U.S. patent application number 13/022148 was filed with the patent office on 2011-06-09 for execution environment file inventory.
This patent application is currently assigned to MCAFEE, INC., a Delaware corporation. Invention is credited to Rishi Bhargava, E. John Sebes.
Application Number | 20110138461 13/022148 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 43597219 |
Filed Date | 2011-06-09 |
United States Patent
Application |
20110138461 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Bhargava; Rishi ; et
al. |
June 9, 2011 |
EXECUTION ENVIRONMENT FILE INVENTORY
Abstract
A method is described to maintain (including generate) an
inventory of a system of a plurality of containers accessible by a
computer system. At least one container is considered to determine
whether the container is executable in at least one of a plurality
of execution environments characterizing the computer system. Each
execution environment is in the group comprising a native binary
execution environment configured to execute native machine language
instructions and a non-native execution environment configured to
execute at least one program to process non-native machine language
instructions to yield native machine language instructions. The
inventory is maintained based on a result of the considering step.
The inventory may be used to exercise control over what executables
are allowed to execute on the computer system.
Inventors: |
Bhargava; Rishi; (San Jose,
CA) ; Sebes; E. John; (Menlo Park, CA) |
Assignee: |
MCAFEE, INC., a Delaware
corporation
|
Family ID: |
43597219 |
Appl. No.: |
13/022148 |
Filed: |
February 7, 2011 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
11277596 |
Mar 27, 2006 |
7895573 |
|
|
13022148 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
726/21 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F 21/53 20130101;
G06F 21/6218 20130101; G06F 2221/2149 20130101; G06F 21/44
20130101; G06F 21/566 20130101; G06F 21/31 20130101; G06F 21/56
20130101; G06F 21/554 20130101; G06F 21/60 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
726/21 |
International
Class: |
G06F 21/00 20060101
G06F021/00 |
Claims
1.-28. (canceled)
29. An apparatus, comprising: a computer system that includes: an
execution unit; a storage system that couples to the execution unit
and that includes a plurality of containers that collectively form
at least a portion of an inventory for the computer system; a
native binary execution environment; and a non-native binary
execution environment, wherein a request to run an executable file
is authorized based on criteria, the request being intercepted
before the executable file is run, and wherein a determination is
made as to whether the request results in an object of the
inventory being changed as a result of running the executable
file.
30. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the request is authorized if
the object of the inventory is not changed.
31. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the change is associated
with a writing operation, a renaming operation, a moving operation,
or a deleting operation of the object.
32. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the criteria include a
particular program implicated by the request and associated with
changing the object.
33. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the criteria includes a
particular user associated with the request that changes the
object.
34. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the request is associated
with an updater that determines whether the request is
authorized.
35. The apparatus of claim 34, wherein the updater is an anytime
updater that is authorized to make changes to files within the
inventory at any time.
36. The apparatus of claim 34, wherein the updater is a sometime
updater that is authorized to make changes to files within the
inventory provided the computer system is in an update mode.
37. The apparatus of claim 34, wherein the updater is a non-updater
that is prohibited from making changes to files within the
inventory of the computer system.
38. The apparatus of claim 34, wherein the updater is a signed
updater that includes a digital signature or that includes a
public/private key pair.
39. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein a tracking mode is used for
the computer system such that attempts to run a non-inventoried
executable file are permitted and logged.
40. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the authorization of the
request is dependent on a particular date and time at which the
request is received by the computer system.
41. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the authorization of the
request is associated with particular attributes of an object to be
changed as a result of the executable file being run.
42. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the inventory is compared to
a gold image inventory in order to identify a particular delta
between the inventories, and wherein updates for the computer
system are blocked if the updates cause the delta to exceed a
predetermined threshold.
43. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the containers include one
or more files that can be accessed by the execution unit.
44. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the native binary execution
environment includes a database management system (DBMS).
45. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the native binary execution
environment is associated with a Java archive (JAR) file that
includes compressed information associated with a Java program.
46. The apparatus of claim 29, wherein a centrally maintained
inventory for a plurality of hosts is used to authorize additional
requests that can change one or more objects relating to the
computer system.
47. The apparatus of claim 46, wherein the centrally maintained
inventory indicates a union of executables of the plurality of
hosts, and wherein the centrally maintained inventory is scanned by
antivirus or anti-malware code.
48. The apparatus of claim 46, wherein a result of the scan is used
to perform actions on a selected one of the plurality of hosts.
