Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120023576A1/en
Timestamp: 2019-12-07 17:41:32
Document Index: 530744820

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 300', 'Application No. 61', 'art 400', 'art 400', 'art 500', 'art 500', 'arts 400']

US20120023576A1 - Insider threat correlation tool - Google Patents
US20120023576A1
US20120023576A1 US12/841,332 US84133210A US2012023576A1 US 20120023576 A1 US20120023576 A1 US 20120023576A1 US 84133210 A US84133210 A US 84133210A US 2012023576 A1 US2012023576 A1 US 2012023576A1
US12/841,332
US8793789B2 (en
Allan Byers
2010-07-22 Priority to US12/841,332 priority Critical patent/US8793789B2/en
2010-08-04 Assigned to BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION reassignment BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: BYERS, ALLAN, SORENSEN, AMANDA
2012-01-26 Publication of US20120023576A1 publication Critical patent/US20120023576A1/en
2014-07-29 Publication of US8793789B2 publication Critical patent/US8793789B2/en
This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. ______, entitled “Insider Threat Correlation Tool,” which was concurrently filed with this application with an attorney docket number of 007131.00833.
Prior systems attempted to block certain activities, such as visiting certain sites on the Internet or accessing certain storage devices containing confidential information. Unfortunately, however, blocking sites alone does not provide any indication of a threat. Furthermore, while it may be desirable to block transmissions that pose a serious threat to the organization, blocking each transmission that violates any rule could reduce productivity, efficiency, and frustrate the holder of the blocked user account, the IT department, and/or any third party that needs to receive the transmission, especially if the material is time-sensitive. Additionally, many systems apply a “one size fits all” security policy, which cannot consider the type of user account being monitored.
Aspects of the embodiments address one or more of the issues mentioned above and/or other issues by disclosing methods, computer readable media, and apparatuses configured to calculate threat ratings. Aspects of the invention relate to computer implemented methods that form a predictive threat rating for a plurality of individuals. The plurality of individuals may be members of an organization, such as a corporation or business entity. In one embodiment, the predictive rating is calculated for employees of an organization. Further aspects relate to determinations of whether to calculate or display a threat rating or score for a user account.
In certain embodiments, a threshold quantity of activity violations must occur before a threat rating is calculated for a user account. Yet in other embodiments, a threshold quantity of activity violations must occur within a specific control group or collection of control groups. In one embodiment, a first control group relates to activities regarding targeted communications. For example, in certain embodiments, an indication of any blocked targeted communications may be received. Illustrative targeted communication communications include but are not limited to: e-mail and instant messaging.
Further embodiments may comprise control groups relating to non-blocked transmissions. For example, certain embodiments may not block transmissions that violate one or more predefine rules, however, indications of such improper transmission may be considered when constructing a threat rating in accordance with various embodiments. For example, activity violations that may be considered a low threat to an organization may not be blocked. Nonetheless, even repetitive minor violations may be indicative of lack of training, improper procedures, and/or a threat to an organization. Furthermore, certain activities may not violate a rule of a security application, however, when coupled together with other activities or when associated with certain levels of the activity, may be relevant to the security of an entity's information. Therefore, attributes of such activities may be considered in any threat analysis or whether to calculate a threat score or rating.
Certain embodiments may consider the type or quantity of activity violations that occur in relation to several attributes, such as for example: encryption status, attachment violations, identity of the parties, data patterns, words, and combinations thereof. In certain embodiments, a different threshold may be calculated for different attributes. In certain embodiments, exceeding different thresholds may each be considered an independent activity violation. Yet in another embodiment, the totality of activity violations for a collection of attributes may be considered in any analysis.
Certain embodiments consider whether a blocked communication comprises an attribute similar to an unblocked transmission associated with the same user account. For example, a user may attempt to circumvent security procedures by attempting to transmit a blocked transmission through another mechanism. Further, employees looking to impress their supervisor may want to transmit highly confidential information to their personal email addresses so they may work over a weekend. While the intentions of employee may be genuine, potential disclosure or inadvertent retention of the information could be harmful to the employer and even its clients. Therefore, certain embodiments may implement systems and methods to detect someone sending files to a personal account. In another embodiment, it may be determined if a certain transmissions are transmitted or received through an unauthorized protocol.
Certain aspects disclosed herein relate to determinations of whether to conduct further correlation analysis of the user accounts. In one embodiment, it may be determined if the user account has additional indicators. Illustrative indicators may include: a prior investigation of a user of the user account or another individual, such as a supervisor, the volume or type of information accessible by the user account, whether the user account has an exception to a security policy, factors that suggest suspicious communication activity, and/or whether a user has accessed a specific computer-readable medium during a specific time frame.
