System and method for kernel rootkit protection in a hypervisor environment

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8973144
  • Patent Number
    8,973,144
  • Date Filed
    Thursday, October 13, 2011
    13 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, March 3, 2015
    9 years ago
Abstract
A method includes creating a soft whitelist having an entry corresponding to a first guest kernel page in a guest operating system (OS) in a hypervisor environment including a hypervisor. The method also includes receiving an access attempt to a second guest kernel page, and generating a page fault when the access attempt is made to the second guest kernel page. In addition, the method includes determining that the second guest kernel page does not correspond to the entry in the soft whitelist, and denying an execution of the second guest kernel page if the second guest kernel page does not correspond to the entry in the soft whitelist.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD

This disclosure relates in general to the field of computer networks and, more particularly, to a system and a method for kernel rootkit protection in a hypervisor environment.


BACKGROUND

The field of computer network security has become increasingly important and complicated in today's society. Computer network environments are configured for virtually every enterprise or organization, typically with multiple interconnected computers (e.g., end user computers, laptops, servers, printing devices, etc.). Moreover, cloud service providers (and other organizations that run multiple applications and operating systems) may use hypervisor technology to run various different guest operating systems concurrently on a host device. A hypervisor is computer software/hardware platform virtualization software that allows multiple operating systems to run on a host computer concurrently. Security threats can originate externally and internally in the hypervisor environment. These threats in the hypervisor environment can present further challenges to IT administrators.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

To provide a more complete understanding of the present disclosure and features and advantages thereof, reference is made to the following description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying figures, wherein like reference numerals represent like parts, in which:



FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram illustrating components of a system for kernel rootkit protection in a hypervisor environment according to an example embodiment; and



FIG. 2 is a simplified flow-chart illustrating example operational steps that may be associated with embodiments of the present disclosure.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXAMPLE EMBODIMENTS

Overview


A system and method in one embodiment includes modules for creating a soft whitelist having entries corresponding to each guest kernel page in a guest operating system in a hypervisor environment, generating a page fault when an access attempt is made to a guest kernel page, fixing the page fault to allow access and execution if the guest kernel page corresponds to one of the entries in the soft whitelist, and denying execution if the guest kernel page does not correspond to any of the entries in the soft whitelist. In example embodiments, the soft whitelist includes a hash of machine page frame numbers corresponding to virtual addresses of each guest kernel page.


Other example embodiments include marking the guest kernel page as read-only and executable if the page fault is an instruction page fault, and the guest kernel page corresponds to one of the entries in the soft whitelist. If the page fault is a data page fault and the guest kernel page does not correspond any of the entries in the soft whitelist, the method includes fixing the page fault, and marking the guest kernel page as non-executable.


More specific embodiments include marking page table entries corresponding to each guest kernel page as NOT_PRESENT in a shadow page table of the hypervisor. In yet other example embodiments, the method includes denying execution by causing the guest OS to loop indefinitely, injecting an exception in the guest OS, or fixing the page fault and pointing a corresponding PTE in the shadow page table to a crafted page instead of the guest kernel page. The crafted page can include code that either causes the guest OS to crash, or a set of No Operations (NOP) instructions that execute harmlessly.


In yet other example embodiments, creating the soft whitelist may be performed after the guest OS has loaded substantially all its kernel components at boot. If the guest OS has not loaded substantially all its kernel components, each guest kernel page may be from a paged pool range or a non-paged pool range. Yet another embodiment includes setting a lockdown feature bit in the hypervisor during domain creation to enable rootkit protection and other features.


Example Embodiments


FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram illustrating an example implementation of a system 10 for kernel rootkit protection in a hypervisor environment. As used herein, a “hypervisor” is a hardware virtualization entity that allows one or more operating systems (OSs), termed “guest OSs,” to run concurrently on a host device (e.g., a computer). Virtualization allows the guest OSs to run unmodified on isolated virtual environments (typically referred to as virtual machines or guests), where the host device's physical characteristics and behaviors are reproduced. More specifically, a guest can represent an isolated, virtual environment equipped with virtual hardware (processor, memory, disks, network interfaces, etc.). According to the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, system 10 comprises a hypervisor 12, which provides a virtualization environment to a guest 14. Any number of guests may be hosted on hypervisor 12 within the broad scope of the present disclosure. A single guest is representatively illustrated in FIG. 1 for ease of explanation.


Hypervisor 12 controls and manages hardware 16 of a host device (not shown) that is allocated for use by guest 14. Guest 14 may run a guest OS 18 on hypervisor 12. Guest OS 18 may support one or more applications 20 (referred to herein in the singular as application 20 to refer to one of the applications). As used herein, the term “application” is used in a broad sense to refer generically to any software file, library module, function, subroutine, binary, instruction set, code block, or other similar operating unit that comprises instructions that can be understood and processed by a computer with or without assistance (e.g., compilation, interpretation, etc.).


Hypervisor 12 may manage access of applications 20 to underlying hardware 16, such as a processor 22 and a machine memory 24. As used herein, “machine memory” refers to a memory element that is visible to hypervisor 12 as available on the host device. Guest OS 18 may present to applications 20 a guest virtual memory 26, which accesses a guest physical memory 28. As used herein, the term “guest virtual memory” refers to a substantially continuous virtual address space that is visible to applications 20 running inside guest 14. An address space refers to a range of discrete addresses, each of which may correspond to a memory location (i.e., address) at which an application (e.g., application 20) can store data and retrieve data later. As used herein, the term “guest physical memory” refers to the virtual memory that is visible to guest OS 18.


Guest physical memory 28 may create kernel pages 30 during operation. When guest OS loads its guest kernel into memory, the guest kernel is divided into pages (e.g., guest kernel pages 30), with some pages containing kernel instructions, and other pages containing kernel data. Each page, including each of guest kernel pages 30, is typically of standard size (e.g., 4 kB), and is associated with an address (e.g., guest virtual address). Guest OS 18 maps the virtual address of each page to a corresponding “physical” address through page tables. Although the guest memory (e.g., guest virtual memory 26 and guest physical memory 28) is virtual, guest OS 18 assumes that guest physical memory 28 is real or “physical.” However, the guest physical memory (e.g., guest physical memory 28) is merely an abstraction utilized by hypervisor 12 for maintaining correct mapping to the (real) host physical address (also called machine address).


A page table is a data structure used by guest OS 18 to store a mapping between virtual addresses and “physical” addresses. A page table contains several page table entries (PTEs), each PTE mapping a virtual address to a corresponding “physical” address (e.g., from guest virtual address to guest physical address or from guest physical address to machine address). The PTE includes the “physical” address (e.g., guest physical address or machine address) and other information relevant to a page in the appropriate memory element (e.g., guest physical memory 28 or machine memory 24), such as whether the page is present, the page is read-only or read/write, etc.


Shadow page table 32 can be used by hypervisor 12 to map guest physical memory 28 to machine memory 24 for a currently executing process. A “process” is an instance of an application (or a portion thereof), whose instructions are being executed. Shadow page table 32 includes page table entries (PTEs) 34 corresponding to guest kernel pages 30. Each of PTEs 34 includes the machine address and other information relevant to the respective kernel page that is loaded into machine memory 24. According to an example embodiment, PTEs 34 may be marked as NOT_PRESENT in shadow page table 32. In example embodiments, whenever any new kernel page is created in guest OS 18, the corresponding PTE 34 in shadow page table 32 may be marked as NOT_PRESENT by default.


