text:
Justia Patents Intrusion DetectionUS Patent for Malicious content analysis with multi-version application support within single operating environment Patent (Patent # 10,025,927)
Malicious content analysis with multi-version application support within single operating environment
Apr 17, 2017 - FireEye, Inc.
Techniques for efficient malicious content detection in plural versions of a software application are described. According to one embodiment, the computerized method includes installing a plurality of different versions of a software application concurrently within a virtual machine and selecting a subset of the plurality of versions of the software application that are concurrently installed within the virtual machine. Next, one or more software application versions of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application are processed to access a potentially malicious content suspect within the virtual machine, without switching to another virtual machine. The behaviors of the potentially malicious content suspect during processing by the one or more software application versions are monitored to detect behaviors associated with a malicious attack. Thereafter, information associated with the detected behaviors pertaining to a malicious attack is stored, and an alert with respect to the malicious attack is issued.
Latest FireEye, Inc. Patents:
Detection efficacy of virtual machine-based analysis with application specific events
Methods and apparatus for graphical user interface environment for creating threat response courses of action for computer networks
Microvisor-based malware detection appliance architecture
Multi-vector malware detection and analysis
System and method for classifying malware within content created during analysis of a specimen
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/801,557, filed on Mar. 13, 2013, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,626,509, the entire contents of which are incorporated by reference herein
Embodiments of the present invention relate generally to malicious content detection. More particularly, embodiments of the invention relate to performing a malicious content analysis using multiple versions of a software application associated with the malicious content suspect within a single operating environment.
Malicious software, or malware for short, may include any program or file that is harmful by design to a computer. Malware includes computer viruses, worms, Trojan horses, adware, spyware, and any programming that gathers information about a computer or its user or otherwise operates without permission. The owners of the computers are often unaware that these programs have been added to their computers and are often similarly unaware of their function.
Malicious network content is a type of malware distributed over a network via websites, e.g., servers operating on a network according to an HTTP standard or other well-known standard. Malicious network content distributed in this manner may be actively downloaded and installed on a computer, without the approval or knowledge of its user, simply by the computer accessing the web site hosting the malicious network content (the "malicious web site"). Malicious network content may be embedded within objects associated with web pages hosted by the malicious web site. Malicious network content may also enter a computer on receipt or opening of email. For example, email may contain an attachment, such as a portable document format (PDF) document, with embedded malicious executable programs. Furthermore, malicious content may exist in files contained in a computer memory or storage device, having infected those files through any of a variety of attack vectors.
Various processes and devices have been employed to prevent the problems associated with malicious content. For example, computers often run antivirus scanning software that scans a particular computer for viruses and other forms of malware. The scanning typically involves automatic detection of a match between content stored on the computer (or attached media) and a library or database of signatures of known malware. The scanning may be initiated manually or based on a schedule specified by a user or system administrator associated with the particular computer. Unfortunately, by the time malware is detected by the scanning software, some damage on the computer or loss of privacy may have already occurred, and the malware may have propagated from the infected computer to other computers. Additionally, it may take days or weeks for new signatures to be manually created, the scanning signature library updated and received for use by the scanning software, and the new signatures employed in new scans.
Moreover, anti-virus scanning utilities may have limited effectiveness to protect against all exploits by polymorphic malware. Polymorphic malware has the capability to mutate to defeat the signature match process while keeping its original malicious capabilities intact. Signatures generated to identify one form of a polymorphic virus may not match against a mutated form. Thus polymorphic malware is often referred to as a family of virus rather than a single virus, and improved anti-virus techniques to identify such malware families is desirable.
Another type of malware detection solution employs virtual environments to replay content within a sandbox established by virtual machines (VMs). Such solutions monitor the behavior of content during execution to detect anomalies that may signal the presence of malware. One such system offered by FireEye, Inc., the assignee of the present patent application, employs a two-phase malware detection approach to detect malware contained in network traffic monitored in real-time. In a first or "static" phase, a heuristic is applied to network traffic to identify and filter packets that appear suspicious in that they exhibit characteristics associated with malware. In a second or "dynamic" phase, the suspicious packets (and typically only the suspicious packets) are replayed within one or more virtual machines. For example, if a user is trying to download a file over a network, the file is extracted from the network traffic and analyzed in the virtual machine. The results of the analysis aids in determining whether the file is malicious. The two-phase malware detection solution may detect numerous types of malware and, even malware missed by other commercially available approaches. Through verification, the two-phase malware detection solution may also achieve a significant reduction of false positives relative to such other commercially available approaches. Dealing with false positives in malware detection may needlessly slow or interfere with download of network content or receipt of email, for example. This two-phase approach has even proven successful against many types of polymorphic malware and other forms of advanced persistent threats.
Some of the malicious content, such as a PDF file, may require a software application, such as an Adobe® Acrobat™ reader, to process (e.g., open or load in memory) in order to exhibit anomalous behavior indicative of malware and, in the real world, cause damage to a data processing system. Typically, in order to test for malware, the aforementioned two-phase malware detection system uses a single instance of the software application within the virtual environment. The VM has to be launched, tested, and terminated for the purpose of testing the potentially malicious content with the software application. It may take a relatively long time to launch and terminate a VM. In addition, in a data processing system, there is a limited number of VMs that can be concurrently launched because of limited resources (e.g., processor cores, memory). When a VM is scheduled, the potentially malicious content may be put in a pending queue until the necessary resources become available (e.g., another VM terminated). As a result, heavy workloads in terms of the number of potentially malicious content to be tested and VM instances needed for testing can tax system resources and cause undesirable test latencies.
Embodiments of the invention are illustrated by way of example and not limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which like references indicate similar elements.
FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a malicious content detection system according to one embodiment of the invention.
FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for malicious content detection according to one embodiment of the invention.
FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a computer network system deploying a malicious content detection system according to one embodiment of the invention.
FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a data processing system which may be used with one embodiment of the invention.
Various embodiments and aspects of the inventions will be described with reference to details discussed below, and the accompanying drawings will illustrate the various embodiments. The following description and drawings are illustrative of the invention and are not to be construed as limiting the invention. Numerous specific details are described to provide a thorough understanding of various embodiments of the present invention. However, in certain instances, well-known or conventional details are not described in order to provide a concise discussion of embodiments of the present inventions.
Reference in the specification to "one embodiment" or "an embodiment" means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in conjunction with the embodiment can be included in at least one embodiment of the invention. The appearances of the phrase "in one embodiment" in various places in the specification do not necessarily all refer to the same embodiment.
Techniques for efficient and effective malicious content detection using plural versions of a software application are described herein. More specifically, embodiments of the invention obtain the advantages of testing across plural versions of a software application within a single operating environment required for cyber-attack analysis of a content suspect for identification of malware. With this approach, if any of the utilized versions of the software application have exploit vulnerabilities to the particular attack vector, it may be concluded that the content suspect contains malware.
A software application may be released in plural versions at least one of which may be susceptible to being infected by the malicious content while one or more of the others may not. As noted above, typically, the known two-phase malware detection systems only test with a single version of a software application. If the test is conducted with the version of the software application having the susceptibility, the test may then indicate that susceptibility for that version. If more than one version of the software application is executed, one after another, to test the same content suspect, testing resources and time may be unduly spent. On the other hand, if the testing is conducted on the content suspect using the single version of the software application, it may yield a false negative with respect to all other versions, since it is possible that only the version selected for use in the test is free of susceptibility to the particular attack. The testing across plural or even all versions of a software application may thus identify anomalous behavior linked to malware that would be missed using a more limited test protocol.
According to some embodiments, plural versions of a software application are preferably concurrently installed and maintained within a single VM. As used herein, "concurrent" indicates temporal overlap during testing. For example, if a particular software application is available in a number (greater than one), e.g., 10, different versions, all versions may be tested at the same time in the same VM, or, of course, a subset (e.g., five) may be tested in each of a limited number (e.g., two) of VMs, preferably less than the total number of versions to be tested. Continuing the former example, when the VM is launched, the 10 versions of the software application can be tested within the same VM without having to switch to and execute another VM. That is, processing logic does not have to terminate a current VM configured to test one version of the software application and launch another VM in order to test another version of the software application. In addition, since a single VM can be utilized to test multiple versions of a software application, the number of VMs required can be greatly reduced. As a result, the resources and time to schedule and maintain the VMs can also be reduced.
FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a malicious content detection system according to one embodiment of the invention. Referring to FIG. 1, system 100 includes controller 101 to manage or control one or more virtual machines (VMs) 102 (also referred to as a sandboxed operating environment or simply a sandbox), where content associated with VMs 102 are stored in storage device 109 in a form of VM disk files 110.
Controller 101 may be implemented as part of a VM monitor or manager (VMM), also referred to as a hypervisor for managing or monitoring VMs, which may be hosted by a host operating system (OS). VM 102 may be hosted by a guest OS. The host OS and the guest OS may be the same type of operating systems or different types of operating systems (e.g., Windows™, Linux™, Unix™, Mac OS™, iOS™, etc.), or different versions thereof. A VM is a simulation of a machine (abstract or real) that is usually different from the target machine (where it is being simulated on). Virtual machines may be based on specifications of a hypothetical computer or emulate the computer architecture and functions of a real world computer. A virtual machine referred to herein can be any type of virtual machines, such as, for example, hardware emulation, full virtualization, para-virtualization, and operating system-level virtualization virtual machines.
