Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the field of cybersecurity; and more specifically to a subscription-based malware detection system.
Cybersecurity attacks have become a pervasive problem for organizations as many networked devices and other resources have been subjected to attack and compromised. A cyber-attack constitutes a threat to security arising out of stored or in-transit data that may involve the infiltration of any type of software for example, onto a network device with the intent to perpetrate malicious or criminal activity or even a nation-state attack (i.e., “malware”).
Recently, malware detection has undertaken many approaches involving network-based, malware protection services. One approach involves “on-site” placement of dedicated malware detection appliances at various ingress points throughout a network or subnetwork. Each of the malware detection appliances is configured to extract information propagating over the network at an ingress point, analyze the information to determine a level of suspiciousness, and conduct an analysis of the suspicious information internally within the appliance itself. While successful in detecting advanced malware that is attempting to infect network devices connected to the network (or subnetwork), as network traffic increases, an appliance-based approach may exhibit a decrease in performance due to resource constraints.
In particular, a malware detection appliance has a prescribed (and finite) amount of resources (for example, processing power) that, as resource capacity is exceeded, requires either the malware detection appliance to resort to more selective traffic inspection or additional malware detection appliances to be installed. The installation of additional malware detection appliances requires a large outlay of capital and network downtime, as information technology (IT) personnel are needed for installation of these appliances. Also, dedicated, malware detection appliances provide limited scalability and flexibility in deployment.
An improved approach that provides scalability, reliability, and efficient and efficacious malware detection at lower capital outlay is desirable.
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 subscription-based malware detection system, which includes a first subsystem and a second subsystem remotely located from the first subsystem. Herein, the first subsystem may provide multi-tenancy through a cloud-based service that connects any number of potential or actual customers (generally referred to as “customers”) to an object evaluation service, hosted by the second subsystem, to analyze objects submitted by different customers to determine whether a cyber-attack has been conducted or is in process. This determination may be conducted by performing an analysis of the objects for an association with a cyber-attack. The malware detection system provides a flexible and efficient business model with differentiated service levels based on assigned or customer configured attributes for a subscription, which represent the customer's subscription requirements. The subscription requirements dictate a level of operation that the malware detection system must meet for the customer, and limits on what the customer may submit to the malware detection system for analysis. The object evaluation service can offer customers customized pricing based on, for example, different submission throughputs (data rates), different analysis criteria (e.g., analysis location or type), different remediation settings, different alert settings, and other features specified by these attributes.
More specifically, the first subsystem may be provided access to a plurality of attributes (generally referred to as “service attributes”), which may be maintained as structured data on a per-sensor, per-customer or per-group basis. The structured data is generally referred to as “subscription information.” According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the service attributes include subscription attributes associated with an associated subscription tier, and customer-configurable attributes including guest image software attributes (types/versions for use in a virtual machine “VM” based dynamic analysis), and/or geographical attributes (analysis location).
As noted, the subscription attributes may be automatically selected based on the subscription tier chosen by the customer and appropriate payment. Each of these attributes may be assigned a value that specifies, for example, a level of performance including a predetermined (e.g., maximum) number or maximum rate of submissions for analysis over a prescribed period of time (e.g. per day, week or month), maximum response time in analysis of submissions, the customer size (e.g., number of endpoints protected through the malware detection system, maximum number of sensors supported by the malware detection system), or the like. It is contemplated that one of the subscription tiers offered may include a premium service tier which, if purchased, has a premium attribute set to assure priority service to reduce potential latency in the event of resource contention with other customers or sensor(s) for object analysis.
Each subscription tier may also permit differentiated services through customer-configurable attributes. The customer-configured attributes allow customers to tailor their subscriptions accordingly to current need. For example, a Korea-based company is able to select properties and functionality that may differ from U.S. based companies, resulting in different values for the same attribute types (e.g., selection of Korean-language word processor applications included in special guest images in VM based analysis at the object evaluation service instead of selecting only U.S. centric word processor applications). Also, the factory or a reseller/OEM may set certain “base attributes” that apply to all customers, and other attributes may be operationally dynamic as described elsewhere in the specification.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, customer-specific controls of the malware detection system and its object evaluation service may be achieved based on a first level of control performed by enforcement logic within the first subsystem or a second level of control performed by enforcement logic at the subscriber site, or both. More specifically, the first subsystem of the malware detection system features (i) an analysis selection service and (ii) an analysis monitoring service. The analysis selection service includes logic, referred to as a “cloud broker,” which is responsible for performing the first level of control by (a) selecting a cluster of the malware detection system to analyze objects that are submitted by a customer via a sensor; (b) monitoring operability of the selected cluster based on received operational metadata (described below); (c) enforcing compliance by the selected cluster to customer requirements for a subscription selected by the customer and by the customer (and its sensor(s)) to the subscription requirements; and/or (d) report compliance discrepancies, operational metadata and/or analysis results. Herein, the malware detection system employs a scalable architecture that includes one or more (and preferably plural) clusters, where each cluster includes at least one compute node to perform object evaluation for malware. The architecture renders the malware detection system scalable to allow additional clusters or compute nodes, or both, to be added as increased object analysis capacity is needed, as well as flexibility in operation, as will be described below. Additionally, this architecture provides assured continued availability of the malware detection service when a cluster or a compute node requires maintenance or is otherwise unavailable for malware detection. A “compute node” includes logic that is configured to analyze suspicious objects, where these objects may be detected by one or more sensors deployed at a subscriber site and, according to one embodiment, received via the first subsystem before being provided to the second subsystem for evaluation.
According to one embodiment, the subscription requirements as applied to cluster operability may be represented by a first set of attributes within the subscription information that pertain to a plurality of requirements (e.g., guaranteed system performance, geographic location requirements, software profile types, etc.) set for that customer's subscription. The subscription requirements as applied to customer usage of the malware detection system may be represented by a second set of service attributes, and the subscription requirements as applied to a particular sensor may be represented by a third set of service attributes. Each of these sets of service attributes may be mutually exclusive with the other and/or may intersect by sharing at least one attribute with the other set(s). Herein, the service attributes are a superset of (i) subscription attributes, (ii) customer-configured attributes, and (iii) operational attributes (described below), where the service attributes may include bandwidth attributes e.g., (maximum or minimum data rates, quality of service (QoS) thresholds, maximum rate (number of object submissions for analysis per prescribed time period), or the like).
Besides subscription enforcement, the cluster selection may be based, at least in part, on analyses of attributes from the subscription information and operational metadata directed, at least in part, to the workload, health, or availability of clusters. The “subscription information” may include the following: (i) subscription attributes (e.g., bandwidth attributes such as allocated minimum or maximum number or rate of object submissions per selected time period, QoS attributes (thresholds) guaranteed for a selected subscription tier, cluster availability attributes that are based on subscription tier and/or geographic location of subscriber site, etc.); (ii) customer-configured attributes as set by the customer (e.g., language, geographic location permissions or restrictions for cluster/compute nodes, remediation type set by the customer, notification “alert” type directed to customer-selected network device(s), virtual machine provisioning preferences that may range from high level granularity (e.g., email, web traffic, etc.) to lower level granularity (e.g., type of software profile required for analytic compute nodes including the type of operating system, application, and/or plug-in); (iii) factory set attributes (e.g., selected default cluster, selected default permissions, etc.); and/or (iv) operationally dynamic attributes (e.g., heuristics, communication history, etc.).
The analysis monitoring service includes logic, referred to as “system monitoring logic,” which is configured to communicate with a cluster management system to receive the operational metadata, which may include metadata associated with one or more clusters (referred to as “cluster(s)”) operating as part of the second subsystem and/or metadata associated with compute nodes within the cluster(s). The received metadata (e.g., capacity, rate of analyses, number of analyses conducted, guest images utilized, history regarding the foregoing as well as uptime and maintenance, etc.) may also be used to generate heuristic-based (operational) attributes associated with a cluster or compute nodes within the cluster.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the second subsystem of the malware detection system may include a portal, a subscription review service, and the object evaluation service. The portal provides a customer with access to at least one website hosted by a (portal) server deployed within the second subsystem. Of course, as alternative embodiments, the portal server may be deployed in the first subsystem or may be remotely located from either of the first or second subsystems. For these embodiments, the portal server is in communications with logic of the subscription review service.
Using the portal, via a network device (e.g., subscriber management system, endpoint device, etc.), a customer is able to register (subscribe) for services offered by the malware detection system. In so doing, the customer can use the portal to select a subscription tier to set a service performance level (i.e., subscription requirements as represented by service attributes and the values thereof) for the customer and/or service performance level for specific sensors. Later, using the portal, the customer is able to modify a current subscription (e.g., change subscription tier, increase/decrease number of authorized sensors, change customer-configured attributes on a customer or sensor basis, etc.). As an illustrative example, the portal provides the customer with access to one or more webpages (e.g., subscription webpages) that allows the customer to provide customer details, select a subscription tier, and select certain configurable attributes (i.e., customer-configured attributes). Collectively, the information loaded via the portal is referred to as “registration information,” which is part of the subscription information.
Upon completing registration via the portal, an activation code may be sent by the portal server to a network device chosen by the customer or the network device used in the registration process. The activation code includes at least credentials that, when installed into a sensor of the customer, enables the sensor to communicate with the subscription review service for licensing and enrollment purposes.
Being part of the first subsystem or the second subsystem (as shown in
Herein, the service policy level information may include a network address (e.g., a uniform resource locator “URL”) for accessing the cloud broker (logic within the analysis selection service). Besides the URL, the service policy level information may further include at least an identifier to a customer (referred to as “Customer_ID”). Herein, the Customer_ID may be provided to a customer submitter, namely logic that is configured to communicate with the first subsystem (e.g., the sensor or logic communicatively coupled to the sensor), which allows the customer submitter to identify the customer represented by the sensor to the cloud broker. The Customer_ID may be used by the cloud broker to acquire certain subscription information for use in enforcing subscription requirements as well as selecting a cluster to analyze submitted objects from the customer.
More specifically, the cloud broker may utilize the Customer_ID to conduct a look-up to obtain certain subscription information stored within a data store maintained by the subscription review service. As an illustrative example, the cloud broker may utilize the Customer_ID as an index to recover information associated with the service attributes, for example, (i) rate of data submissions (attributes) guaranteed (or permitted) for the subscription tier selected by the customer and/or (ii) geographic location permissions or restrictions (customer-configured attributes) for clusters or compute nodes. Such subscription information, along with the operational metadata, may be used by the cloud broker to assign a particular cluster for communications with the sensor, and enforce compliance with the service performance level assigned to the customer or the sensor for the particular customer. Such enforcement may include (i) reassigning the sensor to another cluster in response to the current cluster failing to maintain the customer's service performance level after a predetermined amount of time has elapsed, and/or (ii) stopping or throttling continued malware detection services when non-compliance is due to the customer or sensor falling outside a range of operation established for the service performance level (e.g., number or rate of submissions (e.g., objects or metadata) over a prescribed time period, bandwidth usage, etc.), optionally after a predetermined amount of time has elapsed from issuance of an alert to the customer.
Further deployed within the second subsystem, the object evaluation service includes (i) cluster(s) for use in analyzing objects provided by one or more sensors (referred to as “sensor(s)”) for malware and (ii) a cluster management system that monitors the operations of each cluster and controls its configuration. The cluster includes at least a cluster broker (hereinafter, “broker compute node”), which is responsible for a second level of control for subscription enforcement for this embodiment. It is contemplated that the cluster management system, in lieu of the cluster broker, may be configured as the second level of control, requiring some or all of the control functionality described below to be incorporated as functionality by the cluster management system.
Implemented as a physical sensor or as a virtual sensor (described below), each sensor is configured to capture network traffic (e.g., incoming data including objects), and perform a preliminary analysis on the network traffic (e.g., content of the object, which may include headers and/or payloads of packets forming or carrying the object). Each sensor is further configured to provide objects deemed “suspicious” (e.g., meets or exceeds an attack threshold representing a level of similarity, with respect to content, between the object under analysis and known malware or cyber-attack components) to a selected cluster for in-depth analysis. A customer may subscribe to the malware detection system in order to utilize the object evaluation service through data submissions from one or more sensors as described above.
As described above, the cloud broker provides the first level of control by at least (a) selecting a cluster to analyze objects that are submitted by a particular customer via a sensor and (b) monitoring operability of the selected cluster to ensure compliance with the service attributes associated with a subscription for the particular customer. The system monitoring logic collects metadata from the cluster management system that may pertain to the operating state of (a) sensor(s) at a subscriber site, (b) cluster(s) that are part of the second subsystem, and/or (c) compute node(s) of a particular cluster or clusters. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, this metadata (referred to as “operational metadata”) may include, but is not limited or restricted to, any or all of the following: cluster-based operational metadata, customer-based operational metadata, and/or compute node (CN)-based operational metadata (when the cluster management system is monitoring cluster specific activity), as described below. The receipt of the operational metadata may occur periodically or aperiodically. Also, the operational metadata may be received in response to a query message initiated by the system monitoring logic (“pull” method) or may be received without any prompting by the system monitoring logic (“push” method).