49. The apparatus of claim 46, wherein the centrally maintained
inventory is checked against a record of licenses in order to
determine which of the hosts are using particular licenses.
Description
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application is related to the following, all of which
are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety:
[0002] co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/651,591,
entitled "Method And System For Containment of Networked
Application Client Software By Explicit Human Input" and filed on
Aug. 29, 2003;
[0003] co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/651,588,
entitled "Damage Containment By Translation" and filed on Aug. 29,
2003;
[0004] co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/806,578,
entitled "Containment Of Network Communication" and filed on Mar.
22, 2003;
[0005] co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/739,230,
entitled "Method And System For Containment Of Usage Of Language
Interfaces" and filed on Dec. 17, 2003;
[0006] co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/935,772,
entitled "Solidifying the Executable Software Set of a Computer"
and filed on Sep. 7, 2004;
[0007] co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/060,683,
entitled "Distribution and Installation of Solidified Software on a
Computer" and filed on Feb. 16, 2005;
[0008] co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/122,872,
entitled "Piracy Prevention Using Unique Module Translation" and
filed on May 4, 2005;
[0009] co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/182,320,
entitled "Classification of Software on Networked Systems" and
filed on Jul. 14, 2005; and
[0010] co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/346,741,
entitled "Enforcing Alignment of Approved Changes and Deployed
Changes in the Software Change Life-Cycle" by Rahul Roy-Chowdhury,
E. John Sebes and Jay Vaishnav, filed on Feb. 2, 2006.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0011] Control of a company's Information Technology (IT)
enterprise configuration is valuable not only for logistical
reasons, but also for regulatory reasons, including in the areas of
enterprise security, regulatory compliance, and change management.
A significant aspect of such configuration control may include, for
example, controlling what code can run, controlling what parts of
the software set are allowed to change under what circumstances,
and observing and logging what modifications are made to the code
of one or more systems in the enterprise.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0012] A method is described to maintain (including to generate) an
inventory of a system of a plurality of containers accessible by a
computer system. At least one container is considered to determine
whether the container is executable in at least one of a plurality
of execution environments characterizing the computer system. Each
execution environment is in the group comprising a native binary
execution environment configured to execute native machine language
instructions and a non-native execution environment configured to
execute at least one program to process non-native machine language
instructions to yield native machine language instructions. The
inventory is maintained based on a result of the considering step.
The inventory may be used to exercise control over what executables
are allowed to execute on the computer system.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0013] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a computer
characterized by a set of execution environments.
[0014] FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating an example method to
initially generate an inventory of files that are accessible by a
computer and that can be processed by or according to the execution
environments characterizing the computer.
[0015] FIG. 2-1 is a flowchart illustrating a method to use an
inventory for execution control.
[0016] FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating a method operating in
conjunction with "normal" operation of a computer, to observe the
operation of the computer and to maintain the inventory based on
the observed operation.
[0017] FIG. 4 broadly illustrates an example of how "updaters"
interact to determine that a change is authorized.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[0018] In order to exercise configuration control, a preliminary
step may include generating an inventory of the computer's
installed software set. Once the inventory is generated, the
inventory may evolve as the code configuration of the computer
evolves. As configuration control is exercised, the inventory may
be employed to make decisions and take resultant actions, and the
inventory may be maintained in synchronization with such decisions
and actions.
[0019] In this detailed description, we discuss aspects of an
execution environment inventorying methodology. Before discussing
the execution environment inventorying methodology in detail, it is
useful to generally discuss some terminology related to an
information technology (IT) enterprise environment, including
related to a particular computing device and/or system in such an
IT enterprise environment.
[0020] Referring to FIG. 1, a computer system 101 is schematically
illustrated. The computer system 101 includes an execution unit 102
which has accessible to it a storage system 103 of files, typically
including a file system to manage the files of the storage 103. The
computer system 101 is characterized by a set of execution
environments 104, to execute various types of programs by the
execution unit 102. Execution environments are discussed in more
detail below. The concept of files with respect to the inventorying
methodology described herein may be generalized to containers that
are "persistent host objects," such as is described in co-pending
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/346,741 (the '741 application),
entitled "Enforcing Alignment of Approved Changes and Deployed
Changes in the Software Change Life-Cycle" by Rahul Roy-Chowdhury,
E. John Sebes and Jay Vaishnav, filed on Feb. 2, 2006. The
persistent host objects may include, for example, files, registry
entries, DBMS objects or packaged code such as served by an SOA
(service oriented architecture).
