial information, location, etc.); subscription entitlements (e.g., subscription parameters such as submission threshold, virtual key allocation threshold, accessible API(s), rate caps (number of submissions per a prescribed unit of time), additional enrichments based on the particular subscription for the subscriber, which may include additional analytic capabilities made available to submissions from the subscriber, additional reporting formats available to the subscriber, etc.). Additionally, the subscriber account data may further maintain metrics pertaining to the subscription (e.g., SaaS metrics and/or IaaS metrics, etc.).
Within an embodiment of the administrative control logic, the key management module is deployed to control credential generation and subscriber authentication. In particular, upon establishing a subscription, the key management module is notified by the subscription management module to generate a first credential (referred to as a “master key”) assigned to a subscriber associated with the subscription. The master key may be maintained, in the SaaS, as part of the subscriber account data, but it is not freely accessible to the subscriber. Instead, the master key may operate as a basis (e.g., seed keying material) used by the key management module to generate a set of second credentials (each credential referred to as a “virtual key”).
In particular, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, each virtual key may be based, at least in part, on the contents of the master key. One or more virtual keys may be generated and returned to the subscriber in response to a key generation request submission, provided a sum total of the number of requested virtual keys and the number of active virtual keys do not exceed the subscription entitlements. Upon receipt of the one or more virtual keys, an administrator of the subscriber requesting the virtual keys may distribute them to other persons or entities for use and internal tracking of virtual key use, as described above.
A virtual key is included as part of a submission (e.g., submission, consumption quota submission, parameter adjustment, etc.) to authenticate the subscriber and verify that the subscriber is authorized to perform the task associated with that submission. The virtual keys allow for tracking of usage of the cybersecurity system by different subscriber members (e.g., individuals, groups, departments, subsidiaries, etc.) as well as administrative control over access to the cybersecurity system, given that the virtual keys may be disabled, assigned prescribed periods of activity, or the like. Also, usage of the virtual keys may be restricted to a particular address or range of addresses to further mitigate unauthorized use of a virtual key. For instance, as an illustrate embodiment, the virtual keys may be restricted to any selected range of source IP addresses, from a single source IP address to restrict usage to a particular network device of a subscriber or to a group (plurality) of source IP addresses that may be an uninterrupted sequence of IP addresses assigned to an enterprise (company), as shown in
For this embodiment of the administrative control logic, the consumption quota monitoring module may be accessed through the second API (or via the cybersecurity portal) to enable the subscriber to obtain metrics associated with the current state of the subscription (e.g., active status, number of submissions for a particular submission type (or in total) conducted during the subscription period, number of submissions remaining for the subscription period, etc.). Additionally, the consumption quota monitoring module may be accessed by the key management module in order to confirm an incoming submission does not exceed the submission threshold being part of the key allocation threshold being part of the submission. This reliance may occur if the key management module is permitted access to the credential information (e.g., master key, virtual keys, etc.) stored as part of the subscriber account data.
The configuration management module is configured to enable a subscriber, via the third API (or cybersecurity portal), to specify parameters that control operability of the cyberthreat analytics. For instance, prior to controlling such operability, the key management module, upon receipt of a parameter adjustment submission, may extract a virtual key included as part of the submission to authenticate the subscriber and verify that the subscriber is authorized to perform this task (parameter adjustment to change operability of the object evaluation logic). Such authentication may be accomplished by comparing the virtual key to those active virtual keys for the subscriber stored as part of the subscriber account data.
The subscription billing module may be configured to maintain an account of the number of submissions (e.g., submissions) over a prescribed period of time and generate a request for payment from the SaaS subscriber accordingly. Additionally, the subscription billing module may be operable to identify other paid cloud-based services utilized by the SaaS-subscriber for inclusion as part of the payment request. According to one embodiment, the subscription billing module may access the subscriber account data for the requisite information. Additionally, the subscription billing module may be configured to confirm that the subscription parameters have not been exceeded (to denote additional billing) for a time-based, flat-fee subscription (e.g., yearly, monthly, weekly or daily).
According to this embodiment of the disclosure, the object evaluation logic may be separated into multiple evaluation stages. Herein, operating as part of the first evaluation stage, the preliminary analytic module may be configured to conduct one or more preliminary analyses on content within the data sample, which includes the object and/or the context information accompanying the object, in comparison with content associated with accessible cybersecurity intelligence. The cybersecurity intelligence may include context information associated with known malicious objects and known benign objects gathered from prior analytics conducted by the cybersecurity system as well as cybersecurity intelligence from sources external to the cybersecurity system.
Based on analysis of the context information, upon classifying the object as suspicious, the analytic engine selection module is provided access to the object and/or the context information as additional cyberthreat analytics are necessary. Otherwise, responsive to the preliminary analyses determining that the object is malicious or benign, the preliminary analytic module may bypass further cyberthreat analyses of the object.
Operating as part of the second evaluation stage, the analytic engine selection module is configured to determine one or more analytic engines to conduct cyberthreat analytics of the object, where this determination is based, at least in part, on the context information accompanying the object. The context information may be categorized as submission context, entitlement context, and/or object context as described below. The analytic engine selection module may select the type of analytic engines (e.g., static analytic engine(s), dynamic analytic engine(s), machine-learning engine(s), and/or emulation analytic engine(s)) based on the context information as a whole, namely a selection scheme based on an aggregate of context types.
Operating as part of the third evaluation stage, the cyberthreat analytic module includes one or more analytic engines that are directed to different analysis approaches in analyzing an object for malware (and whether it constitutes a cyberthreat). These analytic engines may include any one or combination of the following: (i) static analytic engines; (ii) dynamic analytic engines; (iii) machine learning analytic engines; and/or (iv) emulation analytic engines. During run-time, additional analytic engines may be needed to analyze objects that are recovered through the processing (e.g., execution) of another object (hereinafter, “sub-engines”). The first set of analytic engines may operate concurrently (e.g., at least partially overlapping in time), while the sub-engines may operate when its corresponding “parent” analytic engine completes its analysis.
As described herein, the static analytic engines conduct an analysis on the content of the object and generates results including observed features represented by characteristics of the object and context information associated with the object. The context information provides additional information associated with the features (e.g., specific characteristic deemed malicious, location of that characteristic within the object, or the like. The dynamic analytic engines conduct an execution of the object and generate results including features represented by observed behaviors of the analytic engine along with context information accompanying the observed features (e.g., software profile, process or thread being executed that generates the malicious features, source object type, etc.). Similarly, machine learning analytic engines submit the object as input into a trained machine-learning module that generates results including features represented by insights derived from the machine-learning module and accompanying context information. Lastly, emulation analytic engines conduct reproduction of operations representing the execution of the object, without such execution, which generates results including features represented by the emulated behaviors and its accompanying context information.
Operating as part of the fourth evaluation stage, a correlation module is configured to classify the object included as part of the data sample as malicious, benign, unknown or suspicious based on the above-identified features collected from the analytic results produced by the analytic engines and their accompanying context information. This classification of the object (threat verdict) is provided to the post-processing module that is part of the fifth evaluation stage.
Depending on the threat verdict, the post-processing module may initiate actions to remediate a detected cyberthreat (object). Additionally, or in the alternative, the post-processing module may add certain context information associated with the object to the cybersecurity intelligence utilized by the preliminary analytic module in accordance with a prescribed retention policy maintained by the post-processing module.
The reporting logic is configured to generate a displayable report including the comprehensive results of the cyberthreat analytics (e.g., threat verdict, observed features and any corresponding meta-information representing the results associated with the cyberthreat analytics, context information associated with the observed features that identify the analyses conducted to produce the observed features, circumstances surrounding the features when observed, etc.). Accessible via the cybersecurity portal, the displayable report may be provided as an interactive screens or series of screens that allow a security administrator (corresponding to a representative of the SaaS-subscriber) to view results of submissions in the aggregate and “drill-down” as to specifics associated with one of the objects uploaded to the cybersecurity system within a submission. The reporting logic may rely on a virtual key or the Subscription ID, which may be part of the submission provided to the object evaluation logic, to identify the subscriber and determine a preferred method for conveyance of the alert (and set access controls to preclude access to contents of the alert by other SaaS-subscribers). Additionally, or in the alterative, the reporting logic may generate an alert based on the comprehensive results of the cyberthreat analytics. The alert may be in the form of a message (e.g., “threat warning” text or other electronic message).
