System and method for mitigating cyberattacks against processor operability by a guest process

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 11182473
  • Patent Number
    11,182,473
  • Date Filed
    Thursday, September 13, 2018
    5 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, November 23, 2021
    2 years ago
Abstract
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, a method for reassigning execution of certain instructions directed to a speculative execution task or a reserved instruction, attempted by a guess process, to be handled by a host process is described herein. The method involves detecting whether a software component, operating within a virtual machine deployed within a guest environment of the network device, is attempting to execute an instruction associated with a speculative execution task. If so, the speculative execution task is prevented from being performed by the software component without the virtual machine detecting that speculative execution by the software component has been reassigned.
Description
1. FIELD

Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the field of cyber security. More specifically, embodiments of the disclosure relate to a system and computerized method that mitigates cyberattacks against processor operability, including speculative execution.


2. GENERAL BACKGROUND

Malware detection systems often employ a software architecture with a virtualized representation that includes a guest environment (sometimes referred to as “guest space”) and a host environment (sometimes referred to as “host space”) Each environment may be configured in accordance with different privilege levels. For example, the host environment may feature a protection ring architecture that is arranged with a privilege hierarchy from the most privileged level (host kernel space, Ring-0) to a lesser privilege level (host user space, Ring-3). Similarly, the guest environment may be arranged with a privilege hierarchy from the most privileged level (guest kernel space, Ring-0) to a lesser privilege level (guest user space, Ring-3). One or more virtual machines may be executed as part of the guest, environment.


The virtual memory associated with both the guest and host environments can be logically allocated into two distinct regions, namely, the user space and the kernel space. The user space is a prescribed memory area that may be used for running processes resulting from the execution of application software and/or certain drivers. Within the user space, guest user processes may be executed within a virtual machine while host user processes may be executed by certain drivers or operating system (OS) components. In contrast, the kernel space is commonly reserved for running the most privileged processes, including a guest [OS] kernel associated with the virtual machine and a host kernel (e.g., hypervisor) that manages operability of the guest kernel for each virtual machine operating within the guest environment.


Given this memory allocation, code associated with the kernel space is usually loaded into a separate area of memory, which is protected from access by application programs operating within the user space. Hence, it is crucial for modern computing devices to isolate processes operating in the user space from processes operating in the kernel space, where this separation prevents processes in the user space and in the host space from interfering with each other and compromising computing device security. Also, to protect code associated with the user space, each guest user process of application programs within the user space are isolated from each other as well as guest user processes for other application programs.


Recently, some cyberattacks, such as the MELTDOWN attack, are being conducted in an attempt to contravene the user space and kernel space separation so that a malicious guest process may gain access to host kernel operability. Additionally, other cyberattacks, such as the SPECTRE attack, are being conducted in an attempt to contravene inter-process isolation of user space applications. Hence, some of these cyberattacks involve malware that takes advantage of the inadequate checks directed to speculative execution, where the malware redirects speculative execution operations to certain memory locations from which data may be extracted to obtain host kernel data, certain memory locations from which data associated with other guest applications may be extracted, or the like.


A proposed solution to address the speculative execution vulnerabilities, for example, would include prevention of speculative execution capabilities conducted by processors. However, the prevention of speculative execution would significantly reduce the operating speed of such computing devices, which would significantly affect their overall performance.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

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:



FIG. 1 is an exemplary block diagram of a cyberattack detection system including a network device deploying a malware detection system.



FIG. 2 is an exemplary block diagram of the network device including the malware detection system of FIG. 1.



FIG. 3 is an exemplary block diagram of a logical representation of the operability of a controller deployed within the network device of FIG. 2 that, under certain conditions, seizes control in the processing of a current instruction that may include speculative execution.



FIG. 4 is an exemplary embodiment of a logical representation of the interaction between the host instruction stack and the guest instruction stack being processed by a virtual machine operating in the guest environment and a controller operating in the host environment of the malware detection system of FIG. 1.



FIG. 5 is an illustrative embodiment of the operations conducted by the virtual machine and controller of FIG. 3 operating as part of the malware detection system of FIG. 1.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Various embodiments of the disclosure relate to a malware detection system configured to prevent a guest process, running in a virtual machine, from performing certain activities that are considered, with a higher likelihood than other activities, to be associated with a cyberattack on processor functionality. The guest process performance change is conducted to achieve some or all of the following objectives: (1) maintain operating speed of the malware detection system through the use of speculative execution, especially given the strict time constraints applied for analysis of an object, in order to detect, correlate and/or classify behaviors to determine a potential cyberattack; (2) prevent malware from infiltrating components outside the guest environment, such as components of the underlying host environment, to compromise the malware detection system; and/or (3) perform malware detection in a manner that hides, or at least obfuscates from the guest process the performance of such detection so that the malware continues operation and refrains from performing any aggressive counter detection operations.


To accomplish the objective(s), a guest process is prevented from performing these activities by reassigning control in the performance of such activities to a host process, where the reassignment occurs unbeknownst to the guest process. For example, these activities may be identified during execution by a guest user process as (i) one or more instructions associated with a speculative execution task (hereinafter, “SE instructions”) or (ii) one or more instructions that are selectively reserved for host processes, not guest processes (hereinafter, “reserved instructions”).


According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the reserved instructions may include a first subset of reserved instruction, referred to as “default” reserved instructions, which are non-programmable (static) instructions to be executed within the host environment (e.g., hard coded instructions, etc.). The default instructions are a subset of instructions where strict host environment processing is warranted. The reserved instructions may further include a second subset of instructions, which are “programmable” instructions executed within the host environment that may be altered periodically or aperiodically by the hypervisor while the processor is in the “host mode.” These programmable instructions are selected by the hypervisor at initialization based on a desired amount of control in operability of the network device as desired by an analysis. The particular SE and reserved instructions associated with these activities may be loaded by a processor of the malware detection system at initialization and/or during run-time when the processor is operating in “host mode” (executing code stored within the host environment) in lieu of operating in “guest mode” (executing code stored within the guest environment).


According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the malware detection system (MDS) may be implemented, in some embodiments, on a network device operating as a security appliance. The network device is communicatively coupled to a private or public network to receive and analyze objects, included as part of network traffic, for maliciousness in a virtualized run-time environment (sandbox) utilized by the MDS. The network device includes a processor and a data store accessible by the processor.


