The following disclosure is directed to methods and systems for detecting vulnerable systems, and, more specifically, methods and systems for detecting vulnerable systems based on domain name properties.
In an age of increased cybercrime and varied cybersecurity efforts, detecting vulnerabilities before, or within real-time, a security flaw is exploited can be a true business advantage to companies, governments, institutions, and individuals. In many instances, there are benign but misconfigured systems having these security flaws that become targets for parties with nefarious intentions. Every day, seemingly endless types and numbers of malignant actors exploit security flaws for the purpose of theft (both monetary and of data), espionage, frustration (e.g., denial of service attacks and mass spamming), terrorism, and more. However, the resources necessary to get ahead of these potential threats can be astounding and unfeasible.
Domain names on the Internet can be a specific source of security flaws and, often, speed in detecting exploitation of domain names becomes crucial to overcoming attacks. To track and detect security flaws in real time, or near real time, systems and methods can monitor communication traffic and extract metadata related to the traffic and/or domain names to detect vulnerable systems.
In accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure, a computer-implemented method is provided for external detection of a vulnerable system coupled to a communication network. The method can include measuring communication traffic on the communication network to identify one or more domain names, which in turn can originate from server systems in the communication network. The method can further include identifying the domain names based on metadata from the domain names and/or the measured communication traffic, where each domain name has an associated property indicative of its vulnerability. The method can further include determining whether any one (or more) of the domain names is registered at a domain name registry and, if the domain name is not registered, registering the domain name.
Embodiments of the methods can include one or more of the following features. Domain names having the property indicative of vulnerability can be: (i) an unregistered domain name, (ii) a malfunctioning domain name, (iii) an abandoned domain name, and/or (iv) an algorithm-generated domain name. The vulnerable system can be a malware-infected server system and/or, a misconfigured server system.
In some embodiments, the metadata can include a geographical location associated with each domain name. If so, the registration of the domain name based on the extracted metadata includes registering the domain name based on a high frequency of domain names having a property indicative of vulnerability in a particular geographical location. The method can further include associating the registered domain name with a server system configured to monitor communication traffic to the registered domain name, and, in some instances, detecting the vulnerable system associated with the registered domain name. Measuring communication traffic to each of the plurality of domain names can further include receiving communication traffic data from one or more Internet service providers (ISP), comparing relative magnitude of communication traffic to an expected amount of traffic, and/or measuring a frequency of communication traffic to the domain name.
In accordance with another embodiment of the disclosure, a system including one or more computer systems programmed to perform operations is provided. The operations include measuring communication traffic in the communication network to identify one or more domain names, where the communication traffic originates from server systems in the communication network. The domain names are based on metadata from (i) the domain names and/or (ii) the measured communication traffic, where each domain name has an associated property indicative of its vulnerability. The operations further include determining whether any one (or more) of the domain names is registered at a domain name registry, and if the domain name is not registered, registering the domain name.
Embodiments of the systems can include one or more of the following features. Domain names having the property indicative of vulnerability can be: (i) an unregistered domain name, (ii) a malfunctioning domain name, (iii) an abandoned domain name, and/or (iv) an algorithm-generated domain name. The vulnerable system can be a malware-infected server system and/or, a misconfigured server system.
In some embodiments, the metadata can include a geographical location associated with each domain name. If so, the registration of the domain name based on the extracted metadata includes registering the domain name based on a high frequency of domain names having a property indicative of vulnerability in a particular geographical location. The method can further include associating the registered domain name with a server system configured to monitor communication traffic to the registered domain name, and, in some instances, detecting the vulnerable system associated with the registered domain name. Measuring communication traffic to each of the plurality of domain names can further include receiving communication traffic data from one or more Internet service providers (ISP), comparing relative magnitude of communication traffic to an expected amount of traffic, and/or measuring a frequency of communication traffic to the domain name.
Disclosed herein are exemplary embodiments of systems and methods for detecting vulnerable systems in communication networks. These vulnerable systems can include one or more computing systems, one or more server systems, or other networked systems. In many instances, vulnerable systems are associated with domain names on the Internet. “Domain names,” as used herein, may refer to registered or unregistered names, addresses, and/or links to a resource on the Internet.
Some domain names may be associated with vulnerable resources. In some embodiments, an algorithm may generate links to domain names that are not registered or generated in error. For example, an algorithm that links to “google.com” may incorrectly generate links such as “gooooogle.com” or “goggle.com.” In another embodiment, an application developer may register a domain name for a legitimate service or business. If the business associated with the domain name closes, and the domain name is abandoned, the domain name may become expired or “dropped” from the registry. If so, the registry may delete the domain name (de-register) and the domain name may become available to another party. In another embodiment, a registered domain name may be associated with a misconfigured system. For example, the misconfigured system may be operating with security flaws that open the system to security risks. In another embodiment, parties acting with nefarious intentions (criminals or criminal groups, malignant state-sponsored actors, etc.) may register domain names for their own purposes (e.g., malware, botnets, etc.). In another embodiment, an anti-virus software program may try to contact domain names repeatedly based on some acquired misinformation. If so, that domain name will have repeat incoming traffic. Examples of detection of botnets is discussed in CONDENSER: A Graph-Based Approach for Detecting Botnets, by Camelo et al., and in Botnet Cluster Identification (Master Thesis), by Pedro Camelo, each of which are incorporated herein by reference.
The below described exemplary systems and methods are configured to identify such domain names, and in some embodiments, identify one or more vulnerable systems associated with such domain names. For the purpose of clarity and conciseness, the methods and systems of
In step 102, the detection system 202 measures communication traffic in the communication network to identify a plurality of domain names of interest. The communication traffic can be originating from one or more external (separate from the system 200) server systems 204 in the communication network. External server systems can include company servers, desktop computers, Internet of things (IoT) devices, mobile devices, or any other device on external networks. In some embodiments, the communication traffic can be provided by one or more Internet service providers (ISPs). Many ISPs track communication traffic to domain names for standard business purposes. However, the monitoring and/or measuring of communication traffic is typically associated with large amounts of data. Thus, in some embodiments, metadata related to the measured communication traffic may be extracted from the communication traffic in the interest of efficiency. Meta data can include geographical location of the communication traffic, frequency of the communication traffic, magnitude of the communication traffic, aggregated counters of a number of unique Internet Protocol (IP) addresses per country, a number of events observed per period (e.g., every hour), a ratio between unique IPs versus a sum of a portion or all communication traffic. Efficiency may be crucial in some instances where a domain name may be associated with a flawed, but important Internet resource that is vulnerable to malware. In some embodiments, the ISPs can provide a list of domain names that are the subject of network traffic. This list of domain names can be analyzed to identify those that may be addresses for vulnerable systems. In some embodiments, the detection of nonexistent domain names being contacted by a group of devices does not necessarily map to malicious behavior. In some cases, the behavior can be mapped to a control failure associated with a software or service dependent on those domains. When that control failure occurs, the affected devices can become vulnerable to malicious actors that can potentially acquire the nonexistent domains and gain control over the associated devices.
In step 104, the detection system 202 identifies one or more domain names (1 through N) that each are vulnerable with regard to some property or attribute. For example, the domain name can have the following conditions associated therewith: (i) an unregistered domain name, (ii) a malfunctioning domain name, (iii) an abandoned domain name, and/or (iv) an algorithm-generated domain name. In some embodiments, the domain names can be identified based on the metadata extracted from the measured communication traffic and/or the domain names themselves. For example, a domain name may be identified based on statistical anomalies regarding traffic emanating from or directed to the domain name, or suspicious IP header information extracted from packets directed to the domain name. Examples include identification of a group of systems or devices attempting to contact nonexistent domain names at a given frequency, from a given set of geographies, and/or using specific protocols and/or payloads. This group of devices interacting with one or more domains, using a similar pattern and/or frequency, may be associated with automated traffic generated by malware, or may be caused by mis-configurations of machine-to-machine communication.