According to one embodiment, when malicious content suspect 106 is received for a dynamic content analysis (as opposed to be a static content analysis described below), a scheduler 140 of controller 101 is configured to identify and select a VM, in this example VM 102, from a VM pool 145 that has been configured to closely simulate a target operating environment (e.g., particular version of an OS with particular version(s) of certain software installed therein) in which malicious content suspect 106 is to be analyzed. The scheduler 140 may include a queue of malicious content suspects waiting for a virtual machine to become available because, under heavy workloads, the number of VMs that may be concurrently executed may be limited. The scheduler 140 then launches VM 102 in which monitoring module 105 is running within VM 102 and configured to monitor activities and behavior of malicious content suspect 106.
In addition, monitoring module 105 maintains a persistent communication channel with analysis module 103 of controller 101 to communicate certain events or activities of malicious content suspect 106 during the execution. In response to detecting certain predetermined events triggered by malicious content suspect 106, monitoring module 105 is configured to send a message via the communication channel to analysis module 103, where the message may be recorded as part of event log 108. The message includes information identifying an event triggered by malicious content suspect 106. Event log 108 records events that have been selectively monitored and detected by monitoring module 103, such as, for example, file creation or file open events. Content of the event log 108 may be stored in a persistent storage as part of event log file(s) 112 of VM disk file 110 associated with VM 102. The recorded events may be analyzed by analysis module 103 based on a set of rules or policies (not shown) to determine whether malicious content suspect 106 is likely malicious.
According to one embodiment, prior to launching VM 102, one or more versions 131-133 of a software (SW) application that is associated with malicious content suspect 106 are installed and configured within VM 102. A SW application may be an Adobe Acrobat™ Reader and malicious content suspect 106 may be a PDF file. Alternatively, a SW application may be a Microsoft Office™ Suite and malicious content suspect 106 may be a WORD document file. Malicious content suspect 106 may include embedded codes or scripts that only exhibit anomalous behavior when the corresponding SW application accesses and loads malicious content suspect 106, including, for example, extracting or downloading suspect files 120 to be stored in the system. Indeed, the malicious content suspect 106 may exhibit the anomalous behavior for only a subset of the versions available for a SW application. This may be due to a security vulnerability (e.g., a programmatic feature susceptible to exploit) existing only in the subset of versions, which may occur, for example, when other versions have eliminated that feature or have been patched previously to close that security vulnerability. Accordingly, successfully detecting anomalous behavior marking a malicious attack may depend on the selection of the version or versions of the SW application to be used in testing conducted by the malicious content detection system 100. To that end, the controller 101 may further comprise a software selector and installer ("SSI") 115. The SSI 115 selects one or more versions of a software application to be used in testing. For example, the SSI 115 may select a single software application version or plural versions in response to user input, where a user may be any individual such as a system administrator or a forensic specialist or other entity to equip to provide such input.
In one embodiment, the SSI 115 may determine a software profile best suitable for testing the malicious content suspect 106. The software profile may comprise the operating system (e.g., Windows™, Linux™), in a particular version, and a suitable software application, in a particular version, to simulate or mimic a particular digital device that runs those versions, in order to test whether that device is safe when processing the malicious content suspect 106. The determination can be based on analysis of the protocol information associated with the malicious content suspect 106. For purposes hereof, "version" shall include versioning of the software at any level, from new release through service packs (SPs). In an example, the SSI 115 determines that the software profile of network data is Windows® operating system, version Windows 7™, SP1 running Adobe Acrobat™ Reader X, version 10.1.4.
In other embodiments the SSI 115 may select a flight of different software application versions to enable the malicious content detection system 100 to detect anomalous behavior marking a malicious attack, for example, utilizing any security vulnerability present in any of the selected versions. For example, the selection may be based on an identification of all software application versions used within a particular organization, all commercially available, all available to the malicious content detection system 100, or some subset of any of the above or based on other factors. The decision as to the selection of software application versions may depend on the forensic objectives of the testing. Where the selected versions of the software application are not all compatible with the same operating system or operating system version, the SSI 115 may form groups of one or more the software application versions associated with each of required operating system or operating system version.
The SSI 115 may make the selection of version or versions of the software application in response to a user input entered via an input device 906 (FIG. 4). For example, the input device may allow a user to enter an operating system version and one or more software application versions using a command line interface. In some embodiments, a graphical user interface (GUI) may present a menu of one or more operating system versions along with one or more software application versions compatible with each of the operating system versions so as to allow a user to make an informed decision and selection. The SSI 155 will store the user selection and designate the selection for execution.
In one embodiment, the SSI 115 is responsible for configuring the VM 102 by installing the selected operating system version and software application version or versions in the VM 102. In another embodiment, the SSI 115 can retrieve a pre-configured VM 102 having the selected operating system version and software application version or versions already installed therein. In still another embodiment, the SSI 115 can designate the selected operating system version and software application version or versions for use by the scheduler 140, which is responsible for retrieving and/or configuring the VM 102.
Where the SSI 115 has formed groups of one or more the software application versions associated with each of a plurality of required operating system or operating system version, the SSI 115, or in other embodiments, the scheduler 140, may configure plural VMs 102 selected from a VM pool, each to process a different group of the software application versions on top of the required operating system or operating system version.
In one embodiment, multiple versions of a SW application may be installed by SSI 115 within VM 102 in different directories and/or under different identifiers (e.g., names), such that multiple versions of a single SW application can coexist with a single guest operating system. For example, for a Windows™ operating system, a SW application may be installed in different directories as follows:
C:\Program Files\SW Application\Version 1\ . . . .
C:\Program Files\SW Application\ Version 2\ . . . .
C:\Program Files\SW Application\ Version N\ . . . .
In addition, in the Windows' registry, different versions of the SW application may be registered under different identifiers or names. As a result, the operating system may treat different versions of the same SW application as different programs installed therein. The multiple versions of a software application may be installed by SSI 115 within VM 102 in the different directories and/or under different names as entered by a user, for example, using a command line interface. Alternatively, the SSI 115 may automatically establish the different directories and/or different names in response to user input of the identity of the operating system version and software application version, e.g., using the GUI as described above. Alternatively, multiple versions of a SW application may be installed within the same directory, but registered under different identifiers or names within the operating system. For example, the executables of multiple versions of a SW application and/or their associated libraries can coexist within the same directory with different filenames. The corresponding operating system registry entries would have different links that reference to different filenames.
According to one embodiment, monitoring module 105 launches each of the versions 131-133 to access malicious content suspect 106 within VM 102. For example, monitoring module 105 may launch each of the versions by passing as parameter an identifier (e.g., path/filename) identifying malicious content suspect 106. Monitoring module 105 monitors behavior of the corresponding version of the SW application to determine whether malicious content suspect 106 likely infects that particular version of the SW application. Monitoring module 105 may sequentially launch versions 131-133 of the SW application to access malicious content suspect 106. Alternatively, monitoring module 105 may launch multiple ones of the versions 131-133 and monitor their behaviors concurrently. Single monitoring module 105 may be configured to monitor multiple versions' behavior concurrently. Alternatively, multiple instances of monitoring module 105 may be utilized to concurrently monitor versions 131-133, respectively. Thus, a single VM can be utilized to test multiple versions of a SW application without having to switch to another VM. As a result, the time to schedule and/or launch a VM can be greatly reduced. A number of VMs and resources or bandwidth required to test a malicious content suspect can also be reduced.
According to another embodiment, the techniques described herein can also be utilized to determine whether a malicious content suspect could infect different applications. For example, a PDF file can be loaded by different browser applications (e.g., Internet Explorer™, or Firefox™) that are running within a single guest operating system of a virtual machine. In this example, multiple browser applications may be installed within the same guest operating system. Each of the browser applications can be utilized to open the PDF file and the behavior of the browser application is monitored to determine whether the PDF file likely infects the browser application, without having a need to switch to another virtual machine.
FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for malicious content detection according to one embodiment of the invention. Method 200 may be performed by system 100 of FIG. 1, which may be implemented as processing logic in software, hardware, or a combination thereof. Referring to FIG. 2, at block 201, processing logic installs and configures multiple versions of a SW application (e.g., Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat) within a single VM that is hosted by a guest OS. At block 202, in response to receiving a malicious content suspect associated with the SW application, processing logic identifies and launches a VM having multiple versions of the SW application installed therein. At block 203, for each of the versions of the SW application, processing logic invokes the corresponding version to access and test, preferably concurrently, the malicious content suspect therein. At block 204, processing logic monitors the behavior of the malicious content suspect processed with the corresponding version or versions of the SW application to identify anomalous behavior indicative of a malicious attack. At block 206, the processing logic stores information describing any detected anomalous behaviors, and, associated therewith, the version identifier (e.g., version number and, where applicable, service pack number) corresponding to each of the versions of the software application and the operating system whose execution resulted in the anomalous behavior. At block 208, processing logic declares any identified attack incident and may issue an alert, which in some embodiments, contains or references threat data, including, for example, the version number or numbers of the SW application having a potential security vulnerability so that remedial action may be taken.
For example, if a particular version number of a SW application is found to likely contain a security vulnerability as a result of testing in accordance with embodiments of the invention, it may be recommended that an IT department make a change to a different, existing version of that SW application throughout the organization it serves to prevent future exploits. Since these embodiments of the invention contemplate testing of multiple versions of the SW application, the change of versions may be effected with confidence if the new version selected is one that was tested and found not to have the same security vulnerability. Moreover, the alert may be issued beyond the organization so that other entities may be warned of the security vulnerability. Also, the software vendor may take steps to close the security vulnerability in all affected versions, through patching or issuing of a new, hardened version, with recommendations to its customers to upgrade.