FIG. 3 shows a flow diagram of an illustrative method in accordance with one embodiment;
FIG. 5 shows a flow diagram of an illustrative method in accordance with one embodiment; and
FIG. 6 shows a flow diagram of an illustrative method in accordance with one embodiment.
In accordance with various aspects of the embodiments, methods, computer-readable media, and apparatuses are disclosed that assist in the creation, implementation, monitoring, review, and use of predictive threat ratings for several user accounts. The user accounts may be related to an organization, such as employees of an organization.
Computer storage media include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data. Computer storage media include, but are not limited to, random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), electronically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical disk storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that can be used to store the desired information and that can be accessed by computing device 101.
Communication media typically embody computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data in a modulated data signal such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism and include any information delivery media. A modulated data signal is a signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or is changed in such a manner as to encode information in the signal. By way of example, and not limitation, communication media include wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared and other wireless media.
Although not shown, RAM 105 may include one or more applications representing the application data stored in RAM memory 105 while the computing device is on and corresponding software applications (e.g., software tasks), are running on the computing device 101. In one embodiment, RAM 105 and/or any other memory may include a security application. The security application may assist in monitoring activity of one or more user accounts on one or more other devices, such as devices 141 and 151, which are described in more detail below
The network connections depicted in FIG. 1 include connections through multiple networks. For example, in one embodiment, a local area network (LAN) 125, may be an organization's intranet, and a wide area network (WAN) 129, may be the Internet. In one embodiment implementing a LAN networking environment, computing device 101 may be connected to the LAN 125 through a network interface or adapter in the communications module 109. When used in a WAN networking environment, the server 101 may include a modem, or interface in the communications module 109 or other means for establishing communications over the WAN 129, such as the Internet 131. Thus, from a security perspective, one user account may be configured to access a LAN, such as LAN 125, however, not to access one or more WANs, such as WANs 129/131.
Referring to FIG. 2, an illustrative system 200 for implementing methods according to some embodiments is shown. As illustrated, system 200 may include one or more workstations 201. In one embodiment, workstations 201 are similar to user terminals 141/151 shown in FIG. 1. Workstations 201 may be local or remote, and may be connected by one of communications links 202 to computer network 203 linked via communications links 205 to server 204. In system 200, server 204 may be any suitable server, processor, computer, data processing device, or combination of the same. Server 204 may be used to process the instructions received from, and the transactions entered into by, one or more participants.
With some embodiments, illustrative system 200 may support an interactive system as will be further discussed. For example, workstations 201 may function as user terminals and server 204 may function as a security application control system that monitors activities of multiple user accounts on workstations 201. As understood by those skilled in the art, the steps that follow in FIGS. 3-6 may be implemented by one or more of the components in FIGS. 1 and 2 and/or other components, including other computing devices.
Aspects of the invention relate to monitoring, measuring, or detecting activities relating to one or more controls. The controls may relate to disparate activities associated with user accounts. Monitoring controls may assist further determinations whether a user account represents a threat to an organization. In one embodiment, one or more of the “user accounts” may be associated with a particular individual, such as an employee of an organization. Thus, regardless of whether the individual is using user terminal 141, user terminal 151, or any workstation 201, the individual's actions may be tied to a particular user account. In an alternative embodiment, a “user account” may be associated with a particular computing device. Thus, in one embodiment, if any of a plurality of individuals uses a particular computing device, such as user terminal 141, the computing device will be a specific user account. In another embodiment, a “user account” may be a combination of specific user(s) on specific computing device(s).
As would be understood by those skilled in the art, it is quite common for a subset of user accounts within an organization or domain to have access to resources not available to other user accounts within the same organization or domain. Unlike prior art systems, embodiments disclosed herein may be used to monitor activities across an organization or domain having user accounts with security features that differ from other user accounts. For example, in one embodiment, each user account may have access to a first network, such as the “Internet” through WAN 131 shown in FIG. 1, however, only a subset of those accounts may have access to a second network, such as specific resources accessible on the organization's or domain's intranet, such as through LAN 125. In one embodiment, the resources may include a centralized store of electronic data that is accessible from several different user terminals 141/151 or workstations 201.
