Embodiments of the disclosure relate to the field of network and cyber security. More specifically, one embodiment of the disclosure relates to a system, device and method for detecting a malicious attack based, at least in part, on real-time communications with a web server associated with network traffic determined to be suspicious.
Over the last decade, malicious attacks have become a pervasive problem for Internet users as most networked resources include vulnerable software. For instance, over the past few years, more and more vulnerabilities are being discovered in software that is loaded onto network endpoints, such as vulnerabilities within operating systems and applications installed on endpoint systems. While some software vulnerabilities continue to be addressed through software patches, network endpoints will continue to be targeted for attack in efforts to acquire sensitive information or adversely affect operations of various enterprises.
In general, efforts have been made to counter malicious attacks over web traffic. One effort has been directed to security appliances that monitor web traffic coming into an enterprise network and performs both preliminary and virtual machine (VM) based analysis of objects associated with the web traffic in order to detect the presence of exploits. Although effective in detecting malicious attacks, these types of security appliance have a few challenges.
In its current configuration, the security appliance handles VM-based analysis, which consumes a great amount of processing and memory resources. Due to memory and/or processing constraints that exist for all standalone security appliances, there will be limits on the number of virtual machines (VMs) as well as the number of permutations of software profiles (e.g., software images of operating systems and application versions) that can be supported by the security appliance. Also, as most of the memory and/or processing resources with the security appliance are directed to preliminary and VM-based analysis, it is difficult to introduce new or experimental features or enhancements without increased processing or memory, as such features or enhancements would equate to lesser processing and/or memory reserved for core preliminary or VM-based analysis.
Embodiments of the invention are illustrated by way of example and not by way of limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings, in which like references indicate similar elements and in which:
Various embodiments of the disclosure relate to an electronic device with network connectivity, referred to as a “security network device” for example, which is responsible for conducting preliminary analysis of an object associated with monitored network traffic to determine whether the object appears to be part of a multi-phase malicious attack (e.g., beginning of a “drive-by attack” where an exploit is initially injected into a client device in order to effectuate subsequent downloading of the malicious payload). Upon determining that the object under analysis is suspected of being part of a malicious (drive-by) attack, the security network device uploads an identifier associated with the origin of the monitored network traffic (e.g., a Uniform Resource Locator “URL”) to a detection cloud (e.g., cloud computing services conducting dynamic analysis at a prescribed location). Virtual execution logic within the detection cloud conducts an in-depth analysis of the suspicious URL by provisioning one or more virtual machines (hereinafter, “VM(s)”) within the cloud to establish real-time communications with the malicious host. Thereafter, the behaviors of the VM(s) during communications with the source are monitored and the detected presence of certain anomalies may indicate that the network traffic is associated with a malicious (drive-by) attack. This embodiment constitutes an improvement to an existing technological process of malware detection.
As described below, one or more security network devices are located on-premises and are deployed within an enterprise network. For instance, a first security network device may be configured to conduct a preliminary analysis on one or more objects associated with monitored, incoming network traffic (e.g., web traffic). The preliminary analysis may include (i) pattern matching such as exploit matching; (ii) vulnerability checks; (iii) heuristic, statistical or deterministic analysis; or (iv) any combination thereof.
The first security network device is communicatively coupled to the detection cloud, which is configured to conduct dynamic analysis on information associated with one or more objects deemed “suspicious” by the first security network device. The dynamic analysis may involve virtual processing of the information associated with the suspicious object(s) by VM(s) deployed as part of virtual execution logic, where the detection cloud communicates directly or indirectly with a web server distributing web traffic including the suspicious object(s). The communicative coupling between the first security network device and the detection cloud may be achieved through a dedicated transmission medium or a non-dedicated transmission medium supporting secured (e.g. encrypted or otherwise obfuscated) communications.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, deployed within the first security network device, a preliminary analysis engine filters objects associated with the web traffic and determines at least one identifier (e.g., URL) of a source for one or more of the objects that are determined to be “suspicious.” An object is deemed “suspicious” when there is a prescribed probability of that object being associated with a malicious attack.
The preliminary analysis engine transmits the identifier of the source of the suspicious object(s) for use in VM-based analysis at a location outside the confines of the housing of the first security network device, normally at a geographic location remotely located from the first security network device. Stated differently, once the URL associated with a suspicious object has been identified by the preliminary analysis engine, instead of sending the suspicious URL to one or more VMs operating within the security network device itself, the suspicious URL along with certain ancillary data is sent to the detection cloud. The ancillary data comprises (1) an identification of a customer responsible for the security network device (hereinafter, “Customer_ID”) and/or (2) a hash value for an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the client device targeted by the suspicious web traffic (hereinafter, “Hash(Client_IP_Addr)”).
It is contemplated that providing ancillary data (e.g., Customer_ID, Hash(Client_IP_Addr), etc.) that corresponds to the suspicious URL is useful to customize functionality of the detection cloud, especially when the number of simultaneous VMs provisioned in the detection cloud for each customer may vary. Also, the types and number of software profiles (e.g., Guest OS and applications images) provisioned for these VMs can also vary based on customer preference and/or enterprise deployment. For instance, an enterprise network deploying network devices that are capable of operating with three different operating systems (OSes), such as Windows® XP, Windows® 7 and Windows® 8 for example, may provision and utilize a greater number software profiles for dynamic analysis than an enterprise with electronic devices loaded with a single type of OS, such as Windows® 8 only.
Once suitable VM(s) are provisioned within the detection cloud, the VM(s) establish a communication session with a suspect (e.g., potentially malicious) source, namely a suspect web server. The communication session may be established directly using the suspicious URL and the VM-based analysis is conducted using responses from this “live” website. “Live” website inter-communications are available since the on-premise, security network device detected the suspect web server being accessed from the enterprise network moments ago.
In cases where a malicious attack is detected by the VMs, an alert message including details of the infection (e.g., time of infection, URL name, malware name, etc.) is generated in the detection cloud. The alert message may be returned to the on-premises security network device, where information with the alert message may be populated within the local database and/or re-routed to one or more network administrators managing the enterprise network.
It is contemplated that the functionality of the security network device may be implemented with any type of electronic device, such as a client device that includes a desktop computer or a mobile device such as a laptop computer, netbook, tablet computer, or smart phone. Herein, the electronic device includes the preliminary analysis logic which, upon determining that an object under analysis is suspected of being part of a malicious (drive-by) attack, uploads an identifier associated with the origin of the monitored network traffic to the detection cloud.
Based on direct interaction with the suspect web server, the detection cloud conducts an in-depth analysis of the suspicious object, and when determined to be malicious, provides one or more alert messages to the electronic device. The alert message may provide a displayed warning to the user regarding the malicious attack or may signal logic within the electronic device to quarantine information associated with the malicious object or to conduct remediation operations.