As described below, the data store operates as local memory for the processor (e.g., cache memory, dedicated memory, etc.). For this embodiment of the disclosure, the data store includes a first set of instructions (e.g., SE instructions) that, upon the processor detecting a guest user process is attempting to execute one of the stored SE instructions, causes the processor to temporarily reassign control in the execution of the SE instruction from the guest user process. Rather, a controller operating within a host user space is assigned to control emulation of the execution of the SE instruction by a targeted (emulated) network device. In particular, the SE instruction is moved from the guest instruction stack to the host instruction stack for processing (e.g., emulation) by the controller along with the controller obtaining the state of a guest (e.g., a virtual machine) associated with this guest user process. Based on the particular SE instruction, the controller may be configured to emulate processing of that particular SE instruction to determine the results of such processing


Besides the first set of instructions, the data store may further include a second set of instructions (e.g., reserved instructions). The reserved instructions may include (i) a first subset of instructions (hereinafter, “default instructions”) and (ii) a second subset of instructions (hereinafter, “programmable instructions”). The default instructions are static (e.g., hardcoded) instructions that are associated with a certain privilege or importance to exclude any processing of the instruction in the guest environment. The programmable instructions, however, are instructions that selectively adjust the amount of control of instructions to be undertaken by the host environment. The selection of the instructions is based on coding of the hypervisor, where the coding may be conducted to address particular threat(s) that can be identified as commencing with a particular instruction (or series of instructions). The selection of the programmable instructions occurs at initialization of the hypervisor and prior to switches of the processor from host mode to guest mode. Upon detection of an attempted execution of these a reserved instructions by a guest process, a transfer of control, from the guest user process to the controller, is conducted as described below.


The above-described malware detection system mechanism is adapted to detect cyberattacks that contravene user space and kernel space (hereinafter, “user/kernel space”) separation. Additionally, or in the alternative, the above-described malware detection system mechanism is further adapted to detect cyberattacks that contravene inter-process isolation of user space applications.


More specifically, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, the virtualized run-time environment of the MDS features a guest environment and a host environment. The guest environment includes one or more virtual machines (each virtual machine “VM” sometimes referred to as a “guest”) for analyzing the received objects. The host environment controls operability of the virtual machine(s) and connectivity to the physical hardware devices. The host environment includes a controller, operating in the host user space, to specifically handle operations targeted to remove execution control from a guest (e.g., a guest user process operating in a virtual machine). As an illustrative example, a guest user process may conduct a task that utilizes speculative execution.


A guest user process operates within the virtual machine in accordance with instructions placed within a guest instruction stack associated with that virtual machine. During these operations, the processor is considered to operate in “guest” mode. During guest mode, the processor is provided access to the next instruction for execution originating from the guest (e.g., virtual machine) associate with the virtualized run-time environment of the MDS. Prior to execution of the instruction, the processor accesses the data store and determines whether the instruction is a SE instruction (e.g., one of the first set of instructions) or a reserved instruction (e.g., one of the second set of instructions). If the instruction is not one of the first or second set of instructions, the guest process retains operational control of the network device and its resources while the processor operates in “guest” mode.


In contrast, if the instruction is a SE instruction, the processor temporarily reassigns control in the processing of the SE instruction. For this embodiment, a controller operating within a host user space is assigned control to emulate execution of the SE instruction by a targeted network device. At this time, upon detection of the SE instruction, the processor transitions from “guest” mode to “host” mode. In host mode, the processor passes the SE instruction to the controller for processing. Additionally, the controller receives a stored current state of the guest (VM). Based on the received SE instruction and the stored current state of the VM, the controller determines what information to return to the guest (e.g., virtual machine). Through such operations, SE instruction is handled, albeit it is not handled in the guest mode. This achieves the above-identified objectives in maintaining speed of operation through the use of speculative execution while protect the underlying host environment of the malware detection system from compromise, unbeknownst to the guest process.


For example, where the SE instruction corresponds to writing data to an Intel®-based register architecture (e.g., MSR register), the controller may appear to alter the MSR register, although the MSR register remains unchanged. Rather the controller stores the intended (changed) value of the MSR register as part of the state information associated with the VM and returns the intended value (or signals that the data has been written to the MSR register). However, the actual MSR register remain unchanged. Therefore, by confining execution of instructions causing or leading to a speculative execution task to be conducted by a software component within the host environment and appearing to support a SE-enabled guest user process in operation, the MDS may avoid malware, being executed by the guest process, from discovering that it is operating in a virtualized run-time environment configured for malware detection and performing evasive tactics to complicate its detection (e.g., shutdown, etc.). As a result, the MDS may be privy to future behaviors by the malware to provide better context surrounding the malware (e.g., type, family, intent, etc.).


If the instruction is a reserved instruction, as similarly described above with respect to a SE instruction, the processor assigns control to emulate execution of the reserved instruction by a targeted network in execution of the reserved instruction to the controller located in the host user space. The controller receives the reserved instruction and the current state of the guest (VM). Based on the reserved instruction and the current state of the VM, the controller determines what information is to be returned to the guest (e.g., virtual machine). Herein, the returned information may cause the VM to conclude that it is operating in a different state, as identified by the information returned to the guest, than its actual state.


In summary, the virtualized run-time environment of the MDS is configured to reassign the execution of certain instructions (e.g., change control flow), which may cause (or lead to) a speculative execution operation and/or certain reserved instructions, which are to be executed by software components within the guest environment, to be handled via emulation by software components operating within the host environment. This reassignment allows for speculative execution to be performed by a host process without the guest detecting that the execution of the SE instruction(s) or reserve instruction(s) has been reassigned to a host process.


I. Terminology

In the following description, certain terminology is used to describe aspects of the invention. For example, in certain situations, the terms “component” and “logic” are representative of hardware, firmware and/or software that is configured to perform one or more functions. As hardware, a component (or logic) may include circuitry having data processing or storage functionality. Examples of such processing or storage circuitry may include, but is not limited or restricted to the following: a processor; one or more processor cores; a programmable gate array; an I/O controller (network, disk, keyboard, etc.); an application specific integrated circuit; receiver, transmitter and/or transceiver circuitry; semiconductor memory; combinatorial logic, or combinations of one or more of the above components.