FIG. 3 shows flowchart 300 of illustrative methods that may be implemented in accordance with various embodiments of the invention. According to certain embodiments, activities of user accounts relating to several controls may be monitored, measured or detected (see, e.g., block 302). Any detectable activity, such as the transmission of electronic information (either receiving or transmitting), may be used as a control as described herein. Some illustrative activities which serve as one or more controls may include, but are not limited to: blocked communication through the targeted communication application, communication through the targeted communication application meeting the predefined criterion, accessing a specific computer-readable medium, an illegal storage attempt, and/or any combinations thereof. Further, several controls may be categorized as in one or more control groups. Indeed, aspects of the invention relate to correlating certain controls that may be detected through different processes.
As used herein, a “targeted communication application” encompasses those applications that allow a first user to directly communicate with another individual. For example, common targeted communication applications include, but are not limited to: electronic mail (e-mail), instant messaging (IM), chatting, and combinations thereof. Such applications may allow one account associated with a first user, which may be an employee of the organization to transmit and/or receive electronic information directly to a second account associated with a second user, which may be external to the organization.
From the foregoing it is to be understood that the controls may relate to disparate activities associated with user accounts. For example, several different security applications may be implemented across a network to monitor, measure and/or detect disparate activities. Thus, different controls may be grouped into one or more control groups. For example, one entity (such as a commercial establishment having sensitive medical records) may have a first control group comprising controls relating to activity of targeted communications (such as, for example, electronic mail, instant messaging, and/or chatting applications) and a second control group that monitors non-targeted network traffic (such as including communications using HTTP, FTP, and/or other protocols). The groups may be logically or physically distinct as dictated by the security applications implemented, storage of data, entity-specific concerns, or other variables. Yet, a second entity (such as financial institution having sensitive financial data) may have a first group that monitors all traffic (regardless of whether it's a targeted communication or not) using a specific protocol and a second control group that monitors traffic using a second protocol. For example, in one embodiment, an entity may have a secure communications channel that transmits and/or receives traffic transmitted with a first authentication protocol and activities transmitted with another authentication protocol (or in the absence of an authentication protocol) may be within another group. Illustrative methods of detecting secure or encrypted channels, protocols, or “tunnels” are described in U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/325,055, entitled “Detecting Secure or Encrypted Tunneling in a Computer Network,” filed Apr. 16, 2010, and U.S. Non-Provisional application Ser. No. 12/829,882 (ATTY DOCKET NO. 007131.00792), entitled “Detecting Secure or Encrypted Tunneling in a Computer Network,” filed Jul. 2, 2010, which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety for any and all purposes.
As discussed above, a first control group may be configured to detect parameters relating to one or more controls, such as regarding removable media criteria (see, e.g., block 302 a). FIG. 4 shows a flowchart 400 of illustrative methods relating to removable media controls. In certain embodiments, one or more methods conducted in accordance with the teachings of flowchart 400 may be partially or wholly conducted by a removable media control module 206, which may be located at server 204 of FIG. 2. Although FIG. 4 is explained in the context of removable media, those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that non-removable media may be monitored using many, if not all, of the processes described herein. Therefore, unless explicitly indicated otherwise, non-removable media is within the scope of illustrative embodiments.
Looking first to block 402, one or more processes may be implemented to receive an indication that a user account has accessed a specific computer-readable medium (which may be a removable memory). In one embodiment, block 402 may detect a computer-readable medium operatively connected to computer device, such as for example, through a Universal Serial Bus (USB) connection on devices 141 and/or 151 shown in FIG. 1. In certain embodiments, the detection may be received through a security application. For example, the security application may be configured to monitor illegal write attempts for data loss prevention purposes. For example, some user accounts may be prohibited from writing to removable storage devices, thus in block 402 an indication of any such attempts may be provided. While the illustrative embodiment is described in relation to “write” attempts, those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that “reading” from certain sources may also violate one or more predefined rules. Information associated with the illegal write/read attempts may also be collected. Illustrative information may include, but is not limited to: the filename, the size of the file, the location of the file, or any metadata regarding the file. In one embodiment, block 402 may compare a value from the computer-readable medium, such as a volume value, a MAC address, or other identifier against a collection of approved identifiers. For example, block 402 may comprises one or more processes to detect any non-approved storage devices.
In certain embodiments, it may be determined whether the user has rights to access the computer-readable medium (see, e.g., block 404). For example, certain systems may be configured to permit a user account to access any and all removable mediums; however, another system may be configured to allow a user account to access certain media types, such as a DVD drive, however, not a flash drive. Another system may be configured to authorize access to certain removable media when a user is logged into a specific device. If it is determined that a user account has rights to access a specific medium, one or more attributes (or values thereof) of the access may be stored on a computer-readable medium (block 406). In one embodiment, information regarding the attributes may be stored on memory 115 of device 101 shown in FIG. 1. Illustrative attributes may include, for example, a quantity of data transferred, size or name of a file accessed, time of access, access protocols, among others.