In the following description, certain terminology is used to describe features of the invention. For example, in certain situations, both terms “logic” and “engine” are representative of hardware, firmware and/or software that is configured to perform one or more functions. As hardware, logic (or engine) may include circuitry having data processing or storage functionality. Examples of such circuitry may include, but is not limited or restricted to a microprocessor, one or more processor cores, a programmable gate array, a microcontroller, an application specific integrated circuit, wireless receiver, transmitter and/or transceiver circuitry, semiconductor memory, or combinatorial logic.
Logic (or engine) may be software in the form of one or more software modules, such as executable code in the form of an executable application, an application programming interface (API), a subroutine, a function, a procedure, an applet, a servlet, a routine, source code, object code, a shared library/dynamic load library, or one or more instructions. These software modules may be stored in any type of a suitable non-transitory storage medium, or transitory storage medium (e.g., electrical, optical, acoustical or other form of propagated signals such as carrier waves, infrared signals, or digital signals). Examples of non-transitory storage medium may include, but are not limited or restricted to a programmable circuit; a semiconductor memory; non-persistent storage such as volatile memory (e.g., any type of random access memory “RAM”); persistent storage such as non-volatile memory (e.g., read-only memory “ROM”, power-backed RAM, flash memory, phase-change memory, etc.), a solid-state drive, hard disk drive, an optical disc drive, or a portable memory device. As firmware, the executable code is stored in persistent storage.
The term “object” generally refers to a collection of data, such as a group of related packets associated with a request-response message pairing for example, normally having a logical structure or organization that enables classification for purposes of analysis. For instance, an object may be a self-contained element, where different types of such objects may include an executable file, non-executable file (such as a document or a dynamically link library), a Portable Document Format (PDF) file, a JavaScript file, Zip file, a Flash file, a document (for example, a Microsoft® Office® document, etc.), an electronic mail (email), downloaded web page, and/or an instant message accordance with Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) or another messaging protocol.
The term “flow” generally refers to a collection of related objects (e.g., messages), communicated during a single communication session between a single source network device (e.g., client device) and a single destination network device (e.g., server). For instance, a first flow (GET HTTP Request message) may be user initiated while subsequent flows (e.g., other HTTP messages initiated to complete the GET HTTP Request message) may be initiated automatically without user intervention.
A “communication session” may be defined as a semi-permanent information exchange between source and destination network devices. For example, the communication session may be in accordance with protocols at the application layer (e.g., Hypertext Transfer Protocol “HTTP”), session layer, or transport layer (e.g., Transmission Control Protocol “TCP”) of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model.
A “message” generally refers to information transmitted in a prescribed format, where each message may be in the form of one or more packets, frames, HTTP-based transmissions, or any other series of bits having the prescribed format.
The term “transmission medium” is a physical or logical communication path between two or more electronic devices (e.g., any devices with data processing and network connectivity such as, for example, a server, a mainframe, a computer such as a desktop or laptop, netbook, tablet, firewall, smart phone, router, switch, bridge, etc.). For instance, the communication path may include wired and/or wireless segments, and/or shared memory locations. Examples of wired and/or wireless segments include electrical wiring, optical fiber, cable, bus trace, or a wireless channel using infrared, radio frequency (RF), or any other wired/wireless signaling mechanism.
The term “computerized” generally represents that any corresponding operations are conducted by hardware in combination with software and/or firmware. Also, the terms “compare” or “comparison” generally mean determining if a match (e.g., a certain level of matching) is achieved between two items where one of the items may include a particular signature pattern.
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.
As this invention is susceptible to embodiments of many different forms, it is intended that the present disclosure is to be considered as an example of the principles of the invention and not intended to limit the invention to the specific embodiments shown and described.
Referring to
Herein, the security network device 120 may be one of a plurality of security network devices 150 that are geographically distributed from each other and communicatively coupled to a management system 160. The geographic distribution of the security network devices 150 may enable scalability to support growth of the enterprise network, and reduced customer response time in conducting dynamic analysis of submitted identifiers (e.g. URLs) based on distribution of work load in communications with detection cloud 180.
As shown, security network device 120, upon detection of suspicious network traffic, namely traffic having a prescribed probability of being part of a malicious attack, transmits information associated with the suspicious network traffic. For instance, as an illustrative example, the security network device 120 may transmit the URL associated with the suspicious traffic (sometimes referred to as the “suspicious URL”) to detection cloud 180 that establishes communications with the potential malicious web server 190 for subsequent analysis of the communications.
Referring still to
Of course, it is contemplated that, as an alternative embodiment, the functionality of the security network device 120 may be implemented with any or all of the client devices 1701-170M (where M≧1). Examples of the client devices 1701-170M include tablet computer, desktop or laptop computer, or smart phone. For clarity sake, the architecture and functionality of security network device 120 is described below.
Referring now to
More specifically, preliminary analysis engine 200 may be configured with exploit matching logic 210, vulnerability matching logic 220 and/or heuristic logic 230. Exploit matching logic 210 is adapted to perform exploit signature checks, which may involve a comparison of a suspect object against one or more pre-stored exploit signatures (e.g., pre-configured and predetermined attack patterns) from signature database 215. Additionally or in the alternative, the preliminary analysis engine 200 may be configured with vulnerability matching logic 220 that is adapted to perform vulnerability signature checks, which may include a process of uncovering deviations in messaging practices set forth in applicable communication protocols (e.g., HTTP, TCP, etc.).
Also, additionally or in the alternative, the preliminary analysis engine 200 may be configured with heuristic logic 230 that is adapted for analysis of certain portions of an object to determine whether any portion corresponds to a “suspicious identifier.” An example of a suspicious identifier may include, but are not limited or restricted to a particular URL that is associated with known exploits, a particular source or destination address that is associated with known exploits; particular exploit patterns; or particular shell code patterns.
A statistical analysis engine 245 may be configured, based on statistical analysis of the object under analysis, to generate a score value that represents a probability (or level of confidence) that this object is associated with a malicious attack. For instance, the score value may be based, at least in part, on (i) pattern matches; (ii) analyzed deviations in messaging practices set forth in applicable communication protocols (e.g., HTTP, TCP, etc.); (iii) analyzed compliance with certain message formats established for the protocol (e.g., out-of-order commands); and/or (iv) analyzed header or payload parameters to determine compliance. Where the score value exceeds a prescribed value (e.g., 9 out of 10), the object under analysis is deemed “suspicious”. This score determination may also require assistance of some emulation (e.g. Javascript® emulation) techniques to de-obfuscate certain object types before they can be analyzed.
