Not Applicable
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is related to assessing risk profiles of Internet resources. More specifically, the present invention is related to a system and method for developing a risk profile for an Internet resource by generating a reputation index, based on attributes of the resource collectively referred to as the reputation vector of the resource.
2. Description of the Related Art
Management of internet access, particularly to Web sites, has been accomplished in the past using “Content Filtering”, where Web sites are organized into categories and requests for Web content are matched against per-category policies and either allowed or blocked. This type of management focuses on the subject matter of a Web site, and provides visibility into, for example, how employees spend their time, and their company's network bandwidth usage, during the course of the day. These solutions also allow companies to enforce established internet usage policy (IUP) by blocking Web sites whose subject matter violates their IUP.
Security solutions, such as anti-virus products, examine file or Web page content to discover known patterns or signatures that represent security threats to users, computers, or corporate networks. These focus not on the subject matter of a site, but look for viruses and other ‘malware’ that are currently infecting the site. However, current solutions to management of Internet resources fail to measure the security risk associated with accessing an Internet resource in a more predictive way, before infections are isolated and signatures are identified and distributed.
A possible analogy to the reputation of an Internet resource is the credit score of an individual. A Web user would want to be informed of the reputation of a Web site before visiting it, just as a lender would want to know the reputation, the financial reputation at least, of a borrower of the lender's money.
A credit score is based on a variety of fairly tightly related factors, such as existing debt, available credit lines, on-time payments, existing credit balances, etc.
In the United States, a credit score is a number based on a statistical analysis of a person's credit files that represents the creditworthiness of that person, which is the likelihood that the person will pay their bills. A credit score is primarily based on credit information, typically from one of the three major credit agencies.
There are different methods of calculating credit scores. The best known one, FICO, is a credit score developed by the Fair Isaac Corporation. FICO is used by many mortgage lenders that use a risk-based system to determine the possibility that the borrower may default on financial obligations to the mortgage lender.
FICO® scores are provided to lenders by the three major credit reporting agencies: Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. When lenders order your credit report, they can also buy a FICO® score that is based on the information in the report. That FICO® score is calculated by a mathematical equation that evaluates many types of information from the borrower's credit report at that agency. In order for a FICO® score to be calculated on the borrower's credit report, the report must contain sufficient information—and sufficient recent information—on which to base a score. Generally, that means the borrower must have at least one account that has been open for six months or longer, and at least one account that has been reported to the credit reporting agency within the last six months.
FICO scores provide a reliable guide to future risk based solely on credit report data. FICO® scores have a 300-850® score range. The higher the score, the lower the risk. But no score says whether a specific individual rill be a “good” or “bad” customer. And while many lenders use FICO® scores to help them make lending decisions, each lender has its own strategy to determine if a potential borrower is a good customer. Although FICO won't reveal exactly how it determines a credit score, it considers the following factors: payment history (35%); outstanding debt (30%); length of credit history (15%); types of credit (10%); and new credit (10%).
Returning to Internet resources, attackers have been using the Internet to attack the computers and other devices of users of the Internet. Attackers continue to take advantage of flaws in traditional security measures and bypass reputation-based systems to increase attack effectiveness.
In 2008, massive attacks were conducted that compromised hundreds of thousands of legitimate Web sites with good reputations worldwide with data-stealing malicious code. The attacks included sites from MSNBC, ZDNet, Wired, the United Nations, a large UK government site, and more. In the attacks, when a user's browser opened one of the thousands of compromised sites, a carefully crafted iframe HTML tag redirected users to a malicious site rife with exploits. As a result, malicious code, designed to steal confidential information, was launched on vulnerable machines. In addition to Web exploits, email spammers are also taking advantage of the reputation of popular email services like Yahoo! and Gmail to bypass anti-spam systems.
Also, spammers use sophisticated tools and bots to break the “CAPTCHA-” systems that were developed to keep email and other services safe from spammers and other malicious activity. MICROSOFT Live Mail, GOOGLE's popular Gmail service and Yahoo! mail services were all compromised by this breakthrough method. Subsequently, spammers have been able to sign up for the free email accounts on a mass basis and send out spam from email accounts with good reputations. With a free signup process, access to a wide portfolio of services and domains that are unlikely to be blacklisted given their reputation, spammers have been able to launch attacks on millions of users worldwide while maintaining anonymity.
Thus, prior art solutions have focused on security when accessing known infected sites in the Internet from a network such as a local area network or a wide area network.
Hegli et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,483,982 for Filtering Techniques For Managing Access To Internet Sites Or Other Software Applications discloses a system and method for controlling an end user's access to the Internet by blocking certain categorized sites or limiting access based on bandwidth usage.
Hegli et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,606,659 for a System And Method For Controlling Access To Internet Sites discloses a system and method for controlling an end user's access to the Internet by blocking certain categorized sites or limiting the number of times the end user can access an Internet site.
Yavatkar et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,973,488 for Providing Policy Information To A Remote Device discloses a method for distributing high level policy information to remote network devices using a low-level configuration.
Turley et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0204050 for a Method And System For Controlling Network Access discloses a system and method for controlling access to a specific site by using a gateway that assigns incoming traffic to specific sections of the site.
Shull et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,493,403 for Domain Name Validation discloses accessing domain name registries to determine the ownership of a domain and monitoring the domain and registry.
Roy et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,406,466 for a Reputation Based Search discloses using a search engine to present search results associated with measures of reputation to overcome the problem of META tags skewing the search results.
Hailpern et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,383,299 for a System And Method For Providing Service For Searching Web Site Addresses discloses
Moore et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,467,206, for a Reputation System For Web Services discloses a system and method for selecting a Web service from a search engine list which is ranked based on reputation information for each Web service.
Definitions for various terms are set forth below.
FTP or File Transfer Protocol is a protocol for moving files over the Internet from one computer to another.
HyperText Markup Language (HTML) is a method of mixing text and other content with layout and appearance commands in a text file, so that a browser can generate a displayed image from the file.
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a set of conventions for controlling the transfer of information via the Internet from a Web server computer to a client computer, and also from a client computer to a Web server. Internet is the worldwide, decentralized totality of server computers and data-transmission paths which can supply information to a connected and browser-equipped client computer, and can receive and forward information entered from the client computer.