A component (or logic) may be in the form of one or more software modules, such as executable code in the form of an operating system, an executable application, code representing a hardware I/O component, an application programming interface (API), a subroutine, a function, a procedure, an applet, a servlet, a routine, source code, object code, a shared library/dynamic load library, or one or more instructions. These software modules 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 a “non-transitory storage medium” may include, but are not limited or restricted to a programmable circuit; 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 portable memory device; and/or a semiconductor memory. As firmware, the executable code is stored in persistent storage.


The term “object” generally refers to a collection of data, whether in transit (e.g., over a network) or at rest (e.g., stored), often having a logical structure or organization that enables it to be classified for purposes of analysis. According to one embodiment, the object may include one or more communications packets. According to another embodiment, the object may be extracted from payloads of one or more communication packets. According to yet another embodiment, the object may be a document, file, executable, uniform resource locator (URL) or other data type embedded within or formed by the one or more communication packets. During analysis, for example, the object may exhibit a set of behaviors, some of which may be expected and others may be unexpected. The set of behaviors (or the unexpected behavior(s) themselves) may be systematic of the object being associated with a cyberattack or associated with malicious activity, such as the object including malware.


In general, a “virtual machine” generally refers to a virtualized network device that includes an operating system (OS) and one or more applications that operate with virtualized device hardware. The virtualized device hardware may be different from the physical device hardware on which the virtualization is conducted. Virtual machines may be provisioned with one or more OSes, applications, and I/O controllers that are intended to present to potential malware resident in an object under analysis.


A “network device” generally refers to an electronic device with network connectivity. Examples of a network device may include, but are not limited or restricted to the following: a server; a router or other signal propagation networking equipment (e.g., a wireless or wired access point); an endpoint device (e.g., a stationary or portable computer including a desktop computer, laptop, electronic reader, netbook or tablet; a smart phone; a video-game console); or wearable technology (e.g., watch phone, etc.). The term “computerized” generally represents that any corresponding operations are conducted by hardware in combination with software and/or firmware.


The term “transmission medium” (or “interconnect”) is a physical or logical communication path to or within a network device. For instance, the communication path may include wired and/or wireless segments. Examples of wired and/or wireless segments include electrical wiring, optical fiber, cable, bus trace, or a wireless channel using infrared, radio frequency (RF), or any other wired/wireless signaling mechanism.


Lastly, the terms “or” and “and/or” as used herein are to be interpreted as inclusive or meaning any one or any combination. Therefore, “A, B or C”, “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 is not intended to limit the invention to the specific embodiments shown and described.


II. General Architecture

Referring to FIG. 1, an exemplary block diagram of a cyberattack detection system 100 including a network device 110 operating as a malware detection system (MDS) is shown. According to one embodiment, as shown, the MDS 110 may be deployed as part of a public or private cloud-based service 115, which may receive content for analysis (e.g., objects, representative data associated with an object, etc.). Alternatively, the MDS 110 may be deployed on-premises and communicatively coupled to a network 120 to analyze network traffic or the MDS 110 may be deployed remotely therefrom.


Herein, a cyberattack may be conducted by delivery of an object 130 with network traffic 135 propagating over the protected network 120, which may include a public network such as the Internet, a private network (e.g., a local area network “LAN”, wireless LAN, etc.), or a combination thereof. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the MDS 110 is configured to conduct a behavioral analysis of the object 130, which may involve processing of the object 130 within a virtual environment 275 (see FIG. 2). Herein, the processing may be conducted by one or more virtual machines (VMs) 1501-150N (N≥1) being part of the virtualization logic 140, which executes the object 130 and monitors the behaviors of the object 130 during execution. In an alternative embodiment, although not shown, the processing may be conducted by a software agent, which executes (or assists in the execution) of the object 130 and participates in the behavioral analysis of the object 130 during execution and outside of a virtual environment.


As an optional deployment for the cyberattack detection system 100 as represented by dashed lines, prior to analysis by the MDS 110, an intermediary network device 160 may be configured to intercept the network traffic 135 and extract the object 130 for analysis by the MDS 110. Additionally, for this embodiment of the disclosure, the intermediary network device 160 may conduct a preliminary analysis on the object 130 to determine whether the object 130 is “suspicious” (e.g., the object 130 exceeds a prescribed likelihood of being associated with a cyberattack). If determined to be “suspicious,” the object 130 may undergo a further (more-detailed) analysis by the MDS 110 to assist in classifying the object as malicious or not.


More specifically, this preliminary analysis may involve analysis logic 162 conducting a correlation between (i) data associated with the object 130 (e.g., data included as part of the object 130, metadata accompanying the object 130, a hash value of at least a portion of the object 130 or data associated with the object 130, etc.) and (ii) contents from a black list 164 (e.g., data associated with objects previously determined to be malicious) and/or a white list 166 (e.g., data associated with objects previously determined to be benign). The object 130 is determined to be suspicious if the data related to the object 130 fails to match contents within either the black list 164 or the white list 166. The black list 164 and/or white list 166 may be maintained in local storage within the intermediary network device 160, as shown. Alternatively, the black list 164 and/or white list 166 may be periodically fetched from a remote source (not shown).


Additionally, or in the alternative, the analysis logic 162 deployed within the intermediary network device 160 may conduct a signature check analysis and/or a heuristic analysis. The signature check analysis may involve conducting a correlation between at least a portion of the data related to the object 130 (or hash value of such data) to one or more signatures (pre-configured and predetermined attack patterns). The signatures may be accessible from a signature database situated local to the intermediary network device 160. The heuristic analysis may be a rule-based or policy-based analysis of the object 130 in determining whether one or more portions of the object under analysis is associated with a suspicious feature. Hence, the object 130 may be considered “suspicious” based on the number and/or type of suspicious features determined during the heuristic analysis.


Referring still to FIG. 1, the MDS 110 includes the one or more VMs 1501-150N that may conduct a behavioral analysis on the object 130. More specifically, during execution of the object 130, the behaviors associated with operations of the object 130 and/or operations by one or more virtual machines (e.g., VM 1501) are monitored. Based at least in part of the monitored behaviors, classification logic 170 of the MDS 110 classifies the object 130 as malicious or non-malicious. Reporting logic 180 is deployed within the MDS 110 to (i) transmit a message to an administrator of the network 120 identifying a cyberattack is occurring or particulars associated with the object 130 deemed to be malicious and/or (ii) alter displayable content to highlight the maliciousness or non-maliciousness of the object 130. The message may be returned to a network device associated with the administrator via the intermediary network device 160 or the message may be transmitted through another communication path. For instance, the message may be sent via network interface controller 2501 (see FIG. 2).