One important advantage to extracting metadata of the communication traffic is that much (or all) of the data from the traffic and associated parameters do not have to be stored. Instead, a detection system 202 can include a streaming server 206 that executes queries on the data in real time or near real time. In some embodiments, the extracted metadata can include geographical information related to the communication traffic. If so, for example, the detection system 202 can detect a group of domain names associated with a particular geography (such a city or region of a country) with significant incoming traffic. In some embodiments, the relative magnitude of traffic (or “cluster” of traffic) may be measured to identify domain names. For example, if one or a handful of parties are pinging “gogle.com,” it is likely a mistake (such as mistyping). However, if thousands of parties are pinging the same domain name “gogle.com,” the detection system 202 may identify that domain name as a candidate for registration. Thus, the measured traffic may be compared against an expected amount of traffic for the purpose of detection. Measures of expected amounts of traffic may be available from the ISPs themselves or other services. In another embodiment, the frequency of the traffic may be measured. An anomalous pattern of contacting a domain name may signify a vulnerability. For example, if the system 202 detects a group of devices periodically attempting to contact a domain, or group of domains, at a given frequency (for example, each hour), such a detection can be indicative of automated malicious traffic.
In some embodiments, the traffic data and/or data regarding the domain names may be stored and analyzed by accessing the storage 208. By determining one or more domain names having a vulnerable property or attribute, the detection system can ultimately detect and/or identify one or more vulnerable systems 210 associated with the domain name.
In step 106, the detection system 202 is configured to determine whether each domain name is registered at a domain name registry. In step 108, if the domain name is not registered, then the system 202 is configured to register the domain name. Once registered, in step 110, the system 202 can associate the registered domain name with a server system 212 configured to monitor communication traffic to the registered domain name. The server system 212 may be controlled by the detection system 202. In step 112, the detection system 202 can identify and/or detect one or more vulnerable systems associated with the registered domain name. Once the domain name (e.g., domain name 2 of
In some examples, some or all of the processing described above can be carried out on a personal computing device, on one or more centralized computing devices, or via cloud-based processing by one or more servers. In some examples, some types of processing occur on one device and other types of processing occur on another device. In some examples, some or all of the data described above can be stored on a personal computing device, in data storage hosted on one or more centralized computing devices, or via cloud-based storage. In some examples, some data are stored in one location and other data are stored in another location. In some examples, quantum computing can be used. In some examples, functional programming languages can be used. In some examples, electrical memory, such as flash-based memory, can be used.
The memory 320 stores information within the system 300. In some implementations, the memory 320 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium. In some implementations, the memory 320 is a volatile memory unit. In some implementations, the memory 320 is a nonvolatile memory unit.
The storage device 330 is capable of providing mass storage for the system 300. In some implementations, the storage device 330 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium. In various different implementations, the storage device 330 may include, for example, a hard disk device, an optical disk device, a solid-date drive, a flash drive, or some other large capacity storage device. For example, the storage device may store long-term data (e.g., database data, file system data, etc.). The input/output device 340 provides input/output operations for the system 300. In some implementations, the input/output device 340 may include one or more of a network interface devices, e.g., an Ethernet card, a serial communication device, e.g., an RS-232 port, and/or a wireless interface device, e.g., an 802.11 card, a 3G wireless modem, or a 4G wireless modem. In some implementations, the input/output device may include driver devices configured to receive input data and send output data to other input/output devices, e.g., keyboard, printer and display devices 360. In some examples, mobile computing devices, mobile communication devices, and other devices may be used.
In some implementations, at least a portion of the approaches described above may be realized by instructions that upon execution cause one or more processing devices to carry out the processes and functions described above. Such instructions may include, for example, interpreted instructions such as script instructions, or executable code, or other instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium. The storage device 330 may be implemented in a distributed way over a network, such as a server farm or a set of widely distributed servers, or may be implemented in a single computing device.
Although an example processing system has been described in
The term “system” may encompass all kinds of apparatus, devices, and machines for processing data, including by way of example a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers. A processing system may include special purpose logic circuitry, e.g., an FPGA (field programmable gate array) or an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit). A processing system may include, in addition to hardware, code that creates an execution environment for the computer program in question, e.g., code that constitutes processor firmware, a protocol stack, a database management system, an operating system, or a combination of one or more of them.
A computer program (which may also be referred to or described as a program, software, a software application, a module, a software module, a script, or code) can be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, or declarative or procedural languages, and it can be deployed in any form, including as a standalone program or as a module, component, subroutine, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment. A computer program may, but need not, correspond to a file in a file system. A program can be stored in a portion of a file that holds other programs or data (e.g., one or more scripts stored in a markup language document), in a single file dedicated to the program in question, or in multiple coordinated files (e.g., files that store one or more modules, sub programs, or portions of code). A computer program can be deployed to be executed on one computer or on multiple computers that are located at one site or distributed across multiple sites and interconnected by a communication network.
The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable computers executing one or more computer programs to perform functions by operating on input data and generating output. The processes and logic flows can also be performed by, and apparatus can also be implemented as, special purpose logic circuitry, e.g., an FPGA (field programmable gate array) or an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit).
Computers suitable for the execution of a computer program can include, by way of example, general or special purpose microprocessors or both, or any other kind of central processing unit. Generally, a central processing unit will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory or a random access memory or both. A computer generally includes a central processing unit for performing or executing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data. Generally, a computer will also include, or be operatively coupled to receive data from or transfer data to, or both, one or more mass storage devices for storing data, e.g., magnetic, magneto optical disks, or optical disks. However, a computer need not have such devices. Moreover, a computer can be embedded in another device, e.g., a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile audio or video player, a game console, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, or a portable storage device (e.g., a universal serial bus (USB) flash drive), to name just a few.
Computer readable media suitable for storing computer program instructions and data include all forms of nonvolatile memory, media and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, e.g., EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks, e.g., internal hard disks or removable disks; magneto optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks. The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry.
To provide for interaction with a user, embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented on a computer having a display device, e.g., a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor, for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device, e.g., a mouse or a trackball, by which the user can provide input to the computer. Other kinds of devices can be used to provide for interaction with a user as well; for example, feedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback, e.g., visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback; and input from the user can be received in any form, including acoustic, speech, or tactile input. In addition, a computer can interact with a user by sending documents to and receiving documents from a device that is used by the user; for example, by sending web pages to a web browser on a user's user device in response to requests received from the web browser.
Embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented in a computing system that includes a back end component, e.g., as a data server, or that includes a middleware component, e.g., an application server, or that includes a front end component, e.g., a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the subject matter described in this specification, or any combination of one or more such back end, middleware, or front end components. The components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication, e.g., a communication network. Examples of communication networks include a local area network (“LAN”) and a wide area network (“WAN”), e.g., the Internet. The computing system can include clients and servers. A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a communication network. The relationship of client and server arises by virtue of computer programs running on the respective computers and having a client-server relationship to each other.
While this specification contains many specific implementation details, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features that may be specific to particular embodiments. Certain features that are described in this specification in the context of separate embodiments can also be implemented in combination in a single embodiment. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single embodiment can also be implemented in multiple embodiments separately or in any suitable sub-combination. Moreover, although features may be described above as acting in certain combinations and even initially claimed as such, one or more features from a claimed combination can in some cases be excised from the combination, and the claimed combination may be directed to a sub-combination or variation of a sub-combination.
Similarly, while operations are depicted in the drawings in a particular order, this should not be understood as requiring that such operations be performed in the particular order shown or in sequential order, or that all illustrated operations be performed, to achieve desirable results. In certain circumstances, multitasking and parallel processing may be advantageous. Moreover, the separation of various system components in the embodiments described above should not be understood as requiring such separation in all embodiments, and it should be understood that the described program components and systems can generally be integrated together in a single software product or packaged into multiple software products.
Particular embodiments of the subject matter have been described. Other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims. For example, the actions recited in the claims can be performed in a different order and still achieve desirable results. As one example, the processes depicted in the accompanying figures do not necessarily require the particular order shown, or sequential order, to achieve desirable results. In certain implementations, multitasking and parallel processing may be advantageous. Other steps or stages may be provided, or steps or stages may be eliminated, from the described processes. Accordingly, other implementations are within the scope of the following claims.
