The present technology is generally directed to cyber security, and more specifically, but not by way of limitation, to systems and methods that provide a security policy control for computer network traffic that is adaptive and driven by declarative policy controls.
Some embodiments of the present technology include systems which may include: a source machine; a destination machine; a policy compiler; and an enforcement point communicatively coupled via a network to the source machine, the destination machine, and the policy compiler, the enforcement point including a processor and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to perform a method. The method may include: acquiring a firewall security policy from the policy compiler; receiving network traffic originating from the source machine and directed to the destination machine; analyzing the network traffic using the firewall security policy; forwarding or dropping each of the network traffic according to the security policy; accumulating the network traffic and metadata associated with the network traffic; and initiating an update to the firewall security policy by the policy compiler using at least one of the network traffic and metadata.
Various embodiments of the present technology include methods which may include: acquiring a firewall security policy from a policy compiler; receiving network traffic originating from a source machine and directed to a destination machine; analyzing the network traffic using the firewall security policy; forwarding or dropping each of the network traffic according to the security policy; accumulating the network traffic and metadata associated with the network traffic; and initiating an update to the firewall security policy by the policy compiler using at least one of the accumulated network traffic and metadata.
In some embodiments, the present technology includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, the program being executable by a processor to perform a method. The method may comprise: acquiring a firewall security policy from a policy compiler; receiving network traffic originating from a source machine and directed to a destination machine; analyzing the network traffic using the firewall security policy; forwarding or dropping each of the network traffic according to the security policy; accumulating the network traffic and metadata associated with the network traffic; and initiating an update to the firewall security policy by the policy compiler using at least one of the accumulated network traffic and metadata.
Various embodiments of the present technology provide systems and methods for assessing and addressing communications within a data center including virtual machines. The system and method identify insecure communications and additionally stop and/or redirect the communication. The redirected communication is directed to a surveillance communication node, which isolates and prevents a security failure. The surveillance communication node also spoofs the sending communication node by sending communications that appear as if they were sent from the original intended target communication node. In this manner, a security failure is prevented, the damage is limited, and/or information about a bad actor attempting to initiate the security failure is obtained.
The communication nodes discussed herein may be a virtual machine, a server, a cloud-based virtual machine, a host, a client, a workload and/or an electronic enforcement target. Communication packets as discussed herein include data packets or any other electronic communication between communication nodes.
Data centers present unique challenges with respect to security. Various virtual machines (VMs) are used and inhabit the same server. Different virtual machines have different security levels, and/or are associated with different organizations. Preventing security failures due to communications between virtual machines, without requiring all communication to pass through a single chokepoint, which would drastically undermine communication efficiency, is difficult.
A conventional data center rack or server may be part of a cloud system, and may include multiple hypervisors and multiple virtual machines per hypervisor, and a switch (TOR switch, or “Top of Rack” switch). The TOR switch regulates and monitors traffic between virtual machines within the server, and/or connects the server to the outside, for example the Internet, an intranet and/or other parts of the cloud system. A hypervisor is a virtual way of abstracting hardware for providing services to multiple guest operating systems. Two virtual machines on the same server can typically communicate, since a traditional, centralized firewall is unable to operate and prevent this type of interaction without drastically undermining communication efficiency. In contrast, a distributed firewall allows a virtual machine to communicate with adjacent or proximate virtual machines, while maintaining security.
The enforcement point model of the present technology provides a distributed firewall to multiple communication nodes in a cloud environment. In various embodiments, the enforcement point model includes enforcement point engines operating outside of the server housing the virtual machines, and/or includes additional elements, for instance enforcement point interceptors, in the switch of a server. The redirection by an enforcement point is implemented in various ways, for example, by tunneling over a fabric of a distributed firewall, copying and sending a copy to a honeypot, sending TCP resets to prevent future communications, and/or by snooping IP addresses, for example. Other possible actions by an enforcement point or software module implementing an enforcement point model of a distributed firewall are also possible.
