This application is related to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/880,125, filed Sep. 12, 2010, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CLUSTERING HOST INVENTORIES,” by Inventors Rishi Bhargava et al. The disclosure of that application is considered part of and is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
This invention relates in general to the field of data management and, more particularly, to a system and a method for selectively grouping and managing program files.
The field of computer network administration and support has become increasingly important and complicated in today's society. Computer network environments are configured for virtually every enterprise or organization, typically with multiple interconnected computers (e.g., end user computers, laptops, servers, printing devices, etc.). In many such enterprises, Information Technology (IT) administrators may be tasked with maintenance and control of the network environment, including executable software files on hosts, servers, and other network computers. Executable software files or program files may be generally classified as whitelist software (i.e., known safe software), blacklist software (i.e., known unsafe software), and greylist software (i.e., unknown software). As the number of executable software files in a network environment increases, the ability to control, maintain, and remediate these files efficiently can become more difficult. Generally, greater diversity of software implemented in various computers of a network translates into greater difficulty in managing such software. For example, in large enterprises, executable software inventories may vary greatly among end user computers across departmental groups, requiring time and effort by IT administrators to identify and manage executable software in such a diverse environment. Thus, innovative tools are needed to assist IT administrators in the effective control and management of executable software files on computers within computer network environments.
To provide a more complete understanding of the present invention and features and advantages thereof, reference is made to the following description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying figures, wherein like reference numerals represent like parts, in which:
A method in one example embodiment includes determining a frequency range corresponding to a subset of a plurality of program files on a plurality of hosts in a network environment. The method also includes generating a first set of counts including a first count that represents an aggregate amount of program files in a first grouping of one or more program files of the subset. In this method each of the one or more program files of the first grouping includes a first value of a primary attribute. In specific embodiments, each of the plurality of program files is an unknown program file. In further embodiments, the primary attribute is one of a plurality of file attributes provided in file metadata. Other specific embodiments include either blocking or allowing execution of each of the program files of the first grouping. More specific embodiments include determining a unique identifier corresponding to at least one program file of the first grouping and determining a file path count representing an aggregate amount of one or more unique file paths associated with the unique identifier. Other specific embodiments include determining a plurality of frequencies corresponding respectively to the plurality of program files, where each of the plurality of frequencies is determined by calculating all occurrences of a respective one of the plurality of program files in the plurality of hosts.
The network environment illustrated in
Software management system 100 may be utilized to maximize the effectiveness of actions taken by a user (e.g., IT administrators, network operators, etc.) against selected program files in a network environment. Embodiments of system 100 can provide valuable information about unknown software files and can provide remediation options that can be selectively applied to individual unknown software files or to selected groupings of unknown software files. In one example embodiment, when software management system 100 is implemented in a computer network environment as shown in
For purposes of illustrating the techniques of software management system 100, it is important to understand the activities and security concerns that may be present in a given network such as the network shown in
Typical network environments, both in organizations (e.g., businesses, schools, government organizations, etc.) and in homes, include a plurality of computers such as end user desktops, laptops, servers, network appliances, and the like, with each computer having an installed set of executable software. In large organizations, network environments may include hundreds or thousands of computers, which can span different buildings, cities, and/or geographical areas around the world. IT administrators are often tasked with the extraordinary responsibility of maintaining these computers and their software in a way that minimizes or eliminates disruption to the organization's activities.
One difficulty IT administrators face when managing a network environment is ensuring that only trusted and approved executable software files are present. Although computers in a network may initially be configured with only trusted and approved executable software, continuous efforts (both electronic and manual) are usually necessary to protect against unknown and/or malicious software. Various protection systems can be implemented that seek to prevent unknown and/or malicious software from infecting the network computers. For example, traditional anti-virus solutions search databases of malicious software (i.e., blacklists) and prevent any software identified on a blacklist from being executed. Blacklists, however, only contain known threats and, consequently, are ineffective against new malware or targeted attacks. Moreover, malicious users are constantly devising new schemes to penetrate secure networks with malicious software. Once a new piece of malicious software has been created, traditional blacklists will not include such new software until it has been identified as a possible threat, evaluated, and determined to be malicious, often giving the new piece of software time to propagate and spread throughout multiple networks.
Other protection systems include whitelisting solutions, which search databases of known trusted software (i.e., whitelists) and only allow software to execute if the software is identified on the whitelist. Although these systems provide complete protection in preventing unknown and/or malicious software from being executed, such solutions still suffer from several drawbacks. In particular, whitelisting solutions can be inflexible, potentially creating delays and disruptions when new software is needed and adding additional steps to administrative workflows. Moreover, unknown and/or malicious software may nevertheless be present in the memory or disks of various computer networks, consuming valuable resources and risking inadvertent execution or propagation (e.g., if the whitelisting solution is temporarily or permanently disabled, if the software is copied to portable memory and introduced into a less protected network environment, etc.).
While anti-virus solutions utilize blacklist software, and whitelisting solutions utilize whitelist software in their protection schemes, a third type of software may exist in a network environment: unknown or “greylist” software. Unknown or greylist software is software not explicitly known to be malicious or trusted. Anti-virus solutions may allow all unknown software to be executed, while whitelisting solutions may prevent all unknown software from being executed. Each solution suffers from the lack of an efficient method of distinguishing between and appropriately remediating unknown safe software that has been introduced into a network for legitimate purposes and unknown malicious software that has infiltrated a network. Unknown software can be identified using, for example, existing solutions such as malicious software protection systems of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/844,892, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LOCAL PROTECTION AGAINST MALICIOUS SOFTWARE” and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/844,964, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NETWORK LEVEL PROTECTION AGAINST MALICIOUS SOFTWARE,” both filed on Jul. 28, 2010, by Rishi Bhargava et al. (referred to hereinafter as “co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. '892” and “co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. '964”, respectively). In another embodiment, unknown software files could be identified by obtaining an inventory of every program file existing in every computer of a network (or in a selected set of computers of a network) and comparing the inventory to one or more third-party global and/or local whitelists and blacklists. Effectively remediating the identified unknown software, however, presents more difficulty.