If it is determined at block 404 that a user account does not have authority to access the computer-readable medium, information regarding the unauthorized access attempt may be stored (see, e.g., block 408). For example, a security application may determine or otherwise detect an activity violation as a result of the unauthorized access attempt. In one embodiment, information regarding an access attempt may be stored on memory 115 of device 101 shown in FIG. 1. Further, block 408, may be implemented to store attributes of unauthorized storage attempts. Illustrative attributes may include, for example, a quantity of data attempted to be transferred, size or name of a file that was attempted to be accessed, time of attempted access, access protocols attempted, among others.
Block 410 may be implemented to determine if one or more controls have been satisfied. In one embodiment, one or more of the following may be considered a control relating to removable media: detection of an unauthorized access attempt; a threshold of unauthorized access attempts; an attribute of an unauthorized access attempt; detection of a threshold level of authorized accesses; an attribute of one or more authorized accesses; and combinations of one or more of these. While block 410 is shown as being specific to removable medium criteria, those skilled in the art with the benefit of this disclosure will appreciate that the determination of whether controls have been satisfied may be specific to one control group or a plurality of controls groups, including any other collection of controls disclosed herein.
Block 410 or any determination of whether one or more controls have been satisfied may be considered in the context of a time period. For example, a determination of whether two controls have been satisfied, either in the context of block 410 or a combination of disparate activities may be made within a fixed time period. In various embodiments, a plurality of activities serve as controls for monitoring the accounts over a first time period, such as about 7 days. In another embodiment, a time period may be about 24-48 hours. Enabling the reception of data within the relatively short time period allows IT or security personnel to act quickly to prevent or minimize any adverse events. In certain embodiments, monitoring the activity for about 24-48 hours ensures adequate collection of data. The values received for a control may be compared with values from the controls during a second time period. In the illustrated embodiment, block 410 (and/or any other quantification of activities) may be implemented to receive an indication of values for one or more activities associated with a user account. In one embodiment, different activities for various controls may be monitored for about a one week period. In one embodiment, one or more computer—executable instructions measure at least a portion of the activities on computing devices, such as user terminals 141/151 and/or workstation 201. The computer-executable instructions may be read by processor 103 on device 101 shown in FIG. 1.
FIG. 5 shows a flowchart 500 of illustrative methods that may be implemented to detect activity violations relating to targeted communications in accordance with various embodiments. In certain implementations, one control group may monitor all targeted communications, yet in another embodiment, one control group may only monitor targeted communications conducted with a certain protocol or encryption, and a second control group may monitor further targeted communications. In still yet further embodiments, a single control group may monitor targeted communication and non-targeted communication. For simplicity, illustrative implementations will be discussed below; however, the reader is advised that the illustrative embodiments provide an overview of one collective embodiment and that other embodiments are taught by the disclosure of these embodiments. In certain embodiments, one or more methods disclosed in relation to flowchart 500 may be performed, at least partially, by a targeted communication control module 208 (FIG. 2), which may be located within or otherwise associated with a server, such as server 204 of FIG. 2.
In one embodiment, systems or methods may be implemented to detect a blocked transmission (see, e.g., block 502). For example, in one embodiment, blocked transmissions using a certain encryption protocol may be detected. Certain encryption protocols may scan a targeted communication for specific patterns. For example, certain implementations may prevent the transmittal (including the reception of) confidential or proprietary information, including but not limited to: social security numbers, medical data, or other information. In other embodiments, certain encryption protocols may prevent types of attachments to be transmitted.
The indication of blocked transmissions may be restricted to a specific network or group of networks. For example, in one embodiment, controls may be specific to activity on the Internet. Yet in other embodiments, the indications may include activity on the Internet as well as specific network resources within an organization's intranet that may be restricted to certain user accounts. Thus, unlike certain prior art systems, certain embodiments may allow for the quantification of how many instances the user account's actions on a network (or networks) are blocked.
