Embodiments of the disclosure generally relate to the field of malware detection (e.g., exploit detection) through the hooking of system calls under hypervisor control.
In general, virtualization is a technique that provides an ability to host two or more operating systems concurrently on the same computing device. Currently, virtualization architectures feature hardware virtualization capabilities that operate in accordance with two processor modes: host mode and guest mode. A virtual machine runs in guest mode, where a processor of the computing device switches from host mode to guest mode for execution of software components associated with the virtual machine (VM entry). Similarly, the processor may switch from guest mode to host mode when operations of the virtual machine are paused or stopped (VM exit).
A virtual machine (VM) is a software abstraction that operates like a physical (real) computing device having a particular guest operating system (OS). Each VM includes an operating system (OS) kernel (sometimes referred to as a “guest kernel”) that operates in a most privileged guest mode (guest kernel mode, ring-0). A guest software application executes in a lesser privileged operating mode (guest user mode, ring-3).
As the guest software application executes and requires certain resources, the guest software application accesses an Application Programming Interface (API), which invokes a system call function (sometimes referred to as a “syscall”) operating within the guest kernel. In response to the syscall, the guest kernel operates as a service provider by facilitating communications between the guest software application and one or more resources associated with the syscall. Examples of the resources may include, but are not limited or restricted to virtual resources, such as a particular virtual driver or certain virtual system hardware implemented by software components in a host space (e.g., virtual central processing unit “vCPU” or virtual disk) that are configured to operate in a similar manner as corresponding physical components (e.g., physical CPU or hard disk) or directly mapped to a physical resource. As a result, the guest system software, when executed, controls execution and allocation of virtual resources so that the VM operates in a manner consistent to operations of the physical computing device.
With the emergence of hardware support for full virtualization in an increased number of hardware processor architectures, new virtualization (software) architectures have emerged. One such virtualization architecture involves adding a software abstraction layer, sometimes referred to as a “virtualization layer,” between the physical hardware and the virtual machine. The virtualization layer runs in host mode. It consists of an OS kernel (sometimes referred to as a “hypervisor”) and multiple host applications that operate under the control of the OS kernel.
Conventionally, the detection of an exploit usually involves monitoring the usage of System APIs accessed by the guest software application operating with the virtual machine. This is achieved by intercepting (sometimes referred to as “hooking”) an API call in the guest user mode prior to entry into the guest kernel mode. The analysis as to whether the API call is associated with a malicious attack may be conducted in the guest user mode, and thereafter, control may be transferred back to service the API function being called. However, there are exploits designed to detect an API hook, and in response, attempts to bypass the API hook by advancing a memory pointer directed to the “hooked” instruction associated with the API call a few bytes. The bypass attempt, referred to as “hook hopping,” is an attempt by the exploit to execute the original API function.
Previously, to avoid hook hopping, efforts have been made to migrate exploit detection, one type of malware detection, into the guest kernel through a technique known as “kernel hooking”. Kernel hooking is the process of modifying the guest OS kernel to alter its behavior or capture certain events. Previously, security vendors relied on kernel hooking to implement antivirus services, protecting the OS and its applications by intercepting and blocking potentially malicious actions or processes. However, in an attempt to strengthen protection of the guest kernel and combat the increased presence of rootkit attacks, some software companies modified their operating systems to monitor kernel code as well as system resources used by the guest kernel and initiate an automatic shutdown of the computing device upon detecting unauthorized kernel patching. One example of this modification is PatchGuard™ for Microsoft® Windows® operating systems.
While the prevention of kernel patching may have reduced some rootkit infections, it precludes security providers from providing more robust protection against malicious attacks to the guest kernel by handling exploit detection checks in the guest kernel.
Embodiments of the disclosure are illustrated by way of example and not by way of limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings, in which like references indicate similar elements and in which:
Various embodiments of the disclosure relates to logic operating in cooperation with a hypervisor to intercept and analyze a system call within a guest operating system (OS) kernel when the computing device is operating in a first (selected) operating state and to permit apparent uninterrupted access of a memory page normally accessed in response to that system call when the computing device is operating in a second (selected) operating state. The first selected operating state may be a guest “execute” cycle (e.g., instruction decode) and the second selected operating state may be a guest “read” cycle (e.g., instruction fetch).
More specifically, embodiments of the disclosure are directed to a hypervisor-controlled threat detection system that is deployed within a software virtualization architecture. The hypervisor-controlled threat detection system is configured, during run-time (e.g., a guest “execute” cycle) of a virtual machine operating in guest mode, to intercept a particular system call (sometimes referred to as a “hooked syscall”) within a guest operating system (OS) kernel (hereinafter “guest kernel”) and provide control to a hypervisor operating in host mode. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the hooked syscall may be intercepted by inserting a breakpoint (e.g., a single byte instruction such as a HALT instruction) as the first instruction in code associated with the hooked syscall. The single byte instruction ensures that the instruction pointers for all threads during multi-thread operations being conducted on the computing device (e.g., endpoint device) will either be before or after the embedded instruction, not in the middle of the instructions which may occur with a multi-byte instruction. The code is maintained within a guest memory page, which may be referenced by use of a pointer corresponding to the hooked syscall that is placed within an entry of a service dispatch (syscall) table. The service dispatch table resides in the guest kernel.