Because a greylist may contain both malicious and non-malicious software files, ideally, such files need to be evaluated individually. For example, any non-malicious file having a legitimate purpose could be approved and added to a whitelist or otherwise enabled for execution within the network. Files determined to be malicious could be blacklisted, removed from the network, and/or otherwise disabled from execution. Suspect files without a known legitimate purpose, which may or may not be malicious, could be quarantined pending further evaluation. Managing such files individually, however, can be both labor-intensive and time-consuming, at least in part because the computers within the particular network may lack congruency of the unknown software. For example, unknown software files may be stored in different memory or disk locations on different computers, different versions of the unknown software files may be installed in different computers, unknown software files may be stored on some computers but not on others, and the like.
Another problematic issue in managing such files can arise because different IT administrators may prefer to remediate unknown software using different techniques and criteria. For example, one organization may have a relaxed policy allowing any software to be implemented in any computer of their network if the software is from a particular vendor. Other organizations may have a more stringent policy such as requiring the same product version of a particular software product to be stored in the same file path location of each computer. Thus, flexible identification and remediation techniques are needed to adequately address the needs of IT administrators in managing unknown software for different organizations.
A system for selectively grouping and managing program files outlined by
Note that in this Specification, references to various features (e.g., elements, structures, modules, components, steps, operations, characteristics, etc.) included in “one embodiment”, “example embodiment”, “an embodiment”, “another embodiment”, “some embodiments”, “various embodiments”, “other embodiments”, “alternative embodiment”, and the like are intended to mean that any such features are included in one or more embodiments of the present disclosure, but may or may not necessarily be combined in the same embodiments.
Turning to the infrastructure of
In an example embodiment, hosts 110 may represent end user computers that could be operated by end users. The end user computers may include desktops, laptops, and mobile or handheld computers (e.g., personal digital assistants (PDAs) or mobile phones), or any other type of computing device operable by an end user. Hosts 110 can also represent other computers (e.g., servers, appliances, etc.) having program files, which could be similarly grouped and managed by system 100, using executable file inventories derived from sets of program files 112 on such hosts 110. It should be noted that the network configurations and interconnections shown and described herein are for illustrative purposes only.
Sets of program files 112 on hosts 110 can include all executable files on respective hosts 110. In this Specification, references to “executable program file”, “executable file”, “program file”, “executable software file”, “executable software”, “software program”, and “software program file” are meant to encompass any software file comprising instructions that can be understood and processed by a computer such as executable files, library modules, object files, other executable modules, script files, interpreter files, and the like. In addition, although reference is made herein to using unknown program file inventories, it will be apparent that any other inventory of program files could be processed by system 100 and successively grouped according to frequency, file attributes, file identifiers, file paths and/or hosts. In one embodiment, the system could be configured to allow the IT administrator to select a particular set of program files to be evaluated. For example, an IT Administrator may select a program file inventory derived from the results of clustering as described in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/880,125, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CLUSTERING HOST INVENTORIES,” filed Sep. 12, 2010, by Rishi Bhargava et al., which has been previously fully incorporated by reference herein (referred to hereinafter as “co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. '125”). In addition, the IT administrator may also be permitted to select particular hosts from which the executable file inventory is derived. For example, all end user computers in a network or within a particular part of the network (e.g., a particular business unit of an organization) may be selected. In another example, a particular type of host such as, for example, all servers within a network or within a particular part of the network may be selected.
Central server 130 as illustrated in
Not shown in central server 130 of
These elements, shown and/or described with reference to server 130 and hosts 110 are intended for illustrative purposes and are not meant to imply architectural limitations. In addition, each computer, including server 130 and hosts 110, may include more or less components where appropriate and based on particular requirements. As used herein in this Specification, the term ‘computer’ is meant to encompass any personal computers, laptops, network appliances, routers, switches, gateways, processors, servers, load balancers, firewalls, or any other suitable device, component, element, or object operable to affect or process electronic information in a network environment.
Management console 170 may include user interface 172 and input mechanism 174 to allow a user to interact with central server 130. In one example embodiment, user interface 172 may be a graphical user interface (GUI). In addition, appropriate input mechanisms could include a keyboard, mouse, voice recognition, touch pad, input screen, etc. Program file grouping module 150 may provide viewable data related to program file groupings on the graphical user interface for the IT administrator or other authorized user to view, to select for remediation, or to select for further analysis. Management console 170 may also be used to select particular hosts and/or particular types of executable files to be included in the program file inventory for selectively grouping and managing the program files identified therein.
Software management system 100 may be adapted to provide grouping and managing activities for electronic data (e.g., program files), which could be resident in memory of a computer or other electronic storage device. Information related to the grouping and managing activities can be suitably rendered, or sent to a specific location (e.g., management console 170, etc.), or simply stored or archived, and/or properly displayed in any appropriate format.
Security administration module 140 may provide an existing infrastructure of network security and management and may be suitably integrated with software management system 100. One exemplary enterprise management system that could be used includes McAfee® electronic Policy Orchestrator (ePO) software manufactured by McAfee, Inc. of Santa Clara, Calif. Other security software that may be integrated with or otherwise cooperatively provisioned in a network with software management system 100 includes full or selected portions of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. '892 and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. '964, previously referenced herein, and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. '125, previously incorporated herein by reference. In addition, security technology that performs one or more remediation activities, as represented by remediation modules 160 in
Turning to
Frequency analysis of the program files identified in the inventory can be achieved in various ways. In one embodiment, the frequency measure of a particular program file is a total count of occurrences of the particular program file in hosts across a network of an organization. Another frequency measure could be a total number of hosts on which a particular program file occurs. Other frequency measures include counting the occurrences of a particular program file in a total number of business units of the organization, in a total number of geographical locations of the organization, or in a total number of machine roles. In addition, host details may be included when creating frequency measures. For example, a total number of operating system patch levels or different operating systems on which a program file is found may be included in the frequency measure. Generally, any grouping of hosts may be used to define the frequency measure. Moreover, some embodiments of system 100 can be implemented to allow a user to select the frequency measure to be used or to allow the user to provide frequency measure configuration data. In other embodiments, the frequency measure can be preconfigured in system 100.