In accordance with various implementations, a targeted communication may be blocked upon detecting an attribute of the transmission (block 504). In one embodiment, an attribute relates to an attachment of the targeted communication (see, e.g. 504 a). For example, in certain embodiments, illustrative attributes that may be utilized include, but are not limited to: file types, such as executable (i.e., *.exe) files, the name of an attachment, size, creation or modification date(s), the presence of data patterns inclusive of words within the attachment, or combinations of these and other attributes. Further embodiments may be configured to detect other attributes, such as information relating to parties (e.g., the recipient or sender) of the targeted communication (e.g. block 504 b). For example, certain systems and methods may be implemented to block communications to certain domains, such as domains which may be associated with spamming, illegal activities, or providing services not relevant to an employee's job.
In another embodiment, a party's electronic address or username may be considered. For example, if a username or address comprises explicit language or values that violate a predefined rule, certain embodiments may block the transmission. Any other additional attributes may be considered, for example, block 504 may be implemented to detect data patterns in any text or other data being transmitted. For example, emails and chatting sessions may be scanned for patterns relating to types of confidential information.
In one embodiment, block 504 c may be used to scan the body of an email (or receive an indication of a scan) for the inclusion of a social security number within the body of the email and block 504 a may be implemented to detect a social security number or other information within an attachment associated with the email. In this regard, blocks 504 a-504 c may be conducted simultaneously and/or by a single application. Yet in other embodiments, two or more applications may operate independently to perform one or more of blocks 504 a-504 c. Further, in certain embodiments, detection of certain data patterns may result in further analysis. For example, block 506 may determine whether certain data patterns were detected (criteria) within a targeted communication. If, at block 506, it has been determined that certain information is associated with the targeted correspondence, then further attributes may be considered. For example, if a social security number is detected, block 508 may be implemented to confirm that a specific encryption protocol was utilized. Those individuals of ordinary skill in the art with the benefit of this disclosure will appreciate that other attributes may be considered and that blocks 504 a-504 c are merely illustrative.
Further embodiments may monitor or detect attributes of a successfully transmitted communication (e.g., block 510). In one embodiment, block 510 detects successfully transmitted targeted communications. While block 510 is shown after blocks 502-508, those skilled in the art with the benefit of this disclosure will appreciate that step 510 (or any other process) is not required to follow or even be after any other process unless explicitly stated to the contrary. In this regard, block 510 may be conducted independent of blocks 502-508. Looking to block 510, not all activity violations may result in blockage of a targeted communication. For example, activity violations that may be deemed less of a threat to an organization may not prevent transmission of the communication. Nonetheless, repetitive minor violations may be indicative of lack of training, improper procedures, and/or a threat to an organization. Therefore, in certain embodiments, block 512 and/or another process may be implemented to receive an indication that a threshold quantity of unblocked targeted communications may be associated with the first user account.
Block 512 may detect one attribute or multiple attributes. For example, in one embodiment, in block 512 it may be determined how many activity violations occurred in relation to each of several attributes, such as for example: encryption status, attachment violations, identity of the parties, data patterns, words, and combinations thereof. In certain embodiments, a different threshold may be calculated for different attributes. In certain embodiments, exceeding each of the different thresholds may be considered an independent activity violation. Yet in another embodiment, the totality of activity violations for a collection of attributes may be considered in the analysis.
Block 514, which may be part of block 512, another process, or independent of other processes described herein, may be implemented to detect (or receive an indication of) similarities. For example, in one embodiment, a process may receive an indication whether user names and aliases, such as email address, usernames, profiles or other information associated with a user account are similar to a recipient of transmitted information, such as an email address. For example, employees looking to impress their supervisor may want to transmit highly confidential information to their personal email addresses so they may work over a weekend. While the intentions of employee may be genuine, potential disclosure or inadvertent retention of the information could be harmful to the employer and even its clients. Therefore, certain embodiments may implement systems and methods (such as shown by block 514) to detect someone sending files to a personal account.
Looking to block 514, further embodiments may be implemented to receive an indication that an email or other communication comprises a first attribute having a first value that is similar to a second value of the first attribute of a blocked transmission from the user account within a first time period. Information obtained during blocks 502-512 and/or from other systems and methods may be utilized to obtain attribute values from blocked communications. For example, an entity may prefer that certain types of data or correspondence be transmitted using authorized authentication protocols. Thus if an employee attempted to transmit sensitive data through the proper channel but was blocked (such as for violating a security feature, certain embodiments may detect if a similar transmission by the same user account was used to transmit the sensitive data. For example, a signal may indicate that a targeted communication successfully transmitted from the user account comprises a first attribute having a first value that is similar to a second value of the first attribute of a blocked transmission from the user account within a first time period.