Based on this operational metadata (and optionally subscription information from the subscription review service), the system monitoring service may generate information (referred to as “cluster selection values”) for use by a rules engine within the cloud broker, operating in accordance with installed policy and routing rules, to determine cluster and/or compute node availability. More specifically, the cloud broker relies on the policy and routing rules processed by the rules engine to select the pairing between the cluster and a specific sensor, where the selection of the cluster may be influenced by the cluster selection values from the system monitoring logic and/or subscription information (attributes) accessed from one or more data stores located within the first subsystem and/or the second subsystem using the Customer_ID or Sensor_ID (or included in the service policy level information received from the specific sensor).
The degree of compliance by a selected cluster (represented by certain operational metadata) with certain service attributes for a customer (at least partially defined by the selected subscription tier) may influence load-balancing among the clusters and/or readjustment of sensor/cluster pairing. The degree of compliance may be further influenced by either (i) changes in condition of the assigned cluster or (ii) changes in cluster availability where a cluster different than the currently assigned cluster is better suited to handle analyses (e.g., as new clusters come online or workload demands on clusters change) or (iii) changes in customer or sensor requirements. In fact, in response to determining that the operability of the selected cluster is non-compliant with the subscription attributes and/or customer-configured attributes for the selected subscription tier (e.g., operability falls below a prescribed number of performance thresholds, falls below any performance threshold by a certain amount or percentage, etc.), the cloud broker may issue one or more alert messages (“alerts”) to a cybersecurity provider or other entity hosting the selected cluster in efforts to remedy such non-compliance. Additionally, or in the alternative, the cloud broker may perform load-balancing by reassigning the sensor(s) to a different cluster. According to one embodiment, the reassignment may occur “gracefully” by the sensor(s) or cloud broker temporarily storing a portion of the data within the incoming data submissions until reassignment by the cloud broker has been completed.
Where non-compliance is due to changes in operation by the customer or sensor, such as increased number or rate of object submissions for example, the cloud broker may provide one or more alerts to the subscriber management system associated with the non-compliant customer or sensor. Additionally, or in the alternative, the cloud broker may conduct cluster reassignment or stop/throttle malware detection services being provided until the customer alters its subscription to address the non-compliance. This may be achieved by the customer altering its subscription to increase the service performance level assigned to the customer or sensor (e.g., increasing number of submissions per customer or sensor, increase maximum data submission size per customer or sensor, number of authorized sensors for the customer, etc.).
The system monitoring service (along with the cloud broker) may be responsible for assuring that the malware detection system (and specifically the clusters and compute nodes available to perform object evaluation services) are capable of satisfying the service requirements (and, where provided, performance guarantees) of all customers. By evaluating the operational metadata provided by the cluster management system for all clusters against subscription information from the subscription review service regarding all customer registrations (and/or sensor enrollments for object evaluation services), enforcement logic within the cloud broker (or alternatively the system monitoring service) may generate system status information indicating the overall capacity and capability of the malware detection system to service all the registered customers per their aggregated service level requirements. The system status information is provided to system administrators by generating and sending status reports and alerts on demand and/or as system conditions require to allow the system administrators to alter functionality of the malware detection system, as needed.
In summary, as described below, the malware detection system includes enforcement logic (e.g., accounting and license enforcement services provided by the cloud broker), which assures compliance by the customer to the service performance level of the purchased subscription. For example, at enrollment time, the cloud broker may check credential attributes to assure the customer is registered (subscribed), the purchase price has been paid, contact information for the customer (e.g., customer administrator address, e.g., to which alerts should be sent) has been received, or the like. During operation subsequent to enrollment, the enforcement logic will enforce the subscription by assuring service attributes, and in particular the performance attributes, have not been exceeded. If the customer exceeds the rate or number of submissions permitted by its subscription level, for example, the cloud broker will send an alert to a customer administrator to increase (and possibly, if the performance attributes include a minimum (or simply to reduce the customer's expense associated with the subscription) to decrease the subscription level. If the performance attributes (maximums) are still exceeded, the service may be throttled back or suspended.
On the other hand, if it is found by the cloud broker that the operational metadata indicates the subscription requirements across all customers or for any specific customer cannot be satisfied, the cloud broker may send an alert to at least a system administrator for the malware detection system. The administrator may respond by adding additional clusters or compute nodes to the malware detection system, reconfigure existing clusters or compute nodes, or rebalancing the cluster-customer pairings by forcing re-enrollment of sensors of all impacted customers. The same functionality would apply when the subscription requirements for a specific customer cannot be satisfied.
Alternatively, in lieu of or in addition to issuing alerts to a malware detection system administrator, the cluster management system may be configured to respond to non-compliance with respect to the capacity and/or capabilities of the clusters to meet individual or aggregated customer service requirements. In one embodiment, the cluster management system can remedy the non-compliance (present occurring or anticipated as additional customers are serviced) by adjusting or modifying the clusters in accordance with a selected policy (e.g., a set of rules) stored in memory residing within or external from the cluster management system. In some embodiments, the analysis monitoring service may make decisions regarding compliance and cause the cluster management system to effectuate the decisions through adjusting or modifying the clusters The clusters can be adjusted or modified automatically (without the system administrator's involvement) or semi-automatically (with the system administrator approving recommended actions or selecting from options presented by the malware detection system through a user interface. For instance, the clusters can be modified or adjusted by adding a cluster or compute node that is available and operationally ready for installation or boot-up. Additionally, the cluster management system may be configured to adjust capabilities of its managed cluster(s) to assure compliance with customer-configurable and other attributes of subscriptions of subscribing customers. As illustrative examples, the cluster management system may be configured to adjust capabilities of its managed cluster(s) by adding clusters and/or compute nodes to selected clusters to satisfy (i) geographic requirements or preferences offered as a service attribute of a subscription); (ii) configuration requirements or preferences such as software profile(s) to be supported by a cluster, etc.); and/or (iii) storage capacity requirements where queue size constraints are approaching an overflow or underflow condition.
The cloud broker may also be responsible for reporting statistical information associated with analyses (by the selected cluster) of suspicious objects submitted from a sensor associated with the customer to the subscriber management system. The subscriber management system is configured to monitor operations of the sensor as well as other sensors associated with the customer. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the statistical information may include at least customer-based operational metadata and/or compute node (CN)-based operational metadata (described below), provided from the cluster management system within the second subsystem. The reporting of the statistical information may be responsive to a request for statistical information by the subscriber management system, or alternatively, such reporting may be conducted by the cloud broker without any prompting by the subscriber management system or any network device on its behalf (e.g., periodic transmission of statistical information, aperiodic transmission upon receipt of the statistical information from the cluster management system, etc.).
The subscriber management system is configured to aggregate data associated with data submissions sent to the first subsystem (e.g., cloud broker) from the sensors managed by the subscriber management system to develop a customer-wide view of compliance with subscription requirements. For example, the subscriber management system may also gather information regarding the statistics (e.g., number and percentage of all objects subject to pre-analysis that are submitted for analysis). Based on the aggregated data, the subscriber management system is configured to confirm the accuracy of the statistical information and monitor subscription compliance, where the subscriber management system is provided access to the subscription information. In the case of a discrepancy between the aggregated data and the statistical information or detected non-compliance with the consumer's service performance level, the subscriber management system may send an alert to a prescribed network device to prompt an administrator to investigate the discrepancy or non-compliance. These operations enable the subscriber management system to monitor the activity and health of its sensors as well as compliance with service guarantees indicated by the service performance level.
Moreover, the subscriber management system may be configured with enforcement logic to cause a reduction and/or increase in object submissions caused by non-compliance with the consumer's service performance level. For example, the enforcement logic deployed in the subscriber management system may alter thresholds utilized in its preliminary analysis of metadata for suspiciousness by increasing/decreasing the suspiciousness threshold to reduce/increase the data submission rate. This allows the enforcement logic to throttle or halt use of the malware detection system during a period of consumer or sensor non-compliance.
As further described below, the subscriber management system may be equipped with an interactive user interface (UI) to permit the customer to examine all the statistics on a per sensor basis rather than at a customer-aggregated level. In this regard, the customer may be allowed to allocate or select the service attributes on a per-sensor basis.
I. Terminology
In the following description, certain terminology is used to describe features of the invention. In certain situations, each of the terms “logic”, “service,” “engine,” or “system” are representative of hardware, firmware, and/or software that is configured to perform one or more functions. As hardware, the logic (or engine or system) may include circuitry having data processing or storage functionality. Examples of such circuitry may include, but are not limited or restricted to a microprocessor, one or more processor cores, 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 engine or system) may be software in the form of one or more software modules. The software modules may include an executable 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 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 executable code may be stored in persistent storage.
The “network device” may be construed as an electronic device and/or one or more software modules with data processing and/or networking functionality. Examples of a network device may include, but are not limited or restricted to any type of computer (e.g., desktop, laptop, tablet, netbook, server, mainframe, etc.), a data transfer device (e.g., router, repeater, portable mobile hotspot, etc.), a data capturing/forwarding device (e.g., radio transceiver or tuner, a firewall, etc.), or software that virtualizes operability of the electronic device or certain functionality of the electronic device (e.g., virtual sensor, virtual proxy server, etc.) or other logic type.
One illustrative example of a type of network device may include a sensor or a compute node (e.g., hardware and/or software that operates to receive information, and when applicable, perform malware analysis on that information). Another illustrative example of a type of network device may include an endpoint device (e.g., laptop, tablet, netbook, device-installed mobile software and/or management console) that is configured to receive information propagating over a network, including alerts configurable for delivery to the endpoint device by the customer during registration.
In general, a “customer” may be construed as any entity (e.g., an individual, a company, or an organization being a group of individuals operating within the same or different company, governmental agency, department or division, etc.) considering, seeking, or granted authorized access to the malware detection system. Also, a “subscriber site” may be construed as a collection of network devices, which may be communicatively coupled over a network. The subscriber site may deploy a subscriber management system and one or more sensors which, after credential checks, may gain authorized access to the object evaluation service (deployed within the second subsystem of the malware detection system) via the first subsystem.
The term “computerized” generally represents that any corresponding operations are conducted by hardware in combination with software and/or firmware.
The term “message” generally refers to signaling (wired or wireless) as either information placed in a prescribed format and transmitted in accordance with a suitable delivery protocol or information made accessible through a logical data structure such as an API. Examples of the delivery protocol include, but are not limited or restricted to HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol); HTTPS (HTTP Secure); SSH (Secure Shell); SSH over SSL (SSH over Secure Socket Layer); Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), iMES SAGE, Instant Message Access Protocol (IMAP), or the like. Hence, each message may be in the form of one or more packets, frames, or any other series of bits having the prescribed format or an API.
The term “service” generally refers to one or more network devices operating individually or collectively to provide on-demand network access to shared data for customer or network device registration and/or enrollment. According to one embodiment, the service may allow for access to a shared pool of configurable resources for analysis of objects for a presence of malware or a detection of a completed or on-going cyber-attack after successful registration and enrollment for that service. Hence, the term “cloud-based” generally refers to a hosted service that is remotely located from a data source and configured to receive, store and process data delivered by the data source over a network. Cloud-based systems may be configured to operate as a public cloud-based service, a private cloud-based service or a hybrid cloud-based service. A “public cloud-based service” may include a third-party provider that supplies one or more servers to host multi-tenant services. Examples of a public cloud-based service include Amazon Web Services® (AWS®), Microsoft® Azure™, and Google® Compute Engine™ as examples. In contrast, a “private” cloud-based service may include one or more servers that host services provided to a single customer (enterprise) and a hybrid cloud-based service may be a combination of certain functionality from a public cloud-based service and a private cloud-based service.
As briefly described above, the term “malware” may be broadly construed as any code, communication or activity that initiates or furthers an attack (hereinafter, “cyber-attack”). Malware may prompt or cause unauthorized, unexpected, anomalous, unintended and/or unwanted behaviors (generally “attack-oriented behaviors”) or operations constituting a security compromise of information infrastructure. For instance, malware may correspond to a type of malicious computer code that, upon execution and as an illustrative example, takes advantage of a vulnerability in a network, network device or software, for example, to gain unauthorized access, harm or co-opt operation of a network device or misappropriate, modify or delete data. Alternatively, as another illustrative example, malware may correspond to information (e.g., executable code, script(s), data, command(s), etc.) that is designed to cause a network device to experience attack-oriented behaviors. The attack-oriented behaviors may include a communication-based anomaly or an execution-based anomaly, which, for example, could (1) alter the functionality of a network device an atypical and unauthorized manner; and/or (2) provide unwanted functionality which may be generally acceptable in another context.