As described below, instructions performed by guest user processes operating within a virtual machine (e.g. VMs 1501) may be detected and correlated with known speculative execution (SE) instructions and/or reserved instructions. The known SE instructions and/or reserved instructions, which are selected by the hypervisor at initialization and coded in response to received information concerning the current threat landscape, if handled by a guest user process, may expose physical hardware within the MDS 110 (e.g., processor, etc.) to potential cybersecurity threats.


Referring now to FIG. 2, an exemplary block diagram of the architecture of the MDS 110 of FIG. 1 is shown. Herein, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, the MDS 110 comprises a hardware processor 210 including a local data store 215, a memory 220 including virtualization logic 140 including the VM(s) 1501-150N, an operating system (OS) 230, a controller 240 configured to specifically handle operations targeted to remove control in the execution of certain instructions from a guest (e.g., a guest process operating in the VM(s) 1501-150N), and one or more input/output (I/O) controllers 2501-250M (M≥1) communicatively coupled to an interconnect 255 (e.g., bus).


As an illustrative embodiment, one type of I/O controller may correspond to a network interface controller 2501 that supports communications by the MDS 110 with the network 120, potentially via the intermediary device 160, for receipt of a portion of the network traffic 135 including the object 130. It is contemplated that the portion of network traffic 135 may include metadata 257 associated with the object 130. The metadata 257 may be provided before submission of the object 130 or may accompany the object 130 at the time of submission to the MDS 110. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the metadata 257 may be used, at least in part, to determine protocols, application types and other information that identifies features of the object 130 under analysis. The metadata 257 may be used by the virtualization logic 140, such as a hypervisor 245 for example, to select one or more of the VM(s) 1501-150N to activate and which software profile is selected for each active VM 1501 . . . and/or 150N of the virtualization logic 140.


Another type of I/O controller may correspond to a storage controller 2502 that operates as an interface between the interconnect 255 and a storage device 260, which may store the SE instructions or reserved instructions that are loaded into the data store 215 during initialization and an update cycle. The storage device 260 may be implemented as a local drive, a port that provides connectivity with a portable memory in the form of Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash drive or standalone storage device, or the like. These hardware components may be at least partially encased in a housing 270, which is made entirely or partially of a rigid material (e.g., hardened plastic, metal, glass, composite, or any combination thereof) that protects these components from atmospheric conditions.


Referring still to FIG. 2, the memory 220 may include a plurality of memory locations that are addressable by the hardware processor 210 (and/or the network interface controller 2501), including the controller 240. As optional logic, especially where the intermediary network device 160 is not utilized, the memory 220 may include static analysis logic 295. When deployed, the static analysis logic 295 includes one or more software modules that, when executed by the hardware processor 210, analyzes features for an incoming object 130 (or metadata associated with the object 130). According to one embodiment of the disclosure, this analysis may be directed to features of the object 130 to determine whether the object 130 is “suspicious,” namely there exists a certain level of likelihood that the object 130 is associated with a cyberattack that is determined without execution of the object 130 that constitutes in-depth behavioral analysis of the object 130 by the VM(s) 1501-150N to be conducted. The static analysis logic 295 may perform one or more checks being conducted on the object 130 (or its corresponding metadata 257) as described in connection with the operations of the intermediary network device 160.


Herein, the virtualization logic 140 includes (a) one or more VMs 1501-150N, which are provisioned with a selected software profile to process the object 130, and (b) the hypervisor 245 that controls provisioning of the VM(s) 1501-150N. In one embodiment of the disclosure, each VM 1501 . . . , or 150N operates as a virtualized network device, including a logical architecture featuring a guest environment 300 and a host environment 330 as illustrated in FIG. 3 and described below. Additionally, the virtualization logic 140 includes a controller 240, operating in the user host space and configured for communications with the hardware processor 210, to control the processing of a particular instruction (e.g., SE instruction and/or reserved instruction) in lieu of a guest user process that initiated execution of the particular instruction. The reassignment of processing control occurs unbeknownst to the guest user process operating in a VM (e.g., VM 1501). The controller 240 controls such processing and maintains state information associated with the VM 1501 during processing of the particular instruction including updating the instruction pointer to the next instruction in the guest instruction stack (described below). Upon completion of the processing of the particular instruction, the controller 240 saves the VM state information, returns both the VM state information and processing control back to the guest user process operating in the VM 1501.


Implemented as load memory within the processor 210 or separate memory (e.g., part of memory 220 or dedicated memory separate from the memory 220), the data store 215 may include one or more sets of instructions. Upon detecting that an instruction from the set(s) of instructions is being processed by guest user process within the guest environment of a virtual machine (e.g., VM 1501), the hardware processor 210 provides the instruction to the controller 240 for processing, thereby reassigning control for processing of the instruction to the controller 240 within the virtualization logic 140. Herein, the data store 215 includes instructions 280, which may cause the processor 210 to transition process control from logic within the guest environment to logic within the host environment. The instructions 280 include a first set of instructions 281 (e.g., SE instructions) that causes the processor 210, in response to detecting an instruction from the first set of instructions 281 in a guest instruction stack, to (i) place the instruction into the host instruction stack for processing and (ii) obtain the state of a guest (e.g., a virtual machine). One type of SE instruction may include an instruction to access contents within a processor control register utilized for speculative execution, such as a model-specific register (MSR) for example. As access of the content of a MSR by a guest process is usual, and thus, the content of the MSR is not accurately provided. Rather, a substitute content is provided in efforts, from subsequent behaviors, to determine the context surrounding the potential malware that caused the guest process to attempt to access content from the MSR (e.g., type, family, intent, etc.).