The phraseology and terminology used herein is for the purpose of description and should not be regarded as limiting.
The term “approximately”, the phrase “approximately equal to”, and other similar phrases, as used in the specification and the claims (e.g., “X has a value of approximately Y” or “X is approximately equal to Y”), should be understood to mean that one value (X) is within a predetermined range of another value (Y). The predetermined range may be plus or minus 20%, 10%, 5%, 3%, 1%, 0.1%, or less than 0.1%, unless otherwise indicated.
The indefinite articles “a” and “an,” as used in the specification and in the claims, unless clearly indicated to the contrary, should be understood to mean “at least one.” The phrase “and/or,” as used in the specification and in the claims, should be understood to mean “either or both” of the elements so conjoined, i.e., elements that are conjunctively present in some cases and disjunctively present in other cases. Multiple elements listed with “and/or” should be construed in the same fashion, i.e., “one or more” of the elements so conjoined. Other elements may optionally be present other than the elements specifically identified by the “and/or” clause, whether related or unrelated to those elements specifically identified. Thus, as a non-limiting example, a reference to “A and/or B”, when used in conjunction with open-ended language such as “comprising” can refer, in one embodiment, to A only (optionally including elements other than B); in another embodiment, to B only (optionally including elements other than A); in yet another embodiment, to both A and B (optionally including other elements); etc.
As used in the specification and in the claims, “or” should be understood to have the same meaning as “and/or” as defined above. For example, when separating items in a list, “or” or “and/or” shall be interpreted as being inclusive, i.e., the inclusion of at least one, but also including more than one, of a number or list of elements, and, optionally, additional unlisted items. Only terms clearly indicated to the contrary, such as “only one of” or “exactly one of,” or, when used in the claims, “consisting of,” will refer to the inclusion of exactly one element of a number or list of elements. In general, the term “or” as used shall only be interpreted as indicating exclusive alternatives (i.e. “one or the other but not both”) when preceded by terms of exclusivity, such as “either,” “one of,” “only one of,” or “exactly one of.” “Consisting essentially of,” when used in the claims, shall have its ordinary meaning as used in the field of patent law.
As used in the specification and in the claims, the phrase “at least one,” in reference to a list of one or more elements, should be understood to mean at least one element selected from any one or more of the elements in the list of elements, but not necessarily including at least one of each and every element specifically listed within the list of elements and not excluding any combinations of elements in the list of elements. This definition also allows that elements may optionally be present other than the elements specifically identified within the list of elements to which the phrase “at least one” refers, whether related or unrelated to those elements specifically identified. Thus, as a non-limiting example, “at least one of A and B” (or, equivalently, “at least one of A or B,” or, equivalently “at least one of A and/or B”) can refer, in one embodiment, to at least one, optionally including more than one, A, with no B present (and optionally including elements other than B); in another embodiment, to at least one, optionally including more than one, B, with no A present (and optionally including elements other than A); in yet another embodiment, to at least one, optionally including more than one, A, and at least one, optionally including more than one, B (and optionally including other elements); etc.
The use of “including,” “comprising,” “having,” “containing,” “involving,” and variations thereof, is meant to encompass the items listed thereafter and additional items.
Use of ordinal terms such as “first,” “second,” “third,” etc., in the claims to modify a claim element does not by itself connote any priority, precedence, or order of one claim element over another or the temporal order in which acts of a method are performed. Ordinal terms are used merely as labels to distinguish one claim element having a certain name from another element having a same name (but for use of the ordinal term), to distinguish the claim elements.
This application is a continuation of and claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/954,921, titled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EXTERNAL DETECTION OF MISCONFIGURED SYSTEMS,” filed on Apr. 17, 2018, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5867799 | Lang et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 6016475 | Miller et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6745150 | Breiman | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6792401 | Nigro et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 7062572 | Hampton | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| D525264 | Chotai et al. | Jul 2006 | S |
| D525629 | Chotai et al. | Jul 2006 | S |
| 7100195 | Underwood | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7194769 | Lippmann et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7290275 | Baudoin et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| D604740 | Matheny et al. | Nov 2009 | S |
| 7650570 | Torrens et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
| 7747778 | King et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
| 7748038 | Olivier et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7827607 | Sobel et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| D630645 | Tokunaga et al. | Jan 2011 | S |
| 7971252 | Lippmann et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 8000698 | Wolman et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| D652048 | Joseph | Jan 2012 | S |
| D667022 | LoBosco et al. | Sep 2012 | S |
| 8370933 | Buckler | Feb 2013 | B1 |
| 8429630 | Nickolov et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| D682287 | Cong et al. | May 2013 | S |
| D688260 | Pearcy et al. | Aug 2013 | S |
| 8504556 | Rice et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| 8505094 | Xuewen et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
| D691164 | Lim et al. | Oct 2013 | S |
| D694252 | Helm | Nov 2013 | S |
| D694253 | Helm | Nov 2013 | S |
| 8584233 | Yang et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
| 8601575 | Mullarkey et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
| 8621621 | Burns et al. | Dec 2013 | B1 |
| 8661146 | Alex et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
| D700616 | Chao | Mar 2014 | S |
| 8677481 | Lee | Mar 2014 | B1 |
| 8752183 | Heiderich et al. | Jun 2014 | B1 |
| 8775402 | Baskerville et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8825662 | Kingman et al. | Sep 2014 | B1 |
| 8949988 | Adams et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| 8966639 | Roytman et al. | Feb 2015 | B1 |
| D730918 | Park et al. | Jun 2015 | S |
| 9053210 | Elnikety et al. | Jun 2015 | B2 |
| 9075990 | Yang | Jul 2015 | B1 |
| D740847 | Yampolskiy et al. | Oct 2015 | S |
| D740848 | Bolts et al. | Oct 2015 | S |
| D741351 | Kito et al. | Oct 2015 | S |
| D746832 | Pearcy et al. | Jan 2016 | S |
| 9241252 | Dua et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
| 9244899 | Greenbaum | Jan 2016 | B1 |
| 9294498 | Yampolskiy et al. | Mar 2016 | B1 |
| D754690 | Park et al. | Apr 2016 | S |
| D754696 | Follett et al. | Apr 2016 | S |
| D756371 | Bertnick et al. | May 2016 | S |
| D756372 | Bertnick et al. | May 2016 | S |
| D756392 | Yun et al. | May 2016 | S |
| D759084 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jun 2016 | S |
| D759689 | Olson et al. | Jun 2016 | S |
| 9372994 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
| 9373144 | Ng et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
| D760782 | Kendler et al. | Jul 2016 | S |
| 9384206 | Bono et al. | Jul 2016 | B1 |
| 9401926 | Dubow et al. | Jul 2016 | B1 |
| 9407658 | Kuskov et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
| 9420049 | Talmor et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
| 9424333 | Bisignani et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
| 9479526 | Yang | Oct 2016 | B1 |
| D771103 | Eder | Nov 2016 | S |
| D771695 | Yampolskiy et al. | Nov 2016 | S |
| D772276 | Yampolskiy et al. | Nov 2016 | S |
| 9501647 | Yampolskiy et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| D773507 | Sagrillo et al. | Dec 2016 | S |
| D775635 | Raji et al. | Jan 2017 | S |
| D776136 | Chen et al. | Jan 2017 | S |
| D776153 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jan 2017 | S |
| D777177 | Chen et al. | Jan 2017 | S |
| 9560072 | Xu | Jan 2017 | B1 |
| D778927 | Bertnick et al. | Feb 2017 | S |
| D778928 | Bertnick et al. | Feb 2017 | S |
| D779512 | Kimura et al. | Feb 2017 | S |
| D779514 | Baris et al. | Feb 2017 | S |
| D779531 | List et al. | Feb 2017 | S |
| D780770 | Sum et al. | Mar 2017 | S |
| D785009 | Lim et al. | Apr 2017 | S |
| D785010 | Bachman et al. | Apr 2017 | S |
| D785016 | Berwick et al. | Apr 2017 | S |
| 9620079 | Curtis | Apr 2017 | B2 |
| D787530 | Huang | May 2017 | S |
| D788128 | Wada | May 2017 | S |
| 9641547 | Yampolskiy et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9646110 | Byrne et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| D789947 | Sun | Jun 2017 | S |
| D789957 | Wu et al. | Jun 2017 | S |
| 9680855 | Schultz et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
| 9680858 | Boyer et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
| D791153 | Rice et al. | Jul 2017 | S |
| D791834 | Eze et al. | Jul 2017 | S |
| D792427 | Weaver et al. | Jul 2017 | S |
| D795891 | Kohan et al. | Aug 2017 | S |
| 9736019 | Hardison et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
| D796523 | Bhandari et al. | Sep 2017 | S |
| D801989 | Iketsuki et al. | Nov 2017 | S |
| D803237 | Wu et al. | Nov 2017 | S |
| D804528 | Martin et al. | Dec 2017 | S |
| D806735 | Olsen et al. | Jan 2018 | S |
| D806737 | Chung et al. | Jan 2018 | S |
| D809523 | Lipka et al. | Feb 2018 | S |
| D809989 | Lee et al. | Feb 2018 | S |
| D812633 | Saneii | Mar 2018 | S |
| D814483 | Gavaskar et al. | Apr 2018 | S |
| D815119 | Chalker et al. | Apr 2018 | S |
| D815148 | Martin et al. | Apr 2018 | S |
| D816105 | Rudick et al. | Apr 2018 | S |
| D816116 | Selassie | Apr 2018 | S |
| 9954893 | Zhao et al. | Apr 2018 | B1 |
| D817970 | Chang et al. | May 2018 | S |
| D817977 | Kato et al. | May 2018 | S |
| D818475 | Yepez et al. | May 2018 | S |