After the object under analysis is determined to be suspicious, the security network device 120 generates preliminary analysis results 250. The preliminary analysis results 250 are uploaded to a dynamic analysis engine 260 of the detection cloud 180, where the dynamic analysis engine 260 is responsible for dynamic analysis of network traffic resulting from accessing a website designated by the suspicious URL. According to one embodiment, the preliminary analysis results 250 comprise (1) a URL 252 associated with the website hosted by a potentially malicious web server 190 that previously provided the network traffic including the suspicious object, (2) an identifier 254 for an entity (company, individual, governmental department, etc.) that owns, leases or is responsible for the security network device 120 (hereinafter, “Customer_ID” 254), and/or (3) a hash value 256 for an Internet Protocol (IP) address of a client device 1701 targeted by the suspicious network traffic (hereinafter, “Hash(Client_IP_Addr)” 256). Optionally, the preliminary analysis results 250 may include the score value 258 generated by the statistical analysis engine 245.
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, the detection cloud 180 is a cloud computing service that is geographically remote from the security network device 120 and is responsible for conducting an in-depth analysis of resultant communications with a web server hosting a website designated by the suspicious URL. As an alternative embodiment, the detection cloud 180 may be implemented within a secure/isolated sub-network of the enterprise network rather than outside the enterprise network.
This in-depth analysis comprises virtual processing information received from communications with a website designated by the suspicious URL in order to determine (i) whether the communications are associated with a malicious attack and (ii) whether the web server providing such communications is infected with malware. The later determination may prompt placement of the web server onto a blacklist and/or cause the detection cloud 180 to transmit a message to notify the web server, either directly or through a third party (e.g., Internet service provider “ISP”, wireless carrier, governmental agency, etc.) of the detected malicious attack. In general, under control of controller 270, data extraction logic 275 receives the preliminary analysis results 250 and extracts the URL 252, the Customer_ID 254, the Hash(Client_IP_Addr)” 256, and/or score value 258.
The URL 252 is used during virtual processing operations conducted by the dynamic analysis engine 260 to communicate with the web server 190 that distributed the suspicious web traffic in efforts to determine if the web server 190 is malicious (e.g., compromised servers that are unknowingly infected with malware so as to unintentionally propagate exploits to other network devices; server designed to infect network devices with particular exploits, etc.).
The Customer_ID 254 identifies the enterprise network 110 (and/or the specific security network device 120) that detected suspicious web traffic under further analysis by the virtual execution logic 280. The Customer_ID 254 ensures that the dynamic analysis results 290 are correctly returned. Additionally, through a customer portal, each customer may choose a configuration of guest images that are run within a provisioned virtual machine of the one or more virtual machines (VMs) 2851-285N (N≧1) operating inside the detection cloud 180. As a result, the Customer_ID 254 and/or the Hash(Client_IP_Addr) 256 may be used for provisioning one or more VMs 2851-285N with different types and/or versions of operating systems (e.g., Windows®-based OS, MAC-based OS, Windows® Mobile OS, Android®, iOS®, etc.), different types and/or versions of browser or other applications (e.g., Internet Explorer®, Mozilla®, Chrome®, FireFox®, Adobe Reader 8.0, MS Office 2013 etc.) supported by and available to the virtual execution logic 280. The Hash(Client_IP_Addr) 256 may also be used for recording purposes to identify targeted client devices. The goal of this customization is to get the closest possible match to the operating system and application versions that are running on the endpoints in the customer's network.
Aspects of the invention may be practiced for providing malware detection services to customers who, for example, avail themselves of the services on a paid subscription basis. For instance, where the customer subscribes to a particular service level, the Customer_ID 254 may cause the dynamic analysis engine 260 to provision a first set of VMs (e.g., “X” VMs) or provision VMs until a first prescribed VM capacity level has been reached (e.g. 100 simultaneous VMs). Where additional VM capacity may be necessary to provision VMs for additional OS or application configurations that may be necessary to provide a complete analysis (e.g., where targeted client device identified by Hash(Client_IP_Addr) is capable of supporting a large subset of browsers), the controller 270 may issue an alert message to network security personnel of the enterprise network 110 for authorization to increase the subscription level that would enable VMs to be provisioned until a second prescribed VM capacity level has been reached (e.g., 200 simultaneous VMs).
After the VMs 2851-285N have been provisioned, the virtual execution logic 280 virtually processes the suspicious URL 252 which initiates a HTTP Request message that is sent to the web server 190 and establishes a communication session with the web server 190 or another web server for re-direction to web server 190. Such redirection is intended to provide an added level of protection from being detected by malware and malicious actors. Subsequent communications during the established communication session are monitored for anomalous behaviors, such as receiving content with embedded executables that alter registry keys of the OS, upload of a subroutine such as Command and Control (CnC) exploit, receipt of call-back commands, etc. Monitoring logic 287 within the virtual execution logic 280 captures the anomalous behaviors, which are subsequently reported to the security network device 120 or another network device within the enterprise network 110 for reporting to network administrator(s).
Referring to
Upon determining that an object associated with monitored web traffic appears to be part of a multi-phase malicious attack (e.g., beginning of a “drive-by attack” where the exploit is loaded and the malicious payload is loaded subsequently), the security network device 120 submits the preliminary analysis results 250 to the detection cloud 180 via communication interface 300 (operation_2). Of course, as an alternative embodiment, the network security device may only upload the preliminary analysis results to the detection cloud 180 if the customer subscribes to that service and/or the score value assigned to the object is above a certain threshold.
As described above, the preliminary analysis results 250 comprise a first identifier (e.g., URL) 252 associated with the website hosted by a potentially malicious web server 190, (2) a second identifier 254 (e.g., Customer_ID) that identifies the customer responsible for the security network device 120, and/or (3) a third identifier 256 (e.g., Hash(Client_IP Addr)) that can be used to identify the IP address of the client device 1701 targeted by the suspicious web traffic as shown in
Upon receipt by the detection cloud 180, a scheduler 310 receives the preliminary analysis results 250 and stores contents of the preliminary analysis results 250 into a first data store 315 (operation_3 and operation_4). The first data store 315 is accessible by scheduler 310, reputation logic 330, VM provisioning logic 340, dynamic analysis engine 260, and/or alert generation logic 380.
Thereafter, the scheduler 310 conducts a look-up of a second data store 320 to identify guest software images, namely software images of operating systems, applications or other software components for provisioning one or more VMs 2851-285N (operation_5). The identification as to which software profiles for use in provisioning the VMs 2851-285N may be accomplished through the use of the Customer_ID to identify the customer with ownership of the enterprise network and/or the Hash(IP_Client Addr) to identify the specific client device(s) targeted to receive the suspicious web traffic.
For instance, based on the Customer_ID, the scheduler 310 operating in combination with VM provisioning logic 340 may configure VMs 2851-285N with software profiles corresponding to software images stored within client devices 1701-170M of
As an optional feature shown in dashed lines, the detection cloud 180 may comprise reputation logic 330 that conducts operations to customize and/or optimize operability of the virtual execution logic 280 (operation_6). Stated differently, one function of the reputation logic 330 is to avoid conducting dynamic analysis associated with suspicious URLs that are already determined to be malicious or benign.