In certain instances, the terms “compare,” comparing,” “comparison,” or other tenses thereof generally mean determining if a match (e.g., a certain level of correlation) is achieved between two items where one of the items may include a particular pattern.
The term “transmission medium” may be construed as a physical or logical communication link (or path) between two or more nodes. 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.
The term “submission” may correspond to a submission of data directed to a targeted destination (e.g., malware detection system), such that a “data submission” may correspond to metadata associated with an object that is determined to be suspicious and may be subjected to additional malware analysis. Alternatively, or in addition to the metadata, the data submission may include one or more objects provided concurrently with or subsequent to the metadata. The term “object” generally relates to content (or a reference for accessing such content) having a logical structure or organization that enables it to be classified for purposes of malware analysis. The content may include an executable (e.g., an application, program, code segment, a script, dynamic link library “dll” or any file in a format that can be directly executed by a computer such as a file with an “.exe” extension, etc.), a non-executable (e.g., a storage file; any document such as a Portable Document Format “PDF” document; a word processing document such as Word® document; an electronic mail “email” message, web page, etc.), headers and/or payloads of packets operating as the object, or simply a collection of related data.
The object and/or metadata may be acquired from information in transit (e.g., a plurality of packets), such as information being transmitted over a network or copied from the transmitted information for example, or may be acquired from information at rest (e.g., data bytes from a storage medium). Examples of different types of objects may include a data element, one or more flows, or a data element within a flow itself. A “flow” generally refers to related packets that are received, transmitted, or exchanged within a communication session while a “data element” generally refers to a plurality of packets carrying related payloads (e.g., a single webpage provided as multiple packet payloads received over a network). The data element may be an executable or a non-executable, as described above.
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.
II. Overall General Architecture
Referring to
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the malware detection system 100 includes a first subsystem 130 and a second subsystem 160. As shown in
A. Portal—Sensor Architecture
In
As shown in
Using the portal 165, a customer is able to register (subscribe) to services offered by the malware detection system 100 or modify the current terms of the subscription (e.g., change subscription tier, increase/decrease number of authorized sensors, change customer-configured attributes, etc.) to set a service performance level for the customer and/or specific sensors for the customer. As an illustrative example, the portal 165 may provide a customer with access to one or more webpages, which allows the customer to supply customer details (e.g., customer name; address; administrator and preferred contact media such as email address, text or phone number; credit card or banking information for periodic payment for the subscription; network address for subscriber management system, etc.). The webpages may prompt the customer for such customer details and other information using conventional “user interactive” techniques. These may include a web form, e.g., rendered by a conventional web browser of the customer, including one or more online pages that prompts for and accepts customer input.
The portal 165 may further enable the customer to select a subscription tier, which may automatically assign certain subscription attributes for the customer's subscription. These subscription attributes may include certain performance-based attributes (e.g., QoS thresholds, throughput thresholds, etc.) and/or administrative-based attributes (e.g., software update frequency, total number of sensors supported, etc.). Also, the portal 165 allows the customer to customize the subscription through customer-configured attributes (e.g., cluster geographic permissions or restrictions, special guest image software profiles for use in virtualized processing of objects by a selected cluster, alert notification schemes, etc.). Collectively, the information gathered from the customer via the portal 165 is generally referred to as “registration information” 167. A portion of the registration information 167, which pertains to guaranteed system performance and requirements for the customer, corresponds to a portion of the service attributes used in monitoring for compliance with the service performance level assigned to the customer and/or the sensor
Upon completing registration (or modification of the subscription) via the portal 165, a message 168 including the activation code 117 may be sent by the portal server 166 to a network device (e.g., subscriber management system 118, endpoint device, etc.), namely the network device used in the registration process or a network device selected by the customer during the registration process. The network device may be located at the subscriber site 112 or external to the subscriber site 112. The message 168 includes at least the credentials 116 that, if installed into the sensor 1101, enables the sensor 1101 to communicate with the subscription review service 170 for licensing and enrollment purposes. Alternatively, the credentials 116 may be submitted by another network device, where the credentials 116 allow that network device to communicate with the subscription review service 170 to enroll and license the sensor 1101 on the customer's behalf
B. Sensor—Subscription Review Service Architecture
Deployed within the second subsystem 160, the subscription review service 170 is communicatively coupled to the portal server 166 to receive the registration information 167 for a particular customer for storage as part of the subscription information 177. The subscription information 177 may be stored as structured data (e.g., databases, files, etc.) or unstructured data within memory represented as one or more data stores 175. As shown in
Furthermore, although not shown, the subscription review service 170 may be communicatively coupled to the analysis selection service 140 and/or the analysis monitoring service 145 to provide subscription information 177 thereto. The subscription information 177 may be used to adjust operability of one or both of these services (e.g., increase or decrease QoS levels, decrease or increase analysis times, decrease or increase cluster availability, etc.).
Using installed credentials 116 provided by the portal server 166, the sensor 1101 communicate with the subscription review service 170 to receive a portion of the subscription information (e.g., service policy level information 127), which enables the sensor 1101 to communicate with the analysis selection service 140 of the first subsystem 130. The service policy level information 127 may include an identifier of the customer (Customer_ID 128) that may be used by the analysis selection service 140 to access subscription information 177 associated with the customer assigned the Customer_ID 128 in determining what cluster to selected to handle object submissions from the sensor 1101 to determine whether a cyber-attack has occurred (e.g., identified by detecting a presence of malware).
C. Cluster Selection Architecture
Referring still to
A sensor (e.g., sensor 1101) may conduct a preliminary analysis of network traffic, including data within an object 120 (e.g., data within a header or body of one or more packets or frames within monitored network traffic) to determine whether that object 120 is suspicious. The object 120 may include a portion of information (content) that is intercepted or copied from information being routed over a network, which may be a public network (e.g., the Internet) or a private network such as a wireless data telecommunication network, wide area network, a type of local area network (LAN), or a combination of networks. The sensor 1101 may retain metadata associated with each data submission transmitted to the first subsystem 130 by the sensor 1101.
The object 120 may be deemed “suspicious” based on an analysis of the object 120 (without execution) and, based on the analysis, determining that the object being associated with a cyber-attack exceeds a prescribed probability. This analysis may include (i) detecting whether the object 120 is sourced by or directed to a particular network device not identified in a “blacklist” or “whitelist,” and (ii) an analysis of content of the object 120 (e.g., data patterns, etc.). Hence, the preliminary analysis, in effect, controls the rate and/or number of suspicious objects made available by the sensor 1101 for in-depth malware analysis by a selected cluster within the second subsystem 160 and adjustment of the prescribed threshold for suspiciousness (up/down) may adjust (reduce/increase) the submission rate to the malware detection system 100.
In some embodiments, upon completing the preliminary analysis of the network traffic (including suspicious object 120) and having been authenticated to access an object evaluation service 180 of the malware detection system 100 over an established a communication session, the sensor 1101 provides at least metadata associated with the suspicious object 120 to the object evaluation service 180 to commence an in-depth malware analysis process of the suspicious object 120 to follow. The results of the preliminary analysis may be made available for use later in the final determination after in-depth analysis of whether the suspicious object 120 is associated with a cyber-attack.
Referring still to
For example, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, upon receiving the cluster selection values 157 and/or subscription information 177 (recovered using the service policy level information 127), a rules engine 142 operates in accordance with policy and routing rules to select the cluster 1851, where the operational metadata 150 associated with the selected cluster 1851 indicates that the cluster 1851 is able to satisfy performance or operation criteria set forth by subscription attributes and/or customer-configured attributes within the subscription information 177. The policy and routing rules utilized by the rules engine 142 may be static, dynamic (modifiable and updateable) or a hybrid where some of the policy/routing rules are static while others are dynamic. For instance, the policy and routing rules of the rules engine 142 may be preloaded, but some of its rules may be modified or replaced over time. The frequency of the rule modifications may depend, at least in part, on results of prior malware detection by cybersecurity providers, changes in the cyber-threat landscape, and/or the types, targets, and techniques used in recent or potential cyber-attacks. Of course, the policy and routing rules utilized by the rules engine 142 should be broadly construed as any data (rules, models or other logical construct) that attempts to maintain or increase compliance with service guarantees based, at least in part, on the subscription tier of the customer.
Hence, the analysis selection service 140 is configured to select the cluster 1851 to perform malware analyses on suspicious objects submitted by a sensor (e.g., sensor 1101) based, at least in part, on (i) the subscription information 177 and (ii) the cluster selection values 157. The subscription information 177 is accessible using (or provided as part of) the service policy level information 127 included in an analysis request message 125 while the cluster selection values 157 are based on operational metadata 150 received from the cluster management system 190 deployed within the second subsystem 160 via analysis monitoring service 145 (described below). As a result, the analysis selection service 140 controls the formation and maintenance of a communication session over a communication link 155 between the selected cluster 1851 of the object evaluation service 180 and the sensor 1101 requesting the communication session over the communication link 155.
After the communication session over the communication link 155 has been established, logic within the analysis selection service 140 (generally referred to as a “cloud broker” 610) is configured to provide information associated with a suspicious object from the requesting sensor 1101 to the selected cluster 1851 within the object evaluation service 180. Also, this logic may be configured to provide results of a malware analysis on that suspicious object to the requesting sensor 1101 or any selected destination by the customer such as another network device.
As shown in
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the cluster selection values 157 corresponds to information that (i) pertains to rule-based parameters utilized by the policy and routing rules and (ii) is generated from the operational metadata 150. Hence, the cluster selection values 157 may be values generated from the operational metadata 150 that are consistent with parameters utilized by the policy and routing rules. As a result, when these values are applied to the policy and routing rules controlling operation of the rules engine 142, the analysis selection service 140 is able to identify which cluster or clusters are available to support another sensor and/or their level of availability and ability to fulfill service attributes. As an illustrative example, where the policy and routing rules include a rule that requires a cluster to have 30% queue capacity to service another sensor and the metadata identifies that the queue size is fifty storage elements and the current queue length is 15 storage elements, the cluster selection values 157 would identify that the cluster has 30% ( 15/50) capacity.
Based at least on the operational metadata 150 described above, the cluster selection values 157 may be values that refine the cluster selection process by identifying which cluster or clusters should be considered or precluded from consideration for data submissions involving a particular type of object and/or a specific customer or specific subscription tier. From still other information (e.g., compute node workload), the cluster selection values 157 may be values that further determine what broker compute node is to be selected for a particular cluster. Additionally, or in the alternative, the cluster selection values 157 may include or may be based on information associated with one or more sensors 1101, . . . , and/or 110N or information based on prior communication sessions by the sensor(s) 1101, . . . , and/or 110N such as sensor activity (e.g., number of submissions, amount of analysis time performed on objects by the particular sensor, number of malicious objects detected for a particular sensor, number of timeouts triggered, or the like).
In summary, the following operations are performed before the sensor (e.g., sensor 1101) is able to provide data for analysis (referred to as a “data submission 124” and illustrated in
D. Data Submission Architecture
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, as shown in
For instance, the sensor 1101 may later upload the object 120 to the object evaluation service 180 via the analysis selection service 140 for malware analysis. This upload may occur once the malware detection system 100 confirms, based on analysis of the metadata 122, that (a) the object 120 has not been analyzed previously and (b) a particular compute node within a selected cluster is ready to analyze the object 120. If the malware detection system 100, such as the broker compute node 186 for example, determines that the suspicious object 120 has been previously analyzed, the first subsystem 130 may include logic that returns results from previously analyzed objects upon detecting a high correlation between the metadata 122 associated with the suspicious object 120 and metadata associated with a previously analyzed object before submission of the suspicious object 120. This logic may be implemented to avoid unnecessary analysis to improve response time and mitigate potential false positives or false negatives.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, a first enforcement logic 143, separate from the licensing and enrollment services offered by the subscription review service 170, may be implemented in the first subsystem 130 and configured to monitor data submissions by the customer and account for all of the analysis and actions undertaken that exceed the terms of a license (subscription), namely non-compliance with the service performance level assigned to the customer as represented by the service attributes and/or the service performance level assigned to the sensor.
Additionally, the first enforcement logic 143 is further configured to enforce compliance with the service performance level assigned to the customer or the sensor for the particular customer based on an analysis of a portion of the operational metadata 150 along with at least some of the service attributes within the data store(s) 175. Where non-compliance is due to changes in customer or sensor requirements, such as certain performance-based attributes for the subscription have been exceeded, the first enforcement logic 143 of the cloud broker 610 may provide one or more alerts to a customer administrator (e.g., via the subscriber management system 118 associated with the non-compliant customer at subscriber site 112, a network device accessed by the customer administrator identified at registration, or the non-compliant sensor 1101 to prompt a change in the selected subscription tier). Additionally, the first enforcement logic 143 may signal the cloud broker 610 to begin a cluster reassignment or stop/throttle malware detection services being provided until the customer alters its subscription to address non-compliance or, even after adjustment of the subscription tier, the customer still remains non-compliant with the terms of the subscription.