| D819687 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jun 2018 | S |
| 10044750 | Livshits et al. | Aug 2018 | B2 |
| 10079854 | Scott et al. | Sep 2018 | B1 |
| 10142364 | Baukes et al. | Nov 2018 | B2 |
| D835631 | Yepez et al. | Dec 2018 | S |
| 10180966 | Lang et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
| 10185924 | McClintock et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
| 10217071 | Mo et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
| 10230753 | Yampolskiy et al. | Mar 2019 | B2 |
| 10230764 | Ng et al. | Mar 2019 | B2 |
| 10235524 | Ford | Mar 2019 | B2 |
| D847169 | Sombreireiro et al. | Apr 2019 | S |
| 10257219 | Gell et al. | Apr 2019 | B1 |
| 10305854 | Alizadeh-Shabdiz et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
| 10331502 | Hart | Jun 2019 | B1 |
| 10339321 | Tedeschi | Jul 2019 | B2 |
| 10339484 | Pai et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
| 10348755 | Shavell et al. | Jul 2019 | B1 |
| 10412083 | Zou et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
| D863335 | Hardy et al. | Oct 2019 | S |
| D863345 | Hardy et al. | Oct 2019 | S |
| 10469515 | Helmsen et al. | Nov 2019 | B2 |
| 10491619 | Yampolskiy et al. | Nov 2019 | B2 |
| 10491620 | Yampolskiy et al. | Nov 2019 | B2 |
| 10521583 | Bagulho Monteiro Pereira | Dec 2019 | B1 |
| D872574 | Deylamian et al. | Jan 2020 | S |
| 10540374 | Singh et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
| D874506 | Kang et al. | Feb 2020 | S |
| D880512 | Greenwald et al. | Apr 2020 | S |
| D894939 | Braica | Sep 2020 | S |
| 10764298 | Light et al. | Sep 2020 | B1 |
| 10776483 | Bagulho Monteiro Pereira | Sep 2020 | B2 |
| 10796260 | Brannon et al. | Oct 2020 | B2 |
| D903693 | Li et al. | Dec 2020 | S |
| D905712 | Li et al. | Dec 2020 | S |
| D908139 | Hardy et al. | Jan 2021 | S |
| 10896394 | Brannon et al. | Jan 2021 | B2 |
| 10909488 | Hecht et al. | Feb 2021 | B2 |
| D918955 | Madden, Jr. et al. | May 2021 | S |
| D920343 | Bowland | May 2021 | S |
| D920353 | Boutros et al. | May 2021 | S |
| D921031 | Tessier et al. | Jun 2021 | S |
| D921662 | Giannino et al. | Jun 2021 | S |
| D921674 | Kmak et al. | Jun 2021 | S |
| D921677 | Kmak et al. | Jun 2021 | S |
| D922397 | Modi et al. | Jun 2021 | S |
| D924909 | Nasu et al. | Jul 2021 | S |
| 11379773 | Vescio | Jul 2022 | B2 |
| 20010044798 | Nagral et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20020083077 | Vardi | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020133365 | Grey et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020164983 | Raviv et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20030011601 | Itoh et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030050862 | Bleicken et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030074248 | Braud et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030123424 | Jung | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030187967 | Walsh et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040003284 | Campbell et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040010709 | Baudoin et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040024859 | Bloch et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040098375 | DeCarlo | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133561 | Burke | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040133689 | Vasisht | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040193907 | Patanella | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040193918 | Green et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040199791 | Poletto et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040199792 | Tan et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040221296 | Ogielski et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040250122 | Newton | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040250134 | Kohler et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050065807 | DeAngelis et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050066195 | Jones | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050071450 | Allen et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050076245 | Graham et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050080720 | Betz et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050108415 | Turk et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050131830 | Juarez et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050138413 | Lippmann et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050160002 | Roetter et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050234767 | Bolzman et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050278726 | Cano et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060036335 | Banter et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060107226 | Matthews et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060173992 | Weber et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060212925 | Shull et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060253581 | Dixon et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060271564 | Meng Muntz et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070016948 | Dubrovsky et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070067845 | Wiemer et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070113282 | Ross | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070136622 | Price et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143851 | Nicodemus et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070179955 | Croft et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198275 | Malden et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070214151 | Thomas et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070282730 | Carpenter et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080017526 | Prescott et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080033775 | Dawson et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080047018 | Baudoin et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080091834 | Norton | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080140495 | Bhamidipaty et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080140728 | Fraser et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080162931 | Lord et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080172382 | Prettejohn | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080175266 | Alperovitch et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080208995 | Takahashi et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080209565 | Baudoin et al. | Aug 2008 | A2 |
| 20080222287 | Bahl et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080262895 | Hofmeister et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080270458 | Gvelesiani | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20090044272 | Jarrett | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090064337 | Chien | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090094265 | Vlachos et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090125427 | Atwood et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090132861 | Costa et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090161629 | Purkayastha et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090193054 | Karimisetty et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090216700 | Bouchard et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090228830 | Herz et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090265787 | Baudoin et al. | Oct 2009 | A9 |
| 20090293128 | Lippmann et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090299802 | Brennan | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090300768 | Krishnamurthy et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090319420 | Sanchez et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090323632 | Nix | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090328063 | Corvera et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100017880 | Masood | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100042605 | Cheng et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100057582 | Artin et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100114634 | Christiansen et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100186088 | Banerjee et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100205042 | Mun | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100218256 | Thomas et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100262444 | Atwal et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100275263 | Bennett et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100281124 | Westman et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100281151 | Ramankutty et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100309206 | Xie et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110137704 | Mitra et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110145168 | Dirnstorfer et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110145576 | Bettan | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110148880 | De Peuter | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110185403 | Dolan et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110213742 | Lemmond et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110219455 | Bhagwan et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110225085 | Takeshita et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110231395 | Vadlamani et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110239300 | Klein et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110249002 | Duplessis et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110282997 | Prince et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110296519 | Ide et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120008974 | Kawai et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120036263 | Madden et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120059823 | Barber et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120089745 | Turakhia | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120158725 | Molloy et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120166458 | Laudanski et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120174219 | Hernandez et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120198558 | Liu et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120215892 | Wanser et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120221376 | Austin | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120255027 | Kanakapura et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120291129 | Shulman et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20130014253 | Neou et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130055386 | Kim et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130060351 | Imming et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130080505 | Nielsen et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086521 | Grossele et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130086687 | Chess et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130091574 | Howes et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