In one embodiment, an indication may suggest that a successful transmission comprises a detected similarity to a blocked transmission; therefore, block 514 may be implemented to compare a recipient attribute with a collection of attributes to detect an attribute match. Depending on the embodiment, the collection of attributes may include identifying information of the first user account. Thus, a process, which may be performed as part of block 514, may compare user names and aliases with email address attributes of the recipient address to detect someone sending files to a personal account. Yet in further embodiments the collection of attributes may include information relating to a specific third party entity. (for example, it may detect names, or “competitor.com” or may be DNS address of known competitors or spammers).
Block 516 may be implemented to determine if one or more controls have been satisfied (or if any activity violations have been detected). In one embodiment, block 516 may quantify activity violations during a time period. While block 516 is shown as being specific to transmissions associated with a targeted communications, those skilled in the art with the benefit of this disclosure will appreciate that the determination of whether controls have been satisfied may be specific to one control group or a plurality of control groups, including any other collection of controls disclosed herein. For example, detecting a single blocked targeted communication may result in a determination that a control has been satisfied. If however, the blocked targeted communication is within a certain time period in which an unblocked transmission comprises similar or the same attribute values as the blocked targeted communication, then each may be quantified as an activity violation. Yet in other embodiments, the totality of both events within the time period may be considered a single activity violation. In further embodiments, detecting a threshold level (such as 3) of blocked targeted communications within a time period may be deemed a security violation. A determination of whether one or more controls have been satisfied may be considered in the context of a different time periods.
Those skilled in the art with the benefit of this disclosure will readily appreciate that other control groups may be monitored using variations of the flowcharts and related systems disclosed in relation to FIGS. 3, 4 and 5. In this regard, certain methods may monitor non-targeted transmissions (either separately from or in conjunction with monitoring targeted communications). For example, one or more values indicating the bandwidth utilized by a user account may be received. (See blocks 302 c and 602 of FIG. 6). In certain embodiments, a user account control module, such as user account control module 210 (FIG. 2) may be utilized. User account control module 210 may be located within or otherwise associated with server 204 or any other computing device. In this regard, those skilled in the art with the benefit of this disclosure will appreciate that any control modules, including removable media control module 206, targeted communication control module 208, and/or user account control module 210 disclosed herein, may be a single control module, such as control module 212. Yet in other embodiments, one or more control modules may be independent, and/or located on a different computing device.
An indication of blocked transmissions enforced upon a user account may also be received (see e.g., block 604). The indication of blocked transmissions may be restricted to specific communication protocols, including for example, HTTP, FTP, or any other protocols. The indication of blocked transmissions may also be restricted to a specific network or group of networks. For example, in one embodiment, indications may be for activity on the Internet. Yet in other embodiments, the indications may include activity on the Internet as well as specific network resources within an organization's intranet that may be restricted to certain user accounts. Thus, certain embodiments may allow for the quantification of how many instances the user account's actions on a network are blocked.
Further embodiments may classify the blocked transmissions as posing certain types of threats. In certain embodiments, blocked (or even unblocked transmissions) may be classified as an ethical threat or a security threat. (see blocks 606 a and 606 b). Illustrative systems and methods are disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. Nos. 12/694,067 and 12/694,075, each entitled “Insider Threat Correlation Tool,” which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety for any and all purposes. In still further embodiments, certain activities of user accounts may be weighted. Illustrative systems and methods are also disclosed in U.S. patent applications Ser. Nos. 12,694,067 and 12/694,075, which have been incorporated herein in their entirety for any and all purposes. Block 608 may be implemented to determine if one or more controls have been satisfied (or if any activity violations have been detected). Similar to block 516, block 608 may be omitted and/or combined with other determinations of whether certain controls have been satisfied.
Returning to FIG. 3, block 304 may be implemented to quantify activity violations of controls within the control groups. For example, information from one or more of flowcharts 400, 500, or 600 may be utilized. In certain embodiments, a threshold quantity of controls being satisfied may cause the user account to be marked or flagged as a potential concern. In certain embodiments, the threshold quantity requires that at least one control be satisfied from at least a portion of the control groups. Yet in other embodiments, the threshold quantity may be satisfied by activity violations within one control group.
If at block 306 it is determined that a threshold quantity is not met, then activity violations of a user account may not be considered in further correlation analysis (see, block 308). In other embodiments, the activity violations may not be totally disregarded from further correlation analysis, however, may be weighted less than activity violations that meet a threshold.