In the following description, certain terminology is used to describe aspects of the invention. In certain situations, the terms “logic,” “module,” and “engine” are representative of hardware, firmware, and/or software that is configured to perform one or more functions. As hardware, the logic (or module or engine) may include circuitry having data processing and/or storage functionality. Examples of such circuitry may include, but are not limited or restricted to a processor, a programmable gate array, a microcontroller, an application specific integrated circuit, wireless receiver, transmitter and/or transceiver circuitry, semiconductor memory, or combinatorial logic.
Alternatively, or in combination with the hardware circuitry described above, the logic (or module or engine) may be software in the form of one or more software modules, which may be configured to operate as its counterpart circuitry. For instance, a software module may be a software instance that operates as a processor, namely a virtual processor whose underlying operations is based on a physical processor such as an EC2 instance within the Amazon® AWS infrastructure for example. Additionally, a software module may include an executable application, a daemon application, an application programming interface (API), a subroutine, a function, a procedure, an applet, a servlet, a routine, source code, a shared library/dynamic load library, or even one or more instructions.
The software module(s) may be stored in any type of a suitable non-transitory storage medium, or transitory storage medium (e.g., electrical, optical, acoustical or other form of propagated signals such as carrier waves, infrared signals, or digital signals). Examples of non-transitory storage medium may include, but are not limited or restricted to a programmable circuit; a semiconductor memory; non-persistent storage such as volatile memory (e.g., any type of random access memory “RAM”); persistent storage such as non-volatile memory (e.g., read-only memory “ROM”, power-backed RAM, flash memory, phase-change memory, etc.), a solid-state drive, hard disk drive, an optical disc drive, or a portable memory device. As firmware, the logic (or module or engine) may be stored in persistent storage.
The term “computerized” generally represents that any corresponding operations are conducted by hardware in combination with software and/or firmware.
The term “malware” is directed to software that produces an undesirable behavior upon execution, where the behavior is deemed to be “undesirable” based on customer-specific rules, manufacturer-based rules, or any other type of rules formulated by public opinion or a particular governmental or commercial entity. This undesired behavior may include a communication-based anomaly or an execution-based anomaly that (1) alters the functionality of a network device executing that software in a malicious manner; (2) alters the functionality of the network device executing that software without any malicious intent; and/or (3) provides an unwanted functionality which is generally acceptable in other context.
The term “network device” should be generally construed as physical or virtualized device with data processing capability and/or a capability of connecting to a network, such as a public cloud network (e.g., Amazon Web Service (AWS®), Microsoft Azure®, Google Cloud®, etc.), a private cloud network, or any other network type. The network devices may be used by or a security operations center (SOC), Security Information and Event Management system (STEM), a network administrator, a forensic analyst, or cybersecurity system for another security provider for communication with an interface (e.g., cybersecurity portal) to access a SaaS-operating cybersecurity system. Examples of a network device may include, but are not limited or restricted to, the following: a server, a router or other intermediary communication device, an endpoint (e.g., a laptop, a smartphone, a tablet, a desktop computer, a netbook, etc.) or virtualized devices being software with the functionality of the network device. The network device may also be deployed as part any physical or virtualized device communicatively coupled via a device interface (e.g., API(s)) for gaining access to the SaaS-operating cybersecurity system.
The term “submission” a type of message (prescribed, structured data format) that is intended to result in a particular task to be performed. The tasks may include object-based analytics (submissions), return of requested information (consumption quota submissions), parameter updates that may influence operations associated with the cyberthreat analytics (parameter adjustment submissions), or the like. With respect to submissions, the submission may include a data sample, namely an organized collection of data including one or more objects and context information at least pertaining to the object(s). An “object” generally refers to a collection of information (e.g., file, document, URL, web content, email message, etc.) that may be extracted from the data sample for cyberthreat analytics.
As described herein, cybersecurity system may be deployed to operate as a subscription-based Security-as-a-Service (SaaS) that utilizes public cloud infrastructure resources, such as virtual computing, virtual data stores, and/or virtual (cloud) database resources for example, provided by an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud platform. The cybersecurity system may be configured to operate as a multi-tenant service; namely a service made available to tenants (also referred to as “subscribers”) on demand. The IaaS cloud platform may be configured to operate as a multi-tenant service to which a cybersecurity vendor offering the cybersecurity system corresponds to an IaaS-subscriber. Therefore, the cybersecurity system may leverage resources offered by the IaaS cloud platform to support operations conducted by SaaS-subscribers.
The terms “benign,” “suspicious” and “malicious” are used to identify different likelihoods of an object being associated with a cyberattack (i.e., constituting a cyberthreat). An object may be classified as “benign” upon determining that the likelihood of the object being associated with a cyberattack is zero or falls below a first threshold (i.e. falls within a first likelihood range). The object may be classified as “malicious” upon determining that the likelihood of the object being associated with a cyberattack is greater than a second threshold extending from a substantial likelihood to absolute certainty (i.e. falls within a third likelihood range). The object may be classified as “suspicious” upon determining that the likelihood of the object being associated with a cyberattack falls between the first threshold and the second threshold (i.e. falls within a second likelihood range). Different embodiments may use different measures of likelihood of malicious and non-maliciousness. Therefore, this terminology is merely used to identify different levels of maliciousness.
In certain instances, the terms “compare,” comparing,” “comparison,” or other tenses thereof generally mean determining if a match (e.g., identical or a prescribed level of correlation) is achieved between two items under analysis (e.g., context information, portions of objects, etc.) or representations of the two items (e.g., hash values, checksums, etc.).
The term “transmission medium” generally refers to a physical or logical communication link (or path) between two or more network devices. For instance, as a physical communication path, wired and/or wireless interconnects in the form of electrical wiring, optical fiber, cable, bus trace, or a wireless channel using infrared, radio frequency (RF), may be used.
Finally, the terms “or” and “and/or” as used herein are to be interpreted as inclusive or meaning any one or any combination. As an example, “A, B or C” or “A, B and/or C” mean “any of the following: A; B; C; A and B; A and C; B and C; A, B and C.” An exception to this definition will occur only when a combination of elements, functions, steps or acts are in some way inherently mutually exclusive.
As this invention is susceptible to embodiments of many different forms, it is intended that the present disclosure is to be considered as an example of the principles of the invention and not intended to limit the invention to the specific embodiments shown and described.
Referring to
The SaaS-operating cybersecurity system 100 may operate in cooperation with the multi-tenant, cloud platform 110, which corresponds to an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud platform 110. Hence, multiple subscribers 1201-120N may be provided controlled access to cybersecurity services offered by the SaaS-operating cybersecurity system 100 while multiple users (subscribers to the IaaS 110), including the SaaS-operating cybersecurity system 100 and any other IaaS subscriber 102, may be provided controlled access to shared resources hosted by the IaaS cloud platform 110 (hereinafter, “public cloud infrastructure resources 150”). For example, the SaaS 100 may deploy a vendor-specific proprietary software stack to run on the resources 150 (e.g., compute and storage resources) provided by the IaaS cloud platform 110. According to this embodiment, the SaaS-operating cybersecurity system 100 is controlled by a different entity than the IaaS cloud provider.
Based on the dual multi-tenant deployment, the SaaS-operating cybersecurity system 100 may be configured to charge usage of the SaaS in accordance with a different parameters (and pricing scheme) than offered by the IaaS (public cloud). For example, the SaaS-operating cybersecurity system 100 may be configured with subscription tier pricing based on the number of submissions with objects provided to undergo cyberthreat analytics by the SaaS-operating cybersecurity system 100 (e.g., number of objects uploaded via a portal or other type of interface) or the number of objects processed (e.g., to account for objects included as part of one or more submissions and additional objects processed that were produced during the processing of another object).
This SaaS-IaaS deployment enables both the customer and cybersecurity vendor to avoid significant capital outlays in buying and operating physical servers and other datacenter infrastructure. Rather, the cybersecurity vendor incurs the costs associated with the actual use of certain public cloud infrastructure resources 150 in the aggregate, such as IaaS-based storage amounts or compute time for analytic engines formed from IaaS-based computing instances. The subscribers incur the costs associated with their actual number of submissions (e.g., submissions described below) input into the SaaS-operating cybersecurity system 100.