After the frequency analysis is performed in step 202, in step 204 a screen display may be provided on, for example, user interface 172 of console 170, for a user to view the frequency ranges of the program files and to select a particular frequency range for further analysis. In one embodiment, the frequency ranges may be displayed in the form of a bar graph, showing the program file counts bucketed by frequency ranges (e.g., fifths (0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-80%, 80-100%), quarters (0-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75-100%), thirds (0-33%, 33-66%, 66-100%), etc.) and showing the corresponding program file count for each frequency range of the particular frequency measure. Accordingly, each frequency range that indicates a count of at least one program file corresponds to a subset of the program files identified in the inventory. In step 206, the user may select any of the frequency ranges (or buckets) to further analyze the program files within the selected frequency range. In one embodiment, system 100 is configured such that input mechanism 174 (e.g., mouse, touchpad, voice, etc.) can be used to select the desired frequency bar displayed on user interface 172 of console 170.
Once the user selects a particular frequency range, flow passes to steps 208 through 222 where a sequence of one or more file attributes, indicated by An (n=number of unique file attributes), may be used successively and cumulatively to bucket selected groupings of program files. Example file attributes may include one or more intrinsic file attributes such as vendor, product, product version, file version, file description, and/or any other suitable attribute available in the file metadata. Extrinsic file attributes may also be used, including, for example, attributes stored in a database indicating the type of software of a particular program file (e.g., System Utility, Programmer Tool, Productivity Tool, etc.), and/or any other suitable extrinsic file attribute.
In step 208, a variable ‘i’ is initialized to 1, and a subset of program files corresponding to the selected frequency range, may be bucketed by one or more distinct values of the first or primary file attribute A1. In one embodiment, the bucketing by file attribute values can be displayed to the user on the user interface 172 of console 170 in the form of a pie chart. Each pie slice (or bucket) can represent a respective A1 grouping of one or more program files of the subset, where the one or more program files of a particular A1 grouping are each associated with the same distinct value of file attribute A1. In addition, each pie slice (or bucket) can indicate a count (or proportion) of the one or more program files of the respective A1 grouping. For example, if file attribute A1 represents vendors, and if the selected frequency range (e.g., 80-100%) includes program files of eight different vendors, then the pie chart could include eight pie slices, with each pie slice indicating a count of program files associated with one of the eight vendors. Thus, a set of eight counts could correspond to file attribute A1 and each count within the set of eight counts could represent an aggregate amount of the one or more program files in a respective A1 grouping.
After the file attribute A1 bucketing has been displayed, flow may pass to decision box 210 to determine whether the user has selected a particular A1 bucket, or whether the user has selected an action to be performed on the program files associated with the previously selected frequency range. If the user has selected an action to be performed, then flow passes to step 212, such that a chosen action is performed on each program file represented by the previously selected frequency range.
System 100 may be implemented to provide various options for performing an action to manage or remediate groupings of program files. Such options may include, generally, blocking or allowing execution of program files. Such blocking or allowing may be accomplished by, for example, blocking execution of a program file, adding a program file to a whitelist, adding a program file to a blacklist, moving, replacing, renaming, or quarantining a program file, changing a network configuration of hosts containing program files to block certain network traffic, starting or stopping processes of hosts containing program files, modifying the software configuration of hosts containing program files, and opening a change request using a change ticketing system. In addition, further options may be suitably integrated to assist a user in evaluating whether particular program files in a grouping should be trusted. For example, system 100 could allow actions to be performed on particular program files, such as running a virus scan, performing heuristic analysis, and the like. Other actions could be facilitated by system 100 to detect potential unlicensed software. These other actions could include comparing a selected program file to a packet manager to determine whether the program file corresponds to an installed software package. To achieve these management and remediation actions, system 100 may be suitably integrated with various existing security technologies such as, for example, McAfee® Anti-Virus software, McAfee® HIPS software, McAfee® Application Control whitelisting software, or any other appropriate security software. In other embodiments, however, the option to perform an action on an entire frequency range may be omitted, and such options may just be provided in more defined groupings of program files, such as groupings by file attributes and/or identifications of file identifiers, file path names, and/or hosts.
Once the chosen action is performed on the previously selected frequency range of program files, as indicated in step 212, then the user may begin the analysis again with an updated or new program file inventory, or may continue to select other buckets to further analyze and possibly remediate selected groupings of program files. For example, a user may decide to quarantine all unknown executable files associated with a first selected frequency range. Once the quarantine action has been performed, the user may continue to analyze the now quarantined program files of the selected first frequency range until additional information about the quarantined program files is determined. Alternatively, after quarantining the first frequency range, the user may select another frequency range to evaluate and may possibly remediate program files associated with the other selected frequency range after further grouping of such program files by file attributes and/or by identifying the particular file identifiers, program file paths, and/or particular hosts associated with the program files.
With reference again to step 210, if the user selects one of the file attribute Ai buckets by, for example, using user interface 172 of console 170 to click on one of the pie slices in the pie chart, then flow passes to steps 214 through 222. Steps 214 through 222 may be configured to recur such that a different file attribute in the sequence of file attributes An is used to bucket each successive grouping of program files represented by the previous bucket selected by the user. A different file attribute may be used during each recurrence of steps 214 through 222 until the file attribute sequence An is exhausted or until no further bucket selection input is received from the user (e.g., the user does not select a bucket, the user selects an action to be performed on a bucket).
If the user selects one of the file attribute A1 buckets in step 210, then flow passes to decision box 214 where a determination is made as to whether Ai is the last file attribute in the sequence An. If Ai is not the last file attribute in the sequence An then flow passes to step 216 where distinct values of the next file attribute A(i+1) in the sequence An are used to bucket the selected Ai grouping of program files represented by the selected Ai bucket. Each A(i+1) bucket (or pie slice in one embodiment) can represent a respective A(i+1) grouping of one or more program files of the selected Ai grouping, where each of the one or more program files of a particular A(i+1) grouping are associated with the same distinct value of file attribute A(i+1). Additionally, all of the program files in all of the A(i+1) groupings are associated with the previously selected frequency range and the previously selected values of file attributes A1 through Ai.
A set of counts may be determined such that each bucket (or pie slice), corresponding to a distinct value of the file attribute A(i+1) and representing a respective A(i+1) grouping, indicates a count (or proportion) of the one or more program files of the respective A(i+1) grouping. Thus, each count in the set of counts can indicate an aggregate amount of the one or more program files in its respective A(i+1) grouping.