If, at block 306, it is determined that a threshold is met, further correlation analysis may be conducted. In one embodiment, block 310 may be implemented to determine if the user account has additional indicators. An illustrative indicator may include, for example, a prior investigation of another individual. In certain embodiments, a prior investigation of an associate, a peer, or a manager may be used. Such information may be utilized to detect acts of collusion. Further embodiments may consider whether a threshold of controls has been satisfied for another user account, such as an account of an associate, a peer, or a manager. Another indicator may be related to the volume or type of information accessible by the user account. For example, if a specific user account has access to large volumes of sensitive data, monitoring that account may be more important than monitoring other accounts that do not have access to sensitive data.
A further indicator that may be implemented at block 310 or any other process may be whether the user account has an exception to a security policy. For example, certain user accounts may require access to sites not accessible to other user accounts, thus it may be advantageous to more closely monitor such accounts as the risk for disclosure of information and/or reception of a virus may be increased. In certain embodiments, block 312 or another process may serve to weight certain activity violations once it has been determined that the threshold has been satisfied. For example, in certain embodiments, an indicator may consider whether a recipient address of a targeted communication meets certain criteria, such as being associated with a webmail account and/or appears to be personal address of a user associated with the user account. In another embodiment, if a threshold of activity violations relate to targeted communications, then block 310 or another process may compare the “subject line” or header information to detect similarities. Further indicators may include factors that suggest suspicious communication activity, either through an intranet or the internet, and whether a user has accessed a specific computer-readable medium during a specific time frame.
In certain embodiments, the presence of a threshold of additional indicators (e.g. at block 310) may weight the user account with an elevated “risk” ranking (see, e.g., block 312). The absence of additional indicators or the lack of a threshold of additional indicators may result in the user account being associated with a less-elevated “risk” ranking (see, e.g., block 314). In other embodiments, the user account may not be factored into any risk ranking unless a threshold of additional indicators are met.
Block 316 may be implemented to output a predictive threat analysis of one or more user accounts. In one embodiment, a score may be assigned to a plurality of user accounts. The score may be a numeric value (e.g., on a scale of 0 to 100) or may be a letter value (e.g., an A+ to F scale). A score, which may be relative or absolute, may be based upon a threshold quantity of controls satisfied within a first time period. The score may further consider the type of controls associated with any activity violations. In certain embodiments, the score factors the inclusion of additional indicators. The inclusion of additional indicators may consider the quantity and/or type of additional indicators. Information may be stored in a database and accessible by a graphical user interface (“GUI”). In this regard, aspects disclosed herein may be implemented to score and/or rank several user accounts. In one embodiment, the ranking or score of several user accounts may be transmitted through a network and displayed as part of a graphical user interface.
In one embodiment, a system which comprises a processor and a memory may be configured to transmit electronic signals configured to display the ranking or score of the user accounts. Further embodiments relate to receiving a user input selecting a graphical representation of certain activities or criteria utilized in the ranking of the user accounts. In one embodiment, a graphical display of blocked communications may be displayed. In further embodiments, whether any attributes of the blocked communication were similar to attributes of unblocked transmissions may be displayed. Any aspect of a user account that may be utilized in calculating the threat score or ranking may be displayed. Indeed, any information collected, transmitted, or received herein may be preserved and utilized for display in a GUI. A threat analysis module, such as threat analysis module 214 of FIG. 2, which may be located on any computing device, such as server 204 of FIG. 2 may be used in the determination or output of any analysis or score.
Aspects of the embodiments have been described in terms of illustrative embodiments thereof. Numerous other embodiments, modifications and variations within the scope and spirit of the appended claims will occur to persons of ordinary skill in the art from a review of this disclosure. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the steps illustrated in the illustrative figures may be performed in other than the recited order, and that one or more steps illustrated may be optional in accordance with aspects of the embodiments
1. A computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform:
detecting activities associated with a plurality of user accounts involving a plurality of control groups;
determining that a threshold quantity of activities violated at least two controls in the control groups comprising:
detecting that a user account accessed a first storage device;
determining if the user account has permission rights to conduct the access to the first storage device;
wherein if the user account does not have permission rights to conduct the access, determining that an activity violation has occurred, wherein if the user account does have permission rights to conduct the access, determining that an authorized access occurred and storing an attribute value of the access;
determining that at least one activity violation has occurred; and
calculating a predictive threat rating for the first user account.
2. The computer-readable medium of claim 1, further comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform:
determining whether an indicator is associated with the first user account, wherein the additional indicator is selected from the group consisting of: a prior investigation of a user of the user account, a prior investigation of another individual, the volume or type of information accessible by the user account, whether the user account has an exception to a security policy, and combinations thereof.