[0021] In particular, a native "binary execution environment" is a
mechanism by which execution of native binary code, comprising
instructions in the native machine language of the computer system
101, is accomplished by the execution unit 102. In addition to a
native binary execution environment, the computer system 101
generally is characterized by a set of other (non-native) execution
environments as well. Such a non-native execution environment is a
mechanism by which a program, written in a programming language
(such as, but not limited to, Java, Perl, Lisp, Visual Basic,
Microsoft Word/Excel Macros, etc.) is "run," eventually resulting
in the execution of some native binary code, by the execution unit
102, that corresponds to actions indicated by the program. It is
noted that the set of execution environments present on a computer
can generally be extended or reduced, by installing or uninstalling
corresponding pieces of software.
[0022] Having generally described characteristics of execution
environments, we now discuss some example execution environments.
One example execution environment is the native binary execution
environment provided by an operating system executing on the
computer system. For example, an environment to run executable
files (such as those typically designated by a file extension of
".exe") on a Microsoft.TM. Windows-based computer system with an
Intel.TM. Pentium-based processor architecture, wherein the
executable files comprise native instructions for the Intel.TM.
Pentium processor, is an example of a native binary execution
environment. Other execution environments, of the non-native type,
include interpreters for processing shell scripts, Perl scripts,
Java source code or byte code, and Lisp source code programs and
resulting in execution of native binary code that corresponds to
actions indicated by the source code programs.
[0023] Yet other execution environments of the non-native type
include execution environments that exist within applications.
These execution environments operate to extend the functionality of
the applications within which they exist. Examples of such
execution environments include a Java Virtual Machine (or a front
end to an external Java Virtual Machine) that operates to extend
the functionality of a web browser, for example, by processing Java
programs (source code or byte code). Another example includes
functionality to process Structured Query Language (SQL) code,
Microsoft.TM. Excel macros, and Database Management System (DBMS)
macros.
[0024] As discussed above, a computer system may be characterized
by various execution environments. As a result, there are various
"types" of files that can be processed by or according to the
execution environments. At a particular point in time, the set of
execution environments characterizing a particular computer is
determinate. As discussed below, a complete (with respect to
existing execution environments) inventory of all the files that
can be processed by or according to the execution environments
characterizing the computer may be maintained as the configuration
of the computer evolves over time, including initially generating
the inventory, e.g., based on an initial static configuration.
[0025] FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating an example method to
initially generate an inventory of files accessible by a computer
and that can be processed by or according to the execution
environments characterizing the computer. Basically, each file is
considered relative to execution environments characterizing the
computer and, based on the consideration, a characterization of
the'file is cataloged.
[0026] At step 202, the file system "scan" is begun. Steps 204,
206, 208 and 210 are executed for each file accessible by the
computer (or, perhaps, for some other ascertainable set of files).
At step 204, a file is considered. At step 206, it is determined,
based on a result of step 204, whether the file can be processed by
or according to any of the execution environments characterizing
the computer (i.e., in shorthand, is "executable"). If a result of
the determination at step 206 is affirmative, then at step 208, an
identifier of the file is added to an inventory of files. The
identifier of the file may include, for example, a name and/or
unique path associated with the file. In some examples, the
identifier includes data that is useable to verify the integrity of
the file contents, such as a hash, checksum or message digest of
the file. At step 210, it is determined if all of the files have
been considered. If yes, then processing completes at step 212.
Otherwise, processing returns to step 206 where a next file is
considered.
[0027] Having broadly discussed a method to initially generate an
inventory of files, we now discuss specific examples of how to
determine that a file is executable (step 206 of FIG. 2). In one
example, the contents of the file are examined, such as a file
header. For example, a PE (portable executable) header followed by
a COFF (common object file format) header and other optional
headers may indicate a Microsoft.TM. Windows executable file. This
file content examination may include, for example, parsing and/or
pattern-matching against all or portions of the file body. This may
be useful, for example, to determine that an Excel data file has
macros embedded therein. In another example, metadata or other
attributes maintained by the operating system is considered, such
as the name and extension associated with the file and/or a file
type. In another example, still other information about the file is
considered, such as on what machine or repository the file resides,
or which gateway or portal provides access to the file (such as in
an SOA, as described below). In another example, a name or other
external reference to the file is considered, wherein the name or
reference is maintained by an information repository or directory
and may follow a naming convention or hierarchical referencing
which can be used to infer information about the file (as in an
SOA).