The software associated with this service may further implement a “pay-as-you-go” licensing feature, which keeps track of all of the data submissions by a customer and charges based on usage of the malware detection system 100. This licensing feature provides for pre-payment of some reserved object analysis capacity, potentially at a cost savings.
Additionally, the first enforcement logic 143 may be configured to confirm the current subscription status assigned to the customer associated with the sensor 1101 that is attempting to upload the suspicious object 120 into the malware detection system 100 for analysis. This confirmation may be accomplished by accessing the data store(s) 175 within the malware detection system 100 using the Sensor_ID 115 or the Customer_ID 128 provided by the sensor 1101 as an index to obtain credential attributes within the subscription information 177 pertaining to the customer. For example, at enrollment time, the first enforcement logic 143 may check credential attributes to assure the customer is registered (subscribed), the purchase price has been paid, contact information for the customer (e.g., administer address) has been received, etc. Alternatively, this confirmation may be accomplished by using the Sensor_ID 115 to determine the Customer_ID 128 within a Sensor_ID-Customer_ID mapping, and thereafter, conduct a database lookup using the Customer_ID 128 concerning subscription status.
In more general terms, the confirmation of the current subscription status may involve a first determination by the first enforcement logic 143 as to whether the customer has an active subscription to the malware detection system 100. If the customer does not possess an active subscription to the malware detection system 100, the sensor 1101 may be precluded from establishing the communication session over the communication link 155 and uploading information into the object evaluation service 180 for analysis. Upon determining an active subscription, the first enforcement logic 143 selects a cluster (second determination) using certain subscription information 177. The certain subscription information 177 may include, but is not limited or restricted to the following: (a) subscription attributes including subscription tier, QoS thresholds, permissions, access control information, cluster availability details such as a listed default cluster, cluster selection ordering or preferences, and/or cluster restrictions; (b) customer-configured attributes including geographic location permissions or restrictions for compute nodes in processing objects for the sensor 1101, type of remediation selected by the customer, type of alert notification selected by the customer (medium, destination, etc.); (c) factory set attributes including default cluster permissions; and/or (d) operational attributes including heuristic (and dynamic) data based on past historical operations.
Thereafter and concurrent to these operations, the first enforcement logic 143 of the cloud broker 610 enforces the subscription by assuring that maximum thresholds included as part of the service performance levels (as described above) are not exceeded and minimum thresholds are met. Upon determination by the cloud broker 610, based on the operational metadata, that the minimum performance service levels across the particular customer or all customers cannot be satisfied (e.g., cluster failure/maintenance, compute node failure/maintenance, etc.), the cloud broker 610 will send an alert to at least a system administrator for the malware detection system 100. The administrator may respond by (i) adding additional clusters (e.g., cluster 1853) to the malware detection system 100 or one or more additional compute nodes, (ii) reconfigure the selected cluster 1851 or its compute nodes, or the like. Additionally, the cloud broker 610 may rebalance the cluster-customer pairings by forcing re-enrollment of the sensor 1101 and/or any sensors of impacted customers. This may be effected, e.g., by the cloud broker sending an appropriate message to the sensor(s) or subscriber management system 118 to cause the sensor(s) to re-enroll following the same process as that described above for enrollment. Similar operations would be applicable when the subscription requirements for a specific customer cannot be satisfied.
It is contemplated that an OEM or another party hosting the object evaluation service 180 may configure the service so that an attribute may be categorized as a subscription, customer-configured, factory set, or operationally dynamic attribute. Also, some customer-configured attributes may allow customers to tailor operability that is not offered by the base attributes associated with a subscription tier. The OEM or the other party can decide which attribute or attributes should be configured in conjunction with which subscription level.
Additionally, the first subsystem 130 is configured to generate and transmit statistical information 192, which may be prompted in response to a management query message 194 (as shown) or provided without being in response to signaling from the subscriber site 112. The management query message 194 may correspond to a request for data that is directed to the operability of a particular sensor or the cluster(s). For instance, the statistical information 192 may be provided to the subscriber management system 118 or a centralized management system (not shown) accessible by more than one customer site, where the central management system may be configured to aggregate the information associated with all sensors and provides a report, e.g., via a user interface, to the customer on operational statistics, results of analysis, and subscription compliance details. Deployed as a physical network device including a processor and/or memory or as a virtualization (in software), the subscriber management system 118, in some embodiments, is also responsible for receiving customer selections of available configurable attributes, as elsewhere described.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the statistical information 192 may include a portion of the operational metadata 150 such as at least a portion of the customer-based operational metadata and/or the compute node (CN)-based operational metadata (described below). Besides receipt of the statistical information 192, the subscriber management system 118 aggregates data associated with data submissions sent to the cloud broker 610 from the sensors 1101-1102 managed by the subscriber management system 118. Such data gathering develops a customer-wide view for use in compliance with the established service performance level for the subscription and customer statistics (e.g., number or percentage of objects subject to pre-analysis that are provided for subsequent analysis by the object evaluation service 180). Furthermore, based on the aggregated data, the subscriber management system 118 (with access to the subscription information 177) may confirm accuracy of the statistical information 192 and/or monitor compliance with the service performance level assigned to the customer and/or sensor 1101 as described above.
In the case of a notable discrepancy between the aggregated data and the statistical information 192 (e.g., exceeding a set amount of discrepancy to avoid repeated investigation alerts) or a finding of non-compliance with the service performance level, the subscriber management system 118 is configured to (i) send an alert to a prescribed network device associated with an administrator of the subscriber site 112 to prompt an investigation as to the discrepancy or non-compliance. As a result, the subscriber management system 118 is able to (i) monitor, in real-time, the activity and health of the sensor 1101 and (ii) enforce compliance with service guarantees indicated by the service performance level assigned to the customer or the sensor 1101.
It is contemplated that, in lieu of the management query message 194, the first subsystem 130 may provide the statistical information 192 to the subscriber management system 118 in accordance with a “push” transmission scheme. This transmission scheme may be conducted periodically or upon termination of a communication session between the sensor 1101 and the selected cluster 1851.
The object evaluation service 180 includes one or more clusters 1851-185N (N≥1). Each cluster 1851-185N may be configured to conduct an analysis of a suspicious object (e.g., object 120) provided by one of the sensors 1101-110M that is enrolled to the subscription-based malware detection system 100. As described above, each cluster 1851 . . . or 185N is a scalable architecture, which includes at least one compute node in which additional compute nodes may be added as needed to handle an increased number of object analyses caused by increased network traffic at a subscriber site (e.g., subscriber site 112).
According to one embodiment, the cluster 1851 includes a plurality of compute nodes, including (i) one or more compute nodes 186 each operating as a “broker” compute node and (ii) one or more compute nodes 187 each operating as an “analytic” compute node. Herein, a broker compute node 186, operating as the second level of control, may be configured to perform to at least determine, from received metadata 122 associated with the data submission 124 (e.g., hash value for the object 120 being part of the metadata 122), whether the suspicious object 120 has been previously processed by the malware detection system 100.
If the suspicious object 120 has not been previously processed by the malware detection system 100, the broker compute node 186 causes the loading of the metadata 122 into a queue 310. Thereafter, based on processing availability, a broker compute node 186 or an analytic compute node 187 gains access to the metadata 122 and uses the metadata 122 (or data accompanying the metadata such as an object identifier 275 of
If the suspicious object 120 has been previously processed by the malware detection system 100, the results of the prior analysis may be reported by the broker compute node 186 to a network device chosen by the customer to receive the results via the first subsystem 130. The network device may include the sensor 1101, the subscriber management system 118 or an endpoint device via the portal 165. In some embodiments, however, the sensor 1101 may provide the results to the subscriber management system 118.
III. Subscriber Site/Sensor Components and Operation
Referring now to
In an alternative virtual device deployment, however, the sensor 1101 may be implemented entirely as software that may be loaded into a network device (as shown) and operated in cooperation with an operating system (“OS”) running on that device. For this implementation, the architecture of the software-based sensor 1101 includes software modules that, when executed by a processor, perform functions directed to functionality of logic 240 illustrated within the storage medium 210, as described below.
The processor 200 is a multi-purpose, processing component that is configured to execute logic 240 maintained within the non-transitory storage medium 210 operating as a data store. As described below, the logic 240 may include, but is not limited or restricted to, (i) subscription control logic 250, (ii) preliminary analysis logic 260, (iii) metadata extraction logic 270, (iv) notification logic 290, and/or (v) cluster selection logic 295. One example of processor 200 includes an Intel® (x86) central processing unit (CPU) with an instruction set architecture. Alternatively, processor 200 may include another type of CPUs, a digital signal processor, an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array, or any other hardware component with data processing capability.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the sensor 1101 may include subscription control logic 250 that controls the signaling (handshaking) with the subscription review service 170, such as the licensing logic 640 and/or enrollment logic 650 as shown in
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, as shown, the interface 220 is configured to receive incoming data 235 propagating over a network, including the metadata 122 and/or the object 120. The incoming data 235 may be received directly from the network or via a network tap or Switch Port Analyzer (SPAN) port, also known as a mirror port, provided by the sensor 1101. Processed by the processor 200, the preliminary analysis logic 260 may conduct an analysis of at least a portion of the incoming data 235, such as headers/payloads of packets of the incoming object 120 for example, to determine whether the object 120 is suspicious. Furthermore, the metadata extraction logic 270, during such processing, may extract metadata 122 from the incoming data 235 and assign an object identifier 275 to correspond to both the metadata 122 and the suspicious object 120. The object identifier 275 may be unique among the clusters 1851-185N (referred to as “universally unique identifier” or “UUID” 275). It is contemplated that the UUID 275 may be included as part of the metadata 122.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the metadata 122 (with the UUID 275) may be stored in a metadata data store 280. Similarly, the suspicious object 120 and UUID 275 may be stored in a content data store 285. The content data store 285 may be part of the non-transitory storage medium 210 of the sensor 1101. It is contemplated, however, that the content data store 285 may be located externally from the sensor 1101.
The sensor 1101 further includes notification logic 290, which is responsible for handling communications 292 via communication session over the communication link 155 with the selected cluster 1851 via the analysis selection service 140 of
Some embodiments of the sensor 1101 may include the cluster selection logic 295. Operating in combination with subscription control logic 250 and/or preliminary analysis logic 260, the cluster selection logic 295 is adapted to control, based on the service policy level information 127 associated with the subscription for the customer, the cloud broker to select between an on-premises cluster (or malware detection system) that resides on the same enterprise network as sensor 1101 (not shown) or an off-premises cluster within malware detection system 100 of
Hence, where the selected default cluster is a cluster within the (cloud-based) object evaluation service 180, the on-premises cluster may be deployed to provide extra capacity when malware analysis thresholds established for cloud-based analyses allowed in accordance with the customer's subscription level have been exceeded. Alternatively, one or more off-premises clusters may be deployed to provide extra capacity when the on-premises cluster is selected as the default cluster and the malware analysis thresholds provided by the on-premises clusters have been exceeded.
It is contemplated that routing decisions for the metadata 122 to either (i) on-premises cluster or (ii) off-premises cluster via the analysis selection service 140 may be based on any number of factors. These factors may include, but are not limited or restricted to object type (e.g., portable document format “PDF” objects are directed to an on-premises cluster and binaries are directed to off-premise cluster); customer type (e.g., objects extracted from network traffic originating from certain customers, e.g., governmental agencies are directed to an on-premises cluster while objects extracted from network traffic originating from other governmental agencies are directed to an off-premises cluster); capacity (e.g., objects are directed to an off-premises cluster until a capacity (or subscription) threshold reached); and/or network security level (e.g., objects extracted from network traffic over protected subnetworks are directed to an on-premises cluster while objects extracted from network traffic over unprotected subnetworks are directed to an off-premises cluster).
IV. Cluster Components and Operation
Referring now to
Returning back to
As further shown in
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, one of the object analysis systems 3401-3404 accesses the queue 310 to obtain the metadata 122 associated with the suspicious object 120 awaiting malware analysis. The queue 310 may be accessed when the object analysis system (e.g., object analysis system 3401) determines to have sufficient processing capability to meet the required analysis. The determination may occur, for example, by (i) passing at least one service attribute with the metadata 122, (ii) accessing the attribute by the object analysis system 3401 prior to removal of the metadata 122 from the queue 310, and (iii) determining whether the object analysis system 3401 can process the suspicious object 120 in accordance with preset criteria. Likewise, during operation, the object analysis system 3401 may periodically and/or aperiodically (e.g., in response to completion of a prior malware analysis) access the queue 310 and obtain the metadata 122 associated with the suspicious object 120.
