1. Field
Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the field of network security. More specifically, embodiments of the disclosure relates to a system, apparatus and method for conducting packet processing and/or static analysis of objects by a traffic analysis controller being logic different from a host in order to offload packet processing and/or static analysis from the host.
2. General Background
Over the last decade, malicious software has become a pervasive problem for Internet users as most networked resources include software vulnerabilities that are subject to attack. For instance, over the past few years, more and more vulnerabilities are being discovered in software that is loaded onto computers, such as vulnerabilities within operating systems for example. While some vulnerabilities continue to be addressed through software patches, prior to the release of such software patches, network resources continue to be targeted by exploits.
In general, an exploit is information that attempts to take advantage of a vulnerability by adversely influencing or attacking normal operations of a targeted computer. As an illustrative example, a Portable Execution Format (PDF) file may be infected with an exploit that is activated upon execution (opening) of the PDF file and takes advantage of a vulnerability associated with a certain type and version of a PDF Reader application.
Currently, one type of network security device widely used for detecting exploits is designed to identify packets suspected of containing known exploits, attempt to block/halt propagation of such exploits, and log/report information associated with such packets through an alert. In particular, this conventional network security device is implemented with a processor that is wholly responsible for performing packet processing, a static analysis and a dynamic analysis. This type of conventional network security device may experience certain disadvantages.
For instance, one disadvantage with conventional network security devices is that the packet processing, the static analysis and the dynamic analysis may simultaneously request limited resources of the network security device's processor. Such simultaneous need for the processor's resources inherently leads to one or more processes waiting on others to finish and subsequently relinquish the processor's resources. This dilemma limits the speed, efficiency and detection efficacy at which the network security device may analyze received network traffic, especially when the network traffic is being received at a high rate.
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:
Various embodiments of the disclosure relate to an electronic device with network connectivity, such as a network security device for example, where the electronic device comprises a traffic analysis controller (TAC) and threat detection and prevention (TDP) logic. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the traffic analysis controller comprises a packet capture framework (PCF) which captures packets or objects from received network traffic. The PCF passes the captured objects to a set of pre-filters which comprises logic to determine whether an object is “of interest,” namely whether the object is of or contains a particular type of network traffic. In one embodiment, an object that is determined to be “of interest” is passed to either a static analysis engine operating on the traffic analysis controller and/or a dynamic analysis engine operating separate from the traffic analysis controller but within the network security device (e.g., part of the TDP logic).
For instance, as illustrated embodiments, the network security device may be implemented as a network appliance with a chassis housing, where both the traffic analysis controller and the TDP logic are implemented and contained within the same chassis housing. Where the network security device is implemented as a rack of blade servers, it is contemplated that the traffic analysis controller may be deployed within a first blade server while the TDP logic is deployed within the first blade server or a different (second) blade server that is communicatively coupled to the first blade server.
According to this embodiment of the disclosure, the static analysis engine comprises at least one subsystem that conducts a static analysis on incoming objects, where the analysis of the objects is conducted without certain types of processing (e.g., opening an object, running the object, etc.). The static analysis may include signature matching (e.g., exploit signature checks, vulnerability checks), heuristic analysis (e.g., statistical analysis), source reputation checking, blacklist or whitelist checking, or the like. For instance, the static analysis engine subsystem(s) associated with signature matching may comprise logic that conducts exploit signature checks and/or vulnerability signature checks on objects of at least a first traffic-type (e.g., domain name system “DNS”) to identify whether characteristics of any of these objects indicate that the object is associated with a malicious attack (e.g., indicative of an exploit). Furthermore, another static analysis engine subsystem may be associated with heuristics that examines the metadata or attributes of the object to determine whether a certain portion of the object has characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack.
Furthermore, the dynamic analysis engine also comprises one or more dynamic analysis engine subsystems. For instance, a dynamic analysis engine subsystem may comprise virtual execution logic to automatically analyze, without user assistance, content within objects of at least a second traffic-type (e.g., “Hypertext Transfer Protocol “HTTP”) in order to determine whether any of these objects is an exploit. Such objects or packets are provided to the dynamic analysis engine from the traffic analysis controller automatically and without user assistance.
Therefore, by compartmentalizing the packet processing and the virtual machine (VM)-based processing, the amount of network traffic that the network security device may process over a given time period is now scalable. Furthermore, using a network processing unit (NPU) on the traffic analysis controller for packet processing allows for an increased processing speed due to hardware acceleration, as much of the packet processing is done within the hardware and/or firmware of the NPU.
In the following description, certain terminology is used to describe features of the invention. For example, in certain situations, both terms “logic” and “engine” are representative of hardware, firmware and/or software that is configured to perform one or more functions. As hardware, logic (or engine) may include circuitry having data processing or storage functionality. Examples of such circuitry may include, but are not limited or restricted to a microprocessor, one or more processor cores, a programmable gate array, a microcontroller, an application specific integrated circuit, wireless receiver, transmitter and/or transceiver circuitry, semiconductor memory, or combinatorial logic.
Logic (or engine) may be software in the form of one or more software modules, such as executable code in the form of an executable application, 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 non-transitory storage medium may include, but are not limited or restricted to a programmable circuit; a semiconductor memory; non-persistent storage such as volatile memory (e.g., any type of random access memory “RAM”); persistent storage such as non-volatile memory (e.g., read-only memory “ROM”, power-backed RAM, flash memory, phase-change memory, etc.), a solid-state drive, hard disk drive, an optical disc drive, or a portable memory device. As firmware, the executable code is stored in persistent storage.
Herein, the term “traffic analysis controller” (TAC) may be construed as logic that conducts packet processing and/or some static analysis of received objects to determine (1) whether further in-depth processing of the object is needed to determine whether the object is “malicious” (e.g., associated with a malicious attack) or benign and/or (2) whether an alert or other warning scheme is needed to advise an administrator of the results from the static analysis. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the traffic analysis controller comprises a processor having access to on-chip or off-chip memory and being implemented on a substrate. The substrate may be one of several form factors including, but not limited or restricted to, a network interface card, an expansion card, a circuit board, a semiconductor component, or a plug-in module. In one embodiment, the traffic analysis controller may be a network interface card that comprises a network processing unit communicatively coupled to a non-volatile memory, where the memory includes several software modules that, when executed, conducts packet processing and static analysis of objects as described below.