| 20130124644 | Hunt et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130124653 | Vick et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130142050 | Luna | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130173791 | Longo | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130212479 | Willis et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130227078 | Wei et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130227697 | Zandani | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130263270 | Cote et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130282406 | Snyder et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130291105 | Yan | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130298244 | Kumar et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130305368 | Ford | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130333038 | Chien | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130347116 | Flores et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140006129 | Heath | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140019196 | Wiggins et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140052998 | Bloom et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140101006 | Pitt | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140108474 | David et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140114755 | Mezzacca | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140114843 | Klein et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140130158 | Wang et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140137257 | Martinez et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140146370 | Banner et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140173066 | Newton et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140189098 | MaGill et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140204803 | Nguyen et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140237545 | Mylavarapu et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140244317 | Roberts et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140282261 | Ranz et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140283068 | Call et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140288996 | Rence et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140304816 | Klein et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140330616 | Lyras | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140334336 | Chen et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140337086 | Asenjo et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140337633 | Yang et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140344332 | Giebler | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20150033331 | Stern et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150033341 | Schmidtler et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150052607 | Al Hamami | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150074579 | Gladstone et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150081860 | Kuehnel et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150156084 | Kaminsky et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150180883 | Aktas et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150195299 | Zoldi et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150207776 | Morin et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150248280 | Pillay et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150261955 | Huang et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150264061 | Ibatullin et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150288706 | Marshall | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150288709 | Singhal et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150310188 | Ford et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150310213 | Ronen et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150317672 | Espinoza et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150331932 | Georges et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150347756 | Hidayat et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150350229 | Mitchell | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150381649 | Schultz et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160014081 | Don, Jr. et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160023639 | Cajiga et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160036849 | Zakian | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160065613 | Cho et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160078382 | Watkins et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160088015 | Sivan et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160119373 | Fausto et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160140466 | Sidebottom et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160147992 | Zhao et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160162602 | Bradish et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160171415 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160173520 | Foster et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160173522 | Yampolskiy et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160182537 | Tatourian et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160189301 | Ng et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160191554 | Kaminsky | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160205126 | Boyer et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160212101 | Reshadi et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160241560 | Reshadi et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
| 20160248797 | Yampolskiy et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
| 20160253500 | Alme et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160259945 | Yampolskiy et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160337387 | Hu et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160344769 | Li | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160344801 | Akkarawittayapoom | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160364496 | Li | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160373485 | Kamble | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160378978 | Singla et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170048267 | Yampolskiy et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170063901 | Muddu et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170104783 | Vanunu et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170142148 | Bußber et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170161253 | Silver | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170161409 | Martin | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170213292 | Sweeney et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
| 20170221072 | AthuluruTlrumala et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170223002 | Sabin et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170236078 | Rasumov | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170237764 | Rasumov | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20170264623 | Ficarra et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| 20170279843 | Schultz et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| 20170300911 | Alnajem | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170316324 | Barrett et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170318045 | Johns et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170324555 | Wu et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170324766 | Gonzalez | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170337487 | Nock et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20180013716 | Connell et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180088968 | Myhre et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180103043 | Kupreev et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
| 20180121659 | Sawhney et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180123934 | Gissing et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180124091 | Sweeney et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180124110 | Hunt et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180139180 | Napchi et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180146004 | Belfiore, Jr. et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180157468 | Stachura | Jun 2018 | A1 |
| 20180191768 | Broda et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
| 20180285414 | Kondiles et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
| 20180322584 | Crabtree et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180336348 | Ng et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180337938 | Kneib et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180337941 | Kraning et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20180349641 | Barday et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20180365519 | Pollard et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20180375896 | Wang et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
| 20190034845 | Mo et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190065545 | Hazel et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
| 20190079869 | Baldi et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190089711 | Faulkner | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190098025 | Lim | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190124091 | Ujiie et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
| 20190140925 | Pon et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190141060 | Lim | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190147378 | Mo et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190166152 | Steele et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190179490 | Barday et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190215331 | Anakata et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190238439 | Pugh et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
| 20190297106 | Geil et al. | Sep 2019 | A1 |
| 20190303574 | Lamay et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
| 20190362280 | Vescio | Nov 2019 | A1 |