A rootkit protection module 36 in hypervisor 12 can add machine frame numbers (MFNs) corresponding to virtual addresses of guest kernel pages 30 into a hash 36. In one example implementation MFN refers to the page number allocated in machine memory 24 for corresponding virtual addresses. A page fault handler 40 may conditionally allow or deny access to or execution of appropriate guest kernel pages 30. A domain 0 (DOM0) 42 running on hypervisor 12 may have special rights to access physical hardware 16 as well as to interact with other guests running on the system. DOM042 may have a lockdown module 44 for controlling certain lockdown features of rootkit protection module 36 in hypervisor 12.


For purposes of illustrating the techniques of system 10, it is important to understand the activities and security concerns that may be present in a given system such as the system shown in FIG. 1. The following foundational information may be viewed as a basis from which the present disclosure may be properly explained. Such information is offered earnestly for purposes of explanation only and, accordingly, should not be construed in any way to limit the broad scope of the present disclosure and its potential applications.


Typical computing architecture supports four rings (numbered 0 to 3) of privilege levels to protect system code and data from being unintentionally or maliciously overwritten by lower privileged code. Ring 0 is the highest privilege level, while ring 3 is the lowest. OSs may use different privilege levels for different processes. For example, Windows OS uses two privilege levels (rings 0 and 3) for process and data security. Code for applications such as Internet Explorer and Microsoft Word and a number of Windows services (e.g., Service Control Manager, Local System Security Authority, Winlogon, Session Manager, and RPC Server, etc.) run within ring 3.


Kernel-level code runs within ring 0 and is used in device drivers and kernel components such as managers for virtual memory, cache, Input/Output, object, plug and play, a hardware abstraction layer, graphics subsystem, file systems, and network protocol implementations. A kernel connects applications to the hardware of a computing device. In general, a kernel comprises several components that could vary depending on the OS. For example, Linux OS may include components such as low level drivers (e.g., architecture specific drivers responsible for central processing unit (CPU), memory management unit (MMU) and on-board devices initialization); process scheduler (e.g., component responsible for fair CPU time slice allocation to different processes); memory manager (e.g., component responsible for allocating and sharing memory to different processes); file system (e.g., components that abstract underlying file systems so as to present a unified file system interface to a user); network interface (e.g., component that provides access and control to different networking devices); device drivers (e.g., high level drivers), etc. Applications generally use system function calls (e.g., Win 32 API calls) to communicate with the kernel.


A rootkit alters the flow of a normal execution path (e.g., of a process in an application) to make its stealth implementation successful. A rootkit is software that enables continued privileged access to a device while actively hiding its presence by subverting standard OS functionality. Rootkits normally modify the data returned by system function calls to hide their binary files, processes, and registry entries. Depending on where they run and what area in the system they hook, rootkits can generally be classified in one of two types: user mode rootkits and kernel rootkits. User-mode rootkits are relatively easy to detect and repair because they execute with user-mode privileges. Kernel rootkits, on the other hand, execute with system privileges, making them more challenging to detect and repair. Kernel rootkits load (i.e., inject) their code into the kernel address space, typically by installing a kernel-mode device driver. For example, kernel rootkits may be installed by injecting kernel code into a running kernel using a kernel module, or by writing new code to a piece of unused kernel memory, or by inserting a kernel module file, etc. Once the delivery mechanism is in place, kernel rootkits can disrupt the flow of the normal execution path of a process.


Kernel rootkits are a significant challenge in desktop security. Kernel rootkits can launch various attacks such as opening system backdoors, stealing private information, disabling security measures, and executing other malware applications. Typically, an attacker installs a kernel rootkit on a computer after first obtaining root-level access, either by exploiting a known vulnerability or by obtaining a password (e.g., by cracking the encryption, through social engineering, etc.). Once a kernel rootkit is installed, it allows an attacker to mask the ongoing intrusion and maintain privileged access to the computer by circumventing normal authentication and authorization mechanisms. Kernel rootkits may be hard to detect because a kernel rootkit may be able to subvert the software that is intended to find it. Detection methods include using an alternate, trusted operating system; behavioral-based methods; signature scanning; difference scanning; and memory dump analysis. Removal can be complicated or practically impossible, especially in cases where the kernel rootkit resides in the kernel.


In a hypervisor environment, effects of an attack may be severe. One infected guest could infect all other guests on the host device. For example, an attacker can get administrator privileges on hardware by infecting a guest, and can move from one guest to another over the hypervisor environment. In situations where the hypervisor hosts tens of hundreds of guests, such a guest-to-guest attack can have catastrophic results.


Hypervisor environments present an opportunity to provide kernel rootkit protection without the need for a guest-resident protective software. Guests run on top of the hypervisor in a virtualized host device. Traditional kernel rootkit protection mechanisms can be installed on each instance of the guest running on the hypervisor; however such methods result in significant overhead in terms of memory, run time performance and management. Ideally, kernel rootkit protection mechanisms would sit outside the kernel (which is being protected by it), which may not be possible in non-virtualized environments. Moreover, customers running guests in cloud (virtualized) environments may like the cloud service providers to provide kernel rootkit protection transparently.


In one method of kernel rootkit protection, a hash function can be used to compute a digital signature of on-disk code libraries. The hash function creates a message digest, which is a fixed size bit string that may be calculated for an arbitrary block of data such that a change to the data can change the hash value. By recalculating and comparing the message digest of the on-disk code libraries at regular intervals against a trusted list of fingerprints, changes in the system can be detected and monitored. However, current methods check only whether the code has been modified since the last release by the code's publisher. Also, kernel rootkits may subvert this process by loading from memory, rather than making modifications on disk. Other rootkit protection solutions may be based on commodity OS. There is a need for software for virtualized environments that provides agent-less protection.


A system for kernel rootkit protection in a hypervisor environment outlined by FIG. 1 can resolve these issues, among others. Embodiments of the present disclosure seek to vastly improve capabilities of existing technologies to allow for a more robust solution. In example embodiments, components of system 10 may create a soft whitelist, for example, hash 38, of guest kernel pages 30 inside hypervisor 12. The soft whitelist comprises entries corresponding to each guest kernel page 30 in guest OS 18. In example embodiments, the soft whitelist is intended to comprise a list of approved guest kernel pages that are each represented by a corresponding machine page frame number (MFN), for example, instead of a checksum of the entire page content. In example embodiments, the soft whitelist (i.e., hash 38) includes a hash of MFNs corresponding to guest kernel pages 30.


According to an example embodiment, the soft-whitelist may be created after guest OS 18 has booted and has loaded its kernel components (e.g., process scheduler, memory manager, file systems, etc.). As used herein, the term “boot” refers to a boot sequence, which is the initial set of operations that a computer performs when power is switched on. Thereafter, system 10 can ensure that code cannot be executed from any new kernel page that is not present in the soft-whitelist. According to another example embodiment, the soft whitelist may be created before guest OS 18 has booted and loaded its kernel components. Kernel pages 30 may be in paged and non-paged pools (because all kernel drivers are loaded in these pages). The page start addresses for each faulting virtual address in the paged pool and non-paged pool range may be stored in a hash table (e.g., in hash 38) in hypervisor 12.


System 10 can protect against day-zero threats, for example, as it is based on white-listing. In example embodiments, system 10 may be implemented by public cloud infrastructure providers and companies employing private clouds. System 10 may provide a transparent layer of security. The solution may be especially useful for customers who do not change their base OS configuration frequently, but rather change the data stored on it (e.g., a web host service provider).