JavaScript is an object-based programming language. JavaScript is an interpreted language, not a compiled language. JavaScript is generally designed for writing software routines that operate within a client computer on the Internet. Generally, the software routines are downloaded to the client computer at the beginning of the interactive session, if they are not already cached on the client computer. JavaScript is discussed in greater detail below.
Parser is a component of a compiler that analyzes a sequence of tokens to determine its grammatical structure with respect to a given formal grammar. Parsing transforms input text into a data structure, usually a tree, which is suitable for later processing and which captures the implied hierarchy of the input. XML Parsers ensure that an XML document follows the rules of XML markup syntax correctly.
URL or Uniform Resource Locator is a address on the World Wide Web.
Web-Browser is a complex software program, resident in a client computer, that is capable of loading and displaying text and images and exhibiting behaviors as encoded in HTML (HyperText Markup Language) from the Internet, and also from the client computer's memory. Major browsers include MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER, NETSCAPE, APPLE SAFARI, MOZILLA FIREFOX, and OPERA.
Web-Server is a computer able to simultaneously manage many Internet information-exchange processes at the same time. Normally, server computers are more powerful than client computers, and are administratively and/or geographically centralized. An interactive-form information-collection process generally is controlled from a server computer, to which the sponsor of the process has access. Servers usually contain one or more processors (CPUs), memories, storage devices and network interface cards. Servers typically store the HTML documents and/or execute code that generates Web-pages that are sent to clients upon request. An interactive-form information-collection process generally is controlled from a server computer, to which the sponsor of the process has access.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an unofficial standards body which creates and oversees the development of web technologies and the application of those technologies.
XHTML (Extensible Hypertext Markup Language) is a language for describing the content of hypertext documents intended to be viewed or read in a browser.
XML (Extensible Markup Language) is a W3C standard for text document markup, and it is not a language but a set of rules for creating other markup languages.
The prior art fails to provide solutions to the problems with accessing the Internet.
The present invention provides a predictive approach based on a statistical model built on a broad sampling of Internet resources with varying degrees of risk. The present invention focuses on the reputation of a Web site, or any Internet-based service or resource. The reputation incorporates many factors that are relevant to the overall safety of visiting a site. The reputation assesses the over-time track record of the site and the provider that operates the web site, the current characteristics of the pages and related files composing the site, and reputations of sites linked to the site and of referrers to the site. The overall assessment is expressed as a score, not unlike a FICO score, that predicts the potential risk of visiting the site which can be used to protect users from inadvertently visiting or utilizing higher-risk sites or services within the Internet.
There are many components of reputation available within the Internet. Much like other scoring mechanisms, such as credit scoring, the factors to be considered must be decided upon, and the weight that each factor will have in the overall “score” must be determined.
The present invention provides a system and method for defining a reputation of an Internet service such as a Web site.
A basic element of reputation is how long a domain has been registered to a particular company/entity. In addition, a domain which frequently changes hands is also interesting in a negative way relative to reputation.
Preferred steps of the invention are: evaluation of the important features to be included in the collection of reputation-relevant features referred to as the reputation vector; collection of the reputation vectors for a large sample of Internet resource; training of a classifier based on training sets of known high and low reputation services/sites; testing of a model against a wide variety of random samples; run-time evaluation of requests for the Internet resource using the developed classifier and responding to reputation index information requests from clients which enforce network security policy.
The present invention preferably protects users against threats which are typically are not related to the subject matter of the service, or site. The present invention preferably protects users and networks from zero-day threats which have not been characterized or included in anti-virus signature files. The present invention preferably allows network managers to protect users and infrastructure without having to restrict access to particular categories of content. The present invention preferably allows higher security which is independent of cultural or moral biases related to many categories of content.
One aspect of the present invention is a method for controlling access to a Web site. The method includes transmitting a request for a Web site from a browser on a client-side device of a local area network. The Web site resides at a first server. The method also includes receiving the request for the Web site at a security appliance of the local area network prior to transmission of the request over the Internet. The method also includes analyzing a reputation vector for the Web site at the security appliance. The reputation vector includes a plurality of factors for the Web site comprising at least one or more of country of domain registration, country of service hosting, country of an internet protocol address block, age of a domain registration, popularity rank, internet protocol address, number of hosts, top-level domain, a plurality of run-time behaviors, JavaScript block count, picture count, immediate redirect and response latency. The method also includes generating a reputation index for the Web site based on the analysis of the plurality of factors. The method also includes determining if the reputation index for the Web site is above a threshold value established for the local area network. The method also includes transmitting a decision transmission to the browser of the client-side device.
If the reputation index for the Web site is above the threshold value, the method further includes transmitting the request for the Web-site over the Internet to a server for the Web site and receiving a Web page for the Web site at the local area network. In this situation, the decision transmission is the Web page for the Web site. If the reputation index for the Web site is at or below the threshold value, the decision transmission is a Web page from the local area network
The method can further include obtaining the plurality of factors for the Web site. Obtaining the plurality of factors for the Web site comprises accessing the Web site, analyzing a plurality of HTML documents for the Web site by crawling the Web site. Accessing the Web site comprises rendering a page for the Web site. Analyzing the plurality of HTML documents comprises determining the JavaScript block count and the picture count of each of the HTML documents.
Another aspect of the present invention is a system for controlling access to a Web site. The system includes a network, a Web site and a local area network. The network is the Internet. The Web site is hosted at a first server and accessible over the Internet. The local area network includes a plurality of client-side devices and a security appliance. Each of the client side devices has a browser. The security appliance controls access to the Internet by each of the plurality of client-side devices. The security appliance has a service engine for analyzing a reputation vector for the Web site and generating a reputation index for the Web site from the reputation vector. The reputation vector is based on a plurality of factors for the Web site. The plurality of factors comprises at least one or more of country of domain registration, country of service hosting, country of an internet protocol address block, age of a domain registration, popularity rank, internet protocol address, number of hosts, top-level domain, a plurality of run-time behaviors, JavaScript block count, picture count, immediate redirect and response latency. Access to the Web site by any of the plurality of client-side devices is determined on the reputation index exceeding a threshold value established for the local area network.