In response to an Application Programming Interface (API) call that invokes the hooked syscall, the breakpoint (e.g., HALT instruction) causes a trap to the hypervisor at a desired address (or the hyper-process component operating in conjunction with the hypervisor). Thereafter, in response to receipt of the trap during run-time (e.g., guest “execute” cycle), the hypervisor subsequently diverts control to exploit detection logic residing within the guest kernel. This redirection maintains the “context” of the application executing in the guest user mode, enabling the exploit detection logic to access the metadata that may include some or all of the context. The context is the original state of the application prior to the trap and is preserved during re-direction to the exploit detection logic. Some of the context may be accessed dependent on the exploit detection intelligence. The exploit detection logic analyzes metadata, inclusive of at least some of the context information associated with the hooked syscall, to determine if the computing device may be subject to a malicious attack (e.g., exploit attack, malware attack, etc.).
However, during a second guest (read) cycle and in response to a read access that invokes the hooked syscall, the hypervisor does not divert control to the exploit detection logic. Rather, the hypervisor emulates a read access to the memory page in an unaltered state. This may be accomplished by the hypervisor returning an original first instruction of the hooked syscall that is overwritten by the breakpoint. Hence, during a (guest) read cycle, any guest application or guest OS functionality is unable to detect the presence of the breakpoint (e.g. HALT instruction) in code within the guest kernel since the control flow of the syscall during the (guest) read cycles continues as expected.
The “hooked” syscalls may be selected in accordance with exploit attack patterns that have been previously detected or syscall that are anticipated to be accessed during a malicious attack. It is contemplated that the selection of the hooked syscalls may be dynamically set or may be static in nature. When dynamically set, the hooked syscalls may be tailored to monitor syscalls that may be more frequently experienced by the computing device.
In the following description, certain terminology is used to describe features of the invention. For example, in certain situations, the terms “component” and “logic” are representative of hardware, firmware or software that is configured to perform one or more functions. As hardware, a component (or logic) may include circuitry having data processing or storage functionality. Examples of such circuitry may include, but are not limited or restricted to a hardware processor (e.g., microprocessor with one or more processor cores, a digital signal processor, a programmable gate array, a microcontroller, an application specific integrated circuit “ASIC”, etc.), a semiconductor memory, or combinatorial elements.
A component (or logic) may be software in the form of a process or one or more software modules, such as executable code in the form of an executable application, an API, a subroutine, a function, a procedure, an applet, a servlet, a routine, source code, object code, a shared library/dynamic load library, or one or more instructions. These software modules may be stored in any type of a suitable non-transitory storage medium, or transitory storage medium (e.g., electrical, optical, acoustical or other form of propagated signals such as carrier waves, infrared signals, or digital signals). Examples of non-transitory storage medium may include, but are not limited or restricted to a programmable circuit; semiconductor memory; non-persistent storage such as volatile memory (e.g., any type of random access memory “RAM”); or persistent storage such as non-volatile memory (e.g., read-only memory “ROM”, power-backed RAM, flash memory, phase-change memory, etc.), a solid-state drive, hard disk drive, an optical disc drive, or a portable memory device. As firmware, the executable code may be stored in persistent storage. Upon execution of an instance of a system component or a software module, a “process” performs operations as coded by the software component.
The term “object” generally refers to a collection of data, whether in transit (e.g., over a network) or at rest (e.g., stored), often having a logical structure or organization that enables it to be categorized for purposes of analysis for a presence of an exploit and/or malware. During analysis, for example, the object may exhibit certain expected characteristics (e.g., expected internal content such as bit patterns, data structures, etc.) and, during processing, a set of expected behaviors. The object may also exhibit unexpected characteristics and a set of unexpected behaviors that may offer evidence of the presence of malware and potentially allow the object to be classified as part of a malicious attack.
Examples of objects may include one or more flows or a self-contained element within a flow itself. A “flow” generally refers to related packets that are received, transmitted, or exchanged within a communication session. For convenience, a packet is broadly referred to as a series of bits or bytes having a prescribed format, which may, according to one embodiment, include packets, frames, or cells. Further, an “object” may also refer to individual or a number of packets carrying related payloads, e.g., a single webpage received over a network. Moreover, an object may be a file retrieved from a storage location over an interconnect.
As a self-contained element, the object may be an executable (e.g., an application, program, segment of code, dynamically link library “DLL”, etc.) or a non-executable. Examples of non-executables may include a document (e.g., a Portable Document Format “PDF” document, Microsoft® Office® document, Microsoft® Excel® spreadsheet, etc.), an electronic mail (email), downloaded web page, or the like.
The term “event” should be generally construed as an activity that is conducted by a software component process performed by the computing device. The event may occur that causes an undesired action to occur, such as overwriting a buffer, disabling a certain protective feature in the guest environment, or a guest OS anomaly such as a guest OS kernel trying to execute from a user page.
According to one embodiment, the term “malware” may be construed broadly as any code or activity that initiates a malicious attack and/or operations associated with anomalous or unwanted behavior. For instance, malware may correspond to a type of malicious computer code that executes an exploit to take advantage of a vulnerability, for example, to harm or co-opt operation of a network device or misappropriate, modify or delete data. Malware may also correspond to an exploit, namely information (e.g., executable code, data, command(s), etc.) that attempts to take advantage of a vulnerability in software and/or an action by a person gaining unauthorized access to one or more areas of a network device to cause the network device to experience undesirable or anomalous behaviors. The undesirable or anomalous behaviors may include a communication-based anomaly or an execution-based anomaly, which, for example, could (1) alter the functionality of an network device executing application software in an atypical manner (a file is opened by a first process where the file is configured to be opened by a second process and not the first process); (2) alter the functionality of the network device executing that application software without any malicious intent; and/or (3) provide unwanted functionality which may be generally acceptable in another context.