A “processing unit” may be construed as any type of logic with data processing capability, including a general purpose processor, a processor core, a micro-controller, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a network processor, a digital signal processor, a virtual processor, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or the like.
Herein, 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. During static analysis, for example, the object may exhibit a set of expected characteristics and, during processing, a set of expected behaviors. The object may also exhibit a set of unexpected characteristics and a set of unexpected behaviors that may be evidence of an exploit and potentially allow the object to be classified as an exploit.
Examples of objects may include one or more flows or a self-contained element within a flow itself. A “flow” generally refers to related packets that are received, transmitted, or exchanged during a communication session and multiple flows are related packets that are received, transmitted or exchanged during related communication sessions. For convenience, a “packet” is broadly referred to as a series of bits or bytes having a prescribed format, which may include all types of network packets, frames, or cells.
As an illustrative example, an object may include a set of (one or more) flows such as (1) a sequence of transmissions in accordance with a particular communication protocol (e.g., User Datagram Protocol (UDP); Transmission Control Protocol (TCP); or HTTP; etc.), or (2) inter-process communications (e.g. Remote Procedure Call “RPC” or analogous processes, etc.). Similarly, as another illustrative example, the object may be a self-contained element, where different types of such objects may include a non-executable file (such as a document or a dynamically link library), a Portable Document Format (PDF) file, a JavaScript file, Zip file, a Flash file, a document (for example, a Microsoft Office® document), an electronic mail (email), downloaded web page, an instant messaging element in accordance with Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) or another messaging protocol, or the like.
An “exploit” may be construed as information (e.g., executable code, data, command(s), etc.) that is associated with a malicious attack on an electronic device, namely an attempt, normally unbeknownst to its user, to (1) alter control of the electronic device where the change in control is unwanted or unintended by the user and/or (2) gain access to stored information or information that is available to the user. According to one embodiment, an exploit attempts to take advantage of a vulnerability. Typically, a “vulnerability” is a coding error or artifact of software (e.g., computer program) that allows an attacker to alter legitimate control flow during processing of the software (computer program) by an electronic device, and thus, causes the electronic device to experience undesirable or unexpected behaviors. The undesired or unexpected behaviors may include a communication-based anomaly or an execution-based anomaly, which, for example, could (1) alter the functionality of an electronic device executing application software in a malicious manner; (2) alter the functionality of the electronic device executing that application software without any malicious intent; and/or (3) provide unwanted functionality which may be generally acceptable in another context. To illustrate, a computer program may be considered as a state machine, where all valid states (and transitions between states) are managed and defined by the program, in which case an exploit may be viewed as seeking to alter one or more of the states (or transitions) from those defined by the program.
“Malware” may be construed as computer code that executes an exploit to take advantage of a vulnerability, for example, to harm or co-opt operation of an electronic device or misappropriate, modify or delete data. Conventionally, malware is often said to be designed with malicious intent. An object may constitute or contain an exploit and/or malware.
The term “object of interest” may be construed as any object of the received network traffic associated with a packet selected by a pre-filter to be routed to one or more of the subsystems of either the static analysis engine or the dynamic analysis engine. For instance, an object of interest to the communication protocol traffic subsystem may be any object of a flow such as a sequence of transmissions in accordance with a particular communication protocol (e.g., User Datagram Protocol (UDP); Transmission Control Protocol (TCP); or Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)) that is selected by the communication protocol pre-filter to be routed to the communication protocol traffic subsystem for analysis. Throughout the specification and claims, the terms “object of interest” and “object under analysis” are used interchangeably.
The term “transmission medium” is a physical or logical communication path between two or more electronic devices (e.g., any devices with data processing and network connectivity such as, for example, a security appliance, a server, a mainframe, a computer such as a desktop or laptop, netbook, tablet, firewall, smart phone, router, switch, bridge, etc.). 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.
In certain instances, the terms “detected” is used herein to represent that there is a prescribed level of confidence (or probability) on the presence of an exploit within an object under analysis. For instance, the logic of the static analysis engine “detects” a potential exploit by examining characteristics or features of an object under analysis, and, in response, determining whether the object has characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack. This determination may be conducted through analysis as to whether there is at least a first probability that such characteristics exist. Likewise, the virtual execution logic detects the presence of an exploit by monitoring or observing unexpected or anomalous behaviors or activities of an object under analysis, and, in response, determining whether there is at least a second probability, perhaps higher than the first probability, that the object has characteristics indicative of an exploit, and thus, is associated with a malicious attack.
The term “computerized” generally represents that any corresponding operations are conducted by hardware in combination with software and/or firmware. Also, the term “comparison” generally means determining if a match (e.g., a certain level of correlation) is achieved between two items where one of the items may include a particular signature pattern.
The terms “binary” and “binaries” may be construed as executable code, commonly referred to as object or binary code. Examples of binaries may include, but are not restricted or limited to a compiled executable program.
Lastly, the terms “or” and “and/or” and “/” as used herein are to be interpreted as inclusive or meaning any one or any combination. Therefore, “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.” Also, “A/B” represents “any of the following: A; B; A or B; A and B.” An exception to this definition will occur only when a combination of elements or functions, are in some way inherently mutually exclusive.
As this invention is susceptible to embodiments of many different forms, it is intended that the present disclosure is to be considered as an example of the principles of the invention and not intended to limit the invention to the specific embodiments shown and described.
A. Communication Flow
Referring to
Herein, the network security device 104 may be communicatively coupled with the communication network 101 to monitor flows in a passive or active manner. In a passive manner, the network security device 104 may be communicatively coupled so as to capture and duplicate one or more objects associated with a flow propagating over a communication path 103. The duplicated copy is then analyzed while the original flow is passed to one or more client devices 1051-105M (M≧1), where one or more client devices may be simply represented as “client device(s)”). Such a network security device 104 is sometimes referred to as a “tap” or “network tap,” which receives network traffic over communication path 103 between the communication network 101 and client device(s) 1051-105M (M≧1) and re-routes some or all of the network traffic to the network security device 104.
Alternatively, the network security device 104 may operate in an active manner with an in-line deployment, where the network traffic over the communication path 103 is directly received by the network security device 104. In other words, the network security device 104 is positioned between the communication network 101 and the client device(s) 1051-105M and analyzes objects within the original version of the network traffic. Subsequent to such analysis, for analyzed objects determined to be associated with a malicious attack, the objects may be precluded from being passed to the client device(s) 1051-105M. Rather, the objects may be quarantined and perhaps held for further forensic analysis.