Another aspect of the present invention is a method for controlling access to an Internet resource utilizing a reputation generating site. The method includes transmitting a request for an Internet resource from a browser for a client-side device of a local area network. The Internet resource resides at a first server. The method also includes receiving the request for the Internet resource at reputation generating site prior to transmission of the request over the Internet to the first server. The method also includes analyzing a reputation vector for the Internet resource at the reputation generating site. The reputation vector includes a plurality of dimensions for the Internet resource comprising at least two of country of domain registration, country of service hosting, country of an internet protocol address block, age of a domain registration, popularity rank, internet protocol address, number of hosts, to-level domain, a plurality of run-time behaviors, JavaScript block count, picture count, immediate redirect and response latency. The method also includes generating a reputation index for the Internet resource based on the analysis of the plurality of factors. The method also includes determining if the reputation index for the Internet resource is above a threshold value established for the local area network. The method also includes transmitting a decision transmission to the browser of the client-side device.
Another aspect of the present invention is a method for controlling access to an Internet resource. The method includes transmitting a request for an Internet resource from an Internet-enabled client application from a client-side device of a local area network. The Internet resource resides at a first server. The method also includes receiving the request for the Internet resource at a security appliance of the local area network prior to transmission of the request over the Internet. The method also includes determining if a reputation index for the Internet resource is at or above a threshold value established for the local area network. The reputation index is generated from a reputation vector for the Internet resource. The reputation vector comprises a plurality of factors for the Internet resource comprising security history, legitimacy, behavior, associations and location. The reputation index preferably resides in a database file at the security appliance, which is immediately accessible by the security appliance for determining whether or not to allow access to the Internet resource. Alternatively, the reputation index is generated in real-time at a data collection site accessible by the security appliance over the Internet, and the reputation index is forwarded to the security appliance from the data collection site upon request. The method also includes transmitting a decision transmission to the Internet-enabled client application of the client-side device. The decision transmission allows or denies access to the Internet resource.
Yet another aspect of the present invention is a method for controlling access to an Internet resource. The method includes transmitting a request for an Internet resource from a Web browser for a client-side device of a local area network. The Internet resource resides at a first server. The method also includes receiving the request for the Internet resource at a security appliance of the local area network prior to transmission of the request over the Internet. The method also includes constructing a reputation vector for the Internet resource at the security appliance. The reputation vector comprises a plurality of factors for the Internet resource comprising security history, legitimacy, behavior, associations and location. The method also includes analyzing the reputation vector to generate a reputation index for the Internet resource based on the analysis of the plurality of factors and the reputation classifier. The method also includes determining if the reputation index for the Internet resource is at or above a threshold value established for the local area network. The method also includes transmitting a decision transmission to the Web browser of the client-side device. The decision transmission allows or denies access to the Internet resource.
Yet another aspect of the present invention is a method for building a reputation database for Internet resources. The method includes collecting a plurality of factors for an Internet resource site to populate a reputation vector for the Internet resource to perform reputation analysis of the Internet resource. The method also includes receiving the plurality of factors for the Internet resource at a data collection site. The method also includes constructing a reputation vector for the Internet resource at the data collection site. The reputation vector comprises a plurality of factors for the Internet resource comprising security history, legitimacy, behavior, associations and location. The method also includes analyzing the reputation vector to generate a reputation index for the Internet resource based on the analysis of the plurality of factors and the reputation classifier. The method also includes storing the reputation index for the Internet resource at the data collection site. The method also includes transmitting the stored reputation index to a local area network upon request for managing access to the Internet resource.
The method further includes weighting each of the plurality of factors based on empirical knowledge of each of the plurality of factors. The method further includes obtaining the plurality of factors for the Internet resource using a crawler. Obtaining the plurality of factors for the Internet resource preferably comprises accessing the Internet service, analyzing a plurality of HTML documents for the Internet resource, and crawling a plurality of linked Internet resources of the plurality of HTML documents for Internet resource. Analyzing the plurality of HTML documents preferably comprises determining the JavaScript block count and the picture count of each of the HTML documents, browser hijacking, file downloads and a subject matter.
Yet another aspect of the present invention is a method for controlling access to an Internet resource. The method includes collecting a first plurality of Internet resource reputation vectors. The method also includes partitioning the first plurality of Internet resource reputation vectors into a plurality of training sets. The method also includes training a maximum entropy discrimination classifier with the plurality of training sets, the maximum entropy discrimination classifier trained for a specific local area network. The method also includes testing the trained maximum entropy discrimination classifier using a second plurality of Internet resource reputation vectors. Each of the second plurality of Internet resource reputation vectors is unknown to the trained maximum entropy discrimination classifier. The method also includes evaluating the tested maximum entropy discrimination classifier. The method also includes providing feedback to the evaluated maximum entropy discrimination classifier. The method also includes utilizing the reputation index at a local area network for managing access to an Internet resource.
Preferably, each of the first plurality of Internet resource reputation vectors comprises a plurality of dimensions for the Internet resource comprising security history, legitimacy, behavior, associations and location, and the method further comprises weighting each of the plurality of dimensions.
Yet another aspect of the present invention is a method for training a MED classifier for controlling access to an Internet resource. The method includes collecting a plurality of reputation vectors for Internet resources. The method also includes partitioning the plurality of reputation vectors into training sets. The method also includes training a MED classifier with the training sets. The method also includes testing the trained MED classifier against unknown Internet resources. The method also includes evaluating the trained MED classifier. The method also includes determining if the trained MED classifier has been adequately trained.
Having briefly described the present invention, the above and further objects, features and advantages thereof will be recognized by those skilled in the pertinent art from the following detailed description of the invention when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
Reputation is a qualitative assessment of the safety of a website, expressed as a quantitative value that can be used in managing internet usage. Internet resources, such as Web sites, are safe, or of high reputation, if the Internet resource preferably has: a reputable ownership and registration; a consistent history; had consistent content during that history; associated with other high reputation sites; from a geographically safe region; the Internet service provider (“ISP”) is well-known and reputable; not been known to be a source of malware infection; and worked cooperatively with the end-user and the end-user's Web browser application.