For instance, the reputation logic 330 may operate in combination with the scheduler 310 to select software profiles (e.g., guest images) that are more prone to attack by Japanese-based websites in lieu of U.S. based websites where the detection cloud 180 handles network traffic in Japan. Additionally, the reputation logic 330 may include blacklists or whitelists that identify URLs determined to be non-malicious, perhaps including age-based results to identify stale results by recording the last time that the URL was determined to be non-malicious. A match of the blacklist may prompt the reputation logic 330 to transmit data for generation of an alert message (operation_7). This alert message will be identical to a Web-infection alert generated locally on the security device 120 in its current shipping version.
Herein, the VM provisioning logic 340 receives the selected guest software images along with the Customer_ID (operation_8). The Customer_ID may be used to determine, for the particular customer, a maximum number of simultaneous VMs allowed to run in the detection cloud 180 for that particular customer. If processing and/or storage capacities are approaching or have exceeded maximums so that all of the selected guest images cannot be provisioned to concurrently run (at the same time or in an overlapping manner) on the VMs, information is provided to alert generation logic 380 to generate a message that alerts network security personnel of the customer associated with the enterprise network that he/she may want to alter its subscription to increase execution capacity (operation_9).
Thereafter, the VMs 2851-285N are provisioned within the virtual execution logic (operation_10) and subsequently launched. Upon launching, one or more VMs commence to virtually execute a browser application which now attempts to access a website hosted by the “live” web server 190 using the suspicious URL and establish a communication session (operations_11&12). For instance, a first VM 2851 that virtually executes the browser application transmits a GET, POST or other HTTP request message to web server 190 using the suspicious URL.
In response, the web server 190 hosting the accessed website returns information, perhaps as part of a response message, to the first VM 2851 (operation_13). Monitoring logic 287 within the virtual execution logic 280 may be configured to monitor behaviors of one or more VMs 2851, . . . , and/or 285N, such as VM 2851 configured to execute the browser application that launched the suspicious URL (operation_14). This monitoring is conducted to detect anomalous (unexpected or irregular) activity indicative of an exploit. When anomalous activity is detected, the monitoring logic 287 operating with an optional score determination logic (not shown) may route VM-based results 360 (e.g., computed score, information associated with the detected anomalous behaviors, and other information associated with the detected malicious activity by the suspect object) to the alert generation logic 380 (operation_15). Of course, as an option, the security network device 120 may conduct further analysis on information from the web server 190 in parallel with (at the same time or in an overlapping manner) or following the virtual processing by the virtual execution logic 280.
While monitoring logic 287 analyzes information exchanged with the web server 190, the first VM 2851 continues its communication session with the web server 190 (operation_16). The communication session is maintained until a prescribed time has elapsed or the monitoring logic 287 has conducted sufficient operations to determine that the web server 190 is malicious or non-malicious.
Although not shown, it is noted that score determination logic may be implemented within the dynamic analysis engine 260 or the alert generation logic 380 so that VM-based results 360 may be subsequently weighted by the alert generation logic 380 upon reporting the findings by the virtual execution logic 280.
Optionally, prior to passing the information from the web server 190 to the virtual execution logic 280, secondary analysis logic 350 may initially conduct additional operations (e.g., emulation, heuristics, etc.) on the information in order to determine whether the content within the response can be determined to be malicious or benign without further processing by the VMs 2851-285N (operation_17). For instance, secondary analysis logic 350 may compare the page URL, returned content and software profile with similar responses of both malicious and non-malicious servers.
If a match is found, where the match is directed to a response from a malicious server, according to one embodiment, results 370 of the secondary analysis are provided to the alert generation logic 380 to produce one or more alert messages to represent that the URL is associated with a malicious server. Otherwise, the virtual execution logic 280 may be notified that the URL is associated with a non-malicious server and to discontinue further virtual processing associated with the suspicious URL.
Upon receiving the VM-based results 360 or the secondary analysis results 370, the alert generation logic 380 generates alert messages 390 to identify that the web traffic is associated with a malicious attack based on analyzed interaction with a malicious web server (operation_18). The alert messages 390 are routed to the security network device 120, which conducts certain post-processing operations such as mapping the alert message to a corresponding client device using the hash(IP_Client Addr) and/or storing the alert message for subsequent conveyance for display and access by network security personnel of the enterprise network 110 (operation_19).
Referring to
Referring to
During virtual processing, the behaviors of the one or more VMs are monitored and a determination is made as to whether any anomalous behaviors (e.g., processing or communication behaviors) have been detected (blocks 430 and 440). If not, a determination is made as to whether the virtual processing of the suspicious identifier has completed (block 450). If the virtual processing has completed, the threat detection process ends. Otherwise, the virtual processing continues and the resultant behaviors of the one or more VMs are monitored.
Upon detecting anomalous behaviors by the one or more VMs during virtual processing, one or more alert messages may be generated. An alert message may comprise the URL now determined to be associated with a malicious web server along with information associated with the detected anomalous behaviors and the Hash(IP_Client Addr) to identify the targeted client device (block 460). Thereafter, as set forth in block 470, the alert message is sent to the security network device within the enterprise network for post-processing and providing such findings in a manner that can be perceived by network security personnel (e.g., GUI display, audio message, text message, etc.).
Referring to
During virtual processing, the behaviors of the one or more VMs are monitored by the monitoring logic and a determination is made as to whether any anomalous behaviors have been detected (block 560). Upon detecting anomalous behaviors by the one or more VMs during virtual processing, the information associated with the anomalous behaviors is reported back to the enterprise network, such as providing a return message to the security network device (block 570).