According to another embodiment of the disclosure, additionally or alternatively to the processing capability determination described above, the metadata 122 stored in the queue 310 may be prioritized for removal and subsequent retrieval and analysis of the corresponding object. For example, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, the prioritization of the metadata 122 stored in the queue 310 may be in accordance with object type (e.g., metadata associated with an object of a first type is queued at a higher priority than metadata associated with an object of a second type). As another example, the prioritization of the queue 310 may be in accordance with the subscription level assigned to the customer, namely metadata associated with an object submitted by a customer or any of a group of first customers at a first service policy level (e.g., first QoS threshold) is queued at a higher priority than metadata associated with an object submitted by a customer or any of a group of second customers at a second service policy level. For prioritization, each customer may be separate a company or a separate unit (department) in the same company.
In summary, a broker compute node 3001, targeted to receive the suspicious object 120, places the metadata 122 into the queue 310. Retrieval of the metadata 122 may be performed by any of the plurality of compute nodes 3001-300P, including broker compute node 3001. This retrieval may be organized in accordance with a plurality of queue retrieval schemes. For instance, the retrieval may be in accordance with a first-in, first-out (FIFO) queue scheme for fairness and controlled latency of submission analysis. Alternatively, the retrieval may be prioritized. As an illustrative example, the metadata from a customer with a higher (premium) subscription may be assigned to a different (higher priority) queue that is serviced first. As another example, the metadata may be tagged (i) to identify the metadata submitted by a higher subscription customer than a normal subscription customer or (ii) identify metadata from customers where three or more different subscription levels are available. The tagged metadata allows the compute node to read the top “L” queued metadata submissions (e.g., L≥2) and select the highest priority metadata submission from the L submissions.
Upon retrieval of the metadata 122 and based on at least a portion of the metadata 122, the object analysis system 3401 is able to determine the storage location of the suspicious object 120. Thereafter, the object analysis system 3401 may retrieve the suspicious object 120. The suspicious object 120 may be stored in the sensor 1101, in the compute node 3001, or in an external network device (not shown) that may be accessed via the analysis selection service 140 of
Upon receipt of the suspicious object 120, the object analysis system 3401 conducts an in-depth malware analysis, namely any combination of attack-oriented behavior (dynamic) analysis or static analysis, in order to determine a probability of the suspicious object 120 being associated with malware. Such operations may involve execution of the suspicious object 120 within a virtual machine operating with the object analysis system 3401, where the virtual machine is configured with one or more software profiles (e.g., one or more software components including operating system, application(s), and/or plug-in(s)) allowing the virtual machine to execute the suspicious object 120 and monitor attack-oriented behaviors of the virtual machine, including any of the software components. Thereafter, the object analysis system 3401 performs a correlation operation on the monitored attack-oriented behaviors (e.g., analyzes the monitored behaviors against known malicious behaviors and behavioral patterns) to determine if the suspicious object 120 is associated with a cyber-attack.
As an illustrative example, the analysis coordination system 3201 may be selected by the analysis selection service 140 of
V. Overall Operational Flow
In summary, as shown in
In response to granting of the license request, without any human interaction, the subscription review service 170 stores the service policy level information 127 associated with the customer and returns or redirects at least a portion of the service policy level information 127 to the sensor or another network device with subsequent loading into the sensor (blocks 504 and 505). The service policy level information 127 include at least the URL for accessing the cloud broker 610 of
The analysis selection service 140 utilizes both the cluster selection values 157 and the subscription information 177, recovered the Customer_ID 128 provided as part of the service policy level information 127 and/or the Sensor_ID 115, to establish a communication session (e.g., tunnel) between the sensor (e.g., sensor 1101) and a selected cluster (e.g., cluster 1851) of the second subsystem 160 (blocks 510, 515, 520, 525 & 530). Herein, the subscription information 177 provides the analysis selection service 140 with customer selected performance and system operability requirements while the cluster selection values 157 provide information pertaining to the health of the clusters and/or compute nodes of the system.
As illustrated examples, the cluster selection values 157 relied upon for selection of the cluster (and/or compute node within the selected cluster) may pertain to values that collectively identify, when applied to policy and routing rules of the rules engine 142, what cluster or clusters have sufficient resources to support additional data submissions from a sensor. For example, the cluster selection values 157 may include values directed to cluster capacity and capabilities, including workload. The cluster workload may be determined based, at least in part, on utilization levels of each of the compute nodes (e.g., compute nodes 7501-750P of
The sensor (e.g., sensor 1101) receives incoming information for malware analysis. Specifically, the metadata extraction logic 270 of the sensor 1101 separates the metadata 122 from the object 120. Thereafter, the preliminary analysis logic 260 conducts an analysis of incoming traffic to determine whether the object 120 is suspicious (e.g., meets or exceeds a first threshold that the object 120 is associated with a cyber-attack). This preliminary analysis may include one or more checks (real-time analyses) being conducted on the metadata 122 and/or object 120 without execution of the object 120. Illustrative examples of the checks may include, but are not limited or restricted to the following: (i) bit pattern comparisons of content forming the metadata 122 or object 120 with pre-stored bit patterns to uncover (a) deviations in messaging practices (e.g., non-compliance in communication protocols, message formats, and/or payload parameters including size), (b) presence of content within the object 120 that is highly susceptible to or widely used by perpetrators for cyber-attacks, and/or (c) prior submission via the sensor 1101 of certain types of objects, and/or (ii) comparison between a representation of the object 120 (e.g., bit pattern representation as a hash of the object 120 or portions of the object 120) and stored representations of previously analyzed objects.
Prior to conducting an analysis to determine whether the object 120 is suspicious, it is contemplated that the preliminary analysis logic 260 within the sensor 1101 may determine whether a prior preliminary (or in-depth malware) analysis has been conducted on the object 120. Upon detecting a repeated malicious object, the sensor 1101 may issue an alert to the subscriber management system 118 or a network device selected by the customer. Also, the sensor 1101 may report the results from the prior analysis to the subscriber management system 118 or a network device. Upon detecting a repeated benign object, the sensor 1101 may discontinue further analysis of the object 120. However, where the object 120 is an URL or another object type, especially an object with dynamically changing data as in URLs or documents with an embedded URL, the sensor 1101 may routinely supply the metadata 122 to its assigned broker compute node via the analysis selection service 140.
Herein, the metadata 122 may be an aggregate of metadata retrieved from the incoming data 235 of
VI. Details of Operational Flow
Referring now to
The second subsystem 160 features subscription review service 170, which may include licensing logic 640 along with enrollment logic 650 and security content updating logic 670. It is contemplated that the licensing logic 640, enrollment logic 650 and the security updating logic 670 may be configured as a collective grouping at the same location or may be geographically distributed. In accordance with one embodiment of the disclosure, the architecture of the subscription review service 170 may include licensing logic 640 along with enrollment logic 650 and security content updating logic 670 being software modules with functionality (described herein), which are stored in memory and executed by one or more hardware processors. Additionally, the object evaluation service 180 of the second subsystem 160 includes one or more clusters 1851-185N, and/or cluster management system 190 to manage the organization of the cluster(s) 1851-185N and the configuration of the compute nodes (not shown) deployed within the clusters 1851-185N. The architecture of the cluster management system 190 may be implemented as a network device that includes one or more hardware processors and memory including software that, when executed, performs its functionality described below. However, as alternative embodiments, the subscription review service 170 and/or some or all of the object evaluation service 180, including the cluster management system 190, may be deployed as software that is executed by the same or different hardware circuitry deployed within the second subsystem 160.
The sensors 1101-110M may be positioned at various locations on a transmission medium 602 that may be part of an enterprise network 600 (e.g., connected at various ingress points on a wired network or positioned at various locations for receipt of wireless transmissions). For an email threat detection embodiment, for example, a sensor (e.g., sensor 1102) may be incorporated in a message transfer agent deployed in-line with the email traffic flow and between an anti-spam gateway and a network's internal mail server (e.g., Microsoft Exchange®). For use in a deployment involving a cloud-based messaging service, the email may be delivered to the sensor 1102 as a next-hop before the email reaches the internal mail server. Alternatively, the sensor 1102 may be included as part of the anti-spam gateway or the internal mail server.
As shown in
More specifically, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, the sensor 1101 may be implemented as a network device or deployed as software within a network device. The sensor 1101 is either coupled to the transmission medium 602 directly or coupled to the transmission medium 602 via a data capture device 604. According to this embodiment, the data capture device 604 is configured to receive incoming data and subsequently process the incoming data, as described below. For instance, the data capture device 604 may operate as a network tap with mirroring capability, which provides to the sensor 1101 at least one or more data submissions 124 acquired from network traffic propagating over the transmission medium 602. Alternatively, the data capture device 604 may operate as a port for receiving data submissions 124 provided via a suitable dedicated communication link or from portable storage media such as a flash drive. Furthermore, although not shown, the sensor 1101 may be configured as an in-line appliance to receive traffic (e.g., files or other objects) and to provide data submissions 124 that are associated with “suspicious” objects for subsequent analysis.
It is contemplated that the security content updating logic 670 may be communicatively coupled to a cybersecurity vendor (not shown) to receive software updates and/or data (e.g., component) updates for distribution to (i) the cluster management system 190 via a first transmission medium 672 and (ii) the subscriber management system 118 via a second transmission medium 673. The cluster management system 190 is configured to manage a cluster or multiple clusters of the object evaluation service 180 while the subscriber management system 118 is configured to manage a sensor or multiple sensors of the subscriber site 112, as shown.
As an illustrative example, updates to the functionality of components within the object evaluation service 180 (e.g., signatures, rules, executables, software patches, OS versions, plug-ins, etc.) may be propagated to the compute nodes 3001-300P via the cluster management system 190, which received the updates from the security content updating logic 670 via the first transmission medium 672. Similarly, updates to the functionality of components within the sensors (e.g., sensors 1101-110M) may be propagated via the subscriber management system 118, which received the updates from the security content updating logic 670 via the second transmission medium 673. Furthermore, the security content updating logic 670 supports two-way communications to receive and share information associated with analysis results conducted by sensors or clusters of the malware detection system 100 via communication path 674 and/or analysis results from other sources outside of the malware detection system 100 such as a cybersecurity intelligence vendor via communication path 675.
A. Licensing and Enrollment
Referring now to
In some embodiments, the customer may be offered a plurality of subscriptions (types and/or tiers). Different subscription types may focus on different cybersecurity protection points (e.g., email, network traffic, file system, etc.) while the subscription tiers may correspond to different service performance levels as specified by a set of subscription attributes. For instance, one subscription attribute may specify a specific duration (or latency) allocated for analyzing an object by the malware detection system 100 before the analysis time-out occurs and for classifying the object as malware or benign. Another subscription attribute may specify a maximum number of customer endpoint devices, e.g., laptops and other computers to be supported and protected against cyber-attacks by the malware detection system. Yet another subscription attribute includes a number and/or rate of data submissions allowed for the subscription tier selected. The subscription attributes may be included as part of the subscription information 177.
Moreover, the customer may also have an opportunity to select (e.g., via the portal 165 by the I/O interface 606 or the endpoint device 608) from among a set of customer-configured attributes which, though not dictated by the subscription type or tier, once selected, become associated with the subscription. The customer-configured attributes may be used in managing the selection of cluster(s) within the object evaluation service 180. These customer-configured attributes may include, by way of example, (i) a geographic location attribute that specifies the customer's preferred or required geographic location for the cluster used to analyze submission data from the customer, e.g., to protect sensitive information, and (ii) a guest image attribute that specifies one or more software profiles (e.g., brand and/or version of computer programs included in the software profiles) preferred or required by the customer.
As described, the subscriber management system 118, when equipped with the interactive I/O interface 606, permits examination of subscriber site or customer statistics on a per sensor basis rather than at a customer-aggregated level. This allows for selection or allocation of different attributes on a per-sensor basis. As an illustrative example, traffic/objects from a sensor (e.g., sensor 1101) serving the finance department of a customer may have a lower threshold of suspiciousness, be entitled to a higher bandwidth of analysis (e.g., greater number of submissions per day, week or month) by the malware detection system 100 than traffic/objects from other departments, where the average bandwidth of analysis across all sensors for the customer still meets the subscription level and other attributes. As another example, the customer can customize malware detection on a per-sensor basis, where a sensor 110M is located at a different geographic reason to protect a subnet different than the subnet protected by the sensor 1101. These sensors 1101 and 110M may feature different guest image software profiles, and thus, the attributes associated with the sensor-based subscription may vary from sensor to sensor. In some embodiments, the per-sensor customization can be performed at the portal's interactive user interface 606 rather than or in addition to that of the subscriber management system 118, in which case the customer's “entries” can be communicated to the subscriber management system 118 for informational/reporting purposes and for compliance monitoring/enforcement. The portal 165 can also store the customer's per-sensor configuration selections as part of the subscription information 177.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, as shown in both
After receipt of the software license credentials 642, to enroll for access to the malware detection system 100, the sensor 1101 establishes a communication session with the enrollment logic 650 over a communication link 652. During this communication session, as shown in
As represented in
Besides subscription attributes, the attributes may include factory set attributes, customer configurable attributes provided via (i) a command line interface (CLI), (ii) a web-browser based interface offered by the sensor 1101 or the subscriber management system 118, or (iii) the portal 165 (e.g., customer console). Additionally, one or more attributes (operational attributes) may be generated dynamically during operation of the malware detection system, for example, an attribute may specify aspects of a history of communications (e.g., email or web downloads; number or rate of data submissions for in-depth analysis) with the sensor 1101, where the history may assist in the selection of the cluster for the enrolled sensor 1101.