Referring to
As shown, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, each subscriber (e.g., subscriber 120i . . . , or subscriber 120N as shown) may include one or more subscriber members using network devices 125, where each of the subscriber members (network devices) 125 may be permitted access to the cybersecurity system 100 if credentials submitted by that subscriber member (network device) 125 are authenticated. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the credential authentication may be conducted in accordance with a key authentication scheme in which a (virtual) key generated by the cybersecurity system 100 and provided to a subscriber (e.g., subscriber 120N), which may be distributed to a subscriber member, to gain access to the cybersecurity system 100. Herein, the network devices 125 may be used by different sources, including but not limited or restricted to a security operations center (SOC), a Security Information and Event Management system (STEM), a network administrator, a forensic analyst, a different cybersecurity vendor, or any other source seeking cybersecurity services offered by the cybersecurity system 100.
Herein, the cybersecurity system 100 is logic that leverages public cloud infrastructure resources 150. In particular, the logic associated with the cybersecurity system 100 may be stored within cloud-based storage resources (e.g., virtual data stores corresponding to a physical, non-transitory storage medium provided by the public cloud 110 such as Amazon® S3 storage instances, Amazon® Glacier or other AWS Storage Services). This stored logic is executed, at least in part, by cloud processing resources (e.g., one or more computing instances operating as virtual processors whose underlying operations are based on physical processors, such as EC2 instances within the Amazon® AWS infrastructure). As additional storage and/or processing capabilities are required, the cybersecurity system 100 may request and active additional cloud processing resources 152 and cloud storage resources 154.
According to this embodiment of the disclosure, the cybersecurity system 100 is configured to receive and respond to messages 140 requesting one or more tasks to be conducted by the cybersecurity system 100 (hereinafter referred to as “submissions”). One of these submissions 140 may include an object 144 along with context information 146. From the time of supplying to the cybersecurity system 100 to the time of routing to the object evaluation logic 270, the context information 146 pertaining to the object 144 may be included as part of the submission 140.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the context information 146 may include different context types such as context information 147 associated with the submission 140 (submission context 147), context information 148 associated with entitlements associated with a subscription to which the submitting source belongs (entitlement context 148), and/or context information 149 associated with the object 144 (object context 149). The context information 146 is not static for the object 144 at the time of submission. Rather, the context information 146 may be modified (augmented) based on operations within the cybersecurity system 100, especially entitlement context 148 obtained from a subscriber's account. Herein, the context information 146 may be used to identify the subscriber 1201 responsible for submitting the submission 140.
As described above, the cybersecurity system 100 may leverage the public cloud infrastructure resources 150 hosted by the public cloud 110. As described above, the public cloud infrastructure resources 150 may include, but are not limited or restricted to cloud processing resources 152 (e.g., computing instances, etc.) and cloud storage resources 154 (e.g., virtual data stores operating as non-volatile or volatile storage such as a log, queues, etc.), which may be allocated for use among the subscribers 1201-120N. The public cloud infrastructure resources 150 may further include cloud (Amazon®) database resources 156 operating as the subscriber accounts data store (as described below). By leveraging the infrastructure of the public cloud 110, the cybersecurity system 100 is able to immediately “scale up” (add additional analytic engines, as permitted by the subscription) or “scale down” (terminate one or more analytic engines) its cloud resource usage when such usage exceeds or falls below certain monitored thresholds.
As an illustrative example, the cybersecurity system 100 may monitor capacity levels of virtual data stores operating as queues that provide temporary storage at certain stages during analytics of the object 144 (hereafter, “queue capacity”). The queue capacity may be determined through any number of metrics, such as the number of queued objects awaiting analytics, usage percentages of the queues, computed queue wait time per data sample, or the like. Hence, the cybersecurity system 100 may scale up its usage of any public cloud infrastructure resources 150, such as cloud processing resource 152 being customized to operate as analytic engines as described below, upon exceeding a first threshold, perhaps for a prolonged period of time to avoid throttling. Similarly, the cybersecurity system 100 may scale down its usage of the cloud processing resource 152 upon falling below a second threshold, perhaps for the prolonged period of time as well.
Also, the cybersecurity system 100 may utilize the public cloud infrastructure resources 150 for supporting administrative tasks. As an illustrative example, the cybersecurity system 100 may be allocated cloud storage resources 152 for maintaining data for use in monitoring compliance by the subscribers 1201-120N with their subscription entitlements. The subscription entitlements may be represented as permissions such as (i) a maximum number of submissions over a prescribed period of time (e.g., subscription time period, yearly, monthly, weekly, daily, during certain hours, etc.), (ii) a maximum number of active virtual keys providing authorized access to the cybersecurity system 100, (iii) additional capabilities as provided by enhancements made available based on the selected subscriber tier, or the like.
The cybersecurity system 100 supports bidirectional communications with the subscribers 1201-120N in which one or more responses 160 to the submissions 140 are returned to the subscribers 1201-120N. For example, in response to the submission 140 provided from a network device 1251 of the first subscriber 1201, the response 160 may correspond to a displayable report 160 (e.g., provided by the cybersecurity portal 205) including comprehensive results of cyberthreat analytics conducted on the object 144 and its accompanying context information 146. Examples of the comprehensive results may include a threat verdict, observed features and any corresponding meta-information representing the results associated with the cyberthreat analytics, and context information associated with the observed features (e.g., information that identifies the analyses conducted to produce the observed features, circumstances the features occurred, etc.). Additionally, or in the alterative, the response 160 may include one or more alert messages (hereinafter, “alert message(s)”). The alert message(s) may include a portion of the comprehensive results of cyberthreat analytics, such as the threat verdict and name of the object 144.
Referring now to
As shown, according to this embodiment of the disclosure, based on the type of submission 140 for example, the interface logic 200 enables communications with different modules forming the administrative control logic 220. Upon validation of the submission 140, authentication of a subscriber (e.g., subscriber 120N) providing the submission 140 and verification that the subscriber 120N is authorized to perform the task or tasks associated with the submission 140, the task(s) associated with the submission 140 is(are) performed.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, as shown in
More specifically, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, as shown in
The second API 214 provides an interface for submissions directed to subscription management such as ascertain SaaS-based metrics associated with a current state of a subscription. These SaaS metrics may include object submission quota (e.g., number of objects submitted during the subscription period, number of objects available for submission during the remainder of the subscription period, etc.). The third API 216 provides an interface for submissions to parameters and other information to a configuration management module 250 within the administrative control logic 220 to enable subscriber 120N, via the device interface 210, to specify parameters that control operability of the cyberthreat analytics.
Alternative, the cybersecurity portal 205 features logic, namely the first logic 206, second logic 207 and third logic 208 of the cybersecurity portal 205, that correspond in operation to the first API 212, the second API 214 and the third API 216, respectively. These logic units support the handling of the submissions through the cybersecurity portal 205 in a manner similar to the APIs of the device interface 210, as described above.
Referring still to
The subscription management module 225 is configured to control access, via the cybersecurity portal 205, to the cybersecurity system 100 by controlling the subscription onboarding process. During the onboarding process to register with and gain access to the cybersecurity system 100, the subscription management module 225 gathers subscriber information (e.g., name of company, business address, industry by sector, geographic location, representative contact information, etc.) and financial information associated with the subscriber (e.g., bank account information, credit card information, etc.). The subscription management module 225 further prompts the subscriber, for example subscriber 120N, for selection of a particular subscription tier. Each subscription tier may provide different types and/or levels of entitlements (e.g., access privileges, subscription parameters such as submission thresholds, virtual key allocation threshold operating as a constraint to the number of active virtual keys outstanding for a subscriber, etc.), where the usage or allocation of such entitlements may be monitored.
For instance, as an illustrative example, the subscription tiers may be based on different submission thresholds for a prescribed period of time (e.g., a first subscription tier with one million submissions per year (up to 1 M/year) at cost $X and a second “pay-as-you-go” subscription tier with unlimited submissions but higher submission costs per sample, $X+$Y where X,Y>0). Additionally, or in the alternative, the subscription tiers may be based on the numbers of active keys outstanding to the subscriber 120N (e.g., prescribed number of active virtual keys allocated to the subscriber 120N for subscriber/device authentication), or the like.