One challenge for cloud systems is illustrated by security arrangements required by credit card companies. These protocols are referred to as PCI (Payment Card Industry), and are a use case in retail compliance for the present technology. PCI machines (virtual or physical), require certain security protocols to be enforced in order to pass muster with credit card companies. For example, systems that store, process and forward credit card data (PCI machines) should not communicate with systems that do not perform these functions (non-PCI machines). Similarly, a use case in a financial industry setting for the present technology may limit communication between production and pre-production machines.
The administrator interface 110 communicates bilaterally with policy compiler 115, which converts the abstract policies into computer executable instructions. Policy compiler 115 communicates the computer executable instructions to server 120. Cloud server environment 105 includes many servers, with a similar or different structure from each other, and with a similar or different structure from server 120. Server 120 is coupled to some or all of the other servers in cloud server environment 105. Server 120 is also coupled to network 165, which may be the internet, an intranet, or any other appropriate network. Network 165 is coupled to all the other devices on the internet, represented here as external device 180. External device 180 includes the access point to network 165 for a bad actor or hacker interested in inducing a security failure of an entity associated with cloud server environment 105.
Server 120 includes TOR switch (Top of Rack switch) 135, which operates to control communications into and out of server 120. Server 120 includes at least one or more physical hosts 1401-140X. Each of the physical hosts 1401-140X includes hypervisors 1501-150X, respectively. Each of the hypervisors 1501-150X includes one or more virtual machines (VMs) 1601,1-1601,Y to 160X,1-160X,Y, respectively. Alternatively or additionally, different virtual machine systems may be used, for example containers. Additionally, server 120 includes honeypot (HP) 170 and/or tarpit (TP) 172 (
Illustrated in
However, if communication 210 does violate one or more policies, for example, by exceeding a trigger threshold of a risk score, or by violating a conditional declarative security policy, enforcement point 200 prevents or denies communication 210 from proceeding to virtual machine 1602,Y. Instead, in this case, enforcement point 200 redirects communication 210, as redirected communication 240, to honeypot 170. Honeypot 170 operates to receive communications deemed insecure, and to additionally draw out additional communications from a bad actor by spoofing or appearing to be the original target of a malevolent communication. For example, redirected communication 240 is bi-directional, and honeypot 170 responds to the communication from virtual machine 1602,1, and includes communication identifiers associated with virtual machine 1602,Y. In this manner, honeypot 170 spoofs or imitates virtual machine 1602,Y, and thereby induces additional communications from virtual machine 1602,1. As a result of this spoofing, additional information about any bad actor, including identity, techniques, and any identified weaknesses in server 120 or the cloud environment, is obtained.
Additionally or alternatively, enforcement point 200 redirects communication 210, as a redirected communication, to tarpit 172. Tarpit 172 operates to receive communications deemed insecure, and to maintain the insecure communications in a quarantined state, thereby preventing contamination of any other virtual machines on server 120 or within the cloud environment. Tarpit 172 also provides a source of information for logging and analytics of insecure communications.
Additionally, enforcement point 200 retains information related to redirected communication 240, including for example metadata and/or the content of redirected communication 240, and logs, stores or communicates this information to logging/analytics engine 230.
Additionally or alternatively, a virtual machine (e.g., VM 1602,1) may be determined to be compromised and become a high risk virtual machine. The security policy can be updated to reflect the change to the virtual machine (e.g., VM 1602,1) and an updated (e.g., re-compiled) firewall rule set received by enforcement point 200 from policy compiler 115. The updated firewall rule set can direct enforcement point 200 to block communications/traffic and/or provide additional monitoring as described above.
In embodiments of the present technology, a security policy is implemented as a conditional declarative policy. The conditions of a declarative policy are functions of compliance, security and tenants within the data center. Compliance for example, means that PCI machines do not communicate with non-PCI machines, and vice versa, which is a mandate of the PCI protocol. Geo-location policies may also be implemented by a declarative policy. For example, sensitive data is not allowed outside of Switzerland. Similarly, a declarative policy may limit access to secret workloads to only U.S. citizens, pursuant to a mandate of the Federal Government.