B. General Architecture
Referring to
In general, the management system 219 is adapted to manage network security devices 1041-1043. For instance, the management system 219 may be responsible for automatically updating one or more exploit signatures and/or vulnerability signatures used by the static analysis engine 207 within some or all of network security devices 1041-104N. Each of these signatures may represent a prior detected exploit or an uncovered software vulnerability. Such sharing may be conducted automatically or manually, e.g., uploaded by an administrator. Also, such sharing may be conducted without charge among the network security devices 1041-1043 or subject to a paid subscription basis.
Herein, according to the embodiment illustrated in
As shown in
As shown, traffic analysis controller 200 and TDP logic 202 may reside within the same chassis housing of the network security device 1041. Of course, as described above, the network security device 1041 may implemented as a group of electronic devices in close physical proximity (e.g., rack of blade servers), where the traffic analysis controller 1041 may be deployed within a first electronic device while the TDP logic 202 is deployed within a second electronic device. For this deployment, the transmission medium 220 may include Twinaxial cabling, coaxial cabling, twisted pair cabling such as Category 5/5e/6/6a, or the like.
In general, the traffic analysis controller 200 operates as a data capturing device that is configured to receive data propagating to/from the client device(s) 1051-105M and provide at least some of this data to the packet capture framework (PCF) 210 of the network security device 1041. The traffic analysis controller 200 may provide at least some of the original network traffic to the PCF 210 or duplicate at least some of the network traffic and provide the duplicated copy to the PCF 210.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the static analysis engine 207 may be one or more software modules executed by a first processing unit while the dynamic analysis engine 216 may be one or more software modules executed on a second processing unit. The first and second processing units may be different processing units, where each “processing unit” may be a different physical processor located within the same processor package or at different physical locations, a different core processor within the same processor package, a different virtual processor, or the like. Of course, the first and second processing units may be the same physical/core/virtual processor.
As an example, as shown in
In an embodiment in which the packet processing (e.g., processing of the set of pre-filters 208) and some or all of the processing of the static analysis engine 207 is off-loaded from the CPU 214 of the host 203 to the NPU 205 of the traffic analysis controller 200, a computational advantage arises. In particular, off-loading of the packet processing and/or at least some functionality by the static analysis engine 207 allows the CPU 214 to devote most of its resources to VM-based processing and subsequent monitoring. In this implementation, it is now possible to instantiate more VMs and/or run the analyses of the VMs for a longer time period as packet processing is not simultaneously requesting the resources of the CPU 214. Therefore, this logical configuration provides an ability to scale the processing of the network security device 104 by increasing the number of VMs used during the processing as well as potentially performing deep packet inspection and/or a static analysis on a processor separate from that which is executing the VMs.
1. Traffic Analysis Controller (TAC)
Referring to
The PCF 210 controls the flow of the network traffic received by the network security device 1041. Specifically, the PCF 210 confirms that the network security device 1041 is operating properly according to the deployment scenario of the network security device 104. For instance, if the network security device 1041 is deployed off-line, or in a passive mode, the PCF 210 may be configured to ensure that the network security device 1041 receives a copy of the received network traffic and passes the copy of the received network traffic to the set of pre-filters 208 while the network traffic proceeds to one or more of the client device(s) 1051, . . . and/or 105M. In the off-line deployment scenario, the network security device 1041 does not block or delay the network traffic from reaching a client device (e.g., client device 1051) while the static and/or dynamic analysis is being performed. Alternatively, if the network security device 1041 is deployed in-line, the PCF 210 does not permit (blocks/halts) the received network traffic to pass through the network security device 104 to the client device 1051 until the network security device 104 has determined the received network security traffic does not contain malicious content once processing and analysis are complete. In the in-line deployment scenario, the PCF 210 ensures that the received network traffic passes to the client device 1051, after processing and analysis are complete, e.g., the network traffic does not contain malicious content.
The PCF 210 of the traffic analysis controller 200 is capable of receiving and routing objects associated with network traffic to the set of pre-filters 208. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the set of pre-filters 208 comprise two or more filtering modules that perform an initial inspection of objects of received network traffic to determine the object type (e.g., the type of traffic associated with the object). In such an embodiment, one pre-filter is associated with objects to be routed to the static analysis engine 207 and another pre-filter may be associated with objects to be routed to the dynamic analysis engine 216 of
Furthermore, each pre-filter is associated with a subsystem of either the static analysis engine 207 or the dynamic analysis engine 216 corresponding to the type of traffic for which the pre-filter is searching. For example, a pre-filter searching for communication protocol traffic may be associated with a communication protocol traffic subsystem deployed within the dynamic analysis engine 216. When a pre-filter determines that an object of the received network traffic is an object type of traffic for which the pre-filter is searching, the object is considered an “object of interest” and is routed from the pre-filter to the analysis engine subsystem with which the pre-filter is associated. When no pre-filter determines that the object is an object of interest, the object is permitted to pass to the client device 1051 without being routed to either the static analysis engine 207 or the dynamic analysis engine 216.
The set of pre-filters 208, located on the traffic analysis controller 200, may route an object of interest to a subsystem of the static analysis engine 207 located on the traffic analysis controller 200. Additionally or in the alternative, the set of pre-filters 208 may route objects of interest to a subsystem of the dynamic analysis engine 216 in the TDP logic 202 located within the host 203. The pre-filter that determines an object is of interest may provide the entire object or certain content within the object, for example, one or more objects that are part of one or more flows, packet payloads, or the like, to the corresponding analysis engine subsystem.
In some embodiments, an object of interest may be provided to the static analysis engine 207 and once the static analysis engine 207 has finished its analysis, a determination is made as to whether the object of interest may contain malicious content. Thereafter, the object of interest may not be provided to a subsystem within the dynamic analysis engine 216 for further in-depth analysis, but rather, information is provided to logic within the host 203 to initiate an alert message to a network administrator, user, or another entity regarding presence of a detected object having characteristics associated with a malicious attack. For instance, a call-back traffic subsystem 315 of
In one embodiment of the disclosure, as illustrated in
In the embodiment, the static analysis engine 207 comprises the DNS traffic subsystem 305 and the call-back traffic subsystem 315. The dynamic analysis engine 216, located on the host 203, comprises the communication protocol traffic subsystem 400 and the binary traffic subsystem 420 as shown in
In an alternative embodiment, the functions of the communication protocol traffic subsystem 400 and the binary traffic subsystem 420 may be incorporated into a single subsystem on the dynamic analysis engine 216 while the functions of the DNS traffic subsystem 305 and the call-back traffic subsystem 315 are incorporated into a single subsystem on the static analysis engine 207.