Additionally, the subscription management module 225 may assign the subscription identifier (hereinafter, “Subscription ID” 227) to the subscriber 120N. Herein, the Subscription ID 227 may be relied upon to assist in accessing account data associated with a particular subscription selected by the subscriber 120N, which is maintained within the subscriber accounts data store 230.
The subscriber accounts data store 230 constitutes a data store that is configured to maintain a record of account data associated with each subscriber 1201-120N registered to access cybersecurity services provided by the cybersecurity system 100. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the subscriber accounts data store 230 may be configured as (i) one or more virtual data stores (e.g., Amazon® S3 data stores) each maintaining a record of the account data for a particular subscriber and utilized in the aggregate by the IaaS subscriber (cybersecurity vendor), (ii) one or more virtual data stores maintaining a collection of references (e.g., links, etc.), each directed to a different portion of cloud-based storage including account data maintained by public cloud infrastructure resources such as cloud (Amazon®) database resources 156 of
The “account data” may include any information or meta-information (e.g., Subscription ID 227, keys 240/242, and metrics 232) that may be used to identify or authenticate its subscriber, provide subscription status or expiration date, and/or verify that a task associated with a submission may be handled by confirming compliance with entitlements provided by the subscriber-selected subscription tier. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, each subscriber account may be located using the Subscription ID 227 and/or credentials 242 (e.g., content or a derivation thereof used to locate a location in a virtual data store for account data associated with that subscriber) and is configured to include information associated with the subscriber and subscription entitlements (e.g., which APIs accessible by that subscriber; maximum number of submissions during a select time period, maximum number of issued virtual keys, etc.).
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the subscriber accounts data store 230 may be configured to monitor and maintain, on a per subscriber basis, metrics including SaaS metrics 232 (representing at least some of the subscription entitlements). The SaaS metrics 232 may include information that represents and maintains a sum total of submissions made by the (SaaS) subscriber 120N during a particular period of time (e.g., subscription time period). Hence, the SaaS metrics 232 may be accessed to confirm whether the sum total of submissions falls below the maximum number of submissions to ensure compliance with the subscription entitlements, especially before an incoming submission is provided to the object evaluation logic 270. The SaaS metrics 232 may further include information that represents and maintains a sum total of virtual keys currently issued to the SaaS subscriber 120N. The SaaS metrics 232 may be used for billing of the subscriber 120N based on the number of submissions made during the particular period of time, and in some cases, to ensure compliance with subscription entitlements as the number of active keys outstanding may vary between subscription tiers.
Besides subscriber-specific metrics, the SaaS metrics 232 may aggregation metrics directed to all SaaS subscribers in efforts to reconcile the costs incurred by the cybersecurity vendor based on public cloud infrastructure resource costs (e.g., costs of cloud processing resources 152 and cloud storage resources 154) against the revenue generated on per submission fee (or a fee per processed object to account for one or more “child” objects that are uncovered during cyberthreat analytics of a “parent” object and may require additional analytics to render a threat verdict of the “parent” object as to its maliciousness).
For example, the SaaS metrics 232 may include an aggregate as to the number of submissions for all SaaS subscribers. This metric may be used to determine the profitability of the cybersecurity system 100 to determine whether the cost structure necessitates a change in submission pricing.
As further shown in
Referring now to
Herein, a virtual key (e.g., virtual key 2421) may be included as part of a submission (e.g., object, quota, parameter adjustment from the subscriber 120N) and used by the key management module 235 in authenticating the subscriber 120N and confirming that the subscriber 120N is authorized to perform a task associated with the submission accompanied by the virtual key 2421. Additionally, each of the virtual keys 2421-242L allows for tracking of usage of the cybersecurity system 100 by different subscriber members (e.g., individuals, groups, departments, subsidiaries, etc.) that are assigned one of the virtual keys 2421-242L. Also, the virtual keys 2421-242L collectively provide a security administrator of the subscriber with administrative control over access to the cybersecurity system 100, given that the virtual keys 2421-242L may be disabled, assigned prescribed periods of activity, or the like.
In particular, after the subscription registration process has completed, the key management module 235 may receive a key generation request message 310 from a subscriber via the cybersecurity portal (see operation C). Upon receipt of the key generation request message 310, the key management module 235 confirms that the generation and release of the requested number of virtual keys is in compliance with the subscription entitlements such as a maximum number of issued (active) virtual keys outstanding for the subscriber 120N (operation D). If the generation of the virtual keys “VKs” (e.g., VK2 2422, VK3 2423, and VK4 2424) is in compliance with the subscription entitlements 320, the key generation module 236 generates and returns requested virtual keys 2422-2424 to the subscriber 120N (operation E). Additionally, as shown in
Referring to
More specifically, the key authentication module 237 (or logic associated with the first API 212 itself) may be configured to conduct a first level of authentication in which the format of the submission 140 is determined as to whether it is compliant with format specifications (see operation D). This may involve logic associated with the first API 212 (or logic within the cybersecurity portal 205) translating information from the submission 140 and the presence (or absence) of certain content (e.g., virtual key 2421, object as part of payload, subscriber ID 227, etc.) may be flagged as a valid or invalid submission.
If a valid submission, optionally, the key authentication module 237 may return a code identifying a successful determination to the cybersecurity portal logic 206 (or first API 212). Otherwise, the key authentication module 237 may return an error code to the cybersecurity portal logic 206 (or first API 212), which notifies the subscriber 120N of the error (see operation E). In the event that the submission 140 has a proper format, the key authentication module 237 extracts content (e.g., Subscription ID 227) from the submission 140 to access account data associated with the subscriber 120N within the subscription accounts data store 230. Such access is conducted to retrieve stored, active virtual keys 2421-242L maintained as part of the account data 300 (see operation F).
Herein, the key authentication module 237 may conduct a comparison between the retrieved virtual keys 2421-242L and the virtual key 2421 included as part of the submission. Upon determining a successful comparison that represents the virtual key 2421 is active, the subscriber 120N is authenticated (see operation G). Additionally, although not shown, the key management module 235 may conduct an analysis of certain context information 146 provided with the submission 140 to confirm, based on the subscription entitlements 320 and/or the metrics 232, whether the submission 140 may be submitted to the object evaluation logic 270.
In this case, provided that the subscriber 120N has been authenticated and authority to perform the task associated with the submission 140 has been verified, the key management module 235 returns a message (see operation H), which prompts the interface logic 200 (e.g., the first API 212) to at least route a portion of the submission 140 (with any additional context gathered during the key management analyses such as entitlement context 148, etc.) to the object evaluation logic 270 (see operation I). Otherwise, the key management module 235 returns an error code, which prompts the interface logic 200 (e.g., the first API 212) to notify the subscriber 120N of a submission error consistent with the error code (see operation J).
Referring now to
As shown in
Referring now to
Upon selection of a Save display element 450 within the pop-up window 440, as shown in
Referring back to
For instance, as an illustrative example, the consumption quota monitoring module 245 may receive a message (quota request submission) from any of the subscribers 1201-120N (e.g., subscriber 120N) via the interface logic 200, such as the second API 214 of the device interface 210 (or second logic 207 of the cybersecurity portal 205 for example). Upon receipt of the quota request submission (after virtual key 242N included as part of the quota request submission has been extracted by the credential management module 235 to authenticate the subscriber 120N and the subscriber 120N is authorized to perform this task based on the subscription entitlements), the consumption quota monitoring module 245 may be configured to establish communications with the subscriber accounts data store 230. Upon establishing communications, the consumption quota monitoring module 245 may access various metrics associated with the SaaS metrics 232, such as the subscription status (active/inactive) and/or the sum total of submissions (or submission in particular) made during a selected time period.
Optionally, depending on the logical configuration of the administrative control logic 220, the consumption quota monitoring module 245 may be accessed by the key management module 235 to confirm that a requested task is in compliance with the subscription entitlements. For example, responsive to a submission being a task of conducting analytics on a submitted data sample, the credential management module 235 may be configured to access the consumption quota monitoring module 245 to confirm compliance with the subscription entitlements (e.g., maximum number of submissions constituting the submission threshold has not been exceeded) before task is initiated (e.g., data sample 142 is provided to the object evaluation logic 270 for cyberthreat analytics).