While security threats are transitory since they come up suddenly and are mitigated as quickly as possible, reputation is built up over a period of time and is a more enduring quality. Reputation can be lost, or become ‘bad’, over a period of time with repeated security events, bad associations, and bad behavior. For that reason, the occurrence of a single security breach (the site gets hacked and is a danger to visitors) does not dramatically lower the reputation of a site. Repeated occurrences over time, however, will destroy the reputation of the site.
Competitive reputation products include social considerations in their definitions, such that a highly reputable site, a site “held in high regard”, preferably has these characteristics: established record of Web presence; not a source of network security risk; no introduction of malware; no popup ads; no persistent ad infection; is not pornographic or obscene; and has no illegal content.
The reputation of an Internet resource is preferably determined by security, legitimacy, behavior, geographic location, associations and additional factors. Legitimacy is determined by the top-level domain, the investment in the Internet resource (virtual hosting with non-affiliated sites, multiple hosting and SSL security), the traffic volume, the category age and the popularity rank. Legitimacy is also preferably determined by any or all of the following: the consistency between the registering and hosting city region or country; and city, region or country associated with the IP address. Behaviors include the use of popup ads, browser hijacking and the use of auto-redirecting. Associations include the number of sites linking into the site, the reputations of the linked in sites and the reputations of the linked-to sites. The geographic location includes the hosting country, the registration country, the region and the city. The geographic location also preferably includes the consistency between the registering and hosting country and the country associated with the IP address.
In a most preferred embodiment discussed below, machine learning technologies are utilized for controlling access to an Internet resource. A variation on support vector machine techniques called Maximum Entropy Discrimination (“MED”) is a preferred machine learning technology. MED allows a computer to be trained to recognize the relative reputation of an Internet resource based on the features of the Internet resource. The set of features which characterize the reputation of the Internet resource is its reputation vector. Once trained, the computer uses the reputation vector for a requested Internet service to evaluate its reputation index, a score which can be used with empirically developed threshold values to block access where the reputation index is deemed to be too low to be safe.
A predictive security assessment for an Internet resource is provided based on known facts about the Internet resource, which is more secure than relying only on knowledge of previously experienced security attacks.
The system preferably provides classification of each Internet resource at run-time given a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) and the reputation vector of the Internet resource. The system returns a score, or index, expressing the results on a relative scale for use by requesting clients, typically a security product which integrates the reputation assessment as a service.
The reputation vector preferably comprises a combination of some or all of the following: country of domain registration; country of service hosting; country of IP Address block; age of domain registration; time known to the assessor site; subject matter; classification age (time since last re-categorization); rank (popularity); IP Address; virtual hosting; number of hosts; top-level domain (.com, .biz, .ru, etc); security history; run-time behaviors; popup ads; downloadable executables; virus-infected executables; JavaScript block count; picture count; immediate redirect; and response latency. These features are collected and evaluated for all model training samples and at run-time on a per-user-request basis. Those skilled in the pertinent art will recognize that other factors may be utilized which are relevant to the security as determined by an assessor.
As shown in
A method 1000 for controlling access to a Web site is shown in
An alternative embodiment of the system 20 is illustrated in
A flow chart for a method 2000 for generating a reputation index is shown in
A flow chart for a method 3000 for controlling access to an Internet resource is shown in
Table One provides a list of the attributes for the reputation vector and a description of each of the attributes.
Table Two is an example of a “good” Internet resource.
Table Three is an example of a “bad” Internet resource.
Depending on the threshold value established by the administrator of the LAN, the Internet resource of www.c.reditcan.cn with an reputation index value of 51, is not available for access by a user based on its reputation index, and the Internet resource of www.USmoney.GOV is available for access by a user based on its reputation index 95. Thus, even if the Internet resource of www.c.reditcan.cn is not a known source of malware or viruses, the present invention would prevent an end user client from accessing the Internet resource since its reputation index is deemed unsafe.
Another embodiment uses a MED algorithm to build a statistical model on a Web page based on good and bad Internet samples. This embodiment uses a unique optimization algorithm for training, as well as two other optimization steps for calibrating the outputs to be probabilities, in a process that tolerates some input errors while still yielding reliable outputs. Training process feedback loops guide the implementer to improve the model data through splitting data into sets for holdout, training, and testing guided by two criteria: most violating examples, and least understood examples. The implementer using the criteria iteratively improves the quality of the training set which also reduces classifier errors and is exponentially faster than having the implementer manually verify or check the example assignments to categories in random or haphazard order. The examples are randomly reassigned before every training iteration to improve generalization. Sparse matrix math during the classification process improves processing speeds to enable a modest computer to classify millions of URLs per day. The implementation allows for a multiple of dimensions, each representing a fact about the Internet resource, to be included in the reputation model, while classification speed of any particular Internet resource is independent of the number of total dimensions in its reputation vector.
This embodiment is preferred since classifying a large percentage of existing Web sites into reputation risk assessments quickly and efficiently requires an automated process because the number of humans required is too large to be practical or economical. Further, defining automated classification rules by hand is very hard and requires writing many thousands of extremely specific as well as vague rules. All of these rules will interact with each other in an exponential number of ways, making human-based rule construction a daunting effort as well. The machine learning approach of this embodiment solves the problem by having humans define “training sets” or examples of each topic for the classifier, which then “trains” by optimizing the weights each factor should have in order to reduce classification error the most.
In addition to providing a good implementation of the learning algorithm, this embodiment efficiently utilizes the human efforts in identifying examples of good and bad reputations.
This embodiment preferably applies an effective learning formulation based on the principles and theory of MED with an efficient optimization algorithm based on the principles of Platt's sequential minimization optimization (“SMO”), in conjunction with an overall optimization of tunable parameters and calibrated confidence scores, to solve the learning problem given proper examples of Web sites of good and bad reputation.
The process then involves having humans examine a list of “most violating” examples, the examples which were marked as being good reputations but received extremely low confidence scores from the classifier (and vice-versa), as well as “least understood” examples, the examples which receive a confidence score close to the prior probability of the reputation.