Turning to memory management in a hypervisor environment, the guest OS (e.g., guest OS 18) provides a virtual address space layout in guest virtual memory (e.g., guest virtual memory 26) to applications (e.g., application 20). The address space of the guest virtual memory may be divided into user space, which is accessible to applications (e.g., applications 20), and system space, which includes boot drivers, process page tables, system cache, paged and non-paged pools, etc. Typically, the address locations of the system pages are hardcoded (or known apriori). For example, a 4 GB of the guest virtual memory may be separated into 3 GB of user space, with addresses ranging from 0xBFFFFFFF to 0x00000000, and system space, with addresses ranging from 0xFFFFFFFF to 0xC0000000.


The guest OS handles virtual to physical address mappings through page tables. While virtual address space (e.g., guest virtual memory 26) is generally contiguous, the addresses may be mapped to non-contiguous blocks in the physical address space (e.g., guest physical memory 28). Virtual to physical mapping information is placed in a page table in structures called page table entries (PTEs). The format of the PTEs may vary with the OS, for example, Linux OS may specify one format, and Windows XP OS may specify another format. In general, PTEs typically contain a bit to indicate whether the page referenced by the PTE is present (or valid). For example, when a process begins loading into machine memory (e.g., machine memory 24), the guest OS assumes that the pages are loading into guest physical memory (e.g., guest physical memory 28), and generates corresponding page tables. The present bit for the pages being loaded into machine memory are set to 0 (indicating NOT_PRESENT) until all the pages are loaded into memory. Once all the pages are loaded, the present bit for the pages may be set to 1 (indicating PRESENT) in the respective PTEs. During the loading, if an attempt is made to access a page marked NOT_PRESENT, a page fault may be generated.


In example embodiments, any page table maintained by guest 14 may have a corresponding shadow page table (e.g., shadow page table 32), which is generated and maintained by hypervisor 12. Guest OS 18 does not have access to shadow page table 32. At boot, guest OS 18 may load its kernel to memory (e.g., in the form of guest kernel pages 30) from the computer's hard disk. Rootkit protection module 36 may mark PTEs 34 corresponding to guest kernel pages 30 as NOT_PRESENT in shadow page table 32. In one example, rootkit protection module 36 may determine that a page is one of guest kernel pages 30 by reading a virtual address of the page. If the virtual address lies within a particular range (e.g., predetermined range), the page may be one of guest kernel pages 30, and corresponding PTE 34 may be marked as NOT_PRESENT.


When a page fault occurs, control transfers from the processor (e.g., processor 22) executing the instruction that caused the page fault to the hypervisor (e.g., hypervisor 12). The hypervisor's page fault handler (e.g., page fault handler 40) can determine the instruction pointer and the faulting address, for example, to determine whether the page fault is an instruction page fault or a data page fault. For example, if the instruction pointer (i.e., the pointer pointing to the memory address, which the processor will next attempt to execute) points to the faulting address, then the page fault is an instruction page fault.


Turning to the infrastructure of FIG. 1, hypervisor 12 can run multiple instances of guest OSs. Hypervisor 12 can be part of a server, a firewall, an antivirus solution, or more generically, a computer. In one example implementation, hypervisor 12 is a Xen element, which runs on bare hardware and which provides the capability of running multiple instances of OSs simultaneously on the same hardware. A typical Xen setup may involve Xen running beneath multiple OSs, where applications are on top of the OSs, which are associated with a group of guests (e.g., guest 14). The entire configuration may be provided in a server (or some other network appliance). In an example embodiment, guest 14 can be running an OS associated with DOM042. Note that the Xen implementation is only representing one possible example to which the present disclosure can apply. Any number of additional hypervisors could similarly benefit from the broad teachings discussed herein.


Control tools for managing hypervisor 12 can run on DOM042. DOM042 may provide a unified interface to manage guests (e.g., guest 14) on hypervisor 12. DOM042 may provide a means for an administrator to configure hypervisor 12, including managing storage, controlling aspects of guest behavior, setting up virtual networks, configuring a hypervisor and one or more guests, and creating, deleting, shutting down, booting up, etc. guests. For example, this kind of setup can be popular in data centers where servers run Xen, which in turn hosts multiple instances of guests. DOM042 may include modified Linux kernel, and can have special rights to access physical I/O resources, as well as interact with the other virtual machines running on the system. Typically, DOM042 is the first domain launched when the system is booted, and it can be used to create and configure all other regular guests (e.g., guest 14). The hypervisor environments can require DOM042 to be running before other guests can be started.


Turning to FIG. 2, FIG. 2 is a simplified flow-chart illustrating example operational steps that may be associated with embodiments of the present disclosure. Operations 100 may begin in 102, when DOM042 is activated. In 104, a lockdown feature during domain creation may be enabled (associated with a VMEXIT transition from a guest context to a hypervisor context) by lockdown module 44. In 106, a lockdown feature bit in a domain specific data structure may be set in hypervisor 12. In 108, a hypervisor virtual machine (HVM) (i.e., guest 14) may be started. In 110, guest OS 18 may create page table entries (PTEs) for guest kernel pages 30, with a VMEXIT to hypervisor 12. In 112, rootkit protection module 36 may create PTEs 34 for guest kernel pages 30 in shadow page table 32. In 114, rootkit protection module 36 may mark guest kernel pages 30 as NOT_PRESENT in shadow page table 32 maintained by hypervisor 12. In addition, this operation may be provided along with a virtual machine instruction (VMRUN) associated with processor 22 in 116.


If rootkit protection has been enabled (e.g., guest OS 18 has booted up and loaded its kernel components), page fault handler 40 may perform activities such as walking shadow page table 32 in hypervisor 12 and adding virtual addresses (e.g., corresponding to pages that have not been previously accessed) into hash 38. In an example embodiment, the activities occur one time after guest OS 18 has completed booting up, and subsequently, system 10 may be considered locked.


In 120, an application 20 in guest OS 14 may attempt to access guest kernel pages 30. Attempting to access guest kernel pages 30 can cause a page fault in 122 (as guest kernel pages 30 have been marked as NOT_PRESENT). Note that if rootkit protection is not enabled (e.g., guest OS 18 has not booted up and loaded its kernel components) and if the page fault is outside a paged pool and non-paged pool range, then page fault handler 40 may simply fix the page fault and store the page start address for each faulting virtual address (e.g., in paged pool and non paged pool range) in hash 38. Access may be allowed to these addresses, which are outside the paged pool and non paged pool range, because kernel drivers are generally loaded within the paged pool and non paged pool range.


When a page fault is encountered in 122, a determination is made in 124 if the page fault is an instruction page fault or a data page fault. If the page fault is a data page fault, then the soft whitelist (i.e., hash 38) is searched for an MFN corresponding to the faulting virtual address. If the MFN of the faulting virtual address is present in hash 38, then the page associated with the page fault is legitimate. Accordingly, in 126, page fault handler 40 may permanently fix the page fault to allow future access/execution of the page. On the other hand, if an MFN corresponding to the faulting virtual address is not present in hash 38, then the kernel page is new and any attempts to write to it could include code or data. Accordingly, page fault handler 40 may fix the page fault permanently and mark the page NX (no-execute) in 126. This can ensure that minimum page faults occur, while preventing any new kernel pages from being accessed or executed. Other pages can continue to be read/writable without any page fault until an attempt is made to execute the page. Application 20 may be allowed to access shadow page table 32 in 128 and the process ends in 130.