The term “computing device” should be generally construed as electronics with the data processing capability and/or a capability of connecting to any type of network, such as a public network (e.g., Internet), a private network (e.g., a wireless data telecommunication network, a local area network “LAN”, etc.), or a combination of networks. Examples of a computing device may include, but are not limited or restricted to, the following: an endpoint device (e.g., a laptop, a smartphone, a tablet, a desktop computer, a netbook, a medical device, or any general-purpose or special-purpose, user-controlled electronic device configured to support virtualization); a server; a mainframe; a router; or a security appliance that includes any system or subsystem configured to perform functions associated with malware detection and may be communicatively coupled to a network to intercept data routed to or from an endpoint device.
The term “message” generally refers to information transmitted in a prescribed format, where each message may be in the form of one or more packets or frames, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) based transmission, or any other series of bits having the prescribed format. For instance, a message may include an electronic message such as an electronic mail (email) message; a text message in accordance with a SMS-based or non-SMS based format; an instant message in accordance with Session Initiation Protocol (SIP); or a series of bits in accordance with another messaging protocol exchanged between software components or processes associated with these software components.
The term “trap,” often also known as an exception or a fault, is typically a type of interrupt caused by an exceptional condition (e.g., breakpoint), resulting in a switch in control to the operating system to allow it to perform an action before returning control to the originating process. In some contexts, the trap refers specifically to an interrupt intended to initiate a context switch to a monitor program.
The term “interconnect” may be construed as a physical or logical communication path between two or more computing devices. For instance, the communication path may include wired and/or wireless transmission mediums. Examples of wired and/or wireless transmission mediums may include electrical wiring, optical fiber, cable, bus trace, a radio unit that supports radio frequency (RF) signaling, or any other wired/wireless signal transfer mechanism.
The term “computerized” generally represents that any corresponding operations are conducted by hardware in combination with software and/or firmware. Also, the term “agent” should be interpreted as a software component that instantiates a process running in a virtual machine. The agent may be instrumented into part of an operating system (e.g., guest OS) or part of an application (e.g., guest software application). The agent is configured to provide metadata to a portion of the virtualization layer, namely software that virtualizes certain functionality supported by the computing device.
Lastly, the terms “or” and “and/or” as used herein are to be interpreted as inclusive or meaning any one or any combination. Therefore, “A, B or C” or “A, B and/or C” mean “any of the following: A; B; C; A and B; A and C; B and C; A, B and C.” An exception to this definition will occur only when a combination of elements, functions, steps or acts are in some way inherently mutually exclusive.
Referring to
The computing devices 140i (i=1, 2, 3) illustratively communicate by exchanging messages (e.g., packets or data in a prescribed format) according to a predefined set of protocols, such as the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). However, it should be noted that other protocols, such as the HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) for example, may be used with the inventive aspects described herein. In the case of private network 120, the intermediary computing device 1401 may include a firewall or other computing device configured to limit or block certain network traffic in an attempt to protect the endpoint devices 1403 from unauthorized users.
Referring now to
The hardware processor 210 is a multipurpose, programmable device that accepts digital data as input, processes the input data according to instructions stored in its memory, and provides results as output. One example of the hardware processor 210 may include an Intel® x86 central processing unit (CPU) with an instruction set architecture. Alternatively, the hardware processor 210 may include another type of CPU, a digital signal processor (DSP), an ASIC, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), or the like.
According to one implementation, the hardware processor 210 may include one or more control registers, including a “CR3” control register in accordance with x86 processor architectures. Herein, the control register 212 may be context-switched between host mode and guest mode, where a “guest read cycle” corresponds to a read operation that occurs when the hardware processor 210 is in guest mode and the “guest execute cycle” corresponds to an execute operation that occurs when the hardware processor 210 is in execute mode. Hence, when the hardware processor 210 is executing in guest mode, a pointer value within the control register 212 identifies an address location for guest memory page tables, namely memory page tables associated with a currently running process that is under control of the guest OS (e.g., WINDOWS®-based process). The address location may be for syscall function calls via the System Services Dispatch Table.
The network device(s) 240 may include various input/output (I/O) or peripheral devices, such as a storage device for example. One type of storage device may include a solid state drive (SSD) embodied as a flash storage device or other non-volatile, solid-state electronic device (e.g., drives based on storage class memory components). Another type of storage device may include a hard disk drive (HDD). Each network interface 230 may include a modem or one or more network ports containing the mechanical, electrical and/or signaling circuitry needed to connect the endpoint device 1403 to the private network 120 to thereby facilitate communications over the network 110. To that end, the network interface(s) 230 may be configured to transmit and/or receive messages using a variety of communication protocols including, inter alia, TCP/IP and HTTPS.
The memory 220 may include a plurality of locations that are addressable by the hardware processor 210 and the network interface(s) 230 for storing software (including software applications) and data structures associated with such software. Examples of the stored software include a guest software 260 and host software 270, as shown in
In general, the guest software 260 includes at least one guest application 310, a guest agent 320, and a guest OS 330, all of which may be operating as part of a virtual machine in a guest environment. Resident in memory 220 and executed by a virtual processor “vCPU” (which is, in effect, executed by processor(s) 210), the guest OS 330 functionally organizes the endpoint device 1403 by, inter alia, invoking operations in support of guest applications 310 executing on the endpoint device 1403. An exemplary guest OS 330 may include, but are not limited or restricted to the following: (1) a version of a WINDOWS® series of operating system; (2) a version of a MAC OS® or an IOS® series of operating system; (3) a version of a LINUX® operating system; or (4) a versions of an ANDROID® operating system, among others.