| 20190379632 | Dahlberg et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20190391707 | Ristow et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20190392252 | Fighel et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
| 20200053127 | Brotherton et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
| 20200065213 | Poghosyan et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
| 20200074084 | Dorrans et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
| 20200092172 | Kumaran et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
| 20200097845 | Shaikh et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
| 20200106798 | Lin | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200125734 | Light et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
| 20200183655 | Barday et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
| 20200272763 | Brannon et al. | Aug 2020 | A1 |
| 20200285737 | Kraus et al. | Sep 2020 | A1 |
| 20200356689 | McEnroe et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
| 20200356695 | Brannon et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| WO-2017142694 | Aug 2017 | WO |
| WO-2019023045 | Jan 2019 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/271,655 Published as: US2018/0083999, filed Sep. 21, 2016, Self-Published Security Risk Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/069,151, filed Oct. 13, 2020, Information Technology Security Assessment System. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/598,298, D835,631, filed Mar. 24, 2017, Computer Display Sceen With Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/599,622, filed Apr. 5, 2017, Computer Display With Security Ratings Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/599,620, filed Apr. 5, 2017, Computer Display With Security Ratings Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/015,686, filed Jun. 22, 2018, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/543,075, filed Aug. 16, 2019, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/738,825, filed Jan. 9, 2020, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/146,064, filed Jan. 11, 2021, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/918,286, filed Mar. 12, 2018, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/292,956, filed May 5, 2019, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/795,056, filed Feb. 19, 2020, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/179,630, filed Feb. 19, 2021, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/170,680, filed Oct. 25, 2018, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/688,647, filed Nov. 19, 2019, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/000,135, filed Aug. 21, 2020, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/401,683, filed Aug. 13, 2021, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/954,921, filed Apr. 17, 2018, Systems and Methods for External Detection of Misconfigured Systems. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/549,764, filed Aug. 23, 2019, Systems and Methods for Inferring Entity Relationships Via Network Communications of Users or User Devices. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/787,650, filed Feb. 11, 2020, Systems and Methods for Inferring Entity Relationships Via Network Communications of Users or User Devices. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/583,991, filed Sep. 26, 2019, Systems and Methods for Network Asset Discovery and Association Therefor With Entities. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/085,550, filed Oct. 30, 2020, Systems and Methods for Network Asset Discovery and Association Therefor With Entities. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/666,942, filed Oct. 17, 2018, Computer Display With Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/360,641, filed Mar. 21, 2019, Systems and Methods for Forecasting Cybersecurity Ratings Based on Event-Rate Scenarios. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/514,771, filed Jul. 17, 2019, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/922,672, filed Jul. 7, 2020, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for Entities. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/307,577, filed May 4, 2021, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for Entities. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/677,306, filed Jan. 18, 2019, Computer Display With Corporate Hierarchy Graphical User Interface Computer Display With Corporate Hierarchy Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/775,840, filed Jan. 29, 2020, Systems and Methods for Assessing Cybersecurity State of Entities Based on Computer Network Characterization. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/018,587, filed Sep. 11, 2020, Systems and Methods for Assessing Cybersecurity State of Entities Based on Computer Network Characterization. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/346,970, filed Jun. 14, 2021, Systems and Methods for Assessing Cybersecurity State of Entities Based on Computer Network Characterization. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/132,512, filed Dec. 23, 2020, Systems and Methods for Rapidly Generating Security Ratings. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/779,437, filed Jan. 31, 2020, Systems and Methods for Rapidly Generating Security Ratings. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/119,822, filed Dec. 11, 2020, Systems and Methods for Cybersecurity Risk Mitigation and Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/392,521, filed Aug. 3, 2021, Systems and Methods for Cybersecurity Risk Mitigation and Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/802,232, filed Feb. 26, 2020, Systems and Methods for Improving a Security Profile of an Entity Based on Peer Security Profiles. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/942,452, filed Jul. 29, 2020, Systems and Methods for Improving a Security Profile of an Entity Based on Peer Security Profiles. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/736,641, filed Jun. 2, 2020, Computer Display With Peer Analytics Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/039,675, filed Sep. 30, 2020, Systems and Methods for Determining Asset Importance in Security Risk Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/320,997, filed May 14, 2021, Systems and Methods for Determining Asset Importance in Security Risk Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/884,607, filed Apr. 21, 2021, Systems and Methods for Managing Cybersecurity Alerts. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/236,594, filed Apr. 21, 2021, Systems and Methods for Managing Cybersecurity Alerts. |
| Azman, Mohamed et al. Wireless Daisy Chain and Tree Topology Networks for Smart Cities. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber= 8869252 (Year: 2019). |
| Basinya, Evgeny A.; Yushmanov, Anton A. Development of a Comprehensive Security System. 2019 Dynamics of Systems, Mechanisms and Machines (Dynamics). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8944700 (Year: 2019). |
| Camelo, “Botnet Cluster Identification,” Sep. 2014, 90 pages. |
| Camelo, “Condenser: A Graph-based Approach for Detecting Botnets,” AnubisNetworks R&D, Amadora, Portugal and CENTRIA, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Portugal (pp. 8) Oct. 31, 2014. |
| Luo, Hui; Henry, Paul. A Secure Public Wireless LAN Access Technique That Supports Walk-Up Users. GLOBECOM '03. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber= 1258471 (Year: 2003). |
| McNab, “Network Security Assessment,” copyright 2004, 13 pages. |
| Morningstar Direct, dated to 11/12/202, morningstardirect.com [online]. Retrieved Feb. 26, 2021 from internet <URL:https://web.archive.org/web/20201112021943/https://www.morningstar.com/products/direct> (Year: 2020). |
| Rees, L. P. et al., “Decision support for cybersecurity risk planning.” Decision Support Systems 51.3 (2011):pp. 493-505. |
| Santos, J. R. et al., “A framework for linking cybersecurity metrics to the modeling of macroeconomic interdependencies.” Risk Analysis: An International Journal (2007) 27.5, pp. 1283-1297. |
| Search Query Report form IP.com (performed Apr. 27, 2020). |
| Seigneur et al., A Survey of Trust and Risk Metrics for a BYOD Mobile Worker World: Third International Conference on Social Eco-Informatics, 2013, 11 pages. |
| Seneviratne et al., “SSIDs in the Wild: Extracting Semantic Information from WiFi SSIDs” HAL archives-ouvertes.fr, HAL Id: hal-01181254, Jul. 29, 2015, 5 pages. |
| The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Stock Report, Standard & Poor's, Jun. 6, 2009, 8 pages. |
| Winship, C., “Models for sample selection bias”, Annual review of sociology, 18(1) (Aug. 1992), pp. 327-350. |
| “About Neo4j,” 1 page. |
| “Agreed Upon Procedures,” Version 4.0, BITS, The Financial Institution Shared Assessments Program, Assessment Guide, Sep. 2008, 56 pages. |
| “Amazon Mechanical Turk,” accessed on the internet at https://www.mturk.com/; 7 pages. |
| “An Executive View of IT Governance,” IT Governance Institute, 2009, 32 pages. |
| “Assessing Risk in Turbulent Times,” A Workshop for Information Security Executives, Glassmeyter/McNamee Center for Digital Strategies, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection, 2009, 17 pages. |
| “Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information and Communications Infrastructure,” Cyberspace Policy Review, May 2009, 76 pages. |
| “Computer Network Graph,” http://www.opte.org; 1 page. |
| “Creating Transparency with Palantir,” accessed on the internet at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cbGChfagUA; Jul. 5, 2012; 1 page. |
| “Gephi (gephi.org),” accessed on the internet at https://web.archive.org/web/20151216223216/https://gephi.org/; Dec. 16, 2015; 1 page. |
| “Master Security Criteria,” Version 3.0, BITS Financial Services Security Laboratory, Oct. 2001, 47 pages. |
| “Mile 2 CPTE Maltego Demo,” accessed on the internet at https://www.youtube.com/watch?V=o2oNKOUzP0U; Jul. 12, 2012; 1page. |
| “Neo4j (neo4j.com),” accessed on the internet at https://web.archive.org/web/20151220150341/http://neo4j.com:80/developer/guide-data-visualization/; Dec. 20, 2015; 1 page. |
| “Palantir Cyber: Uncovering malicious behavior at petabyte scale,” accessed on the internet at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EhYezVO6EE; Dec. 21, 2012; 1 page. |
| “Palantir.com,” accessed on the internet at http://www.palantir.com/; Dec. 2015; 2 pages. |
| Gilgur et al., “Percentile-Based Approach to Forecasting Workload Growth,” Proceedings of CMG'15 Performance and Capacity International Conference by the Computer Measurement Group. No. 2015 (Year:2015). |