Besides the first set of instructions 281, the data store 215 may further include a second set of instructions 282 (e.g., reserved instructions). The reserved instructions 282 may include (i) a first subset (i.e., one or more) of instructions 283 and (ii) a second subset of instructions of instructions) 284. For this embodiment, the first subset of instructions 283 (hereinafter, “default reserved instructions”) are static (e.g., hardcoded) and solely permit exclusive interaction with the host due to the factors (e.g., privilege, importance to operation, etc.) that preclude the guest performing such operations. The second subset of instructions (programmable instructions) 284 are selected by the hypervisor at initialization and prior to transitioning of the processor from “host mode” to “guest mode” based on the desired control in operability of the network device. The programmable instructions are typically updated aperiodically, but may be configured to be updated in a periodic basis to address changes in the threat landscape where certain instructions may trigger the start of cyberattacks that contravene the user/kernel space separation or inter-process isolation.


Upon detecting one of the reserved instructions 282, the hardware processor 210 reassigns control in processing the reserved instruction 282 from a guest user process running on the VM 1501 to the controller 240, both being software components of the virtualization logic 140. Upon completion of the processing of the reserved instruction 282, the current state information associated with the VM 1501 is saved within a [VM] state information data store 290, which may be subsequently accessed by the controller 240 in processing of instructions 280 that requires a transition in control to the controller 240. The state information data store 290 is configured to maintain state information entries (e.g., registers) 292 associated with each of the VMs 1501-150N.


According to one embodiment of the disclosure, as shown in FIG. 2, the classification logic 170 is configured to receive results from analyses of the object 130 within one or more of the VM(s) 1501-150N. The VM-based results include information associated with the monitored behaviors associated with the object 130 and/or the VM(s) Based on the VM-based results, inclusive of detection of certain activity suggestive of maliciousness (e g attempted execution by a guest user process of a certain SE instruction or reserved instruction), the classification logic 170 classifies the object 130 as malicious or non-malicious. In response to the object 130 being deemed malicious, information associated with the malicious object 130 may be passed to the reporting logic 180. The reporting logic 180 is configured to generate an alert. An “alert” may include one or more messages that identify to a network administrator detection of a malicious object and a cyberattack (e.g., attacks that contravene the user/kernel space separation, attacks that contravene inter-process isolation, etc.). For messages, the message types may include text messages and/or email messages, video or audio stream, or other types of information over a wired or wireless communication path, as described above.


Referring still to FIG. 2, the processor 210 is a multipurpose, programmable device that accepts digital data as input, including one or more instructions from one or more instruction stacks accessible by the virtual machine 1501, determine whether any of the instructions constitutes a SE-instruction or a reserved instruction. If so, the processor 210 transitions control from the user guess process to the controller 240 operating in the host user space. One example of the processor 210 may include an Intel x86 central processing unit (CPU) with an instruction set architecture. Alternatively, the processor 210 may include another type of CPU, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or the like. It is contemplated that, in lieu of processor 210, a virtual processor operating as part of the host kernel space of the virtualization logic 140 may monitor and adjust the transition of processing control between the guest user processes and the controller 240.


III. Exemplary Logical Layout

Referring to FIG. 3, an exemplary block diagram of a logical representation of the MDS 110 of FIGS. 1-2 including represented by the guest environment 300, the host environment 330 and a host hardware 370. The guest environment 300 includes the VMs 1501-150N, each including a guest user spaces 3101-310N and a guest kernel space 320i-320N. The host environment 330 includes a host user space 340 and a host kernel space 350.


Each guest user space (e.g., guest user space 3101 of VM 1501) may include one or more instances of one or more guest applications 3151-315R (R≥1) running in their separate guest address spaces. Each of these guest application instances 3151-315R may include one or more guest user processes 317, which may operate serially or operate concurrently (i.e., at least partially overlapping in time) with each other. Depending on its type, the object 130 is processed by a particular guest application instance (e.g., guest application instance 3151) within the VM 1501 in which the guest user processes 317 collectively perform such processing of the object 130 (or information associated with the object 130). Examples of guest application instances 3151-315R may include a Portable Document Format (PDF) reader application that may include guest user processes directed to creating, viewing, printing, and/or editing (comments, highlight, etc.) a PDF document (object) or may include a data processing application instance to open, edit, and/or close a document (object).


According to this embodiment of the disclosure, the guest kernel space 3201 may include software components that may be configured to operate and support communications with software components within the host user space 340. For instance, as an illustrative example, the software components may include, but are not limited or restricted to one or more software drivers that operate to access virtual hardware components within the host user space 340. The controller 240 resides in the host user space 340.


The host kernel space 350 includes virtualization software such as a hypervisor 245 (sometimes referred to as a “virtual machine monitor” or “VMM”). In general, the hypervisor 245 controls initialization and operability of the one or more VMs 1501-150N operating within the MDS 110. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the hypervisor 245 may be deployed as either (i) a “Type 1” (bare metal) hypervisor or (ii) a “Type 2” (hosted) hypervisor. In general, a hosted hypervisor runs as a software component that is installed on the host kernel OS 235 and supports one or more guest OSes operating in the guest kernel space 320. The hosted hypervisor relies on the host kernel OS 235 to handle hardware resource management. A bare metal hypervisor, on the other hand, runs directly on the host hardware 370 and operates completely independent from the host OS 355. Alternatively, however, as another embodiment of the disclosure, the hypervisor 245 may be implemented as a software component of the processor 210 being part of the host hardware 370.


Herein, the host hardware 370 includes the processor 210 of FIG. 2 with access to the data store 215. The data store 215 maintains instructions that cause the processor 210, in response to detecting any of these instructions is being requested by a guest user process 317 operating in the guest environment 300, to switch its operating mode from “guest mode” to “host” mode, where the processor 210 begins executing code associated with the controller 240 that is stored within the host user space 340. As a result, the processor 210 reassigns control in the processing from a current instruction 382 from the guest user process 317 operating within the guest user space 310 to the controller 240 operating in the host user space 340. Herein, the data store 215 includes the first set of instructions 281 (e.g., one or more SE instructions) and the second set of instructions 282 (e.g., one or more reserved instructions).