[0028] It is noted that scanning a computer's file system is just
one technique for identifying and locating files (which files can
then be processed according to step 206), and there are a number of
alternative techniques. As one example, if the computer's operating
system maintains a full or partial record of the installed software
(such as the records maintained by a Microsoft.TM. Windows OS and
available via the "Add or Remove Programs" option in the "Control
Panel"), this record can be queried or otherwise examined for
files. As another example, if the operating system maintains a full
or partial record of available services, the record can be queried
or otherwise examined to reveal one or more files involved in
providing the services. As another example, if the operating system
maintains a full or partial record of the computer's network ports,
the record can be queried (for example by using the "netstat"
command on a Microsoft.TM. Windows or Linux-flavored operating
system) or otherwise examined to reveal the files involved in
listening to the ports, creating connections and/or other
processing of the communications on the ports. As another example,
if the operating system maintains a full or partial record of the
currently loaded drivers or the currently installed drivers, this
record can be queried or otherwise examined to reveal files
involved in implementing the drivers. In this example, the driver
files can optionally be examined to determine whether or not they
are signed by their respective vendors. Optionally, files are
prevented from being added to the inventory (or otherwise from
being designated as "authorized to execute" on the computer, as
described below) if they are not properly signed.
[0029] Optionally, an exhaustive scanning of the file system can be
replaced with a combination of one or more of the alternative file
locating techniques described in the previous paragraph to yield a
complete and accurate inventory of the system, provided that an
additional "dependency analysis" step is performed on the files
that are placed into the inventory. That is, for a given file under
consideration, the dependency analysis comprises examining the file
and identifying other files or components referenced or otherwise
used by the file, such as libraries and other executables. These
identified objects can then be processed according to step 206 and
added to the inventory if appropriate, as well as recursively
analyzed for their own dependencies. This methodical hybrid
technique can save valuable time and processing resources by
eliminating the exhaustive scanning of the file system without
sacrificing the completeness or accuracy of the inventory.
[0030] It is further noted that, while the discussion has been
directed to files, this concept may be generalized to apply to
consideration of "containers" generally that may be processed by an
execution environment to result in execution of native binary code
that corresponds to actions indicated by instructions within the
containers. For example, and not by way of limitation, a database
management system (DBMS) is an execution environment for
stored-procedures (sprocs), and sprocs may be stored in the DBMS
itself and not necessarily in separate files. As another example, a
JAR (Java ARchive) file may contain compressed information
representing one or more Java classes and associated metadata which
can be part of a Java program.
[0031] Having broadly described an example of initially generating
an inventory of files ("containers," generally) accessible by a
computer, with regard to execution environments, we now discuss
with reference to FIG. 2-1 how the inventory may be used to
exercise execution control. As illustrated by the flowchart in FIG.
2-1, attempts to run an executable file are detected, and
authorization to run the executable file is based on the inventory.
Referring to FIG. 2-1, at step 352, an attempt to run an executable
file is detected. At step 354, it is determined whether the
executable file is in the inventory. If the executable file is in
the inventory, then the executable file is allowed to be run, at
step 356. If the executable file is not in the inventory, then the
executable file is blocked from being run, at step 358.
Furthermore, an alert and/or log may be generated at step 360.
[0032] In some examples, the FIG. 2-1 method is run in what may be
termed as "tracking mode." That is, rather than block an executable
file from being run, the executable file is allowed to be run
(i.e., step 358 is omitted), and the attempt to run the
non-inventoried executable file is merely logged. In this way, the
effect of execution blocking on a host can be observed without
actually substantively changing the operation of the host with
respect to running executable files. The log can be studied, if
desired, with an eye towards determining whether the inventory
includes all of the executable files desired to be in the
inventory.
[0033] With respect to how to detect and/or block an attempt to
change an executable file, the '741 application describes
methodology to intercept/detect attempts to change objects, as well
as describing methodology to block the intercepted/detected change
attempts. Similar methodology may be employed with regard to
intercepting/detecting attempts to execute objects, as well as to
block the intercepted/detected execution attempts.