If the determination in 124 is that the page fault is an instruction fault, page fault handler 40 may check in 132 if the MFN for the faulting virtual address is present in hash 38. If present, page fault handler 40 may fix the page fault permanently (e.g., allow future access/execution) in 134, and mark the page read-only, remove any NX and allow access/execution. If the page is not present in hash 38, it can mean that the page is a new kernel page and page fault handler 40 may deny execution in 136. Denial of execution can be done in several ways: (i) page fault is not fixed, causing faulting thread in guest 14 to loop indefinitely; (ii) page fault is not fixed and an exception may be injected in guest 14. The exception may be caught by the faulting process. If the process does not handle this exception, it may be killed; (iii) page fault may be fixed, but the shadow PTE 34 associated with the faulting page may be made to point to a crafted page instead of the desired page. The crafted page can be configured with code that either causes guest 14 to crash, or causes No Operations Performed (NOPs) instructions to be executed harmlessly. Other examples are “blue-screening” guest 14, inserting a dummy page that causes an exit gracefully, etc. The process may end in 138.


Software for kernel rootkit protection (as well as inhibiting dangerous code from being executed) can be provided at various locations (e.g., within rootkit protection module 36). In one example implementation, this software is resident in a computer sought to be protected from a security attack (or protected from unwanted, or unauthorized manipulations of a writeable memory area). In a more detailed configuration, this software is specifically resident in a security layer of the hypervisor, which may include (or otherwise interface with) the components depicted by FIG. 1. In still other embodiments, software could be received or downloaded from a web server (e.g., in the context of purchasing individual end-user licenses for separate devices, separate virtual machines, guests, hypervisors, servers, etc.) in order to provide this kernel rootkit protection.


In other examples, the kernel rootkit protection functions could involve a proprietary element (e.g., as part of an antivirus solution), which could be provided in (or be proximate to) these identified elements, or be provided in any other device, server, network appliance, console, firewall, switch, information technology (IT) device, etc., or be provided as a complementary solution (e.g., in conjunction with a firewall), or provisioned somewhere in the network. As used herein in this Specification, the term ‘computer’ is meant to encompass these possible elements (VMMs, hypervisors, Xen devices, virtual devices, network appliances, routers, switches, gateway, processors, servers, loadbalancers, firewalls, or any other suitable device, component, element, or object) operable to affect or process electronic information in a security environment. Moreover, this computer may include any suitable hardware, software, components, modules, interfaces, or objects that facilitate the operations thereof. This may be inclusive of appropriate algorithms and communication protocols that allow for the effective protection against kernel rootkits. In addition, the kernel rootkit protection functions can be consolidated in any suitable manner. Along similar design alternatives, any of the illustrated modules and components of the various FIGURES may be combined in various possible configurations: all of which are clearly within the broad scope of this Specification.


Any of these elements (e.g., a computer, a server, a network appliance, a firewall, a hypervisor, any other type of virtual element, etc.) may include a processor that can execute software or an algorithm to perform the kernel rootkit protection activities as discussed in this Specification. Additionally, each of these elements (e.g., a computer, a server, a network appliance, a firewall, a hypervisor, any other type of virtual element, etc.) can include memory elements (random access memory (RAM), ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, ASIC, etc.), software, hardware, or in any other suitable component, device, element, or object where appropriate and based on particular needs. The information being tracked, sent, received, or stored in system 10 could be provided in any database, register, table, cache, queue, control list, or storage structure, based on particular needs and implementations, all of which could be referenced in any suitable timeframe.


These elements and/or modules can cooperate with each other in order to perform the activities in connection with kernel rootkit protection in a hypervisor environment as discussed herein. In other embodiments, these features may be provided external to these elements, included in other devices to achieve these intended functionalities, or consolidated in any appropriate manner. For example, some of the processors associated with the various elements may be removed, or otherwise consolidated such that a single processor and a single memory location are responsible for certain activities. In a general sense, the arrangement depicted in FIGURES may be more logical in its representation, whereas a physical architecture may include various permutations, combinations, and/or hybrids of these elements.


Any of the memory items discussed herein (e.g., guest kernel pages 30, shadow page table 32, machine memory 24, guest virtual memory 26, guest physical memory 28, hash 38, etc.) should be construed as being encompassed within the broad term ‘memory element.’ Similarly, any of the potential processing elements, modules, and machines described in this Specification should be construed as being encompassed within the broad term ‘processor.’ Each of the computers, network appliances, virtual elements, etc. can also include suitable interfaces for receiving, transmitting, and/or otherwise communicating data or information in a hypervisor environment.


A processor can execute any type of instructions associated with the data to achieve the operations detailed herein in this Specification. In one example, the processor (as shown in the FIGURES) could transform an element or an article (e.g., data) from one state or thing to another state or thing. In another example, the activities outlined herein may be implemented with fixed logic or programmable logic (e.g., software/computer instructions executed by a processor) and the elements identified herein could be some type of a programmable processor, programmable digital logic (e.g., a field programmable gate array (FPGA), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), an electrically erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM)) or an ASIC that includes digital logic, software, code, electronic instructions, or any suitable combination thereof.


In certain example implementations, the kernel rootkit protection functions outlined herein may be implemented by logic encoded in one or more tangible, nontransitory media (e.g., embedded logic provided in an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), digital signal processor (DSP) instructions, software (potentially inclusive of object code and source code) to be executed by a processor, or other similar machine, etc.). In some of these instances, a memory element (as shown in the FIGURES) can store data used for the operations described herein. This includes the memory element being able to store software, logic, code, or processor instructions that are executed to carry out the activities described in this Specification. In various embodiments, some or all of these elements include software (or reciprocating software) that can coordinate, manage, or otherwise cooperate in order to achieve the operations as outlined herein. One or more of these elements may include any suitable algorithms, hardware, software, components, modules, interfaces, or objects that facilitate the operations thereof.


Note that with the numerous examples provided herein, interaction may be described in terms of two, three, four, or more network elements and modules. However, this has been done for purposes of clarity and example only. It should be appreciated that the system can be consolidated in any suitable manner. Along similar design alternatives, any of the illustrated modules, components, and elements of FIG. 1 may be combined in various possible configurations, all of which are clearly within the broad scope of this Specification. In certain cases, it may be easier to describe one or more of the functionalities of a given set of flows by only referencing a limited number of elements or components. It should be appreciated that the system of FIG. 1 (and its teachings) is readily scalable and can accommodate a large number of components, as well as more complicated/sophisticated arrangements and configurations. Accordingly, the examples provided should not limit the scope or inhibit the broad teachings of system 10 as potentially applied to a myriad of other architectures.


It is also important to note that the operations described with reference to the preceding FIGURES illustrate only some of the possible scenarios that may be executed by, or within, the system. Some of these operations may be deleted or removed where appropriate, or these steps may be modified or changed considerably without departing from the scope of the discussed concepts. In addition, the timing of these operations may be altered considerably and still achieve the results taught in this disclosure. The preceding operational flows have been offered for purposes of example and discussion. Substantial flexibility is provided by the system in that any suitable arrangements, chronologies, configurations, and timing mechanisms may be provided without departing from the teachings of the discussed concepts.