By spending human time examining these two classes of examples, the classifier benefits from having egregiously misclassified examples being put into the proper reputation (good or bad) as well as providing the classifier with the largest amount of new information as quickly as possible. This combination improves the classifier's real-world effectiveness very quickly with minimal human effort. Thus, this embodiment efficiently combines human and automated work to solve the problem of automated reputation classification of Internet resources.
In one method, an evaluation of multiple factors (such as discussed above) is included in determining a reputation vector for an Internet resource. This process is done for multiple Internet resources. Next, reputation vectors for a large sample of Internet resources are collected at a data collection site. Next, a MED classifier is trained using the collection of reputation vectors based on training sets of known high reputation Internet resources and low reputation Internet resources. Next, a MED-based model for classification is tested against a wide variety of random samples of Internet resources. Next, a security appliance is deployed at a LAN. Next, a run-time evaluation of Internet resource requests is performed in using the developed MED classifier for responding to reputation index information requests from clients based on a LAN security policy. The MED-based model for classification is preferably utilized at run-time to calculate a reputation index. In this manner, this embodiment provides a predictive security assessment based on known facts about an Internet resource, which is more secure than relying only on knowledge of previously experienced security attacks. This embodiment provides a LAN real-time updates, real-time classification of non-cached URLs and a real-time feedback loop.
A flow chart of a method 4000 for utilizing a MED classifier for controlling access to an Internet resource is shown in
In another embodiment, a reputation index is returned immediately from a stored set of reputation indexes calculated prior to the user's request. As shown in
Table Four provides an example of some dimensions and the sorted model weights of the MED classifier.
From the foregoing it is believed that those skilled in the pertinent art will recognize the meritorious advancement of this invention and will readily understand that while the present invention has been described in association with a preferred embodiment thereof, and other embodiments illustrated in the accompanying drawings, numerous changes modification and substitutions of equivalents may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of this invention which is intended to be unlimited by the foregoing except as may appear in the following appended claim. Therefore, the embodiments of the invention in which an exclusive property or privilege is claimed are defined in the following appended claims.
The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/709,504, filed on Feb. 21, 2010, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,438,386, which claims the benefits of and priority, under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/241389, filed on Sep. 10, 2009 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/171,264, filed on Apr. 21, 2009, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties for all that they teach and for all purposes.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5278901 | Shieh et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5442669 | Medin | Aug 1995 | A |
5485575 | Chess et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5537540 | Miller et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5621889 | Lermuzeaux et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5623600 | Ji et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5684875 | Ellenberger | Nov 1997 | A |
5696822 | Nachenberg | Dec 1997 | A |
5715455 | Macon et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5765030 | Nachenberg et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5796825 | McDonnal et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5802275 | Blonder | Sep 1998 | A |
5809138 | Netiv | Sep 1998 | A |
5826013 | Nachenberg | Oct 1998 | A |
5920696 | Brandt et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5930467 | Morita | Jul 1999 | A |
5930828 | Jensen et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5951698 | Chen et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5974549 | Golan | Oct 1999 | A |
5987611 | Freund | Nov 1999 | A |
5996011 | Humes | Nov 1999 | A |
6006328 | Drake | Dec 1999 | A |
6009520 | Gharda | Dec 1999 | A |
6047319 | Olson | Apr 2000 | A |
6069628 | Farry et al. | May 2000 | A |
6070174 | Starek et al. | May 2000 | A |
6073241 | Rosenberg et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6092194 | Touboul | Jul 2000 | A |
6118705 | Gupta et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6141698 | Krishnan et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6154844 | Touboul | Nov 2000 | A |
6167520 | Touboul | Dec 2000 | A |
6173291 | Jenevein | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6192512 | Chess | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6208999 | Spilo et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6240530 | Togawa | May 2001 | B1 |
6253258 | Cohen | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6272641 | Ji | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6310630 | Kulkarni et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6347375 | Reinert | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6357008 | Nachenberg | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6374363 | Wu et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6397264 | Stasnick et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6397311 | Capps | May 2002 | B1 |
6401210 | Templeton | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6405316 | Krishnan et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6412071 | Hollander | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6430561 | Austel et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6457174 | Kuroda et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6460060 | Maddalozzo, Jr. et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6473406 | Coile et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6480962 | Touboul | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487601 | Hubacher et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6496913 | Taugher | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6535229 | Kraft | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6535931 | Celi, Jr. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6606659 | Hegli et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6611878 | De Armas et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6633835 | Moran et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6667751 | Wynn et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6681972 | Tapocik | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6701441 | Balasubramaniam et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6721721 | Bates et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6735703 | Kilpatrick et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6772345 | Shetty | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775780 | Muttik | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785732 | Bates et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6792543 | Pak et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6804780 | Touboul | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6813711 | Dimenstein | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6829654 | Jungck | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6842748 | Warner et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6851057 | Nachenberg | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6910134 | Maher, III et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6931540 | Edwards et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6959441 | Moore et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6965968 | Touboul | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6971019 | Nachenberg | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6973488 | Yavatkar et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6973577 | Kouznetsov et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6973578 | McIchionc | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6996706 | Madden et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
6996845 | Hurst et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7043634 | Wolff et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7055008 | Niles et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058822 | Edery et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7058976 | Dark | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7065790 | Gryaznov | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7093239 | van der Made | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7103913 | Arnold et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7107617 | Hursey et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7114185 | Moore et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7146429 | Michel | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7150045 | Koelle et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7155742 | Szor | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7171690 | Kouznetsov | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7177937 | Bates et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7178166 | Taylor et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7210168 | Hursey et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7216367 | Szor | May 2007 | B2 |