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.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4292580 | Ott et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
5175732 | Hendel et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5440723 | Arnold et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5490249 | Miller | Feb 1996 | A |
5657473 | Killean et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5842002 | Schnurer et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5978917 | Chi | Nov 1999 | A |
6088803 | Tso et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6094677 | Capek et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6108799 | Boulay et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6118382 | Hibbs et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6269330 | Cidon et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272641 | Ji | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6279113 | Vaidya | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6298445 | Shostack et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6357008 | Nachenberg | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6417774 | Hibbs et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424627 | Sørhaug et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6442696 | Wray et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6484315 | Ziese | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487666 | Shanklin et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493756 | O'Brien et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6550012 | Villa et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6700497 | Hibbs et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6775657 | Baker | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6831893 | Ben Nun et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6832367 | Choi et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6895550 | Kanchirayappa et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6898632 | Gordy et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6907396 | Muttik et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6941348 | Petry et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6971097 | Wallman | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6981279 | Arnold et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6995665 | Appelt et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7007107 | Ivchenko et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7028179 | Anderson et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7043757 | Hoefelmeyer et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7069316 | Gryaznov | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7080407 | Zhao et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7080408 | Pak et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7093002 | Wolff et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7093239 | van der Made | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7096498 | Judge | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7100201 | Izatt | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7107617 | Hursey et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7159149 | Spiegel et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7213260 | Judge | May 2007 | B2 |
7231667 | Jordan | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7240364 | Branscomb et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7240368 | Roesch et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7243371 | Kasper et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7249175 | Donaldson | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7287278 | Liang | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7308716 | Danford et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7328453 | Merkle, Jr. et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7346486 | Ivancic et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7356736 | Natvig | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7386888 | Liang et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7392542 | Bucher | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7418729 | Szor | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7428300 | Drew et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7441272 | Durham et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7448084 | Apap et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7458098 | Judge et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7464404 | Carpenter et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7464407 | Nakae et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7467408 | O'Toole, Jr. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7478428 | Thomlinson | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7480773 | Reed | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7487543 | Arnold et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7496960 | Chen et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7496961 | Zimmer et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7519990 | Xie | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7523493 | Liang et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7530104 | Thrower et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
7540025 | Tzadikario | May 2009 | B2 |
7565550 | Liang et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7568233 | Szor et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7571221 | Rao | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7584455 | Ball | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7603715 | Costa et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7607171 | Marsden et al. | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7639714 | Stolfo et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7644441 | Schmid et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7657419 | van der Made | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7676841 | Sobchuk et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7698548 | Shelest et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7707633 | Danford et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7712136 | Sprosts et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7730011 | Deninger et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7739740 | Nachenberg et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7779463 | Stolfo et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7784097 | Stolfo et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7832008 | Kraemer | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7836502 | Zhao et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7849506 | Dansey et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7854007 | Sprosts et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7869073 | Oshima | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7877803 | Enstone et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7904959 | Sidiroglou et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7908660 | Bahl | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7930738 | Petersen | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7937761 | Bennett | May 2011 | B1 |
7949849 | Lowe et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7996556 | Raghavan et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
7996836 | McCorkendale et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
7996904 | Chiueh et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
7996905 | Arnold et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8006305 | Aziz | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8010667 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8020206 | Hubbard et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8028338 | Schneider et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8042184 | Batenin | Oct 2011 | B1 |
8045094 | Teragawa | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8045458 | Alperovitch et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8069484 | McMillan et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8087086 | Lai et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8171553 | Aziz et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8176049 | Deninger et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8176480 | Spertus | May 2012 | B1 |
8201246 | Wu et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8204984 | Aziz et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8214905 | Doukhvalov et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8220055 | Kennedy | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8225288 | Miller et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8225373 | Kraemer | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8233882 | Rogel | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8234640 | Fitzgerald et al. | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8234709 | Viljoen et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8239944 | Nachenberg et al. | Aug 2012 | B1 |
8260914 | Ranjan | Sep 2012 | B1 |
8266091 | Gubin et al. | Sep 2012 | B1 |
8286251 | Eker et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8291499 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8307435 | Mann et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
8307443 | Wang et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8312545 | Tuvell et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8321936 | Green et al. | Nov 2012 | B1 |
8321941 | Tuvell et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8332571 | Edwards, Sr. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8365286 | Poston | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8365297 | Parshin et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8370938 | Daswani et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8370939 | Zaitsev et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8375444 | Aziz et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8381299 | Stolfo et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8402529 | Green et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
8464340 | Ahn et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8479174 | Chiriac | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8479276 | Vaystikh et al. | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8479291 | Bodke | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8510827 | Leake et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8510828 | Guo et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8510842 | Amit et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8516478 | Edwards et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8516590 | Ranadive et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
8516593 | Aziz | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8522348 | Chen et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8528086 | Aziz | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8533824 | Hutton et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8539582 | Aziz et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8549638 | Aziz | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8555391 | Demir et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8561177 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8566946 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8584094 | Dadhia et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8584234 | Sobel et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8584239 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8595834 | Xie et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8627476 | Satish et al. | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8635696 | Aziz | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8682054 | Xue et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8682812 | Ranjan | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8689333 | Aziz | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8695096 | Zhang | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8713631 | Pavlyushchik | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8713681 | Silberman et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8726392 | McCorkendale et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8739280 | Chess et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8776229 | Aziz | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8782792 | Bodke | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8789172 | Stolfo et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8789178 | Kejriwal et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8793787 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8805947 | Kuzkin et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8806647 | Daswani et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8832829 | Manni et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8850570 | Ramzan | Sep 2014 | B1 |