After the file attribute A(i+1) bucketing has been displayed, flow passes to decision box 218 to determine whether the user has selected a particular A(i+1) bucket, or whether the user has selected an action to be performed to the previously selected Ai bucket. If the user has chosen an action to be performed, then flow passes to step 220, such that the chosen action is performed on each program file represented by the previously selected Ai bucket. As previously described herein, system 100 may be implemented to provide various options for performing an action to manage or remediate program files (e.g., whitelisting, blacklisting, moving, replacing, renaming, blocking, quarantining, etc.) and may be suitably integrated with various existing security technologies to achieve these managing and remediating activities.
Once the action is performed on the previously selected Ai bucket in step 220, the user may begin the analysis again with an updated or new program file inventory, or may continue to select A(i+1) buckets or buckets from any of the previously displayed bucketing screens to further analyze and possibly remediate other selected groupings of executable program files. In one example, a user may decide to quarantine all unknown program files associated with a particular product of a particular vendor. Once the quarantine action has been performed in step 220, the user may continue to select displayed buckets until additional information about the now quarantined program files is determined. If any of the quarantined files are determined to be stored on a rogue host (e.g., associated with a terminated employee) then the user may decide to go ahead and remove such program files from the host. In another example, a user may decide to remove all program files associated with a particular vendor (e.g., a first distinct value of A1). Once the files associated with the selected first vendor are removed, the previous file attribute Ai bucketing may be displayed so that the user may continue to analyze and possibly remediate the program files associated with the other vendors (i.e., other distinct values of A1) by further grouping such program files using additional file attributes and/or by identifying the particular file identifiers, program file paths, and/or particular hosts associated with the program files.
With reference again to step 218, if the user selects a particular A(i+1) bucket, then flow passes to step 222 where the value of the variable ‘i’ is changed to i+1. Flow then loops back to step 214 to determine whether the file attribute Ai is the last attribute in the sequence An. As long as the user continues to select a particular A(i+1) bucket, steps 214-222 may continue to recur until the sequence An is exhausted. Once the sequence An is exhausted (i.e., Ai is the last attribute in the sequence), as determined in step 214, flow passes to step 224 of
In step 224 of
After displaying the unique file identifiers, flow then passes to step 226 to determine whether the user has selected a particular unique file identifier for further analysis, or whether the user has selected an action to be performed on the previously selected Ai bucket. If the user has selected an action to be performed, then flow passes to step 228, where the chosen action (e.g., removing, renaming, replacing, quarantining, blocking, whitelisting, blacklisting, etc.), as previously described herein, is performed on each program file that is associated with the previously selected Ai bucket.
With reference again to step 226, if the user selects one of the unique program file identifiers, then flow passes to step 230 where additional information related to the selected unique file identifier may be displayed for the user on user interface 172 of console 170. In one example embodiment, a set of one or more unique file paths associated with the selected unique file identifier can be displayed along with, optionally, additional information related to each unique file path. Such additional information may include a frequency count for each unique file path, where each frequency count indicates an aggregate number of hosts associated with the corresponding unique file path. In addition, the ability to select one or more unique file paths for further analysis and the ability to perform an action on all of the program files represented by the previously selected unique file identifier (and corresponding to the displayed unique file paths) may also be provided.
After displaying file path details for the selected unique file identifier in step 230, flow then passes to step 232 to determine whether the user has selected a particular unique program file path for further analysis, or whether the user has selected an action to be performed on all of the program files associated with the selected unique program file identifier. If the user has selected an action to be performed, then flow passes to step 234, such that the chosen action (e.g., removing, renaming, replacing, quarantining, blocking, whitelisting, blacklisting, etc.), as previously described herein, is performed on each program file that is associated with the selected file identifier and that is represented by the last Ai bucket selected by the user.
Referring back to step 232, if the user selects one of the unique program file paths, then flow passes to step 236 where additional information related to the selected unique program file path may be displayed for the user on user interface 172 of console 170. In one example embodiment, a set of one or more unique hosts associated with the selected unique file path can be displayed. In addition, the ability to select one or more of the identified hosts and to select a desired action to be performed on the program files associated with the selected hosts, may also be provided. Flow passes to step 238 where it is determined whether the user has selected one or more hosts and a desired action. If the user selects one or more hosts and a desired action (e.g., removing, renaming, replacing, quarantining, blocking, whitelisting, blacklisting, etc.), as previously described herein, then flow passes to step 240 where the selected action is performed on each of the program files associated with the selected file identifier, the selected unique program file path, and the selected one or more hosts.
In one embodiment, the plurality of program files of the program file inventory, or any subsequent grouping of the plurality of program files, may be manipulated using filters to achieve different results. As an example, filters to remove certain frequency ranges, counts, file identifiers, file paths, and/or hosts, may be utilized where appropriate and based on particular needs. Filters may also be used on arbitrary program file attributes to provide a new view of the results from a previous selection. Such filters may be selectable by the user or preconfigured in the system.
Turning to
In one embodiment, screen displays shown in
From screen display 300, a user may use input mechanism 174 to select a particular frequency range (e.g., using a mouse to click on a bar associated with a particular frequency range). In this example scenario, the 60-80% frequency range is selected, having a program file count of 152. Once the 60-80% frequency range is selected, screen display 400 of
From screen display 400, a user may use input mechanism 174 to select a particular vendor bucket (e.g., using a mouse to click on a bucket or pie slice corresponding to Vendor A, Vendor B, or Vendor C). In this example scenario, Vendor C bucket 408 is selected, having a program file count of 84. Once Vendor C bucket 408 is selected, screen display 500 of
From screen display 500, a user may use input mechanism 174 to select a particular product bucket (e.g., using a mouse to click on a bucket or pie slice corresponding to a particular product). In this example scenario, Product A bucket 504 is selected, having a program file count of 43. Once Product A bucket 504 is selected, screen display 600 of
From screen display 600, a user may use input mechanism 174 to select a particular product version bucket (e.g., using a mouse to click on a bucket or pie slice corresponding to a particular product version). In this example scenario, the Product Version 8.0 bucket 604 is selected, having a program file count of 6. In this example scenario, only three file attributes (i.e., vendor, product, and product version) are used to analyze and bucket the unknown program files. Therefore, once Product Version 8.0 bucket 604 is selected, screen display 700 of
From screen display 700, a user may use input mechanism 174 to select a particular unique program file identifier (e.g., using a mouse to click on a particular program file identifier). In this example scenario, program file identifier 706 (i.e., Hash f3a643e085f00cbfc9251925e8e0affef34a9eef) is selected, and has a corresponding unique path count of 3. Once program file identifier 706 is selected, screen display 800 of
From screen display 800, a user may use input mechanism 174 to select a particular unique file path (e.g., using a mouse to click on a particular program file path). In this example scenario, program file path 806 (i.e., C:\Program Files\Product A\VC\bin\link.exe) is selected, having a corresponding frequency count of 6. Once unique program file path 806 is selected, screen display 900 of
Although the embodiments described herein have referred to evaluating unknown program files, it will be apparent that other sets of program files (including known program files) may be evaluated and/or remediated using system 100. For example, it may be useful to evaluate trusted (e.g., whitelisted) program files when trying to determine the pervasiveness of known safe software that is currently not licensed in a particular network. In another example, system 100 could be used to determine a metric indicating how uniformly the known or trusted software is distributed throughout a network, throughout a defined segment of a network, throughout a cluster of computers in a network, and the like. Finally, the options for managing or remediating selected groupings of program files, file identifiers, file paths and/or file hosts, as shown in
Software for achieving the grouping and managing operations outlined herein can be provided at various locations (e.g., the corporate IT headquarters, end user computers, distributed servers in the cloud, etc.). In some embodiments, this software could be received or downloaded from a web server (e.g., in the context of purchasing individual end-user licenses for separate networks, devices, servers, etc.) in order to provide this system for selectively grouping and managing program files. In one example implementation, this software is resident in one or more computers sought to be protected from a security attack (or protected from unwanted or unauthorized manipulations of data).