As a result, as shown in
Alternatively, in accordance with a second embodiment of the disclosure as shown in
B. Data Submission
Referring back to
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the Sensor_ID 115 and/or the Customer_ID (if provided) may be used by the cloud broker 610 to access certain attributes associated with the subscription selected by the customer. These attributes, along with the cluster selection values 157, namely a portion of the operational metadata 150 or information produced based at least in part on a portion of the operational metadata 150, is used in selecting a cluster (e.g., cluster 1851) and a broker compute node of the cluster 1851 (e.g., broker compute node 3001) to control the handling of malware analyses for the sensor 1101. Thereafter, from the sensors 1101, the Sensor_ID 115 is passed with the metadata 122 to the selected broker compute node 3001.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the object evaluation service 180 (e.g., cluster management service 190 on behalf of the broker compute node 3001) may use the Sensor_ID 115 to retrieve at least a portion of the subscription information 177 (e.g., subscription tier, QoS threshold, permissions, access control information, and/or cluster availability details). The portion of the subscription information 177 may be used by the broker compute node 3001 (or passed to the cluster management system 190) to verify operations by the customer and the cluster 185, are compliance with the customer subscription. Also, the portion of the subscription information 177 may be used by the broker compute node 3001 to prioritize (compute a priority in the handling of) the metadata 122 over some other metadata representing objects in the queue 310. Such prioritization may be accomplished by assigning tags to the metadata 122 to denote priority, assigning higher priority metadata to different locations within the queue 310 or different queues, or the like.
In this example, both the Sensor_ID 115 and the metadata 122 may be stored within the distributed queue 310 and subsequently removed from the queue 310 by one of the compute nodes 3001-300P for use (if needed) in retrieval of the corresponding object 120 for analysis. The Sensor_ID 115 may further accompany the malware analysis results of the object 120, which are returned from the cluster 1851 to the cloud broker 610. A mapping between Sensor_IDs and their corresponding Customer_IDs is accessible to the cloud broker 610 via the data store(s) 175 within or separate from the subscription service 170, as described above. Customer-configured attributes for the customer (learned from the Sensor_ID-to-Customer_ID mapping) may be accessed to identify the selected network device(s) to receive the malware analysis results.
Additionally, as another embodiment of the disclosure, a portion of the service policy level information 127 may be used in controlling operation of the object evaluation service 180, such as selecting a cluster to handle malware analyses for the sensor 1101 and/or assigning priority in the handling of metadata 122 (and corresponding object 120) according to the subscription tier assigned to the customer. For this embodiment, the Customer_ID 128 may be used by the object evaluation service 180 (e.g., cluster management service 190 on behalf of the broker compute node 3001) in retrieving, from the subscription review service 170, at least the portion of the subscription information 177 assigned to the customer with the Customer_ID 128.
According to yet another embodiment of the disclosure, it is contemplated that the Customer_ID 128 is not forwarded to the selected cluster 1851. Rather, using the Sensor_ID 115 or the Customer_ID 128 as a lookup parameter, the cloud broker 610 may be configured to access one or more data stores 175 within the malware detection system 100 (e.g., within the first and/or second subsystems) to collect a portion of the subscription information 177 that may influence cluster selection. Examples of the subscription information 177 may include, but are not limited or restricted to the subscription tier value, QoS threshold(s) based on the subscription level; cluster availability based on the subscription level (e.g., the default cluster for the subscription, cluster selection ordering or preferences if the default cluster is unavailable or is unable to satisfy the QoS threshold(s), cluster restrictions, etc.); geographic location permissions or restrictions for compute nodes associated with the selected cluster; remediation setting (e.g., type of remediation) set for the customer; or any other attribute(s). A portion of this subscription information 177 accompanied by the metadata 122 is provided to the selected broker compute node 3001 and may be used to prioritize handling of the metadata 122.
Referring still to
The system monitoring service 630 operating in concert with the cluster broker 610 may be configured to assure that the malware detection system 100 (and specifically the clusters and compute nodes available to perform object evaluation services) are capable of satisfying the service requirements (and, where provided, performance guarantees) of all customers. By evaluating the operational metadata 155 provided by the cluster management system 190 for all clusters against customer subscription information from the subscription review service regarding all customer registrations (and/or sensor enrollments for object evaluation services), the cluster broker 610 (and/or the system monitoring service 630) may generate system status information indicating the overall capacity and capability of the malware detection system to service all the registered customers per their aggregated service level requirements. The cluster broker 610 (and/or the system monitoring service 630) provides the system status information to system administrators by generating and sending status reports and alerts on demand and/or as system conditions require.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the cluster selection values 157 may be based on operational metadata 150 that may be categorized as cluster-based operational metadata, customer-based operational metadata and CN-based operational metadata. In general, the cluster-based operational metadata includes data representing the availability of each cluster 1851-185N to analyze an incoming object for malware. The customer-based operational metadata and CN-based operational metadata are directed to measured data in accordance with subscriber (customer) and compute node based granularity. Examples of the cluster-based operational metadata, customer-based operational metadata and CN-based operational metadata included as parts of the operational metadata 150 include the following:
Cluster-Based Operational Metadata:
Operational information regarding the cluster(s), including (i) workload (e.g., cluster workload or utilization level, etc.); (ii) location (e.g., cluster geographic location, etc.); (iii) configuration (e.g., software profile(s) supported by cluster, etc.); and/or (iv) storage capacity (e.g., queue size for use in storage of metadata awaiting processing to prompt fetching of the corresponding object, etc.).
Customer-Based Operational Metadata:
Operational information regarding the customer(s) or one or more of the sensors of the customer(s), including: (i) submission rate (e.g., number of objects submitted (per sensor or per subscriber) over a given time period or other aggregate, rate of submission over a given time period such as number of objects submitted” divided by “given time period,” etc.); (ii) submission type (e.g., types of objects submitted (per sensor or per subscriber) over a given time period or other aggregate, etc.); and/or (iii) detection rate (e.g., number of submitted objects determined as potentially malicious by a cluster over a given time period or other aggregate, etc.).
CN-Based Operational Metadata:
(i) node workload (e.g., workload or utilization level of a particular compute node “CN”, etc.); (ii) location (e.g., geographic location of the particular CN, etc.); (iii) configuration (e.g., software profile(s) supported by the particular CN, etc.); and/or (iv) rate of submission (e.g., “number of objects” divided by “given time period” by the particular CN).
It is contemplated that the architecture of the system monitoring logic 630 may be further configured to receive a portion of the subscription information 177 (e.g., customer-configured attributes), which may cause weighting of certain cluster selection values 157. For instance, as an illustrative example, where customer-configured attributes identify that the customer has selected only compute nodes featuring a certain software profile for analysis of submitted objects for malware, the system monitoring logic 630 may adjust the cluster selection values 157 to cause the rule engine 142 to eliminate any clusters that do not feature computer nodes with the certain software profile. Additionally, or in the alternative, compute node selection may be at least partially performed automatically (without customer input) based on at least a portion of the service policy level information 127 (e.g., Customer_ID), which may restrict or enlarge the types of compute nodes or groupings of compute nodes based on subscription level, geographic location based on the location of sensor having the object for submission, etc.).
In order to ensure compute node configurability, the system monitor logic 630 may be configured to provide cluster selection values 157 that include metadata used by the cloud broker 610 to control what compute node or compute nodes are permitted to process submitted objects from a particular subscriber. For instance, this metadata (e.g., subsequently included as part of the metadata 122 as illustrated in
The FIFO retrieval scheme may be the default retrieval scheme for all compute nodes (e.g., compute node 3001-300P) in a cluster (e.g., cluster 1851) in some embodiments. In such embodiments, upon completing processing of an object, the compute node 1851 simply retrieves the metadata of the next entry in the queue 310 that remains unprocessed and available for processing by a compute node. In other embodiments that are equipped to provide certain subscribers premium service with reduced latency, each of these compute node(s) may seek to next process an entry tagged to identify the metadata being provided from premium service customers. For example, these compute node(s) may check for the next tagged entry in the queue 310 for data submissions from premium service customers, and process that entry. In some embodiments, the compute node(s) may check only the next “Q” entries in the queue 310, where the number “Q” is a positive integer (e.g., Q≤10), and if such an entry is not found, returns to retrieval of the metadata through a FIFO scheme by default so as to select the least recent (top) available entry.
Upon receipt of the cluster selection values 157, the cloud broker 610 is better able to select a cluster (e.g., cluster 1851) from the cluster 1851-185N for handling analyses of objects from the sensor 1101. The selection of the cluster (e.g., cluster 1851) may be based, at least in part, on the cluster selection values 157 and/or portions of subscription information 177 made available by content within the analysis request message (e.g., service policy level information 127), which are applied by the policy and routing rules processed by the rules engine 142 within the cloud broker 610 (see
Additionally, in lieu of the first enforcement logic 143, another type of logic, namely the policy and routing rules controlling operations of the cloud broker 610, may be designed to confirm compliance with one or more performance and/or operation thresholds for the selected subscription level by comparing values associated with certain cluster selection values 157 (or operational metadata 150) to values associated with certain attributes within the subscription information 177. In response to determining that the operability of the cluster 1851 is not compliant with certain thresholds established by attributes for the subscription selected by the customer (e.g., failure to satisfy a prescribed number of performance thresholds or a particular performance threshold, number of submissions exceeds a prescribed maximum, etc.), the cloud broker 610 may issue an alert to the sensor 1101, subscriber management system 118, or another network device (e.g., endpoint device 608, etc.) regarding detected non-compliance.
Different types of alerts may be provided. For instance, a first alert may include a message sent to a subscriber management system 118 or an endpoint device 608 controlled by an administrator of the customer's network. The alert may identify one or more attributes that fail to satisfy criterion set by certain subscription information e.g., criteria associated with certain service attributes. In some cases, non-compliance may be remedied by adjusting the current subscription to increase entitled object processing capacity. For example, where the subscription tier qualifies or permits the customer to submit a maximum number of objects or transmit at a maximum rate for analysis, the first alert may notify the customer administrator that the number or rate has been exceeded, and the customer is notified to increase this factor of the subscription accordingly to address non-compliance.
Besides a first alert, a second alert (message) may be provided to an OEM (or another party) hosting the object evaluation service 180 identifying a performance issue causing non-compliance. In response to the second alert, the OEM (or another party) may provide a remedy by augmenting the selected cluster with more compute nodes or re-balancing workloads on the existing clusters/compute nodes (e.g., readjustment of sensor/cluster pairing, activating a cluster or compute node in a particular geographic location, etc.). Of course, the selected remedy may depend on what attributes have not been satisfied in accordance with the current subscription.
As an illustrative example, the policy and routing rules of the rules engine 142 may be coded to select from a certain subset of clusters (e.g., clusters 1851-1852), numbering less than the available clusters (e.g., e.g., clusters 1851-1855), based on subscription information retrieved using the Sensor_ID 115 or a portion of the service policy level information 127 (e.g., Customer_ID 128) as described above. Additionally, the selection of a particular cluster (e.g., cluster 1851) from the subset of clusters (e.g., clusters 1851-1852) may be based on an evaluation of cluster selection values 157 associated with each cluster of the subset of clusters. This evaluation may include (i) a comparison of the current workload of each cluster (e.g., cluster 1851 and cluster 1852) as represented by certain cluster selection values 157; (ii) a determination as to which cluster(s) of the subset of clusters (e.g., clusters 1851 or 1852) support a software profile needed to process the type of object for analysis (e.g., PDF reader application, word processing application, a web browser) or a software profile required by a particular customer as represented by other cluster selection values 157; and/or (iii) a determination of the geographic region in which each cluster of the subset of clusters (1851 or 1852) is located, as represented by the subscription information 177 accessed using the Sensor_ID 115 or a portion of the service policy level information 127 (e.g., Customer_ID) as a reference. It is contemplated that the ordering (or weighting) for some or all of these rules may vary for different versions of the policy and routing rules of the rules engine 142.