Claims
  • 1. A method, comprising: creating a soft whitelist having an entry corresponding to a first guest kernel page in a guest operating system (OS) in a hypervisor environment comprising a hypervisor;receiving an access attempt to a second guest kernel page;generating a page fault when the access attempt is made to the second guest kernel page;determining whether the second guest kernel page corresponds to the entry in the soft whitelist;fixing the page fault to allow an access and execution of the second guest kernel page if the second guest kernel page corresponds to the entry in the soft whitelist; anddenying an execution of the second guest kernel page if the second guest kernel page does not correspond to the entry in the soft whitelist.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: marking the first guest kernel page as read-only and executable if the page fault is an instruction page fault and the second guest kernel page corresponds to the entry in the soft whitelist.
  • 3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: if the page fault is a data page fault and the second guest kernel page does not correspond to the entry in the soft whitelist: fixing the page fault; andmarking the second guest kernel page as non-executable.
  • 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the creating the soft whitelist comprises adding a machine page frame number (MFN) corresponding to a virtual address of the first guest kernel page into a hash.
  • 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: marking a page table entry (PTE) corresponding to the first guest kernel page as NOT_PRESENT in a shadow page table of the hypervisor.
  • 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the denying the execution comprises one of: causing the guest OS to loop;injecting an exception in the guest OS; orfixing the page fault and pointing a corresponding PTE in the shadow page table to a crafted page instead of the second guest kernel page, wherein the crafted page comprises code that either causes the guest OS to crash or executes a set of No Operations (NOP) instructions.
  • 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the creating the soft whitelist is performed after the guest OS has loaded substantially all its kernel components at boot.
  • 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the creating the soft whitelist is performed before the guest OS has loaded substantially all its kernel components, and the first guest kernel page is from a paged pool range or a non-paged pool range.
  • 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: setting a lockdown feature bit in the hypervisor during domain creation to enable rootkit protection.
  • 10. An apparatus, comprising: a memory;a processor; anda hypervisor, such that the apparatus is configured for creating a soft whitelist having an entry corresponding to a first guest kernel page in a guest operating system (OS) in a hypervisor environment comprising the hypervisor;receiving an access attempt to a second guest kernel page;generating a page fault when the access attempt is made to the second guest kernel page;determining whether the second guest kernel page corresponds to the entry in the soft whitelist;fixing the page fault to allow an access and execution of the second guest kernel page if the second guest kernel page corresponds to the entry in the soft whitelist; anddenying an execution of the second guest kernel page if the second guest kernel page does not correspond to the entry in the soft whitelist.
  • 11. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the apparatus is further configured for: marking the first guest kernel page as read-only and executable if the page fault is an instruction page fault and the second guest kernel page corresponds to the entry in the soft whitelist.
  • 12. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the apparatus is further configured for: if the page fault is a data page fault and the second guest kernel page does not correspond to the entry in the soft whitelist: fixing the page fault; andmarking the second guest kernel page as non-executable.
  • 13. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the creating the soft whitelist comprises adding a machine page frame number (MFN) corresponding to a virtual address of the first guest kernel page into a hash.
  • 14. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the denying the execution comprises one of: causing the guest OS to loop;injecting an exception in the guest OS; orfixing the page fault and pointing a corresponding PTE in a shadow page table of the hypervisor to a crafted page instead of the second guest kernel page, wherein the crafted page comprises code that either causes the guest OS to crash or executes a set of No Operations (NOP) instructions.
  • 15. Logic encoded in non-transitory media that includes code for execution and, when executed by a processor, is operable to perform operations comprising: creating a soft whitelist having an entry corresponding to a first guest kernel page in a guest operating system (OS) in a hypervisor environment comprising a hypervisor;receiving an access attempt to a second guest kernel page;generating a page fault when the access attempt is made to the second guest kernel page;determining whether the second guest kernel page corresponds to the entry in the soft whitelist;fixing the page fault to allow an access and execution of the second guest kernel page if the second guest kernel page corresponds to the entry in the soft whitelist; anddenying an execution of the second guest kernel page if the second guest kernel page does not correspond to the entry in the soft whitelist.
  • 16. The logic of claim 15, the operations further comprising: marking the first guest kernel page as read-only and executable if the page fault is an instruction page fault and the second guest kernel page corresponds to the entry in the soft whitelist.
  • 17. The logic of claim 15, the operations further comprising: if the page fault is a data page fault and the second guest kernel page does not correspond to the entry in the soft whitelist: fixing the page fault; andmarking the second guest kernel page as non-executable.
  • 18. The logic of claim 15, wherein the creating the soft whitelist comprises adding a machine page frame number (MFN) corresponding to a virtual address of the first guest kernel page into a hash.
  • 19. The logic of claim 15, the operations further comprising: marking a PTE corresponding to the first guest kernel page as NOT_PRESENT in a shadow page table of the hypervisor.
  • 20. The logic of claim 19, wherein the denying the execution comprises one of: causing the guest OS to loop;injecting an exception in the guest OS; orfixing the page fault and pointing a corresponding PTE in the shadow page table to a crafted page instead of the second guest kernel page, wherein the crafted page comprises code that either causes the guest OS to crash or execute a set of No Operations (NOP) instructions.
US Referenced Citations (284)
Number Name Date Kind
4688169 Joshi Aug 1987 A
4982430 Frezza et al. Jan 1991 A
5155847 Kirouac et al. Oct 1992 A
5222134 Waite et al. Jun 1993 A
5390314 Swanson Feb 1995 A
5521849 Adelson et al. May 1996 A
5560008 Johnson et al. Sep 1996 A
5699513 Feigen et al. Dec 1997 A
5778226 Adams et al. Jul 1998 A
5778349 Okonogi Jul 1998 A
5787427 Benantar et al. Jul 1998 A
5842017 Hookway et al. Nov 1998 A
5907709 Cantey et al. May 1999 A
5907860 Garibay et al. May 1999 A
5926832 Wing et al. Jul 1999 A
5974149 Leppek Oct 1999 A
5987610 Franczek et al. Nov 1999 A
5987611 Freund Nov 1999 A
5991881 Conklin et al. Nov 1999 A
6064815 Hohensee et al. May 2000 A
6073142 Geiger et al. Jun 2000 A
6141698 Krishnan et al. Oct 2000 A
6192401 Modiri et al. Feb 2001 B1
6192475 Wallace Feb 2001 B1
6256773 Bowman-Amuah Jul 2001 B1
6275938 Bond et al. Aug 2001 B1
6321267 Donaldson Nov 2001 B1
6338149 Ciccone, Jr. et al. Jan 2002 B1
6356957 Sanchez, II et al. Mar 2002 B2
6393465 Leeds May 2002 B2
6442686 McArdle et al. Aug 2002 B1
6449040 Fujita Sep 2002 B1
6453468 D'Souza Sep 2002 B1
6460050 Pace et al. Oct 2002 B1
6587877 Douglis et al. Jul 2003 B1
6611925 Spear Aug 2003 B1
6662219 Nishanov et al. Dec 2003 B1
6748534 Gryaznov et al. Jun 2004 B1
6769008 Kumar et al. Jul 2004 B1
6769115 Oldman Jul 2004 B1
6795966 Lim et al. Sep 2004 B1
6832227 Seki et al. Dec 2004 B2
6834301 Hanchett Dec 2004 B1
6847993 Novaes et al. Jan 2005 B1
6895491 Kjos et al. May 2005 B2