Additionally or alternatively, security policies are not government mandated, but are best practices for security policy. For example, a security policy implemented by a declarative security policy prevents high-risk machines (e.g., a test development machine) from communicating with high-value assets. High-risk machines may be determined based on a risk scoring system, similar to a credit score, which evaluates several attributes to determine a risk score. Similarly, if a machine (virtual or physical) is compromised, for example, by a cyberattack, the communication channels leading to and away from the machine are limited. In this way, hackers gaining access via a weak link machine are prevented from then moving within the network to higher value machines.
Tenant policies allow application developers to access particular services. For example, to create a mail service, a developer may require access to a Domain Name System (DNS), a Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), and/or Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) servers. Providing this access is an example of a tenant policy.
The declarative policy, whether compliance, security and/or tenants, is dynamically compiled on a regular basis in order to maintain the policy updates for a data center. The declarative rule intrinsic to the declarative policy is compiled, then implemented, and the compilation is dynamic due to revisions of the declarative rules.
Examples of security levels that are enforced by a declarative security policy implemented on a distributed firewall include “always-must-abide-by” rules, which are enforced initially by a firewall administrator responsible for implementing security policy. Always-must-abide-by rules are absolute, and other users must request a declaration from an IT or security administrator to access a workload protected by an always-must-abide-by rule preventing communication.
An example of a lower security level that is enforced is a “usually-must-abide-by” rule, which provides a lower order of protection. An IT manager may implement a conditional declarative policy via a graphical user interface (GUI), via a command line interface, or via a REST-based API, where REST stands for “Representational State Transfer”.
These systems input policies into the present technology, forming a declarative policy table. The declarative policy table is dynamically recompiled into a set of compiled rules, which are pushed down to the distributed firewall for enforcement. A list of rules are pushed to elements of the distributed firewall, and the rules may be, for example, prohibitions against particular machines (IP addresses) communicating with each other. An example policy is that PCI compliant workloads cannot communicate with non-PCI compliant workloads.
In exemplary embodiments of the present technology, the declarative policies are implemented in a variety of ways. Blocking communication is the strongest possible action, but more granularity in response is also possible. For example, the declarative policy is that high-risk workloads cannot communicate with high-value workloads, and virtual machine 1 (VM1) is identified as high-risk by the security policy, while virtual machine 2 (VM2) is identified as high-value. If VM1 is compromised, the system, instead of just blocking communications from VM1, may access a list of possible actions to be taken. For example, the system redirect the communication to a honeypot, tarpit, or additionally or alternatively, to a synthetic attack surface (collectively referred to herein as surveillance nodes). In contrast, a traditional firewall is a binary system, either blocking or allowing communications. The redirect may cause a packet to be sent to quarantine by the distributed firewall. A honeypot can communicate with a source of the communication, and can emulate the true target, thereby obtaining additional information about the compromised virtual machine and/or its operator.
Various threat technique responses are possible using the present technology. The initial aspect is detecting and/or identifying a communication as suspicious, which may be due to a risk score rising above a first trigger level, in which the first trigger level may not justify blocking the communication. The first trigger may cause additional inspection, or another intermediate response. If a second or higher trigger point is reached, redirection to a honeypot and/or other another investigation tool may be implemented. As described in relation to
At step 330, the network traffic is analyzed using the security policy. For example, the network traffic is analyzed by enforcement point 200 and enforcement point 200 determines the security policy is violated (e.g., the communications are not allowed or permitted by the policy) or not violated (e.g., the communications are allowed or permitted by the policy). At step 340, the network traffic is forwarded or dropped. By way of non-limiting example, the network traffic is directed to its intended recipient and/or the network traffic is redirected to honeypot 170. By way of further non-limiting example, the network traffic is dropped (e.g., not allowed to proceed to its intended recipient).