FIG. 3 is a block diagram of an illustrative computer network system 800 having a malicious content detection system 850 in accordance with a further illustrative embodiment. The malicious content detection system 850 may represent any of the malicious content detection systems described above, such as, for example, detection system 100 of FIG. 1. The malicious content detection system 850 is illustrated with a server device 810 and a client device 830, each coupled for communication via a communication network 820. In various embodiments, there may be multiple server devices and multiple client devices sending and receiving data to/from each other, and the same device can serve as either a server or a client in separate communication sessions. Although FIG. 3 depicts data transmitted from the server device 810 to the client device 830, either device can transmit and receive data from the other.
Note that throughout this application, network content is utilized as an example of content for malicious content detection purposes; however, other types of content can also be applied. Network content may include any data transmitted over a network (i.e., network data). Network data may include text, software, images, audio, or other digital data. An example of network content includes web content, or any network data that may be transmitted using a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) protocol, or be transmitted in a manner suitable for display on a Web browser software application. Another example of network content includes email messages, which may be transmitted using an email protocol such as Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), Post Office Protocol version 3 (POP3), or Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP4). A further example of network content includes Instant Messages, which may be transmitted using an Instant Messaging protocol such as Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) or Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). In addition, network content may include any network data that is transferred using other data transfer protocols, such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP).
The malicious network content detection system 850 may monitor exchanges of network content (e.g., Web content) in real-time rather than intercepting and holding the network content until such time as it can determine whether the network content includes malicious network content. The malicious network content detection system 825 may be configured to inspect exchanges of network content over the communication network 820, identify suspicious network content, and analyze the suspicious network content using a virtual machine to detect malicious network content. In this way, the malicious network content detection system 850 may be computationally efficient and scalable as data traffic volume and the number of computing devices communicating over the communication network 820 increase. Therefore, the malicious network content detection system 825 may not become a bottleneck in the computer network system 800.
The communication network 820 may include a public computer network such as the Internet, in which case a firewall 825 may be interposed between the communication network 820 and the client device 830. Alternatively, the communication network may be a private computer network such as a wireless telecommunication network, wide area network, or local area network, or a combination of networks. Though the communication network 820 may include any type of network and be used to communicate different types of data, communications of web data may be discussed below for purposes of example.
The malicious network content detection system 825 is shown as coupled with the network 820 by a network tap 840 (e.g., a data/packet capturing device). The network tap 840 may include a digital network tap configured to monitor network data and provide a copy of the network data to the malicious network content detection system 825. Network data may comprise signals and data that are transmitted over the communication network 820 including data flows from the server device 810 to the client device 830. In one example, the network tap 840 monitors and copies the network data without an appreciable decline in performance of the server device 810, the client device 830, or the communication network 820. The network tap 840 may copy any portion of the network data, for example, any number of data packets from the network data. In embodiments where the malicious content detection system 850 is implemented as a dedicated appliance or a dedicated computer system, the network tap 840 may include an assembly integrated into the appliance or computer system that includes network ports, network interface card and related logic (not shown) for connecting to the communication network 860 to non-disruptively "tap" traffic thereon and provide a copy of the traffic to the heuristic module 850. In other embodiments, the network tap 840 can be integrated into a firewall, router, switch or other network device (not shown) or can be a standalone component, such as an appropriate commercially available network tap. In virtual environments, a virtual tap (vTAP) can be used to copy traffic from virtual networks.
The network tap 840 may also capture metadata from the network data. The metadata may be associated with the server device 810 and/or the client device 830. For example, the metadata may identify the server device 810 and/or the client device 830. In some embodiments, the server device 810 transmits metadata which is captured by the tap 815. In other embodiments, a heuristic module 860 (described herein) may determine the server device 810 and the client device 830 by analyzing data packets within the network data in order to generate the metadata. The term, "content," as used herein may be construed to include the intercepted network data and/or the metadata unless the context requires otherwise.
The malicious network content detection system 825 may include a heuristic module 860, a heuristics database 862, a scheduler 870, a virtual machine pool 880, an analysis engine 882 and a reporting module 884. In some embodiments, the network tap 840 may be contained within the malicious network content detection system 850.
The heuristic module 860 receives the copy of the network data from the network tap 840 and applies heuristics to the data to determine if the network data might contain suspicious network content. The heuristics applied by the heuristic module 860 may be based on data and/or rules stored in the heuristics database 862. The heuristic module 860 may examine the image of the captured content without executing or opening the captured content. For example, the heuristic module 860 may examine the metadata or attributes of the captured content and/or the code image (e.g., a binary image of an executable) to determine whether a certain portion of the captured content matches a predetermined pattern or signature that is associated with a particular type of malicious content. In one example, the heuristic module 860 flags network data as suspicious after applying a heuristic analysis. This detection process is also referred to as a static malicious content detection. The suspicious network data may then be provided to the scheduler 870. In some embodiments, the suspicious network data is provided directly to the scheduler 870 with or without buffering or organizing one or more data flows.
When a characteristic of the packet, such as a sequence of characters or keyword, is identified that meets the conditions of a heuristic, a suspicious characteristic of the network content is identified. The identified characteristic may be stored for reference and analysis. In some embodiments, the entire packet may be inspected (e.g., using deep packet inspection techniques) and multiple characteristics may be identified before proceeding to the next step. In some embodiments, the characteristic may be determined as a result of an analysis across multiple packets comprising the network content. A score related to a probability that the suspicious characteristic identified indicates malicious network content is determined.
The heuristic module 860 may also provide a priority level for the packet and/or the features present in the packet. The scheduler 870 may then load and configure a virtual machine from the virtual machine pool 880 in an order related to the priority level, and dispatch the virtual machine to the analysis engine 882 to process the suspicious network content.
The heuristic module 860 may provide the packet containing the suspicious network content to the scheduler 870, along with a list of the features present in the packet and the malicious probability scores associated with each of those features. Alternatively, the heuristic module 860 may provide a pointer to the packet containing the suspicious network content to the scheduler 870 such that the scheduler 870 may access the packet via a memory shared with the heuristic module 860. In another embodiment, the heuristic module 860 may provide identification information regarding the packet to the scheduler 870 such that the scheduler 870, replayer 805, or virtual machine may query the heuristic module 860 for data regarding the packet as needed.
The scheduler 870 may identify the client device 830 and retrieve a virtual machine associated with the client device 830. A virtual machine may itself be executable software that is configured to mimic the performance of a device (e.g., the client device 830). The virtual machine may be retrieved from the virtual machine pool 880. Furthermore, the scheduler 870 may identify, for example, a Web browser running on the client device 830, and retrieve a virtual machine associated with the web browser.
In some embodiments, the heuristic module 860 transmits the metadata identifying the client device 830 to the scheduler 870. In other embodiments, the scheduler 870 receives one or more data packets of the network data from the heuristic module 860 and analyzes the one or more data packets to identify the client device 830. In yet other embodiments, the metadata may be received from the network tap 840.
The scheduler 870 may retrieve and configure the virtual machine to mimic the pertinent performance characteristics of the client device 830. In one example, the scheduler 870 configures the characteristics of the virtual machine to mimic only those features of the client device 830 that are affected by the network data copied by the network tap 840. The scheduler 870 may determine the features of the client device 830 that are affected by the network data by receiving and analyzing the network data from the network tap 840. Such features of the client device 830 may include ports that are to receive the network data, select device drivers that are to respond to the network data, and any other devices coupled to or contained within the client device 830 that can respond to the network data. In other embodiments, the heuristic module 860 may determine the features of the client device 830 that are affected by the network data by receiving and analyzing the network data from the network tap 840. The heuristic module 850 may then transmit the features of the client device to the scheduler 870.
The virtual machine pool 880 may be configured to store one or more virtual machines. The virtual machine pool 880 may include software and/or a storage medium capable of storing software. In one example, the virtual machine pool 880 stores a single virtual machine that can be configured by the scheduler 870 to mimic the performance of any client device 830 on the communication network 820. The virtual machine pool 880 may store any number of distinct virtual machines that can be configured to simulate the performance of a wide variety of client devices 830. The virtual machine(s) may be executed along with a plurality of versions of a software application for dynamic testing of network content, as described hereinabove.
The analysis engine 882 simulates the receipt and/or display of the network content from the server device 810 after the network content is received by the client device 110 to analyze the effects of the network content upon the client device 830. The analysis engine 882 may identify the effects of malware or malicious network content by analyzing the simulation of the effects of the network content upon the client device 830 that is carried out on the virtual machine. There may be multiple analysis engines 850 to simulate multiple streams of network content. The analysis engine 882 may be configured to monitor the virtual machine for indications that the suspicious network content is in fact malicious network content. Such indications may include unusual network transmissions, unusual changes in performance, and the like. This detection process is referred to as a dynamic malicious content detection.
The analysis engine 882 may flag the suspicious network content as malicious network content according to the observed behavior of the virtual machine. The reporting module 884 may issue alerts indicating the presence of malware, and using pointers and other reference information, identify the packets of the network content containing the malware. Additionally, the server device 810 may be added to a list of malicious network content providers, and future network transmissions originating from the server device 810 may be blocked from reaching their intended destinations, e.g., by firewall 825.
The computer network system 800 may also include a further communication network 890, which couples the malicious content detection system (MCDS) 850 with one or more other MCDS, of which MCDS 892 and MCDS 894 are shown, and a management system 896, which may be implemented as a Web server having a Web interface. The communication network 890 may, in some embodiments, be coupled for communication with or part of network 820. The management system 896 is responsible for managing the MCDS 850, 892, 894 and providing updates to their operation systems and software programs. Also, the management system 896 may cause malware signatures generated by any of the MCDS 850, 892, 894 to be shared with one or more of the other MCDS 850, 892, 894, for example, on a subscription basis. Moreover, the malicious content detection system as described in the foregoing embodiments may be incorporated into one or more of the MCDS 850, 892, 894, or into all of them, depending on the deployment. Also, the management system 896 itself or another dedicated computer station may incorporate the malicious content detection system in deployments where such detection is to be conducted at a centralized resource.