6907600 Neiger et al. Jun 2005 B2
6918110 Hundt et al. Jul 2005 B2
6930985 Rathi et al. Aug 2005 B1
6934755 Saulpaugh et al. Aug 2005 B1
6988101 Ham et al. Jan 2006 B2
6988124 Douceur et al. Jan 2006 B2
7007302 Jagger et al. Feb 2006 B1
7010796 Strom et al. Mar 2006 B1
7024548 O'Toole, Jr. Apr 2006 B1
7039949 Cartmell et al. May 2006 B2
7043616 McGrath May 2006 B1
7065767 Kambhammettu et al. Jun 2006 B2
7069330 McArdle et al. Jun 2006 B1
7082456 Mani-Meitav et al. Jul 2006 B2
7093239 van der Made Aug 2006 B1
7124409 Davis et al. Oct 2006 B2
7139916 Billingsley et al. Nov 2006 B2
7152148 Williams et al. Dec 2006 B2
7159036 Hinchliffe et al. Jan 2007 B2
7177267 Oliver et al. Feb 2007 B2
7203864 Goin et al. Apr 2007 B2
7251655 Kaler et al. Jul 2007 B2
7290266 Gladstone et al. Oct 2007 B2
7302558 Campbell et al. Nov 2007 B2
7330849 Gerasoulis et al. Feb 2008 B2
7346781 Cowle et al. Mar 2008 B2
7349931 Horne Mar 2008 B2
7350204 Lambert et al. Mar 2008 B2
7353501 Tang et al. Apr 2008 B2
7363022 Whelan et al. Apr 2008 B2
7370360 van der Made May 2008 B2
7401358 Christie et al. Jul 2008 B1
7406517 Hunt et al. Jul 2008 B2
7441265 Staamann et al. Oct 2008 B2
7464408 Shah et al. Dec 2008 B1
7506155 Stewart et al. Mar 2009 B1
7506170 Finnegan Mar 2009 B2
7546333 Alon et al. Jun 2009 B2
7546594 McGuire et al. Jun 2009 B2
7552479 Conover et al. Jun 2009 B1
7603552 Sebes et al. Oct 2009 B1
7607170 Chesla Oct 2009 B2
7657599 Smith Feb 2010 B2
7669195 Qumei Feb 2010 B1
7685635 Vega et al. Mar 2010 B2
7698744 Fanton et al. Apr 2010 B2
7703090 Napier et al. Apr 2010 B2
7757269 Roy-Chowdhury et al. Jul 2010 B1
7765538 Zweifel et al. Jul 2010 B2
7783735 Sebes et al. Aug 2010 B1
7809704 Surendran et al. Oct 2010 B2
7818377 Whitney et al. Oct 2010 B2
7823148 Deshpande et al. Oct 2010 B2
7836504 Ray et al. Nov 2010 B2
7840968 Sharma et al. Nov 2010 B1
7849507 Bloch et al. Dec 2010 B1
7856661 Sebes et al. Dec 2010 B1
7865931 Stone et al. Jan 2011 B1
7870387 Bhargava et al. Jan 2011 B1
7873955 Sebes et al. Jan 2011 B1
7895573 Bhargava et al. Feb 2011 B1
7908653 Brickell et al. Mar 2011 B2
7917724 Dewan et al. Mar 2011 B2
7937455 Saha et al. May 2011 B2
7966659 Wilkinson et al. Jun 2011 B1
7996836 McCorkendale et al. Aug 2011 B1
8015388 Rihan et al. Sep 2011 B1
8015563 Araujo et al. Sep 2011 B2
8028340 Sebes et al. Sep 2011 B2
8074276 Beloussov et al. Dec 2011 B1
8195931 Sharma et al. Jun 2012 B1
8234713 Roy-Chowdhury et al. Jul 2012 B2
8307437 Sebes et al. Nov 2012 B2
8321932 Bhargava et al. Nov 2012 B2
8332929 Bhargava et al. Dec 2012 B1
8341627 Mohinder Dec 2012 B2
8381284 Dang et al. Feb 2013 B2
8515075 Saraf et al. Aug 2013 B1
8561061 Adams et al. Oct 2013 B2
8566935 Lagar-Cavilla et al. Oct 2013 B2
8572371 Gassoway Oct 2013 B2
8578080 Sahita et al. Nov 2013 B2
8607020 Jacobs et al. Dec 2013 B2
8621605 Burugula et al. Dec 2013 B2
8694738 Bhattacharjee et al. Apr 2014 B2
8701189 Saraf et al. Apr 2014 B2
8719543 Kaminski et al. May 2014 B2
20020056076 van der Made May 2002 A1
20020069367 Tindal et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020083175 Afek et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020099671 Mastin Crosbie et al. Jul 2002 A1
20030014667 Kolichtchak Jan 2003 A1
20030023736 Abkemeier Jan 2003 A1
20030033510 Dice Feb 2003 A1
20030073894 Chiang et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030074552 Olkin et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030120601 Ouye et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030120811 Hanson et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030120935 Teal et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030145232 Poletto et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030163718 Johnson et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030167292 Ross Sep 2003 A1
20030167399 Audebert et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030200332 Gupta et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030212902 van der Made Nov 2003 A1
20030220944 Lyman Schottland et al. Nov 2003 A1
20030221190 Deshpande et al. Nov 2003 A1
20040003258 Billingsley et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040015554 Wilson Jan 2004 A1
20040051736 Daniell Mar 2004 A1
20040054928 Hall Mar 2004 A1
20040064668 Kjos et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040143749 Tajalli et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040167906 Smith et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040230963 Rothman et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040243678 Smith et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040255161 Cavanaugh Dec 2004 A1
20050018651 Yan et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050086047 Uchimoto et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050108516 Balzer et al. May 2005 A1
20050108562 Khazan et al. May 2005 A1
20050114672 Duncan et al. May 2005 A1
20050132346 Tsantilis Jun 2005 A1
20050228990 Kato et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050235360 Pearson Oct 2005 A1
20050257207 Blumfield et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050257265 Cook et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050260996 Groenendaal Nov 2005 A1
20050262558 Usov Nov 2005 A1
20050273858 Zadok et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050283823 Okajo et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050289538 Black-Ziegelbein et al. Dec 2005 A1
20060004875 Baron et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060015501 Sanamrad et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060037016 Saha et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060080656 Cain et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060085785 Garrett Apr 2006 A1
20060101277 Meenan et al. May 2006 A1
20060107020 Stillwell et al. May 2006 A1
20060133223 Nakamura et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060136910 Brickell et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060136911 Robinson et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060150256 Fanton et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060195906 Jin et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060200863 Ray et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060230314 Sanjar et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060236398 Trakic et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060259734 Sheu et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060282892 Jonnala et al. Dec 2006 A1
20070011746 Malpani et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070028303 Brennan Feb 2007 A1
20070039049 Kupferman et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070050579 Hall et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070050764 Traut Mar 2007 A1
20070074199 Schoenberg Mar 2007 A1
20070083522 Nord et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070101435 Konanka et al. May 2007 A1
20070136579 Levy et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070143851 Nicodemus et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070169079 Keller et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070192329 Croft et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070220061 Tirosh et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070220507 Back et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070253430 Minami et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070256138 Gadea et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070271561 Winner et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070300215 Bardsley Dec 2007 A1
20070300241 Prakash et al. Dec 2007 A1
20080005737 Saha et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080005798 Ross Jan 2008 A1
20080010304 Vempala et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080022384 Yee et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080034416 Kumar et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080052468 Speirs et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080082977 Araujo et al. Apr 2008 A1
20080120499 Zimmer et al. May 2008 A1
20080163207 Reumann et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080163210 Bowman et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080165952 Smith et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080184373 Traut et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080235534 Schunter et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080294703 Craft et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080301770 Kinder Dec 2008 A1