8850571 | Staniford et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8881234 | Narasimhan et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8881282 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8898788 | Aziz et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8935779 | Manni et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
8984638 | Aziz et al. | Mar 2015 | B1 |
8990939 | Staniford et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8990944 | Singh et al. | Mar 2015 | B1 |
8997219 | Staniford et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9009822 | Ismael et al. | Apr 2015 | B1 |
9009823 | Ismael et al. | Apr 2015 | B1 |
9027135 | Aziz | May 2015 | B1 |
9071638 | Aziz et al. | Jun 2015 | B1 |
9104867 | Thioux et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9106694 | Aziz et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9118715 | Staniford et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
20010005889 | Albrecht | Jun 2001 | A1 |
20010047326 | Broadbent et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020018903 | Kokubo et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020038430 | Edwards et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020091819 | Melchione et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020095607 | Lin-Hendel | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020116627 | Tarbotton et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020144156 | Copeland | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020162015 | Tang | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020166063 | Lachman et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020169952 | DiSanto et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020184528 | Shevenell et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020188887 | Largman et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194490 | Halperin et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030074578 | Ford et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030084318 | Schertz | May 2003 | A1 |
20030101381 | Mateev et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030115483 | Liang | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030188190 | Aaron et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030191957 | Hypponen et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030200460 | Morota et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030212902 | van der Made | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030229801 | Kouznetsov et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030237000 | Denton et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040003323 | Bennett et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015712 | Szor | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040019832 | Arnold et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040047356 | Bauer | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040083408 | Spiegel et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088581 | Brawn et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040093513 | Cantrell et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111531 | Staniford et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117478 | Triulzi et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040117624 | Brandt et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128355 | Chao et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040165588 | Pandya | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040236963 | Danford et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243349 | Greifeneder et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040249911 | Alkhatib et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255161 | Cavanaugh | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040268147 | Wiederin et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050005159 | Oliphant | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021740 | Bar et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050033960 | Vialen et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050033989 | Poletto et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050050148 | Mohammadioun et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050086523 | Zimmer et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091513 | Mitomo et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091533 | Omote et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091652 | Ross et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050108562 | Khazan et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114663 | Cornell et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125195 | Brendel | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050149726 | Joshi et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050157662 | Bingham et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050183143 | Anderholm et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050201297 | Peikari | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050210533 | Copeland et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050238005 | Chen et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050240781 | Gassoway | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050262562 | Gassoway | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050265331 | Stolfo | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050273856 | Huddleston | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283839 | Cowburn | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060010495 | Cohen et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015416 | Hoffman et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015715 | Anderson | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015747 | Van de Ven | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021029 | Brickell et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021054 | Costa et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060031476 | Mathes et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060047665 | Neil | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060070130 | Costea et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060075496 | Carpenter et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060095968 | Portolani et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101516 | Sudaharan et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101517 | Banzhof et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060117385 | Mester et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060123477 | Raghavan et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143709 | Brooks et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060150249 | Gassen et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161983 | Cothrell et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161987 | Levy-Yurista | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161989 | Reshef et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060164199 | Gilde et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060173992 | Weber et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060179147 | Tran et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184632 | Marino et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060185014 | Spatscheck | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060191010 | Benjamin | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060221956 | Narayan et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236393 | Kramer et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242709 | Seinfeld et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060248519 | Jaeger et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060248582 | Panjwani et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060251104 | Koga | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060288417 | Bookbinder et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070006288 | Mayfield et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070006313 | Porras et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070011174 | Takaragi et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016951 | Piccard et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070033645 | Jones | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070038943 | FitzGerald et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070064689 | Shin et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070074169 | Chess et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070094730 | Bhikkaji et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070101435 | Konanka et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070128855 | Cho et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070142030 | Sinha et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143827 | Nicodemus et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070156895 | Vuong | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070157180 | Tillmann et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070157306 | Elrod et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070168988 | Eisner et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070171824 | Ruello et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174915 | Gribble et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070192500 | Lum | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070192858 | Lum | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198275 | Malden et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208822 | Wang et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220607 | Sprosts et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070234409 | Eisen | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070240218 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070240219 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070240220 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070240222 | Tuvell et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070250930 | Aziz et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070256132 | Oliphant | Nov 2007 | A2 |