In response to receipt of a request by a guest user process (e.g., guest user process 317 operating within the virtual machines 1501) to execute the instruction 382 residing in a guest instruction stack 380, the processor 210 determines whether that instruction is an instruction from the first set of instructions 281 or the second set of instructions 282. For instance, one of the first set of instructions 281 may include an instruction to access contents within a processor control register 390 utilized for speculative execution. An example of a processor control register 390 for speculative execution includes a model-specific register (MSR). One of the second set of instructions 282 may include a “reserved” instruction, namely an instruction that may be used to alter the operability of the host hardware 370, such as the hardware processor 210 for example. The second set of instructions 282 may include (i) a first subset of instructions (default instructions) 283 and (ii) a second subset of instructions (programmable instructions) 284, which may be selected by security administrators handling operability of the MDS 110 and may be updated frequently (periodically or aperiodically) in light of the prevailing threat landscape when the processor 210 is operating in “host” mode.


If the instruction 382 is not part of the first set of instructions 281 or the second set of instructions 282, the processor remains in “guest” mode where the guest user process 317 continues to control processing of the instruction 382 and retains operational control of the network device and its resources. In contrast, if the instruction 382 is a SE instruction, the processor 210 reassigns control in execution of the SE instruction 382 to the controller 240 located in the host user space 340. At this time, the MDS 110 is considered to be operating in “host” mode. In host mode, the controller 240 has access to the instruction 382 for processing. Additionally, the controller 240 receives a stored current state of the guest (VM 1501) from the state information data store 290. Based on the received SE instruction 382 and the stored current state of the VM 1501, the controller 240 emulates processing of the SE instruction 382 and determines the state information to be returned to the guest (e.g., VM 1501).


For example, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, the controller 240 may emulate processing of the SE instruction 382, which alter content within a data structure associated with a virtual processor (vCPU) 372 residing in the host environment 330 (e.g., host kernel space 350) in lieu of modifying the contents of the processor control register 390. The actual contents of the processor control register 390 remain unchanged. Upon completion of the processing of the SE instruction 382, the contents within the data structure of the vCPU 372 may be provided to the processor 210 to be returned to the guest user process of the VM 1501 initiating the SE instruction 382. By limiting speculative execution being handled by software components within the host environment 330 in response to instructions that cause speculative execution to occur being executed within the guest environment 300, while appearing, to the VM 1501, that speculative execution is enabled, the MDS 110 of FIG. 1 may detect malware which exploits a vulnerability associated with the processor 210 and/or its functionality without compromising security of the processor 210. The behavior (event) associated with the attempted execution is stored in an event log that may be accessible by the classification logic 170 within the MDS 110 of FIG. 1 for comparison with known benign and malicious behaviors (event) to determine whether an object is malicious.


If the instruction 382 is a reserved instruction, the processor 210 reassigns control in processing of the reserved instruction to the controller 240 located in the host user space 340. As described above, the controller 240 receives the reserved instruction and the current state of the guest (VM 1501). Based on the reserved instruction and the current state of the VM 1501, the controller 240 emulates processing of the reserved instruction 382 and determines what state information is to be returned to the guest (e.g., VM 1501). Herein, the state information returned to the guest user process 317 by the controller 240 may cause the VM 1501 to conclude that it is operating in a different state than the actual state of the network device (MDS) 110. The state information associated with the VM 1501 is retained for subsequent operations directed to the guest user process 317 initiating the reserved instruction 382. In this way, the guest user process executing the object continues to permit monitoring of further activities associated with the object, which may be relevant in determining whether a cyberattack is occurring. Additionally, where a cyberattack is occurring, the further activities may assist in the understanding of the nature and intent of the cyberattack.


Referring now to FIG. 4, an exemplary embodiment of a logical representation of the interaction between a host instruction stack 400 and the guest instruction stack 380 representing instructions to be processed by a virtual machine or a controller operating within the host user space 340 is shown. The host instruction stack 400 includes a VM run instruction 410, which may load an instruction 420 into the guest instruction stack 380 that either initializes a designated virtual machine (e.g., VM 1501) or requests the VM 1501 to retrieve current state information and resume operations from a current operating state of the VM 1501. One or more guest user processes of the VM 1501, in performing VM-based operations, may load instructions into the guest instruction stack 380 that are processed by a processor in an accordance with a selected stack protocol (e.g., first-in, first-out “FIFO” protocol).


In response to detecting an instruction 430 during processing by the (virtual) processor of an instruction from the first set of instructions 281 or from the second set of instructions 282 (e.g., reserved instruction 430), the reserved instruction 430 is loaded into the host instruction stack 400 for processing by the controller 240 of FIG. 3. Additionally, a current state 440 associated with the VM 1501 is retrieved from the state information data store 290 for use in processing of the reserved instruction 430. Where the instruction 430 is a “reserved” instruction as illustrated (or a SE instruction), the controller 240 (see FIGS. 2-3) may control performance of the operations resulting from execution of the instruction 430. Additionally, the controller 240 receives a stored current state of the guest (VM). Based on the received SE instruction and the stored current state of the VM, the controller 240 determines what information to return to the guest (e.g., virtual machine), where the information includes a pointer to the next instruction 440 in the guest instruction stack 380. Of course, if the instruction 430 is other than the SE instruction and/or the reserved instruction, the guest user process of the VM 1501 retains operational control of the network device and its resources based on a lack of usage of the host instruction stack 400 for such instruction 430.


Referring to FIG. 5, an illustrative embodiment of the operations conducted by one or more virtual machines (e.g., VM 1501) and the controller 240 of FIG. 2-3 operating as part of the malware detection system of FIG. 1 is shown. Herein, a guest (e.g., VM 1501) receives control from the processor, where the processor is operating in “guest” mode (operation 500). Thereafter, the guest receives an object for analysis (operation 510), and during analysis of the object, the guest may attempt to execute at least a SE instruction (e.g., one of the first set of instructions 281 causes or leads us to a speculative execution task) or a “reserved” instruction (e.g., one of the second set of instructions 282), being one of a plurality of instructions selected by a security administrator to be solely conducted by a process operating with the host environment 330 of FIG. 3 (operation 520).


In response to the instruction being executed corresponds to a SE-instruction or a reserved instruction, the host receives processor control and a current instruction state of the guest (operations 530-560). The host determines, based on the guest state, the type of information expected to be returned to the guest (operation 570). Thereafter, the host modifies a storage entry associated within the current state of the guest, and returns processor control to the guest (operation 580). The guest resumes processing instructions with the guest instruction stack without knowledge that control of the processing of the instruction (SE-instruction or reserved instruction) was temporarily lost to the host (e.g., controller 240 operating in the host user space as shown in FIGS. 2-3).