[0034] Having broadly described an example of initially generating
an inventory of files ("containers," generally) accessible by a
computer and using the inventory to exercise execution control, we
now discuss with reference to FIG. 3 how the inventory may be
maintained over time. In particular, FIG. 3 is a flowchart
illustrating a method operating in conjunction with "normal"
operation of a computer, to observe the operation of the computer
and to maintain the inventory based on the observed operation. More
particularly, when it is determined that the operation of the
computer is such to attempt a change that may result in the
inventory no longer being up to date, then processing is carried
out to react to the change.
[0035] Referring to FIG. 3, at step 302, an attempted change is
detected to the files (or containers, generally) accessible to the
computer. At step 304, it is determined if a detected attempted
change affects an inventoried file. If the detected attempted
change is determined not to affect an inventoried file, then the
change is allowed at step 306. At step 308, it is determined if the
attempted change created a new file that is executable (e.g.,
making the determination in a manner similar to that discussed with
reference to step 206 in FIG. 2). If a result of step 308 is
negative, then processing continues at step 310, where no action
results. On the other hand, if a result of step 308 is affirmative,
then processing continues at step 322 where it is determined
whether the change is authorized (the determination of what changes
are authorized is described below). If a result of step 322 is
negative, then processing continues at step 324 where no action
results. Alternatively, if a result of step 322 is affirmative,
then processing continues at step 312, where the new executable
file is indicated in the inventory as being executable. If it is
determined at step 304 that a detected attempted change does affect
an inventoried file, then it is determined at step 314 if the
detected attempted change is authorized.
[0036] Examples of detecting change attempts to a host object are
described, for example, in the '741 application. Furthermore, the
'741 application also discusses what may be meant by what "affects"
an inventoried file. This may mean, for example, changing the
object (e.g., a "write," "rename," "move," or "delete" operation),
as well as a change in one or more attributes of the file. In some
examples, "affects" may also include "read," "view" or "access"
operations, such as in a scenario where some files indicated in the
inventory are designated as requiring authorization for such
operations. This will in effect allow control over what files
(generally containers) can be read, viewed or accessed. In
addition, examples of determining what changes are authorized are
also described in the '741 application.
[0037] Other examples of determining what changes are "authorized"
are discussed in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 4. If
it is determined that the detected attempted change is not
authorized, then the detected attempted change is blocked at step
316. Otherwise, the detected attempted change is allowed at step
318. At step 320, the inventory is updated if required based on the
change allowed at step 318. For example, as discussed above, the
inventory may include an identifier useable to verify the integrity
of the file contents, and the identifier may need to be updated
when the file contents, file attributes and/or any associated
information in the inventory are changed.
[0038] Having discussed an example of maintaining over time the
inventory of files with regard to execution environments, we return
to discussing a determination of what changes are authorized,
discussed relative to steps 314 and 322 of the FIG. 3 flowchart and
with reference to FIG. 4. (Again, reference is also made to the
'741 application, which describes how "change authorization
policies" can be used to explicitly or implicitly indicate which
actors, i.e. users or programs or other entities that initiate
changes, are authorized to make what changes to what objects under
what circumstances.) The notion of what changes are "authorized"
may be flexible but, in one example, changes are authorized only if
they are attempted by authorized "updaters." Examples of updaters
generally fall within one of the following categories (though, in
some systems, there may be no updaters in one or more of the
following categories): [0039] anytime updaters: these are programs
that are authorized to make changes affecting inventoried files
under any condition (e.g., anti-virus software) [0040] sometime
updaters: these are programs that are authorized to make changes
affecting inventoried files only when the computer is "in update
mode" (examples of which are discussed later, in greater detail)
[0041] non-updaters: no authority to make changes affecting
inventoried files
[0042] In another example, "signed updates" and "signed updaters"
are employed, using public/private key pairs, digital signatures or
other methods for the digital authentication of updates and/or
updaters. In this manner, digital authentication may be processed
to indicate that an update to a host is authorized. That is, the
digital authentication is another way to indicate what changes are
authorized.
[0043] In one example, inventory maintenance is decoupled from
checking for change authorization. That is, the inventory is not
used in making authorization decisions. Rather, referring to FIG.
3, step 304 is omitted (as are steps 306, 308, 310 and 312). Thus,
at step 314, determining whether a change is authorized is
independent of whether the file that is attempted to be changed is
in an inventory. The change is either blocked (step 316) or allowed
(step 318), and the inventory is updated as appropriate.