7246209 | Tran et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7257595 | Verma et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7266843 | Tarbotton et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7275215 | Werndorfer et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7284020 | Shitomi et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7284273 | Szor | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7287279 | Bertman et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7302584 | Tarbotton et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7346611 | Burtscher | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7380136 | Zimmer et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7380277 | Szor | May 2008 | B2 |
7383299 | Hailpern et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7383581 | Moore et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7406466 | Roy et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7423995 | Elliott et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7461104 | Nichols et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7467206 | Moore et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7480683 | Thomas | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7483982 | Hegli et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7484245 | Friedman et al. | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7484247 | Rozman et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7490352 | Kramer et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7493403 | Shull et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7530106 | Zaitsev et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
7533131 | Thomas | May 2009 | B2 |
7565695 | Burtscher | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7590707 | McCloy, III et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7591016 | Horne | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7603440 | Grabowski et al. | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7617534 | Szor et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7721333 | Horne | May 2010 | B2 |
7738373 | Lerner | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7769992 | Wang | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7849185 | Rockwood | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7996898 | Mood et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
7996903 | Sprowls | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8001582 | Hulten et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8065514 | Wang | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8079032 | Nichols | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8140839 | Wang | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8181244 | Boney | May 2012 | B2 |
8190868 | Schneider | May 2012 | B2 |
8201243 | Boney | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8312479 | Boillot | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8321910 | English et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
8381296 | Sprowls | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8387147 | Sprowls | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8438386 | Hegli et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8452744 | Nichols et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8635438 | Wang | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8667586 | Boney | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8856505 | Schneider | Oct 2014 | B2 |
20010029511 | Burda | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010042213 | Jemes | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010044901 | Grawrock | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010047451 | Noble | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020052928 | Stern et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078381 | Farley et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083343 | Crosbie et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020120871 | Watkins et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020129277 | Caccavale | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143984 | Hudson | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020162015 | Tang | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020162017 | Sorkin | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020166059 | Rickey et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020166063 | Lachman et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030005183 | Burr et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023865 | Cowie et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030046558 | Teblyashkin et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030051057 | Garnett et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030065926 | Schultz et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030065943 | Geis et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074573 | Hursey et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074581 | Hursey et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030079145 | Kouznetsov et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030084323 | Gales | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097409 | Tsai | May 2003 | A1 |
20030101381 | Mateev et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030105973 | Liang | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030110391 | Wolff et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115479 | Edwards et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120947 | Moore et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120951 | Gartside et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120952 | Tarbotton et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030135791 | Natvig | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030154399 | Zuk et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030159070 | Mayer et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030196103 | Edwards et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030212902 | Made | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030212906 | Arnold et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217286 | Carmona et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217287 | Kruglenko | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030229801 | Kouznetsov et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233566 | Kouznetsov et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233574 | Kouznetsov et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040003276 | Kouznetsov et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040003290 | Malcolm | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010703 | Kouznetsov et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015712 | Szor | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015726 | Szor | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024864 | Porras et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040025042 | Kouznetsov et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040030912 | Merkle et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040030914 | Kelley et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040034794 | Mayer et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040064515 | Hockey | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040064736 | Obrecht et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040068664 | Nachenberg et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040080529 | Wojcik | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088570 | Roberts et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040122926 | Moore et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040133790 | Hensley | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143661 | Higashi et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143763 | Radatti | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040148281 | Bates et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040172551 | Fielding | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040187023 | Alagna et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199763 | Freund | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040199827 | Muttik et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040225877 | Huang | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040230530 | Searl et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243829 | Jordan | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255165 | Szor | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255167 | Knight | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040268315 | Gouriou et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050005160 | Bates | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021994 | Barton et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050027686 | Shipp | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050033975 | Lahti et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050038697 | Aaron | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050039029 | Shipp | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050055558 | Carmona | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071624 | Rothman et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071649 | Shipp | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050081053 | Aston et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050114687 | Zimmer et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050120242 | Mayer et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050125687 | Townsend et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050132177 | Challener et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138433 | Linetsky | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050149726 | Joshi | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050154885 | Viscomi et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050154900 | Muttik | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050155031 | Wang et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050169282 | Wittman | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050172115 | Bordorin | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050172337 | Bodorin et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050172338 | Sandu