20090006805 Anderson et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090007100 Field et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090038017 Durham et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090043993 Ford et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090055693 Budko et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090113110 Chen et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090144300 Chatley et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090150639 Ohata Jun 2009 A1
20090172822 Sahita et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090249053 Zimmer et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090249438 Litvin et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090300612 Devine et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090307445 Jacobs et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100031360 Seshadri et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100071035 Budko et al. Mar 2010 A1
20100094948 Ganesh et al. Apr 2010 A1
20100114825 Siddegowda May 2010 A1
20100250895 Adams et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100281133 Brendel Nov 2010 A1
20100293225 Sebes et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100332910 Ali et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110029772 Fanton et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110035423 Kobayashi et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110047543 Mohinder Feb 2011 A1
20110077948 Sharma et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110078550 Nabutovsky Mar 2011 A1
20110082962 Horovitz et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110093842 Sebes Apr 2011 A1
20110113467 Agarwal et al. May 2011 A1
20110119760 Sebes et al. May 2011 A1
20110138461 Bhargava et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110167422 Eom et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110219447 Horovitz et al. Sep 2011 A1
20120030731 Bhargava et al. Feb 2012 A1
20120030750 Bhargava et al. Feb 2012 A1
20120179874 Chang et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120204263 Jonnala et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120278853 Roy-Chowdhury et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120290827 Bhargava et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120297176 Bhargava et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120311341 Paris et al. Dec 2012 A1
20120331464 Saito et al. Dec 2012 A1
20130024934 Sebes et al. Jan 2013 A1
20130054917 Ludwig et al. Feb 2013 A1
20130086550 Epstein Apr 2013 A1
20130091318 Bhattacharjee et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130097355 Dang et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130097356 Dang et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130117823 Dang et al. May 2013 A1
20130132690 Epstein May 2013 A1
20130174147 Sahita et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130219462 Aratsu et al. Aug 2013 A1
20130283004 Devine et al. Oct 2013 A1
20140089450 Raindel et al. Mar 2014 A1
20140089451 Eran et al. Mar 2014 A1
20140143774 Adams et al. May 2014 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (13)
Number Date Country
1 482 394 Dec 2004 EP
2 037 657 Mar 2009 EP
WO 9844404 Oct 1998 WO
WO 0184285 Nov 2001 WO
WO 2006012197 Feb 2006 WO
WO 2006124832 Nov 2006 WO
WO 2008054997 May 2008 WO
WO 2011059877 May 2011 WO
WO 2012015485 Feb 2012 WO
WO 2012015489 Feb 2012 WO
2013055498 Apr 2013 WO
2013055499 Apr 2013 WO
2013055502 Apr 2013 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (78)
Entry
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US2012/055660, mailed Feb. 18, 2013, 10 pages.
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/273,002, mailed on Jan. 31, 2014, 17 pages.
International Preliminary Report on Patentability in International Application No. PCT/US2012/055660, mailed Apr. 15, 2014, 6 pages.
International Preliminary Report on Patentability in International Application No. PCT/US2012/055670, mailed Apr. 15, 2014, 5 pages.
International Preliminary Report on Patentability in International Application No. PCT/US2012/055674, mailed on Apr. 15, 2014, 5 pages.
Kurt Gutzmann, “Access Control and Session Management in the HTTP Environment,” Jan./Feb. 2001, pp. 26-35, IEEE Internet Computing.
Eli M. Dow, et al., “The Xen Hypervisor,” INFORMIT, dated Apr. 10, 2008, http://www.informit.com/articles/printerfriendly.aspx?p=1187966, printed Aug. 11, 2009 (13 pages).
U.S. Appl. No. 10/651,591, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Networked Application Client Software by Explicit Human Input,” filed Aug. 29, 2003, Inventor(s): Rosen Sharma et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/060,683, entitled “Distribution and Installation of Solidified Software on a Computer,” filed Feb. 16, 2005, Inventor(s): Bakul Shah et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/379,953, entitled “Software Modification by Group to Minimize Breakage,” filed Apr. 24, 2006, Inventor(s): E. John Sebes et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/291,232, entitled “Method of and System for Computer System State Checks,” filed Nov. 7, 2008, inventor(s): Rishi Bhargava et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/426,859, entitled “Method of and System for Reverse Mapping Vnode Pointers,” filed Apr. 20, 2009, Inventor(s): Suman Saraf et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/322,220, entitled “Method of and System for Malicious Software Detection Using Critical Address Space Protection,” filed Jan. 29, 2009, Inventor(s): Suman Saraf et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/322,321, entitled “Method of and System for Computer System Denial-of-Service Protection,” filed Jan. 29, 2009, Inventor(s): Suman Saraf et al.
Desktop Management and Control, Website: http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/, printed Oct. 12, 2009, 1 page.
Secure Mobile Computing, Website: http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/mobile.html, printed Oct. 12, 2009, 2 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/636,414, entitled “System and Method for Managing Virtual Machine Configurations,” filed Dec. 11, 2009, Inventor(s): Harvinder Singh Sawhney, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/880,125, entitled “System and Method for Clustering Host Inventories,” filed Sep. 12, 2010, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al.
Barrantes et al., “Randomized Instruction Set Emulation to Dispurt Binary Code Injection Attacks,” Oct. 27-31, 2003, ACM, pp. 281-289.
Gaurav et al., “Countering Code-Injection Attacks with Instruction-Set Randomization,” Oct. 27-31, 2003, ACM, pp. 272-280.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/903,993, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Usage of Language Interfaces,” filed Oct. 13, 2010, Inventor(s) Rosen Sharma, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/946,344, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Usage of Language Interfaces,” filed Nov. 15, 2010, Inventor(s) Rosen Sharma, et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/012,138, entitled “System and Method for Selectively Grouping and Managing Program Files,” filed Jan. 24, 2011, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al.
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.: “ZoneAlarm Security Software User Guide Version 9”, Aug. 24, 2009, XP002634548, 259 pages, retrieved from Internet: URL:http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/media/pdf/zaclient91—user—manual.pdf.
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (1 page), International Search Report (4 pages), and Written Opinion (3 pages), mailed Mar. 2, 2011, International Application No. PCT/US2010/055520.
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration (1 page), International Search Report (6 pages), and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (10 pages) for International Application No. PCT/US2011/020677 mailed Jul. 22, 2011.
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration (1 page), International Search Report (3 pages), and Written Opinion of the International Search Authority (6 pages) for International Application No. PCT/US2011/024869 mailed Jul. 14, 2011.
Tal Garfinkel, et al., “Terra: A Virtual Machine-Based Platform for Trusted Computing,” XP-002340992, SOSP'03, Oct. 19-22, 2003, 14 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/037,988, entitled “System and Method for Botnet Detection by Comprehensive Email Behavioral Analysis,” filed Mar. 1, 2011, Inventor(s) Sven Krasser, et al.