[0044] FIG. 4 broadly illustrates an example of how the "updaters"
interact to determine that a change is authorized. Referring to
FIG. 4, processing begins at step 402 where an entity is attempting
to make a change to an inventoried file. At step 404, it is
determined if the entity attempting to make the change is an
anytime updater. If it is determined that the entity is an anytime
updater, then the change is authorized at step 406.
[0045] If it is determined at step 404 that the entity attempting
to make the change is not an anytime updater, then it is determined
at step 408 if the system is in update mode. The system is
considered to be in update mode if the change authorization policy
that is in effect indicates that updates (changes to the system)
are allowed by one or more sometime updaters. If it is determined
at step 408 that the system is in update mode, then it is
determined at step 412 if the entity attempting to make the change
is a sometime updater. If it is determined at step 412 that the
entity attempting to make the change is a sometime updater, then
the change is authorized at step 406. Note that the determination
may depend on a number of conditions (as described in the '741
patent), for example on the date and time, the particular updater,
the particular nature of the change, the particular attributes of
the object to be changed, etc.
[0046] If it is determined at step 408 that the system is not in
update mode, or if it determined at step 412 that the entity
attempting to make the change is not a sometime updater, then the
change is not authorized at step 410.
[0047] There are some points of flexibility in configuring
authorizations. For example, one such point of flexibility is
configuring what is an anytime updater (e.g., configuring an
authorization such that a change action by a particular user or
program or process is always permitted). For example, an
authorization may be configured such that processes executing under
a particular group ID are anytime updaters. In a similar manner, an
authorization may be configured such that a change action by a
particular user (e.g., a process executing under a particular user
ID) is permitted when the computer is in "update" mode.
[0048] Another point of flexibility in configuring authorizations
includes defining the conditions, other than defining the
particular user, under which a sometime updater is authorized to
make changes affecting inventoried files.
[0049] Under some conditions, there is some leeway and/or ambiguity
regarding the timing with which a file should be indicated in the
inventory as executable and, in some circumstances, a file that is
executable should nevertheless not be so indicated in the inventory
at all. For example, a user may cause a "setup.exe" file to run,
the result of which includes attempting to add a set of new
executable files to the file system. With regard to timing, the
files may be added to the inventory one by one, at each attempt to
add an executable file to the disk. Another option includes adding
all of the executables to the inventory in a batch.
[0050] Furthermore, it is ambiguous whether the setup.exe file
itself, which is run only to install a program (including, perhaps,
adding a set of new executable files to the file system, as
discussed above) and will not need to remain executable beyond the
update window should be indicated in the inventory. In fact, the
setup.exe may only function to download another executable file,
which is an installer, where it is the execution of the installer
that causes the program to be "installed." Thus, for example, an
update window may be opened before the installer is downloaded.
After the installer is downloaded, the installer is executed, and
the installer is erased while the update window is still open.
[0051] In some examples, the installation process may be such that
the operator may have to do some manual cleanup. For example, if
the installation includes a "reboot," then this may comprise
keeping the update window open across the reboot and closing the
update window after the post-reboot installation activities are
completed.
[0052] It should be noted that the semantics of the inventory may
be reduced to the point where, for example, having an entry in the
inventory simply means "this container is an executable on this
host," without indicating anything about whether the executable is
actually authorized to execute on the host. Thus, for example,
execution authorization can be relegated to a data structure or
mechanism separate from the inventory. As another example, the data
structure may simply be represented by additional metadata in the
inventory indicating "this executable file is (or is not) actually
authorized to execute on this host."
[0053] As alluded to above, the concept of "files," and what files
are "accessible" to be executed in an execution environment, need
not be limited to the traditional notion of files (e.g., an
"ordinary" file, existing within the directory structure of an
operating system, and that contains either text, data or program).
In addition, the "file system" need not be limited to existing on a
storage device directly associated with a computer (e.g., residing
in a housing that also houses a CPU).
[0054] That is, the inventory concept may be generalized as
follows: [0055] generalize "files".fwdarw."containers" [0056]
generalize "local".fwdarw."distributed"
[0057] The first generalization, from "files" to "containers," has
been discussed above. That is, an executable file may contain
ordinary code. However, "containers" are more general, and may
include files or other "objects" that have code within them but
where the files or objects themselves are not typically executed.