In the foregoing description, the invention is described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments thereof. It will, however, 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.

Claims
  • 1. A computerized method comprising: detecting whether a guest process, performed by a virtual machine operating within a network device, is performing an activity associated with a potential cyberattack by at least identifying that an instruction being executed by the guest process corresponds to an instruction associated with a speculative execution task; andresponsive to the guest process performing the activity associated with the potential cyberattack, transferring control from the guest process to a host process operating within the network device without the guest process having knowledge that control in the performing of the activity was temporarily lost to the host process, the transferring control comprises reassigning performance of the activity to be conducted by the host process based on movement of the instruction from a guest instruction stack to a host instruction stack, anddetermining what information is to be returned to the virtual machine to avoid detection that the virtual machine is operating in a state different than an actual state of the network device.
  • 2. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the determining what information is to be returned to the virtual machine comprises determining what information is to be returned to the guest process.
  • 3. The computerized method of claim 2, wherein the instruction associated with the speculative execution task includes an instruction to access content stored within a specific register accessible by the processor for re-storage into one or more input/output (I/O) addresses within a memory of the network device.
  • 4. The computerized method of claim 2, wherein the detecting whether the guest process is performing the activity associated with the potential cyberattack further comprises identifying, by the processor of the network device, whether the instruction being processed by the guest process corresponds to an instruction associated with an instruction selectively reserved for processing by the host process.
  • 5. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the reassigning of the performance of the activity to be conducted by the host process includes reassigning an instruction being processed by the guest process to be processed by a controller maintained within a host user space of the network device.
  • 6. The computerized method of claim 5, wherein the reassigning of the performance of the activity to be conducted by the host process further includes the controller emulating processing of the instruction and returning results of the emulated processing of the instruction to the guest process.
  • 7. The computerized method of claim 6, wherein the results of the emulated processing of the instruction are stored in a data structure of a virtual processor that is made available to the processor for return to the virtual machine running the guest process.
  • 8. The computerized method of claim 5 further comprising: classifying an object executed in the virtual machine as malicious upon detecting an attempt by the guest process in executing the instruction causing or leading to performance of the speculative execution task that is to be handled by one or more processes within a host environment including the host user space.
  • 9. The computerized method of claim 8 further comprising: responsive to classifying the object as malicious, issuing an alert that (i) identifies a cyberattack is occurring and information associated with the object deemed to be malicious or (ii) alters displayable content to highlight that the object is malicious.
  • 10. A non-transitory storage medium including logic that, when executed by a processor of a network device, performs operations comprising: detecting whether a first software component, operating within a virtual machine deployed within a guest environment of the network device, is attempting to execute an instruction associated with a speculative execution task;disabling the speculative execution task from being performed by the first software component without the virtual machine detecting that speculative execution by the first software component has been disabled;transferring control from a first process associated with the first software component to a second process associated with a second software component operating within a host environment of the network device by at least reassigning execution of the instruction to be conducted by the second process based on movement of the instruction from a guest instruction stack to a host instruction stack; andbased on the instruction associated with the speculative execution task and a stored current state of the virtual machine, determining what information to return to the guest process to avoid detection that the virtual machine is operating in a state different than an actual state of the network device, wherein the information including at least a pointer to a next instruction in a guest instruction stack.
  • 11. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 10, wherein the disabling of the speculative execution task comprises reassigning performance of the speculative execution task to a second software component operating within a host environment of the network device.
  • 12. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 10, wherein the instruction associated with the speculative execution task includes an instruction to access content within a specific register accessible by the processor to be stored into an input/output (I/O) address within a memory that is accessible by the first software component.
  • 13. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 10, wherein the detecting whether the first software component is attempting to execute the instruction associated with the speculative execution task comprises: detecting whether the first software component is attempting to execute a second instruction selectively reserved for processing by the host process operating within the host environment of the network device.
  • 14. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 10, wherein the reassigning of the processing of the instruction associated with the speculative execution task comprises reassigning the instruction associated with the speculative execution task to be processed by a controller being the host process maintained within a host user space within the host environment.
  • 15. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 14, wherein the reassigning of the instruction associated with the speculative execution task to be processed by the controller comprises the controller emulating processing of the instruction associated with the speculative execution task and returning results of the emulated processing of the instruction associated with the speculative execution task to the first software component.
  • 16. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 15, wherein the results of the emulated processing of the instruction associated with the speculative execution task are stored in a data structure of a virtual processor that is made available to the processor for return to the virtual machine running the first software component.