20070271446 | Nakamura | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080005782 | Aziz | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080028463 | Dagon et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080032556 | Schreier | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080040710 | Chiriac | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080046781 | Childs et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080066179 | Liu | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080072326 | Danford et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080077793 | Tan et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080080518 | Hoeflin et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080086720 | Lekel | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080098476 | Syversen | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080120722 | Sima et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080134178 | Fitzgerald et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080134334 | Kim et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080141376 | Clausen et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080181227 | Todd | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080184373 | Traut et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080189787 | Arnold et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080201778 | Guo et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080209557 | Herley et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080215742 | Goldszmidt et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080222729 | Chen et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080263665 | Ma et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080295172 | Bohacek | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301810 | Lehane et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080307524 | Singh et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080313738 | Enderby | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080320594 | Jiang | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090003317 | Kasralikar et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090007100 | Field et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090013408 | Schipka | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090031423 | Liu et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090036111 | Danford et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090037835 | Goldman | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090044024 | Oberheide et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090044274 | Budko et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090064332 | Porras et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090077666 | Chen et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083369 | Marmor | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083855 | Apap et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090089879 | Wang et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090094697 | Provos et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090113425 | Ports et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090125976 | Wassermann et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090126015 | Monastyrsky et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090126016 | Sobko et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090133125 | Choi et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090144823 | Lamastra et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090158430 | Borders | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090172815 | Gu et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090187992 | Poston | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090193293 | Stolfo et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090199296 | Xie et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090228233 | Anderson et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090234904 | Dalgliesh | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090241187 | Troyansky | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090241190 | Todd et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090265692 | Godefroid et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090271867 | Zhang | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090300415 | Zhang et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090300761 | Park et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328185 | Berg et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328221 | Blumfield et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100005146 | Drako et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100011205 | McKenna | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017546 | Poo et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100031353 | Thomas et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100037314 | Perdisci et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100043073 | Kuwamura | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100054278 | Stolfo et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100058474 | Hicks | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100064044 | Nonoyama | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100077481 | Polyakov et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100083376 | Pereira et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100115621 | Staniford et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100132038 | Zaitsev | May 2010 | A1 |
20100154056 | Smith et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100180344 | Malyshev et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100192223 | Ismael et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100220863 | Dupaquis et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100235831 | Dittmer | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100251104 | Massand | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100281102 | Chinta et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100281541 | Stolfo et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100281542 | Stolfo et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100287260 | Peterson et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299754 | Amit et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100306173 | Frank | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110004737 | Greenebaum | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110025504 | Lyon et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110035784 | Jakobsson | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110040756 | Jones | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110041179 | St Hlberg | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110047594 | Mahaffey et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110047620 | Mahaffey et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110055907 | Narasimhan et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110078794 | Manni et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110093951 | Aziz | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110099620 | Stavrou et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110099633 | Aziz | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110113231 | Kaminsky | May 2011 | A1 |
20110145918 | Jung et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110145920 | Mahaffey et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110145934 | Abramovici et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110167493 | Song et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110167494 | Bowen et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110173460 | Ito et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110219449 | St. Neitzel et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110219450 | McDougal et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110225624 | Sawhney et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110225655 | Niemela et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110247072 | Staniford et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110265182 | Peinado et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110289582 | Kejriwal et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110302587 | Nishikawa et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110307954 | Melnik et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110307955 | Kaplan et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110307956 | Yermakov et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110314546 | Aziz et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120023593 | Puder et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120054869 | Yen et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120066698 | Yanoo | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120079596 | Thomas et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120084859 | Radinsky et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120110667 | Zubrilin et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120117652 | Manni et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120121154 | Xue et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120124426 | Maybee et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120174186 | Aziz et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120174196 | Bhogavilli et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120174218 | McCoy et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120198279 | Schroeder | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120210423 | Friedrichs et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120222121 | Staniford et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120255015 | Sahita et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120255017 | Sallam | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120260342 | Dube et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120266244 | Green et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120278886 | Luna | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120297489 | DeQuevy | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120330801 | McDougal et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130014259 | Gribble et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130036472 | Aziz | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130047257 | Aziz | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130074185 | McDougal et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130086684 | Mohler | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130097699 | Balupari et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130097706 | Titonis et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130111587 | Goel et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130117852 | Stute | May 2013 | A1 |
20130117855 | Kim et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130139264 | Brinkley et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130160125 | Likhachev et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130160127 | Jeong et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130160130 | Mendelev et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130160131 | Madou et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130167236 | Sick | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130174214 | Duncan | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130185789 | Hagiwara et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130185795 | Winn et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130185798 | Saunders et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130191915 | Antonakakis et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130196649 | Paddon et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130227691 | Aziz et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130246370 | Bartram et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130263260 | Mahaffey et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130291109 | Staniford et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130298243 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20140053260 | Gupta et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140053261 | Gupta et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140095717 | Danforth | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140130158 | Wang et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140137180 | Lukacs et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140169762 | Ryu | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140173739 | Ahuja et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140179360 | Jackson et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140328204 | Klotsche et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140337836 | Ismael | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140351935 | Shao et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140365640 | Wohl | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150096025 | Ismael | Apr 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2439806 | Jan 2008 | GB |
2490431 | Oct 2012 | GB |
0206928 | Jan 2002 | WO |
0206928 | Jan 2002 | WO |
0223805 | Mar 2002 | WO |
2007117636 | Oct 2007 | WO |
2008041950 | Apr 2008 | WO |
2011084431 | Jul 2011 | WO |
2011112348 | Sep 2011 | WO |
2012075336 | Jun 2012 | WO |
2012145066 | Oct 2012 | WO |
2013067505 | May 2013 | WO |
2015009411 | Jan 2015 | WO |
Entry |
---|