In various embodiments, the software of the system for selectively grouping and managing program files in a computer network environment could involve a proprietary element (e.g., as part of a network security solution with McAfee® ePolicy Orchestrator (ePO) software, McAfee® Anti-Virus software, McAfee® HIPS software, McAfee® Application Control software, etc.), which could be provided in (or be proximate to) these identified elements, or be provided in any other device, server, network appliance, console, firewall, switch, information technology (IT) device, distributed server, etc., or be provided as a complementary solution (e.g., in conjunction with a firewall), or otherwise provisioned in the network.
In certain example implementations, the grouping and managing activities outlined herein may be implemented in software. This could be inclusive of software provided in server 130 (e.g., program grouping module 150, remediation modules 160, etc.) and in other network elements (e.g., hosts 110) including program files to be grouped and managed. These elements and/or modules can cooperate with each other in order to perform the grouping and managing activities as discussed herein. In other embodiments, these features may be provided external to these elements, included in other devices to achieve these intended functionalities, or consolidated in any appropriate manner. For example, some of the processors associated with the various elements may be removed, or otherwise consolidated such that a single processor and a single memory location are responsible for certain activities. In a general sense, the arrangement depicted in
In various embodiments, some or all of these elements (e.g., server 130, hosts 110) include software (or reciprocating software) that can coordinate, manage, or otherwise cooperate in order to achieve the grouping and managing operations, as outlined herein. One or more of these elements may include any suitable algorithms, hardware, software, components, modules, interfaces, or objects that facilitate the operations thereof. In the implementation involving software, such a configuration may be inclusive of logic encoded in one or more tangible media, which may be inclusive of non-transitory media (e.g., embedded logic provided in an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), digital signal processor (DSP) instructions, software (potentially inclusive of object code and source code) to be executed by a processor, or other similar machine, etc.).
In some of these instances, one or more memory elements (e.g., memory 134) can store data used for the operations described herein. This includes the memory element being able to store software, logic, code, or processor instructions that are executed to carry out the activities described in this Specification. A processor can execute any type of instructions associated with the data to achieve the operations detailed herein in this Specification. In one example, processor 132 could transform an element or an article (e.g., data) from one state or thing to another state or thing. In another example, the activities outlined herein may be implemented with fixed logic or programmable logic (e.g., software/computer instructions executed by a processor) and the elements identified herein could be some type of a programmable processor, programmable digital logic (e.g., a field programmable gate array (FPGA), an erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM), an electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM)), an ASIC that includes digital logic, software, code, electronic instructions, flash memory, optical disks, CD-ROMs, DVD ROMs, magnetic or optical cards, other types of machine-readable mediums suitable for storing electronic instructions, or any suitable combination thereof.
Any of the memory items discussed herein should be construed as being encompassed within the broad term ‘memory element.’ Similarly, any of the potential processing elements, modules, and machines described in this Specification should be construed as being encompassed within the broad term ‘processor.’ Each of the computers may also include suitable interfaces for receiving, transmitting, and/or otherwise communicating data or information in a network environment.