Referring to
In general, the DNS traffic subsystem 305 and the call-back traffic subsystem 315 of the static analysis engine 207 are communicatively coupled to receive one or more objects within network traffic which may be related or unrelated to each other. For instance, one object may be a series of packets containing one or more requests to a DNS server operating as a flow routed over communication network 101. The subsystems of the static analysis engine 207 comprise logic which analyzes each of the objects for known exploits using exploit signatures and, for the protocol activity, using vulnerability signatures. For instance, the exploit matching logic 312/322 within the DNS traffic subsystem 305 and the call-back traffic subsystem 315 performs exploit signature checks, which may involve a comparison of one or more pre-stored exploit signatures (pre-configured and predetermined attack patterns against the object of interest) from signatures rule set 209.
Additionally, the DNS traffic subsystem 305 and the call-back traffic subsystem 315 of the static analysis engine 207 may comprise heuristic logic 314/324 which analyzes each of the objects using metadata or attributes of the object of interest to determine whether a certain portion of the object has characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack. For instance, the heuristic logic 314/324 may analyze the object of interest to determine whether certain portions of the object corresponds to one or more “malicious identifiers,” which may include, but are not limited or restricted to a particular source or destination address (e.g., URLs, IP addresses, MAC addresses, etc.) that is associated with known exploits; exploit patterns; or even shell code patterns.
Upon detecting a match during the exploit signature check, vulnerability signature check and/or the heuristic check (an object under analysis has characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack), the static analysis engine 207 may be adapted to upload the static analysis results for storage in results database 221. These results may include, but are not limited or restricted to (i) an exploit identifier such as a particular name/family of the suspected exploit (if known); (ii) source address (e.g., Uniform Resource Locator “URL”, Internet Protocol “IP” address, etc.) of a source of the suspect object; (iii) time of analysis; and/or (iv) information associated with anomalous characteristics pertaining to the object of interest.
According to another embodiment of the disclosure, the PCF 210 may be further configured to capture metadata from network traffic intended for client device 1051. According to one embodiment, the metadata may be used, at least in part, by the heuristic logic 314/324 and/or to determine protocols, application types and other information that may be used by logic within the network security device 1041 to determine particular software profile(s). The software profile(s) are used for selecting and/or configuring a run-time environment in one or more virtual machines selected or configured as part of the dynamic analysis engine 216, as described below. These software profile(s) may be directed to different versions of the same software application for fetching corresponding software image(s) from profile software rule set 217.
Furthermore, according to one embodiment of the disclosure, packet processing and static analysis operations are off-loaded to the traffic analysis controller 200 while VM-based processing remains on the host 203. Herein, the VM-based analysis normally requires significantly more computing resources, including both CPU and memory, which may be best provided by the host 203 (e.g., main system) than within a NIC deployment of the traffic analysis controller 200. Hence, the static analysis engine 207 may be adapted to route information that is used by the scheduler 213, dynamic analysis engine 216 and/or reporting logic (not shown) to conduct further analysis as to whether the suspect object is associated with a malicious attack (e.g., an exploit). This information may include, but is not limited or restricted to (1) the suspect object, (2) anomalous characteristics of the suspect object, based on signature matching, heuristics and other static analysis, that may indicate the presence of an exploit; (3) a score generated to classify a threat level of the suspect object being a possible exploit
2. Threat Detection and Prevention (TDP) Logic
Referring to
In general, at least one pre-filter of the set of pre-filters 208 located on the traffic analysis controller 200 provides the objects of interest to the dynamic analysis engine 216 for in-depth dynamic analysis using virtual machines (VMs) 4401-440K or 4451-445L. For instance, the communication protocol traffic subsystem 400 may simulate transmission and/or receipt by a destination device comprising the virtual machine.
According to one embodiment, one or more VMs 4401-440K or 4451-445L within the virtual execution environments 405/425 may be configured with all of the software profiles corresponding to the software images stored within software profile rule set 217. Alternatively, the VMs 4401-440K or 4451-445L may be configured according to a prevalent software configuration, software configuration used by an electronic device within a particular enterprise network (e.g., client device 1051), or an environment that is required for the object to be processed, including software such as a web browser application, PDF reader application, or the like. However, for a known or recognized vulnerability, the VMs 4401-440K or 4451-445L may be more narrowly configured to software profiles associated with vulnerable software.
As previously stated and shown in
Upon receiving an object of interest from pre-filters 208, the scheduler 223 may determine which software image(s) are associated with software having the vulnerability. In one embodiment, the determination may be based on the static analysis conducted by the static analysis engine 207. Thereafter, the software profile(s) are selected by the scheduler 223 to fetch these software image(s) for configuration of VM 4401 or 4451. This tailored selection scheme avoids VM configuration for software that does not feature the matched software vulnerability.
As a second illustrative example, the scheduler 223 may be adapted to configure the multiple VMs 4401-440K for concurrent virtual execution of a variety of different versions of the software in efforts to determine whether the object of interest identified by the communication protocol traffic subsystem 400 and the binary traffic subsystem 420 is an exploit.
Of course, it is contemplated that the VM configuration described above may be handled by logic other than the scheduler 223. For instance, although not shown, the dynamic analysis engine 216 may include configuration logic that is adapted to determine which software image(s) are associated with software having the vulnerability. The vulnerability may be uncovered by the static analysis engine 207. This configuration logic may transmit the VM configuration information to the scheduler 223 to handle VM configuration as described above; alternatively, the dynamic analysis engine 216 may exclusively handle the VM configuration.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the communication protocol traffic subsystem 400 is adapted with the virtual execution environment 405 to execute one or more VMs 4401-440K that, operating in combination with a protocol sequence replayer (replay logic) 442, simulates the receipt and execution of an object of interest within a run-time environment as expected for the type of object. Similarly, the binary traffic subsystem 420 is adapted with the virtual execution environment 425 to execute one or more VMs 4451-445L that, operating in combination with a protocol sequence replayer (replay logic) 447, simulates the receipt and execution of an object of interest within a run-time environment as expected for objects including binaries.