The configuration management module 250 is configured to enable a subscriber, via the third API 216 (or cybersecurity portal 205), to specify parameters that control operability of the cyberthreat analytics. For instance, prior to controlling such operability, the credential management module 235, upon receipt of a parameter adjustment submission, may extract a virtual key included as part of the submission to authenticate the subscriber 120N and verify that the subscriber is authorized to perform this task (cyberthreat analytics configuration). Thereafter, contents of the parameter adjustment submission are routed to the configuration management module 250, which may alter stored parameters that may influence workflow, such as (i) operations of an analytic engine selection module deployed within the object evaluation logic 270 of the cybersecurity system 100 for selection of analytic engines (e.g., priority of analytics, change of analytics based on the subscriber or attack vectors targeting subscriber's industry, etc.), (ii) operations of the analytic engines (e.g., changes in parameters that effect operations of the engines (e.g., available software profile(s), guest image(s), run-time duration, priority in order of cyberthreat analytics, etc.), and/or (iii) operations of the correlation module deployed within the object evaluation logic 270 (e.g., changes to threshold parameters relied upon to issue a threat verdict, etc.) and/or (iv) operations of the post-processing module deployed within the object evaluation logic 270 (e.g., change of retention time periods for context information associated with benign or malicious objects within cybersecurity intelligence, etc.).
The subscription billing module 265 is configured, for a subscription tier with prescribed maximum submissions, to confirm that the subscription parameters have not been exceeded (to denote additional billing) for a time-based, flat-fee subscription (e.g., yearly, monthly, weekly or daily). Alternatively, for a pay-as-you-go subscription, the subscription billing module 265 may be configured to maintain an account of the number of submissions analyzed by the object evaluation logic 270 (e.g., submissions) over a prescribed period of time and generate a request for payment from a SaaS subscriber (e.g., subscriber 120N) accordingly. The number of submissions include those submitted from the subscriber 120N, and according to some embodiments, may include additional objects uncovered during analytics during the subscription period. Additionally, the subscription billing module 265 may be operable to identify other paid cloud-based services utilized by the SaaS-subscriber 120N for inclusion as part of the payment request. According to one embodiment, the subscription billing module 265 may access the subscriber account data for the requisite information.
Referring still to
The reporting logic 290 is configured to receive meta-information 292 associated with the analytic results produced by the object evaluation logic 270 and generate a displayable report 294 including the comprehensive results of the cyberthreat analytics (e.g., threat verdict, observed features and any corresponding meta-information representing the results associated with the cyberthreat analytics, context information associated with the observed features that identify the analyses conducted to produce the observed features, circumstances the features occurred, etc.). Accessible by the subscriber 120N via the cybersecurity portal 205, the displayable report 294 may be provided as one or more interactive screens or a series of screens that allow a security administrator (corresponding to a representative of the SaaS-subscriber) to view results of submissions in the aggregate and “drill-down” as to specifics associated with one of the objects uploaded to the cybersecurity system within a submission. The reporting logic 290 may rely on the virtual key 242N or optionally Subscription ID 227 which may be part of the submission 140 submitted to the object evaluation logic 270, to identify the subscriber 120N and determine a preferred method for conveyance of an alert of the presence of the displayable report 294 (and set access controls to preclude access to contents of the displayable report 294 by other SaaS-subscribers). Additionally, or in the alterative, the reporting logic 290 may generate an alert based on the comprehensive results of the cyberthreat analytics. The alert may be in the form of a message (e.g., “threat warning” text or other electronic message).
In the foregoing description, the invention is described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments thereof. However, it will be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/133,411 filed Dec. 23, 2020, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,522,884 issued Dec. 6, 2022 which claims the benefit of priority on U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/953,424 filed on Dec. 24, 2019, the entire content of which are incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6898632 | Gordy et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6941348 | Petry et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
7080407 | Zhao et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7080408 | Pak et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7243371 | Kasper et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7308716 | Danford et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7448084 | Apap et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7458098 | Judge et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7467408 | O'Toole, Jr. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7496961 | Zimmer et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7519990 | Xie | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7540025 | Tzadikario | May 2009 | B2 |
7639714 | Stolfo et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7698548 | Shelest et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7779463 | Stolfo et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7854007 | Sprosts et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7937387 | Frazier et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7949849 | Lowe et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
8006305 | Aziz | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8020206 | Hubbard et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8045458 | Alperovitch et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8069484 | McMillan et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8171553 | Aziz et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8201246 | Wu et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8204984 | Aziz et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8214905 | Doukhvalov et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8291499 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8370938 | Daswani et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8370939 | Zaitsev et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8375444 | Aziz et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8438644 | Watters et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8464340 | Ahn et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8494974 | Watters et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8516593 | Aziz | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8528086 | Aziz | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8539582 | Aziz et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8549638 | Aziz | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8561177 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8566476 | Shiffer et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8566946 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8584239 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8635696 | Aziz | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8689333 | Aziz | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8713674 | Geide | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8713681 | Silberman et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8776229 | Aziz | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8793278 | Frazier et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8793787 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8813050 | Watters et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8832829 | Manni et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8850571 | Staniford et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8881271 | Butler, II | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8881282 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8898788 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8935779 | Manni et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
8949257 | Shiffer et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8984638 | Aziz et al. | Mar 2015 | B1 |
8990939 | Staniford et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8990944 | Singh et al. | Mar 2015 | B1 |
8997219 | Staniford et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9009822 | Ismael et al. | Apr 2015 | B1 |
9009823 | Ismael et al. | Apr 2015 | B1 |
9015846 | Watters et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9027135 | Aziz | May 2015 | B1 |
9071638 | Aziz et al. | Jun 2015 | B1 |
9104867 | Thioux et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9106630 | Frazier et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9106694 | Aziz et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9118715 | Staniford et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9159035 | Ismael et al. | Oct 2015 | B1 |
9171160 | Vincent et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9176843 | Ismael et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9189627 | Islam | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9195829 | Goradia et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9197664 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9223972 | Vincent et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
9225740 | Ismael et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
9241010 | Bennett et al. | Jan 2016 | B1 |
9251343 | Vincent et al. | Feb 2016 | B1 |
9262635 | Paithane et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9268936 | Butler | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9275229 | LeMasters | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9282109 | Aziz et al. | Mar 2016 | B1 |
9292686 | Ismael et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9294501 | Mesdaq et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9300686 | Pidathala et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9306960 | Aziz | Apr 2016 | B1 |
9306974 | Aziz et al. | Apr 2016 | B1 |
9311479 | Manni et al. | Apr 2016 | B1 |
9355247 | Thioux et al. | May 2016 | B1 |
9356944 | Aziz | May 2016 | B1 |
9363280 | Rivlin et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
9367681 | Ismael et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
9398028 | Karandikar et al. | Jul 2016 | B1 |
9413781 | Cunningham et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