PCT/US2014/043724 filed Jun. 23, 2014 International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 31, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/042,482, filed Sep. 30, 2013 Advisory Action dated Sep. 2, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/042,482, filed Sep. 30, 2013 Final Office Action dated Feb. 3, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/042,482, filed Sep. 30, 2013 Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 16, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/042,482, filed Sep. 30, 2013 Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 23, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/945,394, filed Jul. 18, 2013 Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 10, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/945,394, filed Jul. 18, 2013 Notice of Allowance dated Jan. 6, 2016. |
Marchette, David J “Computer Intrusion Detection and Network Monitoring: A Statistical Viewpoint”, (“Marchette”), (2001). |
Margolis, P.E. , “Random House Webster's ‘Computer & Internet Dictionary 3rd Edition’”, ISBN 0375703519, (Dec. 1998). |
Moore, D. , et al., “Internet Quarantine: Requirements for Containing Self-Propagating Code”, INFOCOM, vol. 3, (Mar. 30-Apr. 3, 2003), pp. 1901-1910. |
Morales, Jose A., et al., ““Analyzing and exploiting network behaviors of malware.””, Security and Privacy in Communication Networks. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. 20-34. |
Mori, Detecting Unknown Computer Viruses, 2004, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. |
Natvig, Kurt , “SANDBOXII: Internet”, Virus Bulletin Conference, (“Natvig”), (Sep. 2002). |
NetBIOS Working Group. Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP transport: Concepts and Methods. STD 19, RFC 1001, Mar. 1987. |
Newsome, J. , et al., “Dynamic Taint Analysis for Automatic Detection, Analysis, and Signature Generation of Exploits on Commodity Software”, In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Network and Distributed System Security, Symposium (NDSS '05), (Feb. 2005). |
Newsome, J. , et al., “Polygraph: Automatically Generating Signatures for Polymorphic Worms”, In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, (May 2005). |
Nojiri, D. , et al., “Cooperation Response Strategies for Large Scale Attack Mitigation”, DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, vol. 1, (Apr. 22-24, 2003), pp. 293-302. |
Oberheide et al., CloudAV.sub.—N-Version Antivirus in the Network Cloud, 17th USENIX Security Symposium USENIX Security '08 Jul. 28-Aug. 1, 2008 San Jose, CA. |
Reiner Sailer, Enriquillo Valdez, Trent Jaeger, Roonald Perez, Leendert van Doom, John Linwood Griffin, Stefan Berger., sHype: Secure Hypervisor Appraoch to Trusted Virtualized Systems (Feb. 2, 2005) (“Sailer”). |
Silicon Defense, “Worm Containment in the Internal Network”, (Mar. 2003), pp. 1-25. |
Singh, S. , et al., “Automated Worm Fingerprinting”, Proceedings of the ACM/USENIX Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation, San Francisco, California, (Dec. 2004). |
Spitzner, Lance , “Honeypots: Tracking Hackers”, (“Spizner”), (Sep. 17, 2002). |
The Sniffers's Guide to Raw Traffic available at: yuba.stanford.edu/.about.casado/pcap/section1.html, (Jan. 6, 2014). |
Thomas H. Ptacek, and Timothy N. Newsham , “Insertion, Evasion, and Denial of Service: Eluding Network Intrusion Detection”, Secure Networks, (“Ptacek”), (Jan. 1998). |
U.S. Pat. No. 8,171,553 filed Apr. 20, 2006, Inter Parties Review Decision dated Jul. 10, 2015. |
U.S. Pat. No. 8,291,499 filed Mar. 16, 2012, Inter Parties Review Decision dated Jul. 10, 2015. |
Venezia, Paul , “NetDetector Captures Intrusions”, InfoWorld Issue 27, (“Venezia”), (Jul. 14, 2003). |
Wahid et al., Characterising the Evolution in Scanning Activity of Suspicious Hosts, Oct. 2009, Third International Conference on Network and System Security, pp. 344-350. |
Whyte, et al., “DNS-Based Detection of Scanning Works in an Enterprise Network”, Proceedings of the 12th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, (Feb. 2005), 15 pages. |
Williamson, Matthew M., “Throttling Viruses: Restricting Propagation to Defeat Malicious Mobile Code”, ACSAC Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, (Dec. 2002), pp. 1-9. |
Yuhei Kawakoya et al: “Memory behavior-based automatic malware unpacking in stealth debugging environment”, Malicious and Unwanted Software (Malware), 2010 5th International Conference on, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, Oct. 19, 2010, pp. 39-46, XP031833827, ISBN:978-1-4244-8-9353-1. |
Zhang et al., The Effects of Threading, Infection Time, and Multiple-Attacker Collaboration on Malware Propagation, Sep. 2009, IEEE 28th International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, pp. 73-82. |
“Network Security: NetDetector—Network Intrusion Forensic System (NIFS) Whitepaper”, (“NetDetector Whitepaper”), (2003). |
“Packet”, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, (Mar. 2002), 1 page. |
“When Virtual is Better Than Real”, IEEEXplore Digital Library, available at, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=true&arnumbe- r=990073, (Dec. 7, 2013). |
Abdullah, et al., Visualizing Network Data for Intrusion Detection, 2005 IEEE Workshop on Information Assurance and Security, pp. 100-108. |
Adetoye, Adedayo , et al., “Network Intrusion Detection & Response System”, (“Adetoye”), (Sep. 2003). |
Adobe Systems Incorporated, “PDF 32000-1:2008, Document management—Portable document format—Part1:PDF 1.7”, First Edition, Jul. 1, 2008, 756 pages. |
AltaVista Advanced Search Results. “attack vector identifier”. Http://www.altavista.com/web/results?Itag=ody&pg=aq&aqmode=aqa=Event+Orch- estrator . . . , (Accessed on Sep. 15, 2009). |
AltaVista Advanced Search Results. “Event Orchestrator”. Http://www.altavista.com/web/results?Itag=ody&pg=aq&aqmode=aqa=Event+Orch- esrator . . . , (Accessed on Sep. 3, 2009). |
Apostolopoulos, George; hassapis, Constantinos; “V-eM: A cluster of Virtual Machines for Robust, Detailed, and High-Performance Network Emulation”, 14th IEEE International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, Sep. 11-14, 2006, pp. 117-126. |
Aura, Tuomas, “Scanning electronic documents for personally identifiable information”, Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on Privacy in electronic society. ACM, 2006. |
Baecher, “The Nepenthes Platform: An Efficient Approach to collect Malware”, Springer-verlag Berlin Heidelberg, (2006), pp. 165-184. |
Baldi, Mario; Risso, Fulvio; “A Framework for Rapid Development and Portable Execution of Packet-Handling Applications”, 5th IEEE International Symposium Processing and Information Technology, Dec. 21, 2005, pp. 233-238. |
Bayer, et al., “Dynamic Analysis of Malicious Code”, J Comput Virol, Springer-Verlag, France., (2006), pp. 67-77. |
Boubalos, Chris , “Extracting syslog data out of raw pcap dumps, seclists.org, Honeypots mailing list archives”, available at http://seclists.org/honeypots/2003/q2/319 (“Boubalos”), (Jun. 5, 2003). |
Chaudet, C. , et al., “Optimal Positioning of Active and Passive Monitoring Devices”, International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Conference on Emerging Network Experiment and Technology, CoNEXT '05, Toulousse, France, (Oct. 2005), pp. 71-82. |
Cisco “Intrusion Prevention for the Cisco ASA 5500-x Series” Data Sheet (2012). |
Cisco, Configuring the Catalyst Switched Port Analyzer (SPAN) (“Cisco”), (1992-2003). |
Clark, John, Sylvian Leblanc,and Scott Knight. “Risks associated with usb hardware trojan devices used by insiders.” Systems Conference (SysCon), 2011 IEEE International. IEEE, 2011. |
Cohen, M.I. , “PyFlag—An advanced network forensic framework”, Digital investigation 5, Elsevier, (2008), pp. S112-S120. |
Costa, M. , et al., “Vigilante: End-to-End Containment of Internet Worms”, SOSP '05, Association for Computing Machinery, Inc., Brighton U.K., (Oct. 23-26, 2005). |
Crandall, J.R. , et al., “Minos:Control Data Attack Prevention Orthogonal to Memory Model”, 37th International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Portland, Oregon, (Dec. 2004). |
Deutsch, P. , “Zlib compressed data format specification version 3.3” RFC 1950, (1996). |
Distler, “Malware Analysis: An Introduction”, SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room, SANS Institute, (2007). |
Dunlap, George W. , et al., “ReVirt: Enabling Intrusion Analysis through Virtual-Machine Logging and Replay”, Proceeding of the 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, USENIX Association, (“Dunlap”), (Dec. 9, 2002). |
Excerpt regarding First Printing Date for Merike Kaeo, Designing Network Security (“Kaeo”), (2005). |
Filiol, Eric , et al., “Combinatorial Optimisation of Worm Propagation on an Unknown Network”, International Journal of Computer Science 2.2 (2007). |
FireEye Malware Analysis & Exchange Network, Malware Protection System, FireEye Inc., 2010. |
FireEye Malware Analysis, Modern Malware Forensics, FireEye Inc., 2010. |
FireEye v.6.0 Security Target, pp. 1-35, Version 1.1, FireEye Inc., May 2011. |
Gibler, Clint, et al. AndroidLeaks: automatically detecting potential privacy leaks in android applications on a large scale. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. |
Goel, et al., Reconstructing System State for Intrusion Analysis, Apr. 2008 SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 42 Issue 3, pp. 21-28. |
Gregg Keizer: “Microsoft's HoneyMonkeys Show Patching Windows Works”, Aug. 8, 2005, XP055143386, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://web.archive.org/web/20121022220617/http://www.informationweek- .com/microsofts-honeymonkeys-show-patching-wi/167600716 [retrieved on Sep. 29, 2014]. |
Heng Yin et al, Panorama: Capturing System-Wide Information Flow for Malware Detection and Analysis, Research Showcase @ CMU, Carnegie Mellon University, 2007. |
Hjelmvik, Erik , “Passive Network Security Analysis with NetworkMiner”, (IN)Secure, Issue 18, (Oct. 2008), pp. 1-100. |
Idika et al., A-Survey-of-Malware-Detection-Techniques, Feb. 2, 2007, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University. |
IEEE Xplore Digital Library Sear Results for “detection of unknown computer worms”. Http//ieeexplore.ieee.org/searchresult.jsp?SortField=Score&SortOrder=desc- &ResultC . . . , (Accessed on Aug. 28, 2009). |
Isohara, Takamasa, Keisuke Takemori, and Ayumu Kubota. “Kernel-based behavior analysis for android malware detection.” Computational intelligence and Security (CIS), 2011 Seventh International Conference on. IEEE, 2011. |
Kaeo, Merike , “Designing Network Security”, (“Kaeo”), (Nov. 2003). |
Kevin A Roundy et al: “Hybrid Analysis and Control of Malware”, Sep. 15, 2010, Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 317-338, XP019150454 ISBN:978-3-642-15511-6. |
Kim, H. , et al., “Autograph: Toward Automated, Distributed Worm Signature Detection”, Proceedings of the 13th Usenix Security Symposium (Security 2004), San Diego, (Aug. 2004), pp. 271-286. |
Krasnyansky, Max , et al., Universal TUN/TAP driver, available at https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/tuntap.txt (2002) (“Krasnyansky”). |
Kreibich, C. , et al., “Honeycomb-Creating Intrusion Detection Signatures Using Honeypots”, 2nd Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-11), Boston, USA, (2003). |
Kristoff, J. , “Botnets, Detection and Mitigation: DNS-Based Techniques”, NU Security Day, (2005), 23 pages. |
Leading Colleges Select FireEye to Stop Malware-Related Data Breaches, FireEye Inc., 2009. |
Li et al., A VMM-Based System Call Interposition Framework for Program Monitoring, Dec. 2010, IEEE 16th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems, pp. 706-711. |
Liljenstam, Michael , et al., “Simulating Realistic Network Traffic for Worm Warning System Design and Testing”, Institute for Security Technology studies, Dartmouth College (“Liljenstam”), (Oct. 27, 2003). |
Lindorfer, Martina, Clemens Kolbitsch, and Paolo Milani Comparetti. “Detecting environment-sensitive malware.” Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. |
Lok Kwong et al: “DroidScope: Seamlessly Reconstructing the OS and Dalvik Semantic Views for Dynamic Android Malware Analysis”, Aug. 10, 2012, XP055158513, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity12/sec12- -final107.pdf [retrieved on Dec. 15, 2014]. |