As an illustrative example, the communication protocol traffic subsystem 400 may conduct virtual processing of an object of interest (e.g., a HTTP communication session) and provide the object of interest to the VM(s) 4401, . . . , and/or 440K. The replay logic 442 within the communication protocol traffic subsystem 400 may be adapted to provide, and sometimes modify (e.g. modify IP address) packets associated with the objects of interest containing one or more objects containing Internet traffic and synchronize any return network traffic generated by the virtual execution environment 405 in response to the packets. Hence, the communication protocol traffic subsystem 400 may suppress (e.g., discard) the return network traffic such that the return network traffic is not transmitted to the communication network 101. For instance, for a particular suspect object being a flow such as a TCP or UDP sequence, the replay logic 442 may replay the data packets by sending packets to the virtual execution environment 405 via a TCP connection or UDP session. Furthermore, the replay logic 442 may synchronize return network traffic by terminating the TCP connection or UDP session.
As another illustrative example, the binary traffic subsystem 420 may conduct virtual processing of an object of interest (e.g., a binary extracted from network traffic) and provide the object of interest to the VM(s) 4451, . . . , and/or 445L. The replay logic 447 within the binary traffic subsystem 420 may be adapted to return information to the VM(s) 4451, . . . , and/or 445L in the event that the binary requests information from remote sources.
As further shown in
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the score determination logic 410/430 comprises one or more software modules that are used to determine a probability (or level of confidence) that the object of interest is an exploit. Score determination logic 410/430 is configured to generate a value (referred to as a “score”) that classifies the threat of the possible exploit. Of course, a score may be assigned to the suspect object as a whole by mathematically combining the scores determined by analysis of different content associated with the same object of interest to obtain an overall score for that object of interest.
When the static analysis results or the VM-based results indicate that the object of interest under analysis contains malicious content, as shown in
Of course, in lieu of or in addition to static scanning operations being conducted by network security devices 1041-1043, it is contemplated that cloud computing services 102 may be implemented with static analysis engine 207 to perform the exploit and/or vulnerability signature checks and/or with dynamic analysis engine 216 to conduct virtual execution on content within the object of interest, as described herein. In accordance with this embodiment, network security device 1041 may be adapted to establish secured communications with cloud computing services 102 of
C. Flow of Objects Through TAC, Pre-Filters and Analysis Engine Subsystems
Referring to
If none of the pre-filters within the set of pre-filters finds the object to be an object of interest (e.g., the type of object under analysis is not recognized by the pre-filters), the network security device may allow the object, and associated packets or flows if applicable, to pass to the client device without further analysis (NO at block 505). However, if a pre-filter finds the object to be an object of interest, such as the object contains traffic of the type for which the pre-filter is searching for example (YES at block 505), the object of interest may be routed to the appropriate analysis engine subsystem for further processing (block 510).
Upon receiving the object of interest, the appropriate analysis engine subsystem performs processing to determine whether the object of interest includes malicious content so as to constitute an exploit (block 515). If the appropriate analysis engine subsystem determines that the object of interest does not have characteristics associated with a malicious attack (e.g., not an exploit), the network security device may allow the object (e.g., associated packet(s) or flows) to pass to the client device (NO at block 515). However, if the appropriate analysis engine subsystem determines that the object has characteristics associated with a malicious attack (YES at block 515), the network security device may (1) conduct further in-depth analysis (e.g., DNS subsystem determines object is suspicious and further analysis by the dynamic analysis engine is warranted); (2) optionally alert the appropriate administer or security technician of the presence of malicious content, (3) prevent the transmission of the object, and possibly any packets or flows associated with the object, or (4) allow transmission of the object and perform further monitoring (block 520).
Referring to
The PCF then sends objects of the received network traffic to the communication protocol pre-filter and the communication protocol pre-filter determines whether the object is a communication protocol-based object (block 610). For instance, the communication protocol pre-filter may inspect an object searching for an Internet Protocol (IP) packet comprising a header and a payload. In one embodiment, if an object inspected by the communication protocol pre-filter is determined to contain an IPv4 or an IPv6 packet, the communication protocol pre-filter will designate the object as an object of interest and forward the object, and possibly any associated packets or flows, to the communication protocol analysis engine subsystem. As another example, the communication protocol pre-filter may designate as objects of interest any object containing packets or data transferred using various communication protocols such as, but not limited or restricted to, transmission control protocol (TCP), user datagram protocol (UDP), dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP), hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) or file transfer protocol (FTP).
If the object is not determined to be a communication protocol based object, the network security device may allow the object, and associated packets or flows if applicable, to pass to the client device (NO at block 615). However, if the object is determined to be a communication protocol based object, i.e., an object of interest to the communication protocol pre-filter, (YES at block 615), the object is routed from the communication protocol pre-filter to the communication protocol traffic subsystem (of the dynamic analysis engine 216) for processing (block 620).
In one embodiment, as the communication protocol traffic subsystem is located within the dynamic analysis engine, the processing of the communication protocol traffic subsystem includes VM-based processing of the objects of interest. Such dynamic analysis may include virtual execution of the content of the object of interest. In particular, one or more VMs of the virtual execution environment of the communication protocol traffic subsystem may simulate loading of packets within an object of interest. The monitoring logic monitors what particular content is loaded and/or requested by the object of interest. For instance, the VM(s) may simulate the loading of an object of interest while the monitoring logic monitors for anomalous behavior such as repeated attempts to load the same HTTP address.
If, based on the processing by the communication protocol analysis engine, the object of interest is not determined to have characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack, the network security device may allow the object, and associated packets or flows if applicable, to pass to the client device (NO at block 625). However, if the object of interest is determined to have characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack (YES at block 625), the network security device may optionally alert the appropriate administer or security technician of the presence of malicious content (block 630), prevent the transmission of the object, and possibly any packets or flows associated with the object, or allow transmission of the object and perform further monitoring.
Referring to
The PCF then routes objects of the received network traffic to the binary traffic pre-filter and the binary traffic pre-filter determines whether the object is an object containing a binary (block 710). For instance, the binary traffic pre-filter may inspect an object searching for one or more packets indicating the presence of a binary within the object or flow. In particular, the binary traffic pre-filter may inspect the payload of a network packet to determine whether particular data is present in the payload. Alternatively, the binary traffic pre-filter may determine the presence of particular data in the payload through inspection of the header of a network packet.