  • 17. A network device comprising: a processor; anda non-transitory storage medium communicatively coupled to the processor, the non-transitory storage medium including (i) a first software component that, when executed by the processor, controls execution of an object in determining whether the object is malicious, and (ii) a second software component that, when executed by the processor, is configured to (a) detect whether a process initiated from execution of the object, is attempting to execute an instruction selectively reserved for processing by a host process within a host environment of the network device to perform a task being a speculative execution task, and (b) disable the speculative execution task from being performed by the process without the first software component detecting that the process has been disabled, (c) transfer control from the process to the host process by at least reassigning performance of the speculative execution task to the host process operating within the host environment based on movement of the instruction from a guest instruction stack to a host instruction stack, and (d) determine what information is to be returned to the process to avoid detection that the first software component is operating outside of a guest mode.
  • 18. The network device of claim 17, wherein the non-transitory storage medium further comprises a third software component that, when executed by the processor, is configured to (i) detect whether the process initiated from execution of the object, is attempting to execute a second instruction selectively reserved for processing by a host process operating within the host environment of the network device, and (ii) reassign processing of the second instruction by a host process in lieu of the process.
  • 19. The network device of claim 17, wherein the reassigning of the performance of the speculation execution task being a factor in classifying the object as malicious or benign.
  • 20. The network device of claim 17, wherein the instruction selectively reserved for processing by the host process includes an instruction to access content stored within a specific register accessible by the processor for storage within a memory of the network device.
  • 21. The network device of claim 17, wherein the second component is further configured to classify the object as malicious upon detecting an attempt by the guest process in executing the instruction causing or leading to performance of the speculative execution task that is to be handled by the host process.
  • 22. The network device of claim 17, wherein the second component is further configured to issue an alert, responsive to classifying the object as malicious, (i) identifying a cyberattack is occurring and information associated with the object deemed to be malicious or (ii) altering displayable content to highlight that the object is malicious.
US Referenced Citations (713)
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
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
8176488 Dobrovolskiy 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
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
8555391 Demir et al. Oct 2013 B1
8561177 Aziz et al. Oct 2013 B1
8566476 Shiffer et al. Oct 2013 B2
8566946 Aziz et al. Oct 2013 B1
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
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
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
9071638 Aziz et al. Jun 2015 B1
9104867 Thioux et al. Aug 2015 B1
9106630 Frazier et al. Aug 2015 B2
9106694 Aziz et al. Aug 2015 B2
9118715 Staniford et al. Aug 2015 B2
9159035 Ismael et al. Oct 2015 B1
9171160 Vincent et al. Oct 2015 B2
9176843 Ismael et al. Nov 2015 B1
9189627 Islam Nov 2015 B1
9195829 Goradia et al. Nov 2015 B1
9197664 Aziz et al. Nov 2015 B1
9223972 Vincent et al. Dec 2015 B1
9225740 Ismael et al. Dec 2015 B1
9241010 Bennett et al. Jan 2016 B1
9251343 Vincent et al. Feb 2016 B1
9262635 Paithane et al. Feb 2016 B2
9268936 Butler Feb 2016 B2
9275229 LeMasters Mar 2016 B2
9282109 Aziz et al. Mar 2016 B1
9292686 Ismael et al. Mar 2016 B2
9294501 Mesdaq et al. Mar 2016 B2
9300686 Pidathala et al. Mar 2016 B2
9306960 Aziz Apr 2016 B1
9306974 Aziz et al. Apr 2016 B1
9311479 Manni et al. Apr 2016 B1
9355247 Thioux et al. May 2016 B1
9356944 Aziz May 2016 B1
9363280 Rivlin et al. Jun 2016 B1
9367681 Ismael et al. Jun 2016 B1
9398028 Karandikar et al. Jul 2016 B1
9413781 Cunningham et al. Aug 2016 B2
9426071 Caldejon et al. Aug 2016 B1
9430646 Mushtaq et al. Aug 2016 B1
9432389 Khalid et al. Aug 2016 B1
9438613 Paithane et al. Sep 2016 B1
9438622 Staniford et al. Sep 2016 B1
9438623 Thioux et al. Sep 2016 B1
9459901 Jung et al. Oct 2016 B2
9467460 Otvagin et al. Oct 2016 B1
9483644 Paithane et al. Nov 2016 B1
9495180 Ismael Nov 2016 B2
9497213 Thompson et al. Nov 2016 B2
9507935 Ismael et al. Nov 2016 B2
9516057 Aziz Dec 2016 B2
9519782 Aziz et al. Dec 2016 B2
9536091 Paithane et al. Jan 2017 B2
9537972 Edwards et al. Jan 2017 B1
9560059 Islam Jan 2017 B1
9565202 Kindlund et al. Feb 2017 B1
9591015 Amin et al. Mar 2017 B1
9591020 Aziz Mar 2017 B1
9594904 Jain et al. Mar 2017 B1
9594905 Ismael et al. Mar 2017 B1
9594912 Thioux et al. Mar 2017 B1
9609007 Rivlin et al. Mar 2017 B1
9626509 Khalid et al. Apr 2017 B1
9628498 Aziz et al. Apr 2017 B1
9628507 Haq et al. Apr 2017 B2
9633134 Ross Apr 2017 B2
9635039 Islam et al. Apr 2017 B1
9641546 Manni et al. May 2017 B1
9654485 Neumann May 2017 B1
9661009 Karandikar et al. May 2017 B1
9661018 Aziz May 2017 B1
9674298 Edwards et al. Jun 2017 B1
9680862 Ismael et al. Jun 2017 B2
9690606 Ha et al. Jun 2017 B1
9690933 Singh et al. Jun 2017 B1
9690935 Shiffer et al. Jun 2017 B2
9690936 Malik et al. Jun 2017 B1
9736179 Ismael Aug 2017 B2
9740857 Ismael et al. Aug 2017 B2
9747446 Pidathala et al. Aug 2017 B1
9756074 Aziz et al. Sep 2017 B2
9773112 Rathor et al. Sep 2017 B1
9781144 Otvagin et al. Oct 2017 B1
9787700 Amin et al. Oct 2017 B1
9787706 Otvagin et al. Oct 2017 B1
9792196 Ismael et al. Oct 2017 B1
9824209 Ismael et al. Nov 2017 B1
9824211 Wilson Nov 2017 B2
9824216 Khalid et al. Nov 2017 B1
9825976 Gomez et al. Nov 2017 B1
9825989 Mehra et al. Nov 2017 B1
9838408 Karandikar et al. Dec 2017 B1
9838411 Aziz Dec 2017 B1
9838416 Aziz Dec 2017 B1
9838417 Khalid et al. Dec 2017 B1
9846776 Paithane et al. Dec 2017 B1
9876701 Caldejon et al. Jan 2018 B1
9888016 Amin et al. Feb 2018 B1
9888019 Pidathala et al. Feb 2018 B1
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
10698668 Pohlack Jun 2020 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 Gilde 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
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
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
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
20140053272 Lukacs 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
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
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
20180013770 Ismael Jan 2018 A1
20180048660 Paithane et al. Feb 2018 A1
20180121316 Ismael et al. May 2018 A1
20180288077 Siddiqui et al. Oct 2018 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (11)
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
Non-Patent Literature Citations (57)
Entry
“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.sp?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.
Reiner Sailer, Enriquillo Valdez, Trent Jaeger, Roonald Perez, Leendert van Doorn, John Linwood Griffin, Stefan Berger., sHype: Secure Hypervisor Appraoch to Trusted Virtualized Systems (Feb. 2, 2005) (“Sailer”).
Silicon Defense, “Worm Containment in the Internal Network”, (Mar. 2003), pp. 1-25.
Singh, S., et al., “Automated Worm Fingerprinting”, Proceedings of the ACM/USENIX Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation, San Francisco, California, (Dec. 2004).
Thomas H. Ptacek, and Timothy N. Newsham , “Insertion, Evasion, and Denial of Service: Eluding Network Intrusion Detection”, Secure Networks, (“Ptacek”), (Jan. 1998).
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.