Examples include Java code containers (such as .jar containers) and
stored-procedure containers (i.e., containers of "sprocs") which
reside within databases and are managed by database management
systems. In an SOA environment, code containers may be made
available through distributed computing services, such as
distributed services that use SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol)
as a common language for requests and responses, etc. In fact, the
containers need not be files at all. For example, the containers
may include objects in databases, packaged code served by SOAs,
etc. While much of the description herein uses files as an example,
the described methodology is generally applicable to containers
that may be processed by execution environments.
[0058] With regard to distributed files, we now discuss two
examples. In the first example, a code container is accessible but
resides on a remote file system, such as a networked file system or
a network share. In this case, in the course of generating an
inventory, the remote file system is scanned, and the containers
are processed in a manner similar to that discussed above (e.g.,
with reference to the FIG. 2 flowchart). In one example, prior to
scanning the remote file system, it is ascertained that the
contents of the remote file system are reachable to be examined.
This may be accomplished, for example, by mounting the remote file
system on the host where the processing described with reference to
the FIG. 2 flowchart are actually carried out.
[0059] In another example, code containers are available for access
from various repositories via an SOA or similar methodology. Thus,
for a particular host (such as the host 101 in FIG. 1), the
relevant set of files/containers to consider in creating and/or
maintaining an inventory includes files/containers available from
the repositories. Thus, the specification of the files/containers
to consider includes a specification of the distributed services
deemed to be relevant to the host for which the inventory is being
generated and/or managed.
[0060] In one example, the scanning employs the mechanism provided
by the SOA to poll what types of "code containers" are available.
Some of these code containers are files, while others can be
"stubs" that describe or indicate a particular service that is
provided remotely (e.g. remote procedure calls). In any event, the
inventory is generated and/or maintained to hold an identification
for each code container, similar to manner in which the
identification of executable files directly stored on a
locally-accessible file storage are held.
[0061] In addition to indicating the executable containers in the
inventory, non-executable containers may be indicated in the
inventory as a way to write-protect or even read-protect the data
in the non-executable containers. Thus, for example, meta-data
stored in a container (such as a file) and used in maintaining the
inventory may be protected in this manner by placing an
identification for the meta-data container into the inventory and
designating the container as only writeable by those processes that
manage the inventory, such that the meta-data cannot be changed
except by executing code that is authorized to make such changes.
Note that in this case the container is not designated as an
executable, but as a write-protected container. Enforcing
read-protection can be done in a similar fashion. Note that as a
particular example, read-protection and access-protection (or more
generally, read-restriction and access-restriction via authorized
readers or accessors, defined in analogy with authorized updaters)
can be used to control data exfiltration.
[0062] In some examples, the methodology described herein is
carried out by a computing system under programmed control. In
other examples, the methodology described herein is carried out by
a person, or in some combination of both.
[0063] Having described how to use an inventory for execution
control, we now discuss some other particular applications of the
inventory aside from execution control. In a first application,
enterprise computing asset management is carried out using a
centralized aggregate inventory. For example, many enterprises have
more (or fewer) licenses than required for particular applications.
By comparing an easily generated inventory with the licenses, the
licensing can be more closely matched to the actual usage.
[0064] In another example, a "gold image" inventory is generated
and maintained, representing a baseline inventory for deployment
onto one or more hosts. As the hosts operate over time, their own
individual inventories and/or their inventory "deltas" (as measured
from the gold image inventory) are maintained on the individual
hosts. Thus, for example, a certain amount of delta from the gold
image inventory may be considered allowable, but additional updates
may be blocked if the update would cause the delta to exceed a
threshold. The delta may be quantified in any number of ways, for
instance as an absolute number of inventory items, as a ratio of
the size of the individual inventory to the size of the gold image
inventory, as a ratio of the size of the intersection of the
individual and gold image inventories to the size of the gold image
inventory, or as any other metric that is meaningful to the
business.
[0065] In another example, efficiency is increased by creating an
inventory of a remote repository (e.g., a mountable drive), and
then making the ready-made inventory available to individual agents
on the individual hosts that have access to the remote repository,
either directly or via a central system controller. Thus, the
ready-made inventory can be used on individual hosts in order to
exercise execution control over the items residing on the remote
repository. Note that in general a host may not have sufficient
authority over maintaining the inventory of the remote repository
in response to changes to the remote repository, or over blocking
changes to items as described above. Therefore, it may be useful
for the host to check for staleness of inventory items. For
example, when a host exercising execution control is processing an
attempt to execute a file residing on a remote repository, the host
may examine not only that the file has an associated entry in the
ready-made inventory, but also that a time stamp of the entry is at
least as recent as the creation time stamp of the file. An
alternative to using time stamps is using checksums for ensuring
that the inventory entries pertain to the exact same file at
hand.