Note that with the numerous examples provided herein, interaction may be described in terms of two, three, four, or more network elements. However, this has been done for purposes of clarity and example only. It should be appreciated that the system can be consolidated in any suitable manner. Along similar design alternatives, any of the illustrated computers, modules, components, and elements of
It is also important to note that the operations described with reference to the preceding FIGURES illustrate only some of the possible scenarios that may be executed by, or within, the system. Some of these operations may be deleted or removed where appropriate, or these steps may be modified or changed considerably without departing from the scope of the discussed concepts. In addition, the timing of these operations may be altered considerably and still achieve the results taught in this disclosure. The preceding operational flows have been offered for purposes of example and discussion. Substantial flexibility is provided by the system in that any suitable arrangements, chronologies, configurations, and timing mechanisms may be provided without departing from the teachings of the discussed concepts.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4688169 | Joshi | Aug 1987 | A |
4982430 | Frezza et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
5155847 | Kirouac et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5222134 | Waite et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5390314 | Swanson | Feb 1995 | A |
5521849 | Adelson et al. | May 1996 | A |
5560008 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5699513 | Feigen et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5778226 | Adams et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5778349 | Okonogi | Jul 1998 | A |
5787427 | Benantar et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5842017 | Hookway et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5907709 | Cantey et al. | May 1999 | A |
5907860 | Garibay et al. | May 1999 | A |
5926832 | Wing et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5974149 | Leppek | Oct 1999 | A |
5987610 | Franczek et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987611 | Freund | Nov 1999 | A |
5991881 | Conklin et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6064815 | Hohensee et al. | May 2000 | A |
6073142 | Geiger et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6141698 | Krishnan et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6192401 | Modiri et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192475 | Wallace | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6256773 | Bowman-Amuah | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6275938 | Bond et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6321267 | Donaldson | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6338149 | Ciccone, Jr. et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6356957 | Sanchez, II et al. | Mar 2002 | B2 |
6393465 | Leeds | May 2002 | B2 |
6442686 | McArdle et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6449040 | Fujita | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6453468 | D'Souza | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6460050 | Pace et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6587877 | Douglis et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6611925 | Spear | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6662219 | Nishanov et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6748534 | Gryaznov et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6769008 | Kumar et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6769115 | Oldman | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6795966 | Lim et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6832227 | Seki et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6834301 | Hanchett | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6847993 | Novaes et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6907600 | Neiger et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6918110 | Hundt et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6930985 | Rathi et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6934755 | Saulpaugh et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6988101 | Ham et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6988124 | Douceur et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7007302 | Jagger et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7010796 | Strom et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7024548 | O'Toole, Jr. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7039949 | Cartmell et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7065767 | Kambhammettu et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7069330 | McArdle et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7082456 | Mani-Meitav et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7093239 | van der Made | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7124409 | Davis et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7139916 | Billingsley et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7152148 | Williams et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7159036 | Hinchliffe et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7177267 | Oliver et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7203864 | Goin et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7251655 | Kaler et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7290266 | Gladstone et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7302558 | Campbell et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7330849 | Gerasoulis et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7346781 | Cowle et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7349931 | Horne | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7350204 | Lambert et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7353501 | Tang et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7363022 | Whelan et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7370360 | van der Made | May 2008 | B2 |
7406517 | Hunt et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7441265 | Staamann et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7464408 | Shah et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7506155 | Stewart et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7506170 | Finnegan | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7506364 | Vayman | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7546333 | Alon et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7546594 | McGuire et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7552479 | Conover et al. | Jun 2009 | B1 |
7577995 | Chebolu et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7603552 | Sebes et al. | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7607170 | Chesla | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7657599 | Smith | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7669195 | Qumei | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7685635 | Vega et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7698744 | Fanton et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7703090 | Napier et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7757269 | Roy-Chowdhury et al. | Jul 2010 | B1 |
7765538 | Zweifel et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7783735 | Sebes et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7809704 | Surendran et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7818377 | Whitney et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7823148 | Deshpande et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7836504 | Ray et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7840968 | Sharma et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7849507 | Bloch et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7856661 | Sebes et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7865931 | Stone et al. | Jan 2011 | B1 |
7870387 | Bhargava et al. | Jan 2011 | B1 |
7873955 | Sebes et al. | Jan 2011 | B1 |
7895573 | Bhargava et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7908653 | Brickell et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7937334 | Bonissone et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7937455 | Saha et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7966659 | Wilkinson et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
7987230 | Sebes et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7996836 | McCorkendale et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
8015388 | Rihan et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8015563 | Araujo et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8195931 | Sharma et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8234713 | Roy-Chowdhury et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8291497 | Griffin et al. | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8306988 | Jyoti et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
8307437 | Sebes et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8321932 | Bhargava et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8332929 | Bhargava et al. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8341627 | Mohinder | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8352930 | Sebes et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8381284 | Dang et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8495060 | Chang | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8515075 | Saraf et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8539063 | Sharma et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8544003 | Sawhney et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8549003 | Bhargava et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8549546 | Sharma et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8555404 | Sebes et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8561051 | Sebes et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8561082 | Sharma et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8572007 | Manadhata et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8615502 | Saraf et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8621233 | Manadhata et al. | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8701182 | Bhargava et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8701189 | Saraf et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8707422 | Bhargava et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
20020056076 | van der Made | May 2002 | A1 |