At step 350, the forwarded traffic and metadata associated with the traffic are logged. For example, at least one of the source IP address, source port, destination IP address, destination port, (application) protocol, action prescribed by the security policy, action taken by the enforcement point 200, metadata and the like is logged or accumulated. In some embodiments, metadata is associated with a (application) protocol associated with each of the packet and subsequent related packets. Protocols associated with the packets include at least one of: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP), Domain Name System (DNS), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP), Post Office Protocol (POP), Secure Shell (SSH), Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), Transport Layer Security (TLS), and the like. Metadata associated with DNS can be a requested host name. Metadata associated with HTTP can be a requested web page and/or an agent (e.g., particular web browser and web browser version originating the packet). In some embodiments, the logging includes packet capture (PCAP). In some embodiments, method 400 (
In various embodiments, method 400 is performed at least partially not in real time. By way of further non-limiting example, at step 360, the logged or accumulated network traffic and associated metadata are optionally stored in a data store and method 300 optionally proceeds to step 410 of method 400.
At step 420, the traffic and associated metadata are examined. In some embodiments, communications/operations/behaviors are identified from the traffic and associated metadata. For example, a VM typically using SSH suddenly using telnet is identified. To provide another example, a number of FTP connections to a VM exceeds a pre-defined number within a certain amount of time. These suspicious VMs will be identified and sent to step 430.
At step 430, information associated with the traffic is received from an external system of record. By way of non-limiting example, external systems of record are at least one of: Microsoft Active Directory (AD), ServiceNow, VMware vCenter, Apache CloudStack, OpenStack, and the like. In some embodiments, a system for managing VMs (e.g., VMware vCenter, Apache CloudStack, OpenStack, and the like) provides information about the suspicious VM. The information provides context about suspicious VMs. For example, the external system of record includes facilities for (user-defined) categorization and tagging which provide context to the suspicious activity (e.g., potential threat). By way of further non-limiting example, the categories and tags identify a VM as (a part of) a QA system or test development system, as opposed to a production system, where a QA or test development system should not access sensitive information. By way of additional non-limiting example, the categories and tags identify two machines as suddenly being in a back-up pairing, where such a pairing did not exist before.
At step 440, the network traffic, associated metadata, and information from the external system of record are weighted. For example, a higher trust or confidence associated with the tags and categories of the external system of record results in greater relative consideration of the information of the external system of record, to other factors (e.g., accumulated network traffic and associated metadata). For example, a lower trust or confidence associated with the tags and categories of the external system of record results in less relative consideration of the information of the external system of record, to other factors (e.g., accumulated network traffic and associated metadata).
Also at step 440, the network traffic, associated metadata, and information from the external system of record are statistically analyzed using the weightings to produce an updated risk score. Risk score can be protocol specific, e.g. FTP protocol has a high score because it can transfer out a large amount of files and critical information. Telnet protocol has a lower score because of its interactive nature. The risk score may be any (predetermined and/or decimal) numeric range (understood by policy compiler 115). By way of non-limiting example, the risk score and be in the range of −10 to +10, 0 to 100, 0 to 1000, and the like.
At step 450, a security policy re-compile is initiated (e.g., requested), including providing the updated risk score. For example, a security policy re-compile is requested from policy compiler 115. In response to re-compiling the security policy using at least the updated risk score, for example, policy compiler 115 disseminates a resulting updated security policy to enforcement point 200.
The components shown in
Mass data storage 530, which can be implemented with a magnetic disk drive, solid state drive, or an optical disk drive, is a non-volatile storage device for storing data and instructions for use by processor unit(s) 510. Mass data storage 530 stores the system software for implementing embodiments of the present disclosure for purposes of loading that software into main memory 520.
Portable storage device 540 operates in conjunction with a portable non-volatile storage medium, such as a flash drive, floppy disk, compact disk, digital video disc, or Universal Serial Bus (USB) storage device, to input and output data and code to and from the computer system 500 of
User input devices 560 can provide a portion of a user interface. User input devices 560 may include one or more microphones, an alphanumeric keypad, such as a keyboard, for inputting alphanumeric and other information, or a pointing device, such as a mouse, a trackball, stylus, or cursor direction keys. User input devices 560 can also include a touchscreen. Additionally, the computer system 500 as shown in
Graphics display system 570 includes a liquid crystal display (LCD) or other suitable display device. Graphics display system 570 is configurable to receive textual and graphical information and processes the information for output to the display device.