Besides issuing alerts upon determining that the operability of the cluster 1851 is not compliant with certain thresholds established by attributes for the subscription selected by the customer, a communication session with the effected sensor 1101 may be terminated for load-balancing purposes. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the communication session established via communication links 155/612 between the sensor 1101 and the cluster 1851 via the cloud broker 610 may remain active (and exclusive) until a session termination event has occurred. The session termination event may be detected by the sensor 1101 or logic within the analysis selection service 140, such as the system monitoring logic 630 and/or the cloud broker 610 for example.
For instance, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, a session termination event may occur in response to logic within the analysis selection service 140 determining, from the operational metadata 150 gathered by the cluster management logic 190, that termination of the communication session and reassignment of the current sensor/cluster 1101/1851 pairings is needed to better ensure that service guarantees established by the subscription (i.e., identified by certain service attributes) are fulfilled. This session termination event may be caused, at least in part, by (a) changes in condition of the assigned cluster (e.g., health and operability of the cluster 1851); (b) changes in cluster availability where a cluster 185N different than the assigned cluster 1851 is better suited to handle analyses (e.g., as new clusters come online or workload demands on clusters change); or (c) changes in customer requirements.
As an illustrative example, the reassignment may involve cluster load-balancing based on an analysis of cluster operability. Such analysis of cluster operability may involve (i) monitoring the number of timeouts that occur during the communication session 155/612 between the sensor 1101 and the cluster 1851 and (ii) determining whether the number of timeouts exceeds a timeout threshold. The timeout threshold may be a uniform value or a value that is based, at least in part, on the customer's subscription (e.g., lower timeout thresholds for higher subscriptions tiers or a customer-configured attribute). Hence, upon exceeding the timeout threshold (once or over a prescribed period of time), which signifying that the cluster 1851 is currently unable to adequately support the data submissions level provided by the sensor 1101 (session termination event), a readjustment of one or more cluster/sensor pairings may occur. More specifically, the sensor 1101 may be re-assigned to a different cluster (e.g., cluster 185N) or other sensors in communications with the cluster 1851 (e.g., sensor(s) at lower subscription tiers) may be re-assigned to a different cluster (e.g., cluster 1852) to reduce cluster workload.
It is contemplated that, to perform the reassignment substantially in real-time, measures need to be undertaken to address incoming data submissions and metadata currently residing in the cluster queue. As an illustrative example, incoming data submissions could be temporarily buffered at the sensor 1101 or at the analysis selection service 140 while another communication session is being established between the sensor 1101 and another cluster 1852, . . . , or 185N. Prior to or concurrently with the buffering of the incoming data submissions involving the sensor 1101, the queued metadata from the sensor 115 may be returned to the sensor 1101 or the analysis selection service 140, temporarily buffered, and resubmitted to the reassigned cluster 185N.
Other illustrative examples of session termination events for readjustment of the sensor/cluster pairing may include, but are not limited or restricted to the following: (1) geography restrictions (e.g., new cluster closer in proximity to customer); (2) health issues (e.g., compute node failures, environmental conditions in one geographical location to shut down and causing clusters at another geographic location to temporarily handle the increased workload); (3) resizing of the individual clusters (e.g., higher number or fewer number of compute nodes available within cluster); (4) capacity or other limits on subscription; (5) communication session 612 between the sensor 1101 and the cloud broker 610 remaining active beyond a prescribed period of time; or (6) scheduled maintenance (e.g., schedule non-use of the cluster within certain time frames along with a prescribed lead time or allow for “graceful” take-down of the cluster).
According to another embodiment of the disclosure, the malware detection system 100 may be configured without supporting real-time reassignment session termination event may occur in response to the sensor 1101 detecting that its local data store has no suspicious objects currently awaiting processing by object evaluation service 180. Responsive to detecting the empty local data store, the sensor 1101 may terminate the existing communication session 612 with the cloud broker 610.
Besides assigning a sensor to a particular cluster, the cloud broker 610 may be configured to output statistical information in response to the management query message. The statistical information is based on one or more portions of the operational metadata 150 and is included as part of reporting data 193. The reporting data 193 may be aggregated and displayed, by the endpoint device 608, subscriber management system 118 or another network device, in a manner that is directed to the operability of any customer (as the Customer_IDs may be cross-referenced to the Sensor_IDs) as well as any sensor, any cluster, or any compute node within one of the clusters.
C. Subscription Service Levels
The malware detection system 100 may offer differentiated subscription levels or tiers of service, managed by the cloud broker 610 and the broker compute nodes 3001-300i (i≥1) in association with the license/enrollment services (described above) or the authentication node (described below). According to one illustrative example, the cloud broker 610 (and/or a selected broker compute node 3001) can push all data submissions from sensors (and their corresponding subscribers who paid for this higher subscription level) to a high priority queue (an allocated part of queue 310) to handle the analysis of the data submission within a pre-agreed time allotment. In contrast, data submissions handled by a non-premium level of service (lower subscription level) are provided to a different “standard” queue. Alternatively, the cloud broker 610 (and/or a selected broker compute node 3001) can tag entries in the queue (not shown) as premium requests and the analytic computer nodes will process a number of premium requests before resuming with processing a standard request.
As another example, for different service subscriptions, the distributed queue 310 may be monitored by logic within the cloud broker 610 (e.g., first enforcement logic 143 described above), where the malware detection system may limit the total number of data submission per customer (subscriber site) per a prescribed time period (e.g., hour/day/week/month/year) based on the subscription. Alternatively, the malware detection system 110 may limit the data submissions based on a prescribed amount of content based on the level of service per the subscription (e.g., 1 gigabytes/second “GPS” of traffic for Tier 1 service level and 2 GPS for Tier 2 service level).
As yet another example, the data submissions from a certain customer (Customer_ID) or certain sensors (e.g., Sensor_ID) at subscriber sites 112 and/or 114 may be tracked by the cloud broker 610 (and/or selected broker compute node). Such tracking may be conducted where the customer is billed based on the overall usage of the object evaluation service 180. As a result, the level of subscription paid for by the customer may be used to set throughput thresholds, number of data submissions, and/or other SLA (service level agreement) attributes.
Also, the malware detection system may differentiate service level commitments based on the type of object, for example, URL analysis may be performed in a shorter time than file analysis. Alternatively, different clusters or analytic compute nodes within a single cluster can be dedicated to certain tiers of service or types of object analysis (URLs, email, files, webpages) that may consume more or less time to complete.
VII. Cloud Broker Architecture
Although not shown, it is contemplated that the service monitoring service 630 of
Herein, the proxy module(s) 7001-700R include one or more software modules that, when executed by a hardware processor (not shown), collectively operate as a proxy server, which conducts load balancing of communications from the sensors 1101-110M as governed by the policy and routing rules 730 of the rules engine 142. The load balancing is based, at least in part, on the cluster selection values 157 that are produced by the system monitoring logic 630 from the collected operational metadata 150, where the operational metadata 150 may be stored in a data store (not shown) accessible to the first enforcement logic 143. These cluster selection values 157 are made available to the proxy module(s) 7001-700R via interface logic 710, which provides a mechanism to propagate load-balancing updates to the proxy module 7001-700R. Configured to select a cluster (and in one embodiment a particular broker compute node), the proxy module(s) 7001-700R may use the cluster selection values 157 as input parameters for the rule engine 142 which, based on the policy and routing rules 730, results in the selection of a particular cluster (e.g., cluster 1851) from the set of clusters 1851-185N available to a requesting sensor (e.g., sensor 1101).
According to another embodiment of the disclosure, besides the cluster selection values 157 described above, a portion of the subscription information 177 (stored within the data store(s) 175 and accessible by content in the analysis request message 125 from the sensor 1101) may be analyzed by at least one of the proxy modules (e.g., proxy module 700R) in determining a selected cluster (e.g., cluster 1851).
For instance, as an illustrative example, the Sensor_ID included as part of the analysis request message 125 may be provided to at least one of the proxy modules (e.g., proxy module 700R), where the Sensor_ID may identify a geographic region of the sensor 1101 and the Sensor_ID may be used to retrieve certain attributes of the subscription information 177 from the data store 175 located within the first subsystem 130 and/or the second subsystem 160 (e.g., a data store within the subscription review service 170). Additionally, or in the alternative, the Customer_ID may be included as part of the analysis request message 125 for use in accessing certain attributes of the subscription information 177 maintained within the cloud broker 610 or stored remotely from the cloud broker 610 and within the malware detection system 100 (e.g., within the first subsystem 130 or the second subsystem 160).
Depending on such information, the proxy module 700R may utilize (i) the cluster selection values 157 accessible from the system monitoring logic 630, (ii) the Sensor_ID, the Customer_ID, and/or its associated subscription information 177 as other inputs for the policy and routing rules 730 executed by the rules engine 142 in determining what cluster (and/or broker compute node) to select for communications with the sensor 1101. This determination may involve emphasizing (e.g., increase value to, apply weights on, etc.) the cluster selection value(s) 157 associated with a cluster (or compute node) within a certain geographic proximity to the sensor than clusters outside this geographic region. Another determination may involve evaluating whether the selected cluster (or targeted broker compute node) can satisfy (or is satisfying) QoS thresholds for this subscription. A high QoS threshold may provide the sensor 1101 with a lower number of possible clusters than a low QoS threshold.
The reporting logic 720 of the cloud broker 610 gathers operational metadata and/or analysis results from the proxy module(s) 7001-700R. These operational metadata and/or analysis results may be aggregated to formulate statistical information as described above, which is searchable and available for display and analysis by a subscriber management system within the subscriber site 112.