As described below in detail, the guest OS 330 further includes a guest OS kernel 335 that operates in cooperation with instance(s) of one or more guest applications 310 perhaps running their own separate guest address spaces and/or one or more instances of a guest agent 320 that may be instrumented as part of or for operation in conjunction with the guest OS 330 or as one of the separate guest applications 310. The guest agent 320 is adapted to monitor what processes are running in the guest user mode and provide information for selecting the “hooked” syscalls, namely the syscalls that are to be intercepted and monitored by the hypervisor. Additionally, the guest agent 320 is adapted to receive from the guest OS kernel 335 information associated with detected events that suggest a malicious attack, such as the presence of an exploit or malware in the computing device 1403. Examples of these guest applications 310 may include a web browser (e.g., EXPLORER®, CHROME®, FIREFOX®, etc.), document application such as a Portable Document Format (PDF) reader (e.g., ADOBE® READER®) or a data processing application such as the MICROSOFT® WORD® program from untrusted source(s).
Herein, the host software 270 may include hyper-process components 360, namely instances of user-space applications operating as user-level virtual machine monitors and in cooperation with a hypervisor 370 (described below). When executed, the hyper-process components 360 produce processes running in the host user mode. The hyper-process components 360 may be isolated from each other and run in separate (host) address spaces. In communication with a hypervisor 370 (described below), the hyper-process components 360 are responsible for controlling operability of the endpoint device 1403, including policy and resource allocation decisions, maintaining logs of monitored events for subsequent analysis, managing virtual machine (VM) execution, and managing exploit detection and classification. The management of exploit detection and classification may be accomplished through certain hyper-process components 360 (e.g., guest monitor and threat protection logic described below).
The hypervisor 370 is disposed or layered beneath the guest OS kernel 335 of the endpoint device 1403 and is the only component that runs in the most privileged processor mode (host mode, ring-0). In some embodiments, as part of a trusted computing base of most components in the computing device, the hypervisor 370 is configured as a light-weight hypervisor (e.g., less than 10K lines of code), thereby avoiding inclusion of potentially exploitable x86 virtualization code.
The hypervisor 370 generally operates as the host kernel that is devoid of policy enforcement; rather, the hypervisor 370 provides a plurality of mechanisms that may be used by the hyper-processes, namely processes produced by execution of certain host software 280. These mechanisms may be configured to control communications between separate protection domains (e.g., between two different hyper-processes), coordinate thread processing within the hyper-processes and virtual CPU (vCPU) processing within a virtual machine, delegate and/or revoke hardware resources, and control interrupt delivery and Direct Memory Access (DMA), as described below.
Referring now to
A. Guest Environment
The guest environment 300 includes a virtual machine 305, which includes software components that are configured to detect the presence of an exploit based on intercepting and analyzing syscalls within the guest kernel 335 while complying with OS functionality that precludes kernel hooking (e.g., PatchGuard® for Windows® OSes). Herein, as shown, the virtual machine 305 includes the guest OS 330 that features the guest OS kernel 335 running in the most privileged level (guest kernel mode, Ring-0 306) along with one or more instances of guest OS applications 310 running in a lesser privileged level (guest user mode, Ring-3 307).
1. Guest OS
In general, the guest OS 330 manages certain operability of the virtual machine 305, where some of these operations are directed to the execution and allocation of virtual resources, which may involve network connectivity, memory translation, interrupt service delivery and handling. More specifically, the guest OS 330 may receive electrical signaling from a process associated with the guest application 310 that requests a service from the guest kernel 335. The service may include hardware-related services (for example, accessing a hard disk drive), creation and execution of a new process, or the like. Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) provide an interface between the guest application 310 and the guest OS 330.
As an illustrative example, the request may include an API call, where a request for a service from the guest kernel 335 is routed to system service dispatch logic 340. Operating as a syscall table, the service dispatch logic 340 is configured to invoke a particular syscall that provides the service requested by the API call. For this embodiment, the service dispatch logic 340 includes a plurality of entries, where each entry includes an address pointer to a memory location (e.g., a memory page or a portion of a memory page) having code instructions for the corresponding syscall. It is contemplated that different syscall pointers may be directed to different memory pages, although two or more syscall pointers may be directed to the same memory page as the syscall pointers may be directed to different address regions of the same memory page. The portion of the memory page associated with the syscall includes instructions that may be used, at least in part, to cause virtual system hardware (e.g., vCPU 342) to provide the requested services, such as to access to virtual hard disk for example.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, a breakpoint (e.g., HALT instruction) is inserted as a first instruction at a starting address location for one or more selected syscalls (sometimes referred to as “hooked syscalls”). This starting address location is referenced by a syscall pointer associated with the entry in the service dispatch logic 340 (syscall table) pertaining to the hooked syscall. In response to the API call invoking a particular syscall, the breakpoint causes a trap to the hypervisor 370 (described below) at a desired address. Thereafter, in response to receipt of the trap during run-time, the hypervisor 370 subsequently diverts control flow to exploit detection logic 345 within the guest kernel 335. The exploit detection logic 345 is configured to analyze metadata or other context information associated with the hooked syscall to detect a malicious attack.