| “Plugging the Right Holes,” Lab Notes, MIT Lincoln Library, Posted Jul. 2008, retrieved Sep. 14, 2010 from http://www.11.miLedufpublicationsflabnotesfpluggingtherightho!. . . , 2 pages. |
| “Rapid7 Nexpose Vulnerability Scanner,” accessed on the internet at https://www.rapid7.com/products/nexpose/download/, 5 pages. |
| “Report on Controls Placed in Operation and Test of Operating Effectiveness,” EasCorp, Jan. 1-Dec. 31, 2008, prepared by Crowe Horwath, 58 pages. |
| “Shared Assessments: Getting Started,” BITS, 2008, 4 pages. |
| “Tenable Nessus Network Vulnerability Scanner,” accessed on the internet at https://www.tenable.com/products/nessus/nessus-professional; 13 pages. |
| “Twenty Critical Controls for Effective Cyber Defense: Consensus Audit,” Version 2.3, Nov. 13, 2009, retrieved on Apr. 9, 2010 from http://www.sans.org/critical-security-controls/print.php., 52 pages. |
| 2009 Data Breach Investigations Report, study conducted by Verizon Business RISK Team, 52 pages. |
| Application as filed, PAIR transaction history and pending claims of U.S. Appl. No. 13/240,572 as of Nov. 18, 2015, 45 pages. |
| Artz, Michael Lyle, “NetSPA: A Network Security Planning Architecture,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 24, 2002, 97 pages. |
| Bhilare et al., “Protecting Intellectual Property and Sensitive Information in Academic Campuses from Trusted Insiders: Leveraging Active Directory”, SIGUCC, Oct. 2009 (5 pages). |
| Bitsight, “Cyber Security Myths Versus Reality: How Optimism Bias Contributes to Inaccurate Perceptions of Risk,” Jun. 2015, Dimensional Research, pp. 1-9. |
| Borgatti, et al., “On Social Network Analysis in a Supply Chain Context,” Journal of Supply Chain Management; 45(2): 5-22; Apr. 2009, 18 pages. |
| Boyer, Stephen, et al., “Playing with Blocks: SCAP-Enable Higher-Level Analyses,” MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 5th Annual IT Security Automation Conference, Oct. 26-29, 2009, 35 pages. |
| Browne, Niall, et al., “Shared Assessments Program AUP and SAS70 Frequently Asked Questions,” BITS, 4 pages. |
| Buckshaw, Donald L., “Use of Decision Support Techniques for Information System Risk Management,” submitted for publication in Wiley's Encyclopedia of Quantitative Risk Assessment in Jan. 2007, 11 pages. |
| Buehler, Kevin S., et al., “Running with risk,” The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 4, 2003, pp. 40-49. |
| Camelo, “Botnet Cluster Identification,” Faculdade de Ciencias e Techonolgia, Unitersidade Nova de Lisboa, pp. 1-88, Sep. 2014. |
| Camelo et al., “Condenser: A Graph-based Approach for Detecting Botnets,” AnubisNetworks R&D, Amadora, Portugal and CENTRIA, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Portugal (pp. 8) Oct. 31, 2014. |
| Carstens, et al., “Modeling Company Risk and Importance in Supply Graphs,” European Semantic Web Conference 2017: The Semantic Web pp. 18-31. |
| Chu, Matthew, et al., “Visualizing Attack Graphs, Reachability, and Trust Relationships with Navigator,” MIT Lincoln Library, VizSEC '10, Ontario, Canada, Sep. 14, 2010, 12 pages. |
| Chuvakin, “SIEM: Moving beyond compliance”, RSA White Paper, 2010, 16 pages. |
| Computer Network Graph-Bees, http://bioteams.com/2007/04/30/visualizing_complex_networks.html, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 2 pages. |
| Computer Network Graph-Univ. of Michigan, http://people.cst.cmich.edu/liao1q/research.shtml, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 5 pages. |
| Crowther, Kenneth G., et al., “Principles for Better Information Security through More Accurate, Transparent Risk Scoring,” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, vol. 7, Issue 1, Article 37, 2010, 20 pages. |
| Davis, Lois M., et al., “The National Computer Security Survey (NCSS) Final Methodology,” Technical report prepared for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Safety and Justice Program, RAND Infrastructure, Safety and Environment (ISE), 2008, 91 pages. |
| Dillon-Merrill, PhD., Robin L, et al., “Logic Trees: Fault, Success, Attack, Event, Probability, and Decision Trees,” Wiley Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security, 13 pages. |
| Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Stock Report, Standard & Poor's, Jun. 6, 2009, 8 pages. |
| Dun & Bradstreet, The DUNSRight Quality Process: Power Behind Quality Information, 24 pages. |
| Edmonds, Robert, “ISC Passive DNS Architecture”, Internet Systems Consortium, Inc., Mar. 2012, 18 pages. |
| Equifax Inc. Stock Report, Standard & Poor's, Jun. 6, 2009, 8 pages. |
| Gundert, Levi, “Big Data in Security—Part III: Graph Analytics,” accessed on the Internet at https://blogs.cisco.com/security/big-data-in-security-part-iii-graph-analytics; Cisco Blog, Dec. 2013, 8 pages. |
| Hachem, Sara; Toninelli, Alessandra; Pathak, Animesh; Issany, Valerie. “Policy-Based Access Control in Mobile Social Ecosystems,” 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY). Http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber-5976796. 8 pages. |
| Hacking Exposed 6, S. McClure et al., copyright 2009, 37 pages. |
| Ingols, Kyle, et al., “Modeling Modern Network Attacks and Countermeasures Using Attack Graphs,” MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 16 pages. |
| Ingols, Kyle, et al., “Practical Attack Graph Generation for Network Defense,” MIT Lincoln Library, IEEE Computer Society, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC'06), 2006, 10 pages. |
| Ingols, Kyle, et al., “Practical Experiences Using SCAP to Aggregate CND Data,” MIT Lincoln Library, Presentation to NIST SCAP Conference, Sep. 24, 2008, 59 pages. |
| Jean, “Cyber Security: How to use graphs to do an attack analysis,” accessed on the internet at https://linkurio.us/blog/cyber-security-use-graphs-attack-analysis/; Aug. 2014, 11 pages. |
| Jin et al., “Identifying and tracking suspicious activities through IP gray space analysis”, MineNet, Jun. 12, 2007, 6 pages. |
| Johnson, Eric, et al., “Information Risk and the Evolution of the Security Rating Industry,” Mar. 24, 2009, 27 pages. |
| Joslyn, et al., “Massive Scale Cyber Traffic Analysis: A Driver for Graph Database Research,” Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experience and Systems (GRADES 2013), 6 pages. |
| KC Claffy, “Internet measurement and data analysis: topology, workload, performance and routing statistics,” accessed on the Internet at http://www.caida.org/publications/papers/1999/Nae/Nae.html., NAE '99 workshop, 1999, 22 pages. |
| Li et al., “Finding the Linchpins of the Dark Web: a Study on Topologically Dedicated Hosts on Malicious Web Infrastructures”, IEEE, 2013, 15 pages. |
| Lippmann, Rich, et al., “NetSPA: a Network Security Planning Architecture,” MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 11 pages. |
| Lippmann, Richard, et al., “Validating and Restoring Defense in Depth Using Attack Graphs,” MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 10 pages. |
| Lippmann, RP, et al., “An Annotated Review of Papers on Attack Graphs,” Project Report IA-1, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mar. 31, 2005, 39 pages. |
| Lippmann, RP, et al., “Evaluating and Strengthening Enterprise Network Security Using Attack Graphs,” Project Report IA-2, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Oct. 5, 2005, 96 pages. |
| Maltego XL, accessed on the Internet at https://www.paterva.com/web7/buy/maltego-clients/maltego-xl.php, 5 pages. |
| Massimo Candela, “Real-time BGP Visualisation with BGPlay,” accessed on the Internet at https://labs.ripe.net/Members/massimo_candela/real-time-bgp-visualisation-with-bgplay), Sep. 30, 2015, 8 pages. |
| Maxmind, https://www.maxmind.com/en/about-maxmind, https://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip2-isp-database, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 3 pages. |
| McNab, “Network Security Assessment,” copyright 2004, 55 pages. |
| Method Documentation, CNSS Risk Assessment Tool Version 1.1, Mar. 31, 2009, 24 pages. |
| Moradi, et al., “Quantitative Models for Supply Chain Management,” IGI Global, 2012, 29 pages. |
| Netcraft, www.netcraft.com, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 2 pages. |
| NetScanTools Pro, http://www.netscantools.com/nstpromain.html, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 2 pages. |
| Network Security Assessment, C. McNab, copyright 2004, 13 pages. |
| Noel, et al., “Big-Data Architecture for Cyber Attack Graphs, Representing Security Relationships in NoSQL Graph Databases,” The MITRE Corporation, 2014, 6 pages. |
| Nye, John, “Avoiding Audit Overlap,” Moody's Risk Services, Presentation, Source Boston, Mar. 14, 2008, 19 pages. |
| Pending claims for U.S. Appl. No. 14/021,585. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/240,572. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/021,585. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/944,484. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 61/386,156. |
| Paxson, Vern, “How The Pursuit of Truth Led Me To Selling Viagra,” EECS Department, University of California, International Computer Science Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Aug. 13, 2009, 68 pages. |
| Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I—Proposal Preparation & Submission Guidelines GPG, The National Science Foundation, Feb. 2009, 68 pages. |
| Provos et al., “The Ghost In the Browser Analysis of Web-based Malware”, 2007 (9 pages). |
| Rare Events, Oct. 2009, JASON, The MITRE Corporation, Oct. 2009, 104 pages. |
| “Report to the Congress on Credit Scoring and Its Effects on the Availability and Affordability of Credit,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Aug. 2007, 304 pages. |
| RFC 1834, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1834, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 7 pages. |
| RFC 781, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc781, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 3 pages. |
| RFC 950, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc950, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 19 pages. |
| RFC 954, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc954, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 5 pages. |
| SamSpade Network Inquiry Utility, https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/tools/sam-spade-934, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 19 pages. |
| SBIR Phase I: Enterprise Cyber Security Scoring, CyberAnalytix, LLC, http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward. do?AwardNumber=I013603, Apr. 28, 2010, 2 pages. |
| Security Warrior, Cyrus Peikari, Anton, Chapter 8: Reconnaissance, 6 pages. |
| Snort Intrusion Monitoring System, http://archive.oreilly.eom/pub/h/1393, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 3 pages. |