Further information regarding an embodiment of a malicious content detection system can be had with reference to U.S. Pat. No. 8,171,553, the disclosure of which being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
As described above, the detection or analysis performed by the heuristic module 860 may be referred to as static detection or static analysis, which may generate a first score (e.g., a static detection score) according to a first scoring scheme or algorithm. The detection or analysis performed by the analysis engine 882 is referred to as dynamic detection or dynamic analysis, which may generate a second score (e.g., a dynamic detection score) according to a second scoring scheme or algorithm. The first and second scores may be combined, according to a predetermined algorithm, to derive a final score indicating the probability that a malicious content suspect is indeed malicious.
Furthermore, detection systems 850 and 892-894 may deployed in a variety of distribution ways. For example, detection system 850 may be deployed as a detection appliance at a client site to detect any suspicious content, for example, at a local area network (LAN) of the client. In addition, any of MCDS 892 and MCDS 894 may also be deployed as dedicated data analysis systems. Systems 850 and 892-894 may be configured and managed by a management system 896 over network 890, which may be a LAN, a wide area network (WAN) such as the Internet, or a combination of both. Management system 896 may be implemented as a Web server having a Web interface to allow an administrator of a client (e.g., corporation entity) to log in to manage detection systems 850 and 892-894. For example, an administrator may able to activate or deactivate certain functionalities of malicious content detection systems 850 and 892-894 or alternatively, to distribute software updates such as malicious content definition files (e.g., malicious signatures or patterns) or rules, etc. Furthermore, a user can submit via a Web interface suspicious content to be analyzed, for example, by dedicated data analysis systems 892-894. As described above, malicious content detection includes static detection and dynamic detection. Such static and dynamic detections can be distributed amongst different systems over a network. For example, static detection may be performed by detection system 850 at a client site, while dynamic detection of the same content can be offloaded to the cloud, for example, by any of detection systems 892-894. Other configurations may exist.
FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a data processing system which may be used with one embodiment of the invention. For example, system 900 may represents any of data processing systems described above performing any of the processes or methods described above. System 900 may represent a desktop, a tablet, a server, a mobile phone, a media player, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a personal communicator, a gaming device, a network router or hub, a wireless access point (AP) or repeater, a set-top box, or a combination thereof.
Referring to FIG. 4, in one embodiment, system 900 includes processor 901 and peripheral interface 902, also referred to herein as a chipset, to couple various components to processor 901 including memory 903 and devices 905-908 via a bus or an interconnect. Processor 901 may represent a single processor or multiple processors with a single processor core or multiple processor cores included therein. Processor 901 may represent one or more general-purpose processors such as a microprocessor, a central processing unit (CPU), or the like. More particularly, processor 901 may be a complex instruction set computing (CISC) microprocessor, reduced instruction set computing (RISC) microprocessor, very long instruction word (VLIW) microprocessor, or processor implementing other instruction sets, or processors implementing a combination of instruction sets. Processor 901 may also be one or more special-purpose processors such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), a network processor, a graphics processor, a network processor, a communications processor, a cryptographic processor, a co-processor, an embedded processor, or any other type of logic capable of processing instructions. Processor 901 is configured to execute instructions for performing the operations and steps discussed herein.
Peripheral interface 902 may include memory control hub (MCH) and input output control hub (ICH). Peripheral interface 902 may include a memory controller (not shown) that communicates with a memory 903. Peripheral interface 902 may also include a graphics interface that communicates with graphics subsystem 904, which may include a display controller and/or a display device. Peripheral interface 902 may communicate with graphics device 904 via an accelerated graphics port (AGP), a peripheral component interconnect (PCI) express bus, or other types of interconnects.
An MCH is sometimes referred to as a Northbridge and an ICH is sometimes referred to as a Southbridge. As used herein, the terms MCH, ICH, Northbridge and Southbridge are intended to be interpreted broadly to cover various chips who functions include passing interrupt signals toward a processor. In some embodiments, the MCH may be integrated with processor 901. In such a configuration, peripheral interface 902 operates as an interface chip performing some functions of the MCH and ICH. Furthermore, a graphics accelerator may be integrated within the MCH or processor 901.
Memory 903 may include one or more volatile storage (or memory) devices such as random access memory (RAM), dynamic RAM (DRAM), synchronous DRAM (SDRAM), static RAM (SRAM), or other types of storage devices. Memory 903 may store information including sequences of instructions that are executed by processor 901, or any other device. For example, executable code and/or data of a variety of operating systems, device drivers, firmware (e.g., input output basic system or BIOS), and/or applications can be loaded in memory 903 and executed by processor 901. An operating system can be any kind of operating systems, such as, for example, Windows® operating system from Microsoft®, Mac OS®/iOS® from Apple, Android® from Google®, Linux®, Unix®, or other real-time or embedded operating systems such as VxWorks.
Peripheral interface 902 may provide an interface to IO devices such as devices 905-908, including wireless transceiver(s) 905, input device(s) 906, audio IO device(s) 907, and other IO devices 908. Wireless transceiver 905 may be a WiFi transceiver, an infrared transceiver, a Bluetooth transceiver, a WiMax transceiver, a wireless cellular telephony transceiver, a satellite transceiver (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) transceiver) or a combination thereof. Input device(s) 906 may include a mouse, a touch pad, a touch sensitive screen (which may be integrated with display device 904), a pointer device such as a stylus, and/or a keyboard (e.g., physical keyboard or a virtual keyboard displayed as part of a touch sensitive screen). For example, input device 906 may include a touch screen controller coupled to a touch screen. The touch screen and touch screen controller can, for example, detect contact and movement or break thereof using any of a plurality of touch sensitivity technologies, including but not limited to capacitive, resistive, infrared, and surface acoustic wave technologies, as well as other proximity sensor arrays or other elements for determining one or more points of contact with the touch screen.
Audio IO 907 may include a speaker and/or a microphone to facilitate voice-enabled functions, such as voice recognition, voice replication, digital recording, and/or telephony functions. Other optional devices 908 may include a storage device (e.g., a hard drive, a flash memory device), universal serial bus (USB) port(s), parallel port(s), serial port(s), a printer, a network interface, a bus bridge (e.g., a PCI-PCI bridge), sensor(s) (e.g., a motion sensor, a light sensor, a proximity sensor, etc.), or a combination thereof. Optional devices 908 may further include an imaging processing subsystem (e.g., a camera), which may include an optical sensor, such as a charged coupled device (CCD) or a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) optical sensor, utilized to facilitate camera functions, such as recording photographs and video clips.
Note that while FIG. 4 illustrates various components of a data processing system, it is not intended to represent any particular architecture or manner of interconnecting the components; as such details are not germane to embodiments of the present invention. It will also be appreciated that network computers, handheld computers, mobile phones, and other data processing systems which have fewer components or perhaps more components may also be used with embodiments of the invention.
Some portions of the preceding detailed descriptions have been presented in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations on data bits within a computer memory. These algorithmic descriptions and representations are the ways used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. An algorithm is here, and generally, conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of operations leading to a desired result. The operations are those requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities.
It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities. Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the above discussion, it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as those set forth in the claims below, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the computer system's registers and memories into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within the computer system memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices.
The techniques shown in the figures can be implemented using code and data stored and executed on one or more electronic devices. Such electronic devices store and communicate (internally and/or with other electronic devices over a network) code and data using computer-readable media, such as non-transitory computer-readable storage media (e.g., magnetic disks; optical disks; random access memory; read only memory; flash memory devices; phase-change memory) and transitory computer-readable transmission media (e.g., electrical, optical, acoustical or other form of propagated signals—such as carrier waves, infrared signals, digital signals).
The processes or methods depicted in the preceding figures may be performed by processing logic that comprises hardware (e.g. circuitry, dedicated logic, etc.), firmware, software (e.g., embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium), or a combination of both. Although the processes or methods are described above in terms of some sequential operations, it should be appreciated that some of the operations described may be performed in a different order. Moreover, some operations may be performed in parallel rather than sequentially.
In the foregoing specification, embodiments of the invention have been described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments thereof. It will be evident that various modifications may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the following claims. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative sense rather than a restrictive sense.
1. A method for detecting malicious content, comprising:
installing a plurality of versions of a software application concurrently within a virtual machine, each of the plurality of versions of the software application being different from each other;
selecting, by logic being executed by a processor of a data processing system, a subset of the plurality of versions of the software application that are concurrently installed within the virtual machine;
processing one or more software application versions of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application to access a potentially malicious content suspect within the virtual machine, without switching to another virtual machine;
monitoring behaviors of the potentially malicious content suspect during processing by the one or more software application versions of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application to detect behaviors associated with a malicious attack;
storing information associated with the detected behaviors that are associated with a malicious attack; and
issuing an alert with respect to the malicious attack.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the installing of the plurality of versions of the software application comprises installing the plurality of versions of the software application in a plurality of virtual machines configured in a virtual machine pool, each virtual machine of the plurality of virtual machines being associated with a different version of a guest operating system.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the installing of the plurality of versions of the software application further comprises installing a first software application version of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application in a first directory and installing a second software application version of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application in a second separate directory different than the first directory.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the installing of the plurality of versions of the software application further comprises installing each of the plurality of versions of the software application in a single directory.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the processing of the one or more software application versions of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application comprises processing each software application version of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application by concurrently launching each software application version of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application within the virtual machine in response to providing an identifier identifying the potentially malicious content suspect to allow each of the launched software application versions of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application to process the potentially malicious content suspect.
6. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
based on information associated with the potentially malicious content suspect, selecting by a scheduler the virtual machine from a virtual machine pool that has been configured to mimic a target operating environment associated with the malicious content suspect; and
scheduling, by the scheduler, the selected virtual machine to be launched within the data processing system.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the alert comprises a pointer or other referencing information to identify one or more packets of content associated with a malicious attack.
8. A malicious content detection system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory to store instructions, including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to install a plurality of versions of a software application concurrently within a virtual machine, each of the plurality of versions of the software application being different from each other, select a subset of the plurality of versions of the software application that are concurrently installed within the virtual machine that is executed within the malicious content detection system, process one or more software application versions of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application to access a potentially malicious content suspect within the virtual machine, without switching to another virtual machine, monitor behaviors of the potentially malicious content suspect during processing by each software application version of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application to detect a behavior associated with a malicious attack, and issue an alert in response to detecting the malicious attack.
9. The malicious content detection system of claim 8, wherein the processor to install the plurality of versions of the software application in a plurality of virtual machines configured in a virtual machine pool, each virtual machine of the plurality of virtual machines being associated with a specific version of a guest operating system.
10. The malicious content detection system of claim 8, wherein the installing of the plurality of versions of the software application further comprises installing a different directory path corresponding to each software application version of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application.
11. The malicious content detection system of claim 8, wherein the processor is to sequentially launch the one or more software application versions of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application within the virtual machine.
12. The malicious content detection system of claim 8, further comprising a scheduler executed in the memory by the processor to
based on information associated with the malicious content suspect, select the virtual machine from a virtual machine pool that has been configured to mimic a target operating environment of malicious content suspect; and
schedule the virtual machine to be launched within the malicious content detection system.
13. The malicious content detection system of claim 12, wherein the potentially malicious content suspect being tested during processing of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application within the virtual machine, without having to schedule, launch, and terminate an individual virtual machine for each software application version for the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application.
14. A system, comprising:
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, the memory to store instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations, including install a plurality of versions of a software application within a virtual machine, each of the plurality of versions of the software application being different from each other, select a subset of the plurality of versions of the software application that are concurrently installed within the virtual machine, execute one or more software application versions of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application concurrently to process a potentially malicious content suspect within the virtual machine, without switching to another virtual machine, monitor one or more behaviors of the potentially malicious content suspect during processing by each software application version of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application to detect a behavior associated with a malicious attack, and issue an alert in response to detecting the malicious attack.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the processor to install the plurality of versions of the software application in a plurality of virtual machines configured in a virtual machine pool, each virtual machine of the plurality of virtual machines being associated with a specific version of a guest operating system.
16. The system of claim 14, wherein the installing of the plurality of versions of the software application further comprises installing a unique directory path corresponding to each software application version of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application.
17. The system of claim 14, wherein the processor is to sequentially launch the one or more software application versions of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application within the virtual machine in response to providing an identifier identifying the potentially malicious content suspect to allow the launched version of the software application to process the malicious content suspect.
18. The system of claim 14, wherein the memory further comprising a scheduler, when executed by the processor, to select, based on information associated with the malicious content suspect, the virtual machine from a virtual machine pool that has been configured to mimic a target operating environment of malicious content suspect; and
19. The system of claim 14, wherein the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application are tested in processing the potentially malicious content suspect within the virtual machine, without having to schedule, launch, and terminate the virtual machine for each software application version for the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application.
20. The system of claim 14, wherein the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application is selected through an input device allowing a user to enter an operating system version and one or more software application versions.
21. The system of claim 14, wherein the plurality of versions of the software application include a new release of the software application or a service pack.
22. The method of claim 1, wherein the processing of the one or more software applications further comprises processing a plurality of software application versions concurrently within the virtual machine with the potentially malicious content suspect.
23. The method of claim 22, wherein the processing of the one or more software applications further comprises concurrently monitoring behaviors of the potentially malicious content suspect during processing of the plurality of software application versions within the virtual machine.
24. The method of claim 1, wherein the processing of the one or more software applications further comprises concurrently monitoring behaviors of the potentially malicious content suspect during processing of the plurality of software application versions within the virtual machine.
25. The method of claim 1, wherein prior to selecting the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application, the method further comprising registering each of the plurality of versions of the software application with a different identifier within a Windows registry.
26. The method of claim 1, wherein prior to selecting the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application, the method further comprising registering each of the plurality of versions of the software application with a different identifier or name within an operating system.
27. The method of claim 1, wherein the virtual machine is managed by a virtual machine monitor hosted in a host operating system, the virtual machine being hosted by a guest operating system.
28. The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application is performed by the logic determining one or more software profiles, including at least an operating system and at least a software application suited for testing for the potentially malicious content suspect.
29. The method of claim 28, wherein the selecting of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application comprises selecting a flight of different software application versions of the plurality of versions of the software application based on the operating system.
30. The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application comprises selecting different software applications manufactured by different manufacturers.
31. The malicious content detection system of claim 8, wherein responsive to an identifier, identifying the potentially malicious content suspect to allow the launched version of the software application to process the malicious content suspect.
32. The malicious content detection system of claim 8, wherein prior to the processor selecting the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application, the processor to register each of the plurality of versions of the software application with a different identifier within a Windows registry.
33. The malicious content detection system of claim 8, wherein prior to the processor selecting the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application, the processor to register each of the plurality of versions with a different identifier or name within an operating system.
34. The system of claim 14, wherein prior to the processor selecting the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application, the processor to register each of the plurality of versions of the software application with a different identifier within a Windows registry.
35. The system of claim 14, wherein prior to the processor selecting the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application, the processor to register each of the plurality of versions with a different identifier or name within an operating system.
36. The method of claim 1, wherein the processing of the one or more software application versions comprises launching and executing each software application version of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application within the virtual machine in a temporal overlapping manner in order to test the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application concurrently.
37. The method of claim 36, wherein the one or more software application versions comprises a first version of the software application and a second version of the software application being a patched version of the first version of the software application to close a security vulnerability in the first version of the software application.
38. The method of claim 37, wherein the monitoring of the behaviors of the potentially malicious content suspect during processing by the one or more software application versions comprises testing of multiple versions of the software application where a determination is made that the security vulnerability has been addressed when the second version of the software application is tested without the security vulnerability while the first version of the software application is concurrently tested and features the security vulnerability.
39. The method of claim 36, wherein the one or more software application versions comprises a first version of the software application and a second version of the software application being a hardened version of the first version of the software application.
40. The malicious content detection system of claim 8, wherein the processor to process each software application version of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application, being the one or more software application versions, by at least launching and executing each software application version of the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application within the virtual machine in a temporal overlapping manner in order to test the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application concurrently.
41. The malicious content detection system of claim 40, wherein the one or more software application versions comprises a first version of the software application and a second version of the software application being a patched version of the first version of the software application to close a security vulnerability in the first version of the software application.
42. The malicious content detection system of claim 41, wherein the processor to monitor the behaviors of the potentially malicious content suspect by at least testing of multiple versions of the software application where a determination is made that the security vulnerability has been addressed when the second version of the software application is tested without the security vulnerability while the first version of the software application is concurrently tested and features the security vulnerability.
43. The malicious content detection system of claim 40, the one or more software application versions comprises a first version of the software application and a second version of the software application being a hardened version of the first version of the software application.
44. The system of claim 14, wherein the processor to execute each of the one or more software application versions within the virtual machine in a temporal overlapping manner in order to test the subset of the plurality of versions of the software application concurrently.
45. The system of claim 44, wherein the one or more software application versions comprises a first version of the software application and a second version of the software application being a patched version of the first version of the software application to close a security vulnerability in the first version of the software application.
46. The system of claim 44, wherein the processor to monitor the behaviors of the potentially malicious content suspect by at least testing multiple versions of the software application where a determination is made that the security vulnerability has been addressed when the second version of the software application is tested without the security vulnerability while the first version of the software application is concurrently tested and features the security vulnerability.
47. The system of claim 44, wherein the one or more software application versions comprises a first version of the software application and a second version of the software application being a hardened version of the first version of the software application.