2. Guest Agent
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the guest agent 320 is a software component configured to provide the exploit detection logic 345 and/or a portion of the hypervisor logic (e.g., threat protection logic 390) with metadata that assists in determining the monitored syscalls. Instrumented in guest OS 330 or operating as a separate software component in the guest user mode 307 as shown, the guest agent 320 may be configured to provide metadata to the exploit detection logic 345 that identifies what syscalls are to be “hooked” for the current process running in the virtual machine 305. Stated differently, for a process being launched, the guest agent 320 identifies which syscalls are selected for insertion of a breakpoint (e.g., special instruction such as a HALT instruction) to redirect control flow to the exploit detection logic 345 operating within the guest kernel 335.
Herein, the guest agent 320 includes one or more ring buffers 325 (e.g., queue, FIFO, buffer, shared memory, and/or registers) to record the metadata used for syscall selection as well as information associated with certain characteristics determined by the exploit detection logic 345 that signify the object is an exploit or includes malware. Examples of these characteristics may include information associated with (i) type of syscall, (ii) what thread or process invoked the syscall, or (iii) was the API call that invoked the syscall coming from an allocated memory region, or the like. The recovery of the information associated with the characteristics may occur through a “pull” or “push” recovery scheme, where the guest agent 320 may be configured to download the characteristics periodically or aperiodically (e.g., when the ring buffer 325 exceeds a certain storage level or in response to a request from the exploit detection logic 345).
B. Host Environment
As further shown in
Running on top of the hypervisor 370 in Ring-3 357, a plurality of instances of certain host software (referred to as “hyper-process components 360”) communicate with the hypervisor 370. Some of these hyper-process components 360 may include a master controller logic 380, a guest monitor logic 385 and a threat protection logic 390, each representing a separate software component with different functionality and its corresponding process may be running in a separate address space. As the software components associated with the hyper-process components 360 are isolated from each other (i.e. not in the same binary), inter-process communications between running instances of any of the hyper-process components 360 are handled by the hypervisor 370, but regulated through policy protection by the master controller logic 380.
1. Hypervisor
The hypervisor 370 may be configured as a light-weight hypervisor (e.g., less than 10K lines of code) that operates as a host OS kernel. The hypervisor 370 features logic (mechanisms) for controlling operability of the computing device, such as endpoint device 1403 as shown. The mechanisms include inter-process communication (IPC) logic 372, scheduling logic 374 and page control logic 376, as partially described in a U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 62/097,485 & 62/187,108, the entire contents of both of which are incorporated herein by reference.
The hypervisor 370 features IPC logic 372, which supports communications between separate hyper-processes. Thus, under the control of the IPC logic 372, in order for a first hyper-process (e.g., guest monitor 385) to communicate with another hyper-process, the first hyper-process needs to route a message to the hypervisor 370. In response, the hypervisor 370 switches from the first hyper-process to a second hyper-process (e.g., threat protection logic 390) and copies the message from an address space associated with the first hyper-process to a different address space associated with the second hyper-process.
Also, the hypervisor 370 contains scheduling logic 374 that ensures, at some point in time, all of the software components can run on the hardware processor 210 as defined by the scheduling context. Also, the scheduling logic 374 re-enforces that no software component can monopolize the hardware processor 210 longer than defined by the scheduling context.
Lastly, the hypervisor 370 contains page control logic 376 that, operating in combination with the threat protection logic 390 (described below), is configured to set permissions for different guest memory pages based on information provided by the exploit detection logic 345. The page permissions may be set in order to control which syscalls are being monitored for the presence of exploits (or malware) through insertion of one or more breakpoints (e.g., special instruction such as a HALT instruction) into starting locations for the monitored syscalls (sometimes referred to as “hooked syscalls”). These starting locations may be, at least in part, correspond to the syscall pointers in the service dispatch logic 340 (syscall table) that pertain to the hooked syscall.
For instance, as an illustrative example as shown in
Where the guest application 310 executes an object 315 that issues an API call for services supported by syscall_1( ), the guest kernel 335 locates a function pointer within the service dispatch logic 340 to the syscall_1( ) function and invokes the syscall_1( ) function. A first instruction (HALT) in that function traps to the hypervisor 370. In response to detecting that the trap is a result of the first instruction, the hypervisor 370 diverts the control flow to the exploit detection logic 345 which performs the exploit detection checks. However, in response to an invocation of the syscall_1( ) function during a read access, the hypervisor 370 either directs the accessing source to the copy of the memory page or returns the original instruction that was overwritten by the breakpoint.
2. Master Controller
Referring still to
3. Guest Monitor
Referring still to
4. Threat Protection
As described above and shown in
Thereafter, in response to a trap to the hypervisor 370 at a desired address, the threat protection logic 390 determines if the trap occurs during run-time (e.g., guest “execute” cycle) or during read-time (guest “read” cycle). In response to receipt of the trap during run-time, the threat protection logic 390, perhaps operating in conjunction with the hypervisor 370, determines that the trap is based on one of the inserted breakpoints and diverts control to exploit detection logic 345 residing within the guest kernel 335. The “hooked” syscall may be one of a plurality of syscalls selected in accordance with known or anticipated exploit attack patterns. It is contemplated that the selection of the hooked syscalls may be dynamically set or static in nature as described above.