Peripheral devices 580 may include any type of computer support device that adds additional functionality to the computer system.
The components provided in the computer system 500 of
The processing for various embodiments may be implemented in software that is cloud-based. In some embodiments, the computer system 500 is implemented as a cloud-based computing environment, such as a virtual machine operating within a computing cloud. In other embodiments, the computer system 500 may itself include a cloud-based computing environment, where the functionalities of the computer system 500 are executed in a distributed fashion. Thus, the computer system 500, when configured as a computing cloud, may include pluralities of computing devices in various forms, as will be described in greater detail below.
In general, a cloud-based computing environment is a resource that typically combines the computational power of a large grouping of processors (such as within web servers) and/or that combines the storage capacity of a large grouping of computer memories or storage devices. Systems that provide cloud-based resources may be utilized exclusively by their owners or such systems may be accessible to outside users who deploy applications within the computing infrastructure to obtain the benefit of large computational or storage resources.
The cloud may be formed, for example, by a network of web servers that comprise a plurality of computing devices, such as the computer system 500, with each server (or at least a plurality thereof) providing processor and/or storage resources. These servers may manage workloads provided by multiple users (e.g., cloud resource customers or other users). Typically, each user places workload demands upon the cloud that vary in real-time, sometimes dramatically. The nature and extent of these variations typically depends on the type of business associated with the user.
The present technology is described above with reference to example embodiments. Therefore, other variations upon the example embodiments are intended to be covered by the present disclosure.
This non-provisional patent application claims priority benefit of, and is a continuation of, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/673,679, filed on Mar. 30, 2015, entitled “System and Method for Threat-Driven Security Policy Controls”, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,294,442 on Mar. 22, 2016, which is hereby incorporated by reference herein in its entirety including all references cited therein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6253321 | Nikander et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6484261 | Wiegel | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6578076 | Putzolu | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6765864 | Natarajan et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6970459 | Meier | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7058712 | Vasko et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7062566 | Amara et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7096260 | Zavalkovsky et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7373524 | Motsinger et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7397794 | Lacroute et al. | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7519062 | Kloth et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7694181 | Noller et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7742414 | Iannaccone et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7774837 | McAlister | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7849495 | Huang et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7900240 | Terzis et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7904454 | Raab | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7996255 | Shenoy et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
8051460 | Lum et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8112304 | Scates | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8259571 | Raphel et al. | Sep 2012 | B1 |
8296459 | Brandwine et al. | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8307422 | Varadhan et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8321862 | Swamy et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8353021 | Satish et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8369333 | Hao et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8396986 | Kanada et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8490153 | Bassett et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8494000 | Nadkami et al. | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8565118 | Shukla et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8612744 | Shieh | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8661434 | Liang et al. | Feb 2014 | B1 |
8688491 | Shenoy et al. | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8726343 | Borzycki et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8798055 | An | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8813169 | Shieh et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8813236 | Saha et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8935457 | Feng et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
8938782 | Sawhney et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
8990371 | Kalyanaraman et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9015299 | Shah | Apr 2015 | B1 |
9141625 | Thornewell et al. | Sep 2015 | B1 |
9191327 | Shieh | Nov 2015 | B2 |
9258275 | Sun et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9294302 | Sun et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9294442 | Lian et al. | Mar 2016 | B1 |
9361089 | Bradfield et al. | Jun 2016 | B2 |
9380027 | Lian et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
9521115 | Woolward | Dec 2016 | B1 |
9609083 | Shieh | Mar 2017 | B2 |
9621595 | Lian et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9680852 | Wager et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
20020031103 | Wiedeman et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20030055950 | Cranor et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030177389 | Albert et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040062204 | Bearden et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040095897 | Vafaei | May 2004 | A1 |