If the object is not determined to be an object containing a binary, the network security device may allow the object, and associated packets or flows if applicable, to pass to the client device (NO at block 715). However, if the object is determined to be an object containing a binary, such as an object of interest to the binary traffic pre-filter, (YES at block 715), the object of interest is routed, from the binary traffic pre-filter, to the binary traffic subsystem (of the dynamic analysis engine 216) for processing (block 720).
In one embodiment, as the binary traffic subsystem is located within the dynamic analysis engine, the processing of the binary traffic subsystem includes VM-based processing of the objects of interest. Such dynamic analysis may include virtual execution of the content of the object of interest. In particular, one or more VMs of the virtual execution environment of the binary traffic subsystem may simulate loading of packets within an object of interest. The monitoring logic monitors what particular content is loaded and/or requested by the object of interest. For instance, VM may simulate the execution or loading of a file, such as a PDF file, located within an object of interest while monitoring logic monitors for anomalous behavior that deviates from expected behavior present when executing or loading such a file.
If, based on the processing by the binary traffic subsystem 420, the object of interest is not determined to have characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack, the network security device may allow the object, and associated packets or flows if applicable, to pass to the client device (NO at block 725). However, if the object of interest is determined to have characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack (YES at block 725), the network security device may optionally alert the appropriate administer or security technician of the presence of malicious content (block 730), prevent the transmission of the object, and possibly any packets or flows associated with the object, or allow transmission of the object and perform further monitoring.
Referring to
The PCF then routes objects of the received network traffic to the communication protocol pre-filter and the DNS traffic pre-filter determines whether the object is an object containing DNS traffic (block 810). For instance, the DNS traffic pre-filter may inspect an object that contains data structures and communication exchanges adhering to the DNS protocol which is a protocol typically used with exchanges over the Internet.
If the object is not determined to be an object containing DNS traffic, the network security device may allow the object, and associated packets or flows if applicable, to pass to the client device (NO at block 815). However, if the object is determined to be an object containing DNS traffic, i.e., an object of interest to the DNS traffic pre-filter, (YES at block 815), the object of interest is routed, from the DNS traffic pre-filter, to the DNS traffic subsystem (of the static analysis engine 207) for processing (block 820).
In one embodiment, as the DNS traffic subsystem is located within the static analysis engine, the processing of the DNS traffic subsystem includes deep-packet inspection (DPI) and/or performance of a static analysis using at least exploit signature checks, vulnerability signature checks and/or heuristic checks on the objects of interest. In particular, the exploit matching logic within DNS traffic subsystem may perform a comparison of one or more pre-stored exploit signatures from signatures rule set with the object of interest. In particular, the DNS traffic subsystem may perform a heuristic analysis to determine whether the object of interest contains anomalous content such as repeated queries to a DNS server.
If, based on the processing by the DNS traffic subsystem, the object of interest is not determined to have characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack, the network security device may allow the object, and associated packets or flows if applicable, to pass to the client device (NO at block 825). However, if the object of interest is determined to have characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack (YES at block 825), the network security device may optionally alert the appropriate administer or security technician of the presence of malicious content (block 830), prevent the transmission of the object, and possibly any packets or flows associated with the object, or allow transmission of the object and perform further processing such as VM-based processing within the dynamic analysis engine.
Referring to
The PCF then routes objects of the received network traffic to the call-back traffic pre-filter and the call-back traffic pre-filter determines whether the object is an object containing call-back traffic (block 910). For instance, the call-back traffic pre-filter may inspect an object searching for content containing a call or query to a specific IP address.
In one embodiment, the call-back traffic pre-filter may pass a number of the first packets of every object or flow to the call-back traffic subsystem. In such an embodiment, the call-back traffic subsystem determines whether a call-back will be made by the object or flow from the first few packets of the object or flow. The number of first packets of an object or flow passed to the call-back traffic subsystem is a variable number and may be, for instance, the first five or ten packets of every object or flow within the received network traffic.
If the object is not determined to be an object containing call-back traffic, the network security device may allow the object, and associated packets or flows if applicable, to pass to the client device (NO at block 915). However, if the object is determined to be an object containing call-back traffic, such as an object of interest to the call-back traffic pre-filter, (YES at block 915), the object of interest is routed, from the call-back traffic pre-filter, to the call-back traffic subsystem (of the static analysis engine 207) for processing (block 920).
In one embodiment, as the call-back traffic subsystem is located within the static analysis engine, the processing of the call-back traffic subsystem includes deep-packet inspection (DPI) and/or performance of a static analysis using at least exploit signature checks and/or vulnerability signature checks on the objects of interest. In particular, the exploit matching logic within call-back traffic subsystem may perform a comparison of one or more pre-stored exploit signatures from signatures rule set with the object of interest. In particular, the call-back traffic subsystem may perform a heuristic analysis to determine whether the object of interest contains queries to one or more particular IP addresses present on a list of IP addresses known to contain malicious content or simply prohibited by the administer or security technician associated with the client device.
If, based on the processing by the call-back traffic analysis engine, the object of interest is not determined to have characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack, the network security device may allow the object, and associated packets or flows if applicable, to pass to the client device (NO at block 925). However, if the object of interest is determined to have characteristics that suggest the object is an exploit and/or is associated with a malicious attack (YES at block 925), the network security device may optionally alert the appropriate administer or security technician of the presence of malicious content (block 930), prevent the transmission of the object, and possibly any packets or flows associated with the object, or allow transmission of the object and perform further processing such as VM-based processing within the dynamic analysis engine.
A. General Architecture
Referring to
More specifically, according to this embodiment of the disclosure, the TDP logic 202 comprises both the static analysis engine 207 and the dynamic analysis engine 216, while the traffic analysis controller (TAC) 200 comprises the packet capture framework (PCF) 210 and a set of pre-filters 208.
A. Traffic Analysis Controller
Still referring to
In this embodiment, as shown in
Alternatively, if the network security device 1041 is deployed in-line, the PCF 210 does not permit the received network traffic to pass through the network security device 1041 to the client device(s) 1051, . . . , or 105M until the network security device 1041 has determined the received network security traffic does not contain malicious content. In the in-line deployment scenario, the PCF 210 ensures that the received network traffic passes to one or more of the client device 1051, . . . and/or 105M, after processing, unless it contains malicious content, in which case, at least some of the network traffic may be blocked from reaching its intended destination and an alert may be issued.