| Srivastava, Divesh; Velegrakis, Yannis. “Using Queries to Associate Metadata with Data,” IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering. Pub. Date: 2007. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber-4221823, 3 pages. |
| Stone-Gross, Brett, et al., “FIRE: Finding Rogue Networks,” 10 pages. |
| Taleb, Nassim N., et al., “The Six Mistakes Executives Make in Risk Management,” Harvard Business Review, Oct. 2009, 5 pages. |
| The CIS Security Metrics vl.0.0, The Center for Internet Security, May 11, 2009, 90 pages. |
| The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Jul. 30, 2004, 86 pages. |
| The Financial Institution Shared Assessments Program, Industry Positioning and Mapping Document, BITS, Oct. 2007, 44 pages. |
| Wagner, et al., “Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains using graph theory,” Int. J. Production Economics 126 (2010) 121-129. |
| Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing, date accessed Sep. 28, 2016, 25 pages. |
| Williams, Leevar, et al., “An Interactive Attack Graph Cascade and Reachability Display,” MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 17 pages. |
| Williams, Leevar, et al., “Garnet: A Graphical Attack Graph and Reachability Network Evaluation Tool,” MIT Lincoln Library, VizSEC 2009, pp. 44-59. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/377,574 9,705,932, filed Dec. 13, 2016, Methods and Systems for Creating, De-Duplicating, and Accessing Data Using an Object Storage System. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/021,585 9,438,615, Published as: US2015/0074579, filed Sep. 9, 2013, Security Risk Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/216,955 Published as: US2016/0330231, filed Jul. 22, 2016, Methods for Using Organizational Behavior for Risk Ratings. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/239,063 Published as: US2017/0093901, filed Aug. 17, 2016, Security Risk Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/405,121 Published as: US2019/0260791, filed May 7, 2019, Methods for Using Organizational Behavior for Risk Ratings. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/025,930, filed Sep. 18, 2020, Methods for Using Organizational Behavior for Risk Ratings. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/240,572 Published as: US2016/0205126, filed Sep. 22, 2011, Information Technology Security Assessment System. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 14/944,484 9,973,524 Published as: US2016/0323308, filed Nov. 18, 2015, Information Technology Security Assessment System. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/142,677 9,830,569 Published as: US/2016/0239772, filed Apr. 29, 2016, Security Assessment Using Service Provider Digital Asset Information. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/069,151 Published as: US/2021/0211454, filed Oct. 13, 2020, Information Technology Security Assessment System. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/134,845 9,680,858, filed Apr. 21, 2016, Annotation Platform for a Security Risk System. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/044,952 Published as: US2017/0236077, filed Feb. 16, 2016, Relationships Among Technology Assets and Services and the Entities Responsible for Them. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/089,375 10,176,445 Published as: US2017/0236079, filed Apr. 1, 2016, Relationships Among Technology Assets and Services and the Entities Responsible for Them. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/598,298 D835,631, filed Mar. 24, 2017, Computer Display Screen With Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/598,299 D818,475, filed Mar. 24, 2017, Computer Display With Security Ratings Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/599,622 D847169, filed Apr. 5, 2017, Computer Display With Security Ratings Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/599,620 D846,562, filed Apr. 5, 2017, Computer Display With Security Ratings Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/015,686 10,425,380, filed Jun. 22, 2018, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/543,075 10,554,619, filed Aug. 16, 2019, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/738,825 10,893,021, filed Aug. 16, 2019, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/146,064 Published as: US2021/0218702, filed Jan. 11, 2021, Methods for Mapping IP Addresses and Domains to Organizations Using User Activity Data. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/918,286 10,257,219, filed Mar. 12, 2018, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/292,956 10,594,723, filed Mar. 5, 2019, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/795,056 10,931,705, filed Feb. 19, 2020, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/179,630 Published as US 2021/0176269, filed Feb. 19, 2021, Correlated Risk in Cybersecurity. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/170,680 10,521,583, filed Oct. 25, 2018, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/688,647, 10,776,483, filed Nov. 19, 2019, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/000,135 11,126,723, filed Nov. 19, 2019, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/401,683 Published as US 2021/0374243, filed Aug. 13, 2021, Systems and Methods for Remote Detection of Software Through Browser Webinjects. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 15/954,921 10812520, filed Apr. 17, 2018, Systems and Methods for External Detection of Misconfigured Systems. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/549,764, Published as: US2021/0058421, filed Aug. 23, 2019, Systems and Methods for Inferring Entity Relationships Via Network Communications of Users or User Devices. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/787,650 10,749,893, filed Feb. 11, 2020, Systems and Methods for Inferring Entitiy Relationships Via Network Communications of Users or User Devices. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/583,991 10,848,382, filed Sep. 26, 2019, Systems and Methods for Network Asset Discovery and Association Thereof With Entities. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/085,550 11,329,878 Published as: US2021/0099347, filed Oct. 30, 2020, Systems and Methods for Network Asset Discovery and Association Thereof With Entities. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/666,942 D892135, filed Oct. 17, 2018, Computer Display With Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/360,641 11,200,323, filed Mar. 21, 2019, Systems and Methods for Forecasting Cybersecurity Ratings Based on Event-Rate Scenarios. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/523,166 Published as US 2022/0121753, Systems and Methods for Forecasting Cybersecurity Ratings Based On Event-Rate Scenarios. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/514,771 10,726,136, filed Jul. 17, 2019, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for Entities. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/922,673, 11,030,325, filed Jul. 7, 2020, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for Entities. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/307,577 Published as: US2021/0326449, filed May 4, 2021, Systems and Methods for Generating Security Improvement Plans for Entities. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/677,306 D905702, filed Jan. 18, 2019, Computer Display Screen With Corporate Hierarchy Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/775,840 10,791,140, filed Jan. 29, 2020, Systems and Methods Assessing Cybersecurity State of Entities Based on Computer Network Characterization. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/018,587 11,050,779, filed Sep. 11, 2020, Systems and Methods for Assessing Cybersecurity State of Entities Based on Computer Network Characterization. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/779,437 10,893,067 Published as: US2021/0243221, filed Jan. 31, 2020, Systems and Methods for Rapidly Generating Security Ratings. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/132,512 Published as US 2021/0243221, Systems and Methods for Rapidly Generating Security Ratings. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/119,822 11,122,073, filed Dec. 11, 2020, Systems and Methods for Cybersecurity Risk Mitigation and Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/815,855, filed Nov. 17, 2021, Computer Display With A Graphical User Interface for Cybersecurity Risk Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/392,521 Published as US 2022/0191232, filed Aug. 3, 2021, Systems and Methods for Cybersecurity Risk Mitigation and Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/802,232 10,764,298, filed Feb. 26, 2020, Systems and Methods for Improving a Security Profile of an Entity Based on Peer Security Profiles. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 19/942,452 11,265,330, filed Jul. 29, 2020, Systems and Methods for Improving a Security Profile of an Entity Based on Peer Security Profiles. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/725,724, filed Feb. 26, 2020, Computer Display With Risk Vectors Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 29/736,641 D937870, filed Jun. 2, 2020, Computer Display With Peer Analytics Graphical User Interface. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/039,675 11,032,244 Published as US 2021/0099428, filed Sep. 30, 2020, Systems and Methods for Determining Asset Importance in Security Risk Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/320,997 Published as US 2021/0344647, filed May 14, 2021, Systems and Methods for Determining Asset Importance in Security Risk Management. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 16/884,607 11,023,585, filed May 27, 2020, Systems and Methods for Managing Cybersecurity Alerts. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/236,594 Published as US 2021/0374246, filed Apr. 21, 2021, Systems and Methods for Managing Cybersecurity Alerts. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/710,168, filed Mar. 31, 2022, Systems and Methods for Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in a Work From Home Environment. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/945,337, filed Sep. 15, 2022, Systems and Methods for Precomputation of Digital Asset Inventories. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 17/856,217, filed Jul. 1, 2022, Systems and Methods for Accelerating Cybersecurity Assessments. |
| Chernyshev, M. et al., “On 802.11 Access Point Locatability and Named Entity Recognition in Service Set Identifiers”, IEEE Trans. on Info. and Sec., vol. 11 No. 3 (Mar. 2016). |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20200404017 A1 | Dec 2020 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 15954921 | Apr 2018 | US |
| Child | 17014495 | US |