4292580 September 29, 1981 Ott et al.
5175732 December 29, 1992 Hendel et al.
5440723 August 8, 1995 Arnold et al.
5490249 February 6, 1996 Miller
5603027 February 11, 1997 Ohkami
5657473 August 12, 1997 Killean et al.
5842002 November 24, 1998 Schnurer et al.
5978917 November 2, 1999 Chi
5983348 November 9, 1999 Ji
6088803 July 11, 2000 Tso et al.
6092194 July 18, 2000 Touboul
6094677 July 25, 2000 Capek et al.
6108799 August 22, 2000 Boulay et al.
6118382 September 12, 2000 Hibbs et al.
6154844 November 28, 2000 Touboul et al.
6269330 July 31, 2001 Cidon et al.
6272641 August 7, 2001 Ji
6279113 August 21, 2001 Vaidya
6298445 October 2, 2001 Shostack et al.
6357008 March 12, 2002 Nachenberg
6417774 July 9, 2002 Hibbs et al.
6424627 July 23, 2002 Sørhaug et al.
6442696 August 27, 2002 Wray et al.
6484315 November 19, 2002 Ziese
6487666 November 26, 2002 Shanklin et al.
6493756 December 10, 2002 O'Brien et al.
6550012 April 15, 2003 Villa et al.
6700497 March 2, 2004 Hibbs et al.
6775657 August 10, 2004 Baker
6831893 December 14, 2004 Ben Nun et al.
6832367 December 14, 2004 Choi et al.
6895550 May 17, 2005 Kanchirayappa et al.
6898632 May 24, 2005 Gordy et al.
6907396 June 14, 2005 Muttik et al.
6941348 September 6, 2005 Petry et al.
6971097 November 29, 2005 Wallman
6981279 December 27, 2005 Arnold et al.
6995665 February 7, 2006 Appelt et al.
7007107 February 28, 2006 Ivchenko et al.
7028179 April 11, 2006 Anderson et al.
7043757 May 9, 2006 Hoefelmeyer et al.
7069316 June 27, 2006 Gryaznov
7080407 July 18, 2006 Zhao et al.
7080408 July 18, 2006 Pak et al.
7093002 August 15, 2006 Wolff et al.
7093239 August 15, 2006 van der Made
7096498 August 22, 2006 Judge
7100201 August 29, 2006 Izatt
7107617 September 12, 2006 Hursey et al.
7159149 January 2, 2007 Spiegel et al.
7213260 May 1, 2007 Judge
7231667 June 12, 2007 Jordan
7240364 July 3, 2007 Branscomb et al.
7240368 July 3, 2007 Roesch et al.
7243371 July 10, 2007 Kasper et al.
7249175 July 24, 2007 Donaldson
7287278 October 23, 2007 Liang
7308716 December 11, 2007 Danford et al.
7328453 February 5, 2008 Merkle, Jr. et al.
7346486 March 18, 2008 Ivancic et al.
7356736 April 8, 2008 Natvig
7386888 June 10, 2008 Liang et al.
7392542 June 24, 2008 Bucher
7418729 August 26, 2008 Szor
7428300 September 23, 2008 Drew et al.
7441272 October 21, 2008 Durham et al.
7448084 November 4, 2008 Apap et al.
7458098 November 25, 2008 Judge et al.
7464404 December 9, 2008 Carpenter et al.
7464407 December 9, 2008 Nakae et al.
7467408 December 16, 2008 O'Toole, Jr.
7478428 January 13, 2009 Thomlinson
7480773 January 20, 2009 Reed
7487543 February 3, 2009 Arnold et al.
7496960 February 24, 2009 Chen et al.
7496961 February 24, 2009 Zimmer et al.
7519990 April 14, 2009 Xie
7523493 April 21, 2009 Liang et al.
7530104 May 5, 2009 Thrower et al.
7540025 May 26, 2009 Tzadikario
7565550 July 21, 2009 Liang et al.
7568233 July 28, 2009 Szor et al.
7584455 September 1, 2009 Ball
7603715 October 13, 2009 Costa et al.
7607171 October 20, 2009 Marsden et al.
7639714 December 29, 2009 Stolfo et al.
7644441 January 5, 2010 Schmid et al.
7657419 February 2, 2010 van der Made
7676841 March 9, 2010 Sobchuk et al.
7698548 April 13, 2010 Shelest et al.
7707633 April 27, 2010 Danford et al.
7712136 May 4, 2010 Sprosts et al.
7730011 June 1, 2010 Deninger et al.
7739740 June 15, 2010 Nachenberg et al.
7779463 August 17, 2010 Stolfo et al.
7832008 November 9, 2010 Kraemer
7836502 November 16, 2010 Zhao et al.
7849506 December 7, 2010 Dansey et al.
7854007 December 14, 2010 Sprosts et al.
7869073 January 11, 2011 Oshima
7877803 January 25, 2011 Enstone et al.
7904959 March 8, 2011 Sidiroglou et al.
7908660 March 15, 2011 Bahl
7930738 April 19, 2011 Petersen
7937387 May 3, 2011 Frazier et al.
7937761 May 3, 2011 Bennett
7949849 May 24, 2011 Lowe et al.
7996556 August 9, 2011 Raghavan et al.
7996836 August 9, 2011 McCorkendale et al.
7996904 August 9, 2011 Chiueh et al.
8006305 August 23, 2011 Aziz
8010667 August 30, 2011 Zhang et al.
8020206 September 13, 2011 Hubbard et al.
8028338 September 27, 2011 Schneider et al.
8042184 October 18, 2011 Batenin
8045094 October 25, 2011 Teragawa
8045458 October 25, 2011 Alperovitch et al.
8069484 November 29, 2011 McMillan et al.
8087086 December 27, 2011 Lai et al.
8171553 May 1, 2012 Aziz et al.
8176049 May 8, 2012 Deninger et al.
8176480 May 8, 2012 Spertus
8201246 June 12, 2012 Wu et al.
8204984 June 19, 2012 Aziz et al.
8214905 July 3, 2012 Doukhvalov et al.
8220055 July 10, 2012 Kennedy
8225288 July 17, 2012 Miller et al.
8225373 July 17, 2012 Kraemer
8233882 July 31, 2012 Rogel
8234640 July 31, 2012 Fitzgerald et al.
8234709 July 31, 2012 Viljoen et al.
8239944 August 7, 2012 Nachenberg et al.
8260914 September 4, 2012 Ranjan
8266091 September 11, 2012 Gubin et al.
8286251 October 9, 2012 Eker et al.
8291499 October 16, 2012 Aziz et al.
8307435 November 6, 2012 Mann et al.
8307443 November 6, 2012 Wang et al.
8312545 November 13, 2012 Tuvell et al.
8321936 November 27, 2012 Green et al.
8332571 December 11, 2012 Edwards, Sr.
8365286 January 29, 2013 Poston
8365297 January 29, 2013 Parshin et al.
8370938 February 5, 2013 Daswani et al.
8370939 February 5, 2013 Zaitsev et al.
8375444 February 12, 2013 Aziz et al.
8381299 February 19, 2013 Stolfo et al.
8402529 March 19, 2013 Green et al.
8464340 June 11, 2013 Ahn et al.
8479174 July 2, 2013 Chiriac
8479276 July 2, 2013 Vaystikh et al.
8479291 July 2, 2013 Bodke
8510827 August 13, 2013 Leake et al.
8510828 August 13, 2013 Guo et al.
8510842 August 13, 2013 Amit et al.
8516478 August 20, 2013 Edwards et al.
8516590 August 20, 2013 Ranadive et al.
8528086 September 3, 2013 Aziz
8533824 September 10, 2013 Hutton et al.
8539582 September 17, 2013 Aziz et al.
8549638 October 1, 2013 Aziz
8555391 October 8, 2013 Demir et al.
8566476 October 22, 2013 Shiffer et al.
8584094 November 12, 2013 Dadhia et al.
8584234 November 12, 2013 Sobel et al.
8584239 November 12, 2013 Aziz et al.
8595834 November 26, 2013 Xie et al.
8627476 January 7, 2014 Satish et al.
8635696 January 21, 2014 Aziz
8682054 March 25, 2014 Xue et al.
8682812 March 25, 2014 Ranjan
8689333 April 1, 2014 Aziz
8695096 April 8, 2014 Zhang
8713631 April 29, 2014 Pavlyushchik
8713681 April 29, 2014 Silberman et al.
8726392 May 13, 2014 McCorkendale et al.
8739280 May 27, 2014 Chess et al.
8776229 July 8, 2014 Aziz
8782792 July 15, 2014 Bodke
8789172 July 22, 2014 Stolfo et al.
8789178 July 22, 2014 Kejriwal et al.
8793278 July 29, 2014 Frazier et al.
8793787 July 29, 2014 Ismael et al.
8805947 August 12, 2014 Kuzkin et al.
8806647 August 12, 2014 Daswani et al.
8832829 September 9, 2014 Manni et al.
8850570 September 30, 2014 Ramzan
8850571 September 30, 2014 Staniford et al.
8881234 November 4, 2014 Narasimhan et al.
8881271 November 4, 2014 Butler, II
8881282 November 4, 2014 Aziz et al.
8935779 January 13, 2015 Manni et al.
8949257 February 3, 2015 Shiffer et al.
8984638 March 17, 2015 Aziz et al.
8990939 March 24, 2015 Staniford et al.
8990944 March 24, 2015 Singh et al.
9009822 April 14, 2015 Ismael et al.
9027135 May 5, 2015 Aziz
9104867 August 11, 2015 Thioux et al.
9106630 August 11, 2015 Frazier et al.
9106694 August 11, 2015 Aziz et al.
9117079 August 25, 2015 Huang
9118715 August 25, 2015 Staniford et al.
9159035 October 13, 2015 Ismael et al.
9171160 October 27, 2015 Vincent et al.
9176843 November 3, 2015 Ismael et al.
9189627 November 17, 2015 Islam
9195829 November 24, 2015 Goradia et al.
9223972 December 29, 2015 Vincent et al.
9225740 December 29, 2015 Ismael et al.
9241010 January 19, 2016 Bennett et al.
9251343 February 2, 2016 Vincent et al.
9262635 February 16, 2016 Paithane et al.
9268936 February 23, 2016 Butler
9275229 March 1, 2016 LeMasters
9282109 March 8, 2016 Aziz et al.
9294501 March 22, 2016 Mesdaq et al.
9300686 March 29, 2016 Pidathala et al.
9306974 April 5, 2016 Aziz et al.
9311479 April 12, 2016 Manni et al.
9355247 May 31, 2016 Thioux et al.
9356944 May 31, 2016 Aziz
9363280 June 7, 2016 Rivlin et al.