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. Principles of the invention may be practiced within a single monolithic malware detection system with a single cluster and/or a single compute node within the cluster.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4292580 | Ott et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
5175732 | Hendel et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5319776 | Hile et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5440723 | Arnold et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5490249 | Miller | Feb 1996 | A |
5657473 | Killean et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5802277 | Cowlard | Sep 1998 | A |
5842002 | Schnurer et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5960170 | Chen et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5978917 | Chi | Nov 1999 | A |
5983348 | Ji | Nov 1999 | A |
6088803 | Tso et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6092194 | Touboul | Jul 2000 | A |
6094677 | Capek et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6108799 | Boulay et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6154844 | Touboul et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6269330 | Cidon et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272641 | Ji | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6279113 | Vaidya | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6298445 | Shostack et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6357008 | Nachenberg | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6424627 | Sorhaug et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6442696 | Wray et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6484315 | Ziese | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487666 | Shanklin et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493756 | O'Brien et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6550012 | Villa et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6775657 | Baker | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6831893 | Ben Nun et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6832367 | Choi et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6895550 | Kanchirayappa et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6898632 | Gordy et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6907396 | Muttik et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6941348 | Petry et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6971097 | Wallman | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6981279 | Arnold et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7007107 | Ivchenko et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7028179 | Anderson et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7043757 | Hoefelmeyer et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058822 | Edery et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7069316 | Gryaznov | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7080407 | Zhao et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7080408 | Pak et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7093002 | Wolff et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7093239 | van der Made | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7096498 | Judge | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7100201 | Izatt | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7107617 | Hursey et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7159149 | Spiegel et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7213260 | Judge | May 2007 | B2 |
7231667 | Jordan | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7240364 | Branscomb et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7240368 | Roesch et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7243371 | Kasper et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7249175 | Donaldson | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7287278 | Liang | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7308716 | Danford et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7328453 | Merkle, Jr. et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7346486 | Ivancic et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7356736 | Natvig | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7386888 | Liang et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7392542 | Bucher | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7418729 | Szor | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7428300 | Drew et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7441272 | Durham et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7448084 | Apap et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7458098 | Judge et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7464404 | Carpenter et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7464407 | Nakae et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7467408 | O'Toole, Jr. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7478428 | Thomlinson | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7480773 | Reed | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7487543 | Arnold et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7496960 | Chen et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7496961 | Zimmer et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7519990 | Xie | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7523493 | Liang et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7530104 | Thrower et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
7540025 | Tzadikario | May 2009 | B2 |
7546638 | Anderson et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7565550 | Liang et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7568233 | Szor et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7584455 | Ball | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7603715 | Costa et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7607171 | Marsden et al. | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7639714 | Stolfo et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7644441 | Schmid et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7657419 | van der Made | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7676841 | Sobchuk et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7698548 | Shelest et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7707633 | Danford et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7712136 | Sprosts et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7730011 | Deninger et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7739740 | Nachenberg et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7779463 | Stolfo et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7784097 | Stolfo et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7832008 | Kraemer | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7836502 | Zhao et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7849506 | Dansey et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7854007 | Sprosts et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7869073 | Oshima | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7877803 | Enstone et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7904959 | Sidiroglou et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7908660 | Bahl | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7930738 | Petersen | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7937387 | Frazier et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7937761 | Bennett | May 2011 | B1 |
7949849 | Lowe et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7984503 | Edwards | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7996556 | Raghavan et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
7996836 | McCorkendale et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
7996904 | Chiueh et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
7996905 | Arnold et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8006305 | Aziz | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8010667 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8020206 | Hubbard et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8028338 | Schneider et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8042184 | Batenin | Oct 2011 | B1 |
8045094 | Teragawa | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8045458 | Alperovitch et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8069484 | McMillan et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8087086 | Lai et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8171553 | Aziz et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8176049 | Deninger et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8176480 | Spertus | May 2012 | B1 |
8201246 | Wu et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8204984 | Aziz et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8214905 | Doukhvalov et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8220055 | Kennedy | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8225288 | Miller et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8225373 | Kraemer | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8233882 | Rogel | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8234640 | Fitzgerald et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8234709 | Viljoen et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8239944 | Nachenberg et al. | Aug 2012 | B1 |
8260914 | Ranjan | Sep 2012 | B1 |
8266091 | Gubin et al. | Sep 2012 | B1 |
8286251 | Eker et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8291499 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8307435 | Mann et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
8307443 | Wang et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8312545 | Tuvell et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8321936 | Green et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
8321941 | Tuvell et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8332571 | Edwards, Sr. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8365286 | Poston | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8365297 | Parshin et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8370938 | Daswani et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8370939 | Zaitsev et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8375444 | Aziz et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8381299 | Stolfo et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8402529 | Green et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
8413209 | Aldera et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8464340 | Ahn et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8479174 | Chiriac | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8479276 | Vaystikh et al. | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8479291 | Bodke | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8510827 | Leake et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8510828 | Guo et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8510842 | Amit et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8516478 | Edwards et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8516590 | Ranadive et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8516593 | Aziz | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8522348 | Chen et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8528086 | Aziz | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8533824 | Hutton et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8539582 | Aziz et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8549638 | Aziz | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8549645 | Tang et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8555391 | Demir et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8555392 | Golovkin | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8561177 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8566476 | Shiffer et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8566946 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8578491 | McNamee | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8584094 | Dadhia et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8584234 | Sobel et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8584239 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8595834 | Xie et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8627476 | Satish et al. | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8635696 | Aziz | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8682054 | Xue et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8682812 | Ranjan | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8683593 | Mahaffey | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8689333 | Aziz | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8695096 | Zhang | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8713631 | Pavlyushchik | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8713681 | Silberman et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8726392 | McCorkendale et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8739280 | Chess et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8763127 | Yao | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8776229 | Aziz | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8782792 | Bodke | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8789172 | Stolfo et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8789178 | Kejriwal et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8793278 | Frazier et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8793787 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8805947 | Kuzkin et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8806647 | Daswani et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8832829 | Manni et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8850570 | Ramzan | Sep 2014 | B1 |
8850571 | Staniford et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8881234 | Narasimhan et al. | Nov 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 |
9027135 | Aziz | May 2015 | B1 |
9027138 | Glenn | May 2015 | B2 |
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 |
9344447 | Cohen et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
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 |
9374381 | Kim | Jun 2016 | B2 |
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 |
9450840 | Denis | Sep 2016 | B2 |
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 |
9516054 | Malachi | Dec 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 |
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 |
9832216 | Kaloroumakis | Nov 2017 | B2 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
10476906 | Siddiqui | Nov 2019 | B1 |
20010005889 | Albrecht | Jun 2001 | A1 |
20010047326 | Broadbent et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020018903 | Kokubo et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020038430 | Edwards et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020091819 | Melchione et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020095607 | Lin-Hendel | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020116627 | Tarbotton et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020144156 | Copeland | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020162015 | Tang | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020166063 | Lachman et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020169952 | DiSanto et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020184528 | Shevenell et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020188887 | Largman et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194490 | Halperin et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030021728 | Sharpe et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030074578 | Ford et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030084318 | Schertz | May 2003 | A1 |
20030101381 | Mateev et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030115483 | Liang | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030188190 | Aaron et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030191957 | Hypponen et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030200460 | Morota et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030212902 | van der Made | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030229801 | Kouznetsov et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030237000 | Denton et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040003323 | Bennett et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040006473 | Mills et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015712 | Szor | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040019832 | Arnold et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040047356 | Bauer | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040083408 | Spiegel et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088581 | Brawn et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040093513 | Cantrell et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111531 | Staniford et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117478 | Triulzi et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117624 | Brandt et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128355 | Chao et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040165588 | Pandya | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040236963 | Danford et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243349 | Greifeneder et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040249911 | Alkhatib et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255161 | Cavanaugh | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040268147 | Wiederin et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050005159 | Oliphant | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021740 | Bar et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050033960 | Vialen et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050033989 | Poletto et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050050148 | Mohammadioun et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050086523 | Zimmer et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091513 | Mitomo et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091533 | Omote et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091652 | Ross et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050108562 | Khazan et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114663 | Cornell et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125195 | Brendel | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050149726 | Joshi et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050157662 | Bingham et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050183143 | Anderholm et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050201297 | Peikari | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050210533 | Copeland et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050238005 | Chen et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050240781 | Gassoway | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050262562 | Gassoway | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050265331 | Stolfo | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283839 | Cowburn | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060010495 | Cohen et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015416 | Hoffman et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015715 | Anderson | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015747 | Van de Ven | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021029 | Brickell et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021054 | Costa et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060031476 | Mathes et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060047665 | Neil | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060070130 | Costea et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060075496 | Carpenter et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060095968 | Portolani et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101516 | Sudaharan et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101517 | Banzhof et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060117385 | Mester et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060123477 | Raghavan et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143709 | Brooks et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060150249 | Gassen et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161983 | Cothrell et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161987 | Levy-Yurista | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161989 | Reshef et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060164199 | Glide et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060173992 | Weber et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060179147 | Tran et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184632 | Marino et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060191010 | Benjamin | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060221956 | Narayan et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236393 | Kramer et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242709 | Seinfeld et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060248519 | Jaeger et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060248582 | Panjwani et al. | Nov 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 |
20070019286 | Kikuchi | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070033645 | Jones | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070038943 | FitzGerald et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070064689 | Shin et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070074169 | Chess et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070094730 | Bhikkaji et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070101435 | Konanka et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070128855 | Cho et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070142030 | Sinha et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143827 | Nicodemus et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070156895 | Vuong | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070157180 | Tillmann et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070157306 | Elrod et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070168988 | Eisner et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070171824 | Ruello et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174915 | Gribble et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070192500 | Lum | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070192858 | Lum | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198275 | Malden et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208822 | Wang et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220607 | Sprosts et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070240218 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070240219 | 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 |
20070256132 | Oliphant | Nov 2007 | A2 |
20070271446 | Nakamura | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080005782 | Aziz | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080018122 | Zierler et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080028463 | Dagon et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080040710 | Chiriac | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080046781 | Childs et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080066179 | Liu | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080072326 | Danford et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080077793 | Tan et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080080518 | Hoeflin et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080086720 | Lekel | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080098476 | Syversen | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080120722 | Sima et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080134178 | Fitzgerald et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080134334 | Kim et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080141376 | Clausen et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080184367 | McMillan et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080184373 | Traut et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080189787 | Arnold et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080201778 | Guo et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080209557 | Herley et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080215742 | Goldszmidt et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080222729 | Chen et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080263665 | Ma et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080295172 | Bohacek | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301810 | Lehane et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080307524 | Singh et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080313738 | Enderby | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080320562 | Creamer et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080320594 | Jiang | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090003317 | Kasralikar et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090007100 | Field et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090013408 | Schipka | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090031423 | Liu et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090036111 | Danford et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090037835 | Goldman | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090044024 | Oberheide et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090044274 | Budko et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090064332 | Porras et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090077666 | Chen et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083369 | Marmor | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083855 | Apap et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090089879 | Wang et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090094697 | Provos et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090113425 | Ports et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090125976 | Wassermann et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090126015 | Monastyrsky et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090126016 | Sobko et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090133125 | Choi et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090144823 | Lamastra et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090158430 | Borders | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090172815 | Gu et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090187992 | Poston | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090193293 | Stolfo 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 |
20090199296 | Xie et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090228233 | Anderson et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090241187 | Troyansky | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090241190 | Todd et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090265692 | Godefroid et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090271867 | Zhang | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090300415 | Zhang et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090300761 | Park et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328185 | Berg et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328221 | Blumfield et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100005146 | Drako et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100011205 | McKenna | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017546 | Poo et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100030996 | Butler, II | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100031353 | Thomas et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100037314 | Perdisci et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100043073 | Kuwamura | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100054278 | Stolfo et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100058474 | Hicks | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100064044 | Nonoyama | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100077481 | Polyakov et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100083376 | Pereira et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100115621 | Staniford et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100132038 | Zaitsev | May 2010 | A1 |
20100154056 | Smith et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100180344 | Malyshev et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100192223 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100220863 | Dupaquis et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100235831 | Dittmer | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100251104 | Massand | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100281102 | Chinta et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100281541 | Stolfo et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100281542 | Stolfo et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100287260 | Peterson et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299754 | Amit et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100306173 | Frank | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110004737 | Greenebaum | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110025504 | Lyon et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110041179 | St Hlberg | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110047594 | Mahaffey et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110047620 | Mahaffey et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110055907 | Narasimhan et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110078794 | Manni et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110093951 | Aziz | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110099620 | Stavrou et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110099633 | Aziz | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110099635 | Silberman et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110113231 | Kaminsky | May 2011 | A1 |
20110145918 | Jung et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110145920 | Mahaffey et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110145934 | Abramovici et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110167493 | Song et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110167494 | Bowen et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110173213 | Frazier et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110173460 | Ito et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110219449 | St. Neitzel et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110219450 | McDougal et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110225624 | Sawhney et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110225655 | Niemela et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110247072 | Staniford et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110265182 | Peinado et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110289582 | Kejriwal et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110302587 | Nishikawa et al. | Dec 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 |
20120023593 | Puder et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120054869 | Yen et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120066698 | Yanoo | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120079596 | Thomas et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120084859 | Radinsky et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120096553 | Srivastava et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120110667 | Zubrilin et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120117652 | Manni et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120121154 | Xue et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120124426 | Maybee et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120174186 | Aziz et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120174196 | Bhogavilli et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120174218 | McCoy et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120198279 | Schroeder | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120210423 | Friedrichs et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120222121 | Staniford et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120255015 | Sahita et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120255017 | Sallam | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120260342 | Dube et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120266244 | Green et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120278886 | Luna | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120297489 | Dequevy | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120330801 | McDougal et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120331553 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130014259 | Gribble et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130036472 | Aziz | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130047257 | Aziz | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130074143 | Bu et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130074185 | McDougal et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130086684 | Mohler | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130097699 | Balupari et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130097706 | Titonis et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130111587 | Goel et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130117852 | Stute | May 2013 | A1 |
20130117855 | Kim et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130139264 | Brinkley et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130160125 | Likhachev et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130160127 | Jeong et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130160130 | Mendelev et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130160131 | Madou et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130167236 | Sick | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130174214 | Duncan | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130185789 | Hagiwara et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130185795 | Winn et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130185798 | Saunders et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130191915 | Antonakakis et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130196649 | Paddon et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130227691 | Aziz et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130232576 | Karnikis | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130246370 | Bartram et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247186 | LeMasters | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130263260 | Mahaffey et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130291109 | Staniford et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130298243 | Kumar et al. | 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 |
20140053260 | Gupta et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140053261 | Gupta et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140130158 | Wang et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140137180 | Lukacs et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140169762 | Ryu | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140179360 | Jackson et al. | Jun 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 |
20140328204 | Klotsche et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140337836 | Ismael | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140344926 | Cunningham et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140351935 | Shao 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 |
20160036855 | Gangadharappa et al. | Feb 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 |
20160197951 | Lietz et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160261612 | Mesdaq et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160285914 | Singh et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160301703 | Aziz | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160335110 | Paithane et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170083703 | Abbasi et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170300693 | Zhang et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170329968 | Wachdorf | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20180013770 | Ismael | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180048660 | Paithane et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180063177 | Yamada | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180121316 | Ismael et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180219891 | Jain | Aug 2018 | A1 |
20180288077 | Siddiqui et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2439806 | Jan 2008 | GB |
2490431 | Oct 2012 | 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 |
---|
Thomas H. Ptacek, and Timothy N. Newsham , “Insertion, Evasion, and Denial of Service: Eluding Network Intrusion Detection”, Secure Networks, (“Ptacek”), (Jan. 1998). |
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.jsp?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-d/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. |
PCT/US2018/025329 filed Mar. 30, 2018 International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jun. 20, 2018. |
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). |
PCT/US2018/025329 filed Mar. 30, 2018 International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated Oct. 1, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/721,630, filed Sep. 29, 2017 Notice of Allowance dated May 23, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/940,307, filed Mar. 29, 2018 Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 10, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/940,352, filed Mar. 29, 2018 Non-Final Office Action dated Dec. 12, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/940,410, filed Mar. 29, 2018 Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 3, 2020. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62479208 | Mar 2017 | US | |
62523121 | Jun 2017 | US | |
62523123 | Jun 2017 | US |