Referring now to
As shown in
In response to receiving the syscall listing 410, a virtual machine exit (VM Exit) occurs at which a transition is made between the virtual machine 305 that is currently running and the hypervisor 370 (operation A). In response to the VM Exit, certain guest state information is saved, such as processor state (e.g., control register values, etc.) for example. Also, the exploit detection logic 345 forwards the syscall listing 410 (or at least a portion thereof) within a message to the hypervisor 370.
Operating with the hypervisor 370, the threat protection logic 390 receives the syscall listing 410 from the hypervisor 370 (via the guest monitor logic 385) and determines if none, some or all of these syscalls are to be hooked by inserting a special instruction at a first instruction associated with the hooked syscall (operations B & C). This special instruction may be a single byte instruction (e.g., HALT instruction) or a multi-byte instruction (e.g., JUMP instruction), although the multi-byte instruction may cause device instability when the processing of the multi-byte instruction is interrupted. According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the threat protection logic 390 may rely on the identified application types received by the exploit detection logic 345 as part of the syscall listing 410.
Thereafter, the threat protection logic 390 provides a message including information associated with the selected syscall 420 (hereinafter “selected syscall information”) to the hypervisor 370 via the guest monitor logic 385 (operations D & E). Based on the selected syscall information 420, the page control logic 376 of the hypervisor 370 determines an address location 430 for each memory page (or a region of the memory page) corresponding to the start of a selected syscall. In response to a change in operating state from the hypervisor 370 to the virtual machine 305, a VM Entry is triggered so that the guest state information is restored as the virtual machine 305 resumes operation (operation F). The exploit detection logic 345 receives via a message at least a portion of the selected syscall information 420 and the address information 430 from the hypervisor 370.
In response to receiving at least a portion of the selected syscall information 420 and the address information 430, the instruction substitution logic 440 accesses the service dispatch logic 340 to insert the special instruction into certain locations within memory pages associated with the syscalls confirmed by the threat protection logic 390 for hooking (operation G).
Referring now to
Operating with the hypervisor 370, the threat protection logic 390 receives the guest_app_ID 530 along with the hooked_syscall_ID 540 (via a message received from the guest monitor logic 385) with optionally guest application state (e.g. execute cycle, read cycle, etc.) if not immediately available to the threat protection logic 390. This information is provided to the threat protection logic 390 for analysis. If the threat protection logic 390 determines that the guest_app_ID 530 matches one of the identified application types for monitoring included as part of the syscall listing 410 of
However, if the operating state is in execute mode, the threat protection logic 390 determines that the guest_app_ID 530 matches one of the identified application types for monitoring included as part of the syscall listing 410 of
Referring to
Referring to
Thereafter, the hypervisor-controlled threat detection system conducts a hypervisor-controlled syscall hooking process that initially determines whether a HALT instruction has been triggered (block 730). If not, the hypervisor-controlled threat detection system continues to monitor for the execution of a HALT instruction. If so, the HALT instruction causes a trap to the hypervisor at a desired address (block 740). Thereafter, in response to receipt of the trap during run-time and the HALT instruction is directed to one of the applications being monitored, the hypervisor subsequently diverts control flow to the exploit detection logic residing within the guest kernel (blocks 750 and 760). The exploit detection logic obtains and analyzes metadata or other context information associated with the hooked syscall to determine if the object being processed by the guest application is a potential exploit (blocks 770 and 780). One factor in the determination is whether the object (executable), which initiated an API call (which resulted in the syscall), resides in a code section or a data portion. If the later, the object is a potential exploit.
If the object is determined to be a potential exploit, the exploit detection logic notifies the guest agent by providing characteristics supporting a determination that the object is associated with a potential exploit and the virtual machine operations resume (blocks 790 and 795). Otherwise, no reporting may be conducted, but rather, the virtual machine resumes (block 795).
In the foregoing description, the invention is described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments thereof. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims.