9367681 June 14, 2016 Ismael et al.
9398028 July 19, 2016 Karandikar et al.
9430646 August 30, 2016 Mushtaq et al.
9432389 August 30, 2016 Khalid et al.
9438613 September 6, 2016 Paithane et al.
9438622 September 6, 2016 Staniford et al.
9438623 September 6, 2016 Thioux et al.
9459901 October 4, 2016 Jung et al.
9483644 November 1, 2016 Paithane et al.
9495180 November 15, 2016 Ismael
9516057 December 6, 2016 Aziz
9519782 December 13, 2016 Aziz et al.
9536091 January 3, 2017 Paithane et al.
9560059 January 31, 2017 Islam
9565202 February 7, 2017 Kindlund et al.
9591015 March 7, 2017 Amin et al.
9591020 March 7, 2017 Aziz
9594904 March 14, 2017 Jain et al.
9594905 March 14, 2017 Ismael et al.
9594912 March 14, 2017 Thioux et al.
9609007 March 28, 2017 Rivlin et al.
9626509 April 18, 2017 Khalid et al.
9628498 April 18, 2017 Aziz et al.
9628507 April 18, 2017 Haq et al.
9635039 April 25, 2017 Islam et al.
9641546 May 2, 2017 Manni et al.
9661009 May 23, 2017 Karandikar et al.
20010005889 June 28, 2001 Albrecht
20010047326 November 29, 2001 Broadbent et al.
20020018903 February 14, 2002 Kokubo et al.
20020038430 March 28, 2002 Edwards et al.
20020091819 July 11, 2002 Melchione et al.
20020095607 July 18, 2002 Lin-Hendel
20020116627 August 22, 2002 Tarbotton et al.
20020144156 October 3, 2002 Copeland
20020162015 October 31, 2002 Tang
20020166063 November 7, 2002 Lachman et al.
20020169952 November 14, 2002 DiSanto et al.
20020184528 December 5, 2002 Shevenell et al.
20020188887 December 12, 2002 Largman et al.
20020194490 December 19, 2002 Halperin et al.
20030074578 April 17, 2003 Ford et al.
20030084318 May 1, 2003 Schertz
20030101381 May 29, 2003 Mateev et al.
20030115483 June 19, 2003 Liang
20030188190 October 2, 2003 Aaron et al.
20030191957 October 9, 2003 Hypponen et al.
20030200460 October 23, 2003 Morota et al.
20030212902 November 13, 2003 van der Made
20030229801 December 11, 2003 Kouznetsov et al.
20030237000 December 25, 2003 Denton et al.
20040003323 January 1, 2004 Bennett et al.
20040015712 January 22, 2004 Szor
20040019832 January 29, 2004 Arnold et al.
20040047356 March 11, 2004 Bauer
20040083408 April 29, 2004 Spiegel et al.
20040088581 May 6, 2004 Brawn et al.
20040093513 May 13, 2004 Cantrell et al.
20040111531 June 10, 2004 Staniford et al.
20040117478 June 17, 2004 Triulzi et al.
20040117624 June 17, 2004 Brandt et al.
20040128355 July 1, 2004 Chao et al.
20040165588 August 26, 2004 Pandya
20040236963 November 25, 2004 Danford et al.
20040243349 December 2, 2004 Greifeneder et al.
20040249911 December 9, 2004 Alkhatib et al.
20040255161 December 16, 2004 Cavanaugh
20040268147 December 30, 2004 Wiederin et al.
20050005159 January 6, 2005 Oliphant
20050021740 January 27, 2005 Bar et al.
20050033960 February 10, 2005 Vialen et al.
20050033989 February 10, 2005 Poletto et al.
20050050148 March 3, 2005 Mohammadioun et al.
20050086523 April 21, 2005 Zimmer et al.
20050091513 April 28, 2005 Mitomo et al.
20050091533 April 28, 2005 Omote et al.
20050091652 April 28, 2005 Ross et al.
20050108562 May 19, 2005 Khazan et al.
20050114663 May 26, 2005 Cornell et al.
20050125195 June 9, 2005 Brendel
20050149726 July 7, 2005 Joshi et al.
20050157662 July 21, 2005 Bingham et al.
20050183143 August 18, 2005 Anderholm et al.
20050201297 September 15, 2005 Peikari
20050210533 September 22, 2005 Copeland et al.
20050238005 October 27, 2005 Chen et al.
20050240781 October 27, 2005 Gassoway
20050262562 November 24, 2005 Gassoway
20050265331 December 1, 2005 Stolfo
20050283839 December 22, 2005 Cowburn
20060010495 January 12, 2006 Cohen et al.
20060015416 January 19, 2006 Hoffman et al.
20060015715 January 19, 2006 Anderson
20060015747 January 19, 2006 Van de Ven
20060021029 January 26, 2006 Brickell et al.
20060021054 January 26, 2006 Costa et al.
20060031476 February 9, 2006 Mathes et al.
20060047665 March 2, 2006 Neil
20060070130 March 30, 2006 Costea et al.
20060075496 April 6, 2006 Carpenter et al.
20060095968 May 4, 2006 Portolani et al.
20060101516 May 11, 2006 Sudaharan et al.
20060101517 May 11, 2006 Banzhof et al.
20060117385 June 1, 2006 Mester et al.
20060123477 June 8, 2006 Raghavan et al.
20060143709 June 29, 2006 Brooks et al.
20060150249 July 6, 2006 Gassen et al.
20060161983 July 20, 2006 Cothrell et al.
20060161987 July 20, 2006 Levy-Yurista
20060161989 July 20, 2006 Reshef et al.
20060164199 July 27, 2006 Gilde et al.
20060173992 August 3, 2006 Weber et al.
20060179147 August 10, 2006 Tran et al.
20060184632 August 17, 2006 Marino et al.
20060191010 August 24, 2006 Benjamin
20060221956 October 5, 2006 Narayan et al.
20060236393 October 19, 2006 Kramer et al.
20060242709 October 26, 2006 Seinfeld et al.
20060248519 November 2, 2006 Jaeger et al.
20060248582 November 2, 2006 Panjwani et al.
20060251104 November 9, 2006 Koga
20060288417 December 21, 2006 Bookbinder et al.
20070006288 January 4, 2007 Mayfield et al.
20070006313 January 4, 2007 Porras et al.
20070011174 January 11, 2007 Takaragi et al.
20070016951 January 18, 2007 Piccard et al.
20070033645 February 8, 2007 Jones
20070038943 February 15, 2007 FitzGerald et al.
20070064689 March 22, 2007 Shin et al.
20070074169 March 29, 2007 Chess et al.
20070094730 April 26, 2007 Bhikkaji et al.
20070101435 May 3, 2007 Konanka et al.
20070128855 June 7, 2007 Cho et al.
20070142030 June 21, 2007 Sinha et al.
20070143827 June 21, 2007 Nicodemus et al.
20070156895 July 5, 2007 Vuong
20070157180 July 5, 2007 Tillmann et al.
20070157306 July 5, 2007 Elrod et al.
20070168988 July 19, 2007 Eisner et al.
20070171824 July 26, 2007 Ruello et al.
20070174915 July 26, 2007 Gribble et al.
20070192500 August 16, 2007 Lum
20070198275 August 23, 2007 Malden et al.
20070208822 September 6, 2007 Wang et al.
20070220607 September 20, 2007 Sprosts et al.
20070240218 October 11, 2007 Tuvell et al.
20070250930 October 25, 2007 Aziz et al.
20070256132 November 1, 2007 Oliphant
20070271446 November 22, 2007 Nakamura
20080005782 January 3, 2008 Aziz
20080028463 January 31, 2008 Dagon et al.
20080032556 February 7, 2008 Schreier
20080040710 February 14, 2008 Chiriac
20080046781 February 21, 2008 Childs et al.
20080066179 March 13, 2008 Liu
20080072326 March 20, 2008 Danford et al.
20080077793 March 27, 2008 Tan et al.
20080080518 April 3, 2008 Hoeflin et al.
20080086720 April 10, 2008 Lekel
20080098476 April 24, 2008 Syversen
20080120722 May 22, 2008 Sima et al.
20080134178 June 5, 2008 Fitzgerald et al.
20080134334 June 5, 2008 Kim et al.
20080141376 June 12, 2008 Clausen et al.
20080181227 July 31, 2008 Todd
20080184367 July 31, 2008 McMillan et al.
20080184373 July 31, 2008 Traut et al.
20080189787 August 7, 2008 Arnold et al.
20080201778 August 21, 2008 Guo et al.
20080209557 August 28, 2008 Herley et al.
20080215742 September 4, 2008 Goldszmidt et al.
20080222729 September 11, 2008 Chen et al.
20080263665 October 23, 2008 Ma et al.
20080295172 November 27, 2008 Bohacek
20080301810 December 4, 2008 Lehane et al.
20080307524 December 11, 2008 Singh et al.
20080313738 December 18, 2008 Enderby
20080320594 December 25, 2008 Jiang
20090003317 January 1, 2009 Kasralikar et al.
20090007100 January 1, 2009 Field et al.
20090013408 January 8, 2009 Schipka
20090031423 January 29, 2009 Liu et al.
20090036111 February 5, 2009 Danford et al.
20090037835 February 5, 2009 Goldman
20090044024 February 12, 2009 Oberheide et al.
20090044274 February 12, 2009 Budko et al.
20090064332 March 5, 2009 Porras et al.
20090077666 March 19, 2009 Chen et al.
20090083369 March 26, 2009 Marmor
20090083855 March 26, 2009 Apap et al.
20090089879 April 2, 2009 Wang et al.
20090094697 April 9, 2009 Provos et al.
20090113425 April 30, 2009 Ports et al.
20090125976 May 14, 2009 Wassermann et al.
20090126015 May 14, 2009 Monastyrsky et al.
20090126016 May 14, 2009 Sobko et al.
20090133125 May 21, 2009 Choi et al.
20090144823 June 4, 2009 Lamastra et al.
20090158430 June 18, 2009 Borders
20090172815 July 2, 2009 Gu et al.
20090187992 July 23, 2009 Poston
20090193293 July 30, 2009 Stolfo et al.