20020069367 | Tindal et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083175 | Afek et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099671 | Mastin et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20030014667 | Kolichtchak | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023736 | Abkemeier | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033510 | Dice | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030073894 | Chiang et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074552 | Olkin et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030115222 | Oashi et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120601 | Ouye et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120811 | Hanson et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120935 | Teal et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030145232 | Poletto et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030163718 | Johnson et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030167292 | Ross | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030167399 | Audebert et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030200332 | Gupta et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030212902 | van der Made | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030220944 | Schottland et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030221190 | Deshpande et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040003258 | Billingsley et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015554 | Wilson | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040051736 | Daniell | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040054928 | Hall | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040143749 | Tajali et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040167906 | Smith et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040230963 | Rothman et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243678 | Smith et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255161 | Cavanaugh | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050018651 | Yan et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050086047 | Uchimoto et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050108516 | Balzer et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050108562 | Khazan et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114672 | Duncan et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050132346 | Tsantilis | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050228990 | Kato et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050235360 | Pearson | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050257207 | Blumfield et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050257265 | Cook et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050260996 | Groenendaal | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050262558 | Usov | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050273858 | Zadok et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283823 | Okajo et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050289538 | Black-Ziegelbein et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060004875 | Baron et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015501 | Sanamrad et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060037016 | Saha et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060080656 | Cain et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085785 | Garrett | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060101277 | Meenan et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060133223 | Nakamura et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136910 | Brickell et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136911 | Robinson et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060195906 | Jin et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060200863 | Ray et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060230314 | Sanjar et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236398 | Trakic et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060259734 | Sheu et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070011746 | Malpani et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070028303 | Brennan | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070039049 | Kupferman et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070050579 | Hall et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070050764 | Traut | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070074199 | Schoenberg | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070083522 | Nord et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070101435 | Konanka et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070136579 | Levy et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143851 | Nicodemus et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070169079 | Keller et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070192329 | Croft et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070220061 | Tirosh et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220507 | Back et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070253430 | Minami et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070256138 | Gadea et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070271561 | Winner et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070300215 | Bardsley | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080005737 | Saha et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080005798 | Ross | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080010304 | Vempala et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080022384 | Yee et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080034416 | Kumar et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080052468 | Speirs et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080082977 | Araujo et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080120499 | Zimmer et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080141371 | Bradicich et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080163207 | Reumann et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080163210 | Bowman et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080165952 | Smith et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080184373 | Traut et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080235534 | Schunter et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080294703 | Craft et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301770 | Kinder | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090007100 | Field et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090038017 | Durham et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090043993 | Ford et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090055693 | Budko et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090113110 | Chen et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090144300 | Chatley et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090150639 | Ohata | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090249053 | Zimmer et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090249438 | Litvin et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090320140 | Sebes et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100071035 | Budko et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100077479 | Viljoen | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100100970 | Chowdhury et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100114825 | Siddegowda | May 2010 | A1 |
20100250895 | Adams et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100281133 | Brendel | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100293225 | Sebes et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100332910 | Ali et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110029772 | Fanton et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110035423 | Kobayashi et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110047543 | Mohinder | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110078550 | Nabutovsky | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110093842 | Sebes | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110099634 | Conrad et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110113467 | Agarwal et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110138461 | Bhargava et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120030731 | Bhargava et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120030750 | Bhargava et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120278853 | Chowdhury et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120290828 | Bhargava et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130024934 | Sebes et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130031111 | Jyoti et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130091318 | Bhattacharjee et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130097355 | Dang et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130097356 | Dang et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130117823 | Dang et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130247016 | Sharma et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247027 | Shah et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247032 | Bhargava et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130247192 | Krasser | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130276111 | Taha | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130326620 | Merza et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140006405 | Bhargava et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1 482 394 | Dec 2004 | EP |
2 037 657 | Mar 2009 | EP |
WO 9844404 | Oct 1998 | WO |
WO 0184285 | Nov 2001 | WO |
WO 2006012197 | Feb 2006 | WO |
WO 2006124832 | Nov 2006 | WO |
WO 2008054997 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2011059877 | May 2011 | WO |
WO 2012015485 | Feb 2012 | WO |
WO 2012015489 | Feb 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“Xen Architecture Overview,” Xen, dated Feb. 13, 2008, Version 1.2, http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenArchitecture?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=Xen+architecture—Q1+2008.pdf, printed Aug. 18, 2009 (9 pages). |
A Tutorial on Clustering Algorithms, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://home.dei.polimi.it/matteucc/lustering/tutorial.html, 6 pages. |
Cilibrasi, Rudi Langston, “Statistical Inference Through Data Compression,” Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, ISBN: 90-6196-540-3, Copyright 2007, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://www.illc.uva.nl/Publications/Dissertations/DS-2007-01.text.pdf, 225 pages. |
Desktop Management and Control, Website: http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/, printed Oct. 12, 2009, 1 page. |
Dommers, Calculating the normalized compression distance between two strings, Jan. 20, 2009, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/acinonyx72/NCD01202009071004AM/NCD.aspx, 5 pages. |
Eli M. Dow, et al., “The Xen Hypervisor,” INFORMIT, dated Apr. 10, 2008, http://www.informit.com/articles/printerfriendly.aspx?p=1187966, printed Aug. 11, 2009 (13 pages). |
Karypis, et al., “CHAMELEON: A Hierarchical Clustering Algorithm Using Dynamic Modeling,” copyright 2005-2010, George Karypis, Internal Lab Website, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/cluto/publications, 1 page. |
Karypis, George, Contact/METIS/CLUTO/MONSTER/YASSPP/Forums, Internal Lab Website, copyright 2006-2010, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome, 1 page. |
Kurt Gutzmann, “Access Control and Session Management in the HTTP Environment,” Jan./Feb. 2001, pp. 26-35, IEEE Internet Computing. |