This application claims the benefit of priority on U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/233,977 filed Sep. 28, 2015, the entire contents of which are incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5878560 | Johnson | Mar 1999 | A |
6013455 | Bandman et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
7424745 | Theston et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7937387 | Razier et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7958558 | Eake et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
7996836 | McCorkendale et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
8006305 | Aziz | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8010667 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8069484 | McMillan et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8151263 | Venkitachalam et al. | Apr 2012 | B1 |
8171553 | Aziz et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8201169 | Venkitachalam et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8204984 | Aziz et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8233882 | Rogel | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8271978 | Bennett et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8290912 | Seads et al. | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8291499 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8332571 | Edwards, Sr. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8353031 | Rajan et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8375444 | Aziz et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8387046 | Montague et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8397306 | Tormasov | Mar 2013 | B1 |
8418230 | Cornelius et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8479276 | Vaystikh et al. | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8479294 | Li et al. | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8510827 | Leake et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8516593 | Aziz | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8522236 | Zimmer et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8528086 | Aziz | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8539582 | Aziz et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8549638 | Aziz | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8561177 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8566476 | Shifter et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8566946 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8584239 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8635696 | Aziz | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8689333 | Aziz | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8713681 | Silberman et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8756696 | Miller | Jun 2014 | B1 |
8775715 | Tsirkin et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8776180 | Kumar et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8776229 | Aziz | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8793278 | Frazier et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8793787 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8799997 | Spiers et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8805947 | Kuzkin et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8832352 | Tsirkin et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8832829 | Manni et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8839245 | Khajuria et al. | Sep 2014 | B1 |
8850060 | Beloussov et al. | Sep 2014 | B1 |
8850571 | Staniford et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8863279 | McDougal et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8881271 | Butler, II | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8881282 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8898788 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8910238 | Lukacs et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8935779 | Manni et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
8949257 | Shifter et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8984478 | Epstein | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8984638 | Aziz et al. | Mar 2015 | B1 |
8990939 | Staniford et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8990944 | Singh et al. | Mar 2015 | B1 |
8997219 | Staniford et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9003402 | Carbone et al. | Apr 2015 | B1 |
9009822 | Ismael et al. | Apr 2015 | B1 |
9009823 | Ismael et al. | Apr 2015 | B1 |
9027125 | Kumar et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
9027135 | Aziz | May 2015 | B1 |
9071638 | Aziz et al. | Jun 2015 | B1 |
9087199 | Sallam | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9092616 | Kumar et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9092625 | Kashyap et al. | Jul 2015 | B1 |
9104867 | Thioux et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9106630 | Frazier et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9106694 | Aziz et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9117079 | Huang et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9118715 | Staniford et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9159035 | Ismael et al. | Oct 2015 | B1 |
9171160 | Vincent et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9176843 | Ismael et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9189627 | Islam | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9195829 | Goradia et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9197664 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9213651 | Malyugin et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9223972 | Vincent et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
9225740 | Ismael et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
9241010 | Bennett et al. | Jan 2016 | B1 |
9251343 | Vincent et al. | Feb 2016 | B1 |
9262635 | Paithane et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9268936 | Butler | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9275229 | LeMasters | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9282109 | Aziz et al. | Mar 2016 | B1 |
9292686 | Ismael et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9294501 | Mesdaq et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9300686 | Pidathala et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9306960 | Aziz | Apr 2016 | B1 |
9306974 | Aziz et al. | Apr 2016 | B1 |
9311479 | Vlanni et al. | Apr 2016 | B1 |
9355247 | Thioux et al. | May 2016 | B1 |
9356944 | Aziz | May 2016 | B1 |
9363280 | Ivlin et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
9367681 | Smael et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
9398028 | Arandikar et al. | Jul 2016 | B1 |
9413781 | Cunningham et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
9426071 | Caldejon et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9430646 | Mushtaq et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9432389 | Khalid et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9438613 | Paithane et al. | Sep 2016 | B1 |
9438622 | Staniford et al. | Sep 2016 | B1 |
9438623 | Thioux et al. | Sep 2016 | B1 |
9459901 | Jung et al. | Oct 2016 | B2 |
9467460 | Otvagin et al. | Oct 2016 | B1 |
9483644 | Paithane et al. | Nov 2016 | B1 |
9495180 | Ismael | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9497213 | Thompson et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9507935 | Ismael et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9516057 | Aziz | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9519782 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9536091 | Paithane et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9537972 | Edwards et al. | Jan 2017 | B1 |
9560059 | Islam | Jan 2017 | B1 |
9565202 | Kindlund et al. | Feb 2017 | B1 |
9591015 | Amin et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9591020 | Aziz | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9594904 | Jain et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9594905 | Ismael et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9594912 | Thioux et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9609007 | Rivlin et al. | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9626509 | Khalid et al. | Apr 2017 | B1 |
9628498 | Aziz et al. | Apr 2017 | B1 |
9628507 | Haq et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9633134 | Ross | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9635039 | Islam et al. | Apr 2017 | B1 |
9641546 | Manni et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
9654485 | Neumann | May 2017 | B1 |
9661009 | Karandikar et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
9661018 | Aziz | May 2017 | B1 |
9674298 | Edwards et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9680862 | Ismael et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
9690606 | Ha | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9690933 | Singh et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9690935 | Shifter et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
9690936 | Malik et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9736179 | Ismael | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9747446 | Pidathala et al. | Aug 2017 | B1 |
9756074 | Aziz et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
9773112 | Rathor et al. | Sep 2017 | B1 |
9781144 | Otvagin et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9787700 | Amin et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9787706 | Otvagin et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9792196 | Ismael et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9824209 | Ismael et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
9824211 | Wilson | Nov 2017 | B2 |
9824216 | Khalid et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
9825976 | Gomez et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
9825989 | Mehra et al. | Nov 2017 | B1 |
9838408 | Karandikar et al. | Dec 2017 | B1 |
9838411 | Aziz | Dec 2017 | B1 |
9838416 | Aziz | Dec 2017 | B1 |
9838417 | Khalid et al. | Dec 2017 | B1 |
9846776 | Paithane et al. | Dec 2017 | B1 |
9876701 | Caldejon et al. | Jan 2018 | B1 |
9888016 | Amin et al. | Feb 2018 | B1 |
9888019 | Pidathala et al. | Feb 2018 | B1 |
9910988 | Vincent et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
9912644 | Cunningham | Mar 2018 | B2 |
9912684 | Aziz et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
9912691 | Mesdaq et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
9912698 | Thioux et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
9916440 | Paithane et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
9921978 | Chan et al. | Mar 2018 | B1 |
20060112416 | Ohta et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060130060 | Anderson et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060236127 | Kurien et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060248528 | Oney et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070006226 | Hendel | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070250930 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070300227 | Mall et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080005782 | Aziz | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080065854 | Schoenberg et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080123676 | Cummings et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080127348 | Largman et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080184367 | McMillan et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080184373 | Traut et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080235793 | Schunter et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080244569 | Challener et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080294808 | Mahalingam et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080320594 | Jiang | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090007100 | Field et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090036111 | Danford et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090044024 | Oberheide et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090044274 | Budko et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090089860 | Forrester et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090106754 | Liu et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090113425 | Ports et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090158432 | Zheng et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090172661 | Zimmer et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090198651 | Shifter et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090198670 | Shifter et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090198689 | Frazier