et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050177868 | Kwan | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050188272 | Bordorin et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050188423 | Motsinger et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050204050 | Turley et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050204205 | Ring et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216759 | Rothman et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050223238 | Schmid et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050229250 | Ring et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050257266 | Cook et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050262558 | Usov | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050262567 | Carmona | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050268112 | Wang et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050268338 | Made | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050273858 | Zadok et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278783 | Chien et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278785 | Lieberman | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283838 | Saito | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060010485 | Gorman | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060020779 | Rothman et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060031667 | Raghunandan | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060031940 | Rozman et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041942 | Edwards | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060074896 | Thomas et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075468 | Boney et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075490 | Boney et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075494 | Bertman et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060075501 | Thomas et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060080637 | Treit et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085528 | Thomas | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060095967 | Durham et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101263 | Costea et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101264 | Costea et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101282 | Costea et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112235 | Cabot | May 2006 | A1 |
20060123244 | Gheorghescu et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060129744 | Rothman et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136720 | Armstrong et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143703 | Hopen et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060150256 | Fanton et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161793 | Orr | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161988 | Costea et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167948 | Gian-Nicolas | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060168165 | Boss et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060184792 | Berlin | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060200863 | Ray et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060218637 | Thomas et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060230290 | Burtscher | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060230291 | Burtscher | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236069 | Kalach | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236389 | Horne | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236396 | Horne | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236397 | Horne | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060253578 | Dixon et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060253581 | Dixon et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060259974 | Marinescu et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060265761 | Rochette | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060272021 | Marinescu et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060277182 | Nichols et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060277183 | Nichols et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060288416 | Costea et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060294590 | Enstone et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070006310 | Piccard | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070006311 | Barton et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016914 | Yeap | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070039052 | Chandnani | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070050848 | Khalid | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070072678 | Dagres | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070074289 | Maddaloni | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070078675 | Kaplan | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070079379 | Sprosts et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094496 | Burtscher | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094725 | Borders | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094726 | Wilson et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094733 | Wilson et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070101431 | Clift | May 2007 | A1 |
20070130350 | Alperovitch et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143843 | Nason et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070168285 | Girtakovskis et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070168694 | Maddaloni et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070168982 | Horne | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070169191 | Greene et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070169197 | Horne | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070169198 | Maddaloni et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174911 | Kronenberg et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070179834 | Carter et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070203884 | Nichols et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070220043 | Oliver et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070226445 | Nichols et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070226704 | Nichols | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070226800 | Nichols | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070240222 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070250817 | Boney | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070261117 | Boney | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070283439 | Ballard | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080010326 | Carpenter et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080015925 | Sundaresan | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080021958 | Foote | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080052758 | Byrnes | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080082352 | Schmidtler | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080082662 | Dandliker | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080097936 | Schmidtler et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080235163 | Balasubramanian et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090006569 | Morss et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090063248 | Chong et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090064337 | Chien | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090132689 | Zaltzman | May 2009 | A1 |
20090178125 | Barber et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090271428 | Adelman et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090287641 | Rahm | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090299925 | Ramaswamy et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090300720 | Guo et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100184505 | Bryson et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20110040825 | Ramzan et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110047076 | Carlson et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110167050 | Fanton et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110289587 | Sprowls | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120005752 | Sprowls | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20150089648 | Schneider | Mar 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1315066 | May 2003 | EP |
JP 2007-122692 | May 2007 | JP |
WO 9325024 | Dec 1993 | WO |
WO 9845778 | Oct 1998 | WO |
WO 02084482 | Oct 2002 | WO |
WO 2006039351 | Apr 2006 | WO |
WO 2006077443 | Jul 2006 | WO |
WO 2007050766 | May 2007 | WO |
WO 2007084947 | Jul 2007 | WO |
WO 2008008142 | Jan 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Jebara, Tony “Multi-Task Feature and Kernel Selection for SVMs” 21st International Conference on Machine Learning Banff, Canada 2004 [Online] Downloaded Feb. 8, 2015http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1020000/1015426/p329-jebara.pdf?ip=151.207.250.51&id=1015426&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=C15944E53D0ACA63%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B. |
Techterms “Vector” Nov. 7, 2007 [Online] Downloaded Feb. 18, 2015 http://techterms.com/definition/vector. |
Techterms-2 “URI” Nov. 1, 2007 [Online] Downloaded Feb. 18, 2015 http://techterms.com/definition/uri. |
Marcus Hutter “Introduction to Statistical Machine Learning” Mar. 2008 [Online] Downloaded May 1, 2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20080719014125/http://kioloa08.mlss.cc/files/hutter1.pdf (Year: 2008). |
Bai et al. (2012) IET Information Security 8(2):140-151 “Approach for malware identification using dynamic behaviour and outcome triggering”. |
Bontchev (1992) Virus Bulletin Conference 131-141 “Possible Virus Attacks Against Integrity Programs and How to Prevent Them”. |
Bruschi et al. (2000) IEEE 188-195 “Less Harm, Less Worry or How to Improve Network Security by Bounding System Offensiveness”. |