As described above, the pre-filters 208 may comprise four pre-filters searching for four types of traffic including: (1) DNS traffic, (2) traffic containing call-back activity, (3) communication protocol traffic, and (4) traffic containing at least one binary. In such an embodiment, the four pre-filters correspond to the following subsystems of the dynamic analysis engine 216, namely the communication protocol traffic subsystem and the binary traffic subsystem, or the static analysis engine 207, namely the DNS traffic subsystem and the call-back traffic subsystem. It should be noted that the set of pre-filters 208 may be located on the traffic analysis controller 200 while the static analysis engine 207 and the dynamic analysis engine 216 are located in the TDP logic 202.
The first stage of static engine 1000 performs certain functionality, such as signature matching for example, which is off-loaded from the TDP logic 202 to be handed at the traffic analysis controller 200. A second stage of static engine 1010 performs other functionality, such as heuristic analysis for example, is continued to be handled at the TDP logic 202. It is contemplated that first stage of static engine 1000 may perform heuristic analysis while the second stage of static engine 1010 performs other functionality such as signature matching. The goal is to off-load a portion of the static analysis to the traffic analysis controller 200.
B. TDP Logic
Still referring to
As described above, the static analysis engine 207 may comprise the DNS traffic subsystem and the call-back traffic subsystem, but signature matching associated with these subsystems is handled at the traffic analysis controller 200. The dynamic analysis engine 216, located on the host 203, comprises the communication protocol traffic subsystem and the binary traffic subsystem. However, in this embodiment, the TDP logic 202 include portions of the DNS and call-back traffic subsystems, which are executed on the CPU 214 associated with the TDP logic 202.
In general, the static analysis engine 207 and the dynamic analysis engine 216 perform in a similar manner as described above in the first embodiment, however in this embodiment, both engines, including all subsystems, are executed on the CPU 214 of the threat detection and prevention logic 203.
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.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/229,541, filed on Mar. 28, 2014 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,591,015), the entire contents of which are incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4292580 | Ott et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
5175732 | Hendel et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5278901 | Shieh et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5440723 | Arnold et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5452442 | Kephart | Sep 1995 | A |
5490249 | Miller | Feb 1996 | A |
5657473 | Killean et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5842002 | Schnurer et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5889973 | Moyer | Mar 1999 | A |
5960170 | Chen et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5978917 | Chi | Nov 1999 | A |
6088803 | Tso et al. | 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 | Sørhaug 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 |
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 |
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 |
8201072 | Matulic | Jun 2012 | B2 |
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 |
8291198 | Mott 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 |
8321240 | Lorsch | 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 |
8468604 | Claudatos | 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 |
8769692 | Muttik et al. | Jul 2014 | B1 |
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 |
8959428 | Majidian | 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 |
9165142 | Sanders | 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 |
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 |
9355246 | Wan | May 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 |
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 |
9483644 | Paithane et al. | Nov 2016 | B1 |
9495180 | Ismael | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9516057 | Aziz | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9519782 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9536091 | Paithane et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9560059 | Islam | Jan 2017 | B1 |
9565202 | Kindlund et al. | Feb 2017 | B1 |
9591015 | Amin | 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 |
9635039 | Islam et al. | Apr 2017 | B1 |
9641546 | Manni et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
9661009 | Karandikar et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
9661018 | Aziz | May 2017 | 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 |
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 |
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 |
20050022018 | Szor | 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 | 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 |
20060190561 | Conboy 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 |
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 |
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 |
20080163356 | Won-Jip et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080181227 | Todd | Jul 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 | May 2009 | A1 |
20090133125 | Choi | 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 | 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 | 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 |
20100192057 | Majidian | 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 |
20100275210 | Phillips et al. | Oct 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 |
20110173178 | Conboy 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 |
20110302656 | El-Moussa | 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 |
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 |
20130247187 | Hsiao | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130263260 | Mahaffey et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130291109 | Staniford et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130298243 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130318038 | Shiffer et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130318073 | Shiffer et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130325791 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130325792 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130325871 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130325872 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140032875 | Butler | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140053260 | Gupta et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140053261 | Gupta et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140130158 | Wang et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140137180 | Lukacs et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140169762 | Ryu | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140179360 | Jackson et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140181131 | Ross | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140181975 | Spernow et al. | 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 |
20140325344 | Bourke et al. | Oct 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 | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150096024 | Haq et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150096025 | Ismael | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150121526 | McLarnon | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150180886 | Staniford et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150186645 | Aziz et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150220735 | Paithane et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150244732 | Golshan | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150372980 | Eyada | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160044000 | Cunningham | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160127393 | Aziz et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160191547 | Zafar 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 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2439806 | Jan 2008 | GB |
2490431 | Oct 2012 | GB |
0206928 | Jan 2002 | WO |
0223805 | Mar 2002 | WO |
2007117636 | Oct 2007 | WO |
2008041950 | Apr 2008 | WO |
2011084431 | Jul 2011 | WO |
2011112348 | Sep 2011 | WO |