et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090199274 | Frazier et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090204964 | Foley et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090276771 | Nickolov et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090320011 | Chow et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328221 | Blumfield et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100030996 | Butler, II | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100031360 | Seshadri et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100043073 | Kuwamura | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100100718 | Srinivasan | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100115621 | Staniford et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100191888 | Serebrin et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100192223 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100235647 | Buer | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100254622 | Kamay et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100299665 | Adams | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100306173 | Frank | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100306560 | Bozek et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110004935 | Moffie et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110022695 | Dalal et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110047542 | Dang et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110047544 | Yehuda et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110060947 | Song et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110078794 | Manni et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110078797 | Beachem et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110082962 | Horovitz et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110093951 | Aziz | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110099633 | Aziz | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110099635 | Silberman et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110153909 | Dong | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110167422 | Eom et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110173213 | Frazier et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110219450 | McDougal et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110225624 | Sawhney et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110247072 | Staniford et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110296412 | Banga et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110296440 | Laurich et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110299413 | Chatwani et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110314546 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110321040 | Sobel et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110321165 | Capalik et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110321166 | Capalik et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120011508 | Ahmad | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120047576 | Do et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120117652 | Manni et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120131156 | Brandt et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120144489 | Jarrett et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120159454 | Barham et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120174186 | Aziz et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120174218 | McCoy et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120198514 | McCune et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120216046 | McDougal et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120222114 | Shanbhogue | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120222121 | Staniford et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120254995 | Sallam | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120255002 | Sallam | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120255003 | Sallam | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120255012 | Sallam | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120255015 | Sahita et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120255016 | Sallam | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120255017 | Sallam | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120255021 | Sallam | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120260345 | Quinn et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120265976 | Spiers et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120291029 | Kidambi et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120297057 | Ghosh et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120311708 | Agarwal et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120317566 | Santos et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120331553 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130036470 | Zhu et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130036472 | Aziz | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130047257 | Aziz | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130055256 | Banga et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130086235 | Ferris | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130086299 | Epstein | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130091571 | Lu | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130111593 | Shankar et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130117741 | Prabhakaran et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130117848 | Golshan et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130117849 | Golshan et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130179971 | Harrison | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130191924 | Tedesco et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130227680 | Pavlyushchik | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130227691 | Aziz et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130247186 | LeMasters | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130282776 | Durrant et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130283370 | Vipat et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130291109 | Staniford et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130298243 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130298244 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130312098 | Kapoor et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130312099 | Edwards et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130318038 | Shiffer et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130318073 | Shiffer et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130325791 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130325792 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130325871 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130325872 | Shiffer et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130326625 | Anderson et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130333033 | Khesin | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130333040 | Diehl et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130347131 | Mooring et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140006734 | Li et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140019963 | Deng et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140032875 | Butler | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140075522 | Paris et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140089266 | Une et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140096134 | Barak et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140115578 | Cooper et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140115652 | Kapoor et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140130158 | Wang et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140137180 | Lukacs et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140157407 | Krishnan et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140181131 | Ross | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140189687 | Jung et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140189866 | Shiffer et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140189882 | Jung et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140208123 | Roth et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140230024 | Uehara et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140237600 | Silberman et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140259169 | Harrison | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140280245 | Wilson | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140283037 | Sikorski et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140283063 | Thompson et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140289105 | Sirota et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140304819 | Ignatchenko et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140310810 | Brueckner et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140325644 | Oberg et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140337836 | Ismael | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140344926 | Cunningham et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140351810 | Pratt et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140359239 | Hiremane et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140380473 | Bu et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140380474 | Paithane et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150007312 | Pidathala et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150013008 | Lukacs et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150096022 | Vincent et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150096023 | Mesdaq et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150096024 | Haq et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150096025 | Ismael | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150121135 | Pape | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150128266 | Tosa | May 2015 | A1 |
20150172300 | Cochenour | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150180886 | Staniford et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150186645 | Aziz et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150199514 | Tosa et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150199531 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150199532 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150220735 | Paithane et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150244732 | Golshan et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150317495 | Rodgers et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150372980 | Eyada | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160004869 | Ismael et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160006756 | Ismael et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160044000 | Cunningham | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160048680 | Lutas et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160057123 | Jiang et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160127393 | Aziz et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160191547 | Zafar et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160191550 | Ismael et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160261612 | Mesdaq et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160285914 | Singh et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160301703 | Aziz | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160335110 | Paithane et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160371105 | Sieffert | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170083703 | Abbasi et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170213030 | Mooring et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170344496 | Chen | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20180013770 | Ismael | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180048660 | Paithane et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2011112348 | Sep 2011 | WO |
2012135192 | Oct 2012 | WO |
2012154664 | Nov 2012 | WO |
2012177464 | Dec 2012 | WO |
2013067505 | May 2013 | WO |
2013091221 | Jun 2013 | WO |
2014004747 | Jan 2014 | WO |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 15/199,873, filed Jun. 30, 2016 Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 9, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/199,876, filed Jun. 30, 2016 Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 10, 2018. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62233977 | Sep 2015 | US |