4. The computer-readable medium of claim 1, further comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform:
receiving an indication that a first attribute value of an unblocked targeted communication from a first user account is similar to a first attribute value of a blocked transmission from the first user account.
7. The computer-readable medium of claim 6, further comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform:
detecting the presence of a removable computer-readable medium; and
comparing a value identifying the removable computer-readable medium against a collection of identifiers.
8. The computer-readable medium of claim 4, further comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform:
comparing one or more attribute values against criteria to determine if an activity violation occurred.
9. The computer-readable medium of claim 4, further comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform:
quantifying a quantity of attribute values of authorized accesses during a first time period; and
determining if an activity violation occurred.
a control module configured to detecting activities associated with a plurality of user accounts in regards to a plurality of controls;
a computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the apparatus to perform:
15. The apparatus of claim 11, the instructions further comprising:
16. The apparatus of claim 11, the instructions further comprising:
17. The apparatus of claim 11, the instructions further comprising:
18. The apparatus of claim 11, the instructions further comprising:
receiving an indication that a first attribute value of an unblocked targeted communication from a first user account is similar to a first attribute value of a blocked transmission from the first user account;
wherein the blocked transmission comprises a targeted communication and the first attribute of the blocked transmission relates to criteria selected from the group consisting of:
encryption status, attachment, recipient of a targeted communication, patterns, words, and combinations thereof.
19. A computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform:
detecting activities associated with a plurality of user accounts in regards to a plurality of control groups, wherein at least one of the control groups comprises a plurality of targeted communication controls;
US12/841,332 2010-07-22 2010-07-22 Insider threat correlation tool Active 2031-06-09 US8793789B2 (en)
SG2013002878A SG187068A1 (en) 2010-07-22 2011-07-15 Insider threat correlation tool
PCT/US2011/044144 WO2012012280A2 (en) 2010-07-22 2011-07-15 Insider threat correlation tool
AU2011279907A AU2011279907B2 (en) 2010-07-22 2011-07-15 Insider threat correlation tool
CA 2805823 CA2805823A1 (en) 2010-07-22 2011-07-15 Insider threat correlation tool
US20120023576A1 true US20120023576A1 (en) 2012-01-26
US8793789B2 US8793789B2 (en) 2014-07-29
ID=45494649
US12/841,332 Active 2031-06-09 US8793789B2 (en) 2010-07-22 2010-07-22 Insider threat correlation tool
US (1) US8793789B2 (en)
AU (1) AU2011279907B2 (en)
CA (1) CA2805823A1 (en)
SG (1) SG187068A1 (en)
WO (1) WO2012012280A2 (en)
US20140359692A1 (en) * 2013-05-29 2014-12-04 International Business Machines Corporation Techniques for Reconciling Permission Usage with Security Policy for Policy Optimization and Monitoring Continuous Compliance
US20170171215A1 (en) * 2015-12-14 2017-06-15 Sap Se Grouping access control violations for process-aware systems
US10320849B2 (en) * 2016-11-07 2019-06-11 Bank Of America Corporation Security enhancement tool
2010-07-22 US US12/841,332 patent/US8793789B2/en active Active
2011-07-15 WO PCT/US2011/044144 patent/WO2012012280A2/en active Application Filing
2011-07-15 SG SG2013002878A patent/SG187068A1/en unknown
2011-07-15 CA CA 2805823 patent/CA2805823A1/en not_active Abandoned
2011-07-15 AU AU2011279907A patent/AU2011279907B2/en active Active
US20140359695A1 (en) * 2013-05-29 2014-12-04 International Business Machines Corporation Techniques for Reconciling Permission Usage with Security Policy for Policy Optimization and Monitoring Continuous Compliance
US9288232B2 (en) * 2013-05-29 2016-03-15 International Business Machines Corporation Techniques for reconciling permission usage with security policy for policy optimization and monitoring continuous compliance
EP3557844A1 (en) * 2015-04-17 2019-10-23 Centripetal Networks Inc. Rule-based network-threat detection
US9762587B2 (en) * 2015-12-14 2017-09-12 Sap Se Grouping access control violations for process-aware systems
WO2012012280A3 (en) 2013-03-14
AU2011279907B2 (en) 2014-12-18
AU2011279907A1 (en) 2013-02-28
WO2012012280A2 (en) 2012-01-26
US8793789B2 (en) 2014-07-29
CA2805823A1 (en) 2012-01-26
SG187068A1 (en) 2013-02-28
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:BYERS, ALLAN;SORENSEN, AMANDA;REEL/FRAME:024786/0187