IA-32 Intel® Architecture Software Developer's Manual, vol. 3B; Jun. 2006; pp. 13, 15, 22 and 145-146.
Notification of International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion mailed May 24, 2012 for International Application No. PCT/US2010/055520, 5 pages.
Sailer et al., sHype: Secure Hypervisor Approach to Trusted Virtualized Systems, IBM research Report, Feb. 2, 2005, 13 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,277, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Process Enforced Configuration Management,” filed Jul. 25, 2012, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/437,317, entitled “Connectivity-Based Authorization,” filed May 18, 2006, Inventor(s): E. John Sebes et al.
Myung-Sup Kim et al., “A load cluster management system using SNMP and web”, [Online], May 2002, pp. 367-378, [Retrieved from Internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nem.453/pdf>.
G. Pruett et al., “BladeCenter systems management software”, [Online], Nov. 2005, pp. 963-975, [Retrieved from Internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://citeseerx.lst.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.91.5091&rep=rep1&type=pdf>.
Philip M. Papadopoulos et al., “NPACI Rocks: tools and techniques for easily deploying manageable Linux clusters” [Online], Aug. 2002, pp. 707-725, [Retrieved from internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpe.722/pdf>.
Thomas Staub et al., “Secure Remote Management and Software Distribution for Wireless Mesh Networks”, [Online], Sep. 2007, pp. 1-8, [Retrieved from Internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://cds.unibe.ch/research/pub—files/B07.pdf>.
“What's New: McAfee VirusScan Enterprise, 8.8,” copyright 2010, retrieved on Nov. 23, 2012 at https://kc.mcafee.com/resources/sites/MCAFEE/content/live/PRODUCT—DOCUMENTATION/22000/PD22973/en—US/VSE%208.8%20-%20What's%20New.pdf, 4 pages.
“McAfee Management for Optimized Virtual Environments,” copyright 2012, retrieved on Nov. 26, 2012 at AntiVirushttp://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/data-sheets/ds-move-anti-virus.pdf, 2 pages.
Rivest, R., “The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm”, RFC 1321, Apr. 1992, retrieved on Dec. 14, 2012 from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1321.txt, 21 pages.
Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, “Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses”, RFC 4193, Oct. 2005, retrieved on Nov. 20, 2012 from http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc4193.pdf, 17 pages.
“Secure Hash Standard (SHS)”, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication, FIPS PUB 180-4, Mar. 2012, retrieved on Dec. 14, 2012 from http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-4/fips-180-4.pdf, 35 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/728,705, filed Dec. 27, 2012, entitled “Herd Based Scan Avoidance System in a Network Environment,” Inventor(s) Venkata Ramanan, et al.
An Analysis of Address Space Layout Randomization on Windows Vista™, Symantec Advanced Threat Research, copyright 2007 Symantec Corporation, available at http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/reference/Address—Space—Layout—Randomization.pdf, 19 pages.
Bhatkar, et al., “Efficient Techniques for Comprehensive Protection from Memory Error Exploits,” USENIX Association, 14th USENIX Security Symposium, Aug. 1-5, 2005, Baltimore, MD, 16 pages.
Dewan, et al., “A Hypervisor-Based System for Protecting Software Runtime Memory and Persistent Storage,” Spring Simulation Multiconference 2008, Apr. 14-17, 2008, Ottawa, Canada, (available at website: www.vodun.org/papers/2008—secure—locker—submit—v1-1.pdf, printed Oct. 11, 2011), 8 pages.
Shacham, et al., “On the Effectiveness of Address-Space Randomization,” CCS'04, Oct. 25-29, 2004, Washington, D.C., Copyright 2004, 10 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Dec. 14, 2012 for International Application No. 04796-1087WO, 9 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Jan. 25, 2013 for International Application No. PCT/US2012/055670 (7 pages).
Lecture Embedded System Security, Chapter 6: Return-oriented Programming, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, et al., Technische Universitat Damstadt (CASED), Germany, Summer Term 2011, http://www.trust.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/fileadmin/user—upload/Group—TRUST/LectureSlides/ESS-SS2011/rop-grayscale.pdf[Background on Butter Overflow Attacks/Sadeghi et al./2011, 51 pages.
Notice of Allowance received for U.S. Appl. No. 12/322,220, mailed on Apr. 17, 2013, 14 pages.
Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 12/545,745, mailed on Jun. 7, 2012, 14 pages.
Non Final Office Action received for U.S. Appl. No. 12/545,745, mailed on Jan. 5, 2012, 12 pages.
Notice of Allowance received for U.S. Appl. No. 12/545,745, mailed on Aug. 29, 2012, 8 pages.
Response to Final Office Action and RCE for U.S. Appl. No. 12/545,745, filed Jul. 31, 2012, 15 pages.
Response to Non Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/545,745, filed Mar. 28, 2012, 12 pages.
“Shadow Walker” Raising the Bar for Rootkit Detection by Sherri Sparks and Jamie Butler, Black Hat Japan 2005, Tokyp, Japan, Oct. 17-18, 2005, 55 pages.
Countering Kernel Rootkits with Lightweight Hook Protection, available at http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/wdcui/papers/hooksafe-ccs09.pdf, 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2009) Chicago, IL, Nov. 2009, 10 pages.
Detecting Kernel Rootkits, by Rainer Whichmann, available at http://www.la-samhna.de/library/rootkits/detect.html, copyright 2006, 2 pages.
Guest-Transparent Prevention of Kernel Rootkits with VMM-Based Memory Shadowing, 11th International Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Sep. 15-17, 2008), 20 pages.
McAfee Proven Security, Rootkits, Part 1 of 3: The Growing Threat (Apr. 2006), available at www.mcafee.com, 8 pages.
Multi-Aspect Profiling of Kernel Rootkit Behavior, Eurosys Conference 2009, Nuremberg, Germany, Mar. 30-Apr. 3, 2009, 14 pages.
Rootkits Part 2: A Technical Primer, available at www.mcafee.com (http://www.mcafee.com/cf/about/news/2007/20070418—174400—d.aspx) Apr. 18, 2007, 16 pages.
SecVisor: A Tiny Hypervisor to Provide Lifetime Kernel Code Integrity for Commodity OSes, Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGOPS Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Stevenson, WA (Oct. 14-17, 2007), 16 pages.
Stopping Rootkits at the Network Edge (Jan. 2007) http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/files/resource—files/C2426F48-1D09-3519-AD02D13C71B888A6/Whitepaper—Rootkit—Strom—v3.pdf, 3 pages.
Transparent Protection of Commodity OS Kernels Using Hardware Virtualization, 6th International ICST Conference on Security and Privacy in Communication Networks, Singapore, Sep. 7-9, 2010, 18 pages.
Xen Architecture Overview, Feb. 13, 2008, available at http://wiki.xen.org/xenwiki/XenArchitecture?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=Xen+Architecture—Q1+2008.pdf, 9 pages.
USPTO Nov. 27, 2013 Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/322,321, 15 pages.
“A Linear-Time Heuristic for Improving Network Partitions,” http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1585498; Fiduccia et al., pp. 175-181, 1982, 7 pages.
USPTO Nov. 12, 2013 Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 13/271,102, 11 pages.
International Search Report received for PCT Application No. PCT/US2012/055674, mailed on Dec. 14, 2012, 2 pages.
Nonfinal Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/273,002, mailed on Oct. 4, 2013, 17 pages.
Grace, Michael, et al., “Transparent Protection of Commodity OS Kernels Using Hardware Virtualization,” 2010, SecureComm 2010, LNICST 50, pp. 162-180, 19 pages.
Riley, Ryan, et al., “Guest-Transparent Prevention of Kernel Rootkits with VMM-Based Memory Shadowing,” 2008, RAID 2008, LNCS 5230, pp. 1-20, 20 pages.
Milos, Grzegorz, et al., “Satori: Enlightened page sharing,” Proceedings of the 2009 conference on USENIX Annual technical conference, 14 pages.
USPTO Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/273,002, mailed on Apr. 24, 2014, 9 pages.
USPTO Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/273,002, mailed on Oct. 1, 2014, 8 pages.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20130097355 A1 Apr 2013 US