9426071 | Caldejon et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9430646 | Mushtaq et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9432389 | Khalid et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9438613 | Paithane et al. | Sep 2016 | B1 |
9438622 | Staniford et al. | Sep 2016 | B1 |
9438623 | Thioux et al. | Sep 2016 | B1 |
9459901 | Jung et al. | Oct 2016 | B2 |
9467460 | Otvagin et al. | Oct 2016 | B1 |
9483644 | Paithane et al. | Nov 2016 | B1 |
9495180 | Ismael | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9497213 | Thompson et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9507935 | Ismael et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9516057 | Aziz | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9519782 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9536091 | Paithane et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9537972 | Edwards et al. | Jan 2017 | B1 |
9560059 | Islam | Jan 2017 | B1 |
9565202 | Kindlund et al. | Feb 2017 | B1 |
9591015 | Amin et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9591020 | Aziz | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9594904 | Jain et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9594905 | Ismael et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9594912 | Thioux et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9609007 | Rivlin et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9626509 | Khalid et al. | Apr 2017 | B1 |
9628498 | Aziz et al. | Apr 2017 | B1 |
9628507 | Haq et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9633134 | Ross | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9635039 | Islam et al. | Apr 2017 | B1 |
9641546 | Manni et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
9654485 | Neumann | May 2017 | B1 |
9661009 | Karandikar et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
9661018 | Aziz | May 2017 | B1 |
9674298 | Edwards et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9680862 | Ismael et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
9690606 | Ha et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9690933 | Singh et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9690935 | Shiffer et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
9690936 | Malik et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9736179 | Ismael | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9740857 | Ismael et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9747446 | Pidathala et al. | Aug 2017 | B1 |
9749343 | Watters et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9749344 | Watters et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9756074 | Aziz et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
9773112 | Rathor et al. | Sep 2017 | B1 |
9781144 | Otvagin et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9787700 | Amin et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9787706 | Otvagin et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9792196 | Ismael et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9824209 | Ismael et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
9824211 | Wilson | Nov 2017 | B2 |
9824216 | Khalid et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
9825976 | Gomez et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
9825989 | Mehra et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
9838408 | Karandikar et al. | Dec 2017 | B1 |
9838411 | Aziz | Dec 2017 | B1 |
9838416 | Aziz | Dec 2017 | B1 |
9838417 | Khalid et al. | Dec 2017 | B1 |
9846776 | Paithane et al. | Dec 2017 | B1 |
9876701 | Caldejon et al. | Jan 2018 | B1 |
9888016 | Amin et al. | Feb 2018 | B1 |
9888019 | Pidathala et al. | Feb 2018 | B1 |
9892261 | Joram et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
9904955 | Watters et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
9910988 | Vincent et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
9912644 | Cunningham | Mar 2018 | B2 |
9912681 | Ismael et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
9912684 | Aziz et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
9912691 | Mesdaq et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
9912698 | Thioux et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
9916440 | Paithane et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
9921978 | Chan et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
9934376 | Ismael | Apr 2018 | B1 |
9934381 | Kindlund et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
9946568 | Ismael et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
9954890 | Staniford et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
9973531 | Thioux | May 2018 | B1 |
10002252 | Ismael et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
10019338 | Goradia et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
10019573 | Silberman et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
10025691 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
10025927 | Khalid et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
10027689 | Rathor et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
10027690 | Aziz et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
10027696 | Rivlin et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
10033747 | Paithane et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
10033748 | Cunningham et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
10033753 | Islam et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
10033759 | Kabra et al. | Jul 2018 | B1 |
10050998 | Singh | Aug 2018 | B1 |
10063583 | Watters et al. | Aug 2018 | B2 |
10068091 | Aziz et al. | Sep 2018 | B1 |
10075455 | Zafar et al. | Sep 2018 | B2 |
10083302 | Paithane et al. | Sep 2018 | B1 |
10084813 | Eyada | Sep 2018 | B2 |
10089461 | Ha et al. | Oct 2018 | B1 |
10097573 | Aziz | Oct 2018 | B1 |
10104102 | Neumann | Oct 2018 | B1 |
10108446 | Steinberg et al. | Oct 2018 | B1 |
10121000 | Rivlin et al. | Nov 2018 | B1 |
10122746 | Manni et al. | Nov 2018 | B1 |
10133863 | Bu et al. | Nov 2018 | B2 |
10133866 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2018 | B1 |
10146810 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2018 | B2 |
10148693 | Singh et al. | Dec 2018 | B2 |
10165000 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2018 | B1 |
10169585 | Pilipenko et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
10176321 | Abbasi et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10181029 | Ismael et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
10191861 | Steinberg et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
10192052 | Singh et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
10198574 | Thioux et al. | Feb 2019 | B1 |
10200384 | Mushtaq et al. | Feb 2019 | B1 |
10210329 | Malik et al. | Feb 2019 | B1 |
10216927 | Steinberg | Feb 2019 | B1 |
10218740 | Mesdaq et al. | Feb 2019 | B1 |
10242185 | Goradia | Mar 2019 | B1 |
10282548 | Aziz et al. | May 2019 | B1 |
10284574 | Aziz et al. | May 2019 | B1 |
10284575 | Paithane et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
10296437 | Ismael et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
10335738 | Paithane et al. | Jul 2019 | B1 |
10341363 | Vincent et al. | Jul 2019 | B1 |
10341365 | Ha | Jul 2019 | B1 |
10366231 | Singh et al. | Jul 2019 | B1 |
10380343 | Jung et al. | Aug 2019 | B1 |
10395029 | Steinberg | Aug 2019 | B1 |
10404725 | Rivlin et al. | Sep 2019 | B1 |
10417031 | Paithane et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
10430586 | Paithane et al. | Oct 2019 | B1 |
10432649 | Bennett et al. | Oct 2019 | B1 |
10445502 | Desphande et al. | Oct 2019 | B1 |
10447728 | Steinberg | Oct 2019 | B1 |
10454950 | Aziz | Oct 2019 | B1 |
10454953 | Amin et al. | Oct 2019 | B1 |
10462173 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2019 | B1 |
10467411 | Pidathala et al. | Nov 2019 | B1 |
10467414 | Kindlund et al. | Nov 2019 | B1 |
10469512 | Ismael | Nov 2019 | B1 |
10474813 | Ismael | Nov 2019 | B1 |
10476906 | Siddiqui | Nov 2019 | B1 |
10476909 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2019 | B1 |
10491627 | Su | Nov 2019 | B1 |
10503904 | Singh et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10505956 | Pidathala et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10511614 | Aziz | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10515214 | Vincent et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10523609 | Subramanian | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10528726 | Ismael | Jan 2020 | B1 |
10534906 | Paithane et al. | Jan 2020 | B1 |
10552610 | Vashisht et al. | Feb 2020 | B1 |
10554507 | Siddiqui et al. | Feb 2020 | B1 |
10565378 | Vincent et al. | Feb 2020 | B1 |
10567405 | Aziz | Feb 2020 | B1 |
10572665 | Jung et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
10581874 | Khalid et al. | Mar 2020 | B1 |
10581879 | Paithane et al. | Mar 2020 | B1 |
10581898 | Singh | Mar 2020 | B1 |
10587636 | Aziz et al. | Mar 2020 | B1 |
10587647 | Khalid et al. | Mar 2020 | B1 |
10592678 | Ismael et al. | Mar 2020 | B1 |
10601848 | Jeyaraman et al. | Mar 2020 | B1 |
10601863 | Siddiqui | Mar 2020 | B1 |
10601865 | Mesdaq et al. | Mar 2020 | B1 |
10616266 | Otvagin | Apr 2020 | B1 |
10621338 | Pfoh et al. | Apr 2020 | B1 |
10623434 | Aziz et al. | Apr 2020 | B1 |
10637880 | Islam et al. | Apr 2020 | B1 |
10642753 | Steinberg | May 2020 | B1 |
10657251 | Malik et al. | May 2020 | B1 |
10666686 | Singh et al. | May 2020 | B1 |
10671721 | Otvagin et al. | Jun 2020 | B1 |
10671726 | Paithane et al. | Jun 2020 | B1 |
10701091 | Cunningham et al. | Jun 2020 | B1 |
10706149 | Vincent | Jul 2020 | B1 |
10713358 | Sikorski et al. | Jul 2020 | B2 |
10713362 | Vincent et al. | Jul 2020 | B1 |
10715542 | Wei et al. | Jul 2020 | B1 |
10726127 | Steinberg | Jul 2020 | B1 |
10728263 | Neumann | Jul 2020 | B1 |
10735458 | Haq et al. | Aug 2020 | B1 |
10740456 | Ismael et al. | Aug 2020 | B1 |
10747872 | Ha et al. | Aug 2020 | B1 |
10757120 | Aziz et al. | Aug 2020 | B1 |
10757134 | Eyada | Aug 2020 | B1 |
10785255 | Otvagin et al. | Sep 2020 | B1 |
10791138 | Siddiqui et al. | Sep 2020 | B1 |
10795991 | Ross et al. | Oct 2020 | B1 |
10798112 | Siddiqui et al. | Oct 2020 | B2 |
10798121 | Khalid et al. | Oct 2020 | B1 |
10805340 | Goradia | Oct 2020 | B1 |
10805346 | Kumar et al. | Oct 2020 | B2 |
10812513 | Manni et al. | Oct 2020 | B1 |
10817606 | Vincent | Oct 2020 | B1 |
10826931 | Quan et al. | Nov 2020 | B1 |
10826933 | Ismael et al. | Nov 2020 | B1 |
10834107 | Paithane et al. | Nov 2020 | B1 |
10846117 | Steinberg | Nov 2020 | B1 |
10848397 | Siddiqui et al. | Nov 2020 | B1 |
10848521 | Thioux et al. | Nov 2020 | B1 |
10855700 | Jeyaraman et al. | Dec 2020 | B1 |
10868818 | Rathor et al. | Dec 2020 | B1 |
10872151 | Kumar et al. | Dec 2020 | B1 |
10873597 | Mehra et al. | Dec 2020 | B1 |
10887328 | Paithane et al. | Jan 2021 | B1 |
10893059 | Aziz et al. | Jan 2021 | B1 |
10893068 | Khalid et al. | Jan 2021 | B1 |
10902117 | Singh et al. | Jan 2021 | B1 |
10902119 | Vashisht et al. | Jan 2021 | B1 |
10904286 | Liu | Jan 2021 | B1 |
10929266 | Goradia et al. | Feb 2021 | B1 |
11522884 | Vashisht et al. | Dec 2022 | B1 |