2012075336 | Jun 2012 | WO |
2012145066 | Oct 2012 | WO |
2013067505 | May 2013 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“Network Security: NetDetector—Network Intrusion Forensic System (NIFS) Whitepaper”, (“NetDetector Whitepaper”), (2003). |
“Packet”, Microsoft Computer Dictionary Microsoft Press, (Mar. 2002), 1 page. |
“When Virtual is Better Than Real”, IEEEXplore Digital Library, available at, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.iso?reload=true&arnumber=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). |
AltaVista Advanced Search Results (subset). “attack vector identifier” Http://www.altavista.com/web/results?Itag=ody&pg=aq&aqmode=aqa=Event+Orchestrator . . . , (Accessed on Sep. 15, 2009). |
AltaVista Advanced Search Results (subset). “Event Orchestrator”. Http://www.altavista.com/web/results?Itag=ody&pg=aq&aqmode=aqa=Event+Orchesrator . . . , (Accessed on Sep. 3, 2009). |
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-verlaq Berlin Heidelberg, (2006), pp. 165-184. |
Baldi, Mario; Risso, Fulvio; “A Framework for Rapid Development and Portable Execution of Packet-Handling Applications”, 5th IEEE International Symposium Processing and Information Technology, Dec. 21, 2005, pp. 233-238. |
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). |
Bowen, B. M. et al “BotSwindler: Tamper Resistant Injection of Believable Decoys in VM-Based Hosts for Crimeware Detection”, in Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, Springer ISBN: 978-3-642-15511-6 (pp. 118-137) (Sep. 15, 2010). |
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. |
Cisco “Intrusion Prevention for the Cisco ASA 5500-x Series” Data Sheet (2012). |
Cisco, Configuring the Catalyst Switched Port Analyzer (SPAN) (“Cisco”), (1992-2003). |
Clark, John, Sylvian Leblanc,and Scott Knight. “Risks associated with usb hardware trojan devices used by insiders.” Systems Conference (SysCon), 2011 IEEE International. IEEE, 2011. |
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). |
Crandall, J.R., et al., “Minos:Control Data Attack Prevention Orthogonal to Memory Model”, 37th International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Portland, Oregon, (Dec. 2004). |
Deutsch, P., ““Zlib compressed data format specification version 3.3” RFC 1950, (1996)”. |
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). |
Excerpt regarding First Printing Date for Merike Kaeo, Designing Network Security (“Kaeo”), (2005). |
Filiol, Eric , et al., “Combinatorial Optimisation of Worm Propagation on an Unknown Network”, International Journal of Computer Science 2.2 (2007). |
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. |
Gibler, Clint, et al. AndroidLeaks: automatically detecting potential privacy leaks in android applications on a large scale. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. |
Goel, et al., Reconstructing System State for Intrusion Analysis, Apr. 2008 SIGOPS Operating Systems Review vol. 42 Issue 3, pp. 21-28. |
Gregg Keizer: “Microsoft's HoneyMonkeys Show Patching Windows Works”, Aug. 8, 2005, XP055143386, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:http://www.informationweek.com/microsofts-honeymonkeys-show-patching-windows-works/d/d-id/1035069? [retrieved on Jun. 1, 2016]. |
Heng Yin et al, Panorama: Capturing System-Wide Information Flow for Malware Detection and Analysis, Research Showcase @ CMU, Carnegie Mellon University, 2007. |
Hjelmvik, Erik, “Passive Network Security Analysis with NetworkMiner”, (IN)SECURE, Issue 18, (Oct. 2008), pp. 1-100. |
Idika et al., A-Survey-of-Malware-Detection-Techniques, Feb. 2, 2007, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University. |
IEEE Xplore Digital Library Sear Results (subset) for “detection of unknown computer worms”. Http//ieeexplore.ieee.org/searchresult.jsp?SortField=Score&SortOrder=desc&ResultC . . . (Accessed on Aug. 28, 2009). |
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. |
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”), (Dec. 2002). |
Krasnyansky, Max, et al., Universal TUN/TAP driver, available at https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/tuntap.txt (2002) (“Krasnyansky”). |
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. |
Leading Colleges Select FireEye to Stop Malware-Related Data Breaches, FireEye Inc., 2009. |
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. |
Liljenstam, Michael, et al., “Simulating Realistic Network Traffic for Worm Warning System Design and Testing”, Institute for Security Technology studies, Dartmouth College, (“Liljenstam”), (Oct. 27, 2003). |
Lindorfer, Martina, Clemens Kolbitsch, and Paolo Milani Compare& “Detecting environment-sensitive malware.” Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. |
Lok Kwong et al: “DroidScope: Seamlessly Reconstructing the OS and Dalvik Semantic Views for Dynamic Android Malware Analysis”, Aug. 10, 2012, XP055158513, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity12/sec12--final107.pdf [retrieved on Dec. 15, 2014]. |
Marchette, David J., Computer Intrusion Detection and Network Monitoring: A Statistical (“Marchette”), (2001). |
Margolis, P.E., “Random House Webster's Computer & Internet Dictionary 3rd Edition”, ISBN 0375703519, p. 595 (Dec. 1998). |
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). |
Newsome, J., et al., “Polygraph: Automatically Generating Signatures for Polymorphic Worms”, In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, (May 2005). |
Nojiri, D. , et al., “Cooperation Response Strategies for Large Scale Attack Mitigation”, DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, vol. 1, (Apr. 22-24, 2003), pp. 293-302. |
Oberheide et al., CloudAV.sub.—N-Version Antivirus in the Network Cloud, 17th USENIX Security Symposium USENIX Security '08 Jul. 28-Aug. 1, 2008 San Jose, CA. |
PCT/US2014/043726 filed Jun. 23, 2014 International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 9, 2014. |
PCT/US2015/067082 filed Dec. 21, 2015 International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 24, 2016. |
Peter M. Chen, and Brian D. Noble, “When Virtual Is Better Than Real, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science”, University of Michigan (“Chen”), (2001). |
Reiner Sailer, Enriquillo Valdez, Trent Jaeger, Roonald Perez, Leendert van Doom, John Linwood Griffin, Stefan Berger., sHype: Secure Hypervisor Approach 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). |
Spitzner, Lance, “Honeypots: Tracking Hackers”, (“Spizner”), (Sep. 17, 2002). |
The Sniffers's Guide to Raw Traffic available at: yuba.stanford.edu/˜casado/pcap/sectionl.html, (Jan. 6, 2014). |
Thomas H. Ptacek, and Timothy N. Newsham , “Insertion, Evasion, and Denial of Service: Eluding Network Intrusion Detection”, Secure Networks, (“Ptacek”), (Jan. 1998). |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/717,475, filed Mar. 12, 2007 Final Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/717,475, filed Mar. 12, 2007 Final Office Action dated Nov. 22, 2010. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/717,475, filed Mar. 12, 2007 Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 28, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/717,475, filed Mar. 12, 2007 Non-Final Office Action dated May 6, 2010. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/925,688, filed Jun. 24, 2013 Final Office Action dated Jan. 12, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/925,688, filed Jun. 24, 2013 Final Office Action dated Mar. 11, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/925,688, filed Jun. 24, 2013 Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 2, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/925,688, filed Jun. 24, 2013 Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 16, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/059,381, filed Oct. 21, 2013 Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 29, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/229,541, filed Mar. 28, 2014 Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 20, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/620,060, filed Feb. 11, 2015, Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 3, 2015. |
U.S. Pat. No. 8,171,553 filed Apr. 20, 2006, Inter Parties Review Decision dated Jul. 10, 2015. |
U.S. Pat. No. 8,291,499 filed Mar. 16, 2012, Inter Parties Review Decision dated Jul. 10, 2015. |
Venezia, Paul, “NetDetector Captures Intrusions”, InfoWorld Issue 27, (“Venezia”), (Jul. 14, 2003). |
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, Mathew M., “Throttling Virses: 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. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14229541 | Mar 2014 | US |
Child | 15451243 | US |