20050021943 | Ikudome et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050033989 | Poletto et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050114829 | Robin et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050190758 | Gai et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050201343 | Sivalingham et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050246241 | Irizarry, Jr. et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050283823 | Okajo et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060050696 | Shah et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20070016945 | Bassett et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070019621 | Perry et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070022090 | Graham | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070064617 | Reves | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070079308 | Chiaramonte et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070130566 | van Rietschote et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070168971 | Royzen et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070192861 | Varghese et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070192863 | Kapoor | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070239987 | Hoole et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070271612 | Fang et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070277222 | Pouliot | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080016550 | McAlister | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080083011 | McAlister et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080155239 | Chowdhury et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080163207 | Reumann et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080229382 | Vitalos | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080239961 | Hilerio et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080301770 | Kinder | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080307110 | Wainner et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090077621 | Lang et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083445 | Ganga | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090138316 | Weller et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090165078 | Samudrala et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090190585 | Allen et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090249470 | Litvin et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090260051 | Igakura | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090268667 | Gandham et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090328187 | Meisel | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100043068 | Varadhan et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100064341 | Aldera | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100071025 | Devine et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100088738 | Bimbach | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100095367 | Narayanaswamy | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100191863 | Wing | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100192225 | Ma et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100199349 | Ellis | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100208699 | Lee et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100228962 | Simon et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100235880 | Chen et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100274970 | Treuhaft et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100281539 | Bums et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100333165 | Basak et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110003580 | Belrose et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110069710 | Naven et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110072486 | Hadar et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110113472 | Fung et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110138384 | Bozek et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110138441 | Neystadt et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110184993 | Chawla et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110225624 | Sawhney et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110249679 | Lin et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110263238 | Riley et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20120017258 | Suzuki | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120113989 | Akiyoshi | May 2012 | A1 |
20120130936 | Brown et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120131685 | Broch et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120185913 | Martinez et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120207174 | Shieh | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120216273 | Rolette et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120311144 | Akelbein et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120311575 | Song | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120324567 | Couto et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130019277 | Chang et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130081142 | McDougal et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130086399 | Tychon et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130097692 | Cooper et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130151680 | Salinas et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130166490 | Elkins et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130166720 | Takashima et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130219384 | Srinivasan et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130223226 | Narayanan et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130250956 | Sun et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130263125 | Shamsee et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130275592 | Xu et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130276092 | Sun et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130291088 | Shieh et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130298184 | Ermagan et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130318617 | Chaturvedi et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130343396 | Yamashita et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140007181 | Sarin et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140022894 | Oikawa et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140137240 | Smith et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140153577 | Janakiraman et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140157352 | Paek et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140282027 | Gao et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140282518 | Banerjee | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140283030 | Moore et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140310765 | Stuntebeck et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140344435 | Mortimore, Jr. et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150047046 | Pavlyushchik | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150124606 | Alvarez et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150163088 | Anschutz | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150229641 | Sun et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150249676 | Koyanagi et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150269383 | Lang