[0066] In another example, a centrally-maintained inventory of a
plurality of hosts is used to make decisions involving knowledge of
the set of executable files (or other types of files) on the
plurality of hosts. This aggregates information about the plurality
of hosts onto a central inventory (aggregate inventory), thereby
allowing a centralized analysis of the information. The analysis
results can then be used to make decisions or perform actions
related to one or more of the plurality of hosts. Actions can be
initiated locally on a host or remotely in a way that affects the
host. Actions can also be performed in a way that does not directly
affect the host, but instead affects a related resource, such as an
information repository or a network node, as illustrated with
examples below.
[0067] One example of using a central inventory is anti-malware
processing. A central inventory may be maintained which indicates a
union of the executables on the plurality of hosts together with
which files reside on which hosts, and this inventory is scanned by
anti-virus or other anti-malware code (as opposed to doing
anti-virus code-scans separately on each host). The information
provided by such a central scan can then form a basis for making
decisions pertaining to, or for performing actions on, one or more
of the plurality of hosts, just as if the information had been
gathered locally on the individual hosts. For example, if a central
scan reveals the presence of a virus on a particular host, an
action to remove the virus can be caused to be performed on the
host. Similarly, if a central scan reveals that a particular
networked host is infected with a worm, then one or more elements
of a network infrastructure, such as switches, routers, or
firewalls can be instructed to isolate, or otherwise monitor or
respond to, the infected host, and further action can be performed
on the infected host in order to disable the worm.
[0068] Another example of using a central inventory is license
management. In this example, the central inventory is checked
against a record of purchased licenses to perform an analysis
indicating which hosts are using which licenses. Follow up steps
may include purchasing additional licenses as needed, non-renewal
of existing licenses if the analysis indicates unused purchased
licenses, removal of software that the analysis indicates is not
supposed to be residing on a host, and so on.
[0069] Another example of using a central inventory is change and
configuration management. In this example, the software resident on
a plurality of hosts is managed through authorized channels, such
as by using a software provisioning system. Here, a central
inventory can be used to indicate software resident on the
plurality of hosts, and analysis may include identifying software
which, while resident on one or more hosts, lacks a trail
indicating its deployment onto the hosts through the authorized
channels. Follow up actions may include updating records to more
accurately indicate the presence of software on hosts, removal of
software that is not supposed to be resident on a host, and so
on.
[0070] Another example of using a central inventory relates to the
above referenced co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No.
11/182,320, wherein software resident on one or more of a plurality
of hosts or other computing elements (such as network nodes,
firewalls, etc.) performs some amount of local analysis or
pre-processing related to inventoried containers resident on the
host or computing element, and sends results of the analysis to a
designated entity for further investigation and response. In such a
configuration, the designated entity may maintain a central
inventory of one or more containers resident on the plurality of
hosts or computing elements, and use the sent results from several
hosts in combination with the visibility provided by the central
inventory in order to reach conclusions regarding trends in the
state of the plurality of hosts and cause actions or further
analyses to be performed on one or more of the plurality of hosts.
For example, if a host identifies a piece of software resident on
the host as malware and shares that information with the designated
entity, the entity may refer to the central inventory to determine
which other hosts may be harboring that piece of software, alert
those hosts, and cause a removal or quarantine of the identified
malware.
[0071] For the above examples using central inventories, note that
the union of the inventories of the plurality of hosts (or any
other construct of the individual inventories) need not be exact,
since even approximate aggregates can save valuable resources as
the number of hosts grows. This application of a central inventory
can be generalized to any processing that is based on a scan or
examination of a plurality of hosts, and the code that scans the
centrally-maintained inventory may be, for example, any code for
which the inventory provides useful information from which a
decision for changing and/or execution may be made. This may
include, for example, scanning for adware or spyware, and scanning
for copyrighted/licensed material.
[0072] The foregoing described embodiments are provided as
illustrations and descriptions. The invention is not intended to be
limited to the precise form described. Other variations and
embodiments are possible in light of above examples, and it is thus
intended that the scope of the invention not be limited by this
detailed description.
* * * * *