20090198651 August 6, 2009 Shiffer et al.
20090198689 August 6, 2009 Frazier et al.
20090199296 August 6, 2009 Xie et al.
20090228233 September 10, 2009 Anderson et al.
20090241187 September 24, 2009 Troyansky
20090241190 September 24, 2009 Todd et al.
20090265692 October 22, 2009 Godefroid et al.
20090271867 October 29, 2009 Zhang
20090300415 December 3, 2009 Zhang et al.
20090300761 December 3, 2009 Park et al.
20090328185 December 31, 2009 Berg et al.
20090328221 December 31, 2009 Blumfield et al.
20100005146 January 7, 2010 Drako et al.
20100011205 January 14, 2010 McKenna
20100017546 January 21, 2010 Poo et al.
20100030996 February 4, 2010 Butler, II
20100031353 February 4, 2010 Thomas et al.
20100037314 February 11, 2010 Perdisci et al.
20100043073 February 18, 2010 Kuwamura
20100054278 March 4, 2010 Stolfo et al.
20100058474 March 4, 2010 Hicks
20100064044 March 11, 2010 Nonoyama
20100077481 March 25, 2010 Polyakov et al.
20100083376 April 1, 2010 Pereira et al.
20100115621 May 6, 2010 Staniford et al.
20100132038 May 27, 2010 Zaitsev
20100154056 June 17, 2010 Smith et al.
20100180344 July 15, 2010 Malyshev et al.
20100192223 July 29, 2010 Ismael et al.
20100220863 September 2, 2010 Dupaquis et al.
20100235831 September 16, 2010 Dittmer
20100251104 September 30, 2010 Massand
20100281102 November 4, 2010 Chinta et al.
20100281541 November 4, 2010 Stolfo et al.
20100287260 November 11, 2010 Peterson et al.
20100299754 November 25, 2010 Amit et al.
20100306173 December 2, 2010 Frank
20110004737 January 6, 2011 Greenebaum
20110025504 February 3, 2011 Lyon et al.
20110041179 February 17, 2011 St Hlberg
20110047594 February 24, 2011 Mahaffey et al.
20110055907 March 3, 2011 Narasimhan et al.
20110078794 March 31, 2011 Manni et al.
20110093951 April 21, 2011 Aziz
20110099620 April 28, 2011 Stavrou et al.
20110099635 April 28, 2011 Silberman et al.
20110113231 May 12, 2011 Kaminsky
20110145918 June 16, 2011 Jung et al.
20110145920 June 16, 2011 Mahaffey et al.
20110145934 June 16, 2011 Abramovici et al.
20110167493 July 7, 2011 Song et al.
20110167494 July 7, 2011 Bowen et al.
20110173213 July 14, 2011 Frazier et al.
20110173460 July 14, 2011 Ito et al.
20110219449 September 8, 2011 St. Neitzel et al.
20110219450 September 8, 2011 McDougal
20110225624 September 15, 2011 Sawhney et al.
20110225655 September 15, 2011 Niemela et al.
20110247072 October 6, 2011 Staniford et al.
20110265182 October 27, 2011 Peinado et al.
20110289582 November 24, 2011 Kejriwal et al.
20110302587 December 8, 2011 Nishikawa et al.
20110307954 December 15, 2011 Melnik et al.
20110307955 December 15, 2011 Kaplan et al.
20110307956 December 15, 2011 Yermakov et al.
20110314546 December 22, 2011 Aziz et al.
20120023593 January 26, 2012 Puder et al.
20120054869 March 1, 2012 Yen et al.
20120066698 March 15, 2012 Yanoo
20120079596 March 29, 2012 Thomas et al.
20120084859 April 5, 2012 Radinsky et al.
20120110667 May 3, 2012 Zubrilin et al.
20120117652 May 10, 2012 Manni et al.
20120121154 May 17, 2012 Xue et al.
20120124426 May 17, 2012 Maybee et al.
20120174186 July 5, 2012 Aziz et al.
20120174196 July 5, 2012 Bhogavilli et al.
20120174218 July 5, 2012 McCoy et al.
20120198279 August 2, 2012 Schroeder
20120210423 August 16, 2012 Friedrichs et al.
20120222121 August 30, 2012 Staniford et al.
20120255015 October 4, 2012 Sahita et al.
20120255017 October 4, 2012 Sallam
20120260342 October 11, 2012 Dube et al.
20120266244 October 18, 2012 Green et al.
20120278886 November 1, 2012 Luna
20120297489 November 22, 2012 Dequevy
20120330801 December 27, 2012 McDougal et al.
20130014259 January 10, 2013 Gribble et al.
20130036472 February 7, 2013 Aziz
20130047257 February 21, 2013 Aziz
20130074185 March 21, 2013 McDougal et al.
20130086684 April 4, 2013 Mohler
20130097699 April 18, 2013 Balupari et al.
20130097706 April 18, 2013 Titonis et al.
20130111587 May 2, 2013 Goel
20130117852 May 9, 2013 Stute
20130117855 May 9, 2013 Kim et al.
20130139264 May 30, 2013 Brinkley et al.
20130160125 June 20, 2013 Likhachev et al.
20130160127 June 20, 2013 Jeong et al.
20130160130 June 20, 2013 Mendelev et al.
20130160131 June 20, 2013 Madou et al.
20130167236 June 27, 2013 Sick
20130174214 July 4, 2013 Duncan
20130185789 July 18, 2013 Hagiwara et al.
20130185795 July 18, 2013 Winn et al.
20130185798 July 18, 2013 Saunders et al.
20130191915 July 25, 2013 Antonakakis et al.
20130196649 August 1, 2013 Paddon et al.
20130227691 August 29, 2013 Aziz et al.
20130246370 September 19, 2013 Bartram et al.
20130247186 September 19, 2013 LeMasters
20130263260 October 3, 2013 Mahaffey et al.
20130291109 October 31, 2013 Staniford et al.
20130298243 November 7, 2013 Kumar et al.
20130318038 November 28, 2013 Shiffer et al.
20130325791 December 5, 2013 Shiffer et al.
20140032875 January 30, 2014 Butler
20140053260 February 20, 2014 Gupta et al.
20140130158 May 8, 2014 Wang et al.
20140137180 May 15, 2014 Lukacs et al.
20140169762 June 19, 2014 Ryu
20140179360 June 26, 2014 Jackson et al.
20140189687 July 3, 2014 Jung et al.
20140237600 August 21, 2014 Silberman et al.
20140283037 September 18, 2014 Sikorski et al.
20140328204 November 6, 2014 Klotsche et al.
20140337836 November 13, 2014 Ismael
20140351935 November 27, 2014 Shao et al.
20140380473 December 25, 2014 Bu et al.
20140380474 December 25, 2014 Paithane et al.
20150007312 January 1, 2015 Pidathala et al.
20150096022 April 2, 2015 Vincent et al.
20150096023 April 2, 2015 Mesdaq et al.
20150096024 April 2, 2015 Haq et al.
20150096025 April 2, 2015 Ismael
20150220735 August 6, 2015 Paithane et al.
20150372980 December 24, 2015 Eyada
20160127393 May 5, 2016 Aziz et al.
20160191547 June 30, 2016 Zafar et al.
20160261612 September 8, 2016 Mesdaq et al.
20160285914 September 29, 2016 Singh et al.
20160301703 October 13, 2016 Aziz
20160335110 November 17, 2016 Paithane et al.
20170083703 March 23, 2017 Abbasi et al.
2439806 January 2008 GB
2490431 October 2012 GB
02/006928 January 2002 WO
02/23805 March 2002 WO
2007117636 October 2007 WO
2008041950 April 2008 WO
2011084431 July 2011 WO
2011/112348 September 2011 WO
2012/075336 June 2012 WO
2013/067505 May 2013 WO
"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.isp?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).
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 Viral, 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.
Chen, P. M. and Noble, B. D., "When Virtual is Better Than Real, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science", University of Michigan ("Chen") (2001).
Cisco "Intrusion Prevention for the Cisco ASA 5500-x Series" Data Sheet (2012).
Cisco, Configuring the Catalyst Switched Port Analyzer (SPAN) ("Cisco"), (1992).
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).
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).
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:http://www.informationweek.com/microsofts-honeymonkeys-show-patching-windows-works/d/d-id/1035069? [retrieved on Jun. 1, 2016].
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.
King, Samuel T., et al., "Operating System Support for Virtual Machines", ("King") (2003).
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].
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. Appl. No. 13/801,557, filed Mar. 13, 2013 Final Office Action dated May 28, 2015.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/801,557, filed Mar. 13, 2013 Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 5, 2016.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/801,557, filed Mar. 13, 2013 Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 17, 2014.
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.
Assignee: FireEye, Inc. (Milpitas, CA)
Inventors: Yasir Khalid (Fremont, CA), Muhammad Amin (San Francisco, CA), Emily Jing (Fremont, CA), Muhammad Rizwan (Singapore)
Primary Examiner: Robert B Leung
Current U.S. Class: Intrusion Detection (726/23)
International Classification: G06F 21/56 (20130101); G06F 21/53 (20130101); G06F 9/455 (20180101);