Matt Rasmussen and George Karypis, “gCLUTO: An Interactive Clustering, Visualitzation, and Analysis System,” copyright 2005-2010, George Karypis, Internal Lab Website, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/gcluto/publications, 1 page. |
Matthew Rasmussen, et al., “wCLUTO: A Web-enabled Clustering Toolkit,” copyright 2005-2010, George Karypis, Internal Lab Website, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/wcluto/publications, 1 page. |
Secure Mobile Computing, Website: http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/mobile.html, printed Oct. 12, 2009, 2 pages. |
Steinbach, et al., “A Comparison of Document Clustering Techniques,” copyright 2005-2010, George Karypis, Internal Lab Website, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/cluto/publications, 1 page. |
Tagarelli, et al., “A Segment-based Approach to Clustering Multi-Topic Documents,” copyright 2005-2010, George Karypis, Internal Lab Website, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/cluto/publications, 1 page. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/651,591, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Networked Application Client Software by Explicit Human Input,” filed Aug. 29, 2003, Inventor(s): Rosen Sharma et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/060,683, entitled “Distribution and Installation of Solidified Software on a Computer,” filed Feb. 16, 2005, Inventor(s): Bakul Shah et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/277,596, entitled “Execution Environment File Inventory,” filed Mar. 27, 2006, Inventor(s): Rishi Bhargava et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/346,741, entitled “Enforcing Alignment of Approved Changes and Deployed Changes in the Software Change Life-Cycle,” filed Feb. 2, 2006, Inventor(s): Rahul Roy-Chowdhury et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/379,953, entitled “Software Modification by Group to Minimize Breakage,” filed Apr. 24, 2006, Inventor(s): E. John Sebes et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/437,317, entitled “Connectivity-Based Authorization,” filed May 18, 2006, Inventor(s): E. John Sebes et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/008,274, entitled Method and Apparatus for Process Enforced Configuration Management, filed Jan. 9, 2008, Inventor(s): Rishi Bhargava et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/290,380, entitled “Application Change Control,” filed Oct. 29, 2008, Inventor(s): Rosen Sharma et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/291,232, entitled “Method of and System for Computer System State Checks,” filed Nov. 7, 2008, inventor(s): Rishi Bhargava et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/322,220, entitled “Method of and System for Malicious Software Detection Using Critical Address Space Protection,” filed Jan. 29, 2009, Inventor(s): Suman Saraf et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/322,321, entitled “Method of and System for Computer System Denial-of-Service Protection,” filed Jan. 29, 2009, Inventor(s): Suman Saraf et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/426,859, entitled “Method of and System for Reverse Mapping Vnode Pointers,” filed Apr. 20, 2009, Inventor(s): Suman Saraf et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/545,609, entitled “System and Method for Enforcing Security Policies in a Virtual Environment,” filed Aug. 21, 2009, Inventor(s): Amit Dang et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/545,745, entitled “System and Method for Providing Address Protection in a Virtual Environment,” filed Aug. 21, 2009, Inventor(s): Preet Mohinder. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/615,521, entitled “System and Method for Preventing Data Loss Using Virtual Machine Wrapped Applications,” filed Nov. 10, 2009, Inventor(s): Sonali Agarwal, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/636,414, entitled “System and Method for Managing Virtual Machine Configurations,” filed Dec. 11, 2009, Inventor(s): Harvinder Singh Sawhney, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,892, entitled “System and Method for Protecting Computer Networks Against Malicious Software,” filed Jul. 28, 2010, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/844,964, entitled “System and Method for Network Level Protection Against Malicious Software,” filed Jul. 28, 2010, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/880,125, entitled “System and Method for Clustering Host Inventories,” filed Sep. 12, 2010, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/903,993, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Usage of Language Interfaces,” filed Oct. 13, 2010, Inventor(s) Rosen Sharma, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/944,567, entitled “Classification of Software on Networked Systems,” filed Nov. 11, 2010, Inventor(s) E. John Sebes, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/946,081, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Usage of Language Interfaces,” filed Nov. 15, Inventor(s) Rosen Sharma, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/946,344, entitled “Method and System for Containment of Usage of Language Interfaces,” filed Nov. 15, 2010, Inventor(s) Rosen Sharma, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/975,745, entitled “Program-Based Authorization,” filed Dec. 22, 2010, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava, et al. |
Ying Zhao and George Karypis, “Clustering in Life Sciences,” copyright 2005-2010, George Karypis, Internal Lab Website, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/cluto/publications, 1 page. |
Ying Zhao and George Karypis, “Criterion Functions for Document Clustering: Experiments and Analysis,” copyright 2005-2010, George Karypis, Internal Lab Website, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/cluto/publications, 1 page. |
Ying Zhao and George Karypis, “Empirical and Theoretical Comparisons of Selected Criterion Functions for Document Clustering,” copyright 2005-2010, George Karypis, Internal Lab Website, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/cluto/publications, 1 page. |
Ying Zhao and George Karypis, “Evaluation of Hierarchical Clustering Algorithms for Document Datasets,” copyright 2005-2010, George Karypis, Internal Lab Website, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/cluto/publications, 1 page. |
Ying Zhao and George Karypis, “Hierarchical Clustering Algorithms for Document Datasets,” copyright 2005-2010, George Karypis, Internal Lab Website, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/cluto/publications, 1 page. |
Ying Zhao and George Karypis, “Topic-Driven Clustering for Document Datasets,” copyright 2005-2010, George Karypis, Internal Lab Website, retrieved Sep. 10, 2010 from http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/cluto/publications, 1 page. |
Barrantes et al., “Randomized Instruction Set Emulation to Dispurt Binary Code Injection Attacks,” Oct. 27-31, 2003, ACM, pp. 281-289. |
Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.: “ZoneAlarm Security Software User Guide Version 9”, Aug. 24, 2009, XP002634548, 259 pages, retrieved from Internet: URL:http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/media/pdf/zaclient91—user—manual.pdf. |
Gaurav et al., “Countering Code-Injection Attacks with Instruction-Set Randomization,” Oct. 27-31, 2003, ACM, pp. 272-280. |
IA-32 Intel® Architecture Software Developer's Manual, vol. 3B; Jun. 2006; pp. 13, 15, 22 and 145-146. |
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (1 page), International Search Report (4 pages), and Written Opinion (3 pages), mailed Mar. 2, 2011, International Application No. PCT/US2010/055520. |
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration (1 page), International Search Report (6 pages), and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (10 pages) for International Application No. PCT/US2011/020677 mailed Jul. 22, 2011. |
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration (1 page), International Search Report (3 pages), and Written Opinion of the International Search Authority (6 pages) for International Application No. PCT/US2011/024869 mailed Jul. 14, 2011. |
Tal Garfinkel, et al., “Terra: A Virtual Machine-Based Platform for Trusted Computing,” XP-002340992, SOSP'03, Oct. 19-22, 2003, 14 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/037,988, entitled “System and Method for Botnet Detection by Comprehensive Email Behavioral Analysis,” filed Mar. 1, 2011, Inventor(s) Sven Krasser, et al. |
Notification of International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion mailed May 24, 2012 for International Application No. PCT/US2010/055520, 5 pages. |
Sailer et al., sHype: Secure Hypervisor Approach to Trusted Virtualized Systems, IBM research Report, Feb. 2, 2005, 13 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,181, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Process Enforced Configuration Management,” filed Jul. 25, 2012, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,227, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Process Enforced Configuration Management,” filed Jul. 25, 2012, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/558,277, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Process Enforced Configuration Management,” filed Jul. 25, 2012, Inventor(s) Rishi Bhargava et al. |
Taskar et al., Probabilistic Classification and Clustering in Relational Data, 2001, Google, 7 pages. |
USPTO May 24, 2013 Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 12/880,125. |
Myung-Sup Kim et al., “A load cluster management system using SNMP and web”, [Online], May 2002, pp. 367-378, [Retrieved from Internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nem.453/pdf>. |
G. Pruett et al., “BladeCenter systems management software”, [Online], Nov. 2005, pp. 963-975, [Retrieved from Internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://citeseerx.lst.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.91.5091&rep=rep1&type=pdf>. |
Philip M. Papadopoulos et al., “NPACI Rocks: tools and techniques for easily deploying manageable Linux clusters” [Online], Aug. 2002, pp. 707-725, [Retrieved from internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpe.722/pdf>. |
Thomas Staub et al., “Secure Remote Management and Software Distribution for Wireless Mesh Networks”, [Online], Sep. 2007, pp. 1-8, [Retrieved from Internet on Oct. 24, 2012], <http://cds.unibe.ch/research/pub—files/B07.pdf>. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability received for the PCT Application No. PCT/US2011/020677, mailed on Feb. 7, 2013, 9 pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability received for the PCT Application No. PCT/US2011/024869, mailed on Feb. 7, 2013, 6 pages. |
Office Action received for the U.S. Appl. No. 12/880,125, mailed on Jul. 5, 2012, 12 pages. |
Ex Parte Quayle Action received for the U.S. Appl. No. 12/880,125, mailed on Dec. 21, 2012, 4 pages. |
USPTO May 9, 2014 Notice of Allowance received for U.S. Appl. No. 14/016,497, 18 pages. |
Larsen, Bjornar et al., “Fast and effective text mining using linear-time document clustering,” 1999, ACM, pp. 16-22. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130246423 A1 | Sep 2013 | US |