20020038430 | Edwards et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020091819 | Melchione et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020095607 | Lin-Hendel | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020169952 | DiSanto et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020184528 | Shevenell et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020188887 | Largman et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030084318 | Schertz | May 2003 | A1 |
20030188190 | Aaron et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030191957 | Hypponen et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040015712 | Szor | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040019832 | Arnold et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040117478 | Triulzi et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117624 | Brandt et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040236963 | Danford et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040255161 | Cavanaugh | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040268147 | Wiederin et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050021740 | Bar et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050086523 | Zimmer et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091513 | Mitomo et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050108562 | Khazan et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125195 | Brendel | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050149726 | Joshi et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050157662 | Bingham et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050238005 | Chen et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050262562 | Gassoway | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050283839 | Cowburn | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060010495 | Cohen et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015715 | Anderson | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015747 | Van de Ven | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021029 | Brickell et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060031476 | Mathes et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060070130 | Costea et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060117385 | Mester et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060123477 | Raghavan et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060150249 | Gassen et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161987 | Levy-Yurista | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060173992 | Weber et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060191010 | Benjamin | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060242709 | Seinfeld et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060251104 | Koga | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060288417 | Bookbinder et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070006288 | Mayfield et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070006313 | Porras et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070011174 | Takaragi et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016951 | Piccard et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070064689 | Shin et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070143827 | Nicodemus et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070157306 | Elrod et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070192858 | Lum | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208822 | Wang et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070240218 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070240220 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070240222 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070250930 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080005782 | Aziz | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080040710 | Chiriac | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080072326 | Danford et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080077793 | Tan et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080134334 | Kim et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080141376 | Clausen et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080184367 | McMillan et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080189787 | Arnold et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080307524 | Singh et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080320594 | Jiang | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090003317 | Kasralikar et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090064332 | Porras et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083855 | Apap et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090125976 | Wassermann et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090126015 | Monastyrsky et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090144823 | Lamastra et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090158430 | Borders | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090172815 | Gu et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090198651 | Shiffer et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090198670 | Shiffer et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090198689 | Frazier et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090199274 | Frazier et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090241190 | Todd et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090300589 | Watters et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100017546 | Poo et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100030996 | Butler, II | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100058474 | Hicks | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100077481 | Polyakov et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100115621 | Staniford et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100132038 | Zaitsev | May 2010 | A1 |
20100154056 | Smith et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100192223 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100281542 | Stolfo et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110078794 | Manni et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110093951 | Aziz | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110099633 | Aziz | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110099635 | Silberman et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110167493 | Song et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110173213 | Frazier et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110178942 | Watters et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110219450 | McDougal et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110225624 | Sawhney et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110247072 | Staniford et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110307954 | Melnik et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110307955 | Kaplan et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110307956 | Yermakov et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110314546 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120117652 | Manni et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120174186 | Aziz et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120174218 | McCoy et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120210423 | Friedrichs et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120222121 | Staniford et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120233698 | Watters et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120278886 | Luna | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120331553 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130036472 | Aziz | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130047257 | Aziz | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130097706 | Titonis et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130185795 | Winn et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130227691 | Aziz et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130232577 | Watters et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247186 | LeMasters | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130282426 | Watters et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130291109 | Staniford et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130298203 | Ansari | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130318038 | Shiffer et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130318073 | Shiffer et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130325791 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130325792 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130325871 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130325872 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140032875 | Butler | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140181131 | Ross | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140189687 | Jung et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140189866 | Shiffer et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140189882 | Jung et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140237600 | Silberman et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140280245 | Wilson | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140283037 | Sikorski et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140283063 | Thompson et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140297494 | Watters et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140337836 | Ismael | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140344926 | Cunningham et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140380473 | Bu et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140380474 | Paithane et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150007312 | Pidathala et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150096022 | Vincent et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150096023 | Mesdaq et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150096024 | Haq et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150096025 | Ismael | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150180886 | Staniford et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150186645 | Aziz et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150199513 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150199531 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150199532 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150220735 | Paithane et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150372980 | Eyada | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160004869 | Ismael et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160006756 | Ismael et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160044000 | Cunningham | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160127393 | Aziz et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160191547 | Zafar et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160191550 | Ismael et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160241580 | Watters et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160241581 | Watters et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160261612 | Mesdaq et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160285914 | Singh et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160301703 | Aziz | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160323295 | Joram et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160335110 | Paithane et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170083703 | Abbasi et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20180013770 | Ismael | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180048660 | Paithane et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180069891 | Watters et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180121316 | Ismael et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180288077 | Siddiqui et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20190065278 | Jeuk | Feb 2019 | A1 |