et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20160028851 | Shieh | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160191545 | Nanda et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160203331 | Khan et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160269442 | Shieh | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160294774 | Woolward et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160323245 | Shieh et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170063795 | Lian et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170134422 | Shieh et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170168864 | Ross et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170180421 | Shieh et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170195454 | Shieh | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170208100 | Lian et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170223033 | Wager et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170223038 | Wager et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170339188 | Jain et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
201642616 | Dec 2016 | TW |
201642617 | Dec 2016 | TW |
201642618 | Dec 2016 | TW |
201703483 | Jan 2017 | TW |
201703485 | Jan 2017 | TW |
WO2002098100 | Dec 2002 | WO |
WO2016148865 | Sep 2016 | WO |
WO2016160523 | Oct 2016 | WO |
WO2016160533 | Oct 2016 | WO |
WO2016160595 | Oct 2016 | WO |
WO2016160599 | Oct 2016 | WO |
WO2017100365 | Jun 2017 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Specification, U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,679, filed Mar. 30, 2015. |
Specification, U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,640, filed Mar. 30, 2015. |
Specification, U.S. Appl. No. 14/677,827, filed Apr. 2, 2015. |
Specification, U.S. Appl. No. 14/657,282, filed Mar. 13, 2015. |
Specification, U.S. Appl. No. 14/657,210, filed Mar. 13, 2015. |
International Search Report dated May 3, 2016 in Patent Cooperation Treaty Application No. PCT/US2016/024116 filed Mar. 24, 2016. |
International Search Report dated May 3, 2016 in Patent Cooperation Treaty Application No. PCT/US2016/024300 filed Mar. 25, 2016. |
International Search Report dated May 3, 2016 in Patent Corporation Treaty Application No. PCT/US2016/024053 filed Mar. 24, 2016. |
International Search Report dated May 6, 2016 in Patent Cooperation Treaty Application No. PCT/US2016/019643 filed Feb. 25, 2016. |
Dubrawsky, Ido, “Firewall Evolution—Deep Packet Inspection,” Symantec, Created Jul. 28, 2003; Updated Nov. 2, 2010, symantec.com/connect/articles/firewall-evolution-deep-packet-inspection. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated May 18, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 14/964,318, filed Dec. 9, 2015. |
International Search Report dated Jun. 20, 2016 in Patent Cooperation Treaty Application No. PCT/US2016/024310 filed Mar. 25, 2016, pp. 1-9. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated Jul. 6, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 15/151,303, filed May 10, 2016. |
Final Office Action, dated Jul. 7, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 14/877,836, filed Oct. 7, 2015. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated Jul. 25, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 15/090,523, filed Apr. 4, 2016. |
Notice of Allowance, dated Jul. 27, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 15/080,519, filed Mar. 24, 2016. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated Aug. 2, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 14/657,210, filed Mar. 13, 2015. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated Sep. 16, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 15/209,275, filed Jul. 13, 2016. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated Jul. 14, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 13/860,404, filed Apr. 10, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated Oct. 13, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 15/199,605, filed Jun. 30, 2016. |
Notice of Allowance, dated Nov. 17, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 14/877,836, filed Oct. 7, 2015. |
Notice of Allowance, dated Nov. 29, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 15/151,303, filed May 10, 2016. |
Final Office Action, dated Nov. 14, 2016, U.S. Appl. No. 14/964,318, filed Dec. 9, 2015. |
Final Office Action, dated Jan. 4, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 14/657,210, filed Mar. 13, 2015. |
“Feature Handbook: NetBrain® Enterprise Edition 6.1” NetBrain Technologies, Inc., Feb. 25, 2016, 48 pages. |
Arendt, Dustin L. et al., “Ocelot: User-Centered Design of a Decision Support Visualization for Network Quarantine”, IEEE Symposium on Visualization for Cyber Security (VIZSEC), Oct. 25, 2015, 8 pages. |
“International Search Report” and “Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority,” Patent Cooperation Treaty Application No. PCT/US2016/065451, Jan. 12, 2017, 20 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated Jan. 5, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 15/348,978, filed Nov. 10, 2016. |
Final Office Action, dated Jan. 18, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 13/860,404, filed Apr. 10, 2013. |
Notice of Allowance, dated Feb. 1, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 15/090,523, filed Apr. 4, 2016. |
Final Office Action, dated Apr. 19, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 15/209,275, filed Jul. 13, 2016. |
Notice of Allowance, dated Apr. 21, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 15/348,978, filed Nov. 10, 2006. |
Final Office Action, dated May 3, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 15/199,605, filed Jun. 30, 2016. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated May 15, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 14/657,210, filed Mar. 13, 2015. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated Jun. 19, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 15/479,728, filed Apr. 5, 2017. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated Jul. 7, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 14/964,318, filed Dec. 9, 2015. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated Jul. 19, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 15/334,151, filed Oct. 25, 2016. |
Non-Final Office Action, dated Jul. 25, 2017, U.S. Appl. No. 15/448,581, filed Jul. 25, 2017. |
Maniar, Neeta, “Centralized Tracking and Risk Analysis of 3rd Party Firewall Connections,” SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room, Mar. 11, 2005, 20 pages. |
Hu, Hongxin et al., “Detecting and Resolving Firewall Policy Anomalies,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 9, No. 3, May/Jun. 2012, pp. 318-331. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160294875 A1 | Oct 2016 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14673679 | Mar 2015 | US |
Child | 15008298 | US |