Clarke (2009) Department of Mathematics, University of London, Technical Report 178 pages “Fuzzing for Software Vulnerability Discovery”. |
Codeguru (2003) Three Ways to Inject Your Code into Another Process by Robert Kuster, 22 pages. |
Codeguru (2004) Managing Low-Level Keyboard Hooks with the Windows API for VB Net by Paul Kimmel, 10 pages. |
Codeguru (2001) Hooking the Keyboard by Anoop Thomas, 6 pages. |
The Computer Guy Magazine (2011) “Virus, Malware, Oh My?” 19 pages. |
Erbschole (2005) Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann 185-189 “Trojans, Worms, and Spyware: A Computer Security Professional's Guide to Malicious Code”. |
Fellows (2005) Digital Investigation 2:89-93 “The joys of complexity and the deleted file”. |
Harley, et al. (2001) Osborne/McGraw-Hill 219-229 “Viruses Revealed”. |
Hruska (1997) European Conference on Security and Detection 128-131 “Virus Detection”. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US05/34874, dated Jul. 5, 2006, 14 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from Application No. PCT/US2006/008882, dated Oct. 19, 2007, 5 pages. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US2006/008883, dated Oct. 19, 2007, 5 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from Application No. PCT/US2006/014003, dated Jul. 17, 2007, 6 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from Application No. PCT/US2006/014004, dated Jan. 22, 2007, 4 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from Application No. PCT/US2006/014405, dated Nov. 29, 2007, 5 pages. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US2006/025378, dated Sep. 18, 2007, 10 pages. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US2006/041798, dated Dec. 4, 2007, 8 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, Application No. PCT/US2006/041799, dated Oct. 14, 2008, 5 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from Application No. PCT/US2007/062947, dated Jun. 29, 2007, 8 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from Application No. PCT/US2007/064487, dated Nov. 30, 2007, 8 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from Application No. PCT/US2007/064488, dated Sep. 9, 2007, 9 pages. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US2007/064489 dated Sep. 27, 2007, 8 pages. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US2007/064490, dated Jul. 23, 2007, 10 pages. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US2007/067076, dated Nov. 2, 2007, 10 pages. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US2007/067078, dated Nov. 2, 2007, 9 pages. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US2007/067082, dated Nov. 5, 2007, 8 pages. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US2007/067084, dated Nov. 5, 2007, 11 pages. |
Japanese Patent Application No. 2015-101464, Office Action dated May 10, 2016, 9 pages. |
Julisch, et al. (2005) DIMVA Second International Conference July 7-8 Vienna, Austria “Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment”. |
Kim (2004) “Intercepting System API Calls” 6 pages Available at: https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intercepting-system-api-calls. |
Lin, et al. (2003) Database EPODOC “Method and System for Computing Fragment Rate of Magnetic Disc” XP002451265 Abstract Only. |
Lin, et al. (2003) Database EPODOC “Method and System for Computing Fragment Rate of Disc” XP002451266 Abstract Only. |
Linn, et al. (2003) “Obfuscation of Executable Code to Improve Resistance to Static Disassembly” ACM 290-299. |
Marsh (1993) “Win32 Hooks” 15 pages Available at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnwui/html/msdn_hooks32.asp/?frame=true. |
Microsoft (2005) “How to Subclass a Window in Windows 95” 2 pages Available at: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q125680/. |
Microsoft SysInternals (2006) “Rootkit Revealer 1.71” Online Available at: http://filehippo.com/download_rootkit_revealer/ Accessed on: Nov. 17, 2015. |
Mikhaliov (2005) “NTFS file system” 8 pages Available at: http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/ Accessed on Jun. 18, 2007. |
Milenković, et al. (2005) ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News 33(1):108-117 “Using Instruction Block Signatures to Counter Code Injection Attacks”. |
Mookhey (2004) “Common Security Vulnerabilities in e-commerce Systems” Symantec 8 pages Available at: http://www.symantec.com/connect/articles/common-security-vulnerabilities-e-commerce-systems; Retrieved on Sep. 9, 2016. |
Nachenberg (1997) Communications of the ACM 40(1):46-51 “Computer Virus—Coevolution: The battle to conquer computer viruses is far from won, but new and improved antidotes are controlling the field.” |
OSDir.com (2004) “ntfsprogs-todo [Long]” Online Available at: http://osdir.com/ml/linux.file-systems.ntfs.devel/2004-08/msg00023.html; Retrieved on Nov. 13, 2015. |
Rabek, et al. (2003) ACM 76-82 “Detection of Injected, Dynamically Generated, and Obfuscated Malicious Code”. |
Roelker (2004) Sourcefire, Inc. “HTTP IDS Evasions Revisited” Online: Availabe at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/snort-org-site/production/document_files/files/000/000/031/original/sf_HTTP_IDS_evasions.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIXACIED2SPMSC7GA&Expires=1447872643&Signature=GITFKHYyb1mABkFA09oXzegOEkY%3D; Retrieved on Nov. 18, 2015. |
Salomon (2010) Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science “Elements of Computer Society” 19 pages. |
Singh, et al. (2002) ACM SIGPLAN Notices 37(2): 29-35 “Analysis and Detection of Computer Viruses and Worms: An Annotated Bibliography”. |
Skoudis (2004) Malware: Fighting Malicious Code 590-618 “Chapter 11: Malware Analysis”. |
Su, et al. (2006) POPL 372-382 “The Essence of Command Injection Attacks in Web Applications”. |
Tittel (2005) PC Magazine 328-335 “Fighting Spyware, Viruses, and Malware”. |
Unknown Author (2006) Illusive Society “Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: Malicious DLLs Injected into Trusted Host Applications” 13 pages Available from: http://home.arcor.de/scheinsicherheit/dll.htm. |
Wang et al. (2005) IEEE, International Conference on Dependable Systems “Detecting Stealth Software with Strider GhostBuster” 10 pages. |
Wen et al. (2008) IEEE, International Conference on Information Security and Assurance 150-155 “Implicit Detection of Hidden Processes with a Local-Booted Virtual Machine”. |
Whittaker, et al. (2002) ACM 242-246 “Neutralizing Windows-Based Malicious Mobile Code”. |
X-Ways Software Technology AG (2005) “X-Ways Forensics: Integrated Computer Forensics Software” 3 pages Available from: http://web.archive.org/web/20050829195657/http://www.x-ways.net/forensics/index-m.html. |
Yurcik et al. (2001) IEEE IT Pro 41-44 “A Planning Framework for Implementing Virtual Private Networks”. |
European Patent Application No. 05807741.3, Search Report dated Feb. 15, 2012, 2 pages. |
European Patent Application No. 05807741.3, Communication dated Apr. 27, 2012, 6 pages. |
Kan, et al. (Aug. 2005) NUS School of Computing “Fast webpage classification using URL features” [online] Available from: http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/˜kanmy/papers/nustrc8_05.pdf (Accessed on Jan. 28, 2015). |
Great Britain Patent Application No. 1119949.4, Examination Report dated Nov. 8, 2013, 3 pages. |
Great Britain Patent Application No. 1119949.4, Notification of Grant dated Jun. 17, 2014, 2 pages. |
Great Britain Patent Application No. 1406624.5, First Examination Report dated Jul. 31, 2014, 8 pages. |
Great Britain Patent Application No. 1406624.5, Second Examination Report dated Dec. 31, 2014, 3 pages. |
Great Britain Patent Application No. 1406626.0, First Examination Report dated Jul. 31, 2014, 10 pages. |
Great Britain Patent Application No. 1406626.0, Second Examination Report dated Dec. 31, 2014, 4 pages. |
Great Britain Patent Application No. 1406624.5, Notification of Grant dated Jan. 27, 2015, 2 pages. |
Great Britain Patent Application No. 1406626.0, Notification of Grant dated Jan. 27, 2015, 2 pages. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US05/34873, dated Jun. 12, 2008, 2 pages. |
International Search Report from Application No. PCT/US2010/025702, dated Sep. 17, 2010, 4 pages. |
Japanese Patent Application No. 2012-507228, Office Action dated Feb. 21, 2014, 3 pages (English Translation). |
Japanese Patent Application No. 2012-507228, Decision of Rejection dated Jan. 20, 2015, 3pages (English Translation). |
Nguyen, et al. (Dec. 2006) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Internet Information Retrieval, Korea 143-149 “A Maximum Entropy Model for Text Classification” Available from: http://www.uet.vnu.edu.vn/˜thuyhq/papers/06_NNH_International%20Conference%20on%20Internet%20Information%20Retrieval_IRC2006_143_149.pdf (Accessed on Jan. 28, 2015). |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/956,274, Non-Final Rejection dated Jan. 27, 2006, 27 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/956,274, Amendment and Response filed Apr. 25, 2006, 15 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/956,274, Final Rejection dated Jul. 3, 2006, 28 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/956,274, Non-Final Rejection dated Jan. 5, 2007, 29 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/956,274, Amendment and Response filed Mar. 7, 2007, 15 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/956,274, Notice of Allowance dated May 1, 2007, 14 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,504, Non-final Office Action dated Apr. 12, 2012, 22 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,504, Amendment and Response filed Oct. 11, 2012, 18 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,504, Supplemental Amendment filed Nov. 2, 2012, 10 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,504, Notice of Allowance dated Jan. 10, 2013, 12 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140330759 A1 | Nov 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61241389 | Sep 2009 | US | |
61171264 | Apr 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12709504 | Feb 2010 | US |
Child | 13888341 | US |