20190087301 | M | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190104154 | Kumar et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190132334 | Johns et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190190942 | Drummond | Jun 2019 | A1 |
20190207966 | Vashisht et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
20190207967 | Vashisht et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
20200252428 | Gardezi et al. | Aug 2020 | A1 |
20200358780 | Anbalagan | Nov 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2439806 | Jan 2008 | GB |
2490431 | Mar 2014 | GB |
0206928 | Jan 2002 | WO |
0223805 | Mar 2002 | WO |
2007117636 | Oct 2007 | WO |
2008041950 | Apr 2008 | WO |
2011084431 | Jul 2011 | WO |
2011112348 | Sep 2011 | WO |
2012075336 | Jun 2012 | WO |
2012145066 | Oct 2012 | WO |
2013067505 | May 2013 | WO |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 17/133,411, filed Dec. 23, 2020 Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 9, 2022. |
Venezia, Paul , “NetDetector Captures Intrusions”, InfoWorld Issue 27, (“Venezia”), (Jul. 14, 2003). |
Vladimir Getov: “Security as a Service in Smart Clouds—Opportunities and Concerns”, Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), 2012 IEEE 36th Annual, IEEE, Jul. 16, 2012 (Jul. 16, 2012). |
Wahid et al., Characterising the Evolution in Scanning Activity of Suspicious Hosts, Oct. 2009, Third International Conference on Network and System Security, pp. 344-350. |
Whyte, et al., “DNS-Based Detection of Scanning Works in an Enterprise Network”, Proceedings of the 12th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, (Feb. 2005), 15 pages. |
Williamson, Matthew M., “Throttling Viruses: Restricting Propagation to Defeat Malicious Mobile Code”, ACSAC Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, (Dec. 2002), pp. 1-9. |
Yuhei Kawakoya et al: “Memory behavior-based automatic malware unpacking in stealth debugging environment”, Malicious and Unwanted Software (Malware), 2010 5th International Conference on, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, Oct. 19, 2010, pp. 39-46, XP031833827, ISBN:978-1-4244-8-9353-1. |
Zhang et al., The Effects of Threading, Infection Time, and Multiple-Attacker Collaboration on Malware Propagation, Sep. 2009, IEEE 28th International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, pp. 73-82. |
“Mining Specification of Malicious Behavior”—Jha et al, UCSB, Sep. 2007 https://www.cs.ucsb.edu/about.chris/research/doc/esec07.sub .-- mining.pdf-. |
“Network Security: NetDetector-Network Intrusion Forensic System (NIFS) Whitepaper”, (“NetDetector Whitepaper”), (2003). |
“When Virtual is Better Than Real”, IEEEXplore Digital Library, available at, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.isp?reload=true&arnumbe- r=990073, (Dec. 7, 2013). |
Abdullah, et al., Visualizing Network Data for Intrusion Detection, 2005 IEEE Workshop on Information Assurance and Security, pp. 100-108. |
Adetoye, Adedayo , et al., “Network Intrusion Detection & Response System”, (“Adetoye”), (Sep. 2003). |
Apostolopoulos, George; hassapis, Constantinos; “V-eM: A cluster of Virtual Machines for Robust, Detailed, and High-Performance Network Emulation”, 14th IEEE International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, Sep. 11-14, 2006, pp. 117-126. |
Aura, Tuomas, “Scanning electronic documents for personally identifiable information”, Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on Privacy in electronic society. ACM, 2006. |
Baecher, “The Nepenthes Platform: An Efficient Approach to collect Malware”, Springer-verlag Berlin Heidelberg, (2006), pp. 165-184. |
Bayer, et al., “Dynamic Analysis of Malicious Code”, J Comput Virol, Springer-Verlag, France., (2006), pp. 67-77. |
Boubalos, Chris , “extracting syslog data out of raw pcap dumps, seclists.org, Honeypots mailing list archives”, available at http://seclists.org/honeypots/2003/q2/319 (“Boubalos”), (Jun. 5, 2003). |
Chaudet, C. , et al., “Optimal Positioning of Active and Passive Monitoring Devices”, International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Conference on Emerging Network Experiment and Technology, CoNEXT '05, Toulousse, France, (Oct. 2005), pp. 71-82. |
Chen, P. M. and Noble, B. D., “When Virtual is Better Than Real, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science”, University of Michigan (“Chen”) (2001). |
Cisco “Intrusion Prevention for the Cisco ASA 5500-x Series” Data Sheet (2012). |
Cohen, M.I. , “PyFlag—An advanced network forensic framework”, Digital investigation 5, Elsevier, (2008), pp. S112-S120. |
Costa, M. , et al., “Vigilante: End-to-End Containment of Internet Worms”, SOSP '05, Association for Computing Machinery, Inc., Brighton U.K., (Oct. 23-26, 2005). |
Didier Stevens, “Malicious PDF Documents Explained”, Security & Privacy, IEEE, IEEE Service Center, Los Alamitos, CA, US, vol. 9, No. 1, Jan. 1, 2011, pp. 80-82, XP011329453, ISSN: 1540-7993, DOI: 10.1109/MSP.2011.14. |
Distler, “Malware Analysis: An Introduction”, SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room, SANS Institute, (2007). |
Dunlap, George W. , et al., “ReVirt: Enabling Intrusion Analysis through Virtual-Machine Logging and Replay”, Proceeding of the 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, USENIX Association, (“Dunlap”), (Dec. 9, 2002). |
FireEye Malware Analysis & Exchange Network, Malware Protection System, FireEye Inc., 2010. |
FireEye Malware Analysis, Modern Malware Forensics, FireEye Inc., 2010. |
FireEye v.6.0 Security Target, pp. 1-35, Version 1.1, FireEye Inc., May 2011. |
Goel, et al., Reconstructing System State for Intrusion Analysis, Apr. 2008 SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 42 Issue 3, pp. 21-28. |
Gregg Keizer: “Microsoft's HoneyMonkeys Show Patching Windows Works”, Aug. 8, 2005, XP055143386, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:http://www.informationweek.com/microsofts-honeymonkeys-show-patching-windows-works/d/d-id/1035069? [retrieved on Jun. 1, 2016]. |
Heng Yin et al, Panorama: Capturing System-Wide Information Flow for Malware Detection and Analysis, Research Showcase @ CMU, Carnegie Mellon University, 2007. |
Hiroshi Shinotsuka, Malware Authors Using New Techniques to Evade Automated Threat Analysis Systems, Oct. 26, 2012, http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/, pp. 1-4. |
Idika et al., A-Survey-of-Malware-Detection-Techniques, Feb. 2, 2007, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University. |
Isohara, Takamasa, Keisuke Takemori, and Ayumu Kubota. “Kernel-based behavior analysis for android malware detection.” Computational intelligence and Security (CIS), 2011 Seventh International Conference on. IEEE, 2011. |
Kaeo, Merike , “Designing Network Security”, (“Kaeo”), (Nov. 2003). |
Kevin A Roundy et al: “Hybrid Analysis and Control of Malware”, Sep. 15, 2010, Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 317-338, XP019150454 ISBN:978-3-642-15511-6. |
Khaled Salah et al: “Using Cloud Computing to Implement a Security Overlay Network”, Security & Privacy, IEEE, IEEE Service Center, Los Alamitos, CA, US, vol. 11, No. 1, Jan. 1, 2013 (Jan. 1, 2013). |
Kim, H. , et al., “Autograph: Toward Automated, Distributed Worm Signature Detection”, Proceedings of the 13th Usenix Security Symposium (Security 2004), San Diego, (Aug. 2004), pp. 271-286. |
King, Samuel T., et al., “Operating System Support for Virtual Machines”, (“King”), (2003). |
Kreibich, C. , et al., “Honeycomb-Creating Intrusion Detection Signatures Using Honeypots”, 2nd Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-11), Boston, USA, (2003). |
Kristoff, J. , “Botnets, Detection and Mitigation: DNS-Based Techniques”, NU Security Day, (2005), 23 pages. |
Lastline Labs, The Threat of Evasive Malware, Feb. 25, 2013, Lastline Labs, pp. 1-8. |
Li et al., A VMM-Based System Call Interposition Framework for Program Monitoring, Dec. 2010, IEEE 16th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems, pp. 706-711. |
Lindorfer, Martina, Clemens Kolbitsch, and Paolo Milani Comparetti. “Detecting environment-sensitive malware.” Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. |
Marchette, David J., “Computer Intrusion Detection and Network Monitoring: A Statistical Viewpoint”, (“Marchette”), (2001). |
Moore, D. , et al., “Internet Quarantine: Requirements for Containing Self-Propagating Code”, INFOCOM, vol. 3, (Mar. 30-Apr. 3, 2003), pp. 1901-1910. |
Morales, Jose A., et al., ““Analyzing and exploiting network behaviors of malware.””, Security and Privacy in Communication Networks. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. 20-34. |
Mori, Detecting Unknown Computer Viruses, 2004, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. |
Natvig, Kurt , “SANDBOXII: Internet”, Virus Bulletin Conference, (“Natvig”), (Sep. 2002). |
NetBIOS Working Group. Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP transport: Concepts and Methods. STD 19, RFC 1001, Mar. 1987. |
Newsome, J. , et al., “Dynamic Taint Analysis for Automatic Detection, Analysis, and Signature Generation of Exploits on Commodity Software”, In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Network and Distributed System Security, Symposium (NDSS '05), (Feb. 2005). |
Nojiri, D. , et al., “Cooperation Response Strategies for Large Scale Attack Mitigation”, DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, vol. 1, (Apr. 22-24, 2003), pp. 293-302. |
Oberheide et al., CloudAV.sub.--N-Version Antivirus in the Network Cloud, 17th USENIX Security Symposium USENIX Security '08 Jul. 28-Aug. 1, 2008 San Jose, CA. |
Reiner Sailer, Enriquillo Valdez, Trent Jaeger, Roonald Perez, Leendert van Doorn, John Linwood Griffin, Stefan Berger., sHype: Secure Hypervisor Appraoch to Trusted Virtualized Systems (Feb. 2, 2005) (“Sailer”). |
Silicon Defense, “Worm Containment in the Internal Network”, (Mar. 2003), pp. 1-25. |
Singh, S. , et al., “Automated Worm Fingerprinting”, Proceedings of the ACM/USENIX Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation, San Francisco, California, (Dec. 2004). |
Thomas H. Ptacek, and Timothy N. Newsham , “Insertion, Evasion, and Denial of Service: Eluding Network Intrusion Detection”, Secure Networks, (“Ptacek”), (Jan. 1998). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62953424 | Dec 2019 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 17133411 | Dec 2020 | US |
Child | 18075140 | US |